Effect of weed management practices on weed suppression and productivity in Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)

Introduction

Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is widely recognized as one of the most vital food legumes and oilseed crops in India, positioning the country as the world's second-largest producer of this crop. The crop serves a dual purpose as both a crucial food source and a valuable cash crop. The kernels composed of nearly 48-50% oil and 26-28% protein, groundnuts are a critical agricultural commodity for fulfilling edible oil and dietary protein requirements (Mehriya et al., 2020, Reager et al., 2022) [9,12] . In India, groundnut cultivated area during both kharif and rabi seasons roughly about 5.75 m ha, production of 11.90 m t with productivity of 2,067 kg ha⁻¹. In Telangana state groundnut cultivated area is 1.1 L ha production 2.30 L t with productivity of nearly 2,093 kg ha⁻¹ (Indiastat, 2024) [3] . The yield potential of groundnut in India is restricted by an array of biotic and abiotic constraints. Weed infestation stands out as a primary impediment. Inadequate weed control triggers aggressive competition for critical resources such as soil moisture, essential nutrients, solar radiation and spatial clearance, ultimately culminating in severe yield depreciations that can span from 17% to as high as 96% (Kumar et al., 2019) [5] . Heavy weed competition remains a primary factor underlying low groundnut yields. Due to its slow initial growth rate, groundnut is an inherently poor competitor against weeds, making timely management far more critical in this cropping system than in many other field crops. Consequently, maintaining a weed-free environment during the critical period of 4 to 8 weeks after planting is essential. Depending on the growing season, cultivar characteristics, weed flora composition, the duration of competition and the specific management practices employed. Weed-induced pod yield losses can fluctuate drastically, ranging from 13% to 100% (Ghosh, 2000) [2] . In India, weed competition severely impacts groundnut production, causing documented yield reductions between 24% and 70% (Jhala et al., 2005) [4] . Reliance solely on manual weeding fails to guarantee satisfactory weed suppression. Furthermore, its widespread implementation is severely restricted by escalating labour wages and a shrinking agricultural workforce, driven primarily by the socio-economic shifts of rapid industrialization and urbanization (Singh et al., 2023) [13] . Consequently, identifying suitable chemical alternatives that offer economical and safe weed suppression is critical. The application of sequential or tankmixed pre-and post-emergence herbicides provides a highly viable strategy for the effective, timely control of diverse weed flora in groundnut systems. There is a distinct need to evaluate these herbicide combinations to establish a broad-spectrum weed management protocol tailored for rabi groundnut cultivation.

Materials and Methods

To evaluate the effect of weed management practices on weed dynamics and productivity of groundnut, a field experiment was carried out during the rabi season of 2025-26 at the College Farm, Agricultural College, Polasa, Jagtial. The experimental site situated within the Northern Telangana Agro-climatic Zone is located at 18°50′ N latitude and 78°56′ E longitude with an elevation of 243.4 m above mean sea level. The study was arranged in a Randomized Block Design featuring eight treatments and three replications. The treatments comprised of T 1 -Pendimethalin 38.7 CS @ 700 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) at 1-2 DAS fb hand weeding at 40 DAS; T 2 -Diclosulam 84 WDG @ 26 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) at 1-2 DAS fb hand weeding at 40 DAS; T 3 -Propaquizafop 2.5 + Imazethapyr 3.75 ME @ 125 g a.i. ha -1 (Ready mix) at 20 DAS fb hand weeding at 40 DAS; T 4 -Imazethapyr 35 + Imazamox 35 WG @ 100 g a.i. ha -1 (Ready mix) at 20 DAS fb hand weeding at 40 DAS; T 5 -Diclosulam 84 WDG @ 26 g a.i. ha -1 (PE) at 1-2 DAS fb Propaquizafop 2.5 + Imazethapyr 3.75 ME @ 125 g a.i. ha -1 (Ready mix) at 20 DAS; T 6 -Diclosulam 84 WDG @ 26 g a.i. ha - 1 (PE) at 1-2 DAS fb Imazethapyr 35 + Imazamox 35 WG 100 g a.i. ha -1 (Ready mix) at 20 DAS; T 7 -Hand weeding at 20 and 40 DAS; T 8 -Weedy check. The groundnut variety TCGS-1694 was sown on 4 th November, 2025 with a crop geometry of 22.5 × 10 cm. The gross and net plot dimensions were 4.5 × 3.2 m and 3.6 × 2.8 m, respectively. Pre-emergence (PE) herbicide treatments were applied at 1 day after sowing (DAS), whereas post-emergence (PoE) herbicide were applied at 20 DAS using a knapsack sprayer equipped with a calibrated flat-fan nozzle to deliver accurate amount of the spray volume. Manual hand weedings were completed according to the treatment schedule. Except for the varying weed control practices, all standard agronomic operations and plant protection protocols for rabi groundnut were uniformly applied across all treatment plots throughout the crop growth cycle. Data on weed dynamics including weed density, weed dry weight and weed control efficiency (WCE) were recorded at distinct crop growth stages (20, 40 and 60 DAS). At crop maturity, yield attributes specifically the number of pods plant -1 , kernels pod -1 , shelling percentage (%) and 100-kernel weight alongside total kernel and haulm yields (kg ha -1 ) were observed. The collected experimental data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) protocols appropriate for a Randomized Block Design. Treatment means were subsequently compared using the critical difference (CD) test at a 5% (P = 0.05) level of significance.

Weed Control Efficiency

Where, WCE = Weed Control Efficiency (%) DMc = Dry matter of weeds in unweeded check (Control) DMt = Dry matter of weeds in treatment plot

X-Seed yield from a weed free plot Y-Seed yield from a treated plot [7] and Suseendran et al.

(2019) [16] . Similar trends were documented by Parthipan (2020) [11] and Dhayal et al. (2022) [1] . (2020) [6] and Sridhar et al. (2021) [14] . [15] and Yadav et al.

Weed parameters

Across the evaluated weed management practices, T [8] , Sridhar et al. (2021) [14] and Naik et al. (2022) [10] .

Conclusion

Among the different herbicide applications, diclosulam 84 WDG @ 26 g a.i. ha⁻¹ (PE) at 1-2 DAS fb hand weeding at 40 DAS proved as the most effective herbicidal treatment, recorded significantly lower weed density and weed dry weight, higher weed control efficiency, improved kernel and haulm yields. Therefore, this treatment can be recommended as an efficient and economically viable weed management practice for maximizing productivity and profitability of groundnut under the conditions of the study.

Acknowledgement

I sincerely express my gratitude to Professor Jayashankar Telangana Agricultural University, Hyderabad for providing financial support for my research work. I also extend my heartfelt thanks to the Agricultural college, Jagtial for its constant support, facilities and assistance throughout the course of my research work.

References

1. Dhayal S, Yadav SL, Ram B, Sharma A. Effect of herbicides on associated weeds and growth of black gram. Indian J Weed Sci. 2022;54(2):203-207.
2. Ghosh DC. Weed management in rainfed groundnut. Indian J Agron. 2000;43(1):122-125.
3. Indiastat. State/Season-wise area, production and productivity of groundnut in India. 2024-25 (3 rd Advance Estimates).
4. Jhala A, Rathod PH, Patel KC, Van Damme P. Growth and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) as influenced by weed management practices and Rhizobium inoculation. Commun Agric Appl Biol Sci. 2005;70(3):493-500.
5. Kumar NB, Subramanyam D, Nagavani AV, Kumar S. Weed management in groundnut with new herbicide molecules. Indian J Weed Sci. 2019;51(3):306-307.
6. Kumar BN, Subramanyam D, Nagavani AV, Uma Mahesh V, Sagar GK. Performance of new herbicides in groundnut and their carry-over effect on fodder sorghum. Indian J Weed Sci. 2020;52(4):396-399.
7. Malunjkar BD, Mulik BB, Patil SC. Evaluation of postemergence herbicides in rainy season groundnut. Indian J Weed Sci. 2012;44(2):95-97.
8. Mathukia RK, Panara DM, Sagarka BK, Savaliya NV. Effectiveness of herbicides for weed management in premonsoon groundnut (Arachis hypogaea). J Crop Weed. 2017;13(1):175-177.
9. Mehriya ML, Yadav VL, Geat N. Herbicidal weed management in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) and its residual effect on succeeding wheat (Triticum aestivum) crop. Indian J Agron. 2020;65(3):278-288.
10. Naik AK, Naik TB, Nagaraj R, Madhu G, Goudra S. Efficacy of pre-and post-emergence herbicides for weed management in groundnut. Legume Res. 2022;45(6):658-663.
11. Parthipan T. Weed management strategies for enhanced productivity in groundnut. Curr J Appl Sci Technol. 2020;39(29):15-19.
12. Reager ML, Kumar U, Chaturvedi D, Mitharwal BS, Dotaniya CK, Aher SB. Study on yield sustainability and water productivity of groundnut on farmers' fields through improved technology under hyper-arid partially irrigated zone of Rajasthan. Legume Res. 2022;45(4):475-480.
13. Singh A, Singh AK, Dubey SK, Chahal VP, Singh R, Mishra A, et al. Ensuring productivity advantages through cluster frontline demonstrations (CFLD)-pulses: Nationwide experiences. Indian J Agric Sci. 2023;93(5):561-566.
14. Sridhar N, Nongmaithem D, Tzudir L, Singh AP. Weed management in groundnut with diclosulam herbicide. Indian J Weed Sci. 2021;53(3):305-306.
15. Sukumar J, Pazhanivelan S, Kunjammal P. Effect of preemergence and post-emergence herbicides on weed control in irrigated black gram. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2018;7(Special Issue 1):3206-3209.
16. Suseendran NK, Kalaiselvi D, Jawahar S, Kalaiyarasan C, Ramesh S. Influence of different herbicides for weed management in groundnut. Plant Arch. 2019;19(1):818-820.
17. Yadav SK, Meena O, Yadav M, Shivran A, Yadav L, Yadav VL. Productivity and profitability of groundnut under different crop establishment methods and weed management practices. Indian J Agron. 2025;70(1):59-66.