Abstract:
A bed lifting apparatus comprising a base and a support frame connected by at least one linkage arm, the at least one linkage arm including at least one biasing arrangement arranged to maintain the base and the support frame in a spaced apart relationship, wherein, in use, when a bed is located on the support frame, the bed is maintained in a spaced apart relationship from a floor surface.

Description:
TECHNICAL FIELD 
       [0001]    The present invention relates to the use  Clitoria ternatea  for the control of insect pests, more particularly to the control of moths and their and larvae, and chewing or sap sucking insects generally, through insecticidal activity and/or repelling the insect pest and/or deterring the insect pest from laying eggs and/or influencing the position of egg laying and/or deterring the insect pest from feeding on an agricultural crop or other plant. In particular, the present invention relates to the use of extracts from  Clitoria ternatea  for the control of insect pests of agricultural crops and other plants, more particularly to the control of moths and their larvae and chewing or sap sucking insects on agricultural crops and other plants. 
       BACKGROUND ART 
       [0002]    The Australian cotton industry still relies on repeated applications of synthetic pesticides to manage pests in crops. Accompanying problems associated with insecticide resistance, disruption of beneficial species, high cost of production, and environmental impact now require that alternative strategies be investigated for managing  Helicoverpa  spp. These include (but are not limited to) genetically engineered cotton crops containing insecticidal protein of  Bacillus thuringiensis  (Bt) and other host plant resistances, biopesticides, better management of beneficial species, trap crops, intercropping and companion planting, and manipulation of the behaviour of pests and beneficial insects. Genetically engineered (transgenic) crops are now grown in Australia and many countries to control lepidopteran pests and their introduction has reduced synthetic insecticide use against these pests. However, other pests are not affected by the toxin in the transgenic plants e.g. sucking pests. Also third to late stage  Helicoverpa  larvae that can tolerate the toxin have led to increased use of synthetic insecticides to control them on both transgenic and conventional cotton crops. Thus the need to develop new approaches to manage these pests is crucial. 
         [0003]    One of the approaches with greater potential to revolutionalise the way insect pests are managed in broadacre crops such as cotton, is the use of natural plant chemical compounds or plant extracts. The natural plant extracts or secondary plant compounds (SPCs) in general can influence the behaviour of insects by functioning as cues stimulating an insect&#39;s “interest” or deter insects from infesting a particular host plant (Rhoades and Coates 1976). Many SPCs have evolved in plants to actually protect the plants against pest infestation (Rhoades and Coates 1976). This has led to several examples of SPCs being used as botanical insecticides to reduce pest damage when applied to crop plants. Some SPCs extracted from non-host plants and then sprayed on host plants can change the behaviour of a pest, particularly moths, which then avoid the host plant (Tingle and Mitchell 1984). Numerous studies into pest management have focussed on chemical compounds that kill the pest rather than behaviour modifying compounds (Tingle and Mitchell 1984, Mensah and Moore, 1999). Consequently, potentially useful compounds with more subtle modes of action that could lead to novel products have been overlooked (Mensah and Moore, 1999). Such compounds attract or repel pests over considerable distances; or stimulate or deter both feeding and egg-laying following contact. Deterrent compounds directly suppress oviposition and feeding by insects (Mensah, 1996, Mensah et al. 2000), they are considered more important than stimulants and in fact a deterrent effect is more commonly noted in SPCs (Bernays and Chapman 1994). It is plausible that the efficacy of a deterrent would be increased when used in combination with an attractant/stimulant applied to a non-valued resource (Miller and Cowles, 1990) in a push-pull strategy (Pyke et al. 1987). Therefore, a tool to modify egg laying and/or feeding behaviour of insect pests is a novel approach to pest management in agricultural crops and offers potentially very significant benefits. 
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
       [0004]    In one aspect the present invention provides a composition for controlling insect pests comprising an extract from  Clitoria ternatea  comprising SPCs which have insecticidal activity and/or which repel the insect pest and/or deter the insect pest from laying eggs and/or influence the position of egg laying and/or deter the insect pest from feeding on a plant, wherein the composition optionally comprises a carrier. 
         [0005]    In a further aspect the present invention provides a method of controlling one or more insect pests, the method comprising treating a locus with an SPC having insecticidal activity and/or which repels the insect pest and/or which deters the insect pest from laying eggs and/or influences the position of egg laying and/or which deters the insect pest from feeding on a plant, and which is derived from  Clitoria ternatea.    
     
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES 
         [0006]      FIG. 1  shows HPLC chromatograms of solid phase extraction (SPE) fractions from  Clitoria ternatea  together with UV spectra; 
           [0007]      FIG. 2  graphically illustrates the feeding response of  Helicoverpa armigera  3 rd  instar larvae on cotton leaves treated with  Clitoria ternatea  fractions (no-choice tests); 
           [0008]      FIG. 3  graphically illustrates the antibiotic effects of  Clitoria ternatea  fractions on 2 nd  instar  H. armigera  resulting in mortalities after 48 hours; 
           [0009]      FIG. 4  shows the no-choice feeding response of 2 d  instar  H. armigera  to the masking effects of  Clitoria ternatea  F2 on Lu Mein leaves (feeding attractant) on leaf is weight consumed; 
           [0010]      FIG. 5  shows the no-choice masking effect of  Clitoria ternatea  fraction #2 on Lu Mein Leaves on larval weight of 2 nd  instar  H. armigera  (summary of 3 experiments); 
           [0011]      FIG. 6  is a graph illustrating the efficacy of combined  Clitoria ternatea  formulated in hexane on oviposition of  Helicoverpa  spp. on cotton plants; 
           [0012]      FIG. 7  shows the efficacy of different concentrations of  Clitoria ternatea  formulated in hexane on oviposition of  Helicoverpa  spp. on cotton plants; 
           [0013]      FIG. 8  shows the efficacy of different concentrations of  Clitoria ternatea  formulated in hexane on the number of  Helicoverpa  spp. eggs and larvae per metre per sample date recorded on commercial conventional cotton fields; 
           [0014]      FIG. 9  shows the efficacy of  Clitoria ternatea  formulated in (1) cotton seed oil (2) crude cotton seed oil and (3) canola oil on  Helicoverpa  spp. larvae from 2 nd  instar larvae until pupation on artificial diets; and 
           [0015]      FIG. 10  is a HPLC profile at UV210 nm of a methanolic extraction of a composition comprising SPCs derived from  Clitoria ternatea  plant material at a pre-flower stage (comprising no flowers or pods) by contact with canola oil. The profile was obtained using an Agilent 1100 LCMSD with a Phenomex Luna C18 column at 40° C. using the following solvent gradient conditions: 
       
    
    
       [0016]      
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                   
               
               
                 Mobile Phase: A = 0.05% Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA)-Water 
               
               
                 B = 0.05% TFA-Acetonitrile 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Time (min) 
                 % A 
                 % B 
                 Flow rate (mL/min) 
               
               
                   
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 0 
                 90 
                 10 
                 1.0 
               
               
                   
                 17.5 
                 80 
                 20 
                 1.0 
               
               
                   
                 20 
                 5 
                 95 
                 1.0 
               
               
                   
                 22.5 
                 5 
                 95 
                 1.0 
               
               
                   
                 25 
                 90 
                 10 
                 1.0 
               
               
                   
                 30 
                 90 
                 10 
                 1.0 
               
               
                   
                   
               
             
          
         
       
     
       DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
       [0017]    The present invention relates to the control of one or more insect pests with SPCs derived from  Clitoria ternatea.    
         [0018]    As used herein an SPC, or secondary plant compound, is chemical compound synthesised by a plant which is not essential to the survival of the plant. The SPCs of the present have insecticidal activity and/or repel the insect pest and/or deter the insect pest from laying eggs and/or influence the position of egg laying and/or deter the insect pest from feeding on the plant. 
         [0019]    In an embodiment, the insect pest is a plant pest and the method comprises applying an extract from  Clitoria ternatea  to the plant or its surroundings. 
         [0020]    Embodiments of the invention can be used to treat crops in order to limit or prevent insect infestation. The present invention is especially suitable for agronomically important plants, which refers to a plant that is harvested or cultivated on a commercial scale. 
         [0021]    Examples of such agronomic plants (or crops) are cereals, such as wheat, barley, rye, oats, rice, maize or sorghum; beet, such as sugar or fodder beet; fruit, for example pome fruit, stone fruit and soft fruit, such as apples, pears, plums, prunes, peaches, almonds, cherries or berries, for example strawberries, raspberries or blackberries; legumes, such as beans, lentils, peas or soya beans; oil crops such as oil seed rape, mustard, poppies, olives, sunflowers, coconuts, castor, cacao or peanuts; the marrow family, such as pumpkins, cucumbers or melons; fibre plants such as cotton, flax, hemp or jute; citrus fruits such as oranges, lemons, grapefruits or tangerines; vegetables such as spinach, lettuce, asparagus, cabbage species, carrots, onions, chillies, tomatoes, potatoes, or capsicums; the laurel family such as avocado, Cinnamonium or camphor; and tobacco, nuts (such as walnut), coffee, egg plants, sugar cane, tea, pepper, grapevines, hops, the banana family, latex plants and ornamentals. Also important are forage crops such as grasses and legumes. 
         [0022]    In an embodiment plants include fibre plants, grain crops, legume crops, pulse crops, vegetables and fruit, more particularly, cotton, maize, sorghum, sunflower, lucerne, various legumes especially soybean, pigeon pea, mung bean and chickpea, tomatoes, okra and like plants. 
         [0023]    In an embodiment plants include ornamental plants. By way of example these ornamental plants may be orchids, roses, tulips, trees, shrubs, herbs, lawns and grasses, bulbs, vines, perennials, succulents, house plants. 
         [0024]    In an embodiment, the insect pest is a pest of an animal and the method comprises applying an extract from  Clitoria ternatea  to the animal. In an embodiment the animal may be dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, horses, goats, pigs, chicken, guinea pig, donkey, duck, bird, water buffalo, camel, reindeer, goose, Llama, alpaca, elephant, deer, rabbit, mink, chinchilla, hamster, fox, emu, ostrich. 
         [0025]    In an embodiment the method comprises treating a habitat. 
         [0026]    The present invention encompasses applying a  Clitoria ternatea  extract in oil, water or any carrier product to a plant affected by the pest or its surroundings, or to an animal affected by the pest. Treatment can include use of an oil-based formulation, a water-based formulation, a residual formulation, wettable powder and the like. In some embodiments, combinations of formulations can be employed to achieve the benefits of different formulation types. The extract may added to the carrier or, in the case of a liquid formulation, the carrier may have been used to extract SPCs from  Clitoria ternatea  e.g. canola oil. 
         [0027]    In an embodiment the formulation is an oil-based formulation which may further comprise a surfactant. 
         [0028]    In an embodiment the formulation is an oil-based formulation and the oil is a C19-C27 hydrocarbon. 
         [0029]    In an embodiment the formulation includes a extract from  Clitoria ternatea  in a polar solvent such as an alcohol, ketone, aldehyde or sulfoxide. In particular, the formulation may be an extract from  Clitoria ternatea  in alcohol. 
         [0030]    In an embodiment the formulation includes a methanolic extract from  Clitoria ternatea . In an embodiment the formulation includes an ethanolic extract from  Clitoria ternatea . In an embodiment the formulation includes an extract from  Clitoria ternatea  in low molecular weight oil such as crude and refined cotton seed oil or canola oil. Other oils include white oils, DC Tron oil (nC 21 and nC 24 oils), Canopy oil (nC 27 oil), Biopest oil (nC 24 oils), dormant oil or summer oil, as known in the horticultural industry. Most of these oils are nC 19-nC 27 but other hydrocarbons having acceptable toxicity may be used. There are number of such products in the market which are suitable for use with the present invention. These are Sunspray oil, tea tree oil, Sunspray Ultra fine manufactured by the Sun Refining and Marketing Company. 
         [0031]    The petroleum spray oil may 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. 
         [0032]    In an embodiment the formulation includes an aqueous extract from  Clitoria ternatea.    
         [0033]    In an embodiment the formulation includes an extract from  Clitoria ternatea  in a lower hydrocarbon solvent such as hexane. 
         [0034]    In an embodiment the formulation includes a fraction of a crude extract from  Clitoria ternatea    
         [0035]    In an embodiment the formulation includes a mixture of fractions of a crude extract from  Clitoria ternatea.    
         [0036]    The term “carrier” as used herein means a liquid or solid material, which can be inorganic or organic and of synthetic or natural origin, with which the active compound is mixed or formulated to facilitate application a composition according to the invention or an SPC derived from  Clitoria ternatea  is applied to a locus to be treated, or to facilitate its storage, transport and/or handling. In general, any of the materials customarily employed in formulating insecticides are suitable. 
         [0037]    The term “locus” as used herein refers to a place to which a composition according to the invention or an SPC derived from  Clitoria ternatea  is applied. It includes application to an individual plant, a group of plants such as a plant and/or its surrounds, an animal individually or in a group and the region in which plants may be planted or in which animals may congregate, as well application directly to an insect or insects and/or the vicinity in which they are located. 
         [0038]    The compositions of the present invention can be employed alone or in the form of mixtures with such solid and/or liquid dispersible carrier vehicles and/or other known compatible active agents such as pesticides, or acaricides, nematicides, fungicides, bactericides, rodenticides, herbicides, fertilizers, growth-regulating agents, etc., if desired, or in the form of particular dosage preparations for specific application made therefrom, such as solutions, emulsions, suspensions, powders, pastes, and granules which are thus ready for use. 
         [0039]    The compositions of the present invention can be formulated or mixed with, if desired, conventional inert insecticide diluents or extenders of the type usable in conventional pest control agents, e.g., conventional dispersible carrier vehicles in the form of solutions, emulsions, suspensions, emulsifiable concentrates, spray powders, pastes, soluble powders, dusting agents, granules or foams. 
         [0040]    Typical emulsifiers that may be suitable for use in the compositions of the invention, include, but are not limited to, light molecular weight oils (e.g., canola, cottonseed, groundnut, corn, germ, olive, castor and sesame oils), and non-anionic, anionic and cationic surfactants. Blends of any of the above emulsifiers may also be used in the compositions of the present invention. 
         [0041]    Typical non-ionic surfactants include ethoxylated alkanols, in particular ethoxylated fatty alcohols and ethoxylated oxoalcohols, such as ethoxylated lauryl alcohol, ethoxylated isotridecanol, ethoxylated cetyl alcohol, ethoxylated stearyl alcohol, and esters thereof, such as acetates; ethoxylated alkylphenols, such as ethoxylated nonylphenyl, ethoxylated dodecylphenyl, ethoxylated isotridecylphenol and the esters thereof, e.g. the acetates alkylglucosides and alkyl polyglucosides, ethoxylated alkylglucosides; ethoxylated fatty amines, ethoxylated fatty acids, partial esters, such as mono-, di- and triesters of fatty acids with glycerine or sorbitan, such as glycerine monostearate, glycerine monooleate, sorbitanmonolaurate, sorbitanmonopalmitate, sorbitanmonostearate, sorbitan monooleate, sorbitantristearate, sorbitan trioleate; ethoxylated esters of fatty acids with glycerine or sorbitan, such as polyoxyethylene glycerine monostearate, polyoxyethylene sorbitanmonolaurate, sorbitanmonopalmitate, polyoxyethylene sorbitanmonostearate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monooleate, polyoxyethylene sorbitantristearate, polyoxyethylene sorbitan trioleate; ethoxylates of vegetable oils or animal fats, such as corn oil ethoxylate, castor oil ethoxylate, tallow oil ethoxylate; ethoxylates of fatty amines, fatty amides or of fatty acid diethanolamides. 
         [0042]    Typical anionic surfactants include salts, in particular, sodium, potassium calcium or ammonium salts of alkylsulfonates, such as lauryl sulfonate, isotridecylsulfonate, alkylsulfates, in particular fatty alcohol sulfates, such as lauryl sulfate, isotridecylsulfate, cetylsulfate, stearylsulfate—aryl- and alkylarylsulfonates, such as napthylsulfonate, dibutylnaphtylsulfonate, alkyldiphenylether sulfonates such as dodecyldiphenylether sulfonate, alkylbenzene sulfonates such as cumylsulfonate, nonylbenzenesulfonate and dodecylbenzene sulfonate; sulfonates of fatty acids and fatty acid esters; —sulfates of fatty acids and fatty acid esters; sulfates of ethoxylated alkanols, such as sulfates of ethoxylated lauryl alcohol; sulfates of alkoxylated alkylphenols; alkylphosphates and dialkylphosphates; dialkylesters of sulfosuccinic acid, such as dioctylsulfosuccinate, acylsarcosinates, fatty acids, such as stearates, acylglutamates, ligninsulfonates, low molecular weight condensates of naphthalinesulfonic acid or phenolsulfonic acid with formaldehyde and optionally urea; 
         [0043]    Typical cationic surfactants include quaternary ammonium compounds, in particular alkyltrimethylammonium salts and dialkyldimethylammonium salts, e.g. the halides, sulfates and alkylsulfates. 
         [0044]    In some embodiments, the insect control compositions can be combined with one or more synthetic insecticides or pesticides. In one embodiment, the insecticide or pesticide is selected from one or more of endosulfan, dicofol, chlorpyrifos, dimethoate, disulfoton, omethoate, parathion, phorate, profenofos, sulprofos, thiometon, aldicarb, carbaryl, beta-cyfluthrin, deltamethrin, esfenvalerate, fenvalerate, fluvalinate, lamda-cyhalothrin, chlorfluazuron, piperonyl butoxide, and petroleum spray oils. In another embodiment, the pesticide is a biological pesticide selected from a nuclear polyhedrosis virus and/or a plant extract known to be anti-feedant of pests. In yet another embodiment, the insecticide or pesticide is used at a reduced label rate. For example, the insecticide or pesticide may be used at half or one-third of the label rate. 
         [0045]    The compositions of the present invention can be used to control insects by either treating a host directly, or treating an area in which the host will be located. For example, the host can be treated directly by using a spray formulation, which can be applied to a plant individually or when grouped, such as an agricultural crop. 
         [0046]    The formulation of the present invention may further comprise other formulation auxiliaries known in the art of agrochemical formulations in customary amounts. Such auxiliaries include, but are not limited to, antifreeze agents (such as but not limited to glycerine, ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, monopropylene glycol, hexylene glycol, 1-methoxy-2-propanol, cyclohexanol), buffering agents (such as but not limited to sodium hydroxide, phosphoric acid), preserving agents (such as but not limited to derivatives of 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one, benzoic acid, sorbic acid, formaldehyde, a combination of methyl parahydroxybenzoate and propyl parahydroxybenzoate), stabilizing agents (such as but not limited to acids, preferably organic acids, such as dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid or butyl hydroxyl toluene, butyl hydroxyl anisole), thickening agents (such as but not limited to heteropolysaccharide and starches), and antifoaming agents (such as but not limited to those based on silicone, particularly polydimethylsiloxane). Such auxiliaries are commercially available and known in the art. 
         [0047]    In an embodiment the present invention uses fractions, active compounds and crude extracts of  Clitoria ternatea  formulated in oil and emulsifiers to control cotton pests. 
         [0048]    Preferably, the  Clitoria ternatea  extracts and formulations are suitable for killing the insect. The extract or formulation in water when applied to the plant or insect penetrates the insect&#39;s cuticle layers or is ingested to kill the insects or the residue of the extract on the plant can repel insects or deter the insects from egg laying or feeding. The formulation can kill or deter insect egg laying or feeding within 3-4 days of application to the insect or the target crop. 
         [0049]    In an embodiment the  Clitoria ternatea  extract, fractions, crude or active compounds in oil is dissolved in water and applied to the crops infested with the target insects. The rate of application of the composition of the invention is typically between 1-2 litres of oil formulated extracts or active compounds dissolved in 1-500 litres of water, preferably 60-100 litres of water per hectare. In an embodiment, the rate of application is about 2 litres of oil formulated extracts dissolved in about 100 litres of water per hectare of plants. In an alternative embodiment, the rate of application is about 2 litres of oil formulation. Typically the treatment may involve at least four sprays at 14-28 day intervals. 
         [0050]    Alternatively, the method may comprise applying 1-3000 ml, preferably 1000-2000 ml, of oil formulated extracts or active compounds per hectare of plants in the absence of dissolution of the oil formulated extracts or active is compounds in water, particularly when smaller areas are to be treated. When, for example, plants in a greenhouse, are to be treated. 
         [0051]    While not wishing to be bound by theory, it is believed that the present invention controls moths and their larvae and chewing or sap sucking pests by repelling the pests, suppression of egg laying, deterrence of feeding and direct contact activity of the plant extract which kills the insect. There may also be method of control of other non-target pests and conservation of natural enemies of the moths and their larvae and chewing or sap sucking pests through treatment of the habitat. 
         [0052]    In an embodiment the  Clitoria ternatea  structure used is the leaves, stems, roots, pods, seeds and a combination of any of the plant parts. These may be used as fractions or crude extracts in formulations such as low and high molecular oil or water or any other carriers to control moths and their larvae and chewing or sap sucking pests through repellent action, suppression of egg laying, deterrence of feeding and direct contact activity. 
         [0053]    Botanically,  Clitoria ternatea  belongs to the family Fabaceae and sub family Papilionaceae. The family Fabaceae is a large family of around 12,000 species that cover a wide range of life forms from annuals to rainforest trees. Widespread in tropical and temperate regions, and the source of many economically important food plants, fodder crops, ornamentals, timber species and weeds,  Clitoria ternatea  is a climbing perennial, with sparsely hairy leaves usually with five leaflets. The flowers are large, to 5 cm, solitary or in pairs, blue with a yellow blotch in the centre, produced between April and June. In Australia it is a garden escape pest which has naturalised on creek banks and around waterholes throughout the Kimberley; also around coastal settlements in the Pilbara and Gascoyne. It is also used as a forage crop in large part of north QLD. It is pantropical, and probably native to tropical America. 
         [0054]    For purposes of simplicity, the term “insect” or its equivalents or derivatives such as “insecticidal” shall be used in this application; however, it should be understood that the term “insect” refers, not only to insects but to their immature forms and larvae. 
         [0055]    Those skilled in the art will recognize that not all compounds are equally effective against all insects. In embodiments the compositions display activity against insect pests, which may include economically important agronomic, forest, greenhouse, nursery, ornamentals, food and fiber, public and animal health, domestic and commercial structure, household, and stored product pests. Insect pests include insects selected from the orders Coleoptera, Diptera, Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, Mallophaga, Homoptera, Hemiptera, Orthoptera, Thysanoptera, Dermaptera, Isoptera, Anoplura, Siphonaptera, Trichoptera, etc., particularly Coleoptera and Lepidoptera. 
         [0056]    Larvae of the order Lepidoptera include, but are not limited to, armyworms, cutworms, loopers, and heliothines in the family Noctuidae  Spodoptera frugiperda  JE Smith (fall armyworm);  S. exigua  Hübner (beet armyworm);  S. litura  Fabricius (tobacco cutworm, cluster caterpillar);  Mamestra configurata  Walker (bertha armyworm);  M. brassicae  Linnaeus (cabbage moth);  Agrotis ipsilon  Hufnagel (black cutworm);  A. orthogonia  Morrison (western cutworm);  A. subterranea  Fabricius (granulate cutworm);  Alabama argillacea  Hübner (cotton leaf worm);  Trichoplusia ni  Hübner (cabbage looper);  Pseudoplusia includens  Walker (soybean looper);  Anticarsia gemmatalis  Hübner (velvetbean caterpillar);  Hypena scabra  Fabricius (green cloverworm);  Heliothis virescens  Fabricius (tobacco budworm);  Pseudaletia unipuncta  Haworth (armyworm);  Athetis mindara  Barnes and Mcdunnough (rough skinned cutworm);  Euxoa messo{acute over (η)}a  Harris (darksided cutworm);  Earias insulana  Boisduval (spiny bollworm);  E. vittella  Fabricius (spotted bollworm);  Helicoverpa armigera  Hübner (American bollworm);  H. zea  Boddie (corn earworm or cotton bollworm);  Melanchra picta  Harris (zebra caterpillar); Egira (Xylomyges) curialis Grote (citrus cutworm); borers, casebearers, webworms, coneworms, and skeleton izers from the family Pyralidae  Ostrinia nubilalis  Hübner (European corn borer);  Amyelois transitella  Walker (naval orangeworm);  Anagasta kuehniella  Zeller (Mediterranean flour moth);  Cadra cautella  Walker (almond moth);  Chilo suppressalis  Walker (rice stem borer);  C. partellus , (sorghum borer);  Corcyra cephalonica  Stainton (rice moth);  Crambus caliginosellus  Clemens (corn root webworm);  C. teterrellus  Zincken (bluegrass webworm);  Cnaphalocrocis medinalis  Guenee (rice leaf roller);  Desmia funeralis  Hübner (grape leaffolder);  Diaphania hyalinata  Linnaeus (melon worm);  D. nitidalis  Stoll (pickleworm);  Diatraea grandiosella  Dyar (southwestern corn borer),  D. saccharalis  Fabricius (surgarcane borer);  Eoreuma loftini  Dyar (Mexican rice borer);  Ephestia elutella  Hübner (tobacco (cacao) moth);  Galleria mellonella  Linnaeus (greater wax moth);  Herpetogramma licarsisalis  Walker (sod webworm);  Homoeosoma electellum  Hulst (sunflower moth);  Elasmopalpus lignosellus  Zeller (lesser cornstalk borer);  Achroia g{acute over (η)}sella  Fabricius (lesser wax moth);  Loxostege sticticalis  Linnaeus (beet webworm);  Orthaga thyrisalis  Walker (tea tree web moth);  Maruca testulalis  Geyer (bean pod borer);  Plodia interpunctella  HüObner (Indian meal moth);  Scirpophaga incertulas  Walker (yellow stem borer);  Udea rubigalis  Guenee (celery leaftier); and leafrollers, budworms, seed worms, and fruit worms in the family Tortricidae  Acleris gloverana  Walsingham (Western blackheaded budworm);  A. variana  Fernald (Eastern blackheaded budworm);  Archips argyrospila  Walker (fruit tree leaf roller);  A. rosana  Linnaeus (European leaf roller); and other  Archips  species,  Adoxophyes orana  Fischer von Rósslerstamm (summer fruit tortrix moth);  Cochylis hospes  Walsingham (banded sunflower moth);  Cydia latiferreana  Walsingham (filbertworm);  C. pomonella  Linnaeus (coding moth);  Platynota flavedana  Clemens (variegated leaf roller);  P. stultana  Walsingham (omnivorous leafroller);  Lobesia botrana  Denis &amp; Schiffermiiller (European grape vine moth);  Spilonota ocellana  Denis &amp; Schiffermiiller (eyespotted bud moth);  Endopiza viteana  Clemens (grape berry moth);  Eupoecilia ambiguella  Hübner (vine moth);  Bonagota salub{acute over (η)}cola  Meyrick (Brazilian apple leaf roller);  Grapholita molesta  Busck (oriental fruit moth);  Suleima helianthana  Riley (sunflower bud moth);  Argyrotaenia  spp.;  Choristoneura  spp. 
         [0057]    Selected other agronomic pests in the order Lepidoptera include, but are not limited to,  Alsophila pometaria  Harris (fall cankerworm);  Anarsia lineatella  Zeller (peach twig borer);  Anisota senatoria  J. E. Smith (orange striped oakworm);  Antheraea pernyi  Guerin-Meneville (Chinese Oak Tussah Moth);  Bombyx mori  Linnaeus (Silkworm); Bucculat{acute over (η)}x thurbeflella Busck (cotton leaf perforator);  Colias eurytheme  Boisduval (alfalfa caterpillar);  Datana integerrima  Grote &amp; Robinson (walnut is caterpillar);  Dendrolimus sibiricus  Tschetwerikov (Siberian silk moth),  Ennomos subsignaria  Hübner (elm spanworm);  Erannis tiliaria  Harris (linden looper);  Euproctis chrysorrhoea  Linnaeus (browntail moth);  Harrisina americana  Guerin-Meneville (grapeleaf skeletonizer);  Hemileuca oliviae  Cockrell (range caterpillar);  Hyphantria cunea  Drury (fall webworm);  Keiferia lycopersicella  Walsingham (tomato pinworm);  Lambdina fiscellaria fiscellaria  Hulst (Eastern hemlock looper);  L. fiscellaria lugubrosa  Hulst (Western hemlock looper);  Leucoma salicis  Linnaeus (satin moth);  Lymantria dispar  Linnaeus (gypsy moth);  Manduca quinquemaculata  Haworth (five spotted hawk moth, tomato hornworm);  M. sexta  Haworth (tomato hornworm, tobacco hornworm);  Operophtera brumata  Linnaeus (winter moth);  Paleacrita vernata  Peck (spring cankerworm);  Papilio cresphontes  Cramer (giant swallowtail, orange dog);  Phryganidia californica  Packard (California oakworm);  Phyllocnistis citrella  Stainton (citrus leafminer);  Phyllonorycter blancardella  Fabricius (spotted tentiform leafminer);  Pieris brassicae  Linnaeus (large white butterfly);  P. rapae  Linnaeus (small white butterfly);  P. napi  Linnaeus (green veined white butterfly);  Platyptilia carduidactyla  Riley (artichoke plume moth);  Plutella xylostella  Linnaeus (diamondback moth);  Pectinophora gossypiella  Saunders (pink bollworm);  Pontia protodice  Boisduval &amp; Leconte (Southern cabbageworm);  Sabulodes aegrotata  Guenee (omnivorous looper);  Schizura concinna  J. E. Smith (red humped caterpillar);  Sitotroga cerealella  Olivier (Angoumois grain moth);  Thaumetopoea pityocampa  Schiffermuller (pine processionary caterpillar);  Tineola bisselliella  Hummel (webbing clothesmoth);  Tuta absoluta  Meyrick (tomato leafminer);  Yponomeuta padella  Linnaeus (ermine moth);  Heliothis subflexa  Guenee;  Malacosoma  spp. and  Orgyia  spp. Of interest are larvae and adults of the order Coleoptera including weevils from the families Anthribidae, Bruchidae, and Curculionidae (including, but not limited to:  Anthonomus grandis  Boheman (boll weevil);  Lissorhoptrus oryzophilus  Kuschel (rice water weevil);  Sitophilus granarius  Linnaeus (granary weevil);  S. oryzae  Linnaeus (rice weevil);  Hypera punctata  Fabricius (clover leaf weevil);  Cylindrocopturus adspersus  LeConte (sunflower stem weevil);  Smicronyx fulvus  LeConte (red sunflower seed weevil);  S. sordidus  LeConte (gray sunflower seed weevil);  Sphenophorus maidis  Chittenden (maize billbug)); flea beetles, cucumber beetles, rootworms, leaf beetles, potato beetles, and leafminers in the family Chrysomelidae (including, but not limited to:  Leptinotarsa decemlineata  Say (Colorado potato beetle);  Diabrotica virgifera virgifera  LeConte (western corn rootworm);  D. barberi  Smith &amp; Lawrence (northern corn rootworm);  D. undecimpunctata howardi  Barber (southern corn rootworm);  Chaetocnema pulicaria  Melsheimer (corn flea beetle);  Phyllotreta cruciferae  Goeze (corn flea beetle);  Colaspis brunnea  Fabricius (grape  colaspis );  Oulema melanopus  Linnaeus (cereal leaf beetle);  Zygogramma exclamationis  Fabricius (sunflower beetle)); beetles from the family Coccinellidae (including, but not limited to:  Epilachna vatvestis  Mulsant (Mexican bean beetle)); chafers and other beetles from the family Scarabaeidae (including, but not limited to:  Popilliajaponica  Newman (Japanese beetle);  Cyclocephala borealis  Arrow (northern masked chafer, white grub);  C. immaculata  Olivier (southern masked chafer, white grub);  Rhizotrogus majalis  Razoumowsky (European chafer);  Phyllophaga crinita  Burmeister (white grub);  Ligyrus gibbosus  De Geer (carrot beetle)); carpet beetles from the family Dermestidae; wireworms from the family Elatehdae,  Eleodes  spp.,  Melanotus  spp.;  Conoderus  spp.;  Limonius  spp.;  Agriotes  spp.;  Ctenicera  spp.;  Aeolus  spp.; bark beetles from the family Scolytidae and beetles from the family Tenebhonidae. 
         [0058]    Adults and immatures of the order Diptera are of interest, including leafminers  Agromyza parvicornis  Loew (corn blotch leafminer); midges (including, but not limited to:  Contarinia sorghicola  Coquillett (sorghum midge);  Mayetiola destructor  Say (Hessian fly);  Sitodiplosis mosellana  Gehin (wheat midge);  Neolasioptera murtfeldtiana  Felt, (sunflower seed midge)); fruit flies (Tephritidae),  Oscinella frit  Linnaeus (frit flies); maggots (including, but not limited to:  Delia platura  Meigen (seedcorn maggot);  D. coarctata  Fallen (wheat bulb fly); and other  Delia  spp.,  Meromyza americana  Fitch (wheat stem maggot);  Musca domestica  Linnaeus (house flies);  Fannia canicularis  Linnaeus,  F. femoralis  Stein (lesser house flies);  Stomoxys calcitrans  Linnaeus (stable flies)); face flies, horn flies, blow flies,  Chrysomya  spp.;  Phormia  spp.; and other muscoid fly pests, horse flies  Tabanus  spp.; bot flies  Gastrophilus  spp.;  Oestrus  spp.; cattle grubs  Hypoderma  spp.; deer flies  Chrysops  spp.;  Melophagus ovinus  Linnaeus (keds); and other Brachycera, mosquitoes  Aedes  spp.;  Anopheles  spp.;  Culex  spp.; black flies  Prosimulium  spp.;  Simulium  spp.; biting midges, sand flies, sciands, and other Nematocera. Included as insects of interest are adults and nymphs of the orders Hemiptera and Homoptera such as, but not limited to, adelgids from the family Adelgidae, plant bugs from the family Miridae, cicadas from the family Cicadidae, leafhoppers,  Empoasca  spp.; from the family Cicadellidae, planthoppers from the families Cixiidae, Flatidae, Fulgoroidea, lssidae and Delphacidae, treehoppers from the family Membracidae, psyllids from the family Psyllidae, whiteflies from the family Aleyrodidae, aphids from the family Aphididae, phylloxera from the family Phylloxeridae, mealybugs from the family Pseudococcidae, scales from the families Asterolecanidae, Coccidae, Dactylopiidae, Diaspididae, Eriococcidae, Ortheziidae, Phoenicococcidae and Margarodidae, lace bugs from the family Tingidae, stink bugs from the family Pentatomidae, cinch bugs,  Blissus  spp.; and other seed bugs from the family Lygaeidae, spittlebugs from the family Cercopidae squash bugs from the family Coreidae, and red bugs and cotton stainers from the family Pyrrhocoridae. 
         [0059]    Agronomically important members from the order Homoptera further include, but are not limited to:  Acyrthisiphon pisum  Harris (pea aphid);  Aphis craccivora  Koch (cowpea aphid);  A. fabae  Scopoli (black bean aphid);  A. gossypii  Glover (cotton aphid, melon aphid);  A. maidiradicis  Forbes (corn root aphid);  A. pomi  De Geer (apple aphid);  A. spiraecola  Patch (spirea aphid);  Aulacorthum solani  Kaltenbach (foxglove aphid);  Chaetosiphon fragaefolii  Cockerell (strawberry aphid);  Diuraphis noxia  Kurdjumov/Mordvilko (Russian wheat aphid);  Dysaphis plantaginea  Paaserini (rosy apple aphid);  E{grave over (η)}osoma lanigerum  Hausmann (woolly apple aphid);  Brevicoryne brassicae  Linnaeus (cabbage aphid);  Hyalopterus pruni  Geoffroy (mealy plum aphid);  Lipaphis erysimi  Kaltenbach (turnip aphid);  Metopolophium dirrhodum  Walker (cereal aphid);  Macrosiphum euphorbiae  Thomas (potato aphid);  Myzus persicae  Sulzer (peach-potato aphid, green peach aphid);  Nasonovia ribisnigri  Mosley (lettuce aphid);  Pemphigus  spp. (root aphids and gall aphids);  Rhopalosiphum maidis  Fitch (corn leaf aphid);  R. padi  Linnaeus (bird cherry-oat aphid);  Schizaphis graminum  Rondani (greenbug);  Sipha flava  Forbes (yellow sugarcane aphid);  Sitobion avenae  Fabricius (English grain aphid);  Therioaphis maculata  Buckton (spotted alfalfa aphid);  Toxoptera aurantii  Boyer de Fonscolombe (black citrus aphid); and  T. citricida  Kirkaldy (brown citrus aphid);  Adelges  spp. (adelgids);  Phylloxera devastatrix  Pergande (pecan phylloxera);  Bemisia tabaci  Gennadius (tobacco whitefly, sweetpotato whitefly);  B. argentifolii  Bellows &amp; Perring (silverleaf whitefly);  Dialeurodes citri  Ashmead (citrus whitefly);  Trialeurodes abutiloneus  (bandedwinged whitefly) and  T. vaporariorum  Westwood (greenhouse whitefly);  Empoasca fabae  Harris (potato leafhopper);  Laodelphax striatellus  Fallen (smaller brown planthopper);  Macrolestes quadrilineatus  Forbes (aster leafhopper);  Nephotettix cinticeps  Uhler (green leafhopper);  N. nigropictus  Stal (rice leafhopper);  Nilaparvata lugens  Stal (brown planthopper);  Peregrinus maidis  Ashmead (corn planthopper);  Sogatella furcifera  Horvath (white-backed planthopper);  Sogatodes orizicola  Muir (rice delphacid);  Typhlocyba pomaria  McAtee (white apple leafhopper);  Erythroneoura  spp. (grape leafhoppers);  Magicicada septendecim  Linnaeus (periodical cicada);  lcerya purchasi  Maskell (cottony cushion scale);  Quadraspidiotus perniciosus  Comstock (San Jose scale);  Planococcus citri  Risso (citrus mealybug);  Pseudococcus  spp. (other mealybug complex);  Cacopsylla pyricola  Foerster (pear psylla);  Trioza diospy{acute over (η)}  Ash mead (persimmon psylla). 
         [0060]    Agronomically important species of interest from the order Hemiptera include, but are not limited to:  Acrosternum hilare  Say (green stink bug);  Anasa tristis  De is Geer (squash bug);  Blissus leucopterus leucopterus  Say (chinch bug);  Corythuca gossypii  Fabricius (cotton lace bug);  Cyrtopeltis modesta  Distant (tomato bug);  Dysdercus suturellus  Herrich-Schaffer (cotton stainer);  Euschistus servus  Say (brown stink bug);  E. va{acute over (η)}ol{acute over (η)}us  Palisot de Beauvois (one-spotted stink bug);  Graptostethus  spp. (complex of seed bugs);  Leptoglossus corculus  Say (leaf-footed pine seed bug);  Lygus lineolaris  Palisot de Beauvois (tarnished plant bug);  L. Hesperus  Knight (Western tarnished plant bug);  L. pratensis  Linnaeus (common meadow bug);  L. rugulipennis  Poppius (European tarnished plant bug);  Lygocoris pabulinus  Linnaeus (common green capsid);  Nezara viridula  Linnaeus (southern green stink bug);  Oebalus pugnax  Fabricius (rice stink bug);  Oncopeltus fasciatus  Dallas (large milkweed bug);  Pseudatomoscelis seriatus  Reuter (cotton fleahopper). 
         [0061]    Furthermore, embodiments of the present invention may be effective against Hemiptera such,  Calocoris norvegicus  Gmelin (strawberry bug);  Orthops campestris  Linnaeus;  Plesioco{acute over (η)}s rugicollis  Fallen (apple capsid);  Cyrtopeltis modestus  Distant (tomato bug);  Cyrtopeltis notatus  Distant (suckfly);  Spanagonicus albofasciatus  Reuter (whitemarked fleahopper);  Diaphnocoris chlorionis  Say (honeylocust plant bug);  Labopidicola allii  Knight (onion plant bug);  Pseudatomoscelis seriatus  Reuter (cotton fleahopper);  Adelphocoris rapidus  Say (rapid plant bug);  Poecilocapsus lineatus  Fabricius (four-lined plant bug);  Nysius ericae  Schilling (false chinch bug);  Nysius raphanus  Howard (false chinch bug);  Nezara viridula  Linnaeus (Southern green stink bug);  Eurygaster  spp.;  Coreidae  spp.;  Pyrrhocoridae  spp.;  Timidae  spp.;  Blostomatidae  spp.;  Reduviidae  spp.; and  Cimicidae  spp. 
         [0062]    Also included are adults and larvae of the order Acari (mites) such as  Aceria tosichella  Keifer (wheat curl mite);  Petrobia latens  Müller (brown wheat mite); spider mites and red mites in the family Tetranychidae,  Panonychus ulmi  Koch (European red mite);  Tetranychus urticae  Koch (two spotted spider mite); ( T. mcdanieli  McGregor (McDaniel mite);  T. cinnabarinus  Boisduval (carmine spider mite);  T. turkestani  Ugarov &amp; Nikolski (strawberry spider mite); flat mites in the family Tenuipalpidae,  Brevipalpus lewisi  McGregor (citrus flat mite); rust and bud mites in the family Ehophyidae and other foliar feeding mites and mites important in human and animal health, i.e. dust mites in the family Epidermoptidae, follicle mites in the family Demodicidae, grain mites in the family Glycyphagidae, ticks in the order Ixodidae.  Ixodes scapularis  Say (deer tick); /.  holocyclus  Neumann (Australian paralysis tick);  Dermacentor variabilis  Say (American dog tick);  Amblyomma americanum  Linnaeus (lone star tick); and scab and itch mites in the families Psoroptidae, Pyemotidae, and Sarcoptidae. Insect pests of the order Thysanura are of interest, such as  Lepisma saccharina  Linnaeus (silverfish);  Thermobia domestica  Packard (firebrat). 
         [0063]    In an embodiment the insects are selected from cotton bollworm, native budworm, green mirids, aphids, green vegetable bugs, apple dimpling bugs, thrips (plaque thrips, tobacco thrips, onion thrips, western flower thrips), white flies and two spotted mites. 
         [0000]    In an embodiment the insect pests of animals include fleas, lice, mosquitoes, flies, tsetse flies, ants, ticks, mites, silverfish and chiggers. 
         [0064]    Insect pests may be tested for insecticidal activity of compositions of the embodiments in early developmental stages, e.g., as larvae or other immature forms. The insects may be reared in total darkness at from about 20° C. to about 30° C. and from about 30% to about 70% relative humidity. Methods of rearing insect larvae and performing bioassays are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. 
         [0065]    In some embodiments, the insecticidal effect is an effect wherein treatment with a composition causes at least about 10% of the exposed insects to die. In some embodiments, the insecticidal effect is an effect wherein treatment with a composition causes at least about 25% of the insects to die. In some embodiments the insecticidal effect is an effect wherein treatment with a composition causes at least about 50% of the exposed insects to die. In some embodiments the insecticidal effect is an effect wherein treatment with a composition causes at least about 75% of the exposed insects to die. In some embodiments the insecticidal effect is an effect wherein treatment with a composition causes at least about 90% of the exposed insects to die. 
         [0066]    Beneficial insects that can be conserved by the present invention include (1) predatory beetles (see table 11)  Harmonia arcuata  (Fabricius) adults,  Diomus notescens  (Blackburn) adults,  Coccinella repanda  (Thunberg) adults,  Dicranolauis bellulus  (Guerin); (2) predatory bugs such as  Geocoris lubra  (kirkaldy adults,  Cermatulus nasalis  (Westwood) adults,  Nabis capsiformis  (Germar), (3) Spiders especially salticidae,  Araneus  spp.  Oxypes  spp. and (Parasitoids)  Pterocormus promissorius  (Erichson),  Heteropelma scaposum  (Morley),  Netelia producta  (Brulle). 
         [0067]    Embodiments of the invention are also directed to making an improved insect control agent by identifying one or more fractions in a complex agent, screening the one or more fractions using the methods disclosed herein, and characterizing the one or more fractions as having a positive or negative effect on potential activity against a target insect. 
         [0068]    In some embodiments, one or more fractions in a complex agent (such as, for example, an essential oil) can be isolated using fractionation techniques including, for example, differential solvent extraction, fractional distillation, fractional crystallization, fractional freezing, dry fractionation, detergent fractionation, solvent extraction, supercritical CO 2  fractionation, vacuum distillation, column chromatography, reverse-phase chromatography, high-pressure liquid chromatography, and the like. These methods are known to those of skill in the art. 
         [0069]    Vacuum distillation is preferred, because it is relatively simple to employ and does not require the use of solvents. 
         [0070]    In some embodiments, one or more fractions of a complex agent can be isolated by column chromatography using silica or alumina solid support. An organic solvent, including for example, alkanes such as hexanes and petroleum ether, toluene, methylene chloride (or other halogenated hydrocarbons), diethyl ether, ethyl acetate, acetone, alcohol, acetic acid, and the like, can be used alone or in combination as the column solvent, or mobile phase. In some embodiments, the complex agent is fractionated by column chromatography using an increasing concentration of a polar solvent as eluting solvent. Methods of column chromatography and solvents common for its use are well known in the art. 
         [0071]    In some embodiments, SPCs can be isolated by solvent extraction. For example, an essential oil can be combined with an organic solvent, including, for example an organic solvent such as methanol, acetic acid, acetone, acetonitrile, benzene, 1-butanol, 2-butanol, 2-butanone, t-butyl alcohol, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, chloroform, cyclohexane, 1,2-dichloroethane, diethyl ether, diethylene glycol, diglyme (diethylene glycol dimethyl ether), 1,2-dimethoxy-ethane (glyme, DME), dimethylether, dimethyl-formamide (DMF), dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), dioxane, ethanol, ethyl acetate, ethylene glycol, glycerin, heptane, hexamethylphosphoramide (HMPA), hexamethylphosphorous triamide (HMPT), hexane, methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE), methylene chloride, JV-methyl-2-pyrrolidinone (NMP), nitromethane, pentane, petroleum ether (ligroine), 1-propanol, 2-propanol, pyridine, tetrahydrofuran (THF), toluene, triethyl amine, water, heavy water, o-xylene, m-xylene, and/or -xylene. Other organic solvents known to those of skill in the art can also be employed. The mixture of the SPC and the organic solvent can then be combined with an extraction solvent that is not miscible in the organic solvent, including, for example, water, ethanol, and methanol. This combination is shaken vigorously in a glass container such as a separatory funnel for several minutes, then allowed to settle into separate phases for several minutes. The lower, denser phase is then allowed to drain from the separatory funnel. The organic phase can then be repeatedly re-extracted with the extraction solvent to further partition compounds that are soluble in the extraction solvent from the organic phase. The volume of the organic phase and the extracted phase can then be reduced in volume using rotary evaporation, yielding two separate fractions of the SPC. 
         [0072]    In some embodiments, a method for identifying an improved agent against a target insect can include the identification of the compounds present in either a complex agent or individual isolated fractions of a complex agent and screening of the ingredient compounds for their activity. Identification of the compounds can be performed by analyzing the complex agent or an isolated fraction thereof by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) or gas chromatography (GC) coupled with Mass Spectrometry (MS). Ingredient compounds can also be identified by first enriching or purifying individual ingredients to homogeneity using techniques including, for example, differential solvent extraction, fractional distillation, vacuum distillation, fractional crystallization, fractional freezing, dry fractionation, detergent fractionation, solvent extraction, supercritical CO2 fractionation, column chromatography, reverse-phase chromatography, high-pressure liquid chromatography, and the like. Enriched or purified components can be identified using spectroscopy techniques, including, for example, infrared (IR) spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR), and the like. 
         [0073]    Some embodiments relate to the use of chemical derivatives or analogs of chemicals identified to generate an improved agent against a target insect. Chemical derivatives of the chemicals identified can include compounds derivatised with an inorganic or organic functional group. In some embodiments, the chemical derivative is a compound derivatised with an organic functional group. In some embodiments, the organic functional group can be an alkyl group. In some embodiments, the organic functional group can be a methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl, ceryl, decyl, heptyl, hexyl, myricyl, myristyl, nonyl, octyl, palmityl, pentyl, stearyl, isopropyl, isobutyl, lignoceryl, pentacosyl, heptacosyl, montanyl, nonacosyl, pentan-2-yl, isopentyl, 3-methylbutan-2-yl, tert-pentyl, neopentyl, undecyl, tridecyl, pentadecyl, margaryl, nonadecyl, arachidyl, henicosyl, behenyl, tricosyl, cyclobutyl, cyclopropyl group, or the like. In some embodiments, the organic functional group can be an aryl group. In some embodiments, the organic functional group can be a phenyl or biphenyl-4-yl group. 
         [0074]    In some embodiments, the improved agent against a target insect includes a chemical derivative that is a halogenated derivative of a compound identified. In some embodiments, the chemical derivative is a fluorinated, chlorinated, brominated, or iodinated derivative. 
         [0075]    In some embodiments, the improved agent against a target insect includes a chemical derivative that is an alkenylated derivative of a compound. In some embodiments, the chemical derivative is an oleylated, allylated, isopropenylated, vinylated, prenylated, or phytylated derivative. 
         [0076]    In some embodiments, the improved agent against a target insect includes a chemical derivative that is a hydroxylated derivative of a compound identified. 
         [0077]    In some embodiments, the improved agent against a target insect includes a chemical derivative that is a thiolated derivative of a compound identified. 
         [0078]    In some embodiments, the improved agent against a target insect includes a chemical derivative that is a carboxylated derivative of a compound identified. 
         [0079]    In some embodiments, the improved agent against a target insect includes a chemical derivative that is an amidated derivative of a compound identified. 
         [0080]    In some embodiments, the improved agent against a target insect includes a chemical derivative that is an esterified derivative of a compound identified. 
         [0081]    In some embodiments, the improved agent against a target insect includes a chemical derivative that is acylated derivative of a compound identified. 
         [0082]    In some embodiments, the improved agent against a target insect includes a chemical derivative that is a sulfonated derivative of a compound identified. 
         [0083]    In some embodiments, the improved agent against a target insect includes a chemical derivative that is derivatised by introducing a homologue of a substituent group. 
         [0084]    In some embodiments, the improved agent against a target insect includes a chemical derivative that is derivatised by moving a substituent around a ring to a different position. 
         [0085]    In some embodiments of the invention, the efficacy of a test composition can be determined by conducting studies with insects. For example, the efficacy of a test composition for killing an insect, altering its propensity to feed or lay eggs, or the like, an insect can be studied using controlled experiments wherein insects are exposed to the test composition. In some embodiments, the toxicity of a test composition against an insect can be studied using controlled experiments wherein insects are exposed to the test composition. 
         [0086]    In some embodiments, the formulations consist of an emulsifier of high solvency and the capacity to form stable emulsions of the total formulation in water and a “carrier” oil which may also have pesticidal properties. A preferred “carrier” oil is an esterified vegetable oil. 
       MODES OF CARRYING OUT THE INVENTION 
       [0087]    A study was conducted to identify plants that could be used as a trap or refuge crop within a commercial cotton system to control cotton pests. In this study, a wide range of plants such as lucerne, pigeon pea, sorghum, sweet corn and  Clitoria ternatea  and cotton genotypes were planted in 12 metre row strips within commercial cotton fields. Pest succession on these crops especially  Helicoverpa  spp. eggs and larval counts were carried out fortnightly throughout the cotton season. The results of the trial revealed that  Helicoverpa  spp. and other cotton pest infestation on  Clitoria ternatea  was significantly lower than that on cotton and other refuge crops. Thus the plant was thought to be containing some SPCs that may either kill or modify the behaviour of insect pests. Since  Clitoria ternatea  had not received previous attention in terms of identification of SPCs and use of these SPCs to control pests, it was anticipated that a bioassay-directed fractionalisation of the plant may reveal compounds or fractions for biological pest control previously unknown. 
       Example 1 
       Clitoria ternatea:  Toxicity Feeding Experiments 
       [0088]    Based on the results of the field trial that revealed that  Helicoverpa  spp. and other cotton pest infestation of  Clitoria ternatea  was significantly lower than that on cotton and other refuge crops tested, an investigation of possible reasons for this and the SPCs involved was undertaken. The study also determined the location in the plant structures that may contain the toxic compounds and the use of  Clitoria ternatea  as a formulated product to manage pests on agricultural crops. 
       Toxicity of Plant Structures to  Helicoverpa  spp. 1 st  and 2 nd  Instar Larvae 
       [0089]      Clitoria ternatea  structures or parts (viz; new, middle, old leaves; whole and cut pods; green (immature), mature seeds; crushed immature seeds and crushed mature seeds) were prepared and placed individually on a filter paper moistened with 100 μL of distilled water in a petri dish 12 mm in diameter. One second instar larva of  Helicoverpa  spp. was placed on each plant structure in each petri dish and sealed. Each treatment was replicated four times. The dishes were then placed into a Labec incubator running at 25° C. (±2° C.) with 14 hours light/10 hours dark and checked daily for mortalities for up to 9 days. Percent mortalities for each treatment were calculated at days 1-2, 3-4 and 5-9 days. 
       Analysis of Data 
       [0090]    All experimental data were analysed using the ANOVA procedures of Instat, version 2.03 (Graphpad Instat Software Inc., San Diego, Calif., USA). Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison tests were used to separate the means. 
       Results 
       [0091]    Table 1 presents the mortality of  Helicoverpa  spp on different parts of  Clitoria ternatea  ( Clitoria ternatea ). The results show that the toxin(s) in  Clitoria ternatea  are located in all plant parts with the highest in the leaves.  H. punctigera  was found to be more susceptible to the toxin(s) in  Clitoria ternatea  than  H. armigera  larvae. 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 1 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Mortality of second instar larvae of  Helicoverpa   
               
               
                 spp. on different structures of  Clitoria ternatea   
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Plant 
                 Percent Mortality 
               
             
          
           
               
                 Species 
                 Structure 
                 Part 
                 Day 1-2 
                 Day 3-4 
                 Day 5-9 
                 Total 
               
               
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                 
                   H. armigera 
                 
                 Leaf 
                 New 
                 20.0 
                 10.0 
                 20.0 
                 50.0 
               
               
                   
                   
                 Middle 
                 10.0 
                 30.0 
                 0 
                 40.0 
               
               
                   
                   
                 Old 
                 20.0 
                 30.0 
                 31.1 
                 81.1 
               
               
                   
                 Whole 
                 Green 
                 31.1 
                 0 
                 20.0 
                 51.1 
               
               
                   
                 seed 
                 Mature 
                 63.3 
                 — 
                 — 
                 63.3 
               
               
                   
                 Crushed 
                 Green 
                 20.0 
                 11.1 
                 40.0 
                 71.1 
               
               
                   
                 seed 
                 Mature 
                 0 
                 41.1 
                 20.0 
                 61.1 
               
               
                 
                   H. punctigera 
                 
                 Leaf 
                 New 
                 88.9 
                 — 
                 — 
                 88.9 
               
               
                   
                   
                 Middle 
                 77.8 
                 — 
                 — 
                 77.8 
               
               
                   
                   
                 Old 
                 88.9 
                 — 
                 — 
                 88.9 
               
               
                   
                 Whole 
                 Green 
                 12.5 
                 0 
                 10.0 
                 22.5 
               
               
                   
                 seed 
                 Mature 
                 50.0 
                 — 
                 — 
                 50.0 
               
               
                   
                 Crushed 
                 Green 
                 44.4 
                 0 
                 10.0 
                 54.4 
               
               
                   
                 seed 
                 Mature 
                 11.1 
                 62.5 
                 — 
                 73.6 
               
               
                   
               
               
                   1  Control treatment: Newly opened cotton leaf as compared to  Clitoria ternatea &#39;s leaf; Cotton square and boll as compared to  Clitoria ternatea &#39;s pod and cotton seed as compared to  Clitoria ternatea &#39;s seed. Larval mortality on cotton (control mortality) was used for calculation of corrected mortality. 
               
             
          
         
       
     
       Example 2 
     Crude Extraction of  Clitoria ternatea    
     Choice of Solvent and Extraction Procedure 
       [0092]    Three solvents with different polarity used for extraction were water (high polarity), methanol (intermediate polarity) and hexane (apolar). Both surface rinsing and homogenisation were employed in the early stages of the study. The washing process involved shaking the leaves in solvent for 30 seconds and evaporating the solvent to a volume that achieved a concentration equivalent to 1 g fresh leaf weight per mL. Homogenates were prepared by submerging leaves in solvent overnight before blending in an industrial Waring blender for 10 minutes. The blended leaf material was then filtered and evaporated to the same adjusted volume as for the surface wash. In the case of hexane extraction, any aqueous phase was eliminated using a separating funnel and the hexane evaporated to the appropriate volume. 
         [0093]    Methanol and hexane extracts were concentrated using a rotary evaporator and water extracts with a freeze drier. 
       Methanol Extract 
       [0094]    For the preparation of methanolic extracts for SPE fractionation and later supply of fractions for bioassay, freeze-dried plant material was used. Up to twelve containers, each containing up to ca. 45 g plant material, were dried to constant weight (24-30 hours). Freeze-dried weight was generally 25%-30% of the wet weight. 
         [0095]    Freeze-dried material (weight) was chopped into 2-3 mm portions and weighed into a 150 mL beaker. HPLC-grade methanol, 50 mL, was added and the sample ultrasonicated for 20 minutes. The solvent was filtered and the plant mass treated a further three times in the same way, with filtrates being combined, then evaporated to dryness using a rotary-evaporator. Water-bath temperature was maintained at 40° C. 
       Ethanol Extract 
       [0096]    An exhaustive extraction was made on 500 g of air-dried, ground plant material using hot ethanol. The Soxhlet extractor was run for 24 hours and on evaporation of the solvent yielded 80 g of extract (16%). For comparison another extraction was performed on another sample using ethanol at ambient temperature and steeping over 24 hr. This process yielded 25 g of extract (5%) on the first steeping. No repeated extracts were made. 
       Fractionation of Extracts 
       [0097]    Solid phase extraction (SPE) was used to fractionate extracts and to provide fractions for biological assays against insects using C18 hydrophobic silica-based solid phase SPE cartridges comprising a 40 μm/120 μm irregularly-shaped acid-washed silica, (60 Å mean porosity) with a trifunctional octadecyl bonded functional group (Varian Bond Elute (Part No. 12256001) or Phenomenex Strata C18-E (Part No. 8B-S001-JCH)). All cartridges were processed simultaneously on an Alltech Vacuum manifold (Part No. 210351)). The SPE cartridges were used to accommodate 1.5 g wet-weight of freeze-dried plant material and gave a better band definition when dried extracts were dispersed on Celite filter aid (Merck Celite 545, 0.02-0.1 mm) before being added to a conditioned cartridge as a solid. To this end, the bulb end of a Pasteur pipette was used to deliver a volume, measured to the constriction in the pipette neck (ca. 0.2 g), of Celite, 6 times to the remaining 9 mL of sample, which had been transferred, with rinsing, to a small pre-weighed vial which was attached to the rotary evaporator. After thorough mixing of the Celite, the vial contents were dried to a paste under N 2 , then to completeness using the rotary evaporator. The SPE cartridges were conditioned by passing through 5 mL of methanol followed by almost all of 5 mL of water. One-sixth of the dried sample/Celite residue was transferred by spatula to each of six conditioned SPE cartridges. The general procedure then involved passing 5 mL water through the column followed by aliquots of methanol/water mixtures, pure methanol, then acetone, with all eluates being collected. 
       HPLC Analysis 
       [0098]    An Agilent 1100 instrument with diode array detector was used for the analytical-scale chromatography. The column was a silica based Phenomenex Luna 5 μm C18 (2), 150 mm×4.6 mm, maintained at 30° C. Varying volumes, but normally 20 μL, of filtered sample were analysed via an acidified methanol/water gradient elution program from 5% MeOH to 100% MeOH in 20 minutes, held to 28 minutes and returned to 5% MeOH by 30 minutes and held to 37 minutes to equilibrate. Both components of the mobile phase contain 0.5% acetic acid. Flow rate was usually 1 mL/min. The photo diode-array detector collected data at 254 nm, 280 nm, 360 nm, 430 nm and 450 nm. All chromatograms illustrated below were those acquired at 280 nm. 
       Results 
       [0099]    The chemical and structural analyses of SPE fractions from a methanolic extract of  Clitoria ternatea  are given in  FIG. 1 . The uppermost trace is that of the crude methanol extract of the freeze-dried plant material. Those below represent the various fractions (1-6) sequentially eluted from an SPE cartridge as solvent polarity is increased. As expected, the reversed-phase separation process common to both the SPE fractionation and the HPLC analysis results in chemical components with greater affinity for the stationary phase appearing at longer retention times in later fractions. 
       Example 3 
     Efficacy of  Clitoria ternatea  Fractions on Oviposition of  Helicoverpa  spp. on Cotton Plants in the Mesh House (No-Choice Test) 
       [0100]    The experiment was conducted to determine oviposition deterrent activities of fractions isolated from  Clitoria ternatea . The  Clitoria ternatea  fractions tested were (1) Fraction 1, (2) Fraction 2, (3) Fraction 3, (4) Fraction 4, (5) Fraction 5 and (6) Fraction 6, and (7) Untreated (control). Each treatment was replicated 4 times in a complete randomised design. Plants used in the experiment were grown in 8 cm diameter pots in black soil (from the field) and watered three times a week. The plants were fertilised once. Potted plants were kept and maintained in the mesh house which allowed a greater degree of exposure to the natural environment but protected them from potential pest infestation. Once the plants had reached the 4-true-leaf stage, 0.25 mL of extract of each treatment was placed on each leaf (1 mL in one pot) and spread evenly over the surface. The plants were then covered and three mated (5 day post emergence) female moths were released into the cages. Eggs were counted three days after treatment. The Oviposition Deterrent Index (ODI) was calculated as follows: ODI=100×(C−T)/(C+T) where C=total eggs laid in control; T=total eggs in treated filter paper. 
       Analysis of Data 
       [0101]    All experimental data were analysed using the ANOVA procedures of Instat, version 2.03 (Graphpad Instat Software Inc., San Diego, Calif., USA). Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison tests were used to separate the means 
       Results 
       [0102]    No choice tests conducted under laboratory conditions using  H. armigera  adult females confirmed that  Clitoria ternatea  fraction 3 and fraction 4 (Table 2) had significantly lower (P&lt;0.001) number of eggs per plant laid on them than all the other fractions tested (Table 2). Thus the two fractions may contain oviposition deterring compounds. 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 2 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 No-choice oviposition test of  Helicoverpa   
               
               
                   armigera  females on filter papers treated with  Clitoria   
               
               
                   ternatea  fractions 1-3 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                   
                 No. eggs/plant ± 
                   1 Oviposition 
               
               
                   
                 Treatments 
                 SE 
                 Deterrent Index (ODI) 
               
               
                   
                   
               
               
                   
                 Fraction 1 
                 32.75 ± 25.39 a 
                  20.1 a 
               
               
                   
                 Fraction 2 
                 41.00 ± 14.41 a 
                  9.1 a 
               
               
                   
                 Fraction 3 
                 17.50 ± 7.84 b 
                  47.6 b 
               
               
                   
                 Fraction 4 
                  6.50 ± 1.19 a 
                  42.2 a 
               
               
                   
                 Fraction 5 
                 58.25 ± 22.96 b 
                 −56.9 b 
               
               
                   
                 Fraction 6 
                 35.00 ± 10.40 b 
                 −37.3 b 
               
               
                   
                 Control (water) 
                 49.25 ± 17.21 a 
                  0.0 a 
               
               
                   
                   
               
               
                   
                 Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05) (Tukey-Kramer Multiple comparison test). 
               
               
                   
                   1 Oviposition Deterrent Index (ODI) was calculated as follows: ODI = 100 × (C − T)/(C + T); where C = Total eggs laid in control; T = total eggs in treated filter paper. 
               
             
          
         
       
     
       Example 4 
     Efficacy of  Clitoria ternatea  Fractions on the Feeding of  Helicoverpa  spp. 2 nd  Instar Larvae on Leaf Discs of Cotton Plants in the Laboratory (No-Choice Test) 
       [0103]    The experiment was conducted using cotton leaves in a no-choice test.  H. armigera  2 nd  instar larvae were used for the feeding bioassays. The  Clitoria ternatea  fractions tested were (1) Fraction 1, (2) Fraction 2, (3) Fraction 3, (4) Fraction 4, (5) Fraction 5, (6) Fraction 6, and (7) Water-treated (control). Each treatment was replicated 4 times in a complete randomised design. Three day-old cotton leaves taken from plants grown in the glasshouse were used for the study. The leaves were treated with 1 mL of extract of each treatment. To prevent preference for or avoidance of the extract, 0.5 mL was applied to each side of the leaf surface. The leaves were allowed to air dry in the fume hood for 1 hour. 
         [0104]    Once air dried, a 25 mm disc of each treated leaf was cut out, weighed and placed in a 55 mm petri dish. The filter paper was moistened with 100 μL of distilled water to prevent the disc from drying out. One larva of the desired size was weighed and placed into each dish. The dishes were then placed into a Labec incubator running at 25° C. (±2° C.) with 14 hours light/10 hours dark for 48 hours. 
         [0105]    Forty-eight hours after treatment, both the leaf discs and the larvae were then weighed. The differences in weights of both the leaf discs and larvae before and after the experiments were calculated for each treatment and control to determine any antifeedant effect of the treatments. 
       Analysis of Data 
       [0106]    All experimental data were analysed using the ANOVA procedures of Instat, version 2.03 (Graphpad Instat Software Inc., San Diego, Calif., USA). Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison tests were used to separate the means 
       Results 
       [0107]    In no-choice bioassays conducted using the fractions of  Clitoria ternatea  and  H. armigera  2 nd  and 3 rd  instar larvae, leaves treated with fractions 2, 4 and 6 were consumed at lower levels and resulted in lower weight gains by the larvae compared to the other fractions and the control tested ( FIG. 2   a ). Fraction 2 appears to have a stronger deterrent effect than fraction 4 and 6 so much so that the 2 nd  instar resulted in a weight loss ( FIG. 2   b ). 
       Example 5 
     Efficacy of  Clitoria ternatea  Fractions on Toxicity of  Helicoverpa  spp. 2 nd  Instar Larvae in the Laboratory (No-Choice Test) 
       [0108]    The experiment was using cotton leaves in a no-choice test.  H. armigera  2 nd  instar larvae were used for the feeding bioassays. The  Clitoria ternatea  fractions tested were (1) Fraction 1, (2) Fraction 2, (3) Fraction 3, (4) Fraction 4, (5) Fraction 5, (6) Fraction 6, and (7) Water-treated (control). Each treatment was replicated 4 times in a complete randomised design. Three day-old cotton leaves taken from plants grown in the glasshouse were used for the study. The leaves were treated with 1 mL of extract of each treatment. To prevent preference for or avoidance of the extract, 0.5 mL was applied to each side of the leaf surface. The leaves were allowed to air dry in the fume hood for 1 hour. 
         [0109]    Once air dried, one 2 nd  instar larva was placed in a petri dish with a leaf disc 25 mm in diameter, on a filter paper moistened with 100 μl of distilled water and sealed. The dishes were then placed into a Labec incubator running © 25° C. (±2° C.) with 14 hours light/10 hours dark and checked daily for larval mortalities for 3 days. 
       Analysis of Data 
       [0110]    All experimental data were analysed using the ANOVA procedures of Instat, version 2.03 (Graphpad Instat Software Inc., San Diego, Calif., USA). Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison tests were used to separate the means. 
       Results 
       [0111]    The results of the study also showed that the  Clitoria ternatea  fractions had antibiotic effects on 2 nd  instar  H. armigera  larvae. The experiments showed that fractions 2, 3 and 4 contain compounds toxic to the larvae due to the higher mortality rates in these treatments after 48 hours than the control ( FIG. 3 ). This figure indicates that after 48 hours 7 of the 10 larvae tested were dead within 48 hour period. 
       Example 6 
     Feeding Deterrent Activity of  Clitoria ternatea  Fraction 2 Applied to Leaves of Susceptible Cotton Genotype (Lumein) 
       [0112]    Masking experiments were conducted to observe and quantify the feeding response effects or antifeedant effects of  Helicoverpa  spp. 2nd instar larvae towards a cotton genotype known to stimulate  Helicoverpa  spp. larval feeding. Tests were conducted in the laboratory at ACRI using  H. armigera  2nd instar larvae to determine the effects of the interactions of using a combination of an identified feeding stimulant (Lu Mein fraction 3) and a feeding deterrent (Clitoria ternatea fraction 2). 
         [0113]    In this experiment,  Clitoria ternatea  fraction 2 was applied to leaf discs of a cotton genotype called Lu Mein. A second leaf disc was treated with water. Once air dried, one 2nd instar larva was placed in a petri dish with a leaf disc 25 mm in diameter, on a filter paper moistened with 100 μL of distilled water and sealed. The experiment was replicated 10 times in a randomised complete block design. The dishes were then placed into a Labec incubator running at 25° C. (±2° C.) with 14 hours light/10 hours dark. The larvae were left to feed for 48 hours and the weight of leaf consumed and larval weight were calculated and analysed for differences in leaf consumed and weight loss or gain between the  Clitoria ternatea  fraction 2-treated and water-treated leaf discs. 
       Analysis of Data 
       [0114]    All experimental data were analysed using the ANOVA procedures of Instat, version 2.03 (Graphpad Instat Software Inc., San Diego, Calif., USA). Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison tests were used to separate the means. 
       Results 
       [0115]    The results of the study showed that  Clitoria ternatea  fraction 2 masked the feeding stimulant effect of the Lu Mein leaves reducing the quantity of leaf consumed per larvae compared to the water-treated ( FIG. 4 ). This resulted in a lower larval weight gain compared to the control ( FIG. 5 ). 
       Example 7 
     Effect of  Clitoria ternatea  Fractions Formulated in Hexane on Oviposition of  Helicoverpa  spp. on Cotton Plants 
       [0116]      Clitoria ternatea  fractions 2, 3 and 4 were combined and formulated in hexane for studies to determine the oviposition of  Helicoverpa  spp. in the mesh house. Three experiments were conducted in a mesh cage (100 cm×50 cm×70 cm) when the plants were at a 6 true leaf stage. Four treatments representing concentrations of 0 (control), 20% v/v, 15% v/v and 10% v/v of the  Clitoria ternatea  formulations were used. Ten cotton plants were randomly allocated to each treatment and enclosed in the mesh cage. Each treatment was applied to run-off using a small hand-held sprayer. The control plants were sprayed with water. Each treatment was replicated 4 times in different cages in a complete randomised design. Twenty mated female moths were released into each cage to lay on the treated plants. At three days after treatment, the number of eggs per plant in each treatment was counted and the number of eggs per plant calculated. Data was expressed as number of eggs per plant per treatment. 
       Analysis of Data 
       [0117]    All experimental data were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA (Graphpad Instat Software, Inc., v2.03, San Diego, Calif., USA). Treatment and sample dates were the independent variables. Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparisons test was used to separate the means. 
       Results 
       [0118]    The results of the study showed that the number of eggs per metre recorded on cotton plants treated with combined  Clitoria ternatea  fractions at 10%, 15% and 20% v/v were significantly lower (P&lt;0.001) than the untreated (control) plants in all 3 experiments conducted ( FIGS. 6   a,b  and  7 ). No significant difference (P&gt;0.05) was detected among the  Clitoria ternatea  concentrations indicating 10% v/v concentration was as efficacious as the 15 and 20% v/v concentrations (FIGS.  6 A,B and  7 ). It was also observed that the Hexane formulation was toxic to the cotton plants causing burns on the leaves. 
       Example 8 
     Field Experiments with  Clitoria ternatea  fractions—Effect of Combined  Clitoria ternatea  Fractions Formulated in Hexane on Oviposition of  Helicoverpa  spp. on Cotton Plants 
       [0119]      Clitoria ternatea  formulations 2, 3 and 4 were formulated in hexane and used for field trials on conventional cotton crops against  Helicoverpa  spp. The trial was conducted on commercial conventional cotton crops. The  Clitoria ternatea  formulation was evaluated at 3 different concentrations (1) 20 v/v (2) 15 v/v (3) 10% v/v and (4) Control (Unsprayed) for efficacy against is  Helicoverpa  spp. eggs and larvae. Each treatment was replicated 4 times in a randomised complete block design. Each replicate or treated plot measured 100 metres long and 6 metres or rows wide. Foliar application of the different rates of the formulated  Clitoria ternatea  fractions was applied in 15 litres of water twice during the trial 24 days apart.  Helicoverpa  spp. eggs and larvae were assessed visually on one metre row of randomly selected cotton plants. Pre-treatment counts were taken one day before treatment application, and post-treatment counts 7, 14, 21 and 28 days after treatment. Data was expressed as number of  Helicoverpa  spp. eggs and larvae per metre per sample date. 
       Analysis of Data 
       [0120]    All experimental data were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA (Graphpad Instat Software, Inc., v2.03, San Diego, Calif., USA). Treatment and sample dates were the independent variables. Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparisons test was used to separate the means. 
       Results 
       [0121]    A significant difference (P&lt;0.001) was found among cotton plants treated with  Clitoria ternatea  fractions and the untreated (control) plants ( FIG. 8 ). However, no significant difference (P&gt;0.05) was detected in oviposition deterrent activity between the  Clitoria ternatea  concentrations ( FIG. 8 ). 
         [0122]    The number of  Helicoverpa  spp. very small and small (1 st -3 rd  instar) larvae per metre per sample date recorded on plots treated with different concentrations of  Clitoria ternatea  were significantly lower (P&lt;0.001) than the untreated (control) plots ( FIG. 7 ). However, no significant difference (P&gt;0.05) was found among the different concentrations of the  Clitoria ternatea  products tested ( FIG. 8 ). 
       Example 9 
     Efficacy of  Clitoria ternatea  Formulations on Oviposition of  Helicoverpa armigera  Females on Cotton Plants in the Mesh House 
       [0123]    The oviposition response of mated  Helicoverpa  spp. to potted cotton plants treated with different concentrations of  Clitoria ternatea  in Canola oil and Crude cotton seed oil was evaluated. The plants used in the study were potted squaring cotton plants of the same age. The experiment was conducted under no-choice conditions. The treatments evaluated were (1) 1%  Clitoria ternatea  in Canola oil, (2) 2%  Clitoria ternatea  in Canola, (3) 1%  Clitoria ternatea  in crude Cotton seed oil, (4) 2%  Clitoria ternatea  in crude cotton seed oil and (5) Control (water). Each treatment was replicated 8 times with each treatment containing 10 plants. Each treatment was applied to the respective cotton plants until run-off. Each treatment replicate of 10 plants were enclosed in a plastic cage containing 4 mated  H. armigera  female to oviposition the plants. Four days after treatment, the eggs on each plant was counted and recorded. Data was expressed as number of eggs per plant. 
       Analysis of Data 
       [0124]    All experimental data were analysed using the ANOVA procedures of Instat, version 2.03 (Graphpad Instat Software Inc., San Diego, Calif., USA). Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison tests were used to separate the means. 
       Results 
       [0125]    No significant difference in the number of eggs per plant was detected among plants treated with the different  Clitoria ternatea  formulations (Table 3). However significant differences in the number of eggs per plant were detected between the treated and the control plants (Table 3). Significantly higher (P&lt;0.0001) eggs per plant was recorded on the control plants compared to the  Clitoria ternatea -Oil formulations (Table 3). 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 3 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Effect of  Clitoria ternatea  in oil formulation on 
               
               
                 oviposition of  H. armigera . (replicates per treatment) 
               
               
                 (n = 100 mated pairs of  H. armigera  females). 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Treatments 
                 No. eggs per plant 
               
               
                   
                   
               
               
                   
                 1%  Clitoria ternatea  + 
                 18.25 ± 3.16 a 
               
               
                   
                 Canola oil 
               
               
                   
                 2%  Clitoria ternatea  + 
                 21.13 ± 1.84 a 
               
               
                   
                 Canola oil 
               
               
                   
                 1%  Clitoria ternatea  + 
                 21.38 ± 3.06 a 
               
               
                   
                 Cotton seed oil 
               
               
                   
                 2%  Clitoria ternatea  + crude 
                 18.63 ± 2.87 a 
               
               
                   
                 cotton seed oil 
               
               
                   
                 Control (Unsprayed) 
                 37.88 ± 3.62 b 
               
               
                   
                   
               
               
                   
                 Means between treatments followed by the same letters are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05) by Tukey-Kramer Multiple comparison test 
               
             
          
         
       
     
       Example 10 
     Effect of  Clitoria ternatea  Formulations on Mortalities of  H. armigera  Larvae in the Laboratory 
       [0126]    The study was conducted on  Helicoverpa  spp. artificial diet in the laboratory at ACRI. During this experiment the laboratory was maintained at a temperature of 25° C. and a relative humidity of 55-60%. The treatments evaluated were (1) 1% v/v  Clitoria ternatea  in Cotton seed oil, (2) 1% v/v  Clitoria ternatea  in crude cotton seed oil, (3) 1% v/v  Clitoria ternatea  in Canola oil and (4) Control (water). For each concentration, I sprayed a total of 48 2nd instar larvae (12 larvae/replicate) until run off. After spray application, larvae from each treatment were transferred and kept separately in 35 mL clear plastic containers (P10M; Solo, Urbana, Illionis, USA) containing a soybean-based artificial diet mixed individually with each treatment. Each treatment was replicated 4 times. The number of dead larvae were counted and recorded in each treatment at 14 days after treatment when all larvae in the control had pupated. 
       Analysis of Data 
       [0127]    All experimental data were analysed using the ANOVA procedures of Instat, version 2.03 (Graphpad Instat Software Inc., San Diego, Calif., USA). Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison tests were used to separate the means. 
       Results 
       [0128]    At 14 DAT, the number of dead larvae was highest in the 1 v/v  Clitoria ternatea  in crude cotton seed oil, followed by 1 v/v  Clitoria ternatea  in canola and cotton seed oils ( FIG. 9 ). No deaths were recorded in the larvae treated with water (control) ( FIG. 9 ). Additionally, most of the larvae that were not dead in the  Clitoria ternatea  treated plots were sick and sluggish ( FIG. 9 ). There were no sick larvae in the control and all larvae had pupated. Overall, the development of the  Clitoria ternatea  treated larvae was delayed by an average of 4 days relative to the control. 
       Example 11 
     Efficacy of  Clitoria ternatea  Oil Formulations on Pests and Beneficial Insects in Conventional Cotton 
       [0129]    The study was conducted on late season commercial conventional cotton crop. The trial did not target any specific pest but treatments were applied to the cotton crops and evaluated for efficacy against any pest and predatory insects that were on the crop during that period of the cotton season in the lower Namoi region. The treatment evaluated were (1) 1 v/v  Clitoria ternatea  in Canola oil, (2) 2% v/v  Clitoria ternatea  in Canola oil, (3) 1% v/v  Clitoria ternatea  in Crude cotton seed oil, (4) 2% v/v  Clitoria ternatea  in Crude Cotton seed oil, (5) Unsprayed (control). Each treatment was replicated 3 times in a randomised complete block design. Each replicate measured 100 metres long and 6 rows or metres wide. 
         [0130]    Foliar application of each treatment was made on day 1. Visual counts of the following pests green mirids ( Creontiades dilutus ), Cotton loopers ( Anomis flava ), Green vegetable bug ( Nezara viridula ) and Apple dimpling bug ( Campylomma liebknechti ), and predatory insects (predatory beetles, bugs, lacewings and spiders) which is were abundant in the study site at the period of the trials in each treatment were made 24 hours before treatment and 3, 5 and 7 days after treatment. Counts were made in a two randomly selected 1 metre lengths of row of cotton in each treatment replicate, i.e. a total of 6 metres per treatment. Counts were separated into the various pests and predators. The beneficial insects were grouped into predatory beetles, bugs, lacewings and spiders. Data were expressed in numbers per metre. 
       Analysis of Data 
       [0131]    All experimental data were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA (Graphpad Instat Software, Inc, v2.03, San Diego, Calif., USA). Treatment and sample dates were the independent variables. Tukey-Kramer Multiple comparisons tests were used to separate means. 
       Results 
       [0132]    Predominant pests in the trial site during the trial period were green mirids, cotton loopers, green vegetable bugs and apple dimpling bugs.  Helicoverpa  spp. were absent at the trial site. Therefore, the data reported here are on those pests that were abundant during the test period. 
         [0000]    Effect of  Clitoria ternatea  on Green Mirids 
         [0133]    The number of green mirids per metre recorded in the study plots ranged from 0.17 to 0.33 per metre (Table 4). At 3 DAT, all the  Clitoria ternatea  treated plots had no mirids recorded in them whereas the unsprayed plot recorded 0.33 per metre (Table 4). At 5 DAT, the number of mirids per metre recorded in plots treated with 2% v/v  Clitoria ternatea  were significantly different (P&lt;0.01) than unsprayed plots but were not significantly different (P&gt;0.05) from plots treated with 1% v/v  Clitoria ternatea  (Table 4). The number of green mirids recorded on plots treated with 1% v/v  Clitoria ternatea  was not is significantly different from the unsprayed (control) plots at 5 DAT (Table 4). At 7 DAT, number of green mirids per metre recorded on treated and control; plots were not significantly different (Table 4). This may be due to hatching of mirid eggs that were laid on the plants pre-treatment and also lack of good coverage of the products as many of the plants were dislodged as a result of the heavy boll load. 
         [0000]    Effect of  Clitoria ternatea  on Cotton Loopers They were the most abundant insect species on the cotton crop at the study site during the trials. The study showed that significantly lower (P&lt;0.05) cotton loopers per metre were recorded on  Clitoria ternatea  treated plots compared to the control (Table 5). At 3 DAT, Cotton looper mortalities was highest on plots treated with 2%  Clitoria ternatea  in Crude cotton seed oil (58.9%), followed by 11  Clitoria ternatea  in crude cotton seed oil (47.2%) (Table 5). The 1 and 2%  Clitoria ternatea  in Canola seed oils caused 26.6 and 42.9% mortalities respectively (Table 5). The unsprayed plot recorded a 10% increase in Cotton looper population at the same time (Table 5). 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 4 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Efficacy of different rates of  Clitoris ternatea   
               
               
                 on the number of green mirids per metre recorded on 
               
               
                 commercial cotton crops 
               
             
          
           
               
                 Treatments 
                 Pre-treatment 
                 3 DAT 
                 5 DAT 
                 7 DAT 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 1%  Clitoria   
                 0.17 ± 0.17 a 
                 0.00 ± 0.00 a 
                 0.33 ± 0.21ab 
                 0.33 ± 0.21a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + Canola oil 
               
               
                 2%  Clitoria   
                 0.17 ± 0.17 a 
                 0.00 ± 0.00 a 
                 0.17 ± 0.17 a 
                 0.17 ± 0.17a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + Canola oil 
               
               
                 1%  Clitoria   
                 0.33 ± 0.21 a 
                 0.00 ± 0.00 a 
                 0.33 ± 0.21ab 
                 0.33 ± 0.21a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + 
               
               
                 Crude Cotton oil 
               
               
                 2%  Clitoria   
                 0.17 ± 0.17 a 
                 0.00 ± 0.00a 
                 0.17 ± 0.17 a 
                 0.00 ± 0.00a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + Crude 
               
               
                 Cotton oil 
               
               
                 Control (Unsprayed) 
                 0.17 ± 0.17 a 
                 0.33 ± 0.21 b 
                 0.50 ± 0.22 b 
                 0.33 ± 0.21a 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Means within columns followed by same letters are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05) (Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparison Test). 
               
             
          
         
       
     
         [0000]                                          TABLE 5                   Efficacy of different rates of  Clitoria ternatea         on the number of Cotton Looper ( Anomis flava ) per metre       recorded on commercial cotton crops            Treatments   Pre-treatment   3 DAT   5 DAT   7 DAT               1%  Clitoria ternatea  +   5.00 ± 1.16 a   3.67 ± 0.76 a   4.33 ± 0.96 a   5.83 ± 0.95a       Canola oil       2%  Clitoria ternatea  +   5.83 ± 0.91 a   3.33 ± 1.02 a   3.00 ± 0.68 a   3.33 ± 0.62a       Canola oil       1%  Clitoria ternatea  +   6.00 ± 1.48 a   3.17 ± 0.87 a   3.67 ± 0.88 a   3.83 ± 1.33a       Crude Cotton oil       2%  Clitoria ternatea  +   5.67 ± 1.09 a   2.33 ± 0.67a   3.83 ± 0.75 a   2.67 ± 0.80a       Crude Cotton oil       Control (Unsprayed)   8.33 ± 1.41a   9.17 ± 1.72 b   6.83 ± 1.92 a   7.17 ± 0.83a               Means within columns followed by same letters are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05) (Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparison Test).            
Effect of  Clitoria ternatea  on Apple Dimpling Bug
 
         [0134]    The  Clitoria ternatea  formulation at different concentrations had significant effect on ADB population in the study site at 3 DAT (Table 6). The highest ADB kill at 3 DAT was recorded in plots treated with 2%  Clitoria ternatea  in Crude cotton seed oil (65.9%), followed by 2%  Clitoria ternatea  in Canola oil (64.0%) (Table 6). The 1%  Clitoria ternatea  in Canola and crude cotton seed oils recorded 56.8 and 52.1% mortalities respectively at 3 DAT (Table 6). 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 6 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Efficacy of different rates of  Clitoria ternatea   
               
               
                 on the number of Apple Dimpling bugs ( Campylomma   
               
               
                   liebknechti ) per metre recorded on commercial cotton crops 
               
             
          
           
               
                 Treatments 
                 Pre-treatment 
                 3 DAT 
                 5 DAT 
                 7 DAT 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 1%  Clitoria   
                 4.67 ± 0.84 a 
                 0.67 ± 0.33 a 
                 0.50 ± 0.22ab 
                 0.33 ± 0.21a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + Canola oil 
               
               
                 2%  Clitoria   
                 2.67 ± 0.42 a 
                 0.50 ± 0.22 a 
                 0.00 ± 0.00 a 
                 0.00 ± 0.00a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + Canola oil 
               
               
                 1%  Clitoria   
                 3.33 ± 0.84 a 
                 0.83 ± 0.31 a 
                 0.17 ± 0.17 a 
                 0.33 ± 0.21a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + 
               
               
                 Crude Cotton oil 
               
               
                 2%  Clitoria   
                 4.67 ± 0.65 a 
                 0.83 ± 0.31a 
                 0.17 ± 0.17 a 
                 0.00 ± 0.00a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + Crude 
               
               
                 Cotton oil 
               
               
                 Control (Unsprayed) 
                 4.17 ± 0.70 a 
                 2.17 ± 0.31 b 
                 1.00 ± 0.26 b 
                 0.83 ± 0.17a 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Means within columns followed by same letters are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05) (Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparison Test) 
               
             
          
         
       
     
       Beneficial Insects 
       [0135]    Beneficial insects identified from the treated plots were predominantly predators and these include predatory beetles, bugs, lacewings and spiders (Table 7). 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 7 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Predators of cotton pests sampled and identified 
               
               
                 from study plots. 
               
             
          
           
               
                 Order 
                 Family 
                 Species 
                 Group 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Coleoptera 
                 Coccinellidae 
                 
                   Coccinella transversalis 
                 
                 Predatory 
               
               
                   
                   
                 (Fabricius) 
                 beetles 
               
               
                   
                   
                 
                   Diomus notescens 
                 
               
               
                   
                   
                 (Blackburn) 
               
               
                   
                 Melyridae 
                 
                   Dicranolauis bellulus 
                 
               
               
                   
                   
                 (Guerin-Meneville) 
               
               
                 Hemiptera 
                 Nabidae 
                 
                   Nabis capsiformis 
                 
                 Predatory 
               
               
                   
                   
                 (Germar) 
                 bugs 
               
               
                   
                 Lygaeidae 
                 
                   Geocoris lubra 
                 
               
               
                   
                   
                 (Kirkaldy) 
               
               
                   
                 Pentatomidae 
                 
                   Cermatulus nasalis 
                 
               
               
                   
                   
                 (Westwood) 
               
               
                   
                   
                 
                   Ochelia schellenbergii 
                 
               
               
                   
                   
                 (Guerin-Meneville) 
               
               
                   
                   
                 
                   Coranus triabeatus 
                 
               
               
                   
                   
                 (Horvath) 
               
               
                 Neuroptera 
                 Chrysopidae 
                   Chrysopa  spp. 
                 Predatory 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 lacewings 
               
               
                   
                 Hemerobiidae 
                 
                   Micromus tasmaniae 
                 
               
               
                   
                   
                 (walker) 
               
               
                 Araneida 
                 Lycosidae 
                   Lycosa  spp. 
                 spiders 
               
               
                   
                 Oxyopidae 
                   Oxyopes  spp. 
               
               
                   
                 Salticidae 
                   Salticidae  spp. 
               
               
                   
                 Araneidae 
                   Araneus  spp. 
               
               
                   
               
             
          
         
       
     
         [0136]    No significant difference was detected among the treatments and control in the number of predatory beetles (Table 8), bugs (Table 9), lacewings (Table 10) and spiders (Table 11). This indicates that  Clitoria ternatea  products have no effect on beneficial insects in cotton. 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 8 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Efficacy of different rates of BC639 fungal 
               
               
                 insecticides on the number of predatory beetles per metre 
               
               
                 on commercial conventional cotton crops. 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Pre- 
                   
                   
                   
               
               
                 Treatments 
                 treatment 
                 3 DAT 
                 5 DAT 
                 7 DAT 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 1%  Clitoria   
                 0.50 ± 0.22 a 
                 1.17 ± 0.48 a 
                 1.00 ± 0.37 a 
                 0.67 ± 0.21 a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + Canola 
               
               
                 oil 
               
               
                 2%  Clitoria   
                 1.33 ± 0.42 a 
                 1.33 ± 0.49 a 
                 0.83 ± 0.31 a 
                 1.33 ± 0.21 a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + Canola 
               
               
                 oil 
               
               
                 1%  Clitoria   
                 1.00 ± 0.26 a 
                 1.17 ± 0.31 a 
                 1.83 ± 0.70 a 
                 1.00 ± 0.21 a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + 
               
               
                 Crude Cotton oil 
               
               
                 2%  Clitoria   
                 0.67 ± 0.21 a 
                 1.33 ± 0.33 a 
                 0.87 ± 0.21 a 
                 0.67 ± 0.00 a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + Crude 
               
               
                 Cotton oil 
               
               
                 Control (Unsprayed) 
                 0.67 ± 0.21 a 
                 2.17 ± 0.17 a 
                 2.83 ± 0.87 a 
                 1.67 ± 0.22a 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Means within columns followed by same letters are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05) (Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparison Test) 
               
             
          
         
       
     
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 9 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Efficacy of different rates of BC639 fungal 
               
               
                 insecticides on the number of predatory bugs per metre on 
               
               
                 commercial conventional cotton crops. 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Pre- 
                   
                   
                   
               
               
                 Treatments 
                 treatment 
                 3 DAT 
                 5 DAT 
                 7 DAT 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 1%  Clitoria   
                 1.00 ± 0.37 a 
                 2.17 ± 0.40 a 
                 2.33 ± 0.33 a 
                 2.17 ± 0.48 a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + Canola 
               
               
                 oil 
               
               
                 2%  Clitoria   
                 0.83 ± 0.31 a 
                 2.50 ± 0.43 a 
                 2.83 ± 0.48 a 
                 2.17 ± 0.31 a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + Canola 
               
               
                 oil 
               
               
                 1%  Clitoria   
                 1.00 ± 0.37 a 
                 2.33 ± 0.33 a 
                 2.67 ± 0.62 a 
                 2.00 ± 0.31 a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + 
               
               
                 Crude Cotton oil 
               
               
                 2%  Clitoria   
                 0.83 ± 0.31 a 
                 1.33 ± 0.21 a 
                 1.83 ± 0.48 a 
                 2.33 ± 0.33 a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + Crude 
               
               
                 Cotton oil 
               
               
                 Control (Unsprayed) 
                 1.50 ± 0.43 a 
                 2.50 ± 0.34 a 
                 2.67 ± 0.42 a 
                 4.17 ± 0.26 a 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Means within columns followed by same letters are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05) (Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparison Test) 
               
             
          
         
       
     
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 10 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Efficacy of different rates of BC639 fungal 
               
               
                 insecticides on the number of predatory lacewings per 
               
               
                 metre on commercial conventional cotton crops. 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Pre- 
                   
                   
                   
               
               
                 Treatments 
                 treatment 
                 3 DAT 
                 5 DAT 
                 7 DAT 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 1%  Clitoria   
                 0.50 ± 0.22 a 
                 1.00 ± 0.26 a 
                 0.83 ± 0.17 a 
                 0.50 ± 0.22 a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + Canola 
               
               
                 oil 
               
               
                 2%  Clitoria   
                 0.33 ± 0.21 a 
                 1.50 ± 0.43 a 
                 1.00 ± 0.26 a 
                 0.33 ± 0.21 a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + Canola 
               
               
                 oil 
               
               
                 1%  Clitoria   
                 0.33 ± 0.21 a 
                 1.67 ± 0.42 a 
                 0.83 ± 0.31 a 
                 0.50 ± 0.22 a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + 
               
               
                 Crude Cotton oil 
               
               
                 2%  Clitoria   
                 0.50 ± 0.22 a 
                 0.67 ± 0.33 a 
                 1.00 ± 0.26 a 
                 0.33 ± 0.21 a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + Crude 
               
               
                 Cotton oil 
               
               
                 Control (Unsprayed) 
                 0.67 ± 0.21 a 
                 0.83 ± 0.31 a 
                 0.83 ± 0.33 a 
                 0.50 ± 0.34 a 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Means within columns followed by same letters are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05) (Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparison Test) 
               
             
          
         
       
     
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 11 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Efficacy of different rates of BC639 fungal 
               
               
                 insecticides on the number of spiders per metre on 
               
               
                 commercial conventional cotton crops 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Pre- 
                   
                   
                   
               
               
                 Treatments 
                 treatment 
                 3 DAT 
                 5 DAT 
                 7 DAT 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 1%  Clitoria   
                 6.33 ± 1.54 a 
                 3.50 ± 1.15 a 
                 3.00 ± 0.78 a 
                 4.17 ± 0.60 a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + Canola 
               
               
                 oil 
               
               
                 2%  Clitoria   
                 3.00 ± 0.68 a 
                 3.33 ± 0.56 a 
                 3.33 ± 0.67 a 
                 2.33 ± 0.72 a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + Canola 
               
               
                 oil 
               
               
                 1%  Clitoria   
                 5.17 ± 0.79 a 
                 2.50 ± 0.43 a 
                 2.83 ± 0.83 a 
                 3.17 ± 0.40 a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + 
               
               
                 Crude Cotton oil 
               
               
                 2%  Clitoria   
                 3.67 ± 0.84 a 
                 3.00 ± 1.00 a 
                 2.00 ± 0.68 a 
                 2.83 ± 0.60 a 
               
               
                   ternatea  + Crude 
               
               
                 Cotton oil 
               
               
                 Control (Unsprayed) 
                 5.67 ± 0.95 a 
                 4.17 ± 0.87 a 
                 3.17 ± 1.07 a 
                 3.17 ± 0.91 a 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Means within columns followed by same letters are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05) (Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparison Test) 
               
             
          
         
       
     
       Example 12 
     Formulation of  Clitoria ternatea  for Laboratory Trials Against Cotton Pests 
       [0137]      Clitoria ternatea  material was harvested at different growth stages at three different locations. The extracts were made by heating dry, macerated plant (30 g for each solvent) in an 80° C. water bath for 1 hour. Filtration and evaporation were carried out after 24 hours. The solutions were evaporated under vacuum at 400° C., while the evaporation of the water solution was performed using the water bath. The solutions were evaporated until fractionalized concentrates were obtained. The fractionalized concentrates were formulated in surfactants (C12-C15 Ethoxylate and Teric® (Huntsman), an emulsifier (Termul® 3000) and a light molecular weight oil such as crude cotton seed oil, refined cotton seed oil and canola oil. Vacuum and pressure was applied to ensure efficient filtration. 
         [0138]    Four formulations were developed for use in laboratory and field bioassays against cotton pests and beneficial insects. The formulations were: 
         [0000]    (1)  Clitoria ternatea  formulation in oil without emulsifiers (Formulation A),
 
(2) Formulation with emulsifiers but without  Clitoria ternatea  (Formulation B),
 
(3)  Clitoria ternatea  formulations with emulsifiers (Formulation C) and
 
(4)  Clitoria ternatea  formulations with emulsifiers (Formulation D).
 
Effect of Different Rates of  Clitoria ternatea  on Mortalities of Green Mirids in the Laboratory
 
         [0139]    The four formulations were evaluated at 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5% and 2.0% (v/v) in the laboratory at a temperature of 25° C. and relative humidity of 55-60%. Water was used as control. For each formulation, a total of 6 (3 pairs) adult female and male mirids per treatment (1 pair/replicate) on beans were sprayed until run off. In addition the beans were also dipped for 60 seconds in each treatment. After treatment applications, a pair of green mirids (male and female) were transferred and released on dipped beans kept separately in 35 mL clear plastic containers (P101M; Solo, Urbana, Illionis, USA). Each treatment was replicated 3 times. The number of dead mirid adults were counted and recorded daily until all insects in the most efficacious treatment die. The percent mortality was calculated relative to the control. 
       Analysis of the Data 
       [0140]    All experimental data were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA (Graphpad Instat and Prism Software, Inc. v. 2.03, San Diego, Calif., USA). Treatment and sample dates were the independent variables. Tukey-Kramer Multiple comparisons tests were used to separate means. 
       Results 
       [0141]    Significant differences (P&lt;0.01) were detected among treatments (Table 12). Fewer mirids were killed when  Clitoria ternatea  was applied at 0.5% v/v. As the rate of application increased the number of green mirids killed increased significantly (Table 12). Formulation A caused the highest mortalities to green mirid adults at all the rates tested (Table 12). At 1% v/v rate Formulation A caused 55.7% mortality compared to 44.3% caused by Formulation C and Formulation D respectively (Table 12). The highest mortality was caused by Formulation A (100%), Formulation C (89%) and Formulation D (100%) when the products were applied at 2% v/v rate (Table 12). The mortality to green mirids caused by Formulation B which did not contain  Clitoria ternatea  was significantly lower (P&lt;0.01) than the other formulations containing  Clitoria ternatea , and was not significantly different from the insects treated with water (control) (Table 12). 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 12 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Effect of direct spray application and residues 
               
               
                 of canola-oil based  Clitoria ternatea  on mortalities of 
               
               
                 green mirid adults in the laboratory. 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 0.5% v/v 
                 1.0% v/v 
                 1.5% v/v 
                 2.0% v/v 
               
               
                 Treatments 
                 (% mortality) 
                 (% mortality) 
                 (% mortality) 
                 (% mortality) 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Formulation A 
                 2.00 ± 0.58 a 
                 1.33 ± 0.33 a 
                 0.33 ± 0.33 a 
                 0.00 ± 0.00 a 
               
               
                   
                 (33.3%) 
                 (55.7%) 
                 (89.0%) 
                 (100.0%) 
               
               
                 Formulation B 
                 2.67 ± 0.33 b 
                 2.67 ± 0.33 b 
                 2.67 ± 0.33 b 
                 2.67 ± 0.33 b 
               
               
                   
                 (11.0%) 
                 (11.0%) 
                 (11.0%) 
                  (11.0%) 
               
               
                 Formulation C 
                 2.00 ± 0.58 a 
                 1.67 ± 0.67 a 
                 1.67 ± 0.33 a 
                 0.33 ± 0.33 a 
               
               
                   
                 (33.3%) 
                 (44.3%) 
                 (44.3%) 
                  (89.0%) 
               
               
                 Formulation D 
                 2.33 ± 0.33 a 
                 1.67 ± 0.33 a 
                 1.33 ± 0.33 a 
                 0.00 ± 0.00 a 
               
               
                   
                 (22.3%) 
                 (44.3%) 
                 (55.7%) 
                 (100.0%) 
               
               
                 Water 
                 3.00 ± 0.33 b 
                 3.00 ± 0.33 b 
                 3.00 ± 0.33 b 
                 3.00 ± 0.33 b 
               
               
                 (control) 
               
               
                 Level of 
                 P &lt; 0.01 
                 P &lt; 0.001 
                 P &lt; 0.01 
                 P &lt; 0.01 
               
               
                 significance 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Means between treatments within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05); Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test. 
               
             
          
         
       
     
       Example 13 
     Efficacy of Combination of Direct Application and Residues of  Clitoria ternatea  on Survival of Green Mirid Adults 
       [0142]    The  Clitoria ternatea  formulations Formulation A, Formulation C and Formulation D were evaluated at 1 and 2 L/ha in the laboratory with temperature at 25° C. and 60-70% RH. Water was used as a control. For each formulation, a total of 6 (3 pairs) adult female and male mirids per treatment (1 pair/replicate) were sprayed on beans until run off. The beans were also dipped for 60 seconds in each formulation and transferred and kept separately in 35 mL clear plastic containers (P101M; Solo, Urbana, Illionis, USA). Thereafter, one male and female green mirids (a pair) were released onto the beans in the plastic containers. Each treatment was replicated 3 times. The number of dead mirid adults (males and females) were counted and recorded at 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 days after treatment and the percent mortality was calculated relative to the control. 
       Analysis of the Data 
       [0143]    All experimental data were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA (Graphpad Instat and Prism Software, Inc. v. 2.03, San Diego, Calif., USA). Treatment and sample dates were the independent variables. Tukey-Kramer Multiple comparisons tests were used to separate means. 
       Results 
     Efficacy on Mortality of Green Mirid Adult Males 
       [0144]    At 3 DAT, none of the  Clitoria ternatea  treatments caused mortalities to green mirid adult males exception of 2 L/ha Formulation A that caused 33.3% mortality (Table 13). At 5 DAT, Formulation D and Formulation A applied at 2 L/ha caused 33.3% mortality whereas the lower rates of  Clitoria ternatea  products did not kill any mirid. The 1 L/ha rate of the  Clitoria ternatea  products caused 33.3% mortality of green mirids at 7 DAT whereas the 2 L/ha rate caused 66.7% (Table 13). At 9 and 11 DAT, 2 L/ha Formulation A and Formulation D caused 100% kill of the mirids whereas the 1 L/ha rates and 2 L/ha Formulation C caused 66.7% kill (Table 13). 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 13 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Effect of  Clitoria ternatea  residues on mortalities of green mirid adult in the laboratory 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Pre- 
                 3 DAT 
                 5 DAT 
                 7 DAT 
                 9 DAT 
                 11 DAT 
               
               
                 Treatments 
                 treatment 
                 % mortality 
                 % mortality 
                 % mortality 
                 % mortality 
                 % mortality 
               
               
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 0 
                 0a 
                 0a 
                 33.33a 
                 66.67a 
                  66.67a 
               
               
                 Formulation C 
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 0 
                 0a 
                 0a 
                 33.33a 
                 66.67a 
                 100.00b 
               
               
                 Formulation D 
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 0 
                 0a 
                 0a 
                 33.33a 
                 66.67a 
                 100.00b 
               
               
                 Formulation A 
               
               
                 2 L/ha 
                 0 
                 0a 
                 0a 
                 33.33a 
                 66.67a 
                 100.00b 
               
               
                 Formulation C 
               
               
                 2 L/ha 
                 0 
                 0a 
                   33.33a 
                 66.67b 
                 100.00b  
                 100.00b 
               
               
                 Formulation D 
               
               
                 2 L/ha 
                 0 
                   33.33a 
                   33.33a 
                 66.67b 
                 100.00b  
                 100.00b 
               
               
                 Formulation A 
               
               
                 Control 
                 0 
                 0a 
                 0a 
                 0c   
                 0c   
                 0c  
               
               
                 (water) 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Means between treatments within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05); Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test. 
               
             
          
         
       
     
       Example 14 
     Efficacy on Mortality of Green Mirid Adult Females 
       [0145]    The mortality of green mirid adult females at 3 DAT was zero but was 33.3% at 5 DAT (Table 14). The mortality when the female adults and beans were treated with 2 L/ha Formulation A and Formulation D was 66.7% at 7 DAT compared to 33.3% when they were treated with 1 L/ha Formulation D and Formulation A (Table 14). None of the insects treated with 1 L/ha Formulation C were dead at 7 DAT and only 33.3% died at 9 and 11 DAT. In contrast, application of 2 L/ha Formulation A and Formulation D killed 100 percent of the female adults at 9 DAT, whereas the 2 L/ha Formulation C killed 77.7% and the 1 L/ha Formulation D and Formulation A killed 66.7% of the insects. At 11 DAT, all the treated insects have died with the exception of insects treated with 1 L/ha Formulation C and 1 L/ha Formulation D where only 33.3 and 66.7% respectively died (Table 14). 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 14 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Effect of  Clitoria ternatea  residues on mortalities 
               
               
                 of green mirid adult females in the laboratory 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Pre- 
                 3 DAT 
                 5 DAT 
                 7 DAT 
                 9 DAT 
                 11 DAT 
               
               
                 Treatments 
                 treatment 
                 % mortality 
                 % mortality 
                 % mortality 
                 % mortality 
                 % mortality 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 0 
                 0 
                 0b   
                 0a   
                 33.33a 
                  33.33a 
               
               
                 Formulation C 
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 0 
                 0 
                 33.33a 
                 33.33b 
                 66.67b 
                  66.67b 
               
               
                 Formulation D 
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 0 
                 0 
                 33.33a 
                 33.33b 
                 66.67b 
                 100.00c 
               
               
                 Formulation A 
               
               
                 2 L/ha 
                 0 
                 0 
                 33.33a 
                 66.67c 
                 77.70b 
                 100.00c 
               
               
                 Formulation C 
               
               
                 2 L/ha 
                 0 
                 0 
                 33.33a 
                 66.67c 
                 100.00c  
                 100.00c 
               
               
                 Formulation D 
               
               
                 2 L/ha 
                 0 
                 0 
                 33.33a 
                 66.67c 
                 100.00c  
                 100.00c 
               
               
                 Formulation A 
               
               
                 Control 
                 0 
                 0 
                 0b   
                 0a   
                 0d   
                 0d  
               
               
                 (water) 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Means between treatments within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05); Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test. 
               
             
          
         
       
     
       Example 15 
     Oviposition Deterrent Activity of  Clitoria ternatea  on Green Mirid Adults on Beans in the Laboratory: Effect on Total Egg Lay 
       [0146]    The  Clitoria ternatea  formulations Formulation A, Formulation B, Formulation C and Formulation D were evaluated at 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5% and 2.0% (v/v) in the laboratory with 25° C. temperature and 40% RH. Water was used as a control. For each formulation, a total of 6 (3 pairs) green mirid adult females and males mirids per treatment (1 pair/replicate) were sprayed on filter papers until run off. Beans were dipped for 60 seconds in each formulation and then transferred and kept separately in 35-mL clear plastic containers (P101M; Solo, Urbana, Illionis, USA). Three pairs of treated green mirid adults were released onto the treated beans in each plastic container. Each treatment was replicated 4 times. The number of eggs were counted under a binocular microscope and recorded daily until 9 days after treatment when all the insects in one of the treatments died. Data was expressed as number of eggs laid per female and compared among the treatments. 
       Analysis of the Data 
       [0147]    All experimental data were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA (Graphpad Instat and Prism Software, Inc. v. 2.03, San Diego, Calif., USA). Treatment and sample dates were the independent variables. Tukey-Kramer Multiple comparisons tests were used to separate means. 
       Results 
       [0148]    Oviposition of green mirids on beans were significantly lower (P&lt;0.001) at all concentrations in insects treated with Formulation A than the other treatments and control (Table 15). At 0.5% v/v  Clitoria ternatea  extract, 1.17 eggs/female was laid on beans treated with Formulation A compared to 8.58 and 7.25 per female respectively in Formulation C and Formulation D treated plants (Table 15). The Formulation B and the unsprayed beans had 11 and 12.42 eggs/female respectively (Table 15). At 1.0% v/v, the number of eggs laid per female on the insects and beans treated with Formulation D were the same as Formulation A, Formulation B and Formulation C but Formulation A was different from Formulation B and Formulation C. The number of eggs recorded per female on Formulation A and Formulation D treated plants were significantly lower (P&lt;0.0009) than the control (Table 15). At 1.5 and 2 L/ha rates, no significant differences was detected in the number of eggs per female in Formulation A, Formulation C and Formulation D treated insects and beans. However, the number of eggs per female on Formulation A treated insects and beans were significantly lower (P&lt;0.005 and P&lt;0.01) than Formulation B and the unsprayed (control) (Table 15). 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 15 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Effect of direct spray application and residues 
               
               
                 of  Clitoria ternatea  formulations on oviposition of green 
               
               
                 mirid adults on beans in the laboratory. 
               
             
          
           
               
                 Treatments 
                 0.5% v/v 
                 1.0% v/v 
                 1.5% v/v 
                 2.0% v/v 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Formulation A 
                  1.17 ± 0.44 a 
                  1.35 ± 0.65 a 
                  1.25 ± 1.33 a 
                  2.00 ± 1.00 a 
               
               
                 Formulation B 
                 11.00 ± 0.76 b 
                 10.35 ± 1.52 bc 
                 11.00 ± 1.20 b 
                 13.00 ± 2.08 b 
               
               
                 Formulation C 
                  8.58 ± 2.36 b 
                 12.65 ± 1.15 bc 
                  4.00 ± 2.65 ab 
                  7.33 ± 2.18 ab 
               
               
                 Formulation D 
                  7.25 ± 0.95 b 
                  5.00 ± 0.35 ab 
                  5.65 ± 0.55 ab 
                  6.65 ± 1.20 ab 
               
               
                 Water 
                 12.42 ± 3.33 b 
                 20.65 ± 3.38 c 
                 11.65 ± 3.35 b 
                 12.65 ± 3.35 b 
               
               
                 (control) 
               
               
                 Level of 
                 P &lt; 0.0001 
                 P &lt; 0.0009 
                 P &lt; 0.005 
                 P &lt; 0.01 
               
               
                 significance 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Means between treatments within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05); Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test. 
               
             
          
         
       
     
       Example 16 
     Oviposition Deterrent Activity of  Clitoria ternatea  on Green Mirid Adult Females on Beans in the Laboratory: Days after Treatment and Adult Female Egg Lay 
       [0149]    The  Clitoria ternatea  formulations Formulation C, Formulation D and Formulation A were evaluated at 1 and 2 L/ha in the laboratory with 25° C. temperature and 40-55% RH. Water was used as control. For each formulation, a total of 6 adult mirid females and males (3 pairs) per treatment (1 pair/replicate) were sprayed on a filter paper until run off. Three beans were dipped for 60 seconds in each treatment or formulation. Each mirid pair and a treated bean from each treatment were transferred and kept separately in 35 mL clear plastic containers (P101M; Solo, Urbana, Illionis, USA). Each treatment was replicated 3 times. The numbers of green mirid eggs laid per female in each treatment were counted under a binocular microscope on 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 days after treatment. The number of eggs per female per treatment were calculated and compared among treatments and control. 
       Analysis of the Data 
       [0150]    All experimental data were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA (Graphpad Instat and Prism Software, Inc. v. 2.03, San Diego, Calif., USA). Treatment and sample dates were the independent variables. Tukey-Kramer Multiple comparisons tests were used to separate means. 
       Results 
       [0151]    Green mirid adult females did not lay any eggs on beans treated with 2 L/ha Formulation A at 3 to 11 DAT (Table 16). Beans treated with 1 L/ha Formulation A had no eggs recorded on them at 3 DAT but at 5 to 11 DAT the number of eggs recorded on the 1 L/ha Formulation A treated beans ranged from 0.67 to 2.00 per female (Table 16). The number of eggs laid on the on beans treated with 1 L/ha Formulation C, Formulation D and water at 3 DAT were 0.33, 0.67 and 2.00 per female respectively (Table 16). At the same period no eggs were recorded on beans treated with 2 L/ha Formulation C and Formulation D respectively (Table 16). At 5 DAT the beans treated with 1 L/ha Formulation C and Formulation D had 10 and 8.67 eggs/female respectively and the control had 5.33 per female. When the application rate of Formulation C and Formulation D were doubled to 2 L/ha, the number of eggs laid per female reduced to 4.00 (Formulation C) and 6.00 is (Formulation D) and this was significantly different (P&lt;0.01) from the 1 L/ha rate (Table 16). At 7 to 11 DAT, the number of eggs laid on beans treated with 2 L/ha Formulation C and Formulation D were not significantly different (P&gt;0.05) from the 1 L/ha rate and the control (Table 16). 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 16 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Effect of  Clitoria ternatea  on the number of eggs laid by green mirid adult females in the laboratory 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                   
                 3 DAT 
                 5 DAT 
                 7 DAT 
                 9 DAT 
                 11 DAT 
               
               
                   
                 Pre- 
                 No. eggs 
                 No. eggs 
                 No. eggs 
                 No. eggs 
                 No. eggs 
               
               
                 Treatments 
                 treatment 
                 laid/female 
                 laid/female 
                 laid/female 
                 laid/female 
                 laid/female 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 0 
                 0.33 ± 0.33a 
                 10.00 ± 4.91a  
                 7.33 ± 0.67a 
                 8.67 ± 2.03a 
                 7.00 ± 1.37a  
               
               
                 Formulation C 
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 0 
                 0.67 ± 0.33a 
                 8.67 ± 0.88a 
                 10.33 ± 0.8a  
                 10.67 ± 1.21a  
                 8.87 ± 1.21a  
               
               
                 Formulation D 
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 0 
                 0a 
                 0.67 ± 0.33c 
                 2.00 ± 1.00b 
                 2.00 ± 1.00b 
                 1.07 ± 1.00bc 
               
               
                 Formulation A 
               
               
                 2 L/ha 
                 0 
                 0a 
                 4.00 ± 2.00b 
                 7.00 ± 1.85a 
                 6.33 ± 1.67a 
                 4.53 ± 2.03ab 
               
               
                 Formulation C 
               
               
                 2 L/ha 
                 0 
                 0a 
                 6.00 ± 3.79b 
                  5.67 ± 0.57ab 
                  4.67 ± 1.45ab 
                 4.27 ± 0.97ab 
               
               
                 Formulation D 
               
               
                 2 L/ha 
                 0 
                 0a 
                 0c 
                 0b 
                 0b 
                 0c 
               
               
                 Formulation A 
               
               
                 Control 
                 0 
                 2.00 ± 1.16a 
                  5.33 ± 2.67ab 
                 9.67 ± 2.85a 
                 8.00 ± 0.58a 
                 7.13 ± 0.58a  
               
               
                 (water) 
               
               
                 Level of 
                   
                 P &lt; 0.0001 
                 P &lt; 0.01 
                 P &lt; 0.01 
                 P &lt; 0.01 
                 P &lt; 0.05 
               
               
                 significance 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Means between treatments within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05); Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test. 
               
             
          
         
       
     
       Example 17 
     Efficacy of  Clitoria ternatea  Formulations Against Cotton Pests 
       [0152]    The trial was conducted in an irrigated commercial conventional cotton crops at the Australian Cotton Research Institute farm in Narrabri. A sunflower strip was planted on one side of the field to generate high densities of green mirids and other cotton pests and beneficial insects. 
         [0153]    The following treatments were evaluated against cotton pests especially green mirids: (1) 1 L/ha Formulation C, (2) 1 L/ha Formulation D, (3) 1 L/ha Formulation A, (4) 1 L/ha Formulation B, (5) Conventional insecticides (62.5 ml/ha Fipronil and 0.80 L/ha Steward) and (6) Unsprayed (untreated) control. The treatment plots were arranged in a randomised complete block design with 4 replicates per treatment. Each replicated plot measured 8 m wide and 100 metres long. 
         [0154]    Foliar applications of each treatment were made over a period of 3 months. The decision to apply the treatment was made based on the IPM Guidelines and CottonLogic recommended economic threshold of 0.5 green mirids per metre. In all, 3 applications of each treatment were applied throughout the season. 
         [0155]    Pre-treatment counts were made visually of green mirid adults and nymphs, green vegetable bugs, non target arthropods such as apple dimpling bugs, thrips, jassids and aphids on cotton plants. Post-treatment counts were made on 3, 7 and 14 days after treatment application. In each counts, two randomly selected 2 metre lengths of row of each treatment replicate, i.e. a total of 8 metres were examined per treatment. Data were expressed as numbers per metre for each treatment for each spray application and number per metre per sample date at the end of the season. 
       Analysis of the Data 
       [0156]    All experimental data were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA (Graphpad Instat and Prism Software, Inc. v. 2.03, San Diego, Calif., USA). Treatment and sample dates were the independent variables. Tukey-Kramer Multiple comparisons tests were used to separate means. 
       Results 
       [0157]    Efficacy of  Clitoria ternatea  Oil Based Formulations on  Helicoverpa  spp. in Commercial Cotton 
         [0158]    Approximately equal number of  Helicoverpa  spp. eggs per metre per sample date were found on plots treated with conventional insecticide (2.22±0.26) compared with 1.64, 1.71 and 1.57 on 1 L/ha Formulation C (1.64), 1 L/ha Formulation D (1.71) and 1 L/ha Formulation A (Table 17). The number of  Helicoverpa  eggs per metre per sample date found on the plots treated with 1 L/ha Formulation B (formulation without  Clitoria ternatea  i.e.  Clitoria ternatea  carrier) was significantly higher (P&lt;0.0001) than the other  Clitoria ternatea  formulations but was the same as plots treated with conventional insecticides (Table 17). The unsprayed plot (3.90 per metre) recorded the highest number of  Helicoverpa  eggs per metre per sample date than all the other treatments (Table 17). The mortalities of eggs on the conventional insecticide treated plots (43.1%) was significantly lower (P&lt;0.001) than the Formulation C (58.0%), Formulation D (56.2%) and Formulation A (59.7%)-treated plots (Table 1). The Formulation B treated plots had 26.2% mortalities of  Helicoverpa  spp. eggs (Table 17). 
         [0159]    The number of VS+S larvae was the same in conventional insecticide (1.19) compared with 1.70, 1.65 and 1.46 On the Formulation C (1.70), Formulation D (1.65) and Formulation A (1.46) treated plots (Table 17). Plots treated with Formulation B had significantly higher (P&lt;0.0001) number of  Helicoverpa  spp. VS+S larvae than the other plots treated with the other  Clitoria ternatea  formulations and conventional insecticide (Table 17). The unsprayed plot had the highest number of VS+S larvae among the treatments but this was not significantly different (P&gt;0.05) from the Formulation B treated plots (Table 17). The mortalities of VS+S larvae on the conventional insecticide treated plots (53.9%) was higher than the Formulation C (34.1%), Formulation D (36.1%) and Formulation A (43.4 W) (Table 17). The mortality of VS+S larvae on the Formulation B (10.1%) treated plots was the lowest among the  Clitoria ternatea  formulations. 
         [0160]    The number of  Helicoverpa  spp. M+L larvae found on the conventional insecticide plots (0.30) was the same as the Formulation C (0.45), Formulation D (0.46) and Formulation A (0.26) treated plots (Table 17). The number of M+L larvae per metre per sample date found on the Formulation B treated plots (0.70) was the same as the unsprayed plots but significantly higher than the other  Clitoria ternatea  formulations (Table 17). The mortalities of M+L larvae on the conventional insecticide plots (68.1%) were lower than the Formulation A treated plots (73.3%). The mortalities of M+L larvae on plots treated with Formulation C (52.1%) and Formulation D (51.1%) was lower than Formulation A plots (73.3%) but higher than Formulation B treated plots (25.5%) (Table 17). 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 17 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Overall effect of  Clitoria ternatea  extracts on 
               
               
                   Helicoverpa  spp. eggs, very small and small larvae and 
               
               
                 medium and large larvae on commercial conventional cotton 
               
               
                 crops 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                   Helicoverpa  eggs/ 
                   Helicoverpa  VS + S 
                 
                   Helicoverpa 
                 
               
               
                   
                 metre/sample 
                 larvae/metre/ 
                 M + L/metre/ 
               
               
                   
                 date 
                 sample date (% 
                 sample date 
               
               
                 Treatments 
                 (% mortality) 
                 mortality) 
                 (% mortality) 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 1.64 ± 0.26 a 
                 1.70 ± 0.22 a 
                 0.45 ± 0.11 a 
               
               
                 Formulation C 
                 (58.0%) 
                 (34.1%) 
                 (52.1%) 
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 1.71 ± 0.26 a 
                 1.65 ± 0.25 a 
                 0.46 ± 0.10 a 
               
               
                 Formulation D 
                 (56.2%) 
                 (36.1%) 
                 (51.1%) 
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 1.57 ± 0.24 a 
                 1.46 ± 0.21 a 
                 0.26 ± 0.06 a 
               
               
                 Formulation A 
                 (59.7%) 
                 (43.4%) 
                 (73.3%) 
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 2.88 ± 0.23 b 
                 2.32 ± 0.25 bc 
                 0.70 ± 0.13 bc 
               
               
                 Formulation B 
                 (26.2%) 
                 (10.1%) 
                 (25.5%) 
               
               
                 Conventional 
                 2.22 ± 0.26 ab 
                 1.19 ± 0.20 a 
                 0.30 ± 0.06 a 
               
               
                   
                 (43.1%) 
                 (53.9%) 
                 (68.1%) 
               
               
                 Unsprayed 
                 3.90 ± 0.33 c 
                 2.58 ± 0.29 c 
                 0.94 ± 0.19 c 
               
               
                 (Control) 
                 (0) 
                 (0) 
                 (0) 
               
               
                 Level of 
                 p &lt; 0.0001 
                 P &lt; 0.0001 
                 P &lt; 0.0001 
               
               
                 significance 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Means between treatments within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05); Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test. 
               
             
          
         
       
     
       Example 18 
     Efficacy of  Clitoris ternatea  Oil Based Formulations on Sucking Pests on Commercial Cotton Green Mirids 
       [0161]    The number of green mirids per metre per sample date was the same in conventional insecticide (0.33) compared with 1.07, 1.09 and 0.77 on the Formulation C (1.07), Formulation D (1.09) and Formulation A (0.77) treated plots (Table 18). Plots treated with Formulation B had significantly higher (P&lt;0.0001) number of green mirids per metre per sample date than the other plots treated with the  Clitoria ternatea  formulations and conventional insecticide (Table 18). The unsprayed plot had the highest number of green mirids per metre per sample date among all treatments but was not significantly different (P&gt;0.05) from the Formulation B treated plots (Table 18). The mortalities of green mirids on the conventional insecticide treated plots (81.5%) was higher than the Formulation C (39.9%), Formulation D (38.8%) and Formulation A (56.7%) (Table 18). The mortality of green mirids on the Formulation B-treated plots (32.6%) was the lowest among the  Clitoria ternatea  formulations (Table 18). 
       Green Vegetable Bugs 
       [0162]    The number of green vegetable bugs per metre per sample date was the same in conventional insecticide (0.19) compared with 0.44, 0.35 and 0.17 on the Formulation C (0.44), Formulation D (0.35), Formulation A (0.17) and Formulation B (0.54) treated plots (Table 18). Plots treated with Formulation B (0.54) had significantly higher (P&lt;0.0001) number of green vegetable bugs per metre per sample date than the other plots treated with the  Clitoria ternatea  formulations and conventional insecticide (Table 18). The unsprayed plot had the highest number of green vegetable bugs per metre per sample date among all treatments but was not significantly different (P&gt;0.05) from the Formulation B treated plots (Table 18). The mortalities of green vegetable bugs on the conventional insecticide treated plots (81.5%) was higher than the Formulation C (39.9%), Formulation D (38.8%) and Formulation A (56.7%) (Table 18). The mortality of green vegetable bugs on the Formulation B-treated plots (32.6%) was the lowest among the  Clitoria ternatea  formulations (Table 18). 
       Aphids 
       [0163]    Approximately equal number of cotton aphids per metre per sample date were found on plots treated with conventional insecticide (1.20) compared with 2.09, 2.06, 0.17 and 2.62 on the Formulation C (2.09), Formulation D (2.06), Formulation A (1.36) and Formulation B (2.62) treated plots (Table 18). Plots treated with Formulation B (2.62) had significantly higher (P&lt;0.0001) number of cotton aphids per metre per sample date than the other plots treated with the  Clitoria ternatea  formulations and conventional insecticide (Table 18). The unsprayed plot had the highest number of cotton aphids per metre per sample date among all treatments but was not significantly different (P&gt;0.05) from the Formulation B treated plots (Table 18). The mortalities of cotton aphids on the conventional insecticide treated plots (63.4%) was higher than the Formulation C (36.3%), Formulation D (37.2%) and Formulation A (58.5%) (Table 18). The mortality of aphids on the Formulation B-treated plots (20.1%) was the lowest among the  Clitoria ternatea  formulations (Table 18). 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 18 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Efficacy of  Clitoria ternatea  extracts on green 
               
               
                 mirids, green vegetable bugs and cotton aphids in 
               
               
                 commercial cotton crops 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 No. Green 
                 No. Green vege 
                 No. Aphids/ 
               
               
                   
                 mirids/metre/ 
                 bug/metre/ 
                 metre/sample 
               
               
                   
                 sample date 
                 sample date 
                 date 
               
               
                 Treatments 
                 (% mortality) 
                 (% mortality) 
                 (% mortality) 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 1.07 ± 0.19 a 
                 0.44 ± 0.09 ab 
                 2.09 ± 0.57 a 
               
               
                 Formulation C 
                 (39.9%) 
                 (47.6%) 
                 (36.3%) 
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 1.09 ± 0.18 a 
                 0.35 ± 0.11 ab 
                 2.06 ± 0.40 a 
               
               
                 Formulation D 
                 (38.8%) 
                 (58.3%) 
                 (37.2%) 
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 0.77 ± 0.14 ab 
                 0.17 ± 0.07 a 
                 1.36 ± 0.29 a 
               
               
                 Formulation A 
                 (56.7%) 
                 (79.8%) 
                 (58.5%) 
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 1.20 ± 0.21 ac 
                 0.54 ± 0.14 bc 
                 2.62 ± 1.07 a 
               
               
                 Formulation B 
                 (32.6%) 
                 (35.7%) 
                 (20.1%) 
               
               
                 Conventional 
                 0.33 ± 0.11 b 
                 0.19 ± 0.07 a 
                 1.20 ± 0.27 a 
               
               
                   
                 (81.5%) 
                 (77.4%) 
                 (63.4%) 
               
               
                 Unsprayed 
                 1.78 ± 0.25 c 
                 0.84 ± 0.18 c 
                 3.28 ± 0.53 a 
               
               
                 (Control) 
                 (0) 
                 (0) 
                 (0) 
               
               
                 Level of 
                 P &lt; 0.0001 
                 P &lt; 0.0001 
                 P &gt; 0.05 
               
               
                 significance 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Means between treatments within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05); Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test. 
               
             
          
         
       
     
       Apple Dimpling Bugs 
       [0164]    The number of apple dimpling bugs per metre per sample date found on plots treated with conventional insecticide (2.03) were lower than those on plots treated with Formulation C (3.59), Formulation D (3.88), Formulation A (2.70) and Formulation B (4.32) (Table 19). Plots treated with Formulation B (4.32) had significantly higher (P&lt;0.0001) number of Apple dimpling bugs per metre per sample date than the other plots treated with the  Clitoria ternatea  formulations and conventional insecticide (Table 19). The unsprayed plot (4.57) had the highest number of Apple dimpling bugs per metre per sample date among all treatments but was not significantly different (P&gt;0.05) from the Formulation B treated plots (Table 19). The mortalities of Apple dimpling bugs on the conventional insecticide treated plots (55.6%) was higher than the Formulation C (21.4%), Formulation D (15.1%) and Formulation A (40.9%) (Table 19). The mortality of Apple dimpling bugs on the Formulation B-treated plots (5.5%) was the lowest among the  Clitoria ternatea  formulations (Table 19). 
       Green Jassids 
       [0165]    The number of green jassids per metre per sample date found on plots treated with conventional insecticide (2.03) was the same as those found on plots treated with Formulation C (2.93), Formulation D (2.88), Formulation A (2.16) and Formulation B (3.13) treated plots (Table 19). Plots treated with Formulation A (2.16) had significantly lower (P&lt;0.0002) number of green jassids per metre per sample date than the plots treated with Formulation B (3.13). Plots treated with Formulation B had the same number of green jassids per metre per sample date than plots treated with Formulation C, Formulation D and the unsprayed plot (3.78) (Table 19). The survival rates of green jassids on the conventional insecticide treated plots (28.6%) were lower than plots treated with Formulation A (42.9%). The mortalities of green jassids on the Formulation C and Formulation D treated were approximately the same as plots treated with Formulation B (17.2) (Table 19). 
       Thrips 
       [0166]    Approximately equal number of thrips per metre per sample date were found on plots treated with conventional insecticide (11.06) compared with Formulation C (10.00), Formulation D (10.19), Formulation A (10.62), Formulation B (11.04) treated plots and the control plots (12.22) (Table 19). Plots treated with Formulation A (10.62) had the same number of thrips per metre per sample date as plots treated with Formulation B (11.04). Plots treated with both Formulation A and Formulation B had the same number of thrips per metre per sample date as plots treated with Formulation C, Formulation D, conventional insecticides and unsprayed plot (12.22) (Table 19). The mortalities of thrips on the conventional insecticide treated plots (9.5%) were the same as plots treated with the  Clitoria ternatea  formulations Formulation A (Table 19). 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 19 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Efficacy of  Clitoria ternatea  extracts on apple 
               
               
                 dimpling bugs, green jassids and thrips in commercial 
               
               
                 cotton crops 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 No. Apple Dimpling 
                 No. Green 
                   
               
               
                   
                 bug/metre/sample 
                 jassids/metre/ 
                 No. Thrips/metre/ 
               
               
                   
                 date 
                 sample date 
                 sample date 
               
               
                 Treatments 
                 (% mortality) 
                 (% mortality) 
                 (% mortality) 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 3.59 ± 0.53 ab 
                 2.93 ± 0.32 abc 
                 10.00 ± 1.13 a 
               
               
                 Formulation C 
                 (21.4%) 
                 (22.5%) 
                 (18.2%) 
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 3.88 ± 0.52 a 
                 2.88 ± 0.33 ac 
                 10.19 ± 1.21 a 
               
               
                 Formulation D 
                 (15.1%) 
                 (23.8%) 
                 (16.6%) 
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 2.70 ± 0.46 bc 
                 2.16 ± 0.22 b 
                 10.62 ± 1.12 a 
               
               
                 Formulation A 
                 (40.9%) 
                 (42.9%) 
                 (13.1%) 
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 4.32 ± 0.62 a 
                 3.13 ± 0.29 ac 
                 11.04 ± 1.08 a 
               
               
                 Formulation B 
                  (5.5%) 
                 (17.2%) 
                  (9.7%) 
               
               
                 Conventional 
                 2.03 ± 0.33 c 
                 2.70 ± 0.31 ab 
                 11.06 ± 1.25 a 
               
               
                   
                 (55.6%) 
                 (28.6%) 
                  (9.5%) 
               
               
                 Unsprayed 
                 4.57 ± 0.56 a 
                 3.78 ± 0.36 c 
                 12.22 ± 1.44 a 
               
               
                 (Control) 
                 (0) 
                 (0) 
                 (0) 
               
               
                 Level of 
                 P &lt; 0.0001 
                 P &lt; 0.0002 
                 P &gt; 0.33 
               
               
                 significance 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Means between treatments within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05); Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test. 
               
             
          
         
       
     
       Example 19 
     Efficacy of  Clitoria ternatea  Formulations Against Key Beneficial Insects 
       [0167]    The trial was conducted in an irrigated commercial conventional cotton crops at the Australian Cotton Research Institute farm in Narrabri. A sunflower strip was planted on one side of the field to generate high densities of green mirids and other cotton pests and beneficial insects. 
         [0168]    The following  Clitoria ternatea  formulations were evaluated against beneficial insects on cotton crops (1) 1 L/ha Formulation C, (2) 1 L/ha Formulation D, (3) 1 L/ha Formulation A, (4) 1 L/ha Formulation B, (5) Conventional insecticides (62.5 ml/ha Fipronil and 0.80 L/ha Steward) and (6) Unsprayed (untreated) control. The treatment plots were arranged in a randomised complete block design with 4 replicates per treatment. Each replicated plot measured 8 m wide and 100 metres long. 
         [0169]    Foliar applications of each treatment were made over 3 months. The decision to apply the treatment was made based on the IPM Guidelines and CottonLogic recommended predator to pre ratio of 0.5. In all, 3 applications of each treatment were applied throughout the season. 
         [0170]    Pre-treatment counts were made visually of beneficial insects such as predatory beetles, predatory bugs, predatory lacewings and spiders on cotton plants. Post-treatment counts were made on 3, 7 and 14 days after treatment application. In each counts, two randomly selected 2 metre lengths of row of each treatment replicate, i.e. a total of 8 metres were examined per treatment. Data were expressed as numbers per metre for each treatment for each spray application and number per metre per sample date for each treatment at the end of the season. 
       Analysis of the Data 
       [0171]    All experimental data were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA (Graphpad Instat and Prism Software, Inc. v. 2.03, San Diego, Calif., USA). Treatment and sample dates were the independent variables. Tukey-Kramer Multiple comparisons tests were used to separate means. 
       Results 
       [0172]    Predatory insects identified from the treated plots were predatory beetles, bugs, lacewings and spiders (see Table 7). 
       Predatory Beetles 
       [0173]    No significant difference (P&gt;0.05) in the number of predatory beetles per metre per sample date were recorded in plots treated with the  Clitoria ternatea  formulations and the control (unsprayed) plots (Table 20). However, significant differences were found between plots treated with conventional insecticides and plots treated with  Clitoria ternatea  formulations (Table 20). Plots treated with conventional insecticides had 1.51 predatory beetles per metre per sample date compared with 2.25, 2.19, 2.00, 2.20 and 2.51 for Formulation C (2.25), Formulation D (2.19), Formulation A (2.00), Formulation B (2.20) and control (2.51) plots (Table 20). 
       Predatory Bugs 
       [0174]    The highest number of predatory bugs per metre per sampling date was recorded on the Control plots (1.78) but this was not significantly different (P&gt;0.05) from plots treated with Formulation B (1.65), Formulation A (1.25), Formulation C (1.16) and Formulation D (1.25) (Table 20). The conventional insecticide-treated cotton crops had the least number of predatory bugs (P&lt;0.0001) (Table 20). 
       Predatory Lacewings 
       [0175]    No significant difference (P&gt;0.05) in the number of predatory lacewings per metre per sampling were found on plots treated with  Clitoria ternatea  formulations and the conventional insecticide treated plots (Table 20). The highest number of lacewings per metre was recorded in the unsprayed plot (1.01) but was not significantly different (P&gt;0.05) from the plots treated with the  Clitoria ternatea  formulations (Table 20). In contrast the least number of lacewings per metre was recorded on the conventional insecticide treated plots and this was significantly different (P&lt;0.03) from the control plots (Table 20). 
       Spiders 
       [0176]    The number of spiders per metre per sampling date were recorded on the unsprayed (control) plots (3.28) compared with 2.52, 3.10, 2.78, 2.73 and 2.13 on the Formulation C (2.52), Formulation D (3.10), Formulation A (2.78), Formulation B (2.73) and the conventional insecticide (2.13) plots (Table 20). The difference between the spider numbers per metre per sample date found on the control plots was not significantly different (P&gt;0.05) from plots treated with  Clitoria ternatea  formulations but was different (P&lt;0.0003) from the conventional insecticide treated plots (Table 20). The number of spiders recorded on the conventional insecticide treated plots was not significantly different (P&gt;0.05) from plots treated with  Clitoria ternatea  formulations exception is Formulation D treated plots (Table 20). 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 20 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Effect of  Clitoria ternatea  extracts on 
               
               
                 predatory insects on commercial conventional cotton crops 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 No. Predatory 
                   
                   
                   
               
               
                   
                 beetles/ 
                 No. Predatory 
                 No. Predatory 
                 No. 
               
               
                   
                 metre/sample 
                 bugs/ 
                 lacewings/metre/ 
                 Spiders/metre/ 
               
               
                 Treatments 
                 date 
                 metre/sample date 
                 sample date 
                 sampling date 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 2.25 ± 0.19 a 
                 1.16 ± 0.19 ab 
                 0.73 ± 0.10 ab 
                 2.52 ± 0.21 ab 
               
               
                 Formulation C 
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 2.19 ± 0.17 a 
                 1.38 ± 0.22 ab 
                 0.86 ± 0.13 ab 
                 3.10 ± 0.22 a 
               
               
                 Formulation D 
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 2.00 ± 0.19 a 
                 1.25 ± 0.18 ab 
                 0.99 ± 0.14 ab 
                 2.78 ± 0.25 ab 
               
               
                 Formulation A 
               
               
                 1 L/ha 
                 2.20 ± 0.21 a 
                 1.65 ± 0.21 b 
                 0.74 ± 0.11 ab 
                 2.73 ± 0.24 ab 
               
               
                 Formulation B 
               
               
                 Conventional 
                 1.51 ± 0.17 b 
                 0.97 ± 0.17 a 
                 0.58 ± 0.98 a 
                 2.13 ± 0.19 b 
               
               
                 Unsprayed 
                 2.51 ± 0.18 a 
                 1.78 ± 0.26 b 
                 1.01 ± 0.14 b 
                 3.28 ± 0.30 a 
               
               
                 (Control) 
               
               
                 Level of 
                 P &lt; 0.001 
                 P &lt; 0.001 
                 P &lt; 0.03 
                 P &lt; 0.0003 
               
               
                 significance 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Means between treatments within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05); Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test. 
               
             
          
         
       
     
       Example 20 
     Efficacy of  Clitoria ternatea  Formulations on Silverleaf Whiteflies 
       [0177]    The following  Clitoria ternatea  formulations were used in the trials to determine the efficacy of the  Clitoria ternatea  product against  Bemisia tabaci —b-biotype (silverleaf whitefly) adults and nymphs: They are
   (1) Formulation A ( Clitoria ternatea  formulation in oil without emulsifiers),   (2) Formulation D ( Clitoria ternatea  formulations with emulsifiers)
 
Effect of  Clitoria ternatea  Extracts on  Bemisia tabaci  on Commercial Cotton Crops at Merah North Near Wee Waa
   
 
         [0180]    The trial was conducted in an irrigated conventional cotton crops in a commercial cotton farm at Merah north near Wee Waa. Two trials were conducted for a two week period. The treatments evaluated were (1) 2 L/ha Formulation A (2) 2 L/ha Formulation D (3) Unsprayed (untreated) control. The treatment plots were arranged in a randomised complete block design with 3 replicates per treatment. Each replicated plot measured 24 m wide 100 m long. 
         [0181]    Foliar applications of each treatment were made on day 1. Pre-treatment counts were made visually of  B. tabaci  adults and nymphs, on the under-surface of leaves of cotton plants in each treatment. Post-treatment counts were made on 3, 7 and 14 days after treatment application. In each sampling date, twenty (20) plants from each treatment replicate were randomly selected and  B. tabaci  adults on a leaf from the 5 th  node below the terminal of each plant (during the early morning hours (9-10 am) were counted visually by carefully turning the leaf over and counting the number of individual adults present. 
         [0182]    In the case of nymphs, one leaf from the 5 th  node below the terminal of each of the 20 plants was cut, removed and carefully placed individually in a plastic bag. The plastic bags containing individual leaves were brought to the laboratory and the  B. tabaci  nymphs were counted under a binocular microscope. Data of both adults and nymphs were expressed as numbers per leaf for each treatment. 
       Analysis of the Data 
       [0183]    All experimental data were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA (Graphpad Instat and Prism Software, Inc. v. 2.03, San Diego, Calif., USA). Treatment and sample dates were the independent variables. Tukey-Kramer Multiple comparisons tests were used to separate means. 
       Results 
       [0184]    The  B. tabaci  strains present in the study site were predominantly the b-biotype. The number of  B. tabaci  adults per leaf recorded in plots treated with Formulation A and Formulation D were significantly lower (P&lt;0.01 on 3 DAT, P&lt;0.05 on 7 DAT and P&lt;0.0001 on 14 DAT) than the unsprayed plots (Table 21). The mortality of  B tabaci  adults recorded on plots treated with 2 L/ha Formulation D on 3 DAT was 74.5% compared with 54.8 on 2 L/ha Formulation A treated plots (Table 21). However, on 7 and 14 DAT mortalities on Formulation A treated plots increased to 77.3 and 73.4% respectively whereas those on the Formulation D plots were 60.4 and 73.2% respectively relative to the control (Table 21). 
         [0185]    In the case of  B. tabaci  nymphs per leaf, no significant difference (P&gt;0.05) were found between plots treated with Formulation A and Formulation D but were significantly different (P&lt;0.0001) from the unsprayed control on 3, 7 and 14 DAT (Table 22). However, the mortalities of  B. tabaci  nymphs on the Formulation D treated plots (74.9%) on 3 DAT were significantly higher than the Formulation A (28.2%) treated plots relative to the control (Table 22). On 7 and 14 DAT, mortalities recorded on the Formulation A treated plots increased to 73.6 and 55.6% whereas the mortality on the Formulation D treated plots were 75.3 and 67.0% respectively relative to the control (Table 22). 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 21 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Effect of  Clitoria ternatea  extracts on  Bemisia   
               
               
                   tabaci  adults per leaf on commercial Bollgard cotton crops 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Pre-treatment 
                 3 DAT 
                 7 DAT 
                 14 DAT 
               
               
                 Treatments 
                 counts 
                 (% mortality) 
                 (% mortality) 
                 (% mortality) 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 2.0 L/ha 
                 74.33 ± 6.15 a 
                 32.33 ± 3.90 a 
                 15.56 ± 1.70 a 
                 15.56 ± 1.70 a 
               
               
                 Formulation A 
                   
                 (54.8%) 
                 (77.3%) 
                 (73.4%) 
               
               
                 2.0 L/ha 
                 70.89 ± 7.99 a 
                 18.22 ± 3.62 a 
                 27.11 ± 5.19 a 
                 15.67 ± 2.08 a 
               
               
                 Formulation D 
                   
                 (74.5%) 
                 (60.4%) 
                 (73.2%) 
               
               
                 Unsprayed 
                 53.56 ± 7.51 a 
                 71.56 ± 8.85 b 
                 68.45 ± 5.70 b 
                 58.44 ± 5.82 b 
               
               
                 (Control) 
                   
                 (0) 
                 (0) 
                 (0) 
               
               
                 Level of 
                 P &gt; 0.05 
                 P &lt; 0.001 
                 P &lt; 0.05 
                 P &lt; 0.0001 
               
               
                 significance 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Means between treatments within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p &gt; 0.05); Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test. 
               
             
          
         
       
     
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 22 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Effect of  Clitoria ternatea  extracts and 
               
               
                 conventional insecticides on  Bemisia tabaci  nymphs per 
               
               
                 leaf on commercial Bollgard cotton crops 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Pre-treatment 
                   
                   
                   
               
               
                 Treatments 
                 counts 
                 3 DAT 
                 7 DAT 
                 14 DAT 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 2.0 L/ha 
                 75.56 ± 11.35 a 
                 51.11 ± 8.08 a 
                  44.78 ± 7.15 a 
                 121.33 ± 15.91 a 
               
               
                 Formulation A 
                   
                 (28.2%) 
                 (73.6%) 
                 (55.6%) 
               
               
                 2.0 L/ha 
                 75.56 ± 11.18 a 
                 17.89 ± 2.90 a 
                  41.78 ± 4.85 a 
                  90.11 ± 5.58 a 
               
               
                 Formulation D 
                   
                 (74.9%) 
                 (75.3%) 
                 (67.0%) 
               
               
                 Unsprayed 
                 77.22 ± 9.06 a 
                 71.22 ± 8.35 b 
                 169.33 ± 25.10 b 
                 273.22 ± 24.21 b 
               
               
                 (Control) 
                   
                 (0) 
                 (0) 
                 (0) 
               
               
                 Level of 
                 P &gt; 0.05 
                 P &lt; 0.0001 
                 P &lt; 0.0001 
                 P &lt; 0.0001 
               
               
                 significance 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Means between treatments within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05); Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test. 
               
             
          
         
       
     
       Example 21 
     Effect of  Clitoria ternatea  Extracts and Conventional Insecticides on  Bemisia tabaci  on Commercial Cotton Crops 
       [0186]    The trial was conducted in an irrigated conventional cotton crops in a cotton farm. The following treatments were evaluated against  B. tabaci —b-biotype adults and nymphs: (1) 2 L/ha Formulation A (2) 2 L/ha Formulation D (3) 0.80 L/ha Diafenthiuron at Merah north (conventional insecticides) and (4) Unsprayed (control). The treatment plots were arranged in a randomised complete block design with 3 replicates per treatment. Each replicated plot measured 24 m wide 100 m long. 
         [0187]    Foliar applications of each treatment were made over two weeks. Pre-treatment counts were made visually of  B. tabaci  adults and nymphs, on the under-surface of leaves of cotton plants in each treatment. Post-treatment counts were made on 3, 7 and 14 days after treatment application. Data of both adults and nymphs were expressed as numbers per leaf for each treatment. 
       Analysis of the Data 
       [0188]    All experimental data were analysed using repeated measures ANOVA (Graphpad Instat and Prism Software, Inc. v. 2.03, San Diego, Calif., USA). Treatment and sample dates were the independent variables. Tukey-Kramer Multiple comparisons tests were used to separate means. 
       Results 
       [0189]    The  B. tabaci  strains present in the study site were predominantly the b-biotype. Approximately equal number of  B. tabaci  adults per leaf were found on plots treated with conventional insecticides (15.33) on 3 DAT compared with 18.00, 11.33 and 25.00 on Formulation D, Formulation A and unsprayed plots (Table 23). On 7 DAT, the number of adults per leaf recorded on Formulation A treated plots were the same as Formulation D and conventional insecticide plots but was significantly different (P&lt;0.0001) from the control plots (Table 23). In contrast, the number of  B. tabaci  adults per leaf found on Formulation D and conventional insecticide plots were not significantly different (P&gt;0.05) from the control plots (Table 23). On 14 DAT, no significant differences (P&gt;0.05) were recorded among the treatments and control plots (Table 23). However, the mortalities of  B. tabaci  adults on the Formulation D treated plots (54.7 t) on 3 DAT was higher than the Formulation A plots (28.0%) and conventional insecticide plots (38.7%) (Table 23). On 7 DAT, mortalities of  B. tabaci  adults (66.7%) was higher than is the Formulation D (38.9 t) and conventional insecticide (32.2%) relative to the control (Table 23). In contrast, the difference in mortality among treatments was approximately the same relative to the control on 14 DAT (Table 23). 
         [0190]    The number of  B. tabaci  nymphs per leaf found on plots treated with Formulation A and Formulation D were not significantly different (P&gt;0.05) but were significantly different (P&lt;0.06) from the conventional insecticide and the unsprayed plots on 3 DAT (Table 24). No significance difference (P&gt;0.05) was detected on 3 DAT between conventional insecticide treated and unsprayed plots (Table 24). No significant differences (P&gt;0.05) were found among treatments and control on 7 DAT but a significant difference was found between  Clitoria ternatea  treated plots and the conventional and unsprayed plots (Table 24). In terms of mortalities, Formulation A and Formulation D treated plots recorded 53.3 and 36.4% mortalities of  B. tabaci  nymphs compared with conventional insecticide treated plots which recorded a 12 percent increase of nymphs over the control plot (Table 24). On 7 DAT, the Formulation D treated plots had 47.5 percent mortality compared with Formulation A (28.8%) and conventional insecticide (22.1%). On 14 DAT, the mortality caused individual treatments was increased to 77.2 percent (Formulation A), 79.5% (Formulation D) and 60.6% (conventional insecticides) (Table 24). 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 23 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Effect of  Clitoria ternatea  extracts and 
               
               
                 conventional insecticides on  Bemisia tabaci  adults per 
               
               
                 leaf on commercial Bollgard cotton crops 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Pre-treatment 
                 3 DAT 
                 7 DAT 
                 14 DAT 
               
               
                 Treatments 
                 counts 
                 (% mortality) 
                 (% mortality) 
                 (% mortality) 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 2.0 L/ha 
                 24.33 ± 2.96 a 
                 18.00 ± 2.89 a 
                 10.00 ± 1.73 a 
                 14.67 ± 2.90 a 
               
               
                 Formulation A 
                   
                 (28.0%) 
                 (66.7%) 
                 (20.0%) 
               
               
                 2.0 L/ha 
                 28.00 ± 3.51 a 
                 11.33 ± 0.88 a 
                 18.33 ± 5.04 ab 
                 12.33 ± 2.33 a 
               
               
                 Formulation D 
                   
                   
                 (38.9%) 
                 (32.7%) 
               
               
                 0.80 L/ha 
                 25.67 ± 1.76 a 
                 15.33 ± 1.45 a 
                 20.33 ± 2.40 ab 
                 12.00 ± 0.88 a 
               
               
                 Diafenthiuron 
                   
                 (54.7%) 
                 (32.2%) 
                 (34.5%) 
               
               
                 Unsprayed 
                 23.00 ± 4.73 a 
                 25.00 ± 2.65 b 
                 30.00 ± 5.77 b 
                 18.33 ± 2.33 a 
               
               
                 (Control) 
                   
                 (38.7%) 
                 (0) 
                 (0) 
               
               
                 Level of 
                 P &gt; 0.05 
                 P &lt; 0.0001 
                 P &lt; 0.0001 
                 P &gt; 0.05 
               
               
                 significance 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Means between treatments within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05); Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test. 
               
             
          
         
       
     
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 24 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Effect of  Clitoria ternatea  extracts and 
               
               
                 conventional insecticides on  Bemisia tabaci  nymphs per 
               
               
                 leaf on commercial Bollgard cotton crops 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Pre-treatment 
                 3 DAT 
                 7 DAT 
                 14 DAT 
               
               
                 Treatments 
                 counts 
                 (% mortality) 
                 (% mortality) 
                 (% mortality) 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 2.0 L/ha 
                 29.67 ± 5.78 a 
                 12.00 ± 1.00 a 
                 14.00 ± 3.06 a 
                  9.67 ± 2.19 a 
               
               
                 Formulation A 
                   
                  (53.3%) 
                 (28.8%) 
                 (77.2%) 
               
               
                 2.0 L/ha 
                 38.00 ± 2.52 a 
                 16.33 ± 2.33 a 
                 10.33 ± 0.33 a 
                  8.67 ± 1.33 a 
               
               
                 Formulation D 
                   
                  (36.4%) 
                 (47.5%) 
                 (79.5%) 
               
               
                 0.80 L/ha 
                 40.00 ± 9.87 a 
                 28.67 ± 7.22 b 
                 15.33 ± 2.40 a 
                 17.00 ± 1.73 b 
               
               
                 Diafenthiuron 
                   
                 (−12.0%) 
                 (22.1%) 
                 (60.6%) 
               
               
                 Unsprayed 
                 17.67 ± 3.33 a 
                 25.67 ± 7.22 b 
                 19.67 ± 0.33 a 
                 42.33 ± 3.93 b 
               
               
                 (control) 
                   
                 (0) 
                 (0) 
                 (0) 
               
               
                 Level of 
                 P &gt; 0.05 
                 P &lt; 0.06 
                 P &gt; 0.05 
                 P &lt; 0.001 
               
               
                 significance 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 Means between treatments within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (P &gt; 0.05); Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test. 
               
             
          
         
       
     
       REFERENCES 
       [0191]    The disclosure of the following documents is incorporated herein by reference:
   1 Bernays, E. A. and Chapman, R. F. (1994). Host Plant Selection by Phytophagous Insects. Chapman and Hall. London.   2 Mensah, R. K., Verneau, S. and Frerot, B. (2000).   
 
         [0194]    Deterrence of oviposition of adult  Ostrinia nubilalis  (Hubner) by a natural enemy food supplement Envirofeast® on maize in France. International Journal of Pest Management 46 (1), 49-53
   3 Mensah, R. K. (1996). Suppression of  Helicoverpa  spp. oviposition by use of natural enemy food supplement “Envirofeast”. Australian Journal of Entomology, 35, 323-329.   4 Mensah, R. and Moore, C. J. (1999). A Review of Behaviour Modifying Chemicals in Relation to Pest Host Selection and Management on Australian Cottons. CRDC.   5 Miller, J. R. and Cowles, R. S. (1990). Stimulo-deterrent diversion: a concept and its possible application to onion maggot control. J. Chem. Ecol. 16: 3197-3212.   6 Pyke, B., Rice, M., Sabine, G. and Zalucki, M. (1987). The push-pull strategy-behavioural control of  Heliothis . Australian Cotton Grower 9: 7-9.   7 Rhoades, D. F. and Coates, R. H. (1976). Towards a general theory of plant anti-herbivore chemistry. In: J. W. Wallace and L. Mansell, eds. Biochemical Interactions Between Insects and Plants. Pp. 168-213. Plenum, New York.   8 Tingle, F. C. and Mitchell, E. R. (1984). Aqueous extracts from indigenous plants as oviposition deterrents for  Heliothis virescens . J. Chem. Ecology 10: 101-113.