Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

Review Article

Exploring Weed Management Challenges and Mitigation Strategies in Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.): A Review

S
S. Lenka1,*
K
K. Pramanik2
B
B. Duary2
R
R. Dash3
R
R. Mohapatra2
1Department of Agronomy, Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubnaeswar-751 003, Odisha, India.
2Department of Agronomy, Palli Siksha Bhavana, Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan-731 235, West Bengal, India.
3Agronomy, Directorate of Extension Education, Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubnaeswar-751 003, Odisha, India.

ABSTRACT

Groundnut or peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is the most important food, cash crop and oilseed of our country. Weeds pose severe constraints to productivity of groundnut with 13-80 % yield reduction as it is confronted with repeated flushes of several grasses and broad-leaf weeds due to a slow growth habit at early stage. Unlike other crops, weeds interfere with pegging, pod development and harvesting of groundnut during different stages of crop growth, besides competing for growth resources causing significant reduction in growth characters, yield and yield attributes along with seed quality. Since manual weed control is time consuming and costly, pre- and post-emergence herbicides offers an alternative viable option for effective and timely control of weeds in groundnut. But herbicide resistance is a rising concern due to continuous use of same herbicide group. For this, alternative measures such as integrated and   precision weed management are viable options for weed management along with enhancing crop productivity, profitability and sustainability. Hence, a comprehensive and brief review is presented taking important aspects of weed management in groundnut along with recent advancements made in precision weed management in groundnut and other crops. 

INTRODUCTION

Groundnut or peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is the most important food and cash crop of tropics, sub tropics and also one of the most important oil seed of our country. It is considered as “king of oilseeds”, “wonder nut” and “poor man’s cashew nut” and it is an important source of protein (25-28%), oil (43-45%) and essential vitamins and minerals (Kambiranda et al., 2011). In India, groundnut occupied an area of 4.9 million ha area during 2023-24 with a total production of 9.25 mt and productivity of 1893 kg/ha (Odisha Agriculture Statistics, 2023-24), contributing about 40% to the total oilseeds production in the country. Weeds pose severe constraints to productivity of groundnut as it is confronted with repeated flushes of several grassy and broad weeds during its life cycle (Jat et al., 2011), especially in bunch type of varieties with poor competitive ability. The reduction of yield can vary from slight to massive (13-80%) in India (Ghosh et al., 2000) depending on the weed density. A loss estimation of 10% due to weed would amount to a loss of about 25 Mt of food grains (Yaduraju, 2012). During the early stages (7 to 10 days) and up to 45 days after sowing, the crop is severely affected by weeds due to a slow growth rate (Mohapatra, 2005). Unlike other crops, weeds interfere with pegging, pod development and harvesting of groundnut during different stages of crop growth, besides competing for growth resources causing significant reduction in growth characters, yield and yield attributes along with seed quality (Shanwad et al., 2011). Manual weed control is considered as an ancient practice for managing weeds due to its difficulty, time consumption and high cost, especially when there is shortage of manpower. Pre-emergence herbicides have been proved remarkably effective up to 20-25 DAS, but later flushes of weeds interfere with pegging, pod development and harvesting. Use of pre and post-emergence herbicides offers an alternative viable option for effective and timely control of weeds in groundnut. Due to continuous use of same herbicide group, 262 weed species constituting 152 dicots and 110 monocots in 70 countries have been found to develop resistance to different herbicides (Rao, 2021). For this, alternative measures such as precision weed management have been developed (site specific and cost effective) for enhancing crop productivity, profitability and sustainability. A detailed insight into weeds, nature of infestation, extent of yield loss and advances in weed management in groundnut are limited across various agro-ecologies in India. But detailed knowledge and summarized information regarding the above aspects are essential to facilitate advancement of research further. In order to fill these gaps, it was thought appropriate to undertake a comprehensive study by reviewing relevant literature and generate information on the aspects of weed and its management in groundnut in India. This review paper takes into account important aspects of weed management in groundnut along with recent advancements made in precision weed management for crops.
       
We searched peer-reviewed research articles on the topic “weed management in groundnut” following the updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. For this purpose various databases such as Google, Google Scholar, Research rabbits, Web of Science, Research gate, Springer, Wiley etc. were utilized to search and retrieve the pertinent literatures. We have used key words such as “weed management in groundnut”, “chemical method of weed management”, “integrated method of weed management”, “nano encapsulated herbicide” and “precision weed management’. In addition to this, books, annual reports of Directorate of Groundnut Research (DGR, Junagadh) and technical reports based on groundnut were thoroughly searched for required information. The selected publications were thoroughly studied and categorised to several groups as per requirement. Emphasis was given on weed management strategies in groundnut covering from basis management strategies to recent developments in weed management such as integrated weed management, nano-encapsulated herbicides and precision weed management. Around 200 papers were identified records through database searching. Out of that, 150 records were screened after discarding and excluding duplicates and conference papers etc. Research publications (10 nos) before the year 2000 were excluded. Out of 150 selected research articles, 107 articles were screened for full text-access and full text records were not available for 43 articles. All the work published between 2000 to 2022 were included for preparation of this review paper. The paper presents an overview on weed flora and its abundance, losses due to weed, critical period of crop weed competition, basic, current and recent weed management strategies in groundnut crop.
 
Weed flora and its relative abundance
 
The weed flora in crop fields varies depending on the agro-ecological conditions and weed management strategies adopted. Weeds in groundnut fields can be categorized into broad leaf, narrow leaf /grasses and sedges, depending on their shape. Although grassy weeds are more, broad leaf weeds also pose a serious threat to the crop (Table 1).

Table 1: Season wise common annual weeds in groundnut crop in India.


 
Yield loss due to weeds
 
Weeds compete with crop plants primarily for soil moisture, sunlight, nutrients and space thus, reduce both size and number of sink and yield. Unless suitable weed management strategies are adopted, yield losses occur to a large extent. A study conducted under the All India Coordinated Research Project on Groundnut (AICRPG) revealed that the yield losses due to weeds at ten different locations; Jalgaon, Ratnagiri, Khargone, Chinthamani, Virddhachalam, Kadiri, Jagtial, Dharwad, Durgapura and Junagadh was to the tune of 69, 45, 59, 58, 74, 77, 64, 31, 52 and 57 %, respectively (AICRPG, 2009).
       
Groundnut weeds comprising diverse plant species ranging from grasses to broad leaf weeds and sedges cause substantial yield losses (15-75%) which were more in rainfed Spanish bunch type than in irrigated virginia type groundnut (Jat et al., 2011) and sometimes upto 45-71% yield loss (Gharde et al., 2018).
 
Nutrient loss through weeds
 
The competition for the nutrients between weeds and crops depend on the type of weed flora, stage of the crop, type soil and other related environmental condition of that area. A large amount of nutrients more specifically the major nutrients i.e. nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are siphoned by the weeds in the absence of weed control measures.
       
The application of fluchloralin @ 1000 g ha-1 pre plant incorporation (PPI) fb imazethapyr @ 80 g ha-1 as post emergence(POE) and pendimethalin @ 900 g/ha pre emergence (PE) fb imazethapyr @ 80 g ha-1 (POE) resulted in significantly lower nitrogen uptake by the weeds (Savu et al., 2005). Nutrient uptake by weeds was found the lowest in weed free condition (Chaudari et al., 2007) or  with pendimethalin + interculture over unweeded plot (Madhu et al., 2006). Rao et al. (2011) and Reddy et al., (2016) reported reduction in nutrient uptake of nutrients by weeds with pendimethalin @ 1 kg a.i/ ha fb HW at 40 DAS (6.8, 2.6 and 7.4 N, P2O5 and K2O kg/ ha, respectively) and hand weeding twice at 15 and 40 DAS (2.72, 0.94 and 2.42 kg N, P2O5 and K2O /ha), respectively.
 
Critical period of crop weed competition
 
Weed competition is expected to be maximum during the active growth stage period depending upon types of weed species, duration and severity of infestation and competing ability of the crop. Critical period of crop weed competition in groundnut has been reported to be the initial 4 to 8 weeks. Weed competition is expected to be maximum during the active growth stage depending upon cultivar and weed species due to slow initial growth. In general maximum period of weed competition that can be tolerated by the groundnut crop without any adverse effect on yield is around 30 DAS (Jat et al., 2011). The critical period for weeding was 7 to 16 days after planting and the critical weed free period was 26 to 65 days after planting, assuming a yield loss of 5% (Agostinho et al., 2006) and key period for weeds in a mixed population was 3-8 weeks following sowing (Wesley et al., (2008), Annadurai et al., 2010). Rabi groundnut was also noted to be more vulnerable to weed competition during the early phases of the crop than kharif groundnut and up to 15-16 DAE (Korav et al., 2020). Nambi and Sundari (2008) established that critical period of grass control was from 4 to 9 weeks after sowing and 2-8 weeks after sowing for broad leaf weed control.

Weed management practices
 
Cultural and mechanical methods
 
The mechanical methods viz. manual weeding and hand hoeing with mechanical weeder are practices for managing weeds in some parts of the country. The number of hand weedings and hoeing mainly depends on weed intensity and type of weeds.
       
Hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DAS (Datta et al., 2001) and HW 20 DAS + hoeing at 20 and 40 DAS (Dharkar et al. (2002) recorded lower weed density and higher pod yield. Both narrow and broad-leaf weeds could be managed with 3 hoeings + 3 HW at 15, 30 and 45 DAS with enhanced yield attributes and dry pod yield of groundnut (Bhagat et al., 2002). Plant population of 5.0 lakh ha-1 with hand weeding (Sharma et al., 2015) and 4.0 lakh ha-1 (Senthil, 2009) recorded the lowest weed density and weed dry matter at 30, 60 DAS and at harvest. Similarly, two hand weedings at 15 and 30 DAS and one hoeing at 35 DAS recorded significantly lower weed biomass at harvest (Kamble et al., 2006; Walia et al., 2007; Kanagam and Chinnamuthu, 2009) in groundnut crop. Hand weeding twice at 2nd and 4th week after sowing (Naim et al., 2010 and Bhale et al., 2012), intercultivation and hand weeding at 25 and 40 DAS in kharif groundnut (Damor et al., 2019), 3 hand weedings at 15, 30, 40 DAS (Kirde et al., 2019) and two hoeings (Sardana et al., 2006) resulted in higher pod yield and growth parameters (Jitendra et al., 2022) in summer groundnut.
 
Chemical method of weed control
 
Using herbicides in crop fields for weed control is easier, economical and quicker compared to other methods. Application of herbicide is crop stage sensitive. Pre-emergence herbicides avert germination of weed seeds, whereas post-emergence herbicides hinder growth of weed seedlings. Chemical weed control is therefore a more effective addition to traditional techniques and a crucial component of contemporary crop production.
       
Pendimethalin (900 g/ha) as pre-emergence fb premix imazethapyr + imazamox (70 g/ha) as post-emergence spraying at 25 DAS depleted 113 (57.24%) weed seeds per core (soil sample taken from 15 cm depth by core sampler of 4 cm diameter), whereas, subsequent tillage fb IC and HW at 45 DAS depleted 101 (51.01%) weed seeds per core as compared to the initial weed seed bank. Unweeded check resulted in to addition of 652 (329.41%) weed seeds per core sample (15 cm depth and 4 cm diameter) in the soil weed seed bank in comparison to initial weed seed bank (Gohil et al., 2020).
       
Effective control of grasses and broad-leaf weeds and maximum growth, yield attributes and yield in groundnut were observed with  pre-emergence application of pendimethalin fb imazethapyr at 20 DAS (Sasikala et al., 2004; Walia et al., 2007; Kumar et al., 2013; Mehriya et al., 2021) and one hand weeding at 40 DAS (Shwetha et al., 2016). The highest pod yield (2127 kg/ha) and less weed dry weight (739 kg/ha) were obtained with combined application of oxyfluorfen @ 0.25 kg a.i/ha + pendimethalin @ 0.5 kg a.i/ha (Chaudari et al., 2007). Punia et al. (2017) reported the lowest weed density (8.3/m2), lowest weed dry weight (7.4 g/m2) , the highest weed control efficiency (85%) and the highest dry matter accumulation with spraying of  imazethapyr + pendimethalin (ready mix) @ 1000 g/ha.
 
Integrated weed management
 
Integration of weed control and hand weeding or hoeing were found successful in managing diverse weed flora in groundnut crop. Pendimethalin was found to be an effective herbicide for controlling weed flora upto 2-3 weeks in groundnut. Pre-emergence application of pendimethalin + hand weeding at 30 DAS (Sagvekar et al., 2015) and inter cultivation at 30 and 45 DAS was found very effective in controlling weeds in groundnut (Attarde et al., 2001). Maximum weed control efficiency was reported in pendimethalin (0.9 kg/ha) as pre emergence followed by imazethapyr (75 g/ha) as PoE, HW twice (20 and 40 DAS) in groundnut (Patel et al., 2006). Pendimethalin + HW at 15 DAS (Bhale et al., 2012) and two HW at 20 and 40 DAS (Kumar and Rana, 2004) recorded higher yield and yield attributes along with lower weed biomass in groundnut. Kalaichelvi et al., (2015) reported greater number of pods plant-1 and pod yield with pre-emergence treatment of pendimethalin at 0.75 kg a.i./ha, alachlor at 1.0 kg a.i/ha and oxyfluorfen at 0.25 kg a.i/ha fb hand weeding at 20 DAS. Ready mix application of  pendimethlin + imazethapyar  @ 1.0 kg/ha + one manual weeding at 25-30 DAS (Sudesh et al., 2019) resulted in remarkable reduction in weed population and dry mass of weeds at different growth stages in groundnut (Fig 1).

Fig 1: Components of Integrated weed management.


 
Weed management by nano encapsulated herbicides
 
Nanoencapsulation is defined as the technology of packaging nanoparticles of solid, liquid, or gas, also known as the core or active, within a secondary material, named as the matrix or shell, to form nanocapsules. Nanoparticles encapsulated herbicides have been proven to release the active ingredients of herbicides slowly without imparting any toxic impact to the soil or soil biota. This technology can help to achieve weed control with long term sustainability of soil (Oliveira et al., 2015; Gayatri et al., 2021). Maruyama et al., (2016) studied encapsulation efficiency of imazapic and imazapyr, from the nanostructured polymer called chitostan (carrier of the herbicides to the target site). The result showed that encapsulation increased the herbicide efficiency of both the herbicides by 60% which were released at about 20-30% slower rate than the uncoated herbicides. Srimathi et al. (2021) concluded that nano encapsulated sulfentrazone herbicide formulation @0.30 kg/ha application one day before sowing registered higher pod and haulm yields compared to control. However, the same herbicide @ 0.40 kg/ha recorded phytotoxic symptoms during the initial period of crop growth. Among sulfentrazone (200 and 250 g/ha), oxyfluorfen (200 and 250 g/ha), diclosulam (20 and 25 g/ha) and metolachlor (1.0 and 1.25 kg/ha), in both commercial and encapsulated forms and hand weeding at 20 and 40 DAS showed that hand weeding at 20 and 40 DAS resulted in maximum productivity of 1802 kg/ha and 1753 kg/ha pod yield during kharif and late rabi, respectively followed by diclosulam @ 25 g/ha with encapsulation, which also recorded higher profitability(1.80 and 2.01 B:C ratio (Swetha et al., 2022).
 
Economics of weed management
 
Integrated weed management practice involving pre-emergence application of pendimethalin with one interculture/ weeding incurred signifcantly higher net return and benefit cost ratio. Sasikala et al. (2004) observed that application of fluchloralin (PPI) and imazethapyr was the most economical with highest net profit followed by pendimethalin fb imazethapyr.
       
Spraying of pendimethalin @ 1.0 kg a.i/ha fb imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha at 20 DAS as pre and post- emergence (Malunjkar et al., 2012; Shwetha et al., 2016 and Mehriya et al., 2020) along with one hand weeding at 40/45DAS was found most economically feasible weed management practice for groundnut, incurring highest net monetary returns and B: C ratio (Christensen et al., 2009; Sheoran et al., 2015). 
 
Recent advancements in weed management
 
Precision weed management is a new approach, which aims at reducing herbicidal dose, control of target species using site specific weed management and robotic technology. Site-specific weed management (SSWM) technique uses machinery or equipment embedded with technologies that help to identify weeds growing in association with crops in the field for their successful control (Christensen et al., 2009). Robotic technology is an alternative for site specific weed management. It uses machineries like hand hoeing or spot spraying knap sack sprayer without need for human operations. An agricultural weeding robot consists of hardware and software and it has an unmanned, self-steered platform that hosts an array of weed detection units. These, in turn, activate an array of weeding tools i.e. spray nozzle, microwave unit or tillage tool (Osten and Crook 2016). Robots used for weed management such as Robocorp in U.K., IC Cultivator in Netherlands, Robovator by Denmark, EcoRobot by Swizerland,  Lady bird and RIPPA  by Australia, Bonirob by Germany and Agribot by India (Rao, 2021; Manisankar et al., 2022). Artificial intelligence (ability of machine to imitate human intelligence) is used for weed identification, precision weed control, predictive modeling and weed mapping in several crops. Machine learning techniques (algorithms used to incorporate intelligence into machine by automatically learning from data sets provided such as CNN (Convolutional Neural Network), DCNN (Deep Convolutional Neural Network), SVM (Support Vector Machine), ANNs(Artificial Neural Networks), RF (Random Forest) and KNNs (K-Nearest Neighbours) are used for weed identification in different field crops (Muchhadiya et al., 2024) and combination of algorithms KNN and SVM also gave the best results than the CNN with respect to the accuracy (Kazmi et al., 2015). When various machine learning algorithms such as SVM, KNN and CNN used with MATLAB, R programming and Python. CNN is the most used machine learning algorithm by the researchers to classify weed and crop due to its accuracy than that of other machine learning algorithms (Bakhshipour and Jafari, 2018). In groundnut crop, Zhang et al., (2022) used a weed identification model EM-YOLOv4-Tiny incorporating multiscale detection and attention mechanisms based on YOLOv4-Tiny for identifying weed species. Its network was 28.7 M in size and took 10.4 ms to detect a single image, which meets the requirement of real-time weed detection.

CONCLUSION

Effective weed management practices are necessary for getting higher growth, yield and economics in groundnut crop. The reviewed investigations revealed that integrated weed management practices were more successful in managing weeds in groundnut crop compared to only herbicides or manual weedings. Among various herbicides, use of pre-emergence herbicides such as pendimethalin, diclosulam or ready mix application of pendimethalin and imazethapyr was successful in effective management of weed flora in groundnut and obtained higher weed control efficiency. But there are problems like environmental contamination, herbicide persistence and weed resistance because of excessive and inappropriate use of chemical herbicides. To combat this, new generation technologies such as nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and robotics can help in managing weed efficiently by precisely applying herbicide in a target site, which in turn will help in reducing herbicidal dose in non-targeted areas, environmental pollution, increase productivity and profitability of crops in future scenario.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

There is no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES


  1. 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 Science. 33(1): 29-35. https://doi.org/10.3146/0095-3679(2006)33

  2. Annadurai, K., Puppala, N., Angadi, S. and Chinnusamy, C. (2010). Integrated weed management based on intercropping system: A review. Agricultural Reviews. 31(1): 11-20.

  3. Annual Report (2009). All India Coordinated Research Project on Groundnut, Directorate of Groundnut Research, Junagadh. https://icar.org.in

  4. Attarde, D.R., Suryawansi, R.T. and Wadile, S.C. (2001). Integrated weed management in kharif groundnut under assured rainfall conditions. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities. 26(2): 161-163.

  5. Bakhshipour, A. and Jafari, A. (2018). Evaluation of support vector machine and artificial neural networks in weed detection using shape features. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 145: 153-160.

  6. Bhagat, P.S., Setti, H.N., Karunakar, A.P. and Jiotode, D.J. (2002). Efficacy of herbicides for weed control in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Research on Crops. 3(3): 542-545.

  7. Bhale, V.M., Karmore, J.V. and Patil, Y.R. (2012). Integrated weed management in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea). Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research. 18(8): 733-739.

  8. Chaudari, A.P., Gaikwad, C.B., Tiwari, T.K., Nikam, A.S., Bhende, S.N. and Bagwan, I.R. (2007). Effect of weed control on nutrient uptake, weed weight and yield of groundnut. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 3(1): 193-195.

  9. Christensen, S., Sogaard, H.T., Kudsk, P., Norremark, M., Lund, I., Nadimi, E.S. and Jorgensen, R. (2009). Site-specific weed technologies. Weed Research. 49: 233-241. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2009.00696.x

  10. Damor, G.S., Chaudhary, P.P., Desa, N.H. and Patel, K.M. (2019). Effect of crop geometry and integrated weed management in kharif groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). International Journal of Agriculture Sciences. 11(13): 8733-8737.

  11. Das, N., Giri, B.P. and Das, A.B. (2016). Weed management in kharif groundnut. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences. 24(1): 78-195.

  12. Datta, J.K., Garai, A.K. and Roy, A. (2001). Bioefficacy of trifluralin on weeds in groundnut. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 33(1): 38-40.

  13. Devi, G., Venkateswarulu, S. and Chandrasekar, K. (2017). Effect of integrated weed management practices on weed dynamics, yield and economics of rabi groundnut in sandy loam soils of Andhra Pradesh. International Journal of Current Research. 9(1): 1746-1751. https://doi.org 10.2 1474/IJAR01/2944

  14. Dharkar, P.M., Pawar, W.S. and Daga, R.R. (2002). Effect of different weed control methods on yield contributing characters and yields of groundnut. Journal of Soils and Crops. 12(2): 323-324.

  15. Gharde, Y., Singh, P.K and Gupta, P.K. (2018). Crop-weed competition and yield loss due to weeds in India. Crop Protection. 107: 12-18

  16. Gayatri, K., Kalita, S., Hussain, Z. and Deka, N.C. (2021). Nanoencapsulation to control herbicide residues and resistance: A review. Asian Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Environmental Sciences. 23(2): 140-148.

  17. Ghosh, P.K., Mandal, K.G. and Kuntal, M.H. (2000). Allelopathic effects of weeds on groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in India: A review. Agricultural Reviews. 21(1): 66-69.

  18. Gohil, B.S., Mathukia, R.K. and Rupareliya, V.V. (2020). Weed seedbank dynamics: Estimation and management in groundnut. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 52(4): 346-352. https:// doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2020.00066.0

  19. Jat, R.S., Meena, H.N., Singh, A.L., Jaya, N. and Mishra, J.B. (2011). Weed management in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in India: A review. Agricultural Reviews. 32(3): 155-171.

  20. Jitendra, M., Srinivasulu, K. and Prasad, P.V.N. (2022). Effect of weed management practices on weed and plant growth and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Biological Forum - An International Journal. 14(1): 535-537.

  21. Kalaichelvi, K., Sakthivel, S. and Balakrishnan, A. (2015). Integrated weed management in groundnut. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 47(2): 174-177.

  22. Kambiranda, D.M., Vasanthaiah, H.K.N., Ananga, R.K.A., Basha, S.M. and Naik, K. (2011). Impact of Drought Stress on Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). In: Productivity and Food Safety: Plants and Environment. InTech, pp. 249-272. https://doi.org/10.5772/30613

  23. Kamble, A.B., Chavan, N.R., Jadhav, Y.R. and Pisal, A.A. (2006). Integrated weed management in kharif groundnut. Journal of Soil and Crops. 16(1): 61-64.

  24. Kanagam, P. and Chinnamuthu, C.R. (2009). Management of late emerging weeds in irrigated groundnut. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 41(3-4): 124-132.

  25. Karthik, H.V. and Mudalagiriyappa, G. (2020). Effect of post-emergence application of herbicides on growth and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 54(2): 111-115.

  26. Kazmi, W., Garcia-Ruiz, F., Nielsen, J., Rasmussen, J. and Andersen, H.J. (2015). Exploiting affine invariant regions and leaf edge shapes for weed detection. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 118: 290-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compag.2015.09.003.

  27. Kirde, G.D., Ghotmukale, A.K. and Bhutda, P.O. (2019). Effect of integrated weed management on growth and yield of kharif groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). International Journal of Chemical Studies. 7(5): 4512-4514.

  28. Korav, S., Vishram, R., Ray, L.I., Krishnappa, R., Singh, N.J. and Premaradhya, N. (2018). Weed pressure on growth and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 7(3): 2852-2858. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018. 703.329

  29. Korav, S., Ram, V., Krishnappa, R. and Premaradhya, N. (2020). Agro-physiological assessment of weed interference in groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.) at Sub-Himalayan hill region of Meghalaya. Bangladesh Journal of Botany. 49(2): 313-327. DOI: 10.3329/bjb.v49i2.49312.

  30. Kumar, A. and Rana, D.S. (2004). Effect of land configuration and weed management on weed suppression, nutrient depletion by weeds, yield and quality of rainy-season groundnut (Arachis hypogaea). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 74(12): 680-682.

  31. Kumar, Y., Saxena, R., Gupta, K.C., Fagaria, V.D. and Singh, R. (2013). Yield attributes and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) as influenced by weed management practices in semi-arid region. Journal of Crop and Weed. 9(2): 185-189.

  32. Kumar, S., Gupta, K.C., Saxena, R., Yadav, M.R. and Bhadhoria, S.S  (2019). Efficacy of herbicides on weed management in green gram (Vigna radiata L.) in semi-arid eastern plain zone of Rajasthan.  Annals of Plant and Soil Research. 21(1): 14-18.

  33. Madhu, S.C., Mudalagiriyappa, Pujari, B.T. and Somasekhar. (2006). Effect of integrated weed management on nutrient uptake and yield in groundnut and sunflower intercropping system. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 19(1): 5-8.

  34. Malunjkar, B.D., Mullik, B.B. and Patil, S.C. (2012). Evaluation of post-emergence herbicides in rainy season groundnut. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 44(2): 95-97.

  35. Manisankar, G., Banerjee, M., Mallick, G. and Sathiyabama, N. (2022). Robotics in weed management: A review. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America. 53: 7013-7030.

  36. Maruyama, C.R., Guilger, M., Pascoli, M., Bileshy-José, N., Abhilash, P.C. and Fraceto, L.F. (2016). Nanoparticles based on chitosan as carriers for the combined herbicides imazapic and imazapyr. Scientific Reports. 6: 1-13. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/srep19768

  37. Mehriya, M.L., Sarita, B.H. and Geat, N. (2021). Effective and profitable weed management in rainy season groundnut grown under arid zone of Rajasthan. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 53(3): 269-274.

  38. Mehriya, M.L., Yadav, V.L. and Geat, N. (2020). Herbicidal weed management in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) and its residual effect on succeeding wheat (Triticum aestivum) crop. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 65(3): 278-283.

  39. Mohapatra, S. (2005). Effect of weed management in summer groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) and residual effect on succeeding rice. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 37: 277-278.

  40. Muchhadiya, R.M., Kumayat, P.D., Gohil, B. and Hasmukh, S. (2024). Precision weed management using artificial intelligence tools and techniques for sustainable agriculture. Agriculture and Food E-Newsletter. 6(1): 606-611.

  41. Naim, M.A., Eldouna, A.M. and Abdulla, A.E. (2010). Effect of weeding frequencies and plant density on vegetative growth characteristics in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in North Kordofan of Sudan. European Journal of Biological Sciences. 1(3): 1188–1192.

  42. Nambi, J. and Sundari, A. (2008). Studies on groundnut based intercropping system. Green farming. 1(12): 24-26.

  43. Nambi, J., Immanuel, R.R., Rao, G.B.S. and Parthasarthi, R. (2019). Chemical and cultural weed management practices on weeds and yield of groundnut. Plant Archives. 19(2): 3551-3555.

  44. Odisha Agriculture Statistics (2023-24). Directorate of Agriculture and Food Production, Government of Odisha.

  45. Oliveira, H.C., Stolf-Moreira, R., Martinez, C.B.R., Grillo, R., de Jesus, M.B. and Fraceto, L.F. (2015). Nanoencapsulation enhances the post-emergence herbicidal activity of atrazine against mustard plants. PLOS ONE. 10(7): e0132971. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132971

  46. Osten, W. and Crook, N. (2016). A Review of Technologies that Can Be Enabled by Robotics to Improve Weed Control in Australian Cotton Farming Systems. Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Queensland.

  47. Patel, P.G., Chaudari, P.P. and Patel, M. (2006). Integrated weed management in summer groundnut. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities. 31(2): 162-164.

  48. Punia, R., Punia, S.S., Sangwan, M. and Thakral, S.K. (2017). Efficacy of imazethapyr applied alone and its mixture with other herbicides in green gram and their residual effect on mustard. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 49(2): 151- 155. DOI: 10.5958/0974-8164.2017.00039.9.

  49. Rao, S.S., Madhavi, M. and Reddy, R.C. (2011). Integrated approach for weed control in rabi groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Journal of Research ANGRAU. 39(1-2): 60-63.

  50. Rao, V.S. (2021). Precision weed management: A means of boosting agricultural productivity. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 53(3): 209-215.

  51. Reddy, N., Vidyasagar, C. and Laxminarayana, P. (2016). Integrated weed management in rabi groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). International Journal of Current Research. 8(11): 40883-40885.

  52. Sagvekar, V.V., Waghmode, B.D., Chavan, A.P. and Mahadkar, U.V. (2015). Weed management in rabi groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) for Konkan region of Maharashtra. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 60(1): 116-120.

  53. Sardana, V., Walia, U.S. and Kandhola, S.S. (2006). Productivity and economics of summer groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cultivation as influenced by weed management practices. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 18(1-2): 156- 158.

  54. Sarin, S., Bindhu, J.S., Girijadevi, L., Jacob, D. and Mini, V. (2021). Weed management in summer groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Journal of Crop and Weed. 17(1): 272-277.

  55. Sasikala, B., Ramu, Y.R. and Reddy, C.R. (2004). Pre- and post- emergence herbicides on weed control and yield of groundnut. Indian Journal of Dryland Agriculture Research and Development. 19(1): 78-80.

  56. Savu, R.M., Choubey, N.K., Shrivastava, G.K. and Tiwari, N. (2005). Effect of chemical weed control on nitrogen uptake, weed dry weight and yield of groundnut under Chhattisgarh plains. Environment and Ecology. 23(3): 400-402.

  57. Senthil, K.N. (2009). Effect of plant density and weed management practices on production potential of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 43(1): 57-60.

  58. Shanwad, U.K., Agasimani, C.A., Aravindkumar, B.N., Shuvamurthy, S.D., Surwenshi, A. and Jalageri, B.R. (2011). Integrated weed management: A long-term case study in groundnut- wheat cropping system in Northern Karnataka. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 1: 196-200.

  59. Sharma, S., Jat, R.A. and Sagarka, B.K. (2015). Effect of weed- management practices on weed dynamics, yield and economics of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in black calcareous soil. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 60(2): 312- 317.

  60. Sheoran, P., Sardana, V., Kumar, A., Mann, A. and Singh, S. (2015). Integrating herbicidal and conventional approaches for profitable weed management in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Indian Journal of Agronomy. 60(4): 581- 584.

  61. Shwetha, B.N., Umesh, M.R. and Agnal, M.B. (2016). Post-emergence herbicides for weed management in groundnut. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 48(3): 294-296.

  62. Srimathi, T.K., Chinnamuthu, C.R., Marimuthu, S. and Senthil, A. (2021). Optimizing time and dose of newly synthesized nano-encapsulated sulfentrazone herbicide formulation for weed management in irrigated groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). The Pharma Innovation Journal. 10(11): 546-549.

  63. Sudesh, Punia, S.S., Mal, T. and Kumar, R. (2019). Weed management in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) with ready-mix of pendimethalin and imazethapyr. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 51(3): 306-307.

  64. Suseendran, K., Kalaiselvi, D., Kalaiyarasan, C., Jawahar, S. and Ramesh, S. (2019). Impact of weed flora in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in clay loam soils in Dharmapuri district, Tamil Nadu, India. Plant Archives. 19(1): 679- 682.

  65. Swetha, S., Chinnamuthu, C.R., Arthanari, M., Subramanian, M. and Senthil, A. (2022). Novel method to manage weeds in rainfed groundnut using nano-encapsulated herbicide formulations. Journal of Applied and Natural Science. 14(4): 1341-1350. https://doi.org/10.31018/jans.v14i4.3766.

  66. Walia, U.S., Singh, S. and Singh, B. (2007). Integrated approach for control of hardy weeds in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Indian Journal of Weed Science. 39(1–2): 112-115.

  67. Wesley, J., Verman, S.B., Walter, E.C., Thomas, I.C., Burke, A. and John, W. (2008). Critical period of weed interference in peanut. Weed Technology. 22(1): 63-67. https://doi.org/ 10.1614/WT-07-088.1.

  68. Yaduraju, N.T. (2012). Weed management perspectives for India in the changing agriculture scenario. Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research. 18: 703-710.

  69. Zhang, H., Wang, Z., Guo, Y., Ma, Y., Cao, W., Chen, D., Yang, S. and Gao, R. (2022). Weed detection in peanut fields based on machine vision. Agriculture. 12: 1-15. https:// doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12010015.
Published In
Agricultural Reviews
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
24
Views
0
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Review Article

    Exploring Weed Management Challenges and Mitigation Strategies in Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.): A Review

    S
    S. Lenka1,*
    K
    K. Pramanik2
    B
    B. Duary2
    R
    R. Dash3
    R
    R. Mohapatra2
    1Department of Agronomy, Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubnaeswar-751 003, Odisha, India.
    2Department of Agronomy, Palli Siksha Bhavana, Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan-731 235, West Bengal, India.
    3Agronomy, Directorate of Extension Education, Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubnaeswar-751 003, Odisha, India.

    ABSTRACT

    Groundnut or peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is the most important food, cash crop and oilseed of our country. Weeds pose severe constraints to productivity of groundnut with 13-80 % yield reduction as it is confronted with repeated flushes of several grasses and broad-leaf weeds due to a slow growth habit at early stage. Unlike other crops, weeds interfere with pegging, pod development and harvesting of groundnut during different stages of crop growth, besides competing for growth resources causing significant reduction in growth characters, yield and yield attributes along with seed quality. Since manual weed control is time consuming and costly, pre- and post-emergence herbicides offers an alternative viable option for effective and timely control of weeds in groundnut. But herbicide resistance is a rising concern due to continuous use of same herbicide group. For this, alternative measures such as integrated and   precision weed management are viable options for weed management along with enhancing crop productivity, profitability and sustainability. Hence, a comprehensive and brief review is presented taking important aspects of weed management in groundnut along with recent advancements made in precision weed management in groundnut and other crops. 

    INTRODUCTION

    Groundnut or peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is the most important food and cash crop of tropics, sub tropics and also one of the most important oil seed of our country. It is considered as “king of oilseeds”, “wonder nut” and “poor man’s cashew nut” and it is an important source of protein (25-28%), oil (43-45%) and essential vitamins and minerals (Kambiranda et al., 2011). In India, groundnut occupied an area of 4.9 million ha area during 2023-24 with a total production of 9.25 mt and productivity of 1893 kg/ha (Odisha Agriculture Statistics, 2023-24), contributing about 40% to the total oilseeds production in the country. Weeds pose severe constraints to productivity of groundnut as it is confronted with repeated flushes of several grassy and broad weeds during its life cycle (Jat et al., 2011), especially in bunch type of varieties with poor competitive ability. The reduction of yield can vary from slight to massive (13-80%) in India (Ghosh et al., 2000) depending on the weed density. A loss estimation of 10% due to weed would amount to a loss of about 25 Mt of food grains (Yaduraju, 2012). During the early stages (7 to 10 days) and up to 45 days after sowing, the crop is severely affected by weeds due to a slow growth rate (Mohapatra, 2005). Unlike other crops, weeds interfere with pegging, pod development and harvesting of groundnut during different stages of crop growth, besides competing for growth resources causing significant reduction in growth characters, yield and yield attributes along with seed quality (Shanwad et al., 2011). Manual weed control is considered as an ancient practice for managing weeds due to its difficulty, time consumption and high cost, especially when there is shortage of manpower. Pre-emergence herbicides have been proved remarkably effective up to 20-25 DAS, but later flushes of weeds interfere with pegging, pod development and harvesting. Use of pre and post-emergence herbicides offers an alternative viable option for effective and timely control of weeds in groundnut. Due to continuous use of same herbicide group, 262 weed species constituting 152 dicots and 110 monocots in 70 countries have been found to develop resistance to different herbicides (Rao, 2021). For this, alternative measures such as precision weed management have been developed (site specific and cost effective) for enhancing crop productivity, profitability and sustainability. A detailed insight into weeds, nature of infestation, extent of yield loss and advances in weed management in groundnut are limited across various agro-ecologies in India. But detailed knowledge and summarized information regarding the above aspects are essential to facilitate advancement of research further. In order to fill these gaps, it was thought appropriate to undertake a comprehensive study by reviewing relevant literature and generate information on the aspects of weed and its management in groundnut in India. This review paper takes into account important aspects of weed management in groundnut along with recent advancements made in precision weed management for crops.
           
    We searched peer-reviewed research articles on the topic “weed management in groundnut” following the updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. For this purpose various databases such as Google, Google Scholar, Research rabbits, Web of Science, Research gate, Springer, Wiley etc. were utilized to search and retrieve the pertinent literatures. We have used key words such as “weed management in groundnut”, “chemical method of weed management”, “integrated method of weed management”, “nano encapsulated herbicide” and “precision weed management’. In addition to this, books, annual reports of Directorate of Groundnut Research (DGR, Junagadh) and technical reports based on groundnut were thoroughly searched for required information. The selected publications were thoroughly studied and categorised to several groups as per requirement. Emphasis was given on weed management strategies in groundnut covering from basis management strategies to recent developments in weed management such as integrated weed management, nano-encapsulated herbicides and precision weed management. Around 200 papers were identified records through database searching. Out of that, 150 records were screened after discarding and excluding duplicates and conference papers etc. Research publications (10 nos) before the year 2000 were excluded. Out of 150 selected research articles, 107 articles were screened for full text-access and full text records were not available for 43 articles. All the work published between 2000 to 2022 were included for preparation of this review paper. The paper presents an overview on weed flora and its abundance, losses due to weed, critical period of crop weed competition, basic, current and recent weed management strategies in groundnut crop.
     
    Weed flora and its relative abundance
     
    The weed flora in crop fields varies depending on the agro-ecological conditions and weed management strategies adopted. Weeds in groundnut fields can be categorized into broad leaf, narrow leaf /grasses and sedges, depending on their shape. Although grassy weeds are more, broad leaf weeds also pose a serious threat to the crop (Table 1).

    Table 1: Season wise common annual weeds in groundnut crop in India.


     
    Yield loss due to weeds
     
    Weeds compete with crop plants primarily for soil moisture, sunlight, nutrients and space thus, reduce both size and number of sink and yield. Unless suitable weed management strategies are adopted, yield losses occur to a large extent. A study conducted under the All India Coordinated Research Project on Groundnut (AICRPG) revealed that the yield losses due to weeds at ten different locations; Jalgaon, Ratnagiri, Khargone, Chinthamani, Virddhachalam, Kadiri, Jagtial, Dharwad, Durgapura and Junagadh was to the tune of 69, 45, 59, 58, 74, 77, 64, 31, 52 and 57 %, respectively (AICRPG, 2009).
           
    Groundnut weeds comprising diverse plant species ranging from grasses to broad leaf weeds and sedges cause substantial yield losses (15-75%) which were more in rainfed Spanish bunch type than in irrigated virginia type groundnut (Jat et al., 2011) and sometimes upto 45-71% yield loss (Gharde et al., 2018).
     
    Nutrient loss through weeds
     
    The competition for the nutrients between weeds and crops depend on the type of weed flora, stage of the crop, type soil and other related environmental condition of that area. A large amount of nutrients more specifically the major nutrients i.e. nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are siphoned by the weeds in the absence of weed control measures.
           
    The application of fluchloralin @ 1000 g ha-1 pre plant incorporation (PPI) fb imazethapyr @ 80 g ha-1 as post emergence(POE) and pendimethalin @ 900 g/ha pre emergence (PE) fb imazethapyr @ 80 g ha-1 (POE) resulted in significantly lower nitrogen uptake by the weeds (Savu et al., 2005). Nutrient uptake by weeds was found the lowest in weed free condition (Chaudari et al., 2007) or  with pendimethalin + interculture over unweeded plot (Madhu et al., 2006). Rao et al. (2011) and Reddy et al., (2016) reported reduction in nutrient uptake of nutrients by weeds with pendimethalin @ 1 kg a.i/ ha fb HW at 40 DAS (6.8, 2.6 and 7.4 N, P2O5 and K2O kg/ ha, respectively) and hand weeding twice at 15 and 40 DAS (2.72, 0.94 and 2.42 kg N, P2O5 and K2O /ha), respectively.
     
    Critical period of crop weed competition
     
    Weed competition is expected to be maximum during the active growth stage period depending upon types of weed species, duration and severity of infestation and competing ability of the crop. Critical period of crop weed competition in groundnut has been reported to be the initial 4 to 8 weeks. Weed competition is expected to be maximum during the active growth stage depending upon cultivar and weed species due to slow initial growth. In general maximum period of weed competition that can be tolerated by the groundnut crop without any adverse effect on yield is around 30 DAS (Jat et al., 2011). The critical period for weeding was 7 to 16 days after planting and the critical weed free period was 26 to 65 days after planting, assuming a yield loss of 5% (Agostinho et al., 2006) and key period for weeds in a mixed population was 3-8 weeks following sowing (Wesley et al., (2008), Annadurai et al., 2010). Rabi groundnut was also noted to be more vulnerable to weed competition during the early phases of the crop than kharif groundnut and up to 15-16 DAE (Korav et al., 2020). Nambi and Sundari (2008) established that critical period of grass control was from 4 to 9 weeks after sowing and 2-8 weeks after sowing for broad leaf weed control.

    Weed management practices
     
    Cultural and mechanical methods
     
    The mechanical methods viz. manual weeding and hand hoeing with mechanical weeder are practices for managing weeds in some parts of the country. The number of hand weedings and hoeing mainly depends on weed intensity and type of weeds.
           
    Hand weeding twice at 20 and 40 DAS (Datta et al., 2001) and HW 20 DAS + hoeing at 20 and 40 DAS (Dharkar et al. (2002) recorded lower weed density and higher pod yield. Both narrow and broad-leaf weeds could be managed with 3 hoeings + 3 HW at 15, 30 and 45 DAS with enhanced yield attributes and dry pod yield of groundnut (Bhagat et al., 2002). Plant population of 5.0 lakh ha-1 with hand weeding (Sharma et al., 2015) and 4.0 lakh ha-1 (Senthil, 2009) recorded the lowest weed density and weed dry matter at 30, 60 DAS and at harvest. Similarly, two hand weedings at 15 and 30 DAS and one hoeing at 35 DAS recorded significantly lower weed biomass at harvest (Kamble et al., 2006; Walia et al., 2007; Kanagam and Chinnamuthu, 2009) in groundnut crop. Hand weeding twice at 2nd and 4th week after sowing (Naim et al., 2010 and Bhale et al., 2012), intercultivation and hand weeding at 25 and 40 DAS in kharif groundnut (Damor et al., 2019), 3 hand weedings at 15, 30, 40 DAS (Kirde et al., 2019) and two hoeings (Sardana et al., 2006) resulted in higher pod yield and growth parameters (Jitendra et al., 2022) in summer groundnut.
     
    Chemical method of weed control
     
    Using herbicides in crop fields for weed control is easier, economical and quicker compared to other methods. Application of herbicide is crop stage sensitive. Pre-emergence herbicides avert germination of weed seeds, whereas post-emergence herbicides hinder growth of weed seedlings. Chemical weed control is therefore a more effective addition to traditional techniques and a crucial component of contemporary crop production.
           
    Pendimethalin (900 g/ha) as pre-emergence fb premix imazethapyr + imazamox (70 g/ha) as post-emergence spraying at 25 DAS depleted 113 (57.24%) weed seeds per core (soil sample taken from 15 cm depth by core sampler of 4 cm diameter), whereas, subsequent tillage fb IC and HW at 45 DAS depleted 101 (51.01%) weed seeds per core as compared to the initial weed seed bank. Unweeded check resulted in to addition of 652 (329.41%) weed seeds per core sample (15 cm depth and 4 cm diameter) in the soil weed seed bank in comparison to initial weed seed bank (Gohil et al., 2020).
           
    Effective control of grasses and broad-leaf weeds and maximum growth, yield attributes and yield in groundnut were observed with  pre-emergence application of pendimethalin fb imazethapyr at 20 DAS (Sasikala et al., 2004; Walia et al., 2007; Kumar et al., 2013; Mehriya et al., 2021) and one hand weeding at 40 DAS (Shwetha et al., 2016). The highest pod yield (2127 kg/ha) and less weed dry weight (739 kg/ha) were obtained with combined application of oxyfluorfen @ 0.25 kg a.i/ha + pendimethalin @ 0.5 kg a.i/ha (Chaudari et al., 2007). Punia et al. (2017) reported the lowest weed density (8.3/m2), lowest weed dry weight (7.4 g/m2) , the highest weed control efficiency (85%) and the highest dry matter accumulation with spraying of  imazethapyr + pendimethalin (ready mix) @ 1000 g/ha.
     
    Integrated weed management
     
    Integration of weed control and hand weeding or hoeing were found successful in managing diverse weed flora in groundnut crop. Pendimethalin was found to be an effective herbicide for controlling weed flora upto 2-3 weeks in groundnut. Pre-emergence application of pendimethalin + hand weeding at 30 DAS (Sagvekar et al., 2015) and inter cultivation at 30 and 45 DAS was found very effective in controlling weeds in groundnut (Attarde et al., 2001). Maximum weed control efficiency was reported in pendimethalin (0.9 kg/ha) as pre emergence followed by imazethapyr (75 g/ha) as PoE, HW twice (20 and 40 DAS) in groundnut (Patel et al., 2006). Pendimethalin + HW at 15 DAS (Bhale et al., 2012) and two HW at 20 and 40 DAS (Kumar and Rana, 2004) recorded higher yield and yield attributes along with lower weed biomass in groundnut. Kalaichelvi et al., (2015) reported greater number of pods plant-1 and pod yield with pre-emergence treatment of pendimethalin at 0.75 kg a.i./ha, alachlor at 1.0 kg a.i/ha and oxyfluorfen at 0.25 kg a.i/ha fb hand weeding at 20 DAS. Ready mix application of  pendimethlin + imazethapyar  @ 1.0 kg/ha + one manual weeding at 25-30 DAS (Sudesh et al., 2019) resulted in remarkable reduction in weed population and dry mass of weeds at different growth stages in groundnut (Fig 1).

    Fig 1: Components of Integrated weed management.


     
    Weed management by nano encapsulated herbicides
     
    Nanoencapsulation is defined as the technology of packaging nanoparticles of solid, liquid, or gas, also known as the core or active, within a secondary material, named as the matrix or shell, to form nanocapsules. Nanoparticles encapsulated herbicides have been proven to release the active ingredients of herbicides slowly without imparting any toxic impact to the soil or soil biota. This technology can help to achieve weed control with long term sustainability of soil (Oliveira et al., 2015; Gayatri et al., 2021). Maruyama et al., (2016) studied encapsulation efficiency of imazapic and imazapyr, from the nanostructured polymer called chitostan (carrier of the herbicides to the target site). The result showed that encapsulation increased the herbicide efficiency of both the herbicides by 60% which were released at about 20-30% slower rate than the uncoated herbicides. Srimathi et al. (2021) concluded that nano encapsulated sulfentrazone herbicide formulation @0.30 kg/ha application one day before sowing registered higher pod and haulm yields compared to control. However, the same herbicide @ 0.40 kg/ha recorded phytotoxic symptoms during the initial period of crop growth. Among sulfentrazone (200 and 250 g/ha), oxyfluorfen (200 and 250 g/ha), diclosulam (20 and 25 g/ha) and metolachlor (1.0 and 1.25 kg/ha), in both commercial and encapsulated forms and hand weeding at 20 and 40 DAS showed that hand weeding at 20 and 40 DAS resulted in maximum productivity of 1802 kg/ha and 1753 kg/ha pod yield during kharif and late rabi, respectively followed by diclosulam @ 25 g/ha with encapsulation, which also recorded higher profitability(1.80 and 2.01 B:C ratio (Swetha et al., 2022).
     
    Economics of weed management
     
    Integrated weed management practice involving pre-emergence application of pendimethalin with one interculture/ weeding incurred signifcantly higher net return and benefit cost ratio. Sasikala et al. (2004) observed that application of fluchloralin (PPI) and imazethapyr was the most economical with highest net profit followed by pendimethalin fb imazethapyr.
           
    Spraying of pendimethalin @ 1.0 kg a.i/ha fb imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha at 20 DAS as pre and post- emergence (Malunjkar et al., 2012; Shwetha et al., 2016 and Mehriya et al., 2020) along with one hand weeding at 40/45DAS was found most economically feasible weed management practice for groundnut, incurring highest net monetary returns and B: C ratio (Christensen et al., 2009; Sheoran et al., 2015). 
     
    Recent advancements in weed management
     
    Precision weed management is a new approach, which aims at reducing herbicidal dose, control of target species using site specific weed management and robotic technology. Site-specific weed management (SSWM) technique uses machinery or equipment embedded with technologies that help to identify weeds growing in association with crops in the field for their successful control (Christensen et al., 2009). Robotic technology is an alternative for site specific weed management. It uses machineries like hand hoeing or spot spraying knap sack sprayer without need for human operations. An agricultural weeding robot consists of hardware and software and it has an unmanned, self-steered platform that hosts an array of weed detection units. These, in turn, activate an array of weeding tools i.e. spray nozzle, microwave unit or tillage tool (Osten and Crook 2016). Robots used for weed management such as Robocorp in U.K., IC Cultivator in Netherlands, Robovator by Denmark, EcoRobot by Swizerland,  Lady bird and RIPPA  by Australia, Bonirob by Germany and Agribot by India (Rao, 2021; Manisankar et al., 2022). Artificial intelligence (ability of machine to imitate human intelligence) is used for weed identification, precision weed control, predictive modeling and weed mapping in several crops. Machine learning techniques (algorithms used to incorporate intelligence into machine by automatically learning from data sets provided such as CNN (Convolutional Neural Network), DCNN (Deep Convolutional Neural Network), SVM (Support Vector Machine), ANNs(Artificial Neural Networks), RF (Random Forest) and KNNs (K-Nearest Neighbours) are used for weed identification in different field crops (Muchhadiya et al., 2024) and combination of algorithms KNN and SVM also gave the best results than the CNN with respect to the accuracy (Kazmi et al., 2015). When various machine learning algorithms such as SVM, KNN and CNN used with MATLAB, R programming and Python. CNN is the most used machine learning algorithm by the researchers to classify weed and crop due to its accuracy than that of other machine learning algorithms (Bakhshipour and Jafari, 2018). In groundnut crop, Zhang et al., (2022) used a weed identification model EM-YOLOv4-Tiny incorporating multiscale detection and attention mechanisms based on YOLOv4-Tiny for identifying weed species. Its network was 28.7 M in size and took 10.4 ms to detect a single image, which meets the requirement of real-time weed detection.

    CONCLUSION

    Effective weed management practices are necessary for getting higher growth, yield and economics in groundnut crop. The reviewed investigations revealed that integrated weed management practices were more successful in managing weeds in groundnut crop compared to only herbicides or manual weedings. Among various herbicides, use of pre-emergence herbicides such as pendimethalin, diclosulam or ready mix application of pendimethalin and imazethapyr was successful in effective management of weed flora in groundnut and obtained higher weed control efficiency. But there are problems like environmental contamination, herbicide persistence and weed resistance because of excessive and inappropriate use of chemical herbicides. To combat this, new generation technologies such as nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and robotics can help in managing weed efficiently by precisely applying herbicide in a target site, which in turn will help in reducing herbicidal dose in non-targeted areas, environmental pollution, increase productivity and profitability of crops in future scenario.

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST

    There is no conflict of interest.

    REFERENCES


    1. 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 Science. 33(1): 29-35. https://doi.org/10.3146/0095-3679(2006)33

    2. Annadurai, K., Puppala, N., Angadi, S. and Chinnusamy, C. (2010). Integrated weed management based on intercropping system: A review. Agricultural Reviews. 31(1): 11-20.

    3. Annual Report (2009). All India Coordinated Research Project on Groundnut, Directorate of Groundnut Research, Junagadh. https://icar.org.in

    4. Attarde, D.R., Suryawansi, R.T. and Wadile, S.C. (2001). Integrated weed management in kharif groundnut under assured rainfall conditions. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities. 26(2): 161-163.

    5. Bakhshipour, A. and Jafari, A. (2018). Evaluation of support vector machine and artificial neural networks in weed detection using shape features. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 145: 153-160.

    6. Bhagat, P.S., Setti, H.N., Karunakar, A.P. and Jiotode, D.J. (2002). Efficacy of herbicides for weed control in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Research on Crops. 3(3): 542-545.

    7. Bhale, V.M., Karmore, J.V. and Patil, Y.R. (2012). Integrated weed management in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea). Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research. 18(8): 733-739.

    8. Chaudari, A.P., Gaikwad, C.B., Tiwari, T.K., Nikam, A.S., Bhende, S.N. and Bagwan, I.R. (2007). Effect of weed control on nutrient uptake, weed weight and yield of groundnut. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 3(1): 193-195.

    9. Christensen, S., Sogaard, H.T., Kudsk, P., Norremark, M., Lund, I., Nadimi, E.S. and Jorgensen, R. (2009). Site-specific weed technologies. Weed Research. 49: 233-241. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2009.00696.x

    10. Damor, G.S., Chaudhary, P.P., Desa, N.H. and Patel, K.M. (2019). Effect of crop geometry and integrated weed management in kharif groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). International Journal of Agriculture Sciences. 11(13): 8733-8737.

    11. Das, N., Giri, B.P. and Das, A.B. (2016). Weed management in kharif groundnut. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences. 24(1): 78-195.

    12. Datta, J.K., Garai, A.K. and Roy, A. (2001). Bioefficacy of trifluralin on weeds in groundnut. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 33(1): 38-40.

    13. Devi, G., Venkateswarulu, S. and Chandrasekar, K. (2017). Effect of integrated weed management practices on weed dynamics, yield and economics of rabi groundnut in sandy loam soils of Andhra Pradesh. International Journal of Current Research. 9(1): 1746-1751. https://doi.org 10.2 1474/IJAR01/2944

    14. Dharkar, P.M., Pawar, W.S. and Daga, R.R. (2002). Effect of different weed control methods on yield contributing characters and yields of groundnut. Journal of Soils and Crops. 12(2): 323-324.

    15. Gharde, Y., Singh, P.K and Gupta, P.K. (2018). Crop-weed competition and yield loss due to weeds in India. Crop Protection. 107: 12-18

    16. Gayatri, K., Kalita, S., Hussain, Z. and Deka, N.C. (2021). Nanoencapsulation to control herbicide residues and resistance: A review. Asian Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Environmental Sciences. 23(2): 140-148.

    17. Ghosh, P.K., Mandal, K.G. and Kuntal, M.H. (2000). Allelopathic effects of weeds on groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in India: A review. Agricultural Reviews. 21(1): 66-69.

    18. Gohil, B.S., Mathukia, R.K. and Rupareliya, V.V. (2020). Weed seedbank dynamics: Estimation and management in groundnut. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 52(4): 346-352. https:// doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2020.00066.0

    19. Jat, R.S., Meena, H.N., Singh, A.L., Jaya, N. and Mishra, J.B. (2011). Weed management in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in India: A review. Agricultural Reviews. 32(3): 155-171.

    20. Jitendra, M., Srinivasulu, K. and Prasad, P.V.N. (2022). Effect of weed management practices on weed and plant growth and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Biological Forum - An International Journal. 14(1): 535-537.

    21. Kalaichelvi, K., Sakthivel, S. and Balakrishnan, A. (2015). Integrated weed management in groundnut. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 47(2): 174-177.

    22. Kambiranda, D.M., Vasanthaiah, H.K.N., Ananga, R.K.A., Basha, S.M. and Naik, K. (2011). Impact of Drought Stress on Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). In: Productivity and Food Safety: Plants and Environment. InTech, pp. 249-272. https://doi.org/10.5772/30613

    23. Kamble, A.B., Chavan, N.R., Jadhav, Y.R. and Pisal, A.A. (2006). Integrated weed management in kharif groundnut. Journal of Soil and Crops. 16(1): 61-64.

    24. Kanagam, P. and Chinnamuthu, C.R. (2009). Management of late emerging weeds in irrigated groundnut. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 41(3-4): 124-132.

    25. Karthik, H.V. and Mudalagiriyappa, G. (2020). Effect of post-emergence application of herbicides on growth and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 54(2): 111-115.

    26. Kazmi, W., Garcia-Ruiz, F., Nielsen, J., Rasmussen, J. and Andersen, H.J. (2015). Exploiting affine invariant regions and leaf edge shapes for weed detection. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 118: 290-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compag.2015.09.003.

    27. Kirde, G.D., Ghotmukale, A.K. and Bhutda, P.O. (2019). Effect of integrated weed management on growth and yield of kharif groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). International Journal of Chemical Studies. 7(5): 4512-4514.

    28. Korav, S., Vishram, R., Ray, L.I., Krishnappa, R., Singh, N.J. and Premaradhya, N. (2018). Weed pressure on growth and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 7(3): 2852-2858. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018. 703.329

    29. Korav, S., Ram, V., Krishnappa, R. and Premaradhya, N. (2020). Agro-physiological assessment of weed interference in groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.) at Sub-Himalayan hill region of Meghalaya. Bangladesh Journal of Botany. 49(2): 313-327. DOI: 10.3329/bjb.v49i2.49312.

    30. Kumar, A. and Rana, D.S. (2004). Effect of land configuration and weed management on weed suppression, nutrient depletion by weeds, yield and quality of rainy-season groundnut (Arachis hypogaea). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 74(12): 680-682.

    31. Kumar, Y., Saxena, R., Gupta, K.C., Fagaria, V.D. and Singh, R. (2013). Yield attributes and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) as influenced by weed management practices in semi-arid region. Journal of Crop and Weed. 9(2): 185-189.

    32. Kumar, S., Gupta, K.C., Saxena, R., Yadav, M.R. and Bhadhoria, S.S  (2019). Efficacy of herbicides on weed management in green gram (Vigna radiata L.) in semi-arid eastern plain zone of Rajasthan.  Annals of Plant and Soil Research. 21(1): 14-18.

    33. Madhu, S.C., Mudalagiriyappa, Pujari, B.T. and Somasekhar. (2006). Effect of integrated weed management on nutrient uptake and yield in groundnut and sunflower intercropping system. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 19(1): 5-8.

    34. Malunjkar, B.D., Mullik, B.B. and Patil, S.C. (2012). Evaluation of post-emergence herbicides in rainy season groundnut. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 44(2): 95-97.

    35. Manisankar, G., Banerjee, M., Mallick, G. and Sathiyabama, N. (2022). Robotics in weed management: A review. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America. 53: 7013-7030.

    36. Maruyama, C.R., Guilger, M., Pascoli, M., Bileshy-José, N., Abhilash, P.C. and Fraceto, L.F. (2016). Nanoparticles based on chitosan as carriers for the combined herbicides imazapic and imazapyr. Scientific Reports. 6: 1-13. https://doi.org/ 10.1038/srep19768

    37. Mehriya, M.L., Sarita, B.H. and Geat, N. (2021). Effective and profitable weed management in rainy season groundnut grown under arid zone of Rajasthan. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 53(3): 269-274.

    38. Mehriya, M.L., Yadav, V.L. and Geat, N. (2020). Herbicidal weed management in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) and its residual effect on succeeding wheat (Triticum aestivum) crop. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 65(3): 278-283.

    39. Mohapatra, S. (2005). Effect of weed management in summer groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) and residual effect on succeeding rice. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 37: 277-278.

    40. Muchhadiya, R.M., Kumayat, P.D., Gohil, B. and Hasmukh, S. (2024). Precision weed management using artificial intelligence tools and techniques for sustainable agriculture. Agriculture and Food E-Newsletter. 6(1): 606-611.

    41. Naim, M.A., Eldouna, A.M. and Abdulla, A.E. (2010). Effect of weeding frequencies and plant density on vegetative growth characteristics in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in North Kordofan of Sudan. European Journal of Biological Sciences. 1(3): 1188–1192.

    42. Nambi, J. and Sundari, A. (2008). Studies on groundnut based intercropping system. Green farming. 1(12): 24-26.

    43. Nambi, J., Immanuel, R.R., Rao, G.B.S. and Parthasarthi, R. (2019). Chemical and cultural weed management practices on weeds and yield of groundnut. Plant Archives. 19(2): 3551-3555.

    44. Odisha Agriculture Statistics (2023-24). Directorate of Agriculture and Food Production, Government of Odisha.

    45. Oliveira, H.C., Stolf-Moreira, R., Martinez, C.B.R., Grillo, R., de Jesus, M.B. and Fraceto, L.F. (2015). Nanoencapsulation enhances the post-emergence herbicidal activity of atrazine against mustard plants. PLOS ONE. 10(7): e0132971. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132971

    46. Osten, W. and Crook, N. (2016). A Review of Technologies that Can Be Enabled by Robotics to Improve Weed Control in Australian Cotton Farming Systems. Cotton Research and Development Corporation, Queensland.

    47. Patel, P.G., Chaudari, P.P. and Patel, M. (2006). Integrated weed management in summer groundnut. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities. 31(2): 162-164.

    48. Punia, R., Punia, S.S., Sangwan, M. and Thakral, S.K. (2017). Efficacy of imazethapyr applied alone and its mixture with other herbicides in green gram and their residual effect on mustard. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 49(2): 151- 155. DOI: 10.5958/0974-8164.2017.00039.9.

    49. Rao, S.S., Madhavi, M. and Reddy, R.C. (2011). Integrated approach for weed control in rabi groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Journal of Research ANGRAU. 39(1-2): 60-63.

    50. Rao, V.S. (2021). Precision weed management: A means of boosting agricultural productivity. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 53(3): 209-215.

    51. Reddy, N., Vidyasagar, C. and Laxminarayana, P. (2016). Integrated weed management in rabi groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). International Journal of Current Research. 8(11): 40883-40885.

    52. Sagvekar, V.V., Waghmode, B.D., Chavan, A.P. and Mahadkar, U.V. (2015). Weed management in rabi groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) for Konkan region of Maharashtra. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 60(1): 116-120.

    53. Sardana, V., Walia, U.S. and Kandhola, S.S. (2006). Productivity and economics of summer groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cultivation as influenced by weed management practices. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 18(1-2): 156- 158.

    54. Sarin, S., Bindhu, J.S., Girijadevi, L., Jacob, D. and Mini, V. (2021). Weed management in summer groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Journal of Crop and Weed. 17(1): 272-277.

    55. Sasikala, B., Ramu, Y.R. and Reddy, C.R. (2004). Pre- and post- emergence herbicides on weed control and yield of groundnut. Indian Journal of Dryland Agriculture Research and Development. 19(1): 78-80.

    56. Savu, R.M., Choubey, N.K., Shrivastava, G.K. and Tiwari, N. (2005). Effect of chemical weed control on nitrogen uptake, weed dry weight and yield of groundnut under Chhattisgarh plains. Environment and Ecology. 23(3): 400-402.

    57. Senthil, K.N. (2009). Effect of plant density and weed management practices on production potential of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 43(1): 57-60.

    58. Shanwad, U.K., Agasimani, C.A., Aravindkumar, B.N., Shuvamurthy, S.D., Surwenshi, A. and Jalageri, B.R. (2011). Integrated weed management: A long-term case study in groundnut- wheat cropping system in Northern Karnataka. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 1: 196-200.

    59. Sharma, S., Jat, R.A. and Sagarka, B.K. (2015). Effect of weed- management practices on weed dynamics, yield and economics of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in black calcareous soil. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 60(2): 312- 317.

    60. Sheoran, P., Sardana, V., Kumar, A., Mann, A. and Singh, S. (2015). Integrating herbicidal and conventional approaches for profitable weed management in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Indian Journal of Agronomy. 60(4): 581- 584.

    61. Shwetha, B.N., Umesh, M.R. and Agnal, M.B. (2016). Post-emergence herbicides for weed management in groundnut. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 48(3): 294-296.

    62. Srimathi, T.K., Chinnamuthu, C.R., Marimuthu, S. and Senthil, A. (2021). Optimizing time and dose of newly synthesized nano-encapsulated sulfentrazone herbicide formulation for weed management in irrigated groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). The Pharma Innovation Journal. 10(11): 546-549.

    63. Sudesh, Punia, S.S., Mal, T. and Kumar, R. (2019). Weed management in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) with ready-mix of pendimethalin and imazethapyr. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 51(3): 306-307.

    64. Suseendran, K., Kalaiselvi, D., Kalaiyarasan, C., Jawahar, S. and Ramesh, S. (2019). Impact of weed flora in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in clay loam soils in Dharmapuri district, Tamil Nadu, India. Plant Archives. 19(1): 679- 682.

    65. Swetha, S., Chinnamuthu, C.R., Arthanari, M., Subramanian, M. and Senthil, A. (2022). Novel method to manage weeds in rainfed groundnut using nano-encapsulated herbicide formulations. Journal of Applied and Natural Science. 14(4): 1341-1350. https://doi.org/10.31018/jans.v14i4.3766.

    66. Walia, U.S., Singh, S. and Singh, B. (2007). Integrated approach for control of hardy weeds in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Indian Journal of Weed Science. 39(1–2): 112-115.

    67. Wesley, J., Verman, S.B., Walter, E.C., Thomas, I.C., Burke, A. and John, W. (2008). Critical period of weed interference in peanut. Weed Technology. 22(1): 63-67. https://doi.org/ 10.1614/WT-07-088.1.

    68. Yaduraju, N.T. (2012). Weed management perspectives for India in the changing agriculture scenario. Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research. 18: 703-710.

    69. Zhang, H., Wang, Z., Guo, Y., Ma, Y., Cao, W., Chen, D., Yang, S. and Gao, R. (2022). Weed detection in peanut fields based on machine vision. Agriculture. 12: 1-15. https:// doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12010015.
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Agricultural Reviews

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)