USE OF ISOTIANIL FOR CONTROL OF ZEBRA CHIP DISEASE

Abstract

The present invention relates to the novel use of an isothiazolecarboxamide of the formula (I)

##STR00001##

(common name: Isotianil)
for controlling Candidatus Liberibacter spp and/or Candidatus Phytoplasma spp, preferably, Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum and/or Candidatus Phytoplasma americanum, more preferred Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum, in plants of the Solanaceae family, preferably in potatoes.

Claims

1. A product comprising a compound according to formula (I), ##STR00003## for controlling Candidatus Liberibacter spp and/or Candidatus Phytoplasma spp in one or more plants.

2. Product according to claim 1, wherein the plant is selected from the Solanaceae family.

3. Product according to claim 1, wherein the plant is potato (Solanum tuberosum).

4. Product according to claim 1, wherein the controlled pathogene is Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum and/or Candidatus Phytoplasma americanum.

5. Product according to claim 1, wherein the controlled pathogene is Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum.

6. A product comprising Isotinail as plant growth regulator for tuberous crop plants, optionally as plant growth regulator for potatoes.

7. Method of controlling Candidatus Liberibacter spp and/or Candidatus Phytoplasma spp in one or more plants of the Solanaceae family, optionally potatoes, wherein the plants of the Solanaceae family are treated with Isotinail.

8. Method according to claim 7, wherein the plants of the Solanaceae family are treated with Isotianil simultaneously and/or in addition to insecticide treatment.

9. Method according to claim 7, wherein during the growth phase 5 to 20, optionally 6 to 11 treatments take place.

10. Method according to claim 7, wherein the intervals between treatment are from 2 to 20 days, optionally from 3 to 15 days, and optionally from 4 to 14 days.

11. Method according to claim 7, wherein the application rate of Isotianil is from 50 g ai/ha to 250 g ai/ha, optionally from 75 g ai/ha to 225 g ai/ha, optionally from 100 g ai/ha to 200 g ai/ha, and optionally 200 g ai/ha.

12. Method according to claim 8, wherein the applied insecticide is selected from the group consisting of Imidacloprid, Spirotetramat, Spiromesifen and Spinetoram.

13. Method according to claim 7, wherein a first treatment is a soil application and all further treatments are foliar applications.

14. Potato chip produced from potatoes that were treated with a product of claim 1 which show less flake burning severity.

15. Method for producing potato chips comprising applying Isotianil upon seeding and after emergence in several treatments, optionally in combination with an insecticide, for controlling Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum and/or Candidatus Phytoplasma americanum, harvesting the potatoes, cleaning, processing and cutting the potatoes, and frying the potatoes.

Description

EXAMPLES

[0077] The seeding was made on June 10. The potato variety used was Caesar, third-category tubercles were used. A soil application was made to all the treatments when fluoxastrobin fungicides were applied; 2-litters dose or commercial product per hectare, and penfuflen 0.650 litters dose per hectare; in order to prevent Fusarium spp. and/or Rhizoctoniasolani fungus attack. The experimental design used was random blocks with four repetitions; the experimental parcel was formed by four furrows at a distance between furrows of 0.92 m, and 10 meters length. The useful parcel consisted in two central furrows of each experimental parcel. Distance between plants was 0.25 m.

[0078] The applied treatments consisted in an application on the bottom of the furrow when the seeding was taking place, and eleven foliar applications. The treatments that have been applied are shown in Table 1.

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Applied treatments to determine isotianil efficiency and selectivity in bacterial disease. Treatments Application Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 1.- Seeding 10/06/ Untreated Admire ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL Admire Admire 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* 2.- Foliar 02/07/ Untreated Movento ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL Movento Movento 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* 3.- Foliar 10/07/ Untreated Muralla ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL Muralla Muralla max 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* 4.- Foliar 14/07/ Untreated Movento ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL Movento Movento 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* 5.-Foliar 21/07/ Untreated Muralla ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL Muralla Muralla max 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* 6.- Foliar 31/07/ Untreated New ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL New New leverage 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* Leverage Leverage ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* 7.-Foliar 05/08/ Untreated Oberon ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL Oberon Oberon 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* 8.- Foliar 12/08/ Untreated Oberon ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL Oberon Oberon 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* 9.- Foliar 18/08/ Untreated Exalt ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL Exalt Exalt 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* 10.- Foliar 02/09/ Untreated Movento ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL Movento Movento 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* 11.- Foliar 08/09/ Untreated Muralla ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL Muralla Muralla max 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* 12.- Foliar 19/09/ Untreated New ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL New New leverage 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* Leverage Leverage ISOTIANIL ISOTIANIL 100 gia/ha* 200 gia/ha* *gia/ha = grams of active ingredient per hectare

[0079] Evaluations

[0080] Emergence:

[0081] Cultivation emergence was determined; for which the number of plants that emerged in each parcel central furrows was counted at 100% emergence. The data were collected on Jul. 2, 2014 (22 days after seeding).

[0082] Phytotoxicity percentage was determined.

[0083] Bactericera cockerelli, Population Dynamic:

[0084] Studies on adult psilides, nymphs and eggs were population dynamic were made. For which purpose a count was made before the first foliar application and subsequently after each treatment application. To know the number of adults 20 net traps (with entomologic net) per experimental parcel, in each evaluation. To determine the number of eggs and nymphs, 50 pinnas were evaluated per parcel in each evaluation.

[0085] Zebra Chip/Purple Top Dynamic:

[0086] Dynamic on zebra chip/purple top symptoms appearance was registered for each application date, for which incidence and severity was determined.

[0087] The tubercle staining damage was registered, for which 5 tubercles for each category were selected. (In some repetitions, the number of the first and second categories of tubercles was less than five, for which reason those obtained were evaluated) for each parcel. A cross cut was made to the center of each tubercle to determine the staining level. Incidence and severity were determined for which the scale described by Flores-Olivas 2013, was taken as basis. The burning damage or zebra chip in fried slices was also analyzed, similarly to the methodology used for tubercles.

[0088] Production:

[0089] In harvest, each treatment production was analyzed, for which two lineal meters were harvested of each experimental parcel central furrows, registering the potato tubercles production for each of the four categories (first, second, third and combined).

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Treatment germination percentage. Emergence Treatment Percentage (%) 1 70.3 2 64.3 3 61.2 4 71.8 5 65.3 6 67.8

[0090] Population Dynamic on Bactericera cockerelli (Sulc).

[0091] Adults: From August 5 (55 days after seeding), B. cockerelli adults were captured basically in the witness treatment parcels, with an average of 7.5 adults per parcel (Table 3). In the evaluation dated August 12, a greatest amount of adults in all the parcels was observed, notwithstanding, in the witness treatment the amount of captured adults was greater than in the rest of the treatments. The population dynamic was decreasing on subsequent dates until achieving practically zero on September 08, and increase on the last evaluated dated which was September 19, with a drastic increase in adult population. As observed in Table 3 and Graphic 2, the number of captured adults was greater in the witness and lower in those treatments with insecticides (2, 5 and 6). These results indicate us the necessity of implement an insecticide application program based on an efficient monitoring of the insect in view that those treatments where insecticides were not applied including those where isotianil was applied, the adult insect presence was greater

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Four-repetitions average of registered adults for each sampling date, for each treatment. average of registered adults Treat. 5 - Aug. 12-Aug. 18-Aug. 02-Sep. 08-sep. 19-Sep. T1 7.5 5.75 4.5 2.75 0 11.25 T2 0 1.25 2 1 0 5 T3 1 1.25 3.75 1.75 0.5 4.75 T4 0.75 2 1 0.25 0 2.75 T5 0 0.75 2 0 0 2.5 T6 0 1 1.5 0 0 3

[0092] Nymphs: Regarding the presence of B. cockerelli immature stages, the greatest amount of nymphs was detected on September 02 (Table 4), which can coincide with the adult population top on August 18, and in turn generated the greatest adult population observed on September 19. Once again, it can be observed that in the treatments with insecticides, the number of nymphs was lower than in the witness treatment.

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Average of four repetitions of registered nymphs for each sampling date, for each treatment. Average of registered B.cokerelli nymphs Treat. 5 - Aug. 12-Aug. 18-Aug. 02-Sep. 08-sep. 19-Sep. T1 0 5.25 2.5 20 8.5 0 T2 0 0 0 1.5 8 0 T3 0 0 0 4.5 3 0 T4 0 2.25 0.25 13.75 0 0 T5 0 0 0 2.25 6.75 0 T6 0 0 0 0 0 0

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Average of four repetitions of registered eggs for each sampling date, for each treatment. B. Cokerelli eggs population average Treat. 5 - August 12-August 18-August 02-Sep. 08-sep. 19-Sep. T1 0 9 0 4 1.25 0 T2 0 3 0 0 3.25 0 T3 0 1.5 0 0 1.25 0 T4 0 4.5 0 0 0.75 0 T5 0 0 0 0 0 0 T6 0 0 0 2 0 0

[0093] As can be seen, the combined treatments of Insecticide and Isotianil provided the most effective protection.

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 7 Zebra chip/purple top incidence control percentage for each sampling date. Control Treat. percentage 1 0 2 66.3 3 14.35 4 62.65 5 73.63 6 92.91

[0094] Production.Potato production data are shown in Table 8. Rreatment 6 was superior to the rest of the treatments, followed by treatments 2 and 5.

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 8 Potato treatment production mean. Total production in Kilograms per parcel Treat. Average 1 18.475 2 36.2 3 17.975 4 21.3 5 31.675 6 43.3

[0095] The commercial quality analysis of harvested tubercles for each treatment shows again that treatment 6 generated the best yield in first and second quality categories, in comparison with the rest of the treatments.

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 10 Production mean per treatment in each of the four potato quality categories. Production in Kilograms per treatment categories Treat. First Second Third Combined 1 0 0 21.9 52.1 2 18.3 27.95 53.3 45.3 3 0 7.8 24.3 39.8 4 4 7.8 35.7 37.7 5 22.8 20.1 35.2 48.6 6 56.8 38.4 50.0 28

[0096] Zebra Chip or Tubercle Staining.

TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 11 Statistical analysis of tubercle staining incidence and severity, and percentage of the incidence and severity control on zebra chip/purple top. Incidence Severity Control Control Treat. Percentage Percentage 1 0 0 2 47.99 48.36 3 35.01 43.13 4 63.35 74.50 5 88.26 86.92 6 64.16 55.88

[0097] Flake Burning Severity

TABLE-US-00010 Incidence control Treat. percentage 1 0 2 31.7 3 31.3 4 54 5 74 6 72.1

[0098] As can be seen, treatments 5 and 6 provided the best results with regard to flake burning severity, i.e. blackening of the chips upon frying is significantly reduced.