HERBICIDE COMBINATIONS COMPRISING GLUFOSINATE AND SELECTED PPO INHIBITORS

Abstract

The present invention relates to specific herbicide combinations comprising (i) L-glufosinate and/or salts thereof and (ii) a PPO-inhibitor selected from Cyclopyranil, Oxadiargyl, Pentoxazone or Pyraclonil 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. An herbicidal combination comprising (i) glufosinate, L-glufosinate or an agronomically acceptable salt thereof, and (ii) a PPO-inhibitor selected from the group consisting of Cyclopyranil, Oxadiargyl, Pentoxazone, and Pyraclonil, wherein a ratio by weight of the total amount of component (i) is at least 20 times or more than a total amount of component (ii) in case of (i) being glufosinate, and is at least 10 times or more than the total amount of component (ii) in case of (i) being L-glufosinate.

2. The herbicidal combination according to claim 1, wherein a ratio by weight of the total amount of component (i) to the total amount of component (ii) is at least from 500:1 to 25:1 in case of (i) being glufosinate.

3. The herbicidal 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 at least from 250:1 to 30:1 in case of (i) being glufosinate.

4. The herbicidal combination according to claim 1, wherein a ratio by weight of the total amount of component (i) to the total amount of component (ii) is at least from 250:1 to 13:1 in case of (i) being L-glufosinate.

5. The herbicidal 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 at least from 125:1 to 15:1 in case of (i) being L-glufosinate.

6. Composition A composition comprising an herbicidal combination according to claim 1, wherein the total amount of component (i) is from 100 to 600 g/L, based on the total amount of the composition.

7. The composition according to claim 6, wherein the total amount of component (ii) is in the range of from 0.2 to 24 g/L, in case of (i) being glufosinate, and in the range of from 0.4 to 48 g/L, in case of (i) being L-glufosinate, and in each case based on the total amount of the composition.

8. The composition 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 0.2 to 24 g/L, in case of (i) being glufosinate, or the total amount of component (ii) is in the range of from 0.4 to 48 g/L, and in each case based on the total amount of the composition.

9. The composition according to claim 6, wherein the composition additionally comprises 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 additionally comprises one or more further components selected from the group consisting of formulation auxiliaries, additives customary in crop protection, and no further agrochemically active compounds.

11. 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.

12. A method for producing an herbicidal 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 a mixture of herbicides is obtained.

13. A method for controlling undesired plant growth, and/or controlling harmful plants, comprising applying an herbicidal 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.

14. The method for treating or protecting row crops from undesired plants or the harmful plants according to claim 13, 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 0.6 to 40 g/ha.

15. The method for treating or protecting a specialty crop from undesired plants or the harmful plants according to claim 13, 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 0.6 to 240 g/ha.

16. The method according to claim 15, wherein the specialty crop is selected from fruits, vegetables, trees, nuts, vines, (dried) fruits, ornamentals, oil palm, banana, rubber, sugarcane or floriculture, preferably from fruits, trees, nuts, vines, ornamentals, oil palm, banana, rubber and sugarcane

17. (canceled)

18. The herbicidal combination as defined in claim 1, wherein the selected PPO inhibitor is Cyclopyranil.

19. The herbicidal combination as defined in claim 1, wherein the selected PPO inhibitor is Oxydiargyl.

20. The herbicidal combination as defined in claim 1, wherein the selected PPO inhibitor is Pentoxazone.

21. The herbicidal combination as defined in claim 1, wherein the selected PPO inhibitor is Pyraclonil.

Description

EXAMPLES

[0256] In the present invention, the effect of the herbicidal combination of component (i) and component (ii) on the growth of undesirable plants compared to the herbicidally active compounds alone could be demonstrated in a series of greenhouse experiments.

[0257] For these experiments, the herbicide components (i) and (ii) used in the examples below were applied either as experimental or commercially available solo or premix formulations which had been diluted with tap water to a suitable concentration, and to which 1% (v/v) of MSO surfactant had been added. [0258] The component (i) glufosinate was the commercial SL formulation containing 150 g ai/l of glufosinate-Ammonium (Liberty/Basta 150 SL, BASF). [0259] The component (ii) PPO-inhibitor was a experimental formulation containing 50 g ai/l of the PPO-inhibitor (respectively cyclopyranyl, oxadiargyl or pyraclonil).

[0260] For the post-emergence treatments, glufosinate and the respective PPO-inhibitor, which had been suspended in water, were applied using spray nozzles providing fine to coarse droplets with 1 replication per treatment.

[0261] Weeds

[0262] For the biological testing, seedlings of the following species were used:

TABLE-US-00001 Common name Scientific name EPPO Code waterhemp Amaranthus tuberculatus AMATU Palmer Amaranth Amaranthus Palmeri; AMAPA barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli ECHCG cleavers Galium aparine GALAP common ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia AMBEL spring barley Hordeum vulgare HORVS

[0263] The evaluation for plant injury or damage caused by the chemical compositions was done 19 days after treatment (DAT) and carried out using a scale from 0 [zero] to 100% when compared with the untreated control plants. Here, “0” [zero] would mean no damage and “100” would mean complete destruction of the plants.

[0264] As mentioned above, Colby's formula was applied to determine whether the composition showed synergistic action, wherein [0265] X=effect in percent using herbicide A at an application rate of a; [0266] Y=effect in percent using herbicide B at an application rate of b; [0267] E=expected effect (in %) of A+B at application rates a+b.

[0268] Thus, 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.

[0269] General Greenhouse Test method

[0270] Weed Control of the combination of (i) glufosinate with (ii) the PPO-inhibitor

[0271] Seedlings of different species like waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus), Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus Palmeri), barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galls), cleavers (Galium aparine), barley (Hordeum vulgare) or common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) were treated postemergence with applications of either glufosinate at 50, 100 and 200 g ai/ha, cyclopyranyl at 6.25; 3.125 and 1.5625 ai/ha, or the combination of glufosinate (50, 100, 200 g ai/ha) and cyclopyranyl (6.25; 3.125; 1.5625 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 19 days after treatment (DAT).

[0272] Test Results at Different Ratios on Different Weeds

[0273] 1. Ratio of glufosinate to PPO-inhibitor 8:1

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 1.1 Control of Echinochloa crus-galli (ECHCG) with glufosinate/cyclopyranyl Combined (6.25 + 50 g ai/ha) Solo Expected cyclopyranyl Glufosinate according to Application (6.25 g ai/ha) (50 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 25 10 80 33 Y

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 1.2 Control of Amaranthus Palmeri (AMAPA) with glufosinate/cyclopyranyl Combined (6.25 + 50 g ai/ha) Solo Expected cyclopyranyl Glufosinate according to Application (6.25 g ai/ha) (50 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 25 35 65 51 Y

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 1.3 Control of Amaranthus tuberculatus (AMATU) with glufosinate/cyclopyranyl Combined (6.25 + 50 g ai/ha) Solo Expected cyclopyranyl Glufosinate according to Application (6.25 g ai/ha) (50 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 65 40 90 79 Y

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 1.4 Control of Galium aparine (GALAP) with glufosinate/cyclopyranyl Combined (6.25 + 50 g ai/ha) Solo Expected cyclopyranyl Glufosinate according to Application (6.25 g ai/ha) (50 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 65 30 98 76 Y

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 1.5 Control of Ambrosia artemisiifolia (AMBEL) with glufosinate/oxadiargyl Combined (6.25 + 50 g ai/ha) Solo Expected Oxadiargyl Glufosinate according to Application (6.25 g ai/ha) (50 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 10 40 80 46 Y

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 1.6 Control of Amaranthus Palmeri (AMAPA) with glufosinate/oxadiargyl Combined (6.25 + 50 g ai/ha) Solo Expected Oxadiargyl Glufosinate according to Application (6.25 g ai/ha) (50 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 30 35 95 55 Y

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 1.7 Control of Ambrosia artemisiifolia (AMBEL) with glufosinate/pyraclonil Combined (6.25 + 50 g ai/ha) Solo Expected Pyraclonil Glufosinate according to Application (6.25 g ai/ha) (50 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 65 40 98 79 Y

TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 1.8 Control of Amaranthus tuberculatus (AMATU) with glufosinate/pyraclonil Combined (6.25 + 50 g ai/ha) Solo Expected Pyraclonil Glufosinate according to Application (6.25 g ai/ha) (50 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 35 40 75 61 Y

[0274] 2. Ratio of glufosinate to PPO-inhibitor 16:1

TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 2.1 Control of Amaranthus Palmeri (AMAPA) with glufosinate/cyclopyranyl Combined (3.125 + 50 g ai/ha) Solo Expected cyclopyranyl Glufosinate according to Application (3.125 g ai/ha) (50 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 10 35 60 42 Y

TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 2.2 Control of Echinochloa crus-galli (ECHCG) with glufosinate/cyclopyranyl Combined (6.25 + 100 g ai/ha) Solo Expected cyclopyranyl Glufosinate according to Application (6.25 g ai/ha) (100 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 25 25 75 44 Y

TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 2.3 Control of Amaranthus Palmeri (AMAPA) with glufosinate/cyclopyranyl Combined (6.25 + 100 g ai/ha) Solo Expected cyclopyranyl Glufosinate according to Application (6.25 g ai/ha) (100 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 25 30 90 48 Y

TABLE-US-00013 TABLE 2.4 Control of Echinochloa crus-galli (ECHCG) with glufosinate/oxadiargyl Combined (3.125 + 50 g ai/ha) Solo Expected Oxadiargyl Glufosinate according to Application (3.125 g ai/ha) (50 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 15 10 60 24 Y

TABLE-US-00014 TABLE 2.5 control of Ambrosia artemisiifolia (AMBEL) with glufosinate/oxadiargyl Combined (3.125 + 50 g ai/ha) Solo Expected Oxadiargyl Glufosinate according to Application (3.125 g ai/ha) (50 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 20 40 75 52 Y

TABLE-US-00015 TABLE 2.6 Control of Amaranthus Palmeri (AMAPA) with glufosinate/oxadiargyl Application Solo Combined (6.25 + 100 g ai/ha) Oxadiargyl Expected (6.25 g Glufosinate according to ai/ha) (100 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 30 30 75 51 Y

TABLE-US-00016 TABLE 2.7 Control of Amaranthus tuberculatus (AMATU) with glufosinate/oxadiargyl Application Solo Combined (6.25 + 100 g ai/ha) Oxadiargyl Expected (6.25 g Glufosinate according to ai/ha) (100 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 40 70 98 82 Y

TABLE-US-00017 TABLE 2.8 Control of Amaranthus tuberculatus (AMATU) with glufosinate/pyraclonil Application Solo Combined (6.25 + 100 g ai/ha) Pyraclonil Expected (6.25 g Glufosinate according to ai/ha) (100 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 35 70 95 81 Y

[0275] 3. Ratio of glufosinate to PPO-inhibitor 32:1

TABLE-US-00018 TABLE 3.1 Control of Amaranthus Palmeri (AMAPA) with glufosinate/cyclopyranyl Application Solo Combined (1.5625 + 50 g ai/ha) cyclopyranyl Expected (1.5625 g Glufosinate according to ai/ha) (50 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 10 35 55 42 Y

TABLE-US-00019 TABLE 3.2 Control of Hordeum vulgare (HORVS) with glufosinate/cyclopyranyl Application Combined (6.25 + 200 g ai/ha) Solo Expected cyclopyranyl Glufosinate according to (6.25 g ai/ha) (200 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 15 30 80 41 Y

TABLE-US-00020 TABLE 3.3 Control of Echinochloa crus-galli (ECHCG) with glufosinate/cyclopyranyl Application Combined (6.25 + 200 g ai/ha) Solo Expected cyclopyranyl Glufosinate according to (6.25 g ai/ha) (200 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 25 70 90 78 Y

TABLE-US-00021 TABLE 3.4 Control of Amaranthus Palmeri (AMAPA) with glufosinate/cyclopyranyl Application Combined (6.25 + 200 g ai/ha) Solo Expected cyclopyranyl Glufosinate according to (6.25 g ai/ha) (200 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 25 80 95 85 Y

TABLE-US-00022 TABLE 3.5 Control of Amaranthus Palmeri (AMAPA) with glufosinate/oxadiargyl Application Solo Combined (3.125 + 100 g ai/ha) Oxadiargyl Expected (3.125 g Glufosinate according to ai/ha) (100 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 40 30 90 58 Y

TABLE-US-00023 TABLE 3.6 Control of Ambrosia artemisiifolia (AMBEL) with glufosinate/pyraclonil Application Solo Combined (1.5625 + 50 g ai/ha) pyraclonil Expected (1.5625 g Glufosinate according to ai/ha) (50 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 25 40 98 55 Y

TABLE-US-00024 TABLE 3.7 Control of Amaranthus tuberculatus (AMATU) with glufosinate/pyraclonil Application Solo Combined (1.5625 + 50 g ai/ha) pyraclonil Expected (1.5625 g Glufosinate according to ai/ha) (50 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 20 40 75 52 Y

TABLE-US-00025 TABLE 3.8 Control of hordeum vulgare (HORVS) with glufosinate/pyraclonil Application Solo Combined (3.125 + 100 g ai/ha) pyraclonil Expected (3.125 g Glufosinate according to ai/ha) (100 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 0 0 45 0 Y

TABLE-US-00026 TABLE 3.9 Control of Amaranthus Palmeri (AMAPA) with glufosinate/pyraclonil Application Solo Combined (6.25 + 200 g ai/ha) Pyraclonil Expected (6.25 g Glufosinate according to ai/ha) (200 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 20 80 98 84 Y

[0276] 4. Ratio of glufosinate to PPO-inhibitor 64:1

TABLE-US-00027 TABLE 4.1 Control of Amaranthus Palmeri (AMAPA) with glufosinate/cyclopyranyl Application Solo Combined (1.5625 + 100 g ai/ha) cyclopyranyl Expected (1.5625 g Glufosinate according to ai/ha) (100 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 10 30 98 37 Y

TABLE-US-00028 TABLE 4.2 Control of Amaranthus Palmeri (AMAPA) with glufosinate/pyraclonil Application Solo Combined (3.125 + 200 g ai/ha) pyraclonil Expected (3.125 g Glufosinate according to ai/ha) (200 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 30 80 90 86 Y

[0277] 5. Ratio of glufosinate to PPO-inhibitor 128:1

TABLE-US-00029 TABLE 5.1 Control of Amaranthus tuberculatus (AMATU) with glufosinate/pyraclonil Application Combined Solo (1.5625 + 200 g ai/ha) pyraclonil Expected (1.5625 g Glufosinate according to ai/ha) (200 g ai/ha) Observed Colby Synergism DAT % activity % activity % activity % activity Y/N 19 20 90 98 92 Y

[0278] As can be seen from the testing results shown in the tables (1.1 to 5.1), the combination of glufosinate with PPO inhibitors of specific ratios according to the invention provide an enhanced control on a varity of weed species compared to the use of the individual application of the single components. The observed control for the combination of glufosinate and the PPO-inhibitor was greater than the estimates of expected control based on the Colby equation, thus demonstrating the synergistic effect of the herbicide mixture.