Natural herbicidal compositions

Abstract

The present invention provides new natural herbicidal compositions consisting of a mixture of natural ingredients that are not harmful to nature. The invention provides a herbicide alternative and / or complementary to existing herbicides. This natural herbicide is environmentally friendly and safe for human and animal health. The invention belongs to the field of agriculture and addresses the common need to control weeds, through the provision of a natural herbicide alternative or complementary to existing herbicides and a method for using same.

Description

[0001] NATURAL HERBICIDAL COMPOSITIONS The present invention is based on the knowledge of the natural phenomenon, which includes the effect that one plant exerts on another through the release of chemical substances into its environment. The natural herbicide provided by the present invention is based on the use of known substances that, when combined, develop a unique synergy, acting as potent herbicides that replace glyphosate and other highly toxic substances. The present invention provides the method for applying this combination, which includes processing it and incorporating it into the soil to optimize control of germination and weed growth. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION. Since the beginning of agriculture, weed control has been key to plant production, since weeds compete with crops for resources, becoming one of the main limiting factors of productivity.In recent years, global food production losses due to weeds are estimated to have amounted to 55%, or about $105 billion annually, equivalent to 420 million tons of wheat, more than half of the world's annual production. The use of pesticides has helped prevent crop losses and improve yields, leading to the development and expansion of synthetic pesticides. However, pesticides include active ingredients that, despite their beneficial effects on agricultural production, can have other, less positive effects on the environment and habitats where they are used. Global pesticide consumption can vary according to different data sources and collection methodologies.According to the "State of the World's Pesticides" report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), the total amount of pesticides used globally in 2017 was approximately 4.1 million metric tons. Today, more than 1,000 pesticides are used worldwide to ensure that pests do not damage or destroy food. Each pesticide has different properties and toxicological effects. Many of the older, less expensive (off-patent) pesticides, such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and lindane, can persist for years in soil and water. These chemicals have been banned by countries that signed the 2001 Stockholm Convention, an international treaty that aims to eliminate or restrict the production and use of persistent organic pollutants.The toxicity of a pesticide depends on its function and other factors. For example, insecticides tend to be more toxic to humans than herbicides. The same chemical can have different effects at different doses—the amount of the chemical to which a person is exposed. Toxicity can also depend on the route of exposure, such as whether the product is swallowed or inhaled, or whether it comes into direct contact with the skin. None of the pesticides currently authorized for use on food in international trade are genotoxic (damaging to DNA, meaning they can cause mutations or cancer). The adverse effects of these pesticides only occur when a certain safe level of exposure is exceeded.When a person comes into contact with large quantities of pesticides, the result can be acute poisoning or long-term health effects that may include cancer and adverse reproductive effects. Major pesticide problems are among the leading causes of death from self-poisoning, especially in low-middle-income countries. Because pesticides are inherently toxic and deliberately released into the environment, their production, distribution, and use require strict regulation and control. Regular monitoring of residues in food and the environment is also necessary.The WHO has two objectives regarding pesticides: to ban the most toxic pesticides for humans, as well as those that remain in the environment the longest; and to protect public health by establishing maximum residue limits for pesticides in food and water. Other chemicals such as pesticides, which include insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and plant growth regulators, are also widely used in agriculture. Since 1990, global pesticide use has increased by 80%; however, use has leveled off over the past decade. The five most important pathways through which pesticides reach hybrid resources are: runoff via surface runoff; drift from the intended surface when sprayed; leaching through the soil profile; runoff; and runoff via soil erosion.The use of pesticides has driven the expansion of agriculture. However, when used inappropriately, they can contaminate water with toxic substances that affect humans. Other challenges include weed growth and the need for additional labor when herbicides are not used, which particularly affects women. The success of conservation agriculture often depends on identifying agroecological regions and soil types where it can be easily adopted. Developing site-specific plans and educating the farming community and the general public about its benefits will also be helpful. Conservation agriculture can also help make agricultural systems more resilient to climate change.In many cases, it has made it possible to reduce GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions from agricultural systems and improve their function as carbon sinks. Climate-smart irrigated agriculture is another important option for adapting to climate change. It focuses on improving the productivity and profitability of existing irrigation systems, enhancing farmers' resilience to climate change. Among the drawbacks associated with the use of synthetic herbicides is their potential toxicity, often even at very low concentrations. Their widespread use has increased soil and water pollution, with the consequent deterioration of natural, agroecosystems, and urban ecosystems. Certain active ingredients enter food chains and bioaccumulate, posing a direct risk to animal and human health. (WHO).Currently, amid a heated international debate surrounding the safety of glyphosate (the most widely used herbicide worldwide in agriculture, parks and gardens, and invasive plant control), glyphosate-based products (e.g., Roundup) are under a moratorium on use granted by the European Union, with their final withdrawal scheduled for 2023 by mandate of the European Parliament. Several Latin American countries have used glyphosate at different times and in different contexts. Glyphosate is a herbicide widely used in agriculture to control weeds and unwanted crops. Its use has been a matter of debate due to potential environmental and human health impacts. Some Latin American countries and their status regarding the use of glyphosate: Argentina is one of the main users of glyphosate in Latin America.The country is one of the world's largest producers of genetically modified soybeans, and glyphosate is widely used in agriculture to control weeds in crops. Brazil has also used glyphosate extensively in agriculture. The country is a leading producer and exporter of agricultural products such as soybeans and corn, and glyphosate has been used to control weeds in these crops. In Colombia, glyphosate has been used in the past to eradicate illicit coca crops. However, in 2015, the Colombian government temporarily suspended the aerial use of glyphosate for coca crop eradication, citing concerns about potential adverse health and environmental effects. In Mexico, glyphosate has also been used in agriculture, particularly on genetically modified corn and soybean crops.However, in 2021, the Mexican government announced plans to gradually ban the use of glyphosate and other agrochemicals over the coming years. It is important to note that policies and regulations regarding the use of glyphosate vary by country and evolve over time. Some countries have implemented restrictions or partial or total bans on its use, while others continue to allow its use in agriculture under certain regulations. Decree 380 of 2021 establishes the guidelines and regulatory framework for the glyphosate aerial spraying program for the control of illicit crops in the country, should the National Narcotics Council (CNE) approve its resumption. Although the decree does not authorize aerial spraying with glyphosate, it is a worrying development that would lead to the resumption of this practice. The number of authorized herbicide active ingredients is expected to continue to decline in the coming years.Herbicide patents have led to an increasing number of weeds being described that have developed resistance to existing active ingredients, rendering them ineffective. The production costs of using synthetic herbicides, which are not always affordable for farmers, must also be added. In fact, of the $95 billion in annual losses in global agricultural production, approximately $70 billion are lost in poor countries (FAO 2017). Therefore, there is a growing demand for new, more economical, healthier, and environmentally friendly weed control products and methods.All of the above has generated new research into natural products, new natural herbicides potentially useful and suitable for organic farming, and some natural substances of plant, animal, or microbiological origin authorized as phytosanitary products for other uses by different governments. All products on the market must demonstrate their potential usefulness for weed control. Weeds are harmful to agricultural, floricultural, and timber crops, among the most important ones, because they are capable of competing with crop plants for space, sunlight, and nutrients. Other drawbacks associated with the use of chemical herbicides to control weeds are: Herbicides are expensive and may be too costly for some farmers to use.Additionally, if a farmer uses less than the required dose of herbicide to kill weeds, there is an increased risk that some weeds may develop herbicide resistance. There is also an increased risk of herbicide resistance due to overuse of a herbicide. Furthermore, herbicides are not available for all crops and in all situations. Residual herbicidal activity can also limit crop rotations for some crops, and some agronomic herbicides can increase weed densities. There are some concerns about the short- and long-term safety of herbicides, both for consumers and the environment. Environmental issues in the agri-food industry have become a global priority, including the development of alternatives to chemical pest control products, with the ultimate goal of reducing the use of chemical pesticides.The increasing economic, social, and environmental costs associated with agricultural issues, spray drift, pesticide residues, along with the development of herbicide resistance in weeds, make biological control agents attractive strategies for both agricultural and domestic weed control. A number of bacteria and fungi are natural pathogens of weeds, and it has been suggested that natural herbicides, or weed killers made with biological agents rather than chemical agents, may provide an alternative to chemical pesticides.The patents that have developed these products we have US 6,008,159 protects a method for controlling the proliferation of annual grassy weeds in an area by applying to the area a composition of one or more species of Pyrenophora fungi or anamorphs thereof, or a toxin or toxin-containing preparation derived from one or more species of Pyrenophora fungi or anamorphs thereof in association with an agriculturally acceptable carrier. US 5,993,802 relates to a substantially biologically pure isolate of a low temperature basidiomycelt (LTB) fungus (3BOND Coprinus psychromorbidus), to a delivery composition comprising the fungus and an agriculturally acceptable carrier capable of supporting the growth of the fungus, and to a method for suppressing the growth of Calmagrostis canadensis and other related weeds that are hosts to the LTB snow mold.US 5,472,690 the patent protects effective control of Calamagrostis canadensis and / or related grasses, particularly in areas being reforested. The mycoherbicide includes one or both of Fusarium nivalis (ATCC #26050) and a fungus, Colletotrichum calamagrostidis (PFC-215, ATCC #74287), isolated from a diseased C. canadensis var. canadensis plant. The mycoherbicidal formulation preferably includes an allelopathic agent, such as straw, straw-based material, straw extract, grass extract, or an endophyte. Particularly effective treatment was demonstrated with C. Calamagrostis (PFC-215) and an inoculum of the endophyte Fusarium nivalis. An embodiment of a treatment method according to the present invention includes the application of reduced virulence endophytes to grass bordering a target area or on rangeland, to prevent natural or inoculation infection.US 5,795,845 A biological herbicide composition comprising an inverse emulsion carrier and a microorganism that is an avirulent or weakly virulent pathogen in the absence of the carrier is useful as a herbicidal agent when the microorganism is present in an amount effective to produce herbicidal activity in the presence of the carrier. An objective of the present invention is that when applying the composition of active substances these protect the ecosystem and at the same time be effective as a herbicide.In the agroecosystem, the soil plays an essential role in the fate of substances released by the plant. Therefore, most isolated natural compounds that are effective in the laboratory as pre-sowing or pre-emergence herbicides (which affect germination or early growth of weeds) have little or no effectiveness in the field due to their instability and rapid degradation by microorganisms or other interactions with the soil. This composition demonstrates synergy and has been confirmed in the field to be an excellent herbicide, managing to solve the problem of inactivation in the soil where crops are grown. Biological herbicide crops currently on the market do not achieve a sufficiently long-lasting effect when it comes to controlling the gradual germination that occurs in a real weed seed bank or the growth of weeds that have managed to germinate.For this reason, there continues to be a need for new herbicides that are both environmentally friendly and guaranteed to be effective in the field. Another objective of this composition is to solve this problem. EXPLANATION OF THE INVENTION This invention belongs to the agricultural sector and addresses the need for weed control, providing a natural herbicide in addition to existing ones and its method of use. In this invention, the following terms are defined as: In this invention, "Natural herbicide" shall be understood as a naturally based weed control agent, the active ingredients of which are of natural origin.The present invention will understand the term "weed" as a synonym for "weed", "adventitious species", "arvense species", when referring to any plant that grows spontaneously in an undesired place, especially in crop fields, greenhouses, gardens, green areas or revegetated places where they prevent or negatively affect the adequate growth of crops or the desired flora. The natural herbicide that the present invention seeks to protect is based on the composition of active substances containing saponins, fatty acids, vegetable oils and emulsifiers. Research to determine the correct active substances that present synergies between them and are natural, it was achieved after years of research, that to date there is no other composition with equal herbicidal properties and maintains ecosystems as they were naturally.Another objective of the present invention is to provide a method for controlling the proliferation of weeds during the growth of an established crop, comprising: a) adding an effective amount of a natural herbicidal agent of the invention or a composition of the natural herbicide of the invention to the established crop; b) developing the crop; c) performing control tests. The composition of the present invention combats the development of all types of weeds during the growth of a crop. Preferably, the crop is selected from the group consisting of rice, sugarcane, corn, barley, peas, beans, grass, animal pasture, and in general all types of seasonal crops. The main objective of the present invention is to protect the composition, which is made up of active ingredients containing saponins, monounsaturated fatty acids, vegetable oils, and emulsifiers.The saponins selected in the present invention are a diverse group of chemical compounds found in many plants. They are glycosides, meaning they are composed of a steroid or triterpenoid nucleus attached to a sugar molecule. Saponins are glycosides widely distributed in plants and are composed of an aglycone of terpene, steroid, or alkaloid origin, to which a branched sugar chain is attached via the carbon-3 hydroxyl. This chain can consist of up to five molecules, usually glucose, arabinose, glucuronic acid, xylose, and rhamnose. The name "saponin" comes from its ability to form foam when shaken in the presence of water. Saponins are naturally occurring chemical compounds found in a variety of plants and have detergent and foaming properties. They are classified into several groups based on their chemical structure and botanical origin.In the present invention, the following types of saponins are preferred: Steroidal saponins: Ginseng, asparagus, licorice, yucca, avocado; Triterpenoid saponins: Quinoa, ginseng, astragalus, ginkgo biloba, red clover; Sapogenin-type saponins: Soapwort (Saponaria), belladonna (Atropa belladonna), soapwort (Sapindus spp.); Alkaloidal saponins: Quillaja (Quillaja saponaria), Yucca (Yucca spp.); Steroid-spirostanic saponins: Tribulus terrestris, fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum); Glycyrrhizin-type saponins: Licorice (Glycyrrhiza glabra); alfalfa saponins. The most preferable triterpenoid saponins in this invention are a kind of saponin which is mainly composed of triterpenoid units, selected from: Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa), Ginseng (Panax ginseng), Astragalus (Astragalus spp.), Ginkgo biloba, Red clover (Trifolium pratense), Ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea), Garlic (Allium sativum).More preferably, steroidal saponins are a type of saponin that contains a chemical structure similar to that of steroids. Steroidal saponins are selected from: Ginseng (Panax ginseng), Asparagus (Asparagus officinalis) as asparagine; Yucca (Manihot esculenta), as diosgenin; Licorice (Glycyrrhiza glabra), contains glycyrrhizin; Olive leaves (Olea europaea), as oleuropein. Especially quilloja saponins. Preferably tea saponins, selected from theaflavins, theaflavonoids, theaflavins and theaflavonoids. More preferably soapwort saponins selected from: Sapindus saponaria, Sapindus mukorossi, Sapindus trifoliatus. Saponins derived from other ingredients: In some herbal tea blends, such as jasmine tea, plants containing natural saponins may be added to provide flavor and aroma. These saponins come from the added plants, not from the tea plant itself.The saponins selected and used in the present invention are preferably selected from Theasaponin B1, Assamsaponin J, Isotheasaponin B1 (foliatheasaponin V), Isotheasaponin B2, B3; Foliatheasaponin I, II, III, IV; Floratheasaponin A, which can be used individually or in combination with each other. The fatty acids of the present invention are selected from: oleic, ricinoleic, caproleic, lauroleic, palmitoleic, vaccenic, gadoleic, ceroleic, erucic and linolenic, which can be used individually or in combination with each other. Preferably, the selected fatty acids are: ricinoleic, linoleic, oleic, palmitic, stearic, caproleic. Most preferable acids selected are: 77-83% ricinoleic acid, 3 – 5% linoleic acid, 4 – 9% oleic acid, 1- 2% Palmitic acid, 1-3% stearic acid, 0.1 – 5% caproleic.The oils of the present invention are selected from: olive, safflower, sunflower, canola, argan, hazelnut, peanut, palm, pistachios, almonds, corn margarine, corn, cashews, soybeans, cod liver oil, avocado, walnuts, coconut, castor, which can be used individually or in combination with each other. The emulsifiers of the present invention are selected from lecithin, guar gum, xanthan, carrageenan and glycerol, which can be used individually or in combination with each other. The active substances whose preferred concentrations are, saponins between 20 to 50%, fatty acids 20 to 50%, vegetable oils between 1 to 30%, emulsifiers between 0.1 to 5%. More preferably the composition of active substances are the following: saponins between 30 to 40%, fatty acids between 0.1 to 40%, vegetable oils between 20 to 30%, emulsifiers between 1 to 5%.In all compositions the solvent used is water and it is present in the quantity necessary to adjust the 100% of the final concentration. The examples described below are not limiting, only to explain the combinations that can be made with these active substances, depending on the crop to be protected from weeds, type of soil, height of the ground, the compositions are as follows: EXAMPLE 1. COMPOSITIONS: Active Substances Percentage (w / w) Theasaponin B 4.97 Castor oil 49.93 Oleic oil 10.59 Lecithin 4.00 Water 30.51 Total 100.00 EXAMPLE 2. COMPOSITIONS: Proposed Formula PERCENTAGE (W / W) Theasaponin B 4.97 Assamsaponin J 10.00 Isotheasaponin B1 9.00 Foliatheasaponin 1.00 Oleic Acid 4.99 Lactic Acid 0.50 Guar gum 2.00 Soybean oil 49.93 Water 17.61 TOTAL 100.00 EXAMPLE 3. COMPOSITIONS: Active Substances Percentage (w / w) Theasaponin B 4.97 Fatty Acid Mixture 60.52 (ricinoleic, linoleic, oleic, palmitic, stearic acid) Xanthan Gum 4.00 Water 30.51 Total 100.00 EXAMPLE 4. COMPOSITIONS: Active Substances Percentage (w / w) Theasaponin B 14.93 Assamsaponin J 10.17 Fatty Acid Mixture 29.93 (ricinoleic, linoleic, palmitic, stearic acid) Oleic Oil 24.99 Glycerol 2.00 Water 17.98 Total 100.00 EXAMPLE 5. COMPOSITIONS: Active Substances Percentage (w / w) Saponins 24.97 Castor Acid 39.00 Oleic Oil 14.99 Carrageenan 2.93 Water 17.98 Total 100.00 EXAMPLE 6. COMPOSITIONS: Active Substances Percentage (w / w) Saponins 24.97 Coconut oil 39.93 Oleic acid 4.99 Guar gum 2.00 Water 27.98 Total 100.00 EXAMPLE 7. COMPOSITIONS: Active Substances Percentage (w / w) Saponins 24.97 Olive oil 49.93 Lauroleic acid 4.99 Glycerol 2.00 Water 17.98 Total 100.00 EXAMPLE 8. COMPOSITIONS: Active Substances Percentage (w / w) Saponins 36.29 (ricinoleic, linoleic, palmitic, 25.4 stearic acid) Oleic acid 21.8 Lecithin 2.00 Water 14.51 Total 100.00 TESTS CARRIED OUT ON THE COMPOSITIONS THAT DEMONSTRATE SYNERGIES BETWEEN THE ACTIVE SUBSTANCES AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS AS HERBICIDES. TRIAL 1: EFFECT OF THE HERBICIDE OF THE PRESENT INVENTION ON WEED MANAGEMENT IN THE SUGARCANE PRODUCTION SYSTEM. In the Province of Guayas, one of the most notable crops due to its socioeconomic importance is sugarcane, especially due to the number of metric tons produced per year. According to the National Financial Corporation (2021), in 2020, 11,016.17 thousand hectares of sugarcane were collected, exceeding the production of 2019, in which 9,257.70 was obtained, which meant a 19% increase. The distribution by provinces is; Guayas accounts for 77.6% of the harvested area, followed by Cañar with 17% and Loja with 1.5%, generating a production of 11 million metric tons; this is where Ecuador's largest and most important sugar mills have historically been located (INEC 2021).Among the most commonly used herbicides are: Glyphosate monoammonium salt, Glyphosate isopropylamine salt, N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine trimethylsulfonium salt, fluazifop-p-butyl, and Clethodim. All of the aforementioned are chemically synthesized; however, more environmentally friendly alternatives are needed to help manage weed populations, especially in sugarcane crops. TEST OBJECTIVES ➢ To evaluate the residual effect over time (days) of the herbicide of the present invention to control weeds in sugarcane crops. ➢ To evaluate the efficacy of the herbicide of the present invention for pre-emergence population control (pre-emergence application) of grass, sedge, and broadleaf weeds in sugarcane crops. ➢ Determine the effective herbicide dose of the present invention to control weeds in pre-emergence, in sugarcane cultivation.➢ Determine the phytotoxic effects of the product of the present invention in the present experimental study. ➢ Evaluate the effect of the herbicide of the present invention on weeds present (post-emergence application), in the sugarcane crop. LOCATION AND DATE OF TEST SUPERVISION. EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS Location of the Experimental Field The present pre-feasibility work was carried out in the provinces of Guayas (pre-emergence and post-emergence analysis). DATES OF ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT. CROP CHARACTERISTICS. Common and scientific name: sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum). Crop cycle: 365 days. Weed phenological stage: pre-emergence to weeds; post-emergence to crop and weeds. Crop phenological stage: Development stage. Variety / Hybrid. EC-08 Type of planting: stolons. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SUGARCANE WEED MANAGEMENT TRIAL. APPLICATION OF SUGARCANE TREATMENTS BIOLOGICAL TARGET AGAINST WHICH THE PRODUCT WAS APPLIED APPLICATION METHODS AND EQUIPMENT Application equipment used Prior to applying the herbicide of the present invention to sugarcane, a calibration was performed to determine the dosage of the product and the volume of water to be used for each EU. For this purpose, a 20-liter manually operated backpack pump was used, equipped with a nozzle with a discharge volume of 0.6 L / min; 1 – 6 kgf / cm³. 2. Spraying was carried out on weeds in the pre-emergence and post-emergence stages, generally covering the study area. Doses of products applied: The doses applied were: New patented herbicide (2.0 l / ha; 3.0 l / ha; 4.0 l / ha) and an absolute control. Number of Applications: 1 application. Application Time (in relation to weeds): Spraying was carried out on weeds in the study area in the pre-emergence and post-emergence stages. Application Time (in relation to crop phenology): The application was carried out during the vegetative development stage. Volume of water: To determine the volume of water used, a prior calibration of the application equipment was performed, obtaining an approximate water consumption of 200 liters per hectare, sufficient to uniformly cover the entire application area. Efficacy: To determine efficacy, the ABBOTT formula, considered the best model for evaluating pre-emergence herbicides, was used.Formula: %E = [(Cd-Td) / Cd)] * ​​100; Where: Td: Infestation in treated plot after treatment and Cd: Infestation in control plot after treatment. Assessments carried out An initial assessment was carried out at weed emergence using 1 m. 2 Within each experimental unit, a quadrant was used to count the number of live weeds to determine the weed population in each treatment evaluated. Direct Effects on the Crop (Phytotoxicity): Phytotoxicity to the crop was evaluated based on the EWRS (European Weed Research Society) scale. RESULTS. EFFICACY (%) OF THE HERBICIDE OF THIS PATENT ON ECONOMIC WEEDS IN SUGARCANE. English: Note: Post-emergence applications did NOT have any effect on weeds. Table 1 determines weed emergence up to 21 daa. Therefore, the efficacy calculation was determined up to this point. According to the ABBOTT formula, treatments T2 (patented herbicide – 3.0 L / ha) and T3 (patented herbicide – 4.0 L / ha) obtained the same percentage of efficacy 80.82% on broadleaf, narrowleaf and sedge weeds, showing superiority over treatment T1 (patented herbicide – 2.0 L / ha), which obtained 54.79% control. CONCLUSIONS • During the evaluations, the NO phytotoxicity of the product on the crop was determined, since no morphological damage to the plant was evident according to the EWRS (European Weed Research) scale. • The persistence of the product over time was evaluated, determining the emergence of weeds in the treatments applied at 21 days.Therefore, effective control of the patented herbicide is determined up to this point. • Treatments T2 (Herbicide of the present invention - 3.0 L / ha) and T3 (patented herbicide - 4.0 L / ha) obtained efficacies over 80% on broadleaf, narrowleaf and sedge weeds, showing superiority over treatment T1 (patented herbicide - 2.0 L / ha) which obtained over 54.79% efficacy. • There is no significant POST-EMERGENT population control effect on grass, broadleaf and sedge weeds in the sugarcane production system. RECOMMENDATIONS: • The use of the patented herbicide of the invention is recommended in pre-emergence application to control the population of grass, broadleaf and sedge weeds up to 21 daa in sugarcane crops. • A dose of 3 liters per hectare is recommended as it is the most effective and economical dose for managing weed populations in sugarcane crops. • Post-emergence applications are not recommended for population management of grass, broadleaf, and sedge weeds in the sugarcane production system. • An average water volume of 200 liters per hectare is recommended for good coverage using a flat fan nozzle. • Do not apply under conditions that may affect results, such as muddy water with high organic matter content, the threat of rain, and high temperatures. • Always wear personal protective equipment: gloves, coveralls, a mask, boots, an apron, and a cap. • Avoid product spills to prevent contamination of the environment or surroundings where the product will be used. The field data table shows the initial and final populations for the control of broadleaf, narrowleaf, and sedge weeds in sugarcane cultivation in the Milagro sector. Pi= initial population; pf= final population.

[0002]

[0003] RESULT 3 ESSAY 2. EFFECT OF THE HERBICIDE OF THIS PATENT ON WEED MANAGEMENT IN THE CORN PRODUCTION SYSTEM. Introduction. Corn in Ecuador is grown for human consumption, animal feed, and industry. The main corn-producing provinces are Los Ríos, Manabí, Guayas, and Loja, with the largest production concentrated in floury or soft varieties. According to the 2020 Yellow Corn Yield Presentation report, around 250,000 hectares were planted with a total production of approximately 1.4 million tons. Grassy sedge weeds and dicotyledonous complexes are among the most harmful to corn production. For this reason, the use of herbicide products that control the population of these weeds while being environmentally friendly is necessary. OBJECTIVE OF THE ESSAYS 1.2. To evaluate the residual effect as a function of time (days) of the herbicide of the present invention, to control weeds in corn crops. 2. To evaluate the effectiveness of the herbicide of the present invention, for pre-emergence population control (pre-emergence application) of grass, sedge and broadleaf weeds in corn crops. 3. To determine the effective dose of the herbicide of the present invention to control weeds in pre-emergence in cornstalk crops. 4. To determine the phytotoxic effects of the herbicide product of the present invention in the present experimental study. 5. To evaluate the effect of the herbicide of the present invention on weeds present (post-emergence application) in sugarcane crops. LOCATION AND DATE OF TEST SUPERVISION.EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS Location of the Experimental Field This prefeasibility study was carried out in the provinces of Manabí and Guayas (pre-emergent and post-emergent analyses, respectively). DATES OF ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT. GENERALITIES OF THE CROP TO BE EVALUATED. Common and scientific name: corn (Zea mays). Crop cycle: 120 days. Herbicide application stage: pre-emergence for crops and weeds. Post-emergence for crops and weeds. Variety / Hybrid: ADVANTA 9735. Planting type: Planting was carried out directly in the study area. TRIAL CHARACTERISTICS: TREATMENTS EVALUATED IN CORN CULTIVATION BIOLOGICAL TARGET AGAINST WHICH THE PRODUCT WAS APPLIED APPLICATION METHODS AND EQUIPMENT Application equipment used Prior to applying the herbicide of this invention patent to corn, a calibration was performed to determine the dose of the product and the volume of water to be used for each unit. For this purpose, a 20-liter manual backpack pump was used, equipped with a nozzle with a discharge volume of 0.6 L / min; 1 – 6 kgf / cm³. 2. Spraying was carried out on weeds in the pre-emergence and post-emergence stages, generally covering the study area. Doses of applied products: The applied doses were established as indicated in the table of Treatments evaluated in the corn crop: HERBICIDE of this INVENTION PATENT at a dose of 3.0 l / ha; commercial control (ADENGO) and an absolute control (WITHOUT APPLICATION). Number of Applications: 1 application. Application Time (in relation to weeds): Spraying was carried out on weeds in the study area in the pre-emergence and post-emergence stages. Application Time (in relation to crop phenology). Application was carried out on the crop in the pre-emergence and post-emergence stages. Water volume: To determine the volume of water used, a prior calibration of the application equipment was performed, having an approximate water consumption of 200 liters per hectare, sufficient to uniformly cover the entire application area.Efficacy: To determine efficacy, the ABBOTT formula was used, considered the best model for evaluating pre-emergence herbicides. Formula: %E = [(Cd-Td) / Cd)] * ​​100; Where: Td: Infestation in treated plot after treatment and Cd: Infestation in control plot after treatment. Evaluations carried out An initial evaluation was carried out at the time of weed emergence using 1 m. 2 Within each experimental unit, a quadrant was used to count the number of live weeds to determine the weed population in each treatment evaluated. Direct Effects on the Crop (Phytotoxicity): Phytotoxicity to the crop was evaluated based on the EWRS (European Weed Research Society) scale. RESULTS. EFFICACY (%) OF THE HERBICIDE OF THIS PATENT ON ECONOMIC WEEDS IN CORN. English: Note: Post-emergence applications did NOT have any effect on weeds. Table 1 determined the efficacy as a function of weed emergence time (20 daa). According to the ABBOTT formula, it is observed that treatments T1 (herbicide of this invention patent - 3.0 L / ha) obtained an efficacy percentage of 82.9% on broadleaf, narrowleaf and sedge weeds, while treatment T2 (ADENGO - 0.3 L / ha) obtained 95.4% control, continuing its residual effect in the study area. CONCLUSIONS • During the evaluations, the NO phytotoxicity of the product on the crop was determined, since no morphological damage to the plant was evident according to the EWRS (European Weed Research) scale. • The persistence of the applied products over time was evaluated, determining the emergence of weeds in the treatment with the herbicide of this invention patent up to 20 daa.Therefore, its residual effect is determined up to this point. • The treatment applied with the commercial product maintained its persistence in the soil since no weed emergence was evident up to 20 daa, therefore, a greater residual effect is concluded. • It is concluded that the herbicide product of this invention patent at a dose of 3.0 L / ha provides efficient weed control up to 20 daa. • No significant POST-EMERGENT population control effect was determined for grass, broadleaf and sedge weeds in the corn production system at any of the evaluated doses of the herbicide of this invention patent. A) RECOMMENDATIONS • The use of the herbicide of this invention patent is recommended in pre-emergence application to control the population of grass, broadleaf and sedge weeds up to 20 daa in corn crops. • Post-emergence applications are not recommended for population management of grass, broadleaf, and sedge weeds in corn production systems. • An average water volume of 200 liters per hectare is recommended for good coverage using a flat fan nozzle. • Do not apply under conditions that could affect results, such as muddy water with high organic matter content, the threat of rain, and high temperatures. RESULT 1 The field data table shows the initial and final populations for the control of broadleaf, narrowleaf, and sedge weeds in corn crops. Pi = initial population; pf = final population. RESULT 2 PRE-EMERGENCE EVALUATION OF THE HERBICIDE OF THIS PATENT OF INVENTION – CORN-MANABI 2023 TREATMENT 20 DAYS AFTER APPLICATION T1. Patents of this invention nvención – 3.0 L / ha RESULTS 3 POST-EMERGENT EVALUATION OF THE HERBICIDE OF THIS PATENT OF INVENTION – CORN-GUAYAS-2023 ESSAY 3. EFFECT OF THE HERBICIDE OF THE PRESENT PATENT OF INVENTION, IN THE PRE-EMERGENT MANAGEMENT OF WEEDS, IN RICE CROP, DAULE. Introduction. Rice constitutes for Ecuador one of the crops of importance in the socioeconomic aspect, especially for small and medium producers of the Ecuadorian coast, especially in the provinces of Los Ríos, Guayas, Manabí and El Oro. In the country an approximate of 350000 ha / year is planted during the dry and rainy season, obtaining average yields of 4.0 t / ha, a figure that is well below compared to the production of neighboring countries that obtain average yields between 6 to 9 t / ha. Among the limiting factors of productivity in this crop are weeds, which constitute an important economic problem, because they are hosts of pests and diseases and also have competition for water, light and mineral nutrients.Among the most important weeds are Turkey mucus (Echinochloa cruss-galli), Hen's crop (Heteranthera reniformis), and Water clove (Ludwigia linifolia), which are economically harmful to the production of these crops. For this reason, the application of herbicide products that control or minimize the population of these weeds while being environmentally friendly is essential. OBJECTIVE OF THE TESTS • Evaluate the effectiveness of the herbicide of this invention patent to control weeds in rice crops. • Determine the effective dose of the herbicide of this invention patent to control weeds in rice crops. • Determine the phytotoxic effects of the herbicide product of this invention patent on rice crops. LOCATION AND DATE OF TEST SUPERVISION. EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS • Location of the Experimental Field This pre-feasibility work was carried out in the province of Guayas.ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT IN THE STUDY AREA. PARTICIPANTS: Company requesting the trial: ARILEC – Ecuador. Company executing the trial: NOVATECAGRICULTURE SA. Technical Executor: Agr. Edwin Hasang Moran, MSc. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TEST PRODUCT TRIAL GENERALITIES Common and scientific name: Rice (Oryza sativa). Crop phenological stage: 120 days. Crop phenological state: vegetative development stage. Variety: SFL-011. TREATMENT APPLICATION RICE BIOLOGICAL OBJECTIVE TO BE CONTROLLED IN RICE CULTIVATION. APPLICATION METHODS AND EQUIPMENT Equipment used For the application of the herbicide of this invention patent in rice and sugarcane, this was done after calibrating the volume of water to be used for each UE, for this a 20 liter manual action backpack pump was used, provided with a nozzle with a discharge volume of: 0.6 L / min; 1 – 6 kgf / cm 2. Spraying was carried out on weeds in a crop 48 hours after transplanting, generally covering the study area. For corn crops, a motor-driven backpack sprayer was used. Doses of applied products: The doses applied for the formulated products were: Old patented herbicide 3.0 L / ha; New patented herbicide 3.0 L / ha; Butachlor 3.0 L / ha and Pendimethalin 3.0 L / ha. For the components, the applied dose was proportional to the formulation of each product. Number of Applications: 1 application. Timing of Application (in relation to weeds): Spraying was carried out on weeds in the study area during the pre-emergence and post-emergence stages. Timing of Application (in relation to crop phenology): For all study crops, application was carried out during the vegetative development stage, when the crop was 24 hours after transplanting.Water volume: To determine the volume of water used, a prior calibration of the application equipment was performed, occupying an approximate water volume of 200 liters per hectare, sufficient to uniformly cover the entire application area. Efficacy: To determine the efficacy, the ABBOTT formula was used, considered the best model for evaluating pre-emergence herbicides. Formula: %E = [(Cd-Td) / Cd)] * ​​100; Where: Td: Infestation in treated plot after treatment and Cd: Infestation in control plot after treatment. Evaluations carried out Sequential weekly evaluations were carried out using 1 m. 2randomly within each experimental unit, using a quadrant that helped to count the number of live weeds to determine the weed population in each treatment evaluated. Statistical Analysis To determine the statistical variability between treatments, the Tukey test was used with a significance level of 5%. Direct Effects on the Crop (Phytotoxicity): Phytotoxicity to the crop was evaluated based on the EWRS (European Weed Research Society) scale. RESULTS.

[0004]

[0005] In the table of efficacy (%) of the herbicide of the present invention patent, in the cultivation of rice (Oryza sativa), using Abbott's formula, it is observed that the treatments that comply with the efficacies in the three species of weeds evaluated are T12: (herbicide of the present invention patent - 3.0 L / ha) which obtained for "Chicken Crop" 76.09%; for "Turkey Mucus" 99.48% and for "Water Clove" 100.0%. Likewise, treatment T11 (Pendimethalin - 3.0 l / ha + BUTACLOR 3.0 l / ha) reached 98.91%; 100.0% and 98.8% respectively for the weeds mentioned in order; Which demonstrates a superiority in efficacy over the other treatments (components of the herbicide of the present invention patent, new product).A second group T5 (Saponin + Oleic Acid + Castor Oil); T8 (Oleic Acid + Castor Oil + Lecithin) and T11 (Old patent herbicide 3.0 L / ha) can also be seen, which obtained controls on “Moco de pavo” (Echinochloa cruss-galli) in 86.98%; 78.65% and 94.79% respectively, indicating good action on grasses. During the evaluation process, NO morphological damage to the plant was observed, therefore a GRADE (1) rating was given, indicating absence of damage according to the EWRS (European Weed Research) scale. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results, it can be concluded that: • The treatments established by the separate components of the herbicide of this patent invention did NOT obtain efficacy on the weeds established in the study area. • The treatment established by the formulation of the herbicide of the present invention patent 3.0 l / ha new obtained efficacy on the species considered in this study.• The herbicide of this invention patent at a dose of 3.0 L / ha presents a better performance on grass and broadleaf weeds, leaving aquatic weeds in last place. • However, since it is a product of organic origin, it can be considered effective with control values ​​over 70% efficacy. • The management of the water table is conclusive for the good action of the herbicide on weeds. RECOMMENDATIONS The use of the herbicide of this invention patent (new product) is recommended under conditions of good water table management at a dose of 3.0 L / ha for the control of the following weeds: Turkey slime (Echinochloa cruss-galli), Hen crop (Heteranthera reniformis), and Water clove (Ludwigia linifolia). • It is recommended to use an average water volume of 200 liters per hectare to obtain good coverage using a flat fan nozzle. • Before applying, calibrate the application equipment to use the correct dose per hectare. • The product should preferably be applied under well-leveled soil conditions for better control. • It is recommended to use a water sheet post-application to ensure maximum herbicide efficacy. • Application of the herbicide covered by this invention, a new product, is recommended only for the weeds indicated in the recommendations table. • Do not apply under conditions that may affect results, such as using muddy water with a high organic matter and clay content, or when there is a threat of rain and temperatures above 28 degrees Celsius. • Always wear personal protective equipment: gloves, coveralls, mask, boots, apron, and cap.• Avoid spills of the product, to avoid contamination of the environment or surroundings where the product will be used.

[0006] RESULTS 1 Field data of initial average population and final average population in weed control with the herbicide of this invention patent (components) new product in rice cultivation (Oryza sativa) in the Daule sector. RESULT 2

Claims

NATURAL HERBICIDAL COMPOSITIONS CLAIMS 1. Natural herbicidal compositions characterized in that they are formed by: a) Saponins b) Fatty Acids c) Vegetable oils d) Emulsifiers 2. Natural herbicidal compositions according to claim 1 characterized in that the percentages are: a) Saponins, in a concentration between 20 to 40% by weight b) Fatty Acids, in a concentration between 20 to 50% by weight c) Vegetable oils, in a concentration between 0.1 to 30% by weight d) Emulsifiers, in a concentration between 0.1 to 5% by weight 3. Natural herbicidal compositions according to claims 1 and 2 characterized in that the percentages are: a) Saponins, in a concentration between 30 to 40% by weight. b) Fatty Acids, in a concentration between 0.1 to 40% by weight c) Vegetable oils, in a concentration between 2 to 30% by weight d) Emulsifiers, in a concentration between 1 to 5% by weight 4.Natural herbicidal compositions according to claims 1 to 3, characterized in that the saponins are selected from: Theasaponin B1, Assamsaponin J, Isotheasaponin B1 (foliatheasaponin V), Isotheasaponin B2, B3; Foliatheasaponin I, II, III, IV; Floratheasaponin A.

5. Natural herbicidal compositions according to claims 1 to 3, characterized in that the saponins are selected from: tea saponins, quinoa saponins, alfalfa saponins, soapwort saponins and quillaja saponins and specifically terpenoid and steroidal saponins.

6. Natural herbicidal compositions according to claims 1 to 3, characterized in that the fatty acids are selected from: oleic, ricinoleic, palmitic, stearic, caproleic, lauroleic, palmitoleic, linolenic, vaccenic, gadoleic, ceroleic and erucic. oleic, ricinoleic, caproleic, lauroleic, palmitoleic, vaccenic, gadoleic, ceroleic, erucic and linoleic.

7. Natural herbicidal compositions according to claims 1 to 3 characterized in that the oils are selected from: olive, safflower, sunflower, canola, argan, hazelnuts, peanut, palm, pistachios, almonds, corn margarine, corn, cashews, soybeans, cod liver oil, avocado, walnuts, coconut, castor.

8. Natural herbicidal compositions according to claims 1 to 3, characterized in that the phospholipids are selected from: lecithin, guar gum, xanthan, carrageenan and glycerol.

9. Natural herbicidal compositions according to claims 1 to 7, characterized in that the solvent is water.

Images