Herbicidal Mixtures for Controlling Herbicide-Resistant Dicotyledonous Plants

Abstract

The present invention relates to herbicidal mixtures which comprise a) a herbicide A, which is glyphosate or an agriculturally acceptable salt thereof, b) a herbicide B which is saflufenacil or an agriculturally salt thereof, and c) at least one herbicide C which is an imidazolinone or an agriculturally acceptable salt thereof, their use for controlling herbicide resistant, in particular glyphosate-resistant, weeds and crops and methods for controlling herbicide resistant weeds or crops.

Claims

1-19. (canceled)

20. A method for controlling undesirable vegetation, which comprises allowing a herbicidal composition comprising: a) a herbicide A, which is glyphosate or an agriculturally acceptable salt thereof, b) a herbicide B which is saflufenacil or an agriculturally salt thereof, and c) at least one herbicide C which is an imidazolinone or an agriculturally acceptable salt thereof; to act on herbicide resistant plants or their habitat in crop plants.

21. The method of claim 20, wherein the crop plants are soybean.

22. The method of claim 20, wherein the undesirable vegetation is resistant to the herbicides such as glyphosate, dicamba, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyethanoic acid, glufosinate, ACCase inhibitors, HPPD inhibitors and/or acetohydroxyacid synthase inhibitors.

23. The method of claim 21, wherein the undesired vegetation is resistant to glyphosate and/or acetohydroxyacid synthase inhibitors.

24. The method of claim 20, wherein the undesired vegetation are volunteer corps or weeds.

24. The method of claim 23, wherein the weeds are monocotyledonous weeds or dicotyledonous weeds.

25. The method of claim 24, wherein the monocotyledonous weeds are Digitaria species.

26. The method of claim 25, wherein the monocotyledonous weeds are Digitaria insularis.

27. The method of claim 24, wherein the dicotyledonous weeds are Conyza species.

28. The method of claim 24, wherein the weeds are resistant to glyphosate.

29. The method of claim 23, wherein the volunteer crops are monocotyledonous volunteer crops or dicotyledonous volunteer crops.

30. The method of claim 29, wherein the volunteer crops are glyphosate resistant monocotyledonous volunteer crops.

31. The method of claim 30, wherein the volunteer crops are acetohydroxyacid synthase inhibitor resistant dicotyledonous volunteer crops.

32. The method of claim 20, wherein the at least one herbicide C is selected the group consisting of imazapyr, imazapic, and imazethapyr or their agriculturally acceptable salts.

33. The method of claim 32, wherein the at least one herbicide C is selected from the group consisting of imazapyr and imazapic or their agriculturally acceptable salts.

34. The method of claim 33, wherein the at least one herbicide C is a combination of imazapyr and imazapic or their agriculturally acceptable salts.

35. The method of claim 20 comprising applying the herbicidal composition at least 4 days before crop seeding.

36. The method of claim 20 which comprises repeated application of the herbicidal composition.

Description

EXAMPLES

Example 1

[0209] The experiment was carried out in Brazil, at altitude of 552 meters, from Nov. 2, 2012 to Mar. 1, 2013.

[0210] A soil sample from the experimental site was analyzed and provided pHH.sub.2O 5.5; 3.8 cmol.sub.c H+Al.sup.+3/dm.sup.3; 3.6 cmol.sub.c/dm.sup.3 Ca.sup.+2; 1.0 cmol.sub.c/dm.sup.3 Mg.sup.+2; 0.49 cmol.sub.c/dm.sup.3 K+; 8.0 mg/dm.sup.3 P; 29.0 g/dm.sup.3 OC; 12.70% coarse sand; 3.20% fine sand; 16.80% silt and 67.30% clay.

[0211] For all herbicide applications, the applications were made using a backpack sprayer that was pressurized by CO.sub.2 with five flat fan nozzles XR110.02 at 200 KPa, which caused the application volume to reach 200 L ha.sup.−1.

[0212] In Table 1 all details related to mode of application of herbicides, and climatic conditions during herbicide application are listed. Treatments were composed by different programs of herbicides or combinations of herbicides applications, as described in Table 2.

[0213] Crop sowing was carried out under a no-tillage system, by distributing 16 seeds per meter of a Cultivance® soybean variety (BRZ 09-1882) in all treatments with Onduty® and also 16 seeds m.sup.−1 of a second soybean cultivar (BMX Potëncia RR) in the remaining treatments. Immediately before sowing, the seeds of both cultivars were treated with the insecticide Standak® Top (200 mL per ha) and were inoculated with Biomax (300 mL per 100 kg seed). Crop fertilization was performed with 200 kg ha.sup.−1 of a commercial N—P—K formulation (00-18-18).

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Descriptive details concerned to herbicide applications performed during this experiment. Applications A B C D Modality Post-emergence of weeds - Post-emergence of Immediately after Post- desiccation 30 days weeds - desiccation 5 crop sowing emergence before soybean sowing days before soybean (“plant-and-apply”) of soybeans sowing (stage V4) and weeds Date 02/11/2012 29/11/2012 04/12/2012 15/01/2013 Period of the 09:00-10:00 09:00-09:30 07:25-0:9:30 10:00-11:25 day Air temp. 24 26 27 23 (° C.) Air moisture 65 62 65 68 (%) Soil moist moist moist moist Wind speed   0.5   2.3   1.8   1.4 (km h.sup.−1) Soil cover 90 to 95% — — — Light clear sky, no clouds clear sky, no clouds clear sky, no clear sky, no clouds clouds Weed Conyza spp. (10 to 20 cm) — — Digitaria infestation (66 plants m.sup.−2) and insularis (4 and stage Digitaria insularis (1 tiller to leaves - 1 tiller) flowering) (44 plants m.sup.−2)

[0214] Tables 3 and 4 contain all data concerned to temperature, relative humidity and rainfall and product description (common names, chemical names, chemical groups, mechanisms of action, toxicological classes of herbicides) used in this work.

[0215] A randomized blocks experimental design was used, with 10 treatments (7 treatments with Cultivance variety and 3 treatments with BMX Potencia RR variety) and four replications. Experimental plots consisted of seven planting rows, spaced 0.45 m, and 5.0 m of length (20.0 m.sup.2). The area used for all evaluations in each parcel was that comprehended within the five central planting rows of each parcel, except 1.0 m from each end.

[0216] Weed infestation by the application “A” is described on Table 1. After the first application (application “A”), two evaluations were performed on the effect of treatments on the weeds emerged at that application. For those evaluations, we used as reference the infestation of the untreated controls. These assessments were determined as the percentage of control (visual scale 0-100%, where 0% means no symptoms and 100% total control of weed) at 17 and 25 days after application “A” (DAA-A).

[0217] Another evaluation was performed after the second application (five days before soybean sowing, application “B”) to analyze the effect of treatments on the control of remaining emerged flora (Conyzaspp. and D. insularis) at the time of application. For this evaluation, the same visual scale 0-100% was used and weed control efficiency was rated at five days after application “B” (5 DAA-B).

[0218] After crop sowing and application “C” (“plant-and-apply”), another set of three weed control evaluations (07, 22 and 42 DAA-C) were also performed, using the same visual rating scale. For the evaluations at 22 and 42 DAA-C, a weed count was also performed. For that, each parcel was randomly sampled (0.5×0.5 m) four times and results were converted to density of emerged plants (plants m.sup.−2).

[0219] One last weed control evaluation and weed count was performed 18 days after application “D” (18 DAA-D).

[0220] Regarding the selectivity to soybean, evaluations were performed at 7, 15 and 45 days after emergence (DAE) by EWRC scale 1-9 (EWRC, 1964), where 1 represents no symptom and 9 represents plant death. After termination of the experiment all plants remaining in the experimental area were mechanically destroyed.

[0221] Data were subjected to analysis of variance by F test and means were compared by the Scott-Knott test at 5% and 20% probability. Further the coefficient of variation (CV) is indicated.

Control of Digitaria insularis
a) Control D. insularis between application “A” and application “B”.

[0222] Data on D. insularis control obtained in two evaluations performed after the first application of herbicides (application “A”) are shown in Table 5. Statistical analysis was calculated at two levels of significance to the usual 5% probability and 20% probability. However, the discussion of weed control in this text analysis is guided on a 20% probability, due to higher discriminatory power and accuracy in significant differences found.

[0223] At 25 DAA-A, the levels of control provided by the addition of 150 g ha.sup.−1 of Onduty® were higher than other treatments, and provided control of 86.50% when associated with Aramo and 87.50% when associated with Select.

[0224] A visual evaluation on the size of the new sprouts at this date (25 DAA-A) revealed that the average new growth in plants from treatment with Onduty®150 g c.p. ha.sup.−1 was at most 5 cm regardless of the cyclohexanedione (Aramo or Select);

[0225] In this sense, the addition of Onduty® to cyclohexanediones Select and Aramo not only improved the control of D. insularis, but also promoted a substantial suppression of the weed regrowth, which is a very important attribute due to the great ability of this species to regrow.

b) Control D. insularis Between Application “B” and Soybean Sowing (Application “C”—“Plant-and-Apply”).

[0226] Table 6 contains results of D. insularis control at the evaluation performed immediately before soybean sowing (5 DAA-B). Again, the best levels of control were observed in those treatments that received in the Application “A” the association of Onduty® at 150 g c.p. ha.sup.−1 with any cyclohexanedione or Onduty® at 100 g c.p. ha.sup.−1 associated to Select (T2, T5 and T6). A second group of good control was composed by the treatment that associated Onduty® at 100 g c.p. ha.sup.−1 to Aramo (T3) and by the treatment with no addition of BAS71400H but with two applications of Select (T10).

c) Control of D. insularis Between Soybean Sowing (Application “C”) and Post-Emergence Application (“D”)

[0227] The results of control of D. insularis obtained in three evaluations after application “C” are found in Tables 7 and 8. Based on Table 8, in the first evaluation, 7 DAA-C, again the best controls were observed in the treatments with Onduty® in the application “A”, independent of dose (control 93.00%).

[0228] In the following evaluation, 22 DAA-C, the efficiency of treatments that received Onduty® 100 g c.p. ha.sup.−1 at application “A” observing reached 82.50% when combined with Aramo and t85.00% when combined with Select.

[0229] At 42 DAA-C, timing of the post-emergence application in some treatments, there was another weed control evaluation. Compositions containing Onduty® at 150 g c.p. ha.sup.−1 in application “A”, reached 94.00% weed control at the association with Aramo and 90.00% at the association with Select. Associations of Onduty® at 100 g c.p. ha.sup.−1 in application “A”, both with Aramo and Select, provided 80.00% weed control efficiency.

[0230] Another aspect evaluated was the residual effect on new fluxes of emergence of D. insularis. The results of weed counts are in tables 9 and 10 and results are expressed in terms of density of live plants in each treatment at 22 and 42 DAA-C.

[0231] Onduty® provided excellent residual control, allowing reduction between 85 and 90% in the emergence of new plants within the crop cycle. This lower density of plants in treatments with Onduty® leads to a much more comfortable and efficient post-emergence application, what affects positively the final control. The residual control also helps in controlling soil seed bank, which may have positive implications in the management of the area in the long term.

d) Control of D. Insularis Between Application “D” and Mechanical Crop Destruction.

[0232] Results of control of D. insularis after application “D” are in Table 11. The best treatments were those which received Onduty® 150 g c.p. ha.sup.−1 in application “A”, despite of the cyclohexanedione (96.00% control with Aramo and 94.50% with Select);

[0233] On the same date, 18 DAA-D, a new weed count of emerged plants of D. insularis was done (Table 12). There was a flux of new plants in all treatments, however, in all treatments containing Onduty®, despite of dose and application timing, the densities were always lower, demonstrating some control of this herbicide.

[0234] Looking at the overall context of D. insularis control, it seems evident that the combination of Onduty® especially at 150 g c.p. ha.sup.−1 applied 30 days before soybean sowing (despite of which cyclohexanedione was used) was highly beneficial in controlling this weed. This gain comes from the combined benefit of delayed regrowth of mature plants and of the reduction in the emergence of new fluxes, due to the residual effect found in all treatments where Onduty® was applied.

Control of Conyza Spp.

[0235] a) Control of Conyza Spp. Between Application “A” and Application “B”.

[0236] Data of Conyza spp. control in both evaluations performed after application “A” are shown in

[0237] Table 13. At 17 DAA-A, all the associations of herbicides demonstrated good levels of control (83.75 to 94.25%). At 25 DAA-A, control levels remained stable in the treatments containing Onduty®, despite of the dose (control range 82.50 to 85.00%).

b) Conyza Spp. Control Between Application “B” and Soybean Sowing (Application “C”—“Plant-and-Apply”).

[0238] Data compiled from results of Conyza spp. control at pre-sowing evaluation (5 DAA-B) is on Table 14.

c) Control of Conyza Spp. Between Soybean Sowing (Application “C”) and Post-Emergence Application (“D”)

[0239] The results of control of Conyza spp. obtained in three evaluations after application “C” are found in Table 15.

[0240] At 22 DAA-C, the efficiency of the sequential application of Heat associated to Onduty® (despite of the dose) remained above 97.00%,

[0241] At the evaluation of 42 DAA-C, treatments with a sequential application of Heat associated to Onduty® reached control levels of 96.75%.

d) Control of Conyza Spp. Between Application “D” and Mechanical Crop Destruction.

[0242] Results of control of Conyza spp. after application “D” are in Table 16.

[0243] At 18 DAA-D, the best treatments were those that received the sequential application of Heat associated to Onduty®, despite of its dose (control 97.50%);

Selectivity for Cultivance Soybean

[0244] In all three evaluations performed after crop emergence (7, 15 and 45 DAE), no visual injury was found (data not shown), both in Cultivance cv. and in BMX Potencia RR, suggesting that all herbicides and associations were safe for soybeans.

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Treatments, doses and application modalities. All herbicide doses are expressed as mass or volume per hectare of commercial formulations. Application “C” Application “D” Application “A” Application “B” (immediately after (42 days after Treat. Var. (30 days before crop sowing) (5 days before crop sowing) crop sowing) crop sowing) 01 Cultivance No herbicide (unweeded check No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide cv. Cultivance cv.) 02 Roundup Original + Heat + Roundup.sup.1 + Heat + Onduty ® + — — Onduty ® + Aramo.sup.1/ Aramo.sup.1/ (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 03 Roundup Original + Heat + Roundup.sup.1 + Heat + Onduty ® + — — Onduty + Aramo.sup.1/ Aramo.sup.1/ (3.0 L + 50 g + 100 g + 0.8 L) (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 04 — Roundup + Heat + Aramo.sup.1/ Onduty ®.sup.1/ Aramo.sup.2 (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.8 L) (150 g) (0.5 L) 05 Roundup Original + Heat + Roundup + Heat + Onduty ® + — — Onduty ® + Select.sup.1/ Select.sup.1/ (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 06 Roundup Original + Heat + Roundup + Heat + Onduty ® + — — Onduty ® + Select.sup.1/ Select.sup.1/ (3.0 L + 50 g + 100 g + 0.75 L) (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 07 — Roundup + Heat + Select.sup.1/ Onduty ®.sup.1/ Select.sup.2 (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) (150 g) (0.45 L) 08 X Potencia No herbicide (unweeded check No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide RR cv. BMX Potencia cv.) 09 — Roundup + Heat + Select.sup.1/ — Roundup Ready + (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) Select.sup.2/ (2.0 L + 0.45 L) 10 Roundup Original + Heat + Roundup + Heat + Select.sup.1/ — Roundup Ready + Select.sup.1/ (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) Select.sup.2/ (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) (2.0 L + 0.45 L) .sup.1/Applied with Dash 0.5% v v.sup.−1. .sup.2/Applied with Assist 0.5% v v.sup.−1. Roundup Original: 360 g a.e. of glyphosate L.sup.−1; Aramo: CE, 200 g L.sup.−1 tepraloxydim; Heat, WG, 700 g kg.sup.−1 saflufenacil; Onduty ® = WG [525 g imazapic + 175 g de imazayir] kg.sup.−1; Select: EC, 240 g L.sup.−1 clethodim; Roundup Ready: 480 g a.e. of glyphosate L.sup.−1.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Common names of active ingredients, chemical names, chemical groups, mechanisms of action and toxicological classes of herbicides in this trial. Mechanism Toxicological Common name Chemical name Chemical group of action class Glyphosate N-(phosphonomethyl) Glycines EPSPs Roundup glycine Inhibitor Original = III (moderately hazardous) Saflufenacil N′-{2-chloro-4-fluoro-5- Uracil/amides PPO Heat ® = to be [1,2,3,6-tetrahydro-3-methyl- inhibitor determined by 2,6-dioxo-4- ANVISA (trifluoromethyl)pyrimidin-1- yl]benzoyl}-N-isopropyl-N- methylsulfamide [Imazapic + (RS)-2-(4-isopropyl-4- [Imidazolinones + [ALS Onduty ® = III imazapyr] methyl-5-oxo-2-imidazolin-2- imidazolinones] inhibitor + (moderately yl)-5-methylnicotinic acid + ALS hazardous) [2-(4-isopropyl-4-methyl-5- inhibitor] oxo-2-imidazolin-2- yl)nicotinic acid Tepraloxydim (EZ)-(RS)-2-{1-[(2E)-3- Cyclohexanediones ACCase Aramo ® = II chloroallyloxymino] propil}-3- inhibitor (highly hydroxy-5-perhydropyran-4- hazardous) ylcyclohex-2-en-1-one Clethodim (RS)-2-[(E)-1-[(E)-3- Cyclohexanediones ACCase Select 240 chloroallyloxyimino]propyl]-5- inhibitor EC = I [2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3- (extremely hydroxycyclohex-2-en-1-one hazardous) Glyphosate N-(phosphonomethyl) Glycines EPSPs Roundup glycine Inhibitor Ready = II (highly hazardous)

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Visual weed control (%) (Digitaria insularis) in two evaluations after application “A” (30 days before crop sowing) compared at two significance (α) levels (p < 0.05 and p < 0.20). Treatments % control % control (only herbicides in application “A”, Digitaria insularis* Digitaria insularis** 30 days before crop sowing) L or g p.c. ha.sup.−1 17 DAA-A 25 DAA-A 17 DAA-A 25 DAA-A 01. No herbicide —  0.00 b  0.00 d  0.00 b  0.00 e 02. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ 3.0 + 50 + 150 + 0.8 51.25 a 86.50 a 51.25 a 86.50 a 03. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ 3.0 + 50 + 100 + 0.8 55.00 a 78.75 b 55.00 a 78.75 c 04. — —  0.00 b  0.00 d  0.00 b  0.00 e 05. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ 3.0 + 50 + 150 + 0.75 55.00 a 87.50 a 55.00 a 87.50 a 06. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ 3.0 + 50 + 100 + 0.75 53.75 a 81.25 b 53.75 a 81.25 b 07. — —  0.00 b  0.00 d  0.00 b  0.00 e 08. No herbicide —  0.00 b  0.00 d  0.00 b  0.00 e 09. — —  0.00 a  0.00 d  0.00 a  0.00 e 10. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ 3.0 + 50 + 0.75 51.25 a 45.00 c 51.25 a 45.00 d F 237.18 1546.08 237.18 1546.08 CV (%)  13.70   5.59  13.70   5.59 *Means followed by same letter in the column were clustered in the same group by the Scott Knott test at (p < 0.05). **Means followed by same letter in the column were clustered in the same group by the Scott Knott test at (p < 0.20). .sup.1/Roundup Original. .sup.2/Applied with Dash 0.5% v v.sup.−1.

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Visual weed control (%) (Digitaria insularis) at sowing date, after two applications (application “A” - 30 days before soybean sowing and application “B” - 5 days before soybean sowing). Data compared at two significance (α) levels (p < 0.05 and p < 0.20). % control % control Treatments D. insularis* D. insularis** Application “A” Application “B” 5 DAA-B 5 DAA-B (30 days before soybean sowing) (5 days before soybean sowing) (sowing day) (sowing day) 01. No herbicide No herbicide  0.00 c  0.00 d 02. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Aramo.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Aramo.sup.2/ 95.50 a 95.50 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 03. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Aramo.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Aramo.sup.2/ 91.50 a 91.50 b (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 04. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Aramo.sup.2/ 27.50 b 27.50 c (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.8 L) 05. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Select.sup.2/ 97.00 a 97.00 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 06. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Select.sup.2/ 94.50 a 94.50 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 07. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ 23.75 b 23.75 c (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) 08. No herbicide No herbicide  0.00 c  0.00 d 09. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ 28.00 c 28.00 c (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) 10. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ 89.50 a 89.50 b (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) F 301.25 301.25 CV (%)  8.88  8.88 *Means followed by same letter in the column were clustered in the same group by the Scott Knott test at (p < 0.05). **Means followed by same letter in the column were clustered in the same group by the Scott Knott test at (p < 0.20). .sup.1/Roundup Original. .sup.2/Applied with Dash 0.5% v v.sup.−1.

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Visual weed control (%) (Digitaria insularis) in three evaluations performed after three applications (application “A” - 30 days before soybean sowing; application “B” - 5 days before soybean sowing; and application “C” - plant-and-apply). Data compared at p < 0.05. Treatments Application “A” Application “B” Application ”C” % control D. insularis* (30 days before soybean sowing) (5 days before soybean sowing) (plant-and-apply) 07 DAA-C 22 DAA-C 42 DAA-C 01. No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide  0.00 d  0.00 e  0.00 e 02. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Aramo.sup.2/ — 95.50 a 95.75 a 94.00 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 03. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Aramo.sup.2/ — 93.00 a 82.50 b 80.00 b (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 04. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Aramo.sup.2 Onduty.sup.2/ 51.25 c 63.75 c 61.25 c (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.8 L) (150 g) 05. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Select.sup.2/ — 96.50 a 92.50 a 90.00 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 06. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Select.sup.2/ — 96.00 a 85.00 b 80.50 b (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 07. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ Onduty ®.sup.2/ 55.00 c 67.50 c 65.00 c (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) (150 g) 08. No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide  0.00 d  0.00 e  0.00 e 09. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ — 52.00 c 46.25 d 46.25 d (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) 10. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ — 89.25 b 73.75 b 63.75 c (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) F 861.09 131.01 221.80 CV (%)  4.14  10.11  7.81 *Means followed by same letter in the column were clustered in the same group by the Scott Knott test at (p < 0.05). .sup.1/Roundup Original. .sup.2/Applied with Dash 0.5% v v.sup.−1.

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Visual weed control (%) (Digitaria insularis) in three evaluations performed after three applications (application “A” - 30 days before soybean sowing; application “B” - 5 days before soybean sowing; and application “C” - plant-and-apply). Data compared at p < 0.20. Treatments Application “A” Application “B” Application “C” % control D. insularis* (30 days before soybean sowing) (5 days before soybean sowing) (plant-and-apply) 07 DAA-C 22 DAA-C 42 DAA-C 01. No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide  0.00 f  0.00 f  0.00 e 02. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Aramo.sup.2/ — 95.50 a 95.75 a 94.00 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 03. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Aramo.sup.2/ — 93.00 b 82.50 b 80.00 b (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 04. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Aramo.sup.2/ Onduty.sup.2/ 51.25 e 63.75 d 61.25 c (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.8 L) (150 g) 05. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Select.sup.2/ — 96.50 a 92.50 a 90.00 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 06. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Select.sup.2/ — 96.00 a 85.00 b 80.50 b (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 07. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ Onduty.sup.2/ 55.00 d 67.50 d 65.00 c (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) (150 g) 08. No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide  0.00 f  0.00 f  0.00 e 09. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ — 52.00 e 46.25 e 46.25 d (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) 10. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ — 89.25 c 73.75 c 63.75 c (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) F 861.09 131.01 221.80 CV (%)  4.14  10.11  7.81 *Means followed by same letter in the column were clustered in the same group by the Scott Knott test at (p < 0.20). .sup.1/Roundup Original. .sup.2/Applied with Dash 0.5% v v.sup.−1.

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 Weed (Digitaria insularis) counts in two evaluations performed after three applications (application “A” - 30 days before soybean sowing; application “B” - 5 days before soybean sowing; and application “C” - plant-and-apply). Data compared at p < 0.05. Density Treatments D. insularis* Application “A” Application “B” Application “C” (plants m.sup.−2) (30 days before soybean sowing) (5 days before soybean sowing) (plant-and-apply) 22 DAA-C 42 DAA-C 01. No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide 13.75 c 16.50c 02. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Aramo.sup.2/ —  7.00 c 10.25c (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 03. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Aramo.sup.2/ —  6.75 c 11.25c (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 04. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Aramo.sup.2 Onduty ®.sup.2/  9.00 c 14.25c (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.8 L) (150 g) 05. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Select.sup.2/ —  2.50 c  8.00c (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 06. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Select.sup.2/ —  1.25 c 11.00c (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 07. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ Onduty ®.sup.2/ 19.50 c 27.00c (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) (150 g) 08. No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide 16.25 c 22.00c 09. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ — 46.75 b 60.50b (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) 10. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ — 66.75 a 101.75a  (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) F 13.65 41.66 CV (%) 60.71 32.98 *Means followed by same letter in the column were clustered in the same group by the Scott Knott test at (p < 0.05). .sup.1/Roundup Original. .sup.2/Applied with Dash 0.5% v v.sup.−1.

TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Weed (Digitaria insularis) counts in two evaluations performed after three applications (application “A” - 30 days before soybean sowing; application “B” - 5 days before soybean sowing; and application “C” - plant-and apply). Data compared at p < 0.20. Density Treatments D. insularis* Application “A” Application “B” Application “C” (plants m.sup.−2) (30 days before soybean sowing) (5 days before soybean sowing) (plant-and-apply) 22 DAA-C 42 DAA-C 01. No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide 13.75 c 16.50d 02. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Aramo.sup.2/ —  7.00 c 10.25d (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 03. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Aramo.sup.2/ —  6.75 c 11.25d (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 04. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Aramo.sup.2 Onduty ®.sup.2/  9.00 c 14.25d (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.8 L) (150 g) 05. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Select.sup.2/ —  2.50 c  8.00d (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 06. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty ® + Select.sup.2/ —  1.25 c 11.00d (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 07. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ Onduty ®.sup.2/ 19.50 c 27.00c (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) (150 g) 08. No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide 16.25 c 22.00c 09. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ — 46.75 b 60.50b (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) 10. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ — 66.75 a 101.75a  (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) F 13.65 41.66 CV (%) 60.71 32.98 *Means followed by same letter in the column were clustered in the same group by the Scott Knott test at (p < 0.20). .sup.1/Roundup Original. .sup.2/Applied with Dash 0.5% v v.sup.−1.

TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 10 Visual weed control (%) (Digitaria insularis) at 18 DAA-D after four applications (application “A” - 30 days before soybean sowing; application “B” - 5 days before soybean sowing; application “C” - plant-and-apply; and application “D” - 42 days after soybean sowing). Data compared at p < 0.05 and p < 0.20. Treatments Application “A” Application “D” (30 days before soybean Application “B” Application ”C” (42 days after % control Digitaria insularis sowing) (5 days before soybean sowing) (plant-and-apply) soybean sowing) 18 DAA-D* 18 DAA-D** 01. No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide  0.00 c  0.00 e 02. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + — — 96.00 a 96.00 a Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ Aramo.sup.2/ (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 03. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + — — 73.75 b 73.75 d Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ Aramo.sup.2/ (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 04. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Aramo.sup.2 Onduty.sup.2/ Aramo.sup.3/ 83.25 b 83.25 c (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.8 L) (150 g) (0.5 L) 05. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + — — 94.50 a 94.50 a Onduty + Select.sup.2/ Select.sup.2/ (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 06. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + — — 83.50 b 83.50 c Onduty + Select.sup.2/ Select.sup.2/ (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 07. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ Onduty.sup.2/ Select.sup.3/ 82.50 b 82.50 c (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) (150 g) (0.45 L) 08. No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide  0.00 c  0.00 e 09. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ — Roundup Ready + 78.00 b 78.00 d (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) Select.sup.3/ (2.0 L + 0.45 L) 10. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ — Roundup Ready + 88.75 a 88.75 b Select.sup.2/ (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) Select.sup.3/ (2.0 L + 0.45 L) F 173.39 173.39 CV (%)  8.15  8.15 *Means followed by same letter in the column were clustered in the same group by the Scott Knott test at (p < 0.05). **Means followed by same letter in the column were clustered in the same group by the Scott Knott test at (p < 0.20). .sup.1/Roundup Original.; .sup.2/Applied with Dash 0.5% v v.sup.−1; .sup.3/Applied with Assist 0.5% v v.sup.−1

TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 11 Weed (Digitaria insularis) counts at 18 DAA-D after four applications (application “A” - 30 days before soybean sowing; application “B” - 5 days before soybean sowing; application “C” - plant-and-apply; and application “D” - 42 days after soybean sowing). Data compared at p < 0.05 and p < 0.20. Treatments Density Application “A” Application “D” D. insularis (30 days before soybean Application “B” Application “C” (42 days after (plants m.sup.−2) sowing) (5 days before soybean sowing) (plant-and-apply) soybean sowing) 18 DAA-D* 18 DAA-D** 01. No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide 164.50a  164.50a  02. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + — — 70.75 b 70.75 c Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ Aramo.sup.2/ (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 03. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduyt + — — 88.25 b 88.25 b Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ Aramo.sup.2/ (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 04. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Aramo.sup.2 Onduty.sup.2/ Aramo.sup.3/ 96.25 b 96.25 b (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.8 L) (150 g) (0.5 L) 05. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + — — 56.00 b 56.00 c Onduty + Select.sup.2/ Select.sup.2/ (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 06. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + — — 59.50 b 59.50 c Onduty + Select.sup.2/ Select.sup.2/ (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 07. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ Onduty.sup.2/ Select.sup.3/ 96.00 b 96.00 b (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) (150 g) (0.45 L) 08. No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide 141.25 a  141.25 a  09. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ — Roundup Ready + 108.25 b  108.25 b  (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) Select.sup.3/ (2.0 L + 0.45 L) 10. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ — Roundup Ready + 155.00 a  155.00 a  Select.sup.2/ (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) Select.sup.3/ (2.0 L + 0.45 L) F  6.41  6.41 CV (%) 29.47 29.47 *Means followed by same letter in the column were clustered in the same group by the Scott Knott test at (p < 0.05). **Means followed by same letter in the column were clustered in the same group by the Scott Knott test at (p < 0.20). .sup.1/Roundup Original; .sup.2/Applied with Dash 0.5% v v.sup.−1; .sup.3/Applied with Assist 0.5% v v.sup.−1.

TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 12 Visual weed control (%) (Conyza spp.) in two evaluations after application “A” (30 days before crop sowing). Data compared at p < 0.05. Treatments (only herbicides in application “A”, % control Conyza spp.* 30 days before crop sowing) L or g c.p. ha.sup.−1 17 DAA-A 25 DAA-A 01. No herbicide —  0.00 c  0.00 c 02. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ 3.0 + 50 + 150 + 0.8 86.25 b 82.50 a 03. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ 3.0 + 50 + 100 + 0.8 94.25 a 83.75 a 04. —  0.00 c  0.00 c 05. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ 3.0 + 50 + 150 + 0.75 85.00 b 85.00 a 06. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ 3.0 + 50 + 100 + 0.75 86.25 b 83.75 a 07. —  0.00 c  0.00 c 08. No herbicide  0.00 c  0.00 c 09. —  0.00 c  0.00 c 10. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ 3.0 + 50 + 0.75 83.75 b 74.50 b F 640.34 841.33 CV (%)  8.35  7.28 *Means followed by same letter in the column were clustered in the same group by the Scott Knott test at (p < 0.05). .sup.1/Roundup Original. .sup.2/Applied with Dash 0.5% v v.sup.−1.

TABLE-US-00013 TABLE 13 Visual weed control (%) (Conyza spp.) at sowing date, after two applications (application “A” - 30 days before soybean sowing and application “B” - 5 days before soybean sowing). Data compared at p < 0.05. % control Treatments Conyza spp* Application “A” Application “B” 5 DAA-B (30 days before soybean sowing) (5 days before soybean sowing) (sowing day) 01. No herbicide No herbicide  0.00 c 02. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ 97.50 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 03. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ 94.50 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 100 g + 0.8 L) (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 04. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Aramo.sup.2/ 32.00 b (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.8 L) 05. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ 93.50 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 06. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ 95.50 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 100 g + 0.75 L) (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 07. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ 30.50 b (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) 08. No herbicide No herbicide  0.00 c 09. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ 25.00 b (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) 10. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ 95.00 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) F 114.01 CV (%)  14.08 *Means followed by same letter in the column were clustered in the same group by the Scott Knott test at (p < 0.05). .sup.1/Roundup Original. .sup.2/Applied with Dash 0.5% v v.sup.−1.

TABLE-US-00014 TABLE 14 Visual weed control (%) (Conyza spp.) in three evaluations performed after three applications (application “A” - 30 days before soybean sowing; application “B” - 5 days before soybean sowing; and application “C” - plant-and-apply). Data compared at p < 0.05. Treatments Application “A” Application “B” Application “C” % control Conyza spp. (30 days before soybean sowing) (5 days before soybean sowing) (plant-and-apply) 07 DAA-C 22 DAA-C 42 DAA-C 01. No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide  0.00 c  0.00 e  0.00 e 02. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ — 95.75 a 97.50 a 98.00 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 03. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ — 97.75 a 97.00 a 96.75 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 100 g + 0.8 L) (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 04. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Aramo.sup.2/ Onduty.sup.2 53.25 b 63.75 c 58.75 c (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.8 L) (150 g) 05. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ — 97.75 a 97.25 a 97.25 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 06. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ — 97.50 a 97.25 a 97.75 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 100 g + 0.75 L) (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 07. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ Onduty.sup.2 54.25 b 60.00 c 56.25 c (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) (150 g) 08. No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide  0.00 c  0.00 e  0.00 e 09. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ — 53.75 b 43.75 d 41.25 d (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) 10. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ — 96.50 a 91.25 b 90.00 b (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) F 773.15 479.93 511.26 CV (%)  4.38  5.51  8.46 *Means followed by same letter in the column were clustered in the same group by the Scott Knott test at (p < 0.05). .sup.1/Roundup Original. .sup.2/Applied with Dash 0.5% v v.sup.−1.

TABLE-US-00015 TABLE 15 Visual weed control (%) (Conyza spp.) at 18 DAA-D after four applications (application “A” - 30 days before soybean sowing; application “B” - 5 days before soybean sowing; application “C” - plant-and-apply; and application “D” - 42 days after soybean sowing). Data compared at p < 0.05. Treatments Application “D” % control Application “A” Application “B” Application “C” (42 days after Conyza spp* (30 days before soybean sowing) (5 days before soybean sowing) (plant-and-apply) soybean sowing) 18 DAA-D 01. No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide  0.00 e 02. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ — — 98.25 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 03. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Aramo.sup.2/ — — 97.50 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 100 g + 0.8 L) (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.8 L) 04. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Aramo.sup.2/ Onduty.sup.2/ Aramo.sup.3/ 56.25 c (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.8 L) (150 g) (0.5 L) 05. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ — — 98.50 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 06. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Onduty + Select.sup.2/ — — 98.00 a (3.0 L + 50 g + 100 g + 0.75 L) (3.0 L + 50 g + 150 g + 0.75 L) 07. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ Onduty.sup.2/ Select.sup.3/ 57.25 c (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) (150 g) (0.45 L) 08. No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide No herbicide  0.00 e 09. — Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ — Roundup Ready + 37.50 d (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) Select.sup.3/ (2.0 L + 0.45 L) 10. Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ Roundup.sup.1/ + Heat + Select.sup.2/ — Roundup Ready + 85.50 b (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) (3.0 L + 50 g + 0.75 L) Select.sup.3/ (2.0 L + 0.45 L) F 50.73 CV (%) 17.83 *Means followed by same letter in the column were clustered in the same group by the Scott Knott test at (p < 0.05). .sup.1/Roundup Original. .sup.2/Applied with Dash 0.5% v v.sup.−1; .sup.3/Applied with Assist 0.5% v v.sup.−1

Example 2

[0245] Location:

[0246] The study was carried out in Brazil.

[0247] Treatments:

[0248] All treatments assessed are shown in Table 16.

[0249] Method:

[0250] All treatments were applied in established weeds, post emergence, before weeds flowering. The treatments were applied using backpressure equipment (nozzles TEEJET8002) with a water consumption of 150 liters per hectare, 1.2 BAR.

[0251] Assessment and Assessed Criteria:

[0252] 14, 21, 28, 35 and 42 days after application (“DAA”) evaluations were carried out, i.e. measuring the control of Trichachne insularis (Digitaria insularis) and its regrowth. The assessment consisted in a visual control level of weeds in which 0% related to absence of control and 100% to total control of weeds. The regrowth were assessed by comparing the emergence of new tillers in treatments versus the emergence of new tillers in check (non-treated control).

[0253] Data Analysis:

[0254] An analysis was carried out for viability rates applied through a variance analysis and a mean comparison test of Student—Newman-Keuls (P=0.5) with the ARM® statistical analysis package.

[0255] Results:

[0256] control of and regrowth of D. insularis is shown in Table 16 and 17 respectively.

TABLE-US-00016 TABLE 16 14 DAA 21 DAA Treatments Dose (g a.e. or ai/ha) % of control Theoritical Proved Calculated 01. Glyphosate 1080 11.25 h 8.75 h 02. Clethodim  192 45 c 60 d 03. [Imazapic + Imazapyr] [36.75 + 12.25] 11.25 h 13.75 h 04. [Imazapic + Imazapyr] [78.75 + 26.25] 22.5 f 36.25 f 05. Saflufenacil    24.5 15 g 11.25 h 06. Saflufenacil  49 18.75 g 16.25 g 07. Glyphosate + 1080 + 192  50 c 74.5 b 63.50 Clethodim 08. Glyphosate + 1080 + [36.75 + 12.25] 48.75 c 21.23 60 d 21.30 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] 09. Glyphosate + 1080 + [78.75 + 26.25] 61.25 b 31.22 68.25 c 41.83 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] 10. Glyphosate + 1080 + 24.5  16.25 g 24.56 13.75 h 19.02 Saflufenacil 11. Glyphosate + 1080 + 49  23.75 f 27.89 21.25 g 23.58 Saflufenacil 12. Clethodim +  192 + [36.75 + 12.25] 50 c 51.19 58.75 d 65.50 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] 13. Clethodim +  192 + [78.75 + 26.25] 60 b 57.38 66.25 c 74.50 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] 14. Clethodim +  192 + 24.5 68.75 a 53.25 67 c 64.50 Saflufenacil 15. Clethodim + 192 + 49  67.5 a 55.31 73.25 b 66.50 Saflufenacil 16. [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + [36.75 + 12.25] + 24.5   18.75 g 24.56 15 g 23.45 Saflufenacil 17. [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + [36.75 + 12.25] + 49   15 g 27.89 16.25 g 27.77 Saflufenacil 18. [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + [78.75 + 26.25] + 24.5   27.25 f 34.13 48.75 e 43.42 Saflufenacil 19. [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + [78.75 + 26.25] + 49   26.25 f 37.03 45 e 46.61 Saflufenacil 20. Glyphosate + 1080 + 192 + [36.75 + 12.25] 57.5 b 55.55 73.75 b 70.07 Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] 21. Glyphosate + 1080 + 192 + [78.75 + 26.25] 65.75 a 59.9 78.75 b 73 Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] 22. Glyphosate + 1080 + 192 + 24.5 40 d 57 67.5 c 66.43 Clethodim + Saflufenacil 23. Glyphosate + 1080 + 192 + 49   46.25 c 58.44 70 c 67.7 Clethodim + Saflufenacil 24. Glyphosate + 1080 + [36.75 + 12.25] + 24.5 33.75 e 32.66 51.25 e 29.9 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 25. Glyphosate + 1080 + [36.75 + 12.25] + 49   41.25 d 36.37 58.75 d 33.69 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 26. Glyphosate + 1080 + [78.75 + 26.25] + 24.5 46.25 c 40.76 68.75 c 47.66 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 27. Glyphosate + 1080 + [78.75 + 26.25] + 49   52.5 c 43.166 71.25 c 50.25 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 28. Clethodim +  192 + [36.75 + 12.25] + 24.5 38.75 d 57 55 d 67.52 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 29. Clethodim + 192 + [36.75 + 12.25] + 49  36.25 e 58.44 55 d 68.43 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 30. Clethodim +  192 + [78.75 + 26.25] + 24.5 47.5 c 60.73 74.5 b 72.4 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 31. Clethodim + 192 + [78.75 + 26.25] + 49  50 c 61.5 72.5 b 71.58 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 32. Glyphosate + 1080 + 192 + [36.75 + 12.25] + 24.5 62.5 b 58.63 76.25 b 67.38 Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 33. Glyphosate + 1080 + 192 + [36.75 + 12.25] + 49   64.5 a 59.42 78.75 b 67.49 Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 34. Glyphosate + 1080 + 192 + [78.75 + 26.25] + 24.5 67.5 a 60.3 87 a 68.78 Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 35. Glyphosate + 1080 + 192 + [78.75 + 26.25] + 49   70 a 59.8 91.25 a 66.92 Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 36. No herbicides — 0 0 i 28 DAA 35 DAA 42 DAA Treatments Proved Calc. Proved Calc. Proved Calc. 01. Glyphosate 8.75 h 6.25 j 3.75 d 02. Clethodim 62.5 c 60 e 52.5 b 03. [Imazapic + Imazapyr] 16.25 g 12.5 i 12.5 d 04. [Imazapic + Imazapyr] 47.5 d 40 g 32.5 c 05. Saflufenacil 5 h 5 j 2.5 d 06. Saflufenacil 6.25 h 6.25 j 2.5 d 07. Glyphosate + 76.25 b 65.78 70 c 65.47 60 a 54.28 Clethodim 08. Glyphosate + 63.25 c 23.58 58.75 e 17.97 45 b 15.78 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] 09. Glyphosate + 72 c 52.09 74.25 c 43.75 71.25 a 35.03 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] 10. Glyphosate + 13.75 g 13.31 11.25 i 10.94 6.25 d 6.16 Saflufenacil 11. Glyphosate + 20 f 52.09 17.5 i 12.11 7.5 d 6.16 Saflufenacil 12. Clethodim + 65 c 68.59 65 d 71.72 50 b 58.44 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] 13. Clethodim + 68.75 c 80.31 67.5 d 76.00 61.25 a 67.94 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] 14. Clethodim + 64.25 c 64.38 58.75 e 62.00 53.75 b 53.69 Saflufenacil 15. Clethodim + 58.75 d 64.84 63.25 d 12.11 65 a 53.69 Saflufenacil 16. [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + 32.5 e 20.44 26.25 h 16.88 8.75 d 14.69 Saflufenacil 17. [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + 33.75 e 21.48 33.75 g 17.97 12.5 d 14.69 Saflufenacil 18. [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + 55 d 50.13 50 f 43.00 40 b 34.19 Saflufenacil 19. [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + 51.25 d 50.78 50 f 43.75 41.25 b 34.19 Saflufenacil 20. Glyphosate + 83.25 b 69.57 80 b 66.3 61.25 a 59.2 Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] 21. Glyphosate + 86.25 a 76.83 82.5 b 14.5 67.5 a 67.9 Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] 22. Glyphosate + 67.5 c 67 61.25 e 64 48.75 b 55.4 Clethodim + Saflufenacil 23. Glyphosate + 77 b 67.25 67.5 d 64.38 56.25 b 55.4 Clethodim + Saflufenacil 24. Glyphosate + 62 c 27.3 45 f 22 31.25 c 17.9 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 25. Glyphosate + 68.75 c 28.19 40 g 23 37.5 b 17.9 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 26. Glyphosate + 85 a 54.1 81.25 b 46.32 67.5 a 36.6 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 27. Glyphosate + 83 b 54.6 82.5 b 47 68.75 a 36.6 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 28. Clethodim + 76.25 b 69.17 57.5 e 66 53.75 b 59.1 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 29. Clethodim + 70 c 69.3 58.75 e 66 42.5 b 59.1 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 30. Clethodim + 76.25 b 78.32 71.25 c 74.8 58.75 a 67.9 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 31. Clethodim + 79.5 b 77.83 75.5 c 74.5 55 b 67.9 [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 32. Glyphosate + 82.5 b 69.33 75.25 c 66.5 66.25 a 60.05 Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 33. Glyphosate + 81 b 68.76 76.25 c 66.76 61.25 a 60.05 Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 34. Glyphosate + 93 a 73.8 90.75 a 72.56 80.75 a 67.62 Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 35. Glyphosate + 93.25 a 73.06 93 a 72.11 77.5 a 67.62 Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 36. No herbicides 0 h 0 j 0 d

TABLE-US-00017 TABLE 17 Treatments Dose (g a.e or ai/ha) 35 DAA 42 DAA 01. Glyphosate 1080 61.25 g 67.5 d 02. Clethodim  192 28 d 33.75 b 03. [Imazapic + Imazapyr] [36.75 + 12.25] 41.25 e 58.75 c 04. [Imazapic + Imazapyr] [78.75 + 26.25] 27.5 d 42.5 b 05. Saflufenacil    24.5 63.75 g 72.5 d 06. Saflufenacil  49 66.5 g 78.75 d 07. Glyphosate + Clethodim 1080 + 192  22.5 c 27.5 b 08. Glyphosate + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] 1080 + [36.75 + 12.25] 23.75 c 36.25 b 09. Glyphosate + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] 1080 + [78.75 + 26.25] 10.5 b 16.25 a 10. Glyphosate + Saflufenacil 1080 + 24.5  60 g 70 d 11. Glyphosate + Saflufenacil 1080 + 49  32.5 d 36.25 b 12. Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr]  192 + [36.75 + 12.25] 26.25 d 36.25 b 13. Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr]  192 + [78.75 + 26.25] 13 b 18.75 a 14. Clethodim + Saflufenacil  192 + 24.5 27.75 d 38.75 b 15. Clethodim + Saflufenacil 192 + 49  24.75 c 28.75 b 16. [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil [36.75 + 12.25] + 24.5   53.75 f 62.5 c 17. [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil [36.75 + 12.25] + 49   42.5 e 53.75 c 18. [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil [78.75 + 26.25] + 24.5   24.5 c 37.5 b 19. [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil [78.75 + 26.25] + 49   29.5 d 45 b 20. Glyphosate + Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] 1080 + 192 + [36.75 + 12.25] 16.25 b 26.25 b 21. Glyphosate + Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] 1080 + 192 + [78.75 + 26.25] 12.5 b 19.5 a 22. Glyphosate + Clethodim + Saflufenacil 1080 + 192 + 24.5 31.25 d 40 b 23. Glyphosate + Clethodim + Saflufenacil 1080 + 192 + 49   23.75 c 36.25 b 24. Glyphosate + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 1080 + [36.75 + 12.25] + 24.5 25.75 c 46.25 b 25. Glyphosate + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 1080 + [36.75 + 12.25] + 49   25 c 38.75 b 26. Glyphosate + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 1080 + [78.75 + 26.25] + 24.5 9.25 b 17.5 a 27. Glyphosate + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 1080 + [78.75 + 26.25] + 49   8.5 b 17.5 a 28. Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil  192 + [36.75 + 12.25] + 24.5 23.75 c 28 b 29. Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 192 + [36.75 + 12.25] + 49  22.5 c 32.5 b 30. Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil  192 + [78.75 + 26.25] + 24.5 12.5 b 18.75 a 31. Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 192 + [78.75 + 26.25] + 49  12.5 b 18.75 a 32. Glyphosate + Clehtodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 1080 + 192 + [36.75 + 12.25] + 24.5 20 c 30 b 33. Glyphosate + Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 1080 + 192 + [36.75 + 12.25] + 49   18.75 c 35 b 34. Glyphosate + Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 1080 + 192 + [78.75 + 26.25] + 24.5 5.5 a 13.75 a 35. Glyphosate + Clethodim + [Imazapic + Imazapyr] + Saflufenacil 1080 + 192 + [78.75 + 26.25] + 49   5 a 12.5 a 36. No herbicides — — — — —

Example 3

[0257] Location:

[0258] The study was carried out in Brazil.

[0259] Treatments:

[0260] All treatments assessed are shown in Table 18.

[0261] Method and Assessment:

[0262] The applications carried out by a back pressure sprayer with T-jet nozzles (XR-110.02) covering 200 liters per hectare. At the time of application, Conyza bonariensis weeds were 20 cm height. The results assessed by the comparison between viable weeds at the control plot and the viable weeds at the treatments plots. To the experiment, the plot consist of a 20 m2 area (5 meters length and 4 meters width).

[0263] Data Analysis:

[0264] The synergy was calculated by Colby formula and it expansion for three-way mixtures

[0265] Results:

[0266] control of of Conyza bonariensis is shown in Table 18.

[0267] The applications carried out by a back pressure sprayer with T-jet nozzles (XR-110.02) covering 200 liters per hectare. At the time of application, Conyza bonariensis weeds were 20 cm height. The results assessed by the comparison between viable weeds at the control plot and the viable weeds at the treatments plots. To the experiment, the plot consist of a 20 m2 area (5 meters length and 4 meters width).

TABLE-US-00018 TABLE 18 Control of Conyza bonariensis 7 DAA 15 DAA Product Rate Field Synergy Field Synergy Active Ingredient (ml or g/ha) Dose (g a.i. or a.e./ha) Results by colby Results by colby 1 Glyphosate 3000 32.50 65.00 2 Glufosinate + Saflufenacil 2500 + 70  91.25 74.50 3 Glyphosate 3000 15.00 — 27.50 — 4 Saflufenacil 35 24.5 60.00 — 56.25 — 5 Saflufenacil 70 49 86.25 — 73.75 — 6 (Imazapic + Imazapyr) 70 (36.75 + 12.25) 38.75 — 62.00 — 7 (Imazapic + Imazapyr) 150 (78.75 + 26.25) 48.75 — 66.25 — 8 Glyphosate + Saflufenacil 3000 360 + 24.5 85.00 66.00 71.25 68.28125 9 Glyphosate + Saflufenacil 3000 360 + 49.sup.  88.75 88.31 77.50 80.96875 10 Glyphosate + (Imazapic + Imazapyr) 3000 360 + (36.75 + 12.25) 51.25 47.9375 65.00 72.45 11 Glyphosate + (Imazapic + Imazapyr) 3000 360 + (78.75 + 26.25) 61.25 56.44 72.50 75.53125 12 Saflufenacil + (Imazapic + Imazapyr) 35 + 70 24.5 + (36.75 + 12.25)  67.50 75.50 85.75 83.375 13 Saflufenacil + (Imazapic + Imazapyr)  35 + 150 24.5 + (78.75 + 26.25)  77.50 79.50 89.00 85.234375 14 Saflufenacil + (Imazapic + Imazapyr) 70 + 70  49 + (36.75 + 12.25) 72.50 91.58 88.75 90.025 15 Saflufenacil + (Imazapic + Imazapyr)  70 + 150  49 + (78.75 + 26.25) 77.50 92.95 93.75 91.140625 16 Glyphosate + Saflufenacil + 3000 + 35 + 70  360 + 24.5 + (36.75 + 12.25) 72.50 79.18 88.75 87.946875 (Imazapic + Imazapyr) 17 Glyphosate + Saflufenacil + 3000 + 35 + 150 360 + 24.5 + (78.75 + 26.25) 78.75 82.58 93.25 89.29492188 (Imazapic + Imazapyr) 18 Glyphosate + Saflufenacil + 3000 + 70 + 70  .sup. 360 + 49 + (36.75 + 12.25) 76.25 92.84 91.75 92.768125 (Imazapic + Imazapyr) 19 Glyphosate + Saflufenacil + 3000 + 70 + 150 .sup. 360 + 49 + (78.75 + 26.25) 87.25 94.01 97.00 93.57695313 (Imazapic + Imazapyr)

[0268] The application further comprises the following items:

[0269] Item 1: Herbicidal compositions comprising:

a) a herbicide A, which is glyphosate or an agriculturally acceptable salt thereof,
b) a herbicide B which is saflufenacil or an agriculturally salt thereof, and
c) at least one herbicide C which is an imidazolinone or an agriculturally acceptable salt thereof.

[0270] Item 2: Herbicidal composition of item 1, wherein the at least one herbicide C is selected from the group consisting of imazapyr, imazapic, imazamox and imazethapyr or their agriculturally acceptable salts.

[0271] Item 3: Herbicidal composition of items 1 to 2, wherein the at least one herbicide C is selected from the group consisting of imazapyr and imazapic or their agriculturally acceptable salts.

[0272] Item 4: Herbicidal composition of items 1 to 3, wherein the at least one herbicide C is a combination of imazapyr and imazapic or their agriculturally acceptable salts.

[0273] Item 5: The use of the compositions as described in any of the preceding items for controlling undesirable vegetation.

[0274] Item 6: A method for controlling undesirable vegetation, which comprises allowing a composition as described in items 1 to 4 to act on herbicide resistant plants or their habitat.

[0275] Item 7: The use of item 5 or the method of item 6, wherein the undesirable vegetation is controlled in crop plants.

[0276] Item 8: The use or method of item 7, wherein the crop plants are soybean.

[0277] Item 9: The use or method of items 5 to 8, wherein the undesirable vegetation are herbicide resistant weeds or herbicide resistant dicotyledonous volunteer crops.

[0278] Item 10: The use or method of items 5 to 9, wherein the undesirable vegetation is resistant to the herbicides such as glyphosate, dicamba, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyethanoic acid, glufosinate, ACCase inhibitors, HPPD inhibitors and/or acetohydroxyacid synthase inhibitors.

[0279] Item 11: The use or method of item 10, wherein the undesired vegetation is resistant to glyphosate.

[0280] Item 12: The use or method of items 9 to 11, wherein the undesired vegetation are dicotyledonous weeds.

[0281] Item 13: The use or method of item 12, wherein the dicotyledonous weeds are Conyza species.

[0282] Item 14: The use or method of items 9 to 11, wherein the undesired vegetation are volunteer crops.

[0283] Item 15: The use or method of item 14, wherein the volunteer crops are soybean, cotton, canola, alfalfa, sugarbeet and sunflower.

[0284] Item 16: The method for controlling undesired vegetation of anyone of items 6 to 15 comprising applying the composition as described in items 1 to 4 at least 4 days before crop seeding.

[0285] Item 17: The method for controlling undesired vegetation of items 6 to 16, which comprises repeated application of the composition as described in items 1 to 4.

[0286] Item 18: An herbicide formulation comprising a composition as described in any of items 1 to 4 and at least one solid or liquid carrier.