PLANT TREATMENT COMPOSITION

Abstract

A plant treatment composition is described for supporting the efficacy of a herbicide in a weed and/or facilitating control of a weed with a herbicide in the presence of a mineral nutrient, the plant treatment composition comprising: a urea component; a xanthine component; an acidifier component; and optionally a mineral nutrient.

Claims

1. A method of supporting the efficacy of a herbicide in a weed, the method comprising exposing the weed to a plant treatment composition comprising: (i) a urea component; (ii) a xanthine component; and (iii) an acidifier component.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the urea component comprises or consists of one or more compounds having the formula R.sub.1R.sub.2NC(═X)NR.sub.3R.sub.4, wherein X═O or S, and wherein each of R.sup.1, R.sup.2, R.sup.3, R.sup.4 are independently selected from hydrogen, substituted or unsubstituted branched or unbranched alkyl, substituted or unsubstituted branched or unbranched heteroalkyl, substituted or unsubstituted branched or unbranched alkenyl, substituted or unsubstituted cycloalkyl, substituted or unsubstituted cyclohetroalkyl, substituted or unsubstituted aryl, substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the urea component comprises or consists of urea (H2NC(═O)NH2), 1,3-dimethylurea, 1,3-diethylurea, 1,3-dipropylurea, 1,3-diisopropylurea, 1,3-dibutylurea, 1,3-dicyclohexylurea, 1,3-diphenylurea, 2-nitrodiphenylurea, methylurea, N,N′ and N,N dimethylurea, ethylurea, N,N′ and N,N diethylurea, propylurea, N,N′ and N,N dipropylurea, n-butyl urea, N,N′ and N,N di-n-butylurea, sec-butylurea, N,N′ and N,N di-sec-butylurea, isobutylurea, N,N′ and N,N di-iso-butylurea, t-butylurea, N,N′ and N,N t-butylurea, N,N′-bis(hydroxymethyl) urea, N-phenyl urea, tetramethyl urea, N,N′-dicyclohexyl urea, N,N′-trimethylene urea, N,N′-dibutylthiourea, isobenzylidene diurea, methylene urea, urea-triazone, tetrahydro-S-triazone, 5-methyleneuriedo-2-oxohexahydro-s-triazine or a mixture thereof.

4. The method claim 1, wherein the xanthine component comprises or consists of caffeine, theobromine, or theophylline.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the acidifier component comprises or consists of one or more carboxylic acids, optionally citric acid.

6. A method of controlling a weed with a herbicide in the presence of a mineral nutrient applied to a crop comprising the weed, the method comprising exposing the crop to a plant treatment composition comprising: (i) a urea component; (ii) a xanthine component; (iii) an acidifier component.

7. A method of supplying a mineral nutrient to a plant in a crop in the presence of a herbicide applied to control a weed in the crop, the method comprising exposing the crop to a plant treatment composition comprising: (i) a urea component; (ii) a xanthine component; (iii) an acidifier component; and (iv) a mineral nutrient component.

8. A plant treatment composition for supporting the efficacy of a herbicide in a weed and/or facilitating control of a weed with a herbicide in the presence of a mineral nutrient, the plant treatment composition comprising: (i) a urea component; (ii) a xanthine component; (iii) an acidifier component; and optionally (iv) a mineral nutrient component.

9. The method claim 6 wherein the urea component comprises or consists of one or more compounds having the formula R.sub.1R.sub.2NC(═X)NR.sub.3R.sub.4, wherein X═O or S, and wherein each of R.sup.1, R.sup.2, R.sup.3, R.sup.4 are independently selected from hydrogen, substituted or unsubstituted branched or unbranched alkyl, substituted or unsubstituted branched or unbranched heteroalkyl, substituted or unsubstituted branched or unbranched alkenyl, substituted or unsubstituted cycloalkyl, substituted or unsubstituted cyclohetroalkyl, substituted or unsubstituted aryl, substituted or unsubstituted heteroaryl; wherein the xanthine component comprises or consists of caffeine, theobromine, or theophylline; and wherein the acidifier component comprises or consists of one or more carboxylic acids, optionally citric acid.

10. The method of claim 6 wherein the mineral nutrient comprises or consists of a chelated manganese compound.

11. The method of claim 1, wherein the weed is in a soybean crop.

12. A plant treatment composition according to claim 8 comprising: (i) in a range of from 5 to 30% w/w of the urea component; (ii) in a range of from 0.01 to 1% w/w of the xanthine component; (iii) in a range of from 0.5 to 2% w/w of the acidifier component; and (iv) in a range of from 3 to 6.5% w/w of a Mn equivalent chelated manganese.

13. A herbicidal combination comprising a herbicide and a plant treatment composition according to claim 8.

14. The method of claim 1, wherein the herbicide comprises or consists of glufosinate, glyphosate, 2,4-D, dicamba or combinations thereof.

Description

EXAMPLES

Example 1: Absorption Rates of Herbicides in Brachiaria decumbens in the Presence of Manganese (Mn)

[0102] Studies were conducted to evaluate the effect of an Mn formulation containing manganese on the absorption of glufosinate (Study 1) and glyphosate (Study 2) using Brachiaria decumbens as a model weed species.

[0103] Study 1. Seed of Brachiaria decumbens were planted into pots in a greenhouse during January 2015. This experiment was designed as a randomized complete block with six replications. Each plant was sprayed in a spray chamber with one of six treatments (Table 1) 19 days after planting.

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Treatments applied to field trials at each trial location for Study 1. Mn Herbicide Mn formulation Mn Treatment Herbicide rate (I/ha) formulation rate (I/ha) g/ha 1 None n/a None n/a n/a 2 Glufosinate 2 None n/a n/a 3 Glufosinate 2 Formulation A 1.23 100 4 Glufosinate 2 Formulation B 1.2 100 5 Glufosinate 2 Formulation C 0.77 (kg/ha) 100 6 Glufosinate 2 Formulation D 0.6 100

[0104] The composition of each formulation included in the treatment list for Study 1 (Table 1) is described below: [0105] Formulation A having the following nominal composition:

TABLE-US-00002 Component Concentration (% w/w) Caffeine 0.02 Urea 11.11 Manganese EDTA 47.00* Water 40.87 Citric acid 1.00 Total concentration 100 *6.1% w/w Mn equivalent [0106] Formulation B (comparative): commercial formulation comprising manganese sulfate@7% w/w Mn equivalent [0107] Formulation C (comparative): commercial formulation comprising Mn EDTA@13% w/w Mn equivalent [0108] Formulation D (comparative): commercial formulation comprising manganese chloride@14% w/w Mn equivalent

[0109] The amount of glufosinate on the plant surface (not absorbed) and that penetrated plant tissue (absorbed) was measured 36 hours after application of a treatment using chromatography and spectrometry.

[0110] The results of Study 1 (Table 2) show that Mn Formulation A improved glufosinate absorption relative to the glufosinate control and relative to all other commercial Mn formulations tested. In fact, each commercial Mn formulations reduced glufosinate absorption relative to the glufosinate control. In combination with glufosinate, all commercial Mn formulations resulted in lower glyphosate absorption than did Mn Formulation A.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 2 Relative amount of glufosinate absorbed when applied with an Mn formulation in Study 1. Glufosinate Application Absorbed Mn formulation Rate (I/ha) rate (I/ha) (%) None (Glufosinate control) 0 2 24.0 Formulation A 1.23 2 26.9 Formulation B 1.2 2 19.2 Formulation C 0.77 (kg/ha) 2 22.7 Formulation D 0.6 2 18.7

[0111] Study 2. Seed of Brachiaria decumbens were planted into pots in a greenhouse during January 2015. This experiment was designed as a randomized complete block with six replications. Each plant was sprayed in a spray chamber with one of six treatments (Table 3) 25 days after planting.

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 3 Treatments applied to field trials at each trial location for Study 2. Mn Treat- Herbicide Mn formulation Mn ment Herbicide rate (I/ha) formulation rate (I/ha) g/ha 1 None n/a None n/a n/a 2 Glyphosate 3.5 None 1 n/a 3 Glyphosate 3.5 Formulation A 1.23 100 4 Glyphosate 3.5 Formulation B 1.2 100 5 Glyphosate 3.5 Formulation C 0.77 (kg/ha) 100 6 Glyphosate 3.5 Formulation D 0.6 100

[0112] The composition of each formulation included in the treatment list for Study 2 (Table 3) is the same as described in Example 1, Study 1.

[0113] The amount of glyphosate on the plant surface (not absorbed) and that penetrated plant tissue (absorbed) was measured four days after application (daa) of a treatment using chromatography and spectrometry.

[0114] The results of Study 2 (Table 4) show that Formulation A improved glyphosate absorption relative to the glyphosate control and relative to all other commercial Mn formulations tested. In fact, commercial Mn formulations B and D reduced glufosinate absorption relative to the glufosinate control. In combination with glyphosate, all commercial Mn formulations resulted in lower glyphosate absorption than did Formulation A.

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 4 Relative amount of glyphosate absorbed when applied with an Mn formulation in Study 2. Glyphosate Application Absorbed Mn formulation Rate (I/ha) rate (I/ha) (%) None (glyphosate control) 0 3.5 21.0 Formulation A 1.23 3.5 24.7 Formulation B 1.2 3.5 13.3 Formulation C 0.77 (kg/ha) 3.5 21.9 Formulation D 0.6 3.5 20.5

Example 2: Effect of Foliar Applications of an Mn Formulation on the Effectiveness of Glyphosate to Control Broadleaf and Grass Weeds

[0115] A study was carried out to evaluate the effect of an Mn formulation on the efficacy of glyphosate, as measured by the control of broadleaf and grass weed species.

[0116] The trial was designed as a randomized complete block with six replications of five treatments (Table 5). The trial was planted at each of six locations in Brazil during the 2015 season. All treatments were applied at the V2 soybean growth stage using backpack sprayers. Soybeans were sown at a rate consistent with locally recommended practices into plots that were approximately 4 m long and 5 m wide.

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 5 Treatments applied to field trials at each trial location. Mn Treat- Herbicide Mn formulation Mn ment Herbicide rate (I/ha) formulation rate (I/ha) g/ha 1 None n/a None n/a n/a 2 Glyphosate 1 None 1 n/a 3 Glyphosate 1 Formulation A 1 81 4 Glyphosate 1 Formulation B 1 84 5 Glyphosate 1 Formulation C 0.4 (kg/ha) 52

[0117] The composition of each formulation included in the treatment list (Table 5) were as described in Example 1.

[0118] Data collected from a 1 m.sup.2 area of each plot included the number of broadleaf and grass weeds, by genus and species, at the V2 soybean growth stage immediately prior to treatment application. The number of dead/damaged and undamaged weeds, by genus and species, was collected from the same 1 m.sup.2 area of each plot 7 daa of a treatment. Treatment 2 (glyphosate alone) was used as the control.

[0119] The results show that Formulation A improved the efficacy of glyphosate on broadleaf and grass weeds (Table 6). Further, glyphosate efficacy was greater in combination with Formulation A than with the commercial Mn formulations tested.

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 6 Control of broadleaf and grass weeds. Weed control (%) Herbicide Mn formulation Broadleaf weeds Grass weeds Glyphosate None 83.8 97.7 Glyphosate Formulation A 84.7 98.1 Glyphosate Formulation B 77.7 95.7 Glyphosate Formulation C 83.7 95.8

Example 3: Effect of Foliar Applications of an Mn Formulation on the Effectiveness of Glyphosate to Control Individual Grass and Broadleaf Weed Species

[0120] A study was conducted to evaluate the effect of an Mn formulation on glyphosate efficacy, as measured by the control of individual grass and broadleaf weed species.

[0121] The trial was designed as a randomized complete block with three replications of four treatments (Table 7). The trial was planted at one location in Brazil during March 2016. Weed control was assessed 7, 14, and 28 daa.

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 7 Treatments applied to the field trial location. Herbicide Mn Treat- rate Mn formulation Mn ment Herbicide (I/ha) formulation rate (I/ha) g/ha 1 Glyphosate 1 None n/a n/a 2 Glyphosate 1 Formulation A 1 81 3 Glyphosate 2 None n/a n/a 4 Glyphosate 2 Formulation A 1 81

[0122] The composition of Formulation A was as described in Example 1.

[0123] The results show that the efficacy of glyphosate, at each of two different application rates, was improved when applied in combination with Formulation A for each of seven different weed species (Table 8).

TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 8 Treatment means across three replications and three assessment timings for each weed species. Mn Weed control (%) of individual weed species* Herbicide formulation BRAPL BRADC CCHEC DIGHO IPOA AMARE EPHHL Ave Glyphosate @ None 91.2 83.0 95.0 96.3 34.8 69.6 65.4 76.5 1 l/ha Glyphosate @ Formulation 93.7 82.9 98.7 97.6 35.0 80.6 67.0 79.4 1 l/ha A @ 1 l/ha Glyphosate @ None 95.9 90.2 98.7 99.0 52.6 84.7 77.4 85.5 2 l/ha Glyphosate @ Formulation 95.0 93.6 99.2 99.3 54.9 84.9 74.0 85.8 2 l/ha A @ 1 l/ha *BRAPL = Brachiaria plantaginea; BRADC = Brachiaria decumbens; CCHEC = Cenchrus echinatus; DIGHO = Digitaria horizontalis; IPOAC = Ipomoea acuminate; AMARE = Amaranthus retroflexus; EPHHL = Euphorbia heterophylla.

Example 4: Effect of Foliar Applications of an Mn Formulation on the Effectiveness of Glufosinate to Control Individual Grass and Broadleaf Weed Species

[0124] A study was conducted to evaluate the effect of an Mn formulation on glufosinate efficacy, as measured by the control of individual grass and broadleaf weed species.

[0125] The trial was designed as a randomized complete block with three replications of four treatments (Table 9). The trial was planted at one location in Brazil during March 2016. Weed control was assessed 7, 14, and 28 daa.

TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 9 Treatments applied to the field trial location. Herbicide Mn Treat- rate Mn formulation Mn ment Herbicide (I/ha) formulation rate (I/ha) g/ha 1 Glufosinate 1.5 None n/a n/a 2 Glufosinate 1.5 Formulation A 1 81 3 Glufosinate 2.5 None n/a n/a 4 Glufosinate 2.5 Formulation A 1 81

[0126] The composition of Formulation A was as described in Example 1.

[0127] The results show that the efficacy of glufosinate, at each of two different applications rates, was improved when applied in combination with Formulation A for each of five different weed species (Table 10).

TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 10 Treatment means across three replications and three assessment timings for each weed species. Mn Weed control (%) of individual weed species* Herbicide formulation BRAPL BRADC CCHEC DIGHO IPOAC Ave Glufosinate @ None 78.6 89.3 62.8 67.0 96.7 78.9 1.5 l/ha Glufosinate @ Formulation 84.2 89.4 65.6 64.4 97.8 80.3 1.5 l/ha A @ 1 l/ha Glufosinate @ None 88.2 91.1 78.7 82.9 100.0 88.2 2.5 l/ha Glufosinate @ Formulation 91.6 92.8 82.3 88.2 100.0 91.0 2.5 l/ha A @ 1 l/ha *BRAPL = Brachiaria plantaginea; BRADC = Brachiaria decumbens; CCHEC = Cenchrus echinatus; DIGHO = Digitaria horizontalis; IPOAC = Ipomoea acuminate.

Example 5. Effect of Foliar Applications of a Potassium (K) Formulation on the Effectiveness of Glyphosate to Control Weed Species

[0128] Three studies were conducted to evaluate the effect of a K formulation on glyphosate efficacy, as measured by the control of weed species.

[0129] Study 1. The trial was designed as a randomized complete block with two replications of five treatments (Table 11). The trial was planted at one location in Brazil during 2011. Weed control was assessed 14 and 25 daa.

TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 11 Treatments applied to the field trial location. Herbicide Treat- rate Formulation ment Herbicide (I/ha) Formulation rate (I/ha) 1 Glyphosate 2 None n/a 2 Glyphosate 2 Formulation E 2.5 3 Glyphosate 2 Formulation E 5 4 Glyphosate 2 Formulation E 10

[0130] The composition of the formulation included in the treatment list for Study 1 (Table 11) is described below: [0131] Formulation E having the following nominal composition:

TABLE-US-00013 Component Concentration (% w/w) Caffeine 0.02 Urea 29.80 Potassium nitrate 11.00 Water 53.15 Citric acid 2.00 Potassium chloride 3.40 Molasses 0.63 Total concentration 100.00

[0132] The results show that the efficacy of glyphosate, as measured by percent weed control, improved at each of two different assessment dates when applied in combination with Formulation E at each of three different formulation rates (Table 12).

TABLE-US-00014 TABLE 12 Treatment means for each weed control assessment. Glyphosate Formulation Weed control (%) @ 2 I/ha Formulation rate (I/ha) 14 daa 25 daa Glyphosate None n/a 85 96.5 Glyphosate Formulation E 2.5 90 98 Glyphosate Formulation E 5 87.5 98 Glyphosate Formulation E 10 90 98

[0133] Study 2. The trial was designed as a randomized complete block with two replications of six treatments (Table 13). The trial was planted at one location in Brazil during 2011. Weed control was assessed 14 and 25 daa.

TABLE-US-00015 TABLE 13 Treatments applied to the field trial location. Treat- Herbicide Formulation ment Herbicide rate (I/ha) Formulation rate (I/ha) 1 Glyphosate 2 None n/a 2 Glyphosate 2 Formulation E 5

[0134] The composition of Formulation E was as described in Example 5, Study 1.

[0135] The results show that the efficacy of glyphosate, as measured by percent weed control, was improved when applied in combination with Formulation E 14 and 25 daa (Table 14).

TABLE-US-00016 TABLE 14 Treatment means for each weed control assessment. Glyphosate Formulation Weed control (%) @ 2 I/ha @ 5 I/ha 14 daa 25 daa Glyphosate None 82.5 96.5 Glyphosate Formulation E 85 98

[0136] Study 3. The trial was designed as a randomized complete block with two replications of six treatments (Table 15). The trial was planted at one location in Brazil during 2011. Weed control was assessed 14 and 25 daa.

TABLE-US-00017 TABLE 15 Treatments applied to the field trial location. Treat- Herbicide Formulation ment Herbicide rate (I/ha) Formulation rate (I/ha) 1 Glyphosate 2 None n/a 2 Glyphosate 2 Formulation E 5

[0137] The composition of Formulation E was as described in Example 5, Study 1.

[0138] The results show that the efficacy of glyphosate, as measured by percent weed control, was improved when applied in combination with Formulation E 14 and 25 daa (Table 16).

TABLE-US-00018 TABLE 16 Treatment means for each weed control assessment. Glyphosate Formulation Weed control (%) @ 2 I/ha @ 5 I/ha 14 daa 25 daa Glyphosate None 85 90 Glyphosate Formulation E 87.5 92.5