Bio-herbicide

Abstract

The present invention relates to bio-herbicide compositions comprising an extract from an insect of the genus Hermetia spp., and / or one or more fractions of this extract. The present invention further relates to uses of the extract or of the fractions of the extract as a bio-herbicide, and to corresponding methods for weed control.

Description

[0001] Bioherbicide

[0002] The present invention relates to bioherbicide compositions comprising an extract from an insect of the genus Hermetia spp., and / or one or more fractions of this extract. The present invention further relates to uses of the extract or fractions of the extract as a bioherbicide, as well as corresponding methods for weed control.

[0003] Weeds cause yield losses, serve as hosts for numerous plant diseases and pests, reduce the quality of agricultural products, can poison animals, humans, and the environment, and ultimately lead to global economic damage exceeding USD 100 billion annually. Weed control is therefore indispensable in agriculture, and especially in arable farming, and is carried out in integrated pest management using either cultural, mechanical, biological, physical, or chemical methods.

[0004] Of the 2 million tons of pesticides used globally each year, herbicides account for the largest share at 48% and are still considered the simplest and most cost-effective method for short-term weed control worldwide. However, a growing number of studies show that the use of synthetic herbicides poses risks to biodiversity, soils, humans, and flora and fauna, and consequently, the use of synthetic pesticides is being viewed with increasing skepticism by society. Furthermore, approximately 268 weed species (154 dicotyledonous and 114 monocotyledonous species) have already developed resistance to 165 herbicides and 21 different modes of action in 72 countries.

[0005] In response, agricultural policy goals such as the EU's "Farm to Fork" strategy aim to reduce the use of synthetic pesticides by 50% by 2030. An alternative to conventional synthetic herbicides is the use of bioherbicides based on bacteria, fungi, viruses, or plants, which potentially contain a variety of new active ingredients and mechanisms of action and ideally have little to no harmful impact on the environment and human health. However, known active ingredients, such as pelargonic acid, which is commercially produced from oleic acid using petrochemical processes, are often expensive to manufacture and cannot meet the high market demand. The market for biological pesticides is expected to grow from around USD 5 billion today to USD 15 billion by 2029.

[0006] The present invention is therefore based on the objective of providing novel bioherbicides.

[0007] This problem is solved by the embodiments characterized in the claims. In particular, according to the invention, bioherbicide compositions comprising an extract from an insect of the genus Hermetia spp., and / or one or more fraction(s) of this extract, uses of the extracts and / or fraction(s) as a bioherbicide, and corresponding methods for weed control are provided.

[0008] Accordingly, one subject matter of the present invention relates to a bioherbicide composition comprising

[0009] (i) an extract from an insect of the genus Hermetia spp., and / or

[0010] (ii) one or more fraction(s) of this extract.

[0011] Methods for producing such an extract are not subject to any particular restrictions and are known in the prior art. These include, for example, extraction with a polar or nonpolar organic solvent, maceration, mechanical extraction (e.g., by pressing), supercritical fluid extraction (e.g., supercritical CO2 extraction), ultrasound-assisted Soxhlet extraction, extraction by ion exchange, and Naviglio extraction.

[0012] In preferred embodiments, the extract is produced by extraction with a polar organic solvent. Such processes may further include, for example, one or more of the following steps: grinding the insects into a powder, for example, with the addition of liquid nitrogen; adding the polar organic solvent (for example, in a ratio of 1 part insects to 3 parts solvent) and extraction for a suitable duration (for example, 24 hours) on a shaking apparatus; filtering and / or sieving to remove coarse particles; centrifugation to remove further solid particles (for example, at 4500 rpm for 10 minutes); filtering the resulting solution; and removing the polar organic solvent in a rotary evaporator. Corresponding industrial extraction processes are known in the prior art and can be applied in connection with the present invention.

[0013] Suitable polar organic solvents are also known in the prior art. These include, for example, methanol, ethanol, acetone, dimethyl sulfoxide, ethyl acetate, tetrahydrofuran, acetonitrile, dichloromethane and mixtures thereof, with acetone being preferred.

[0014] Furthermore, methods for producing one or more fractions of a corresponding extract are not subject to any special restrictions and are known in the prior art. These include, for example, chromatographic separation methods (e.g., thin-layer chromatography (TLC), high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), paper chromatography (PC), column chromatography, and gas chromatography), extraction (e.g., with organic solvents), precipitation (e.g., with nonpolar solvents), filtration (e.g., membrane filtration), centrifugation, distillation, and crystallization.

[0015] In this context, a suitable fraction or fractions are preferably one or more lipid fraction(s) of the extract according to the invention.

[0016] The insects used according to the invention are preferably insects of the species Hermetia illucens (black soldier fly).

[0017] Furthermore, the extract or fraction(s) used according to the invention can be obtained from the larval, prepupal, pupal, and / or adult stage of the insect, with the adult stage of the insect being preferred. The extract or fraction(s) used according to the invention preferably contain the fatty acids dodecanoic acid (012:0), tetradecanoic acid (014:0), hexadecanoic acid (016:0), cis-delta-9-hexadecanoic acid (016:1), cis-delta-9-octadecanoic acid (C18:1n9c), and octadecadienoic acid (C18:2n6c).

[0018] The extract or fraction(s) of the extract preferably contain the following fatty acids:

[0019] (i) Capric acid (010:0),

[0020] (ii) Dodecanoic acid (012:0),

[0021] (iii) Tridecanoic acid (013:0),

[0022] (iv) Tetradecanoic acid (014:0),

[0023] (v) cis-9-tetradecanoic acid (014:1 ),

[0024] (vi) pentadecanoic acid (015:0),

[0025] (vii) Hexadecanoic acid (016:0),

[0026] (viii) cis-delta-9-hexadecanoic acid (016:1),

[0027] (ix) n-heptadecanoic acid (017:0),

[0028] (x) Octadecanoic acid (018:0),

[0029] (xi) cis-delta-9-octadecanoic acid (018:1 n9c),

[0030] (xii) Octadecadienoic acid (C18:2n6c),

[0031] (xiii) all-cis-delta-9,12,15-octadecatrienoic acid (C18:3n3),

[0032] (xiv) Eicosanoic acid (020:0),

[0033] (xv) Eicosenoic acid (020:1 ), and

[0034] (xvi) Eicosadienoic acid (020:2).

[0035] The respective fatty acids preferably make up a fatty acid content of

[0036] (i) 0.43-0.71% by weight, (ii) 33-57% by weight,

[0037] (iii) 0.05-0.09 wt.%, (iv) 7.9-13.2 wt.%,

[0038] (v) 0.20-0.35 wt.%, (vi) 0.07-0.11 wt.%,

[0039] (vii) 6.8-11.4% by weight, (viii) 1.9-3.3% by weight,

[0040] (ix) 0.08-0.14% by weight, (x) 1.34-2.24% by weight,

[0041] (xi) 8.5-14.3% by weight, (xii) 10.2-17.2% by weight,

[0042] (xiii) 0.9-1.6% by weight, (xiv) 0.06-0.10% by weight,

[0043] (xv) 0.08–0.14 wt.%, and (xvi) 0.03–0.05 wt.%, of the total fatty acid content of the extract or fraction(s). The numbering in lowercase Roman numerals corresponds to the numbering in the preceding paragraph.

[0044] Other preferred fatty acid fractions in the total fatty acid content of the extract or the fraction(s) thereof are as follows:

[0045] (i) 0.51-0.63% by weight, (ii) 40-50% by weight, (iii) 0.06-0.08% by weight, (iv) 9.4-11.6% by weight, (v) 0.23-0.29% by weight, (vi) 0.08-0.10% by weight, (vii) 8.1-10.0 % by weight, (viii) 2.3-3.0% by weight, (ix) 0.10-0.12% by weight, (x) 1.6-2.0% by weight, (xi) 10.3-12.6% by weight, (xii) 12.3-15.1% by weight, (xiii) 1.15-1.41% by weight, (xiv) 0.07-0.09 wt.%, (xv) 0.10-0.13 wt. -%, and (xvi) 0.03-0.05 wt.%, more preferred:

[0046] (i) 0.54-0.60% by weight, (ii) 43-48% by weight, (iii) 0.067-0.074% by weight, (iv) 10.0-11.1% by weight, (v) 0.24-0.28% by weight, (vi) 0.086-0.095% by weight, (vii) 8, 6-9.5% by weight, (viii) 2.5-2.8% by weight, (ix) 0.10-0.12% by weight, (x) 1.7-1.9% by weight, (xi) 10.8-12.1% by weight, (xii) 12.8-14.6% by weight, (xiii) 1.19-1 .37% by weight, (xiv) 0.07-0.09% by weight, (xv) 0.9-0.13 wt.%, and (xvi) 0.03-0.05 wt.%.

[0047] The term "herbicide," as used here, refers to weed control agents, i.e., substances that inhibit the growth of unwanted plants or kill them. The bioherbicide composition according to the invention can preferably be used as a total herbicide, which is effective against a very wide range of plants.

[0048] The term "bioherbicide" as used here refers to herbicides that come from natural or biological sources and contain no synthetically or chemically produced active ingredients.

[0049] The term "weed," as used here, refers to any unwanted plants of the spontaneous accompanying vegetation in cultivated crops, grassland, gardens, or railway tracks that are not intentionally cultivated and develop from the soil's seed bank, via root runners, or through wind dispersal. In the case of the application of the bioherbicide according to the invention for haulm killing in root crops, to facilitate harvesting and ensure quality, such as in potatoes, the term "weed" encompasses the above-ground parts (haulm) of the root crops. Preferably, the weed to be controlled according to the invention is one or more plants from the class of angiosperms (flowering plants), more preferably from the dicotyledons (dicotyledons) or monocotyledons (monocotyledons).The plant onto which an effective amount of the bioherbicide composition according to the invention is applied is the weed to be controlled according to the invention.

[0050] The bioherbicide composition according to the invention can further comprise one or more excipients and / or carriers. Suitable excipients and carriers are not subject to any particular restrictions and are known in the prior art. These include, for example, wetting agents, adhesives, and / or penetrating agents for improved adhesion of the bioherbicide composition to the plants to be treated. Preferably, the excipients and carriers used are of natural or biological origin and therefore do not contain any synthetically or chemically produced active ingredients (for example, wetting, adhesive, and penetrating agents based on glycolipids such as sophorolipids or rhamnolipids).

[0051] The bioherbicide composition according to the invention contains the extract and / or its fraction(s), preferably in an amount of 5 to 150 mg / ml, more preferably in an amount of 5 to 120 mg / ml. The bioherbicide composition according to the invention can preferably contain the extract and / or its fraction(s) in an amount of 5 to 50 mg / ml for a weak to medium-strength herbicidal contact effect and in an amount of 50 to 150 mg / ml, preferably 50 to 120 mg / ml, for a strong to very strong herbicidal contact effect. However, the herbicidal contact effect varies considerably between monocotyledonous plants, which only exhibit strong symptoms at higher concentrations, and dicotyledonous plants, which can exhibit strong symptoms even at lower concentrations of < 20 mg / ml. The leaf shape and size of the plants play an important role in this.The more leaf area affected by the application of the contact herbicide, the more Hermetia illucens extract or fraction(s) thereof reaches the plant, and consequently, the stronger the effect on the plant. A further aspect of the present invention relates to the use of an extract and / or one or more fraction(s) of the extract, as defined above for the bioherbicide composition according to the invention, as a bioherbicide.

[0052] In this context, all relevant definitions and limitations mentioned above for the extract or fraction(s) used according to the invention also apply to the use defined above.

[0053] Finally, another object of the present invention relates to a method for controlling one or more weeds, comprising applying an effective amount of the bioherbicide composition according to the invention, or of the extract used according to the invention and / or the fraction(s) thereof, to a plant or parts of a plant.

[0054] In this context, all relevant definitions and limitations mentioned above for the bioherbicide composition according to the invention and the extract and / or fraction(s) thereof used according to the invention also apply to the method defined above.

[0055] Preferably, the extract and / or the fraction(s) thereof used according to the invention, or the bioherbicide composition according to the invention, is used in the process according to the invention as a post-emergence herbicide, i.e. as a herbicide that is applied after the formation of the first cotyledons of the weed to be controlled.

[0056] Methods for applying an effective amount of the extract and / or fraction(s) thereof, or the bioherbicide composition according to the invention, to a plant or parts of a plant are not subject to any special restrictions and are known in the prior art. These include, for example, spraying, misting, brushing, or dipping the plant. In the process according to the invention, the extract or bioherbicide composition according to the invention is preferably applied as a hydraulic spray of high liquid volumes, as a hydraulic spray of low liquid volumes, or as an ultra-low volume spray.

[0057] High-pressure liquid injection can be applied via gap injection, as a blower-assisted air spray, as an air spray, or as a dust. This can be done using mounted, trailed, or self-propelled sprayers, aircraft, drones, or garden sprayers. The liquid is preferably absorbed through the leaves of the plant.

[0058] The present invention is based on the use of insects of the genus Hermetia spp. (Hermetia) of all stages, for example Hermetia illucens L. (Black Soldier Fly), as a raw material source for obtaining herbicidal substances for the production of bioherbicides.

[0059] Until the present invention, the use of insects represented an unexplored source of phytotoxic substances and novel mechanisms of action. Due to their high fat and protein content, insects, such as the black soldier fly, are produced in large quantities for the production of animal feed, food, cosmetic raw materials, and biodiesel. The global trade volume for the insect-based food and feed market is projected to reach USD 9.6 billion and 3 million tons annually by 2030. Among mass-produced insects, the black soldier fly stands out due to its high lipid content: 43% in larvae and 17% in adults of the insect's total weight. The total proportion of free fatty acids is significantly higher in adult black soldier flies (54%) than in larvae (13%).Saturated fatty acids such as lauric acid, palmitic acid or stearic acid, which have been shown to possess phytotoxic properties, are present in the Hermetiae in proportion to their composition.

[0060] Another special feature is that Hermetia larvae can be successfully produced using various organic waste materials such as fruits, vegetables, and animal manure, in line with the principles of a sustainable circular economy. The adult Hermetia are required for reproduction during production and are generated as waste after their death. The present invention relates to the extraction of, for example, Hermetia illucens to obtain an extract, the use of the obtained Hermetia extract as a basis for biological herbicides, and the composition of a biological contact herbicide formulation based on the obtained extract.

[0061] To assess the phytotoxicity of a manufactured biological contact herbicide based on a Hermetia illucens extract, dose-response tests with different concentrations and a comparative trial were conducted in the greenhouse. In the comparative trial, the manufactured formulations were compared with other commercial products. The formulation was applied post-emergence to the crops Zea mays L. (maize) and Triticum aestivum L. (winter wheat), as well as to the monocotyledonous weeds Alopecurus myosuroides Huds. (blackgrass) and Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv. (barnyard grass) and the dicotyledonous weeds Chenopodium album L. (white goosefoot) and Stellaria media (L.) Vill. (common chickweed). In addition, a first small field trial was carried out to test the effectiveness of the produced bioherbicide in killing potato foliage.

[0062] The experiments (see the following examples) should investigate the following hypotheses:

[0063] (i) Formulations based on Hermetia illucens extract can effectively control monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous weeds without causing significant damage to crops.

[0064] (ii) The phytotoxicity of formulations based on Hermetia illucens extract increases with increasing proportion of Hermetia illucens extract in the formulation.

[0065] (iii) The formulations based on Hermetia illucens extract show effects as good as commercial herbicides and are therefore suitable as a biological contact herbicide in post-emergence for the control of monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous weeds.

[0066] (iv) The formulation based on Hermetia illucens extract effectively kills potato foliage as a biological contact herbicide to ensure the quality and facilitate the harvesting of potato tubers in potato cultivation, without leaving residues in the potato tubers.

[0067] In connection with the present invention, it should be noted that the fact that certain compounds or compositions have already been investigated for their suitability as plant protection products does not automatically mean that their herbicidal properties were known or obvious.

[0068] Plant protection products encompass various categories, including fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides, which have entirely different mechanisms of action and target organisms. Fungicides and insecticides are absorbed either through the surface (contact or systemic) of the plant to be protected or directly by the target organism and are intended to cause no harm to the plant. Herbicides, on the other hand, often act directly on the metabolism of target plants, for example, by inhibiting photosynthesis or cell division, with the aim of causing long-term damage to the plant. This necessitates different active ingredients, concentrations, stability levels, and application methods.

[0069] An expert would therefore not readily assume that an active ingredient used against phytopathogenic fungi or insect pests could also be used as a herbicidal active ingredient in a contact bioherbicide.

[0070] Furthermore, it should be noted that not every fatty acid has a herbicidal effect. While, for example, pelargonic acid is known as a herbicidal agent, many other fatty acids (e.g., linoleic acid, oleic acid) are harmless to plant physiology or can even have a stimulating effect on plant physiological processes.

[0071] The specific fatty acid composition in H. illucens and individual fatty acid fractions thereof has not previously been associated with herbicidal activity. Rather, the effect of individual fatty acids is context-dependent, and not all oil-containing extracts necessarily possess phytotoxic properties. A person skilled in the art would therefore not automatically expect that the use of H. illucens extracts according to the present invention would result in an effective bioherbicide. Since the analysis of the Hermetia extract according to the present invention showed that it consists of only 50% fatty acids, it is reasonable to assume that other substances, such as proteins, chitin, mono- and diacylglycerols, and triacylglycerols, which are found in adult Hermetia, play an important role in the harmful effects on plants.Furthermore, post-emergence trials with weeds showed that the application of a formulation consisting of pure Hermetia illucens larval fat, water, and a wetting agent had no harmful effect on the treated plants. For example, the solvent acetone used in the trials is known to dissolve many other substances besides fatty acids. These other substances, in addition to the fatty acids found, can either possess phytotoxic properties themselves or enhance the effects of the fatty acids.

[0072] Thus, the present invention goes beyond the mere identification and optimization of the herbicidal activity of H. / 7 / ucens extracts. Firstly, the development of a usable bioherbicide requires specific adjustments regarding concentration, stability, and application method to ensure effective efficacy. Furthermore, the bioherbicide according to the present invention exhibits a similar activity to pelargonic acid-containing herbicides, as demonstrated by extensive testing. This correlation was not evident from the prior art.

[0073] The figures show:

[0074] Figure 1 :

[0075] The Hermetia / 7 / i / cens extract acetone solution (top left) before the removal of the acetone with the rotary evaporator (top right) and the Hermetia illucens extract purified of acetone (bottom), which was used as the basis for the formulation of the biological contact herbicide according to the present invention.

[0076] Figure 2:

[0077] The Hermetia / 7 / c / cens extract dilution series with the six formulations (top) and the experimental setup of the dose-response study in the greenhouse (bottom). Figure 3:

[0078] IMAGING-PAM® Fluorescence sensor for capturing the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II during measurement in the greenhouse.

[0079] Figure 4:

[0080] Maximum quantum yield of photosystem II of Zea mays (grey) and Triticum aestivum (black) after treatment with six differently concentrated formulations (100% (80 mg mH), 50% (40 mg mH), 25% (20 mg mH), 12.5% ​​(10 mg ml) -1), 6.125% (5 mg mH), 0% (0 mg mH)) based on the Hermetia illucens extract at four different time points (day 0, day 1, day 3, and day 7) after application of the formulations. For the nonlinear regressions, the log-logistic growth model by Streibig was used, and for hormesis, the modified model by Brain and Cousens was employed. The mean values ​​of the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II were tested for significant differences using the TukeyHSD post-hoc test (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the factors day and concentration, as well as their interaction, were examined for significant differences and are accordingly represented by the p-value. Measurement days marked with an asterisk (*) show significant differences between treatments within a single day.

[0081] Figure 5:

[0082] Maximum quantum yield of photosystem II of Alopecurus myosuroides (grey) and Echinochloa crus-galli (black) after treatment with six differently concentrated formulations (100% (80 mg ml) -1 ), 50% (40 mg ml -1 ), 25% (20 mg mH), 12.5% ​​(10 mg mH), 6.125% (5 mg mH), 0% (0 mg ml' 1Based on the Hermetia illucens extract, measurements were taken at four different time points (day 0, day 1, day 3, and day 7) after application of the formulations. For the nonlinear regressions, the log-logistic growth model by Streibig was used, and for hormesis, the modified model by Brain and Cousens was employed. The mean values ​​of the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II were tested for significant differences using the TukeyHSD post-hoc test (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the factors day and concentration, as well as their interaction, were examined for significant differences and are represented accordingly with the p-value. Measurement days marked with an asterisk (*) show significant differences between treatments within a single day.

[0083] Figure 6:

[0084] Maximum quantum yield of photosystem II of Chenopodium album (grey) and Stellaria media (black) after treatment with six differently concentrated formulations (100% (80 mg ml) -1 ), 50% (40 mg ml -1 ), 25% (20 mg ml -1 ), 12.5% ​​(10 mg ml -1 ), 6.125% (5 mg ml -1 ), 0% (0 mg ml -1Based on the Hermetia illucens extract, measurements were taken at four different time points (day 0, day 1, day 3, and day 7) after application of the formulations. For the nonlinear regressions, the log-logistic growth model by Streibig was used, and for hormesis, the modified model by Brain and Cousens was employed. The mean values ​​of the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II were tested for significant differences using the TukeyHSD post-hoc test (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the factors day and concentration, as well as their interaction, were examined for significant differences and are represented accordingly with the p-value. Measurement days marked with an asterisk (*) show significant differences between treatments within a single day.

[0085] Figure 7:

[0086] Percentage damage (%) of Zea mays (grey) and Triticum aestivum (black) plants with standard deviation compared to control plants after treatment with six differently concentrated formulations (100% (80 mg ml) -1 ), 50% (40 mg ml -1 ), 25% (20 mg ml -1 ), 12.5% ​​(10 mg ml -1 ), 6.125% (5 mg ml -1 )), 0% (0 mg ml -1Based on the Hermetia illucens extract, measurements were taken at two different time points (day 7 and day 14) after application of the formulations. For the nonlinear regressions, the log-logistic growth model by Streibig was used, and for hormesis, the modified model by Brain and Cousens was employed. The mean percentage plant damage was tested for significant differences using the TukeyHSD post-hoc test (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the factors day and concentration, as well as their interaction, were examined for significant differences and are represented accordingly with the p-value. Measurement days marked with an asterisk (*) show significant differences between treatments within a single day. Figure 8:

[0087] Zea mays (left) and Triticum aestivum (right) plants after treatment with six differently concentrated formulations 0% (0 mg ml -1 , 6.125% (5 mg ml' 1 ), 12.5% ​​(10 mg mh 1), 25% (20 mg ml' 1 ), 50% (40 mg mh 1 ), 100% (80 mg mH) based on the Hermetia illucens extract, at three different time points (day 3, day 7 and day 1) after application of the formulations.

[0088] Figure 9:

[0089] Percentage damage (%) of Alopecurus myosuroides (grey) and Echinochloa crus-galli (black) plants with standard deviation compared to control plants after treatment with six differently concentrated formulations (100% (80 mg mh) 1 ), 50% (40 mg mh 1 ), 25% (20 mg mh 1 ), 12.5% ​​(10 mg ml' 1 ), 6.125% (5 mg ml' 1 )), 0% (0 mg ml' 1Based on Hermetia illucens extract, measurements were taken at two different time points (day 7 and day 14) after application of the formulations. For nonlinear regressions, the log-logistic growth model by Streibig was used, and for hormesis, the modified model by Brain and Cousens was employed. The mean percentage of plant damage was tested for significant differences using the TukeyHSD post-hoc test (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the factors day and concentration, as well as their interaction, were examined for significant differences and are represented accordingly with p-values. Measurement days marked with an asterisk (*) show significant differences between treatments within a single day.

[0090] Figure 10:

[0091] Alopecurus myosuroides (left) and Echinochloa crus-galli (right) plants after treatment with six differently concentrated formulations 0% (0 mg ml) -1 , 6.125% (5 mg ml'1 ), 12.5% ​​(10 mg ml' 1 ), 25% (20 mg mh 1 ), 50% (40 mg ml' 1 ), 100% (80 mg ml' 1 ) based on the Hermetia illucens extract, at three different time points (day 3, day 7 and day 14) after application of the formulations.

[0092] Figure 11:

[0093] Percentage damage (%) of Chenopodium album (grey) and Stellaria media (black) plants with standard deviation compared to control plants after treatment with six differently concentrated formulations (100% (80 mg ml') 1 ), 50% (40 mg mH), 25% (20 mg mH), 12.5% ​​(10 mg mH), 6.125% (5 mg mH)), 0% (0 mg ml -1Based on Hermetia illucens extract, measurements were taken at two different time points (day 7 and day 14) after application of the formulations. For nonlinear regressions, the log-logistic growth model by Streibig was used, and for hormesis, the modified model by Brain and Cousens was employed. The mean percentage of plant damage was tested for significant differences using the TukeyHSD post-hoc test (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the factors day and concentration, as well as their interaction, were examined for significant differences and are represented accordingly with p-values. Measurement days marked with an asterisk (*) show significant differences between treatments within a single day.

[0094] Figure 12:

[0095] Alopecurus myosuroides (left) and Triticum aestivum (right) plants after treatment with six differently concentrated formulations 0% (0 mg ml' 1, 6.125% (5 mg mH), 12.5% ​​(10 mg mH), 25% (20 mg mH), 50% (40 mg mH), 100% (80 mg mH) based on the Hermetia illucens extract, at three different time points (day 3, day 7 and day 14) after application of the formulations.

[0096] Figure 13:

[0097] The dry mass of the experimental plants in g per plant with the corresponding standard deviation. The plants were treated with six formulations of varying concentrations (100% (80 mg ml)). -1 ), 50% (40 mg ml -1 ), 25% (20 mg ml -1 ), 12.5% ​​(10 mg ml -1 ), 6.125% (5 mg ml' 1 ), 0% (0 mg ml -1Based on the Hermetia illucens extract, the aboveground biomass was harvested 14 days after application of the formulations, dried, and the dry matter content determined. For nonlinear regressions, the log-logistic growth model by Streibig was used, and for hormesis, the modified model by Brain and Cousens was employed. The mean percentage of plant damage was tested for significant differences using the Tukey HSD post-hoc test (p < 0.05). The concentration factor was also examined for significant differences and is represented accordingly by the p-value. Measurement days marked with an asterisk (*) indicate significant differences between treatments within a single experimental plant.

[0098] Figure 14:

[0099] The maximum quantum yield of photosystem II of Zea mays (A) and Triticum aestivum (B) with their respective standard deviations at 0 days, 1 day, 3 days, and 7 days after treatment with six different formulations (including an aqueous control). The six different formulations compared consisted of two formulations of different concentrations (100% (100 mg / ml)). 1 ), 50% (50 mg ml' 1 ) based on Hermetia illucens extract, a formulation based on pelargonic acid (Beloukha®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany), a formulation based on ALS inhibitors (MaisTer Power ®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany), a formulation based on glyphosate (Roundup PowerFlex ®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany) and an aqueous control.

[0100] Mean values ​​with the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05) according to the TukeyHSD post-hoc test. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments within the same day. Uppercase letters indicate significant differences between days within the same treatment. Furthermore, the factors day and treatment, and their interaction, were examined for significant differences and are represented accordingly by the p-value.

[0101] Figure 15:

[0102] The maximum quantum yield of photosystem II of Alopecurus myosuroides (A) and Echinochloa crus-galli (B) with their respective standard deviations at 0 days, 1 day, 3 days, and 7 days after treatment with six different formulations (including an aqueous control). The six different formulations compared consisted of two formulations of different concentrations (100% (100 mg / ml)). 1), 50% (50 mg ml' 1 ) based on Hermetia illucens extract, a formulation based on pelargonic acid (Beloukha®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany), a formulation based on ALS inhibitors (MaisTer Power ®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany), a formulation based on glyphosate (Roundup PowerFlex ®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany) and an aqueous control.

[0103] Mean values ​​with the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05) according to the TukeyHSD post-hoc test. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments within the same day. Uppercase letters indicate significant differences between days within the same treatment. Furthermore, the factors day and treatment, and their interaction, were examined for significant differences and are represented accordingly by the p-value.

[0104] Figure 16:

[0105] The maximum quantum yield of photosystem II of Chenopodium album (A) and Ste / Iaria media (B) with their respective standard deviations at 0 days, 1 day, 3 days, and 7 days after treatment with six different formulations (including an aqueous control). The six different formulations compared consisted of two formulations of different concentrations (100% (100 mg / ml)). 1 ), 50% (50 mg ml” 1 ) based on Hermetia illucens extract, a formulation based on pelargonic acid (Beloukha®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany), a formulation based on ALS inhibitors (MaisTer Power ®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany), a formulation based on glyphosate (Roundup PowerFlex ®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany) and an aqueous control.

[0106] Mean values ​​with the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05) according to the TukeyHSD post-hoc test. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments within the same day. Uppercase letters indicate significant differences between days within the same treatment. Furthermore, the factors day and treatment, and their interaction, were examined for significant differences and are represented accordingly by the p-value. Figure 17:

[0107] Percentage of plant damage from treated Zea mays (A) and Triticum aestivum (B) plants compared to an aqueous control, with the respective standard deviations at 7, 14, and 21 days after treatment with five different formulations. The five different formulations compared consisted of two formulations of different concentrations (100% (100 mg / ml)). 1 ), 50% (50 mg ml' 1)) based on Hermetia illucens extract, a formulation based on pelargonic acid (Beloukha®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany), a formulation based on ALS inhibitors (MaisTer Power®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany), a formulation based on glyphosate (Roundup PowerFlex®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany).

[0108] Mean values ​​with the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05) according to the TukeyHSD post-hoc test. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments within the same day. Uppercase letters indicate significant differences between days within the same treatment. Furthermore, the factors day and treatment, as well as their interaction, were examined for significant differences and are represented accordingly by the p-value.

[0109] Figure 18:

[0110] Zea mays (left) and Triticum aestivum (right) plants after treatment with the six different formulations K (0 mg ml' 1 ), 50% (50 mg ml' 1 Hermetia illucens extract), 100% (100 mg ml -1 Hermetia illucens extract), MT (formulation based on ALS inhibitors (MaisTer Power®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany)), G (formulation based on glyphosate (Roundup PowerFlex®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany)) and PS (formulation based on pelargonic acid (Beloukha®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany)) at three different time points (day 7, day 14 and day 21) after application of the formulations

[0111] Figure 19:

[0112] Percentage of plant damage in treated Alopecurus myosuroides (A) and Echinochloa crus-galli (B) plants compared to an aqueous control, with their respective standard deviations, at 7, 14, and 21 days after treatment with five different formulations. The five different formulations compared consisted of two formulations of different concentrations (100% (100 mg / ml)). 1 ), 50% (50 mg ml' 1 )) based on Hermetia illucens extract, a formulation based on pelargonic acid (Beloukha®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany), a formulation based on ALS inhibitors (MaisTer Power®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany), a formulation based on glyphosate (Roundup PowerFlex®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany).

[0113] Mean values ​​with the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05) according to the TukeyHSD post-hoc test. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments within the same day. Uppercase letters indicate significant differences between days within the same treatment. Furthermore, the factors day and treatment, as well as their interaction, were examined for significant differences and are represented accordingly by the p-value.

[0114] Figure 20:

[0115] Alopecurus myosuroides (left) and Echinochloa crus-galli (right) plants after treatment with the six different formulations K (0 mg ml' 1 ), 50% (50 mg ml” 1 Hermetia illucens extract), 100% (100 mg ml” 1Hermetia illucens extract), MT (formulation based on ALS inhibitors (MaisTer Power®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany)), G (formulation based on glyphosate (Roundup PowerFlex®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany)) and PS (formulation based on pelargonic acid (Beloukha®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany)) at three different time points (day 7, day 14 and day 21) after application of the formulations

[0116] Figure 21:

[0117] Percentage of plant damage in treated Chenopodium album (A) and Stellaria media (B) plants compared to an aqueous control, with their respective standard deviations, at 7, 14, and 21 days after treatment with five different formulations. The five different formulations compared consisted of two formulations of different concentrations (100% (100 mg / ml)). -1 ), 50% (50 mg ml -1)) based on Hermetia illucens extract, a formulation based on pelargonic acid (Beloukha®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany), a formulation based on ALS inhibitors (MaisTer Power®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany), a formulation based on glyphosate (Roundup PowerFlex®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany).

[0118] Mean values ​​with the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05) according to the TukeyHSD post-hoc test. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments within the same day. Uppercase letters indicate significant differences between days within the same treatment. Furthermore, the factors day and treatment, as well as their interaction, were examined for significant differences and are represented accordingly by the p-value.

[0119] Figure 22:

[0120] Chenopodium album (left) and Stellaria media (right) plants after treatment with the six different formulations K (0 mg ml -1 ), 50% (50 mg ml” 1 Hermetia illucens extract), 100% (100 mg ml” 1 Hermetia illucens extract), MT (formulation based on ALS inhibitors (MaisTer Power®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany)), G (formulation based on glyphosate (Roundup PowerFlex®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany)) and PS (formulation based on pelargonic acid (Beloukha®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany)) at three different time points (day 7, day 14 and day 21) after application of the formulations.

[0121] Figure 23:

[0122] Dry mass of treated Zea mays (top) and Triticum aestivum (bottom) plants in g compared to an aqueous control, with their respective standard deviations 21 days after treatment with six different formulations (including an aqueous control). The six different formulations compared consisted of two differently concentrated formulations (100% (100 mg / ml)). 1 ), 50% (50 mg ml” 1 ) based on Hermetia illucens extract, a formulation based on pelargonic acid (Beloukha®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany), a formulation based on ALS inhibitors (MaisTer Power ®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany), a formulation based on glyphosate (Roundup PowerFlex ®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany) and an aqueous control.

[0123] Mean values ​​with the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05) according to the Tukey HSD post-hoc test. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments within a single experimental plant. Additionally, the treatment factor, which includes all treatments including the aqueous control, was tested for significant differences and is represented by the p-value.

[0124] Figure 24:

[0125] Dry mass of treated Alopecurus myosuroides (top left), Echinochloa crus-galli (top right), Chenopodium album (bottom left), and Ste / Iaria media (bottom right) plants in grams compared to an aqueous control, with their respective standard deviations, 21 days after treatment with six different formulations (including an aqueous control). The six different formulations compared consisted of two formulations of different concentrations (100% (100 mg / ml)). 1 ), 50% (50 mg ml' 1 ) based on Hermetia illucens extract, a formulation based on pelargonic acid (Beloukha®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany), a formulation based on ALS inhibitors (MaisTer Power ®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany), a formulation based on glyphosate (Roundup PowerFlex ®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany) and an aqueous control.

[0126] Mean values ​​with the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05) according to the Tukey HSD post-hoc test. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between treatments within a single experimental plant. Additionally, the treatment factor, which includes all treatments including the aqueous control, was tested for significant differences and is represented by its p-value. Figure 25:

[0127] The fresh mass (light grey) and dry mass (dark grey) of potato foliage 14 days after treatment with the three different concentrated formulations based on Hermetia illucens extract with 0% (0 mg ml) -1 ), 50% (50 mg ml' 1 Hermetia illucens extract), 100% (100 mg ml' 1 Hermetia illucens extract).

[0128] Mean values ​​with the same letter were not significantly different (p < 0.05) according to the TukeyHSD post-hoc test. Furthermore, the factors treatment and condition of the potato foliage were examined for significant differences and are represented accordingly by their p-values.

[0129] Figure 26:

[0130] The damage to potato plants treated with 50% and 100% concentrated formulations is shown as a percentage 14 days after application, compared to untreated control plants. The treatment factor shows significant differences, particularly in the damage to potato plants treated with the 100% concentrated formulation, which exhibited % greater damage than those treated with the 50% concentrated formulation.

[0131] Figure 27:

[0132] To illustrate the damage to the plants shown in Figure 26, Figure 27 shows the potato plants in the field 14 days after the application of the formulations and the control plants.

[0133] The present invention is explained in more detail with reference to the following non-limiting examples. Examples

[0134] Materials and methods:

[0135] Production of a Hermetia illucens extract.

[0136] Dead, deep-frozen adult Hermetia illucens were used to produce the insect extract. Adults were chosen because they have a higher percentage of free fatty acids in their total lipid content (54%) compared to Hermetia illucens larvae (13%). However, since Hermetia illucens larvae have a significantly higher fat content (43% of their total weight) than adults (17%), larvae could theoretically also be used. The dead adult Hermetia illucens came from the mass breeding facility of Hermetia Baruth GmbH, which produces Hermetia illucens larvae for the manufacture of protein- and fat-rich fish and pet food. The adult Hermetia illucens serve a reproductive purpose in this production process, as they begin laying eggs after fertilization. These eggs are collected and used for larval production. After about 60 days, the adults die and are produced as waste products.

[0137] To prepare the insect extract, adult Hermetia illucens were first ground into a powder using a mortar and pestle with the addition of liquid nitrogen. Pure acetone was then added (in a ratio of 3 parts acetone to 1 part ground adult Hermetia). Alternatively, other solvents such as ethanol can be used. After 24 hours on a shaker, the coarse particles were removed from the mixture by coarse sieving. Further solids were then removed using a centrifuge (4500 revolutions per minute, 10 minutes), and the solution was filtered, resulting in a clear Hermetia illucens extract-acetone solution (Fig. 1, top left). The acetone contained in the resulting solution was then separated from the solution using a rotary evaporator (Fig. 1, top right), leaving an extract (Fig. 1, bottom).This Hermetia / 7 / ucens extract was used as the basis for the biological contact herbicide. A formulation for a biological contact herbicide was developed based on the obtained Hermetia / 7 / t / cens extract.

[0138] Dose-response trials with formulations prepared from Hermetia illucens-Exfra ten in post-emergence (greenhouse) - experimental design and setup.

[0139] To assess the phytotoxicity of the prepared formulation of the biological contact herbicide based on a Hermetia / 7 / ucens extract, dose-response trials were conducted twice in greenhouses at different time points. A randomized, full-block design with four blocks, corresponding to a total of four replicates per treatment, was chosen. Each block contained one replicate of each treatment, including the 0% control, which were randomly distributed within the block (Fig. 2, below). The trial included the factors of concentration and time, as formulations of varying concentrations were tested and data were collected at different time points. In the dose-response studies, a dilution series with formulations of different concentrations of the Hermetia / 7 / ucens extract (0 (0%, control), 5 (6.25%), 10 (12.5%), 20 (25%), 40 (50%) and 80 (100%) mg per ml formulation) was used (Fig. 2, top).The experiments were carried out on the cultivated plants Triticum aestivum L. (winter wheat) and Zea mays L. (maize), as well as on the monocotyledonous weeds Alopecurus myosuroides Huds. (black-tailed foxtail) and Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv. (barnyard grass), which are frequently found there, and on the dicotyledonous weeds Chenopodium album L. (white goosefoot) and Stellaria media (L.) Vill. (common chickweed), to which the six formulations, including the control, were applied.

[0140] Dose-response trials with formulations prepared from Hermetia illucens exfracts in post-emergence (greenhouse) - preparation of the formulations.

[0141] The six formulations, each with a different concentration, were prepared in the laboratory (Fig. 2, top). The exact composition is listed in Table 1. First, the respective amount of Hermetia illucens extract was homogenized with the corresponding amount of deionized water (DI water) in a beaker using a magnetic stirrer for 15 minutes. The extract of Hermetia illucens is highly soluble in water, so emulsifiers were not required. Subsequently, the biological wetting agent (Zentero® SPR, Biofa AG, Germany) was added to all formulations and homogenized. This sophorolipid-based wetting and adhesion agent was used to improve the adhesion of the applied formulations to the leaves of the plants under investigation.

[0142] Table 1. Composition of the six substances administered in the dose-response study

[0143] Formulations for the production of 100 ml each.

[0144] Formulations Hermetia illucens-

[0145] DI water (ml) Wetting agent (ml)

[0146] (Name) Extract (mg)

[0147] 0% (control) 99.5 - 0.5

[0148] 6.25% 99.0 500 0.5

[0149] 12.5% ​​98.5 1000 0.5

[0150] 25% 97.5 2000 0.5

[0151] 50% 95.5 4000 0.5

[0152] 100% 91.5 8000 0.5

[0153] Dose-response trials with formulations prepared from Hermetia illucens-Bdra ten in post-emergence (greenhouse) - experimental procedure and experimental conditions.

[0154] For the dose-response trial in the greenhouse, the seeds of the crops and weeds under investigation were sown in seed trays filled with vermiculite. After reaching the two-leaf stage (7-10 days after sowing), the seedlings were transplanted into coconut fiber peat pellets (8 cm x 8 cm x 8 cm, Jiffy, Mölln, Germany). The soil mixture consisted of 50% humus, 25% loam, and 25% sand. For the crops, 1 (maize) or 2 (winter wheat) plants were pricked out per pot, corresponding to the recommended planting density for both crops. For the weeds, 5 plants were pricked out per pot, representing a problematic weed density. The day / night temperatures in the greenhouse were 20 / 15 °C, and the plants were additionally illuminated for 12 hours daily with 400 W sodium vapor lamps.Furthermore, the plants were irrigated with tap water until field capacity was reached and received no additional fertilizers during the trial. Additionally, one to two yellow sticky traps per square meter were placed from the start of the trial to control fungus gnats. 2 The differently concentrated formulations, including the control, were applied to the plants under investigation during the critical growth phase using an automatic spray chamber (Schachtner, Ludwigsburg, Germany) (200 l ha). -1 ; Speed: 788 mm / s' 1 (Pressure: 3.6 bar), specifically at the 3-4 leaf stage, which corresponds to phenological plant development stage BBCH (Federal Biological Research Centre, Federal Plant Variety Office and Chemical Industry) 13-14. The spray rate of the nozzle during application was 0.8 l / min. 1at a pressure of 3 bar and an application height of 900 mm. The plants were irrigated shortly before application, and irrigation was only resumed from the third day after application to prevent the formulation from being washed off the leaves.

[0155] Dose-response trials with formulations prepared from Hermetia illucens extrusions in post-emergence (greenhouse) - data collection

[0156] Over the 14-day trial period from the time of application, the effects of the treatments on the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II (F) were measured. v / F m ) measured, where Fm represents the maximum fluorescence yield and Fo the minimum fluorescence yield. F v is the maximum fluorescence yield (Fm) minus the minimum fluorescence yield (Fo).

[0157] The maximum quantum yield of photosystem II was measured using an IMAGING-PAM® fluorescence sensor (Heinz Walz GmbH, Eiffeltrich, Germany), as is known in the prior art. Prior to measurement, the plants were dark-adapted for 30 minutes using plastic lids. Measurements were taken immediately before application (zero days) and after one, three, and seven days post-treatment, as the greatest damage to the plant was expected in the first few days after application due to the contact effect of the prepared formulation.

[0158] Additionally, the percentage of damage to the treated plants was measured 7 and 14 days after application, in comparison to the control plants. Furthermore, to determine the dry mass of the plants under investigation, the aboveground biomass was harvested 14 days after application. The plants were then packed in paper bags and dried in a drying oven at 80°C for three days. After drying, the stem dry mass of the plants was weighed to two decimal places (g), and the total weight per pot was divided by the number of plants in the pot to ultimately obtain the stem dry mass per plant.

[0159] Comparative trials between commercial herbicides and post-emergence formulations (greenhouse) made from Hermetia illucens extracts - trial design and setup.

[0160] To assess the phytotoxicity of formulations based on Hermetia illucens extracts compared to commercially used herbicides, a comparative trial was conducted in a greenhouse. As in the dose-response trials, a randomized, full-block design was used for the comparative trial, consisting of four randomized blocks, i.e., a total of four replicates per treatment. Each block contained one replicate of each treatment, randomly arranged within that block. The comparative trial incorporated the two factors of "formulation" and "time," as different formulations consisting of various herbicides (including the two differently concentrated formulations based on the Hermetia illucens extract and the aqueous control) were tested, and measurements were taken at different time points.The study included two formulations with different concentrations of Hermetia / 7 / t / cens extract (100 mg per ml formulation (100%) and 50 mg per ml formulation (50%)), a glyphosate formulation, a pelargonic acid formulation, a formulation containing the herbicide "MaisTer Power®", and an aqueous control formulation. The plants tested were the same crops and weeds as in the dose-response trials, to which the formulations were applied post-emergence.

[0161] Comparative trials between commercial herbicides and formulations produced from Hermetia illucens extracts in post-emergence (greenhouse) - preparation of the formulations.

[0162] The six different formulations were prepared in the laboratory, with the exact composition shown in Table 2. As in the dose-response trials, the first step for the two insect extract-based formulations involved stirring the respective amount of Hermetia / 7 / ucens extract with the corresponding amount of deionized water in a beaker on a magnetic stirrer for 15 minutes. For the other formulations, however, the corresponding amount of the pesticide was added to the deionized water instead of the Hermetia / 7 / ucens extract and also homogenized. Subsequently, as described above in the dose-response trial, the biological wetting agent (Zentero® SPR, Biofa AG, Germany) was added to each formulation and homogenized to improve adhesion to the leaves, as described above in the dose-response trial.

[0163] Table 2. Composition of the six formulations applied in the comparative experiment for the production of 100 ml each.

[0164] Formulations DI water Extract or herbicide and surfactant used (name) (ml) Quantity (mg or ml) (ml)

[0165] Control 99.5 - 0.5

[0166] 50% 94.5 5000 mg (Hermetia illucens extract 1 ) 0.5

[0167] 100% 89.5 10000 mg (Hermetia illucens extract 1 ) 0.5

[0168] Glyphosate 98.25 1.25 ml (Roundup Power Flex ® 2 ) 0.5

[0169] Herbicide active ingredient: 480g / l glyphosate

[0170] Pelargonic acid 94.3 5.2 ml (Beloukha ® 3 ) 0.5

[0171] Herbicidal active ingredient: 680g / l pelargonic acid

[0172] MaisTer Power 99.0 0.5 ml (MaisTer Power ® 4 ) 0.5

[0173] Herbicidal active ingredients:

[0174] 30.0 g / l foramsulfuron;

[0175] 9.77 g / l Thiencarbazone;

[0176] 0.85 g / l iodosulfuron

[0177] 15 g / l Cyprosulfamide (Safener) extract obtained from adult Hermetia illucens. 2 Roundup PowerFlex®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany. 3 Beloukha®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany. 4 MaisTer Power ®, Bayer Crop Science, Germany.

[0178] Comparative trials between commercial herbicides and formulations prepared from Hermetia illucens extracts in post-emergence (greenhouse) application - trial procedure and greenhouse conditions.

[0179] The cultivated and weed plants tested were the same as in the dose-response trial, and were pre-cultivated and prepared for the comparative trial using the same procedure. However, larger plastic pots (12 cm x 12 cm x 13 cm) were used for the trial. The prepared formulations were also applied to the test plants at the same BBCH stage (13-14) as in the dose-response trial. Furthermore, the comparative trial maintained the same climatic and other experimental conditions, such as irrigation, no fertilizers, the same substrate for the pots, and the use of yellow sticky traps against fungus gnats, etc., as in the dose-response trials. Comparative trials between commercial herbicides and formulations prepared from Hermetia illucens extracts in post-emergence (greenhouse) applications – data collection

[0180] As in the dose-response experiment, the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II (FvIFm) and the percentage damage to the treated plants compared to the untreated control were measured in the same way and at the same time points as in the dose-response experiments. In addition, unlike the dose-response experiments, plant damage was measured after 21 days, and the dry mass of the plants was also determined 21 days after treatment, since the respective plant biomass was harvested three weeks after application.

[0181] Field trial on the use of the produced bioherbicide to kill potato foliage to facilitate harvesting in potato cultivation - trial location, trial design and trial setup.

[0182] To evaluate the effectiveness of formulations based on Hermetia / / / ucens extracts as a biological contact herbicide for haulm killing in potatoes for quality assurance (skin firmness, starch content, tuber size, reduction of tuber rot), improved storage life and to facilitate harvesting of potato tubers, a field trial was carried out in 2023 in Hirrlingen (48.42° N / 8.88° 0), a municipality in the district of Tübingen in Germany, using the medium-early potato variety "Almonda".

[0183] The average temperatures and average precipitation during the year and the trial period (September) can be found in Table 3. The soil texture in Hirrlingen consisted of 70% silt, 25% clay, and 5% sand and is characterized as a parabrown earth derived from loess. The climatic conditions in Hirrlingen in 2023 are shown in Table 3. Table 3. Mean annual temperatures (°C) and precipitation (mm) for each month in Hirrlingen in 2023. The months pertaining to the direct trial period up to the harvest of the aboveground biomass and potato tubers are shown in italics.

[0184] Average temperature Average rainfall

[0185] Month

[0186] (°C) (mm)

[0187] January 2.94 ± 4.51 21 ,58

[0188] February 2.38 ± 4.01 13.1

[0189] March 5.69 ± 3.83 114.5

[0190] April 7.21 ± 2.96 78.6

[0191] May 12.90 ± 2.73 65.5

[0192] June 18.95 ± 2.02 21.57

[0193] July 19.52 ± 2.91 97.62

[0194] August 19.02 ± 3.86 105.08

[0195] September 17.49 ± 2.77 24.83

[0196] October 12, 19 ± 4.07 46.71

[0197] November 4.73 ± 3.19 183.2

[0198] December 3.19 ± 3.70 108.7

[0199] For the field trial, a randomized, full-block setup was used, consisting of three randomized blocks, i.e., a total of three replicates per treatment. Each block comprised three rows (3.5 m long x 0.5 m wide) with a spacing of 0.75 m between rows and 0.3 m between potato plants within the row. Each row represented one replicate of each treatment, randomly arranged within the respective block. The field trial included the factor "formulation." Two formulations with different concentrations of the Hermetia / 7 / ucens extract (100 mg per ml formulation (100%) and 50 mg per ml formulation (50%)) as well as an aqueous control formulation were used. Field trial on the use of the manufactured bioherbicide for killing potato foliage to facilitate harvesting in potato cultivation – preparation of the formulations.

[0200] The three different formulations were prepared in the laboratory, with the exact composition shown in Table 4. As in the two greenhouse experiments, the first step for the two insect extract-based formulations involved stirring the respective amount of Hermetia / 7 / acens extract with the corresponding amount of deionized water in a beaker on a magnetic stirrer for 15 minutes. Subsequently, as described in the greenhouse experiments, the biological wetting agent (Zentero® SPR, Biofa AG, Germany) was added to each formulation and homogenized to improve adhesion to the potato plants.

[0201] Table 4. Composition of the three formulations applied in the field trial for the production of 100 ml each.

[0202] Formulations Hermetia illucens extract

[0203] DI water (ml) Wetting agent (ml)

[0204] (Designation) (mg)

[0205] 0% (control) 99.5 - 0.5

[0206] 5000 mg (Hermetia illucens 50% 94.5 0.5

[0207] extract 1 )

[0208] 10000 mg (Hermetia illucens 100% 89.5 0.5

[0209] extract 1 )

[0210] Field trial on the use of the produced bioherbicide to kill potato foliage to facilitate harvesting in potato cultivation - trial procedure.

[0211] The three formulations (0% (control), 50%, and 100%) were applied to potato plants at BBCH stage 70 at the end of August (August 23, 2023) using a hand-held sprayer. An application rate of 200 l / ha was used, scaled down to the size of the trial area. Application was carried out with a hand-held sprayer at a pressure of 3 bar, a walking speed of 0.9 km / h, and a spray height of 50 cm above the plants. Field trial on the use of the prepared bioherbicide for killing potato foliage to facilitate harvesting in potato cultivation – data collection.

[0212] Damage to the aboveground potato biomass of the treated plants was assessed 14 days after application of the formulations (September 7, 2023) on three plants per block. Potato foliage was harvested from all experimental blocks to determine dry matter. It was then dried in paper bags in a drying oven at 80°C for three days, and the dry weight was recorded using a precision balance. Additionally, 33 days after application of the insect extracts (September 25, 2023), potato tubers were harvested from the plants in the different treatments for chemical analysis to detect potential residues from the Hermetia illucens-based formulations. These tubers were then stored at 6°C in a cold storage room until further processing for chemical analysis of the crude fat content and fatty acid profile.

[0213] Chemical analysis for determining fatty acid profiles - Determination of the fatty acid profile of the obtained Hermetia illucens exfra tes.

[0214] The method for determining the total fatty acid profile as fatty acid methyl esters using gas chromatography (GC) (TMSH method) was used to synthesize fatty acid methyl esters from fats (compound feed, feed fats, etc.) for the quantitative GC determination of the total fatty acid profile using the 100% method (normalization method). In this procedure, the fat to be analyzed was first dissolved in diisopropyl ether and methylated by adding 0.2 M trimethylsulfonium hydroxide in methanol (TMSH). This solution was then used for capillary gas chromatographic analysis. For the methylation of the fatty acids, two drops of the fat / oil (approx. 250 mg) were weighed into a 100 ml Erlenmeyer flask with a ground glass joint and dissolved in 5 ml of diisopropyl ether. The volume of diisopropyl ether to be added depended on the amount of crude fat and had to be adjusted accordingly; consequently, 10 ml of diisopropyl ether was required to dissolve 500 mg of crude fat.300 pl of this solution were pipetted into a GC autosampler vial, mixed with 150 pl of TMSH (4.2.2), and sealed. The clear solution was then used for capillary gas chromatographic determination with the settings shown in Table 5.

[0215] Table 5. Capillary gas chromatography parameters and settings

[0216] Gas chromatographs.

[0217] Capillary gas chromatography

[0218] Settings

[0219] parameter

[0220] Injector split / splitless, split approx. 1:40

[0221] Injector temperature: 200 °C

[0222] Detector: FID

[0223] Detector temperature: 240 °C

[0224] Carrier gas: 30 psi Helium 5.0

[0225] Gases for the FID Auxiliary Gas Nitrogen 5.0, Synthetic Air KW-free

[0226] (450 ml / min), Hydrogen 5.0 (45 ml / min)

[0227] Injection volume: 1 l

[0228] Temperature program 75°C 2 min, 75 - 120 °C 7 °C / min, 120 - 175 °C

[0229] 5 °C / min, 175 - 182 °C 1 °C / min, 182 °C 2 min, 182 - 199 °C 2 °C / min, 199 - 210 °C 5 °C / min, 210 - 230 °C 30 °C / min, 230 °C 5 min Runtime Approx. 44.8 min

[0230] Chemical analysis to determine fatty acid profiles - Chemical analysis of crude fat content and fatty acid residues in potato tubers from the field trial.

[0231] The potato tubers from the various treatments of the field trial were pureed and stored at -80 °C before being prepared for chemical analysis. Due to the extremely low fat content in potato tubers (0.01% of the total weight of a tuber) and the high water content of 80%, concentration was necessary. For this purpose, the finely pureed potato tubers were subjected to freeze-drying. A minimum sample size was required to obtain sufficient crude fat (approximately 250 mg according to SOP) for extraction.

[0232] The crude fat content was determined according to the procedures in Commission Regulation (EC) No 152 / 2009 of 27 January 2009 (Annex III H) and in the Official Collection of Test Methods pursuant to Section 64 of the German Food and Feed Code (LFGB) (Method L 06.00-6). In these procedures, the sample is digested with hydrochloric acid under heat, the fat is separated by filtration, the residue is extracted with petroleum ether according to the Soxhlet method, the solvent is distilled off, and the residue is dried and weighed (Weibull-Stoldt method). To obtain 250 mg of crude fat, approximately 2.5 kg of potatoes as raw material or approximately 500 g of freeze-dried matrix would have been required. Since this quantity was not reached and the Weibull-Stoldt method for determining crude fat was not applicable due to the low fat content, a modified extraction was carried out. Diisopropyl ether, the same solvent that was later used to prepare the fatty acid methyl esters, served as the solvent.Instead of acid digestion, any cell compartments were opened using ultrasound or a sonotrode (UP 100H ultrasonic processor, Hielscher). Instead of the expected 250 mg of crude fat from the available sample quantities, only about 15–20 mg were obtained. These individual crude fat masses were then used for fatty acid methylation (see above). The volume of diisopropyl ether was adjusted to the respective crude fat mass; that is, it was dissolved in volumes of 300–400 pL and immediately mixed with a volume of 150–200 pL of TMSH before being used for GC / FID analysis.

[0233] Statistical analysis - greenhouse experiments and field trials.

[0234] The dose-response study was conducted twice in the greenhouse at different time intervals, while the comparative study in the greenhouse and the field study were each conducted once. For both greenhouse studies, a randomized, fully block design consisting of four blocks and two factors was used. The field study also used a randomized, fully block design, but consisting of three blocks and only one factor (concentration).

[0235] For the greenhouse experiments, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was first performed, using the Kenward-Roger method to calculate the p-values ​​within the two factors (Factor 1: concentration effects in the dose-response trial; formulation effects in the control trial; Factor 2: time effects) and their interaction. Subsequently, a post-hoc test with a Tukey fit for pairwise mean comparison was performed using the R package "emmeans" to identify significant differences (p < 0.05) between the treatments. The following linear mixed two-way model was used for the statistical analysis of the greenhouse experiments: y iju = Value of the observation variables maximum quantum yield of photosynthesis II and plant damage = general mean; &) u= Block effect; a, = Concentration effects (dose-response experiment); Formulation effects (comparative experiment); βj = Time effects; aβik = Interaction between 1 ter Factor: Concentration (dose-response trial); pesticide (comparative trial) and 2 ter Factor: Time; E iju = Residual error

[0236] Since dry matter was measured at only one time point in both the greenhouse and field trials, and damage was measured at only one time point in the field trial, a one-way mixed model with the factor 'concentration' was used for the statistical analysis. To analyze dry matter, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was first performed to obtain the p-value for dry matter and to identify any significant differences. Subsequently, a post-hoc test with a Tukey fit was conducted to identify significant differences (p < 0.05) between the treatments. The following one-way model was used for the statistical analysis: y iju = Value of the observation variable dry mass, value of the observation variable damage ji = general mean; &) u = Block effect; a, = Concentration effects (dose-response experiment; field trial); Pesticide effects

[0237] (Comparison attempt); E iu Residual error. Each block consisted of one replication of each treatment, including the control plants. Data analysis was performed using the statistical software R Studio (version 2022.07.2+576, RStudio Team, Boston, MA, USA), and plots were created using the program Origin (Pro) version 2022 (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA). All data from the two greenhouse experiments and the field trial were visually reviewed using qq plots. Additionally, the Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality. Homogeneity of variance was tested using Levene's test. Where necessary, the data were processed by log transformation or square root transformation to satisfy the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance for ANOVA analysis.

[0238] Dose-response diagrams were also created in the dose-response studies. For the nonlinear regression, the log-logistic four-parameter model by Streibig (1980) was applied: y = mean response to answer x; x = Hermetia illucens extract; dose a and b = determine how the yield decreases with the dose parameters; d = lower asymptote; k = upper asymptote

[0239] Where hormesis was available, the modified model by Brain-Cousens (1988) was used: Statistical analysis - Statistical evaluation of the chemical analysis results of the crude fat content and fatty acid profile in the potato tubers from the field trial.

[0240] Since the percentage of total crude fat in the freeze-dried potato tubers under investigation and the corresponding fatty acid profile were measured at only one time point in the field trial, a one-way mixed model with the factor 'concentration' was used for the statistical analysis. A chemical analysis of the crude fat content and the fatty acid profile of the potato tubers from the field trial was performed for each treatment and each block, resulting in a total of three replicates per treatment (including the potato tubers from the control plants). For the statistical analysis of the percentage of total crude fat content and the fatty acid profile, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the Kenward-Roger method was first performed to identify any significant differences (p-value) between the crude fat content and the detected fatty acids.Subsequently, a post-hoc test with a Tukey fit for pairwise mean comparison was performed using the R package 'emmeans' to identify significant differences (p < 0.05) between the treatments. The following one-way model was used for the statistical analysis: ytju = p + m. u + a t + £ iu y.ju = value of the observation variable crude fat content and fatty acid jj. = general mean value; ) u = Block effect; a> = Concentration effects; s iu = Residual error

[0241] Data analysis was performed using the statistical software R Studio (version 2022.07.2+576, RStudio Team, Boston, MA, USA), and plots were created with the program Origin (Pro) version 2022 (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA). Visual verification of the data was carried out using qq plots. Additionally, the Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality. Homogeneity of variance was checked using Levene's test. Where necessary, the data were adjusted by log transformation or square root transformation to meet the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance for the ANOVA analysis.

[0242] Example 1:

[0243] Dose-response studies with post-emergence formulations prepared from Hermetia illucens extracts

[0244] 1. Maximum quantum yield of the photosystem of the experimental plants

[0245] The maximum quantum yield of photosystem II was statistically compared between the differently treated plants for each day, and the respective treatment across all measurement days was statistically compared individually. The following section describes the results of the measured maximum quantum yield of photosystem II for the differently treated experimental plants Zea mays (Fig. 4), Triticum aestivum (Fig. 4), Alopecurus myosuroides (Fig. 5), Echinochloa crus-galli (Fig. 5), Chenopodium album (Fig. 6), and Stellaria media (Fig. 6).

[0246] Maximum quantum yield of the photosystem of Zea mays.

[0247] The two factors 'day' and 'concentration' showed statistically significant differences and their interaction. Significant differences in the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II between the differently treated Zea mays plants were only measured on day 1. The maximum quantum yield of photosystem II was highest in the plants treated with 100% (80 mg / ml) 1 The quantum yield of photosystem II treated plants was significantly lower by 32%, 37%, and 33% in the 0% (control), 6.125%, and 12.5% ​​formulations, respectively. Furthermore, on day 1, the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II was lower in the plants treated with the 100% (80 mg / ml) formulation. 1 ) The formulation treated Zea mays were significantly 37% smaller than on day 7.

[0248] Maximum quantum yield of photosystem II of Triticum aestivum.

[0249] In Triticum aestivum, the factor 'concentration' showed statistically significant differences, but these were not measured by the multiple mean comparison. Otherwise, no significant differences in the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II were found in Triticum aestivum.

[0250] Maximum quantum yield of the photosystem of Alopecurus myosuroides.

[0251] The factors 'day' and 'concentration' each showed significant differences as well as their interaction. On day 1, the dose was 100% (80 mg / ml). 1 Alopecurus myosuroides plants treated with the concentrated formulation showed a significantly reduced maximum quantum yield of photosystem II by 23–31% compared to the other treatments (including the control). Similarly, on day 3, the plants treated with 100% (80 mg / ml) 1Alopecurus myost / ra / des plants treated with the concentrated formulation showed a 20%–25% reduction in the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II compared to plants treated with the 0%, 6%, 12%, 12.5%, and 25% concentrated formulations. Furthermore, significant differences over the days were only observed in the plants treated with the 100% formulation, as the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II was significantly lower by 25% on day 1 than on day 7.

[0252] Maximum quantum yield of the photosystem of Echinochloa crus-qalli.

[0253] Both factors, 'day' and 'concentration', showed significant differences, but no significant differences were measured in their interaction. Significant differences were only measured between Echinochloa crus-galli treated with the 100% formulation and the aqueous control (0%) on day 1 and day 3, where the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II was significantly lower by 26% and 24%, respectively, than in the plants treated with the 100% formulation.

[0254] Maximum quantum yield of the photosystem of Chenopodium album.

[0255] All factors ('day' and 'concentration') differed significantly both individually and in their interaction. Significant differences between the treatments were observed on day 1 and day 3. The maximum quantum yield of photosystem II on day 1 was significantly lower by 39%, 26%, 29%, and 31% in the plants treated with concentrations of 100%, 50%, 25%, and 12.5%, respectively, compared to the control (0%). In contrast, the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II in Chenopodium album treated with the 80 mg ml- 1 (100%), 40 mg ml -1 (50%) and 20 mg ml -1 (25%) concentrated formulations were applied, resulting in 38%, 33% and 38% significantly smaller results than in the control plants (0%).

[0256] Maximum quantum yield of the Stellaria media photosystem.

[0257] Both factors ('day' and 'concentration') and their interaction showed significant differences. Significant differences in the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II were measured on day 1 and day 3. On day 1, Stellaria media, treated with 80 mg / ml -1 (100%) and 40 mg ml -1 (40%) concentrated formulation showed a significantly reduced maximum quantum yield of photosystem II by 34% and 30%, respectively, compared to the aqueous control (0%). However, on day 3, only Stellaria media treated with the 20 mg ml formulation showed a reduced quantum yield. -1 When a (25%) concentrated formulation was applied, a significantly lower maximum quantum yield of photosystem II was measured, by 28%.

[0258] 2. Plant damage to the experimental plants

[0259] Damage caused by the differently concentrated formulations was measured on the experimental plants Zea mays (Fig. 7), Triticum aestivum (Fig. 7), Alopecurus myosuroides (Fig. 9), Echinochloa crus-galli (Fig. 9), Chenopodium album (Fig. 11), and Stellaria media (Fig. 11) after 7 and 14 days. For this purpose, the differently treated plants were compared with the control plants, and a percentage damage score from 0 to 100% was assigned. Individual plants per pot were considered, and an average damage score for the entire pot was calculated. In addition, images of the differently treated experimental plants Zea mays (Fig.8, left), Triticum aestivum (Fig.8, right), Alopecurus myosuroides (Fig.10, left), Echinochloa crus-galli (Fig.10, right), Chenopodium album (Fig.12, left) and Stellaria media (Fig.12, right) were taken on day 3, day 7 and day 14 after treatment.

[0260] Plant damage to Zea mays.

[0261] The two factors 'day' and 'concentration' each showed significant differences, but not in their interaction. Significant differences between the different treatments were measured on day 7 and day 14. The greatest damage to Zea mays was caused by the application of the highest concentration on day 7 (39%) and day 14 (27%). On day 7, this damage was 6.4 times greater than the damage caused by the application of the lowest concentration (6.125%). On day 14, the damage caused by the application of the highest concentration was 8.3 times greater than that caused by the application of the lowest concentration. Plant damage to Triticum aestivum was also observed. The factors 'day' and 'concentration', as well as their interaction, each showed significant differences. Significant differences in damage were only measured on day 7.Damage to Triticum aestivum was most severe on day 7 in the plants treated with the highest concentration formulation (100%) (9%). These showed 2.1 to 37 times greater damage compared to the plants treated with the lower concentration formulations (6.125%–50%). Furthermore, damage to the plants applied with the highest concentration formulation (100%) was 3 times greater on day 7 than on day 14.

[0262] Plant pesticides on Alopecurus myosuroides.

[0263] The factors 'day' and 'concentration' showed significant differences, while the interaction of the two showed no significant differences. On day 7, Alopecurus myosuroides treated with the strongest concentrated formulation (100%) showed 3.5 to 7.9 times greater damage (28%) compared to plants treated with 10 mg / ml. 1and 5 mg ml' 1 concentrated formulations were applied. In contrast, on day 14, only significant differences in damage were measured in Alopecurus myosuroides, which was treated with the 80 mg ml formulation. 1 The concentrated formulation (100%) was applied and showed 16% significantly greater damage than the plants treated with the 5 mg ml formulation. 1 The plants were treated with the concentrated formulation (6.125%). Between day 7 and day 14, significant differences in damage were only measured in the plants treated with the 40 mg / ml formulation. -1 concentrated formulation was applied, with damage in Alopecurus myosuroides being 2.5 times greater on day 7 than on day 14. Plant damage in Echinochloa crus-qalli.

[0264] All factors ('day' and 'concentration') showed significant differences, while the interaction of both factors did not. On day 7 and day 14, significant differences were only measured between the damage to Echinochloa crus-galli plants applied with the highest concentration (100% concentration, damage on day 7: 36% and day 14: 22%) and the lowest concentration (6.125%) formulation. Damage to the plants from the application of the highest concentration formulation was 3.3 times significantly higher on day 7 and even 6.8 times significantly higher on day 1 than in the plants treated with the lowest concentration formulation. Between day 7 and day 14, significant differences were only measured in the damage to the plants treated with 40 mg / ml. -1 (50%) concentrated formulation and 20 mg ml -1(25%) were treated with concentrated formulation, which showed significantly greater damage on day 7, 2.4 times and 2.7 times respectively.

[0265] Plant damage to Chenopodium album.

[0266] The factor 'day' and the 'factor' concentration showed significant differences, while no significant differences were measured in the interaction of the two factors. Significant differences in Chenopodium album damage were measured between the different treatments on day 7 and day 14. The highest concentration formulation, at 80 mg / ml, showed the most significant difference. 1 (100%) Damage, which on day 7 (97%) was significantly greater by 1.4 times, 2.1 times and 6.4 times, and on day 14 (91%) was significantly greater by 1.5 times, 2.8 times and 7.3 times, than the damage to the Chenopodium album plants treated with the 20 mg ml -1 (25%), 10 mg ml' 1 (12.5%) and 5 mg ml' 1(6.125%) concentrated formulation was used. No significant differences in damage were measured between the different treatments on different days.

[0267] Plant damage to Stellaria media.

[0268] Only the factor 'concentration' showed significant differences. Significant differences were observed on day 7 and day 14 between the lesions with the highest concentration (80 mg / ml). 1 ) treated plants and the damage to the plants treated with 5 mg ml' 1 , 10 mg ml' 1 and 20 mg ml' 1 The damage was measured in plants treated with concentrated formulations. With 89% and 92% damage on day 7 and day 14, respectively, Stellaria media treated with the most concentrated formulation (80 mg mH) showed 1.7 to 18.2 times and 1.5 to 13.1 times significantly greater damage than Stellaria media treated with 5 mg mH, 10 mg mH, and 20 mg mH. -1more concentrated formulations were discussed.

[0269] 3. Dry mass of the experimental plants

[0270] Figure 13 shows the dry mass of the experimental plants as a function of the applied formulations of varying concentrations. The plants were analyzed individually, and statistical differences within a single plant between the different concentrations were examined. Streibig's log-logistic growth model was used for the nonlinear regressions, and the modified Brain and Cousens model was applied for hormesis.

[0271] Dry matter of Zea mays.

[0272] Only the dry mass in the treatment with the strongest concentration (100%, corresponding to 80 mg / ml) 1The dry mass was significantly reduced by 39% compared to the dry mass of the aqueous control (0%). Additionally, the dry masses at the highest concentration (100%) were significantly lower by 47%, 38%, and 36% than the dry mass in the formulations with a concentration of 5 mg / ml. 1 (6.125%), 10 mg mH (12.5%) and 20 mg mH (25%).

[0273] Dry mass of Triticum aestivum.

[0274] No significant differences in the dry mass of Triticum aestivum were measured between the formulations of different concentrations (including the aqueous control).

[0275] Dry mass of Alopecurus myosuroides and Echinochloa crus-galli.

[0276] Within the two monocotyledonous weeds *Alopecurus myosuroides* and *Echinochloa crus-galli*, no significant differences in dry weight were found between the differently concentrated formulations (including the aqueous control). Dry weight of *Chenopodium album*.

[0277] The dry masses of the treatments with a concentration of 80 mg ml -1 (100%), 40 mg ml' 1 (50%) and 20 mg ml' 1 (25%) were significantly reduced by 87%, 80% and 73% compared to the dry mass of the aqueous control (0%). Additionally, the dry masses of Chenopodium album at the three concentrations (100%, 50% and 25%) were significantly smaller by 85%, 77% and 69% compared to the dry mass of Chenopodium album treated with the formulation at a concentration of 6.125% (5 mg ml'). 1 ).

[0278] Dry mass of Stellaria media.

[0279] The dry masses of the treatments with a concentration of 80 mg ml' 1 (100%), 40 mg ml' 1 (50%) and 20 mg ml' 1 (25%) were significantly smaller by 89%, 78% and 67% than the dry mass of the aqueous control (0%). Furthermore, the dry masses of Stellaria media in both concentrations were 80 mg / ml. 1 (100%) and 40 mg ml' 1 (50%) significantly smaller by 88% and 75% than the dry mass of Stellaria media treated with the formulation containing a concentration of 5 mg ml' 1 (6.125%).

[0280] Example 2:

[0281] Post-emergence comparative trials between commercial herbicides and formulations made from Hermetia illucens extracts

[0282] 1. Maximum quantum yield of photosystem li of the experimental plants

[0283] The maximum quantum yield of photosystem II was statistically compared between the differently treated plants for each day, and the respective treatment across all measurement days was statistically compared individually. The following describes the results of the measured maximum quantum yield of photosystem II in the differently treated experimental plants Zea mays (Fig. 14), Triticum aestivum (Fig. 14), Alopecurus myosuroides (Fig. 15), Echinochloa crus-galli (Fig. 15), Chenopodium album (Fig. 16), and Stellaria media (Fig. 16). Maximum quantum yield of photosystem II in Zea mays.

[0284] The factors 'day' and 'treatment' each showed significant differences, as did their interaction. Significant differences between the treatments were observed on day 1 and day 3. On day 1, Zea mays treated with the 50% Hermetia illucens extract formulation and pelargonic acid showed a 50% and 48% significantly reduced maximum quantum yield of photosystem II compared to the control plants. In contrast, on day 3, only the plants treated with the 50% concentrated formulation based on the Hermetia illucens extract showed a 54% significantly reduced maximum quantum yield of photosystem II compared to the control plants. Additionally, significant differences were measured between the days within a single treatment in the plants treated with the 100% and 50% concentrated formulations based on the Hermetia illucens extract and with pelargonic acid.Zea mays applied with the 100% concentrated formulation showed a significantly lower maximum photosystem II quantum yield of 43% and 41% on day 1 compared to the plants on day 0 and day 7. In contrast, Zea mays treated with the 50% concentrated formulation showed a significantly lower maximum photosystem II quantum yield of 53% and 56% on day 1 and day 3 compared to the plants on day 0, and a significantly lower maximum photosystem II quantum yield of 51% and 54% on day 7 compared to the plants. Zea mays treated with pelargonic acid, however, showed a significantly lower maximum photosystem II quantum yield of 51% and 42% on day 1 and day 7 compared to the plants on day 0.

[0285] Maximum quantum yield of the photostem II of Triticum aestivum.

[0286] Only the factor 'day' and the interaction of the factors 'day' and 'treatment' showed significant differences. Within the days, no significant differences in the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II were measured between the differently treated Triticum aestivum plants. However, the Triticum aestivum treated with glyphosate showed a significantly lower maximum quantum yield of photosystem II on day 7 (21% and 19%, respectively) compared to day 1 and day 3. Maximum quantum yield of the photosystem of Alopecurus myosuroides.

[0287] The factor 'day' and the interaction between the factor 'day' and 'treatment' showed significant differences. Significant differences in the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II in Alopecurus myosuroides were only observed on day 7. Glyphosate-treated Alopecurus myosuroides showed a 33% significantly lower maximum quantum yield of photosystem II on day 7 compared to the control plants. Furthermore, the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II in the glyphosate-treated Alopecurus myosuro / ctes plants was 27% to 32% significantly lower on day 7 than on day 0, day 1, and day 3.

[0288] Maximum quantum yield of the photosystem of Echinochloa crus-galli.

[0289] The two factors, day and treatment, as well as their interaction, showed significant differences. Significant differences between treatments on a single day were measured on day 1 and day 7. On day 1, the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II in Echinochloa crus-galli plants treated with the 100% and 50% Hermetia illucens extract-based formulations and with pelargonic acid was significantly lower by 21%, 26%, and 23%, respectively, compared to the control plants. In contrast, on day 7, Echinochloa crus-galli treated with glyphosate showed a 46% significantly lower maximum quantum yield of photosystem II compared to the control plants. Significant differences between days within a single treatment were measured for the 50% concentrated Hermetia illucens extract-based formulation, for pelargonic acid, and for the plants treated with glyphosate.While Echinochloa crus-galli treated with the 50% concentrated formulation and pelargonic acid showed significantly lower maximum photosystem II quantum yields of 26% and 25% respectively on day 1 compared to the plants on day 7, the Echinochloa crus-galli plants treated with glyphosate showed a significantly lower maximum photosystem II quantum yield of 48% to 52% on day 7 compared to day 0, day 1 and day 3.

[0290] Maximum quantum yield of the photosystem of Chenopodium album.

[0291] The two factors 'day' and 'treatment', as well as their interaction, each showed significant differences. Within a single day, significant differences between the treatments were measured on day 1, day 3, and day 7. On day 1, Chenopodium album treated with the 100% concentrated formulation and pelargonic acid showed a 50% and 58% significantly lower maximum quantum yield of photosystem II compared to the control plants. On day 3, significant differences were measured only in the plants treated with pelargonic acid, which showed a 44% significantly lower maximum quantum yield of photosystem II than the control plants. Furthermore, on day 7, Chenopodium album treated with the 100% concentrated formulation, pelargonic acid, and glyphosate showed a 50%, 100%, and 100% significantly lower maximum quantum yield of photosystem II compared to the control plants.Significant differences between the days within a treatment were measured for the 100% concentrated formulation, pelargonic acid, and glyphosate. While Chenopodium album plants treated with the 100% concentrated formulation and pelargonic acid showed a significantly lower maximum photosystem II quantum yield of 37% to 50% and 48% to 100% on day 1, day 3, and day 7, respectively, compared to day 0, a significantly lower maximum photosystem II quantum yield of 100% was measured on day 7 in the Chenopodium album plants treated with glyphosate compared to days 0, 1, and 3.

[0292] Maximum quantum yield of the Photosystem II of Stellaria media.

[0293] Both factors, 'day' and 'treatment', and their interaction showed significant differences. Within a single day, significant differences between the treatments were observed on day 1, day 3, and day 7. On day 1, Stellaria media treated with the 100% and 50% concentrated formulations, as well as with pelargonic acid, exhibited a significantly lower maximum quantum yield of photosystem II by 40%, 41%, and 37%, respectively. On day 3, the maximum quantum yield of photosystem II was significantly lower by 44%, 40%, and 52%, respectively, compared to the control plants. In contrast, on day 7, only the plants treated with MaisTer and glyphosate showed a significantly lower maximum quantum yield of photosystem II by 37% and 46%, respectively, compared to the control plants.The Stellaria media plants treated with the 100% and 50% concentrated formulations showed significantly lower maximum photosystem II quantum yields on day 1 (32% and 36%, respectively) than on day 0, and significantly lower maximum photosystem II quantum yields of 19% and 35%, respectively, than on day 7. On day 7, the S: media treated with MaisTer showed a significantly lower maximum photosystem II quantum yield of 38% to 41%, and the plants treated with glyphosate showed a significantly lower maximum photosystem II quantum yield of 47% to 50% than on day 0, day 1, and day 3.

[0294] 2. Plant damage to the experimental plants

[0295] Damage caused by the differently concentrated formulations was measured on the experimental plants Zea mays (Fig. 17A), Triticum aestivum (Fig. 17B), Alopecurus myosuroides (Fig. 19A), Echinochloa crus-galli (Fig. 19B), Chenopodium album (Fig. 21A), and Stellaria media (Fig. 21B) after 7 and 14 days. For this purpose, the differently treated plants were compared with the control plants, and a percentage damage score from 0 to 100% was assigned. Individual plants per pot were considered, and an average damage score for the entire pot was calculated. In addition, images of the differently treated experimental plants Zea mays (Fig.18, left), Triticum aestivum (Fig.18, right), Alopecurus myosuroides (Fig.20, left), Echinochloa crus-galli (Fig.20, right), Chenopodium album (Fig.22, left) and Stellaria media (Fig.22, right) were taken on day 7, day 14 and day 21 after treatment.

[0296] Plant damage to Zea mays.

[0297] The factors 'day' and 'treatment' showed significant differences and their interaction. Significant differences between treatments within a single day were measured on day 7, day 14, and day 21. On day 7, the Zea mays treated with MaisTer showed the least damage (2.5%), which was 25 to 30 times less than the Zea mays treated with a 50% concentrated formulation and pelargonic acid, which showed damage of 61% and 74%, respectively. In contrast, on day 14 and day 21, the least damage (0%) was measured in the plants treated with MaisTer, which was significantly smaller than the damage in the Zea mays treated with 50% concentrated formulation, pelargonic acid and glyphosate, which showed damage of 60%, 65% and 100% on day 14 and damage of 51%, 58% and 100% on day 21.Significant differences between the days within a treatment were only measured in the glyphosate-treated Zea mays, which showed 3.8 times greater damage on day 14 and day 21 than on day 7.

[0298] Plant damage to Triticum aestivum.

[0299] The two factors 'day' and 'treatment' and their interaction each showed significant differences. Significant differences between treatments within a single day were measured in Triticum aestivum on day 7, day 14, and day 21. The dose of 100 mg / ml 1 (100%) and 50 mg ml' 1Triticum aestivum treated with the (50%) concentrated formulation showed 4 to 6 times and 6 to 10 times significantly less damage on day 7 than Triticum aestivum treated with pelargonic acid (60%) and glyphosate (38%) respectively. On days 14 and 21, however, the damage in the Triticum aestivum treated with the 50% and 100% concentrated formulations was lowest (8% and 9% on day 14 and 10% and 9% on day 21), and significantly lower than the damage in the Triticum aestivum treated with pelargonic acid, MaisTer, and glyphosate, which showed damage of 54%, 70%, and 100% on day 14 and damage of 36%, 80%, and 100% on day 21. Between these days, significantly greater damage was measured in the Triticum aestivum treated with MaisTer and glyphosate on days 14 and 21 than on day 7.

[0300] Plant damage on Alopecurus myosuroides.

[0301] The two factors 'day' and 'treatment', as well as their interaction, showed significant differences. Significant differences in plant damage between the treatments were measured on day 14 and day 21. On days 14 and 21, Alopecurus myosuroides treated with 100% and 50% concentrated formulations and pelargonic acid showed the least damage, at 16%, 13%, and 20% respectively on day 14, and at 11%, 10%, and 10% respectively on day 21. This damage was 4 to 8 times smaller on day 14 and 8 to 10 times smaller on day 21 than the damage in Alopecurus myosuroides treated with MaisTer and glyphosate, which showed damage of 88% and 100% on day 14 and 98% and 100% on day 21. Significant differences were measured between days within each treatment group.On the one hand, Alopecurus myosuroides treated with the 50% and 100% concentrated formulations and pelargonic acid showed 2 to 3 times greater damage on day 7 than on day 14 and day 21, while in Alopecurus myosuroides treated with MaisTer and glyphosate, 2 to 3 times less damage occurred on day 7 than on day 14 and day 21.

[0302] Plant damage on Echinochloa crus-galli.

[0303] The two factors 'day' and 'treatment', as well as their interaction, showed significant differences. Significant differences between the treatments were measured on day 7, day 14, and day 21. On day 7, damage was greatest in the plants treated with pelargonic acid at 66%, significantly higher by 1.4 and 1.5 times, respectively, than in the Echinochloa crus-galli plants treated with 50% and 100% concentrated formulations, MaisTer, and glyphosate, which showed damage of 43% to 48%.In contrast, Echinochloa crus-galli treated with the 50% and 100% concentrated formulations showed the lowest damage at 29% and 24% on day 14 and at 18% and 15% on day 21, which was 2 to 4 times significantly smaller on day 14 and 3 to 7 times significantly smaller on day 21 than the damage in Echinochloa crus-galli treated with pelargonic acid, maize ter, and glyphosate, which showed damage of 49%, 85%, and 98% on day 14 and damage of 38%, 96%, and 100% on day 21. While Echinochloa crus-galli treated with the 50% and 100% concentrated formulations showed 2 to 3 times significantly greater damage on day 7 than on day 14 and day 21, Echinochloa crus-galli treated with MaisTer and glyphosate showed 2 times less damage on day 7 than on day 14 and day 21.

[0304] Plant pest Quna on Chenopodium album.

[0305] The factor 'day' and the interaction between the two factors showed significant differences. Significant differences between the treatments were measured on day 7 and day 21. On day 7, the least damage was measured in the plants treated with MaisTer at 59%, which was 1.7 times significantly lower than the damage in the Chenopodium album plants treated with the 100% concentrated formulation, which showed 91% damage. In contrast, on day 21, the least damage was measured in Chenopodium album plants treated with the 50% and 100% concentrated formulations at 63% and 66%, respectively. This was 1.5 times significantly lower than the damage in Chenopodium album treated with MaisTer and glyphosate, which showed 99% and 100% damage. Significant differences between the days within a treatment were measured in all treatments.On the one hand, Chenopodium album treated with the 50% and 100% concentrated formulations showed significantly greater damage on day 7 and day 14, by 1.2 and 1.4 times respectively, compared to day 21, while Chenopodium album treated with MaisTer and glyphosate showed significantly less damage on day 7, by 1.6 to 1.7 times respectively, compared to day 14 and day 21.

[0306] Plant damage to Stellaria media.

[0307] The two factors 'day' and 'treatment' showed significant differences and their interaction. Significant differences in Stellaria media damage between the treatments were measured on day 14 and day 21. On day 14 and day 21, the plants treated with 100% and 50% concentrated formulations and pelargonic acid showed the least damage on day 14 (65%, 53%, and 65%, respectively) and the least damage on day 21 (49%, 38%, and 49%, respectively). This damage was significantly less than the damage in Stellaria media treated with MaisTer and glyphosate, which showed 100% damage on both days. Significant differences were measured across all treatments over the course of the days.While Stellaria media treated with the 50% and 100% concentrated formulations and pelargonic acid showed significantly greater damage on day 7 than on day 14 and day 21, Stellaria media treated with MaisTer and glyphosate showed significantly less damage on day 7 than on day 14 and day 21, which was 1.6 to 1.7 times greater.

[0308] 3. Dry mass of the experimental plants

[0309] Figure 23 shows the dry weights of the two crop plants, Zea mays and Triticum aestivum, 21 days after treatment with five different formulations, as well as those of the control plants. Figure 24 shows the dry weights of the investigated monocotyledonous (Alopecurus myosuroides and Echinochloa crus-galli) and dicotyledonous (Chenopodium album and Stellaria media) weeds 21 days after treatment with five different formulations, as well as without treatment. The plants were considered individually, and statistical differences within a plant between the different treatments (including the control) were examined. The factor 'treatment', which included all treatments including the control, showed significant differences (p < 0.001) in all crop plants and weeds.

[0310] Dry matter of Zea mays.

[0311] The Zea mays plants treated with glyphosate, pelargonic acid, the 50% formulation and the 100% formulation showed significantly lower dry masses of 94%, 80%, 76% and 49% respectively compared to the untreated control plants.

[0312] Dry mass of Triticum aestivum.

[0313] Only the Triticum aestivum plants treated with glyphosate and MaisTer showed significantly lower dry matter content, by 78% and 75% respectively, compared to the untreated control plants. The dry matter content of the Triticum aestivum plants treated with the 50% and 100% formulations is also noteworthy. Although they did not show significantly higher dry matter content than the untreated plants, they exhibited increases of 31% and 34%, respectively.

[0314] Dry mass of Alopecurus myosuroides.

[0315] Only the Alopecurus myosuroides plants treated with glyphosate and MaisTer showed significantly lower dry masses of 93% and 89% respectively compared to the untreated control plants.

[0316] Dry mass of Echinochloa crus-galli.

[0317] All treatments resulted in significantly lower dry matter content in the Echinochloa crus-galli plants. The Echinochloa crus-galli plants treated with the 50% formulation, the 100% formulation, pelargonic acid, MaisTer, and glyphosate showed significantly lower dry matter content of 57%, 47%, 66%, 94%, and 82%, respectively, compared to the untreated control plants.

[0318] Dry mass of Chenopodium album.

[0319] All treatments applied to the Chenopodium album plants resulted in significantly lower dry matter content compared to the untreated control plants. In particular, Chenopodium album plants treated with the 50% formulation, the 100% formulation, pelargonic acid, MaisTer, and glyphosate showed significantly reduced dry matter content. These reductions amounted to 85%, 86%, 91%, 96%, and 97%, respectively, compared to the untreated control plants.

[0320] Dry mass of Stellaria media.

[0321] All treatments resulted in statistically significant reductions in dry matter in the Stellaria media plants. In particular, plants treated with the 50% formulation, the 100% formulation, pelargonic acid, MaisTer, and glyphosate showed significantly reduced dry matter of 76%, 83%, 82%, 97%, and 97%, respectively, compared to untreated control plants.

[0322] Example 3:

[0323] Field trial on the application of the produced bioherbicide to kill potato foliage to facilitate harvesting in potato cultivation

[0324] 1. Potato haulm weight

[0325] Figure 25 shows the fresh and dry mass of potato foliage 14 days after treatment with the different concentrated formulations based on Hermetia illucens extract with 0% (0 mg ml). -1 ), 50% (50 mg ml -1 Hermetia illucens extract), 100% (100 mg ml -1Hermetia illucens extract). Only the factor 'condition of the potato foliage' showed significant differences. No significant differences were found between the formulations with regard to fresh and dry matter. However, it should be noted that the fresh matter in the potato plants treated with the 50% and 100% formulations was 52% lower than in the control plants. Likewise, the fresh matter of the control group differed significantly from the dry matter of all treatment groups, which showed a weight that was 78% to 85% lower.

[0326] 2. Damage to potato plants

[0327] Figure 26 shows the percentage of damage to potato plants treated with the 50% and 100% concentrated formulations 14 days after application, compared to untreated control plants. The treatment factor reveals significant differences, particularly in the damage to potato plants treated with the 100% concentrated formulation, which showed a percentage greater amount of damage than those treated with the 50% concentrated formulation. The damage to the plants shown in Figure 26 can be seen in Figure 27, which shows the potato plants in the field 14 days after application of the formulations and the control plants.

[0328] 3. Percentage of total crude fat content and fatty acid profile of potato tubers after application of Hermetia illucens extract

[0329] Significant differences within a single fatty acid between the three formulations were measured only for octadecanoic acid (C18:0) and eicosanoic acid (C20:0) (Table 6). The potatoes from the control plants had a 14% significantly lower proportion of octadecanoic acid in their total fatty acid content than the potatoes treated with the 100% formulation. Conversely, the potatoes from the control plants and those treated with the 50% formulation showed a 22% and 16% significantly lower eicosanoic acid content in their total fatty acid content, respectively, compared to the potatoes from the experimental plants treated with the 100% formulation.Table 6: Percentage of total crude fat in freeze-dried potato tubers and its fatty acid profile 30 days after application of the aqueous control formulation and the two formulations based on Hermetia illucens extract at two different concentrations (50% and 100%). Mean values ​​with the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05) according to the Tukey HSD post-hoc test. Furthermore, the formulation factor was checked for significant differences within a single fatty acid and is accordingly represented by the p-value.

[0330] Fatty acid content in % of the total fatty acid content

[0331] Fatty acids

[0332] Control 50% 100% p-value

[0333] Butanoic acid (C4:0) 0.02 ± 0.01a 0.01 ± 0.01a 0.04 ± 0.02a 0.21

[0334] Hexanoic acid (C6:0) 0.04 ± 0.04a 0.06 ± 0.03a 0.06 ± 0.04a 0.76

[0335] Octanoic acid (C8:0) 0.03 ± 0.02a 0.05 ± 0.03a 0.02 ± 0.01a 0.30

[0336] Capric acid (C10:0) 0.01 ± 0.02a 0.00 ± 0.00a 0.00 ± 0.00a 0.42

[0337] Dodecanoic acid (C 12:0) 0.08 ± 0.04a 0.05 ± 0.02a 0.05 ± 0.06a 0.56

[0338] Tridecanoic acid (013:0) 0.00 + 0.00a 0.02 + 0.02a 0.01 + 0.02a 0.47

[0339] Tetradecanoic acid (C14:0) 0.64 ± 0.09a 0.68 ± 0.16a 0.61 ± 0.26a 0.90 cis-9-tetradecenoic acid (014:1) 0.14 ± 0.04a 0.15 ± 0.08a 0.09 ± 0.01a 0.41

[0340] Pentadecanoic acid (015:0) 0.52 ± 0.16a 0.54 ± 0.13a 0.54 ± 0.08a 0.96

[0341] Hexadecanoic acid (016:0) 45.52 ± 5.06a 48.23 ± 6.78a 51 .65 ± 3.74a 0.42

[0342] Cis-delta-9-hexadecenoic acid (016:1) 0.40 + 0.06a 0.43 + 0.05a 0.43 + 0.03a 0.75 n-heptadecanoic acid (017:0) 0.85 ± 0.14a 0.90 ± 0.04a 0.97 ± 0.10a 0.38

[0343] Octadecanoic acid (018:0) 12.80 ± 0.89a 13.46 ± 0.57ab 14.94 ± 0.74b 0.03

[0344] Fatty acid content in % of the total

[0345] Fatty acids, fatty acid content

[0346] Control 50% 100% p-value

[0347] Cis-delta-9-octadecenoic acid (018:1 n9c) 3.31 ± 1.56a 3.80 ± 1.23a 3.64 ± 1.90a 0.93

[0348] T rans-9-octadecenoic acid (C18: 1 n9t) 0.04 ± 0.02a 0.04 ± 0.02a 0.04 ± 0.04a 1

[0349] 21.26 ±

[0350] Cis-Octadecadienoic acid (C 18:2n6c) 17.74 ± 4.69a 13.00 ± 3.39a 0.09

[0351] 2.68a

[0352] Trans-octadecadienoic acid (C18:2n6t) 0.07 ± 0.02a 0.08 ± 0.02a 0.08 ± 0.01a 0.88 all-cis-A9, 12, 15-octadecatrienoic acid (C18:3n3) 7.78 ± 1.86a 6.45 ± 1.88a 5.69 ± 0.94a 0.34 Octadecatrienoic acid (C18:3n6) 0.01 ± 0.01a 0.01 ± 0.02a 0.02 ± 0.02a 0.53

[0353] Eicosanoic acid (020:0) 2.42 ± 0.16a 2.62 ± 0.20a 3.12 ± 0.20b 0.01

[0354] Eicosenic acid (020:1) 0.23 ± 0.14a 0.25 ± 0.13a 0.24 ± 0.18a 0.99

[0355] Eicosadienic acid (020:2) 0.09 ± 0.01a 0.09 ± 0.03a 0.09 ± 0.02a 0.97

[0356] Eicosatrienoic acid (C20:3n3) 0.02 ± 0.02a 0.02 ± 0.02a 0.01 ± 0.02a 0.75

[0357] Eicosatrienoic acid (C20:3n6) 0.02 ± 0.01a 0.01 ± 0.02a 0.01 ± 0.01a 0.51

[0358] Eicosatetraenoic acid (C20:4n6) 0.01 ± 0.02a 0.01 ± 0.01a 0.00 ± 0.00a 0.75

[0359] Eicosapentaenoic acid (C20:5n3) 0.28 ± 0.01a 0.43 ± 0.15a 0.53 ± 0.10a 0.07

[0360] Heneicoanoic acid (C21:0) 0.17 ± 0.04a 0.18 ± 0.02a 0.21 ± 0.02a 0.20

[0361] Docosanoic acid (C22:0) 0.96 ± 0.07a 1.09 ± 0.16a 1.17 ± 0.09a 0.14

[0362] Docosadienoic acid (C22:2) 0.15 ± 0.03a 0.14 ± 0.03a 0.18 ± 0.03a 0.28

[0363] Docosahexaenoic acid (C22:6n3) 0.01 ± 0.02a 0.01 ± 0.02a 0.01 ± 0.01a 0.9

[0364] Fatty acid content in % of the total

[0365] Fatty acids, fatty acid content

[0366] Control 50% 100% p-value

[0367] Tricosoanoic acid (C23:0) 0.68 ± 0.03a 0.73 ± 0.10a 0.78 ± 0.02a 0.22

[0368] Tetracosanoic acid (C24:0) 1.45 ± 0.17a 1.75 ± 0.42a 1.79 ± 0.22a 0.36

[0369] Tetracosenoic acid (C24:1) 0.01 ± 0.02a 0.01 ± 0.02a 0.01 ± 0.02a 1

[0370] Crude fat content (%) in potato tubers* 0.27 ± 0.02a 0.28 ± 0.02a 0.30 ± 0.02a 0.37

[0371] * based on the freeze-dried material at hand

[0372] Example 4:

[0373] Fatty acid profile of Hermetia illucens extract.

[0374] The Hermetia / 7 / ucens extract obtained consisted, in addition to the expected fatty acids, of approximately half largely insoluble turbidity, mucilage, and particles, which were not part of the chemical analysis and therefore could not be defined. The fatty acids present in the Hermetia / / / ucens extract, which constituted approximately 50 wt% of the Hermetia / 7 / ucens extract, were, however, determined by gas chromatography, and the respective percentage of each individual fatty acid in relation to the total fatty acid content was calculated (Table 6).

[0375] Of the saturated fatty acids, dodecanoic acid (45 wt%), octadecadienoic acid (14 wt%), tetradecanoic acid (11 wt%) and

[0376] Hexadecanoic acid (9 wt%) comprised the largest proportion of the total fatty acid profile, at approximately 79 wt%. Among the unsaturated fatty acids, cis-delta-9-octadecenoic acid, at approximately 11 wt%, made up a relatively high proportion of the total fatty acid profile, whereas other unsaturated fatty acids each accounted for only 0 to 3 wt% of the total fatty acid profile.

[0377] Table 7. Fatty acid profile of the individual unsaturated and saturated fatty acids found in the Hermetia / 7 / t / cens extract and their percentage share relative to the total fatty acid content.

[0378] Fatty acid content (wt%)

[0379] Detected fatty acids

[0380] Total fatty acid content

[0381] Capric acid (C10:0) 0.57 ± 0.03

[0382] Dodecanoic acid (012:0) 45.26 ± 1.59

[0383] Tridecanoic acid (C13:0) 0.07 ± 0.02

[0384] Tetradecanoic acid (014:0) 10.53 ± 0.14 cis-9-Tetradecenoic acid (014:1) 0.26 ± 0.02

[0385] Pentadecanoic acid (C15:0) 0.09 ± 0.01

[0386] Hexadecanoic acid (016:0) 9.06 ± 0.28

[0387] Cis-delta-9-hexadecenoic acid (C16:1) 2.64 ± 0.10 n-Heptadecanoic acid (C17:0) 0.11 ± 0.01

[0388] Octadecanoic acid (C18:0) 1.79 ± 0.08

[0389] Cis-delta-9-octadecenoic acid (C18: 1 n9c) 11.44 ± 0.64

[0390] Octadecadienoic acid (C18:2n6c) 13.70 ± 0.84 all-cis-A9,12,15-octadecatrienoic acid (C18:3n3) 1 .28 ± 0.09

[0391] Eicosanoic acid (C20:0) 0.08 ± 0.01

[0392] Eicosenic acid (C20:1) 0.11 ± 0.02

[0393] Eicosadienoic acid (C20:2) 0.04 ± 0.01

[0394] Docosanoic acid (C22:0) 0.06 ± 0.01

[0395] Tetracosanoic acid (024:0) 0.10 ± 0.02

Claims

Claims 1. Bioherbicide composition, comprehensive (i) an extract from an insect of the genus Hermetia spp., and / or (ii) one or more fraction(s) of this extract.

2. Bioherbicide composition according to claim 1, wherein the insect is Hermetia illucens (black soldier fly).

3. Bioherbicide composition according to claim 1 or claim 2, wherein the extract is obtained from the larval, prepupal, pupal and / or adult stage of the insect.

4. Bioherbicide composition according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the extract was obtained by extraction with a polar or nonpolar organic solvent, maceration, mechanical extraction, supercritical fluid extraction, ultrasound-assisted Soxhlet extraction, extraction by ion exchange or Naviglio extraction.

5. Bioherbicide composition according to any one of claims 1 to 4, wherein the fraction(s) of an extract was / were obtained by chromatographic separation methods, extraction methods using organic solvents, precipitation, filtration, centrifugation, distillation, or crystallization.

6. Bioherbicide composition according to any one of claims 1 to 5, wherein the extract was obtained by extraction with a polar organic solvent.

7. Bioherbicide composition according to claim 6, wherein the polar organic solvent is selected from the group consisting of Methanol, ethanol, acetone, dimethyl sulfoxide, ethyl acetate, tetrahydrofuran, acetonitrile, dichloromethane and mixtures thereof.

8. Bioherbicide composition according to any one of claims 1 to 7, wherein the extract and / or one or more fraction(s) of the extract contains the fatty acids dodecanoic acid (C12:0), tetradecanoic acid (C14:0), hexadecanoic acid (C16:0), cis-delta-9-hexadecanoic acid (C16:1), cis-delta-9-octadecanoic acid (C18:1n9c), and octadecadienoic acid (C18:2n6c).

9. Bioherbicide composition according to any one of claims 1 to 8, wherein the extract and / or one or more fraction(s) of the extract contain the fatty acids (i) Capric acid (010:0), (ii) Dodecanoic acid (012:0), (iii) Tridecanoic acid (013:0), (iv) Tetradecanoic acid (014:0), (v) cis-9-tetradecanoic acid (01 :1 ), (vi) pentadecanoic acid (015:0), (vii) Hexadecanoic acid (016:0), (viii) cis-delta-9-hexadecanoic acid (016:1), (ix) n-heptadecanoic acid (017:0), (x) Octadecanoic acid (018:0), (xi) cis-delta-9-octadecanoic acid (C18:1 n9c), (xii) Octadecadienoic acid (C18:2n6c), (xiii) a I l-cis-delta-9, 12,15-octadecatrienoic acid (C18:3n3), (xiv) Eicosanoic acid (020:0), (xv) Eicosenoic acid (020:1 ), and (xvi) contains eicosadienoic acid (020:2).

10. Bioherbicide composition according to claim 9, wherein the extract and / or one or more fraction(s) of the extract contribute the respective fatty acids to a fatty acid fraction of (i) 0.43-0.71% by weight, (ii) 33-57% by weight, (iii) 0.05-0.09 wt.%, (iv) 7.9-13.2 wt.%, (v) 0.20-0.35 wt.%, (vi) 0.07-0.11 wt.% (vii) 6.8-11.4% by weight, (viii) 1.9-3.3% by weight, (ix) 0.08-0.14% by weight, (x) 1.34-2.24% by weight (xi) 8.5-14.3% by weight, (xii) 10.2-17.2% by weight (xiii) 0.9-1.6% by weight, (xiv) 0.06-0.10% by weight (xv) 0.08-0.14 wt%, and (xvi) 0.03-0.05 wt% of the total fatty acid content of the extract and / or of one or more fraction(s) of the extract.

11. Bioherbicide composition according to any one of claims 1 to 10, wherein one or more fraction(s) of the extract are one or more lipid fraction(s) of the extract.

12. Bioherbicide composition according to one of claims 1 to 11, further comprising one or more auxiliary and / or carrier substances.

13. Bioherbicide composition according to claim 12, wherein the one or more excipients and / or carriers comprise wetting agents, adhesion agents and / or penetration agents.

14. Bioherbicide composition according to any one of claims 1 to 13, wherein the bioherbicide composition contains the extract and / or the fraction(s) thereof in an amount of 5 to 150 mg / ml.

15. Use of an extract or of one or more fraction(s) of the extract, as defined in any one of claims 1 to 11, as a bioherbicide.

16. Method for controlling one or more weeds, comprising applying an effective amount of the bioherbicide composition according to any one of claims 1 to 14, or of an extract and / or one or more fraction(s) of the extract, as defined in any one of claims 1 to 11, applied to a plant or parts of a plant.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein the bioherbicide composition, or the extract and / or the fraction(s) of the extract, are used as a post-emergence herbicide.

18. Method according to claim 16 or claim 17, wherein the bioherbicide composition or the extract and / or the fraction(s) of the extract is applied as a high-volume hydraulic spray, as a low-volume hydraulic spray, as an ultra-low volume spray, by high-pressure liquid injection, by gap injection, as a blower air spray, as an air spray, or as dust.

19. The method of claim 18, wherein the bioherbicide composition or the extract and / or the fraction(s) of the extract is applied using mounted, trailed, trailed or self-propelled field sprayers, aircraft, drones or garden sprayers.

Images