AU2021240245A1

AU2021240245A1 - Herbicide formulations

Info

Publication number: AU2021240245A1
Application number: AU2021240245A
Authority: AU
Inventors: Gregory John NEIGHBOUR; Sylvia Lee Cheng TAN
Original assignee: Evergreen Garden Care Australia Pty Ltd
Current assignee: Evergreen Garden Care Australia Pty Ltd
Priority date: 2020-11-18
Filing date: 2021-09-30
Publication date: 2022-06-02

Abstract

The present disclosure generally relates to herbicide formulations comprising nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof, fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof. The present disclosure also relates to a process for preparing the herbicide formulations. The present disclosure also relates to a method of controlling unwanted vegetation and use of the herbicide formulations for controlling unwanted vegetation. The present disclosure also relates to a method of applying the herbicide formulations.

Description

HERBICIDE FORMULATIONS

Field

Background

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide, which kills both broadleaf weeds and grasses. Since the development of a glyphosate-based herbicide RoundUp in 1970s, it has been widely used to treat crops and gardens.

However, a glyphosate-based herbicide has been associated with health concerns. In particular, it has been recently found that large amounts of the glyphosate-based herbicide may increase human cancer risk.

With the reported health risks associated with glyphosate exposure, there is need to replace the glyphosate-based herbicide.

Natural acids such as vinegar, and/or citric acids, soaps, salts, essential oils such as clove, peppermint, pine, or citronella oil have been proposed as alternative herbicides to replace the glyphosate-based herbicide.

However, it has been found that the alternative herbicides are not as effective as the glyphosate-based herbicide in controlling unwanted vegetation.

Accordingly, there is a need to develop a herbicide which is as effective as the glyphosate based herbicide without using glyphosate.

Any discussion of documents, acts, materials, devices, articles or the like which has been included in the present specification is not to be taken as an admission that any or all of these matters form part of the prior art base or were common general knowledge in the field relevant to the present disclosure as it existed before the priority date of each of the appended claims.

Summary

The subject matter of the present disclosure is predicated in part on the surprising discovery of a herbicide formulation comprising nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof, fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, which is effective in controlling unwanted vegetation.

According to one aspect, there is provided a herbicide formulation comprising:

nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and

fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

According to another aspect, there is provided a process for preparing a herbicide formulation comprising mixing, in any order:

nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof,

fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof,

fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof,

optionally one or more liquid carriers; and

optionally one or more agriculturally acceptable excipients.

According to another aspect, there is provided a method of controlling unwanted vegetation comprising applying an effective amount of the herbicide formulation to the unwanted vegetation.

According to another aspect, there is provided use of the herbicide formulation for controlling unwanted vegetation.

According to another aspect, there is provided a method of applying a herbicide comprising spraying an effective amount of the herbicide formulation to unwanted vegetation and optionally spraying subsequently an effective amount of the herbicide formulation to the unwanted vegetation in 60 to 180 days from the first spraying.

Brief Description of the Drawings

Whilst it will be appreciated that a variety of embodiments of the disclosure may be utilised, in the following, we describe a number of examples of the disclosure with reference to the following drawings.

Figure 1 shows (A) 3 replicas of general weed cover, 0 day after treatment application of 20 g/L nonanoic acid + 1.5 g/L fluroxypyr + 1.5 g/L fluazifop, and (B) 3 replicas of general weed cover, 0 day after treatment application of 40 g/L nonanoic acid + 3 g/L fluroxypyr + 3 g/L fluazifop at Redlands.

Figure 2 shows (A) 3 replicas of general weed cover, 7 days after treatment application of 20 g/L nonanoic acid + 1.5 g/L fluroxypyr + 1.5 g/L fluazifop, and (B) 3 replicas of general weed cover, 7 days after treatment application of 40 g/L nonanoic acid + 3 g/L fluroxypyr + 3 g/L fluazifop at Redlands.

Figure 3 shows (A) 3 replicas of general weed cover, 14 days after treatment application of g/L nonanoic acid + 1.5 g/L fluroxypyr + 1.5 g/L fluazifop, and (B) 3 replicas of general weed cover, 14 days after treatment application of 40 g/L nonanoic acid + 3 g/L fluroxypyr +

3 g/L fluazifop at Redlands.

Figure 4 shows (A) 3 replicas of general weed cover, 30 days after treatment application of g/L nonanoic acid + 1.5 g/L fluroxypyr + 1.5 g/L fluazifop, and (B) 3 replicas of general weed cover, 30 days after treatment application of 40 g/L nonanoic acid + 3 g/L fluroxypyr +

3 g/L fluazifop at Redlands.

Figure 5 shows (A) 3 replicas of general weed cover, 60 days after treatment application of g/L nonanoic acid + 1.5 g/L fluroxypyr + 1.5 g/L fluazifop, and (B) 3 replicas of general weed cover, 60 days after treatment application of 40 g/L nonanoic acid + 3 g/L fluroxypyr +

3 g/L fluazifop at Redlands.

Figure 6 shows (A) general weed cover prior to treatment application, and (B) general weed cover, 7 days after treatment application of Formulation 1 (Fresh) at South Bingera.

Figure 7 shows (A) general weed cover, 7 days after treatment application of Formulation 1 (Aged), and (B) general weed cover, 7 days after treatment application of REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU at South Bingera.

Figure 8 shows (A) general weed cover, 7 days after treatment application of SLASHER RTU, and (B) general weed cover, 30 days after treatment application of Formulation 1 (Fresh) at South Bingera.

Figure 9 shows (A) general weed cover, 30 days after treatment application Formulation 1 (Aged), and (B) general weed cover, 30 days after treatment application of REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU at South Bingera.

Figure 10 shows (A) general weed cover, 30 days after treatment application of SLASHER RTU, and (B) general weed cover, 30 days after treatment application of Untreated at South Bingera.

Figure 11 shows (A) Buffalo grass cover prior to treatment application, and (B) Buffalo grass cover, 7 days after treatment application of Formulation 1 (Fresh) at Moolboolaman.

Figure 12 shows (A) Buffalo grass cover, 7 days after treatment application Formulation 1 (Aged), and (B) Buffalo grass cover, 7 days after treatment application of REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU at Moolboolaman.

Figure 13 shows (A) Buffalo grass cover, 7 days after treatment application of SLASHER RTU, and (B) Buffalo grass cover, 30 days after treatment application of Formulation 1 (Fresh) at Moolboolaman.

Figure 14 shows (A) Buffalo grass cover, 30 days after treatment application of Formulation 1 (Aged), and (B) Buffalo grass cover, 30 days after treatment application of REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU at Moolboolaman.

Figure 15 shows (A) Buffalo grass cover, 30 days after treatment application of SLASHER RTU, and (B) Buffalo grass cover, 30 days after treatment application of Untreated at Moolboolaman.

Figure 16 shows (A) HPLC-UV analysis of a formulation containing fluazifop-p-butyl ester, wherein a small amount of fluazifop-p is present in an acid form; (B) HPLC-UV analysis of a formulation containing fluazifop-p butyl ester where fluazifop-p butyl ester is undergoing hydrolysis to form fluazifop-p in an increased amount; and (C) HPLC-UV analysis of a formulation containing fluazifop-p in an acid form (hydrolysed fluazifop-p-butyl ester).

Detailed Description

General definitions

Unless specifically defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used herein shall be taken to have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., chemistry, agricultural chemistry, pesticide chemistry, herbicide chemistry, and the like).

Throughout this specification the word "comprise", or variations such as "comprises" or "comprising", will be understood to imply the inclusion of a stated element, integer or step, or group of elements, integers or steps, but not the exclusion of any other element, integer or step, or group of elements, integers or steps.

As used herein, the terms "a", "an" and "the" include both singular and plural aspects, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

Unless otherwise defined, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this invention belongs. Although methods and materials similar or equivalent to those described herein can be used in the practice or testing of the present invention, suitable methods and materials are described below. In case of conflict, the present specification, including definitions, will prevail. In addition, the materials, methods, and examples are illustrative only and not intended to be limiting.

As used herein, the term "controlling" (or "control", "controls" etc.) unwanted vegetation includes killing, reducing, stopping or ridding unwanted vegetation.

As used herein, the term "ester" means a chemical compound derived from an acid in which at least one hydroxyl group is replaced by an alkoxy group. The alkoxy group may contain

C1-C20 alkyl group, which is branched or unbranched. The alkoxy group may be substituted or unsubstituted.

As used herein, the term "salt" means substance produced by the reaction of an acid with a base. A salt consists of the positive ion (cation) of a base and the negative ion (anion) of an acid.

Herbicide formulations

In one aspect there is provided a herbicide formulation comprising:

nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and

fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

Nonanoic acid is also known as a saturated fatty acid with nine carbon atoms or pelargonic acid. The chemical structure of nonanoic acid is as follows.

HO

0

Fluroxypyr is also known as [(4-amino-3,5-dichloro-6-fluoro-2-pyridinyl)oxy]acetic acid. The chemical structure of fluroxypyr is as follows.

0

F N 0 OH

C, C, NH 2

Methylheptyl ester of fluroxypyr is also known as octan-2-yl 2-(4-amino-3,5-dichloro-6 fluoropyridin-2-yl)oxyacetate, fluroxypyr methylheptyl ester or fluroxypyr-meptyl. The chemical structure of methylheptyl ester of fluroxypyr is as follows.

F N 0 O

NH 2

Fluazifop is also known as 2-[4-[5-(trifluoromethyl)pyridin-2-yl]oxyphenoxy]propanoate or fluazifop-P. The chemical structure of fluazifop is as follows.

N 0

CF 3 O OH

0

Butyl ester of fluazifop is also known as fluazifop-P-butyl or butyl 2-[4-[5 (trifluoromethyl)pyridin-2-yl]oxyphenoxy]propanoate. The chemical structure of butyl ester of fluazifop is as follows.

N 0

CF 3 0

0

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation consists of:

nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof,

fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof,

optionally one or more liquid carriers; and

optionally one or more agriculturally acceptable excipients.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation comprises a liquid carrier selected from an aqueous liquid carrier.

In some embodiments, the aqueous liquid carrier comprises or consists of water.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation comprises an ester of fluroxypyr.

In some embodiments, the ester of fluroxypyr is fluroxypyr-meptyl (fluroxypyr 1 methylheptyl ester).

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation comprises an ester of fluazifop.

In some embodiments, the ester of fluazifop is fluazifop-p-butyl.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation comprises nonanoic acid or a salt thereof, and fluroxypyr-meptyl and fluazifop-p-butyl.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation comprise a salt of nonanoic acid. The salt of nonanoic acid include any herbicidally effective salt of nonanoic acid. The salt of nonanoic acid includes an ammonium salt, a sodium salt, a hydrochloride salt, a potassium salt, a calcium salt, a cadmium salt or a zinc salt.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation comprise a salt of fluroxypyr. The salt of fluroxypyr include any herbicidally effective salt of fluroxypyr. The salt of fluroxypyr includes an ammonium salt, a sodium salt, a hydrochloride salt, a potassium salt, a calcium salt, a cadmium salt or a zinc salt.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation comprise an ester of fluroxypyr. The ester of fluroxypyr includes any herbicidally effective ester of fluroxypyr. The ester of fluroxypyr includes a Cl-C20 alkyl ester including a methyl ester, a methylheptyl ester, a1-butoxy-2 propyl ester or a 2-ethylhexyl ester, a C6-C12 alkanol ester or a C6-C12 alkoxyalkanol ester.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation comprise a salt of fluazifop. The salt of fluazifop include any herbicidally effective salt of fluazifop. The salt of fluazifop includes an ammonium salt, a sodium salt, a hydrochloride salt, a potassium salt, a calcium salt, a cadmium salt or a zinc salt.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation comprise an ester of fluazifop. The ester of fluazifop include any herbicidally effective ester of fluazifop. The ester of fluazifop includes a Cl-C20 alkyl ester including a methyl ester, an ethyl ester, a propyl ester, a butyl ester, and a pentyl ester.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation is a concentrate formulation.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation is a ready to use formulation.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation is a ready to use aqueous formulation.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation is a ready to use microemulsion type formulation.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation comprises

between about 10 g/L and about 50 g/L of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

between about 1 g/L and about 7 g/L of fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and

between about 0.1 g/L and about 5 g/L of fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation comprises

between about 15 g/L and about 45 g/L of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

between about 2 g/L and about 6 g/L of fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and

between about 0.5 g/L and about 3 g/L of fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation comprises

between about 20 g/L and about 40 g/L of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

between about 3 g/L and about 5 g/L of fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and between about 0.7 g/L and about 1.5 g/L of fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation comprises

between about 17 g/L and about 23 g/L of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

between about 2.55 g/L and about 3.45 g/L of fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and

between about 0.85 g/L and about 1.15 g/L of fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation comprises:

about 20 g/L of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

about 3 g/L of fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and

about 0.95 g/L of fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

Aqueous herbicide formulation

In some embodiments, a herbicide formulation is prepared as an aqueous formulation comprising: nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof, fluroxypyr any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof. An aqueous formulation is a formulation in which a solvent of the formulation is water.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation is a ready to use aqueous formulation comprising

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation is a ready to use aqueous formulation comprising between about 15 g/L and about 45 g/L of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof, between about 2 g/L and about 6 g/L of fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and between about 0.5 g/L and about 3 g/L of fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation is a ready to use aqueous formulation comprising:

between about 3 g/L and about 5 g/L of fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and

between about 0.7 g/L and about 1.5 g/L of fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

about 20 g/L of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

Microemulsion type herbicide formulations

In some embodiments, a herbicide formulation is prepared as a microemulsion type formulation comprising: nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof, fluroxypyr any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

Microemulsions are stable isotropic liquid mixtures of oil, water and surfactant, frequently in combination with a co-surfactant. The aqueous phase may contain salt(s) and/or other ingredients, and the "oil" may actually be a complex mixture of different hydrocarbons.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation is a ready to use microemulsion type formulation comprising

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation is a ready to use microemulsion type formulation comprising:

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation is a ready to use microemulsion type formulation comprising: between about 17 g/L and about 23 g/L of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof, between about 2.55 g/L and about 3.45 g/L of fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and between about 0.85 g/L and about 1.15 g/L of fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

about 20 g/L of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

Concentrate herbicide formulations

In some embodiments, a herbicide formulation is prepared as a concentrate formulation comprising: nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof, fluroxypyr any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

In some embodiments, the concentrate formulation is diluted before applying to unwanted vegetation.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation is a concentrate formulation comprising:

between about 100 g/L and about 600 g/L of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

between about 20 g/L and about 120 g/L of fluroxypyr any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and

between about 5 g/L and about 40 g/L of fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

between about 200 g/L and about 600 g/L of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof, between about 40 g/L and about 120 g/L of fluroxypyr any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and between about 10 g/L and about 40 g/L of fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

between about 400 g/L and about 600 g/L of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

between about 50 g/L and about 100 g/L of fluroxypyr any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and

between about 15 g/L and about 35 g/L of fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

between about 300 g/L and about 500 g/L of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

between about 60 g/L and about 100 g/L of fluroxypyr any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and

between about 100 g/L and about 300 g/L of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

between about 20 g/L and about 60 g/L of fluroxypyr any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and

between about 5 g/L and about 20 g/L of fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

about 500 g/L of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

about 75 g/L of fluroxypyr any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and

about 25 g/L of fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation further comprises one or more agriculturally acceptable excipients selected from a carrier, a binder, a wetting agent, a dispersing agent, an emulsifier, a binding agent, sticking agent, a filler, a solvent, a stabilizer, an adjuvant, a humectant, an antifreeze, a preservative, an antifoam and a diluent.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation is a non-glyphosate formulation that is free of glyphosate.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation is a shelf stable solution effective for shelf storage for at least 6 months when stored in a UV protective container at room temperature.

In some embodiments, there is provided a process for preparing a herbicide formulation comprising mixing, in any order:

nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof,

fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof,

fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof,

optionally one or more liquid carriers; and

optionally one or more agriculturally acceptable excipients.

In some embodiments, there is provided a method of controlling unwanted vegetation comprising applying an effective amount of the herbicide formulation to the unwanted vegetation.

In some embodiments, there is provided use of the herbicide formulation or controlling unwanted vegetation.

In some embodiments, there is provided a method of applying a herbicide comprising spraying an effective amount of the herbicide formulation to unwanted vegetation and optionally spraying subsequently an effective amount of the herbicide formulation to the unwanted vegetation in 60 to 180 days from the first spraying.

Excipients for herbicide formulations

Formulations suitable for use in the methods and uses described herein comprise nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof, fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof. In some embodiments, the nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof, fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof are presented as a herbicide formulation.

In some embodiments, the herbicide formulation comprises nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof, fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and one or more herbicidally acceptable excipient or one or more agriculturally acceptable excipient and optionally any other herbicidally active ingredients, or the like.

In some embodiments, the excipient may comprise a carrier, a binder, a wetting agent, a dispersing agent, an emulsifier, a binding agent, sticking agent, a filler, a solvent, a stabilizer, an adjuvant, a humectant, an antifreeze, a preservative, an antifoam and a diluent. However, those skilled in the art will appreciate that it is possible to utilize additional herbicidally or agriculturally acceptable excipients without departing from the scope of the present invention. The agriculturally acceptable excipient is in the range from 5% to 95% of the total weight of the composition.

The excipient(s) must be herbicidally acceptable in the sense of being compatible with the other ingredients of the formulation. Suitable herbicidally acceptable carriers are known in the art and are selected based on the end use application. The herbicidally acceptable excipient may act as a carrier, diluent or emulisfier for the active ingredients and other optional components of the composition.

The herbicidally acceptable carrier may also contain materials commonly used in herbicide products and can be in a wide variety of forms. For example, the carrier may be water, liquid, oils, emulsifiers, surfactants, solvents, humectants, and the like.

The emulsifiers may include polyethylene glycol, tridecyl ether, phosphate potassium salt, D glucitol, 1-deoxy-l-(methylamino)-, N-[C18-C8(unsaturated) acyl] derivatives, butyl alkoxylated EO/PO block copolymer or a combination thereof.

The herbicide formulation may for example contain a solvent, such as water or a herbicidally acceptable organic solvent.

The compositions may further include wetting agents, solubilizers, surfactants, diluents, buffers, adjuvants, preservatives including antioxidants or aqueous dispersion of 1,2 benzisothiazolin-3-one, antifoams and antifreeze.

The compositions of the present disclosure may also include polymeric excipients/additives or carriers, e.g., celluloses including microfibrillated celluloses, polyethylene glycols, polypropylene glycols, polydimethysiloxanes, alkylglucamides, butyl alkoxylated EO/PO block copolymers

In some embodiments, a herbicide formulation comprises one or more excipients selected from an emulsifier, adjuvant, humectant, preservative, antifoam and diluent.

In some embodiments, a herbicide formulation comprises one or more excipients selected from a solubilising base, humectant, solvent, emulsifier and diluent.

In some embodiments, a herbicide formulation comprises one or more excipients selected from an emulsifier and solvent.

Excipients for aqueous herbicide formulations

In some embodiments, a aqueous herbicide formulation comprise nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof, fluroxypyr any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof and one or more herbicidally acceptable excipients selected from an emulsifier, adjuvant, humectant, preservative, antifoam, and diluent.

In some embodiments, the aqueous herbicide formulation comprises between about 2 g/L and about 10 g/L of one or more of emulsifiers, between about 1 g/L and about 20 g/L of one or more adjuvants, between about 40 g/L and about 80 g/L of one or more humectants, between about 0.5 g/L and about 4 g/L of one or more of preservatives, between about 0.001 g/L and about 0.1 g/L of one or more antifoam, and between about 830 g/L and about 960 g/L of one or more of diluents.

In some embodiments, the aqueous herbicide formulation comprises between about 3 g/L and about 9 g/L of one or more of emulsifiers, between about 1 g/L and about 18 g/L of one or more adjuvants, between about 50 g/L and about 70 g/L of one or more humectants, between about 1 g/L and about 3 g/L of one or more of preservatives, between about 0.003 g/L and about 0.017 g/L of one or more antifoam, and between about 860 g/L and about 940 g/L of one or more of diluents.

In some embodiments, the aqueous herbicide formulation comprises between about 5 g/L and about 7 g/L of one or more of emulsifiers, between about 2 g/L and 17 g/L of one or more adjuvants, between about 55 g/L and about 65 g/L of one or more humectants, between about 1.5 g/L and about 2.5 g/L of one or more of preservatives, between about 0.005 g/L and about 0.015 g/L of one or more antifoam, and between about 880 g/L and about 920 g/L of one or more of diluents.

In some embodiments, the aqueous herbicide formulation comprises about 6 g/L of one or more of emulsifiers, about 3 g/L or 15 g/L of one or more adjuvants, about 60 g/L of one or more humectants, about 2 g/L of one or more of preservatives, about 0.01 g/L of one or more antifoams and about 900 g/L of one or more of diluents.

In some embodiments, the emulsifiers for the aqueous herbicide formulation are one or more selected from phosphate esters, alkylglucamides, alkylated copolymers and the like.

In some embodiments, the adjuvants for the aqueous herbicide formulation are one or more selected from cellulose and the like.

In some embodiments, the humectants for the aqueous herbicide formulation are one or more selected from propylene glycol and the like.

In some embodiments, the preservatives for the aqueous herbicide formulation are one or more selected from 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one and the like.

In some embodiments, the antifoams for the aqueous herbicide formulation are one or more selected from polydimethylsiloxane and the like.

In some embodiments, the diluent for the aqueous herbicide formulation are one or more selected from water and the like.

Excipients for microemulsion type herbicide formulations

In some embodiments, a microemulsion type herbicide formulation comprise nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof, fluroxypyr any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof and one or more herbicidally acceptable excipients selected from a solubilising base, humectant, antifreeze, solvent, emulsifier and diluent.

In some embodiments, the microemulsion type herbicide formulation comprises between about 1 g/L and about 3 g/L of one or more solubilising bases, between about 40 g/L and about 80 g/L of one or more humectants, between about 10 g/L and about 50 g/L of one or more solvents, between about 10 g/L and about 50 g/L of one or more emulsifiers and between about 800 g/L and 900 g/L of one or more of diluents.

In some embodiments, the microemulsion type herbicide formulation comprises between about 1.2 g/L and about 2.8 g/L of one or more solubilising bases, between about 50 g/L and about 70 g/L of one or more humectants, between about 20 g/L and about 40 g/L of one or more solvents, between about 20 g/L and about 40 g/L of one or more emulsifiers and between about 830 g/L and 870 g/L of one or more of diluents.

In some embodiments, the microemulsion type herbicide formulation comprises between about 1.5 g/L and about 2.5 g/L of one or more solubilising bases, between about 55 g/L and about 65 g/L of one or more humectants, between about 25 g/L and about 35 g/L of one or more solvents, between about 25 g/L and about 35 g/L of one or more emulsifiers and between about 840 g/L and 860 g/L of one or more of diluents.

In some embodiments, the microemulsion type herbicide formulation comprises about 2 g/L of one or more of solubilising bases, about 60 g/L of one or more humectants, about 30 g/L of one or more of solvents, about 30 g/L of one or more emulsifiers and about 850 g/L of one or more of diluents.

In some embodiments, the solubilsing base for the microemulsion type herbicide formulation is ammonium hydroxide solution is selected from ammonium hydroxide solution and the like.

In some embodiments, the humectant for the microemulsion type herbicide formulation is selected from propylene glycol and the like.

In some embodiments, the solvent for the microemulsion type herbicide formulation is selected from unsaturated di-substituted amide and the like.

In some embodiments, the emulsifier for the microemulsion type herbicide formulation is selected from polyaromatic ethoxylate and the like.

In some embodiments, the diluent for the microemulsion type herbicide formulation is selected from water and the like.

Excipients for concentrate herbicide formulations

In some embodiments, a concentrate herbicide formulation comprise nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof, fluroxypyr any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof and one or more herbicidally acceptable excipients selected from an emulsifier, solvent and the like.

In some embodiments, the concentrate herbicide formulation comprises between about 90 g/L and about 150 g/L of one or more emulsifiers and between about 130 g/L and about 180 g/L of one or more solvents.

In some embodiments, the concentrate herbicide formulation comprises between about 100 g/L and about 140 g/L of one or more emulsifiers and between about 140 g/L and about 170 g/L of one or more solvents.

In some embodiments, the concentrate herbicide formulation comprises between about 110 g/L and about 130 g/L of one or more emulsifiers and between about 150 g/L and about 160 g/L of one or more solvents.

In some embodiments, the concentrate herbicide formulation comprises between about 115 g/L and about 125 g/L of one or more emulsifiers and between about 152 g/L and about 158 g/L of one or more solvents.

In some embodiments, the concentrate herbicide formulation comprises about 120 g/L of one or more emulsifiers and about 155 g/L of one or more solvents.

In some embodiments, the emulsifiers for the concentrate herbicide formulation are selected from an alkoxylated phosphate ester, a high molecular weight polymeric emulsifier, polyalkylene oxide block copolymer and the like.

In some embodiments, the solvents for the concentrate herbicide formulation are selected from C8-C10 amide-based water insoluble, medium polarity solvent and the like.

Preparation of herbicide formulations

In some embodiments, a herbicide formulation is formulated as a batch process following a sequence of steps including mixing, in any order:

nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof,

fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof,

fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof,

optionally one or more liquid carriers; and

optionally one or more agriculturally acceptable excipients.

In some embodiments, a herbicide formulation is formulated as a batch process following a sequence of steps including

1. Preparing a solution containing a diluent and humectant in a suitable vessel equipped with a rotor/stator type batch homogeniser;

2. Preparing a formulation containing nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, in a separate vessel equipped with a propeller type stirrer;

3. Combining the separately prepared phases from Step 1 and Step 2; and

4. Diluting the concentrate from Step 3 in a suitable vessel equipped with a propeller type stirrer.

1. Preparing a solution containing a diluent and solubilising base in a suitable vessel equipped with a propeller type batch stirrer;

2. Preparing a formulation containing nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, in a separate vessel equipped with a propeller type stirrer;

3. Combining the separately prepared phases from Step 1 and Step 2;

4. Preparing a formulation containing fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, in a separate vessel equipped with a propeller type stirrer; and

5. Combining the separately prepared phases from Step 4 to the preparation from Step 3.

1. Preparing a formulation containing nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, in a separate vessel equipped with a propeller type stirrer;

2. Mixing and adding a solvent to the formulation of Step 1;

3. Mixing and adding fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof;

4. Mixing and adding fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof; and

5. Optionally adding one or more agriculturally acceptable excipients.

Unwanted vegetation In some embodiments, unwanted vegetation that can be controlled according to various embodiments of the present invention may include both broadleaf weeds and grass weeds.

Some embodiments the unwanted vegetation may include Sir Walter Buffalo Grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum), Cobblers Pegs (Bidens pilosa), Billygoat Weed (Ageratum conyzoides), Verbena (Heliotropiumamplexicaule), Giant Rat's Tail Grass (Sporobolus pyramidalis),Blue Couch (Digitariadidactyla), Japanese Clover (Kummerowia striata), Diamond Flower (Oldenlandia corymbosa), Purple Sow Thistle (Emiliasonchifolia), Alligator Weed (Alternantheraphiloxeroides), Feathertop Rhodes Grass (Chloris virgate), Natal Red Grass (Melinis repens), Asthma Plant (Chamaesyce hirta), Creeping Oxalis (Oxalis corniculata),Flatweed (Hypochaerissp.), Common Cotula (Cotula australis), Poa annua, Carrot weed (Conium maculatum), Clover (Trifolium spp), Chickweed (Cerastium glomeratum), Charlock weed (brassicaxjuncea), Creeping oxalis (Oxalis pes-caprae), or Starchytarphetaaustralis.

Examples

Example 1. A screening trial of herbicide formulations In order to compare the efficacy of non-selective herbicides across a range of common grasses, annual and perennial broadleaved weeds, a screening trial was performed.

Material and Methods

The trial site was at STRI's Redlands research facility established on local soil in Queensland, Australia. The test area was in a shaded environment which allowed for many broadleaved weeds to develop. This area was not mown for 60 days prior to trial commencement. The trial commenced on 19 August 2019 and ran for 60 days.

The trial was laid out in a randomised complete block design, with 16 treatments each one with 3 replicates. Plots were 1.5 m x 2 m making a total of 144 m2 .

Treatments

The list of treatments in the trial is shown in Table 1. All treatments were applied at the beginning of the trial period. There were no adverse weather conditions during the following week.

The trial area had not been mown for at least 60 days before application, which continued until the end of the trial.

Table 1. The list of treatments in the trial

Treatment Actives Dose Al Rate Water rate

[1] STRI Mix (1) Fluroxypyr X1 1.5 g/L 500 L/Ha Fluazifop 1.5 g/L

[2] STRI Mix (2) Fluroxypyr X2 3 g/L 500 L/Ha Fluazifop 3 g/L

[3] STRI Mix (3) Fluroxypyr X1 1.5 g/L 500 L/Ha Fluazifop 1.5 g/L Nonanoic Acid 20 g/L

[4] STRI Mix (4) Fluroxypyr X2 3 g/L 500 L/Ha Fluazifop 3 g/L Nonanoic Acid 40 g/L

[5] Glyphosate RTU Glyphosate RTU X1 7.2 g/L 500 L/Ha Nonanoic acid 21 g/L

[6] STRI Mix 11 Propaquizafop X1 0.09 g/L 500 L/Ha Imazamox 0.035 g.1-1

[7] STRI Mix 11 (2) Propaquizafop X2 0.18 g/L 500 L/Ha Imazamox 0.07 g/L

[8] STRI Mix 11 (3) Nonanoic Acid X1 20 g/L 500 L/Ha Propaquizafop 0.09g/L Imazamox 0.035 g/L

[9] STRI Mix 11 (4) Nonanoic Acid X2 40 g/I 500 L/Ha Propaquizafop 0.18 g/L Imazamox 0.07 g/L

[10] Organic Weed Blitz Pine Oil X1 136 g/L Ready to use

[11] STRI Mix Ill Pine Oil X1 136 g/L 500 L/Ha Ammonium Sulfate 50 g/L

[12]Control

Assessments dates

Assessments were completed on the following dates.

• 19.08.2019: Before treatment, • 19.08.2019: 1 hour after treatment 2 hours after treatment, • 20.08.2019: 24 hours after treatment, • 26.08.2019: 7 days after treatment, • 02.09.2019: 14 days after treatment, • 19.09.2019: 30 days after treatment, and

• 18.10.2019: 60 days after treatment

Target plant species

The plant species in this trial are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Target plant species

Species Type Poa annual Grass Carrot weed (Conium maculatum) Broadleaved weed Clover (Trifolium spp) Broadleaved weed Chickweed (Cerastium glomeratum) Broadleaved weed Charlock weed (brassica xjuncea) Broadleaved weed Creeping oxalis (Oxalispes-caprae) Broadleaved weed Starchytarpheta australis Broadleaved weed

Assessments

Species composition At the beginning of the trial period, the species composition of each plot was assessed. Each major weed type was expressed as percent surface area cover in each plot. Species composition (%) in trial plots before treatment application on 19 August 2019 is shown in Table 3. The broadleaved weed composition per plot was on average 77%. The grassed weeds composition per plot was on average of 23%

Table 3. Species composition (%) in trial plots before treatment application Treatment Brodleaved weeds Grasses

[1] STRI Mix (1) x1 72 28

[2] STRI Mix (2) x2 90 10

[3] STRI Mix (3) x1 70 30

[4] STRI Mix (4) x2 74 26

[5] Glyphosate RTU x1 78 22

[6] STRI Mix 11 x1 86 14

[7] STRI Mix 11 (2) x2 67 33

[8] STRI Mix 11 (3) x1 83 17

[9] STRI Mix 11 (4) x2 79 21

[10] Organic Weed Blitz x1 68 32

[11] STRI Mix Ill x1 80 20

[12] Control 62 38

Totalaverage 77 23

P ns ns

LSD -

d.f. 30 30

C.V.% 17.0 21.8

ns = not significant LSD = least significant difference

Vegetation control Each plot was compared to untreated control plots and the percentage of control was estimated, where 0% = no control and 100% = total weed or grass control. If weeds and/or grasses recovered or regrew during the trial period, this were noted as weed ingress or grass recovery. Assessments were completed 7, 14, 30, 60 days after application.

Herbicidal effects Herbicidal effects on weeds were described as the symptoms observed. Assessments were completed 1, 2 and 24 hours after application (HAT) as well as 7, 14, 30 and 60 days after treatment (DAT).

Photographs Photographs were taken at regular intervals during the trial. Photographs were taken on 0, 7, 14, 30 and 60 DAT to demonstrate visual differences among treatments.

Results

Vegetation Control

Significant differences in vegetation control were observed among herbicide treatments from 7 DAT (Table 4). Overall, optimal treatments in this trial were STRI mix without nonanoic acid at x2 dose rate (Treatment 2), STRI mix with nonanoic acid at both x1 and x2 dose rate (Treatment 3 and 4) and glyphosate RTU (Treatment 5).

The greatest control observed 7 days after treatment was in plots treated with STRI mix with nonanoic acid at x2 dose rate (Treatment 4). This control was better statistically compared to all other treatments.

From 14 DAT, and for the rest of the trial period, good control was observed in plots treated with STRI mix without nonanoic acid at x2 dose rate (Treatment 2), STRI mix with nonanoic acid at both x1 and x2 dose rate (Treatment 3 and 4) and glyphosate RTU (Treatment 5). The results are shown in Table 4.

The vegetation in plots treated with STRI mix without nonanoic acid at x1 dose rate, STRI mix II with or without nonanoic acid at all dose rates, organic weed blitz and STRI mix III were not effectively controlled in this trial. However, some efficacy was observed 60 DAT.

Table 4. Vegetation control (%) in plots treated with various herbicides compared to untreated plots

Treatment 19.08.19 26.08.19 02.09.19 19.09.19 18.10.19 0 DAT 7 DAT 14 DAT 30 DAT 60 DAT

[1] STRI Mix (1) 0.0 22 53 57 83

[2] STRI Mix (2) 0.0 45 64 85 92

[3] STRI Mix (3) 0.0 36 62 69 77

[4] STRI Mix (4) 0.0 52 67 68 79

[5] Glyphosate RTU 0.0 41 89 100 96

[6] STRI Mix II 0.0 0.0 3 9 52

[7] STRI Mix 11 (2) 0.0 0.0 2 19 70

[8] STRI Mix 11 (3) 0.0 34 30 26 47

[9] STRI Mix 11 (4) 0.0 2 3 2 58

[10] Organic Weed 0.0 31 25 20 47 Blitz

[11] STRI Mix Ill 0.0 18 12 8 50

[12] Control 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P ana <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

LSD - 18.1 28.1 30.0 23.1

d.f. 30 30 30 30 30

C.V.% 0.0 45.3 50.5 50.9 21.3

DAT = days after treatment ana = analysis not applicable LSD = least significant difference

Herbicidal effects on broadleaved weeds

To determine speed of herbicidal activity, the effect of each treatment on scorch and distortion of broadleaved weeds was assessed. Within 1 hour of treatment, weeds in plots treated with STRI mix with nonanoic acid at x2 dose rate (Treatment 4) and organic weed blitz (Treatment 10) had 50 to 100% of broadleaved weeds showing some scorch and/or distortion (Table 5).

Within one day of treatment, plots treated with STRI mix with nonanoic acid (Treatment 4), STRI mix II at x1 dose rate (Treatment 8) had 50 to 100% of broadleaved weeds with some scorch and/or distortion.

It took 14 days for the broadleaved weeds in plots treated with STRI mix without nonanoic acid at both dose rates (Treatments 1 and 2), STRI mix with nonanoic acid at x1 dose rate (Treatment 3) and glyphosate (Treatment 5) to exhibit similar levels of scorch and/or distortion as observed with STRI mix with nonanoic acid at the x2 dose rate (Treatment 4) within one day (Table 5).

By the end of the trial period the herbicidal effect on broadleaved weeds in all treated plots ranged from at least 50% of broadleaved weeds with scorch to all weeds were dead.

Table 5. Herbicidal effects on broadleaved weeds (scale of 1-5, where 1 = no effect and 5= plants dead) in plots treated with various herbicides on 19 August 2019

Treatment 19.08.19 19.08.19 20.08.19 26.08.19 02.09.19 19.09.19 18.10.19 1 HAT 2 HAT 24 HAT 7 DAT 14 DAT 30 DAT 60 DAT

[1] STRI Mix (1) x1 1 1 1 1 4 5 5

[2] STRI Mix (2) x2 1 1 1 1 4 5 5

[3] STRI Mix (3) x1 1 3 2 2 4 5 5

[4] STRI Mix (4) x2 4 4 3 3 4 5 5

[5] Glyphosate RTU 1 1 2 2 5 5 5 x1

[6] STRI Mix 11 x1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3

[7] STRI Mix II (2) 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 x2

[8] STRI Mix II (3) 1 4 3 3 3 2 3 x1

[9] STRI Mix II (4) 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 x2

[10] Organic Weed 3 3 4 4 4 2 3 Blitz x1

[11] STRI Mix III x1 1 2 1 1 2 2 3

[12]Control 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

P * * * <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

LSD - - - 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3

d.f. 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

C.V.% 44.2 41.3 36.7 36.0 24.2 24.0 20.0

HAT = hours after treatment

DAT = days after treatment

* Data skewed and so statistical analysis not possible LSD = least significant difference

Herbicidal effects on grasses

To determine speed of herbicidal activity, the effect of each treatment on scorch of grasses was assessed. Within 1 hour of treatment, grasses in plots treated with STRI mix with nonanoic acid at x2 dose rate (Treatment 4) had 50 to 100% of grasses showing some scorch (Table 6).

It took 14 days for the grasses in plots treated with STRI mix1 with and without nonanoic acid at all dose rates and glyphosate to exhibit similar levels of scorch (Table 6). By the end of the trial period the herbicidal effect on grasses in all treated plots ranged from at least 50% of broadleaved weeds with scorch to all grasses were dead.

The aim of this trial was to determine the efficacy of various herbicides in controlling broadleaved weeds and weed grasses typical in a lawn. Optimal treatments in this trial were STRI mix without nonanoic acid at x2 dose rate (Treatment 2), STRI mix with nonanoic acid at both x1 and x2 dose rate(Treatment 3 and 4) and glyphosate RTU (Treatment 5)

Table 6. Herbicidal effects on grasses (scale of 1-5, where 1 = no effect and 5= plants dead) in plots treated with various herbicides on 19 August 2019

[1] STRI Mix (1) x1 1 1 2 2 4 5 5

[2] STRI Mix (2) x2 1 1 3 3 4 5 5

[3] STRI Mix (3) x1 1 1 3 3 4 5 5

[4] STRI Mix (4) x2 3 4 2 2 5 5 5

[5] Glyphosate RTU 1 1 3 3 4 5 5 x1

[6] STRI Mix 11 x1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3

[7] STRI Mix II (2) 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 x2

[8] STRI Mix II (3) 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 x1

[9] STRI Mix II (4) 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 x2

[10] Organic Weed 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 Blitz x1

[11] STRI Mix III x1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3

[12]Control 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

P * * <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

LSD - - 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3

d.f. 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

C.V.% 52.5 36.2 39.4 39.1 31.2 29.5 20.0

HAT = hours after treatment DAT = days after treatment

Summary of the results

In summary, in the trial, the optimal treatments in terms of overall vegetation control during the trial period were, STRI mix without nonanoic acid at x2 dose rate (Treatment 2), STRI mix with nonanoic acid at both x1 and x2 dose rate (Treatment 3 and 4) and glyphosate RTU (Treatment 5). Table 4 shows vegetation control (%) in plots treated with various herbicides compared to untreated plots.

Example 2. Preparation of herbicide formulations

Formulations of an aqueous, ready-to-use (RTU) formulation containing a combination of nonanoic acid, fluroxypyr as the methyl heptyl ester (fluroxypyr-meptyl), and fluazifop-p as the butyl ester (fluazifop-p-butyl) was prepared. Fluazifop-p-butyl and Fluroxypyr-meptyl are usually sold as concentrates in hydrocarbon solvents.

Each of Formulation 1 and Formulation 1A, which is an aqueous, ready-to-use (RTU) formulation, contains 20g/L nonanoic acid, 3g/L fluroxypyr-meptyl and 0.95g/L fluazifop-p butyl.

A micoremulsion type RTU formulation containing a combination of nonanoic acid, fluroxypyr-meptyl, and fluazifop-p-butyl was prepared. Formulation 2, a micoremulsion type RTU formulation, contains 20g/L nonanoic acid, 3g/L fluroxypyr-meptyl and 0.95g/L fluazifop-p-butyl.

A concentrate formulation containing a combination of nonanoic acid, fluroxypyr-meptyl, and fluazifop-p-butyl was prepared. Formulation 3, a concentrate formulation, contains 500g/L nonanoic acid, 75g/L fluroxypyr-meptyl and 25g/L fluazifop-p.

Laboratory analysis indicate the fluazifop-p butyl ester was out of allowable limits after accelerated stability test. Fluazifop-p-butyl is prone to hydrolysis especially at high pHs. The presence of nonanoic acid in the formulation provides an acidic environment which keeps the bulk of the fluazifop-p in the ester form.

Analysis by HPLC-UV confirmed the hydrolysis of the fluazifop-p butyl ester to the acid form (Figure 16). A completely hydrolysed sample shows fluazifop-p acid is the only form that remains. It is noted that fluazifop-p-butyl is a post emergence herbicide. It is absorbed through foliar surfaces and quickly hydrolyzes to fluazifop-p acid which is transported through the plant. The hydrolysis of fluazifop-p-butyl does not impact efficacy, which is evidenced in the efficacy trials using both aged and unaged product in Examples 3, 4 and 5.

Active Ingredient Sources

Emerion W90 PA 92% Area % (nonanoic acid > 90% weight %) was purchased from Emery Oleochemicals LLC 4900 Este Avenue Cincinnati OH 45232-1446, United States of America. Fluroxypyr-meptyl Technical 95% Min and Fluazifop-p-butyl Technical 87% Min were purchased from Imtrade Australia Pty Ltd 17 Ocean Street Kwinana WA 6167, Australia.

Formulation Composition

Formulation 1 Formulation 1 containing nonanoic acid, fluroxypyr-meptyl and fluazifop-p-butyl was formulated as shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Components of Formulation 1 Content Component Trade Name Purposein CAS Number g/L Formulation 21.74 Nonanoic acid 92% (Area %) active ingredient 112-05-0 4.45 Fluroxypyr-Meptyl Technical 97.1% active ingredient 81406-37-3 1.23 Fluazifop-P-Butyl Technical 95.5% active ingredient 79241-46-6

0.84 Rhodafac RS610 K25 emulsifier 68186-36-7

2.63 Synergen GA emulsifier 173145-38-5

2.53 Synergen 848 emulsifier 9038-95-3

3.00 Exilva F 01-V adjuvant 9004-34-6

60.00 Propylene Glycol humectant/antifreeze 57-55-6

2.00 Acticide BW20 preservative 2634-33-5

0.01 Gensil 2000 antifoam 63148-62-9

899.41 Potable water diluent 7732-18-5

Formulation Excipients

The excipients required to formulate Formulation 1 are detailed and purchased from the suppliers as shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Details of the excipients used for Formulation 1 Component Supplier Rhodafac RS610 K25 Solvay Chemicals Pty. Ltd Polyethylene glycol, tridecyl ether, phosphate Technology Enterprise Centre, potassium salt 2 Park Drive, R&D Park, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3086 Australia Synergen GA Clariant (Australia) Pty. Ltd. D-Glucitol, 1-deoxy-1-(methylamino)-, N-[C18-C18 100 Heales Road,Lara,VIC 3212 Australia (unsaturated) acyl] derivs. Synergen 848 Clariant (Australia) Pty. Ltd. Butyl alkoxylated EO/PO block copolymer 100 Heales Road,Lara, VIC 3212 Australia Exilva F 01-V Borregaard C/- IMCD Australia Limited Microfibrillated cellulose 372 Wellington Road Mulgrave VIC 3170 Australia Propylene Glycol IXOM Operations Pty Ltd Propane-1,2-diol 1 Nicholson Street East Melbourne Vic 3002 Australia Acticide BW20 Thor Specialties Pty Ltd Aqueous dispersion of 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one 67 Newton Road Wetherill Park NSW 2164 Australia Gensil 2000 Solvay Chemicals Pty. Ltd polydimethysiloxane Technology Enterprise Centre, 2 Park Drive, R&D Park, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3086 Australia

Formulation 1A Formulation IA containing nonanoic acid, fluroxypyr-meptyl and fluazifop-p-butyl was formulated as shown in Table 8A. Unlike Formulation 1, in Formulation IA, 0.84 g/L Rhodafac RS610 K25 was replaced with 0.84 g/L Hostaphat 1306, and 3 g/L Exilva F 01-V was replaced with 15 g/L Exilva F 01-L (2% solution).

Table 8A. Components of Formulation IA formulation Content Proei Component Trade Name Purposein CAS Number g/L Formulation

21.74 Nonanoic acid 92% (Area %) active ingredient 112-05-0

4.45 Fluroxypyr-meptyl Technical 97.1% active ingredient 81406-37-3

1.23 Fluazifop-P butyl Technical 95.5% active ingredient 79241-46-6

0.84 Hostaphat 1306 emulsifier 68186-36-7

2.63 Synergen GA emulsifier 173145-38-5

2.53 Synergen 848 emulsifier 9038-95-3

15.00 Exilva F 01-L adjuvant 9004-34-6

60.00 Propylene Glycol humectant/antifreeze 57-55-6

2.00 Acticide BW20 preservative 2634-33-5

0.01 Gensil 2000 antifoam 63148-62-9

887.41 Potable water diluent 7732-18-5

Formulation Process for Formulation 1 Formulation 1 was formulated as a batch process following a sequence of steps as detailed in the followings. It is noted that Fluroxypyr-meptyl Technical is solid with melting point of

58 °C. The required amount of it was melted in a water bath and maintained in a completely molten state prior to addition.

1. Prepare in a suitable vessel equipped with a rotor/stator type batch homogeniser. i.e., Silverson or equivalent. i) Add 40 % of the water ii) Add the Propylene Glycol and commence high shear mixing. iii) Continue high shear mixing and add the Exilva F 01-V. iv) Continue high shear mixing until the Exilva is completely dispersed. 2. Prepare in a suitable vessel equipped with a propeller type stirrer. i) Add the Nonanoic Acid. ii) Commence stirring and add the molten Fluroxypyr-Meptyl Technical iii) Continue stirring and add the Fluazifop-P-Butyl Technical. iv) Continue stirring and add the Rhodafac RS 610 25K. iv) Continue stirring and add the Synergen GA. v) Continue stirring and add the Synergen 848. vi) Continue stirring and add the Gensil 2000. vii) Mix until completely homogenous. 3. Combine the separately prepared phases from Step 1 and 2. i) Slowly add the preparation from Step 2. To the preparation from Step 1 under high shear mixing. ii) Continue high shear mixing for 15 mins. iii) This is the concentrated preparation which has a limited usable shelf life. 4. Dilute the concentrate from Step 3 in a suitable vessel equipped with a propeller type stirrer. i) Add the remaining water and commence mixing. ii) Continue mixing and add the Acticide BW20. iii) Continue mixing, add the concentrate (Step 3) and continue mixing for 15 mins. iv) Examine the product according to the specification prior to packaging.

Quality Specification for Formulation 1

Formulation 1 met the following quality specification as shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Quality specification of Formulation 1 Determination Method Specification Limits

Appearance, Physical State & Visual Opaque white emulsion Colour

Odour Olfactory Characteristic waxy type odour

pH (Neat product) CIPAC MT 75.3 4.00-5.00

Density @ 20 °C CIPAC MT 3.3.2 0.992 - 1.002 g/mL

Wet Sieve (100 mL, 38 pm) CIPAC MT 185 No retained residue

Emulsion Characteristics CIPAC MT 36 After 30 min no top cream, no sediment (NeatProduct) After 2 hr <iml top cream, no sediment

After 24 h Re-emulsification complete

Fluroxypyr (present as meptyl QCM-200.01 2.55 - 3.45 g/L ester) Fluazifop-P (present as butyl QCM-200.01 0.85 - 1.15 g/L ester) Nonanoic acid QCM-201.01 17.0 - 23.0 g/L

Formulation 2

Formulation 2 containing nonanoic acid, fluroxypyr-meptyl and fluazifop-p-butyl was formulated as shown in Table 9A. Formulation 2 was prepared as a ready to use microemulsion type formulation.

Table 9A. Components of Formulation 2

Contentg/L Component Trade Name Purpose in Formulation CAS Number

21.74 Nonanoic acid 92% (Area %) active ingredient 112-05-0

4.45 Fluroxypyr-meptyl Technical 97.1% active ingredient 81406-37-3

1.23 Fluazifop-P butyl Technical 95.5% active ingredient 79241-46-6

7.00 Ammonium hydroxide solution 30% solubilizing base 1336-21-6

60.00 Propylene Glycol humectant/antifreeze 57-55-6

30.00 Hallcomid 1025 Solvent 1356964-77-6

30.00 Agrilan AEC 145 emulsifier 99734-09-5

850.40 Potable water diluent 7732-18-5

Formulation process for Formulation 2

Formulation 2 was formulated as a batch process following a sequence of steps as detailed in the followings. It is noted that Fluroxypyr-meptyl Technical is solid with melting point of 58 °C. The required amount of it was melted in a water bath and maintained in a completely molten state prior to addition.

1. Prepare in a suitable reaction vessel equipped with a propellor type batch stirrer. a. Add the water b. Commence mixing and add the Ammonium Hydroxide Solution 28-30%. 2. Prepare in a separate vessel equipped with a propeller type stirrer.

a. Add the Nonanoic Acid b. Commence stirring and add the Propylene Glycol. 3. Combine the separately prepared phases from Step 1 & 2

a. Slowly add the preparation from Step 2. to the preparation from Step 1 under mixing.

b. Continue mixing for 15 mins. 4. Prepare in a separate vessel equipped with a propeller type stirrer.

a. Add the Hallcomid 1025.

b. Commence stirring and add the molten Fluroxypyr-meptyl Technical. c. Continue stirring and add the Fluazifop-p butyl Technical. d. Continue stirring and add the Agrilan AEC 145. e. Continue mixing until homogeneous 5. Combine the separately prepared phase from Step 4 to the preparation from Step 3.

a. Slowly add the preparation from Step 4. To the preparation from Step 3 under mixing. b. Continue mixing for 15 mins. c. Examine the product according to the specification prior to packaging.

Formulation 3

Formulation 3 containing a nominal concentration of 500g/L nonanoic acid, 75g/L fluroxypyr meptyl and 25g/L fluazifop-p-butyl was prepared as shown in Table 9B. Formulation 3 is a concentrate formulation.

Table 9B. Components of Concentrate Formulation 3

Content g/L Component Trade Name Purpose in Formulation CAS Number

537.63 Nonanoic Acid 93% (Wt%) active ingredient 112-05-0

111.25 Fluroxypyr-meptyl Technical 97.1% active ingredient 81406-37-3

30.75 Fluazifop-P butyl Technical 95.5% active ingredient 79241-46-6

30.00 Crodafos C10/5A emulsifier 73361-29-2

60.00 Atlox 4916 emulsifier NA

30.00 Atlas G-5002L emulsifier 9038-95-3

1118-92-9 155.78 Rhodiasolv ADMA 810 solvent 14433-76-2

Formulation process for Formulation 3

Formulation 3 was prepared according to the following sequence of steps. It is noted that Fluroxypyr-meptyl Technical is solid with melting point of 58 °C. The required amount of it was melted in a water bath and maintained in a completely molten state prior to addition.

1. Charge the Nonanoic acid into a suitable vessel equipped with a propellor type stirrer. 2. Maintain mixing and add the Rhodiasolv ADMA 810. 3. Commence mixing and add the molten Fluroxypyr-meptyl technical. 4. Maintain mixing and add the Fluazifop-p butyl technical. 5. Maintain mixing and add the Crodafos C10/5A. 6. Maintain mixing and add the Atlox 4916. 7. Maintain mixing and add the Atlas G-5002L. 8. Examine the product according to the specification. Adjust with Rhodiasolv ADMA 810 as required.

Example 3. A Field Trial at South Bingera

One replicated field trial was conducted between July and September 2020 to evaluate experimental herbicides for the control of various common annual and perennial weeds. The trial was conducted near South Bingera in the Bundaberg Region of Queensland, Australia.

The treatments evaluated in the trail are shown in Table 10.

Table 10. Test herbicide formulations

Formulation Active Constituents

1. Formulation 1 (Fresh) 20 g/L nonanoic acid, 3 g/L fluroxypyr as methyl heptyl ester, 0.95 g/L fluazifop-p as butyl ester

2. Formulation 1 (Aged) 20 g/L nonanoic acid, 3 g/L fluroxypyr as methyl heptyl ester, 0.95 g/L fluazifop-p as butyl ester

3. REGULAR ROUNDUP 7.2 g/L glyphosate as isopropylamine salt,

READY-TO-USE WEED KILLER 21 g/L nonanoic acid 4. SLASHER 36.8 g/L nonanoic acid READY-TO-USE WEED KILLER

5. Untreated

Treatment methods The herbicide formulations were ready-to-use and applied 'neat' using commercially available 500 mL garden spray bottles. A single application was made as an even foliar application over each of the plots. Each plot received approximately 55 mL of the herbicide formulation per square metre.

The trial was established as a random design with four replicates and a plot size of 1 m 2 as shown in Table 11.

Table 11. Site Details and Experimental Design Location South Bingera, Queensland Species Various annual and perennial weeds Trial Type Field trial Situation Domestic non-crop Soil Type Brown sandy clay loam Site History Lawn Design Randomised complete block Replicates Four Plot sizes 1 m2

Target species The target species were various weeds that included Blue Couch Grass (Digitariadidactyla), Japanese Clover (Kummerowia striata),Diamond Flower (Oldenlandia corymbosa) and

Purple Sow Thistle (Emelia sonchifolia) as shown in Table 12.

Table 12. Target species Common Name Scientific Name Infestation Level Blue Couch Digitaria An average of 41% cover per plot and a growth stage didactyla range of BBCH 23-49. The predominant growth stage was between BBCH 45-49.

Japanese Clover Kummerowia An average of 25.3% cover per plot and a growth striata stage range of BBCH 55-69. The predominant growth stage was at BBCH 65. Diamond Flower Oldenlandia An average of 26.0% cover per plot and a growth corymbosa stage range of BBCH 23-60. The predominant growth stage was at BBCH 49. Purple Sow Thistle Emilia An average of 1.5 plants per plot, and a growth stage sonchifolia range of BBCH 23-60. The predominant growth stage was at BBCH 51.

Application Details • Date: 20 July 2020 • Time of Day: 0930 hours • Temperature: 19°C • Relative Humidity: 62% • Cloud Cover: 0 • Wind (Speed & Direction): No wind • Observations: Formulation 1 (aged) displayed separation of liquid layers when left unshaken over a short time

Evaluations

Detailed assessments were conducted at 30 and 60 minutes after application (MAA), and then at 1, 7, 14, 29 and 45 days after application (DAA). These included a visual assessment to determine the percentage control of each weed species following application.

The percentage weed control, by species, using percentage burn down control or biomass reduction relative to the untreated control in that replicate was visually determined. Data was presented as percentage weed control, by species, per plot.

Data Handling

Statistical analyses were conducted using GenStat 64-bit Release 17.1 (PC/Windows Server 2008 Copyright 2014, VSN International Ltd). The model includes all treatment effects. Analysis of variance and least significant difference (LSD) procedures were used.

Results of the Field Trial at South Bingera

Control of Blue Couch Grass Treatment differences were first observed at 60 minutes (60 MAA). The fresh batch of Formulation 1 provided the greatest level of control at 1 DAA and again at 7 DAA with a 92.5% average control. From 14 DAA to 45 DAA, REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU and both fresh and aged batches of Formulation 1 provided a similar level of control, whereas the SLASHER RTU treated weeds started to show signs of recovery at 14 DAA.

The percentage control of Blue Couch Grass is shown in Table 13 and Table 14.

Table 13. Mean Percentage Control of Blue Couch Grass Treatment 20-Jul-20 20-Jul-20 21-Jul-20 27-Jul-20 3-Aug-20 19-Aug-20 03-Sep-20 30MAA 60MAA 1DAA 7DAA 14DAA 30DAA 45DAA 1. Formulation 0.0 13.8 81.3 92.5 93.3 97.8 97.5 1 (fresh)

2. Formulation 0.0 11.3 70.0 88.8 90.0 96.5 94.5 1 (aged) 3. REGULAR 0.0 3.8 22.5 66.3 87.5 99.0 99.5 ROUNDUPRTU 4.SLASHER RTU 0.0 10.0 67.5 77.5 60.0 28.8 17.5

5. Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

F Probability ana <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

LSD 5 % 3.8 8.3 13.0 7.1 13.3 14.2

MAA= minutes after application DAA= days after application ana = analysis not applicable LSD = least significant difference ns = not significant

Table 14. Percentage Control of Blue Couch Grass in 4 replicates

Trebknent Rep 20-Jul-20 20-Jul.20 21-Jul-20 27-Jul-20 3-Aug-20 19-Aug-20 3-Sep-20 30 MAA 60 MAA 1 DAA 7 DAA 14 DAA 30 DAA 45 DAA 1 0.0 10.0 75.0 90.0 90.0 98.0 980 2 0.0 15.0 85.0 95.0 95.0 98.0 98.0 3 0.0 20.0 90.0 95.0 98.0 1000 99.0 4 0.0 10.0 75.0 90.0 900 95.0 95.0 1, Formulation1(fresh) Mean 0.0 13.8 81.3 92.5 933 978 97.5

1 0.0 10.0 65.0 80.0 85.0 95.0 95.0 2 0.0 15.0 75.0 95.0 95.0 98.0 98.0 3 0.0 10.0 70.0 90.0 90.0 95.0 900 4 0.0 10.0 70.0 900 90.0 98.0 95.0 2 Formulation 1 (aged) Mean 0.0 11.3 70.0 88.8 90.0 96.5 94.5

1 0.0 00 10.0 60.0 85.0 1000 100.0 2 0.0 5.0 30.0 50.0 90.0 100.0 1000 3 0.0 5.0 25.0 80.0 90.0 980 1000 4 0.0 5.0 25.0 75.0 85.0 98.0 98.0 3 REGULAR ROUNDUPRTV Mean 0.0 38 22.5 683 87.5 99.0 99.5

00 10.0 50.0 60.0 50.0 10.0 0.0 2 0.0 10.0 75.0 90.0 70.0 40.0 40.0 3 0.0 10.0 75.0 85.0 70,0 50.0 30.0 4 0.0 10.0 700 750 50.0 15.0 0.0 4. SLASHER RTu Mean 0.0 10.0 675 77,5 60.0 28.8 17.5

1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unretd MFean 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MAA = minutes after application DAA = days after application

Control of Japanese Clover

Within the first 30 minutes after application (30 MAA), both fresh and aged batches of Formulation 1 showed effects on Japanese clover. REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU gave slower control at 60 MAA, 1 DAA and at 7 DAA than the other treatments. However, from 14 DAA through to 30 DAA, REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU and the Formulation 1 products provided the greatest level of control. Although, at 45 DAA, the Formulation 1 products provided better control than REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU due to evidence of recovery in the REGULAR ROUNDUP READY plots. Plots treated with SLASHER RTU displayed some signs of recovery from 14 DAA onward.

The percentage control of Japanese clover is shown in Table 15 and Table 16.

Table 15. Mean Percentage Control of Japanese Clover Treatment 20-Jul-20 20-Jul-20 21-Jul-20 27-Jul-20 3-Aug-20 19-Aug-20 03-Sep-20 30MAA 60MAA 1DAA 7DAA 14DAA 30DAA 45DAA 1. Formulation 5.0 22.5 77.5 95.0 97.5 100.0 100.0 1 (fresh) 2. Formulation 3.8 17.5 63.8 91.3 95.0 100.0 100.0 1 (aged) 3. REGULAR 0.0 5.0 27.5 73.8 93.8 94.5 90.0 ROUNDUPRTU 4.SLASHER RTU 0.0 10.0 61.3 85.0 78.8 37.5 25.0

5. Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

F Probability <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

LSD 5 % 1.7 4.7 9.8 9.4 9.3 14.3 8.9

MAA= minutes after application DAA= days after application LSD = least significant difference

Table 16. Percentage Control of Japanese Clover in 4 replicates Treament R*p 20-Jul-20 20-Jul-20 21-Jul-20 27-Jul.20 3-Aug-20 19-Aug-20 3-Sep-20 _________30 MM 60 MM 1 DMA 7 DM 14 DM 30 DM 45 DM 1 5.0 20.0 75.0 95&0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 5.0 20.0 80.0 95.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 3 5.0 30.0 80.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 4 5.0 20.0 75.0 95.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 t. Formulation I (fresh) Mean 5.0 22.5 77.5 95.0 97.5 100.0 100.0

1 5.0 20.0 75.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 2 0.0 15.0 60.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 1000 3 5.0 20.0 60.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 4 5.0 15.0 60.0 95.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 2. Formulation 1 (aged) Mwan 3.8 17.5 63.8 91.3 95.0 100.0 100.0

1 0.0 5.0 20.0 60.0 90.0 90.0 90.0 2 0.0 0.0 25.0 70.0 95.0 95.0 90.0 3 0.0 5.0 30.0 80.0 95.0 95.0 90.0 4 0.0 10.0 35.0 85.0 95.0 98.0 90.0 3. REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU Mean 0,0 5.0 27.5 73.8 93.8 94.5 90.0

0.0 10.0 50.0 75.0 70.0 20.0 20.0 2 0.0 0 60.0 90.0 900 50.0 40.0 3 0.0 10.0 70.0 95.0 90.0 60.0 30.0 4 0,0 10.0 65.0 80.0 85.0 20.0 10.0 4. SLASHER RTU Mean 0.0 10.0 61.3 85,0 78.8 37.5 25.0

1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5. Untreated Mean 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0,0

MAA = minutes after application DAA = days after application

Control of Diamond Flower

All products showed signs of control within the first 60 minutes (60 MAA). After 24 hours (1 DAA), the treatment differences were clear where the fresh batch of Formulation 1 provided a better level of control than the other products, however from 30 DAA through to the end of the trial, the Formulation 1 products and REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU provided similar, consistent control of diamond flower. Plots treated with SLASHER RTU showed signs of recovery after 14 DAA.

The percentage control of Diamond flower is shown in Table 17 and Table 18.

Table 17. Mean Percentage Control of Diamond Flower Treatment 20-Jul-20 20-Jul-20 21-Jul-20 27-Jul-20 3-Aug-20 19-Aug-20 3-Sep-20

30MAA 60MAA 1DAA 7DAA 14DAA 30DAA 45DAA 1. Formulation 5.0 16.3 71.3 90.0 91.3 98.0 98.5 1 (fresh) 2. Formulation 2.5 13.8 61.3 87.5 90.0 95.8 97.0 1 (aged) 3. REGULAR 1.3 7.5 26.3 68.8 97.5 100.0 100.0 ROUNDUPRTU 4. SLASHER RTU 3.8 11.3 47.5 57.5 52.5 26.3 25.0

5. Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

F Probability 0.050 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

LSD 5 % ns 3.4 7.3 8.4 6.7 7.9 8.7

MAA= minutes after application DAA= days after application LSD= least significant difference ns = not significant

Table 18. Percentage Control of Diamond Flower in 4 replicates

Treatment Rep 20-Jul-20 20-Jul-20 21-Jul-20 27-Jul-20 3-Aug-20 19-Aug-20 3-Sep-20 30MAA 60MAA 1 DAA 7DAA 14DAA 30DAA 45DAA 1 5.0 15.0 70.0 90.0 90.0 98.0 98.0 2 5.0 20.0 70.0 90.0 90.0 98.0 98.0 3 5.0 15.0 75.0 90.0 95.0 98.0 100.0 4 5.0 15.0 70.0 90.0 90.0 98.0 98.0 1. Formulation1(fresh) Mean 5.0 16.3 71.3 90.0 91.3 98.0 98.5

1 5.0 15.0 65.0 90.0 90.0 95.0 98.0 2 5.0 15.0 50.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 90.0 3 0.0 15.0 70.0 90.0 90.0 98.0 100.0 4 0.0 10.0 60.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 2. FormulationI(aged) Mean 2.5 13.8 61.3 87.5 90.0 95.8 97.0

1 0.0 10.0 20.0 70.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 0.0 5.0 25.0 60.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 3 5.0 10.0 35.0 85.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 4 0.0 5.0 25.0 60.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 3. REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU Mean 1.3 7.5 26.3 68.8 97.5 100.0 100.0

1 0.0 10.0 40.0 60.0 60.0 30.0 30.0 2 5.0 15.0 50.0 50.0 40.0 15.0 10.0 3 5.0 10.0 50.0 60.0 60.0 40.0 40.0 4 5.0 10.0 50.0 60.0 50.0 20.0 20.0 4. SLASHER RTU Mean 3.8 11.3 47.5 57.5 52.5 26.3 25.0

1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5. Untreated Mean 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MAA = minutes after application DAA = days after application

Control of Purple Sow Thistle

Significant control of purple sow thistle was observed within the first 30 minutes after application (30 MAA). The level of control increased significantly between 60 MAA and 1 DAA. REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU provided a slower level of control from the start of the trial to 7 DAA. However, from 14 DAA through to 45 DAA, all products provided a similar level of control when compared to untreated plots. Although maintaining a similar level of control to the Formulation 1 products, the plots treated with SLASHER RTU and REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU did display signs of recovery.

The percentage control of Purple Sow Thistle is shown in Table 19 and Table 20.

Table 19. Mean Percentage Control of Purple Sow Thistle Treatment 20-Jul-20 20-Jul-20 21-Jul-20 27-Jul-20 3-Aug-20 19-Aug-20 3-Sep-20 30MAA 60MAA 1DAA 7DAA 14DAA 30DAA 45DAA 1. Formulation 8.8 46.3 90.0 96.3 96.3 100.0 100.0 1 (fresh) 2. Formulation 6.3 41.3 86.3 93.8 93.8 99.0 100.0 1 (aged) 3. REGULAR 1.3 13.8 47.5 82.5 90.0 90.0 87.5 ROUNDUPRTU 4. SLASHER RTU 8.8 43.8 91.3 95.0 93.8 82.5 68.8

5. Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

F Probability <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

LSD 5 % 3.6 18.2 9.5 11.1 11.5 22.6 34.6

Table 20. Percentage Control of Purple Sow Thistle in 4 replicates Treatment Rep 20-Jul-20 20-Jul-20 21-Jul-20 27-Jul-20 3-Aug-20 19-Aug-20 3-Sep-20 30 MAA 60 MAA 1 DAA 7 DAA 14 DAA 30 DAA 45 DAA 1 5.0 25.0 90.0 95.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 2 10.0 60.0 90.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 10.0 60.0 90.0 95.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 4 10.0 40.0 90.0 95.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 1. Formulation 1(fresh) Mean 8.8 46.3 90.0 96.3 96.3 100.0 100.0

1 5.0 25.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 5.0 35.0 75.0 90.0 85.0 98.0 100.0 3 5.0 50.0 90.0 95.0 95.0 98.0 100.0 4 10.0 55.0 90.0 95.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 2. Formulation 1(aged) Mean 6.3 41.3 86.3 93,8 93.8 99.0 100.0

1 0.0 10.0 40.0 90.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 0.0 10.0 60.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 3 0,0 10.0 40.0 60.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 4 5.0 25.0 50.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 3. REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU Mean 1.3 13.8 47.5 82.5 90.0 90.0 87.5

1 10.0 40.0 90.0 95.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 2 10.0 60.0 90.0 100.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 3 100 50.0 95.0 95.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 4 5.0 25.0 90.0 90.0 85.0 50.0 15,0 4. SLASHER RTU Mean 8.8 43.8 91,3 95.0 93.8 82.5 68.8

MAA = minutes after application DAA = days after application

Summary of the Results at the Field Trial at South Bingera In summary, plots treated with the Formulation 1 products showed significant weed control up to 45 days after the treatments were applied.

Aged and fresh batches of Formulation 1 provided a similar level of weed control. Aged Formulation 1 displayed separation of liquid layers when the product was left undisturbed.

The Formulation 1 products provided a similar level of weed control to REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU and outperformed SLASHER RTU in the majority of weed species from 7 DAA onwards.

Example 4. A Field Trial at Moolboolaman

To evaluate experimental herbicide formulations for the control of various common annual and perennial weeds, one replicated field trial was conducted between July and September 2020. The trial was conducted near Moolboolaman, an inland locality in the Bundaberg Region of Queensland, Australia.

The treatments evaluated in the trial is shown in Table 21.

Table 21. Test herbicide formulations

Formulation Active Constituents

3. REGULAR ROUNDUP 7.2 g/L glyphosate as isopropylamine salt, READY-TO-USE WEED KILLER 21 g/L nonanoic acid 4. SLASHER 36.8 g/L nonanoic acid READY-TO-USE WEED KILLER 5.Untreated

Treatment methods The herbicide formulations were ready-to-use and applied 'neat' using commercially available 500 mL garden spray bottles. A single application was made as an even foliar application over each of the plots. Each plot received approximately 100 mL of the herbicide formulation per square metre.

The trial was established as a random design with four replicates. Plots were divided into smaller subplots (0.25 M 2 ) and spread across the trial area based on weed distribution, for a combined plot size of 1 m 2 as shown in Table 22

Table 22. Site Details and Experimental Design Location Moolboolaman, Queensland

Species Various annual and perennial weeds Trial Type Field trial Situation Domestic non-crop Soil Type Brown sandy clay loam Site History Pasture Design Randomised complete block Replicates Four Notes Plots divided into smaller subplots (0.25 m2 ) and spread across trial area due to weed distribution.

Target species The target species were various weeds that included Sir Walter Buffalo Grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum), Cobblers Pegs (Bidens pilosa), Billygoat Weed (Ageratum conyzoides), Verbena (Heliotropiumamplexicaule) and Giant Rats Tail Grass (Sporobolus pyramidalis)as

shown in Table 23

Table 23. Target species Common Name Scientific Name Infestation Level Sir Walter Buffalo Stenotaphrum An average of 95% cover per plot and a growth stage Grass secundatum range of BBCH 25-49. The predominant growth stage was between BBCH 39-47. Cobblers Pegs Bidens pilosa An average of 39.3 plants per plot, equivalent to 157 plants per m2 and a growth stage range of BBCH 11 13. The predominant growth stage was at BBCH 12. Billygoat Weed Ageratum An average of 12.7 plants per plot, equivalent to 50.8 conyzoides plants per m2 and a growth stage range of BBCH 13 60. The predominant growth stage was between BBCH 15-22. Verbena Heliotropium An average of 10.6 plants per plot, equivalent to 42.2 amplexicaule plants per m2 and a growth stage range of BBCH12-23. The predominant growth stage was between BBCH 15-21. Giant Rat's Tail Sporobolus An average of 4.5 plants per plot, equivalent to 17.8 Grass pyramidalis plants per m2 and a growth stage range of BBCH 22 26. The predominant growth stage was at BBCH 24.

Application Details • Date: 28 July 2020 • Time of Day: 1130 hours • Temperature: 23°C

* Relative Humidity: 33% • Cloud Cover: 0 • Wind (Speed & Direction): 1-5 km/h; SW • Observations: Formulation 1 (aged) displayed separation of liquid layers when left unshaken over a short time.

Evaluations Detailed assessments were conducted at 30 and 60 minutes after application (MAA), and then at 1, 7, 13, 29 and 43 days after application (DAA). These included a visual assessment to determine the percentage control of each weed species following application.

Data Handling Statistical analyses were conducted using GenStat 64-bit Release 17.1 (PC/Windows Server 2008 Copyright 2014, VSN International Ltd). The model includes all treatment effects. Analysis of variance and least significant difference (LSD) procedures were used.

Results of the Field Trial at Moolboolaman

Control of Sir Walter Buffalo Grass

Treatment differences were first observed at 1 day after application (1 DAA). Both fresh and aged batches of Formulation 1 provided the greatest level of control at 1 DAA and again at 7 DAA with a 90% average control. From 13 DAA to 43 DAA, REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU and both fresh and aged batches of Formulation 1 provided a similar level of control, whereas the SLASHER RTU treated weeds started to show signs of recovery at 13 DAA.

The percentage control of Sir Walter Buffalo Grass is shown in Table 24 and Table 25

Table 24. Mean Percentage Control of Sir Walter Buffalo Grass Treatment 28-Jul-20 28-Jul-20 29-Jul-20 04-Aug-20 10-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 09-Sep-20 30MAA 60MAA 1DAA 7DAA 13DAA 29DAA 43DAA 1. Formulation 2.5 6.3 43.8 91.3 91.3 98.0 98.0 1 (fresh) 2. Formulation 0.0 2.5 46.3 90.0 91.3 97.3 96.0 1 (aged) 3. REGULAR 0.0 1.3 11.3 60.0 90.0 98.0 98.0 ROUNDUPRTU 4. SLASHER RTU 1.3 3.8 23.8 70.0 67.5 42.5 22.5

5. Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

F Probability 0.159 0.247 0.006 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

LSD 5 % ns ns 24.8 10.2 8.5 6.6 7.0

Table 25. Percentage Control of Sir Walter Buffalo Grass in 4 replicates

Treatment Rep 28-Jul-20 28-Jul-20 29-Jul-20 04-Aug-20 10-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 09-Sep-20 30 MAA 60 MAA 1DAA 7 DAA 13 DAA 29 DAA 43 DAA 1 5 15 50 90 90 98 98 2 0 0 25 90 90 98 98 3 5 5 20 90 90 98 98 4 0 5 80 95 95 98 98 1. Formulation1(fresh) Mean 2.5 6.3 43.8 91.3 91.3 98.0 98.0

1 0 0 30 8 90 98 98 2 0 0 25 85 85 95 90 3 0 5 50 95 95 98 98 4 0 5 80 95 95 98 98 2. Formulation (aged) Mean 0.0 2.5 46.3 90.0 91.3 97.3 96.0

1 0 0 5 60 90 98 98 2 0 0 5 50 85 98 98 3 0 0 5 60 90 98 98 4 0 5 30 70 95 98 98 3. REGULARROUNDUP RTU Mean 0.0 1.3 11.3 s0.0 90.0 98.0 92.0

1 0 0 5 50 50 30 10 2 0 0 10 70 70 40 20 3 5 10 50 80 75 50 30 4 0 5 30 80 75 s0 30 4. SLASHER RTU Mean 1.3 3.8 23.8 70.0 67.5 42.5 22.5

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5. Untreated Mean 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MAA = minutes after application DAA =days after application

Control of Cobblers Pegs

Within the first 30 minutes after application (30 MAA), all products showed effects on cobblers pegs. REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU gave slower control at 60 MAA and 1 DAA than the other treatments. However, from 7 DAA through to 43 DAA, REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU and the Formulation 1 products provided the greatest level of control. New germinations were observed in plots treated with REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU, but these were not observed in plots treated with the Formulation 1 products. Plots treated with SLASHER RTU displayed some signs of recovery from 13 DAA onward.

The percentage control of Cobblers Pegs is shown in Table 26 and Table 27.

Table 26. Mean Percentage Control of Cobblers Pegs Treatment 28-Jul-20 28-Jul-20 29-Jul-20 04-Aug-20 10-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 09-Sep-20 30MAA 60MAA 1DAA 7DAA 13DAA 29DAA 43DAA 1. Formulation 6.3 40.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 (fresh) 2. Formulation 8.8 37.5 98.8 99.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 (aged) 3. REGULAR 3.8 7.5 92.5 99.5 99.8 100.0 94.5 ROUNDUPRTU 4.SLASHER RTU 8.8 38.8 97.5 97.8 96.5 90.0 81.3

5. Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

F Probability 0.013 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

LSD 5 % 5.1 14.9 3.6 1.6 3.1 5.6 11.2

Table 27. Percentage Control of Cobblers Pegs in 4 replicates

Treatment Rep 28-Jul-20 28-Jul-20 29-Jul-20 04-Aug-20 10-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 09-Sep-20 30MAA 6DMAA 1DAA 7DAA 13DAA 29DAA 43DAA 1 10 60 100 100 100 100 100 2 5 40 100 100 100 100 100 3 5 30 100 100 100 100 100 4 5 30 100 100 100 100 100 1. Formulation 1(fresh) Mean 6.3 40.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 20 70 100 98 100 100 100 2 5 30 95 98 100 100 100 3 5 25 100 100 100 100 100 4 5 25 100 100 100 100 100 2. Formulation1(aged) Mean 8.8 37.5 9818 99.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 5 10 90 98 99 100 98 2 5 10 95 100 100 100 90 3 5 10 90 100 100 100 90 4 0 0 95 100 100 100 100 3. REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU Mean 3.8 7.5 92.5 99.5 99.8 100.0 94.5

1 15 60 100 98 98 90 85 2 10 40 95 95 90 80 60 3 5 25 100 98 98 90 80 4 5 30 95 100 100 100 100 4. SLASHER RTU Mean 8.8 38.8 97.5 97.8 96.5 90.0 81.3

MAA = minutes after application DAA = days after application

Control of Billygoat Weed

All products showed signs of control within the first 30 minutes (30 MAA), with a similar level of control observed within the first hour after treatment (60 MAA). After 24 hours (1 DAA), all products provided a similar level of control, however from 7 DAA through to the end of the trial, the Formulation 1 products and REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU provided consistent control of billygoat weed. Plots treated with SLASHER RTU showed signs of recovery after 13 DAA.

The percentage control of Billygoat Weed is shown in Table 28 and Table 29.

Table 28. Mean Percentage Control of Billygoat Weed Treatment 28-Jul-20 28-Jul-20 29-Jul-20 04-Aug-20 10-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 09-Sep-20 30MAA 60MAA 1DAA 7DAA 13DAA 29DAA 43DAA 1. Formulation 8.8 17.5 85.0 95.3 95.3 99.5 100.0 1 (fresh) 2. Formulation 7.5 17.5 83.8 95.3 96.0 99.5 100.0 1 (aged) 3. REGULAR 2.5 7.5 76.3 95.8 98.5 100.0 100.0 ROUNDUPRTU 4. SLASHER RTU 7.5 15.0 72.5 87.5 80.0 32.5 22.5

5. Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

F Probability <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

LSD 5 % 2.8 4.9 19.5 6.5 6.5 6.6 6.6

Table 29. Percentage Control of Billygoat Weed in 4 replicates

Treatment Rep 28-Jul-20 28-Jul-20 29-Jul-20 04-Aug-20 10-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 09-Sep-20 30 MAA 60 MAA 1 DAA 7 DAA 13 DAA 29 DAA 43 DAA 1 5 10 75 90 90 100 100 2 5 15 85 95 95 99 100 3 10 20 90 98 98 99 100 4 15 25 90 98 98 100 100 1. Formulation 1(fresh) Mean 8.8 17.5 85.0 95.3 95.3 99.5 100.0

1 5 10 70 90 90 98 100 2 5 15 90 95 98 100 100 3 10 25 90 98 98 100 100 4 10 20 85 98 98 100 100 2. Formulation 1(aged) Mean 7.5 17.5 83.8 95.3 96.0 99.5 100.0

1 0 5 85 95 100 100 100 2 0 5 85 95 98 100 100 3 5 10 85 98 98 100 100 4 5 10 50 95 98 100 100 3. REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU Mean 2.5 7.5 76.3 95.8 98.5 100.0 100.0

1 5 10 80 90 80 30 20 2 5 10 50 75 70 20 10 3 10 20 75 90 80 40 30 4 10 20 85 95 90 40 30 4. SLASHER RTU Mean 7.5 15.0 72.5 87.5 80.0 32.5 22.5

MAA = minutes after application DAA = days after application

Control of Verbena

Significant control of Verbena was first observed 1 day after application (1 DAA). The level of control increased rapidly between 1 and 7 DAA. The Formulation 1 products and REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU provided the greatest level of control through to 43 DAA. Signs of recovery were observed in plots treated with SLASHER RTU at 13 DAA.

The percentage control of Verbena is shown in Table 30 and Table 31.

Table 30. Mean Percentage Control of Verbena Treatment 28-Jul-20 28-Jul-20 29-Jul-20 04-Aug-20 10-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 09-Sep-20 30MAA 60MAA 1DAA 7DAA 13DAA 29DAA 43DAA 1. Formulation 1.3 3.8 23.8 90.0 91.3 95.8 97.0 1 (fresh) 2. Formulation 0.0 1.3 22.5 90.0 90.8 95.0 97.8 1 (aged) 3. REGULAR 0.0 1.3 16.3 85.0 91.3 100.0 98.8 ROUNDUPRTU 4.SLASHER RTU 1.3 1.3 7.5 50.0 40.0 23.8 10.0

5. Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

F Probability 0.445 0.062 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

LSD 5 % ns ns 11.7 7.4 12.7 9.4 5.6

Table 31. Percentage Control of Verbena in 4 replicates

Treatment Rep 28-Jul-20 28-Jul-20 29-Jul-20 04-Aug-20 10-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 09-Sep-20 30MAA 60MAA 1DAA 7DAA 13DAA 29 DAA 43DAA 1 0 0 10 85 90 95 100 2 0 5 20 90 90 95 95 3 0 5 25 90 90 95 95 4 5 5 40 95 95 98 98 1. Formulation1(fresh) Mean 1.3 3.8 23.8 90.0 91.3 95.8 97.0

1 0 0 10 95 98 100 100 2 0 0 20 90 90 95 98 3 0 0 30 90 90 90 95 4 0 5 30 85 85 95 98 2. Formulation1(aged) Mean 0.0 1.3 22.5 90.0 90.8 95.0 978

1 0 0 10 85 95 100 100 2 0 0 30 90 90 100 100 3 0 0 5 80 95 100 100 4 0 5 20 85 85 100 95 3. REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU Mean 0.0 1.3 16.3 85.0 91.3 100.0 98.8

1 0 0 5 60 60 30 20 2 0 0 5 50 s0 10 10 3 0 0 5 40 30 15 10 4 5 5 15 50 20 40 0 4. SLASHER RTU Mean 1.3 1.3 7.5 50.0 40.0 23.8 10.0

MAA = minutes after application DAA = days after application

Control of Rats Tail Grass

The first signs of significant control were observed at 7 DAA, with plots treated with the fresh batch of Formulation 1 having the greatest level of control. At 13 DAA, REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU provided better control than the other treatments, however, at 29 and 43 DAA, plots treated with REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU and Formulation 1 displayed similar consistent control. Plots treated with SLASHER RTU showed signs of recovery after 13 DAA.

The percentage control of Rats Tail Grass is shown in Table 32 and Table 33.

Table 32. Mean Percentage Control of Rats Tail Grass Treatment 28-Jul-20 28-Jul-20 29-Jul-20 04-Aug-20 10-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 09-Sep-20 30MAA 60MAA 1DAA 7DAA 13DAA 29DAA 43DAA 1. Formulation 0.0 0.0 2.5 60.0 72.5 91.3 90.0 1 (fresh) 2. Formulation 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.0 47.5 63.8 66.3 1 (aged) 3. REGULAR 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.0 85.0 95.8 97.5 ROUNDUPRTU 4.SLASHER RTU 0.0 0.0 1.3 15.0 13.8 3.8 1.3

5. Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

F Probability ana ana 0.263 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

LSD 5 % ns 11.4 13.0 15.0 16.0

Table 33. Percentage Control of Rats Tail Grass in 4 replicates

Treatment Rep 28-Jul-20 28-Jul-20 29-Jul-20 04-Aug-20 10-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 09-Sep-20 30 MAA 6 MAA 1 DAA 7 DAA 13 DAA 29 DAA 43 DAA 1 0 0 5 60 75 95 90 2 0 0 0 50 75 85 85 3 0 0 0 60 70 90 90 4 0 0 5 70 70 95 95 1.Formulation1(fresh) Mean 0.0 0.0 2.5 60.0 72.5 913 90.0

1 0 0 0 40 50 75 75 2 0 0 0 30 30 60 60 3 0 0 0 60 70 80 90 4 0 0 0 50 40 40 40 2. Formulation1(aged) Mean 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.0 47.5 63.8 66.3

1 0 0 0 40 80 95 95 2 0 0 0 50 90 100 100 3 0 0 0 50 90 90 95 4 0 0 0 40 80 98 100 3. REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU Mean 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.0 85.0 95.8 97.5

1 0 0 0 10 10 0 0 2 0 0 5 20 20 15 5 3 0 0 0 15 15 0 0 4 0 0 0 15 10 0 0 4. SLASHER RTU Mean 0.0 0.0 1.3 15.0 13.8 3.8 1.3

MAA = minutes after application DAA = days after application

Summary of the results In summary, plots treated with the Formulation 1 products showed significant weed control up to 43 days after the treatments were applied.

Aged and fresh batches of Formulation 1 provided a similar level of weed control of most weeds, with exception of Rats Tail Grass, where the fresh batch performed better than the aged batch. Aged Formulation 1 displayed separation of liquid layers when the product was left undisturbed.

The Formulation 1 products provided a similar level of weed control to REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU and outperformed SLASHER RTU from 7 DAA onwards.

Example 5. A Field Trial at Lakes Creek

One replicated field trial was conducted between July and September 2020 to evaluate experimental herbicide formulations for the control of various common annual and perennial weeds. The trial was conducted near Lakes Creek in the Capricornia Region of Queensland, Australia.

The treatments evaluated are shown in Table 34.

Table 34. Test herbicide formulations

Formulation Active Constituents

3. REGULAR ROUNDUP 7.2 g/L glyphosate as isopropylamine salt, READY-TO-USE WEED KILLER 21g/L nonanoic acid 4. ROUNDUP NATURAL 18.3 g/L nonanoic acid READY-TO-USE WEED KILLER 5.Untreated

Treatment methods The herbicide formulations were ready-to-use and applied 'neat' using commercially available 500 mL garden spray bottles. A single application was made as an even foliar application over each of the plots. Each plot received approximately 100 mL of the herbicide formulation per square metre. Application rate was approximately 1000 L/Ha.

The trial was established as a random design with four replicates. Plots divided into smaller subplots (0.5 m 2 + 0.5 m 2 + 0.25 M 2 ) and spread across trial area due to weed distribution as shown in Table 35.

Table 35. Site Details and Experimental Design Location Lakes Creek, Queensland

Species Various annual and perennial weeds Trial Type Field trial Situation Domestic non-crop Soil Type Orange sandy clay Site History Garden Bed Design Randomised complete block Replicates Four Plot sizes Combined plot size of 1.25 m 2 Notes Plots divided into smaller subplots (0.5 m 2 +0.5 m 2 + 0.25 M2

) and spread across trial area due to weed distribution.

Target species The target species were various weeds that included Alligator Weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), Feathertop Rhodes Grass (Chloris virgata), Natal Red Grass (Melinis repens), Asthma Plant (Chamaesyce hirta), Creeping Oxalis (Oxalis corniculata),Flatweed

(Hypochaeris sp.) and Common Cotula (Cotula australis)as shown in Table 36.

Table 36. Target species Common Name Scientific Name Infestation Level

Alligator Weed Alternanthera An average of 62.3% cover per plot and a growth philoxeroides stage range of BBCH 60-67. The predominant growth stage was at BBCH 65. Feathertop Rhodes Chloris virgata An average of 35.5% cover per plot and a growth Grass stage range of BBCH 49-67. The predominant growth stage was BBCH 61. Natal Red Grass Melinis repens An average of 10.4% cover per plot and a growth stage range of BBCH 61-65. The predominant growth stage was BBCH 65. Asthma Plant Chamaesyce An average of 10.9 plants per m 2 and a growth stage hirta range of BBCH 33-65. The predominant growth stage was at BBCH 49. Creeping Oxalis Oxalis An average of 22.5% cover per plot and a growth corniculata stage range of BBCH 33-65. The predominant growth stage was BBCH 49. Flatweed Hypochaeris sp. An average of 15.0 plants per m 2 and a growth stage range of BBCH 13-19. The predominant growth stage was at BBCH 16. Common Cotula Cotula australis An average of 7.2 plants per m 2 and a growth stage range of BBCH 12-51. The predominant growth stage was at BBCH 22.

Application Details • Date 13 August 2020

• Time of Day 1230 hours • Temperature 26.1 °C

• Relative Humidity 65% • Cloud Cover 5 - 10% • Wind (Speed & Direction) 1-5 km/h; NE • Observations: Formulation 1 (aged) displayed separation of liquid layers when left unshaken over a short time.

Assessments Detailed assessments were conducted at 30 and 60 minutes after application, and then at 1, 7, 13, 28 and 46 days after application (DAA). These included a visual assessment to determine the percentage control of each weed species following application.

Results of the Field Trial at Lakes Creek

Control of Alligator Weed

No treatment effects were visible until 1 day after application (1 DAA). ROUNDUP NATURAL RTU provided the greatest level of control at 7 DAA, but provided a similar level of control to the other products at 13 DAA. However, at 28 DAA, REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU provided better control than the other products. After 46 days (46 DAA) the Formulation 1 products and REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU provided a similar level of control.

The percentage control of Alligator Weed is shown in Table 37 and Table 38.

Table 37. Mean Percentage Control of Alligator Weed Treatment 13-Aug-20 13-Aug-20 14-Aug-20 20-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 10-Sep-20 28-Sep-20 30MAA 60MAA 1DAA 7DAA 13DAA 28DAA 46DAA 1. Formulation 0.0 0.0 25.0 60.0 67.5 85.0 97.5 1 (fresh) 2. Formulation 0.0 0.0 23.8 60.0 66.3 82.5 97.0 1 (aged)

3. REGULAR 0.0 0.0 16.3 58.8 70.0 95.0 99.5 ROUNDUPRTU

4. ROUNDUP 0.0 0.0 30.0 68.8 72.5 70.0 77.5 NATURALRTU 5. Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

F Probability ana ana <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

LSD 5 % 9.1 8.0 11.6 9.9 2.7

Table 38. Percentage Control of Alligator Weed in 4 replicates

Treatment Rep 13-Aug-20 13-Aug-20 14-Aug-20 20-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 10-Sep-20 28-Sep-20 30MAA 60MAA 1DAA 7DAA 13DAA 28DAA 46DAA 1 0.0 0.0 30.0 65.0 85.0 95.0 100.0 2 0.0 0.0 30.0 70.0 80.0 95.0 100.0 3 0.0 0.0 15.0 50.0 50.0 75.0 95.0 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 55.0 55.0 75.0 95.0 1. Formulation 1(fresh) Mean 0.0 0.0 25.0 60.0 67.5 85.0 97.5

1 0.0 0.0 25.0 60.0 70.0 95.0 100.0 2 010 0.0 20.0 60.0 70.0 90.0 100.0 3 0.0 0.0 30.0 60.0 65.0 75.0 95.0 4 0.0 0.0 20.0 60.0 60.0 70.0 93.0 2. Formulation 1 (aged) Mean 0.0 0.0 23.8 60.0 66.3 82.5 97.0

1 0.0 0.0 15.0 65.0 75.0 95.0 100.0 2 0.0 0.0 10.0 70.0 85.0 95.0 100.0 3 0.0 0.0 20.0 50.0 60.0 95.0 98.0 3 0.0 0.0 20.0 50.0 60.0 95.0 100.0 3. REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU Mean 0.0 0.0 16.3 58.8 70.0 95.0 99.5

1 0.0 0.0 30.0 75.0 75.0 80.0 80.0 2 010 0.0 20.0 75.0 75.0 80.0 77.0 3 0.0 0.0 40.0 65.0 70.0 60.0 78.0 4 0.0 0.0 30.0 60.0 70.0 60.0 75.0 4. ROUNDUP NATURAL Mean 0.0 0.0 30.0 68.8 72.5 70.0 77.5

MAA = minutes after application DAA =days after application

Control of Feathertop Rhodes Grass

All treated plots showed good control after 1 day (1 DAA). Similar levels of control were observed up to 13 DAA. At 28 DAA, REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU provided the greatest level of control, followed by the Formulation 1 products. At 46DAA, REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU and the Formulation 1 products provided similar control. Plots treated with ROUNDUP NATURAL RTU displayed some signs of recovery from 28 DAA.

The percentage control of Feathertop Rhodes Grass is shown in Table 39 and Table 40.

Table 39. Mean Percentage Control of Feathertop Rhodes Grass Treatment 13-Aug-20 13-Aug-20 14-Aug-20 20-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 10-Sep-20 28-Sep-20 30MAA 60MAA 1DAA 7DAA 13DAA 28DAA 46DAA 1. Formulation 3.8 12.5 40.0 66.3 76.3 92.5 100.0 1 (fresh) 2. Formulation 5.0 7.5 37.5 58.8 67.5 92.5 99.8 1 (aged)

3. REGULAR 0.0 10.0 35.0 56.3 70.0 98.5 100.0 ROUNDUPRTU

4. ROUNDUP 8.8 8.8 40.0 60.0 65.0 56.3 51.3 NATURALRTU 5. Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

F Probability 0.014 0.399 0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

LSD 5 % 5.1 ns 17.3 6.9 11.0 5.0 1.7

Table 40. Percentage Control of Feathertop Rhodes Grass in 4 replicates

Treatment Rep 13-Aug-20 13-Aug-20 14-Aug-20 20-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 10-Sep-20 28-Sep-20 30 MAA 60 MAA 1 DAA 7 DAA 13 DAA 28 DAA 46 DAA 1 0.0 0.0 40.0 65.0 70.0 90.0 100.0 2 0.0 0.0 30.0 75.0 75.0 90.0 100.0 3 10.0 30.0 40.0 65.0 80.0 95.0 100.0 4 5.0 20.0 50.0 60.0 80.0 95.0 100.0 1.Formulation1(fresh) Mean 3.8 12.5 40.0 66.3 76.3 92.5 100.0

1 5.0 10.o 30.0 65.0 75.0 95.0 100.0 2 5.0 10.0 40.0 65.0 75.0 90.0 100.0 3 5.0 5.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 90.0 99.0 4 5.0 5.0 40.0 55.0 60.0 95.0 100.0 2. Formulatoin1(aged) Mean 5.0 7.5 37.5 58.8 67.5 92.5 99.8

1 0.0 20.0 50.0 65.0 80.0 100.0 100.0 2 0.0 10.0 50.0 60.0 80.0 95.0 100.0 3 0.0 0.0 10.0 50.0 60.0 99.0 100.0 4 0.0 10.0 30.0 50.0 60.0 100.0 100.0 3. REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU Mean 0.0 10.0 35.0 56.3 70.0 98.5 100.0

1 10.0 10.0 40.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 55.0 2 15.0 15.0 30.0 60.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 3 5.0 5.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 55.0 50.0 4 5.0 5.0 40.0 60.0 60.0 50.0 50.0 4. ROUNDUP NATURAL Mean 8.8 8.8 40.0 60.0 65.0 56.3 51.3

MAA = minutes after application DAA = days after application

Control of Natal Red Grass

All treated plots showed good control after 1 day (1 DAA), with all products providing a similar level of control up to 13 DAA. From 28 DAA onwards REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU and the Formulation 1 products provided the greatest level of control. Plots treated with ROUNDUP NATURAL showed signs of recovery from 28 DAA.

The percentage control of Natal Red Grass is shown in Table 41 and Table 42.

Table 41. Mean Percentage Control of Natal Red Grass Treatment 13-Aug-20 13-Aug-20 14-Aug-20 20-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 10-Sep-20 28-Sep-20 30MAA 60MAA 1DAA 7DAA 13DAA 28DAA 46DAA 1. Formulation 0.0 2.5 21.3 56.3 72.5 92.5 100.0 1 (fresh) 2. Formulation 1.3 2.5 25.0 51.3 62.5 92.5 100.0 1 (aged)

3. REGULAR 1.3 1.8 17.5 53.8 66.3 96.0 100.0 ROUNDUPRTU

4. ROUNDUP 0.0 0.5 32.5 58.8 63.8 52.5 52.5 NATURALRTU 5. Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

F Probability 0.611 0.708 0.004 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

LSD 5 % ns ns 14.2 12.9 13.7 3.7 2.0

Table 42. Percentage Control of Natal Red Grass in 4 replicates

Treatment Rep 13-AUg 20 13-Aug-20 14-Aug-20 20-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 10-Sep-20 28-Sep-20 30 MAA 60 MAA 1 DAA 7 DAA 13 DAA 28 DAA 46 DAA 1 0.0 0.0 20.0 60.0 70,0 90.0 100.0 2 0.0 0.0 10.0 60.0 70.0 90.0 100.0 3 0.0 5.0 30.0 50.0 75.0 95.0 100.0 4 0.0 5.0 25.0 55.0 75.0 95.0 100.0 1. Formulation1(fresh) Man 0.0 2.5 21.3 56.3 72.5 92.5 100.0

1 0.0 0.0 20.0 55.0 65.0 90.0 100.0 2 5.0 10.0 40.0 65.0 750 90.0 100.0 3 0.0 0.0 15.0 45.0 55.0 95.0 100.0 4 0.0 0.0 25.0 40.0 55.0 95.0 100.0 2. Formulation 1 (aged) Mean 1.3 2.5 25.0 51.3 62.5 92.5 100.0

1 5.0 5.0 30.0 65.0 80.0 100.0 100.0 2 0.0 0.0 20.0 60.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 3 0.0 0.0 10.0 50.0 55.0 95.0 100.0 4 0.0 2.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 99.0 100.0 3. REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU Moan 1.3 1.8 17.5 53.8 66.3 96.0 100.0

1 0.0 0.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 50.0 50.0 2 0.0 0.0 30.0 55.0 60.0 50.0 50.0 3 0.0 2.0 40.0 60.0 65.0 55.0 55.0 4 0.0 0.0 20.0 70.0 70.0 55.0 55.0 4. ROUNDUP NATURAL Mean 0.0 0.5 32.5 58.8 63.8 52.5 52.5

1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5. Untreated Mean 0.0 010 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MAA = minutes after application DAA =days after application

Control of Asthma Plant

All products provided good control of asthma plant from start to finish. All products provided 100% control from 30 DAA onwards. No signs of recovery observed in plots treated with ROUNDUP NATURAL RTU.

The percentage control of Asthma Plant is shown in Table 43 and Table 44.

Table 43. Mean Percentage Control of Asthma Plant Treatment 13-Aug-20 13-Aug-20 14-Aug-20 20-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 10-Sep-20 28-Sep-20 30MAA 60MAA 1DAA 7DAA 13DAA 28DAA 46DAA 1. Formulation 36.3 37.5 62.5 96.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 (fresh) 2. Formulation 32.5 33.8 48.8 86.3 98.8 100.0 100.0 1 (aged)

3. REGULAR 27.5 35.0 60.0 93.8 96.3 100.0 100.0 ROUNDUPRTU

4. ROUNDUP 30.0 36.8 80.0 96.8 95.0 100.0 100.0 NATURALRTU 5. Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

F Probability <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 ana ana

LSD 5 % 10.8 9.0 15.6 8.1 4.6

MAA= minutes after application DAA= days after application ana = analysis not applicable LSD = least significant difference

Table 44. Percentage Control of Asthma Plant in 4 replicates

Treatment Rep 13-Aug-20 13-Aug-20 14-Aug-20 20-Aug-20 28-Aug-20 10-Sep-20 28-Sep-20 30 MAA 60 MAA 1 DAA 7 DAA 13 DAA 28 DA 46 DAA 1 30.0 35.0 60.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 35.0 35.0 50.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 40.0 40.0 80.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 4 40.0 40.0 60.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 I. Formulation1(fresh) Mean 36.3 37.5 62.5 96.3 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 40.0 40.0 60.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 40.0 40.0 50.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 20.0 20.0 45.0 80.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 4 30.0 35.0 40.0 75.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2. Formulation1(aged) Mean 32.5 33.8 48.8 86.3 98.8 100.0 100.0

1 40.0 40.0 60.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 30.0 30.0 40.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 20.0 40.0 60.0 90.0 90.0 100.0 100.0 4 20.0 30.0 80.0 95.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 3. REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU Mean 27.5 35.0 60.0 93.8 96.3 100.0 100.0

1 40.0 40.0 80.0 95.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 2 30.0 40.0 80.0 95.0 90.0 100.0 100.0 3 30.0 37.0 80.0 97.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 4 20.0 30.0 80.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 4. ROUNDUP NATURAL Mean 30.0 36.8 80.0 96.8 95.0 100.0 100.0

MAA = minutes after application DAA = days after application

Control of Creeping Oxalis

All products provided good control at 30 and 60 MAA. From 13 DAA, plots treated with REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU and the Formulation 1 products displayed 100% control. Plots treated with ROUNDUP NATURAL RTU showed signs of recovery after 7 DAA.

The percentage control of Creeping Oxalis is shown in Table 45 and Table 46.

Table 45. Mean Percentage Control of Creeping Oxalis Treatment 13-Aug-20 13-Aug-20 14-Aug-20 20-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 10-Sep-20 28-Sep-20 30MAA 60MAA 1DAA 7DAA 13DAA 28DAA 46DAA 1. Formulation 55.0 65.0 91.3 98.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 (fresh) 2. Formulation 60.0 60.0 83.3 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 (aged)

3. REGULAR 55.0 56.8 73.3 91.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 ROUNDUPRTU

4. ROUNDUP 56.8 58.0 82.5 56.3 30.0 26.8 33.3 NATURALRTU 5. Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

F Probability <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

LSD 5 % 11.5 15.5 7.9 6.7 5.6 3.3 30.9

Table 46. Percentage Control of Creeping Oxalis in 4 replicates

Treatment Rep 13-Aug-20 13-Aug-20 14-Aug-20 20-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 10-Sep-20 28-Sep-20 30 MAA 60 MAA 1 DAA 7 DAA 13 DAA 28 DAA 46 DAA 60.0 60.0 90.0 100.0 1000 100.0 100.0 2 50.0 50.0 90.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 50.0 75.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 4 60.0 75.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1. Formulation1(fresh) Mean 55.0 65.0 91.3 98.8 100.0 100.0 100.0

60.0 60.0 83.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 60.0 60.0 90.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 50.0 50.0 80.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 4 70.0 70.0 80.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2. Formulation1(aged) Mean 60.0 60.0 83.3 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 55.0 57.0 73.0 92.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 60.0 65.0 65.0 85.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3 65.0 65.0 85.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 4 40.0 40.0 70.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 3. REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU Mean 55.0 56.8 73.3 91.8 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 60.0 65.0 80.0 50.0 30.0 30.0 10.0 2 57.0 52.0 80.0 65.0 30.0 27.0 100.0 3 50.0 50.0 90.0 50.0 20.0 20.0 5.0 4 60.0 65.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 30.0 18.0 4. ROUNDUP NATURAL Mean 56.8 58.0 82.5 56.3 30.0 26.8 33.3

1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 5. Untreated Mean 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MAA = minutes after application DAA= days after application

Control of Flatweed

The first treatment differences were observed at 60 MAA in plots treated with the Formulation 1 products. At 28 DAA onwards, REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU and the Formulation 1 products provided the greatest level of control. Plots treated with ROUNDUP NATURAL RTU showed signs of recovery after 13 DAA.

The percentage control of Flatweed is shown in Table 47 and Table 48.

Table 47. Mean Percentage Control of Flatweed Treatment 13-Aug-20 13-Aug-20 14-Aug-20 20-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 10-Sep-20 28-Sep-20 30MAA 60MAA 1DAA 7DAA 13DAA 28DAA 46DAA 1. Formulation 3.3 23.3 46.8 68.3 86.8 100.0 100.0 1 (fresh) 2. Formulation 2.5 20.0 45.0 55.0 75.0 90.0 100.0 1 (aged)

3. REGULAR 5.3 8.8 23.8 36.3 62.5 92.5 100.0 ROUNDUPRTU

4. ROUNDUP 3.0 5.0 50.0 55.0 45.0 42.8 30.0 NATURALRTU 5. Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

F Probability 0.356 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

LSD 5 % ns 9.8 13.9 15.9 15.7 11.9 11.3

Table 48. Percentage Control of Flatweed in 4 replicates

Treatment Rep 13-Aug-20 13-Aug-20 14-Aug-20 20-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 10-Sep-20 28-Sep-20 30 MAA 60 MAA 1DAA 7 DAA 13 DAA 28 DAA 46 DAA 1 0.0 20.0 500 80.0 950 100.0 100.0 2 3.0 23.0 47.0 68.0 87.0 100.0 100.0 3 0.0 10.0 30.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 100.0 4 10.0 40.0 60.0 75.0 90.0 100.0 100.0 1. Formulation 1 (fresh) Mean 3.3 23.3 46.8 68.3 86.8 100.0 100.0

1 2.5 20.0 45.0 55.0 7&0 90.0 100.0 2 5.0 25.0 50.0 60.0 75.0 90.0 100.0 3 0.0 15.0 40.0 50.0 75.0 90.0 100.0 4 2.5 20.0 45.0 55.0 75.0 90.0 100.0 2. Formulation 1 (aged) Mean 2.5 20.0 45.0 55.0 75.0 90.0 100.0

1 1.0 5.0 10.0 25.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 2 0.0 5.0 15.0 20.0 50.0 70.0 100.0 3 10.0 15.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 100.0 100.0 4 10.0 10.0 30.0 50.0 90.0 100.0 100.0 3. REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU Moan 5.3 8.8 23.8 36.3 62.5 92.5 100.0

1 5.0 5.0 50.0 50.0 40.0 35.0 10.0 2 1.0 5.0 50.0 60.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 3 3.0 5.0 50.0 55.0 45.0 43.0 30.0 4 3.0 5.0 50.0 55.0 45.0 43.0 30.0 4. ROUNDUP NATURAL Mean 3.0 5.0 50.0 55.0 45.0 42.8 30.0

MAA = minutes after application DAA =days after application

Control of Common Cotula

Treatment differences were observed within the first 30 minutes of the trial (30 MAA) with ROUNDUP NATURAL providing the greatest control. From 1 DAA to 13 DAA, the Formulation 1 products and ROUNDUP NATURAL provided the greatest level of control. However, at 46 DAA, plots treated with ROUNDUP NATURAL displayed signs of recovery whereas plots treated with REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU and the Formulation 1 products had 100% control.

The percentage control of Common Cotula is shown in Table 49 and Table 50.

Table 49. Mean Percentage Control of Common Cotula Treatment 13-Aug-20 13-Aug-20 14-Aug-20 20-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 10-Sep-20 28-Sep-20 30MAA 60MAA 1DAA 7DAA 13DAA 28DAA 46DAA 1. Formulation 6.8 31.8 53.3 66.8 85.0 100.0 100.0 1 (fresh) 2. Formulation 6.7 21.7 51.7 70.0 83.3 99.7 100.0 1 (aged)

3. REGULAR 1.8 12.5 25.0 50.0 66.5 83.5 100.0 ROUNDUPRTU

4.ROUNDUP 21.8 31.8 65.0 80.0 96.8 90.0 88.8 NATURALRTU 5. Untreated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

F Probability 0.011 0.004 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

LSD 5 % 11.5 15.9 15.0 14.9 16.7 13.2 5.9

Table 50. Percentage Control of Common Cotula in 4 replicates

Treatment Rep 13-Aug-20 13-Aug-20 14-Aug-20 20-Aug-20 26-Aug-20 10-Sep-20 28-Sep-20 30 MAA 60 MAA 1 DAA 7 DAA 13 DAA 28 DAA 46 DAA 1 15.0 25.0 50.0 60.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 5.0 50.0 70.0 80.0 85.0 100.0 100.0 3 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 70.0 100.0 100.0 4 7.0 32.0 53.0 67.0 85.0 100.0 100.0 1. Formulation 1(fresh) Mean 6.8 31.8 53.3 66.8 85.0 100.0 100.0

1 5.0 25.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 10.0 30.0 55.0 80.0 90.0 99.0 100.0 3 5.0 10.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 100.0 100.0 4 6.7 21.7 51.7 70.0 83.3 99.7 100.0 2. Formulation1(aged) Mean 6.7 21.7 51.7 70.0 83.3 99.7 100.0

1 0.0 15.0 20.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 100.0 2 0.0 10.0 20.0 40.0 53.0 67.0 100.0 3 5.0 15.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 100.0 4 2.0 10.0 20.0 40.0 53.0 67.0 100.0 3. REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU Mean 1.8 12.5 25.0 50.0 66.5 83.5 100.0

1 5.0 5.0 50.0 80.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 2 40.0 50.0 75.0 85.0 95.0 80.0 80.0 3 22.0 32.0 65.0 80.0 97.0 90.0 85.0 4 20.0 40.0 70.0 75.0 95.0 90.0 90.0 4. ROUNDUP NATURAL Mean 21.8 31.8 65.0 80.0 96.8 90.0 88.8

MAA = minutes after application DAA = days after application

Summary of the results

In summary, plots treated with the Formulation 1 products showed significant weed control up to 46 days after the treatments were applied.

Aged and fresh batches of Formulation 1 provided a similar level of weed control all weeds present in trial. Aged Formulation 1 displayed separation of liquid layers when the product was left undisturbed.

The Formulation 1 products provided a similar level of weed control to REGULAR ROUNDUP RTU and outperformed ROUNDUP NATURAL RTU in most plots.

Claims

1. A herbicide formulation comprising:

nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and

fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

2. The herbicide formulation of claim 1 consisting of:

nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof,

fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof,

optionally one or more liquid carriers; and

optionally one or more agriculturally acceptable excipients.

3. The herbicide formulation of claim 1 or claim 2, wherein the formulation comprises a liquid carrier selected from an aqueous liquid carrier.

4. The herbicide formulation of claim 3, wherein the aqueous liquid carrier comprises or consists of water.

5. The herbicide formulation of any one of claims 1 to 4, comprising an ester of fluroxypyr.

6. The herbicide formulation of claim 5, wherein the ester of fluroxypyr is fluroxypyr meptyl.

7. The herbicide formulation of any one of claims 1 to 6, comprising an ester of fluazifop.

8. The herbicide formulation of claim 7, wherein the ester of fluazifop is fluazifop-p-butyl.

9. The herbicide formulation according to any one of claims 1 to 8, comprising nonanoic acid or a salt thereof, and fluroxypyr-meptyl and fluazifop-p-butyl.

10. The herbicide formulation of any one of claims 1 to 9, wherein the formulation is a concentrate formulation, a ready to use microemulsion type formulation or a ready to use aqueous formulation.

11. The herbicide formulation according to any one of claims 1 to 10, wherein the formulation is a ready to use aqueous formulation comprising:

12. The herbicide formulation according to any one of claims I to 11, wherein the formulation is a ready to use aqueous formulation comprising:

13. The herbicide formulation according to any one of claims 1 to 12, wherein the formulation is a ready to use aqueous formulation comprising:

between about 20 g/L and about 40 g/L of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof, between about 3 g/L and about 5 g/L of fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and between about 0.7 g/L and about 1.5 g/L of fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

14. The herbicide formulation according to any one of claims I to 12, wherein the formulation is a ready to use aqueous formulation comprising:

15. The herbicide formulation according to any one of claims 1 to 12, wherein the formulation is a ready to use aqueous formulation comprising:

about 20 g/L of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

16. The herbicide formulation according to any one of claims I to 10, wherein the formulation is a ready to use microemulsion type formulation comprising:

about 20 g/L of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

17. The herbicide formulation according to any one of claims 1 to 10, wherein the formulation is a concentrate formulation comprising:

between about 200 g/L and about 600 giL of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof, between about 40 g/L and about 120 g/L of fluroxypyr any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof, and between about 10 g/L and about 40 g/L of fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

18. The herbicide formulation according to claim 17, wherein the formulation is a concentrate formulation comprising:

19. The herbicide formulation according to claim 18, wherein the formulation is a concentrate formulation comprising:

about 500 g/L of nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt thereof,

about 25 g/L of fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof.

20. The herbicide formulation of any one of claims 1 to 19, further comprising one or more agriculturally acceptable excipients selected from a carrier, a binder, a wetting agent, a dispersing agent, an emulsifier, a binding agent, sticking agent, a filler, a solvent, a stabilizer, an adjuvant, a humectant, an antifreeze, a preservative, an antifoam and a diluent.

21. The herbicide formulation of any one of claims 1 to 20, wherein the formulation is a non glyphosate formulation that is free of glyphosate.

22. The herbicide formulation of any one of claims 1 to 21, wherein the formulation is a shelf stable solution effective for shelf storage for at least 6 months when stored in a UV protective container at room temperature.

23. A process for preparing a herbicide formulation comprising mixing, in any order:

nonanoic acid or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof,

fluroxypyr or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof,

fluazifop or any herbicidally effective salt or ester thereof,

optionally one or more liquid carriers; and

optionally one or more agriculturally acceptable excipients.

24. A method of controlling unwanted vegetation comprising applying an effective amount of the herbicide formulation according to any one of claims 1 to 22 to the unwanted vegetation.

25. Use of the herbicide formulation according to any one of claims I to 22 for controlling unwanted vegetation.

26. The method of claim 24 or use of claim 25, wherein the unwanted vegetation is selected from broadleaf weeds or grasses.

27. The method of claim 24 or use of claim 25, wherein the unwanted vegetation is one or more selected from Stenotaphrum secundatum, Bidens pilosa, Ageratum conyzoides, Heliotropium amplexicaule, Sporoboluspyramidalis,Digitariadidactyla, Kummerowia striata, Oldenlandia corymbosa, Emilia sonchifolia, Alternantheraphiloxeroides,Chloris virgate, Melinis repens, Chamaesyce hirta, Oxalis corniculata,Hypochaeris sp., Cotula australis, Poa annua, Conium maculatum, Trifolium spp, Cerastiumglomeratum, brassica xjuncea, Oxalis pes-caprae, and Starchytarphetaaustralis.

28. A method of applying a herbicide comprising spraying an effective amount of the herbicide formulation of any one of claims 1 to 22 to unwanted vegetation and optionally spraying subsequently an effective amount of the herbicide formulation of any one of claims 1 to 22 to the unwanted vegetation in 60 to 180 days from the first spraying.