Composition and Methods for Managing and Controlling Lepidopteran Insects

Abstract

Compositions and methods of using the compositions for controlling a noctuid population, wherein the compositions contain at least one noctuid attractant. The compositions may further include a feeding stimulant and/or a pesticide.

Claims

1. A method of controlling a noctuid population in a region, the method comprising administering a composition comprising at least one attractant to a noctuid to the region.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the attractant is a semiochemical.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the semiochemical is a pheromone.

4. The method of claim 2, wherein the semiochemical is an oleoresin.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein the composition further comprises at least one feeding stimulant.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the at least one feeding stimulant is a sugar.

7. The method of claim 1, further comprising at least one pesticide.

8. The method of claim 7, wherein the at least one pesticide is present in the composition in a range of approximately 0.1% to approximately 2%.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein the at least one pesticide is present in the composition in an amount of about 2%.

10. The method of claim 1, wherein the composition is rainfast and retains its efficacy for at least 24 hours.

11. The method of claim 1, wherein the composition retains its efficacy for at least 3 weeks.

12. The method of claim 1, wherein the composition is administered to the region at a volume range of approximately 0.5 L/ha to approximately 1.0 L/ha.

13. The method of claim 1, wherein the composition is administered to the region in a skipped row pattern.

14. The method of claim 7, wherein the at least one pesticide is methomyl.

15. The method of claim 7, wherein the at least one pesticide is emamectin benzoate.

16. The method of claim 7, wherein the at least one pesticide is spinetoram.

17. A composition for controlling a noctuid population comprising at least one noctuid attractant.

18. The composition of claim 17, wherein the at least one noctuid attractant is an oleoresin.

19. The composition of claim 17, further comprising at least one feeding stimulant.

20. The composition of claim 17, further comprising at least one pesticide.

Description

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0028] The detailed description set forth below is intended as a description of the presently preferred embodiment of the invention, and is not intended to represent the only form in which the present invention may be constructed or utilized. The description sets forth the functions and sequences of steps for constructing and operating the invention. It is to be understood, however, that the same or equivalent functions and sequences may be accomplished by different embodiments and that they are also intended to be encompassed within the scope of the invention.

[0029] One aspect of the present disclosure is a semiochemical-based, long-lasting A&K formulation for adult noctuids of multiple pest species. The formulations of the present disclosure are capable of large-scale application to multiple varieties of row crops susceptible to attack by noctuid pests. In particular, the semiochemical blend may contain floral attractants and feeding stimulants that draw noctuid moths across distances to the point sources and encourage them to contact and feed on the material, ensuring an intense exposure to the insecticidal agent also present in the formulation. This technology is amenable to the inclusion of a wide variety of control agents, safeguarding the efficacy of the formulation from the development of resistance to any one chemical and, at the same time, providing increased crop protection while drastically reducing the volume of insecticides needed to control the pests. These formulations may also be designed to remain affixed to its substrate regardless of adverse weather conditions and to maintain its efficacy for at least 3-4 weeks.

[0030] One aspect of the present disclosure is a novel tool for the control of noctuid moths: a semiochemical-based A&K product for noctuids of multiple pest species, including all those listed above. This formulation utilizes a potent blend of floral attractants and feeding stimulants designed to mimic the nectars from which these insects obtain nourishment as adults. Combined with an insecticide of choice and sprayed among the crops at low volume 0.5-1.0 L/ha), an application of this novel tool will use only 1-2% of the pesticide AI that would be required for a traditional cover spray. When applied in a skipped row pattern of application, the majority of the crop will remain pesticide-free, preserving beneficial insect populations. The incorporated attractants will draw noctuids to the formulation across distances (10s to 100s of m) to feed upon it to full engorgement, ensuring a megadose intake of the incorporated killing agent and making it highly unlikely that the pest population will have the opportunity to develop resistance to it.

[0031] The product's amenability to the inclusion of multiple pesticide classes serves as an additional safeguard against resistance, as it avoids becoming locked into dependency on any one chemical pesticide. This A&K product will target as broad a range of noctuid pests as Bt crops and other previously used pesticides, without the high costs of development of the former or the health and environmental hazards of the latter. The product will also be a far more economically viable solution than previous semiochemical-based strategies, most of which are species specifictherefore cost-prohibitive where multiple noctuid species are presentand require manual application. Unlike previous sprayable A&K products, this product will remain effective for 3-4 weeks regardless of weather conditions. This technology will revolutionize noctuid pest control, by demonstrating the efficacy and feasibility of semiochemical-based techniques for the protection of large acreage row crops, where they have long been considered too costly and cumbersome a strategy to be viable.

[0032] A liquid composition is disclosed which when mixed with certain insecticides induces insect, more specifically lepidoptera, to respond by attraction, manipulation and phagostimulation of the formulation which causes the insects to have reduced reproductive viability, including death. The composition retains its effect and activity after field application to susceptible founa under normal ambient conditions, maintaining attraction and insecticidal effect for a period of at least twenty-four hours by combining the adjuvant with a specific insecticide. The combination of the adjuvant and the insecticide composition upon application to the field, or vegetation, has the unexpected property of retaining its attraction, phagostimulation and toxic activity throughout the maximum residence time necessary for effective pest control by virtue of the fact that the composition resists being washed by humidity, protecting both insecticide and attractants and phagostimulants, while still allowing insects to feed on, and manipulate, the resulting treatment.

[0033] Initial work on products of the present disclosure consisted of a blend of oleoresins designed to mimic the attractive volatiles used by adult noctuids to identify sugar-rich sources of floral nectar. This blend also contains a number of sugar-based and proteic phagostimulants (feeding stimulants) to encourage the target insects to feed on the formulation to full engorgement. When a pesticide is added to this product, these components encourage megadose intake of the incorporated killing agent. This minimizes the risk of sub-lethal exposure, a contributing factor to the development of resistance. To further reduce the risk of resistance, the product may be designed as a tank mix to be blended with a small dose of the user's pesticide of choice just prior to application. This characteristic makes the product an extremely adaptable pest management solution and lends itself well to pesticide rotation programs. The product was originally tested in cotton and soybean fields in South America, where noctuid pests pose a significant economic threat to multiple crops. When blended with a 2% solution of the carbamate insecticide, methomyl, and applied to cotton crops in a skipped row pattern (applied over one 20-100 cm-wide strip, every 100 m), Noctovi succeeded in attracting and killing large numbers of four noctuid groups, Hehcoverpa, Heliothis, Plusias, and in lower numbers, Spodoptera spp.significantly larger than in plots treated with a sugar solution of 2% methomyl. A later trial compared the same formulation, the product described herein with 2% methomyl, to a grower's standard application rate and method for methomyl alone, cover sprayed over the entire crop in Brazilian cotton fields, with similar results: In plots treated by the product of the present disclosure, an average of 16.2 dead moths/linear m, a mean total of 145.9 dead moths, were found per sampling site the day after the application, decreasing to 2.8 dead moths/linear m, a mean total of 25.25 dead moths, 5 days post-application. In contrast, no or very few dead moths were recovered from sites where methomyl was sprayed over the entire crop for 5 days after the application.

[0034] While this trial provided encouraging evidence of the product's efficacy, its persistence in the field was brief, lasting only about a week and less if exposed to heavy rain. A number of adjustments to the formulation to improve its persistence under rain, was made resulting in a rainfast prototype formulation. This prototype was tested against fall armyworm in combination with a mating disruption product for this species, SPLAT FAW, in a series of field trials in non-Bt corn and cotton crops in Brazil. The product of the present disclosure blended with 2% methomyl was applied alone or with varying application rates of SPLAT FAW (0.5, 1.0, or 1.5 kg/ha) to 50-ha plots treated with growers' standard pesticide regime. Treatment with the product of the present disclosure suppressed adult FAW populations in both field trials in corn, while in the cotton trial, male trap captures remained at or near zero for most of the trial. The results of infestation and damage assessments were less consistent, but in several cases, the product of the present disclosure suppressed crop damage, as well as increasing yield. In non-Bt maize, crop yield was increased by 250 kg/ha compared to plots treated with standard control alone in the Jiacara field trial, and by 2,200 kg/ha (with additional SPLAT FAW treatment) in Campo Verde. In the cotton trial, conducted in Campo Verde, despite cotton flowers suffering higher infestation rates across all treatments compared to the growers' standard, damage to green cotton bolls was reduced with the product of the present disclosure and SPLAT FAW treatments than in the control plots. Cotton yield was 17.4% and 4.9% higher in the two iterations of the Campo Verde trial. Despite these positive results, this formulation displayed some physical instability that interfered with the application process. A third prototype formulation was therefore developed, seeking to maintain greater persistence under rainfall but with a more consistent and stable formulation. This third prototype, was subjected to two simulated rain trials along with the original formulation and the second formulation. A series of 0.1-g point sources of each formulation were applied to glass slides and subjected to 20-mm increments of simulated rain (180 mm total). The third formulation outperformed both the first and second, maintaining an average persistence of 95-100% after exposure to 180 mm simulated rain when allowed to dry for 24 hr before the experiment, while the first and second formulation averaged <24% and <50%, respectively. When drying time was shortened to 4 hr, the third formulation persistence averaged 75-94%. This formulation was also more stable than the second, but still experienced some phase separation that had to be corrected by agitating the formulation.

[0035] Because the product disclosed herein contains attractants designed to mimic floral odors, preliminary semi-field studies were conducted in Brazil to identify any impacts of the formulation on bees. Ten colonies of Africanized honeybees were presented with two formulations with or without the addition of a proprietary bee repellent, in the presence or absence of honey, a potent natural attractant for the species, presented on foraging stations 30 m from the apiary (1.5 m apart) in a variety of configurations. The number of bees attracted to the formulations were observed and recorded every 10 minutes (290 min total). When the formulations were presented alone (in three 5-mL parallel strips) without honey in a no-choice test, three out of four formulations attracted 0 bees for the entire experiment, while the remaining formulation attracted only a single bee (average of 0.03/observation period). In contrast, a plate of pure honey, presented in the same way, attracted a total of 804 bees (27.72 bees/period). A larger quantity of the formulation presented, 100 mL, applied to boost any attractive effect, had no impact on these results: The highest average per observation period for any treatment was 0.25 bees per replicate, 0.45% of the average attracted to honey: 55.3 bees. Only 1 bee was found on the water control, an average of 0.01 bees per replicate.

[0036] In a third experiment, two plates were placed on each foraging station, balanced on opposite ends of a 90-cm wooden board, one designated as Treatment and the other as Control. The formulations of the present disclosure were applied in 5-mL strips on the Treatment plate, while 5-mL strips of honey were applied on the Control plate. When bees were presented with this choice between the formulation of the present disclosure and honey, they overwhelmingly chose the latter. The total number of bees found attempting to forage on the formulations of the present disclosure varied from 0 to 3 individuals (ave. 0-0.06/station), vs. 1604-1681 bees on honey (ave. 33.42-35.02/station). In the control treatment, consisting of two presentations of honey on opposite ends of the board, a roughly equal number of bees were attracted to each plate, 1681 vs. 1612 bees. Finally, two additional semi-field experiments assessed any potential repellency the formulations of the present disclosure might exert against bees. A treatment plate presenting honey surrounded by the test formulation of the present disclosure was placed at one end of a 90-cm board (Treatment), while a second plate containing honey surrounded by water (Control) was placed at the opposite end. Formulations and honey were applied in 5-mL strips (honey in the center, flanked by strips of formulation of the present disclosure on the Treatment plates and strips of water on the Control) in Experiment 4, and as small circular dollops (honey in the center, surrounded by a ring of 24 formulation droplets, or 24 water droplets in the Control) in Experiment 5. In both setups, the formulation of the present disclosure applied on the same surface as honey reduced bee foraging on the natural attractant. These collective results demonstrate that not only does the formulation of the present disclosure display little to no attraction to honeybees, there is some indication that this floral matrix is actually repellent to them.

[0037] One particularly promising alternative embodiment, which has proven an effective delivery mechanism for multiple classes of insect attractants, is the utilization of the biologically inert controlled-release matrix, SPLAT (Specialized Pheromone and Lure Application Technology) described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,887,828, the entirety of which is incorporated by reference herein. This matrix is comprised entirely of food-safe, organic inert ingredients, adheres quickly and effectively to a wide variety of substrates including plant bark and foliage, and has demonstrated a consistent ability to release a broad range of attractants, repellents, phagostimulants, and other behavior modifying chemicals (also known as semiochemicals) at biologically active release rates, enabling season-long control for many insect pests.

[0038] This disclosure provides one of the first demonstrations of the feasibility of a semiochemical-based technology for pest control in row crops. By overcoming a long-held belief that these approaches are not viable for any but high-value crops, the success of this project gives these safe, sustainable technologies a new advantage in a sector of agriculture now dominated by conventional pesticides. Because the formulations of the present disclosure require only 1-2% of the pesticide used in cover sprays, its use among row crops will reduce crop contamination and risks to farm workers, consumers, and the environment. Finally, because it functions with different toxicants and includes a mechanism of megadose intake, it provides a helpful tool to combat resistancea phenomenon that left unaddressed could pose a significant threat to long-term food and crop stability.

[0039] The formulations of the present disclosure may be applied at a rate of 0.5 L/ha, compared to 2.5 L/ha for ultralow volume pesticides, and up to 200 L/ha for conventional pesticides requiring water dilution. A large AirCat spray airplane with a holding tank of 2,000 L would be able to apply the formulations of the present disclosure to 4,000 ha in a single flight, compared to only 800 ha of ULV pesticide or 10 ha of conventional pesticide. Because the formulation of the present disclosure attracts the pest moths to a killing agent, it does not need to be applied over the entire treated area. If applied in a skipped row pattern, (one strip/100 linear m in every treated ha), an entire ha could be treated with a single pass. One pass by a large spraying tractor or airplane covers at most a width of 25 m (at least four passes of spray to cover 1 ha). This makes the application of the formulation described herein four times faster than a conventional spray at th of the cost. When considering the efficiencies achieved due to extreme low volume, single pass application, the formulation of the present disclosure is 14 times less expensive to apply than even the most efficient ULV pesticides. When applying conventional pesticides, the goal is to maximize the amount of chemical that reaches the area to be treated and minimize the amount reaching other areas. However, to penetrate the crop canopy, an excess of pesticide is usually used, dispersed as a fine mist that is susceptible to spray drift (movement of pesticide dust or droplets through the air to sites beyond target area). Spray drift may harm human health, companion animals or livestock, the environment, nearby crops or land on other property. There is little to no drift with the formulation of the present disclosure, as it contains only 1-2% pesticide and is deposited on the surface of the crop as large dollops of 0.1-1 mL, unsusceptible to crosswind drift. The formulation of the present disclosure will therefore provide a method of control for noctuid row crop pests that is effective, practical, and sustainable.

[0040] The composition of the present disclosure is a chemical formulation of attractants and insecticide consisting of a potent blend of floral attractants and feeding stimulants along with a small quantity of a reduced-risk insecticide.

[0041] This composition is a novel alternative method of insect control. The novelty comes from the functional technical features of the composition and how they work together. The novel composition provides both an efficacious and environmentally friendly control technology for noctuid moth pests of agriculture. The composition is rainfast, retaining its effect and activity after application maintaining attraction and insecticidal effect for (at least 24 hours).

[0042] The composition is a field-worthy attract-and-kill (A&K) formulation that provides effective, long-lasting control of noctuid pests with added technical, economic, and social benefits. The claims and benefits include: increased efficacy in comparison to conventional insecticide application at labeled rate; increased mortality rate of the pest due to topical contact and ingestion by the pest; rain fastnesslongevity of insecticidal activity in comparison to conventional insecticide application at labeled rate; reduced insecticide used, about 2% of conventional application at labeled rate; reduction of potential health effects due to reduction in insecticide; reduction of environmental toxicity due to reduction in insecticide; reduction in water used; reduction in application time and fuel/energy use; reduction in grower cost; reduction in beneficial and non-target insect impact; reduction in insect resistance potential (point source of lethal dose & ability to rotate with different insecticides with different modes of action); and reduction of insecticide drift potential (formulation holding reduced insecticide from rapid volatilization).

[0043] Because an application of this composition will require only a tiny fraction of the pesticide used in a conventional cover spray, this product will reduce reliance on these chemicals, which are associated with a broad range of health and environmental risks. Adoption of semiochemical products such as this composition will make pest control actions more sustainable, reducing spray drift and agricultural run-off. This composition will also decrease post-harvest processing costs of ensuring crops are within insecticide tolerance limits.

[0044] Row crops susceptible to attack by these pests include some of the most critical food staples within the US and around the globe, such as corn, wheat, and soybean. Noctuids have proven difficult to control using conventional pesticides because of their high reproductive and migratory capacity and their ability to develop resistance to insecticides.

[0045] The compositions of the present disclosure may comprise a blend of oleoresins and sugars which attract the moths and encourage them to feed, with an insecticide to serve as an attract and kill formulation. In particular, the pesticide may be present in the formulation in a range from approximately 0.1% to approximately 2%. While many pesticides may be used, depending on the preference, and even multiple pesticides at once, examples of pesticides that may be used with the present formulations include, but are not limited to, methomyl, emamectin benzoate, and spinetoram.

[0046] The above description is given by way of example, and not limitation. Given the above disclosure, one skilled in the art could devise variations that are within the scope and spirit of the invention disclosed herein, including various ways of dispersing the compositions. Further, the various features of the embodiments disclosed herein can be used alone, or in varying combinations with each other and are not intended to be limited to the specific combination described herein. Thus, the scope of the claims is not to be limited by the illustrated embodiments.