WO2024218395A1 - Phytosanitary composition for the treatment of cryptogamic diseases affecting plants - Google Patents

Abstract

The present invention relates to a phytosanitary composition comprising (i) one or more metal sources, (ii) one or more sugar(s) and/or one or more sugar derivative(s), and (iii) one or more phosphorous derivative(s).

Description

Phytosanitary composition for the treatment of cryptogamic diseases affecting plants

TECHNICAL FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a phytosanitary composition comprising (i) one or more metal sources, (ii) one or more sugar(s) and/or one or more sugar derivative(s), and (iii) one or more phosphorous derivative(s). The compositions according to the invention are particularly useful as a fungicide. More particularly, another subject of the invention relates to the treatment of vine mildew by application of the phytosanitary composition according to the invention.

STATE OF THE ART

The invention relates to a phytosanitary composition useful as a fungicide for the preventive and/or curative treatment of cryptogamic diseases such as mildew.

Downy mildew is the common name for a group of fungal diseases of plants, particularly affecting vines and potatoes, caused by microscopic parasites classified among the Chromista, phylum Oomycota.

It has long been known to use plant protection products based on mineral salts, oxides or hydroxides and copper sulfates, in particular for their fungicidal properties, for example against downy mildew in grapevines. These products also have a bactericidal power, for example against bacterial dieback of peach or apricot trees, Pseudomonas bacteriosis of apple or pear trees, or even bacteriostatic power which prevents the establishment of bacterial diseases.

In particular, in the field of viticulture, common means of preventing or combating mildew are, for example, copper-based products, such as copper sulfates commonly called Bordeaux mixture, copper hydroxides, copper oxychlorides, cuprous oxides and phosphonates or phosphites. However, these products have moderate effectiveness but above all copper is a powerful biocide that can lead to soil sterilization. As a result, regulations, particularly European ones, limit the use of copper to 28 kg/ha over 7 years, i.e. an average dose of 4 kg/ha/year of metallic copper.

It should be noted that these maximum regulatory quantities of copper must also take into account the quantities of copper contained in certain foliar fertilizers. There is therefore a constant need to develop new, effective and environmentally friendly phytosanitary compositions to treat cultivated plants such as vines.

Surprisingly, it has been discovered that the combination of (i) one or more metal oxide(s), (ii) one or more sugar(s) and/or one or more sugar derivative(s) and (iii) one or more phosphorous derivative(s) can effectively prevent and/or treat mildew on crop plants such as grapevine, while exhibiting good biocompatibility. It should also be noted that the formulation of such a combination and its phytosanitary formulation must be chemically and physically stable during storage and use.

There is therefore a constant need to develop new effective phytosanitary compositions, chemically and/or physically stable, which are biocompatible and environmentally friendly for treating crop plants.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A first object of the invention concerns a phytosanitary composition comprising:

(i) one or more sources of a metal selected from: a. metal oxides, b. metal complexes, and/or c. metal salts,

(ii) one or more sugar(s) and/or one or more sugar derivative(s), selected from the group consisting of: gluconic acid, fructonic acid, glucuronic acid, galactonic acid, galacturonic acid, optionally in the form of salts, and

(iii) one or more phosphorous derivative(s) selected from the group consisting of: phosphorous acid and phosphite salts.

A second subject of the invention relates to a process for preparing a phytosanitary composition according to the invention, comprising a mixing step

(i) one or more metal sources, selected from: a. metal oxides, b. metal complexes, and/or c. metal salts,

(ii) one or more sugar(s) and/or one or more sugar derivative(s) selected from the group consisting of: gluconic acid, fructonic acid, glucuronic acid, galactonic acid, galacturonic acid; and (iii) one or more phosphorous derivative(s) selected from the group consisting of: phosphorous acid and phosphite salts.

A third subject of the invention relates to the use of a phytosanitary composition according to the invention, optionally prepared by a preparation process according to the invention, for the preventive and/or curative treatment of cultivated plants which may be affected by cryptogamic diseases caused by a fungus and/or oomycete.

A fourth subject of the invention relates to a method for the preventive and/or curative treatment of a cryptogamic disease caused by a fungus and/or oomycete to cultivated plants comprising a step of applying a phytosanitary composition according to the invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

For the purposes of the present invention, the various embodiments presented throughout the description may be used alone or in combination with each other, without limitation of combination.

The present invention therefore relates to a phytosanitary composition comprising:

(i) one or more sources of a metal selected from: a. metal oxides, b. metal complexes, and/or c. metal salts,

(ii) one or more sugar(s) and/or one or more sugar derivative(s), selected from the group consisting of: gluconic acid, fructonic acid, glucuronic acid, galactonic acid, galacturonic acid, optionally in the form of salts, and

(iii) one or more phosphorous derivative(s) selected from the group consisting of: phosphorous acid and phosphite salts.

If multiple sources of metal are present in the composition, the metal from the different sources may be the same or different from the other sources.

The metal may be selected from the metal is selected from zinc, copper, iron, manganese, and aluminum, preferably the metal is selected from zinc and copper, more preferably the metal is zinc. One or more sugar(s) may be selected from the group consisting of: fructose, glucose, lactose, galactose, maltose or sucrose, optionally in the form of salts. Typically, salts mean a glucose salt, a lactose salt, a galactose salt, a maltose salt and/or a sucrose salt.

The term derivative in the expression “sugar derivative” designates a compound obtained by chemical modification of a sugar. For example, gluconic acid is obtained by oxidation of glucose to acid. One or more sugar derivative(s) are selected from the group consisting of: fructonic acid, gluconic acid, glucuronic acid, galactonic acid, galacturonic acid, optionally in the form of salt(s). Typically, by salts, we designate a fructonate salt, a gluconate salt, a glucuronate salt, a galactonate salt, a galacturonate salt

According to a first variant, one or more sources of a metal is one or more metal oxides, or metal oxides, the phytosanitary composition comprising:

(i) one or more metal oxide(s),

(ii) one or more sugar(s) and/or one or more sugar derivative(s), optionally in the form of salt(s), and

(iii) one or more phosphorous derivative(s).

One or more metal oxide(s) may be selected from the group consisting of: zinc oxide, iron oxide, manganese oxide, aluminum oxide or copper oxide. Preferably, one or more metal oxide(s) may be selected from the group consisting of: zinc oxide, iron oxide, manganese oxide. More preferably, when the metal source is a metal oxide, the metal oxide is zinc oxide.

According to certain embodiments, the phytosanitary composition may comprise: one or more sources of metals selected from metal oxides selected from: zinc oxide, copper oxide, iron oxide, manganese oxide, aluminum oxide, preferably zinc oxide; one or more sugar derivative(s), preferably gluconic acid, and one or more phosphorous derivative(s), preferably phosphorous acid or potassium phosphite.

According to a second variant, one or more sources of a metal is one or more metal complexes. The complexes may be selected from complexes with at least one sugar derivative, as described below or ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). In one embodiment, the complexes are selected from the group consisting of complexes of metals, as described below, preferably zinc, selected from complexes of said metal with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA).

According to a third variant, the one or more sources of a metal is one or more metal salts. The metal salts may be selected from the group consisting of salts of sugar derivatives, as described above, preferably gluconate; and sulfates, chlorides, carbonates and nitrates of said metal.

The salts may be selected from the group consisting of: sodium salt, zinc salt, calcium salt, silicon salt, potassium salt, manganese salt, magnesium salt, copper salt or a mixture thereof. In a particular embodiment, the salt is selected from a zinc salt and a copper salt, preferably a zinc salt. For example, a gluconate salt may be selected from the group consisting of: sodium gluconate, zinc gluconate, calcium gluconate, silicon gluconate, potassium gluconate, manganese gluconate, magnesium gluconate, copper gluconate or a mixture thereof. Preferably, the sugar derivative in salt form is a zinc salt. In particular, the sugar derivative in salt form is zinc gluconate.

In some embodiments, the phytosanitary composition does not include salts of copper citrate, copper monogluconate, copper monogalacturonate or copper sulfate.

In some embodiments, the one or more sources of a metal as defined in any embodiment above provide up to 40 g/L of metal, preferably 1 to 27 g/L of metal, preferably zinc. In one embodiment, preferably the one or more sources of a metal provide 1.5 to 5 g/L of zinc within the composition. In another embodiment, preferably the one or more sources of a metal provide 20 to 27 g/L of zinc within the composition. In another embodiment, preferably the one or more sources of a metal provide 29 to 38 g/L of zinc within the composition. The metal content may be determined by any analytical method within the skill of the art, such as for example inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES). In the latter, the wavelength may be 260.2 nm to detect zinc. One or more phosphorous derivatives are selected from the group consisting of: phosphorous acid (H3PO3) also called phosphonic acid (H3PO3), a phosphite salt also called phosphonate salt, or a mixture thereof. By phosphite salt, we mean a sodium phosphite (or phosphonate), a zinc phosphite (or phosphonate), a calcium phosphite (or phosphonate), a silicon phosphite (or phosphonate), a potassium phosphite (or phosphonate), a manganese phosphite (or phosphonate), a magnesium phosphite (or phosphonate) or a mixture thereof. In one embodiment, the one or more phosphorous derivatives are selected from the group consisting of: phosphorous acid (H3PO3), potassium phosphite or a mixture thereof.

Phosphorous acid is a diacid. In the context of the present invention, the expression "a phosphite salt" corresponds to both a salt of its first conjugate base hLPCh' and of its second conjugate base HPCh ² '. Preferably, it corresponds to a salt of its second conjugate base. In aqueous solution, a person skilled in the art knows that an acid and its conjugate base coexist at different concentrations depending on the pKa of the acid/base pair and the pH of the solution.

Without being bound by any theory, the combination of a metal source, such as zinc oxide with a sugar derivative, such as gluconic acid, and a phosphorous derivative leads to the formation of one or more active species such as zinc gluconate and/or zinc phosphite.

Advantageously, a phytosanitary composition according to the invention has improved phytosanitary efficacy as well as better performance in terms of biocompatibility and respect for the environment for the reduction and/or elimination of attacks on plants by one or more fungi and/or oomycetes. In particular, the phytosanitary composition according to the invention does not have biocidal activity, which makes it possible to limit the environmental impact and preserve the cultivation soils. Another advantage of the phytosanitary composition according to the invention is to effectively stimulate the natural defenses of the treated plants. Advantageously, the composition according to the invention has a combination of active ingredients while maintaining its chemical and physical stability, this ensuring stability during its storage and its use.

The phytosanitary composition may include:

(i) from 1 to 40% by mass of one or more sources of a metal, as described according to any embodiment above;

(ii) from 5 to 50% by mass of one or more sugar derivative(s); and (iii) from 35 to 80% by mass of one or more phosphorous derivative(s), the mass percentages being given relative to the mass of the dry composition.

Typically, the phytosanitary composition may be liquid or dry. In particular, when the composition is liquid, it further comprises water. Typically, the liquid phytosanitary composition is a solution. In some embodiments, the phytosanitary composition comprises from 10 to 50% by weight of water relative to the total weight of the composition.

According to certain embodiments, when the metal source is one or more metal oxides (metal oxide(s)), the phytosanitary composition may comprise: one or more metal oxides selected from: zinc oxide, copper oxide, iron oxide, manganese oxide, aluminum oxide, preferably zinc oxide; gluconic acid, and phosphorous acid or potassium phosphite.

It may comprise: from 2 to 25% by mass of one or more metal sources chosen from metal oxides being selected from: zinc oxide, copper oxide, iron oxide, manganese oxide, aluminum oxide, preferably zinc oxide; from 10 to 50% by mass of one or more sugar derivative(s), preferably gluconic acid, and from 35 to 80% by mass of one or more phosphorous derivative(s), preferably phosphorous acid or potassium phosphite, the mass percentages being given relative to the mass of the dry composition.

In a particular embodiment, the phytosanitary composition may comprise:

(i) from 10 to 25% by mass of one or more metal oxide(s), preferably zinc oxide;

(ii) from 30 to 50% by mass of one or more sugar(s) and/or sugar derivative(s), preferably gluconic acid; and

(iii) from 35 to 55% by mass of one or more phosphorous derivative(s), preferably phosphorous acid; the mass percentages being given in relation to the mass of the dry composition.

Preferably, according to this particular embodiment, the phytosanitary composition may comprise:

(i) from 14 to 22% by mass of one or more metal oxide(s), preferably zinc oxide;

(ii) from 35 to 45% by mass of one or more sugar(s) and/or sugar derivative(s), preferably gluconic acid; and

(iii) from 38 to 48% by mass of one or more phosphorous derivative(s), preferably phosphorous acid; the mass percentages being given relative to the mass of the dry composition.

In an exemplary embodiment, the phytosanitary composition comprises

(i) 18% by mass of one or more metal oxide(s), for example zinc oxide;

(ii) 39% by mass of one or more sugar(s) and/or sugar derivative(s), for example gluconic acid or a gluconate salt such as zinc gluconate; and

(iii) 43% by mass of one or more phosphorous derivative(s), for example phosphorous acid; the mass percentages being given relative to the mass of the dry composition.

When the contents are expressed in relation to the total mass of the composition, the phytosanitary composition may include:

(i) from 5 to 15% by mass of one or more metal oxide(s);

(ii) from 20 to 30% by mass of one or more sugar(s) and/or sugar derivative(s);

(iii) from 20 to 30% by mass of one or more phosphorous derivative(s); and

(iv) from 30 to 50% by mass of water; the mass percentages being given in relation to the total mass of the composition.

In one embodiment, the phytosanitary composition may comprise:

(i) from 8 to 12% by mass of one or more metal oxide(s);

(ii) from 22 to 26% by mass of one or more sugar(s) and/or sugar derivative(s);

(iii) from 24 to 28% by mass of one or more phosphorous derivatives, and (iv) from 35 to 45% by mass of water; the mass percentages being given in relation to the total mass of the composition.

In another preferred embodiment, the phytosanitary composition comprises:

(i) 11% by mass of one or more metal oxide(s), for example zinc oxide;

(ii) 24% by mass of one or more sugar(s) and/or sugar derivative(s), for example gluconic acid or a gluconate salt; and

(iii) 26% by mass of one or more phosphorous derivatives, for example phosphorous acid;

(iv) 39% by mass of water; the mass percentages being given in relation to the total mass of the composition.

In a second particular embodiment, the phytosanitary composition may comprise:

(i) from 2 to 10%, preferably from 3 to 6%, typically about 4% by mass of one or more metal oxide(s), preferably zinc oxide;

(ii) from 5 to 25%, preferably from 10 to 20%, typically about 17% by mass of one or more sugar derivatives, preferably gluconic acid; and

(iii) from 60 to 80%, preferably from 64 to 75%, typically approximately 68% by mass of one or more phosphorous derivative(s), preferably potassium phosphite; the mass percentages being given relative to the mass of the dry composition.

In a third particular embodiment, the phytosanitary composition may comprise:

(i) from 1 to 5%, preferably from 3 to 5%, typically about 4% by mass of one or more metal oxide(s), preferably zinc oxide;

(ii) from 20 to 40%, preferably from 30 to 35%, typically about 31% by weight of one or more sugar derivative(s), preferably gluconic acid; and

(iii) from 40 to 60%, preferably from 45 to 55%, typically about 50% by mass of one or more phosphorous derivative(s), preferably potassium phosphite; the mass percentages being given relative to the mass of the dry composition. The phytosanitary composition may further comprise an algae base that can serve as a carrier. By "algae base" is meant marine algae, farmed, in powder form, or one of their extracts or a compound extracted from these algae, for example laminarin or any other type of equivalent carrier. The proportion of algae base in the composition may vary from 0 to 10% by mass, typically from 0.1 to 10% by mass.

The phytosanitary composition may further comprise any other ingredient useful for its preparation. These ingredients may be chosen from thickeners such as xanthan gum, surfactants, preservatives, dispersants, wetting agents, emulsifiers, colorants or co-solvents such as propylene glycol.

According to certain embodiments, when the metal source is one or more metal complexes, the phytosanitary composition may comprise: one or more metal complexes selected from: zinc complexes, copper complexes, iron complexes, manganese complexes, aluminum complexes, preferably zinc complexes, in particular the zinc-EDTA complex; one or more sugar derivatives, preferably gluconic acid, and one or more phosphorous derivative(s), preferably potassium phosphite.

For example, the composition may comprise one or more metal sources selected from metal complexes selected from complexes with EDTA, preferably the zinc complex with EDTA, gluconic acid, and potassium phosphite.

The composition may comprise in particular: from 20 to 40% by mass of one or more sources of metals chosen from among the complexes of metals selected from among the complexes with EDTA, preferably the zinc complex with EDTA; from 5 to 25% by mass of gluconic acid, and from 55 to 80% by mass of potassium phosphite, the mass percentages being given relative to the mass of the dry composition. According to certain embodiments, the composition comprises: from 20 to 30% by mass of one or more sources of metals selected from complexes of metals selected from complexes with EDTA, preferably the zinc complex with EDTA; from 5 to 15% by mass of gluconic acid, and from 60 to 70% by mass of potassium phosphite, the mass percentages being given relative to the mass of the dry composition.

According to certain specific embodiments, the composition comprises: from 20 to 30%, preferably from 20 to 27%, for example about 21% about 26% by weight of the zinc complex with EDTA; from 6 to 12%, for example about 10% or about 6% by weight of the gluconic acid; and from 65 to 70%, for example about 67% or 68% by weight of the potassium phosphite, the weight percentages being given relative to the weight of the dry composition.

Typically, the sum of the components of the composition described above is 100% by mass relative to the total mass of the composition.

The phytosanitary composition, when the source of the metal is one or more metal oxides, in particular zinc oxide, it may have a pH less than or equal to 6.5, preferably between 1.5 and 6, typically between 1.5 and 3.0 or between 4.5 and 5.5. In certain embodiments, the formulation further comprises at least one pH modifier selected from acids, bases or buffers, such as for example hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, phosphoric acid, maleic acid, lactic acid, potassium hydroxide or ethanolamine. In an exemplary embodiment, the phytosanitary composition, when the source of the metal is one or more metal oxides, in particular zinc oxide, may further comprise hydrochloric acid, typically in an amount ranging from 5% to 20% by mass, the mass percentages being given relative to the mass of the dry composition.

The phytosanitary composition, when the source of the metal is one or more metal complexes, in particular zinc EDTA, may have a pH greater than or equal to 4, typically between 5 and 7, typically between 5 and 6. The phytosanitary composition may have a density less than or equal to 2.5, typically less than or equal to 2 or even less than or equal to 1.5 and for example 1.4 or 1.3.

The phytosanitary composition may have a concentration of one or more metal sources, ranging from 5 to 300 g/L. When the source of the metal is one or more metal oxides, in particular zinc oxide, the phytosanitary composition may comprise from 5 to 190 g/L of said one or more metal oxide(s), such as zinc oxide. The phytosanitary composition may have a concentration of one or more metal oxide(s), for example zinc oxide, ranging from 90 to 190 g/L, typically from 100 to 180 g/L or from 110 to 170 g/L and for example 168 g/L. According to certain embodiments, the phytosanitary composition may also have a concentration of one or more metal sources, for example one or more metal oxide(s), typically zinc oxide, ranging from 5 to 150 g/L, typically from 10 to 100 g/L, from 15 to 70 g/L or from 20 to 50 g/L and for example 30 g/L. When the source of the metal is one or more metal complexes, in particular zinc EDTA, the phytosanitary composition may also have a concentration of one or more metal sources ranging from 100 to 300 g/L, typically from 130 to 290 g/L, from 160 to 260 g/L, and for example approximately 200 or 150 g/L.

The phytosanitary composition may have a concentration of one or more sugar(s) and/or one or more sugar derivative(s), for example gluconic acid and/or gluconate salt(s), ranging from 110 to 250 g/L, typically from 120 to 230 g/L or from 130 to 200 g/L and preferably from 140 to 180 g/L. According to certain embodiments, the phytosanitary composition may also have a concentration of one or more sugar(s) and/or one or more sugar derivative(s), for example gluconic acid and/or gluconate salt(s), ranging from 80 to 180 g/L, typically from 90 to 170 g/L and preferably from 100 to 160 g/L, typically about 120 or 150 g/L. According to other embodiments, the phytosanitary composition may also have a concentration of one or more sugar(s) and/or one or more sugar derivative(s), for example gluconic acid and/or gluconate salt(s), ranging from 300 to 600 g/L, typically from 400 to 550 g/L and preferably from 450 to 520 g/L, typically around 490 g/L.

The phytosanitary composition may have a concentration of one or more phosphorous derivatives, for example phosphorous acid, ranging from 180 to 1100 g/L. For example, the phytosanitary composition may have a concentration of one or more phosphorous derivatives, for example phosphorous acid, ranging from 180 to 280 g/L, typically from 200 to 260 g/L or from 220 to 240 g/L and preferably from 225 to 235 g/L and for example 231 g/L. According to certain embodiments, the phytosanitary composition may have also a concentration of one or more phosphorous derivative(s), for example potassium phosphite, ranging from 280 to 600 g/L, typically from 350 to 560 g/L or from 400 to 540 g/L and preferably from 450 to 520 g/L and for example 490 g/L. According to other embodiments, the phytosanitary composition may also have a concentration of one or more phosphorous derivative(s), for example potassium phosphite, ranging from 600 to 1300 g/L, typically from 650 to 750 g/L or from 1000 to 1200 g/L, and for example 690 or 1100 g/L.

In one embodiment, the phytosanitary composition has one or more of the following concentrations:

(i) from 90 to 190 g/L, typically from 100 to 180 g/L or from 110 to 170 g/L of metal oxide(s), such as for example zinc oxide; and/or

(ii) from 180 to 280 g/L, typically from 200 to 260 g/L or from 220 to 240 g/L and preferably from 225 to 235 g/L of sugar(s) and/or sugar derivative(s), such as for example gluconic acid or gluconate salt; and/or

(iii) from 180 to 280 g/L, typically from 200 to 260 g/L or from 220 to 240 g/L and preferably from 225 to 235 g/L of phosphorous derivative(s), such as for example phosphorous acid.

In one embodiment, the phytosanitary composition has one or more of the following concentrations:

(i) from 5 to 150 g/L, typically from 10 to 100 g/L, from 15 to 70 g/L or from 20 to 50 g/L and for example 30 g/L, in one or more sources of metal, for example one or more metal oxide(s), such as zinc oxide; and/or

(ii) from 80 to 150 g/L, typically from 90 to 140 g/L and preferably from 105 to 135 g/L, typically about 120 g/L of sugar(s) and/or sugar derivative(s), such as for example gluconic acid or gluconate salt; and/or

(iii) from 280 to 600 g/L, typically from 350 to 560 g/L or from 400 to 540 g/L and preferably from 450 to 520 g/L and for example 490 g/L of phosphorous derivative(s), such as for example phosphorous acid or potassium phosphite.

In one embodiment, the phytosanitary composition has one or more of the following concentrations:

(i) from 100 to 300 g/L, typically from 130 to 290 g/L, from 160 to 260 g/L, and for example about 200 or 150 g/L, in one or more metal complexes, in particular zinc EDTA; and/or (ii) from 80 to 180 g/L, typically from 90 to 170 g/L and preferably from 100 to 160 g/L, typically about 120 or 150 g/L of sugar(s) and/or sugar derivative(s), such as for example gluconic acid or gluconate salt; and/or

(iii) from 600 to 1300 g/L, typically from 1000 to 1200 g/L, and for example 1100 g/L in one or more phosphorous derivative(s), for example in potassium phosphite.

In one embodiment, the phytosanitary composition has one or more of the following concentrations:

(i) from 5 to 150 g/L, typically from 10 to 100 g/L, from 15 to 70 g/L or from 20 to 50 g/L and for example 30 g/L, in one or more sources of metal, for example one or more metal oxide(s), such as zinc oxide; and/or

(ii) from 300 to 600 g/L, typically from 400 to 550 g/L and preferably from 450 to 520 g/L, typically about 490 g/L of sugar(s) and/or sugar derivative(s), such as for example gluconic acid or gluconate salt; and/or

(iii) from 600 to 1300 g/L, typically from 650 to 750 g/L, and for example 690 in one or more phosphorous derivative(s), for example in potassium phosphite.

Preparation process

Another aspect of the invention relates to a process for preparing a phytosanitary composition as described above.

In one embodiment, the method for preparing the phytosanitary composition comprises a mixing step

(i) one or more sources of metal as defined above,

(ii) one or more sugar(s) and/or one or more sugar derivative(s); and

(iii) one or more phosphorous derivative(s).

In one embodiment, the method for preparing the phytosanitary composition comprises a mixing step

(i) one or more metal oxide(s),

(ii) one or more sugar(s) and/or one or more sugar derivative(s); and

(iii) one or more phosphorous derivative(s).

The composition thus prepared can be dry or liquid depending on the packaging of each of the components.

More particularly, a method of preparing the composition, typically liquid, comprises the following steps: (a) addition to the water of one or more metal oxide(s), one or more sugar(s) and/or one or more sugar derivative(s) and one or more phosphorous derivative(s);

(b) heating at a temperature ranging from 40 to 80°C for at least 2 hours;

(c) cooling to a temperature ranging from 15 to 25°C.

Preferably, step (a) is carried out by successive addition, preferably in this order, of one or more metal oxide(s), one or more sugar(s) and/or one or more sugar derivative(s) followed by one or more phosphorous derivative(s).

An alternative method of preparing the composition, typically liquid, comprises the following steps:

(a ¹ ) addition to water of: one or more sources of a metal, typically metal salts, for example zinc oxide, and one or more sugar(s) and/or one or more sugar derivative(s), typically gluconic acid,

(a”) addition to the mixture from the previous step of one or more phosphorous derivatives, such as for example phosphorous acid or potassium phosphite, OR

(a ¹ ) addition to water of: one or more phosphorous derivative(s), such as for example phosphorous acid or potassium phosphite, and one or more sources of a metal, typically metal salts, for example zinc oxide,

(a”) addition to the mixture of the previous step of one or more sugar(s) and/or one or more sugar derivative(s), typically gluconic acid, optionally, steps (b) and/or (c).

In this alternative mode, steps (b) and/or (c) may be performed between steps (a’) and (a”) or after step (a”).

Typically, addition (a) to water is carried out with stirring. The same applies to steps (a ¹ ) and (a”).

The heating step (b) can be carried out for a period of at least 2 hours, typically at least 4 hours or even ranging from 2 hours to 6 hours. The temperature in step (b) can vary from 50 to 70°C.

The heating in step (b) may be carried out by any method known to those skilled in the art. The cooling in step (c) may be carried out by any method known to those skilled in the art. Generally, the cooling is carried out by stopping the heating in step (b) until reaching room temperature, for example ranging from 15 to 25°C depending on the season.

When the phytosanitary composition further comprises an algae base such as laminarin and/or any other ingredient useful for its formulation, they may be added at one of steps (a), (a)’, (a”), (b) and/or (c), typically (a), (b) and/or (c). Typically, these additions are made with stirring. Each of these ingredients may be added separately or in the form of a mixture of these ingredients useful for the formulation, for example in the form of an aqueous solution.

The phytosanitary composition thus prepared can be stored, conventionally at room temperature, before being used.

In some embodiments, the phytosanitary composition is obtained according to the preparation method, as described above.

Use

Another aspect of the invention relates to the use of the phytosanitary composition as described above for the preventive and/or curative treatment of cultivated plants, typically which may be affected by cryptogamic diseases of the mildew type.

Cryptogamic diseases are caused by a fungus and/or an oomycete. Commonly, the fungus and/or oomycete is/are selected from the group consisting of: Plasmopara viticola, Phytophthora infestans, Phytophthora ramorum, Phytophthora cinnamomi, Phytopthora capsici, Pseudoperonospora cubensis, Bremia lactucae, Peronospora destructor, Venturia inaequalis, Venturia carpophila, Venturia pyrina, Spilocaea oleaginea and Guignardia bidwellii.

More specifically, the crops that can be treated are chosen from the group consisting of: vines, market garden crops, certain large-scale crops and fruit trees. Fruit trees include, for example, citrus fruits, pineapples, kiwis, olive trees, banana trees, stone fruits such as peaches, nectarines and apricots, or pome fruits such as apples and pears. Market garden crops include, for example, potatoes, beets, tomatoes, onions, garlic, peppers, aubergines, chervil, spinach, melons, leeks, lamb's lettuce, lettuce, watercress, or aromatic plants. Large-scale crops that can be treated are, for example: sugar beet cultivation. Preferably, the crop plant that can be treated is the vine.

Treatment with a phytosanitary composition according to the invention can be carried out by spray application, typically by foliar application.

Treatment with a phytosanitary composition according to the invention can be carried out by applying the composition to the leaves and/or fruits of the plant or any other areas of the plant requiring treatment.

Advantageously, the preventive treatment with the phytosanitary composition according to the invention is carried out before the appearance of cryptogamic diseases such as mildew.

Curative treatment using the phytosanitary composition according to the invention can also be carried out as soon as cryptogamic diseases such as mildew appear.

Advantageously, the phytosanitary composition according to the invention allows the prevention and/or reduction and/or elimination of attacks by the fungus and/or oomycete.

The phytosanitary composition according to the invention can be applied at a dose ranging from 1 to 7 L/ha, preferably from 4 to 6 L/ha.

Optionally, the phytosanitary composition according to the invention does not require additional handling before its use. In particular, the phytosanitary composition then has a suitable concentration in each of the components to be used as is without, for example, an additional dilution step. The phytosanitary composition according to the invention called “ready to use” is generally intended for treatment of a small area typically for amateur gardeners or market gardeners.

Optionally, the phytosanitary composition according to the invention requires a dissolution and/or dilution step before its use. In particular, for professional use aimed at treating a large cultivation area, the phytosanitary composition typically has a higher concentration of components (i), (ii) and (iii) compared to a “ready-to-use” composition. In this case, the phytosanitary composition needs to be dissolved and/or diluted, for example after being introduced into a spray tank which is then filled with water. In particular, an object of the present invention relates to the use of a phytosanitary composition as described above for the preventive and/or curative treatment of cryptogamic diseases of the mildew type.

The preventive and/or curative treatment of crop plants comprises the use, for example by spray application, at a dose of at least 1% by mass of phytosanitary composition, preferably at least 2% by mass, preferably ranging from 2% to 5% by mass or from 2.5% to 4.5% by mass of phytosanitary composition as described above. The application can be repeated every 6 to 14 days.

According to one embodiment, the application of the phytosanitary composition can be repeated from 2 to 10 times, typically from 4 to 8 times or from 6 to 7 times. When the application of the phytosanitary composition is repeated, each application can be separated from the next by 1 to 30 days, typically from 2 to 15 days, for example 7 days.

According to one embodiment, the application of the phytosanitary composition extends over 1 to 8 months, typically 2 to 6 months and conventionally over 3, 4 or 5 months depending on the crop plant treated. For example, the application can extend for salad cultivation over 4 months and for vine cultivation over 5 months.

According to one embodiment, the frequency of application of the phytosanitary composition varies from 0.2 to 2 times/week, typically from 0.5 to 1 time/week. The frequency of application can be adapted by a person skilled in the art depending on the climatic conditions, typically in the absence of rain, the period between two sprays is extended.

According to one embodiment, the application of the phytosanitary composition begins as soon as the first damage of said cryptogamic disease appears on said crop.

According to another embodiment, the application of the phytosanitary composition begins preventively before the appearance of the first damage of said cryptogamic disease on said crop, for example in the case of fruit crops when the climatic conditions are favorable to the appearance of said cryptogamic disease or during the period of presence of fruits on said crop.

In one embodiment, treating or preventing a fungal disease of crop plants comprises reducing and/or eliminating damage caused by the fungus and/or oomycete responsible for said fungal disease. The invention also relates to a method for the curative and/or preventive treatment of cryptogamic diseases, typically of the mildew type, comprising a step of applying to cultivated plants a composition as defined above.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: is a plan of the experimental device of the example test.

Figure 2: defines the experimental modalities of the example test. The letter C corresponds to the contamination carried out on May 4, 2022. The abbreviations F1, F2, G1, G2 and G3 correspond to the notations of the leaves or clusters respectively. The abbreviations T1, T2, T3, T4, 5, T6, T7 correspond to the treatment number. The dates of each of these events (contamination, notation, treatment) are found on the upper timeline.

Figure 3: is a graph representing the evolution of mildew symptoms on leaves in untreated controls.

Figure 4: is a graph representing the evolution of mildew symptoms on grape clusters in untreated controls.

Figure 5: is a graph representing the climatology of the test site from April 15 to July 15, 2022. On the graph, the curves correspond to the variations in maximum (TMAX), average (TMOY) and minimum (TMIN) temperatures. The bars on the abscissa represent precipitation (noted rain) and the volumes of liquids supplied by the spray treatments (noted spray).

Figure 6: is a graph representing the efficiency (relative values) on sheets as of May 30, 2022. Figure 7: is a graph representing the efficiency (relative values) on sheets as of June 16, 2022.

Figure 8: is a graph representing the efficiency (relative values) on clusters as of June 9, 2022.

Figure 9: is a graph representing the efficiency (relative values) on clusters as of June 22, 2022.

Figure 10: is a graph representing the efficiency (relative values) on clusters as of July 7, 2022.

Figure 11: is a graph representing the average incidence at D+3 on tobacco plants.

Figure 12: is a graph representing the average severity (relative values) at D+3 on tobacco plants.

EXAMPLE

The following examples illustrate particular embodiments of the invention without limiting its scope. Example 1

In Example 1, the terms below have the following definitions.

The terms “attack frequency” or “frequency effectiveness” or “frequency” designate, in the case of foliage, the frequency of attack by mildew on the entire foliage corresponding to the ratio between the number of mildew spots observed and the number of leaves estimated per plot, expressed as a percentage.

The terms “attack frequency” or “frequency effectiveness” or “frequency” designate in the case of clusters, the ratio between the number of clusters affected by mildew and the total number of clusters observed on the plot, expressed as a percentage.

The terms "attack intensity" or "intensity effectiveness" or "intensity" designate, in the case of foliage, the ratio between the surface area of the plot on which the leaves are affected by mildew and the surface area of the entire plot observed, expressed as a percentage.

The terms "attack frequency" or "intensity effectiveness" or "intensity" designate, in the case of clusters, the ratio between the surface area on which the clusters are affected by mildew and the surface area of the entire observed plot, expressed as a percentage.

I. EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS

1. Description of the test plot

- Grape variety: Cabernet-Sauvignon;

- Plantation: 2.25 m x 1 m, i.e. a theoretical density of 4,444 plants/hectare;

- Driving mode: Bilateral cord, with 2 levels of wires (one carrier and 2 lifters).

- Location: commune of Rodilhan 30230, France.

2. Characteristics of the products under study

The products used and their application dosages are presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1:

Compositions and dosages of the products used in the trial (L/ha: litre/hectare; kg/ha: kilogram/hectare)

The experimental design consists of a four-block randomized design, composed of elementary plots of 10 vines (8 of which are contaminated and observed). The design is shown in Figure 1.

4. Carrying out treatments

All treatments were carried out in 2022. The first treatment (May 3, BBCH 15) was carried out by application using a SOLO 417 type jet backpack sprayer, at the limit of runoff (hanging drop). The following applications were, face by face, using a STIHL SR200 type pneumatic backpack sprayer (with a theoretical volume of 100 L/ha).

Table 2:

Spray volumes in L/ha

All application volumes in Table 2 are within +/- 10% of the intended volume. 5. Artificial contamination, positioning of sprays and evolution of symptoms

Artificial contamination was implemented in the afternoon of May 4 (BBCH stage 15-16), from 4:10 p.m. to 5:15 p.m., on 6 leaves/vine of the 8 central vines of each elementary plot. In order to maintain a constant humidity favorable to the germination of spores, sprinkling was maintained continuously from 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. for a total supply of approximately 20 mm (millimeters) of water.

The first mildew spots were observed on May 12, 8 days after contamination. These spots were subject to a simplified notation on May 17 in the untreated controls in order to assess the homogeneity, in frequency, of the symptoms in the test. This notation called FO highlighted a repetition D set back from the others with 1.4% of affected leaves (compared to 3.7, 3.2 and 3.3% respectively in repetitions A, B and C), without significant impact on the final results.

From May 13 to May 29, the positioning of about ten sprays (see Table 3 below) allowed a significant development, particularly in frequency, of the disease on leaves (39% observed in the controls on May 30). Massive contamination of the clusters followed with 60.5% of clusters affected in the controls on June 9, with however a moderate intensity (18.5%).

Rainfall on June 6 (for a cumulative total of 1.5 mm) led to a significant increase in the frequency of attacks on leaves in the controls, with 54.3% on June 16, but fairly low in intensity (with 5% compared to 2% on May 30). On these same plots, the implementation of 2 sprayings on June 14 and 15 (4 mm/spraying) allowed a very strong spread of the disease on clusters both in frequency and intensity with respectively 90.5 and 36.1% on June 22.

The ratings (G2 and G3) carried out on clusters on July 7 and 12, 2022 show a downward trend in symptoms in absolute value, despite 25.4 mm of natural precipitation recorded from June 21 to July 4, 2022 (see graphs in Figure 3 and Figure 4).

Table 3:

2022 Sprinkler Timeline

The sprinklers were triggered using a SOLEM brand Bluetooth battery-powered watering programmer, WooBee model, via a solenoid valve (8 sprinkler cycles of 15 min for 7 mm of supply, 8 sprinkler cycles of 10 min for 4 mm of supply and 8 sprinkler cycles of 5 min for 2 mm of supply).

6. Field notations

Récapitulatif des notations réalisées au champ (sur les 8 ceps centraux de chaque placette)Table 4

Summary of the ratings made in the field (on the 8 central vines of each plot)

* Calculation based on the ratio between the number of mildew spots observed and the number of leaves estimated per plot (average of 113 leaves per vine or 904 leaves per plot of 8 vines). 7. Type of data processing

For all the ratings carried out, except for the FO rating (estimation of the frequency of attack on leaves in the controls): analysis of variance (ANOVA), bilateral DUNNETT test (comparison of preparations to the reference) and NEWMAN and KEIILS test at the 5% threshold (comparison of preparations with each other), after transformation into arcsin, XLSTAT software (version 2021.1.1 1080).

8. Climatology during the test

The graph in Figure 5 represents the climatology of the test site from April 15 to July 15, 2022.

The climatic period extending from May 3 (date of the first application of the products) to July 12 (date of the last rating carried out on clusters) is characterized by temperatures in line with seasonal norms throughout the month of May (20.7°C average daily temperature), then slightly higher in June (25.4°C) and finally particularly high throughout the first half of July with 27.4°C daily average and maximums systematically above 33°C (40°C on July 15).

This period is also characterized by the low level of precipitation recorded, particularly from May 4 to June 20 with a total accumulation of 22.4 mm over 48 days (including 18.8 mm on May 8). From June 21 to July 12, the cumulative precipitation amounts to 25.4 mm over 22 days (with rains of 2.7 to 8.9 mm).

9. Coverage of the essay

A cover treatment targets diseases other than the one being tested in the initial trials.

The necessary covers to protect the trial against powdery mildew were carried out, as a preventive measure, on May 12 (LUNA SENSATION 0.2 L/ha) and May 25 (DYNALI 0.5 L/ha). Subsequently, no symptoms of this disease (or of any other that could also interfere with mildew) could be observed in the trial on either leaves or bunches until the last rating was carried out. II. FIELD RESULTS

The device corresponds to that provided for by the OEPP method PP 1/31 (2).

1. Results of the notations carried out on sheets (F1)

Table 5

Results of rating n°1 carried out on sheets on 05/30/2022

(flowering stage 70%, BBCH 67) - Newman & Keuls test at 5%

Figure 6 shows the leaf efficiencies (rating #1, F1) as of May 30, 2022.

The symptoms observed on leaves in the controls are quite moderate with 39% in frequency and 2% in attack intensity.

Analysis of the results of this first rating highlights good performance of GDZ at 3 L/ha, with respectively 67.9 and 78.1% efficiency in frequency and intensity, performance levels similar to that of ETONAN 4 L/ha (69.2 and 74.2%).

The GDZ at 2 L/ha shows a similar intensity to that of REDELI 2.5 L/ha (44.7% versus 45%). Table 6

Results of rating n°2 carried out on sheets on 06/16/2022

(pea grain stage, BBCH 75) - Newman & Keuls test at 5% Figure 7 shows the efficiencies on leaves (scoring no. 2, F2) as of June 16, 2022.

This second rating (F2), carried out on June 16 (i.e. 17 days after F1) shows in the controls an increase in damage to leaves, particularly in frequency (with 54.3% or +15.3 points) and to a lesser extent in intensity (5% or +3 points). 2. Results of the ratings carried out on clusters

TJ Table 7

TJ

Results of rating n°1 carried out on clusters on 06/09/2022

(end of fruit setting/beginning of grain stage, hunting lead, BBCH 71-73) - Newman & Keuls test at 5%

Figure 8 shows the cluster efficiencies (scoring #1, G1) on June 9, 2022.

The results of this first assessment carried out on clusters highlight levels of infestation significantly higher than those observed on leaves in the controls, with 60.5% in frequency and 18.5% in attack intensity.

In this context, the GDZ at 3L/ha then 4 L/ha is particularly effective with an efficiency of 93% on the attack intensity criterion (81% for that of frequency), i.e. at a level similar to that of the conventional program (99.2% and 95%).

The GDZ 2 L/ha then 3 L/ha method also shows a completely satisfactory efficiency with 82.7% on this same criterion (67.8% in frequency).

Table 8

Results of rating n°2 carried out on clusters on 06/22/2022

(end of pea grain stage/beginning of closure, BBCH 75-77) - Newman & Keuls test at 5%

Figure 9 shows the cluster efficiencies (notation #2, G2) on June 22, 2022. This second rating sees mildew continuing a strong expansion on the grape clusters with an attack frequency up 30 points (90.5%) and a near doubling of intensities (36.5%) in the control plots.

This clear increase in parasitic pressure has led to notable reductions in effectiveness in non-conventional methods; however, among these, the GDZ methods, particularly at 3 L/ha and then 4 L/ha, are those which resist it best, with good effectiveness in terms of intensity.

GDZ used at 2 L/ha then 3 L/ha, with 58.6% efficiency on the same intensity criterion, is more efficient than REDELI 2.5 L (33.1%) and ETONAN (38.4%) and even more efficient at 3 L/ha then 4 L/ha with 73.5% on the intensity criterion.

Table 9

Results of rating n°3 carried out on clusters on 07/07/2022

(closing stage, BBCH 77-79) - Newman & Keuls test at 5%

Figure 10 shows the cluster efficiencies (scoring #3, G3) on July 7, 2022.

On July 7, the epidemic appeared to have been stopped by the high temperatures with stable attack frequencies (84%) and intensities (34.9%) in the untreated controls, despite a cumulative total of 13.8 mm of natural precipitation recorded on June 23, 24 and 29. III. CONCLUSIONS

The weather conditions from May to July 2022 were quite favourable for the establishment and development of mildew, particularly on grape clusters, with temperatures in line with or even slightly above seasonal norms and a fairly discreet drying north wind (Mistral). Only rainfall was deficient, with a virtual absence of precipitation during the period from 9 May to 20 June, a deficit which was nevertheless able to be compensated for by the successive positioning of numerous sprinklers.

The epidemic was more dynamic on clusters than on leaves, before the onset of the high temperatures in July, with, in the untreated control plots, 90.5% in frequency and 36.1% in maximum attack intensity (on June 22) against respectively 54.3% and 5% (on June 16).

On leaves, the GDZ composition according to the invention demonstrated good efficacy, comparable to that of ETONAN and REDELI.

On clusters, the GDZ composition according to the invention at 3 and 4 L/ha proves to be even more effective with efficiencies greater than those of ETONAN and REDELI.

This test demonstrated very good performance, particularly on clusters, of the GDZ composition according to the invention compared to compositions based on REDELI or ETONAN (phosphonates) with a similar mode of action (SDN Natural Defense Stimulator).

It is important to emphasize that no symptoms of phytotoxicity were observed in the tests with the GDZ composition according to the invention.

Example 2

The following tests are carried out to study the stability of different compositions. The stability of each composition was evaluated under different conditions:

- At room temperature for 5 days,

- At low and high temperatures (around 5°C and around 40°C), and

Under accelerated conditions with heating/return to room temperature cycles. Table 10

Detail of the different compositions

Compositions mentioned as unstable only exhibit short-term stability of less than 1 hour.

1. Plant material

Nicotiana benthamiana tobacco seedlings were planted on February 27, 2024 in seedling compost. The tobacco seedlings were transplanted on March 4, 2024 and placed in grow tents for 3 weeks. Watering was done with tap water, except for one watering with fertilizer carried out 1 week after transplanting and another 3 weeks after transplanting.

2. Compositions studied

The products studied are the GDZ composition of example 1, the GDZ-bis and F-41 compositions of Table 10 and the KH P composition which corresponds to a solution of pure potassium phosphite at 733 g/L.

3. Carrying out treatments

In this trial, 17 treatments are carried out as summarized in Table 11. For each condition, the treatment solution is sprayed on 9 plants (10 to 12 sprays per plant allows runoff coverage). The seedlings are placed in mini-greenhouses (without cover).

Table 11

The treatments are prepared in comparison with the maximum regulatory dose of KHP which is 4 L/ha. For example, the GDZ eq 1/2 treatment is a treatment at a dose equal to half of the maximum regulatory dose of KHP, i.e. 2 L/ha.

4. Preparation of P. capsici suspension and infection

Agar cubes of P. capsici cultures were introduced into Petri dishes. 10 mL of sterile osmosis water were added to each dish and then incubated for 1 hour at room temperature. The water was removed from each dish and 10 mL of sterile uHQ water were added. The incubation was then carried out for 2 days in the chamber at 22 °C with a photoperiod of 16 h/8 h (22 °C/20 °C). After 2 days (March 27, 2024, the day of infection), the dishes were placed at 4 °C for 2 hours. The water in the 12 dishes was then collected to obtain approximately 120 mL. Counting under a microscope revealed a concentration of approximately 3500 spores/mL. For each condition, spray with 10 to 12 sprays of the P. capsici suspension.

The trays are covered and then the lids are removed 72 hours after infection.

5. Monitoring the infection

At each observation time, monitoring is carried out by noting the symptoms overall (score from 1 to 10), i.e. the severity, and by counting the number of leaves showing symptoms per plant out of the total number of leaves (%), i.e. the incidence.

6. Results

The infection is strong and rapid, within 6 days after infection the severity is between 8-10 for all treatment conditions except for the GDZ-bis condition (also called GDZ-2 in Figures 11 and 12) eq 1/2 for which the severity is only rated at 6.

Figure 11 demonstrates that the mean incidence at 3 days after infection is lower for all treatments compared to the control group. The mean incidence is significantly lower for the GDZ, GDZ-bis and F-41 treatments at eq. 1/2 and 1/4 compared to KHP. Even at lower doses (at eq. 1/5 and 1/6), the GDZ-bis and F-41 treatments significantly reduce the mean incidence of infection. Figure 12 demonstrates that the mean severity at 3 days is also reduced in the case of GDZ, GDZ-bis and F-41 treatments compared to the KHP treatment.

Claims

1. Phytosanitary composition comprising: (i) one or more sources of a metal selected from: a. metal oxides, b. metal complexes, and/or c. metal salts, (ii) one or more sugar(s) and/or one or more sugar derivative(s) selected from the group consisting of: gluconic acid, fructonic acid, glucuronic acid, galactonic acid, galacturonic acid, optionally in the form of salts, and (iii) one or more phosphorous derivative(s) selected from the group consisting of: phosphorous acid and phosphite salts. 2. Phytosanitary composition according to claim 1, in which one or more phosphorous derivative(s) is chosen from phosphorous acid or phosphite salts selected from potassium phosphite, zinc phosphite, calcium phosphite, silicon phosphite, sodium phosphite, manganese phosphite, magnesium phosphite or a mixture thereof, preferably potassium phosphite. 3. Phytosanitary composition according to claim 1 or claim 2, in which one or more sources of a metal is one or more metal oxides, chosen from the group consisting of: zinc oxide, copper oxide, iron oxide, manganese oxide, aluminum oxide, preferably zinc oxide. 4. Phytosanitary composition according to any one of the preceding claims, comprising: (i) from 1 to 40% by mass of one or more sources of a metal; (ii) from 5 to 50% by mass of one or more sugar derivatives; and (iii) from 35 to 80% by mass of one or more phosphorous derivative(s), the mass percentages being given relative to the mass of the dry composition. 5. Phytosanitary composition according to any one of the preceding claims, comprising: one or more metal sources selected from metal oxides selected from: zinc oxide, copper oxide, iron oxide, manganese oxide, aluminum oxide, preferably zinc oxide; one or more sugar derivative(s), preferably gluconic acid, and one or more phosphorous derivative(s), preferably phosphorous acid or potassium phosphite. 6. Phytosanitary composition according to any one of the preceding claims, comprising: from 2 to 25% by mass of one or more sources of metals chosen from metal oxides selected from: zinc oxide, copper oxide, iron oxide, manganese oxide, aluminum oxide, preferably zinc oxide; from 10 to 50% by mass of one or more sugar derivatives, preferably gluconic acid, and from 35 to 80% by mass of one or more phosphorous derivatives, preferably phosphorous acid or potassium phosphite, the mass percentages being given relative to the mass of the dry composition. 7. Phytosanitary composition according to any one of the preceding claims, comprising: from 10 to 25% by mass of one or more metal oxide(s), preferably zinc oxide; from 30 to 50% by mass of one or more sugar derivative(s), preferably gluconic acid; and from 35 to 55% by mass of one or more phosphorous derivative(s), preferably phosphorous acid, the mass percentages being given relative to the mass of the dry composition. 8. Phytosanitary composition according to any one of claims 1 or 2, in which the one or more sources of metal is one or more complexes of metals, preferably zinc, chosen from the complexes of said metal with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), preferably the complex being the complex of zinc with EDTA. 9. Phytosanitary composition according to claim 8, comprising: one or more metal sources selected from metal complexes selected from complexes with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), preferably the zinc complex with EDTA; gluconic acid, and potassium phosphite. 10. Phytosanitary composition according to any one of claims 8 or 9, comprising: from 20 to 40% by mass of one or more sources of metals chosen from metal complexes selected from complexes with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), preferably the zinc complex with EDTA; from 5 to 25% by mass of gluconic acid, and from 55 to 80% by mass of potassium phosphite, the mass percentages being given relative to the mass of the dry composition. 11. Phytosanitary composition according to any one of claims 1 to 2, in which one or more sources of metal is one or more metal salts, preferably zinc, chosen from salts of sugar derivatives, sulfates, chlorides, carbonates and nitrates of said metal. 12. Phytosanitary composition according to any one of the preceding claims, further comprising at least one thickener, such as xanthan gum. 13. Process for preparing a phytosanitary composition according to any one of claims 1 to 12, comprising a mixing step: (i) one or more sources of a metal, (ii) one or more sugar(s) and/or one or more sugar derivative(s); and (iii) one or more phosphorous derivative(s). 14. Use of a phytosanitary composition according to any one of claims 1 to 12, for the preventive and/or curative treatment of cultivated plants which may be affected by cryptogamic diseases caused by a fungus and/or oomycete. 15. Use according to claim 14, in which the fungus and/or oomycete is/are chosen from the group consisting of: Plasmopara viticola, Phytophthora infestans, Phytophthora ramorum, Phytophthora cinnamomi, Phytophthora capsici, Pseudoperonospora cubensis, Bremia lactucae, Peronospora destructor, Venturia inaequalis, Venturia carpophila, Venturia pyrina, Spilocaea oleaginea and Guignardia bidwellii. 16. Method for preventive and/or curative treatment of a cryptogamic disease caused by a fungus and/or oomycete to cultivated plants comprising a step of applying a phytosanitary composition according to one of claims 1 to 12. 17. Method according to claim 16, in which the phytosanitary composition is applied by spraying, typically by foliar application, preferably on the leaves and/or the fruits. 18. Method according to claim 16 or 17, in which the phytosanitary composition according to claims 1 to 6 is applied at a dose of at least 1% by mass of phytosanitary composition, preferably at least 2% by mass, preferably ranging from 2% to 5% by mass or from 2.5% to 4.5% by mass of phytosanitary composition. 19. A method according to claims 16 to 18, wherein the treatment or prevention of a fungal disease of crop plants comprises reducing and/or eliminating damage caused by the fungus and/or oomycete.