Injury assessment of PPO-inhibitor based treatments as effected by application timings and spray surfactants in dryland peanut

Due to the prevalence of /\LS-inhibitor resistant pigweed and potential occurrence of A.LS-inhibitor resistant sicklcpod. more PPO-inhibitors such as lactofcn (Cobra) and acitlurofen (Ultra 131azer) haw been used to control those resistant \\·ceds from owr the top. Carfentrazone (Aim) is often sprayed to desiccate peanut foliage and clean up late season weeds in peanut due to \"ery shun Post-I Iar\"est In ten al on its federal label. Howe\-cr. \Yhcn peanut producers apply those PPO-inhibitors. a major concern is crop inj uryifoliage bum since these herbicides are generally hotter than imal'.apic (Cadre). which has been used as an industry standard for postcmergence applkations for many ) cars. This issue can he further compounded by the usage of different surfaL·tants. application timing. and interactions with other crn·ironmental stresses. Pa11icularly when the application is mack after blooming \\·hen peanut plant is transpo11ing most of its nutrients and photosynthetic products to pods. A. study was designed to ernluate t,,o objectives: 1) ernluate the effect of PPO inhibitor tl) based treatments on peanut injury and yield when applied at 60. 75. and 90 days atkr planting and 1) study the role of surfactant on peanut injury during applications of PPO inhibitors in dryland peanut.