MXPA97002188A - Method for controlling motes and other insec pests - Google Patents

Abstract

The present invention relates to a method for controlling moths and other insect pests in a habitat and for attracting, increasing, or conserving the natural enemies of moths or other insect pests, which comprises treating the habitat with levadur.

Description

METHOD FOR CONTROLLING MOTHTS AND OTHER INSECT PESTS TECHNICAL FIELD This invention relates to the use of yeasts for the control of moths and other insect pests, and to attract and conserve insect predators of pests. In particular, the present invention relates to the use of yeasts for the control of the cotton worm and the native cogollero worm. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND The cotton worm (Hßlicoverpa armígera Hubner) and the native armyworm are the main pests of cotton. Both insects are polyphagous, and preferentially feed on growing young shoots or reproductive structures. Adults feed on nectar, and the damage they cause is the result of larvae feeding on leaves and buds or pods. The infestations of these moths result in the loss of the terminal bud or of structures that produce fruit, either as flower buds (buds) or as fruits (capsules or pods), causing considerable losses in the field. Host plants other than cotton include corn, sorghum, wheat, sunflower, alfalfa, various legumes, especially soybeans, Cajanus cajan and chickpea, tomatoes, okra. other vegetables, fruits, quality fruits and citrus fruits. REF: 24227 H. armigera is cosmopolitan, and TS the main species in the Old World from Africa to the Pacific Islands, but H. punctigera is an endemic species. The infestation of cotton by Helicoverpa spp. It can occur at any time after the emergence of the seedlings, but its abundance is highly variable, being influenced by environmental factors, abundance of natural enemies, quality and quantity of host plants, and also their migratory movements. The two species usually follow a regular pattern of abundance in all the areas they attack, with H. punctigera being the dominant species before flowering, and well into summer (January). H. armigera becomes dominant from January onwards in most areas, and is rarely seen in early season cotton. The current control program for the cotton worm and the native cottonworm in cotton relies heavily on synthetic insecticides. Cotton crops receive, on average, aspersions of 12 insecticides and insecticide mixtures each season, although extremes of 18-20 sprays still occur. In 1991 Australian cotton growers spent approximately A $ 74 million on insecticides, A $ 15 million on application costs and A $ 9 million on professional consultations, giving total costs of insect control that approached A $ 100 million per year. Excessive reliance on insecticides, and their associated problems of insecticide resistance, especially in H. armigera, disruption of natural enemies of pests, and environmental consequences due to residues in land and water, remote accumulation of the targets near the residence of humans, have cast doubt on the long-term viability of the cotton industry and on the classical insecticide approach. It is therefore essential that an alternative non-chemical control measure against pests be developed to achieve sustainability in cotton production. At present, with our practices of monoculture in agriculture, and the use of pesticides, we are involuntarily discriminating against beneficial insects. Many areas where crops are grown, especially the areas where cotton is grown, are far from the wild vegetation. They often have no trees, no shrubs, no rocks, and often have stubble most of the year. Without natural refuges, without food sources for the adult natural enemies of the phytophagous insects, the beneficial insects become ineffective. There is therefore a lack of diversity and instability in the agroecosystem. DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION In one aspect, the present invention provides a method for controlling moths and other insect pests in a habitat, which comprises interrupting and suppressing the oviposition of females, treating the habitat with yeasts.

In a second aspect, the present invention provides a method for controlling moths or other insect pests, and attracting, enhancing and conserving the natural enemies of moths and other insect pests, in a habitat, which comprises treating the habitat yeasts. In a third aspect, the present invention provides a method for controlling moths or other insect pests in a habitat and attract, increase and conserve the natural enemies of moths and other insect pests, which comprises treating the habitat yeasts and one or more than other food substances suitable to support natural enemies. The present invention controls the moths or other pests through the suppression and interruption of the oviposition of the females. Preferably, the moths and other insect pests are the cotton worm and the native armyworm. The habitat includes cotton, corn, sorghum, wheat, sunflower, alfalfa, several legumes, especially soy, Cajanus cajan and chickpea, tomatoes, okra, other vegetables, fruits, quality fruits, citrus fruits and similar plants. Yeasts include brewer's yeast, baker's yeast, yeast hydrolyzate, and enzymatically hydrolyzed yeast products, and other yeast extracts. Suitable commercial yeast products include Feed Wheast (a product of Knudsen Creamery Company, Los Angeles, California, USA), Prßd-Feßd (a product of Custom Chemicides, Fresno, California), yeast protein (Bee Wheast), Yesta 20B (a product of CPC (United Kingdom) limited, Bovril Food Ingredients Division, Staffordshire, UK). Preferably, the food substance suitable for attracting, enhancing or sustaining natural enemies includes one or more kinds of scharides, crude proteins, fat, fiber or ash. Other substances include natural honeycombs produced by some insects, flower pollen, molasses, sucrose, honey, date syrup (a product of Date Factory, Tripoli, Libya), tryptophan and similar substances. Preferably, the food substance is unrefined sugar. Yeast and unrefined sugar can be applied simultaneously, or sequentially. Insects that are suitable for treatment by the present invention, apart from the cotton worm and the native armyworm, include thrips (Tisanoptaro) (plague thrips, thrips of cotton buds, predatory thrips, onion thrips) . The beneficial insects of Helicoverpa spp. which may be attracted and / or conserved by the present invention include Harmonia arcuata Fabricuis, Diomus notescens Blackburn, Coccinella repanda Thunberg, Dicranolauis bellulus Guerin (predatory beetles); Geocoris lubra Kirkaidy, Cermatulus nasalis Westwood, Nabis capsiformis Gßrmar, Campylomma lívida Reuter (predatory bugs); Chrysopa spp., Micromus tasmaniae Walker (predatory ensopes); Pterocormus promissorius Erichson, Hßteropelma scaposum Morley, Netelia producta (Brulle) (parasitoids), Archaearanea veruculata Urquhart, Oxyopes spp., Lycosa spp., Salticidae spp., Diaea spp., Araneus spp. (spiders). The present invention is also suitable for integration chemical treatments and / or biological treatments against the relevant pest. Suitable chemical treatments include the use of insecticides such as organochlorides (e.g. endosulfan, dicofol), organophosphates (e.g., accephate, Chlorpyrifos, demeton-s-methyl, dimethoate, disulfoton, formothion, monocrotophos, omethoate, parathionmethyl, phorate, profenofos , sulprofos, thiometon), carbamates (aldicarb, carbaryl, methomyl, thiodicarb), pyrethroids (alphamethrin, beta-cyfluthrin, deltamethrin, esfenvalerate, fenvalerate, fluvalinate, lambda-cyhalothrin), chitin inhibitors (for example chlorfluazuron), synergists (for example piperonyl butoxide (PBO), petroleum oil for sprinkling, and similar. Suitable biological pesticides include Bacillus thuringiensis and extracts from the Neem tree (Azadiracta indica) that are known to suppress the larval feeding of both the cotton worm and the native armyworm. The present invention is also suitable to be combined with other treatments, to prevent the development of resistance by pests. The other treatment can be applied simultaneously or sequentially. For example, for a sequential treatment with a particular treatment regimen for the present invention, if the regimen requires treatment every fifteen days, then another treatment may be used every fifteen alternate days, to prevent pests from developing resistance to the present treatment. Typically, the present treatment is alternated with another treatment that includes a substance such as petroleum oil for aspersion, or a combination of petroleum oil for aspersion and saccharides. Suitable oil oils for sprinkling are white oils or inactive or summer oils for sprinkling, as they are known in the horticultural industry. These are typically carbon C? 9-C2ß hydrocarbons. Preferably, the petroleum oils for spraying are C19-C21, but other hydrocarbons having acceptable phytotoxicity can be used. There are a number of such products on the market that are suitable for use in the present invention. These are Sunspray Ultra-fine (USA EPA Reg. No. 862-23, Sunspray 6E Plus), and Sunspray 6 (USA EPA No. 862-11) and 7 (USA EPA No. 862-8), manufactured by the Sun Refining and Marketing Company, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Caltex Lo-Vis, sold by Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Limited, Sydney, and Ampol D-C-Tron and Ampol D-C-Tron NR, sold by Ampol Limited, Sydney. The petroleum oil for spraying and / or polysaccharide can be used in conjunction with suitable agronomically acceptable diluents and / or carriers, and with other additives common in the art, such as emulsifiers, wetting agents, surfactants, stabilizers, spreaders or the like. An additive suitable for use in the present invention is Agral, which is a non-ionic oxide and is a non-ionic organic surfactant sold by ICI. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS Figure 1 shows the oviposition response of cottonworms and native budworms to several commercial sprays in commercial cotton at Norwood, near Moree (a) and Auscott, Narrabri (b) during season 199293. (T1 = brewer's yeast, T2 = sugar, T3 = brewer's yeast + sugar, T4 = polysaccharide + petroleum oil). Figure 2 shows the effect of food spraying (treatment 1) on the abundance of predatory beetles of Heicoverpa spp. on commercial cotton in Norwood, near Moree (Results from December 11, 1992 to January 21, 1993, using a net to trap insects, and from January 28 to March 4, 1993, using a D-vac (b) Figure 3 shows the effect of the provision of dietary supplements (treatment 1) on the numbers of predatory bugs of Helicoverpa spp. on commercial cotton in Norwood, near Moree (results of catches with net for catch insects (a) from December 11, 1992 to January 21, 1993, and (b) captures with D-vac from January 28 to March 4, 1993).

Figure 4 shows the effect of food spraying (treatment 1) on the abundance of predatory ensopes and spiders that attack Helicoverpa spp. on commercial cotton in Norwood, near Moree (Results from December 11, 1992 to January 21, 1993, using a net to trap insects, and from January 28 to March 4, 1993, using a D-vac (b) Figure 5 shows the provision of dietary supplements (treatment 1) on the abundance of some Helicoverpa parasitoids on commercial cotton in Norwood, near Moree (Results of catches with nets to catch insects) MODES FOR CARRYING OUT THE INVENTION A typical formulation of yeast extracts of the present invention comprises 1.5 kg of yeast in 20 liters of water, for application per hectare.A typical formulation of brewer's yeast protein hydrolyzate and sugar comprises 1.5 kg of brewer's yeast + 1 kg of sugar in 20 liters of water per hectare Typically, for a good crop coverage, a formulation of 1.8 kg of brewer's yeast + 1 kg of sugar in 30 liters of water per hectare is adequate. Typically, the treatment involves six sprays at fifteen-day intervals.

The yeast product used for all the following experiments is Yesta 20B, a product of CPC (United Kingdom) Limited, Bovril Food Limited Ingredient Division, Staffordshire, UK. Experiment 1 Mesh tissue chamber study on the oviposition response of the cotton worm and the native armyworm. An experiment was conducted to determine the oviposition response of Helicoverpa armigera (cotton worm) and Helicoverpa punctigera (native armyworm) under "free" and "no" selection conditions on cotton plants in a mesh weaving chamber in November 1992 and January 1993 at the Narrabi Agricultural Research Station (NARS) (30 ° 13'S, 149 ° 47'E) which is located 25 km west of Narrabi in New South Wales. The various dietary supplements / sprays evaluated were (1) 0.06 kg of yeast in 1 liter of water, (2) 0.07 kg of unrefined sugar in 1 liter of water, (3) a mixture of 0.06 kg of yeast and 0.7 kg of sugar in 1 1 of water, (4) a mixture of 0.08 g of polysaccharide and 7 ml (0.5%) of petroleum oil in 1 l of water, and (5) 1 l of water (control). The plants of the experiment were cotton plants sown in pots, 0.5 m high and a variety of normal leaf Sicala VI. The experiment was designed as a randomized complete block, with 10 replicates of each of the 4 treatments above, and one control. Each replica comprised four floors, and each row contained a replica of each treatment. The test was conducted separately for the cotton worm and for the native armyworm in the same cell membrane chamber. Under "free" selection conditions, for each trial, the stems and leaves of each plant were sprayed in relation to each treatment for 10 seconds on both sides using a backpack sprinkler that supplied 420 ml per minute. The control plants were sprayed with water. After application of the treatment, 110 pairs (in the case of the cotton worm) and 100 pairs (native armyworm) were introduced into the mesh weaving chamber to oviposit on the treated plants. The number of eggs deposited on the plants was counted daily until the adults died, thus giving the total number of eggs deposited per plant per treatment. Under conditions of "no" selection, plants of the same treatment were introduced into cages within the mesh fabric chamber, so that the insects had no other option to select from other plants receiving different treatments. Eight pairs (cotton worm) and 5 pairs (native armyworm) were released in each cage: The same number of males was released in the cages, to ensure mating. A record was taken of the total number of eggs per plant per treatment. All data in each experiment were subjected to analysis of variance, and the averages were compared by Duncan's multiple range test (Zar 1984). Experiment 2 Field studies on the control of Hßlicoverpa spp. Experiments were conducted on commercial cotton farms in Norwood (near Moree) and Auscott (near Narrabri) in the 1992/93 cotton season. The plants of the experiment in each study site were of the same age, and of the normal leaf variety, Sicala VI. The treatments evaluated were (1) 7.20 kg of yeast hydrolyzate, (2) 8.40 kg of sugar, (3) a mixture of 7.20 kg of yeast and 8.40 kg of sugar, (4) 9.60 kg of polysaccharides and 840 ml of oil of oil, (5) control (not treated) and (6) control (lots treated with the insecticide of farmers). The experimental lots were arranged in a randomized complete block design, with 4 replicates per treatment and one untreated control. Each replica was 6 meters wide and 100 meters long. A buffer 10 meters wide separated each replica, to minimize the accumulation of sprays between treatments and controls. The pre-treatment insect counts were done 24 hours before the application of the treatment and post-treatment every 7 days, until the end of the study. The foliar application of each treatment was applied on October 27, 1992 in Norwood, and on November 4, 1992 in Auscott, and after that, at intervals of fifteen days, until the end of February 1993, when the sprays in all areas of study. In total, 6 sprays of each treatment were applied in each study site. Sprays were applied using a backpack sprayer that supplied 420 ml per minute. On each occasion, 120 I of spray applied in relation to each treatment, that is, 30 I of spray per replica. The untreated control plants were sprayed with water, and the farmer's lot (treated control) received 12 applications of synthetic insecticides and their mixtures by means of agricultural equipment (early season, that is, from October to December) and by aircraft (middle to late season, that is, from January-April). The pesticide class, date, proportion and methods of the applications are shown in Table 5. The farmers' lot was located 400 meters from the other 4 treatments and from the untreated control. The counts of Helicoverpa spp. (eggs and larvae) were made on sections of 1 meter in each replica, that is, 4 meters for each batch of treatment and control throughout the season. In each study site, the cumulative total number of eggs and larvae per meter of each treatment and control was calculated. In this way also the average number of eggs and larvae per sample date per meter was. The final fruit yields (mature + open capsules) were determined on sections of 1 meter in each replica, that is, 4 meters for each batch of treatment and control at the end of the season. All data were analyzed by analysis of variance and averages separated by Duncan's multiple range test (2'ar 1984). To determine the effect of artificial feeding (represented by treatment 1) on the natural enemies of the cotton worm and the native armyworm, 20 sweeps were made using a net to trap insects (from December 11, 1992 to December 21, 1992). January 1993) and a vacuum sampling of 20 meters, using a D-vac (from January 28, 1993 to March 4, 1993) on cotton plants at 20 meters, 50, 100, 200, 400 meters ( that is, the farmer's lot) away from treatment 1 (which is 0 meters). This was replicated 4 times in each distance. The data were expressed as numbers by sampling date by sweeping or meter in each distance from the batch subjected to spraying with food. The analysis of variance was used to analyze the data, and the averages were compared by Duncan's multiple range test. The results of the oviposition response experiments under conditions of "free" and "no" selection in the mesh tissue chamber are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Significant differences were found (P <; 0.05) in the number of eggs per plant deposited by the cotton worm and the native armyworm between the treatments under both "free" and "no" selection conditions in the mesh fabric chamber (Table 1 and 2). The maximum numbers of eggs per plant were deposited on the control plants (ie plants sprayed only with water), and minimum numbers on plants sprayed with yeast protein hydrolyzate (treatment 1), and a mixture of yeasts and sugar without retinal (treatment 3). A mixture of polysaccharides and petroleum oil suppressed oviposition in the cotton budworm of the cotton, but not in the cotton worm (table 1 and 2). Under field conditions, the oviposition of Helicoverpa spp. it varied significantly (P <0.01) between treatments at both study sites (Table 3 and Figure 1). The cotton plants that received sprinkles of yeast, and a mixture of yeast and sugar, had the smallest numbers of eggs deposited on them, compared with the plants that were sprayed with either synthetic insecticides, or that were left without aspersion (Table 3 and Figure 1). The larger numbers of eggs on the farmer's lot at both study sites indicate that the insecticides used by farmers had no ovicidal effect. Significant differences (P <0.05) were also detected in the numbers of larvae per sample date per meter between treatments, only in Norwood, and the farmer's lot recorded the smallest numbers of larvae, and that of the non-sprayed lot. the largest ones (Table 3). However, there were no significant differences between the numbers of larvae per meter among the rest of the treatments. The insecticides applied by the farmer in Norwood were responsible for the smallest numbers of larvae in this lot. In contrast, the difference in larval numbers per sampling date per meter between treatments at Auscott was not significantly different (P <0.05), even though the farmer applied insecticides on this lot (Table 3). This was possibly due to the fact that the farmer in Norwood applied more insecticides than the one in Auscott. The final yield of fruit in Norwood was higher in the lot of the farmers, and also in lots that received the sprinkling of yeasts (treatment 1), but lower in the other treatments (Table 4). In contrast, the fruit yield in Auscott was higher in the yeast batch, and lower in the farmer batch (Table 4). The average cost per hectare of yeasts was $ 6.80, while that of the insecticides was $ 17 per hectare in stage 1 (October-December), and $ 40 / ha from January to March, when Bt was used by the farmer within the management program for insecticide resistance. The numbers of natural enemies were highest in the lots that received the sprinkling of yeast (treatment 1), and continued to decline until reaching its lowest level in the farmer's flock treated with insecticide, located 400 meters away (Figures 2 , 3, 4 and 5). There was a natural decline in the numbers of natural enemies away from the lot subjected to food spraying (Figures 2-5). The natural enemies of the cotton worm and the native armyworm found in high numbers in the lot under sprinkling with food included the predatory beetles H. arcuata (three-banded ladybug), D. notescens (two-spotted ladybug). C. repanda (transverse ladybug), D. belluius (red and blue beetle) (Figure 2); bed bugs - G. lubra (large-eye bug), C. livida (apple-leaf bugs), C. nasalis (bright-skinned bug) and N. capsiformis (chinche damascepa) (Figure 3); predatory ensopas - Chrysopa spp. (green lacewings), M. tasmaniae (brown bags), and spiders (Figure 4); and P. promissorius parasitoids of the cotton worm and the native cogollero worm (bandworm parasite), H. scaposum (two-tone caterpillar parasite) (Figure 5). The insecticides applied in the farmer's lot could count for the smaller numbers of registered natural enemies. The highest number in the batch sprayed with food indicates attraction and conservation of the beneficial insects. The results of the study clearly demonstrate that yeast protein hydrolyzate prevents the oviposition of Helicoverpa spp. Females, and also attracts and conserves the beneficial pests of pests in commercial cotton farms, without affecting the yield of the crop. The low numbers of eggs and larvae on the lots that received the sprinkling of yeasts were due to a combination of oviposition suppression, predation and parasitism. Spraying with food resulted in fewer eggs being deposited in the lot, and these eggs were overwhelmed by the natural enemies that were in this lot. Pesticides applied to farmers' batch in Norwood maintained low numbers of moth larvae, but this resulted in an outbreak of ticks and aphids. None of the other treatments resulted in an outbreak of ticks and aphids. There was no difference in yields between the lots treated with pesticides and the lots with yeasts at the end of the season. Economically, spraying with food was cheaper, and had no effect on the environment, compared with spraying with insecticide.

TABLE 1. Ovipositional Preferences of Helicoverpa armígera (n = 1 10 pairs) and H. punctigera (n = 100 pairs) on cotton plants subject to sprinkling with various food supplements in the mesh fabric chamber, at the Agricultural Research Station, Narrabri, November 1992.

(Results of free selection tests).

Treatments H. armígera H. punctigera No. of eggs / plant No. of eggs / plant (n = 40 treatment plants) (p »40 plants / treatment) 0. 06 Kg of brewer's yeast 11.78 to 2.10 a in 1 l of water 0.07 kg of unrefined sugar 17.10 b 19.40 b in 1 l of water O.Oß kg of brewer's yeast 10.78 to 3.73 a + 0.07 kg of sugar in 1 1 of water 0.08 g of polysaccharide + 7 ml (0.5%) 25.20 c 3.13 a of oil of petroleum in 1 1 of water 1 I of water (Control) 28.50 c 23.17 b Averages within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P 0.05) (Multiple Range Test of Duncan).

TABLE 2. Selection test not for the oviposition of Helicovefa armígera (p = 8 pairs) and H. punctigera (n = 5 pairs) on cotton plants in the mesh weaving chamber, at the Agricultural Research Station, Narrabri, January 1993 Treatments H. armigera H. punctigera No. of eggs / plant No. of eggs / plant (n = 40 plants / treatment) (n = 40 plants / treatment) 0. 06 kg of brewer's yeast 1.11 to 0.37 a in 1 1 of water 0.07 kg of unrefined sugar 3.82 ab 1.91 be in 1 I of water 0.06 kg of brewer's yeast 3.61 ab 0.83 ab + 0.07 kg of sugar in 1 l of water 0.08 g of polysaccharide + 7 ml (0.5%) 5.33 b 1.99 c of petroleum oil in 1 l of water 1 l of water (Control) 7.61 b 4.45 d Averages within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P> 0.05) (Duncan's Multiple Range Pnjeba).

TABLE 3. Average numbers of eggs and larvae / meter / sample date of Helicovefa armigera and H. punctigera on commercial cotton plants sprayed with various food supplements in Norwod (Moree) and Auscott (Narrabri), October 1992 - March of 1993. Treatments Eggs / meter / sampling date Larvae / meter / sampling date Norwood Auscott Norwood AuSCOtl 7. 20 kg of yeast 1.85 to 0.36 to 1.31 to 0.14 to brewery in 120 1 of water - 8.40 kg of sugar 2.79 ab 0.89 ab 1.31 to 0.09 a in 120 I of water 7.20 kg of yeast 2.21 to 0.43 to 1.29 to 0.11 a de brewery + 8.40 kg of sugar in 120 l of water 9.60 g of polysaccharide 3.83 b 0.59 ab 1.71 to 0.14 a - * - 840 ml of oil in 120 1 of water Control (No spray) 6.44 c 1.09 b 2.66 b 0.21 a Lot of Farmers 6.21 c 2.39 c * 0.60 c 0.27 a Averages within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P> 0.05) (Duncan's Multiple Range Test).

TABLE 4. Comparison of final fruit yield per meter (mature + open buds) in the various lots subject to spraying with food and the lot of farmers who received the conventional control program in Norwod, on March 18, 1993 and in Auscott, on March 22, 1993.

(Average of 4 replicates per treatment).

Treatments Norwood Auscott No. of mature capsules / m No. of mature capsules / m 7. 20 kg of yeasts 93.00 to 118.5 a of brewery in 120 1 of water 8.40 kg of sugar 71.25 b 90.25 b in 1201 of water 7.20 kg of yeasts 71.25 b 93.00 b of brewery + 8.40 kg of sugar in 120 1 of water 9.60 g of polysaccharide 84.75 b 98.50 b + 840 ml of petroleum oil Control (No spray) 75.25 b 91.00 b Farmer's Lot 99.00 to 76.25 c (Control Tested) Averages within a column followed by the same letter are no significantly different (P > 0.05) (Multiple Range Test of Duncan).

TABLE 5. Conventional control program based on current thresholds of pests used by Farmers during the 1992/93 cotton season. Pesticides Application Date Proportion Application Method Lorsban 1 * 1-12-92 0.6 I / ha Injection with water Temik 11-12-92 3.0 kg / ha Applicator on plants Endo ULV 12-11-92 3.0 l / ha By air Dipel EN 12-11-92 3.0 l / h Endo probe ULV 26-11-92 3.0 l / ha By air Dipel ES 27-11-92 3.0 l / h Probe Endo ULV 05-12-92 3.0 l / ha By air Rogor 05-12-92 0.5 l / ha By air Thuricide 11-12-92 2.5 l / ha By probe Larvin 11-12-92 0.5 l / ha By Endo probe EC 18-12-92 2.1 l / ha By air Larvin 375 18-12-92 0.5 l / ha By air Larvin 375 30-12-92 0.5 l / ha By air Maverik 10-01-93 3.5 l / ha By air Endo ULV 27-01-93 3.0 l / ha By air Bt 27-01-93 2.0 l / ha By air Bulldock 09-02-93 2.5 I By air Lannate 09-02-93 2.5 1 By air Thuricide 18-02- 93 2.5 1 By air TABLE 5. (Continued) Larvm 375 18-02-93 0.5 I By air Talstar 18-02-93 0.8 I By air Rogor 11-03-93 0.5 I By air It is noted that in relation to this date, the best method known to the applicant to carry out the aforementioned invention, is that which is clear from the present description of the invention.

Having described the invention as above, property is claimed as contained in the following:

Claims (8)

1. CLAIMS 1. A method to control moths or other insect pests in a habitat, characterized in that it involves interrupting and suppressing oviposition, treating the habitat with yeasts.
2. 2. A method for controlling moths or other insect pests in a habitat, and attracting, increasing or conserving the natural enemies of moths or other insect pests, characterized in that it comprises treating the habitat with yeasts.
3. 3. A method for controlling moths or other insect pests in a habitat, and attracting, increasing or conserving the natural enemies of moths or other insect pests, characterized in that it comprises treating the habitat with yeasts and one or more other food substances suitable to sustain natural enemies.
4. 4. A method according to claim 2 or 3, characterized in that the moths or other insect pests are controlled through the suppression and interruption of the oviposition of the female.
5. 5. A method according to any of the preceding claims, characterized in that the habitat is cotton.
6. 6. A method according to claim 5, characterized in that the moth or other insect pest is the cotton worm (Heiicovefa armigera Hubner).
7. 7. A method according to claim 5, characterized in that the moth or another insect pest is the native budworm (Helicoverpa punctigera Wallengren).
8. 8. A method according to any of claims 1 to 4, characterized in that the habitat is a fruit or vegetable field.