Benghal dayflower and sicklepod are weeds of economic importance in peanut in the southeastern United States due to their extended emergence pattern and limited effective herbicides for control. Field studies were conducted near Jay, Florida, in 2022 and 2023, to evaluate the effect of planting date and herbicide combinations on Benghal dayflower and sicklepod control in peanut crops. Peanut planted in June was exposed to a higher Benghal dayflower density than peanut planted in May. Sicklepod density was similar between May and June planting dates at 28 d after preemergence and early postemergence herbicide applications, but density was greater in peanut that was planted in June, 28 d after the mid-postemergence application. A preemeergence herbicide application followed by (fb) an early postemergence application of S-metolachlor or diclosulam + S-metolachlor controlled Benghal dayflower 84% to 93% 28 d after early postemergence in peanut that was planted in May, but control was reduced to 58% to 78% in the crop that had been planted in June. Regardless of planting date, a preemeergence application fb S-metolachlor or diclosulam + S-metolachlor applied early postemergence provided <80% sicklepod control 28 d after early postemergence. Imazapic + dimethenamid-P + 2,4-DB applied postemergence improved Benghal dayflower control to at least 94% 28 d after mid-postemergence, but sicklepod control was not >85%. Regardless of the planting date, paraquat + bentazon + S-metolachlor applied early postemergence was required to achieve ≥95% sicklepod control. However, herbicide combinations that included paraquat + bentazon + S-metolachlor reduced peanut yield when planting was delayed to June. In fields that are infested with Benghal dayflower and sicklepod, it is recommended that peanut be planted in early May to minimize the potential impact of these weeds and to increase peanut yield. Late-planted peanut required more intensive herbicide applications to obtain the same peanut yield as the May-planted peanut.

Sicklepod is one of the most difficult to control weeds in peanut production in the southeastern United States due to its extended emergence pattern and limited effective herbicides for control. Growers rely on preemergence herbicides as the foundation of their weed control programs; however, postemergence herbicides are often needed for season-long weed control. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effect of planting pattern and herbicide combinations for sicklepod control in peanut crops. Due to rapid canopy closure, twin-row planting improved late-season sicklepod control by 13% and peanut yield by 5% compared with a single-row pattern. A preemergence application of fluridone, flumioxazin, or fluridone + flumioxazin provided 76% to 89% control of sicklepod 28 d after preemergence. Regardless of the herbicide applied preemergence, paraquat + bentazon + S-metolachlor applied early postemergence was required to achieve ≥90% sicklepod control 28 d after early postemergence. All preemergence herbicide treatments followed by (fb) S-metolachlor or diclosulam + S-metolachlor applied early postemergence provided <90% control 28 d after early postemergence. A mid-postemergence application of imazapic + dimethenamid-P + 2,4-DB controlled sicklepod by 67% to 79% prior to peanut harvest, and biomass reduction was unacceptable (<80%), resulting in difficulty in peanut digging. The highest peanut yield was observed when paraquat + bentazon + S-metolachlor was applied early postemergence fb imazapic + dimethenamid-P + 2,4-DB applied mid-postemergence. Based on the results of this study, a herbicide combination of paraquat + bentazon + S-metolachlor is an important early-season tool for controlling sicklepod in peanut crops. The results also showed that a twin-row planting pattern improved late-season sicklepod control but did not reduce herbicide input to protect peanut yield.

Carrier water quality is an important consideration for herbicide efficacy. Field and greenhouse studies were conducted from 2021 to 2023 to evaluate the effect of carrier water pH and hardness on imazapic efficacy for sicklepod control in peanut crops. In separate field experiments imazapic was applied postemergence at 0.071 kg ai ha−1 with carrier water pH levels of 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9; and hardness levels of 0 (deionized water), 100, 200, 400, or 500 mg L−1 of CaCO3 equivalent. In greenhouse experiments, imazapic was applied to sicklepod that was either 10 cm, 15 cm, or 20 cm tall at similar carrier water pH levels and hardness levels of 0, 100, 200, 400, or 800 mg L−1 of CaCO3. In the field study, sicklepod control, density, and biomass reductions were lower with carrier water pH 5 or 9 compared with pH 7. In the greenhouse study, control was not different among carrier water pH levels when imazapic was applied to 10-cm-tall sicklepod; however, when applied to 15- or 20-cm-tall sicklepod, control was at least 25% greater with acidic (pH 5) compared to alkaline (pH 9) carrier water. Results from the field study showed that carrier water hardness ≤500 ppm did not reduce the efficacy of imazapic to control sicklepod. In the greenhouse study, regardless of sicklepod height, carrier water hardness of 800 mg L−1 reduced sicklepod control by 15% and biomass reduction by 17% compared with deionized water (pH 7). The effects of carrier water pH and hardness on imazapic efficacy did not compromise peanut yield in the field study. However, this study indicates that both acidic and alkaline carrier water pH and hardness (800 mg L−1 CaCO3 L−1) have the potential to reduce imazapic efficacy on sicklepod, and appropriate spray solution amendments maybe be needed to maintain optimum efficacy.

Herbicides are the primary tool for controlling weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) and are crucial to sustainable peanut production in the United States. The literature on chemical weed management in peanut in the past 53 yr (1970 to 2022) in the United States was systematically reviewed to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of different herbicides and identify current research gaps in chemical weed management. Residual weed control in peanut is achieved mainly with dimethenamid-P, ethalfluralin, pendimethalin, and S-metolachlor. More recently, the use of the protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitor flumioxazin and acetolactate synthase inhibitors, such as diclosulam, for residual weed control in peanut has increased considerably. Postemergence broadleaf weed control in peanut is achieved mainly with acifluorfen, bentazon, diclosulam, imazapic, lactofen, paraquat, and 2,4-DB, while the graminicides clethodim and sethoxydim are the major postemergence grass weed control herbicides in peanut. Although several herbicides are available for weed control in peanut, no single herbicide can provide season-long weed control due to limited application timing, lack of extended residual activity, variability in weed control spectrum, and rotational restrictions. Therefore, effective weed management in peanut often requires herbicide mixtures and/or sequential application of preplant-incorporated, preemergence, and/or postemergence herbicides. However, the available literature showed a substantive range in herbicide efficacy due to variations in environmental conditions and flushes of weed germination across years and locations. Despite the relatively high efficacy of herbicides, the selection of herbicide-resistant weeds is another area of increasing concern. Future research should focus on developing new strategies for preventing or delaying the development of resistance and improving herbicide efficacy within the context of climate change and emerging constraints such as water shortages, rising temperatures, and increasing CO2 concentration.

Weed interference is a major factor that reduces peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) yield in the United States. Peanut growers rely heavily on herbicides for weed control. Although effective, herbicides are not a complete solution to the complex challenge that weeds present. Therefore, the use of nonchemical weed management options is essential. The literature on weed research in peanut in the past 53 yr in the United States was reviewed to assess the achievements and identify current research gaps and prospects for nonchemical weed management for future research. More than half (79%) of the published studies were from the southeastern United States. Most studies (88%) focused on weed management, while fewer studies (12%) addressed weed distribution, ecology, and competitive mechanisms. Broadleaf weeds were the most frequently studied weed species (60%), whereas only 23% and 19% of the published studies were relevant to grasses and Cyperus spp., respectively. Seventy-two percent of the published studies focused on curative measures using herbicides. Nonchemical methods using mechanical (5%) and preventive (13%) measures that influence crop competition and reduce the buildup of the weed seedbank, seedling recruitment, and weed seed production have received less attention. In most studies, the preventive weed management measures provided weed suppression and reduced weed competition but were not effective enough to reduce the need for herbicides to protect peanut yield. Therefore, future research should focus on developing integrated weed management strategies based on multiple preventive measures rather than one preventive measure combined with one or more curative measures. We recommend that research on mechanical weed management should focus on the role of cultivation when integrated with currently available herbicides. For successful weed management with lasting outcomes, the dominant weed communities of specific target locations should be addressed within the context of climate change and emerging constraints rather than focusing on single problematic species.

The time course of clinical improvement was studied in 41 schizophrenic and schizoaffective acute in-patients treated for 28 days with 10, 20 or 30 mg/day of oral fluphenazine hydrochloride in a double-blind, randomised study. Significant improvement was seen in the four BPRS factors: thinking disturbance, hostile-suspiciousness, withdrawal–retardation and anxious depression. The first two of these factors were improved by day 5. Significant improvement was seen up to day 22 for three of the four factors, but without significant improvement during the last week (although scores continued to drop). The half of the sample showing greater overall improvement did not improve faster than the sample as a whole. These more improved subjects did not differ significantly from the less improved subjects in the thinking disturbance factor until day 15, suggesting that at least a two-week neuroleptic trial would be necessary to begin to differentiate more and less responsive patients. The longer-term course of improvement cannot be determined from these data. The withdrawal–retardation and anxious depression factors showed their greatest improvement later than the ‘positive’ symptom factors, suggesting that the former may improve as a result of change in the latter.