WO 2017/066246 Al 20 April 2017 (20.04.2017) W I P O I P C T
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
(12) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) (19) World Intellectual Property Organization International Bureau (10) International Publication Number (43) International Publication Date WO 2017/066246 Al 20 April 2017 (20.04.2017) W I P O I P C T (51) International Patent Classification: (81) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every A01N 25/04 (2006.01) A01P 17/00 (2006.01) kind of national protection available): AE, AG, AL, AM, A01N 59/00 (2006.01) AO, AT, AU, AZ, BA, BB, BG, BH, BN, BR, BW, BY, BZ, CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DJ, DK, DM, (21) Number: International Application DO, DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, GT, PCT/US2016/056537 HN, HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IR, IS, JP, KE, KG, KN, KP, KR, (22) International Filing Date: KW, KZ, LA, LC, LK, LR, LS, LU, LY, MA, MD, ME, 12 October 2016 (12.10.201 6) MG, MK, MN, MW, MX, MY, MZ, NA, NG, NI, NO, NZ, OM, PA, PE, PG, PH, PL, PT, QA, RO, RS, RU, RW, SA, (25) Filing Language: English SC, SD, SE, SG, SK, SL, SM, ST, SV, SY, TH, TJ, TM, (26) Publication Language: English TN, TR, TT, TZ, UA, UG, US, UZ, VC, VN, ZA, ZM, ZW. (30) Priority Data: 62/240,721 13 October 2015 (13. 10.2015) US (84) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every 62/355,3 12 27 June 2016 (27.06.2016) US kind of regional protection available): ARIPO (BW, GH, GM, KE, LR, LS, MW, MZ, NA, RW, SD, SL, ST, SZ, (71) Applicant: IMERYS FILTRATION MINERALS, INC. TZ, UG, ZM, ZW), Eurasian (AM, AZ, BY, KG, KZ, RU, [US/US]; 1732 North First Street, Suite 450, San Jose, CA TJ, TM), European (AL, AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, CZ, DE, 95 112 (US). DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HR, HU, IE, IS, IT, LT, LU, LV, MC, MK, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SI, SK, (72) Inventors: GITTINS, David; 19 Castle Rise, Truro, Con- SM, TR), OAPI (BF, BJ, CF, CG, CI, CM, GA, GN, GQ, rnwall TR1 3AA (GB). O'NEIL, James; 1720 Ardmore GW, KM, ML, MR, NE, SN, TD, TG). Avenue, Apt 328, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (US). Published: (74) Agents: TOTTEN, Jeffrey, C. et al; Finnegen, Hender son, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, 901 New York — with international search report (Art. 21(3)) Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20001 (US). o (54) Title: COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR PROTECTING PLANTS FROM ORGANISMS ^ (57) Abstract: A method for protecting a plant from an arthropod may include applying an amount of a repellant composition in- eluding diatomaceous earth to a plant. According to some aspects, the repellent composition may render the plant unpalatable to the arthropod, resulting in death of the arthropod by starvation. A method for protecting a plant from an arthropod may include applying an amount of a repellant composition including diatomaceous earth to a plant. The arthropod may not include an exoskeleton, and the repellent composition may render the plant unpalatable to the arthropod, resulting in death of the arthropod by starvation. COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR PROTECTING PLANTS FROM ORGANISMS CLAIM FOR PRIORITY [0001] This PCT International Application claims the benefit of priority of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos. 62/240,721, filed October 13, 2015 and 62/355,312, filed June 27, 2016, the subject matter of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. BELP PF THE DISCLOSURE [0002] The present disclosure relates to compositions and methods for protecting plants from organisms, and more particularly, to compositions and methods including diatomaceous earth for protecting plants from organisms. BACKGROUND [0003] Insecticides have been used to protect plants from organisms such as undesirable insects. The effectiveness of insecticides often relies on the ability of the insecticide to kill the undesirable insects. However, many insecticides suffer from a number of undesirable characteristics. For example, many insecticides include chemical compositions that are harmful to the environment and humans as well as to the insects. Thus, it is desirable to develop alternative compositions and/or methods to protect plants from organisms while mitigating or eliminating undesirable effects to the environment and humans. [0004] Certain forms of diatomaceous earth have been used to kill insects associated with being harmful to plants. It is believed that such forms of diatomaceous earth are effective at killing some insects as a result of direct, physical contact between the insects and the diatomaceous earth. For example, it is believed that when some hard-bodied insects having exoskeletons contact sharp edges of diatomaceous earth particles, the diatomaceous earth particles damage the exoskeleton of the insect by scraping and scratching it. As a result, the insects slowly die due to loss of fluids from the exoskeleton. [0005] However, this method of killing the organisms may suffer from a number of possible drawbacks. For example, it may be difficult to apply the diatomaceous earth to plants in a manner sufficient to prevent substantial damage to the plants before the insects are killed. In some instances, it may be difficult to cover certain areas of the plant foliage, and thus, the organisms may thrive and multiply in such areas, and once the effectiveness of the insecticide has subsided due, for example, to dilution from water resulting from rain or irrigation, the organisms may multiply and significantly damage the plants. [0006] In addition, the method described above with respect to diatomaceous earth may not be effective against certain organism species or may not be effective for protecting certain plant species. For example, soft-bodied organisms, such as, for example, caterpillars of various species, are incredibly destructive to crops and are resistant to the above-noted method using diatomaceous earth because they do not have exoskeletons. Thus, the mechanism of the above-noted method often proves ineffective against such soft-bodied organisms and may fail to adequately protect plant species susceptible to damage from soft-bodied organisms. [0007] Thus, it may be desirable to develop new methods for protecting plants that do not necessarily suffer from the above-noted possible drawbacks with prior art compositions and methods. The compositions and methods disclosed herein may mitigate or eliminate one or more of such drawbacks. [0008] In the following description, certain aspects and embodiments will become evident. It should be understood that the aspects and embodiments, in their broadest sense, could be practiced without having one or more features of these aspects and embodiments. It should be understood that these aspects and embodiments are merely exemplary. [0009] According to a first aspect, a method for protecting a plant from an arthropod may include applying an amount of a repellant composition including diatomaceous earth to a plant. According to some aspects, the repellent composition may render the plant unpalatable to the arthropod, resulting in death of the arthropod by starvation. [0010] According to a further aspect, a method for protecting a plant from an arthropod may include applying an amount of a repellant composition including diatomaceous earth to a plant. The arthropod may not include an exoskeieton, and the repellent composition may render the plant unpalatable to the arthropod, resulting in death of the arthropod by starvation. [0011] Exemplary objects and advantages will be set forth in part in the description which follows, or may be learned by practice of the exemplary embodiments. It is to be understood that both the foregoing general description and the following detailed description are exemplary and explanatory only and are not restrictive of the invention, as claimed. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS [0012] Fig. 1 is graphical representation of average count of first instar corn earworm larvae on the chickpea at four rating intervals. [0013] Fig. 2 is a graphical representation of first instar corn earworm larvae control using Henderson-Tilton. [0014] Fig. 3 is a graphical representation of average count of second instar larvae corn earworm on the chickpea at four rating intervals. [0015] Fig. 4 is a graphical representation of second instar corn earworm larvae control using Henderson-Tilton. [0016] Fig. 5 is a graphical representation of average count of third instar larvae corn earworms on the chickpea at four rating intervals. [0017] Fig. 6 is a graphical representation of third instar corn earworm larvae control using Henderson-Tilton. [0018] Fig. 7 is a graphical representation of average count of fourth instar larvae corn earworms on the chickpea at four rating intervals. [0019] Fig. 8 is a graphical representation of fourth instar corn earworm larvae control using Henderson-Tilton. [0020] Fig. 9 is a graphical representation showing average count of all instars of com earworm larvae on chickpeas at four rating intervals. [0021] Fig. 10 is a graphical representation of all instars of corn earworm larvae control using Henderson-Tilton. [0022] Fig. 11 is a graphical representation of the average damage severity by com earworm feeding on a 1-10 scale, where 1 is no damage and 10 represents 100 of the plants and legumes are damaged. [0023] Fig. 12 is a graphical representation of damage severity averaged over time for all treatments using the standardized area under disease progress curve formula. [0024] Fig. 13 is a graphical representation of control of damage severity averaged over time for all treatments using the Abbot *s formula. [0025] Fig. 14 is a graphical representation of counts of marketable and unmarketable chickpea pods collected from the September 16th harvest. [0026] Fig. 15 is a graphical representation of weight of marketable and unmarketable chickpeas collected from the September 16th harvest. [0027] Fig. 16 is a graphical representation of average weight of a single chickpea based on the total yield weight divided by the yield count.