HERBICIDAL MIXTURES

Abstract: This invention relates to herbicidal mixtures of anilofos with one or more of the compounds selected from azimsulfuron, metsulfuron methyl, chlorimuron ethyl, bensulfuron methyl, ethametsulfuron methyl, nicosulfuron, rimsulfuron, sulfometuron methyl, thifensulfuron methyl, tribenuron methyl, triflusulfuron methyl, methyl 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-6-(trifluoro-methyl)-3-pyridinecarboxylate, chlorsulfuron, propanil and hexazinone, herbicidal compositions of said mixtures and a method for the use of said mixtures to control undesired vegetation.

Description: TITLE HERBICIDAL MIXTURES FIELD OF THE INVENTION The present invention relates to mixtures of herbicides that have a synergistic effect on weeds and which are safe to crop plants. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION The control of undesired vegetation is extremely important in achieving high crop efficiency. This can be achieved by the selective control of the growth of weeds in such useful crops as rice, soybean, sugarbeet, corn, potato, wheat, barley, alfalfa, tomato, pineapple and plantation crops such as citrus and sugarcane among others. Unchecked weed growth in such useful crops can cause significant reduction in productivity and thereby result in increased costs to the consumers. The control of undesired vegetation in noncrop areas is also important. The need for finding products that achieve such results continues to be commercially important. German published patent application DE-4236475-A1 discloses mixtures of anilofos with other herbicides, but does not disclose the mixtures of this invention. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION This invention relates to mixtures of herbicides that produce synergistic results. The herbicidal mixtures comprise herbicidally effective amounts of the compound of Formula I in admixture with herbicidally effective amounts of one or more of the compounds of Formulae Ha through Ho and agriculturally suitable salts thereof, provided that when a herbicidally effective amount of the compound of Formula Hd is present in the mixture, the mixture also comprises a herbicidally effective amount of one or more compounds of Formulae Ha to He and He to Ho. This invention also relates to herbicidal compositions comprising effective amounts of the aforesaid mixtures and at least one of the following: surfactant, solid or liquid diluent. This invention also relates to a method of controlling undesired vegetation comprising applying to the locus of the undesired vegetation herbicidally effective amounts of the aforesaid mixtures. The mixtures of the invention comprising the Formula I and Formulae Ila-o compounds are described below: S-[2-[(4-chlorophenyl)( l-methylethyl)amino]-2-oxoethyl] O,O-dimethyl phosphoro- dithioate (anilofos, I); N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]-l-methyl-4-(2-methyl-2H-tetrazol- 5-yl)-lH-pyrazole-5-sulfonamide (azimsulfuron, Ha); Methyl 2-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-l,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino]carbonyl]amino]- sulfonyl]benzoate (metsulfuron methyl, lib); Ethyl 2-[[[[(4-chloro-6-methoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]- benzoate (chlorimuron ethyl, He); Methyl 2-[[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]- methyljbenzoate (bensulfuron methyl, Hd); Methyl 2-[[[[[4-ethoxy-6-(methylamino)- 1 ,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amino]carbonyI]- amino]sulfonyl]benzoate (ethametsulfuron methyl, He); 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyI]-NN- dimethyl-3-pyridinecarboxamide (nicosulfuron, Ilf); N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyI]-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2- pyridinesulfonamide (rimsulfuron, Hg); Methyl 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethyl-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]- benzoate (sulfometuron methyl, Hh); Methyl 3-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl- 1 ,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino]carbonyl]amino]- sulfonyl]-2-thiophenecarboxylate (thifensulfuron methyl, Hi); Methyl 2-[[[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl- 1 ,3,5-triazin-2-yl)methylamino]carbonyl]- amino]sulfonyl]benzoate (tribenuron methyl, Hj); Methyl 2-[[[[[4-(dimethylamino)-6-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)-l,3,5-triazin-2- yl]amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-3-methylbenzoate (triflusul--uron methyl, Ilk); Methyl 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyI]- 6-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxylate (IIl); 2-Chloro-N-[[4-methoxy-6-methyl-l,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino]carbonyl]benzene- sulfonamide (chlorsulfuron, Hm); N-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)propanamide (propanil, Hn); Ho 3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)- 1 -methyl- 1 ,3,5-triazine-2,4( lH,3H)-dione (hexazinone, Ηo). The mixtures of the invention preferred for enhanced herbicidal activity include: a) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Ηa, b) the compound of Formula I and compounds of Formulae Ηa and Ηd, c) the compound of Formula I and the compounds of Formulae lib and lid, d) the compound of Formula I and the compounds of Formulae lib and He, e) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula lib, f) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Ηc, g) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula III, h) the compound of Formula I and the compounds of Formulae lib and in, i) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula lie, j) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula II f, k) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Hg, 1) the compound of Formula I and compounds of Formulae Hg and Hi, m) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Hh, n) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Hi, o) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Hj, p) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Ilk, q) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Hm, r) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Hn, and s) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Ho. The herbicidal compositions of the invention preferred for enhanced herbicidal activity include: a) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Ha, b) the compound of Formula I and compounds of Formulae Ha and Hd, c) the compound of Formula I and the compounds of Formulae lib and Hd, d) the compound of Formula I and the compounds of Formulae lib and He, e) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula lib, f) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula He, g) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula III, h) the compound of Formula I and the compounds of Formulae lib and in, i) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula He, j) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Hf, k) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Hg, 1) the compound of Formula I and compounds of Formulae Hg and Hi, m) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Hh, n) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Hi, o) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Hj, p) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Ilk, q) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Hm, r) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Hn, and s) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Ho. The mixtures of the invention most preferred for enhanced herbicidal activity include: a) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Ha, b) the compound of Formula I and compounds of Formulae Ha and Hd, c) the compound of Formula I and the compounds of Formulae lib and Hd, d) the compound of Formula I and the compounds of Formulae lib and He, e) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula lib, and f) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Hn. The herbicidal compositions of the invention most preferred for enhanced herbicidal activity include: a) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Ha, b) the compound ofFormula I and compounds of Formulae Ha and Hd, c) the compound ofFormula I and the compounds of Formulae lib and Hd, d) the compound ofFormula I and the compounds of Formulae lib and He, e) the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula lib, and f) the compound ofFormula I and the compound ofFormula Hn. The preferred crops for application of the mixtures of the invention are rice, oilseed rape, barley, wheat, sugarbeet, corn, soybean, cotton, sugarcane, alfalfa, and pineapple. The mixtures are also useful for conifer release in forestry. The most preferred crops for application of mixtures of the invention are rice, oilseed rape, wheat, sugarbeet, corn, soybean and cotton. DETAILS OF THE INVENTION The Formula I compound can be prepared as described in U.S. patent 4,278,461. The synthesis involves the reaction of the chloroacetanilide of Formula 1 with the ammonium salt ofFormula 2. The Formula Ha compound can be prepared as described in U.S. 4,746.353. The synthesis involves the coupling of the pyrazole sulfonamide of Formula 3 with the heterocyclic carbamate of Formula 4. The Formula lib compound can be prepared as described in U.S. 4,383,113. The synthesis involves the reaction of the sulfonyl isocyanate of Formula 5 with the heterocyclic amine ofFormula 6. The Formula He compound can be prepared as described in U.S. 4,547,215. The synthesis involves the reaction of the sulfonyl isocyanate of Formula 7 with the heterocyclic amine ofFormula 8. The Formula Hd compound can be prepared as described in U.S. 4,420,325. The synthesis involves the reaction of the sulfonyl isocyanate of Formula 7 with the heterocyclic amine of Formula 8. The Formula He compound can be prepared as described in U.S. 4,548,638. The synthesis involves the reaction of the sulfonyl isocyanate of Formula 5 with the heterocyclic amine of Formula 11. The Formula Hf compound can be prepared as described in U.S. 4,789,393. The synthesis involves the coupling of the pyridinesulfonamide of Formula 12 with the heterocyclic carbamate of Formula 4. The Formula Hg compound can be prepared as described in U.S. 5,102,444 The synthesis involves the coupling of the pyridinesulfonamide of Formula 13 with the heterocyclic carbamate ofFormula 4. The Formula Hh compound can be prepared as described in U.S. 4,394,506. The synthesis involves reaction of the sulfonyl isocyanate of Formula 5 with the heterocyclic amine ofFormula 14. The Formula Hi compound can be prepared as described in U.S. 4,481 ,029. The synthesis involves reaction of the sulfonyl isocyanate of Formula 15 with the heterocyclic amine of Formula 6. The Formula Hj compound can be prepared as described in U.S. 4,740,234. The synthesis involves reaction of the sulfonyl isocyanate of Formula 5 with the heterocyclic amine of Formula 16. The Formula Ilk compound can be prepared as described in U.S. 5,090,993. The synthesis involves the coupling of the N-silylsulfonamide of Formula 17 with the heterocyclic carbamate of Formula 18. The Formula III compound can be prepared as described in WO92/15576. The synthesis involves the coupling of the pyridinesulfonamide of Formula 19 with the heterocyclic carbamate ofFormula 4. This reference also describes the preparation of the sodium salt of the Formula III compound by use of sodium methoxide. The Formula Hm compound can be prepared as described in U.S. 4,127,405. The synthesis involves the reaction of the sulfonyl isocyanate of Formula 20 with the heterocyclic amine ofFormula 6. The Formula Hn compound can be prepared as described in U.S. 3,816,092. The synthesis involves reaction of 3,4-dichloroaniline with proprionyl chloride. The Formula Ho compound can be prepared as described in U.S. 3,983,116. The synthesis involves reaction of the thioether of Formula 21 with dimethylamine. 21 The mixtures of the present invention can include the sulfonylureas of Formulae Ila-m as one or more of their agriculturally suitable salts. These can be prepared in a number of ways known in the art. For example, metal salts can be made by contacting a sulfonylurea of Formulae Ha-m with a solution of an alkali or alkaline earth metal salt having a sufficiently basic anion (e.g., hydroxide, alkoxide, carbonate or hydride). Quaternary amine salts can be made by similar techniques. Salts of the sulfonylureas of Formulae Ha-m can also be prepared by exchange of one cation for another. Cationic exchange can be effected by direct contact of an aqueous solution of a salt of a sulfonylurea of Formulae Ila-m (e.g., alkali or quaternary amine salt) with a solution containing the cation to be exchanged. This method is most effective when the desired salt containing the exchanged cation is insoluble in water and can be separated by filtration. Exchange may also be effected by passing an aqueous solution of a salt of a sulfonylurea of Formulae Ila-m (e.g., an alkali metal or quaternary amine salt) through a column packed with a cation-exchange resin containing the cation to be exchanged for that of the original salt and the desired product is eluted from the column. This method is particularly useful when the desired salt is water soluble (e.g., a potassium, sodium or calcium salt). Formulation/Utility The mixtures of the Formula I and Formula II compounds can be formulated in a number of ways: (a) the Formula I and Formula II compounds can be formulated separately and applied separately or applied simultaneously in an appropriate weight ratio, e.g., as a tank mix; or (b) the Formula I and Formula II compounds can be formulated together in the proper weight ratio. Mixtures of the Formula I and Formula II compounds will generally be used in formulation with an agriculturally suitable carrier comprising a liquid or solid diluent and/or a surfactant wherein the formulation is consistent with the physical properties of the active ingredients, mode of application and environmental factors such as soil type, moisture and temperature. Useful formulations include liquids such as solutions (including emulsifiable concentrates), suspensions, emulsions (including micro- emulsions and/or suspoemulsions) and the like which optionally can be thickened into gels. Useful formulations further include solids such as dusts, powders, granules, pellets, tablets, films, and the like which can be water-dispersible ("wettable") or water- soluble. Active ingredients can be (micro)encapsulated and further formed into a suspension or solid formulation; alternatively the entire formulation of active ingredient can be encapsulated (or "overcoated"). Encapsulation can control or delay release of the active ingredients. Sprayable formulations can be extended in suitable media and used at spray volumes from about one to several hundred liters per hectare. High- strength compositions are primarily used as intermediates for further formulation. The formulations will typically contain effective amounts of active ingredients, diluent and surfactant within the following approximate ranges which add up to 100 percent by weight. Weight Percent Active Ingredient Diluent Surfactant Water-Dispersible and Water-soluble 5-90 0-94 1-15 Granules, Tablets and Powders. Suspensions, Emulsions, Solutions 5-50 40-95 0-15 (including Emulsifiable Concentrates) Dusts 1-25 70-99 0-5 Granules and Pellets 0.01-99 5-99.99 0-15 High Strength Compositions 90-99 0-10 0-2 Typical solid diluents are described in Watkins, et al., Handbook of Insecticide Dust Diluents and Carriers, 2nd Ed., Dorland Books, Cal dwell, New Jersey. Typical liquid diluents are described in Marsden, Solvents Guide, 2nd Ed., Interscience, New York, 1950. McCutcheon 's Detergents and Emulsifiers Annual, Allured Publ. Corp., Ridge wood, New Jersey, as well as Sisely and Wood, Encyclopedia of Surface Active Agents, Chemical Publ. Co., Inc., New York, 1964, list surfactants and recommended uses. All formulations can contain minor amounts of additives to reduce foam, caking, corrosion, microbiological growth and the like, or thickeners to increase viscosity. Surfactants include, for example, polyethoxylated alcohols, polyethoxylated alkylphenols, polyethoxylated sorbitan fatty acid esters, dialkyl sulfosuccinates, alkyl sulfates, alkylbenzene sulfonates, organosilicones, NN-dialkyltaurates, lignin sulfonates, naphthalene sulfonate formaldehyde condensates, polycarboxylates, and polyoxyethylene/polyoxypropylene block copolymers. Solid diluents include, for example, clays such as bentonite, montmorillinite, attapulgite and kaolin, starch, sugar, silica, talc, diatomaceous earth, urea, calcium carbonate, sodium carbonate and bicarbonate, and sodium sulfate. Liquid diluents include, for example, water, N,N-dimethylformamide, dimethyl sulfoxide, N-alkylpyrrolidone, ethylene glycol, polypropylene glycol, paraffins, alkylbenzenes, alkylnaphthalenes, oils of olive, castor, linseed, tung, sesame, com, peanut, cotton-seed, soybean, rape-seed and coconut, fatty acid esters, ketones such as cyclohexanone, 2-heptanone, isophorone and 4-hydroxy-4- methyl-2-pentanone, and alcohols such as methanol, cyclohexanol, decanol and tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol. Solutions, including emulsifiable concentrates, can be prepared by simply mixing the ingredients. Chemically stabilized aqueous sulfonylurea or agriculturally suitable sulfonylurea salt dispersions are taught in U.S. 4,936,900. Solution formulations of sulfonylureas with improved chemical stability are taught in U.S. 4,599.412. Dusts and powders can be prepared by blending and. usually, grinding as in a hammer mill or fluid-energy mill. Suspensions are usually prepared by wet-milling; see, for example, U.S. 3,060,084. Granules and pellets can be prepared by spraying the active material upon preformed granular carriers or by agglomeration techniques. See Browning, "Agglomeration", Chemical Engineering, December 4, 1967, pp 147-48, Perry 's Chemical Engineer 's Handbook, 4th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963, pages 8-57 and following, and WO 91/13546. Pellets can be prepared as described in U.S. 4,172,714. Water-dispersible and water-soluble granules can be prepared as taught in U.S. 4,144,050, U.S. 3,920,442 and DE 3,246,493. Tablets can be prepared as taught in U.S. 5,180,587, U.S. 5,232,701 and U.S. 5,208,030. Films can be prepared as taught in GB 2,095,558 and U.S. 3,299,566. For further information regarding formulation, see U.S. 3,235,361, Col. 6, line 16 through Col. 7, line 19 and Examples 10-41; U.S. 3,309,192, Col. 5, line 43 through Col. 7, line 62 and Examples 8, 12, 15, 39, 41, 52, 53, 58, 132, 138-140, 162-164, 166, 167 and 169-182; U.S. 2,891,855, Col. 3, line 66 through Col. 5, line 17 and Examples 1—4; Klingman, Weed Control as a Science, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1961, pp 81-96; and Hance et al., Weed Control Handbook, 8th Ed., Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 1989. In the following Examples, all percentages are by weight and all formulations are prepared in conventional ways. Formula numbers refer to the formulae identified on pages 1-5. Example A High Strength Concentrate Compound ofFormula I 92.9% Compound of Formula Ha 5.6% silica aerogel 0.5% synthetic amorphous fine silica 1.0%. Example B Wettable Powder Compound of Formula I 59.6% Compound of Formula lib 1.2% Compound of Formula Hd 4.2% dodecylphenol polyethylene glycol ether 2.0% sodium ligninsulfonate 4.0% sodium silicoaluminate 6.0% montmorillonite (calcined) 23.0%. Example C Granule Compound of Formula I 9.2% Compound of Formula lib 0.5% Compound ofFormula He 0.3% attapulgite granules (low volatile matter, 0.71/0.30 mm; U.S.S. No. 25-50 sieves) 90.0%. Example D Aqueous Suspension Compound ofFormula 1 22.9% Compound ofFormula lib 2.1% hydrated attapulgite 3.0% crude calcium ligninsulfonate 10.0% sodium dihydrogen phosphate 0.5% water 61.5%. Example E Extruded Pellet Compound ofFormula I 22.9% Compound ofFormula Hf 2.1% anhydrous sodium sulfate 10.0% crude calcium ligninsulfonate 5.0% sodium alkylnaphthalenesulfonate 1.0% calcium/magnesium bentonite 59.0%. Example F Hi eh Strength Concentrate Compound ofFormula I 16.4% Compound of Formula Hn 82.1% silica aerogel 0.5% synthetic amorphous fine silica 1.0%. Example G Granule Compound of Formula I 9.2% Compound of Formula III, sodium salt 0.8% attapulgite granules (low volatile matter, 0.71/0.30 mm; U.S.S. No. 25-50 sieves) 90.0%. Example E Extruded Pellet Compound of Formula I 23.5% Compound ofFormula He 1.5% anhydrous sodium sulfate 10.0% crude calcium ligninsulfonate 5.0% sodium alkylnaphthalenesulfonate 1.0% calcium/magnesium bentonite 59.0%. Example G Extruded Pellet Compound of Formula I 21.2% Compound ofFormula He 3.8% anhydrous sodium sulfate 10.0% crude calcium ligninsulfonate 5.0% sodium alkylnaphthalenesulfonate 1.0% calcium/magnesium bentonite 59.0%. Example H Extruded Pellet Compound ofFormula I 21.4% Compound of Formula Hf 3.6% anhydrous sodium sulfate 10.0% crude calcium ligninsulfonate 5.0% sodium alkylnaphthalenesulfonate 1.0% calcium/magnesium bentonite 59.0%. Example I Extruded Pellet Compound ofFormula I 22.5% Compound of Formula Hg 2.5% anhydrous sodium sulfate 10.0% crude calcium ligninsulfonate 5.0% sodium alkylnaphthalenesulfonate 1.0% calcium/magnesium bentonite 59.0%. Example J Extruded Pellet Compound of Formula I 22.7% Compound of Formula Hi 2.3% anhydrous sodium sulfate 10.0% crude calcium ligninsulfonate 5.0% sodium alkylnaphthalenesulfonate 1.0% calcium/magnesium bentonite 59.0%. Example K Extruded Pellet Compound ofFormula I 22.7% Compound ofFormula Hj 2.3% anhydrous sodium sulfate 10.0% crude calcium ligninsulfonate 5.0% sodium alkylnaphthalenesulfonate 1.0% calcium/magnesium bentonite 59.0%. Example L Extruded Pellet Compound ofFormula I 22.7% Compound ofFormula Hm 2.3% anhydrous sodium sulfate 10.0% crude calcium ligninsulfonate 5.0% sodium alkylnaphthalenesulfonate 1.0% calcium/magnesium bentonite 59.0%. Example M Extruded Pellet Compound of Formula I 22.7% Compound ofFormula Ilk 2.3% anhydrous sodium sulfate 10.0% crude calcium ligninsulfonate 5.0% sodium alkylnaphthalenesulfonate 1.0% calcium/magnesium bentonite 59.0%. Example N Extruded Pellet Compound of Formula I 22.6% Compound of Formula Hg 1.6% Compound of Formula Hi 0.8% anhydrous sodium sulfate 10.0% crude calcium ligninsulfonate 5.0% sodium alkylnaphthalenesulfonate 1.0% calcium/magnesium bentonite 59.0%. Example O Extruded Pellet Compound ofFormula I 22.6% Compound ofFormula He 1.2% Compound of Formula Hf 1.2% anhydrous sodium sulfate 10.0% crude calcium ligninsulfonate 5.0% sodium alkylnaphthalenesulfonate 1.0% calcium/magnesium bentonite 59.0%. Example P Extruded Pellet Compound ofFormula I 24.5% Compound ofFormula Hh 0.5% anhydrous sodium sulfate 10.0% crude calcium ligninsulfonate 5.0% sodium alkylnaphthalenesulfonate 1.0% calcium/magnesium bentonite 59.0%. Example O Extruded Pellet Compound of Formula I 22.7% Compound of Formula Ho 2.3% anhydrous sodium sulfate 10.0% crude calcium ligninsulfonate 5.0% sodium alkylnaphthalenesulfonate 1.0% calcium/magnesium bentonite 59.0%. Example R Extruded Pellet Compound of Formula I 24.4% Compound ofFormula lib 0.1% Compound ofFormula Hd 0.5% anhydrous sodium sulfate 10.0% crude calcium ligninsulfonate 5.0% sodium alkylnaphthalenesulfonate 1.0% calcium/magnesium bentonite 59.0%. Example S Extruded Pellet Compound ofFormula 1 24.6% Compound of Formula lib 0.2% Compound ofFormula He 0.2% anhydrous sodium sulfate 10.0% crude calcium ligninsulfonate 5.0% sodium alkylnaphthalenesulfonate 1.0% calcium/magnesium bentonite 59.0%. Example T Extruded Pellet Compound ofFormula I 21.2% Compound ofFormula Ha 0.7% Compound of Formula Hd 3.1% anhydrous sodium sulfate 10.0% crude calcium ligninsulfonate 5.0% sodium alkylnaphthalenesulfonate 1.0% calcium/magnesium bentonite 59.0%. Test results indicate that mixtures of Formula I and Formula II mixtures are highly active herbicides, providing unexpected synergistic control of selected grass and broadleaf weeds. Many of the mixtures provide useful weed control when applied in sequential applications. Sequential applications of the mixtures may be particularly useful for controlling weeds that have germinated after the initial application or for improving control of larger weeds that may not be entirely controlled by a single application. In particular, sequential applications of the mixtures may be preferred in certain crop and non crop utilities. Specifically, sequential applications may be preferred in important agronomic crops which include but are not limited to sugar beet. Many of the mixtures also retain sufficient crop tolerance or even demonstrate safening on important agronomic crops, which include, but are not limited to, cotton, barley, wheat, co (maize), alfalfa, potatoes, tomatoes, oilseed rape (including canola). sugar beets, soybeans, rice, pineapple, and sugarcane and other plantation crops. They are also useful for conifer release in forestry. The locus of application being a rice field, particularly a rice paddy, is a most preferred embodiment of this invention. Mixtures of this invention, including those with insufficient crop tolerance, have utility for enhanced broad-spectrum pre- and/or poste ergence weed control in areas around fuel storage tanks, industrial storage areas, parking lots, drive-in theaters, billboards and highway and railroad structures. Alternatively, the subject mixtures are useful to modify plant growth. The mixtures of Formula I with Formula Ha are particularly valued, because they retain acceptable levels of crop selectivity in certain major agronomic crops such as rice. The mixtures ofFormula I with Formula lib are particularly valued, because they retain acceptable levels of crop selectivity in certain major agronomic crops such as rice, barley and wheat. The mixtures of Formula I with Formula He are particularly valued, because they retain acceptable levels of crop selectivity in certain major agronomic crops such as oilseed rape (including 'Canola'), rice, barley and wheat. The mixtures of Formula I with Formulae Hi, Hj, III, and Hm are particularly valued, because they retain acceptable levels of crop selectivity in certain major agronomic crops such as barley and wheat. The mixtures of Formula I with Formula Ilk are particularly valued, because they retain acceptable levels of crop selectivity in certain major agronomic crops such as sugar beet. The mixtures of Formula I with Formula Hf are particularly valued, because they retain acceptable levels of crop selectivity in certain major agronomic crops such as com (maize), soybean and cotton containing at least one gene conferring resistance to inhibitors of acetolactate synthase. The mixtures of Formula I with Formula Hg alone or in combination with Formula Hi are particularly valued, because they retain acceptable levels of crop selectivity in certain major agronomic crops such as com (maize) and cotton containing a least one gene conferring resistance to inhibitors of acetolactate synthase. Lines, varieties and cultivars of com (maize), soybean and cotton containing at least one gene conferring resistance to inhibitors of acetolactate synthase are commercially available (e.g., com cult. 'P3180IR', soybean cult. 'W20') or can be .produced by methods described in U.S. Patents 4,761,373, 5,013,659, 5.084,082, 5,084,086 and 5,159,135, and Sebastian et al., Crop Sci, 1989, 29, 1403-1408. In the context of this disclosure, a "line" is a group of plants of similar parentage that display little or no genetic variation between individuals for at least one trait. Such lines may be created by one or more generations of self-pollination and selection, or by vegetative propagation from a single parent, such as by tissue or cell culture techniques. A "variety" or "cultivar" refers to an agronomically superior line that has been extensively tested and is (or was) being used for commercial production. The Formula I and Formula II mixtures of this invention can additionally be used in combination with other commercial herbicides, insecticides or fungicides. A mixture of one or more of the following herbicides with the Formula I and Formula II mixtures of this invention may be particularly useful for weed control. Examples of other herbicides as mixture partners are: acetochlor, acifluorfen and its sodium salt, acrolein (2-propenal), alachlor, ametryn, amidosulfuron, amitrole, ammonium sulfamate, asulam, atrazine, benazolin, benazolin-ethyl, benfluralin, benfuresate, bensulide, bentazone, bifenox, 2,6-bis[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)oxy]benzoic acid, bromacil, bromoxynil, bromoxynil octanoate, butachlor, butralin, butylate, carbetamide, chlomethoxyfen, chloramben, chlorbromuron, chloridazon, chlornitrofen, 2-[4-chloro-5- (cyclopentyloxy)-2-fluorophenyl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-lH-indene-l,3(2H)-dione (KPP-314), 3-[4-chloro-2-fluoro-5-(cyclopentyloxy)phenyl]-5-( 1 -methylethylidene)- 2,4-oxazolidinedione, 3-[4-chloro-2-fluoro-5-( 1 -methyl-2-propynyloxy)phenyl]-5-( 1 - methylethylidene]-2,4-oxaxolidinedione, 2-[[2-(3-chlorophenyl)-2-oxiranyl]methyl]-2- ethyl-lH-indene-l,3(2H)-dione (MK-243), chlorotoluron, chlorpropham, chlorthal-dimethyl, clopyralid, cinmethylin, cinosulfuron, clethodim, clomazone, clopyralid, clopyralid-olamine, cyanazine, cycloate, N-[[[2-(cyclopropylcarbonyl)- phenyl]amino]sulfonyl]-N-(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)urea, cyclosulfamuron, cycloxydim, 2,4-D and its butotyl, butyl, isoctyl and isopropyl esters and its dimethylammonium, diolamine and trolamine salts, cyhalofop-butyl, daimuron, dalapon, dalapon-sodium, dazomet, 2,4-DB and its dimethylammonium, potassium and sodium salts, desmedipham, desmetryn, dicamba and its dimethylammonium, potassium and sodium salts, dichlobenil, 3-[l-(3,5-dichlorophenyl)-l-methylethyl]-2,3-dihydro-6- methyl-5-phenyl4H- 1 ,3-oxazin-4-one, 3-[2,4-dichloro-5-(2-propynyloxy)phenyl]- 5-( 1 , 1 -dimethylethyl)-l ,3,4-oxadiazol-2(3H)-one, dichlorprop, diclofop-methyl, NN-diethyl-3-[(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)sulfonyl]- 1 H- 1 ,2,4-triazole- 1 -carboxamide (CΗ 900), difenzoquat metilsulfate, diflufenican, dimefuron, 6-[[6,7-dihydro-6,6- dimethyl-3H,5H-pyrrolo[2,l-c][l ,2,4]thiadiazol-3-ylidine]amino]-7-fluoro-4-(2- propynyI)-2H-l,4-benzoxazin-3(4H)-one, dimepiperate, dimethylarsinic acid and its sodium salt, dinitramine, diphenamid, diquat dibromide, dithiopyr, diuron, DΝOC, endothal, EPTC, esprocarb, ethalfluralin, ethofumesate, ethyl [2-chloro-5-[4-chloro-5- (difluoromethoxy)- 1 -methyl- 1 H-pyrazol-3-yI]-4-fluorophenoxy]acetate, ethyl α,2-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1 H- 1 ,2,4-triazol- 1 -yl]- 4-fluorobenzenepropanoate, etobenzanid, fenoxaprop-ethyl, fenoxaprop-P-ethyl, fenuron, fenuron-TCA, flamprop-methyl, flamprop-M-isopropyl, flamprop-M-methyl, flazasulfuron, fluazifop-butyl, fluazifop-P-butyl, fluchloralin, flu etsulam, flumiclorac- pentyl, flumioxazin, fluometuron, fluoroglycofen-ethyl. flupoxam, fluridone, flurochloridone, fluroxypyr, fomesafen, fosamine-ammonium, glufosinate, glufosinate- ammonium, glyphosate, glyphosate-isopropylammonium, glyphosate-sesquisodium, glyphosate-trimesium, halosulfuron-methyl, haloxyfop-etotyl, haloxyfop-methyl, hexazinone, imazamethabenz-methyl, imazapyr, imazaquin, imazaquin-ammonium, imazethapyr, imazethapyr-ammonium, imazosulfuron, ioxynil, ioxynil octanoate, ioxynil-sodium, isoproturon, isouron, isoxaben, lactofen, lenacil, linuron, maleic hydrazide, MCPA and its dimethylammonium, potassium and sodium salts, MCPA-isoctyl, mecoprop, mecoprop-P, mefenacet, mefluidide, metam-sodium, metazachlore, methabenzthiazuron, methyl [[2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-[(tetrahydro-3-oxo- 1 H,3H-[ 1 ,3 ,4]thiadiazolo[3,4-α]pyridazin- 1 -ylidene)amino]phenyl]thio]acetate (KIΗ 9201), methylarsonic acid and its calcium, monoammonium, monosodium and disodium salts, methyl [[[l-[5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-2-nitrophenyl]-2- methoxyethylidene]amino]oxy]acetate (AKH-7088), methyl 3-chloro-5-[[[[4,6- dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]- 1 -methyl- 1 H-pyrazole-4- carboxylate, methyl 2-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)oxy]-6-[l -(methoxyimino)ethyl]- benzoate (KIΗ 6127), methyl 5-[[[[(4,6-dimethyl-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]- amino]sulfonyl]-l-(2-pyridinyl)-lH-pyrazole-4-carboxylate (NC-330), N-(4-fluoro- phenyl)-N-(l-methylethyl)-2-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-l,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]oxy]acetamide, metobenzuron, metolachlor, metoxuron, metribuzin, metsulfuron-methyl, molinate, monolinuron, napropamide, naptalam, neburon, norflurazon, oryzalin, oxadiazon, oxyfluorfen, paraquat dichloride, pebulate, pendimethalin, perfluidone, phenmedipham, picloram, picloram-potassium, pretilachlor, primisulfuron-methyl, prometon, prometryn, propachlor, propanil, propaquizafop, propazine, propham, propyzamide, prosulfuron, pyrazolynate, pyrazosulfuron-ethyl, pyributicarb, pyridate, quinclorac, quinmerac, quizalofop-ethyl, quizalofop-P-ethyl, quizalofop-P-tefuryl, sethoxydim, siduron, simazine, sulfentrazone, TCA, TCA-sodium, tebutame, tebuthiuron, terbacil, terbuthylazine, terbutryn, thenylchlor, thiobencarb, tralkoxydim, tri-allate, triasulfuron, triclopyr, triclopyr-butotyl, triclopyr-triethylammonium, tridiphane, trifluralin, and vemolate. For mixtures of the compound of Formula I with the compounds of Formula Ηa or Formula Ηn, the following herbicide mixture partners are particularly useful: bensulfuron methyl, butachlor, 3-[l-(3,5-dichlorophenyl)-l-methylethyl]-2,3-dihydro- 6-methyl-5-phenyl-4H-l ,3-oxazin-4-one, methyl 2-[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)- oxy]-6-[l-(methoxyimino)ethyl]benzoate (KIΗ 6127), molinate. 2-[[2-(3-chlorophenyl)- 2-oxiranyl]methyl]-2-ethyl-lH-indene-l,3(2H)-dione (MK-243), cinosulfuron, N,N-diethyl-3-[(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)suIfonyl]- 1 H- 1 ,2,4-triazole- 1 -carboxamide (CH 900), etobenzanid, mefenacet, pretilachlor, pyrazosulfuron methyl, pyributicarb and thiobencarb. For mixtures of the compound of Formula I with the compound of Formula He, the following herbicide mixture partners are particularly useful: barban, benazolin, carbetamid, clopyralid, cyanazine, cycloxydim, dimefuron, fluazifop, haloxyfop, isoxaben, metazachlore, napropamide, propaquizafop, propyzamide, pyridate, quizalofop, sethoxydim, TCA, tebutame, and trifluralin. For mixtures of the compound of Formula I with the compounds of Formula lib, Formula Hi, Formula Hj, Formula III or Formula Hm, besides combinations of the compounds of Formulae lib, Hi, Hj, III and Hm themselves, the following herbicide mixture partners are particularly useful: amidosulfuron, 3-chloro-5-[[[[4,6-dimethoxy- 2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]- 1 -methyl- 1 H-pyrazole-4-carboxylate, cinosulfuron, N-[[[2-(cyclopropylcarbonyl)phenyl]amino]sulfonyl]-N-(4,6-dimethoxy- 2-pyrimidinyl)urea, imazamethabenz, mefluidide, prosulfuron and triasulfuron, and herbicides with a similar spectrum of control but a different mode of action such as, but not limited to: barban, bentazon, bifenox, bromoxynil, bromoxynil heptanoate, bromoxynil octanoate, chloridazon, 2-[4-chloro-5-(cyclopentyloxy)-2-fluorophenyl]- 4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-lH-indene-l,3(2H)-dione, 3-[4-chloro-2-fluoro-5-(l-methyl-2- propynyloxy)phenyl]-5-(l-methylethyIidene]-2,4-oxaxolidinedione, chlortoluron, clodinafop, clopyralid, cyanazine, cyhalofop-butyl, dicamba, diclofop, dichlorprop, diclofop, difenzoquat, diflufenican, 6-[[6,7-dihydro-6,6-dimethyl-3H,5H-pyrrolo[2,l-c]- [1 ,2,4]thiadiazol-3-ylidine]amino]-7-fluoro-4-(2-propynyI)-2H- 1 ,4-benzoxazin-3(4H)- one, ethyl [2-chloro-5-[4-chloro-5-(difluoromethoxy)-l -methyl- lH-pyrazol-3-yl]-4- fluorophenoxyjacetate, ethyl α,2-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl- 5-oxo-lH-l,2,4-triazol-l-yl]4-fluorobenzenepropanoate, fenoxaprop, flamprop, N-(4-fluorophenyl)-N-( 1 -methylethyl)-2-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)- 1 ,3 ,4-thiadiazol-2-yl]- oxyjacetamide, fluoxypyr, flupoxam, fluridone, flurtamone, glufosinate, glyphosate, ioxynil, isoproturon, isoxaben, MCPA, MCPA-thioethyl, MCPB, mecoprop, mecoprop-P, methabenzthiazuron, methyl metribuzin, pendimethalin, tri-allate, tralkoxydim, trifluralin, (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid, and 4-(2,4-dichloro- phenoxy)butanoic acid. For mixtures of the compound of Formula I with the compound of Formula Hi, the following herbicide mixture partners are also particularly useful: chlorimuron ethyl, cloransulam methyl, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-( 1 -methylethyl)-5-oxo- 1 H-imidazol- 2-yl]-5-(methoxymethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid, flumetsulam, halosulfuron, imazaquin, imazethapyr, nicosulfuron, 3-oxetanyl 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethyl-2-pyrimidinyl)- amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]benzoate, primisulfuron, prosulfuron, pyrithiobac sodium and rimsulfuron, and herbicides with a similar spectrum of control but a different mode of action such as, but not limited to: acetochlor, acifluoren, alachlor, atrazine, benazolin, bentazon, butylate, methyl [[2-chloro4-fluoro-5-[(5.6,7,8- tetrahydro-3-oxo- 1 H,3H-[ 1 ,3,4]thiadiazolo[3,4-a]pyridazin- 1 -ylidene)amino]phenyl]- thiojacetate, clethodim, clomazone. clopyralid, cyanazine, 2,4-D, 2,4-DB, dicamba, α,2- dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1 H- 1 ,2,4-triazol- 1 -yl]- 4-fluorobenzenepropanoate, dimethenamid, disodium metharsonate, diuron, EPTC, ethalfluralin, fenoxaprop, fluazifop, fluazifop-P, fluminclorac pentyl ester, flumioxazin, fluometuron, fomesafen, glufosinate, glyphosate, haloxyfop, isoxaflutole, lactofen, linuron, MCPA, metolachlor, metribuzin, mefluidide, monosodium metharsonate, norfluazon, paraquat, pendimedialin, pyridate, quizalofop-ethyl, quizalofop-P-ethyl, sethoxydim, simazine, sulcotrione, thiafluamide, tridiphane, trifluralin and vemolate. For mixtures of the compound of Formula I with the compounds of Formula lie, Formula Ηf and Formula Ηg, besides combinations of the compounds of Formulae lie, Ηf and Ηg themselves, the following herbicide mixture partners are particularly useful: cloransulam methyl, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(l-methylethyl)-5-oxo-lH-imidazol- 2-yl]-5-(methoxymethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid, flumetsulam, halosulfuron, imazaquin, imazethapyr, 3-oxetanyl 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethyl-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]- amino]sulfonyl]benzoate, primisulfuron, prosulfuron, pyrithiobac sodium and thifensulfuron methyl, and herbicides with a similar spectrum of control but a different mode of action such as, but not limited to: acetochlor, acifluoren, alachlor, atrazine, benazolin, bentazon, butylate, methyl [[2-chloro4-fluoro-5-[(5,6,7,8-tetrahydro-3-oxo- 1 H,3H-[ 1 ,3 ,4]thiadiazolo[3 ,4-a]pyridazin- 1 -ylidene)amino]phenyl]thio]acetate, clethodim, clomazone, clopyralid, cyanazine, 2,4-D, 2,4-DB, dicamba, α,2-dichloro-5- [4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo- 1H- 1 ,2,4-triazoI- 1 -yl]-4-fluoro- benzenepropanoate, dimethenamid, disodium metharsonate, diuron, EPTC, ethalfluralin, fenoxaprop, fluazifop, fluazifop-P, fluminclorac pentyl ester, flumioxazin, fluometuron, fomesafen, glufosinate, glyphosate, haloxyfop, isoxaflutole, lactofen, linuron, MCPA, metolachlor, metribuzin, mefluidide, monosodium metharsonate, norfluazon, paraquat, pendimethalin, pyridate, quizalofop-ethyl, quizalofop-P-ethyl, sethoxydim, simazine, sulcotrione, thiafluamide, tridiphane, trifluralin and vemolate. For mixtures of the compound of Formula I with the compound of Formula Ηh, the following herbicide mixture partners are also particularly useful: ammonium fosamine, chlorsulfuron, diuron, glufosinate, glyphosate, metsulfuron methyl, norfluazon, oryzalin, oxyfluorfen, paraquat, terbacil and simazine. For mixtures of the compound of Formula I with the compound of Formula Ilk, the following herbicide mixture partners are also particularly useful: alloxydim-sodium, barban, chloridazon. chlorpropham, cycloate, cycloxidim, dalapon, desmedipham, diallate, diclofop, diethatyl ethyl, diquat, endothall, EPTC, ethofumesate, fenuron, fluazifop, glufosinate, glyphosate, lenacil. metamitron, paraquat, pebulate, phenmedipham, propham, quinmerac, quizalofop, sethoxydim, TCA, triallate and trifluralin. For mixtures of the compound of Formula I with the compound of Formula Ho, the following herbicide mixture partners are also particularly useful: ametryn, asulam, atrazine, bromacil, diuron, metribuzin, norfluazon, pendimethalin, terbacil and trifluralin. Mixtures of the compound of Formula I with mixtures of the compounds of Formulae Ha and Hd are particularly useful, especially when the weight ratio of the compound of Formula Ha to the compound of Formula Hd is about 1 : 4 to 1 : 5. Mixtures of the compound of Formula I with mixtures of the compounds of Formulae lib and He are particularly useful, especially when the weight ratio of the compound of Formula lib to the compound of Formula He is about 1 : 1. Mixtures of the compound of Formula I with mixtures of the compounds of Formulae lib and Hd are particularly useful, especially when the weight ratio of the compound of Formula lib to the compound of Formula Hd is about 1 : 5. Mixtures of the compound of Formula I with mixtures of the compounds of Formulae Hg and Hi are particularly useful, especially when the weight ratio of the compound ofFormula Hg to the compound of Formula Hi is about 2 : 1. Mixtures of the compound ofFormula I with mixtures of the compounds of Formulae He and Hf are also particularly useful. In certain instances, combinations with other herbicides having a similar spectrum of control but a different mode of action will be particularly advantageous for resistance management. Generally, the herbicidally effective amounts of the compounds of Formula I and Formula II in the mixtures will vary depending on the specific compounds selected, environmental conditions, formulation, method of application, amount and type of vegetation present, etc. The herbicidally effective amounts of Formula I relative to Formula Ha-m compounds are generally in a ratio of 4000:1 to 1 :10, the ratio of the Formula I to Formula Hn compound is generally 5: 1 to 1 :500, and the ratio of the Formula I to Formula Ho compound is generally 100:1 to 1 :10. Preferably, the herbicidally effective amounts of Formula I relative to Formula Ha-m compounds are generally in a ratio of 600:1 to 10:7. More specifically, the herbicidally effective ^mounts of Formula I relative to Formula Ha are preferably in a ratio of 75:1 to 1 :2, with the most preferred ratios being 19: 1 to 3: 1. Preferably, the herbicidally effective amounts of Formula I relative to Formula lib are in a ratio of 250:1 to 1 : 1, with the most preferred ratios being 75:1 to 25:1. Preferably, the herbicidally effective amounts of Formula I relative to Formula He are in a ratio of 250: 1 to 1 :1, with the most preferred ratios being 60: 1 to 4: 1. Preferably, the herbicidally effective amounts of Formula I relative to Formula He are in a ratio of 250: 1 to 1 : 1 , with the most preferred ratios being 20:1 to 2: 1. Preferably, the herbicidally effective amounts of Formula I relative to Formula Hf are in a ratio of 75: 1 to 1 :2, with the most preferred ratios being 25: 1 to 2: 1. Preferably, the herbicidally effective amounts of Formula I relative to Formula Hg are in a ratio of 100:1 to 1 : 1 , with the most preferred ratios being 25: 1 to 4:1. Preferably, the herbicidally effective amounts of Formula I relative to Formula Hh are in a ratio of 250:1 to 2:1, with the most preferred ratios being 150:1 to 15:1. Preferably, the herbicidally effective amounts of Formula I relative to Formula Hi are in a ratio of 250:1 to 1 :1, with the most preferred ratios being 30: 1 to 4: 1. Preferably, the herbicidally effective amounts of Formula I relative to Formula Hj are in a ratio of 250:1 to 1 :1, with the most preferred ratios being 30:1 to 4:1. Preferably, the herbicidally effective amounts of Formula I relative to Formula Ilk are in a ratio of 250: 1 to 1 :2, with the most preferred ratios being 30:1 to 4: 1. Preferably, the herbicidally effective amounts of Formula I relative to Formula III are in a ratio of 250:1 to 1:1, with the most preferred ratios being 50:1 to 10:1. Preferably, the herbicidally effective amounts of Formula I relative to Formula Hm are in a ratio of 250:1 to 1 :1, with the most preferred ratios being 30:1 to 4:1. Preferably, the herbicidally effective amounts of Formula I relative to Formula Hn are in a ratio of 2:1 to 1 :200, with the most preferred ratios being 1 :1 to 1 :50. Preferably, the herbicidally effective amounts of Formula I relative to Formula Ho are in a ratio of 50: 1 to 1 : 1, with the most preferred ratios being 30:1 to 2:1. Generally a herbicidally effective amount of the Formula I compound is applied at a rate from 5 to 2000 g ai/ha, and, in general, the herbicidally effective amount of each Formula Ha-m compound present in the mixture is applied at a rate from 0.25 to 200 g ai/ha, and the Formula Hn compound, if present, is applied at a rate of 150 to 5000 g/ha, and the Formula Ho compound, if present, is applied at a rate of 10 to 2000 g ai/ha. Preferably, the Formula I compound is applied at a rate from 40 to 600 g ai/ha, and, in general, and each Formula Ha-m compound present is applied at a rate from 1 to 35 g ai/ha. Preferably, the Formula Ha compound is applied at a rate from 0.5 to 50 g ai/ha, and most preferably at rate from 6 to 32 g ai/ha. Preferably, the Formula lib compound is applied at a rate from 0.5 to 100 g ai/ha, and most preferably at rate from 1 to 20 g ai/ha. Preferably, the Formula He compound is applied at a rate from 1 to 35 g ai/ha, and most preferably at rate from 2 to 20 g ai/ha. Preferably, the Formula He compound is applied at a rate from 0.5 to 100 g ai/ha, and most preferably at rate from 5 to 30 g ai/ha. Preferably, the Formula Hf compound is applied at a rate from 1 to 200 g ai/ha, and most preferably at rate from 4 to 100 g ai/ha. Preferably, the Formula Hg compound is applied at a rate from 0.5 to 100 g ai/ha, and most preferably at rate from 2 to 50 g ai/ha. Preferably, the Formula Hh compound is applied at a rate from 0.25 to 70 g ai/ha, and most preferably at rate from 0.5 to 20 g ai/ha. Preferably, the Formula Hi compound is applied at a rate from 0.5 to 100 g ai/ha, and most preferably at rate from 2 to 50 g ai/ha. Preferably, the Formula Hj compound is applied at a rate from 0.5 to 100 g ai/ha, and most preferably at rate from 5 to 30 g ai/ha. Preferably, the Formula Ilk compound is applied at a rate from 0.5 to 100 g ai/ha, and most preferably at rate from 5 to 30 g ai/ha. Preferably, the Formula III compound is applied at a rate from 0.5 to 100 g ai/ha, and most preferably at rate from 1 to 40 g ai/ha. Preferably, the Formula Hm compound is applied at a rate from 0.5 to 100 g ai/ha, and most preferably at rate from 5 to 30 g ai/ha. Preferably, the Formula Hn compound is applied at a rate from 200 to 4000 g ai ha, and most preferably at a rate from 200 to 3000 g ai/ha. Preferably, the Formula Ho compound is applied at a rate from 15 to 1000 g ai/ha, and most preferably at rate from 20 to 200 g ai/ha. One skilled in the art can readily determine herbicidally effective application rates and ratios of the herbicide of Formula I to the herbicides of Formula II as well as timing necessary for the desired level of weed control and crop safety. The Formula I phosphorodithioate (Compound 1) was tested in combination with the Formula Ha sulfonylurea (Compound 2), the Formula lib sulfonylurea (Compound 3), the sodium salt of the Formula III sulfonylurea (Compound 4), the Formula Hi sulfonylurea (Compound 5), the Formula IIj sulfonylurea (Compound 6) the Formula Hm sulfonylurea (Compound 7), the Formula He sulfonylurea (Compound 8), the Formula Hf sulfonylurea (Compound 9), the Formula Hg sulfonylurea (Compound 10), the Formula He sulfonylurea (Compound 11), the Formula Ilk sulfonylurea (Compound 12), the Formula Hn propanamide (Compound 13), the Formula Hh sulfonylurea (Compound 14), the Formula Ho triazinedione (Compound 15), and the Formula Hd sulfonylurea (Compound 16). The compounds of Formula I and Formula II are listed below by number referred to in the following test data: Compound 1 The following test protocol was used for the test in Table A. Compound numbers are as described above. The data demonstrate the efficacy of the Formula I and Formula Ha mixtures of this invention against a specific weed. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to this species. Test A Protocol Plastic pots were partially filled with silt loam soil. The soil was then flooded with water, and 1.5-2.0-leaf transplants of rice (Oryza sativa) tropical japonica cult. 'Cypress' were planted in the soil. Seeds of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) were planted in saturated soil, and the plants grown to the 2-leaf stage for testing. At treatment time, the water level for all plantings was raised to 3 cm above the soil surface. Chemical treatments were formulated in a non-phytotoxic solvent mixture containing a surfactant and applied directly to the paddy water. These treatments were replicated twice. Treated plants and controls were maintained in a greenhouse for 24 days, after which time all species were compared to controls and visually evaluated. Plant response ratings, summarized in Table A are reported on a 0 to 100 scale where 0 is no effect and 100 is complete control. For Test A, the mean response of each treatment was determined. Colby's equation was used to calculate the expected additive herbicidal effect of the mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 2. Colby's equation (Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds, 15(1), pp 20-22 (1967)) calculates the expected additive effect of herbicidal mixtures, and for two active ingredients is of the form: Pa+b = Pa + Pb - (P a Pb / 1 0) wherein P a +b is tne percentage effect of the mixture expected from additive contribution of the individual components, P a is the observed percentage effect of the first active ingredient at the same use rate as in the mixture, and Pb is the observed percentage effect of the second active ingredient at the same use rate as in the mixture. Results of Test A are shown in Table A, which lists the mean response of a specific weed to Compound 1 and Compound 2 applied alone as single active ingredients, applied as a mixture of Compound 1 and Compound 2, and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixture of Compound 1 and Compound 2 (from Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 2. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 2, and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the two herbicides. TABLE A* Effect of Compound 1 and Compound 2 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture Compound Compound Rice (3.5 L.S.) Barnyardg rass (2 L.S.) 1 2 Mean Expectedt Mean Expected Alone 25 0 0 - 23 — 50 0 0 - 38 - 150 0 0 - 68 — 0 2 0 — 5 — " 0 4 0 — 10 — 0 8 0 — 43 — 0 16 5 - 83 — Mixtures 25 2 0 0 0 27 50 2 0 0 38 41 150 2 0 0 80 70 25 4 0 0 5 31 50 4 0 0 25 34 150 4 0 0 73 72 25 8 15 0 95 56 50 8 20 0 77 65 150 8 30 0 99 82 25 16 33 5 95 87 50 16 38 5 98 90 150 16 38 5 99 95 * Application rates are expressed in g ai/ha for both Compound 1 and Compound 2. Data are reported as percent control, t Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds, 15(1), pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table B. Compound numbers are as described on page 27. The data demonstrate the efficacy of the Formula I and Formula lib mixtures, and Formula I and Formula III mixtures of this invention against specific weeds. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to these species. Test B Protocol Triticum aestivum cult. 'Recital' (TRZAS-R) (winter wheat), Triticum aestivum cult. 'Era' (TRZAS-E) (spring wheat), Aegilops cylindrica (AEGCY), Bromus tectontm (BROTE), Lolium multiflorum (LOLMU), Avena fatua (AVEFA), Setaria viridis (SETVI), Kochia scoparia (KCHSC), Apera spica-venti (APESV), Phalaris minor (PHAMI), Alopecurus myosuroides (ALOMY), and Poa annua (POAAN) were grown in a greenhouse to approximately the two-leaf stage in 17-cm diameter round fiber pots filled with a mixture of 60% sandy loam soil and 40% Metro-Mix 350™ growing medium. Compound 1 was formulated as a single active ingredient in 30% emulsifiable concentrate. Compound 3 was formulated as a single active ingredient in 60% strength dry flowable granules. Compound 4 was formulated as a single active ingredient in 50% strength dry flowable granules. Treatments were applied to the test species by diluting the compounds in a non-phytotoxic solvent, and spraying the treatments onto the plants. Compound 1 was applied at 62, 125, 250, and 500 g ai/ha. Compound 3 was applied at 4 g ai/ha. Compound 4 was applied at 8 g ai/ha. Mixtures of Compound 1 at 62 g ai/ha and Compound 3 at 4 g ai/ha, Compound 1 at 125 g ai/ha and Compound 3 at 4 g ai/ha, Compound 1 at 250 g ai/ha and Compound 3 at 4 g ai ha, Compound 1 at 500 g ai/ha and Compound 3 at 4 g ai/ha, Compound 1 at 62 g ai ha and Compound 4 at 8 g ai/ha, Compound 1 at 125 g ai/ha and Compound 4 at 8 g ai/ha, Compound 1 at 250 g ai/ha and Compound 3 at 4 g ai ha, and Compound 1 at 500 g ai/ha and Compound 4 at 8 g ai/ha were also applied. These treatments were replicated two times. After treatment, the plants were maintained in a greenhouse and evaluated 19 days after spraying. All sprayed plants were evaluated for injury as compared to control plants that were sprayed only with non-phytotoxic solvent. Injury was evaluated visually using a 0 to 100% scale where 0 indicates no effect and 100 indicates complete control. Results of Test B are shown in Table B, which lists the mean response of specific weeds to Compound 1, Compound 3 and Compound 4 applied alone as single active ingredients, the mean response of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 3, the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixture of Compound 1 and Compound 3 (Colby's equation), the mean response of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 4, and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixture of Compound 1 and Compound 4 (Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 3. and by mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 4. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 3, and Compound 1 to Compound 4, and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the two herbicides. TABLE B* Effect of Compound 1, Compound 3 and Compound 4 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture C C C T T A B L A S K A P A P M M M R R E R O V E C P H L O P P P Z Z G O L E T H E A O A D D D A A C T M F V S S M M A S- S- Y E U A I C V I Y N 1 3 4 R E Alone 0 4 0 Mean 0 8 0 18 68 18 43 100 70 65 63 65 0 0 8 Mean 25 18 38 43 78 33 80 100 78 68 95 80 62 0 0 Mean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 125 0 0 Mean 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 18 10 25 23 15 250 0 0 Mean 13 0 0 5 30 15 35 40 8 53 48 80 500 0 0 Mean 8 8 0 0 63 28 68 50 35 88 80 80 Mixtures 62 4 0 Mean 10 0 25 28 73 28 38 100 85 83 75 80 Exp.f 0 8 0 18 68 18 43 100 70 65 67 65 125 4 0 Mean 20 0 10 30 78 35 78 100 90 78 80 85 Exp. 0 8 0 18 68 18 60 100 73 74 71 70 250 4 0 Mean 23 8 5 28 78 43 93 100 93 85 85 88 Exp. 13 8 0 22 77 30 63 100 72 83 80 93 500 4 0 Mean 25 13 20 33 83 60 88 100 100 90 85 98 Exp. 8 14 0 18 88 40 81 100 81 96 93 93 62 0 8 Mean 33 15 33 50 80 28 83 100 90 78 95 93 Exp. 25 18 38 43 78 33 80 100 78 68 96 80 125 0 8 Mean 30 5 33 43 80 35 80 100 95 85 98 95 Exp. 25 18 38 43 78 33 86 100 80 76 96 83 250 0 8 Mean 33 18 30 45 80 35 90 100 95 83 100 100 Exp. 34 18 38 45 84 43 87 100 79 85 97 96 500 0 8 Mean 28 15 30 43 78 35 98 100 100 83 100 100 Exp. 31 24 38 43 92 51 94 100 85 96 99 96 * Rates are expressed in g ai/ha for Compound 1 , Compound 3 and Compound 4. Data are reported as percent control. t "Exp." are expected responses calculated according to Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds, 15(1 ), pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table C. Compound numbers are as described on page 27. The data demonstrate the efficacy of the Formula I and Formula Hi mixtures, the Formula I and Formula IIj mixtures, and the Formula I and Formula Hm mixtures of this invention against specific weeds. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to these species. Test C Protocol Triticum aestivum cult. 'Recital' (TRZAS-R) (winter wheat), Triticum aestivum cult. 'Era' (TRZAS-E) (spring wheat), Aegilops cylindrica (AEGCY), Bromus tectorum (BROTE), Avenafatua (AVEFA), Setaria viridis (SE TNI), Apera spica-venti (APESV), Phalaris minor (PHAMI), Poa annua (POAAΝ), an ordinary suceptible biotype of Alopecurus myosuroides (ALOMY-S), and a biotype of Alopecurus myosuroides (ALOMY-R) shown to be resistant to certain substituted urea, arylphenoxy, and cyclohexenone herbicides (Clarke, J. H; Moss, S. R. (1991) "The occurrence of herbicide-resistant Alopecurus myosuroides (black-grass) in the United Kingdom and strategies for its control" Brighton Crop Protection Conference - Weeds, 1041-1048) were grown in a greenhouse to approximately the two-leaf stage in 17-cm diameter round fiber pots filled with a mixture of 60% sandy loam soil and 40% Metro-Mix 350™ growing medium. Treatments were applied to the test species by diluting the compounds in a non-phytotoxic solvent, and spraying me treatments onto the plants. Compound 1 was applied at 500 g ai/ha. Compounds 5, 6 and 7 were each applied at 16 g ai/ha. Mixtures of Compound 1 at 500 g ai/ha and Compound 5 at 16 g ai/ha, Compound 1 at 500 g ai/ha and Compound 6 at 16 g ai/ha, and Compound 1 at 500 g ai/ha and Compound 7 at 16 g ai/ha were also applied. After treatment, the plants were maintained in a greenhouse and were evaluated 16 days after spraying. All sprayed plants were evaluated for injury as compared to control plants that were sprayed only with non-phytotoxic solvent. Injury was evaluated visually using a 0 to 100% scale where 0 indicates no effect and 100 indicates complete control. Results of Test C are shown in Table C, which lists the observed response of • specific weeds to Compound 1, Compound 5, Compound 6 and Compound 7 applied alone as single active ingredients, the observed response of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 5, the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixture of Compounds 1 and Compound 5 (Colby's equation), the observed response of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 6, the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixture of Compound 1 and Compound 6 (Colby ' s equation), the observed response of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 7, and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixture of Compound 1 and Compound 7 (Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 5, by mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 6, and by mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 7. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 5, Compound 1 to Compound 6, and Compound 1 to Compound 7, and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the two herbicides. TABLE C* Effect of Compound 1, Compound 5, Compound 6 and Compound 7 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture C C C C T T A B A S A P P A A M M M M R R E R V E P H O L L P P P P Z Z G O E T E A A O O D D D D A A C T F V S M A M M S- S- Y E A I V I N Y- Y- 1 5 6 7 R E S R Alone 0 0 0 16 Obs.t 30 0 35 25 25 70 40 65 65 50 10 0 0 16 0 Obs. 30 0 65 0 35 60 0 0 40 60 0 0 16 0 0 Obs. 25 0 25 50 0 45 80 40 60 65 0 500 0 0 0 Obs. 0 0 10 0 0 40 0 70 65 65 0 Mixtures 500 16 0 0 Obs. 25 10 45 65 0 80 95 85 90 90 60 Exp.t 25 0 32 50 0 67 80 82 86 88 0 500 0 16 0 Obs. 35 25 65 30 65 85 90 85 90 85 35 Exp. 30 0 68 0 35 76 0 70 79 86 0 500 0 0 16 Obs. 30 15 45 60 40 85 90 90 85 80 40 Exp. 30 0 42 25 25 82 40 90 88 82 10 * Rates are expressed in g ai/ha for Compound 1, Compound 5, Compound 6 and Compound 7. Data are reported as percent control. t "Obs." are the observed responses. "Exp." are expected responses calculated according to Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds, 15(1), pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table D. Compound numbers are s described on page 27. The data demonstrate the efficacy of the Formula I and Formula He mixtures of this invention against specific weeds. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to these species. Test D Protocol Triticum aestivum cult. 'Recital ' (TRZAS-R), Triticum aestivum cult. 'Era' (TRZAS-E), Hordeum vulgare cult. 'Igri' (HORVX), Brassica napus (BRSNN), Avena fatua (AVEFA), Alopecurus myosuroides (ALOMY), Lolium multiflorum (LOLMU), Apera spica-venti (APESV), Galium aparine (GALAP), Polygonum convolvulus (POLCO) and Sinapis arvensis (SINAR) were grown in a greenhouse to approximately the two-leaf stage in 15 x 20 cm rectangular fiber pots filled with a mixture of 60% sandy loam soil and 40% Metro-Mix 350™ growing medium. Treatments were applied to the test species by diluting the compounds in a non-phytotoxic solvent, and spraying the treatments onto the plants. Compound 1 was applied at 62 and 250 g ai/ha. Compound 8 was applied at 16 g ai/ha. Mixtures of Compound 1 at 62 g ai/ha and Compound 8 at 16 g ai ha, and Compound 1 at 250 g ai ha and Compound 8 at 16 g ai/ha were also applied. After treatment, the plants were maintained in a greenhouse and were evaluated 21 days after spraying. All sprayed plants were evaluated for injury as compared to control plants that were sprayed only with non-phytotoxic solvent. Injury was evaluated visually using a 0 to 100% scale where 0 indicates no effect and 100 indicates complete control. Results of Test D are shown in Table D, which lists the observed response of specific weeds to Compound 1 and Compound 8 applied alone as single active ingredients, the observed responses of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 8, and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 8 (Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 8. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 8. and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the two herbicides. TABLE P* Effect of Compound 1 and Compound 8 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture C C T T H B A A L A G P S M M R R O R V L O P A O I P P Z Z R S E O L E L L N D D A A V N F M M S A C A S S X N A Y U V P O R 1 8 R E Alone 0 16 Obs.t 15 15 35 0 80 65 75 55 80 65 90 62. 0 Obs. 10 0 20 15 0 0 0 0 40 20 20 250 0 Obs. 10 15 20 20 0 0 0 0 30 30 25 Mixtures 62 16 Obs. 40 20 40 35 85 95 90 95 90 80 95 Exp.t 23 15 48 15 80 65 75 55 88 72 92 250 16 Obs. 55 35 45 35 90 90 90 98 98 80 95 Exp. 23 28 48 20 80 65 75 55 86 75 92 * Rates are expressed in g ai/ha for Compound 1 and Compound 8. Data are reported as percent control. t "Obs." are the observed responses. "Exp." are expected responses calculated according to Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds, 15(1), pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table E. Compound numbers are as described on page 27. The data demonstrate the efficacy of the Formula I and Formula Hf mixtures and Formula I and Formula Hg mixtures of this invention against specific weeds. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to these species. Test E Protocol Zea mays (com, maize) cult. 'P3180' (ZEAMX-R), Zea mays cult, (co , maize) 'P3180IR' (a commercial variety resistant to inhibitors of acetolactate synthase) (ZEAMX-E), Gossypium hirsutum (cotton) cult. 'Coker 312' (GOSHI), Gossypium hirsutum (cotton) cult. 'Coker 312 - Transgenic' (a line derived from Coker 312 by inclusion of a gene conferring resistance to inhibitors of acetolactate synthase) (GOSHI- T), Glycine max (soybean) cult. 'Williams 82' (GLXMA), Glycine max (soybean) cult. 'W20' (a commercial variety resistant to inhibitors of acetolactate synthase) (GLXMA- W), Brachiaria plantaginea (BRAPL), Echinochloa crus-galli (ECHCG), Digitaria sanguinalis (DIGSA), Cassia obtusifolia (CASTO), Abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH) and Solanum ptycanthum (SOLPT) were grown in a greenhouse to the following approximate heights and leaf stages in 10-cm square pots containing sterilized sandy loam soil: Treatments were applied to the test species by diluting the compounds in a non- phytotoxic solvent containing a surfactant, and spraying the treatments onto the plants using a stationary laboratory circulating belt sprayer calibrated to deliver 280 L/ha through a single nozzle. Compound 1 was applied at 50, 100 and 200 g ai/ha. Compound 9 was applied at 2, 4 and 8 g ai/ha. Compound 10 was applied at 1, 2, and 4 g ai/ha. Mixtures of Compound 1 at 50, 100 and 200 g ai/ha with Compound 9 at 2, 4 and 8 g ai/ha, and Compound 1 at 50, 100 and 200 g ai ha with Compound 10 at 1, 2 and 4 g ai/ha were also applied. Individual treatments were replicated four times, with exception of Solanum ptycanthum, which was replicated once, and Brachiaria plantaginea, which was replicated three instead of four times for some application rates. Treatments were positioned in a greenhouse in a randomized complete block design. The greenhouse was maintained at a 28 °C average daily temperature, and natural light in the greenhouse was supplemented with artificial light to achieve a photoperiod of 14 hours. At 14 days after spraying, the plants were evaluated for injury as compared to control plants that were sprayed only with non-phytotoxic solvent. Injury was evaluated visually using a 0 to 100% scale where 0 indicates no effect and 100 indicates complete control. Results of Test E are shown in Table E, which lists the observed response of specific weeds to Compound 1, Compound 9 and Compound 10 applied alone as single active ingredients, the observed responses of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 9 and of Compound 1 and Compound 10, and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 9 and of Compound 1 and Compound 10 (Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 9 and of Compound 1 and Compound 10. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 9 and of Compound 1 to Compound 10, and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the two herbicides. TABLE E* Effect of Compound 1 , Compound 9 and Compound 10 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture C C C Z Z G G G G B E D C A S M M M E E O O L L R C I A B O P P P A A S S X X A H G S U L D D D M M H H M M P C S T T P X X- I I- A A- L G A O H T 1 9 10 R T W Alone 50 0 0 Mean 20 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 - 0 0 Mean 15 12 15 2 8 5 3 8 2 0 0 0 00 0 0 Mean 22 18 25 18 18 18 10 35 15 0 0 0 0 2 0 Mean 18 12 5 5 0 0 27 28 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Mean 18 15 48 2 5 2 73 58 5 0 5 0 0 8 0 Mean 20 15 58 5 10 5 83 58 30 20 28 20 0 0 1 Mean 18 12 30 2 72 12 20 65 20 28 18 0 0 0 2 Mean 12 15 58 8 82 38 50 88 40 55 55 0 0 0 4 Mean 15 12 72 10 92 55 57 100 42 78 70 10 Mixtures 50 2 0 Mean 20 15 25 10 10 2 55 32 8 5 5 0 Exp.t 34 23 5 5 0 0 27 28 0 0 0 0 00 2 0 Mean 15 15 40 18 5 5 60 48 8 0 2 0 Exp. 30 23 19 7 8 5 29 34 2 0 0 0 00 2 0 Mean 15 15 50 18 18 15 70 52 30 2 10 0 Exp. 36 28 29 22 18 18 34 53 15 0 0 0 50 4 0 Mean 18 12 50 12 5 5 82 58 20 0 12 0 Exp. 34 25 48 2 5 2 73 58 5 0 5 0 00 4 0 Mean 12 10 68 15 15 15 88 82 22 10 35 0 Exp. 30 25 56 4 13 7 74 61 7 0 5 0 00 4 0 Mean 25 12 70 25 20 18 77 80 32 20 45 40 Exp. 36 30 61 20 22 20 76 73 19 0 5 0 TABLE E (Continued C C C Z Z G G G G B E D C A S M M M E E O O L L R C I A B O P P P A A S S X X A H G S U L D D D M M H H M M P C S T T P X X- I I- A A- L G A O H T 1 9 10 R T W Mixtures 50 8 0 Mean 20 15 68 15 30 15 100 92 40 28 50 50 Exp. 36 25 58 5 10 5 83 58 30 20 28 20 100 8 0 Mean 12 10 72 20 40 20 90 95 50 35 52 60 - Exp. 32 25 64 7 17 10 84 61 31 20 28 20 200 8 0 Mean 12 12 70 32 35 22 97 100 52 55 58 60 Exp. 38 30 68 22 26 22 85 73 40 20 28 20 50 0 1 Mean 12 10 60 10 80 48 53 62 32 25 32 0 Exp. 34 23 30 2 72 12 20 65 20 28 18 0 100 0 1 Mean 20 12 48 10 70 25 47 75 25 40 48 0 Exp. 30 23 40 4 74 16 22 68 22 28 18 0 200 0 1 Mean 15 12 62 15 85 40 50 70 42 48 52 20 Exp. 36 28 48 20 77 28 28 77 32 28 18 0 50 0 2 Mean 15 12 70 18 88 42 60 82 40 65 72 10 Exp. 30 25 58 8 82 38 50 88 40 55 55 0 100 0 2 Mean 20 12 70 15 85 50 70 98 48 60 80 0 Exp. 25 25 64 10 83 41 52 89 41 55 55 0 200 0 2 Mean 10 10 78 20 90 55 78 100 55 45 70 10 Exp. 31 30 68 25 85 49 55 92 49 55 55 0 50 0 4 Mean 18 18 88 18 90 58 78 100 62 88 88 0 Exp. 32 23 72 10 92 55 57 100 42 78 70 10 100 0 4 Mean 15 12 92 18 90 65 88 100 80 80 88 20 Exp. 28 23 76 12 93 57 58 100 43 78 70 10 200 0 4 Mean 12 12 90 20 92 70 95 100 80 90 95 40 . Exp. 34 28 79 26 93 63 61 100 51 78 70 10 * Rates are expressed in g ai/ha for Compound 1 , Compound 9 and Compound 10. Data are reported as percent control. t "Exp." are expected responses calculated according to Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds, 15(1 ), pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table F. Compound numbers are as described on page 27. The data demonstrate the efficacy of the Formula I and Formula He mixtures and Formula I and Formula Hi mixtures of this invention against specific weeds. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to these species. Test F Protocol Zea mays (com, maize) cult. 'P3180' (ZEAMX-R), Zea mays cult, (com, maize) 'P3180IR' (a commercial variety resistant to inhibitors of acetolactate synthase) (ZEAMX-E), Glycine max (soybean) cult. 'Williams 82' (GLXMA), Glycine max (soybean) cult. 'W20' (a commercial variety resistant to inhibitors of acetolactate synthase) (GLXMA- W), Brachiaria plantaginea (BRAPL), Cassia obtusifolia (CASTO), Abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH) and Sida spinosa (SIDSP) were grown in a greenhouse to the following approximate heights and leaf stages in 10-cm square pots containing sterilized sandy loam soil: Treatments were applied to the test species by diluting the compounds in a non- phytotoxic solvent containing a surfactant, and spraying the treatments onto the plants using a stationary laboratory circulating belt sprayer calibrated to deliver 280 L/ha through a single nozzle. Compound 1 was applied at 50, 100 and 200 g ai/ha. Compound 5 was applied at 1 , 2 and 4 g ai/ha. Compound 1 1 was applied at 1, 2, and 4 g ai/ha. Mixtures of Compound 1 at 50, 100 and 200 g ai/ha with Compound 5 at 1, 2 and 4 g ai/ha, and Compound 1 at 50, 100 and 200 g ai/ha with Compound 11 at 1, 2 and 4 g ai/ha were also applied. Individual treatments were replicated four times, with exception of Compound 1 at 200 g ai/ha and Compound 5 at 1 g ai/ha. which was replicated three times. Treatments were positioned in a greenhouse in a randomized complete block design. The greenhouse was maintained at a 28 °C average daily temperature, and natural light in the greenhouse was supplemented with artificial light to achieve a photoperiod of 14 hours. At 14 days after spraying, the plants were evaluated for injury as compared to control plants that were sprayed only with non- phytotoxic solvent. Injury was evaluated visually using a 0 to 100% scale where 0 indicates no effect and 100 indicates complete control. Results of Test F are shown in Table F, which lists the observed response of specific weeds to Compound 1 , Compound 5 and Compound 1 1 applied alone as single active ingredients, the observed responses of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 5 and of Compound 1 and Compound 1 1, and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 5 and of Compoimd 1 and Compound 11 (Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 5 and of Compound 1 and Compound 1 1. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 5 and of Compound 1 to Compound 1 1 , and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the two herbicides. TABLE F* Effect of Compound 1. Compound 5 and Compound 1 1 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture TABLE F (Continued) * Rates are expressed in g ai/ha for Compound 1 , Compound 5, and Compound 1 1. Data are reported as percent control. t "Exp." are expected responses calculated according to Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds. 15(1), pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table G. Compound numbers are as described on page 27. The data demonstrate the efficacy of mixtures of Formula I, Formula Hg and Hi against specific weeds. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to these species. Test G Protocol Zea mays (com, maize) cult. 'P3180' (ZEAMX-R), Zea mays cult, (co , maize) 'P3180IR' -(a commercial variety resistant to inhibitors of acetolactate synthase) (ZEAMX-E), Gossypium hirsutum (cotton) cult. 'Coker 312' (GOSHI), Gossypium hirsutum (cotton) cult. 'Coker 312 - Transgenic' (a line derived from Coker 312 by inclusion of a gene conferring resistance to inhibitors of acetolactate synthase) (GOSHI - T), Glycine max (soybean) cult. 'Williams 82' (GLXMA), Glycine max (soybean) cult. 'W20' (a commercial variety resistant to inhibitors of acetolactate synthase) (GLXMA- W), Brachiaria plantaginea (BRAPL), Echinochloa crus-galli (ECHCG) and Abutilon theophrasti (ABUTH) were grown in a greenhouse to the following approximate heights and leaf stages in 10-cm square pots containing sterilized sandy loam soil: Treatments were applied to the test species by diluting the formulated compounds in a non-phytotoxic solvent containing a surfactant, and spraying the treatments onto the plants using a stationary laboratory circulating belt sprayer calibrated to deliver 280 L/ha through a single nozzle. Compound 1 was applied at 50, 100 and 200 g ai/ha. Compound 5 and Compound 10 were applied in a 1 : 2 weight ratio totaling 1, 2 and 4 g ai/ha. Mixtures of Compound 1 at 50, 100 and 200 g ai/ha with a mixture of Compound 5 and Compound 10 in 1 : 2 weight ratio totaling 1 , 2 and 4 g ai/ha were also applied. Individual treatments were replicated four times. Treatments were positioned in a greenhouse in a randomized complete block design. The greenhouse was maintained at a 28 °C average daily temperature, and natural light in the greenhouse was supplemented with artificial light to achieve a photoperiod of 14 hours. At 14 days after spraying, the plants were evaluated for injury as compared to control plants that were sprayed only with non-phytotoxic solvent. Injury was evaluated visually using a 0 to 100% scale where 0 indicates no effect and 100 indicates complete control. Results of Test G are shown in Table G, which lists the observed response of specific weeds to Compound 1 and the 1 : 2 mixture of Compound 5 and Compound 10 applied alone as single active ingredients, the observed responses of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 with the mixture of Compound 5 and Compound 10, and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixtures of Compound 1 with the mixture of Compound 5 and Compound 10 (Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 with Compound 5 and Compound 10. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 5 to Compound 10, and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the three herbicides. TABLE G* Effect of Compound 1 , Compound 5 and Compound 10 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture TABLE G (Continued) C C C Z Z G G G G B E A M M M E E O O L L R C B P P P A A S S X X A H U D D D M M H H M M P C T X X- I I- A A- L G H 1 5 10 R T W Mixtures 50 1.33 2.67 Mean 0 0 88 45 88 50 92 100 100 Exp. 0 0 88 30 88 50 90 100 98 100 1.33 2.67 Mean 0 0 88 50 88 55 95 100 98 - Exp. 0 0 88 30 88 50 90 100 98 200 1.33 2.67 Mean 0 0 85 52 90 52 95 98 100 Exp. 0 o 89 37 89 55 90 100 98 * Rates are expressed in g ai ha for Compound 1, Compound 5 and Compound 10. Data are reported as percent control, t "Exp." are expected responses calculated according to Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds, 15(1), pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table H. Compound numbers are as described on page 27. The data demonstrate the efficacy of mixtures of Formula I, Formula He and Hf against specific weeds. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to these species. Test H Protocol Zea mays (com, maize) cult. 'P3180' (ZEAMX-R), Zea mays cult, (com, maize) 'P3180IR' (a commercial variety resistant to inhibitors of acetolactate synthase) (ZEAMX-E), Gossypium hirsutum (cotton) cult. 'Coker 312' (GOSHI), Gossypium hirsutum (cotton) cult. 'Coker 312 - Transgenic' (a line derived from Coker 312 by inclusion of a gene conferring resistance to inhibitors of acetolactate synthase) (GOSHI- T), Glycine max (soybean) cult. 'Williams 82' (GLXMA), Glycine max (soybean) cult. 'W20' (a commercial variety resistant to inhibitors of acetolactate synthase) (GLXMA- ' W), Brachiaria plantaginea (BRAPL) and Echinochloa crus-galli (ECHCG) were grown in a greenhouse to the following approximate heights and leaf stages in 10-cm square pots containing sterilized sandy loam soil: Treatments were applied to the test species by diluting the formulated compounds in a non-phytotoxic solvent containing a surfactant, and spraying the treatments onto the plants using a stationary laboratory circulating belt sprayer calibrated to deliver 280 L/ha through a single nozzle. Compound 1 was applied at 50, 100 and 200 g ai/ha. Compound 9 and Compound 11 were applied in a 1 : 1 weight ratio totaling 2 and 4 g ai/ha. Mixtures of Compound 1 at 50, 100 and 200 g ai/ha with a mixture of Compound 9 and Compound 11 in 1 : 1 weight ratio totaling 2 and 4 g ai/ha were also applied. Individual treatments were replicated four times. Treatments were positioned in a greenhouse in a randomized complete block design. The greenhouse was maintained at a 28 °C average daily temperature, and natural light in the greenhouse was supplemented with artificial light to achieve a photoperiod of 14 hours. At 14 days after spraying, the plants were evaluated for injury as compared to control plants that were sprayed only with non-phytotoxic solvent. Injury was evaluated visually using a 0 to 100% scale where 0 indicates no effect and 100 indicates complete control. Results of Test H are shown in Table H, which lists the observed response of specific weeds to Compound 1 as a single active ingredient and Compound 9 and Compound 11 mixed together without Compound 1 , the observed responses of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 with the mixture of Compound 9 and Compound 1 1 , and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixtures of Compound 1 with the mixture of Compound 9 and Compound 1 1 (Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 with Compound 9 and Compound 11. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 9 to Compound 11 , and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the three herbicides. TABLE H* Effect of Compound 1, Compound 9 and Compound 1 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture * Rates are expressed in g ai/ha for Compound 1 , Compound 9 and Compound 1 1. Data are reported as percent control. t "Exp." are expected responses calculated according to Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds, 15(1), pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table I. Compound numbers are s described on page 27. The data demonstrate the efficacy of the Formula I and Formula Ilk mixtures of this invention against specific weeds. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to these species. Test I Protocol Beta vulgar is (BEAVA), Avena fatua (AVEFA), Lolium multiflorum (LOLMU), Apera spica-venti (APESV), Bromus tectorum (BROTE) and Sinapis arvensis (SINAR) were grown in a greenhouse to approximately the two-leaf stage in 15 x 20 cm rectangular fiber pots filled with a mixture of 60% sandy loam soil and 40% Metro-Mix 350™ growing medium. Treatments were applied to the test species by diluting the compounds in a non-phytotoxic solvent, and spraying the treatments onto the plants. Compound 1 was applied at 8 and 16 g ai/ha. Compound 12 was applied at 16 g ai/ha. Mixtures of Compound 1 at 8 g ai/ha and Compound 12 at 16 g ai/ha, and Compound 1 at 16 g ai ha and Compound 12 at 16 g ai/ha were also applied. After treatment, the plants were maintained in a greenhouse and were evaluated 14 days after spraying. All sprayed plants were evaluated for injury as compared to control plants that were sprayed only with non-phytotoxic solvent. Injury was evaluated visually using a 0 to 100% scale where 0 indicates no effect and 100 indicates complete control. Results of Test I are shown in Table I, which lists the observed response of specific weeds to Compound 1 and Compound 12 applied alone as single active ingredients, the observed responses of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 12, and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 12 (Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 12. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 12, and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the two herbicides. TABLE I* Effect of Compound 1 and Compound 12 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture * Rates are expressed in g ai/ha for Compound 1 and Compound 12. Data are reported as percent control. t "Obs." are the observed responses. "Exp." are expected responses calculated according to Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds, 15(1), pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table J. Compound numbers are as described on page 27. The data demonstrate the efficacy of the Formula I and Formula Hn mixtures of this invention against a specific weed. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to this species. Test J Protocol Plastic pots were partially filled with silt loam soil. The soil was then flooded with water, and seeds of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) were planted in saturated soil, and the plants grown to the 2-leaf stage for testing. At treatment time, the water level for all plantings was raised to 2 cm above the soil surface. Chemical treatments were formulated in a non-phytotoxic solvent mixture containing a surfactant and applied directly to the paddy water. These treatments were replicated twice. Treated plants and controls were maintained in a greenhouse for 21 days, after which time all species were compared to controls and visually evaluated. Plant response ratings, summarized in Table J are reported on a 0 to 100 scale where 0 is no effect and 100 is complete control. Results of Test J are shown in Table J, which lists the mean response of a specific weed to Compound 1 and Compound 13 applied alone as single active ingredients, applied as a mixture of Compound 1 and Compound 13, and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixture of Compound 1 and Compound 13 (from Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 13. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 13. and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the two herbicides. TABLE J* Effect of Compound 1 and Compound 13 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture * Application rates are expressed in g ai/ha for both Compound 1 and Compound 13. Data are reported as percent control. t Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds, 15(1), pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table K. Compound numbers are as described on page 27. The data demonstrate the efficacy of the Formula I and Formula Hn mixtures of this invention against a specific weed. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to this species. Test K Protocol Plastic pots were partially filled with silt loam soil. The soil was then flooded with water, and seeds of a biotype of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) resistant to the compound of Formula Hn were planted in saturated soil, and the plants grown to the 2-leaf stage for testing. At treatment time, the water level for all plantings was raised to 2 cm above the soil surface. Chemical treatments were formulated in a non-phytotoxic solvent mixture containing a surfactant and applied directly to the paddy water. These treatments were replicated twice. Treated plants and controls were maintained in a greenhouse for 21 days, after which time all species were compared to controls and visually evaluated. Plant response ratings, summarized in Table K are reported on a 0 to 100 scale where 0 is no effect and 100 is complete control. Results of Test K are shown in Table K, which lists the mean response of a specific weed to Compound 1 and Compound 13 applied alone as single active ingredients, applied as a mixture of Compound 1 and Compound 13, and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixture of Compound 1 and Compound 13 (from Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 13. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 13, and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the two herbicides. TABLE K* Effect of Compound 1 and Compound 13 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture TABLE K Continued Compound Compound Resistant Barnyardgrass (2 L.S.) 1 13 Mean Expectedt Mixtures 25 4000 50 38 50 4000 52 38 100 4000 68 49 200 4000 96 75 400 4000 100 81 * Application rates are expressed in g ai/ha for both Compound 1 and Compound 13. Data are reported as percent control, t Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds, 15(1), pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table L. Compound numbers are as described on page 27. The data demonstrate the efficacy of the Formula I and Formula lib mixtures of this invention against a specific weed. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to this species. Test L Protocol Plastic pots were partially filled with silt loam soil, and seeds of ducksalad (Heteranthera limosa) were added interspersed in soil to form a 1 -cm-thick top layer. The soil was then flooded with water, and the plants grown to the 2-leaf stage for testing. At treatment time, the water level for all plantings was raised to 3 cm above the soil surface. Chemical treatments were formulated in a non-phytotoxic solvent mixture containing a surfactant and applied directly to the paddy water. These treatments were replicated twice. Treated plants and controls were maintained in a greenhouse for 21 days, after which time all species were compared to controls and visually evaluated. Plant response ratings, summarized in Table L are reported on a 0 to 100 scale where 0 is no effect and 100 is complete control. Results of Test L are shown in Table L, which lists the mean response of a specific weed to Compound 1 and Compound 3 applied alone as single active ingredients, applied as a mixture of Compound 1 and Compound 3, and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixture of Compound 1 and Compound 3 (from Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 3. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 3, and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the two herbicides. TABLE L* Effect of Compound 1 and Compound 3 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture Compound Compound Ducksalad (2 L.S.) 1 3 Mean Expectedt Alone 25 0 10 — 50 0 20 — 75 0 0 — 0 0.5 28 — 0 1 88 — 0 2 90 — 0 3 95 — 0 4 100 — Mixtures 25 0.5 55 35 25 1 95 89 25 2 92 91 25 3 98 96 25 4 98 100 50 0.5 70 42 50 1 90 90 50 2 98 92 50 3 100 96 50 4 100 100 75 0.5 85 28 75 1 98 88 75 2 100 90 75 3 100 95 75 4 100 100 * Application rates are expressed in g ai/ha for both Compound 1 and Compound 3. Data are reported as percent control, t Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds, 15(1), pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table M. Compound numbers are as described on page 27. The data demonstrate the efficacy of the Formula I and Formula Hh mixtures of this invention against specific weeds. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to these species. Test M Protocol 10-cm square plastic pots were partially filled with sandy loam soil and planted with seeds of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) and wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis), which were covered with 0.5 cm of soil. Treatments were applied by diluting the compounds in a non-phytotoxic solvent containing a surfactant and then spraying the treatments onto the soil surface using a stationary laboratory circulating belt sprayer calibrated to deliver 327 L/ha through a single nozzle. Compound 1 was applied at 64 and 125 g ai/ha. Compound 14 was applied at 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16 g ai ha. Mixtures of Compound 1 at 64 and 125 g ai/ha and Compound 14 at 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16 g ai/ha were also applied. Individual treatments were replicated three times. Treatments were positioned in a greenhouse in a randomized complete block design. The greenhouse was maintained at a 28 °C average daily temperature, and natural light in the greenhouse was supplemented wi& artificial light to achieve a photoperiod of 14 hours. At 26 days after spraying, the plants were evaluated for injury as compared to control plants that were sprayed only with non-phytotoxic solvent. Injury was evaluated visually using a 0 to 100% scale where 0 indicates no effect and 100 indicates complete control. Results of Test M are shown in Table M, which lists the observed response of specific weeds to Compound 1 and Compound 14 applied alone as single active ingredients, the observed responses of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 14, and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 14 (Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 14. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 14, and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the two herbicides. TABLE M* Effect of Compound 1 and Compound 14 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture Compound Compound Barnyardgrass Wild Mustard 1 14 Mean Expectedt Mean Expected Alone 64 0 3 — 23 — 125 0 62 — 38 — 0 0.25 7 — 83 — 0 0.5 12 — 95 — 0 1 67 — 98 — 0 2 92 — 95 — 0 4 92 — 99 — 0 8 99 — 99 — 0 16 100 — 100 — Mixtures 64 0.25 35 10 95 87 64 0.5 68 15 97 96 64 1 76 68 99 98 64 2 99 92 99 96 64 4 100 92 99 99 64 8 100 99 99 99 64 16 100 100 100 100 125 0.25 68 65 98 89 125 0.5 80 67 97 97 125 1 86 87 98 99 125 2 100 97 99 97 125 4 99 97 100 99 125 8 99 100 99 99 125 16 100 100 100 100 *■ Rates are expressed in g ai/ha for Compound 1 and Compound 14. Data are reported as percent control. t "Expected" are expected responses calculated according to Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations." Weeds. 15(1), pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table N. Compound numbers are as described on page 27. The data demonstrate the efficacy of the Formula I and Formula Ho mixtures of this invention against specific weeds. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to these species. Test N Protocol 10-cm square plastic pots were partially filled with sandy loam soil and then planted with seeds of guineagrass (Panicum maximum) and large crabgrass (Digitara sanguinalis), which were covered with 0.5 cm of soil. Treatments were applied by diluting the compounds in a non-phytotoxic solvent containing a surfactant and then spraying the treatments onto the soil surface using a stationary laboratory circulating belt sprayer calibrated to deliver 327 L/ha through a single nozzle. Compound 1 was applied at 64, 125 and 250 g ai/ha. Compound 15 was applied at 16, 32, 64 and 125 g ai/ha. Mixtures of Compound 1 at 64, 125 and 250 g ai/ha and Compound 15 at 16, 32, 64 and 125 g ai/ha were also applied. Individual treatments were replicated three times. Treatments were positioned in a greenhouse in a randomized complete block design. The greenhouse was maintained at a 28 °C average daily temperature, and natural light in the greenhouse was supplemented with artificial light to achieve a photoperiod of 14 hours. At 22 days after spraying, the plants were evaluated for injury as compared to control plants that were sprayed only with non-phytotoxic solvent. Injury was evaluated visually using a 0 to 100% scale where 0 indicates no effect and 100 indicates complete control. Results of Test N are shown in Table N, which lists the observed response of specific weeds to Compound 1 and Compound 15 applied alone as single active ingredients, the observed responses of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 15, and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 15 (Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 15. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 15, and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the two herbicides. TABLE N* Effect of Compound 1 and Compound 15 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture Compound Compound Guineagrass LargeCrabgrass 1 15 Mean Expectedt Mean Expected Alone 64 0 30 — 2 — 125 0 60 — 80 — 250 0 98 - 96 — 0 16 0 — 15 — -0 32 0 — 74 — 0 64 39 — 96 — 0 125 85 — 98 - Mixtures 64 16 52 30 42 17 64 32 38 30 76 75 64 64 80 57 100 96 64 125 95 90 100 98 125 16 86 60 84 83 125 32 81 60 100 95 125 64 94 76 100 99 125 125 98 94 100 100 250 16 86 98 99 97 250 32 94 98 100 99 250 64 100 99 100 100 250 125 100 100 100 100 * Rates are expressed in g ai/ha for Compound 1 and Compound 15. Data are reported as percent control, t "Expected" are expected responses calculated according to Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds, 15(1), pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table O. Compound numbers are as described on page 27. The data demonstrate the efficacy of the Formula I and Formula Ho mixtures of this invention against specific weeds. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to these species. Test O Protocol Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) and johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) were grown in a greenhouse to the following approximate heights and leaf stages in 10- cm square pots fixed with a mixture of 60% sandy loam soil and 40% MetroMix 350™ growing medium: Species Application Height (cm) Leaf Stage Echinochloa crus-galli 9 2 Sorghum halepense 10 2 Treatments were applied to the test species by diluting the compounds in a non- phytotoxic solvent containing a surfactant, and spraying the treatments onto the plants using a stationary laboratory circulating belt sprayer calibrated to deliver 327 L/ha through a single nozzle. Compound 1 was applied at 125, 250 and 500 g ai/ha. Compound 14 was applied at 16, 32, 64 and 125 g ai ha. Mixtures of Compound 1 at 125, 250 and 500 g ai/ha and Compound 14 at 16, 32, 64 and 125 g ai ha were also applied. Individual treatments were replicated four times. Treatments were positioned in a greenhouse in a randomized complete block design. The greenhouse was maintained at a 28 °C average daily temperature, and natural light in the greenhouse was supplemented with artificial light to achieve a photoperiod of 14 hours. At 16 days after spraying, the plants were evaluated for injury as compared to control plants that were sprayed only with non-phytotoxic solvent. Injury was evaluated visually using a 0 to 100% scale where 0 indicates no effect and 100 indicates complete control. Results of Test O are shown in Table O, which lists the observed response of specific weeds to Compound 1 and Compound 15 applied alone as single active ingredients, the observed responses of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 15, and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 15 (Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 15. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 15, and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the two herbicides. TABLE O* Effect of Compound 1 and Compound 15 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture Compound Compound Barnyardgrass Johnsongrass 1 15 Mean Expectedt Mean Expected Alone 125 0 48 — 0 — 250 0 70 - 0 — 500 0 78 - 31 — 0 16 2 — 0 — * 0 32 2 - 0 — 0 64 11 — 0 — 0 125 59 - 56 — Mixtures 125 16 60 49 2 0 125 32 75 49 0 0 125 64 81 54 8 0 125 125 95 79 39 56 250 16 81 71 9 0 250 32 79 71 21 0 250 64 90 73 49 0 250 125 96 88 54 56 500 16 80 78 30 31 500 32 80 78 55 31 500 64 88 80 84 31 500 125 100 91 81 70 * Rates are expressed in g ai/ha for Compound 1 and Compound 15. Data are reported as percent control. t "Expected" are expected responses calculated according to Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds, 15(1), . pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table P. Compound numbers are as described on page 27. The data demonstrate the efficacy of the Formula I and Formula Ha mixtures of this invention against specific weeds. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to these species. Test P Protocol Plastic pots were partially filled with silt loam soil, and seeds oϊ Cyperus difformis and Cyperus iria were added interspersed in soil to form a 1 -cm-thick top layer. The soil was then flooded with water, and the plants grown to the 2-leaf stage for testing. At treatment time, the water level for all plantings was raised to 3 cm above the soil surface. Chemical treatments were formulated in a non-phytotoxic solvent mixture containing a surfactant and applied directly to the paddy water. These treatments were replicated twice. Treated plants and controls were maintained in a greenhouse for 21 days, after which time all species were compared to controls and visually evaluated. Plant response ratings, summarized in Table P are reported on a 0 to 100 scale where 0 is no effect and 100 is complete control. Results of Test P are shown in Table P, which lists the observed response of specific weeds to Compound 1 and Compound 2 applied alone as single active ingredients, the observed responses of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 2, and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 2 (Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 2. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 2, and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the two herbicides. TABLE P* Effect of Compound 1 and Compound 2 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture Compound Compound Cyperus difformis Cyperus iria 1 2 Mean Expectedt Mean Expected Alone 25 0 45 — 18 — 0 0.5 0 — 68 — 0 1.0 70 - 75 - Mixtures 25 0.5 70 45 85 74 25 1.0 90 84 85 80 * Rates are expressed in g ai/ha for Compound 1 and Compound 2. Data are reported as percent control. t "Expected" are expected responses calculated according to Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations." Weeds, 15(1 ), pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table Q. Compound numbers are as described on page 27. The data demonstrate the efficacy of the Formula I and Formula He mixtures of this invention against a specific weed. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to this species. Test O Protocol Plastic pots were partially filled with silt loam soil, and seeds of Cyperus iria were added interspersed in soil to form a 1 -cm-thick top layer. The soil was then flooded with water, and the plants grown to the 2-leaf stage for testing. At treatment time, the water level for all plantings was raised to 3 cm above the soil surface. Chemical treatments were formulated in a non-phytotoxic solvent mixture containing a surfactant and applied directly to the paddy water. These treatments were replicated twice. Treated plants and controls were maintained in a greenhouse for 21 days, after which time all species were compared to controls and visually evaluated. Plant response ratings, summarized in Table Q are reported on a 0 to 100 scale where 0 is no effect and 100 is complete control. Results of Test Q are shown in Table Q, which lists the observed response of a specific weed to Compound 1 and Compound 1 1 applied alone as single active ingredients, the observed responses of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 1 1, and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 1 1 (Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 and Compound 1 1. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 11, and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the two herbicides. TABLE O* Effect of Compound 1 and Compound 11 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture * Rates are expressed in g ai ha for Compound 1 and Compound 1 1. Data are reported as percent control. t "Expected" are expected responses calculated according to Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds, 15(1), pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table R. Compound numbers are as described on page 27. The data demonstrate the efficacy of the Formula I, Formula lib and Formula He mixtures of this invention against a specific weed. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to this species. Test R Protocol Plastic pots were partially filled with silt loam soil, and seeds of ducksalad (Heteranthera limosa) were added interspersed in soil to form a 1 -cm-thick top layer. The soil was then flooded with water, and the plants grown to the 2-leaf stage for testing. At treatment time, the water level for all plantings was raised to 3 cm above the soil surface. Chemical treatments were formulated in a non-phytotoxic solvent mixture containing a surfactant and applied directly to the paddy water. These treatments were replicated twice. Treated plants and controls were maintained in a greenhouse for 21 days, after which time all species were compared to controls and visually evaluated. Plant response ratings, summarized in Table R are reported on a 0 to 100 scale where 0 is no effect and 100 is complete control. Results of Test R are shown in Table R, which lists the observed response of a specific weed to Compound 1 as a single active ingredient and Compound 3 and Compound 11 mixed together without Compound 1, the observed responses of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 with the mixture of Compound 3 and Compound 1 1 , and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixtures of Compound 1 with the mixture of Compound 3 and Compound 11 (Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 with Compound 3 and Compound 1 1. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 3 to Compound 1 1, and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the three herbicides. TABLE R* Effect of Compound 1 , Compound 3 and Compound 1 1 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture * Rates are expressed in g ai/ha for Compound 1 , Compound 3 and Compound 1 1. Data are reported as percent control, t "Expected" are expected responses calculated according to Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds, 15(1), pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table S. Compound numbers are as described on page 27. The data demonstrate the efficacy of the Formula I, Formula lib and Formula Hd mixtures of this invention against a specific weed. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to this species. Test S Protocol Plastic pots were partially filled with silt loam soil, and seeds of ducksalad (Heteranthera limosa) were added interspersed in soil to form a 1 -cm-thick top layer. The soil was then flooded with water, and the plants grown to the 2-leaf stage for testing. At treatment time, the water level for all plantings was raised to 3 cm above the soil surface. Chemical treatments were formulated in a non-phytotoxic solvent mixture containing a surfactant and applied directly to the paddy water. These treatments were replicated twice. Treated plants and controls were maintained in a greenhouse for 21 days, after which time all species were compared to controls and visually evaluated. Plant response ratings, summarized in Table S are reported on a 0 to 100 scale where 0 is no effect and 100 is complete control. Results of Test S are shown in Table S, which lists the observed response of a specific weed to Compound 1 as a single active ingredient and Compound 3 and Compound 16 mixed together without Compound 1, the observed responses of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 with the mixture of Compound 3 and Compound 16, and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixtures of Compound 1 with the mixture of Compound 3 and Compound 16 (Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 with Compound 3 and Compound 16. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 3 to Compound 16, and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the three herbicides. TABLE S* Effect of Compound 1 , Compound 3 and Compound 16 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture Compound Compound Compound Ducksalad 1 3 16 Mean Expectedt 50 0 0 0 — 75 0 0 0 — 0 0.17 0.83 20 — 0 0.33 1.67 70 — 0 0.50 2.50 95 — o 0.67 3.33 100 — Mixtures with Compound 1 50 0.17 0.83 25 20 50 0.33 1.67 82 70 50 0.50 2.50 95 95 50 0.67 3.33 100 100 75 0.17 0.83 55 20 75 0.33 1.67 82 70 75 0.50 2.50 100 95 75 0.67 3.33 100 100 * Rates are expressed in g ai/ha for Compound 1, Compound 3 and Compound 16. Data are reported as percent control, t "Expected" are expected responses calculated according to Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds, 15(1), pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table T. Compound numbers are as described on page 27. The data demonstrate the efficacy of the Formula I, Formula lib and Formula lid mixtures of this invention against a specific weed. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to this species. Test T Protocol Herbicides were applied to weeds and transplanted rice in outdoor flooded field plots measuring 3-by-5 meters at an application timing of 5 days after transplanting 21- day-old Indica IR64 rice seedlings. At the time of application, Monochoria vaginalis was in the early preemergence stage of growth. Water depth at application was 4-6 cm and was maintained on the plots for at least 2 weeks after treatment. Compound 1 was formulated as a 30% emulsifiable concentrate, and the 1 : 5 mixture of Compound 3 and Compound 16 was formulated as a 10% wettable powder. The herbicides were applied using a knapsack sprayer with a single fan nozzle delivering a spray volume of 300 liters/ha. At 28 days after application, weed control was calculated quantitatively on a 0 to 100 percent scale, where 0 is no effect and 100 is complete control, by comparing weed density in treated versus untreated plots. Each table entry is a mean of three replications. Results of Test T are shown in Table T, which lists the observed response of a specific weed to Compound 1 as a single active ingredient and Compound 3 and Compound 16 mixed together without Compound 1, the observed responses of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 with the mixture of Compound 3 and Compound 16, and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixtures of Compound 1 with the mixture of Compound 3 and Compound 16 (Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 with Compound 3 and Compound 16. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 3 to Compound 16, and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the three herbicides. TABLE T* Effect of Compound 1 , Compound 3 and Compound 16 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture * Rates are expressed in g ai ha for Compound 1, Compound 3 and Compound 16. Data are reported as percent control, t "Expected" are expected responses calculated according to Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds, 15(1), pp 20-22 (1967). The following protocol was used for the test in Table U. Compound numbers are as described on page 27. The data demonstrate safening of mixtures of the Formula Ha and Formula Hd compounds on rice by the Formula I compound while retaining control of specific weeds. The weed control afforded by the mixtures of this invention are not limited, however, to this species. Test U Protocol Plastic pots were partially filled with silt loam soil. The soil was then flooded with water, and 2-leaf transplants of rice (Oryza saliva) tropical Japonica cult. 'Cypress' were planted in the soil. Seeds of Cyperus iria and ducksalad (Heteranthera limosa) were added interspersed in soil to form a 1 -cm-thick top layer. The soil was then flooded with water, and the plants grown to the following leaf stages before treatment: Species Leaf Stage Oryza sativa 3.5 Cyperus iria 2 Heteranthera limosa 2 At treatment time, the water level for all plantings was raised to 3 cm above the soil surface. Chemical treatments were formulated in a non-phytotoxic solvent mixture containing a surfactant and applied directly to the paddy water. These treatments were replicated twice. Treated plants and controls were maintained in a greenhouse for 21 days, after which time all species were compared to controls and visually evaluated. Plant response ratings, summarized in Table U are reported on a 0 to 100 scale where 0 is no effect and 100 is complete control. Results of Test U are shown in Table U, which lists the observed response of a specific weed to Compound 1 as a single active ingredient and Compound 2 and Compound 16 mixed together without Compound 1 , the observed responses of specific weeds to mixtures of Compound 1 with the mixture of Compound 2 and Compound 16, and the expected additive effect of the herbicidal mixtures of Compound 1 with the mixture of Compound 2 and Compound 16 (Colby's equation). Weeds other than those specifically listed are also controlled by mixtures of Compound 1 with Compound 2 and Compound 16. Different ratios of Compound 1 to Compound 2 to Compound 16, and different formulation types, also provide useful weed control from the combination of the three herbicides. TABLE U* Effect of Compound 1 , Compound 2 and Compound 16 as Active Ingredients Alone and in Mixture Cmpd. Cmpd. Cmpd. Oryza sativa Cyperus iria H. limosa 1 2 16 Mean Exp.t Mean Exp. Mean Exp. 25 0 0 10 — 0 — 0 — 50 0 0 15 — 55 - 0 — 100 0 0 20 — 85 — 65 — 150 0 0 20 — 78 - 80 - 0 5.375 1.63 0 — 82 — 100 — 0 0.75 3.25 5 — 88 — 100 — 0 1.5 7.5 5 — 92 - 100 — 0 3 15 12 — 95 — 100 — 0 6 30 18 — 95 — 100 — Mixtures with Compound 1 25 0.375 1.63 5 10 88 82 100 100 25 0.75 3.25 12 14 95 88 100 100 25 1.5 7.5 12 14 95 92 100 100 25 3 15 5 21 100 95 100 100 25 6 30 0 26 100 95 100 100 50 0.375 1.63 5 15 82 84 100 100 50 0.75 3.25 10 19 95 89 100 100 50 1.5 7.5 12 19 98 93 100 100 50 3 15 8 25 100 96 100 100 50 6 30 5 30 100 96 100 100 100 0.375 1.63 0 20 92 97 100 100 100 0.75 3.25 5 24 95 98 100 100 100 1.5 7.5 10 24 100 99 100 100 100 3 15 5 30 100 99 100 100 100 6 30 12 34 100 99 100 100 150 0.75 3.25 5 24 95 97 100 100 150 1.5 7.5 18 24 100 98 100 100 150 3 15 5 30 98 99 100 100 Notes for Table U: * Rates are expressed in g ai/ha for Compound 1 , Compound 2 and Compound 16. Data are reported as percent control, t "Exp." are expected responses calculated according to Colby, S. R. "Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations," Weeds, 15(1), pp 20-22 (1967).

Claims: CLAIMS What is claimed is: 1. A herbicidally effective mixture of anilofos (Formula I) with one or more herbicidal compounds selected from (a) azimsulfuron (Formula Ha), (b) metsulftiron methyl (Formula lib), (c) chlorimuron ethyl (Formula He), (d) bensulfuron methyl (Formula Hd), (e) ethametsulfuron methyl (Formula He), (f) nicosulfuron (Formula Hf), (g) rimsulfuron (Formula Hg), (h) sulfometuron methyl (Formula Hh), (i) thifensulfuron methyl (Formula Hi), (j) tribenuron methyl (Formula Hj), (k) triflusulfuron methyl (Formula Ilk), (1) methyl 2-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-6- (trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxylate (Formula III), (m) chlorsulfuron (Formula Hm), (n) propanil (Formula Hn), and (o) hexazinone (Formula Ho), and their agriculturally suitable salts, providing that when a herbicidally effective amount of bensulfuron methyl is present in the mixture, then one or more compounds of Formula Ha to He and He to Ho are also present in herbicidally effective amounts. 2. The mixture of Claim 1 which is the compound of Formula I and the compound ofFormula Ha. 3. The mixture of Claim 1 which is the compound of Formula I and the compounds of Formulae Ha and Hd. 4. The mixture of Claim 1 which is the compound of Formula I and the compound ofFormula lib. 5. The mixture of Claim 1 which is the compound of Formula I and the compound ofFormula He. 6. The mixture of Claim 1 which is the compound of Formula I and the compounds ofFormula lib and He. 7. The mixture of Claim 1 which is the compound of Formula I and the compounds of Formulae lib and Hd. 8. The mixture of Claim 1 which is the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula III. 9. The mixture of Claim 1 which is the compound of Formula I and the compounds of Formulae lib and III. 10. The mixture of Claim 1 which is the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula He. 1 1. The mixture of Claim 1 which is the compound of Formula I and the compound ofFormula Hf. 12. The mixture of Claim 1 which is the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Hg. 13. The mixture of Claim 1 which is the compound of Formula I and the compounds of Formulae Hg and Hi. 14. The mixture of Claim 1 which is the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Hh. 15. The mixture of Claim 1 which is the compound of Formula I and the compound ofFormula Hi. 16. The mixture of Claim 1 which is the compound of Formula I and the compound ofFormula Hj. 17. The mixture of Claim 1 which is the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Ilk. 18. The mixture of Claim 1 which is the compound of Formula I and the compound ofFormula Hm. 19. The mixture of Claim 1 which is the compound of Formula I and the compound of Formula Hn. 20. The mixture of Claim 1 which is the compound of Formula I and the compound ofFormula Ho. 21. An agriculturally suitable composition for controlling the growth of undesired vegetation comprising an effective amount of the mixture of any of Claims 1- 20 and at least one of the following: surfactant, solid or liquid diluent. 22. A method for controlling the growth of undesired vegetation by applying to the locus of the undesired vegetation a herbicidally effective amount of the mixture of any of Claims 1-20. 23. A method for controlling the growth of undesired vegetation by applying to the locus of a rice crop a herbicidally effective amount of the mixture of any of Claims 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 19.

Inventors: LEEP DANIEL CARL, PAPPAS-FADER THALIA, RUGGIERO MARC, SMITH WILLIAM FRANCIS III, YANG ALEXANDER YUNG SHING, LEEP, DANIEL, CARL, PAPPAS-FADER, THALIA, RUGGIERO, MARC, SMITH, WILLIAM, FRANCIS, III, YANG, ALEXANDER, YUNG, SHING
Applicants: DU PONT, LEEP DANIEL CARL, PAPPAS FADER THALIA, RUGGIERO MARC, SMITH WILLIAM FRANCIS III, YANG ALEXANDER YUNG SHING, E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, LEEP, DANIEL, CARL, PAPPAS-FADER, THALIA, RUGGIERO, MARC, SMITH, WILLIAM, FRANCIS, III, YANG, ALEXANDER, YUNG, SHING
Application year: 1995
Main classification: A01N57
IPC codes: A01N57