t ~... ".~ -. ~W 2.5 1.0 .W '1 I.l:W III w 2.2 &: W ~ ~ ~ 1.1 1.1 ......... k II I 4 '"'' 1.25 ""'1. 111111.6 ""'1.25 ""'1.4 111111.6 • I MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANOARDS-1963-A NATIONAL BUREAU Of STANDARDS-1963-A ·.··6~ \[8161017/80 I ~, ,i ·j' i: o CO CD ,~ .. : Ii .<:: 0: 1 : o , '\ o " ·1rECHN.lCA'L :PR~PA'[tEO IBY lBlIUEtIN ,:SCIENCE AND :J'iilI.!1MBER ~'J;6j\O "i\ iEOUCA:JTON . ... .A'GMINJSJ,RAifIDN o '(.k ". '. ib ,'. .'. J . ABSTRACT Henneberry, T. J., Bariola, L. A., and Kittock, D. L.1980. Integrating Methods for Control of the Pink Bollworm and Other Cotton In­ sects in the Southwestern United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin No. 1610, 45 pp. A socially, environmentally, and economically ator populations were high in May, June, and acceptable control method for the pink bollworm, mid- to late July, decreasing in August when pink Pectinophora gossypiella \Saunders), in the bollworm populations are increasing. The role of cotton-( Gossypium spp.) growing areas of the insect predator-prey interactions early and late in Southwestern United States is essential to the the season also needs further study. further development of an efficient, effective cot­ The use of plant growth regulators to remove ton pest management program. late-season sources for pink bollworm oviposition The results of research studies conducted and. larval food to develop an overwintering gen­ from 1972 to 1977, and reported in this bulletin. eration of the insect consistently resulted in more identified nectariless cotton types and selective than 90 percent reduction in the diapause larval termination of late-season cotton fruiting forms population at harvesttime with minimum effect on as potential components of an integrated system cotton yield. that could provide acceptable pink bollworm con­ Additional methods that might be used with trol. resistant cotton and chemical termination are, in The nectariless character in cotton reduced each season, pheromone trapping or pheromone pink bollworm infestations approximately 50 per­ confusion, judicious use of insecticides during the cent as compared with infestations in nectaried growing season and, in late season, early irriga­ cotton. During one season, in conjunction with tion cutoff, and cultural methods such as' early careful monitoring of cotton bolls to estimate an plow down, winter irrigation, and crop rotation. If established economic threshold of 10 percent in­ applied over a large area, these methods could festation, only two insecticide applications were provide the pink bollworm control necessary to required for control, and acceptable cotton lint develop an effective cotton pest management yields were obtained. system. Additional benefits from the nectariless character were 37 to 57 percent reduction in Lygus spp. and 8 to 66 percent reduction in cotton leafperforator, Bucculatrix thurberiella Busck. KEYWORDS: Pink hollworm, cotton insects, cot­ Delay or prevention of insecticide applications ton integrated methods, resistant early in the season for Lygus control reduces ad­ cotton varieties, plant growth reg­ verse effects on beneficial species regulating ulator, cotton sampling, cotton H eliothis spp. populations; however, total predator yield, cotton quality, pheromone, populations in nectariless cottons were also re­ gossyplure, hexalure, chemical duced. The reason for these reductions and possi­ termination, cultural practices, ble changes in prey-predator ratios and their in­ beneficial insects, predators, nec­ teractions need further detailed study. Insect pred­ tariless. For slIle h~' tile Superlntendcnt of Documcnts, r.;.~. GOl"cnmcnt Printing Office WlIslllngton. D.C. 20402 CONTENTS PAGE Introduction ...................................................1 Meloland. Calif.. 1975 ............................. .12 History of the pink bollworm in the Nectariless cotton and chemical termination United States................................................1 in commercial grower fields, 1975 and Literature review ............................................ 2 1976 .......................................................... .15 General methods ............................................ 6 Procedure ...............................................15 Sampling for pink bollworms in bolls Results ................................................... .15 and soil samples .................................... 6 Chemical termination and cotton defoliation on Pink bollworm male moth trapping ............ 6 commercial grower fields, 1977 .................... 2l Sweep net and D-vac sampling.................. 6 Procedure ................................................ 21 Plant growth regulators ............................6 Results .................................................... 22 Cotton yields ............................................. 7 Nectariless cotton and chemical termination ex­ Overwintering pink bollworm moth emer­ periments in 1976 and 1977 at the University gence and population development.. ....... 7 of Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station, In-season insecticide control and selective Yuma, and Arizona State University Experi- chemical termination of late-season cotton ment Farm, Tempe ......................................23 fruiting. 1973 ............................................... 7 Procedures (Yuma, Ariz .. 1976, 1977) ....... 23 Procedures ............................................... 7 Results .................................................... 24 Results ..................................................... 7 Procedures (Tempe, Ariz., 1976, 1977) ....... 27 Chemical termination, 1974 and 1975 .............10 Results .................................................... 28 Parker. Ariz., 1974 ...................................11 Discu$sion ..................................................... 31 Indio. Calif.. 1974 ................................... .11 Literature cit~d ............................................. 43 This paper contmns the results of research only. Mention of pesticides does not constitute a recommendation for use, nor does it imply that the pesticides are registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act as amended. The use of trade names in this publica60n does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or endorsement of the products by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Issued July 1980 Integrating Methods for Control of the Pink Bollworm and Other Cotton insects in the Southwestern United States By T. J. Henneberry, L. A. Bariola, and D. L. Kittock' INTRODUCTION Since 1967, the pink bollworm, Pectinophora Preliminary data indicate that pink bollworm gossypiella (Saunders), has caused serious populations from cotton grown in the Imperial economic losses to cotton-(Gossypium spp.) grow­ Valley, Calif., are more tolerant than previously ers in Arizona and southern California from re­ to organophosphate insecticides (H. T_ Reynolds, duced yields and quality and increasing costs of personal communication). An acceptable method insecticides (49).2 Heavy reliance on chemicals for of control is an important first step toward de­ control has resulted in sporadicHeliothis spp. out­ velopment of an effective cotton pest manage­ breaks and increased problems with cotton leaf­ ment system in production areas where the pink perforators, Bucculatrix thllrberiella Busck (14). bollworm is a problem. HISTORY OF THE PINK BOLLWORM IN THE UNITED STATES The insect was described by W. W. Saunders covered in Louisiana in 1919. The insect has per­ in 1842 from specimens damaging cotton in India. sisted along the Mexican border adjacent to west It apparently reached Egypt in infested cotton­ Texas since 1918. In 1936, pink bollworm infesta­ seed shipped from India about 1906-07 and was tions' probably from windborne moths, occurred introduced into the Western Hemisphere between again in the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas and 1911 and 1913 in cottonseed shipped from Egypt to adjacent Mexico, eventually spreading to the rest Brazil, Mexico, the West Indies, and the Philip­ of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and sections of pine Islands (4)_ Arizona, Arkansas, and Louisiana by the mid­ The pink bollworm was detected in Texas cot­ 1950's. ton in 1917. The SOUTce of infestation was traced to The first pink bollworm infestations in eastern cottonseed shipped in 1916 from Mexico to Texas Arizona were reported in 1926. The insect has per­ oil mills. The infestations were apparently elimi­ sisted there since that time. At periodic intervals nated by the use of cotton-free zones and exten­ thereafter, infestations occurred in other parts of sive cleanup measures, as was an infestation dis­ the State and were suppressed through coopera­ tive Federal, State, and industry programs. These lHenneberry and Bariola are entomologists. Western Cot­ activities were terminated after the 1963 cotton ton Research Laboratory, Phoenix, Ariz.; Kittock is an a­ harvest. Pink bollworm infestations were next gronomist, Cotton Research Center, Phoenix, Ariz. found in California in the Imperial Valley in 1965. 2Italic numbers in parentheses refer to Literature Cited. Spread was rapid through0ut southern California p.45. and severe losses occurred by 1967. Infestations 1 2 TECHNICAL BULLETIN1610, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE were detected in the high desert areas of Los vated cotton in northern Florida and southern Angeles and San Bernadino Counties in that year, Georgia during 1932-36. It has