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 Acifluorfen, Fomesafen or Lactofen 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 Acifluorfen, Fomesafen and Lactofen, wherein a ratio by weight of a total amount of component (i) is at least 2 times or more than a total amount of component (ii) in case of (i) being glufosinate, and is at least the same amount 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 the ratio by weight of the total amount of component (i) to the total amount of component (ii) is at least from 50:1 to 2.5:1 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 25:1 to 3:1 in case of (i) being glufosinate.

4. The herbicidal 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 at least from 25:1 to 1.3:1 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 13:1 to 1.5:1 in case of (i) being L-glufosinate

6. 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 1 to 120 g/L, in case of (i) being glufosinate, and in the range of from 2 to 240 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 2 to 240 g/L, in case of (i) being glufosinate, or the total amount of component (ii) is in the range of from 4 to 480 g/L, in case of (i) being L-glufosinate, 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 in the form of a suspension concentrate (SC), oil dispersion (OD), or in form of microcapsules.

12. A method for producing a 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 a 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 6 to 400 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 6 to 2400 g/ha.

16. The method according to claim 15, wherein the specialty crop is selected from the group consisting of 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 Acifluorfen.

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

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

Description

EXAMPLES

[0214] As shown in the biological examples hereinbelow, for example the following harmful plants or undesired plants are controlled in a more effective and superior manner by application of the herbicidal combinations and compositions according to the present invention when compared to (L-)glufosinate alone: Abutilon theophrasti, Amaranthus tuberculatus and Bassia scoparia.

[0215] Synergism can be described as an interaction where the combined effect of two or more compounds is greater than the sum of the individual effects of each of the compounds. The presence of a synergistic effect in terms of percent control, between two mixing partners (X and Y) can be calculated using the Colby equation (Colby, S. R., 1967, Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses in Herbicide Combinations, Weeds, 15, 21-22):

[00001]$E=X+Y-\frac{XY}{100}$

[0216] When the observed combined control effect is greater than the expected (calculated) combined control effect (E), then the combined effect is synergistic.

[0217] The following tests demonstrate the control efficacy of compounds, mixtures or compositions of this invention on specific crop and weedy plants. Crop plants included soybean (Glycine max) with glufosinate tolerance (Liberty Link, BASF) or glyphosate tolerance (Roundup Ready, Bayer).

[0218] However, the herbicidal effect afforded by the compounds, mixtures or compositions is not limited to these species. The analysis of synergism or antagonism between the mixtures or compositions was determined using Colby's equation.

[0219] Test Method for Fomesafen and Lactofen:

[0220] Pots with 0.3 L of volume were filled with soil (SunGro Horticulture, Agawam, Mass. 01001) to grow one plant per pot in the greenhouse until the desired developmental stage. Environmental conditions inside the greenhouse were set up for 25° C., 75% relative humidity, and 12 h light day-1 with natural sunlight or 500 μmol m-1 s-1 PAR (photosynthetically active radiation) for cloudy days. Glufosinate applications were always performed in full sunlight to achieve maximum activity. The test period extended to 2 to 21 days after treatment. During this time, the plants were tended, and their response to the individual treatments was evaluated. The evaluation was carried out by visual control using a scale from 0 to 100. 100 means no emergence of the plants or complete destruction of at least the above-ground parts, and 0 means no damage, or normal course of growth. Data shown are the mean of three replications.

[0221] Test Method for Acifluorfen:

[0222] Pots with 0.8 L of volume were filled with soil (Sungro Horticulture, Agawam, Mass. 01001) to grow one plant per pot in the greenhouse until the desired developmental stage. Environmental conditions inside the greenhouse were set up for 30° C., 50% relative humidity, and 12 hr light day-1 with natural sunlight or 760 umol m-1 s-1 PAR (Photosynthetically active radiation) for cloudy days. Glufosinate applications were always performed in full sunlight to achieve maximum activity Pots with test plants grown to 3.5 to 4.5 inch (8.9 to 11.4 cm) tall were treated with the herbicidal compositions, which were obtained by diluting commercially available formulations with deionized water to desired concentration, and then sprayed using finely distributing nozzles on to the plants. The test period extended over 21 days after treatment (DAT). During this time, the plants were tended and their response to the individual treatments was evaluated.

[0223] The evaluation was done by calculating using the following Colby equation, wherein X was the effect in percent using acifluorfen at an application rate a, Y was the effect in percent using glufosinate at application rate b, and E was the expected effect (in %) of acifluorfen plus glufosinate at application rates a+b.

E=X+Y−(X.Math.Y/100)

[0224] 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.

[0225] The evaluation for the damage caused by the chemical compositions was carried out using a scale from 0 to 100%, compared to the untreated control plants. Here, 0 means no damage and 100 means complete destruction of the plants.

[0226] Products:

TABLE-US-00001 Glufosinate*: 280 g/l SL formulation Lactofen: 240 g/l EC formulation Fomesafen: 225 g/l ME formulation Acifluorfen**: 225 g/l SL formulation *commercial product: Liberty ®, an aqueous soluble liquid of glufosinate ammonium **commercial product: Ultra Blazer ®, an aqueous soluble liquid herbicide

[0227] Adjuvants of ammonium sulfate (as AMS Liquid) and non-ionic surfactant (NIS, here as Induce) at rates of 1680 g/ha and 0.25% (v/v), respectively, were added in all treatments with Acifluorfen.

[0228] Weeds in the Study:

TABLE-US-00002 Common Name Scientific Name EPPO-Code Velvetleaf Abutilon theophrasti ABUTH Waterhemp Amaranthus tuberculatus AMATU Kochia Bassia scoparia KCHSC

Example 1 Post Emergence Treatment with the Mixture of Glufosinate with Lactofen

[0229]

TABLE-US-00003 Herbicidal activity against Application rate in g ai/ha Waterhemp (1 DAT) Glufosinate Lactofen Found Calculated 280 — 18 — — 5 3 — 280 5 90 20 Herbicidal activity against Application rate in g ai/ha Kochia (21 DAT) Glufosinate Lactofen Found Calculated 420 — 25 — — 5.2 25 — 420 5.2 65 44

Example 2: Post Emergence Treatment with the Mixture of Glufosinate with Fomesafen

[0230]

TABLE-US-00004 Herbicidal activity against Application rate in g ai/ha Kochia (21 DAT) Glufosinate Fomesafen Found Calculated 420 — 25 — — 7.1 25 — 420 7.1 60 44

Example 3: Post Emergence Treatment with the Mixture of Glufosinate with Acifluorfen

[0231]

TABLE-US-00005 Herbicidal activity against Velvetleaf Combined application Days (same rate as solo, after Solo application namley appli- Acifluorfen Glufosinate 7.176 + 123 g ai/ha) — cation or (7.176 g (123 g Calculated Syner- treatment ai/ha) ai/ha) Observed (Colby) gism (DAT) % activity % activity % activity % activity Yes/No 7 38 49 83 68 Yes 14 40 56 75 74 Yes 21 33 45 65 63 Yes