INTRODUCTION

Peanut is an important crop for sustainable human nutrition and is an essential source of oil and protein in many countries around the world ( Davis and Dean, 2016; Valentine, 2016). Production systems vary considerably depending on geography, climate and weather, and access to production resources such as irrigation, fertilizer and pesticides, and tillage and cultivation equipment ( Leff et al., 2004 ; Woodroof, 1966). Estimates of the percentage of variable cost for weed management through use of herbicides was 6.8 to 13.9% in Georgia ( Liu et al., 2025 ), 7.7 to 9.6% in North Carolina ( Washburn and Jordan, 2025), and 5.3 to 13.9% in Oklahoma and Texas ( OSU-AGECON, 2025; TAMU-EAE, 2025) depending upon the production system (irrigated, dry land, conventional tillage, minimum tillage). Although variation exists depending upon infestation of weeds, incidence of disease, and fluctuations in insect populations, pesticide expenditures for weed control exceed those for insect pest control but are less than costs for disease control. In other peanut producing countries such as Argentina, weed control cost may be the same or higher than disease control, while insect pests tend to be a lesser problem.

Success of weed management practices can be influenced by the ability of peanut to compete with weeds, cultural practices that minimize the soil seed bank and weed infestation, mechanical practices such as primary tillage prior to planting, cultivation during the growing season, and by efficacy of herbicides. Assessment of weed population dynamics in both the short and especially long-term is critical for identifying weed control practices that ensure long-lasting and cost-effective weed management.

WEED DIVERSITY AND INTERFERENCE WITH PEANUT

Weed communities associated with peanut production are predominantly comprised of annual herbaceous species that are propagated by seeds. Because the unavoidable soil disturbance resulting from digging peanut pods during harvest and the use of conventional and reduced tillage before planting, not only small-seeded weed species {e.g. Amaranthus spp., eclipta [ Eclipta prostrata L.], goosegrass [ Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn.], crabgrass ( Digitaria spp.}, but also large seeded species that can successfully emerge from deeper in the soil {e.g. sicklepod [ Senna obtusifolia (L.) H.S. Irwin & Barneby], Benghal dayflower ( Commelina benghalensis L.), morningglories [ Ipomoea spp. and Jacquemontia tamnifolia (L.) Griseb.], and common ragweed ( Ambrosia artemisiifiolia L.) are frequently found in peanut fields. Most of these weed species have temperature and soil moisture germination requirements similar to peanut, which favors their emergence and establishment before peanut canopy closure ( Creel et al., 1968 ; Prasad et al., 2006 ; Webster et al., 2005 ). The number of perennial weed species causing problems in peanut is considerably smaller than for annual species. However, there are several perennial species that can successfully establish dense populations and interfere with peanut, particularly those that produce vegetative propagules such as tubers and rhizomes and can be dispersed by tillage and cultivation {e.g. bermudagrass [ Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.], nutsedge ( Cyperus spp.), and johnsongrass [ Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.]}.

Most of weed management strategies in peanut tend to focus on dicotyledonous species such as Palmer amaranth [ Amaranthus palmeri (S.) Wats.], sicklepod, Florida beggarweed [ Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) DC.], and morningglory species because they can form dense populations and are difficult to control ( Barbour and Bridges, 1995; Cardina and Breckem 1991; Webster and MacDonald, 2001). Their ability to produce large amounts of seed (e.g. Palmer amaranth and sicklepod) and form persistent seed banks due to their hard seed coats (e.g. sicklepod, morningglories, and Benghal dayflower) greatly increase their survival within not only peanut but also other rotational crops including cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.), corn ( Zea mays L.), and soybean ( Glycine max L.). Furthermore, several of those species have high interference potential. For example, a single Palmer amaranth plant per meter-row can reduce peanut yield 30% and at 4-5 plants/m row peanut loss can reach 50 to 70% ( Burke et al., 2007 ). Similarly, at 1 plant per 10 m ^-2 (close to 1.1 plants m-row) sicklepod reduced peanut yield by 29-60% ( Hauser et al., 1982 ). Recently, the evolution of herbicide resistant biotypes has particularly benefited Palmer amaranth by limiting its control and allowing rapid explosions of its populations ( Berger et al., 2015 ; Poirier et al., 2014 ; Wise et al., 2009 ).

CROP ROTATION IMPACT ON WEED POPULATIONS

Minimizing the soil seed bank is unquestionably an important management strategy for peanut and other crops. The characteristics of the crops and the sequence in which they are rotated can impact weed populations and management. Crop rotation allows changing herbicides and in many cases rotation of herbicide mechanisms of action (MOA) to avoid or delay evolved resistance ( Norsworthy et al., 2012 ). This makes possible the use of herbicides in rotational crops prior to peanut that may be more effective than herbicides used in-season during the peanut growing season. For example, sicklepod, common ragweed, and eclipta can be difficult to control in peanut when they exceed 5 cm in height, because PPO herbicides are minimally effective in controlling small weeds ( Altom et al., 1995 ; Grichar and Colburn, 1996b). These weeds can be controlled in rotational crops including corn, cotton, and soybean when PSII inhibitors, glufosinate, and glyphosate are part of the weed management system ( Hoffner et al., 2012 ; Whitaker et al., 2011 ). Perennial grasses such as bermudagrass and rhizomatous johnsongrass can also be controlled in crops receiving multiple applications of glyphosate over several growing seasons ( Johnson, 1988; Salisbury et al., 1991 ). Similarly, purple nutsedge can be difficult to control in peanut unless imazapic or imazethapyr are applied postemergence ( Grichar and Nester, 1997; Grichar and Sestak, 2000a; Webster et al., 2017 ). Grichar and Nester (1997) reported that imazethapyr provided more consistent control of purple nutsedge than yellow nutsedge. They also reported that imazapic provided purple nutsedge control equivalent to imazethapyr even at rates lower than suggested by the manufacturer (0.05 kg ha ^-1). However, cotton can be injured by residues of imazapic if planted the following year ( Grey et al., 2005 ; Grichar et al., 2004a ). Therefore, the use of herbicides that effectively manage purple nutsedge in rotational crops can be beneficial in managing this weed in peanut. Furthermore, research by Grichar et al. (1999b) reported, in south Texas, that corn and sorghum [ Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench.] growth was not reduced by imazapic at 0.07 kg ha ^-1. Matocha et al. (2003) indicated there was no significant carryover injury to the rotational crops cotton, sorghum, and corn in Florida, Georgia, and Texas. They concluded that the current rotational intervals for imazapic at 0. 07 kg ha ^-1 may be too restrictive.

CROP COMPETITION AS A WEED MANAGEMENT TOOL

Establishing adequate populations of peanut and closing the canopy as rapidly as possible greatly simplifies weed management by reducing the critical period of weed interference and suppressing weed germination and growth. Exposure of soil to sunlight over a longer period of time encourages multiple weed emergence events and greater infestation leading to complications in management. Peanut exhibiting slow emergence, or suffering predation of peanut seeds and plants, and other biotic and abiotic stresses might delay both emergence and canopy closure ( Awal and Ikeda, 2002; Drake et al., 2009 ).

CULTIVATION AND TILLAGE

Cultivation during the critical period of weed interference can be effective in minimizing the impact of weeds in peanut ( Johnson and Mullinix, 1995). However, in some regions, conservation or reduced tillage systems have become predominant, and thus in-season cultivation is not feasible. Also, even though cultivation after planting can be effective in controlling weeds between rows, follow up actions with alternative measures might be needed specially to control in-row weeds that are not eliminated with conventional cultivation ( Bridges et al., 1984 ; Wilcut et al., 1987 ). In systems using preemergence herbicides, the use of cultivation must be assessed carefully because depending on the depth and intensity of cultivation, cultivators can disturb the soil and bring non-treated soil and weed seed from lower depths to the surface reducing residual activity resulting in weed infestation. Movement of soil-borne pathogens onto stems of peanut plants, which can hasten incidence of diseases such as stem rot, is also a concern when in-season cultivation is practiced ( Boyle, 1952; Boyle, 1956; Garren, 1961, 1964; Johnson et al., 2001 ; Mixon, 1963). The concern of moving soil-borne pathogens onto the peanut plant decreases the effectiveness of cultivation compared to its use in other crops. With that being said, in-season cultivation using various implements and hand-weeding and hoeing, where labor is available and affordable, seem to be the most likely management options for minimizing weed interference in organic production systems ( Johnson and Mullinix, 2008; Johnson et al., 2013 ). Studies have evaluated the use of organic herbicides to increase in-row weed control in peanut, but the levels of control have been frequently unacceptable ( Johnson et al., 2013 ). Recent research conducted by Johnson and Davis (2015) on the use of tine-weeder cultivation in perpendicular orientation to the rows, showed that this approach increased overall weed control but not in-row control in organic peanut. However, tractor tracks caused considerable injury to peanut seedlings. Therefore, those researchers concluded that perpendicular cultivation does not provide major benefits compared with conventional parallel cultivation (i.e., between rows; Johnson and Davis, 2015).

In reduced tillage systems, the use of cover crops prior to planting peanut has been effective for soil conservation and weed suppression ( Lassiter et al., 2011 ; Price et al., 2007 ). While initially developed in cotton ( Keeling et al., 1989 ), small grain cover crops have been utilized to reduce wind soil erosion and damage to seedling in peanut in the Southwest. Cover crops that generate adequate biomass can suppress weeds in peanut, although concern over pegging, digging and inversion of vines, and presence of foreign matter in the farmer stock peanut can limit adoption of this approach to weed management. Price et al. (2007) reported that the weed suppression provided by high-residue cover crops allowed a reduction in the number of herbicide applications without sacrificing weed control and peanut yield. Lassiter et al. (2011) reported a similar finding with several winter annual small grains in strip tillage systems. While these approaches do not eliminate herbicides, and in fact require more herbicides prior to planting than conventional tillage systems, reduced tillage systems contribute to protection of soil resources and in some instances to improve soil properties and water conservation. Like other cultural practices, consideration of the impact of tillage on overall production and pest management is important prior to adoption for weed management. For example, fewer thrips and lower incidence of tomato spotted wilt are often observed in conservation tillage systems compared with conventional tillage systems ( Brandenburg et al., 1998 ; Johnson et al., 2001 ). However, soil temperature is often cooler early in the season in reduced tillage systems and stand establishment can be more challenging because of delays in germination and stress on seedlings that promote pathogens that cause seedling disease ( Awal and Ikeda, 2002). Planting dates may need to be delayed in conservation tillage systems to ensure adequate stand establishment and subsequent canopy closure. In some regions of the USA and in most Argentine production the growing season suitable for peanut is limited and requires planting as soon as possible to enable kernels to reach optimum maturity prior to harvest. Therefore, assessing the risk of having maturity issues at the end of the season under those circumstances must also be considered when using cover cropping.

Deep tillage in the form of moldboard plowing has been used in peanut to bury plant material and suppress disease. Although information on the value of deep tillage is limited in peanut relative to weed management, in recent years deep tillage in cotton has proven effective in reducing weed populations the following year ( Inman et al., 2017 ; Sosnoskie and Culpepper, 2014). While this approach has been adopted in some areas it does create concerns in fields that have potential for erosion. This is the case in Argentina where peanut production is predominantly under no-tillage conditions and communities strongly oppose the use of conventional tillage. Hand-removal of weeds proved to be an economically similar approach relative to deep tillage in cotton but was more effective than deep tillage in maintaining a lower frequency of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth ( Inman et al., 2017 ). Although not substantiated, it is plausible that the effectiveness of hand-removal in weeds in peanut would follow a similar trend as observations in cotton.

IRRIGATION

Approximately two thirds of the peanut growing area in the USA is rainfed with the remaining area being produced with some type of irrigation system ( USDA, 2014). This varies by region with over 98% of peanut hectares being produced with irrigation in the Southwest. Irrigation is an effective risk management tool to optimize yield during periods of dry weather or when peanut is grown on coarse-textured soils with limited water-holding capacity. Additionally, access to overhead sprinkler irrigation can enable activation of preemergence herbicides and minimize stress of emerged weeds which can improve efficacy of postemergence herbicides ( Prostko et al., 2001 ; Smith et al., 2016 ). In Florida, flumioxazin efficacy on Palmer amaranth control was dramatically reduced in coarse sandy soils when irrigation frequency was not sufficient to maintain soil moisture close to the soil surface. Therefore, in coarse texture soils, frequent irrigation may be needed to maintain weed control even when peanut still has access to soil moisture at deeper layers.

Application of herbicides through irrigation (chemigation) can increase efficiency of production systems by eliminating the need for applications by ground sprayers ( Sumner et al., 2000 ). Chemigation is a common practice in the Southwest to apply preplant or preemergence residual herbicides. Irrigation can also promote uniform, and in most cases, more rapid emergence of peanut. Following emergence, irrigation reduces the time to canopy closure and pod set, especially when rainfall is limited, which also can positively affect weed management. In addition, chloroacetamide herbicides like S-metolachlor are often applied postemergence in the Southwest region and followed immediately with overhead irrigation to control yellow nutsedge ( Grichar et al. 1996, 2008b).

MANAGEMENT OF WEED ESCAPES

In some fields, weeds either escape early season management or emerge after management practices have been implemented. The short stature of peanut allows these weeds to become established and cause problems with digging and vine inversion or by increasing the soil seed bank. This must be considered when implementing practices to modify peanut canopy. For example, prohexadione calcium is a plant growth regulator that inhibits cell elongation by reducing gibberellin biosynthesis that when applied to peanut makes main stems shorter and the canopy more compact ( Culpepper et al., 1997 ; Jordan et al., 2001 ; Mitchem et al., 1996 ). However, weeds that may have been suppressed by the normal canopy can grow through the more compact and shorter canopy of peanut treated with prohexadione calcium causing problems later in the season.

The height differential offered by peanut relative to weeds such as Palmer amaranth, common ragweed, Florida beggarweed, and sicklepod makes movement across fields for hand-removal of escapes less challenging than other taller row crops. Also, because of this height difference between weeds and peanut, mowing the weeds is a viable option to prevent seed production and reduce pod shed during digging and vine inversion ( Prostko, 2011b). However, implements used to mow weeds are narrower than sprayers, and traffic through fields to clip weeds after peanut canopy closure can injure vines and promote soil-borne pathogen incidence because portions of limbs of peanut are pushed into soil. Traffic through fields can also promote greater distribution of two-spotted spider mite ( Tetranychus urticae Koch) and can decrease visibility of the natural growth of peanut which can make tracking rows during digging and vine inversion more challenging. Another advantage of the height differential that exists between peanuts and weeds is the fact that various non-selective applicators (NSA), such as rope-wick or carpet roller, can be used for late-season management of certain weed species such as Palmer amaranth, Florida beggarweed, and sicklepod ( Johnson et al., 1999 ; Prostko, 2011b). Carfentrazone can be applied close to harvest to desiccate morningglory to allow greater efficiency in digging peanut and inverting vines ( Chaudhari et al., 2017 ; Dotray et al., 2010 ).

CHEMICAL WEED MANAGEMENT IN PEANUT

With the exception of a limited amount of land area under organic production, herbicides are the most widely used weed management practice in peanut in Argentina and the USA. Herbicides can be applied prior to planting in both conventional and conservation tillage systems. Systemic and contact herbicides are used to control cover crops, winter vegetation and emerged summer annual and perennial weeds in conservation tillage systems. Herbicides with residual activity are also applied preplant incorporated or preemergence after planting to minimize early season interference and provide greater flexibility in application timing of postemergence herbicides. The use of these residual herbicides is also critical as a tool for preventing or managing herbicide resistant weeds. In many fields, multiple herbicide applications are needed to protect yield throughout the growing season ( Brecke and Stephenson, 2006; Clewis et al., 2007 ; Colvin et al., 1985a , b; Wehtje et al., 2000 ).

As mentioned previously, knowledge of the soil seed bank and field histories combined with accurate identification of weed seedlings is the first step in developing effective herbicide programs. Equally important is a clear understanding of the logistical challenges posed by large modern farming operations. Thus, proper selection of herbicides and application timing are key for weed management strategies that are realistic and suitable for the operation.

Weed size is one of the most important factors in determining success of herbicides applied postemergence, especially contact herbicides, and the ability to treat all fields in a timely manner is critical and challenging ( Grichar, 1997a, b; Grichar and Boswell, 1986; Grichar and Colburn, 1996a; Grichar and Dotray, 2011). For large operations with limited logistical capacity for applications, focusing on preplant incorporated, preemergence and in some instances postemergence herbicides with residual activity can add flexibility in timing of application with the greatest potential for success.

COMPATIBILITY OF HERBICIDES WITH OTHER PESTICIDES

Co-applying herbicides with other pesticides, plant growth regulators, and micronutrients is a common practice in peanut because of timing of application for abiotic and biotic stresses often overlap and because logistical challenges with large farming operations make tank-mixing attractive and convenient ( Jordan et al., 2011 ). However, this practice can negatively affect weed control in some instances ( Chahal et al., 2012b , 2013; Grichar, 1991, 2002b, 2013b; Jordan et al., 2003a ; Jordan et al., 2011 ; Lancaster et al., 2007 , 2008). For example, efficacy of clethodim and sethoxydim on grass weed species and 2,4-DB and imazethapyr on broadleaf species can be reduced when copper-based fungicides are co-applied with these herbicides ( Jordan et al., 2003a ; Lancaster et al., 2005c , d). Conversely, Lancaster et al. (2005a) found that tank-mixing 2,4-DB with different fungicides did not affect sicklepod control compared to 2,4-DB alone. These types of specific interactions between herbicides and other pesticides underscore challenges with determining whether certain tank mixtures are feasible. Applying herbicides with other pesticides sequentially or increasing the rate of the herbicide that is compromised by the tank mixture can compensate for the adverse interaction ( Burke et al., 2002b ; Lancaster et al., 2005b ).

Grichar et al. (2013b) found that Texas millet, smellmelon, and southern crabgrass [ Digitaria ciliaris (Retz. Koel] control was not influenced by the addition of pyraclostrobin, tebuconazole, or the premix of prothioconazole plus tebuconazole to clethodim or sethoxydim over either herbicide alone. Palmer amaranth control was variable with herbicide-fungicide antagonism noted with acifluorfen plus tebuconazole or imazethapyr plus pyraclostrobin over either herbicide alone. A fungicide by herbicide interaction in two of three years indicated that the combination of pyraclostrobin plus imazapic resulted in greater early leaf spot ( Cercospora arachidocola S. Hori) than pyraclostrobin alone. The addition of acifluorfen to either tebuconazole or prothioconazole resulted in greater leaf spot than either of those fungicides alone in one of three years. No negative response for stem rot or Sclerotinia blight ( Sclerotinia minor L.) control was noted with any combination. Peanut phytotoxicity (leaf chlorosis and necrosis) was greatest with combinations which included acifluorfen, lactofen, or 2,4-DB. No effect on peanut yield was noted with any herbicide-fungicide combinations.

In recent years, the complexity of tank mixtures has increased. McClean et al. (2017) reported that it was not uncommon for growers to co-apply 3 to 4 pesticides or other foliar-applied products to control weeds, insects and pathogens that cause disease in peanut or manage peanut growth. The issue of compatibility of 3 or more products when co-applied was addressed by Chahal et al. (2012a,c,d). While response was variable across pests, pesticides and other component mixtures, when performance was compromised, one product in the tank mixture affected efficacy, and including more components did not result in a complete loss of control ( Chahal et al. 2012a , c, d). In most cases, weed control did not differ by more than 15% for most combinations when compared with herbicides applied alone. However, control did vary and application factors such as weed size, stress, water quality, and adjuvant can influence the degree of incompatibility ( Jordan et al., 2011 ). Chahal et al. ( 2012a, c, d) observed minimal effects of herbicides on efficacy of fungicides, insecticides, and plant growth regulators. Jordan et al ( 2006, 2012) observed that herbicides did not adversely affect boron and manganese accumulation in peanut leaves or efficacy of fungicides, although the adjuvant used for herbicides (crop oil concentrate or nonionic surfactant) did affect the accumulation of those nutrients in tissue. Defining interaction of pesticides and other products applied to peanut continues to be a challenge in large part because of the number of products available for the major pest management disciplines, overlap of pests in the field that need to be controlled in a timely manner, and application variables that can affect response but may be unknown ( Jordan et al., 2011 ).

Weed control is affected not only by compatibility of co-application of herbicides but also by ability to safely apply herbicides based on peanut injury caused by other pests. For example, the ability of peanut to recover from early season injury caused by thrips can be reduced by paraquat ( Brecke et al., 1996 ; Chahal et al., 2014 ; Drake et al., 2009 ; Funderburk et al., 1998 ; Herbert et al., 1991 ). Drake et al. (2009) observed that peanut yield was especially vulnerable when thrips injury was moderate to severe and paraquat was applied. Yield loss by either injury from thrips feeding in absence of paraquat or by phytotoxicity from paraquat when injury from thrips was minor while the combination of both stresses affected yield substantially. Swann and Herbert (1999) reported that visible injury of peanut was greater when bentazon was applied to emerged peanut and phorate was applied in the seed furrow at planting than when aldicarb was the insecticide used.

FUTURE CHALLENGES FOR WEED MANAGEMENT IN PEANUT

Herbicide resistance evolution has resulted from the repeated use of herbicides with the same MOA without rotation or tank-mixing. This problem has been present in peanut as well as other crops rotated with peanut. Herbicide resistance has evolved faster and more frequently with ALS−inhibitors, which currently represent an important proportion of the most widely used postemergence herbicides in peanut. Thus, ALS−resistant weeds are perhaps the most important challenge for weed management in peanut production ( Berger et al., 2015 ; Wise et al., 2009 ).

Postemergence herbicide options in peanut are limited if ALS−inhibitors are no longer effective. The fact that Palmer amaranth (all regions), cocklebur (Virginia-Carolina, Southwest), common ragweed (Virginia-Carolina), and prickly sida (Southwest), have been confirmed with resistance to ALS−inhibitors in peanut fields in southeastern USA ( Berger et al., 2015 ; Chandi et al., 2012 ; Heap, 2025), indicates that a dramatic change in weed management will likely occur in the near future, especially considering the importance of herbicides such as imazapic and diclosulam in peanut production. Efforts to find alternative management strategies are extensive, but there are greater number of options available to manage ALS−resistant weeds in corn, cotton, and soybean than in peanut, for which the primary resistance management tool is PPO-inhibiting herbicides including acifluorfen, flumioxazin, and lactofen ( Chandi et al., 2012 ; Ferrell et al., 2013 ). Unfortunately, other herbicides applied at planting or postemergence are only marginally effective on these weeds.

A common reaction by many growers, once ALS−resistant weeds are present in peanut fields, has been to shift to the use of PPO−inhibitors for preemergence and postemergence control because these herbicides can effectively control ALS−resistant individuals. However, there is concern that an overreliance on PPO−inhibitors will sooner rather than later favor resistance to this MOA. It is especially concerning that resistance to PPO-inhibitors is now present in Palmer amaranth populations ( Heap, 2025), and this suggests that current strategies to manage ALS−resistant populations of this weed in peanut might not be sustainable. The problem is exacerbated because PPO−inhibitors are not only used in peanut, but also in other rotational crops such as cotton and soybean, which are including acifluorfen, lactofen, and flumioxazin to regain control of glyphosate− and ALS−resistant weed species ( Culpepper et al., 2006 ; Wise et al., 2009 ). Therefore, integrated weed management programs that strongly emphasize not only herbicides, but also cultural practices will be critical to mitigate the impact of PPO−resistant weeds on peanut production.

Peanut used in a cotton rotation has been helpful to aid in the control of glyphosate resistant weeds that evolved in part due to overreliance on old cotton technology. New cotton and soybean cultivars with transgenic traits providing resistance to 2,4-D and dicamba will likely increase selection pressure for resistance to synthetic auxin herbicides. This might jeopardize the efficacy of 2,4-DB for the control of ALS−resistant weeds in peanut. If weeds evolve resistance to PPO−inhibitors and synthetic auxins, postemergence herbicides options for broadleaf weed control in peanut will be limited likely forcing growers to use more mechanical control, which could limit acreage and increase mechanical damage to the crop.

Demand for peanut by consumers in the USA and export markets for the Argentina peanut remain strong. However, consumers are more discriminating than ever before, especially in USA and European markets, and scrutiny over pesticide use may tighten, even for products that have been recently registered or have successfully completed the re-registration process. Demand by some consumers for organic peanut is high. Establishing adequate peanut populations and controlling weeds are the two most challenging aspects of peanut production in organic systems. Tolerance of peanut to insect damage and current cultivars with multiple disease resistance are adequate to produce acceptable peanut yield under many field conditions, especially when premiums for organically-produced peanut are available. However, improvements in weed control through more effective cultivation, use of cover crops, and optimization of other cultural practices will be necessary for sustainable production in this system.

The challenges offered by evolved resistance to herbicides used in peanut combined with the limited competitive ability of peanut with weeds creates a potentially devastating scenario for high-input, mechanized production systems. While continuing to use a diversity of herbicides with multiple mechanisms of action either sequentially or in tank-mixtures is important in managing evolved resistance to herbicides, developing effective crop rotations and managing herbicide resistance with emphasis on the soil seed bank in all crops in the rotation is also paramount. Deep tillage and the burial of weed seed enables more effective management when used in combination with other control practices including herbicides and cover cropping ( Inman et al., 2017 ; Price et al., 2016 ). This approach may be effective in fields that are not susceptible to erosion or organic matter loss due to intense tillage. However, since peanut production often occurs in areas that are designated as highly erodible land by the Natural Resource Conservation Service, eliminating deep or intensive tillage might not be a desirable option.

Protecting peanut from other pests and maximizing emergence and row closure and incorporating in-season cultivation will be effective in some fields and with some weed communities. Hand-removal of escaped weeds early in the evolution of resistance may be the most important, last chance at managing resistance. However, this may be the most difficult approach, especially given other crops are experiencing similar issues with resistance and labor may be limited to remove escaped weeds before seed is produced. Mowing escaped weeds or using roller/wiper applicators to apply non-selective herbicides (e.g., paraquat) on weeds that are well above the canopy may become more important even though these practices are time consuming and not completely effective. As a whole, weed management in peanut, like other crops, will require a more holistic approach if the trend in herbicide resistance continues.

RESEARCH NEEDS AND FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES

Current and future challenges for weed management in peanut are undoubtedly linked to the decreasing number of effective herbicide options and the need to maximize the efficiency of control actions in larger farms. It is likely that weed escapes and more variability of weed populations in space and time will also complicate weed management. Therefore, technologies that enable fast and accurate monitoring of weed populations, and record keeping of efficacy of weed control actions, will greatly help make better use of available weed control options and to manage weed seed banks more effectively. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) including fixed-wing and copter drones coupled with remote sensing and imaging technologies are promising tools to increase our ability to detect, map, and quantify weed populations in peanut fields before, during, and after weed control actions at a relatively low cost and time ( Huang et al., 2017 ; Torres-Sánchez et al., 2013 ). This information will be extremely valuable not only to plan and assess weed control actions within the peanut growing season, but more importantly to assess whether the weed management strategy is indeed maintaining weed populations at the desired levels. This latter point will only be possible if weed mapping is done regularly within and across years.

Weed management research in peanut will also have to change in the time scale in which weed control success is assessed. Traditionally, weed control is evaluated only during the growing season when the crop is present. This approach is valuable when control is high (e.g., >95%); however, as herbicide efficacy decreases over time and weed escapes become more frequent and serious, considering how weed seed banks can change will help identify trends and more importantly plan corrective actions. Combining weed mapping, databases, weed population dynamic models and decision aids based on automated digital technologies will allow peanut growers to acquire the necessary information to make better informed decisions in real-time at a relatively low cost ( Fennimore et al., 2016 ; Pongnumkul et al., 2015 ; Shaw, 2005). There are efforts to help peanut growers improve weed management decision making. For example, the Herbicide Application Decision Support System (WebHADSS) is a threshold-based weed management decision system that uses a ranking of the competitiveness of major weeds in peanut to choose cost-effective postemergence herbicides ( Bennett et al., 2003 ). Although in the past, this type of decision-making tool has not been adopted by growers for day-to-day weed management, they have become a valuable tool for educational programs to describe how herbicide selection depends on the relationship between crop yield and the weed community, density and distribution ( Jordan et al., 2003b ; Robinson et al., 2007 ). Refinement and utilization of decision support systems in combination with multi-year data recording, automated technologies, and incorporating weed resistance into a model like WebHADSS will likely increase the ability of peanut growers to manage more variable weed populations optimizing the trade-off between weed control cost, time constraints and yield protection.

In other row crops, engineering resistance to herbicides with MOAs for which weeds have not evolved resistance seems to be the predominant solution to current weed problems, this option is unlikely to be implemented in peanut because of public concerns about genetic engineering in a crop of high importance for human nutrition. Therefore, the future of weed management in peanut seems to rely on robust integrated weed management programs that will depend less on herbicides and more on cultural and mechanical practices.

Literature Cited

Agostinho F.H., Gravena R., Alves P.L.C.A., Salgado T.P., and Mattos E.D. . 2006. The effect of cultivar on critical periods of weed control in peanuts. Peanut Sci. 33: 29− 35.

Altom J.V., Westerman R.B., and Murray D.S. . 1995. Eclipta ( Eclipta prostrata L.) control in peanuts ( Arachis hypogaea L.) . Peanut Sci. 22: 114- 120.

Anonymous. 2024 2023 Agricultural Chemical Use Survey, NASS/USDA Publication 2024-3. Available on-line at https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Chemical_Use/2023_Barley_Oats_Peanuts_Soybeans/ChemHighlights-Peanuts-2023.pdf.

Askew S.D., Wilcut J.W., and Cranmer J.R. . 1999. Weed management in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) with flumioxazin preemergence . Weed Technol. 13: 594- 598.

Awal M.A. and Ikeda T. . 2002. Effects of changes in soil temperature on seedling emergence and phenological development in field-grown stands of peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Environ. Exp. Bot. 47: 101- 113.

Bailey W.A., Wilcut J.W., Jordan D.L., Swann C.W., and Langston V.B. . 1999. Weed management in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) with diclosulam preemergence . Weed Technol. 13: 450- 456.

Balyan R.S. and Bhan V.M. . 1986. Emergence, growth, and reproduction of horse purslane ( Trianthema portulacastrum) as influenced by environmental conditions . Weed Sci. 34: 516- 519.

Balyan R.S. and Malik R.K. . 1989. Control of horse purslane ( Trianthema portulacastrum) and barnyardgrass ( Echinochloa crus-galli) in mung bean ( Vigna radiate) . Weed Sci. 37: 695- 699.

Barbour J.C. and Bridges D.C. . 1995. A model of competition for light between peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) and broadleaf weeds . Weed Sci. 43: 247- 257.

Bauer T.A. and Mortensen D.A. . 1992. A comparison of economic and economic optimum thresholds for two annual weeds in soybeans. Weed Technol. 6: 228- 235.

Baughman T.A., Grichar W.J., and Jordan D.L. . 2002. Tolerance of Virginia-type peanut to different application timings of 2,4-DB. Peanut Sci. 29: 126- 128.

Baughman T.A., Dotray P.A., Grichar W.J., Peterson R.W., and Teeter D. . 2016. Peanut tolerance to fluridone. Proc. Am. Peanut. Res. Educ. Soc. 48: 154.

Belel M.D. and Belel R.D. . 2015. Allelopathic effect of leaf and seed extract of nutgrass ( Cyperus tuberosus) on the germination of beans ( Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp) . Cogent Food. Agr. doi: [: 10.1080/23311932.2015.1102036].

Bennett A.C., Price A.J., Sturgill M.C., Buol G.S., and Wilkerson G.G. . 2003. HADSS, Pocket HERB, and WebHADSS: Decision aids for field crops. Weed Technol. 17: 412- 420.

Berger S.T., Ferrell J.A., Dittmar P.J., and Leon R. . 2015. Survey of glyphosate- and imazapic-resistant Palmer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri) in Florida . Crop Forage Turf. Mngmnt. doi: [: 10.2134/cftm2015.0122].

Besler B.A., Grichar W.J., Senseman S.A., Lemon R.G., and Baughman T.A. , 2008. Effects of row pattern configurations and reduced (1/2X) and full rates (1X) of imazapic and diclosulam for control of yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus) in peanut . Weed Technol. 22: 558- 562.

Boyle L.W. 1952. Factors to be integrated in the control of southern blight on peanut. Phytopathology. 42: 282.

Boyle L.W. 1956. Fundamental concepts in the development of control measures for southern blight and root rot on peanut. Plant Dis. Reporter. 40: 661- 665.

Brandenburg R.L., Herbert Jr. D.A., Sullivan G.A., Naderman G.C., and Wright S.F. . 1998. The impact of tillage practices on thrips injury of peanut in North Carolina and Virginia. Peanut Sci. 25: 27- 31.

Brecke B.J. and Stephenson D.O. IV. 2006. Weed management in single- vs. twin-row peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Technol. 20: 368- 376.

Brecke B.J., Funderburk J.E., Teare I.D., and Gorbet D.W. . 1996. Interaction of early-season herbicide injury, tobacco thrips injury, and cultivar on peanut. Agron. J. 88: 14- 18.

Bridges D.C., Walker R.W., McGuire J.A., and Martin N.R. . 1984. Efficiency of chemical and mechanical methods for controlling weeds in peanuts ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Sci. 32: 584- 591.

Buchanan G.A., Murray D.S., and Hauser E.W.. 1982. Weeds and their control. pp. 206-249. In Peanut Science and Technology. APRES, Youakum, TX.

Burke I.C., Askew S.D., Wilcut J.W. . 2002a. Flumioxazin systems for weed management in North Carolina peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Technol. 16: 743- 748.

Burke I.C., Wilcut J.W., and Porterfield D. . 2002b. CGA-362622 antagonizes annual grass control with clethodim. Weed Technol. 16: 749- 754.

Burke I.C., Price A.J., Wilcut J.W., Jordan D.L., Culpepper A.S., and Tredaway-Ducar J. . 2004. Annual grass control in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) with clethodim and impazapic . Weed Technol. 18: 88- 92.

Burke I.C., Schroeder M., Thomas W.E., and Wilcut J.W. . 2007. Palmer amaranth interference and seed production in peanut. Weed Technol. 21: 367- 371.

Busi R. and Powles S.B. . 2009. Evolution of glyphosate resistance in a Lolium rigidum population by glyphosate selection at sublethal doses . Heredity. 103: 318- 325.

Cantonwine E.G., Culbreath A.K., Stevenson K.L., Kemmerait Jr. R.C., Brenneman T.B., Smith N.B., and Mullinix Jr. B.G. 2006. Integrated disease management of leaf spot and spotted wilt of peanut. Plant Dis. 493- 500.

Cardina J. and Brecke B.J. . 1991. Florida beggarweed ( Desmodium tortuosum) growth and development in peanuts ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Technol. 5: 147- 153.

Cardina J. and Hook J.E. . 1989. Factors influencing germination and emergence of Florida beggarweed ( Desmodium tortuosum) . Weed Technol. 3: 402- 407.

Cardina J. and Swann C.W. . 1988. Metolachlor effects on peanut growth and development. Peanut Sci. 15: 57- 60.

Carley D.S., Jordan D.L., Brandenburg R.L., and Dharmasri L.C. . 2009. Factors influencing response of Virginia market type peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) to paraquat under weed-free conditions . Peanut Sci. 36: 180- 189.

Chahal G.S., Jordan D.L., Brandenburg F.L., Shew B.B., Burton J.D., Danehower D., and York A.C. . 2012a. Interactions of agrochemicals applied to peanut; Part 3: Effects on insecticides and prohexadione calcium. Crop Prot. 41: 150- 157.

Chahal G.S., Jordan D.L., Shew B.B., Brandenburg R.L., Burton J.D., Danehower D., Eure P.M. . 2012b. Influence of selected fungicides on efficacy of clethodim and 2,4-DB. Peanut Sci. 39: 121- 126.

Chahal G.S., Jordan D.L., Shew B.B., Brandenburg R.L., Burton J.D., Danehower D., and York A.C. . 2012c. Interactions of agrochemicals applied to peanut; Part 2: Effects on fungicides. Crop Prot. 41: 143- 149.

Chahal G.S., Jordan D.L., Shew B.B., Brandenburg R.L., York A.C., Burton J.D., and Danehower D. . 2012d. Interactions of agrochemicals applied to peanut; Part 1: Effects on herbicides. Crop Prot. 41: 134- 142.

Chahal G.S., Jordan D.L., York A.C., Brandenburg R.L., Shew B.B., Burton J.D., and Danehower D. . 2013. Interactions of clethodim and sethoxydim with other pesticides. Peanut Sci. 40: 127- 134.

Chahal G.S., Jordan D.L., Eure P.M., Brandenburg R.L. . 2014. Compatibility of acephate with herbicides applied postemergence in peanut. Peanut Sci. 41: 58- 64.

Chandi A., Jordan D.L., York A.C., and Lassiter B.R. . 2012. Confirmation and management of common ragweed resistant to diclosulam. Weed Technol. 26: 29- 36.

Chandra B. and Sahai R. . 1979. Autecology of T. portulacastrum Linn . Indian J. Ecol. 6: 17- 21.

Chaudhari S., Jordan D., and Jennings K. . 2017. Peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) response to carfentrazone-ethyl and pyraflufen-ethyl applied close to harvest . Peanut Sci. 44: 47– 52.

Clewis S.B., Askew S.D., and Wilcut J.W. . 2001. Common ragweed interference in peanut. Weed Sci. 49: 768- 772.

Clewis S.B., Everman W.J., Jordan D.L., and Wilcut J.W. . 2007. Weed management in North Carolina peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) with S-metolachlor, diclosulam, flumioxazin, and sulfentrazone systems . Weed Technol. 21: 629- 635.

Colvin D.L., Wehtje G.R., Patterson M., Walker R.H. . 1985a. Weed management in minimum-tillage peanuts ( Arachis hypogaea) as influenced by cultivar, row, and herbicides . Weed Sci. 33: 233- 237.

Colvin D.L., Walker R.H., Patterson M.G., Wehtje G., and McGuire J.A. . 1985b. Row pattern and weed management effects on peanut production. Peanut Sci. 12: 22- 27.

Creel J.M., Hoveland C.S., and Buchanan G.A. . 1968. Germination, growth, and ecology of sicklepod. Weed Sci. 16: 396- 400.

Culbreath A.K., Beute M.K., Shew B.B., and Barker K.R. . 1992a. Effects of Meloidogyne hapla and M. arenaria on black rot severity in new Cylindrocladium-resistant peanut genotypes . Plant Dis. 76: 352- 357.

Culbreath A.K., Minton N.A., Brenneman T.B., and Mullinix B.G. . 1992b. Response of Florunner and Southern runner peanut cultivars to chemical management of late leaf spot, southern stem rot, and nematodes. Plant Dis. 76: 1199- 1203.

Culpepper A.S., Jordan D.L., Batts R.B., and York A.C. . 1997. Peanut response to prohexadione calcium as affected by cultivar and digging date. Peanut Sci. 24: 85- 89.

Culpepper A.S., Grey T.L., Vencill W.K., Kichler J.M., Webster T.M., Brown S.M., York A.C., Davis J.W., and Hanna W.W. . 2006. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia . Weed Sci. 54: 620- 626.

Davis J.P., and Dean L.L.. 2016. Peanut consumption, flavor and nutrition. pp 289-346 In Stalker, HT, Wilson, RF, eds. Peanuts: Genetics, Processing, and Utilization. AOCS Monograph Series, AOCS Press, Elsevier, 478 pages.

Davis R.F. and Timper P. . 2000. Resistance in selected corn hybrids to Meloidogyne arenaria and M. incognita . J. Nematol. 36: 633- 640.

Dotray P.A., Baughman T.A., Keeling J.W., Grichar W.J., and Lemon R.G. . 2001. Effect of imazapic application timing on Texas peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Technol. 15: 26- 29.

Dotray P.A., Keeling J.W., Grichar W.J., Prostko E.P., Lemon R.G., and Everrit J.D. . 2003. Peanut response to ethalfluralin, pendimethalin, and trifluralin preplant incorporated. Peanut Sci. 30: 34- 37.

Dotray P.A., Keeling J.W., Grichar W.J., Prostko E.P., and Lemon R.G. . 2004. Peanut response to ethalfluralin, pendimethalin, and trifluralin preplant incorporated. Peanut Sci. 30: 34- 37.

Dotray P.A., Baughman T.A., and Grichar W.J. . 2010. Peanut response to carfentrazone-ethyl and pyraflufen-ethyl applied postemergence. Peanut Sci. 37: 52– 57.

Dotray P.A., Grichar W.J., Baughman T.A., Prostko E.P., Grey T.L., and Gilbert L.V. . 2012. Peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) response to lactofen at various postemergence timings . Peanut Sci. 39: 9- 14.

Drake W.L., Jordan D.L., Brandenburg R.L., Lassiter B.R., Johnson P.D., and Royals B.M. . 2009. Peanut cultivar response to damage from tobacco thrips and paraquat. Agron. J. 101: 1388- 1393.

Ducar J.T., Clewis S.B., Wilcut J.W., Jordan D.L., Brecke B.J., Grichar W.J., Johnson III W.C., and Wehtje G.R. . 2009. Weed management using reduced rate combinations of diclosulam, flumioxazin, and imazapic in peanut. Weed Technol. 23: 236- 242.

Elmore C.D. 1985. Assessment of the allelopathic effects of weeds on field crops in the humid midsouth. pp 21- 32 In Thompson A.C. (ed.). The Chemistry of Allelopathy. Thompson, Washington, DC.

Elmore C.D. 1989. Weed survey–southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42: 416.

Eure P.M., Prostko E.P., and Merchant R.M. . 2015a. Peanut cultivar response to preemergence applications of pyroxasulfone. Peanut Sci. 42: 39- 43.

Eure P.M., Prostko E.P., and Merchant R.M. . 2015b. Peanut response to postemergence applications of pyroxasulfone. Peanut Sci. 42: 44- 48.

Everman W.J., Clewis S.B., Taylor Z.G., and Wilcut J.W. . 2006. Influence of diclosulam postemergence application timing on weed control and peanut tolerance. Weed Technol. 20: 651- 657.

Everman W.J., Burke I.C., Clewis S.B., Thomas W.E., and Wilcut J.W. . 2008a. Critical period of grass vs. broadleaf weed interference in peanut. Weed Technol. 22: 68- 73.

Everman W.J., Clewis S.B., Thomas W.E., Burke I.C., and Wilcut J.W. . 2008b. Critical period of weed interference in peanut. Weed Technol. 22: 63- 67.

Faircloth W.H. and Prostko E.P. . 2010. Effect of imazapic and 2,4-DB on peanut yield, grade, and seed germination. Peanut. Sci. 37: 78- 82.

Farris R.L. and Murray D.S. . 2006. Influence of crownbeard ( Verbesina encelioides) densities on peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) yield . Weed Technol. 20: 627- 632.

Fennimore S.A., Slaughter D.C., Siemens M.C., Leon R.G., and Saber M.N. . 2016. Technology for automation of weed control in specialty crops. Weed Technol. 30: 823- 837.

Ferrell J.A., Leon R.G., Sellers B., Rowland D., and Brecke B. . 2013. Influence of lactofen and 2,4-DB combinations on peanut injury and yield. Peanut Sci. 40: 62- 65.

Funderburk J.E., Gorbet D.W., Teare I.D., and Stavisky J. . 1998. Thrips injury can reduce peanut yield and quality under conditions of multiple stress. Agron. J. 90: 563- 566.

Gallandt E.R. 2006. How can we target the weed seedbank? Weed Sci. 54: 588-596.

Garren K.H. 1961. Control of Sclerotium rolfsii through cultural practices . Phytopathology. 51: 124- 128.

Garren K.H. 1964. Inoculum potential and differences among peanuts in susceptibility to Sclerotium rolfsii . Phytopathology. 54: 279- 281.

Grey T.L. and Wehtje G.R. . 2005. Residual herbicide weed control systems in peanut. Weed Technol. 19: 560- 567.

Grey T.L., Bridges D.C., and Brecke B.J. . 2000. Response of seven peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) cultivars to sulfentrazone . Weed Technol. 14: 51- 56.

Grey T.L., Bridges D.C., and Eastin E.F. . 2001. Influence of application rate and timing of diclosulam on weed control in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) . Peanut Sci. 28: 13- 19.

Grey T.L., Bridges D.C., Easting E.F., and MacDonald G.E. . 2002. Influence of flumioxazin rate and herbicide combinations on weed control in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) . Peanut Sci. 29: 24- 29.

Grey T.L., Bridges D.C., Prostko E.P., Eastin E.F., Johnson III W.C., Vencill W.K., Brecke B.J., MacDonald G.E., Tredaway-Ducar J.A., Everest J.W., Wehtje G.R., and Wilcut J.W. . 2003. Residual weed control with imazapic, diclosulam, and flumioxazin in southeastern peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Peanut Sci. 30: 27- 34.

Grey T.L., Prostko E.P., Bednarz C.W., and Davis J.W. . 2005. Cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum) response to simulated imazapic residues . Weed Technol. 19: 1045- 1049.

Grichar W.J. 1991. Sethoxydim and broadleaf herbicide interaction effects on annual grass control in peanuts ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Technol. 5: 321- 324.

Grichar W.J. 1993. Horse purslane ( Trianthema portulacastrum) control in peanut ( Arachis phypogaea) . Weed Technol. 7: 570- 572.

Grichar W.J. 1994. Spiny amaranth ( Amaranthus spinosus L.) control in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Technol. 8: 199- 202.

Grichar W.J. 1995. Comparison of postemergence herbicides for common bermudagrass control ( Cynodon dactylon) control in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Technol. 9: 825- 828.

Grichar W. J. 1997a. Control of Palmer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri) in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) with postemergence herbicides . Weed Technol. 11: 739- 743.

Grichar W.J. 1997b. Influence of herbicides and timing of application on broadleaf weed control in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Technol. 11: 708- 713.

Grichar W.J. 1997c. Control of hophornbeam copperleaf ( Acalyphao stryifolia Riddell) and ivyleaf morningglory ( Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq.) in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) . Texas J. Agric. and Nat. Resour. 10: 55- 63.

Grichar W.J. 1998a. Effects of paraquat application and timing on peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) growth, yield and grade . Texas J. Agric. and Nat. Resour. 11: 41- 47.

Grichar W.J. 1998b. Herbicide systems for control of horse purslane ( Trianthema portulacastrum L.), smellmelon ( Cucumis melo L.), and Palmer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri S . Wats) in peanut. Peanut Sci. 35:38-42.

Grichar W.J. 2007. Horse purslane ( Trianthema portulacastrum), smellmelon ( Cucumis melo), and Palmer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri) control in peanut with postemergence herbicides . Weed Technol. 21: 688- 691.

Grichar W.J. 2008. Herbicide systems for control of horse purslane ( Trianthema portulacastrum L.), smellemlon ( Cucumis melo L.) and Palmer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats) in peanut . Peanut Sci. 35: 38- 42.

Grichar W.J. and Boswell T.E.. 1986. Postemergence grass control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Weed Sci. 34: 587-590.

Grichar W.J. and Boswell T.E. . 1989. Bermudagrass ( Cynodon dactylon) control with postemergence herbicides in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Technol. 3: 267- 271.

Grichar W.J. and Colburn A.E. . 1993. Effect of dinitroaniline herbicides upon yield and grade of five runner cultivars. Peanut Sci. 20: 126- 128.

Grichar W.J. and Colburn A.E. . 1996a. Flumioxazin for weed control in Texas peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) . Peanut Sci. 23: 30- 36.

Grichar W.J. and Colburn A.E. . 1996b. Postemergence control of eclipta ( Eclipta prostrata L. in peanut ( Arachys hypogaea L.) Texas J . Agric. Nat. and Resour. 9: 89- 96.

Grichar W.J. and Dotray P.A. . 2010. Response of Texas peanut to chlorimuron alone and in various combinations. Peanut Sci. 37: 26- 31.

Grichar W.J. and Dotray P.A. . 2011. Controlling weeds found in peanut with lactofen. Crop Mngmnt. doi: [: 10.1094/CM-2011-0912-01-RS. 8] pp.

Grichar W.J. and Dotray P.A. . 2012. Peanut cultivar response to S-metolachlor and paraquat alone and in combination . Peanut Sci. 39: 15- 21.

Grichar W.J. and Dotray P.A. . 2015. Influence of spray tip and spray volume on the efficacy of imazapic and imazethapyr on selected weed species. Amer. J. Expt. Agric. 8( 2): 75- 86.

Grichar W. J. and Nester P. R. . 1997. Nutsedge ( Cyperus spp.) control in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) with AC 263,222 and imazethapyr . Weed Technol. 11: 714- 719.

Grichar W.J. and Sestak D.C. . 1998. Control of golden crownbeard ( Verbesina enceloides) in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) with postemergence herbicides . Peanut Sci. 25: 39- 43.

Grichar W.J., and Sestak D.C. . 2000a. Effect of adjuvants on control of nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus and C. rotundus) by imazapic and imazethapyr . Crop Prot. 19: 461- 465.

Grichar W.J. and Sestak D. C. . 2000b. Herbicide systems for golden crownbeard ( Verbesina encelioides) control in peanut . Peanut Sci. 27: 23- 26.

Grichar W.J., Nester P.R., and Colburn A.E. . 1992. Nutsedge ( Cyperus spp.) control in peanuts ( Arachis hypogaea) with imazethapyr . Weed Technol. 6: 396- 400.

Grichar W.J., Colburn A.E., and Baumann P.A. . 1996. Yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus) control in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) as influenced by method of metolachlor application . Weed Technol. 10: 278- 281.

Grichar W. J., Nester P. R., and Sestak D. C. . 1997a. Peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) response to imazethapyr as affected by timing of application . Peanut Sci. 24: 10- 12.

Grichar W. J., Sestak D.C., and Besler B. A. . 1997b. Effects of various timings of 2,4-DB on runner-type peanut development and yield. Peanut Sci. 24: 105- 106.

Grichar W.J., Dotray P.A., and Sestak D.C. . 1999a. Diclosulam for weed control in Texas peanut. Peanut Sci. 26: 23- 28.

Grichar W.J., Sestak D.C., and Nester P.R. . 1999b. Imidazolinone herbicide effects on rotational crops following peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) in south Texas . Texas J. Agric. Natural Resour. 12: 18- 27.

Grichar W.J., Lemon R.G., Sestak D.C., and Brewer K.D. . 2000. Comparison of metolachlor and dimethenamid for yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus L.) control and peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) injury . Peanut Sci. 27: 26- 30.

Grichar W.J., Besler B.A., and Brewer K. D. . 2001a. Citronmelon ( Citrullus lonatus var. citroides) control in Texas peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) using postemergence herbicides . Weed Technol. 15: 481- 484.

Grichar W.J., Dotray P.A., Lemon R.G., Baughman T.A., Langston V.B., and Braxton B. . 2001b. Using Strongarm for weed control in Texas peanut. Texas J. Agric. and Natural Resour. 14: 125- 132.

Grichar W.J., Lemon R.G., Brewer K.D., and Minton B.M. . 2001c. S-metolachlor compared with metolachlor on yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus) and peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Technol. 15: 107- 111.

Grichar W.J., Besler B.A., and Brewer K.D. . 2002a. Citronmelon ( Citrullus lanatus var. citroides) control in Texas peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) using soil-applied herbicides . Weed Technol. 16: 528- 531.

Grichar W.J., Besler B.A., Brewer K.D., and Baughman T.A. . 2002b. Grass control in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) with clethodim and selected broadleaf herbicide combinations . Peanut Sci. 29: 85- 88.

Grichar W. J., Besler B.A., and Brewer K.D. . 2004a. Control of weeds in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) using flumioxazin . Peanut Sci. 31: 17- 21.

Grichar W.J., Besler B.A., Brewer K.D., and Langston V.B. . 2004b. Using diclosulam in a weed control program for peanut in south Texas . Crop Prot. 23: 1145- 1149.

Grichar W.J., Besler B.A., Dotray P.A., Johnson III W.C., and Prostko E.P. . 2004c. Interaction of flumioxazin with dimethenamid or metolachlor in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) . Peanut Sci. 31: 12- 16.

Grichar W.J., Besler B.A., Lemon R.G., and Brewer K.D. . 2005. Weed management and net returns using soil-applied and postemergence herbicide programs in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) . Peanut Sci. 32: 25- 31.

Grichar W.J., Dotray P.A., Besler B.A., and Langston V.B. . 2006. Weed control programs in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) with diclosulam and ethalfluralin combinations . Texas J. Agric. Natl. Resourc. 19: 62- 71.

Grichar W.J., Dotray P.A., and Prostko E.P.. 2008a. Using diclosulam for yellow (Cyperus esculentus) and purple (Cyperus rotundus) nutsedge control in peanut. pp. 123-140 In Y.U. Berklian (ed). Crop Rotation. Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Grichar W.J., Dotray P.A., and Baughman T.A. . 2008b. Yellow nutsedge ( Cyperus esculentus) control and peanut tolerance to S-metolachlor and diclosulam combinations . Weed Technol. 22: 442- 447.

Grichar W.J., Dotray P.A., and Baughman T.A. . 2010a. Peanut variety response to postemergence applications of carfentrazone-ethyl and pyraflufen-ethyl. Crop Prot. 29: 1034- 1038.

Grichar W.J., Dotray P.A., and Baughman T.A. . 2010b. Postemergence weed control in peanut using reduced rate or combinations of imazapic and imazethapyr. Crop Mngmnt. doi: [: 10.1094/CM-2010-1110-01-RS. 9 p].

Grichar W.J., Jordan D.L., and Prostko E.P. . 2012. Weed control and peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) response to formulations of imazapic . Crop Protect. 36: 31- 36.

Grichar W.J., Dotray P.A., and Baring M.R. . 2013a. Peanut cultivar response to flumioxazin applied preemergence and imazapic applied postemergence. Inter. J. Agron. doi: [: 10.1155/2013/371847].

Grichar W.J., Dotray P.A., and Woodward J.E.. 2013b. Weed and disease control and peanut response following post-emergence herbicide and fungicide combinations. In Price A. (ed.). Herbicides - Current Research and Case Studies in Use. ISBN: 978-953-51-1112-2, InTech, Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/herbicides-current-research-and-case-studies-in-use/weed-and-disease-control-and-peanut-response-following-post-emergence-herbicide-and-fungicide-combinations.

Grichar W.J., Dotray P.A., and Etheredge L.M. . 2015. Weed control and peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) cultivar response to encapsulated acetochlor . Peanut Sci. 42: 100- 108.

Hackett N.M., Murray D.S., and Weeks D.L. . 1987a. Interference of horsenettle ( Solanum carolinense) with peanuts ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Sci. 35: 780- 784.

Hackett N.M., Murray D.S., and Weeks D.L. . 1987b. Interference of silver nightshade ( Solanum elaeagnifolium) on Spanish peanuts ( Arachis hypogaea) . Peanut Sci. 14: 39- 41.

Hauser E.W. and Buchanan G.A. . 1981. Influence of row spacing, seeding rates and herbicide systems on the competitiveness and yield of peanuts. Peanut Sci. 8: 74- 81.

Hauser E.W., Buchanan G.A., and Ethredge W.J. . 1975. Competition of Florida beggarweed and sicklepod with peanuts. I. Weed-free maintenance and weed competition. Weed Sci. 23: 368- 372.

Hauser E.W., Buchanan G.A., Nichols R.L., and Patterson R.M. . 1982. Effects of Florida beggarweed ( Desmodium tortuosum) and sicklepod ( Cassia obtusifolia) on peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Sci. 30: 602- 604.

Heap I. 2025. The International Herbicide-Resistant Weed Database. https://weedscience.org/Home.aspx 2025 March 14.

Herbert D.A., Wilcut J.W., and Swann C.W. . 1991. Effects of various postemergence herbicide treatments and tobacco thrips ( Frankliniella fusca) injury on peanut yields in Virginia . Peanut Sci. 18: 91- 94.

Herbert D.A, Malone S., Aref S., Brandenburg R.L., Jordan D.L., Royals B.M., and Johnson P.D. . 2007. Role of insecticides in reducing thrips injury to plants and incidence of tomato spotted wilt virus in Virginia market-type peanut. J. Econ. Entomol. 100: 1241- 1247.

Hoffner A.E., Jordan D.L., York A.C., Dunphy E.J., and Everman W.J.. 2012. Influence of soybean ( Glycine max) population and herbicide program on Palmer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri) control, soybean yield, and economic return . ISRN Agronomy. Article ID 947395, 8 pp. doi: 10.5402/2012/947395.

Huang Y., Reddy K.N., Fletcher R.S., and Pennington D. . 2017. UAV low-altitude remote sensing for precision weed management. Weed Technol. doi: [: 10.1014/wet.2017.89].

Ibrahim I.K.A., Lewis S.A., and Harshman D.C. . 1993. Host suitability of graminaceous crop cultivars for isolates of Meloidogyne arenaria and M. incognita . J. Nematol. 25: 858- 862.

Inman M.D., Jordan D.L., York A.C., Jennings K.M., and Monks D.W. . 2017. Long-term management of Palmer amaranth with herbicides and cultural practices in cotton. Crop Forage Turf. Mngmnt. doi: [: 10.2134/cftm2017.03.0017].

Johnson B.J. 1988. Glyphosate and SC-0224 for bermudagrass ( Cynodon spp.) cultivar control . Weed Technol. 2: 20- 23.

Johnson A.W. and Motsinger R.E. . 1989. Suitability of small grains as host of Meloidogyne species . J. Nematol. 21: 650- 653.

Johnson W.C. and Davis J.W. . 2015. Perpendicular cultivation for improved in-row weed control in organic peanut production. Weed Technol. 29: 128- 134.

Johnson W.C. and Mullinix B.G. Jr. 1995. Weed management in peanut using stale seedbed techniques. Weed Sci. 43: 293- 297.

Johnson W.C. and Mullinix B.G. Jr. 2005. Texas panicum ( Panicum texanum) inteference in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) and implications for treatment decision . Peanut Sci. 32:6 8-72.

Johnson W.C. and Mullinix B.G. Jr. 2008. Potential weed management systems for organic peanut production. Peanut Sci. 35: 67- 72.

Johnson W.C., Holbrook C.C., Mullinix Jr B.G., and Cardina J. . 1992a. Response of eight genetically diverse peanut genotypes to chlorimuron. Peanut Sci. 19: 111- 115.

Johnson W.C., Mullinix Jr B.G., and Brown S.M. . 1992b. Phytotoxicity of chlorimuron and tank mixtures on peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Technol. 6: 404- 408.

Johnson W.C., Chamberlin J.R., Brenneman T.B., Todd J.W., Mullinix Jr B.G., and Cardina J. . 1993. Effects of paraquat and alachlor on peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) growth, maturity, and yield . Weed Technol. 7: 855- 859.

Johnson W.C., Colvin D.L., Littlefield T.A., and Mullinix Jr. B.G. 1999. Florida beggarweed ( Desmodium tortuosum) and sicklepod ( Senna obtusifolia) control in peanut using herbicides applied through a wick-bar . Peanut Sci. 26: 18- 23.

Johnson W.C., Brenneman T.B., Baker S.H., Johnson A.W., Sumner D.R., and Mullinix Jr. B.G. 2001. Tillage and pest management considerations in a peanut–cotton rotation in the southeastern Coastal Plain. Agron. J. 93: 570– 576.

Johnson W.C., Prostko E.P., and Mullinix Jr. B.G. 2005. Improving the management of dicot weeds in peanut narrow row spacings and residual herbicides. Agron. J. 97: 85- 88.

Johnson W.C., Prostko E.P., and Mullinix Jr. B.G. 2006. Phytotoxicity of delayed applications of flumioxazin on peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Technol. 20: 157- 163.

Johnson W.C., Boudreau M.A., and Davis J.W. . 2013. Combinations of corn gluten meal, clove oil, and sweep cultivation are ineffective for weed control in organic peanut production. Weed Technol. 27: 417- 421.

Jones R.E. and Medd R.W. . 2000. Economic thresholds and the case for longer term approaches to population management decisions. Weed Technol. 14: 337- 350.

Jordan D.L., Wilcut J.W., and Swann C.W. . 1993. Application timing of lactofen for broadleaf weed control in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Peanut Sci. 20: 129- 131.

Jordan D.L., Beam J.B., Johnson P.D., and Spears J.F. . 2001. Peanut response to prohexadione calcium in three seeding rate-row planting systems. Agron. J. 93: 232- 236.

Jordan D.L., Culpepper A.S., Grichar W.J., Tredaway-Ducar J., Brecke B.J., and York A.C. . 2003a. Weed control with combinations of selected fungicides and herbicides applied postemergence to peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Peanut Sci. 30: 1- 7.

Jordan D.L., Wilkerson G.G., and Krueger D.W. . 2003b. Evaluation of scouting methods in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) using theoretical net returns from HADSSTM . Weed Technol. 17: 358- 365.

Jordan D.L., Lancaster S.H., Lanier J.E., Johnson P.D., Beam J.B., York A.C., Brandenburg R.L., Walls F.R., Casteel S., and Hudak C. . 2006. Influence of application variables on efficacy of boron-containing fertilizers applied to peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) . Peanut Sci. 33: 104- 111.

Jordan D.L., Lancaster S.H., Lanier J.E., Lassiter B.R., and Johnson P.D. . 2009. Weed management in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) with herbicide combinations containing imazapic and other pesticides . Weed Technol. 23: 6- 10.

Jordan D.L., Place G., Brandenburg R.L., Lanier J.E., and Carley D.L. . 2010. Response of Virginia market type peanut to planting pattern and herbicide program. Crop Mngmnt. doi: [: 10.1094/CM-2010-0430-01-RS].

Jordan D.L., Chahal G.S., Lancaster S.H., Beam J.B., and York A.C.. 2011. Defining interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals applied to peanut. pgs 73-92 In Soloneski S, Larramendy M eds. Herbicides, Theory and Applications. ISBN: 978-953-307-975-2, InTech, Rijeka, Croatia. 610 pp.

Jordan D.L., Lancaster S.H., Lanier J.E., Johnson P.D., Beam J.B., York A.C., and Brandenburg R.L. . 2012. Influence of application variables on efficacy of manganese-containing fertilizers applied to peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) . Peanut Sci. 39: 1- 8.

Keeling W., Segarra E., and Abernathy J.R. . 1989. Evaluation of conservation tillage cropping systems for cotton on the Texas Southern High Plains. J. Prod. Agric. 2: 269- 273.

Ketchersid M.L., Boswell T.E., and Merkle M.G. . 1978. Effects of 2,4-DB on yield and pod development in peanuts. Peanut Sci. 5: 35- 39.

Lancaster S.H., Jordan D.L., Spears J.F., York A.C., Wilcut J.W., Monks D.W., Batts R.B., and Brandenburg R.L. . 2005a. Sicklepod ( Senna obtusifolia) control and seed production following 2,4-DB applied alone and with fungicides or insecticides . Weed Technol. 19: 451- 455.

Lancaster S.H., Jordan D.L., York A.C., Burke I.C., Corbin F.T., Sheldon Y.S., Wilcut J.W., and Monks D.W. . 2005b. Influence of selected fungicides on efficacy of clethodim and sethoxydim. Weed Technol. 19: 397- 403.

Lancaster S.H., Jordan D.L., York A.C., Wilcut J.W., Brandenburg R.L., and Monks D.W. . 2005c. Interactions of late-season morningglory ( Ipomoea spp.) management practices in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea ). Weed Technol. 19: 803- 808.

Lancaster S.H., Jordan D.L., York A.C., Wilcut J.W., Monks D.W., and Brandenburg R.L. . 2005d. Interactions of clethodim and sethoxydim with selected agrichemicals applied to peanut. Weed Technol. 19: 456- 461.

Lancaster S.H., Beam J.B., Lanier J.E., Jordan D.L., and Johnson P.D. . 2007. Compatibility of diclosulam with postemergence herbicides and fungicides. Weed Technol. 21: 869- 872.

Lancaster S.H., Jordan D.L., and Johnson P.D. . 2008. Influence of graminicide formulation on compatibility with other pesticides. Weed Technol. 22: 580- 583.

Lanier J.E., Lancaster S.H., Jordan D.L., Johnson P.D., Spears J.F., Wells R., Hurt C.A., and Brandenburg R.L. . 2004. Sicklepod control in peanut seeded in single and twin row planting patterns. Peanut Sci. 31: 36- 40.

Lassiter B.R., Jordan D.L., Wilkerson G.G., Shew B.B., and Brandenburg R.L. . 2011. Influence of cover crops on weed management in strip tillage peanut. Weed Technol. 25: 568- 573.

Leff B., Ramanutty N., and Foley J.A. . 2004. Geographic distribution of major crops across the world. Global Biogeochem. Cycles. 18: 1.

Leon R.G. and Tillman B.J. . 2015. Postemergence herbicide tolerance variation in peanut germplasm. Weed Sci. 63: 546- 554.

Leon R.G., Wright D.L., and Marois J.J. . 2015. Weed seed banks are more dynamic in a sod-based than in a conventional, peanut-cotton rotation. Weed Sci. 63: 877- 887.

Leon R.G., Mulvaney M.J., and Tillman B.J. . 2016. Peanut cultivars differing in growth habit and canopy architecture respond similarly to weed interference. Peanut Sci. 43: 133- 140.

Liu Y., Smith A., and Hancock G. . 2025. University of Georgia Enterprise Budgets. Available at http://www.caes.uga.edu/departments/ag-econ/extension/budgets.html.

Lynch R.E., Garner J.W., and Morgan L.W. . 1984. Influence of systemic insecticides on thrips damage and yield of Florunner peanuts in Georgia. J. Econ. Entomol. 1: 33- 42.

Marshall M.W., Sanders C.H., and Hair J.. Efficacy of fluridone based herbicide program in peanut. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 48: 104.

Matocha M.A., Grichar W.J., Senseman S.A., Gerngross C.A., Brecke B.J., and Vencill W.K. . 2003. The persistence of imazapic in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) crop rotation . Weed Technol. 17: 325- 329.

McClean B., Sandlin B., Barrow B., Hurry J., Leary M., Shaw M., Carroll M., Adams T., Bradley A., Smith P., Thagard R., Whitehead A., Parish B., Holland J., Britton T., Morgan J., Cochran A., Ellison C., Huffman M., Seitz M., Lilley D., Grimes L., Malloy M., King D., Wood R., Williams A., Whaley T., Harrell N., Jordan D.L., Shew B.B., Brandenburg R.L., Anco D.J., Croft D.J., Warner A., Dehond P., Mikell H., Varn J., Crouch J., Balota M., Mehl H., Taylor S.V., Spencer J., Reiter J., and Preisser L.. 2017. Results from surveys on application variables associated with production and pest management in peanut in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 49.

Mitchem W.E., York A.C., and Batts R.B. . 1996. Peanut response to prohexadione calcium, a new plant regulator. Peanut Sci. 23: 1- 9.

Mixon A.C. 1963. Effects of deep turning and non-dirting cultivation on bunch and runner peanuts. Auburn Univ. Agri. Exp. Stn. Bull. 344.

Morichetti S., Ferrell J., MacDonald G., Sellers B., and Rowland D. . 2012. Weed management and peanut response from applications of saflufenacil. Weed Technol. 26: 261- 266.

Neve P. and Powles S. . 2005. Recurrent selection with reduced herbicide rates results in the rapid evolution of herbicide resistance in Lolium rigidum . Theor. Appl. Genet. 110: 1154- 1166.

Norsworthy J.K., Ward S.M., Shaw D.R., Llewellyn R.S., Nichols R.L., Webster T.M., Bradley K.W., Frisvold G., Powles S.B., Burgos N.R., Witt W.W., and Barret M. . 2012. Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: Best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci. 60: 31- 62.

[OSU-AGECON] Oklahoma State University-Agricultural Economics Extension. 2025. Sample Oklahoma enterprise budget summaries. Available at http://www.agecon.okstate.edu/budgets/sample_pdf_files.asp.

Peterson R.W., Baughman T.A., Dotray P.A., Grichar W., Teeter D.L., and Taylor S.L. . 2016. Preemergence herbicide programs for weed control in cotton and peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 69: 275.

Place G.T., Reberg-Horton S.C., and Jordan D.L. . 2010. Interaction of cultivar, planting pattern, and weed management tactics in peanut. Weed Sci. 58: 442- 448.

Place G.T., Reberg-Horton S.C., Jordan D.L., Isleib T.G., and Wilkerson G.G. . 2012. Influence of Virginia market type genotype on peanut response to weed interference. Peanut Sci. 39: 22− 29.

Pongnumkul S., Chaovalit P., and Surasvadi N. . 2015. Applications of smartphone-based sensors in agriculture: A systematic review of research. J. Sensors. doi: [: 10.1155/2015/195308].

Poirier A.H., York A.C., Jordan D.L., Chandi A., Everman W.J., and Whitaker J.R. . 2014. Distribution of glyphosate- and thifensulfuron-resistant Palmer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri) in North Carolina . Int. J. Agron. doi: [: 10.1155/2014/747810].

Prasad P.V.V., Boote K.J., Thomas J.M.G., Allen Jr. L.H., and Corbet D.W. . 2006. Influence of soil temperatures on seedling emergence and early growth of peanut cultivars in field conditions. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 192: 168- 177.

Price A.J., Reeves D.W., Patterson M.G., Gamble B.E., Balkcom K.S., Arriaga F.J., and Monks C.D. . 2007. Weed control in peanut grown in a high-residue conservation-tillage system. Peanut Sci. 34: 59- 64.

Price A.J., Monks C.D., Culpepper A.S., Duzy L.M., Kelton J.A., Marshall M.W., Steckel L.E., Sosnoskie L.M., and Nichols R.L. . 2016. High-residue cover crops alone or with strategic tillage to manage glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri) in southeastern cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum) . J. Soil Water Conserv. 71: 1- 11.

Prostko E.P. 2011a. New peanut cultivar response to paraquat applications. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 46: 52.

Prostko E.P. 2011b. Non-selective applicators for the control of Palmer amaranth. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 64: 1.

Prostko E.P. W.C. Johnson III B.G. Jr Mullinix . 2001. Annual grass control with preplant incorporated and preemergence applications of ethalfluralin and pendimethalin in peanut ( Arachis hypogagea) . Weed Technol. 15: 36- 41.

Prostko E.P., Kemmerait R.C., Jost P.H., Johnson III W.C., Brown S.N., and Webster T.M. . 2009. The influence of cultivar and chlorimuron application timing on spotted wilt disease and peanut yield. Peanut Sci. 36: 92- 95.

Prostko E.P., Webster T.M., Marshall M.W., Leon R.G., Grey T.L., Ferrell J.A., Dotray P.A., Jordan D.L., Grichar W.J., and Brecke B.J. . 2013. Glufosinate application timing and rate affect peanut yield. Peanut Sci. 40: 115- 119.

Richburg J.S., Wilcut J.W., Culbreath A.K., and Kvien C.K. . 1995. Response of eight peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) cultivars to the herbicide AC 263,222 . Peanut Sci. 22: 76- 80.

Richburg J.S., Wilcut J.W., Colvin D.L., and Wiley G.R.. 1996. Weed management in southeastern peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with AC 263,222. Weed Technol. 10: 145-152.

Richburg J.S., Wilcut J.W., and Grichar W.J. . 2006. Response of runner, spanish, and Virginia peanut cultivars to imazethapyr. Peanut Sci. 33: 47- 52.

Robinson B.L., Moffitt J.M., Wilkerson G.G., and Jordan D.L. . 2007. Economics and effectiveness of alternative weed scouting methods in peanut. Weed Technol. 21: 88- 96.

Royal S.S., Brecke B.J., and Colvin D.L. . 1997a. Common cocklebur ( Xanthium strumarium) interference with peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Sci. 45: 38- 43.

Royal S.S., Brecke B.J., Shokes F.M., and Colvin D.L. . 1997b. Influence of broadleaf weeds on chlorotalonil deposition, foliar disease incidence, and peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) yield . Weed Technol. 11: 51- 58.

Salisbury C.D., Chandler J.M., and Merkle M.G. . 1991. Ammonium sulfate enhancement of glyphosate and SC-0224 control of Johnsongrass ( Sorghuma halepense) . Weed Technol. 5: 18- 21.

Sconyers L.E., Brenneman T.B., Stevenson K.L., and Mullinix B.G. . 2007. Effects of row pattern, seeding rate, and inoculation date on fungicide efficacy and development of peanut stem rot. Plant Dis. 91: 273- 278.

Shaw D. 2005. Translation of remote sensing data into weed management decisions. Weed Sci. 53: 264- 273.

Smith H.C., Ferrell J.A., Webster T.M., Fernandez J.V., Dittmar P.J., Munoz P.R., and MacDonald G.E. . 2016. Impact of irrigation volume on PRE herbicide activity. Weed Technol. 30: 793- 800.

Sorecha E.M. and Bayissa B. . 2017. Allelopathic effect of Parthenium hysterophorus L. on germination and growth of peanut and soybean in Ethiopia . Adv. Crop. Sci. Tech. 5: 285. doi: [: 10.4172/2329-8863.10000285].

Sosnoskie L.M. and Culpepper A.S. . 2014. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri) increases herbicide use, tillage, and hand-weeding in Georgia cotton . Weed Sci. 62: 393- 402.

Sumner H.R., Dowler C.C., and Garvey P.M. . 2000. Application of agrichemicals by chemigation, pivot-attached sprayer systems, and conventional sprayers. Appl. Eng. Agric. 16: 103- 107.

Swann C. W. and Herbert, Jr. D. A. 1999. Influence of in-furrow thrips insecticides on response of peanut to bentazon and acifluorfen. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 67.

[SWSS] Southern Weed Science Society. 1999. Weed Identification Guide. Champaign, IL: Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc.

[TAMU-EAE] Texas A and M University-Extension Agricultural Economics. 2025. Nuts and other food products budgets. Available at https://agecoext.tamu.edu/resources/crop-livestock-budgets/by-commodity/nuts-and-other-food-products/2024-nuts-and-other-food-products-budgets/.

Tappan W.B. and Gorbet D.W. . 1979. Relationship of seasonal thrips populations to economics of control on Florunner peanuts in Florida. J. Econ. Entomol. 72: 772- 776.

Torres-Sánchez J., López-Granados F., De Castro A.I., and Peña-Barragán J.M. . 2013. Configuration and specifications of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for early site specific weed management. PLoS ONE 8: 3: [: e58210].

Tredaway-Ducar J., Clewis J.B., Wilcut J.W., Jordan D.L., Breckey B.J., Grichar W.J., Johnson III W.C., and Wehtje G.R. . 2009. Weed management using reduced rate combinations of diclosulam, flumioxazin, and imazapic in peanut. Weed Technol. 23: 236- 242.

Tubbs R.S., Prostko E.P., Kemmerait R.C., Brenneman T.B., and Wann D.Q. . 2010. Influence of paraquat on yield and tomato spotted wilt virus for Georgia-02C and Georgia-03L peanut. Peanut Sci. 37: 39- 43.

[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. 2014. 2012 Census of agriculture. Available at https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf.

Valentine H. 2016. The role of peanuts in global food security. pp. 447- 462 In Stalker, H.T. and Wilson, R.F., eds. Peanuts: Genetics, Processing, and Utilization. AOCS Monograph Series, AOCS Press, Elsevier.

Walker R.H., Wells L.W., and McGuire J.A. . 1989. Bristly starbur ( Acanthospermum hispidum) interference in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Sci. 37: 196- 200.

Washburn D. and Jordan D. . 2025. 2024 Cost of peanut production. pgs 2- 15 In Jordan, D. (ed.) 2025 Peanut Information. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Pub. AG-331.

Webster T.M. 2001. Weed survey - Southern States 2001; Broadleaf Crop Section. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54: 249- 251.

Webster T.M. 2005. Weed survey - Southern States 2005; Broadleaf Crop Section. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 58: 296- 298.

Webster T.M. 2009. Weed survey - Southern States 2009; Broadleaf Crop Section. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 62: 514- 516.

Webster T.M. 2013. Weed survey - Southern States 2013; Broadleaf Crop Section. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 66: 279- 280.

Webster T.M. and MacDonald G.E. . 2001. A survey of weeds in various crops in Georgia. Weed Technol. 15: 771- 790.

Webster TM, Burton M.G., Culpepper A.S., York A.C., and Prostko E.P. . 2005. Tropical spiderwort ( Commelina benghalensis): A Tropical invader threatens agroecosystems of the southern United States . Weed Technol. 19: 501– 508.

Webster T.M., Faircloth W.H., Flanders J.T., Prostko E.P., and Grey T.L. . 2007. The critical period of Benghal dayflower ( Commelina benghalensis) control in peanut . Weed Sci. 55: 359- 364.

Webster T.M., Grey T.L., and Ferrell J.A. . 2017. Purple nutsedge ( Cyperus rotundus) tuber production and viability are reduced by imazapic . Weed Sci. 97-10 6.

Wehtje G. and Grey T.L. . 2004. Response of new cultivars to early postemergence chlorimuron applications. Peanut Sci. 31: 119- 123.

Wehtje G., Wilcut J.W., Hicks T.V., and McGuire J. . 1988. Relative tolerance of peanuts to alachlor and metolachlor. Peanut Sci. 15: 53- 56.

Wehtje G., Wilcut J.W., and McGuire J.A. . 1991. Foliar penetration and phytotoxicity of paraquat as influenced by peanut cultivar. Peanut Sci. 18: 67- 71.

Wehtje G., Wilcut J.W., and McGuire J.A. . 1992. Influence of bentazon on the phytotoxicity of paraquat to peanuts ( Arachis hypogaea) and associated weeds . Weed Sci. 40: 90- 95.

Wehtje G., Weeks R., West M., Wells L., and Pace P. . 1994. Influence of planter type and seeding rate on yield and disease incidence in peanut. Peanut Sci. 21: 16- 19.

Wehtje G., Brecke B.J., and Martin N.R. . 2000. Performance and economic benefit of herbicides used for broadleaf weed control in peanut. Peanut Sci. 27: 11- 16.

Whitaker J. R., York A. C., Jordan D. L., and Culpepper A. S. . 2011. Weed management with glyphosate- and glufosinate-based systems in PHY 485 WRF cotton. Weed Technol. 25: 183- 191.

Wilcut J.W. 1991. Economic yield response of peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) to postemergence herbicides . Weed Technol. 5: 416- 420.

Wilcut J.W. and Swann C.W. . 1990. Timing of paraquat applications for weed control in Virginia-type peanuts ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Sci. 38: 558- 562.

Wilcut J.W., Wehtje G.R., and Walker R.H. . 1987. Economics of weed control in peanuts ( Arachis hypogaea) with herbicides and cultivators . Weed Sci. 35: 711- 715.

Wilcut J.W., York A.C., and Wehtje G.R. . 1994a. The control and interaction of weeds in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Rev. Weed Sci. 6: 177- 205.

Wilcut J.W., Richburg III J.S., Eastin E.F., Wiley G.R., Walls Jr F.R., and Newell S. . 1994b. Imazethapyr and paraquat systems for weed management in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Sci. 42: 601- 607.

Wilcut J.W., Richburg III J.S., Wiley G.R., Walls Jr F.R. . 1996. Postemergence AC 263,222 systems for weed control in peanut ( Arachis hypogaea) . Weed Sci. 44: 615- 621.

Wise A.M., Grey T.L., Prostko E.P., Vencill W.K., and Webster T.M. . 2009. Establishing the geographical distribution and level of acetolactate synthase resistance of Palmer amaranth ( Amaranthus palmeri) accesions in Georgia . Weed Technol. 23: 214- 220.

Woodroof J.G. 1966. Peanuts: production, processing products. Avi Publishing Co. Westport, Connecticut. 291 pp.

[WSSA] Weed Science Society of America. 2017. 2016 Survey for weeds in broadleaf crops, fruits, & vegetables. Accessible at http://wssa.net/wssa/weed/surveys.

York A.C. and Coble H.D. . 1977. Fall panicum interference in peanut. Weed Sci. 25: 43- 47.