SYNERGISTIC HERBICIDAL COMPOSITIONS AND USE THEREOF

Abstract: Synergistic herbicidal activity is displayed by a com­ position comprising the following two components: (a) a thiolcarbamate of the formula in which R¹ is selected from ethyl, benzyl, and p-chloroben­ zyl, and when R¹ is ethyl, R² and R³ are independently select­ ed from C₁-C₆ alkyl and C₅-C₇ cycloalkyl, and when R¹ is benzyl or p-chlorobenzyl, R² and R³ are independently selected from C₁-C₆ alkyl, or con­ jointly form C₅-C₇ alkylene; and (b) a phenylcarbarmoyloxycarbanilate of the formula in which R⁴ is C₁-C₄ alkyl; and R⁵ is selected from hydrogen and C₁-C₄ alkyl. The compositions may contain an inert carrier or diluent and optionally other active ingredients. They are applied post-emergence.

Description: Title Synergistic Herbicidal Compositions and use Thereof' This invention relates to synergistic herbicidal compositions and to the use thereof for the control of vegetation. The protection of crops from weeds and other vegetation which inhibit crop growth is a constantly recurring problem in agriculture. To help combat this problem researchers in the field of synthetic chemistry have produced an extensive variety of chemicals and chemical formulations effective in the control of such growth. Chemical herbicides of many types have been disclosed in the literature and a large number are in commercial use. In some cases, active herbicides have been shown to be more effective in cpmbination than when applied individually. The result is often termed "synergism", since the combination demonstrates a potency or activity level exceeding that which it would be expected to have, based on a knowledge of the individual potencies of the components. The present invention resides in the discovery that certain thiolcarbamates and certain carbamoyloxycarbanilates, already known individually for their herbicidal potency, display this effect when applied in combination. The two classes of compounds forming the combination which is the subject of the present invention are independently known in the art for their effects on plant growth. Thiolcarbamates are disclosed as herbicides in U.S. Patent Nos. 3,185,720 (Tilles et al., May 25, 1965), 3,198,786 (Tilles et al. August 3, 1965), and 2,913,327 (Tilles et al., November 17, 1959). Carbamoyloxycarbanilates are disclosed as herbicides in U.S. Patent Nos. 3,404,975 (Wilson et al., October 8, 1968) and 3,692,820 (Boroschewski et al., September 19, 1972). It has now been discovered according to the invention that synergism in the control of undesirable vegetation is exhibited by compositions comprising a mixture of the following two components: (a) a thiolcarbamate of the formula EMI2.1 (in which RÚ is ethyl, benzyl or p-chlorobenzyl; and when RÚ is ethyl, Rê and R are independently selected from C1-C6 alkyl and C5-C7 cycloalkyl, and when R1 is benzyl or p-chlorobenzyl, R2 and R3 are independently selected from C1-C6 alkyl, or con jointly form C5-C7 alkylene); and (b) a phenylcarbamoyloxycarbanilate of the formula EMI2.2 <tb> <SEP> 0 <SEP> 0 <tb> <SEP> R40- <SEP> C" <SEP> -NH <SEP> 'I <tb> R <SEP> O-C-NH <SEP> v <SEP> O-C-NH <SEP> R5 <tb> in <SEP> which <tb> R4 is C1-C4 alkyl; and R5 is selected from the group consisting of hydrogen and C1-C4 alkyl. The terms "alkyl" and 11alkenyl" are used herein to denote both straight-chain and branched-chain groups. Examples of alkyl groups include methyl, ethyl, n-propyl, isopropyl, n-butyl, sec-butyl, isobutyl, etc. Examples of alkenyl groups include vinyl, allyl, 2-butenyl, isobutenyl, etc. The term "alkylene" is used herein to denote multiples of the -CH2- group, optionally substituted with alkyl groups. Examples include -CH2CH2CH2CH2CH2- (pentamethylene), -CH2CH2CH2CH2CH2CH2- (hexamethylene), -CH2CH2 CH2CH2CH2CH2CH2- (heptamethylene), -CH2CH(CH3)CH2CH2CH2CH2- (2-methylhexamethyl), etc. All carbon atom ranges are inclusive of their upper and lower limits. Examples of thiolcarbamates useful in the present invention are: S-ethyl N-cyclohexyl N-ethyl thiolcarbamate (cycloate) S-ethyl di-n-propylthiolcarbarnate (EPTC) S-p -chIorobenzyl die thylthiolcarbamate (benthiocarb) S-ethyl diisobutylthiolcarbamate (butylate) S-benzyl di-sec-butylthiolcarbamate S-benzyl hexahydro-lH -azepine -1 -carbothiate S-p-chlorobenzyl hexahydro-1H-azepine-1-carbothioate These and other thiolcarbamates within the scope of this invention can be prepare by the procedures described in U.S. Patent Nods. 2,913,327, 3,185,720, and 3,198,786 mentioned above. Preferred thiolcarbamates are those in which R1 is selected from the group consisting of ethyl, benzyl, and p-chlorobenzyl, and when R1 is ethyl, R2 and R3 are independently selected from the group consisting of C14 alkyl and cyclohexyl, and when R1 is benzyl or p-chlorobenzyl, R2 and R3 are independently selected fran the group consisting of C1-C3 alkyl, or conjointly form hexamethylene. Particularly preferred thiolcarbamates are those in which R1 is selected from the group consisting of ethyl, benzyl, and p-chlorobenzyl, and when R1 is ethyl, R2 is ethyl and R3 is cyclohexyl, and when R1 is bozzyl or p-chlorobenzyl, R2 and R3 are both ethyl, or conjointly form hexamethylene. Preferred phenylcarbamoyloxycarbanilates are the following: methyl 3, 3'-methylphenylcarbamoyloxy phenylcarbamate (phenmedipham) EMI3.1 ethyl 3-phenylcarbamoyloxy phenylcarbamate (desmedipham) EMI4.1 These and other phenylcarbamoyloxycarbanilates within the scope of the present invention can be prepared by the procedures described in U.S. Patent Nos. 3,404,975 and 3,692,820 mentioned above. The tenrs '"synergism" and "synergistic" are used herein to convey the result observed when a combination of herbicides,demon- strates a potency in excess of that which the combination would be expected to produce on the basis of the potencies of each herbicide applied individually. The term "herbicide" is used herein to denote a compound which controls or modifies the growth of plants. The term "herbicidally effective amount" is used to indicate the quantity of such a ccm- pound or combination of such compounds which is capable of producing a controlling or modifying effect. Controlling or modifying effects include all deviations fran natural developnent, for example: killing, retardation, leaf burn, dwarfing and the like. The term "plants" is used to include all postemergent vegetation, ranging fran seedlings to established vegetation. In the composition of this invention, the thiolcarbamate: phenylcarbamoyloxycarbanilate weight ratio at which the herbicidal response is synergistic lies within the range of about 0.01:1 to about 20:1, preferably about 0.1:1 to about 10:1, most preferably about 0.1:1 to about 5:1. Application rates will depend upon the weeds to be cdntrolled and the degree of control desired. In general, the compositions of this invention are most efficiently employed at a rate of 0.01 to 50 pounds per acre (0.011 to 56 kilograms per hectare) of the active ingredients, preferably 0.1 to 25 pounds per acre (0.11 to 28 kilograms per hectare). The following examples provide further illustrations demonstrating the synergistic herbicidal response of the present compositions. SAMPLE I This example demonstrates the synergistic response of methyl 3,3'-methylphenylcarbamoyloxy phenylcarbamate (phenmedipham) and S-ethyl cyc lohexyl thiolcarbamate (cycloate) in combined postemergence application to a variety of weeds. Fiber flats measuring 15.2 x 25.4 x 7.0 cm were filled to a depth of 5.0 cm with loamy sand soil, containing 50 parts per million (ppn) each of the comnercial fungicide cis-N[ (trichloromethyl)thio] -4- cyclohexene-1 , 2 -dicarboximide (Captan&commat;) and 18-18-18 fertilizer (percentages of N-P s-K on a weight basis). Several rows were impressed across the width of each flat and each row was seeded with a single plant species. The plant species included one row of sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris) and one row each of the following weeds: peppergrass (Lepidium gel), wild buctvheat (Polygonum convolvulus), and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea). In the weed rows, ample seeds were planted to give about 20 to 50 seedlings per row after emergence depending cn the size of the plants. The flats were then placed in a greenhouse for two weeks, where they were watered regularly. At the end of this period, the foliage on the emergent weeds was sprayed with herbicidal emulsions formed by diluting emulsifiable concentrates of the test compounds with water. The phenmedipham was in the. form of an emulsifiable concentrate containing 16.8% phenmediphan by weight and the cycloate concentrate contained 74.2% cycloate by weight. The dilutions were made such that a total spray volume of 80 gallons per acre (750 liters per hectare) of the amount of each test compound applied per flat corresponded to the desired application rate in pounds per acre. In control flats, the test compounds were applied individually at various application rates, whereas in the test flats enulsions containing both compounds were applied. Additional flats not treated at all were used as standards for measuring the extent of weed control occurring in the treated flats. Eighteen days after treatment, the control and test flats were compared to the standards and each row was rated visually in terms of percent control ranging from 0% to 100%, with 0% representing the same degree of growth as the same row in the standard and 100% representing complete kill of all weeds in the row. All types of plant injury were taken into consideration. For the weed species, the results of these tests are listed in Table 1 in the columns headed by the symbol "0" (indicating the "observed" results), each figure representing the average of two replications of the same test. These results are compared with the expected results, shown in the columns headed by the symbol "E", derived from the control data using Limpel's formula (Limpel et al., 1962, "Weed Control by Dimethylchloroterephthalate Alone and in Certain Combinations," Proc. NEWCC., Vol. 16, pp. 4853): XY E=X+Y - where X = observed percent injury when one of the herbicides is used alone, and Y = observed percent injury when the other herbicide is used alone. An asterisk (*) is used to indicate the tests where the results show synergism, i.e., where the observed result exceeds the expected result. It is clear from the 'table that synergistn was Observed at many of the application rates tested. No injury to the sugarbeets was detected. TABLE 1 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST COMPOUNDS: EMI7.1 Postemergence Application; Average of Two Replications Application Percent Control - O:Observed E:Expected Rates (1b/A) Peppergrass Wild Buckwheat Purslane A B 0 E 0 E 0 E Control Data: 0.5 - 0 0 10 1.0.. - 0 0 20 2.0 1.0 100 30 g 53 - 1.0 0 0 0 - 2.0 0 0 0 - 3.0 0 0 0 Test Data: 0.5 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0.5 2.0 0 0 0 0 58* 10 0.5 3.0 0 0 0 0 60* 10 1.0 1.0 0 0 ' 20* 0 40* 20 1.0 2.0 0 0 25* 0 65* 20 1.0 3.0 0 0 40* 0 70* 20 2.0 1.0 100* 30 75,* 53 2.0 2.0 87 100 80* 30 75* 53 2.0 3.0 100* 30 88* 53 * Asterisk denotes synergistic effect shown. Blank spaces indicate 100% control in both observed and expected results, precluding evaluation of synergism. EXAMPLE II In this example, the herbicide combination of Example I was retested at higher rates on additional weed species. The procedure was identical to that of Example I, except that the following weed species were used: nightshade (Solanum sp.), wild oat (Avena fatua), mustard (Brassica juncea), and wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus). The flats were treated two weeks after seeding, and injury ratings were taken one month later. The results are listed in Table 2, where each figure represents the average of two replications. Synergism is widely evident; TABLE 2 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST COMPOUNDS: EMI9.1 Postemergence Application; Average of Two Replications Application Percent Control - O:Observed E :Expected Rates (lb/A) Nightshade Wild Oat mustard Wild Buckwheat A B O E 0 E O E 0 E Control Data: 0.5 - 0 0 40 0 1.0. - 0 0 100 20 1.5 - 0 0 100 40 2.0 - 0 0 100 60 - 2.0 0 - 0 0 0 - 3.0 0 10 0 0 - 4.0 0 30 0 Test Data: 0.5 2.0 0 0 0 0 50* 40 20* 0 0.5 3.0 50* 0 0 10 60* 40 0 0 0.5 4.0 0 0 0 30 0 40 20* 0 1.0 2.0 0 0 0 0 75 100 30* 20 1.0 3.0 50* 0 0 10 0 20 1.0 4.0 60* 0 20 30 30* 20 1.5 2.0 0 0 0 0 75* 40 1.5 3.0 50* 0 0 10 40 40 1.5 4.0 50* 0 50* 30 100* 40 2.0 2.0 65* 0 20* 0 100*' 60 2.0 3.0 50* 0 0 10 60 60 2.0 4.0 50* 0 65* 30 100* 60 * Asterisk denotes synergistic'effect shown. Blank spaces indicate 100% control in both observed and expected results, precluding evaluation of synergism. EXAMPLE III This example demonstrates the same herbicide combination used in Example II and covers the same weed species. Here, however, the herbicides were used in technical (unformulated) form and were diluted with a 1:1 (volume) acetone-water solution containing 0.5% (weight) Tweeny 20, a polyoxyethylene sorbitan monolaurate surfactant. Otherwise, the test procedure was identical to that of the preceding examples. The results are listed in Table 3, where each figure represents the average of two replications, showing abundant synergism. TABLE 3 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST COMPOUNDS : EMI11.1 Postemergence Application; Average of Two Replications Application Percent Control - O:Observed E:Expected Rates (lb/A) Nightshade Wild Oat Atstard Wild Buckwheat A B O E O E= O E Control Data: 0.5 - 50 0% 100 0 1.0 - 50 0 100 0 1.5 - 60 0 100 100 2.0 - 70 0 100 100 - 2.0 0 0 0 0 - 3.0 0 0 0 0 - 4.0 0 0 0 0 Test Data: 0.5 2.0 50 50 20* 0 0 0 0.5 3.0 50 50 0 0 100* 0 0.5 4.0 0 50 20* 0 75* 0 1.0 2.0 50 50 50* 0 75* 0 1.0 3.0 50 50 10* 0 100* 0 1.0 4.0 50 50 40* 0 75* 0 1.5 2.0 60 60 50* 0 75 100 1.5 3.0 60 60 20* 0 1.5 4.0 100* 60 60* 0 2.0 2.0 98* 70 65* 0 2.0 3.0 60 70 50* 0 2.0 4.0 75* 70 65* 0 * Asterisk denotes synergistic effect shown. Blank spaces indicate 100% control in both observed and expected results, precluding evaluation of synergism. EXAMPLE IV This example covers a series of tests using phenmedipham in combination with several thiolcarbamates, as indicated below: THIOLCARBAMATE TABLe S-ethyl N-cyclohexyl N-ethyl thiolcarbamate 4 S-ethyl N,N-di-n-propylthiolcarbarnate 5 S-p-chlorobenzyl N,N-diethylthioicarbamate 6 S-benzyl hexahydro-1H-azepine-1-carbothioate 7 S -hlorophenyl hexahydro-1K-zepine-l-ca;rbothioate 8 The procedure of Example I was again followed. All thiolcar- bamates were originally in technical form prior to being dissolved in acetone and diluted with water, except for S-p-chlorobenzyl N,N-di ethylthiolcarbamate, which was an emulsifiable concentrate with 50% active ingredient by weight. The phenmedipham was also an emulsifiable concentrate, containing 16.8% active ingredient by weight. The weed species were as follows: COMMON NAME - SCIENTIFIC NAME nightshade Solanum sp. purslane Pbrtulaca oleracea Jimsonweed Datura stramonium mustard Brassica juncea velvetleaf Abutilon theophrasti foxtail Setaria sp. annual mcrning.glory Ipomsea purpurea The flats were treated approximately two weeks after seeding, sand injury ratings were taken approximately three weeks later. The results are listed in Tables 4 through 8. Purslane and jinsonweed have been eliminated from the tables since both the observed and expected results for all tests on these weed species were too close to 100% to permit an evaluation of synergism. As in the previous examples, the asterisk indicates the tests where a synergistic effect is shown, and blank spaces are used for tests other than those on purslane and Jimsonweed where the observed and expected results are both extremely close to 100%, precluding a proper evaluation of synergisn. TABLE 4 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST COMPOUNDS: EMI13.1 Pbstemergence Application Application Percent Control - O:Observed E:Expected Velvet- Morning Rates (lb/A) Nightshade Mustard leaf Foxtail glory A B 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E Control Data: 0.75 - 85 95 0 30 98 1.5 - 85 100 0 40 100 - 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 - . 2.0 0 0 0 30 0 - 3.0 0 0 0 40 0 Test Data: 0.75 1.0 0 85 100* 95 0 0 20 30 0.75 2.0 98* 85 100* 95 0 0 30 51 0.75 3.0 70 85 100* 95 45* 0 75* 58 1.5 1.0 98* 85 ' 0 0 50* 40 1.5 2.0 85 85 20* 0 75* 58 .1.5 3.0 40 85 30* 0 60 64 TABLE 5 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST COMPOUNDS : EMI14.1 Postemergence Application Application Percent Control - Observed E:Expected Velvet- Morning Rates (1b/A) NightshadeMustard leaf Foxtail glory A B ¯ E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E Control Data: 0.75 - 85 95 0 30 98 1.5 - 86 100 0 40 100 - 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 - 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 - 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 Test Data: 0.75 1.0 100* 85 100* 95 0 0 25 30 95 98 0.75 2.0 0 85 100* 95 0 0 30 30 0.75 3.0 98* 85 100*95 0 0 85* 30 1.5 1.0 98* 85 30* 0 45* 40 .5 2.0 95* 85 10* 0 100* 40 85 100 1.5 3.0 100* 85 55* 0 100* 40 TABLE 6 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST COMPOUNDS: EMI15.1 Postemergence Application Application Percent Control - Observed E:Expected Velvet- Abrning Rates tlb/A) Nightshade Mustard leaf Foxtail glory A B ¯ E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E Control Data: 0.75 - 85 95 0 30 98 1.5 - 85 100 0 40 100 - 1.0 0 0 0 20 0 - 2.0 0 0 0 20 0 - 3.0 0 0 0 35 0 Test Data: 0.75 1.0 100* 85 100* 95 20* 0 20 44 0.75 2.0 100* 85 100* 95 20* 0 100* 44 20 98 0.75 3.0 100* 85 100*95 20* 0 55 55 1.5 1.0 100* 85 20* 0 20 52 1.5 2.0 100* 85 35* 0 70* 52 1.5 3.0 100* 85 45* 0 85* 61 TABLE 7 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST M: EMI16.1 Postemergence Application Application Percent Control - O:Observed Expected Velvet- Morning Rates (lb/A) Nightshade Mustard leaf Foxtail glory A B E E 0 EO E O E O E Control Data: 0.75. - 85 95 0 30 98 1.5 - 85 100 0 40 100 - 1.0 0 0 0 20 45 - 2.0 0 0 0 20 30 - 3.0 0 0 O 35 0 Test Data: : 0.75 1.0 100* 85 100* 95 20* 0 20 30 0.75 2.0 100* 85 100* 95 50* 0 30 30 0.75 3.0 100* 85 100* 95 45* 0 30 30 1.5 1.0 100* 85 40* 0 20 40 1.5 2.0 100* 85 4C* 0 50* 40 1.5 3.0 - 100* 85 55* 0 30 40 TABLE 8 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST COMPOUNDS: EMI17.1 Postemergence Application Application Percent Control - O:Observed E:Expected Velvet- Morning Rates (lb/A) NightshadeMustard leaf Foxtail glory A B ¯ E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 Control Data: 0.75 - 85 95 0 30 .98 1.5 - - 85 100 0 40 100 - 1.0 10 0 20 10 98 - 2.0 0 0 0 0 85 - 3.0 -0 0 30 0 85 Test Data: 0.75 1.0 0 86 100* 95 45* 20 10 37 0.75 2.0 85 85 100* 95 55* 0 75* 30 0.75 3.0 30 85 100* 95 45* 30 30 30 1.5 1.0 30 86 3o* 20 10 46 1.5 2.0 45 85 4C* 0 60* 40 1.5 3.0 30 85 65* 30 30 40 EXAMPLE V This e "eexample a further series of tests using phenmedipham in combination with thiolcarbamates. In this series, the follow ing thiolcarbamatest were used; THIOLACARBAMATE TABLE TABLE S-ethyl N-cyclohexyl Ethyl thiolcarbamate 9 S-ethyl N,N-di-n-propylthiolcarbamate 10 S-p-chlorobenzyl N X,N-diethYlthiolcarbamate U The procedure of Example I was again followed, using herbicides in the forms indicated in Example IV. The weed species listed in Example IV were again used, with treatment occurring two weeks after seeding and injury ratings taken three weeks later. The results are shown in Tables 9 through 11. Here, however, jinsonweed and mustard have been eliminated, since both the observed and expected results for all tests on these species were too close to 100% to permit an evaluation of synergism. Again, asterisks show where synergism was detected, and blank spaces indicate tests other than those on jimsonweed and mustard where the results were too high to permit a proper evaluation of synergism. TABLE 9 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST COMPOUNDS: EMI19.1 Postemergence Application Application Percent Control - O:Observed E:Expected Velvet- Morning Rates (lb/A) Nightshade Purslane leaf Foxtail glory A B O E O E O E O E O E Control Data: 1.0 - 100 100 0 20 95 2.0 - 100 100 0 45 100 - 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 - 2.0 0 0 0 0 9 - 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 Test Data: 1.0 1.0 0 0 40* 20 95 95 1.0 2.0 0 0 10 20 40 95 1.0 3.0 40 100 0 0 30* 20 90 95 2.0 1.0 10* 0 65* 45 2.0 2.0 20* 0 98* 45 2.0 3.0 0 0 35 45 TABLE 10 HERBICIDE SENERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST COMPOUNDS: EMI20.1 Postmergence Application Application Percent Control - O:Observed E:Expected Velvet- turning Rates (lb/A) Nightshade Purslane leaf Foxtail glory A B O E O E O E O E E Control Data: 1.0 - 100 100 0 20 95 2.0 1.0 100 100 0 45 100 - 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 - 2.0 0 0 -0 0 0 - 3.0 0 0 0 0 '0 Test Data: 1.0 1.0 10 100 95 100 0 0 10 20 100* 95 1.0 2.0 55 100 0 0 50* 20 98* 95 1.0 3.0 75 100 0 0 60* 20 100* 95 2.0 1.0 l 0 20 45 75 100 2.0 2.0 ' 10* 0 60* 45 95 100 2.0 3.0 0 0 98* 45 TABLE 11 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST COMPOUNDS: EMI21.1 Postemergence Application Application Percent Control - 0 Observed E:Expected Velvet- Morning Rates (lb/A) Nightshade Pursiane leaf Foxtail glory A B ¯ E O E O E O E O E Control Data: 1.0 - 100 100 0 20 95 2.0 - 100 100 0 45 100 - 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 - 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 - 3.0 10 10 25 25 10 Test Data: 1.0 1.0 80 100 80 100 20* 0 80* 20 80 95 1.0 2.0 30* 0 95* 20 75 95 1.0 3.0 35* 25 95* 40 90 96 2.0 1.0 25* 0 80* 45 90 100 2.0 2.0 35* 0 95* 45 2.0 3.0 40* 25 97* 59 90 100 EXAMPLE VI This example covers a series of tests using desmedipham in combination with several thiolcarbamates, as shown below: THIOLCARBADSTE TABUS S-ethyl N-cyclohexyl N-ethyl thiolcarbamate 12, 13 S-ethyl N,N-di-n-propylthiolcarbamate 14, 15 S-p-chlorobenzyl N,N-diethylthiolcarbamate 16, 17 S-benzyl hexahydro-1H-azepine-l-carbothioate 18, 19 S-p-chlorobenzyl hexahydro-lH-a2epine-l-carbothioate 20, 21 The procedure of Example I was again followed, using the weed species listed in Example IV. The S-p-chlorobenzyl N,N-diethylthiolcarbamate was in the form of an emulsifiable concentrate with 96% active ingredient, and desmedipharn was in the form of an emulsifiable concentrate with 16.8% active ingredient. tables of data are shown for each combination of herbicides, the first giving injury ratings taken two weeks after treatment, the second representing four weeks after treatment. In the two-week data, purslane and annual morningglory are eliminated in view of injury ratings too close to 100%. In the four-week data, only foxtail and velvetleaf were evaluated. Asterisks and blank spaces have the same meaning here as in previous examples. TABLE 12 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST OOSOUNDS: EMI23.1 .. Pbstemergence Application; 2-Week Rating Application Percent Control - Observed E:Expected Jimson- Velvet Rates (lb/A) Nightshade weed Mustard leaf Foxtail A B OE O E O E O E O E Control Data: 0.75 - 98 0 95 0 45 1.5 - 98 0 100 20 80 - 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 - 2.0 0 0 0 0 0. - 3.0 0 0 0 0 10 Test Data: 0.75 1.0 0 0 98* 95 20* 0 25 51 0.75 2.0 20 98 0 0 60 95 30* 0 20 51 0.75 3.0 30 98 90*. 0 95 95 30* 0 35 51 1.5 1.0 100* 0 35* 20 40 82 1.5 2.0 30 98 0 0 30* 20 35 82 1.5 3.0 40 98 98* 0 30* 20 40 82 TABLE 13 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS Test COMPOUNDS: EMI24.1 " Postermergence Application; 4-Week Rating Application Percent Control - O: Observed E:Expected Rates (lb/A) Foxtail Velvetleaf A B O E O E Control Data: 0.75 - 0 0 1.5 - 50 0 - 1.0 0 0 - 2.0 0 0 - 3.0 10 20 Test Data: 0.75 1.0 10* 0 10* 0 0.75 2.0 0 0 0 0 0.75 3.0 10 10 20 20 1.5 1.0 30 50 10* 0 1.5 2.0 10 50 0. 0 1.5 3.0 40 55 20 20 TABLE 14 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST COMPOUNDS: EMI25.1 . Postemergence Application; 2-Week Rating Application Percent Control - O:Observed E:Expected Jimson- Velvet Rates (lb/A) Nightshade weed Mustard leaf Foxtail A B O E O E O E QE O E Control Data: 0.75 - 98 0 95 0 45 1.5 - 98 0 100 20 80 - 1.0 O 0 0 0 0 - 2.0 0 0 0 0 0 - 3.0 0 0 0 0 0. Test Data: 0.75 1.0 20 98 0 0 98* 95 25* 0 30 45 0.75 2.0 20 98 10* 0 90 95 15* 0 15 45 0.75 3.0 40* 0 100* 95 55* 0 68* 45 1.5 1.0 20 98 95* 0 90 100 25* 0 35 80 1.5 2.0 95 98 40* 0 30* 0 65 80 1.5 3.0 95 98 40* 0 60* 0 85* 80 TABLE 15 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST COMPOUNDS: EMI26.1 Postemergence Application;' 4-Week Rating Application Percent Control - Observed E:Expected Rates (lb/A) Foxtail Velvetleaf A B O E Control Data: 0.75 - 0 0 1.5 - 50 0 - 1.0 0 0 - 2.0 0 0 - 3.0 10 0 Test Data: 0.75 1.0 0 0 10* 0 0.75 2.0 0 0 0 0 0.75 3.0 35* 10 0 0 1.5 1.0 0 50 0 0 1.5 2.0 45 50 0 0 1.5 3.0 85* 55 75* 0 TABLE 16 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST COMPOUNDS: : EMI27.1 pOsternrgence Application; 2-Week Rating Application percent Control - O:Observed E:Expected Jimson- .Velvet- Rates (lb/A) Nightshade weed Mustard leaf Foxtail A B 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E 0 E Control Data: 0.75 - 98 0 95 0 45 1.5 - 98 0 100 20 80 - 1.0 0 0 0 10 0 - 2.0 0 0 0 10 0 - 3.0 0 0 0 10 45 Test Data: 0.75 1.0 45 98 20* 0 100* 95 30* 10 20 45 0.75 2.0 98* 0 100* 95 40* 10 70* 45 0.75 3.0 20* 0 98* 95 45* 10 65 89 1.5 1.0 60 98 90* 0 35* 28 65 80 1.5 2.0 80 .98 20* 0 50* 28 65 80 1.5 3.0 45* 0 70* 28 65 89 TABLE 17 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST COMPOUNDS EMI28.1 : Postemergence Application; 4-Week Rating Application Percent Control - O:Observed E:Expected Rates (lb/A) Foxtail Velvetleaf A B 0 E 0 E Control Data: 0.75 - 0 0 1.5 - 50 0 - 1.0 0 0 - 2.0 0 0 - 3.0 0 20 Test Data: 0.75 1.0 0 0 30* 0 0.75 2.0 45* 0 35* 0 .0.75 3.0 45* 0 95* 20 1.5 1.0 20 50 35* 0 1.5 2.0 45 50 35* 0 1.5 3.0 45 50 95* 20 TABLE 18 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST COMPOUNDS: EMI29.1 Postemergence Application; 2-Week Rating Application Percent Control - O:Observed E:Expected Jimson- - Velvet Rates (lb/A) Nightshade weed Mustard leaf Foxtail A B O E O E O E O E O E Control Data: 0.75 - 98 0 95 0 45 1.5 - 98 0 100 20 80 - 1.0 0 0 20 25 0 - 2.0 0 0 15 40 0 - 3.0 0 0 10 85 0 Test Data: 0.75 1.0 40 98 98* 0 6()* 25 20 40 0.75 2.0 60 98 20* 0 98* 96 55* 40 20 45 0.75 3.0 65 98 60* 0 100*95 25 45 25 45 1.5 1.0 65 98 20* 0 60 52 20 80 1.5 2.0 40* 0 85 52 30 80 1.5 3.0 100* 0 85 88 80 80 TABLE 19 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST COMPOUNDS: EMI30.1 Postemergence Application; 4-Week Rating Application Percent Control - O:Observed E:Expected Rates (lb/A) Foxtail Velvetleaf A B B O E O E Control Data: 0.75 - 0 0 1.5 - 50 0 - 1.0 0 10 - 2.0 0 20 - 3.0 0 60 Test Data: 0.75 1.0 0 0- 35* 10 0.75 2.0 0 0 45* 20 0.75 3.0 0 0 75* 60 1.5 1.0 0 50 30* 10 1.5 2.0 0 50 85* 20 1.5 3.0 55* 50 85* 60 TABLE 20 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST EMI31.1 Pbstemergence Application; 2-Week Rating Application Percent Control - O:Observed E:Expected Jimson- Velvet Rates (IbIA) Nightshade weed Mustard leaf Foxtail A B O E O E O E O E O E Control Data: 0.75 - 98 0 95 0 45 1.5 - 98 0 100 20 80 - 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 - 2.0 0 0 O 5 0 - 3.0 0 0 0 10 0 Test Data: 0.75 2.0 95 98 0 0 100* 95 60* 5 40 45 0.75 3.0 0 0 98* 95 60* 10 45 45 1.5 1.0 65 98 0 0 65* 20 30 80 1.5 3.0 0 0 25 28 80 80 TABLE 21 HERBICIDE SYNERGISM TEST RESULTS TEST COMPOUNDS: EMI32.1 postemergence Application; 4-Week Rating Application Percent Control - O:Observed E:Expected Rates (lb/A) Foxtail Velvetleaf A B O E O E Control Data: 0.75 - 0 0 1.5 1.0 50 0 - 1.0 0 0 - 2.0 0 0 - 3.0 0 0 Test Data: 0.75 2.0 20* 0 45* 0 0.75 3.0 '40* 0 65* 0 1.5 1.0 20 50 40* 0 1.5 3.0 85* 50 75* 0 The compositions of the present invention show synergistic activity as herbicides in controlling the growth of undesirable vegetation when applied to such vegetation in postemergence application. The .corpositions are generally embodied in formulations which contain inert or occasionally active ingredients or diluent carriers in addition to the active compounds. Examples of such ingredients or carriers are water, organic solvents, surface active agents, oil, water-in-oil emulsions, wetting agents, dispersing agents, and emulsifying agents. The herbicidal formulations generally take the form of wettable powders, solutions or emulsifiable concentrates. Wettable powders are finely divided compositions comprising a. particulate carrier impregnated with the herbicidal compound and additionally containing one or more surface active agents. The surface active agent promotes rapid dispersion of the powder in aqueous medium to form stable, sprayable suspensions. A wide variety of surface active agents can be used, for example, long chain fatty alcohols and alkali metal salts of the sulfated fatty alcohols; salts of sulfonic acid; esters of long chain fatty acids; and polyhydric alcohols, in which the alcohol groups are free, cmega-substituted polyethylene gly- cols of relatively long chain length. The herbicidal compositions can also be applied to the foliage in the form of a solution in a suitable solvent. Solvents frequently used in herbicidal formulations include kerosene, fuel oil, xylene, petroleum fractions with boiling ranges above xylene, and aromatic petroleum fractions rich in methylated naphthalenes. The most preferred formulations are emulsifiable concentrates which consist of an oil solution of the herbicide along with an emulsi fying agent. Prior to use the concentrate is diluted with water to form a suspended emulsion of oil droplets. The emulsifiers used are usually a mixture of anionic and nonionic surfactants. Other additives such as spreading agents and stickers can be included in the emulsifiable concentrate. The formulations described above can be applied to the vegetation sought to be controlled in any conventional manner after the vegetation has emerged from the soil. The vegetation can be in any stage of development after emergence, ranging fran seedlings to fully grown plants. Application can be achieved by any conventional techni que such as the use of ground spraying equipment or aircraftzmounted sprayers. Various other application techniques will be apparent to one skilled in the pesticide art.

Claims: Claims: 1. A synergistic herbicidal composition comprising a mixture of (a) a thiolcarbamate of the formula EMI35.1 in which R1 is selected from ethyl, benzyl, and p-chloro benzyl; and when RÚ is ethyl, 2 and 3 when R1 is ethyl, R and R are independently selected from C1-C6 alkyl and C5-C7 cyclo- alkyl, and when R1 is benzyl or p-chlorobenzyl, R2 and R3 are independently selected from C1-C6 alkyl, or conjointly form C5-C7 alkylene; and (b) a phenylcarbamoyloxycarbanilate of the formula EMI35.2 <tb> <SEP> 0 <SEP> 0 <tb> <SEP> R4-o-C-NH <SEP> X <SEP> -N <SEP> X <SEP> R5 <tb> in <SEP> which <SEP> · <tb> R4 is C1-C4 alkyl; and R5 is selected from hydrogen and C1-C4 alkyl; at a weight ratio of (a) to (b) of from 0.01:1 to 20:1. 2. A composition as claimed in claim 1 characterised in that R1 is ethyl, R is ethyl, R3 is cyclohexyl, R4 is methyl, and R5 is 3-methyl. 3. A composition as claimed in claim 1 or claim 2 characterised in that the weight ratio of (a) to (b) is from 0.1:1 to 10:1. 4. A composition as claimed in claim 3 characterised in that the weight ratio of (a) to (b) is from 0.1:1 to 5:1. 5. A herbicidal composition as claimed in any of claims 1 to 4 including an inert carrier or diluent and optionally other active ingredients. 6. A method of controlling undesirable vegetation characterised in that one applies to said vegetation postemergence a herbicidal composition as claimed in any of claims 1 to 5. 7. A method for the preparation of a herbicidal composition as claimed in claim 5 characterised in that component (a) and component (b) as defined in claim 1 are incorporated in an inert carrier or diluent in the ratio defined in claim 1.

Inventors: GROENWOLD, BARELD EGGE
Applicants: STAUFFER CHEMICAL COMPANY
Application year: 1981
Main classification: A01N47
IPC codes: A01N47, A01N33