A method for controlling potato late blight using a mixed composition

Abstract

The present application relates to the technical field of pesticide application, and particularly relates to a prevention and treatment method of a mixed composition for preventing and treating potato late blight, wherein the effective active ingredient of the mixed composition is flumorph and fluopicolide, the weight ratio of the flumorph to the fluopicolide is 3:1-1:3, the mixed composition is added with special additives and the additives to form a suspension concentrate, and the present application provides the prevention and treatment method of the mixed composition for preventing and treating potato late blight. In the early stage of potato late blight, the stems and leaves are sprayed, the pesticide is applied at intervals of 7-10 days, the pesticide is applied 2-3 times according to the disease condition, the potato late blight has a good treatment effect, the safety is good, there is no adverse effect on other diseases and insect pests, and there is no adverse effect on non-target organisms.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention belongs to the field of pesticide application technology, specifically relating to a method for controlling potato blight using a mixed composition. The mixed composition consists of fluopyram, fluopyram, a special adjuvant, and other adjuvants. Background Technology

[0002] Fluoromorph belongs to the morpholine class of fungicides and has both protective and curative effects. It mainly inhibits the biosynthesis of pathogen cell walls and has a good control effect on diseases caused by oomycete pathogens, such as downy mildew, late blight, and frost blight.

[0003] Fluopyram is a broad-spectrum amide fungicide, highly effective in controlling oomycete vegetable diseases through its unique mixed formulation. This product exhibits excellent systemic conductivity and strong thin-layer penetration, effectively inhibiting all major morphologies of the pathogen, providing comprehensive and long-lasting protection for new leaves, stems, tubers, and young fruits. Because the agent can be rapidly absorbed through the leaves, it is resistant to rain washout, providing reliable protection for vegetables during the rainy season.

[0004] Potato late blight primarily overwinters as mycelium within infected potatoes, becoming the primary source of infection for the following year. Infected seed potatoes may fail to sprout in severe cases, or die before sprouting and emerging from the soil; milder cases may sprout and emerge, developing into the central diseased plant in the field. Infection is spread through air currents and rainwater. Temperatures in most potato-producing areas of my country are suitable for late blight development; therefore, humidity plays a decisive role in the disease's development. Damp, rainy weather, and frequent fog and dew in the mornings and evenings promote disease development and spread.

[0005] Potato late blight is one of the major diseases affecting potatoes. It is prevalent in most parts of central and northern China, with the extent of damage varying depending on local climate conditions. Under suitable conditions, plants die prematurely, resulting in yield losses of 20-40%. It primarily affects potato leaves, stems, and tubers, with symptoms typically appearing before or after flowering.

[0006] With the development of technology, aerial spraying for pest and weed control has become a trend. The expansion of large-scale planting is also increasing the demand for drone-based plant protection technology. However, drone spraying places stringent requirements on pesticide products. Many products on the market currently fail to meet the requirements for drone spraying, or require the addition of specialized adjuvants to address pesticide drift issues. However, farmers often find it difficult to purchase these specialized adjuvants, or the quality of the adjuvants they do acquire is inconsistent, failing to achieve the desired results. Furthermore, during aerial spraying, nozzle clogging caused by particle size or product instability frequently leads to missed spraying incidents. Solving the problems of pesticide drift and nozzle clogging in aerial spraying is currently a major obstacle hindering the advancement of drone-based plant protection technology.

[0007] The applicant has mixed flumorpholine and fluopyram in an appropriate ratio, which on the one hand enhances the efficacy against pathogens, delays the development of drug resistance, improves efficacy, reduces dosage, and saves economic costs. On the other hand, by adding special adjuvants and using special production processes, the technical problems of pesticide drift and nozzle clogging in drone spraying have been solved. Summary of the Invention

[0008] The purpose of this invention is to provide a flumorph-containing compound composition and its application. This compound composition can effectively treat potato late blight, delay the development of pathogen resistance, and can also be used in drone-based plant protection technology to solve the technical problems of pesticide drift and nozzle clogging during drone spraying. It also improves efficacy, reduces dosage, saves economic costs, has low toxicity, and is environmentally safe.

[0009] The technical solution of this invention is:

[0010] A method for controlling potato blight using a mixed composition, characterized in that: the mixed composition consists of flumorpholine, fluopyram, a special adjuvant, and an adjuvant, and is prepared as a suspension, wherein the weight ratio of flumorpholine to fluopyram is 3:1 to 1:3, preferably 2:1 to 3:1 or 1:2 to 1:3, and the optimal weight ratio is 2:1.

[0011] Furthermore, the total weight of flumorpholine and fluopyram in the compound composition is 10% to 50%, preferably 30%.

[0012] Furthermore, the special additive is selected from one or more of the following: a mixture of polyether-modified heptamethyltrisiloxane and secondary alcohol ethoxylate, a mixture of siloxane polyalkyl oxide copolymer and ethoxylated fatty alcohol, and methylated vegetable oil.

[0013] Furthermore, the additives are selected from one or more of dispersants, wetting agents, antifreeze agents, thickeners, defoamers, and water.

[0014] Furthermore, the effective ingredient dosage of the compound is 135-180 g / ha, with a preferred dosage of 157.5-180 g / ha.

[0015] Furthermore, when using the mixed composition for conventional foliar spraying to control potato late blight, the water consumption is 450–675 liters per hectare.

[0016] Furthermore, when using the mixed composition for aerial spraying to control potato late blight, the water consumption is 20–40 liters / ha, with a preferred water consumption of 25–35 liters / ha.

[0017] Furthermore, the preparation method of the nano-suspension composition involves first adding water, additives, and the active ingredient raw material into a mixing tank and shearing them at high speed to fully disperse them, forming a preliminary dispersion. Then, it is pumped to a sand mill for pulverization. The feed speed of the sand mill is adjusted to control the fineness at 0.1-1 μm. This slurry is then finely ground using a pin mill to control the particle size at 100-500 nanometers, confirming that the particle size meets the requirements. Finally, the slurry is transferred to a mixing vessel, where thickeners and defoamers are added to adjust the material viscosity. Samples are taken for quality testing to obtain the finished product.

[0018] Main technical specifications of this invention:

[0019]

[0020] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following advantages:

[0021] (1) This composition has a more significant synergistic effect on the prevention and control of potato late blight, and significantly improves the control effect;

[0022] (2) By using a special additive formula and a special production process, the problems of pesticide drift, nozzle blockage and leakage of drone spraying have been solved;

[0023] (3) When used for aircraft spraying, it can enhance the efficacy of the medicine, save water, separate the person from the machine, make it safer for the user, reduce the cost of medicine, and make it more efficient.

[0024] (4) Low toxicity and environmentally friendly, with a long-lasting effect, reducing pesticide residues. Attached Figure Description

[0025] Figure 1 shows the experimental results of the anti-drift performance test of 30% flumorpholine·fluopyram suspension.

[0026] Figure 2 shows the evaporation resistance test results of 30% flumorpholine·fluopyram suspension. Detailed Implementation

[0027] The present invention will be further described below with reference to the embodiments. The percentages in the embodiments are all weight percentages, but the present invention is not limited thereto.

[0028] Application Example 1: Formulation Preparation Example:

[0029] Example 1: 30% Flumorpholine·Fluoropyram Suspension Concentrate

[0030] A 30% flumorpholine·fluopyram suspension was prepared by adding 20% ​​flumorpholine technical grade, 10% fluopyram technical grade, 1% polyether-modified heptamethyltrisiloxane and secondary alcohol ethoxylate mixture, 1% alkyl naphthalene sulfonate, 1% EO-PO block copolymer, 2.5% phenethylphenol polyoxyethylene ether phosphate, 5% glycerol, 0.5% xanthate gum, 0.3% C8-10 fatty alcohols, 0.3% magnesium aluminum silicate, and water to 100%.

[0031] Example 2: 30% Flumorpholine·Fluoropyram Suspension Concentrate

[0032] A 30% flumorpholine·fluopyram suspension was prepared by adding 20% ​​flumorpholine technical grade, 10% fluopyram technical grade, 2% methylated vegetable oil, 1.5% lignin sulfonate, 2% polycarboxylate, 3% nonylphenol polyoxyethylene ether and octylphenol polyoxyethylene ether, 4% propylene glycol, 0.5% polyvinyl alcohol, 0.4% sodium benzoate, 0.2% organosilicone defoamer, and water to 100%.

[0033] Example 3: 30% Flumorpholine·Fluoropyram Suspension Concentrate

[0034] A 30% flumorpholine·fluopyram suspension was prepared by adding 20% ​​flumorpholine technical grade, 10% fluopyram technical grade, 3% siloxane polyalkyl oxide copolymer and ethoxylated fatty alcohol mixture, 2.5% naphthalenesulfonic acid formaldehyde condensate sodium salt block copolymer, 4% sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate, 3% ethylene glycol, 0.5% C10-20 saturated fatty acid compounds, 1% silica, 0.4% xanthate gum, 0.3% glacial acetic acid, and water to 100%.

[0035] Example 4: 15% Flumorpholine·Fluoropyram Suspension Concentrate

[0036] A 15% flumorpholine·fluopyram suspension was prepared by adding 5% flumorpholine technical grade, 10% fluopyram technical grade, 1.5% polyether-modified heptamethyltrisiloxane and secondary alcohol ethoxylate mixture, 1.5% polyoxyethylene polyoxypropylene ether block copolymer, 3% castor oil polyoxyethylene ether, 5% glycerol, 0.3% polyvinyl alcohol, 0.2% magnesium aluminum silicate, 0.2% organosilicone defoamer, 0.6% sodium benzoate, and water to 100%.

[0037] Example 5: 50% Flumorpholine·Fluoropyram Suspension Concentrate

[0038] A 50% flumorpholine·fluopyram suspension was prepared by adding 30% flumorpholine technical grade, 20% fluopyram technical grade, 3% methylated vegetable oil, 2.5% alkylnaphthalene sulfonate formaldehyde polymer, 2% EO-PO block copolymer, 2% fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether, 1% alkyl glycoside, 6% ethylene glycol, 0.2% guar gum, 0.1% silicone defoamer, 1.5% silica, and water to 100%.

[0039] Comparative Example 1: 30% Flumorpholine·Fluoropyram Suspension

[0040] A 30% flumorpholine·fluopyram suspension was prepared by adding 20% ​​flumorpholine technical grade, 10% fluopyram technical grade, 1% alkyl naphthalene sulfonate, 1% EO-PO block copolymer, 2.5% phenethylphenol polyoxyethylene ether phosphate, 5% glycerol, 0.5% xanthate gum, 0.3% C8-10 fatty alcohols, 0.3% magnesium aluminum silicate, and water to 100%.

[0041] Preparation method: The dispersant, wetting agent, defoamer, thickener and antifreeze agent in the above formula are mixed evenly by high-speed shearing, and the active ingredients flumorpholine and fluopyram are added. The mixture is ball-milled in a ball mill for 2 to 3 hours to make the particle size of all particles below 5 μm, so as to obtain 30% flumorpholine·fluopyram suspension.

[0042] Comparative Example 2

[0043] 1% of a mixture of polyether-modified heptamethyltrisiloxane and secondary alcohol ethoxylate, with water as the balance.

[0044] Comparative Example 3

[0045] 2% methylated vegetable oil, balance water.

[0046] Comparative Example 4

[0047] 3% of a mixture of siloxane polyalkyl oxide copolymer and ethoxylated fatty alcohol, with water as the balance.

[0048] Application Example 2: Indoor toxicity test of a mixture of flumorph and fluopyram against potato late blight

[0049] According to the standards NY / T1156.13-2008 and NY / T1156.6-2006, the toxicity of fluopyram and fluopyram at their respective ratios of 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 3:1, and 2:1 to *Phytophthora indicum* was determined using the leaf method. The results showed that the mixtures of fluopyram and fluopyram at the above five ratios exhibited a synergistic effect against *Phytophthora indicum*. EC 50The concentrations were 3.43, 3.07, 3.13, 3.57, and 3.22 mg / L, respectively, with co-toxicity coefficients of 124.67, 134.08, 129.10, 127.19, and 138.17, respectively. The synergistic effect was most pronounced when the two were mixed in a 2:1 ratio. The experimental procedure is as follows:

[0050] 1. Experimental Objective

[0051] The toxicity of flumorph and fluopyram, as well as their different ratios, against late blight of potato was determined in the laboratory, and their synergistic effects were evaluated to clarify their compatibility and provide a scientific basis for the research and development of flumorph and fluopyram mixtures.

[0052] 2. Test conditions

[0053] 2.1 Test Target

[0054] The potato late blight pathogen (Phytophthora infestans (Mont.) de Bary) was preserved and provided by Hunan Aimiao Testing Co., Ltd.

[0055] 2.2 Cultivation Conditions

[0056] The culture conditions for the test targets and the targets after the experiment were a temperature of 18–20°C and a relative humidity of over 95%.

[0057] 2.3 Instruments and Equipment

[0058] Electronic balance with a strength of 0.01%, volumetric flasks, beakers, pipettes, graduated cylinders, petri dishes, biological microscopes, crop sprayers, intelligent artificial climate incubators, etc.

[0059] 3 Experimental Design

[0060] 3.1 Test reagents

[0061] Flumorph 95% technical grade; Fluopicolide 97% technical grade. 3.2 Drug concentration design and solution preparation.

[0062] Flumorpholine solution: Weigh 0.0105g of 95% flumorpholine technical grade, dissolve in 0.2mL DMF, and bring the volume to 100mL with sterile water containing 0.1% Tween 80 emulsifier. Shake well to prepare a 100mg / L stock solution. Then dilute with sterile water containing 0.1% Tween 80 emulsifier to concentrations of 40, 20, 10, 5, 2.5, and 1.25mg / L for later use.

[0063] Fluopyram solution: Weigh 0.0103g of 97% fluopyram technical grade, dissolve it in 0.2mL of DMF, and bring the volume to 100mL with sterile solution containing 0.1% Tween 80 emulsifier. Shake well to prepare a 100mg / L stock solution, and then dilute it with sterile water to concentrations of 40, 20, 10, 5, 2.5, and 1.25mg / L for later use.

[0064] Each mixed solution: Take 10, 5, 5, 15, and 10 mL of 100 mg / L flumorpholine solution and add it to 10, 10, 15, 5, and 5 mL of 100 mg / L fluopyram solution to prepare 100 mg / L flumorpholine·fluopyram solutions of 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 3:1, and 2:1, respectively. Then dilute with sterile water containing 0.1% Tween 80 emulsifier to concentrations of 40, 20, 10, 5, 2.5, and 1.25 mg / L for later use.

[0065] Blank control solution: 0.2 mL DMF plus 99.8 mL sterile water containing 0.1% Tween 80 emulsifier.

[0066] 4. Test Methods

[0067] The leaf method was adopted in accordance with the guidelines for indoor bioassay of pesticides NY / T1156.13-2008.

[0068] Preparation of sporangium suspension: Culture potato late blight pathogen on oat medium until sporangia are produced, wash off potato late blight pathogen spores with distilled water at 4℃, filter with double-layer gauze to prepare sporangium suspension (concentration controlled at 1×105 sporangia per ml), and store at 4℃ for 0.5 to 3 hours for later use.

[0069] The prepared solution was evenly sprayed onto the underside of the leaves. After the solution was allowed to air dry, the leaves were arranged with the undersides facing up in a humidified box according to the treatment labels. 24 hours after treatment, the undersides of the leaves were sprayed with a prepared fresh sporangium suspension. Each treatment was repeated four times, with ten leaves per replicate. A control group without the treatment was included. After inoculation, the plates were covered and placed in an intelligent artificial climate incubator, where they were cultured under conditions of continuous 12-hour light / dark cycles daily, a temperature of 18℃–20℃, and a relative humidity above 90%.

[0070] 5. Data Survey and Statistical Analysis

[0071] 5.1 Survey Methodology

[0072] When the disease rate of the blank control reaches more than 50%, the disease incidence of each treatment is investigated at different levels.

[0073] Grade 0: No symptoms;

[0074] Grade 1: the lesion area accounts for less than 10% of the area of the whole leaf;

[0075] Grade 3: the lesion area accounts for 10% to 25% of the area of the whole leaf;

[0076] Grade 5: the lesion area accounts for 25% to 50% of the area of the whole leaf;

[0077] Grade 7: the lesion area accounts for more than 50% of the area of the whole leaf;

[0078] Grade 9: the whole leaf is diseased and wilted.

[0079] According to the survey data, the disease index of each treatment is calculated by formula (1) and the control effect is calculated by formula (2).

[0080]

[0081] Wherein: X represents the disease index, Ni represents the number of diseased leaves at each grade, i represents the relative grade value, and N represents the total number of investigated leaves.

[0082]

[0083] Wherein: P represents the control effect, CK represents the disease index of blank control, and PT represents the disease index of pesticide treatment.

[0084] 5.2 Evaluation method for synergistic effect

[0085] With reference to the bioassay standard method NY / T1156.6-2006, the synergistic effect of mixed pesticides is evaluated according to the co-toxicity coefficient method (CTC) of Sun & Johnson (1960), that is, CTC ≤ 80 indicates antagonistic effect, 80 < CTC < 120 indicates additive effect, and CTC ≥ 120 indicates synergistic effect.

[0086]

[0087] Theoretical toxicity index of mixture (TTI) = toxicity index of pesticide A × percentage (%) of pesticide A in the mixture + toxicity index of pesticide B × percentage (%) of pesticide B in the mixture

[0088]

[0089] 5.3 Statistical analysis of data

[0090] All test data were analyzed using DPS v9.50 statistical software. According to the control effect (%) obtained from test data, the toxicity regression equation, correlation coefficient (r) and EC 50 (95% confidence limit).

[0091] 6 Result analysis and discussion

[0092] 6.1 Efficacy Evaluation

[0093] Table 1 shows the toxicity test results of flumorph and fluopyram, and their different ratios, against *Phytophthora indicum*, the causal agent of potato late blight. As can be seen from Table 1, the five ratios of flumorph and fluopyram (1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 3:1, and 2:1) exhibited a synergistic effect against *Phytophthora indicum*, with EC50 values ​​of 3.43, 3.07, 3.13, 3.57, and 3.22 mg / L, and co-toxicity coefficients of 124.67, 134.08, 129.10, 127.19, and 138.17, respectively. The synergistic effect was most pronounced with a 2:1 ratio.

[0094] Table 1. Virulence test results of the mixture of flumorph and fluopyram against potato late blight.

[0095]

[0096] 6.2 Discussion and Conclusion

[0097] Indoor bioassay results showed that the mixtures of flumorph and fluopyram at ratios of 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 3:1, and 2:1 exhibited a synergistic effect on the late blight pathogen of potato. The synergistic effect was most pronounced when the two were mixed at a ratio of 2:1. Therefore, 2:1 can be considered the optimal ratio for the mixture of flumorph and fluopyram.

[0098] Application Example 3: Toxicological Determination Experiments of Examples 1-3

[0099] Our company commissioned a third-party testing agency to conduct acute toxicity tests on Examples 1-3. The test results are as follows:

[0100] 1) Acute oral toxicity tests showed that all tests were classified as low toxicity.

[0101] 2) Acute dermal toxicity test, the toxicity level is low.

[0102] 3) Eye irritation test: No irritation.

[0103] 4) Skin irritation test: No irritation.

[0104] 5) Skin sensitization test: no sensitization.

[0105] Application Example 5: Efficacy Test of Drug for Controlling Potato Late Blight (Example 1)

[0106] The experiment was conducted in accordance with the "Guidelines for Field Efficacy Tests of Pesticides (I) GB / T 17980.34-2000: Control of Potato Late Blight with Fungicides".

[0107] 1. Basic Information of the Experiment

[0108] 1.1 Test Name

[0109] Field efficacy trial of 30% fluopyram·fluopyram suspension for controlling potato late blight 1.2 Experimental objective

[0110] The efficacy, applicable dosage, and safety of the 30% flumorpholine·fluopyram suspension provided by the applicant against potato late blight will be clarified, providing a basis for the registration and promotion of the experimental agent.

[0111] 2. Environmental and Facility Cultivation Conditions

[0112] 2.1 Test location

[0113] Tongliang District, Chongqing.

[0114] 2.2 Test target conditions

[0115] Potato late blight (Phytophthora infestans).

[0116] 2.3 Experimental Crops, Varieties, and Growth Status

[0117] The experimental crop was potato, and the tested variety was Qingshu No. 9. At the time of pesticide application, the potatoes were in the tuber formation stage, the planting density was moderate, and the growing environment was favorable.

[0118] 3. Experimental Design and Arrangement

[0119] 3.1 Test dosage and numbering

[0120] Table 2 Experimental Design of Test Reagents

[0121]

[0122] 3.2 Application timing and method

[0123] The pesticide was applied at the initial stage of potato late blight (April 21, 2022), and then once every 10 days (May 1, 2022 and May 11, 2022), for a total of 3 applications. The potatoes were in the tuber formation stage when the pesticide was applied for the three times.

[0124] 3.3 Survey methods, timing, and frequency

[0125] 3.3.1 Survey Time and Methods

[0126] Crop safety survey: Observe potatoes for phytotoxicity 1, 3, and 5 days after each application. Investigate whether there are obvious symptoms of phytotoxicity such as chlorosis, scorching, or spots on various parts of the plant. At the same time, investigate the effects of the tested pesticide on non-target organisms in the field, such as wild animals, beneficial insects, and other pests and diseases.

[0127] Disease survey: Disease occurrence was surveyed before each application of pesticide (April 21, 2022, May 1, 2022 and May 11, 2022) and 10 days after the third application of pesticide (May 21, 2022), for a total of 4 surveys.

[0128] Five diagonal sampling points were taken from each plot, with two plants sampled at each point. All leaves were investigated, and records were made according to the following grading method:

[0129] Grade 0: No lesions;

[0130] Grade 1: The lesion area accounts for less than 5% of the total leaf area;

[0131] Grade 3: Lesions cover 6%-10% of the total leaf area;

[0132] Level 5: Lesions cover 11%-20% of the total leaf area;

[0133] Level 7: Lesions cover 21%-50% of the total leaf area;

[0134] Level 9: The lesion area accounts for more than 50% of the total leaf area.

[0135] 3.3.3 Method for calculating drug efficacy

[0136]

[0137]

[0138]

[0139] The experimental data were statistically analyzed using Duncan's new multiple range method in SPSS 25.0.

[0140] 4 Results and Analysis

[0141] Table 3. Control efficacy of 30% fluopyram·fluopyram suspension against potato late blight (10 days after first application)

[0142]

[0143] Table 4. Control efficacy of 30% fluopyram·fluopyram suspension against potato late blight (10 days after second application)

[0144]

[0145] Table 5. Control efficacy of 30% fluopyram·fluopyram suspension against potato late blight (10 days after the third application).

[0146]

[0147] The effects of the tested pesticides on potato late blight control are shown in Tables 3, 4, and 5. Ten days after the first application, a survey of potato late blight incidence and disease index was conducted, revealing that the pesticide-treated plants had significantly lower incidence and disease index compared to the water-treated plants. The disease indices were 4.52, 3.80, and 3.28, respectively, with control efficacies of 64.21%, 68.65%, and 73.05%. Ten days after the second application, a survey of potato late blight incidence and disease index was also conducted, showing a significant decrease compared to the water-treated plants. The disease incidence rate was low, and decreased with increasing pesticide concentration, with disease indices of 6.52, 5.20, and 3.96, and control efficacy of 68.60%, 73.88%, and 80.33%, respectively. Ten days after the third application, an investigation of potato late blight incidence was conducted, revealing that both the disease incidence rate and disease index were significantly lower than with water treatment, and decreased with increasing pesticide concentration, with disease indices of 8.75, 5.88, and 4.34, and control efficacy of 72.28%, 80.62%, and 85.76%, respectively. The three investigations showed that compared with the two single-dose control pesticides, the tested pesticide showed significantly improved control efficacy at an active ingredient concentration of 157.5-180 g / ha.

[0148] Application Example 6: Efficacy Test of Drug for Controlling Potato Late Blight (Example 2)

[0149] For specific experimental basis, test reagents, investigation methods, and calculation methods, please refer to Application Example 5.

[0150] 1 Test location

[0151] Youyang Tujia and Miao Autonomous County, Chongqing.

[0152] 2. Experimental crops, varieties, and growth conditions

[0153] The cucumbers, variety Yushu No. 6, are growing well.

[0154] 3. Application Method

[0155] 3.1 Timing and Method of Application

[0156] The medication was first applied at the initial stage of potato late blight (June 5, 2021), followed by a second application 9 days later (June 14, 2021), and a third application 7 days later (June 21, 2021), for a total of 3 applications.

[0157] 3.2 Usage Capacity

[0158] The amount of pesticide solution sprayed per hectare is approximately 675 liters.

[0159] 3.3 Survey Time

[0160] Before the first application of the pesticide (June 5, 2021), the baseline disease incidence was investigated. Before the second application of the pesticide (June 14, 2021), before the third application of the pesticide (June 21, 2021), and 10 days after the third application of the pesticide (July 1, 2021), the occurrence of the disease was investigated. A total of 4 investigations were conducted.

[0161] 4 Results and Analysis

[0162] Table 6. Control efficacy of 30% fluopyram·fluopyram suspension against potato late blight (before second application).

[0163]

[0164]

[0165] Table 7. Control efficacy of 30% fluopyram·fluopyram suspension against potato late blight (before the third application).

[0166]

[0167] Table 8. Control efficacy of 30% fluopyram·fluopyram suspension against potato late blight (after third application)

[0168]

[0169] The control effects of three applications of 30% fluopyram·fluopyram suspension on potato late blight are shown in Table 6-8. The results of the three investigations indicate that the incidence and disease index of potato late blight were significantly reduced after application of the agent, and the disease was significantly suppressed. Furthermore, the control efficacy of 30% fluopyram·fluopyram suspension increased with increasing dosage of the active ingredient.

[0170] Treatment with 135 g / ha of 30% fluopyram·fluopyram suspension resulted in no significant difference in the incidence and disease index of potato late blight compared to the two control treatments, but the control efficacy was slightly lower. Treatment with 157.5-180 g / ha of the experimental agent significantly reduced the incidence and disease index compared to the two control treatments; 10 days after the third application, the incidence and disease index were 11.34% and 11.36%, and 2.56 and 2.01, respectively. The control efficacy was significantly higher than the control treatments, with control efficiencies of 71.21% and 76.70%, 76.04% and 81.31%, and 81.86% and 86.52% in the three surveys, respectively. In conclusion, the 157.5-180 g / ha treatment effectively controlled the occurrence of potato late blight.

[0171] Application Example 7: Efficacy Test of Drug for Controlling Potato Late Blight (Example 3)

[0172] For specific experimental basis, test reagents, investigation methods, and calculation methods, please refer to Application Example 5.

[0173] 1 Test location

[0174] Fuxin City, Liaoning Province.

[0175] 2. Experimental crops, varieties, and growth conditions

[0176] The cucumber variety is Feurita. The potato is growing normally and is in the flowering to tuber enlargement stage.

[0177] 3. Application Method

[0178] 3.1 Timing and Method of Application

[0179] Application time and frequency: The first application of pesticide was made at the initial stage of potato late blight (June 11, 2022), with an interval of 7 days, for a total of 3 applications.

[0180] 3.2 Usage Capacity

[0181] The amount of pesticide solution sprayed per hectare is approximately 666 liters.

[0182] 3.3 Survey Time

[0183] A baseline survey of disease incidence was conducted before the first application of the pesticide. The effectiveness of the treatment was assessed 7 days after the second application and 10 days after the third application. A total of three surveys were conducted.

[0184] 4. Direct impact on crops

[0185] Observe the crop for phytotoxicity 7 days after the first application, 7 days after the second application, and 10 days after the third application, and record the type and severity of phytotoxicity. Accurately describe the symptoms of phytotoxicity (stunting, chlorosis, deformity, etc.), and record any other beneficial effects on the crop (such as promoting maturity, stimulating growth, etc.). If the phytotoxicity can be measured or calculated, express it in absolute values, such as plant height.

[0186] 5. Impacts on other organisms

[0187] Observe the effects of the pesticide on other pests and diseases 7 days after the first application, 7 days after the second application, and 10 days after the third application: Record all effects on other pests and diseases, including both beneficial and harmful effects. Effects on other non-target organisms: Record the effects of the pesticide on wild organisms and beneficial insects in the test area.

[0188] 6 Results and Analysis

[0189] Table 9. Field efficacy trial and statistical analysis results of 30% flumorph·fluopyram suspension for controlling potato late blight (7 days after the second application).

[0190]

[0191] Table 10. Field efficacy trial and statistical analysis results of 30% flumorph·fluopyram suspension for controlling potato late blight (10 days after the third application).

[0192]

[0193]

[0194] Table 11 Results of the safety survey of 30% fluopyram·fluopyram suspension on potatoes

[0195]

[0196] Table 12. Results of the investigation on the effects of 30% fluopyram·fluopyram suspension on non-target organisms.

[0197]

[0198] Experimental results show that:

[0199] A survey conducted 7 days after the second application showed that the 30% fluopyram·fluopyram suspension of Example 3 had a good control effect on potato late blight. At formulation dosages of 30 g / mu, 35 g / mu, and 40 g / mu, the average control effects were 81.57%, 88.72%, and 91.69%, respectively.

[0200] The control efficacy of 40 g / mu and 35 g / mu of 30% fluopyram·fluopyram suspension in Example 3 against potato late blight was superior to the two single-agent control agents. The control efficacy of 30 g / mu of the formulation in Example 3 against potato late blight was superior to that of the control agent 30% fluopyram suspension at 45 g / mu, but lower than that of the control agent 20% fluopyram suspension at 35 g / mu.

[0201] In Example 3, the dosage of 30% fluopyram·fluopyram suspension at 35 g / mu and 40 g / mu showed a significant difference in control efficacy against potato late blight compared to the dosage of 30 g / mu; however, there was no significant difference in control efficacy against potato late blight between the dosages of 35 g / mu and 40 g / mu.

[0202] Ten days after the third application, the results showed that the 30% fluopyram·fluopyram suspension of Example 3 had a good control effect on potato late blight. At the dosages of 30 g / mu, 35 g / mu, and 40 g / mu, the average control effects were 82.13%, 91.15%, and 92.16%, respectively.

[0203] The control efficacy of 30% fluopyram·fluopyram suspension at dosages of 35 g / mu and 40 g / mu in Example 3 against potato late blight was superior to that of the control formulations at dosages of 20% fluopyram suspension at 35 g / mu (87.97%) and 30% fluopyram suspension at 45 g / mu (81.56%). The control efficacy of the formulation at dosage of 30 g / mu in Example 3 against potato late blight was comparable to that of the control formulation 30% fluopyram suspension, but lower than that of the control formulation 20% fluopyram suspension at dosage of 35 g / mu.

[0204] The control efficacy of 30% fluopyram·fluopyram suspension at dosages of 35 g / mu and 40 g / mu was significantly different from that at dosage of 30 g / mu; however, there was no significant difference in control efficacy against potato late blight between dosages of 35 g / mu and 40 g / mu.

[0205] Field survey results showed that the test substance 30% fluopyram·fluopyram suspension at a dosage of 30-40 g / mu had no adverse effects on potato growth, no phytotoxicity symptoms, and no adverse effects on other pests, diseases, or non-target organisms.

[0206] Application Example 8: Anti-drift performance test of 30% flumorpholine·fluopyram suspension 1. Experimental objective

[0207] To test the spread and adhesion of the sprayed medicine in the embodiments of the invention, a test was conducted.

[0208] 2 Experimental reagents

[0209]

[0210] 3 processing methods

[0211] Airplane spraying uses 2 liters of water per acre.

[0212] 4. Experimental results are shown in Figure 1.

[0213] Figure 1 illustrates that the experimental results show that the embodiments of the present invention have good spreadability and strong adhesion after contact with the target, and the droplets are evenly distributed, which is more conducive to crop absorption.

[0214] Application Example 9: Droplet and Density Analysis of 30% Flumorph·Fluoropyram Suspension Concentrate under Different Formulations and Production Processes

[0215] 1. Handling method

[0216] Airplane spraying uses 2 liters of water per acre.

[0217] 2. The experimental results are as follows:

[0218] Example 1 288.37±23.87 38.30±5.01 Example 2 305.16±20.05 38.12±6.37 Example 3 296.77±21.92 38.51±4.03 Comparative Example 1 820.26±80.65 15.18±2.38

[0219] Experimental results show that the droplet size of the embodiment of the present invention is small, which meets the requirements of aircraft spraying and is not easy to clog aircraft nozzles. The droplet size of the control embodiment 1 is too large and the density is too low, making it unsuitable for aircraft spraying.

[0220] Application Example 10: Anti-evaporation test of 30% flumorpholine·fluopyram suspension 1. Experimental objective

[0221] To test the anti-evaporation properties of the sprayed liquid in the embodiments of the invention, a test was conducted.

[0222] 2 Experimental reagents

[0223]

[0224] 3. Experimental results are shown in Figure 2.

[0225] Figure 2 illustrates the experimental results, showing that the droplet evaporation inhibition rate of the embodiments of the present invention is the highest, significantly better than that of control embodiments 1-4, while control embodiment 1, which does not contain special additives, has the lowest droplet evaporation inhibition rate.

[0226] The above description, in conjunction with specific preferred embodiments, provides a further detailed explanation of the present invention. It should not be construed that the specific implementation of the present invention is limited to these descriptions. For those skilled in the art, various simple deductions or substitutions can be made without departing from the concept of the present invention, and all such modifications and substitutions should be considered within the scope of protection of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for controlling potato blight using a mixed composition, characterized in that: The compound composition consists of flumorpholine, fluopyram, a special adjuvant, and an auxiliary agent, forming a 30% flumorpholine·fluopyram suspension, wherein the weight ratio of flumorpholine to fluopyram is 2:

1. The special adjuvant is selected from one or more of the following: a mixture of polyether-modified heptamethyltrisiloxane and secondary alcohol ethoxylate, a mixture of siloxane polyalkyl oxide copolymer and ethoxylated fatty alcohol, and methylated vegetable oil.

2. The prevention and control method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The compound composition contains the following components and amounts: A 30% flumorpholine technical concentrate was prepared by adding 20% ​​fluopyram technical concentrate (10% concentration), 1% polyether-modified heptamethyltrisiloxane and secondary alcohol ethoxylate mixture, 1% alkyl naphthalene sulfonate, 1% EO-PO block copolymer, 2.5% phenethylphenol polyoxyethylene ether phosphate, 5% glycerol, 0.5% xanthate gum, 0.3% C8-10 fatty alcohols, 0.3% magnesium aluminum silicate, and water to 100%.

3. The prevention and control method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The compound composition contains the following components and amounts: A 30% flumorpholine technical grade suspension was prepared by adding 20% ​​flumorpholine technical grade, 10% fluopyram technical grade, 2% methylated vegetable oil, 1.5% lignin sulfonate, 2% polycarboxylate, 3% nonylphenol polyoxyethylene ether and octylphenol polyoxyethylene ether, 4% propylene glycol, 0.5% polyvinyl alcohol, 0.4% sodium benzoate, 0.2% organosilicone defoamer, and water to 100%.

4. The prevention and control method according to claim 1, characterized in that: The compound composition contains the following components and amounts: A 30% flumorpholine technical grade suspension was prepared by adding 20% ​​flumorpholine technical grade, 10% fluopyram technical grade, 3% siloxane polyalkyl oxide copolymer and ethoxylated fatty alcohol mixture, 2.5% sodium salt block copolymer of naphthalenesulfonic acid formaldehyde condensate, 4% sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate, 3% ethylene glycol, 0.5% C10-20 saturated fatty acid compounds, 1% silica, 0.4% xanthate gum, 0.3% glacial acetic acid, and water to 100%.

5. The prevention and control method according to any one of claims 1 to 4, characterized in that: The dosage of the active ingredient in the mixed composition is 135-180 grams per hectare.

Images