U.S. patent application number 15/016083 was filed with the patent office on 2016-06-02 for synergistic pesticidal compositions and related methods.
The applicant listed for this patent is Dow AgroSciences LLC. Invention is credited to Luis E. Gomez, John Herbert, Ricky Hunter, Mary E. Kubiszak, Mike Shaw, Tony K. Trullinger.
Application Number | 20160150784 15/016083 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 52826663 |
Filed Date | 2016-06-02 |
United States Patent
Application |
20160150784 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Gomez; Luis E. ; et
al. |
June 2, 2016 |
SYNERGISTIC PESTICIDAL COMPOSITIONS AND RELATED METHODS
Abstract
A pesticidal composition comprises a synergistically effective
amount of a ryanodine receptor modulator compound and a pesticide
selected from
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)thio)propanamide (I),
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)sulfinyl)propanamide (II), or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof. A method of controlling pests comprises applying the
pesticidal composition near a population of pests. A method of
protecting a plant from infestation and attack by insects comprises
contacting the plant with the synergistic pesticidal composition.
##STR00001##
Inventors: |
Gomez; Luis E.; (Carmel,
IN) ; Hunter; Ricky; (Westfield, IN) ; Shaw;
Mike; (Carmel, IN) ; Trullinger; Tony K.;
(Westfield, IN) ; Kubiszak; Mary E.; (Thorntown,
IN) ; Herbert; John; (Fishers, IN) |
|
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
Dow AgroSciences LLC |
Indianapolis |
IN |
US |
|
|
Family ID: |
52826663 |
Appl. No.: |
15/016083 |
Filed: |
February 4, 2016 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
14516855 |
Oct 17, 2014 |
9282740 |
|
|
15016083 |
|
|
|
|
61894016 |
Oct 22, 2013 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
504/103 ; 424/84;
504/116.1; 514/341 |
Current CPC
Class: |
A01N 43/56 20130101;
A01N 41/10 20130101; A01N 43/56 20130101; A01N 43/56 20130101; A01N
41/02 20130101 |
International
Class: |
A01N 43/56 20060101
A01N043/56; A01N 41/02 20060101 A01N041/02 |
Claims
1. A pesticidal composition comprising a synergistically effective
amount of: a ryanodine receptor modulator compound; and a pesticide
selected from
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trif-
luoropropyl)thio)propanamide (I),
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)sulfinyl)propanamide (II), or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof. ##STR00006##
2. The composition of claim 1, further comprising a
phytologically-acceptable inert carrier.
3. The composition of claim 1, further comprising an additive
selected from a surfactant, a stabilizer, an emetic agent, a
disintegrating agent, an antifoaming agent, a wetting agent, a
dispersing agent, a binding agent, dye, filler, and combinations
thereof.
4. The composition of claim 1, further comprising one or more
compounds having acaricidal, algicidal, avicidal, bactericidal,
fungicidal, herbicidal, insecticidal, molluscicidal, nematicidal,
rodenticidal, virucidal or combinations thereof properties.
5. The composition of claim 1, further comprising one or more
compounds that are antifeedants, bird repellents, chemosterilants,
herbicide safeners, insect attractants, insect repellents, mammal
repellents, mating disrupters, plant activators, plant growth
regulators, synergists, or combinations thereof.
6. The composition of claim 1, wherein a weight ratio of the
pesticide selected from (I), (II) or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound is no
more than about 256:1.
7. The composition of claim 1, wherein a weight ratio of the
pesticide selected from (I), (II) or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound is no
more than about 72:1.
8. The composition of claim 1, wherein a weight ratio of the
pesticide selected from (I), (II) or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound is no
more than about 32:1.
9. The composition of claim 1, wherein a weight ratio of the
pesticide selected from (I), (II) or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound is no
more than about 16:1.
10. The composition of claim 1, wherein a weight ratio of the
pesticide selected from (I), (II) or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound is no
more than about 8:1.
11. The composition of claim 1, wherein a weight ratio of the
pesticide selected from (I), (II) or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound is no
more than about 6:1.
12. The composition of claim 1, wherein a weight ratio of the
pesticide selected from (I), (II) or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound is no
more than about 4:1.
13. The composition of claim 1, wherein a weight ratio of the
pesticide selected from (I), (II) or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound is no
more than about 2:1.
14. The composition of claim 1, wherein the weight ratio of the
pesticide (I), (II), or any agriculturally acceptable salt thereof
and the ryanodine receptor modulator is X:Y; wherein, X is the
parts by weight of the pesticide (I), (II), or any agriculturally
acceptable salt thereof, and the numerical range is
0<X.ltoreq.20; Y is the parts by weight of the ryanodine
receptor modulator, and the numerical range is
0<Y.ltoreq.20.
15. A method of controlling pests comprising applying the
pesticidal composition of claim 1, near a population of pests, in
an amount sufficient to control the pests.
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the pests are brown stink bug
(Euschistus heros), diamond back moth (Plutella xylostella), or a
combination thereof.
17. The method of claim 15, wherein the pests include a member
selected from Order Lepidoptera , Coleoptera, Diptera, Isoptera
species, and combinations thereof.
18. The method of claim 15, wherein the ryanodine receptor
modulator compound comprises chlorantraniliprole, cyantraniliprole,
or a mixture thereof.
19. The method of claim 15, wherein the ryanodine receptor
modulator compound comprises chlorantraniliprole, cyantraniliprole,
cyclaniliprole, flubendiamide, or mixtures thereof.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION
[0001] This application is a continuation of U.S. patent
application Ser. No. 14/516,855 filed on Oct. 17, 2014, which
claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No.
61/894,016, filed Oct. 22, 2013, the disclosures of each are hereby
incorporated herein in their entirety by this reference.
TECHNICAL FIELD
[0002] This disclosure relates to the field of compounds having
pesticidal utility against pests in Phyla Nematoda, Arthropoda,
and/or Mollusca, processes to produce such compounds and
intermediates used in such processes. These compounds may be used,
for example, as nematicides, acaricides, miticides, and/or
molluscicides.
BACKGROUND
[0003] Controlling pest populations is essential to human health,
modern agriculture, food storage, and hygiene. There are more than
ten thousand species of pests that cause losses in agriculture and
the worldwide agricultural losses amount to billions of U.S.
dollars each year. Accordingly, there exists a continuous need for
new pesticides and for methods of producing and using such
pesticides.
[0004] The Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC) has
classified insecticides into categories based on the best available
evidence of the mode of action of such insecticides. Insecticides
in the IRAC Mode of Action Group 28 are ryanodine receptor
modulators, which target the nerve and muscles of the affected
insects. The insecticides in this class are believed to activate
muscle ryanodine receptors, leading to contraction and paralysis of
the affected insects. Examples of insecticides in this class are
diamides, such as chlorantraniliprole, cyantraniliprole,
cyclaniliprole, and flubendiamide.
[0005] Chlorantraniliprole
(3-bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chlor-
o-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide) is an anthranilic diamine
insecticide. It has been reported as an insecticide to control a
broad range of pests belonging to the Order Lepidoptera and some
Coleoptera, Diptera and Isoptera species.
[0006] Cyantraniliprole
(3-bromo-N-[4-chloro-2-methyl-6-[(methylamino)carbonyl]phenyl]-1-(3-chlor-
o-2-pyridinyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxamide) is an anthranilic diamine
insecticide. It is believed to have an insecticidal activity on a
broad range of Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Diptera, and Isoptera
insects.
[0007] Although the rotational application of pesticides having
different modes of action may be adopted for good pest management
practice, this approach does not necessarily give satisfactory pest
control. Furthermore, even though combinations of pesticides have
been studied, a high synergistic action has not always been
found.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0008] As used herein, the term "synergistic effect" or grammatical
variations thereof means and includes a cooperative action
encountered in a combination of two or more active compounds in
which the combined activity of the two or more active compounds
exceeds the sum of the activity of each active compound alone.
[0009] The term "synergistically effective amount," as used herein,
means and includes an amount of two or more active compounds that
provide a synergistic effect defined above.
[0010] The term "pesticidally effective amount," as used herein,
means and includes an amount of active pesticide that causes an
adverse effect to the at least one pest, wherein the adverse effect
may include deviations from natural development, killing,
regulation, or the like.
[0011] As used herein, the term "control" or grammatical variations
thereof means and includes regulating the number of living pests or
regulating the number of viable eggs of the pests or both.
[0012] The term "ryanodine receptor modulator compound," as used
herein, means and includes any insecticides that are classified by
the Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC), based on the
best available evidence of the mode of action, to be within the
IRAC Mode of Action Group 28.
[0013] In one particular embodiment, a pesticidal composition
comprises a synergistically effective amount of a ryanodine
receptor modulator compound in combination with a pesticide
selected from
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)thio)propanamide (I),
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)sulfinyl)propanamide (II), or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof.
##STR00002##
[0014] It is appreciated that a pesticide selected from
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)thio)propanamide (I),
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)sulfinyl)propanamide (II), or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof may be oxidized to the corresponding sulfone in the
presence of oxygen.
[0015] As shown in the examples, the existence of synergistic
effect is determined using the method described in Colby S. R.,
"Calculating Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide
Combinations," Weeds, 1967, 15, 20-22.
[0016] Surprisingly, it has been found that the pesticidal
composition of the present disclosure has superior pest control at
lower levels of the combined concentrations of the ryanodine
receptor modulator compound and the pesticide (I), (II), or any
agriculturally acceptable salt thereof employed than that which may
be achieved when the ryanodine receptor modulator compound and the
pesticide (I), (II), or any agriculturally acceptable salt thereof
are applied alone. In other words, the synergistic pesticidal
composition is not a mere admixture of two active compounds
resulting in the aggregation of the properties of the active
compounds employed in the composition.
[0017] In some embodiments, the pesticidal compositions may
comprise a synergistically effective amount of a pesticide selected
from (I), (II), or any agriculturally acceptable salt thereof in
combination with cyantraniliprole. In other embodiments, the
pesticidal compositions may comprise a synergistically effective
amount of a pesticide selected from (I), (II), or any
agriculturally acceptable salt thereof in combination with
chlorantraniliprole.
TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1A Range of the Weight Ratio of No. Pesticide
I or II to Ryanodine Receptor Modulator Compound 1 20:1 to 1:20 2
15:1 to 1:15 3 10:1 to 1:10 4 5:1 to 1:5 5 4:1 to 1:4 6 3:1 to 1:3
7 2:1 to 1:2 8 1:1
[0018] Table 1A shows weight ratios of the pesticide (I), (II), or
any agriculturally acceptable salt thereof to the ryanodine
receptor modulator in the synergistic pesticidal compositions. In
some embodiments, the weight ratio of the pesticide to the
ryanodine receptor modulator compound may be between about 20:1 and
about 1:20. In some embodiments, the weight ratio of the pesticide
to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound may be between about
15:1 and about 1:15. In some embodiments, the weight ratio of the
pesticide to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound may be
between about 10:1 and about 1:10. In some embodiments, the weight
ratio of the pesticide to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound
may be between about 5:1 and about 1:5. In some embodiments, the
weight ratio of the pesticide to the ryanodine receptor modulator
compound may be between about 4:1 and about 1:4. In some
embodiments, the weight ratio of the pesticide to the ryanodine
receptor modulator compound may be between about 3:1 and about 1:3.
In some embodiments, the weight ratio of the pesticide to the
ryanodine receptor modulator compound may be between about 2:1 and
about 1:2. In some embodiments, the weight ratio of the pesticide
to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound may be about 1:1.
Additionally, the weight ratio limits of the pesticide to ryanodine
receptor modulator compound in the aforementioned embodiments may
be interchangeable. By way of non-limiting example, the weight
ratio of the pesticide to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound
may be between about 1:3 and about 20:1.
[0019] Weight ratios of the pesticide (I), (II), or any
agriculturally acceptable salt thereof to the ryanodine receptor
modulator envisioned to be synergistic pesticidal compositions may
be depicted as X:Y; wherein X is the parts by weight of the
pesticide (I), (II), or any agriculturally acceptable salt thereof,
and Y is the parts by weight of the ryanodine receptor modulator.
The numerical range of the parts by weight for X is
0<X.ltoreq.20 and the parts by weight for Y is 0<Y.ltoreq.20
as shown graphically in TABLE 1B. By way of non-limiting example,
the weight ratio of the pesticide to the ryanodine receptor
modulator compound may be about 20:1.
TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 1B Ryanodine 20 X, Y X, Y Receptor 15 X, Y X,
Y X, Y Modulator 10 X, Y X, Y (Y) Parts 5 X, Y X, Y X, Y X, Y by
weight 4 X, Y X, Y X, Y X, Y 3 X, Y X, Y X, Y X, Y X, Y X, Y 2 X, Y
X, Y X, Y X, Y 1 X, Y X, Y X, Y X, Y X, Y X, Y X, Y X, Y 1 2 3 4 5
10 15 20 Pesticide (I or II) (X) Parts by weight
[0020] Ranges of weight ratios of the pesticide (I), (II), or any
agriculturally acceptable salt thereof to the ryanodine receptor
modulator envisioned to be synergistic pesticidal compositions may
be depicted as X.sub.1:Y.sub.1 to X.sub.2:Y.sub.2, wherein X and Y
are defined as above. In one particular embodiment, the range of
weight ratios may be X.sub.1:Y.sub.1 to X.sub.2:Y.sub.2, wherein
X.sub.1>Y.sub.1 and X.sub.2<Y.sub.2. By way of non-limiting
example, the range of weight ratios of the pesticide to the
ryanodine receptor modulator compound may be between about 3:1 and
about 1:3. In some embodiments, the range of weight ratios may be
X.sub.1:Y.sub.1 to X.sub.2:Y.sub.2, wherein X.sub.1>Y.sub.1 and
X.sub.2>Y.sub.2. By way of non-limiting example, the range of
weight ratios of the pesticide to the ryanodine receptor modulator
compound may be between about 15:1 and about 3:1. In further
embodiments, the range of weight ratios may be X.sub.1:Y.sub.1 to
X.sub.2:Y.sub.2, wherein X.sub.1<Y.sub.1 and X.sub.2<Y.sub.2.
By way of non-limiting example, the range of weight ratios of the
pesticide to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound may be
between about 1:3 and about 1:20.
[0021] Table 1C shows weight ratios of the pesticide (I), (II), or
any agriculturally acceptable salt thereof to the ryanodine
receptor modulator compound in the synergistic pesticidal
compositions, according to particular embodiments of the present
disclosure. In some particular embodiments, the weight ratio of the
pesticide (I), (II), or any agriculturally acceptable salt thereof
to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound may be no more than
about 256:1. In further embodiments, the weight ratio of the
pesticide to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound may be no
more than about 72:1. In further embodiments, the weight ratio of
the pesticide to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound may be
no more than about 32:1. In further embodiments, the weight ratio
of the pesticide to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound may
be no more than about 16:1. In further embodiments, the weight
ratio of the pesticide to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound
may be no more than about 8:1. In further embodiments, the weight
ratio of the pesticide to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound
may be no more than about 6:1. In further embodiments, the weight
ratio of the pesticide to the ryanodine receptor modulator compound
may be no more than about 4:1. In yet further embodiments, the
weight ratio of the pesticide to the ryanodine receptor modulator
compound may be no more than about 2:1.
TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 1C Dose Rate of Weight Ratio of Dose Rate Of
Ryanodine Pesticide (I or II) to Pesticide (I or II) Receptor
Modulator Ryanodine Receptor (weight %) (weight %) Modulator 0.04
0.000156 .ltoreq.256:1 0.0025 0.0000347 .ltoreq.72:1 0.0025
0.0000781 .ltoreq.32:1 0.0025 0.000156 .ltoreq.16:1 0.0025
0.0003125 .ltoreq.8:1 0.000625 0.0000781 .ltoreq.8:1 0.000625
0.000104 .ltoreq.6:1 0.000625 0.000156 .ltoreq.4:1 0.000625
0.0003125 .ltoreq.2:1
[0022] The weight ratio of the pesticide (I), (II), or any
agriculturally acceptable salt thereof to the ryanodine receptor
modulator compound in the synergistic pesticidal composition may be
varied and different from those described in Table 1A, Table 1B,
and Table 1C. One skilled in the art recognizes that the
synergistic effective amount of the combination of active compounds
may vary accordingly to various prevailing conditions. Non-limiting
examples of such prevailing conditions may include the type of
pests, the type of crops, the mode of application, the application
timing, the weather conditions, the soil conditions, the
topographical character, or the like. It is understood that one
skilled in the art may readily determine the synergistic effective
amount of the ryanodine receptor modulator compound and the
pesticide (I), (II), or any agriculturally acceptable salt thereof
accordingly to the prevailing conditions.
[0023] In some embodiments, the pesticidal compositions may
comprise a synergistically effective amount of cyantraniliprole in
combination with a pesticide selected from
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)thio)propanamide (I),
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)sulfinyl)propanamide (II), or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof.
[0024] In other embodiments, the pesticidal compositions may
comprise a synergistically effective amount of chlorantraniliprole
in combination with a pesticide selected from
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)thio)propanamide (I),
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)sulfinyl)propanamide (II), or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof.
[0025] In alternative embodiments, the pesticidal composition may
comprise a synergistically effective amount of a ryanodine receptor
modulator compound in combination with a pesticide selected from
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)thio)propanamide (I),
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)sulfinyl)propanamide (II), or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof, and a phytologically-acceptable inert carrier (e.g.,
solid carrier, or liquid carrier).
[0026] In further embodiments, the pesticidal composition may
further comprise at least one additive selected from a surfactant,
a stabilizer, an emetic agent, a disintegrating agent, an
antifoaming agent, a wetting agent, a dispersing agent, a binding
agent, dye, filler, or combinations thereof
[0027] In particular embodiments, each of the pesticides (a
ryanodine receptor modulator compound, and a pesticide selected
from
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)thio)propanamide (I),
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)sulfinyl)propanamide (II), or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof) may be formulated separately as a wettable powder,
emulsifiable concentrate, aqueous or liquid flowable, suspension
concentrate or any one of the conventional formulations used for
pesticides, and then tank-mixed in the field with water or other
liquid for application as a liquid spray mixture. When desired, the
separately formulated pesticides may also be applied
sequentially.
[0028] In some embodiments, the synergistic pesticidal composition
may be formulated into a more concentrated primary composition,
which is then diluted with water or other diluent before use. In
such embodiments, the synergistic pesticidal composition may
further comprise a surface active agent.
[0029] In one particular embodiment, the method of protecting a
plant from infestation and attack by insects comprises contacting
the plant with a pesticidal composition comprising a
synergistically effective amount of a ryanodine receptor modulator
compound in combination with a pesticide selected from
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)thio)propanamide (I),
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)sulfinyl)propanamide (II), or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof.
[0030] In some embodiments, the pesticidal compositions may be in
the form of solid. Non-limiting examples of the solid forms may
include powder, dust or granular formulations.
[0031] In other embodiments, the pesticidal compositions may be in
the form of liquid formulation. Examples of the liquid forms may
include, but not limited to, dispersion, suspension, emulsion or
solution in appropriate liquid carrier. In particular embodiments,
the synergistic pesticidal compositions may be in the form of
liquid dispersion, wherein the synergistic pesticidal compositions
may be dispersed in water or other agriculturally suitable liquid
carrier.
[0032] In certain embodiments, the synergistic pesticidal
compositions may be in the form of solution in an appropriate
organic solvent. In one embodiment, the spray oils, which are
widely used in agricultural chemistry, may be used as the organic
solvent for the synergistic pesticidal compositions.
[0033] In one particular embodiment, the method of controlling
pests comprises applying a pesticidal composition near a population
of pests, wherein the pesticidal composition comprises a
synergistically effective amount of a ryanodine receptor modulator
compound in combination with a pesticide selected from
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)thio)propanamide (I),
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)sulfinyl)propanamide (II), or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof.
[0034] The control of pests may be achieved by applying a
pesticidally effective amount of the synergistic pesticidal
compositions in form of sprays, topical treatment, gels, seed
coatings, microcapsulations, systemic uptake, baits, eartags,
boluses, foggers, fumigants aerosols, dusts, or the like.
[0035] These disclosed pesticidal compositions may be used, for
example, as nematicides, acaricides, miticides, and/or
molluscicides.
[0036] The pesticidal composition of the present disclosure may be
used to control a wide variety of insects. As a non-limiting
example, in one or more embodiments, the pesticidal composition may
be used to control one or more members of at least one of Phylum
Arthropoda, Phylum Nematoda, Subphylum Chelicerata, Subphylum
Myriapoda, Subphylum Hexapoda, Class Insecta, Class Arachnida, and
Class Symphyla. In at least some embodiments, the method of the
present disclosure may be used to control one or more members of at
least one of Class Insecta and Class Arachnida.
[0037] As a non-limiting example, in one or more embodiments, the
method of the present disclosure may be used to control one or more
members of at least one of Phylum Arthropoda, Phylum Nematoda,
Subphylum Chelicerata, Subphylum Myriapoda, Subphylum Hexapoda,
Class Insecta, Class Arachnida, and Class Symphyla. In at least
some embodiments, the method of the present disclosure may be used
to control one or more members of at least one of Class Insecta and
Class Arachnida.
[0038] In additional embodiments, the method of the present
disclosure may be used to control members of the Order Coleoptera
(beetles) including, but not limited to, Acanthoscelides spp.
(weevils), Acanthoscelides obtectus (common bean weevil), Agrilus
planipennis (emerald ash borer), Agriotes spp. (wireworms),
Anoplophora glabripennis (Asian longhorned beetle), Anthonomus spp.
(weevils), Anthonomus grandis (boll weevil), Aphidius spp., Apion
spp. (weevils), Apogonia spp. (grubs), Ataenius spretulus (Black
Turfgrass Ataenius), Atomana lineans (pygmy mangold beetle),
Aulacophore spp., Bothynoderes punctiventris (beet root weevil),
Bruchus spp. (weevils), Bruchus pisorum (pea weevil), Cacoesia
spp., Callosobruchus maculatus (southern cow pea weevil),
Carpophilus hemipteras (dried fruit beetle), Cassida vittata,
Cerosterna spp., Cerotoma spp. (chrysomelids), Cerotoma trifurcata
(bean leaf beetle), Ceutorhynchus spp. (weevils), Ceutorhynchus
assimilis (cabbage seedpod weevil), Ceutorhynchus napi (cabbage
curculio), Chaetocnema spp. (chrysomelids), Colaspis spp. (soil
beetles), Conoderus scalaris, Conoderus stigmosus, Conotrachelus
nenuphar (plum curculio), Cotinus nitidis (Green June beetle),
Crioceris asparagi (asparagus beetle), Cryptolestes ferrugineus
(rusty grain beetle), Cryptolestes pusillus (flat grain beetle),
Cryptolestes turcicus (Turkish grain beetle), Ctenicera spp.
(wireworms), Curculio spp. (weevils), Cyclocephala spp. (grubs),
Cylindrocpturus adspersus (sunflower stem weevil), Deporaus
marginatus (mango leaf-cutting weevil), Dermestes lardarius (larder
beetle), Dermestes maculates (hide beetle), Diabrotica spp.
(chrysomelids), Epilachna varivestis (Mexican bean beetle),
Faustinus cubae, Hylobius pales (pales weevil), Hypera spp.
(weevils), Hypera postica (alfalfa weevil), Hyperdoes spp.
(Hyperodes weevil), Hypothenemus hampei (coffee berry beetle), Ips
spp. (engravers), Lasioderma serricome (cigarette beetle),
Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Colorado potato beetle), Liogenys
fuscus, Liogenys suturalis, Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus (rice water
weevil), Lyctus spp. (wood beetles/powder post beetles),
Maecolaspis joliveti, Megascelis spp., Melanotus communis,
Meligethes spp., Meligethes aeneus (blossom beetle), Melolontha
melolontha (common European cockchafer), Oberea brevis, Oberea
linearis, Oryctes rhinoceros (date palm beetle), Oryzaephilus
mercator (merchant grain beetle), Oryzaephilus surinamensis
(sawtoothed grain beetle), Otiorhynchus spp. (weevils), Oulema
melanopus (cereal leaf beetle), Oulema oryzae, Pantomorus spp.
(weevils), Phyllophaga spp. (May/June beetle), Phyllophaga cuyabana
(chrysomelids), Phynchites spp., Popillia japonica (Japanese
beetle), Prostephanus truncates (larger grain borer), Rhizopertha
dominica (lesser grain borer), Rhizotrogus spp. (European chafer),
Rhynchophorus spp. (weevils), Scolytus spp. (wood beetles),
Shenophorus spp. (Billbug), Sitona lineatus (pea leaf weevil),
Sitophilus spp. (grain weevils), Sitophilus granaries (granary
weevil), Sitophilus oryzae (rice weevil), Stegobium paniceum
(drugstore beetle), Tribolium spp. (flour beetles), Tribolium
castaneum (red flour beetle), Tribolium confusum (confused flour
beetle), Trogoderma variabile (warehouse beetle), and Zabrus
tenebioides.
[0039] In other embodiments, the method of the present disclosure
may also be used to control members of the Order Dermaptera
(earwigs).
[0040] In additional embodiments, the method of the present
disclosure may be used to control members of the Order Dictyoptera
(cockroaches) including, but is not limited to, Blattella germanica
(German cockroach), Blatta orientalis (oriental cockroach),
Parcoblatta pennylvanica, Periplaneta americana (American
cockroach), Periplaneta australoasiae (Australian cockroach),
Periplaneta brunnea (brown cockroach), Periplaneta fuliginosa
(smokybrown cockroach), Pyncoselus suninamensis (Surinam
cockroach), and Supella longipalpa (brownbanded cockroach).
[0041] In further embodiments, the method of the present disclosure
may be used to control members of the Order Diptera (true flies)
including, but is not limited to, Aedes spp. (mosquitoes), Agromyza
frontella (alfalfa blotch leafminer), Agromyza spp. (leaf miner
flies), Anastrepha spp. (fruit flies), Anastrepha suspensa
(Caribbean fruit fly), Anopheles spp. (mosquitoes), Bactrocera spp.
(fruit flies), Bactrocera cucurbitae (melon fly), Bactrocera
dorsalis (oriental fruit fly), Ceratitis spp. (fruit flies),
Ceratitis capitata (Mediterranean fruit fly), Chrysops spp. (deer
flies), Cochliomyia spp. (screwworms), Contarinia spp. (Gall
midges), Culex spp. (mosquitoes), Dasineura spp. (gall midges),
Dasineura brassicae (cabbage gall midge), Delia spp., Delia platura
(seedcorn maggot), Drosophila spp. (vinegar flies), Fannia spp.
(filth flies), Fannia canicularis (little house fly), Fannia
scalaris (latrine fly), Gasterophilus intestinalis (horse bot fly),
Gracillia perseae, Haematobia irritans (horn fly), Hylemyia spp.
(root maggots), Hypoderma lineatum (common cattle grub), Liriomyza
spp. (leafminer flies), Liriomyza brassica (serpentine leafminer),
Liriomyza sativae (vegetable leafminer), Melophagus ovinus (sheep
ked), Musca spp. (muscid flies), Musca autumnalis (face fly), Musca
domestica (house fly), Oestrus ovis (sheep bot fly), Oscinella frit
(frit fly), Pegomyia betae (beet leafminer), Phorbia spp., Psila
rosae (carrot rust fly), Rhagoletis cerasi (cherry fruit fly),
Rhagoletis pomonella (apple maggot), Sitodiplosis mosellana (orange
wheat blossom midge), Stomoxys calcitrans (stable fly), Tabanus
spp. (horse flies), and Tipula spp. (crane flies).
[0042] In other embodiments, the method of the present disclosure
may be used to control members of the Order Hemiptera Sub-order
Heteroptera (true bugs) including, but is not limited to,
Acrosternum hilare (green stink bug), Blissus leucopterus (chinch
bug), Bragada hilaris, Calocoris norvegicus (potato mind), Cimex
hemipterus (tropical bed bug), Cimex lectularius (bed bug),
Dagbertus fasciatus, Dichelops furcatus, Dysdercus suturellus
(cotton stainer), Edessa meditabunda, Eurygaster maura (cereal
bug), Euschistus heros, Euschistus servus (brown stink bug),
Helopeltis antonii, Helopeltis theivora (tea blight plantbug),
Lagynotomus spp. (stink bugs), Leptocorisa oratorius, Leptocorisa
varicomis, Lygus spp. (plant bugs), Lygus hesperus (western
tarnished plant bug), Lygus lineolaris (tarnished plant bug),
Maconellicoccus hirsutus, Neurocolpus longirostris, Nezara viridula
(southern green stink bug), Phytocoris spp. (plant bugs),
Phytocoris californicus, Phytocoris relativus, Piezodorus guildinii
(redbanded stink bug), Poecilocapsus lineatus (fourlined plant
bug), Psallus vaccinicola, Pseudacysta perseae, Scaptocoris
castanea, and Triatoma spp. (bloodsucking conenose bugs/kissing
bugs).
[0043] In additional embodiments, the method of the present
disclosure may be used to control members of the Order Hemiptera,
Sub-orders Auchenorrhyncha (Free-living Hemipterans) and
Sternorrhyncha (Plant-parasitic Hemipterans) (aphids, scales,
whiteflies, leaflhoppers) including, but is not limited to,
Acrythosiphon pisum (pea aphid), Adelges spp. (adelgids), Aleurodes
proletella (cabbage whitefly), Aleurodicus disperses, Aleurothrixus
floccosus (woolly whitefly), Aluacaspis spp., Amrasca bigutella
bigutella, Aphrophora spp. (leafhoppers), Aonidiella aurantii
(California red scale), Aphis spp. (aphids), Aphis gossypii (cotton
aphid), Aphis pomi (apple aphid), Aulacorthum solani (foxglove
aphid), Bemisia spp. (whiteflies), Bemisia argentifolii, Bemisia
tabaci (sweetpotato whitefly), Brachycolus noxius (Russian aphid),
Brachycorynella asparagi (asparagus aphid), Brevennia rehi,
Brevicoryne brassicae (cabbage aphid), Ceroplastes spp. (scales),
Ceroplastes rubens (red wax scale), Chionaspis spp. (scales),
Chrysomphalus spp. (scales), Chrysomphalus aonidum (Florida red
scale) Coccus spp. (scales), Coccus pseudomagnoliarum (citricola
scale), Dysaphis plantaginea (rosy apple aphid), Empoasca spp.
(leafhoppers), Eriosoma lanigerum (woolly apple aphid), Icerya
purchasi (cottony cushion scale), Idioscopus nitidulus (mango
leafhopper), Laodelphax striatellus (smaller brown planthopper),
Lepidosaphes spp., Macrosiphum spp., Macrosiphum euphorbiae (potato
aphid), Macrosiphum granarium (English grain aphid), Macrosiphum
rosae (rose aphid), Macrosteles quadrilineatus (aster leafhopper),
Mahanarva frimbiolata, Metopolophium dirhodum (rose grain aphid),
Mictis longicornis, Myzus spp., Myzus persicae (green peach aphid),
Nephotettix spp. (leafhoppers), Nephotettix cinctipes (green
leafhopper), Nilaparvata lugens (brown planthopper), Paratrioza
cockerelli (tomato psyllid), Parlatoria pergandii (chaff scale),
Parlatoria ziziphi (ebony scale), Peregrinus maidis (corn
delphacid), Philaenus spp. (spittlebugs), Phylloxera vitifoliae
(grape phylloxera), Physokermes piceae (spruce bud scale),
Planococcus spp. (mealybugs), Planococcus citri (citrus mealybug),
Planococcus ficus (grape mealybug), Pseudococcus spp. (mealybugs),
Pseudococcus brevipes (pine apple mealybug), Quadraspidiotus
pemiciosus (San Jose scale), Rhopalosiphum spp. (aphids),
Rhopalosiphum maidis (corn leaf aphid), Rhapalosiphum padi (oat
bird-cherry aphid), Saissetia spp. (scales), Saissetia oleae (black
scale), Schizaphis graminum (greenbug), Sitobion avenae (English
grain aphid), Sogatella furcifera (white-backed planthopper),
Therioaphis spp. (aphids), Toumeyella spp. (scales), Toxoptera spp.
(aphids), Trialeurodes spp. (whiteflies), Trialeurodes vaporariorum
(greenhouse whitefly), Trialeurodes abutiloneus (bandedwing
whitefly), Unaspis spp. (scales), Unaspis yanonensis (arrowhead
scale), and Zulia entreriana. In at least some embodiments, the
method of the present disclosure may be used to control Myzus
persicae.
[0044] In other embodiments, the method of the present disclosure
may be used to control members of the Order Hymenoptera (ants,
wasps, and sawflies) including, but not limited to, Acromyrrmex
spp., Athalia rosae, Atta spp. (leafcutting ants), Camponotus spp.
(carpenter ants), Diprion spp. (sawflies), Formica spp. (ants),
Iridomyrmex humilis (Argentine ant), Monomorium spp., Monomorium
minumum (little black ant), Monomorium pharaonis (Pharaoh ant),
Neodiprion spp. (sawflies), Pogonomyrmex spp. (harvester ants),
Polistes spp. (paper wasps), Solenopsis spp. (fire ants), Tapoinoma
sessile (odorous house ant), Tetranomorium spp. (pavement ants),
Vespula spp. (yellow jackets), and Xylocopa spp. (carpenter
bees).
[0045] In certain embodiments, the method of the present disclosure
may be used to control members of the Order Isoptera (termites)
including, but not limited to, Coptotermes spp., Coptotermes
curvignathus, Coptotermes frenchii, Coptotermes formosanus
(Formosan subterranean termite), Comitermes spp. (nasute termites),
Cryptotermes spp. (drywood termites), Heterotermes spp. (desert
subterranean termites), Heterotermes aureus, Kalotermes spp.
(drywood termites), Incistitermes spp. (drywood termites),
Macrotermes spp. (fungus growing termites), Marginitermes spp.
(drywood termites), Microcerotermes spp. (harvester termites),
Microtermes obesi, Procornitermes spp., Reticulitermes spp.
(subterranean termites), Reticulitermes banyulensis, Reticulitermes
grassei, Reticulitermes flavipes (eastern subterranean termite),
Reticulitermes hageni, Reticulitermes hesperus (western
subterranean termite), Reticulitermes santonensis, Reticulitermes
speratus, Reticulitermes tibialis, Reticulitermes virginicus,
Schedorhinotermes spp., and Zootermopsis spp. (rotten-wood
termites).
[0046] In additional embodiments, the method of the present
disclosure may be used to control members of the Order Lepidoptera
(moths and butterflies) including, but not limited to, Achoea
janata, Adoxophyes spp., Adoxophyes orana, Agrotis spp. (cutworms),
Agrotis ipsilon (black cutworm), Alabama argillacea (cotton
leafworm), Amorbia cuneana, Amyelosis transitella (navel
orangeworm), Anacamptodes defectaria, Anarsia lineatella (peach
twig borer), Anomis sabulifera (jute looper), Anticarsia gemmatalis
(velvetbean caterpillar), Archips argyrospila (fruittree
leafroller), Archips rosana (rose leaf roller), Argyrotaenia spp.
(tortricid moths), Argyrotaenia citrana (orange tortrix),
Autographa gamma, Bonagota cranaodes, Borbo cinnara (rice leaf
folder), Bucculatrix thurberiella (cotton leafperforator),
Caloptilia spp. (leaf miners), Capua reticulana, Carposina
ruponensis (peach fruit moth), Chilo spp., Chlumetia transversa
(mango shoot borer), Choristoneura rosaceana (obliquebanded
leafroller), Chlysodeixis spp., Cnaphalocerus medinalis (grass
leafroller), Colias spp., Conpomorpha cramerella, Cossus cossus
(carpenter moth), Crambus spp. (Sod webworms), Cydiafunebrana (plum
fruit moth), Cydia molesta (oriental fruit moth), Cydia nignicana
(pea moth), Cydia pomonella (codling moth), Darna diducta,
Diaphania spp. (stem borers), Diatraea spp. (stalk borers),
Diatraea saccharalis (sugarcane borer), Diatraea graniosella
(southwester corn borer), Earias spp. (bollworms), Farias insulata
(Egyptian bollworm), Farias vitella (rough northern bollworm),
Ecdytopopha aurantianum, Elasmopalpus lignosellus (lesser cornstalk
borer), Epiphysias postruttana (light brown apple moth), Ephestia
spp. (flour moths), Ephestia cautella (almond moth), Ephestia
elutella (tobacco moth), Ephestia kuehniella (Mediterranean flour
moth), Epimeces spp., Epinotia aporema, Erionota thrax (banana
skipper), Eupoecilia ambiguella (grape berry moth), Euxoa
auxiliaris (army cutworm), Feltia spp. (cutworms), Gortyna spp.
(stemborers), Grapholita molesta (oriental fruit moth), Hedylepta
indicata (bean leaf webber), Helicoverpa spp. (noctuid moths),
Helicoverpa armigera (cotton bollworm), Helicoverpa zea
(bollworm/corn earworm), Heliothis spp. (noctuid moths), Heliothis
virescens (tobacco budworm), Hellula undalis (cabbage webworm),
Indarbela spp. (root borers), Keiferia lycopersicella (tomato
pinworm), Leucinodes orbonalis (eggplant fruit borer), Leucoptera
malifoliella, Lithocollectis spp., Lobesia botrana (grape fruit
moth), Loxagrotis spp. (noctuid moths), Loxagrotis albicosta
(western bean cutworm), Lymantria dispar (gypsy moth), Lyonetia
clerkella (apple leaf miner), Mahasena corbetti (oil palm bagworm),
Malacosoma spp. (tent caterpillars), Mamestra brassicae (cabbage
armyworm), Maruca testulalis (bean pod borer), Metisa plana
(bagworm), Mythimna unipuncta (true armyworm), Neoleucinodes
elegantalis (small tomato borer), Nymphula depunctalis (rice
caseworm), Operophthera brumata (winter moth), Ostrinia nubilalis
(European corn borer), Oxydia vesulia, Pandemis cerasana (common
currant tortrix), Pandemis heparana (brown apple tortrix), Papilio
demodocus, Pectinophora gossypiella (pink bollworm), Peridroma spp.
(cutworms), Peridroma saucia (variegated cutworm), Perileucoptera
coffeella (white coffee leafminer), Phthorimaea operculella (potato
tuber moth), Phyllocnisitis citrella, Phyllonorycter spp.
(leafminers), Pieris rapae (imported cabbageworm), Plathypena
scabra, Plodia interpunctella (Indian meal moth), Plutella
xylostella (diamondback moth), Polychrosis viteana (grape berry
moth), Prays endocarpa, Prays oleae (olive moth), Pseudaletia spp.
(noctuid moths), Pseudaletia unipunctata (armyworm), Pseudoplusia
includens (soybean looper), Rachiplusia nu, Scirpophaga incertulas,
Sesamia spp. (stemborers), Sesamia inferens (pink rice stem borer),
Sesamia nonagrioides, Setora nitens, Sitotroga cerealella
(Angoumois grain moth), Sparganothis pilleriana, Spodoptera spp.
(armyworms), Spodoptera exigua (beet armyworm), Spodoptera
fugiperda (fall armyworm), Spodoptera oridania (southern armyworm),
Synanthedon spp. (root borers), Thecla basilides, Thermisia
gemmatalis, Tineola bisselliella (webbing clothes moth),
Trichoplusia ni (cabbage looper), Tuta absoluta, Yponomeuta spp.,
Zeuzera coffeae (red branch borer), and Zeuzera pyrina (leopard
moth). In at least some embodiments, the method of the present
disclosure may be used to control Spodoptera exigua.
[0047] The method of the present disclosure may be used to also
control members of the Order Mallophaga (chewing lice) including,
but not limited to, Bovicola ovis (sheep biting louse), Menacanthus
stramineus (chicken body louse), and Menopon gallinea (common hen
louse).
[0048] In additional embodiments, the method of the present
disclosure may be used to control members of the Order Orthoptera
(grasshoppers, locusts, and crickets) including, but not limited
to, Anabrus simplex (Mormon cricket), Gryllotalpidae (mole
crickets), Locusta migratoria, Melanoplus spp. (grasshoppers),
Microcentrum retinerve (angularwinged katydid), Pterophylla spp.
(kaydids), chistocerca gregaria, Scudderia furcata (forktailed bush
katydid), and Valanga nigricorni.
[0049] In other embodiments, the method of the present disclosure
may be used to control members of the Order Phthiraptera (sucking
lice) including, but not limited to, Haematopinus spp. (cattle and
hog lice), Linognathus ovillus (sheep louse), Pediculus humanus
capitis (human body louse), Pediculus humanus humanus (human body
lice), and Pthirus pubis (crab louse).
[0050] In particular embodiments, the method of the present
disclosure may be used to control members of the Order Siphonaptera
(fleas) including, but not limited to, Ctenocephalides canis (dog
flea), Ctenocephalides felis (cat flea), and Pulex irritans (human
flea).
[0051] In additional embodiments, the method of the present
disclosure may be used to control members of the Order Thysanoptera
(thrips) including, but not limited to, Caliothrips fasciatus (bean
thrips), Caliothrips phaseoli, Frankliniella fusca (tobacco
thrips), Frankliniella occidentalis (western flower thrips),
Frankliniella shultzei, Frankliniella williamsi (corn thrips),
Heliothrips haemorrhaidalis (greenhouse thrips), Riphiphorothrips
cruentatus, Scirtothrips spp., Scirtothrips citri (citrus thrips),
Scirtothrips dorsalis (yellow tea thrips), Taeniothrips
rhopalantennalis, Thrips spp., Thrips tabaci (onion thrips), and
Thrips hawaiiensis (Hawaiian flower thrips).
[0052] The method of the present disclosure may be used to also
control members of the Order Thysanura (bristletails) including,
but not limited to, Lepisma spp. (silverfish) and Thermobia spp.
(firebrats).
[0053] In further embodiments, the method of the present disclosure
may be used to control members of the Order Acari (mites and ticks)
including, but not limited to, Acarapsis woodi (tracheal mite of
honeybees), Acarus spp. (food mites), Acarus siro (grain mite),
Aceria mangiferae (mango bud mite), Aculops spp., Aculops
lycopersici (tomato russet mite), Aculops pelekasi, Aculus
pelekassi, Aculus schlechtendali (apple rust mite), Amblyomma
americanum (lone star tick), Boophilus spp. (ticks), Brevipalpus
obovatus (privet mite), Brevipalpus phoenicis (red and black flat
mite), Demodex spp. (mange mites), Dermacentor spp. (hard ticks),
Dermacentor variabilis (american dog tick), Dermatophagoides
pteronyssinus (house dust mite), Eotetranycus spp., Eotetranychus
carpini (yellow spider mite), Epitimerus spp., Eriophyes spp.,
Ixodes spp. (ticks), Metatetranycus spp., Notoedres cati,
Oligonychus spp., Oligonychus coffee, Oligonychus ilicus (southern
red mite), Panonychus spp., Panonychus citri (citrus red mite),
Panonychus ulmi (European red mite), Phyllocoptruta oleivora
(citrus rust mite), Polyphagotarsonemun latus (broad mite),
Rhipicephalus sanguineus (brown dog tick), Rhizoglyphus spp. (bulb
mites), Sarcoptes scabiei (itch mite), Tegolophus perseaflorae,
Tetranychus spp., Tetranychus urticae (twospotted spider mite), and
Varroa destructor (honey bee mite).
[0054] In additional embodiments, the method of the present
disclosure may be used to control members of the Order Nematoda
(nematodes) including, but not limited to, Aphelenchoides spp.
(foliar nematodes), Belonolaimus spp. (sting nematodes),
Criconemella spp. (ring nematodes), Dirofilaria immitis (dog
heartworm), Ditylenchus spp. (stem and bulb nematodes), Heterodera
spp. (cyst nematodes), Heterodera zeae (corn cyst nematode),
Hirschmanniella spp. (root nematodes), Hoplolaimus spp. (lance
nematodes), Meloidogyne spp. (root knot nematodes), Meloidogyne
incognita (root knot nematode), Onchocerca volvulus (hook-tail
worm), Pratylenchus spp. (lesion nematodes), Radopholus spp.
(burrowing nematodes), and Rotylenchus reniformis (kidney-shaped
nematode).
[0055] In at least some embodiments, the method of the present
disclosure may be used to control at least one insect in one or
more of the Orders Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Hemiptera,
Thysanoptera, Isoptera, Orthoptera, Diptera, Hymenoptera, and
Siphonaptera, and at least one mite in the Order Acari.
[0056] In some embodiments, the method of controlling an insect may
comprise applying a pesticidal composition near a population of
insects, wherein the pesticidal composition comprises a
synergistically effective amount of a ryanodine receptor modulator
compound in combination with a pesticide selected from
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)thio)propanamide (I),
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)sulfinyl)propanamide (II), or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof, and wherein the insect is selected from a sap feeding
brown stink bug, Euschistus servus (Say), a lepidopteran diamond
back moth, Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus), and a combination
thereof.
[0057] In one embodiment, the method of controlling an insect may
comprise applying a pesticidal composition near a population of
insects, wherein the pesticidal composition comprises a
synergistically effective amount of cyantraniliprole in combination
with a pesticide selected from
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)thio)propanamide (I),
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)sulfinyl)propanamide (II), or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof, and wherein the insect is selected from a sap feeding
brown stink bug, Euschistus servus (Say), a lepidopteran diamond
back moth, Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus), and a combination
thereof.
[0058] In another embodiment, the method of controlling an insect
may comprise applying a pesticidal composition near a population of
insects, wherein the pesticidal composition comprises a
synergistically effective amount of chlorantraniliprole in
combination with a pesticide selected from
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trif-
luoropropyl)thio)propanamide (I),
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)sulfinyl)propanamide (II), or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof, and wherein the insect is selected from a sap feeding
brown stink bug, Euschistus servus (Say), a lepidopteran diamond
back moth, Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus), and a combination
thereof.
[0059] In a particular embodiment of the present disclosure, the
pesticidal composition may be used in conjunction (such as, in a
compositional mixture, or a simultaneous or sequential application)
with one or more compounds having acaricidal, algicidal, avicidal,
bactericidal, fungicidal, herbicidal, insecticidal, molluscicidal,
nematicidal, rodenticidal, and/or virucidal properties.
[0060] In certain embodiments of the present disclosure, the
pesticidal composition may be used in conjunction (such as, in a
compositional mixture, or a simultaneous or sequential application)
with one or more compounds that are antifeedants, bird repellents,
chemosterilants, herbicide safeners, insect attractants, insect
repellents, mammal repellents, mating disrupters, plant activators,
plant growth regulators, and/or synergists.
[0061] The pesticidal compositions of the present disclosure show a
synergistic effect, providing superior pest control at lower
pesticidally effective amounts of the combined active compounds
than when a ryanodine receptor modulator compound or a pesticide
selected from
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)thio)propanamide (I),
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)sulfinyl)propanamide (II), or any agriculturally acceptable
salt thereof is used alone.
[0062] The pesticidal compositions of the present disclosure may
have high synergistic pest control and allow for a lower effective
dosage rate, an increased environmental safety, and a reduced
incidence of pest resistance.
[0063] The following examples serve to explain embodiments of the
present invention in more detail. These examples should not be
construed as being exhaustive or exclusive as to the scope of this
disclosure.
EXAMPLES
Example 1
Preparation of 3-((3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)thio)propanoyl
chloride
##STR00003##
[0065] A dry five-liter round bottom flask equipped with magnetic
stirrer, nitrogen inlet, reflux condenser, and thermometer, was
charged with 3-((3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)thio)propanoic acid
(prepared as described in the PCT Publication No. WO 2013/062981 to
Niyaz et al.) (188 g, 883 mmol) in dichloromethane
(CH.sub.2Cl.sub.2) (3 L). Thionyl chloride (525 g, 321 Ml, 4.42
mol) was added dropwise over 50 minutes. The reaction mixture was
heated to reflux (about 36.degree. C.) for two hours, then cooled
to room temperature (about 22.degree. C.). The resulting mixture
was concentrated under vacuum on a rotary evaporator, followed by
distillation (40 Ton, product collected at a temperature of from
about 123.degree. C. to about 127.degree. C.) to provide the title
compound as a clear colorless liquid (177.3 g, 86%): .sup.1H NMR
(400 MHz, CDCl.sub.3) .delta. 3.20 (t, J=7.1 Hz, 2H), 2.86 (t,
J=7.1 Hz, 2H), 2.78-2.67 (m, 2H), 2.48-2.31 (m, 2H); .sup.19F NMR
(376 MHz, CDCl.sub.3) .delta. -66.42, -66.43, -66.44, -66.44.
Example 2
Preparation of
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)thio)propanamide (I)
##STR00004##
[0067] To a solution of
3-chloro-N-ethyl-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-amine (prepared as
described in the U.S. Publication No. 2012/0110702 to Yap et al.)
(10.0 g, 44.9 mmol) in CH.sub.2Cl.sub.2 (100 mL), at a temperature
of about 0.degree. C. and under N.sub.2, was added pyridine (5.45
mL, 67.4 mmol), 4-dimethylaminopyridine (DMAP) (2.74 g, 22.45
mmol), and 3-((3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)thio)propanoyl chloride (9.91
g, 44.9 mmol), sequentially. The reaction was warmed to room
temperature and stirred for one hour. The reaction mixture was
poured into water (100 mL), and the resulting mixture was stirred
for five minutes. The mixture was transferred to a separatory
funnel, and the layers were separated. The aqueous phase was
extracted with CH.sub.2Cl.sub.2 (3.times.50 mL), and the combined
organic extracts were dried over sodium sulfate (Na.sub.2SO.sub.4),
filtered, and concentrated in vacuo. The crude product was purified
via normal phase flash chromatography (0% to 100%
EtOAc/CH.sub.2Cl.sub.2) to provide the desired product as a pale
yellow solid (17.21 g, 89%): IR (thin film) 1659 cm.sup.-1; .sup.1H
NMR (400 MHz, CDCl.sub.3) .delta. 8.95 (d, J=2.6 Hz, 1H), 8.63 (dd,
J=4.7, 1.3 Hz, 1H), 8.05 (ddd, J=8.3, 2.7, 1.4 Hz, 1H), 7.96 (s,
1H), 7.47 (dd, J=8.3, 4.8 Hz, 1H), 3.72 (q, J=7.1 Hz, 2H), 2.84 (t,
J=7.2 Hz, 2H), 2.66 (m, 2H), 237 (t, J=7.2 Hz, 2H), 2.44 (m, 2H),
1.17 (t, J=7.2 Hz, 3H); ESIMS m/z 409 ([M+2H].sup.+).
Example 3
Preparation of
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)sulfinyl)propanamide (II)
##STR00005##
[0069] To a solution of
N-(3-chloro-1-(20yridine-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluo-
ropropyl)thio)propanamide (I) (500 mg, 1.229 mmol) in
hexafluoroisopropanol (5 mL) stirring at room temperature was added
30% hydrogen peroxide (523 mg, 4.92 mmol). The solution was stirred
at room temperature for 15 minutes. It was quenched with saturated
sodium sulfite solution and extracted with CH.sub.2Cl.sub.2. Silica
gel chromatography (0%-10% MeOH/CH.sub.2Cl.sub.2) gave the title
compound as white semi-solid (495 mg, 95%): IR (thin film) 1660
cm.sup.-1; .sup.1H NMR (400 MHz, CDCl.sub.3) .delta. 8.96 (d, J=2.4
Hz, 1H), 8.64 (dd, J=4.7, 1.4 Hz, 1H), 8.07-8.00 (m, 2H), 7.46
(ddd, J=8.3, 4.8, 0.7 Hz, 1H), 3.85-3.61 (m, 2H), 3.23-3.08 (m,
1H), 3.03-2.76 (m, 3H), 2.74-2.52 (m, 4H), 1.18 (t, J=7.2 Hz, 3H);
ESIMS m/z 423 ([M+H].sup.+).
Example 4
[0070] Determination of the Existence of Synergic Effect
[0071] The method described in Colby S. R., "Calculating
Synergistic and Antagonistic Responses of Herbicide Combinations,"
Weeds, 1967, 15, 20-22 was used to determine an existence of
synergic effect between the ryanodine receptor modulator compound
and the pesticide (I), (II), or any agriculturally acceptable salt
thereof in the formulated pesticidal composition. In this method,
the percent insect control of the formulated pesticidal composition
as observed in the study was compared to the "expected" percent
control (E) as calculated by equation (1) (hereinafter "Colby's
equation") below:
E = X + Y - ( XY 100 ) ( 1 ) ##EQU00001##
where [0072] X is the percentage of control with the first
pesticide at a given rate (p), [0073] Y is the percentage of
control with the second pesticide at a given rate (q), and [0074] E
is the expected control by the first and second pesticide at a rate
of p+q.
[0075] If the observed percent control of the formulated pesticidal
is greater than E, there is a synergistic effect between the
ryanodine receptor modulator compound and the pesticide (I), (II),
or any agriculturally acceptable salt thereof in the formulated
pesticidal composition. If the observed percent control of the
formulated pesticidal is equaled to or less than E, there is no
synergistic effect between the ryanodine receptor modulator
compound and the pesticide (I), (II), or any agriculturally
acceptable salt thereof in the formulated pesticidal
composition.
Example 5
Synergistic Effect of
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((
3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)3,3,3-trifluoropropyl)sulfinyl)propanamide
(II) and Cyantraniliprole Against Brown Stink Bug, Euschistus
heros
[0076] A pesticidal composition was prepared by thoroughly mixing
about 0.04 weight % of
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)sulfinyl)propanamide (hereinafter "compound II") with about
0.000156 weight % of cyantraniliprole.
[0077] Bioassays were performed wherein different active compounds
were applied to the diet of five second-instar nymphs of brown
stink bug, Euschistus heros. The percent control determined six
days after the diet treatment were as shown in TABLE 2. The percent
control of the pesticidal composition against brown stink bug,
Euschistus heros, was determined as the "Observed" action, and
compared to those obtained by using about 0.04 weight % of compound
II, and using about 0.000156 weight % of cyantraniliprole alone.
The "Colby's Expected Action" was calculated using Colby's equation
as discussed previously.
TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 2 % Control Treatment for Dose Rate Six Days
After Brown Stink Bug (weight %) Treatment Compound II 0.04 0%
Cyantraniliprole 0.000156 7% Compound II (+) Cyantraniliprole 0.04
+ 0.000156 25% Observed Action Compound II (+) Cyantraniliprole
0.04 + 0.000156 7% Colby's Expected Action Compound II (+)
Cyantraniliprole 0.04 + 0.000156 18% Differences: Observed vs.
Expected
[0078] As shown in table 2, the observed percent control of the
pesticidal composition against brown stink bug (25%) was almost
four times higher than the expected percentage control according to
Colby's equation (7%). It was surprising and unexpected that not
only there was synergistic effect between compound II and
cyantraniliprole in the pesticidal composition against brown stink
bug, but also the large magnitude of such synergistic effect. The
pesticidal composition showed 257% improvement over the Colby's
expected action against brown stink bug.
Example 6
Synergistic Effect of
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)sulfinyl)propanamide (II) and Chlorantraniliprole Against
Diamond back Moth, Plutella xylostella
Example 6A
[0079] A pesticidal composition was prepared by thoroughly mixing
about 0.0025 weight % of compound II with about 0.0003125 weight %
of chlorantraniliprole.
[0080] Bioassays were performed for different active compounds.
Cabbage plants with about two to three new-growth--true leaf stage
were treated with different pesticides using a track sprayer
application at 400 L/Ha spray volume. Three second instar
diamondback moths, Plutella xylostella, were infested onto each
leaf disc. The percent control determined after three days of the
treatment were as shown in table 3.
TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 3 % Control Three Days Treatment for Dose Rate
After Diamondback Moth (weight %) Treatment Compound II 0.0025
16.67% Chlorantraniliprole 0.0003125 66.67% Compound II (+)
Chlorantraniliprole 0.0025 + 0.0003125 87.5% Observed Action
Compound II (+) Chlorantraniliprole 0.0025 + 0.0003125 72.2%
Colby's Expected Action Compound II (+) Chlorantraniliprole 0.0025
+ 0.0003125 15.3% Differences: Observed vs. Expected
[0081] As shown in table 3, the observed percent control of the
pesticidal composition against diamondback moth (87.5%) was higher
than the expected percentage control according to Colby's equation
(72.2%). This was 21% improvement over the Colby's expected action.
Therefore, the pesticidal composition comprising 0.0025 weight % of
compound II and about 0.0003125 weight % of chlorantraniliprole
showed synergistic effect against diamondback moth.
Example 6B
[0082] A pesticidal composition was prepared by thoroughly mixing
about 0.0025 weight % of compound II with about 0.0000347 weight %
of chlorantraniliprole.
[0083] Bioassays were performed for different active compounds
against diamondback moth using the same procedure as that described
for Example 6A. The percent control determined three days after
treatment were as shown in table 4.
[0084] As shown in table 4, the observed percent control of the
pesticidal composition against diamondback moth (50%) was higher
than the expected percentage control according to Colby's equation
(37.5%). This was 33% improvement over the Colby's expected action.
Therefore, the pesticidal composition comprising 0.0025 weight % of
compound II and about 0.0000347 weight % of chlorantraniliprole
showed synergistic effect against diamondback moth.
TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 4 % Control Three Days Treatment for Dose Rate
After Diamondback Moth (weight %) Treatment Compound II 0.0025
16.67% Chlorantraniliprole 0.0000347 25% Compound II (+)
Chlorantraniliprole 0.0025 + 0.0000347 50% Observed Action Compound
II (+) Chlorantraniliprole 0.0025 + 0.0000347 37.5% Colby's
Expected Action Compound II (+) Chlorantraniliprole 0.0025 +
0.0000347 12.5% Differences: Observed vs. Expected
Example 6C
[0085] A pesticidal composition was prepared by thoroughly mixing
about 0.0025 weight % of compound II with about 0.000156 weight %
of chlorantraniliprole.
[0086] Bioassays were performed for different active compounds
against diamondback moth using the same procedure as that described
for example 6A. The percent control determined three days after
treatment were as shown in table 5.
TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 5 % Control Three Days Treatment for Dose Rate
After Diamondback Moth (weight %) Treatment Compound II 0.0025 0%
Chlorantraniliprole 0.000156 12.5% Compound II (+)
Chlorantraniliprole 0.0025 + 0.000156 79.17% Observed Action
Compound II (+) Chlorantraniliprole 0.0025 + 0.000156 12.5% Colby's
Expected Action Compound II (+) Chlorantraniliprole 0.0025 +
0.000156 66.7% Differences: Observed vs. Expected
[0087] As shown in table 5, the observed percent control of the
pesticidal composition against diamondback moth (79.17%) was
significantly higher than the expected percentage control according
to Colby's equation (12.5%). This was 533% improvement over the
Colby's expected action. Therefore, the pesticidal composition
comprising 0.0025 weight % of compound II and about 0.000156 weight
% of chlorantraniliprole showed synergistic effect against
diamondback moth.
Example 6D
[0088] A pesticidal composition was prepared by thoroughly mixing
about 0.0025 weight % of compound II with about 0.0000781 weight %
of chlorantraniliprole.
[0089] Bioassays were performed for different active compounds
against diamondback moth using the same procedure as that described
for example 6A. The percent control determined three days after
treatment were as shown in table 6.
TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 6 % Control Three Days Treatment for Dose Rate
After Diamondback Moth (weight %) Treatment Compound II 0.0025 0%
Chlorantraniliprole 0.0000781 4.17% Compound II (+)
Chlorantraniliprole 0.0025 + 0.0000781 41.67% Observed Action
Compound II (+) Chlorantraniliprole 0.0025 + 0.0000781 4.2% Colby's
Expected Action Compound II (+) Chlorantraniliprole 0.0025 +
0.0000781 37.5% Differences: Observed vs. Expected
[0090] As shown in table 6, the observed percent control of the
pesticidal composition against diamondback moth (41.67%) was
significantly higher than the expected percentage control according
to Colby's equation (4.2%). This was 892% improvement over the
Colby's expected action. Therefore, the pesticidal composition
comprising 0.0025 weight % of compound II and about 0.0000781
weight % of chlorantraniliprole showed synergistic effect against
diamondback moth.
Example 6E
[0091] A pesticidal composition was prepared by thoroughly mixing
about 0.000625 weight % of compound II with about 0.000104 weight %
of chlorantraniliprole.
[0092] Bioassays were performed for different active compounds
against diamondback moth using the same procedure as that described
for example 6A. The percent control determined three days after
treatment were as shown in table 7.
TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 7 % Control Three Days Treatment for Dose Rate
After Diamondback Moth (weight %) Treatment Compound II 0.000625
16.67% Chlorantraniliprole 0.000104 62.5% Compound II (+)
Chlorantraniliprole 0.000625 + 0.000104 95.83% Observed Action
Compound II (+) Chlorantraniliprole 0.000625 + 0.000104 68.8%
Colby's Expected Action Compound II (+) Chlorantraniliprole
0.000625 + 0.000104 27.1% Differences: Observed vs. Expected
[0093] As shown in table 7, the observed percent control of the
pesticidal composition against diamondback moth (95.83%) was higher
than the expected percentage control according to Colby's equation
(68.8%). This was 39% improvement over the Colby's expected action.
Therefore, the pesticidal composition comprising 0.000625 weight %
of compound II and about 0.000104 weight % of chlorantraniliprole
showed synergistic effect against diamondback moth.
Example 6F
[0094] A pesticidal composition was prepared by thoroughly mixing
about 0.000625 weight % of compound II with about 0.000156 weight %
of chlorantraniliprole.
[0095] Bioassays were performed for different active compounds
against diamondback moth using the same procedure as that described
for example 6A. The percent control determined three days after
treatment were as shown in table 8.
[0096] As shown in table 8, the observed percent control of the
pesticidal composition against diamondback moth (66.67%) was
substantially higher than the expected percentage control according
to Colby's equation (16.1%). This was 314% improvement over the
Colby's expected action. Therefore, the pesticidal composition
comprising 0.000625 weight % of compound II and about 0.000156
weight % of chlorantraniliprole showed synergistic effect against
diamondback moth.
TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 8 % Control Three Days Treatment for Dose Rate
After Diamondback Moth (weight %) Treatment Compound II 0.000625
4.17% Chlorantraniliprole 0.000156 12.5% Compound II (+)
Chlorantraniliprole 0.000625 + 0.000156 66.67% Observed Action
Compound II (+) Chlorantraniliprole 0.000625 + 0.000156 16.1%
Colby' s Expected Action Compound II (+) Chlorantraniliprole
0.000625 + 0.000156 50.5% Differences: Observed vs. Expected
Example 6G
[0097] A pesticidal composition was prepared by thoroughly mixing
about 0.000625 weight % of compound II with about 0.0000781 weight
% of chlorantraniliprole.
[0098] Bioassays were performed for different active compounds
against diamondback moth using the same procedure as that described
for example 6A. The percent control determined three days after
treatment were as shown in table 9.
[0099] As shown in table 9, the observed percent control of the
pesticidal composition against diamondback moth (50%) was
substantially higher than the expected percentage control according
to Colby's equation (8.2%). This was 510% improvement over the
Colby's expected action. Therefore, the pesticidal composition
comprising 0.000625 weight % of compound II and about 0.0000781
weight % of chlorantraniliprole showed synergistic effect against
diamondback moth.
TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 9 % Control Three Days Treatment for Dose Rate
After Diamondback Moth (weight %) Treatment Compound II 0.000625
4.17% Chlorantraniliprole 0.0000781 4.17% Compound II (+)
Chlorantraniliprole 0.000625 + 0.0000781 50% Observed Action
Compound II (+) Chlorantraniliprole 0.000625 + 0.0000781 8.2%
Colby' s Expected Action Compound II (+) Chlorantraniliprole
0.000625 + 0.0000781 41.8% Differences: Observed vs. Expected
Example 7
Synergistic Effect of
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)sulfinyl)propanamide (II) and Cyantraniliprole Against
Diamondback Moth, Plutella xylostella
Example 7A
[0100] A pesticidal composition was prepared by thoroughly mixing
about 0.0025 weight % of compound II with about 0.0003125 weight %
of cyantraniliprole.
[0101] Bioassays were performed for different active compounds
against diamondback moth using the same procedure as that described
for example 6A. The percent control determined three days after
treatment were as shown in table 10.
[0102] As shown in table 10, the observed percent control of the
pesticidal composition against diamondback moth (79.17%) was
substantially higher than the expected percentage control according
to Colby's equation (29.2%). This was 171% improvement over the
Colby's expected action. Therefore, the pesticidal composition
comprising 0.0025 weight % of compound II and about 0.0003125
weight % of cyantraniliprole showed synergistic effect against
diamondback moth.
TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 10 % Control Three Days Treatment for Dose
Rate After Diamondback Moth (weight %) Treatment Compound II 0.0025
0% Cyantraniliprole 0.0003125 29.17% Compound II (+)
Cyantraniliprole 0.0025 + 0.0003125 79.17% Observed Action Compound
II (+) Cyantraniliprole 0.0025 + 0.0003125 29.2% Colby's Expected
Action Compound II (+) Cyantraniliprole 0.0025 + 0.0003125 50.0%
Differences: Observed vs. Expected
Example 7B
[0103] A pesticidal composition was prepared by thoroughly mixing
about 0.0025 weight % of compound II with about 0.000156 weight %
of cyantraniliprole.
[0104] Bioassays were performed for different active compounds
against diamondback moth using the same procedure as that described
for example 6A. The percent control determined three days after
treatment were as shown in table 11.
TABLE-US-00013 TABLE 11 % Control Three Days Treatment for Dose
Rate After Diamondback Moth (weight %) Treatment Compound II 0.0025
0% Cyantraniliprole 0.000156 25% Compound II (+) Cyantraniliprole
0.0025 + 0.000156 70.83% Observed Action Compound II (+)
Cyantraniliprole 0.0025 + 0.000156 25% Colby's Expected Action
Compound II (+) Cyantraniliprole 0.0025 + 0.000156 45.8%
Differences: Observed vs. Expected
[0105] As shown in table 11, the observed percent control of the
pesticidal composition against diamondback moth (70.83%) was
substantially higher than the expected percentage control according
to Colby's equation (25%). This was 183% improvement over the
Colby's expected action. Therefore, the pesticidal composition
comprising 0.0025 weight % of compound II and about 0.000156 weight
% of cyantraniliprole showed synergistic effect against diamondback
moth.
Example 7C
[0106] A pesticidal composition was prepared by thoroughly mixing
about 0.0025 weight % of compound II with about 0.0000781 weight %
of cyantraniliprole.
[0107] Bioassays were performed for different active compounds
against diamondback moth using the same procedure as that described
for example 6A. The percent control determined three days after
treatment were as shown in table 12.
TABLE-US-00014 TABLE 12 % Control Three Days Treatment for Dose
Rate After Diamondback Moth (weight %) Treatment Compound II 0.0025
0% Cyantraniliprole 0.0000781 25% Compound II (+) Cyantraniliprole
0.0025 + 0.0000781 66.67% Observed Action Compound II (+)
Cyantraniliprole 0.0025 + 0.0000781 25% Colby's Expected Action
Compound II (+) Cyantraniliprole 0.0025 + 0.0000781 41.7%
Differences: Observed vs. Expected
[0108] As shown in table 12, the observed percent control of the
pesticidal composition against diamondback moth (66.67%) was higher
than the expected percentage control according to Colby's equation
(25%). This was 167% improvement over the Colby's expected action.
Therefore, the pesticidal composition comprising 0.0025 weight % of
compound II and about 0.0000781 weight % of cyantraniliprole showed
synergistic effect against diamondback moth.
Example 7D
[0109] A pesticidal composition was prepared by thoroughly mixing
about 0.000625 weight % of compound II with about 0.0003125 weight
% of cyantraniliprole.
[0110] Bioassays were performed for different active compounds
against diamondback moth using the same procedure as that described
for example 6A. The percent control determined three days after
treatment were as shown in table 13.
TABLE-US-00015 TABLE 13 % Control Three Days Treatment for Dose
Rate After Diamondback Moth (weight %) Treatment Compound II
0.000625 4.17% Cyantraniliprole 0.0003125 29.17% Compound II (+)
Cyantraniliprole 0.000625 + 0.0003125 100% Observed Action Compound
II (+) Cyantraniliprole 0.000625 + 0.0003125 32.1% Colby's Expected
Action Compound II (+) Cyantraniliprole 0.000625 + 0.0003125 67.9%
Differences: Observed vs. Expected
[0111] As shown in table 13, the observed percent control of the
pesticidal composition against diamondback moth (100%) was higher
than the expected percentage control according to Colby's equation
(32.1%). This was 212% improvement over the Colby's expected
action. Therefore, the pesticidal composition comprising 0.000625
weight % of compound II and about 0.0003125 weight % of
cyantraniliprole showed synergistic effect against diamondback
moth.
Example 8
Synergistic Effect of
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)thio)propanamide (I) and Chlorantraniliprole Against
Diamondback Moth, Plutella xylostella
Example 8A
[0112] A pesticidal composition was prepared by thoroughly mixing
about 0.0025 weight % of
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)thio)propanamide (hereinafter "compound I") with about
0.0000781 weight % of chlorantraniliprole.
[0113] Bioassays were performed for different active compounds.
Cabbage plants with about two to three new-growth--true leaf stage
were treated with different pesticides using a track sprayer at a
rate of 400 L/Ha. Three second instar diamondback moths, Plutella
xylostella, were infested onto each leaf disc. The percent control
determined three days after treatment were as shown in table
14.
TABLE-US-00016 TABLE 14 % Control Three Days Treatment for Dose
Rate After Diamondback Moth (weight %) Treatment Compound I 0.0025
4.35% Chlorantraniliprole 0.0000781 30.43% Compound I (+)
Chlorantraniliprole 0.0025 + 0.0000781 82.61% Observed Action
Compound I (+) Chlorantraniliprole 0.0025 + 0.0000781 33.46%
Colby's Expected Action Compound I (+) Chlorantraniliprole 0.0025 +
0.0000781 49.51% Differences: Observed vs. Expected
[0114] As shown in table 14, the observed percent control of the
pesticidal composition against diamondback moth (82.61%) was higher
than the expected percentage control according to Colby's equation
(30.43%). This was about 147% improvement over the Colby's expected
action. Therefore, the pesticidal composition comprising 0.0025
weight % of compound I and about 0.0000781 weight % of
chlorantraniliprole showed significant synergistic effect against
diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella.
Example 8B
[0115] A pesticidal composition was prepared by thoroughly mixing
about 0.000625 weight % of compound I with about 0.000156 weight %
of chlorantraniliprole.
[0116] Bioassays were performed for different active compounds
against diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella, according to the
procedure described in example 8A. The percent control determined
three days after treatment were as shown in table 15.
TABLE-US-00017 TABLE 15 % Control Three Days Treatment for Dose
Rate After Diamondback Moth (weight %) Treatment Compound I
0.000625 0% Chlorantraniliprole 0.000156 73.91% Compound I (+)
Chlorantraniliprole 0.000625 + 0.000156 91.30% Observed Action
Compound I (+) Chlorantraniliprole 0.000625 + 0.000156 73.91%
Colby' s Expected Action Compound I (+) Chlorantraniliprole
0.000625 + 0.000156 17.39% Differences: Observed vs. Expected
[0117] As shown in table 15, the observed percent control of the
pesticidal composition against diamondback moth (91.30%) was higher
than the expected percentage control according to Colby's equation
(73.91%). This was about 23.5% improvement over the Colby's
expected action. Therefore, the pesticidal composition comprising
0.000625 weight % of compound I and about 0.000156 weight % of
chlorantraniliprole showed synergistic effect against diamondback
moth, Plutella xylostella.
Example 8C
[0118] A pesticidal composition was prepared by thoroughly mixing
about 0.000625 weight % of compound I with about 0.0000781 weight %
of chlorantraniliprole.
[0119] Bioassays were performed for different active compounds
against diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella, according to the
procedure described in example 8A. The percent control determined
three days after treatment were as shown in table 16.
TABLE-US-00018 TABLE 16 % Control Three Days Treatment for Dose
Rate After Diamondback Moth (weight %) Treatment Compound I
0.000625 0% Chlorantraniliprole 0.0000781 30.43% Compound I (+)
Chlorantraniliprole 0.000625 + 0.0000781 69.56% Observed Action
Compound I (+) Chlorantraniliprole 0.000625 + 0.0000781 30.43%
Colby's Expected Action Compound I (+) Chlorantraniliprole 0.000625
+ 0.0000781 39.13% Differences: Observed vs. Expected
[0120] As shown in table 16, the observed percent control of the
pesticidal composition against diamondback moth (69.56%) was higher
than the expected percentage control according to Colby's equation
(30.43%). This was about 128.6% improvement over the Colby's
expected action. Therefore, the pesticidal composition comprising
0.000625 weight % of compound I and about 0.0000781 weight % of
chlorantraniliprole showed significant synergistic effect against
diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella.
Example 9
Synergistic Effect of
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)thio)propanamide (I) and Cyantraniliprole Against
Diamondback Moth, Plutella xylostella
Example 9A
[0121] A pesticidal composition was prepared by thoroughly mixing
about 0.0025 weight % of compound I with about 0.000156 weight % of
cyantraniliprole.
[0122] Bioassays were performed for different active compounds.
Cabbage plants with about two to three new-growth--true leaf stage
were treated with different pesticides using a track sprayer at a
rate of 400 L/Ha. Three second instar diamondback moths, Plutella
xylostella, were infested onto each leaf disc. The percent control
determined three days after treatment were as shown in table
17.
TABLE-US-00019 TABLE 17 % Control Treatment for Dose Rate Three
Days Diamondback Moth (weight %) After Treatment Compound I 0.0025
4.35% Cyantraniliprole 0.000156 73.91% Compound I (+)
Cyantraniliprole 0.0025 + 91.3% Observed Action 0.000156 Compound I
(+) Cyantraniliprole 0.0025 + 75.04% Colby's Expected Action
0.000156 Compound I (+) Cyantraniliprole 0.0025 + 16.26%
Differences: Observed vs. Expected 0.000156
[0123] As shown in table 17, the observed percent control of the
pesticidal composition against diamondback moth (91.3%) was higher
than the expected percentage control according to Colby's equation
(75.04%). This was about 21.67% improvement over the Colby's
expected action. Therefore, the pesticidal composition comprising
0.0025 weight % of compound II and about 0.000156 weight % of
cyantraniliprole showed synergistic effect against diamondback
moth.
Example 9B
[0124] A pesticidal composition was prepared by thoroughly mixing
about 0.000625 weight % of compound I with about 0.0003125 weight %
of cyantraniliprole.
[0125] Bioassays were performed for different active compounds
against diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella, according to the
procedure described in example 9A. The percent control determined
three days after treatment were as shown in table 18.
[0126] As shown in table 18, the observed percent control of the
pesticidal composition against diamondback moth (100%) was higher
than the expected percentage control according to Colby's equation
(91.30%). This was about 9.53% improvement over the Colby's
expected action. Therefore, the pesticidal composition comprising
0.000625 weight % of compound II and about 0.0003125 weight % of
cyantraniliprole showed synergistic effect against diamondback
moth.
TABLE-US-00020 TABLE 18 % Control Three Days Treatment for Dose
Rate After Diamondback Moth (weight %) Treatment Compound I
0.000625 0% Cyantraniliprole 0.0003125 91.30% Compound I (+)
Cyantraniliprole 0.000625 + 0.0003125 100% Observed Action Compound
I (+) Cyantraniliprole 0.000625 + 0.0003125 91.30% Colby's Expected
Action Compound I (+) Cyantraniliprole 0.000625 + 0.0003125 8.70%
Differences: Observed vs. Expected
Example 10
Synergistic Effect of
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)thio)propanamide (I) and Flubendiamide Against Diamondback
Moth, Plutella xylostella
[0127] A pesticidal composition was prepared by thoroughly mixing
about 0.000625 weight % of compound I with about 0.0003125 weight %
of flubendiamide.
[0128] Bioassays were performed for different active compounds
against diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella, according to the
procedure described in example 9A. The percent control determined
three days after treatment were as shown in table 19.
[0129] As shown in table 19, the observed percent control of the
pesticidal composition against diamondback moth (17.39%) was higher
than the expected percentage control according to Colby's equation
(8.70%). This was almost 100% improvement over the Colby's expected
action. Therefore, the pesticidal composition comprising 0.0025
weight % of compound I and about 0.0003125 weight % of
flubendiamide showed synergistic effect against diamondback moth,
Plutella xylostella.
TABLE-US-00021 TABLE 19 % Control Three Days Treatment for Dose
Rate After Diamondback Moth (weight %) Treatment Compound I 0.0025
0% Flubendiamide 0.0003125 8.70% Compound I (+) Flubendiamide
0.0025 + 0.0003125 17.39% Observed Action Compound I (+)
Flubendiamide 0.0025 + 0.0003125 8.70% Colby's Expected Action
Compound I (+) Flubendiamide 0.0025 + 0.0003125 8.69% Differences:
Observed vs. Expected
Prophetic example PE-11
Synergistic Effect of
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)thio)propanamide (I),
N-(3-chloro-1-(pyridin-3-yl)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-N-ethyl-3-((3,3,3-trifluoro-
propyl)sulfinyl)propanamide (II) and Cyantraniliprole,
Chlorantraniliprole, or Flubendiamide
[0130] A pesticidal composition may be prepared by thoroughly
mixing compound I (weight %) or compound II (weight %) with
cyantraniliprole, chlorantraniliprole, or flubendiamide (weight
%).
[0131] The bioassays may be performed for different active
compounds against brown stink bug, Euschistus heros, using the same
procedure as that described in example 5. The percent control may
be determined some time after treatment.
[0132] The bioassays may be performed for different active
compounds against diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella, using the
same procedure as that described for example 6A. The percent
control may be determined some time after treatment.
[0133] The observed percent control of the pesticidal composition
against brown stink bug is expected to be higher than the expected
percentage control according to Colby's equation. Therefore, the
pesticidal composition comprising compound I (weight %) or compound
II (weight %) and cyantraniliprole, chlorantraniliprole, or
flubendiamide (weight %) is expected to show synergistic effect
against brown stink bug.
[0134] The observed percent control of the pesticidal composition
against diamondback moth is expected to be higher than the expected
percentage control according to Colby's equation. Therefore, the
pesticidal composition comprising compound I (weight %) or compound
II (weight %) and cyantraniliprole, chlorantraniliprole, or
flubendiamide (weight %) is expected to show synergistic effect
against diamondback moth.
[0135] While the present disclosure may be susceptible to various
modifications and alternative forms, specific embodiments have been
described by way of example in detail herein. However, it should be
understood that the present disclosure is not intended to be
limited to the particular forms disclosed. Rather, the present
disclosure is to cover all modifications, equivalents, and
alternatives falling within the scope of the present disclosure as
defined by the following appended claims and their legal
equivalents.
* * * * *