Herbicide Combinations Comprising Glufosinate and S-3100

Abstract

The present invention relates to specific herbicide combinations comprising (i) L-glufosinate and/or salts thereof and (ii) epyrifenacil (Acetic acid, 2-[[3-[2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-1(2H)-pyrimidinyl]-4-fluorophenoxy]-2-pyridinyl]oxy]-, ethyl ester) in specific ratios, and to compositions comprising said herbicide combinations in these ratios. The present invention further relates to a method of producing said specific herbicide combinations and compositions comprising said specific herbicide combinations. The present invention also relates to the use of said specific herbicide combinations and compositions comprising said specific herbicide combinations in the field of agriculture, for controlling harmful plants or undesired plant growth, as well as to corresponding methods.

Claims

1. A herbicide combination comprising (i) glufosinate, L-glufosinate or an agronomically acceptable salt thereof, and (ii) epyrifenacil, wherein a ratio by weight of a total amount of component (i) is at least 40 times more than a total amount of component (ii) in case of (i) being glufosinate, and is at least 20 times more than the total amount of component (ii) in case of (i) being L-glufosinate.

2. The herbicide combination according to claim 1, wherein the ratio by weight of the total amount of component (i) to the total amount of component (ii) is from 1000:1 to 50:1 in case of (i) being glufosinate.

3. The herbicide combination according to claim 2, wherein the ratio by weight of the total amount of component (i) to the total amount of component (ii) is from 500:1 to 60:1 in case of (i) being glufosinate.

4. The herbicide combination according to claim 1, wherein the ratio by weight of the total amount of component (i) to the total amount of component (ii) is from 500:1 to 25:1 in case of (i) being L-glufosinate.

5. The herbicide combination according to claim 4, wherein the ratio by weight of the total amount of component (i) to the total amount of component (ii) is from 250:1 to 30:1 in case of (i) being L-glufosinate.

6. A composition comprising the herbicide combination according to claim, wherein a total amount of component (i) is from 100 to 600 g/L, based on the total amount of the composition.

7. The composition comprising the herbicide combination according to claim 6, wherein the total amount of component (ii) is in the range of from 0.15 to 15 g/L, in case of (i) being glufosinate, and in the range of from 0.2 to 30 g/L, in case of (i) being L-glufosinate, and in each case based on the total amount of the composition.

8. The composition comprising the herbicide combination according to claim 6, wherein the total amount of component (i) is in the range of from 100 to 600 g/L, and the total amount of component (ii) is in the range of from 0.15 to 15 g/L, in case of (i) being glufosinate, or the total amount of component (ii) is in the range of from 0.2 to 30 g/L, in case of (i) being L-glufosinate, and in each case based on the total amount of the mixture.

9. The composition comprising the herbicide combination according to claim 6 and one or more further components selected from the group consisting of formulation auxiliaries, additives customary in crop protection, and further agrochemically active compounds.

10. The composition according to claim 6, wherein the composition is in the form of a suspension concentrate (SC), oil dispersion (OD), or in form of microcapsules.

11. A method for producing a herbicide combination as defined in claim 1, comprising (a) providing component (i), (b) providing component (ii), and (c) combining component (i) and component (ii), such that the herbicide combination is obtained.

12. A method for controlling undesired plant growth, and/or controlling harmful plants, comprising applying a herbicide combination as defined in claim 1 onto the undesired plants or the harmful plants, on parts of the undesired plants or the harmful plants, or on the area where the undesired plants or the harmful plants grow.

13. The method for treating or protecting row crops from undesired plants or the harmful plants according to claim 12, wherein the total amount of component (i) is applied in the range of from 300 to 1000 g/ha, in case of (i) being glufosinate, or the total amount of component (i) is applied in the range of from 150 to 500 g/ha, in case of (i) being L-glufosinate, and the total amount of component (ii) is applied in the range of from 0.5 to 20 g/ha.

14. The method for treating or protecting specialty crops from undesired plants or the harmful plants according to claim 12, wherein the total amount of component (i) is applied in the range of from 300 to 6000 g/ha, in case of (i) being glufosinate, or the total amount of component (i) is applied in the range of from 150 to 3000 g/ha, in case of (i) being L-glufosinate, and the total amount of component (ii) is applied in the range of from 0.5 to 120 g/ha.

15. (canceled)

Description

EXAMPLES

[0258] The effect of herbicidal combination of the present invention, component (i), component (ii) on the growth of undesirable plants compared to the herbicidally active compounds alone was demonstrated in a series of greenhouse experiments: [0259] For post-emergence treatments, glufosinate and epyrifenacil, which had been suspended in water, were applied using spray nozzles providing fine to coarse droplets. [0260] The herbicide compounds applied in the examples were used as experimental or commercially available solo or premix formulations which have been diluted with tap water to a suitable concentration. Glufosinate was used as a commercial SL formulation containing 150 g ai/l of glufosinate (BAS 1000 12H, 150 SL, BASF). While the PPO herbicide EXP 5296489 H-AC containing 50 g ai/l epyrifenacil was used. [0261] The evaluation for plant injury or damage caused by the chemical compositions was carried out using a scale from 0-100% when compared with the untreated control plants. Here, 0 means no damage and 100 means complete destruction of the plants.

[0262] Colby's formula was applied to determine whether the composition showed synergistic action: S. R. Colby (1967) “Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations”, Weeds 15, p. 22., E=X+Y−(X*Y/100), where [0263] X=effect in percent using herbicide A at an application rate of a; [0264] Y=effect in percent using herbicide B at an application rate of b; [0265] E=expected effect (in %) of A+B at application rates a+b.

[0266] The value E corresponds to the effect (plant damage or injury) which is to be expected if the activity of the individual compounds is just additive. If the observed effect is higher than the value E calculated according to Colby, a synergistic effect is present.

[0267] Weed Control of Glufosinate Plus epyrifenacil Mixtures (Greenhouse)

[0268] Seedlings of waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus; AMATU), Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus Palmeri; AMAPA), wild oats (Avena fatua; AVEFA), barley (Hordeum vulgare; HORVS), Velvetleaf (Abution theophrasti; ABUTH). were treated with postemergence applications of either glufosinate at 50, 100 and 200 g ai/ha, epyrifenacil at 0.9, 0.3, and 0.1 g ai/ha, or the combination of glufosinate (50, 100, 200 g ai/ha) and tiafencil (0.9; 0.3; 0.1 g ai/ha), respectively, when they were 7-18 cm in height. All treatments contained 1% (v/v) MSO surfactant. Plants were placed in a non-randomized design with 1 replication per treatment. Percent injury data was collected 20 days after treatment (DAT).

[0269] Ratio 55.6:1

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Demonstration of glufosinate potentiation through the addition of epyrifenacil for the control of Avena fatua (AVEFA). Application Solo Combined (0.9 + 50 g ai/ha) epyr- Glu- Expected ifenacil fosinate according (0.9 g (50 g to ai/ha) ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 20 15 10 65 24 Y

[0270] Ratio 55.6:1

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Demonstration of glufosinate potentiation through the addition of epyrifenacil for the control of Amaranthus tuberculatus (AMATU). Application Solo Combined (0.9 + 50 g ai/ha) epyr- Glu- Expected ifenacil fosinate according (0.9 g (50 g to ai/ha) ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 20 75 10 98 78 Y

[0271] Ratio 111:1

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Demonstration of glufosinate potentiation through the addition of epyrifenacil for the control of Amaranthus tuberculatus (AMATU). Application Solo Combined (0.9 + 100 g ai/ha) epyr- Glu- Expected ifenacil fosinate according (0.9 g (100 g to ai/ha) ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 20 75 10 90 78 Y

[0272] Ratio 222:1

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Demonstration of glufosinate potentiation through the addition of epyrifenacil for the control of Hordeum vulgare (HORVS). Application Solo Combined (0.9 + 200 g ai/ha) epyr- Glu- Expected ifenacil fosinate according (0.9 g (200 g to ai/ha) ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 20 10 25 50 33 Y

[0273] Ratio 222:1

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Demonstration of glufosinate potentiation through the addition of epyrifenacil for the control of Amaranthus Palmeri (AMAPA) Application Solo Combined (0.9 + 200 g ai/ha) epyr- Glu- Expected ifenacil fosinate according (0.9 g (200 g to ai/ha) ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 20 20 75 98 80 Y

[0274] Ratio 222:1

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Demonstration of glufosinate potentiation through the addition of epyrifenacil for the control of Amaranthus tuberculatus (AMATU). Application Solo Combined (0.9 + 200 g ai/ha) epyr- Glu- Expected ifenacil fosinate according (0.9 g (200 g to ai/ha) ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 20 75 70 98 93 Y

[0275] 667:1

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Demonstration of glufosinate potentiation through the addition of epyrifenacil for the control of Amaranthus Palmeri (AMAPA) Application Solo Combined (0.9 + 200 g ai/ha) epyr- Glu- Expected ifenacil fosinate according (0.3 g (200 g to ai/ha) ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 20 15 75 98 79 Y

[0276] 2000:1

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 Demonstration of glufosinate potentiation through the addition of epyrifenacil for the control of Abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH) Application Solo Combined (0.1 + 200 g ai/ha) epyr- Glu- Expected ifenacil fosinate according (0.1 g (200 g to ai/ha) ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 20 25 10 65 33 Y

[0277] As seen from the data in table 1 to table 8, the combination of glufosinate and tiafenacil provided enhanced control of AMAPA, AMATU, ABUTH, HORVS and AVEFA compared to the individual components. For each weed species, the observed control for the combination of glufosinate and tiafenacil was greater than the estimates of expected control based on the Colby equation, thus demonstrating the potentiating effect of the herbicide mixture.