DD207848A1 - SELECTIVE HERBICIDE COMBINATIONS - Google Patents

Abstract

THE INVENTION RELATED TO SELECTIVE HERBICID COMBINATIONS FOR OROKABILITY IN CULTURAL PLANT TREATMENTS, ESPECIALLY BETWEEN. AS ACTIVE SUBSTANCES, N-CYCLOHEXYL-N-ETHYL-S-ETHYLTHIOCARBAMATE AND DICHLORAL HARVESIDE AND, IF NECESSARY, N- (4-BROMPHENYL) -N ', N'-DIMETHYLTHIOROUS SUBSTANCE OR 3-CYCLOHEXYL-5,6-TRIMETHYLENURACIL OR N-CYCLOHEXYL-N 'N'-DIMETHYL UREA.

Description

The invention relates to novel herbicide combinations for the selective weed control of monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous weeds in cultivated plant stands, in particular beetroots.

Characteristic of the known technical solutions:

The long-term use of herbicides predominantly acting against dicotyledonous weeds led to a shift in the weed flora in favor of grass weeds such as Echinochloa crus-galli and Älopecurus myosuroides as well as difficult-to-control weeds such as Galium aparine u «a. This fact requires a constant adaptation of the utility value properties of herbicidal agents to the conditions of practice.

The combined use of known herbicides is a practicable solution, especially in the destruction of hard-to-control weed species ·

It is known that substituted thiocarbamates readily control grass weeds in turnip stands, while the spectrum of activity against dicotyledonous species is inadequate (US 3,175,897, DOS 2738628). Likewise, the use of derivatives of chloral is known as a predominantly graminicidal compound (DD-PS 168548;, DD-PS 101276), but has so far received no great commercial interest

ίι4ί ü

24 47 Q. 2 2

Furthermore, the use of phenylthiourea derivatives is known, which are used on the one hand as unsubstltuierte thioureas and on the other hand on the phenyl ring substituents, such as N- (4-bromophenyl-N ¹ N'-dimethylthiourea), which also has some activity against couch grass and Johnson grass (US Pat. No. 2,655,447) Lenacil is well suited for controlling broadleaf weeds in grayling stocks, but GaIium aparine is not sufficiently damaged (US Pat. No. 3,235,360). Likewise, alkylaryl ureas are predominantly suitable for controlling dicotyledonous weed species (US Pat. No. 2,661,272), i

Also known are numerous combinations that close the gaps of the respective individual active substance in the spectrum of action and increase the effect (DD-PS 101276) ·

Object of the invention}

The aim of the invention is to develop new selective herbicide combinations which simultaneously kill annual monocots and dicotyledonous weeds.

Explanation of the essence of the invention:

This object is achieved according to the invention in that the selective herbicide combinations in addition to customary auxiliaries and excipients as active compounds N-cyclohexyl-N-ethyl-S-ethylthiocarbamate of the formula I,

CpH. 0

I ²⁵ Il

H) - Nm-C-CJRr. I

and dichlorourea of the formula II

OH H p H OH

ι ι; 11 ί ι

CCl ₃ - C - NCNC - CCl ₃ II

24 A 7 O 2 2

and optionally N- (4-bromophenyl) -N ⁱ _t N ^t -dimethylthiourea of Forfflel III

Br H O> r NH - C - IK ^ III

odar 3 ™ cyclohexyl-5 "6 °" trimethylenuracil of Fora © l 'IV

or N-cyclohexyl-N ', N * -dimethylurea of the formula V

<>

H 0 ^CH 3

contains ₃

These combinations not only result in the addition of different effects, but also have real synergistic effects, both in terms of their action against monocots and against dicotyledonous harmful plants. "

The active compound combinations according to the invention have been supplemented with the known good herbicidal action of N-cyclohezyl-N-ethyl-S-ethylthiocarbaraat which, when used alone, has a limited spectrum of activity and insufficient selectivities towards beta-turnoils, with the predominantly graminicidally active dichloroalurea Substantial reduction in the application rate per hectare with an equilateral effect improvement, surprisingly both against monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous weeds, was determined.

24 4702 2

Moreover, these were still predominantly monocotylated "herbicides (K-cyclohexyHN ¹ , N-dimethylurea, NC 1 -Bromphe.nyl) which inhibit the mixture of other essentially dicotyledonous weeds -! ¹ , N'-dimethylthiourea; 3-cyclohexyl-5 , 6-trimethylenuracil) added as third combination partner in order to extend the spectrum of action on all weed species occurring in beet stands,

The application of the herbicide combinations is conveniently carried out in the customary for herbicides Präparungsbzw «application forms such. B »Solutions, emulsions, suspensions or spray concentrates which, with the addition of liquid and / or solid carriers or diluents, are usually prepared under, addition of surface-active substances or other formulation auxiliaries and diluted with water for use

The application forms vary with the intended use. It is essential to ensure a fine distribution of the active substances in each case. The preparation of the various preparations is carried out in the known manner by means of Mischuad grinding processes or also by dissolving processes. In addition, it is possible to apply the combinations according to the invention with other agrochemicals in a common manner.

The following examples are intended to illustrate the invention without limiting it:

Example 1: .

In greenhouse experiments, using a soil of medium sorption capacity (sandy loam) at a water capacity of SO%, the herbicidal activity of mixtures was tested in comparison to the one-component components *

24 47 02

- 5 The following active substances were considered:

N-cyclohexyl-N-ethyl-S-ethylthiocarbamate (A)

Dichloroalurea (B)

N- (4-bromophenyI) -M ¹ , N'-dimethylthiourea (C)

3-cyclohexyl-5,6-trirazeneethylenuracil (D)

M-cyclohexyl-N'.N'-dimethylurea (E)

The active substances or mixtures of active substances were applied in the form of spray powders or emulsion concentrates in 1000 water per hectare in the spray booth after sowing the test plants.

The following key was used to assess the herbicidal activity:

Table 1: Bonitur key Boniturnote

2 3 4 .5. 6

The keying was done on the weed species

Stellaria media (L.) Senecio vulgaris L. Anthemis arvensis L. Thlaspi arvense L. Agrostemma githago L.

Schad strength Weed stocking % destroyed 0 I 5 15 30 50 70 85 95 100 unharmed

24 47.0 2 2

, '> 6- '

Lamium purpureum L "Chenopodium album L" Polygonum lapathifolium L.

Spergula arvensis L. _e galium aparine L.

Apera spica-venti (L.) P.B, Poa annua L. »Setaria glauca (L.) P.B.

Bromus secalinus L, Echiaochloa crus-galli (L.) P.B «

With the drug combinations occurred in comparison to the individual active ingredients an improvement in the effect, which is based on synergistic effects. The combination effect is considered to be synergistic if it is better than the independent relative effect calculated from the two individual effects of the mixing partners (COLBY, Weeds (196) 1, 20-22),

The calculation was carried out according to LANG et al. (Conference Report "Weed Control in Industrial Plant Production ¹¹ , Halle (1979)).

The comparison of the expected with the actually required by the combinations application rates refers to a Restverunkrautüng of 10% (ED ^ value). In this comparison, therefore, not the strongest synergism, but a practice-relevant effect of 90 ... 100 % control success prevail, whereby the respective average values of the test plants are indicated. For the calculation, the rating values from 30, day after the application were used »

Table 2 shows the substance * savings achieved with the herbicide mixtures «

Table 3 shows the effect improvement a achieved with the combinations.

Table 2: 1, Substanzeninsparuns in the range ED ₀ ^ experiment determined dose A B A + B (kg AS / ha) 0.5 1.02 through the combination A + B 1.69 saved dose urabhg. its equivalent " - 40 I Mixing ratio A: B Test plants 0.52 2.6 5.4 according to models calculated dose independently equivalent (kg AS / ha) 27.58 53 80 -α 51 * 49 monocotyle 2.8 1.9 3.8 2.16 7.8 61 51 I dicotyle 1.9 0.8 1.2 13.7 2.05 33 41 total 0.4 4.4 6.4 5.7 50.4 54 87 IS. ff. 31 * 69 monocotyle 2.0 2.6 3.7 2.61 8.6 63 57 4> dicotyle 1.1 1.16 1.38 23.8 2.33 40 41 C total 0.22 6.2 7.4 6.2 9.6 54 23  κ 16:84 monocotyle 1.2 11.5 13.7 3.0 9.3 1 -47 dicotyle 2i2 7.5 -90 total 7.2

Table ^ 2ί 2 «Substance reduction in the area of effect Ea _n dose determined in the experiment (kg ·. ^c A + B + C mixtures Testpfian- A 0.07 AS / ha) relationship zea 0 _e 25 0.05 , 0.64 Α: Βϊ © 0.52 0.25 0 * 16 2 j 30 82:11: 7 monocotyle 1.89 0.25 0.16 2.30 dicotyle 1.89 0.76 0.68 1.39 total ·, 0 * 46 0.53 2.05 4.19 33:18:49 monocotyle 1.38 0.56 1.44 2.94 dicotyle 0.97 2.56 0.08 0.86 total 0,22 ^v 2.73 0.35 3.94 26:65: 9 monocotyle 1.03 0.52 0.38 4.20 , . dicotyle 1.09 1.63 0.31 1.04 total 0.21 1.70 0.98 3.26 20:50:30 monocotyle 0.65 1.02 3.40 dicotyle 0.68 total

by the combination A + B- * C

calculated dose according to models

independent equivalent (kg AS / ha)

saved dose

unabhg. its equivalent,

0.97 2.9 4.1

2.15 4.1 4.0

1.9 6.2 5.6

2.47 6.0 5.3.

34 21 44

35 -2 26

55 36 25

58 46 36

Table 2: 3 »Sappeal saving in the area of effect

by the combination A + B + D

mixing ratio

Test plants

dose determined in experiment A B D A + B + D (kg AS / ha) calculated by model

independently

(kg AS / ha)

saved dose

independent (50

3:80:17 monocot 0,04 1,15 0,24 1,43

dicots 0.06 1.64 0.35 2.05

total 0.06 1.52 0.32 1.90

4: 8 ?: 9 monocots 0.06 1.38 0.14 1.58

dicots 0.13 2.82 0.29 3.24

total 0.12 2.49 0.26 2.87

34:29:37 monocot 0,28 0,24 0,30 0,82

dikotyle 0.30 0.26 0.32 0.88

total 0.29 0.25 0.32 0.86

38:43:19 monocot 0,37 0,42 .0,18 0,97

dikotyle 0.60 0.69 0.30 1.59

total 0.55 0.62 0.28 1.45

62:24:14 monocot 0.63 0.24 0.15 1.02

dicots 0.84 0.33 0.19 1.36

total 0.78 0.30 0.18 1.26

1.83 2.76 2.74

2.01 4.90 4.45

1.27 1.27 1.36

2.47 2.33

1.07 3.19 2.65

22 26 31

21 34 36

35 31 37

34 36 38

5? 52

Table 2: 4 «Substance reduction in the range of action ED ^ by the combination A + B + l

Mixing ratio A: 3: l ν Test plants in experiment A B (kg 0.13 * "- determined dose S A + B + E AS / ha) 0.65 according to models calculated dose independently equivalent (kg AS / ha) 0.61 saved independent. Dose equiyal • I .A ' 54j21i25 16:80: 4 monocot, 0.36 0.31 0.16 1.48 0.82 1.8? 21 -? δ t dicotyle 0.80 0.2? 0.3? 1.2? 1.95 1.80 24 21 1 total 0.69 0.69 0.31 0.86 1.60 1.34 21 29 KJ 14: 2: 14 monocotyle 0.14 4.08 0.03 5.09 1.87 5.75 54 36 dicotyle 0.81 3 * 27 0.20 4.08 7.29 6.20 30 11 total 0.65 0.62 0.16 0.86 5.35 1.15 24 34 8:90: 2 monocotyle 0.12 2.17 0.12 3.01 1.80 2,? 1 52 25 O dicotyle 0.42 1.75 0.42 -2.43, 3.51 2.85 14 -11 ro total 0.34 1.50 0.34 1.6? 2.68 1.68 9 15 4:80:16 monocotyle 0, ^ 13 4.30 0.04 4.78 2.21 6.92 24 1 dicotyle 0.38 3.45 0.10 3.83 8.01 8.05 40 total 0.31 0.86 O ₉ O7 1.0? 7.29 1.35 4? 52 monocotyle 0.04 1.97 0.17 2.46 1.94 2.39 45 21 dicotyle 0.1 1.70 0.39 2.12 3.0? 2.56 20 -3 total 0.08 O; ₃ 4 2.51 16 1?

Table 3: 1. improvement the herbicidal action 0.5 A + B the combination A + B 45 20 Impact improvement independent of. 17 1 Mixing ratio A: B Plant test Application rate A ^ B (kg AS / ha) 2.6 1.02 24 30 42 24 • a si. ". - monocotyle 0.52 2.6 5.4 Weeding in the experiment is calculated independently · · C *.) 11 15 18 10 1 dicotyle 2.8 0.8 5.4 3 62 22 6 19 total 2.8 4.4 1.2 6 21 28 59 25 31:69 monocotyle 0.4 4.4 6.4 5 9 14 18 11 dicotyle 2.0 1.16 6.4 3 54 23 6 19 O total 2.0 6.2 1.38 3 21 26 50 6 16:84 monocotyle 0.22 6.2 '7.4 3 10 13 1 -1 dicotyle 1.2 7.4 4 -4 total 1.2 20 14

Table 3 * 2. Improvements in herbicidal activity by combination A + B * frC

Mixing ratio A: BiC Plant test. - » Application rate A B. C "(kg AS / ha) 0.06 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.12 0.12 A + B + 82i11s 7 monocot ι dicot complete 0 _t 45 1.45 1.45 0.40 0.40 0.40 1.07 1.07 1.0? 0.55 1.76 ".18.49 monocot dikotyle total 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.56 1.79 1.79 0.08 0.25 0.25 2,20 2,20 2,20 26s65: 9 monocot dikotyle total 0.22-0.72-0.72 0.74 1.32 1.32 0.45 0.79 0.79 0.86 2.76 2.76 20:50:30 monocot dikotyle total 0.30 0.53 0.53 1.49 2.64 2.64

Weed trimming effect improvement

calculated in the experiment ν

unabhg

independently ( )

19 13

43 28

4 28 18

26 17

30 42 31

9 71 44

53 82 34

35 89 45

24

23 18

28 16

49 54 16

34

63 28

Table 3 * 3 »Improvement of the herbicidal action by the combination A + B + D

Mixing ratio A: B: D Plant test Application rate A BD (kg AS / ha) 1.57 0.33 A + B + D Weed seed in the experiment calculates independently Impact improvement independent g. (·%). I 3: 80117 monocotyle 0.06 2.79 0.59 1.96 3 7 4 Va) dicotyle 0.10 1.57 0.33 3.48 1 4 3 I total 0.06 1.12 0.12 1.96 9 26 17 4: 8 ?: 9 monocotyle 0.05 3.58 0.37 1.29 6 43 37 dicotyle 0.17 3.58 0.37 4.12 3 19 16 total 0.16 0.23 0.29 4.11 3 13 10 .0 · 34: 29/37 monocotyle 0.27 0.23 0.29 0.79 9 42 33 dicotyle 0.27 0.23 0.29 0.79 9 38 29 O total 0.27 0.46 0.20 0.79 9 40 31 38:43:19 monocotyle 0.40 0.81 0.36 1.06 4 39 35 dicotyle 0.71 0.81 0.36 1.88 2 23 21 - total 0.71 0.23 0.13 1.88 2 19 17 62:24:14 monocotyle 0.59 0.40 0.24 0.95 7 17 10 dicotyle 1.04 0.40 0.24 1.68 1 56 55 total 1.04 1.68 1 36 35

Table 3 * 4 _e improvement in herbicidal composition by combination A + B + E

Mixture ratio

ÄsBsl

test plants

lufwandmenge

A B

(kg AS / ha)

A + B * E

Weed trimming effect improvement

calculated in the experiment

unabhg. its equivalent. unabhg. aauivai '' .. '( %) . ( %) '

54s21s25

16 % 80: 4

14:72:14

8 * 90: 2

4: 8Oi16

monocotyle

dicotyle

total

monocotyle

dicotyle

total

monocotyle

dicotyle

total

monocotyle

dicotyle

gesarat

monocotyle

dicotyle

total

0.32

1.04 1.04

0.22

0.72

0.72

0.16 0.52 0.52

0.14 0.46

 0.26

0.06 0.18 0.10

0.13 0.40 0.40

1.12 3.58 3.58

0.84 2.66 2.66

1.62 5.18 2.92

1.12 3.58 2, Q2

0.60 1.92 1.92

1.40 4.48 4.48

1.16 3.70 3.70

1.80 5.76 3.24

1.40 4.48 2.52

9th 25 10 16 1 4 10 10 6 6 3 \ 7 9 4 6 2 28 9 26 7 12 - 36  18 24 6 7 16 1? 9 10 2 47 10 45 8th 6 9 5 3 -1 4 4 6 0 2 5 20 8th 15 3 11 36 1? 25 6 10 42 35 32 25 B CVI 33 \ 9 31. 7 1 5 2 4 1 7 10 10 3 3

244,702th

Example Zi

In field trials, the drug combinations were

A + B '(mixing ratio 1: 1)

A + B + C (mixing ratio 1: 3: 1)

A + B + D (mixing ratio 2s6s1)

A + B + E (mixing ratio 2s6j1)

on an assortment of agricultural and horticultural crops with excessive dose (5 »O kg AS / ha) to characterize pre-emergence selectivity» Visual assessment of crop tolerance was carried out 20 days (date I) and 40 days (date II) after administration according to Boniturschlüssei shown in Table 1. The results are shown in Table 4- »

Table 4; Crop compatibility of the herbicide ? A + B, A + B + C, 8th A + B + D " A + B + E 9 " at 8th • combinations 8th 8th 9 8th 5., 0 kg AS / ha 9 8th 9 8th Cultivated 9 Boniturnoten 9 A + B + D Appointment I II 9 9 8th A + B + C Appointment I II .9 9 CO. 9 sugar beet A + B Appointment I II 9 8th 9 8th 9 9 mangel 8th 9 8th 8th 8th spinach 8th 7 8th A + B + E Appointment I II potatoes 8th 9 7 8th Corn 9 8th 8th 7 sunflowers 8th 8th V, 8th carrots 9 7 9 8th 9 9

Claims (1)

2U7 02 2 Srfindungsanspruch Selective herbicide combinations for combatting monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous weeds in cultivated plant stands, characterized in that they are used in addition to customary excipients and carriers as active ingredients, IC ^ clohexyl-1-ethyl-S-ethylthiocarbamate of the formula I ₉₁ 0 I ²⁵ OH - C - CCl- and, if appropriate, N »(4« BroHphenyl) ~H ' ₉ N'-dimethylthiourea of the formula III br -0- IH-C-N> CH. CH. III 3 ™ cyclohexyl-5i6 '= "trimethylenuracil of the formula IV . © / ¹ N IV 2Λ47.02 .2 N-cyclohexyl-K'jN ^ -dimethylurea of the formula V H 0 CH. C-N CH, contain"