Sequential application method for treating plants with exogenous chemicals

A novel method is provided wherein plants are first treated with an exogenous chemical (e.g., glyphosate herbicide) and then sequentially treated with a liquid accession agent which provides improved biological (e.g., herbicidal) effectiveness such that plants are controlled with lower rates of the applied exogenous chemical (e.g., glyphosate herbicide). Sequential application has been demonstrated to reduce the antagonism to herbicidal effectiveness that can be exhibited when the accession agent is added to a herbicide in a tank mix or simple coformulation. Typical accession agents employed in the disclosed method include a class of surfactants known as superwetting agents, such as certain organosilicone-based and fluorocarbon-based surfactants.

This invention relates to a method of enhancing the efficacy of exogenous 
chemicals used in treating plants. An exogenous chemical, as defined 
herein, is any chemical substance, whether naturally or synthetically 
derived, which (a) has biological activity or is capable of releasing in a 
plant an ion, moiety or derivative which has biological activity, and (b) 
is applied to a plant with the intent or result that the chemical 
substance or its biologically active ion, moiety or derivative enter 
living cells or tissues of the plant and elicit a stimulatory, inhibitory, 
regulatory, therapeutic, toxic or lethal response in the plant itself or 
in a pathogen, parasite or feeding organism present in or on the plant. 
Examples of exogenous chemical substances include, but are not limited to, 
chemical pesticides (such as herbicides, algicides, fungicides, 
bactericides, viricides, insecticides, aphicides, miticides, nematicides, 
molluscicides, and the like), plant growth regulators, fertilizers and 
nutrients, gametocides, defoliants, desiccants, mixtures thereof, and the 
like. Specifically, the present invention relates to a method that uses an 
agent of a class referred to herein as "accession agents" to enhance the 
biological effectiveness of an exogenous chemical in or on a plant through 
sequential application of an accession agent after application of a 
composition comprising an exogenous chemical. This method is an 
improvement over methods known in the art. It has been found that 
sequential application of an accession agent (rather than application 
concurrent with an exogenous chemical, as for example, in a tank mix or 
simple coformulation of the exogenous chemical and the accession agent) 
provides unique redistribution of pre-applied exogenous chemical 
compositions on and in the foliar parts of plants. Such sequential 
treatment has been found to enhance the biological effectiveness of 
exogenous chemicals on many species, with minimal antagonism on other 
species. 
This invention especially relates to a method of enhancing the herbicidal 
effectiveness of herbicidal compositions, in particular compositions 
comprising N-phosphonomethylglycine or a herbicidal derivative thereof, 
most particularly a salt of N-phosphonomethylglycine. Unless otherwise 
indicated, the word "glyphosate" as used herein encompasses 
N-phosphonomethylglycine and its agriculturally acceptable salts. 
Specifically, the present invention relates to the use of an accession 
agent to enhance the herbicidal effectiveness of glyphosate on a variety 
of plant species, but without the antagonistic effect such agents 
otherwise frequently exhibit when used with glyphosate on certain plant 
species by methods previously described in the art. It has been found that 
sequential application of an accession agent (rather than application 
concurrent with glyphosate as for example in a tank mix) provides unique 
enhancement of the herbicidal effectiveness of pre-applied glyphosate 
compositions on and in the foliar parts of plants. Such sequential 
treatment has been found to enhance the herbicidal effectiveness of 
glyphosate and its herbicidal derivatives on many species, with minimal 
antagonism on other species. 
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
The agricultural industry is under pressure to reduce pesticide, 
particularly herbicide, usage. This is evidenced by symposia on the 
subject, such as that held in 1993 by the Weed Science Society of America 
and documented in Weed Technology 1994, Vol. 8, pp. 331-86. Reduced use 
rates are desirable both environmentally and economically, in that the 
treatment cost per unit area decreases. In the case of exogenous chemicals 
applied to foliage of a plant, herein referred to as "foliar-applied" 
exogenous chemicals, enhanced delivery efficiency can also improve the 
ability or tendency of an exogenous chemical such as a pesticide to retain 
its biological effectiveness when the treated plant is exposed to natural 
or artificial rain or overhead irrigation within a short period (such as a 
few minutes to a few hours) after application. This property is generally 
referred to as "rainfastness." In many cases, enhanced delivery efficiency 
leads to earlier manifestation of outward signs or symptoms that the 
applied exogenous chemical is exerting its desired effect in or on a 
treated plant, on parasites or pathogens of the plant, or on organisms, 
particularly invertebrate animals such as insects, feeding on non-woody or 
woody parts of the plant. 
Exogenous chemicals, especially foliar-applied exogenous chemicals 
including foliar-applied herbicides, are commonly formulated with 
surfactants or wetting agents, so that when water is added, the resulting 
sprayable composition is more easily and effectively retained on the 
foliage (e.g., the leaves or other photosynthesizing organs) of plants. 
Surfactants can also bring other benefits, including improved contact of 
spray droplets with a waxy leaf surface and, in some cases, improved 
penetration of the accompanying exogenous chemical into the interior of 
leaves. Through these and perhaps other effects, surfactants have long 
been known to increase the biological effectiveness of herbicide 
compositions, or other compositions of exogenous chemicals, when added to 
or included in such compositions. Thus, for example, the herbicide 
glyphosateis typically formulated with surfactants such as polyoxyalkylene 
or polyglycoside surfactants. More particularly, certain commercial 
formulations of glyphosate herbicide marketed under the trademark 
ROUNDUP.RTM. have been formulated with a polyoxyalkylene alkylamine, in 
particular polyoxyethylene (15) tallowamine. 
European Patent No. 0 394 21 1 discloses solid granular formulations of 
glyphosate containing organosilicone wetting agents or fluoro-organic 
wetting agents. Some commercial formulations of glyphosate herbicide have 
been formulated with such surfactants, including a particular group of 
polyoxyalkylene polysiloxane surfactants exemplified by the commercial 
organosilicone surfactant Silwet L-77, which has been reported to affect 
the foliar absorption of glyphosate by plants. A number of studies 
relating to the use of Silwet L-77 with glyphosate and other herbicides 
have been published. It should be noted that surfactants have been 
combined with glyphosate or other exogenous chemicals either in a 
concentrate liquid or dry composition (herein referred to as a "simple 
coformulation") containing an intimate admixture (i.e. not partitioned in 
separate phases of the concentrate composition) of both exogenous chemical 
and surfactant, or in a diluted mixture that is prepared from separate 
exogenous chemical (e.g. glyphosate) and surfactant compositions 
immediately prior to use in the field (herein referred to as a "tank 
mix"). Simple coformulations and tank mixes, and methods for applying 
them, are herein distinguished from the "sequential application" methods 
that are the subject of this invention. 
A foliar uptake study of glyphosate herbicide, wherein an organosilicone 
surfactant (Silwet L-77) was applied together with glyphosate to simulate 
a tank mix, is reported by Field & Bishop, Pestic. Sci., 1988, Vol. 24, 
pp. 55-62. When these tank mix compositions were applied to the adaxial 
leaf surfaces of perennial ryegrass plants, complete surface wetting was 
observed at Silwet L-77 concentrations of 0.1-0.5% by volume. Through 
timed experiments wherein radio-labeled glyphosate was applied to the 
leaves followed by washing of the leaves, it was concluded that use of 
Silwet L-77 provides a reduced critical rain-free period after application 
because of an enhanced rate of glyphosate uptake. Rapid uptake was 
observed into stomata of the plants treated with the tank mix. Visual 
confirmation of stomatal uptake was confirmed by dye studies. However, 
these workers found Silwet L-77 antagonistic to glyphosate uptake over a 
48 hour period. Herbicidal effects were reported in terms of tiller 
regrowth (expressed as percentage of tiller number at time of glyphosate 
application). Stevens et al, Pestic. Sci., 1991, Vol. 33, pp. 371-82, note 
an enhancement of herbicide uptake over a 0-6 hour period for tank mixes 
of glyphosate and Silwet L-77. 
Another study of the effects of Silwet L-77 upon the foliar uptake of 
glyphosate herbicide is reported in an article by Gaskin & Stevens, 
Pestic. Sci., 1993, Vol. 38, pp. 185-92. In this study, radio-labeled 
glyphosate (specifically the isopropylammonium salt of glyphosate) was 
utilized to determine the uptake of herbicide in wheat plants. The authors 
measured the foliar uptake when Silwet L-77 was applied before 
(pretreatment), during (i.e., in a tank mix), and after (post-treatment) 
application of the glyphosate herbicide to the plants. Pretreatment of the 
plants with Silwet L-77 reduced the uptake of glyphosate by the foliage 
over the course of the study and generally failed to increase even the 
initial rate of uptake of glyphosate into the plant. Both simultaneous 
(i.e., tank mix) and post-treatment of the plants with Silwet L-77 at 4 
and 8 hours after herbicide application were found to increase the initial 
rate of uptake of glyphosate; but these workers concluded that "the 
initial enhancements provided by both simultaneous and sequential 
application of Silwet L-77 slowed down rapidly thereafter in all 
treatments." The article reports no measurements of herbicidal 
effectiveness for any species. The article states that Silwet L-77 may be 
beneficial as a spray (i.e., a tank mix) adjuvant if rain falls after its 
application but not in the absence of rain. Further study of the 
antagonism of glyphosate uptake by Silwet L-77 is reported by Gaskin & 
Stevens, Pestic. Sci., 1993, Vol. 38, pp. 193-200. 
An extensive review of 160 citations relating to the use of organosilicone 
surfactants as adjuvants for agrochemicals was provided by Stevens, 
Pestic. Sci., 1993, Vol. 38, pp. 103-22. Stevens reviews work reporting 
the use of organosilicone surfactants in formulations of herbicides, 
foliar nutrients, growth regulators, insecticides, and fungicides. 
Although Stevens discusses extensively work relating to coformulations or 
tank mixes of organosilicones with, e.g., herbicides, there is no 
discussion of work relating to sequential application of these materials. 
The effects of Silwet L-77 on the foliar uptake of other herbicides has 
been investigated. Buick et al., Pestic. Sci., 1993, Vol. 38, pp. 227-35, 
report increases in uptake of triclopyr triethylamine in field bean over 
time periods of one hour and six hours by inclusion of Silwet L-77 in a 
simulated tank mix. These workers posit infiltration of foliar stomata to 
explain this effect. Other workers have questioned the significance of 
stomatal infiltration to the operation of organosilicone surfactants. 
Roggenbuck et al., Weed Tech., 1994, Vol. 8, pp. 582-85, conclude there is 
no relationship between the number of stomata covered and the degree to 
which herbicide uptake is influenced by addition of Sylgard 309, an 
organosilicone surfactant. 
Antagonistic effects with respect to the herbicidal effectiveness or uptake 
of glyphosate have been reported in the following species for tank mixes 
containing Silwet L-77: 
colonial bentgrass (Agrostis tenuis) 
downy brome (Bromus tectorum) 
orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata) 
crabgrass (Digitaria sp.) 
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) 
goosegrass (Eleusine indica) 
quackgrass (Elymus repens) 
wild poinsettia (Euphorbia heterophylla) 
common velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus) 
dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum) 
prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare) 
green foxtail (Setaria viridis) 
johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) 
wheat (Triticum aestivum) 
cocklebur (Xanthium pennsylvanicum) 
See Gaskin & Stevens, Pestic. Sci., 1993, Vol. 38, pp. 185-92; Baylis & 
Hart, Brighton Crop Protection Conference, 1993, pp. 1331-36; Field & 
Tisdall, Ninth Australian Weed Conference, 1990, pp. 332-35; Australian 
Patent Publication No. 38389/89. 
Blumrhorst & Kapusta, Weed Technolog, 1987, Vol.1, pp. 149-53, have 
investigated sequential and tank mix applications of plant growth 
regulators (specifically, mefluidide) with herbicides. A study of the 
sequential application of herbicide materials is reported by Qureshi & 
VandenBorn, Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 1979, Vol. 59, pp. 93-98. 
Because surfactants can enhance herbicidal effects when coformulated with 
or added in a tank mix to herbicidal compositions, numerous workers have 
studied the effects of various surfactants. One extensive study was 
conducted by Wyrill & Burnside, Weed Science, 1977, Vol. 25, pp. 285-87. 
These investigators concluded that "the effectiveness of surfactant 
combinations was quite variable and difficult to predict. Therefore, the 
indiscriminate addition of surfactants into glyphosate spray mixtures 
which already contain a surfactant should be avoided." However, this study 
did not include any organosilicone or fluoro-organic surfactant treatment. 
Another study of surfactant effects on glyphosate is set forth in Gaskin & 
Kirkwood, Adjuvants and Agrochemicals, 1989, Vol. 1, Chapter 13, pp. 
129-39. In this study, surfactants (including Silwet L-77) are compared 
and rated for selected herbicides, based upon plant uptake and 
translocation measurements. Silwet L-77 was shown to be superior to two 
non-organosilicone surfactants for enhancing glyphosate uptake and 
translocation in bracken when added to the glyphosate spray solution as a 
tank mix. 
So many studies are reported in this area that OSi Specialties (a unit of 
Witco Corporation) has published a Bibliography of Silwet Organosilicone 
Surfactants As Agricultural Adjuvants (1996), which is indexed for 
computer searching. This bibliography lists hundreds of published studies 
of commercial organosilicone surfactants in agricultural applications. 
This bibliography is available to the public through the publisher's 
office in Tarrytown, N.Y. 
Bishop & Field, Aspects of Applied Biology, 1983, Vol. 4, pp. 363-70, 
report that Silwet L-77 in tank mix enhanced the performance of glyphosate 
in field trials on perennial ryegrass. "Spectacular" leaf wetting was 
observed for tank mixes including 0.5% by volume Silwet L-77, indicating 
pronounced spreading of the herbicide over the foliar portions of the 
plant. Stevens et al., Pestic. Sci., 1991, Vol. 33, pp. 371-82, report 
that in vicia bean leaves, stomatal infiltration of Silwet L-77 is 
antagonized by the surfactant coformulant in ROUNDUP.RTM. herbicide. 
Baylis & Hart, Brighton Crop Protection Conference, 1993, pp. 1331-36, 
have concluded that the effect of Silwet L-77 in tank mix on the 
herbicidal efficacy of glyphosate-trimesium (the trimethylsulfonium salt 
of glyphosate) varies with plant species, and could not be explained 
simply by stomatal infiltration. 
Many have investigated the possible mechanisms of herbicide antagonism by 
Silwet L-77 and, therefore, the means to avoid it. As used herein, 
"antagonism" refers to a decrease in biological (such as herbicidal) 
effectiveness of an exogenous chemical (such as a herbicide) when a 
material (such as Silwet L-77) is used in combination with the exogenous 
chemical; although it has been used in some of the literature cited herein 
to refer to a decrease in uptake or translocation. Reduction of antagonism 
is believed to be one of the means by which the sequential application 
method of this invention improves the result obtained through tank mixes 
or coformulations of surfactants with exogenous chemicals. 
Australian Patent Application No. 38389/89 reports the use of tank mixed 
formulations of glyphosate and Silwet L-77, in combination with a 
humectant such as glycerin. An uptake investigation of similar 
formulations is reported by Field & Tisdall, Ninth Australian Weed 
Conference, 1990, pp. 332-35. Glycerin was claimed to promote the uptake 
of glyphosate from formulations containing Silwet L-77. In this study, 
paspalum leaves were treated with formulations containing Silwet L-77, 
with and without glycerin. Pretreatment of the paspalum leaf surfaces with 
Silwet L-77 two hours prior to application of glyphosate stimulated 
uptake. Silwet L-77 tank mixed with glyphosate did not. These 
investigators stated that "glycerin does not appear to have a pronounced 
humectant effect and it is concluded that antagonism and its alleviation 
by glycerin involves specific leaf surface - solution interactions that 
are clearly species specific." They concluded that no stomatal 
infiltration occurred even at Silwet L-77 concentrations as high as 0.5% 
by volume. 
From the numerous publications on the subject of formulating exogenous 
chemicals such as glyphosate herbicide with various surfactants, 
particularly organosilicone surfactants and others that can induce 
stomatal infiltration, it must be concluded that the effects observed vary 
with the plant species, exogenous chemical, and surfactant. Tank mixed 
formulations containing Silwet L-77 (or other surfactants) can yield 
improved results on some species, but frequently antagonize the biological 
effectiveness for others. In the case of herbicides, this provides a 
disincentive to use surfactants like Silwet L-77, because multiple weed 
species are typically treated in the same field and the surfactant is 
likely to prove antagonistic for at least some of the weed species 
present. Similar disincentives hold for other classes of exogenous 
chemicals. 
The problem addressed by the present invention can be stated in its 
broadest sense as follows. Significant benefit in the efficiency of 
delivery to the interior of a plant, and therefore in the ultimate 
biological effectiveness in the plant, of an exogenous chemical can often 
be obtained, as shown in the art, by adding a stomatal infiltrant such as 
an organosilicone surfactant in tank mix or simple coformulation to the 
exogenous chemical. However, this benefit is offset by a risk that the 
stomatal infiltrant will antagonize, rather than enhance, the biological 
effectiveness of the exogenous chemical. The occurrence of such antagonism 
is largely unpredictable. A method that consistently reduced such 
antagonism whenever it occurred, or that substantially removed the risk of 
antagonism, while still offering the benefit of enhanced delivery sought 
from the stomatal infiltrant, would be a great advance in the art. 
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
A process that enhances the biological effectiveness of exogenous 
chemicals, such as herbicides, in plants has been discovered. This process 
comprises sequentially (1) applying a biologically effective amount of an 
exogenous chemical composition to foliage of a plant, followed by (2) 
applying to at least a part of the same foliage an accession agent in an 
amount effective to provide stomatal infiltration of the accession agent 
from the surface of the foliage. It has been discovered that for a 
spectrum of plant species, sequential application of these materials is 
superior to application as a tank mix or simple coformulation in the 
biological effectiveness exhibited. This improved effectiveness in many 
cases results from a reduction or elimination of antagonism by the 
accession agent to the biological effectiveness of the exogenous chemical 
by comparison with the level of antagonism exhibited when the accession 
agent is applied in a tank mix or simple coformulation with the exogenous 
chemical. 
The term "accession agent" as used herein means a liquid agent which has 
the property that it infiltrates microscopic pores in a hydrophobic 
surface, and which, when applied to foliage of a plant after application 
of an exogenous chemical to at least a part of the same foliage, provides 
reduced antagonism to biological effectiveness of the exogenous chemical 
than is obtained by application of the same liquid agent in mixture with 
the exogenous chemical. 
The process that has been discovered dramatically reduces antagonism by 
accession agents to the herbicidal effectiveness of glyphosate 
compositions. Thus, this process more particularly comprises sequentially 
(1) applying a herbicidally effective amount of a glyphosate composition 
to foliage of a plant, followed by (2) applying to at least a part of the 
same foliage an accession agent in an amount effective to provide stomatal 
infiltration of the accession agent from the surface of the foliage. 
Preferably the accession agent is applied over the whole area of foliage 
previously treated with the exogenous chemical. This sequential 
application yields a dramatic and unexpected result, in that it reduces or 
eliminates antagonism to herbicidal effectiveness exhibited when the to 
glyphosate and accession agent are premixed and applied in admixture 
(i.e., in the standard "tank mix" processes). It has been discovered that 
for a spectrum of plant species, sequential application of these materials 
provides superior overall herbicidal effectiveness to application of the 
same materials in a tank mix. For those plant species in the spectrum on 
which tank-mixed glyphosate and accession agent are antagonistic, the 
antagonism is generally reduced and often eliminated. For those plant 
species in the spectrum on which the tank-mixed glyphosate and accession 
agent are not antagonistic, sequential application of these materials 
produces a herbicidal effectiveness that is generally not significantly 
inferior to that obtained with the corresponding tank mix and is sometimes 
superior to that obtained with the tank mix. 
Accordingly, one aspect of the invention concerns a process comprising the 
sequential steps of (a) contacting foliage of a plant with a biologically 
effective amount of an exogenous chemical, and (b) thereafter contacting 
at least a part of the same foliage with an accession agent, whereby 
antagonism to biological effectiveness of the exogenous chemical that 
would result from contacting the plant with a tank mix or diluted simple 
coformulation of the exogenous chemical and the accession agent is 
substantially reduced, for example to an extent that the biological 
effectiveness is visibly better than that of the corresponding tank mix or 
simple coformulation. 
Another aspect of the invention concerns a herbicidal process comprising 
the sequential steps of (a) contacting foliage of a plant with a 
herbicidally effective amount of a herbicide, for example 
N-phosphonomethylglycine or a herbicidal derivative thereof, and (b) 
thereafter contacting the same foliage with an accession agent, whereby 
antagonism to herbicidal effectiveness that would result from contacting 
the plant with a tank mix or diluted simple coformulation of the herbicide 
and the accession agent is substantially reduced, for example to an extent 
that the herbicidal effectiveness is visibly better than that of the 
corresponding tank mix or simple coformulation. Preferably, the sequential 
application method reduces antagonism by at least 30% (e.g., if the 
herbicide sprayed alone provides herbicidal effectiveness to the degree of 
90% plant inhibition, and a tank mix of the herbicide with the accession 
agent provides herbicidal effectiveness to the degree of 30% plant 
inhibition, the sequential application method preferably produces 
herbicidal effectiveness to the degree of about 48% or greater plant 
inhibition). Put another way, if plant inhibition with the herbicide alone 
is x % and that with a tank mix of herbicide and accession agent is y %, 
and if y&lt;x, then sequential application of herbicide followed by accession 
agent preferably produces a plant inhibition greater than or equal to 
about (y+0.3(x-y))%. Most preferably antagonism is completely eliminated. 
In some instances, the herbicidal control from sequential application is 
greater than that produced by the herbicide alone. 
The invention, as it pertains to glyphosate or any other foliar-applied 
herbicide, can also be generally described as a method for enhancing the 
herbicidal effectiveness of a herbicide for a plurality of plant species 
in a field. Such a method comprises the steps of (a) applying to foliage 
of the plurality of plant species in the field a herbicidally effective 
amount of a herbicide, for example N-phosphonomethylglycine or a 
herbicidal derivative thereof, and (b) thereafter applying to the same 
foliage an accession agent, whereby the herbicidal effectiveness of the 
herbicide for at least one of the plurality of plant species is enhanced 
by at least about 5 percentage points of herbicidal inhibition (e.g., from 
80% to 85% herbicidal inhibition), preferably by at least about 10 
percentage points. 
In addition, the invention as it pertains particularly to glyphosate 
herbicide, can be generally described as a method for reducing the 
antagonism of an accession agent to the herbicidal effectiveness of a 
composition comprising N-phosphonomethylglycine or a herbicidal derivative 
thereof. Such a method comprises the steps of (a) applying a herbicidally 
effective amount of the composition to foliage of a plant of a species on 
which the accession agent is sometimes antagonistic to the herbicidal 
effectiveness of the composition when tank mixed or coformulated therewith 
and (b) thereafter applying the accession agent to the same foliage, 
whereby the herbicidal effectiveness of the composition is substantially 
preserved (e.g., reduction in herbicidal inhibition is no greater than 
about 10 percentage points by comparison with the composition in the 
absence of the accession agent) or enhanced. 
Further, the invention, as it pertains to glyphosate herbicide, can also be 
generally described as a method for enhancing the yield of a field crop. 
Such a method comprises the steps of (a) planting a crop in a field, (b) 
substantially freeing an area of the field of a weed species (e.g., 
achieving herbicidal inhibition of at least about 85% for that weed 
species across the entire area) that would otherwise diminish the yield of 
the crop, step (b) being accomplished by (i) applying to foliage of the 
weed species a herbicidally effective amount of a herbicidal composition 
comprising N-phosphonomethylglycine or a herbicidal derivative thereof and 
(ii) thereafter applying to the same foliage an accession agent, whereby 
antagonism to herbicidal effectiveness that would be exhibited by 
application of a tank mix or diluted simple coformulation of the 
herbicidal composition and the accession agent is substantially reduced 
(as described above), (c) allowing the crop to mature, and (d) harvesting 
the crop. In this method of enhancing the yield of a field crop, the order 
of the above steps (a) and (b) can be altered, in which case a field for 
planting a crop is selected and, before the crop is planted in the field, 
an area of the field is substantially freed of a weed species that would 
otherwise diminish the yield of the crop. 
Another embodiment of the invention is a method of applying an exogenous 
chemical to a plant, comprising sequentially the steps of (a) contacting 
foliage of the plant with a biologically effective amount of an exogenous 
chemical composition, and (b) thereafter contacting at least a part of the 
same foliage of the plant with an aqueous solution or dispersion of a 
sulfonylamino compound having the formula 
EQU R.sup.5 --SO.sub.2 NH--(CH.sub.2).sub.c --NR.sup.6.sub.3 Z 
where R.sup.5 is alkyl having from about 6 to about 20 carbon atoms and 
optionally being fluorinated, c is 1-4, R.sup.6 groups are independently 
C.sub.1-4 alkyl and Z is an agriculturally acceptable counterion, with 
hydroxide, halide, sulfate, phosphate and acetate being suitable examples. 
R.sup.5 unless perfluorinated preferably has from about 12 to about 18 
carbon atoms. R.sup.5 is preferably perfluorinated, in which case it 
preferably has from about 6 to about 12 carbon atoms. Preferably c is 3. 
R.sup.6 groups are preferably methyl. 
Sequential application of the exogenous chemical composition followed by 
the composition containing the sulfonylamino compound provides enhanced 
performance of the exogenous chemical, as compared to applying the 
exogenous chemical composition to the foliage of the plant without step 
(b). 
Another embodiment of the invention is a method of applying an exogenous 
chemical to a plant, comprising contacting foliage of the plant with an 
aqueous composition comprising a biologically effective amount of an 
exogenous chemical composition and a sulfonylamino compound having the 
formula 
EQU R.sup.5 --SO.sub.2 NH--(CH.sub.2).sub.c --NR.sup.6.sub.3 Z 
where R.sup.5, R.sup.6, c and Z are as specified above. The aqueous 
composition may be prepared on site as a tank mix, or by dilution, 
dispersion or dissolution in water of a coformulation of the exogenous 
chemical substance and the sulfonylamino compound. 
Another embodiment of the invention is an exogenous chemical composition 
that comprises (a) an exogenous chemical, and (b) a sulfonylamino compound 
having the formula 
EQU R.sup.5 --SO.sub.2 NH--(CH.sub.2).sub.c --NR.sup.6.sub.3 Z 
where R.sup.5, R.sup.6, c, and Z are as specified above. The composition 
can optionally further comprise a diluent such as water. This composition 
can take the form of, for example, a dry composition, a liquid 
concentrate, or a dilute spray solution. This composition can be applied 
to the foliage of a plant and will provide enhanced performance of the 
exogenous chemical, as compared to applying the exogenous chemical to the 
foliage of the plant without the sulfonylamino compound. 
Especially preferred sulfonylamino compounds for use in the above-described 
methods and composition are 
3-(heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl)amino)-N,N,N-trimethyl-1-propaminium 
iodide, available for example as Fluorad FC-135, and the corresponding 
chloride, available for example as Fluorad FC-754, both from 3M Co.

DESCRIPTION OF ILLUSTRATIVE EMBODIMENTS 
The following sets forth in detail the novel process of the present 
invention, wherein the sequential application of a suitable accession 
agent, following the application of an exogenous chemical, results in 
better biological effectiveness of the exogenous chemical than is obtained 
with conventional tank mix applications, principally through reduction of 
antagonism. In the case of glyphosate herbicides, the following sets forth 
in detail the novel method of the present invention, wherein the 
sequential application of a suitable accession agent, following 
application of glyphosate, reduces or eliminates the antagonism to 
herbicidal effectiveness of the glyphosate obtained with conventional tank 
mix applications. 
Exogenous Chemicals 
Examples of exogenous chemical substances include, but are not limited to, 
chemical pesticides (such as herbicides, algicides, fungicides, 
bactericides, viricides, insecticides, aphicides, miticides, nematicides, 
molluscicides and the like), plant growth regulators, fertilizers and 
nutrients, gametocides, defoliants, desiccants, mixtures thereof and the 
like. A preferred group of exogenous chemicals are those that are normally 
applied post-emergence to the foliage of plants, i.e. foliar-applied 
exogenous chemicals. 
Some exogenous chemicals useful in the present invention are water soluble, 
for example salts that comprise biologically active ions, and also 
comprise counterions, which may be biologically inert or relatively 
inactive. A particularly preferred group of these water soluble exogenous 
chemicals or their biologically active ions or moieties are systemic in 
plants. Especially preferred among these are herbicides, plant growth 
regulators and nematicides, particularly those that have a molecular 
weight, excluding counterions, of less than about 300. More especially 
preferred among these are exogenous chemical compounds having one or more 
functional groups selected from amine, carboxylate, phosphonate and 
phosphinate groups. 
Among such compounds, an even more preferred group are herbicidal or plant 
growth regulating exogenous chemical compounds having at least one of each 
of amine, carboxylate, and either phosphonate or phosphinate functional 
groups. Salts of N-phosphonomethylglycine are examples of this group of 
exogenous chemicals. A further example is glufosinate-ammonium (ammonium 
DL-homoalanin-4-yl (methyl) phosphinate). 
Another preferred group of exogenous chemicals which can be applied by the 
method of the invention are nematicides such as those disclosed in U.S. 
Pat. No. 5,389,680, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by 
reference. Preferred nematicides of this group are salts of 
3,4,4-trifluoro-3-butenoic acid or of 
N-(3,4,4-trifluoro-1-oxo-3-butenyl)glycine. 
An example of a suitable insecticide is malathion. 
Exogenous chemicals which can usefully be applied by the method of the 
present invention are normally, but not exclusively, those which have a 
beneficial effect on the overall growth or yield of desired plants such as 
crops, or a deleterious or lethal effect on the growth of undesirable 
plants such as weeds. Exogenous chemicals for which the method of the 
present invention can preferably be used are pesticides, plant growth 
regulators, and gametocides. The method of the present invention is 
particularly useful for herbicides, especially those that are normally 
applied post-emergence to the foliage of unwanted vegetation. 
Herbicides which can be applied by the method of the present invention 
include but are not limited to any listed in standard reference works such 
as the "Herbicide Handbook," Weed Science Society of America, 1994, 7th 
ed. Illustratively these herbicides include acetanilides such as 
acetochlor, alachlor and metolachlor, aminotriazole, asulam, bentazon, 
bialaphos, bipyridyls such as paraquat, bromacil, cyclohexenones such as 
clethodim and sethoxydim, dicamba, diflufenican, dinitroanilines such as 
pendimethalin, diphenylethers such as acifluorfen, fomesafen and 
oxyfluorfen, fosamine, flupoxam, glufosinate, glyphosate, 
hydroxybenzonitriles such as bromoxynil, imidazolinones such as imazaquin 
and imazethapyr, isoxaben, norflurazon, phenoxies such as 2,4-D, 
phenoxypropionates such as diclofop, fluazifop and quizalofop, picloram, 
propanil, substituted ureas such as fluometuron and isoproturon, 
sulfonylureas such as chlorimuron, chlorsulfuron, halosulfuron, 
metsulfuron, primisulfuron, sulfometuron and sulfosulfuron, thiocarbamates 
such as triallate, triazines such as atrazine and metribuzin, and 
triclopyr. Not all of these herbicides exhibit antagonism with all 
accession agents, but where antagonism is exhibited, the method of the 
present invention reduces or eliminates that antagonism. Herbicidally 
active derivatives of any known herbicide are also within the scope of the 
present invention if applied by the method herein described. A 
herbicidally active derivative is any compound which is a minor structural 
modification, most commonly but not restrictively a salt or ester, of a 
known herbicide. These compounds retain the essential activity of the 
parent herbicide, but do not necessarily have a potency equal to that of 
the parent herbicide. These compounds convert to the parent herbicide 
before or after they enter the treated plant. Mixtures or coformulations 
of a herbicide with other ingredients, or of more than one herbicide, can 
likewise be employed. Preferred herbicides for use according to the method 
of the present invention are those which are normally foliar-applied 
rather than soil-applied. Especially preferred foliar-applied herbicides 
are those which show a degree of systemicity in the plant, in other words 
are to some extent translocated from the point of entry to a point of 
action in the plant at some distance from the point of entry. 
An especially preferred herbicide for which the method of the present 
invention is particularly useful is N-phosphonomethylglycine, a salt or 
ester thereof, or a compound which is converted to glyphosate in plant 
tissues or which otherwise provides glyphosate ion. Glyphosate salts that 
can be used according to this invention include but are not restricted to 
alkali metal, for example sodium and potassium, salts; ammonium salt; 
alkylamine, for example dimethylamine and isopropylamine, salts; 
alkanolamine, for example ethanolamine, salts; alkylsulfonium, for example 
trimethylsulfonium, salts; sulfoxonium salts; and mixtures thereof. The 
herbicidal compositions sold by Monsanto Company as ROUNDUP.RTM. and 
ACCORD.RTM. contain the monoisopropylamine (IPA) salt of 
N-phosphonomethylglycine. The herbicidal compositions sold by Monsanto 
Company as ROUNDUP.RTM. Dry and RIVAL.RTM. contain the monoammonium salt 
of N-phosphonomethylglycine. The herbicidal composition sold by Monsanto 
Company as ROUNDUP.RTM. Geoforce contains the monosodium salt of 
N-phosphonomethylglycine. The herbicidal properties of 
N-phosphonomethylglycine and its derivatives were first discovered by 
Franz, then disclosed and patented in U.S. Pat. No. 3,799,758, issued Mar. 
26, 1974. A number of herbicidal salts of N-phosphonomethylglycine were 
patented by Franz in U.S. Pat. No. 4,405,531, issued Sep. 20, 1983. The 
disclosures of both of these patents are hereby incorporated by reference. 
Because the commercially most important herbicidal derivatives of 
N-phosphonomethylglycine are certain salts thereof, the glyphosate 
compositions useful in the present invention will be described in more 
detail with respect to such salts. These salts are well known and include 
ammonium, IPA, alkali metal (such as the mono-, di-, and trisodium salts, 
and the mono-, di-, and tripotassium salts), and trimethylsulfonium salts. 
Salts of N-phosphonomethylglycine are commercially significant in part 
because they are water soluble. The salts listed immediately above are 
highly water soluble, thereby allowing for highly concentrated solutions 
that can be diluted at the site of use. In accordance with the method of 
this invention as it pertains to glyphosate herbicide, an aqueous solution 
containing a herbicidally effective amount of glyphosate is applied to 
foliage of plants, followed by treatment of at least a part of the same 
foliage with a suitable amount of an accession agent, selected in 
accordance with this invention. Such an aqueous solution can be obtained 
by dilution of a concentrated glyphosate salt solution with water, or 
dissolution or dispersion in water of a dry (e.g. granular, powder, tablet 
or briquette) glyphosate formulation. 
Exogenous chemicals should be applied to plants at a rate sufficient to 
give the desired effect. These application rates are usually expressed as 
amount of exogenous chemical per unit area treated, e.g. grams per hectare 
(g/ha). What constitutes a "desired effect" varies according to the 
standards and practice of those who investigate, develop, market and use a 
specific class of exogenous chemicals. For example, in the case of a 
herbicide, the amount applied per unit area to give 85% control of a plant 
species as measured by growth reduction or mortality is often used to 
define a commercially effective rate. 
Herbicidal effectiveness is one of the biological effects that can be 
enhanced through the sequential application method of this invention. 
"Herbicidal effectiveness," as used herein, refers to any observable 
measure of control of plant growth, which can include one or more of the 
actions of (1) killing, (2) inhibiting growth, reproduction or 
proliferation, and (3) removing, destroying, or otherwise diminishing the 
occurrence and activity of plants. 
The herbicidal effectiveness data set forth herein report "inhibition" as a 
percentage following a standard procedure in the art which reflects a 
visual assessment of plant mortality and growth reduction by comparison 
with untreated plants, made by technicians specially trained to make and 
record such observations. In all cases, a single technician makes all 
assessments of percent inhibition within any one experiment or trial. Such 
measurements are relied upon and regularly reported by Monsanto Company in 
the course of its herbicide business. 
The selection of application rates that are biologically effective for a 
specific exogenous chemical is within the skill of the ordinary 
agricultural scientist. Those of skill in the art will likewise recognize 
that individual plant conditions, weather and growing conditions, as well 
as the specific exogenous chemical and formulation thereof selected, will 
affect the efficacy achieved in practicing this invention. Useful 
application rates for exogenous chemicals employed can depend upon all of 
the above conditions. With respect to the use of the method of this 
invention for glyphosate herbicide, much information is known about 
appropriate application rates. Over two decades of glyphosate use and 
published studies relating to such use have provided abundant information 
from which a weed control practitioner can select glyphosate application 
rates that are herbicidally effective on particular species at particular 
growth stages in particular environmental conditions. 
Herbicidal compositions of glyphosate or derivatives thereof are used to 
control a very wide variety of plant species worldwide. Particularly 
important species for which glyphosate compositions are used are 
exemplified without limitation by the following: 
Annual broadleaves: 
velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) 
pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) 
buttonweed (Borreria spp.) 
oilseed rape, canola, indian mustard, etc. (Brassica spp.) 
commelina (Commelina spp.) 
filaree (Erodium spp.) 
sunflower (Helianthus spp.) 
morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) 
kochia (Kochia scoparia) 
mallow (Malva spp.) 
wild buckwheat, smartweed, etc. (Polygonum spp.) 
purslane (Portulaca spp.) 
russian thistle (Salsola spp.) 
sida (Sida spp.) 
wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis) 
cocklebur (Xanthium spp.) 
Annual narrowleaves: 
wild oat (Avena fatua) 
carpetgrass (Axonopus spp.) 
downy brome (Bromus tectorum) 
crabgrass (Digitaria spp.) 
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) 
goosegrass (Eleusine indica) 
annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) 
rice (Oryza sativa) 
ottochloa (Ottochloa nodosa) 
bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) 
canarygrass (Phalaris spp.) 
foxtail (Setaria spp.) 
wheat (Triticum aestivum) 
corn (Zea mays) 
Perennial broadleaves: 
mugwort (Artemisia spp.) 
milkweed (Asclepias spp.) 
canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) 
field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) 
kudzu (Pueraria spp.) 
Perennial narrowleaves: 
brachiaria (Brachiaria spp.) 
bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) 
yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) 
purple nutsedge (C. rotundus) 
quackgrass (Elymus repens) 
lalang (Imperata cylindrica) 
perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) 
guineagrass (Panicum maximum) 
dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum) 
reed (Phragmites spp.) 
johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) 
cattail (Typha spp.) 
Other perennials: 
horsetail (Equisetum spp.) 
bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) 
blackberry (Rubus spp.) 
gorse (Ulex europaeus) 
Thus, the method of the present invention, as it pertains to glyphosate 
herbicide, can be useful on any of the above species. 
In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, the exogenous chemical 
is applied in an aqueous spray composition further comprising a 
surfactant. Typically this surfactant is not one that in aqueous solution 
or dispersion behaves as an accession agent as herein defined. Preferably 
it is a surfactant selected to provide good biological effectiveness of 
the exogenous chemical regardless of whether an accession agent is also 
used. For example, when the exogenous chemical is glyphosate, an 
appropriate surfactant for use in the glyphosate spray composition is one 
comprising or based on polyoxyethylene alkylamine, such as MON-0818. It 
has been found that the greatest and most consistent benefits of 
practicing the sequential method of the invention are generally obtained 
when the exogenous chemical composition comprises a surfactant. 
Accession Agents 
Although many of the accession agents of this invention are aqueous 
solutions or dispersions of compounds known in the art as "surfactants," 
not all aqueous surfactant solutions and dispersions perform as accession 
agents according to the invention. A property common to all accession 
agents as defined herein, whether or not they comprise a surfactant, is 
that they infiltrate microscopic pores in a hydrophobic surface. For 
example, accession agents infiltrate stomata or other openings such as 
cracks or wounds, and ultimately internal voids connected thereto, of a 
leaf of the plant species to be treated by the method of the invention. 
This property is referred to herein as "stomatal infiltration." Although 
this property is important to determining whether a particular material 
will perform as an accession agent in the method of the present invention, 
it is not known whether the property of stomatal infiltration plays any 
part in the mechanism by which the sequential application method of the 
invention provides its surprising benefits in enhancing herbicidal or 
other biological effectiveness while reducing antagonism. 
A further category of liquid agents providing superior biological 
effectiveness of an exogenous chemical, for example superior herbicidal 
effectiveness of glyphosate, when applied sequentially after rather than 
concurrently with the exogenous chemical, comprises aqueous solutions or 
dispersions of anionic surfactants, whether or not these are accession 
agents as defined herein. 
The accession agents of this invention should be introduced as a flowable 
bulk material, such as a liquid (e.g., an oil or an aqueous surfactant 
solution or dispersion). Useful accession agents should wet the leaf. 
Preferred accession agents typically exhibit rapid, almost instantaneous 
spreading when applied to leaf surfaces. Stomatal infiltration of 
preferred accession agents involves mass flow in addition to any purely 
capillary flow or diffusion through stomatal apertures. The accession 
agents useful in the practice of this invention can be identified through 
any one of several tests for stomatal infiltration. 
The following test is one of several that can be useful in determining 
whether a liquid is a potential stomatal infiltrant, and therefore can 
function as an accession agent in the method of the present invention. 
Plants of a suitable test species are grown, for example in a greenhouse 
or growth chamber, to such a size that they have fully expanded leaves. 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) has been found to be a convenient 
species for this test, but other species having stomata on the upper 
surface of the leaves are similarly useful. Growing conditions immediately 
prior to the test should be such as to favor the fully expanded leaves 
having their stomata open; normally this means that the plants should have 
been exposed for at least one hour to a light intensity of about 475 
microeinsteins or more, and that the plants should not be subject to 
physiological stress from excess or deficiency of water, from excessively 
high or low temperature, or from other adverse environmental conditions. 
The procedure described herein relates to velvetleaf. Modifications may be 
found necessary or desirable if another species is chosen. Potted 
velvetleaf plants are brought from the greenhouse and immediately sprayed 
with ROUNDUP.RTM. herbicide at a rate of 350 g glyphosate acid equivalent 
(a.e.)/ha in a spray volume of 93 l/ha, using a track sprayer. The spray 
solution is made by diluting 1 ml of ROUNDUP.RTM. herbicide to 95 ml is 
with tap water. After spraying, the plants are returned to a well 
illuminated greenhouse, where they are maintained for at least 10 minutes 
and preferably not more than one hour, during which time the spray deposit 
on the leaves substantially dries (i.e., the leaf surface is visibly dry). 
A liquid to be tested as a candidate stomatal infiltrant is prepared, for 
example by dilution of a surfactant in water at a desired concentration, 
and fluorescein is dissolved in the liquid at 0.1% by volume. An automatic 
syringe is used to dispense 0.8 microliters of the liquid containing 
fluorescein to each of three loci on the surface of one or more fully 
expanded leaves. The treated leaves remain attached to the plants 
throughout the procedure. 
Exactly 10 minutes after dispensing the liquid, each treated leaf is washed 
with copious amounts of water (for example, at least 10 ml) to remove 
substantially all, i.e. all visually perceptible amount, of the 
fluorescein from the leaf surface. The plants are then removed to a 
darkened place where the treated leaves are observed with the naked eye 
under long-wave ultraviolet illumination. If fluorescence is observed at 
or close to the loci of deposition of the candidate liquid, it can be 
concluded that the liquid has infiltrated stomata. Any such liquid has the 
potential to be an accession agent in the method of the present invention. 
If desired, the degree of fluorescence can be quantified by appropriate 
instrumentation, but this is unnecessary if the objective is simply to 
know whether or not a liquid is a stomatal infiltrant. Lack of observed 
fluorescence indicates no significant stomatal infiltration. 
To verify that plants are in suitable condition for the test, a known 
accession agent can be tested by the above procedure. An aqueous solution 
of Silwet L-77 at 0.05% by volume typically gives a weak fluorescence 
signal indicating that modest infiltration has occurred. An aqueous 
solution of Silwet L-77 at 0.5% by volume typically gives a very strong 
fluorescence signal, indicating that a substantial amount of the solution 
has infiltrated stomata. 
An alternative test has now been developed which does not employ plants or 
other living material, and therefore has the major advantage that it is 
unaffected by the normal biological variability characteristic of in vivo 
assays such as the one described immediately above. This test, described 
herein as an in vitro test or assay to reflect its non-use of living 
material, is a further embodiment of the present invention and can be used 
to determine whether a liquid agent is capable of penetrating or 
infiltrating microscopic pores in a hydrophobic surface, such as stomata 
of a leaf. While the test is useful for any application where it is 
desired to know if a liquid agent is a potential stomatal infiltrant, its 
use is exemplified herein as a means of predicting whether or not a liquid 
can function as an accession agent, and in particular whether or not it 
will show reduced antagonism of biological effectiveness of an exogenous 
chemical applied to a plant when applied sequentially after, as opposed to 
concurrently with, the exogenous chemical in the present method. 
The in vitro test of the present invention can be used for any liquid 
agent. If the agent is a solution or dispersion of a liquid or solid 
material, such as for example a surfactant, in a liquid medium, such a 
solution or dispersion is first prepared. For most applications, the 
desired liquid medium is likely to be water, in which case it is preferred 
that the solution or dispersion of the candidate material be prepared in 
deionized water. The candidate material can be dissolved or dispersed in 
the liquid medium at any desired concentration, depending on the 
concentration to be used in the desired application. For example, if the 
desired application is as an accession agent according to the present 
invention, suitable concentrations in water range, depending on the 
candidate material, from about 0.1% to about 10% by weight, for example 
from about 0.25% to about 3% by weight. 
A smooth solid substrate and an opaque membrane filter are selected having 
contrasting colors. Preferably the substrate is dark colored, for example 
black, and the membrane filter light colored or white. The membrane filter 
is composed of a hydrophobic material, preferably polytetrafluoroethylene 
(PTFE), and has a multiplicity of pores. Pore size of the membrane filter 
is selected to reflect the typical dimensions of pores which it is desired 
to infiltrate with the liquid agent; for example in the case of an agent 
being tested as a potential stomatal infiltrant, a membrane filter should 
be selected having pores of diameter about 0.5 to about 2.5 .mu.m, for 
example about 1 .mu.m. 
The selected membrane filter is placed on the substrate; in the case of a 
membrane filter having a smooth face and an opposing rough face, the 
membrane filter is placed with the smooth face adjacent to the substrate. 
One or more drops of the liquid agent are then placed on the membrane 
filter. Any convenient drop size and number can be used; in the case of a 
PTFE membrane filter having 1 .mu.m diameter pores, it has been found 
useful to apply 1-10, for example 3, drops each of 1-5 .mu.l, for example 
2 .mu.l, volume. The drops are allowed to remain in contact on the surface 
of the membrane filter for a convenient length of time. The time for which 
the drops are allowed to remain on the filter depends on the application 
for which the test is being used and an optimum length of time can easily 
be determined without undue experimentation. For example, in testing a 
liquid agent as a potential stomatal infiltrant or accession agent, it has 
been found useful to leave the drops on the filter for a minimum of 1-30 
minutes, for example a minimum of about 15 minutes. 
At the end of this time, it can readily be seen if the liquid agent has 
permeated the pores of the membrane filter, because such permeation 
renders the membrane filter to some extent transparent, and the 
contrasting color of the substrate shows through the membrane filter. 
Permeation of the pores of the membrane filter in this test is a good 
predictive indication of penetration or infiltration of microscopic pores 
in the hydrophobic surface characteristic of the application of interest. 
For example, permeation of pores in a PTFE membrane filter having 1 .mu.m 
porosity after a period of at least about 15 minutes is a good predictive 
indication of stomatal infiltration in plant leaves. 
Particular test conditions which can be used to predict whether a 0.5% 
solution or dispersion of a candidate material is a useful accession agent 
in the present method are as follows. A solution or dispersion of the 
candidate material is prepared at a concentration of 0.5% by weight in 
deionized water to form a candidate accession agent. A black bottle cap 
(ca. 40 mm diameter) is placed on a solid surface such that the closed 
side of the bottle cap is down and the open, threaded side is up. A 
suitable PTFE membrane filter (47 mm diameter, 1.0 .mu.m porosity, MSI 
brand, catalog no. F10LP04700) has two faces: a smooth, shiny face and a 
rough, dull face. The filter is placed atop the cap so that the rough, 
dull face points upward. Three 2 .mu.l drops of the aqueous candidate 
accession agent are applied to the rough, dull face of the PTFE membrane 
filter. The drops are allowed to stand on the filter for at least 15 
minutes. During this time, it is noted whether the aqueous candidate 
accession agent has permeated the PTFE membrane filter. This can be 
determined visually because permeation causes the white filter to become 
transparent and the black bottle cap can be seen through the filter. If 
after 15 minutes no permeation has occurred, this is deemed a negative 
result and the test is terminated. A negative result indicates that the 
candidate agent is predicted not to be useful as an accession agent for 
application to plants in the method of the invention. If permeation has 
occurred within 15 minutes, this is deemed a positive result and the 
candidate agent is predicted to be a useful accession agent for 
application to plants in the method of the invention. 
This in vitro test is not applicable for aqueous solutions or dispersions 
of anionic surfactants. Relatively few anionic surfactants, in aqueous 
solution or dispersion, are able to permeate a PTFE membrane filter having 
pores of 1 .mu.m diameter. Without being bound by theory, it is believed 
that this is due to the negative electric charge carried by the anionic 
surfactant being repelled by negative charges on the PTFE membrane filter 
surface. Most anionic surfactants have been found to be useful in the 
sequential application method of the present invention, whether or not 
they are accession agents as defined herein. 
Preferred accession agents useful in the process of this invention are 
aqueous solutions of a particular category of surfactants in a 
concentration sufficient to induce stomatal infiltration of the leaves or 
other foliage to be treated, as detected by any suitable test procedure, 
such as those described above. This category of surfactants is of a type 
known as "superwetting" or "superspreading" surfactants, and they are well 
known in the art. 
Two classes of superwetting surfactants have been found to contain numerous 
agents that are particularly useful as accession agents in the method of 
the present invention. Thus, the accession agent of the present invention 
is preferably an aqueous solution of a superwetting surfactant selected 
from the group consisting of silicone based surfactants (referred to 
herein as "organosilicone wetting agents" or simply "organosilicones") and 
fluorocarbon based surfactants (referred to herein as "fluoro-organic 
wetting agents" or simply "fluoro-organics"). 
There are many classes of organosilicone wetting agents. One preferred 
class has the following general formula: 
##STR1## 
where each R is independently a monovalent saturated or unsaturated alkyl 
radical having 1-20 carbon atoms, more preferably having 1-6 carbon atoms, 
R.sup.1 is a divalent alkylidene radical having 1-20 carbon atoms, more 
preferably having 1-6 carbon atoms, R.sup.2 is independently hydrogen or a 
C.sub.1 -C.sub.4 alkyl radical, R.sup.3 is hydrogen or a monovalent 
saturated or unsaturated alkyl radical having 1-20 carbon atoms, more 
preferably having 1-10 carbon atoms, x is an integer or average of 
integers greater than or equal to zero and preferably less than 100, y and 
a are integers or averages of integers independently greater than or equal 
to one and preferably less than 30, and b is an integer or average of 
integers greater than or equal to zero and preferably less than 30. 
In a preferred subclass of the compounds of Formula I, R and R.sup.3 are 
--CH.sub.3, R.sup.1 is --C.sub.3 H.sub.6 --, R.sup.2 is hydrogen, x is 
zero or one, y is one to five, a is five to 20, and b is zero. A second 
preferred subclass of the compounds of Formula I can be represented by the 
following formula: 
##STR2## 
where a is one to 20, x is zero or one, R is C.sub.1 -C.sub.6 alkyl, 
R.sup.1 is divalent C.sub.1 -C.sub.6 alkylidene, R.sup.2 is independently 
H or --CH.sub.3, and R.sup.3 is H, C.sub.1 -C.sub.4 alkyl, or C.sub.2 
-C.sub.4 acyl. A particularly preferred organosilicone wetting agent 
within the two preferred subclasses of Formula I is the compound having 
the following formula: 
##STR3## 
Another preferred class of organosilicone wetting agents has the general 
formula: 
##STR4## 
where R, R.sup.2, R.sup.3, x, a and b are as defined above for Formula I, 
except that x must be greater than one. Preferably in compounds of Formula 
IV, R and R.sup.3 are --CH.sub.3, R.sup.2 is hydrogen, a is five to 20 and 
b is zero. 
Organosilicones of the above formulas are generally described in product 
literature of Union Carbide Corp. and OSi Specialties, Inc. (e.g., 
"Silwet.RTM. Surfactants," OSi Specialties, Inc., Danbury, Conn., 1994), 
and in U.S. Pat. No. 3,505,377, the disclosure of which is incorporated 
herein by reference. Several of such ethoxylated organosilicone wetting 
agents are available from OSi Specialties as Silwet silicone glycol 
copolymers. Preferred Silwet surface active copolymers include Silwet 
L-77, Silwet 408, and Silwet 800. Silwet L-77 is an especially preferred 
ethoxylated organosilicone wetting agent which has an average formula 
corresponding to Formula III above. Another preferred organosilicone is 
Sylgard 309 of Dow Corning. 
An additional class of organosilicone wetting agents has the average 
formula: 
##STR5## 
where R.sup.2, R.sup.3, a, and b are as defined above for Formula IV, each 
R.sup.4 group is independently a monovalent saturated or unsaturated alkyl 
radical preferably having 1-20 carbon atoms, and T is hydrogen, a 
monovalent saturated or unsaturated alkyl radical preferably having 1-20 
carbon atoms, or a group of the formula --Si(R.sup.3)[OSi(OR.sup.4).sub.3 
].sub.2. Representative ethoxylated organosilicone wetting agents of 
Formula V are described in product literature of Olin Corporation and in 
U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,160,776, 4,226,794, and 4,337,168, the disclosures of 
which are incorporated herein by reference. 
An additional class of organosilicone wetting agents has the average 
formula: 
EQU (R.sup.4 O).sub.3 Si(OC.sub.2 H.sub.3 R.sup.2).sub.e (OC.sub.3 
H.sub.6).sub.f OT.sup.1 (VI) 
where R.sup.2 and R.sup.4 are as defined immediately above, e is at least 
four and preferably less than 30, f is greater than or equal to zero and 
preferably less than 30, and T.sup.1 is hydrogen, a monovalent saturated 
or unsaturated alkyl radical preferably having 1-20 carbon atoms, or a 
group of the formula --Si(OR.sup.4).sub.3. 
Fluoro-organic wetting agents useful in this invention are organic 
molecules represented by the formula: 
EQU R.sub.f --G 
wherein R.sub.f is a fluoroaliphatic radical and G is a group which 
contains at least one hydrophilic group such as cationic, anionic, 
nonionic, or amphoteric groups. R.sub.f is a fluorinated, monovalent, 
aliphatic organic radical containing at least four carbon atoms. 
Preferably, it is a saturated perfluoroaliphatic monovalent organic 
radical. However, hydrogen or chlorine atoms can be present as 
substituents on the skeletal chain. Although radicals containing a large 
number of carbon atoms can function adequately, compounds containing not 
more than about 20 carbon atoms are preferred because large radicals 
usually represent a less efficient utilization of fluorine than is 
possible with shorter skeletal chains. Preferably, R.sub.f contains about 
5 to 14 carbon atoms. 
The cationic groups which are usable in the fluoro-organic wetting agents 
employed in this invention can include an amine or a quaternary ammonium 
cationic group. Such amine and quaternary ammonium cationic hydrophilic 
groups can have formulas such as --NH.sub.2, --NHR.sup.2, 
--N(R.sup.2).sub.2, --(NH.sub.3)X, --(NH.sub.2 R.sup.2)X, 
--(NH(R.sup.2).sub.2)X, or --(N(R.sup.2).sub.3)X, where X is an anionic 
counterion such as halide, hydroxide, sulfate, bisulfate, acetate or 
carboxylate, R.sup.2 is H or a C.sub.1-18 alkyl group, and each R.sup.2 
can be the same as or different from other R.sup.2 groups. Preferably, X 
is halide, hydroxide, or bisulfate. Preferably, the cationic 
fluoro-organic wetting agents used in this invention contain hydrophilic 
groups which are quaternary ammonium cationic groups. The anionic groups 
which are usable in the fluoro-organic wetting agents employed in this 
invention include groups which by ionization can become radicals of 
anions. The anionic groups can have formulas such as --COOM, --SO.sub.3 M, 
--OSO.sub.3 M, --PO.sub.3 M.sub.2, --PO.sub.3 HM, --OPO.sub.3 M.sub.2, or 
--OPO.sub.3 HM, where M is H, an alkali metal ion, (NR.sup.1.sub.4).sup.+, 
or (SR.sup.1.sub.3).sup.+, where each R.sup.1 is independently H or 
substituted or unsubstituted C.sub.1 -C.sub.6 alkyl. Preferably M is 
Na.sup.+ or K.sup.+. The preferred anionic groups of the fluoro-organic 
wetting agents used in this invention have the formula --COOM or 
--SO.sub.3 M. 
The amphoteric groups which are usable in the fluoro-organic wetting agents 
employed in this invention include groups which contain at least one 
cationic group as defined above and at least one anionic group as defined 
above. Other useful amphoteric groups are amine oxides. 
The nonionic groups which are usable in the fluoro-organic wetting agents 
employed in this invention include groups which are hydrophilic but which 
under pH conditions of normal agronomic use are not ionized. The nonionic 
groups can have formulas such as --O(CH.sub.2 CH.sub.2).sub.x H where x is 
greater than zero, preferably 1-30, --SO.sub.2 NH.sub.2, --SO.sub.2 
NHCH.sub.2 CH.sub.2 OH, --SO.sub.2 N(CH.sub.2 CH.sub.2 OH).sub.2, 
--CONH.sub.2, --CONHCH.sub.2 CH.sub.2 OH, or --CON(CH.sub.2 CH.sub.2 
OH).sub.2. 
Cationic fluoro-organic wetting agents useful herein include those cationic 
fluorochemicals described, for example, in U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,764,602, 
2,764,603, 3,147,064, and 4,069,158. Amphoteric fluoro-organic wetting 
agents useful herein include those amphoteric fluorochemicals described, 
for example, in U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,764,602, 4,042,522, 4,069,158, 4,069,244, 
4,090,967, 4,161,590, and 4,161,602. Anionic fluoro-organic wetting agents 
useful herein include those anionic fluorochemicals described, for 
example, in U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,803,656, 3,255,131, 3,450,755, and 4,090,967. 
The pertinent disclosure of the above patents is incorporated here by 
reference. 
Several fluoro-organic wetting agents suitable for use as accession agents 
in the method of the invention are available from 3M under the Fluorad 
trademark. They include anionic agents Fluorad FC-120, Fluorad FC-129 and 
Fluorad FC-99, cationic agent Fluorad FC-750, and nonionic agents Fluorad 
FC-170C, Fluorad FC-171 and Fluorad FC-430. 
Especially preferred surfactants for use as components of accession agents 
include those organosilicone and fluoro-organic surfactants that are 
capable of reducing the surface tension of water to very low levels 
(typically below about 25 dyne/cm). 
Classes of anionic surfactant (excluding fluoro-organics) which can be 
dissolved or dispersed in water to form liquid agents useful for 
sequential application following application of an exogenous chemical 
according to the invention include: 
alkyl and alkylaryl carboxylates (e.g. heptanoate, Na salt; hexanoate, Na 
salt), 
alkyl and alkylaryl polyoxyalkylene carboxylates (e.g. Emcol CNP-110), 
alkyl and alkylaryl sulfates and sulfonates (e.g. Alpha-Step MC-48; 
Bio-Soft MG-50; hexanesulfonate, Na salt; Ninate 401-HF; PolyStep B-25; 
PolyStep B-29; Stepanol AEM; Stepanol ME Dry; Stepanol WAC), 
alkyl and alkylaryl polyoxyalkylene sulfates and sulfonates (e.g. Soprophor 
4D384; Steol CS-370), 
naphthalene sulfonates and formaldehyde condensates thereof (e.g. Aerosol 
OS; Daxad 15; Emery 5366), 
lignosulfonates (e.g. Polyfon H; Reax 100M; Reax 85A; Reax 88B), 
sulfosuccinates and semisulfosuccinates (e.g. Aerosol A-102; Aerosol A-103; 
Aerosol OT), 
alkyl and alkylaryl polyoxyalkylene phosphates (e.g. Emphos CS-121; Emphos 
CS-136; Emphos CS-141; Emphos PS-131; Emphos PS-21A; Emphos PS-400; 
Stepfac 8170; Stepfac 8171; Stepfac 8172; Stepfac 8173; Tryfac 5552; 
Tryfac 5556). 
Classes of cationic surfactant (excluding fluoro-organics) which can be 
dissolved or dispersed in water to form accession agents of the invention 
(subject to a test showing they infiltrate microscopic pores in a 
hydrophobic surface) include: 
polyoxyalkylene alkylamines and alkyletheramines (e.g. Ethomeen C/12). 
Classes of nonionic surfactant (excluding fluoro-organics and 
organosilicones) which can be dissolved or dispersed in water to form 
accession agents of the invention (subject to a test showing they 
infiltrate microscopic pores in a hydrophobic surface) include: 
polyoxyalkylene alkyl and alkylaryl ethers (e.g. Ethylan CPG-945; Makon 4; 
Neodol 1-5; nonanols 2EO and 4EO; Tergitol 15-S-7; Tergitol TMN-6; Toximul 
8304), 
polyoxyalkylene alkyl and alkylaryl thioethers (e.g. Alcodet 260; Alcodet 
SK), and 
glyceryl alkylesters (e.g. Witconol 18L). 
Surfactants mentioned here by trade name, and other surfactants that can be 
useful in the method of the invention, are indexed in standard reference 
works such as McCutcheon's Emulsifiers and Detergents, 1997 edition, and 
Handbook of Industrial Surfactants, 1993, published by Gower. 
Any number of accession agents can be employed in the method of this 
invention, and can be identified as useful through the procedures 
described above. Surfactant solutions that provide the appropriate indicia 
of stomatal infiltration at the concentrations tested are likely to prove 
useful in the method of this invention. A concentration of surfactant 
shown to be useful by these tests is termed herein an "effective 
concentration" of, for example, an aqueous solution used as an accession 
agent. 
The accession agents employed in this invention are liquids which provide 
rapid and enhanced access of the exogenous chemical (e.g., glyphosate 
herbicide) to the plant system wherein the exogenous chemical (e.g., 
glyphosate herbicide) is biologically effective. While not being held to 
any theory of operation of the accession agents employed in the method of 
this invention, we have found that infiltration, which likely proceeds 
through foliar stomata, allows flow of liquid from the foliar surface into 
substomatal and other voids in the interior of the foliage (such as 
intercellular voids). By infiltrating stomata, it appears that the 
accession agents employed in this invention carry with them previously 
applied chemicals. The manner by which they do this is not yet understood, 
but the results at least on some species are certainly at variance with 
the effect observed when such agents are mixed (either in tank mix or in 
simple coformulation) with, for example, a herbicide prior to application 
to the plants. As demonstrated below, these accession agents can be 
antagonistic to the biological effectiveness of the exogenous chemical (on 
certain species and under certain application conditions) when employed in 
a tank mix, and can give greater biological effect when used in the 
sequential method of this invention. In the case of herbicides, superior 
herbicidal effect can be obtained using the sequential method of this 
invention, with the result being that plants can be controlled with lower 
rates of the applied herbicide. 
Because leaf morphologies and consequent leaf/liquid interactions vary, 
different liquids show varying degrees of success on individual plant 
species when used in the method of this invention. However, sequential 
application of all operative accession agents useful in this invention 
reduces to some degree the antagonism observed in the corresponding tank 
mix methods for a variety of plant species. 
Application of Accession Agents 
For accession agents which are surfactant solutions or dispersions, the 
concentration of surfactant therein is important to achieving enhanced 
biological efficacy of pre-applied exogenous chemical compositions. 
Regarding such solutions or dispersions, the solution or dispersion itself 
is referred to herein as the "accession agent." The "concentration" of the 
"accession agent" refers to the concentration of the component ingredients 
(normally surfactants) of the "accession agent" in the aqueous solution or 
dispersion as applied. 
Even if a specific surfactant at a specific concentration in water is 
observed (by one of the procedures outlined above) to infiltrate leaf 
stomata and penetrate the subsurface foliar voids, this concentration 
sometimes nonetheless proves insufficient to enhance the biological effect 
of the exogenous chemical. In such cases, it can prove desirable to employ 
as an accession agent a solution containing a higher concentration of the 
surfactant. Typically, the minimum concentration of the accession agent 
needed to obtain a desired enhancement of biological effectiveness with 
minimal antagonism is highly variable from one accession agent to another, 
and could be determined by a person of ordinary skill in the art. For a 
polyoxyethylene trisiloxane surfactant such as Silwet L-77, a preferred 
concentration is in excess of 0.25% by volume, in the method of the 
present invention with glyphosate herbicide as the exogenous chemical. 
(Concentrations are expressed herein in percent by weight or percent by 
volume, but in dilute solutions (below about 5% concentration) it makes no 
practical difference for most purposes and the terms "by weight" and "by 
volume" can be used interchangeably in those situations.) Other accession 
agents have higher or lower minimum effective concentrations. It is highly 
preferred for glyphosate herbicide to use polyoxyethylene trisiloxane 
accession agents in concentrations of about 0.35% to about 0.6% by volume. 
Higher concentrations can certainly be employed but the cost of employing 
such higher concentrations has to be balanced against the extent of 
improvement in results obtainable. However, significant enhancement of 
herbicidal effectiveness for glyphosate has been obtained applying 
polyoxyethylene trisiloxane accession agents at a concentration of at 
least about 0.5% by volume or greater. It has been found that for certain 
surfactants, much higher concentrations (i.e., greater than 1% and up to 
5% by volume) must be used to obtain the enhanced effect (at least in 
herbicides) that is a feature of this invention. 
Certain accession agents are neat liquids, in which case this invention can 
be practiced without a solvent or diluent. When a solvent or diluent is 
used as the major component of an accession agent, its specifics are not 
important to this invention, provided such solvent or diluent is capable 
of carrying the previously applied exogenous chemical along with it into 
the plant structure. Thus, when the exogenous chemical is water-soluble, 
as in the case of a glyphosate salt, water suffices as a solvent in the 
accession agent. 
Additional agriculturally acceptable chemicals can also be admixed with the 
accession agent or the exogenous chemical, or both. For example, when the 
exogenous chemical is a herbicide, liquid nitrogen fertilizer or ammonium 
sulfate can be applied with the accession agent, with the exogenous 
chemical, or with both. 
Application rates for accession agents vary depending upon a number of 
factors, including the type and concentration of accession agent and the 
plant species involved. Application rates for accession agents generally 
should not be so high as to wash significant amounts of the exogenous 
chemical off the foliage. Useful rates for applying an aqueous solution or 
dispersion of liquid accession agent to a field of foliage are from about 
25 to about 1,000 liters per hectare (l/ha) by spray application. The 
preferred application rates for aqueous solutions or dispersions are in 
the range from about 50 to about 300 l/ha. 
Many exogenous chemicals (including glyphosate herbicides) must be taken up 
by living tissues of the plant and translocated within the plant in order 
to produce the desired biological (e.g., herbicidal) effect. Thus, it is 
normally important that the accession agent not be applied in such a 
manner, concentration, or amount as to excessively injure and interrupt 
the normal functioning of the plant. However, some limited degree of local 
injury can be insignificant, or even beneficial, in its impact on the 
biological effectiveness of certain exogenous chemicals, such as 
glyphosate herbicide. We have observed that application at night or in 
cold weather can prove relatively ineffective. It is possible that this is 
because leaf stomata contract and restrict infiltration under these 
conditions, but these observations might be explainable on the basis of 
some other theory as well. 
The accession agent can be applied almost immediately, for example within 
seconds, after the exogenous chemical. It can be applied with productive 
effect up to 96 hours or more later, provided there has been no 
intervening overhead irrigation or rainfall of such a volume or intensity 
as to remove a significant amount of the exogenous chemical from the leaf 
surface. Typically, when the concentration of the accession agent is 
relatively low (i.e., about 0.25% by volume in the case of a 
polyoxyethylene trisiloxane), a preferred time period for application of 
the accession agent is from about one hour to about 24 hours, most 
preferably from about one hour to about three hours, after application of 
the exogenous chemical. However, significant enhancement has been observed 
when the liquid accession agent is applied within about 3 minutes, and in 
field trials within a few seconds, after application of the exogenous 
chemical. The accession agent can be deployed in a single, sequential 
application following a spray of an exogenous chemical composition. It can 
also be employed in multiple sequential applications. 
The method of this invention can also be practiced using a system whereby 
separate spray solutions are applied sequentially to plants from a single 
moving vehicle. This can be accomplished in a number of different ways, 
e.g., by using a double boom system or its equivalent. In this particular 
use of the present invention, a single vehicle carries two booms, one 
spraying a liquid exogenous chemical composition (such as a glyphosate 
herbicide composition) and the other spraying a liquid accession agent. 
Each of the booms employed in this exemplary use of the present invention 
can employ any conventional means for spraying liquids, such as spray 
nozzles, atomizers, or the like. The boom delivering the accession agent 
is preferably disposed approximately parallel to the boom delivering the 
exogenous chemical, and posterior to it in the direction of travel of the 
vehicle. Instead of two booms, each with a plurality of spray nozzles, the 
method of the present invention can also be carried out with a single boom 
having two sets of nozzles or the like, one set spraying a liquid 
exogenous chemical composition and the other set spraying a liquid 
accession agent. The two sets of nozzles should be oriented differently on 
the single boom so that, as the vehicle carrying the boom moves forward, 
the exogenous chemical composition contacts the plants being treated prior 
to the time when the accession agent contacts the same plants. 
In any of these approaches, the period of time between the application of 
the exogenous chemical composition and the application of the accession 
agent depends upon the distance between the two spray booms (or the 
distance between spray paths created by the two differently oriented sets 
of spray nozzles where a single boom is employed) and the speed of the 
vehicle carrying the boom or booms. A preferred period of time between the 
two applications is from about 0.005 to about 10 seconds. A period of 
about 0.01-1.0 seconds is especially preferred. The great convenience and 
cost savings of such a single moving vehicle system can in many cases 
compensate for the somewhat weaker overall enhancement by comparison with 
a more delayed sequential application. 
The method of the present invention can also employ aerial application 
techniques. For example, an exogenous chemical such as a herbicide can be 
applied by spraying from an airplane onto plants in a field, using 
conventional aerial spraying equipment known to persons skilled in the 
art, and then the accession agent can be applied in a second pass of 
aerial spraying, either from the same plane or a different plane. 
Alternatively, the exogenous chemical can be applied to the plants by 
means of ground-based spraying, and after an entire field or plurality of 
fields have been so sprayed, an accession agent can be applied to the 
plants in that field or plurality of fields by spraying from an airplane. 
The latter approach minimizes the danger of the exogenous chemical spray 
drifting and contacting plants outside the target zone, and thus 
eliminates the need for a buffer zone, as off-target deposition of an 
accession agent alone is unlikely to be of concern. 
The method of this invention can also be practiced by a single application 
to plants of particular coformulations of an exogenous chemical and an 
accession agent that are themselves designed to provide the advantages of 
sequential application. Such coformulations are an embodiment of the 
invention and provide a time delay between the initial contacting of the 
plant foliage by the exogenous chemical (e.g., herbicide) and the initial 
contacting of the plant foliage by the accession agent (e.g., superwetting 
surfactant in aqueous solution or dispersion). This time delay is 
accomplished by having the exogenous chemical and the surfactant component 
of the accession agent partitioned to a greater or lesser extent in 
selected physical environments within the bulk state of the coformulation. 
In this respect such coformulations differ from the simple coformulations 
and tank mixes previously known. The presence of surfactant in the form of 
simple micelles or in solution in a liquid coformulation, or adsorbed or 
absorbed on a solid carrier (which may or may not be the exogenous 
chemical) in a dry coformulation, does not of itself accomplish the 
required partitioning. Coformulations having different physical 
environments permitting partitioning of exogenous chemical and accession 
agent as required by this embodiment of the invention include, without 
limitation, colloidal systems such as emulsions (water/oil, oil/water, or 
multiple, e.g., water/oil/water emulsions having an inner aqueous phase 
and an outer aqueous phase), foams or microemulsions, or systems 
containing microparticulates, microcapsules, liposomes, vesicles, or the 
like. Especially preferred methods involving partitioned coformulations 
are those wherein the accession agent comprises a surfactant at least 50% 
of which is encapsulated within microcapsules, liposomes, vesicles or the 
inner aqueous phase of a multiple emulsion. 
Analogous partitioned coformulations providing a time delay between initial 
contact of an exogenous chemical and initial contact of an anionic 
surfactant (whether or not the anionic surfactant forms an accession agent 
as defined herein) are likewise an embodiment of the present invention. 
In all partitioned coformulations of the invention and methods of using 
such partitioned coformulations, a preferred exogenous chemical is a 
herbicide comprising N-phosphonomethylglycine or a herbicidal derivative 
thereof. 
Glyphosate is known generally to be effective at lower rates as a herbicide 
for grasses than for broadleaf plants, although it is widely used on all 
species. We have found, however, that for both classes of plant species 
for which glyphosate and an accession agent are antagonistic in a simple 
coformulation or tank mix, superior results are achieved through the 
sequential application method of this invention. 
Tank Mixes v. Sequential Application 
The sequential application method of the present invention provides a novel 
method for delivery of exogenous chemicals, which generally produces a 
greater biological effect than when accession agent and exogenous chemical 
are employed together in a tank mix. This enhancement, which can involve a 
reduction or elimination of antagonism, offers a number of practical and 
commercial advantages over the prior tank mix methods. 
In the case of herbicides, this invention facilitates use of accession 
agents in fields infested with a variety of plant species. When used in a 
tank mix, the accession agent may enhance herbicidal activity with respect 
to some species, but reduce activity with respect to others (antagonism). 
A single application of the herbicide tank mix will, in such cases, prove 
ineffective to control the desired plurality of plant species, unless the 
herbicide is introduced at significantly higher levels, thereby defeating 
the purpose of the accession agent. In contrast, as demonstrated below, 
the sequential application process of this invention preserves or in some 
cases further magnifies the enhancements of herbicidal efficacy provided 
by the tank mix, but substantially reduces or eliminates antagonism for 
individual plant species that might be found in the subject field. This 
invention therefore permits use of accession agents over a broad spectrum 
of plant species, unlike tank mix methods which can enhance or decrease 
herbicidal activity depending on the plant species. Similar benefits occur 
for other classes of exogenous chemicals. 
We have observed antagonistic effects of Silwet L-77 in tank mix with 
glyphosate on the following species: 
velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) 
redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) 
wild oat (Avena fatua) 
broadleaf signalgrass (Brachiaria platyphylla) 
canola (Brassica napus) 
downy brome (Bromus tectorum) 
sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) 
common lambsquarter (Chenopodium album) 
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) 
redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium) 
cutleaf geranium (Geranium dissectum) 
soybean (Glycine max) 
little barley (Hordeum pusillum) 
pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) 
annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) 
annual bluegrass (Poa annua) 
wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus) 
cutleaf evening primrose (Primula trientalis) 
curly dock (Rumex crispus) 
hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata) 
prickly sida (Sida spinosa) 
wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis) 
johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) 
wheat (Triticum aestivum) 
The present invention can also reduce the work required to screen accession 
agents for varying effectiveness as enhancing agents for (and/or possible 
antagonism of) exogenous chemicals across multiple plant species. In those 
instances where tank mixes of an exogenous chemical and an accession agent 
are antagonistic, use of the sequential method of this invention 
substantially reduces or eliminates such antagonism. In those instances 
where the accession agent improves the biological effectiveness of the 
exogenous chemical in a tank mix, the sequential application method of 
this invention generally yields at least comparable results. Thus, as a 
result of the sequential method of this invention, increased use of 
accession agents is made possible, because when used in the method of the 
present invention, such accession agents provide enhanced biological 
activity in some plant species without antagonistic effect in others. 
EXAMPLES 
The following examples are provided for illustrative purposes only and are 
not intended to limit the scope of the present invention. In these 
examples, percentage amounts refer to percent by volume unless otherwise 
noted. 
In the following examples, experiments were performed using the following 
(and other) formulations: 
Formulation A: which consists of 41% by weight of the monoisopropylamine 
salt of glyphosate in aqueous solution with a coformulant (7.5% by weight) 
of a surfactant (MON-0818 of Monsanto Company) based upon polyoxyethylene 
(15) tallowamine. 
Formulation B: which consists of 41% by weight of the monoisopropylamine 
salt of glyphosate in aqueous solution. 
Formulation C: which consists of 41% by weight of the monoisopropylamine 
salt of glyphosate in aqueous solution with a coformulant (15% by weight) 
of MON-0818 surfactant. 
Formulation J: which consists of 41% by weight of the monoisopropylamine 
salt of glyphosate in aqueous solution, together with surfactant. This 
formulation is sold in the USA by Monsanto Company under the ROUNDUP.RTM. 
Ultra trademark. 
All of these formulations contain about 360 (nominally 356) grams of 
glyphosate acid equivalent per liter (g a.e./1). Other formulations used 
are described in the particular Examples where they occur. 
Example 1 
Seeds of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) were planted in 85 mm 
square pots in a soil mix which was previously steam sterilized and 
prefertilized with a 14-14-14 NPK slow release fertilizer at a rate of 3.6 
kg/m.sup.3. The pots were placed in a greenhouse with sub-irrigation. 
About one week after emergence, seedlings were thinned as needed, 
including removal of any unhealthy or abnormal plants, to create a uniform 
series of test pots. 
The plants were maintained for the duration of the test in the greenhouse 
where they received a minimum of 14 hours of light per day. If natural 
light was insufficient to achieve the daily requirement, artificial light 
with an intensity of approximately 475 microeinsteins was used to make up 
the difference. Exposure temperatures were not precisely controlled but 
averaged about 27.degree. C. during the day and 18.degree. C. during the 
night. Plants were sub-irrigated throughout the test to ensure adequate 
soil moisture levels. 
Pots were assigned to different treatments in a fully randomized 
experimental design with 3 replications. A set of pots was left untreated 
as a reference against which effects of the treatments could later be 
evaluated. Initial treatments with Formulation A, alone or in tank mix 
with a candidate accession agent, were applied 20 days after planting. 
Initial treatments were applied by spraying with a track sprayer fitted 
with a 9501E nozzle calibrated to deliver a spray volume of 93 liters per 
hectare (l/ha) at a pressure of 166 kilopascals (kPa). Plants treated 
according to methods of prior art, for comparative purposes, received an 
initial treatment only. Plants treated by a method illustrative of the 
present invention received an initial application of Formulation A 
followed sequentially by a subsequent application of a candidate accession 
agent. Various intervals between initial and subsequent applications were 
tested in this Example. Some treatments involved a single subsequent 
application of a candidate accession agent; others involved multiple 
subsequent treatments. All subsequent applications in this Example were 
applied by spraying a candidate accession agent with a track sprayer 
fitted exactly as for the initial application and calibrated to deliver a 
spray volume of 93 l/ha at a pressure of 166 kPa. 
Formulation A was applied without candidate accession agent at a range of 
rates from 300 to 1000 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent was 
included in the treatment, either in tank mix with Formulation A or as a 
subsequent application, only the two lowest rates of Formulation A, 300 
and 400 g a.e./ha, were tested. This Example uses only one candidate 
accession agent, an aqueous solution containing 5% glycerin and 0.25% 
Silwet L-77 (abbreviated in data tables herein as L-77). SilwetL-77 is a 
commercial polyethoxylated trisiloxane surfactant having the chemical 
structure shown above and is a product of Witco Corporation, OSi 
Specialties Group. As this surfactant is known to be hydrolytically 
unstable in aqueous solution, spray solutions were prepared immediately 
before application. The time interval between initial and subsequent 
applications was varied from about 0.05 hour (the shortest interval that 
could practically be tested using the procedure of this Example) to 24 
hours. 
In this and subsequent examples, when applied as a tank mix, the indicated 
concentrations of Silwet L-77 reflect percentages by volume of the 
herbicide spray solution. When applied subsequently, the indicated 
concentrations of Silwet L-77 reflect percentages by volume of the 
candidate accession agent spray solution. 
Except for pots subjected to the .about.0.05 hour interval between initial 
and subsequent applications, pots were returned to the greenhouse between 
applications. After the subsequent application, all pots remained in the 
greenhouse until ready for evaluation. 
Twenty-three days after the initial application, all plants in the test 
were examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent 
inhibition, which is a visual measurement of the herbicidal effectiveness 
of the treatment by comparison with untreated plants. A percent inhibition 
of 0% indicates no effect, and a percent inhibition of 100% indicates that 
all of the specimens are completely dead. A percent inhibition of 85% or 
more is in most cases considered acceptable for normal herbicidal uses. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 1. The 
percent inhibition data given in this and the other Examples herein are 
averages of all (in most cases three) replicates of each treatment. 
TABLE 1 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
Glyphosate 
Subsequent application 
% 
93 l/ha rate 93 l/ha Inhibition 
herbicide 
accession agent 
g a.e./ha 
accession agent 
ABUTH 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 300 none 43 
Formulation A none 400 none 63 
Formulation A none 500 none 82 
Formulation A none 600 none 75 
Formulation A none 800 none 98 
Formulation A none 1000 none 99 
Formulation A 5% glycerin + 300 none 14 
0.25% L-77 
Formulation A 5% glycerin + 400 none 10 
0.25% L-77 
Formulation A none 300 5% glycerin + 0.25% L-77 31 
at .about.0.05 hr 
Formulation A none 400 5% glycerin + 0.25% L-77 44 
at .about.0.05 hr 
Formulation A none 300 5% glycerin + 0.25% L-77 30 
at 1 hr 
Formulation A none 400 5% glycerin + 0.25% L-77 53 
at 1 hr 
Formulation A none 300 5% glycerin + 0.25% L-77 56 
at 3 hrs 
Formulation A none 400 5% glycerin + 0.25% L-77 69 
at 3 hrs 
Formulation A none 300 5% glycerin + 0.25% L-77 60 
at 6 hrs 
Formulation A none 400 5% glycerin + 0.25% L-77 54 
at 6 hrs 
Formulation A none 300 5% glycerin + 0.25% L-77 38 
at 24 hrs 
Formulation A none 400 5% glycerin + 0.25% L-77 61 
at 24 hrs 
Formulation A none 300 5% glycerin + 0.25% L-77 57 
at 1 and 3 hrs 
Formulation A none 400 5% glycerin + 0.25% L-77 71 
at 1 and 3 hrs 
Formulation A none 300 5% glycerin + 0.25% L-77 56 
at 1, 3 and 6 hrs 
Formulation A none 400 5% glycerin + 0.25% L-77 82 
at 1, 3 and 6 hrs 
Formulation A none 300 5% glycerin + 0.25% L77 69 
at 1, 3, 6 and 24 hrs 
Formulation A none 400 5% glycerin + 0.25% L77 74 
at 1, 3, 6 and 24 hrs 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
The comparative tank mix treatments of this Example, employing an accession 
agent which is a combination of glycerin and Silwet L-77 in aqueous 
solution, were noticeably antagonistic to herbicidal effectiveness of 
glyphosate. This antagonism was reduced significantly when the same 
accession agent was applied sequentially following the glyphosate, instead 
of being included with the glyphosate in tank mix. Significant improvement 
in herbicidal effectiveness of glyphosate was found in treatments 
involving multiple sequential applications of the same accession agent. 
Glycerin has been used and proposed as a humectant material to improve 
tank mix performance of Silwet L-77. 
Example 2 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) plants were grown in pots, 
maintained in a greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent 
applications by procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except 
where otherwise noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulation A, alone or in tank mix with a 
candidate accession agent, were applied in a spray volume of 93 l/ha at a 
pressure of 166 kPa, 22 days after planting. All subsequent applications 
in this Example were applied by spraying a candidate accession agent at a 
spray volume of 280 l/ha at a pressure of 166 kPa. 
Formulation A was applied without candidate accession agent at a range of 
rates from 200 to 800 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent was 
included in the treatment, either in tank mix with Formulation A or as a 
subsequent application, only the three lowest rates of Formulation A, 200, 
300 and 400 g a.e./ha, were tested. This Example includes only one 
candidate accession agent, an aqueous solution containing 0.5% Silwet 
L-77. The time interval between initial and subsequent applications was 
about 0.05 hour or 4 hours. 
Twenty-one days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 2. 
TABLE 2 
______________________________________ 
Subsequent 
application 
Initial application 
Glyphosate 
280 l/ha % 
93 l/ha rate accession Inhibition 
herbicide 
accession agent 
g a.e./ha agent ABUTH 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 200 none 0 
Formulation A none 300 none 13 
Formulation A none 400 none 40 
Formulation A none 500 none 50 
Formulation A none 600 none 55 
Formulation A none 800 none 75 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 200 none 49 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 300 none 48 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 400 none 61 
Formulation A none 200 0.5% L-77 at 60 
.about.0.05 hr 
Formulation A none 300 0.5% L-77 at 73 
.about.0.05 hr 
Formulation A none 400 0.5% L-77 at 77 
.about.0.05 hr 
Formulation A none 200 0.5% L-77 at 66 
4 hrs 
Formulation A none 300 0.5% L-77 at 77 
4 hrs 
Formulation A none 400 0.5% L-77 at 78 
4 hrs 
______________________________________ 
Here, Silwet L-77 in tank mix formulation gave some enhancement of 
herbicidal effectiveness. Somewhat greater enhancement was obtained 
through sequential application of Silwet L-77. 
Example 3 
Prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown in pots, maintained in 
a greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent applications by 
procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except where otherwise 
noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulation A, alone or in tank mix with a 
candidate accession agent, were applied 29 days after planting. 
Formulation A was applied without candidate accession agent at a range of 
rates from 300 to 1000 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent was 
included in the treatment, either in tank mix with Formulation A or as a 
subsequent application, only the three lowest rates of Formulation A, 300, 
400 and 500 g a.e./ha, were tested. This Example includes as candidate 
accession agent an aqueous solution containing 0.5% or 0.25% Silwet L-77. 
The time interval between initial and subsequent applications was varied 
from about 0.05 hour to 3 hours. 
Twenty-three days after the initial application, all plants in the test 
were examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent 
inhibition. Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in 
Table 3. 
TABLE 3 
______________________________________ 
Subsequent 
application 
Initial application 
Glyphosate 
93 l/ha % 
93 l/ha rate accession Inhibition 
herbicide 
accession agent 
g a.e./ha agent SIDSP 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 300 none 58 
Formulation A none 400 none 84 
Formulation A none 500 none 93 
Formulation A none 600 none 96 
Formulation A none 800 none 99 
Formulation A none 1000 none 100 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 300 none 44 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 400 none 74 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 500 none 84 
Formulation A none 300 0.5% L-77 at 67 
.about.0.05 hr 
Formulation A none 400 0.5% L-77 at 66 
.about.0.05 hr 
Formulation A none 500 0.5% L-77 at 80 
.about.0.05 hr 
Formulation A none 300 0.5% L-77 at 89 
1 hr 
Formulation A none 400 0.5% L-77 at 94 
1 hr 
Formulation A none 500 0.5% L-77 at 94 
1 hr 
Formulation A none 300 0.5% L-77 at 76 
3 hrs 
Formulation A none 400 0.5% L-77 at 89 
3 hrs 
Formulation A none 500 0.5% L-77 at 90 
3 hrs 
Formulation A none 300 0.25% L-77 74 
at 1 hr 
Formulation A none 400 0.25% L-77 77 
at 1 hr 
Formulation A none 500 0.25% L-77 82 
at 1 hr 
______________________________________ 
Silwet L-77 in tank mix formulation was mildly antagonistic to the 
effectiveness of the herbicidal composition in prickly sida. This 
antagonism was overcome through sequential application after one and three 
hours, which gave significant improvement of effectiveness over the 
herbicidal composition applied without Silwet L-77, and applied with 
Silwet L-77 in tank mix. 
Example 4 
Morningglory (Ipomoea sp., IPOSS) plants were grown in pots, maintained in 
a greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent applications by 
procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except where otherwise 
noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulations A, B and C, alone or in tank mix with 
a candidate accession agent, were applied 29 days after planting. 
Formulations were each applied without candidate accession agent at a 
range of rates from 400 to 800 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent 
was included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, only the two lowest rates of each glyphosate formulation, 400 
and 600 g a.e./ha, were tested. This Example includes as candidate 
accession agent an aqueous solution containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. 
All subsequent applications in this Example were made by spraying the 
candidate accession agent with a track sprayer fitted as in Example 1 but 
calibrated to deliver a spray volume of 280 l/ha at a pressure of 166 kPa. 
The time interval between initial and subsequent applications was 1 hour. 
Twenty-two days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 4. 
TABLE 4 
______________________________________ 
Initial application Subsequent 
93 l/ha Glyphosate 
application % 
accession 
rate 280 l/ha Inhibition 
herbicide agent g a.e./ha accession agent IPOSS 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 400 none 47 
Formulation A none 600 none 85 
Formulation A none 800 none 85 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 400 none 63 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 600 none 70 
Formulation A none 400 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 91 
Formulation A none 600 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 95 
Formulation B none 400 none 13 
Formulation B none 600 none 69 
Formulation B none 800 none 70 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 400 none 72 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 600 none 87 
Formulation B none 400 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 91 
Formulation B none 600 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 94 
Formulation C none 400 none 62 
Formulation C none 600 none 87 
Formulation C none 800 none 96 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 400 none 81 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 600 none 83 
Formulation C none 400 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 89 
Formulation C none 600 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 100 
______________________________________ 
Remarkable improvement (over the comparative tank mix treatment) in 
herbicidal effectiveness was achieved in this Example by applying the 
accession agent subsequent to the initial herbicide application for each 
of Formulation A, Formulation B and Formulation C. 
Example 5 
Russian thistle (Salsola iberica, SASKR) plants were grown in pots, 
maintained in a greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent 
applications by procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except 
where otherwise noted below. Greenhouse temperature was maintained at 
approximately 21.degree. C. during the day and 16.degree. C. during the 
night. 
The experimental design included only two replicate pots per treatment. 
Initial applications of Formulation A, alone or in tank mix with a 
candidate accession agent, were applied 27 days after planting. 
Formulation A was applied without candidate accession agent at a range of 
rates from 200 to 800 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent was 
included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, the rates of Formulation A tested were 200, 300 and 400 g 
a.e./ha. This Example includes as candidate accession agent an aqueous 
solution containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. The time interval between initial 
and subsequent applications was varied from about 0.05 hour to 3 hours. 
Twenty days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 5. 
TABLE 5 
______________________________________ 
Initial application Subsequent % 
93 l/ha Glyphosate application Inihib- 
accession 
rate 93 l/ha ition 
herbicide agent g a.e./ha accession agent SASKR 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 200 none 15 
Formulation A none 300 none 69 
Formulation A none 400 none 86 
Formulation A none 500 none 93 
Formulation A none 600 none 100 
Formulation A none 800 none 100 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 200 none 50 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 300 none 37 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 400 none 78 
Formulation A none 200 0.5% L-77 at 20 
.about.0.05 hr 
Formulation A none 300 0.5% L-77 at 55 
.about.0.05 hr 
Formulation A none 400 0.5% L-77 at 87 
.about.0.05 hr 
Formulation A none 200 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 43 
Formulation A none 300 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 66 
Formulation A none 400 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 81 
Formulation A none 200 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 31 
Formulation A none 300 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 63 
Formulation A none 400 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 74 
______________________________________ 
Silwet L-77 enhanced the effectiveness of the herbicidal composition for 
russian thistle when added in tank mix. The enhancement was comparable to 
that achieved when Silwet L-77 was applied sequentially. 
Example 6 
Wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus, POLCO) plants were grown in pots, 
maintained in a greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent 
applications by procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except 
where otherwise noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulation A, alone or in tank mix with a 
candidate accession agent, were applied 24 days after planting. 
Formulation A was applied without candidate accession agent at a range of 
rates from 250 to 600 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent was 
included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, Formulation A was tested only at the lowest rate. This 
Example includes as candidate accession agents aqueous solutions 
containing Silwet L-77 at a range of concentrations from 0.25% to 1.5%. 
The time interval between initial and subsequent applications was varied 
from about 0.05 hour to 24 hours. 
Fourteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 6. 
TABLE 6 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
Glyphosate 
Subsequent application 
% 
93 l/ha rate 93 l/ha Inhibition 
herbicide 
accession agent 
g a.e./ha 
accession agent 
POLCO 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 250 none 63 
Formulation A none 450 none 87 
Formulation A none 600 none 97 
Formulation A 0.25% L-77 250 none 37 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 250 none 53 
Formulation A 1.0% L-77 250 none 83 
Formulation A 1.5% L-77 250 none 97 
Formulation A none 250 0.25% L-77 at .about.0.05 hr 35 
Formulation A none 250 0.5% L-77 at .about.0.05 hr 73 
Formulation A none 250 1.0% L-77 at .about.0.05 hr 86 
Formulation A none 250 1.5% L-77 at .about.0.05 hr 95 
Formulation A none 250 0.25% L-77 at 4 hrs 33 
Formulation A none 250 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 65 
Formulation A none 250 1.0% L-77 at 4 hrs 71 
Formulation A none 250 1.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 81 
Formulation A none 250 0.25% L-77 at 8 hrs 48 
Formulation A none 250 0.5% L-77 at 8 hrs 62 
Formulation A none 250 1.0% L-77 at 8 hrs 53 
Formulation A none 250 1.5% L-77 at 8 hrs 49 
Formulation A none 250 0.25% L-77 at 24 hrs 38 
Formulation A none 250 0.5% L-77 at 24 hrs 58 
Formulation A none 250 1.0% L-77 at 24 hrs 48 
Formulation A none 250 1.5% L-77 at 24 hrs 38 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Silwet L-77 in tank mix enhanced the effectiveness of the herbicidal 
composition on wild buckwheat at higher concentrations of the accession 
agent, but was antagonistic for lower concentrations. The effect of 
sequential application was comparable, except for a loss of enhancement at 
higher Silwet L-77 concentrations (.about.1%) applied at later times (8 
hours or more later). 
Example 7 
Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus, CYPES) plants were grown in pots, 
maintained in a greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent 
applications by procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except 
where otherwise noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulation A, alone or in tank mix with a 
candidate accession agent, were applied 22 days after planting. 
Formulation A was applied without candidate accession agent at a range of 
rates from 1200 to 2000 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent was 
included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, Formulation A was tested only at the lowest rate. This 
Example includes as candidate accession agents aqueous solutions 
containing Silwet L-77 at a range of concentrations from 0.125% to 1.5%. 
The time interval between initial and subsequent applications was varied 
from about 0.05 hour to 24 hours. 
Nineteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 7. 
TABLE 7 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
Glyphosate 
Subsequent application 
% 
93 l/ha rate 93 l/ha Inhibition 
herbicide 
accession agent 
g a.e./ha 
accession agent 
CYPES 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 1200 none 41 
Formulation A none 1600 none 96 
Formulation A none 2000 none 97 
Formulation A 0.125% L-77 1200 none 70 
Formulation A 0.25% L-77 1200 none 81 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 1200 none 92 
Formulation A 1.0% L-77 1200 none 81 
Formulation A 1.5% L-77 1200 none 74 
Formulation A none 1200 0.125% L-77 at .about.0.05 hr 73 
Formulation A none 1200 0.25% L-77 at .about.0.05 hr 87 
Formulation A none 1200 0.5% L-77 at .about.0.05 hr 86 
Formulation A none 1200 1.0% L-77 at .about.0.05 hr 89 
Formulation A none 1200 1.5% L-77 at .about.0.05 hr 86 
Formulation A none 1200 0.125% L-77 at 4 hrs 59 
Formulation A none 1200 0.25% L-77 at 4 hrs 79 
Formulation A none 1200 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 89 
Formulation A none 1200 1.0% L-77 at 4 hrs 88 
Formulation A none 1200 1.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 69 
Formulation A none 1200 0.125% L-77 at 8 hrs 70 
Formulation A none 1200 0.25% L-77 at 8 hrs 67 
Formulation A none 1200 0.5% L-77 at 8 hrs 95 
Formulation A none 1200 1.0% L-77 at 8 hrs 83 
Formulation A none 1200 1.5% L-77 at 8 hrs 83 
Formulation A none 1200 0.125% L-77 at 24 hrs 86 
Formulation A none 1200 0.25% L-77 at 24 hrs 94 
Formulation A none 1200 0.5% L-77 at 24 hrs 59 
Formulation A none 1200 1.0% L-77 at 24 hrs 81 
Formulation A none 1200 1.5% L-77 at 24 hrs 68 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Silwet L-77 in tank mix significantly enhanced the effectiveness of the 
herbicidal composition on yellow nutsedge at all the tested accession 
agent concentrations. The effect of sequential application of the 
accession agent was generally comparable. 
Example 8 
Winter wheat (Triticum aestivum, TRZAW) plants were grown in pots, 
maintained in a greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent 
applications by procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except 
where otherwise noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulations B and C, alone or in tank mix with a 
candidate accession agent, were applied 14 days after planting. 
Formulations were each applied without candidate accession agent at a 
range of rates from 75 to 450 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent 
was included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, formulations were tested across the same range of rates. This 
Example includes as candidate accession agents aqueous solutions 
containing Silwet L-77 at a range of concentrations from 0.2% to 1.0%. The 
time interval between initial and subsequent applications was 4 or 8 
hours. 
Fourteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 8. 
TABLE 8 
______________________________________ 
Initial application 
Glypho- Subsequent % 
93 l/ha sate application Inihib- 
accession 
rate 93 l/ha ition 
herbicide agent g a.e./ha accession agent TRZAW 
______________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 75 none 8 
Formulation B none 150 none 22 
Formulation B none 450 none 55 
Formulation B 0.2% L-77 75 none 11 
Formulation B 0.2% L-77 150 none 20 
Formulation B 0.2% L-77 450 none 93 
Formulation B none 75 0.2% L-77 at 4 hrs 13 
Formulation B none 150 0.2% L-77 at 4 hrs 15 
Formulation B none 450 0.2% L-77 at 4 hrs 45 
Formulation B none 75 0.2% L-77 at 8 hrs 30 
Formulation B none 150 0.2% L-77 at 8 hrs 18 
Formulation B none 450 0.2% L-77 at 8 hrs 56 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 75 none 62 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 150 none 44 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 450 none 68 
Formulation B none 75 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 37 
Formulation B none 150 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 21 
Formulation B none 450 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 67 
Formulation B none 75 0.5% L-77 at 8 hrs 30 
Formulation B none 150 0.5% L-77 at 8 hrs 33 
Formulation B none 450 0.5% L-77 at 8 hrs 67 
Formulation B 1.0% L-77 75 none 56 
Formulation B 1.0% L-77 150 none 83 
Formulation B 1.0% L-77 450 none 100 
Formulation B none 75 1.0% L-77 at 4 hrs 15 
Formulation B none 150 1.0% L-77 at 4 hrs 38 
Formulation B none 450 1.0% L-77 at 4 hrs 69 
Formulation B none 75 1.0% L-77 at 8 hrs 34 
Formulation B none 150 1.0% L-77 at 8 hrs 34 
Formulation B none 450 1.0% L-77 at 8 hrs 59 
Formulation C none 75 none 76 
Formulation C none 150 none 93 
Formulation C none 450 none 100 
Formulation C 0.2% L-77 75 none 44 
Formulation C 0.2% L-77 150 none 53 
Formulation C 0.2% L-77 450 none 98 
Formulation C none 75 0.2% L-77 at 4 hrs 58 
Formulation C none 150 0.2% L-77 at 4 hrs 78 
Formulation C none 450 0.2% L-77 at 4 hrs 99 
Formulation C none 75 0.2% L-77 at 8 hrs 58 
Formulation C none 150 0.2% L-77 at 8 hrs 77 
Formulation C none 450 0.2% L-77 at 8 hrs 97 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 75 none 27 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 150 none 48 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 450 none 98 
Formulation C none 75 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 66 
Formulation C none 150 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 94 
Formulation C none 450 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 99 
Formulation C none 75 0.5% L-77 at 8 hrs 66 
Formulation C none 150 0.5% L-77 at 8 hrs 85 
Formulation C none 450 0.5% L-77 at 8 hrs 99 
Formulation C 1.0% L-77 75 none 49 
Formulation C 1.0% L-77 150 none 64 
Formulation C 1.0% L-77 450 none 99 
Formulation C none 75 1.0% L-77 at 4 hrs 71 
Formulation C none 150 1.0% L-77 at 4 hrs 88 
Formulation C none 450 1.0% L-77 at 4 hrs 97 
Formulation C none 75 1.0% L-77 at 8 hrs 66 
Formulation C none 150 1.0% L-77 at 8 hrs 81 
Formulation C none 450 1.0% L-77 at 8 hrs 100 
______________________________________ 
The greatest improvement of herbicidal effectiveness through sequential 
application of an accession agent in this Example was in the case of 
Formulation C, which includes a polyethoxylated tallowamine based 
surfactant, unlike Formulation B, which contains no surfactant. 
Example 9 
Soybean (Glycine max, GLXMA) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a 
greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent applications by 
procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except where otherwise 
noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulation A, alone or in tank mix with a 
candidate accession agent, were applied 18 days after planting. 
Formulation A was applied without candidate accession agent at a range of 
rates from 250 to 800 g a.c./ha. When a candidate accession agent was 
included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, Formulation A was tested only at the lowest rate. This 
Example includes as candidate accession agents aqueous solutions 
containing Silwet L-77 at a range of concentrations from 0.125% to 1.0%. 
The time interval between initial and subsequent applications was varied 
from about 0.05 to 24 hours. 
Sixteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 9. 
TABLE 9 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
Glyphosate 
Subsequent application 
% 
93 l/ha rate 93 l/ha Inhibition 
herbicide 
accession agent 
g a.e./ha 
accession agent 
GLXMA 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 250 none 72 
Formulation A none 500 none 93 
Formulation A none 800 none 94 
Formulation A 0.125% L-77 250 none 45 
Formulation A 0.25% L-77 250 none 44 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 250 none 45 
Formulation A 1.0% L-77 250 none 61 
Formulation A none 250 0.125% L-77 at .about.0.05 hr 74 
Formulation A none 250 0.25% L-77 at .about.0.05 hr 59 
Formulation A none 250 0.5% L-77 at .about.0.05 hr 60 
Formulation A none 250 1.0% L-77 at .about.0.05 hr 46 
Formulation A none 250 0.125% L-77 at 4 hrs 76 
Formulation A none 250 0.25% L-77 at 4 hrs 74 
Formulation A none 250 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 67 
Formulation A none 250 1.0% L-77 at 4 hrs 70 
Formulation A none 250 0.125% L-77 at 8 hrs 71 
Formulation A none 250 0.25% L-77 at 8 hrs 62 
Formulation A none 250 0.5% L-77 at 8 hrs 67 
Formulation A none 250 1.0% L-77 at 8 hrs 67 
Formulation A none 250 0.125% L-77 at 24 hrs 75 
Formulation A none 250 0.25% L-77 at 24 hrs 75 
Formulation A none 250 0.5% L-77 at 24 hrs 69 
Formulation A none 250 1.0% L-77 at 24 hrs 66 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Silwet L-77 in tank mix was strongly antagonistic to the effectiveness of 
the herbicidal composition in soybean. This antagonism was overcome 
through sequential application after four hours. 
Example 10 
Downy brome (Bromus tectorum, BROTE) and annual ryegrass (Lolium 
multiflorum, LOLMG) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse 
and treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly 
as described for Example 1, except where otherwise noted below. Greenhouse 
temperature was maintained at approximately 21.degree. C. during the day 
and 16.degree. C. during the night. 
The experimental design included only two replicate pots per treatment. 
Initial applications of Formulation A, alone or in tank mix with a 
candidate accession agent, were applied 26 days after planting. 
Formulation A was applied without candidate accession agent at a range of 
rates from 100 to 800 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent was 
included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, Formulation A was tested only at 100, 200 and 300 g a.e./ha. 
This Example includes as candidate accession agent an aqueous solution 
containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. The time interval between initial and 
subsequent applications was varied from about 0.05 to 3 hours. 
Twenty days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 10. 
TABLE 10 
______________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Glypho- application 
Initial application sate 93 l/ha 
93 l/ha rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha 0.5% L-77 
BROTE LOLMG 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 100 none 35 17 
Formulation A none 200 none 64 60 
Formulation A none 300 none 83 85 
Formulation A none 400 none 71 83 
Formulation A none 500 none 94 100 
Formulation A none 600 none 94 100 
Formulation A none 800 none 100 100 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 100 none 3 0 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 200 none 18 38 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 300 none 45 55 
Formulation A none 100 at .about.0.05 hr 30 18 
Formulation A none 200 at .about.0.05 hr 68 70 
Formulation A none 300 at .about.0.05 hr 78 92 
Formulation A none 100 at 1 hr 38 42 
Formulation A none 200 at 1 hr 65 82 
Formulation A none 300 at 1 hr 79 85 
Formulation A none 100 at 3 hrs 53 85 
Formulation A none 200 at 3 hrs 81 80 
Formulation A none 300 at 3 hrs 97 90 
______________________________________ 
The data in Table 10 show better herbicidal results in the sequential 
process of this invention than in the comparative tank mix treatment as 
applied to both downy brome and annual ryegrass. Substantial tank mix 
antagonism was eliminated or reversed, with the best results for 
application of the Silwet L-77 accession agent obtained three hours after 
application of the herbicide. 
Example 11 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet, a form of 
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown in pots, 
maintained in a greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent 
applications by procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except 
where otherwise noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulations A and B, alone or in tank mix with a 
candidate accession agent, were applied on the same day, 19 days after 
planting velvetleaf and 14 days after planting Japanese millet. 
Formulations were applied without candidate accession agent at a range of 
rates from 200 to 600 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent was 
included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, formulations were tested only at the lowest rate. This 
Example includes as candidate accession agent an aqueous solution 
containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. The time interval between initial and 
subsequent applications was 4 hours. 
Nineteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 11. 
TABLE 11 
______________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Glypho- application 
Initial application sate 93 l/ha 
93 l/ha rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha 0.5% L-77 
ABUTH ECHCF 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 200 none 40 79 
Formulation A none 300 none 71 100 
Formulation A none 400 none 89 100 
Formulation A none 600 none 97 100 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 200 none 84 16 
Formulation A none 200 at 4 hrs 83 77 
Formulation B none 200 none 12 57 
Formulation B none 300 none 22 52 
Formulation B none 400 none 60 55 
Formulation B none 600 none 67 89 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 200 none 87 12 
Formulation B none 200 at 4 hrs 86 16 
______________________________________ 
The data in Table 11 show, in the case of Formulation A, strong enhancement 
of velvetleaf control by glyphosate when Silwet L-77 is added in tank mix. 
At the same time, the data show serious antagonism of Japanese millet 
control with the same tank mix treatment. This is a dramatic illustration 
of the major problem of using the prior art method wherein an accession 
agent is tank mixed or coformulated with a glyphosate herbicide. Attempts 
to gain enhancement on one species, in this Example velvetleaf, were 
confounded by the resulting antagonism on another species, in this Example 
Japanese millet. It will be noted that the method of the present 
invention, where the accession agent was applied sequentially 4 hours 
after application of the glyphosate herbicide, gave enhancement of 
velvetleaf control equal to that provided by the tank mix, yet eliminated 
the antagonism of Japanese millet control seen with the tank mix 
treatment. 
In this Example, antagonism was not overcome by sequential application of 
accession agent after Formulation B. As noted above, Formulation B 
contains no surfactant. 
Example 12 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa 
crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse 
and treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly 
as described for Example 1, except where otherwise noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulations A and B, and of glyphosate acid, alone 
or in tank mix with a candidate accession agent, were applied on the same 
day, 17 days after planting velvetleaf and 20 days after planting Japanese 
millet. Glyphosate acid was not prepared as a concentrate formulation but 
was simply dissolved in water to make the dilute spray solutions of this 
Example. Formulations and glyphosate acid were applied without candidate 
accession agent at a range of rates from 250 to 800 g a.e./ha. When a 
candidate accession agent was included in the treatment, either in tank 
mix or as a subsequent application, formulations were tested only at 250 
and 500 g a.e./ha. This Example includes as candidate accession agent an 
aqueous solution containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. Initial applications were 
made in a spray volume of 93 l/ha, and subsequent applications in a spray 
volume of 280 l/ha. The time interval between initial and subsequent 
applications was 4 hours. 
Twenty days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 12. 
TABLE 12 
______________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Glypho- application 
Initial application sate 93 l/ha 
93 l/ha rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha 0.5% L-77 
ABUTH ECHCF 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 250 none 39 85 
Formulation A none 500 none 67 85 
Formulation A none 800 none 88 100 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 250 none 65 40 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 500 none 89 21 
Formulation A none 250 at 4 hrs 89 46 
Formulation A none 500 at 4 hrs 92 57 
Formulation B none 250 none 13 24 
Formulation B none 500 none 39 77 
Formulation B none 800 none 53 93 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 250 none 76 25 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 500 none 92 49 
Formulation B none 250 at 4 hrs 77 28 
Formulation B none 500 at 4 hrs 89 21 
glyphosate acid none 250 none 17 7 
glyphosate acid none 500 none 7 10 
glyphosate acid none 800 none 18 17 
glyphosate acid 0.5% L-77 250 none 64 12 
glyphosate acid 0.5% L-77 500 none 42 23 
glyphosate acid none 250 at 4 hrs 78 7 
glyphosate acid none 500 at 4 hrs 84 21 
______________________________________ 
The data for glyphosate acid in this Example show an unusually low level of 
inhibition, especially on barnyardgrass. It is possible that the 
glyphosate acid was not fully dissolved in the spray solution at the time 
of spraying. 
Example 13 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa 
crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse 
and treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly 
as described for Example 1, except where otherwise noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulations A, alone or in tank mix with a 
candidate accession agent, were applied on the same day, 13 days after 
planting velvetleaf and 16 days after planting Japanese millet. 
Formulation A was applied without candidate accession agent at a range of 
rates from 200 to 500 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent was 
included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, Formulation A was tested only at the lowest rate. 
Three different spray volumes were used for initial and subsequent 
applications. In one set of treatments, the initial spray volume was 93 
l/ha; in a second set of treatments 47 l/ha; and in a third set of 
treatments 28 l/ha. For each initial spray volume, three subsequent 
application spray volumes were tested, again 93, 47 and 28 l/ha. Candidate 
accession agents in this Example were aqueous solutions containing Silwet 
L-77. For each spray volume tested, three Silwet L-77 concentrations were 
used. These were set in such a way as to provide approximately equal 
dosage rates (200, 300 and 600 g/ha) of Silwet L-77 across different spray 
volumes. The time interval between initial and subsequent applications was 
4 hours. 
Twenty days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Tables 13a, 
13b and 13c. Each table relates to one initial application spray volume. 
TABLE 13a 
______________________________________ 
Subsequent 
application 
Glypho- at 4 hrs 
Initial application sate accession 
93 l/ha rate agent, % 
accession 
g a.e./ spray Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha volume ABUTH ECHCF 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 200 none 98 96 
Formulation A none 300 none 96 100 
Formulation A none 500 none 100 100 
Formulation A 0.21% 200 none 79 33 
L-77 
Formulation A 0.31% 200 none 96 22 
L-77 
Formulation A 0.63% 200 none 98 25 
L-77 
Formulation A none 200 0.21% L-77, 93 94 
93 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 0.31% L-77, 93 99 
93 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 0.63% L-77, 97 99 
93 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 0.42% L-77, 86 98 
47 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 0.63% L-77, 95 96 
47 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 1.25% L-77, 86 91 
47 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 0.64% L-77, 87 99 
28 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 0.98% L-77, 86 100 
28 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 1.95% L-77, 75 96 
28 l/ha 
______________________________________ 
TABLE 13b 
______________________________________ 
Subsequent 
application 
Glypho- at 4 hrs 
Initial application sate accession 
47 l/ha rate agent, % 
accession 
g a.e./ spray Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha volume ABUTH ECHCF 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 200 none 95 100 
Formulation A none 300 none 100 96 
Formulation A none 200 none 95 100 
Formulation A none 300 none 100 96 
Formulation A none 500 none 100 100 
Formulation A 0.21% 200 none 80 76 
L-77 
Formulation A 0.31% 200 none 93 55 
L-77 
Formulation A 0.63% 200 none 95 49 
L-77 
Formulation A none 200 0.21% L-77, 93 96 
93 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 0.31% L-77, 95 97 
93 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 0.63% L-77, 91 99 
93 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 0.42% L-77, 98 100 
47 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 0.63% L-77, 97 98 
47 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 1.25% L-77, 95 95 
47 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 0.64% L-77, 92 95 
28 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 0.98% L-77, 94 98 
28 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 1.95% L-77, 93 100 
l/ha 
______________________________________ 
TABLE 13c 
______________________________________ 
Subsequent 
application 
Glypho- at 4 hrs 
Initial application sate accession 
28 l/ha rate agent, % 
accession 
g a.e./ spray Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha volume ABUTH ECHCF 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 200 none 99 100 
Formulation A none 300 none 100 100 
Formulation A none 500 none 100 100 
Formulation A 0.21% 200 none 100 85 
L-77 
Formulation A 0.31% 200 none 99 62 
L-77 
Formulation A 0.63% 200 none 96 85 
L-77 
Formulation A none 200 0.21%L-77, 95 99 
93 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 0.31% L-77, 96 98 
93 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 0.63% L-77, 98 100 
93 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 0.42% L-77, 91 95 
47 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 0.63% L-77, 99 100 
47 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 1.25% L-77, 95 98 
47 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 0.64% L-77, 92 90 
28 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 0.98% L-77, 80 93 
28 l/ha 
Formulation A none 200 1.95% L-77, 71 92 
28 l/ha 
______________________________________ 
Silwet L-77 in tank mix was most antagonistic to glyphosate on Japanese 
millet when spray volume was high; however at all spray volumes and Silwet 
L-77 concentrations tested the antagonism was reduced or eliminated by 
sequential application of Silwet L-77 after glyphosate. 
Example 14 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa 
crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse 
and treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly 
as described for Example 1, except where otherwise noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulation A, alone or in tank mix with a 
candidate accession agent, were applied on the same day, 15 days after 
planting velvetleaf and 17 days after planting Japanese millet. 
Formulation A was applied without candidate accession agent at a range of 
rates from 150 to 750 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent was 
included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, Formulation A was tested at a range of rates from 150 to 550 
g a.e./ha. This Example includes as candidate accession agent an aqueous 
solution containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. The time interval between initial 
and subsequent applications was varied from about 0.05 to 24 hours. 
Nineteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 14. 
TABLE 14 
______________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Glypho- application 
Initial application sate 93 l/ha 
93 l/ha rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha 0.5% L-77 
ABUTH ECHCF 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 150 none 6 78 
Formulation A none 250 none 49 100 
Formulation A none 350 none 67 100 
Formulation A none 550 none 90 100 
Formulation A none 750 none 100 100 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 150 none 51 7 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 250 none 68 9 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 350 none 80 10 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 550 none 94 35 
Formulation A none 150 at .about.0.05 hr 51 13 
Formulation A none 250 at .about.0.05 hr 63 75 
Formulation A none 350 at .about.0.05 hr 84 72 
Formulation A none 550 at .about.0.05 hr 92 97 
Formulation A none 150 at 4 hrs 58 59 
Formulation A none 250 at 4 hrs 79 91 
Formulation A none 350 at 4 hrs 82 90 
Formulation A none 550 at 4 hrs 92 95 
Formulation A none 150 at 8 hrs 56 52 
Formulation A none 250 at 8 hrs 79 59 
Formulation A none 350 at 8 hrs 84 79 
Formulation A none 550 at 8 hrs 96 98 
Formulation A none 150 at 24 hrs 69 42 
Formulation A none 250 at 24 hrs 84 79 
Formulation A none 350 at 24 hrs 96 79 
Formulation A none 550 at 24 hrs 100 97 
______________________________________ 
Very severe antagonism was noted when Silwet L-77 was applied in tank mix 
with glyphosate on Japanese millet. Applying the Silwet L-77 as a 
sequential application after the glyphosate greatly reduced the 
antagonism, even when the delay between glyphosate and Silwet L-77 
applications was as short as about 0.05 hour (3 minutes). However, greater 
reduction in antagonism was seen when the delay was longer. The most 
effective interval in this test was 4 hours. 
Example 15 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa 
crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse 
and treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly 
as described for Example 1, except where otherwise noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulations A and B, alone or in tank mix with a 
candidate accession agent, were applied on the same day, 17 days after 
planting velvetleaf and 19 days after planting Japanese millet. 
Formulations were applied without candidate accession agent at a range of 
rates from 350 to 850 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent was 
included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, formulations were tested only at the lowest rate. This 
Example includes as candidate accession agents aqueous solutions 
containing Fluorad FC-98 or Fluorad FC-99 at a range of concentrations 
from 0.03% to 0.48%. Fluorad FC-98 and Fluorad FC-99 are perfluoroalkyl 
sulfonate surfactants, with potassium and amine counterions respectively, 
of 3M Company and are abbreviated in tables herein by omission of the 
`Fluorad` trademark. The time interval between initial and subsequent 
applications was 4 hours. 
Fifteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 15. 
TABLE 15 
______________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Glypho- application 
Initial application sate 93 l/ha 
93 l/ha rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha 0.5% L-77 
ABUTH ECHCF 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 350 none 48 58 
Formulation A none 450 none 57 83 
Formulation A none 550 none 68 97 
Formulation A none 650 none 77 99 
Formulation A none 850 none 87 99 
Formulation A 0.03% 350 none 42 33 
FC-98 
Formulation A 0.06% 350 none 28 22 
FC-98 
Formulation A 0.12% 350 none 25 22 
FC-98 
Formulation A 0.24% 350 none 33 28 
FC-98 
Formulation A 0.48% 350 none 22 27 
FC-98 
Formulation A none 350 0.03% 57 43 
FC-98 
Formulation A none 350 0.06% 53 63 
FC-98 
Formulation A none 350 0.12% 42 65 
FC-98 
Formulation A none 350 0.24% 40 57 
FC-98 
Formulation A none 350 0.48% 37 77 
FC-98 
Formulation A 0.03% 350 none 27 30 
FC-99 
Formulation A 0.06% 350 none 22 22 
FC-99 
Formulation A 0.12% 350 none 22 10 
FC-99 
Formulation A 0.24% 350 none 28 10 
FC-99 
Formulation A 0.48% 350 none 42 10 
FC-99 
Formulation A none 350 0.03% 47 80 
FC-99 
Formulation A none 350 0.06% 48 88 
FC-99 
Formulation A none 350 0.12% 45 67 
FC-99 
Formulation A none 350 0.24% 40 67 
FC-99 
Formulation A none 350 0.48% 48 68 
FC-99 
Formulation B none 350 none 27 28 
Formulation B none 450 none 30 32 
Formulation B none 550 none 42 33 
Formulation B none 650 none 60 37 
Formulation B none 850 none 68 40 
Formulation B 0.03% 350 none 22 22 
FC-98 
Formulation B 0.06% 350 none 20 20 
FC-98 
Formulation B 0.12% 350 none 22 30 
FC-98 
Formulation B 0.24% 350 none 27 30 
FC-98 
Formulation B 0.48% 350 none 37 25 
FC-98 
Formulation B none 350 0.03% 27 38 
FC-98 
Formulation B none 350 0.06% 30 38 
FC-98 
Formulation B none 350 0.12% 28 35 
FC-98 
Formulation B none 350 0.24% 32 30 
FC-98 
Formulation B none 350 0.48% 33 68 
FC-98 
Formulation B 0.03% 350 none 25 22 
FC-99 
Formulation B 0.06% 350 none 27 22 
FC-99 
Formulation B 0.12% 350 none 30 25 
FC-99 
Formulation B 0.24% 350 none 42 15 
FC-99 
Formulation B 0.48% 350 none 58 12 
FC-99 
Formulation B none 350 0.03% 27 48 
FC-99 
Formulation B none 350 0.06% 32 57 
FC-99 
Formulation B none 350 0.12% 27 45 
FC-99 
Formulation B none 350 0.24% 25 37 
FC-99 
Formulation B none 350 0.48% 35 32 
FC-99 
______________________________________ 
For the herbicidal compositions containing a surfactant coformulant, the 
Fluorad FC-98 and Fluorad FC-99 surfactants in tank mix were significantly 
antagonistic to the effectiveness of the herbicidal composition in 
Japanese millet, and somewhat less antagonistic in velvetleaf. This 
antagonism was overcome through sequential application, which (in some 
cases, especially in Japanese millet) gave significant improvement of 
effectiveness over the herbicidal composition applied without Fluorad 
FC-98 or Fluorad FC-99. For the herbicidal composition (Formulation B) 
which does not contain a surfactant coformulant, antagonism was less 
pronounced, but sequential application of accession agent generally gave 
some improvement of effectiveness over comparable tank mix application. 
Example 16 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa 
crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse 
and treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly 
as described for Example 1, except where otherwise noted below. 
The experimental design included four replicate pots per treatment. Initial 
applications of Formulation B, alone or in tank mix with a candidate 
accession agent, were applied on the same day, 18 days after planting 
velvetleaf and 20 days after planting Japanese millet. Formulation B was 
applied without candidate accession agent at a range of rates from 350 to 
650 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent was included in the 
treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent application, Formulation 
B was tested only at the lowest rate. This Example includes several 
candidate accession agents, all aqueous solutions of surfactants or of 
surfactant blends at a total surfactant concentration of 0.125% or 0.5%. 
The time interval between initial and subsequent applications was 4 hours. 
Surfactants in the candidate accession agents of this Example included 
Silwet L-77, Fluorad FC-98 and Fluorad FC-135, a product of 3M Company 
disclosed in McCutcheon's Emulsifiers and Detergents, North American 
Edition, 1994 (hereinafter, McCutcheon's), as fluorinated alkyl quaternary 
ammonium iodides. Other surfactants used in this Example included the 
following: 
Surfynol 465 of Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.: disclosed in McCutcheon's 
(loc. cit.) as ethoxylated tetramethyl decynediol, abbreviated in tables 
herein as `Surf 465`. 
Agrimul PG 2069 of Henkel Corporation: disclosed in Henkel Technical 
Bulletin 105B, 1993, as a composition containing 50% alkyl polyglucoside, 
abbreviated in tables herein as `PG 2069`. A newsletter from Henkel dated 
July 1996 and titled "Solutions in the field: Agrimul PG surfactants" 
discloses that Agrimul PG 2069 has a C9-11 alkyl chain and that its degree 
of polymerization (moles glucose per mole surfactant) is 1.6. 
Silamine C-100 of Siltech Inc.: abbreviated in tables herein as `Silamine`. 
Seventeen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 16. 
TABLE 16 
______________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Glypho- application 
Initial application sate 93 l/ha, 
93 l/ha rate at 4 hrs % 
accession 
g a.e./ accession 
Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha agent ABUTH ECHCF 
______________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 350 none 51 24 
Formulation B none 450 none 68 25 
Formulation B none 650 none 77 66 
Formulation B 0.125% 350 none 29 5 
L-77 
Formulation B 0.5% 350 none 87 0 
L-77 
Formulation B none 350 0.125% 36 29 
L-77 
Formulation B none 350 0.5% no data 29 
L-77 
Formulation B 0.125% 350 none 43 11 
FC-98 
Formulation B 0.5% 350 none 55 12 
FC-98 
Formulation B none 350 0.125% 44 25 
FC-98 
Formulation B none 350 0.5% 67 20 
FC-98 
Formulation B 0.125% 350 none 68 35 
FC-135 
Formulation B 0.5% 350 none 80 75 
FC-135 
Formulation B none 350 0.125% 77 24 
FC-135 
Formulation B none 350 0.5% 64 29 
FC-135 
Formulation B 0.125% 350 none 67 33 
Surf 465 
Formulation B 0.5% 350 none 61 30 
Surf 465 
Formulation B none 350 0.125% 58 27 
Surf 465 
Formulation B none 350 0.5% 53 29 
Surf 465 
Formulation B 0.125% 350 none 25 12 
Surf 465 
+L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B 0.5% 350 none 79 26 
Surf 465 + 
L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B none 350 0.125% 43 
Surf 465 + 
L-77,1:1 
Formulation B none 350 0.5% 55 17 
Surf 465 + 
L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B 0.125% 350 none 53 43 
PG 2069 
Formulation B 0.5% 350 none 68 55 
PG 2069 
Formulation B none 350 0.125% 66 43 
PG 2069 
Formulation B none 350 0.5% 61 27 
PG 2069 
Formulation B 0.125% 350 none 41 36 
PG 2069 + 
L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B 0.5% 350 none 71 12 
PG 2069 + 
L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B none 350 0.125% 49 18 
PG 2069 + 
+L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B none 350 0.5% 58 47 
PG 2069 + 
L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B 0.125% 350 none 58 46 
Silamine 
Formulation B 0.5% 350 none 69 39 
Silamine 
Formulation B none 350 0.125% 55 25 
Silamine 
Formulation B none 350 0.5% 57 45 
Silamine 
______________________________________ 
In this Example not all surfactant solutions tested caused antagonism of 
glyphosate activity in tank mix. Note that glyphosate Formulation B does 
not contain any surfactant itself. All surfactant solutions which 
antagonized glyphosate activity in tank mix gave less or no antagonism 
when applied as sequential applications according to the present 
invention. 
Example 17 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa 
crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse 
and treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly 
as described for Example 1, except where otherwise noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulation B, the disodium salt of glyphosate 
(Formulation D) and the trisodium salt of glyphosate (Formulation E), 
alone or in tank mix with a candidate accession agent, were applied on the 
same day, 17 days after planting velvetleaf and 19 days after planting 
Japanese millet. Formulations D and E were not prepared as concentrate 
formulations but were made by simply dissolving the respective salts in 
water to make the dilute spray solutions of this Example. Formulations 
were applied without candidate accession agent at a range of rates from 
200 to 800 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent was included in the 
treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent application, comparative 
testing was conducted only at 200 and 400 g a.e./ha. This Example includes 
as candidate accession agent an aqueous solution containing 0.5% Silwet 
L-77. The time interval between initial and subsequent applications was 
about 0.05 or 3 hours. 
Seventeen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 17. 
TABLE 17 
______________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Glypho- application 
Initial application sate 93 l/ha 
93 l/ha rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha 0.5% L-77 
ABUTH ECHCF 
______________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 200 none 22 30 
Formulation B none 400 none 42 61 
Formulation B none 600 none 77 83 
Formulation B none 800 none 69 90 
Formulation B 0.5% 200 none 83 3 
L-77 
Formulation B 0.5% 400 none 89 43 
L-77 
Formulation B none 200 at .about.0.05 hr 78 7 
Formulation B none 400 at .about.0.05 hr 79 27 
Formulation B none 200 at 3 hrs 81 35 
Formulation B none 400 at 3 hrs 86 37 
Formulation D none 200 none 2 21 
Formulation D none 400 none 5 50 
Formulation D none 600 none 43 47 
Formulation D none 800 none 71 60 
Formulation D 0.5% 200 none 77 0 
L-77 
Formulation D 0.5% 400 none 82 10 
L-77 
Formulation D none 200 at .about.0.05 hr 74 10 
Formulation D none 400 at .about.0.05 hr 93 31 
Formulation D none 200 at 3 hrs 77 16 
Formulation D none 400 at 3 hrs 83 19 
Formulation E none 200 none 0 2 
Formulation E none 400 none 31 8 
Formulation B none 600 none 56 32 
Formulation E none 800 none 64 35 
Formulation B 0.5% 200 none 69 0 
L-77 
Formulation E 0.5% 400 none 75 3 
L-77 
Formulation E none 200 0.05 hrs 75 0 
Formulation E none 400 0.05 hrs 86 17 
Formulation E none 200 3 hrs 82 2 
Formulation E none 400 3 hrs 83 33 
Formulation B 0.5% 400 none 89 43 
L-77 
Formulation B none 200 at .about.0.05 hr 78 7 
Formulation B none 400 at .about.0.05 hr 79 27 
Formulation B none 200 at 3 hrs 81 35 
Formulation B none 400 at 3 hrs 86 37 
Formulation D none 200 none 2 21 
Formulation D none 400 none 5 50 
Formulation D none 600 none 43 47 
Formulation D none 800 none 71 60 
Formulation D 0.5% 200 none 77 0 
L-77 
Formulation D 0.5% 400 none 82 10 
L-77 
Formulation D none 200 at .about.0.05 hr 74 10 
Formulation D none 400 at .about.0.05 hr 93 31 
Formulation D none 200 at 3 hrs 77 16 
Formulation D none 400 at 3 hrs 83 19 
Formulation E none 200 none 0 2 
Formulation E none 400 none 31 8 
Formulation B none 600 none 56 32 
Formulation E none 800 none 64 35 
Formulation B 0.5% 200 none 69 0 
L-77 
Formulation E 0.5% 400 none 75 3 
L-77 
Formulation E none 200 0.05 hrs 75 0 
Formulation E none 400 0.05 hrs 86 17 
Formulation E none 200 3 hrs 82 2 
Formulation E none 400 3 hrs 83 33 
______________________________________ 
Silwet L-77 antagonized glyphosate activity on Japanese millet when tank 
mixed with any of the three glyphosate salts used in this Example, though 
the antagonism was more difficult to detect in the case of the trisodium 
salt (Formulation E) which itself showed very poor efficacy. In all cases 
antagonism was reduced or eliminated by applying the Silwet L-77 after the 
glyphosate salt according to the present invention. 
Example 18 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa 
crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse 
and treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly 
as described for Example 1, except where otherwise noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulation B, and of Formulations F-I as defined 
below, alone or in tank mix with a candidate accession agent, were applied 
on the same day, 15-17 days after planting velvetleaf and 17-19 days after 
planting Japanese millet. Formulations F, G, H and I are aqueous solutions 
of the monosodium, monopotassium, monoammoniumn and 
mono(trimethylsulfonium) salts respectively of glyphosate. Formulations F 
and G were not prepared as concentrate formulations but were made by 
simply dissolving the respective salts in water to make the dilute spray 
solutions of this Example. Formulation H was prepared from a water soluble 
granular concentrate of monoammonium glyphosate, containing no surfactant, 
as sold by Monsanto Company. Formulation I was prepared from an aqueous 
concentrate product sold in the USA by Zeneca under the trademark 
Touchdown which is believed to have no coformulated surfactant. All 
applications of glyphosate salt formulations were made with the addition 
to the spray solution of 0.09% MON-0818 surfactant of Monsanto Company. 
Formulations were applied without candidate accession agent at 200 and 400 
g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent was included in the treatment, 
either in tank mix or as a subsequent application, formulations were 
tested at the same two rates. This Example includes as candidate accession 
agent an aqueous solution containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. The time interval 
between initial and subsequent applications was about 0.05 or 3 hours. 
Seventeen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 18. 
TABLE 18 
______________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Glypho- application 
Initial application sate 93 l/ha 
93 l/ha rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha 0.5% L-77 
ABUTH ECHCF 
______________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 200 none 56 91 
Formulation B none 400 none 85 100 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 200 none 65 33 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 400 none 71 51 
Formulation B none 200 at .about.0.05 hr 83 66 
Formulation B none 400 at .about.0.05 hr 91 93 
Formulation B none 200 at 3 hrs 43 75 
Formulation B none 400 at 3 hrs 81 100 
Formulation F none 200 none 36 100 
Formulation F none 400 none 85 100 
Formulation F 0.5% L-77 200 none 54 36 
Formulation F 0.5% L-77 400 none 81 63 
Formulation F none 200 at .about.0.05 hr 51 64 
Formulation F none 400 at .about.0.05 hr 80 91 
Formulation F none 200 at 3 hrs 41 73 
Formulation F none 400 at 3 hrs 88 100 
Formulation G none 200 none 68 93 
Formulation G none 400 none 86 100 
Formulation G 0.5% L-77 200 none 55 33 
Formulation G 0.5% L-77 400 none 80 43 
Formulation G none 200 .about.0.05 hrs 63 50 
Formulation G none 400 .about.0.05 hrs 76 80 
Formulation G none 200 3 hrs 46 81 
Formulation G none 400 3 hrs 66 99 
Formulation H none 200 none 69 93 
Formulation H none 400 none 86 100 
Formulation H 0.5% L-77 200 none 64 48 
Formulation H 0.5% L-77 400 none 78 59 
Formulation H none 200 .about.0.05 hrs 73 69 
Formulation H none 400 .about.0.05 hrs 89 81 
Formulation H none 200 3 hrs 40 81 
Formulation H none 400 3 hrs 75 99 
Formulation I none 200 none no data 96 
Formulation I none 400 none no data 100 
Formulation I 0.5% L-77 200 none no data 30 
Formulation I 0.5% L-77 400 none no data 53 
Formulation I none 200 .about.0.05 hrs no data 75 
Formulation I none 400 .about.0.05 hrs no data 84 
Formulation I none 200 3 hrs no data 88 
Formulation I none 400 3 hrs no data 89 
______________________________________ 
All salts of glyphosate tested in this Example were antagonized by Silwet 
L-77 in tank mix on Japanese millet. Antagonism was reduced in all cases 
by applying the Silwet L-77 as a sequential treatment according to the 
present invention. 
Example 19 
Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense, CIRAR) plants were grown in pots, 
maintained in a greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent 
applications by procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except 
where otherwise noted below. 
Greenhouse temperature was maintained at approximately 21.degree. C. during 
the day and 13.degree. C. during the night. Initial applications of 
Formulations A and B, alone or in tank mix with a candidate accession 
agent, were applied 40 days after planting. Formulations were each applied 
without candidate accession agent at 250 and 500 g a.e./ha. When a 
candidate accession agent was included in the treatment, either in tank 
mix or as a subsequent application, formulations were tested only at the 
lower rate. This Example includes as candidate accession agents aqueous 
solutions containing Silwet L-77 at a range of concentrations from 0.5% to 
2.0%. The time interval between initial and subsequent applications was 
varied from about 0.05 hour to 24 hours. 
Twenty-six days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 19. 
TABLE 19 
______________________________________ 
Subse- 
Glypho- quent 
Initial application sate application 
93 l/ha rate 93 l/ha % 
accession 
g a.e./ accession Inhibition 
herbicide agent ha agent CIRAR 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 250 none 66 
Formulation A none 500 none 79 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 250 none 52 
Formulation A 1.0% L-77 250 none 71 
Formulation A 2.0% L-77 250 none 81 
Formulation A none 250 0.5% L-77 at .about.0.05 hr 80 
Formulation A none 250 1.0% L-77 at .about.0.05 hr 84 
Formulation A none 250 2.0% L-77 at .about.0.05 hr 83 
Formulation A none 250 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 75 
Formulation A none 250 1.0% L-77 at 4 hrs 93 
Formulation A none 250 2.0% L-77 at 4 hrs 81 
Formulation A none 250 0.5% L-77 at 24 hrs 78 
Formulation A none 250 1.0% L-77 at 24 hrs 73 
Formulation A none 250 2.0% L-77 at 24 hrs 78 
Formulation B none 250 none 70 
Formulation B none 500 none 77 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 250 none 79 
Formulation B 1.0% L-77 250 none 75 
Formulation B 2.0% L-77 250 none 71 
Formulation B none 250 0.5% L-77 at .about.0.05 hr 85 
Formulation B none 250 1.0% L-77 at .about.0.05 hr 85 
Formulation B none 250 2.0% L-77 at .about.0.05 hr 75 
Formulation B none 250 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 71 
Formulation B none 250 1.0% L-77 at 4 hrs 64 
Formulation B none 250 2.0% L-77 at 4 hrs 80 
Formulation B none 250 0.5% L-77 at 24 hrs 84 
Formulation B none 250 1.0% L-77 at 24 hrs 71 
Formulation B none 250 2.0% L-77 at 24 hrs 80 
______________________________________ 
Although Silwet L-77 in tank mix was not significantly antagonistic to 
herbicidal effectiveness in canada thistle, sequential application of the 
accession agent gave generally enhanced effectiveness. 
Example 20 
Soybean (Glycine max, GLXMA) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a 
greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent applications by 
procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except where otherwise 
noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulations A and B and glyphosate acid, alone or 
in tank mix with a candidate accession agent, were applied 16 days after 
planting. Glyphosate acid was applied in the same way as in Example 12. 
Formulations were each applied without candidate accession agent at a 
range of rates from 250 to 800 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent 
was included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, formulations were tested only at 250 and 500 g a.e./ha. This 
Example includes as candidate accession agent an aqueous solution 
containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. The time interval between initial and 
subsequent applications was 3 hours. 
Twenty days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 20. 
TABLE 20 
______________________________________ 
Subse- 
Glypho- quent 
Initial application sate application 
93 l/ha rate 93 l/ha % 
accession 
g a.e./ accession Inhibition 
herbicide agent ha agent GLXMA 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 250 none 70 
Formulation A none 500 none 83 
Formulation A none 800 none 92 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 250 none 38 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 500 none 53 
Formulation A none 250 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 56 
Formulation A none 500 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 66 
Formulation B none 250 none 17 
Formulation B none 500 none 25 
Formulation B none 800 none 41 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 250 none 42 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 500 none 54 
Formulation B none 250 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 38 
Formulation B none 500 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 43 
glyphosate acid none 250 none 7 
glyphosate acid none 500 none 3 
glyphosate acid none 800 none 8 
glyphosate acid 0.5% L-77 250 none 33 
glyphosate acid 0.5% L-77 500 none 48 
glyphosate acid none 250 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 39 
glyphosate acid none 500 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 28 
______________________________________ 
Silwet L-77 in tank mix improved the herbicidal effectiveness of both 
glyphosate acid and the herbicidal composition (Formulation B) that lacked 
a surfactant coformulant for soybean. It was somewhat antagonistic for the 
herbicidal composition that includes a surfactant coformulant, and this 
antagonism was somewhat reduced through sequential application. 
Example 21 
Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida, AMBTR) plants were grown in pots, 
maintained in a greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent 
applications by procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except 
where otherwise noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulations A, B and C, alone or in tank mix with 
a candidate accession agent, were applied 21 days after planting. 
Formulations were each applied without candidate accession agent at a 
range of rates from 200 to 800 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent 
was included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, formulations were tested only at 200 and 500 g a.e./ha. This 
Example includes as candidate accession agent an aqueous solution 
containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. The time interval between initial and 
subsequent applications was 3 hours. 
Twenty-one days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 21. 
TABLE 21 
______________________________________ 
Subse- 
Glypho- quent 
Initial application sate application 
93 l/ha rate 93 l/ha % 
accession 
g a.e./ accession Inhibition 
herbicide agent ha agent AMBTR 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 200 none 30 
Formulation A none 500 none 74 
Formulation A none 800 none 93 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 200 none 49 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 500 none 67 
Formulation A none 200 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 47 
Formulation A none 500 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 93 
Formulation B none 200 none 34 
Formulation B none 500 none 59 
Formulation B none 800 none 98 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 200 none 55 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 500 none 86 
Formulation B none 200 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 47 
Formulation B none 500 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 90 
Formulation C none 200 none 46 
Formulation C none 500 none 59 
Formulation C none 800 none 92 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 200 none 57 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 500 none 59 
Formulation C none 200 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 49 
Formulation C none 500 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 79 
______________________________________ 
Silwet L-77 in tank mix slightly improved the effectiveness of the 
herbicidal composition against giant ragweed. Comparable improvement was 
achieved through sequential application of the accession agent. 
Example 22 
Hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata, SEBEX) plants were grown in pots, 
maintained in a greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent 
applications by procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except 
where otherwise noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulations A, B and C, alone or in tank mix with 
a candidate accession agent, were applied 24 days after planting. 
Formulations were each applied without candidate accession agent at a 
range of rates from 200 to 800 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent 
was included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, formulations were tested only at 200 and 500 g a.e./ha. This 
Example includes as candidate accession agent an aqueous solution 
containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. The time interval between initial and 
subsequent applications was 3 hours. 
Twenty-one days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 22. 
TABLE 22 
______________________________________ 
Subse- 
Glypho- quent 
Initial application sate application 
93 l/ha rate 93 l/ha % 
accession 
g a.e./ accession Inhibition 
herbicide agent ha agent SEBEX 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 200 none 51 
Formulation A none 500 none 58 
Formulation A none 800 none 73 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 200 none 16 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 500 none 55 
Formulation A none 200 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 29 
Formulation A none 500 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 62 
Formulation B none 200 none 7 
Formulation B none 500 none 25 
Formulation B none 800 none 27 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 200 none 13 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 500 none 33 
Formulation B none 200 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 7 
Formulation B none 500 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 28 
Formulation C none 200 none 50 
Formulation C none 500 none 62 
Formulation C none 800 none 77 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 200 none 19 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 500 none 94 
Formulation C none 200 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 52 
Formulation C none 500 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 48 
______________________________________ 
Antagonism was in some cases observed in hemp sesbania for Silwet L-77 in 
tank mix with herbicidal compositions that employ a surfactant 
coformulant. In these cases, the antagonism was reduced through sequential 
application of the accession agent. 
Example 23 
Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia, CASOB) plants were grown in pots, maintained 
in a greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent applications by 
procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except where otherwise 
noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulations A, B and C, alone or in tank mix with 
a candidate accession agent, were applied 26 days after planting. 
Formulations were each applied without candidate accession agent at a 
range of rates from 400 to 1000 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession 
agent was included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, formulations were tested only at 400 and 600 g a.e./ha. This 
Example includes as candidate accession agent an aqueous solution 
containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. The time interval between initial and 
subsequent applications was 3 hours. 
Eighteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 23. 
TABLE 23 
______________________________________ 
Subse- 
Glypho- quent 
Initial application sate application 
93 l/ha rate 93 l/ha % 
accession 
g a.e./ accession Inhibition 
herbicide agent ha agent CASOB 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 400 none 62 
Formulation A none 600 none 81 
Formulation A none 1000 none 91 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 400 none 30 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 600 none 56 
Formulation A none 400 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 66 
Formulation A none 600 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 66 
Formulation B none 400 none 38 
Formulation B none 600 none 37 
Formulation B none 1000 none 44 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 400 none 33 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 600 none 46 
Formulation B none 400 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 29 
Formulation B none 600 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 23 
Formulation C none 400 none 72 
Formulation C none 600 none 81 
Formulation C none 1000 none 87 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 400 none 27 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 600 none 26 
Formulation C none 400 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 60 
Formulation C none 600 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 69 
______________________________________ 
On sicklepod, Silwet L-77 in tank mix was significantly antagonistic for 
those herbicidal compositions that employ a surfactant coformulant. This 
antagonism was significantly reduced (and often eliminated) through 
sequential application of the accession agent. 
Example 24 
Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus, CYPES) plants were grown in pots, 
maintained in a greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent 
applications by procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except 
where otherwise noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulations A, B and C, alone or in tank mix with 
a candidate accession agent, were applied 21 days after planting. 
Formulations were each applied without candidate accession agent at a 
range of rates from 1600 to 3200 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession 
agent was included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, formulations were tested only at 1600 and 2200 g a.e./ha. 
This Example includes as candidate accession agent an aqueous solution 
containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. The time interval between initial and 
subsequent applications was 3 hours. 
Twenty-five days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 24. 
TABLE 24 
______________________________________ 
Subse- 
Glypho- quent 
Initial application sate application 
93 l/ha rate 93 l/ha % 
accession 
g a.e./ accession Inhibition 
herbicide agent ha agent CYPES 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 1600 none 100 
Formulation A none 2200 none 100 
Formulation A none 3200 none 100 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 1600 none 82 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 2200 none 96 
Formulation A none 1600 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 78 
Formulation A none 2200 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 97 
Formulation B none 1600 none 94 
Formulation B none 2200 none 100 
Formulation B none 3200 none 98 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 1600 none 91 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 2200 none 100 
Formulation B none 1600 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 79 
Formulation B none 2200 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 95 
Formulation C none 1600 none 99 
Formulation C none 2200 none 97 
Formulation C none 3200 none 98 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 1600 none 82 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 2200 none 96 
Formulation C none 1600 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 94 
Formulation C none 2200 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 100 
______________________________________ 
On yellow nutsedge, Silwet L-77 in tank mix was mildly antagonistic for 
those herbicidal compositions that employ a surfactant coformulant. This 
antagonism was reduced through sequential application of the accession 
agent. 
Example 25 
Seedling johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense, SORHA) plants were grown in pots, 
maintained in a greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent 
applications by procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except 
where otherwise noted below. 
Initial applications of Formulations A, B and C, alone or in tank mix with 
a candidate accession agent, were applied 30 days after planting. 
Formulations were each applied without candidate accession agent at a 
range of rates from 150 to 400 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent 
was included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, formulations were tested only at 150 and 250 g a.e./ha. This 
Example includes as candidate accession agent an aqueous solution 
containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. The time interval between initial and 
subsequent applications was 6 hours. 
Seventeen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 25. 
TABLE 25 
______________________________________ 
Subse- 
Glypho- quent 
Initial application sate application 
93 l/ha rate 93 l/ha % 
accession 
g a.e./ accession Inhibition 
herbicide agent ha agent SORHA 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 150 none 74 
Formulation A none 250 none 65 
Formulation A none 400 none 91 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 150 none 0 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 250 none 17 
Formulation A none 150 0.5% L-77 at 6 hrs 46 
Formulation A none 250 0.5% L-77 at 6 hrs 56 
Formulation B none 150 none 0 
Formulation B none 250 none 25 
Formulation B none 400 none 72 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 150 none 0 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 250 none 0 
Formulation B none 150 0.5% L-77 at 6 hrs 19 
Formulation B none 250 0.5% L-77 at 6 hrs 42 
Formulation C none 150 none 56 
Formulation C none 250 none 85 
Formulation C none 400 none 96 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 150 none 5 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 250 none 18 
Formulation C none 150 0.5% L-77 at 6 hrs 33 
Formulation C none 250 0.5% L-77 at 6 hrs 74 
______________________________________ 
On seedling johnsongrass, Silwet L-77 in tank mix was significantly 
antagonistic (more so for those herbicidal compositions that employ a 
surfactant coformulant). This antagonism was significantly reduced (and 
often eliminated) through sequential application of the accession agent. 
Example 26 
Cutleaf geranium (Geranium dissectum, GERDI) plants were grown in pots, 
maintained in a greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent 
applications by procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except 
where otherwise noted below. Greenhouse temperature was maintained at 
approximately 21.degree. C. during the day and 16.degree. C. during the 
night. 
Initial applications of Formulations A, B and C, alone or in tank mix with 
a candidate accession agent, were applied 39 days after planting. 
Formulations were each applied without candidate accession agent at a 
range of rates from 300 to 900 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent 
was included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, formulations were tested only at 300 and 450 g a.e./ha. This 
Example includes as candidate accession agent an aqueous solution 
containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. The time interval between initial and 
subsequent applications was 4 hours. 
Twenty-two days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 26. 
TABLE 26 
______________________________________ 
Subse- 
Glypho- quent 
Initial application sate application 
93 l/ha rate 93 l/ha % 
accession 
g a.e./ accession Inhibition 
herbicide agent ha agent GERDI 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 300 none 49 
Formulation A none 450 none 94 
Formulation A none 900 none 93 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 300 none 13 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 450 none 52 
Formulation A none 300 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 57 
Formulation A none 450 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 67 
Formulation B none 300 none 22 
Formulation B none 450 none 43 
Formulation B none 900 none 70 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 300 none 16 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 450 none 48 
Formulation B none 300 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 53 
Formulation B none 450 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 59 
Formulation C none 300 none 85 
Formulation C none 450 none 90 
Formulation C none 900 none 95 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 300 none 43 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 450 none 53 
Formulation C none 300 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 42 
Formulation C none 450 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 60 
______________________________________ 
On cutleaf geranium, Silwet L-77 in tank mix was strongly antagonistic for 
those herbicidal compositions that employ a surfactant coformulant. This 
antagonism was reduced through sequential application of the accession 
agent. 
Example 27 
Indian mustard (Brassica juncea, BRSJU) plants were grown in pots, 
maintained in a greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent 
applications by procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except 
where otherwise noted below. Greenhouse temperature was maintained at 
approximately 21.degree. C. during the day and 16.degree. C. during the 
night. 
Initial applications of Formulations A, B and C, alone or in tank mix with 
a candidate accession agent, were applied 26 days after planting. 
Formulations were each applied without candidate accession agent at a 
range of rates from 150 to 500 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent 
was included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, formulations were tested only at 150 and 250 g a.e./ha. This 
Example includes as candidate accession agent an aqueous solution 
containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. The time interval between initial and 
subsequent applications was 4 hours. 
Eighteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 27. 
TABLE 27 
______________________________________ 
Subse- 
Glypho- quent 
Initial application sate application 
93 l/ha rate 93 l/ha % 
accession 
g a.e./ accession Inhibition 
herbicide agent ha agent BRSJU 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 150 none 72 
Formulation A none 250 none 68 
Formulation A none 500 none 85 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 150 none 30 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 250 none 61 
Formulation A none 150 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 43 
Formulation A none 250 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 70 
Formulation B none 150 none 5 
Formulation B none 250 none 35 
Formulation B none 500 none 79 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 150 none 22 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 250 none 53 
Formulation B none 150 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 42 
Formulation B none 250 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 69 
Formulation C none 150 none 54 
Formulation C none 250 none 78 
Formulation C none 500 none 87 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 150 none 26 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 250 none 42 
Formulation C none 150 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 59 
Formulation C none 250 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 63 
______________________________________ 
On indian mustard, Silwet L-77 in tank mix was noticeably antagonistic for 
those herbicidal compositions that employ a surfactant coformulant. This 
antagonism was reduced through sequential application of the accession 
agent. 
Example 28 
Common lambsquarter (Chenopodium album, CHEAL) plants were grown in pots, 
maintained in a greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent 
applications by procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except 
where otherwise noted below. Greenhouse temperature was maintained at 
approximately 21.degree. C. during the day and 16.degree. C. during the 
night. 
Initial applications of Formulations A, B and C, alone or in tank mix with 
a candidate accession agent, were applied 33 days after planting. 
Formulations were each applied without candidate accession agent at a 
range of rates from 200 to 600 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession agent 
was included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, formulations were tested only at 200 and 400 g a.e./ha. This 
Example includes as candidate accession agent an aqueous solution 
containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. The time interval between initial and 
subsequent applications was 4 hours. 
Sixteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 28. 
TABLE 28 
______________________________________ 
Subse- 
Glypho- quent 
Initial application sate application 
93 l/ha rate 93 l/ha % 
accession 
g a.e./ accession Inhibition 
herbicide agent ha agent CHEAL 
______________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 200 none 52 
Formulation A none 400 none 81 
Formulation A none 600 none 97 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 200 none 3 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 400 none 7 
Formulation A none 200 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 36 
Formulation A none 400 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 73 
Formulation B none 200 none 2 
Formulation B none 400 none 3 
Formulation B none 600 none 5 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 200 none 0 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 400 none 39 
Formulation B none 200 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 11 
Formulation B none 400 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 4 
Formulation C none 200 none 65 
Formulation C none 400 none 95 
Formulation C none 600 none 98 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 200 none 2 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 400 none 21 
Formulation C none 200 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 63 
Formulation C none 400 0.5% L-77 at 3 hrs 87 
______________________________________ 
On lambsquarter, Silwet L-77 tank mix was significantly antagonistic for 
those herbicidal compositions that employ a surfactant coformulant. This 
antagonism was reduced through sequential application of the accession 
agent. 
Example 29 
Annual bluegrass (Poa annua, POAAN) and redstem filaree (Erodium 
cicutarium, EROCI) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse 
and treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly 
as described for Example 1, except where otherwise noted below. Greenhouse 
temperature was maintained at approximately 21.degree. C. during the day 
and 16.degree. C. during the night. 
Initial applications of Formulations A, B and C, alone or in tank mix with 
a candidate accession agent, were applied 26 days after planting. 
Formulations were each applied without candidate accession agent at a 
range of rates from 300 to 1000 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession 
agent was included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, formulations were tested only at 300 and 600 g a.e./ha. This 
Example includes as candidate accession agent an aqueous solution 
containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. The time interval between initial and 
subsequent applications was 4 hours. 
Twenty days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 29. 
TABLE 29 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Glypho- 
Subsequent 
Initial application sate application 
93 l/ha rate 93 l/ha % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
accession 
Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha agent POAAN 
EROCI 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 300 none 92 30 
Formulation A none 600 none 93 79 
Formulation A none 1000 none 98 93 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 300 none 35 49 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 600 none 77 77 
Formulation A none 300 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 88 46 
Formulation A none 600 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 93 79 
Formulation B none 300 none 57 17 
Formulation B none 600 none 78 58 
Formulation B none 1000 none 83 81 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 300 none 27 28 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 600 none 54 60 
Formulation B none 300 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 50 15 
Formulation B none 600 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 68 77 
Formulation C none 300 none 93 68 
Formulation C none 600 none 97 95 
Formulation C none 1000 none 98 97 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 300 none 51 29 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 600 none 81 59 
Formulation C none 300 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 87 51 
Formulation C none 600 0.5% L-77 at 4 hrs 94 82 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
On annual bluegrass, Silwet L-77 in tank mix was significantly 
antagonistic. This antagonism was significantly reduced (and often 
eliminated) through sequential application of the accession agent. In 
redstem filaree, Silwet L-77 in tank mix generally enhanced herbicidal 
effectiveness, and comparable enhancement was observed for sequential 
application. 
Example 30 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa 
crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse 
and treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly 
as described for Example 1, except where otherwise noted below. 
The experimental design included four replicate pots per treatment. Initial 
applications of Formulation B, alone or in tank mix with MON-0818 
surfactant and/or a candidate accession agent, were applied 14 days after 
planting velvetleaf and 17 days after planting Japanese millet. MON-0818 
was used at a concentration of 0.09% in the spray solution. Formulation B 
(with and without MON-0818) was applied without candidate accession agent 
at a range of rates from 100 to 500 g a.e./ha. When a candidate accession 
agent was included in the treatment, either in tank mix or as a subsequent 
application, Formulation B was tested only at the lowest rate. This 
Example includes as candidate accession agents aqueous solutions 
containing Silwet L-77 at concentrations of 0.5% and 3.0%. Other candidate 
accession agents tested in this Example include aqueous solutions, at 
concentrations of 0.5% and 3.0%, of the following surfactants or other 
substances. In the case of surfactant or other products supplied as 
diluted products, spray solutions in this and other Examples were prepared 
to contain 0.5% or 3.0% of the primary ingredient, not on an "as is" 
basis. 
Tergitol TMN-6 of Union Carbide Corporation: described in Union Carbide 
Product Information, 1989, as 90% ethoxylated 2,6,8-trimethyl-4-nonanol; 
with an average of 8 moles of ethylene oxide; abbreviated in Tables herein 
as TMN-6. Tergitol TMN-6 was also employed in mixture with Silwet L-77 at 
1:49, 1:19, and 1:9 ratios. 
Tween 20 of ICI Surfactants: described in McCutcheon's (loc. cit.) as 
polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan monolaurate. 
Dimethylsulfoxide: abbreviated herein as DMSO. 
The time interval between initial and subsequent applications was 4 hours. 
Eighteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 30a 
(Formulation B applied without MON-0818) and 30b (Formulation B applied 
with 0.09% MON-0818). 
TABLE 30a 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, no sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 40 50 
Formulation B none 300 none 74 73 
Formulation B none 400 none 85 80 
Formulation B none 500 none 94 89 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 80 10 
Formulation B 3.0% L-77 100 none 78 10 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 78 28 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% L-77 70 20 
Formulation B 0.5% TMN-6 100 none 35 23 
Formulation B 3.0% TMN-6 100 none 55 15 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% TMN-6 30 23 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% TMN-6 55 20 
Formulation B 0.5% Tween 20 100 none 53 53 
Formulation B 3.0% Tween 20 100 none 75 73 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Tween 20 28 55 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Tween 20 40 40 
Formulation B 0.5% DMSO 100 none 50 28 
Formulation B 3.0% DMSO 100 none 48 45 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% DMSO 45 33 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% DMSO 33 40 
Formulation B 0.5% TMN-6 + 100 none 88 15 
L-77, 1:49 
Formulation B 3.0% TMN-6 + 100 none 75 15 
L-77, 1:49 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% TMN-6 + 70 28 
L-77, 1:49 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% TMN-6 + 50 15 
L-77, 1:49 
Formulation B 0.5% TMN-6 + 100 none 65 10 
L-77, 1:19 
Formulation B 3.0% TMN-6 + 100 none 65 15 
L-77, 1:19 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% TMN-6 + 73 25 
L-77, 1:19 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% TMN-6 + 70 35 
L-77, 1:19 
Formulation B 0.5% TMN-6 + 100 none 84 20 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B 3.0% TMN-6 + 100 none 78 23 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% TMN-6 + 75 20 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% TMN-6 + 65 35 
L-77, 1:9 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
TABLE 30b 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, 0.09% sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 68 76 
Formulation B none 300 none 95 97 
Formulation B none 400 none 98 98 
Formulation B none 500 none 99 99 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 78 15 
Formulation B 3.0% L-77 100 none 73 13 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 65 20 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% L-77 68 18 
Formulation B 0.5% TMN-6 100 none 33 15 
Formulation B 3.0% TMN-6 100 none 45 23 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% TMN-6 35 30 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% TMN-6 30 38 
Formulation B 0.5% Tween 20 100 none 65 55 
Formulation B 3.0% Tween 20 100 none 74 75 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Tween 20 50 45 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Tween 20 45 53 
Formulation B 0.5% DMSO 100 none 45 63 
Formulation B 3.0% DMSO 100 none 45 60 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% DMSO 40 60 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% DMSO 35 60 
Formulation B 0.5% TMN-6 + 100 none 84 15 
L-77, 1:49 
Formulation B 3.0% TMN-6 + 100 none 75 15 
L-77, 1:49 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% TMN-6 + 63 15 
L-77, 1:49 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% TMN-6 + 40 13 
L-77, 1:49 
Formulation B 0.5% TMN-6 + 100 none 75 13 
L-77,1:19 
Formulation B 3.0% TMN-6 + 100 none 75 13 
L-77, 1:19 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% TMN-6 + 68 20 
L-77, 1:19 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% TMN-6 + 65 35 
L-77, 1:19 
Formulation B 0.5% TMN-6 + 100 none 86 20 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B 3.0% TMN-6 + 100 none 73 25 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation F none 100 0.5% TMN-6 + 75 30 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation F none 100 3.0% TMN-6 + 68 35 
L-77, 1:9 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
In this Example antagonism of glyphosate activity in tank mix was seen on 
Japanese millet, in the presence of MON-0818, with the following 
solutions: 0.5% and 3.0% Silwet L-77, 0.5% and 3.0% Tergitol TMN-6, 0.5% 
Tween 20, 0.5% and 3.0% DMSO, and all tested combinations of Tergitol 
TMN-6 and Silwet L-77. Sequential application reduced antagonism on 
Japanese millet caused by Silwet L-77 and Tergitol TMN-6 but not that 
caused by Tween 20 and DMSO. 
Example 31 
The procedures of Example 30 were repeated exactly except percent 
inhibition was determined nineteen days after initial application, and the 
candidate accession agents in addition to Silwet L-77 were: 
Tergitol TMN-10 of Union Carbide Corporation: described in Union Carbide 
Product Information, 1989 as 90% ethoxylated 2,6,8-trimethyl-4-nonanol; 
with an average of 11 moles of ethylene oxide; abbreviated in Tables 
herein as TMN-10. Tergitol TMN-10 was also employed with Silwet L-77 at 
ratios of 1:49, 1:19, and 1:9. 
Light mineral oil obtained from Fisher Scientific: abbreviated in Tables 
herein as "min oil." 
R-Way Crop Oil Concentrate described on its label as containing 83% 
petroleum oil and 17% surfactant blend; abbreviated in Tables herein as 
COC. 
The light mineral oil contains no surfactants for emulsification in the 
spray solution; a mixture was prepared by agitation and applied 
immediately before the oil separated significantly from the water. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 31a 
(Formulation B applied without MON-0818) and 31b (Formulation B applied 
with 0.09% MON-0818). 
TABLE 31a 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, no sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 43 60 
Formulation B none 300 none 90 94 
Formulation B none 400 none 91 95 
Formulation B none 500 none 98 98 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 90 25 
Formulation B 3.0% L-77 100 none 73 23 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 81 53 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% L-77 70 38 
Formulation B 0.5% TMN-10 100 none 70 50 
Formulation B 3.0% TMN-10 100 none 48 40 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% TMN-10 71 35 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% TMN-10 45 40 
Formulation B 0.5% min oil 100 none 84 63 
Formulation B 3.0% min oil 100 none 81 76 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% min oil 70 38 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% min oil 53 50 
Formulation B 0.5% COC 100 none 63 25 
Formulation B 3.0% COC 100 none 60 23 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% COC 68 38 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% COC 58 40 
Formulation B 0.5% TMN-10 100 none 89 13 
+L-77, 1:49 
Formulation B 3.0% TMN-10 100 none 76 23 
+L-77, 1:49 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% TMN-10 + 78 25 
L-77, 1:49 
Formulation B none 100 3.0 %TMN-10 + 70 38 
L-77, 1:49 
Formulation B 0.5% TMN-10 100 none 85 20 
+L-77, 1:19 
Formulation B 3.0% TMN-10 100 none 80 15 
+L-77, 1:19 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% TMN-10 + 80 43 
L-77, 1:19 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% TMN-10 + 74 33 
L-77, 1:19 
Formulation B 0.5% TMN-10 100 none 78 23 
+L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B 3.0% TMN-10 100 none 60 23 
+L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% TMN-10 + 75 40 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% TMN-10 + 74 33 
L-77, 1:9 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
TABLE 31b 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, 0.09% sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 81 81 
Formulation B none 300 none 86 96 
Formulation B none 400 none 99 98 
Formulation B none 500 none 99 97 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 90 25 
Formulation B 3.0% L-77 100 none 76 25 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 79 50 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% L-77 70 45 
Formulation B 0.5% TMN-10 100 none 70 75 
Formulation B 3.0% TMN-10 100 none 74 33 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% TMN-10 73 60 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% TMN-10 55 50 
Formulation B 0.5% min oil 100 none 70 63 
Formulation B 3.0% min oil 100 none 69 56 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% min oil 91 89 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% min oil 68 64 
Formulation B 0.5% COC 100 none 69 48 
Formulation B 3.0% COC 100 none 68 50 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% COC 71 55 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% COC 75 60 
Formulation B 0.5% TMN-10 100 none 89 23 
+L-77, 1:49 
Formulation B 3.0% TMN-10 100 none 76 10 
+L-77, 1:49 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% TMN-10 + 78 30 
L-77, 1:49 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% TMN-10 + 74 25 
L-77, 1:49 
Formulation B 0.5% TMN-10 100 none 79 20 
+L-77, 1:19 
Formulation B 3.0% TMN-10 100 none 75 18 
+L-77, 1:19 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% TMN-10 + 81 40 
L-77, 1:19 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% TMN-10 + 75 43 
L-77, 1:19 
Formulation B 0.5% TMN-10 100 none 68 30 
+L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B 3.0% TMN-10 100 none 79 20 
+L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% TMN-10 + 78 40 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% TMN-10 + 76 53 
L-77, 1:9 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
In this Example antagonism of glyphosate activity in tank mix was seen on 
Japanese millet, in the presence of MON-0818, with the following solutions 
or dispersions: 0.5% and 3.0% Silwet L-77, 0.5% and 3.0% Tergitol TMN-10, 
0.5% and 3.0% light mineral oil, 0.5% and 3.0% Crop Oil Concentrate, and 
all tested combinations of Tergitol TMN-10 and Silwet L-77. Sequential 
application reduced antagonism on Japanese millet caused by Silwet L-77, 
Tergitol TMN-10 (3.0% only), light mineral oil and Crop Oil Concentrate 
but not that caused by Tergitol TMN-10 at 0.5%. 
Example 32 
The procedures of Example 30 were repeated exactly except that initial 
applications were made 17 days after planting velvetleaf and 20 days after 
planting Japanese millet, percent inhibition was determined sixteen days 
after initial application, and the candidate accession agents in addition 
to Silwet L-77 were: 
Ethoduomeen T/13 and Ethoduomeen T/25 of Akzo Chemicals Inc.: described in 
Akzo's brochure titled "Ethoxylated and propoxylated surfactants" 
published 1991 as ethoxylated N-tallowalkyl-1,3-diaminopropanes having 
respectively 3 and 15 moles EO; the Ethoduomeen trademark is abbreviated 
in tables herein as "Edm". 
Ethylan CPG945 of Akcros Chemicals: described in McCutcheon's (loc. cit.) 
as a modified alcohol ethoxylate; abbreviated in tables herein by omission 
of the Ethylan trademark. 
Neodol 25-3 and Neodol 25-9 of Shell Chemical Company: described in 
McCutcheon's (loc. cit.) as C.sub.12-15 primary alcohol ethoxylate having 
respectively 3 and 9 moles EO; the Neodol trademark is abbreviated herein 
as "Neo". 
SAG-47: a widely used silicone antifoam of Witco Corporation, OSi 
Specialties Group. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 32a 
(Formulation B applied without MON-0818) and 32b (Formulation B applied 
with 0.09% MON-0818). 
TABLE 32a 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, no sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 20 88 
Formulation B none 300 none 50 98 
Formulation B none 400 none 78 97 
Formulation B none 500 none 88 99 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 40 5 
Formulation B 3.0% L-77 100 none 45 38 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 45 30 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% L-77 43 13 
Formulation B 0.5% Edm T/13 100 none 43 91 
Formulation B 3.0% Edm T/13 100 none 73 85 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Edm T/13 15 60 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Edm T/13 43 55 
Formulation B 0.5% Edm T/25 100 none 38 88 
Formulation B 3.0% Edm T/25 100 none 74 91 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Edm T/25 30 38 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Edm T/25 35 20 
Formulation B 0.5% CPG945 100 none 35 74 
Formulation B 3.0% CPG945 100 none 40 71 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% CPG945 30 35 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% CPG945 33 35 
Formulation B 0.5% Neo 25-3 100 none 33 20 
Formulation B 3.0% Neo 25-3 100 none 35 20 
Formulation B none 1oo 0.5% Neo 25-3 10 5 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Neo 25-3 5 0 
Formulation B 0.5% Neo 25-9 100 none 10 10 
Formulation B 3.0% Neo 25-9 100 none 30 10 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Neo 25-9 28 30 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Neo 25-9 23 33 
Formulation B 0.5% SAG 47 100 none 23 38 
Formulation B 3.0% SAG 47 100 none 18 30 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% SAG 47 15 25 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% SAG 47 20 25 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
TABLE 32b 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, 0.09% sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 18 86 
Formulation B none 300 none 84 99 
Formulation B none 400 none 95 99 
Formulation B none 500 none 95 99 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 45 28 
Formulation B 3.0% L-77 100 none 50 18 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 43 74 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% L-77 40 48 
Formulation B 0.5% Edm T/13 100 none 30 89 
Formulation B 3.0% Edm T/13 100 none 75 96 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Edm T/13 25 33 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Edm T/13 43 98 
Formulation B 0.5% Edm T/25 100 none 63 95 
Formulation B 3.0% Edm T/25 100 none 75 95 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Edm T/25 33 94 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Edm T/25 70 83 
Formulation B 0.5% CPG945 100 none 33 73 
Formulation B 3.0% CPG945 100 none 53 75 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% CPG945 55 88 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% CPG945 45 86 
Formulation B 0.5% Neo 25-3 100 none 63 53 
Formulation B 3.0% Neo 25-3 100 none 55 35 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Neo 25-3 35 35 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Neo 25-3 33 20 
Formulation B 0.5% Neo 25-9 100 none 28 20 
Formulation B 3.0% Neo 25-9 100 none 35 10 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Neo 25-9 8 10 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Neo 25-9 25 46 
Formulation B 0.5% SAG 47 100 none 45 97 
Formulation B 3.0% SAG 47 100 none 48 85 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% SAG 47 50 89 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% SAG 47 45 79 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
In this Example antagonism of glyphosate activity in tank mix was seen on 
Japanese millet, in the presence of MON-0818, with the following 
solutions: 0.5% and 3.0% Silwet L-77, 0.5% and 3.0% Ethylan CPG945, and 
0.5% and 3.0% Neodol 25-3 and Neodol 25-9. Sequential application reduced 
antagonism on Japanese millet caused by Silwet L-77, Ethylan CPG945 and 
Neodol 25-9 (3.0% only) but not that caused by Neodol 25-3 and 0.5% Neodol 
25-9. 
Example 33 
The procedures of Example 30 were repeated exactly except that initial 
applications were made 15 days after planting velvetleaf and 18 days after 
planting Japanese millet, percent inhibition was determined seventeen days 
after initial application, and the candidate accession agent in addition 
to Silwet L-77 was: 
Nonanol (2EO) ethoxylate, supplied by Shell Chemical Company abbreviated in 
tables herein as "nonanol 2". Nonanol (2EO) ethoxylate was also employed 
in admixture with Silwet L-77 in ratios of 2:1, 1:2, 1:1, 1:9, and 9:1. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 33a 
(Formulation B applied without MON-0818) and 33b (Formulation B applied 
with 0.09% MON-0818). 
TABLE 33a 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, no sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 40 40 
Formulation B none 300 none 85 73 
Formulation B none 400 none 99 95 
Formulation B none 500 none 100 94 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 85 20 
Formulation B 3.0% L-77 100 none 68 38 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 93 51 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% L-77 65 33 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 2 100 none 24 20 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 2 100 none 38 25 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 2 53 64 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 2 38 43 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 2 100 none 68 20 
+L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 2 100 none 80 20 
+L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 2 + 53 64 
L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 2 + 50 65 
L-77,2:1 
Fonnulation B 0.5% nonanol 2 100 none 85 30 
+L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 2 100 none 78 48 
+L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 2 + 75 78 
L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 2 + 63 48 
L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 2 100 none 53 25 
+L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 2 100 none 70 23 
+L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 2 + 65 55 
L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 2 + 45 33 
L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 2 100 none 91 20 
+L-77,1:9 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 2 100 none 78 38 
+L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 2 + 68 48 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 2 + 65 38 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 2 100 none 40 33 
+L-77, 9:1 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 2 100 none 48 20 
+L-77, 9:1 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 2 + 40 40 
L-77, 9:1 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 2 + 35 33 
L-77, 9:1 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
TABLE 33b 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, 0.09% sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 73 97 
Formulation B none 300 none 99 98 
Formulation B none 400 none 97 100 
Formulation B none 500 none 100 100 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 89 30 
Formulation B 3.0% L-77 100 none 68 40 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 73 81 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% L-77 60 75 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 2 100 none 20 15 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 2 100 none 45 15 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 2 50 97 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 2 45 81 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 2 100 none 40 20 
+L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 2 100 none 75 25 
+L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 2 + 50 95 
L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 2 + 70 86 
L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 2 100 none 83 38 
+L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 2 100 none 80 58 
+L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 2 + 73 89 
L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 2 + 68 85 
L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 2 100 none 78 38 
+L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 2 100 none 75 53 
+L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 2 + 65 95 
L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 2 + 65 85 
L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 2 100 none 87 20 
+L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 2 100 none 75 45 
+L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 2 + 73 94 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 2 + 68 76 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 2 100 none 60 33 
+L-77, 9:1 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 2 100 none 48 23 
+L-77, 9:1 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol2 + 55 88 
L-77, 9:1 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 2 + 38 80 
L-77,9:1 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
In this Example antagonism of glyphosate activity in tank mix was seen on 
Japanese millet, in the presence of MON-0818, with all solutions tested. 
Sequential application reduced antagonism on Japanese millet in all cases. 
Example 34 
The procedures of Example 30 were repeated exactly except that initial 
applications were made 14 days after planting velvetleaf and 17 days after 
planting Japanese millet, percent inhibition was determined seventeen days 
after initial application, and the candidate accession agent in addition 
to Silwet L-77 was: 
Nonanol (4EO) ethoxylate, supplied by Shell Chemical company abbreviated in 
tables herein as "nonanol 4". Nonanol (4EO) ethoxylate was also employed 
in admixture with Silwet L-77 in ratios of 2:1, 1:2, 1:1, 9:1, and 1:9. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 34a 
(Formulation B applied without MON-0818) and 34b (Formulation B applied 
with 0.09% MON-0818). 
TABLE 34a 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, no sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 65 45 
Formulation B none 300 none 85 90 
Formulation B none 400 none 93 91 
Formulation B none 500 none 96 99 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 80 23 
Formulation B 3.0% L-77 100 none 75 23 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 73 55 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% L-77 74 45 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 4 100 none 43 25 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 4 100 none 68 43 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 4 45 45 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 4 45 48 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 4 100 none 70 30 
+L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 4 100 none 84 38 
+L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 4 + 53 53 
L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 4 + 74 53 
L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 4 100 none 79 30 
+L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 4 100 none 80 48 
+L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 4 + 85 50 
L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 4 + 79 53 
L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 4 100 none 78 30 
+L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 4 100 none 84 50 
+L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 4 + 80 48 
L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 4 + 71 48 
L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 4 100 none 84 40 
+L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 4 100 none 76 45 
+L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 4 + 80 48 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 4 + 71 43 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 4 100 none 28 23 
+L-77, 9:1 
Formulation B 3.O% nonanol 4 100 none 65 10 
+L-77, 9:1 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 4 + 55 38 
L-77, 9:1 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 4 + 35 30 
L-77, 9:1 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
TABLE 34b 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, 0.09% sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 78 88 
Formulation B none 300 none 93 100 
Formulation B none 400 none 96 100 
Formulation B none 500 none 97 100 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 70 30 
Formulation B 3.0% L-77 100 none 76 35 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 89 55 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% L-77 70 65 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 4 100 none 75 48 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 4 100 none 65 18 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 4 45 63 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 4 45 83 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 4 100 none 68 30 
+L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 4 100 none 91 40 
+L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 4 + 71 83 
L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 4 + 73 85 
L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 4 100 none 79 38 
+L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 4 100 none 80 55 
+L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 4 + 78 74 
L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 4 + 78 78 
L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 4 100 none 77 43 
+L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 4 100 none 88 48 
+L-77,1:1 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 4 + 80 55 
L-77,1:1 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 4 + 70 70 
L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 4 100 none 85 40 
+L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 4 100 none 76 40 
+L-77,1:9 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 4 + 80 60 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 4 + 75 68 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B 0.5% nonanol 4 100 none 25 38 
+L-77, 9:1 
Formulation B 3.0% nonanol 4 100 none 65 23 
+L-77, 9:1 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% nonanol 4 + 43 58 
L-77, 9:1 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% nonanol 4 + 50 53 
L-77, 9:1 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
In this Example antagonism of glyphosate activity in tank mix was seen on 
Japanese millet, in the presence of MON-0818, with solutions tested. 
Sequential application reduced antagonism on Japanese millet in all cases. 
Example 35 
The procedures of Example 30 were repeated exactly except that initial 
applications were made 17 days after planting velvetleaf and 20 days after 
planting Japanese millet, percent inhibition was determined seventeen days 
after initial application, and the candidate accession agent in addition 
to Silwet L-77 was: 
Neodol 1-5 of Shell Chemical Company: described in McCutcheon's (loc. cit.) 
as C.sub.11 primary alcohol ethoxylate having 5 moles EO. Neodol 1-5 
(labelled Neo 1-5) was also employed in admixture with Silwet L-77 in 
ratios of 2:1, 1:2, 1:1, 9:1, and 1:9. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 35a 
(Formulation B applied without MON-0818) and 35b (Formulation B applied 
with MON-0818). 
TABLE 35a 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, no sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 10 30 
Formulation B none 300 none 40 55 
Formulation B none 400 none 80 53 
Formulation B none 500 none 80 68 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 84 35 
Formulation B 3.0% L-77 100 none 55 40 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 55 45 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% L-77 33 40 
Formulation B 0.5% Neo 1-5 100 none 40 35 
Formulation B 3.0% Neo 1-5 100 none 35 28 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Neo 1-5 40 55 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Neo 1-5 30 38 
Formulation B 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 100 none 35 30 
L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 40 50 
L-77,2:1 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Neo 1-5 + 30 38 
L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 100 none 55 33 
L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B 3.0% Neo 1-5 + 100 none 68 33 
L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 65 50 
L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Neo 1-5 + 55 45 
L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 100 none 65 40 
L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B 3.0% Neo 1-5 + 100 none 75 25 
L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 48 50 
L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Neo 1-5 + 50 35 
L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 100 none 68 33 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B 3.0% Neo 1-5 + 100 none 65 45 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 38 45 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Neo 1-5 + 58 38 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 100 none 43 35 
L-77,9:1 
Formulation B 3.0% Neo 1-5 + 100 none 43 25 
L-77, 9:1 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 30 38 
L-77, 9:1 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Neo 1-5 + 28 28 
L-77, 9:1 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
TABLE 35b 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, 0.09% sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 48 70 
Formulation B none 300 none 75 97 
Formulation B none 400 none 96 95 
Formulation B none 500 none 97 99 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 58 50 
Formulation B 3.0% L-77 100 none 63 40 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 64 63 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% L-77 40 70 
Formulation B 0.5% Neo 1-5 100 none 50 43 
Formulation B 3.0% Neo 1-5 100 none 30 23 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Neo 1-5 58 73 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Neo 1-5 50 70 
Formulation B 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 100 none 60 45 
L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B 3.0% Neo 1-5 + 100 none 45 15 
L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 50 74 
L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Neo 1-5 + 50 65 
L-77, 2:1 
Formulation B 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 100 none 50 30 
L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B 3.0% Neo 1-5 + 100 none 50 38 
L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 68 55 
L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Neo 1-5 + 35 63 
L-77, 1:2 
Formulation B 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 100 none 50 28 
L-77,1:1 
Formulation B 3.0% Neo 1-5 + 100 none 53 20 
L-77,1:1 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 53 73 
L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Neo 1-5 + 43 63 
L-77, 1:1 
Formulation B 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 100 none 70 30 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B 3.0% Neo 1-5 + 100 none 58 48 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 58 71 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Neo 1-5 + 63 65 
L-77, 1:9 
Formulation B 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 100 none 45 45 
L-77,9:1 
Formulation B 3.0% Neo 1-5 + 100 none 48 35 
L-77, 9:1 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Neo 1-5 + 50 70 
L-77, 9:1 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Neo 1-5 + 50 58 
L-77, 9:1 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
In this Example antagonism of glyphosate activity in tank mix was seen on 
Japanese millet, in the presence of MON-0818, with all solutions tested. 
Sequntial application reduced antagonism on Japanese millet in all cases. 
Example 36 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa 
crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse 
and treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly 
as described for Example 1, except where otherwise noted below. 
The experimental design included four replicate pots per treatment. Initial 
applications of Formulation B, in tank mix with MON-0818 surfactant and/or 
a candidate accession agent, were applied 22 days after planting 
velvetleaf and 20 days after planting Japanese millet. MON-0818 was used 
at a concentration of 0.09% in the initial application spray solution in 
all treatments, except where MON-0818 itself was being tested as a 
candidate accession agent (see below). Formulation B was applied without 
candidate accession agent at a range of rates from 200 to 1000 g a.e./ha. 
When a candidate accession agent was included in the treatment, either in 
tank mix or as a subsequent application, Formulation B was tested only at 
200 and 400 g a.e./ha, with 0.09% MON-0818. This Example includes as a 
candidate accession agent an aqueous solution containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. 
Other candidate accession agents tested in this Example include aqueous 
solutions, at concentrations of 1.5% and 5.0%, of the following 
surfactants or other substances: 
Neodol 91-8 of Shell Chemical Company: described in McCutcheon's (loc. 
cit.) as C.sub.9-11 primary alcohol ethoxylate having 8 moles EO. 
MON-0818: tallowamine (15EO) ethoxylate based surfactant of Monsanto 
Company. In the tank mix applications using MON-0818 as a candidate 
accession agent, a further 0.09% MON-0818 was not added to the tank mix. 
Glycerin. 
Tween 20 of ICI Surfactants: described in McCutcheon's (loc. cit.) as 
polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan monolaurate. 
Tergitol 15-S-9 of Union Carbide Corporation: described in McCutcheon's 
(loc.cit.) as C.sub.11-15 secondary alcohol ethoxylate, believed to have 9 
moles EO; abbreviated in tables herein as "15-S-9". 
The time interval between initial and subsequent applications was 3 hours. 
Nineteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 36. 
TABLE 36 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, 0.09% sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 3 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 200 none 29 78 
Formulation B none 400 none 55 100 
Formulation B none 600 none 73 100 
Formulation B none 800 none 92 100 
Formulation B none 1000 none 95 100 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 200 none 54 20 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 400 none 81 31 
Formulation B none 200 0.5% L-77 54 58 
Formulation B none 400 0.5% L-77 75 85 
Formulation B 1.5% Neo 91-8 200 none 44 70 
Formulation B 1.5% Neo 91-8 400 none 50 91 
Formulation B 5.0% Neo 91-8 200 none 18 35 
Formulation B 5.0% Neo 91-8 400 none 49 76 
Formulation B none 200 1.5% Neo 91-8 40 72 
Formulation B none 400 1.5% Neo 91-8 50 93 
Formulation B none 200 5.0% Neo 91-8 27 65 
Formulation B none 400 5.0% Neo 91-8 49 83 
Formulation B 1.5% MON-0818 200 none 66 84 
Formulation B 1.5% MON-0818 400 none 76 100 
Formulation B 5.0% MON-0818 200 none 35 91 
Formulation B 5.0% MON-0818 400 none 63 93 
Formulation B none 200 1.5% MON-0818 31 88 
Formulation B none 400 1.5% MON-0818 73 95 
Formulation B none 200 5.0% MON-0818 48 78 
Formulation B none 400 5.0% MON-0818 49 88 
Formulation B 1.5% glycerin 200 none 19 81 
Formulation B 1.5% glycerin 400 none 55 100 
Formulation B 5.0% glycerin 200 none 53 88 
Formulation B 5.0% glycerin 400 none 55 95 
Formulation B none 200 1.5% glycerin 24 96 
Formulation B none 400 1.5% glycerin 76 99 
Formulation B none 200 5.0% glycerin 31 95 
Formulation B none 400 5.0% glycerin 50 91 
Formulation B 1.5% Tween 20 200 none 20 66 
Formulation B 1.5% Tween 20 400 none 38 68 
Formulation B 5.0% Tween 20 200 none 29 55 
Formulation B 5.0% Tween 20 400 none 43 79 
Formulation B none 200 1.5% Tween 20 21 71 
Formulation B none 400 1.5% Tween 20 66 98 
Formulation B none 200 5.0% Tween 20 39 80 
Formulation B none 400 5.0% Tween 20 65 94 
Formulation B 1.5% 15-S-9 200 none 31 70 
Formulation B 1.5% 15-S-9 400 none 51 100 
Formulation B 5.0% 15-S-9 200 none 21 33 
Formulation B 5.0% 15-S-9 400 none 39 39 
Formulation B none 200 1.5% 15-S-9 38 64 
Formulation B none 400 1.5% 15-S-9 59 86 
Formulation B none 200 5.0% 15-S-9 34 60 
Formulation B none 400 5.0% 15-S-9 66 96 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
In this Example antagonism of glyphosate activity in tank mix was seen on 
Japanese millet with the following solutions: 0.5% Silwet L-77, 1.5% and 
5.0% Neodol 91-8, 1.5% and 5.0% Tween 20, and 1.5% and 5.0% Tergitol 
15-S-9. Sequential application reduced antagonism on Japanese millet 
caused by Silwet L-77, Neodol 91-8 (5.0% only), Tween 20 and Tergitol 
15-S-9 (5.0% only) but not that caused by 1.5% Neodol 91-8 and 1.5% 
Tergitol 15-S-9. 
Example 37 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa 
crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse 
and treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly 
as described for Example 1, except where otherwise noted below. 
The experimental design included four replicate pots per treatment. Initial 
applications of Formulation B, in tank mix with MON-0818 surfactant or 
with MON-0818 and a candidate accession agent, were applied 15 days after 
planting velvetleaf and 18 days after planting Japanese millet. MON-0818 
was used at a concentration of 0.09% in the initial application spray 
solution in all treatments. Formulation B was applied without candidate 
accession agent at a range of rates from 200 to 1000 g a.e./ha. When a 
candidate accession agent was included in the treatment, either in tank 
mix or as a subsequent application, Formulation B was tested only at 200 
and 400 g a.e./ha, with 0.09% MON-0818. This Example includes as a 
candidate accession agent an aqueous solution containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. 
Other candidate accession agents tested in this Example include aqueous 
solutions, at concentrations of 1.5% and 5.0%, of the following to 
surfactants or other substances: 
A 1:1 weight/weight blend of Ethomeen C/15 of Akzo Chemicals Inc. with 
Tergitol 15-S-9 as described above; Ethomeen C/15 is described in Akzo's 
brochure titled "Ethoxylated and propoxylated surfactants" published 1991 
as ethoxylated cocoamine having 5 moles EO; abbreviated in tables herein 
as "Em C/15". 
Agrimul PG 2069 as described above. 
Surfynol 465 as described above. 
Miranol C2M of Rhone-Poulenc: described in McCutcheon's (loc. cit.) as a 
dicarboxylic coconut derivative, disodium salt; abbreviated in tables 
herein as "Miranol". 
Ethoquad C/12 of Akzo Chemicals Inc.: described in Akzo's brochure titled 
"Ethoxylated and propoxylated surfactants" published 1991 as 75% 
ethoxylated cocoalkylmethyl quaternary ammonium chloride having 2 moles 
EO; abbreviated in tables herein as "Eq C/12". 
Aerosol OT of Cytec Industries, a unit of American Cyanamid: described in 
McCutcheon's (loc. cit.) as dioctyl ester of sodium sulfosuccinic acid; 
abbreviated in tables herein as "AOT". 
The time interval between initial and subsequent applications was 3 hours. 
Twenty days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 37. 
TABLE 37 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, 0.09% sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 3 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 200 none 41 29 
Formulation B none 400 none 97 98 
Formulation B none 600 none 99 95 
Formulation B none 800 none 100 96 
Formulation B none 1000 none 100 100 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 200 none 87 33 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 400 none 95 33 
Formulation B none 200 0.5% L-77 93 91 
Formulation B none 400 0.5% L-77 100 98 
Formulation B 1.5% Em C/15 + 200 none 14 92 
15-S-9, 1:1 
Formulation B 1.5% EmC/15 + 400 none 99 86 
15-S-9, 1:1 
Formulation B 5.0% Em C115 + 200 none 55 64 
15-S-9, 1:1 
Formulation B 5.0% Em C/15 + 400 none 55 72 
15-S-9, 1:1 
Formulation B none 200 1.5% Em C/15 + 81 80 
15-S-9, 1:1 
Formulation B none 400 1.5% Em C/15 + 100 94 
15-S-9, 1:1 
Formulation B none 200 5.0% Em C/15 + 36 53 
15-S-9, 1:1 
Formulation B none 400 5.0% Em C/15 + 75 85 
15-S-9, 1:1 
Formulation B 1.5% PG 2069 200 none 94 94 
Formulation B 1.5% PG 2069 400 none 100 100 
Formulation B 5.0% PG 2069 200 none 83 93 
Formulation B 5.0% PG 2069 400 none 100 100 
Formulation B none 200 1.5% PG 2069 66 99 
Formulation B none 400 1.5% PG 2069 98 99 
Formulation B none 200 5.0% PG 2069 80 96 
Formulation B none 400 5.0% PG 2069 100 93 
Formulation B 1.5% Surf 465 200 none 94 89 
Formulation B 1.5% Surf 465 400 none 99 98 
Formulation B 5.0% Surf 465 200 none 79 92 
Formulation B 5.0% Surf 465 400 none 92 98 
Formulation B none 200 1.5% Surf 465 76 79 
Formulation B none 400 1.5% Surf 465 99 96 
Formulation B none 200 5.0% Surf 465 68 82 
Formulation B none 400 5.0% Surf 465 88 95 
Formulation B 1.5% Miranol 200 none 70 87 
Formulation B 1.5% Miranol 400 none 96 90 
Formulation B 5.0% Miranol 200 none 90 93 
Formulation B 5.0% Miranol 400 none 99 95 
Formulation B none 200 1.5% Miranol 84 92 
Formulation B none 400 1.5% Miranol 99 98 
Formulation B none 200 5.0% Miranol 88 88 
Formulation B none 400 5.0% Miranol 95 83 
Formulation B 1.5% Eq C/12 200 none 66 62 
Formulation B 1.5% Eq C/12 400 none 92 78 
Formulation B 5.0% Eq C/12 200 none 48 48 
Formulation B 5.0% Eq C/12 400 none 81 84 
Formulation B none 200 1.5% Eq C/12 8 21 
Formulation B none 400 1.5% Eq C/12 92 84 
Formulation B none 200 5.0% Eq C/12 31 68 
Formulation B none 400 5.0% Eq C/12 71 92 
Formulation B 1.5% AOT 200 none 75 75 
Formulation B 1.5% AOT 400 none 85 72 
Formulation B 5.0% AOT 200 none 24 24 
Formulation B 5.0% AOT 400 none 53 8 
Formulation B none 200 1.5% AOT 30 40 
Formulation B none 400 1.5% AOT 73 89 
Formulation B none 200 5.0% AOT 53 79 
Formulation B none 400 5.0% AOT 69 87 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
In this Example antagonism of glyphosate activity in tank mix was seen on 
Japanese millet with the following solutions: 0.5% Silwet L-77 and 5.0% 
Aerosol OT. Sequential application reduced antagonism on Japanese millet 
in both cases. 
Example 38 
The procedures of Example 30 were repeated exactly except that initial 
applications were made 14 days after planting velvetleaf and 17 days after 
planting Japanese millet, percent inhibition was determined twenty days 
after initial application, candidate accession agents were applied in tank 
mix and subsequent applications at concentrations of 0.25% and 0.5%, and 
the candidate accession agents in addition to Silwet L-77 were the 
following organosilicone surfactants of OSi Specialties, abbreviated in 
tables herein by omission of the "Silwet" trademark: 
Silwet 408, available from OSi but composition not disclosed. 
Silwet 800, available from OSi but composition not disclosed. 
Silwet L-7001, described in OSi Specialties brochure titled "Silwet 
surfactants" published 1994 as a 75% product having the general formula 
##STR6## 
where EO refers to ethylene oxide units and PO to propylene oxide units; 
in Silwet L-7001 the ratio of m to n is 40/60, Z is methyl and the average 
molecular weight is 20,000. 
Silwet L-7500, described in the OSi Specialties brochure cited above as 
being a 100% product having the same general formula as Silwet L-7001 but 
with all PO units (no EO), Z being butyl and the average molecular weight 
being 3000. 
Silwet L-7604, described in the OSi Specialties brochure cited above as 
being a 100% product having the same general formula as Silwet L-7001 but 
with all EO units (no PO), Z being hydrogen and the average molecular 
weight being 4000. 
Silwet L-7605, described in the OSi Specialties brochure cited above as 
being a 100% product having the same general formula as Silwet L-7001 but 
with all EO units (no PO), Z being methyl and the average molecular weight 
being 6000. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 38a 
(Formulation B applied without MON-0818) and 38b (Formulation B applied 
with 0.09% MON-0818). 
TABLE 38a 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, no sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 30 20 
Formulation B none 300 none 73 81 
Formulation B none 400 none 78 80 
Formulation B none 500 none 83 83 
Formulation B 0.25% L-77 100 none 66 5 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 75 5 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% L-77 70 30 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 75 10 
Formulation B 0.25% 408 100 none 70 10 
Formulation B 0.5% 408 100 none 76 10 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% 408 70 20 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% 408 74 20 
Formulation B 0.25% 800 100 none 70 10 
Formulation B 0.5% 800 100 none 78 10 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% 800 69 30 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% 800 74 25 
Formulation B 0.25% L-7001 100 none 60 10 
Formulation B 0.5% L-7001 100 none 50 15 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% L-7001 50 38 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-7001 28 30 
Formulation B 0.25% L-7500 100 none 48 20 
Formulation B 0.5% L-7500 100 none 40 30 
Formulation B none 100 0.25%L-7500 48 30 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-7500 25 20 
Formulation B 0.25% L-7604 100 none 68 35 
Formulation B 0.5% L-7604 100 none 75 73 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% L-7604 55 23 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-7604 53 20 
Formulation B 0.25% L-7605 100 none 68 51 
Formulation B 0.5% L-7605 100 none 75 50 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% L-7605 70 45 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-7605 60 33 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
TABLE 38b 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, 0.09% sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 60 90 
Formulation B none 300 none 79 97 
Formulation B none 400 none 94 98 
Formulation B none 500 none 94 98 
Formulation B 0.25% L-77 100 none 68 5 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 75 5 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% L-77 60 58 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 75 48 
Formulation B 0.25% 408 100 none 63 18 
Formulation B 0.5% 408 100 none 75 20 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% 408 68 43 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% 408 75 45 
Formulation B 0.25% 800 100 none 70 10 
Formulation B 0.5% 800 100 none 78 10 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% 800 74 65 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% 800 78 43 
Formulation B 0.25% L-7001 100 none 70 30 
Formulation B 0.5% L-7001 100 none 73 35 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% L-7001 63 43 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-7001 55 79 
Formulation B 0.25% L-7500 100 none 66 60 
Formulation B 0.5% L-7500 100 none 75 70 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% L-7500 65 68 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-7500 53 65 
Formulation B 0.25% L-7604 100 none 70 50 
Formulation B 0.5% L-7604 100 none 75 60 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% L-7604 65 63 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-7604 70 65 
Formulation B 0.25% L-7605 100 none 70 55 
Formulation B 0.5% L-7605 100 none 80 74 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% L-7605 69 55 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-7605 70 60 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
In this Example antagonism of glyphosate activity in tank mix was seen on 
Japanese millet, in the presence of MON-0818, with all solutions tested. 
Sequential application reduced antagonism on Japanese millet caused by 
Silwet L-77, Silwet 408, Silwet 800, Silwet L-7001, Silwet L-7500 (0.25% 
only) and Silwet L-7604, but not that caused by Silwet L-7500 (0.5%) and 
Silwet L-7605. 
Example 39 
The procedures of Example 30 were repeated exactly except that initial 
applications were made 13 days after planting velvetleaf and 16 days after 
planting Japanese millet, percent inhibition was determined twenty days 
after initial application, candidate accession agents were applied in tank 
mix and subsequent applications at concentrations of 0.25% and 0.5%, and 
the candidate accession agents in addition to Silwet L-77 were: 
Silwet L-720, described in OSi Specialties brochure titled "Silwet 
surfactants" published 1994 as a 50% product having the general formula 
EQU (CH.sub.3 Si).sub.y-2 [--(O--Si(CH.sub.3).sub.2).sub.x/y --O--(EO).sub.m 
(PO).sub.n --Z].sub.y 
where EO refers to ethylene oxide units and PO to propylene oxide units; in 
Silwet L-720 the ratio of m to n is 50/50, Z is butyl and the average 
molecular weight is 12,000. 
Ethomeen T/30 of Akzo Chemicals Inc.: not specifically described in Akzo's 
brochure titled "Ethoxylated and propoxylated surfactants" published 1991 
but believed to be ethoxylated tallowamine having an average of 20 moles 
EO; abbreviated in tables herein as "Em T/30". 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 39a 
(Formulation B applied without MON-0818) and 39b (Formulation B applied 
with 0.09% MON-0818). 
TABLE 39a 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, no sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 50 20 
Formulation B none 300 none 93 55 
Formulation B none 400 none 97 60 
Formulation B none 500 none 100 92 
Formulation B 0.25% L-77 100 none 74 10 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 90 10 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% L-77 76 30 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 83 20 
Formulation B 0.25% L-720 100 none 53 58 
Formulation B 0.5% L-720 100 none 55 60 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% L-720 50 40 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-720 45 20 
Formulation B 0.25% Em T/30 100 none 83 79 
Formulation B 0.5% Em T/30 100 none 80 85 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% Em T/30 65 40 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Em T/30 60 30 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
TABLE 39b 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, 0.09% sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 79 78 
Formulation B none 300 none 98 98 
Formulation B none 400 none 100 100 
Formulation B none 500 none 99 100 
Formulation B 0.25% L-77 100 none 78 15 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 85 20 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% L-77 78 69 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 83 75 
Formulation B 0.25% L-720 100 none 74 73 
Formulation B 0.5% L-720 100 none 73 70 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% L-720 76 78 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-720 70 71 
Formulation B 0.25% Em T/30 100 none 80 83 
Formulation B 0.5% Em T/30 100 none 80 69 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% Em T/30 75 69 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Em T/30 75 70 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
In this Example antagonism of glyphosate activity in tank mix was seen on 
Japanese millet, in the presence of MON-0818, with the following 
solutions: 0.25% and 0.5% Silwet L-77, 0.25% and 0.5% Silwet L-720, and 
0.5% Ethomeen T/30. Sequential application reduced antagonism on Japanese 
millet caused by Silwet L-77 and Silwet L-720 (0.25% only), but not that 
caused by 0.5% Silwet L-720 and Ethomeen T/30. 
Example 40 
The procedures of Example 30 were repeated exactly except that initial 
applications were made 20 days after planting velvetleaf and 17 days after 
planting Japanese millet, percent inhibition was determined twenty days 
after initial application, candidate accession agents were applied in tank 
mix and subsequent applications at concentrations of 0.25% and 0.5%, and 
the candidate accession agents in addition to Silwet L-77 were: 
Ganex P-904 of ISP: described in ISP Product Literature as alkylated 
polyvinylpyrollidone; abbreviated in tables herein as "P-904". 
Fluorad FC-120 of 3M Company: described in McCutcheon's (loc. cit.) as 25% 
ammonium perfluoroalkyl sulfonate. 
Fluorad FC-129 of 3M Company: described in McCutcheon's (loc. cit.) as 50% 
potassium fluorinated alkyl carboxylates. 
Fluorad FC-170-C of 3M Company: described in McCutcheon's (loc. cit.) as 
95% fluorinated alkyl polyoxyethylene ethanols; abbreviated in tables 
herein as FC-170. 
Fluorad FC-171 of 3M Company: described in McCutcheon's (loc. cit.) as 100% 
fluorinated alkyl alkoxylate. 
Fluorad FC-430 of 3M Company: described in McCutcheon's (loc. cit.) as 100% 
fluorinated alkyl esters. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 40a 
(Formulation B applied without MON-08 18) and 40b (Formulation B applied 
with 0.09% MON-0818). 
TABLE 40a 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, no sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 50 33 
Formulation B none 300 none 88 75 
Formulation B none 400 none 95 83 
Formulation B none 500 none 97 94 
Formulation B 0.25% L-77 100 none 76 20 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 76 13 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% L-77 71 45 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 73 30 
Formulation B 0.25% P-904 100 none 65 73 
Formulation B 0.5% P-904 100 none 30 58 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% P-904 48 64 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% P-904 20 30 
Formulation B 0.25% FC-120 100 none 76 25 
Formulation B 0.5% FC-120 100 none 70 28 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% FC-120 63 40 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% FC-120 75 35 
Formulation B 0.25% FC-129 100 none 50 10 
Formulation B 0.5% FC-129 100 none 63 10 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% FC-129 60 43 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% FC-129 58 35 
Formulation B 0.25% FC-170 100 none 70 33 
Formulation B 0.5% FC-170 100 none 69 40 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% FC-170 68 48 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% FC-170 75 38 
Formulation B 0.25% FC-171 100 none 55 30 
Formulation B 0.5% FC-171 100 none 25 30 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% FC-171 48 55 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% FC-171 30 35 
Formulation B 0.25% FC-430 100 none 45 40 
Formulation B 0.5% FC-430 100 none 53 60 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% FC-430 50 48 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% FC-430 33 40 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
TABLE 40b 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, 0.09% sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 74 97 
Formulation B none 300 none 96 99 
Formulation B none 400 none 97 100 
Formulation B none 500 none 99 100 
Formulation B 0.25% L-77 100 none 58 30 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 78 13 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% L-77 70 75 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 75 80 
Formulation B 0.25% P-904 100 none 73 96 
Formulation B 0.5% P-904 100 none 69 89 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% P-904 70 83 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% P-904 30 83 
Formulation B 0.25% FC-120 100 none 74 20 
Formulation B 0.5% FC-120 100 none 66 30 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% FC-120 80 75 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% FC-120 60 83 
Formulation B 0.25% FC-129 100 none 73 40 
Formulation B 0.5% FC-129 100 none 73 23 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% FC-129 68 65 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% FC-129 65 75 
Formulation B 0.25% FC-170 100 none 75 73 
Formulation B 0.5% FC-170 100 none 73 73 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% FC-170 75 80 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% FC-170 78 93 
Formulation B 0.25% FC-171 100 none 79 65 
Formulation B 0.5% FC-171 100 none 55 70 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% FC-171 70 85 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% FC-171 45 79 
Formulation B 0.25% FC-430 100 none 75 60 
Formulation B 0.5% FC-430 100 none 69 68 
Formulation B none 100 0.25% FC-430 65 80 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% FC-430 58 71 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
In this Example antagonism of glyphosate activity in tank mix was seen on 
Japanese millet, in the presence of MON-0818, with the following 
solutions: 0.25% and 0.5% Silwet L-77, 0.25% and 0.5% Fluorad FC-120, and 
0.25% and 0.5% Fluorad FC-129. Sequential application reduced antagonism 
on Japanese millet in all cases. 
Example 41 
The procedures of Example 30 were repeated exactly except that initial 
applications were made 17 days after planting velvetleaf and 19 days after 
planting to Japanese millet, percent inhibition was determined eighteen 
days after initial application, and the candidate accession agents in 
addition to Silwet L-77 were: 
Fluorad FC-129 as described above. 
Fluorad FC-135 as described above. 
Kinetic: a commercial agricultural spray adjuvant of Helena Chemical 
Company, containing an organosilicone surfactant. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 41a 
(Formulation B applied without MON-0818) and 41b (Formulation B applied 
with 0.09% MON-0818). 
TABLE 41a 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, no sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 3 43 
Formulation B none 300 none 40 80 
Formulation B none 400 none 65 93 
Formulation B none 500 none 83 94 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 75 25 
Formulation B 3.0% L-77 100 none 70 33 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 75 50 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% L-77 35 38 
Formulation B 0.5% FC-129 100 none 40 33 
Formulation B 3.0% FC-129 100 none 50 50 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% FC-129 84 65 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% FC-129 50 43 
Formulation B 0.5% FC-135 100 none 66 83 
Formulation B 3.0% FC-135 100 none 61 64 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% FC-135 58 55 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% FC-135 53 40 
Formulation B 0.5% Kinetic 100 none 68 35 
Formulation B 3.0% Kinetic 100 none 78 38 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Kinetic 58 48 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Kinetic 68 38 
Formulation B FC-129+L-77 100 none 83 35 
(1:49) at 0.5% 
Formulation B FC-129+L-77 100 none 73 350 
(1:49) at 3.0% 
Formulation B none 100 FC-129+L-77 78 49 
(1:49) at 0.5% 
Formulation B none 100 FC-129+L-77 58 35 
(1:49) at 3.0% 
Formulation B FC-129+L-77 100 none 84 30 
(1:19) at 0.5% 
Formulation B FC-129+L-77 100 none 78 40 
(1:19) at 3.0% 
Formulation B none 100 FC-129+L-77 75 55 
(1:19) at 0.5% 
Formulation B none 100 FC-129+L-77 60 33 
(1:19) at 3.0% 
Formulation B FC-129+L-77 100 none 84 38 
(1:9) at 0.5% 
Formulation B FC-129+L-77 100 none 75 35 
(1:9) at 3.0% 
Formulation B none 100 FC-129+L-77 79 45 
(1:9) at 0.5% 
Formulation B none 100 FC-129+L-77 63 33 
(1:9) at 3.0% 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
TABLE 41b 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Subsequent 
Initial application Glypho- application 
93 l/ha, 0.09% sate 93 l/ha 
MON-0818 rate accession % 
accession 
g a.e./ 
agent Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent ha at 4 hrs ABUTH 
ECHCF 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation B 
none 100 none 30 98 
Formulation B none 300 none 64 100 
Formulation B none 400 none 79 100 
Formulation B none 500 none 87 99 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 100 none 85 38 
Formulation B 3.0% L-77 100 none 68 35 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% L-77 75 48 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% L-77 70 68 
Formulation B 0.5% FC-129 100 none 25 30 
Formulation B 3.0% FC-129 100 none 70 43 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% FC-129 83 55 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% FC-129 55 78 
Formulation B 0.5% FC-135 100 none 70 78 
Formulation B 3.0% FC-135 100 none 73 73 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% FC-135 63 80 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% FC-135 63 73 
Formulation B 0.5% Kinetic 100 none 35 43 
Formulation B 3.0% Kinetic 100 none 75 38 
Formulation B none 100 0.5% Kinetic 55 84 
Formulation B none 100 3.0% Kinetic 55 73 
Formulation B FC-129+L-77 100 none 75 40 
(1:49) at 0.5% 
Formulation B FC-129+L-77 100 none 75 35 
(1:49) at 3.0% 
Formulation B none 100 FC-129+L-77 74 89 
(1:49) at 0.5% 
Formulation B none 100 FC-129+L-77 55 73 
(1:49) at 3.0% 
Formulation B FC-129+L-77 100 none 88 33 
(1:19) at 0.5% 
Formulation B FC-129+L-77 100 none 78 43 
(1:19) at 3.0% 
Formulation B none 100 FC-129+L-77 74 60 
(1:19) at 0.5% 
Formulation B none 100 FC-129+L-77 55 73 
(1:19) at 3.0% 
Formulation B FC-129+L-77 100 none 90 33 
(1:9) at 0.5% 
Formulation B FC-129+L-77 100 none 75 35 
(1:9) at 3.0% 
Formulation B none 100 FC-129+L-77 80 50 
(1:9) at 0.5% 
Formulation B none 100 FC-129+L-77 60 55 
(1:9) at 3.0% 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
In this Example antagonism of glyphosate activity in tank mix was seen on 
Japanese millet, in the presence of MON-0818, with all solutions tested. 
Sequential application reduced antagonism on Japanese millet caused by 
Silwet L-77, Fluorad FC-129 and Kinetic but not that caused by Fluorad 
FC-135. 
Example 42 
A field test was conducted to confirm the practical effectiveness of the 
method of the present invention. Weed species were seeded in rows on a 
farm in Arkansas. The following naturally occurring weed species were used 
in evaluating treatments of this Example: A, henbit (Lamium amplexicaule, 
LAMAM); B, shepherd's purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris, CAPBP); C, 
small-flowered bittercress (Cardamine parviflora, CARPA); D, annual 
bluegrass (Poa annua, POAAN); E, little barley (Hordeum pusillum, HORPU). 
After emergence of the weeds, rectangular plots, each 2 m wide and about 9 
m long, were marked out for herbicide treatments. A randomized complete 
block experimental design with four replicates was used. One set of plots 
in each block was left untreated as a reference against which effects of 
the treatments could later be evaluated. 
Initial applications were made when LAMAM, CAPBP and POAAN were in the 
early bloom stage, CARPA was in the mid bloom stage and HORPU was at the 
3-5 tiller stage. Applications were made using a backpack plot sprayer 
pressurized with carbon dioxide and fitted with a boom having four 95015 
tapered flat fan nozzles with 100-mesh screens. Spraying was conducted at 
walking speed (approximately 5 km/h), and was calibrated to deliver a 
spray volume of 93 1/ha at a spray pressure of 193 kPa. 
Plants treated according to methods of prior art, for comparative purposes, 
received an initial treatment only. Plants treated by a method 
illustrative of the present invention received an initial application of 
Formulation C followed sequentially by a subsequent application of an 
accession agent. Two intervals between initial and subsequent 
applications, about 0.05 hour and 3 hours, were tested in this Example. 
Subsequent applications were applied by spraying an accession agent with a 
backpack sprayer fitted exactly as for the initial application and 
calibrated to deliver a spray volume of 93 l/ha at a pressure of 193 kPa. 
Formulation C was applied without accession agent at a range of rates from 
157 to 1254 g a.e./ha. When an accession agent was included in the 
treatment, either in tank mix with Formulation C or as a subsequent 
application, only the four lowest rates of Formulation C, 157, 314, 420 
and 627 g a.e./ha, were tested. This Example uses only one accession 
agent, an aqueous solution containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. Spray solutions 
were prepared immediately before application to minimize hydrolytic 
degradation of Silwet L-77. 
Twenty-nine days after the initial application, all plots in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 42. 
Results shown are an average of the four replicate plots for each 
treatment. 
TABLE 42 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
Subsequent 
93 l/ha Glyphosate application, 93 l/ha 
accession 
rate accession agent 
% Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent 
g a.e./ha 
0.5% L-77 
A B C D E 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation C 
none 157 none 61 
65 
76 
68 83 
Formulation C none 314 none 74 76 84 88 90 
Formulation C none 420 none 76 81 94 89 94 
Formulation C none 627 none 80 84 94 90 96 
Formulation C none 840 none 86 89 96 91 99 
Formulation C none 1254 none 95 94 99 100 100 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 157 none 58 60 65 50 63 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 314 none 69 71 80 60 73 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 420 none 79 81 91 76 85 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 627 none 88 90 98 90 98 
Formulation C none 157 at .about.0.05 hr 70 69 80 68 77 
Formulation C none 314 at .about.0.05 hr 83 85 93 83 93 
Formulation C none 420 at .about.0.05 hr 59 60 68 65 69 
Formulation C none 627 at .about.0.05 hr 64 66 71 71 74 
Formulation C none 157 at 3 hrs 65 63 69 63 81 
Formulation C none 314 at 3 hrs 80 83 93 85 94 
Formulation C none 420 at 3 hrs 80 85 93 88 96 
Formulation C none 627 at 3 hrs 93 90 96 93 99 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Tank mix application of an accession agent containing Silwet L-77 with 
Formulation C in this Example antagonized glyphosate activity at low 
glyphosate rates, with the antagonism being especially marked on POAAN and 
HORPU, the two grass species evaluated. This test demonstrates that, under 
field conditions, such antagonism can be reduced or overcome by sequential 
application of the accession agent after the glyphosate composition 
according to the method of the present invention. 
Example 43 
A field test was conducted to confirm the practical effectiveness of the 
method of the present invention. Weed species were seeded in rows on a 
farm in southern Alabama. The following species were used in evaluating 
treatments of this Example: A, henbit (Lamium amplexicaule, LAMAM); F, 
cutleaf evening primrose (Primula trientalis, PRITR); G, canola (Brassica 
napus, BRSNC); H, carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum, GERCA); I, 
wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis, SINAR). 
After emergence of the weeds, rectangular plots, each 2 m wide in the 
dimension parallel to the weed rows, and of such a length (.about.4.5 m) 
as to extend across all planted rows, were marked out for herbicide 
treatments. A randomized complete block experimental design with four 
replicates was used. One set of plots in each block was left untreated as 
a reference against which effects of the treatments could later be 
evaluated. 
Initial applications were made 64 days after planting, using a backpack 
plot sprayer pressurized with carbon dioxide and fitted with a boom having 
four 11002 tapered flat fan nozzles with 50-mesh screens. Spraying was 
conducted at walking speed (approximately 5 km/h), in a direction 
perpendicular to the weed rows, and was calibrated to deliver a spray 
volume of 93 l/ha at a spray pressure of 179 kPa. 
Plants treated according to methods of prior art, for comparative purposes, 
received an initial treatment only. Glyphosate formulations used in this 
Example included Formulations A, B, C and J. 
Plants treated by a method illustrative of the present invention received 
an initial application of Formulation A, B, C or J, followed sequentially 
one hour later by a subsequent application of an accession agent. 
Subsequent applications were applied by spraying an accession agent with a 
backpack sprayer fitted exactly as for the initial application and 
calibrated to deliver a spray volume of 93 l/ha at a pressure of 179 kPa. 
Formulations were applied without accession agent at a range of rates from 
314 to 627 g a.e./ha. When an accession agent was included in the 
treatment, either in tank or as a subsequent application, only the two 
lowest rates of each formulation, 314 and 420 g a.e./ha, were tested. This 
Example uses only one accession agent, an aqueous solution containing 0.5% 
Silwet L-77. Spray solutions were prepared immediately before application 
to minimize hydrolytic degradation of Silwet L-77. 
Twenty-four days after the initial application, all plots in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 43. 
Results shown are an average of the four replicate plots for each 
treatment. 
TABLE 43 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
Subsequent 
93 l/ha Glyphosate application, 93 l/ha 
accession 
rate accession agent 
% Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent 
g a.e./ha 
0.5% L-77 
A F G H I 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 314 none 91 
64 
79 
60 
76 
Formulation A none 420 none 94 75 83 65 83 
Formulation A none 627 none 96 78 90 76 90 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 314 none 86 63 69 69 66 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 420 none 91 70 77 68 68 
Formulation A none 314 at 1 hr 89 64 74 64 76 
Formulation A none 420 at 1 hr 99 71 85 66 88 
Formulation B none 314 none 79 70 81 68 76 
Formulation B none 420 none 89 69 80 68 85 
Formulation B none 627 none 94 80 89 76 91 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 314 none 91 60 73 65 71 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 420 none 98 71 79 70 81 
Formulation B none 314 at 1 hr 86 63 78 68 75 
Formulation B none 420 at 1 hr 98 78 85 68 87 
Formulation C none 314 none 89 73 79 69 87 
Formulation C none 420 none 96 68 88 65 90 
Formulation C none 627 none 99 80 89 80 96 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 314 none 93 55 65 66 63 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 420 none 97 70 80 73 71 
Formulation C none 314 at 1 hr 89 68 80 65 80 
Formulation C none 420 at 1 hr 97 76 90 74 88 
Formulation J none 314 none 81 74 82 66 85 
Formulation J none 420 none 93 76 89 65 91 
Formulation J none 627 none 93 79 90 75 85 
Formulation J 0.5% L-77 314 none 95 70 67 70 66 
Formulation J 0.5% L-77 420 none 98 73 82 74 82 
Formulation J none 314 at 1 hr 93 66 81 68 73 
Formulation J none 420 at 1 hr 95 73 89 70 87 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Tank mix application of an accession agent containing Silwet L-77 with all 
four glyphosate formulations in this Example antagonized glyphosate 
activity at low glyphosate rates, with the antagonism being especially 
marked on BRSNC and SINAR. This test demonstrates that, under field 
conditions, such antagonism can be reduced or overcome by sequential 
application of the accession agent after the glyphosate composition 
according to the method of the present invention. 
Example 44 
A field test was conducted to confirm the practical effectiveness of the 
method of the present invention. Weed species were seeded in rows on a 
farm in west central Illinois. The following species were used in 
evaluating treatments of this Example: I, wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis, 
SINAR); J, wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus, POLCO); K, winter wheat 
(Triticum aestivum, TRZAW); L, wild oat (Avena fatua, AVEFA); M, annual 
ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum, LOLMU), N. giant foxtail (Setaria faberi, 
SETFA); O, redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus, AMARE). 
After emergence of the weeds, rectangular plots, each 2 m wide in the 
dimension parallel to the weed rows, and of such a length (.about.6.5 m) 
as to extend across all planted rows, were marked out for herbicide 
treatments. A randomized complete block experimental design with three 
replicates was used. One set of plots in each block was left untreated as 
a reference against which effects of the treatments could later be 
evaluated. 
Initial applications were made 53 days after planting, using a backpack 
plot sprayer pressurized with carbon dioxide and fitted with a boom having 
four 80015 tapered flat fan nozzles with 50-mesh screens. Spraying was 
conducted at walking speed (approximately 5 km/h), in a direction 
perpendicular to the weed rows, and was calibrated to deliver a spray 
volume of 93 l/ha at a spray pressure of 193 kPa. 
Plants treated according to methods of prior art, for comparative purposes, 
received an initial treatment only. Glyphosate formulations used in this 
Example included Formulations A, B, C and J. 
Plants treated by a method illustrative of the present invention received 
an initial application of Formulation A, B, C or J, followed sequentially 
one hour later by a subsequent application of an accession agent. 
Subsequent applications were applied by spraying an accession agent with a 
backpack sprayer fitted exactly as for the initial application and 
calibrated to deliver a spray volume of 93 l/ha at a pressure of 193 kPa. 
Formulations were applied without accession agent at a range of rates from 
157 to 627 g a.e./ha. When an accession agent was included in the 
treatment, either in tank or as a subsequent application, only the two 
lowest rates of each formulation, 157 and 314 g a.e./ha, were tested. This 
Example uses only one accession agent, an aqueous solution containing 0.5% 
Silwet L-77. Spray solutions were prepared immediately before application 
to minimize hydrolytic degradation of Silwet L-77. 
Twenty-one days after the initial application, all plots in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 44. 
Results shown are an average of the three replicate plots for each 
treatment. 
TABLE 44 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
Subsequent 
93 l/ha Glyphosate application, 93 l/ha 
accession rate accession agent 
% Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent 
g a.e./ha 
0.5% L-77 
I J K L M N O 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formul'n A 
none 157 none 23 
12 
28 50 45 
57 
20 
Formul'n A none 314 none 35 18 68 85 70 83 50 
Formul'n A none 420 none 55 35 87 97 82 90 68 
Formul'n A none 627 none 87 65 98 99 91 93 82 
Formul'n A 0.5% L-77 157 none 53 62 52 67 60 72 40 
Formul'n A 0.5% L-77 314 none 85 87 89 98 83 94 73 
Formul'n A none 157 at 1 hr 53 37 57 77 57 75 43 
Formul'n A none 314 at 1 hr 70 47 91 97 88 90 73 
Formul'n B none 157 none 30 17 25 45 40 63 28 
Formul'n B none 314 none 37 20 47 67 65 73 40 
Formul'n B none 420 none 53 30 40 67 70 75 53 
Formul'n B none 627 none 77 55 78 80 82 91 75 
Formul'n B 0.5% L-77 157 none 72 77 62 82 72 77 47 
Formul'n B 0.5% L-77 314 none 75 82 94 93 78 87 63 
Formul'n B none 157 at 1 hr 32 23 18 40 33 47 25 
Formul'n B none 314 at 1 hr 62 42 47 77 67 77 47 
Formul'n C none 157 none 35 12 55 75 65 78 43 
Formul'n C none 314 none 63 32 84 96 82 85 68 
Formul'n C none 420 none 62 30 92 100 83 82 53 
Formul'n C none 627 none 87 75 98 100 91 93 80 
Formul'n C 0.5% L-77 157 none 45 53 42 65 62 72 40 
Formul'n C 0.5% L-77 314 none 75 65 52 85 78 85 68 
Formul'n C none 157 at 1 hr 40 32 43 80 57 75 33 
Formul'n C none 314 at 1 hr 63 47 95 99 83 90 70 
Formul'n J none 157 none 30 17 73 89 73 83 60 
Formul'n J none 314 none 37 23 85 96 87 88 52 
Formul'n J none 420 none 68 55 98 100 94 92 68 
Formul'n J none 627 none 75 65 100 98 95 92 70 
Formul'n J 0.5% L-77 157 none 63 43 57 78 60 77 30 
Formul'n J 0.5% L-77 314 none 73 85 82 92 80 92 60 
Formul'n J none 157 at 1 hr 37 22 63 77 68 75 35 
Formul'n J none 314 at 1 hr 68 50 92 98 88 92 72 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Tank mix application of an accession agent containing Silwet L-77 with 
Formulation C in this Example antagonized glyphosate activity on TRZAW and 
AVEFA, but this antagonism was substantially reduced when the accession 
agent was applied sequentially according to the method of the present 
invention. Tank mix antagonism was also evident with Formulation J on 
AVEFA, LOLMU and AMARE; again this antagonism was substantially reduced by 
sequential application according to the method of the present invention. 
Example 45 
A field test was conducted to confirm the practical effectiveness of the 
method of the present invention. Weed species were seeded in rows on a 
farm in Arkansas. The following species were used in evaluating treatments 
of this Example: I, wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis, SINAR); M, annual 
ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum, LOLMU), P, downy brome (Bromus tectorum, 
BROTE); Q, cutleaf geranium (Geranium dissectum, GERDI); R, curly dock 
(Rumex crispus, RUMCR). 
After emergence of the weeds, rectangular plots, each 2 m wide in the 
dimension parallel to the weed rows, and of such a length (.about.4.5 m) 
as to extend across all planted rows, were marked out for herbicide 
treatments. A randomized complete block experimental design with four 
replicates was used. One set of plots in each block was left untreated as 
a reference against which effects of the treatments could later be 
evaluated. 
Initial applications were made 62 days after planting, using a backpack 
plot sprayer pressurized with carbon dioxide and fitted with a boom having 
four 95015 tapered flat fan nozzles with 100-mesh screens. Spraying was 
conducted at walking speed (approximately 5 km/h), in a direction 
perpendicular to the weed rows, and was calibrated to deliver a spray 
volume of 93 1/ha at a spray pressure of 193 kPa. 
Plants treated according to methods of prior art, for comparative purposes, 
received an initial treatment only. Glyphosate formulations used in this 
Example included Formulations A, B, C and J. 
Plants treated by a method illustrative of the present invention received 
an initial application of Formulation A, B, C or J, followed sequentially 
five hours later by a subsequent application of an accession agent. 
Subsequent applications were applied by spraying an accession agent with a 
backpack sprayer fitted exactly as for the initial application and 
calibrated to deliver a spray volume of 93 l/ha at a pressure of 193 kPa. 
Formulations were applied without accession agent at a range of rates from 
314 to 840 g a.e./ha. When an accession agent was included in the 
treatment, either in tank or as a subsequent application, only two rates 
of each formulation, 420 and 627 g a.e./ha, were tested. This Example uses 
only one accession agent, an aqueous solution containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. 
Spray solutions were prepared immediately before application to minimize 
hydrolytic degradation of Silwet L-77. 
Twenty days after the initial application, all plots in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 45. 
Results shown are an average of the four replicate plots for each 
treatment. 
TABLE 45 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
Subsequent 
93 l/ha Glyphosate application, 93 l/ha 
accession 
rate accession agent 
% Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent 
g a.e./ha 
0.5% L-77 
I M P Q R 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 314 none 83 55 
73 
65 68 
Formulation A none 420 none 98 75 88 90 84 
Formulation A none 627 none 96 80 88 95 91 
Formulation A none 840 none 100 85 94 96 95 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 420 none 93 63 73 91 88 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 627 none 95 80 93 93 88 
Formulation A none 420 at 5 hrs 63 48 58 58 50 
Formulation A none 627 at 5 hrs 93 81 95 95 83 
Formulation B none 314 none 83 45 63 58 55 
Formulation B none 420 none 88 58 78 80 79 
Formulation B none 627 none 93 63 83 88 88 
Formulation B none 840 none 93 78 88 95 90 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 420 none 83 50 65 80 75 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 627 none 98 71 86 96 88 
Formulation B none 420 at 5 hrs 88 55 76 81 75 
Formulation B none 627 at 5 hrs 98 70 83 96 94 
Formulation C none 314 none 80 58 83 55 58 
Formulation C none 420 none 95 78 93 89 88 
Formulation C none 627 none 100 80 90 100 95 
Formulation C none 840 none 100 93 95 100 95 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 420 none 85 60 65 70 70 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 627 none 90 78 86 94 78 
Formulation C none 420 at 5 hrs 88 68 88 85 83 
Formulation C none 627 at 5 hrs 95 79 93 93 85 
Formulation J none 314 none 83 65 86 68 73 
Formulation J none 420 none 98 85 96 90 88 
Formulation J none 627 none 98 85 95 96 90 
Formulation J none 840 none 100 94 98 100 96 
Formulation J 0.5% L-77 420 none 83 63 73 84 66 
Formulation J 0.5% L-77 627 none 95 73 89 90 91 
Formulation J none 420 at 5 hrs 90 73 88 88 80 
Formulation J none 627 at 5 hrs 100 85 98 96 93 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Antagonism was observed on particular species with several tank mix 
accession agent treatments in this Example. It was especially marked with 
Formulation J. Application of the accession agent sequentially according 
to the present invention substantially reduced this antagonism wherever it 
occurred. 
Example 46 
A field test was conducted to confirm the practical effectiveness of the 
method of the present invention. Weed species were seeded in rows on a 
farm in southern Alabama. The following species were used in evaluating 
treatments of this Example: S, broadleaf signalgrass (Brachiaria 
platyphylla, BRAPP); T, barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCG); U, 
johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense, SORHA); V, prickly sida (Sida spinosa, 
SIDSP); W, pigweed (Amaranthus sp., AMASS); X, velvetleaf (Abutilon 
theophrasti, ABUTH); Y, hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata, SEBEX); Z, 
sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia, CASOB); AA, pitted morningglory (Ipomoea 
lacunosa, IPOLA). 
After emergence of the weeds, rectangular plots, each 2 m wide in the 
dimension parallel to the weed rows, and of such a length (.about.4.5 m) 
as to extend across all planted rows, were marked out for herbicide 
treatments. A randomized complete block experimental design with four 
replicates was used. One set of plots in each block was left untreated as 
a reference against which effects of the treatments could later be 
evaluated. 
Initial applications were made 14 days after planting, using a backpack 
plot sprayer pressurized with carbon dioxide and fitted with a boom having 
four 11002 tapered flat fan nozzles with 50-mesh screens. Spraying was 
conducted at walking speed (approximately 5 km/h), in a direction 
perpendicular to the weed rows, and was calibrated to deliver a spray 
volume of 93 l/ha at a spray pressure of 193 kPa. 
Plants treated according to methods of prior art, for comparative purposes, 
received an initial treatment only. Glyphosate formulations used in this 
Example included Formulations A, B, C and J. 
Plants treated by a method illustrative of the present invention received 
an initial application of Formulation A, B, C or J, followed sequentially 
four hours later by a subsequent application of an accession agent. 
Subsequent applications were applied by spraying an accession agent with a 
backpack sprayer fitted exactly as for the initial application and 
calibrated to deliver a spray volume of 93 l/ha at a pressure of 193 kPa. 
Formulations were applied without accession agent at a range of rates from 
420 to 1265 g a.e./ha. When an accession agent was included in the 
treatment, either in tank or as a subsequent application, only two rates 
of each formulation, 420 and 627 g a.e./ha, were tested. This Example uses 
only one accession agent, an aqueous solution containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. 
Spray solutions were prepared immediately before application to minimize 
hydrolytic degradation of Silwet L-77. 
Twenty-six days after the initial application, all plots in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 46a 
and 46b. Results shown are an average of the four replicate plots for each 
treatment. 
TABLE 46a 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
Subsequent 
93 l/ha Glyphosate application, 93 l/ha 
accession 
rate accession agent 
% Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent 
g a.e./ha 
0.5% L-77 
S T U V W 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 420 none 91 
91 
96 91 97 
Formulation A none 627 none 95 90 98 97 98 
Formulation A none 1265 none 93 93 96 100 98 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 420 none 90 88 98 99 99 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 627 none 95 91 99 97 98 
Formulation A none 420 at 4 hrs 91 92 95 100 96 
Formulation A none 627 at 4 hrs 92 94 98 99 97 
Formulation B none 420 none 89 82 91 96 94 
Formulation B none 627 none 92 88 95 99 98 
Formulation B none 1265 none 96 97 99 100 100 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 420 none 89 88 91 99 95 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 627 none 90 88 95 99 94 
Formulation B none 420 at 4 hrs 91 83 90 95 93 
Formulation B none 627 at 4 hrs 94 87 89 95 96 
Formulation C none 420 none 90 91 96 92 95 
Formulation C none 627 none 94 96 98 97 97 
Formulation C none 1265 none 99 99 100 100 99 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 420 none 89 85 96 94 92 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 627 none 92 92 96 96 95 
Formulation C none 420 at 4 hrs 92 93 97 97 98 
Formulation C none 627 at 4 hrs 92 90 97 95 95 
Formulation J none 420 none 90 92 95 94 94 
Formulation J none 627 none 93 95 95 99 99 
Formulation J none 1265 none 95 96 98 100 99 
Formulation J 0.5% L-77 420 none 88 84 93 97 94 
Formulation J 0.5% L-77 627 none 88 89 94 99 95 
Formulation J none 420 at 4 hrs 94 92 95 92 95 
Formulation J none 627 at 4 hrs 96 98 99 100 99 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
TABLE 46b 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
Subsequent 
93 l/ha Glyphosate application, 93 l/ha 
accession 
rate accession agent 
% Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent 
g a.e./ha 
0.5% L-77 
X Y Z AA 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 420 none 79 
90 91 65 
Formulation A none 627 none 88 97 94 79 
Formulation A none 1265 none 96 100 99 89 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 420 none 97 94 90 68 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 627 none 94 96 93 82 
Formulation A none 420 at 4 hrs 90 90 93 60 
Formulation A none 627 at 4 hrs 94 96 96 78 
Formulation B none 420 none 83 56 78 71 
Formulation B none 627 none 86 71 88 71 
Formulation B none 1265 none 97 89 93 90 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 420 none 93 83 85 69 
Formulation B 0.5% L-77 627 none 95 93 92 77 
Formulation B none 420 at 4 hrs 89 54 74 65 
Formulation B none 627 at 4 hrs 94 67 77 70 
Formulation C none 420 none 82 90 92 71 
Formulation C none 627 none 91 96 97 73 
Formulation C none 1265 none 95 99 100 94 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 420 none 91 93 90 58 
Formulation C 0.5% L-77 627 none 85 90 93 63 
Formulation C none 420 at 4 hrs 92 92 92 61 
Formulation C none 627 at 4 hrs 94 94 95 64 
Formulation J none 420 none 84 93 93 66 
Formulation J none 627 none 92 98 99 82 
Formulation J none 1265 none 98 100 97 85 
Formulation J 0.5% L-77 420 none 93 89 90 59 
Formulation J 0.5% L-77 627 none 95 98 98 63 
Formulation J none 420 at 4 hrs 91 93 93 63 
Formulation J none 627 at 4 hrs 96 94 95 68 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulations C and J were mildly antagonized in this test on ECHCG and 
IPOLA by tank mix application of an accession agent containing Silwet 
L-77. Sequential application according to the present invention reduced 
antagonism, at least on ECHCG. 
Example 47 
Morningglory (Ipomea sp., IPOSS) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a 
greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent applications by 
procedures exactly as described for Example 1, except where otherwise 
noted below. 
The herbicide in this Example was Basta, a product of AgrEvo containing as 
active ingredient the ammonium salt of 
DL-homoalanin-4-yl(methyl)phosphinate (glufosinate). The particular 
formulation of Basta used in this Example was an aqueous concentrate 
containing 200 grams of active ingredient per liter (g a.i./l), and is 
believed to further contain a surfactant. 
Initial applications of Basta, alone or in tank mix with a candidate 
accession agent, were applied 20 days after planting. Basta was applied 
without candidate accession agent and in tank mix with a candidate 
accession agent at a range of rates from 300 to 1200 g a.i./ha. When a 
candidate accession agent was included in the treatment as a subsequent 
application, Basta was tested at a range of rates from 300 to 800 g 
a.i./ha. This Example includes as candidate accession agent an aqueous 
solution containing 0.5% Silwet L-77. 
All subsequent applications in this Example were made by spraying the 
candidate accession agent with a track sprayer fitted as in Example 1 but 
calibrated to deliver a spray volume of 280 l/ha at a pressure of 166 kPa. 
The time interval between initial and subsequent applications was 1 hour. 
Seventeen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 47. 
TABLE 47 
______________________________________ 
Initial application 
93 l/ha Herbicide Subsequent application % 
accession rate 280 l/ha Inhibition 
herbicide agent g a.i./ha accession agent IPOSS 
______________________________________ 
Basta none 300 none 31 
Basta none 400 none 42 
Basta none 500 none 59 
Basta none 600 none 73 
Basta none 800 none 73 
Basta none 1000 none 90 
Basta none 1200 none 96 
Basta 0.5% L-77 300 none 37 
Basta 0.5% L-77 400 none 48 
Basta 0.5% L-77 500 none 56 
Basta 0.5% L-77 600 none 59 
Basta 0.5% L-77 800 none 57 
Basta 0.5% L-77 1000 none 85 
Basta 0.5% L-77 1200 none 94 
Basta none 300 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 35 
Basta none 400 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 35 
Basta none 500 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 41 
Basta none 600 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 40 
Basta none 800 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 90 
______________________________________ 
This test was inconclusive. However, at the Basta rate (800 g a.i./ha) 
showing strongest tank mix antagonism caused by Silwet L-77, this 
antagonism was removed by application of the Silwet L-77 as a sequential 
treatment according to the present invention. 
Example 48 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa 
crus-galli, ECHCG) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse 
and treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures 
substantially as described for Example 1, except where otherwise noted 
below. 
Herbicides in this Example included the following formulated products: 
Weedone LV-4, a low-volatile ester formulation of Rhone-Poulenc containing 
480 g a.e./l of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D); Goal, an 
emulsifiable concentrate formulation of Rohm & Haas containing as active 
ingredient 2-chloro-1-(3-ethoxy-4-nitrophenoxy)-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzene 
(oxyfluorfen); Amber, a water dispersible granular formulation of 
Ciba-Geigy containing as active ingredient 
2-(2-chloroethoxy)-N-(((4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino)carbon 
yl)benzenesulfonamide (triasulfuron); Pursuit, an aqueous concentrate 
formulation of American Cyanamid containing as active ingredient 
2-(4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl)-5-ethyl- 
3-pyridinecarboxylic acid (imazethapyr); Fusilade 2000, an emulsifiable 
concentrate formulation of Zeneca containing as active ingredient butyl 
R-2-(4-((5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl)oxy)phenoxy)propanoate 
(fluazifop-P-butyl); Gramoxone, an aqueous concentrate formulation of 
Zeneca containing as active ingredient 1,1'-dimethyl-4,4'-bipyridinium 
dichloride (paraquat); Ignite, an aqueous concentrate formulation of 
AgroEvo containing as active ingredient the ammonium salt of 
DL-homoalanin-4-yl(methyl)phosphinate (glufosinate). The unformulated 
(technical) active ingredients of all the above herbicides except for 
Ignite were also included. In the case of 2,4-D, the acid was used. A 
commercial glyphosate formulation (Formulation A) and, as technical 
material, the isopropylamine (IPA) salt of glyphosate, were also applied 
in this Example. Water was used as the spray carrier for all formulated 
products, and for technical IPA glyphosate and paraquat. Basic water was 
used as the spray carrier for technical triasulfuron. Acetone was used as 
the spray carrier for technical 2,4-D acid. Methanol was used as the spray 
carrier for technical oxyfluorfen, imazethapyr and fluazifop-P-butyl. 
TABLE 48 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
Herbicide 
187 l/ha rate Subsequent % Inhibition 
accession 
g a.i. or 
application 187 l/ha 
12 DAT 23 DAT 
herbicide 
agent 
a.e./ha 
accession agent 
ABUTH 
ECHCG 
ABUTH 
ECHCG 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Formulation A 
none 100 none 0 0 0 0 
Formulation A none 300 none 82 75 67 53 
Formulation A none 500 none 100 78 100 60 
Formulation A none 800 none 100 96 98 87 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 100 none 90 0 90 0 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 300 none 97 0 97 3 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 500 none 100 10 100 3 
Formulation A 0.5% L-77 800 none 100 53 95 40 
Formulation A none 100 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 96 0 87 0 
Formulation A none 300 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 100 43 100 27 
Formulation A none 500 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 100 87 100 75 
Formulation A none 800 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 100 99 100 94 
glyphosate IPA none 100 none 7 7 3 3 
glyphosate IPA none 300 none 32 28 47 13 
glyphosate IPA none 500 none 33 57 37 30 
glyphosate IPA none 800 none 87 78 88 63 
glyphosate IPA 0.5% L-77 100 none 92 0 90 0 
glyphosate IPA 0.5% L-77 300 none 100 0 100 0 
glyphosate IPA 0.5% L-77 500 none 100 0 100 0 
glyphosate IPA 0.5% L-77 800 none 100 10 100 10 
glyphosate IPA none 100 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 100 17 100 10 
glyphosate IPA none 300 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 100 13 100 3 
glyphosate IPA none 500 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 100 60 100 40 
glyphosate IPA none 800 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 100 47 98 33 
Weedone none 70 none 10 0 30 0 
Weedone none 140 none 25 0 40 0 
Weedone none 280 none 57 10 60 7 
Weedone none 560 none 60 3 72 3 
Weedone 0.5% L-77 70 none 13 0 37 0 
Weedone 0.5% L-77 140 none 27 0 43 0 
Weedone 0.5% L-77 280 none 35 0 67 3 
Weedone 0.5% L-77 560 none 62 0 89 7 
Weedone none 70 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 10 0 32 0 
Weedone none 140 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 20 7 40 3 
Weedone none 280 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 35 7 60 0 
Weedone none 560 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 58 7 77 0 
2,4-D acid none 70 none 10 10 13 17 
2,4-D acid none 140 none 17 0 17 10 
2,4-D acid none 280 none 30 0 43 10 
2,4-D acid none 560 none 60 17 70 20 
2,4-D acid 0.5% L-77 70 none 27 0 30 10 
2,4-D acid 0.5% L-77 140 none 33 13 57 7 
2,4-D acid 0.5% L-77 280 none 60 7 82 17 
2,4-D acid 0.5% L-77 560 none 63 13 83 10 
2,4-D acid none 70 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 13 7 17 7 
2,4-D acid none 140 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 47 12 43 17 
2,4-D acid none 280 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 62 10 80 10 
2,4-D acid none 560 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 67 13 82 17 
Goal none 70 none 30 33 28 0 
Goal none 140 none 37 43 27 20 
Goal none 280 none 73 73 53 43 
Goal none 560 none 58 87 30 80 
Goal 0.5% L-77 70 none 67 47 60 27 
Goal 0.5% L-77 140 none 65 55 63 43 
Goal 0.5% L-77 280 none 87 73 78 60 
Goal 0.5% L-77 560 none 98 95 93 83 
Goal none 70 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 28 30 40 0 
Goal none 140 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 30 53 40 33 
Goal none 280 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 67 68 57 53 
Goal none 560 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 75 77 80 60 
oxyfluorfen none 70 none 90 53 83 47 
oxyfluorfen none 140 none 97 90 90 77 
oxyfluorfen none 280 none 100 99 100 99 
oxyfluorfen none 560 none 100 99 100 99 
oxyfluorfen 0.5% L-77 70 none 67 43 63 23 
oxyfluorfen 0.5% L-77 140 none 77 67 75 50 
oxyfluorfen 0.5% L-77 280 none 92 88 85 63 
oxyfluorfen 0.5% L-77 560 none 88 89 85 70 
oxyfluorfen none 70 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 80 73 75 47 
oxyfluorfen none 140 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 93 88 82 63 
oxyfluorfen none 280 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 99 95 98 87 
oxyfluorfen none 560 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 98 96 97 90 
Amber none 18 none 70 0 70 3 
Amber none 35 none 70 0 75 3 
Amber none 70 none 70 0 75 0 
Amber none 140 none 72 0 75 0 
Amber 0.5% L-77 18 none 88 0 95 0 
Amber 0.5% L-77 35 none 90 0 95 0 
Amber 0.5% L-77 70 none 97 62 99 57 
Amber 0.5% L-77 140 none 96 53 99 43 
Amber none 18 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 88 3 90 3 
Amber none 35 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 87 0 95 0 
Amber none 70 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 96 13 97 27 
Amber none 140 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 92 7 96 23 
triasulfuron none 18 none 70 0 75 10 
triasulfuron none 35 none 73 7 80 0 
triasulfuron none 70 none 75 15 83 0 
triasulfuron none 140 none 77 57 80 30 
triasulfuron 0.5% L-77 18 none 72 17 85 3 
triasulfuron 0.5% L-77 35 none 73 23 85 20 
triasulfuron 0.5% L-77 70 none 80 53 93 37 
triasulfuron 0.5% L-77 140 none 78 73 93 60 
triasulfuron none 18 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 78 0 80 0 
triasulfuron none 35 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 83 17 90 13 
triasulfuron none 70 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 82 13 92 10 
triasulfuron none 140 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 88 50 92 17 
Pursuit none 9 none 30 0 30 0 
Pursuit none 18 none 27 0 30 0 
Pursuit none 35 none 40 0 30 0 
Pursuit none 70 none 72 0 67 7 
Pursuit 0.5% L-77 9 none 73 43 72 20 
Pursuit 0.5% L-77 18 none 75 75 75 50 
Pursuit 0.5% L-77 35 none 75 78 80 72 
Pursuit 0.5% L-77 70 none 75 83 85 88 
Pursuit none 9 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 63 0 73 0 
Pursuit none 18 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 62 3 77 7 
Pursuit none 35 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 80 60 77 33 
Pursuit none 70 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 80 60 93 40 
imazethapyr none 9 none 10 0 10 0 
imazethapyr none 18 none 23 12 20 0 
imazethapyr none 35 none 30 17 37 7 
imazethapyr none 70 none 37 13 50 13 
imazethapyr 0.5% L-77 9 none 60 63 42 30 
imazethapyr 0.5% L-77 18 none 65 82 53 85 
imazethapyr 0.5% L-77 35 none 70 77 70 77 
imazethapyr 0.5% L-77 70 none 72 90 72 95 
imazethapyr none 9 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 73 30 68 30 
imazethapyr none 18 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 68 40 72 40 
imazethapyr none 35 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 68 27 70 37 
imazethapyr none 70 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 73 85 73 92 
Fusilade 2000 none 9 none 3 3 0 0 
Fusilade 2000 none 18 none 0 15 0 23 
Fusilade 2000 none 35 none 0 33 0 23 
Fusilade 2000 none 70 none 0 43 0 37 
Fusilade 2000 0.5% L-77 9 none 7 3 0 10 
Fusilade 2000 0.5% L-77 18 none 0 57 0 33 
Fusilade 2000 0.5% L-77 35 none 3 77 0 73 
Fusilade 2000 0.5% L-77 70 none 0 78 0 78 
Fusilade 2000 none 9 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 30 3 20 0 
Fusilade 2000 none 18 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 3 17 0 7 
Fusilade 2000 none 35 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 0 15 0 17 
Fusilade 2000 none 70 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 0 70 0 70 
fluazifop-p none 9 none 0 20 0 27 
fluazifop-p none 18 none 0 63 0 63 
fluazifop-p none 35 none 0 70 0 87 
fluazifop-p none 70 none 0 85 0 97 
fluazifop-p 0.5% L-77 9 none 8 23 7 33 
fluazifop-p 0.5% L-77 18 none 0 60 0 78 
fluazifop-p 0.5% L-77 35 none 0 85 0 92 
fluazifop-p 0.5% L-77 70 none 0 97 0 98 
fluazifop-p none 9 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 3 30 7 43 
fluazifop-p none 18 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 0 53 0 63 
fluazifop-p none 35 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 0 70 0 83 
fluazifop-p none 70 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 0 93 0 97 
Gramoxone none 100 none 13 3 0 10 
Gramoxone none 300 none 60 13 60 3 
Gramoxone none 500 none 67 33 70 13 
Gramoxone none 800 none 83 53 77 37 
Gramoxone 0.5% L-77 100 none 23 3 10 3 
Gramoxone 0.5% L-77 300 none 63 13 77 13 
Gramoxone 0.5% L-77 500 none 77 50 85 23 
Gramoxone 0.5% L-77 800 none 100 35 100 27 
Gramoxone none 100 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 23 0 10 0 
Gramoxone none 300 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 90 13 93 10 
Gramoxone none 500 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 100 50 100 47 
Gramoxone none 800 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 100 70 100 63 
paraquat none 100 none 13 10 7 10 
paraquat none 300 none 50 13 53 13 
paraquat none 500 none 40 30 53 20 
paraquat none 800 none 67 50 77 53 
paraquat 0.5% L-77 100 none 10 0 10 0 
paraquat 0.5% L-77 300 none 30 15 63 10 
paraquat 0.5% L-77 500 none 47 23 65 7 
paraquat 0.5% L-77 800 none 93 30 97 10 
paraquat none 100 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 13 13 13 0 
paraquat none 300 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 33 27 40 0 
paraquat none 500 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 87 30 83 23 
paraquat none 800 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 90 40 80 20 
Ignite none 100 none 0 3 0 0 
Ignite none 300 none 20 37 0 27 
Ignite none 500 none 67 55 50 40 
Ignite none 800 none 94 83 78 77 
Ignite 0.5% L-77 100 none 23 3 13 7 
Ignite 0.5% L-77 300 none 33 0 17 0 
Ignite 0.5% L-77 500 none 87 7 80 0 
Ignite 0.5% L-77 800 none 77 23 67 23 
Ignite none 100 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 27 0 27 0 
Ignite none 300 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 92 7 92 3 
Ignite none 500 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 93 57 93 53 
Ignite none 800 0.5% L-77 at 0.5 hr 95 60 92 48 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Tank mix antagonism was evident from Silwet L-77 on the following 
herbicides in this Example: glyphosate (both as Formulation A and as 
technical IPA salt), oxyfluorfen (as technical material), paraquat (as 
technical material) and glufosinate (as Ignite). Sequential application 
according to the present invention reduced the antagonism in all the above 
cases. 
Example 49 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet, a form of 
bamyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and prickly sida (Sida 
spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse and 
treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly as 
described for Example 1, except where otherwise noted below. 
Glufosinate as its ammonium salt in unformulated (technical) form was used 
as the herbicidally active agent for this Example. Initial applications of 
glufosinate, alone or in tank mix with a candidate accession agent, were 
applied on the same day, 14 days after planting velvetleaf, 14 days after 
planting Japanese millet, and 21 days after planting prickly sida. All 
treatments were applied by spraying with a track sprayer fitted with a 
single 8002E nozzle calibrated to deliver a spray volume of 187 l/ha at a 
pressure of 173 kPa. Glufosinate was applied in water with and without 
candidate accession agent at a range of rates from 200 to 900 g a.e./ha. 
This Example includes as candidate accession agents aqueous solutions 
containing Silwet L-77 at concentrations ranging from 0.25% to 1.5% by 
volume. When Silwet L-77 was applied subsequently, the time interval 
between initial and subsequent applications ranged from 1 to 24 hours. 
Fifteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 49. 
TABLE 49 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
187 l/ha Herbicide Subsequent 
accession rate application 187 l/ha 
% Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent g a.i./ha 
accession agent 
ABUTH 
ECHCF 
SIDSP 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Glufosinate 
none 200 none 23 5 12 
Glufosinate none 400 none 89 15 38 
Glufosinate none 600 none 91 15 65 
Glufosinate none 900 none 98 30 62 
Glufosinate 0.25% L-77 200 none 87 0 53 
Glufosinate 0.25% L-77 400 none 98 7 72 
Glufosinate 0.25% L-77 600 none 96 13 95 
Glufosinate 0.25% L-77 900 none 96 13 97 
Glufosinate 0.5% L-77 200 none 90 10 66 
Glufosinate 0.5% L-77 400 none 97 12 85 
Glufosinate 0.5% L-77 600 none 96 7 81 
Glufosinate 0.5% L-77 900 none 99 42 88 
Glufosinate 1.5% L-77 200 none 82 8 62 
Glufosinate 1.5% L-77 400 none 98 10 63 
Glufosinate 1.5% L-77 600 none 98 42 82 
Glufosinate 1.5% L-77 900 none 97 70 85 
Glufosinate none 200 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 87 30 58 
Glufosinate none 400 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 96 33 75 
Glufosinate none 600 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 90 32 87 
Glufosinate none 900 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 98 42 96 
Glufosinate none 200 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 67 15 60 
Glufosinate none 400 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 85 20 83 
Glufosinate none 600 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 96 15 83 
Glufosinate none 900 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 89 25 94 
Glufosinate none 200 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 67 5 62 
Glufosinate none 400 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 97 35 72 
Glufosinate none 600 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 99 25 87 
Glufosinate none 900 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 94 60 91 
Glufosinate none 200 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 90 23 60 
Glufosinate none 400 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 94 23 78 
Glufosinate none 600 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 97 35 88 
Glufosinate none 900 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 97 52 92 
Glufosinate none 200 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 78 5 65 
Glufosinate none 400 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 96 15 80 
Glufosinate none 600 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 96 7 95 
Glufosinate none 900 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 98 40 87 
Glufosinate none 200 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 72 20 70 
Glufosinate none 400 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 96 45 63 
Glufosinate none 600 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 99 3 75 
Glufosinate none 900 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 97 70 80 
Glufosinate none 200 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 92 8 60 
Glufosinate none 400 1.5% L-77at 1 hr 92 15 63 
Glufosinate none 600 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 94 37 62 
Glufosinate none 900 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 98 47 73 
Glufosinate none 200 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 95 3 77 
Glufosinate none 400 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 99 25 80 
Glufosinate none 600 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 99 62 88 
Glufosinate none 900 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 99 80 94 
Glufosinate none 200 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 88 18 67 
Glufosinate none 400 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 93 32 68 
Glufosinate none 600 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 98 65 87 
Glufosinate none 900 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 99 40 83 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
In this Example, the herbicidal activity of glufosinate ammonium applied as 
unformulated product was not antagonized on any of the three species by 
Silwet L-77 applied in tank mix, therefore no reduction in antagonism by 
sequential application was observable. By contrast, Ignite, the commercial 
formulation of glufosinate ammonium used in Example 48, did show 
antagonism on barnyardgrass (ECHCG) by Silwet L-77 in tank mix, this 
antagonism being much reduced when the Silwet L-77 was instead applied as 
a subsequent application 0.5 hours after herbicide application. 
Example 50 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet, a form of 
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and prickly sida (Sida 
spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse and 
treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly as 
described for Example 49, except where otherwise noted below. 
Paraquat as its dichloride salt in unformulated (technical) form was used 
as the herbicidally active agent for this Example. Initial applications of 
paraquat, alone or in tank mix with a candidate accession agent, were 
applied on the same day, 15 days after planting velvetleaf, 14 days after 
planting Japanese millet, and 20 days after planting prickly sida. 
Paraquat was applied in water with and without candidate accession agent 
at a range of rates from 50 to 400 g a.i./ha. Candidate accession agent 
treatments were exactly as in Example 49. 
Twelve days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 50. 
TABLE 50 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
187 l/ha Herbicide Subsequent 
accession rate application 187 l/ha 
% Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent g a.i./ha 
accession agent 
ABUTH 
ECHCF 
SIDSP 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Paraquat 
none 50 none 48 15 8 
Paraquat none 100 none 67 30 50 
Paraquat none 200 none 86 88 42 
Paraquat none 400 none 98 98 89 
Paraquat 0.25% L-77 50 none 78 35 68 
Paraquat 0.25% L-77 100 none 97 40 94 
Paraquat 0.25% L-77 200 none 100 42 88 
Paraquat 0.25% L-77 400 none 100 92 99 
Paraquat 0.5% L-77 50 none 78 20 65 
Paraquat 0.5% L-77 100 none 100 65 85 
Paraquat 0.5% L-77 200 none 100 55 91 
Paraquat 0.5% L-77 400 none 99 80 94 
Paraquat 1.5% L-77 50 none 78 20 57 
Paraquat 1.5% L-77 100 none 73 43 70 
Paraquat 1.5% L-77 200 none 98 63 72 
Paraquat 1.5% L-77 400 none 98 93 92 
Paraquat none 50 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 50 8 32 
Paraquat none 100 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 86 35 52 
Paraquat none 200 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 93 70 85 
Paraquat none 400 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 100 96 93 
Paraquat none 50 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 60 25 52 
Paraquat none 100 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 68 65 65 
Paraquat none 200 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 78 67 63 
Paraquat none 400 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 93 98 92 
Paraquat none 50 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 32 25 35 
Paraquat none 100 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 75 40 62 
Paraquat none 200 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 86 91 55 
Paraquat none 400 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 99 98 70 
Paraquat none 50 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 67 35 47 
Paraquat none 100 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 85 45 67 
Paraquat none 200 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 99 73 82 
Paraquat none 400 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 100 80 93 
Paraquat none 50 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 42 20 52 
Paraquat none 100 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 80 40 57 
Paraquat none 200 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 97 68 80 
Paraquat none 400 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 98 94 82 
Paraquat none 50 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 42 33 47 
Paraquat none 100 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 68 78 58 
Paraquat none 200 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 88 83 65 
Paraquat none 400 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 97 99 85 
Paraquat none 50 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 65 33 62 
Paraquat none 100 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 85 37 73 
Paraquat none 200 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 99 63 91 
Paraquat none 400 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 99 97 96 
Paraquat none 50 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 53 20 55 
Paraquat none 100 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 83 57 65 
Paraquat none 200 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 98 85 83 
Paraquat none 400 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 100 98 93 
Paraquat none 50 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 53 35 55 
Paraquat none 100 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 60 62 63 
Paraquat none 200 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 87 83 68 
Paraquat none 400 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 100 96 75 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Some antagonism by Silwet L-77 at all three concentrations in tank mix was 
evident on ECHCF, particularly at the 200 g a.i./ha paraquat rate. This 
antagonism was generally reduced or eliminated when the Silwet L-77 was 
applied as a subsequent application at any time from 1 to 24 hours after 
paraquat application. 
Example 51 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet, a form of 
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and prickly sida (Sida 
spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse and 
treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly as 
described for Example 49, except where otherwise noted below. 
Acifluorfen as acid in unformulated (technical) form was used as the 
herbicidally active agent for this Example. Initial applications of 
acifluorfen, alone or in tank mix with a candidate accession agent, were 
applied on the same day, 15 days after planting velvetleaf, 14 days after 
planting Japanese millet, and 20 days after planting prickly sida. 
Acifluorfen was applied in a diluent comprising 50% water and 50% 
dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) with and without candidate accession agent at a 
range of rates from 50 to 400 g a.i./ha. Candidate accession agent 
treatments were exactly as in Example 49. 
Thirteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a is single practiced technician to evaluate percent 
inhibition. 
In this Example, the herbicidal activity of acifluorfen was generally not 
antagonized on any of the three species by Silwet L-77 applied in tank 
mix, therefore no reduction in antagonism by sequential application was 
observable. 
Example 52 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet, a form of 
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and prickly sida (Sida 
spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse and 
treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly as 
described for Example 49, except where otherwise noted below. 
Bentazon in unformulated (technical) form was used as the herbicidally 
active agent for this Example. Initial applications of bentazon, alone or 
in tank mix with a candidate accession agent, were applied on the same 
day, 15 days after planting velvetleaf, 14 days after planting Japanese 
millet, and 20 days after planting prickly sida. Bentazon was applied in a 
diluent comprising 50% water and 50% DMSO with and without candidate 
accession agent at a range of rates from 50 to 600 g a.i./ha. Candidate 
accession agent treatments were exactly as in Example 49. 
Twelve days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
In this Example, the herbicidal activity of bentazon was generally not 
antagonized on any of the three species by Silwet L-77 applied in tank 
mix, therefore no reduction in antagonism by sequential application was 
observable. 
Example 53 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet, a form of 
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and prickly sida (Sida 
spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse and 
treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly as 
described for Example 49, except where otherwise noted below. 
Isoproturon in unformulated (technical) form was used as the herbicidally 
active agent for this Example. Initial applications of isoproturon, alone 
or in tank mix with a candidate accession agent, were applied on the same 
day, 15 days after planting velvetleaf, 14 days after planting Japanese 
millet, and 20 days after planting prickly sida. Isoproturon was applied 
in a diluent comprising 50% water and 50% DMSO with and without candidate 
accession agent at a range of rates from 50 to 600 g a.i./ha. Candidate 
accession agent treatments were exactly as in Example 49. 
Eleven days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
In this Example, the herbicidal activity of isoproturon was generally not 
antagonized on any of the three species by Silwet L-77 applied in tank 
mix, therefore no reduction in antagonism by sequential application was 
observable. 
Example 54 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet, a form of 
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and prickly sida (Sida 
spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse and 
treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly as 
described for Example 49, except where otherwise noted below. 
Oxyfluorfen in unformulated (technical) form was used as the herbicidally 
active agent for this Example. Initial applications of oxyfluorfen, alone 
or in tank mix with a candidate accession agent, were applied on the same 
day, 15 days after planting velvetleaf, 14 days after planting Japanese 
millet, and 20 days after planting prickly sida. Oxyfluorfen was applied 
in a diluent comprising 50% water and 50% ethanol with and without 
candidate accession agent at a range of rates from 25 to 300 g a.i./ha. 
Candidate accession agent treatments were exactly as in Example 49. 
Ten days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 54. 
TABLE 54 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
187 l/ha Herbicide Subsequent 
accession rate application 187 l/ha 
% Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent g a.i./ha 
accession agent 
ABUTH 
ECHCF 
SIDSP 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Oxyfluorfen 
none 25 none 78 37 40 
Oxyfluorfen none 50 none 91 70 53 
Oxyfluorfen none 100 none 88 88 63 
Oxyfluorfen none 300 none 98 99 68 
Oxyfluorfen 0.25% L-77 25 none 82 40 35 
Oxyfluorfen 0.25% L-77 50 none 80 67 43 
Oxyfluorfen 0.25% L-77 100 none 92 97 63 
Oxyfluorfen 0.25% L-77 300 none 91 100 63 
Oxyfluorfen 0.5% L-77 25 none 85 45 40 
Oxyfluorfen 0.5% L-77 50 none 83 45 48 
Oxyfluorfen 0.5% L-77 100 none 91 98 63 
Oxyfluorfen 0.5% L-77 300 none 96 98 65 
Oxyfluorfen 1.5% L-77 25 none 85 73 35 
Oxyfluorfen 1.5% L-77 50 none 85 73 37 
Oxyfluorfen 1.5% L-77 100 none 90 90 58 
Oxyfluorfen 1.5% L-77 300 none 93 100 65 
Oxyfluorfen none 25 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 87 52 57 
Oxyfluorfen none 50 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 96 65 63 
Oxyfluorfen none 100 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 97 89 62 
Oxyfluorfen none 300 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 91 63 62 
Oxyfluorfen none 25 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 83 32 50 
Oxyfluorfen none 50 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 85 72 53 
Oxyfluorfen none 100 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 94 92 65 
Oxyfluorfen none 300 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 95 94 63 
Oxyfluorfen none 25 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 87 63 52 
Oxyfluorfen none 50 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 90 60 55 
Oxyfluorfen none 100 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 93 68 65 
Oxyfluorfen none 300 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 98 97 67 
Oxyfluorfen none 25 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 80 55 53 
Oxyfluorfen none 50 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 93 76 58 
Oxyfluorfen none 100 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 95 83 67 
Oxyfluorfen none 300 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 92 73 65 
Oxyfluorfen none 25 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 78 62 50 
Oxyfluorfen none 50 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 88 78 60 
Oxyfluorfen none 100 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 90 88 60 
Oxyfluorfen none 300 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 96 90 65 
Oxyfluorfen none 25 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 87 65 60 
Oxyfluorfen none 50 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 93 65 60 
Oxyfluorfen none 100 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 95 72 63 
Oxyfluorfen none 300 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 98 97 65 
Oxyfluorfen none 25 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 83 68 50 
Oxyfluorfen none 50 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 89 52 48 
Oxyfluorfen none 100 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 96 82 57 
Oxyfluorfen none 300 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 90 78 58 
Oxyfluorfen none 25 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 82 65 57 
Oxyfluorfen none 50 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 92 68 58 
Oxyfluorfen none 100 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 96 90 65 
Oxyfluorfen none 300 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 97 96 65 
Oxyfluorfen none 25 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 91 65 55 
Oxyfluorfen none 50 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 96 65 60 
Oxyfluorfen none 100 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 97 83 63 
Oxyfluorfen none 300 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 98 87 65 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Silwet L-77 in tank mix slightly antagonized oxyfluorfen activity on SIDSP 
in this Example. With few exceptions no such antagonism was seen when the 
Silwet L-77 was applied as a subsequent treatment 1 to 24 hours after 
oxyfluorfen application. 
Example 55 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet, a form of 
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and prickly sida (Sida 
spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse and 
treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly as 
described for Example 49, except where otherwise noted below. 
Aminotriazole in unformulated (technical) form was used as the herbicidally 
active agent for this Example. Initial applications of aminotriazole, 
alone or in tank mix with a candidate accession agent, were applied on the 
same day, 15 days after planting velvetleaf, 14 days after planting 
Japanese millet, and 20 days after planting prickly sida. Aminotriazole 
was applied in water with and without candidate accession agent at a range 
of rates from 100 to 800 g a.i./ha. Candidate accession agent treatments 
were exactly as in Example 49. 
Nineteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 55. 
TABLE 55 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
187 l/ha Herbicide Subsequent 
accession 
rate application 187 l/ha 
% Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent g a.i./ha 
accession agent 
ABUTH 
ECHCF 
SIDSP 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Aminotriazole 
none 100 none 67 0 25 
Aminotriazole none 200 none 75 7 62 
Aminotriazole none 400 none 93 5 75 
Aminotriazole none 800 none 94 10 77 
Aminotriazole 0.25% L-77 100 none 73 0 15 
Aminotriazole 0.25% L-77 200 none 88 5 43 
Aminotriazole 0.25% L-77 400 none 93 3 70 
Aminotriazole 0.25% L-77 800 none 92 35 78 
Aminotriazole 0.5% L-77 100 none 92 0 27 
Aminotriazole 0.5% L-77 200 none 82 1 28 
Aminotriazole 0.5% L-77 400 none 95 3 73 
Aminotriazole 0.5% L-77 800 none 97 28 75 
Aminotriazole 1.5% L-77 100 none 88 10 30 
Aminotriazole 1.5% L-77 200 none 83 13 40 
Aminotriazole 1.5% L-77 400 none 92 15 67 
Aminotriazole 1.5% L-77 800 none 90 30 70 
Aminotriazole none 100 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 73 3 35 
Aminotriazole none 200 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 92 7 70 
Aminotriazole none 400 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 95 0 77 
Aminotriazole none 800 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 98 22 85 
Aminotriazole none 100 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 68 0 22 
Aminotriazole none 200 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 91 2 65 
Aminotriazole none 400 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 95 3 77 
Aminotriazole none 800 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 97 10 85 
Aminotriazole none 100 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 88 0 35 
Aminotriazole none 200 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 96 12 65 
Aminotriazole none 400 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 95 3 75 
Aminotriazole none 800 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 97 8 80 
Aminotriazole none 100 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 82 0 67 
Aminotriazole none 200 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 96 3 67 
Aminotriazole none 400 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 96 13 82 
Aminotriazole none 800 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 95 20 77 
Aminotriazole none 100 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 80 0 25 
Aminotriazole none 200 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 97 0 70 
Aminotriazole none 400 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 93 0 80 
Aminotriazole none 800 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 93 3 82 
Aminotriazole none 100 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 94 2 40 
Aminotriazole none 200 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 96 2 65 
Aminotriazole none 400 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 98 8 83 
Aminotriazole none 800 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 97 17 87 
Aminotriazole none 100 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 91 8 62 
Aminotriazole none 200 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 84 2 67 
Aminotriazole none 400 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 89 8 77 
Aminotriazole none 800 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 98 22 78 
Aminotriazole none 100 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 72 0 72 
Aminotriazole none 200 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 84 0 75 
Aminotriazole none 400 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 98 0 83 
Aminotriazole none 800 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 97 5 83 
Aminotriazole none 100 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 87 0 45 
Aminotriazole none 200 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 90 7 68 
Aminotriazole none 400 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 98 12 80 
Aminotriazole none 800 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 98 17 88 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Silwet L-77 in tank mix slightly antagonized aminotriazole activity on 
SIDSP in this Example. No such antagonism was seen when the Silwet L-77 
was applied as a subsequent treatment 1 to 24 hours after aminotriazole 
application. 
Example 56 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet, a form of 
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and prickly sida (Sida 
spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse and 
treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly as 
described for Example 49, except where otherwise noted below. 
Asulam as its methyl ester in unformulated (technical) form was used as the 
herbicidally active agent for this Example. Initial applications of 
asulam, alone or in tank mix with a candidate accession agent, were 
applied on the same day, 15 days after planting velvetleaf, 14 days after 
planting Japanese millet, and 20 days after planting prickly sida. Asulam 
was applied in a diluent comprising 50% water and 50% acetone with and 
without candidate accession agent at a range of rates from 200 to 1400 g 
a.i./ha. Candidate accession agent treatments were exactly as in Example 
49. 
Eighteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
In this Example, the herbicidal activity of asulam was generally not 
antagonized on any of the three species by Silwet L-77 applied in tank 
mix, therefore no reduction in antagonism by sequential application was 
observable. 
Example 57 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet, a form of 
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and prickly sida (Sida 
spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse and 
treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly as 
described for Example 49, except where otherwise noted below. 
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) as its dimethylamine salt in 
unformulated (technical) form was used as the herbicidally active agent 
for this Example. Initial applications of 2,4-D, alone or in tank mix with 
a candidate accession agent, were applied on the same day, 15 days after 
planting velvetleaf, 14 days after planting Japanese millet, and 20 days 
after planting prickly sida. 2,4-D was applied in water with and without 
candidate accession agent at a range of rates from 25 to 400 g a.i./ha. 
Candidate accession agent treatments were exactly as in Example 49. 
Eighteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 57. 
TABLE 57 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
187 l/ha Herbicide Subsequent 
accession rate application 187 l/ha 
% Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent g a.i./ha 
accession agent 
ABUTH 
ECHCF 
SIDSP 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
2,4-D 
none 25 none 8 10 35 
2,4-D none 50 none 22 15 37 
2,4-D none 100 none 85 18 63 
2,4-D none 400 none 96 38 80 
2,4-D 0.25% L-77 25 none 12 13 47 
2,4-D 0.25% L-77 50 none 38 22 65 
2,4-D 0.25% L-77 100 none 94 33 70 
2,4-D 0.25% L-77 400 none 98 58 78 
2,4-D 0.5% L-77 25 none 15 10 47 
2,4-D 0.5% L-77 50 none 48 23 52 
2,4-D 0.5% L-77 100 none 94 57 60 
2,4-D 0.5% L-77 400 none 98 58 78 
2,4-D 1.5% L-77 25 none 15 10 40 
2,4-D 1.5% L-77 50 none 42 23 53 
2,4-D 1.5% L-77 100 none 52 25 75 
2,4-D 1.5% L-77 400 none 86 47 73 
2,4-D none 25 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 15 15 60 
2,4-D none 50 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 32 22 65 
2,4-D none 100 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 81 20 70 
2,4-D none 400 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 99 47 88 
2,4-D none 25 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 98 45 77 
2,4-D none 50 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 20 5 47 
2,4-D none 100 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 40 7 63 
2,4-D none 400 0.25% L-77 at 4.hr 96 25 75 
2,4-D none 25 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 25 5 60 
2,4-D none 50 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 55 35 65 
2,4-D none 100 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 94 35 65 
2,4-D none 400 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 98 40 73 
2,4-D none 25 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 32 15 58 
2,4-D none 50 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 76 20 62 
2,4-D none 100 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 93 20 73 
2,4-D none 400 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 98 45 75 
2,4-D none 25 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 15 0 55 
2,4-D none 50 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 33 10 60 
2,4-D none 100 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 78 20 62 
2,4-D none 400 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 90 33 65 
2,4-D none 25 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 42 7 58 
2,4-D none 50 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 77 12 60 
2,4-D none 100 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 88 35 62 
2,4-D none 400 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 98 52 65 
2,4-D none 25 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 30 10 58 
2,4-D none 50 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 67 15 68 
2,4-D none 100 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 83 17 75 
2,4-D none 400 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 94 45 90 
2,4-D none 25 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 28 5 42 
2,4-D none 50 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 43 7 60 
2,4-D none 100 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 94 23 60 
2,4-D none 400 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 98 37 65 
2,4-D none 25 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 25 25 35 
2,4-D none 50 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 67 20 60 
2,4-D none 100 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 91 23 60 
2,4-D none 400 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 98 48 65 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Slight antagonism on ABUTH was evident when 1.5% Silwet L-77 was added in 
tank mix to 2,4-D, at the higher rates tested. This antagonism was 
completely eliminated when instead the Silwet L-77 was applied as a 
subsequent application 1 to 24 hours after 2,4-D application. 
Example 58 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet, a form of 
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and prickly sida (Sida 
spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse and 
treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly as 
described for Example 49, except where otherwise noted below. 
Propanil was used as the herbicidally active agent for this Example. 
Initial applications of propanil, alone or in tank mix with a candidate 
accession agent, were applied on the same day, 15 days after planting 
velvetleaf, 14 days after planting Japanese millet, and 20 days after 
planting prickly sida. Propanil was applied in a diluent comprising 50% 
water and 50% acetone with and without candidate accession agent at a 
range of rates from 200 to 1500 g a.i./ha. Candidate accession agent 
treatments were exactly as in Example 49. 
Twelve days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 58. 
TABLE 58 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
187 l/ha Herbicide Subsequent 
accession rate application 187 l/ha 
% Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent g a.i./ha 
accession agent 
ABUTH 
ECHCF 
SIDSP 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Propanil 
none 200 none 0 0 0 
Propanil none 500 none 62 32 7 
Propanil none 1000 none 70 37 32 
Propanil none 1500 none 88 55 27 
Propanil 0.25% L-77 200 none 15 0 0 
Propanil 0.25% L-77 500 none 30 10 27 
Propanil 0.25% L-77 1000 none 80 17 25 
Propanil 0.25% L-77 1500 none 90 30 25 
Propanil 0.5% L-77 200 none 20 10 8 
Propanil 0.5% L-77 500 none 52 20 28 
Propanil 0.5% L-77 1000 none 65 55 28 
Propanil 0.5% L-77 1500 none 75 62 30 
Propanil 1.5% L-77 200 none 27 5 15 
Propanil 1.5% L-77 500 none 37 38 27 
Propanil 1.5% L-77 1000 none 68 57 37 
Propanil 1.5% L-77 1500 none 86 57 32 
Propanil none 200 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 27 7 17 
Propanil none 500 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 47 12 28 
Propanil none 1000 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 52 8 30 
Propanil none 1500 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 77 65 52 
Propanil none 200 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 33 20 15 
Propanil none 500 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 50 20 23 
Propanil none 1000 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 75 27 37 
Propanil none 1500 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 78 63 37 
Propanil none 200 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 33 3 15 
Propanil none 500 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 58 25 33 
Propanil none 1000 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 45 53 33 
Propanil none 1500 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 80 40 33 
Propanil none 200 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 35 10 32 
Propanil none 500 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 42 10 33 
Propanil none 1000 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 40 57 38 
Propanil none 1500 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 68 35 60 
Propanil none 200 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 33 17 25 
Propanil none 500 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 57 20 35 
Propanil none 1000 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 67 35 43 
Propanil none 1500 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 70 43 42 
Propanil none 200 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 42 20 20 
Propanil none 500 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 72 30 35 
Propanil none 1000 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 73 53 42 
Propanil none 1500 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 80 55 40 
Propanil none 200 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 28 0 30 
Propanil none 500 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 45 13 38 
Propanil none 1000 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 65 25 45 
Propanil none 1500 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 72 33 50 
Propanil none 200 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 62 33 43 
Propanil none 500 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 68 32 53 
Propanil none 1000 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 77 45 52 
Propanil none 1500 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 88 55 52 
Propanil none 200 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 55 33 37 
Propanil none 500 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 63 30 38 
Propanil none 1000 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 77 57 42 
Propanil none 1500 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 85 65 48 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
In this Example, the herbicidal activity of propanil, particularly on 
ABUTH, was slightly antagonized by certain Silwet L-77 tank mix 
treatments, though no clear pattern of antagonism was evident. Several, 
but not all, of the sequential applications showed reduced antagonism. 
Example 59 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet, a form of 
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and prickly sida (Sida 
spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse and 
treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly as 
described for Example 49, except where otherwise noted below. 
Dicamba acid in unformulated (technical) form was used as the herbicidally 
active agent for this Example. Initial applications of dicamba, alone or 
in tank mix with a candidate accession agent, were applied on the same 
day, 14 days after planting velvetleaf, 14 days after planting Japanese 
millet, and 21 days after planting prickly sida. Dicamba was applied in a 
diluent comprising 50% water and 50% acetone with and without candidate 
accession agent at a range of rates from 50 to 300 g a.i./ha. Candidate 
accession agent treatments were exactly as in Example 49. 
Fifteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 59. 
TABLE 59 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
187 l/ha Herbicide Subsequent 
accession rate application 187 l/ha 
% Inhibition 
herbicide 
agent g a.i./ha 
accession agent 
ABUTH 
ECHCF 
SIDSP 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Dicamba 
none 50 none 30 0 20 
Dicamba none 100 none 32 0 35 
Dicamba none 200 none 50 3 50 
Dicamba none 300 none 88 10 70 
Dicamba 0.25% L-77 50 none 38 0 20 
Dicamba 0.25% L-77 100 none 40 0 30 
Dicamba 0.25% L-77 200 none 43 0 40 
Dicamba 0.25% L-77 300 none 90 0 75 
Dicamba 0.5% L-77 50 none 33 0 20 
Dicamba 0.5% L-77 100 none 43 0 33 
Dicamba 0.5% L-77 200 none 60 0 50 
Dicamba 0.5% L-77 300 none 93 13 83 
Dicamba 1.5% L-77 50 none 33 0 15 
Dicamba 1.5% L-77 100 none 45 0 35 
Dicamba 1.5% L-77 200 none 85 0 43 
Dicamba 1.5% L-77 300 none 93 17 85 
Dicamba none 50 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 43 0 48 
Dicamba none 100 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 85 3 62 
Dicamba none 200 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 88 12 75 
Dicamba none 300 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 93 20 85 
Dicamba none 50 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 37 0 52 
Dicamba none 100 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 57 5 55 
Dicamba none 200 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 77 0 65 
Dicamba none 300 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 89 10 83 
Dicamba none 50 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 47 10 50 
Dicamba none 100 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 48 17 60 
Dicamba none 200 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 80 15 67 
Dicamba none 300 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 83 20 73 
Dicamba none 50 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 45 5 47 
Dicamba none 100 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 70 10 58 
Dicamba none 200 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 93 17 75 
Dicamba none 300 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 95 23 75 
Dicamba none 50 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 35 0 48 
Dicamba none 100 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 53 0 60 
Dicamba none 200 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 90 10 67 
Dicamba none 300 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 92 17 77 
Dicamba none 50 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 38 10 47 
Dicamba none 100 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 63 13 63 
Dicamba none 200 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 83 12 67 
Dicamba none 300 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 87 17 70 
Dicamba none 50 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 82 12 48 
Dicamba none 100 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 87 5 63 
Dicamba none 200 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 93 12 73 
Dicamba none 300 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 95 18 80 
Dicamba none 50 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 55 15 42 
Dicamba none 100 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 72 15 63 
Dicamba none 200 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 90 17 70 
Dicamba none 300 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 95 25 80 
Dicamba none 50 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 65 13 47 
Dicamba none 100 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 78 15 65 
Dicamba none 200 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 91 10 75 
Dicamba none 300 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 94 20 73 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
In this Example, the herbicidal activity of dicamba was generally not 
antagonized on any of the three species by Silwet L-77 applied in tank 
mix, therefore no reduction in antagonism by sequential application was 
observable. However, very unexpectedly the activity of sequential 
treatments of dicamba followed by Silwet L-77 was significantly greater 
than that of the corresponding tank mix treatments, or of dicamba applied 
alone. 
Example 60 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet, a form of 
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and prickly sida (Sida 
spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse and 
treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly as 
described for Example 49, except where otherwise noted below. 
Imazethapyr in unformulated (technical) form was used as the herbicidally 
active agent for this Example. Initial applications of imazethapyr, alone 
or in tank mix with a candidate accession agent, were applied on the same 
day, 21 days after planting velvetleaf, 21 days after planting Japanese 
millet, and 28 days after planting prickly sida. Imazethapyr was applied 
in a diluent comprising 50% water and 50% acetone with and without 
candidate accession agent at a range of rates from 10 to 100 g a.i./ha. 
Candidate accession agent treatments were exactly as in Example 49. 
Thirteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
In this Example, the herbicidal activity of imazethapyr was generally not 
antagonized on any of the three species by Silwet L-77 applied in tank 
mix, therefore no reduction in antagonism by sequential application was 
observable. 
Example 61 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet, a form of 
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and prickly sida (Sida 
spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse and 
treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly as 
described for Example 49, except where otherwise noted below. 
Metsulfuron-methyl (abbreviated in tables herein as metsulfuron) was used 
as the herbicidally active agent for this Example. Initial applications of 
metsulfuron-methyl, alone or in tank mix with a candidate accession agent, 
were applied on the same day, 15 days after planting velvetleaf, 14 days 
after planting Japanese millet, and 21 days after planting prickly sida. 
Metsulfuron-methyl in unformulated (technical) form was applied in a 
diluent comprising 50% water and 50% acetone with and without candidate 
accession agent at a range of rates from 5 to 50 g a.i./ha. Candidate 
accession agent treatments were exactly as in Example 49. Also included in 
this Example are treatments with the glyphosate formulation defined herein 
as Formulation C, applied alone, and with Silwet L-77 at a concentration 
of 0.25% by volume applied in tank mix or as a subsequent application 4 
hours after herbicide application. Formulation C was applied diluted in 
water. 
Fourteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
In this Example, the herbicidal activity of metsulfuron-methyl was 
generally not antagonized on any of the three species by Silwet L-77 
applied in tank mix, therefore no reduction in antagonism by sequential 
application was observable. 
Example 62 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet, a form of 
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and broadleaf signalgrass 
(Brachiaria platyphylla, BRAPP) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a 
greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent applications by 
procedures exactly as described for Example 49, except where otherwise 
noted below. 
Sethoxydim was used as the herbicidally active agent for this Example. 
Initial applications of sethoxydim, alone or in tank mix with a candidate 
accession agent, were applied on the same day, 15 days after planting 
velvetleaf, 14 days after planting Japanese millet, and 15 days after 
planting broadleaf signalgrass. Sethoxydim was applied in a diluent 
comprising 60% water and 40% ethanol with and without candidate accession 
agent at a range of rates from 10 to 100 g a.i./ha. Candidate accession 
agent treatments were exactly as in Example 49. Treatments with 
Formulation C were included as in Example 61. 
Thirteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
In this Example, the herbicidal activity of sethoxydim was generally not 
antagonized on any of the three species by Silwet L-77 applied in tank 
mix, therefore no reduction in antagonism by sequential application was 
observable. 
Example 63 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet, a form of 
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and, broadleaf 
signalgrass(Brachiaria platyphylla, BRAPP) plants were grown in pots, 
maintained in a greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent 
applications by procedures exactly as described for Example 49, except 
where otherwise noted below. 
Quizalofop-ethyl (abbreviated in tables herein as quizalofop) was used as 
the herbicidally active agent for this Example. Initial applications of 
quizalofop-ethyl, alone or in tank mix with a candidate accession agent, 
were applied on the same day, 15 days after planting velvetleaf, 14 days 
after planting Japanese millet, and 15 days after planting broadleaf 
signalgrass. Quizalofop-ethyl was applied in unformulated (technical) form 
in a diluent comprising 50% water and 50% acetone with and without 
candidate accession agent at a range of rates from 3 to 40 g a.i./ha. 
Candidate accession agent treatments were exactly as in Example 49. 
Treatments with Formulation C were included as in Example 61. 
Fourteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
In this Example, the herbicidal activity of quizalofop-ethyl was generally 
not antagonized on any of the three species by Silwet L-77 applied in tank 
mix, therefore no reduction in antagonism by sequential application was 
observable. 
Example 64 
A backpack sprayer pressurized with propane is modified to have two tanks, 
one containing a herbicidal spray solution made by diluting Formulation F 
in water, and the other containing accession agent. Each tank is connected 
via a flexible tube to a separate lance fitted with a boom on which six 
flat-fan nozzles are arranged at regular spacing. The two lances and booms 
are taped together so that each nozzle on one boom is paired with a nozzle 
on the other boom. When in use, the boom fed from the accession agent tank 
has nozzles pointing vertically downward and is set behind the boom fed 
from the tank containing the herbicidal spray solution, which has nozzles 
pointing forward at an angle of about 45 degrees from the vertical. 
In operation, the accession agent spray pattern falls about 0.25 m behind 
the herbicidal spray pattern. Walking speed during spraying is about 1.15 
m/s. It is therefore calculated that the time interval between 
applications of herbicide and accession agent is 0.22 second. 
Example 65 
A tractor-driven sprayer apparatus 10 is constructed as shown in FIGS. 1 
and 2, having four parallel booms 12a, 12b, 12c, and 12d, each 2.54 m in 
length that each sprays a 3.05 m path. The booms 12 are mounted on a rigid 
frame 14 attached to the rear of a tractor 16 such that the booms are 
spaced 51 mm from center to center in a single horizontal plane and are 
oriented at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the tractor. The frame 
14 can be raised or lowered to adjust the height of the booms above ground 
or above a crop or weed canopy. Each boom 12 is constructed of a tube with 
two of six replaceable nozzles 13a and 13f at either end of the 2.54 m 
length of the spray boom and four additional nozzles 13b, 13c, 13d, and 
13e spaced evenly between the ends. (The nozzles 13 are only shown in 
FIGS. 1 and 2 for one of the four booms 12.) The six nozzles 13a-13e are 
all fed from the interior of the spray boom tube 12. There is a connector 
15 near the mid point of each spray boom tube, which supplies the spray 
solution from a pressurizable container, as shown in FIG. 2. Four such 
pressurizable containers 18a, 18b, 18c, and 18d are mounted on a platform 
20 at the rear of the tractor for use as spray solution reservoirs. Four 
flexible tubes 17a-17d which attach at one end to the respective connector 
15a-15d near the mid point of the spray boom tube 12a-12d each has its 
other end attached to a connector on the pressurized container 18a-18d 
which holds the spray solution. The connector on the pressurized container 
18 is part of the draw that is immersed in the spray solution. A fifth 
pressurizable container 18e is carried on the platform 20 for use when 
cleaning out the tubes and nozzles. Connectors and flexible tubing can be 
moved to this fifth container 18e holding clean water to rinse the tubes 
and nozzles. Each of the four spray solution reservoirs 18a-18d is 
connected to a flexible airline 24 and the four airlines 24a, 24b, 24c, 
and 24d are in turn connected through a manifold 26 to a single line 28 
running from an air compressor 30 driven by the tractor. This single line 
28 from the compressor is furnished with a pressure control valve 29 and 
pressure gauge 31, within convenient reach of an operator driving the 
tractor. A panel 32 of spray boom solenoid switches can be mounted on the 
tractor 16 near the operator's seat 34. A bank of control switches 36 to 
control the solenoid switches in panel 32 and thus to control fluid flow 
from the spray reservoirs 18a-18d to the spray booms 12a-12d can also be 
mounted on the tractor near the operator's seat 34. Alternatively, the 
solenoid switches and control switches can be combined in a single panel. 
To operate this spray apparatus, the operator adjusts the pressure control 
valve 29 to supply the desired amount of air pressure from compressor 30 
to the containers 18a-18d, which hold the spray solutions. The operator 
selects which two or more of the spray solutions in containers 18a-18d he 
wants to apply, by means of the bank of control switches 36, which 
activate the desired solenoid switches in panel 32. Based on the 
activation of the desired solenoid switches, a pathway through the 
corresponding flexible tubes 17a-17d is established, allowing the desired 
spray solutions to flow from the selected containers 18 to the 
corresponding booms 12, from which they are then sprayed onto foliage or 
soil through nozzles 13. 
By selecting a first boom and its corresponding container for an exogenous 
chemical spray solution and a second boom, posterior to the first boom, 
for an accession agent spray solution, the apparatus described above can 
be used for sequential application of exogenous chemical substance and 
accession agent according to the method of the invention. The spatial 
separation of the two booms can be varied from 50 mm to 150 mm depending 
on the booms selected. The interval between initial application of 
exogenous chemical substance and subsequent application of accession agent 
depends upon this spatial separation and on forward speed of the apparatus 
while spraying. For example, at a forward speed of 10 m/sec, the interval 
can be varied from 0.005 sec to 0.015 sec, and at a forward speed of 3 
m/sec, the interval can be varied from 0.017 sec to 0.05 sec. The interval 
can also be modified by varying the angle at which the nozzles are set on 
each boom. 
Example 66 
Aqueous solutions or dispersions of the following materials were tested as 
candidate accession agents, using the in vitro test described previously 
in this application. The following table summarizes the results of the 
tests of those materials. The materials tested in aqueous solution or 
dispersion as candidate accession agents are grouped by class (anionic 
surfactants, cationic surfactants, amphoteric surfactants, nonionic 
surfactants, and non-surfactant materials). The four columns (1-4) on the 
right side of the table indicate (1) whether each material displayed 
antagonism when applied at 0.5% concentration to Japanese millet as a tank 
mix with glyphosate as Formulation B, unless otherwise indicated in the 
presence of 0.09% MON 0818, in a greenhouse test, (2) whether in the same 
greenhouse test antagonism was reduced when the material was applied at 
the same concentration sequentially 4 hours after an application of the 
same glyphosate formulation, (3) whether the substance produced a positive 
result in the in vitro test at 0.5% concentration, and (4) whether the in 
vitro test correctly predicted whether the candidate material at 0.5% 
concentration would reduce antagonism when applied sequentially to 
Japanese millet. The greenhouse tests in virtually all instances used the 
procedure of Example 30 and a glyphosate rate of 100 g a.e./ha. 
Chemical descriptions of the materials tested are derived from standard 
reference sources (McCutcheon's Emulsifiers & Detergents, 1996; Gower 
Handbook of Industrial Surfactants, 1993) or from manufacturers' published 
trade literature. Where only a generic chemical description has been 
found, this is given in italics in the following table. 
TABLE 66A 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
In vitro test 
TM Antag In vitro predicts 
antag? reduced? infiltrant? antag reduced? 
Agent Chemical description Class (1) (2) (3) (4) 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Aerosol 22 dicarboxyethyl stearyl sulfosuccinamate, 
anionic 
yes no no yes 
Na4 salt 
Aerosol A-102 decanol ethoxylate sulfosuccinate, Na2 salt anionic yes 
yes no no 
Aerosol A-103 nonylphenol 10EO sulfosuccinate, Na2 salt anionic yes yes 
no no 
Aerosol A-268 isodecyl sulfosuccinate, Na2 salt anionic no no yes no 
Aerosol OS diisopropyl 
naphthalene sulfonate, 
Na salt anionic yes yes 
no no 
Aerosol OT dioctyl sulfosuccinate, Na salt anionic yes yes yes yes 
Alpha-Step MC-48 
methyl 2-sulfococoate, 
Na salt anionic yes yes 
no no 
Alpha-Step ML-40 methyl-2-sulfolaurate, Na salt anionic yes yes 
Bio-Soft D-62 alkyl 
benzene sulfonate 
anionic yes yes 
Bio-Soft MG-50 alkyl 
benzene sulfonate 
anionic yes yes no no 
Bio-Soft N-300 
triethanolamine 
dodecylbenzene sulfonate 
anionic yes yes 
Bio-Terge AS-40 C14-16 
olefin sulfonate, Na 
salt anionic yes yes 
Bio-Terge PAS-85 
octane sulfonate, Na 
salt anionic yes yes 
Cedepal TD-407 
tridecyl EO sulfate, Na 
salt anionic yes yes 
Cedephos FA-600 decyl 
4EO phosphate anionic 
yes yes 
Daxad 15 naphthalene sulfonate formaldehyde anionic yes yes no no 
condensate 
Daxad 17 naphthalene sulfonate formaldehyde anionic yes yes 
condensate 
Dowfax 3B2 decyl diphenyloxide disulfonate, Na salt anionic yes yes 
Emcol CNP-110 nonylphen 
ol 9EO carboxylate 
anionic yes yes no no 
Emery 5366 naphthalene 
sulfonate, NH4 salt 
anionic yes yes no no 
Emphos CS-121 nonylphen 
ol 4EO phosphate 
anionic yes yes no no 
Emphos CS-136 nonylphen 
ol 6EO phosphate 
anionic yes yes no no 
Emphos CS-141 nonylphen 
ol 10EO phosphate 
anionic yes yes no no 
Emphos PS-121 isotridec 
yl 4EO phosphate 
anionic yes yes 
Emphos PS-131 isotridec 
yl 6EO phosphate 
anionic yes yes yes yes 
Emphos PS-21A C10-12 alkyl 6EO phosphate anionic yes yes yes yes 
Emphos PS-400 alcohol 
EO phosphate anionic 
yes yes yes yes 
Fluorad FC-120 
perfluoroalkyl sulfonate 
, NH4 salt anionic yes 
yes yes yes 
Fluorad FC-129 fluoroalkyl carboxylate, K salt anionic yes yes 
Fluorad FC-98 perfluoroalkyl sulfonate, K salt anionic yes yes no no 
Fluorad FC-99 perfluoro 
alkyl sulfonate, amine 
salt anionic yes yes 
heptanoate, Na salt 
anionic yes yes no no 
hexanesulfonate, Na 
salt anionic yes yes 
no no 
hexanoate, Na salt anionic yes yes no no 
lecithin from soya anionic no no 
Miranol C2M coco dicarboxylate, Na2 salt anionic no no no yes 
Ninate 401-HF dodecyl benzene sultonate, Ca salt anionic yes yes yes 
yes 
perfluorobutanesulfonate anionic yes yes no no 
perfluoroheptanoate anionic yes no 
perfluorooctanesulfonate anionic yes yes 
perfluoropentanoate anionic yes yes 
Polyfon H lignosulfonate anionic yes yes no no 
PolyStep B-25 decyl sulfate, Na salt anionic yes yes no no 
PolyStep B-29 octyl sulfate, Na salt anionic yes yes no no 
Reax 100M lignosulfonate anionic yes yes no no 
Reax 85A lignosulfonate anionic yes yes no no 
Reax 88B lignosulfonate anionic yes yes no no 
Soprophor 3D33 tristyrylphenol EO phosphate anionic no no no yes 
Soprophor 4D384 
tristyrylphenol EO 
sulfate anionic yes yes 
no no 
Steol CS-4 fatty acid EO sulfate anionic yes yes 
Steol CS-370 lauryl EO sulfate, Na salt anionic yes yes no no 
Steol KS-460 lauryl EO sulfate, Na salt anionic yes yes 
Stepanol AEG lauryl sulfate, NH4 salt anionic no no no yes 
Stepanol AEM lauryl sulfate, NH4 salt anionic yes yes no no 
Stepanol ME Dry lauryl sulfate, Na salt anionic yes yes no no 
Stepanol WAC lauryl sulfate, Na salt anionic yes yes no no 
Stepfac 8170 nonylphenol EO phosphate anionic yes yes no no 
Stepfac 8171 nonylphenol EO phosphate anionic yes yes no no 
Stepfac 8172 nonylphenol EO phosphate anionic yes yes no no 
Stepfac 8173 nonylphenol EO phosphate anionic yes yes no no 
Tryfac 5552 alcohol EO phosphate anionic yes yes yes yes 
Tryfac 5556 alkylphenol EO phosphate anionic yes yes no no 
Aerosol C-61 alkyl guanidine-amine ethoxylate cationic no no 
Ethoduomeen T/13 tallow aminopropylamine 3EO cationic no no no yes 
Ethoduomeen T/25 
tallow aminopropylamine 
15EO cationic no no no 
yes 
Ethomeen C/12 cocoamine 2EO cationic yes yes yes yes 
Ethomeen T/25 tallowamine 15EO cationic no no no yes 
Ethomeen T/30 tallowamine 20EO cationic yes no 
Ethoquad 18/25 stearyl methyl ammonium chloride 15EO cationic no no no 
yes 
Ethoquad C/12 coco methyl ammonium chloride 2EO cationic no no no yes 
Fluorad FC-135 
fluoroalkyl methyl 
ammonium iodide 
cationic yes no no yes 
Fluorad FC-750 
fluoroalkyl methyl 
ammonium iodide 
cationic yes yes 
Fluorad FC-754 
fluoroalkyl methyl 
ammonium chloride 
cationic no no 
MON-0818 product containing tallowamine 15EO cationic no no no yes 
Silamine C-100 
cationic no no no yes 
Surfonic AGM-550 alkyl 
etheramine EO cationic 
yes yes 
Ammonyx CDO cocoamidopropylamine oxide amphoteric no no no yes 
Ammonyx CO palmitylamine oxide amphoteric no no no yes 
Ammonyx LO laurylamine oxide amphoteric no no no yes 
Ammonyx MO myristylamine oxide amphoteric no no no yes 
Ammonyx SO stearylamine oxide amphoteric no no no yes 
Amphosol CA cocoamidopropyl betaine amphoteric no no 
Fluorad FC-751 fluorinated amphoteric amphoteric no no 
Varion CDG lauryl betaine amphoteric no no no yes 
Velvetex AB-45 coco betaine amphoteric no no no yes 
Velvetex BA-35 cocoamidopropyl betaine amphoteric no no no yes 
Agrimul PG 2062 alkyl polyglucoside nonionic yes no 
Agrimul PG 2065 alkyl polyglucoside nonionic yes no 
Agrimul PG 2069 C9-11 alkyl 1.5 polyglucoside nonionic no no no yes 
Agrimul PG 2072 alkyl 
polyglucoside nonionic 
yes no 
Agrimul PG 2076 C8-10 alkyl 1.5 polyglucoside nonionic yes no no yes 
Alcodet 218 isolauryl 
10EO thioether nonionic 
no no no yes 
Alcodet 260 isolauryl 6EO thioether nonionic yes yes yes yes 
Alcodet SK isolauryl 8EO thioether nonionic yes yes yes yes 
Amidox C-5 cocoamide 6EO nonionic no no 
Amidox L-5 lauramide 7EO nonionic yes no no yes 
Crodesta SL-40 sucrose cocoate nonionic yes yes 
Ethylan CPG-945 alcohol EO/PO nonionic yes yes yes yes 
Fluorad FC-170C fluoroalcohol EO nonionic yes yes yes yes 
Fiuorad FC-171 fluoroalcohol EO/PO nonionic yes yes 
Fluorad FC-430 fluoroalkyl ester nonionic yes yes yes yes 
Fluorad FC431 fluoroalkyl ester nonionic no no 
Kinetic adjuvant containing trisiloxane EO methyl nonionic yes yes 
ether 
Makon 12 nonylphenol 12EO nonionic yes no no yes 
Makon 30 nonylphenol 30EO nonionic yes no no yes 
Makon 4 nonylphenol 4EO nonionic yes yes yes yes 
Masil 1066C organosilicone EO nonionic yes yes 
Masil 1066D organosilicone EO nonionic yes no 
Masil 2132 organosilicone EO nonionic yes yes 
Myrj 45 stearate 8EO nonionic no no no yes 
Myrj 52 stearate 40EO nonionic no no no yes 
Myrj 59 stearate 100EO nonionic no no no yes 
Neodol 1-5 undecanol 5EO nonionic yes yes yes yes 
Neodol 25-3 C12-15 alcohol 3EO nonionic yes no yes no 
Neodol 25-9 C12-15 alcohol 9EO nonionic no no no yes 
Neodol 91-8 C9-11 alcohol 8EO nonionic no no no yes 
Ninex MT-610 tall oil fatty acid 10EO nonionic no no no yes 
Ninol 40-CO cocoamide DEA nonionic no no no yes 
Ninol 49-CE cocoamide DEA nonionic yes no no yes 
Nipol 2782 nonylphenol 32EO/19PO mixed nonionic no no no yes 
Nipol 4472 nonylphenol 41EO/41PO mixed nonionic yes no no yes 
Nipol 5595 nonylphenol 66EO/41PO mixed nonionic no no no yes 
nonanol 2EO nonionic yes yes yes yes 
nonanol 4EO nonionic yes yes yes yes 
Pluronic 10-R-5 PO/EO/PO block copolymer nonionic no no no yes 
Pluronic 31-R-1 PO/EO/PO block copolymer nonionic yes no no yes 
Pluronic F-127 
EO/PO/EO block copolymer 
nonionic no no no yes 
Pluronic F-68 EO/PO/EO 
block copolymer 
nonionic no no no yes 
Pluronic L-35 EO/PO/EO 
block copolymer 
nonionic yes no no yes 
Pluronic P-103 
EO/PO/EO block copolymer 
nonionic no no no yes 
Pluronic P-105 
EO/PO/EO block copolymer 
nonionic no no no yes 
Silwet 408 polysiloxane 
EO nonionic yes yes 
yes yes 
Silwet 800 polysiloxane EO nonionic yes yes yes yes 
Silwet L-7001 organosilicone EO nonionic yes yes no no 
Silwet L-720 organosilicone EO nonionic yes yes 
Silwet L-7200 organosilicone EO nonionic no no no yes 
Silwet L-7210 organosilicone EO nonionic yes no no yes 
Silwet L-7500 organosilicone EO nonionic yes no 
Silwet L-7600 organosilicone EO nonionic yes no no yes 
Silwet L-7602 organosilicone EO nonionic yes no no yes 
Silwet L-7604 organosilicone EO nonionic yes yes yes yes 
Silwet L-7605 organosilicone EO nonionic yes no no yes 
Silwet L-7607 polysiloxane EO nonionic yes yes 
Silwet L-7614 organosilicone EO nonionic yes no no yes 
Silwet L-7622 organosilicone EO nonionic yes yes 
Silwet L-77 trisiloxane 7EO methyl ether nonionic yes yes yes yes 
Simulsol SL-10 alkyl 
polyglucoside nonionic 
no no no yes 
Simulsol SL-11 undecyl glucoside nonionic no no yes no 
Simulsol SL-4 alkyl polyglucoside nonionic no no no yes 
Simuisol SL-62 alkyl polyglucoside nonionic no no 
Soprophor 796/P tristyrylphenol EO/PO nonionic no no no yes 
Soprophor CY/8 tristyrylphenol 20EO nonionic no no no yes 
Surfynol 465 tetramethyl decyne diol 10EO nonionic no no no yes 
Sylgard 309 organosilic 
one EO nonionic yes yes 
yes yes 
Tegopren 5840 organosilicone EO nonionic yes yes yes yes 
Tegopren 5847 organosilicone EO nonionic yes yes 
Tegopren 5878 organosilicone EO nonionic yes yes yes yes 
Tergitol 15-S-7 C11-15 secondary alcohol 7EO nonionic yes yes yes yes 
Tergitol 15-S-9 C11-15 
secondary alcohol 9EO 
nonionic no no no yes 
Tergitol TMN-10 
trimethylnonanol 10EO 
nonionic yes no no yes 
Tergitol TMN-6 
trimethylnonanol 6EO 
nonionic yes yes yes 
yes 
Toximul 8240 castor oil fatty acid 36EO nonionic yes no no yes 
Toximul 8302 alcohol EO/PO nonionic no no yes no 
Toximul 8303 alcohol EO/PO nonionic no no yes no 
Toximul 8304 alcohol EO/PO nonionic yes yes yes yes 
Toximul 8320 alcohol EO/PO nonionic no no 
Toximul 8322 PO/EO/PO block copolymer nonionic no no no yes 
Triton XL-80N adjuvant containing alcohol EO nonionic yes yes 
Tween 20 sorbitan monolaurate 20EO nonionic yes no no yes 
Tween 40 sorbitan monopalmitate 20EO nonionic no no no yes 
Tween 61 sorbitan monostearate 4EO nonionic no no 
Tween 80 sorbitan monooleate 20EO nonionic no no no yes 
Tween 85 sorbitan trioleate 20EO nonionic yes yes no no 
Witconol 14 polyglyceryl 4-oleate nonionic yes yes no no 
Witconol 18L polyglyceryl 4-isostearate nonionic yes yes yes yes 
Ganex P-904 yes no 
GE 1161-11-178 yes 
yes 
GE 1161-11-877 yes no 
GE 407-2174 no no 
Masil 280 yes yes 
Masil 280-LB yes yes 
Masil SF-19 yes yes 
Tego Wet 260 yes yes 
Toximul 856A no no yes no 
18-crown-6 crown ether non-surf no no no yes 
amylamine non-surf yes no no yes 
aniline non-surf no no no yes 
Crop Oil petroleum oil based product with emulsifier non-surf yes yes 
no no 
Concentrate 
dimethyl sulfoxide non-surf yes no no yes 
ethanolamine non-surf yes no no yes 
glycerin non-surf no no no yes 
bexylamine non-surf yes yes 
Indicate 5 buffering agent with surfactant non-surf no no no yes 
Kelzan S xanthan gum 
non-surf yes yes 
lactate, Na non-surf 
no no no yes 
methanol non-surf no no no yes 
mineral oil, light non-surf yes no 
N-methyl pyrrolidone non-surf no no 
pentanol non-surf no no no yes 
polyethylene glycol 600 non-surf yes no no yes 
propylene glycol non-surf yes no no yes 
SAG-47 organosilicone antifoam non-surf no no 
tetraethylene glycol non-surf yes no 
WD-40 penetrating oil product non-surf yes yes 
xanthan gum non-surf yes yes 
(Sigma) 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
From this table it can be seen that the in vitro test is an excellent 
predictor of which candidate materials will in fact act as accession 
agents in aqueous solution or dispersion, for all classes except anionic 
surfactants. It can also be seen that the very fact that a candidate 
material is an anionic surfactant is an excellent predictor that an 
aqueous solution or dispersion of that material will in fact act as an 
accession agent. 
The results shown in Table 66A are further summarized in Tables 66B, 66C, 
and 66D. Data for candidate materials which we have been unable to 
classify based on published information are excluded from the following 
summary tables. 
TABLE 66B 
______________________________________ 
Candidate materials giving tank mix antagonism with glyphosate 
Anionic surfactants 92% (62 examples) 
Cationic surfactants 36% (14 examples) 
Amphoteric surfactants 0% (10 examples) 
Nonionic surfactants 62% (89 examples) 
Non-surfactant agents 57% (21 examples) 
All except anionics 54% (134 examples) 
______________________________________ 
TABLE 66C 
______________________________________ 
Candidate materials reducing antagonism when applied sequentially 
Anionic surfactants 89% (62 examples) 
Cationic surfactants 21% (14 examples) 
Amphoteric surfactants 0% (10 examples) 
Nonionic surfactants 37% (89 examples) 
Non-surfactant agents 24% (21 examples) 
All except anionics 31% (134 examples) 
______________________________________ 
TABLE 66D 
______________________________________ 
Candidate materials for which in vitro test 
correctly predicts (1) tank mix antagonism and 
(2) reduced antagonism by sequential application 
Anionic surfactants 32% (44 examples) 
Cationic surfactants 100% (9 examples) 
Amphoteric surfactants 100% (8 examples) 
Nonionic surfactants 90% (69 examples) 
Non-surfactant agents 92% (13 examples) 
All except anionics 92% (99 examples) 
______________________________________ 
Example 67 
Aqueous glyphosate solutions prepared by tank mixing Formulation B with 
0.09% MON-0818 surfactant were sprayed on the following species in 
greenhouse tests, alone and in a tank mix with Silwet L-77: 
Brassica juncea (BRSJU, indian mustard) 
Erodium cicutarium (EROCI, redstem filaree) 
Helianthus annuus (HELAN, common sunflower) 
Kochia scoparia (KCHSC, kochia) 
Xanthium strumarium (XANST, common cocklebur) 
Antagonism was evident on the plants treated with the tank mix. 
When these same species were treated by sequential application according to 
the present invention (glyphosate followed by Silwet L-77), in every 
species the antagonism was partially or totally overcome. 
Example 68 
Aqueous glyphosate solutions prepared by tank mixing Formulation B with 
0.09% MON-0818 surfactant were sprayed on the following species in 
greenhouse tests, alone and in a tank mix with Silwet L-77: 
Amaranthus retroflexus (AMARE, redroot pigweed) 
Malva sylvestris (MALSI, cheeseweed) 
Portulaca oleracea (POROL, common purslane) 
No antagonism was evident on any of these species in these tests, and 
therefore no determination could be made as to whether sequential 
application was effective to reduce antagonism. 
Example 69 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet, a form of 
bamyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and prickly sida (Sida 
spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse and 
treated with initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly as 
described for Example 49, except where otherwise noted below. 
The herbicide used in this Example was Liberty, a product of AgrEvo 
containing as active ingredient the ammonium salt of glufosinate. Initial 
applications of herbicide, alone or in tank mix with a candidate accession 
agent, were applied on the same day, 16 days after planting velvetleaf, 14 
days after planting Japanese millet, and 24 days after planting prickly 
sida. All treatments were applied by spraying with a track sprayer fitted 
with a single 8002E nozzle calibrated to deliver a spray volume of 187 
l/ha at a pressure of 173 kPa. Liberty was applied in water with and 
without candidate accession agent at a range of rates from 50 to 900 g 
a.e./ha. This Example includes as the candidate accession agent aqueous 
solutions containing Silwet L-77 at concentrations ranging from 0.25% to 
1.5% by volume. When Silwet L-77 was applied subsequently, the time 
interval between initial and subsequent applications ranged from 1 to 24 
hours. 
Fourteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 69. 
TABLE 69 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
herbicide 
subsequent application 
% inhibition 
herbicide 
accession agent 
rate g a.e./ha 
accession agent 
ABUTH 
ECHCF 
SIDSP 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Liberty 
none 50 none 0 0 0 
Liberty none 100 none 37 50 42 
Liberty none 400 none 91 98 72 
Liberty none 900 none 99 97 94 
Liberty 0.25% L-77 50 none 75 5 53 
Liberty 0.25% L-77 100 none 78 5 60 
Liberty 0.25% L-77 400 none 95 88 88 
Liberty 0.25% L-77 900 none 99 98 96 
Liberty 0.5% L-77 50 none 72 2 35 
Liberty 0.5% L-77 100 none 88 5 60 
Liberty 0.5% L-77 400 none 96 63 90 
Liberty 0.5% L-77 900 none 98 93 93 
Liberty 1.5% L-77 50 none 80 5 35 
Liberty 1.5% L-77 100 none 82 5 43 
Liberty 1.5% L-77 400 none 97 43 60 
Liberty 1.5% L-77 900 none 98 68 83 
Liberty none 50 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 43 12 53 
Liberty none 100 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 89 45 60 
Liberty none 400 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 88 78 78 
Liberty none 900 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 95 97 91 
Liberty none 50 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 87 15 48 
Liberty none 100 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 83 35 60 
Liberty none 400 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 88 60 72 
Liberty none 900 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 98 98 95 
Liberty none 50 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 57 0 35 
Liberty none 100 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 72 25 47 
Liberty none 400 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 97 97 91 
Liberty none 900 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 94 91 93 
Liberty none 50 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 77 10 25 
Liberty none 100 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 83 20 42 
Liberty none 400 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 95 93 87 
Liberty none 900 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 95 98 93 
Liberty none 50 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 78 28 40 
Liberty none 100 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 85 38 62 
Liberty none 400 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 97 97 88 
Liberty none 900 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 99 97 88 
Liberty none 50 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 40 3 38 
Liberty none 100 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 75 42 58 
Liberty none 400 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 93 96 85 
Liberty none 900 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 99 100 94 
Liberty none 50 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 63 10 35 
Liberty none 100 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 82 10 32 
Liberty none 400 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 93 72 82 
Liberty none 900 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 95 96 88 
Liberty none 50 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 77 27 60 
Liberty none 100 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 77 22 58 
Liberty none 400 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 94 87 87 
Liberty none 900 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 94 94 89 
Liberty none 50 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 60 15 38 
Liberty none 100 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 78 58 52 
Liberty none 400 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 90 96 80 
Liberty none 900 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 99 99 92 
none none 0 none 0 0 0 
none (water) none 0 none 0 0 0 
none 0.25% L-77 0 none 0 0 0 
none 0.5% L-77 0 none 0 0 0 
none 1.5% L-77 0 none 42 0 5 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Silwet L-77 antagonized the performance of Liberty on Japanese millet when 
added in tank mix, high Silwet L-77 concentrations being more antagonistic 
than low. In all cases antagonism was reduced when the Silwet L-77 was 
instead applied as a sequential treatment according to the present 
invention. 
Example 70 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet, a form of 
barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and broadleaf signalgrass 
(Brachiaria platyphylla, BRAPP) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a 
greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent applications by 
procedures exactly as described for Example 49, except where otherwise 
noted below. 
The herbicide used in this Example was alachlor in unformulated (technical) 
form. Initial applications of herbicide, alone or in tank mix with a 
candidate accession agent, were applied on the same day, 16 days after 
planting velvetleaf, 8 days after planting Japanese millet, and 17 days 
after planting broadleaf signalgrass. All treatments were applied by 
spraying with a track sprayer fitted with a single 8002E nozzle calibrated 
to deliver a spray volume of 187 l/ha at a pressure of 173 kPa. Alachlor 
was applied in water with and without candidate accession agent at a range 
of rates from 500 to 4,000 g/ha. This Example includes as the candidate 
accession agent aqueous solutions containing Silwet L-77 at concentrations 
ranging from 0.25% to 1.5% by volume. When Silwet L-77 was applied 
subsequently, the time interval between initial and subsequent 
applications ranged from 1 to 24 hours. 
Fourteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 70. 
TABLE 70 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
herbicide 
subsequent application 
% inhibition 
herbicide 
accession agent 
rate (g/ha) 
accession agent 
ABUTH 
ECHCF 
BRAPP 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
alachlor 
none 500 none 0 0 0 
alachlor none 1000 none 0 2 10 
alachlor none 2000 none 17 58 17 
alachlor none 4000 none 30 55 30 
alachlor 0.25% L-77 500 none 0 0 0 
alachlor 0.25% L-77 1000 none 0 0 0 
alachlor 0.25% L-77 2000 none 0 43 0 
alachlor 0.25% L-77 4000 none 25 50 12 
alachlor 0.5% L-77 500 none 0 0 0 
alachlor 0.5% L-77 1000 none 0 30 0 
alachlor 0.5% L-77 2000 none 5 38 7 
alachlor 0.5% L-77 4000 none 32 48 38 
alachlor 1.5% L-77 500 none 23 3 0 
alachlor 1.5% L-77 1000 none 40 7 22 
alachlor 1.5% L-77 2000 none 33 47 25 
alachlor 1.5% L-77 4000 none 50 58 48 
alachlor none 500 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 3 0 10 
alachlor none 1000 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 15 30 17 
alachlor none 2000 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 22 37 32 
alachlor none 4000 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 23 45 60 
alachlor none 500 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 0 0 0 
alachlor none 1000 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 10 7 10 
alachlor none 2000 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 7 30 33 
alachlor none 4000 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 23 50 25 
alachlor none 500 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 0 0 2 
alachlor none 1000 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 15 17 2 
alachlor none 2000 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 20 35 12 
alachlor none 4000 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 27 52 25 
alachlor none 500 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 15 0 0 
alachlor none 1000 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 5 0 10 
alachlor none 2000 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 28 35 18 
alachlor none 4000 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 32 50 62 
alachlor none 500 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 20 0 0 
alachlor none 1000 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 22 0 7 
alachlor none 2000 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 30 32 15 
alachlor none 4000 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 37 45 35 
alachlor none 500 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 33 5 5 
alachlor none 1000 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 32 7 3 
alachlor none 2000 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 37 30 3 
alachlor none 4000 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 50 67 43 
alachlor none 500 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 53 13 8 
alachlor none 1000 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 45 15 22 
alachlor none 2000 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 58 30 25 
alachlor none 4000 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 52 37 47 
alachlor none 500 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 63 0 0 
alachlor none 1000 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 53 0 7 
alachlor none 2000 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 63 45 20 
alachlor none 4000 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 63 35 53 
alachlor none 500 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 52 25 2 
alachlor none 1000 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 63 27 22 
alachlor none 2000 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 58 37 22 
alachlor none 4000 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 67 60 67 
none none 0 none 0 0 0 
none none 0 none 0 0 0 
(water/acetone 
50/50) 
none 0.25% L-77 0 none 5 0 0 
none 0.5% L-77 0 none 0 0 0 
none 1.5% L-77 0 none 23 0 3 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Alachlor is normally used as a pre-emergent herbicide but this test was for 
post-emergent foliar-applied herbicidal activity. Sequential application 
of accession agent following alachlor according to the present invention 
generally enhanced herbicidal efficacy over that obtained with alachlor 
alone or in tank mix with the accession agent. 
Example 71 
Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet, a form of 
bamyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF), and broadleaf signalgrass 
(Brachiaria platyphylla, BRAPP) plants were grown in pots, maintained in a 
greenhouse and treated with initial and subsequent applications by 
procedures exactly as described for Example 49, except where otherwise 
noted below. 
The herbicide used in this Example was pendimethalin in unformulated 
(technical) form. Initial applications of herbicide, alone or in tank mix 
with a candidate accession agent, were applied on the same day, 16 days 
after planting velvetleaf, 8 days after planting Japanese millet, and 17 
days after planting broadleaf signalgrass. All treatments were applied by 
spraying with a track sprayer fitted with a single 8002E nozzle calibrated 
to deliver a spray volume of 187 l/ha at a pressure of 173 kPa. 
Pendimethalin was applied in water with and without candidate accession 
agent at a range of rates from 100 to 4,000 g/ha. This Example includes as 
the candidate accession agent aqueous solutions containing Silwet L-77 at 
concentrations ranging from 0.25% to 1.5% by volume. When Silwet L-77 was 
applied subsequently, the time interval between initial and subsequent 
applications ranged from 1 to 24 hours. 
Thirteen days after the initial application, all plants in the test were 
examined by a single practiced technician to evaluate percent inhibition. 
Treatments and corresponding percent inhibitions are given in Table 71. 
TABLE 71 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Initial application 
herbicide 
subsequent application 
% inhibition 
herbicide 
accession agent 
rate g/ha 
accession agent 
ABUTH 
ECHCF 
BRAPP 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
pendimethalin 
none 100 none 62 0 10 
pendimethalin none 500 none 77 53 35 
pendimethalin none 1000 none 77 68 57 
pendimethalin none 4000 none 87 73 67 
pendimethalin 0.25% L-77 100 none 42 5 0 
pendimethalin 0.25% L-77 500 none 72 50 5 
pendimethalin 0.25% L-77 1000 none 80 67 35 
pendimethalin 0.25% L-77 4000 none 87 73 57 
pendimethalin 0.5% L-77 100 none 68 30 0 
pendimethalin 0.5% L-77 500 none 73 58 25 
pendimethalin 0.5% L-77 1000 none 80 67 35 
pendimethalin 0.5% L-77 4000 none 85 75 52 
pendimethalin 1.5% L-77 100 none 70 35 10 
pendimethalin 1.5% L-77 500 none 75 48 30 
pendimethalin 1.5% L-77 1000 none 77 68 65 
pendimethalin 1.5% L-77 4000 none 85 72 67 
pendimethalin none 100 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 65 10 25 
pendimethalin none 500 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 75 55 42 
pendimethalin none 1000 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 78 62 47 
pendimethalin none 4000 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 85 75 67 
pendimethalin none 100 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 58 7 23 
pendimethalin none 500 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 77 55 15 
pendimethalin none 1000 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 80 50 30 
pendimethalin none 4000 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 85 72 52 
pendimethalin none 100 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 65 10 8 
pendimethalin none 500 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 78 57 18 
pendimethalin none 1000 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 83 60 17 
pendimethalin none 4000 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 85 75 57 
pendimethalin none 100 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 70 7 30 
pendimethalin none 500 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 77 52 25 
pendimethalin none 1000 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 82 55 35 
pendimethalin none 4000 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 85 72 45 
pendimethalin none 100 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 65 18 13 
pendimethalin none 500 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 73 58 20 
pendimethalin none 1000 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 75 62 22 
pendimethalin none 4000 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 83 72 60 
pendimethalin none 100 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 68 10 25 
pendimethalin none 500 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 75 60 17 
pendimethalin none 1000 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 80 65 27 
pendimethalin none 4000 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 85 73 47 
pendimethalin none 100 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 70 15 45 
pendimethalin none 500 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 78 57 42 
pendimethalin none 1000 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 80 63 55 
pendimethalin none 4000 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 85 73 63 
pendimethalin none 100 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 68 20 18 
pendimethalin none 500 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 75 58 25 
pendimethalin none 1000 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 73 57 30 
pendimethalin none 4000 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 85 75 68 
pendimethalin none 100 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 68 25 32 
pendimethalin none 500 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 72 60 27 
pendimethalin none 1000 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 77 63 43 
pendimethalin none 4000 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 85 75 50 
none none 0 none 0 0 0 
none none 0 none 0 0 0 
(water/acetone 
50/50) 
none 0.25% L-77 0 none 0 0 0 
none 0.5% L-77 0 none 0 0 0 
none 1.5% L-77 0 none 37 0 5 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Some antagonism of pendimethalin herbicidal activity on broadleaf 
signalgrass was noted with addition of Silwet L-77 in tank mix at 0.25% 
and 0.5%. This antagonism was reduced when the Silwet L-77 was instead 
applied as a sequential treatment after the pendimethalin according to the 
present invention. 
Example 72 
The following herbicides were applied to velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, 
ABUTH), Japanese millet, a form of bamyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli, 
ECHCF) and prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) in greenhouse tests, alone 
and in tank mix with Silwet L-77: 2,4-D dimethylamine, chlorimuron-ethyl, 
atrazine, and asulam sodium, all as unformulated (technical) material. No 
antagonism was evident in these tests when Silwet L-77 was applied in tank 
mix. 
Example 73 
A test was conducted to apply the method of the present invention to 
gibberellic acid, a plant growth regulator (PGR) having the effect of 
stimulating shoot elongation in sensitive plants. Seeds of dwarf Phaseolus 
bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, PHSVN) cv. Blue Lake were planted in 85 mm 
square pots in a soil mix which was previously steam sterilized and 
prefertilized with a 14-14-14 NPK slow release fertilizer at a rate of 3.6 
kg/m.sup.3. The pots were placed in a greenhouse with sub-irrigation. 
After emergence, seedlings were thinned to 2 or 3 healthy plants per pot. 
The plants were maintained for the duration of the test in the greenhouse 
where they received a minimum of 14 hours of light per day. If natural 
light was insufficient to achieve the daily requirement, artificial light 
with an intensity of approximately 475 microeinsteins was used to make up 
the difference. Exposure temperatures were not precisely controlled but 
averaged about 27.degree. C. during the day and 18.degree. C. during the 
night. Plants were sub-irrigated throughout the test to ensure adequate 
soil moisture levels. 
Pots were assigned to different treatments in a randomized experimental 
design with 6 replications. Randomization was constricted in the following 
respects: (1) as considerable variation in plant height was evident at the 
time of treatment, pots were assigned to treatments in such a way as to 
distribute the height range evenly among treatments; (2) for each 
treatment 4 pots were selected having 3 plants each and 2 pots were 
selected having 2 plants each, making a total of 16 plants per treatment. 
One such set of 16 plants was left untreated as a reference against which 
effects of the treatments could later be evaluated. 
Initial treatments with gibberellic acid in unformulated (technical) form, 
alone or in tank mix with a candidate accession agent, were applied 13 
days after planting. Initial treatments were applied by spraying with a 
track sprayer fitted with a single 8002E nozzle calibrated to deliver a 
spray volume of 187 l/ha at a pressure of 173 kPa. Plants treated 
according to methods of prior art, for comparative purposes, received an 
initial treatment only. Plants treated by a method illustrative of the 
present invention received an initial application of gibberellic acid 
followed sequentially by a subsequent application of a candidate accession 
agent. Various intervals between initial and subsequent applications were 
tested in this Example. All subsequent applications in this Example were 
applied by spraying a candidate accession agent with a track sprayer 
fitted exactly as for the initial application and calibrated to deliver a 
spray volume of 187 l/ha at a pressure of 173 kPa. 
Gibberellic acid was applied without and with each candidate accession 
agent at a range of rates from 0.0004 to 0.05 g/ha. Candidate accession 
agents in this Example were aqueous solutions of Silwet L-77 at 
concentrations of 0.25%, 0.5% and 1.5% by volume. Solutions of Silwet L-77 
were prepared immediately before application because of hydrolytic 
instability. Time intervals between initial and subsequent applications 
were 1 hour and 4 hours. 
Twelve days after application, the height of each individual plant was 
measured to the nearest centimeter, from the soil surface to the shoot 
apex. Plants in which the main stem was broken or the shoot apex 
physically damaged were discarded. An average height of all plants in each 
treatment was calculated. 
Gibberellic acid treatments and results are given in Table 73. The height 
values are averages for the 16 plants in each treatment. 
TABLE 73 
______________________________________ 
subsequent 
Initial application PGR application Height 
accession rate accession (cm) 
PGR agent g/ha agent PHSVN 
______________________________________ 
gibberellic acid 
none 0.0004 none 41 
gibberellic acid none 0.002 none 47 
gibberellic acid none 0.01 none 44 
gibberellic acid none 0.05 none 44 
gibberellic acid 0.25% L-77 0.0004 none 47 
gibberellic acid 0.25% L-77 0.002 none 51 
gibberellic acid 0.25% L-77 0.01 none 55 
gibberellic acid 0.25% L-77 0.05 none 64 
gibberellic acid 0.5% L-77 0.0004 none 56 
gibberellic acid 0.5% L-77 0.002 none 52 
gibberellic acid 0.5% L-77 0.01 none 53 
gibberellic acid 0.5% L-77 0.05 none 67 
gibberellic acid 1.5% L-77 0.0004 none 47 
gibberellic acid 1.5% L-77 0.002 none 42 
gibberellic acid 1.5% L-77 0.01 none 50 
gibberellic acid 1.5% L-77 0.05 none 55 
gibberellic acid none 0.0004 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 36 
gibberellic acid none 0.002 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 39 
gibberellic acid none 0.01 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 41 
gibberellic acid none 0.05 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 44 
gibberellic acid none 0.0004 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 51 
gibberellic acid none 0.002 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 65 
gibberellic acid none 0.01 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 67 
gibberellic acid none 0.05 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 67 
gibberellic acid none 0.0004 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 46 
gibberellic acid none 0.002 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 37 
gibberellic acid none 0.01 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 49 
gibberellic acid none 0.05 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 54 
gibberellic acid none 0.0004 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 63 
gibberellic acid none 0.002 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 55 
gibberellic acid none 0.01 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 60 
gibberellic acid none 0.05 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 60 
gibberellic acid none 0.0004 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 41 
gibberellic acid none 0.002 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 45 
gibberellic acid none 0.01 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 40 
gibberellic acid none 0.05 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 40 
gibberellic acid none 0.0004 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 48 
gibberellic acid none 0.002 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 47 
gibberellic acid none 0.01 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 44 
gibberellic acid none 0.05 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 42 
none none 0 none 44 
none (water) none 0 none 46 
none 0.25% L-77 0 none 45 
none 0.5% L-77 0 none 46 
none 1.5% L-77 0 none 41 
______________________________________ 
Gibberellic acid shoot elongation activity was enhanced rather than 
antagonized by Silwet L-77 in tank mix. However, even more positive 
results were obtained by sequential application of 0.25% or 0.5% Silwet 
L-77 according to the present invention, at an interval of 4 hours after 
application of the gibberellic acid. 
Example 74 
A test was conducted to apply the method of the present invention to 
ethephon ((2-chloroethyl)phosphonic acid), a plant growth regulator having 
the effect of inhibiting shoot elongation in sensitive plants. 
Dwarf Phaseolus bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, PHSVN) cv. Roman II Italian 
plants were grown in pots, maintained in a greenhouse and treated with 
initial and subsequent applications by procedures exactly as described for 
Example 73, except where otherwise noted below. 
Ethephon in unformulated (technical) form was used as the plant growth 
regulator for this Example. Initial applications of ethephon, alone or in 
tank mix with a candidate accession agent, were applied 19 days after 
planting. Ethephon was applied in water with and without candidate 
accession agent at a range of rates from 125 to 1000 g/ha. Candidate 
accession agent treatments were exactly as in Example 73. 
Sixteen days after application, plants were measured as in Example 73. 
TABLE 74 
______________________________________ 
subsequent 
Initial application PGR application Height 
accession rate accession (cm) 
PGR agent g/ha agent PHSVN 
______________________________________ 
ethephon none 125 none 37 
ethephon none 250 none 31 
ethephon none 500 none 23 
ethephon none 1000 none 20 
ethephon 0.25% L-77 125 none 47 
ethephon 0.25% L-77 250 none 37 
ethephon 0.25% L-77 500 none 27 
ethephon 0.25% L-77 1000 none 23 
ethephon 0.5% L-77 125 none 44 
ethephon 0.5% L-77 250 none 35 
ethephon 0.5% L-77 500 none 29 
ethephon 0.5% L-77 1000 none 24 
ethephon 1.5% L-77 125 none 38 
ethephon 1.5% L-77 250 none 37 
ethephon 1.5% L-77 500 none 29 
ethephon 1.5% L-77 1000 none 24 
ethephon none 125 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 38 
ethephon none 250 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 32 
ethephon none 500 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 24 
ethephon none 1000 0.25% L-77 at 1 hr 21 
ethephon none 125 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 42 
ethephon none 250 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 31 
ethephon none 500 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 23 
ethephon none 1000 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 19 
ethephon none 125 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 40 
ethephon none 250 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 29 
ethephon none 500 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 24 
ethephon none 1000 0.5% L-77 at 1 hr 21 
ethephon none 125 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 43 
ethephon none 250 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 39 
ethephon none 500 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 27 
ethephon none 1000 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 20 
ethephon none 125 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 35 
ethephon none 250 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 34 
ethephon none 500 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 24 
ethephon none 1000 1.5% L-77 at 1 hr 20 
ethephon none 125 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 40 
ethephon none 250 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 29 
ethephon none 500 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 23 
ethephon none 1000 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 20 
none none 0 none 97 
none (water) none 0 none 92 
none 0.25% L-77 0 none 90 
none 0.5% L-77 0 none 94 
none 1.5% L-77 0 none 89 
______________________________________ 
Ethephon was very effective in this test in reducing the height of the bean 
plants. Adding Silwet L-77 in tank mix tended to reduce effectiveness, 
indicating antagonism. This antagonism was reduced or eliminated by 
applying the Silwet L-77 as a sequential treatment after the ethephon 
according to the present invention. 
Example 75 
A test was conducted to apply the method of the present invention to Peters 
27-15-12 Foliar Feed, a compound fertilizer marketed for foliar 
application. 
Seeds of hybrid corn (Zea mays, ZEAMD) cv. Pioneer PN 3394 were planted in 
85 mm square pots in river sand (Meramec WB-20 below the seeds; Meramec 
WB-35 for the 18 mm cover layer) which was previously steam sterilized but 
contained no added fertilizer. The pots were placed in a greenhouse with 
sub-irrigation. After emergence, seedlings were thinned to 3 healthy 
plants per pot. The plants were maintained for the duration of the test in 
the greenhouse where they received a minimum of 14 hours of light per day. 
If natural light was insufficient to achieve the daily requirement, 
artificial light with an intensity of approximately 475 microeinsteins was 
used to make up the difference. Exposure temperatures were not precisely 
controlled but averaged about 27.degree. C. during the day and 18.degree. 
C. during the night. Plants were sub-irrigated throughout the test to 
ensure adequate soil moisture levels. 
Pots were assigned to different treatments in a fully randomized 
experimental design with 6 replications. One set of 6 pots was left 
untreated as a reference against which effects of the treatments could 
later be evaluated. 
All foliar fertilizer treatments were made with addition of nonionic 
surfactant as recommended on the Peters label; the surfactant used was 
Tween 20 at 0.5% by volume. Initial treatments with foliar fertilizer, 
with Tween 20 only or in tank mix with a candidate accession agent in 
addition to Tween 20, were applied 18 days after planting. Initial 
treatments were applied by spraying with a track sprayer fitted with a 
single 8002E nozzle calibrated to deliver a spray volume of 374 l/ha at a 
pressure of 173 kPa. Plants treated according to methods of prior art, for 
comparative purposes, received an initial treatment only. Plants treated 
by a method illustrative of the present invention received an initial 
application of foliar fertilizer plus Tween 20 followed sequentially by a 
subsequent application of a candidate accession agent. Various intervals 
between initial and subsequent applications were tested in this Example. 
All subsequent applications in this Example were applied by spraying a 
candidate accession agent with a track sprayer fitted exactly as for the 
initial application and calibrated to deliver a spray volume of 374 l/ha 
at a pressure of 173 kPa. 
Foliar fertilizer was applied without and with each candidate accession 
agent at a range of rates from 5.6 to 44.8 kg N/ha. Candidate accession 
agents in this Example were aqueous solutions of Silwet L-77 at 
concentrations of 0.25%, 0.5% and 1.5% by volume. Solutions of Silwet L-77 
were prepared immediately before application because of hydrolytic 
instability. Time intervals between initial and subsequent applications 
were 4 hours and 24 hours. Thirteen days after application, a chlorophyll 
meter (SPAD-502) reading was taken on the lamina, avoiding the mid-vein, 
near the mid-point of the fifth leaf of each plant (3 readings per pot; 
total 18 per treatment). It was observed that leaves having a tear or 
other injury distal to the mid-point had elevated chlorophyll readings at 
the mid-point on the injured side; in such cases the reading recorded was 
from the side of the leaf opposite the injured side. An average 
chlorophyll reading for each treatment was calculated. 
Thirty-one days after application, the height of each individual plant was 
measured to the nearest centimeter, from the soil surface to the shoot 
apex. An average height of all plants in each treatment was calculated. 
Plants were then clipped at soil level and the total fresh weight per 
treatment determined. 
Table 75A summarizes the results obtained with the chlorophyll meter. An 
"A" indicates that antagonism (reduced chlorophyll reading) was evident 
when Silwet L-77 was applied as part of a tank mix, by comparison with the 
treatment receiving the same rate of fertilizer but no Silwet L-77, and 
"S" indicates that the antagonism was reduced or eliminated when Silwet 
L-77 was instead applied as a separate, sequential treatment. An "X" 
indicates that the chlorophyll reading for a particular treatment was 
lower than that for the next lower fertilizer rate. (It is believed that 
in the 24 hour and possibly the 4 hour sequential treatments, the 11.2 kg 
N/ha results reflect an application error.) 
TABLE 75A 
______________________________________ 
Initial application 
Nitrogen subsequent Chloro- 
accession rate application 
phyll 
fertilizer agent kg/ha accession agent reading 
______________________________________ 
Foliar Feed 
none 5.6 none 
Foliar Feed none 11.2 none 
Foliar Feed none 22.4 none 
Foliar Feed none 44.8 none 
Foliar Feed 0.25% L-77 5.6 none A 
Foliar Feed 0.25% L-77 11.2 none A 
Foliar Feed 0.25% L-77 22.4 none A 
Foliar Feed 0.25% L-77 44.8 none XA 
Foliar Feed 0.5% L-77 5.6 none A 
Foliar Feed 0.5% L-77 11.2 none A 
Foliar Feed 0.5% L-77 22.4 none XA 
Foliar Feed 0.5% L-77 44.8 none A 
Foliar Feed 1.5% L-77 5.6 none A 
Foliar Feed 1.5% L-77 11.2 none A 
Foliar Feed 1.5% L-77 22.4 none A 
Foliar Feed 1.5% L-77 44.8 none A 
Foliar Feed none 5.6 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr S 
Foliar Feed none 11.2 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr S 
Foliar Feed none 22.4 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr S 
Foliar Feed none 44.8 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr S 
Foliar Feed none 5.6 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr S 
Foliar Feed none 11.2 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr X 
Foliar Feed none 22.4 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr S 
Foliar Feed none 44.8 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr S 
Foliar Feed none 5.6 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr S 
Foliar Feed none 11.2 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr X 
Foliar Feed none 22.4 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr S 
Foliar Feed none 44.8 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr S 
Foliar Feed none 5.6 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr S 
Foliar Feed none 11.2 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr X 
Foliar Feed none 22.4 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr S 
Foliar Feed none 44.8 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr S 
Foliar Feed none 5.6 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr S 
Foliar Feed none 11.2 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr XS 
Foliar Feed none 22.4 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr S 
Foliar Feed none 44.8 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr S 
Foliar Feed none 5.6 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr S 
Foliar Feed none 11.2 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr X 
Foliar Feed none 22.4 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr S 
Foliar Feed none 44.8 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr S 
______________________________________ 
Table 75B gives height and weight data. 
TABLE 75B 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
subsequent 
Initial application Nitrogen application Height Weight 
accession 
rate accession 
(cm) (g) 
Fertilizer agent kg/ha agent ZEAMD ZEAMD 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Foliar Feed 
none 5.6 none 47 11.4 
Foliar Feed none 11.2 none 51 12.2 
Foliar Feed none 22.4 none 56 14.0 
Foliar Feed none 44.8 none 62 18.6 
Foliar Feed 0.25% L-77 5.6 none 44 10.9 
Foliar Feed 0.25% L-77 11.2 none 48 13.6 
Foliar Feed 0.25% L-77 22.4 none 53 15.6 
Foliar Feed 0.25% L-77 44.8 none 56 16.2 
Foliar Feed 0.5% L-77 5.6 none 43 10.6 
Foliar Feed 0.5% L-77 11.2 none 51 14.8 
Foliar Feed 0.5% L-77 22.4 none 49 13.8 
Foliar Feed 0.5% L-77 44.8 none 53 15.0 
Foliar Feed 1.5% L-77 5.6 none 47 12.3 
Foliar Feed 1.5% L-77 11.2 none 48 12.6 
Foliar Feed 1.5% L-77 22.4 none 51 11.8 
Foliar Feed 1.5% L-77 44.8 none 55 15.0 
Foliar Feed none 5.6 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 50 13.8 
Foliar Feed none 11.2 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 51 12.8 
Foliar Feed none 22.4 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 52 15.9 
Foliar Feed none 44.8 0.25% L-77 at 4 hr 60 22.7 
Foliar Feed none 5.6 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 49 12.6 
Foliar Feed none 11.2 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 44 10.5 
Foliar Feed none 22.4 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 58 18.2 
Foliar Feed none 44.8 0.25% L-77 at 24 hr 62 20.7 
Foliar Feed none 5.6 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 48 13.7 
Foliar Feed none 11.2 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 49 13.6 
Foliar Feed none 22.4 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 57 17.7 
Foliar Feed none 44.8 0.5% L-77 at 4 hr 54 15.9 
Foiiar Feed none 5.6 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 46 11.8 
Foliar Feed none 11.2 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 42 9.6 
Foliar Feed none 22.4 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 54 15.8 
Foliar Feed none 44.8 0.5% L-77 at 24 hr 60 20.6 
Foliar Feed none 5.6 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 47 13.4 
Foliar Feed none 11.2 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 50 13.6 
Foliar Feed none 22.4 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 57 17.0 
Foliar Feed none 44.8 1.5% L-77 at 4 hr 59 18.7 
Foliar Feed none 5.6 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 43 10.0 
Foliar Feed none 11.2 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 40 8.9 
Foliar Feed none 22.4 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 50 14.4 
Foliar Feed none 44.8 1.5% L-77 at 24 hr 55 16.9 
none none 0 none 40 10.1 
none (water) none 0 none 38 8.5 
none 0.25% L-77 0 none 39 8.3 
none 0.5% L-77 0 none 39 8.4 
none 1.5% L-77 0 none 37 7.5 
none 0.5% 0 none 37 8.2 
Tween 20 
__________________________________________________________________________ 
Fertilizer effects on growth of corn plants in this test were reduced by 
addition of Silwet L-77 in tank mix, indicating antagonism. When the 
Silwet L-77 was instead applied as a sequential treatment after the foliar 
fertilizer according to the present invention, this antagonism was reduced 
or eliminated. 
The preceding description of specific embodiments of the present invention 
is not intended to be a complete list of every possible embodiment of the 
invention. Persons skilled in this field will recognize that modifications 
can be made to the specific embodiments described here that would be 
within the scope of the present invention.