Patent Abstract:
A herbicidal composition containing 
     (1) a substituted pyridine of general formulae I or II ##STR1##  as defined herein,  and 
     (2) at least one herbicidal component selected from 
     a) an urea-type herbicide, such as chlortoluron, isoproturon, linuron or neburon, 
     b) a triazine-type herbicide, such as atrazine, cyanazine or simazine 
     c) a hydroxybenzonitrile herbicide, such as bromoxynil or ioxynil, 
     d) an aryloxyalkanoic acid herbicide, such as dichlorprop, MCPA or mecoprop, 
     e) a dinitroaniline herbicide, such as pendimethalin, 
     f) a sulfonylurea herbicide, such as amidosulfuron, 
     g) a pyridazine herbicide, such as pyridate, 
     h) a fluorene carboxylic acid herbicide, such as flurenol, 
     i) a pyridyloxyacetic acid herbicide, such as fluroxypyr, 
     j) a fenoxyfenoxypropion acid herbicide, such as fenoxaprop, and 
     k) an oxyacetamide herbicide, 
     which provides a synergistic effect against a broad spectrum of weed species, e.g., in cereal crops. The invention also provides a method for controlling weeds by applying both a compound (1) and a compound (2) to a locus.

Full Description:
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/023,062, filed Jul. 30, 1996. 
    
    
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
     The present invention relates to an improvement in the efficacy of herbicidal 2,6-substituted pyridines by combination with a selected second herbicidal compound. The term &#34;2,6-substituted pyridines&#34; is being used herein for such pyridine derivatives which may or may not contain further substituents. 
     The herbicidal 2,6-disubstituted pyridines to be used according to the present invention are a group of compounds, disclosed in European Patent Applications EP 0 572 093 A, EP 0 692 474 A, EP 0 693 490 and International Application WO 94/22833, which display excellent herbicidal performance, in particular against broad-leaved weeds in cereal crops. However, the 2,6-disubstituted pyridines, when used as the sole active ingredient, do not always achieve effective control of the full spectrum of weed species encountered in commercial agronomic applications, in conjunction with reliable selectivity for the crop species. Such gaps in the spectrum of control can be overcome by co-treatment with another herbicide known to be effective against the relevant weed species. The combined use of certain herbicidal pyridines and in addition other herbicides has been described in International Patent Application WO 94/07368. 
     Surprisingly, it has now been found, that the combined herbicidal activity of compounds from the above mentioned 2,6-disubstituted pyridines with various partners against many broad-leaved weeds and annual grasses is much greater than expected when applied pre- or post-emergence and that this activity cannot be ascribed to an additive effect, but to a remarkable degree of synergism on many broad-leaved weed species and annual grasses, for example on Setaria viridis, Alopecurus myosuroides, Poa annua, Stellaria media, Lamium purpureum, Galium aparine, Veronica hederaefolia, Papaver rhoeas or Matricaria inodora (i.e. these combinations show a much higher level of activity than predicted from that of the individual compounds) which enables also a greater selectivity for the crop species. 
     A mixture of herbicides shows synergistic effect if the herbicidal activity of the mixture is larger than the sum of activities of the seperately applied compounds. The expected herbicidal activity for a given mixture of two herbicides can be calculated as follows (See Colby, S. R., &#34;Calculating synergistic and antagonistic response of herbicide combinations&#34;, Weeds 15, pp 20-22 (1967): ##EQU1## wherein X is the percentage of growth inhibition upon treatment with a herbicide 1 at a dose of p kg/ha compared with an untreated control (X=0%) 
     Y is the percentage of growth inhibition treatment with a herbicide 2 at a dose of q kg/ha compared with an untreated control 
     WE is the herbicidal effect to be expected upon treatment (% of growth inhibition compared with untreated control) with a combination of herbicide 1 and 2 at a dose of p+q g/ha, respectively. 
     If the actual weed control (W) exceeds the expected (calculated) weed control (WE), the mixture displays a synergistic effect. 
     SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
     The present invention incudes a herbicidal composition comprising a herbicidally acceptable carrier and/or surface active agent together with, as active ingredient, a mixture of: 
     (1) at least one herbicidal component selected from 
     a) urea-type herbicide, such as chlortoluron, isoproturon, linuron or neburon, 
     b) a triazine-type herbicide, such as atrazine, cyanazine or simazine, 
     c) a hydroxybenzonitrile herbicide, such as bromoxynil or ioxynil, 
     d) an aryloxyalkanoic acid herbicide, such as dichlorprop, 4-chloro-2-methylphenoxyacetic acid (&#34;MCPA&#34;) or mecoprop, 
     e) a dinitroaniline herbicide, such as pendimethalin, 
     f) a sulfonylurea herbicide, such as amidosulfuron, 
     g) a pyridazine herbicide, such as pyridate, 
     h) a fluorene carboxylic acid herbicide, such as flurenol, 
     i) a pyridyloxyacetic acid herbicide, such as fluroxypyr, 
     j) a fenoxyfenoxypropionie acid herbicide, such as fenoxaprop, and 
     k) an oxyacetamide herbicide, and 
     (2) at least one compound selected from the compounds of general formulae I and II ##STR2## wherein A 1  and A 2  independently represent an aryl group, at least one of A 1  and A 2  being substituted by one or more of the same or different substituents selected from halogen atoms, alkyl groups, alkoxy groups, haloalkyl groups and haloalkoxy groups; 
     R 1  represents a hydrogen atom, or a cyano group, or an alkyl, alkoxy, alkylthio or haloalkyl group having from 1 to 4 carbon atoms, and 
     R 2  represents a hydrogen or halogen atom, provided that at least one of R 1  and R 2  represents a hydrogen atom; 
     n and m independently represent 0 or 1; 
     A 3  represents an optionally substituted 5 or 6 membered nitrogen containing heteroaromatic group; 
     A 4  represents an optionally substituted 5 or 6 membered cyclic hydrocarbon, alkyl, alkenyl, alkynyl, aryl or aralkyl group or independently one of the meanings for A 3  ; 
     R 3  represents a halogen atom or an alkyl, haloalkyl, alkoxy, alkylthio or dialkylamino group; 
     X represents an oxygen or sulfur atom; 
     p represents 0, 1 or 2. 
     The present invention also includes a method for controlling undesirable plant species comprising application of at least one compound of group (1) and at least one compound of group (2), as defined above. In the method of this invention, these compounds may be applied separately or together, in herbicidally effective amounts. 
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS 
     Preferred embodiments of the composition and method of the present invention include those in which A 1  and/or A 2  are preferably phenyl, thienyl or pyrazol groups, independently substituted by one or more substituents selected from fluorine or chlorine atoms, or methyl, methoxy, trifluoromethyl or trifluoromethoxy groups. 
     Preferably, R 1  represents trifluoromethyl, methylthio or methyl and R 2  a hydrogen atom, or R 1  represents a hydrogen atom and R 2  is a hydrogen or chlorine atom. 
     Further preferred embodiments include those in which A 3  is suitably pyridyl or pyrazolyl, and A 4  pyridyl, pyrazolyl, phenyl or benzyl. A 3  and A 4  may be the same or different, and are preferably substituted, e.g. by halogen atoms, nitro, cyano, alkyl, alkoxy, alkylthio, aryl or haloalkyl groups wherein the alkyl moiety in each case preferably contains 1 to 6 carbon atoms. 
     Preferred compounds for use as 2,6-disubstituted pyridines according to the invention include the compounds of formulae III and IV: ##STR3## wherein A 2  represents an aryl, preferably a phenyl group which may be substituted by one or more of the same or different substituents selected from halogen atoms, C 1  -C 4  -alkyl, -alkoxy, -haloalkyl, -haloalkoxy groups, R 1  represents a hydrogen atom or a C 1  -C 4  -alkyl, -alkoxy, -alkylthio or -haloalkyl group, and m is 0, 1 or 2. 
     Particularly preferred are those compounds of formula III wherein R 1  is methyl, m is 1 and A 2  is phenyl or 4-fluorophenyl, and compounds of formula IV wherein R 1  is a hydrogen atom or a methyl group. 
     The pattern of persistence of the 2,6-substituted pyridine (abbreviated herein as &#34;BAP&#34;) is such that the combined treatment according to the present invention can be attained either by the application of a prepared mixture as defined above, or by time separated application of separate formulations. Hence, in another preferred embodiment, the present invention provides a method for controlling the growth of weeds at a cereal crop locus which comprises applying to the locus a BAP as defined above and a second component which is selected from those listed above as group (1). 
     The treatment according to the invention may be used to control a broad spectrum of weed species in cereal crops, e.g., in wheat, barley, rice and maize, by pre- or post-emergence treatment, including both early and late post-emergence. The combined use decribed above offers both foliar and residual activity. 
     By the term &#34;pre-emergence application&#34; is meant application to the soil in which the weed seeds or seedlings are present before emergence of the weeds above the surface of the soil. By the term &#34;post-emergence application&#34; is meant application to the aerial or exposed portions of the weeds which have emerged above the surface of the soil. It will be appreciated that application according to the method may be from pre- to post-weed emergence, and from pre-crop emergence to post-crop emergence. By the term &#34;foliar activity&#34; is meant herbicidal activity obtained by application to the aerial or exposed portions of the weeds which have emerged above the surface of the soil. By the term &#34;residual activity&#34; is meant herbicidal activity obtained some time after application to the soil whereby seedlings present at the time of application or which germinate subsequent to application are controlled. 
     Weeds that may be controlled by the practice of the present invention include: 
     
         ______________________________________Veronica persica       Veronica hederaefolia                      Stellaria media  Lamium purpureum Lamium amplexicaule Aphanes arvensis  Galium aparine Alopecurus myosuroides Matricaria inodora  Matricaria matricoides Anthemis arvensis Papaver rhoeas  Poa annua Apera spica-venti Phalaris paradoxa  Phalaris minor Avena fatua Lolium perenne  Bromus sterilis Poa trivialis Spergula arvensis  Cerastes holosteoides Arenaria seryllifolia Silene vulgaris  Legousia hybrida Geranium dissectum Montia perfoliata  Myosotis arvensis Chenopodium alba Polygonum aviculare  Polygonum Polygonum convolvulus Galeopsis tetrahit  lapathifolium  Chrysantemum Centaurea cyanus Viola arvensis  segetum  Senecia vulgaris Cirsium arvense Fumaria officinalis  Raphanus Agrostis stolonifera Atriplex patula  raphanistrum  Capsella Thlaspi arvense Portulaca oleracea  bursa-pastoris  Setaria viridis Eleusine indica Euphorbia helioscopia______________________________________ 
    
     The application rate of the BAP component of this invention is usually in the range of 7.5 to 150 grams of active ingredient (g a.i.) per hectare, with rates between 7.5-100 g a.i./ha often achieving satisfactory control and selectivity. The optimal rate for a specific application will depend on the crop(s) under cultivation and the predominant species of infesting weed, and readily may be determined by established biological tests known to those skilled in the art. 
     The selection of the non-BAP active ingredient will likewise be dependent on the crop/weed situation to be treated, and will be readily identifiable by those skilled in this area. The application rate this active component is determined primarily by the chemical type of the component, since the intrinsic activity of different types of herbicide varies widely. For example, the activity of a triazine herbicide, such as cyanazine or simazine, can be almost tenfold greater than that of an urea herbicide such as chlortoluron or isoproturon. In general, the preferred application rate of this active ingredient is in the range of 100 to 2500 g a.i./ha, preferably 100-1500 g a.i./ha, for an urea herbicide; in the range of 7.5 to 100 g/ha, for a sulfonylurea herbicide; in the range of 75-400 g/ha for a hydroxybenzonitrile herbicide; in the range of 100-1200 g a.i./ha, for an aryloxyalkanoic acid herbicide; in the range of 250 to 2500 g/ha, for a dinitroaniline herbicide such as pendimethalin; in the range of 40 to 200 g/ha, for a pyridyloxyacetic acid herbicide such as fluroxypyr; in the range of 25 to 250 g/ha, for a fenoxyfenoxypropion acid herbicide; and in the range of 25 to 500 g/ha, for an oxyacetamide herbicide. The optimal rate for the chosen non-BAP component will, however, depend on the crop(s) under cultivation and the level of weed infestation, and can readily be determined by established biological tests. Naturally, with such a wide variation in application rate for the non-BAP component, the ratio of a BAP to a non-BAP component in the present invention will be determinded predominantly by the choice of the non-BAP component. Thus, the preferred ratio BAP:non-BAP may vary, e.g., from about 1:1 (Bromoxynil) to about 64:1 (Isoproturon). 
     The active compounds can be used in the form of a mixture of separate formulations, typically mixed with water prior to application (tank-mixtures), or as separate formulations applied individually within a certain time interval. Both active compounds can also be formulated together in a suitable ratio according to the present invention, together with usual carriers and/or additives known in the art. 
     A typical formulation containing one compound of group (1) and one compound of group (2) above may be composed as follows: 
     
         ______________________________________Wettable Powder______________________________________Compound C         25          g  Isoproturon 500 g  ligninsulfonate.sup.1) 80 g  alkylnaphthalene sulphonate.sup.2) 20 g  kaolin.sup.3) to 1000 g______________________________________ .sup.1) e.g. Borresperse N (dispersing agent) .sup.2) e.g. Nekal BX (dispersing agent) .sup.3) e.g. China Clay GTY (filler/carrier) 
    
     Formulations of the present invention may be in any form known in the art, e.g., powders, granules, solutions, emulsions, suspensions, and the like. 
     The following examples illustrate specific embodiments of the present invention; however, the invention is not limited to the embodiments so illustrated, but includes the entire scope of the appended claims. 
    
    
     EXAMPLES 
     General Method: 
     The trials are carried out under greenhouse conditions in pre- and post-emergence applications. The plant seeds are sown in pots containing a loamy sand soil (0.5 I). The herbicides are applied as single treatments, or in a combination comprising a BAP compound and a non-BAP compound as designated, before or after emergence of weeds and crop. The herbicidal performance is assessed as percent damage in comparison to the untreated control plants. The assessment is done 21 days after the treatment. Wheat and barley are treated at the 34 leaf stage, the broad-leaf weeds at the 24 leaf stage and annual grasses at the 2-3 leaf stage. 
     For the BAP component, compounds A to D are employed: ##STR4## 
     The non-BAP component is identified in each example with application rates (and hence component ratios) chosen to be appropriate to the established activity level of that component. 
     In the tables, &#34;CCPP-P&#34; means (R)-2-(4-chloro-2-methylphenoxy) proprionic acid. 
     The results of these experiments are tabulated as Examples 1 to 10, wherein all the results from a chosen &#34;non-BAP component&#34; are collected under the same Example number, different dosage rates/test species being recorded in the examples. From these results, it is clear that synergism exists between the BAP and the non-BAP compounds. Crop tolerance (wheat and barley) is excellent in all treatments. 
     Example 1a 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound A+loxynilsalt (30 g a.i./ha+60 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:2) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound  A Ioxynil Compound A + Ioxynil  30 g a.i./ha 60 g a.i./ha 30 g a.i./ha + 60 g a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Galium   80        40        88      100  aparine  (1.whorl)  Galium 57  5 59  94  aparine  (2.whorl)  Matricaria  1 89 89 100  inodora______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Galium aparine (1.whorl), Galium aparine (2.whorl) and Matricaria inodora was 88, 59 and 89%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 1b 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound A+loxynilsalt (15 g a.i./ha+60 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:4) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound  A Ioxynil Compound A + Ioxynil  15 g a.i./ha 60 g a.i./ha 15 g a.i./ha + 60 g a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Matricaria     1        89        89      100  inodora  Papaver rhoeas 79  0 79  97  Myosotis 72 37 82 100  arvensis______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Matricaria inodora, Papaver rhoes and Myosotis arvensis was 89, 79 and 82% resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 1c 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound B+loxynilsalt (30 g a.i./ha+60 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:2) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound  B Ioxynil Compound B + Ioxynil  30 g a.i./ha 60 g a.i./ha 30 g a.i./ha + 60 g a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Galium   83        40        90      100  aparine  (1.whorl)  Galium 67  5 69  85  aparine  (2.whorl)______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Galium aparine (1.whorl) and Galium aparine (2.whorl) was 90 and 69%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 1d 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound B+loxynilsalt (15 g a.i./ha+60 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:4) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound  B Ioxynil Compound B + Ioxynil  15 g a.i./ha 60 g a.i./ha 15 g a.i./ha + 60 g a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Galium   80        40        88      100  aparine  (1.whorl)  Galium 60  5 62  82  aparine  (2.whorl)  Matricaria  7 89 90 100  inodora______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Galium aparine (1.whorl), Galium aparine (2.whorl) and Matricaria inodora was 88, 62 and 90%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 2a 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound A+Bromoxynil Octanoate (60 g a.i./ha+60 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:1) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound          Compound A +  A Bromoxynil Bromoxynil  60 g a.i./ha 60 g a.i./ha 60 g a.i./ha + 60 g a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Galium   67        70        90      100  aparine  (1.whorl)  Galium 42 57 75  90  aparine  (2.whorl)  Papaver rhoeas 10 79 81 100______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Galium aparine (1.whorl), Galium aparine (2.whorl), Stellaria media and Papaver rhoeas was 90, 75 and 81%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 2b 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound A+Bromoxynil Octanoate (30 g a.i./ha+60 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:2) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound          Compound A +  A Bromoxynil Bromoxynil  30 g a.i./ha 60 g a.i./ha 30 g a.i./ha + 60 g a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Galium   57        70        87      92  aparine  (1.whorl)  Galium 32 57 71 82  aparine  (2.whorl)  Lamium 65 17 71 85  purpureum  Stellaria media 45  0 45 69  Papaver rhoeas  9 79 81 100______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Galium aparine (1.whorl), Galium aparine (2.whorl), Lamium purpureum, Stellaria media and Papaver rhoeas was 87, 71, 71, 45 and 81%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 2c 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound A+Bromoxynil Octanoate (30 g a.i./ha+120 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:4) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound          Compound A +  A Bromoxynil Bromoxynil  30 g a.i./ha 120 g a.i./ha 30 g a.i./ha + 120 g a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Galium   57        75        89      100  aparine  (1.whorl)  Galium 32 77 84 99  aparine  (2.whorl)  Stellaria media 65 57 85 90______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Galium aparine (1.whorl), Galium aparine (2.whorl) and Stellaria media was 89, 84 and 85%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 2d 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound B+Bromoxynil Octanoate (30 g a.i./ha+60 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:2) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound  B Bromoxynil Compound B + Bromoxynil  30 g a.i./ha 60 g a.i./ha 30 g a.i./ha + 60 g a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Galium   65        57        85      100  aparine  (2.whorl)  Stellaria 62  0 62  84  media  Papaver rhoeas 17 79 83 100______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Galium aparine (2.whorl), Stellaria media and Papaver rhoeas was 85, 62 and 83%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 2e 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound B+Bromoxynil Octanoate (15 g a.i./ha+60 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:4) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound  B Bromoxynil Compound B + Bromoxynil  15 g a.i./ha 60 g a.i./ha 15 g a.i./ha + 60 g a.i./haweed species   % Control WE        W______________________________________Galium   67        70        90      100  aparine  (1.whorl)  Stellaria 47  0 47  83  media  Papaver rhoeas  2 79 79 100______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Galium aparine (1.whorl), Stellaria media and Papaver rhoeas was 90, 47 and 79%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 2f 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound B+Bromoxynil Octanoate (15 g a.i./ha+120 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:8) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound  B Bromoxynil Compound B + Bromoxynil  15 g a.i./ha 120 g a.i./ha 15 g a.i./ha + 120 g a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Galium   67        75        92      100  aparine  (1.whorl)  Galium 45 77 87 98  aparine  (2.whorl)  Stellaria 47  0 47 75  media______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Galium aparine (1.whorl), Galium aparine (2.whorl) and Stellaria media was 92, 87 and 47%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 3a 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound A+CMPP-P (30 g a.i./ha+480 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:16) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound  A CMPP-P Compound A + CMPP-P  30 g a.i./ha 480 g a.i./ha 30 g a.i./ha + 480 g a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Papaver  32        47        64      87  rhoeas  Lamium 62 67 87 99  purpureum  Polygonum 60 40 76 99  convolvulus______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Papaver rhoeas, Lamium purpureum and Polygonum convolvulus was 64, 87 and 76%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 4a 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound A+Amidosulfuron (50 g a.i./ha+15 g a.i./ha=mixture 3.3:1) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound          Amido-    Compound A + Amido-  A sulfuron sulfuron  50 g a.i./ha 15 g a.i./ha 50 g a.i./ha + 15 g a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Galium   50        40        70      82  aparine  (1.whorl)  Galium 30 20 44 97  aparine  (2.whorl)______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Galium aparine (1.whorl) and Galium aparine (2.whorl) was 70 and 44%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 4b 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound B+Amidosulfuron (7.5 g a.i./ha+30 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:4) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________                    Compound B + Amido-  Compound Amido- sulfuron  B sulfuron 7.5 g a.i./ha + 30 g  7.5 g a.i./ha 30 g a.i./ha a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Veronica 65         0        65      96  persica  Stellaria 25 50 63 87  media  Papaver rhoeas  7 15 21 65  Lamium 70  0 70 96  purpureum______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Veronica persica, Stellaria media, Papaver rhoeas and Lamium purpureum was 65, 63, 21 and 70%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 5a 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound B+Fluroxypyr (30 g a.i./ha+90 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:3) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound          Compound B +  B Fluroxypyr Fluroxypyr  30 g a.i./ha 90 g a.i./ha 30 g a.i./ha + 90 g a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Matricaria    22        45        57      95  inodora  Papaver rhoeas 80  0 80 92  Polygonum 15 45 53 80  convolvulus______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Matricaria inodora, Papaver rhoeas and Polygonum convolvulus was 57, 80 and 53%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 5b 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound B+Fluroxypyr (15 g a.i./ha+120 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:8) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound  B Fluroxypyr Compound B + Fluroxypyr  15 g a.i./ha 120 g a.i./ha 15 g a.i./ha + 120 g a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Stellaria    45        67        82      100  media  Veronica 77 52 89 97  persica  Polygonum 17 80 83 98  lapathifolium______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Stellaria media, Veronica persica and Polygonum lapathifolium was 82, 89 and 83%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 6a 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound B+Cyanazine (30 g a.i./ha+120 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:4) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound  B Cyanazine Compound B + Cyanazine  30 g a.i./ha 120 g a.i./ha 30 g a.i./ha + 120 g a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Galium   52        5         54      86  aparine  (1.whorl)  Galium 45 0 45 72  aparine  (2.whorl)  Galium 40 0 40 75  aparine  (3.whorl)  Stellaria 42 61   77 100  media  Matricaria 22 52  63 100  inodora  Papaver rhoeas 80 0 86 100  Polygonum  7 60  63 100  convolvulus______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Galium aparine (1.whorl), Galium aparine (2.whorl), Galium aparine (3.whorl), Stellaria media, Matricaria inodora, Papaver rhoeas and Polygonum convolvulus was 54, 45, 40, 77, 63, 80 and 63%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 6b 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound B+Cyanazine (15 g a.i./ha+120 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:8) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound  B Cyanazine Compound B + Cyanazine  15 g a.i./ha 120 g a.i./ha 15 g a.i./ha + 120 g a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Stellaria    27        61        72      100  media  Matricaria 20 52 62 100  inodora  Polygonum  7 60 63  97  convolvulus______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Stellaria media, Matricaria inodora and Polygonum convolvulus was 72, 62 and 63%, resp., clearly demonstrated that the combination is synergstic. 
     Example 6c 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound B+Cyanazine (30 g a.i./ha+240 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:8) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound  B Cyanazine Compound B + Cyanazine  30 g a.i./ha 240 g a.i./ha 30 g a.i./ha + 240 g a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Galium   52        10        57       92  aparine  (1.whorl)  Galium 45 10 51  95  aparine  (2.whorl)  Galium 40  5 43  81  aparine  (3.whorl)  Stellaria 42 72 84 100  media  Matricaria 22 85 88 100  inodora  Papaver rhoeas 80  0 80 100______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Galium aparine (1.whorl), Galium aparine (2.whorl), Galium aparine (3.whorl), Stellaria media, Matricaria inodora and Papaver rhoeas was 57, 51, 43, 84, 88 and 80%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 6d 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound B+Cyanazine (15 g a.i./ha+240 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:16) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound  B Cyanazine Compound B + Cyanazine  15 g a.i./ha 240 g a.i./ha 15 g a.i./ha + 240 g a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Galium   40        10        46      85  aparine  (1.whorl)  Galium 37 10 43 77  aparine  (2.whorl)  Galium 40  5 43 60  aparine  (3.whorl)  Stellaria 27 72 80 100  media  Matricaria 20 85 88 100  inodora  Papaver rhoeas 60  0 60 87______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Galium aparine (1.whorl), Galium aparine (2.whorl), Galium aparine (3.whorl), Stellaria media, Matricaria inodora and Papaver rhoeas was 46, 43, 43, 80, 88 and 60%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 7a 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound C+Isoproturon (50 g a.i./ha+150 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:3) against grasses in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________                    Compound C +  Compound  Isoproturon  C Isoproturon 50 g a.i./ha + 150 g  50 g a.i./ha 150 g a.i./ha a.i./hagrass    % control       WE        W______________________________________Alopecurus    88        30        91      100  myosuroides  Setaria viridis 75 58 89 100  Lolium perenne 78 10 80 100______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Alopecurus myosuroides, Setaria viridis and Lolium perenne was 91, 89 and 80%, resp., clearly demonstrated that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 7b 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound C+Isoproturon (25 g a.i./ha+150 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:6) against grasses in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________                    Compound C +  Compound  Isoproturon  C Isoproturon 25 g a.i./ha + 150 g  25 g a.i./ha 150 g a.i./ha a.i./hagrass    % control       WE        W______________________________________Alopecurus    83        30        88      100  myosuroides  Setaria viridis 55 58 81 100  Lolium perenne 65 10 69  94______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Alopecurus myosuroides, Setaria viridis and Lolium perenne was 88, 81 and 69%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 7c 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound C+Isoproturon (12.5 g a.i./ha+150 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:12) against grasses in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Com-             Compound C +  pound C  Isoproturon  12.5 g Isoproturon 12.5 g a.i./ha + 150 g  a.i./ha 150 g a.i./ha a.i./hagrass    % control      WE         W______________________________________Alopecurus    65       30        76       88  myosuroides  Setaria viridis 30 58 70 94  Lolium perenne 38 10 44 91  Poa annua 75 65 91 99______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Alopecurus myosuroides, Setaria viridis, Lolium perenne and Poa annua was 76, 70, 44 and 91%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 7d 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound C+Isoproturon (25 g a.i./ha+300 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:12) against grasses in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________                    Compound C +  Compound  Isoproturon  C Isoproturon 25 g a.i./ha + 300 g  25 g a.i./ha 300 g a.i./ha a.i./hagrass    % control       WE        W______________________________________Alopecurus    83        73        95      100  myosuroides  Lolium perenne 65 40 79  98______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Alopecurus mysuroides and Lolium perenne was 95 and 79%, reps., clearly demonstrated that he combination is synergistic. 
     Example 7e 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound C+Isoproturon (12.5 g a.i./ha+300 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:24) against grasses in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound          Compound C +  C  Isoproturon  12.5 g Isoproturon 12.5 g a.i./ha + 300 g  a.i./ha 300 g a.i./ha a.i./hagrass    % control       WE        W______________________________________Alopecurus    65        73        90      99  myosuroides  Lolium perenne 38 40 63 91  Poa annua 75 83 96 100______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Alopecurus myosuroides, Lolium perenne and Poa annua was 90, 63 and 96%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 7f 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound A+Isoproturon (30 g a.i./ha+1920 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:64) against broad-leaved weeds in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________                    Compound A +  Compound  Isoproturon  A Isoproturon 30 g a.i./ha + 1920 g  30 g a.i./ha 1920 g a.i./ha a.i./haweed species   % Control        WE        W______________________________________Veronica   81        0          81      97  persica  Lamium 35 3 37 97  purpureum  Myosotis 57 25   68 99  arvensis  Viola 75 65  91 100  arvensis  Polygonum  5 4  9 80  convolvulus  Galium 75 0 75 90  aparine  (2.whorl)______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Veronica persica, Lamium purpureum, Myosotis arvensis, Viola arvensis, Polygonum convolvulus and Galium aparine (2.whorl) was 81, 37, 68, 91, 9 and 75% resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 7g 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound D+Isoproturon (15 g a.i./ha+300 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:20) against Alopecurus myosuroides in pre-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________                    Compound D +  Compound  Isoproturon  D Isoproturon 15 g a.i./ha + 120g  15 g a.i./ha 120 g a.i./ha a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Alopecurus    60        75        90      99  myosuroides______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Alopecurus myosuroides was 90%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 8a 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound D+Pendimethalin (15 g a.i./ha+450 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:30) against Alopecurus myosuroides in pre-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________                    Compound D +  Compound  Pendimethalin  D Pendimethalin 15 g a.i./ha + 450 g  15 g a.i./ha 450 g a.i./ha a.i./haweed species   % Control        WE        W______________________________________Alopecurus   57        35         72      90  myosuroides______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Alopecurus myosuroides was 72%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 8b 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound D+Pendimethalin (15 g a.i./ha+900 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:60) against Alopecurus myosuroides in pre-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________                    Compound D +  Compound  Pendimethalin  D Pendimethalin 15 g a.i./ha + 900 g  15 g a.i./ha 900 g a.i./ha a.i./haweed species   % Control        WE        W______________________________________Alopecurus   57        55         81      96  myosuroides______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Alopecurus myosuroides was 81%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic 
     Example 9a 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound C+Fenoxaprop (12.5 g a.i./ha+15 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:1,2) against Setaria viridis in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________                    Compound C +  Compound  Fenoxaprop  C Fenoxaprop 12.5 g a.i./ha + 15 g a.i./ha  12.5 g 15 g a.i./ha a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Setaria viridis    30        62        73      94______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Setaria viridis was 73%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 9b 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound C+Fenoxaprop (12.5 g a.i./ha+30 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:2.4) against Setaria viridis in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound  C  12.5 g Fenoxaprop Compound C + Fenoxaprop  a.i./ha 30 g a.i./ha 12.5 g a.i./ha + 30 g a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Setaria viridis    30        72        80      93______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Setaria viridis was 80%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic. 
     Example 9c 
     Herbicidal performance of the mixture Compound C+Fenoxaprop (12.5 g a.i./ha+60 g a.i./ha=mixture 1:4.8) against Setaria viridis in post-emergence application 
     
         ______________________________________  Compound  C  12.5 g Fenoxaprop Compound C + Fenoxaprop  a.i./ha 60 g a.i./ha 12.5 g a.i./ha + 60 g a.i./haweed species    % Control       WE        W______________________________________Setaria viridis    30        77        84      100______________________________________ WE = expected response by means of the Colby formula W = observed response 
    
     Expected control of Setaria viridis was 84%, resp., clearly demonstrating that the combination is synergistic.

Technology Classification (CPC): 0