INNOVATIVE WATER DISPERSIBLE GRANULAR (WDG)FORMULATION WITH ENHANCED HERBICIDAL EFFICACY

Abstract

The present invention provides a novel synergistic herbicidal WDG formulation having haloxyfop-methyl and imazethapyr and purpose thereof. This herbicidal composition acts by inhibiting the activity of acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACCase) in the chloroplasts and by inhibiting the enzyme acetohydroxyacid synthase, which is a critical enzyme for the biosynthesis of branched-chain amino acids in weeds can generate efficient synergism in pre-emergence, early-post or post-emergence stages of crops and can enable broad spectrum satisfactory weed control and protect the several crop from sedges, grasses and broad leaf weeds for prolonged period of time at lower dose with no phytotoxic effect. The herbicidal WDG formulation of present invention provides improved formulation safety, storage stability, reducing the cost of the combination and addressing the transportation difficulties with improved environmental safety offer an enhanced herbicidal performance and mitigates the phytotoxicity without the need of additional crop safeners or plant health additives.

Specification

Description:FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to a synergistic herbicidal combination, specifically relates to an advanced formulation of water dispersible granules (WDG) comprising Haloxyfop and Imazethapyr as main components. The novel synergistic herbicidal combination formulation of present invention provides improved weed control with no phytotoxicity and addresses the limitation of existing liquid formulations and tank mixes.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Control of weeds is extremely important in achieving high crop efficiency. Unwanted vegetation causes considerable damage to crop that compete with nutrients, water, and sunlight leading to reduction in productivity, yield, and quality of the crops. Herbicides help to minimize this damage by controlling the growth of weeds. The use of two or more appropriate active ingredients / herbicides combinations in specific dose ratios leads to synergism in crop protection. Many products are commercially available for these purposes,
Haloxyfop and Imazethapyr are well-known herbicides with complementary mode of action provide broad-spectrum of weed control. Several studies and literature describe the about this combination.
US7105470 B2 patent broadly describes the combination of imidazolinones herbicides such as Imazethapyr with foliar-acting herbicides haloxyfop. However, there is no specific example provided.
International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences (2017) 6(12), 2134-2137 describes about efficacy of haloxyfop-p-methyl and imazethapyr combination as an early postemergence can be recommended for weed control in green gram in Southern Zone of Telangana. However, this combination was studied as tank mix combination.
IN453887 describes the combination of Haloxyfop R methyl and Imazethapyr with plant health additive as ternary combination in emulsifiable concentrate (EC) or suspo-emulsion (SE) formulations.
IN506935 describes the combination of Haloxyfop or its salt, ester and derivative with Imazethapyr and crop safety enhancer as ternary combination in micro emulsion (ME), suspension concentrate (SC), oil-dispersion (OD) or Soluble concentrate (SL) formulations.
The above said prior art references have several disadvantages and drawbacks with regards to stability, safety, application convenience, and environmental impact.
Disadvantages of Prior Art
Liquid formulations are prone to separate and requires through mixing to maintain homogeneity. This leads to inconsistent herbicidal combination delivery results in low impact and efficacy.
In the preparation liquid formulations involve the usage of solvents and surfactants commonly used solvent is dimethylformamide which are harmful to the environment and storage, transportation is difficult, and disposal of containers and remaining mixture creates additional environment impacts.
The application of liquid herbicide formulations can lead to increased toxicity risks, creating potential hazards to both farmers and the environment. These formulations may result in chemical drift, runoff, or leaching into surrounding ecosystems, contaminating soil and water sources. Additionally, prolonged exposure results in adverse health problem to the farmers.
Whereas tank mixing requires accurate measurement and mixing of components at the time of use, this will lead to incorrect dosages and reduced herbicidal effectiveness.
Additionally, some of the prior art describes Haloxyfop and Imazethapyr with third component plant health additive or crop safety enhancer as ternary combination. However, inclusion of third component increase the cost of the product.
Thus, there is still a need to develop a synergistic herbicidal formulation which could be physico-compatible in the form of storage stable, cost-effective, less toxic, environmentally safer, safely packed and ready to use formulation.
OBJECT OF THE INVENTION
The principal object of the present invention is to provide a synergistic herbicidal combination which solves the major problems discussed above like improving the formulation safety, storage stability, reducing the cost of the combination and addressing the transportation difficulties with improved environmental safety by reducing toxicity and residue deposit in soil and in crops by providing a stable, easy-to-use WDG formulation of Haloxyfop and Imazethapyr offer an enhanced herbicidal performance and mitigates the phytotoxicity without the need of additional crop safeners or plant health additives.
The details of one or more embodiments of this disclosure are set forth in the accompanying description below and other features, objects, and advantages will be apparent from the description and the claims.
DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
The present disclosure / specification refers to a synergistic herbicidal combination and the process for the preparation for crop protection.
The term "combination" can be replaced with the words "mixture" or "composition" or "formulation" defined or refers to as combining two or more active ingredients formulated in desired formulations.
The term "pesticide" as used in this specification refers to a substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest or weeds which causes damage to the crop. Herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides are mainly used as pesticides which control weeds and insect pests and disease-causing pathogens respectively that eventually leads to high yield of crops.
The term "herbicides" as used in this specification refers to a substance or mixture of substances used to kill, control, or eliminate unwanted plants or vegetation, commonly known as weeds that cause economic damage to crop and ornamental plants.
The term "synergism" as used in this specification refers to the interaction between two or more active compounds or other factors to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects. The present invention involves the mixture of two active ingredients which has increased efficacy when compared to individual use and admixture of those components.
Conventional herbicides have typical spectrums and effects, are limited to certain weeds only and their controlling activities are sometimes poor and not satisfactorily maintained for prolonged period, and those satisfactory herbicidal effects cannot be practically achieved. Even though some herbicides may bear satisfactory herbicidal effects, they require improvements in respect of formulation safety, storage stability, reducing the cost of the combination and addressing transportation difficulties with improved environmental safety and are also demanded to achieve a high herbicidal effect without the need of additional component at a smaller dosage and lack of resistance management.
We found that this objective can be achieved by the combination of active compounds defined at the outset. The present inventors have intensively studied to solve these problems. We have found that by combining herbicide composition having haloxyfop as a main component with Imazethapyr in easy-to-use WDG formulation at specific percentages have astonishing effects of controlling weeds and by reducing amount of dosage than in a case of using an active compound alone and admixture of those compounds.
The present invention involves the mixture of active ingredients selected from haloxyfop with Imazethapyr in WDG formulation and are described herein thereof.
Aryloxyphenoxypropionate (AOPP) are selective, systemic, and post-emergence class of herbicides that inhibit the synthesis of fatty acids and destroy the membrane structure by inhibiting the activity of acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACCase) in the chloroplasts of weeds to achieve herbicidal effects. Its selective control of grass weeds, while causing little or no damage to broad-leaved crops by inhibiting de-novo synthesis of fatty acid. They control a wide range of annual and perennial grasses in cool and warm temperate regions when applied post-emergence.
Haloxyfop is a selective, systemic, broad-spectrum commodity herbicide of aryloxy phenoxy propionate class for the control of grass weeds. Originally it was produced as a racemic mixture. The R-isomer is the herbicidal active compound. Mode of action is eliminating the weeds by inhibiting lipid synthesis and inducing oxidative stress. Preferably haloxyfop-methyl involves inhibiting the enzyme acetyl coenzyme A carboxylase (ACCase) by converting acetyl-CoA to malonyl-CoA, which is essential for lipid synthesis in plants ultimately leading to the death of grassy weeds. After application, susceptible grassy weeds treated with Haloxyfop-methyl exhibit symptoms such as chlorosis (yellowing), necrosis (tissue death), stunting, and death of unwanted weeds. These symptoms result from the disruption of lipid synthesis and subsequent impairment of vital cellular processes.
Imazethapyr is a member of imidazolinone herbicides is selective, systemic and post-emergence which inhibits acetolactate synthase (ALS), also called acetohydroxyacid synthase (AHAS), a key enzyme in the biosynthesis of the branched-chain amino acids isoleucine, lecucine, and valine leads to rapid growth cessation in susceptible weed species. It is used to control a wide spectrum of grass and broadleaf weeds, are effective at low application rates, have low mammalian toxicity, and possess a favorable environmental profile. It controls grasses and broad leaf weeds in plants, including but not limited to grain legumes, alfalfa hay, corn, and rice, etc., and they act upon a wide range of weeds.
The present invention provides a novel synergistic herbicidal composition having haloxyfop-methyl and imazethapyr and purpose thereof. The synergy of this herbicidal composition has two main effective components of haloxyfop-methyl and imazethapyr in WDG formulation. This herbicidal composition acts by inhibiting the activity of acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACCase) in the chloroplasts and by inhibiting the enzyme acetohydroxyacid synthase, which is a critical enzyme for the biosynthesis of branched-chain amino acids in weeds can generate efficient synergism in pre-emergence, early-post or post- emergence stages of crops and can enable broad spectrum satisfactory weed control and protect the several crop from sedges, grasses and broad leaf weeds for prolonged period of time at lower dose with no phytotoxic effect. Their different mode of actions, target two different sites resulting in effectiveness, crop safety and environmental friendliness as they are applied at doses lower than they were applied alone on the crop and increasing the probability of this herbicidal mixture as a valuable tool in weed control. It also prevents the weed crops from rejuvenation and further regeneration.
The first embodiment of the present invention provides a synergistic herbicidal composition comprising:
haloxyfop or its salt, ester and derivative; and
imazethapyr.
The first aspect of the first embodiment, synergistic herbicidal composition comprising a combination of haloxyfop and imazethapyr; wherein haloxyfop and imazethapyr are present in the weight ratio of (1-80) : (1-80).
The second embodiment of the present invention provides a synergistic herbicidal composition comprising:
haloxyfop or its salt, ester and derivative;
imazethapyr; and
at least one agrochemical acceptable excipient.
The first aspect of the second embodiment, synergistic herbicidal composition comprising a combination of haloxyfop and imazethapyr; wherein haloxyfop and imazethapyr are present in the weight ratio of (1-80) : (1-80).
The second aspect of the second embodiment, agrochemical acceptable excipient selected from but not limited to the group comprising carrier, surfactant, stabilizer, anti-freezing agent, anti-foaming agent, anticaking agent, dispersing agent, and adjuvant(s). These are selected according to the respective types of formulation requirements, and which will facilitate in the preparation different formulations.
Further aspect of the second embodiment, carrier can be selected from liquid medium or solid medium which will provide a stable environment to the formulation. Wherein liquid medium selected from but not limited to water and organic solvents incudes hydrocarbon solvents and cycloalkanes, ether solvents, ester solvents, ketones solvents, alcohols solvents, and polar-aprotic solvents.
Further aspect of the second embodiment, surfactant includes wetting agent, and emulsifier.
Further aspect of the present invention, emulsifiers include anionic emulsifiers, cationic emulsifiers, nonionic emulsifiers, amphoteric emulsifiers, phospholipids, glyceryl esters, and other commercially available emulsifiers.
A further aspect of the present invention, anionic emulsifiers selected from but not limited to sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), sodium dodecyl benzenesulfonate (SDBS), alkyl sulfates, alkyl ethoxylate sulfates, and calcium alkyl benzene sulfonate.
Further aspect of the present invention, cationic emulsifiers selected from but not limited to cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB), and stearalkonium chloride.
Further aspect of the present invention nonionic emulsifiers selected from but not limited to polysorbate 80, polysorbate 20, sorbitan monolaurate, alkyl ethoxylates, sorbitan monooleate, and polyaryl sulfate esters.
Further aspect of the present invention, amphoteric emulsifiers selected from but not limited to cocamidopropyl betaine, lauramidopropyl betaine; ethoxylated emulsifiers: ethoxylated nonylphenol (nonylphenol ethoxylate), ethoxylated sorbitan esters, and ethoxylated fatty alcohols.
Further aspect of the second embodiment, wetting agent is selected from but not limited to alkyl aryl sulfonates, alkyl phenol ethoxylates / propoxylates, alkoxylates, ethoxylated alkoxylates, alkyl aryl poly alkoxy ether, alkyl polyglucosides, polysorbates, polyethylene glycol esters, polysorbate, polyethylene oxide (PEO), ethoxylated or propoxylated fatty alcohols and / or acids and / or amines, ethoxylated or propoxylated synthetic alcohols, alkyl aryl sulphates, ethoxylated alkyl aryl sulphates, ethoxylated vegetable oils, ethoxylated sorbitan esters, phosphated esters, propylene glycol esters, sodium lauryl sulfate, cocoamidopropyl betaine and block copolymers selected from the but not limited to styrene-butadiene block copolymer (SBS), butyl based block copolymer, poly(ethylene oxide)-poly(propylene oxide)-poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO-PPO-PEO), polystyrene-poly(ethylene oxide) (PS-PEO), poly(butadiene)-poly(styrene) (PB-PS), poly(methyl methacrylate)-poly(butadiene)-poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA-PB-PMMA), poly(capro lactone)-poly(ethylene glycol) (PCL-PEG), poly(ethylene glycol)-poly(propylene glycol)-poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG-PPG-PEG), and other commercially available wetting agents.
Further aspect of the second embodiment, stabilizer includes antioxidant, chelating agent, pH adjuster, UV absorber, stabilizing polymer, and inert material.
Further aspect of the second embodiment, stabilizer selected from group vegetable and seed oils selected from but not limited to soybean oil, sunflower seed oil, coconut oil, peanut oil, corn oil, castor oil, palm oil, rapeseed oil, safflower oil, olive oil, corn oil, cottonseed oil, linseed oil, tung oil and sesame oil, and oxidized forms of the above oils.
Further aspect of the second embodiment, inert material selected from but not limited to quartz, kaolin clay, attapulgite clay, acidic clay, attapulgite, zeolite, bentonite, montmorillonite, acid white clay, pyrophyllite, talc, diatomaceous earth and calcite, china clay, corn rachis powder, walnut husk powder, urea, calcium carbonate, ammonium sulfate, silicon oxides (precipitated silica), and other commercially available inert materials.
Further aspect of the second embodiment, anti-freezing agent selected from but not limited to ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, glycerol, calcium chloride, sodium acetate, potassium acetate, urea, and other commercially available anti-freezing agents.
Further aspect of the second embodiment, antifoaming agent selected from but not limited to silicone-based antifoams, polyethylene glycol-based antifoams, mineral oil-based antifoams, ethylene glycol-based antifoams, polysorbate-based antifoams, dimethicone-based antifoams, polypropylene glycol-based antifoams, vegetable oil-based antifoams, alkyl siloxane-based antifoams, fatty acid-based antifoams, and other commercially available antifoaming agents.
Further aspect of the second embodiment, anticaking agent selected from silica-based compounds includes silicon dioxide (silica), precipitated silica (amorphous form of silicon dioxide), calcium silicate, magnesium stearate, sodium aluminosilicate, potassium aluminium silicate, tricalcium phosphate, sodium ferrocyanide, calcium carbonate, diatomaceous earth, sodium bicarbonate, and other commercially available anticaking agents.
Further aspect of the second embodiment, dispersing agent selected from but not limited to polyethylene glycol, polysorbate, poly acrylate, poly(methyl methacrylate), polyvinyl alcohol, poly ethoxylated alcohol, poly ethoxylated fatty acids, polyacrylic acid, polyvinylpyrrolidone, alkyl sulfonates, aryl sulfonates, alkyl aryl sulfonates, sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium dodecyl sulfate, sodium lignosulfonate, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, sorbitan esters (e.g., sorbitan monolaurate, sorbitan monooleate), gum arabic and carbomer and/or their comb polymers; preferably poly(methyl methacrylate), polyethylene glycol comb polymer, and other commercially available dispersing agents.
Further aspect of the second embodiment, adjuvant includes but not limited to colorant, spreader, modifier, sticker, penetrant, drift control agent, buffering agent, thickener, compatibility agent, binders, and safener.
A further aspect of the second embodiment, colorant is color dye selected from natural, synthetic, and commercially available dyes.
Further aspect of the second embodiment, binder / sticking agent selected from but not limited to methyl cellulose, ethyl cellulose, hydroxy propyl methyl cellulose, hydroxy propyl cellulose, gum, sodium carboxy methyl cellulose, polyvinyl pyrrolidone, polyethylene glycol, polyvinyl alcohol, polymethacrylates, and other commercially available binders.
Further aspect of second embodiment, thickener selected from but not limited to polysaccharides / carboxymethyl cellulose / bentonite clay, hydroxy propyl cellulose montmorillonite, bentonite, magnesium aluminium silicate, attapulgite, and other commercially available thickeners.
A further aspect of the second embodiment, modifier includes drift control modifiers, rain fastness modifiers, anti-foaming modifiers, UV stabilizers, pH modifiers, compatibility modifiers, and rheology modifiers.
Further aspect of the second embodiment, rheology modifier is bentonite and pH modifiers are triethanolamine and / or phosphoric acid.
Further aspect of the second embodiment, preservative is antibacterial agent selected from but not limited to triclosan, triclocarban, clotrimazole, miconazole, copper-based compounds, chlorothalonil, benzisothiazolin-3-one (BIT), 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one, 2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (MIT), octylisothiazolinone (OIT), dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid, sodium salt (DBSA), and other commercially available preservatives.
The third embodiment of the present invention provides a synergistic herbicidal water dispersible granular (WDG) formulation comprising:
haloxyfop;
imazethapyr; and
at least one agrochemical acceptable excipient.
The first aspect of the third embodiment, synergistic herbicidal water dispersible granular (WDG) formulation comprising a combination of haloxyfop and imazethapyr; wherein haloxyfop and imazethapyr are present in the weight ratio of (1-80) : (1-80).
The second aspect of the third embodiment, agrochemical acceptable excipient(s) selected from but not limited to the group comprising surfactant, inert material, anti-foaming agent, dispersing agent, binder and adjuvant(s).
The fourth embodiment of the present invention provides a synergistic herbicidal water dispersible granular (WDG) formulation comprising:
haloxyfop;
imazethapyr;
wetting agent
inert material;
antifoaming agent;
dispersing agent;
binder; and
pH modifiers.
The first aspect of the fourth embodiment, wetting agent is selected from but not limited to alkyl aryl sulfonates, alkyl phenol ethoxylates / propoxylates, alkoxylates, ethoxylated alkoxylates, alkyl aryl poly alkoxy ether, alkyl polyglucosides, polysorbates, polyethylene glycol esters, polysorbate, polyethylene oxide (PEO), ethoxylated or propoxylated fatty alcohols and/or acids and/or amines, ethoxylated or propoxylated synthetic alcohols, alkyl aryl sulphates, ethoxylated alkyl aryl sulphates, ethoxylated vegetable oils, ethoxylated sorbitan esters, phosphated esters, propylene glycol esters, sodium lauryl sulfate, cocoamidopropyl betaine and block copolymers selected from the but not limited to styrene-butadiene block copolymer (SBS), butyl based block copolymer, poly(ethylene oxide)-poly(propylene oxide)-poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO-PPO-PEO), polystyrene-poly(ethylene oxide) (PS-PEO), poly(butadiene)-poly(styrene) (PB-PS), poly(methyl methacrylate)-poly(butadiene)-poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA-PB-PMMA), poly(capro lactone)-poly(ethylene glycol) (PCL-PEG), poly(ethylene glycol)-poly(propylene glycol)-poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG-PPG-PEG), and other commercially available wetting agents; preferably sodium lauryl sulfate.
The second aspect of the fourth embodiment, inert material selected from but not limited to quartz, kaolin clay, attapulgite clay, acidic clay, attapulgite, zeolite, bentonite, montmorillonite, acid white clay, pyrophyllite, talc, diatomaceous earth and calcite, china clay, corn rachis powder, walnut husk powder, urea, calcium carbonate, ammonium sulfate, silicon oxides (precipitated silica), and other commercially available inert materials; preferably china clay and precipitated silica.
The third aspect of the fourth embodiment, antifoaming agent selected from but not limited to silicone-based antifoams, polyethylene glycol-based antifoams, mineral oil-based antifoams, ethylene glycol-based antifoams, polysorbate-based antifoams, dimethicone-based antifoams, polypropylene glycol-based antifoams, vegetable oil-based antifoams, alkyl siloxane-based antifoams, fatty acid-based antifoams, and other commercially available antifoaming agents; preferably alkyl siloxane-based antifoams.
The fourth aspect of the fourth embodiment, dispersing agent selected from but not limited to polyethylene glycol, polysorbate, poly acrylate, poly(methyl methacrylate), polyvinyl alcohol, poly ethoxylated alcohol, poly ethoxylated fatty acids, polyacrylic acid, polyvinylpyrrolidone, alkyl sulfonates, aryl sulfonates, alkyl aryl sulfonates, sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium dodecyl sulfate, sodium lignosulfonate, sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, sorbitan esters (e.g., sorbitan monolaurate, sorbitan monooleate), gum arabic and carbomer and / or their comb polymers; preferably poly(methyl methacrylate), polyethylene glycol comb polymer, and other commercially available dispersing agents; preferably alkyl aryl sulfonates and sodium lignosulfonate.
The fifth aspect of the fourth embodiment, binder / sticking agent selected from but not limited to methyl cellulose, ethyl cellulose, hydroxy propyl methyl cellulose, hydroxy propyl cellulose, gum, sodium carboxy methyl cellulose, polyvinyl pyrrolidone, polyethylene glycol, polyvinyl alcohol, polymethacrylates, and other commercially available binders; preferably methyl cellulose.
Further aspect of the fourth embodiment, pH modifier is triethanolamine and/or phosphoric acid.
The fifth embodiment of the present invention provides a synergistic herbicidal water dispersible granular (WDG) formulation comprising:
haloxyfop;
imazethapyr;
sodium lauryl sulfate;
china clay;
precipitated silica;
siloxane polyalkyleneoxide;
sodium lignosulfonate;
sodium alkyl naphthalene sulfonate; and
methyl cellulose and / or gum.
The first aspect of the fifth embodiment, synergistic herbicidal water dispersible granular (WDG) formulation comprising a combination of haloxyfop and imazethapyr; wherein haloxyfop and imazethapyr are present in the weight ratio of (1-80) : (1-80); preferably in the ratio of (1-40) : (1-40); more preferably in the ratio of (1-40) : (1-20).
Further aspect of the fifth embodiment, the composition of fifth embodiment is formulated as water dispersible granules (WDG).
Another embodiment of the present invention, the water dispersible granules (WDG) of present invention can be prepared using conventional methods as described in the prior art.
Another embodiment of the present invention, the other alternative formulations other than described herein can be prepared using conventional processes and different methods known in the art by selecting appropriate agrochemical acceptable excipient(s) to get the suitable desired formulation of present invention combination.
Another embodiment of the present invention, the synergistic herbicidal composition of present invention used in defined dose ratios shows effective weed control in broad spectrum of weeds and increases the crop yield, quality, less dose rations and shows no phytotoxicity compared to single components, admixture of those two components and other available market standards. By this the herbicidal composition of present invention archives synergistic effect along with economic value product and improved environmental safety by reducing toxicity and residue deposit in soil and in crops.
Another embodiment of the present invention, a method of controlling annual grasses, sedges and broad leaf weeds comprising synergistic herbicidal composition applying to the location of weed in effective amount.
Another embodiment of the present invention, the herbicidal composition obtained from the present invention is used to control broadleaf weeds, sedges and annual grasses in paddy, wheat, pineapple, sugarcane, maize, bananas, and corn crops and may be soil or foliar applied. It is also used in multiple crops, including cereal and grains, grapes, orchards and thereof.
Another embodiment of the present invention, the herbicidal composition obtained from the present shows synergistic effects of better weed control with minimum herbicidal resistance and improved crop yield and quality.
Another embodiment of the present invention, the synergistic herbicidal composition can be applied to pre-emergence, early post-emergence, or post-emergence stages by conventional spraying methods, such as foliar application etc., over the target areas of weeds or vegetation at same time avoiding excessive drift or runoff of the composition securing thorough coverage.
 
Advantages of the Present Invention:
The WDG formulation remains stable and maintains homogeneity over extended periods, ensuring consistent application and efficacy of herbicidal action.
The granules can be easily dispersed in water, eliminating the need for precise measurements, facilitating straightforward application and mixing at the point of use.
The WDG formulation reduces the risk of crop damage due to its controlled release properties, negating the need for additional safeners.
The WDG formulation is easy and safe to former that avoids the exposure of dust and harmful chemicals.
The WDG formulation is free from harmful solvents and addresses the problem of toxicity or flammability issues.
The WDG formulation minimizes the use of harmful chemicals, reducing environmental impact.
The WDG formulation provides easy and safe packaging and transportation.
The novelty of the present invention lies in the unique WDG formulation of Haloxyfop and Imazethapyr. Unlike prior art references which utilize liquid formulations or tank mixes, this WDG formulation offers improved stability, ease of use, and environmental benefits. The inventive step is evident in the formulation's ability to deliver consistent herbicidal action while reducing the risk of phytotoxicity, environmental harm, application complexity and addressing the shortcomings of existing technologies without the use of additional chemical.
The best mode of carrying out the present invention is described in the below given examples. These examples are merely for illustrative purposes only, not to determine the scope of the invention and in no way limit the scope or spirit of the present invention.
EXAMPLES:
EXAMPLE 1: DIFFERENT FORMULATIONS OF SYNERGISTIC HERBICIDAL COMPOSITION OF THE PRESENT INVENTION:
TABLE 1.1: Wettable Powder (WP) Formulation
S. No Ingredient Weight / Weight %
1 Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5
2 Imazethapyr 9
3 Sodium lauryl sulfate 10
4 Precipitated silica 10
5 Sodium lignosulfonate 2.5
6 Sodium alkyl naphthalene sulfonate 3
7 Siloxane polyalkyleneoxide 0.2
8 Methyl cellulose 0.5
9 China clay QS
Total 100
EXAMPLE 2: BIO EFFICACY AND PHYTOTOXICITY TESTS OF THE PRESENT INVENTION
Methodology:
When the crop is in its initial developmental stages the crop experiences high invasion of weed flora and upon their incursion, they compete with the crop parallelly for nutrients, light and other resources causing hinderance to crop growth and effects the productivity of the crop. Hence, timely management of weeds plays an important role in gaining good qualitative and quantitative yield. The weed management through time emerged from different cultural management practices like hand weeding, mulching, cover cropping, etc. These practices have been long told but were not much effective or provided instantaneous results. The management of weeds at the right time is very important to gain good quality yield from crops and the use of chemical herbicides/weedicides have always been the most obvious, quick and best remedy for managing weeds in crops. The current study has been conducted in three crops viz., Groundnut, Soybean, Black Gram. All the three crops have various weed flora which can broadly be categorized as Grassy weeds, Broadleaved weeds and Perennial Grasses / Sedges. The most common herbicides were both pre-emergent and post emergent but in case of pre-emergent herbicides the show their effect during the initial time of the crop. But during the growing stage of crop if there is persistent competition with weeds it will affect growth and productivity of the crop. Therefore, post emergent herbicides have been a far better fetching option as they inhibit or kill the weed flora which minimizes the weed population density in the crop and increases the yield of the crop.
The molecules under focus in this study are purely post emergent and the innovation molecule is a combination of two active i.e., Haloxyfop-R-Methyl and Imazethapyr. Haloxyfop-R-Methyl is a systemic and selective post emergent herbicide which is absorbed by both foliage and roots of the plant and translocated to the growing points of plants having meristematic tissues. It acts by inhibiting the cellular respiration, which is by inhibiting the ACCase enzyme during Krebs cycle. This leads to necrosis of growing tips thereby leading to inhibition of growth followed by death of plant. This activity is predominantly seen in monocotyledonous plants as their metabolism and detoxification process is very slow. While dicotyledonous plants have more efficient metabolic pathways, they are known to metabolize Haloxyfop, and its affect is not seen these group of plants. Whereas Imazethapyr acts by inhibiting acetolactate synthetase (ALS) enzyme which disrupts the protein synthesis which in turn affects growth and development of the plant. Apart from inhibiting ALS enzyme its effect leads to reduced photosynthesis due to lowering the stomatal conductance leading to affecting the transpiration through xylem which finally affects the uptake of macro nutrient Nitrogen which ultimately shows reduced Nitrogen content in Imazethapyr affected plants. Alike Haloxyfop, Imazethapyr also accumulates at the growing points of the plant, causes damage in leaf cell structure and cause stunting of growth initially followed by chlorosis and drying of foliage and ultimately death of plants. Due to the high persistence ability of Imazethapyr its effect is seen up to 7-20 days after treatment in crop due to which the existing weed population is managed but also inhibits the emergence of new weeds. The current innovation focuses on development of a combination with these two actives with a goal to target the weeds with two sites of actions and this helps in achieving quick complete control of weeds and can avoid issues of herbicidal resistance, higher selectivity towards the diverse weed flora in the crop's agroecosystem. The three crops focused for our experimental study viz., Groundnut, Soybean and Black gram were evaluated for weed control in the crop so to draw collective conclusions we focused on the management of the commonly occurring major weed species which are commonly present in all the three crops. The weed flora focused for studying the efficacy of Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% WDG are grasses (Echinocloa crusgalli and Cyanodon dactylon), broad-leaved weeds (Ludwigia parviflora, Monochoria vaginalis and Eclipta alba) and sedges (Cyprus iria and Fimbristylis miliaceae).
Presently to evaluate the efficacy of Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% WDG formulation against grasses, sedges, and broad-leaved weeds as post emergent herbicide in groundnut, soybean and black gram and to test phytotoxicity of the molecule on the crops have been conducted. Along with Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% WDG the test molecule is tested at three dose levels viz., low, medium, and high along with the sole molecule as individual treatments and their efficiency comparison is done with the current competitive market standards i.e., Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000ml/ha, Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC @ 1500 ml/ha and Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC @ 437.5 ml/ha. To justify the results the overall effect and other parameters are calculated over untreated check. The crops are first divided into plots for each treatment and replicated three times following Randomized Block Design. The spraying method followed was foliar application with the help of a knapsack sprayer and the sprays are done as post emergent herbicide. The residual effect of the herbicidal mixture was evaluated on follow-up crops.
As both Haloxyfop-R-Methyl and Imazethapyr are highly specific and know to act against grassy weeds effectively in order to check the crop safety towards both dicotyledonous and monocotyledonous plants with proved efficiency, evident signs of synergy and any presence of phytotoxicity the experiment is conducted in small non-replicated trials while we compare our combination in different formulation recipes viz., SC, EC, ME, SL and tank mix. The experimental results are elucidated as follows.
Methods of Observation:
No. of weed / 1 sq meter area: Take 4 sticks/pipes of 1 metre each and tie their ends / joints so that they make a square shape which looks like a quadrant. Before taking the weed counts, the square (quadrant) should be placed in the treated plot randomly and the number of weed species in the 1metre area is counted.
Take the observation of individual weed species to understand or draw conclusions on the efficacy of the herbicide against individual weeds. The observations were taken at pre-treatment (1 dbs), 7, 14, 28 and 35 days after application (DAA) and on similar days the plants will be sampled for recording the dry weight of the plants in respective treatments.
Based on the observations recorded, conclusions were drawn based on the parameters like Percent weed control (in case of weed population) and Weed control index (WCI) which indicates the accumulations of biomass in the weed flora before and after the treatments.
For checking the presence of synergism, Colby's ratio is calculated.
Take observations of crop parameters to understand the effect of the treatments on crop vigour viz., Crop Nutrient Uptake (N, P, K), pods / plant, kernels / pod, straw yield, pod yield, Harvest index.
Take the observation on the crop safety of the herbicide i.e., Phytotoxicity / softener observation of herbicide after application at 5 and 10 Days after application.
For testing the residual effect on crop, the percent germination, Plant height/ hill height, no. of tillers/plant, No. of panicles and grain yield were recorded in paddy. In the case of chickpea crop, percent germination, number of pods, pod weight, protein content and yield.
The treatment details are enlisted below:
Table 1. Treatment Details:
Treatment
No. Treatment Name Dose
(ml or g/ha)
T1 Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG 800
T2 Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG 1000
T3 Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG 1200
T4 Haloxyfop R-Methyl 10.5% EC 1200
T5 Imazethapyr 10% SL 1000
T6 Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME 2000
T7 Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC 1500
T8 Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC 437.5
T9 Hand weeding -
T10 Untreated Check -
Parameters of Observations:
The weeds controlled in each treatment are calculated as percent weed controlled over untreated or controlled plot. The percent weed control is calculated by the following formula -
% weed control = (No.of weeds in control plot-No.of weeds in treated plot )/(No.of weeds in control plot)× 100
The weeds biomass builds up in treatments is calculated to know the weed control index of each treatment. The WCI - Weed Control Index is calculated by the following formula -
Weed Control Index = (Dry wt.of weeds in control plot-Dry wt. of weeds in treated plot )/(Dry wt. of weeds in control plot)× 100
The harvest index is calculated in the three crops based on straw yield and grain/pod yield. The formula is represented as follows -
Harvest Index = (Pod yield in treatment )/(Straw yield in treatment )
The effect of these herbicides when applied on crops are assessed based on the following growth and yield parameters, Yield (t/ha) is recorded.
Colby's Method: The combined effect of Pesticidal combinations is the sum of their individual effects. Colby's method is an approach to evaluate the synergistic, additive, or antagonistic effects due to the interactions of two pesticides as a combination.
Colby's method calculates expected response, and a ratio is calculated between expected response and observed response.
The formula for expected response is as follows-
E = (A+B) - ((A*B)/100)
A represents pesticide and B represents pesticide 2.
The observed response is the actual percent control achieved.
Colby's ratio = Observed response (O)/Expected response (E).
If the ratio is,
< 1 = Antagonistic effect; 1= Additive effect; > 1 = Synergistic effect
The effect of these fungicides in combination and alone when applied on crops were assessed based on the yield (quintal per hectare). This parameter defines the crop quality.
Results:
The different types and species of weeds found in this experiment in paddy field were enlisted below,
Grasses: Echinocloa crusgalli; Cyanodon dactylon
Broad Leaved Weeds: Ludwigia parviflora; Monochoria vaginalis; Eclipta alba
Sedges: Cyprus iria; Fimbristylis miliaceae
A. Groundnut
Table 1. Efficacy against grassy weeds.
Treatment Weed Population % Weed Control Colby's Ratio Dry Weight / Biomass of the Weeds WCI
1dbs 7 das 14 das 28 das 35 das Avg 1dbs 7 das 14 das 28 das 35 das Avg
T1 28 2 3 5 9 4.75 91.32 1.06 5.09 0.36 0.55 0.91 1.64 0.86 94.48
T2 23 0 0 2 6 2 96.35 1.12 4.60 0.00 0.00 0.40 1.20 0.40 97.44
T3 25 0 0 1 3 1 98.17 1.14 3.57 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.43 0.14 99.09
T4 24 17 15 18 26 19 65.30 0.76 5.83 4.13 4.64 5.37 6.31 5.11 67.32
T5 24 19 17 21 31 22 59.82 0.70 6.00 4.75 5.25 6.67 7.75 6.11 60.97
T6 26 9 19 25 30 20.75 62.10 0.72 6.37 2.21 4.66 6.13 7.35 5.09 67.49
T7 25 14 19 8 26 16.75 69.41 0.81 6.13 3.43 4.66 1.96 6.37 4.11 73.76
T8 22 19 15 15 31 20 63.47 0.74 7.14 6.17 4.87 4.87 10.06 6.49 58.49
T9 31 0 0 0 2 0.5 99.09 1.15 3.88 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.06 99.60
T10 34 45 51 58 65 54.75 0.00 0.00 9.71 12.86 14.57 16.57 18.57 15.64 0.00
The grassy weed population in the different treatment plots varied between 22-34 weeds/sq.m before treatments. After the application of herbicide and practicing hand weeding in one plot the weed population recorded at different times showed significant fluctuations among the different treatments. The weeds biomass has also been calculated by recording the dry weight of the weeds in different plots thereby providing us another insight into how the herbicides have dealt with inhibiting the growth and development of the unwanted vegetation a.k.a weeds in the crop. At 7, 14, 28 and 35 DAA the observations have been recorded and the weed population was significantly low in the treatments Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (2, 3, 5, 9 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (0, 0, 2, 6 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (0, 0, 1, 3 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa) along with hand weeded plot (0, 0, 0, 2 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa). The weeds population was significantly on the higher side showing moderate effect in the remaining treatments, as Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha recorded high weed population without much fluctuation in the population throughout the time of observations as weeds varied between 17-31 weeds/sq.m (7DAA to 35DAA) in both the treatments showing the individual efficacy of the actives has been lower than the test combination. After observing results in the market standards, though the weed population fluctuated throughout the observation period the weed density by the end of the observations has not reduced in return was recorded higher than its pretreatment weed density i.e., Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC @ 1500 ml/ha with 26 weeds/sq.m, Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC @ 437.5ml/ha with 31 weeds/sq.m and Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 30 weeds/sq.m at 35 DAA.
Based on the weed population, percent weed control and Colby's ratio have been calculated. In order to conclude on above parameters, the average weed population has delved that the least amount of grassy weeds were recorded in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (4.75), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (2) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (1) along with hand weeded plot (0.5). The highest average weed density recorded in the solo actives test with Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha (19) and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha (22) and moderate effects were recorded in the market standards i.e., Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC @ 1500 ml/ha with 26 weeds/sq.m, Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC @ 437.5ml/ha with 31 weeds/sq.m and Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 30 weeds/sq.m at 35 DAA. According to the bio efficacy trend observed with respect to weed density, average weed density the percent weed control has also delved similar outcomes like Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha with 91.32% weed control, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha with 96.35% weed control and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha with 98.17% weed control. Similarly, the remaining treatments recorded 59.82% to 69.41% weed control respectively. Likewise, the Colby ratios calculated showed that the combination of Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG has showed clear signs of synergism when applied at @ 800 g/ha (1.06), @ 1000 g/ha (1.12) and @ 1200 g/ha (1.14) other than hand weeding which had 99% control. The remaining treatments recorded Colby's ratio < 1.
The similar insights brought out through calculating the biomass accumulation in the weeds present in the treated plots in comparison to the untreated plot and hand weed has also been observed to confirm the efficacy of the test items as a combination not only inhibits growth but also prevents germination of new weeds and this can be concluded by exploring the weed dry weight/biomass of weeds in the different plots. Based on the results, it is known that the weed biomass accumulation has been low in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (1.64), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (1.20) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (0.43) at the end of observations at 35DAA. The average recorded was also showing similar effect with same order and the weed control index was controlled to know the weeds accumulation controlled over untreated plot has been calculated and it showed that Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha 94.48%, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha 97.44% and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha 99.09% was observed while the other treatments recorded far lower WCI ranging between 58.49% to 73.76% in market standards and solo formulations of the combination product. Hence, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG when applied at three different doses (800, 1000, 1200 g/ha) has proved to be very effective against the grassy weeds management showing its high selectivity towards monocotyledonous vegetation based on the literature sources which referred that Haloxyfop-R-Methyl and Imazethapyr were highly effective against monocots and these results evidently prove the said findings.
Table 2. Efficacy against Broad Leaved Weeds.
Treatment Weed Population % Weed Control Colby's Ratio Dry Weight / Biomass of the Weeds WCI
1dbs 7 das 14 das 28 das 35 das Avg 1dbs 7 das 14 das 28 das 35 das Avg
T1 48 0 1 7 11 4.75 92.52 1.23 6.86 0.00 0.14 1.00 1.57 0.68 93.59
T2 45 0 0 1 5 1.5 97.64 1.30 5.63 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.63 0.19 98.23
T3 45 0 0 1 4 1.25 98.03 1.30 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.44 0.14 98.69
T4 44 36 29 32 39 34 46.46 0.62 7.33 6.00 7.83 8.33 8.90 7.77 26.63
T5 43 33 24 28 32 29.25 53.94 0.72 8.60 6.60 7.80 8.60 8.00 7.75 26.77
T6 46 24 15 19 17 18.75 70.47 0.94 7.67 4.00 5.00 3.17 2.83 3.75 64.57
T7 50 21 7 4 9 10.25 83.86 1.11 8.33 3.50 1.17 0.67 1.50 1.71 83.86
T8 48 23 3 4 12 10.5 83.46 1.11 8.00 3.83 0.50 0.67 2.00 1.75 83.46
T9 47 0 0 1 2 0.75 98.82 1.31 5.22 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.22 0.08 99.21
T10 49 56 60 67 71 63.5 0.00 0.00 8.17 9.33 10.00 11.17 11.83 10.58 0.00
According to the findings in Table 2, the efficiency of Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG against Broad leaved weeds along with comparing the effects of different market standards and solo actives of the combination of focus. The weed density observed after application of herbicide at different time intervals showed that the pre-treatment data showed broadleaved weed population varied between 43-50 weeds/sq.m. After the application of herbicide and practicing hand weeding in one plot the weed population recorded at different time intervals showed significant fluctuations among the different treatments. The weeds biomass has also been calculated by recording the dry weight of the weeds in different plots thereby providing us another insight into how the herbicides have dealt with inhibiting the growth and development of the unwanted vegetation a.k.a weeds in the crop. At 7, 14, 28 and 35 DAA the observations have been recorded and the weed population was significantly low in the treatments Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (0, 1, 7, 11 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (0, 0, 1, 5 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (0, 0, 1, 4 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa) along with hand weeded plot (0, 0, 1, 2 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa). The weeds population was significantly on the higher side showing moderate effect in the market standards, as Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 17 weeds / sq.m at 35 DAA and solo actives recorded the highest weed density as Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha with 39 weeds/sq.m and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha with 32 weeds/sq.m without much fluctuation in the population throughout the time of observations (7DAA to 35DAA) in both the treatments showing the individual efficacy of the actives has been lower than the test combination.
Based on the weed population, percent weed control and Colby's ratio have been calculated. In order to conclude on above parameters, the average weed population has delved that the least amount of broad leaved weeds were recorded in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (4.75), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (1.5) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (1.25) along with hand weeded plot (0.75). Unlike in case of grassy weeds the weed population of broad leaved weeds has been observed to be higher in the crop and the highest average weed density recorded in the solo actives test with Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha (34) and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha (29.25) and moderate effects were recorded in the market standards i.e., Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC @ 1500 ml/ha with 10.25 weeds/sq.m, Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC @ 437.5ml/ha with 10.5 weeds/sq.m and Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 18.75 weeds/sq.m at 35 DAA.
According to the bio efficacy trend observed with respect to weed density, average weed density the percent weed control has also delved similar outcomes like Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha with 92.52% weed control, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha with 97.64% weed control and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha with 98.03% weed control. Similarly, the remaining treatments recorded 46.46% to 83.86% weed control respectively. Likewise, the Colby ratios calculated showed that the combination of Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG showed clear signs of synergism when applied @ 800 g/ha and @ 1000 g/ha (1.30) and @ 1200 g/ha (1.23) other than hand weeding which had 98% control. Though the broad-leaved weeds incidence is higher in the crops compared to grassy weeds, their control is higher and effective in majority of the treatments.
The similar insights brought out through calculating the biomass accumulation in the weeds present in the treated plots in comparison to the untreated plot and hand weed has also been observed to confirm the efficacy of the test items as a combination not only inhibits growth but also prevents germination of new weeds and this can be concluded by exploring the weed dry weight/biomass of weeds in the different plots. Based on the results, it is known that the weed biomass accumulation has been low in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (1.57), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (0.63) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (0.44) at the end of observations at 35DAA. The average recorded was also showing similar effect with same order and the weed control index was controlled to know the weeds accumulation controlled over untreated plot has been calculated and it showed that Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha 93.59%, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha 98.23% and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha 98.69% was observed while the other treatments recorded far lower WCI ranging between 26.77% to 83.86% in market standards and solo formulations of the combination product. Hence, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG when applied at three different doses (800, 1000, 1200 g/ha) has proved to be a very effective option for weed management showing its high selectivity against weed population.
Table 3. Efficacy against Sedges.
Treatment Weed Population % Weed Control Colby's Ratio Dry Weight / Biomass of the Weeds WCI
1 dbs 7 das 14 das 28 das 35 das Avg 1dbs 7 das 14 das 28 das 35 das Avg
T1 31 1 3 6 10 5 90.38 1.11 4.43 0.14 0.43 0.86 1.43 0.71 91.76
T2 30 0 2 4 10 4 92.31 1.13 3.75 0.00 0.25 0.50 1.25 0.50 94.23
T3 29 0 1 3 8 3 94.23 1.16 3.22 0.00 0.11 0.33 0.89 0.33 96.15
T4 34 20 16 22 29 21.75 58.17 0.71 5.67 3.33 4.67 5.77 4.83 4.65 46.33
T5 31 23 15 21 33 23 55.77 0.68 6.20 4.60 5.00 6.20 7.00 5.70 34.23
T6 35 27 10 12 26 18.75 63.94 0.78 5.83 4.50 1.67 2.00 4.33 3.13 63.94
T7 33 20 6 8 9 10.75 79.33 0.97 5.50 3.33 1.00 1.33 1.50 1.79 79.33
T8 31 23 11 15 23 18 65.38 0.80 5.17 3.83 1.83 2.50 3.83 3.00 65.38
T9 32 0 0 0 3 0.75 98.56 1.21 3.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.08 99.04
T10 32 39 49 56 64 52 0.00 0.00 5.33 6.50 8.17 9.33 10.67 8.67 0.00
According to the findings in Table 3, the efficiency of Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG against sedges as mentioned in the above observations in grassy weeds and broad-leaved weeds. The weed density observed after application of herbicide at different time intervals showed that the pre-treatment data showed sedges population varied between 29-35 weeds/sq.m. After the application of herbicide and practicing hand weeding in one plot the weed population recorded at different time intervals showed significant fluctuations among the different treatments. Similarly, percent weed control, weed biomass/dry weight, weed control index has also been calculated and the results have been assessed. At 7, 14, 28 and 35 DAA the observations have been recorded and the weed population was significantly low in the treatments Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (1, 3, 6, 10 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (0, 2, 4, 10 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (0, 1, 3, 8 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa) along with hand weeded plot (0, 0, 0, 3 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa). The weeds population was significantly on the higher side showing moderate effect in all the market standards, ranging between 9-26 weeds/ sq.m at 35 DAA and solo actives recorded the highest weed density as Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha with 29 weeds/sq.m and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha with 33 weeds/sq.m without much fluctuation in the population throughout the time of observations (7DAA to 35DAA) in both the treatments showing the individual efficacy of the actives has been lower than the test combination.
Based on the weed population, percent weed control and Colby's ratio have been calculated. The average weed population has delved that the least number of sedges were recorded in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (5), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (4) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (3) along with hand weeded plot (0.75). Unlike in case of grassy weeds, broad leaved weeds the sedges population has been observed to be least in the three doses of combination while, the opposite was recorded in the same solo actives in the crop and the highest average weed density recorded in the solo actives test with Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha (21.75) and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha (23) and moderate effects were recorded in the market standards i.e., Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC @ 1500 ml/ha with 10.75 weeds/sq.m, Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC @ 437.5ml/ha with 18 weeds/sq.m and Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 18.75 weeds/sq.m at 35 DAA.
The percent weed control upon calculation showed similar outcomes like Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha with 90.38% weed control, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha with 92.31% weed control and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha with 94.23% weed control. Similarly, the remaining treatments recorded 55.77% to 79.33% weed control respectively. Likewise, the Colby ratios calculated showed that the combination of Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG has showed clear signs of synergism when applied at @ 800 g/ha (1.11) and @ 1000 g/ha (1.13) and @ 1200 g/ha (1.16) other than hand weeding which had 98% control. Though the management of sedges is slightly difficult due to its deep-rooted rhizomes in soil, high chances of regrowth is possible their control is higher and effective in majority of the treatments.
The weed biomass or dry weights have been observed to confirm the efficacy of the test items as a combination not only inhibits growth but also reduces the re-growth of sedges by germination of new weeds and this can be concluded by exploring the weed dry weight/biomass of weeds in the different plots. Based on the results, it is known that the weed biomass accumulation has been low in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (1.43), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (1.25) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (0.89) at the end of observations at 35DAA. The average recorded was also showing similar effect with same order and the weed control index was controlled to know the weeds accumulation controlled over untreated plot has been calculated and it showed that Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha 91.76%, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha 94.23% and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha 96.15% was observed while the other treatments recorded far lower WCI ranging between 34.23% to 79.33% in market standards and solo formulations of the combination product. Hence, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG when applied at three different doses (800, 1000, 1200 g/ha) has proved to be a very effective option for weed management showing its high selectivity against weed population.
 
Table 4. Phytotoxicity on Groundnut
Treatments Days Visual Rating Scale
Yellowing Necrosis Wilting Vein
Clearing Leaf tip / Margin Dying Stunting / Dwarfing
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% WDG 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% WDG 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% WDG 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 10.5% EC 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Imazethapyr 10% SL 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Untreated check 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
The phytotoxicity observations taken in groundnut have been presented in Table 4 below. The data observed indicates that the crop has not been negatively affected by the herbicidal treatments. There were no observations of yellowing, wilting, vein clearing, leaf tip or margin drying of the foliage and stems, neither there were any signs of necrosis, stunting or dwarfing of the plants in the groundnut crop.
 
Table 5. Effect on Crop Nutrient uptake and Reproductive Efficiency
TREATMENTS Nutrient uptake
by Crop (kg/ha) Pods /
Plant Kernels /
Plant Straw Yield
(kg/ha) Pod Yield
(kg/ha) Harvest
Index
N P K
T1 71 6.8 53 39 1.99 3500 2890 0.79
T2 74 7 58 42 2.09 3800 3000 0.83
T3 77 7.58 64 45 2.13 4000 3300 0.85
T4 53 3 24 31 1.72 5200 2567 0.49
T5 43 4.5 31 32 1.77 5600 2340 0.42
T6 58 5 41 37 1.79 5500 2900 0.53
T7 62 5.4 45 35 1.81 5523 2789 0.50
T8 66 6.2 48 36 1.85 5612 2898 0.52
T9 61 5.2 40 33 1.78 4876 2889 0.59
T10 28 2.2 19 29 1.6 3442 2025 0.59
The effect of the herbicidal treatments on the usual plant physiological activities like nutrient uptake and the effect of nutrient uptake and metabolism into gaining good yield. Hence, even the yield parameters have been recorded to draw conclusions on checking if the herbicidal treatments are having any phytotonic effects on the crop. The observations in the table 5 indicate that the macro nutrients uptake like Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Potassium by the crop is calculated in kg/ha so the highest nutrient uptake was recorded in the treatments Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (71 kg/ha N, 6.8 kg/ha P and 53 kg/ha K), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (74 kg/ha N, 7 kg/ha P and 58 kg/ha K) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (77 kg/ha N, 7.58 kg/ha P and 64 kg/ha K). This is followed by the market standards i.e., Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC @ 1500 ml/ha with 62 kg/ha N, 5.4 kg/ha P and 45 kg/ha K, Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC @ 437.5ml/ha with 66 kg/ha N, 6.2 kg/ha P and 48 kg/ha K and Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 58 kg/ha N, 5 kg/ha P and 41 kg/ha K) and the least uptake was recorded in the solo treatments i.e., Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha (53 kg/ha N, 3 kg/ha P and 24 kg/ha K) and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha (43 kg/ha N, 4.5 kg/ha P and 31 kg/ha K).
The yield to attain qualitative results, the number of kernels per plant and number of pods per plant were recorded and the highest results were recorded in treatments Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (1.99 kernels/plant, 39 pods/plant), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (2.09 kernels/plant, 42 pods/plant) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (2.13 kernels/plant, 45 pods/plant). The lowest yield parameters were recorded in solo treatments whereas market standards performed better with moderate results. The straw yield and pod yield were recorded and harvest index from that data has been calculated to determine the ratio of grain to total shoot dry matter and as its a measure of reproductive efficiency. Harvest Index is determined by interactions between plant (P), environment (E), and crop management (M) which shows how the increase in the economic portion of the crops is affected by different factors where herbicide treatments fall under Crop Management which plays a pivotal role. The straw yield and pod yield recorded highest in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (3500 kg/ha straw yield and 2900 kg/ha pod yield), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (3800 kg/ha straw yield and 3000 kg/ha pod yield) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (4000 kg/ha straw yield and 3300 kg/ha pod yield). This is followed by the market standards i.e., Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC @ 1500 ml/ha with 5523 kg/ha straw yield and 2789 kg/ha pod yield, Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC @ 437.5ml/ha with 5612 kg/ha straw yield and 2898 kg/ha pod yield and Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 5500 kg/ha straw yield and 2890 kg/ha pod yield and the least uptake was recorded in the solo treatments i.e., Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha (5200 kg/ha straw yield and 2567 kg/ha pod yield) and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha (5600 kg/ha straw yield and 2340 kg/ha pod yield). The harvest index calculated from the straw yield and pod yield was found out to be highest in the treatments Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (0.79), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (0.83) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (0.85) which shows that the plants in these three treatment plots show that the combination has phytotonic effects as the conversion of the environmental factors into qualitative and quantitative produce as the combination is an added factor in it. While the remaining treatments have Harvest Index ranged between 0.42 to 0.67 which is low.
Table 6. Effect on follow-up Crop - Paddy
TREATMENTS % Germination Hill Height No. of Tillers No. of Panicles Yield (t/ha)

T1 96 74.71 19.87 16.11 50.22
T2 96 76.58 20.27 17.97 52.22
T3 97 77.09 21.34 17.48 54.67
T4 94 70.00 19.00 16.81 48.89
T5 90 71.89 17.67 15.92 49.89
T6 83 72.00 18.00 16.72 48.00
T7 85 73.67 19 15 47
T8 87 69 18.56 14 49
T9 90 68 17 13 47
T10 65 65.95 15.00 12.24 46.89
The follow up crop for groundnut is paddy in this study and the residual effect of the herbicidal applications on the succeeding crop proved that it shows no much effect on the succeeding crop as the germination percentage of the crop did not vary much within the treatments as it commonly ranged between 83% to 97% apart from untreated control (65%) while, the highest germination percentage was recorded in the three doses of combination Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG (@ 800 g/ha, @1000 g/ha with 96% and @1200 g/ha with 97%). Whereas, the crop growth also was not effected negatively in any of the treatments as the hill height varied between 69cm/plant to 77.09cm/plant, Number of tillers varied between 17 tillers/hill to 21.34 tillers/hill, number of panicles varied between 14 panicles/plant to 17.48 panicles/plant and this range of different between the best and worst treatment did not vary >15% thereby the effect among the treatments is negligible as the significant difference in paddy is observed when the difference in growth parameters vary higher than 20%. The yield attained from paddy was recorded highest in the three doses of combination Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG (@ 800 g/ha with 50.22 t/ha, @1000 g/ha with 52.22 t/ha and @1200 g/ha with 54.67 t/ha). While the yield in the remaining treatments lies between 47 t/ha to 49.89 t/ha.
B. Soybean
Table 7. Efficacy against Grassy Weeds
Treatment Weed Population % Weed control Colby's Ratio Dry Weight / Biomass of the Weeds WCI
1dbs 7 das 14 das 28 das 35 das Avg 1dbs 7 das 14 das 28 das 35 das Avg
T1 30.45 3 0 3 8 3.5 93.89 1.09 7.08 0.56 0.88 1.00 3.63 1.52 91.40
T2 25.33 0 0 4.45 8.45 3.225 94.37 1.10 6.59 0.00 0.00 0.70 3.19 0.97 94.48
T3 26.99 0 0 3.45 5.45 2.225 96.11 1.12 5.56 0.00 0.00 0.30 2.42 0.68 96.15
T4 26.07 19.22 17.22 20.22 28.22 21.22 62.93 0.73 7.82 6.12 7.78 9.23 10.00 8.28 53.03
T5 26 20.88 18.88 22.88 32.88 23.88 58.29 0.68 7.99 6.74 7.24 9.11 10.74 8.46 52.04
T6 28.44 11.55 21.55 27.55 32.55 23.3 59.30 0.69 8.36 4.20 6.65 8.12 9.34 7.08 59.87
T7 27.34 16.45 21.45 10.45 28.45 19.2 66.46 0.77 8.12 5.42 6.65 3.95 8.36 6.10 65.43
T8 24.66 21 17 17 33 22 61.57 0.72 9.13 8.16 6.86 6.86 12.05 8.48 51.89
T9 33.25 0 0 2 4 1.5 97.38 1.13 5.87 0.00 0.00 0.55 1.99 0.64 96.40
T10 36.45 47.65 53.45 60.45 67.45 57.25 0.00 0.00 11.70 14.85 16.56 18.56 20.56 17.63 0.00
The grassy weeds population in the different treatment plots varied between 24.66-33.25 weeds/sq.m before treatments. At 7, 14, 28 and 35 DAA the observations have been recorded and the weed population was significantly low in the treatments Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (3, 0, 3, 8 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (0, 0, 4.45, 8.45 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (0, 0, 3.45, 5.45 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa) along with hand weeded plot (0, 0, 2, 4 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa). The weeds population was significantly on the higher side at 35DAA as Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha (28.22 weeds/sq.m) and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha (32.88 weeds/sq.m) recorded high weed population without much fluctuation in the population throughout the time of observations (7DAA to 35DAA) in both the treatments showing the individual efficacy of the actives has been lower than the test combination. After observing results in the market standards, though the weed population fluctuated throughout the observation period the weed density by the end of the observations has not reduced in return was recorded high than its pre-treatment weed density i.e., Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC @ 1500 ml/ha with 28.45 weeds/sq.m, Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC @ 437.5ml/ha with 33 weeds/sq.m and Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 32.55 weeds/sq.m at 35 DAA.
Based on the weed population, percent weed control and Colby's ratio have been calculated. In order to conclude on above parameters, the average weed population has delved that the least amount of grassy weeds were recorded in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (3.5), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (3.23) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (2.23) along with hand weeded plot (1.5). The high average weed density recorded in the solo actives test with Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha (21.22) and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha (23.88) and moderate effects were recorded in the market standards i.e., Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC @ 1500 ml/ha with 19.2 weeds/sq.m, Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC @ 437.5ml/ha with 22 weeds/sq.m and Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 23.3 weeds/sq.m at 35 DAA. According to the bio efficacy trend observed with respect to weed density, average weed density the percent weed control has also delved similar outcomes like Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha with 93.89% weed control, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha with 94.37% weed control and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha with 96.11% weed control. Similarly, the remaining treatments recorded 58.29% to 66.46% weed control respectively. Likewise, the Colby ratios calculated showed that the combination of Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG has showed clear signs of synergism when applied at @ 800 g/ha (1.09), @ 1000 g/ha (1.10) and @ 1200 g/ha (1.12) other than hand weeding which had 97% control. The remaining treatments recorded Colby ratio < 1.
Based on the results in Table 7, it is known that the weed biomass accumulation has been low in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (3.63), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (3.19) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (2.42) at the end of observations at 35DAA. The average recorded was also showing similar effect with same order and the weed control index was controlled to know the weeds accumulation controlled over untreated plot has been calculated and it showed that Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (91.40%), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (94.48%) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% +Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (96.15%) was observed while the other treatments recorded far lower WCI ranging between 51.89% to 65.43% in market standards and solo formulations of the combination product. Hence, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG when applied at three different doses (800, 1000, 1200 g/ha) has proved to be very effective against grassy weeds management.
Table 8. Efficacy against Broad Leaved Weeds.
Treatment Weed Population % Weed Control Colby's Ratio Dry Weight / Biomass of the Weeds WCI
1dbs 7 das 14 das 28 das 35 das Avg 1dbs 7 das 14 das 28 das 35 das Avg
T1 50.45 0 3.45 9.45 13.45 6.5875 90.02 1.19 8.85 0.00 0.45 1.00 3.56 1.25 90.04
T2 47.33 0 0 3.45 7.45 2.725 95.87 1.27 7.62 0.00 0.00 0.40 2.62 0.75 94.01
T3 46.99 0 0 3.45 6.45 2.475 96.25 1.28 6.99 0.00 0.00 0.20 2.43 0.66 94.76
T4 46.07 38.35 31.35 34.35 41.35 36.35 44.95 0.60 9.32 7.99 9.82 10.32 13.00 10.28 18.22
T5 45 35.15 26.15 30.15 34.15 31.4 52.45 0.70 10.59 8.59 9.79 10.59 12.00 10.24 18.54
T6 48.44 26.25 17.25 21.25 19.25 21 68.20 0.91 9.66 5.99 6.99 8.00 9.00 7.50 40.39
T7 52.34 23.27 9.27 6.27 11.27 12.52 81.04 1.08 10.32 5.49 3.16 2.66 3.49 3.70 70.59
T8 50.66 25.37 5.37 6.37 14.37 12.87 80.51 1.07 9.99 5.82 2.49 2.66 3.99 3.74 70.25
T9 49.25 0 0 3.45 5 2.1125 96.80 1.28 7.21 0.00 0.00 2.10 2.21 1.08 91.42
T10 51.45 58.78 62.45 69.45 73.45 66.0325 0.00 0.00 10.16 11.32 11.99 13.16 13.82 12.57 0.00

According to the findings in Table 8, the efficiency of Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG against Broad leaved weeds has been represented. The weed density observed after application of herbicide at different time intervals showed that the pre-treatment data showed broadleaved weed population varied between 45-52.34 weeds/sq.m. After the application of herbicide the observations at 7, 14, 28 and 35 DAA have been recorded and the weed population was significantly low in the treatments Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (0, 3.45, 4.45, 13.45 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (0, 0, 3.45, 7.45 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (0, 0, 3.45, 6.45 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa) along with hand weeded plot (0, 0, 3.45, 5 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa). The weeds population was significantly on the higher side in the market standards, as Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 19.25 weeds/ sq.m at 35 DAA and solo actives recorded the highest weed density as Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha with 41.35 weeds/sq.m and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha with 34.15 weeds/sq.m without much fluctuation in the population throughout the time of observations (7DAA to 35DAA) in both the treatments showing the individual efficacy of the actives has been lower than the test combination.
Based on the weed population, percent weed control and Colby's ratio have been calculated. In order to conclude on above parameters, the average weed population has delved that the least amount of broad leaved weeds were recorded in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (5.34), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (2.73) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (2.48) along with hand weeded plot (2.11). The highest average weed density recorded in the solo actives test with Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha (36.35) and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha (31.4) and moderate effects were recorded in the market standards i.e., Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC @ 1500 ml/ha with 12.52 weeds/sq.m, Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC @ 437.5ml/ha with 12.87 weeds/sq.m and Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 21 weeds/sq.m at 35 DAA.
According to the bio efficacy trend observed with respect to weed density, average weed density the percent weed control has also delved similar outcomes like Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha with 91.12% weed control, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha with 95.87% weed control and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha with 96.25% weed control. Similarly, the remaining treatments recorded 44.95% to 81.04% weed control respectively. Likewise, the Colby ratios calculated showed that the combination of Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG has showed clear signs of synergism when applied at @ 800 g/ha (1.22) and @ 1000 g/ha (1.27) and @ 1200 g/ha (1.28) other than hand weeding which had 96% control. Though the broad-leaved weeds incidence is higher in the crop compared to grassy weeds their control is higher and effective in most of the treatments.
The weed biomass accumulation has been low in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (3.56), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (2.62) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (2.43) at the end of observations at 35DAA. The average recorded was also showing similar effect with same order and the weed control index was controlled to know the weeds accumulation controlled over untreated plot has been calculated and it showed that Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (90.04%), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (94.01%) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (94.76%) was observed while the other treatments recorded far lower WCI ranging between 18.22% to 70.59% in market standards and solo formulations of the combination product. Hence, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG when applied at three different doses (800, 1000, 1200 g/ha) has proved to be highly effective option for weed management showing its high selectivity against weed population.
 
Table 9. Efficacy against Sedges.
Treatments Weed Population % Weed Control Colby's Ratio Dry Weight / Biomass of the Weeds WCI
1dbs 7 das 14 das 28 das 35 das Avg 1dbs 7 das 14 das 28 das 35 das Avg
T1 33.45 5 2 3 6.22 4.055 92.50 1.14 6.42 1.02 1.54 1.77 1.89 1.56 85.41
T2 32.33 0 3.45 6.45 9 4.725 91.27 1.12 5.74 0.00 0.51 1.00 2.44 0.99 90.73
T3 30.99 0 2.45 5.45 10 4.475 91.73 1.13 5.21 0.00 0.33 0.50 2.88 0.93 91.30
T4 36.07 22.33 18.33 24.33 31.33 24.08 55.49 0.68 7.66 5.32 6.50 7.76 9.23 7.20 32.41
T5 33 25.15 17.15 23.15 35.15 25.15 53.51 0.66 8.19 6.59 7.45 8.19 8.99 7.81 26.76
T6 37.44 29.64 12.64 14.64 28.64 21.39 60.46 0.74 7.82 6.49 8.00 8.99 9.32 8.20 23.05
T7 35.34 22.56 8.56 10.56 11.56 13.31 75.40 0.93 7.49 5.32 2.99 3.32 3.49 3.78 64.51
T8 33.66 25.41 13.41 17.41 25.41 20.41 62.27 0.76 7.16 5.82 3.82 4.49 5.82 4.99 53.17
T9 34.25 0 0 2 6 2 96.30 1.18 5.55 0.00 0.00 1.99 2.32 1.08 89.88
T10 34.45 41.05 50.45 58.45 66.45 54.1 0.00 0.00 7.32 8.49 10.16 11.32 12.66 10.66 0.00
According to the findings in Table 9, the efficiency of Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG against sedges as mentioned in the above observations in grassy weeds and broad-leaved weeds. The weed density observed after application of herbicide at different time intervals showed that the pre-treatment data showed sedges population varied between 30.99-37.44 weeds/sq.m. After the application of herbicide at 7, 14, 28 and 35 DAA the observations have been recorded and the weed population was significantly low in the treatments Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (5, 2, 3, 6.22 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (0, 3.45, 6.45, 9 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (0, 2.45, 5.45, 10 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa) along with hand weeded plot (0, 0, 2, 6 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa). The weeds population was significantly on the higher in all the market standards, ranging between 11.56-28.64 weeds/ sq.m at 35 DAA and solo actives recorded the highest weed density as Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha with 31.33 weeds/sq.m and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha with 35.15 weeds/sq.m without much fluctuation in the population throughout the time of observations (7DAA to 35DAA).
Based on the weed population, percent weed control and Colby's ratio have been calculated. The average weed population has delved that the least number of sedges were recorded in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (4.05), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (4.73) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (4.47) along with hand weeded plot (2). The highest average weed density recorded in the solo actives test with Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha (24.08) and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha (25.15) and moderate effects were recorded in the market standards i.e., Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC @ 1500 ml/ha with 13.31 weeds/sq.m, Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC @ 437.5ml/ha with 20.41 weeds/sq.m and Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 21.39 weeds/sq.m at 35 DAA.
The percent weed control upon calculation showed similar outcomes like Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha with 92.50% weed control, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha with 91.27% weed control and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha with 91.73% weed control. Similarly, the remaining treatments recorded 53.51% to 75.40% weed control respectively. Likewise, the Colby ratios calculated showed that the combination of Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG has showed clear signs of synergism when applied at @ 800 g/ha (1.14) and @ 1000 g/ha (1.12) and @ 1200 g/ha (1.13) other than hand weeding which had 96% control. Though the management of sedges is slightly difficult due to its deep-rooted rhizomes in soil, high chances of regrowth is possible their control is higher and effective in majority of the treatments. The weed biomass or dry weights has been low in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (1.89), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (2.44) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (2.88) at the end of observations at 35DAA. The average recorded was also showing similar effect with same order and the weed control index was controlled to know the weeds accumulation controlled over untreated plot has been calculated and it showed that Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (85.41%), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (90.73%) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (91.30%) was observed while the other treatments recorded far lower WCI ranging between 23.05% to 64.51% in market standards and solo formulations of the combination product.
Table 10. Phytotoxicity on Soybean
Treatments Days Visual Rating Scale
Yellowing Necrosis Wilting Vein
Clearing Leaf Tip / Margin Dying Stunting / Dwarfing
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% WDG 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% WDG 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% WDG 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 10.5% EC 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Imazethapyr 10% SL 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propaquizafop 2.5%+Imazethapyr 3.75% ME 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Quizalofop ethyl 7.5%+Imazethapyr 15% EC 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Untreated check 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0

The phytotoxicity observations taken in groundnut have been presented in Table 10. The data observed indicates that the crop has not been negatively affected by herbicidal treatments. There were no observations of yellowing, wilting, vein clearing, leaf tip or margin drying of the foliage and stems, nor were there any signs of necrosis, stunting or dwarfing of the plants in the soybean crop.
 
Table 11. Effect on Crop Nutrient uptake and Reproductive Efficiency
TREATMENTS Nutrient uptake
By Crop (kg/ha) Pods /
Plant Straw
Yield
(kg/ha) Pod
Yield
(kg/ha) Harvest
Index
N P K
T1 72.45 8.25 54.45 42 1987.00 1403.00 0.71
T2 75.56 8.56 59.56 45 2213.00 1607.00 0.73
T3 78.68 9.26 65.68 48 2567.00 1921.00 0.75
T4 55 4.45 25.45 34 1800.00 987.00 0.55
T5 45 6.06 32.56 35 1928.00 1024.00 0.53
T6 61 6.68 42.68 40 2109.00 1198.00 0.57
T7 64 5.4 43 38 2180.00 1277.00 0.59
T8 67.66 7.86 49.66 39 2266.00 1300.00 0.57
T9 71.13 9.03 52.13 41 2347.00 1622.00 0.69
T10 29.05 3.25 20.05 32 1600.00 900.00 0.56
The effect of the herbicidal treatments on nutrient uptake of crop based on the observations in the table 11 indicate that the treatments Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (72.45 kg/ha N, 8.25 kg/ha P and 54.45 kg/ha K), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (75.56 kg/ha N, 8.56 kg/ha P and 59.56 kg/ha K) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (78.68 kg/ha N, 9.26 kg/ha P and 65.68 kg/ha K). This is followed by the market standards i.e., Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC @ 1500 ml/ha with 64 kg/ha N, 5.4 kg/ha P and 43 kg/ha K, Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC @ 437.5ml/ha with 67.66 kg/ha N, 7.86 kg/ha P and 49.66 kg/ha K and Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 61 kg/ha N, 6.68 kg/ha P and 42.68 kg/ha K) and the least uptake was recorded in the solo treatments i.e., Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha (55 kg/ha N, 4.45 kg/ha P and 25.45 kg/ha K) and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha (45 kg/ha N, 6.06 kg/ha P and 32.56 kg/ha K).
The yield to attain qualitative results, the number of pods per plant were recorded and the highest results were recorded in treatments Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (42 pods/plant), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (45 pods/plant) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (48 pods/plant). The lowest yield parameters were recorded in solo treatments whereas market standards performed better with moderate results. The straw yield and pod yield were recorded and harvest index. The straw yield and pod yield recorded highest in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (1987 kg/ha straw yield and 1403 kg/ha pod yield), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (2213 kg/ha straw yield and 1607 kg/ha pod yield) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (2567 kg/ha straw yield and 1921 kg/ha pod yield). This is followed by the market standards i.e., Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC @ 1500 ml/ha with 2180 kg/ha straw yield and 1277 kg/ha pod yield, Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC @ 437.5ml/ha with 2266 kg/ha straw yield and 1300 kg/ha pod yield and Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 2109 kg/ha straw yield and 1198 kg/ha pod yield and the least uptake was recorded in the solo treatments i.e., Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha (1800 kg/ha straw yield and 987 kg/ha pod yield) and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha (1928 kg/ha straw yield and 1024 kg/ha pod yield). The harvest index calculated from the straw yield and pod yield was found out to be highest in the treatments Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (0.71), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (0.73) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (0.75) which shows that the plants in these three treatment plots show that the combination has phytotonic effects as the conversion of the environmental factors into qualitative and quantitative produce as the combination is an added factor in it. While the remaining treatments have Harvest Index ranged between 0.53 to 0.69 which is low.
 
Table 12. Effect on follow-up Crop - Chickpea
TREATMENTS Yield
(t/ha) No of Pods POD
WT %
Germination Protein
Content

T1 76 213 2.5 98 17.98
T2 78 218 2.5 99 18.78
T3 74 226 2.8 98 19
T4 73 224 2.2 94 17
T5 70 225 2.3 88 15
T6 56 195 2.2 81 14.89
T7 65 216 2 78 15
T8 63 185 1.8 75 13
T9 69 200 1.7 72 14
T10 45 142 1.3 64 11
The follow up crop for soybean is chickpea in this study and the residual effect of the herbicidal applications on the succeeding crop proved that it shows no much effect on the succeeding crop as the germination percentage of the crop did not vary much within the treatments as it commonly ranged between 72% to 99% apart from untreated control (64%) while, the highest germination percentage was recorded in the three doses of combination Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG (@ 800 g/ha, @1200 g/ha with 98% and @1000 g/ha with 99%). Whereas the yield parameters recorded showed that the number of pods ranged to be higher than 200 between 213 to 226 pods/plant and pod weight ranging from 2.5-2.8g from the three doses of Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG three doses (800, 1000 and 1200 g/ha) on chickpea and the yield also recorded highest in the three doses of combination Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG (@ 800 g/ha with 76 t/ha with an average protein content of 17.98%, @1000 g/ha with 78 t/ha with an average protein content of 18.78% and @1200 g/ha with 80 t/ha with an average protein content of 19%,). While the yield in the remaining treatments lies between 56 t/ha to 73 t/ha and protein content varied between 17% - 18% (table 12).
 
C. Black Gram.
Table 13. Efficacy against Grassy Weeds
Treatments Weed Population %
Weed Control Colby's Ratio Dry Weight / Biomass of the Weeds WCI
1dbs 7 das 14 das 28 das 35 das Avg 1dbs 7 das 14 das 28 das 35 das Avg
T1 32.11 4.66 0 4.66 9.66 4.745 91.95 1.07 9.75 3.23 3.55 3.67 6.30 4.19 92.35
T2 26.99 1.66 0 2 10.11 3.4425 94.16 1.09 9.26 0.00 0.00 3.37 5.86 2.31 95.79
T3 28.65 1.66 0 1 7.11 2.4425 95.85 1.11 8.23 0.00 0.00 2.97 5.09 2.01 96.32
T4 27.73 20.88 18.88 21.88 29.88 22.88 61.16 0.71 10.49 8.79 10.45 11.90 12.67 10.95 80.00
T5 27.66 22.54 20.54 24.54 34.54 25.54 56.65 0.66 10.66 9.41 9.91 11.78 13.41 11.13 79.68
T6 30.1 13.21 23.21 29.21 34.21 24.96 57.63 0.67 11.03 6.87 9.32 10.79 12.01 9.75 82.20
T7 29 18.11 23.11 12.11 30.11 20.86 64.59 0.75 10.79 8.09 9.32 6.62 11.03 8.77 83.99
T8 26.32 22.66 18.66 18.66 34.66 23.66 59.84 0.70 11.80 10.83 9.53 9.53 14.72 11.15 79.63
T9 34.91 1.66 0 4 3.66 2.33 96.04 1.12 8.54 0.00 0.00 3.22 4.66 1.97 96.40
T10 38.11 49.31 55.11 62.11 69.11 58.91 0.00 14.37 17.52 19.23 21.23 23.23 20.30 62.92
The grassy weed population from Table 13, in the different treatment plots varied between 26.33-34.91 weeds/sq.m before treatments. After the application of herbicide at 7, 14, 28 and 35 DAA the observations have been recorded and the weed population was significantly low in the treatments Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (4.66, 0, 4.66, 9.66 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (1.66, 0, 2, 10.11 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (1.66, 0, 1, 7.11 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa) along with hand weeded plot (1.66, 0, 4, 3.66 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa). The weeds population was significantly on the higher side in the remaining treatments, as Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha recorded high weed population ranging between 18.88-34.54 weeds/sq.m (7DAA to 35DAA) in both the treatments showing the individual efficacy of the actives has been lower than the test combination. After observing results in the market standards, the weed density by the end of the observations has not reduced in return was recorded higher than its pretreatment weed density i.e., Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC @ 1500 ml/ha with 30.11 weeds/sq.m, Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC @ 437.5ml/ha with 34.66 weeds/sq.m and Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 34.21 weeds/sq.m at 35 DAA.
Based on the weed population, percent weed control and Colby's ratio have been calculated. In order to conclude on above parameters, the average weed population has delved that the least amount of grassy weeds were recorded in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (4.75), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (3.44) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (2.44) along with hand weeded plot (2.33). The highest average weed density recorded in the solo actives test with Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha (25.54) and moderate effects were recorded in the market standards i.e., Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC @ 1500 ml/ha with 20.86 weeds/sq.m, Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC @ 437.5ml/ha with 23.66 weeds/sq.m and Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 24.96 weeds/sq.m at 35 DAA. The percent weed control has also delved similar outcomes like Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha with 91.95% weed control, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha with 94.16% weed control and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha with 95.85% weed control. Similarly, the remaining treatments recorded 56.65% to 64.59% weed control respectively. Likewise, the Colby ratios calculated showed that the combination of Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG has showed clear signs of synergism when applied at @ 800 g/ha (1.07), @ 1000 g/ha (1.09) and @ 1200 g/ha (1.11) other than hand weeding which had 96.04% control. The remaining treatments recorded Colby ratio < 1.
The weed biomass accumulation has been low in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (6.30), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (5.86) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (5.09) at the end of observations at 35DAA. The average recorded was also showing similar effect with same order and the weed control index was controlled to know the weeds accumulation controlled over untreated plot has been calculated and it showed that Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha 92.35%, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha 95.79% and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha 96.32% was observed while the other treatments recorded far lower WCI ranging between 79.63% to 83.99% in market standards and solo formulations of the combination product.
Table 14. Efficacy against broad leaved weeds.
Treatment Weed Population % Weed Control Colby's Ratio Dry Weight / Biomass of the Weeds WCI
1dbs 7 das 14 das 28 das 35 das Avg 1dbs 7 das 14 das 28 das 35 das Avg
T1 52.11 0 5.11 4 15.11 6.06 91.06 1.21 11.52 2.67 3.12 3.67 6.23 3.92 93.82
T2 48.99 0 0 1 9.11 2.53 96.27 1.28 10.29 0.00 0.00 3.07 5.29 2.09 96.71
T3 48.65 0 0 1 8.11 2.28 96.64 1.28 9.66 0.00 0.00 2.87 5.10 1.99 96.86
T4 47.73 40.01 33.01 36.01 43.01 38.01 43.85 0.58 11.99 10.66 12.49 12.99 15.67 12.95 79.60
T5 46.66 36.81 27.81 31.81 35.81 33.06 51.16 0.68 13.26 11.26 12.46 13.26 14.67 12.91 79.67
T6 50.1 27.91 18.91 22.91 20.91 22.66 66.53 0.88 12.33 8.66 9.66 10.67 11.67 10.17 83.99
T7 54 24.93 10.93 7.93 12.93 14.18 79.05 1.05 12.99 8.16 5.83 5.33 6.16 6.37 89.97
T8 52.32 27.03 7.03 8.03 16.03 14.53 78.54 1.04 12.66 8.49 5.16 5.33 6.66 6.41 89.91
T9 50.91 0 0 5.11 6.66 2.94 95.65 1.27 9.88 0.00 0.00 4.77 4.88 2.41 96.20
T10 53.11 60.44 64.11 71.11 75.11 67.69 0.00 12.83 13.99 14.66 15.83 16.49 15.24 75.99
According to the findings in Table 14, the efficiency of Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG against Broad leaved weeds after the application of herbicide and practicing hand weeding in one plot the weed population recorded at 7, 14, 28 and 35 DAA were significantly low in the treatments Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (0, 5.11, 4, 10.11 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (0, 0, 1, 9.11 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (0, 0, 1, 8.11 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa) along with hand weeded plot (0, 0, 5.11, 6.66 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa). The weeds population was significantly on the higher side showing moderate effect in the market standards, as Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 20.91 weeds/ sq.m at 35 DAA and solo actives recorded the highest weed density as Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha with 43.01 weeds/sq.m and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha with 35.81 weeds/sq.m without much fluctuation in the population throughout the time of observations (7DAA to 35DAA) in both the treatments showing the individual efficacy of the actives has been lower than the test combination.
Based on the weed population, percent weed control and Colby's ratio have been calculated. The average weed population of broad-leaved weeds were recorded to be lowest in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (6.06), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (2.53) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (2.28) along with hand weeded plot (2.94). The highest average weed density recorded in the solo actives test with Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha (38.01) and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha (33.06) and moderate effects were recorded in the market standards i.e., Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC @ 1500 ml/ha with 14.18 weeds/sq.m, Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC @ 437.5ml/ha with 14.53 weeds/sq.m and Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 22.66 weeds/sq.m at 35 DAA.
The average weed density the percent weed control has also delved similar outcomes like Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha with 91.06% weed control, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha with 96.27% weed control and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha with 96.64% weed control. Similarly, the remaining treatments recorded 43.85% to 79.05% weed control respectively. Likewise, the Colby ratios calculated showed that the combination of Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG has showed clear signs of synergism when applied at @ 1200 g/ha and @ 1000 g/ha (1.28) and @ 800 g/ha (1.21) other than hand weeding which had 95% control. Though the broad-leaved weeds incidence is higher in the crop compared to grassy weeds their control is higher and effective in most of the treatments.
The weed dry weight/biomass of weeds in the different plots based on the results, it is known that the weed biomass accumulation has been low in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (6.23), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (5.29) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (5.10) at the end of observations at 35DAA. The average recorded was also showing similar effect with same order and the weed control index was controlled to know the weeds accumulation controlled over untreated plot has been calculated and it showed that Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha 93.82%, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha 96.71% and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha 96.86% was observed while the other treatments recorded far lower WCI ranging between 79.60% to 89.91% in market standards and solo formulations of the combination product.
Table 15. Efficacy against Sedges.
Treatments Weed Population %
Weed
Control Colby's
Ratio Dry Weight / Biomass of the Weeds WCI
1dbs 7 das 14 das 28 das 35 das Avg 1dbs 7 das 14 das 28 das 35 das Avg
T1 35.11 3 5 6 7.88 5.47 90.19 1.11 9.09 3.69 4.21 4.44 4.56 4.23 91.88
T2 33.99 0 1.11 8.11 10.66 4.97 91.09 1.12 8.41 0.00 3.18 3.67 5.11 2.99 94.25
T3 32.65 0 0.98 7.11 11.66 4.9375 91.15 1.12 7.88 0.00 3.00 3.17 5.55 2.93 94.37
T4 37.73 23.99 19.99 25.99 32.99 25.74 53.84 0.66 10.33 7.99 9.17 10.43 11.90 9.87 81.01
T5 34.66 26.81 18.81 24.81 36.81 26.81 51.92 0.64 10.86 9.26 10.12 10.86 11.66 10.48 79.86
T6 39.1 31.3 14.3 16.3 30.3 23.05 58.66 0.72 10.49 9.16 10.67 11.66 11.99 10.87 79.10
T7 37 24.22 10.22 12.22 13.22 14.97 73.15 0.90 10.16 7.99 5.66 5.99 6.16 6.45 87.59
T8 35.32 27.07 15.07 19.07 27.07 22.07 60.42 0.74 9.83 8.49 6.49 7.16 8.49 7.66 85.27
T9 35.91 0 0 3.66 7.66 2.83 94.92 1.16 8.22 0.00 0.00 4.66 4.99 2.41 95.36
T10 36.11 42.71 52.11 60.11 68.11 55.76 0.00 9.99 11.16 12.83 13.99 15.33 13.33 74.37
According to the findings in Table 15, the efficiency of Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG against sedges and the weed density observed after application of herbicide at different time intervals showed that the pre-treatment data showed sedges population varied between 32.65-39.31 weeds/sq.m. After the application of herbicide at 7, 14, 28 and 35 DAA the observations have been recorded and showed significantly low in the treatments Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (3, 5, 6, 7.88 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (0, 1.11, 8.11, 10.66 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (0, 0.98, 7.11, 11.66 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa) along with hand weeded plot (0, 0, 3.66, 7.66 weeds/sq.m at 7 daa, 14 daa, 28 daa and 35 daa). The weeds population was significantly on the higher side in all the market standards, ranging between 13.22-30.3 weeds/ sq.m at 35 DAA and solo actives recorded the highest weed density as Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha with 32.99 weeds/sq.m and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha with 36.81 weeds/sq.m without much fluctuation in the population throughout the time of observations (7DAA to 35DAA) in both the treatments showing the individual efficacy of the actives has been lower than the test combination.
Based on the weed population, percent weed control and Colby's ratio have been calculated. The average weed population has delved that the least number of sedges were recorded in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (5.47), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (4.97) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (4.94) along with hand weeded plot (2.83). The highest average weed density recorded in the solo actives test with Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha (25.74) and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha (26.81) and moderate effects were recorded in the market standards i.e., Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC @ 1500 ml/ha with 14.97 weeds/sq.m, Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC @ 437.5ml/ha with 22.07 weeds/sq.m and Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 23.05 weeds/sq.m at 35 DAA.
The percent weed control upon calculation showed similar outcomes like Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha with 90.19% weed control, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha with 91.09% weed control and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha with 91.15% weed control. Similarly, the remaining treatments recorded 51.92% to 73.15% weed control respectively. Likewise, the Colby ratios calculated showed that the combination of Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG has showed clear signs of synergism when applied at @ 800 g/ha (1.11), @ 1000 g/ha and @ 1200 g/ha (1.12) other than hand weeding which had 95% control.
The weed biomass based on the results, it is known that the weed biomass accumulation has been low in Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (4.23), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (2.99) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (2.93) at the end of observations at 35DAA. The average recorded was also showing similar effect with same order and the weed control index was controlled to know the weeds accumulation controlled over untreated plot has been calculated and it showed that Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha 91.88%, Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha 94.25% and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha 94.37% was observed while the other treatments recorded far lower WCI ranging between 79.10% to 85.27% in market standards and solo formulations of the combination product.
Table 16. Phytotoxicity on Black Gram:
Treatments Days Visual Rating Scale
Yellowing Necrosis Wilting Vein
Clearing Leaf Tip /
MarginDying Stunting / Dwarfing
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% WDG 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% WDG 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% WDG 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 10.5% EC 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Imazethapyr 10% SL 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
Untreated check 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0
The phytotoxicity observations taken in black gram have been presented in Table 16. The data observed indicates that the crop has not been negatively affected by herbicidal treatments. There were no observations of yellowing, wilting, vein clearing, leaf tip or margin drying of the foliage and stems, neither there were any signs of necrosis, stunting or dwarfing of the plants in the black gram crop.
Table 17. Effect on Crop Nutrient Uptake and Reproductive Efficiency
TREATMENTS Nutrient Uptake by Crop (kg/ha) Pods / Plant Straw
Yield (kg/ha) Pod
Yield (kg/ha) Harvest Index
N P K
T1 74.13 9.93 56.13 33 1065 947 0.89
T2 77.24 10.24 61.24 36 1178 1003 0.85
T3 80.36 10.94 67.36 39 1300 1120 0.86
T4 56.68 6.13 27.13 25 1900 780 0.41
T5 46.68 7.74 34.24 26 1897 835 0.44
T6 62.68 8.36 44.36 31 1765 889 0.50
T7 65.68 7.08 44.68 29 1678 904 0.54
T8 69.34 9.54 51.34 30 1400 923 0.66
T9 72.81 10.71 53.81 32 1456 978 0.67
T10 30.73 4.93 21.73 23 2200 690 0.31

The observations in the table 17 indicate that the macro nutrients uptake like Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Potassium by the crop is calculated in kg/ha so the highest nutrient uptake was recorded in the treatments Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (74.13 kg/ha N, 9.93 kg/ha P and 56.13 kg/ha K), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (77.24 kg/ha N, 10.24 kg/ha P and 61.24 kg/ha K) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (80.36 kg/ha N, 10.94 kg/ha P and 67.36 kg/ha K). This is followed by the market standards i.e., Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC @ 1500 ml/ha with 65.68 kg/ha N, 7.08 kg/ha P and 44.68 kg/ha K, Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC @ 437.5ml/ha with 69.34 kg/ha N, 9.54 kg/ha P and 51.34 kg/ha K and Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 62.68 kg/ha N, 8.36 kg/ha P and 44.36 kg/ha K) and the least uptake was recorded in the solo treatments i.e., Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha (55.68 kg/ha N, 6.13 kg/ha P and 27.13 kg/ha K) and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha (46.68 kg/ha N, 7.74 kg/ha P and 34.24 kg/ha K).
The yield to attain qualitative results, the number of pods per plant were recorded and the highest results were recorded in treatments Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (33 pods/plant), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (36 pods/plant) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (39 pods/plant). The lowest yield parameters were recorded in solo treatments whereas market standards performed better with moderate results. The straw yield and pod yield were recorded and harvest index from that data has been calculated and the best treatments were Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (1065 kg/ha straw yield and 947 kg/ha pod yield), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (1178 kg/ha straw yield and 1003 kg/ha pod yield) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (1300 kg/ha straw yield and 1120 kg/ha pod yield). This is followed by the market standards i.e., Fomesafen 12% + Quizalofop ethyl 3% SC @ 1500 ml/ha with 1678 kg/ha straw yield and 904 kg/ha pod yield, Quizalofop ethyl 7.5% + Imazethapyr 15% EC @ 437.5ml/ha with 1400 kg/ha straw yield and 923 kg/ha pod yield and Propaquizafop 2.5% + Imazethapyr 3.75% ME @ 2000 ml/ha with 1765 kg/ha straw yield and 889 kg/ha pod yield and the least uptake was recorded in the solo treatments i.e., Haloxyfop R Methyl 10.5% EC @ 1200 ml/ha (1900 kg/ha straw yield and 780 kg/ha pod yield) and Imazethapyr 10% SL @ 1000 ml/ha (1897 kg/ha straw yield and 835 kg/ha pod yield). The harvest index calculated from the straw yield and pod yield was found out to be highest in the treatments Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 800 g/ha (0.89), Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1000 g/ha (0.85) and Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG @ 1200 g/ha (0.86) which shows that the plants in these three treatment plots show that the combination has phytotonic effects as the conversion of the environmental factors into qualitative and quantitative produce as the combination is an added factor in it. While the remaining treatments have Harvest Index ranged between 0.41 to 0.67 which is low.
 
Table 18. Effect on follow-up crop - Paddy
TREATMENTS %
Germination Hill
Height No. of
Tillers No. of
Panicles Yield
(t/ha)

T1 95 76.07 21.64 17.56 48.40
T2 95 77.94 22.04 19.42 50.40
T3 96 78.45 23.11 18.93 52.85
T4 93 71.36 20.77 18.26 49.66
T5 89 73.25 19.44 17.37 48.07
T6 82 73.36 19.77 18.17 46.22
T7 84 75.03 20.77 16.67 45.34
T8 86 70.36 20.33 15.45 47.45
T9 89 69.36 18.77 14.77 46
T10 64 67.31 16.77 13.69 45.07
The follow up crop for black gram is paddy in this study and the residual effect of the herbicidal applications on the succeeding crop proved that it shows no much effect on the succeeding crop as the germination percentage of the crop did not vary much within the treatments as it commonly ranged between 82% to 96% apart from untreated control (64%) while, the highest germination percentage was recorded in the three doses of combination Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG (@ 800 g/ha, @1000 g/ha with 95% and @1200 g/ha with 96%). Whereas, the crop growth also was not effected negatively in any of the treatments as the hill height varied between 69.36cm/plant to 78.45cm/plant, Number of tillers varied between 19.44 tillers/hill to 23.11 tillers/hill, number of panicles varied between 15.45 panicles/plant to 19.42 panicles/plant and this range of different between the best and worst treatment did not vary much as the significant difference in paddy is not observed. The yield attained from paddy was recorded highest in the three doses of combination Haloxyfop R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9.5% WDG (@ 800 g/ha with 48.40 t/ha, @1000 g/ha with 50.40 t/ha and @1200 g/ha with 52.85 t/ha). While the yield in the remaining treatments lies between 45.34 t/ha to 49.66 t/ha.
 
Table 19. Effect of different Formulations on Weed Control and Synergy
TREATMENTS %
Weed Control Colby's Ratio

Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% WDG @ 800g/ha 91.40 1.41
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% WDG @ 1000g/ha 96.35 1.3
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% WDG @ 1200g/ha 98.17 1.24
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% EC @ 900g/ha 73 0.83
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% SC @ 1050g/ha 86 0.94
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% ME @ 980g/ha 85 0.92
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% SL @ 950g/ha 75 0.86
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 10.5% + Imazethapyr 10% (Tank mix) @ 1100g/ha 80 0.90
Untreated Control 64 0.72
As per the non-replicated experiment conducted in groundnut with different formulation types of the combination Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9%, the working effective, stable doses were testing against various weeds in the crop. The results indicate that the efficiency of the combination, Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% in the WDG formulation has been identified to be
highly effective in controlling weeds as the percentage weed controlled varied between 91.32% to 98.17% and a Colby ratio of 1.24 to 1.41 which are clear signs that the combination in WDG formulation is controlling weed population with identified synergy. While, the remaining formulations of EC, SC, ME, SL may have controlled the weed population but not in a highly significant level and there has been no signs of identified synergy (Table 19).

Table 20. Evaluation of different Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% Formulations Against Safety towards Different Crops.
Treatments Days Groundnut Soybean Maize Sugarcane
Yellowing Necrosis Yellowing Necrosis Yellowing Necrosis Yellowing Necrosis
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% WDG @ 800g/ha 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% WDG @ 1000g/ha 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% WDG @ 1200g/ha 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% EC @ 900g/ha 5 3 2 0 0 3 3 2 2
10 4 3 2 3 4 3 3 2
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% SC @ 1050g/ha 5 2 1 1 2 3 2 3 2
10 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% ME @ 980g/ha 5 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
10 2 3 3 4 4 3 4 3
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% SL @ 950g/ha 5 3 2 3 4 4 3 4 3
10 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3
Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 10.5% + Imazethapyr 10% (Tank mix) @ 1100g/ha 5 4 2 4 4 4 3 4 3
10 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3
Untreated Control 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
The combination Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% with different formulation recipes was evaluated for their safety towards four crops in non-replicated experiment where the crops chosen for the study were groundnut, soybean which were the crops on which the combination was meant to be recommended. The other two crops, maize and sugarcane were chose due to the high specificity of Haloxyfop and Imazethapyr towards grassy weeds which are monocots so in order to check their toxicity over monocot crops like maize and sugarcane were chosen. The choice of maize was due to the reason that the plant is sensitive to any kind of stress, chemical or cultural application so the degree of response of maize and comparison with tank mix of the combination as treatment check. The plants were observed for yellowing of foliage, stunting of plants and observed for any visible recovery. The results in the Table 20 showed that Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% applied as WDG was observed to be safe in groundnut, soybean and sugarcane while in maize slight phytotoxicity was observed the affected foliage tend to recover from the damage within 5 days duration only in the highest dose (Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% WDG @ 1200g/ha) there was no recovery but very slight signs of phytotoxicity was recorded. Whereas, in case of other formulations of Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9% and tank mix of the market available Haloxyfop-R-Methyl and Imazethapyr showed that the highest phytotoxicity was recorded in the tank mix application of Haloxyfop and Imazethapyr as time passed the symptoms developed higher signs of phytotoxicity indicating that the direct tank mix application of Haloxyfop and Imazethapyr cannot be recommended even as farmer practice. While among the remaining formulation of Haloxyfop-R-Methyl 11.5% + Imazethapyr 9%, only SL, ME, EC formulations were on the higher side of phytotoxicity in all the four crops with similar trend in appearance of phytotoxicity symptoms and the SC formulation has been showing signs of phytotoxicity in all the crops but were observed to be moderate.
It is to be understood that this disclosure is not limited to a particular compositions or specific constituents, which can, of course, vary and that the terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting the scope of the invention. As used in this specification and the appended claims, the singular forms "a," "an," and "the" include plural referents unless the content clearly dictates otherwise, and equivalents thereof known to those skilled in the art and so forth.
Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by those skilled in the art to which this disclosure pertains. Although any methods and materials similar or equivalent to those described herein can be used in the practice for testing of the disclosure(s), specific examples of appropriate materials and methods are described herein. The examples set forth above are provided to give those of ordinarily skilled in the art a complete description of how to make and use the embodiments of the compositions or specific constituents, methods of practice, and are not intended to limit the scope of what the inventors regard as their invention. Modifications of the above-described modes for carrying out the invention that is obvious to persons skilled in the art are intended to be within the scope of the following claims. All patents and publications mentioned in the specification are indicative of the levels of skill of those skilled in the art to which the disclosure pertains.
While specific embodiments of the present invention are explicitly disclosed herein, the above specification and examples herein are illustrative and not restrictive. It will be understood that various modifications may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Many variations of the disclosure will become apparent to those skilled in the art upon review of this specification and the embodiments below. The full scope of the invention should be determined by reference to the embodiments, along with their full scope of equivalents and the specification, along with such variations. Accordingly, other embodiments are within the scope of the following claims. , Claims:CLAIMS:
We Claim:
1. A synergistic herbicidal water dispersible granular (WDG) formulation
comprising:
haloxyfop;
imazethapyr; and
at least one agrochemical acceptable excipient.
2. The composition as claimed in claim 1, synergistic herbicidal water
dispersible granular (WDG) formulation comprising a combination of
haloxyfop and imazethapyr; wherein haloxyfop and imazethapyr are
present in the weight ratio of (1-80) : (1-80).
3. The composition as claimed in claim 1, agrochemical acceptable
excipient(s) selected from but not limited to the group comprising
surfactant, inert material, anti-foaming agent, dispersing agent, binder
and adjuvant(s).
4. The composition as claimed in the preceding claims, wherein the
herbicidal composition is used to control annual grasses, sedges, and
broadleaf weeds in paddy, wheat, fruits, roots, tubers, vegetables,
maize, grains, sugarcane, cereals, field crops and various other crops
for general weed control.
5. The composition as claimed in preceding claims, wherein the
herbicidal composition is applied to pre-emergence, early-post, and
post-emergence stages of crops by conventional methods over the
target areas.

Documents