HERBICIDAL COMPOSITION

Abstract

A herbicidal composition comprising; (A) 3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methyl]-sulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethyl-isoxazole, or a herbicidally effective salt; and (B) a second herbicide selected from; (B1) 4-hydroxy-3-[[2-[(2-methoxyethoxy)methyl]-6-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinyl]carbonyl]-bicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-en-2-one, (B2) tembotrione, and (B3) topramezone,
or their herbicidally effective salts.

Claims

1. A herbicidal composition comprising; (A) 3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methyl]sulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethyl-isoxazole, or a herbicidally effective salt; and (B) a second herbicide selected from; (B1) 4-hydroxy-3-[[2-[(2-methoxyethoxy)methyl]-6-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinyl]carbonyl]-bicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-en-2-one, (B2) tembotrione, and (B3) topramezone, or their herbicidally effective salts.

2. The composition according to claim 1, wherein component (B) is 4-hydroxy-3-[[2-[(2-methoxyethoxy)methyl]-6-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinyl]carbonyl]-bicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-en-2-one, or a herbicidally effective salt.

3. The composition according to claim 1, wherein component (B) is tembotrione, or a herbicidally effective salt.

4. The composition according to claim 1, wherein component (B) is topramezone, or a herbicidally effective salt.

5. A method for controlling undesirable vegetation in a crop of useful plants, comprising applying to the locus of such vegetation a herbicidally effective amount of a composition as claimed in claim 1.

6. A method for controlling undesirable vegetation in a crop of useful plants, comprising separately applying to the locus of such vegetation; (A) 3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methyl]sulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethyl-isoxazole, or a herbicidally effective salt; and (B) a second herbicide selected from; (B1) 4-hydroxy-3-[[2-[(2-methoxyethoxy)methyl]-6-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinyl]carbonyl]-bicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-en-2-one, (B2) tembotrione, and (B3) topramezone, or their herbicidally effective salts.

7. The method according to claim 6, wherein the crops of useful plants are maize, soya or a cereal.

8. The method according to claim 6, wherein the crop of useful plants is maize.

9. The method according to claim 6, wherein the crop of useful plants is soya.

10. The method according to claim 6, wherein the rate of application of herbicides is from 1 to 4000 g/ha.

11. A herbicidal composition comprising; (A) 3-[[[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]methyl]sulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethyl-isoxazole, or a herbicidally effective salt; (B) a second herbicide selected from; (B1) 4-hydroxy-3-[[2-[(2-methoxyethoxy)methyl]-6-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinyl]carbonyl]-bicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-en-2-one, (B2) tembotrione, and (B3) topramezone, or their herbicidally effective salts, and (C) a safener selected from cloquintocet-mexyl or a salt thereof, fenchlorazole, fenchlorazole-ethyl, mefenpyr, mefenpyr-diethyl, isoxadifen, isoxadifen-ethyl, furilazole or the corresponding R isomer, benoxacor, dichlormid, MON4660, oxabetrinil, cyometrinil or the corresponding (Z) isomer, fenclorim, cyprosulfamide, N-isopropyl-4-(2-methoxy-benzoylsulfamoyl)-benzamide, naphthalic anhydride and flurazole.

12. A method for controlling undesirable vegetation in a crop of useful plants, comprising applying to the locus of such vegetation a herbicidally effective amount of a composition as claimed in claim 11.

13. The method according to claim 12, wherein the rate of application of herbicides is from 1 to 4000 g/ha and the rate of application of safener is from 1 to 500 g/ha.

14. The method according to claim 12, wherein the crops of useful plants are maize, soya or a cereal.

15. The method according to claim 12, wherein the crop of useful plants is maize.

16. The method according to claim 12, wherein the crop of useful plants is soya.

Description

BIOLOGICAL EXAMPLES

[0049] The herbicidal action to be expected, We, for a given combination of two herbicides can be calculated as follows (see COLBY, S. R. “Calculating synergistic and antagonistic response of herbicide combinations”. Weeds 15, pages 20-22; 1967):

We=X+[Y.Math.(100−X)/100]

[0050] wherein:

[0051] X=% herbicidal action in the case of treatment with active ingredient (A) using an application rate of p kg per hectare, in comparison with untreated control (=0%).

[0052] Y=% herbicidal action in the case of treatment with active ingredient (B) using an application rate of q kg per hectare, in comparison with untreated control.

[0053] We=expected herbicidal action (% herbicidal action in comparison with untreated control) after treatment with active ingredient (A) and active ingredient (B) at a rate of application of p+q kg of active ingredient per hectare.

[0054] If the action actually observed is greater than the expected value We, there is a synergistic effect.

[0055] Trial Description, Pre-Emergence Test:

[0056] Monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous test plants are sown in standard soil in plastics pots. The plants tested were: Maize (ZEAMX), Ipomea purpurea (PHBPU), Euphorbia heterophylla (EPHHL), Panicum millenacearum (PANMI). Immediately after sowing, the test compounds in aqueous suspension are applied by spraying (200 litres of water/ha). (A) was formulated as a SC50, and (B1), (B2) and (B3) were formulated as WP25; 1% adjuvant crop oil concentrate (Agridex) (v/v) was added to all treatments. The compounds were applied alone and in combination as tank mixtures. The rates of application depend on the optimum concentrations determined under field conditions and greenhouse conditions. The test plants are then cultivated in a greenhouse under optimum conditions. Evaluation of the tests is made after 21 days (% action, 100%=plants have died, 0%=no phytotoxic action).

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 1 Observed plant damage 21 days after treatment (Pre-emergence) Treatment Rate g/ha ZEAMX PHBPU EPHHL PANMI (A)  12.5 0 0 0 0  25 0 0 0 0  50 0 0 15 70 100 0 75 40 100 200 0 95 75 100 (B3)  5 0 0 0 0  10 0 0 0 0  20 0 0 0 0  40 0 0 0 0  80 0 55 30 98 (B1)  18.75 0 0 0 15  37.5 0 0 0 65  75 0 0 75 80 150 0 0 75 100 300 0 85 100 100 (B2)  18.75 0 0 0 0  37.5 0 0 0 0  75 0 0 0 0 150 0 20 100 40 300 0 75 100 98 (A) + (B3) 12.5 + 5 0 0 0 20   25 + 10 0 20 15 35   50 + 20 0 75 60 65  100 + 40 0 80 80 95  200 + 80 15 100 75 100 (A) + (B1) 12.5 + 18.75 0 0 20 55   25 + 37.5 0 0 65 60   50 + 75 0 0 90 90  100 + 150 0 85 100 100  200 + 300 0 100 100 100 (A) + (B2) 12.5 + 18.75 0 0 0 0   25 + 37.5 0 0 0 100   50 + 75 0 75 75 98  100 + 150 0 95 100 100  200 + 300 0 100 100 100

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 2 Difference of observed values to expected values in pre-emergence The mixtures of (A) with (B1), (B2) and ( B3) were evaluated for synergistic effects using the Colby-formula. Treatment Rate g/ha ZEAMX PHBPU EPHHL PANMI (A) + (B3) 12.5 + 5 0 0 0 20   25 + 10 0 20 15 35   50 + 20 0 75 45 −5  100 + 40 0 5 40 −5  200 + 80 15 2.25 −7.5 0 (A) + (B1) 12.5 + 18.75 0 0 20 40   25 + 37.5 0 0 65 −5   50 + 75 0 0 11.25 −4  100 + 150 0 10 15 0  200 + 300 0 0.75 0 0 (A) + (B2) 12.5 + 18.75 0 0 0 0   25 + 37.5 0 0 0 100   50 + 75 0 75 60 28  100 + 150 0 15 0 0  200 + 300 0 1.25 0 0

[0057] Trial Description, Post-Emergence Test:

[0058] The test plants are raised in plastics pots under greenhouse conditions as far as the 2- to 3-leaf stage. A standard soil is used as the cultivation substrate. The plants tested were: Maize (ZEAMX), Ipomea purpurea (PHBPU), Sorghum vulgare (SORVU), Euphorbia heterophylla (EPHHL), Panicum millenacearum (PANMI). At the 2- to 3-leaf stage, the herbicides are applied individually and as mixtures to the test plants. The test compounds are applied in the form of an aqueous suspension in 200 litres of water/ha. (A) was formulated as a SC50, and (B1), (B2) and (B3) were formulated as WP25; 1% adjuvant crop oil concentrate (Agridex) (v/v) was added to all treatments. The compounds were applied alone and in combination as tank mixtures. The rates of application depend on the optimum concentrations determined under field conditions and greenhouse conditions. Evaluation of the tests is made after 21 days (% action, 100%=plants have died, 0%=no phytotoxic action).

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 3 Observed plant damage 21 days after treatment (Post-emergence) Treatment Rate g/ha ZEAMX PHBPU SORVU EPHHL PANMI (A) 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 20 0 0 35 50 0 20 0 15 65 100 0 75 0 35 65 200 0 85 0 40 75 (B3) 5 0 35 0 0 0 10 0 55 0 20 20 20 0 20 0 50 80 40 0 25 0 65 90 80 20 80 0 90 90 (B1) 18.75 0 30 0 65 60 37.5 0 50 0 80 70 75 0 55 0 90 75 150 0 70 10 90 70 300 0 70 35 98 90 (B2) 18.75 0 0 0 65 0 37.5 0 25 0 75 20 75 0 55 0 80 20 150 0 60 0 98 65 300 0 60 0 100 50 (A) + (B3) 12.5 + 5    0 25 0 50 45 25 + 10 0 60 0 80 80 50 + 20 0 85 0 75 85 100 + 40  0 95 0 100 95 200 + 80  0 98 35 100 100 (A) + (B1)  12.5 + 18.75 0 80 0 60 65   25 + 37.5 0 90 25 75 75 50 + 75 0 95 55 90 85 100 + 150 0 85 55 98 95 200 + 300 0 100 75 100 100 (A) + (B2)  12.5 + 18.75 0 30 0 55 20   25 + 37.5 0 75 0 75 55 50 + 75 0 95 30 100 75 100 + 150 0 99 55 95 95 200 + 300 0 99 75 100 100

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 4 Difference of observed values to expected values in post-emergence The mixtures of (A) with (B1), (B2) and (B3) were evaluated for synergistic effects using the Colby-formula. Treatment Rate g/ha ZEAMX PHBPU SORVU EPHHL PANMI (A) + (B3) 12.5 + 5    0 −10 0 50 45 25 + 10 0 −4 0 60 32 50 + 20 0 49 0 18 −8 100 + 40  0 14 0 23 −2 200 + 80  −20 1 35 6 3 (A) + (B1)  12.5 + 18.75 0 50 0 −5 5   25 + 37.5 0 30 25 −5 −6 50 + 75 0 31 55 −2 −6 100 + 150 0 −8 45 5 6 200 + 300 0 5 40 1 3 (A) + (B2)  12.5 + 18.75 0 30 0 −10 20   25 + 37.5 0 35 0 0 7 50 + 75 0 31 30 17 3 100 + 150 0 9 55 −4 7 200 + 300 0 5 75 0 13