A composition for preventing and treating cotton leafhoppers, an insecticide and application thereof and a preparation method thereof
The insecticide was prepared by combining fipronil, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, orange peel oil and eucalyptol, which solved the problem of cotton leafhopper resistance and achieved a highly efficient and low-residue control effect, thus delaying the development of resistance.
Patent Information
- Authority / Receiving Office
- CN · China
- Patent Type
- Patents(China)
- Current Assignee / Owner
- Filing Date
- 2024-11-20
- Publication Date
- 2026-03-20
AI Technical Summary
Cotton leafhoppers have developed resistance to fipronil, leading to reduced control effectiveness and excessive pesticide residues, making it difficult for existing technologies to maintain effective control.
An insecticide was prepared using a combination of fipronil, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, orange peel oil, and eucalyptol. The control effect was improved and resistance was delayed by reducing the amount of fipronil used. The efficacy was enhanced by combining nonionic surfactants and water to prepare a solvent.
It significantly improves the control effect, reduces the amount of fipronil used by 30%-50%, reduces pesticide residues, delays the development of resistance in cotton leafhoppers, and maintains the characteristics of rapid and long-lasting effect.
Smart Images
Figure BDA0005144271340000071 
Figure BDA0005144271340000081 
Figure BDA0005144271340000091
Abstract
Description
TECHNICAL FIELD
[0001] The present application relates to the technical field of cotton leafhopper control, and particularly relates to a composition for preventing and treating cotton leafhopper, an insecticide and application thereof, and a preparation method thereof. BACKGROUND
[0002] Due to the fact that there are few agents that can effectively control cotton leafhopper, dinotefuran is currently the most ideal chemical pesticide for controlling cotton leafhopper, and dinotefuran is also widely used in the control of cotton leafhopper. At present, the speed at which cotton leafhopper develops resistance to dinotefuran is gradually increasing, and the risk of reduced efficacy is also gradually increasing. Once the efficacy is reduced, the dosage of dinotefuran needs to be increased to ensure the efficacy, but increasing the dosage will lead to excessive pesticide residues. Therefore, once cotton leafhopper rapidly develops resistance, subsequent control work will be difficult to continue effectively. SUMMARY
[0003] The present application provides a composition for preventing and treating cotton leafhopper, an insecticide and application thereof, and a preparation method thereof. The insecticide in the present application can not only improve the control effect when applied to control cotton leafhopper, but also reduce the dosage of dinotefuran to effectively delay the development of resistance of cotton leafhopper.
[0004] In a first aspect, the present application provides a composition for preventing and treating cotton leafhopper, which comprises the following components: dinotefuran, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, orange peel essential oil and eucalyptus oil; in terms of mass parts, the dinotefuran is 67.5-94.5 parts, the potassium dihydrogen phosphate is 900 parts, the orange peel essential oil is 900 parts, and the eucalyptus oil is 7.5 parts.
[0005] In a second aspect, the present application provides an insecticide, which comprises a solvent and the composition, and the total parts of the insecticide are 10000 parts, the composition is 1875-1902 parts, and the solvent is 8098-8125 parts; the solvent comprises the following components: a non-ionic surfactant and water, and the non-ionic surfactant is 1 part and the water is 99 parts in terms of volume parts.
[0006] In a third aspect, the present application provides a preparation method of an insecticide, which comprises the following steps:
[0007] Step S1: adding a non-ionic 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 liquid;
[0010] Step S4: adding orange peel essential oil and eucalyptus oil to the mixed liquid and stirring and mixing to obtain an insecticide.
[0011] In a fourth aspect, the present application provides the use of the insecticide in the preparation of a medicament for controlling the cotton leafhopper.
[0012] Compared with the prior art, the present application has the following beneficial effects:
[0013] (1) The insecticide in the present application, when applied to the control of the cotton leafhopper, not only has obvious synergistic effect on the control of the cotton leafhopper compared with a single dose of dinotefuran, but also effectively delays the development of drug resistance of the cotton leafhopper, so as to ensure the sustainable and stable progress of the control of the cotton leafhopper. Meanwhile, the potassium dihydrogen phosphate can quickly replenish the potassium deficiency caused by the damage of the cotton leafhopper.
[0014] (2) The insecticide in the present application, when applied to the control of the cotton leafhopper, can achieve a relatively ideal control effect when the public hectare dosage of dinotefuran is 67.5-94.5 g, which is 30%-50% less than the public hectare dosage of 135 g of dinotefuran required by the existing finished product. The use of the insecticide provided by the present application to replace the existing high-toxicity finished product for the control of the cotton leafhopper can not only ensure the control effect, but also reduce the dosage of dinotefuran, thereby effectively reducing the pollution of the ecological environment and the pesticide residues in crops.
[0015] (3) The insecticide in the present application has both quick-acting and long-acting properties when applied to the control of the cotton leafhopper. The control effect of the insecticide in the present application on the cotton leafhopper 1 day after application and 14 days after application is better than that of the existing finished product, and the quick-acting and long-acting properties are better, especially the control effect 14 days after application is significantly improved. DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0016] The following examples are not intended to limit the present application, but only to illustrate how the present application is implemented in practical applications.
[0017] Example 1: Preparation of an insecticide for controlling the cotton leafhopper
[0018] The preparation method of the insecticide comprises the following steps: step S1: adding a non-ionic surfactant in water to obtain a solvent, wherein the non-ionic surfactant is 1 part by volume, 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 at a stirring speed of 100-200 r / min for 5-10 min, and then at a stirring speed of 400-500 r / min for 15-30 min, to prepare a mixed solution; and step S4: adding orange peel essential oil and eucalyptus oil into the mixed solution, and stirring and mixing for 60-90 min at a stirring speed of 650-750 r / min, to prepare the insecticide.
[0019] In this embodiment, the nonionic surfactant is Tween-20, the technical grade of fipronil 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 Yage Nong Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
[0020] The insecticide comprises, by weight, 67.5 parts of fipronil, 900 parts of potassium dihydrogen phosphate, 900 parts of orange peel essential oil, 7.5 parts of eucalyptol, and 8125 parts of solvent. In this embodiment, the insecticide is used per 667m³. 2 The dosage (approximately 1 / 15 hectare, or 1 mu) is 667g, per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water before spraying. The active ingredient is fipronil, which translates to an effective ingredient dosage of 67.5 grams per hectare.
[0021] Example 2: Preparation of an insecticide for controlling cotton leafhoppers
[0022] The method for preparing the insecticide includes the following steps: Step S1: Add a nonionic surfactant to water to obtain a solvent, wherein the nonionic surfactant is 1 part by volume and the water is 99 parts; Step S2: Mix fipronil and potassium dihydrogen phosphate to obtain a mixed powder; Step S3: Stir the solvent and the mixed powder together, first at a stirring speed of 100-200 r / min for 5-10 min, and then at a stirring speed of 400-500 r / min for 15-30 min to obtain a mixed solution; Step S4: Add orange peel essential oil and eucalyptus oil to the mixed solution, stir for 60-90 min at a stirring speed of 650-750 r / min to obtain the insecticide.
[0023] In this embodiment, the nonionic surfactant is Tween-20, the technical grade of fipronil 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 Yage Nong Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
[0024] The insecticide comprises, by weight, 81 parts of fipronil, 900 parts of potassium dihydrogen phosphate, 900 parts of orange peel essential oil, 7.5 parts of eucalyptol, and 8111.5 parts of solvent. In this embodiment, the insecticide is used per 667m³. 2 The dosage (approximately 1 / 15 hectare, or 1 mu) is 667g, per 667m 2The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water for spraying, and the effective component is imidacloprid, which is equivalent to 81 grams per hectare of effective component dosage.
[0025] Preparation of insecticide for controlling cotton leafhoppers in Example 3
[0026] The preparation method of the insecticide comprises the following steps: step S1: adding a non-ionic surfactant in water to obtain a solvent, 1 part of the non-ionic surfactant and 99 parts of water by volume; step S2: mixing imidacloprid 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 100-200 r / min for 5-10 min, and then stirring and mixing at a stirring speed of 400-500 r / min for 15-30 min, to prepare a mixed solution; and step S4: adding orange peel essential oil and eucalyptus essential oil into the mixed solution, stirring and mixing for 60-90 min at a stirring speed of 650-750 r / min, to prepare the insecticide.
[0027] In this example, the non-ionic surfactant is Tween-20, the technical-grade imidacloprid is produced by Shanghai Jiali Kang Biological Technology Co., Ltd.; the potassium dihydrogen phosphate is a test reagent purchased, which is produced by Tianjin Hengxing Chemical Reagent Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; the orange peel essential oil is produced by Hebei Zhenxitang Science and Technology Development Co., Ltd., and the eucalyptus essential oil is produced by Beijing Yage Agricultural Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
[0028] In the insecticide, the imidacloprid is 94.5 parts by mass, the potassium dihydrogen phosphate is 900 parts, the orange peel essential oil is 900 parts, the eucalyptus essential oil is 7.5 parts, and the solvent is 8098 parts.
[0029] The insecticide in this example is used at a dosage of 667 g per 667 m 2 The dosage is 667 g per 667 m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water for spraying, and the effective component is imidacloprid, which is equivalent to 94.5 grams per hectare of effective component dosage.
[0030] Cotton leafhopper control effect test in Example 4
[0031] The test reagents used in the cotton leafhopper control effect test in this example include the insecticide in Example 1, the insecticide in Example 2, the insecticide in Example 3, and 13 comparative reagents. The specific circumstances of the 13 comparative reagents are described as follows:
[0032] Comparative reagent 1: 25% imidacloprid wettable powder, produced by Yancheng Limin Agricultural Chemical Co., Ltd., which is a finished product, and the comparative reagent 1 is tested at four dosages.
[0033] Dosage A of comparative reagent 1: 667 g per 667 m2 The dosage is 36 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water before spraying, and the active ingredient is dinotefuran, which is equivalent to an active ingredient dosage of 135 grams per hectare.
[0034] Dosage B of Comparative Agent 1: 36 grams per 667m 2 The dosage is 25.2 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water before spraying, and the active ingredient is dinotefuran, which is equivalent to an active ingredient dosage of 94.5 grams per hectare.
[0035] Dosage C of Comparative Agent 1: 21.6 grams per 667m 2 The dosage is 21.6 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water before spraying, and the active ingredient is dinotefuran, which is equivalent to an active ingredient dosage of 81 grams per hectare.
[0036] Dosage D of Comparative Agent 1: 18 grams per 667m 2 The dosage is 18 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water before spraying, and the active ingredient is dinotefuran, which is equivalent to an active ingredient dosage of 67.5 grams per hectare.
[0037] Comparative Agent 2: 10% nitenpyram aqueous solution, produced by Jiangxi Zhonghe Chemical Co., Ltd., as a finished product, 40 grams per 667m 2 The dosage is 40 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water before spraying, and the active ingredient is nitenpyram, which is equivalent to an active ingredient dosage of 60 grams per hectare.
[0038] Comparative Agent 3: 22% sulfoxaflor suspension concentrate, produced by Dow AgroSciences LLC, as a finished product, 30 grams per 667m 2 The dosage is 30 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water before spraying, and the active ingredient is sulfoxaflor, which is equivalent to an active ingredient dosage of 99 grams per hectare.
[0039] Comparative Agent 4: 5% abamectin emulsion, produced by Hebei Runda Pesticide Chemical Co., Ltd., as a finished product, 40 grams per 667m 2 The dosage is 40 grams per 667m 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water before spraying, and the active ingredient is abamectin, which is equivalent to an active ingredient dosage of 30 grams per hectare.
[0040] Comparative Agent 5: 50% thiacloprid water dispersible granules, produced by Shaanxi Xian'nong Biotechnology Co., Ltd., as a finished product, 40 grams per 667m 2 The dosage is 40 grams per 667m2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water before spraying. The active ingredient is thiamethoxam, which translates to an effective ingredient dosage of 300 grams per hectare.
[0041] Comparative agent 6: 30% thiamethoxam suspension concentrate, produced by Hebei Runda Pesticide Chemical Co., Ltd., is a finished formulation, per 667m³ 2 The dosage is 5 grams per 667m³. 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water before spraying. The active ingredient is thiamethoxam, which translates to an effective ingredient dosage of 22.5 grams per hectare.
[0042] Comparative reagent 7: 50% thiamethoxam suspension, produced by Jiangsu Jiangu Chemical Co., Ltd., is a finished formulation, per 667m³ 2 The dosage is 30 grams per 667m³. 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water before spraying. The active ingredient is thiamethoxam, which translates to an effective ingredient dosage of 225 grams per hectare.
[0043] Comparative agent 8: 22.4% spirotetramat suspension concentrate, produced by Hebei Kairuike Agricultural Technology Co., Ltd., is a finished formulation, per 667m³ 2 The dosage is 30 grams per 667m³. 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water before spraying. The active ingredient is spirotetramat, which translates to an effective ingredient dosage of 100.8 grams per hectare.
[0044] Comparative agent 9: 600 g / L imidacloprid suspension concentrate, produced by Shandong Baixin Biotechnology Co., Ltd., is a finished formulation, per 667 mg / L 2 The dosage is 2 ml per 667 m³. 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water before spraying. The active ingredient is imidacloprid, which translates to an effective ingredient dosage of 18 grams per hectare.
[0045] Comparative agent 10: 20% acetamiprid wettable powder, produced by Hebei Runda Pesticide & Chemical Co., Ltd., is a finished formulation, per 667m³ 2 The dosage is 10 grams, per 667m³ 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water before spraying. The active ingredient is acetamiprid, which translates to an effective ingredient dosage of 30 grams per hectare.
[0046] Comparative agent 11: 100 g / L bifenthrin emulsifiable concentrate, produced by Suzhou FMC Plant Protection Co., Ltd., is a finished formulation, per 667 m³. 2 The dosage is 30 ml per 667 m³. 2 The dosage needs to be diluted with 60 liters of water before spraying. The active ingredient is bifenthrin, which translates to an effective ingredient dosage of 45 grams per hectare.
[0047] Comparative agent 12: 2.5% lambda-cyhalothrin EC, produced by Bayer CropScience Co., Ltd., as a finished product, 40 g per 667 m 2 The dosage is 30 g, and 60 L of water is needed after dilution for spraying application. The active ingredient is lambda-cyhalothrin, and the equivalent active ingredient dosage is 11.25 g / ha. 2 The dosage is 30 g, and 60 L of water is needed after dilution for spraying application. The active ingredient is lambda-cyhalothrin, and the equivalent active ingredient dosage is 11.25 g / ha.
[0048] Comparative agent 13: 23% gamma-cyhalothrin MC, produced by Shanxi Hongyang Chemical Co., Ltd., as a finished product, 40 g per 667 m 2 The dosage is 40 g, and 60 L of water is needed after dilution for spraying application. The active ingredient is lambda-cyhalothrin, and the equivalent active ingredient dosage is 11.25 g / ha. 2 The dosage is 40 g, and 60 L of water is needed after dilution for spraying application. The active ingredient is lambda-cyhalothrin, and the equivalent active ingredient dosage is 11.25 g / ha.
[0049] The cotton leafhopper control effect test in this embodiment was carried out in a cotton planting area in the early and middle of September (cotton boll period, cotton leafhopper peak period). 80 plots were set up in the cotton planting area. In order to reduce the influence of cotton leafhopper interaction between plots on the test results, the distance between each two plots was more than 2 meters. Since this test was only carried out in the early and middle of September, the time span of the test was small, and cotton leafhoppers usually feed on cotton leaves. In a cotton field with sufficient food, cotton leafhoppers only move in a small range, so the distance between two plots is more than 2 meters.
[0050] Four plots were randomly selected from the 80 plots as blank control areas. The other plots in the 80 plots except the blank control areas were treatment areas. The area of each plot was 30 m 2 The number of cotton leafhoppers in each plot before treatment was 200-400, which was the peak period of cotton leafhopper outbreak.
[0051] The test process of the cotton leafhopper control effect test is illustrated by taking the insecticide in the embodiment 1 as an example. The test process is as follows:
[0052] Randomly select 4 plots in the 76 plots except the blank control plots, and use the insecticide in Example 1 and the corresponding amount to prevent and control the cotton leafhoppers in each plot. Take one plot in the 4 plots as an example to illustrate the prevention and control process. The prevention and control process of the plot as the treatment plot is as follows: randomly select 100 upper leaves of cotton in the treatment plot, and record the number of cotton leafhoppers on the 100 upper leaves of cotton selected on the day before spraying to obtain the pre-spraying insect number of the treatment plot (the pre-spraying base number in Table 1). Select one plot as the blank control plot of the current treatment plot from the 4 plots as the blank control plots, and also randomly select 100 upper leaves of cotton in the plot as the blank control plot. Record the number of cotton leafhoppers on the 100 upper leaves of cotton selected in the blank control plot on the day before spraying in the treatment plot to obtain the pre-spraying insect number of the blank control plot.
[0053] Prepare the insecticide into a liquid medicine according to the preset water mixing ratio (consistent with the water mixing ratio of the amount of 667m 2 Determine the required spraying amount according to the area of the current treatment plot, use a backpack electric sprayer to spray the liquid medicine, select a hollow cone nozzle when spraying, the working pressure of the nozzle is 0.32-0.5 MPa, the spraying flow rate is 15.2 ml / s-24.3 ml / s, and the front and back surfaces of the leaves are sprayed.
[0054] Record the total residual insect number of the 100 upper leaves of cotton selected in the current treatment plot on the day after spraying, the 3rd day, the 7th day and the 14th day in the treatment plot to obtain the post-spraying insect number of the treatment plot on the 1st day, the 3rd day, the 7th day and the 14th day after spraying (the residual insect number in Table 1).
[0055] Also record the total residual insect number of the 100 upper leaves of cotton selected in the blank control plot on the day after spraying, the 3rd day, the 7th day and the 14th day in the treatment plot to obtain the post-spraying insect number of the blank control plot on the 1st day, the 3rd day, the 7th day and the 14th day after spraying in the treatment plot.
[0056] Calculate the insect population decline rate and the control effect according to the pre-spraying insect number and the post-spraying insect number of the treatment plot and the blank control plot, and use Duncan's new multiple range test (DMRT) method for significant difference test.
[0057]
[0058] Finally, record the control effect in the table as the average value of the calculation results obtained from the 4 plot tests.
[0059] The test processes of Comparative Agent 1 at four dosages and Comparative Agents 2-13 were the same as the test process of the insecticide in Example 1, and the test results of the cotton leafhopper control effect test were summarized as follows:
[0060] Table 1 Cotton leafhopper control effect table
[0061]
[0062]
[0063]
[0064]
[0065] In combination with Table 1, the control effect that could be achieved by the insecticide with the active ingredient of dinotefuran (insecticide in Examples 1-3, Comparative Agent 1) was obviously superior to that of the insecticides with other active ingredients. Among the four dosages of Comparative Agent 1 (25% dinotefuran wettable powder), the dosage A (36 grams per 667 m 2 2) achieved the most ideal control effect, and the control effects at 1 day, 3 days, 7 days and 14 days after application were 92.2%, 95.7%, 91.6% and 70.2% respectively, corresponding to a dinotefuran dosage of 135 g per hectare.
[0066] In combination with Table 1, the control effects of the insecticide in Example 1 at 1 day, 3 days, 7 days and 14 days after application were 92.7%, 96.2%, 92.0% and 89.6% respectively, corresponding to a dinotefuran dosage of 67.5 g per hectare; the control effects of the insecticide in Example 2 at 1 day, 3 days, 7 days and 14 days after application were 93.7%, 96.9%, 93.6% and 89.8% respectively, corresponding to a dinotefuran dosage of 81 g per hectare; and the control effects of the insecticide in Example 3 at 1 day, 3 days, 7 days and 14 days after application were 95.0%, 97.2%, 95.0% and 90.2% respectively, corresponding to a dinotefuran dosage of 94.5 g per hectare.
[0067] The above results show that the insecticide containing dinotefuran, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, orange peel oil and eucalyptus oil, when the dinotefuran dosage per hectare was 67.5-94.5 g, could achieve a control effect superior to that of Comparative Agent 1 (25% dinotefuran wettable powder) at dosage A (36 grams per 667 m 2 2); and compared with dosage A of Comparative Agent 1, the dinotefuran dosage per hectare could be reduced by 30%-50%, thereby effectively reducing the pollution of the ecological environment and the pesticide residues in crops.
[0068] In combination with Table 1, the control effects of the insecticide in Example 1, the insecticide in Example 2 and the insecticide in Example 3 at 1 day after application are 92.7%, 93.7% and 95.0% respectively. The best control effect at 1 day after application among the comparative agents is 92.2% achieved by Comparative Agent 1 (25% dinotefuran wettable powder) with dosage A (effective ingredient dosage of 135 g / ha). The above results show that the insecticide comprising dinotefuran, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, orange peel essential oil and eucalyptus oil is more effective than the existing product formulation.
[0069] In combination with Table 1, the control effects of the insecticide in Example 1, the insecticide in Example 2 and the insecticide in Example 3 at 14 days after application are 89.6%, 89.8% and 90.2% respectively. The best control effect at 14 days after application among the comparative agents is 70.2% achieved by Comparative Agent 1 (25% dinotefuran wettable powder) with dosage A (effective ingredient dosage of 135 g / ha). The above results show that the insecticide comprising dinotefuran, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, orange peel essential oil and eucalyptus oil is more effective and has a significant improvement in persistence than the existing product formulation.
[0070] Example 5: Cotton leafhopper resistance test
[0071] According to the test results of the cotton leafhopper control effect test in Example 4, the best control effect is achieved by Comparative Agent 1 (25% dinotefuran wettable powder) with dosage A (36 g per 667 m 2 The corresponding dinotefuran dosage per hectare is 135 g. Therefore, Comparative Agent 1 with dosage A is used as a reference for the cotton leafhopper resistance test in this example.
[0072] The test process includes: selecting four new cotton fields. Since the time span of this test is large, in order to avoid the migration of cotton leafhoppers between the four new cotton fields and affect the test results, the distance between each two cotton fields is more than 50 km. The four new cotton fields are referred to as A cotton field, B cotton field, C cotton field and D cotton field. During the test period of this test, some cotton leafhoppers may migrate out of the fields and some cotton leafhoppers from outside may migrate into the fields. In order to avoid the influence of these cotton leafhoppers on the test results, the area of each of the A cotton field, B cotton field, C cotton field and D cotton field is 667 m 2 (about 1 / 15 hectare, i.e. 1 mu), and the area of 667 m 2 can ensure that most of the cotton leafhoppers remain in the cotton field during the test period.
[0073] The A cotton field, B cotton field and C cotton field are used as treatment areas, and the D cotton field is used as a blank control area. In each treatment area, Comparative Agent 1 (25% dinotefuran wettable powder) with dosage A (36 g per 667 m2 The cotton leafhopper control was carried out with 36 grams of the insecticide. From June to August of each year, the cotton leafhopper control was carried out once a month in the middle and late of each month, and the control was carried out for three times a year. The control process of each control was as follows: the insecticide was prepared into a pesticide solution according to the preset water ratio (60 L of water was added to 36 grams of the insecticide), the spraying amount was determined according to the area of the treatment area, the pesticide solution was sprayed by using a backpack electric sprayer, a hollow cone nozzle was selected when spraying, the working pressure of the nozzle was 0.32-0.5 MPa, the spraying flow rate was 15.2 ml / s-24.3 ml / s, and the front and back surfaces of the leaves were sprayed. 2 The cotton leafhopper control was carried out with 36 grams of the insecticide. From June to August of each year, the cotton leafhopper control was carried out once a month in the middle and late of each month, and the control was carried out for three times a year. The control process of each control was as follows: the insecticide was prepared into a pesticide solution according to the preset water ratio (60 L of water was added to 36 grams of the insecticide), the spraying amount was determined according to the area of the treatment area, the pesticide solution was sprayed by using a backpack electric sprayer, a hollow cone nozzle was selected when spraying, the working pressure of the nozzle was 0.32-0.5 MPa, the spraying flow rate was 15.2 ml / s-24.3 ml / s, and the front and back surfaces of the leaves were sprayed.
[0074] In the third year, the cotton leafhopper control was carried out in the cotton fields A, B, C and D by using the insecticide in Example 1, the insecticide in Example 2, the insecticide in Example 3 and the insecticide in Example 1 respectively. From June to August of each year, the cotton leafhopper control was carried out once a month in the middle and late of each month, and the control was carried out for three times a year. The control process of each control was the same as that in the first year and the second year.
[0075] After the first year, the second year and the third year, the cotton leafhopper live insects in the cotton fields A, B, C and D were collected to carry out the LC 50 determination to obtain the half lethal concentration LC 50 of dinotefuran to the cotton leafhopper in each cotton field. The specific determination results are shown in Table 2.
[0076] The test process of the LC 50 determination in the present example was as follows: the dinotefuran technical material was prepared into a pesticide solution with different dinotefuran concentration gradients (1 ppm, 5 ppm, 10 ppm, 50 ppm, 100 ppm and 500 ppm) for standby. The cotton leafhopper live insects were collected from the cotton fields without pesticide application for at least 14 days by using a high-density mesh bag for the next test. A plurality of fresh cotton leaves with the same size and without obvious disease spots or insect spots were collected from the greenhouse potted cotton plants without any pesticide application, washed with clean water and dried until no obvious water marks. Then the plurality of cotton leaves were placed into triangular bottles containing pesticide solutions with different dinotefuran concentrations for 10 seconds, taken out, and then placed into insect rearing tanks with 80 mesh pore size and dried until no obvious water marks. The cotton leafhopper live insects were swept into the tanks with a fine brush, the tank covers were covered, and the tanks were placed into an artificial climate box to simulate the natural environment. The temperature, humidity and light duration of the artificial climate box were adjusted to 25℃, 90% and 12 hours of light / 12 hours of darkness respectively. After 72 hours, the number of cotton leafhopper live insects in each insect rearing tank was checked. According to the number of cotton leafhopper live insects swept into the tank and the number of cotton leafhopper live insects after 72 hours, the corresponding mortality under each dinotefuran concentration was determined. The death standard was that the insect body could not move after being gently touched by the fine brush.
[0077] The LC 50The test data of the test were processed by Probit of SPSS 22.0 software, the log 10 value of dinotefuran concentration was expressed as x, and the mortality was expressed as y, the intercept a and the slope b were calculated, and the toxicity regression equation was obtained. According to the toxicity regression equation, the median lethal concentration LC 50 was calculated, and the calculation results of the toxicity regression equation and LC 50 were as follows.
[0078] Table 2 Cotton leafhopper resistance table
[0079]
[0080] Combined with Table 2, the LC 50 of dinotefuran to cotton leafhopper in A cotton field was 1.50 μg / mL after the first year, and the LC 50 of dinotefuran to cotton leafhopper was 2.84 μg / mL after the second year; the LC 50 of dinotefuran to cotton leafhopper in B cotton field was 1.43 μg / mL after the first year, and the LC 50 of dinotefuran to cotton leafhopper was 2.80 μg / mL after the second year; the LC 50 of dinotefuran to cotton leafhopper in C cotton field was 1.53 μg / mL after the first year, and the LC 50 of dinotefuran to cotton leafhopper was 2.85 μg / mL after the second year. The above test results showed that after using the comparative agent 1 (25% dinotefuran wettable powder) with the use amount A (36 grams per 667 m 2 ), the LC 50 (μg / mL) of dinotefuran to cotton leafhopper in A cotton field, B cotton field and C cotton field all increased significantly within one year, which meant that the risk of difficulty in control due to cotton leafhopper resistance was larger.
[0081] Combined with Table 2, the LC 50 of dinotefuran to cotton leafhopper in A cotton field was 2.84 μg / mL after the second year, and the LC 50 of dinotefuran to cotton leafhopper was 2.81 μg / mL after the third year; the LC 50 of dinotefuran to cotton leafhopper in B cotton field was 2.80 μg / mL after the second year, and the LC 50 of dinotefuran to cotton leafhopper was 2.78 μg / mL after the third year; the LC 50 of dinotefuran to cotton leafhopper in C cotton field was 2.85 μg / mL after the second year, and the LC 50 of dinotefuran to cotton leafhopper was 2.83 μg / mL after the third year; the LC 50 of dinotefuran to cotton leafhopper in D cotton field was 0.62 μg / mL after the second year, and the LC 50was 0.64 pg / mL. The above results show that after the cotton leafhopper control was performed with the insecticide in Example 1 or the insecticide in Example 2 or the insecticide in Example 3 in the third year, there was no significant increase in the LC50 of the insecticide to the cotton leafhopper in the cotton fields (A cotton field, B cotton field, and C cotton field) to which the existing dinotefuran product formulation (comparative agent 1) was applied or in the blank control area (D cotton field) to which no control was performed, compared to after the second year. The above results show that the insecticide containing dinotefuran, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, orange peel oil, and eucalyptol can effectively delay the development of resistance of the cotton leafhopper to dinotefuran when applied to the cotton leafhopper control, thereby contributing to the sustainability of the cotton leafhopper control. 50 ( pg / mL) did not significantly increase. The above results show that the insecticide containing dinotefuran, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, orange peel oil, and eucalyptol can effectively delay the development of resistance of the cotton leafhopper to dinotefuran when applied to the cotton leafhopper control, thereby contributing to the sustainability of the cotton leafhopper control.
[0082] It is easily understood that, based on one or more embodiments provided in the present application, a person skilled in the art can combine, split, recombine, etc. the embodiments of the present application to obtain other embodiments, and these embodiments do not exceed the protection scope of the present application.
[0083] The above describes the present application and its embodiments in a schematic manner, and the description is not restrictive, and the embodiments shown are only part of the embodiments of the present application, and the actual structure is not limited thereto. Therefore, if a person skilled in the art is inspired thereby, without departing from the spirit of the present application, without creative design, similar structural modes and embodiments to the technical solutions can be designed, and all of them should belong to the protection scope of the present application.
[0084] The above describes only the preferred embodiments of the present application, and it should be noted that, for a person skilled in the art, without departing from the technical principles of the present application, several improvements and modifications can be made, and these improvements and modifications should also be regarded as the protection scope of the present application.
Claims
1. An insecticide, characterized in that, The composition comprising a solvent and a control agent for cotton leafhoppers, comprising a total of 10,000 parts by weight, wherein the composition comprises 1,875 to 1,902 parts and the solvent comprises 8,098 to 8,125 parts; wherein the solvent comprises the following components: a nonionic surfactant and water, wherein the nonionic surfactant comprises 1 part and the water comprises 99 parts by volume. The composition for controlling cotton leafhoppers includes the following components: fipronil, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, orange peel essential oil, and eucalyptol; by weight, fipronil 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. The dosage of the aforementioned fipronil is 67.5–94.5 g per hectare.
2. A method for preparing the insecticide according to claim 1, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: Step S1: Add a nonionic surfactant to water to obtain a solvent; Step S2: Mix fipronil and potassium dihydrogen phosphate to obtain a mixed powder; Step S3: Stir and mix the mixed powder and the solvent to obtain a mixed solution; Step S4: Add orange peel essential oil and eucalyptus oil to the mixture and stir to obtain the insecticide.
3. The use of the insecticide according to claim 1 in the preparation of an agent for controlling cotton leafhoppers.