MXPA98007969A - New use of n (phosphonomethyl) glycine and derivatives of my - Google Patents

Abstract

The present invention relates to a new use of glyphosate or derivatives thereof to increase the production and / or quality of the glyphosate-tolerant crop plants selected from sugar beet, fodder beet, corn, oilseed rape and cotton.

Description

NEW USE OF N- (PHOSPHONOMETHYL) GLYCINE AND DERIVATIVES THEREOF DESCRIPTIVE MEMORY The present invention relates to a new use of glyphosate »or N- < phosphonomethyl) "and derivatives thereof" such as salts and esters "as an agent for increasing the yield of crop plants that are tolerant to glyphosate. Glyphosate is well known as an effective systemic herbicide active in foliage (post-emergent) nonselective. It is known that glyphosate acts on several enzyme systems, thus interfering with the formation of amino acids and other endogenous chemical compounds in treated plants. Due to the relatively low solubility in water of the acid form, glyphosate is sold mainly in the form of a salt, such as the monoisopropyl ammonium salt, the ammonium salt and the sodium or other salt. Well-known formulated products comprise the active ingredient and a surfactant or a mixture of surfactant and possibly other additives such as anti-foam agents, antifreeze agents, colorants and other agents known in the art. Reference is also made to the book "The Herbicide Glyphosate1" edited by E. Grossbard and D. AtKinson »Butter orth & Co »19B5. US-3 S53 530 describes the use of N- fos onometi Igl c na and derivatives thereof to alter the natural growth or the development of plants »as for defoliation and delay of vegetative growth. In certain plants this delay is said to lead to a shorter main stem and increase in the lateral branch. This alteration of natural growth or development could produce smaller shrubs »that often show resistance to drought and pest infestation. In the case of turfgrasses, the vegetative growth delay may also be highly desirable, thus improving the development of the root to provide a more robust dense grass and increasing the interval between lawn mowing, golf courses and pasty areas. Similar. In many types of plants »such as silage crops» potatoes »sugar cane» beet »grapes» melons and fruit trees »the vegetative growth delay caused by glyphosate is said to result in an increase in the carbohydrate content of the plants. plants during the harvest. Obviously. these applications require sublethal doses * because otherwise the treated plants would die. US-3 9B8 142 relates more particularly to the use of N-fos onomet Igl icine and derivatives thereof to increase the deposition of carbohydrates in plants »such as cane sugar. Again, the averages used are sublethal averages and are applied shortly before harvest. In both cases mentioned above, it is believed that a non-lethal dose of glyphosate herbicide "ie a dose well below the doses normally used to control the weed population in a field" causes a reduction or delay in vegetative growth and the active material continues the normal course which is followed when it exerts its herbicidal action on plants. In the case of US-3988 142 »the vegetative growth delay is believed to allow more of the available carbohydrate in the plant to be converted to starch or sucrose» instead of being used as plant food for continued growth. DE-3200486 relates to the improvement of the productivity of crop plants by treating them with sublethal doses of phosphinothricin (glufosinate) which is also an efficient non-selective herbicide. Here too, the inhibition of vegetative growth by sublethal doses of the herbicide is believed to cause an increase in carbohydrates in the plants or fruits thereof. DE-3 200 48S mentions glyphosate in a comparative example (Example II) which attempts to demonstrate that glufosinate has a better effect than glyphosate in the same proportion. EP-0401 407 relates to a subject of similar subject. This details the use of sublethal percentages of non-selective herbicides »such as, among others, glyphosate and phosphinothicin» during the transition from the stage of mass formation to the stage of maturation of a plant »in order to increase the deposition of carbohydrates in production plants of sugar or starch apart from cane »such as sugar beet, potato or corn. WO05082 discloses a method for increasing the yield of crops that are resistant to glutamine synthesizing inhibitors, such as fossricin, by treatment of said crops with percentages of this herbicide as used to control weeds in a field of culture. . In addition, this document states that herbicides with a different mode of action do not have this effect or often show a negative effect on the field. Recent developments in gene technology have made it possible to transform plants genetically »very particularly crop plants» in order to render them tolerant to glyphosate or derivatives thereof. For example (the Patent) EP-0 218 571 refers to a cloning or expression vector that consists of a gene encoding EPSPS polypeptide which when expressed in a cell of a plant confers tolerance to glyphosate to plants regenerated from said cell. EP-0 293 358 further refers to the improvement of the effectiveness of glyphosate tolerant plants by producing synthetic EPSP mutant enzymes which exhibit a lower affinity to glyphosate while maintaining their catalytic activity. (The patent) WO 92/00377 discloses genes encoding a glyphosate oxidoreductase enzyme. Genes are useful to produce trans-formed plants that they degrade glyphosate herbicide and are tolerant to glyphosate herbicide. (The patent) WO 92/04449 discloses genes encoding class II EPSPS enzymes that are useful for producing transformed plants that are tolerant to glyphosate herbicide. Such crops can be kept essentially free of weeds by application of glyphosate herbicide after emergence of the culture. Chemical Abstracts, vol. 124, N. 8 »1996, refers to an article in" Weeds "(1995) by B.H. Wells »entitled" Development of Glyphosate Tolerant Crops into the Market ". The author confirms that two methods have been used to confer tolerance to commercial levels of glyphosate in various crops. An article entitled Roundup Ready ™ Sugar Beet by I. Brants and others »published in early 1996 in" Proceedings of International Symposium on Weed and Crop Resistance to Herbicides "» a symposium taking place on April 3 to 6, 1995 demonstrates what levels of tolerance in the commercial product Roundup have been obtained in genetically modified plants of sugar beet. Now it has been unexpectedly discovered that when dealing with farm land having a crop »such as beet crop» oilseed rape »or corn» that have been made tolerant to glyphosate herbicide. Even with normally lethal percentages of glyphosate herbicide or percentages normally used to fight weeds, the crop produced is increased. This unexpected effect could not be expected from the previous method in the medium "because in non-tolerant crops" the crop would die and because the phosphinotricin herbicides have a completely different mode of action from glyphosate herbicide. Chemical Abstracts »vol. 123, No. 21 »1995 publishes a summary (Abstract N. 281158c) of an article by X. Delannay et al. Which deals with the evaluation of the production of a line of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans after glyphosate treatment. The authors of the article conclude that trends in the data generally suggest that there were no real differences "and that comparisons with standard herbicide checks reinforce the conclusion about total yield safety of glyphosate treatments" the variability being understood as due to non-climate favorable and / or land conditions. In Weeds (1995) »mentioned above» B.H. Wells also notes that no significant production reductions were seen after wide-ranging sequential or simple applications of glyphosate in various stages of cultivation. The main lines of glyphosate-tolerant cotton are said to have shown no reduction in production after glyphosate applications either. These evaluations were carried out to confirm the activation of the genetic modification of the relevant crop plants in terms of their tolerance to the relevant herbicide. There is no data contained in this article and there is no disclosure or suggestion that could be found for the possible increase in crop production after the application of glyphosate. Although the article initially mentioned by I. Brants and others shows data of root weight averages ('/ ») for three different glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet lines» characterized by three different transformation events »for several glyphosate treatments compared to a standard »the person skilled in the art can not deduct increases in beet production from the data shown. The data has been correctly presented as tolerance test data. The data shown are not indicative of any increase in production in sugar beet because the tolerance assessment was not carried out under weed-free conditions and "therefore" allows weed competition in standard plantings. Moreover »as will be recognized by the person skilled in the art» the data shown are very initial data generated in small plantations »without duplications» in a location due to availability of seed. In addition »such early seeds still contained seed segregating material which resulted in irregular cropping positions compared to the standard» as a consequence, the average root weight is calculated per plant (not per unit area), and is compared to a growth standard under different conditions. The only conclusion that a person skilled in the art can obtain from the aforementioned article is that three lines have been found of sugar beets that show a level of tolerance that has a potential for commercial development. According to the invention »tests have shown increased production (expressed per unit area area) of glyphosate tolerant crops» such as beet crops »oilseed rape» corn or cotton »treated with glyphosate herbicide until near of 505í when the same crop was compared that has not been treated with glyphosate herbicide. The increase in production is not believed to be simply due to less competition between weeds and crops as a consequence of the glyphosate herbicide applications "because the effect has been noted on crops that are allowed to grow under essentially weed-free conditions . Furthermore, no effect of growth regulation as understood in the prior art of recording has been noted. No temporary delay of growth has been noticed nor any other temporary alteration of the natural growth or development of the crop plant. The present invention therefore relates to the use of glyphosate or derivatives thereof for the yield increase of glyphosate-tolerant crops. Preferably, glyphosate is applied at the usual lethal doses to control the population of weeds in order to simultaneously eliminate the weeds. The glyphosate herbicide can be applied once or in several successive treatments. The application regimes are understood generally on the scale between 0.2 and 6.0 Kg equivalent of acid (ea) / hectare, depending on weather conditions, season, weed infestation, stage of weed plants, and depending on the crop and other parameters known by the expert in the art. The glyphosate herbicide can be applied in its acid form or as a derivative thereof, preferably a salt, such as the monoisopropyl ammonium salt, the sodium salt, or ammonium salt or mixtures thereof. Other salts of glyphosate in which the cation is non-herbicidally active in itself or pitotoxic can also be used. The effect of increased production of glyphosate herbicide treatment has been noted on glyphosate-tolerant crops selected from beets such as sugar beet or foliage beet, maize »oilseed rape and cotton» irrespective of the technique used for provoke tolerance to glyphosate. The effect is marked particularly on sugar beet to glyphosate and tolerant forage sugars. Glyphosate herbicides can be applied, for example, in their acid form or in the form of their derivatives »as a dispersible or water-soluble granule» as a water-soluble concentrate diluted in the water of the sprayer »or in the form of others formulation types »such as emulsions» encapsulated active ingredients and others. The glyphosate herbicide can be applied in aSun.

IO application or sequential applications »at different stages of plant growth. The effect of glyphosate herbicide treatment on glyphosate-tolerant crops has been shown to be more significant when the treatment is applied at the growth stage of the relevant plants. Such formulation adjuvants can be found in "McCutcheo's Emulsifiers and Detergents" "and can be advantageously selected from" amines "such as ethoxylatelated alkylamines" particularly sebaceous amines "cocoa inas» surfactants sold under the trade name Ethomen »amine oxides» such as surfactants sold under the trademark Empigen OB »- quaternary ammonium salts, such as propoxylated and / or ethoxylated quaternary ammonium salts. more particularly surfactants sold under the trade names of Ethoquad »Emcol CC and Dodigen» - alkylpolyglycosides »alkyl glucosides» glucose and sucrose esters. More preferred are the quaternary ammonium salts "as defined in EP-0441 764" possibly in a mixture with a humidifying agent "more preferably a sorbitan alkoxy-1 ester attached. This type of surfactant or mixture of surfactants shows no significant pitotoxic effect on the crop plants and is preferred for its environmentally friendly characteristics.

The quaternary ammonium salts of particular interest are the trimeti letoxipol oxypropyl ammonium chlorides.

EXAMPLE 1 The sugar beet plants genetically modified according to the technology detailed in EP-0 218 571 to make them tolerant to glyphosate were planted according to good agronomic practices at 4.5 cm distance between each plant in a row and manually thinned to ensure a normal cultivation position »according to a ranzed block design» the size Planting: 2.7 x 6 »6 rows per planting with a distance between rows of 0.45 m. Four replies were used for each test. The trial plants were kept essentially free of weeds: by pre-emergent herbicide applications "and if so required and specified" by post-emergent glyphosate treatments applied as specified below or at the officially accepted standard level for treatment of beet (with comparison objects). The following treatments were applied: N. Standard herbicide of sugar beet N.2 Standard herbicide of sugar beet at double percentage N.33 x 720 g e.a./ha of glyphosate formulated N.43 x IOBO g ea / ha of formulated glyphosate N.53 x 1440 g ea / ha of formulated glyphosate N.6 2 x 2160 g ea / ha of formulated glyphosate If three successive applications of glyphosate herbicide are carried out "the first is carried out in the stage of leaves 2-4 of the crop plants »the second is carried out in the stage S-8 of leaves of the crop plants» and the third is carried out in the stage of leaves 10-12 of the crop plants, but before the canopy closes. If two successive applications are carried out then the first is carried out in stage 2-4 of the leaves and the second is carried out in the stage of leaves 10-12 of the crop plants. The glyphosate herbicide formulation consisted of 360 g of glyphosate e.a./l as the isopropyl ammonium salt "and 180 g / l of surfactant composed of trimethyl ethoxypol ioxipropi 1 (8) ammonium chloride and ethoxylated sorbitan ester (80:20) (20). The glyphosate formulation was applied to a water volume of 200 1 / ha at a pressure of 2 bar. The weight of the fresh root was measured at harvest.

The weight of the dried root after the standard treatment N.l was considered as 100% production and the measured weights of fresh root were related to the results of the standard treatment N.l.

TABLE I.a Treatment * Á of production (weight of fresh root per hectare) 1 * 100 2 * 96 3 108 4 108 5 110 6 113 X The standard treatment consists of three api i cae ones: TABLE I-fr Production treatment V * (fresh root weight per hectare) 1 * 100 2 * 102 3 no 4 113 5 117 6 113 * The standard treatment consisted of three api cations: TABLE I.C Treatment% yield (fresh root weight per hectare) 1 * 100 2 * 3 129 4 156 5 136 6 132 * The standard treatment consists of a pre-emergence application and two post-emergence applications of officially accepted sugar beet herbicides "as follows: EXAMPLE 2 The same tests were repeated with a glyphosate-tolerant fodder beet (genetically transformed according to the same technology).

TABLE II.a Treatment% of production (weight of fresh root per hectare) 1 * 100 2 * 101 3 108 4 107 5 110 6 111 The standard (*) of this test consists of three api ications: The same test was repeated with the same previous line "except that a pre-emergent herbicide treatment has been applied on all the plantings" and that it consisted of 1 kg / ha of Goltix (commercial name) and 3 l / ha of Betanal E (commercial name).

TABLE II. b Treatment% of production (weight of fresh root per hectare) 1 * 100 2 * 100 3 108 4 110 5 113 6 110 * The standard of this test consisted of an application: EXAMPLE 3 For this experiment, essentially the same protocol was followed "as in Examples 1 and 2. Sugar beet plants tolerant to glyphosate were planted at the beginning of May 1995 according to good agricultural practices! is. The plantings were maintained essentially free of weeds by manual cleaning (untreated) or by glyphosate herbicide applications "as appropriate. The glyphosate was applied as an isopropyl ammonium salt formulation of glyphosate consisting of 360 g / 1 equ of acid and 180 g / 1 of chloride surfactant. (trimethylethoxypol ioxyprop 1 (B) ammonium (80) with sorbitan ester (20) etho 1 attached (20)). TI = leaf stage 2-4 (approximately 30 DDP-Days after Planting) T2 = leaf stage 8-10 (approximately 50 DDP) T3 = leaf stage 14-18 (approximately 65 DDP) Table IV below shows the average measured weight (in grams) of fresh roots per plant. 180 DDP. for several glyphosate formulation averages as specified above.

TABLE III This experiment clearly shows the weight increase of the fresh root in the harvest "after several applications of glyphosate. There is also a trend of increase in production as a function of the glyphosate percentages applied. The increased production is also transferred within the corresponding increased dry weight of the plant at harvest.

EXAMPLE 4 The objective of this experiment is to compare transgenic sugar beets that have been sprayed with a formulation of herbicide gli os ato »and transgenic sugar beets that have not been treated with such a herbicidal formulation» from the point of view of quality of the beet (content of sugar »invert sugar» potassium »sodium» amino nitrogen from the roots »root beet nutrients and higher samples» such as dry matter percentage »crude fiber and toxin content). Sugar beets are used mainly in the sugar industry for the production of white sugar »pulp and molasses. The technological value of beet for this purpose is commonly assessed by analyzing its content of sugar »potassium» sodium and nitrogen of the amino. Concerning the toxics in beets »the saponi ñas are mon bullfighting.

Sample preparation After harvesting »the roots were maintained between 0 ° C and 10 ° C» and the upper samples were frozen at less than -20 ° C. The beet preparation in pulp is made by a semiautomatic treatment » in which the beet is sliced in a beet saw to produce pulp. After the pulp has been homogenized, subsample 1 was used after extraction to analyze the polarization »invert sugar» Na »K and Amino-N» and other subsamples were dried and used for nutrients. A third of the same sample of pulp was frozen for toxic. The extraction of beet pulp was done with deionized water to which was added an aluminum sulphate tablet for clarification and transferred to the Venerna automatic digestion and filtration plant. The preparation of the long beet top was done by dividing them horizontally into equal sub-samples.

Analytical methods Dry matter - kiln method (EF 71/393 / EQF, L279 / 7 p.858-61 20 / 12-71): Root: After the root is processed into pulp »the pulp sample is placed in an oven at 95 ° C and dried for 24 hours (for constant weight).

Top: The sample is placed in an oven at 95 ° C and dried for up to 22 hours »depending on the size of the sample, for constant weight. For both the root and the top the weight loss is quantified and calculated as a percentage of dry matter.

Raw fiber - Weende method (EF L 344 / 36-37 26 / 11-92 modified): The sample is treated successively with boiling solutions of sulfuric acid and hydro? of potassium of specific concentrations. The residue is separated by filtration over a Gosch crucible with glass wool, washed »dried» heavy and incinerated in a ceramic oven at 550 ° C in 3 hours. The weight loss by incineration is quantified gravimetrically and calculated as a percentage of crude fiber of the sample.

Toxins: saponiñas - HPLC method (Hilrner Sorensen »KVL 1991. modified by DC): The method is based on an acid hydrolysis of beet saponins. The liberated oleanolic acid is extracted with dichloromethane. After the evaporation of the water from the sample, what remains is dissolved in methanol. The oleanolic acid is estimated by reverse phase HPLC with aceton tri lo / water as eluent and determined at 210 nm on a UV detector.

Sugar content of beet extract - Polarization (Pol) (ICUMSA, Sugar Analysis 1979, Proc. 1990) Beet extract, clarified with aluminum sulfate, is determined on a polarimeter type PROPOL, which is based on the determination of an optical rotation radius.

The optical rotation is measured at 546 nm in urt tube 70 mm long and converted to Z degrees (Pol 54) or g / lOO g root.

Amino nitrogen of beet extract - SMATIC Analyzer (ICUMSA, Sugar »Analysis 1979 modified): The beet extract, clarified with aluminum sulphate, is determined on a colorimeter at 570 nm, after a color reaction with ninidrine.

Potassium and Sodium from beet extract - SMATIC Analyzer (Technicon, Tech. Publ. THO-0160-10): Beet extract, clarified with aluminum sulfate »is determined on a Flame Photometer IV» where the intensity of the energies of the light emitted by potassium and sodium in the flame is measured at respectively 589 nm and 768 nm. The mixture is diluted with lithium sulphate "where lithium is used as an internal standard to balance the Flame Photometer signal.

Invert sugar from beet extract - SMAIIC Analyzer (Technicon, Tech, Publ. THO-0160-10): The beet extract »clarified with aluminum sulphate» is determined on a colorimeter at 560 nm »after a reaction with a re-agent of copper sulphate neocuproino hydrochloride. The glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet plants »genetically transformed according to the technology detailed in EP-0 218 571 for tolerance to glyphosate herbicide» were cultivated in 6 different locations (Italy, Spain, Belgium, Denmark, France, and United Kingdom) . The type of cultivated varieties depended on local requirements. The material varies in many characters »an important character is the sugar content estimated by polarization (Pol). Sugar beet can be divided into subgroups: type E »type N» and type Z. Type E is low in Pol »type Z is high in Pol and type N is between E and Z. Varieties grown in northern Europe can be characterized as being types E-N» N or N-Z. The material used in this example falls within group N. Sugar beets were planted according to good local agronomic practices »manually thinned to ensure a normal crop position. At least one replica per test was used. The plantings were kept essentially free of weeds by application of: - glyphosate herbicide in the trial plants - standard treatments of selective beet herbicides (according to the locations) on the control plantations »except in Denmark» Italy »where no other herbicide apart from glyphosate was considered necessary to maintain weed-free conditions. The formulation of the glyphosate herbicide is the same as that used in example 1. The herbicidal formulation of glyphosate was applied as follows: - preemergent 2.5 l / ha - stage 2-4 of real leaf of beet 2 l / ha - stage 6-8 of real leaf of beet 2 l / ha - stage 12-14 of real leaf (enclosure of canopy 2 l / ha The percentages of selective herbicides applied are as follows: - Spain: 3.55 kg / ha of Goltix WG (metamitron) preemergent.

- Belgium: 2 l / ha of Gra oxone (paraquat 200) preplanted 3 l / ha of Pyramin FL (chloridazone 430) 1 week after planting 0.5 l / ha of Betanal (phenmediphane 150) 3 weeks after planting O.5 l / ha Goltix (metamitron 704 WP) 3 weeks after planting 0.5 l / ha Tramat (Etofu esato 200) 3 weeks after planting O.75 l / ha Goltix 5 weeks after planting 0.75 l / ha Vegelux (mineral oil 40 ) 5 weeks after planting 0.75 l / ha Tramat 5 weeks after planting 0.75 l / ha Gol ix 6 weeks after planting 0.75 l / ha Velgelux 6 weeks after planting 0.17 l / ha Fusilade 6 weeks after planting 0.75 l / has Betanal 6 weeks after planting 0.75 l / ha Tramat 9 weeks after planting 0.75 l / ha Betanal 9 weeks after planting 0.75 l / ha Goltix 9 weeks after planting 0.75 l / ha Vegelu? 9 weeks after planted - France: O.75 l / ha Goltix WP (metamitron) 1 day after planting O.75 l / ha Goltix WP 2 weeks after planting 0.75 l / ha Betanal (fen edifama 150) 2 weeks after planting 0.75 l / ha Tramat (etofumesato 200) 2 weeks after planting - United Kingdom: 1.0 l / ha Laser (ciel oxy dim) 5 weeks after planting The analytical results were obtained and the percentages are reproduced in the following table, all the countries having an equivalent weight in the calculation of the percentages.

Trt: sprayed with glyphosate herbicide No T: not sprayed with MS glyphosate herbicide: dry matter. The data show that sugar beets treated with glyphosate herbicide have a signifi- cantly high sugar content with reduction of sodium »potassium» amino-nitrogen and inverted sugar in the root. Dry matter from the root and from the top also increased. More detailed data suggest that sugar beet leaves treated with glyphosate show a higher fiber content. Correlating the results of this example with the results of the previous examples, it seems that the increase in the production evaluated at the beginning in the weight per hectare is also reflected as an increase of dry matter »fiber» and sugar content in the harvested material.

AXIS 5 Sugar beet and beet plants genetically modified according to the technology detailed in EP-O 218 571 to make them tolerant to glyphosate were planted in different locations according to good gastronomic practices at an interplant distance of 4.5 cm inside a row and manually thinned to ensure a normal growing position »according to a randomized block design; the size of the plantation: it is 2.7 x 7 m; 6 rows per planting with a distance between rows of 0.45 m. Four replies were used for each test. The trial seedlings were kept essentially free of weeds: by standard applications of preemergent herbicide over the entire area "and then by removing weeds by hand and" when appropriate "by post-emergent glyphosate treatments applied as described above. specify at once. The following treatments were applied: Removal of weeds by hand only 3 x 720 g ea / ha of glyphosate formulated 3 x 1080 g ea / ha of glyphosate formulated 3 x 1440 g ea / ha of glyphosate formulated 2 x 2160 g ea / ha of formulated phytose S three successive applications of glyphosate herbicide are carried out, the first is carried out in the stage of leaves 2-4 of the crop plants; the second is carried out in the stage of leaves 6-8 of the crop plants; and the third is carried out in stage 10-12 of leaves of the crop plants, but before the canopy is enclosed. If two successive applications are carried out then the first is performed in stage 2-4 of leaves and the second is in stage 10-12 of leaves of the crop plants. The glyphosate herbicide formulation consisted of 360 g of glyphosate e.a./l as the isopropyl ammonium salt "and 180 g / 1 of surfactant compound composed of trimethoxypropyloxypropyl (8) ammonium chloride and sorbitan ester (80:20) ethoxylated (20). The glyphosate formulation was applied to a water volume of 200 l / ha at a pressure of 2 bar.

The weight of the fresh root was measured at harvest. The weight of the fresh root of the plantations that were removed by hand the weeds were considered as production of 100J4 and the measured weights of fresh root after the glyphosate treatment were related to the result of the plantations that the weed was removed by hand .

TABLE V PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTION (FRESH ROOT WEIGHT) Trt Sugar beet Forage sugar Weeds by hand 10054 100 * 4 3 x 720 g e.a. 101 105 3 X 1080 g e.a .. 98 106 3 X 1140 g e.a. 115 IOS 2 X 2160 g e.a .. 107 102 EXAMPLE 6 For this field trial, winter oilseed rapeseed plants with an existing genetic background »genetically modified to exhibit tolerance to the glyphosate herbicide (according to the combined expression technique EPSPS and glyphosate oxide reductase expression)» were planted in the middle September 1995 »according to good agronomic practices at 4 kg of seeds / ha corresponding to approximately 100 plants per m * (normal crop position) »according to a randomized block design» planting size: is 3 x 7 m »with a distance between rows of 0.14 m» 4 replications per test . The plantings were kept essentially free of weeds: by a preemergent standard application of herbicide over the entire area »ie 1.5 1 Butisan (metazachlor) one day after drilling and 1 1 in addition on the standard plantings; and by glyphosate treatments applied as specified below: The glyphosate treatments were applied in the autumn to a stage of plant growth of B4-B5 »the same formulation as the one used in example 1 was applied. The harvest occurred at the beginning of August and the yield was evaluated and expressed in tons of grain per hectare (at humidity of 9 > 4). Table VI shows the production measured in 54 of the production of the standard planting.

TABLE VI: PERFORMANCE Standard 100 1080 g e.a./ha 104.5 EXAMPLE 7 This field test was carried out similarly to the test of the previous examples »except that in this example spring oilseed rape was planted (mid-April 1996). These plants that had a known genetic background were made tolerant to the glyphosate herbicide by the combined technique mentioned in Example 6. The plants were kept weed bricks by application of 1.5 l / ha of Butisan over the whole area and released of weeds by hand for the standard planting, and by glyphosate herbicide for the surplus plantings. The same glyphosate formulation was applied approximately one month after planting, ie in the plant growth stage B3-B4. The harvest occurred in mid-August.

Table VII below shows the production data (measured and expressed as in Example 6) in 54 production of the standard plantings.

TABLE VII: Production Standard 100 720 g e.a./hA 120 ÍOBO g e.a ../ ha 112 EXAMPLE 8 Subsequent field trials were carried out in Italy to evaluate the improvement of production of glyphosate-tolerant corn crops after application (s) of glyphosate herbicide. Known maize plants genetically modified for glyphosate tolerance according to combined EPSPS and reductive oxide glyphosate expression techniques were planted and cultivated according to good agronomic practice at approximately 62,000 plants per hectare (approximately 4.7 seeds / m) in plantations of 3 x 9 m, with 4 lines of 9 m of plants in each »in a completely randomized block design with four replicas» and then manually thinned to ensure a normal crop position and the same number of plants in all plantings. The whole area consisting of standard plantings and test plants was treated by a preemergent herbicide (Lasso Micro ix) at a rate of 6 l / ha (this is 2016 g of alachlor and 864 g of terbuti lazine). The standard plantings were kept free of weeds by manual removal "if required" and the test plants were treated with the same glyphosate formulation as in Example 1, at different percentages and stages of plant growth. Only the central lines were harvested over an average length of 7 m. The production was measured in tons of grain per hectare expressed at 1554 moisture, and is expressed in the Tables as percentage of standard production (STD).

TABLE XIII TO X OF PRODUCTION / TREATMENT OF GLIFOSATQ TO SHEET STAGES 3-4 TABLE XIII b PRODUCTION / TREATMENT OF GLYPHOSATE TO SHEET STAGES 5-6 EXAMPLE 9 A further field test was carried out according to the same protocol as in Example 1 »in order to evaluate the effect of different glyphosate herbicide formulations on the improvement of production. The transgenic crop plants received three treatments of herbicide of glyphosate of 720 g e.a./ha and of 1080 g e.a./ha »respec i va.

TABLE IX X OF PRODUCC QN-FRESH ROOT WEIGHT 3 x 720 g e.a. 3 3 x 10B0 g e.a. Roundup * 100 100 Granular formulation 101.4 100.2 Liquid formulation 104.2 102 Roundup *: - salt glyphosate and sopropi lamonium at 360 g e.a .. / I. - ethoxylated tallowamine surfactant at 180 g / 1. Solid formulation: - sodium glyphosate at 430 g e.a./kg - trimethoxide chloride letoxipol ioxipropi 1 (8) ammonium at 160 g / kg. Ammonium sulfate at 330 g / kg Liquid formulation: the same used in Example 1. This Example shows a trend towards an improved performance of the formulation consisting of an agent surfactant harmless to the environment as defined.

EXAMPLE 10 A procedure similar to that described in Example 7 (spring oilseed rape) was followed in this Example in order to evaluate the effect of different glyphosate herbicide formulations. The test plants in this test were 1.5 x 10 m.

TABLE X PRODUCTION IN GRAIN TON / HA AT 9X OF HUMIDITY The production obtained after treatments with Roundup * has been considered as 10054. This example further confirms the superiority of the formulation used in example 7.

Claims (11)

NOVELTY OF THE INVENTION CLAIMS

1. - The use of glyphosate or a derivative thereof to increase crop production, characterized in that the crop is selected from glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet, fodder beet, maize, oilseed rape and cotton, and because glyphosate is applied to a usually lethal dose.

2. The use of glyphosate or a derivative thereof, according to claim 1 »further characterized because it is applied at doses usually lethal between 0.2 and 6. O kg e.a./ha.

3. The use of glyphosate or a derivative thereof, according to claim 1 or 2 »further characterized in that the glyphosate or a derivative thereof is applied in a simple treatment or in successive treatments.

4. The use of glyphosate or a derivative thereof according to any of claims 1-3, further characterized in that it is a salt of glyphosate, preferably the monoisopropylammonium salt, or the ammonium salt or salt thereof. sodium or mixtures thereof.

5. The use of glyphosate or a derivative thereof, according to any of claims 1-4, further characterized in that it is used in a formulation with an adjuvant selected from: amines "such as ethoxylated alkylamines" particularly seboamines, cocoa inas »surfactants sold under the tradename Etho een, amine oxides» such as surfactants sold under the tradename Empigen OB; quaternary ammonium salts "such as ethoxylated and / or propoxylated quaternary ammonium salts, more particularly surfactants sold under the trade names Ethoquad» E col CC and Dodigen; alkyl polyglucosides or alkyl glycosides, glucose esters and sucrose; preferably with an ethoxylated quaternary ammonium surfactant polpropoxylated agent.

6. The use of glyphosate or a derivative thereof according to any of claims 1-5"to increase the production of beet» oilseed rape »cotton or corn crops» made tolerant to glyphosate herbicide.

7. The use of glyphosate or a derivative thereof according to claim 6, to increase the production and / or the quality of a culture of sugar beet or fodder beet.

8. The use of glyphosate or a derivative thereof, according to any of claims 1-6, further characterized in that the culture contains a gene encoding EPSPS polypeptides. 9.- The use of glyphosate or a derivative thereof, of according to any of claims 1-6, further characterized in that the culture contains a gene coding for glyphosate oxidoreductose enzyme. 10. The use of glyphosate or a derivative thereof, according to any of the rei indications 1-6, further characterized because the plant contains a gene encoding class II EPSPS enzymes.