Plant protection product for the treatment of fungal diseases affecting plants

Abstract

The present invention relates to a phytosanitary composition comprising (i) one or more metal oxide(s), (ii) one or more sugar(s) and / or one or more sugar derivative(s), and (iii) one or more phosphorus derivative(s).

Description

Title of the invention: Phytosanitary composition for the treatment of fungal diseases affecting plants. TECHNICAL FIELD OF THE INVENTION

[0001] The present invention relates to a plant protection composition comprising (i) one or more metal oxide(s), (ii) one or more sugar(s) and / or one or more sugar derivative(s), and (iii) one or more phosphorus derivative(s). The compositions according to the invention are particularly useful as fungicides. More specifically, another object of the invention relates to the treatment of downy mildew of grapevines by application of the plant protection composition according to the invention. STATE OF THE ART

[0002] The invention relates to a phytosanitary composition useful as a fungicide for the preventive and / or curative treatment of fungal diseases such as downy mildew.

[0003] Downy mildew is the common name for a group of fungal diseases of plants, attacking in particular the vine and the potato, caused by microscopic parasites classified among the Chromista, phylum Oomycota.

[0004] It has long been known to use plant protection products based on mineral salts, oxides or hydroxides and copper sulfates, particularly for their fungicidal properties, for example against downy mildew in grapevines. These products also have bactericidal properties, for example against bacterial blight in peach or apricot trees, Pseudomonas bacterial blight in apple or pear trees, or bacteriostatic properties that prevent the establishment of bacterial diseases.

[0005] In particular, in the field of viticulture, common methods for preventing or controlling downy mildew include copper-based products such as copper sulfates (commonly known as Bordeaux mixture), copper hydroxides, copper oxychlorides, cuprous oxides, and phosphonates or phosphites. However, these products have moderate efficacy, and copper is a powerful biocide that can lead to soil sterilization. Therefore, regulations, particularly European ones, limit the use of copper to 28 kg / ha over 7 years, representing an average dose of 4 kg / ha / year of metallic copper.

[0006] It should be noted that these maximum quantities of copper authorized by regulation must also take into account the quantities of copper contained in certain foliar fertilizers.

[0007] There is therefore a constant need to develop new, effective and environmentally friendly plant protection compositions to treat cultivated plants such as vines.

[0008] Surprisingly, it has been discovered that the combination of (i) one or more metal oxide(s), (ii) one or more sugar(s) and / or one or more sugar derivative(s) and (iii) one or more phosphorus derivative(s) makes it possible to prevent and / or treat downy mildew effectively on cultivated plants such as grapevines, while exhibiting good biocompatibility. Summary of the invention

[0009] A first object of the invention relates to a phytosanitary composition comprising:

[0010] (i) one or more metal oxide(s),

[0011] (ii) one or more sugar(s) and / or one or more sugar derivative(s), possibly in the form of salts, and

[0012] (iii) one or more phosphorus derivative(s).

[0013] A second object of the invention relates to a method for preparing a phytosanitary composition according to the invention, comprising a mixing step

[0014] (i) of one or more metal oxide(s),

[0015] (ii) of one or more sugar(s) and / or one or more sugar derivative(s); and

[0016] (iii) of one or more phosphorus derivative(s).

[0017] A third object of the invention relates to the use of a phytosanitary composition according to the invention, possibly prepared by a preparation process according to the invention, for the preventive and / or curative treatment of cultivated plants that may be affected by fungal diseases caused by a fungus and / or oomycete.

[0018] A fourth object of the invention relates to a method of preventive and / or curative treatment of a fungal disease caused by a fungus and / or oomycete in cultivated plants comprising a step of applying a phytosanitary composition according to the invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0019] In the sense of the present invention, the various embodiments presented in the description as a whole can be used alone or in combination with each other, without limitation of combination.

[0020] The present invention therefore relates to a phytosanitary composition comprising

[0021] (i) one or more metal oxide(s),

[0022] (ii) one or more sugar(s) and / or one or more sugar derivative(s), possibly in the form of salt(s), and

[0023] (iii) one or more phosphorus derivative(s).

[0024] One or more metal oxide(s) may be selected from the group consisting of: zinc oxide, iron oxide, manganese oxide, aluminum oxide or copper oxide. Preferably, one or more metal oxide(s) may be chosen from the group consisting of: zinc oxide, iron oxide, manganese oxide.

[0025] One or more sugars may be selected from the group consisting of: fructose, glucose, lactose, galactose, maltose or sucrose, possibly in the form of salts. Typically, "salts" refers to a glucose salt, a lactose salt, a galactose salt, a maltose salt and / or a sucrose salt.

[0026] One or more sugar derivatives may be selected from the group consisting of: fructonic acid, gluconic acid, glucorinic acid, galactonic acid, galacturonic acid, optionally in the form of salt(s). Typically, "salts" refers to a fructonate salt, a gluconate salt, a glucorinate salt, a galactonate salt, or a galacturonate salt.

[0027] The term derivative in the expression "sugar derivative" refers to a compound obtained by chemical modification of a sugar. For example, gluconic acid is obtained by oxidation of glucose to an acid.

[0028] The salts may be selected from the group consisting of: sodium salt, zinc salt, calcium salt, silicon salt, potassium salt, manganese salt, magnesium salt, copper salt, or a mixture thereof. For example, a gluconate salt may be selected from the group consisting of: sodium gluconate, zinc gluconate, calcium gluconate, silicon gluconate, potassium gluconate, manganese gluconate, magnesium gluconate, copper gluconate, or a mixture thereof. Preferably, the sugar derivative in salt form is a zinc salt. In particular, the sugar derivative in salt form is zinc gluconate.

[0029] One or more phosphorus derivatives may be selected from the group consisting of: phosphorous acid (H3PO3), also called phosphonic acid (H3PO3), a phosphite salt, also called a phosphonate salt, or a mixture thereof. A phosphite salt is defined as sodium phosphite (or phosphonate), zinc phosphite (or phosphonate), calcium phosphite (or phosphonate), silicon phosphite (or phosphonate), potassium phosphite (or phosphonate), manganese phosphite (or phosphonate), magnesium phosphite (or phosphonate), or a mixture thereof.

[0030] Without being linked to any theory, the combination of a zinc oxide with a gluconic derivative and a phosphorous derivative leads to the formation of one or more active species such as zinc gluconate and / or zinc phosphite.

[0031] Advantageously, a plant protection composition according to the invention exhibits improved plant protection efficacy as well as better performance in terms of biocompatibility and environmental friendliness for the reduction and / or elimination of plant attacks by one or more fungi and / or oomycetes. In particular, the plant protection composition according to the invention does not exhibit biocidal activity, which limits environmental impact and preserves cultivated soils. Another advantage of the plant protection composition according to the invention is that it effectively stimulates the natural defenses of treated plants.

[0032] Typically, the phytosanitary composition includes

[0033] (i) from 10 to 25% by mass of one or more metal oxide(s);

[0034] (ii) 30 to 50% by mass of one or more sugar(s) and / or sugar derivative(s); and

[0035] (iii) from 35 to 55% by mass of one or more phosphorus derivative(s);

[0036] the mass percentages being given in relation to the mass of the composition dried.

[0037] Preferably, the plant protection product composition may include:

[0038] (i) from 14 to 22% by mass of one or more metal oxide(s);

[0039] (ii) 35 to 45% by mass of one or more sugar(s) and / or sugar derivative(s); and

[0040] (iii) 38 to 48% by mass of one or more phosphorus derivative(s);

[0041] the mass percentages being given in relation to the mass of the composition dried.

[0042] In a more preferred embodiment, the phytosanitary composition comprises

[0043] (i) 18% by mass of one or more metal oxide(s), for example oxide of zinc;

[0044] (ii) 39% by mass of one or more sugar(s) and / or sugar derivative(s), for example gluconic acid or a gluconate salt such as zinc gluconate; and

[0045] (iii) 43% by mass of one or more phosphorous derivative(s), for example of phosphorous acid;

[0046] the mass percentages being given in relation to the mass of the dry composition.

[0047] Typically, the plant protection composition can be liquid or dry. In particular, when the composition is liquid, it also includes water. Typically, the liquid plant protection composition is a solution.

[0048] The plant protection composition in liquid form may contain, for example, 30 to 50% water by mass relative to the total mass of the composition. The plant protection composition may include:

[0049] (i) from 5 to 15% by mass of one or more metal oxide(s);

[0050] (ii) 20 to 30% by mass of one or more sugar(s) and / or sugar derivative(s);

[0051] (iii) 20 to 30% by mass of one or more phosphorus derivative(s); and

[0052] (iv) 30 to 50% by mass of water;

[0053] the mass percentages being given in relation to the total mass of the composition.

[0054] In one embodiment, the phytosanitary composition may include:

[0055] (i) 8 to 12% by mass of one or more metal oxide(s);

[0056] (ii) 22 to 26% by mass of one or more sugar(s) and / or sugar derivative(s);

[0057] (iii) 24 to 28% by mass of one or more phosphorus derivative(s), and

[0058] (iv) 35 to 45% water by mass;

[0059] the mass percentages being given in relation to the total mass of the composition.

[0060] In another preferred embodiment, the phytosanitary composition comprises:

[0061] (i) 11% by mass of one or more metal oxide(s), and for example of oxide of zinc;

[0062] (ii) 24% by mass of one or more sugar(s) and / or sugar derivative(s), for example gluconic acid or a gluconate salt; and

[0063] (iii) 26% by mass of one or more phosphorous derivative(s), for example of phosphorous acid;

[0064] (iv) 39% by mass of water;

[0065] the mass percentages being given in relation to the total mass of the composition.

[0066] The plant protection composition may further comprise an algae base that can serve as a carrier. "Algae base" means marine algae, cultivated algae, powdered algae, or an extract thereof, or a compound extracted from such algae, for example laminarin or any other equivalent type of carrier. The proportion of algae base in the composition may vary from 0 to 10% by mass, typically from 0.1 to 10% by mass.

[0067] The plant protection product composition may also include any other ingredient useful for its preparation. These ingredients may be chosen from surfactants, preservatives, dispersants, wetting agents, emulsifiers, and colorants.

[0068] Typically, the sum of the components of the composition described above is 100% by mass relative to the total mass of the composition.

[0069] The phytosanitary composition may have a pH less than or equal to 4, typically less than or equal to 3 or even less than or equal to 2 and more particularly varying from 1 to 2 such as for example from 1.3.

[0070] The phytosanitary composition may have a density less than or equal to 2.5, typically less than or equal to 2 or even less than or equal to 1.5 and for example 1.4.

[0071] The phytosanitary composition may have a concentration in one or more metal oxide(s), for example in zinc oxide, ranging from 90 to 190 g / L, typically from 100 to 180 g / L or even from 110 to 170 g / L and for example from 168 g / L.

[0072] The plant protection composition may have a concentration of one or more sugars and / or one or more sugar derivatives, for example gluconic acid and / or in gluconate salt(s), ranging from 110 to 250 g / L, typically from 120 to 230 g / L or from 130 to 200 g / L and preferably from 140 to 180 g / L.

[0073] The phytosanitary composition may have a concentration in one or more phosphorous derivative(s), for example in phosphorous acid, ranging from 180 to 280 g / L, typically from 200 to 260 g / L or even from 220 to 240 g / L and preferably from 225 to 235 g / L and for example 231 g / L.

[0074] In one embodiment, the plant protection composition has one or more of the following concentrations:

[0075] (i) from 90 to 190 g / L, typically from 100 to 180 g / L or even from 110 to 170 g / L in metallic oxide(s), such as zinc oxide; and / or

[0076] (ii) from 180 to 280 g / L, typically from 200 to 260 g / L or even from 220 to 240 g / L and preferably from 225 to 235 g / L in sugar(s) and / or sugar derivative(s), such as, for example, gluconic acid or gluconate salt; and / or

[0077] (iii) from 180 to 280 g / L, typically from 200 to 260 g / L or from 220 to 240 g / L and preferably from 225 to 235 g / L in phosphorous derivative(s), such as phosphorous acid. Preparation process

[0078] Another aspect of the invention relates to a method for preparing a phytosanitary composition as described above.

[0079] In one embodiment, the process for preparing the plant protection composition includes a mixing step

[0080] (i) of one or more metal oxide(s),

[0081] (ii) of one or more sugar(s) and / or one or more sugar derivative(s); and

[0082] (iii) of one or more phosphorus derivative(s).

[0083] The composition thus prepared can be dry or liquid depending on the packaging of each of the components.

[0084] More specifically, a method of preparing the composition, typically liquid, comprises the following steps:

[0085] (a) adding to water one or more metal oxide(s), one or more sugar(s) and / or one or more sugar derivative(s) and one or more phosphorus derivative(s);

[0086] (b) heating to a temperature ranging from 40 to 80°C for at least 2 hours;

[0087] (c) cooling to a temperature ranging from 15 to 25°C.

[0088] Preferably, step (a) is carried out by successive addition, preferably in this order, of one or more metal oxide(s), of one or more sugar(s) and / or of one or more sugar derivative(s) followed by one or more phosphorus derivative(s).

[0089] Typically, the addition (a) to the water is carried out under agitation.

[0090] The heating step (b) can be carried out for a period of at least 2 hours, typically at least 4 hours, or from 2 to 6 hours. The temperature at step (b) can vary from 50 to 70°C.

[0091] The heating in step (b) can be carried out by any method known to a person skilled in the art.

[0092] Cooling in step (c) can be achieved by any method known to those skilled in the art. Generally, cooling is carried out by switching off the heating in step (b) until the ambient temperature is reached, for example ranging from 15 to 25°C depending on the season.

[0093] When the plant protection composition further includes an algae base such as laminarin and / or any other ingredient useful for its formulation, these may be added at one of steps (a), (b) and / or (c). Typically, these additions are made under agitation.

[0094] The phytosanitary composition thus prepared can be stored, conventionally at room temperature, before being used. Use

[0095] Another aspect of the invention relates to the use of the phytosanitary composition as described above for the preventive and / or curative treatment of cultivated plants, typically which may be affected by fungal diseases of the downy mildew type.

[0096] Fungal diseases are caused by a fungus and / or an oomycete. Commonly, the fungus and / or oomycete is / are chosen from the group consisting of: Plasmopara viticola, Phytophthora infestans, Phytophthora ramorum, Phytophthora cinnamomi, Pseudoperonospora cubensis, Bremia lactucae, Peronospora destructor, Venturia inaequalis, Venturia carpophila, Venturia pyrina, Spilocaea oleaginea.

[0097] More specifically, the crops suitable for treatment are selected from the group consisting of: grapevines, vegetable crops, certain field crops, and fruit trees. Fruit trees include, for example, citrus fruits, pineapples, kiwifruit, olive trees, banana trees, stone fruits such as peaches, nectarines, and apricots, and pome fruits such as apples and pears. Vegetable crops include, for example, potatoes, beets, tomatoes, onions, garlic, peppers, eggplants, chervil, spinach, melons, leeks, lamb's lettuce, lettuce, watercress, and aromatic plants. Field crops suitable for treatment include, for example, sugar beets. Preferably, the crop suitable for treatment is grapevines.

[0098] Treatment with a phytosanitary composition according to the invention can be carried out by application by spraying typically via the foliar route.

[0099] Treatment with a phytosanitary composition according to the invention can be carried out by applying the composition to the leaves and / or fruits of the plant or any other areas of the plant requiring treatment.

[0100] Advantageously, the preventive treatment with the phytosanitary composition according to the invention is carried out before the appearance of fungal diseases of the downy mildew type.

[0101] Curative treatment with the phytosanitary composition according to the invention can also be carried out as soon as fungal diseases of the downy mildew type appear.

[0102] Advantageously, the phytosanitary composition according to the invention allows the prevention and / or reduction and / or elimination of attacks by the fungus and / or oomycete.

[0103] Optionally, the plant protection composition according to the invention does not require any additional handling before use. In particular, the plant protection composition then has a suitable concentration of each component so that it can be used as is without, for example, an additional dilution step. The so-called "ready-to-use" plant protection composition according to the invention is generally intended for treating a small area, typically for amateur gardeners or market gardeners.

[0104] Optionally, the plant protection composition according to the invention requires a dissolving and / or dilution step before use. In particular, for professional use aimed at treating a large cultivated area, the plant protection composition typically has a higher concentration of components (i), (ii), and (iii) compared to a "ready-to-use" composition. In this case, the plant protection composition needs to be dissolved and / or diluted, for example, after being introduced into a sprayer tank which is then filled with water.

[0105] In particular, an object of the present invention relates to the use of a phytosanitary composition as described above for the preventive and / or curative treatment of fungal diseases of the downy mildew type.

[0106] The preventive and / or curative treatment of cultivated plants includes the use, for example by spraying, of a plant protection product composition at a dose of at least 1% by mass, preferably at least 2% by mass, preferably from 2% to 5% by mass, or from 2.5% to 4.5% by mass, as described above. The application may be repeated every 6 to 14 days.

[0107] According to one embodiment, the application of the phytosanitary composition can be repeated from 2 to 10 times, typically from 4 to 8 times or even from 6 to 7 times.

[0108] According to one embodiment, the application of the plant protection composition extends over 1 to 8 months, typically from 2 to 6 months and classically over 3, 4 or 5 months in depending on the crop being treated. For example, the application can last for 4 months for salad crops and for 5 months for grapevine crops.

[0109] According to one embodiment, the application frequency of the plant protection product varies from 0.2 to 2 times per week, typically from 0.5 to 1 time per week. The application frequency can be adjusted by a person skilled in the art according to climatic conditions; typically, in the absence of rain, the period between two sprayings is extended.

[0110] According to one embodiment, the application of the phytosanitary composition begins as soon as the first damage of said fungal disease appears on said crop.

[0111] According to another embodiment, the application of the phytosanitary composition begins preventively before the appearance of the first damage of said fungal disease on said crop, for example in the case of fruit crops when climatic conditions are favorable to the appearance of said fungal disease or during the period of presence of fruit on said crop.

[0112] In one embodiment, the treatment or prevention of a fungal disease of crop plants includes the reduction and / or elimination of damage due to the fungus and / or oomycete responsible for said fungal disease. LIST OF FIGURES

[0113] [Fig-1]: is a plan of the experimental setup of the example test.

[0114] [Fig. 2]: defines the experimental conditions of the example test. The letter C corresponds to the contamination carried out on May 4, 2022. The abbreviations Fl, F2, Gl, G2, and G3 correspond to the ratings of the leaves or clusters, respectively. The abbreviations Tl, T2, T3, T4, 5, T6, and T7 correspond to the treatment number. The dates of each of these events (contamination, rating, treatment) are shown on the upper timeline.

[0115] [Fig.3]: is a graph representing the evolution of downy mildew symptoms on leaves in untreated controls.

[0116] [Fig.4]: is a graph representing the evolution of downy mildew symptoms on bunches in untreated controls.

[0117] [Fig. 5]: This is a graph representing the climatology of the test site from April 15 to July 15, 2022. The curves on the graph correspond to the variations in maximum (TMAX), average (TMOY), and minimum (TMIN) temperatures. The bars on the x-axis represent precipitation (denoted as rain) and the volumes of liquids applied by sprinkler treatments (denoted as sprinkler).

[0118] [Fig.6]: is a graph representing efficiency (relative values) on sheets May 30, 2022.

[0119] [Fig.7]: is a graph representing the efficiency (relative values) on leaves as of June 16, 2022.

[0120] [Fig.8]: is a graph representing the efficiency (relative values) on clusters on June 9, 2022.

[0121] [Fig.9]: is a graph representing the efficiency (relative values) on clusters on June 22, 2022.

[0122] [Fig. 10]: is a graph representing the efficiency (relative values) on clusters on July 7, 2022. Examples

[0123] The following example illustrates a particular embodiment of the invention without limiting its scope.

[0124] In the example, the terms below have the following definitions.

[0125] The terms "frequency of attack" or "frequency efficiency" or "frequency" refer, in the case of foliage, to the frequency of attack by downy mildew on the entire foliage corresponding to the ratio between the number of downy mildew spots observed and the number of leaves estimated per plot, expressed as a percentage.

[0126] The terms “frequency of attack” or “frequency efficiency” or “frequency” refer, in the case of bunches, to the ratio between the number of bunches affected by downy mildew and the total number of bunches observed on the plot, expressed as a percentage.

[0127] The terms "intensity of attack" or "intensity efficiency" or "intensity" refer, in the case of foliage, to the ratio between the area of ​​the plot on which the leaves are affected by downy mildew and the area of ​​the entire plot observed, expressed as a percentage.

[0128] The terms "frequency of attack" or "intensity efficiency" or "intensity" refer, in the case of bunches, to the ratio between the area on which the bunches are affected by downy mildew and the area of ​​the entire observed plot, expressed as a percentage. I. EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS 1. Description of the test plot

[0129] - Grape variety: Cabernet Sauvignon;

[0130] - Plantation: 2.25 m x 1 m, i.e. a theoretical density of 4,444 plants / hectare;

[0131] - Conducting method: Bilateral cord, with 2 levels of wires (one carrier and 2 lifters).

[0132] - Location: Rodilhan 30230, France. 2. Characteristics of the products under study

[0133] The products used and their application dosages are presented in Table 1 below.

[0134] [Tables 1] Name / Code Active substance(s) Concentration in water Dosage / hectare SA / ha (g) GDZ Zinc oxide Gluconic acid Phosphorous acid 11.0 wt% 23.6 wt% 25.7 wt% 2, 3 and 4 L / ha 200-1000 REDELI Disodium phosphonate 500 g / L 2.5 L / ha 1250 ETONAN Potassium phosphonates 755 g / L 4 L / ha 3020 AMPEXIO Zoxamide Mandipropamide 24 wt% 25 wt% 0.5 kg / ha 120 125 PROFILER Fluopicolide Fosetyl-Al 4.4 wt% 66.7 wt% 3 kg / ha 132 2000 ZORVEC ZE LA VIN Oxathiapiproline 100 g / L 0.4 L / ha 40 FREGATE Copper sulfate 190 g / L 3.95 L / ha 750 ENERVIN Ametoctradine Metiram 12% by weight 44% by weight 2.5 kg / ha 300 1100

[0135] Table 1: Compositions and dosages of the products used in the test (L / ha: liter / hectare; kg / ha: kilogram / hectare) 3. Experimental setup

[0136] The experimental setup consists of a four-block randomized design, composed of elementary plots of 10 vines (8 of which are contaminated and observed). The setup is shown in [Fig. 1]. 4. Performing the treatments

[0137] The first treatment (May 3, BBCH 15) was carried out by application using a SOLO 417 type backpack sprayer with a projected jet, at the limit of runoff (hanging droplet). Subsequent applications were carried out, face by face, using a STIHL SR200 type pneumatic backpack sprayer (with a theoretical volume of 100 L / ha).

[0138] [Tables2] Treatment No. Date Modalities No. Average Volumes L / ha Phenological Stages (BBCH scale) Tl 03 / 05 / 22 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 298, 296, 283, 283, 300 15 T2 (+10d) 05 / 13 / 22 27,28,29, 30.31 99, 103, 103, 104, 103 57 T3 (+lld) 05 / 24 / 22 27,28,29, 30.31 105, 104, 106, 106, 100 61 T4 (+9d) 06 / 02 / 22 27,28,29, 30.31 110, 106, 108, 100, 110 65 T5 (+12d) 06 / 14 / 22 27,28,29, 30.31 110, 107, 104, 106, 100 73-75 T6 (+9d) 23 / 06 / 22 27,28,29, 30,31 104, 106, 104, 104, 100 75-77 T7 (+12d) 05 / 07 / 22 27,28,29, 30,31 101, 99, 100, 99, 100 77-79

[0139]

[0140] Table n°2: Spray volumes in L / ha All application volumes in table 2 are within a margin of error of + / - 10% of the target volume.

[0141] 5. Artificial contamination, positioning of the sprays and evolution of symptoms

[0142] Artificial contamination was carried out on the afternoon of May 4 (BBCH stage 15-16), from 4:10 PM to 5:15 PM, on 6 leaves / vine of the 8 central vines of each elementary plot. In order to maintain constant humidity favorable to spore germination, spraying was maintained continuously from 3:00 PM to 10:00 PM for a total application of approximately 20 mm (millimeters) of water.

[0143] The first downy mildew spots were observed on May 12, eight days after infection. These spots were assessed using a simplified scoring system on May 17 in the untreated controls to evaluate the homogeneity, in terms of symptom frequency, across the trial. This scoring system, called FO, revealed that replicate D was less affected than the others, with 1.4% of leaves affected (compared to 3.7%, 3.2%, and 3.3% in replicates A, B, and C, respectively), without a significant impact on the final results.

[0144] From May 13 to May 29, the timing of approximately ten sprayings (see Table 3 below) resulted in a significant increase in the frequency of leaf disease (39% observed in the control plots by May 30). This was followed by widespread cluster contamination, with 60.5% of clusters affected in the control plots by June 9, although the intensity was moderate (18.5%).

[0145] Rainfall on June 6 (totaling 1.5 mm) led to a significant increase in leaf infection frequency in the control plots, reaching 54.3% by June 16, but with a relatively low intensity (5% compared to 2% on May 30). In these same plots, two spraying applications on June 14 and 15 (4 mm / spray) resulted in a very high rate of disease spread on grape clusters, both in frequency and intensity, reaching 90.5% and 36.1% respectively by June 22.

[0146] The ratings (G2 and G3) carried out on clusters on 7 and 12 July 2022 show a downward trend in symptoms in absolute value despite 25.4 mm of natural rainfall recorded from June 21 to July 4, 2022 (see graphs in [Fig.3] and [Fig.4]).

[0147] [Tables3] Sprinkler Number Water Supply Start End Date Time Date Time ARTIFICIAL CONTAMINATION 20 mm 04 / 05 / 22 15:00 04 / 05 / 22 22:00 17 mm 05 / 05 / 22 16:00 05 / 05 / 22 23:00 27 mm 06 / 05 / 22 9:30 06 / 05 / 22 17:30 37 mm 11 / 05 / 22 15:00 11 / 05 / 22 22:00 42 mm 13 / 05 / 22 0:00 13 / 05 / 22 7:00 52 mm 14 / 05 / 22 00:00 14 / 05 / 22 7:00 62 mm 18 / 05 / 22 12:30 a.m. 05 / 18 / 22 7:30 a.m. 7 2 mm 05 / 19 / 22 12:30 a.m. 05 / 19 / 22 7:30 a.m. 8 4 mm 05 / 21 / 22 OHOO 05 / 21 / 22 7:00 a.m. 9 2 mm 05 / 25 / 22 12:05 a.m. 05 / 25 / 22 1:20 a.m. 10 2 mm 05 / 26 / 22 12:05 a.m. 05 / 26 / 22 1:20 a.m. 11 2 mm 05 / 27 / 22 12:05 a.m. 05 / 27 / 22 1:20 a.m. 12 2 mm 05 / 28 / 22 12:05 a.m. 05 / 28 / 22 1:20 a.m. 13 2 mm 05 / 29 / 22 12:05 a.m. 05 / 29 / 22 1:20 a.m. 14 4 mm 06 / 14 / 22 OHOO 05 / 14 / 06 7:00 a.m. 15 4 mm 06 / 15 / 22 OHOO 06 / 15 / 22 7:00 a.m.

[0148] Table 3: Chronology of 2022 Sprinkling

[0149] The sprinklers were triggered using a SOLEM brand Bluetooth battery-powered sprinkler timer, model WooBee, via a solenoid valve (8 sprinkler cycles of 15 minutes for 7 mm of supply, 8 sprinkler cycles of 10 minutes for 4 mm of supply and 8 sprinkler cycles of 5 minutes for 2 mm of supply). 6. Field notations

[0150] [Tables4] Notation No. Date (BBCH stage) Unprocessed Witnesses Processed Modality F0 May 17 (BBCH 57) Estimated attack frequency X on all foliage* Fl May 30 (BBCH 67) Attack frequency and intensity, 100 leaves / replicate F2 June 16 (BBCH 75) G1 June 9 (BBCH 71-73) Attack frequency and intensity, 50 clusters / replicate G2 June 22 (BBCH 75-77) G3 July 7 (BBCH 77-79) G4 July 12 (BBCH 79)

[0151] Table No. 4: Summary of field measurements (on the 8 central vines of each plot)

[0152] * Calculation based on the ratio between the number of downy mildew spots observed and the estimated number of leaves per plot (average of 113 leaves per vine, i.e. 904 leaves per plot of 8 vines).

[0153] 7. Type of data processing

[0154] For all the ratings carried out, except for the rating F0 (estimation of the frequency of attack on leaves in the controls): analysis of variance (ANOVA), two-sided DUNNETT test (comparison of the preparations to the reference) and NEWMAN and KEULS test at the 5% threshold (comparison of the preparations with each other), after transformation into arcsin, XLSTAT software (version 2021.1.1 1080).

[0155] 8. Climatology during the test

[0156] The graph in [Fig.5] represents the climatology of the test site from 15 April to 15 July 2022.

[0157] The climatic period extending from May 3 (date of the first application of the products) to July 12 (date of the last rating carried out on bunches) is characterized by temperatures in line with seasonal norms throughout the month of May (20.7°C average daily temperature), then slightly higher in June (25.4°C) and finally particularly high throughout the first half of July with 27.4°C average daily and maximums systematically above 33°C (40°C on July 15).

[0158] This period is also characterized by low rainfall, particularly from May 4 to June 20, with a total of 22.4 mm over 48 days (including 18.8 mm on May 8). From June 21 to July 12, the total rainfall amounted to 25.4 mm over 22 days (with rainfall ranging from 2.7 to 8.9 mm). 9. Essay Cover

[0159] A cover treatment targets diseases other than the one being studied in the initial trials.

[0160] The necessary powdery mildew protection treatments were applied preventively on May 12 (LUNA SENSATION 0.2 L / ha) and May 25 (DYNALI 0.5 L / ha). Subsequently, no symptoms of this disease (nor of any other that could also interfere with downy mildew) were observed in the trial, either on leaves or on clusters, until the final assessment. II. FIELD RESULTS

[0161] The device corresponds to that provided by the OEPP PP 1 / 31(2) method.

[0162] L Results of the notations carried out on sheets (Fl)

[0163] [Tables5] METHODS (treatments carried out to date) LEAVES -1 Frequency (%) Frequency Efficacy (%) Intensity (%) Intensity Efficacy (%) TNT Control untreated 39 A - 2A - 27 GDZ 2 L / ha x 3 24.3 A 37.8 1.1 AB 44.7 28 GDZ 3 L / ha x 3 12.5 BC 67.9 0.45 BC 78.1 29 REDELI 2.5 L / ha x 3 22.5 B 42.3 1.1 AB 45 30 ETONAN 4 L / ha x 3 12 BC 69.2 0.53 BC 74.2 31 AMPEXIO 0.5 kg / ha / PROF ILER 3 kg / ha / ZORVEC ZE LA VIN 0.4 L / ha + FREGAT E 3.95 L / ha 6.5 C 83.3 0.37 C 81.8

[0164] Table 5: Results of assessment no. 1 carried out on paper on 30 / 05 / 2022

[0165] (flowering stage 70%, BBCH 67) - Newman & Keuls test at 5%

[0166] Fig. 6 shows the efficiencies on leaves (notation no. 1, Fl) as of May 30, 2022.

[0167] The symptoms observed on leaves in the controls are quite moderate with 39% in frequency and 2% in intensity of attack.

[0168] The analysis of the results of this first rating highlights good performance of GDZ at 3 L / ha, with 67.9 and 78.1% efficiency in frequency and intensity respectively, performance levels similar to that of ETONAN 4 L / ha (69.2 and 74.2%).

[0169] GDZ at 2 L / ha shows a similar intensity to that of REDELI 2.5 L / ha (44.7% versus 45%).

[0170] [Tableauxô] PROCEDURES SHEETS -2 (Treatments carried out to date) Frequency (%) Frequency Efficacy (%) Intensity (%) Intensity Efficacy (%) TNT Control untreated 54.3 A - 5 A - 27 GDZ 2 L / ha x 3 / GDZ 3 L / ha x 2 36.3 B 33.2 2.5 B 50 28 GDZ 3 L / ha x 3 / GDZ 4 L / ha x 2 24 B 55.8 1.7 B 66.5 29 REDELI 2.5 L / ha x 5 33.5 B 38.2 2.4 B 52 30 ETONAN 4 L / ha x 5 26.8 B 50.7 1.6 B 68.8 31 AMPEXIO 0.5 kg / ha / PROFI LER 3 kg / ha / ZORVEC ZEL AVIN 0.4 L / ha + FREGATE 3.95 L / ha / ENERVIN 2.5 kg / ha / AMPEXIO 0.5 kg / ha 10 C 81.6 0.4 C 91

[0171] Table 6: Results of rating no. 2 carried out on leaves on 16 / 06 / 2022

[0172] (pea grain stage, BBCH 75) - Newman & Keuls test at 5%

[0173] Fig. 7 shows the efficiencies on leaves (notation no. 2, F2) as of June 16, 2022.

[0174] This second notation (F2), carried out on June 16 (i.e., 17 days after Fl) makes in the controls there appeared an increase in damage to leaves, particularly in frequency (with 54.3% or +15.3 points) and to a lesser extent in intensity (5% or +3 points). 2. Results of the ratings performed on clusters

[0175] [Tables7] METHODS (Treatments carried out to date) CLUSTERS -1 Frequency (%) Frequency efficacy (%) Intensity (%) Intensity Efficacy (%) TNT Control untreated 60.5 A - 18.5 A - 27 GDZ 2 L / ha x 3 / GDZ 3 L / ha 19.5 BC 67.8 3.2 BC 82.7 28 GDZ 3 L / ha x 3 / GDZ 4 L / ha 11.5 BC 81 1.3 CD 93 29 REDELI 2.5 L / ha x 4 36.5 AB 39.7 7.6 B 58.8 30 ETONAN 4 L / ha x 4 20 BC 66.9 3.3 BC 82.4 31 AMPEXIO 0.5 kg / ha / PROF ILER 3 kg / ha / ZORVEC ZE LA VIN 0.4 L / ha + FREGAT E 3.95 L / ha / ENERVIN 2.5 kg / ha 3C 95 0.2 D 99.2

[0176] Table 7: Results of rating no. 1 carried out on clusters on 09 / 06 / 2022

[0177] (late fruit set / early shot grain stage, BBCH 71-73) - 5% Newman & Keuls test

[0178] Fig. 8 shows cluster efficiencies (notation no. 1, Gl) on June 9, 2022.

[0179] The results of this first notation carried out on clusters highlight Infestation levels were significantly higher than those observed on leaves in the controls, with 60.5% in frequency and 18.5% in attack intensity.

[0180] In this context, GDZ at 3L / ha then 4 L / ha shows itself to be particularly efficient with an efficiency of 93% on the attack intensity criterion (81% for that of frequency), i.e. at a level similar to that of the conventional program (99.2% and 95%).

[0181] The GDZ 2 L / ha then 3 L / ha treatment also shows a very satisfactory efficiency with 82.7% on this same criterion (67.8% in frequency).

[0182] [Tables8] METHODS (treatments carried out to date) CLUSTERS - 2 Frequency (%) Frequency efficacy (%) Intensity (%) Intensity Efficacy (%) TNT Control untreated 90.5 A - 36.1 A - 27 GDZ 2 L / ha x 3 / GDZ 3 L / ha x 2 65 BC 28.2 15 BC 58.6 28 GDZ 3 L / ha x 3 / GDZ 4 L / ha x 2 57 C 37 9.2 C 74.5 29 REDELI 2.5 L / ha x 5 75.5 B 16.6 24.1 B 33.1 30 ETONAN 4 L / ha x 5 68.5 BC 24.3 22.2 B 38.4 31 AMPEXIO 0.5 kg / ha / PROF ILER 3 kg / ha / ZORVEC ZE LA VIN 0.4 L / ha + FREGAT 37 D 59.1 2.2 D 93.8 E 3.95 L / ha / ENERVIN 2.5 kg / ha / AMPEXIO 0.5 kg / ha

[0183] Table 8: Results of rating no. 2 carried out on clusters on 22 / 06 / 2022

[0184] (fine grain pea stage / beginning of closure, BBCH 75-77) - 5% Newman & Keuls test

[0185] Fig. 9 shows cluster efficiencies (notation no. 2, G2) on June 22, 2022.

[0186] This second assessment shows downy mildew continuing a strong expansion on the bunches with an attack frequency up by 30 points (90.5%) and an almost doubling of intensities (36.5%) in the control plots.

[0187] This clear increase in parasite pressure has led to significant decreases in effectiveness in non-conventional methods; however, among these, the GDZ methods, particularly at 3 L / ha and then 4 L / ha, are the ones that resist it best, with good effectiveness on the intensity criterion.

[0188] GDZ used at 2 L / ha then 3 L / ha, with 58.6% efficiency on the same intensity criterion, is more efficient than REDELI 2.5 L (33.1%) and ETONAN (38.4%) and even more efficient at 3 L / ha then 4 L / ha with 73.5% on the intensity criterion.

[0189] [Tables9] TREATMENT METHODS (treatments carried out to date) CLUSTERS - 3 Frequency (%) Frequency efficacy (%) Intensity (%) Intensity Efficacy (%) TNT Control untreated 84 A - 34.9 A - 27 GDZ 2 L / ha x 3 / GDZ 3 L / ha x 2 / GDZ 2 L / ha x 2 67 AB 20.2 17.1 BC 51 28 GDZ 3 L / ha x 3 / GDZ 4 L / ha x 2 / GDZ 3 L / ha x 2 56.5 B 32.7 9.3 C 73.5 29 REDELI 2.5 L / ha x 7 69.5 AB 17.3 26.4 AB 24.3 30 ETONAN 4 L / ha x 7 64.5 AB 23.2 20.5 B 41.2 31 AMPEXIO 0.5 kg / ha / PROF ILER 3 kg / ha / ZORVEC ZE LA VIN 0.4 L / ha + FREGAT E 3.95 L / ha / ENERVIN 2.5 kg / ha / AMPEXIO 0.5 kg / ha / FREGATE 3.95 L / ha x 2 35.5 C 57.7 2.8 D 91.9

[0190] Table 9: Results of rating no. 3 carried out on clusters on 07 / 07 / 2022

[0191] (Closing stage, BBCH 77-79) - 5% Newman & Keuls test

[0192] Fig. 10 shows cluster efficiencies (notation no. 3, G3) on July 7, 2022.

[0193] On July 7, the epidemic appears to have been stopped by the intense heat with stable attack frequencies (84%) and intensities (34.9%) in the untreated controls despite a cumulative natural rainfall of 13.8 mm recorded on June 23, 24 and 29. III. CONCLUSIONS

[0194] The weather conditions from May to July 2022 were quite favorable to the establishment and development of downy mildew, particularly on grape clusters, with temperatures in line with or even slightly above seasonal norms and a relatively mild, drying northerly wind (Mistral). Only rainfall was deficient, with a near absence of precipitation during the period from May 9 to June 20, a deficit which was nevertheless compensated for by the successive application of numerous sprinklers.

[0195] The epidemic proved to be more dynamic on clusters than on leaves, before the onset of the intense heat of July, with, in the untreated control plots, 90.5% in frequency and 36.1% in intensity of maximum attack (on June 22) against respectively 54.3% and 5% (on June 16).

[0196] On sheets, the GDZ composition according to the invention has shown good efficacy, comparable to that of ETONAN and REDELI.

[0197] On bunches, the GDZ composition according to the invention at 3 and 4 L / ha shows itself to be even more efficient with efficiencies superior to those of ETONAN and REDELI.

[0198] This test demonstrated very good performance, particularly on clusters, of the GDZ composition according to the invention compared to compositions based on REDELI or ETONAN (phosphonates) with a similar mode of action (SDN Natural Defense Stimulator).

[0199] It is important to emphasize that no symptoms of phytotoxicity were observed in tests with the GDZ composition according to the invention.

Claims

Demands

1. Phytosanitary composition comprising: (i) one or more metal oxide(s), (ii) one or more sugar(s) and / or one or more sugar derivative(s), optionally in the form of salts, the sugar derivative(s) being selected from the group consisting of: fructonic acid, gluconic acid, glucuronic acid, galactonic acid, galacturonic acid, optionally in the form of salts, and (iii) one or more phosphorus derivative(s) selected from the group consisting of: phosphorous acid and phosphite salts.

2. Phytosanitary composition according to claim 1 wherein: (i) one or more metal oxide(s) is / are selected from the group consisting of: zinc oxide, iron oxide, manganese oxide, copper oxide, aluminium oxide; and / or (ii) one or more sugar(s) is / are selected from the group consisting of: fructose, glucose, lactose, galactose, maltose or sucrose, optionally in the form of salt(s).

3. Phytosanitary composition according to claim 1 or 2, comprising: (i) 10 to 25% by mass of one or more metal oxide(s); (ii) 30 to 50% by mass of one or more sugar(s) and / or sugar derivative(s); and (iii) 35 to 55% by mass of one or more phosphorus derivative(s), the mass percentages being given in relation to the mass of the dry composition.

4. Phytosanitary composition according to any one of claims 1 to 3, comprising from 30 to 50% by mass of water relative to the total mass of the composition.

5. Phytosanitary composition according to any one of claims 1 to 4, wherein the pH is less than or equal to 4, typically less than or equal to 3 or less than or equal to 2.

6. A plant protection composition according to any one of claims 1 to 5, having one or more of the following concentrations: (i) from 90 to 190 g / L, typically from 100 to 180 g / L or from 110 to 170 g / L in metal oxide(s); and / or (ii) 180 to 280 g / L, typically 200 to 260 g / L or 220 to 240 g / L and preferably 225 to 235 g / L of sugar(s) and / or sugar derivative(s); and / or (iii) 180 to 280 g / L, typically 200 to 260 g / L or 220 to 240 g / L and preferably 225 to 235 g / L of phosphorus derivative(s).

7. A process for preparing a plant protection composition according to any one of claims 1 to 6, comprising a mixing step of: (i) one or more metal oxide(s), (ii) one or more sugar(s) and / or one or more sugar derivative(s), the sugar derivative(s) being selected from the group consisting of: fructonic acid, gluconic acid, glucuronic acid, galactonic acid, galacturonic acid, optionally in the form of salts; and (iii) one or more phosphorus derivative(s) selected from the group consisting of: phosphorous acid and phosphite salts.

8. A preparation process according to claim 7, comprising the following steps: (a) adding to water one or more metal oxide(s), one or more sugar(s) and / or one or more sugar derivative(s) and one or more phosphorus derivative(s); (b) heating to a temperature of 40 to 80°C for at least 2 hours; (c) cooling to a temperature of 15 to 25°C.

9. A method for preparing a plant protection composition according to claim 7 or 8, wherein step (a) is carried out by successive addition of one or more metal oxide(s), one or more sugar(s) and / or one or more sugar derivative(s) and one or more phosphorus derivative(s).

10. Use of a phytosanitary composition according to any one of claims 1 to 6 or prepared by a preparation process according to any one of claims 7 to 9, for the preventive and / or curative treatment of cultivated plants that may be affected by fungal diseases caused by a fungus and / or oomycete.

11. Use according to claim 10, wherein the fungus and / or oomycete is / are selected from the group consisting of: Plasmopara viticola, Phytophthora infestons, Phytophthora ramorum, Phytophthora cinnamomi, Pseudoperonospora cubensis, Bremia lactucae, Peronospora destructor, Venturia inaequalis, Venturia carpophila, Venturia pyrina, Spilocaea oleaginea.

12. Use according to claim 10 or 11, wherein the crop plants are chosen from the group selected from vines, certain field crops, vegetable crops and fruit trees.

13. Method of preventive and / or curative treatment of a fungal disease caused by a fungus and / or oomycete in cultivated plants comprising a step of applying a phytosanitary composition according to one of claims 1 to 6.

14. Method according to claim 13, wherein the plant protection composition is applied by spraying, typically by foliar application, preferably on the leaves and / or fruits.

15. Method according to claim 13 or 14, wherein the plant protection composition according to claims 1 to 6 is applied at a dose of at least 1% by mass of plant protection composition, preferably at least 2% by mass, preferably from 2% to 5% by mass or from 2.5% to 4.5% by mass of plant protection composition.

16. Method according to claims 13 to 15, wherein the treatment or prevention of a fungal disease of crop plants includes the reduction and / or elimination of damage due to the fungus and / or oomycete.

Images