DD212412A1 - SELECTIVE HERBICIDE COMBINATIONS - Google Patents

Abstract

The invention relates to selective herbicide combinations, in particular to annealing weed. As active ingredients, they contain mixtures of Aminobiuretderivaten, substituted aryl ureas and optionally triazines.

Description

The combined use of per se known herbicidal active substances in selective herbicidal compositions for controlling undesired plant growth in cultivated plant stands is practiced worldwide. The aim in any case is to detect a broad herbicidal spectrum of activity by low application rates and to achieve improved crop plant compatibility.

It is known that alkylaryl ureas are used for selective weed control in both monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous crop plants (DD-FS 101531 »DD-PS 102275) © In general, however, phenolic urea derivatives are more effective against dicotyledons than monocotyledonous weeds (DBP 935165 DD-PS 111542J DD-PS 110156? DD-PS 110159) It is further known that triazines are used in a large number of cultivated crop stands for controlling predominantly dicotyledonous weeds (CH-PS 329277, CH-PS 342784, CH-PS 337019 o & ^

243289 3

Object of the invention:

The aim of the invention is to "develop new selective herbicide combinations, which simultaneously destroy annoying mono- and dicotyledonous weeds"!

Explanation of the essence of the invention!

This object is achieved in accordance with the invention by the selective herbicide combinations in addition to customary excipients and carriers as the active ingredient 1-phenylamino-3'-ethyl-5- (3-tolyl) -biuret of the formula I.

₃ ) -CO-3SH

and substituted aryl ureas of the general formula II

NH-CO-N (CHJ-R ¹ II

in the R "is hydrogen or methyl and R , Sr independently of one another = hydrogen or halogen, and optionally 1,3,5- riazines of the general formula III

R ¹

? in

in which R = Cl or methylthio, R = ethyl or isopropyl and methyl, ethyl or isopropyl mean ^

243 289 3

For these combinations, not only does an addition of the different effects result, but there are real synergistic effects, both in terms of the action against monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous harmful plants

The application of the herbicide combinations is expediently carried out in the preparation or application forms customary for herbicides, such as solutions, emulsions, suspensions or spirit concentrates which, with the addition of liquid and / or solid carriers, prepare diluents usually with the addition of surface-active substances and other formulation auxiliaries and can be diluted with water for use. The application forms vary with the purpose of use. It is essential to ensure a fine distribution of the active substances in feathers. The preparation of the various preparations is carried out in the known manner by mixing and milling or by Dissolution process In addition, it is possible to apply the combinations according to the invention together with other agrochemicals

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

3eispiel

In greenhouse experiments, using a soil of medium sorption capacity (sandy loam) at a water capacity of 60 % dia, herbicidal action of combinations of 1-phenylamino-3-methyl-5-C3-tolyl-biuret (A) , I- (4-) Bromophenyl) -ii ', ^ ^f -dihydroxy (B) and Z-methylthio-1-bis-isopropylamino-1,3,5-triazine (C) were tested in the pre-emergence procedure in comparison with the Sinz el components Formulated active ingredients were in 1000 1 of water per hectare in the spray booth immediately after sowing the test plants ^ '

243 289 .3

To assess the herbicidal activity, the following key was used:

Table 1: Rating key

Boniturnote Schad strength S weed growth K 1 destroyed 0 2 J 5 3 15 4 · 30 5 50 6 70 7 unharmed 85 8th takes place on the weed species 95 9 Stellaria media (ITi ") 100 The testing Senecio vulgaris egg Anthemis arvensis W Thlaspi arvense. Ιίν Agrostemma githago L * i Lamium purpureum L · « Chenopodium album L, Polygonum lapathifolium L «. Spergula arvensis L ^ Bromus secalinus L, GaIium aparine LV Apera spica-venti (L ·) PiBV Poa annual « Setaria glauca (L ·) P · B Schinochloa crus-galli (L ") P.I

With the drug combinations occurred in comparison to the Sinzelwirkstoffen a significant improvement in activity, which calm on synergistic effects

243 239 3

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 partners (COLBr, Weeds 15 (1967) 1., 20-22) or equivalent effect (TAMMES, ffethV j £ Plante Pathf 70 (I96W 78-80) is #

The calculation was carried out according to LANG et al. ⁵ (conference report "Weed Control in Industrial Plant Production" Halle (1979)). The comparison of the expected application rate with the combination actually required relates to a residual weed transmission of 10 % (ED). Value) * »This comparison therefore does not determine the strongest synergism, but a practice-relevant effect of 90 vv · 100 % control yield, whereby the respective average values of the test plants are given. For the calculation, the rating values of 30 days after application were used. *

Table 2 shows the substance savings achieved with the herbicide combinations ^

Table 3 shows the efficacy improvements achieved with the combinations

Table 2 Substance reduction in the range of effectiveness of ED _Qf , by which

combination A + B + C 0.010 0.010 0.010 A + B + C Dose calculated independently of A + B + C A + B + C (kg AS / ha) 1,330 1,450 1,190 saved dose independent, equivalent to ¹ x A + B + C A + B + C 26 32 18 Mixing ratio AiBiC Plant test Dose A 0.022 0.014 0.025 0.990 0.990 0.980 1,450 1,700 1,280 0.450 O, 28o 0.530 32 42 24 22 29 17 97; 2; 1 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.960 0.960 0.950 (in trial) B 0 (kg AS / ha) 0.382 0.343 0.335 0.550 0.360 0.620 0.490 0.290 0.590 0.570 0.570 0.560 12 24 5 14 2 23 I5i8ii 4 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.082 0.054 0.093 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.098 0.093 0.100 0.490 0.560 0.430 0.660 O _f 69O 0.640 0.810 0.680 0.810 26 19 33 , 25 15 22 17 »5« 78 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.083 0.095 0.073 0.446 0.292 0.502 0.122 0.102 0.131 0.610 0.580 0.630 1,150 1.010 1,140 0.560 0.420 0.600 47 43 45 32 24 32 65i19ii6 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.396 0.377 0.410 0.025 0.028 0.022 0.163 0.1? 5 0.156 0.380 0.320 0.410 0.720 0.550 0.770 0,970 0,980 0,920 47 42 47 11 6 11 29J39 »32 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.110 0.093 0.119 0.116 0.110 0.120 0.023 0.019 0.013 0.860 0.920 0.820 1,300 1,460 1,200 0.870 0.690 0.890 33 37 32 33 29 65 76: 5 "19 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.654 0.699 0.623 0.148 0.125 0.160 0.580 0.490 0.310 1,150 0.940 1,114 50 48 72 74 * 22; 4 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.429 0.363 0.229 0.043 0.046 0.041 0.128 0.108 0.068

Table 2 continued

Plant test Dose A (in trial) B C (kg AS / ha) 0.014 0.012 0.014 A + B + C Dose calculated independently; äquiva. A + B + G A + B + C (kg AS / ha) 1.060 0.940 1.020 saved independent · A + B + C % Dose equivalent, A + B + C I -0 Mixing ratio AiBtG total monocotyl dicotyl 0.593 0.542 0.602 0.083 0.076 0.084 0.178 0.189 0.167 0.690 0.630 0.700 1,340 1,300 1,260 0.530 0.430 0.550 49 52 44 35 "33 31 f 86:12: 2 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.053 0.056 0.050 0.099 0.105 0.093 0.018 0.012 0.021 0.330 0.350 0.310 0.650 0.570 0.670 0.700 0.500 0.760 49 39 54 38 19 44 hO 16: 30.54 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.354 0.242 0.401 0.228 0.156 0.258 0.989 0.057 0.113 0.600 0.410 0.680 0.910 0.620 0.990 O ₁ 480 0.330 0.540 45 34 31 14 18 11 LaJ 59:38. 3 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.069 0.040 0.078 0.262 0.153 0.299 0.085 0.088 0.082 0.430 0.250 0.490 0.590 0.390 0.660 1,160 1,250 1.060 2? 36 '26 10 24 9 ro> OO 16:61:23 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.748 0.774 0.722 0.01? 0.018 0.016 0.258 0.300 0.224 0.850 0.880 0.820 1,400 1,660 1,280 0.850 0.880 0.800 39 4? 36 27 30 23 CD 88i 2:10 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.479 0.554 0.416 0.023 0.026 0.198 0.760 0.880 0.660 1,110 1.210 1.030 32 27 44 11 0 17 63: 3:34

Table 3 Effect improvement by the herbicide combination A + B + C

Test plants Dose A in experiment B C (kg AS / ha) A + B + C Weed stock in the experiment is calculated in an inequitable way. hang. 10 14 6 7 9 5 Improvement in the efficacy of the method ^1. Valv I 3 4 2 I CO 4 ' Mixing ratio: ratio A; B; C total monocotyl dicotyl 1,455 1,455 1,455 0.030 0.015 0.030 0.015 0.030 0.015 1,500 1,500 1,500 4 5 3 8 7 1 7 6 1 6 9 3 2 3 1 I 97i 2? 1 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.080 0.045 0.255 0.429 0.021 0.233 0.012 1.377 0.068 0.530 0.300 1.700 9 3 2 5 5 4 3 3 3 1 4 1 1 1 1 ro 15 "81J 4 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.158 0.158 0.158 0.047 Oj725 0.047 0.725 0.04? 0.725 0.930 0.930 0.930 2 2 2 33 24 32 10 6 10 3 3 2 7 4 7 CaJ 17i 5i78 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.533 0.533 0.533 0.156 0.131 0.156 0.131 0.156 0.131 0.820 0.820 0.820 3 2 3 23 44 26 10 17 12 30 22 29 7 13 9 .ro OO 65: 19116 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.162 0.099 0.174 0.219 0.179 0.133 0.108 0.234 0.192 0.560 0.340 0.600 3 4 3 29 39 23 11 11 9 20 40 13 4 4 3 CO total monocotyl dicotyl 0.684. 0.684 0.684 0.045 0.171 0.045 0.171 0.045 0.171 0,900 0 "900 0,900 7 7 6 56 44 18 24 15 8 22 32 17 13 13 5 76? 5i19 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.444 0.444 0.740 0.132 0.024 0.132 0.024 0.220 0.040 0,600 0,600 1,000 11 2 3 45 42 15 74; 22: 4

Table 3 continued

Plant test Dose A in experiment B G (kg AS / ha) 0.015 0.015 0.024 A + B + C Weed stocking in trial bills hängi; ' 49 55 12 äqut- Improvement in the efficacy of the equivalency V νa IV 14 10 4 • f VO Mixing ratio AlBiC total monocotyl dicotyl 0.645 0.645 1.032 0.090 0.090 1.440 0.270 0.270 0.270 0.750 0.750 1.200 10 9 2 25 19 25 24 19 6 39 46 10 9 5 10 I 86: 12 * 2 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.024 0.015 0.015 0.500 0.500 0.500 3 2 3 14 20 48 12 7 13 23 17 22 2 4 10 ΓΌ 16,30.54 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.472 0.295 0.295 0.304 0.190 0.190 0.115 0.069 0.230 0,800 0,500 0,500 9 6 15 15 19 2 7 10 25 5 14 33 0 9 0 CO 59 * 38 »3 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.080 0.048 0.160 0,305 0,183 0,610 0.074 0.074 0.074 0.500 0.300 1 _? 000 9 2 2 53 27 45 9 11 2 6 17 0 24 5 20 OD I6i61a23 total monocotyl dicotyl 0.651 0.651 0.651 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.258 0.051 0.258 0.740 0.740 0.740 6 7 5 30 4 26 30 12 25 47 20 40 4 0 7 LO 88: 2ι1Ο total monocotyl dicotyl 0.479 0.945 0.479 0.023 0.045 0.023 0.760 1.500 0.760 9 2 4 13 2 11 21 2 24 631 3 »34

24 3 2 89 .3

Example 2:

In field trials, the active ingredient combination of A + B + C (mixing ratio 7 × 2 r 1) was applied to an assortment of agricultural and horticultural crops with application rates of 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 kg ai / ha to characterize the selectivity in the Visual examination of the Xulturpflanzenverträglichkeit was carried out pre-emergence method 20 days (appointment I) and 40 days (appointment II) after the application, according to the Boniturschlüssel shown in Table 1. The results are shown in Table 4-refer

Table 4? Crop compatibility of herbicide combinations A + B + C (7: 2 i 1)

Cultivated Boniturnote Boniturnote Appointment I Appointment II " kg AS / ha kg AS / ha 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

potato 9 9 9 9 9 9 Broad bean 9 9 8th -9 9 9 lupine 9 8th 8th 9 9 8th sunflower 9 9 8th 9 8th 8th mustard .8th 8th 7 cn 8th 7 celery 9 8th 7 9 9 8th

Claims (1)

243 289 Erfindungsaneprueh: Selective herbicide combinations for controlling monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous weeds in cultivated plant stands, characterized in that they contain, in addition to customary excipients and carriers, 1-phenylamino-3-methyl-5- (3-tolyl) -biuret of the formula I as active ingredient  NH-CO-N (CHJ -CO-NH-NH- and substituted aryl ureas of the general formula II -CO-U (CH JR ¹ II 1 2 3 in the E hydrogen or methyl and R, E independently Is hydrogen or halogen and optionally 1 ', 3 »of the general formula III in which S is chlorine or methylthio ^ E is ethyl or isopropyl and B is methyl, ethyl or isopropyl, contain *