Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-28T14:05:17.130Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Antagonism and Synergism Between Herbicides: Trends from Previous Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jianhua Zhang
Agric. Canada, Harrow, ON, Canada N0R 1G0
Allan S. Hamill
Agric. Canada, Harrow, ON, Canada N0R 1G0
Susan E. Weaver
Agric. Canada, Harrow, ON, Canada N0R 1G0


A synthetic data set was created by incorporating results from previously published papers on antagonistic and synergistic herbicide interactions between two herbicides applied as a tank mixture or sequentially, and then analyzed on the basis of various properties of the herbicides and target plants. Generally, interactions between herbicides were antagonistic more frequently than synergistic. This trend held no matter whether the interacting herbicides were absorbed by the same or different parts of the plant, had the same or different translocating abilities, had the same or different modes of action, and regardless of whether the target plants were annual or perennial plants, or crops or weeds. Antagonistic interactions occurred much more frequently when the target plants were monocot than dicot, and in the Compositae, Gramineae, or Leguminosae than in the Chenopodiaceae or Convolvulaceae families.

Copyright © 1995 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Literature Cited

1. Bell, G., Lechowicz, M. J., Appenzeller, A., Chandler, M., Deblois, E., Jackson, L., Mackenzie, B., Preziosi, R., Schallenberg, M., and Tinker, N. 1993. The spatial structure of the physical environment. Oecologia 96:114121.Google Scholar
2. Chow, P.N.P. and Taylor, H. F. 1983. Wild oat herbicides studies, 3. Physiological and biochemical bases for interaction of barban and growth regulator herbicides in wild oat. J. Agric. Food Chem. 31:575578.Google Scholar
3. Colby, S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds 15:2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Green, J. M. 1989. Herbicide antagonism at the whole plant level. Weed Technol. 3:217226.Google Scholar
5. Grichar, W. J. and Boswell, T. E. 1987. Herbicide combinations in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 1:290293.Google Scholar
6. Hall, C., Edgington, L. V., and Switzer, C. M. 1982. Effects of chlorsulfuron or 2,4-D upon diclofop-methyl efficacy in oat (Avena sativa). Weed Sci. 30:672676.Google Scholar
7. Hatzios, K. K. and Penner, D. 1985. Interactions of herbicides with other agrochemicals in higher plants. Rev. Weed Sci. 1:163.Google Scholar
8. Hunt, G. M. and Baker, E. A. 1982. Developmental and environmental variations in plant epicuticular waxes: some effects on the penetration of naphthylacetic acid. p. 279292 in Cutler, D. F., Alvin, K L., and Price, C. E., eds. The Plant Cuticle. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
9. Klingman, G. C., Ashton, F. M., and Noordhoff, L. J. 1975. Weed Science: Principles and Practices. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. 431.Google Scholar
10. Lamoureux, G. L. and Rusness, D. G. 1983. Glutathione S-transferase inhibition as the basis of Dowco 356 synergism of atrazine. Abstr. 186th Am. Chem. Soc. Natl. Meet., Pestic. 115.Google Scholar
11. Olson, W. A. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1981. Antagonistic effects of MCPA on wild oat (Avena fatua) control with diclofop. Weed Sci. 29:566571.Google Scholar
12. Olson, W. and Nalewaja, J.D. 1982. Effect of MCPA on 14C-diclofop uptake and translocation. Weed Sci. 30:5963.Google Scholar
13. O'Sullivan, P. A., Friesen, H. A., and Vanden Born, W. H. 1977. Influence of herbicides for broad-leaved weeds and adjuvants with diclofop methyl on wild oat control. Can. J. Plant Sci. 57:117125.Google Scholar
14. Patterson, D. T. 1985. Comparative ecophysiology of weeds and crops. p. 101129 in Duke, S. O., ed. Weed Physiology. I. Reproduction and Ecophysiology. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida, USA.Google Scholar
15. Prosch, S. D. and Weber, J. B. 1982. Interaction of dinitroaniline and acetanilide herbicides in controlling ivyleaf morningglory. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 35:352357.Google Scholar
16. Richard, E. P. Jr. and Baker, J. B. 1979. Response of selected rice (Oryza sativa) lines to molinate. Weed Sci. 27:219223.Google Scholar
17. Richard, E. P., Garrison, D. D., Richard, C. A., and Jackson, W. R. 1984. Tolerance of selected sugar cane cultivars to preemergence herbicides: An update. Sugary Azucar. 79(6):35.Google Scholar
18. Shipley, B. and Peters, R. H. 1990. The allometry of seed weight and seedling relative growth rate. Funct. Ecol. 4:523529.Google Scholar
19. Sorensen, V. M., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1987. The interaction of acifluorfen and bentazon in herbicidal combinations. Weed Sci. 35:449456.Google Scholar
20. Sundaru, M., Baba, I., Tanabe, T., Tamoi, F., and Motoda, Y. 1983. Varietal differences of Indonesian rice plants in their susceptibility to 2,4-D injury and interrelationships with ethylene. Jpn. J. Crop Sci. 52:323330.Google Scholar
21. Zar, J. H. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliff, NJ. 718.Google Scholar