Herbicidal compositions of saflufenacil and metribuzin

Abstract

The present invention relates to a novel synergistic herbicidal composition comprising Saflufenacil as a first active ingredient, a Metribuzin as a second active ingredient and one or more agronomically acceptable excipients thereof. The present invention further provides a formulation comprising Saflufenacil as a first active ingredient, a Metribuzin as a second active ingredient and one or more agronomically acceptable excipients or fillers and process for preparation thereof. The present invention further provides the process of preparing the said composition which is environment friendly and its application in the field of agriculture against a broad spectrum along with long residual chemical weed control.

Description

[0001] HERBICIDAL COMPOSITIONS OF SAFLUFENACIL AND METRIBUZIN

[0002] FIELD OF INVENTION

[0003] The present invention relates to a novel herbicidal composition comprising Saflufenacil belonging to the class Pyrimidindione, N-phenyl imides and a triazinone herbicide, Metribuzin along with acceptable agrochemical excipients. It also provides the process of preparing the said composition which is environment friendly and its application in the field of agriculture against a broad spectrum along with long residual chemical weed control.

[0004] BACKGROUND OF INVENTION

[0005] Agricultural development is one of the most powerful tools to end extreme poverty and feed a projected 10 billion people by 2050. Agriculture is also crucial to economic growth and accounts for 4% of Global, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and in some least developing countries it can across more than 25% of GDP.

[0006] Weeds have been a problem ever since mankind decided to grow one plant instead of another: a plant that grows where you don’t want it to grow is called a weed. Weed is a general term for any plant growing where it is not wanted. A weed is a plant considered undesirable in a particular situation, growing where it conflicts with human preferential needs. Growing crops in fields poses several challenges to the farmers. Due to the increasing population and more intensive use of cultivated lands, weeds are an emerging constraint to crop production and its impact on productivity. Weeds compete with the beneficial and desired vegetation in croplands, forests, aquatic systems etc. and pose a great problem in non-cropped areas like industrial sites, road, rail, airfields, landscapes, water bodies, water tanks, etc. Weeds interfere with a variety of human activity and many methods have been developed to suppress or eliminate them. It has generally been accepted that crop yield loss occurs as a direct result of weeds competing for resources such as light, soil nutrients, water, and space, limiting crop productivity.

[0007] Yield loss due to weeds depends on several factors such as density, time of emergence, type of weed, and crop type. Aggressive weed competition reduces crop yield significantly and adds further cost to crop production owing to their management. Globally, up to 40% yield loss has been reported, because of weeds. In India, Bhan et.al, (1999) estimated and suggested that weeds in India reduce crop yields by 31.5% (22.7% in winter and 36.5% in summer) and Kharif season. Actual crop loss due to weeds was estimated to be in India in various crops, groundnut(35.8%), soybean(31.4%), green gram(30.8%), maize(25.3%), sorghum(25.1%), sesame(23.7%), mustard(21.4%), Direct Seeded Rice(21.4%), wheat(18.6%) and transplanted rice(13.8%).

[0008] Controlling weeds in crop production may involve a wide range of techniques. One of the techniques is the chemical treatment of weeds which involves theapplication of chemical (herbicide). Herbicides are agents, usually chemicals, used for killing or inhibiting the growth of unwanted plants, without effecting the main crop. A great advantage of chemical herbicides over mechanical or manual weed control is the ease of application, which often results in the savings on the cost of the labour. Herbicides can be applied by several methods and at various stages during the growth period of the crop.

[0009] The common methods of herbicide applications are a) Pre-Plant Incorporation (PPI), b) Pre-emergence, c) Early Post-emergence, and 4) Post¬ emergence application. In Pre-Plant Incorporation method of application, here the herbicide is sprayed on the soil surface and mixed in the surface soil before planting or sowing or done simultaneously to achieve good weed control and to reduce the evaporation loses of the chemical. Pre-emergence method of application refers to the application of the herbicide on the soil surface, within 0-3 days of sowing or transplanting, before the emergence of the weeds and crop from the soil surface. Early post-emergence herbicides are applied as foliar spray, between 6-12 days after sowing or transplanting of crop and when the weeds are about 1-3 leaf stage. Post¬ emergence method of application involves herbicide application as foliar spray after the crop and weeds have emerged from the soil surface. Based on the type of crop, method of application, time of application, selectivity of the herbicide to the crop, chemical properties of herbicide, spectrum of weed control (Broadleaf, Grasses, and Sedges) and duration of weed control, herbicides are categorized and selected for application.

[0010] Herbicides are among the most effective methods to control weeds, and reliance on herbicides for weed control has increased significantly with the advent of herbicide-resistant crops. Unfortunately, intensive use of herbicides, overdosage than the recommended rates, their misapplication and inappropriate use resulted in evolution of herbicide resistant weeds. Herbicide resistance is driven either by either Target Site (TS) or Non Target Site (NTS) mechanisms. Herbicides have provided reliable and economical control of weeds in major crops for the past 50 years. However, over-reliance on the technology of herbicides, overdosage of herbicides, wrong timing and method of application, non-rotation of herbicides, without implementing Integrated Weed Management Systems, has led to the emergence of numerous herbicide-resistant weeds, threatening the effectiveness of herbicides. Herbicide resistance has already occurred across the globe as a significant threat to profitable crop production, and it will continue to evolve.

[0011] A wide range of herbicide actives with different modes of action are commercially available. However, these compounds may have limitations in controlling certain spectrum of weeds, method of application, timing of application and duration of control. To address this, various combinations are being developed toget herbicidal composition with broader spectrum control of weeds and enhanced duration of control and rain resistant. Although a lot of efforts have been taken towards developing herbicidal compositions, a need remains to ensure the storage stability of the compositions and maintain compatibility between two or more active ingredients while achieving superior and desirable weed control benefits without affecting the plant crop health and produce of the main crop.

[0012] WO2017129141A1 describes a synergistic three-way herbicidal composition that includes pyroxasulfone, mesotrione, and atrazine as the active ingredients. The weight ratio of pyroxasulfone, mesotrione, and atrazine ranges from 1 to 10: 1 to 50: 1 to 100. This invention also outlines a method for controlling the growth of undesirable plants by applying the active components - pyroxasulfone, mesotrione, and atrazine - either separately or together to the undesirable plants or their growing areas. Additionally, it presents a method to reduce or prevent any harm caused by applying pyroxasulfone to useful crops, seeds, or their reproductive parts. In this three-way mixture, both pyroxasulfone and atrazine act as pre-emergence herbicides, while mesotrione has post-emergence herbicidal activity.

[0013] WO2009112486A2 discloses herbicidal active compositions comprising pyroxasulfone, 3-[5-(difluoromethoxy)-1-methyl-3-(trifluoromethyl)pyrazol-4-ylmethylsulfonyl]-4,5-dihydro-5,5-dimethyl-1,2-oxazole, and at least one herbicide B, which inhibits microtubule assembly. The composition can be used to control undesirable vegetation in crops. Herbicide A and the additional herbicide B can be applied either simultaneously or sequentially in areas where undesirable vegetation may arise. WO’112486 specifically involves a herbicidal composition of pyroxasulfone combined with at least one herbicide B (such as prodiamine, oryzalin, pendimethalin, and trifluralin). All active ingredients in this invention display pre-emergence herbicidal activity and can be used for pre-emergence herbicide applications. In contrast, the innovative pre-mixed combinations disclosed herein exhibit both preemergence and post-emergence herbicidal activities.

[0014] WO2016116531A1 discloses a herbicidal combination that consists of: a) a herbicide A, which is 2-chloro-5-[3,6-dihydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)-1-(2H)-pyrimidinyl]-4-fluoro-N-[[methyl-(1 -methylethyl)-amino]sulfonyl]benzamide; b) a single herbicide B selected from sulfentrazone, flumioxazin, dicamba, and their salts and esters; and c) at least one herbicide C that differs from both herbicides A and B. Herbicide C can be chosen from various groups, including: (C.1) acetolactate synthase inhibitors, (C.2) protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors, (C.3) synthetic auxins, (C.4) microtubule inhibitors, (C.5) acetyl-CoA carboxylase inhibitors, (C.6) photosystem II inhibitors, (C.7) pigment synthesis inhibitors, or (C.8) VLCFA inhibitors selected from chloroacetamide, oxyacetamide, acetamide, and tetrazolinone herbicides. Notably, this combination excludes pyroxasulfone.Furthermore, if either component b) or c) includes dicamba or its salts / esters, then the combination cannot contain imazapyr or its salts. Additionally, if component b) is flumioxazin and component c) is 2,4-D, it must be used as its 2-ethylhexyl ester. This three-way combination is particularly beneficial for pre-plant burn down applications.

[0015] WO2015134573A1 relates to compositions containing herbicidal mixtures of saflufenacil, flumioxazin, and 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, along with methods for controlling weed growth using this composition. The mixtures highlighted are especially effective against horseweed (Conyza canadensis) and various grasses. The recommended ratio of saflufenacil to flumioxazin is approximately 1:1.5 to 1:6, and the ratio of saflufenacil to 2,4-D is between 1:11 and 1:50.

[0016] US10506809 discloses a herbicidal combination comprising saflufenacil, glufosinate (or one of its salts), and at least one different herbicide C. This combination is particularly useful for pre-plant burn down applications.

[0017] WO2019106528 relates to three-way synergistic herbicidal combination comprising Saflufenacil, Clomazone and a third herbicide, a method of controlling weeds using such combinations, a composition comprising the combination, and a method of use of such compositions. Surprisingly, it has been found that Saflufenacil, Clomazone, and the third herbicide as Metribuzin when applied individually, was ineffective in the control of weeds, but demonstrated excellent synergistic control on weeds when applied together.

[0018] Although a lot of efforts have been made towards developing the herbicide compositions, conventional approaches such as the three way combinations still present several challenges. The prior arts remain deficit in providing enhanced compatibility between two or more active ingredients which show synergistic, superior, and desirable weed control benefits without any phytotoxicity on the main crop. Additionally, formulating and handling three-way combinations can be more cost-intensive, technically demanding, and may reduce overall formulation flexibility.

[0019] The present invention addresses these limitations by utilizing a two-way synergistic composition of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin along with agronomically acceptable excipients. Surprisingly, this simplified composition not only maintains but, in some instances, enhances weed control efficacy compared to the more complex three-way mixtures. It also offers improved formulation stability, better compatibility between active ingredients, and a lower risk of phytotoxicity, making it a more practical and commercially viable solution for effective weed management.

[0020] SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0021] In an embodiment of the present invention, there is provided a synergistic herbicidal composition comprising: (a) Saflufenacil (N'-{2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-[1,2,3,6-tetrahydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)pyrimidin-1-yl]benzoyl}-N-isopropyl-N- methylsulfamide) as the first active ingredient; (b) Metribuzin (4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-methylthio-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one) or (4- amino-4,5-dihydro-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-methylthio-1,2,4-triazin-5-one) as the second active ingredient and; (c) one or more agronomically acceptable excipients.

[0022] In an embodiment, the present invention provides a synergistic herbicidal composition comprising (a) Saflufenacil as the first active ingredient, in an amount of 1-35% by weight; (b) Metribuzin as the second active ingredient, in an amount of 1-85% by weight and; (c) one or more agronomically acceptable excipients.

[0023] In an embodiment, the present invention provides a synergistic herbicidal composition comprising (a) Saflufenacil as the first active ingredient, in an amount of 1-30%by weight; (b) Metribuzin as the second active ingredient, in an amount of 10-85% by weight and; (c) one or more agronomically acceptable excipients.

[0024] In an embodiment, the present invention provides a synergistic herbicidal composition comprising (a) Saflufenacil as the first active ingredient, in an amount of 5 to 30% by weight; (b) Metribuzin as the second active ingredient, in an amount of 25 to 80% by weight and; (c) one or more agronomically acceptable excipients.

[0025] In an embodiment, the present invention provides a synergistic herbicidal composition comprising wherein the weight ratio of the Saflufenacil to Metribuzin is in the range of 1:1 to 1:20, examples (1:2, 1:10, 1:15, and 1:20).

[0026] In another embodiment, one or more agronomically acceptable excipients in herbicidal composition is / are selected from at least one dispersing agent, at least one wetting agent, at least one absorbing agent, at least one buffering agent, at least one filler, at least one surface active agent, at least one co-surface active agent, at least anti-freeze agent, at least one anti-foaming agent, at least one phase stabilizing agent, at least one diluent, at least one thickening agent, at least one biocide, at least one solvent, at least one co-solvent, at least one water soluble monomer, at least one protective colloid, at least one acidic buffer and combinations thereof.

[0027] In still another embodiment, the present invention provides an herbicidal formulation comprising the herbicidal composition according to one of the embodiments of the present invention along with one or more agronomically acceptable excipients.

[0028] In an embodiment, the agronomically acceptable excipient is selected from dispersing agents, wetting agents, absorbents, buffering agents, fillers, surfactants, co-surfactants, antifreeze agents, antifoaming agents, phase stabilisers, diluents, thickeners, biocides, solvents, co-solvents, protective colloids, acidic buffers, and combinations thereof.

[0029] In an embodiment, the formulation is formulated as any of wettable powders (WP), emulsifiable concentrates (EC), aqueous solutions (SL), emulsions (EW) such as oil-in-water, sprayable solutions or emulsions, oil or water-based dispersions, suspo-emulsions (SE), water-dispersible granules (WG), mixed formulation ofcapsule suspension (CS) and emulsion(EW) i.e. ZW formulation, ULV formulations, microcapsules or waxes Emulsion water-in-oil (EO), Granules (GR), Oil-dispersion (OD), Oil miscible flowable concentrate (OF), Oil miscible liquid (OL), Oil dispersible powder (OP), ), a mixed formulation of CS and SC (ZC) or a mixed formulation of CS and SE (ZE), preferably WP and SC.

[0030] In a further embodiment, the synergistic herbicidal composition is formulated as a pre-mix formulation.

[0031] In a further embodiment, the synergistic herbicidal composition is formulated as a pre-mix formulation where the weight ratio of the Saflufenacil to Metribuzin in the pre-mixed composition ranges from 1:1 to 1:20, examples (1:2, 1:10, 1:15, and 1:20).

[0032] In another embodiment, the synergistic herbicidal formulation comprising a safener selected from Isoxadifen-ethyl, benoxacor, Cloquintocet mexyl, Fenclorim, or combinations thereof.

[0033] In another embodiment, the invention provides a formulation that comprises the herbicidal composition of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin, along with agronomically acceptable excipients (1 to 50% by weight), achieving the desired effect within a specified weight ratio.

[0034] In yet another embodiment, the invention provides a method for controlling weed growth comprising applying an effective amount of the herbicidal composition or formulation according to an embodiment of the present invention.

[0035] In yet another embodiment, the formulation is applied as pre-plant incorporation, pre-emergence, early post-emergence or post-emergence method of application in various crops and non-crop areas.

[0036] In another embodiment, the invention describes a method wherein the formulation is applied to provide a total weight of the herbicidal composition in the range of 100 to 1500 g a.i. / ha.

[0037] These and other features, aspects, and advantages of the present invention will be better understood with reference to the following description and appended claims. This summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form and is not intended to identify or limit the key or essential features of the claimed invention.

[0038] DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0039] Those skilled in the art will be aware that the present disclosure is subject to variation and modifications other than those specifically described. It is to be understood that the present disclosure includes all such variations and modifications. The disclosure also includes all such steps, features, compositions, and compounds referred to or indicated in this specification, individually or collectively and any and all combinations of any or more of such steps or features.DEFINITIONS

[0040] For convenience, before further description of the present disclosure, certain terms employed in the specification, and examples are delineated here. These definitions should be read in the light of the remainder of the disclosure and understood as by a person of skill in the art. The terms used herein have the meanings recognized and known to those of skill in the art, however, for convenience and completeness, particular terms and their meanings are set forth below.

[0041] The articles “a”, “an” and “the” are used to refer to one or to more than one and all combinations of one or more of the associated listed elements (i.e., to at least one) of the grammatical object of the article and may be intended to include “included” and have the plural forms as well unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

[0042] The terms “comprise” and “comprising” are used in the inclusive, open sense, meaning that additional elements may be included. It is not intended to be construed as “consists of only” and are open-ended transitional phrases.

[0043] Throughout this specification, unless the context requires otherwise the word “comprise”, and variations such as “comprises” and “comprising”, will be understood to imply the inclusion of a stated element or step or group of element or steps but not the exclusion of any other element or step or group of elements or steps.

[0044] The term “including” is used to mean “including but not limited to”. “Including” and “including but not limited to” are used interchangeably.

[0045] The term “fertilization” as used herein refers to the addition of any natural or synthetic material to the plant or soil or plant in order to supply nutrients to it to keep it healthy. The term 'plants' as used herein, refers to all physical parts of a plant, including seeds, seedlings, saplings, roots, tubers, stems, stalks, foliage and fruits. The term “foliage” as used herein refers to the leaves and stem of a plant.

[0046] The term “foliar spray” as used herein refers to a solution that is sprayed over the leaves of a plant or foliage.

[0047] The term “watering” as used herein refers to the addition of water to the soil of plants.

[0048] The term “flooding” as used herein refers to watering the plants to such an extent that water accumulates in the soil and rises to a certain height. This method of watering is generally adopted in agriculture for growing rice crops.

[0049] The term “foliar spray” as used herein refers to a solution that is sprayed over the leaves of a plant. The term “broadcasted” as used herein refers to a spray solution that is mixed with sand or urea or any other carrier and sprinkled over an agricultural field or plants in a uniform fashion to ensure an almost equal spread of solution in the entire field or plants.The term “Pre-emergence” refers to the application of the herbicide on the soil surface immediately after sowing and before the emergence of weeds.

[0050] The term “post-emergence” refers to an herbicide treatment that is applied when the weeds are germinated and are at four to five leaf stage from the ground surface.

[0051] The term “safener” are chemical compounds used in combination with herbicides to make them safer - that is, to reduce the effect of the herbicide on crop plants, and to improve selectivity between crop plants vs. weed species being targeted by the herbicide.

[0052] The term “syneresis” is a phenomenon where any suspension formulation develops a top down layer separation during its shelf life. A suspension formulation with minimum syneresis i.e., with minimum layer separation in top, signifies that it is physically stable throughout its shelf life.

[0053] The term “Synergistic” as used herein, refers to the combined action of two or more active ingredients blended together and administered conjointly that is greater than the sum of their individual effects.

[0054] The term “leaf injury” used herein refers to defects in the leaves of the plants and may be caused due to the chemical or herbicide spray.

[0055] The term “wilting” used herein refers to the loss of rigidity of non-woody parts of plants and also serves to reduce water loss, as it makes the leaves expose less surface area.

[0056] The term “vein clearing” used herein refers to a symptom that occurs due to the loss of normal green coloration of plant veins, to become unnaturally clear or translucent, which usually turn yellow later.

[0057] The term “necrosis” used herein refers to a condition due to the degeneration of cells or tissues which causes the leaves, stem or other parts to darken and wilt.

[0058] The term “epinasty” used herein refers to nastic movement in which a plant parts where in downward curvature of leaves etc., takes place due to differential growth rates.

[0059] The term “hyponasty” used herein refers to an increase in growth in a lower part of a plant causing it to bend upward. Hyponasty is an upward bending of leaves or other plant parts caused by increased growth on their lower surface.

[0060] The term “at least one anti-freeze” as used herein refers to additives meant to decrease the freezing point of solutions. They are added to the solution in order to make it applicable in cold environments too.

[0061] The term “at least one anti-foaming agent” used herein refers to an additive that reduces or hinders the formation of foam in industrial process liquids.

[0062] The term “at least one thickening agent” used herein refers to an additive which used to increase the viscosity of a solution. The thickening agent may be oneor a combination of more than one. A suitable thickening agent in any individual case may be determined by one of average / ordinary skill in the art.

[0063] The term “at least one biocide” as used herein refers to a chemical substance or microorganism intended to destroy, deter, render harmless, or exert a controlling effect on any harmful organism like Mycorrhizae, bacteria, fungi and the like.

[0064] The term “at least one acidic buffer” used herein refers to a solution that has pH less than 7 and contains a weak acid and one of its salts. It resists any change to pH when another acid or base is added to it.

[0065] The term “at least one carrier” used herein refers to a substance that contains other substances to carry it to its required position such as soil or roots of plants.

[0066] The term “wet milling” used herein refers to a process of grinding or crushing solid particles in order to disperse them in another liquid solution.

[0067] The term “cps” used herein refers to SI unit of viscosity which is an abbreviated form of centipoise wherein one centipoise is equal to one millipascal second.

[0068] The term “sedimentation” used herein refers to settling or depositing a substance suspended, dispersed or dissolved in another substance.

[0069] The term “a carrier” used herein refers to a substance that contains other substances to carry it to its required position such as soil or roots of plants.

[0070] The term “diluent” used herein refers to a liquid which is added to a material to reduce its viscosity and enable free flowing of the material. In the present disclosure, the diluent is a continuous phase which facilitates easy handling of the formulation for applying in the fields. The diluent includes but is not limited to water.

[0071] The term “EC” used herein refers to emulsifiable concentrate which is a liquid formulation containing one or more water-immiscible organic solvent and an emulsifier.

[0072] The term “emulsifier” used herein refers to surface active agents which stabilise emulsions by increasing the extent of contact between the two immiscible liquids in the emulsion.

[0073] The term “EW” used herein refers to oil in water emulsion in which water insoluble oily phase is dispersed in water.

[0074] The unit “g a.i / ha” refers to grams of active ingredient per hectare of the field / area.

[0075] The term “effective amount” used herein refers to the amount of the formulation that will kill the pest. The “effective amount” will vary depending on the formulation concentration, the type of plants(s) being treated, the severity of the pest infestation, the result desired, and the life stage of the pests at various stages during treatment, among other factors. Thus, it is not always possible to specify an exact“effective amount.” However, an appropriate “effective amount” in any individual case may be determined by one of ordinary / average skilled in the art.

[0076] Weed Flora: The spectrum of weed flora varies according to agro-climatic conditions, land preparations, irrigation of the crop. The weed flora is categorized into Broad leaf, Grasses and Sedges. The list of weeds is given below:

[0077] Broadleaf: The dominant broad leaf weeds are Acalypha indica, Achyranthus aspera, Aerva tomentosa, Ageratum conyzoides, Amaranthus viridis Ammannia baccifera, Anagallis arvensis, Argemone Mexicana, Asphodelus tenuifolius,, Bidens Pilosa, Boerhaavia diffusa, Brachiara spp., Carthamus oxycantha, Celeosia argentia, Centella asiatica, Chenopodium album, Cichorium intybus, Circium arvense, Commelina benghalensis, Cyanotis axillaris, Clitoria ternatea, Commelina communis, Convolvulus arvensis, Cornopus didymus, Cuscuta spp., Digeria arvensis, Eclipta alba, Eclipta prostrata, Euphorbia geniculate, Euphorbia hirta, Heliotropium indicum, Lantana camara, Lathyrus aphaca, Leucas aspera, Ludwigia parviflora, Marselia quadrifolia, Medicagao denticulata, Mimosa pudica Melilotus spp., Oxalis corniculata, Oxalis latifolia, Parthenium hysterophorous, Phyllanthus niruri, Physalis minima, Portuluca oleracea, Rumex dentatus, Solanum nigrum, Sonchus brachyotus, Trianthema monogyna, Tribulus terrestris, Xanthium strumarium.

[0078] Grasses: Chloris barbata, Cynodon dactylon, Dactyloctenium aegyptium, Digitaria sanguinalis, Dinebra retroflexa, Echinochloa colonum, Eleusine indica, Fimbrystylis miliacea, Paspalum conjugatum, Poa annua, Setaria glauca, Sorghum halpense, Sphenochlea zeylanica and

[0079] Sedges: Cyperus rotundus, Cyperus esculentus and Cyperus iria.

[0080] Ratios, concentrations, amounts, and other numerical data may be presented herein in a range format. It is to be understood that such range format is used merely for convenience and brevity and should be interpreted flexibly to include not only the numerical values explicitly recited as the limits of the range, but also to include all the individual numerical values or sub-ranges encompassed within that range as if each numerical value and sub-range is explicitly recited. For example, a weight range of about 10-1000 g a.i. / ha should be interpreted to include not only the explicitly recited limits of about 10 g a.i. / ha to about 1000 g a.i. / ha, but also to include sub-ranges, such as 10- 900 g a.i. / ha, 20- 800 g a.i. / ha, and so forth, as well as individual amounts, including fractional amounts, within the specified ranges, such as 10.1 g a.i. / ha, and 900.1 g a.i. / ha, for example.

[0081] Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this disclosure belongs. Although any methods and materials similar orequivalent to those described herein can be used in the practice or testing of the disclosure, the preferred methods, and materials are now described. All publications mentioned herein are incorporated herein by reference.

[0082] Saflufenacil, a selective herbicide is an analogue of the herbicide Butafenacil, wherein the carboxylic ester of butafenacil was replaced by a sulfamoyl carboxamide. Saflufenacil (N'-{2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-[1,2,3,6-tetrahydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)pyrimidin-1-yl]benzoyl}-N isopropyl-N-methylsulfamide) of CAS Registry Number: 372137-35-4, belongs to the class Pyrimidindione, N-phenyl imides. Saflufenacil is a foliar contact herbicide with residual activity for control of broad spectrum of weeds, with excellent control of broad leaf weeds. Saflufenacil has both Pre-emergence and post-emergence activity and it has some suppression effect on some grasses and sedges. Saflufenacil is absorbed by foliage and roots with translocation in the apoplast and limited movement in the phloem. It’s mode of action is through a process of membrane disruption, which is initiated by inhibiting the enzyme Protoporphyrinogen Oxidase (PPO), thus interfering with chlorophyll biosynthesis pathway. It is rapidly absorbed through the roots and foliage of plants. Within a few hours of application, the foliage of susceptible weeds shows signs of chlorotic and necrotic injury symptoms within hours of application and shows signs of desiccation within a few days of exposed plant tissues. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) is an enzyme in the chloroplast that oxidizes protoporphyrinogen IX (PPGIX) to produce Protoporphyrin, a precursor molecule for Chlorophyll (needed for photosynthesis). PPO by inhibitors also results in forming highly reactive molecules that attack and destroy lipids and protein membranes. When a lipid membrane is destroyed, the cell becomes leaky and cell organelles dry and disintegrate rapidly.

[0083] Saflufenacil is generally recommended as a pre-plant burndown herbicide in most of the crops like cereals, soybean, maize and other crops. In some crops, it is recommended as a pre-emergence herbicide. Light irrigation is to be given after application of the herbicide, for better results. Saflufenacil is recommended in plantations and orchard crops as a post-emergence spray in crop crops as a standalone or in combination with non-selective herbicides for broad-spectrum control of weeds.

[0084] Metribuzin as 4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-methylthio-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one or (4- amino-4,5-dihydro-6-(1, 1 -dimethylethyl)-3-methylthio-1,2,4-triazin-5-one) is a triazinone herbicide. Metribuzin is a selective systemic herbicide, absorbed predominantly by the roots, but also by the leaves, with translocation acropetally in the xylem. Metribuzin has both Pre-emergence and Post-emergence activity for control of broad spectrum of weeds in various crops like Soybean, Potatoes, Tomatoes, Sugarcane, Alfalfa, Asparagus, Maize, and Cereals. Metribuzin inhibitsphotosynthesis in susceptible plants by binding to a protein of the Photosystem II complex, specifically the inhibition of the Photosynthetic electron transport inhibitor at the Photosystem II receptor site. Selectivity is due to the metabolism (mostly conjugation) within the plants. The D1 protein of the PS II is the target site of triazinone herbicides which in turn, causes a chain of events where, eventually the plant lipids and proteins are attacked and oxidised by highly reactive free radicals. Once the susceptible plants emerge through treated soil into the sunlight, they become yellow / chlorotic, then totally brown / desiccated after two to five days. As a result, chlorophyll and plant pigments are lost causing chlorosis followed by plant cell drying and disintegration. Foliar applied metribuzin is moderately absorbed into the plant and translocation is also upward. Downward movement through the vascular tissue phloem does not occur under typical growing conditions. As with soil application, chlorosis and desiccation occur after the plant foliage encounters the post-emergence application. Due to its root and leaf systemicity, metribuzin can be used as a pre-emergence and post-emergence herbicide. If used in pre-emergence, metribuzin relies on the presence of moisture in the soil for broad-spectrum weed control. Soil properties influence the herbicidal efficacy and crop tolerance of metribuzin. High contents in clay and / or humus need higher rates of application.

[0085] Over the years, pre-emergence herbicides and their combinations launched by various companies are not effective for broad-spectrum control of weeds and longer duration of residual control and continuous use of these herbicides lead to the resistance of weeds to these herbicides. In this context, there was a continuous requirement to identify and develop newer herbicidal combinations to meet the farmer's requirements.

[0086] However, when a combination of one or more herbicides are used, the main challenge comes in developing a formulation or composition which is stable, easy to use, safe and which exhibits synergistically superior and extended duration of control.

[0087] In this context, there was a continuous requirement to identify and develop newer herbicidal combinations to meet the farmer’s requirements.

[0088] Metribuzin 70% WP is recommended for chemical weed control as Preemergence and post-emergence method of application, which has proven safe for sugarcane crop. The common practice of weed control in sugarcane crop is the tank mix application of Metribuzin and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) as postemergence method of application for broad spectrum control of weeds.

[0089] Although Saflufenacil has both pre-emergence and post-emergence herbicidal activity, it is typically recommended as pre-plant burn-down herbicide or as pre-emergence treatment for most agricultural crops.There was a continuous need to identify and develop new herbicidal combinations to meet farmers' requirements. Various experiments were conducted with Saflufenacil as the active ingredient. The results from several trials indicated that Metribuzin was the ideal partner for Saflufenacil. This innovative composition can also be used as a pre-plant burn-down herbicide for various crops.

[0090] The inventors of the present invention have developed a formulation that overcomes the existing and other challenges. The pre-mixed formulation comprising Saflufenacil along with Metribuzin featuring a distinct mode of action, for a broader spectrum of weed control, and extended residual activity.

[0091] It has several advantages over the standalone application of either Saflufenacil or Metribuzin. This composition demonstrated no phytotoxicity to sugarcane at any growth stage, whether applied pre-emergence or post-emergence. The weed control achieved with the pre-mixed formulation was significantly superior to that of standalone Saflufenacil and Metribuzin, with an extended duration of control. Notably, the pre-mixed formulation effectively controlled weeds even up to the 5 to 6 leaf stage, particularly creeping weeds.

[0092] Additionally, this composition enhanced broad-spectrum weed control with longer residual effectiveness, allowing for more flexible application, which is a major requirement for farmers. When applied as a pre-emergence method, this composition showed no phytotoxicity to soybean and most vegetable crops. It provided effective control of a wide range of weeds, especially tough broadleaf species such as Commelina benghalensis, Commelina communis, Cyanotis axillaris, Euphorbia geniculata, and Parthenium hysterophorus, outperforming standalone applications of Metribuzin and Saflufenacil, as well as the commercially popular pre-mixed formulations of Pendimethalin and Imazethapyr.

[0093] A novel pre-mixed compositions according to the present invention comprises active components belonging to the different classes; different modes of action with different spectrum of weed control and different residual intervals. One herbicide, Saflufenacil, (N'-{2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-[1,2,3,6-tetrahydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)pyrimidin-1-yl]benzoyl}-N-isopropyl-N-methylsulfamide) belonging to the class Pyrimidindione, N phenyl imides and another herbicide, Metribuzin, 4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-methylthio-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one or (4- amino-4,5-dihydro-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-methylthio-1,2,4-triazin-5-one) belonging to triazinone group along with acceptable agrochemical excipients. The ratio of the Saflufenacil to Metribuzin in the pre-mixed composition ranges from 1:1 to 1:20(1:2, 1:10, 1:15, and 1:20).

[0094] The present invention also provides a process of preparing the said composition which is environment friendly and its application in the field of agriculture against a broad spectrum along with long residual chemical weed control.The present disclosure is not to be limited in scope by the specific embodiments described herein, which are intended for the purposes of exemplifications only. Functionally, equivalent products, compositions and methods are clearly within the scope of the disclosure as described herein.

[0095] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the composition may be formulated in various ways, depending on which biological and / or chemical-physical parameters are predetermined. Possible formulation options are, for example, wettable powders (WP), emulsifiable concentrates (EC), aqueous solutions (SL), emulsions (EW) such as oil-in-water emulsions, sprayable solutions or emulsions, oil or water-based dispersions, suspension concentrate (flowable concentrate) (SC), suspo-emulsions (SE), water-dispersible granules (WG), mixed formulation of capsule suspension (CS) and emulsion(EW) i.e. ZW formulation, ULV formulations, microcapsules, wax-based, water-in-oil Emulsion (EO), Granules (GR), oil-dispersion (OD), oil miscible flowable concentrate (OF), oil miscible liquid (OL), oil dispersible powder (OP), ), a mixed formulation of CS and SC (ZC) or a mixed formulation of CS and SE (ZE), preferably WP and SC.

[0096] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the present invention with any formulation, provides a herbicide composition comprises (N'-{2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-[1,2,3,6-tetrahydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)pyrimidin-1-yl]benzoyl}-N-isopropyl-N-methylsulfamide) i.e., Saflufenacil, and another herbicide (4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-methylthio-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one or (4- amino-4,5-dihydro-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-methylthio-1,2,4-triazin-5-one) i.e., Metribuzin as active ingredients in certain specific ratios. Further, the invention also provides a formulation comprising the composition according to the present invention, and an agronomically acceptable excipient.

[0097] The agronomically acceptable excipient is selected from at least one dispersing agent, at least one wetting agent, at least one absorbing agent, at least one buffering agent, at least one filler, at least one surface active agent, at least one co-surface active agent, at least anti-freeze agent, at least one anti-foaming agent, at least one phase stabilizing agent, at least one diluent, at least one thickening agent, at least one biocide, at least one solvent, at least one co-solvent, at least one water soluble monomer, at least one protective colloid, at least one acidic buffer and combinations thereof.

[0098] In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the present invention for WDG(Water Dispersible Granules) formulation, provides a herbicide composition comprises Saflufenacil and another herbicide Metribuzin as active ingredients in certain specific ratios. Further, the invention also provides a formulation comprising the composition according to the present invention, and an agronomically acceptable excipient. The agronomically acceptable excipient is dispersing agent, wetting agent,absorbing agent, buffering agent, filler, surface active agent, co-surface active agent, anti-freeze agent, anti-foaming agent, phase stabilizing agent, diluent, thickening agent, biocide, solvent, co-solvent, water soluble monomer, protective colloid, acidic buffer and combinations thereof, in particular a) polymer, b) Naphthalene sulfonate formaldehyde condensate, c) (i) Lignosulphonate with degree of sulfonation 3.3, with molecular weight ranging from 2900 to 13,000 and the salt content 16, c) (ii) Lignosulphonate with degree of sulfonation 1.2, molecular weight of 13,400 to 2,55,000 and salt content of 0.5, d) Diiso propyl / Disio butyl naphthalene sulfonate, e) citric acid, f) Ammonium sulphate, g) Silicone defoamer and h) China clay, i) Lactose for WG formulation.

[0099] In another embodiment, the present invention for WP(Wettable Powder), provides herbicide composition / formulation comprising Saflufenacil and another herbicide Metribuzin as active ingredients in certain specific ratios. Further, a formulation comprising the composition of the present disclosure, and an agronomically acceptable excipient is also disclosed. The one or more agronomically acceptable excipient selected from dispersing agent, wetting agent, absorbing agent, buffering agent, filler, surface active agent, co-surface active agent, anti-freeze agent, anti-foaming agent, phase stabilizing agent, diluent, thickening agent, biocide, solvent, co-solvent, water soluble monomer, protective colloid, acidic buffer and combinations thereof. In particular, selected from a) Naphthalene sulfonate formaldehyde condensate, b) Phenol sulfonic acid, c) (i) Lignosulphonate with degree of sulfonation 3.3, with molecular weight ranging from 2900 to 13,000 and the salt content 16, c) (ii) Lignosulphonate with degree of sulfonation 1.2, molecular weight of 13,400 to 2,55,000 and salt content of 0.5, d) Naphthalene sulfonic acid, e) Diiso propyl / Diiso butyl naphthalene sulfonate, f) citric acid, g) Ammonium sulphate, China clay and Lactose for WP formulation.

[0100] In an embodiment of the present invention, there is provided a synergistic herbicidal composition comprising: (a) Saflufenacil as the first active ingredient; (b) Metribuzin as the second active ingredient

[0101] In an embodiment of the present invention, there is provided a synergistic herbicidal composition comprising (a) Saflufenacil as the first active ingredient, in an amount of 1-35% by weight; (b) Metribuzin as the second active ingredient, in an amount of 1-85% by weight and; (c) one or more agronomically acceptable excipients.

[0102] In an embodiment, the present invention provides a synergistic herbicidal composition comprising (a) Saflufenacil as the first active ingredient, in an amount of 1-30 by weight; (b) Metribuzin as the second active ingredient, in an amount of 10-85 % by weight and; (c) one or more agronomically acceptable excipients in an amount of 1-50% by weight.In an embodiment, the present invention provides a synergistic herbicidal composition comprising (a) Saflufenacil as the first active ingredient, in an amount of 5-30% by weight; (b) Metribuzin as the second active ingredient, in an amount of 25-80% by weight and; (c) one or more agronomically acceptable excipients in an amount of 1-50% by weight.

[0103] In an embodiment, the present invention provides a synergistic herbicidal formulation comprising (a) herbicidal composition as Saflufenacil as the first active ingredient in an amount of 1-35% by weight and Metribuzin as the second active ingredient, in an amount of 1-85% by weight and; (b) one or more agronomically acceptable excipients in an amount of 1-50% by weight.

[0104] In an embodiment, the present invention provides the formulation wherein the composition is provided as a premix powder comprising the Saflufenacil, the Metribuzin, and one or more agronomically acceptable excipients.

[0105] In an embodiment, the present invention provides the formulation wherein the premixed powder are pre-mixed in any formulation selected from wettable powders (WP), emulsifiable concentrates (EC), aqueous solutions (SL), emulsions (EW) such as oil-in-water emulsions, sprayable solutions or emulsions, oil or waterbased dispersions, suspension concentrate (flowable concentrate) (SC), suspo-emulsions (SE), water-dispersible granules (WG), mixed formulation of capsule suspension (CS) and emulsion(EW) i.e. ZW formulation, ULV formulations, microcapsules, wax-based, water-in-oil Emulsion (EO), Granules (GR), oil-dispersion (OD), oil miscible flowable concentrate (OF), oil miscible liquid (OL), oil dispersible powder (OP), ), a mixed formulation of CS and SC (ZC) or a mixed formulation of CS and SE (ZE), preferably WP and SC.

[0106] In an another embodiment, the present invention provides a method for controlling weed growth comprising applying an effective amount of the herbicidal composition and the formulation to a locus in need thereof, wherein the composition comprises Saflufenacil and Metribuzin in a pre-mixed formulation; and wherein the formulation is selected from WP, EC, SL, EW, SE, WG, CS, ZW, ULV, microcapsules, EC, GR, OD, OF, OL, OP, ZC, or ZE, preferably WP or SC.

[0107] In an another embodiment, the present invention provides the method wherein the formulation is applied in the fields as pre-plant incorporation, pre¬ emergence, early post-emergence or post-emergence method of application in various crops and non-crop areas.

[0108] In an another embodiment, the present invention provides the method wherein the formulation is applied in the fields to provide a total weight of the herbicidal composition in the range of 100 to 1500 g a.i. / ha.

[0109] In another embodiment, the present invention provides the method wherein the formulation is applied in the fields with an application rate of 0.375 to 2.0 kg / ha.Examples

[0110] Example 1: a) Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG

[0111] In an embodiment of the present invention, Metribuzin is formulated as a pre-mix with Saflufenacil in a water-dispersible granule (WG) formulation, a stable and efficacious formulation is achieved, exhibiting excellent biological activity. The following composition enables the successful synergy of these two active ingredients along with agronomically acceptable excipients as:

[0112] Table 1:

[0113] Raw materials Formulation 01 Formulation 02

[0114] % w / w % w / w

[0115] Metribuzin Technical (95%) 73.8 - 74.5 73.8 - 74.5 Saflufenacil Technical (96.5%) 7.2 - 7.8 7.2 - 7.8

[0116] Styrene acrylic polymer 2.8 - 4.5 Nil

[0117] Naphthalene sulfonate formaldehyde condensate 2.8 - 4.5 Nil Lignosulfonate with high salt content* Nil 2.8 - 4.5 Lignosulfonate with low salt content* Nil 2.8 - 4.5

[0118] Diiso propyl / Diiso butyl naphthalene sulfonate 2.8 - 4.5 2.8 - 4.5

[0119] Citric acid 0.5- 1.5 0.5- 1.5 Ammonium sulfate 0.2 - 0.7 0.2 - 0.7

[0120] Silicone defoamer 0.2 - 0.7 0.2 - 0.7

[0121] Lactose 0.8 - 2.2 0.8 - 2.2

[0122] Kaolin clay 1.8- 3.5 1.8- 3.5

[0123] Physio-Chemical Properties

[0124] Ambient storage 0 day

[0125] Appearance Off white to beige coloured Beige coloured granules granules

[0126] pH of 1% aqueous solution 4.5 - 8.0 4.5 - 8.0 Suspensibility, by gravimetry (minimum 70%) 74.3 75.7

[0127] Wettability, seconds, before granulation 35 30

[0128] Accelerated Heat Storage (AHS) Stability, 2

[0129] weeks, 54°C

[0130] Appearance Off white to beige coloured Beige coloured granules granules

[0131] pH of 1% aqueous solution 4.5 - 8.0 4.5 - 8.0 Suspensibility, by gravimetry (minimum 70%) 73.0 75.0

[0132]

[0133] Wettability, seconds, before granulation 42 38

[0134] ‘Details disclosed in the description

[0135] Inference:

[0136] Both formulations yielded stable results after undergoing AHS, demonstrating the product's stability and reliability.

[0137] Process of preparation of formulation of Water dispersible Granule:

[0138] In this embodiment, the Herbicidal composition / formulation comprising Saflufenacil 70 g / kg + Metribuzin 700 g / kg WG as a pre-mix WG prepared by the following procedure.

[0139] Process of Air jet milling the mixture of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin:

[0140] All excipients, except for the silicone defoamer, were added in the quantities specified in Table 1, one by one, into a 250 ml plastic beaker. The mixture was stirred with a plastic spatula to obtain the premix powder.

[0141] This premix powder was then added slowly to an air jet mill of model BMF 2”, which was set up to receive a compressed air supply at a pressure of 6.5 to 7.0kg / cm². The premix powder was introduced gradually to maintain the grinding pressure at 3.0 to 4.0 kg / cm². After all the premix powder was ground, the jet-milled powder was analyzed using a laser diffraction particle size analyzer, specifically the Malvern model MS3000E. Once the particle size specification (d90) reached approximately 7 to 14 microns, it was confirmed that the grinding process was complete. This resulting product is referred to as the milled mixture.

[0142] Process of Dough making:

[0143] The milled mixture was transferred into a dough mixer of model UPLM 400, which operates similarly to a sigma mixer. A suitable quantity of demineralized water was weighed, and an appropriate amount of silicone defoamer was also prepared. The defoamer was initially added to the water and mixed thoroughly using a glass rod. This mixture was then added to the powder in the dough mixer jar, resulting in a wet cake called dough.

[0144] Process of Extruded Granule making:

[0145] The dough was passed through a laboratory model tabletop basket extruder (model VSSE 60) equipped with a 1mm sieve. This process produced wet granules in noodle form.

[0146] Process of Fluid Bed Drying:

[0147] The wet granules were then passed through a fluid bed dryer (model Unifluid Nano) and dried at a temperature of 50 to 55 degrees Celsius for 3 minutes. After drying, the granules were removed from the fluid bed dryer.

[0148] Process of Sieving:

[0149] The dried granules were sieved by passing them through a 30 mesh sieve and retaining the material on a 60 mesh sieve. The resulting dried and sieved extruded granules measured approximately 0.8 to 1.2 mm in diameter, with around 90% of the product being approximately 1 mm in diameter.

[0150] The sieved granules are referred to as WG and are analyzed to ensure they meet all test parameters before being qualified.

[0151] Example 2: Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) Wettable Powder (WP) Formulation

[0152] In an embodiment of the present invention, Metribuzin is formulated as a pre-mix with Saflufenacil in a Wettable Powder (WP) Formulation, a stable and efficacious formulation is achieved, exhibiting excellent biological activity. The following composition enables the successful synergy of these two active ingredients along with agronomically acceptable excipients as:

[0153] Table 2:Raw material Formulation 03 Formulation 04

[0154] % w / w % w / w

[0155] Metribuzin Technical (95%) 73.8- 74.5 73.8- 74.5 Saflufenacil Technical (96.5%) 7.2 - 7.8 7.2 - 7.8

[0156] Anionic surfactant blend 2.8 - 4.5 Nil

[0157] Naphthalene sulfonate formaldehyde condensate 2.8 - 4.5 Nil

[0158] Phenol Sulfonic Acid Condensation product, Na Nil 2.8 - 4.5

[0159] salt

[0160] Naphthalene Sulfonic acid condensation product, Nil 2.8 - 4.5

[0161] Na salt

[0162] Diiso propyl / Diiso butyl naphthalene sulfonate 2.8 - 4.5 2.8 - 4.5

[0163] Citric acid 0.5 - 1.5 0.5 - 1.5 Ammonium sulfate 0.2 - 0.7 0.2 - 0.7

[0164] Lactose 0.8 - 2.2 0.8 - 2.2

[0165] Kaolin clay 2.0 - 4.0 2.0 - 4.0

[0166] Physio-Chemical Properties

[0167] Ambient storage 0 day

[0168] Appearance Off white to pale beige Beige coloured powder coloured powder

[0169] pH of 1% aqueous solution 4.7 - 8.5 4.7 - 8.5 Suspensibility, by gravimetry (minimum 70%) 76.2 75.5

[0170] Wettability, seconds, before granulation 40 35

[0171] Accelerated Heat Storage (AHS) Stability, 2

[0172] weeks, 54°C

[0173] Appearance Off white to pale beige Beige coloured powder coloured powder

[0174] pH of 1% aqueous solution 4.7 - 8.5 4.7 - 8.5 Suspensibility, by gravimetry (minimum 70%) 75.2 74.3

[0175]

[0176] Wettability, seconds, before granulation 46 41

[0177] Inference:

[0178] Both formulations yielded stable results after undergoing AHS, demonstrating the product's stability and reliability.

[0179] Process of preparing a Wettable Powder (WP) Formulation comprising a premix of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) and Metribuzin (700 g / kg):

[0180] In this embodiment, the Herbicide composition / formulation comprising Saflufenacil 70 g / kg + Metribuzin 700 g / kg WG as a pre-mix WP prepared by the following procedure.

[0181] Air Jet Milling Process for the Saflufenacil and Metribuzin Mixture:

[0182] The quantities of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin, along with all necessary excipients, were measured according to the specifications provided in Table 2 for the preparation of Formulation 3 and 4. These ingredients were added sequentially into a 250 ml plastic beaker and mixed using a plastic spatula to create a premix powder. This premix powder was then gradually introduced into an air jet mill (model BMF 2”) that is equipped to receive compressed air at a pressure of 6.5 to 7.0 kg / cm2. The premix powder was added slowly to achieve a grinding pressure of 3.0 to 4.0 kg / cm2. Once the grinding of the entire premix powder was completed, the jet-milled product was analyzed using a laser diffraction particle size analyzer, specifically the Malvern model. The grinding process is considered complete when the particle size distribution (d90) falls within the range of 7 to 14 microns. At this point, the product is called as Wettable Powder (WP).Example 3: Saflufenacil (175 g / kg) + Metribuzin (350 g / kg) Water-Dispersible Granule (WG)

[0183] In an embodiment of the present invention, Metribuzin is formulated as a pre-mix with Saflufenacil in a Water-Dispersible Granule (WG), a stable and efficacious formulation is achieved, exhibiting excellent biological activity. The following composition enables the successful synergy of these two active ingredients along with agronomically acceptable excipients as:

[0184] Table 3:

[0185] Raw material Formulation 05 Formulation 06 % w / w % w / w Metribuzin Technical (95%) 37.1 - 37.7 37.1 - 37.7 Saflufenacil Technical (96.5%) 18.1 - 18.6 18.1 - 18.6 Styrene acrylic polymer 1.65- 3.35 Nil Naphthalene sulfonate formaldehyde 1.65- 3.35 Nil condensate

[0186] Lignosulfonate with high salt content* Nil 1.65 - 3.35 Lignosulfonate with low salt content* Nil 1.65 - 3.35 Diiso propyl / Diiso butyl naphthalene sulfonate 1.65- 3.35 1.65 - 3.35 Citric acid 0.1 - 1.1 0.1 - 1.1 Ammonium sulfate 0.06- 0.56 0.06 - 0.56 Silicone defoamer 0.06- 0.56 0.06 - 0.56 Lactose 12.3- 13.7 12.3 - 13.7 Kaolin clay 21.44 - 24.74 21.44- 24.74 Physio-Chemical Properties

[0187] Ambient storage 0 day

[0188] Appearance Off white to beige coloured Beige coloured granules granules pH of 1% aqueous solution 4.5 - 8.0 4.5 - 8.0 Suspensibility, by gravimetry (minimum 70%) 75.7 75.0 Wettability, seconds, before granulation 28 24 Accelerated Heat Storage (AHS) Stability, 2

[0189] weeks, 54°C

[0190] Appearance Off white to beige coloured Beige coloured granules granules pH of 1% aqueous solution 4.5 - 8.0 4.5 - 8.0 Suspensibility, by gravimetry (minimum 70%) 74.6 74.8

[0191]

[0192] Wettability, seconds, before granulation 35 34

[0193] ‘Details given in description

[0194] Inference:

[0195] Both formulations yielded stable results after undergoing AHS, demonstrating the product's stability and reliability.

[0196] Process of Preparation of Water Dispersible Granule Formulation:

[0197] In this embodiment, the herbicide composition / formulation comprises 175 g / kg of Saflufenacil and 350 g / kg of Metribuzin as a pre-mix water dispersible granule (WG), prepared through the following procedure.

[0198] Process of Air Jet Milling the Mixture of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin:

[0199] The specified quantities of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin, along with all excipients except the silicone defoamer, were added one by one to a 250 ml plastic beaker, as per the quantities listed in Table 3 for both formulations 5 and 6. These components were mixed using a plastic spatula to form a pre-mix powder. This pre-mix powder was then added slowly to an air jet mill (model BMF 2”), which was arranged toreceive a compressed air supply at a pressure of 6.5 to 7.0 kg / cm2. The pre-mix powder was introduced gradually to maintain a grinding pressure of 3.0 to 4.0 kg / cm2. Once the grinding of the entire pre-mix powder was completed, the jet-milled powder was analyzed using a Malvern laser diffraction particle size analyzer. When the particle size (d90) met the specification of approximately 7 to 14 microns, the grinding process was confirmed to be complete. This processed material is referred to as the milled mixture.

[0200] Process of Dough making:

[0201] The milled mixture was then transferred to a dough mixer (model UPLM 400), which operates similarly to a sigma mixer. A suitable quantity of demineralized water was weighed, and an appropriate quantity of silicone defoamer was measured. The defoamer was initially added to the water and mixed well using a glass rod. This mixture was then added to the powder in the dough mixer, resulting in the preparation of a wet cake called dough.

[0202] Process of Extruded Granule making:

[0203] The dough was passed through a laboratory model tabletop basket extruder (model VSSE 60) equipped with a 1 mm sieve. This process produced wet granules in noodle form.

[0204] Process of Fluid Bed Drying:

[0205] The wet granules were then transferred to a fluid bed dryer (model Unifluid Nano) and dried at a temperature of 50 to 55 degrees Celsius for 3 minutes. After drying, the granules were removed from the fluid bed dryer.

[0206] Process of Sieving:

[0207] The dried granules were sieved by passing them through a 30-mesh sieve and retaining those that remained on a 60-mesh sieve. The resulting dried and sieved extruded granules had a diameter of about 0.8 to 1.2 mm, with approximately 90% of the product measuring around 1 mm in diameter. These sieved granules are referred to as WG, and once they meet all test parameters, they are qualified for use.

[0208] Example 4: Saflufenacil (175 g / kg) + Metribuzin (350 g / kg) Wettable Powder (WP) Formulation:

[0209] Metribuzin, when formulated as a pre-mix with Saflufenacil in a Wettable Powder (WP) formulation, provides a stable and efficacious composition exhibiting excellent biological activity. The following composition enables effective synergy between the two active ingredients, together with agronomically acceptable excipients, as follows:

[0210] Table 4:

[0211] Raw material Formulation 07 Formulation 08

[0212]

[0213] % w / w % w / wMetribuzin Technical (95%) 37.1 - 37.7 37.1 - 37.7 Saflufenacil Technical (96.5%) 18.1 - 18.6 18.1 - 18.6 Anionic surfactant blend 1.65 - 3.35 Nil

[0214] Naphthalene sulfonate formaldehyde 1.65 - 3.35 Nil

[0215] condensate

[0216] Phenol Sulfonic Acid Condensation product, Nil 1.65- 3.35

[0217] Na salt

[0218] Naphthalene Sulfonic acid condensation Nil 1.65- 3.35 product, Na salt

[0219] Diiso propyl / Diiso butyl naphthalene 1.65 - 3.35 1.65- 3.35 sulfonate

[0220] Citric acid 0.1 - 1.1 0.1 - 1.1 Ammonium sulfate 0.06 - 0.56 0.06- 0.56 Lactose 12.3 - 13.7 12.3- 13.7 Kaolin clay 21.44 -24.74 21.44 - 24.74 Physio-Chemical Properties

[0221] Ambient storage 0 day

[0222] Appearance Off white to pale beige coloured Beige coloured powder powder

[0223] pH of 1% aqueous solution 4.7 - 8.5 4.7 - 8.5 Suspensibility, by gravimetry (minimum 70%) 75.6 75.9 Wettability, seconds, before granulation 39 41

[0224] Accelerated Heat Storage (AHS) Stability,

[0225] 2 weeks, 54°C

[0226] Appearance Off white to pale beige coloured Beige coloured powder powder

[0227] pH of 1% aqueous solution 4.7 - 8.5 4.7 - 8.5 Suspensibility, by gravimetry (minimum 70%) 74.5 75.1

[0228]

[0229] Wettability, seconds, before granulation 42 40

[0230] Inference:

[0231] Both formulations yielded stable results after undergoing AHS, demonstrating the product's stability and reliability.

[0232] Process of preparing a Wettable Powder (WP) formulation of Saflufenacil (175 g / kg) + Metribuzin (350 g / kg) WP:

[0233] The herbicide composition / formulation comprising Saflufenacil (175 g / kg) and Metribuzin (350 g / kg) WP as a pre-mix WP is prepared by the following procedure- Air Jet Milling process for the Mixture of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin:

[0234] The specified quantities of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin, along with all required excipients, were measured according to the amounts indicated in Table 4 for the preparation of Formulation 7 and 8. These ingredients were added one by one into a 250 ml plastic beaker and mixed thoroughly using a plastic spatula to create a premix powder. The premix powder was then gradually fed into an air jet mill (model BMF 2”) that was set up to receive a compressed air supply at a pressure of 6.5 to 7.0 kg / cm2. The premix powder was added slowly to maintain a grinding pressure of 3.0 to 4.0 kg / cm2during the milling process.

[0235] Once the grinding of all the premix powder was complete, the jet-milled powder was analyzed using a laser diffraction particle size analyzer, specifically the Malvern model MS3000E. The milling process is confirmed to be complete once the particle size specification (d90) falls within the range of 7 to 14 microns. This final product is referred to as Wettable Powder (WP).Materials and Methods:

[0236] Field trials were conducted on various major crops at different locations, either as pre-emergence or post-emergence applications depending on the specific crop. Observations were made for probable phytotoxicity if any, impact of treatments on biometric observations, such as the number of weeds per square meter, dry weight of weeds per square meter, Weed Control Efficiency (WCE), and crop yield were monitored. Synergistic activity of the pre-mixed formulations was also monitored. Standalone treatments of the respective combinations, as well as widely accepted commercial standards for each crop, were included for comparison. The data collected were statistically analysed for comparison purposes.

[0237] The combinations were prepared in the required quantities and applied as a pre-emergence foliar soil surface spray immediately after sowing / planting of setts or as a post-emergence foliar application when the weeds had reached about four to five-leaf stage. For each treatment, the appropriate rate based on the area of application (hectares) was calculated, measured, and applied as a foliar spray. Treatments were rated and compared to an untreated control (where water was sprayed) and the standard herbicide treatments for the respective crops, serving as benchmark formulations. These commercially recommended formulations were procured from local markets, and the necessary amount of each formulation was mixed with water and applied uniformly as a foliar spray.

[0238] Overall, the composition of N'-{2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-[1,2,3,6-tetrahydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4(trifluoromethyl)pyrimidin-1-yl]benzoyl}-N-isopropyl-N-methylsulfamide, known as Saflufenacil with other herbicides such as 4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-methylthio-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one or ( 4- amino-4,5-dihydro-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-methylthio-1,2,4-triazin-5-one) known as Metribuzin; is essential for achieving the desired performance of the herbicidal composition or formulation. Replacing any single component with another does not yield the desired effect, and deviating from the specified weight ranges fails to produce the expected results.

[0239] The examples illustrate the herbicidal compositions and formulations according to the present invention. Examples are also provided to support the stability of the formulation, including the processes for obtaining and preparing the composition and the formulation. Furthermore, the method of application of the formulation is documented, with studies conducted under various agro-climatic conditions to assess efficacy and dose optimization.

[0240] Biometric Observations Recorded:

[0241] In certain embodiments, biometric observations were recorded to evaluate weed density, weed biomass, and weed control efficiency following application of the treatment compositions.Weed Density Observations (Species-wise):

[0242] To record the number of weeds per square meter, a quadrate measuring 1m x 1m was randomly placed at four locations within each plot. The mean number of weeds per square meter was recorded on the 30th, 45th, 60th, and 75th days after application. The species were further categorized into Broadleaf weeds, Grasses, and Sedges.

[0243] Dry Weight of Weeds:

[0244] After monitoring the number of weeds per square meter, the weeds were dried in an oven at 80°C until a constant weight was achieved. Observations on the dry weight of weeds were recorded on the 30th, 45th, 60th, and 75th days after application, with mean vaiues expressed in grams per square meter.

[0245] Weed Control Efficiency (WCE %):

[0246] Weed Control Efficiency (%) was calculated using the formula given below. Weed Control Efficiency (WCE %) observations were calculated at 30th45th, 60thand 75thday after applying treatments.

[0247] WDC- WDt

[0248] WCE (%) = - x 100

[0249] WDC

[0250] Where, WCE (%) = Weed Control Efficiency

[0251] WDC= Weed density (m-2) in Untreated Control (Weedy Check) WDt= Weed density (m-2) in Treated Plot

[0252] Statistical Analysis:

[0253] The data obtained from number of weeds per square meter and dry weight of weeds was transformed to square root values and the percent values of Weed Control Efficiency were subjected to arcsine transformation before statistically analysis.

[0254] Synergism:

[0255] When two or more active ingredients work together, they can create a stronger effect than each ingredient alone. This is called a synergistic effect. A synergistic composition is one where the total effect is greater than the sum of the individual effects.

[0256] For example, when two pest control ingredients are combined together and if the composition works better than the sum of the two ingredients alone, it means that the two components act synergistically.

[0257] A simple way to calculate synergy between two ingredients is by using Colby's formula, which is:

[0258] E = X + Y - (X * Y / 100)

[0259] Where, E = Expected control by mixture or composition of Compound A and Compound B in a defined doseX = Observed control by Compound A

[0260] Y = Observed control by Compound B

[0261] If Colby’s Ratio

[0262] E >1 means synergism observed

[0263] E<1 means antagonism observed

[0264] E=1 means simple additive effect

[0265] Higher the ratio means stronger synergism and lower ratios mean weak synergism.

[0266] Evaluation of Phytotoxicity parameters if any:

[0267] Phytotoxicity observations were recorded for all the treatments before application and at 3rd, 15thand 30thday after application. The notation and grading used for recording phytotoxicity included: Leaf injury(L); Wilting(W); Vein Clearing(V); Necrosis(N); Epinasty(E) and Hyponasty(H). These gradations follow the standard protocols on a scale of 1 -10, where grades 1 -10 denote the percentage phytotoxicity as

[0268] Table 5: Phytotoxicity evaluation scale:

[0269] Phytotoxicity evaluation scale

[0270] Phytotoxicity Scale Phytotoxicity rating* (%) Phytotoxicity Scale Phytotoxicity rating* (%) 0 No phytotoxicity 6 51-60

[0271] 1 1-10 7 61-70

[0272] 2 11-20 8 71 -80

[0273] 3 21-30 9 81-90

[0274] 4 31-40 10 91-100

[0275]

[0276] 5 41-50

[0277] FIELD TRIAL RESULTS:

[0278] A premixed formulation of N'-{2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-[1,2,3,6-tetrahydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4(trifluoromethyl)pyrimidin-1 -yl]benzoyl}-N-isopropyl-N-methylsulfamide and 4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-methylthio-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one or ( 4- amino-4,5-dihydro-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-methylthio-1,2,4-triazin-5-one) was evaluated for its bio-efficacy against a broad spectrum of weeds in various crops, using both pre-emergence and post-emergence application methods, under different agro-climatic conditions. The recommended packages of practices from State Agricultural Universities were followed.

[0279] Phytotoxicity observations were recorded on a 1-10 scale for all treatments and were compared to the standard treatments and untreated control plots. Biometric parameters including number of weeds / sq.m., dry weight of weeds and yield parameters, were recorded and were analysed statistically.

[0280] The results of this study demonstrate the efficacy of the premixed formulation in controlling weeds and promoting crop growth.

[0281] FIELD TRIAL 1: Field evaluation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG as a Post-Emergence method of application on sugarcane crop:Field trials were conducted on a sugarcane crop, variety CoSi 95071 at Erode, Tamil Nadu, as a post-emergence application when the weeds were at about four to five leaf stage. The soils at tested location were clayey loam. The treatments were applied as a blanket foliar spray using a knapsack sprayer, with a spray volume of 450 litres per hectare. For comparative evaluation, standard reference treatments included standalone application of Metribuzin 70% WP at a rate of 700 ga.i. / ha and Saflufenacil 70% WG at 70 g a.i. / ha. Details of the treatments for Field Trial 1 are given in Table 6.

[0282] Table 6: Treatment details of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG as a Post-Emergence method of application

[0283] S. No Treatments (g / kg) Active ingredient Formulation Method of (g a.i. / ha) (gm / ml / ha) application* 1 Saflufenacil 70 + Metribuzin 700 WG 35+350 500 Foliar spray 2 Saflufenacil 70 + Metribuzin 700 WG 44+438 625 Foliar spray 3 Saflufenacil 70 + Metribuzin 700 WG 53+525 750 Foliar spray 4 Saflufenacil 70 + Metribuzin 700 WG 61+613 875 Foliar spray 5 Saflufenacil 70 + Metribuzin 700 WG 70+700 1000 Foliar spray 6 Saflufenacil 70 + Metribuzin 700 WG 79+788 1125 Foliar spray 7 Saflufenacil 70 + Metribuzin 700 WG 88+875 1250 Foliar spray 8 Saflufenacil 70 + Metribuzin 700 WG 105+1050 1500 Foliar spray 9 Metribuzin 70% WP 700 1000 Foliar spray 10 Saflufenacil 70% WG 70 100 Foliar spray 11 Weed Free(Hand Weed) - - -

[0284]

[0285] 12 Weedy Check(Untreated Control) - - - Influence of treatments on probable phytotoxicity if any:

[0286] Results of the study clearly show that the pre-mixed formulation treatments at the rates evaluated, did not exhibit any phytotoxicity symptoms in terms of Leaf injury(L); Wilting(W); Vein Clearing(V); Necrosis(N); Epinasty(E) and Hyponasty(H) at all the observations and all stages of sugarcane crop, when applied as post-emergence method of application (Table 7). These treatments were comparable to those of the standard herbicide treatments.

[0287] Table 7: Influence of treatments for probable phytotoxicity on sugarcane crop if any:

[0288] Phytotoxi Time of Treatments

[0289] city observati

[0290] Paramete on from T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 r spraying

[0291] Leaf Before L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 Injury(L) 3rdL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1

[0292] 15mL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 3O’nL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 Wilting(W) Before W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1

[0293] 3raW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 15lhW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 3O’nW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 Vein Before V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 Clearing(V 3r° V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 ) 15mV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1

[0294] 3O’nV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 Necrosis( Before N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1

[0295]

[0296] N) 3raN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-115thN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 3O’nN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Before E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Epinasty(E 3r° E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 ) 15thE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1

[0297] 30,nE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Before H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 Hyponasty 3r° H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 (H) 15th H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1

[0298]

[0299] 3O’nH-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 ‘Phytotoxicity observations of all parameters recorded was 0% and hence graded as 1 Analysis of biometric parameters:

[0300] Observations on weed control and weed flora:

[0301] Influence of treatments on weed population and the dry weight of weeds were recorded at 30, 45, 60, and 75 days after treatment (DAT), as shown in Table 8.

[0302] Table 8: Influence of treatments on biometric observations on sugarcane crop as post-emergence application:

[0303] Treat Dosage Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m ments (g a.i. / ha) 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT 0.27 T1 35+350 1.00 1.25 2.00 3.86 0.19 0.58 0.99 (1.22) (1.32) (1.58) (2.09) (0.83) (0.88) (1.04) (1.22) T2 44+438 0.00 0.00 1.40 3.25 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.81

[0304] (0.71) (0.71) (1.38) (1.94) (0.71) (0.71) (0.98) (1.14) T3 53+ 0.00 0.98 1.10 3.00 0.00 0.2 0.29 0.57

[0305] 525 (0.71) (1.22) (1.26) (1.87) (0.71) (0.84) (0.89) (1.03) T4 61+613 0.00 0.00 0.98 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.50

[0306] (0.71) (0.71) (1.22) (1.58) (0.71) (0.71) (0.89) (1.00) T5 70+700 0.00 0.00 0.90 1.85 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.40

[0307] (0.71) (0.71) (1.18) (1.53) (0.71) (0.71) (0.83) (0.95) T6 79 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29

[0308] +788 (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (1.32) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.89) T7 88+875 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23

[0309] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (1.22) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.85) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 T8 105+1050 (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (1.22) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.85) T9 1.4

[0310] 700 6.25 9.38 12.89 15.86 7 2.16 2.96 3.65

[0311] (2.60) (3.14) (3.66) (4.04) (1.39) (1.63) (1.86) (2.04)

[0312] 2.71

[0313] T10 70 6 10.25 11.78 13.88 1.38 2.35 3.19

[0314] (2.55) (3.28) (3.50) (3.79) (1.37) (1.69) (1.79) (1.92) 0 1

[0315] T11 HW 2.35 3.00 0.00 0.23 0.5405 0.69

[0316] (0.71) (1.22) (1.69) (1.87) (0.71) (0.85) (1.02) (1.09) 64 21.79 32.29 90 110 130 15.89 27.88 T12 Control (11.42) (4.72) (8.03) (9.51) (10.51) (4.05) (5.33) (5.73) SEm (±) 0.24 0.29 0.14 0.20 0.30 0.06 0.09 1.3

[0317] 0.94 0.41 0.44 CD at 5 % 0.60 0.76 0.91 0.19 0.26

[0318]

[0319] ‘Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed {-^(X+0.5)} and valuesoutside are the actual. The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[0320] Data in Table 8 indicates that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil 70 g / kg + Metribuzin 700 g / kg WG resulted in significantly lower weed density and dry weight of weeds per square meter at all observations points. There were no significant differences among the pre-mixed formulation treatments. In fact, these treatments were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments taken for the purpose of comparison.

[0321] Table 9: Influence of treatments on spectrum of weeds on sugarcane crop as post-emergence application:Dosage Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m Treat

[0322] ments (g

[0323] a.i. / ha) BLW Grasses Sedges Total BLW Grasses Sedges Total T1 0.4

[0324] 35+350 0.86 1.20 1.8 3.86 0.20 0.28 1 0.89

[0325] (1.17) (1.30) (1.52) (2.09) (0.84) (0.88) (0.96) (1.18) T2 0.50 0.75 2.00 3.25 0.11 0.17

[0326] 44+438 0.46 0.75

[0327] (1.00) (1.12) (1.58) (1.94) (0.78) (0.82) (0.98) (1.12) 0.38 0.68 1.94 3.00 0.09 0.15 0.44 0.69 T3 53+525 (0.94) (1.09) (1.56) (1.87) (0.77) (0.81) (0.97) (1.09) T4 0.03 0.22

[0328] 61+613 1.75 2.00 0.01 0.05 0.40 0.46

[0329] (0.73) (0.85) (1.50) (1.58) (0.71) (0.74) (0.95) (0.98) 0.04 1.32 1.82 0.41 0.46 0.01 0.10 0.30

[0330] T5 70+700 (0.73) (0.98) (1.35) (1.52) (0.71) (0.78) (0.90) (0.96)

[0331] 0.22 0.02 0.17 0.24 T6 79+788 0.08 0.75 1.05 0.05

[0332] (0.76) (0.85) (1.12) (1.24) (0.72) (0.74) (0.82) (0.86) T7 88 0.05 0.20 0.55 0.80 0.01 0.04

[0333] +875 0.13 0.18 (0.74) (0.84) (1.02) (1.14) (0.71) (0.74) (0.79) (0.83) 105+105 0.0 0.62 0.14 T8 0 0.38 1.00 0.01 0.09 0.23 0 (0.71) (0.94) (1.06) 1.22) (0.71) (0.77) (0.80) (0.85)

[0334] 1.74 4.02 T9 2.73 5.88 7.25 15.86 0.89 1.39

[0335] 700 (1.80) (2.53) (2.78) (4.04) (1.18) (1.37) (1.50) (2.13)

[0336] 1.08 5.77 6.8 1.575 13.70 0.25 1.33 3.15 T10 70 (3.77) (0.87) (1.26) (2.50) (2.71) (1.35) (1.44) (1.91)

[0337] 0.72 0.12 0.71 0.53 1.75 3.00 0.19 0.40 T11 HW (0.79) (1.50) (1.87) (0.83) (0.95) (1.10) (1.10) (1.01)

[0338] 47 7.34 68 15 130 5.30 3.25 15.89 T12 Control (3.94) (11.42) (8.28) (6.89) (2.80) (2.41) (4.05) (1.94)

[0339] 0.17 0.07 SEm(±) 0.18 0.20 0.31 0.05 0.06 0.15

[0340] 0.54 0.92 0.17 0.21 CD at 5 % 0.53 0.61 0.19 0.46

[0341]

[0342] ‘Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed { (X+0.5)} and values outside are the actual. The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[0343] Results in Table 9 indicates that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil 70 g / kg + 5 Metribuzin 700 g / kg WG recorded the lowest weed density and dry weight across categories of broadleaf weeds, grasses and sedges at all the observations recorded. The efficacy of the pre-mixed formulation against broadleaf weeds was significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments. There were no significant differences among the pre-mixed formulation treatments, and these were significantly superior to 0 that of the standard herbicide treatments taken for the purpose of comparison with extended duration of control

[0344] Table 10: Influence of treatments on percent weed control and yield on sugarcane crop as post-emergence application:

[0345] Weed Control Efficiency (%) Yield Treatments

[0346] 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT (tonnes / ha) T1 98.8 98.8 97.9 96.9 35+350 123.6 T2 100.0 100.0 98.4 97.5 124.1 44+438

[0347] T3 53+525 124.6 100.0 99.1 99.0 98.2

[0348] T4 100.0 100.0 98.9 98.5 61+613 125.0 T5 70+700 100.0 100.0 99.3 98.8 125.1

[0349] 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.1 T6 79+788 125.5 T7 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 88+875 126.1

[0350] 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 T8 105+1050 126.9 T9 91.0 90.1 89.4 88.7 114.4 700

[0351] 91.3 89.2 90.3 90.1 T10 70 113.6 T11 100.0 98.9 98.1 97.9 Hand Weed 126.8 T12 Untreated Control 59.9 SEm (±) 1.3

[0352] 4.2 CD at 5 %

[0353]

[0354] The pre-mixed formulation treatments recorded the lowest weed density and dry weight of weeds / sq.m., thus reflected in recording higher Percent Weed ControlEfficiency with no significant differences among the treatments T1-T8. These treatments recorded significantly higher Weed Control Efficiency(%) when compared to the standard herbicide treatments T9 and T10 (Table 10). The pre-mixed formulation treatments recorded the highest cane yield when compared to the 5 standard herbicide treatments (Table 10).

[0355] Table 11: Influence of treatments based on Colby’s ratio on sugarcane crop as post-emergence application:

[0356] Tre 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT atm Obser Expe Colby's Obse Expe Colby Obser Expe Colby's Obser Expe Colby ents ved cted ratio rved cted 's ' ratio ved cted ratio ved cted s ratio T1 98.8 89.2 1.11 98.8 85.2 1.16 97.9 82.0 1.19 96.9 75.0 1.29 T2 100.0 91.5 1.09 100.0 90.5 1.10 98.4 88.2 1.12 97.5 81.0 1.20 T3 100.0 96.0 1.04 99.1 90.0 1.10 99.0 88.9 1.11 98.2 82.5 1.19 T4 100.0 96.5 1.04 100.0 90.0 1.11 98.9 89.5 1.11 98.5 84.0 1.17 T5 100.0 97.0 1.03 100.0 91.1 1.10 99.3 90.1 1.10 98.8 84.5 1.17 T6 100.0 97.2 1.03 100.0 91.0 1.10 100.0 90.8 1.10 99.1 85.2 1.16 T7 100.0 98.2 1.02 100.0 91.8 1.09 100.0 91.2 1.10 99.3 87.2 1.14 T8 100.0 98.9 1.01 100.0 92.0 1.09 100.0 91.8 1.09 99.3 88.3 1.12 T9 91.0 - - 88.5 - - 85.4 - - 80.2 - - T10 91.3 - - 89.2 - - 87.2 - - 81.3 - - T11 - - - - - - - - - - - -

[0357]

[0358] T12 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 Saflufenacil and Metribuzin belong to different class, N-Phenyl-imides and triazinones with different modes of action, one belonging to PPO inhibitor and the other Inhibition of photosynthesis at PSII Saflufenacil and Metribuzin have both preemergence and post-emergence herbicidal activity with residual activity of 25 to 30 days depending on irrigated conditions. Saflufenacil is very effective against broad5 spectrum control of broadleaf weeds including creeper weeds and to an extent on grasses and sedges. On the other hand, Metribuzin is very effective against grasses and to an extent on broadleaf and sedges.

[0359] Based on the characteristics of the two actives, the treatments of pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the lowest number and dry 0 weight of weeds / sq.m., giving effective control of broad spectrum of weeds, when compared to the stand alone treatments. Therefore, this pre-mixed formulation reflected significantly higher Weed Control Efficiency(%) thereby leading to higher cane yields when compared to standalone treatments of Metribuzin 70% WP and Saflufenacil 70% WG applied at their recommended rates, observed across all 5 recorded observations with an extended duration of control of 45 to 60 days. As evident from the results of the experiments indicated above that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG demonstrated good synergism which corroborate with the Colby’s ratios.

[0360] As can be seen from the above data, a similar trend in results was observed 0 across different types of formulations selected from any of wettable powders (WP), emulsifiable concentrates (EC), aqueous solutions (SL), emulsions (EW) such as oil-in-water, sprayable solutions or emulsions, oil or water-based dispersions, suspo- emulsions (SE), mixed formulation of capsule suspension (CS) and emulsion(EW) i.e. ZW formulation, ULV formulations, microcapsules or waxes Emulsion water-in-oil (EO), Granules (GR), Oil-dispersion (OD), Oil miscible flowable concentrate (OF), Oil 5 miscible liquid (OL), Oil dispersible powder (OP), ), a mixed formulation of CS and SC (ZC) or a mixed formulation of CS and SE (ZE), preferably WP and SC..

[0361] FIELD TRIAL 2: Field evaluation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG as a Post-Emergence Application Method on sugarcane crop:

[0362] 10 Further trials were carried out at another location on sugarcane crop, variety CoLk 11203 at Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh as a post-emergence method of application when the weeds were at about four to six leaf stage. The soil type at tested location was sandy loam. The treatments were applied as a blanket foliar spray using a knapsack sprayer, with a spray volume of 450 litres per hectare. For comparative evaluation, 15 standard reference treatments included standalone application of Metribuzin 70% WP at a rate of 700 g a.i. / ha and Saflufenacil 70% WG at 70 g a.i. / ha. Details of the treatments for Field Trial 2 are given in Table 6.

[0363] Influence of treatments on probable phytotoxicity, if any:

[0364] 20 Results of the study clearly show that the pre-mixed formulation treatments at the rates evaluated, did not exhibit any phytotoxicity symptoms in terms of Leaf injury(L); Wilting(W); Vein Clearing(V); Necrosis(N); Epinasty(E) and Hyponasty(H) at all the observations and all stages of sugarcane crop, when applied as post-emergence method of application (Table 12). These treatments were comparable to those of the 25 standard herbicide treatments.

[0365] Table 12: Influence of treatments for probable phytotoxicity on sugarcane crop if any:

[0366] Phytotox Time of Treatments

[0367] icity observatio

[0368] Paramet n from T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 er spraying

[0369] Leaf Before L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 Injury(L) 3rdL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1

[0370] 15lnL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 30thL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 Wilting(W Before W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 ) 3raW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1

[0371] 15lhW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 3O’nW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 Vein Before V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 Clearing( 3rdV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V) 15lnV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1

[0372] 30,nV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 Before N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Necrosis( 3r° N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N) 15lnN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1

[0373] 30,nN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Before E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Epinasty( 3r° E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E)

[0374]

[0375] 15lnE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-130thE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Before H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 Hyponast 3rdH-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 y(H) 15th H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1

[0376]

[0377] 3O’nH-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 ‘Phytotoxicity observations of all parameters recorded was 0% and hence graded as 1 Analysis of biometric parameters:

[0378] Observations on weed control and weed flora

[0379] 5 Influence of treatments on weed population density and the dry weight of weeds were recorded at 30, 45, 60, and 75 days after treatment (DAT), as represented in Table 13.

[0380] Table 13: Influence of treatments on biometric observations on sugarcane crop 10 as post-emergence application:

[0381] Treat Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m ment Dosage

[0382] (g a.i. / ha)

[0383] s 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT T1 0 2.01 2.72

[0384] 35+35 4.40 5.11 0.44 0.60 0.97 2.98

[0385] (1.58) (1.79) (2.21) (2.37) (0.97) (1.05) (1.21) (1.87) T2 1.23 2.46 4.38 4.82 0.27 0.54

[0386] 44+438 0.96 2.86

[0387] (1.32) (1.72) (2.21) (2.31) (0.88) (1.02) (1.21) (1.83) 0. 2.12 4.62 0.47 T3 53+525 00 4.36 0.00 0.96 2.56

[0388] (0.71) (1.62) (2.20) (2.26) (0.71) (0.98) (1.21) (1.75) T4 0.00 0.00 3.92

[0389] 61+613 4.18 0.00 0.00 1.56 2.39

[0390] (0.71) (0.71) (2.10) (2.16) (0.71) (0.71) (1.44) (1.70) T5 70+700 0.00 0.00 3.80 4.13 0.00 0.00 1.25 2.18

[0391] (0.71) (0.71) (2.07) (2.15) (0.71) (0.71) (1.32) (1.64)

[0392] 3.82 3.92 1.92 T6 79+788 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.99

[0393] (0.71) (0.71) (2.08) (2.10) (0.71) (0.71) (1.22) (1.56) T7 88+875 0.00 0.00 3.65 3.89 0.00 0.00 0.95 1.82

[0394] (0.71) (0.71) (2.04) (2.10) (0.71) (0.71) (1.20) (1.52)

[0395] 7.54

[0396] T8 105+1050 0.00 0.00 3.56 0.00 0.00 0.85 1.68

[0397] (0.71) (0.71) (2.01) (2.84) (0.71) (0.71) (1.16) (1.48) T9 700 5.89 10.25 16.68 24.56 3.12 5.43 8.84 13.02

[0398] (2.53) (3.28) (4.14) (5.01) (1.90) (2.44) (3.06) (3.68)

[0399] 25.79 3.21 5.97 13.67 T10 70 6.05 11.26 17.98 9.53

[0400] (2.56) (3.43) (4.30) (5.13) (1.93) (2.54) (3.17) (3.76) T11 Hand 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.35 Weed (0.71) (0.71) (1.30) (1.45) (0.71) (0.71) (0.87) (0.92) T12 Untreated 48.00 62.56 85.89 94.98 25.44 33.16 45.52 50.34 Control (6.96) (7.94) (9.29) (9.77) (5.09) (5.80) (6.78) (7.13) SEm (±) 0.30 0.39 0.33 0.35 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.33

[0401]

[0402] CD at 5 % 0.95 1.12 1.02 1.10 0.35 0.47 0.52 1.02 ‘Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed {^(X+0.5)} and values outside are the actual.

[0403] **The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[0404] 15 Data in Table 13 indicates that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil 70 g / kg + Metribuzin 700 g / kg WG resulted in significantly lower weed density and dry weight of weeds at all the observations recorded with no significant differences among these treatments with extended duration of control. In fact, these treatments were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments taken for the purpose of 20 comparison.

[0405] Table 14: Influence of treatments on spectrum of weeds on sugarcane crop as post-emergence application

[0406] Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m Treatments Dosage Number of weeds / sq.m.

[0407]

[0408] (g a.i. / ha)BLW Grasses Sedges Total BLW Grasses Sedges Total T1 2.7

[0409] 35+350 0.59 1.20 0.93 2 0.13 0.26 0.20 0.60

[0410] (1.04) (1.30) (1.20) (1.79) (0.79) (0.87) (0.84) (1.05) T2 0.50 1.36 0.60 2.46 0.11 0.30 0.13 0.54

[0411] 44+438 (1.00) (1.36) (1.05) (1.72) (0.78) (0.89) (0.79) (1.02)

[0412] 2.12 0.47 T3 53+525 0.48 1.39 0.25 0.11 0.31 0.06

[0413] (0.99) (1.37) (0.87) (1.62) (0.78) (0.90) (0.74) (0.98) T4 61+613 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0414] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T5 70+700 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0415] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T6 79+788 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0416] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T7 88+875 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0417] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T8 105+1050 (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T9 3.71 1.9

[0418] 700 2.98 3.56 10.25 1.65 1.86 2 5.43

[0419] (1.87) (2.01) (2.05) (3.28) (1.47) (1.54) (1.56) (2.44)

[0420] 5.14 1.22 2.24

[0421] T10 70 1.56 4.56 11.26 2.51 5.96

[0422] (1.44) (2.25) (2.37) (3.43) (1.31) (1.66) (1.73) (2.54) T11 Hand 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0423] Weed (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T12 Weedy 22.56 24.67 15.33 62.56 11.96 13.08 8.12 33.16

[0424] Check (4.80) (5.02) (3.98) (7.94) (3.53) (3.68) (2.94) (5.80) SEm (±) 0.17 0.04

[0425] CD at 5 % 0.16 0.19 0.35 0.05 0.09 0.13

[0426] 0.47 0.60 0.55 1.10 0.12 0.20 0.29 0.41

[0427]

[0428] ‘Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed { (X+0.5)} and values outside are the actual.

[0429] ** The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[0430] Results in Table 14 suggests that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil 70 g / kg + Metribuzin 700 g / kg WG, recorded the lowest weed density and dry weight across categories of broadleaf weeds, grasses and sedges at all the observations recorded. The efficacy of the pre-mixed formulation, against broadleaf weeds was significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments. There were no significant differences among the pre-mixed formulation treatments and these were significantly superior to that of the standard herbicide treatments taken for the purpose of comparison with extended duration of control.

[0431] Table 15: Influence of treatments on percent weed control and yield on sugarcane crop as post-emergence application:

[0432] Weed Control Efficiency (%)

[0433] Treatments Yield

[0434] 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT (tonnes / ha)

[0435] T1 35+350 98.3 98.2 97.9 94.1 98.2

[0436] T2 44+438 98.9 98.4 97.9 94.3 98.6

[0437] T3 53+525 100.0 98.6 97.9 94.9 98.6

[0438] T4 61+613 100.0 100.0 96.6 95.3 100.0

[0439] T5 70+700 100.0 100.0 97.3 95.7 100.4

[0440] T6 79+788 100.0 100.0 97.8 96.2 101.0

[0441] T7 88+875 100.0 100.0 97.9 96.4 101.3

[0442] T8 105+1050 100.0 100.0 98.1 96.7 102.0

[0443] T9 700 87.7 83.6 80.6 74.1 90.0

[0444] T10 70 87.4 82.0 79.1 72.8 90.2

[0445] T11 Hand Weed 100.0 100.0 99.4 99.3 102.3

[0446] T12 Untreated

[0447] Control 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.9

[0448] SEm (±) 1.9

[0449]

[0450] CD at 5 % 5.6Results of the study clearly indicate that the pre-mixed formulations of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the highest Percent weed control when compared to the standard herbicide treatments and which were significantly superior to them. The treatments of pre-mixed formulation recorded significantly higher sugarcane yield when compared to the standard herbicide treatments (Table 15).

[0451] Table 16: Influence of treatments based on Colby’s ratio on sugarcane crop as post-emergence application:

[0452] Tre 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT atm Colby Colby Colby Colby ent Obse Expe 's Obse Expe ' Obse Expe Observ Expe s rved cted rati rved cted s rved cted 's ed cted 's o ratio ratio ratio T1 97.1 83.9 1.16 97 79.9 1.22 97.9 76.2 1.28 94.1 72.3 1.30 T2 97.2 84.0 1.16 97 80.3 1.21 97.9 77.2 1.27 94.3 72.9 1.29 T3 100.0 84.8 1.18 100 80.9 1.24 97.9 77.5 1.26 94.9 73.1 1.30 T4 100.0 85.3 1.17 100 82.0 1.22 96.6 78.1 1.24 95.3 73.4 1.30 T5 100.0 85.8 1.17 100 82.3 1.22 96.9 78.3 1.24 95.7 73.9 1.29 T6 100.0 86.0 1.16 100 81.8 1.22 97.1 79.2 1.23 96.2 74.2 1.30 T7 100.0 86.4 1.16 100 82.1 1.22 97.3 80 1.22 96.4 74.6 1.29 T8 100.0 87.1 1.15 100 82.6 1.21 98.0 80.9 1.21 96.7 74.9 1.29 T9 82.5 - - 81 - - 70.3 - - 68.3 - - T10 73.0 - - 72 - - 68.2 - - 65.8 - - T11 100.0 - - 100 - - 99.4 - - 99.3 - -

[0453]

[0454] T12 - - - - - - - - - - - -

[0455] As mentioned earlier, the two actives, Saflufenacil and Metribuzin belong to different class and different modes of action and both having, pre-emergence and postemergence herbicidal activity with extended duration of control depending on moisture levels in the soil. Saflufenacil is very effective against broad-spectrum control of broadleaf weeds including creeper weeds and to an extent on grasses and sedges. On the other hand, Metribuzin is very effective against grasses and to an extent on broadleaf and sedges.

[0456] Based on the characteristics of the two actives, the treatments of pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the lowest number and dry weight of weeds / sq.m., giving effective control of broad spectrum of weeds, when compared to the stand alone treatments. Therefore, this pre-mixed formulation reflected significantly higher Weed Control Efficiency(%) thereby leading to higher cane yields when compared to standalone treatments of Metribuzin 70% WP and Saflufenacil 70% WG at their recommended rates, observed across all recorded observations with an extended duration of control of 45 to 60 days. As evident from the results of the experiments indicated above that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) and Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG demonstrated good synergism which corroborate with the Colby’s ratios (Table 16). These results are in conformity with the trial results of Trial No. 1.

[0457] As can be seen from the above data, a similar trend in results was observed across different types of formulations selected from any of wettable powders (WP), emulsifiable concentrates (EC), aqueous solutions (SL), emulsions (EW) such as oil-in-water, sprayable solutions or emulsions, oil or water-based dispersions, suspo- emulsions (SE), mixed formulation of capsule suspension (CS) and emulsion(EW) i.e. ZW formulation, ULV formulations, microcapsules or waxes Emulsion water-in-oil (EO), Granules (GR), Oil-dispersion (OD), Oil miscible flowable concentrate (OF), Oil 5 miscible liquid (OL), Oil dispersible powder (OP), ), a mixed formulation of CS and SC (ZC) or a mixed formulation of CS and SE (ZE), preferably WP and SC.

[0458] FIELD TRIAL 3: Field evaluation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG as a Post-Emergence method of application on sugarcane

[0459] 10 Further trials were carried out on sugarcane crop, Variety Co86032, at Mandya, Karnataka as a post-emergence application when the weeds were at about four to five leaf stage. The soil type at tested location was clayey loam. The treatments were applied as a blanket foliar spray using a knapsack sprayer, with a spray volume of 450 litres per hectare. For comparative evaluation, standard reference treatments 15 included standalone application of Metribuzin 70% WP at a rate of 700 g a.i. / ha and Saflufenacil 70% WG at 70 g a.i. / ha. Details of the treatments for Field Trial 3 are given in Table 6.

[0460] Influence of treatments on probable phytotoxicity if any:

[0461] 20 Results of the study clearly show that the pre-mixed formulation treatments at the rates evaluated, did not exhibit any phytotoxicity symptoms in terms of Leaf injury(L); Wilting(W); Vein Clearing(V); Necrosis(N); Epinasty(E) and Hyponasty(H) at all the observations and all stages of sugarcane crop, when applied as post-emergence method of application (Table 17). These treatments were comparable to those of the 25 standard herbicide treatments.

[0462] Table 17: Influence of treatments for probable phytotoxicity on sugarcane crop if any:

[0463] Phytotoxici Time of Treatments

[0464] ty observatio

[0465] Parameter n from T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 spraying

[0466] Leaf Before L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 Injury(L) 3rdL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1

[0467] 15lnL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 3O’nL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 Wilting(W) Before W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1

[0468] 3raW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 15lhW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 3O’nW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 Vein Before V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 Clearing(V) 3r° V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1

[0469] 15lnV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 30,nV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 Before N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 3rdN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Necrosis(N)

[0470] 15lnN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 3O’nN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Before E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Epinasty(E)

[0471]

[0472] 3rdE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-115thE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 3O’nE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Before H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 Hyponasty( 3rdH-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H) 15th H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1

[0473]

[0474] 3O’nH-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 *Phytotoxicity observations of all parameters recorded was 0% and hence graded as 1

[0475] Analysis of biometric parameters:

[0476] Observations on weed control and weed flora:

[0477] 5 Influence of treatments on weed population density and dry weight of weeds were recorded at 30, 45, 60, and 75 days after treatment (DAT), as shown in Table 18.

[0478] Table 18: Influence of treatments on biometric observations on sugarcane crop as post-emergence application:

[0479] Treatm Dosage Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m ents (g a.i. / ha) 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT 0.22 1.32 1.67 T1 35+350 0.98 2.78 6.01 7.59 0.61

[0480] (1.22) (1.81) (2.55) (2.84) (0.85) (1.05) (1.35) (1.47) T2 0.62 2.52

[0481] 44+438 5.36 6.96 0.14 0.55 1.18 1.53 (1.06) (1.74) (2.42) (2.73) (0.08) (1.03) (1.30) (1.43) 1.29 6.42 1.41 T3 53+525 0.00 4.98 0.00 0.28 1.10

[0482] (0.71) (1.34) (2.34) (2.63) (0.71) (0.89) (1.26) (1.38)

[0483] 4.44 1.32 T4 0.00 0.00 6.01 0.00 0.00 0.98

[0484] 61+613 (0.71) (0.71) (2.22) (2.55) (0.71) (0.71) (1.22) (1.35)

[0485] 4.19 5.62 0.92 1.24 T5 70+700 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0486] (0.71) (0.71) (2.17) (2.47) (0.71) (0.71) (1.19) (1.32) T6 0.00 0.00 4.04 5.47

[0487] 79+788 0.00 0.00 0.89 1.20 (0.71) (0.71) (2.13) (2.44) (0.71) (0.71) (1.18) (1.31) T7 88+875 0.00 0.00 3.09 4.98 0.00 0.00 0.68 1.10 (0.71) (0.71) (1.89) (2.34) (0.71) (0.71) (1.09) (1.26) 0.00 0.00 2.86 5.56 0.00 0.00 0.63 1.22 T8 105+1050 (0.71) (0.71) (1.83) (2.46) (0.71) (0.71) (1.06) (1.31) T9 700 4.44 11.36 14.59 18.72 1.92 5.53 8.01 9.28 (2.22) (3.44) (3.88) (4.38) (1.56) (2.46) (2.92) (3.13)

[0488] 8.12

[0489] T10 70 5.89 12.55 15.03 19.99 2.38 5.93 9.36 (2.53) (3.61) (3.94) (4.53) (1.70) (2.54) (2.94) (3.14) T11 Hand 0.00 0.98 0.86 1.23 0.00 0.22 0.19 0.27 Weed (0.71) (1.22) (1.17) (1.32) (0.71) (0.85) (0.83) (0.88) T12 Untreated 55.26 72.66 80.38 90.99 27.08 35.60 39.39 44.59 Control (7.47) (8.55) (8.99) (9.57) (5.25) (6.01) (6.32) (6.71) SEm (±) 0.19 0.20 0.30 0.48 0.07 0.25 0.22 0.23

[0490]

[0491] CD at 5 % 0.60 0.63 0.89 1.38 0.26 0.78 0.65 0.72 10 *Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed { (X+0.5)} and values outside are the actual.

[0492] ** The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[0493] Data in Table 18 indicates that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil 70 g / kg + 15 Metribuzin 700 g / kg WG recorded significantly lowest weed density and dry weight of weeds per square meter at all observations points with no significant differences among the treatments. In fact, these treatments were significantly superior to the stand alone herbicide treatments taken for comparison purpose

[0494] 20 Table 19: Influence of treatments on spectrum of weeds on sugarcane crop as post-emergence application:

[0495] Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m Treatments Dosage

[0496] (g a.i. / ha) BLW Grasses Sedges Total BLW Grasses Sedges Total

[0497]

[0498] T1 1.02

[0499] 35+350 0.89 0.87 2.78 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.61

[0500] (1.23) (1.18) (1.17) (1.81) (0.85) (0.83) (0.83) (1.05)

[0501] 0.82 1.02 2.52 0.22

[0502] T2 0.68 0.15 0.18 0.55

[0503] 44+438 (1.09) (1.15) (1.23) (1.74) (0.81) (0.82) (0.85) (1.03)

[0504] 0.39 0.30 0.60 1.29 0.09 0.07

[0505] T3 53+525 0.13 0.28

[0506] (0.94) (0.89) (1.05) (1.34) (0.77) (0.75) (0.79) (0.89) T4 61+613 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0507] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T5 70+700 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0508] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T6 79+788 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0509] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T7 88+875 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0510] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T8 105+1050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0511] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T9 4.1

[0512] 700 3.59 3.58 9 11.36 1.78 1.76 1.99 5.53

[0513] (2.02) (2.02) (2.17) (3.44) (1.51) (1.50) (1.58) (2.46) 1.28 5.89 5.38 12.55 0.99 2.57 2.37 5.93 T10 70 (1.33) (2.53) (2.42) (3.61) (1.22) (1.75) (1.69) (2.54) T11 Hand 0.00 0.48 0.50 0.98 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.22

[0514] Weed (0.71) (0.99) (1.00) (1.22) (0.71) (0.78) (0.78) (0.85) T12 Untreated 27.29 22.89 22.48 72.66 13.37 11.22 11.02 35.60

[0515] Control (5.27) (4.84) (4.79) (8.55) (3.72) (3.42) (3.39) (6.01) SEm (±) 0.04 0.12 CD at 5 % 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.40 0.06 0.03

[0516] 0.60 0.54 0.63 1.24 0.18 0.09 0.11 0.41

[0517]

[0518] *Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed {^(X+0.5)} and values outside are the actual.

[0519] ** The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[0520] Results of the study suggests that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil 70 g / kg and Metribuzin 700 g / kg WG recorded significantly lower weed density and dry weight across categories of broadleaf weeds, grasses and sedges at all the observations recorded with no significant differences among these treatments. There were no significant differences among the pre-mixed formulation treatments and these treatments were significantly superior to that of the standard herbicide treatments taken for the purpose of comparison (Table 19).

[0521] Table 20: Influence of treatments on percent weed control and yield on sugarcane crop as post-emergence application:

[0522] Weed Control Efficiency (%)

[0523] Treatments Yield

[0524] 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT (tonnes / ha)

[0525] T1 35+350 99.2 98.3 96.6 96.3 96.0

[0526] T2 44+438 99.5 98.4 97.0 96.6 96.2

[0527] T3 53+525 100.0 99.2 97.2 96.8 96.7

[0528] T4 61+613 100.0 100.0 97.5 97.0 97.0

[0529] T5 70+700 100.0 100.0 97.7 97.2 97.3

[0530] T6 79+788 100.0 100.0 97.7 97.3 97.6

[0531] T7 88+875 100.0 100.0 98.3 97.5 98.0

[0532] T8 105+1050 100.0 100.0 98.4 97.3 98.5

[0533] T9 700 92.9 84.5 79.7 79.2 85.0

[0534] T10 70 91.2 83.3 79.4 79.0 84.3

[0535] T11 Hand Weed 100.0 99.4 99.5 99.4 98.6

[0536] T12 Untreated Control 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.2

[0537] SEm (±) 1.0

[0538]

[0539] CD at 5 % 3.2

[0540] Results of the study clearly indicate that the pre-mixed formulations of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the highest Percent weed control when compared to thestandard herbicide treatments and were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments taken for the purpose of comparison (Table 20). Sugarcane yields recorded exhibited similar trend of results.

[0541] Table 21: Influence of treatments based on Colby’s ratio on sugarcane crop as post-emergence application:

[0542] Tre 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT at Colby' Colby' Colby' Colb me Obse Expe s Obse Expe s Obse Expec Obser Expe nts rved cted r rved cted rved ted s ved cted y's atio ratio ratio ratio T1 97.1 83.9 1.16 97 79.9 1.22 89.5 75.2 1.19 83.2 68.2 1.22 T2 97.2 84.0 1.16 97 80.3 1.21 91.0 76.1 1.20 84.5 68.9 1.23 T3 100.0 84.8 1.18 100 80.9 1.24 91.4 76.4 1.20 85.4 69.3 1.23 T4 100.0 85.3 1.17 100 82.0 1.22 91.8 77.1 1.19 85.0 70.9 1.20 T5 100.0 85.8 1.17 100 82.3 1.22 92.3 77.0 1.20 85.9 71.2 1.21 T6 100.0 86.0 1.16 100 81.8 1.22 93.0 77.6 1.20 86.0 71.0 1.21 T7 100.0 86.4 1.16 100 82.1 1.22 93.6 77.9 1.20 86.2 71.4 1.21 T8 100.0 87.1 1.15 100 82.6 1.21 94.2 78.1 1.21 86.0 72.0 1.19 T9 82.5 - - 81 - - 70.3 - - 65.3 - - T10 73.0 - - 72 - - 68.2 - - 65.8 - - T11 100.0 - - 100 - - 99.4 - - 95.0 - -

[0543]

[0544] T12 - - - - - - - - - - - -

[0545] Saflufenacil and Metribuzin belong to different class, N-Phenyl-imides and triazinones with different modes of action, one belonging to PPO inhibitor and the other Inhibition of photosynthesis at PSI I. Saflufenacil and Metribuzin have both preemergence and post-emergence herbicidal activity with residual activity of 25 to 30 days depending on irrigated conditions. Saflufenacil is very effective against broadspectrum control of broadleaf weeds including creeper weeds and to an extent on grasses and sedges. On the other hand, Metribuzin is very effective against grasses and to an extent on broadleaf and sedges.

[0546] Based on the characteristics of the two actives, the treatments of pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the lowest number and dry weight of weeds / sq.m., giving effective control of broad spectrum of weeds, when compared to the stand alone treatments. Therefore, this pre-mixed formulation reflected in higher Weed Control Efficiency(%) thereby leading to higher cane yields when compared to standalone treatments of Metribuzin 70% WP and Saflufenacil 70% WG at their recommended rates, observed across all recorded observations with an extended duration of control of 45 to 60 days(Table 21). As evident from the results of the experiments indicated above that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG demonstrated good synergism which corroborate with the Colby’s ratios.

[0547] As can be seen from the above data, a similar trend in results was observed across different types of formulations selected from any of wettable powders (WP), emulsifiable concentrates (EC), aqueous solutions (SL), emulsions (EW) such as oil- in-water, sprayable solutions or emulsions, oil or water-based dispersions, suspo-emulsions (SE), mixed formulation of capsule suspension (CS) and emulsion(EW) i.e. ZW formulation, ULV formulations, microcapsules or waxes Emulsion water-in-oil (EO), Granules (GR), Oil-dispersion (OD), Oil miscible flowable concentrate (OF), Oil miscible liquid (OL), Oil dispersible powder (OP), ), a mixed formulation of CS and 5 SC (ZC) or a mixed formulation of CS and SE (ZE), preferably WP and SC..

[0548] FIELD TRIAL 4: Field evaluation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG as Pre-emergence method of application on sugarcane crop:

[0549] Field trials were conducted on sugarcane crop, variety Co 6304 at Cuddalore district 0 of Tamil Nadu in sandy loam soils. Results of the study carried out in Cuddalore are given below. The pre-emergence application was carried out within 2-3 days of planting sets. The treatments were applied as blanket soil surface spray 2-3 days after planting setts, using a knapsack sprayer with a spray volume of 500 litres per hectare. For comparative evaluation, standard treatments included standalone 5 application of Metribuzin 70% WP at a rate of 700 g a.i. / ha and Saflufenacil 70% WG at70 g a.i. / ha. Details of the treatments for Field Trial 4 are given in Table 6.

[0550] Influence of treatments on probable phytotoxicity if any on sugarcane crop:

[0551] Results of the study clearly show that the pre-mixed formulation treatments at the 0 rates evaluated, did not exhibit any phytotoxicity symptoms in terms of Leaf injury(L);

[0552] Wilting(W); Vein Clearing(V); Necrosis(N); Epinasty(E) and Hyponasty(H) at all the observations recorded on sugarcane crop, when applied as pre-emergence method of application (Table 22). These treatments were comparable to those of the standard herbicide treatments.

[0553] 5

[0554] Table 22: Influence of treatments for probable phytotoxicity on sugarcane crop if any:

[0555] Phytoto Time of Treatments

[0556] xicity observati

[0557] Parame on from T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 ter spraying

[0558] Leaf Before L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 Injury(L) 3raL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 15lhL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 3O’nL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 Wilting( Before W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W) 3rdW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 15thW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 30thW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 Vein Before V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 Clearing 3r° V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 (V) 15mV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 3O’nV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 Before N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Necrosi 3raN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 s(N) 15lhN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 3O’nN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Before E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Epinasty 3rdE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 (E) 15thE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1

[0559]

[0560] 3O’nE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1Before H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 Hypona 3rdH-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 sty(H) 15th H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1

[0561]

[0562] 3O’nH-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 ‘Phytotoxicity observations of all parameters recorded was 0% and hence graded as 1 Analysis of biometric parameters:

[0563] Observations on weed control and weed flora:

[0564] 5 Data monitored on weed population and dry weigh of weeds were recorded at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after (DAT) as shown in Table 23.

[0565] Table 23: Influence of treatments on biometric parameters on sugarcane crop as pre-emergence application:

[0566] Treat Dosage Number of weeds / sq.m. Dq weight of weeds(g) / sq.m ments (g a.i. / ha) 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT T1 3.54 1.3

[0567] 35+350 2.90 4.65 4.25 0.683 0.90 1.32 1.48

[0568] (1.84) (2.01) (2.27) (2.17) (1.06) (1.18) (1.35) (1.41)

[0569] 3.22 4.22 0.84 1.02 T2 2.26 4.01 0.39 0.90

[0570] 44+438 (1.66) (1.93) (2.12) (2.17) (0.94) (1.16) (1.18) (1.23) T 1.05 2.10 3.30 3.82

[0571] 3 53+525 0.23 0.46 0.72 0.84

[0572] (1.24) (1.61) (1.95) (2.08) (0.85) (0.98) (1.11) (1.16) T4 1.20 2.05 3.32

[0573] 61+613 3.25 0.26 0.45 0.73 0.71

[0574] (1.30) (1.60) (1.95) (1.94) (0.87) (0.98) (1.11) (1.10)

[0575] 1.82 2.62 2.49 0.27 0.57

[0576] T5 70+700 1.25 0.40 0.55

[0577] (1.32) (1.52) (1.77) (1.73) (0.88) (0.95) (1.04) (1.02) T 0.00 1.19 1.46 1.98 0.00 0.26 0.32

[0578] 6 79+788 0.43

[0579] (0.71) (1.30) (1.40) (1.57) (0.71) (0.87) (0.91) (0.97) T7 1.6

[0580] 88+875 0.00 0.00 1.20 2 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.35

[0581] (0.71) (0.71) (1.30) (1.46) (0.71) (0.71) (0.87) (0.93) 0.00 0.00 1.29 1.49 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.32 T8 105+1050 (0.71) (0.71) (1.34) (1.41) (0.71) (0.71) (0.89) (0.91) T9 9.95 12.63 12.22 12.28 2.02 2.66 2.74

[0582] 700 2.70

[0583] (3.23) (3.62) (3.57) (3.57) (1.59) (1.78) (1.80) (1.79)

[0584] 13.24 13.42 2.82 T10 70 11.46 12.96 13.42 12.96 1.9 2.48 2.65

[0585] (3.46) (3.71) (3.73) (3.67) (1.55) (1.73) (1.77) (1.82) Hand 0.00 0.85 1.35 2.25 0.00 0.18 0.29 0.49 T11

[0586] Weed (0.71) (1.16) (1.36) (1.66) (0.71) (0.83) (0.89) (1.00) T12 Untreated 55 85 125 144 20.9 32.3 47.5 54.72 Control (7.45) (9.25) (11.20) (12.02) (4.63) (5.73) (6.93) (7.43) SEm (±) 0.41 0.46 0.33 0.35 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.14

[0587]

[0588] CD at 5 % 1.24 1.39 0.99 1.06 0.39 0.50 0.39 0.42 0 ‘Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed { (X+0.5)} and values outside are the actual.

[0589] ** The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[0590] Based on the data generated, the treatments of pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil 5 (70g / kg) and Metribuzin (700g / kg) WG, resulted in recording, significantly lower numbers of weeds per square meter and reduced dry weight of weeds per square meter across at all recorded observations, with no significant differences found among these treatments with extended duration of control. Interestingly, these treatments were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments taken for 0 comparison (Table 23).

[0591] Table 24: Influence of treatments on spectrum of weeds on sugarcane crop as pre-emergence application:

[0592] Treatments Dosage Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m

[0593]

[0594] (g a.i. / ha) BLW Grasses Sedges Total BLW Grasses Sedges Total T1 0.3

[0595] 35+350 1.00 2.85 1.00 4.85 7 0.45 0.66 1.48

[0596] (1.22) (1.83) (1.22) (2.31) (0.93) (0.97) (1.08) (1.41) T2 1.21 4.22 1.02

[0597] 44+438 1.00 2.01 0.30 0.39 0.33

[0598] (1.22) (1.58) (1.31) (2.17) (0.89) (0.94) (0.91) (1.23) 1.62 3.82 0.22 0.84 T3 53+525 0.40 1.80 0.36 0.26

[0599] (0.95) (1.46) (1.52) (2.08) (0.85) (0.93) (0.87) (1.16) 0.42 1.29 1.54 0.32 0.21 0.72 3.25 0.19 T4 61+613 (0.84) (0.96) (1.34) (0.83) (0.91) (1.43) (1.10) (1.94)

[0600] 2.49 0.29 0.31 0.95 1.23 0.10 0.16 0.55 T5 70+700 (0.77) (0.90) (1.20) (1.32) (0.89) (0.81) (1.02) (1.73)

[0601] 0.27 0.82 0.02 0.21 0.21 0.44 0.89 1.98 T6 79+788 (0.72) (0.84) (0.84) (0.97) (0.88) (1.57) (1.15) (1.18)

[0602] 0.24 1.62 0.02 0.14 0.2 0.75 0.63 0.36 T7 88+875 (0.72) (0.84) (0.86) (1.06) (0.80) (0.93) (1.12) (1.46)

[0603] 1.49 0.12 0.12 0.25 0.76 0.48 0.09 0.33 T8 105+1050 (0.87) (0.77) (0.79) (0.79) (0.99) (0.91) (1.12) (1.41)

[0604] 5.29 3.96 3.03 12.28 1.09 1.48 1.53 2.70 T9 700(2.11) (2.41) (1.88) (3.57) (1.26) (1.42) (1.41) (1.79) 6.42 2.82 0.56 4.98 11.96 0.58 1.78 1.46 T10 70 (2.34) (1.03) (2.63) (3.53) (1.04) (1.82) (1.40) (1.51)

[0605] 0.67 0.24 Hand 0.85 0.73 2.25 0.20 0.06 0.50 T11 (0.84) Weed (1.08) (1.66) (0.86) (0.75) (1.00) (1.16) (1.11)

[0606] 62 37 144 12.24 54.72 Untreated 45 26.89 15.59 T12 (6.12) (12.02) (3.57) Control (6.75) (5.23) (4.01) (7.43) (7.91)

[0607] SEm (±)

[0608] 0.12 0.21 0.20 0.10 0.28 0.06 0.09 0.10 CD at 5 % 0.32 0.29 0.38 0.60 0.85 0.20 0.30 0.63

[0609]

[0610] ‘Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed {^(X+0.5)} and values outside are the actual.

[0611] ** The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[0612] Treatments of pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG, recorded significantly lowest number and reduced dry weight of weeds in different categories of broadleaf weeds, grasses and sedges at all recorded observations. No significant differences were observed among pre-mixed treatments and these were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments taken for the comparison purpose with extended duration of control (Table 24)

[0613] Table 25: Influence of treatments on Weed Control Efficiency (%) and yield on sugarcane crop as pre-emergence application:

[0614] Weed Control Efficiency (%)

[0615] Treatments Yield

[0616] 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT (tonnes / ha) T1 99.2 35+350 98.3 96.6 96.3 125.3

[0617] T2 98.4 44+438 99.5 97.0 96.6 126.0

[0618] 99.2 97.2 T3 53+525 100.0 96.8 126.9

[0619] T4 127.2 61+613 100.0 100.0 97.5 97.0

[0620] 97.7 97.2 T5 70+700 100.0 100.0 128.1

[0621] 97.7 T6 79+788 100.0 100.0 97.3 128.0

[0622] T7 128.7 88+875 100.0 100.0 98.3 97.5

[0623] 98.4 T8 105+1050 100.0 100.0 97.3 129.8

[0624] T9 92.9 79.7 79.2 110.2 700 84.5

[0625] 91.2 79.4 111.4 T10 70 83.3 79.0

[0626] T11 99.4 99.4 Hand Weed 100.0 99.5 130.6

[0627] T12 Untreated Control 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.5

[0628] SEm (±) 2.8

[0629] CD at 5 % 8.9

[0630]

[0631] Results of the study clearly indicate that the pre-mixed formulations of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the highest Percent weed control efficiency when comparedto the standard herbicide treatments and were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments (Table 25).

[0632] Table 26: Influence of treatments based on on Colby’s ratio on sugarcane crop as pre-emergence application:

[0633] Tre 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT atm Colb Colb Colby' Colb ent Obse Expe y's Obse Expe Observ Expe Obse Expe s rved cted ra rved cted y's ed cted s rved cted y's tio ratio ratio ratio T1 95.2 94.0 1.01 95.3 92.6 1.03 99.0 91.90 1.08 96.6 80.9 1.19 T2 96.9 95.9 1.01 96.2 92.9 1.04 99.0 90.10 1.10 97.1 78.9 1.23 T3 97.9 98.1 1.00 97.5 94.4 1.03 99.0 96.80 1.02 97.3 84.8 1.15 T4 99.6 97.8 1.02 97.6 95.1 1.03 99.1 97.00 1.02 97.7 85.6 1.14 T5 99.2 97.7 1.02 97.9 96.0 1.02 99.2 94.50 1.05 98.3 87.3 1.13 T6 100.0 100.0 1.00 100.0 96.6 1.04 100.0 95.20 1.05 98.6 88.4 1.12 T7 100.0 100.0 1.00 100.0 96.8 1.03 100.0 96.10 1.04 98.9 88.0 1.12 T8 100.0 100.0 1.00 100.0 97.0 1.03 100.0 96.00 1.04 99.0 87.7 1.13 T9 90.2 - - 80.3 - - 78.2 - - 76.5 - - T10 90.6 - - 79.8 - - 77.6 - - 77.8 - - T11 100.0 - - 99.0 - - 98.9 - - 98.4 - -

[0634]

[0635] T12 - - - - - - - - - - - -

[0636] The two actives, Saflufenacil and Metribuzin belong to different class, N-Phenyl- imides and triazinones with different modes of action, one belonging to PPO inhibitor and the other Inhibition of photosynthesis at PSII. Saflufenacil and Metribuzin have both pre-emergence and post-emergence herbicidal activity with residual activity of 25 to 30 days depending on irrigated conditions. Saflufenacil is very effective against broad-spectrum control of broadleaf weeds including creeper weeds and to an extent on grasses and sedges. On the other hand, Metribuzin is very effective against grasses and to an extent on broadleaf and sedges.

[0637] Based on the characteristics of the two actives, the treatments of pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the lowest number and dry weight of weeds / sq.m., giving effective control of broad spectrum of weeds, when compared to the stand alone treatments. Therefore, this pre-mixed formulation reflected in higher Weed Control Efficiency(%) thereby leading to higher cane yields when compared to standalone treatments of Metribuzin 70% WP and Saflufenacil 70% WG at their recommended rates, observed across all the observations recorded with an extended duration of control of 45 to 60 days. As evident from the results of the experiments indicated above that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG demonstrated good synergism which corroborate with the Colby’s ratios.

[0638] Similar trend of results was observed across different formulation types selected from any of wettable powders (WP), emulsifiable concentrates (EC), aqueous solutions (SL), emulsions (EW) such as oil-in-water, sprayable solutions or emulsions, oil or water-based dispersions, suspo-emulsions (SE), mixed formulation of capsule suspension (CS) and emulsion(EW) i.e. ZW formulation, ULV formulations, microcapsules or waxes Emulsion water-in-oil (EO), Granules (GR), Oil-dispersion (OD), Oil miscible flowable concentrate (OF), Oil miscible liquid (OL), Oil dispersible powder (OP), ), a mixed formulation of OS and SC (ZC) or a mixed formulation of OS and SE (ZE), preferably WP and SC..

[0639] 5 FIELD TRIAL 5: Field evaluation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG as Pre-emergence method of application on sugarcane crop:

[0640] Field trials were conducted on sugarcane crop, variety, 2003V46 at Eluru, Andhra Pradesh in clayey loam soils. Results of the study carried out in this region are given below. The treatments were applied as blanket soil surface spray 2-3 days after 0 planting setts, using a knapsack sprayer with a spray volume of 500 litres per hectare. For comparative evaluation, standard reference treatments included standalone application of Atrazine 50% WP @ 2000 g a.i. / ha, Metribuzin 70% WP at a rate of 1050 g a.i. / ha and Saflufenacil 70% WG at125 g a.i. / ha. Detailed treatment information (dosage in g a.i. / ha and formulation dosage / hectare) for Field Trial 5 are 5 given in Table 27.

[0641] Table 27: Treatment details of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG as Pre-emergence method of application:

[0642] Active

[0643] SI. No. Treatments (g / kg) ingredient Form.(gm / Method of (g a.i. / ha) ml / ha) application* 1 Saflufenacil 70 + Metribuzin 700 WG 35+350 500 Soil surface spray 2 Saflufenacil 70 + Metribuzin 700 WG 44+438 625 Soil surface spray 3 Saflufenacil 70 + Metribuzin 700 WG 53+525 750 Soil surface spray 4 Saflufenacil 70 + Metribuzin 700 WG 61+613 875 Soil surface spray 5 Saflufenacil 70 + Metribuzin 700 WG 70+700 1000 Soil surface spray 6 Saflufenacil 70 + Metribuzin 700 WG 79+788 1125 Soil surface spray 7 Saflufenacil 70 + Metribuzin 700 WG 88+875 1250 Soil surface spray 8 Saflufenacil 70 + Metribuzin 700 WG 105+1050 1500 Soil surface spray 9 Metribuzin 70% WP 1050 1500 Soil surface spray 10 Saflufenacil 70% WG 125 178 Soil surface spray 11 Atrazine 50% WP 2000 4000 Soil surface spray 12 Weed Free(Hand Weed) - - -

[0644]

[0645] 13 Weedy Check(Untreated Control) - - - 0 Influence of treatments on probable phytotoxicity if any:

[0646] Results of the study clearly show that the pre-mixed formulation treatments at the rates evaluated, did not exhibit any phytotoxicity symptoms in terms of Leaf injury(L); Wilting(W); Vein Clearing(V); Necrosis(N); Epinasty(E) and Hyponasty(H) at all the observations recorded on the soybean crop, when applied as pre-emergence method 5 of application (Table 28). These treatments were comparable to those of the standard herbicide treatments.

[0647] Table 28: Influence of treatments for probable phytotoxicity on sugarcane crop as pre-emergence method of application, if any:

[0648] Phyt Time Treatments

[0649] otoxi of

[0650]

[0651] city observ T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 Para ation

[0652] mete from

[0653] r sprayi

[0654] ng

[0655] Leaf Before L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 Injury 3rdL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 (L) 15lnL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 30thL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 Wiltin Before W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 g(W) 3raW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 15lnW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 30,nW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 Vein Before V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 Cleari 3r° V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 ng(V) 15lnV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 30,nV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 Before N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Necro 3raN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 sis(N) 15lhN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 3O’nN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Before E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Epina 3raE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 sty(E) 15thE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 30,nE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Hypo Before H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 nasty 3r° H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 (H) 15th H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1

[0656]

[0657] 3O’nH-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 *Phytotoxicity observations of all parameters recorded was 0% and hence graded as 1 Analysis of biometric parameters:

[0658] Observations on weed control and weed flora:

[0659] 5 Observations on weed population and the dry weight of weeds were recorded at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after treatment (DAT) as shown in Table 29.

[0660] Table 29: Influence of treatments on biometric parameters on sugarcane crop as pre-emergence application:

[0661] Treatme Dosage Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m nts (g

[0662] a.i. / ha) 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT T1 35+350 1.02 1.78 4.59 6.85 0.29 0.50 1.29 1.92

[0663] (1.23) (1.51) (2.26) (2.71) (0.89) (1.00) (1.34) (1.55) T2 44+438 0.85 1.42 3.65 6.22 0.24 0.40 1.02 1.74

[0664] (1.16) (1.39) (2.04) (2.59) (0.86) (0.95) (1.23) (1.50) 53+525 3.42 0.37 1.71 T3 0.00 1.33 6.09 0.00 0.96

[0665] (0.71) (1.35) (1.98) (2.57) (0.71) (0.93) (1.21) (1.48) T4 61+613 0.00 0.00 3.25 5.86 0.00 0.00 0.91 1.64

[0666] (0.71) (0.71) (1.94) (2.52) (0.71) (0.71) (1.19) (1.46) 70+700 0.00 0.00 2.67 5.72

[0667] T5 0.00 0.00 0.75 1.60

[0668] (0.71) (0.71) (1.78) (2.49) (0.71) (0.71) (1.12) (1.45) 79+788 0.00 0.00 2.65 5.70 0.00 0.00 0.74 1.60 T6 (0.71) (0.71) (1.77) (2.49) (0.71) (0.71) (1.11) (1.45) T7 88+875 0.00 0.00 2.52 5.59 0.00 0.00 0.71 1.57

[0669] (0.71) (0.71) (1.74) (2.47) (0.71) (0.71) (1.10) (1.44) 105+10

[0670] T8 0.00 0.00 2.36 5.20 0.00 0.00 0.66 1.46

[0671] 50 (0.71) (0.71) (1.69) (2.39) (0.71) (0.71) (1.08) (1.40) T9 1050 2.85 5.69 12.98 13.98 1.00 1.99 4.54 4.89

[0672] (1.83) (2.49) (3.67) (3.81) (1.22) (1.58) (2.25) (2.32) 125 5.21 T10 3.36 5.98 13.59 14.89 1.18 2.09 4.76

[0673] (1.96) (2.55) (3.75) (3.92) (1.29) (1.61) (2.29) (2.39) T11 2000 12.23 20.24 35.99 50.59 6.36 10.52 18.71 26.31

[0674] (3.57) (4.55) (6.04) (7.15) (2.62) (3.32) (4.38) (5.18) T12 - 0.00 0.10 0.12 0.24 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.05

[0675]

[0676] (0.71) (0.77) (0.79) (0.86) (0.71) (0.72) (0.72) (0.74)T13 | ' 32.56 43.89 56.38 62.62 17.01 23.86 30.32 33.55 (5.75) (6.66) (7.54) (7.94) (4.18) (4.94) (5.55) (5.84) SEm (±) 0.20 0.20 0.24 0.20 0.06 0.10 0.21 0.24

[0677]

[0678] CD at 5 % 0.60 0.65 0.71 0.66 0.20 0.31 0.69 0.70 ‘Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed { (X+0.5)} and values outside are the actual.

[0679] ** The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[0680] Data in Table 29 indicates that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) and Metribuzin (700g / kg) WG, resulted in recording, significantly lower numbers of weeds and dry weight of weeds per square meter across all recorded observations. There were no significant differences found among these treatments. Interestingly, these treatments were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments taken for comparison. The results clearly establish that the pre-mixed formulations due to good synergism gave broader spectrum and longer duration of control of weeds at all the observations recorded.

[0681] Table 30: Influence of treatments on spectrum of weeds on sugarcane crop as pre-emergence application:

[0682] Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m Treatments Dosage

[0683] (g a.i. / ha) BLW Grasses Sedges Total BLW Grasses Sedges Total T1 0.10 0.98 0.70 1.78 0.04

[0684] 35+350 0.28 0.19 0.50

[0685] (0.77) (1.22) (1.10) (1.51) (0.73) (0.88) (0.83) (1.00) 0.12 1.42 0.17

[0686] T2 0.65 0.65 0.05 0.18 0.40

[0687] 44+438 (0.79) (1.07) (1.07) (1.39) (0.74) (0.82) (0.82) (0.95)

[0688] 0.12 0.41 0.21 0.37 T3 53+525 0.80 1.33 0.03 0.13

[0689] (0.79) (1.14) (0.95) (1.35) (0.73) (0.79) (0.84) (0.93) T4 61+613 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0690] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T5 70+700 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0691] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T6 79+788 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0692] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T7 88+875 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0693] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T8 105+1050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0694] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T9 1050 1.65 1.89 2.15 5.69 0.58 0.66 0.75 1.99

[0695] (1.47) (1.55) (1.63) (2.49) (1.04) (1.08) (1.12) (1.58) T10 125 0.68 3.25 2.05 5.98 0.24 1.14 0.72 2.09

[0696] (1.09) (1.94) (1.60) (2.55) (0.86) (1.28) (1.10) (1.61) T11 6.84 7.62 20.24 10.52

[0697] 2000 5.78 3.53 3.81 3.18

[0698] (2.71) (2.85) (2.51) (4.55) (2.01) (2.08) (1.92) (3.32) T12 Weed 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

[0699] Free (0.71) (0.71) (0.77) (0.77) (0.71) (0.71) (0.72) (0.72)

[0700] 16.29 9.82

[0701] T13 Weedy 17.78 43.89 9.70 8.83 5.33 23.86

[0702] Check (4.28) (4.10) (3.21) (6.66) (3.19) (3.05) (2.41) (4.94) SEm (±) 0.10 0.16 0.10 0.27 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.11

[0703]

[0704] CD at 5 % 0.33 0.53 0.35 0.78 0.12 0.18 0.16 0.37 *Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed {-^(X+0.5)} and values outside are the actual.

[0705] ** The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[0706] According to Table 30, the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG, recorded significantly lowest number of weeds and dry weight of weeds per square meter across broadleaf weeds, grasses and sedges categories at all recorded observations. It is particularly noteworthy that the premixed formulation showed greater efficacy against broadleaf weeds. However, no significant differences were observed among the treatments. Interestingly, these treatments were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments taken forcomparison. The pre-mixed formulations treatments at all the observations recorded the lowest number of weeds and dry weight of weeds / sq.m exhibiting good synergism.

[0707] Table 31: Influence of treatments on Percent weed control and yield on sugarcane crop as pre-emergence application:

[0708] Weed Control Efficiency (%)

[0709] Treatments Yield 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT (tonnes / ha) T1 35+350 98.3 97.9 95.8 94.3 82.8 T2 44+438 98.6 98.3 96.6 94.8 83.1 T3 53+525 100.0 98.4 96.8 94.9 83.0 T4 61+613 100.0 100.0 97.0 95.1 83.2 T5 70+700 100.0 100.0 97.5 95.2 84.0 T6 79+788 100.0 100.0 97.6 95.2 84.8 T7 88+875 100.0 100.0 97.7 95.3 85.0 T8 105+1050 100.0 100.0 97.8 95.7 85.5 T9 1050 94.1 91.7 85.0 85.4 74.6 T10 125 93.1 91.2 84.3 84.5 72.8 T11 2000 62.6 55.9 38.3 21.6 70.8 T12 - 100.0 99.9 99.9 99.9 85.9 T13 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.8 SEm (±) 1.0

[0710]

[0711] CD at 5 % 3.2 Results of the study clearly indicate that the pre-mixed formulations of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the highest Percent weed control when compared to the standard herbicide treatments and were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments, further confirming good synergism among the two actives (Table 31).

[0712] Table 32: Influence of treatments based on Colby’s ratio on sugarcane crop as post-emergence application:

[0713] Colby's ratio

[0714] Trea 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT tme Exp Colb Colb Colb Colby nts Obser ec y's Obser Expec Obser Expec Obser Expec ved ved ted y's y's 's ted ratio ratio ved ted ratio ved ted ratio T1 97.1 83.9 1.16 97 79.9 1.22 92.2 74.5 1.24 85.2 68.2 1.25 T2 97.2 84.0 1.16 97 80.3 1.21 92.0 75.2 1.22 85.5 68.9 1.24 T3 100.0 84.8 1.18 100 80.9 1.24 92.6 76.8 1.21 85.3 68.5 1.25 T4 100.0 86.3 1.16 100 82.0 1.22 93.0 77.1 1.21 85.7 69.4 1.23 T5 100.0 86.0 1.16 100 82.3 1.22 93.3 77.4 1.21 86.0 70.2 1.23 T6 100.0 86.0 1.16 100 81.8 1.22 93.5 77.2 1.21 86.3 70.4 1.23 T7 100.0 86.5 1.16 100 81.1 1.23 94.1 77.6 1.21 86.0 71.3 1.21 T8 100.0 86.0 1.16 95 81.0 1.17 94.6 77.0 1.23 86.5 71.5 1.21 T9 82.5 - 81 - 70.5 - - 70.2 - - T10 73.0 - 72 - 71.6 - - 71.5 - - T11 100.0 - 100 - 96.2 - - 95.3 - - T12 - - - - - - - - - -

[0715]

[0716] T13 - - - - - - - - - - Based on the characteristics of the two actives Saflufenacil and Metribuzin, belongs to different classes and mode of action, showed good synergism giving broad spectrum control and extended duration of control. The treatments of pre-mixedformulation of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the lowest number and dry weight of weeds / sq.m., giving effective control of broad spectrum of weeds, when compared to the stand alone treatments. Therefore, this pre-mixed formulation reflected in higher Weed Control Efficiency(%) thereby leading to higher cane yields when compared to standalone treatments of Metribuzin 70% WP and Saflufenacil 70% WG at their recommended rates, observed across all the recorded observations with an extended duration of control of 45 to 60 days. As evident from the results of the experiments indicated above that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG demonstrated good synergism which corroborate with the Colby’s ratios and all other previous experiments.

[0717] As can be seen from the above data, a similar trend in results was observed across different types of formulations selected from any of wettable powders (WP), emulsifiable concentrates (EC), aqueous solutions (SL), emulsions (EW) such as oil- in-water, sprayable solutions or emulsions, oil or water-based dispersions, suspo- emulsions (SE), mixed formulation of capsule suspension (CS) and emulsion(EW) i.e. ZW formulation, ULV formulations, microcapsules or waxes Emulsion water-in-oil (EO), Granules (GR), Oil-dispersion (OD), Oil miscible flowable concentrate (OF), Oil miscible liquid (OL), Oil dispersible powder (OP), ), a mixed formulation of CS and SC (ZC) or a mixed formulation of CS and SE (ZE), preferably WP and SC..

[0718] FIELD TRIAL 6: Field evaluation of Saflufenacil (175 g / kg) + Metribuzin (350 g / kg) WG as Pre-emergence method of application on Soybean:

[0719] Field trials were carried on Soybean crop, variety NRC-86(Ahilya-6) in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India in clayey loam soils. The treatments were applied as a preemergence blanket soil surface spray, within two days from sowing using a knapsack sprayer with a spray volume of 500 litres per hectare. For comparative evaluation, standard reference treatments included standalone application of Metribuzin 70% WP at 525 g a.i. / ha, Saflufenacil 70% WG at 125 g a.i. / ha. and a commercially available pre-mixed formulation of Pendimethalin 30% + Imazethpyr 2% at 750 + 50 g a.i. / ha. Details of the treatments for Field Trial 6 are given in Table 33.

[0720] Table 33: Treatment details of Saflufenacil (175 g / kg) + Metribuzin (350g / kg) WG as Pre-emergence method of application:

[0721] S. N Active Formulation

[0722] 0. Treatments (g / kg) ingredient

[0723] (g a.i. / h (gm / ml / ha) Method of application a)

[0724] 1 Saflufenacil 175 + Metribuzin 350 WG 66+ 131 375 Blanket foliar soil surface spray

[0725] 2 Saflufenacil 175 + Metribuzin 350 WG 88 + 175 500 Blanket foliar soil surface spray

[0726] 3 Saflufenacil 175 + Metribuzin 350 WG 131 + 263 750 Blanket foliar soil surface spray

[0727] 4 Saflufenacil 175 + Metribuzin 350 WG 175 + 350 1000 Blanket foliar soil surface spray

[0728] 5 Saflufenacil 175 + Metribuzin 350 WG 219 + 438 1250 Blanket foliar soil surface

[0729]

[0730] spray6 Saflufenacil 175 + Metribuzin 350 WG 263 + 525 1500 Blanket foliar soil surface spray

[0731] 7 Saflufenacil 175 + Metribuzin 350 WG Blanket foliar soil surface 350 + 700 2000 spray

[0732] 8 Metribuzin 70% WP 525 750 Blanket foliar soil surface spray

[0733] 9 Saflufenacil 70% WG 125 178 Blanket foliar soil surface spray

[0734] 10 Pendimethalin 30% + Imazethpyr 2% EC 750 + 50 2500 Blanket foliar soil surface spray

[0735] 11 Weed FreefHand Weed) - - Blanket foliar soil surface spray

[0736]

[0737] 12 Weedy CheckfUntreated Control) - - -

[0738] Influence of treatments on probable phytotoxicity if any:

[0739] Results of the study clearly show that the pre-mixed formulation treatments of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin at the rates evaluated, did not exhibit any phytotoxicity symptoms in terms of Leaf injury(L); Wilting(W); Vein Clearing(V); Necrosis(N); Epinasty(E) and Hyponasty(H) at all the observations recorded on the soybean crop, when applied as pre-emergence method of application (Table 34). These treatments were comparable to those of the standard herbicide treatments.

[0740] Table 34: Influence of treatments for probable phytotoxicity on Soybean crop if any:

[0741] Phytotoxicity Time of Treatments

[0742] Parameter observati

[0743] on from T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 spraying

[0744] Leaf Injury(L) Before L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1

[0745] 3rdL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 15lnL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 3O’nL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 Wilting(W) Before W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1

[0746] 3raW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 15lhW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 3O’nW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 Vein Clearing(V) Before V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1

[0747] 3r° V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 15lnV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 30,nV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 Before N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 3rdN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Necrosis(N)

[0748] 15lnN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 3O’nN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Before E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 3rdE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Epinasty(E)

[0749] 15lhE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 3O’nE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Before H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 Hyponasty(H) 3raH-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1

[0750] 15th H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1

[0751]

[0752] 30thH-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 *Phytotoxicity observations of all parameters recorded was 0% and hence graded as 1 Analysis of biometric parameters:

[0753] Observations on weed control and weed flora:

[0754] Data monitored on weed population, number of weeds and dry weight of weeds in grams per square meter at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after treatment (DAT) are covered in Table 35.Table 35: Influence of treatments on biometric parameters on Soybean crop as pre-emergence application:

[0755] Treat Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m ment Dosage

[0756] s (g a.i. / ha) 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT T1 66+ 131 1.01 1.52 2.56 3.01 0.23 0.35 0.58 0.69

[0757] (1.23) (1.42) (1.75 (1.87) (0.86) (0.92) (1.04) (1.09))

[0758] T2 0.85 1.48 2.01 2.72 0 0.34

[0759] 88 + 175 0.19 0.46 0.39

[0760] (1.16) (1.41) (1.58) (1.79) (0.83) (0.92) (0.98) (0.95) T 0.00 1.38 1.82

[0761] 3 131 + 263 2.55 0.00 0.32 0.42 0.58

[0762] (0.71) (1.37) (1.52) (1.75) (0.71) (0.90) (0.96) (1.04) 0.00 1.25 2.49 0.57 T4 175 + 350 1.59 0.00 0.28 0.36

[0763] (0.71) (1.32) (0.71) (0.89) (0.93) (1.04) (1.45) (1.73)

[0764] 0.00 0.00 1.32

[0765] T5 219 + 438 2.56 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.59

[0766] (0.71) (0.71) (1.35) (0.71) (0.71) (0.90) (1.04) (1.75)

[0767] 2.19 0.27 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.50 T6 263 + 525 (0.71) (0.71) (1.30) (1.64) (0.71) (0.71) (0.88) (1.00) 1.22 0.00 0.00 2.01 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.46 T7 350 + 700 (0.71) (0.71) (1.58) (0.71) (0.71) (0.88) (0.98) (1.31)

[0768] 3.95 4.5 4.96 6.25 1.106 1.26 1.38 1.75 T8 525 (2.24) (2.34) (2.60) (1.27) (1.33) (1.37) (1.50) (2.11)

[0769] 1.092 1.49 3.90 4.85 5.35 7.25 1.36 2.03 T9 125 (2.42) (2.10) (2.31) (2.78) (1.26) (1.36) (1.59) (1.41)

[0770] 1.19 1.47 3.25 4.25 5.25 7.50 0.91 2.10 T10 750 + 50 (1.94) (2.18) (2.40) (2.83) (1.09) (1.30) (1.40) (1.61)

[0771] 0.00 0.00 1.25 1.56 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.36 T11 HW

[0772] (0.71) (0.71) (1.32) (1.44) (0.71) (0.71) (0.89) (0.93) 49 82 152 34.44 63.84 119 20.58 49.98 T12 Control (7.04) (8.02) (9.08) (10.93) (12.35) (4.59) (5.91) (7.10)

[0773] SEm (±) 0.21 0.24 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.00 0.10 0.13

[0774] 0.49 CD at 5 % 0.63 0.73 0.36 0.30 0.39 0.36 ]0.28

[0775]

[0776] ‘Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed {-^(X+0.5)} and values outside are the

[0777] 5 actual.

[0778] ** The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[0779] Results of the biometric parameters suggest that the premixed formulation treatments of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin gave broad spectrum control of weeds than 0 the stand alone treatments, there by recording the lowest number of weeds and dry weight of weeds at all the observations recorded with no significant differences among the treatments, when compared to the standard herbicide treatments. The pre-mixed formulation treatments were significantly superior to the standard herbicidal treatments taken for comparison, showing good synergism (Table 35).

[0780] 5

[0781] Table 36: Influence of treatments on spectrum of weeds on Soybean crop as pre-emergence application:

[0782] Treat Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m Dosage ment (g a.i. / ha) BLW BLW Grasses Sedges Total Grasses Sedges Total s

[0783] 1.02 0.22 0.96 1.03 3.01 0.23 0.23 0.69 T1 66+ 131 (1.24) (1.23) (1.87) (0.86) (0.85) (0.86) (1.09) (1.21)

[0784] 0.62 2.72 0.17 0.12 0.85 1.25 0.11 0.40 T2 88 + 175 (1.32) (0.82) (0.79) (1.06) (0.78) (0.95) (1.16) (1.79)

[0785] 1.42 0.32 0.48 0.65 2.55 0.11 0.15 0.58 T3 131 + 263 (1.07) (0.99) (1.39) (0.78) (0.81) (0.91) (1.04) (1.75)

[0786] 0.49 1.42 2.49 0.32 0.57 0.58 0.11 0.13 T4 175 + 350 (0.99) (1.04) (1.39) (0.78) (0.80) (0.91) (1.04) (1.73)

[0787] 0.72 0.32 0.45 1.39 2.56 0.10 0.16 0.588 T5 219 + 438 (0.97) (0.82) (1.37) (0.78) (0.91) (1.04) (1.75) (1.10)

[0788] 0.32 1.32 2.19 0.12 0.55 0.073 0.30 0.50 T6 263 + 525 (0.79) (0.91) (1.02) (1.35) (1.64) (0.76) (0.90) (1.00)

[0789] 0.71 1.02 0.28 2.01 0.06 0.16 0.23 0.46 T7 350 + 700 (0.88) (1.23) (1.58) (0.75) (0.81) (0.86) (0.98) (1.10)

[0790]

[0791] T 5 2.25 3.06 0.94

[0792] 8 52 6.25 0.63 0.56 0.56 1.75

[0793] (1.66) (1.89) (1.20) (2.60) (1.06) (1.03) (1.03) (1.50)

[0794] 3.02 2.37 7.24 0.52 0.84 2.02 T9 1.85 0.66

[0795] 125 (1.53) (1.88) (1.69) (2.78) (1.01) (1.16) (1.08) (1.59) T10 750 + 50 2.96 2.45 2.09 7.50 0.83 0.68 0.58 2.10

[0796] (1.86) (1.72) (2.83) (1.15) (1.09) (1.04) (1.61) (1.61) T11 HW 0.62 0.45 0.49 1.56 0.14 0.10 0.11 0.35

[0797] (1.06) (0.97) (0.99) (1.44) (0.80) (0.78) (0.78) (0.93) T12 Control 68 49 35 152 29.92 63.84 21.56 12.36 (7.04) (5.52) (8.02) (8.28) (5.96) (12.35) (4.70) (3.59) SEm (±) 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.08

[0798] 0.37 0.24 0.14 0.12 0.24 CD at 5 % 0.19 0.38 0.15

[0799]

[0800] *Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed {-^(X+0.5)} and values outside are the actual.

[0801] ** The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[0802] Data in Table 36 suggests that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil (175 g / kg) and Metribuzin (350 g / kg) WG recorded significantly lowest numbers of weeds, reduced dry weight of weeds per square meter across categories of broadleaf, grasses and sedges at all the observations recorded. Notably, its efficacy against broadleaf weeds was significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments. However, there were no significant differences among pre-mixed formulation treatments. Interestingly, these treatments showed significant superiority compared to the standard herbicide treatments taken for comparison with extended duration of control.

[0803] Table 37: Influence of treatments on percent weed control and yield on Soybean crop as pre-emergence application:

[0804] Weed Control Efficiency (%)

[0805] Treatments Yield

[0806] 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT (kg / ha)

[0807] T1 98.9 98.3 97.1 96.6 66+ 131 2051

[0808] T2 99.1 98.3 97.8 98.1 88 + 175 2085

[0809] 100.0 98.5 98.0 97.2 T3 131 + 263 2100

[0810] T4 100.0 98.6 98.2 97.2 175 + 350 2105

[0811] 100.0 100.0 98.5 97.1 2162 T5 219 + 438

[0812] 100.0 100.0 98.7 97.6 T6 263 + 525 2198

[0813] T7 100.0 100.0 98.6 97.8 350 + 700 2220

[0814] 94.6 93.9 93.3 91.5 T8 525 1600

[0815] T9 94.7 93.4 92.7 90.1 125 1650

[0816] 95.6 94.2 92.9 89.8 T10 750 + 50 1701

[0817] T11 HW 100.0 100.0 98.6 98.3 2236

[0818] T12 - - - - Control 1025

[0819] SEm (±) 72

[0820] CD at 5 % 210

[0821]

[0822] Results of the study clearly indicate that the pre-mixed formulations of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the lowest number of weeds and dry weight of weeds / sq.m. thereby resulting in, highest Percent weed control when compared to the standard herbicide treatments (Table 37). The pre-mixed formulations recorded the highest yield with no significant differences among the treatments. These treatments were significantly superior to that of the standard herbicide treatments (Table 37). The pre-mixed formulation treatments recorded the highest yield when compared to the standard herbicide treatments.Table 38: Influence of treatments based on Colby’s ratio on Soybean crop as pre-emergence application:

[0823] Colby's ratio

[0824] Tre

[0825] at 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT me Obse Expe Colb Expe Colby' Obse Expe Colb Expe Colb r c y's Obser c r Obser

[0826] nts ved s c y's ved c y's ved ted ratio ted ratio ved ted ratio ted ratio T1 97.9 95.0 1.03 98.1 90.6 1.08 97.8 88.2 1.11 98.0 87.0 1.13 T2 98.3 95.1 1.03 98.2 90.8 1.08 98.3 89.0 1.10 98.2 87.2 1.13 T3 100.0 95.0 1.05 98.3 91.0 1.08 98.5 89.2 1.10 98.3 88.0 1.12 T4 100.0 95.8 1.04 98.5 91.4 1.08 98.7 90.2 1.09 98.4 88.2 1.12 T5 100.0 96.0 1.04 100.0 91.6 1.09 98.9 91.0 1.09 98.3 89.2 1.10 T6 100.0 96.8 1.03 100.0 91.8 1.09 99.0 90.8 1.09 98.6 90.1 1.09 T7 100.0 97.0 1.03 100.0 92.0 1.09 99.0 90.9 1.09 98.7 90.6 1.09 T8 91.9 90.8 88.0 83.3

[0827] T9 92.0 91.3 88.8 84.2

[0828] T10 93.4 90.0 89.3 85.3

[0829] T11 100.0 100.0 98.5 99.0

[0830]

[0831] T12 - - - - Saflufenacil and Metribuzin belonging to different classes and mode of action, have 5 both pre-emergence and post-emergence herbicidal activity with residual activity of 25 to 30 days depending on irrigated conditions. Saflufenacil is very effective against broad-spectrum control of broadleaf weeds including creeper weeds and to an extent on grasses and sedges. On the other hand, Metribuzin is very effective against grasses and to an extent on broadleaf and sedges.

[0832] 0 Based on the characteristics of the two actives, the treatments of pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the lowest number and dry weight of weeds / sq.m., giving effective control of broad spectrum of weeds, when compared to the stand alone treatments. Therefore, this pre-mixed formulation reflected in higher Weed Control Efficiency(%) thereby leading to higher cane yields 5 when compared to standalone treatments of Metribuzin 70% WP and Saflufenacil 70% WG at their recommended rates, observed across all the recorded observationswith an extended duration of control of 45 to 60 days. As evident from the studies, the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG demonstrated good synergism which corroborate with the Colby’s ratios, 0 including the yield parameters.

[0833] As can be seen from the above data, a similar trend in results was observed across different types of formulations selected from any of wettable powders (WP), emulsifiable concentrates (EC), aqueous solutions (SL), emulsions (EW) such as oil- in-water, sprayable solutions or emulsions, oil or water-based dispersions, suspo- 5 emulsions (SE), mixed formulation of capsule suspension (CS) and emulsion(EW) i.e. ZW formulation, ULV formulations, microcapsules or waxes Emulsion water-in-oil (EO), Granules (GR), Oil-dispersion (OD), Oil miscible flowable concentrate (OF), Oil miscible liquid (OL), Oil dispersible powder (OP), ), a mixed formulation of CS and SC (ZC) or a mixed formulation of CS and SE (ZE), preferably WP and SC.FIELD TRIAL 7: Field evaluation of Saflufenacil(175 g / kg) + Metribuzin(350 g / kg) WG as Pre-emergence method of application on soybean in Madhya Pradesh: Field trial was carried out on Soybean crop, variety NRC 142 in Ratlam, Madhya 5 Pradesh, India in clayey loam soils. The treatments were applied as a preemergence blanket soil surface spray, on first day of sowing using a knapsack sprayer with a spray volume of 500 litres per hectare. The standards for comparison were: standalone application of Metribuzin 70% WP at 525 g a. i. / ha, Saflufenacil 70% WG at 125 g a.i. / ha. and a commercially available pre-mixed formulation of 0 Pendimethalin 30% + Imazethpyr 2% at 750 + 50 g a.i. / ha. Details of the treatments for Field Trial 7 are given in Table 33.

[0834] Influence of treatments on probable phytotoxicity if any:

[0835] Results of the study clearly show that the pre-mixed formulation treatments at the 5 rates evaluated, did not exhibit any phytotoxicity symptoms on soybean crop in terms of Leaf injury(L); Wilting(W); Vein Clearing(V); Necrosis(N); Epinasty(E) and Hyponasty(H) at all the observations recorded, when applied as pre-emergence method of application (Table 39). These treatments were comparable to those of the standard herbicide treatments.

[0836] 0

[0837] Table 39: Influence of treatments for probable phytotoxicity on soybean crop if any:

[0838] Phytotoxicity Time of Treatments

[0839] Parameter observati

[0840] on from T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 spraying

[0841] Leaf Injury(L) Before L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1

[0842] 3raL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 15lhL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 3O’nL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 Wilting(W) Before W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1

[0843] 3rdW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 15thW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 30thW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 Vein Clearing(V) Before V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1

[0844] 3rdV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 15thV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 3O’nV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 Before N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 3raN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Necrosis(N)

[0845] 15lhN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 3O’nN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Before E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 3r° E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Epinasty(E)

[0846] 15thE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 30,nE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Before H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 Hyponasty(H) 3r° H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1

[0847] 15th H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1

[0848]

[0849] 30thH-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 *Phytotoxicity observations of all parameters recorded was 0% and hence graded as 1

[0850] 5 Analysis of biometric parameters:Observations on weed control and weed flora:

[0851] Observations on number of weeds and dry weight of weeds were recorded at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after treatment (DAT) and are given in Table 40.

[0852] Table 40: Influence of treatments on biometric parameters:

[0853] Treat Dosage Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m ments (g a.i. / ha) 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT 0.62 1.42 T1 1.89 2.85 4.33 6.25 0.38 0.93

[0854] 66+ 131 (1.55) (1.83) (2.20) (2.60) (0.94) (1.06) (1.20) (1.39) T2 0.3

[0855] 88 + 175 1.55 2.88 3.86 5.89 7 0.63 0.86 1.38

[0856] (1.43) (1.84) (2.09) (2.53) (0.93) (1.06) (1.17) (1.37) T3 131 + 263 0.00 0.00 2.98 5.50 0.00 0.00 0.65 1.29

[0857] (0.71) (0.71) (1.87) (2.45) (0.71) (0.71) (1.07) (1.34) T4 175 + 350 0.00 0.00 2.56 5.56 0.00 0.00 0.60 1.28

[0858] (0.71) (0.71) (1.75) (2.46) (0.71) (0.71) (1.05) (1.33) T5 219 0.00 0.00 1.96 5.36 0.00 0.00 0.49

[0859] + 438 1.20

[0860] (0.71) (0.71) (1.57) (2.42) (0.71) (0.71) (0.99) (1.30)

[0861] 1.32 4.62

[0862] T6 263 + 525 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 1.15

[0863] (0.71) (0.71) (1.35) (2.26) (0.71) (0.71) (0.89) (1.28) T7 0.00 0.00 1.25 4.56 0.00 0.00 0.30 1.09 350 + 700 (0.71) (0.71) (1.32) (2.25) (0.71) (0.71) (0.89) (1.26) T8 525 3.89 8.88 12.55 14.65 1.45 3.70 5.35 6.39

[0864] (2.10) (3.06) (3.61) (3.89) (1.40) (2.05) (2.42) (2.62) T9 16.7

[0865] 125 5.36 10.68 9 19.89 2.31 4.36 7.01 8.28

[0866] (2.42) (3.34) (4.16) (4.52) (1.68) (2.20) (2.74) (2.96) T10 750 + 50 7.35 13.56 21.78 29.36 3.56 6.33 9.89 13.76

[0867] (2.80) (3.75) (4.72) (5.46) (2.01) (2.61) (3.22) (3.78) T11 0.12 0.1

[0868] Weed Free 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2 1.00

[0869] (0.71) (0.71) (0.79) (1.22) (0.71) (0.71) (0.79) (1.22) T12 Weedy 25.16 42.55 62.86 69.85 13.18 22.56 33.20 37.83 Check (5.07) (6.56) (7.96) (8.39) (3.70) (4.80) (5.81) (6.19) SEm (±) 0.70 1.02 1.19 0.68 0.10 0.20 0.20 0.24

[0870]

[0871] CD at 5 % 2.15 3.16 3.62 2.01 0.29 0.58 0.65 0.73 *Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed {-^(X+0.5)} and values outside are the actual.

[0872] ** The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[0873] Results of the study indicate that the premixed formulation treatments of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the lowest number of weeds / sq.m and dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m at all the observations recorded with no significant differences among the treatments. These treatments were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments taken for the purpose of comparison (Table 40). The results of the study clearly prove that the treatments of pre-mixed formulations showed good synergism.

[0874] Table 41: Influence of treatments on spectrum of weeds on Soybean crop as pre-emergence application:

[0875] Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m Treatments Dosage

[0876] (g a.i. / ha) BLW Grasses Sedges Total BLW Grasses Sedges Total T1 0.89 1.25 0.71 2.85 0.18 0.28 0.62 0.62

[0877] 66+ 131

[0878] (1.18) (1.32) (1.10) (1.83) (0.82) (0.88) (1.06) (1.06) T 0.88 1.32 0.68 2.88 0.16 0.24

[0879] 2 0.63 0.63

[0880] 88 + 175

[0881] (1.17) (1.35) (1.09) (1.84) (0.81) (0.86) (1.06) (1.06) T3 131 + 263 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0882] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T4 175 + 350 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0883] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T5 219 + 438 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0884]

[0885] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71)T6 263 + 525 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0886] 350 + 700 (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71)

[0887] 1.22

[0888] T8 525 2.98 3.09 2.81 8.88 1.40 3.70 3.70

[0889] (1.87) (1.89) (1.82) (3.06) (1.31) (1.38) (2.05) (2.05) T9 1.25 4.78 4.65 10.68 0.47 1.91

[0890] 125 4.36 4.36

[0891] (1.32) (2.30) (2.27) (3.34) (0.98) (1.55) (2.20) (2.20) T 6.89 3.78 2.89 13.56 3.22 1.82

[0892] 10 750 + 50 6.33 6.33

[0893] (2.72) (2.07) (1.84) (3.75) (1.93) (1.52) (2.61) (2.61) T11 Weed Free 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0894] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T12 Weedy 14.89 15.66 12.00 42.55 7.82 8.32 22.56 22.56

[0895] Check (3.92) (4.02) (3.54) (6.56) (2.88) (2.97) (4.80) (4.80) SEm (±) 0.17 0.21 0.22 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.20 CD at 5 %

[0896]

[0897] 0.49 0.64 0.71 0.44 0.30 0.32 0.26 0.58 *Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed { (X+0.5)} and values outside are the actual.

[0898] ** The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[0899] Observations at 45thday were taken into consideration. Treatments of the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil (175 g / kg) and Metribuzin (350 g / kg) WG recorded significantly the lowest number of weeds and reduced dry weight of weeds per square meter across broadleaf, grasses and sedges categories at all the observations recorded. Notably, its efficacy against broadleaf weeds was more. There were no significant differences among various pre-mixed formulation treatments. Interestingly, these treatments were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments taken for comparison (Table 41).

[0900] Table 42: Influence of treatments on percent weed control and yield on Soybean crop as pre-emergence application:

[0901] Weed Control Efficiency(%)

[0902] Treatments Yield 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT (kg / ha) T1 66+ 131 97.1 97.3 97.2 96.2 2200 T2 88 + 175 97.2 97.2 97.4 96.4 2209 T3 131 + 263 100.0 100.0 98.0 96.6 2249 T4 175 + 350 100.0 100.0 98.2 96.6 2285 T5 219 + 438 100.0 100.0 98.5 96.8 2294 T6 263 + 525 100.0 100.0 99.1 97.0 2300 T7 350 + 700 100.0 100.0 99.1 97.1 2309 T8 525 89.0 83.6 83.9 83.1 2000 T9 125 82.5 80.7 78.9 78.1 2010 T10 750 + 50 73.0 71.9 70.2 63.6 2020 T11 Weed Free 100.0 100.0 99.6 97.4 2325 T12 Weedy Check - - - - 1250 SEm (±) 44

[0903]

[0904] CD at 5 % 136 Results of the study clearly indicate that the pre-mixed formulations of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin at the rates evaluated recorded the highest Percent weed control when compared to the standard herbicide treatments and were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments (Table 42). There were no significant differences among the pre-mixed formulation treatments. The pre-mixed formulation treatments recorded the highest yields with no significant differences among the treatments and these treatments were significantly superior to that of the standard treatments.Table 43: Influence of treatments based on Colby’s ratio on Soybean crop as pre-emergence application:

[0905] 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT Trea

[0906] tmen Obser Expec Colb Obse Expe Colb Obser Expec Colb Obser Expec Colb ts ved ted y's y's y's y's ratio rved cted ratio ved ted ratio ved ted ratio 97.1 97 79.9 1.22 75.2 1.32 T1 83.9 1.16 92.6 1.23 89.9 68.3 T2 97.2 97 1.21 92.4 1.29 84.0 1.16 80.3 75.0 1.23 90.0 69.6

[0907] 1.24 T3 100.0 84.8 1.18 100 80.9 93.5 75.8 1.23 90.8 70.9 1.28 T4 1.22 1.24 91.7 1.29 100.0 86.3 1.16 100 82.0 94.0 76.0 71.3

[0908] 1.22 1.24 1.29 T5 100.0 86.0 1.16 100 82.3 94.5 76.3 92.5 71.5 1.22 92.9 1.29 T6 100.0 86.0 1.16 100 81.8 94.8 76.9 1.23 71.8 T7 86.2 1.22 77.1 1.22 72.4 1.29 100.0 1.16 100 82.0 94.0 93.3

[0909] 84 78.2 T8 89.0 72.3

[0910] T9 70.4 82.5 81 79.3

[0911] 72 65.2 73.0 58.6 T10

[0912] T11 98.2 100.0 100 98.0

[0913] - - - - T12

[0914]

[0915] 5 Saflufenacil and Metribuzin belonging to different classes and mode of action and both having Pre-emergence and Post-emergence herbicidal activity gave excellent control of broad spectrum of weeds including the creeper weeds. Based on the characteristics of the two actives, the treatments of pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the lowest number and dry weight of 0 weeds / sq.m., giving effective control of broad spectrum of weeds, when compared to the stand alone treatments. Therefore, this pre-mixed formulation reflected in higher Weed Control Efficiency(%) thereby leading to higher grain yields when compared to standalone treatments of Metribuzin 70% WP and Saflufenacil 70% WG at their recommended rates, observed across all the recorded observations with an extended 5 duration of control of 45 to 60 days. The results clearly prove that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG demonstrated good synergism which corroborate with the Colby’s ratios and above substantiated results.

[0916] As can be seen from the above data, a similar trend in results was observed across different types of formulations selected from any of wettable powders (WP), 0 emulsifiable concentrates (EC), aqueous solutions (SL), emulsions (EW) such as oil- in-water, sprayable solutions or emulsions, oil or water-based dispersions, suspo- emulsions (SE), mixed formulation of capsule suspension (CS) and emulsion(EW) i.e. ZW formulation, ULV formulations, microcapsules or waxes Emulsion water-in-oil (EO), Granules (GR), Oil-dispersion (OD), Oil miscible flowable concentrate (OF), Oil 5 miscible liquid (OL), Oil dispersible powder (OP), ), a mixed formulation of CS and SC (ZC) or a mixed formulation of CS and SE (ZE), preferably WP and SC.

[0917] FIELD TRIAL 8: Field evaluation of Saflufenacil (175 g / kg) + Metribuzin (350 g / kg) WG as Pre-emergence application method on Soybean:

[0918] 0 Field trials were carried out on Soybean crop, variety MAUS-612, in Nashik, Maharashtra, India in clayey loam soils. The treatments were applied as a pre-emergence blanket soil surface spray, within two days from sowing using a knapsack sprayer with a spray volume of 500 litres per hectare. For comparison, the following standards were used: standalone application of Metribuzin 70% WP at 525 g a.i. / ha, Saflufenacil 70% WG at 125 g a.i. / ha. and a commercially available pre-mixed 5 formulation of Pendimethalin 30% + Imazethpyr 2% at 750 + 50 g a.i. / ha. Details of the treatments (dosage in g a.i. / ha and formulation dosage / hectare) for Field Trial 8 are given in Table 33.

[0919] Influence of treatments on probable phytotoxicity if any:

[0920] 0 Results of the study clearly show that the pre-mixed formulation treatments Saflufenacil and Metribuzin at the rates evaluated, did not exhibit any phytotoxicity symptoms in terms of Leaf injury(L); Wilting(W); Vein Clearing(V); Necrosis(N); Epinasty(E) and Hyponasty(H) at all the observations recorded on the soybean crop, when applied as pre-emergence method of application (Table 44). These treatments 5 were comparable to those of the standard herbicide treatments.

[0921] Table 44: Influence of treatments for probable phytotoxicity on soybean crop if any:

[0922] Phytotoxicity Time of Treatments

[0923] Parameter observati

[0924] on from T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 spraying

[0925] Leaf Injury(L) Before L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1

[0926] 3raL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 15lnL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 3O’nL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 Wilting(W) Before W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1

[0927] 3rdW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 15lhW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 3O’nW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 Vein Clearing(V) Before V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1

[0928] 3rdV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 15thV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 30thV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 Before N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 3rdN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Necrosis(N)

[0929] 15lnN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 3O’nN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Before E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 3rdE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Epinasty(E)

[0930] 15lhE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 3O’nE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Before H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 3rdH-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 Hyponasty(H)

[0931] 15th H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1

[0932]

[0933] 30thH-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 *Phytotoxicity observations of all parameters recorded was 0% and hence graded as 1

[0934] 0

[0935] Analysis of biometric parameters:

[0936] Observations on weed control and weed flora:

[0937] Observations on number of weeds and dry weight of weeds / sq.m were recorded at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after treatment (DAT) as recorded in Table 45. The data was 5 subjected to statistical analysis.Table 45: Influence of treatments on biometric parameters on Soybean crop as pre-emergence application:

[0938] Trea Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m tme Dosage

[0939] nts (g a.i. / ha) 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT T1 66+ 131 1.66 3.55 4.09 5.91 0.42 0.89 1.02 1.52

[0940] (1.47) (2.01) (2.14) (2.53) (0.96) (1.18) (1.23) (1.42) T2 88 + 175 1.39 3.28 4.01 5.25 0.35 0.82 1.00 1.49

[0941] (1.37) (1.94) (2.12) (2.40) (0.92) (1.15) (1.23) (1.41) T 0.00 0.00 2.82

[0942] 3 131 + 263 4.95 0.00 0.00 0.71 1.36

[0943] (0.71) (0.71) (1.82) (2.33) (0.71) (0.71) (1.10) (1.36) T4 175 + 350 0.00 0.00 2.68 4.92 0.00 0.00 0.67 1.32

[0944] (0.71) (0.71) (1.78) (2.33) (0.71) (0.71) (1.08) (1.35)

[0945] 1.29 T5 219 + 438 0.00 0.00 2.50 4.88 0.00 0.00 0.63

[0946] (0.71) (0.71) (1.73) (2.32) (0.71) (0.71) (1.06) (1.34) T6 263 + 525 0.00 0.00 2.59 4.66 0.00 0.00 0.65 1.28

[0947] (0.71) (0.71) (1.76) (2.27) (0.71) (0.71) (1.07) (1.33) T7 350 + 700 0.00 0.00 2.60 4.55 0.00 0.00 0.65 1.20

[0948] (0.71) (0.71) (1.76) (2.25) (0.71) (0.71) (1.07) (1.30) 3.87 12.57 1.29 4.34 T8 525 6.00 8.98 1.98 3.25

[0949] (2.09) (2.55) (3.08) (3.62) (1.34) (1.57) (1.94) (2.20) T9 125 4.09 6.12 9.01 12.98 1.48 2.02 3.52 4.62

[0950] (2.14) (2.57) (3.08) (3.67) (1.41) (1.59) (2.00) (2.26) T10 750 + 50 7.09 12.09 15.56 22.28 2.84 4.84 6.22 8.91

[0951] (2.75) (3.55) (4.01) (4.77) (1.83) (2.31) (2.59) (3.07) T11 Weed Free 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.09

[0952] (0.71) (0.71) (0.77) (0.92) (0.71) (0.71) (0.72) (0.77) T12 Weedy 19.85 33.89 42.67 53.99 10.32 17.62 22.19 28.07 Check (4.51) (5.86) (6.57) (7.38) (3.29) (4.26) (4.76) (5.35) SEm (±) 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.20 0.10 0.17 0.18 0.22

[0953]

[0954] CD at 5 % 0.50 0.56 0.48 0.62 0.32 0.50 0.59 0.67 ‘Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed { (X+0.5)} and values outside are the actual.

[0955] ** The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[0956] Results of the study as shown above, suggest that the premixed formulation treatments of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin, recorded the lowest number of weeds and dry weight of weeds (g) / sq.m., with no significant differences among the treatments. These treatments were significantly superior to that of the standard herbicide treatments with broad spectrum control of weeds. The results clearly show good synergism with extended duration of control (Table 45).

[0957] Table 46: Influence of treatments on spectrum of weeds on Soybean crop as pre-emergence application:

[0958] Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m Treat Dosage

[0959] ments (g a.i. / ha) BLW Grasses Sedges Total BLW Grasses Sedges Total T1 0.52 1.22 0.12

[0960] 66+ 131 1.81 3.55 0.31 0.46 0.89

[0961] (1.01) (1.31) (1.52) (2.01) (0.79) (0.90) (0.98) (1.18)

[0962] 1.32 0.32 0.82 0.45 1.51 3.28 0.11 0.40 T2 88 + 175 (0.97) (1.35) (0.78) (0.90) (0.95) (1.42) (1.15) (1.94)

[0963] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T3 131 + 263 (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T4 175 + 350 (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T5 219 + 438

[0964] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T6 263 + 525 (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T7 350 + 700 (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) 2.17 0.72 0.62 0.64 1.85 1.98 6.00 1.98 T8 525 (1.63) (1.53) (1.57) (2.55) (1.06) (1.07) (1.57) (1.10)

[0965] T9 3.29 6.12 2.02 125 0.98 1.85 0.10 1.09 0.83

[0966]

[0967] (1.22) (1.95) (1.53) (2.57) (1.58) (1.26) (1.15) (1.59) 4.96 3.98 3.15 12.09 2.01 1.42 1.41 4.84 T10 750 + 50 (2.34) (2.12) (1.91) (3.55) (0.71) (1.39) (1.38) (2.31) T11 Weed Free 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[0968] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T12 Weedy 13.98 11.76 8.15 33.89 7.27 6.12 4.24 17.62 Check (3.81) (3.50) (2.94) (5.86) (2.79) (2.57) (2.18) (4.26) SEm (±) 0.14 0.20 0.19 0.16 0.08 0.17 0.20 0.20 CD at 5 %

[0969]

[0970] 0.42 0.59 0.54 0.49 0.27 0.48 0.62 0.70 ‘Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed { (X+0.5)} and values outside are the actual.

[0971] ** The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[0972] It is evident from the results that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil (175 g / kg) and Metribuzin (350 g / kg) WG recorded significantly lower numbers of weeds and reduced dry weight of weeds per square meter across broadleaf, grasses and sedges categories at all the observations recorded. Notably, its efficacy against broadleaf weeds was more. However, there were no significant differences among various treatments of pre-mixed formulation. Interestingly, these treatments showed significant superiority compared to the standard herbicide treatments taken for comparison (Table 46).

[0973] Table 47: Influence of treatments on percent weed control and yield on Soybean crop as pre-emergence application:

[0974] Weed Control Efficiency (%)

[0975] Treatments Yield

[0976] 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT (kg / ha)

[0977] T1 66+ 131 96.0 95.0 95.4 94.6 2480

[0978] T2 88 + 175 96.6 95.3 95.5 94.7 2500

[0979] T3 131 + 263 100.0 100.0 96.8 95.2 2500

[0980] T4 175 + 350 100.0 100.0 97.0 95.3 2512

[0981] T5 219 + 438 100.0 100.0 97.2 95.4 2540

[0982] T6 263 + 525 100.0 100.0 97.1 95.4 2592

[0983] T7 350 + 700 100.0 100.0 97.1 95.7 2600

[0984] T8 525 87.5 88.8 85.4 84.5 2140

[0985] T9 125 85.7 88.5 84.1 83.5 2100

[0986] T10 750 + 50 72.5 72.6 71.9 68.3 2149

[0987] T11 Weed Free 100.0 100.0 99.9 99.7 2680

[0988] T12 Weedy Check 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1290

[0989] SEm (±) 74

[0990]

[0991] CD at 5 % 224 Results of the study clearly indicate that the pre-mixed formulations of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the highest Percent weed control when compared to the standard herbicide treatments with no significant differences among the treatments. These treatments were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments (Table 47). Yields recorded exhibited the similar trend of results.

[0992] Table 48: Influence of treatments based on Colby’s ratio on Soybean crop as pre-emergence application:

[0993] 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT Trea

[0994] tme Obser Expe Colb Obse Expe Colb Obser Expe Colb Obser Expec Colb nts ved cted y's rved cted y's ved cted y's ved ted y's ratio ratio ratio ratio

[0995]

[0996] T1 96 83.4 1.15 95 77.0 1.23 89 74.6 1.19 85 72.2 1.18T2 97 83.0 1.16 95 78.0 1.22 90 75.3 1.20 87 73.3 1.19 T3 100 84.7 1.18 100 78.0 1.28 91 76.1 1.20 88 73.9 1.19 T4 100 84.5 1.18 100 78.2 1.28 92 76.5 1.21 89 74.0 1.20 T5 100 85.2 1.17 100 78.6 1.27 93 76.3 1.22 91 74.5 1.22 T6 100 86.1 1.16 100 80.0 1.25 93 76.8 1.21 92 75.2 1.22 T7 100 86.7 1.15 100 80.2 1.25 94 77.7 1.21 93 75.8 1.23 T8 88 84 81 76

[0997] T9 86 85 82 77

[0998] T10 75 68 60 55

[0999] T11 100 99 95 95

[1000]

[1001] T12 - - - - Saflufenacil and Metribuzin belonging to different classes and mode of action and both have, Pre- and Post-emergence herbicidal activity gave excellent control of broad spectrum of weeds including the creeper weeds. Based on the characteristics of the two actives, the treatments of pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the lowest number and dry weight of weeds / sq.m., giving effective control of broad spectrum of weeds, when compared to the stand alone treatments. Therefore, this pre-mixed formulation reflected in higher Weed Control Efficiency(%) thereby leading to higher grain yields when compared to standalone treatments of Metribuzin 70% WP and Saflufenacil 70% WG at their recommended rates, observed across all the recorded observations with an extended duration of control of 45 to 60 days. The results clearly prove that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG demonstrated good synergism which corroborate with the Colby’s ratios and above substantiated results. The results of the previous trials also confirm the same.

[1002] As can be seen from the above data, a similar trend in results was observed across different types of formulationsselected from any of wettable powders (WP), emulsifiable concentrates (EC), aqueous solutions (SL), emulsions (EW) such as oil- in-water, sprayable solutions or emulsions, oil or water-based dispersions, suspo- emulsions (SE), mixed formulation of capsule suspension (CS) and emulsion(EW) i.e. ZW formulation, ULV formulations, microcapsules or waxes Emulsion water-in-oil (EO), Granules (GR), Oil-dispersion (OD), Oil miscible flowable concentrate (OF), Oil miscible liquid (OL), Oil dispersible powder (OP), ), a mixed formulation of CS and SC (ZC) or a mixed formulation of CS and SE (ZE), preferably WP and SC.

[1003] FIELD TRIAL 9: Field evaluation of Saflufenacil (175 g / kg) and Metribuzin (350 g / kg) WG as Pre-emergence application method on Potato:

[1004] Field trials were conducted on potato crop, variety Kufri chandramukhi, in Agra region, Uttar Pradesh. The soils sandy loam soils and the treatments were imposed as pre-emergence blanket soil surface spray within 3 to 4 days from sowing, using a knapsack sprayer with a spray volume of 500 litres per hectare. The standards for comparison were standalone application of Metribuzin 70% WP @ 525 g a.i. / ha, Saflufenacil 70% WG @ 125 g a.i. / ha. and a commercially available formulation ofPendimethalin 30% EC @ 1000 g a.i. / ha. Details of the treatments for Field Trial 9 are given in Table 49.

[1005] Table 49: Treatment details of Saflufenacil 175 (g / kg) + Metribuzin 350 (g / kg) WG as Pre-emergence method of application:

[1006] Active Formulation s. Treatments ingredient Method of No. (g a.i. / (gm / ml / ha) application

[1007] ha)

[1008] T1 Saflufenacil 175 + Metribuzin 350 WG 88 + 175 500 Soil surface spray Saflufenacil 175 + Metribuzin 350 WG Soil surface spray T2 131 + 263 750

[1009] Saflufenacil 175 + Metribuzin 350 WG Soil surface spray T3 175 + 350 1000

[1010] Saflufenacil 175 + Metribuzin 350 WG Soil surface spray T4 219 + 438 1250

[1011] Saflufenacil 175 + Metribuzin 350 WG Soil surface spray T5 263 + 525 1500

[1012] Saflufenacil 175 + Metribuzin 350 WG Soil surface spray T6 350 + 700 2000

[1013] Soil surface spray T7 Metribuzin 70% WP 525 750

[1014] Soil surface spray T8 Saflufenacil 70% WG 125 178

[1015] Soil surface spray T9 Pendimethalin 30% EC 1000 3300

[1016] Soil surface spray - - T10 Weed Free(Hand Weed)

[1017] - - - T11 Weedy Check(Untreated Control)

[1018]

[1019] Influence of treatments on probable phytotoxicity if any:

[1020] Results of the study clearly show that the pre-mixed formulation treatments at the rates evaluated, did not exhibit any phytotoxicity symptoms on potato crop, in terms of Leaf injury(L); Wilting(W); Vein Clearing(V); Necrosis(N); Epinasty(E) and Hyponasty(H) at all the observations recorded, when applied as pre-emergence method of application (Table 50). These treatments were comparable to those of the standard herbicide treatments.

[1021] Table 50: Influence of treatments for probable phytotoxicity on Potato crop if any:

[1022] Phytotoxicity Time of Treatments

[1023] Parameter observati

[1024] T1 T2 T4 T7 T11 T12 T3 T5 T6 T8 T9 T10 on from

[1025] spraying

[1026] Leaf Injury(L) L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 Before

[1027] 3rdL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1

[1028] L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 15th

[1029] L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 30th

[1030] Wilting(W) W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 Before

[1031] 3rdW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1

[1032] W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 15th

[1033] W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 3O’n

[1034] Vein Clearing(V) V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 Before

[1035] 3rdV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1

[1036] V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 15th

[1037] V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 3O’n

[1038] N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Before

[1039] 3rdN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Necrosis(N)

[1040] N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 15th

[1041] N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 30th

[1042] E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Before

[1043] 3rdE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Epinasty(E)

[1044] E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 15th

[1045] E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 3O’n

[1046] H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 Before

[1047] 3rdH-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 Hyponasty(H)

[1048] 15th H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1

[1049] H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 30th

[1050]

[1051] *Phytotoxicity observations of all parameters recorded, 0% and hence graded as 1

[1052] Analysis of biometric parameters:

[1053] Observations on weed control and weed flora:

[1054] Weed population per square meter and dry weight of weeds were recorded at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after treatment (DAT) as detailed in Table 51.

[1055] Table 51: Influence of treatments on biometric parameters on Potato crop as pre-emergence application:

[1056] Treat Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m ment Dosage

[1057] s (g a.i. / ha) 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT T1 88 + 175 0.98 1.60 2.30 3.67 0.24 0.39 0.54 0.86

[1058] (1.22) (1.45) (1.67) (2.04) (0.86) (0.94) (1.02) (1.17) T2 0.56 1.42 2.25 3.46 0.14 0.32

[1059] 131 + 263 0.51 0.76

[1060] (1.03) (1.39) (1.66) (1.99) (0.80) (0.91) (1.00) (1.12) 0.00 0.85 1.98 3.19

[1061] T3 175 + 350 0.00 0.19 0.45 0.71

[1062] (0.71) (1.16) (1.57) (1.92) (0.71) (0.83) (0.97) (1.10) T4 0.00 0.0 1.74

[1063] 219 + 438 0 3.01 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.68

[1064] (0.71) (0.71) (1.50) (1.87) (0.71) (0.71) (0.94) (1.09) 0.00 0.00 1.51 2.86 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.65 T5 263 + 525 (0.71) (0.71) (1.42) (1.83) (0.71) (0.71) (0.92) (1.07) T6 0.00 0.00 1.25 2.75 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.62 350 + 700

[1065] (0.71) (0.71) (1.32) (1.80) (0.71) (0.71) (0.88) (1.06) T7 525 2.56 4.85 6.50 7.25 0.69 1.27 1.71 1.92

[1066] (1.75) (2.31) (2.65) (2.78) (1.09) (1.33) (1.49) (1.56) 2.87

[1067] T8 4.95 6.25 8.08 0.78 1.35 1.69 2.12 125 (1.84) (2.33) (2.60) (2.93) (1.13) (1.36) (1.48) (1.62) T9 2.60 4.82

[1068] 1000 6.85 7.01 0.69 1.28 1.76 1.83

[1069] (1.76) (2.31) (2.71) (2.74) (1.09) (1.33) (1.50) (1.53)

[1070] 1.00 0.58 3.25 0.25 0.16 0.70 0.79 3.00 HW T10 (1.22) (1.04) (1.87) (0.81) (1.14) (1.10) (0.87) (1.94) 45 68 85 105 21.49 31.85 39.46 48.44 T11 Control (6.75) (8.28) (9.25) (10.27) (4.69) (5.69) (6.32) (7.00) SEm (±) 0.17 0.12 0.07 0.26 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.08

[1071] 0.27 CD at 5 % 0.51 0.80 0.25 0.38 0.26 0.25 0.23

[1072]

[1073] *Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed { (X+0.5)} and values outside are the actual.

[1074] ** The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[1075] Results of the study suggest that the treatments of premixed formulation of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin at all the rates tested, recorded the lowest number of weed density and dry weight of weeds, giving broad spectrum control of weeds. These treatments were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments giving extended duration of control, showing good synergism (Table 51).

[1076] Table 52: Influence of treatments on spectrum of weeds on Potato crop as preemergence application:

[1077] Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m Dosage Treatments (g a.i. / ha) BLW BLW Grasses Sedges Total Grasses Sedges Total 1.52 1.02 3.67 0.84 1.13 0.26 0.35 0.23 T1 88 + 175 (2.04) (0.87) (0.92) (1.28) (1.23) (0.86) (1.42) (1.16) 1.07 1.42 0.97 0.24 0.22 0.79 3.46 0.33 T2 131 + 263

[1078] (1.25) (1.39) (1.99) (0.86) (0.91) (0.85) (1.14) (1.21)

[1079] 1.32 0.97 0.21 0.22 0.90 3.19 0.30 0.73 T3 175 + 350 (0.84) (1.35) (0.90) (0.85) (1.18) (1.21) (1.92) (1.1) 0.82 0.21 0.29 0.91 1.28 3.01 0.18 0.69 T4 219 + 438 (0.84) (0.89) (0.83) (1.19) (1.15) (1.87) (1.09)

[1080]

[1081] (1.33)T 0.83 1.21 0.82 2.86 0.19 0.27

[1082] 5 263 + 525 0.188 0.65

[1083] (1.83) (0.83) (0.88) (0.83) (1.08) (1.15) (1.15) (1.31)

[1084] 0.82 1.10 0.83 2.75 0.18 0.25 0.19 0.63 T6 350 + 700 (0.87) (1.26) (1.80) (0.83) (0.83) (1.06) (1.15) (1.15)

[1085] 2.24 3.67 1.34 0.71 1.12 0.47 7.25 2.30 T7 525 (2.04) (1.66) (1.36) (2.78) (1.27) (0.98) (1.67) (1.10)

[1086] 2.91 0.62 0.92 2.44 1.99 3.18 8.08 0.90 T8 125 (1.71) (1.58) (1.85) (2.93) (1.06) (1.92) (1.18) (1.19)

[1087] 1.64 0.72 0.52 2.12 2.98 2.39 7.01 0.88 T9 1000 (2.74) (1.17) (1.87) (1.70) (1.46) (1.62) (1.10) (1.01) 1.21 1.32 0.47 0.27 3.00 0.30 0.11 0.69 HW T10 (1.35) (0.98) (1.87) (0.88) (0.90) (0.78) (1.09) (1.31)

[1088] 8.12 49.00 38.00 18.00 105.00 20.59 16.88 45.59 T11 Control (7.04) (10.27) (4.17) (2.94) (6.79) (96.20) (4.30) (4.59)

[1089] SEm (±) 0.12 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.10

[1090] 0.24 0.12 0.32 CD at 5 % 0.20 0.11 0.38 0.15 0.10

[1091]

[1092] *Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed { (X+0.5)} and values outside are the actual.

[1093] ** The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[1094] Data in Table 52 suggests that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil (175 g / kg) + Metribuzin (350 g / kg) WG recorded significantly the lowest number of weeds per square meter and dry weight of weeds in categories of broadleaf weeds, grasses and sedges at all observed intervals. There were no significant differences among the pre-mixed formulation treatments, and these treatments were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments taken for comparison.

[1095] Table 53: Influence of treatments on percent weed control and yield on Potato crop as pre-emergence application:

[1096] Weed Control Efficiency (%) Yield Treatments

[1097] 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT (Quintals / ha) T1 372 88 + 175 94.9 93.1 91.5 87.7

[1098] T2 131 + 263 375 97.0 94.4 91.9 89.1

[1099] T3 175 + 350 380 100.0 96.6 92.9 89.9

[1100] T4 219 + 438 385 100.0 100.0 93.8 90.3

[1101] T5 263 + 525 391 100.0 100.0 94.5 90.7

[1102] T6 350 + 700 390 100.0 100.0 95.6 91.1

[1103] T7 525 330 85.3 77.7 72.9 72.6

[1104] T8 125 326 83.4 76.3 73.3 69.7

[1105] T9 332 1000 85.3 77.5 72.2 73.8

[1106] HW T10 400 94.7 97.2 87.5 90.0

[1107] - - - - T11 Control 185

[1108] SEm (±) 12

[1109] CD at 5 % 35

[1110]

[1111] Results of the study clearly indicate that the pre-mixed formulations of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the highest Percent weed control when compared to the standard herbicide treatments and were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments (Table 53). Treatments of pre-mixed formulation recorded significantly higher tuber yields when compared to the standard herbicide treatments (Table 53).

[1112] Table 54: Influence of treatments based on Colby’s ratio on Potato crop as preemergence application:

[1113] Trea 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT

[1114]

[1115] tme

[1116] n Obser Expec Colb

[1117] ts Obse Expe Colb Obser Expec Colb Obser Expec Colb ved ted y's rv y's y's y's ratio ed cted ratio ved ted ratio ved ted ratio T1 97.8 94.2 1.04 97.6 89.5 1.09 97.3 85.6 1.14 96.5 78.2 1.23 T2 98.8 95.5 1.03 97.9 90.4 1.08 97.4 85.9 1.13 96.7 79.6 1.21 T3 100.0 95.7 1.04 98.8 90.8 1.09 97.7 86.7 1.13 97.0 80.5 1.20 T4 100.0 96.0 1.04 100.0 90.0 1.11 98.0 87.1 1.12 97.1 81.2 1.20 T5 100.0 96.2 1.04 100.0 90.4 1.11 98.2 88.6 1.11 97.3 82.8 1.17 T6 100.0 96.5 1.04 100.0 91.3 1.10 98.5 89.2 1.10 97.4 83.5 1.17 T7 85.3 77.7 72.9 70.5

[1118] T8 83.4 76.3 73.3 69.7

[1119] T9 85.3 77.5 72.2 65.8

[1120] T10 94.7 97.2 87.5 90.0

[1121]

[1122] T11 - - - - Based on the characteristics of the two actives, the treatments of pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the lowest number and dry weight of weeds / sq.m., giving effective control of broad spectrum of weeds, when compared to the stand alone treatments. Therefore, this pre-mixed formulation reflected in higher Weed Control Efficiency(%) thereby leading to higher tuber yields when compared to standalone treatments of Metribuzin 70% WP and Saflufenacil 70% WG at their recommended rates, observed across all the recorded observationswith an extended duration of control of 45 to 60 days. The results clearly prove that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG demonstrated good synergism which corroborate with the Colby’s ratios and above substantiated results (Table 54).

[1123] As can be seen from the above data, a similar trend in results was observed across different types of formulations selected from any of wettable powders (WP), emulsifiable concentrates (EC), aqueous solutions (SL), emulsions (EW) such as oil- in-water, sprayable solutions or emulsions, oil or water-based dispersions, suspo- emulsions (SE), mixed formulation of capsule suspension (CS) and emulsion(EW) i.e. ZW formulation, ULV formulations, microcapsules or waxes Emulsion water-in-oil (EO), Granules (GR), Oil-dispersion (OD), Oil miscible flowable concentrate (OF), Oil miscible liquid (OL), Oil dispersible powder (OP), ), a mixed formulation of CS and SC (ZC) or a mixed formulation of CS and SE (ZE), preferably WP and SC.

[1124] FIELD TRIAL 10: Field evaluation of Saflufenacil (175 g / kg) and Metribuzin (350 g / kg) WG as Pre-emergence application method on Potato:

[1125] Further field trials were conducted on potatoes in Agra, Uttar Pradesh. The soils on which trails were conducted were sandy loam. Treatments were applied as preemergence blanket soil surface spray within 3 to 4 days after sowing, Variety Kufri Bahar, using a knapsack sprayer with a spray volume of 500 litres per hectare. The standards for comparison included a standalone application of Metribuzin 70% WP @ 525 g a.i. / ha, Saflufenacil 70% WG @ 125 g a.i. / ha. and a commercially available formulation of Pendimethalin 30% EC @ 1000 g a.i. / ha. Treatments details for Field Trial 10 are given in Table 49.Influence of treatments on probable phytotoxicity if any:

[1126] Results of the study clearly show that the pre-mixed formulation treatments at the rates evaluated, did not exhibit any phytotoxicity symptoms on potato crop, in terms of Leaf injury(L); Wilting(W); Vein Clearing(V); Necrosis(N); Epinasty(E) and 5 Hyponasty(H) at all the observations recorded, when applied as pre-emergence method of application (Table 55). These treatments were comparable to those of the standard herbicide treatments.

[1127] Table 55: Influence of treatments for probable phytotoxicity on Potato crop if 0 any:

[1128] Phytotoxicity Time of Treatments

[1129] Parameter observati

[1130] on from T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 spraying

[1131] Leaf Injury(L) Before L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1

[1132] 3rdL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 15thL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 30thL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 Wilting(W) Before W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1

[1133] 3raW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 15lhW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 3O’nW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 Vein Clearing(V) Before V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1

[1134] 3rdV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 15thV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 3O’nV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 Before N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 3rdN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Necrosis(N)

[1135] 15mN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 30thN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Before E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 3r° E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Epinasty(E)

[1136] 15mE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 3O’nE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Before H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 3rdH-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 Hyponasty(H)

[1137] 15th H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1

[1138]

[1139] 3O’nH-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 *Phytotoxicity observations of all parameters recorded 0% and hence graded as 1

[1140] Analysis of biometric parameters:

[1141] Observations on weed control and weed flora:

[1142] 5 Weed population and dry weight of weeds / sq.m. were recorded at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days from application (DAT) as detailed in Table 56. The data was subjected to statistical analysis.

[1143] Table 56: Influence of treatments on biometric parameters on Potato crop as 0 pre-emergence application:

[1144] Dosage

[1145] Treat Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m ments (g

[1146] a.i. / ha) 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT 88 + 0.22 1.58 5.25 7.46 0.05 0.48 1.24 1.72 T1

[1147] 175 (0.85) (1.44) (2.40) (2.82) (0.74) (0.99) (1.32) (1.49)

[1148] 0.12

[1149] T2 131 + 1.01 5.01 7.30 0.03 0.19 1.20 1.53 263 (0.79) (1.23) (2.35) (2.79) (0.72) (0.83) (1.30) (1.43) 175 + 0.00 0.62 4.86 6.98 0.00 0.13 1.19 1.50 T3

[1150]

[1151] 350 (0.71) (1.06) (2.32) (2.73) (0.71) (0.79) (1.30) (1.41)T4 219 + 0.00 0.00 4.82 5.24 0.00 0.00 1.09 1.32 438 (0.71) (0.71) (2.31) (2.40) (0.71) (0.71) (1.26) (1.35)

[1152] 1.21 T5 263 + 0.00 0.00 4.65 5.26 0.00 0.00 1.00

[1153] 525 (0.71) (0.71) (2.27) (2.40) (0.71) (0.71) (1.22) (1.31) 350 + 0.00 0.00 4.41

[1154] T6 5.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 1.20 700 (0.71) (0.71) (2.22) (2.39) (0.71) (0.71) (1.19) (1.30) T7 525 2.98 5.59 9.85 16.11 1.58 3.00 6.25 9.54

[1155] (1.87) (2.27) (3.22) (4.08) (1.44) (1.87) (2.60) (3.17) 3.87 6.54 16.42 6.82

[1156] T8 125 10.98 2.05 4.01 9.70

[1157] (2.09) (2.65) (3.39) (4.11) (1.60) (2.12) (2.71) (3.19) T9 1000 3.56 7.01 10.56 15.44 1.89 4.22 6.60 9.81

[1158] (2.01) (2.74) (3.33) (3.99) (1.54) (2.17) (2.66) (3.21) 0.00 0.16 0.23 0.85 0.00 0.09 0.10 0.32 T10 HW

[1159] (0.71) (0.81) (0.85) (1.16) (0.71) (0.77) (0.77) (0.91) T11 26.82 46.67

[1160] Control 60.39 75.86 14.85 23.39 32.40 40.55

[1161] (5.23) (6.87) (7.80) (8.74) (3.92) (4.89) (5.74) (6.41) SEm (±) 0.11 0.26 0.10 0.24 0.07 0.13 0.21 0.20

[1162]

[1163] CD at 5 % 0.34 0.80 0.32 0.72 0.24 0.39 0.68 0.63 *Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed { (X+0.5)} and values outside are the actual.

[1164] ** The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[1165] 5 Results, suggest that the premixed formulation treatments at the rates tested, recorded the lowest weed density and dry weight of weeds / sq.m.in potato crop and these treatments were significantly superior to that of the standard herbicide treatments taken for comparison at all the observations recorded (Table 56). Results of the study clearly prove that the treatments of pre-mixed, showed good synergism 0 when compared to the stand alone treatments taken for the purpose of comparison.

[1166] Table 57: Influence of treatments on spectrum of weeds on Potato crop as pre- emergence application:

[1167] Dosage Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m Treatments (g a.i. / ha) BLW Grasses Sedges Total BLW Grasses Sedges Total T1 0.32 0.62 0.64

[1168] 88 + 175 1.58 0.10 0.19 0.48 0.48 (0.91) (1.06) (1.07) (1.44) (0.77) (0.83) (0.99) (0.99) T2 0.28 0.40 0.33 1.01 0.05 0.05 0.19 0.19

[1169] 131 + 263 ( (0.74) (0.74)0.88) (0.95) (0.91) (1.23) (0.83) (0.83)

[1170] 0.12 0.22 0.62

[1171] T3 175 + 350 0.28 0.03 0.06 0.13 0.13 (0.79) (0.85) (0.88) (1.06) (0.73) (0.75) (0.79) (0.79) T4 219 + 438 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[1172] T5 263 + 525 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71)

[1173] 0.00

[1174] T6 350 + 700 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T7 0.8

[1175] 525 1.99 2.01 1.59 5.59 2 1.20 3.00 3.00 (1.58) (1.58) (1.45) (2.47) (1.15) (1.30) (1.87) (1.87) 2.52 1.98 2.04 6.54 1.42 1.32 4.01 4.01 T8 125 (1.74) (1.57) (1.59) (2.65) (1.39) (1.35) (2.12) (2.12)

[1176] 2.12 1.12 1.91 4.22 4.22 2.39 2.50 7.01 T9 1000 (2.74) (2.17) (2.17) (1.62) (1.27) (1.55) (1.70) (1.73)

[1177] 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.16 0.03 0.09 HW T10 (0.74) (0.73) (0.76) (0.81) (0.72) (0.77) (0.73) (0.73)

[1178] 13.32 46.67 15.59 17.76 8.28 9.01 23.39 23.39 T11 Control (4.27) (3.72) (6.87) (4.01) (2.96) (3.08) (4.89) (4.89) SEm (±) 0.12 0.12 0.27 0.12 0.07 0.12 0.08 0.06

[1179] 0.24 CD at 5 % 0.39 0.38 0.81 0.15 0.26 0.23 0.36

[1180]

[1181] *Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed { (X+0.5)} and values outside are the 5 actual.

[1182] ** The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.Data suggests that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil 175 + Metribuzin 350 WG registered significantly lower number of weeds and dry weight of weeds per square meter across broadleaf weeds, grasses and sedges categories at all observed intervals. There were no significant differences among the pre-mixed formulation treatments, and these treatments were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments taken for comparison. It is interesting to note that the pre-mixed formulations recorded lowest number and dry weight of broad leaf weeds when compared to the standard herbicide treatments (Table 57).

[1183] Table 58: Influence of treatments on percent weed control and yield on Potato crop as pre-emergence application:

[1184] Weed Control Efficiency (%)

[1185] Treatments Yield

[1186] 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT (Quintals / ha) T1 88 + 175 99.7 97.9 96.2 95.8 403

[1187] T2 131 + 263 99.8 99.2 96.3 96.2 412

[1188] T3 175 + 350 100.0 99.4 96.3 96.3 415

[1189] T4 219 + 438 100.0 100.0 96.6 96.7 420

[1190] T5 263 + 525 100.0 100.0 96.9 97.0 419

[1191] T6 350 + 700 100.0 100.0 97.1 97.0 420

[1192] T7 525 89.4 87.2 80.7 76.5 340

[1193] T8 125 86.2 82.9 79.0 76.1 346

[1194] T9 1000 87.3 82.0 79.6 75.8 350

[1195] T10 HW 100.0 99.6 99.7 99.2 424

[1196] T11 Control - - - - 226

[1197] SEm (±) 11.6

[1198]

[1199] CD at 5 % 35.3

[1200] As a result of recording, lower number and dry weight of weeds registered in novel pre-mixed formulation, these, pre-mixed formulations of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the highest Percent weed control when compared to the standard herbicide treatments and these treatments were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments (Table 58). These treatments recorded the highest tuber yields when compared to the standard herbicide treatments. The results clearly show that the premixed formulation treatments showed good synergism.

[1201] Table 59: Influence of treatments based on Colby’s ratio on Potato crop as preemergence application:

[1202] 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT Tre

[1203] Col atm

[1204] Obser Colby Colby Colby ent Expe Obse Expe by's Obse Expe Obse Expe ved cted 's rved cted rati rved cted 's rved cted 's s ratio 0 ratio ratio 1 99.7 83.2 1.27 68.7 1.17 1.20 98 77.3 92.3 75.3 1.23 80.3

[1205] 2 82.7 1.22 99.8 84.6 1.18 99 79.6 1.25 93.5 75.9 1.23 68.0

[1206] 1.17 1.213 100.0 85.5 99 79.0 1.26 94.3 76.8 1.23 84.3 69.5 4 1.24 77.1 1.24 1.22 100.0 87.3 1.15 100 80.5 95.6 85.9 70.3

[1207] 82.9 1.21 1.24 87.25 100.0 87.3 1.15 100 96.3 77.8 70.9 1.23 88.2 1.17 97.1 78.4 1.24 1.246 100.0 1.13 100 85.6 87.5 70.5 7 89.4 87.2 79.9 70.9

[1208] 86.2 82.9 71.28 80.1

[1209] 9 87.3 82.0 70.9 60.3

[1210] 100.0 99.6 96.0 95.0 T10

[1211] - - - - T11

[1212]

[1213] Saflufenacil and Metribuzin belonging to different classes and mode of action and both having Pre- and Post-emergence herbicidal activity gave excellent control of broad spectrum of weeds including the creeper weeds. Based on the characteristics of the two actives, the treatments of pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the lowest number and dry weight of weeds / sq.m., giving effective control of broad spectrum of weeds, when compared to the stand alone treatments. Therefore, this pre-mixed formulation reflected in higher Weed Control Efficiency(%) thereby leading to higher tuber yields when compared to standalone treatments of Metribuzin 70% WP and Saflufenacil 70% WG at their recommended rates, observed across all the recorded observations with an extended duration of control of 45 to 60 days. The results clearly prove that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG demonstrated good synergism which corroborate with the Colby’s ratios and above substantiated results.

[1214] As can be seen from the above data, a similar trend of results was observed across different types of formulation selected from any of wettable powders (WP), emulsifiable concentrates (EC), aqueous solutions (SL), emulsions (EW) such as oil-in-water, sprayable solutions or emulsions, oil or water-based dispersions, suspo-emulsions (SE), mixed formulation of capsule suspension (CS) and emulsion(EW) i.e. ZW formulation, ULV formulations, microcapsules or waxes Emulsion water-in-oil (EO), Granules (GR), Oil-dispersion (OD), Oil miscible flowable concentrate (OF), Oil miscible liquid (OL), Oil dispersible powder (OP), ), a mixed formulation of CS and SC (ZC) or a mixed formulation of CS and SE (ZE), preferably WP and SC.

[1215] FIELD TRIAL 11: Field evaluation of Saflufenacil (175 g / kg) and Metribuzin (350 g / kg) WG as Pre-emergence method of application on Potato:

[1216] Field trials were conducted on potatoes in Jalandhar, Punjab. The soils were sandy loam and variety was Kufri Badshah. Treatments were applied as pre-emergence blanket soil surface spray within 3 to 4 days after sowing, using a knapsack sprayer with a spray volume of 500 litres per hectare. The standards for the purpose of comparison were standalone application of Metribuzin 70% WP @ 525 g a.i. / ha, Saflufenacil 70% WG @ 125 g a.i. / ha. and a commercially available formulation of Pendimethalin 30% EC @ 1000 g a.i. / ha. Treatment details for Field Trial 11 are provided in Table 49.

[1217] Influence of treatments on probable phytotoxicity if any:

[1218] Results of the study clearly show that the pre-mixed formulation treatments at the rates evaluated, did not exhibit any phytotoxicity symptoms on potato crop, in terms of Leaf injury(L); Wilting(W); Vein Clearing(V); Necrosis(N); Epinasty(E) and Hyponasty(H) at all the observations recorded, when applied as pre-emergencemethod of application (Table 60). These treatments were comparable to those of the standard herbicide treatments.

[1219] Table 60: Influence of treatments for probable phytotoxicity on Potato crop if 5 any:

[1220] Phytoto Time of Treatments

[1221] xicity observati

[1222] Parame on from T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 ter spraying

[1223] Leaf Before L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 Injury(L) 3raL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 15lhL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 3O’nL-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 L-1 Wilting( Before W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W) 3raW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 15lnW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 30,nW-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 W-1 Vein Before V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 Clearing 3r° V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 (V) 15lnV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 3O’nV-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 V-1 Before N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Necrosi 3raN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 s(N) 15lhN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 3O’nN-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 N-1 Before E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Epinasty 3rdE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 (E) 15thE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 30,nE-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 E-1 Before H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 Hypona 3r° H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 sty(H) 15th H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1

[1224]

[1225] 30thH-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 H-1 *Phytotoxicity observations of all parameters recorded was 0% and hence graded as 1 Analysis of biometric parameters:

[1226] Observations on weed control and weed flora:

[1227] 0 Weed population per square meter and dry weight of weeds were recorded at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after treatment (DAT) as detailed in Table 61.

[1228] Table 61: Influence of treatments on biometric parameters on Potato crop as pre-emergence application:

[1229] Treat Dosage Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m ments (g a.i. / ha) 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT T1 1.21 5.8

[1230] 88 + 175 0.01 4.01 2 0.00 0.28 0.85 1.23

[1231] (0.01) (1.31) (2.12) (2.51) (0.71) (0.88) (1.16) (1.32) T2 1.24 0.0

[1232] 131 + 263 0.08 3.85 5.50 2 0.28 0.81 1.19

[1233] (0.08) (1.32) (2.09) (2.45) (0.72) (0.88) (1.14) (1.30)

[1234] 3.52 5.52 0.79 1.19 T3 175 + 350 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.08

[1235] (0.71) (0.93) (2.00) (2.45) (0.71) (0.76) (1.30) (1.14)

[1236] T4 2 0.00 0.00 3.38 5.09 0.00 0.00 0.72

[1237] 19 + 438 1.09

[1238] (0.71) (0.71) (1.97) (2.36) (0.71) (0.71) (1.10) (1.26) 0.00 0.00 3.39 5.52 0.00 0.00 0.72 1.15 T5 263 + 525 (0.71) (0.71) (2.45) (0.71) (0.71) (1.28) (1.97) (1.10)

[1239] T 0.00 0.00 3.38 5.42 0.00 0.00 0.74

[1240] 6 350 + 700 1.10

[1241] (0.71) (0.71) (2.43) (0.71) (0.71) (1.26) (1.97) (1.11)

[1242] T7 11.24 3.32 5.62 8.62 525 3.39 6.25 17.53 1.88

[1243] (2.60) (2.47) (3.02) (3.43) (4.25) (1.54) (1.95) (1.97)

[1244] 2.12 5.67 8.62 4.01 6.33 11.39 17.51 3.25 T8 125 (4.24) (3.02) (2.12) (2.61) (3.45) (1.62) (2.48) (1.94)

[1245]

[1246] T9 1000 4.01 6.66 13.01 17.01 1.98 3.30 6.48 8.32 (2.12) (2.68) (3.68) (4.18) (1.57) (1.95) (2.64) (2.97) 0.00 0.29 0.58 1.01 0.00 0.07 0.13 0.21 T10 HW

[1247] (0.71) (0.89) (1.04) (1.23) (0.71) (0.75) (0.79) (0.84) T11 Control 36 54 79 94 17.52 26.32 38.23 47.12 (6.04) (7.38) (8.92) (9.72) (4.24) (5.18) (6.22) (6.90) SEm (±) 0.16 0.24 0.25 0.28 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.20

[1248]

[1249] CD at 5 % 0.48 0.73 0.77 0.82 0.16 0.28 0.38 0.63 *Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed {√(X+0.5)} and values outside are the actual.

[1250] ** The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[1251] 5 Table 61 suggests that the premixed formulation treatments of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin, at the rates evaluated, recorded the lowest number and dry weight of weeds per square meter. These treatments were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments taken for the purpose of comparison, at all the observations recorded.

[1252] Table 62: Influence of treatments on spectrum of weeds on Potato crop as pre- emergence application:

[1253] Number of weeds / sq.m. Dry weight of weeds(g) / sq.m Treatments Dosage

[1254] (g a.i. / ha) BLW Grasses Sedges Total BLW Grasses Sedges Total T1 0.24

[1255] 88 + 175 0.55 0.42 1.21 0.02 0.10 0.28 0.28

[1256] (0.86) (1.02) (0.96) (1.31) (0.72) (0.77) (0.88) (0.88) T2 0.20 0. 0.54 1.24

[1257] 131 + 263 50 0.01 0.05 0.28 0.28

[1258] (0.84) (1.00) (1.02) (1.32) (0.71) (0.74) (0.88) (0.88) 0.10 0.16 0.10 0.36 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.08 T3 175 + 350 (0.77) (0.81) (0.77) (0.93) (0.71) (0.73) (0.76) (0.76)

[1259] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T4 219 + 438

[1260] (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T5 263 + 525 (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71)

[1261] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T6 350 + 700 (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) (0.71) T7 2.19 1.02 3.32 3.32

[1262] 525 1.98 2.08 6.25 1.25

[1263] (1.57) (1.64) (1.61) (2.60) (1.32) (1.23) (1.95) (1.95) 2.01 2.52 1.80 6.33 0.75 1.10 3.25 3.25 T8 125 (1.58) (1.74) (1.52) (2.61) (1.26) (1.12) (1.94) (1.94)

[1264] 2.02 2.39 2.25 6.66 0.95 1.01 3.30 3.30 T9 1000 (1.66) (1.59) (2.68) (1.20) (1.23) (1.95) (1.70) (1.94) 0.29 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.01 HW T10 (0.77) (0.77) (0.77) (0.72) (0.89) (0.71) (0.75) (0.75) 15.12 54 26.32 26.32 18.89 19.99 8.25 8.95 T11 Control (3.07) (4.40) (4.53) (3.95) (7.38) (2.96) (5.18) (5.18) SEm (±) 0.12 0.22 0.10 0.16 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10

[1265] 0.32 0.29 0.32 CD at 5 % 0.40 0.48 0.65 0.25 0.30

[1266]

[1267] " Values in the parenthesis are square root transformed { (X+0.5)} and values outside are the actual.

[1268] 5 ** The actual value of “0” when transformed is 0.71.

[1269] Data in Table 62 suggests that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil 175 + Metribuzin 350 WG recorded significantly lower number of weeds per square meter and dry weight of weeds across broadleaf weeds, grasses and sedges categories at 0 all observed intervals. There were no significant differences among the pre-mixed formulation treatments, and these treatments were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments taken for comparison but were comparable to that of Hand Weeding (HW).Table 63: Influence of treatments on percent weed control and yield on Potato crop as pre-emergence application:

[1270] Treatments Weed Control Efficiency (%) Yield (Quintals / ha)

[1271] 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT

[1272] T1 88 + 175 100.0 98.9 97.8 97.4 365

[1273] T2 131 + 263 99.9 98.9 97.9 97.5 370

[1274] T3 175 + 350 100.0 99.7 97.9 97.5 375

[1275] T4 219 + 438 100.0 100.0 98.1 97.7 380

[1276] T5 263 + 525 100.0 100.0 98.1 97.6 381

[1277] T6 350 + 700 100.0 100.0 98.1 97.7 382

[1278] T7 525 89.3 87.4 85.3 81.7 294

[1279] T8 125 87.9 87.7 85.2 81.7 290

[1280] T9 1000 88.7 87.5 83.0 82.3 296

[1281] T10 HW 100.0 99.7 99.7 99.6 385

[1282] T11 Control - - - - 239

[1283] SEm (±) 11.0

[1284]

[1285] CD at 5 % 35.2

[1286] Results of the study clearly indicate that the pre-mixed formulations of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the highest Percent weed control and tuber yield, when compared to the standard herbicide treatments and these were significantly superior to the standard herbicide treatments (Table 63).

[1287] Table 64: Influence of treatments based on Colby’s ratio on Potato crop as pre- emergence application:

[1288] 30 DAT 45 DAT 60 DAT 75 DAT Trea Col

[1289] tme Exp

[1290] Obse Colby Obser Obser Colby O Colby ecte ' Expec by's Expec bser Expecs 's 's nts rved ved ted rati ved ted ved ted d ratio ratio ratio 0

[1291] T1 80.2 78.2 1.27 72.2 1.24 68.2 100 1.25 99 89.3 80.3 1.18 T2 1.27 73.2 81.2 69.2 1.17 100 81.5 1.23 99 78.0 89.9 1.23

[1292] 1.21 1.24 82.4 T3 100 82.8 100 79.3 1.26 90.8 73.3 70.0 1.18 T4 1.24 100 83.6 1.20 100 79.8 1.25 92.0 74.0 83.0 70.5 1.18

[1293] 1.24 74.9 83.2 70.2 1.19 T5 100 85.1 1.18 100 80.9 91.8 1.23

[1294] 1.17 1.22 T6 100 85.6 100 81.6 1.23 92.0 75.5 83.0 71.3 1.16 - - - T7 87 89 78.9

[1295] - - - T8 88 88 77.3

[1296] - - - T9 87 89 68.8

[1297] - - - 100 100 95.3 T10

[1298] - - - - - - T11

[1299]

[1300] Based on the characteristics of the two actives, the treatments of pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin recorded the lowest number and dry weight of weeds / sq.m., giving effective control of broad spectrum of weeds, when compared to the stand alone treatments. Therefore, this pre-mixed formulation reflected in higher Weed Control Efficiency(%) thereby leading to higher tuber yields when compared to standalone treatments of Metribuzin 70% WP and Saflufenacil 70% WG at their recommended rates, observed across all the recorded observations with an extended duration of control of 45 to 60 days. The results clearly prove that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG demonstrated good synergism which corroborate with the Colby’s ratios and above substantiated results.As can be seen from the above data, a similar trend in results was observed across different types of formulations selected from any of wettable powders (WP), emulsifiable concentrates (EC), aqueous solutions (SL), emulsions (EW) such as oil-in-water emulsions, sprayable solutions or emulsions, oil or water-based dispersions, suspension concentrate (flowable concentrate) (SC), suspo-emulsions (SE), water-dispersible granules (WG), mixed formulation of capsule suspension (CS) and emulsion(EW) i.e. ZW formulation, ULV formulations, microcapsules, wax-based, water-in-oil Emulsion (EO), Granules (GR), oil-dispersion (OD), oil miscible flowable concentrate (OF), oil miscible liquid (OL), oil dispersible powder (OP), ), a mixed formulation of CS and SC (ZC) or a mixed formulation of CS and SE (ZE), preferably WP and SC.

[1301] Based on the data generated from various field trials on various crops, it is clearly proven that the characteristics of the two actives, Saflufenacil and Metribuzin belongs to different class, N-Phenyl-imides and triazinones with different modes of action, one belonging to PPO inhibitor and the other Inhibition of photosynthesis at PSII, gave excellent control of broad spectrum of weeds including the creeper weeds with extended duration of control. The treatments of pre-mixed formulation of the two actives, recorded the lowest number and dry weight of weeds / sq.m., giving effective control of broad spectrum of weeds, when compared to the stand alone treatments, thus reflecting in higher Weed Control Efficiency(%) thereby leading to higher cane, grain and tuber yields when compared to standalone treatments of Metribuzin 70% WP and Saflufenacil 70% WG at the recommended rates at all the observations recorded with an extended duration of control of 45 to 60 days. The results clearly prove that the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil (70 g / kg) + Metribuzin (700 g / kg) WG demonstrated good synergism which corroborate with the Colby’s ratios and above substantiated results.

[1302] FORMULATION COMPRISING SAFENER:

[1303] Herbicides compositions are selective within certain limits imposed by the specific herbicide, plant varieties, method of sowing, method and time of application, application rate, soil moisture, and environmental conditions. Safeners are compounds of diverse chemical families, which are applied along with herbicide composition to protect the crops from injury while positively impacting harvest yields. The use of chemical safeners offers a practical, efficient and straightforward method of improving herbicide selectivity.

[1304] Safeners have been successfully commercialized in various crops including cereals, maize and rice, in both pre-emergence and post-emergence application methods. The use of herbicide safeners can significantly alleviate herbicide injury, thereby protecting crop plants and expanding the application of existing herbicides ondirect-seeded or sprouted rice, which is often limited due to its phytotoxicity issues. Various herbicides have been paired with safeners for safe usage on the crops.

[1305] In the present invention, safeners are selected from group consisting of Fenclorim, Mefenpyr, Isoxadifen ethyl, benoxacor or Cloquintocet Mexyl and were evaluated with the pre-mixed formulations of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin Various safeners were initially evaluated as a tank mix with the pre-mixed formulation of Saflufenacil and Metribuzin on various crops.

[1306] ADVANTAGES OF THE PRESENT INVENTION:

[1307] The present disclosure provides an herbicide composition in a specific combination of actives, Saflufenacil (N'-{2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-[1,2,3,6-tetrahydro-3-methyl-2,6-dioxo-4-(trifluoromethyl)pyrimidin-1-yl]benzoyl}-N-isopropyl-N-methylsulfamide) and the second active ingredient, Metribuzin, 4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-methylthio-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one or (4-amino-4,5-dihydro-6-(1, 1 -dimethylethyl)-3-methylthio-1,2,4- triazin-5-one). The present disclosure provides a formulation comprising the herbicide composition alongwith agronomically acceptable excipients which is stable.

[1308] The herbicide formulation comprises of the herbicidal composition when applied in specific dosages in various crops did not impact any phytotoxicity on crop, while exhibiting excellent control of broad spectrum and longer duration of control of weeds and its superior efficacy towards sedges and its attributes towards higher yields showing good synergism.

[1309] Field evaluation of the formulations of the present disclosure provides dosage optimization, method of application, time of application for registration purposes on different crops in various geographical locations.

Claims

We Claim:

1. A synergistic herbicidal composition comprising:a) Saflufenacil (N'-{2-chloro-4-fluoro-5-[1,2,3,6-tetrahydro-3-methyl-2,6- dioxo-4- (trifluoromethyl)pyrimidin-1-yl]benzoyl}-N-isopropyl-N- methylsulfamide) as the first active ingredient in an amount of 1 - 35% by weight; andb) a second active ingredient, Metribuzin, 4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-methylthio- 1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one or (4- amino-4,5-dihydro-6-(1, 1 -dimethylethyl)-3- methylthio-1,2,4-triazin-5-one) in an amount of 1 - 85% by weight.

2. The composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the Saflufenacil is present in an amount of 1 % - 30% by weight, preferably 5% - 30% by weight.

3. The composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the Metribuzin is present in an amount of 10% - 85% by weight, preferably 25 - 80% by weight.

4. The composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the weight ratio of the Saflufenacil to Metribuzin is in the range of 1:1 to 1:20.

5. A formulation comprising:a) the herbicidal composition as claimed in claim 1-4; andb) one or more agronomically acceptable excipients.

6. The formulation as claimed in claim 5, wherein the agronomically acceptable excipient is selected from dispersing agents, wetting agents, absorbents, buffering agents, fillers, surfactants, co-surfactants, antifreeze agents, antifoaming agents, phase stabilisers, diluents, thickeners, biocides, solvents, co-solvents, water-soluble monomers, protective colloids, acidic buffers, and combinations thereof.

7. The formulation as claimed in claims 5-6, formulated as wettable powders (WP), emulsifiable concentrates (EC), aqueous solutions (SL), emulsions (EW) such as oil-in-water emulsions, sprayable solutions or emulsions, oil or water-based dispersions, suspension concentrate (flowable concentrate) (SC), suspo-emulsions (SE), water-dispersible granules (WG), mixed formulation of capsule suspension (CS) and emulsion(EW) i.e. ZW formulation, ULV formulations, microcapsules, wax-based, water-in-oil Emulsion (EO), Granules (GR), oil-dispersion (OD), oil miscible flowable concentrate (OF), oil miscible liquid (OL), oil dispersible powder (OP), ), a mixed formulation of CS and SC (ZC) or a mixed formulation of CS and SE (ZE), preferably WP and SC.

8. The formulation as claimed in claims 5-7, wherein the composition is provided as a premix powder comprising the Saflufenacil, the Metribuzin, and one or more agronomically acceptable excipients.

9. The formulation as claimed in claim 8, wherein the premixed powder is formulated as wettable powders (WP), emulsifiable concentrates (EC), aqueous solutions (SL), emulsions (EW) such as oil-in-water emulsions, sprayable solutions or emulsions, oil or water-based dispersions, suspension concentrate (flowable concentrate) (SC), suspo-emulsions (SE), water- dispersible granules (WG), mixed formulation of capsule suspension (CS) and emulsion(EW) i.e. ZW formulation, ULV formulations, microcapsules, wax-based, water-in-oil Emulsion (EO), Granules (GR), oil-dispersion (OD), oil miscible flowable concentrate (OF), oil miscible liquid (OL), oil dispersible powder (OP), ), a mixed formulation of CS and SC (ZC) or a mixed formulation of CS and SE (ZE), preferably WP and SC.

10. The formulation as claimed in any of claims 5-9, comprising a safener selected from Isoxadifen-ethyl, benoxacor, Cloquintocet mexyl, Fenclorim or combinations thereof.

11. A method for controlling weed growth comprising applying an effective amount of the herbicidal composition or formulation as claimed in any one of claims 1–10 to a locus in need thereof.

12. The method as claimed in claim 11, wherein the formulation is applied as pre¬ plant incorporation, pre-emergence, early post-emergence or post¬ emergence method of application in various crops and non-crop areas.

13. The method as claimed in claim 11-12, wherein the formulation is applied to provide a total weight of the herbicidal composition in the range of 100 -1500 g a.i. / ha.

Images