TR2023001550T2 - A METHOD FOR CONTROL OF INSECT PESTS IN COTTON - Google Patents

Abstract

The present disclosure relates to a method for controlling phytopathogenic insects. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to a method of using insecticides to control one or more insects on cotton plants.

Description

DESCRIPTION A METHOD FOR CONTROL OF INSECT PESTS ON COTTON Field of the Invention The present disclosure relates to a method for controlling phytopathogenic insects. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to a method for using insecticides to control one or more insects on cotton plants. Background Cotton is one of India's most important export commodities and the most widely used fiber worldwide. The United States, Uzbekistan, China, India, Brazil, Pakistan, and Turkey are leading countries in cotton production. Different parts of the cotton plant, namely, fiber, linter, and seeds, are useful. The fiber is used in clothing, cellulose obtained from the linters is used in plastics, explosives, and other products, and the seeds provide oil, meal, and hulls. Like any other plant, cotton is susceptible to pest infestation. Aphids, thrips, leafhoppers, whiteflies, mealybugs, and bollworms infest cotton crops. Boltworms are moth larvae that attack the fruiting bodies of certain crops, including cotton. Some of the common bollworms include Diparopsi's castanea, Eari'as perhuegeli, Eari'as fabi'a, Eari'as insulana, Eari'as vittella, Helicoverpa armi'gera, Helicoverpa gelotopoeon, Helicoverpa puncti'gera, Helicoverpa zea, Heliothi's virescens, Pecti'nophora gossypi'ella, and Pecti'nophora scuti'gera. Damage caused by Pecti'nophora gossypi'ella (pink bollworm) includes rosette-infested flowers, damaged seed pods, double seed formation, premature boll drop, discolored lint, and hollowed seeds. Damage caused by Eari'as vi'ttella (spotted bollworm) includes premature shoot drying and drooping, drop of buds and young bolls, swollen buds, and perforated and rotted bolls. Whiteflies are sucking pests that attack certain crops, including cotton. They secrete a sticky, sugary fluid called honeydew, which causes leaves to yellow or die. The honeydew attracts ants, which interfere with the functioning of natural enemies that can control whiteflies and other pests. Natural enemies of pests, also called biological control agents, are living organisms that are extremely important in reducing pest numbers. Parasitoids such as parasitic wasps, thorny flies, and chiggers, pathogens such as Bacillus thuri'ngz'ensi, and predators such as ladybugs, predatory beetles, predatory mites, and spiders are all examples of natural enemies. Fipronil, also known as -amino- 1-[2,6-dichloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-4-[(RS)-(trifluoromethyl)sulfinyl]- 1H-pyrazole-3-carbonitrile, is a phenylpyrazole insecticide. Flonicamide, also known as -amino- 1-[2,6-dichloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-4-[(RS)-(trifluoromethyl)sulfinyl]- 1H-pyrazole-3-carbonitrile, is a pyridine insecticide. All of the above-mentioned options for controlling whiteflies and spotted bollworms have one or more disadvantages, such as lower bioactivity, high phytotoxicity, and adverse effects on natural enemies. Pest control methods for cotton plants have been developed and are being implemented. However, methods that exhibit better bioactivity, as well as other benefits such as lower or no phytotoxicity, lower or no effect on natural enemies, and improved efficiency and cost-benefit ratio, are still being sought and are extremely difficult to find. Therefore, there is a need in the art for an insecticide that can be used to control one or more of the following insect pests: spotted bollworms, pink bollworms, whiteflies, leafhoppers, and thrips, wherein the insecticide exhibits excellent bioactivity, reduced or no phytotoxicity, reduced or no effect on natural enemies of the cotton pest, resulting in improved efficacy and an improved cost-benefit ratio. Objectives of the Disclosure The present disclosure described hereinafter achieves at least one of the following objectives. One objective of the present disclosure is to provide a method for controlling one or more of the following insect pests, particularly spotted bollworms, pink bollworms, whiteflies, leafhoppers, and thrips, on plants. One objective of the present disclosure is to provide a method for controlling one or more of the following pests on cotton plants, in particular, spotted cotton bollworms, pink bollworms, whiteflies, leafhoppers, and thrips. One objective of the present disclosure is to provide a method for controlling one or more of the following pests on cotton plants, in particular, spotted cotton bollworms, pink bollworms, whiteflies, leafhoppers, and thrips, which also has a beneficial effect on the natural enemies of the cotton pests, such as spiders, green lacewings, and ladybugs. One objective of the present disclosure is to provide a method that has no or less phytotoxic effects for controlling one or more of the following pests on cotton plants, in particular, spotted cotton bollworms, pink bollworms, whiteflies, leafhoppers, and thrips. One object of the present disclosure is to provide a method for controlling one or more of insect pests, particularly spotted bollworms, pink bollworms, whiteflies, leafhoppers, and thrips, on cotton plants, resulting in increased cotton yield. One object of the present disclosure is to provide a method for controlling one or more of insect pests, particularly spotted bollworms, pink bollworms, whiteflies, leafhoppers, and thrips, on cotton plants, with improved cost-benefit. Summary of the Disclosure In one aspect, the present disclosure provides a method for controlling one or more of insect pests, particularly spotted bollworms, pink bollworms, whiteflies, leafhoppers, and thrips, on plants, the method comprising treating a crop with a combination comprising fipronil and flonicamide. In one aspect, the present disclosure provides a method for controlling one or more of pests on plants, in particular spotted bollworms, pink bollworms, whiteflies, leafhoppers and thrips, the method comprising treating a cotton crop with a combination comprising fipronil and flonicamide. In one aspect, the present disclosure provides a method for controlling one or more of pests, in particular spotted bollworms, pink bollworms, whiteflies, leafhoppers and thrips, the method comprising treating a cotton crop with a combination comprising fipronil and flonicamide, wherein fipronil is applied at a dose of 75 g/ha fipronil. In one aspect, the present disclosure provides a method for controlling one or more of pests, in particular spotted bollworms, pink bollworms, whiteflies, leafhoppers and thrips, the method comprising treating a cotton crop with a combination comprising fipronil and flonicamide, wherein flonicamide is applied at a dose of 75 g/ha of flonicamide. In one aspect, the present disclosure provides a method for controlling one or more of pests, in particular spotted bollworms, pink bollworms, whiteflies, leafhoppers and thrips, the method comprising treating a cotton crop with a combination of 75 g/ha of fipronil and 75 g/ha of flonicamide. In one aspect, the present disclosure provides a method for controlling one or more of pests, particularly spotted bollworms, pink bollworms, whiteflies, leafhoppers, and thrips, on cotton plants, which also has a beneficial effect on spiders, green lacewings, and ladybugs, which are natural enemies of cotton pests, the method comprising treating a crop with a combination comprising fipronil and flonicamide. In one aspect, the present disclosure provides a method for controlling one or more of pests, particularly spotted bollworms, pink bollworms, whiteflies, leafhoppers, and thrips, the method comprising treating a crop with a wettable granular formulation comprising fipronil and flonicamide. In one aspect, the present disclosure provides a method for controlling one or more of spotted bollworms, pink bollworms, whiteflies, leafhoppers, and thrips, the method comprising treating a cotton crop with a wettable granular formulation comprising fipronil and flonicamide at a rate of 500 g/ha. In one aspect, the present disclosure provides a method for controlling one or more of spotted bollworms, pink bollworms, whiteflies, leafhoppers, and thrips, the method comprising treating a cotton crop with a wettable granular formulation comprising 15% by weight fipronil and 15% by weight flonicamide. Detailed Description of Description The term "pest" as used herein refers to an organism, and particularly an insect, that is detrimental to the growth, reproduction, and/or viability of a plant, a plant part, or a plant seed. In one aspect, a pest is a pest such as a spotted bollworm, a pink bollworm, a whitefly, a leafhopper, and/or a thrips. In one aspect, the plant is a cotton plant. As used herein, the term "control" with respect to a pest includes killing the pest as well as protecting a plant, a plant part, or a plant seed from attack or infestation by that pest. The inventors surprisingly found that the combination of fipronil with Ilonicamid effectively controls whitefly and spotted bollworm populations on cotton plants, while being economical and exhibiting low phytotoxicity and improved yields. This effective control, which is synergistic in nature, was not seen when fipronil suspension concentrate (SC) or Ilonicamid wettable granular formulation (WG) were used separately in isolation (on their own), but was observed when the two insecticides were used in combination in a wettable granular formulation. This synergistic complementarity between fipronil and Ilonicamid was unexpected and surprising. In one embodiment, fipronil and Ilonicamid are applied as a wettable granular formulation. In one embodiment, the wettable granular formulation comprises fipronil in an amount of 10 wt% to 20 wt%, or 12 wt%, based on the total weight of the wettable granular formulation. In one embodiment, the wettable granular formulation comprises Ilonicamide in an amount of 10 wt% to 20 wt% to 16 wt%, based on the total weight of the wettable granular formulation. As used herein, weight percent is based on the total weight of the wettable granular formulation. In another embodiment of the disclosure, the wettable granular formulation comprises 15 wt% fipronil and 15 wt% Ilonicamide, based on the total weight of the wettable granular formulation. In yet another embodiment of the disclosure, the wettable fertilizer containing fipronil and Ilonicamid is applied at an application rate of 500 g/ha. In one embodiment, the wettable granular formulation is applied to the locules of the cotton crop at a rate of 500 g/ha. In yet another embodiment of the disclosure, the wettable granular formulation is applied at a dose of 15% by weight fipronil and 80 g/ha based on the total weight of the wettable granular formulation. In one embodiment, the fipronil is applied at a dose of 75 g/ha. In yet another embodiment of the disclosure, the wettable granular formulation is applied at a dose of 15% by weight fipronil and 80 g/ha based on the total weight of the wettable granular formulation. In one embodiment, Ilonicamid is applied at a dose of 75 g/ha. In yet another embodiment of the disclosure, the wettable granular formulation is applied at a dose of g/ha by weight. In yet another embodiment of the disclosure, the wettable granular formulation containing 15% by weight fipronil and 15% by weight Ilonicamide is applied to control spotted bollworm. In yet another embodiment of the disclosure, the wettable granular formulation containing 15% by weight fipronil and 15% by weight Ilonicamide is applied to control whiteflies. In yet another embodiment of the disclosure, the wettable granular formulation containing 15% by weight fipronil and 15% by weight Ilonicamide is applied to control leafhoppers. In yet another embodiment of the disclosure, the wettable granular formulation containing 15% by weight fipronil and 15% by weight Ilonicamide is applied to control thrips. In yet another embodiment of the disclosure, the wettable granular formulation containing 15% by weight fipronil and 15% by weight Ilonicamide is applied to control pink cotton bollworms. In yet another embodiment of the disclosure, the wettable granular formulation containing 15% by weight fipronil and 15% by weight flonicamide is applied to cotton plants to control spotted cotton bollworms, pink bollworms, whiteflies, leafhoppers, and thrips, and exhibits a positive effect on natural enemies of cotton pests such as spiders, green lacewings, and ladybugs. In one embodiment, the wettable granular formulations disclosed are synergistic in controlling pests when compared to contacting the pest insects with a wettable granular flonicamide formulation or a suspension concentrate fipronil formulation. In one embodiment, the wettable granular formulations disclosed exhibit synergistic control of whitefly and/or spotted bollworm on cotton plants, and non-synergistic control of leafhoppers or thrips. In one embodiment, the wettable granular formulations disclosed are present when the observed efficacy of the formulation against whitefly and/or spotted bollworm on cotton plants is greater than the expected efficacy. The expected efficacy (E) is calculated using the following equation, also referred to as the Colby formula: In the above equation, X is the efficacy of a formulation containing only finopril, and Y is the efficacy of a formulation containing only flonicamide. In one embodiment, the seed cotton (cottonseed) yield from a cotton crop treated with the wettable granular formulation disclosed is at least 10% greater, preferably 15% greater, and still more preferably 20% greater than the seed cotton yield from an untreated cotton crop. The pesticide composition of the present disclosure can protect cotton plants from damage caused by pests, such as insect pests and arthropods that cause damage by feeding and/or sucking on the plants. As will be shown in the examples, the combination of fipronil and flonicamide significantly improved control of whitefly and spotted bollworm, as well as improved the yield of cotton plants (cotton crop). The combination did not show any phytotoxicity. The method of the present disclosure also showed positive results against the pests' natural enemies. For example, there is no significant difference in the number of natural enemies found in the wet granular formulations described and in treated cotton plants compared to untreated cotton plants. The method of the present disclosure improves current disease control to an unexpectedly high degree and surprisingly improves yields achieved in an economical manner. According to the present disclosure, a pest control composition with excellent pest control efficacy and an effective method for controlling pests can be provided. These and other advantages of the disclosure may become more apparent from the examples given below. These examples are provided solely as illustrations of the disclosure and are not intended to be construed as a limitation thereof. EXAMPLES Experiments were conducted to evaluate the bioactivity of a combination of Fipronil and Ilonicamid against spotted bollworms, pink bollworms, whiteflies, leafhoppers, and thrips on cotton. A total of four applications of the prescribed treatments were made at an average interval of 15 days using a hand-operated, high-volume Knapsack sprayer. The first three applications were made to control sucking pests, while the last three were made to control the bollworm complex. Pre- and post-treatment observations of sucking pest populations such as leafhoppers, whiteflies, aphids, and thrips were recorded on three randomly selected leaves from the upper, middle, and lower portions of five randomly selected plants in each plot before spraying and at 3, 7, and 12 days post-spray (DAS). Observations recorded before spraying were square root transformed, but data presented as percentage population reductions were converted to arcsin for statistical analysis. The spotted bollworm population was counted on five randomly selected plants in each plot 10 days after each spraying. Twenty green bolls were collected from five randomly selected plants 10 days after each spraying and dissected to record the pink bollworm population. Percent green boll and open boll damage, as well as locule damage, were recorded. Observations were converted to arcsin for statistical analysis. Phytotoxicity symptoms such as leaf tip/surface injury, necrosis, wilting, epinasty, and hyponasty were recorded 3, 5, and 7 days after spraying. Observations were also made to determine the effects of the treatment on natural enemies of the cotton crop pests, namely, predators and parasites. Five plants per plot were randomly selected and tagged to record the populations of chrysopids, ladybugs, and spiders at 3, 7, and 12 days after spraying. Results were square root transformed for statistical analysis. Seed cotton yield was also recorded at the time of collection and presented as quintals per hectare. The cost-benefit ratio was also calculated for each treatment. The effectiveness of different treatments in controlling cotton insect pests was analyzed by analysis of variance. Treatments were designed as single active formulations (5% fipronil SC or Ilonicamid 50% WG), the commercially marketed product Thiamethoxam 25% WG (3-[(2-chloro-5-thiazolyl)methyl]tetrahydro-5-methyl-N-nitro-4H-1,3,5-oxadiazin-4-imine) and the combination of fipronil and Ilonicamid (by weight). Table 1 below provides a summary of the formulation treatments. For WG formulations, the percent active ingredient is a weight percent based on the total weight of the WG formulation. For the SC formulation, the percent active ingredient is a weight percent based on the total volume of the SC formulation. Table 1: Formulations Serial Treatment Total Dose (ml concentration (ml NO or g/ha) or g/ha) 4. Flonicamid 50% WG 150 75 . Fipronil 5% SC 1500 75 6. Thiamethoxam 25% WG 100 25 7. Untreated Control - - Fipronil + Flonicamide WG Evaluation of Bioactivity: Table 2: Bioactivity Activity against leafhoppers on cotton plant Leafhopper population Percentage Serial Total Reduction Treatment population Average ml or . 3 DAS 7 DAS (Before DAS) DAS Flonicamid 50% Thiamethoxam 25% 6. 100 67.93 Untreated Control DAS: Days after spray, NS: Not significant Conclusion: From the above results given in Table 2, it was concluded that the leafhopper population was evenly distributed in the main field and varied between 29.00 and 33.33 leafhoppers per 15 leaves before application of insecticide sprays. The leafhopper population was found to increase throughout the trial period and was above the Economic Threshold Level (ETL). The data presented in Table 2 above were recorded for the treatment containing 15% Fipronil + 15% Flonicamid, WG applied at 500 g/ha on days 3, 7 and 12 after the maximum average foliar spray, respectively. The next largest reductions in leafhopper population were observed for the treatment with 15% Fipronil + WG applied at 400 g/ha and the treatment with Flonicamid 50% WG at 150 g/ha. The standard treatment with Fipronil 5% SC at each spray was found to be less effective than the other treatments, but superior to the untreated control. The efficacy of all treatments, measured by the percent reduction in leafhopper population, was also evaluated according to Colby's equation. In the Colby equation below, E is the expected efficacy of the combination of fipronil and Ilonicamid, X is the observed efficacy of fipronil SC, and Y is the observed efficacy of Ilonicamid WG. The observed efficacy values (i.e., X and Y) are the mean values of percent population reduction for fipronil SC and Ilonicamid WG, respectively. If the observed efficacy of the combination of fipronil and Ilonicamid was greater than the expected efficacy, then the combination was determined to be synergistic. If the observed efficacy was equal to or less than the expected efficacy, then the combination was determined to be non-synergistic. Colby equation: E = (X + Y) - XY/ 100 Therefore, the expected efficacy of 15% Fipronil + 15% Flonicamid WG is calculated as follows. The observed and expected efficacies were then compared for each of the combination formulations. Table 3: Comparison of observed and expected efficacy of 15% Fipronil + 15% Flonicamid WG against leafhoppers on cotton plants Observed and Actual No. of Treatments in Series Observed Expected Efficacy n Effectiveness _ at or g/ha rate or at or g/ha rate Based on the information in Table 3 above, it was determined that the combination of 15% fipronil and 15% Flonicamid WG was not synergistic in controlling leafhopper populations on cotton plants. Table 4. Bioactivity against whitefly on cotton plant Active White Whitefly population N Treatment material Percentage reduction Average number of whiteflies population 3 DAS l 7DAS l 12 DAS total (Pre-spray) Flonicamide, WG Flonicamide, WG Flonicamide, WG Flonicamide 50% Thiamethoxam 25% Untreated Control Values are mean of three sprays and three replicates. DAS: Days after spray, NS: Not significant. Whitefly population was found evenly distributed in the main field and during the insecticide spray period, whitefly population was found to increase and was above the economic threshold level (ETL). The data presented in the above table were recorded for the treatment containing Flonicamide, WG. The next largest reduction in whitefly population was 73.34 percent in WG treatment with 15% Fipronil + 15% Flonicamid applied at the rate of 400 g/ha on 3rd, 7th and 12th day after each spraying respectively, while treatment with WG at the rate of 300 g/ha, treatment with Thiamethoxam 25% WG at the rate of 100 g/ha and treatment with Ilonicamid 50% WG at the rate of 150 g/ha were found to be less effective than the other treatments while the standard treatment with Fipronil 5% SC applied at the rate of 3rd, 7th and 12th day after each spraying respectively was found to be superior to the untreated control. The effectiveness of all treatments as measured by the percentage reduction in whitefly populations for all three doses of 15% Fipronil + 15% Flonicamide, WG applied alone was also evaluated according to the Colby equation below. Efficacy values are the respective percent population reductions. The observed and expected efficacies were then compared for the combination. Table 5: Observed and expected efficacy of 15% Fipronil + 15% Flonicamide WG against whitefly on cotton Percent Percent Percent Difference between observed and actual Treatment _ _ _ No observed expected efficacy at a rate of g/ha or . . 71 , 14 or 3 . . . 74.94 3.8 Flonicamide WG at the rate of 500 ml or g/ha Based on the information in Table 5 above, the combination of 15% fipronil and 15% Ilonikamid, WG applied at the rate of 400 ml or g/ha or 500 ml or g/ha was determined to be synergistic in controlling whitefly populations on cotton plants. 3. Bioactivity against thrips on cotton plants Thrips Thrips Mean S _ Dose ml ar population Percent reduction N Treatment or population g/ha (Before Spray 3 DAS 7 DAS 12) DAS Flonicamide, Flonicamide, Flonicamide, Flonicamide Thiamethoxam Treatment 137.67 Untreated Control Values are the mean of three sprays and three replicates. DAS: Days after spray, NS: Not significant Thrips population was found to be evenly distributed in the main field and the insecticide sprays population increased throughout the trial period and was found to be above the economic threshold level (ETL). All insecticide treatments effectively reduced the Thrips population significantly, but the maximum mean Thrips population reductions were recorded for the treatment containing 15% Fipronil + 15% Flonicamid, WG applied at the rate of 100% g/ha. The next largest reduction in thrips population was seen in the lower dose treatment of 15% Fipronil + 15% Flonicamide, WG applied at 400 g/ha, resulting in 74.81%, while the treatment with 25% Thiamethoxam, WG applied at 100 g/ha resulted in 68.71%, which were found to be similar regardless of the observation day interval. The effectiveness of all treatments was also evaluated according to the Colby equation below. The effectiveness values are relative values, indicating the percentage population reduction. The observed and expected efficacies were then compared for the combination. Table 7: Observed and expected effectiveness of 15% Fipronil + 15% Flonicamid WG against thrips on cotton Percentage Percentage Batch No. observed expected effectiveness difference between observed and actual effectiveness effectiveness at WG 500 ml or g/ha 1. 74.41 -20.75 WG at 300 ml or g/ ha WG at 400 ml or g/ ha 3. 80.39 - 14.77 Based on the information in Table 7 above, it was determined that the combination of 15% fipronil and 15% Flonicamid WG was not synergistic in controlling thrips populations on cotton plants. Table 8: Bioactivity against spotted bollworm on cotton plants Activity Percentage population reduction Mean Serial Total Treatment NO DOSE m1 10 DASS 10 DATS 10 DAFS or g/ha Flonicamid, WG Flonicamid, WG Flonicamid, WG Thiamethoxam 25% Untreated Control Values are mean of three sprays and three replicates. DASS: Days after second spray, DATS: Days after third spray, DAFS: Days after first spray, NS: Not significant Spotted bollworm (Eari'as spp.) The incidence of spotted bollworm was noticed after the second spraying in both the seasons. The data presented in Table 8 above showed that the maximum reduction of spotted bollworm population was equal to that of the Fipronil + 15% Flonicamide, WG treatment for the treatment containing 15% Fipronil + 15% Flonicamide, WG at 500 g/ha as recorded 10 days after the second, third and fourth sprays respectively. The Fipronil 5% SC treatments at lower ml/ha were found to be equivalent to each other and were recorded as the next most effective treatments to control spotted bollworm populations. The standard controls, Flonicamide 50% WG at 150 g/ha and Thiamethoxam 25% WG at 100 g/ha, failed to control spotted bollworm populations. However, they were superior to the untreated control. The effectiveness of all treatments was also evaluated by the Colby equation. In the Colby equation below, E is the expected efficacy of the combination of fipronil and Ilonicamide, X is the observed efficacy of Ilonicamide SC, and Y is the observed efficacy of fipronil WG. If the observed efficacy of the combination of fipronil and Ilonicamide was greater than the expected efficacy, the combination was determined to be synergistic. If the observed efficacy was less than or equal to the expected efficacy, the combination was determined to be non-synergistic. The Colby equation is E = X + Y - XY/100. Therefore, the expected efficacy of 15% Fipronil + 15% Flonicamide WG is calculated as follows. Efficacy values are relative values, i.e., percent population reduction. Table 9: Observed and expected effectiveness of 15% Fipronil + 15% Flonicamid WG against spotted bollworm on cotton Percentage Percentage Difference between observed and expected actual effectiveness in terms of Series Treatment _ _ No observed effectiveness effectiveness 1. 67.00 -5.57 WG at the rate of 300 ml or g/ha WG at the rate of 400 ml or g/ha 3. 75.43 2.86 WG at the rate of 500 ml or g/ha Based on the information in Table 9 above, it was determined that the combination of 15% fipronil and 15% Flonicamid, WG when applied at the rate of 400 or 500 ml or g/ha was synergistic in controlling spotted bollworm populations on cotton plants. Table 10: Evaluation of boll and locule damage caused by pink bollworm on cotton plants Activites Yield CB Open boll damage (%) Series Total q/ha Rate Treatment _ _ No Dose ml Boll basal Locule Basal or g/ha Boll basal Locule Basal Flonicamide, WG Flonicamide, WG Flonicamide, WG Thiamethoxam 25% Untreated Control Values are the mean of three replicates. Boll boll damage due to pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) Minimum open boll and locule damage was recorded as 6.33 percent and 3.08 percent in the treatment containing 15% Fipronil + 15% Flonicamide, WG applied at the rate of 500 g/ha. The damage was equivalent to the damage in the 15% Fipronil + 15% Flonicamide, WG treatment applied at the rate of 400 g/ha. Standard control. Fipronil 5% SC applied at 1500 ml/ha was found to be the next effective treatment for reducing open boll and locule damage. Flonicamid 50% WG applied at 150 g/ha and Thiamethoxam 25% WG applied at 100% rate were found to be less effective but superior to the untreated control. Maximum open boll damage and locule damage, 24.00 percent and 12.97 percent, respectively, were observed in the untreated control. Seed cotton yield: Seed cotton yield was significantly higher in all insecticide-treated plots than in the untreated plots. The highest seed cotton yield was equal to the Flonicamid, WG treatment in plots treated with 15% Fipronil + 15% Flonicamid, WG at 500 g/ha (i.e., 15.67 q/ha). Application of 15% Fipronil + 15% Flonicamid, WG at 300 g/ha was the next highest yield retention treatment at 14.60 q/ha. The maximum benefit-cost ratio was found in plots treated with 15% Fipronil + 15% Flonicamid, WG at 400 g/ha, followed by 15% Fipronil + 15% Flonicamid, WG at 300 g/ha. Table 11: Activity of Fipronil + Flonicamid WG on natural enemies in cotton ecosystem Spiders/ 5 Plants Ladybugs/ 5 Series Total Plant Treatment ml or BS 3 7 12 3 7 12 g/ha DAS DAS BS DAS DAS DAS 1' Flonicamid, WG 300 2' Flonicamid, WG 400 3' Flonicamid, WG 500 4. WG 150 6. 25% WG 100 7' Not Treated Control _ BS- Before spray. DAS - Days after spraying, NS - Not significant. No long-term adverse effects were observed on the natural enemies (spiders, green lacewings, and ladybugs) that dominate the cotton crop ecosystem. The decrease in the pest population after the sprayings may be attributed to the decrease in the natural enemy population. The present combination was found to be equivalent to the untreated control, regardless of the observation days and the number of sprays. Thus, the combination of fipronil and flonicamide was found to exhibit synergistic control of whitefly and spotted bollworm populations in cotton plants. It was also found to exhibit non-synergistic control of leafhoppers and thrips. The combination was also economical and resulted in improved yields. It also yielded positive results on the pests' natural enemies in cotton. The terms "first," "second," and "etc." are to be construed to include both the singular and the plural unless otherwise specified herein or clearly conflicting in context. The terms "first," "second," and so on, as used herein, do not imply any particular ordering but are merely for convenience, for example, to indicate a plurality of layers. The terms "comprising," "having," "includes," and "accommodating" are to be construed as open-ended terms unless otherwise specified (i.e., meaning "includes, but is not limited to"). As used herein, "approximately" or "approximately" includes the specified value and means within an acceptable range of deviation for a particular value as determined by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account the measurement in question and the error associated with measuring a particular quantity (i.e., the limitations of the measuring system). For example, "about" may mean within one or more standard deviations or within ±10% or 5% of the stated value. Specifying ranges of values, unless otherwise specified herein, is intended merely as a concise method of referring to each individual value within the range, and each individual value is included in the specification as if described separately herein. The endpoints of all ranges lie within the range and may be combined independently. All methods described herein may be performed in any appropriate order unless otherwise specified herein or if the context clearly conflicts with it. The use of any examples or example language (e.g., "such as") is solely for the purpose of further illustrating the invention and is not a limitation on the scope of the invention unless otherwise claimed. No language in the specification should be construed to indicate any element not specified in the claims that is necessary for practicing the invention as used herein. While the invention is described by reference to an exemplary embodiment, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various modifications can be made and elements of it substituted for by equivalents without departing from the scope of the invention. Additionally, many modifications can be made to adapt a particular situation or material to the teachings of the invention without departing from the essential scope of the invention. Therefore, the invention is not intended to be limited to the particular embodiment described as the best mode for carrying out the invention, but is intended to include all embodiments falling within the scope of the appended claims. Any combination of the above-described elements in all their possible variations is covered by the invention unless otherwise stated herein or otherwise clearly contradicted by context.