ORGANIC CROP PRODUCTION

FIELD OF INVENTION

The present invention describes herbicidal compositions that are suitable to use in organic agriculture and are cost effective as bioherbicides for weed control in organic crop production. Particularly, the herbicidal compositions comprise a hydrosol from the oil extraction of a Myrtaceae family plant and optionally these comprise an oil from a Myrtaceae family plant, wherein the hydrosol is selected from the group consisting of Manuka (Leptospermun scoparium) oil extraction (MOH), Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) oil extraction (EOH) and tea tree (Melaleuca alterniflora) oil extraction (TOH) and wherein the oil is selected from the group consisting of Manuka oil (MO), Eucalyptus oil (EO), and Kanuka oil (Leptospermum ericoides, Kunzea spp., or Baeckea spp.) (KO), and Eugenol or Clove oil (Syzygium aromaticum, Myristica fragrans, or Pimenta dioica). The compositions may also comprise coadjuvants in order to provide an herbicidal composition with significant post-emergence herbicidal activity on weeds.

Additionally, the present invention describes a process for preparing said compositions, as well as the use of said compositions and methods for controlling and/or combating weeds.

BACKGROUND ART

Weeds produce the greatest negative impact on crop production, decreasing yields more than any other agriculture pests (Oerke, 2006). Conventional agriculture relies on synthetic herbicides, which represent half of the total agriculture pesticides volume applied in developed countries. Nowadays, there is a very strong concern about the excessive use of these molecules. On the other hand, the demand for healthy food has grown a lot in the developed world. One important issue of organic farming is that it does not permit the use of synthetic herbicides (EPA, 2011). Moreover, using synthetic pesticides also requires public acceptance (Dayan et al., 2009). The main alternative currently approved for organic farming, are the use of non-selective essential oils extracted from different plant species. Several organic herbicides have appeared on the market in the last ten years. These include: Weed Pharm (acetic acid 20%) (https://pharmsolutions.com/index htm files/W eed-Pharm-Food-Use-Label-Comm- 1 gal.pdf),C- Cide (citric acid 5%) (http://martechresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/Q6/MAR- AgricultureBrochure.pdf), Matratec EC (clove oil 50%)( https ://www . greenbook.net/brandt/matratec) , GreenMatch EX (d-limonene 50 %)

(https://www.greenbook.net/marrone-bio-innovations/greenm atch-ex), Weed Zap (clove oil 45% + cinnamon oil 45%) (http ://w w w . safergro . com/products/weed-zap/) , ALL Down (citric acid 50% + garlic 2%) (https://www.arbico-organics.com/product/summerset-alldown-h erbicide-case- sizes/natural-organic-weed-control), Suppress (Caprylic acid 47% + Capric acids 32%) (https://www.groworganic.com/products/oid-comm-suppress-herb icide-ec-lg) and others. These natural alternatives, which are approved for organic agriculture, are non-selective herbicides used at post-emergence of weeds and they generally disrupt the cuticular layer of the foliage, resulting in desiccation or burn-down of young tissue. However lateral meristems on the broadleaf weeds tend to recover and repeated applications are needed (Young, 2004), being normally not very effective (Patton and Weisenberger, 2012). On the other hand, most of them are applied at high concentrations and high-water volume (60-70-gal ac ^-1 ) (560 - 650 L ha ¹ ). For example, the recommended Green Match Ex rate is from 10 to 15% v/v, in 100 gal water ac ^-1 (394 L ha ¹ ), which means a minimum of 39,4 L ha ^-1 of this organic herbicide when applied at a concentration of 10% v/v. In the same way, Weed Pharm is recommended at a rate of 30-gal ac ¹ (280 L ha ¹ ) in 60-gal water ac ^-1 (560 L ha ^-1 ). These high rates are not in concordance with the sustainable agriculture main objective to minimize environmental chemical loading. Also, these high rates imply an increase in transportation and distribution costs, besides more impact on carbon foot print.

The allelopathic activity of triketone leptospermone, was first suggested by scientists at Stauffer Chemical Company in 1980, who observed that fewer plants grew under Callistemon citrinus (bottlebrush) than in nearby environment, identifying leptospermone as a possible contributor to this chemical ecological phenomenon (Gray et al., 1980). After leptospermone was isolated and structurally analyzed, it was found that this triketone had moderate herbicidal activity, both preemergence and post-emergence on grass and broadleaf weeds (Gray et al., 1980). Many subsequent studies focused on the production of chemical derivatives from leptospermone were carried out, some of which have been successfully developed into commercial synthetic herbicides, such as mesotrione, sulcotrione and tembotrione (Lee et al., 1997). Also, same other members of the Myrtaceae family, like Eucalyptus and Leptospermum, accumulate triketones in schizogenous oil glands within the leaves (List et al., 1995) Essential oils extracted from several plants (i.e. Leptospermum, Eucalyptus) had shown antifungal, antimicrobial, antiviral and insecticidal activities (Porter and Wilkins, 1999; van Klink et al., 2005; Dayan et al., 2007). Much work has been done on the antimicrobial properties of manuka oil (MO) from Leptospermun scoparium J.R.Forst et G. Forst (Cooke and Cooke, 1994; Rhee et al., 1997; van Klink et al., 2005; Dayan et al., 2007, and others), associated with the presence of a group of terpenoid compounds known as triketones.

Triketone compounds, such as leptospermone present in manuka oil, (MO) have the same mechanism of action (target site) as the commercial synthetic herbicides mesotrione, tembotrione and sulcotrione, inhibiting the enzyme p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD), with a final result of a deleterious reduction in the levels of carotenoids in plants. This effect causes a rapid degradation of chlorophylls because the reduced pool of carotenoids is not sufficient to quench the excess of electrons produced during photosynthesis, causing plant bleaching (Romagni et al., 2000; Meazza et al., 2002). One particular question is if the biological effects of essential oils are due only because of the main molecules identified as actives or it is the result of a synergism of all competing molecules. Same researchers believe that the activity of the main components could be modulated by other minor molecules (Santana-Rios et al., 2001; Hoet et al., 2006).

Nine years ago, Dayan et al. (2011) found an interesting herbicidal activity of MO. Thus, when they applied the organic herbicide GreenMatch EX at 10% v/v plus 1% of manuka oil (MO), this essential oil seemed to augment the activity of the commercial organic herbicide on some weeds. Within the six tested weeds, only Amaranthus retroflexus, Digitaria sanguinalis and Echinochloa crus- galli presented significantly smaller dry weights than the non-treated plants, with reductions of 45, 60 and 51% less, respectively. Accordingly, to volume applied (360 L ha ), the MO rate ha ¹ was 3. 6 L.

On the other hand, Dayan et al. (2011) found a good pre-emergence activity on Digitaria sanguinalis (Large crabgrass) with 3.1 L ha MO. No pre-emergence activity and required minimum rates are presented for another weed species. According to Soltys et al. (2013) a pure compound (Leptospermone) rate of 9 Kg ha ¹ was required to give acceptable weed control. Also, leptospermone has to be first isolated from MO and find a proper formulation to make it applicable at field level and be competitive to the actual synthetic triketone herbicides (e.g. mesotrione). The rate of mesotrione for control of broadleaf weeds in com is in the range of 75 to 225 g ha ¹ , around 100 times more potent than pure leptospermone (Comes, 2006).

On the other side, hydrosols are the by-product or co-product produced during water or steam distillation of plant materials, mainly stems and leaves. They are rich in water soluble components and traces of essential oil. In the specific case of MO hydrolate (MBTK 25+) , it contains a complex of over hundred organic compounds. The organic portion of the hydrosol contains a high proportion of P-triketones: Flavesone 1.0-7.0 ppm, Isoleptospermone and Leptospermone 1.0-9.5 ppm, besides 1,8-Cineole 0.1 -4.0 ppm, natural alcohols (methyl and ethyl alcohols, linalool, terpineol), benzeacetaldehyde and other compounds (Specification Sheet New Zealand Manuka Bioactive, Certificate of Analysis, Dr. W.M Campbell). It is important to highlight that 1,8 cineole, as well as the triketones, shows herbicidal activity (Barton et al., 2010).

The hydrosols of various plants had shown many biological activities (Acimovic et al., 2020), such as antibacterial (Sagdic, 2003; Tomuk et al. ,2011), antifungal (Boyraz and Ozcan, 2006) and antioxidant (Azza et al., 2011). The potential use of hydrosols like herbicide are not heavely studied. Some researcher have begun to make screening of herbicide potential of hydrosols of some plant families, like Lamiacacea family (Kural and Ozkan, 2020). Pure hydrosols from Haplophyllum teberculatum produced inhibition of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and wild radish (Raphanus sativus) seed germination. The percentage inhibition of root length was more than 70% for wheat and more than 90% for wild radish and the same happened for epicotyl or coleoptile of wheat and wild radish, respectively (Hamdi et al., 2017). Therefore, according to these results, one could expect that hydrosols from Myrtaceae plant family that contains triketones, and/or other water-soluble compounds like 1,8 cineole could complement essential oils from Myrtaceae plant family herbicidal activity, such as MO, KO and EO.

Given all the above, it is possible to conclude that there is a need for organic and natural herbicides to use in organic agriculture. There are currently very few herbicides that meet with the requirements and standards set by the organic farming industry, one of these options being essential oils. Using essential oils has different consequences, such as the need for frequent reapplications and high concentrations for reaching an optimal herbicide activity, which causes a great chemical environmental loading. Therefore, it is necessary to provide alternative products for combating weeds, which requires lower concentrations than essential oils, in order to minimize the negative impact in the environment.

DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Looking for a complete understanding of the features that support the effective activity of the present invention, a detailed description of the figures that enclose each of the embodiments are presented as follows:

FIGURE 1. This figure shows the number of alive weeds (N°/pot) after applying pure Manuka oil (MO) at five different rates and a commercial herbicide (Callisto 480 SC). This evaluation was done 18 days after treatment (DAT), under grow chamber conditions (Day/Night=14/10 h; Temperature=24/12 °C; Relative humidity=60/80%). The results correspond to an average of four replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to Tukey test (p<0.0001). Weed population was composed of Brassica rapa (Field mustard), Daucus carota (Wild carrot), Lamiun amplexicaule (Henbit), Erodium cicutarium (Common strok's-bill) and Poa annua (Annual bluegrass).

FIGURE 2. Relationship between ryegrass fresh weight (g plant ^-1 ) and MO applications from 1.0 to 10 L ha ^-1 . This test was carried out under growth chamber conditions (Day/Night-14/10 h; Temperature=14/4 °C; Relative humidity=60/80 %). The results correspond to an average of four replications ± Standard deviation at 35DAT.

FIGURE 3. Percentage of weed control 30 DAT with four rates of pure MO. The results of this field test correspond to an average of four replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to Tukey test (p<0.0001). This test was carried out in the Central Area of Chile (Valparaiso Region, Casablanca) at SIDAL Research Center. (Average air temperature=9.2 °C; Average relative humidity= 81.7 %; Accumulated rainfall= 25.0 mm; Average solar radiation= 15.8 Mj m ^-2 ). Weed population was composed of Raphanus raphanistrum (Wild mustard), Brassica rapa (Field mustard), Daucus carota (Wild carrot), Lamiun amplexicaule (Henbit), Erodium cicutarium (Common strok's-bill ) and Poa annua (Annual bluegrass). FIGURE 4. Total weed biomass 35 DAT with pure MO, pure MO and adjuvant (phosphatidylcholine), and two commercial herbicides (Bastal4 SL and Gramoxone). The results of this field test are the average of four replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to Tukey test (p<0.0001). This field test was done in the South of Chile (Araucama Region, Temuco) at SIDAL Sub-Experimental Station (Average air temperature= 14.7 °C; Average relative humidity=78.4 %; Accumulated rainfall= 30.5 mm; Average solar radiation= 22.4 Mj m ^-2 ).Weed population was composed of Raphanus raphanistrum (Wild mustard), Spergula arvensis (Corn spurry) Chenopodium album (Lambsquarters), Polygonun aviculare (Common knotweed), Fallopia convolvulus (Black bindweed) and Digitaria sanguinalis (Large crabgrass).

FIGURE 5. Percentage of soil green coverage (weeds) 8 DAT with four rates of a composition of Manuka oil hydrosol (MOH, NZ) from N. Zealand Manuka Bioactives. The results of this field test are the average of three replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to Tukey test (p=O.O3O8). This field test was carried out in the South of Chile (Araucama Region, Temuco) at SIDAL Sub-Experimental Station (Average air temperature- 15.2 °C; Average relative humidity-74.4%; Accumulated rainfall- 14.9 mm; Average solar radiation=24.7 Mj m ^-2 ). Weed population was composed of Raphanus raphanistrum (Wild raphanus), Chenopodium album (Lambsquarters), Amaranthus retroflexus (Redroot pigweed), and Echinochloa crus-galli (Barnyardgrass).

FIGURE 6. Total weed biomass 17 DAT with four rates of a composition of MOH, NZ. The results of this field test are the average of three replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to Tukey test (p=0.0139). This field test was carried out in the South of Chile (Araucama Region, Temuco) at SIDAL Sub-Experimental Station (Average air temperature- 15.2 °C; Average relative humidity-74.4%; Accumulated rainfall- 14.9 mm; Average solar radiation=24.7 Mj m ^-2 ). Weed population was composed of Raphanus raphanistrum (Wild raphanus), Chenopodium album (Lambsquarters), Amaranthus retroflexus (Redroot pigweed), and Echinochloa crus-galli (Barnyardgrass).

FIGURE 7. Percentage of soil green coverage (weeds) 8 DAT with a composition of Manuka oil hydrosol from Ethereal Ingredients Pvt Ltd (India) (MOH, IN). The results of this field test are the average of three replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to Tukey test (p=0.0327). This field test was carried out in the South of Chile (Araucania Region, Temuco) at SIDAL Sub-Experimental Station (Average air temperature=15.2 °C; Average relative humidity=74.4%; Accumulated rainfall= 14.9 mm; Average solar radiation=24.7 Mj m ^-2 ). Weed population was composed of Raphanus raphanistrum (Wild raphanus), Chenopodium album (Lambsquarters), Amaranthus retroflexus (Redroot pigweed), and Echinochloa crus-galli (Barnyardgrass).

FIGURE 8. Total weed biomass 17 DAT with a composition MOH (IN). The results of this field test are the average of three replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to Tukey test (p=0.0424). This field test was carried out in the South of Chile (Araucania Region, Temuco) at SIDAL Sub -Experimental Station (Average air temperature=15.2 °C; Average relative humidity=74.4%; Accumulated rainfall= 14.9 mm; Average solar radiation=24.7 Mj m ^-2 ). Weed population was composed of Raphanus raphanistrum (Wild raphanus), Chenopodium album (Lambsquarters), Amaranthus retroflexus (Redroot pigweed), and Echinochloa crus-galli (Barnyardgrass).

FIGURE 9. Effect in Brassica rapa (Birdsrape mustard) and Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass) biomass, 23 DAT, of four rates of two compositions of MOH (NZ), containing MOH and MO and another one without MO. This test was performed under greenhouse conditions. The results are an average of three replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according Tukey test (p<0.0001). Average air temperature=22.7°C; Average relative humidity=39.7%; Accumulated rainfall= 0.0 mm; Average solar radiation=19.3 Mj m ^-2 ).

FIGURE 10. Effect in Brassica rapa (Birdsrape mustard) and Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass) biomass, 23 DAT of four rates of two compositions of MOH (IN), one containing MO and another one without MO. This test was performed under greenhouse conditions. The results are an average of two replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according Tukey test (p<0.0001). Average air temperature=22.7°C; Average relative humidity=39.7%; Accumulated rainfall= 0.0 mm; Average solar radiation=19.3 Mj m ^-2 ).

FIGURE 11. Effect in Brassica rapa (Birdsrape mustard) and Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass) biomass, 23 DAT ₇ of four rates of pure MOH (NZ), MOH (IN) and MO. This test was performed under greenhouse conditions. The results are an average of three replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according Tukey test (p<0.0004). Greenhouse conditions: Average air temperature=22.7°C; Average relative humidity=39.7%; Accumulated rainfall= 0.0 mm; Average solar radiation=19.3 Mj m ^-2 ).

FIGURE 12. Effect in Brassica rapa (Birdsrape mustard) and Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass) biomass, 22 DAT, of two rates of Composition MO+MOH and Composition MO+EOH. This test was performed under greenhouse conditions. The results are an average of three replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according Tukey test (p<0.0001). Greenhouse conditions: Average air temperature=21.4°C; Average relative humidity =42.3%; Accumulated rainfall= 0.0 mm; Average solar radiation=17.1 Mj m’ ² ).

FIGURE 13. Brassica rapa (Birdsrape mustard) biomass 17 DAT with pure MO and two rates of Composition 1. The results are the average of three replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to Tukey test (p=0.0424). This test was performed under greenhouse conditions: Average air temperature=23.2 °C; Average relative humidity=41.0%; Accumulated rainfall= 0.0 mm; Average solar radiation=21.1 Mj m ^-2 ).

FIGURE 14. Percentage of soil green coverage (weeds) 30 DAT with two rates of pure MO and two rates of Composition 1. The results are the average of three replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to Tukey test (p<0.0001). This field test was carried out in the South of Chile (Araucania Region, Temuco) at SID AL Sub- Experimental Station (Average air temperature=14.7 °C; Average relative humidity=78.4 %; Accumulated rainfall= 30.5 mm; Average solar radiation= 22.4 Mj m’ ² ).Weed population was composed of Anthemis cotula (Mayweed), Raphanus sativus (Wild radish), Polygonum aviculare (Common knotweed), Spergula arvensis (Com spurry), Cirsium vulgare (Bull thistle), A vena fatua (Wild oat) and Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass).

FIGURE 15. Percentage of soil green coverage (Weeds) 30 DAT with four rates of Composition 2. The results are an average of three replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to Tukey test (p=0.0001). This field test was carried out in the South of Chile (Araucania Region, Temuco) at SID AL Sub -Experimental Station (Average air temperature=14.5 °C; Average relative humidity=73.1 %; Accumulated rainfall= 21.6 mm; Average solar radiation= 16.2 Mj m ^-2 ). Weed population was composed of Anthemis cotula (Mayweed), Raphanus sativus (Wild radish), Polygonum aviculare (Common knotweed), Spergula arvensis (Com spurry), Cirsium vulgare (Bull thistle) and Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass).

FIGURE 16. Brassica rapa (Birdsrape mustard) and Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass) biomass 30 DAT with three rates of Composition 3. The results are an average of three replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to Tukey test (p=0.0004). This test was performed under greenhouse conditions: Average air temperature=22.7°C; Average relative humidity=39.7%; Accumulated rainfall= 0.0 mm; Average solar radiation=19.3 Mj m ^-2 ).

FIGURE 17. Total weed biomass 8 DAT with four rates of Composition 4. The results are an average of three replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to Tukey test (p=0.0424). This field test was carried out in the South of Chile (Araucama Region, Temuco) at SID AL Sub-Experimental Station (Average air temperature=14.4 °C; Average relative humidity-76.4%; Accumulated rainfall- 0.0 mm; Average solar radiation=26.9 Mj m ^-2 ). Weed population was composed of Raphanus raphanistrum (Wild raphanus), Chenopodium album (Lambsquarters), Amaranthus sp. (Pigweed), and Echinochloa crus-galli (Barnyardgrass).

FIGURE 18. Effect in Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass) biomass, 14 DAT, of three rates of two compositions of MO (NZ), containing TOH or EOH. This test was performed under greenhouse conditions. The results are an average of four replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to the Tukey test (p<0.0001). Average air tcmpcraturc-20.2‘ C; Average relative humidily-44.7%; Accumulated rainfall- 0.0 mm; Average solar radiation=17.2 Mj m ^-2 ).

FIGURE 19. Effect in Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass) and Brassica rapa (Birdsrape mustard) biomass, 14 DAT, of four rates of Composition of MOH with KO and pure KO. This test was performed under greenhouse conditions. The results are an average of four replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to the Tukey test (p<0.0001). Average air temperature=21.0°C; Average relative humidity=45.2%;

Accumulated rainfall= 0.0 mm; Average solar radiation=17.1 Mj m ^-2 ).

FIGURE 20. Effect in Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass) biomass, 14 DAT, of Composition of MOH with EO and pure EO. This test was performed under greenhouse conditions. The results are an average of five replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to the Tukey test (p<0.0001). Average air temperature=22.9°C; Average relative humidity=42.9%; Accumulated rainfall= 0.0 mm; Average solar radiation=18.8 Mj m’ ² ).

FIGURE 21. Effect in Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass) biomass, 14 DAT, of Composition of MOH with and without Eugenol (Clove oil), and Eugenol formulation. This test was performed under greenhouse conditions. The results are an average of five replications. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences between groups according to the Tukey test (p<0.0001). Average air temperature=22.9°C; Average relative humidity=42.9%; Accumulated rainfall= 0.0 mm; Average solar radiation=18.8 Mj m ^-2 ).

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to compositions and methods for controlling weeds that are suitable for using in organic agriculture. Most particularly, this invention provides compositions comprising a hydrosol from the oil extraction of a Myrtaceae family plant. In a particular embodiment, the hydrosol is selected from the group consisting of Manuka (Leptospermun scoparium oil extraction (MOH), Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) oil extraction (EOH), and tea tree (Melaleuca alterniflora) oil extraction (TOH), containing a high proportion of 1,8 cineole (equivalent to eucalyptol), but not restricted to these. In a more preferred embodiment, the hydrosol is from Manuka oil extraction (MOH), which is the sub-product obtained after steam distillation from the East Cape (NZ) chemotype manuka brush.

In a preferred embodiment, said hydrosol is present in the herbicidal composition in a concentration of about 35 to 80% (v/v), and most preferably about 35% to about 76%. In another embodiment, the composition of the present invention also comprises an additional hydrosol from the oil extraction of a Myrtaceae family plant. In a particular embodiment, the additional hydrosol is selected from the group consisting of Manuka oil extraction (MOH), Eucalyptus oil extraction (EOH), and Tea tree oil extraction (TOH). In one embodiment, the additional hydrosol is Eucalyptus oil extraction (EOH) or Tea tree oil extraction (TOH) when the first hydrosol is from Manuka oil extraction (MOH). In another embodiment, the additional hydrosol is Manuka oil extraction (MOH) when the first hydrosol is from Eucalyptus oil extraction (EOH) or Tea tree oil extraction (TOH). In another embodiment, the additional hydrosol is Tea tree oil extraction (TOH) oil extraction when the first hydrosol is from Eucalyptus oil extraction (EOH) or Manuka oil extraction (MOH).

In a more preferred embodiment, the composition comprises said first hydrosol and said additional hydrosol at about a 9:1, 8:2, 7:3, 6:4, 5:5, 4:6, 3:7, 2:8 or 1:9 ratio.

In other embodiment, said composition additionally comprises the essential oil together with the hydrosol co-produced from Myrtaceae family plants mixture oil extraction. In a particular embodiment, the essential oil is selected from Manuka brush (Leptospermun scoparium) (MO), Kanuka oil (Leptospermum ericoides, Kunzea spp., or Baeckea spp.) (KO), Eucalyptus oil (EO), and Eugenol (clove oil) (Syzygium aromaticum or also known as Eugenia caryphyllus, Myristica fragrans, or Pimenta dioica) but it is not restricted to these. In a preferred embodiment, the essential oil is MO.

It should be noted that the term Kanuka oil (KO) refer to all oil extracts from the plants named as white tea tree (Leptospermum ericoides, Baeckea phylicoides, Kunze peduncularis, Kunzea leptospermoides, Kunzea peduncularis var. brachyandra, Leptospermum ericoides var. lineare, Baeckea virgata var. polyandra, Kunzea phylicioides, Kunzea glabriuscula, Leptospermum phylicoideum, Leptospermum ericoides var. microflorum, Kunzea ericoides var. linearis, Kunzea ericoides var. microflora).

The core of the present invention is to provide herbicidal compositions of an oil in water emulsion comprising a larger amount of the hydrosol from the Myrtaceae family, selected from MOH, EOH, and TOH (from about 35 to 80%, as described above), but not restricted to them, and a very low concentration of the essential oil from the Myrtaceae family, selected from MO, EO, KO and Eugenol (from about 5 to 40%), but not restricted to these. In one embodiment, the present herbicidal composition comprises MOH, EOH, TOH and comprises MO and KO.

In another embodiment, the herbicidal composition comprises said essential oil (MO, EO, KO or Eugenol) in a concentration of about 9 to 40%, and most preferably of about 9 to 36%.

Additionally, in another embodiment, the herbicide composition further comprises the appropriate co-adjuvants like surfactants, emulsifiers, anti-foaming agents, adherence agents, moisturizer agents, solvents, among others, under proper pH conditions, which are all suitable for organic agriculture. These coadjuvants are added in order to provide an herbicidal composition with significant post-emergence herbicidal activity on broadleaf weeds (Dicotyledons class) from various families and grass weeds (Monocotyledons class, Poaceae family).

In one embodiment, the herbicidal composition comprises one or more surfactant(s), emulsifier(s), anti-foaming agent(s), solvents, stickers, spreaders, deposition aids, moisturizing agents, pH adjuster and combinations thereof.

In a preferred embodiment, the herbicidal composition further comprises at least one surfactant. In a preferred embodiment, the surfactant is di- 1-p -menthene. Preferably, said surfactant is present in a concentration of about 0.10 to 0.60% (w/v), more preferably, from about 0.2 to 0.58%, and, even more preferably, from about 0.28 to 0.56%.

In another embodiment, the herbicidal composition further comprises at least one adherence or surfactant agent. Preferably, said adherent agent is selected from the group consisting of phosphatidylcholine and di-l-p-mentene. In a preferred embodiment, said adherent agent is present in a concentration from about 0.10 to 20.0% 19% (v/v), and, most preferably, from about 0.28 to 18.9%.

In a preferred embodiment, the herbicidal composition further comprises at least one moisturizing agent. In a preferred embodiment, said moisturizing agent is selected from the group consisting of phosphatidylcholine and glycerol. It should be noted that phosphatidylcholine is both a moisturizing and adherence agent. Preferably, said moisturizing agent is present in a concentration from about 4.00 to 20.0% (v/v), more preferably, from about 4.40 to 18.9%. In a preferred embodiment, the herbicidal composition further comprises at least one solvent. Preferably, said solvent is ethanol. It should be noted that ethanol also works as an anti-foaming agent. In one embodiment, said solvent is present in a concentration from about 1.0 to 6.0% (v/v), more preferably, from about 2.0 to 5.0%, even more preferably, of 3.0 to 5.0%, more preferably, 4.0 to 5.0%, and most preferably, from about 4.4 to 4.75%.

In one embodiment, the herbicidal composition further comprises at least one agent for adjusting the pH of said composition. More preferably, said agent for pH adjustment is selected from the group consisting of KOH, NaOH and phosphoric acid. It should be noted that phosphoric acid also functions as an acidifier and an emulsifier. In a preferred embodiment, said agent for pH adjustment is present in a concentration not higher than 5.0 % (v/v), preferably in a concentration of about 0.2 to about 4.0%; most preferably, in a concentration of about 0.2 to about 3.0%; and even more preferably in a concentration of about 0.23% to about 2.2%.

In another embodiment, the herbicidal composition further comprises water or the same hydrosol used previously (MOH or EOH) for completing the 100% (v/v).

Furthermore, in other embodiment, the herbicidal composition of the present invention may be used in a dosage of about 4.0 to 17 L ha ¹ . In the embodiment in which the composition comprises the hydrosol and the essential oil from a Myrtaceae family plant said composition may be used in a dosage from about 3.0 to 12.0 L ha ¹ , i.e. corresponding to a range from 0.85 to 3.4 L of essential oil and up to 9.1 L of hydrosol equivalent ha ¹ . In one embodiment, the composition should be diluted with water (290 to 450 L ha ^-1 ) before applied at post-emergence of weeds. This volume of water can be suitably adjusted according to weed species, weed growth stages, application methods and other factors.

On the other hand, the present invention also describes a process for preparing the herbicidal composition mentioned above. This process comprises the following steps: a) Adding the hydrosol selected from the group consisting of Manuka oil extraction (MOH), Eucalyptus oil extraction (EOH) or Tea Tree oil extraction (TOH); b) Optionally, adding the additional hydrosol from a Myrtaceae family plant; c) Adding the surfactant, adherent agent and moisturizing agent; d) Optionally, adding a pH adjuster if the optional step i) is not carried out; e) Optionally, adding the solvent if the optional steps h) and i) are not carried out; f) Mixing all the components added from steps a) to e); g) Optionally, preparing separately a mixture of the oil from a Myrtaceae family plant with the solvent; h) Optionally, adding the mixture obtained in step g) to the main mixture of step e); i) Optionally, measuring pH and adjusting the pH to about 3-0-4.0 using the pH adjuster; j) Optionally, adding deionized water or MOH or EOH hydrosol for completing the final volume if it necessary; and k) Optionally keeping the mixture under agitation until bottled.

In a preferred embodiment, optionally, a mixing step occurs after adding each component of steps a) to e).

In one embodiment, the process for preparing the herbicidal composition comprises the following steps: a) Adding the hydrosol selected from the group consisting of Manuka oil extraction (MOH), Eucalyptus oil extraction (EOH) or Tea tree oil extraction (TOH); b) Adding the surfactant, adherent agent and moisturizing agent; c) Adding the solvent; d) Mixing all the components added from steps a) to c); e) Measuring pH and adjusting the pH to about 3 -0-4.0 using the pH adjuster; f) Optionally, adding MOH or EOH hydrosol for completing the final volume if it necessary; and g) Optionally keeping the mixture under agitation until bottled.

In a preferred embodiment, the process for preparing the herbicidal composition comprises the following steps: a) Adding the hydrosol selected from the group consisting of Manuka oil extraction (MOH), Eucalyptus oil extraction (EOH) or Tea tree oil extraction (TOH); b) Adding the phosphatidylcholine and the di-l-p-mentene; c) Adding the ethanol; d) Mixing all the components added from steps a) to c); e) Measuring pH and adjusting the pH to about 3 -0-4.0 using the pH adjuster; f) Optionally, adding MOH or EOH hydrosol for completing the final volume if it necessary; and g) Optionally keeping the mixture under agitation until bottled.

In a more preferred embodiment, the concentrations of the components added in each step are adjusted in view of the desired final concentration (% v/v or w/v) of each component in the herbicidal composition.

More preferably, said process for preparing the herbicidal composition comprises the following steps: a) Adding 755.8 mL of MOH, EOH or TOH; b) Adding 189 mL of Phosphatidylcholine and 5.6 mL of Di-l-p-mentene; c) Adding 47.2 mL of ethanol; d) Mixing all the components added in steps a) and b); e) Measuring pH and adjusting the pH to about 3.0 to 4.0 using 2.3 mL of phosphoric acid; f) Optionally, adding MOH or EOH for completing the final volume if it necessary; and g) Optionally keeping the mixture under agitation until bottled.

In another embodiment, said process for preparing the herbicidal composition comprises the following steps: a) Adding the hydrosol selected from the group consisting of Manuka oil extraction (MOH),

Eucalyptus oil extraction (EOH) or Tea tree oil extraction (TOH). b) Adding the phospholipid and di-l-p-menthene with agitation, until dissolution; c) Mixing all the components added in steps a) and b); d) Preparing separately a mixture of the oil from a Myrtaceae family plant with ethanol; e) Adding the mixture obtained in step d) to the main mixture prepared in step d); f) Measuring pH and adjusting the pH to about 3.0 to 4.0 using phosphoric acid; g) Optionally, adding hydrosol (MOH, EOH or TOH) for completing the final volume if it necessary; and h ) Optionally keeping the mixture under agitation until bottled.

In a preferred embodiment, the concentrations of the components added in each step are adjusted in view of the desired final concentration (% v/v or w/v) of each component in the herbicidal composition.

On the other hand, in a more preferred embodiment, said process for preparing the herbicidal composition comprises the following steps: a) Adding 472.4 mL of MOH, EOH or TOH; b) Adding 189 mL of Phosphatidylcholine and 5.6 mL of Di-l-p-mentene); c) Mixing all the components added in steps a) and b); d) Preparing separately a mixture of 283.4 mL of MO with 47.2 ml of ethanol; e) Adding the mixture obtained in step d) to the main mixture prepared in step c); f) Measuring pH and adjusting the pH to about 3.0 to 4.0 using 2.3 mL of phosphoric acid; g) Optionally, adding deionized water for completing the final volume if it necessary; and h) Optionally keeping the mixture under agitation until bottled.

Preferably, said process for preparing the herbicidal composition comprises the following steps: a) Adding 351.8 mL of MOH or EOH; b) Adding 175.9 mL of Phosphatidylcholine, 5.3 mL of Di-l-p-mentene, and 44 mL of Glycerol (1,2,3-propanotriol); c) Adding 22 g of Potassium Hydroxide; d) Mixing all the components added in steps a) to c); e) Preparing separately a mixture of 351.8 mL of MO with 44 ml of ethanol; f) Adding the mixture obtained in step d) to the main mixture prepared in step e); g) Optionally, adding deionized water or MOH or EOH for completing the final volume if it necessary; and h) Optionally keeping the mixture under agitation until bottled.

In a preferred embodiment, said process for preparing the herbicidal composition comprises the following steps: a) Adding 472.4 mL of MOH, EOH or TOH; b) Adding 189 mL of Phosphatidylcholine and 5.6 mL of Di-l-p-menthene; c) Mixing all the components added in steps a) and b); d) Preparing separately a mixture of 283.4 mL of MO with 47.2 ml of ethanol; e) Adding the mixture obtained in step c) to the main mixture prepared in step d); f) Measuring pH and adjusting the pH to about 3.0 to 4.0 using 2.3 mL of phosphoric acid; g) Optionally, adding MOH or EOH for completing the final volume if it necessary; and h) Optionally keeping the mixture under agitation until bottled.

In a preferred embodiment, said process for preparing the herbicidal composition comprises the following steps: a) Adding 660 mL of MOH or EOH; b) Adding 187 mL of Phosphatidylcholine and 4 mL of Di-l-p-mentene; c) Mixing all the components added in steps a) and b); d) Preparing separately a mixture of 94 mL of MO with 47 ml of ethanol; e) Adding the mixture obtained in step c) to the main mixture prepared in step d); f) Measuring pH and adjusting the pH to about 3.0 to 4.0 using 4 mL of phosphoric acid; g) Optionally, adding EOH or MOH for completing the final volume if it necessary; and h) Optionally keeping the mixture under agitation until bottled. More preferably, said process for preparing the herbicidal composition comprises the following steps: a) Adding 673 mL of Manuka hydrosol; b) Adding 160 mL of Phosphatidylcholine and 18 mL of Di-l-p-mentene; c) Mixing all the components added in steps a) and b); d) Preparing separately a mixture of 100 mL of MO with 50 ml of ethanol; e) Adding the mixture obtained in step c) to the main mixture prepared in step d); f) Measuring pH and adjusting the pH to about 3.0 to 4.0 using 2.3 mL of phosphoric acid; g) Optionally, adding EOH or MOH for completing the final volume if it necessary; and h) Optionally keeping the mixture under agitation until bottled.

Even more preferably, said process for preparing the herbicidal composition comprises the following steps: a) Adding 673 mL of Eucalyptus hydrosol (EOH); b) Adding 160 mL of Phosphatidylcholine and 18 mL of Di-l-p-menthene; c) Mixing all the components added in steps a) and b); d) Preparing separately a mixture of 100 mL of MO with 50 ml of ethanol; e) Adding the mixture obtained in step c) to the main mixture prepared in step d); f) Measuring pH and adjusting the pH to about 3.0 to 4.0 using 2.3 mL of phosphoric acid; g) Optionally, adding MOH or EOH for completing the final volume if it necessary; and h) Optionally keeping the mixture under agitation until bottled.

In another embodiment including Kanuka oil, said process for preparing the herbicidal composition comprises the following steps: a) Adding 472.4 mL of MOH, EOH or TOH; b) Adding 189 mL of Phosphatidylcholine and 5.6 mL of Di-l-p-menthene; c) Mixing all the components added in steps a) and b); d) Preparing separately a mixture of 283.4 mL of KO with 47.2 ml of ethanol; e) Adding the mixture obtained in step c) to the main mixture prepared in step d); f) Measuring pH and adjusting the pH to about 3.0 to 4.0 using 2.3 mL of phosphoric acid; g) Optionally, adding MOH, EOH or TOH for completing the final volume if it necessary; and h) Optionally keeping the mixture under agitation until bottled.

In another embodiment including Eucalyptus oil, said process for preparing the herbicidal composition comprises the following steps: a) Adding 472.4 mL of MOH or EOH or TOH; b) Adding 189 mL of Phosphatidylcholine and 5.6 mL of Di-l-p-menthene; c) Mixing all the components added in steps a) and b); d) Preparing separately a mixture of 283.4 mL of EO with 47.2 ml of ethanol; e) Adding the mixture obtained in step c) to the main mixture prepared in step d); f) Measuring pH and adjusting the pH to about 3.0 to 4.0 using 2.3 mL of phosphoric acid; g) Optionally, adding MOH or EOH or TOH for completing the final volume if it necessary; and h) Optionally keeping the mixture under agitation until bottled.

Other embodiment including Eugenol (clover oil), said process for preparing the herbicidal composition comprises the following steps: a) Adding 600.0 mL of MOH, EOH or TOH; b) Adding 100 mL of Phosphatidylcholine and 5.6 mL of Di-l-p-menthene; c) Mixing all the components added in steps a) and b); d) Preparing separately a mixture of 50 mL of Eugenol with 49.8 ml of ethanol; e) Adding the mixture obtained in step c) to the main mixture prepared in step d); f) Measuring pH and adjusting the pH to about 3.0 to 4.0 using 2.3 mL of phosphoric acid; g) Optionally, adding deionized water for completing the final volume if it necessary; and h) Optionally keeping the mixture under agitation until bottled. Another embodiment including Eugenol (clover oil) said process for preparing the herbicidal composition comprises the following steps: a) Adding 792.3 mL of MOH, EOH or TOH; b) Adding 100 mL of Phosphatidylcholine and 5.6 mL of Di-l-p-menthene; c) Mixing all the components added in steps a) and b); d) Preparing separately a mixture of 50 mL of Eugenol with 49.8 ml of ethanol; e) Adding the mixture obtained in step c) to the main mixture prepared in step d); f) Measuring pH and adjusting the pH to about 3.0 to 4.0 using 2.3 mL of phosphoric acid; g) Optionally, adding deionized water for completing the final volume if it necessary; and h) Optionally keeping the mixture under agitation until bottled.

In one embodiment, optionally, a mixing step occurs after adding each component of steps a) to d).

In a preferred embodiment, the concentrations of the components added in each step of all the processes described above are adjusted in view of the desired final concentration (% v/v or w/v) of each component in the herbicidal composition.

Furthermore, in another embodiment, the herbicidal composition of the present invention may be formulated with carrier vehicles for specific application forms, such as solutions, emulsions, suspensions, powders, pastes, and granules, which are thus ready for use.

Moreover, the present invention refers to a method for controlling and/or combating weeds and volunteer crops, wherein said method comprises the step of applying the above-mentioned compositions. In one aspect the weeds, and volunteer crops include, but are not limited to: Triticum aestivum L., Zea mays L., Avena fatua L., Brassica rapa L., Erodium cicutarum (L), L Her, ex Aiton, Daucus carota L., Poa annua L., Lolium multiflorum L., Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop, Echinochloa crus-galli L., Lamiun amplexicaule L., Raphanus raphanistrum L., Raphanus sativus L., Spergula arvensis L., Chenopodium album L., Polygonum aviculare L., Fallopia convolvulus (L. ) A. Love, Convolvulus arvensis L., Calistegia sepium (L.) R. Br, Anthemis cotula L., Cirsium vulgare, Carduus sp and Amaranthus retroflexus L.

The compositions and methods of the present invention to control weeds, including volunteer crops in organic farming is also suitable for other agriculture and no- agriculture situations, but are not restricted to these ones. Thus, compositions could also be used by non-organic farmers to make their production more sustainable, intercalating this new product with synthetic herbicides in their annual herbicide programs, diminishing the synthetic herbicide charge to the environment. At the same time, the compositions of herein disclosed are suitable as weed killers for use in farmstead maintenance (roadways, ditches, right of ways, building perimeters, parks, yards, etc.) and ornamental crops. However, the main focus of this invention is intended to organic farming.

The term “Herbicide or Herbicidal Activity” as used herein means a compound, product or formulation for controlling weeds by killing or modifying their growth. The term “control” refers to any deviation on a weed behavior from the normal growth and or development, i.e. killing, changes in color (chlorosis, purples or pale -green leaf tissue), necrosis, leaf deformation, weight loss and others that are not mentioned here.

The term “Herbicide Treatment” or “Treatment” comprises the herbicide application, its rate and the volume of application.

The term “Volume of application” corresponds to the total volume composed of normally water and the herbicide rate sprayed to an area.

The term “Oil equivalent ha ¹ “corresponds to the amount of oil sprayed per hectare, when a Composition is applied to the weeds. It will depend on the oil concentration present on the Composition and the rate used per hectare.

The term “UTC” corresponds to “Untreated control” or plants that are not treated with any herbicide and which serve as a check to the treated ones.

The term “weed” refers to or means any undesired plant, thus include agronomically important weeds, and also volunteer crop plants. The term “post-emergence application” refers to an herbicide application performed after weeds emergence, to the aerial or exposed portion of the undesired plants.

The term “Rosset Stage or Basal Rosset” represent in some weed species to a circular disposition of the leaves at ground level, in which all of them are at the same height.

“Alfisol soils” correspond to a Soil Order in the US. Soil Taxonomy. These soils present clay in the sub- superficial horizon, usually called horizon B.

The term “Emulsion” refers to any oil compound in water, understanding that in the most preferred embodiment the oil or dispersed compound is the essential oil from a Myrtaceae family plant, and that the water or continuous phase is the hydrosol from a Myrtaceae family plant.

The term “Coadjuvant” refers to materials that facilitate action of an herbicide or that facilitate or modify characteristics of herbicide formulations or spray solutions. Coadjuvants can be used as wetting agents, penetrants, or spreaders and stabilizing agents used as emulsifiers or dispersants.

The term “surfactant” includes all chemicals that reduce the surface tension of water or increase its wettability (wetting agents). However, a surfactant may show various activities: surface tension decrease, emulsifier, humectant, detergent and others.

While the compositions heretofore are susceptible to various modifications and alternative forms, exemplary embodiments will be described. It should be understood that there is no intent to limit the invention only to the disclosed forms, however on the contrary, the intention is to cover all possible modifications, equivalent or alternative within the spirit and the scope of the invention presented in this claim. All technical and scientific terms utilized herein have the same meaning that one ordinary skill in the art related to this invention will understand. A composition, mixture, formulation, method that contain a list of elements is not limited, on the contrary may include other elements not expressly listed or inherent to such composition, mixture or method.

EXAMPLES Two sources of Manuka essential oil (MO) were utilized to prepare compositions in the following experimental data. One MO is from Tairawhiti Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and the other one is from NZ Manuka Boiactives, both from New Zealand. These oils have 20 to 30% of P-triketones (flavesone, leptospermone, iso-leptospermone and grandiflorone). Leptospermone is the most active constituent and represents from 11 to 20% of the total. The shown triketones % are determined by % peak area from GC-FID or GC-MS. Both MO have a similar chromatographic profile and have all the characteristic components of MO, so there is no difference between these essential oils and were used interchangeably in all experiments.

Regarding the Manuka oil hydrosol (MOH), the one used in the experiments of Examples 4-7 for preparing the present compositions, is acquired from N. Zealand Manuka Bioactives. As explained previously, the MOH contains a complex number of more than 100 organic compounds, including 1,8-cineole and active triketones: flavesone, isoleptospermone, leptospermone from 1 up to 9 ppm (see Manuka Oil Hydrosol Specification Sheet, N. Zealand Manuka Bioactives, Dr. W.Campbell).

PRELIMINARY TESTS

Several growth chamber studies and field trials were performed to find out how potent could the herbicidal activity of the pure manuka oil (MO) be in comparison to a commercial herbicide (Callisto 480 SC). These preliminary tests included pure MO applied at rates from 2 to 80 L ha ^-1 , using a volume of application of 380 L ha ¹ . It was found out that a minimum application rate of 20 L ha ^-1 of pure MO was required to obtain an average control over 70 % of selected weed species Lolium multiflorum (Ryegrass), Brassica rapa (Birdsrape mustard), Daucus carota (Wild carrot) Lamiun amplexicaule (Henbit), Erodium cicutarum (Common filaree) and Poa annua (Annual bluegrass) (Figures 1 and 3).

Additional tests were carried out at the field, in a natural weed population, for assessing the herbicide activity of pure MO combined with a non-ionic surfactant (Nu Film®), compared with two commercial herbicides. Using a total volume of application 350 L ha ¹ , which contained 10 L ha ^-1 of pure MO plus the non-ionic surfactant, was enough to achieve the same level of control of Raphanus raphanistrum (Wild mustard), Brassica rapa, Daucus carota, Lamiun amplexicaule, Erodium cicutarium, Poa annua, Spergula arvensis (Corn spurry)) Chenopodium album (Common lambsquarters), Polygomm aviculare (Knotweed), Fallopia convolvulus (Wild buckwheat) and Digitaria sanguinalis (Large crabgrass) (Figure 4).

Example 1: Herbicidal effect of Manuka hydrosol.

A test was performed using two Manuka oil hydrosols (MOH): one obtained from N. Zealand Manuka Bioactives (NZ), and the other from Ethereal Ingredients Pvt Ltd (India, IN), in order to find out about their herbicidal activity. It is important to point out that after a chromatographic analysis GC-MS, both hydrosols showed that they differ in eigth components (i.e. the hydrosol (IN) had a slight peak corresponding to eucalyptol or 1,8 cineole, whereas said peak was absent in the other hydrosol (NZ)). Hydrosols were prepared as emulsions as shown in tables 1 and 2. Volume of application was 300 L ha ^-1 .

TABLE 1. Herbicidal composition comprising MOH (NZ)

Component Content (%)

Hydrosol MOH (NZ) 75.58 v/v

Pho sphatidy Icholine* 18.90 v/v

Ethanol 4.72 v/v

Di-l-p-menthene** 0.56 v/v

Phosphoric acid 0.23 v/v

*Soy lecithin derivate, ** Nu Film®

TABLE 2. Herbicidal composition comprising MOH (IN)

Component Content (%)

Hydrosol MOH (IN) 75.58 v/v

Pho sphatidy Icholine * 18.90 v/v

Ethanol 4.72 v/v

Di-l-p-menthene** 0.56 v/v

Phosphoric acid 0.23 v/v

*Soy lecithin derivate, ** Nu Film®

Figures 5 to 8 show that both MOH have herbicidal activity on a natural weed population, but its control are statistically different from the UTC only at rate of 12 L ha ¹ . These results indicate that both hydrosols have the same herbicidal activity, so the herbicidal effect is independent of the origin.

Example 2: Synergistic effect of compositions comprising MOH and pure Manuka oil (MO)

In order to assess whether or not MOH has an effect over the herbicidal activity of MO, two Compositions comprising MOH (NZ or IN) and MO were prepared and applied to a natural weed population, with an application volume of 280 L ha ¹ . The components of Compositions are shown in only one table (Table 3), since these contained the same concentrations of their components.

TABLE 3. Herbicidal composition comprising MOH (NZ) or MOH (IN) and MO

Component Content (%)

Hydrosol MOH (NZ or IN) 47.24 v/v

Manuka oil 28.34 v/v

Pho sphatidy Icholine * 18.90 v/v

Ethanol 4.72 v/v

Di-l-p-menthene** 0.56 v/v

Phosphoric acid 0.23 v/v

*Soy lecithin derivate, ** Nu Film®

The herbicidal effect of these compositions was compared with the respective Composition only comprising MOH without containing MO (Tables 1 and 2, respectively). All compositions were applied at four different rates (3 L ha ¹ . 6 L ha ¹ , 9 L ha ¹ and 12 L ha ¹ ) on natural weed population (Birdsrape mustard and Italian ryegrass) under greenhouse conditions and the measurement was carried out 23 DAT.

Figure 9 shows the results of weed biomass after applying the four rates mentioned above of the Composition comprising MOH (NZ) and MO and the one comprising MOH (NZ), without MO. Composition having MOH (NZ) and MO had herbicidal activity at the four tested rates, in opposite Composition comprising only MOH (without MO) showed significant herbicide activity only at 12 L ha ¹ . Likewise, Figure 10 shows the resulting weed biomass after applying four rates of the Composition comprising MOH (IN) and MO and the one comprising MOH (IN), without MO; obtaining the same results as disclosed in Figure 9 for the compositions based in MOH (NZ).

In addition, it was compared the herbicidal activity of pure MO with the compositions comprising MOH (NZ or IN), without comprising MO (as shown in Tables 1 and 2), applied at four different rates (3 L ha ^-1 , 6 L ha ^-1 , 9 L ha ^-1 and 12 L ha ¹ ). The weed biomass obtained 23 DAT are shown in Figure 11, in which it is possible to observe that pure MO demonstrated to have an incremental herbicidal action at the four different rates, whereas the compositions comprising MOH had no herbicidal activity at any rate, since the weed biomass is similar to the UTC.

Using the data obtained above (Figures 9 to 11), it was possible to assess whether or not there is a synergistic effect of the composition comprising MOH (NZ or IN) and MO. This assessment was carried out using Colby’s formula (Colby, 1967): wherein:

E = % of weed control respect to UTC when the composition comprising MOH (NZ or IN) (a) and

MO (b) was applied

X = % of weed control respect to UTC when a was applied

Y = % of weed control respect to UTC when b was applied a = Composition comprising MOH (NZ or IN), without MO (compositions of Table 1 and 2) b = pure MO

If the % of weed control obtained when applied the composition a+b is superior to 1 , it means that a and b acted synergistically.

Results showed a weed control synergistic action between composition with MOH (NZ and IN) and MO, and pure MO (Table 4 and 5).

The following Table 4 shows the control of Brassica rapa (Birdsrape mustard) and Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass) expressed as percentage of biomass respect to untreated, 23 DAT, of composition comprising MOH (NZ) and MO (Table 1), the composition comprising only MO (without MO) and pure MO: TABLE 4. Synergy of composition comprising MOH (NZ) and MO

Control (%) Ratio

- Colby’s Treatments (Obtained/

Obtained Expected estimation*

Expected)

Composition MOH (NZ) 34.1

Pure MO 39.9

Composition MOH (NZ) + 78.1 60.4 1.3 Synergy

MO

*If the ratio obtained weed control (%)/Expected weed control (%) is superior to 1, it means that compounds acted synergistically.

The same results were obtained using Colby’s formula to confirm whether or not the composition comprising MOH (IN) and MO had a synergistic action over the sum of the effects of pure MO and the composition comprising MOH (IN) without comprising MO. The Colby’s estimation is provided in Table 5, which shows the control of Brassica rapa (Birdsrape mustard) and Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass) expressed as percentage of biomass respect to UTC, 23 DAT of composition comprising MOH (IN) containing MO, the composition comprising MOH (IN) and without MO (Table 2), and pure MO. TABLE 5. Synergy of composition comprising MOH (IN) and MO

Control ( % ) Ratio

- Colby's Treatments (Obtained/

Obtained Expected estimation*

Expected)

Composition MOH (IN) 25.4

Pure MO 39.9

Composition MOH (IN) + 76.8 55.2 1.4 Synergy

MO

*If the ration obtained weed control (%)/Expected weed control (%) is superior to 1 , it means that compounds acted synergistically. In view of the calculations shown in Tables 4 and 5, it is possible to conclude that the herbicidal effect of the compositions of the present invention, which comprise MOH (NZ or IN) and MO is the result of a synergistic action between the hydrosol and MO.

On the other hand, since the compositions comprising MOH had the same and reproducible herbicidal activity independently from the origin (NZ or IN). For the next examples, as indicated in the preliminary tests section, the compositions could be prepared interchangeably with either MOH (NZ) or MOH (IN), since both compositions are almost identical and have similar herbicide effect.

Example 3: Herbicidal effect of a composition comprising Eucalyptus hydrosol (EOH) and Manuka oil (MO)

A test was performed comparing two compositions comprising Manuka oil (MO) and two hydrosols: one obtained from N. Zealand Manuka Bioactives (MOH), and the other from Ethereal Ingredients Pvt Ltd (EOH), in order to find about their herbicidal activity. The two compositions were prepared as emulsions (Tables 6 and 7):

TABLE 6. Herbicidal composition comprising MO+MOH

Component Content (%)

Manuka hydrosol 67.3 v/v

Manuka oil 10.0 v/v

Phosphatidylcholine* 16.0 v/v

Ethanol 5.0 v/v

Di-l-p-menthene** 1.8 v/v

Phosphoric acid 0.23 v/v

*Soy lecithin derivate, ** Nu Film®

TABLE 7. Herbicidal composition comprising MO + EOH

Component Content (%)

Eucalyptus hydrosol 67.3 v/v

Manuka oil 10.0 v/v Phosphatidylcholine* 16.0 v/v

Ethanol 5.0 v/v

Di-l-p-menthene** 1.8 v/v

Phosphoric acid 0.23 v/v

*Soy lecithin derivate,

These two compositions were applied at two rates (20 L/ha and 24 L/ha) on natural weed population (Birdsrape mustard and Italian ryegrass). Volume of application was 320 L ha ^-1 The herbicidal activity was assessed 22 DAT, obtaining the results shown in Figure 12. This Figure shows that both compositions have the same herbicidal activity. In particular, both tested concentrations of hydrosol compositions produced less weed biomass than the UTC, in which a statistical difference in herbicidal activity was obtained for both hydrosol compositions applied at a rate of 20 and 24 L ha ¹ .

It is very important to highlight that these results indicate that both compositions have the same effect independent from the specific type of hydrosols (EOH and MOH). Therefore, a composition comprising EOH and MO has the same properties as a composition comprising MOH and MO and, thus, Eucalyptus hydrosol has the same herbicidal action as Manuka hydrosol.

Example 4: Comparison of herbicidal activity between Composition 1 and pure Manuka oil

A greenhouse test was conducted at SID AL Research Center, located at Valparaiso Region, Chile. Aluminum trays 12 cm long x 6 cm wide and 3 cm depth were filled with an Alfisol soil and seeded with Brassica rapa seeds (Birdsrape mustard). When weed plants reached 2-3 true leaves, these were sprayed with pure Manuka oil 20 L ha ¹ and with Composition 1 at two rates, 4.0 and 6.0 L ha ^-1 . Table 8 shows the components of Composition 1.

TABLE 8. Composition 1.

Component Content (%)

Hydrosol 35.18 v/v

Manuka oil 35.18 v/v Phosphatidylcholine* 17.59 v/v

KOH 2.20 v/v

Glycerol 4.40 v/v

Ethanol 4.40 v/v

Di-l-p-menthene** 1.06 v/v

*Soy lecithin derivate, ** Nu Film®

The weight of weed biomass was measured 17 days after treatment (DAT). The results showed that Composition 1 at 6 L ha ¹ , which contents 2.1 L ha ¹ manuka oil equivalent, was as effective as pure manuka oil applied at 20 L ha ¹ (Figure 13).

Composition 1 was also tested against MO in the South of Chile (Araucama Region, Temuco) at SIDAL Sub-Experimental Station. The assessed rates were: MO at 30 and 40 L ha ¹ , and Composition 1 at 6 and 10 L ha ¹ . All treatments were applied on the field over a natural weed population constituted of Anthemis cotula (Mayweed), Raphanus sativus (Wild radish), Polygonum aviculare (Common knotweed), Spergula arvensis (Corn spurry), Cirsium vulgare (Bull thistle), Avena fatua (Wild oat) and Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass). All weed species were about 2 to 3 leaves at application time. Homogenous 80 m ² plots were selected to apply each treatment. The application volume was 380 L ha ¹ . Treatments were evaluated in four sectors of 1 m ² each, selected at random, as replications.

As shown in Figure 14, the results indicate an important effect on green weed coverage 30 DAT, being the plot that received application of Composition 1 at 10 L ha ^-1 the one that presented the lowest value (less than 10%) and it was statistically different from the others. Composition 1 at 6 Lha' ¹ was as effective as 40 MO Lha' ¹ . As it can be seen in Table 8, there is an immense difference between treatments according to MO equivalent ha ¹ (Table 9):

TABLE 9. MO equivalence of Composition 1

Treatment Rate (L ha' ¹ ) MO equivalent (L ha' ¹ )

Composition 1 6 2.1

Composition 1 10 3.5 These results show that Composition 1 having lower rates of MO is more effective in controlling weeds than 40 L h ¹ of pure MO. It should be noted that Composition 1, at the tested rates, comprises lower equivalent concentration of MO in comparison to the pure MO concentration used alone in both experiments (Table 9).

Example 5: Herbicidal activity of Composition 2

In the South of Chile (Araucania Region, Temuco) at SIDAL Sub -Experimental Station, a field test was performed to compare the efficacy of Composition 2 at 4, 6, 8 and 10 L ha ^-1 . Table 10 shows the components of Composition 2.

TABLE 10. Composition 2.

Component Content (%)

Hydrosol 47.24 v/v

Manuka oil 28.34 v/v

Phosphatidylcholine* 18.90 v/v

Ethanol 4.72 v/v

Di-l-p-menthene** 0.56 v/v

Phosphoric acid 0.23 v/v

*Soy lecithin derivate, ** Nu Film®

Treatments were applied on the field over a natural weed population that was composed of Anthemis cotula (Mayweed), Raphanus sativus (Wild radish), Polygonum aviculare (Common knotweed), Spergula arvensis (Corn spurry), Cirsium vulgare (Bull thistle) and Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass).

All weeds were about 2 to 4 leaves at application time, but bull thistle in the rosette stage. Homogenous 80 m ² plots were selected to apply each treatment, using an application volume of 400 L ha ¹ . Treatments were evaluated in four sectors of 1 m ² each, selected at random, as replications. As shown in Figure 15, all the treatments of Composition 2 showed a significant difference of soil green coverage at 30 DAT, compared to the UTC. These results were very similar to the ones obtained with Composition 1 in Example 5 but applying less amount of MO equivalent (L ha ¹ ) than in composition 1 (see Table 11 below). This herbicidal effect was corroborated in a greenhouse test, on Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass) and Brassica rapa (Wild mustard). It is very important to point out that Italian ryegrass is a very important weed because many resistant biotypes had developed worldwide as a result of the excessive repeated use of the same mechanism of actions (ACCasa, ALS and EPSPS).

TABLE 11. MO equivalence of Composition 2

Treatment Rate (L ha' ¹ ) MO equivalent (L ha' ¹ )

Composition 2 4 1.1

Composition 2 6 1.7

Composition 2 8 2.2

Composition 2 10 2.8

Example 6: Herbicidal activity of Composition 3

A greenhouse test was conducted at the SID AL Research Center, located at Valparaiso Region, Chile. Aluminum trays 12 cm long x 6 cm wide and 3 cm depth were filled with an Alfisol soil and seeded with Brassica rapa (Birdsrape mustard), and Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass). When wild mustard and Italian ryegrass reached 3-7 leaves and 1 tiller, respectively were sprayed with Composition 3, at rates of 6.0, 9.0 and 12 L ha ¹ . Table 12 shows the components of Composition 3. Application volume was 290 L ha ¹ .

TABLE 12. Composition 3.

Component Content (%)

Hydrosol 47.24 v/v

Manuka oil 18.90 v/v

Phosphatidylcholine* 18.90 v/v Deionized water 9.45 v/v

Ethanol 4.74 v/v

Di-l-p-menthene** 0.56 v/v

Phosphoric acid 0.23 v/v

*Soy lecithin derivate, ** Nu Film®

It was shown that 30 DAT Composition 3, applied at 9 and 12 L ha ¹ produced an average of 65 to 75 % biomass decrease with respect to the UTC (Figure 16).

Example 7: Herbicidal activity of Composition 4.

Composition 4 was tested in the South of Chile (Araucanfa Region, Temuco) at Sub-Experimental Station (SID AL). The rates were 3, 6, 9 and 12 L ha ¹ and the application volume was 280 L ha ¹ . All treatments were applied on the field over a natural weed population that was composed of Raphanus sativus (Wild radish), Chenopodium album (Common lambsquarters), Amaranthus sp. (Pigweed) and Echinochloa crus-galli (Bamyargrass). Table 13 shows the components of Composition 4.

TABLE 13. Composition 4.

Component Content (%)

Hydrosol 66.00 v/v

Manuka oil 9.40 v/v

Phosphatidylcholine* 18.70 v/v

Ethanol 4.70 v/v

Di-l-p-menthene** 0.80 v/v

Phosphoric acid 0.40 v/v

*Soy lecithin derivate, ** Nu Film®

Figure 17 shows the weed biomass 8 DAT as a result of the four applied treatments of Composition 4, in comparison to an untreated control. All rates of Composition 4 reduced considerably weed biomass than the UTC. In particular, there were no statically differences between all used rates of composition 4, meaning about 0.3, 0.6, 0.9 and 1.1 L ha ¹ of MO equivalent. It can be seen a clear herbicidal activity of this Composition, utilizing a very low amount of MO equivalent ha ¹ .

Through greenhouse and field testing, the present invention demonstrates that compositions containing a relatively high concentration of hydrosol, a low concentration of MO and co-adjutants exhibit a desirable herbicidal activity when applied at post-emergence on different type of weeds. Thus, compositions with this characteristic could be costly effective as an herbicide for weed control strategy in organic farming and other non-agriculture situations, as discussed before. It is important to emphasize that all components of the compositions of the present invention are accepted by organic agriculture.

Although specific embodiments and applications of the invention have been described, these embodiments and applications are exemplary only, and several variations are possible to be made without departing from the scope of the present invention. Those of skill in the art will therefore appreciate in light of the present disclosure that various modifications and changes could be made. All of them are intended to be included with the scope of the appended claims.

Example 8: Effect of a composition comprising Tree Tea Oil Hydrolate (TOH) and pure Manuka oil (MO)

In order to assess whether or not TOH has an effect on the herbicidal activity of MO, one Composition comprising TOH (NZ) and MO was prepared and applied over Italian ryegrass, with an application volume of 320 L ha ^-1 . The components of Composition are shown in Table 14. The herbicidal effect of this Composition was compared with the respective Composition comprising EOH and MO (Table 15).

TABLE 14. Herbicidal Composition comprising TOH (NZ) and MO.

Component Content (%)

Hydrosol TOH 47.24 v/v

Manuka oil 28.34 v/v

Pho sphatidy Icholine * 18.90 v/v

Ethanol 4.72 v/v

Di-l-p-menthene** 0.56 v/v Phosphoric acid 0.23 v/v

*Soy lecithin derivate,

TABLE 15. Herbicidal Composition comprising EOH (NZ) and MO.

Component Content (%)

Hydrosol EOH 47.24 v/v

Manuka oil 28.34 v/v

Pho sphatidy Icholine * 18.90 v/v

Ethanol 4.72 v/v

Di-l-p-menthene** 0.56 v/v

Phosphoric acid 0.23 v/v

*Soy lecithin derivate,

All compositions were applied at four different rates (6 L ha ¹ , 9 L ha ¹ , and 12 L ha ¹ ) on Italian ryegrass under greenhouse conditions, and the measurement was carried out 14 DAT.

Figure 18 shows the results of weed biomass after applying the three rates mentioned above of the Composition comprising TOH (NZ) and MO and the one comprising EOH (NZ), with MO. Both Composition having EOH (NZ) or TOH (NZ) and MO had the same herbicidal activity at the three tested rates. This results showed that TOH have the same effect in the Composition that EOH, and EOH is equivalent to use MOH in the Composition (Example 3).

Example 9: Synergistic effect of compositions comprising MOH and pure Kanuka oil (KO)

In order to assess whether or not MOH has an effect on the herbicidal activity of KO, one Composition comprising MOH and KO was prepared and applied to a weed population, with an application volume of 397 L ha ¹ . The components of Composition are shown in Table 16 as follows:

TABLE 16. Herbicidal Composition comprising MOH and KO

Component Content (%)

Hydrosol MOH (NZ or IN) 47.24 v/v Kanuka oil 28.34 v/v

Pho sphatidy Icholine * 18.90 v/v

Ethanol 4.72 v/v

Di-l-p-menthene** 0.56 v/v

Phosphoric acid 0.23 v/v

*Soy lecithin derivate, ** Nu Film®

The Composition was applied under greenhouse conditions at four different rates (3 L ha’ ¹ , 6 L ha’ \ 9 L ha’ ¹ , and 12 L ha’ ¹ ) on weed populations (Birdsrape mustard and Italian ryegrass), and the measurement was carried out 14 DAT.

Figure 19 shows the results of weeds biomass after applying the four rates mentioned above of the Composition comprising MOH and KO, and pure KO sprayed at four different rates (3 L ha ¹ . 6 L ha ^-1 , 9 L ha ^-1 , and 12 L ha ¹ ). Results showed that Composition sprayed at 12 L ha ^-1 , representing 3.4 L of KO, reaches a weed control equivalent to 12 L ha ¹ of pure KO.

Using the data obtained above (Figures 18 and 19), it was possible to assess whether or not there is a synergistic effect of the Composition comprising MOH and KO. This assessment was carried out using Colby’s formula (Colby, 1967): zy * (100 — x)\

E = x + - — — -

V 100 / wherein:

E = % of weed control respect to UTC when the Composition comprising MOH (NZ or IN) (a) and KO (b) was applied (Table 16)

X = % of weed control respect to UTC when a was applied

Y = % of weed control respect to UTC when b was applied a = Composition comprising MOH (NZ or IN), without KO (compositions of Table 15) b = pure KO

If the % of weed control obtained when applied the composition a+b is superior to 1 , it means that a and b acted synergistically. Results showed a weed control synergistic action between Composition with MOH (NZ) and KO (Table 17). The following Table 17 shows the control of Brassica rapa (Birdsrape mustard) and Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass) expressed as percentage of biomass respect to untreated, 14 DAT, of Composition comprising MOH and KO (Table 16), the Composition comprising only MOH (without KO) (Example 1, Tables 1 and 2), and pure KO at rate of 3,0 L ha ¹ :

TABLE 17. Synergy of Composition comprising MOH (NZ) and KO

Control (%) Ratio

_ Colby's Treatments (Obtained/

Obtained Expected estimation*

Expected)

Composition MOH 10.8

Pure KO 26.1 -

Composition MOH + KO 35.8 34.1 1.1 Synergy

*If the ratio obtained weed control (%)/Expected weed control (%) is superior to 1, it means that compounds acted synergistically.

In view of the calculations shown in Table 17, it is possible to conclude that the herbicidal effect of the composition of the present invention, which comprise MOH and KO is the result of a synergistic action between the hydrosol and KO.

On the other hand, as indicated in Examples 1, 3, and 8, the compositions could be prepared interchangeably with either MOH (NZ) or MOH (IN) or EOH or TOH, compositions are almost identical and have equivalent herbicide activity.

Example 10: Effect of a composition comprising Manuka Oil Hydrolate (MOH) plus Eucalyptus oil and pure EO.

In order to assess whether or not MOH has an effect on the herbicidal activity of EO, one Composition comprising MOH (NZ) and EO was prepared and applied over Italian ryegrass, with an application volume of 280 L ha ¹ . The components of Composition are shown in Table 18. The herbicidal effect of this Composition was compared with pure EO at rate of 3.6 L ha ¹ . TABLE 18. Herbicidal Composition comprising MOH (NZ) and EO

Component Content (%)

Hydrosol TOH 47.24 v/v

Eucalyptus oil 28.34 v/v

Pho sphatidy Icholine * 18.90 v/v

Ethanol 4.72 v/v

Di-l-p-menthene** 0.56 v/v

Phosphoric acid 0.23 v/v

*Soy lecithin derivate, ** Nu Film®

The composition was applied at 12 L ha ¹ on Italian ryegrass under greenhouse conditions, and the measurement was carried out 14 DAT.

Figure 20 shows the results of weed biomass after applying the rate mentioned above of the Composition comprising MOH (NZ) and EO and pure EO. A Composition having MOH (NZ) and EO showed a significant herbicidal activity in comparison to pure EO.

Example 11: Effect of a composition comprising Manuka oil hydrosol (MOH) and Eugenol (Clover oil).

In order to assess whether or not MOH has an effect on the herbicidal activity of Eugenol, one Composition comprising MOH (NZ) and Eugenol (99% pure, Otto chemie pvt ltd., India) was prepared and applied over Italian ryegrass, with an application volume of 320 L ha ¹ . The components of two Compositions are shown in Table 19 and 20. The herbicidal effect of this Composition was compared with the respective Compositions only comprising two MOH concentrations without containing Eugenol (Table 21 and 22) and Composition only comprising Eugenol without MOH (Table 23).

TABLE 19. Herbicidal Composition comprising MOH 60% (NZ) and Eugenol.

Component Content (%)

Hydrosol MOH 60.00 v/v

Eugenol 5.00 v/v Phosphatidylcholine* 10.00 v/v

Ethanol 4.98 v/v

Di-l-p-menthene** 0.56 v/v

Phosphoric acid 0.23 v/v

Deionized water 19.23 v/v

*Soy lecithin derivate, ** Nu Film®

TABLE 20. Herbicidal Composition comprising MOH 80% (NZ) and Eugenol.

Component Content (%)

Hydrosol MOH 79.23 v/v

Eugenol 5.00 v/v

Pho sphatidy Icholine * 10.00 v/v

Ethanol 4.98 v/v

Di-l-p-menthene** 0.56 v/v

Phosphoric acid 0.23 v/v

*Soy lecithin derivate, ** Nu Film®

TABLE 21. Herbicidal Composition comprising MOH 60% (NZ) without Eugenol.

Component Content (%)

Hydrosol MOH 61.33 v/v

Eugenol 0.0 v/v

Phosphatidylcholine* 10.00 v/v

Ethanol 4.98 v/v

Di-l-p-menthene** 0.56 v/v

Phosphoric acid 0.23 v/v

Deionized water 22.90 v/v

*Soy lecithin derivate, ** Nu Film®

TABLE 22. Herbicidal Composition comprising MOH 80% (NZ) without Eugenol.

Component Content (%)

Hydrosol MOH 80.00 v/v Eugenol 0.0 v/v

Pho sphatidy Icholine * 10.00 v/v

Ethanol 4.98 v/v

Di-l-p-menthene** 0.56 v/v

Phosphoric acid 0.23 v/v

Deionized water 4.23 v/v

*Soy lecithin derivate, ** Nu Film®

TABLE 23. Herbicidal Composition comprising MOH (NZ) without Eugenol

Component Content (%)

Hydrosol MOH 0.0 v/v

Eugenol 5.0 v/v

Pho sphatidy Icholine * 10.00 v/v

Ethanol 4.98 v/v

Di-l-p-menthene** 0.56 v/v

Phosphoric acid 0.23 v/v

Deionized water 79.23 v/v

*Soy lecithin derivate, ** Nu Film®

All compositions were applied at rate of 4 L ha ¹ on Italian ryegrass under greenhouse conditions, and the measurement was carried out 14 DAT.

Figure 21 shows the results of weed biomass after applying the five Compositions mentioned above. Both Compositions having MOH (NZ) and Eugenol MO showed a significant herbicidal activity compared to Compositions with only MOH (without Eugenol) and Composition comprising only Eugenol (without MOH.

The results of the Compositions (Figure 21) were assessed with the Colby’s formula as shown previously in Example 9, indicating a weed control synergistic activity between the Compositions with MOH with Eugenol, where ratio between their actual weed control % (obtained control %) is greater than the sum of the effect of each component by itself (expected control %).

TABLE 24. Synergy of Composition comprising MOH (NZ) and Eugenol. Control (%) Ratio

_ Colby's Treatments (Obtained/

Obtained Expected estimation*

Expected)

Composition MOH 60% (without 37.3

Eugenol)

Composition MOH 80% (without 42.2

Eugenol)

Composition Eugenol (without 47.7

MOH)

Composition MOH 60% with 73.4 67.2 1.1 Synergy

Eugenol

Composition MOH 60% with 86.9 69.7 1.2 Synergy

Eugenol

*If the ratio obtained weed control (%)/Expected weed control (%) is superior to 1, it means that compounds acted synergistically. In view of the calculations shown in Table 24, it is possible to conclude that the herbicidal effect of the composition of the present invention, which comprise MOH an Eugenol is the result of a synergistic action between the hydrosol and Eugenol (Clove oil).

On the other hand, as indicated in Examples 1, 3, and 8, the compositions could be prepared interchangeably with either MOH (NZ or IN), EOH or TOH, since the compositions are almost identical and have an equivalent herbicide activity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acimovic, M; Tesevic, V; Smilijanic, K; Cvetkovic, M; Stankovic, J; Kiprovski, B; Sikora, V. 2020. Hydrolates-by-products of essential oil distillation: Chemical composition, biological activity and potential uses. Advanced technologies, 9, 54-70.

Azza, S; Lyoussi, B; Miguel, M C. 2001. Antioxidant activity of Morrocan hydrosols. J. Med. Plant Res.5, 6688-6696.

Barton, A; Dell, B ; Knight, A. 2010. Herbicidal activity of cineole derivatives. J Agric Food Chem, 58, 10147-10155.

Boyraz, N; Ozcan, M. 2006. Inhibition of phytopathogenic fungi by essential oil hydrosol, ground material and extract of summer savory (Satureja hortensis L.) growing wild in Turkey. Int. J. Food Microbiol.107,238-242

Colby, S R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds ,15,20-22.

Cooke, A and Cooke, M D. 1994. An investigation into the antimicrobial properties of manuka and kanuca oil. Cawthron Report, 263 PP.34.

Cornes, D. 2006. Callisto: A very successful maize herbicide inspired by allelochemistry. Maize Association of Australia, 8th Trimestral Conference. http//wwwregional.org.au/.allelothaty/2005/2/7/2636_cornesd. html.

Dayan, F E; Howell, JL; Marais, J P; Ferreira, D and Koivunen , M. 2011. Manuka oil, a natural herbicide with preemergence activity. Weed Science, 59, 464 - 469.

Dayan, M H; Duke, SO; Sauldubois, A; Singh, N; Mac Curdy, C and Cantrell, C L. 2007. p- Hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase is an herbicide target site for B -triketones from Leptospermun scoparium. Phytochemistry, 68, 2004-2014 Dayan, F E; Cantrell and Duke, SO. 2009. Natural products in crop protection.B ioorg .Med . Chem. , 17 ,4022 -4034.

Dayan, F E and Duke, S O. 2010. Natural products for weed control management in organic farming in the USA. Outlooks Pest Manag.21, 156-160.

Gray, RA, Tseng, C K and Rusay, E. 1980. l-Hydroxy-2-(alkylketo)4,4,6,6-tetramethyl cyclohexen- dioneherbicides patent US. Patent 4:202,840

Hamdi, A; Majouli, K; Vander Heyden, Y; Flamini, G and Marzouk, Z. 2017. Phytotoxic activities of essential oils and hydrosols of Haplophylum tuberculatum. Industrial Crops and Products. 97, 440-447.

Hoet, S; S to "vigny, C; He Tent, M F; Quetin-Leclercq, J. 2006. Antitry-panosomal compounds from leaf essential oil of Strychnos spinosa. Planta Medica. 72, 480-482

Kural, L; Ozkan, R. 2020. Allelopahtic effect of extract, essential oil and hydrosol of Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) on some weeds and culture plant seeds. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 20, 91413-9419

List, S; Brown, O H and Walsh, K W. 1995. Functional anatomy of the oil glands of Melaleuca alternifolia (Myrtaceae). Aust. J.Bot..43, 629641.

Oerke, E C. 2006. Crop losses to pest. J. Agric. Sci. 144, 31-43.

Lee, D L; Prisbylla, M P; Cromart, T H; Dagarin, D P; Hovard, S W; Provan, W M; Ellis, MK; Fraser ,T and Mutter ,LC. 1997. The discovery and structural requirements of inhibitors of p- hydroxyphenlypyruvate dioxygenase. Weed Sci., 45, 601-609

Meazza, G B; Scheffler, B E; Tellez, M R; Rimando, A M; Nanayakkara, N P D, Khan, I A; Abourashed, E K; Romagni, J G; Duke, S O and Dayan F E. 2002. The inhibitory activity of natural products on plant p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase. Phytochemistry, 60, 281-288. Patton, A and Weisenberger, D. 2012. Efficacy of current organic post- emergent weed control options in turfgrass. Annual Report-Purdue University Turfgrass Sci. Progr. pp 26-30.

Porter, NG; Wilkins, AL. 1999. Chemical, physical and antimicrobial properties of essential oils of Leptospermum scoparium and Kunzea ericoides. Phytochemistry. 50 (3), 407 415.

Rhee, Gye Ju; Chung, Kyeon Soo; Kim, Eun Hee; Hyun Joo; Hong Nan Doo. 1997. Animicrobial activities of steam distillate of Leptospermum scoparium. Yakhak Hoeji.41, 132-138.

Romagni, J G; Meazza, G; Nnayakkara, NP and Dayan, F E. 2000. The phytotoxic lichen metabolite, usnic acid is a potent inhibitor of plants p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase. FEBS Lett.480, 301-305.

Sagdic. O. 2003. Sensitivity of four pathogenic bacteria to Turkish thyme and oregano hydrosols. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 36,467-473.

Soltys, D; Krasuska, U; Bogatek, R and Gniazdowska, A. 2013. Allelochemicals as Bioherbicides- Present and Perspectives, pp 517-542, Chapter 20. In: Price AJ, Kelton JA. eds). Herbicides- current research and case studies in use. Licensee in Tech Press, New York.

Santana-Rios, G; Orner, G A; Amantana, A; Provost, C; Wy, S Y and Dashwood, R H. 2001. Potent antimutagenic activity of white tea in comparison with green tea in the Salmonella assay. Mutat. J. Res. 495, 61-74.

Tomuk, F; Cankur,H; Ozturk,! ; Sagdid ,0 ;Bayram,0 and Yetim,H. 2011. Efficacy of various plant hydrosols as natural food sanitizers in reducing Escherichia coli 0157:H7 and Salmonella typhimurium on fresh cut carrots and apples. Int. J. Food Microbiol.148,30-35.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Organic Farming. httpZ/www.epa. gov/ agriculture/torg .html. Van Klink, J W; Larsen, L; Perry, N B; Veavers, R T, CooK, C M; Bremer, P J; Mac Kenzie, A D and Kirikae, T. 2005. Triketone active against antibiotic -resistant bacteria: synthesis, activity relationships and mode of action. Bioorg. Med. Chem.13,6651-6662. Young, S L. 2004. Natural product herbicides for control of annual vegetation along roadsides. Weed Technol. 18,580-587.