Antagonistic interactions between herbicides or between herbicides and nonherbicides are common and prevent the use of certain mixtures. Although antagonism is detrimental when it reduces weed control, the degree of antagonism is critical to determine whether a mixture is agronomically useful. If antagonsim is not severe, herbicides with different weed spectrums can be used together to complete the weed spectrum. Antagonism can be beneficial when it increases crop safety. In cases where antagonism significantly reduces control, key factors must be identified and managed to decrease antagonism and increase efficacy. These factors, which include the herbicide rate(s), mode of action, plant species, formulation, adjuvants, timing, stage of growth, and environment, often are complex and poorly understood at the whole plant level. The growing dependence on herbicide mixtures has increased the practical importance of understanding herbicide antagonism.

Metribuzin and the ethyl ester of chlorimuron were evaluated alone and in combination for preemergence broadleaf weed control in soybeans. Neither herbicide alone controlled all broadleaf weeds tested, but combinations showed both complementary and additive action. Two field studies quantified these interactions on broadleaf weeds and showed that low rates of either herbicide alone controlled Pennsylvania smartweed and redroot pigweed. Metribuzin was more effective than chlorimuron in controlling prickly sida and hemp sesbania, while chlorimuron was more effective on common cocklebur, sicklepod, and ivyleaf and pitted morningglories. Additive action was most important on velvetleaf, sicklepod, annual morningglories, and hemp sesbania. Because the components were both additive and complementary, a range of mixture rates and ratios were more effective for weed control than either herbicide alone.