Composition for preventing and treating cotton leafhopper, insecticide, application and preparation method of insecticide

Abstract

The invention relates to the technical field of cotton leafhopper prevention and treatment, in particular to a composition for preventing and treating cotton leafhopper, an insecticide, application and a preparation method of the insecticide. The composition is prepared from the following components in parts by mass: 67.5 to 94.5 parts of dinotefuran, 900 parts of monopotassium phosphate, 900 parts of orange peel essential oil and 7.5 parts of eucalyptol, and is prepared from the following components in parts by mass: 67.5 to 94.5 parts of dinotefuran, 900 parts of monopotassium phosphate, 900 parts of orange peel essential oil and 7.5 parts of eucalyptol. When the insecticide is applied to cotton leafhopper prevention and treatment, compared with a single dose of dinotefuran, the insecticide not only can achieve a better prevention and treatment effect, but also can reduce the dosage of dinotefuran so as to achieve the purpose of effectively delaying the generation of drug resistance of cotton leafhoppers.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The invention relates to the technical field of cotton leafhopper control, and in particular to a composition for controlling cotton leafhopper, an insecticide, an application thereof, and a preparation method thereof. Background Art

[0002] Since there are few pesticides that can effectively control cotton leafhoppers, dinotefuran is currently the most ideal chemical pesticide for cotton leafhopper control, and dinotefuran is widely used in cotton leafhopper control. At present, the speed at which cotton leafhoppers develop resistance to dinotefuran is gradually increasing, and the risk of reduced control effectiveness is also gradually increasing. Once the efficacy is reduced, it is necessary to increase the dosage of dinotefuran to ensure the control effect, but increasing the dosage will cause the pesticide residue to exceed the standard. Therefore, once cotton leafhoppers quickly develop resistance, it will make it difficult to continue to carry out subsequent control work effectively. Summary of the invention

[0003] The present invention provides a composition for controlling cotton leafhoppers, an insecticide, an application thereof, and a preparation method thereof. When the insecticide of the present invention is used for controlling cotton leafhoppers, compared with a single-dose finished preparation of dinotefuran, it can not only improve the control effect, but also reduce the dosage of dinotefuran to achieve the purpose of effectively delaying the cotton leafhoppers from developing drug resistance.

[0004] In a first aspect, the present invention provides a composition for controlling cotton leafhoppers, comprising the following components: dinotefuran, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, orange peel essential oil and eucalyptol; by mass, dinotefuran is 67.5 to 94.5 parts, potassium dihydrogen phosphate is 900 parts, orange peel essential oil is 900 parts, and eucalyptol is 7.5 parts.

[0005] In a second aspect, the present invention provides an insecticide comprising a solvent and the composition, wherein the total number of parts by mass is 10,000 parts, the composition is 1,875 to 1,902 parts, and the solvent is 8,098 to 8,125 parts; the solvent comprises the following components: a nonionic surfactant and water, wherein the nonionic surfactant is 1 part and the water is 99 parts by volume.

[0006] In a third aspect, the present invention provides a method for preparing an insecticide, comprising the following steps:

[0007] Step S1: adding a nonionic surfactant to water to obtain a solvent;

[0008] Step S2: mixing dinotefuran and potassium dihydrogen phosphate to obtain a mixed powder;

[0009] Step S3: stirring and mixing the mixed powder and the solvent to obtain a mixed solution;

[0010] Step S4: adding orange peel essential oil and eucalyptus oil to the mixed solution, stirring and mixing to obtain an insecticide.

[0011] In a fourth aspect, the present invention provides a use of the insecticide in the preparation of an agent for controlling cotton leafhoppers.

[0012] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following beneficial effects:

[0013] (1) When the insecticide of the present invention is used for the control of cotton leafhoppers, compared with a single dose of dinotefuran, it not only has a significantly enhanced effect on the control of cotton leafhoppers, but can also effectively delay the development of drug resistance in cotton leafhoppers, thereby ensuring that the control of cotton leafhoppers can be carried out sustainably and stably. At the same time, potassium dihydrogen phosphate can also quickly replenish the potassium deficiency caused by cotton leafhopper damage.

[0014] (2) When the insecticide of the present invention is used for the prevention and control of cotton leafhoppers, a relatively ideal prevention and control effect can be achieved when the dosage of dinotefuran per hectare is 67.5 to 94.5 g, and the dosage of dinotefuran per hectare can be reduced by 30% to 50% compared with the dosage of 135 g of dinotefuran per hectare required by the existing finished product preparation. Using the insecticide provided by the present invention to replace the existing highly toxic finished product preparation for the prevention and control of cotton leafhoppers can not only ensure the prevention and control effect, but also reduce the dosage of dinotefuran, thereby effectively reducing ecological environmental pollution and pesticide residues in crops.

[0015] (3) The insecticide of the present invention has both rapid-acting and long-lasting properties when used for the control of cotton leafhoppers. When the insecticide of the present invention is used for the control of cotton leafhoppers, the control effect 1 day and 14 days after application are better than those of existing finished preparations, and the rapid-acting and long-lasting effects are better, especially the control effect 14 days after application is significantly improved. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0016] The following embodiments are not intended to limit the present invention, but are merely used to illustrate how the present invention is implemented in practical applications.

[0017] Example 1 Preparation of insecticide for controlling cotton leafhoppers

[0018] The preparation method of the insecticide comprises the following steps: step S1: adding a nonionic surfactant to water to obtain a solvent, wherein the nonionic surfactant is 1 part and the water is 99 parts by volume; step S2: mixing dinotefuran and potassium dihydrogen phosphate to obtain a mixed powder; step S3: stirring and mixing the solvent and the mixed powder, first stirring and mixing at a stirring speed of 100 to 200 r / min for 5 to 10 minutes, and then stirring and mixing at a stirring speed of 400 to 500 r / min for 15 to 30 minutes, to obtain a mixed solution; step S4: adding orange peel essential oil and eucalyptus oil to the mixed solution, stirring and mixing for 60 to 90 minutes, and the stirring speed is 650 to 750 r / min, to obtain the insecticide.

[0019] In this embodiment, the nonionic surfactant is Tween-20, the technical material of dinotefuran is produced by Shanghai Jialikang Biotechnology Co., Ltd.; the potassium dihydrogen phosphate is a purchased test reagent produced by Tianjin Hengxing Chemical Reagent Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; the orange peel essential oil is produced by Hebei Zhenxitang Technology Development Co., Ltd., and the eucalyptus oil is produced by Beijing Yagonon Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

[0020] In the insecticide, by weight, the dinotefuran is 67.5 parts, potassium dihydrogen phosphate is 900 parts, orange peel essential oil is 900 parts, eucalyptol is 7.5 parts, and the solvent is 8125 parts. 2 (about 1 / 15 hectare, or 1 mu) the dosage is 667g, every 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water and then sprayed. The active ingredient is dinotefuran, which is equivalent to 67.5 grams / hectare of active ingredient.

[0021] Example 2 Preparation of insecticide for controlling cotton leafhoppers

[0022] The preparation method of the insecticide comprises the following steps: step S1: adding a nonionic surfactant to water to obtain a solvent, wherein the nonionic surfactant is 1 part and the water is 99 parts by volume; step S2: mixing dinotefuran and potassium dihydrogen phosphate to obtain a mixed powder; step S3: stirring and mixing the solvent and the mixed powder, first stirring and mixing at a stirring speed of 100 to 200 r / min for 5 to 10 minutes, and then stirring and mixing at a stirring speed of 400 to 500 r / min for 15 to 30 minutes to obtain a mixed solution; step S4: adding orange peel essential oil and eucalyptus oil to the mixed solution, stirring and mixing for 60 to 90 minutes, and the stirring speed is 650 to 750 r / min to obtain the insecticide.

[0023] In this embodiment, the nonionic surfactant is Tween-20, the technical material of dinotefuran is produced by Shanghai Jialikang Biotechnology Co., Ltd.; the potassium dihydrogen phosphate is a purchased test reagent produced by Tianjin Hengxing Chemical Reagent Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; the orange peel essential oil is produced by Hebei Zhenxitang Technology Development Co., Ltd., and the eucalyptus oil is produced by Beijing Yagonon Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

[0024] In the insecticide, by weight, the dinotefuran is 81 parts, potassium dihydrogen phosphate is 900 parts, orange peel essential oil is 900 parts, eucalyptol is 7.5 parts, and the solvent is 8111.5 parts. 2 (about 1 / 15 hectare, or 1 mu) the dosage is 667g, every 667m 2The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water and then sprayed. The active ingredient is dinotefuran, which is equivalent to 81 grams of active ingredient per hectare.

[0025] Example 3 Preparation of insecticide for controlling cotton leafhoppers

[0026] The preparation method of the insecticide comprises the following steps: step S1: adding a nonionic surfactant to water to obtain a solvent, wherein the nonionic surfactant comprises 1 part and the water comprises 99 parts by volume; step S2: mixing dinotefuran and potassium dihydrogen phosphate to obtain a mixed powder; step S3: stirring and mixing the solvent and the mixed powder, first stirring and mixing at a stirring speed of 100 to 200 r / min for 5 to 10 minutes, and then stirring and mixing at a stirring speed of 400 to 500 r / min for 15 to 30 minutes to obtain a mixed solution; step S4: adding orange peel essential oil and eucalyptus oil to the mixed solution, stirring and mixing for 60 to 90 minutes, and the stirring speed is 650 to 750 r / min to obtain the insecticide.

[0027] In this embodiment, the nonionic surfactant is Tween-20, the technical material of dinotefuran is produced by Shanghai Jialikang Biotechnology Co., Ltd.; the potassium dihydrogen phosphate is a purchased test reagent produced by Tianjin Hengxing Chemical Reagent Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; the orange peel essential oil is produced by Hebei Zhenxitang Technology Development Co., Ltd., and the eucalyptus oil is produced by Beijing Yagonon Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

[0028] In the insecticide, by weight, the dinotefuran is 94.5 parts, potassium dihydrogen phosphate is 900 parts, orange peel essential oil is 900 parts, eucalyptol is 7.5 parts, and the solvent is 8098 parts.

[0029] In this embodiment, the pesticide is used every 667m 2 The dosage is 667g, every 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water and then sprayed. The active ingredient is dinotefuran, which is equivalent to 94.5 grams / hectare of active ingredient.

[0030] Embodiment 4 Cotton leafhopper control effect test

[0031] The test agents used in the cotton leafhopper control effect test in this embodiment include the insecticide in Example 1, the insecticide in Example 2, the insecticide in Example 3, and 13 comparative agents. The specific conditions of the 13 comparative agents are recorded as follows:

[0032] Comparative agent 1: 25% dinotefuran wettable powder, produced by Yancheng Limin Agrochemical Co., Ltd., is a finished preparation. The comparative agent 1 was tested using 4 different dosages.

[0033] Comparative dosage of agent 1: per 667m2 The dosage is 36 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water and then sprayed. The active ingredient is dinotefuran, which is equivalent to 135 grams of active ingredient per hectare.

[0034] Comparative dosage of agent 1 B: per 667m 2 The dosage is 25.2 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water and then sprayed. The active ingredient is dinotefuran, which is equivalent to 94.5 grams / hectare of active ingredient.

[0035] Comparative dosage of agent 1: C per 667m 2 The dosage is 21.6 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water and then sprayed. The active ingredient is dinotefuran, which is equivalent to 81 grams of active ingredient per hectare.

[0036] Comparative dosage of agent 1: D per 667m 2 The dosage is 18 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water and then sprayed. The active ingredient is dinotefuran, which is equivalent to 67.5 grams / hectare of active ingredient.

[0037] Comparative agent 2: 10% nitenpyram aqueous solution, produced by Jiangxi Zhonghe Chemical Co., Ltd., is a finished product, per 667m 2 The dosage is 40 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water and then sprayed. The active ingredient is acetamiprid, which is equivalent to 60 grams of active ingredient per hectare.

[0038] Comparative agent 3: 22% sulfoxaflor SC, produced by Dow AgroSciences, USA, is a finished product, 667m 2 The dosage is 30 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water and then sprayed. The active ingredient is sulfoxaflor, which is equivalent to an active ingredient dosage of 99 grams per hectare.

[0039] Comparative agent 4: 5% avermectin emulsifiable concentrate, produced by Hebei Runda Pesticide Chemical Co., Ltd., is a finished preparation, 667m 2 The dosage is 40 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water and then sprayed. The active ingredient is avermectin, which is equivalent to 30 grams / hectare of active ingredient.

[0040] Comparative agent 5: 50% thiacloprid water dispersible granules, produced by Shaanxi Xiannong Biotechnology Co., Ltd., is a finished preparation, 667m 2 The dosage is 40 grams per 667m2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water and then sprayed. The active ingredient is thiacloprid, which is equivalent to 300 grams of active ingredient per hectare.

[0041] Comparative agent 6: 30% thiamethoxam suspension, produced by Hebei Runda Pesticide Chemical Co., Ltd., is a finished product, 667m 2 The dosage is 5 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water and then sprayed. The active ingredient is thiacloprid, which is equivalent to an active ingredient dosage of 22.5 grams per hectare.

[0042] Comparative agent 7: 50% thiazide suspension, produced by Jiangsu Jiangu Chemical Co., Ltd., is a finished preparation, 667m 2 The dosage is 30 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water and then sprayed. The active ingredient is thiamethoxam, which is equivalent to an active ingredient dosage of 225 grams per hectare.

[0043] Comparative agent 8: 22.4% spirotetramat suspension, produced by Hebei Kairuike Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd., is a finished preparation, 667m 2 The dosage is 30 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water and then sprayed. The active ingredient is spirotetramat, which is equivalent to an active ingredient dosage of 100.8 grams per hectare.

[0044] Comparative agent 9: 600g / L imidacloprid suspension, produced by Shandong Baixin Biotechnology Co., Ltd., is a finished preparation, 667m 2 The dosage is 2 ml per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water and then sprayed. The active ingredient is imidacloprid, which is equivalent to 18 grams of active ingredient per hectare.

[0045] Comparative agent 10: 20% acetamiprid wettable powder, produced by Hebei Runda Pesticide Chemical Co., Ltd., is a finished preparation, 667m 2 The dosage is 10 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water and then sprayed. The active ingredient is acetamiprid, which is equivalent to 30 grams of active ingredient per hectare.

[0046] Comparative agent 11: 100g / L bifenthrin emulsifiable concentrate, produced by Suzhou FMC Plant Protection Agent Co., Ltd., is a finished preparation, per 667m 2 The dosage is 30 ml per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water and then sprayed. The active ingredient is cypermethrin, which is equivalent to an active ingredient dosage of 45 grams per hectare.

[0047] Comparative agent 12: 2.5% deltamethrin emulsifiable concentrate, produced by Bayer CropScience Co., Ltd., is a finished formulation, 667m 2 The dosage is 30 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water and then sprayed. The active ingredient is cypermethrin, which is equivalent to 11.25 grams per hectare of active ingredient.

[0048] Comparative agent 13: 23% highly effective cyhalothrin microcapsule suspension, produced by Shanxi Hongyang Chemical Co., Ltd., is a finished preparation, 667m 2 The dosage is 40 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water and then sprayed. The active ingredient is chlorfenapyr, which is equivalent to an active ingredient dosage of 138 grams per hectare.

[0049] The cotton leafhopper control effect test in the present embodiment was conducted in a cotton planting area in the first and middle of September (cotton boll stage, cotton leafhopper peak period). 80 plots were set in the cotton planting area, and in order to reduce the impact of cotton leafhopper interaction between each plot on the test result, the 80 plots were all more than 2 meters apart. Since this test was only conducted in the first and middle of September, the time span of the test was relatively small, and cotton leafhoppers usually feed on cotton leaves. In a cotton field with sufficient food, cotton leafhoppers only move in a relatively small range. Therefore, the range of activity of cotton leafhoppers was limited during the test, and the distance between each two plots was more than 2 meters.

[0050] Four plots were randomly selected from the 80 plots as blank control areas. All the other plots except the blank control area were treated areas. The area of ​​each plot was 30m 2 Before the application of medicine, the number of black leafhoppers in each plot was 200 to 400, which was the peak period for the outbreak of cotton leafhoppers.

[0051] The test process of the cotton leafhopper control effect test is described by taking the insecticide in Example 1 as an example. The test process is as follows:

[0052] Four plots were randomly selected from the 76 plots except the blank control area, and each plot used the insecticide in Example 1 and the corresponding dosage to control cotton leafhoppers. The control process was explained by taking one plot among the four plots as an example, and the control process of the plot as the treatment area was as follows: 100 cotton upper leaves were randomly selected in the treatment area, and the number of cotton leafhoppers on the selected 100 cotton upper leaves was recorded separately one day before the application of the pesticide to obtain the number of insects in the treatment area before the application of the pesticide (the pre-drug base in Table 1). One plot was selected from the four plots as blank control areas as the blank control area of ​​the current treatment area, and 100 cotton upper leaves were also randomly selected in the plot as the blank control area. The number of cotton leafhoppers on the selected 100 cotton upper leaves in the blank control area was recorded separately one day before the application of the pesticide in the treatment area to obtain the number of insects in the blank control area before the application of the pesticide.

[0053] According to the preset water ratio (same as the one per 667m 2 The insecticide is prepared into liquid medicine (the ratio of the amount to be added to water is consistent with the amount used), the required spraying amount is determined according to the area of ​​the current treatment area, and the liquid medicine is sprayed with a backpack electric sprayer. When spraying, a hollow cone nozzle is selected. The working pressure of the nozzle is 0.32-0.5MPa, the spray flow rate is 15.2ml / s-24.3ml / s, and the front and back sides of the leaves are sprayed.

[0054] The total amount of residual insects on the 100 cotton upper leaves previously selected in the current treatment area was recorded 1 day, 3 days, 7 days and 14 days after the application of pesticides in the treatment area, so as to obtain the number of insects after the application of pesticides in the treatment area 1 day, 3 days, 7 days and 14 days respectively (the number of residual insects in Table 1).

[0055] One day, three days, seven days and 14 days after the application of pesticides in the treatment area, the total amount of residual insects on the 100 upper leaves of cotton selected previously in the blank control area was also recorded to obtain the number of insects in the blank control area after the application of pesticides one day, three days, seven days and 14 days after the application of pesticides in the treatment area.

[0056] The insect population reduction rate and control effect were calculated based on the insect numbers before and after application in the treatment area and the blank control area, and the Duncan's new multiple range "DMRT" method was used for the significance test.

[0057]

[0058] The final control effect recorded in the table is the average value of the calculated results obtained from the 4 plot tests.

[0059] The test process of the comparative agent 1 at 4 dosages and the test process of the comparative agents 2 to 13 are the same as the test process of the insecticide in Example 1. The test results obtained from the cotton leafhopper control effect test are summarized in the following table:

[0060] Table 1 Cotton leafhopper control effect table

[0061]

[0062]

[0063]

[0064]

[0065] Combined with Table 1, the control effect achieved by the insecticide with dinotefuran as the active ingredient (the insecticides in Examples 1 to 3, comparative agent 1) is significantly better than that of the insecticides with other active ingredients. Among the four dosages of comparative agent 1 (25% dinotefuran wettable powder), dosage A (per 667m 2 The control effect achieved by using a dosage of 36 grams) is the most ideal. The control effects 1 day, 3 days, 7 days and 14 days after application are 92.2%, 95.7%, 91.6% and 70.2% respectively. The corresponding dosage of dinotefuran per hectare is 135g.

[0066] Combined with Table 1, the control effects of the insecticide in Example 1 were 92.7%, 96.2%, 92.0% and 89.6% respectively 1 day, 3 days, 7 days and 14 days after application, and the corresponding dosage of dinotefuran per hectare was 67.5 g; the control effects of the insecticide in Example 2 were 93.7%, 96.9%, 93.6% and 89.8% respectively 1 day, 3 days, 7 days and 14 days after application, and the corresponding dosage of dinotefuran per hectare was 81 g; the control effects of the insecticide in Example 3 were 95.0%, 97.2%, 95.0% and 90.2% respectively 1 day, 3 days, 7 days and 14 days after application, and the corresponding dosage of dinotefuran per hectare was 94.5 g.

[0067] The above results show that the insecticide containing dinotefuran, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, orange peel essential oil and eucalyptol can achieve better results than the comparative agent 1 (25% dinotefuran wettable powder) when the dinotefuran dosage is 67.5-94.5g per hectare. 2 and compared with the dosage A of the comparative agent 1, the dosage of dinotefuran per hectare can be reduced by 30% to 50%, thereby effectively reducing ecological environmental pollution and pesticide residues in crops.

[0068] Combined with Table 1, the control effects of the insecticide in Example 1, the insecticide in Example 2, and the insecticide in Example 3 were 92.7%, 93.7%, and 95.0% respectively one day after application. Among the comparative agents, the best control effect one day after application was achieved by the comparative agent 1 (25% dinotefuran wettable powder) with dosage A (active ingredient dosage of 135 g / hectare), which was 92.2%. The above results show that the insecticide containing dinotefuran, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, orange peel essential oil, and eucalyptol is more fast-acting than the existing finished product formulations.

[0069] Combined with Table 1, the control effects of the insecticide in Example 1, the insecticide in Example 2, and the insecticide in Example 3 14 days after application were 89.6%, 89.8%, and 90.2%, respectively. Among the comparative agents, the best control effect 14 days after application was 70.2% achieved by the comparative agent 1 (25% dinotefuran wettable powder) in combination with dosage A (active ingredient dosage of 135 g / hectare). The above results show that the insecticide containing dinotefuran, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, orange peel essential oil, and eucalyptol has better and significantly improved persistence than the existing finished product formulations.

[0070] Example 5 Cotton leafhopper resistance test

[0071] According to the test results of the control effect test of cotton leafhopper in Example 4, the comparative agent 1 (25% dinotefuran wettable powder) was used in combination with dosage A (per 667m 2 The control effect of the control agent is the best, and the corresponding dosage of dinotefuran is 135g per hectare. Therefore, this example uses the comparative agent 1 combined with dosage A as a reference to conduct the cotton leafhopper resistance test.

[0072] The experimental process includes: selecting four new cotton fields. Due to the large time span of this experiment, in order to avoid the influence of cotton leafhopper migration interaction between the four new cotton fields and the impact of the experimental results, the distance between the two cotton fields is more than 50 km. The four new cotton fields are hereinafter referred to as A cotton field, B cotton field, C cotton field, and D cotton field. During the experimental period of this experiment, some cotton leafhoppers may migrate out of each cotton field and some external cotton leafhoppers may migrate in. In order to avoid the influence of these cotton leafhoppers on the experimental results, the area of ​​A cotton field, B cotton field, C cotton field, and D cotton field is 667m 2 (about 1 / 15 hectare, or 1 mu), 667m 2 The area was large enough to ensure that most cotton leafhoppers could remain active in the cotton fields during the experiment.

[0073] Cotton fields A, B and C were used as treatment areas, and cotton field D was used as a blank control area. In each treatment area, in the first and second years, the control agent 1 (25% dinotefuran wettable powder) was used in combination with dosage A (per 667m2 The dosage is 36 grams) for cotton leafhopper control. From June to August every year, the drug is used once in the middle and late of each month, a total of 3 times a year. The control process for each control is: according to the preset water ratio (every 667m 2 The pesticide was prepared into liquid medicine (add 60L of water), and the required spraying amount was determined according to the area of ​​the treatment area. A backpack electric sprayer was used for spraying. A hollow cone nozzle was selected for spraying. The working pressure of the nozzle was 0.32-0.5MPa, the spray flow rate was 15.2ml / s-24.3ml / s, and the leaves were sprayed on both sides. Cotton field D was used as a blank control area without any other control measures.

[0074] In the third year, the insecticides in Example 1, Example 2, Example 3 and Example 1 were used in cotton fields A, B, C and D to control cotton leafhoppers, respectively, from June to August each year, once in the middle and late months of each month, for a total of three times a year. The control process for each control was the same as that in the first and second years.

[0075] After the first year, the second year, and the third year, live cotton leafhoppers were collected from cotton fields A, B, C, and D for LC 50 Test to obtain the LC50 of dinotefuran to cotton leafhoppers in each cotton field 50 , the specific test results are shown in Table 2.

[0076] In this embodiment, LC 50 The test process of the test is as follows: the original drug of dinotefuran is prepared into a solution with different dinotefuran concentration gradients (1ppm, 5ppm, 10ppm, 50ppm, 100ppm, 500ppm) for use. Live cotton leafhoppers are collected from cotton fields that have not been treated for at least 14 days with high-density mesh bags for the next test. Multiple fresh cotton leaves of uniform size and without obvious disease spots or insect spots are collected from greenhouse potted cotton plants that have not been treated with any pesticides. They are rinsed with clean water and dried until there is no obvious water mark. Subsequently, multiple cotton leaves are placed in triangular bottles containing different dinotefuran concentrations and soaked for 10s and then taken out. Then, each cotton leaf is placed in an insect breeding tank with an aperture of 80 meshes and dried until there is no obvious water mark. The live cotton leafhoppers are swept into the tank with a fine brush, the tank lid is covered, and the cotton leafhopper is placed in an artificial climate box to simulate the natural environment and adjust the temperature (25°C), humidity (90%) and light duration (12 hours of light / 12 hours of darkness) of the artificial climate box. After 72 hours, the number of live cotton leafhoppers in each insect breeding tank was checked. Based on the data of live cotton leafhoppers swept into the tank and the number of live cotton leafhoppers after 72 hours, the corresponding mortality rate under each dinotefuran concentration treatment was determined. The mortality standard was that the insect body could not move after being gently touched with a fine brush.

[0077] LC 50The test data of the test were processed by Probit analysis of SPSS 22.0 software, and the logarithm of the concentration of dinotefuran was 10 The value is represented by x, the mortality rate is represented by y, the intercept a and the slope b are calculated, and the toxicity regression equation is obtained. According to the toxicity regression equation, the median lethal concentration LC is calculated 50 , toxicity regression equation and LC 50 The calculation results are summarized in the following table.

[0078] Table 2 Pesticide resistance of cotton leafhopper

[0079]

[0080] Combined with Table 2, the LC values ​​of dinotefuran against cotton leafhoppers in cotton field A after the first year 50 The LC value of dinotefuran on cotton leafhoppers was 1.50 μg / mL in the second year. 50 The LC value of dinotefuran on cotton leafhoppers in the first year of B cotton field is 2.84μg / mL; 50 The LC value of dinotefuran on cotton leafhoppers was 1.43 μg / mL in the second year. 50 The LC value of dinotefuran on cotton leafhoppers in the first year of C cotton field is 2.80 μg / mL. 50 The LC value of dinotefuran on cotton leafhoppers was 1.53 μg / mL in the second year. 50 The above test results show that when using the comparative agent 1 (25% dinotefuran wettable powder) with dosage A (per 667m 2 After using 36 grams of dimethoate to control cotton leafhoppers, the LC50 (μg / mL) of dimethoate against cotton leafhoppers in cotton fields A, B and C increased significantly within one year, which means that there is a greater risk of difficulty in control due to insecticide resistance of cotton leafhoppers.

[0081] Combined with Table 2, the LC of dinotefuran against cotton leafhoppers in cotton field A after the second year 50 The LC value of dinotefuran on cotton leafhoppers was 2.84 μg / mL in the third year. 50 The LC value of dinotefuran on cotton leafhoppers in the second year of B cotton field is 2.81μg / mL; 50 The LC value of dinotefuran on cotton leafhoppers was 2.80 μg / mL in the third year. 50 The LC value of dinotefuran on cotton leafhoppers in the second year of C cotton field is 2.78 μg / mL. 50 The LC value of dinotefuran on cotton leafhoppers was 2.85 μg / mL in the third year. 50 The LC value of dinotefuran on cotton leafhoppers in the second year of D cotton field is 2.83μg / mL; 50 The LC value of dinotefuran on cotton leafhoppers was 0.62 μg / mL in the third year. 50The above results show that after the insecticide in Example 1, the insecticide in Example 2 or the insecticide in Example 3 was used to control cotton leafhoppers in the third year, whether it was the cotton field (A cotton field, B cotton field and C cotton field) where the existing dinotefuran finished preparation (comparative agent 1) was applied or the blank control area (D cotton field) where no control was performed, compared with the second year, dinotefuran had a lower LC value for cotton leafhoppers. 50 The above results show that the insecticides containing dinotefuran, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, orange peel essential oil and eucalyptol can effectively delay the cotton leafhopper from developing resistance to dinotefuran when used for cotton leafhopper control, thus facilitating the sustainable control of cotton leafhopper.

[0082] It is easy to understand that those skilled in the art can combine, split, reorganize, etc. the embodiments of the present application to obtain other embodiments based on one or several embodiments provided in the present application, and these embodiments do not exceed the protection scope of the present application.

[0083] The present invention and its implementation methods are described schematically above, and the description is not restrictive. The embodiments shown in the embodiments are only part of the implementation methods of the present invention, and the actual structure is not limited thereto. Therefore, if a person skilled in the art is inspired by the embodiments and designs a structure and an implementation method similar to the technical solution without creativity without departing from the purpose of the invention, they should all fall within the protection scope of the present invention.

[0084] The above is only a preferred embodiment of the present invention. It should be pointed out that for ordinary technicians in this technical field, several improvements and modifications can be made without departing from the technical principles of the present invention. These improvements and modifications should also be regarded as the scope of protection of the present invention.

Claims

1. A composition for preventing and controlling cotton leafhoppers, characterized in that: The invention comprises the following components: dinotefuran, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, orange peel essential oil and eucalyptol; in parts by mass, dinotefuran is 67.5-94.5 parts, potassium dihydrogen phosphate is 900 parts, orange peel essential oil is 900 parts and eucalyptol is 7.5 parts.

2. An insecticide, characterized in that: The invention comprises a solvent and the composition according to claim 1, wherein the total number of parts by mass is 10,000 parts, the composition is 1,875 to 1,902 parts, and the solvent is 8,098 to 8,125 parts; the solvent comprises the following components: a nonionic surfactant and water, wherein the nonionic surfactant is 1 part and the water is 99 parts by volume.

3. A method for preparing the insecticide according to claim 2, characterized in that: The steps include: Step S1: adding a nonionic surfactant to water to obtain a solvent; Step S2: mixing dinotefuran and potassium dihydrogen phosphate to obtain a mixed powder; Step S3: stirring and mixing the mixed powder and the solvent to obtain a mixed solution; Step S4: adding orange peel essential oil and eucalyptus oil to the mixed solution, stirring and mixing to obtain an insecticide.

4. Use of the insecticide according to claim 2 in the preparation of an agent for controlling cotton leafhoppers.

Images