Influence of Planting Date and Cotton Cultivar on Seasonal Abundance Pattems of Cotton Fleahoppers and Lygus Bugs in the Texas High Plains
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFLUENCE OF PLANTING DATE AND COTTON CULTIVAR ON LYGUS AND FLEAHOPPER ABUNDANCE IN THE TEXAS HIGH PLAINS AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BOLL AGE AND LYGUS HESPERUS DAMAGE by ANDY MARSHAL CRANMER, B.S. A THESIS IN ENTOMOLOGY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Approved Chairperson of the Committee Accepted Dean of the Graduate School August, 2004 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1 would like to express my deepest thanks to Dr. Megha N. Parajulee, chairman of my advisory committee. Dr. Parajulee is more than the Cotton Entomologist at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (TAES), Lubbock, Texas; he is a great leader, mentor and a friend. This project would have not have been possible if not for his guidance, his interest, and his unwavering support. I have leamed many important skills (personal and professional) from Dr. Parajulee over the past two years that I will carry with me into the fiiture, and for that I am very grateful. It was a wonderful privilege to work for a man of Dr. Parajulee's character, and I will never forget the opportunity he provided. 1 would also like to thank those members who served on my thesis committee. Dr. James F. Leser, District Entomologist, Texas Cooperative Extension, and Dr. Chad S. Davis, Department of Agricultural Education and Communications, Texas Tech University. Dr. Leser contributed to every aspect of this project, and 1 would like to thank him for sharing his expertise, understanding, and for all the encouragement. 1 want to express my gratitude for the knowledge that Dr. Davis supplied. With his suggestions and help, I was able to conclude the task of presenting my findings. It was only with their help that I was able to complete my study, and for that I am greatly appreciative. I would like to thank Stan C. Carroll and Mjirk D. Amold for all their help, time, and wisdom. 1 will always be thankful for the opportunity to work alongside both and for the fiiendship they provided. I also want to extend thanks to my colleagues Latha Bommireddy, R. B. Shrestha, Anand Sapkota, and Lanthia Jones for their assistance and hard work throughout the past two years. 1 am grateful to Brant Baugh and Tommy Doederlein for sparking my interest to pursue this project and for their guidance. This would not have been a possibility without the love and support fi-om my family. I want to thank my parents, Lee and Linda Craimier, my brother, Kyle Cranmer, my sister, Emily Cramner, and my wife, Leigh Cranmer, for all their support, kindness, trust, and faith. I would also like to thank my wife for her encouragement and dedication and for being by my side through all of it. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF FIGURES v CHAPTER L INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW 1 II. LYGUS AND FLEAHOPPER POPULATIONS AS AFFECTED BY PLANTING DATE AND COTTON CULTIVAR 4 Introduction 4 Materials and Methods 7 Results and Discussion 9 III. COMPARISON OF SAMPLING METHODS FOR ESTIMATING LYGUS AND FLEAHOPPER ABUNDANCE IN COTTON 28 Introduction 28 Materials and Methods 32 Results and Discussion 33 IV. EFFECT OF LYGUS HESPERUS FEEDING ON DEVELOPING COTTON BOLLS 46 Introduction 46 Materials and Methods 48 Results and Discussion 51 VITA 63 REFERENCES ....64 in LIST OF TABLES 2.1 Analysis of variance statistics to compare the effects of cotton planting date and cotton cultivar on fleahopper abundance, Halfway, TX, 2002-03 13 2.2 Average number of cotton fleahoppers and Lygus per acre estimated using a vacuum sampler in cotton plots grown in 2002 and 2003, Halfway, TX 14 2.3 Two-way interaction analysis comparing the effect of planting date and cultivar on the number of fleahoppers per acre. Halfway, TX, 2002-03 15 2.4 Three-way interaction analysis comparing the effect of year, planting date, and cultivar on the nvimber of fleahoppers per acre. Halfway, TX, 2002-03... 16 2.5 Analysis of variance statistics to compare the effects of cotton planting date and cotton cultivar on Lygus abundance. Halfway, TX, 2002-03 17 3.1 Analysis of variance statistics to examine the effect of sampling methods on fleahopper abundance. Halfway, TX, 2002-03 36 3.2 Average abundance ofcotton fleahoppers and Lygus estimated using five sampling methods in cotton plots grown in 2002 and 2003, Halfway, TX ....37 3.3 Two-way interaction analysis comparing the effect of year and sampling method on the number of fleahoppers per acre. Halfway, TX, 2002-03 38 3.4 Analysis of variance statistics to examine the effectivness of sampling methods in detecting Lygus abundance, Halfway, TX, 2002-03 39 4.1 Number of outer injury and iimer damage spots in cotton bolls by L. hesperus in relation to boll age 56 4.2 Relationship between boll size and boll age 57 4.3 Effect of Lygus feeding on seed production in relation to boll age 57 4.4 Effect of Lygus feeding on average seed weight in relation to boll age 57 4.5 Effect of Lygus feeding on average lint weight in relation to boll age 57 4.6 Average force required to penetrate the cotton boll in relation to boll age ....58 IV LIST OF FIGURES 2.1 Number of fleahoppers captured weekly on four cotton cultivars planted at two dates using the vacuum sampler 18 2.2 Number of fleahoppers captured weekly in early and late planted cotton using the vacuum sampler in 2002 19 2.3 Number of fleahoppers captured weekly in early and late planted cotton using the vacuum sampler in 2003 20 2.4 Number of fleahoppers captured weekly on four cotton cultivars using the vacuum sampler in 2002 21 2.5 Number of fleahoppers captured weekly on four cotton cultivars using the vacuum sampler in 2003 22 2.6 Number of Lygus bugs captured weekly on four cotton cultivars planted at two dates using the vacuum sampler 23 2.7 Number of Lygus bugs captured weekly in early and late planted cotton using the vacuum sampler in 2002 24 2.8 Number of Lygus bugs captured weekly in early and late planted cotton using the vacuum sampler in 2003 25 2.9 Number of Lygus bugs captured weekly on four cotton cultivars using the vacuum sampler in 2002 26 2.10 Number of Lygus bugs captured weekly on four cotton cultivars using the vacuum sampler in 2003 27 3.1 Number of cotton fleahoppers captured weekly on cotton using a combination of sampling methods (sweepnet, vacuum sampler, beat bucket, drop cloth and on-plant visual sampling). Halfway, TX 40 3.2 Number of fleahoppers captured weekly using five sampling methods (sweepnet, vacuum sampler, beat bucket, drop cloth and on-plant visual sampling). Halfway, TX, 2002 41 3.3 Number of fleahoppers captured weekly using five sampling methods (sweepnet, vacuum sampler, beat bucket, drop cloth and on-plant visual sampling), Hal^ay, TX, 2003 42 3.4 Number of Lygus bugs captured weekly on cotton using a combination of five different sampling methods (sweepnet, vacuum sampler, beat bucket, drop cloth and on-plant visual sampling), Halfway, TX 43 3.5 Number of Lygus bugs captured weekly using five sampling methods (sweepnet, vacuimi sampler, beat bucket, drop cloth and on-plant visual sampling), HalRvay, TX, 2002 44 3.6 Number of Lygus bugs captured weekly using five sampling methods (sweepnet, vacuum sampler, beat bucket, drop cloth and on-plant visual sampling), Halfivay, TX, 2003 45 4.1 Percentage of boll injury and damage by Lygus hesperus at different heat unit accumulations 59 4.2 Pressure required to penetrate the boll side or lock on cotton bolls of different ages 60 4.3 The difference in pressure required to penetrate the boll side or lock of a cotton boll after the gain of 100 heat units 61 4.4 Linear regression analysis, predicting when a cotton boll is relatively safe from Lygus hesperus injury and damage 62 VI CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW Texas produces more cotton than any other state in the United States. A 17-year average (1984-2000) cotton production statistic indicates that approximately 27% of United States cotton is produced in Texas, while 59% of Texas cotton is produced in the High Plains region (Plains Cotton Growers, Inc. personal communication, 2001). The Texas High Plains constitutes the most concentrated area of cotton production in the world (Leser 1999) with acreage comprising 3 million (on average) of more than the 5 million acres of cotton planted in Texas each year. In 2000, 2001, and 2002 there were 6.4, 6.2, and 5.8 million acres planted in Texas, respectively, and 4.8, 4.3, and 4.6 million acres harvested, also respectively (Williams 2003). In 2002, insect pests infested a total of 5.2 million acres and caused the loss of over 184,000 bales in Texas (Williams 2003). During the last 5 years, cotton yield loss in the United States due to arthropod pests ranged from 7 to 9%. Yield loss in Texas ranged from 8 to 16%, and yield loss in the Texas High Plains ranged from 6-19%. These losses due to arthropod pests cause the loss of millions of dollars to the economy. In 2002, Texas producers lost over 53 million dollars due to arthropod pests: over 21 million of that 53 million was lost in the Texas High Plains region. Arthropod pests reduce cotton lint yield by about 10% across the United States annually (Williams 1996-2001). The initiation of boll weevil eradication in Texas has caused secondary pests to become primary pests in some instances.