Historic, archived document
Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.
j.%7
MARCH 1973
th ANNUAL CONFERENCE REPORT ON
Cotton Insect Research and
Control
January 9 -10, 1973 Phoenix, Arizona
CD-
oo
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE IN COOPERATION WITH 14 COTTON - GROWING STATES
MP
RESEARCH— THE BASIS OF PROGRESS
Cotton insect research contributes to more efficient cotton production and offers hope of further reducing production costs and increasing profits. A continuing research program is essential if a favorable position is maintained in the battle with cotton pests. The ability of pests to develop resistance to highly effective insecticides emphasizes the need for a program of basic and applied research. New concepts and methods of control can come only through research.
Basic or fundamental research on the bionomics, physiology, biochemistry, and behavior of insects, on the chemistry of insecticides, and on the physiology of the cotton plant is essential to the development of new concepts of cotton insect control. This research is essential before major breakthroughs can be achieved in developing insect-resistant cotton varieties, long-lasting systemic insecticides, and new concepts of control and possible eradication; in discovering effective attractants; in solving the insecticide resistance problem; and in making maximum use of biological control.
Future research output is dependent on the availability of highly trained personnel working in an atmosphere favorable to productive research. Those interested in the welfare of the cotton industry should encourage promising high school and college students to enter the field of professional entomology as teachers, research scientists, extension and survey entomologists, and field scouts.
I/m /kfaiafa
FOLLOW THB LABIL ' ■ S. IIPAITIKHT or ACIICVITUI!
1
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION— PROGRESS THROUGH EDUCATION
The Cooperative Extension Service in each State bridges the gap between the researcher and the grower by making the most recent research results available for practical use at the farm level.
The goal of Cooperative Extension Service entomologists, as well as of research entomologists, is to contribute to more efficient cotton production by reducing production costs and increasing profits through better and more economical insect control. Cotton insect research is of value only when its findings are used by cotton growers.
The first step in bridging the gap is the joint development of cotton insect control recommendations which are published as Guides for Controlling Cotton Insects by the Cooperative Extension Service in each cotton-producing State. Entomologists and county agents of the Cooperative Extension Service then disseminate this information widely via farm magazines, newspapers, radio, television, and other educational aids.
Entomologists in the Cooperative Extension Service must have more than a thorough knowledge of cotton insects and their control. They must know how to present this information in a form that will be readily accepted and applied by growers. Young people with such aptitude, for example, those enrolled in 4-H Clubs, should be encouraged to enter this phase of professional entomology.
ii
PREFACE
This report has been prepared by specialists in research and control of cotton insects. It presents information of value to:
1. Industry in planning production programs.
2. State and Federal research workers in planning research programs .
3. Extension entomologists in developing insect control recommendations.
4. College and university teachers.
5. Consulting entomologists.
In utilizing the information presented in this report individuals should recognize their responsibility with regard to the impact of pesticides on man and on his environment .
Wherever possible, control measures consistent with good cotton insect control and protection of the environment should be used. Control techniques other than insecticidal should be developed for use in the overall insect control program.
The Status of Persistent Pesticides
Most of the reports of the committees and study groups appointed to review and evaluate the status of persistent pesticides have recommended that provisions be made for the orderly reduction in the usage of persistent pesticides.
In responding to these recommendations certain registered use patterns have been cancelled.
These cancellations mean that farmers and other users often must exercise greater care and caution when protecting their crops with substitute insecticides. Some of these substitutes are far more hazardous to humans than the previously registered pesticides because of their much higher acute toxicity.
In the evaluation of the uses of DDT and the suitability of possible alternative pesticides, the Agricultural Research Service concluded that the pesticides aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, and TDE were not satisfactory alternatives.
iii
The United States Department of Agriculture policy on pesticides is presented in the Secretary’s Memorandum No. 1799, February 1, 1973.
This policy is provided for your information on pages viii and ix.
The information presented on this and previous pages is called to the attention of the users of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Conference Report on Cotton Insect Research and Control.
The registration and recommendation of pesticides is under constant review and is subject to change as warranted. It is the responsibility of all who recommend and use pesticides to be aware of the current status of pesticides and to be guided by it in recommending or using pesticides.
iv
Statement Regarding DDT
On June 14, 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency issued an order cancelling all Federal registrations of DDT products. Public health, quarantine, and a few minor crop uses were excepted, as well as the export of DDT where such export met the requirements and regulations of the importing nations.
On December 31, 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a press release announcing that "the general use of the pesticide DDT will no longer be legal in the United States." Effective January 1, 1973, the interstate shipment of DDT, except in those few instances where DDT is still registered, is no longer permitted.
In view of the announcement of cancellation of Federal registrations of DDT, no recommendations for the use of DDT will be made in this report.
v
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20250
February 1, 1973
SECRETARY'S MEMORANDUM NO. 1799
U. S. D. A. Policy on Pest Control
It is the policy of the Department of Agriculture to practice and encourage the use of those means of practicable, effective pest control which result in maximal protection against pests, and the least potential hazard to man, his animals, wildlife, and the other components of the natural environment.
Nonchemical methods of pest control, biological or cultural, will be used and recommended whenever such methods are economically feasible and effective for the control or elimination of pests.
When nonchemical control methods are not tenable, integrated con¬ trol systems utilizing both chemical and nonchemical techniques will be used and recommended in the interest of maximum effec¬ tiveness and safety.
Where chemicals are required for pest control, patterns of use, methods of application and formulations which will most effectively limit the impact of the chemicals to the target organisms shall be used and recommended. In the use of these chemicals, the Depart¬ ment has a continuing concern for human health and well-being and for the protection of fish and wildlife, soil, air, and water from pesticide contamination.
In keeping with this concern, persistent pesticides will not be used in Department pest control programs v/hen an equally safe and effective nonresidual method of control is judged to be feasible. When persistent pesticides are essential to combat pests, they will be used in minimal effective amounts, and applied only to the infested area at minimal effective frequencies.
vi
In carrying out its responsibilities, the Department will continue
to:
-- Conduct and support cooperative research to find new, effective biological, cultural, and integrated pest control materials and methods;
-- Seek effective, specific, nonper sistent pesticides and methods of application that provide maximal benefits and are least hazardous to man and his environment;
-- Cooperate with other public and private organizations and industry in the development and evaluation of pest control materials and methods, assessment of benefits and potential hazards in control operations, monitoring for pesticide residues, and dissemination of pesticide safety information.
All users of pesticides are strongly urged to heed label directions and exercise constant care in pesticide application, storage, and disposal for the protection of people, animals, and our total environment.
The Department commends this policy to all who are concerned with pest control.
Secretary of Agriculture
With this issuance. Secretary's Memorandum No. 1666, dated October 29, 1969, is hereby superseded.
vii
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction . 1
Cultural Practices . 3
Biological control of cotton insects . 6
Chemical defoliation and desiccation as an aid to cotton
insect control . 8
Production mechanization in cotton insect control . • . 8
Precautions in using insecticides and miticides . 9
Registrations of insecticides and miticides . 17
Restrictions on use of insecticides on cotton . 18
Application of insecticides and miticides . 19
Resistance to insecticides and miticides . 25
Effect of environmental factors on insecticidal control . 28
Insecticides and miticides recommended for the control
of cotton pests . 29
Common and chemical names of insecticides used for cotton
insect control . 37
Insecticides and miticides showing promise in field tests . 40
Insecticides and miticides showing promise in cage,
laboratory tests, or both . 45
Cotton insects and spider mites and their control . 46
Table showing recommended dosages for the principal
insecticides used for control of cotton insects . 47
Table showing species of mites and miticides recommended
for their control . 65
Miscellaneous insects . : . 70
Insects in or among cottonseed in storage . 77
Insect identification . 78
Cotton insect surveys . 78
Some major cotton pests occurring in other countries and
Hawaii that might be introduced into the continental U.S . 85
Conferees . 88
Mention of a proprietary product or firm does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of the product by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and does not imply its approval by the Department to the exclusion of products of other firms that may also be suitable.
An asterisk indicates a proprietary product. The * is used in the main listings and omitted in text discussions.
viii
TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE REPORT ON COTTON INSECT RESEARCH
AND CONTROL
Phoenix, Arizona, January 9-10, 1973 INTRODUCTION
This report of the twenty-sixth annual conference of State and Federal workers is concerned with cotton insect research and control. Research and extension entomologists and associate technical workers from 14 cotton-growing States, the United States Department of Agriculture, the National Cotton Council of America, and Cotton Incorporated met to review the research and experiences of the previous year and to formulate guiding statements for control recommendations in 1973.
The chief purpose of the Conference is to enable the exchange of information that may be useful in planning further research, survey, and extension work, and to make the results of research available to others.
The report presents information of value (1) to industry in planning production programs, (2) to State and Federal research workers in planning research programs, (3) to extension entomologists in bringing to the attention of growers and other interested groups the control recommendations for their States, (4) to teachers of entomology in the various colleges and universities, and (5) to consulting entomologists. It is also widely used in foreign countries in connection with the development of cotton insect control programs .
This Conference Report is available to anyone interested in cotton production. Copies may be obtained from the Staff Specialist for Entomology, ARS , U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Md. 20705. It may be duplicated in whole or in part, but it should not be used for advertising purposes. No less than a complete section relating to one material or insect together with any supplemental statements should be copied.
Agreement on overall recommendations may be expected; however, complete standardization throughout the Cotton Belt is not possible. Details of recommendations will vary with the region or locality.
1
Cotton growers in the respective States should follow the recommendations contained in the State Guides for Controlling Cotton Insects and the advice of qualified entomologists, who are familiar with their local problems.
Determining the species and abundance of various insects and the specific injuries inflicted upon the cotton plant are important in insect control. Knowledge of the life history and habits of the insects, the growth and fruiting characteristics of cotton plants, and the environmental relationships that exist between the plants and insects yield additional information basic to an evaluation of the economic insect situations involved. Each control measure used should be a part of an integrated control program, utilizing to the fullest extent wherever possible cultural, physical, mechanical, biological, legal, and natural controls. However, when the level of infestation of an insect or group of insects approaches the economic threshold, chemical control measures should be applied to prevent damage to the cotton crop. Insecticides, dosages, formulations, and timing schedules should be selected to solve existing problems without creating new ones .
Research results on cotton insect control obtained by the United States Department of Agriculture and the State Experiment Stations are extended to the cotton industry by the Cooperative Extension Service in each State. It is the responsibility of each individual farm operator to make decisions concerning the control of cotton insects. He may do this himself or he may delegate the job to someone else. (See Determining the Need for Insecticide and Miticide Applications page 23.)
In making recommendations for the use of insecticides, entomologists should recognize their responsibility with regard to hazards to the public. (See Precautions in using insecticides and miticides , page 9.)
The insecticide industry has a great responsibility to the cotton grower in making available adequate supplies of recommended materials that are properly formulated. Sales programs should be based on State or area recommendations.
Various "remedies" and devices, such as concoctions of unknown makeup, bug — catching machines, light traps, and other mechanical or electrical contrivances for controlling insects, have been put on the market through the years. Although some had slight value, most were less effective and more expensive than widely tested standard methods . Cotton growers are urged to follow approved recommendations known to be of sound value.
2
CULTURAL PRACTICES
The development of resistance by cotton insects to some insecticides makes good cultural practices imperative. Certain cultural practices reduce and under some conditions may even eliminate the need for insecticides. Several of these practices can be followed by every cotton grower whereas others are applicable only to certain areas and conditions. Growers following these practices should continue to make careful observations for insects and apply insecticides only when needed.
Early Stalk Destruction
The boll weevil resistance problem emphasizes the urgent need for early destruction of cotton stalks. The destruction or killing of cotton plants as early as possible before the first killing frost prevents population buildup and reduces the overwintering population.
The earlier the weevil population is deprived of its food supply the more effective this measure becomes. Early stalk destruction, especially over community - or county-wide areas, has greatly reduced the boll weevil problem the following season, especially in the southern part of the Cotton Belt.
Early stalk destruction and burial of infested debris are generally the most important practices in pink bollworm control.
Modem shredders facilitate early stalk destruction and complete plow-under of crop residues. The shredding operation also kills a high percentage of pink bollworms left in the field after harvest.
The flail-type shredder is recommended over the horizontal rotary type for pink bollworm control. Plowing under crop residue as deeply as possible after the stalks are cut will further reduce survival of the pink bollworm. The use of these machines should be encouraged as an aid in the control of both the boll weevil and the pink bollworm. Early stalk destruction can also reduce the potential number of overwintering bollworms and tobacco budworms .
Stub, Volunteer, or Abandoned Cotton
Stub, volunteer, and abandoned cotton contributes to insect problems because the stalks and undisturbed soil provide a place for insects to live through the winter. This is especially true for the cotton leaf perf orator , the pink bollworm, and the boll weevil.
Volunteer cotton is also the principal winter host for the leaf crumple virus of cotton in the southwestern desert areas and for its whitefly vector. All cotton plants should be destroyed soon after harvest.
3
Planting
Uniform planting of all cotton within a given area during a short period of time is desirable. A wide range in planting dates extends the fruiting season, which tends to increase populations of the boll weevil, pink bollworm, and possibly other insects.
Planting during the earliest optimum period for an area also makes early stalk destruction possible.
Skip Row Planting
The practice of skip row planting has changed some of the aspects of insect control on cotton. Insects and spider mites that feed on weeds allowed to grow in these strips may move into the cotton when such weeds are destroyed by cultivation. The skip row practice necessitates modification of ground application equipment.
Applications by airplane become more expensive since the entire field must be treated and only a part of it is planted to the crop.
Varieties
Varieties of cotton that bear prolif ically , fruit early, and mature quickly may set a crop before the boll weevil and other insects become numerous enough to require prolonged treatment with insecticides. This is especially true when other cultural control practices are followed. Growers should plant varieties recommended for their particular area. Cotton breeders are working with entomologists to develop varieties resistant to several cotton insects.
Soil Improvement
Fertilization, crop rotation, and plowing under of green manure crops are good farm practices and should be encouraged. The increased plant growth, which usually results from these practices, may also prove attractive to some pests necessitating closer attention to their abundance and control. The potential higher yields will give greater returns from the use of insecticides. Over-fertilization, especially with nitrogen, may unnecessarily extend the period during which insecticidal protection is necessary. Likewise, undergrowth and delayed maturity may result from nutritional or moisture imbalance but these should not be confused with insect damage.
The fact that a number of insects and spider mites attack legumes and then transfer to cotton should not discourage the use of legumes for soil improvement or crop rotation. Insect pests may be controlled on both crops.
4
Other Host Plants of Cotton Pests
Cotton fields should be located as far as is practicable from other host plants of cotton insects. In some cases control measures should be applied to other hosts to prevent migration to cotton. Thrips breed in onions, potatoes, carrots, legumes, small grains, and some other crops. They later move in great numbers into adjacent or interplanted cotton. Beet armyworms, garden webworms, lygus bugs, stink bugs, variegated cutworms, western yellowstriped armyworms, and other insects may migrate to cotton from alfalfa, and other plants.
The cotton fleahopper migrates to cotton from horsemint, croton, and other weeds. Spider mites spread to cotton from many weeds and other host plants adjacent to cotton fields.
Overwintering Areas
The boll weevil hibernates in well-drained, protected areas in and near cotton fields. Spider mites overwinter on low-growing plants in or near fields. Pest breeding areas of weeds along turnrows and fences or around stumps, and scattered weeds in cultivated fields should be eliminated with herbicides, cultural, or other methods. General burning of ground cover in woods is not recommended. Since ground cover and weeds serve as hibernating sites for many parasites and *
predators, the detrimental effects of indiscriminate destruction of weeds by burning and tillage on beneficial insects are obvious.
Seed cotton scattered along turnrows, loading areas, and road¬ sides serves as a source of pink bollworm carryover to the next crop. Care should be taken to see that these areas are cleaned up. To minimize this hazard, trucks, trailers, and other vehicles in which the seed cotton is being hauled to the gin should be covered.
Gin-plant sanitation should be practiced to eliminate hibernat¬ ing quarters of the boll weevil and the pink bollworm on such premises. In areas where pink bollworms occur, State quarantine regulations require that gin trash be sterilized, run through a hammer mill or fan of specified size and speed, composted, or given some other approved treatment.
Quarantine regulations require certification of mechanical cotton pickers and strippers moving from pink bollworm-infested to noninfested areas.
5
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF COTTON INSECTS
Predators , parasites , and diseases play an important role in the control of insect pests of cotton. Cotton pest control programs should maximize the role of natural enemies by utilizing insecticides, cultural practices, other agents, and techniques in augmentative ways. The key role of naturally occurring biological control agents must not be ignored in modern pest control programs. Wherever possible, an attempt should be made to evaluate the role of beneficial insects in the field. Some predaceous and parasitic insects of prime importance are as follows :
Predators
HEMIPTERA — Qrius insidiosus and (). tristicolor , often called minute pirate bugs or flower bugs, are voracious predators of eggs and first instar larvae of the bollworm, thrips , and other small insects.
Populations often build up in such crops as corn and grain sorghum. Big-eyed bugs , Geocoris pallens , G_. punctipes , and G_. uliginosus , are common predators of eggs and small larvae of the bollworm as well as other lepidoptera, mirids, and aphids. Damsel bugs of the genus Nab is are efficient predators of a wide range of prey including mirids, leafhoppers , aphids, and eggs and larvae of lepidoptera. They attack bollworms as large as the second instar. Assassin bugs, particularly the genus Zelus , feed freely on eggs and larvae of Lepidoptera, including bollworm, tobacco bollworm, and cabbage looper . These bugs are usually less abundant in cotton fields than those referred to previously.
Podisus maculiventris is a common stink bug that preys on large bollworms and other caterpillars.
NEUROPTERA — Larvae of green lacewings, Chrysopa spp. are important predators of eggs and small larvae of bollworm and other Lepidoptera and of many soft-bodied insects.
C0LE0PTERA — Ground beetles of the family Carabidae have considerable potential as predators in the cotton field but knowledge is lacking on the habits and factors affecting abundance of the many species. Lady beetles (family Coccinellidae) are common predators in cotton fields.
The large species, including Coleomegilla maculata, Hippodamia convergens , and Coccinella novemnotata , feed on eggs and small larvae of bollworm and other Lepidoptera and on aphids. Some smaller species in the genus Scymnus and all S tethorus spp. are primarily predators of mites. Collops beetles (Malachinnae in the family Melyridae) are often very abundant in cotton. They reportedly feed on the eggs and small larvae of the bollworm and other lepidopterous species.
DIPTERA — Many families contain species that are predaceous as adults or larvae. Best-known as predators in the cotton fields are the larvae of syrphid flies that prey primarily on aphids.
6
HYMENOPTERA — Ants, family Formidicae, include many predacious species. Iridomyrmex pruinosus is a regular predator of bollworm eggs . Paper-nest wasps, Polistes spp., and solitary wasps of the genera Zethus , Eumenes , Rygchium, and Stenodynerus provide their young in the nests with lepidopterous larvae. Wasps of the genus Sphex nest in the ground and provide their young with grasshoppers and related insects.
SPIDERS — All spiders are predaceous and many species are common in cotton fields. Orb weavers capture many moths in their webs. Wolf spiders and lynx spiders capture moths and other insects. Larvae and adults of the bollworm and boll weevil adults are among the prey of jumping spiders.
Parasites
Numerous species of hymenopterous parasites of several families are of great value in the biological control of most pests of cotton.
These parasites vary tremendously in size, behavior, ecology, and host perference. Within their ranks, however, effective or potentially effective parasites of nearly every developmental stage, egg through adult, of the majority of cotton pests may be found. Many of them occur naturally in great numbers in certain geographical areas. Some are now and many will eventually have to be augmented in the field by means of habitat management or mass release techniques so as to concentrate their populations at the time and in the place required for most effective control.
Flies of the family Tachinidae are parasites primarily of larvae of Lepidoptera and Coleoptera. Several species are of value as parasites of cotton pests and should be examined with the same goals in mind as those mentioned above, i.e., augmentation through laboratory or field practices.
Native predators and parasites are often highly effective against aphids, the bollworm, beet armyworm, tobacco budworm, cabbage looper, cotton leafworm, cotton leafperf orator , cutworm, lygus bugs, saltmarsh caterpillar, spider mites, whiteflies, and certain other pests. Diversified crops and uncultivated areas serve as refuge and reservoir areas for predators and parasites and, unfortunately, for some pests.
Releases of large numbers of green lacewing larvae in field experiments in Texas gave control of heavy infestations of bollworms. Augmentation of food for lacewings has shown promise in California experiments. However, much additional research is needed to develop such techniques into practical control measures. Releases of two species of parasites have shown promise for control of the pink bollworm.
7
Diseases
Naturally occurring outbreaks of polyhedral viruses sometimes substantially reduce bollworm, tobacco budworm, cabbage looper, and cotton leafworm populations. These viruses can be produced on hosts mass-reared on artificial diets. Their .use is discussed on page 44 . Bacillus thuringiensis is a naturally occurring insect pathogen that is produced commercially (see page '41 > .
CHEMICAL DEFOLIATION AND DESICCATION AS AN AID TO COTTON INSECT CONTROL
Chemical defoliation and desiccation of cotton aid in the control of many cotton insects. These practices check the growth of the plants and accelerate the opening of mature bolls, reducing the damage and the late-season buildup of boll weevils, bollworms, tobacco budworms, and pink bollworms that would otherwise remain to infest next year’s crop. They also prevent or reduce damage to open cotton by heavy infestations of the cotton aphid, the cotton leafworm, and whiteflies. However, defoliants and desiccants should not be applied until all bolls that are to be harvested are mature, if losses in yield and quality are to be avoided. Stalks should be destroyed and other cultural practices followed, as discussed under Early Stalk Destruction page 3.
Guides for the use of different defoliants and desiccants, are issued by the Cooperative Extension Services of the various States. They contain information concerning the influence of plant activity, stage of maturing, and effect of environment on the efficiency of the process, and give details relating to the various needs and benefits. They explain how loss in yield and quality of products may be caused by improper timing of the applications. Local and State recommendations in the respective States should be followed.
PRODUCTION MECHANIZATION IN COTTON INSECT CONTROL
Increased mechanization improves the efficiency of cotton production, including insect control. High-clearance sprayers and dusters and aircraft have proved to be very useful and satisfactory for the application of insecticides and defoliants, especially in rank cotton. Tractors also enable the grower to use shredders, strippers, mechanical harvesters, and larger, better plows — all of which help in the control of the pink bollworm and to some extent the boll weevil.
The flaming operation for weed control is of questionable value in insect control.
Mechanical harvesting with spindle-type pickers may result in leaving more infested cotton in the field than hand-picking, thus
8
increasing the potential overwintering pink bollworm population. On the other hand, the use of strippers to harvest the crop is highly desirable from the standpoint of pink bollworm control, because all open bolls are stripped from the plants and are transported to the gin where a high percentage of the larvae are killed in the ginning process.
Stalk shredders not only destroy certain insects, particularly the pink bollworm, but enable the cotton growers over wide areas to destroy the stalks before frost and thereby stop the development of late generations of this insect, the boll weevil, bollworm, and tobacco budworm.
The increased use of mechanized equipment for cotton production has resulted in large acreages of uniform, even-age stands in some areas. These factors tend to simplify cotton insect control.
Hibernation quarters in or immediately adjacent to the fields are frequently eliminated by these modern cultivation practices.
PRECAUTIONS IN USING INSECTICIDES AND MITICIDES
Hazards and precautions in the use of insecticides and miticides are discussed in the section below. It must be realized, of course, that all insecticides are toxic. On the other hand, when the enviable safety record associated with the use of many millions of pounds of insecticides on cotton annually is considered, it becomes evident that if common sense precautions are observed, insecticides can be used with relative safety. This applies to the operator, the farm worker, the cotton checker, to fish and wildlife , to honey bees, to our food and feed supply, and to the public in general.
Problems involving hazards to man, domestic animals, crops, fish, beneficial insects, and wildlife have been intensified by the increased use of insecticides for control of cotton insects.
The precautions, recommended amounts, and registration numbers are given on labels of all materials legally offered for sale. These materials should not be used unless the user is prepared to follow directions on the labels.
In handling any insecticides, avoid contact with skin and inhalation of dusts, mists, and vapors. Wear clean, dry clothing, and wash hands and face before eating or smoking. Launder clothing daily.
9
Avoid spilling the insecticide on the skin and keep it out of the eyes, nose, and mouth. If any is spilled, wash it off the skin immediately with soap and water. If you spill it on your clothing, remove clothing immediately and wash the contaminated skin thoroughly. Launder clothing before wearing it again. If the insecticide gets in the eyes, flush with plenty of water for 5 minutes and get medical attention.
Insecticide injury to man may occur through skin absorption or by oral or respiratory intake. Some solvents used in preparing solutions or emulsions are flammable, and most of them are toxic to some degree.
In considering the hazards to man, it is necessary to distinguish between immediate hazards (acute toxicity) and cumulative hazards (chronic toxicity).
Insecticides used on cotton must be handled with care at all times and in all forms. The physiological activities of organic phosphorous compounds in both insects and warm-blooded animals is primarily inhibition of the cholinesterase enzyme. Initial or repeated exposure to them may reduce the cholinesterase level to the point where symptoms of poisoning may occur. These symptoms include headache, pinpoint pupils, blurred vision, weakness, nausea, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, and tightness in the chest. The symptoms may occur without forewarning. Applicators and handlers of these chemicals should be thoroughly aware of and familiar with the symptoms.
The toxicity of experimental compounds suggested for further testing may not be well known. Extreme precautions should be observed in their use until more information is available concerning their toxicity.
Formulations that have been accepted by the Registration Division of the Environmental Protection Agency under experimental permits are required to show prominently on the front panel of the label "For Experimental Use Only" and should be utilized only for such purposes. According to the Federal Environmental Pesticide control Act of 1972 pesticides registered under an "Experimental Permit" must not be used contrary to the provisions of the permit. Use contrary to the provisions of the permit constitutes a violation of the Act and is a punishable offense.
10
The following insecticides can be used without special protective clothing or devices, although malathion may be absorbed through the skin, and inhaled in harmful amounts. In all cases, follow the label precautions .
Bacillus thuringiensis
carbaryl (Sevin) chlorob enzilate dicofol malathion Geigy 13005
sulfur
trichlorfon
The following insecticides can be absorbed directly through the skin in harmful quantities. When working with these insecticides in any form, take extra care not to let them come in contact with the skin. Wear protective clothing and respiratory devices as directed on the label.
chlordane chlordimef orm diazinon dieldrin dimethoate
endosulfan (Thiodan) ethion
naled (Dibrom) toxaphene
The following chemicals are highly toxic and may be fatal if swallowed, inhaled, or absorbed through the skin. These highly toxic materials should be applied only by a person who is thoroughly familiar with their hazards and who will assume full responsibility for proper use and comply with all the precautions on the labels.
aldicarb
azinphosmethyl (Guthion) carbophenothion (Trithion) deraeton
dicrotophos (Bidrin) disulfoton (Di-Syston) endrin
Chevron Ortho 9006
EPN
methyl parathion
Methyl Trithion
monocrotophos (Azodrin)
parathion
phorate (Thimet)
phosphamidon
me thorny 1
Preventing skin absorption — Many of the insecticides are almost as toxic when in contact with the skin as when taken orally. Such contact may occur through spillage or the deposition of fine mist or dust during application of insecticides.
11
With the exception of aerosols, agricultural sprays and dusts have relatively large particles. When such particles are inhaled, they do not reach the lungs but are eventually brought into the throat and swallowed. Thus skin absorption constitutes a major route of entry, and yet it is the source of insecticide injury most likely to be ignored.
Liquid concentrates are particularly hazardous. Load and mix them in the open. If you spill a concentrate on your skin or clothing, remove contaminated clothing immediately and wash the skin thoroughly with soap and water. Launder clothing before wearing it again. Contaminated shoes are a serious hazard. Launder work clothes daily and change shoes when necessary. When recommended, wear natural or other suitable rubber gloves while handling highly toxic compounds. Have a change of clothing and soap and water at hand in the field.
Bathe at the end of the work period.
Preventing oral intake. — Keep food away from direct contact with all insecticides and also keep it away from the possible fumigant action of volatile chemicals. Wash exposed portions of the body thoroughly before eating or drinking. Do not smoke or otherwise contaminate the mouth area before washing the face and hands. Do not measure or store pesticides in containers that might be mistaken for food containers. Store pesticides only in the original containers with legible labels attached.
Preventing respiratory intake. — If called for on the label, wear a respirator or mask of a type that has been tested and found to be satisfactory for protection against the particular insecticide used. Decontaminate the respirator between operations by washing the respirator and replacing felts or cartridges or both at recommended intervals of use. A publication, ARS-33-76-2, entitled "Respiratory Devices for Protection Against Certain Pesticides" dated February 1966, gives information on respirators and gas mask canisters that will afford protection against various insecticides.
Copies of this release may be obtained from the Chemical Coordination Laboratory, Agricultural Environmental Quality Institute, Northeastern Region, ARS , USDA, Beltsville, Maryland 20705.
12
Determine blood cholinesterase levels. — Regular users of organophosphorous compounds should have their blood cholinesterase levels checked before the start of a season’s work and periodically thereafter. It is advisable to have on hand a small supply of 1/100-grain atropine tablets for emergency use as prescribed by medical authorities in case of poisioning. Do not use atropine as a preventive for cholinesterase poisoning. Another antidote for phosphorous poisoning is 2-PAM which must be administered under the supervision of a physician. Be sure the local physician is familiar with treatment and has the antidote on hand before large scale application is begun. Speed of proper treatment is essential. (See paragraph on Information on Poison Control Centers, page 14.)
Carbamates are also inhibitors of cholinesterase and regular users of these chemicals should be checked and treated as above, with one exception: 2-PAM and other oximes are not recommended. These compounds are referred to as "rapidly reversing inhibitors of cholinesterase." The reversal is so rapid that unless special precautions are taken measurements of blood cholinesterase of human beings or other animals treated with these compounds are likely to be inaccurate and always in the direction of appearing to be normal. The blood cholinesterase inhibition should be measured by a technique that minimizes reactivation.
Disposal of excess materials and used containers. — Excess dust or spray materials should be buried. The burial sites for excess insecticides, wastes, equipment washings, and containers should be selected with care and so situated that contamination of ground water does not occur. When possible, growers should carry their empty insecticide containers to a sanitary land¬ fill type dump and have them buried. Inform the dump operator of the nature of the residues in the containers. Some States require that they be buried at a designated place. Empty metal containers should be smashed beyond possibility of reuse and buried.
Handling materials in the field. Metal containers of emulsifiable concentrates carried to the field should be placed in the shade. Agitation of closed containers that have been left in the sun can result in pressure buildup in the container — with a resultant exploding of the contents when the top is removed.
Storage of insecticides. — Insecticides should be stored in a separate building to avoid contamination of food, feedstuffs, or fertilizers. Care should be taken, also, to avoid cross-contamination of pesticides. Unused insecticides should be kept in the original container and stored in places inaccessible to children, irresponsible persons, or animals. All insecticides should be stored under lock and key.
Procedures for applicators of insecticides. — Airplane pilots who are to apply insecticides should not assist in mixing or loading operations.
Persons making ground application of organophosphorous insecticides or loading aircraft with them should always be accompanied by at least one other person in the field.
13
Information on Poison Control Centers — A publication "Directory of Poison Control Genters" is available upon request from Bureau of Chemical Hazards, Consumer Products Safety Commission, 5401 Westbard Ave. , Bethesda, Maryland 20016. It lists facilities in each State that provide to the medical profession, on a 24-hour basis, information concerning the prevention and treatment of accidents involving exposure to poisonous and potentially poisonous substances.
The telephone directory may also list Poison Control Centers for the local area.
Misapplication or drift on plants, warm-blooded animals and other
non-target areas — Spraying or dusting should be done under conditions' and in a manner to avoid direct application or drift to adjacent fields where animals are pastured, where food or feed crops are being grown, or to residential areas, canals, streams, waterways or highways. Usually there is less drift from sprays than from dusts and from ground applications than from aerial applications. Injury due to misapplication or drift may be determined as the responsibility of the applicator.
Residues in plants or soils — In the development of new insecti¬ cides, the possibility of deleterious residues remaining in cottonseed and seed products must be thoroughly investigated. (For more information concerning residues on cotton, see Restrictions on the Use of Cotton Insecticides, page 18.)
Excessive insecticide residues in the soil may affect germina¬ tion, rate of growth, and flavor of crops. Concentration of the residue is influenced by the insecticide, the formulation used, amount applied, type of soil, and climatic conditions. Illegal residues have occurred in some root crops and in soybeans grown in rotation with cotton that has been treated with organochlorine insecticides .
14
Protection of predators and parasites — Predators and parasites play an important role in the control of cotton insects. Most currently available insecticides destroy these beneficial insects as well as harmful ones; therefore, the control program used should take maximum advantage of natural, and cultural controls.
Insecticides that are selective for the pest species concerned and of minimum detriment to the beneficial species should be used. When regular inspections show that high populations of predators and parasites are present, deferring of insecticide treatments should be considered.
Protection of honey bees. — Every year pesticides applied to cotton cause extensive losses of honey bees. Much of this damage is needless and can be averted without reduced control of injurious pests, if proper precautions are taken. Bees are beneficial to cotton and many cotton growers as well as their neighbors grow legumes and other crops that require pollination. For the benefit of the beekeeper, the cotton grower, and of agriculture in general every effort should be made to protect pollinating insects.
Bee losses can be reduced if the following general precautions are taken:
1. If a pesticide must be used, choose the one least hazardous
to bees that will control the harmful pests.
2. If a hazardous material must be used, apply it when bees are not visiting the field.
3. Use sprays instead of dusts. Application with ground equipment
is less hazardous to bees than application by airplane.
4. Avoid drift of pesticide into the apiary or onto adjacent
crops in bloom.
5. Reduce the number of applications to an absolute minimum.
6. Advise the beekeeper to locate the apiary out of the usual
drift path of the pesticide from the field.
7. Give the beekeeper advance notice if a hazardous material
must be used, so he may move or otherwise protect the bees.
8. Remind the beekeeper that confining the bees during and after a single application may prevent or reduce damage,
and that colonies can be confined under wet burlap tarpaulins up to 2 days . Confinement is not practical if repeated applications are to be made.
15
The following grouping shows the relative hazard to honey bees of pesticides used for control of cotton insects:
Group I
Materials hazardous to bees
azinphosmethyl (*Guthion) carbaryl diazinon
dicrotophos (Bidrin) dieldrin dimethoate EPN
malathion methyl parathion *Methyl Trithion monocrotophos (*Azodrin) naled parathion phosphamidon Geigy 13005 Chevron Ortho 9006 methomyl
Protection of fish and wildlife — Recommended precautions must be followed to reduce hazard to fish and wildlife when using insecticides for control of cotton insects. It is especially important to avoid direct application or drift to ponds, streams, standing water, and weedy areas.
Wherever possible, cotton fields should be located away from ponds. Runoff from treated fields should be diverted from fish ponds. Where drift may create a problem, sprays are preferred to dusts and ground applications to aerial applications. Do not discard pesticides or clean pesticide application equipment in or near streams or ponds.
Additional safeguards — Equipment that has been used for mixing and applying 2,4-D and other weedkillers should never be used for mixing and applying insecticides to cotton because of the danger of crop injury resulting from contamination of equipment.
Group 2
Group 3
Materials moderately Materials relatively hazardous to bees non-hazardous to bees
carbophenothion chlorobenzilate demeton disulf oton endosulf an endrin
phorate
ethion
toxaphene
trichlorfon
Bacillus thuringiensis
dicofol
sulfur
chlordimeform
16
REGISTRATIONS OF INSECTICIDES AND MITICIDES
Before a pesticide may be legally shipped in interstate commerce, it must be registered under the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972 signed into law by the President on October 21, 1972, administered by the Pesticide Regulations Division of the Environmental Protection Agency. Scientific data are required to establish that the pesticide, when used as directed on the label \id.ll control the target pest and x>7ill not cause untox^ard effects to man and his surroundings.
The criteria for registration are strict and subject to constant reviex7 as new information is developed. Many States have similar registration regulations. Under the new law the administrator of EPA is given the authority to proceed against persons or individuals who engage in misusing pesticides by applying them in a manner "incon¬ sistent with their labeling!' In addition, the administrator may place pesticides in a "restricted use" category, thus subjecting them to controls in distribution and ultimately requires their use only by trained applicators .
Cottonseed is classified as a food product. The undelinted seed as it comes from the gin is the "raw agricultural commodity."
Where pesticide use patterns xtfill result in residues of the original material or of toxic metabolites on or in cottonseed, or its byproducts, permissible amounts, or tolerances, must be established.
The establishment of residue tolerances in raw agricultural commodities is the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency. A registration xvill not be granted until a permissible level of residue has been granted.
Finite tolerances or exemption from tolerances are required for all pesticides registered for use on cotton.
17
RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF INSECTICIDES ON COTTON
Any regulations established by the Federal or State governments will take precedence over those given in this report.
Workers entering cotton fields within 5 days after treatment with endrin or on the day of treatment with methyl parathion should wear clean, tightly woven, protective clothing.
Do not repeat applications of dimethoate within 14 days of each other.
Do not apply disulfoton (Di-Syston) to cotton more than twice per season nor repeat application within 21 days of each other.
Do not repeat applications of monocrotophos (Azodrin) within 5 days of each other.
Do not apply chlordane, chlorobenzilate , endosulfan, ethion or phorate after bolls begin to open. Dosages of toxaphene in excess of 4 pounds per acre per application should not be applied to cotton after bolls open. Methyl Trithion should not be applied after half the bolls are open.
Do not graze livestock in cotton fields treated with insecticides » except those for which no restrictions are shown on the labels.
Unused cottonseed intended for planting that has been treated with any insecticide should not be used for food or feed. Treated seed must bear a statement on the label indicating that the seed has been treated with the chemical and should be used for planting only.
The minimum number of days that should elapse between the time of the last insecticidal application and harvest for certain insecticides is as follows :
Hand harvest —
2 days — azinphosmethyl in ultra-low volume application.
4 days — naled (Dibrom)
5 days — endrin, parathion
7 days — methyl parathion
Hand or mechanical harvest —
1 day — azinphosmethyl
3 days — EPN
7 days — trichlorfon
14 days — diazinon dimethoate, dicofol, phosphamidon 21 davs — monocrotophos (Azodrin) . demeton 28 days — disulfoton (Di-Syston)
30 days — dicrotophos (Bidrin)
18
Tolerances (p.p.m.) established for various insecticides recommended for cotton insect control in or on cottonseed are as follows: aldicarb, 0.1: azinphosmethyl , 0.5; carbary 1, 5; carbophenothion, 0.2; Chevron Ortho 9006, 0.1; chlordimeform (Galecron) , 5; chlorobenzilate , 0.5; demeton, 0.75; diazinon, 0.2; dicrotophos , 0.05; dicofol, 0.1; dimethoate, 0.1; disulfoton, 0.75; endosulfan, 1; endrin, 0, EPN , 0.5; ethion, 0.5; Geigy 13005, 0.2; malathion, 2; methyl parathion, 0.75; methomyl, 0.1; methyl trithion, 0.1; monocrotophos , 0.1; naled, 0.1; parathion, 0.75; phorate, 0.05; phosphamidon, 0.1; toxaphene, 5; and trichlorofon, 0.1. Bacillus thuringiensis is exempt from the requirements of a tolerance and sulfur is a material not requiring a tolerance.
Some States have special restrictions on the use of certain insecticides. Check your State and local regulations.
APPLICATION OF INSECTICIDES AND MITICIDES
Most insecticides and miticides commonly used for control of cotton pests may be readily formulated into either sprays or dusts.
Stable formulations of some materials are very difficult to make.
Research on formulations continually provides more satisfactory material with greater stability.
Dusts . — Most organic insecticides and miticides formulated in dusts with talc, clay, calcium carbonate, pyrophyllite , diatomaceous earth, or sulfur as the carrier give good control of cotton insects and spider mites . The value of formulations with proper dusting characteristics is to be emphasized. Erratic results and poor control are sometimes caused by inferior formulations , although frequently poor results caused by improper application or timing are blamed on formulations. Some dusts containing high percentages of sulfur have undesirable dusting properties and may present a fire hazard.
Sprays — The term "low volume" is used for the application of concentrated insecticides when the total volume of spray solution applied is more than one-half but less than 10 gallons per acre.
The term "ultra-low volume" is used for the application of concen¬ trated or technical insecticides when the total volume of spray liquid applied is one-half gallon or less per acre.
Control of cotton insects and spider mites has been highly successful with properly formulated sprays applied at rates ranging from 1 to 15 gallons per acre. Most of the organic insecticide sprays used on cotton are made from emulsif iable concentrates. It is recommended that all insecticide formulators show conspicuously on the label the pounds of actual toxicant
19
per gallon in emulsi liable concentrates. The pounds of toxicants specified should be consistent with the required label declaration of active ingredients. Occasional foliage injury has resulted from poorly formulated concentrates, or when the spray was improperly applied. Emulsifiers and solvents should be tested for phy to toxicity before they are used in formulations. Phytotoxicity of evulsions may be aggravated by high temperatures, high concentrations, drying winds and highly alkaline water. Diluted sprays should be applied immediately after mixing and should not be held over for later use. Wet table powders of some insecticides are applied to cottonseed in a slurry before planting for control of certain insects.
Ultra-low volume aerial applications of azinpnosmethyl (Guthiori) , endosulfan (Thiodan) and malathion are approved for control of certain insects. Some progress has been made in applying other compounds in this manner and in developing ground equipment for their application.
Results of limited research indicate that some materials perform differently when applied as low volume technical materials or as erulsl f iable concent rates than when they are applied as emulsions. Because performance cannot be predicted, each insecticide applied in this manner must be tested thoroughly against various cotton pests. Hazards and residues from such applications must be considered. Expanded research is needed to develop this method of applying insecticides to control cotton insects.
The addition of blackstrap molasses at 1/2 to 2 gallons per acre to insecticidal sprays has improved bollwora control. Molasses increases palatability of spray residues to bollvorn larvae and extends the residual effectiveness of certain insecticides. Other benefits include increased kill of bollworm moths and a probable reduction in drift because of increased droplet weight and reduced evaporation .
Granules, fertilizer-insecticide mixtures and seed treatments —
Granulated formulations of insecticides and mixtures of insecticides and fertilizers are used for control of some soil insects. They are being used for white-fringed beetle and wi reworm control in some areas. Granular formulations of some, systemic insecticides are being used in some areas against certain foliage-feeding pests. Systemic insecticides are. sometimes applied as dusts or liquids to cottonseed before planting for early-season insect control. Such treatments sometimes adversely affect stands and seedling vigor, formulations of some systemic insecticides are sprayed furrow at planting for control of certain early-season insects.
Emulsifiable in the see ci
20
Mixtures of two or more insecticides — Where more than one insect or
spider mite is involved in a control program, insecticides are frequently combined to give control of the species involved. Bollworm, cotton aphid, and spider mite buildup frequently follows application of some insecticides, and for this reason suitable insecticides or miticides are added to some formulations.
Where an outbreak of aphids or spider mites is involved, a recommended organophosphorous insecticide may be used alone or may be combined in a boll weevil-bollworm formulation.
Emulsifiable concentrates of two or more insecticides may be formulated into recommended sprays in the field. When this is done, however, the quantity of solvent is increased which may in turn increase the phytotoxicity hazard and toxicity to man and animals.
Mixtures containing less than recommended dosages of each of several insecticides have frequently been unsatisfactory and are not recommended .
Applications
Insecticides may be applied to cotton with either ground or aerial equipment. Generally sprays and dusts are equally effective. Regard¬ less of equipment chosen, effective control is obtained only when applications give thorough coverages and are properly timed. Improperly timed or unnecessary applications may result in a pest complex that can cause greater dhmage to the cotton crop than the original target insect.
Ground application — High clearance rigs usually make efficient application possible in rank cotton with little mechanical injury to plants. Ground machines should be calibrated to apply the proper dosages for the speeds at which they will be operated.
For dust applications the nozzles should be adjusted to approxi¬ mately 10 inches above the plants, with one nozzle over each row.
Dusts are usually applied at 10 to 20 pounds to the acre except in the Far West, where heavier dosages are required. Results of research in Arkansas show that the total volume can be reduced to as little as two pounds of dust concentrate per acre with no loss in control if the amount of needed active ingredient is applied.
For spraying seedling cotton under conditions of straight and uniform row spacing, use of one nozzle per row is suggested. As the cotton grows, the number of nozzles should be increased to two or
21
in rank growth to as many as five or six in some areas. Nozzles without drops spaced 20 inches apart on the boom are used in some areas .
The nozzles should be adjusted to approximately 10 inches above the plants and be capable of delivering from 1 to 15 gallons per acre.
Emulsifiable concentrates should be diluted immediately before use. Some type of agitation, generally the bypass flow, is necessary during the spray operation to insure a uniform mixture.
As a safety measure the spray boom should be located behind the operator.
Aerial application — In aerial application of sprays with fixed wing aircraft, the plane should be equipped with standard nozzles or rotary atomizing devices that will deliver most of the insecticide in droplets within the range of 100 to 300 microns. The aircraft should be flown at a height of 5 ft. above the crop for most effective insecticide placement and minimal drift.
Emulsifiable concentrates should be mixed with water immediately before use and delivered in 1 to 10 gallons per acre on a maximum swath width of 40 ft. Ultra-low volume concentrates should be applied at up to one-half gallon per acre on a swath width of 35 to 75 ft. depending on weather and other conditions. Dust applications should be made on a 40 ft. maximum swath width. When insect populations are extremely heavy^it may be advantageous to narrow the swath width.
A method of flagging or marking the swaths should be used to insure proper distribution of both sprays and dusts.
Timing of applications. — Correct timing is essential for satisfactory control of cotton insects. Consideration must be given to the overall populations and stages of both beneficial and harmful insects rather than to those of a single insect. The stage of growth of the cotton plant and expected yield are important. Since the use of insecticides often induces outbreaks of aphids, bollworms, spider mites, and other pests, insecticides should be applied only when and where needed.
Early-season applications should be made to control beet armyworm, cutworms, darkling ground beetles, grasshoppers, or other insects which threaten to reduce a stand. Recommendations for early- season applications to control aphids, the boll weevil, the cotton fleahopper, plant bugs, and thrips vary greatly from State to State.
22
Differences in infestations of these insects, as well as many other production factors, make it inadvisable to attempt to standardize recommendations for early-season control.
It is generally recommended that suitable insecticides should be applied to cotton during its maximum period of fruiting and maturing of the crop, if infestations threaten to reduce the yield, affect quality, or delay maturity. Recommendations for insecticide treatments are similar throughout the Cotton Belt, but certain details differ from State to State, and often within a State. The appropriate State Guide for Controlling Cotton Insects should be followed.
Determining the Need for Insecticide and Miticide Applications.
The determination of pest population levels is fundamental in carrying out a sound cotton insect control program. Entomologists should recognize this basic principle and accept the professional obligation for implementing it. Need for control measures should be based on insect infestation counts.
Insecticides or miticides are recommended for the control of injurious insect and spider mite pests of cotton when their populations reach the level that economic losses will result if they are not controlled. This can be the result of immediate loss of the fruiting forms (squares and bolls) or damage to the plant in such manner that fruiting will be delayed to the extent that a full crop cannot be made during the normal growing season. In areas subject to summer droughts or where the growing season is short, any insect injury causing damage to the extent that fruiting is delayed or early fruit is lost can result in reduced yields. The control of even a light infestation of injurious insects early in the season under these conditions may be important. In much of the Cotton Belt, however, the cotton plant usually is able to overcome early plant damage and early loss of fruit with little or no reduction in yield. In these areas, the need for protecting early fruit and for hastening maturing is minimized.
Some farmers have learned to recognize certain harmful and beneficial insects and certain insect diseases. They can determine by field inspections when an insecticide is needed and by referring to the State Guide can select the proper one to use. Other farmers prefer to employ persons who are specially trained to do the job for them.
23
Many growers employ specially trained personnel, sometimes referred to as "checkers" or "scouts," to make insect population counts and infestation records in cotton fields. The majority of the scouts are college students or former college students with some entomological background who have been given special training by the extension entomologist or by county agents. The experience of most farmers, who have employed them is that money spent for this purpose is a sound investment. The saving of one insecticide application during the year when infestation counts show that it is not needed, or the timely application of one that is needed, usually more than pays the entire cost of the service for the season.
Two types of use of persons specially trained to make insect population counts and infestation records in cotton fields have developed. In one case, the farmer hires the person to make the records and to submit them to him. He then determines the need for insecticides, selects those to be used from the State Guide for Controlling Cotton Insects, and either applies them with his own equipment or arranges with a custom applicator to do it for him.
The other type of use is to contract with a consulting entomologist for the complete job of insect control. The consultant may have several individuals making population counts and infestation records for him. His experience enables him to use the records to determine the need for the insecticide. He makes the selection from the State Guide and either arranges directly for its application or leaves this to the discretion of the owner or manager depending on the terms of the contract.
Both types of use of persons trained to do the job have proved highly satisfactory to growers who have used them and their use is almost certain to increase. With increased emphasis on reduction in costs of producing cotton and on the reduction of residues and other hazards, the precise knowledge of insect conditions and the wise use of insecticides becomes a highly important consideration. The employment of persons trained to do the job usually is the best way to assure that it is properly done.
A pest management program funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture was initiated in 1972 to encourage cotton producers to use cultural and biological pest control measures in combination with in¬ secticides as needed to protect their crops from damage by insects.
The on-farm cotton pest management program is carried out by the Cooperative State Extension Services and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in cooperation with the State Departments of Agriculture, Experiment Stations, cotton producers and other industry leaders. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection and Extension Services have responsibility for the program on the national level.
24
RESISTANCE TO INSECTICIDES AND MITICIDES
Resistance to insecticides and miticides is the ability in insect and spider mite strains to withstand exposure to dosages that exceed that of a normal susceptible population — such ability being inherited by subsequent generations of the strain.
Resistance of cotton pests to insecticides has developed rapidly in recent years. Since 1947 when organic chemicals began to have wide usage in cotton, 24 species of insects and spider mites that attack the crop are known to have developed resistance and several other species are strongly suspected of having developed resistance. One or more of these resistant species occur in localized areas in most cotton-producing States from California to North Carolina. In most cases the pests are resistant to the organochlorine insecticides but four species of mites and the beet armyworm, banded wing whitefly, bollworm and tobacco budworm are known to be resistant to the organophosphorus compounds.
Resistance of most species continues to be restricted to relatively small areas and no species is known to be resistant throughout the range of its occurrence. However, the boll weevil is known to be resistant in localized areas in 10 of the 11 States in which it occurs from Texas to North Carolina.
The following is a tabulation of the pests known to be resistant to individual insecticides in one or more areas of the States listed:
Pest
Insecticides
States
Bandedwing whitefly
methyl parathion
Arkansas, Louisiana
Beet armyworm
Boll weevil
Bollworm
organochlorine compounds methyl parathion
organochlorine
compounds
DDT
Arizona , Arkansas , California and Mississippi Alabama
Alabama, Arkansas Georgia, Louisiana Mississippi, North Carolina , Oklahoma ,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas
Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri. Oklahoma .
North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas
25
Pest
Insecticides
States
Bollworm (con.)
Cabbage looper
Cotton aphid
Cotton fleahopper Cotton ieafperforator
Cotton leafworm
Lygus bugs,
Lygus hesperus
Pink bollworm
endrin
carbaryl (Sevin)
Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas
Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma , and Texas
methyl parathion TDE
toxaphene plus DDT Strobane plus DDT
Arkansas and Oklahoma
Texas
Do .
Do .
DDT
Arizona, Georgia, Tennessee, and Texas
organochlorine Alabama, Arkansas, California
compounds Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Oklahoma
endrin and toxaphene Arizona
organophosphorus Arkansas compounds
benzene hexachloride Arkansas, Alabama, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee
organochlorine Texas
compounds
do.
DDT
organophosphorus
compounds
California
Arizona
California} Arizona
organochlorine Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texa:
compounds
do.
California.
trichlorfon and monocro- tophos Do .
DDT Arizona
do .
Durango and Coahuila, Mexico, and Texas
26
Pest
Insecticides
States
|
Saltmarsh caterpillar |
toxaphene , DDT , and |
endrin |
Arizona and California |
|
Southern garden leaf- |
DDT |
California |
|
|
hopper Spider mites: |
|||
|
Tetranychus turkestani |
organophosphorus compounds |
Alabama and |
|
|
except phorate seed treatment |
or soil |
California |
|
|
cinnabarinus |
do . |
Alabama, Arizona California, and Texas |
|
|
pacif icus |
do . |
Do . |
|
|
urticae |
do . |
Alabama , Arkansas , California, Louisiana, Mississippi and North Carolina |
|
|
pacif icus |
dicof ol |
California |
|
|
Stink Bug : |
|||
|
Euschistus conspersus |
organochlorine compounds |
Do . |
|
|
Thrips : Frankliniella |
|||
|
Mixture of species |
dieldrin endrin |
Do . California and Georgia |
|
|
Frankliniella |
|||
|
occidentalis |
toxaphene organochlorine compounds |
New Mexico Texas |
|
|
Thrips tabaci |
organochlorine compounds |
Do. |
27
Pest
Insecticides
States
Tobacco budworm
Carbaryl (Sevin)
Louisiana and Texas
DDT
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas
endrin
Louisiana, Mississippi Texas
Strobane plue DDT
Texas
TDE
Do.
toxaphene plus DDT Louisiana, Mississippi
Texas
organophosphorus
compounds
Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas
Resistance of cotton pests to recommended insecticides is a serious problem. It emphasizes the importance of using every known means possible to alleviate the difficulty to the extent that control may be maintained. This includes the use of pesticides having different physiological modes of action from those to which resistance has been developed and in the use of cultural practices, especially early stalk destruction, in reducing populations of the boll weevil and the pink bollworm. Every advantage possible of biological control agents should be taken and where there is a choice, chemicals that are of minimum detriment
to beneficial insects should be used.
EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ON INSECTICIDAL CONTROL
Failures to control insects have often been attributed to ineffective insecticides, poor formulations, poor applications, and improper timing. Recently, resistance has been blamed for failures in local areas. Variations in humidity, rainfall, temperature, sunlight, and wind have been shown to influence the effectiveness of an insecticide applied to plants. These variations also influence the development of insect populations and plant growth. Inability of the applicator to maintain a regular application schedule because of excessive rains or high winds often results in loss of control at a critical period.
A combination of an adverse effect on the toxicity of the insecticide and a favorable effect on growth of the plant and insect population may result in failure to obtain control. Conversely, conditions
28
favorable to the insecticide and plants and adverse to the insect population will result in very effective control. Use of fertilizer and supplemental irrigation, although valuable in cotton production programs, may create conditions that make insect control difficult. Also certain insects, in particular the boll weevil, become more difficult to kill with some insecticides as the season progresses. Therefore, one should consider all factors before arriving at a decision as to the specific one responsible for the failure to obtain control.
INSECTICIDES AND MITICIDES RECOMMENDED FOR THE CONTROL OF COTTON PESTS
Organochlorine
compounds
Organophosphorus
compounds
Others
chlorobenzilate dicofol endosulf an endrin toxaphene
azinphosmethyl
carbophenothion
Chevron Ortho 9006 (Monitor)
demeton
diazinon
dicrotophos
dimethoate
disulf oton
EPN
ethion
Geigy 13005 (Supracide)
malathion
methyl parathion
*Methyl Trithion
monocrotophos (Azodrin)
naled
parathion
phorate
phosphamidon
trichlorfon
aldicarb carbaryl chlordimef orm (Fundal, Galecron) me thorny 1 (Lannate) sulfur
Materials recommended for the control of cotton insects in one or more States are discussed in this section (see table 1, pages 47 - 48). In local areas certain insects have become resistant to one or more of the materials recommended (see Resistance to Insecticides, pages 25 - 28 for details) .
Aldicarb (Temik)
Aldicarb in granular form applied in the furrow at planting will control thrips, cotton aphids, cotton fleahoppers, leafminers, spider mites, lygus bugs, and overwintered boll weevils feeding on foliage. Side-dress applications when plants begin to square will control leafhoppers, cotton fleahoppers, boll weevils, spider mites, and lygus
29
bugs, but may result in an increase in subsequent bollworm and tobacco budworm infestations. Treatments at planting time may result in phyto¬ toxicity under some conditions to the extent that strands may be damaged.
Aldicarb applied in-furrow at planting or as a sidedressing must be covered completely with soil. It is toxic to fish, wildlife, and birds. Keep out of any body of water. Do not contaminate water when cleaning equipment or disposing of wastes. Birds and wildlife may be killed if allowed to feed on exposed granules .
Aldicarb is highly toxic to man and animals and should be used with
adequate precautions.
Azinphosmethyl (Guthion)
Azinphosmethyl will control the boll weevil, brown cotton leafworm, cotton leaf perforator , cotton leafworm, fleahoppers, garden webworm, lygus bugs, pink bollworm, stink bugs, and thrips. Erratic results have been obtained against the cotton aphid and spider mite in some areas. It is ineffective against the beet armyworm and the saltmarsh caterpillar.
Azinphosmethyl is highly toxic to man and animals and should be used
with adequate precautions.
Carbary 1 (Sevin)
Carbaryl will control the boll weevil, bollworm, cotton fleahopper, cotton leafworm, cotton leafperf orator , cutworms, darkling beetle, fall armyworm, false celery leaf tier, field crickets, garden webworm, grass¬ hoppers, a leaf roller (Platynota stultana) , lygus bugs, pink bollworm, saltmarsh caterpillar, southern garden leafhopper, stink bugs, and thrips. It does not control the beet armyworm, black fleahoppers, cabbage loopers , false chinchbug, or spider mites. Aphids do not usually build up following its use but spider mites often do.
Carbophenothion (Trithion)
Carbophenothion will control the cotton aphid, cotton fleahopper, cotton leaf perforator , lygus bugs, thrips, and most species of spider mites. It appears to have long residual activity. It is not effective against the bollworm, or cabbage looper and is erratic against salt¬ marsh caterpillars and stink bugs.
Carbophenothion is highly toxic to man and animals and should be
used with adequate precautions.
30
Chevron Ortho 9006 (Monitor)
Chevron Ortho 9006 will control the beet armyworm, the boll weevil, bollworm, cabbage looper, cotton aphid, cotton leafperf orator , lygus bugs, saltnarsh caterpillar, spider mites and thrips.
Chevron Ortho 9006 is highly toxic to man and animals and should be used with adequate precautions .
Chlordime form (Fundal, Galecron)
Ch lor dime form will control the beet armyworm, bollworm, tobacco budworm, cotton leafperforator, pink bollworm, spider mites, thrips and western yellows triped armyworm.
Chlordineforn is highly toxic to man and animals and should be used
with adequate precautions .
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorobcnzilate applied as a foliage spray will control most species of spider mites. Complete foliage coverage is essential for obtaining control .
Demeton
Demeton is both a contact and a systemic insecticide with long residual systemic activity. When applied in a foliage spray, it is effective against most species of aphids and spider mites for 2 to 8 weeks and controls the southern garden leafhopper and thrips. Demeton does not control the boll weevil, bollworm, cotton leafworm, grasshoppers- or the pink bollworm.
Demeton is highly toxic to man and animals and should be used with adequate precautions .
Diazinor:
Diazinon in leafperforator,
a spray will control the cotton fleahopper lygus bugs, the saltmarsh caterpillar, and
the cotton thrips .
31
Dicofol (Kel thane)
Dicofol is an acaricide with little insecticidal activity. It will control most species of spider mites. For best results spray should be applied at a minimum of 20 gallons per acre with nozzles directed to give coverage under the leaf. Dicofol sprays applied from airplanes have given erratic results.
Dicrotophos (Bidrin)
Dicrotophos in a spray will control the cotton aphid, cotton fleahopper, cotton leafnerf orator , false chinch bugs, lygus bugs, spider mites, saltmarsh caterpillar, stink bugs, and thrips.
Dicrotophos (Bidrin) is highly toxic to man and animals and should be used with adequate precautions .
Dimethoate
Dimethoate in a spray will control the cotton fleahopper, lygus bugs, and thrips.
Disulfoton
Disulfoton as a seed treatment or in granular or spray form, applied in the furrow at planting will control aphids, leafminers, spider mites, and thrips for 4 to 6 weeks after planting. Treatments at planting time may result in phytotoxicity under some conditions to the extent that stands may be damaged and early growth retarded. Phytotoxicity hazards may be greater where preemergence herbicides are used. Phytotoxicity hazards are also greater where certain fungicide combinations are used as planter box treatments with the seed.
Planting seed should be treated only by custom operators who are able to treat seed adequately and uniformly with suitable precautions against hazard to operators.
Pis ul foton is highly toxic to man and animals and should be used with adecuat e precautions .
Endosulfan (Thiodan)
Endosulfan will control the bollworm, the cabbage looper, cotton leaf perforator , stink bugs, and thrips.
32
Endrin
Endrin will control the beet armyworni, boll weevil, bollworm, brown cotton leafwona, cabbage looper, cotton leafperforator, cotton leafworra, cutworms, darkling ground beetles, fall armywonn, false chinch bugs, field crickets, flea beetles, fleahoppers, garden webwom, grasshoppers, green¬ house leaf tier, lygus bugs, stink bugs, tobacco budworm, thrips, and yellows triped armywerm. Endrin used in a seed treatment will protect seed and young seedlings from seedcorn maggots, false wireworms, and wireworms. It will not control the pink bollworm or spider mites . Aphids usually do not build up after use of endrin, but spider mites sometimes do. Endrin should not be used for control of cotton insects where soybeans are grown in rotation with cotton.
Endr in is highly toxic to man and animals and should be used with
adequate precautions
2EN
EPN will control the boll weevil and bollworm.
EPh is highly toxic to man and animals and should be used with adequate precautions.
Etiiion
Ethion will control the cotton aphid, the cotton leaf worm and most species of spicier mites.
Geigy GS-13005 (Supracide)
Ceigy GS-13005 will control the b an de awing whitefly, spider mites, the boll weevil and bollworm. In a schedule of applications for control of the latter species it may be phytotoxic.
Mala th ion
Malathion spray will control the boll weevil, cotton aphid, brown cotton leafworw, cotton leafperforator, cotton leafworm, fall arnyworn, fleahoppers, garden webworn, grasshoppers, lygus bugs, southern garden leaf hop per, thrips, and some species of spider mites. Results against whiteflies have been erratic. It will not control the bollworm and the saltmarsh caterpillar . In some areas 0.5 pounds of malathion at 3-day intervals gave boll weevil control comparable to that obtained at 4- to 5-day intervals with higher dosages. Dust formulations have not been entirely satisfactory in some areas, probably because of instability. Malathion applied by airplane in ultra-low volume sprays at 0.5 to 1.25 pound per acre controls the boll weevil.
33
ilethomyl (Lannate)
Methomyl will control the beet armyworm, the bollworm, the cabbage looper, cotton leaf perforator, lygus bugs and the pink bollworm. It may be phytotoxic when repeated applications are used. A safened dust is less phytotoxic than sprays.
Ilethomyl is highly toxic to man and animals and should be used
with adequate precautions.
Methyl parathion
Methyl parathion will control the beet armyworm, boll weevil, cabbage looper. cotton aphid, cotton leafperforator , cotton leaf
worm, cutworms, fall armyworm, false chinch bugs, fleahoppers, garden webworm, grasshoppers, lygus bugs, southern garden leafhonper, saltmarsh caterpillar, stink bugs, thrips, yellowstripad armyworm and certain species cf spider mites, but it has a short residual toxicity. It is not effective against the bollworm, pink bollworm and tobacco budworm at dosages recommended, for the boll weevil but gives bollworm and tobacco budworm control at 1 pound per acre. For late-season boll weevil control a dosage of 0.25 pound at 3-day intervals is preferred over higher dosages at longer intervals. Although it is unsatisfactory for control of most species of spicier mites, methyl parathion in a boll weevil schedule suppresses them. When it is applied as a dust, only stabilized formulations should be used. In 1372 an encapsulated formulation of methyl parathion showed promise against the boll weevil, bollworm and cabbage looper at 0.5 to 1.0 pound per acre.
• Methyl parathion is highly toxic to man and animals and should be used with adequate precautions .
Methyl frith ion
Methyl Trithion will control the boll weevil, cotton aphid, cotton fleahopper, cotton leafworm, cotton leafperforator, lygus bugs, stink bugs, saltmarsh caterpillars, and thrips. It will suppress some species of spider mites .
fethyl Trithion is highly toxic to_ _man and animals and should be used with adequate precautions.
Monocrotophos (Azodrin)
Monocrotoohos \7ill control the bandedwing whiteflv, beet armyworm, boll weevil, bollworm, cabbage looper, cotton aphid, cotton fleahooper, cotton leafperforator, lygus bugs, pink bollworm, some species of spider mites, saltmarsh caterpillar, stink bugs, and thrips. This is a water
34
soluble formulation and observations indicate that it mav be washed off more readily by rain than an emulsifiable concentrate.
Monocrotophos will kill birds and other wildlife. Keen out of any body of water. Do not apply when weather conditions favor drift from areas beinn treated.
Monocrotophos is highly toxic to man and animals and should be used with adequate precautions.
Waled (Dibrom)
Naled will control the cotton fleahopper, cutworms, grasshoppers, and lygus.bugs. It is cabbage looper at 0.5 pound per acre and snide
cotton leafperforator , ine ffect ive. agains t th e r mites at 0.5 to 1 pound
per acre. Parathion (ethyl)
Parathion will control the brown cotton leaf worn, most species of aphids, cabbage looper, cotton leafperforator, cotton leaf worn, flea- hoppers, lygus bugs, false chinch bugs, saltmarsh caterpillar, serpen¬ tine leafminers, southern garden leafhopper, stink bugs, some species of spider mites, and thrips . At dosages of 0.5 to 0.75 pound it control the boll weevil, and the bollworn: at 1 pound per acre. It gives very little control of the fall armyworn, pink bollitform, variegated cutworm, or whiteflies.
Parathion is highly toxic to man and animals and should be used
with adequate precautions .
Phorate
Phorate as a seed treatment or in granular form applied in the furrow at planting will control aphids, leafminers, spider mites, and thrips for 4 to 6 weeks from planting date. Treatments at planting time may result in phytotoxicity under some conditions to the extent that stands may be damaged and early growth retarded. Phytotoxicity hazards may be greater where pre-emergence herbicides are used. Phytotoxicity hazards are also greater where certain fungicide combinations are used as planter box treatments with the seed.
Planting seed should be treated only by custom operators who are able to treat seed adequately and uniformly with suitable precautions against hazard to operators.
Foliar application of phorate will control spider mites.
35
and should be used
Phorate is highly toxic to man and. animals
with adequate precautions .
Phosphamidon
Phosphamidon will control the cotton aphid, cotton fleahopper, cotton leafperf orator, falsa chinch bugs, lygus bugs, and other mi rids, anu thrips.
Phosphamidon is highly toxic to man and animals and should be
used with adequate prec autions .
Sulfur
Sulfur has been widely used in dust mixtures for control of the cotton fleahopper and certain species of spider mites. IJhan applied alone or in combination with insecticides in formulations containing 40 percent or more of sulfur it will control the desert and strawberry spider mites and will suppress other species. Precautions should be exercised in applying sulfur to cotton adjacent to cucurbits.
Toxaphene
Toxaphene will control the beet armyworm, boll weevil, bollvorms, cotton fleahoppers, cotton leafworm, cotton leafperforator , cutworms, fall armyworm, flea beetles, garden webworri, grasshoppers, lygus bugs, stink bugs, thrips, whitelined sphinx, yellows triped armyworm, and western yellows tripad arnwjom. Toxaphene will not control cabbage loopers, the pink bollworm, or saltmarsh caterpillar.
Trichlorfon (Dylox)
Trichlorfon as a spray will control the beet amyworm, celery leaf tier, cotton leafperforator, cutworms, darkling beetles, fall armyworm, field crickets, flea beetles, fleahoppers, garden webworm, a leaf roller (Platynota stultana) , lygus bugs, western yellowstriped armyworm, stink bugs, saltmarsh caterpillar, the southern garden leafhopper, and yellowstriped armyworm.
Trichlorfon has given erratic results against bollworws and cabbage loopers. It was not effective against thrips at 0.5 to 1 pound per acre.
In some instances trichlorfon has been phytotoxic. It should be applied immediately after it is mixed with water.
36
COMMON AND CHEMICAL NAMES OF INSECTICIDES USED FOR COTTON INSECT CONTROL [^Indicates a proprietary name]
Common name aldicarb
azinphosmethyl
carbaryl
carbophenothion
chlordane
chlordimef orm
Chevron Ortho 9006
chlorobenzilate
demeton
diazinon
dicof ol
Chemical name
2-methyl-2- (methylthio) propion- aldehyde O-(methylcarbamoyl) = oxime
() ,£-dimethyl phosphorodithioate S^-ester with 3-(mercaptomethyl)- 1,2 ,3-benzotriazin-4(3H) -one
1-napthyl methylcarbamate
S- [ [ (p-chlorophenyl) thio]methyl] (D,0-diethyl phosphorodithioate
at least 60 percent of 1,2, 4, 5, 6,7,8 ,8-octachloro-2,3 ,3a, 4 ,7 , 7a-hexahydro-4 , 7-methanoin= dene and not over 40 percent of related compounds .
N ’ - (4-chloro-o-tolyl) -N ,N-dimethyl= formamidine
0 ,S^-dimethyl phosphoramidothioate
ethyl 4,4 ’ -dichlorobenzilate
mixture of £, C)-diethyl S^and 0) - [2- (ethyl thio) ethyl] phos= phorothioate
£ ,0-diethyl 0-(2-isopropyl-6-
methyl-4-pyrimidinyl)
phosphorothioate
4 ,4 t-dichloro-alpha-(trichloro= methyl) benzhydrol
Other designations that have been used
Union Carbide UC-21149; *Temik
*Guthion; Bayer 17147
*Sevin; Union Carbide 7744
*Trithion; Stauffer R-1303
chlordan; *Velsicol 1068; *0rtho-Klor *0ctachlor
CIBA C-8514, Galecron Fundal
^Monitor; Bay 71628
Geigy 338; G-23992 *Systox; mercaptophos
G-24480
*Kelthane; Rohm and Haas FW-293
37
COMMON AND CHEMICAL NAMES OF INSECTICIDES USED FOR COTTON INSECT CONTROL— Con. {^Indicates a proprietary name]
Common name
Chemical name
Other designations that have been used
dicrotophos
dieldrin
dimethoate
disulfoton
endosulfan
endrin
EPN
ethion
Geigy 13005
malathion
|
dimethyl phosphate ester with (E) - 3-hydroxy-N,N-dimethylcrotonamide |
*Bidrin; Shell SD-3562 |
|
Not less than 85 percent of 1,2, 3,4,10, 10-hexachloro-6 , 7-epoxy- 1,4 ,4a, 5 ,6 ,7 ,8 ^a-octahydro-l^- endo-exo-S ,8-dimethanonaphthalene |
compound 497; *0ctalox ;HE0D |
|
0,0-dimethyl phosphorodithioate S- ester with 2-mercapto-N-methyl- acet amide |
American Cyanamid 12880; *Rogor; *Cygon |
|
0,0-diethyl S- [2-(ethylthio)= ethyl] phosphorodithioate |
*Di-Syston; thiodemeton; Bayer 19639 |
|
6 ,7 ,8 ,9 ,10 ,10-hexachloro-l ,5 ,5a, 6 , 9 ,9a-hexahydro-6 ,9-methano- 2 ,4 ,3 ,-benzodioxathiepin 3-oxide |
*Thiodan; Niagara 5462 |
|
1,2,3,4,10 ,10-hexachloro-6 ,7- epoxy-1 ,4, 4a, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8a-octahydro- 1 , 4-endo-endo-5 , 8-dime thanonap thalene |
compound 269 |
|
0-ethyl 0-(_£-nitrophenyl) phenyl= phosphonothioate |
EPN 300 |
|
S_,_S' methylene 0 ,0 ,0 ,0 ’-tetra= ethyl phosphorodithioate |
*Nialate; ^Niagara 1240 |
|
,()-dimethyl phosphorodithioate S-ester with 4-(mercaptomethyl) - 2-methoxy- A ^-1,3 ,4-thiadiazo= lin-5-one |
*Supracide, Fisons NC 2964 Ultracide |
|
diethyl mercaptosuccinate S-ester with 0^, 0-dimethyl phosphorodithioate |
compound 4049 |
methyl parathion C) ,0-dimethyl O-Cp-nitrophenyl) phos= Metacide; Wofatox
phorothioate
*Methyl Trithion S_- [[ (]3-chlorophenyl) thio] methyl]
£, O-dimethyl phosphorodithioate
Stauffer R-1492 Geigy G- 29288
38
Common Name methomyl
monocrotophos
naled
parathion
phorate
phosphamidon
sulfur
toxaphene
trichlorfon
COMMON AND CHEMICAL NAMES OF INSECTICIDES USED FOR COTTON INSECT CONTROL — CON.
[^Indicates a proprietary name]
Other designations
Chemical Name that have been used
S -methyl N- [me thy 1 carbamoyl) = oxy] thioacetimidate
DuPont 1179 Lannate
dimethyl phosphate ester with *Azodrin; Shell SD-9129 (E) -3-hydroxy-N-methylcrotonamide
1 , 2-dibromo-2 , 2-dichloroethyl dimethyl phosphate
C^, O-diethyl 0- (_p-nitrophenyl) phosphor othioate
0,0-diethyl S- [ethylthio)= methyl] phosphorodithioate
*Dibrom; Chevron RE-4355
E-605 ; compound 3422 ; *Thiophos ; *Niran
*Thimet ; American Cyanamid 3911
dimethyl phosphate ester with *Dimecron; OR-1191
2-chloro , N,N_,-diethyl-3-hydroxy=
crotonamide
sulfur
chlorinated camphene contain- compound 3956
ing 67 to 69 percent chlorine
dimethyl (2 ,2 ,2-trichloro-l- *Dipterex; *Dylox;
hydroxyethyl)phosphonate Bayer L 13/59
39
INSECTICIDES AND MITICIDES SHOWING PROMISE IN FIELD TESTS
Organochiorine
compounds
Organophosphorus
compounds
Others
Abate (Biothion) American Cyanamid E.I. 52160 CELA S-2957
10242 )
DuPont - 1410
DuPont - 1642
DuPont - 1764
formetanate hydrochloride
Mexacarbate (Zectran)
Monsanto 856
Nuclear polyhedrosis
Bacillus thuringiensis Carbofuran (Niagara
acephate(Chevron 12420) (Orthene)
Geigy GS-19851 Geigy GS-24163 Hoechst HOE-2960
Leptophos (Velsicol VCS-506)
viruses
Uniroyal DO 14
Diamond Shamrock DS-15647
Materials that have shown promise in the testing programs of the State Agricultural Experiment Stations and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are indicated below. These materials are not recommended for grower use, but they are recommended to research workers for further testing and study.
Abate (Biothion) American Cyanamid El 52160 ((),()-( thiodi-p_-phenylene)
>0.’ ,-tetramethyl phosphorothioate)
In field tests in 1966, this compound in a spray at 1 pound per acre showed promise against the bollworm. In 1968, it showed promise in a spray against the pink bollworm at 1.5 pounds per acre. In 1969, it showed promise in a spray against lygus bugs at 0.1 pound per acre. In 1970, 1971, and 1972 it showed promise in a spray against the cotton fleahopper at 0.1 pound per acre.
Ordinary precautions are recommended for its use.
Acephate (Chevron Ortho RE-12420 (Orthene) (()-S^-dimethyl acetylphosphorami- dothioate)
In field tests in 1971, this compound in a spray showed promise against the cotton aphid and thrips at 0.5 pound, against the bollworm, lygus bugs, and spider mites at 1.0 pound, and against the cabbage looper at 0.5 to 1.0 pound per acre. In 1972, it showed promise against the bollworm, cabbage looper and whit ef lies at 1.5 pound and against lygus bugs at 0.25 to 0.5 pound per acre. In a 10 percent granule formulation applied in furrow at planting it showed promise against the cotton aphid at 0.5 pound per acre.
The toxicity of this compound is not fully known but extreme caution should be observed in its use.
40
Bacillus thuringiensis
In 1960 this pathogen applied at 30 to 40 pounds of dust per acre showed promise for control of the cabbage looper and the saltmarsh caterpillar. In 1961 a dust (25x10 ^ spores /gm) applied at 40 pounds per acre was promising against the cotton leafworm. Since 1968 it was recommended against the cabbage looper at 5.5x10-1-3 viable spores per acre. In 1972 it was recommended against the cabbage looper at 4 to 8xlOy international units per acre but lost its registration since the dose on cotton had not been converted to IU’s. The delta- endotoxin of a new isolate of .B. thuringiensis applied at the rate of 44x10$ or more international units per acre was effective against the bollworm and tobacco budworm in 1970 and 1971. In 1972 it showed promise against the bollworm in a bait formulation.
Available data indicate little or no hazard associated with the use of this pathogen, ordinary precautions are recommended in connection with its use.
Carbofuran (Niagara NIA-10242) (2,3-dihydro-2 ,2-dimethyl-7-benzofuranyl methylcarbamate)
In 1964 and 1965, this material in a spray showed promise against the bollworm, boll weevil, cabbage looper, cotton aphid, cotton leaf perforator, lygus bugs, and saltmarsh caterpillar at 0.5 to 1.0 pound per acre. It showed promise against thrips in a granular formulation applied in the seed-furrow at planting at 1 to 2.0 pounds per acre. It showed promise in a bait against the granulate cutworm and darkling beetle at 0.5 pound per acre. In 1966, this material in a spray showed promise against the boll weevil, bollworm, and cotton aphid at 1 pound per acre.
In 1967, this material in a spray showed promise against the bollworm at 1 pound per acre. In 1970, it showed promise in a spray against the bandedwing whitefly at 0.5 to 1.0 pound per acre. In 1971, it showed promise in a spray against the bollworm at 1.0 pound per acre. In a 10 percent granule formulation applied in-furrow at planting, it showed promise against thrips at 0.5 to 1.0 pound per acre.
The toxicity of this compound is not fully known, but extreme caution should be observed in its use.
CELA S-2957 (0- [2 , 5-dichloro-4- (methylthio) phenyl] C^, 0-diethyl phosphorothioate)
In field tests in 1971 and 1972 this compound in a spray showed promise against the bollworm at 1.0 pound per acre.
The toxicity of this compound is not fully known but extreme caution should be observed in its use.
Diamond Shamrock PS - 15647 (3,3-dimethyl-l-methylthio-2-butanone 0- methyl-carbamoyloxime)
41
In field tests in 1972 this material in granular form applied in the seed furrow at planting at 0.6 to 1.6 pound per acre gave control of thrips , cotton aphids, leafminers and spider mites for 6 weeks and cotton fleahoppers for 9 weeks after planting.
Diamond Shamrock PS - 15647 is highly toxic to man and animals
and should be used with adequate precautions.
DuPont - 1410 (methyl N ,N-dimethyl-N ' - [ (methylcarbamoyl) oxy ] -1- thiooxamimidate)
In field tests in 1970, DuPont-1410 applied in-furrow at planting in a 10 percent granular formulation at 0.5 to 1.0 pound per acre showed promise against thrips, cotton aphids, and spider mites. In 1971, it showed promise in a spray against the cotton fleahopper at 0.1 pound per acre.
The toxicity of this compound is not fully known but extreme caution should be observed in its use.
DuPont - 1642 (methyl N- (carbamoyloxy) thioacetimidate)
In field tests in 1967 and 1968, this material in a spray showed promise against the boll weevil and bollworm at 1 to 2 pounds per acre.
In 1970, it showed promise against bollworms and the cotton leaf perforator at 1 pound per acre.
The toxicity of this compound is not fully known, but extreme caution should be observed in its use.
DuPont - 1764 (methyl N- [ (methylcarbamoyl) oxy ] -1-thiooxamimidate)
In 1971, this compound in a wettable powder spray showed promise against the cotton leaf perforator at 1.0 to 1.5 pounds per acre.
The toxicity of this compound is not fully known but extreme caution should be observed in its use.
Geigy GS-19851 (Acarol) (isopropyl 4 ,4 ' -dibromobenzilate)
In 1969 and 1970, this material in a spray showed promise against the twospotted, carmine, Pacific, and strawberry spider mites at 0.5 to 1.0 pound per acre.
Ordinary precautions are recommended in its use.
Geigy GS-24163 (Acaralate, Chloropropylate) (isopropyl 4 ,4 ' -dichloro= benzilate)
I
In field tests in 1966 and 1968, this material in a spray at 1 to 1.5 pounds per acre showed promise against the twospotted spider mite.
In 1969 and 1970, it showed promise against the carmine and strawberry spider mites at 1.0 pound per acre.
Ordinary precautions are recommended in its use.
Formetanate hydrochloride (Carzol) (m- [ [ (dime thylamino) methylene] amino] phenyl methylcarbamate monohydrochloride
In field tests in 1967 and 1968, this material showed promise against spider mites at 1.0 pound per acre. In 1969 this material showed promise against spider mites at 0.5 to 2.0 pound per acre. In 1970 it showed promise in a spray against lygus bugs at 0.5 to 1.0 pound and against the carmine, two spotted and pacific spider mites at 1.0 pound per acre. In 1972 it showed promise against lygus bugs at 0.25 to 0.75 pound per acre.
Formetanate hydrochloride is highly toxic to man and animals and
should be used with adequate precautions.
Hoechst HOE 2960 ((),()-diethyl-0-(l phenyl-lH-1 , 2 , 4-triazol-3-yl) phosphorothioate
In field tests in 1971, this compound in a spray showed promise against the bollworm and spider mites at 1.0 pound per acre. In 1972 it showed promise against the cotton leafperforator and the pink bollworm at 1.0 pound and against the bollworm at 1.0 to 1.5 pound per acre.
The toxicity of this compound is not fully known but extreme caution should be observed in its use.
Leptophos (Velsicol VCS-506) (0-(4-bromo-2 , 5-dichlorophenyl) C)-methyl phenylphosphonothioate
In small plot field tests in 1967 and 1968 this material in a spray showed promise against the boll weevil and the bollworm at 1.0 to 2.0 pounds per acre. In field tests in 1969, this material in a spray showed promise against the beet armyworm at 1.5 pounds, against the boll weevil at 0.5 to 1.5 pounds, against the bollworm and cabbage looper at 1.5 pounds, and against the cotton aphid and thrips at 0.25 pound per acre. In 1970 it showed promise against the boll weevil and bollworm at 1 to 1.5 pounds, against the cotton fleahopper and lygus bugs at 0.5 pound and against thrips at 0.25 pound per acre. In 1971, it showed promise against the bollworm and cabbage looper at 1 to 1.5 pounds per acre, against lygus bugs at 1.0 pound and against the cotton fleahopper at 0.5 pound per acre. In 1972, it showed promise against the bollworm at 1.0 to 1.5 pounds per acre.
The toxicity of this compound is not fully known but extreme caution should be observed in its use.
43
Mexacarbate (Zectran) 4-(dimethylamino)-3,5-xylyl methyl carbamate
In field tests in 1961 and 1962 this material in a spray showed promise against the boll weevil, bollworm and cabbage looper at 1.0 to 1.5 pounds and against the cotton leafperforator, saltmarsh caterpillar and stink bugs at 0.75 to 1.0 pound per acre. In 1963 it showed promise against the bollworm at 1.5 pounds per acre. In 1972 it showed promise against the bollworm at 1.5 pounds and against lygus bugs at 1.0 pound per acre.
The toxicity of this compound is not fully known but extreme
caution should be observed in its use.
Monsanto 856 (N-ethyl 1- a, a, a, a’ , a1 , a1 -hexaf luoro-3 ,5-xylidino methylene)
In 1971, this compound in a spray showed promise against the bollworm and cotton leafperforator at 1 to 1.5 pounds per acre.
The toxicity of this compound is not fully known but extreme caution should be observed in its use.
Nuclear polyhedrosis viruses
One of these viruses in a suspension showed promise against the bollworm and tobacco budworm at 100 mature diseased larval equivalents (6 X lOH polyhedra) per acre. Another virus showed promise against the cabbage looper at about 15 diseased larval equivalents (IX 10H polyhedra) per acre. In 1964, the viruses continued to show promise for control of the bollworm and tobacco budworm at 100 to 1,000 diseased larvae per acre. In 1965, the virus continued to show promise against the bollworm and tobacco budworm at 100 to 500 diseased larvae per acre.
In 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, and 1970 results against the bollworm and tobacco budworm ranged from poor to good. In 1971 and 1972 control was not as good as that obtained with the standard insecticide. Control of the bollworm and tobacco budworm with the virus has been erratic.
Reasons for its erratic performance have not been determined.
These viruses occur in nature and available data indicate little or no hazard associated with the use of these pathogens. Ordinary precautions are recommended in connection with their use.
Uniroyal D014( 0miteX2- (p- ter t-butylphenoxy) cyclohexyl 2-propynyl sulfite)
In field tests in 1966, this material in a spray at 0.5 pound per acre showed promise against spider mites. In 1970 and 1972 it showed promise against the twospotted. Pacific, and strawberry spider mites at 0.5 pound per acre.
Ordinary precautions are recommended for its use.
44
INSECTICIDES AND MITICIDES SHOWING PROMISE IN CAGE, LABORATORY TESTS,
OR BOTH
Organochlorine compounds
Formothion Niagara 24110
Niagara 26021 Penick SBP-1390
Organophosphorus
compounds _ Others
Formothion (Sandoz S-6900) (0,0-dimethyl phosphorodithioate S^ester with N-formyl-2-mercapto-N-methylacetamide)
In 1971, this compound in a spray showed promise against the boll weevil at 0.5 to 1.0 pound per acre.
The toxicity of this compound is not fully known but extreme caution should be observed in its use.
Niagara 24110 (Roussel-Uclaf RU-11 ,679X5-benzyl-3-furyl)methyl trans- (+)- 3- (cyclopentylidenemethyl)-2 , 2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate)
In 1971, this compound in a spray showed promise against the bollworm and tobacco budworm at 0.5 pound per acre.
Ordinary precautions are recommended in its use.
Niagara 26021 (Roussel-Uclaf RU-12063) (5-benzyl -3-furyl)me thy 1 cis- (+)- 2 ,2-dimethyl- 3- (2-methylpropenyl)cyclopropanecarboxylate)
In 1971, this compound in a spray showed promise against the bollworm and tobacco budworm at 0.5 pound per acre.
Ordinary precautions are recommended for its use.
Penick SBP-1390 (Niagara 18739) (5-benzyl- 3-fury l^methyl trans-(+)-2, 2-dimethyl-3- (2-methylpropenyl)cyclopropanecarboxylate)
In 1971, this compound in a spray showed promise against the bollworm and tobacco budworm at 0.5 pound per acre.
Ordinary precautions are recommended in its use.
45
COTTON INSECTS AND SPIDER MITES AND THEIR CONTROL
The insects and spider mites injurious to cotton and the recommended chemicals and procedures for their control are discussed in this section. Dosage ranges for insecticides recommended in one or more States for the control of cotton pests are shown in table 1 that follows, pp 48 . In local areas certain insects have become resistant to one or more of the insecticides recommended for general use. (See Resistance to Insecticides, pages 25 to 28 for details.)
Beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua (Hbn.)
The following insecticides will control the beet armyworm in some areas at the indicated dosages of technical material.
Sprays or dusts : Pounds per acre
methyl parathion . 1.0 - 1.5
monocrotophos . 0.4 - 0.6
trichlorfon . 1.0 - 2.0
parathion + methyl parathion . 0.4 + 0.8
toxaphene + trichlorfon . 2.0 + 1.0
Chevron Ortho 9006 (Monitor) . 0.5 - 1.0
methomyl (Lannate) . 0.3 - 0.5
The beet armyworm is primarily a pest of seedling cotton, but it may also attack older plants. Squares and blooms may be destroyed, and feeding on the bracts may cause small bolls to shed.
Although beet armyworm has been a pest in the West and Southwest for many years, it was reported from Louisiana and Mississippi in 1962. Injurious infestations occurred in some localities in Alabama and Georgia in 1963, and in Alabama, Arkansas, and Mississippi in 1969.
Boll Weevil, Anthonomus grandis Boheman
The boll weevil occurs in the cotton-producing area encompassing the eastern two thirds of Texas and Oklahoma and eastward to the Atlantic Ocean. Since 1960, it has extended its range to west Texas and poses a threat to cotton in New Mexico. A boll weevil found attacking cotton in northwestern Mexico and Arizona poses a threat to
46
cd d,
•H
o C •H U Du
<u 42 ■u
o
4- 1
Cd
u
d.
CO
C o
*H CO rH
I
<D^
5- 4 r-T| O
I
e
iH 6 u cd 5^ O Ph cd £
co
B
O
3
4->
a
cj
o
C o
4-1 <4-4 4-1 Cd O CD CJ rH
|
5-1 |
o |
||||||
|
a |
• |
||||||
|
_cd |
1 I |
CN 1 1 1 1 1 |
i i i i i |
i | |
III |
| |
|
|
• |
1 1 1 1 |
1 1 1 1 1 O 1 1 1 1 |
I l l I 1 i i i i i |
1 1 i i |
1 1 1 1 1 1 |
1 1 |
m |
|
rO |
• |
1 |
• |
||||
|
H |
rH |
CM |
tH |
||||
|
in |
00 |
m |
|||||
|
0) |
m |
m |
CM |
CO |
CM |
||
|
5-1 |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
||
|
a crt |
o i |
CNJ | |
rH |
o 1 |
o |
||
|
l m |
m i i i i |
i i I I m |
m i |
1 CM | |
1 |
i |
|
|
• |
1 CM |
CN 1 1 1 1 |
1 1 1 1 CM |
CM | |
1 rH | |
1 CO |
i |
|
rO |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
1 |
|
|
HI |
o |
rH |
o |
o |
O |
CM |
U
O
4-1
cd
C 5-i
o o
4-1 14-1 <4-1 4-> Cd J-l
o a) cd
U H ft
0)
Csl
I I I m i
I i
I i l I I I I l l l
i m I I <m |
I I I I I I
l i I co m I •
<M O
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
00
I I I I I I I I
I I I I
m
I I I l
till
lilt
I I l I i l
I I I l
I I I i
m
o
i
m m
n* cm i
o o
I
|
• |
CD |
CO |
• |
m |
00 |
in |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
■u |
CO |
5-1 |
m |
o |
• |
m |
o |
o |
• |
CO |
m |
• |
CO |
|||||||||||||||||
|
CO |
4-> |
(2 |
CJ |
• |
• |
o |
• |
i — 1 |
• |
1 |
o |
• |
• |
o |
• |
|||||||||||||||
|
D |
CJ |
O |
no |
cd |
o |
iH |
1 |
o |
»H |
1 |
rH |
m |
i |
o |
rH |
1 |
o |
|||||||||||||
|
no |
<D |
4-J |
•H |
i |
in |
1 |
1 |
CM |
i |
1 |
1 |
1 |
00 |
1 |
I |
CM |
m |
i |
1 |
i |
CM |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
||||
|
CO |
4-1 |
42 |
• |
CO |
CM |
1 |
m |
iH |
rH |
m |
1 |
1 |
CO |
1 |
CO |
i — i |
CM |
i |
t — 1 |
m |
t — 1 |
1 |
1 |
m |
1 |
1 |
rH |
|||
|
cd |
a |
O |
d. |
42 |
‘ • |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
|||||||||||
|
H |
•H |
CJ |
cd |
HI |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
O |
o |
o |
|||||||||||
|
M •H |
e |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
o |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
i — 1 |
4-> |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
cd |
4-1 |
CD |
o |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
•H |
O |
CD |
U |
• |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
5-i |
a |
00 |
H |
a |
iH |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
<d |
cd |
CD |
cd |
i |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
4J |
<4-4 |
42 |
0- |
" — |
1 |
i |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
l |
O |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
o |
i |
vo |
1 |
i |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
||
|
cd |
O |
42 |
o |
• |
1 |
i |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
i |
• |
t |
1 |
1 |
1 |
• |
i |
• |
1 |
i |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
||
|
Cd |
O |
42 |
rH |
rH |
o |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
rH |
CJ |
I — 1 |
HI |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
rH |
O |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
cd |
u |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
a |
4-4 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
•H |
(2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
e |
O |
o |
m |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
a |
a |
CM |
m |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
a |
a |
a |
<D |
• |
• |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
<u |
CD |
C |
cd 6 |
H |
vO |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
4-> |
42 |
O |
42 u |
cj |
• |
• |
• |
• |
1 |
i |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
4-1 |
5 |
o o |
cd |
m |
O |
CM |
iH |
CM |
m |
m |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
<4-1 |
rH |
4-1 £ |
■ — - |
1 |
l |
• |
1 |
1 |
1 |
i |
i |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
I |
1 |
1 |
i |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
CM |
CM |
1 |
||||
|
O |
u |
t— 1 |
no |
• |
1 |
i |
CM |
1 |
1 |
1 |
i |
i |
CO |
1 |
O |
1 |
O |
i |
vO |
o |
I |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
tH |
i — i |
1 |
||
|
o |
o |
42 |
1 |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
CO CD 00 |
<+4 |
pq |
O 42 |
H |
r— 1 |
o |
rH |
rH |
o |
rH |
O |
o |
||||||||||||||||||
|
no |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
cd |
CD |
m |
o |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CO |
CO |
<D |
o |
• |
m |
• |
o |
o |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
o |
2 |
H |
• |
o |
• |
rH |
• |
• |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
no |
rH |
a |
rH |
i |
CM |
i |
H |
rH |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CO |
•H |
cd |
i |
in |
1 |
m |
1 |
i |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
no |
CD |
rH |
> |
lO |
CM |
O |
1 |
1 |
1 |
i |
i |
m |
1 |
m |
CM |
CM |
m |
vO |
in |
I |
1 |
CO |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|||
|
0) |
no |
i — 1 |
CD |
• |
• |
• |
• |
1 |
1 |
1 |
i |
i |
• |
1 |
• |
1 |
• |
• |
• |
• |
i |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
||
|
n3 |
•H |
o |
CD |
42 |
O |
o |
rH |
/•“s |
o |
o |
r— 1 |
o_ |
o |
o |
o |
CM |
||||||||||||||
|
C |
a |
pq |
S |
HI |
g |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
<1) |
•H |
<N| |
•H |
m |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
g |
4-1 |
$2 |
d |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
§ |
CJ |
✓-nCO |
(2 |
no |
o |
o |
!— 1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
o |
(D |
Hi |
O |
•H |
•H |
•H |
tn |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
a |
CO |
, |
•H |
•H |
pq |
42 |
42 |
CO |
42 |
o |
a |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
CD |
G |
g |
42 |
42 |
4-1 |
4-1 |
o |
4-4 |
(2 |
42 |
u |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
PS |
*H |
CD |
$ |
4-J |
4-1 |
co<r 1 |
cd |
•H |
42 |
CD |
O |
e |
4-1 |
O |
||||||||||||||||
|
l |
no |
H |
aj |
o |
o |
(2 |
CO |
H |
H |
Du /~s |
' — s |
no |
o |
5-1 |
14-1 |
CD |
||||||||||||||
|
l |
•H |
'>_✓ |
6 |
G |
42 |
o |
cd |
cd |
H |
O |
a |
G\ |
•H |
CD |
<4-1 |
O |
CD |
4-1 |
||||||||||||
|
• |
a |
42 |
CO |
rH |
(D |
Du 4-> |
<4-1 |
O |
a, |
4-1 |
•H |
ovo a |
(2 |
5-1 |
a |
rH |
cd |
|||||||||||||
|
H |
•H |
H |
o |
>■> 42 |
(2 |
O |
o |
rH |
•H |
H |
O |
U |
•H |
CD |
o |
(2 |
•H |
o |
||||||||||||
|
+J |
cd |
42 |
>-( |
a |
O |
4-1 |
<4-1 |
2> |
$2 |
C2 |
-G |
tH |
H |
no |
42 |
4J |
42 |
42 |
rH |
O |
vO |
no |
a |
42 |
||||||
|
CD |
CJ |
a |
D- |
cd |
o |
4-1 |
O |
rH |
CO |
•H |
o |
4-1 |
.-CJ |
CJ |
o |
4-> |
cd |
Du |
Du 42 |
5-i |
O |
5-i |
o |
4-1 |
||||||
|
rH |
CD |
•H |
<2 |
42 |
42 |
CD |
U |
2> |
o |
M |
•H |
cd |
42 |
4-1 |
o |
N |
cd |
H |
CO |
cd |
o |
> |
o |
O |
42 |
<D |
||||
|
rO |
CO |
no |
•H |
H |
u |
0 |
CJ |
CO |
no |
no |
42 |
2 |
tH |
4-1 |
(D |
(2 |
<J |
H |
O |
O |
X |
•H |
(D |
Os |
t — 1 |
4-1 |
0 |
|||
|
cd |
(2 |
i— l |
N |
cd |
cd |
CD |
•H |
•H |
c |
(2 |
4-1 |
P-4 |
cd |
<0 |
S |
O |
cd |
42 |
42 |
O |
U |
42 |
42 |
CD |
*H |
|||||
|
H |
H |
cd |
cd |
CJ |
o |
no |
no |
no |
CD |
CD |
CD |
w |
0 |
s * |
e |
Du |
Du |
Du 4-1 |
4-1 |
O |
CJ |
0 |
no |
47
CO
<0
©
X
O
•H
X
3
3
co
3
•H
3
P
X
3
£
X
3
P
3
r ■*
3
c
4-1
to
3
3
p
to
3
O
•r*(
cn
r— 1
3
E
01
3
O
co
3
X1
3 /'■'s
3 J-1 •H 3 O
X 3 3 X
3 CO CD 4-1 4-1 3
3 0) E co 3
i— I X 3 ,
o c X O 3 3 -3 4J
O O 0) 3
x
4-1 4-1 O O
co o
3 3 tO 4-1
3 3 CO O O 3 X
3
X © 3 4-1
X
3 3 3 O E 4-i
O X O 3 3 CO Pi 3 I
3
X
©
3
H
©
© co
|
3 |
CM |
O |
to |
40 |
CM |
CM |
to |
3 |
CO |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
• |
• |
CM |
CM |
P- |
• |
• |
• |
40 |
• |
to |
X |
3 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
CO |
3 |
• |
o |
rH |
• |
• |
• |
© |
© |
rH |
• |
o |
• |
D5 |
• |
3 |
|||||||||||||||
|
p |
3 |
o |
1 |
i |
o |
© |
X |
O |
1 |
1 |
i |
1 — 1 |
1 |
X |
o |
» |
o |
X |
33 |
3 |
|||||||||||
|
X |
1 |
03 |
to |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
CM |
PJ |
40 |
1 |
to |
1 |
x |
© |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|||||||||||||
|
3 |
• |
X |
© |
X |
X |
X |
40 |
X |
X |
X |
PJ |
LO |
CM |
LO |
X |
© |
3 |
||||||||||||||
|
X |
rj |
, |
• |
• |
! |
• |
• |
• |
1 |
• |
• |
• |
• |
1 |
t |
• |
• |
• |
1 |
o |
• |
*3 |
O |
3 |
|||||||
|
H |
HX |
o |
O |
o |
1 |
o |
o |
o |
1 |
o |
© |
o |
© |
1 |
1 |
o |
o |
o |
1 |
X |
• |
p |
3 |
P |
E |
X |
|||||
|
p |
3 |
O |
o |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
»* |
© |
CO |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
r* |
M |
3 |
© |
• |
X |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
c: |
to |
X |
3 |
E |
PJ |
© |
3 |
£ |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
• |
o |
© |
X |
3 |
• |
X |
Vo |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
O |
CM |
• |
• |
3 |
o |
O |
O |
c |
X |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
1 |
X |
X |
LO |
O |
to |
•5* |
1 |
X |
© |
3 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
?- |
CO |
X |
1 |
I |
• |
to |
gr. |
© |
3 |
►> ** |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
•H |
c: |
• |
CM |
© |
LO |
40 |
rH |
X |
3 |
E |
© |
© |
3 |
© |
|||||||||||||||||
|
X |
3 |
1 |
1 |
• |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
• |
1 |
• |
1 |
1 |
1 |
• |
1 |
1 |
1 |
i |
3 |
E |
3 |
X |
PI |
X |
3 |
|||||
|
co |
X |
X |
1 |
! |
rH |
1 |
1 |
J |
i |
X |
1 |
© |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
rH |
3 |
3 |
• |
. |
3 |
3 |
||||||
|
C |
3 |
o |
© |
cr © |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
X |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
C |
3 |
X |
X |
3 |
3 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
£ |
X |
CO |
U |
P |
3 |
3 |
© |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
’co |
X |
3 |
X |
X |
3 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
X |
3 |
m |
© |
3 |
X |
X |
3 |
3 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
p |
O |
• |
3 |
3 |
X |
3 |
O |
3 |
3 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
E |
3 |
3 |
rH |
> |
3 |
3 |
X |
3 |
P |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
4-1 |
3 |
t |
G |
3 |
*> — - |
3 |
X |
© |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
r — ! |
3 |
• |
O |
o |
o |
,D |
O |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
3 |
X |
1 |
f |
• |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
• |
f |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
. • |
3 |
J *\ |
X |
X |
O |
3 |
© |
|||||
|
CO |
CJ |
X |
! |
1 |
CM |
rH |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
rH |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
rH |
CM |
1 — l |
3 |
o |
3 |
3 |
|||||
|
3 |
P- |
3 |
E |
X |
3 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
t~> |
CO |
CO |
O |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
E |
3 |
o |
• |
X |
p |
X |
P |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
3 |
O |
CO |
o |
r* |
P |
3 |
3 |
X |
to |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
O |
3 |
• |
• |
• |
’co |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
© |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
►> |
3 |
X |
PI |
X |
3 |
X |
© |
3 |
• |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
X |
1 |
1 |
1 |
X |
3 |
X |
3 |
X |
rH |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
£ |
X |
. |
LO |
o |
© |
o |
X |
3 |
(X |
3 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
X |
o |
X |
1 |
• |
• |
i |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
t |
1 |
• |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
! |
3 |
3 |
3 |
o |
33 |
CO |
o |
||||
|
p |
x |
X |
1 |
o |
PI |
i |
l |
1 |
[ _ |
1 |
1 |
i |
1 |
o |
1 |
I |
1 |
1 |
J |
1 |
© |
£ |
3 |
3 |
o |
X |
|||||
|
3 |
O |
X |
3 |
© |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
X |
X |
TD |
X |
© |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
l£! |
CO |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
33 |
pj |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
X |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
X |
3 |
• |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CO |
X |
CO |
© |
3 |
o |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
t-0 |
3 |
3 |
© |
*3 |
3 |
3. |
© |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
X |
3 |
X |
40 |
in |
© |
o |
X |
X |
3 |
H |
3 |
X |
X |
|||||||||||||||||
|
X |
E |
3 |
o |
CM |
o |
• |
o |
• |
• |
o |
o |
• |
3 |
P |
3 |
3 |
|||||||||||||||
|
O |
• |
• |
• |
• |
o |
• |
o |
rH |
• |
• |
rH |
to X |
•H |
X |
3 |
3 |
|||||||||||||||
|
CO |
3 |
3 |
X |
o |
CM |
o |
1 |
rH |
i |
i |
rH |
«sf |
1 |
3 |
X |
3 |
o |
O |
o |
X |
|||||||||||
|
3 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
to |
t |
to |
LO |
i |
1 |
L~> |
•H |
X |
> |
X |
X |
3 |
|||||||||||||
|
to |
X |
• |
X |
X |
P- |
X |
CM |
p- |
PJ |
PJ |
to |
lO |
© |
OJ |
►> |
• r> |
3 |
X |
© |
3 |
|||||||||||
|
K ?o |
3 |
X |
• |
• |
• |
i |
• |
• |
1 |
1 |
• |
• |
1 |
• |
1 |
• |
1 |
• |
• |
• |
o |
© |
& |
£ |
o |
X |
E |
||||
|
X |
O |
© |
o |
© |
o |
j |
o |
o |
1 |
1 |
© |
e |
1 |
o |
1 |
© |
1 |
o |
1 — 1 |
o |
X |
© |
o |
o |
o |
X |
X |
||||
|
X |
X |
X |
3 |
3 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
o |
• |
X |
1 |
3 |
H |
3 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
X |
P |
3 |
3 |
O |
3 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
X |
X |
X |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
to |
LO |
3 |
es |
X |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CO |
3 |
• |
• |
© |
p |
3 |
• n |
X |
X |
X- ■ |
© |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
1 |
3 |
3 |
© |
o |
• |
X |
3 |
o\ |
3 |
3 |
X |
3 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
CO |
3 |
3 |
! |
1 |
PI |
X |
© |
Si |
3 |
3 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
CO |
p |
3 |
40 |
to |
1 |
3 |
X |
n3 |
E |
P-4 |
CO |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
p |
CM |
CM |
CM |
CM |
LO |
O |
3 |
• |
3 |
X |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
o |
X |
1 |
I |
1 |
« |
1 |
t |
J |
1 |
1 |
• |
1 |
1 |
• |
1 |
1 |
1 |
• |
! |
X |
3 |
p |
X |
3 |
X |
|||||
|
O |
r-« |
X |
j |
1 |
X |
1 |
f |
i |
i |
1 |
tH |
© |
1 |
1 |
© |
1 |
1 |
1 |
rH |
1 |
© |
• |
X |
3 |
o |
• |
|||||
|
3 |
to |
3. |
3 |
to |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
CO |
3 |
3 |
P |
• |
X |
CO |
3 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
T3 |
3 |
P |
X |
3 |
to |
3 |
X |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
to |
LO |
X |
X |
3 |
X |
X |
33 |
to |
X |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
E |
3 |
• |
• |
o |
a |
X |
O |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
3 |
3 |
P4 |
o |
• |
•3 |
& |
3 |
© |
> |
3 |
3 |
3 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
O |
3 |
1 |
1 |
© |
X |
*3 |
3 |
X |
X |
co |
O |
X |
||||||||||||||||||
|
X |
& |
to |
LO |
1 |
O |
3 |
3 |
P |
X |
© |
P |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
X |
• |
CM |
CM |
CM |
to |
3 |
© |
•H |
3 |
a |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
3 |
X |
1 |
1 |
• |
i |
! |
i |
1 |
1 |
J |
• |
1 |
I |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
• |
1 |
3 |
£ |
X |
E |
3 |
• |
3 |
X |
|||
|
O |
© |
1 |
1 |
X |
i |
1 |
i |
1 |
1 |
rH |
o |
I |
1 |
1 |
! |
1 |
1 |
rH |
1 |
3 |
» rv |
3 |
P |
to |
3 |
3 |
|||||
|
X |
vO |
- p |
3 |
cn |
3 |
© |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
© |
X |
O |
3 |
X |
to |
X |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
"3 |
© |
3 |
X |
3 |
X |
• |
X |
3 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
3 |
• |
3 |
© |
3 |
© |
© |
3 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
*3 |
p |
• |
E |
X |
#N |
3 |
3 |
E |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
D. |
3 |
40 |
to |
to |
© |
3 |
P |
X |
3 |
3 |
X |
3 |
X |
X |
|||||||||||||||||
|
P |
3 |
o |
CM |
40 |
O |
• |
• |
© |
o |
• |
3 |
r\ |
3 |
* — 1 |
3 |
p |
CO |
3 |
3 |
||||||||||||
|
3 |
O |
3 |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
o |
© |
• |
• |
X |
E |
E |
r* |
3 |
3 |
3 |
© |
3 |
||||||||||
|
O |
X |
3 |
X |
o |
rH |
o |
o |
X |
1 |
1 |
X |
1 |
E |
3 |
3 |
3 |
E |
3 |
X |
X |
X |
3 |
|||||||||
|
X |
3 |
1 |
1 |
i |
1 |
I |
i |
LO |
40 |
1 |
i |
40 |
O |
O |
3 |
X |
3 |
o |
X |
||||||||||||
|
4-1 |
a) |
• |
X |
X |
X |
X |
CM |
CM |
40 |
o |
CM |
o |
X |
33 |
3 |
CO |
|||||||||||||||
|
0 |
X |
X |
• |
• |
• |
i |
• |
• |
1 |
1 |
• |
• |
1 |
1 |
1 |
• |
1 |
• |
• |
• |
3 |
g, |
X |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
X |
3 |
3 |
|
|
o |
X |
X |
o |
o |
o |
i |
o |
o |
1 |
1 |
o |
o |
1 |
1 |
1 |
© |
1 |
© |
rH |
o |
3 |
P |
3 |
X |
3 |
P X |
X— 1 |
X |
X |
||
|
U |
3 |
3 |
3 |
to |
3 |
3 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
3 |
© |
3 |
X |
3 |
3 |
X |
u |
3 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
O |
3 |
>s 3) |
3 |
3 |
X |
3 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
o |
3 |
X |
■3 |
3 |
© |
3 |
3 |
5 |
© |
3 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
X |
X |
O |
r J |
3 |
3 |
to |
X |
3 |
to © |
£ |
to |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
to |
X |
X |
3 |
o |
3 |
to |
9i |
O |
3 |
•rH |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
X |
Mf |
X |
rj |
O |
3 |
X |
« |
3 |
E |
P |
3 |
5 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
3 |
X |
3 |
3 |
X |
X |
o |
3 |
X |
X |
O |
CO |
o |
© |
o |
|||||||||||||||||
|
X |
P'1 3 |
O |
p |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
X |
p |
X |
O |
3 |
3 |
3 |
o |
CM |
3 |
3 |
t3 |
3 |
|||||||||||
|
X |
a |
X |
3 |
X |
o |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
o |
fj |
© X |
3 |
X |
s |
• • |
X |
3 |
© |
• |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|||||||
|
o |
X |
3 |
X |
3 |
p |
X |
3 |
X |
X |
o |
P H |
X |
o |
E |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
Q* rH |
3 |
© |
3 |
3 |
||||||
|
X |
3 |
O |
h |
O |
o |
3 |
O |
o |
X |
X |
o |
X |
3 |
3 |
3 |
o |
O |
3 |
X |
X |
3 |
1 |
X |
3 |
X |
||||||
|
X |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
X |
X |
X |
3 |
r J |
X |
rH |
3 |
£ |
X |
X |
£ |
X |
X |
to |
X |
1 |
X |
© |
1 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
||||
|
3 |
3 |
p |
3 |
X |
o |
X |
X |
X |
3 |
X |
►> |
to |
3 |
X |
X |
3 |
p |
P X |
3 |
3 |
.3 |
3 |
N |
• |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|||
|
3 |
X |
3 |
X |
N |
3 |
X |
Si |
3 |
O |
3 |
X |
X |
O |
3 |
3 |
3 |
CO |
3 |
a |
X |
P |
3 |
X |
< |
© |
X |
P © |
X |
|||
|
CO |
33 |
X |
3 |
3 |
3 |
w |
E |
3 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
3 |
i — ! |
3 |
O |
o |
X |
X |
||||||||||||
|
r-* |
N |
3 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
O |
3 |
3 |
X |
X |
o |
3 |
||||||||||||||
|
X |
3 |
3 |
3 |
X |
X |
X |
33 |
3 |
E |
E |
*rX f —* |
E |
3 |
P |
p |
P |
X |
X |
x| |
pj|©| |
© | vO | |
t>0
X
3
3
CO
to
3
X
4-1
3
3
X
p
W)
X
3
3
3
X
B
3 3
a
3 3 4-1 X 4-4 3 3 3 « CO
o
to o
3
x co
4-1 3
3 X 3 X X Js
a, c_)
M
48
the cotton production in New Mexico and California. It was found in California for the. first time in 1965. Control programs initiated eight years ago in western Texas are being continued to prevent further spread.
The effectiveness of insecticides approved for boll weevil control will vary not only in different localities but also with the season.
The choice of insecticides will be determined by their effectiveness in the particular area where the. insect is to be controlled. Dosages
of technical material that have controlled the boll weevil in mid-season and late-season in one or more areas are as follows (dosages lower than these are used for early-season control in some areas).
Sprays or dusts:
Pounds per acre
azinphosmethyl (Cuthion) 1/ . 0 .25-0 . 5
carbary 1 (Sevin) . 1.0--2.5
endrin . 0.5
EFN .
mala t hi on JL/ .
methyl parathion. . .
Me thy 1 T r i thi on 2 / .
monocrotophos (Azodrin) .
toxaphenc .
parathion .
EPN + methyl parathion .
toxaphene + methyl parathion mala thi on + methyl parathion
0.5
1-2
0.25-1.0
0.5
0. 6-1.0 2-3
C. 5-1.0
0.5-0.75 + 0.5-0.75 1-4 + C. 25-1.0 1.0 + 1.0
If Azinphosmethyl and malathion may be applied ultra low volume as technical material at 0.125-0.25 pound and 0.5 to 1.2 pounds per acre, respectively.
Research indicates that higher dosages of Methyl Trithion those registered arc required in some areas.
than
Aldicarb is effective against overwintered boll weevils when used as in-furrow granule application at planting at 0.6 to 1.0 pound per acre.
49
Wien these insecticides are used for boll weevil control, other insect problems have to be considered. Infestations of the cotton aphid, the bollworm, spider mites, and the tobacco budworm may develop when some of these insecticides are used alone.
Spider mites may build up rapidly after the use of toxaphene or with carbaryl. Careful checks should be made at 5- to 7-day intervals. If these pests are found to be increasing, control measures should be started at once. (See sections on cotton aphids and spider mites, pages 52 and 53.)
Boll weevil control measures should be taken when definite need is established. Experience indicates that ruidseason and latc-season control programs may require frequent applications. Fields should be inspected at least weekly until the crop is mature. Where early-season control is required, experience indicates that frequent treatments may also be needed during the period of abundance, of overwintered weevils . Insecticide treatments should be based on actual need.
Certain chemical and cultural control procedures may be used during and immediately following cotton harvest to greatly rediice the over¬ wintering boll weevil population. The. boll weevil survives the winter as a diapausiug adult. Most of the adults must feed on fruiting forms for approximately 10 days to 3 weeks to attain diapause. Very few weevils attain diapause when insecticides are anelied for their control before cotton matures. Large numbers of weevils attain diapause soon after the termination of the regular control program and before the food supply is destroyed, either by a killing frost or by chemical and mechanical methods. A proper combination of practices at this time, including appli¬ cations of organophosphorous insecticides, defoliation, and stalk destruction to prevent the development of diapause by the weevils will reduce overwintering populations by approximately 90 percent.
Bollworm, Ileliothis zea (Boddie) and Tobacco Budworm, K. vires cens (F.)
The bollworm and the tobacco budwonn. are the common "bol lworms '' attacking cotton. Several other species of lepidopterous larvae that cause boll injury, discussed elsewhere in this report, are the fall armyworm, pink bollworm, yellows triped armyworm, and western yellow- striped armyworm.
The bollworm occurs throughout the Cotton Belt. The tobacco budworm is a pest of cotton from Texas eastward . Although the bollworm is usually the predominant species, both, are often present in injurious
50
numbers in the same field. The tobacco budworm is considered to be even more difficult to kill than the bollworm. The species cannot be determined in the larval stage until the third instar of development. In some areas of Texas, a high percentage of the population early in the season has been the tobacco budworm. As the season progresses, the population shifts to favor the bollworm, and the former species regains dominance late in the season. In Louisiana, the tobacco budworm is usually more numerous early in the cotton fruiting season than the bollworm.
Effective control .of bollworms depends on the thoroughness and proper timing of insecticide applications. Frequent field inspections to determine the presence of eggs, young larvae, and square damage during the fruiting period are essential. For the most effective control, it is essential that insecticide applications be made when larvae are small .
Dosages of technical material that have controlled "bollworms" in one or more areas are as follows :
Sprays or dusts: Pounds per acre
carbaryl .
carbaryl + methyl parathion. . Chevron Ortho 9006 (Monitor) .
chlordimeform (Galecron) .
DDT .
endosulfan + methyl parathion
endrin .
EPN .
EPN + methyl parathion .
malathion + methyl parathion
me thorny 1 (Lannate) .
methyl parathion.... .
methyl parathion. 4- parathion.
monocrotophos .
parathion . .
toxaphene + methyl parathion.
1.0-2. 5
2-3 + 0.5-0.75 0. 5-1.0 0.125-0.25 1-2
0.75-1.0 + 0.25 - 1.0 0.3-0. 6 1.0
0.5-0.75 + 0.5-0.75 1.0 + 1.0 0.125-0.5 1. 0-2.0 1. 0-2.0 0.6-1 1. 0-2.0
1-3 + 0.75 - 1.5
Cabbage Looper, Trichlplusia ni (Hubner)
The cabbage looper and related species are pests of cotton in many areas. They are difficult to control with insecticides. The following
51
materials applied at 5-day intervals have given control in one or more areas.
Sprays or dusts : Pounds per acre
chlordimeform (Galecron) . 0.125-0.25
endosulfan . 1.0
methyl parathion . 1.0
monocrotophos (Azodrin) . 0. 6-1.0
methomyl (Lannate) . 0.25-0.5
The cabbage looper is frequently controlled by virus and fungus disease organisms. When diseased loopers are commonly found, chemical control may be delayed or omitted.
Cotton Aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover
Heavy infestations of the cotton aphid may occur on cotton after the use of certain insecticides and on seedling cotton and sometimes on older cotton where no insecticides have been applied.
Aphid buildup in the boll weevil areas usually can be prevented by any of the following treatments:
1. Endrin at 0.2 to 0.5 pound per acre in every application in a dust or spray.
2. Methyl parathion at 0.25 to 0.5 pound, Methyl Trithion at 0.3 to 0.5 pound, or malathion at 1 to 2 pounds per acre in a dust or spray in every application.
3. Carbary 1 (Sevin) at 1 to 2 pounds per acre in every application in a dust or spray.
When aphid infestations are heavy and rapid kill is needed, any one of the following treatments is usually effective at the dosages of technical material shown as follows :
Sprays or dusts : Pounds per acre
azinphosmethyl . 0.25
Carbophenothion(Trithion) . 0.25-1.0
ethion . 0.25-1.0
malathion . 0. 3-1.0
methyl parathion . 0.125-0.5
Methyl Trithion . 0. 2-0.5
Chevron Ortho 9006 (Monitor) . 0.5
parathion (ethyl) . 0.1-0.38
phosphamidon . 0.12-0.5
dimethoate . 0.1-0. 3
Spray only :
demeton . 0.12-0.38
dicrotophos (Bidrin) . 0.1-0. 5
The following materials are effective when used as seed treatments or as in furrow granule applications at planting, at the indicated dosages of technical material:
Pounds per acre
aldicarb . 0.3-0. 5
disulfoton (Di-Syston) . 0.5-1
ph orate . 0.5-1. 5
Pounds per hundredweight of cottonseed
0.25-0.5
0.25-1.5
Cotton Fleahopper, Pseudatomoscelis seriatus (Reuter)
The cotton fleahopper frequently attacks cotton in Texas, Oklahoma, and to a lesser extent eastward and westward during the early fruiting period. It can be controlled with the following insecticides at the indicated dosages of technical materials .
Sprays or dusts : Pounds per acre
azinphosmethyl . 0.1-0.25
carbary 1 . 0.5-1. 5
dicrotophos (Bidrin) . 0.1-0. 4
53
Spray or dusts (con) :
Pounds per acre
dimethoate . 0.1-0. 4
malathion . 0. 7-1.0
methyl parathion . 0.25-0.5
parathion . 0.25-0.5
phosphamidon . 0. 5-1.0
toxaphene . . 1. 0-4.0
trichlorfon . 0.25-1.0
carbary 1 + methyl parathion . 0. 5-1.0 + 0.25-0.5
toxaphene + methyl parathion . 0. 5-1.0 + 0.25-0.5
Aldicarb is effective when used as in-furrow granule application at planting at 0.6 - 1 pound per acre.
The black fleahopper complex, Spanagonicus albofasciatus (Reuter) and Rhinacloa forticornis (Reuter) , occurs on cotton in the irrigated West. The former species also occurs in the Mississippi Delta.
More information is needed on both of these species to clarify their roles as economic pests of cotton qnd as predators.
Cotton Leafperf orator , Bucculatrix thurberiella Busck
The cotton leaf perforator is at times a serious defoliator of cotton in certain areas of southern California and Arizona. It is controlled with any of the following insecticides at the indicated dosages of technical material:
Sprays or dusts : Pounds per acre
chlordimef orm (Galecron) . 0.75
methomyl (Lannate) . 0.25-0.5
54
Repeat applications may be necessary. Sprays are more effective than dusts . Avoid use of organophosphorous compounds during early season to protect beneficial insects.
Cotton Leafworm, Alabama argillacea (Hubner)
The following insecticides will control the cotton leafworm at the indicated dosages of technical material :
Sprays or dusts : Pounds per acre
azinphosmethyl . 0.25-0.5
carbaryl . 1.25-2.5
malathion . 0.25-1.25
methyl parathion . 0.25-0.38
parathion (ethyl) . 0.12-0.25
toxaphene . 2-3
toxaphene + methyl parathion . 0.5 + 0.25
Cutworms
Several species of cutworms, including the following, may develop in weeds or crops, especially legumes, and then attack adjacent cotton or cotton planted on land previously in weeds or legumes :
Black cutworm, Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel)
Palesided cutworm, A. malef ida Guenee Variegated cutworm, Peridroma saucia (Hubner)
Granulate cutworm, Feltia subterranea (F.)
Army cutworm, Euxoa auxilliaris (Grote)
Recommended control measures include thorough seedbed preparation, elimination of weed host plants, and the use of insecticides. In western areas, irrigation forces the subterranean forms to the surface, where they may be treated with insecticides or destroyed by natural factors. If the vegetation in an infested area is plowed under 3 to 6 weeks before the cotton crop is seeded, it may not be necessary to use an insecticide.
55
The following insecticides will control one or more species of cutworms at the indicated dosages of technical material:
Sprays of dusts:
Pounds per acre
carbaryl . 1. 0-2.0
toxapnene . 2-4
trichlorfon . . 0. 5-1.0
Poison baits containing toxaphene have been satisfactory.
Baits are frequently more effective than sprays or dusts against some species of cutworms.
Darkling Beetles, Blapstinus spp. and Ulus spp.
Darkling beetles, the adults of false wireworms occasionally affect the stand of young cotton in the western areas. Adults on young plants may be controlled with carbaryl at 1 to 2 pounds, or endrin at 0.3 pound per acre. The larvae may be controlled by slurrying 2 ounces of aldrin or dieldrin, or endrin onto each 100 pounds of planting seed. This may be done when planting seed is being treated with a suitable fungicide.
Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith)
The fall armyworm occasionally occurs in sufficient numbers to damage cotton. The following insecticides will control it at the indicated dosages of technical material:
Sprays or dusts:
Pounds per acre
carbaryl . 1.5-2
methyl parathion . 0.25
trichlorfon . 0.5-1
toxaphene . 2.0-3
56
The results obtained from these materials have varied in different States; therefore, local recommendations should be followed. (Also, see Bollworm, page 50 - 51 .)
Garden Webworm, Loxostege rantalis (Guenee)
The garden webworm may be controlled with the following insecticides at the dosage indicated :
Sprays or dusts: Pounds per acre
carbaryl (Sevin) . 1.25-2.5
malathion . 1-2
methyl parathion . 0.25-0.5
toxaphene . 1. 5-3.0
Grasshoppers
Several species of grasshoppers, including the following, sometimes attack cotton:
American grasshopper, Schistocerca americana (Drury).
, Trimerotropis pallidipennis pallidipennis (Burmeister) Differential grasshopper, Melanoplus dif f erentialis (Thomas)
Lubber grasshopper, Brachystola magna (Girard)
Migratory grasshopper, M. sanguinipes (F.)
Redlegged grasshopper, M. femur rub rum (De Geer)
Twostripped grasshopper, M. bivittatus (Say)
The American grasshopper overwinters as an adult and in the spring deposits eggs in the fields. Other species of grasshoppers overwinter as eggs in untilled soil, fence rows, sod waterways, around stumps, and similar locations. The species overwintering in
57
the egg stage can be best controlled with early treatment of hatching beds before the grasshoppers migrate into the fields. Sprays or dusts have largely replaced poison baits, particularly where grass¬ hoppers must be controlled on lush or dense vegetation.
Dosages of technical material suggested to control grasshoppers on cotton come within the following ranges :
Sprays or dusts :
Pounds per acre
carbaryl (Sevin) . 1-2
malathion . 1-2
methyl parathion . 0 . 25-0 . 5
naled . 0.25-0.5
toxaphene . 1. 5-3.0
The lowest dosages are effective against newly hatched to half- grown grasshoppers. The dosages should be increased as the grass¬ hoppers mature or when the material is applied on partly defoliated plants or on plants unpalatable to the insects.
Lygus Bugs and Other Mirids
Several species of lygus bugs and mirids, including those listed below, often are serious pests of cotton. (See section on cotton fleahopper, pages 53 - 54):
A plant bug, Lygus hesperus Knight Clouded plant bug, Neurocolpus nubilus (Say)
Ragweed plant bug, Chlamydatus associatus (Uhler)
Rapid plant bug, Adelphocoris rapidus (Say)
Superb plant bug, A. superbus (Uhler)
Tarnished plant bug, Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois)
58
The mirids, Creontiades debilis Van Duzee, Reuteros copus ornatus (Reuter) , R. sulphureus (Reuter) , and Paraxentus guttulatus (Uhler) also damage cotton.
The insects cause damage to squares, blooms, and small bolls of cotton and constitute a major problem, particularly in the vicinity of alfalfa fields in the irrigated areas of the West.
The following insecticides will control lygus bugs and other mirids at the indicated dosages of technical material:
Sprays or dusts :
Pounds per acre
azinphosmethyl .
carbaryl .
dicrotophos (Bidrin) .
dimethoate .
malathion .
methyl parathion .
monocrotophos (Azodrin) .
parathion .
phosphamidon .
toxaphene .
trichlorfon . .
carbaryl + methyl parathion. . endosulfan + methyl parathion toxaphene + methyl parathion.
0.1-0.25 0.7-2 0.1-0. 4 0.25-0.5 0. 7-1.0 0.25-0.5 0.25-1.0 0.5
0. 5-1.0 1. 0-4.0 0.25-1.0 2.5+0.75 1.0+0.75
Aldicarb is effective when used as in-furrow granule application at planting at 0.6 to 1 pound per acre.
Pink Bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders)
The pink bollworm occurs on the North American continent in Texas, California, Nevada, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Arkansas, and Louisiana. It occurs in wild cotton in southern Florida. Although it also occurs in most of Mexico, it was found for the first time in 1965 in limited areas of the previously uninfested States of Sonora, and Baja, California. Quarantine regulations, the application of chemical controls, and cultural control requirements have made it possible to prevent economic damage in most years in the infested areas of the United States and to retard or to prevent its spread to new areas.
59
Quarantine requirements. — The area presently under regulation in the United States is shown in the map on page 63. Regulations,
in general , require that all cotton or other designated articles moved from the regulated area be treated to free them of any living pink bollworms before movement to free areas. All cottonseed must be treated before being shipped from an infested area. In addition, as an eradication measure, planting seed moving within a regulated area may be required to be treated in a manner approved by the State and Federal regulatory agencies . Copies of the State and Federal regulations may be obtained from the regulatory agencies of the affected States or from the Plant Protection Program field offices.
Cultural Control. — Approved cultural practices, effective and economical means of controlling the pink bollworm, when properly carried out, greatly reduce the overwintering population. The pink bollworm hibernates in waste cotton left in the field, along roadsides, and at the gin; therefore, destruction of this material aids considerably in the control of this pest. Mandatory cultural control zones are in effect in the United States in the southern, central, and eastern sections of Texas, and in regulated areas of Arkansas, Louisiana, Arizona, California, and parts of New Mexico. Cultural practices used in pink bollworm control are effective in reducing the boll weevil carryover for the next year. Recommended control practices include the following:
1. Shorten the planting period and plant at the optimum time for a given locality. Use seeds of an early-maturing variety, which have been culled, treated with a fungicide, and tested for germination.
2. Leave as thick a stand as has been recommended for the section and type of soil.
3. Produce the cotton crop in the shortest practicable time. Early season control of certain insects has proved advantageous in some States but not in others. Practice early-season control where recommended by controlling the cotton aphid, the boll weevil, the cotton fleahopper, cutworms, thrips , and any other insects that may retard the growth and fruiting of young plants. Protection of early fruit will assure an early harvest.
4. Withhold late irrigation. Use defoliants or desiccants to hasten the opening of the bolls when the crop is mature.
5. Harvest cleanly. In areas where spindle pickers are used, final scrapping with a stripper is desirable. Use a cotton gleaner
if appreciable cotton is left on the ground after harvest.
60
6. Shred and plow under cotton stalks and debris as soon as possible after harvest. Okra stalks and debris should be shredded and plowed under at the same time because this plant is a preferred secondary host.
7. In cold arid areas where winter irrigation is not feasible, leave stalks standing until lowest temperatures have occurred. This is to secure a maximum kill of pink bollworms in the bolls on the stalks. However, if a large amount of crop debris, such as seed cotton or locks, is on the soil surface, a high survival of the pest may result. When this condition exists y the stalks should be shredded and plowed under as early and as deeply as possible.
8. In warmer areas the growing of volunteer and stub cotton should not be permitted.
The flail-type shredder is recommended over the horizontal rotary- type for pink bollworm control. The flail shredder will kill about 85 percent of the pink bollworms left in the field after harvest, compared with 55 percent for the horizontal rotary shredder. The residue should be plowed under as deeply as possible. Pink bollworm winter survival is highest in bolls on the soil surface and is six times as high in bolls buried only 2 inches as compared with bolls buried 6 inches deep. Before fruiting, all sprout and seedling cotton and okra developing after plowing should be destroyed to create a host- free period between crops. In arid areas, if the crop debris is plowed under in the late fall or early winter, the fields should be winter-irrigated to increase pink bollworm mortality.
Control with insecticides. Where infestations are heavy, crop losses from pink bollworm can be reduced by proper use of insecticides. One half to 1 pound of azinphosmethyl, 0.6 to 1 pound of monocrotophos (Azodrin) , or 2.0 to 2.5 pounds of carbary 1 per acre will control the pink bollworm. Monocrotophos (Azodrin) or carbaryl at the above dosages will control the boll weevil and bollworm. The use of certain insecticides for control of other cotton insects exerts a repressive effect on pink bollworm populations.
61
PINK BOLLWORM
I 3
62
AREAS UNDER FEDERAL REGULATION JANUARY 1, 1973
Saltmarsh Caterpillar and Other Arctiids
The saltmarsh caterpillar, Estigmene acrea (Drury), is a late- season pest of cotton principally in western irrigated areas.' It may be controlled with the following insecticides at the indicated dosages of technical material:
Sprays or dusts : Pounds per acre
carbaryl . . 2
diazinon . 1.0
methyl parathion . 1
trichlorfon (Dylox) . 1.0-1. 5
Occasionally the yellow woolybear, Diacrisia virginica (F.) and the hairy larvae of several other tiger moths, Arctiidae, including Callarctia phyllira (Drury) , C . arge (Drury) , and £. oithona Strk. , cause serious damage to cotton. Information is needed on their seasonal host plants, distribution, natural enemies, causes of serious outbreaks in cotton fields, life history, and control. Determinations by specialists should always be obtained.
Seedcorn Maggot, Hylemya platura (Meigen)
The seedcorn maggot may seriously affect the stand of cotton, particularly when planting closely follows the turning under of a green manure crop or other heavy growth. This insect may be controlled with 3.2 ounces of chlordane, 1.6 to 2 ounces of dieldrin, or 2 ounces of aldrin in a wettable powder mixed with a normally used fungicide and applied onto each 100 pounds of planting seed in a slurry. Seed should be treated immediately before planting.
Spider Mites
The following spider mites are known to attack cotton:
Carmine spider mite, Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval)
Desert spider mite, T_. desertorum Banks Fourspotted spider mite, T_. canadensis McGregor
T.. lobosus Boudreaux
Pacific spider mite, T_. pacif icus McGregor
Schoene spider mite, T.. schoenei McGregor
Strawberry spider mite, T.. turkes tani Ugarov and Nikolski
Tumid spider mite, T\ tumidus Banks
Twospotted spider mite, T.. urticae Koch
T. ludeni Zacker
63
The species differ in their effect on the cotton plant and in their reaction to miticides. Accurate identification of the species is essential. The use of organic insecticides for cotton insect control has been a factor in increasing the importance of spider mites as pests of cotton.
Table 2, page 65 lists the species of spider mites and the miticides that have been found to be effective in their control*
For control of some species and suppression of others at least 40 percent sulfur may be incorporated in dusts. Elemental sulfur cannot be incorporated in sprays applied at low gallonage, but other miticides may be substituted. Sulfur dust is most effective when finely ground and when applied at temperatures above 90° F. Thorough coverage is essential.
Some difficulty in spider mite control has been experienced with ultra-low volume applications of recommended miticides probably because of insufficient plant coverage.
64
Table 2. — Species of Mites and Miticides Recommended for Their Control
|
c |
0) |
cm |
CNl |
CM |
CN |
|||||||||||
|
<u |
1 |
1 |
1 |
• |
1 |
• |
1 |
i |
i |
• |
• |
1 I |
i |
i |
||
|
03 |
• |
1 |
1 |
l |
o |
1 |
o |
1 |
1 |
i |
o |
O |
1 1 |
i |
i |
|
|
3 |
X |
|||||||||||||||
|
m3 |
hJ |
00 |
m |
|||||||||||||
|
CO |
CN |
|||||||||||||||
|
a) |
o |
• |
• |
o |
in |
in |
||||||||||
|
03 |
u |
• |
o |
in |
o |
o |
• |
• |
o |
• |
in |
o |
||||
|
CU |
o |
1 — 1 |
1 |
• |
1 |
• |
CN |
o |
• |
o |
• |
• |
||||
|
4-1 |
0) |
rH |
1 |
m |
rH |
in |
rH |
1 |
i |
rH |
i |
rH |
1 — 1 |
|||
|
44 |
i |
m |
CN |
i |
CN |
I |
m |
m |
i |
m |
I |
in |
1 |
|||
|
O |
O |
• |
vO |
CM |
o |
rH |
o |
rH |
m |
CN |
CM |
CN |
CM |
m |
r-'. |
00 |
|
b |
PM |
rP> |
• |
• |
||||||||||||
|
H |
CO |
-J |
O |
o |
T— 1 |
o |
rH |
o |
o |
o |
o |
O |
O |
O 1 |
o |
o |
|
oo |
||||||||||||||||
|
(U |
CO |
m |
||||||||||||||
|
d |
• |
O |
• |
|||||||||||||
|
O |
o |
• |
o |
|||||||||||||
|
03 |
03 |
1 |
rH |
i |
||||||||||||
|
•H |
m |
I |
m |
|||||||||||||
|
£Ej |
• |
m |
CM |
m |
CM |
o |
CM |
CN |
||||||||
|
9 |
1 |
• |
1 |
• |
• |
• |
l |
• |
1 |
• |
• |
i m |
1 |
1 |
||
|
H |
i-J |
1 |
o |
1 |
o |
1 — 1 |
O |
i |
rH |
1 |
O |
O |
1 CM |
1 |
1 |
oo
CO
o
I
m
3m
u
cu
43
S
03
Pi
4-J
CO
<D
0
<U
o
43
o
CO
o
•H
Mm
•H
O
03
Pm
co
3
CO
o
X
o
Hi
44
}M
a)
Q
cu
0
•H
B
3m
03
U
flU
03
•H
O
•H
u
•H
s
|
cu |
O |
00 |
m |
o |
|||||||||
|
• |
CO |
in |
CM |
o |
• |
o |
m |
||||||
|
a |
rH |
• |
• |
• |
• |
CN |
• |
• |
|||||
|
03 |
rH |
i |
o |
rH |
o |
rH |
1 |
rH |
rH |
m |
|||
|
i |
CO |
1 |
i |
1 |
i |
00 |
i |
i |
CO |
||||
|
• |
cO |
CO |
o |
CN |
o |
rH |
m |
CO |
o |
i |
|||
|
43 |
1 |
• |
1 |
• |
m |
||||||||
|
l-J |
O |
o |
1 — 1 |
o |
rH |
o |
o |
o |
1 |
O |
1 |
i — 1 |
CM |
|
oo |
|||||||||||||
|
CO |
|||||||||||||
|
CU |
• |
in |
in |
||||||||||
|
3-i |
o |
CM |
o |
• |
o |
• |
|||||||
|
O |
1 |
• |
• |
o |
• |
o |
|||||||
|
03 |
m |
O |
rH |
i |
rH |
1 |
|||||||
|
CN |
1 |
1 |
m |
i |
in |
||||||||
|
• |
m |
rH |
in |
rH |
m |
CM |
M3 |
CM |
|||||
|
43 |
1 |
• |
1 |
I |
l |
||||||||
|
hJ |
1 |
o |
1 |
o |
rH |
o |
i |
o |
O |
O |
o |
I |
i |
|
oo |
|||||||||||||
|
CU |
m |
CO |
|||||||||||
|
3-i |
• |
• |
o |
CM |
|||||||||
|
U |
o |
o |
• |
• |
|||||||||
|
03 |
l |
1 |
rH |
rH |
|||||||||
|
m |
m |
i |
i |
in |
|||||||||
|
• |
CM |
o |
CM |
c- |
uD |
i-> |
|||||||
|
43 |
1 |
• |
• |
• |
• |
l |
1 |
• |
| |
• |
1 |
i |
l |
|
h-3 |
1 |
o |
rH |
O |
o |
I |
l |
O |
1 |
o |
1 |
i |
l |
|
00 |
|||||||||||||
|
CU |
CO |
||||||||||||
|
Pi |
• |
C3 |
CN |
||||||||||
|
CJ |
o |
• |
• |
||||||||||
|
03 |
1 |
rH |
O |
||||||||||
|
m |
i |
1 |
|||||||||||
|
• |
m |
CM |
m |
CM |
o |
CM |
rH |
||||||
|
43 |
1 |
• |
i |
• |
• |
• |
1 |
• |
1 |
• |
• |
i |
1 |
|
hJ |
1 |
o |
i |
o |
rH |
O |
l |
rH |
1 |
O |
o |
I |
l |
|
m |
|||||||||||||
|
in |
oo |
n- |
|||||||||||
|
CU |
r^. |
CO |
o |
CO |
n |
||||||||
|
3m |
• |
• |
CN |
o |
• |
• |
o |
• |
m |
||||
|
a |
o |
o |
• |
• |
rH |
o |
• |
o |
• |
||||
|
03 |
rH |
I |
1 |
O |
rH |
i |
1 |
rH |
i |
rH |
|||
|
i |
00 |
m |
1 |
i |
00 |
m |
i |
m |
i |
||||
|
• |
M3 |
CO |
CM |
m |
rH |
m |
CO |
CM |
CM |
CM |
m |
|
O |
O |
1 |
o |
rH |
O |
O |
o |
o |
o |
o o |
1 1 |
1 I |
1 1 |
|||||
|
CU |
O |
oo |
in |
o |
o |
|||||||||||||
|
3m |
• |
O |
CO |
m |
CM |
o |
• |
• |
in |
|||||||||
|
CJ |
rH |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
rH |
rH |
• |
|||||||||
|
^0 |
rH |
i in |
rH 1 |
o 1 |
rH 1 |
o 1 |
rH 1 |
i m |
m |
rH 1 |
||||||||
|
• |
CM |
m |
CM |
o |
r— 1 |
m |
CM |
CM |
in |
|||||||||
|
43 |
l |
• |
l |
1 |
| |
1 |
||||||||||||
|
hJ |
o |
O |
o |
o |
rH |
o |
o |
o |
l |
o |
1 o |
1 |
1 |
1 |
||||
|
/^N |
||||||||||||||||||
|
0 |
<u |
rH |
||||||||||||||||
|
o |
■u |
m |
||||||||||||||||
|
•H |
0 |
CO |
43 |
£s |
o /~N |
|||||||||||||
|
43 |
rH |
CN| |
o |
44 |
H |
o <u |
||||||||||||
|
4-1 |
•rH |
CO |
0 |
43 |
<U |
o |
C |
CO X) |
||||||||||
|
O |
N |
O |
PI |
O |
CU |
0 |
' - X |
MM |
o |
rH *H |
||||||||
|
rH | |
a |
P3 |
43 |
0 |
O |
•rH |
O |
•H |
0^, |
<U |
3m |
1 CJ |
||||||
|
43 |
CU |
<U |
CU |
•H |
44 |
43 |
44 |
3m |
O CO |
B |
CJ |
CO 0 |
||||||
|
3m |
43 |
43 |
0 |
rH |
O |
3m |
O |
44 |
o |
X) |
•H <U |
•H |
CU |
O >M |
||||
|
0 |
CU |
O |
o |
o |
44 |
XJ |
4M |
pi |
rH |
0 |
34 |
o |
43 44 |
Sm |
X) |
rH |
cu |
|
|
a |
o |
Pi |
4J |
4M |
O |
•H |
rH |
o |
tn |
3m |
a |
N |
44 Cd |
3 |
Pi |
0 |
Pn 3 |
|
|
•H |
43 |
O |
<U |
o |
Jm |
P3 |
P |
•H |
43 |
cd |
o |
<3 |
cd 3m |
MM |
O |
o |
t> 0 CO |
|
|
XJ |
U |
rH |
B |
CJ |
O |
CO |
43 |
44 |
CU |
a |
3m O |
rH |
rH |
•H n-m |
||||
|
rH |
03 |
43 |
CU |
•H |
•H |
•H |
44 |
CU |
o |
cd 43 |
3 |
43 |
0 |
|||||
|
0 |
CJ |
O |
T3 |
T3 |
Xl |
XJ |
<U |
B |
B |
CU CU |
CO |
CJ |
O |
iH| CN |cO |
65
In-furrow granule treatment at planting.
In-furrow granule treatment at planting or 0.5 pound per hundredweight of planting seed. In-furrow granule treatment at planting or 0.25 to 1.5 pound per hundredweight of planting seed.
Stink Bugs
The following stink bugs are soraetiip.es serious pests of cotton: Brown stink bug, Euschis tus servus (Say)
(also, the ones pot stink bug, variolarius (Polisat de Beauvois) Conchuela, Cnlorochroa ligata (Say)
Dusky stink bug, Eh. tristi graus (Say) , and conspersus (Toiler) Green stink bug, Acros temura hilare (Say)
Redshouldered plant bug, Thy ant a oust at or (P.)
(also, rJk_ rugulosa (Say), Tk_ pallidovirens spinosa (Ruckers)
Say stink bug, Chlorochroa sayi Stal Southern green stink bug, Nezara viridula (L.)
Western brown stink bug, Euschis tus irapictiventris Stal
The importance of these pests and the soecies involved vary from year to year and from area to area. The damage is confined principally to the bolls and results in reduced' yields and lower quality of both lint and seed.
The following insecticides applied at the indicated dosages of technical material have given control of one or more species of stink bugs :
Sprays and dusts;
Poun ds per acre
carbaryl . . . . 1.25-2.5
endosulfan . 1.0
methyl parathion . 0 . 5-1 . 0
parathion . 0 .5-1.0
trichlorfon . 1-1.5
66
Thrips
Thrips often injure cotton seedlings, especially in areas where vegetables, legumes, and small grains are grown extensively. The following species have been reported as causing this injury:
Flower thrips, Frankliniella tritici (Fitch)
(also _F. exigua Hood, _F. occidentalis (Pergande) , and _F. gossypiana Hood)
Onion thrips , Thrips tabaci Lindeman Sericothrips variabilis (Beach)
Tobacco thrips, JF. fusca (Hinds)
In some areas cotton plants usually recover from thrips injury to seedlings; therefore, control is not recommended unless the stand is threatened. In other areas damage by thrips is more severe and control measures are generally recommended. Injury from thrips alone, or the combined injury of thrips and disease, may reduce or even destroy stands of young plants. A heavy infestation may retard plant growth and delay fruiting and crop maturity. Although thrips are predominantly pests of seedlings, damaging infestations sometimes occur on older cotton in certain areas.
The following insecticides at the indicated dosages of technical material are recommended, when the situation warrants their use.
Sprays or dusts :
Pounds per acre
azinphosmethyl . 0.08-0.25
carbaryl . 0.35-1.0
dicrotophos (Bidrin) . 0.1-0.25
dimethoate . 0.1-0. 2
malathion . 0 . 3-0 . 7
Thrips (con.)
Sprays or dusts :
Pounds per acre
methyl parathion . 0.12-0.5
Methyl Trithion . 0.12-0.25
phosphamidon . 0.25-0.5
toxaphene . 0.5-1. 5
EPN + methyl parathion . 0.25 + 0.25
toxaphene + methyl parathion . 0. 5-1.0 + 0.25-0.5
The following materials are effective when used as seed
|
ipplications |
at planting at |
|
material : |
|
|
Pound |
Pounds per |
|
per |
hundredweight |
|
acre |
of seed |
|
0.3-0. 5 |
|
|
0.5-1 |
0.25-0.5 |
|
0.5-1. 5 |
0.25-1.5 |
|
;) |
0.25-1.25 |
The bean thrips, Caliothrips fasciatus (Pergande) , is an occasional midseason to late-season pest of cotton in parts of California. Toxaphene at 2 to 3 pounds per acre gives satisfactory control when applied in either a spray or dust.
Caliothrips phaseoli (Hood) damaged cotton near Bard , Imperial County, Calif., in 1962.
Scirtothrips sp. causes severe crinkling of top leaves of cotton in localized areas of Arizona, Mississippi, and Texas.
Kurtoma thrips morrilli Moulton was described in 1927 from specimens taken on cotton at Gila Bend, Ariz. It was collected
68
from cotton at Seeley, Calif., on May 2, 1930, at Laveen, Ariz'. , on July 23, 1943, and was reported as causing severe injury to cotton at Gila Bend, in July 1957.
Frankliniella occiden talis and Pk_ gossypiana do not occur on cotton in the Eastern United States. In the West, F. tritici is of little importance on cotton and Ik_ fusca does not occur.
White fringed Beetles, Graphognathus spp .
White fringed beetles are pests of cotton and many other farm crops in limited areas of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Infestations in recent years have been discovered in Maryland, Virginia, and Texas.
The larvae feed on the roots of young plants. These insects can be controlled effectively with insecticides.
The following insecticides, when applied at the given dosages, are effective against whitef ringed beetle larvae. Broadcast the insecticide, when preparing the soil for planting, and immediately work into the upper 3 inches or apply it alone or mixed with fertilizer in the row at time of planting. The insecticide may be used in a spray, dust, or granules.
Broadcast In drill row
Lb. per acre Lb. per acre
chlordane 5 1 to 2
Broadcast applications of chlordane remain effective for 3 years.
Drill row applications are effective for 1 year.
When applied to the foliage as recommended for the control of cotton insects, toxaphene or chlordane will reduce adult populations* however, the principal benefit is the reduction of subsequent larval populations .
Wi reworms
Several species of wireworrns are associated with cotton. Damage is caused by the sand wireworrns, Foris tonotus uhlerii Horn, in South Carolina, and Louisiana, and by the Pacific Coast wirewom, Limoni us can us LeConte in California. Adults of the tobacco wi reworm (or spotted- click beetle), Conodcrus vesper tinus C77. ) , are frequently found on the
69
cotton plant, and the larvae may cause damage to cotton. Wireworms, together with false wireworms and the seedcorn maggot, sometimes prevent the establishment of a stand. To control these insects, treat the seed with 2 ounces of aldrin, or dieldrin, plus a normally used fungicide per 100 pounds in a slurry.
Approved crop-rotation practices, increased soil fertility, and added humus help to reduce damage to cotton by the sand wireworm.
Yellowstr iped armyworm, Spodoptera ornithogalli (Guenee) and Western Yellowstr iped Armyworm, S^. praef ica Grote
These insects sometimes cause considerable damage to cotton.
The yellow-striped armyworm is difficult to kill with insecticides.
However, trichlorfon at 1.5 to 2.0 pounds and methyl parathion at 1 to 1.5 pounds per acre give good control of large and small larvae.
The western yellowstriped armyworm, which attacks cotton in California, is controlled with trichlorfon (Dylox) at 0.75 to 1.5 pounds and toxaphene at 2-3 pounds per acre. Migrations from surrounding crops may be stopped with barriers of 5 percent trichlorfon (Dylox) , or 5 percent carbaryl (Sevin) at 2 pounds per 100 linear feet.
MISCELLANEOUS INSECTS
The brown cotton leafworm, Acontia dacia Druce , was collected from three counties in Texas in 1953. Since then, damaging infestations have occurred in some years over wide areas of Texas and in Louisiana. Recoveries have been reported from Arkansas.
This pest may be controlled with azinphosmethyl (Guthion) at 0.25 pound, malathion at 0.25 pound, and parathion (ethyl) at 0.125 pound per acre.
Several Anomis leaf worms are known to occur in the cotton¬ growing regions of Africa; Asia; North, Central, and South America; and the East and West Indies. Three species — A, erosa Hubner , A. f lava f imbriago (Stephens) and A. texana Riley — occasionally damage cotton in the United States. They are often mistaken for the cotton leafworm and are sometimes . found on the same plants with it. Although specific control data are lacking, the insecticides recommended for control of the cotton leafworm might also be effective against Anomis leafworms .
70
Root aphids known to attack cotton are the corn root aphid,
Anuraphis maidiracidis (Forbes) , Smynthurodes betae (Westwood) , and Rhopalosiphum ruf iabdominalis (Sasaki). So far as is known, injury before 1956 was confined to the eastern seaboard. S_. betae destroyed spots of cotton up to 1 1/2 acres in fields in Pemiscot County, Mo., in 1956. 1C. phaseoli is now considered a synonym of
S^. betae. In 1961, root aphids caused some damage to cotton in the northeastern counties of North Carolina and Arkansas. Several species of ants are known to be associated with root aphids, the principal one being the cornfield ant, Lasius alienus (Foerster) .
Chemical control of root aphids has been directed at this ant.
Some of the new materials are known to be effective as soil insecticides. It is suggested that they be tested against root aphids attacking cotton. Root aphids injure cotton chiefly in the seedling stage. Since cotton in this stage shows injury without any evidence of insects being present, the underground parts should be examined carefully. Ant mounds at the base of these plants indicate the presence of root aphids.
The cowpea aphid. Aphis craccivora Koch, the green peach aphid,
Myzus persicae (Sulzer) , and the potato aphid, Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) are common on seedling cotton. Cotton is not believed to be a true host of these species. In 1963, A. craccivora caused severe and permanent stunting of cotton plants in San Joaquin Valley, Calif.
The garden springtail, Bourletiella hortensis (Fitch) has caused injury to cotton locally in Hertford County, N.C. Another springtail, Entomobrya unostrigata Stach, has occasionally damaged seedling cotton over a wide area of the southern high plains of Texas and New Mexico.
The whitelined sphinx, Hyles lineata (F. ), occasionally occurs in large numbers in uncultivated areas and migrates to cotton. It may be controlled on cotton with dusts or sprays of toxaphene at 2 to 3 pounds per acre. Migrations may be stopped with barrier strips of 20 percent toxaphene or physical barriers.
The cowpea curculio, Chalcodermus aeneus Boheman, sometimes causes damage to seedling cotton.
A curculionid, Compsus auricephalus (Say), damaged young cotton plants and foliage in Grady County, Okla. , in 1961. It also appeared in large numbers in cotton fields in Pope County, Ark. In 1963, heavy populations caused considerable foliage damage to young plants in localized areas of Grimes, Robertson, and Brazos Counties in Texas and in Obion and Lake Counties in Tennessee. A curculionid, Conotrachelus erinaceus (LeConte) caused damage to stems of seedling cotton in isolated instances in Marion County, Ala. in 1962. A curculionid, Brachyrhinus cribricollis (Gyllenhal) caused spotted heavy damage to cotyledons of seedling cotton in New Mexico in 1967 and 1972.
71
The cotton stainer, Dysdercus suturellus (Herrich-Schaf f er ) , is found within the United . States in Florida only. However, probably owing to mistaken identity, the literature also records it from Alabama,
Georgia, and South Carolina. No work on control has been formally reported in recent years, but observations indicate that dusts containing 10 percent toxaphene will control insects of this genus .
Several leafhoppers of the genus Empoasca are often abundant on cotton in many sections of the Cotton Belt. Serious injury has been reported only in California, however, and this was caused by two species, Eh solana DeLong (southern garden leafhopper) and Eh fabae (Harris) (potato Teafhopper) . These species are known to be phloem feeders on some crops and cause damage typical of this type of feeding on cotton. Sprays of trichlorfon (Dylox) at 1 pound, malathion at 1 pound, parathion (ethyl) at 0.5 pound, or demeton at 0.25 pound per acre have given satisfactory control.
Striped blister beetles. Epicauta vittata (F.) sometimes cause severe foliage damage in small localized areas” Damage usually results when weeds, which are preferred host plants, are cleaned out of cotton.
Total loss of foliage may result in small areas before the insects move out of the field. Spot treatment with the organochlorines is usually effective for control of outbreaks.
Field crickets, Gryllus spp., occasionally feed on cotton bolls and seedling plants in the Imperial Valley of California and in Arizona. During periods of drought late in the season, they may feed on the seed of open bolls, especially in the Delta sections of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. This feeding is usually done at night as the crickets hide during the day in deep cracks in the soil. Crickets may be controlled with 5 percent carbaryl or trichlorfon bait at 20 to 30 pounds per acre.
Serpentine leafminers, Liriomyza spp., and L. pictella (Thomson) in California, have been present in large numbers in some areas during the last few years. Drought conditions favor infestations of these pests. Heavy infestations may result in considerable leaf shed. Infestations are brought under control by rain or irrigations. Field tests at Waco, Texas showed that the best reductions were obtained with parathion (ethyl) at 0.25 pound per acre. Seed treatment of phorate at 0.25 to 0.5 pound, and disulfoton (Di-Syston) at 1 pound per acre, and in-furrow granular treatments of phorate at 0.5 to 1 pound and disulfoton (Di-Syston) at 1 pound per acre are also effective 4 to 6 weeks after planting.
72
The corn silk beetle, Calomicrus brunneus (Crotch), has been reported as a pest of cotton in localized areas in South Carolina,
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, but little is known about it.
Damage to cotton by periodical cicadas. Magic icada spp. in the United States
was first reported in 1905. Damage is caused by the deposition of eggs in the stems of young plants, branches of older plants, and occasionally in leaf petioles. The parts of the plant above the oviposition puncture usually dies. Growth below the puncture results in low bushy plants. Severe local damage to cotton by Diceroprocta vitripennis (Say) occurred in the river bottoms of nine counties in Arkansas in 1937. A cicada, undetermined species, caused light damage to cotton in some areas in Maricopa County, Ariz., in 1961.
Leaf beetles of the genus Colaspis are widespread and often found on cotton, frequently on the foliage, or near the base of squares and bolls where they usually feed on the bracts surrounding them.
The harlequin bug, Murgantia histrionica (Hahn), heavily infested a few cotton fields in Graham County, Ariz., in August 1959. Feeding was similar to that of other stink bugs. No immature stages were noted.
The barberpole caterpillar. Mimoschinia rufofascialis (Stephens), a pyraustid larva, is reported occasionally attacking cotton bolls in Imperial and San Joaquin Valleys of California. It also has been reported from Arizona, Oklahoma, and Texas.
False chinch bugs — Bugs of the genus Nysius , N. ericae (Schilling) , _N. calif ornicus Stal, and N_. raphanus Howard, commonly called false chinch bugs, frequently migrate to cotton from adjacent weed hosts. Stands of seedling cotton may be destroyed by adults and nymphs.
Methyl para^thion and parathion are effective at 0.4 and 0.6 pound per acre. Dicrotophos (Bidrin) or phosphamidon at 0.5 pound per acre will also control N. raphanus .
Snowy tree crickets, Oecanthus spp., infestations caused alarm to some southwestern Oklahoma cotton growers in mid- July 1958. Approximately 3 percent lodging occurred in the Blair area. Thera is evidence that this group of insects may be predaceous on aphids.
73
The European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis (Hubner) , was first reported on cotton in the United States during 1955. The first report came from Franklin County, Tenn., where a few plants near the edge of a field were severely damaged. This was on July 3 in a 3-acre field adjacent to one that was in corn the previous year. The cotton was only 8 to 10 inches high, and the larvae had entered the stems 2 to 6 inches from the ground and burrowed up through their centers. In August light infestations were reported in cotton in Dunklin, New tladrid, Pemiscot, Butler, Stoddard, and Mississippi Counties in Missouri, and in Madison County, Tenn. The borers were found boring into the upper third of the stems, and second- and third-instar larvae were attacking small bolls. These records were of special interest because the European corn borer is apparently spreading in the Cotton Belt. No reports of this insect on cotton were received during 1956-1957. In 1958, it was found boring in cotton stalks in Autauga and Madison Counties, Ala., and in Washington County, Miss., in late July. In 1959, as many as 10 percent of the plants were infested in a 10-acre field of cotton in Etowah County, Ala. The field was planted to corn in 1958. It was, also, found in Madison Parish, La., in 1959. Damage was confined to the terminal 6 to 8 inches of the plant. Other infestations were noted in cotton fields in Autauga County, Ala. In 1961, larvae were found in cotton in Hardeman, Lincoln, and Fayette Counties in southern Tennessee. In 1966 larvae were found in cotton in Florence, S. C.
In other parts of the world, particularly in Russia, Turkestan, and Hungary, it has been reported as a serious pest of cotton. One reference states "In Turkestan it is principally cotton which is attacked by the larvae and in which they bore long tunnels in the upper part of the stems." Entomologists and other interested persons throughout the Cotton Belt should be on the alert to detect its presence on cotton and whenever possible, record the type and degree of injury, seasonal and geographical distribution, and control measures that might be of value.
The Fuller rose weevil, Pantomorus cervinus (Boheman) , occasionally is a pest of cotton. It is a leaf feeder and usually attacks cotton in the early season causing ragging of the leaves and partial defoliation. It overwinters as an adult in about the same habitat as the boll weevil. Examinations of surface woods trash for hibernating boll weevils often reveal specimen of the fuller rose beetle. It has been reported from cotton in Georgia more frequently than from any other area.
74
The stalk borer, Papaipema nebris (Guened) is widely distributed east of the Rocky Mountains. It attacks many kinds of plants, including cotton, and is so destructive that one borer in a field may attract attention. The borers are most likely to be noted near the edges of cotton fields. Light marginal injury occurred in scattered fields in Missouri during June 1957. It was also reported as causing some injury to cotton in Mississippi and Tennessee in 1956. In 1961 it caused some damage along the edges of many cotton fields in western and southern counties in Tennessee. It is sometimes mistaken for the European corn borer. Clean cultivation and keeping down weed growth help to hold them in check. The use of stalk shredders early in the fall should reduce their numbers.
A white grub, Phyllophaga ephilida (Say), was reported to have destroyed 5 acres of cotton in Union County, N. C., during 1956.
As many as 20 larvae per square foot were found. P. zavalana Reinhard is also reported to be a pest of cotton in the Matamoras area of Mexico, where the adults feed on foliage, particularly in the seedling stage. It is known to occur in Zavala and Dimmit Counties of Texas.
I?. cribrosa (LeConte) sometimes known as the "4 o’clock bug" in west Texas, has also been feeding on young cotton in that area. Moderate damage was caused to young cotton plants in the Arkansas Delta area in 1962 by larvae of I?. implicita (Horn) .
The cotton stem moth, Platyedra subcinerea (Haworth), a close relative of the pink bollworm, was first discovered in the United States in 1951, when larvae were found feeding in hollyhock seed in Mineola, Long Island, N. Y. It is recorded as a pest of cotton in Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Transcaucasia, Turkestan, and the U.S.S.R. , and as feeding on hollyhock and other malvaceous plants in England, France, and central and southern Europe. Collections made in 1953 extended its known distribution in this country to a large part of Long Island and limited areas in Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Extensive scouting during 1954 disclosed that it had reached 11 counties in four States as follows: Hartford and New Haven, Conn.;
Essex and Plymouth, Mass.; Monmouth, Ocean, and Union, N. J.;
Westchester and all counties of Long Island (Nassau, Queens, and Suffolk), N.Y. There has been no reported spread since 1954, until 1965 when it was reported from Rockingham county, N. H.
Although this species has not been found in the Cotton Belt in the United States it is desirable to keep on the lookout for it on cotton, hollyhock, and other malvaceous plants. In 1956 it was collected from a natural infestation on cotton growing on the laboratory grounds at Farmingdale, N. Y.
75
A giant appletree borer, Pr ionus sp. , caused isolated root damage to cotton in one county in Arkansas in 1962.
Larvae of the roughskinned cutworm, Proxenus mindara , Barnes and McDunnough , cut bolls from lodged plants by feeding at the boll base in a cotton field at Shafter, Calif, in 1964.
Several of the leaf rollers, Tortricidae, occasionally damage cotton. Platynota stultana (Williamson) and _P. rostrana (Wilkerson) are the species most commonly recorded, but P. flavedana (Clemens) ,
_P. idaeusalis (Wilkerson)_and Sparganothis nigrocervina (Williamson) have also been reported. These species are widely distributed and have many host plants. P. stultana has at times been a serious pest of cotton in the Imperial Valley of California and part of Arizona and New Mexico. Trichlorfon (Dylox) at 1 pound or carbaryl (Sevin) at 2 pounds per acre have given satisfactory control of the species that occur on cotton in California.
Heavy feeding on cotton by the Japanese beetle, Popillia japonica Newman was reported in Sampson County, N. C., in 1961.
Adults of the Japanese beetle caused 30 to 35-percent defoliation of cotton plants in fields in the more heavily infested areas in North Carolina in 1970.
Adults of a buprestid beetle, Psiloptera drummondi Lap., occasionally cause damage to cotton. The damage consists of partly girdled terminals that break over and die.
The pink scavenger caterpillar, Sathrobrota rileyi (Walsingham) . is one of several insects that resemble the pink bollworm and is sometimes mistaken for it by laymen. The larva is primarily a scavenger in cotton bolls and corn husks that have been injured by other causes.
The cotton square borer, Strymon melinus (Hubner) , occurs throughout the Cotton Belt, but rarely causes economic damage.
The injury it causes to squares is often attributed to the bollworm.
Flea beetles — the palestriped flea beetle”, Systena blanda~ Melscheimer, the elongated flea beetle, j^. elongata (F.) and JS. frontalis (F.), sometimes cause serious damage to seedling cotton in some areas. They can be controlled with endrin at 0.1 pound, and toxaphene at 2 to 3 pounds per acre. The sweetpotato flea beetle, Chaetocnema confinis Crotch, was found injuring seedling cotton in the Piedmont section of South Carolina in May 1954. The striped flea beetle, Phyllotreta striolata (Fabricius) caused
76
damage to cotton in Alabama in 1959. Other species of flea beetles have been reported from cotton, but records regarding the injury they cause are lacking. When flea beetle injury to cotton is observed, specimens should be submitted to specialists for identification, with a statement regarding the damage they cause, the locality, and the date of collection.
Whiteflies, the bandedwing whitefly, Trialeurodes abutilonea (Haldeman) the greenhouse whitefly, T_. vaporariorum (Westwood), and the sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) are usually kept in check by parasites and diseases, but occasionally may be serious pests late in the season. Bemisia tabaci is reported to be a vector of the leaf crumple virus of cotton. Whiteflies caused a sooty mold and partial defoliation of cotton in northwest Louisiana in 1964 to 1968. The bandedwing whitefly may be controlled with monocrotophos in a spray at 0.25 to 1.0 pound per acre.
The greenhouse leaf tier, Udea rubigalis (Guenee) , also known as the celery leaftier, has occasionally been abundant on cotton^ in the San Joaquin Valley. Despite the heavy populations, damage was generally slight and restricted to foliage on the lower third of the plants in lush stands. In the few places where it was necessary to control this pest, endrin at 0.4 pound per acre in a dust or spray was effective. This pest caused considerable damage in three fields near Yuma, Ariz., in 1964.
The false celery leaftier, Udea profundalis (Packard) caused considerable defoliation of cotton in some fields in Tulare, Kings, and Fresno Counties, Calif, in 1962. Control was difficult because of the insect's feeding habits on the lower part of plants within a web. Carbaryl (Sevin) at 2 pounds or trichlorfon at 1.0 pound per acre were effective against this pest.
Damage to cotton stalks by termites, undetermined species, was reported in western Tennessee in 1961, and in previous years in Texas. Termites, Reticulitermes sp. (family Rhino termitidae) , partly destroyed a stand of cotton in Little River County, Ark., in 1961.
INSECTS IN OR AMONG COTTONSEED IN STORAGE
Insect infestations in cottonseed during storage can be miminized if proper precautions are followed. Cottonseed, or seed cotton, should be stored only in a bin or room thoroughly cleaned of all old cotton¬ seed, grain, hay, or other similar products in which insects that attack stored products are likely to develop. Among the insects that cause
77
damage to stored cottonseed or to cottonseed meal are the cigarette beetle, Lasioderma serricorne (F.), the Mediterranean flour moth,
Anagasta kuehniella (Zeller), the almond moth, Cadra cautella (Walker) and the Indian-meal moth, Plodia interpunctella (Hubner). Other insects commonly found in cottonseed are the flat grain beetle, Crypto- lestes pusillus (Schonherr), the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst), and the sawtoothed grain beetle, Oryzaephilus surinamensis (L.) Malathion is registered as a seed treatment for cottonseed. Seed so treated should not be used for food or feed. There is no Food and Drug tolerance established for use of malathion on stored cottonseed.
The pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) may be found in stored cottonseed but such infestations would be present in the seed before they are stored.
INSECT IDENTIFICATION
Prompt and accurate identification of insects and mites is a necessary service to research and to the control of cotton insects. Applied entomologists owe much to taxonomists for services, often rendered on a volunteer basis.
Approved common names are convenient and useful. Local or non¬ standard common names create confusion. Entomologists are urged to submit common names to the ESA Committee on Common Names of Insects for consideration, where such are needed.
Research in taxonomy has been productive of new developments.
Major changes have been made in classification of spider mites attacking cotton. Several species of thrips and plant bugs have recently been added to the list of cotton pests. The Mel anon lus mexicanus group of grasshoppers has been completely revised. Heliothis virescens has been accurately defined. Several scientific names have been changed.
COTTON-INSECT SURVEYS
The importance of surveys to an over-all cotton insect control program has been clearly demonstrated. Surveys conducted on a coopera¬ tive basis by State and Federal agencies in most of the major cotton¬ growing States have developed into a broad, up-to-date advisory service for the guidance of county agents, ginners, farmers, and other leaders of agriculture who are interested in the distribution and severity of cotton insect pests, as well as industry that serves the farmers by supplying insecticides. As a result of this survey work, farmers are forewarned of the insect situation, insecticide
78
applications are better timed, and losses are materially reduced below what they would be without the information thus gained. The surveys also help to direct insecticides to areas where supplies are critically needed.
It is recommended that cotton-insect surveys be continued on a permanent basis, that they be expanded to include all cotton-producing States, and that the survey methods be standardized.
It is further recommended that the greatest possible use be made of fall, winter, and early-spring surveys as an index to the potential infestation of next season's crop.
Each year more people are being employed by business firms, farm operators, and others to determine cotton-insect populations. State and Federal entomologists should assist in locating and training personnel that have at least some basic knowledge of entomology.
Whenever possible, voluntary cooperators should be enlisted and trained to make field observations and records and to submit reports during the active season.
Surveys to detect major insect pests in areas where they have not previously been reported may provide information that can be used in restricting their spread or in planning effective control programs.
The survey methods may include (1) visual inspection, (2) use of traps containing aromatic lures, (3) use of light traps, (4) use of mechanical devices such as gin-trash machines, (5) examination of glass windows installed in lint cleaners used in ginning, and (6) portable vacuum insect population sampling devices. The methods of making uniform survey for several of the important insects are described below.
Light traps have provided valuable survey information for the following cotton insects: Beet armyworms, bollworms, brown cotton leaf worm, cabbage looper, cotton leafworms , cutworms, fall armyworm, garden webworm, pink bollworm, saltmarsh caterpillar, whitelined sphinx, yellowstriped armyworm, and yellow woollybear.
Boll Weevil
Surveys to determine winter survival of the boll weevil are made in a number of States. Counts are made in the fall soon after the weevils have entered hibernation and again in the spring before they
79
emerge from winter quarters. A standard sample is 2 squares yards of surface woods trash taken from the edge of a field where cotton was grown the previous season. Three samples are taken from each of 30 locations in an area, usually consisting of three or four counties.
In the main boll weevil area, counts are made on seedling cotton to determine the number of weevils entering cotton fields from hiberna¬ tion quarters. The number per acre is figured by examining the plants on 50 feet of row in each of five representative locations in the field and multiplying the total by 50. Additional counts are desirable in large fields.
Square examinations are made weekly after the plants are squaring freely or have produced as many as three squares per plant. While walking diagonally across the field you pick 100 squares , one-third grown or larger; take an equal number from the top, middle, and lower branches.
Do not pick squares from the ground or flared or dried up squares that are hanging on the plant. The number of squares found to be punctured is the percentage of infestation. To obtain a total of 100 to 500 squares, an alternate method is to inspect about 25 squares in each of several locations distributed over the field. The number of squares inspected depends upon the size of the field and the surrounding environment.
The percentage of infestation is determined by counting the punctured squares. In both methods all squares that have egg or feeding punctures should be counted as punctured squares .
The point sample method developed by Arkansas entomologists consists of the following procedures: Select a representative area in a field and mark a starting point on a row. Examine the first 50 green squares that are 1/4 inch or larger in diameter for boll weevil punctures. Count those that are punctured and step off the feet or row required for the 50 squares. Four such counts, a total of 200 squares, are adequate for uniform fields up to 40 acres in size. Fields that are larger or that are not uniform should be considered as separate fields with four counts made in each. The percentage of punctured squares, number of squares per acre, and number of punctured squares per acre can be determined from the point sample information.
A conversion table for usual row widths in an area with various number of row feet, 1 to 250, required for a 200 squares count is pre¬ pared for ease in determining the number of squares and punctured squares per acre. Example: If 10 feet of a 40-inch row are required for 200 squares, there are 261,000 squares per acre. If 50 percent of the squares are punctured, there are 130,500 punctured squares per acre.
80
Bollworms
Examinations for bollworm eggs and larvae should be started as soon as the cotton begins to square and repeated every 5 days, if possible, until the crop has matured. In some areas it may be necessary to make examinations for bollworm damage before cotton begins to square.
While walking diagonally across the field, you examine the top 3 or 4 inches of the main stem terminals, including the small squares, of 100 plants. Whole-plant examinations should be made to insure detection of activity not evident from terminal counts. Eggs of cutworms, cabbage looper, and other lepidopterous species are sometimes mistaken for those of the bollworm.
The point sample method developed by Arkansas entomologists consists of the following procedures: Select a representative area in a field and mark a starting point on a row. Examine the first 50 squares for bollworm damage. Count those that are damaged and step off the feet of row required for the 50 squares. Four such counts, a total of 200 squares, are adequate for uniform fields up to 40 acres in size.
Fields that are larger or that are not uniform should be considered as separate fields with four counts made in each. The percentage of punctured squares, number of squares per acre, and number of damaged squares can be determined from the point sample information.
A conversion table for usual row widths in an area with various numbers of row feet, 1 to 250, required for a 200 square count is prepared for ease in determining the number of squares and damaged squares per acre. Example: If 20 feet of a 40-inch row are required for 200 squares, there are 131,000 squares per acre. If 10 percent of the squares are damaged, there are 13,100 damaged squares per acre.
Cotton Aphid
To determine early-season aphid infestation, you walk diagonally across the field, observe many plants, and record the degree of infesta¬ tion as follows :
None - if none is observed.
Light - if aphids are found on an occasional plant.
Medium - if aphids are present on numerous plants and some
of the leaves curl along the edges.
Heavy - if aphids are numerous on most of the plants and
the leaves show considerable crinkling and curling.
81
To determine infestations on fruiting cotton you begin at the margin of the field and, while walking diagonally across it, examine 100 leaves successively from near the bottom, the middle, and the top of the plants. Record the degree of infestation, as follows, according to the average number of aphids estimated per leaf.
None - 0
Light - 1 to 10
Medium - 11 to 25
Heavy - 26 or more
Cotton Fleahopper
Weekly inspections should begin as soon as the cotton is old enough to produce squares. In some areas inspections should be continued until the crop is set. While walking diagonally across the field, you examine 3 or 4 inches at the top of the main-stem terminals of 100 cotton plants — counting both adults and nymphs.
Cotton Leafworm
The following levels of leafworm infestation, on the basis of ragging and the number of larvae per plant, are suggested for determining damage :
None - if none is observed.
Light - if 1 or only a few larvae are observed.
Medium - if 2 to 3 leaves are partly destroyed by
ragging with 2 to 5 larvae per plant.
Heavy - if ragging of leaves is extensive with 6 or
more larvae per plant, or if defoliation is complete.
Lygus Bugs and Other Mirids
Inspections should be made at 5- to 7- day intervals beginning at square set and continuing until early September. Infestations should be determined by making a 50- to 100-sweep count at each of four or more locations. Sweeping is accomplished by passing a 15-inch net through the tops of the plants in one row, the lower edge of the net slightly preceding the upper edge. Contents of the net should be examined carefully to avoid overlooking very small nymphs. The plant terminal inspection as described for the cotton fleahopper may also be used.
During hot summer weather, sweepings should not be made between 11:30 a.m. and 3 p.m. , since lygus bugs are prone to move into plant cover to avoid heat.
82
Pink Bollworm
Counts to determine the degree of infestation in individual fields may be made early in the season by inspecting blooms and -later by inspecting bolls. Bloom inspections for comparing yearly early-season populations, or for determining when early insecticide applications are needed, should be made so as to obtain an estimate of the number of larvae per acre .
Bloom inspection : Five days after the first bloom appears, but not later than 15 days, check for number of larvae per acre as follows:
Step off 300 feet of row (100 steps) and count the rosetted blooms at five representative locations in the field (1500 feet). Add the number of rosetted blooms from these five locations and multiply by 10 to obtain the number of larvae per acre.
Boll inspection: Check for the percentage of bolls infested as follows : Walk diagonally across the field and collect at random 100 firm bolls. Crack the bolls or cut each section of carpel (hull) lengthwise so that the locks can be removed, and examine the inside of the carpel for mines made by the young larvae when they enter the boll. Record the number of bolls infested on a percentage basis.
Other inspection techniques: There are other inspection methods that are helpful in directing control activities against the pink bollworm. They make possible the detection of infestations in previously uninfested areas, and the evaluation of increases or decreases as they occur in infested areas. They are also used to. determine the population of larvae in hibernation and their carryover to infest the new cotton crop.
1. Inspection of gin trash: Arrange with ginners to install traps where possible to procure freshly ginned "first cleaner "trash , which has not been passed through a fan, from as many gins as possible in the area. Maintain the identity of each sample and separate mechanically all parts of the trash larger and all parts lighter than the pink bollworm. A small residue is left, which must be examined by hand. This method is very efficient for detecting the presence and abundance of the pink bollworm
in any given area. One may locate the exact field by catching a separate trash sample from each grower’s cotton. Inspect trash daily .
2. Inspection of lint cleaner: During the ginning process the free larvae remaining in the lint are separated in the lint cleaners, and a substantial number of them are thrown and stuck on the glass inspection plates. All the larvae recovered are dead.
83
For constant examination at a single gin, wipe off the plates and examine after each bale is ginned. In this way the indivi¬ dual field that is infested may be determined. For general survey, make periodic examinations to detect the presence of the pink bollworm in a general area.
3. Examination of debris: Between January and the time squares begin to form in the new crop, examine old bolls or parts of bolls from the soil surface in known infested fields. Examine the cotton debris from 50 feet of row at five representative points in the field for number of living pink bollworms.
Multiply by 50 to determine number of living larvae per acre. Such records when maintained from year to year provide compara¬ tive data that may be used in determining appropriate control measures .
4 Use of light traps: Especially designed traps containing argon, mercury-vapor, or blacklight fluorescent bulbs will attract pink bollv.Torm moths. Such traps are being used to discover new infestations and their usefulness for survey work should be fully explored. Such traps are recognized as being an important means of survey for this pest as new infestations have been located through this use.
5. Use of sex lure traps : Traps containing a sex attractant extracted from the tips of abdomens of female pink bollworm moths have been highly effective in trapping male moths. Such traps have been used in surveys for detecting the insect. A synthetic sex attractant ,hexalure , is now being used instead of the natural lure in survey traps. The trap is baited with 10 mg of hexalure each 2 weeks it is in operation.
Spider Mites
Examine 25 or more leaves from representative areas within a field taken successively from near the bottom, the middle, and the top of the plants. Record, according to the average number of mites per leaf, the degree of infestation as follows:
None - 0
Light - 1 to 10
Medium - 11 to 25
Heavy - 26 or more
84
Thrips
While walking diagonally across the field, you observe or inspect the plants, and record the damage as follows:
None - if no thrips or damage is found.
Light - if newest unfolding leaves show only a slight
brownish tinge along the edges with no silvering of the under side of these or older leaves, and only an occasional thrips is seen.
Medium - if newest leaves show considerable browning along
the edges and some silvering on the underside of most leaves, and thrips are found readily.
Heavy - if silvering of leaves is readily noticeable,
terminal buds show injury, general appearance of plant is ragged and deformed, and thrips are numerous .
Predators
Predator populations may be estimated by counting those seen while examining leaves, terminals, and squares for pest insects. When special counts for predators only are made, examination of whole plants is more efficient in estimating populations.
SOME MAJOR COTTON PESTS OCCURRING IN OTHER COUNTRIES AND HAWAII THAT MIGHT BE INTRODUCED INTO THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES
Some of the major pests of cotton in other countries and Hawaii that do not occur in the United States and that might be accidentally introduced into this country at any time are listed below. Cotton farmers, cotton scouts, county agents, entomologists, and others should be alerted to the possibility of these pests becoming introduced into this country and should collect and submit for identification any insect found causing damage to cotton if its identity is in doubt.
FAMILY AND COMMON
SCIENTIFIC NAME NAME
PLANT PARTS
DAMAGED DISTRIBUTION
Cicadellidae
Empoasca lybica cotton jassid Foliage
(Bergevin)
Africa, Spain, and Israel
Pseudococcidae
Maconellicoccus
hirsutus Green
Hibiscus
mealybug
Foliage Asia and Africa
terminals
85
FAMILY COMMON
SCIENTIFIC NAME NAME
PLANT PARTS DAMAGED
Curculionidae
Amorphoidea lata Philippine Squares, bolls
Motschulsky cotton boll weevil
Anthonoraus vestitus Boheman
Peruvian boll weevil
Eutinobothrus
brasiliensis
(Hambleton)
Brazilian cotton borer
Pempherulus af finis (Faust)
Cotton stem weevil
Similar to A. grandis
Stems, roots
Stems
Lygaeidae
Oxycarenus Cottonseed bug Seed, lint
hyalinipennis
Costa
Miridae
Horcias nobilellus (Berg. )
Cotton plant bug
Terminals , squares , young bolls
Noctuidae
Dip aropsis cas tanea Red bollworm Bolls
Hampson
Earias insulana (Bdv. )
Spiny bollworm Young growth,
bolls
Spodoptera littoralis Egyptian
(Boisd. )
cotton leafworm
Foliage
squares
Spodoptera litura (Fabricius)
Old World cotton leafworm
Foliage
squares
DISTRIBUTION
Philippine Islands
Peru and Ecuador
Brazil and Argentina
Southeastern Europe and Philippine Islands
Africa, Asia, and Philippine Islands
Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay
Africa
Africa, Asia, Australia, and Southern Europe
Africa
Asia, Southern Europe, Hawaii, and Pacific Islands
86
|
FAMILY AND SCIENTIFIC NAME |
COM? ION NAME |
PLANT PARTS DAMAGED |
DISTRIBUTION |
|
Sacadodes pyralis |
False pink |
Squares , |
Central and |
|
Dyar |
bollworm |
bolls |
South America |
|
Olethreutidae |
|||
|
Crytophlebia leucotreta Meyr. |
False codling moth |
Bolls |
Africa |
|
Pyralidae |
|||
|
Sylepta derogata F. |
Cotton leaf roller |
Foliage |
Africa, Asia, Australia, and Pacific Islands |
|
Pyrrhocoridae |
|||
|
Dysdercus peruvianus Guerin |
Peruvian cotton stainer |
Bolls |
Brazil, Columbia Peru, and Venezuela |
37
CONFEREES
One hundred and eighteen entomologists and associated technical workers concerned with cotton insect research and control participated in this conference. They were from the agricultural experiment stations, extension services, and other agencies in 14 cotton-growing States, the United States Department of Agriculture, the National Cotton Council of America, and Cotton Incorporated. The statements in this report were approved and adopted by the following conferees:
STATES
Alabama
R. S. Berger, Dept, of Zoology-Entomology, Auburn Univ. , Auburn Roy J. Ledbetter, Coop. Ext. Serv. , Auburn IJniv., Auburn F. R. Gilliland, Dept, of Zoology-Entomology, Auburn Univ., Auburn H. Frank McQueen, Coop. Ext. Serv., Auburn Univ., Auburn R. H. Smith, Coop. Ext. Serv., Auburn Univ., Auburn
Arizona
Dale Fullerton, Dept, of Entomology, Univ. of Arizona, Phoenix M. L. Lindsey, Coop. Ext. Serv., Univ. of Arizona, Tucson L. D. McCarkindale, Arizona Dept, of Agri. , Phoenix Leon Moore, Coop. Ext. Serv., Univ. of Arizona, Tucson L. A. Crowder, Dept, of Entomology, Univ. of Arizona, Tucson Gary Lentz, Dept, of Entomology, Univ. of Arizona, Tucson George Ware, Dept, of Entomology, Univ. of Arizona, Tucson T. F. Watson, Dept. Entomology, Univ. of Arizona, Tucson
Arkansas
Gordon Barnes, Cooperative Ext. Service, Univ. of Ark., Little Rock W. P. Boyer, Survey Entomologist, Univ. of Ark. , Fayetteville Frank Carter, Dept, of Entomology, Univ. of Ark., Fayetteville Charles Lincoln, Dept, of Entomology, Univ. of Ark., Fayetteville Jeffrey Slosser, Dept, of Entomology, Univ. of Ark., Fayetteville
California
W. R. Bowen, Coop. Ext. Serv., Univ. of Calif., Riverside C. E. Jackson, Div. of Entomology, Univ. of Calif., Davis, Shafter Thomas F. Leigh, Div. of Entomology, Univ. of Calif., Davis, Shafter Ward M. Tingey, Div. of Entomology, Univ. of Calif., Davis, Shafter N. C. Toscano, Div. of Entomology, Univ. of Calif., Riverside Hal Reynolds, Div. of Entomology, Univ. , of Calif. , Riverside
88
Georgia
R. M. Barry, Div., of Entomology, Univ. of Ga., Tifton W. N. Hudspeth, Abraham Baldwin Agri. College, Tifton C. R. Jordan, Div. of Entomology, Univ. of Georgia, Athens Herbert Womack, Coop. Ext. Service, Univ. of Georgia, Tifton Don Canerday, Division of Entomology, Univ. of Georgia, Tifton
Louisiana
Grady Coburn, Coop. Ext. Serv. , La. State Univ., Baton Rouge D. F. Clower, Dept, of Entomology, La. State Univ., Baton Rouge
J. B. Graves, Dept, of Entomology, La. State Univ., Baton Rouge
J. S. Roussel, Agri. Expt. Station, La. State Univ., Baton Rouge J. S. Tynes, Coop. Ext. Service, La. State Univ., Baton Rouge
Mssissippi
T. S. Brook, Dept, of Entomology, Mss . State Univ., Hiss. State F. A. Harris, Dept, of Entomology, Miss. State Univ., Miss. State H. C. Mitchell, Coop. Ext. Serv., Miss. State Univ., Miss. State W. K. Porter, Agri. and Forest. Expt. Station, Mss. State Univ., Miss. State
C. F. Sartor, Coop. Ext. Serv., Mss. State Univ., Miss. State
'K. K. Shaunak, Dept, of Entomology, Miss. State Univ., Miss. State 0. T. Guice, Jr., Miss. Dept, of Agri., Miss. State
Mssouri
F. G. Jones, Coop. Ext. Serv., Univ. of Mssouri, Portageville New Mexico
John J. Durkin, Coop. Ext. Serv., New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces Joe Ellington, Dept, of Entomology, New Mexico State Univ., Las Cruces
North Carolina
Jack D. Bacheler, Dept, of Entomology, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh J. R. Bradley, Jr., Dept, of Entomology, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh R. L. Robertson, Coop. Ext. Serv., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh Glenn B. Worley, Coop. Ext. Serv., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh
Oklahoma
D. C. Arnold, Coop. Ext. Serv., Okla. State Univ., Stillwater Jerry Coakley, Coop. Ext. Serv., Okla. State Univ., Altus R. G. Price, Dept, of Entomology, Okla. State Univ., Stillwater J. H. Pickle, Dept, of Entomology, Okla. State Univ., Stillwater W. B. Massey, Jr., Dept, of Entomology, Okla. State Univ., Stillwater B. M. Hines, Coop. Ext. Serv., Okla. State Univ., Muskogee
89
South Carolina
L. M. Sparks, Cooperative Ext. Serv. , Clemson Univ. , Clemson Tennessee
E. T. Cherry, West Tenn. Expt. Sta. , Univ. of Tenn., Jackson J. E. Pendergrass, West Tenn. Expt. Sta., Univ. of Tenn., Jackson
Texas
R. E. Frisbie, Dept, of Entomology, Texas A&M Univ., College Station
T. L. Pate, Dept, of Entomology, Texas A&M Univ., El Paso
D. G. Bottrell, Dept, of Entomology, Texas A&M Univ., College Station
R. C. McIntyre, Coop. Ext. Service, Texas A&M Univ., Lubbock
S. J. Nemec, Dept, of Entomology, Texas A&M Univ., College Station D. R. Rummel, Dept, of Entomology, Texas A&M Univ., Lubbock
W. L. Sterling, Dept, of Entomology, Texas A&M Univ., College Station Knox Walker, Dept, of Entomology, Texas A&M Univ., College Station
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Research Service
Office of Administrator
E. F. Knipling, Beltsville, Md.
National Program Staff, Plant and Entomological Sciences
C. H. Hoffmann, Beltsville, Md.
W. Klassen, Beltsville, Md.
C. R. Parencia, Beltsville, Md.
Southern Region
T. C. Cleveland, Tallulah, La.
J. R. Coppedge, College Station, Tex.
C. B. Cowan, Waco, Tex.
H C Cox, New Orleans, La.
J. W. Davis, Waco, Tex.
T. B. Davich, Miss. State, Miss.
N. W. Earle, Baton Rouge, La.
E. P. Lloyd, Miss. State, Miss.
A. R. Hopkins, Florence, S.C.
M. J. Lukefahr, Brownsville, Tex.
T. R. Pfrimmer, Stoneville, Miss.
H. M. Graham, Brownsville, Tex.
D. F. Martin, Stoneville, Miss.
90
Southern Region
R. L. Ridgway, College Station, Tex. E. A. Taylor, Weslaco, Tex.
H. M. Taft, Florence, S.C.
D. A. Wolfenbarger , Brownsville, Tex.
Western Region
L. A. Bariola, Phoenix, Ariz.
C. A. Benschoter, Phoenix, Ariz.
D. E. Bryan, Tucson, Ariz.
H. M. Flint, Phoenix, Ariz.
J. E. Gilmore, Fresno, Calif.
T. J. Ilenneberry, Phoenix, Ariz.
S. E. Jones, Riverside, Calif.
Ed. Kendrick, Tucson, Ariz.
P. Luginbill, Tucson, Ariz.
H. A. Sallam, Phoenix, Ariz.
P. V. Vail, Phoenix, Ariz.
R. L. Wilson, Phoenix, Ariz.
Animal and Plant Health Service
Plant Protection and Quarantine Programs
A. L. Adams, Alameda, Calif.
F. J. Boyd, Prentiss, Miss.
J. R. Brazzel, Hyattsville, Md.
K. R. O' Steen, Gulfport, Miss.
J. S. Riss, Hyattsville, Md.
J. L. Roberson, Phoenix, Ariz.
II. F. R.obinson, Tucson, Ariz.
R. T. Staten, Phoenix, Ariz.
Cooperative State Research Service
R. C. Riley, Washington, D. C.
Economic Research Service
T. R. Eichers, Washington, D. C.
Extension Service
John G. Thomas, Washington, D. C.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Sam C. Billings, Washington, D. C. Roger L. Pierpont, Washington, D. C.
91
COTTON INCORPORATED
G. A. Slater, Raleigh, N.C.
NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL
J. M. Brown J. Ritchie Smith
STATEWIDE COTTON COMMITTEE OF TEXAS Eugene Butler
PLAINS COTTON GROWERS, INCORPORATED
Ed Dean
MEXICO
Luis Guerra, Dept, of Entomology, Torreon, Coah . S. D. Garcia, INI A ~ CIANE , CD. Delicias, Chih .
92
* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1973 O - 511-980 (ARS-86)
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE BELTSVILLE, MARYLAND 20705
OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AGR 101