worldwide western wide. vated source Cotton The in ing and (C. Gossypium Frisbie ulation plant, ole, the (C. Steven with
feed face, Cotton bales the tries, from Integrated food cil, istan cambridge Chapter Egypt, arboreum) hirsutum) Cotton cotton 2007a). harvestable long cotton Egyptian) human products. or while a and Levant (-‘25 the throughout in but of total et Pest is in of USA University order, fiber, staple India, al., Brazil. growth and is the Management, 400 fruit. irrigation, production production. E. the is The the production grown cotton civilization is are 1989). and grown cotton Naranjo four accounting world’s million production seeds the current portions the sea are The In
arthropod 25 primarily Press. the of South the as (C. most species Cotton West island China, single primary ed. in world. (C. are defoliants an © is herbaceum) USA, kg: The most Edward top more cambridge in closely America. of barbadense) annual (Kohel further Indies common for National of (American the cells 2006 belongs grown rich are and India, cotton five Cotton product, important almost oil B. than plant linked cultivated Radcliffe, history producing on and and of through & University found and used Upland Randall in the is is 116.7 species Cotton the to Lewis, 75 is are parts 40% grown cultivation. Asia, a tree Pima, fiber, to the cultivated as USA, perennial countries William of seed found in
1PM expand natural million of animal manip Press cotton cotton cotton world of genus while Coun many coun 1984; culti in total arise Pak Cre sur the 2009. G. D. 17 in Hutchison Luttrell year generally bales (Fig. states technologies resents and ton research tory (Table about mission and grams funding producers through increase annual and of continues zation Conferences). through extension the Cotton Council policies of international 25.1) in period total and grouped of 10% 25.1). organized funded a cotton 2006. industry-wide to the the various research and for marked Rafael declined with to efforts. and ensure farmers and coordinates production for demand US be cotton Crop and 1986—95 education Total Cotton E. into industry a importers. a through the Department cancelado. 22%, critical total extramural improvement support 1PM and the markets. in loss four USA cotton in 1PM for the practices. respectively, Incorporated ability production promotion. meeting to the to harvested major a and efforts. resource per-bale to past and of Published wide from industry the It insects USA They compete profitability ofAgriculture is lint and of ten it production range period public a in The all has (Beltwide have years major for by intramural also assessments crop cotton of has and Public with USA from National is a research of 21.7 in and a sponsor mission 1996—2005 protection which an initiatives mites increased segments source a long of national hectares the support million defined regions private organi (USDA) Cotton cotton Cot pro rep and ten- his has on an to of COTTON ARTHROPOD 1PM 325
Table 25. I Summary of cotton production (balesfha) and insect control costs ($US) in the four major USA production regions over the past 20 years (1986—2005)
West Southwest Midsouth Southeast
986— 996— 986— 996— 986— (996— 1986— 1996— 995 2005 1995 2005 1995 2005 995 2005
Harvested ha (x 000) 604 451 2(43 210 1444 453 607 1261 Production (bales x l000)° 3538 2862 4747 5583 5052 5802 1918 4376 Percent production (lint) 23.2 15.4 3 1.1 30.0 33.1 31.2 (2.6 23.5 Percent crop lossto insectsand mites 6.3 4.4 6.1 8.0 9.1 5.9 9.0 5.4 Control cost per hab
Insecticidesand application I3 I (68 49 47 36 141 (24 77 (Insecticides,application,scouting, (205) (74) (220) (I 33) eradication and technology fees)
o Cotton bale = 2(8 kg of lint. b The data from 1996 onward is more complete, includingcosts ($US) associated with scouting, eradication of bollweevil and technology fees for growingtransgenic cotton, in addition to insecticide and application costs. This more inclusivefigure is presented within parentheses. None of the cost figures are adjusted for inflation. Source:Summarized from Cotton Insect Losses,a database compiled by the National Cotton Council (2007b).
25.1 Arthropod fauna
25.I. I Pest species and damage Rainwater (1952) stated “cotton is a plant that nature seems to have designed specifically to attract insects.” Over 1300 herbivorous insects are known from cotton systems worldwide (Harg reaves, 1948) but many fewer are Majorcotton producing regions of the USA common inhabi (modifiedfrom National Cotton Council,2007a). tants and still fewer are of economic importance. Roughly 100 species of insects and spider mites are pests of cotton in the USAbut only 20%of these are In many ways, cotton arthropod 1PM both common and likely to cause damage if left uncon exemplifies and has shaped many of the general trolled (Leigh et cii., 1996) (Fig. 25.2). The remain principles, control tactics and integrated strate ing 80% are sporadic or secondary pests that gies covered with great detail throughout this become problematic in some years due to chang textbook. Numerous reviews have previously sum ing environmental factors or the misuse ofinsecti marized cotton insect pest management in the cides or other disruptions of natural controls. Pest USA(Gaines, 1957; Bottrell&Adlcisson, 1977; Ridg species vary from one production area to the next. way et al., 1984; Frisbje et al., 1989; El-Zik &Frisbie, Bollworm (Helicoverpazea) and tobacco budworm 1991; Luttrell, 1994; King et al., 1996b). Here we (Heliothisvirescens)are major pests of cotton in the summarize current and recent past efforts in cot USAfrom Texas eastward while the pink boliworm ton 1PM that continue to build upon more than (Pectinophoragossypieiia)is the dominant bollworm a century of scientific research and innovation in the western USA.Various species of Lygus and based on ecological principles and understanding. other mind plant bugs affect cotton throughout 326 STEVEN E. NARANJO & RANDALL G. LUTTRELL
I
Plsnt bugs (Lygus hespems) (L. iineolaris) (Pseudatomoscelis seriatus) (1.23,0.95%) W, SW, MS SE
Oilier defoliators e.g. (Bucculafrix thuthe,iella, Trichoplusiani) 5 (Grasshoppers) (0.22, 0.38%) W.SW, MS SE
Thrips e.g. (Frankiinieilaoccicientafis, Spider mites F. ftisca) e.g. )Tetranychus u,ticae, Cutworms T.paciftaus) (0.39, 0.45%) W, SW, MS, SE .0.14%) W, SW, MS, SE arthropod pests in USA cotton was 4.47%, which Summary of major insect and mite pests of cotton LT41 represented a loss of >1.5 million bales of cot in the USA,Numbers in parentheses indicate the average percent yield loss for the periods 1986—95and 1996—2005, ton valued at $US 1250 million in yield reduction respectively,for each pest group across the entire USA.Bold and control costs (Williams, 2006). As will be dis letters denote the major production regions where the pest cussed below, many factors have contributed to group primarily impacts cotton production; ‘N,West; SW, reductions in pest losses over the past 20 years Southwest; MS,Midsouth; SE,Southeast. Insects attacking including boll weevil eradication, transgenic cot cotton boils (fruit) generally attack squares (flower buds) as tons for control of caterpillar pests and improved well. Dotted lines pointing to lint indicate that whiteflies and overall 1PMprograms for various pests. aphids can affect yield quality through the deposition of honeydew. Asterisks next to species names denote exotic pests and shaded boxes indicate pests which are affected 25.1.2 Beneficialarthropods significantlyby Btcotton. Loss figures summarized from Many beneficial arthropod species are associated Cotton insect Losses,a database compiled by the National with cotton. In a seminal study, Whitcomb & Cotton Council (2007b). Bell (1964) cataloged about 600 species of arthro pod predators including ‘—‘160species of spi ders in Arkansas cotton fields. Van den Bosch & the world. The pink boliworm, the cotton aphid Hagan (1966) suggested that there may be nearly (Aphisgossypii) and sweetpotato whitefly (Bemisia 300 species ofparasitoids and arthropod predators tabaci) are significant pests of cotton throughout in western cotton systems. Like cotton herbivores, the world while the boll weevil (Anthonomusgran only a fraction of these are common, with some dis)is only found in the Americas. Some pests such of the more abundant groups including big-eyed as the bollworm, tobacco budworm and plant bugs bugs (Geocorisspp.), anthocorid bugs (Onus spp.), are native insects that have expanded their ranges damsel bugs (Nabis spp.), assassin bugs (Zelusand as cotton production grew, while the sweetpotato Sinea spp.), green lacewings (Chrysopaand Chiysop whitefly and pink bollworm are exotic invaders. erla spp.), lady beetles (e.g. Hippodamia and Scym The exotic boll weevil’s movement into the USA nus spp.), ants (especially Solenopsis spp.), a wide was associated with the expansion of cotton variety of web-building and wandering spiders production. and both parasitic wasps (e.g. Bracon spp., Cotesia Although the levels of crop loss may appear spp., Microplitis spp., Hyposoter spp., Trichogramma ii small, the economic impact can be enormous. spp.) and flies (Archytas spp., Eucelatoria spp.). We Ii For example, in 2005 total yield reduction from continue to learn about the important role that
The
to
25.2.2 vice,
2006). ticides While
tinue
out
ronmental Reduced-Risk
the
and the
That
and
cotton
ticide basis
environment
ciated have
cide control
excellent
following
1996). mates
(e.g. followed
of
pest
Insecticide
25.2.1
25.2
sity are
1993). et pest
indiscriminant
disturbance
comes but
these
insecticides
al,
boll
development
the
US
introduction
safer
2006),
the
resistance.
dynamic
of
control
pattern
cotton
organochlorines,
broad the
to
use
a
outbreaks
has
1973;
and
natural
has
With natural
Environmental
variety
management
USA
Overall,
Resistance
weevil
be
from
failures
availability
Chemical
by
most
1PM
(Anonymous,
insecticides
pest
grown
World
adoption
Protection
been
pyrethroids)
used
Stoltz
use
activity
a
accounts
(National
beginning
Initiative
each
and
has
and
progression
studies
of
is
control
in
of
enemies
enemies
Many dramatic
tactics
arthropod
has
the
a for
of
in War
insecticide
due
many
(e.g. natural
of
the
human
begun
largely
&
continual
resistance new
recent
and
cotton
transgenic
Stern,
control
management
against
heaviest
a
of
past
options
II early
to
for in
Agency,
Leigh
registered
Agricultural
long
were
over
Protection
classes
(Herzog
1995)
a
with
organophosphates,
in
play
use
and
introduction,
the
which
to
wide
evidence
about
driven
and
health.
enemy
years
of
the
1978;
communities
twentieth
pest
the history
generally
of
shift use
pests
synthetic
et
arsenicals
threat in
evolution
pose
and
user discussed
in
current
subsequent
of
reduced-risk
2006)
range
al.,
et
past
Bt cotton
(e.g.
22.5%
the
pest
control
Trichilo
by
is
insecticides
in
historically
al.,
On
communities
(Fig.
cotton
Agency of
and
hazards
associated
of
1966;
the
Statistics
in
to
Goodell
part destruction
decade
populations
1996;
insecticides. a
(Table
century
their
of
insecticides
followed
of
insecticides
USA
successful pest
worldwide
25.3)
their periods
wide
for
below.
of
through
all
effective &
through
in
in
Eveleens
decades
insecti
Sparks,
Wilson,
(EPA)’s
control
to
insec
control
cotton
impact
(Envi
insec
cotton
25.2). carba
et
1996
with
diver
asso
con
USA
Ser
with
al.,
and
the
by
of
by
or
as The
and
25.2.3
a
in
depending management
(Plapp dow
World
1999), non-pyrethroids
three-stage
IRM
specific
and gist,
through nomic
limiting
tion minimizes
to of mitigation
three the
and
vigilance
developed preserve
(see
implementation
region C
0
U
0
us
a. 0
0.
0
us
us
C C)
0
compiled
which
I
cultivation,
986—2005
insecticide reduce
h/\*/j\A*144
indeterminate 2
the
USA)
time
strategy
strategy
Chapter
(Roush
and
currently
1986
the
insecticide
et
bollworm
thresholds,
Cultural
(Palumbo
usage.
influence
various
insecticide
al.,
by
rotations,
partitioning
have
1988
Texas
this
by
and
on
Overall
summarized
the
resistance
the
plan
of
selection
&
1990)
adoption
15).
plan
for
for
1990
predominant
important
resistance
Daly,
National
type
developed
proactive
fitness
irrigation,
Examples
a
and
classes
over
which
Around insecticide
(Heliocoverpa managing
resistance
classes
control
of
1992
total
for
et
nature
of
and
diversifying
Midsouth
use
and
1990).
mixtures
al.,
chemical from
whitefly
the
Cotton
pressure
production
to
1994
COTTON
of
of
of
the
of
of
through
2001,
rotates
use
one
is
Cotton
(Whalon
tactic
550
insecticide
strategies
seasonal
season resistance use
resistant
insecticides
of
1996
include
Simply
34
fertilization,
based
multi-crop
crop
Council
in resistance
cotton
patterns
that
or
arthropod
armigera)
2003).
pyrethroid
1998
Insect
in cotton
control
and
tobacco
on
(Castle
more
pyrethroids
ARTHROPOD
adherence
modes
mixtures
the
(see
on
either
put,
et
practices
2000
(2007b).
the
Losses,
stages
a
individuals
in
plant
use
are
al., to
western
management
use
pest
Castle
USA
insecticides,
pests
are
2002
and
Australian this
in
et
as
resistance
budworm through
2007).
pests
needed
a
of
of
attempts
cultivar
use
in
al.,
cotton
growth
database
or
rotated many
the
popula
within
2004
means
careful
action to
syner
(19
space
such
et
crop-
with
1999)
win
USA
have
Old eco
The
1PM
al.,
2006
or
as in
to
a 327
‘II
328
boliworm
Cultivation
tions
“suicidal so
may
tages
rains
and
ern ples worm
are Walker
early reduce way
and
tion,
insect
tant crop’s selection,
°
2007).
Spiromesifen
Flonicamid
Fenpyroximate STEVEN
Dinotefuran
Acetamiprid
Thiamethoxam
Novaluron
Etoxazole
Bifenazate Tebufenozide
Pymetrozine
that Buprofezin
lndoxacarb
Methoxyfenozide Spinosad
Pyriproxyfen tives
Table
Compound
still
Texas
IRAC
early
eD
of winter
have
aspect
(Parvin
and
throughout
crop
field
(Walker
al.,
susceptibility
Program
infestations
no
cultural
populations
&
relevant
25.2
resulting
emergence”
Smith,
MoA
adults 1984;
harvest weed
to
E.
benefits.
fruiting
termination
can
sanitation,
irrigation of
&
NARANJO
the
Smith, &
=
effective
Insecticides
El-Zik
effectively
control
control
for
emerge
1996).
Smith,
Atlantic
Insecticide
the
helps
in
forms
remain
Acetyicholine
many
Feeding
Lipid
Electron Chitin Acetylcholine
Growth juvenile
For Acetyicholine
Neural Chitin
of Feeding
Sodium
Acetyicholine
Molting
to Molting
important
1996).
et
season
and
For
can damage
boll
Mode
&
al.,
efficient
are
and
1996).
to
and
example,
pest
from
synthesis
RANDALL
registered
are
pest
synthesis
synthesis
example,
coast,
reduce
1989;
inhibitor
avoid Resistance
reduces
effectively
weevil
Delayed
blockei
hormone
channel hormone
hormone
long-standing blocker
inhibitor
an
transport
planting
pest
(Brown
of
management
present
the
Early
species.
and
extremely
action
economic
Matthews,
timely receptor
receptor
receptor
receptor
harvest,
fall
inhibitor
soil
avoidance
planting for
overwintering
and
inhibitor
inhibftor
(9)
(9)
(25)
agonist
suitability
G.LUTTRELL
planting stalk
pest planting
(I
et
agonist
agonist
mimic
Action
use
and inhibitors
date
when
maximizes
(IRAC
OB)
control
From
pink
cii.,
planting
on
destruc
popula
agonist
agonist
agonist
modulator
(23)
winter
advan
princi
impor
(22)
on
tillage
1992).
( cotton
(I
(7)
Committee
(Ridg
1994;
later
pink
(I
(
I
M0A)a
east
boll-
that
also
5)
and
6)
I
the
8)
8)
for
(21)
or
(4A)
(4A)
(4A)
through
to Perez,
growers
ing
tive
ple
agriculture of
sporadically
of polyphagous
alfalfa
tural
trap
ulating
high
(Watson,
transgenic for
tobacco
survival
Schneider
(5)
Insecticide
control
trap
trap
There
operations
reduced
chemical
of
Whiteflies,
Aphids,
Whiteflies,
Whiteflies,
the
Mites Whiteflies,
Whiteflies,
Whiteflies,
Whiteflies,.
Mites
Mites
Whiteflies,
Caterpillars
Caterpillars Caterpillars
Caterpillars
overwintering
crops,
control
2006).
within
plant
strip
EPA
crops
dispersal
budworm
cropping,
reported
of
1980).
has
cotton
cotton
because bollworm
(2003)
Reduced-RisklOrganophosphate
Mode
plant
Cotton
bugs
tillage
accepted
especially
harvesting
For
plant
controls
cotton
through
(Stern
been
thrips,
thrips,
and
mites
aphids,
aphids
aphids,
aphids
aphids
bugs
example,
pest
of
(see
and
using
suggested
to
bugs.
including
target
could
the
of
Action
renewed
mortality
et
is
insecticides
plant
caterpillars,
and
options
below).
the
and
plant thrips
insects
crop
the
the
cii.,
wide
in
manipulation
alfalfa,
The
logistic
accelerate
tobacco
Classification
utilized
bugs
classic
only
1964).
bugs
practical
the
colonization
availability
use
Deep
(Shelton
that
interest
(Brodt
this
in
4%
management
have
impact
of
and
Most
example
pink
budworm,
Year
tillage
in
recent
classic
strip
of
resistance
2005
2005
2006 2004
2004
2003
2002
2002
et 2001
200
2000
2000/200
deployment
2000
1999
I
1997
production
Bt
&
998
Alterna
(IPAC,
been
California
in
al.,
registered
boliworm
of
examples
Badenes
toxins
on
of
I
crops
induces
though
manip
alfalfa
trends
of
2007).
exam
farm
effec
oniy
cul
and
I
of
of
in of COTTON ARTHROPOD 1PM 329
Future management systems may need to exam programs for this pest and has been used in sev ine incentives for grower adoption and expan eral past areawide programs in California and Ari sion of cultural management tactics that may zona and in other countries (Campion, 1994). Mat reduce pest populations across broad geographic ing disruption has been evaluated for other pests regions. such as boliworm and tobacco budworm, but their polyphagous nature is problematic and results 25.2.4 Behavioralcontrol have been unsuccessful or ambiguous (Campion, A suite of tactics are available that alter or manip 1994). ulate the behavior of pest arthropods leading to Mass trapping showed some promise for pink population suppression or even elimination. Two boliworm control in a three-year grower funded examples, (1) pheromones and (2) sterile insect trial in Arizona (Huber et al., 1979) and the method release, are discussed here. was used in some Arizona production areas into the mid-1990s. The approach is not currently in Pheromones use for pest control in cotton. A pheromone is a chemical that mediates behav ioral interactions between members of the same Sterile insect release species. The most common examples are sex The notion that mass release of sterile insects pheromones which are involved in mating, but could be used to manage or eradicate a pest was aggregation and alarm pheromones are also first proposed by E. F. Knipling during the 1930s known from cotton pest species. As of 1994 sex (Knipling, 1955) and was first successfully used pheromones have been identified in 15 major cot to eradicate screwworm (Cochiiomyiahominivorax) ton pest species (seven species in the USA)includ from the island of Curaçao during the 1950s ing 14 moths and one beetle (Campion, 1994). The (Baumhover et cii., 1955). The concept, lcnown as three main applications of pheromones are moni the sterile insect release method (SIRM)or the toring, mating disruption and mass trapping (see sterile insect technique (SIT)has been attempted Chapter 21). with several major cotton pests in the USAinclud Traps baited with sex pheromones are rou ing the boliworm and tobacco budworm, the boll tinely used for selective monitoring of pink boll- weevil, and most successfully with the pink boll- worm, boll weevils, bollworm and tobacco bud- worm. Various biological and operational factors worm. Trapping information is useful in pest precluded the successful application of SIRM to detection at low densities and tracking seasonal the two former species/groups (see Villavaso et aL, events such as adult emergence and the number 1996) but the method has been used annually and timing of generations. For pink boliworm. since 1968 to help mitigate the establishment of traps have even been used to monitor pink boliworm on cotton in the Central Valley I pheromonedensity for pest control decision making (Toscano of California (Miller et al., 2000), and is a com et al., 1974) and traps are a major component of ponent of the current pink boliworm eradication the ongoing pink bollworm eradication program program. (see below). Pheromone traps continue to play an important role in ongoing boll weevil eradication 25.2.5 Host plant resistance efforts and as long-term monitoring tools in post- Host plant resistance is a fundamental manage eradication areas of the USA. ment tactic (El-Zik & Thaxton, 1989; Gannaway, Mating disruption is achieved by applying 1994; Jenkins & Wilson, 1996). Host plant resis pheromone to a field, thereby making it difficult tance can be broadly categorized as antibiosis for potential mates to find one another and result (reduced fitness or pest status), antixenosis (avoid ing in reduced mating and subsequent reproduc ance or behavioral factors) and tolerance (ability of tion. This technology was first applied in 1978 plant to compensate for damage) (see Chapter 18). for the pink bollworm and the method is still Plant resistance traits may include manipula used today. Mating disruption is a major com tion of the plant’s genome or the resistance ponent of the ongoing eradication and exclusion may be associated with indirect selections for 330 STEVEN E. NARANJO & RANDALL G. LUTTRELL
traits like yield and fiber quality. Genetically con One of the most hotly debated issues facing trolled traits useful in cotton resistance to insects cotton insect management is the sustainability include: crop earliness, a range of plant morpho of transgenic Bt cottons. However, despite the logical traits (nectariless, glaborous or pilose leaf high use of Bt crops there has been little or no surface, okra-shaped leaf, frego bract, red plant increase in insect resistance over the ten years of color, yellow or orange pollen) and varying con commercial deployment (Tabashnik et al., 2003). centrations of plant secondary compounds (high This success can be partly attributed to a EPA- gossypol and tannin content). Relatively few of mandated resistance management program that these traits have been incorporated into commer requires growers using Bt cotton to also plant cial cultivars. non-Bt cotton refuges. The principle behind this The tools of biotechnology have provided new mandated strategy is that non-Bt cottons produce opportunities to enhance traditional approaches susceptible target pests that can readily inter to host plant resistance (see Chapters 18 and breed with any resistant pests that may arise 21). The impact of transgenic cottons producing from Bt fields, thereby diluting incipient resistant insecticidal toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), populations. primarily for control of pink bollworm, tobacco Bt cottons offer real environmental and budworm and bollworm has been enormous. The economic advantages to conventional cottons reduction in insecticide use in cotton over the sprayed more with insecticides. Frisvold et al. past decade (Fig. 25.3) can be partly attributed (2006) estimated global economic benefits of to increased adoption of Bt cottons. Use of Bt $US 836 million for Bt cotton in USA. The poten varieties has expanded each year with 57% of tial role of Bt cotton in reducing human exposure all USA upland cotton hectares planted to Bt to toxic chemicals, especially in developing coun cotton in 2006 (Williams, 2007). In most areas tries where insecticides are often applied manu of the Midsouth and Southeast where bollworm ally, is large. Still, environmental risk issues such and tobacco budworm are historically important as effects on non-target organisms and ecosys pests, adoption of Bt cotton approaches 80—90%. tem function and gene flow associated with trans In 2006, Texas planted about 35% of its total genic crops in general continue to be debated cotton hectares to Bt varieties while California and researched in the scientific community (e.g. planted less than 20% (a large portion of Califor Andow et al., 2006; Romeis et al., 2006). nia’s hectares are planted to long staple Pima vari There has been limited progress in the devel eties that have not been transformed). In Arizona, opment of transgenic cottons for pests other Bt cottons are widely adopted because of their than caterpillars. For example, Monsanto is in dramatic impact on pink bollworm. the very early stages of development of trans Commercial transgenic cottons with insecti genic cottons targeting Lygusspp. based on Bt and cidal activity are currently limited to the trans non-Bt approaches. Focus on non-caterpillar pests genes from B. thuringiensis. Bollgard cotton (Mon remains a major goal of various biotech firms and santo Company, St. Louis, MO) was the first basic researchers around the world, and it high commercially available cotton in 1996. It lights the importance of a continued investment expresses the CrylAc insecticidal protein. Boll in traditional host plant resistance. gard II cotton (Monsanto) expressing CrylAc and I Cry2Ab2 protein was commercially introduced in 25.2.6 Biologicalcontrol 2003, and Widestrike cotton (Dow AgroSciences, The three major approaches to biological con Indianapolis, IN)expressing CrylAc and CryiF pro trol include classical biological control, where tein was launched in 2005. VipCot cotton (Syn exotic agents are introduced for permanent genta Biotech, Jealott Hill, Berkshire, UK) will establishment against exotic and native pests. express the Vip3A vegetative protein from B. augmentation biological control, which involves thuringiensis, probably along with a Cry protein, the rearing and periodic release of natural ene and is expected to be commercialized in the USA mies, and conservation biological control, which shortly. attempts to protect, manipulate and enhance COTTON ARTHROPOD 1PM 331
existing natural enemies for improved control (see of these natural enemies in pest suppression has Chapters 9 and 12). Classical biological control been repeatedly demonstrated over many decades programs have been carried out in the past for in the cotton system when broad-spectrum insec several pest groups including bollworm, tobacco ticides applied for one pest lead to resurgence of budworm, boll weevil, pink bollworm and to a the target pest and/or outbreaks of secondary pests lesser extent for lygus bugs. These efforts have through the destruction of natural enemies (see been largely unsuccessful in the cotton system Bottrell & Adkisson, 1977). This potential is also as natural enemies have either failed to become widely recognized in state recommendations for established and/or their impacts have been mini cotton 1PM.Most guidelines call for sampling of mal (King et al., 1996a). The whitefly B. tabaci has natural enemies and emphasize their preserva been the most recent target of classical biologi tion through inaction or judicious use of insec cal control, with numerous species of parasitoids ticides, particularly those with selective action. released for establishment (Gould et at., 2008); Our understanding of the role and interaction of however, as with other classical efforts, the impact natural enemy species and complexes and how of these established agents have so far been mini to manipulate them for improved pest control in mal in the cotton system (Naranjo, 2007). cotton has a rich history that continues to grow Likewise, augmentative biological control (e.g. Sterling et at., 1989; Naranjo & Hagler, 1998; with predators and parasitoids has been resear Prasifka et at., 2004). ched and evaluated for several major cotton insect pests, but factors such as lack of efficacy, 25.2.7 Samplingand economic thresholds technical difficulties with natural enemy mass- A hallmark of all cotton 1PM programs in the production and cost relative to insecticides have USA is monitoring of pest density or incidence combined to limit this approach from becom combined with action or economic threshold to ing a viable option in cotton pest control in determine the need for control measures. In 2006, the USA (King et al., 1996a). Augmentation with about 50% of USA cotton hectarage was scouted microbial agents (viruses, fungi, bacteria) for con an average of 1.3 times per week at an aver trol of bollworm, tobacco budworm, boll weevil, age cost of $US 18.97/ha across the cotton belt pink bollworm, whitefly and plant bugs (King (Williams, 2007). The intensity of scouting varies et at., 1996a; Faria & Wraight, 2001; McGuire greatly by state. In Virginia and Kansas less than et cit., 2006) has been examined; however, com 5%of cotton hectarage was scouted but more than mercialized microbial products continue to have 90% was scouted in Arizona, Louisiana and South very small shares of the cotton pest control Carolina. In Texas, the largest cotton producing market. state, only 19% of the hectarage was reported as In contrast to classical and augmentative bio scouted. logical control, conservation biological control The cooperative extension programs of each continues to be a major focal area of cotton 1PM of the 17 cotton growing states produce recom that has been further stimulated by the many mendations for scouting, treatment thresholds recent changes to cotton pest management sys and insecticides to help growers and consultants tems. As noted, the cotton system in the USA implement 11PM. The basic tools of sampling harbors a diverse complex of native natural ene include sweep nets, beat cloths and beat boxes, mies, many of which are generalist feeders that traps and visual inspection of various plant parts, opportunistically attack many insect and mite all of which require human labor and the associ pests. Naturally occurring epizootics of some ated cost. Sampling plans, which specify the gen microbes also may significantly suppress pest eral protocols for how samples should be collected species (Steinkraus etal., 1995). The potential value and how many sample units should be taken, are
Web links to sampling and threshold recommendations and individual state recommendations are available at http:f/ipmworld. umn.edu/textbook/Naranjo3.htm.
Ii
332
because
in
ing
able
Despite
judicious
25.3
nized Wilson
systems.
less,
treatment
information
populations,
guidelines
trial-and-error
sion
experimental
are
cottons.
is
fer
gresses.
the
thresholds budworm
cide example,
critical
development
duction
sion count
infested)
implemented.
also
cal
ment
taken,
imize
Chapter
tribution
typically
implementing
not
STEVEN
the
nominal
from
Thresholds
1PM
for
cycle
the
agents,
application
use
making.
as
which
controlled
application,
the
necessary
et
the
are
a
such
preservation
implementation
1PM pest
a
strategy,
Thresholds
a
Some
region
7).
al.,
set
non-Bt
use
based
for
of
decisions
presence/absence
thresholds
key
number
and
E.
often
are
encourage
challenge
for
Sequential
consultants
on
but
thresholds
flower
1985; NARANJO
sample
allows
densities
monitoring
tasks
and
of
programs
study
component
lower
experience
variability
of
how
Many
plant
tend
on
developed
only and
cotton
insecticides during
component
and
completely
these
the
prior
Conway
of research
but
depend (e.g.
bud
for
to
size
in
of (see
also
a
following
of
to
sample
cotton
bugs
scouting
for
greatest
evaluating
use
sampling
few
being
quicker
in
natural &
developed
management
researching
Fillman
Bt
thresholds
for
post
and
(square) vary
to
RANDALL
rather
bollworm
Chapter
of
may practice
these
by
for
of
have
et
cotton
generally
and
be
approach
the
to
on
pest
growers.
pest
tactics
flower
units
is
in a
most
al.,
researchers,
depending
cotton
understand
recommended
difficulty
sampling
of be
function
enemies
an
logistical,
provided
implicitly
counts
boliworm
&
plans,
some
than
2006).
production
populations
1PM
natural
sampling
Sterling, on
dynamic,
it
that
initial
3),
also
management
are
bloom,
G.
into
and
and
pest
is
the
(e.g.
activity.
increase
Many
a
transgenic
programs
but
which
LUTTRELL
to
more
need
Nonethe
based
may
complete
through
may and
a compil
of
explicit
manage
basis
tobacco
modify
on
percent
insecti
enemy
work
socio
recog
the
exten
which
many
1985;
while
plant
state
plans
with
to
deci
pro
min
typi
pro
be
dif
and
For
(see
on
dis
of
as
be
federal
the
known
the
Integrated A
cotton
sion
West,
25.3.2
Southeast. plant
worm
trol biological
systems,
manage
Other the
that
the
neberry
the
ulation
(1979) were weevil
matic
cia
ities importance
Cotton
25.3.1
grower
as and
contribute
and ials
nizing
take
associated
of
a
logical
1994;
wide
key
USDA/EPA
USDA
Boll
1980s
elaborate
the
largest-scale
(1950)
support
boll
followed.
(circulars,
of
depending
adaptive
applied
bugs
for
the
success
extended
and
as
beginning
examples
element
from
Kogan,
when
projects
diversity
training
weevil
Models
organizations
bollworm
crop and
whitefly
entomologists
suppression
&
Areawide
a weevil
the
may
and
mobile
lead
control
Pest 40-year
demonstrated
Phillips
and
emerging
with
educational
systems
economic
of
“Huffaker
central
coordinated
experiments
on
and
Consortium
of
be
many
research.
1998)
eradication
spatial
bulletins,
Management
in
in
stink
the
thereafter
and
and
screwworm
on
a
and
of
example
involved
include
land-grant
in
in
community
and
Cooperative
1PM
pest
program
and
developing
(1996)
simulation
areawide
the
programs
have
the
(see
other
even
the
to
the
California,
decision
bugs
and/or
management
scale
tobacco
factors
project”),
implementation
community
have
scope
cotton species.
Private
and
1970s
Chapter
tobacco
websites)
been
effective
numerous
on-farm
early-season
provide
(Harris
for
and
desert of
cooperative
(Mumford (see
in
of
to
universities
eradication,
federal
consulting
long
concepts
areawide
Project
1PM
(Mumford
of
basis.
theoretical
management
the
budworm
developed
educational
exclude
with
Extension
insects,
models
below)
aids
industry
continuing
implementation,
Ewing
successful et
budworm.
38).
valleys
project
demonstrations
an
recognized
Midsouth
control
as
al.,
management
With
the
agencies
systems
attempts
(commonly
overview
well
Education
&
of
treatments
is
programs.
1996).
state
pink
and
especially
regardless
NSF/EPA
activities,
&
&
pest
Norton,
Knipling
through generally
may
for perhaps
during debates
the
of
Services
as
Norton,
of
Paren
mater
with
deci
activ
USA
boll-
Hen
con
and
pop
orga
such
the
dra
boll
for
also
the
to
of
is I
F
was
multi-component Whitefly
in
potato
major
Since grams,
and There
Southeast.
cussed. programs
that
25.3.3 Texas.
development. ued
system limited
projection
component
sizes
tion.
none
range
rbWHIMS, generalizations
ulation
data. began
aids
ment
guiding
expert activities.
models
ther
ment
lation been
plant-pest
ton
focused
and
1994;
the
In
launched
stink
involve
use
plant
COTMAN,
were
research.
some
the
These
of
the
(Wagner
West
impacts
scenarios
are
of
The
Wagner
useful
(1)
whitefly
to
Here
the
dynamics,
and
Case
systems
models
areas
these
1PM
have
on
may
day-to-day
bug
cotton
be
whiteflies synthesis
for
early
models.
coupled
many
of
strength
have
COTFLEX,
system,
1990s,
(Oliveira
its
systems
we
many
of
developed individual
strategy
management
cotton
that
studies
information
found in
However,
be systems
of
on
a et
close
et
highlight
and
practical
and
of
(B.
more
1990s
production
ai., included
and
research
cii.,
examples
structuring
the
examining
due
most
of
resulted expert
management
In
studying
with
of
tabaci),
in
identifying
1996). pest
included
of
others
conceptual
et
very
1996).
pests
the
in
recent
general,
CALEX information
Midsouth,
field
Arizona
has
to
for
the
COTMAN
cii.,
pests
agricultural
with
Arizona
the
two
and
component
cotton
opinion
the
and
limited simple
Some
cotton
2001).
seen
throughout
and
in
Modeling
Biotype were
samples
in polyphagous
of
and
decision systems.
more
few
alternative
and
representative
the
and
the crop
knowledge
these
simplicity
educational
a
and
areas
operational
has
wide-scale
of
predicting
linkage
successful
based
tools
exceptions
and
Southeast
In
production
or
groups
expert insect
Midsouth
application
and
these
dc-EM
complex
(2)
management
management
B,
response,
rather
production remained models
detailed
needing
aid,
tactics
efforts
In
its
plant
historical
has based
on
the
manage
general,
decision
manage
to
systems
empha
contin
of
sweet-
of
of
broad
plan adop
for
popu
than
crop
1PM
USA
had
pro
bug
and
pests
1PM
such
and
have
sim
have
dis
the
fur
cot
the
on
in
a
in
a
a
A
plant
(Pseudatomosceiis
Plant
application
2006.
1995
insecticide
a tionally, The
whitefly
of
the
first
other
rarely
pods)
Ellsworth
a
sizes trol
et
sampling
pest
nated
to destruction
ment
and
tive whiteflies.
ural varieties
tices
lations
on
can
multiple,
(Fig.
to
Naranjo,
all
refined program
three-stage
decades-long
action
Midsouth
plant manage
cii.,
The
research,
rotation
growers
three-stage
because program
methods
control
be
an
enemy
bug
25.4).
at
monitoring
bugs
selectivity
and
and
in
natural
use
needed
1996),
implemented
including
two
array
today
a
populations
the
the
in
and
which
bug
scheme
et arrangement
of
cost
2001; which
use
The
selection
resistance.
overlapping
The
(Lygus
rate
conservation
of
of methods
order upper
and
cii.,
insecticides
insecticide emphasizes
and 1PM
the
initial
based
stink of
(Ellsworth
and
if
for can
crop
forces
broad
insecticides
system
of
high
seriatus)
complex,
foundation
of
2006).
these Ellsworth
(i.e.
areawide
conserved
are
Southeast
consultants,
plan
all
continues
through
various
(Ellsworth
iineolaris),
$US
to
be
layers
the
1.4
residue
bug
stages
cotton of
on
base
of
safety
mitigate
COTTON
long
generally
for
to
are
envisioned,
also
selective
at
has
Follow-up
536/ha
well-adapted,
to
timing
use
and
economic
management
over
reduce
&
tactics
layers
among
whitefly
through
a
of
of
then crop
reduce
Martinez-Carrillo,
tactics
term
including
implicitly
an
with et
significantly
and
pests
(Naranjo
cost natural system
to
the
also
the
clouded
to
cotton
et
12
cii.,
as
efficient
to
resistance.
management
beneficial
al., ARTHROPOD
and
weeds
able
overall
pyramid,
be
of
less
options
and
all
of
pyramid
differing
(Naranjo,
in
emphasizes
applications
pest
a
2006).
treatments
like
a
and
the
threshold
which
1996;
and
effective
Arizona
expanded
affected
$US
strategies
pyramid
enemies
decades
fleahoppers
attractive
to
et
plant
components
encourages
use
smooth-leaf
movement,
and
in
other
crop
tarnished
pest
cii.,
binomial
suppress
77/ha
is
are The
reduced
the
Naranjo
founded
empha
of
outline
arthro
modes
Opera
coordi
2001).
taught
bugs
from 2004; place
crops
popu
selec
used
pests
2001;
prac
low
con
and
with
over
and 1PM
that
nat
are
and
in
in
to 333
334
bug
ticides
task.
(Williams,
these
other pests.
and
in
polyphagous
respectively.
bugs
more
in
[Nezara (brown
bugs
can
[Acrosternum opment.
problem (Neurocolpus
______
sampling.
[20011 effective
(WF)
the
STEVEN
eliminating
Designing
complex
persist
Plant
tobacco
are
typically
bug
important
pests
1PM
In
growing
(Snodgrass,
with
stink
viridula])
1PM:
increasing (Reprinted
in
2006,
A
program
pests
bugs
Conceptual
2007).
permission
E.
as
Midsouth
avoidance,
complex
across
nubilis),
hilare]
bug
has
The
NARANJO
and
budworm
effective
a
attack
boll
crop season.
are
were
pest
showing
also
been
in
Euschistus
from
Interactions//
mobile
elevated
1996).
and
now
the
from
diagram
the
in
weevil has
effective
loss
problem
WF
cotton
twice
attack
of Ellsworth
and
a
status
the
Both
control
southern
Midsouth
Midsouth Elsevier.)
been
&
challenging
resistant
(by
The
seed-feeding
X
and
insects
of RANDALL
three
Southeast
Ecology
senius]
use
(through N
to
importance
the
Bt
plant at
maturing
but
USDA
a
&
insecticide
through
three-fold of
main
early long-standing
Arizona
Martinez-Carrillo
measures
cotton)
insecticides these
,
to
green
reflects
green
and
and
bugs
components
in
several
Terminatióiz
and
G.
squaring
cotton.
Detection,
eradication)
Monitoring
Whitefly
Effective
Stoneville,
Management
stink
Chemistry 7
Sampling,
Southeast,
boils Stickiness
boll
tend
Southeast
Selective LUTTRELL
stink
and
as
stink
of
difficult
those
and Virus,
for use
success
major
insec
devel
these
stink Plant
to
later
bugs
of
pest
bug
bug
the
but
for
be
of
Date
&
&
they
under
Nonetheless,
plement
pest
erally Manageme
10). Pest
tion
25.4
ment
the
the ment beneficial
mologists
being
confirm
in
sion
research
tarnished
to
Mississippi
/
Host
rnate
some
the
Significant
Midsouth
stink
will
eradication
eradication
of
entomologists
options
way
thresholds
focuses
adopted
removal
a
to
be \
Pest
the
regions.
approach
\
bugs
pest
for
in
species
plant
pest
briefly
has
Inter-Crop
eradication
broader
the Movement
two
are
for
on
debate
eradication
from
(Greene
of
management
Pest&
developed
on
bug
as
involves
plant
studying
and
Southeast
Additional
key
invasive
Prediction
in
discussed
early-season
a
has
limited
across
its
Out
the
(Snodgrass
substitute
cotton
impacts
continues
monitoring
‘ole,
Resistant
bugs.
et
been
Varieties
current
programs
system.
al.,
the
sampling
pest an
the
are
hectares
here.
pests
testing
evaluated
2001),
(Myers
areawide
complete
on
broadleaf
developing
species Midsouth
over
for
et
range
Extension
in
other
procedures
al.,
are
or
and
and
the
is
et
the
by
2005).
as
needed
a!.,
currentlY
and
by
(Chapter
USA
approach
pest
elimina
manage
value
those
growers
hosts
a
1998).
and
exten
com
treat
ento
gen
and
This
and
for
of
in
to
of is
2001
New
mented (Henneberry
and throughout
eradication
lished
in Like vils
ous exotic large
25.4.2
to pause”
reduce basic weevil
time vil
toring
early-season
triggered to
boll
(Table infested.
and
north
Southern wide
Florida
1990s fully
northwest lations
late
nate
ated
2003). achievement
1994; USA
and Effective
25.4.
USA
removal
enable
free
attempts
and
federal
weevil
Mexico
Texas,
and
1950s
strategic
the
early-season
geographic in
cotton
expanded
components this
effort
in
boll
cotton
with
Alabama,
I
in
25.1)
populations
Dickerson
by Interest
establishment
treatments
were
Pink
earnest
and
early
in
the
continuing
Boll
It
the
boll
removal
2009.
invasive
many
Rolling
a weevil
and
of
is
agencies.
eradication
Mexico
pheromone
with
phases program
the
can began
West
and
is
host-free
south
to early eradicated
& treatments
anticipated
this
specialist bollworm
crop
weevil
covering
weevil,
effort
an
the
contain
first
Naranjo,
through
Reductions
by
in
be
middle
northern
zones.
only
additional
was
by
applications
key
important
et
190
Plains.
maturity
in
of
of
Alabama. the
directly
a
to
eradication
cotton
from
in
beginning
half
through
the
(Cross,
The
al.,
involves
coordinated
North
the
USA
eradicated
boll
Os
reduce
in
a the
period
the
late
expanded
a
(grandlure)-baited
and
that
in
mid
few
Tennessee
and
of
expanding,
South
were
that
program
half-century
cotton,
2001;
1998).
program
During
cotton
Arizona,
weevil
Chihuahua,
specialist
1980s,
pink
the
and 1970s.
in
suppress 1973;
Carolina
and
successfully
became
isolated
1960 pest
Arizona
biological
In
the
overwintering
coordinated
growers,
cotton
of
twentieth
necessary
with
program
Carolina,
Hardee
indirectly
the
The
crop
from
boliworm
insecticides
late-season
pest.
s
USA
to
and
as
outbreaks.
Smith
the
Incipient
is
effort
following
include
California
and
the
being
but
early
began
a
firmly
west
populations
insect
to cooperative
regions
and
destruction
will
of
central
In
the
late
key
Mexico
and
and
southern
Midsouth
the
&
was
they
8z
scientific
the
to
invaded
Georgia,
century
to
traps
success
to
be
related
nation
imple
Texas,
pest
Harris,
Harris,
across
1990s,
estab
moni
in
losses
is
Texas
elimi
popu
state
social
keep
vari past,
“dia
wee
initi
wee
mid
that
also
The
still
and
and
the
an
in
to
of
simultaneous begun
tional
a the whole
tiple
management
interactive
is
1PM
Kogan grated
other urban
mental
production
tainability over-reliance
advancements has
icantly
have
genic
eral
stances,
1PM
improved
25.5 overall
worm
reduced
Grefenstette, Bt
relaxed
allow
control
in Bt
insecticides
pheromones,
each basic
ping with
California
broader
contrasted
refuge
Current
this
areawide
transgenic
of
historically
significant
crops is
dramatically
crops)
and
research the
crop
areas region
for
populations
single
with
to
(1998)
farms elements
based
issues
success
lowered
case
and
in
Conclusions
and
by
view
landscape 100%
scientific
total
for
within
monitoring
effects
and
systems and
expand
in
crop
Arizona
1PM
have
>99%
as
pest as
serves
programs
on
to 2006),
of
characterizes will
societal resistance
and
or
and
sterile
and
the
will
will
and
of
technological
production
a
needed.
program
cotton,
environmental
northern
been
insecticide
multiple
“Level
production
programs
an
occurred
substitute
species
“Level of
entire
the
of
continue
lowered
in
USA
multiple misuse. the
from
and
be
knowledge,
continue
manage
but
both
are
ever-changing
perspective,
multiple
the
insect
and
the
COTTON
eradication
associated
needed
issues
of
2
use
become
it
and
summarized
largely
The
agroecosystems.
mating
3
management
Phase
in
2001
completed
1PM”
to
program
is
all Sonora,
southern
pests
in
1PM”
pest
of
individual
release,
in
Undoubtedly,
to
too
as
use of
for
worldwide.
augment
areas.
cotton
impact
sterile
the
to
cotton
advances
and
pest
Bt
to grow,
to
cotton I
which
ARTHROPOD
“Level
a
economic
quality
more
early
the
focused
on regions
losses
improve
in
cotton.
with
past
but disruption
understand
which
effort. 2005
combination
Mexico
species
demands.
foundation
a
perhaps
required and
include
insect
pests
California
by
especially
fields
of
to
much system
closely
above
decade
focuses
1
fields.
insecticide
like
population
and
which
(e.g.
(El-Lissy
of have
gauge
all
2010.
Pink
follow-up
1PM,”
on
Environ
involves
Some
the
circum
within
within
in
cotton
future release
within
signif
many
trans
pests
what
addi
have
mul
inte
This
been
map
that
with
that
boll- 2007
non
1PM
the
sus
Sev
was
The
the
on
of or
as
of
to
of
& 335
336
andJohn
We
California),
Acknowledgements
ship
greater
risk
tem
ment
field.
by
only
inputs
2006).
with
and
ing
for
&
other
over
in
(GNA)
protein
of
ticidal
continue.
pillar
adopted
or
sions.
and
friendly
to
dict
and
and
the
and
as
challenge
spatial
ods
develop
O’Callaghan, (insects,
I
Overall,
three
selectively
other
and
benefiting
thank will STEVEN
future
herbicide require
multiple
aphids,
GPS)
as
Meeting
increased
precision
applying
170
research
and
tobacco
toxins information
for
regulatory
and
sustainability like
and
Such
Transgenic
transgenic
Ruberson
needed
greater
continue
but
Cry
crop scales.
by
managing
are
distinct
systems
Peter
manage
efficient
weeds,
protease
Current
fertilizers,
transgenic
weed
the
Drs.
information
for
mites,
E.
toxins
are
other
growers
technologies
these
pests.
likely
budworms.
resistance
NARANJO
society
allowing
species
this
use
2000)
and
polyphagous
agriculture
Ellsworth predictability
within
long
known
This
(University
Pete
pests
level
pathogens)
to
cotton
whiteflies,
6-endotoxins
for
cotton
systems
of
technology
and
proteins decision
information
commercial
challenges
inhibitors
The
practice
to
and
multiple
expand,
providing
models,
tradition
task
herbicides
as
to
plant
(Christou
storing,
and
to
specific
expand
Goodell one
from
growers
a
environmental
managers
&
manage
or
technologies
are
(University
conferring
whole.
better
will
RANDALL
behavior.
vegetative
(GIS,
may
that
both
aids
like
of
based
development
and
B.
on
leading
plant
in
for
risk
are
stressors
will
Georgia)
at
thuringiensis
much
mining, be
areas
of
(Shaw
cultivars
plant
to
as
et
and trend
the
and
(University
snowdrop
mobile
producers,
remote
understand,
being has
to
reduce
both
risk
assessment
pest
on an
farm-level
likely
al.,
and
bugs,
well
apply
of
insecticides
cotton
This control G.
either
to
to
of
been
one
health
insecticidal
even
from
&
associated
2006),
is
Arizona)
the
for
examined at
more
steward
be
manage
LUTTRELL
reduced
analyzing
a
as pests
Willers,
bollworm
call
sensing
of likely
or
overall
is
multiple
target
single
their mined
widely
(Glare
these
grower
many
greater
lectin
insect
insec
more cater
and
going
and
sys
meth
upon
user-
deci
and
of tools
such
pre
to
to
El-Zik,
El-Lissy,
Dickerson,
Cross,
Conway,
Christou,
Castle,
Campion,
agement
Proceedings
1319.
boliworm Brown,
Memphis,
Brodt,
1999, (2001).
the Bottrell,
Science,
enemies Baumhover,
Anonymous
cotton T.
Trends
Andow,
prospects
house,
International
References
insects.
manuscript.
Insecticide
insightful
Publishing.
& cotton
251.
eties.
Revised
30.
grated
R.
Journal
481.
management.
J.
Screw-worm
market.
Nature
cal
J.
boll
K.
W.
(2006).
N.
Cotton
Memphis,
0.
P.
Tucson,
M.
risk
S.
S.J.,
Boll
in
P.,
H.
In
A.
41,
aphid
H.
A.
(2007).
weevil.
pests.
Tunstall,
P., systems
pest D. ICAC
J.,
D.
W.
& Plant
Biotechnology,
in
of
eradication D.
M.
planting
E.,
TN:
Cotton:
&
Silvertooth,
(1973).
of Weevil
Pesticide
assessment
in
361—373.
Capell,
Goodell,
G.
Frisbie,
Experimental
Economic
Prabhalcer,
A.,
Grefenstette.
Arkansas
resistance
Foundation
R.
G.
A.
A.,
Steinkraus,
the
management. comments
Cotton
(1995).
Review
insect
&
Cotton
In
AZ:
(Homoptera:
Science,
(2006).
control
H.,
Annual
California
TN:
Lovei,
(1994).
Adkisson,
Beltwide
Brashear,
Insect
Annual
A
Eradication
for
Biology,
pp.
University
T.,
Graham,
News,
College window
R.
Advisory
National
P.
Article
pest
Entomology,
pest
Cotton:
Kohli,
Foundation.
Recent
in
E.
505—534. Pests
11,
J., B.,
G.
cotton.
Review
for
through
24,
Pheromones
and
N.
(1991).
the
Review
Cotton
Reference D.
30,
Moore,
L.
Krebill-Prather,
W.J.
control.
control
302—308.
treatment
of
P. on
Bt
control,
cotton 749—751.
on
of
&
A.
C.,
CauiforniaAgri
Aphididae)
A.,
its
&
A.J.,
for
U.S.
Committee,
in
Agriculture
L.
1.
Cotton,
crops
developments
Cotton
of
the
Cotton Henneberry,
of
L.,
an
Journal Arpaia,
(2006).
the
Ruberson, (1977).
management
Gatehouse,
Integrated
Conferences,
Entomology,
Wallingford, release
full
Arizona
of
and
48,
L.
Bitter,
Brumley,
crop
United in
earlier
In
growers
Entomology,
and
(response
&c
Book
Production
eds.
season 462—466.
for
Council.
transgenic
threshold
Mexico,
Handbook
Watson,
Progress
Cotton
of
S.
5, and
of
Report.
eradication
using
B.
G.
States
Press.
the
Entomological
Series
J.
(2006).
culture,
R.
1—55.
sterilized
A.
A.
J.
crop
draft T.
pp.
R.
J.
utilize
cotton
and
18,
its
L.
A.
control et
Matthews
2005,
insect
in
to
UK:
J.
&
T.
ofpink
through Research, &Vargas,
natural T.
pp.
cii.
of
for & 22,
14—46.
1313
pesticide
No.
man
future
Kring,
Romeis).
cotton
(1999).
crops.
et
61,
Ecologi
(1992).
Pest
Gate-
of
(1955).
CABI
240-
the
vari
In
inte
451-
al.
flies.
6. of
pest
24—
this of
•
•
A
Frisvold,
Frisbie,
Filiman,
Faria,
Ewing,
Eveleens,
Environmental
Ellsworth,
Ellsworth,
Ellsworth,
El-Zik,
El-Zik,
tional Integrated
ton
New
Ecosystems
tor
the
of Insect
778.
Department
Quarantine cations
ifornia.
experimental
Secondary health/reducing.htm.
tection
ticide Tucson,
insects/wf7ipm6.html.
sion. zona
T.
Arizona,
pling
cals.arizona.edu/crops/cottonfinsects/wfsampl.html.
No.
Protection,
Bemisia
pp.191—224.
duction,
In
ment
Pest
R.
36.
tural
Management
3—104.
Bemisia
J.
of
adoption
red
Integrated
E.
York: M.
New
&
6,
K.
Cotton
R.
Control
Management
K. K.
the
trade Available
Risk.
Sweetpotato
D.
G.
of
management
Nichols,
Frisbie,
for
Publication
P.
K.
Environmental
imported
Agency.
&
E.,
Boca
M.,
tabaci:
AZ: M.
Insecticides
A.
B.,
eds.
Pest P.
P.
York:
P.
&
boll
and
John
Cooperative
tabaci
G.,
Wraight,
20,
outbreak
resistance
2006,
Washington,
El-Zik,
&
C.,
C.,
and
Publication
Parencia, &
C.
Reeves,
Grimes,
University
of in
Management
in
Raton,
Sterling,
R.
Environment,
van
in
NewYork:John
insecticide Thaxton,
Protection
weevil,
Pest
853—869. &
Palumbo,
Diehl,
Agriculture.
1950, John
Wiley.
a
the
R.
K.
welfare
at
Agriculture,
E.
1PM
Available
with
Martinez-Carrillo,
case
Whitejly
L.
fire
den
K.
Management M.
Frisbie,
Systems
http://ag.arizona.edu/crops/cottonf
on
United
J.
196006.
Bureau D.
(2006).
Wiley.
Series
and
FL:
induction
S.
J.
M.
C.
M. Entomology,
a
Anthonomus
study
to
fungi.
El-Zik
ant,
W.
Bosch,
W.
W.
Extension.
Community-Wide
of
No.
P.
P.
CRC
effects.
R.
&
J.
&
pest
pests
Systems
DC:
Agency
application
Arizona,
Nymphs
L.
Jr.
&
M.
&
at
13,
L.,
Wilson,
No.18,
Tronstad,
States (2001).
K.
and
Solenopsis
Whitefly
E810.Washington,
vol.
(1985).
from
Tucson,
of
Thaxton,
Naranjo,
Press.
www.epa.gov)pesticides/
Crop
(1950).
&
Naranjo,
M. suppression.
(1989).
US
Wiley.
93—102. R.
Entomology
and
AgBioForum,
of
Systems
Cotton
L.
3,
and
El-Zik
&z
and
Environmental
2,
North
(2006).
PublicationAZl4o4.
in
grandis.
Protection,
beet
Available
Biological
T. ed.
Cooperative
Inaction
J.
Ehler,
L.
Management
stresses
497—503.
Early-Season
Cotton
Cotton,
AZ:
Genetic
R.
invicta,
L.
in
Wilson,
China:
T.
S.
P.
D.
Production,
S.
armyworm
&
Basisfor
(2006). (2001).
and
cotton
E.
America.
M.
(eds.)
University
Reducing
Pimentel,
E.,
L.
L.
Agriculture,
In
Production. (1996).
(1989).
1PM
and
T.
9, levels
Cotton
Dennehy,
in
E.
20,
interna a
at
Integrated
improve
control
69—78.
(1989).
Wilson,
DC:
Bt
pp.
1PM
preda
(1973).
in
cotton.
Cotton
Exten
Appli http://
Plant
in
Series
767—
cot
Sam
Cal- Pro-
Crop
for
Pes
Ari
US
Cul
eds.
Pro
11-
by
for
pp.
of
Huber,
Herzog,
Henneberry,
Henneberry,
Harris,
Hargreaves,
Hardee,
Greene,
Gould,
Goodell,
Glare,
Gannaway,
Gaines,
study phis,
Watson,
King,
and
Foundation. zation
&
areawide
and ment
southwestern
management
pp.
ment,
In D.
tants,
mology.
the
mologist,
weevil
highly
and
nomic York:
0.
Biological
Review
Wiley.
In
1373. patterns
sis: pp.
Insect
the
338.
R.
L.
Cotton
Proceedings
World.
843-851.
Mites:
L.
management
R.
differing
J.
431-453.
(1996).
TN: Review,
J.
United
T.
F.
of
J.,
Biology,
G. eds.
and
Entomology,
Springer-Verlag.
industry,
T., D.
Pests
Memphis,
J.
J.
(2001).
Coleman,
K.
R.
successful
(Coleoptera:
of
A.,
P.
T.
areawide Hoelmer,
Cotton
A.,
49,
K.,
Insects C.
D.
Moore,
Phillips
&
basis.
Interagency in
Characterization
Control
B.,
H. j.
Management,
London:
F.
E.
T.
Canerday,
T.
of
O’Callaghan,
Working
(1957).
&
3,
insecticide R.
Turnipseed,
Graves,
States.
(1996). 82—111.
Memphis,
(1948).
Montez,
Pentatomidae)
Cotton,
G.
J.
agricultural
J.
Wallingford,
Harris,
approaches
of
31—52.
Treatment
United
Ecology
(1994).
and
In
&
Foundation. researchers,
King, the
&
L
TN:
of
pp.
&
pheromone
insect,
K.
of
94,403—409.
& Phillips,
Cotton
Cotton
Bemisia
Naranjo,
Commonwealth
Annual
Beltwide
Chemical
R. Mites:
Curculionidae):
List
eds.
J. &
Hoffman,
cotton
National
Research
together:
601-624.
F.
T.
Breeding
J.
G.
J.
COTTON
States.
Goolsby,
B.,
and
TN:
use
A.
eds.
Coleman,
of
D.,
G.
R.
M.
good
&
S.
Insects
Characterization
and
philosophies.
Reed,
the
for (2003). thresholds insects
Review
A.
Wilhoit,
in
Cotton
UK:
Phillips
Cotton
tabaci
(2000).
J. Henry,
G.,
insect
Safety.
E.
in
extension,
S.
Matthews
control. and
Recorded
California,
Management,
trapping
tnte
R.
pink
Cotton
M. scientific
roles
Memphis,
G. for
Sullivan,
J.
CABI
E. cotton.
and
J.
(1996).
P.
of
ARTHROPOD
(eds.)
grated Eradicating
Implementation.
Conference,
pp.
in and
King,
populations Bacillus
insect
T., Foundation.
(1998).
L.
(1979).
Entomology,
bollworm
a
&
of
Institute
New
L.
the
Mites:
Publishing.
G.
447-469.
clash
Council.
In
Scott,
for
R. private
Cotton
their
(2006).
(2008).
of
&J.
Journal
American
United
achievement,
J.
and &
Cotton
Pest
Suppression
J. M.
1993
resistance.
and
TN:
male
Feasibility
York:
R.
Palmquist,
Integrated
stink
thuringien
Characteri
P.
eds. between
Coleman,
J.
control
pp.
growers.
W.
Insects
Manage
Phillips
Manage
Tunstall,
of
the
Cotton
Shifting
consul
Classical
States:
to
in
&
Insects
Mem
on
2,
of
pink
E.
Ento
1367—
P.
2004.
Ento
bugs
May,
1PM
John
New
boll
the
319—
Eco
an
G.
&
of
In
A
a
in 337 338
j
Jenkins, Insecticide
King,
King,
Knipling,
Knipling,
Kogan,
Kohel,
Leigh,
Leigh,
STEVEN
Luttrell, Matthews,
McGuire,
Miller,
bollworm
Resources. program.
irac-online.org/. In ment, pp.
Journal (1996a). Characterization Phillips Cotton Cotton ment.
eradication
Agriculture lation Annual
ton,
ical
No. ety
Insecticides ifornia
Management, and cotton. man,
perspective.
Wallingford, Cotton,
Ulloa, Biological veria worm
of Beltwide TN:
Cotton
563—600.
E.
E.
of
24.
different
T. DC:
R.J.
T. perspectives
ecology National J. Memphis,
eds. M.
G.,
Suppression
G.,
Agronomy. bassiana pp.
E., Insects
F.,
Agriculture,
Foundation. N. of
R. Review
Agronomy F.,
E. eds.
E. M. Biological E.
&
sterile
In Insects
Journal
(1998). Government
Resistance Brussels,
M. &
Phillips, Economic
moths
Black,
G. &
Coleman,
Lowe, G. Cotton
E.
17-85.
NARANJO R. F. Roach,
Control, F.
Lewis,
Cotton (2006).
Wilson,
through G. Agricultural
A.
Memphis, R., (1994). and J.
(1955). G.
Annual
(1979).
and
of eds.
of
release
A. UK:
Cotton
(1994).
and Coleman,
on and
release
TN: King,
H., Integrated
Leland, of Entomology,
in
A.
important
Matthews
beneficial
Conference,
Memphis,
and
Insects J. C.
S.
Mites:
Entomology, 38, Belgium: B. Economic
CABI and control. Series. 20(7), Effect
field Jackson, a Mites:
& Management,
F.
Cotton Cotton R.
F. H. Possibilities
R. Action
Review The
cotton the
G.
Management,
J. D.
Cultural 390—396. Archuleta, Printing
Council.
strategies
&
(eds.)
&
TN:
J., &
contemporary programs. King,
Publishing.
R.
populations
(1996).
and J. 4—6. Basic Characterization use
Coleman, RANDALL
Handbook
Characterization
Watson,
Madison, pp. of
Morales-Ramos,
&J. Cotton E., Phillips insects In
Entomology, of pest pest Foundation.
TN:
insect
insect C. (1984). 43, IRAC.
pp. Committee
different
Mites: of
J.
511-538. Entomology,
48, Cotton
Principles
E.
Dara,
P.
control. Office.
sexually Host
R.
Cotton 243-270.
management.
management:
1368—1370. & Tunstall,
eds. for of
4
S.
Phillips
Available
T. pest
Foundation. in
Burton,
Characterization In
US WI: and 59—462. Cotton,
R.
&
No.512.
insect
plant (2000).
G.
Insects
F.
use cotton S.,
of
J.
E.
Proceedings
R.
isolates
Department
American
Memphis,
developments.
management Foundation.
72,
(1996).
In
mites (eds.)
LUTTRELL
of
sterile
Lygus G.
Park,
J.
(2007). and and
39,
in
Monograph pp.455—461. Insect resistance.
& Insect
V. J.
222—227.
control
King,
Coleman,
and
Evaluation
Washing
fields.
at
pink R.
Memphis,
Manage 527—542. A. E.
Manage
(1996b).
pests
hesperus.
Biology Y.
of 11.
males. www.
J. histor
(1966).
Mites:
Pests
et
MoA Popu
J.
Soci
Cole of A
Beau H. TN:
boll-
Cal
and al.
R. or
of
US
the of
of
&
Mumford,
Myers,
Naranjo,
Naranjo,
Naranjo,
Naranjo,
Naranjo,
National
National
National
Oliveira,
Palumbo,
Palumbo,
Parvin,
systems. Publishing. Journal & tion
ogy,
Protection, natural
Predatory aphelinid
estimating
Lanham, cal
Entomologia mial
population
growth servation Washington, Biological
AgriChemUsFC/2000s/2006JAgriChemUsFC-05—17- cultural
able
2006.pdf. bases. Pest able Available
History,
projects
Bemisia Insecticidal
Nichols, nicotinoid Publication
zona, arizona.edu/pubs/insects/az1319.pdf. J.
and
Control,
43,
P.
J.
and
Loss
at
sampling
H.,
Tunstall, insect
S.
Memphis,
S.
at of D. S. S.
S.
471—491.
J.
enemies Cooperative
M. Cotton
Cotton
www.cotton.org/tech/pest/index.cfm.
Agricultural
regulators
In
E.
tabaci. pest E., J.
Data.
Chemical Insect
E.
MD: E.,
D.
Heteroptera: for
Savoie, E. J. Control, 20, W. parasitoids
R.
current
of
R.
at
(2007).
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/
C.,
Insect
the Insectici&s eds.
Flint,
&
Experimentalis
density
&
Ellsworth,
L. (2001).
C.,
natural V.,
Bemisia
Jr.
www.cotton.org/tech/pest/index.cfm.
management. 835—852.
control
management.
DC:
Entomological AZ1319. Hagler,
Norton,
Memphis, Horowitz,
(2003).
Science,
Council
Crop impact Council
Henneberry,
plans
pp.
&
M. in
Ellsworth,
A.
Pests H.
30, TN:
US
Establishment
Smith,
1PM
status, Usage:
in
Coil
&
M. Conservation
of
Protection, 559—576.
Extension.
tabaci.
Department
enemies 52—72.
in
and Their Cross-Commodity J. National
van
Statistics
for 7,
management of G.
&
in adult
P. Tucson, systems
of
(2007b).
Arizona:
R.
(2007a).
63
& Henneberry,
TN:
A.
Cotton,
A.
C.
J. Arizona.
heteropteran
etApplicata,
2005 estimating
Randen,
resistance
(1998).
and
J.
Crop
Ecology
(abstr.).
(1994).
W. &
P. R. Annual
In
T.J.
Bemisia
National
Society
Ruberson,
Wallingford,
Hagler,
in
20,
&
Cotton
C., for
(1996). Cotton
Pest Available collaborative
Protection, Field
AZ:
Crop eds.
a
cotton:
Service and &
Prabhalcer,
of
Characterizing
739—765.
life
and
Bemisia Pest
Anderson,
1PM
and
Dennehy, E.
Management.
Agriculture.
Review
University
tabaci
of
of
impact
G.
management
Information:
J. T.J.
table (1998). Guidelines
Crops
Insects
and 80,
Cotton
Crop
Council. management evaluation
America.
R. Bemisia
Use
predation. A. Series
role pp.
(2006).
(1996).
at
343—353.
(2004). 20,
tabaci
of
Matthews classifying
on
approach.
UK:
in
phenology
http://cals.
170—197. Summary. of
Eradica Entomol N.
and of
709—723. P.
research Council.
T.
cotton.
Biologi
exotic
No.
for
tabaci.
insect
(2001).
(2001). CABI .
of
Avail
Cotton Bino
Avail
Crop
Agri Con
Mites: D. and
Data
Neo
Ari
of
In
for
17,
& COTTON ARTHROPOD 1PM
Characterization and Managements, eds. B. G. King, J. R. Sparks, T. C. (1996). Toxicology of insecticides and aca Phillips & R. J. Coleman, pp. 815—829. Memphis, TN: ricides. In Cotton Insects and Mites: Characterization and Cotton Foundation. Management, eds. B. C. King, J. R. Phillips & R. J. Cole Plapp, F. Jr., Jackman, J., Campanhola, C. et a!. (1990). man, pp. 283—322.Memphis, TN: Cotton Foundation. Monitoring and management ofpyrethroid resistance Steinkraus, D.C., Hollingsworth, R. C. & Slaymaker, P. H. in the budworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Texas, (1995). Prevalence of Neozygitesfresenii (Entomophtho Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Jour rales: Neozygitaceae) on cotton aphids (Homoptera: nal of EconomicEntomology. 83, 335—341. Aphididae) in Arkansas cotton. Environmental Entomol Prasitka, J. R., Heinz, K. M. & Minzenmayer, R. R. (2004). ogy, 24, 465—474. Relationships of landscape, prey and agronomic vari Sterling, W. L., El-Zik, K. M. & Wilson, L. T. (1989). ables to the abundance of generalist predators in cot Biological control of pest populations. In Integrated ton (Gossypium hirsutum) fields. Landscape Ecology, 19, Pest Management Systems and Cotton Production, eds. 709—717. R. E. Frisbie, K. M. El-Zik & L. T. Wilson, pp. 155-189. Rainwater, C. F. (1952). Progress in research on cotton New York: John Wiley. insects. In Insects, The Yearbook of Agriculture, 1952, pp. Stern, V., van den Bosch, R. &Leigh, T. F. (1964). Strip cut 497—500.Washington, DC: US Department of Agricul ting alfalfa for lygus bug control. California Agri culture, ture, US Government Printing Office. 18, 5—6. Ridgway, R. L., Bell, A. A., Vetch, J.A. & Chandler, J. M. Stoltz, R. L. & Stern, V. M. (1978). Cotton arthropod food (1984). Cotton protection practices in the USA and chain disruption by pesticides in the San Joaquin world. In Cotton, Monograph No. 24, Agronomy Series, Valley, California. Environmental Entomology, 7, 703— eds. R. J. Kohel & C. F. Lewis, pp. 266—361. Madison, 707. WI: American Society of Agronomy. Tabashnik, B. E., Carrière, Y., Dennehy, T. J.et al. (2003). Romeis, J., Meissle, M. & Bigler, F. (2006). Transgenic Insect resistance to transgenic Bt crops: lessons from crops expressing Bacillus thuringiensis toxins and bio the laboratory and field.Journal of EconomicEntomology, logical control. Nature Biotechnology,24, 63—71. 96, 1031—1038. Roush, R. T. & Daly, J. C. (1990). The role of population Toscano, N. C., Mueller, A. J.,Sevacherian, V. & Sharma, genetics in resistance research and management. In R.K.(1974). Insecticide applications based on hexalure Pesticide Resistance in Arthropods, eds. R. T. Roush & trap catches versus automatic schedule treatments B. B. Tabashnik, pp. 97-125. New York: Chapman & for pink bollworm moth control. Journal of Economic Hall. Entomology, 67, 522—524. Schneider,J. C. (2003). Overwintering of Heliothis virescens Trichilo, P.J. &Wilson, L.T. (1993). An ecosystem analysis (F.) and Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) (Lepidoptera: Noctu of spider mite outbreaks: physiological stimulation or idae) in cotton fields of Northeast Mississippi. Journal natural enemy suppression. Experimental and Applied ofEconomicEntomology, 96, 1433—1447. Acarology, 17, 291—314. Shaw, D. R. & Willers, J. L. (2006). Improving pest man van den Bosch, R. & Hagen, K. 5. (1966). Predaceous agement with remote sensing. Outlookson Pest Manage and Parasitic Arthropods in California Cotton Fields, ?ment, 17, 197—201. California Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin Shelton, A. M. & Badenes-Perez, B. (2006). Concepts and No. 820. Berkeley, CA:University of California. applications of trap cropping in pest management. Villavaso, B. J., Bartlett, A. C. & Laster, M. L. (1996). Annual Reviewof Entomology, 51, 285—308. Genetic control. In Cotton Insects and Mites: Character Smith, J. W. & Harris, F. A. (1994). Boll weevil: cotton ization and Management, eds. B. C. King, J. R. Phillips pest of the century. In Insect Pests of Cotton, eds. C. A. & R. J. Coleman, pp. 539—562. Memphis, TN: Cotton Matthews & J. P. Tunstall, pp. 228—258.Wallingford, Foundation. UK: CABIPublishing. Wagner, T. L., Olson, R. L., Willers, J. L. & Williams, Snodgrass, C. L. (1996). Insecticide resistance in field M. R. (1996). Modeling and computerized decision populations of the tarnished plant bug (Heteroptera: aids. In CottonInsectsand Mites:Characterization and Man Miridae) in cotton in the Mississippi Delta. Journal of agement, eds. B. C. King, J. R. Phillips & R. J. Coleman, EconomicEntomology, 89, 783—790. pp. 205—249.Memphis, TN: Cotton Foundation. Snodgrass, C. L., Scott, W. P., Abel, C. A. et al. (2005). Walker, J. K. & Smith, C. W. (1996). Cultural control. Tarnished plant bug (Heteroptera: Miridae) popula In Cotton Insects and Mites: Characterization and Manage tions near fields after early season herbicide treat- ment, eds. B. C. King, J. R. Phillips & R. J. Coleman, ment. Environmental Entomology, 34, 705—711. pp. 471-510. Memphis, TN: Cotton Foundation. 340
I Watson,
Whalon,
Whitcomb,
STEVEN
Western Agriculture, survival Control ham, Database. Duynslayer, Available ders
and
pp.
M.
T.
in
Mites
E.
Region.
of
East
W.
E.,
at
F.
24-34.
the NARANJO
www.pesticideresistance.org/. L.
Mota-Sanchez,
the
H.
Science
of (1980).
Lansing,
(2007).
Western
Arkansas
&
pink
Bell,
Oaldand,
and IRACArthropod Methods
K. MI: &
boliworm.
United
Cotton
RANDALL (1964).
Education
Michigan
D.,
CA:
Fields,
Hollingsworth,
States,
for
Predaceous
US
In
reducing
Pesticide
Bulletin State
Administration,
G.
Department
ed.
Pink
LUTTRELL
University.
H.
Insects,
Resistance
Boflworm
No.
S.
winter
R.
M.
Gra
690.
Spi
of
&
Williams, Williams,
Wilson,
Fayetteville,
ference, Station. ceedings Memphis,
Memphis, ceedings
mites ing
sampling
on L.
p.
of M. M.
of
T.,
cotton.
168.
the
TN:
TN:
the
R.
R.
Gonzales,
AR:
Beltwide
(2006).
frequency (2007).
Beltwide
Memphis,
National
National
In
Arkansas
Proceedings
Cotton
Cotton
Cotton
D.
Cotton
Cotton Cotton
and
TN:
&
Plant,
Agricultural
Conference,
insect
insect economic
National
Conference,
of
Council.
Council.
the
R.
losses
losses
Beltwide
E.
Cotton
pp. status
(1985).
pp.
2005.
2006. Experiment
1151—1204.
Cotton 974—1026.
of
Council.
Predict
In
In spider
Con
Pro
Pro