Full text of "Annual conference report on cotton insect research and control"

See other formats

Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

CONFERENCE
REPORT ON

Cotton-Insect Research and

Control

January 7-8, 1980
St. Louis, Missouri

—H

rri

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Science and Education Administration
1980

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 to be
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, biochemis¬
try, and behavior of insects; on the chemistry of insecticides; and on the
physiology of the cotton plant is essential to the development of new con¬
cepts of cotton-insect control. This research is essential before major
breakthroughs can be achieved in developing insect-resistant cotton varie¬
ties, long-lasting systemic insecticides, and new concepts of control; in
discovering effective attractants; in solving the insecticide resistance
problem; and in making maximum use of biological control.

Future research output depends 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 entomol¬
ogy as teachers, research scientists, extension and survey entomologists, and
pest management consultants.

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 by means of farm magazines, news¬
papers, 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 used
by growers. Young people with such aptitude, for example, those enrolled in
4-H clubs, should be encouraged to enter this phase of professional entom¬
ology.

THIRTY-THIRD ANNUAL CONFERENCE REPORT
ON COTTON-INSECT RESEARCH AND CONTROL

January 7-8, 1980
St. Louis, Missouri

Sponsored by

Agricultural Experiment Stations

and

Cooperative Extension Services

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgi
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico
North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, and Texas

and the

Science and Education Administration

and

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

of the

U.S. Department of Agriculture
and the

National Cotton Council of America

Issued February 1980

This publication contains 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 publication
does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or endorsement of the products by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

This publication is available from the Bioenvironmental Insect Control
Laboratory, P.0. Box 225, Stoneville, Miss. 38776.

A 106.28/2:980
ISSN 0098-0196

Annual Conference Report on Cotton-Insect Research and Control, 33d,
January 7-8,St. Louis, Missouri. Issued February 1980.

Published by Agricultural Research (Southern Region), Science and Education
Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, P.0. Box 53326, New Orleans,
La. 70153, from camera-ready copy supplied by the conference.

CONTENTS

Page

Preface. v

Conference highlights. vii

Introduction. 1

Progress in insect rearing. 2

Cotton-insect control methods. 3

Cultural practices. 3

Insect attractants. 6

Genetic control. 8

Host plant resistance. 10

Biological control. 13

Chemical defoliation and desiccation. 15

Production mechanization in insect control. 15

Insecticides and miticides. 16

Precautions. 16

Registration. 20

Restrictions. 21

Application. 23

Effect on cotton plants. 26

Determining the need for chemical control. 27

Scouting and consulting. 28

Cotton-pest resistance to insecticides and miticidesc. 28

Effect of environmental factors on chemical control. 31

Insecticides and miticides recommended for cotton-pest control... 32

acephate, aldicarb, azinphosmethyl, Bacillus thuringiensis ,
carbaryl, carbophenothion, chlordimeform, chlorobenzilate,
chlorpyrifos, demeton, diazinon, dicofol, dicrotophos,
diflubenzuron, dimethoate, disulfoton, endosulfan, endrin,

EPN, ethion, fenvalerate, malathion, methamidophos, methidathion,
methomyl, methyl parathion, monocrotophos, naled, nuclear
polyhedrosis viruses, oxydemeton-methyl, parathion, permethrin,
phorate, phosphamidon, propargite, sulfur, sulprofos, toxaphene,

trichlorfon.

Insecticides and miticides showing promise in field tests. 39

Cotton insects and spider mites and their control. 41

bandedwing whiteflies, beet armyworms, boll weevils,
bollworms and tobacco budworms, cabbage loopers.

cotton aphids, cotton fleahoppers, cotton leafperforators,
cotton leafworms, cutworms, darkling ground beetles,
fall armyworms, garden webworms, grasshoppers, lygus bugs
and other mirids, pink bollworms, saltmarsh caterpillars
and other arctiids, seedcorn maggots, spider mites,
stink bugs, thrips, whitefringed beetles, wireworms,
yellowstriped armyworms and western yellowstriped

iii

Page

armyworms, miscellaneous insects, insects in stored
cottonseed and seed cotton.

Insect identification and cotton-insect surveys. 62

boll weevils, bollworms and tobacco budworms, cotton aphids,
cotton fleahoppers, cotton leafworms, lygus bugs and other
mirids, pink bollworms, spider mites, thrips, predators, and
cotton pests outside of The Continental United States.

Conferees. 70

ILLUSTRATION

Fig.

1. Areas of the United States where the pink bollworm is presently

under Federal or State regulation. 50

TABLES

1. Estimated reduction in 1979 cotton yield resulting

from insect damage.

2. Relative toxicity to honey bees of insecticides used for

control of cotton insects. 21

3. Pests resistant to certain insecticides in one or more

areas of various States. 29

4. Common and chemical names of insecticides used for

cotton-pest control. 33

5. Recommended dosages of miticides for control of specific

species of spider mites. 54

6. Some major cotton pests of other countries and Hawaii. 68

PREFACE

This Conference Report is available to anyone interested in cotton
production. 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.

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 program.

Most of the reports of the committees and study groups that were
appointed to review and evaluate the status of persistent pesticides
recommended that provisions be made for an orderly reduction in the use
of persistent pesticides. In response to these recommendations certain
registered-use patterns have been canceled. 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. Pesticide
registrations and recommendations are under constant review and are
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.

All pesticides are regulated by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended October 21, 1972, November 28,

1975, and September 30, 1978. The reader is encouraged to contact the
nearest regional office of the Environmental Protection Agency for
information and details on the provisions and regulations of TTFRA as
amended.

CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS

Most cotton-producing states reported a comparatively light insect year,
with less insecticide usage than in many years.

After several hard winters, the boll weevil made a comeback in most of
the states that usually have infestations. Control measures were needed in
some fields in the south Delta of Mississippi, and more boll weevils were
collected in pheromone traps at Stoneville in the fall than in any year since
1975. Experienced entomologists stated that they had forgotten how fast the
boll weevil can come back. With average winter weather in 1979-80, the boll
weevil may be expected to be a real problem in 1980. The Boll Weevil
Eradication and Optimum Pest Management Trials completed the second of their
3-year programs.

Results of recent research show that the female boll weevil has the
ability to avoid a cotton square in which an egg was previously oviposited.

The cotton cultivar can greatly influence the pheromone production of the male
boll weevil.

Over 6,000,000 sterile boll weevils were released in fruiting cotton that
was planted in south Florida with special permission from the Florida State
Department of Agriculture. Mortality records showed that most of the weevils
were alive 3 days after release, approximately 45 percent were alive after 8
days, and all were dead after 15 days. Square dissection, observation for egg
hatch, and adult trapping during the experiment and for some time thereafter
showed that all of the released weevils were completely sterile.

A system developed for handling the diet (containing diflubenzuron) fed
to adult weevils before their irradiation for sterilization consists of equip¬
ment that metered the sterile diet into trays, cooled and congealed the diet
material, placed a thin layer of corncob grits-antibiotic agent over the
surface of the diet, and stored the trays until needed. The weevils were held
in nylon insect netting bags containing diet during the feeding period.

An exhaust system installed to improve sanitation in new emergence rooms
at the Gast Rearing Facility made fumigation possible after emergence of each
batch of weevils. Equipment procured and tested for separating dead or light
weevils from the heavier ones after the diflubenzuron feed-out period, when
high mortality occurs, made available a higher percentage of live, heavier
weevils for irradiation and field release.

A system developed for packaging and shipping the irradiated weevils from
the rearing laboratory to the Boll Weevil Eradication Trail release area con¬
sisted of packaging the weevils in regular Tyvek-covered rearing trays that
were placed in corrugated paperboard boxes lined with a 1.5-inch-thick
urethane insulation board. The trays were stacked in two columns in the box,
and wrapped, frozen cold pack units were placed between the columns of trays..
The boxes of weevils were shipped by commercial airlines using the SWIFT
system.

Aerial applications of the insect growth regulator Bay SIR-8514, applied
either in oil or water, reduced emergence of boll weevils from squares com¬
parable to the reduction obtained with diflubenzuron applied in oil.

In an experiment conducted in the non-cotton area of Surrey County, North
Carolina, one in-field trap per acre detected two of four boll weevil clumps
and four traps per acre detected four of four clumps in the F^ generation,
with both arrangements detecting all of the reproducing weevil clumps in the
F 2 generation. When traps were placed 210 feet (about 1 per acre), 149 feet

vii

(about 2 per acre), 121 feet (about 3 per acre), and 105 feet (about 4 per
acre) apart, an average of 2, 3.0, 5.5, and 6.8 generation female weevils
were captured from 20 infested squares ^n the spatial arrangement of the in¬
field traps, respectively. All arrangements detected F]_ progeny of the
simulated clumps.

The use of a commercially available polyester-wrapped, cigarette-filter
grandlure dispenser in an in-field trap modified to enhance large-scale pro¬
duction resulted in considerable savings in rebaiting traps in the Boll Weevil
Eradication Trial in 1978-79. Eighty thousand such in-field traps were con¬
structed by APHIS personnel for 52 cents per trap including labor and
material.

1978 was known as the year of the "worm" because heavier than usual
infestations of the fall armyworm and beet armyworm occurred along with
light-to-moderate infestations of the bollworm and tobacco budworm. Fortu¬
nately, in 1979 low-to-moderate infestations of the two latter species
occurred beltwide, with bollworms predominating in the Southeast and Midsouth
and tobacco budworms in the Southwest and Far West. Fall armyworms were re¬
ported from many fields in the Midsouth but in considerably fewer numbers
than in 1978 and reports of beet armyworm infestations in the Rainbelt were
few in number. Most States reported no control problems, especially where
the bollworm predominated. Heavy infestations of thrips ( Frankiniella spp.),
resulting in silvering of leaves with 300 to 500 thrips per bloom, were
observed in mid-August on several cotton farms in South Carolina that were
under continuous treatment with fenvalerate.

The tobacco budworm pheromone trap was used successfully in monitoring
tobacco budworm flights and promises to be a valuable tool for such studies
in the future. In most instances tobacco budworm populations were too light
for evaluation of the synthetic pheromone virelure as a confusant in suppress¬
ing populations.

The European corn borer caused an estimated 20 percent yield loss in a
50-acre cottonfield in South Carolina.

Rubber septa treated with 20 milligrams of (z)-ll-hexadecen-l-al and 2
milligrams of (z)-9 tetradecen-l-al, the primary components of the sex
pheromone of the tobacco budworm used in cone traps was fully attractive for
10 weeks, while laminated baits (20 milligrams; 16:1 ratio of components) were
fully attractive for 3 weeks. The rubber septa baits are inexpensive, easily
prepared, and long-lasting.

Studies in Arizona, Texas, and Georgia showed that traps baited with the
new seven-component synthetic pheromone of the tobacco budworm captured more
males than traps baited with virgin females. Results show that the synthetic
pheromone virelure, which contains only two of the seven components of the
natural pheromone, was highly attractive but captured considerably fewer males
than traps baited with virgin females, the seven-component pheromone, or two
formulations with one or two components of the seven-component synthetic
pheromone omitted.

In a field test conducted in Arizona for control of the tobacco budworm,
an adjuvant added to the NPV virus from the alfalfa looper produced a 38
percent increase in yield over treatment with the virus alone. Treatment with
the NPV plus Bacillus thuringiensis plus adjuvant held square and boll damage
to less than 10 and 5 percent, respectively, compared to 70 percent square
damage in the untreated check. As a result of the test, a commercial firm
trial-marketed the product during the year.

viii

Pilot test studies were conducted at six locations in Mississippi with
nine nectaried and nine nectariless cotton strains. In the three hill
locations, strains carrying the nectariless character reduced numbers of lygus
nymphs and adults. At three Delta locations, nectaried strains treated with
insecticides in early season gave a 30 percent higher yield in the first pick¬
ing than those receiving no treatment. Nectariless strains treated with
insecticides in early season gave only a 12 percent higher yield than those
receiving no treatment, indicating tolerance to lygus bugs in the nectaried
strains. Procedures for inducing infestations with spray-applied eggs or
newly hatched first-instar tobacco budworm larvae on cotton plants were suc¬
cessfully used this year.

Electrostatic sprays at one-half the doses of conventional sprays gave
comparable control of bollworms, tobacco budworms, and boll weevils in Georgia.
In Mississippi, all permethrin treatments significantly reduced Lepidoptera
square injury below that of the check with significantly more injured squares
in the electrostatic spray dose of 0.025 pound than in the electrostatic spray
dose of 0.1 pound and conventional spray doses of 0.1 and 0.2 pound per acre.

A new pyrethroid, AC 222705, and thiodicarb, UC 51762, showed promise
against Heliothis spp. , although the latter may be phytotoxic under continuous
use in some areas.

Studies conducted at Brawley, Calif.,proddced ^interesting results.
Short-season cotton varieties proved to be particularly promising for escaping
late-season pink bollworm infestations, preventing high overwintering popu¬
lations, and producing acceptable yields by August 24. Penwalt TD-1123 and
Ethrel reduced the number of green bolls, but plants recovered and many green
bolls were available under late cut-off of last irrigation; also, narrow-row
(14- to 26-inch) plantings in most cases resulted in higher yields by August
22. The effects of early irrigation cut-off and narrow-row culture to develop
an early crop had a significant impact on reducing overwintering pink bollworm
populations.

In studies of two alleles at each of three isozyme loci for pink bollworm
inheritance, all alleles showed a codominant autosomal inheritance, but heter¬
ozygotes were expressed differently for the different loci. Analysis of
enzymathic variability in pink bollworms from St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands,
showed high variability at the six loci examined. More rare alleles were
found in this population than in those from other areas.

Results of a standard test of seven ratios of the Z, Z- and Z, E-isomers
of gossyplure showed that catches of pink bollworms in traps baited with 50 or
60 percent of the Z, Z-isomer in mixtures of Z, Z-, and Z, E-isomers were not
significantly different in India, Bolivia, Australia, Pakistan, Argentina, or
the United States. The 50-percent baits had significantly higher catches in
Brazil, and the 60-percent baits had higher catches in Egypt.

Laboratory-reared male pink bollworms are lacking in competitiveness with
native males for females in the field. The most logical reason for this is
related to the rejection of laboratory-reared males by native females because
of odor associated with males reared on artificial diet. A search for the
chemicals responsible for the odor is underway.

For the second year the cotton leafworm made its appearance in the Mid¬
south and Southeast. Infestations were controlled in a portion of a field
in southern Arkansas, and larvae were found in Stoneville, Miss., for the first
time in many years. It appears that changes in the use of insect—control
practices is bringing the cotton leafworm back into the cotton-insect picture.

Fortunately, the pest is easy to control with organophosphorus compounds.
Unfortunately, control measures during the cotton-fruiting period may reduce
populations of beneficial insects, which may result in subsequent increased
infestations of bollworms and tobacco budworms.

Clouded plant bugs were more numerous than usual for the second consec¬
utive year in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Missouri. Infestations of Lygus
hesperus in the San Joaquin Valley of California were considerably lighter
than in 1978. Infestations of the tarnished plant bug were higher and per¬
sisted longer into the season than usual in the Midsouth. In fact, it was pro¬
bably the most important pest of the year in this area. Some fields were
treated as many as three times for this pest. Fortunately, the treatments did
not result, as they usually do, in increased subsequent bollworm-tobacco bud-
worm infestations in most fields.

Parasitization of Lygus spp. eggs in southern Arizona by the mymarid
Anaphes ovijentatus was similar to that of 1978. Lygus spp. eggs collected
from stems of wild mustard were highly parasitized (40-97 percent) in February
and March. The percentage of eggs parasitized in alfalfa stems was again very
variable, reaching about 50 percent and then declining drastically after each
hay cutting. Results of field-plot tests comparing strip-cut alfalfa with
standard-cut alfalfa showed that the numbers of Lygus spp. eggs and the per¬
centage of eggs parasitized were greater and more consistent in the strip-cut
plots. In laboratory tests, A. ovijentatus successfully parasitized Lygus
spp. eggs up to the day before hatch (8 days), but the number of eggs produc¬
ing adult parasites declined after the sixth day. Results of laboratory tests
to determine the extent of A. ovijentatus parasitism on Nabis spp. eggs,
supported by field data, indicate that Nabis spp. are only minor hosts of this
parasite. Although _L. hesperus , _L. lineolaris , I,, elisus , and L.. desertinus
were attacked to an equal degree by the parasite Leiphron uniformis , only 4
percent of the _L. lineolaris yielded adult parasites, compared to 60 percent
for the other species.

Improvements in the Lygus spp. diet have resulted in more consistent
survival of lygus nymphs to adulthood. The addition of formalin, streptomycin
sulfate, and aureomycin as antibiotics increased nymph survival, while sorbic
acid -and MPA decreased survival. Addition of wheat germ also increased adult
yields. Centrifugation of diet to remove particulate matter is essential for
nymph survival to adulthood. Current yields average 80 to 90 percent of
first-instar nymphs surviving to adulthood, and the adults lay viable eggs.

The survival of successive generations is now being determined.

Insect predator populations were greater in the Delta and Hill sections
of Mississippi than in 1978 but were not as great as those in 1977.

Under auspices of the conference, estimated insect loss data was developed
for the 1979 cotton crop. The estimates will be continued annually in the
future. Loss estimates were developed for the boll weevil, the bollworm-
tobacco budworm complex, the cotton fleahopper, Lygus spp. and other plant
bugs, the cotton leafperforator, the pink bollworm, spider mites, thrips,
and an all-other category. The estimated losses ranged from 31.4 percent in
Georgia to 0.65 percent in Arizona with an estimated Beltwide loss of 8.8
percent (Table 1).

Table 1.—Estimated reduction in 1979 cotton yields resulting from insect damage

CO •
X GO bO
O O >
Cu i —I cO

• <D X
O H (0
2 CD O
JQ rH

r —I
JO
CO
X
CO 3

CO o
o -H X

4-5

CJ>

o r-

• o

in •
o

o o

CO T—

•

• •

T—

■=r t"-

X X

O CM

O X

• c*—

2 2

• •

*— •

X X

O CM

o m

•

• •

o o

•

x cr>

x •

O CM

in x

o o

• •

X *—

O CM

O X

< <

o o

• t>-

2 2

•

*—

in cm

O r-

o X

• in

• •

• CM

o •

CM CM

in •

O C--

O X

o <-

• c

• *—

• X

on •

CM •

cr\ •

■=r

in x

X CM

Ov X

co in

*- X

•

• •

CO X

O CM

■=T

O X

O CTn

o Qv

•

• •

-=r

t"-

CM CO

<— X

x—

o m

o o

O CM

•

• •

•=f

o in

in ^=r

o o

in cm

•

• ^r

• X

*—

•

CM •

<- o

•

CM X

o o

O X

• -=r

• •

i— •

o o

t>-

O r-

O T-

•

• •

•

t- vo

t— x

t— vo

r- in

o o

x in

• CO

• o

o •

o -=r

o o

o X

•

• •

CM X

T—

T- CO

t—

< <c
2 2

<c <
2 2

2 2

<c <

2 2

< <
2 2

< <C
2 2

O O

«=c

2 2

< <
2 2

O O

«a: <aj <

2 2 2 2

o o o o

< <3j

< «a:

2 2

<C <

2 2

< <
2 2

O O

< <
2 2

< <U

2 2

CM OO
O VO

O O O O

O O CM h-
O CM

< < < <

2 2 2 2

1 X

1 <D

1 cx

• •

1 o

• •

1 X

i—i

1 co

1 <H

•H

• • X

1 (D

•

i—1

E c

1 rH

.(l)(/]BL(DC0'H(DC0a _ . .

CD O CD G O O CD O CD CO G O CD
^GrHOSGfHCGrH <D G rH C
ll)aJ^T3(D(UO(UCflW£(D(llO
H CIh H D CU CQ -P CU ffl 3 X Pl, PQ X

•H fH jO X be O -p

O O O >, O

PQ PQ O _J O

O t-

• O

*- o

in vo
• co

o •

-P

0) CO

o cd

G rH
0) CO

CO
- 3
<D x

X o

Q) d. m ^ CX CQ T3

a c -h

•H CX

Pu CO

>1 G
C
(0
G

c—

o t-

o CM
• C'—

o co

• m

on in

c--

O CM

in vo

O CM

CM <~
O O

o in

• o

o o>

• in

on co
«— on

o in
• in

o o

cn cm

• o

CM •

CTn

in in

• o

o •

o o

o CM

• •

i— on

<D
•H

- C

<D CO *H

O <D

G rH CO G

CD (0

CU CO

CX CO
•H G
G lu
X

I
I
I

4 ->

C
(1)

O CD
G rH
0) CO
0- CO

•

•=r

X -

•

c*-

c—

•H

•»

x —

T—

t--

•

x —

•

.=r

•

IX)

X -

•

f—

•

*—

X -

■=J-

X—

•

X —

x —

X -

r—

•*

x—

-^r

•

r- x

•

-=r

■=T

•

•H

•

X—

•H

Ci-,

•

*—

•

c^-

X -

*“

T “

• K

t*-

(T\

t—

•

■=r

x —

x—

x —

•H

x —

•

0“\

X -

X x

•

x —

1—

x -=r

X x

•

<—s

X -

•

/—\

•

X -

•H

x j=r

■=r

c 0

•

CT\

c— X

X —

•

•*

.=r

•

-=r

•

x —

i —1

-=r

•H

c—

X X

•

X —

•

•H

00|

■v

1 —1

CL JO

•H

•o

—* CM

•H

. X
:3
2

<1)

4-5

•H

G G
CD (D
C X

X 43

3 O

CX G
CX O
00

bC G

c
o

43
43

O _
O W

S >»

Oh X
CO

CD T3
rH CD

§1
X -H
X X
O 00
O W
in u> t*.

■

INTRODUCTION

This report of the 33d Annual Conference of State and Federal workers is
concerned with cotton-insect research and control. Research and extension
entomologists and associated technical workers from 14 cotton-growing States,
the United States Department of Agriculture, National Cotton Council of
America, Cotton Incorporated, Plains Cotton Growers Inc., the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), National Agricultural Chemical Association, and
industry met to review the research and experiences of the previous year and
to formulate guiding statements for control recommendations in 1980. 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 to (1) industry in planning
production programs, (2) State and Federal research workers in planning
research programs, (3) extension entomologists in bringing to the attention
of growers and other interested groups the control recommendations for their
States, (4) 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

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. Cottongrowers in the
respective States should follow the recommendations contained in the State
"Guides for Controlling Cotton Insects" and the advice of qualified entomo¬
logists familiar with local problems.

Determining the species and abundance of various insects and the specific
injuries inflicted upon the cotton plant is 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 relation¬
ships that exist between the plants and insects yields additional information
basic to an evaluation of the economic insect situation involved. Each
control measure used should be a part of an integrated control program,
utilizing to the fullest extent wherever possible cultural, physical, mechani¬
cal, 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.

In making recommendations for the use of insecticides, entomologists
should recognize their responsibility with regard to hazards to the public.
(See "Insecticides and Miticides.") The insecticide industry has a great
responsibility to the cottongrower 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. Cottongrowers are urged
to follow approved recommendations known to be of sound value.

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 Chemical
Control,")

PROGRESS IN INSECT REARING

Research on cotton insects was hampered for many years because of
difficulties encountered in rearing them in the laboratory. It was diffi¬
cult, as well as expensive, to rear insects in needed numbers on their
hosts. Major breakthroughs in research could only come through the ability
* to mass-rear the various insects on artificial diets. Progress in insect
rearing enhanced research on detection, migration, and insecticide evaluation
as well as on the sterile-male release technique for control of certain
insects.

Pink bollworm .—The first phytophagous insect to be reared on an artifi¬
cial diet was the pink bollworm, in the early 1950's at USDA's Cotton Insects
Research Laboratory, College Station, Tex. The artificial diet developed for
this insect has served as the basic diet for many phytophagous insects now
being mass-reared in the laboratory. The pink bollworm was mass-reared in
tremendous numbers in the late 1960's and 1970's in the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) laboratory at Phoenix, Ariz. The insects
were made sexually sterile, and several million per week were released in the
San Joaquin Valley of California at selected locations where migrant moths
had been captured. The releases apparently prevented the establishment of
infestations by occasional migrants from the Imperial and Coachella Valleys
until 1977. In the off-season, sterile-moth releases were made for several
years to wild cotton in the southern tip of Florida for suppression of pink
bollworm populations on that host. For many years populations were suppressed
by manual destruction of wild cotton plants, which was a costly and almost
impossible task. The new technique was made possible through the development
of mass-rearing procedures for the insect.

Boll weevil .—In the early 1960's boll weevils were reared on artificial
diets at the USDA Cotton Insects Research Laboratory in College Station, Tex.
Improvements in rearing were made at that laboratory and at the Baton Rouge,
La., and Florence, S.C., laboratories. Progress in mass rearing the insect
was made with the establishment of USDA's Boll Weevil Research Laboratory on
the Mississippi State University campus in 1961. After it became apparent
that the insect could be reared in sufficient numbers, it was deemed that a
Pilot Boll Weevil Eradication Experiment should be conducted to determine
whether it was technologically and operationally feasible to eradicate the
boll weevil. With an appropriation of more than $0.5 million from the
Mississippi Legislature, the Robert T. Gast Rearing Laboratory was built on
the Mississippi State University campus. Problems with the rearing facility,
as well as with rearing procedures, prevented production of the numbers of
insects needed for sterile-male releases in the experiment. However, the
facility made a significant contribution to the success of the experiment and

is expected to make an even greater contribution if elimination of the
insect from the United States is undertaken. The rearing procedure has been
automated, and the facility has provided needed numbers for the Boll Weevil
Eradication Trial initiated in 1978 in North Carolina and Virginia.

Bollworm .—Diets and techniques for rearing the bollworm also were
developed at the USDA laboratory in College Station, Tex. Though small
cultures were reared at several laboratories, the major thrust in mass
rearing was done at the USDA Southern Grain Insects Laboratory at Tifton, Ga.
A prototype machine for mass rearing the insect was developed at this labora¬
tory. Moths were reared for several years for the identification of the sex
pheromone emitted by the female. The sex pheromone was isolated, purified,
identified, and synthesized in 1978.

Tobacco budworm .—Techniques for mass rearing the tobacco budworm were
developed at the USDA Cotton Insects Research Laboratory in Brownsville,

Tex., in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Production was stabilized at
about 60,000 pupae per day. Pupae were furnished from this laboratory for
the sterile-male release study conducted on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands,
in the early 1970's. In addition, moths were reared for several years for
the identification of the sex pheromone emitted by the female. Chromato¬
graphic analysis indicated it to be a multiple component system. The sex
pheromone was isolated, purified, identified, and synthesized early in 1974.

Lygus bugs .— Lygus hesperus and L. lineolaris have been reared on
artificial diets. However, techniques for mass rearing them are being
developed.

Saltmarsh caterpillar .—The saltmarsh caterpillar, Estigmene acrea
(Drury) has been reared on the wheat germ diet at the USDA laboratory in
College Station and has been mass-reared at USDA’s Biological Cotton Insect
Control Laboratory in Tucson, Ariz.

Beneficial insects .—The green lacewing has been reared in the labora¬
tory on an artificial diet, and some progress has been made in mass rearing
it on this diet. Some progress has also been made in rearing Campoletis
perdistinctus and Microplitis sonorensis , parasites of Heliothis spp., on
artificial diets.

COTTON-INSECT CONTROL METHODS
Cultural Practices

Certain cultural practices reduce insect problems and may give adequate
control without the use of insecticides. Several of these practices can be
followed by every cottongrower 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 effec¬
tive this measure becomes. Early stalk destruction, especially over commu-
itywide or countywide 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. Modern shredders facili¬
tate early stalk destruction and complete plowing under of crop residues.

The shredding operation also kills a high percentage of pink bollworms left
in the field after harvest. The flail shredder is recommended over the
horizontal rotary shredder 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
to control both the boll weevil and 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 leafperforator, pink bollworm, and 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.

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.

Stands .—With the elimination of chopping by hand, planting to a stand
has become necessary. Excessively thick stands are attractive to Heliothis
spp., and plant bugs and should be avoided.

Row spacing .—Cotton is usually planted in rows 38 or 40 inches apart.
Skip-row planting has been popular because it permitted planting more acres
of allotment with no decrease in solid acre yields. 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 necessi¬
tates 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. Although yields may not be reduced, skip-row
planting may delay maturity and increase the period the crop must be pro¬
tected from insects.

Narrow-row spacing, including drilling with a grain drill or broad¬
casting, has been researched heavily in recent years. The advantage lies in
a short production season, which reduces insect problems. The system has not
been generally accepted because (1) heavy demands are placed on moisture and
nutrients in a short period of time, and (2) once over harvest by pickers
continues to pose problems and stripper harvesters are not adapted to all
parts of the Cotton Belt. Such a system requires aerial application of

insecticides. Without cultivation, chemical weed control may be inadequate
for control of alternate hosts of certain insects and spider mites.

Varieties .—Varieties of cotton that bear prolifically, 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 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 insectici¬
des. Overfertilization, 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 factors 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.

Irrigation .—Irrigation must be used to produce the crop in arid areas
and is used to supplement moisture in drouth periods in the rainbelt. Rank
growth and a longer fruiting period complicate insect control, and the
disadvantages must be balanced against expected yield increase and fiber
quality. Judicious use of water must be exercised in producing the crop.

Other host plants of cotton pests .—Cottonfields should be located as
far as is practicable from other host plants of cotton insects. Some control
measures should be applied to other hosts such as safflower in California 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 cottonfields.

Overwintering areas .--The boll weevil hibernates in well-drained,
protected areas in and near cottonfields. Spider mites overwinter on low-
growing plants in or near fields. Pest-breeding weeds along turnrows and
fences or around stumps, as well as scattered weeds in cultivated fields,
should be eliminated with herbicides or by using 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 on beneficial insects of indiscriminate destruction
of weeds by burning and tillage are obvious.

Seed cotton scattered along turnrows, loading areas, and roadsides
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 hibernating
quarters of the boll weevil and pink bollworm. In areas where pink bollworms
occur. State quarantine regulations require that gin trash be 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.

Insect Attractants

Boll weevil .—In the 1950's an observation was made at USDA's Cotton
Insects Research Laboratory, Stoneville, Miss., that the male boll weevil
moved very little on the cotton plant, indicating that he might be visited by
females. In 1963 field observations made by personnel of USDA's Boll Weevil
Research Laboratory at Mississippi State, Miss., indicated that the female
boll weevil aggressively sought the male rather than the more usual procedure
in insects of the male seeking the female. In laboratory studies at the same
location it was determined that the male produces a sex attractant (pheromone)
that is attractive to females, and subsequently the pheromone was identified
and synthesized. It was named grandlure and is now commercially available
and widely used in migration, survey, and detection procedures. Traps baited
first with live male weevils and later with grandlure were developed to
capture boll weevils. Grandlure also acts as an aggregant, since both sexes
respond to it especially in early- and late-season. Traps baited with grand¬
lure and placed along the edges of cottonfields capture tremendous numbers of
overwintered boll weevils.

In the Pilot Boll Weevil Eradication Experiment conducted in south
Mississippi and in adjoining areas of Louisiana and Alabama in 1971-73, traps
baited with grandlure were installed, two traps per acre, around field edges
as one of the suppression measures in the core or eradication area. Trap
crops consisting of cotton planted some 2 weeks earlier than that of the
grower cotton were baited with grandlure at 100-foot intervals. Plants in
the trap crops were treated in-furrow at planting with aldicarb, a highly
effective systemic insecticide, and sidedressed with it at early squaring to
kill overwintered weevils attracted to them. The trap crops were treated
with methyl parathion during periods when the aldicarb treatment was con¬
sidered ineffective. Very few weevils were found in the grower cotton
before it began to fruit. Even after grower cotton began to square, weevils
continued to be attracted to the trap crops, as evidenced by the collection
of sterile males that had been released in the grower cotton. The development
of in-field traps, those that can be used within fields without interfering
with cultivation, baited with grandlure has potential as a tool in population
suppression or elimination programs.

Alternate strips of cotton, comprising about 10 percent of the acreage,
may be baited with grandlure to attract overwintered boll weevils, which can

then be killed with insecticides applied to the baited strips. If weevil
populations are low, such treatments may prevent injurious infestations in
the remainder of the field for the season.

Grandlure was registered by EPA in 1979 for use in managing populations
of the boll weevil.

Considerable unsuccessful effort has been expended in developing attrac-
tants from cotton plants for use in controlling the boll weevil. Interest in
boll weevil attractants from the cotton plant was revived by researchers in
the 1960's. Water and chloroform extracts of cotton-plant parts were attrac¬
tive. A powerful arrestant and feeding stimulant was found in water extracts
of all cotton parts and square components tested. A feeding deterrent was
found in the calyx of an alternate host. Hibiscus syriacus . However, the
chemistry of the arrestant and attractant compounds in the cotton plant is so
complex that chemists have been unable to identify and synthesize all of them
for use in control, suppression, or survey programs. Cottonseed oil baits
have been used with the Heliothis nuclear polyhedrosis virus to insure in¬
gestion of the virus by the bollworm complex.

Pink bollworm .—It was determined in the mid-1960's that the female pink
bollworm moth emitted a substance that attracted males. Chemists identified
and synthesized the substance and named it propylure. Unfortunately, propy-
lure, though attractive to males in the laboratory, failed to perform in the
field. Apparently, something was missing in the synthesized compound. A
somewhat structurally related compound was found to attract males. It was
named hexalure and was widely used in the West in survey and detection
operations. Though not as attractive as the natural pheromone, hexalure was
sufficiently attractive to be used to bait traps so that use of live females
was obviated. An intensive effort was made by USDA chemists to identify and
synthesize the pheromone, but progress was slow. However, in late 1973
researchers at the University of California, Riverside, identified and
synthesized the compound, and USDA chemists verified their findings. It was
named gossyplure. It has considerable potential for use in survey, detection,
and population suppression programs and has been used in large field experi¬
ments as a confusant to prevent the male from locating the females. Traps
baited with gossyplure are used to time insecticide applications for control
of pink bollworms in the Imperial Valley of California. Gossyplure is regis¬
tered by EPA for managing populations of the pink bollworm.

Tobac c o budworm and bollworm .—Females of the tobacco budworm and
bollworm produce powerful sex pheromones to lure males of their respective
species for mating. Research has continued since 1963 on these pheromones,
with the ultimate goal of producing synthetic materials that could be used
for population survey and suppression.

The pheromone of the female tobacco budworm, virelure, was identified
and synthesized. A crude extract of the pheromone from females had very
short activity, and a similar problem has been found with the synthetic
material. Recent research developments have enhanced the potency of the
pheromone. It is being field-tested as a confusant.

A similar attractant has recently been discovered for the bollworm; it
was isolated, identified,and synthesized in 1978.

Pheromones of the two species make possible the development of population
suppression schemes. Among the methods suggested for use of these materials

are eliminating males by trapping or dispensing the attractant on an insecti¬
cide-treated substance, luring the males to a substrate treated with chemo-
sterilants, or saturating an environment with the pheromone and thus inter¬
fering with the mating orientation of the males. Development of methods for
using the pheromones in traps to anticipate outbreaks of the pests for
timing of insecticide applications appears promising. A cheap simple trap
requiring no power source has been developed promising simple and efficient
monitoring of adult populations of Heliothis spp. with the synthetic pheromone
of the tobacco budworm and virgin females of the bollworm. Ovicides are
promising for the bollworm-tobacco budworm complex but egg scouting techniques
are slow and inaccurate. Hopefully, adult traps baited with pheromones or
virgin females will solve the problem of timing ovicides and encourage the
development of adulticides.

A related approach has been the search for chemicals that will disrupt
the chemical communication between sexes. Researchers have shown that the
attractiveness of female tobacco budworms is greatly reduced if certain
organic chemicals are released into the environment. However, results of
these studies are preliminary.

Researchers have reported that the male tobacco budworm when preparing
to mate with a female produces a substance that suppresses her emission of
the sex pheromone, but no work has been done on isolating the active agent.

It is possible that such substances would be useful in combination with some
of the previously noted techniques.

Results of recent research have shown that certain egg and larval
parasites of Heliothis spp. are attracted to the host by host-seeking stimu¬
lants named kairomones.

Tarnished plant bug .—In the early 1970’s a researcher at USDA’s Bioen-
vironmental Insect Control Laboratory at Stoneville, Miss., found that the
female tarnished plant bug produced a substance that was attractive to
males.

Genetic Control

Research on genetic control of cotton insects has centered on the
sterile-insect release approach that was so successful against the screwworm
fly, Cochliomyia ho minivorax (Coquerel). In this approach large numbers of
insects are reared and exposed to ionizing irradiation or to chemosterilants
to induce sterility; then they are released among native populations at
sufficient ratios to insure a high proportion of sterile matings. Develop¬
ment of this technique includes devising methods for rearing and sterilizing
large numbers of insects with minimum effect on their competitiveness in
securing mates, for shipping them from the rearing facility to release sites
and releasing them so that they disperse among the native population, and for
monitoring the effectiveness of the program. Frequently, preliminary appli¬
cations of other population reduction measures, such as insecticides, are
needed to reduce native populations to levels low enough so that an effective
overflooding ratio can be achieved.

Boll weevil .—Much research has been conducted on sexually sterilizing
the boll weevil. Effective doses of gamma irradiation reduced competitiveness
and resulted in high mortality. Similar results were obtained with some of

the chemosterHants. Finally, workers at several laboratories found that
busulfan could achieve sterility in the male when incorporated in the adult
diet for a 6-day feeding period. The long feeding period was a disadvantage,
and another shortcoming of busulfan was that it did not sterilize the female.
Thus, in the Pilot Boll Weevil Eradication Experiment the weevils had to be
sexed for use of the sterile-male component. Sexing has to be done manually
and is therefore laborious and costly. In an elimination program, the cost
of sexing would be prohibitive. An intensive effort was then made to find a
chemosterilant effective against both sexes. A combination of a 4-day feeding
of busulfan-treated diet to adults plus a few hours of fumigation with hempa
appeared to satisfactorily sterilize both sexes. However, research continued
because the long holding and feeding period needed to be reduced or
eliminated. The method of sterility to be used in the continuing Boll Weevil
Eradication Trial will consist of placing newly emerged adults on medicated
diet slabs, irradiating them with 10,000 rads in a nitrogen atmosphere in
a 137 C g (Cobalt) source on the sixth day and then dipping them in acetone
containing 0.1 percent diflubenzuron.

Bollworm and tobacco budworm .—A great deal of research has been done on
methods of sterilizing Heliothis spp. and on the effects of various aspects
of sexual competitiveness. Gamma irradiation has been pursued most
extensively because it is relatively easy to use and presents minimum
environmental hazards when proper equipment is used.

A limited field test of this method against the bollworm, conducted on
St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, in the early 1970’s, was only partially
successful because of problems with rearing. More extensive tests were
conducted on the same island in 1972-74. The results of these tests
indicated that released mass-reared insects, whether irradiated or not,
competed poorly for native mates, especially the males. However, populations
of the bollworm were reduced to very low levels because the sterile females
mated earlier in the night than the native females. The sterile males were
essentially noncompetitive with the native males. Both types of males were
ready to mate at any time of night; therefore, the native males mated with
sterile females when the latter were ready. When the native females began
mating later on, after the available native males had already mated, the
sterile males mated with these females with little competition. Since
populations of bollworms were limited to a few small plantings of corn on the
island, relatively high ratios of sterile to native insects were achieved,
and the population could be manipulated rather easily. It is questionable
whether this procedure could be used on a large scale.

The test with the tobacco budworms showed that the sterile males were
about 25 percent as competitive for mates as the native males were. This
resulted from the mass-rearing conditions and irradiation. A lack of
synchrony in mating times of sterile and native insects of both sexes was
noted, thus making the system used against the bollworm ineffective in this
case. Also, populations of the tobacco budworm were much larger and more
widely distributed than those of the bollworm, with the result that the
sterile-to-native insect ratios were generally too low (5 to 1) to have much
impact on the native populations when the competitiveness problem was
considered. Research is continuing on development of this method for use
against the tobacco budworm, with emphasis on defining and overcoming
roblems related to the poor competitiveness of the sterile insects.

Hybrids were produced in the laboratory by crossing H eliothis virescens
and H. subflexa . Hybrid males from these crosses were sterile and the
females were fertile. These females, when mated to normal H. virescens
males, produced sterile males and fertile females through subsequent back-
cross generations. Male sterility persisted through 78 backcross generations.
If this technique can be perfected, it is potentially possible to suppress or
eliminate populations through male sterilization by releasing these females
into the natural population. A pilot test to evaluate and perfect the tech¬
nique was initiated in late 1977 on the Island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin
Islands. Limited releases of the hybrid in 1979 were successful in infusing
the sterile-male trait into the native population at some distance from the
central release point.

Pink bollworm .—Gamma irradiation for sterilizing pink bollworms has
been under study for some time. Research continues, and doses have been
reduced to 20 krd, which has improved competitiveness of treated males with
nonsterile males for females. The pink bollworm has been mass-reared at the
Methods Development Laboratory, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS), USDA, Phoenix, Ariz., since 1967. Migrants from the Imperial and
Coachella Valleys have been detected in relatively low numbers in certain
localities of the San Joaquin Valley in California each year since 1967.
Sterile moths have been released in these localities each year since 1968.
Approximately 100 million were released annually from 1970 through 1973, but
rearing problems reduced the numbers released in 1974. Moth releases have
since increased as follows: 150 million in 1975, 194 million in 1976, and
412 million in 1977, which included some contract moths. The release appa¬
rently prevented establishment of infestations in this important cotton
producing valley until a large number of storm-carried native moths were
trapped late in the 1976 season. Large numbers of native moths trapped in
1977 (7,402) indicates that a low-level infestation now occurs in the San
Joaquin Valley. Such treatment must continue until the pest is eliminated or
reduced to very low levels in the Coachella and Imperial Valleys so they will
no longer migrate to the San Joaquin Valley.

From November 1972 through 1976, sterile moths were released in the
cotton off-seasons in the extreme southern tip of Florida to suppress pink
bollworm populations in wild cotton growing in the area to the extent that
the pink bollworm cannot migrate to the northern part of the State where
cotton is grown. Unfortunately the moth releases had to be discontinued
because of lack of funds. If elimination of the pink bollworm is undertaken
in the future, the sterile-male release technique will no doubt be a major
component in the program.

Host Plant Resistance

In the early days of the boll weevil when effective insecticides were
not available, emphasis was given to cultural controls and early maturing
cotton varieties, which made possible the production of a crop before the
boll weevil could build up extremely high populations. With the advent of
better insecticides and needs for higher yields, varieties of indeterminate
growth were developed for the rain belt and the irrigated areas of the West.
Such varieties and production practices favored the boll weevil and pink
bollworm, and though good yields were produced with the intensive use of

insecticides, large populations diapaused in the fall, enhancing survival for
infesting the subsequent crops and necessitating repetition of the control
cycle year after year.

Boll Weevil .—When resistance to the organochlorine insecticides deve¬
loped in the boll weevil in the mid-1950 f s, research attention was intensi¬
fied in the development of alternative methods of controlling the boll
weevil and other cotton insects. Though considerable effort was expended,
progress in the development of varieties resistant to the boll weevil was
slow. In the 1970's, Frego bract cottons, in which the bracts are distorted
and do not envelop a square as is the case with normal bract cottons, reduced
boll weevil oviposition by 50 percent or more when compared with normal bract
varieties. However, the reduction in oviposition has been considerably less
than when the variety was grown under "no choice" situations. Frego bract
varieties with acceptable agronomic characters might have a place in boll
weevil control when field plantings are interspersed with trap crop plantings
of normal bract cottons to attract overwintered weevils that could then be
killed with insecticides. Although, Frego bract cottons are more susceptible
to lygus bugs than normal bract cottons, breeders are making progress in
solving the problem. Some short-season determinate cotton varieties are now
grown extensively in Texas and have shown promise in reducing late-season
insect damage, especially by the boll weevil. They also may help alleviate
some of the damage caused by Heliothis spp. by maturing before the damaging
late-season population peaks occur. Fast fruiting cultivars adapted to most
of the rainbelt have been developed, but production systems to exploit them
have not been widely adopted.

Bollworms .—The development of cotton varieties resistant to the tobacco
budworm and bollworm has centered on three morphological characters of the
cotton plant and on the development of early-maturing, determinate types of
cotton that set the bulk of their fruit 2 to 3 weeks earlier than the non-
determinate cottons that are usually grown commerically. Research is in
progress, also, to develop cotton varieties resistant to the cotton flea-
hopper, plant bugs, and the boll weevil, which would help alleviate the
Heliothis spp. problem by reducing the insecticide applications for the
former pests, thus, conserving the natural enemies of Heliothis spp.

The first of the morphological characters is lack of nectaries. Normal
cottons have extrafloral nectaries on leaves and fruiting forms. The absence
of these structures deprives Heliothis spp. adults of an important source of
food when and where alternate food sources are not available. In controlled
tests, the absence of extrafloral nectaries (nectariless cotton) resulted in
at least 40 percent reduction in egg deposition and reduced longevity of
adults.

The second character measurably reducing populations of Heliothis spp.
is a smooth (glabrous) plant surface. Commercial cottons have 2,000 to 5,000
trichomes per square inch on the small terminal leaves and buds, which are
the preferred oviposition sites of Heliothis spp. Glabrous stocks with less
than 200 trichomes per square inch have reduced egg deposition by 50 percent.

The third character showing impact on Heliothis spp. populations is a
high level of gossypol in the flower buds (squares). Gossypol content in
buds of commercial cotton is about 0.5 percent, which affects larvae very
little. However, larval mortality of 50 percent occurs when the gossypol

level is 1.2 percent or higher.

Studies in field cages with cotton strains in which all three morpho¬
logical characters have been combined showed that populations of the tobacco
budworm increased about onefold in two generations, and those on glabrous
plus high gossypol cotton or nectariless cotton plus high gossypol cotton
increased twofold; meanwhile populations on commercial cotton increased
tenfold to twelvefold. In field tests a glabrous cotton suppressed Heliothis
spp. larval population 68 percent compared with the population on commercial
cotton, and cottons with both the glabrous and high gossypol characters
reduced larval populations 60 to 80 percent. In field tests with advanced
strains, one strain with the glabrous-high gossypol combination yielded 700
pounds more seedcotton per acre than did a commercial variety. The nectari¬
less cotton could not be properly evaluated in the field because the size of
the plots was too small to prevent moths from obtaining food outside the
plots.

In 1974 a nectariless cotton strain was released to commercial seed
companies and has been made available to growers for large-scale planting.
However, unless this cotton is planted on a community-wide basis and alterna¬
tive sources of food are not available for moths, its effectiveness against
Heliothis spp. could be limited. The glabrous character incorporated in the
nectariless cotton strain promises to increase effectiveness against Heliothis
spp.

Cotton Fleahopper .—Cottons with the glabrous character are well advan¬
ced and could be expected to have considerable impact on Heliothis spp. when
available to growers. However there is a complication with these cottons.
Although it has been demonstrated that these cottons have a significant
impact on infestations of the cotton fleahopper as well as on infestations of
Heliothis spp., it has also been suggested that these cottons are actually
more sensitive to fleahopper attack than are most hirsute strains and, despite
lower infestation levels, suffer greater damage. However, this damage may
result from infestations of leafhoppers rather than cotton fleahoppers.

Until these problems are resolved and overcome, the use of glabrous cotton
may be questionable.

Cottons with the high gossypol character or those with this character
combined with other resistant characters also show a great deal of promise
against Heliothis spp. Recently it was demonstrated that they confer some
resistance against the cotton fleahopper, and they have produced yields above
those of current commercial varieties. However, it will probably be several
years before these varieties are available to the grower in any quantity.

Lygus Bugs .—The nectariless character in cotton has reduced reproduction
of lygus bugs, with considerably fewer nymphs developing on nectariless
plants than on plants with nectaries. Apparently, the leaf nectaries are an
important food source for the developing nymphs.

Other Insects .—Research on the development of varieties resistant to
the pink bollworm, cotton leafperforator, and spider mites is in progress,
and some success has been attained against spider mites.

Glandless Cultivars .—Cotton cultivars that produce seed without gossypol
are available and are grown in some areas. Meal or roasted kernels from

these cultivars enhance the value of cottonseed as a high protein food for
humans and other nonruminants. Such cottons are more susceptible to assorted
general feeding insects, but the hazard is not prohibitive if they are care¬
fully scouted for insects and appropriate action is taken.

Biological Control

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, and
other agents and techniques in augmentative ways. The key role of naturally
occurring biological control agents must not be ignored in modern pest con¬
trol 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 discussed here.

Predators .— Orius insidiosus and CL tristicolor ( Anthocoridae , Hemiptera),
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. Other
Hemipterous insects, the big-eyed bugs, Geocoris pallens , CL punctipes , and
CL 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
Nabis are efficient predators of a wide range of prey, including mirids,
leafhoppers, aphids, and eggs and larvae of Lepidoptera. They attack boll-
worms as large as the second instar. Assassin bugs, particularly the genus
Zelu s, feed freely on eggs and larvae of Lepidoptera, including the bollworm,
tobacco budworm, and cabbage looper. These bugs are usually less abundant in
cottonfields than those referred to previously. Podisus maculiventris is a
common stink bug that preys on large bollworms and other caterpillars.

Larvae of green lacewings, Chrysopa spp. ( Chrysopidae , Neuroptera ), are
important predators of eggs and small larvae of bollworm and other Lepidop¬
tera and of many soft-bodied insects.

Ground beetles of the family Carabidae ( Coleoptera ) have considerable
potential as predators in the cottonfield, but knowledge is lacking on the
habits and factors affecting abundance of the many species. Lady beetles,
(family Coccinellidae) are common predators in cottonfields. The large
species, including Coleomegilla maculata , Hippodamia convergens , and
Coccinella novem n otata , feed on eggs and small larvae of the bollworm and
other Lepidoptera and on aphids. Some smaller species in the genus Scymnus
and all Ste t horus spp. are primarily predators of mites. Collops beetles
(Malachiinae 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.

Many families of Diptera contain species that are predaceous as adults
or larvae. Best known as predators in cottonfields are the larvae of syrphid
flies that prey primarily on aphids.

Family Formicidae (Hymenoptera), includes many predaceous species of
ants. Iri domyrm ex pru inosus is a regular predator of bollworm eggs. Other
hymenopterous insects, the paper-nest wasps, Polistes spp., and solitary
wasps of the genera Ze thus , 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.

All spiders are predaceous, and many species are common in cottonfields.
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 are among the prey of jumping spiders. Some species of thrips and
mites are predators.

Judgments on predation are often difficult to make. The black fleahopper
complex, Spanagonicus albofasciatus (Reuter) and Rhinocloa forticornis
(Reuter) are predaceous but also feed on small squares. The cotton
fleahopper, Pseudatomoscelis seriatus (Reuter) is better known as a pest from
its feeding on terminal buds and small squares, but it is also a predator.

The red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta Buren, is an effective cotton
field predator, especially of the boll weevil, but it is a vexing nuisance of
some medical importance. Phytophagous insects, such as thrips, aphids,
fleahoppers, and leafhoppers are pests at high populations but are important
food for predators. Low-level populations should be tolerated or even
encouraged.

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 preference. 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 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; that is, augmentation through laboratory or field practices.

Native predators and parasites are often highly effective against
bollworms, beet armyworms, tobacco budworms, cabbage loopers, cotton
leafworms, cotton leafperforators, saltmarsh caterpillars, aphids, cutworms,
lygus bugs, 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 controlled heavy infestations of bollworms. Augmentation of food
for lacewings has shown promise in California experiments. Releases of two
species of introduced parasites have shown promise for control of the pink
bollworm. However, much additional research is needed to develop such
techniques into practical control measures. In addition, there are exotic
species of predators and parasites of potential value in controlling both
native and introduced cotton pests in the United States. Additional research
is needed to locate and introduce them and to evaluate their potential in
pest control.

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. Bacillus thuringiensis is a naturally occurring insect
pathogen that is produced commercially. Naturally occurring fungi often
give control of spider mites and some species of insects. (See "Insecticides
and Miticides Recommended for Cotton-Pest Control" for additional information
on these diseases.)

Chemical Defoliation and Desiccation

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 bolls, reducing the damage and the late-season
buildup of boll weevils, bollworms, tobacco budworms, and pink boll-worms
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,
cotton leafworm, and whiteflies. However, defoliants and desiccants should
not be applied until all bolls to be harvested are sufficiently developed to
avoid losses in yield and quality. Stalks should be destroyed and other
cultural practices followed. (See "Cultural Practices.")

Guides for the different defoliants and desiccants are issued by the
Cooperative Extension Services of the various States. They contain infor¬
mation 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 should be followed.

Production Mechanization in Insect Control

Increased mechanization improves the efficiency of cotton production
and insect control. High-clearance sprayers and dusters and aircraft have
proved 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. However, the flaming operation for weed control is of
questionable value in insect control.

Mechanical harvesting with spindle pickers may result in leaving more
infested cotton in the field than handpicking does, thus 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 cottongrowers over
wide areas to destroy the stalks before frost and thereby stop the
development of late generations of this insect and the boll weevil, bollworm,
and tobacco budworm.

The increased use of mechanized equipment for cotton production has
resulted in large acreages of uniform, even-aged 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.

Insecticides and Miticides

Precautions

Hazards and precautions in the use of insecticides and miticides are
discussed in this section. All insecticides, of course, 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, farmworker,
and cotton checker. These precautions will insure the safety of fish and
wildlife, honey bees, our food and feed supply, and 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 the control of cotton insects. The precautions, recom¬
mended 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 the skin and the
inhalation of dusts, mists, and vapors. Wear clean, dry clothing, and wash
hands and face before eating or smoking. Launder clothing daily. Avoid
spilling the insecticide on the skin, and keep it out of the eyes, nose, and
mouth. If any is spilled on the skin, wash it off immediately with soap and
water. If you spill it on your clothing, remove the clothing immediately,
and wash the contaminated skin thoroughly. Launder clothing before wearing
it again. If the insecticide gets in the eyes, flush them with plenty of
water for at least 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 emul¬
sions are flammable, and most of them are toxic to some degree. In con¬
sidering the hazards to man, it is necessary to distinguish between immediate
hazards (acute toxicity) and cumulative hazards (chronic toxicity).

Insecticides used on cotton, in all forms, must be handled with care at
all times. The physiological activity of organophosphorus compounds in both
insects and warmblooded animals is primarily inhibition of the enzyme,
cholinesterase. Initial or repeated exposure to them may reduce the choli¬
nesterase 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 and the need to
seek medical attention.

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 EPA 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.

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.

malathion
sulfur
trichlorfon

acephate

Bacillus thuringiensis
chlorobenzilate
dicofol

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.

chlorpyrifos
diazinon
dimethoate
endosulf an
ethion

methidathion

naled

propargite

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 persons who are thoroughly familiar with their hazards
and who will assume full responsibility for proper use of the chemicals and
comply with all the precautions on the labels.

aldicarb

azinphosmethyl

carbophenothion

demeton

dicrotophos

disulfoton

endrin

EPN

methamidophos

methomyl

methyl parathion

monocrotophos

parathion

phorate

phosphamidon

Prevent skin absorption .—Many 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. 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.
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 the 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, and change shoes daily. 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.

Prevent 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 in
the original containers only, with legible labels attached.

Prevent respiratory intake .—If called for on the label, wear a respi¬
rator 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 it and replacing the felts or
cartridges or both at recommended intervals of use. Information on respi¬
rators certified for protection against insecticides may be obtained from the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Testing and Certi¬
fication Laboratory, 944 Chestnut Ridge Road, Morgantown, W.V. 26505.

Determine blood cholinesterase levels .--Regular users of organophos-
phorus compounds should have their blood cholinesterase levels checked before
the start of a season’s work and periodically thereafter. Do not use atropine
as a preventive for organophosphorus poisoning . Another antidote for pho¬
sphorus poisoning is 2-PAM, which must be administered under the supervision
of a physician. Be sure the local physician is familiar with the treatment
and has the antidote on hand before large-scale application has begun.

Speed of proper treatment is essential . (See "Information on poison control
centers" in this section.)

Most 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 the measurements of blood choli¬
nesterase of human beings or 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.

Dispose 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 possi¬
ble, growers should carry their empty insecticide containers to a sanitary
landfill 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 the
possibility of reuse and buried.

Handle materials in the field carefully .—Metal containers of emulsi-
fiable concentrates carried to the field should be placed in the shade.
Agitation of closed containers left in the sun can result in pressure buildup
in the container, with a resultant explosion of the contents when the top is
removed.

Store insecticides properly .—Insecticides should be stored in a
separate, fireproof 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 organophosphorus insecticides or
loading aircraft with them should always be accompanied by at least one
other person in the field.

Information on poison control centers .—A publication entitled
"Directory of Poison Control Centers" is available upon request from the
Bureau of Chemical Hazards, Consumer Products Safety Commission, 5401
Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Md. 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 of insecticides .—Spraying or dusting should be
done under proper conditions and in such a manner as to avoid direct appli¬
cation or drift to adjacent fields where animals are pastured, to food or
feed crops in the field, 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 insecticides,
the possibility of deleterious residues remaining in cottonseed and seed
products must be thoroughly investigated. (See section entitled
"Restrictions.")

Excessive insecticide residues in the soil may affect germination, 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 treated with organochlorine
insecticides.

Protect 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.

Protect 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 cottongrowers as well as

their neighbors grow legumes and other crops that require pollination. For
the benefit of the beekeeper, the cottongrower, and agriculture in general,
every effort should be made to protect pollinating insects. Table 2 shows
the relative toxicity to honey bees of insecticides used for the control of
cotton 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 h arm ful pes ts.

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 .

Protect fish and wildlife .--Recommended precautions must be followed to
reduce hazards 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,
cottonfields 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 are preferred to
aerial applications. Do not discard pesticides or clean pesticide appli¬
cation equipment in or near streams or ponds.

A dditional 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 result¬
ing from contamination of the equipment.

Registration

Before a pesticide may be legally shipped in interstate or intrastate
commerce, it must be registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act as amended 1978, administered by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Scientific data are required to establish that the pesticide,
when used as directed on the label, will control the target pest and will
not cause unreasonable adverse effects to man and his surroundings. The
criteria for registration are strict and subject to constant review as new
information is developed. Many States have similar registration regulations.
Under the new law the Administrator of EPA is given the authority to

Table 2.—Relative toxicity to honey bees of insecticides used for control

of cotton insects

Group 1.—Materials
highly toxic to bees
exposed to direct
treatment or residues

Group 2.—Materials
toxic to bees when
visiting field at
time of application

Group 3.—Materials
relatively low
in toxicity to
bees

aldicarb

azinphosmethyl

carbaryl

chlorpyrifos

diazinon

dicrotophos

dimethoate

EPN

malathion

methamidophos

methidathion

methomyl (dust)

methyl parathion

monocrotophos

naled

parathion

phosphamidon

carbophenothion
derneton
disulfoton
endosulfan
endrin

methomyl (spray)
phorate

trichlorfon (dust)

Bacillus thuringiensis
chlorbenzilate

dicofol
ethion
sulfur
toxaphene
triGhlorfon

proceed against persons or individuals who engage in misusing pesticides
by applying them in a manner "inconsistent with their labeling." In
addition, the Administrator may place pesticides in a "restricted use"
category, thus subjecting them to controls in distribution and ultimately
requiring their use only by certified 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 will result in residues of the original material or of
toxic metabolites on or in cottonseed or its byproducts. Maximum Residue
Limits (MRL), or tolerances, must be established. The establishment of
MRL tolerances in raw agricultural commodities is the responsibility of EPA.

A registration will not be granted until a MRL of residue has been granted.
Finite tolerances or exemption from tolerances are required for all pesticides
registered for use on cotton.

Restrictions

Any regulations established by the Federal or State Governments will
take precedence over those given in this report, which are as follows:

1. Workers entering cottonfields within 2 days after treatment with
endrin or methyl parathion should wear clean, tightly woven protective
clothing.

2. Do not repeat applications of dimethoate within 14 days of each other.

3. Do not apply disulfoton to cotton more than twice per season or
repeat application within 21 days of each other.

4. Do not repeat applications of monocrotophos within 5 days of each
other.

5. Do not apply chlorbenzilate, 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.

6. Do not graze livestock in cottonfields treated with insecticides,
except those for which no restrictions are shown on the labels.

7. 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 following insecticides have a field-reentry time after application
of at least the interval indicated:

1 day—azinphosmethyl, EPN, ethion, and phosphamidon

2 days—carbophenothion, demeton, dicrotophos, endrin, methyl parathion,

monocrotophos, oxydemetonmethyl, and parathion

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 applications

4 days—naled

5 days—endrin

7 days—methyl parathion, parathion

Hand or mechanical harvest—

1 day—azinphosmethyl

3 days—EPN

7 days—trichlorfon

14 days—diazinon, dimethoate, dicofol, chlorpyrifos, acephate,

phosphamidon

15 days—methomyl

21 days—monocrotophos, demeton
28 days—disulfoton, phorate
30 days—dicrotophos
60 days—methidathion

The tolerances (parts per million) established for various insecticides
recommended for cotton-insect control in or on cottonseed are as follows:
acephate, 0.5; aldicarb, 0.1; azinphosmethyl, 0.5; carbaryl, 5; carbopheno¬
thion, 0.2; chlorobenzilate, 0.5; chlorpyrifos, 0.5; demeton, 0.75; diazinon,
0.2; dicofol, 0.1; dicrotophos, 0.05; diflubenzuion, 0.2; dimethoate, 0.1;
disulfoton, 0.75; endosulfan, 1; endrin, 0; EPN, 0.5; ethion, 0.5; fenvalerate,
0.2; malathion, 2; methamidophos, 0.1; methidathion, 0.2; methomyl, 0.1;
methyl parathion, 0.75; monocrotophos, 0.1; naled, 0.5; parathion, 0.75;
permethrin, 0.5; phorate, 0.05; phosphamidon, 0.1; sulprofos, 0.5; toxaphene,

5; and trichlorfon, 0.1. Baci l lus th uringiensis and the nuclear polyhedrosis

virus are 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

Formulations

Most insecticides and miticides commonly used for control of cotton
pests may be readily formulated into either sprays or dusts. Stable formula¬
tions 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, phyrophyllite, 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 poor results caused by improper application
or timing are frequently 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 concen¬
trated insecticides when the total volume of spray applied is more than one-
half gallon but less than 10 gallons per acre. The term "ultra-low volume"
is used for the application of concentrated 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 emulsifiable concentrates. It is recommended that all insecticide
formulators show conspicuously on the label the pounds of actual toxicant
per gallon in emulsifiable concentrates. The pounds of toxicants specified
should be consistent with the required label declaration of active ingredi¬
ents. Occasional foliage injury has resulted from poorly formulated concen¬
trates or when the spray was improperly applied. Emulsifiers and solvents
should be tested for phytotoxicity before they are used in formulations.
Phytotoxicity of emulsions 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 for later
use.

Ultra-low-volume aerial applications of azinphosmethyl, endosulfan,
malathion, and methyl parathion are approved for control of certain insects.

A mixture of malathion plus methyl parathion is approved for boll weevil and
bollworm control in the boll-weevil-infested States. 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 emulsifiable concentrates than when 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 bollworm control. Molasses increases
palatability of spray residues to bollworm 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 .—
Granular formulations of insecticides and mixtures of insecticides and
fertilizers are used for control of some soil insects. They are being used
for whitefringed beetle and wireworm 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. Emulsifiable formulations of some systemic insecticides are
sprayed in the seed furrow at planting for control of certain early-season
insects.

Mixtures of two or more insecticides .--When 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
organophosphorus 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 the recommended sprays in the field. When this is done, however, the
quantity of solvent is increased, which may in turn increase the phyto¬
toxicity 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.

Equipment

Insecticides may be applied to cotton with either ground or aerial
equipment. Generally, sprays and dusts are equally effective. Regardless
of the equipment chosen, effective control is obtained only when applications
give thorough coverage and are properly timed. Improperly timed or unneces¬
sary applications may result in a pest complex that can cause greater damage
to the cotton crop than the original target insect.

Ground application .—High-clearance rigs usually make efficient appli¬
cation 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 approximately
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 2 pounds of dust 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, one nozzle per row is suggested. As the cotton grows, the
number of nozzles should be increased to two or 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 micrometers. The aircraft should be flown at
a height of 5 feet above the crop for most effective* insecticide placement
and minimal drift.

Emulsifiable concentrates should be mixed with water immediately before
use and delivered at 1 to 10 gallons per acre on a maximum swath width of 40
feet. Ultra-low-volume concentrates should be applied at up to one-half
gallon per acre on a swath width of 35 to 75 feet, depending on weather and
other conditions. Dust applications should be made on a 40-foot 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

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 armyworms,
cutworms, darkling ground beetles, grasshoppers, or other insects which
threaten to reduce a stand. Recommendations for early-season applications
to control aphids, plant bugs, boll weevils, cotton fleahoppers, and thrips
vary greatly from State to State. Differences in the infestations of these
insects, as well as in many other production factors, make it inadvisable to
attempt to standardize recommendations for early-season control.

It is generally recommended that suitable insecticides be applied to
cotton during its maximum period of fruiting and maturing if infestations
threaten to reduce the yield, affect quality, or delay maturity. Recommen¬
dations 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
f ollowed.

Effect on Cotton Plants

Many insecticides affect cotton plants physiologically, and certain
solvents and additives may enhance the adverse effects of insecticides or
may cause physiological effects of their own. The effects may result in
delayed or advanced crop maturity with or without accompanying yield loss.
Several organochlorine insecticides often cause earlier plant maturity,
which is a physiological response by the cotton plant. Many organophosphorus
compounds and the carbamate aldicarb used as seed or soil treatments have an
effect on cotton plants expressed in more vigorous vegetative growth early
in the season, resulting in taller plants and larger leaves, which can be
related to physiological responses. Results have ranged from increased
yield and early maturity to reductions in yield and delayed maturity at
various locations in the Cotton Belt. The use of organophosphorus and
carbamate insecticides at planting has often resulted in delayed plant
emergence and poor stands.

Reductions in yield and delays in crop maturity have resulted when
early-season foliar application schedules of several organophosphorus
compounds have been used. However, more work has been done with methyl
parathion, and its adverse effects are clearly documented under field
conditions. The use of methyl parathion at rates greater than 0.5 pound per
acre may result in reduced fruit retention. Though plants usually compensate
for such fruit loss through production of added fruiting points, the result
is delayed crop maturity and, in some cases, reduced yield. The most severe
adverse effects of methyl parathion occur from frequent early-season
applications. When methyl parathion is used only as needed, delayed
maturity or yield loss is minimized. Results with carbaryl in California
suggest similar reductions in fruit retention without compensating fruiting
to offset fruit loss.

The effects of several insecticides on growth and fruiting of plants
are not consistent from one location to another and from year to year at any
particular location. Adverse effects appear to be more common in some
areas. Growers and insect-control advisers should be aware of the potential
adverse effects of insecticides on crop production. Insecticide use should
be based on expected benefits from insect control weighed against possible
losses in yield or delay in maturity if it is not used. Researchers should
make a greater effort to distinguish between the growth and fruiting
responses of plants caused by insecticides or those resulting from control
of insects obtained with them.

Recently, in the absence of insects, increases in yield have resulted
from mid- and late-season applications of EPN plus methyl parathion, acephate,
and chlordimeform in Arkansas.

Determining the Need for Chemical Control

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. The 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 at which economic losses will result if they are not controlled. This
can result in the 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 maturity 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 they can select the proper one to use. Other farmers prefer to employ
persons who are specially trained to do the job for them. Many growers
employ specially trained personnel, sometimes referred to as checkers or
scouts, to make insect-population counts and infestation records in
cottonfields. 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.

According to most farmers who have employed them, 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 uses of persons specially trained to make insect-population counts
and infestation records in cottonfields have developed. In one, the farmer
hires the person to make the records and to submit them to him. The farmer
then determines the need for insecticides, selects those to be used from the
State Guide, and either applies them with his own equipment or arranges with
a custom applicator to do it for him. In the other type of use the farmer
contracts 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 such trained persons have proved highly satisfactory to
growers using them, and their use is almost certain to increase. With in¬
creased emphasis on reduction in cost of producing cotton and on decreased

use of insecticides to avoid residues and other hazards, the precise
knowledge of insect conditions and the wise use of insecticides are essential.
The employment of trained persons usually is the best way to assure that the
job will be properly done.

A pest management program funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
was initiated in 1972, continued in 1973, and completed in 1974 to encourage
cotton producers to use cultural and biological pest-control measures in
combination with insecticides as needed to protect their crops from damage
by insects. The on-farm cotton-pest management program was carried out by
the Cooperative State Extension Services and APHIS in cooperation with the
State departments of agriculture, experiment stations, cotton producers, and
other industry leaders. The Extension Service and APHIS were responsible
for the program on the national level. In 1975, 1976, and 1977 Federal
funds were provided to the Cooperative State Extension Services in cotton-
producing States to develop pest management programs. An Optimum Pest
Management program conducted in Panola County, Miss, concurrently with the
Boll Weevil Eradication Trial conducted in North Carolina and Virginia was
initiated in 1978. It has Federal funding, with the Mississippi Cooperative
Extension Service serving as the operational agency.

Scouting and Consulting

A high percentage of the cotton acreage is scouted for insect populations
and pest damage as a guide for use of insecticide or other appropriate
action. Some programs are publicly sponsored, usually by the Cooperative
Extension Services, while others are private enterprises. After field counts
are made, action decisions are made by farmers, county extension agents,
publicly employed scouts, or independent pest management consultants.
Scouting-consulting is encouraged. Research on methods to improve the speed
and accuracy of estimates of insect populations and damage is needed.

Computers can be used to process large amounts of field data on a current
basis. The development of professionalism among pest management consultants,
individually and through associations, is commendable.

Cotton-Pest 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. The resistance of cotton pests to insecticides
has developed rapidly in recent years (table 3). Since 1947, when organic
chemicals began to have wide usage in cotton, 25 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. Most
pest resistance is to the organochlorine insecticides, but four species of
mites and the beet armyworm, bandedwing whitefly, bollworm, and tobacco
budworm are known to be resistant to the organophosphorus compounds.

The 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.

Table 3.—Pests resistant to certain insecticides in one or more areas

of various States

_ Pest

Bandedwing whitefly

Beet armyworm-

Do-

Boll weevil-

Bollworm-

Do-

Cabbage looper

Do-

Cotton aphid

Cotton fleahopper

Do-

Cotton

leafperforator.
Do-

Insecticide
•Methyl parathion

■Organochlorine
compounds.

•Methyl parathion
■Organochlorine
compounds.

DDT

Endrin

Carbary1-

Methyl parathion-

■TDE-

■Toxaphene plus DDT—

■Strobane plus DDT-

■Me thorny 1-

■DDT-

■Organochlorine
compounds.

■Endrin and toxaphene
■Organophosphorus
compounds.

■Benzene hexachloride

Organochlorine
compounds.
Organophosphorus
compounds
Organochlorine
compounds.

DDT

States _

■Arkansas, Louisiana,
Tennessee.

Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Mississippi.

•Alabama, Arkansas.

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida
Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North
Carolina, Oklahoma,

South Carolina,

Tennessee, Texas.

■Alabama, Arkansas,

Arizona, California,
Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, Oklahoma,

North Carolina,

Tennessee, Texas.

•Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Oklahoma,
Tennessee, Texas,
California.

■Arizona, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, Texas.

■Arkansas, Mississippi,
Oklahoma.

■Texas.

-Do.

■Louisiana.

-Arizona, Georgia,
Tennessee, Texas.

Alabama, Arkansas,
California, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Oklahoma.

■Arizona.

Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi.

-Arkansas, Alabama,

Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Tennessee.

Texas.

Do.

California.
Arizona.

Table 3.—Pests resistant to certain insecticides in one or more areas

of various States—Continued

Pest

Cotton

leafperforator.
Cotton leafworm-

Lygus bugs,

Lygus hesperus .
Do-

Do-

Pink bollworm-

Insecticide
Organophosphorus
compounds.
Organochlorine
compounds.

Trichlorfon and
monocrotophos.

Malathion-

DDT-

Saltmarsh caterpillar-Toxaphene, DDT, and

endrin.

Southern garden DDT-

leafhopper.

Spider mites:

Tetranychus turkestani -Organophosphorus

compounds, except
phorate seed or
soil treatment.

T. cinnabarinus-do-

T_. pacificus -do

T. urticae-do

T_. pacif icus -Dicofol-

T_. urticae -do-

Stink bug: Euschistus Organochlorine

conspersus . compounds.

Thrips:

Frankliniella , Dieldrin-

mixture of species.

Do—-Endrin-

Frankliniella Toxaphene-

occidentalis .

Do-Organochlorine

compounds.

Thrips tabaci -do-

Tobacco bud worm-Carbaryl-

States

California, Arizona.

Arkansas, Louisiana,
Texas.

-California.

Do.

-Do.

-Arizona.

-Durango and Coahuila,
Mexico; Texas.
Arizona, California.

-California.

Alabama, California.

Alabama, Arizona,
California, Texas.

-Do.

Alabama, Arkansas,
California, Louisiana
Mississippi, North
Carolina.

California.

-Do.

Do.

California, Georgia.
New Mexico.

Texas.

-Do.

Alabama, Arizona,
Arkansas, California,
Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North
Carolina, Oklahoma,
South Carolina, Texas

Table 3.—Pests resistant to certain insecticides in one or more areas

of various States—Continued

_ Pest _ Insecticide ___ States __

Tobacco budworm-DDT-Alabama, Arkansas ,Florida,

Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North
Carolina, Texas.

Do-Endrin-Alabama, Arizona,

Arkansas, California,
Florida,Georgia,Louisiana,
Mississippi, North
Carolina, Oklahoma,

South Carolina, Texas.

Do-Strobane plus DDT-Arkansas, Texas.

Do-TDE-Do.

Do-Toxaphene plus DDT-Arkansas, Louisiana,

Mississippi, Texas.

Do-Methomyl-Arizona, Arkansas,

Louisiana, Mississippi.

Do-Organophosphorus Alabama, Arizona,

compounds. Arkansas, California,

Florida,Georgia,Louisiana,
Mississippi, North
Carolina, Oklahoma,

South Carolina,

Tennessee, Texas.

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 popu¬
lations of the boll weevil and the pink bollworm. Every possible
advantage of biological control agents should be utilized, and where there

is a choice, chemicals that are of minimum detriment to beneficial insects

should be used .

Effect of Environmental Factors on Chemical Control

Failures to control insects are often attributed to ineffective insec¬
ticides, poor formulations, poor applications, improper timing, and re¬
sistance to insecticides. Variations in humidity, rainfall, temperature,
sunlight, and wind influence the effectiveness of an insecticide applied to
plants. These variations also influence the development of insect populations
and plant growth. The 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 favorable to
the insecticide and plants and adverse to the insect population will result in

very effective control. The 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 Cotton-Pest Control

Materials recommended for the control pests in one or more States are
discussed in this section (see table 4). In some areas certain pests have
become resistant to one or more of the materials recommended. (See "Cotton-
Pest Resistance to Insecticides" for details.) One asterisk (*) indicates an
organochlorine compound; two asterisks indicate an organophosphorus compound.

** Acephate .—Acephate will control bollworms, tobacco budworms, cabbage
loopers, cotton aphids, lygus bugs, thrips, spider mites, and whiteflies.

Aldicarb .—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.

Sidedress applications when plants begin to square will control leafhoppers,
cotton fleahoppers, boll weevils, spider mites, and lygus bugs but may
result in an increase in subsequent bollworm and tobacco budworm infestations
Treatments at planting may result in phytotoxicity under some conditions to
the extent that stands 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. It should be kept out of any body of
water, and care should be taken not to 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 .

** Azinphosmethy1 .—Azinphosmethyl will control boll weevils, brown cotton
leafworms, cotton leafperforators, cotton leafworms, fleahoppers, garden
webworms, lygus bugs, pink bollworms, 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 .

Bacillus thuringiensis .— Bacillus thuringiensis will control the cabbage
looper, the bollworm and tobacco budworm.

Carbaryl .—Carbaryl will control boll weevils, bollworms, tobacco
budworms, cotton fleahoppers, cotton leafworms, cotton leafperforators,
cutworms, darkling beetles, fall armyworms, false celery leaftiers, field
crickets, garden webworms, grasshoppers, leaf rollers ( Platynota stultana ),
lygus bugs, pink bollworms, saltmarsh caterpillars, southern garden
leafhoppers, stink bugs, and thrips. It does not control beet armyworms,
black fleahoppers, cabbage loopers, false chinch bugs, or spider mites.

Aphids do not usually buildup following its use, but spider mites often do.

Table 4.—Common and chemical names of insecticides used for

cotton-pest control

[^'Indicates a proprietary name]

Common name Chemical name Other designation

acephate-0., S-dimethyl Ortho 12,420;

acetylphosphoramidothioate. *0rthene.

aldicarb-2-methyl-2- Union Carbide

(methylthio)propionaldehyde 21149; UC 21149;

0—(methylcarbamoyl)oxime. *Temik.

azinphosmethyl-0, C)-dimethyl S-[ (4-oxo-l,2,3- *Guthion.

benzotriazin-3(4H)-yl)methyl]
phosphorodithioate.

carbaryl-1-napthyl methylcarbamate-*Sevin.

carbophenothion--S- [ [(p-chlorophenyl)thio]methyl] *Trithion.

0-diethyl phosphorodithioate.

chlordimeform-N f - (4-chloro-0-tolyl) -N,N- *Galecron;

dimethylformamidine. *Fundal.

chlorobenzilate-ethyl 4,4 ’-dichlorobenzilate-Acaraben.

chlorpyrifos-0-0-diethyl 0-(3,5,6-trichloro- *Dursban; *Lorsban.

2-pyridyl) phosphorothioate.

demeton-0-diethyl 0(and S^)- *Systox;

(ethylthio)ethyl] phosphorothioate. mercaptophos.

diazinon-C),0-diethyl 0-(2-isopropyl-6- *Spectracide.

methyl-4-pyrimidinyl) phosphoro¬
dithioate.

dicofol-4,4 ' -chichloro-a- *Kelthane .

(trichloromethyl)benzhydrol.

dicrotophos-dimethyl phosphate ester of *Bidrin.

(.E)-3-hydroxy-N,N-
dimethylcrotonamide.

diflubenzuron-N-[[(4-chlorophenyl)amino]carbonyl]- *Dimilin; TH6040.

2,6-difluorobenzamide).

dimethoate-(3,0-dimethyl S_- *Rogor; *Cygon.

[(methylcarbamoylmethyl)]
phosphorodithioate.

disulfoton-]3,0-diethyl S-[2- *Di-Syston;

(ethylthio)ethyl] thiodemeton.

phosphorodithioate.

endosulfan-6,7,8,9,10,10-hexachloro-l,5,5a, *Thiodan.

6,9,9a-hexahydro-6,9-methano-
2,4,3,-benzodioxathiepin 3-oxide.

endrin-1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-6,7- Compound 269.

epoxy-1,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-
octahydro-1,4 -endo-endo- 5,8-
dimethanonaphthalene.

Table 4.—Common and chemical names or insecticides used for

cotton-pest control--Continued

[^Indicates a proprietary name]

Common name Chemical name Other designation

EPN-O-ethyl 0- (p-nitrophenyl) EPN 300.

phenylphosphonothioate.

ethion-(3,(),C)' , (3'-tetraethyl S_,_S'- *N ialate .

methylene.

bis(phosphorodithioate).

fenvalerate-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl *Pydrin.

4-chloro-a-(1-methylethyl)
benzeneacetate).

malathion-(D ,0-dimethyl phosphorodithioate *Cythion.

of diethyl mercaptosuccinate.

methamidophos-(), S-dimethyl ^Monitor;

phosphoramidothioate. *Tamaron.

methidathion-0_,0-dimethyl phosphorodithioate *Supracide;

S>-ester with 4-(mercaptomethyl)- *Ultracide.

2- methoxy-A 2 -l,3,4-
thiadiazolin-5-one.

methomyl-E-methyl N- *Lannate; *Nudrin.

[(methylcarbamoyl)oxy]thioacetimidate.
methyl parathion--(),0-dimethyl 0- (£-nitrophenyl) *Metacide;

phosphorothioate. *Wofatox.

monocrotophos-dimethyl phosphate ester of *Azodrin.

(E)-3-hydroxy-N-
methylcrotonamide.

naled-1,2-dibromo-2,2-dichloroethyl *Dibrom.

dimethyl phosphate.

oxydemeton-methyl-_S-[2-(ethylsulfinyl)ethyl] *METASYSTOX-R.

,0-dimethyl phosphorothioate.

parathion-(D, 0-diethyl >0-(p-nitrophenyl) *Thiophos ; *Niran.

phosphorothioate.

permethrin-(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl FMC 33297*

3- (2,2-dichloroethenyl)- *Pounce ;

2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate. *Ambush PP557.

phorate-0_,0-diethyl S-[ (ethylthio)methyl] *Thimet.

phosphorodithioate.

phosphamidon-2-chloro-2-diethylcarbamoy1-1- *Dimecron.

methylvinyl dimethyl phosphate.

propargite-2-(p- tert -butylphenoxy)cyclohexyl *Comite; *0mite.

2-propynyl sulfite.

sulfur-sulfur-

sulprofos-£-ethyl 0- [4-(methylthio)phenyl] *Bolstar.

S-propyl phosphorodithioate. Bay NTN 9306.

toxaphene-chlorinated camphene containing Camphechlor.

67% to 69% chlorine.

trichlorfon-dimethyl (2,2,2-trichloro-l- *Dipterex; *Dylox.

hydroxyethyl)phosphonate.

** Carbophenothion .—Carbophenothion will control cotton aphids, cotton
fleahoppers, cotton leafperforators, lygus bugs, thrips, and most species of
spider mites. It appears to have long residual activity. It is not
effective against the bollworm, boll weevil, or cabbage looper and is erratic
against saltmarsh caterpillars and stink bugs. Carbophenothion is highly
toxic to man and animals and should be used with adequate precautions .

Chlordimeform .—Chlordimeform will control beet armyworms, bollworms,
tobacco budworms, cotton leafperforators, pink bollworms, spider mites,
thrips, and western yellowstriped armyworms. Its action is primarily ovici-
dal. It was withdrawn from the market in late 1976. It was available for
restricted use in a closed aeriel application system in 1978 and 1979.

*Chlorobenzilate .—Chlorobenzilate applied as a foliage spray will
control most species of spider mites. Complete foliage coverage is essential
for obtaining control.

** Chlorpyrifos .—Chlorpyrifos will control bollworms, boll weevils, lygus
bugs, tobacco budworms, and spider mites.

** Demeton .—Demeton is both a contact and a systemic insecticide with
long residual systemic activity. When applied as 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 boll weevils, bollworms, cotton leafworms, grasshoppers, or pink
bollworms. Demeton is highly toxic to man and animals and should be used
with adequate precautions .

** Diazinon .—Diazinon spray will control cotton fleahoppers, cotton
leafperforators, lygus bugs, saltmarsh caterpillars, and thrips.

* Dicofol .—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 .—Dicrotophos spray will control cotton aphids, cotton
fleahoppers, cotton leafperforators, false chinch bugs, lygus bugs, spider
mites, saltmarsh caterpillars, stink bugs, and thrips. Dicrotophos is
highly toxic to man and animals and should be used with adequate precautions .

Diflubenzuron (Dimilin) .—Diflubenzuron will suppress boll weevil popu¬
lations at 0.06 to 0.25 pound per acre. It is particularly effective in
reducing egg hatch from overwintering females. The toxicity of this compound y
is not fully known but extreme caution should be observed in its use. (This j/
compound was granted conditional registration by EPA in 1979.)

**Dimethoate.—Dimethoate spray will control cotton aphids, cotton
fleahoppers, 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
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 planterbox
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. Disulfoton is highly toxic
to man and animals and should be used with adequate precautions .

* Endosulfan .—Endosulfan will control bollworms, tobacco budworms,
cabbage loopers, cotton leafperforators, lygus bugs, stink bugs, and thrips.

* Endrin .—Endrin will control beet armyworms, boll weevils, bollworms,
brown cotton leafworms, cabbage loopers, cotton leafperforators, cotton
leafworms, cutworms, darkling ground beetles, fall armyworms, false chinch
bugs, field crickets, flea beetles, fleahoppers, garden webworms, grass¬
hoppers, greenhouse leaftiers, lygus bugs, stink bugs, tobacco budworms,
thrips, and yellowstriped armyworms. Endrin used in a seed treatment will
protect seed and young seedlings from seedcom maggots, false wireworms, and
wireworms. It will not control the pink bollworm or spider mites. Aphids
usually do not build up after applying endrin but spider mites sometimes do.
Endrin should not be used for control of cotton insects where soybeans are
grown in rotation with cotton. EPA has canceled registration for use of
endrin on cotton in all areas east of interstate Highway 35 and has listed
restrictions for its use in areas west of interstate Highway 35. Endrin is
highly toxic to man and animals and should be used with adequate precautions .

** EPN .—EPN will control boll weevils, bollworms, and tobacco budworms.

EPN is highly toxic to man and animals and should be used with adequate

precautions .

** Ethion .—Ethion will control cotton aphids, cotton leafworms, and most
species of spider mites.

Fenvalerate (Pydrin) .:—Fenvalerate will control beet armyworms, bollworms,
boll weevils, tobacco budworms, cotton leafperforators, thrips, whiteflies,
and pink bollworms at 0.05 to 0.2 pound per acre, and cabbage loopers and
fall armyworms at 0.1 to 0.2 pound per acre. Ordinary precautions are
recommended in its use. (The compound was granted conditional registration
by EPA in 1979) .

**Malathion.—Malathion spray will control boll weevils, cotton aphids,
brown cotton leafworms, cotton leafperforators, cotton leafworms, fall
armyworms, cotton fleahoppers, garden webworms, grasshoppers, lygus bugs,
southern garden leafhoppers, thrips, and some species of spider mites.

Results against whiteflies have been erratic. It will not control the
bollworm or saltmarsh caterpillar. In some areas 0.5 pound 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 pounds per acre
controls the boll weevil.

**M eth am idopho S .—Methamidophos will control beet armyworms, boll weevils,
bollworms, cabbage loopers, cotton aphids, cotton leafperforators, lygus bugs,
saltmarsh caterpillars, spider mites and thrips. Methamidophos is highly
toxic to man an d animals and should be used with adequate precautions .

** Methidathion .—Methidathion will control bandedwing whiteflies, spider
mites, boll weevils, bollworms, and tobacco budworms. In a schedule of
applications for control of the latter species, it may be phytotoxic.

Methomyl .--Methomyl will control beet armyworms, bollworms, tobacco
budworms, cabbage loopers, cotton leafperforators, lygus bugs, and pink
bollworms. It may be phytotoxic when repeated applications are used. A
safened dust is less phytotoxic than sprays. Methomyl is highly toxic to
man and animals and should be used with adequate precautions .

** Methyl parathion .—Methyl parathion will control beet armyworms, boll
weevils, cabbage loopers, cotton aphids, cotton leafperforators, cotton
leafworms, cutworms, fall armyworms, false chinch bugs, fleahoppers, garden
webworms, grasshoppers, lygus bugs, southern garden leafhoppers, saltmarsh
caterpillars, stink bugs, thrips, yellowstriped armyworms, and certain
species of 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 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 spider mites,
methyl parathion in a boll weevil schedule suppresses them. When it is
applied as a dust, only stabilized formulations should be used. An encapsula¬
ted formulation of methyl parathion has shown 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 .

** Monocrotophos .—Monocrotophos will control bandedwing whiteflies, beet
armyworms, boll weevils, bollworms, cabbage loopers, cotton aphids, cotton
fleahoppers, cotton leafperforators, lygus bugs, pink bollworms, some species
of spider mites, saltmarsh caterpillars, stink bugs, thrips, and tobacco
budworms. This is a water-soluble formulation, and observations indicate
that it washes off more readily by rain than an emulsifiable concentrate
does. Monocrotophos will kill birds and other wildlife. It should be kept
out of any body of water and should be applied only when weather conditions

favor drift from areas being treated. Mo nocrotophos is highly tox ic to
man and animals and should be used with adequate precautions .

** Naled .--Naled will control cotton fleahoppers, cotton leafperforators,
cutworms, grasshoppers, and lygus bugs. It is ineffective against the
cabbage looper at 0.5 pound per acre and spider mites at 0.5 to 1.0 pound per
acre.

Nuclear Polyhedrosis Viru ses .—One of these viruses controls the bollworm
and tobacco budworm and another controls the cabbage looper.

** Oxydemeton-methyl .—Oxydemeton-methyl will control cotton aphids and
most species of spider mites. This material is highly toxic to man and
animals and should be used with adequate precautions .

** Parathion (ethyl) .—Parathion will control brown cotton leafworms, most
species of aphids, cabbage loopers, cotton leafperforators, cotton leafworms,
fleahoppers, lygus bugs, false chinch bugs, saltmarsh caterpillars, serpentine
leafminers, southern garden leafhoppers, stink bugs, some species of spider
mites, and thrips. At dosages of 0.5 to 1.0 pound per acre it controls the
boll weevil, bollworm and tobacco budworm. It gives very little control of
fall armyworms, pink bollworms, variegated cutworms, or whiteflies. Parathion
is highly toxic to man and animals and should be used with adequate

precautions .

Permethrin (Ambush and Pounce) .—Permethrin will control bandedwing
whiteflies, boll weevils, bollworms, tobacco budworms, cotton leafperforators,
lygus bugs, pink bollworms, and thrips at 0.05 to 0.2 pound per acre and
cabbage loopers at 0.1 pound per acre. Ordinary precautions are recommended
in its use. (The compound was granted conditional registration by EPA in
1979.)

** Phorate .—Phorate as a seed treatment or applied in granular form 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 preemergence herbicides are used. Foliar applications of phorate will
control spider mites. 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. Phorate is highly toxic to man and animals and should be used
with adequate precautions .

** Phosphamidon .—Phosphamidon will control cotton aphids, cotton
fleahoppers, cotton leafperforators, false chinch bugs, lygus bugs and other
mirids, and thrips. Phosphamidon is highly toxic to man and animals and
should be used with adequate precautions.

Propargite .—Propargite will control the Pacific, strawberry, and
twospotted spider mites.

Sulfur .—Sulfur has been widely used in dust mixtures for control of the
cotton fleahopper and certain species of spider mites. When applied alone or
in combination with insecticides in formulations containing 40 percent or
more 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.

** Sulprofos (Bolstar) .—Sulprofos will control the bollworm and tobacco
budworm at 0.5 to 1.5 pounds and the beet armyworm and fall armyworm at 1.0
pound per acre. Su lpropos is highly toxic to man and animals and should
be used with adequate precautions . (The compound was granted conditional
registration by EPA in 1979).

^ Toxaphene .—Toxaphene will control beet armyworms, boll weevils, boll-
worms, cotton fleahoppers, cotton leafworms, cotton leafperforators, cutworms,
fall armyworms, flea beetles, garden webworms, grasshoppers, lygus bugs,
stink bugs, thrips, tobacco budworms, whitelined sphinxes, yellowstriped
armyworms, and western yellowstriped armyworms. Toxaphene will not control
cabbage loopers, pink bollworms, or saltmarsh caterpillars.

** Trichlorfon .—Trichlorfon spray will control beet armyworms, celery
leaftiers, cotton leafperforators, cutworms, darkling beetles, fall armyworms,
field crickets, flea beetles, fleahoppers, garden webworms, leafrollers
( Platynota stultana ), lygus bugs, western yellowstriped armyworms, stink
bugs, saltmarsh caterpillars, southern garden leafhoppers, and yellowstriped
armyworms. Trichlorfon has given erratic results against bollworms and
cabbage loopers. It was not effective against thrips at 0.5 to 1.0 pound per
acre. Occasionally trichlorfon has been phytotoxic. It should be applied
immediately after it is mixed with water.

Insecticides and Miticides Showing Promise in Field Tests

The materials listed and discussed in this section have shown promise in
the testing programs of the State Agricultural Experiment Stations and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. These materials are not recommended for
grower use but are recommended to research workers for further testing and
study. One asterisk (*) indicates a proprietary name; two asterisks indicate
an organophosphorus compound.

AC 222,705 [(±)-cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl (+)-4-(difluromethoxy)-
alpha-(l-methylethyl)benzeneacetate]

In field tests in 1978 and 1979 AC 222,705 showed promise against
bollworms and tobacco budworms at 0.025 to 0.04 pound per acre and against
bollweevils at 0.04 pound per acre. Ordinary precautions are recommended in
its use.

BAY SIR 8514 (2-chloro-N-[[[4-trifluromethoxy)phenyl]amino]carbomyl]
benzamide

In field tests in 1978 and 1979, the reduction of boll weevil emergence

from squares treated with this compound was comparable with that of difluben-
zuron. The toxicity of this compound is not fully known, but extreme caution
should be observed in its use.

Carbofuran (*Furadan) (2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-benzofuranyl methyl-
carbamate)

Carbofuran applied in the seed furrow at planting in a granular formula¬
tion at 0.5 to 1.0 pound per acre showed promise against thrips. In field
tests from 1964 through 1974, carbofuran applied as a foliar spray showed
promise against bollworms, boll weevils, cotton aphids, cotton leafperforators
lygus bugs, bandedwing whiteflies, thrips, and tobacco budworms at rates of
0.5 to 1.0 pound per acre. Carbofuran is highly toxic to man and animals and
should be used with adequate precautions .

Cypermeth rin (PP 383) mixed isomers or (±)-[cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)
methyl] cis, trans-(±) — 3—(2,2-dichloroethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxy
late)

In field tests in 1978 this compound showed promise against the bollworm
and tobacco budworm at 0.05 and 0.1 pound per acre. Ordinary precautions
are recommended in its use.

NRDC-161 Decis (S)-[cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl] cis (±)-3-(2,2-
dibromoethenyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate)

In field tests from 1976 to 1978, NRDC-161 in a spray showed promise
against the boll weevil, bollworm, tobacco budworm, pink bollworm, and cotton
leafperforator at 0.01 to 0.02 pound per acre. The toxicity of this compound
is not fully known, but extreme caution should be observed in its use.

** Profenofos CGA-15324 (*Curacron) [(CO-4-bromo-2-chlorophenyl) 0-ethyl
S-propyl phosphorothioate]

In field test in 1975 and 1976, this compound as a spray showed promise
against the bollworm - tobacco budworm complex at 0.5 and 2.0 pounds per
acre. In 1977, 1978, and 1979, it showed promise against this complex at
0.5 to 1.0 pound per acre. In 1976 and 1977 it showed promise against the
beet armyworm and fall armyworm at 0.75 to 1.0 pound per acre. The toxicity
of this compound is not fully known, but extreme caution should be observed
in its use.

**Quinalphos (Sandoz 6538, Bay 77049) ((), (D-diethyl () ,-2-quinoxalinyl
phosphorothioate)

In field tests in 1978 quinalphos in a spray showed promise for control
of bollworms and tobacco budworms at 0.75 pound per acre. The toxicity of
this compound is not fully known, but extreme caution should be observed in
its use.

** Rohm & Haas 218 0-(2,4,6-trichlorophenyl) 0-ethyl, S-propyl phosphoro¬
thioate)

In field tests in 1974, 1975, and 1977 this compound showed promise
against bollworms, tobacco budworms, and lygus bugs at 0.5 to 1.0 pound per
acre. In repeated applications this compound may be phytotoxic. The toxicity
of this compound is not fully known, but extreme caution should be observed
in its use.

Thiodicarb (Union Carbide UC-51762) (dimethy1-N-N*[thiobis([methylimino)=
carbonyl] oxy)]bis[ethonimidothioate])

In field tests from 1976 to 1979, this material showed promise as a
spray against the bollworm and tobacco budworm at 0.5 to 1.0 pound per acre.

In 1977 it showed promise against the beet armyworm, boll weevill, fall
armyworm, and cabbage looper at 0.75 to 1.0 pound per acre. The toxicity of
this material is not fully known but extreme caution should be observed in
its use.

Zoecon ZR-3210 (cyano(3-phenoxyphenyl)methyl 2-2[[2-chloro-4-trifluoro-
methyl phenyl]amino-3-3 methylbutanoate])

In field tests in 1979 this material showed promise against boll weevils,
bollworms and tobacco budworms at 0.1 and 0.2 pound per acre. Ordinary
precautions are recommended in its use.

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 also discussed. In local areas certain
insects have become resistant to one or more of the insecticides recommended
for general use, see "Cotton-Pest Resistance to Insecticides and Miticides"
for details.

Bandedwing Whitefly , Trialeurodes abutilonea (Haldeman)

The bandedwing whitefly, 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. The bandedwing whitefly has been a
problem in Louisiana since 1964, and infestations have increased in Miss¬
issippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Georgia since 1972. The bandedwing
whitefly may be controlled with monocrotophos spray at 0.25 to 1.0 pound per
acre and with methamidophos at 0.2 to 0.25 pound per acre.

Beet Armyworm , Spodoptera exigua (Hbn.)

The following insecticides will control the beet armyworm in some areas
at the indicated dosages of technical material:

Spray

Acephate.

Methomyl . . . .
Monocrotophos

Pounds per acre

.. 0.5-1.0

.. 0.45-0.67

. . 1.0

Corn meal and citrus pulp baits containing 1.25 or 2.5 percent methomyl
applied at 20 pounds per acre have shown promise against beet armyworms.

The beet armyworm often is a pest of seedling cotton, but it also attacks older

plants. Squares and blooms may be destroyed, and feeding on the bracts may
cause small bolls to shed. The beet armyworm has been a pest in the West and
Southwest for many years. In the Mid-South and Southeast its occurrence in
numbers is sporadic, but severe local outbreaks are not uncommon.

Boll Weevil, Anthonomus grandis Boheman

The boll weevil occurs in the cottonproducing 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. Boll weevils found in cotton in northwestern Mexico
and Arizona pose a threat to cotton production in New Mexico and California.
This insect was found in California for the first time in 1965. Control
programs initiated 15 years ago in west 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- and late-season in one or more
areas are as follows (dosages lower than these are used for early-season
control in some areas):

Spray

Pounds per acre

Azinphosmethyl—^. 0.125-0.5

Carbaryl . 1.0-2.0

EPN . 0.25-0.5

EPN + methyl parathion . 0.25+0.25

Malathioni/... 0.5-1.0

Methyl parathiorv-' . 0.25-0.5

Monocrotophos . 0.6-1.0

Parathion . 0.25-1.0

Toxaphene . 2.0-4.0

Toxaphene + methyl parathion . 1.0-2.0+0.25-0.5

1/ Azinphosmethyl, malathion, and methyl parathion may be applied
ultra-low volume as technical material at 0.125 to 0.25 pound,
0.5 to 1.2 pounds, and 0.5 to 0.75 pound per acre, respectively.

When these insecticides are used for boll weevil control, other insect
problems have to be considered. Infestations of cotton aphids, bollworms,
spider mites, and tobacco budworms may develop when some of these insecticides
are used alone. Spider mites may build up rapidly after the use of toxaphene
or 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 "Cotton Aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover", and "Spider Mites" in this
section.)

Aldicarb is effective against overwintered boll weevils when used as an
in-furrow granule application at planting at 0.6 to 1.0 pound (0.3 to 0.5
pound if hill-dropped) per acre.

Diflubenzuron will suppress boll weevil populations at 0.06 to 0.25
pound per acre. It is particularly effective in preventing egg hatch from
overwintering females. Egg hatch from surviving females may resume within
7 days after treatments are discontinued necessitating a clean-up application
of an organic phosphorus insecticide at that time.

Boll weevil control measures should be taken when definite need is
established. Experience indicates that mid- and late-season control programs
may require frequent applications. Fields should be inspected weekly until
bolls are no longer susceptible to attack by weevils. 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 reduce the overwintering
boll weevil population. The boll weevil survives the winter as a diapausing
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 applied 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 applications of organophosphorus insecti¬
cides, defoliation, and stalk destruction to prevent the development of
diapause by the weevils will reduce overwintering populations by approximately
90 percent.

In the Pilot Boll Weevil Eradication Experiment conducted in south
Mississippi (see "Insect Attractants"), an effective component in the
suppression program was a trap plot of cotton consisting of about 2 percent
of the acreage in each field. The trap plot, planted some 2 weeks earlier
than the remainder of the field, was planted by the grower. Its purpose
was to attract overwintered boll weevils. An in-furrow application of 1
pound of aldicarb per acre was made at planting and a sidedressing of 2
pounds per acre when plants began to square to kill the weevils. Grandlure
used in 100-foot-interval bait stations within the trap plot intensifies
attraction to the weevils. If aldicarb is not used, a conventional insectic¬
ide must be applied at 5-day intervals after the plants in the trap plot
begin to square to kill the overwintered weevils.

Bollworm , Heliothis zea (Boddie), and Tobacco Budworm , H. virescens (F.)

The bollworm and the tobacco budworm are the most common lepidopterous
species that attack cotton. Several other species that cause boll injury,
discussed elsewhere in this report, are the beet armyworm, fall armyworm,
pink bollworm, yellowstriped armyworm, and western yellowstriped armyworm.

The bollworm and tobacco budworm occur throughout the Cotton Belt.

The latter species has always been more difficult to control. Beginning in
the 1960's, the tobacco budworm became extremely difficult to control in
Texas and in the 1970's in Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and South
Carolina as well.

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.

In the 1960’s available insecticides failed to control high populations
of the tobacco budworm in Texas and Oklahoma. Similar control failures
occurred in Arkansas and Louisiana in 1974; in some areas of Alabama, Miss¬
issippi, and South Carolina in 1975; and thereafter in the remaining cotton-
producing States east of the Mississippi River, and in Arizona and in the
Imperial Valley of California. Failures to control tobacco budworms with
available insecticides are expected to increase in the future.

Dosages of technical material that have controlled bollworms in one or
more areas are as follows:

Spray Pounds per acre

0.75-1.0
0.5-1.0
0.12-0.25
1 . 0 - 2.0
0.12-0.25
0.5-1.0
0.3-0.6
0.4+1.0
0.75-1.25
0.5-1.0+0.5-1.0
0.5-1.0-0.5-1.0+0.125-0.25
0.5+0.5+0.5
0.5+0.5+0.125-0.25
0 . 1 - 0.2
0.45-0.67
1 . 0 - 2.0
1.0+0.25
0 . 6 - 1.0
1.0

0 . 1 - 0.2
0.75-1.5
2.0-4.0
2.0-3.0+1-1.5
2 . 0 + 1 . 0 + 0.5

2.0-3.0+1.0-1.5+0.125-0.25

1/ 36-72 larval equivalents per acre.

2 J Chlordimeform was available for restricted use in a closed aeriel

application system in 1979.

3/ West of Interstate Highway 35.

4 J Conditional registration.

5 j Methomyl may be applied at 0.12-0.25 pound per acre as an ovicide.

_6/ May be applied ultra-low volume at 0.5 to 0.75 pound per acre.

Cabbage Looper , Trichoplusia ni (Hlibner)

The cabbage looper and related species are pests of cotton in many
areas. They are difficult to control with insecticides. The following

Acephate .

Bacillus thuringiensi^ .,.

Baculovirus heliothis— .

Carbaryl ..

Chlordimeform^-' .

Chlorpyrifos .

Endrin^-..

Endrin + methyl parathion^/.

EPN .

EPN + methyl parathion .

EPN + methyl parathion + chlordimeform .

EPN + methyl parathion + chlorpyrifos ..

EPN + methyl parathion + methomyl ..

Fenvalerate—' .

Methomyl—^ ..

Methyl parathion^-/ .

Methyl parathion + methomyl ..

Monocrotophos ..

Parathion ....

Permethrirvy..

Sulprofos—'..

Toxaphene ..

Toxaphene + methyl parathion ..

Toxaphene + methyl parathion + chlorpyrifos
Toxaphene + methyl parathion + chlordimeform

materials applied at 5-day intervals have given control in one or more
areas:

Spray

Pounds per acre

Acephate .

Bacillus thuringiensis

Methamidophos .

Methorny1 .

Monocrotophos .

3.6-7.3X10 9 IU's

0.5-1.0

0.5

0 . 6 - 1.0

The cabbage looper is frequently controlled by viruses and fungi.
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 were applied. When aphid infestations are
heavy and rapid kill is needed, any one of the following treatments is
usually effective at the following dosages of technical material:

Spray Pounds per acre

Azinphosmethyl . 0.25

Carbophenothion . 0.5-1.0

Demeton . 0.25-0.38

Dicrotophos . 0.1-0.25

Dimethoate . 0.1-0.25

Ethion . 0.5

Malathion . 0.5-1.25

Methamidophos . 0.5-1.0

Methyl parathion . 0.25-0.5

Oxydemetonmethyl . 0.25-0.37

Parathion (ethyl) . 0.2-0.5

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

Pounds hundredweight
Insecticide per acre of cottonseed

Aldicarb . 0.3-0.5 -

Disulfoton . 0.6-1.5 0.25-0.5

Phorate . 0.5-1.5 1.3-1.5

Cotton Fleahopper , Pseudatomoscelis seriatus (Reuter)

The cotton fleahopper frequently attacks cotton in Texas and Oklahoma

and, to a lesser extent, in other areas. It can be controlled with the
following insecticides at the indicated dosages of technical material:

Spray Pounds per acre

Azinphosmethyl . 0.1-0.25

Carbaryl . 0.25-1.40

Dicrotophos . 0.1-0.25

Dimethoate . 0.1-0.25

Malathion . 0.7-1.25

Methyl parathion . 0.12-0.5

Toxaphene . 0.5-2.0

Trichlorfon . 0.25-1.0

Aldicarb is effective when used as an in-furrow granule application at
planting at 0.6 to 1.0 (0.3 to 0.5 if hill dropped) 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 and as predators.

Cotton Leafperforator , Bucculatrix thurberiella Busck

The cotton leafperforator is at times a serious defoliator of cotton
in certain areas of southern California and Arizona. It is controlled with
methomyl (spray or dust) at 0.45 to 0.67 pound per acre (technical material).
Repeat applications may be necessary. Sprays are more effective than
dusts. Avoid the use of organophosphorus compounds during early season to
protect beneficial insects. Aldicarb is effective when applied as a
sidedressing between first squaring and early bloom at 2.0 pounds per acre.

Cotton Leafworm , Alabama argillacea (Hiibner)

The following insecticides will control the cotton leafworm at the
indicated dosages of technical material:

Spray

Pounds per acre

Azinphosmethyl .

Carbaryl .

EPN + methyl parathion

Malathion .

Methyl parathion .

Parathion (ethyl) ....
Toxaphene .

0.25-0.37
0.5-2.0

0.25-0.5+0.25-0.5
0.4-1.25
0.25-0.5
0.12-0.25
2.0-4.0

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 (Hufq.agel)

Palesided cutworm, A. malefida Guenee
Variegated cutworm, Peridroma saucia (Hiibner)

Granulate cutworm, Feltia subterranea (F.)

Army cutworm, Euxoa auxiliaris (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 destroyed by tillage 3 to 6 weeks before
the cotton crop is seeded, an insecticide may not be needed. The following
insecticides will control one or more species of cutworms at the indicated
dosages of technical material:

Spray

Pounds per acre

Carbaryl ..
Toxaphene .
Trichlorfon

1.5-2.0
2.0-4.0
0.5-1.5

Poison baits containing toxaphene at 2 to 4 pounds per acre, carbaryl
at 1.5 pounds per acre, and trichlorfon at 1.5 pounds per acre have been
satisfactory. Baits are frequently more effective than sprays or dusts
against some species of cutworms.

Darkling Ground Beetles ,•Blapstinus spp. and Ulus spp.

Darkling ground 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 in a bait at 1.5 pounds per acre.

Fall Armyworm , Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith)

The fall armyworm occasionally occurs in sufficient numbers to damage
cotton. In 1977 infestations of the fall armyworm, which attacked squares
and bolls as well as foliage, were more general than in many years. Heavy
yield loss was experienced statewide in Alabama. The following insecticides
will control it at the indicated dosages of technical material:

Spray Pounds per acre

Acephate . 1.0

Carbaryl . 1.0-2.0

Methomyl . 0.3-0.67

Methyl parathion . 0.25-1.0

Monocrotophos . 0.5-1.0

Toxaphene . 2.0-3.0

Trichlorfon . 0.5-1.0

The results obtained from these materials have varied in different
States; therefore, local recommendations should be followed. (See "Bollworm,
Heliothis zea (Boddie), and Tobacco Budworm, H. virescens (F.)" in this
section.)

Garden Webworm, Achyra rantalis (Guenee)

The garden webworm may be controlled with the following insecticides at
the dosages indicated:

Spray Pounds per acre

Carbaryl . 1.0-2.0

Malathion . 1.0-2.0

Methyl parathion . 0.25-0.5

Toxaphene . 1.5-4.0

Grasshoppers

Several species of grasshoppers, including the following, sometimes
attack cotton:

American grasshopper, Schistocerca americana (Drury)

Trimerotropis pallidipennis pallidipennis (Burmeister)
Differential grasshopper, Melanoplus differentialis (Thomas)
Lubber grasshopper, Brachystola magna (Girard)

Migratory grasshopper, M. sanguinipes (F.)

Redlegged grasshopper, M. femurrubrum (De Geer)

Twostriped 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 the egg stage can be controlled
best with early treatment of hatching beds before the grasshoppers migrate
into the fields. Sprays or dusts have largely replaced poison baits,
particularly where grasshoppers must be controlled on lush or dense
vegetation. Dosages of technical material suggested to control grasshoppers
on cotton come within the following ranges:

Spray

Pounds per acre

Carbaryl . 1.0-2.0

Malathion . 1.0-2.0

Methyl parathion . 0.25-0.5

Toxaphene . 2.0-4.0

The lowest dosages are effective against newly hatched to half-grown
grasshoppers. The dosages should be increased as the grasshoppers 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 other mirids, including those listed
below, often are serious pests of cotton. (See "Cotton Fleahopper,
Pseudatomoscelis seriatus (Reuter)" in this section.)

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)

The mirids Creontiades debilis Van Duzee, Reuteroscopus ornatus
(Reuter), R. sulphureus (Reuter), and Paraxentus guttulatus (Uhler) also
damage cotton. CL rubrinervis (Stal.) infested cotton in the lower Rio
Grande Valley of Texas in 1974, 1975, and 1976. These 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:

Spray

Pounds per acre

Acephate .

Azinphosmethyl .

Carbaryl .

Chlorpyrifos . . .
Dicrotophos ....

Dimethoate .

Malathion .

Methyl parathion
Monocrotophos ..

Toxaphene .

Trichlorfon ....

1.0

0.125-0.25
1 . 0 - 2.0
0.5

0 . 1 - 0.2

0.1-0.25

0.7-1.25

0.12-0.5

0.1-0.25

1.0-4.0

0.5-1.5

Aldicarb is effective when used as an 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 prevent its
spread to new areas. However, in recent years injurious infestations have
occurred in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys of California and in Arizona.

. .

•

a T \ rVT l mi*\jv 1

|( ' 1 1 1 \ Ji .TXr—f

SHtV-V’ 1 n

- /l— —v r ^sr N V

4_ -VrS 'riaj0V4 r 1

H • VIVVV' ° ’ r -

Ar 7 ! IV \ J—r ' |_

l_X 1 V

-rLV— L-|— \ —r / M

■"V LujfjSLffim

Figure 1.--Areas of the United States where the pink bollworm is presently under Federal or State

regulation.

Quarantine requirements .—The areas presently under regulation in the
United States are shown in figure 1. The regulations, in general, require
that all cotton or other designated articles moved from the regulated areas
be treated to free them of any living pink bollworms before movement to free
areas. All cottonseed must be treated before being shipped from a regulated
area. Copies of the State and Federal regulations may be obtained from the
regulatory agencies of the affected States or from the Plant Protection and
Quarantine Programs 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 section of Texas, and in regulated areas of
Arkansas, Louisiana, Arizona, and California. 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 particular
area and type of soil.

3. Produce the cotton 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
cotton aphids, boll weevils, cotton fleahoppers, 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, and use defoliants or dessicants 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.

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 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,
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 practiced.

The flail shredder is recommended over the horizontal rotary shredder
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
deep 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 deep 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 per acre, 0.05 to 0.1 pound of fenvalerate per
acre, 0.6 to 1 pound of monocrotophos per acre, 0.1 to 0.2 pound of
permethrin per acre, or 1.5 to 2.5 pounds of carbaryl per acre will
control the pink bollworm. Monocrotophos, fenvalerate, permethrin, 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.

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 con¬
trolled with the following insecticides at the indicated dosages of
technical material:

Spray

Pounds per acre

Carbaryl . 2.0

Methyl parathion . 1.0

Trichlorfon . 1.5

Occasionally, the yellow woollybear, Diacrisia virginica (F.), and the
hairy larvae of several other tiger moths (Arctiidae), including Callarctia
phyllira (Drury) , _C. arge (Drury) , and CM oithona Strk. , cause serious
damage to cotton. Information is needed on their seasonal host plants,
distribution, natural enemies, causes of serious outbreaks in cottonfields,
life history, and control. (Determinations of species by specialists
should always be obtained.)

Seedcorn Maggot , Hylemya platura (Meigen)

The seedcorn maggot may seriously affect the stand of cotton, particu¬
larly when planting closely follows the turning under of a green-manure
crop or other heavy growth. This insect may be controlled with 2 ounces of
endrin 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, Th desertorum Banks

Fourspotted spider mite, TC. canadensis McGregor

Pacific spider mite, _T. pacificus McGregor

Schoene spider mite, T_. schoenei McGregor

Strawberry spider mite, T\ turkestani Ugarov and Nikolski

Tumid spider mite, TV tumidus Banks

Twospotted spider mite, TV urticae Koch and T. ludeni Zacker
TV yustis McGregor

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 5
lists the species of spider mites and the miticides that have been found to
be effective in their control. For the control of some species and suppres¬
sion 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 more effective when
finely ground and when applied at temperatures above 90°F; thorough coverage
is essential. Some difficulty in the control of spider mites has been
experienced with ultra-low-volume applications of recommended miticides,
probably because of insufficient plant coverage.

Stink Bugs

The following stink bugs are sometimes serious pests of cotton:

Brown stink bug, Euschistus servus (Say)

Conchuela, Chlorochroa ligata (Say)

Dusky stink bug, EV tristigmus (Say) and EV conspersus (Uhler)
Green stink bug, Acrosternum hilare (Say)

Onespot stink bug, EV variolarius (Polisat de Beauvois)
Redshouldered plant bug, Thyanta custator (F.);

TV rugulosa (Say) ; TV pallidovirens spinosa (Ruckers)

Say stink bug, Chlorochroa sayi Stal
Southern green stink bug, Nezara viridula (L.)

Western brown stink bug, Euschistus impictiventris Stal

The importance of these pests and the species involved vary from year
to year and from area to area. The damage is principally confined 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:

Spray

Pounds per acre

Carbaryl . 2.0

Endosulfan . 1.0

Methyl parathion . 0.75-1.5

Parathion (ethyl) . 0.5-1.0

Trichlorfon . 1.0-1.5

c/3

•H

14-1

•H

•

1—1

•

4-1

'sO

•

4-1

•

i—1

i—i

•

*—i

•

CNI

•

i—i

•

1—1

•

«n

'sO

•

1—1

•

i—i

•

1—1

•

i—i

v£>

•

CNI

•

CU
C2
<U
O

aJ x
a
co

•H

*4—4

d o
l i •
I in H
CM

00
I cn

I I
I I

o o m

r-H O vD i-H O

II • • I I

l m h o in m

I I I

I i t—i I

o in

•

• •

•

00 H

H O

CO 1 |

1 1 •

1 1 1 1

1 1

. 00 1

1 1 i-H

1 >n n 1

1 00

o .

• CM

•

o .

•

1—1

H O

1 1

1 1 ro

I i

1 1 •

1 1

X 1

1 1 •

1 uO

l uo h

l in

•

o in cm

l l l I

4-1

•

1—1

•

r-l

•

i—i

uo uo

•

• •

•

•H

H O

i—l

1 1

1 CO

1 1

•

uo 1

O uo

•

• CM

•

H •

•

4-1

•H

i — 1

4-J

4-1

•H

03 CM

•H

•*»**.

•H

V-i

•H

G '"'l

X 1

Oro

•H

4-1

£o

r—1

•H

4-1

•H

CL 44

•C

i-1

cfl

•H

P-4

r—I | CM | CO |

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 1.3 to 1.5 pounds per hundredweight of planting seed.

Thrips

Thrips often injure cotton seedlings, especially in areas where
vegetables, legumes, and small grains are grown extensively. The following
species have been reported to cause injury:

Flower thrips, Frankliniella tritici (Fitch);

(F. exigua Hood; _F. gossypiana Hood; and _F. occidentalis (Pergande)
Onion thrips, Thrips tabaci Lindeman
Sericothrips variabilis (Beach)

Tobacco thrips, fusca (Hinds)

In some areas cotton seedlings usually recover from thrips injury;
therefore, control is not recommended unless the stand is threatened. In
other areas damage by thrips is more severe and control measures are gener¬
ally 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;

Spray

Pounds per acre

Acephate . 0.1-0.5

Azinphosmethyl . 0.08-0.2

Carbaryl . 0.5-0.8

Dicrotophos . 0.1-0.2

Dimethoate . 0.1-0.25

Endosulfon . 0.3-0.75

Malathion . 0.25-1.3

Methamidophos . 1.0

Methyl parathion . 0.12-0.5

Monocrotophos . 0.1-0.2

Toxaphene . 1.0-2.0

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 Pounds per

per hundredweight

Insecticide acre of cottonseed

Acephate . . 0.5

Aldicarb . 0.3-0.5 -

Disulfoton . 0.6-1.0 0.25-0.5

Monocrotophos .*. . 0.25-1.25

Phenamiphos . 1.6-3.3

Phorate . 0.5-1.5 1.30-1.5

The bean thrips, Calioth r ips fasciatus (Pergande), is an occasional
mid- 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 the top leaves of cotton in localized areas of Arizona, Mississippi, and
Texas. Kurtomathrips morrilli Moulton was described in 1927 from specimens
taken on cotton at Gila Bend, Ariz. It was collected from cotton at Seeley,
Calif., in May 1930 and at Laveen, Ariz., in July, 1943 and was reported to
have caused severe injury to cotton at Gila Bend in July 1957. FranklinielL
occidentalis and gossypiana do not occur on cotton in the Eastern United
States. In the West, PL tritici is of little importance on cotton, and PL
fusca does not occur.

Whitefringed Beetles, Graphognathus spp.

Whitefringed beetles are pests of cotton and many other farm crops in
limited areas of Alabama, Arkansas, 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. When applied to the foliage as recom¬
mended for the control of cotton insects, toxaphene will reduce adult
populations; however, the principal benefit is the reduction of subsequent
larval populations.

Wireworms

Several species of wireworms are associated with cotton. Damage is
caused by the sand wireworm, Horistonotus uhlerii Horn, in South Carolina
and Louisiana, and by the Pacific Coast wireworm, Limonius canus LeConte,
in California. Adults of the tobacco wireworm (or spotted click beetle),
Conoderus vespertinus (F.), are frequently found on the 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 endrin
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.

Yellowstriped Armyworm , Spodoptera ornithogalli (Guen£e), and
Western Yellowstriped Armyworm , S. praefica (Grote)

These insects sometimes cause considerable damage to cotton. The
yellowstriped armyworm is difficult to kill with insecticides. However,
trichlorfon at 1.5 pounds per acre and methyl parathion at 1 to 1.5 pounds
per acre give good control of large and small larvae. The western yellow¬
striped armyworm, which attacks cotton in California, is controlled with
trichlorfon at 0.75 to 1.0 pound per acre and toxaphene at 2 to 3 pounds
per acre. Migrations from surrounding crops may be stopped with barriers
of 5 percent trichlorfon or 5 percent carbaryl 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. Collections
of this insect have been made in Arkansas. This pest may be controlled
with azinphosmethyl at 0.25 pound per acre, malathion at 0.25 pound per
acre, and parathion (ethyl) at 0.125 pound per acre.

Several Anomis leafworms occur in the cotton-growing regions of Africa;
Asia; Australia; North, Central, and South America; and the East and West
Indies. Three species—A. erosa Hiibner, A. flava fimbriago (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.

Root aphids known to attack cotton are the corn root aphid. Aphis
maidiracidis Forbes; Smynthurodes betae (Westwood); and Rhopalosiphum
rufiabdominalis (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. In 1961, root
aphids caused some damage to cotton in the northeastern counties of North
Carolina and Arkansas. In 1975, S_. betae killed 20 percent of the stand of
seedling cotton at Roswell, Chaves County, N. Mex., a new State record.

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 new materials
are effective as soil insecticides and might 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 the San Joaquin Valley of California.

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 corn silk beetle, Calomicrus brunneus (Crotch), has been a pest of
cotton in localized areas of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi,
and Louisiana, but little is known about it.

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 surrounding bracts.

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 cottonfields 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 curculinoid, Otiorhynchus cribricollis Gyllenhal,
caused spotted heavy damage to cotyledons of seedling cotton in New Mexico
in 1967 and 1972. 1

First generation adults of the spotted cucumber beetle, Diabrotica
undecimpunctata howardi Barber, were heavier than usual on several crops,
including cotton in western Tennessee, in July 1973. Some light damage is
usually expected on all infested crops except cotton. However in 1973 the
pests were numerous enough to cause light to moderate damage to squares and
blooms. Adults feed in the ovary of the bloom, resulting in loss of the
young boll. Some feeding on squares was noted in all fields surveyed, but
damage was light.

The cotton stainer, Dysdercus suturellus (Herrich-Schaffer), is found
within the United States in Florida only. However, probably owing to
mistaken identity, its presence has also been recorded in 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, the southern
garden leafhopper, EL solana DeLong, and the potato leafhopper, EL fabae
(Harris). These species are known to be phloem feeders on some crops and
cause damage typical of this type of feeding on cotton. Sprays of trich-
lorfon at 1 pound per acre, malathion at 1 pound per acre, parathion at 0.5
pound per acre, or demeton at 0.25 pound per acre have given satisfactory
control.

The striped blister beetle, Epicauta vittata (F.), sometimes causes
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
young plants in California, Arizona, and Arkansas. During periods of
drought late in the season, they may feed on the seed of open bolls, es¬
pecially in the Delta sections of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

This feeding is usually done at night, since crickets hide during the day
in deep cracks in the soil. Crickets may be controlled with 5 percent
carbaryl or trichlorfon bait at 30 pounds per acre.

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 sprays of carbaryl at 1.5 to 2.0, trichlorfon at
0.5 to 1.0 or toxaphene at 2 to 3 pounds per acre. Migrations may be
stopped with barrier strips of 20 percent toxaphene or with physical barriers.

Serpentine leafminers, Liriomyza spp., and L^. pictella (Thomson) have
been present in large numbers in some areas of California during the last
few years. Drought conditions favor infestations of these pests. Heavy

infestations may result in considerable shredding of leaves. Infestations
are brought under control by rain or irrigation. Field tests at Waco,

Tex., showed that the best reductions were obtained with parathion at 1.0
pound per acre. Seed treatment of phorate at 0.25 to 0.5 pound per acre
and disulfoton at 1 pound per acre are also effective 4 to 6 weeks after
planting.

Damage to cotton by periodical cicadas, Magicicada 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 die. 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, undeter¬
mined species, caused light damage to cotton in some areas in Maricopa
County, Ariz., in 1961.

The harlequin bug, Murgantia histrionica (Hahn), heavily infested a
few cottonfields in Graham County, Ariz., in August 1959. Its feeding
habits there were similar to those of other stink bugs. No immature stages
were noted.

The barberpole caterpillar, Mimoschima rufofascialis (Stephens), a
pyralid larva, occasionally attacks cotton bolls in the Imperial and San
Joaquin Valleys of California. It also has been reported from Arizona,
Oklahoma, and Texas.

Bugs of the genus Nysius , N. ericae (Schilling), Xyonysius californicus
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 parathion and parathion (ethyl)
are effective at 0.5 pound per acre.

Tree cricket, Oecanthus spp., infestations caused alarm to some south¬
western Oklahoma cottongrowers in mid-July 1958. Approximately 3-percent
lodging occurred in the Blair area. There is evidence that this group of
insects may be predaceous on aphids.

The European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis (Hiibner), 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 in July 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 occurred
in cotton in Dunklin, New Madrid, 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 are 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 1956-57. 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 had been 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 occurred in cottonfields in
Autauga, Ala. In 1961 larvae were found in cotton in Hardeman, Lincoln,

and Fayette Counties in southern Tenn. In 1966 larvae were found in cotton
in Florence, S.C. and in 1979 they caused yield loss estimated at 20 percent
in one field with light damage in other fields. In other parts of the
world, particularly in Russia, Turkistan, and Hungary, it was a serious
pest of cotton. One reference states, "In Turkistan it is principally
cotton which is attacked by the larvae and in which they bore long tunnels
in the upper part of the stem." Entomologists and other interested persons
throughout the Cotton Belt should be on the alert to detect its presence
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 beetle, Pantomorus cervinus (Boheman), is occasionally
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
over winters as an adult in about the same habitat as the boll weevil.
Examinations of woods surface trash for hibernating boll weevils often
reveal specimens of the Fuller rose beetle. Its presence in cotton has
been reported from Georgia more frequently than from any other area.

The stalk borer, Papaipema nebris (Guenee), 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 seen near the edges of cottonfields. Light
marginal injury occurred in scattered fields in Missouri during June 1957.

It also caused some injury to cotton in Mississippi and Tennessee in 1956.

In 1961 it caused some damage along the edges of many cottonfields in
western and southern counties in Tennessee. It is sometimes mistaken for
the European corn borer. Clean cultivation and the keeping down of weed
growth help to hold them in check. The use of stalk shredders early in the
fall should reduce their numbers.

The white grub, Phyllophaga ephilida (Say), 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 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 in
Texas. P_. 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 P_. 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 a pest of cotton in Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Turkistan, and the
U.S.S.R. and feeds 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 4 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 had been no reported spread since 1954,
until 1965, when its presence was reported in 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.

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

A giant appletree borer, Prionus sp., caused isolated root damage to
cotton in one county in Arkansas in 1962.

Several of the leaf rollers, Tortricidae, occasionally damage cotton.
Platynota stultana (Walsingham) and P_. rostrana (Walker) are the species
most commonly recorded, but P_. flavedana (Clemens) and P_. idaeusalis
(Walsingham) 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 parts of Arizona and New
Mexico. Trichlorfon at 1 pound per acre or carbaryl at 2 pounds per acre
have satisfactorily controlled the species that occur on cotton in California.

Larvae of the roughskinned cutworm, Proxenus mindara Barnes and
McDonnough, cut bolls from lodged plants by feeding at the boll base in a
cottonfield at Shafter, Calif., in 1964.

Adults of the buprestid beetle, Psiloptera drummondi (Laporte and
Gory), 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 cornhusks that have been injured by other Gauses.

The cotton square borer, Strymon melinus (Hiibner), occurs throughout
the Cotton Belt but rarely causes economic damage. The injury it causes to
squares is often attributed to the bollworm.

The palestriped flea beetle, Systena blanda Melsheimer, the elongate
flea beetle, S^. elongata (F.), and S^. frontalis (F.) sometimes cause serious
damage to seedling cotton in some areas. They can be controlled with
endrin at 0.1 pound per acre and toxaphene at 2 to 3 pounds per acre. The
sweetpotato flea beetle, Chaetoenema confinis Crotch, injured seedling
cotton in the Piedmont section of South Carolina in May 1954. The striped
flea beetle, Phyllotreta striolata (F.), damaged cotton in Alabama in 1959.
Other species of flea beetles have infested cotton, but records regarding
the injury they caused 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 caused, the locality, and the
date of collection.

The greenhouse leaftier, 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 damage
in three fields near Yuma, Ariz., in 1964.

The false celery leaf tier, Udea profundalis (Packard), caused consider¬
able 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 at 2
pounds per acre or trichlorfon at 1.0 pound per acre were effective against
this pest.

Damage to cotton stalks by undetermined species of termites occurred
in western Tennessee in 1961 and in previous years in Texas. Termites,
Reticulitermes sp. (family Rhinotermitidae), partly destroyed a stand of
cotton in Little River County, Ark., in 1961.

Insects in Stored Cottonseed and Seed Cotton

Insect infestations in cottonseed during storage can be minimized if
proper precautions are followed. Cottonseed and seed cotton should be
stored only in a bin or room thoroughly cleaned of all old cottonseed,
grain, hay, or other similar products in which insects that attack stored
products are likely to develop. Among the insects that cause 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 (Hiibner). Other insects commonly found in cottonseed are the
flat grain beetle, Cryptolestes 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 cotton¬
seed. Seed so treated should not be used for food or feed. 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 AND COTTON-INSECT SURVEYS

Prompt and accurate identification of insects and mites is a necessary
service to research and to the control of cotton insects. Applied entomo¬
logists owe much to taxonomists for services often rendered on a volunteer
basis. Approved common names are convenient and useful, but local or
nonstandard 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 as for Lygus hesperus . Research in
taxonomy has been productive of new developments. Major changes have been
made in the classification of spider mites that attack cotton. Several
species of thrips and plant bugs have recently been added to the list of
cotton pests. The Melanoplus mexicanus group of grasshoppers has been
completely revised, Heliothis virescens (F.) has been accurately defined,
and several scientific names have been changed.

The importance of surveys to an overall GOtton-insect control program
has been clearly demonstrated. Surveys conducted on a cooperative 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 in agriculture who are
interested in the distribution and severity of cotton-insect pests, as well
as the industry that serves the farmers by supplying insecticides. As a
result of this survey work, farmers are forewarned of the insect situation,
insecticide 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 entomolo¬
gists 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 re¬
stricting their spread or in planning effective control programs. The
survey methods may include (1) visual inspection, (2) using traps containing
aromatic lures or sex and aggregating pheromones, (3) using light traps,

(4) using mechanical devices such as gin-trash maqhines, (5) examination of
glass windows installed in lint cleaners used in ginning, and (6) using
portable vacuum devices for sampling insect populations. The methods of
making uniform surveys on several of the important insects are described
below. Light traps have provided valuable survey information on beet
armyworms, bollworms, brown cotton leafworms, cabbage loopers, cotton
leafworms, cutworms, fall armyworms, garden webworms, pink bollworms,
saltmarsh caterpillars, whitelined sphinxes, yellowstriped armyworms, and
yellow woollybears. Pheromone traps have provided valuable survey informa¬
tion on the boll weevil, bollworm, pink bollworm, tobacco budworm, cabbage
looper, and fall armyworm.

Boll Weevil

Surveys to determine winter survival of the boll weevil are made in
several States. Counts are made in the fall soon after the weevils have
entered hibernation and again in the spring before they emerge from winter
quarters. A standard sample is 2 square yards of woods surface trash taken
from the edge of a field where cotton was grown in the previous season.
Three samples are taken from each of 30 locations in an area, usually
consisting of three or four counties. Fall and spring catches of weevils
in pheromone traps are used to supplement or replace counts from surface
wood trash.

In the main boll weevil area, counts are made on seedling cotton to
determine the number of weevils entering cottonfields from hibernation
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 pick 100 squares, one-third grown or larger,
taking 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 distrib¬
uted 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. Sequential sampling, also based on square inspections, requires
fewer squares to be inspected in making pest management decisions at about
a 90 percent level of reliability.

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 one-fourth inch or larger in diameter for boll weevil punctures. Count
those that are punctured 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 punctured squares per acre 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 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.

Bollworm and Tobacco Budworm

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 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. Sequential sampling, also based on terminal, square, and boll
inspections, requires fewer inspections of terminals, squares, and bolls in
making pest management decisions at about a 90 percent level of reliability.
Eggs of cutworms, cabbage looper, and other lepidopterous species are
sometimes mistaken for those of the bollworm. The percentage of damaged
squares, number of squares per acre, and number of damaged squares can be
determined by using the point-sample method given under "Boll Weevil"
above.

Cotton Aphid

To determine early-season cotton aphid infestation, walk diagonally
across the field and examine many plants; then 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.

To determine infestations on fruiting cotton, begin at the margin of
the field and, while walking diagonally across it, examine 100 leaves
successively from near the bottom, middle, and top of each plant. Record
the degree of infestation, according to the average number of aphids
estimated per leaf, as follows:

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, examine 3 or 4
inches at the top of the main-stem terminals of 100 cotton plants—counting
both adults and nymphs. Sequential sampling, also based on terminal
inspections, requires fewer than 100 terminal inspections in making pest
management decisions at about a 90 percent level of reliability. To
determine populations, white or black cloth sheets are placed under the
plants, which are then thoroughly shaken. Ten 3-row-foot samples are taken
at random within a field. Populations are recorded on a per-acre basis.

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 3- to 7-day intervals, beginning at
pinhead square stage 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, with the lower edge of the net slightly
preceding the upper edge. Contents of the net should be examined carefully
to avoid over-looking very small nymphs. The plant terminal inspection, as

described for the cotton fleahopper, may also be used. During hot summer
weather, sweeping should not be made between 11:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.,
since lygus bugs are prone to move into plant cover to avoid heat. Popula¬
tion determinations are made using the cloth-sheet method described above
for cotton fleahoppers. Sequential sampling, also based on terminal inspec¬
tions or sweep-net counts, requires fewer terminal inspections or net
sweeps in making pest management decisions at about a 90 percent level of
reliability.

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 population
should be made 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 (1,500 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 weekly for the percentage of bolls infested as
follows: Walk diagonally across the field and collect at random 100 bolls
(2/3 grown or larger). Crack each boll and examine the inside of the hull
for tunnels made by young larvae. Where tunneling is not found, check lint
and seed for evidence of larval feeding. Record the number of bolls in¬
fested on a percentage basis.

Other inspection techniques .—Other inspection methods, discussed
below, 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 hiber¬
nation and their carryover to infest the new cotton crop.

1. 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 these larvae are dead. For constant examination at a single
gin, wipe off the plates and examine after each bale is ginned. In this
way the individual 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.

2. 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 the number of
living pink bollworms. Multiply by 50 to determine the number of living
larvae per acre. Such records, when maintained from year to year, provide
comparative data that may be used in determining appropriate control measures.

3. Use of sex lure traps : Traps containing a sex attractant extract¬
ed from the tips of the abdomens of female pink bollworm moths were highly
effective in trapping male moths. This method was replaced by a synthetic
attractant, hexalure,. which was effectively used for both detection of

infestations and for timing the application of insecticides for control of
the pest. This method of control resulted in a substantial financial
savings to growers. Recently, the true sex attractant, gossyplure, has
been synthesized and is now being used in detection and in research as a
male confusant in the control of the pink boilworm as well as in early-
season mass-trapping programs. Gossyplure has proven to be more efficient
in both detection and in the timing of insecticide applications in some
areas.

Spider Mites

Examine 25 or more leaves from representative areas within a field
taken successively from near the bottom, middle, and top of each plant.
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.

Thrips

While walking diagonally across the field, examine the plants and
record the damage as follows:

None, if no thrips or damage are found.

Light, if newest unfolding leaves show only a slight brownish
tinge along the edges, with no silvering of the underside 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 plants is ragged and
deformed, and thrips are numerous.

Plants beaten over a thrips box or over a piece of cloth may be used to
determine the numbers of thrips per plant. Use of sequential sampling will
usually reduce the number of plants needed to determine population levels
with no loss in accuracy.

Predators

Populations of predators 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. Population determinations are made
using the cloth-sheet method described for cotton fleahopper. Use of
sequential sampling will usually reduce the number of sample units needed in
making pest management decisions at about a 90 percent level of reliability.

Cotton Pests Outside of the Continental United States

Some major pests of cotton in other countries and Hawaii that do not
occur in the continental United States and that might be accidentally intro¬
duced into this country at any time are listed in table 6. 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.

Table 6.—Some major cotton pests of other countries and Hawaii

Family and
species

Common name

Plant parts
damaged

Distribution

Cicadellidae:

Empoasca lybica
(Bergevin).

Cotton jassid-

—Foliage-

—Africa,

Spain, Israel

Curculionidae:

Amorphoidea lata

Philippine

Squares, bolls-

—Philippine

Motschulsky.

cotton boll
weevil.

Islands.

Anthonomus vestitus

Peruvian cotton

Similar to

Peru, Ecuador.

Boheman.

square weevil.

that of A.
grandis.

Eutinobothrus

Brazilian

Stems, roots-

—Brazil,

brasiliensis

cotton borer.

Argentina.

(Hambleton).

Pempherulus affinis

Cotton stem

Stems-

—Southeastern

(Faust).

weevil.

Europe,

Philippine

Islands.

Gelechiidae:

Pectinophora

scutigera

Pinkspotted

bollworm.

Bolls-

—Australia.

Holdaway.

Pexicopia malvella

—Bolls-

—Pakistan.

(Hbn.).

Lygaeidae:

Oxycarenus

Cottonseed

Seed, lint-

—Africa, Asia,

hyalinipennis

Costa.

bug.

Philippine
Islands.

Miridae:

Horcias nobilellus

Cotton plant

Terminals,

Brazil,

(Berg).

bug.

squares,
young bolls.

Argentina,

Paraguay.

Lygus lucorum

—China.

Meyer-Dur.

Taylorilygus vosseleri-

—Africa.

Poppises.

Table 6.—Some major cotton pests of other countries and Hawaii—Continued

Family and
species

Common name

Plant parts
damaged

Distribution

Noctuidae:

Diparopsis castanea

Red bollworm-

—Bolls-

-Africa.

Hampson.

Earias insulana

Spiny bollworm-

—Young growth,

Africa, Asia,

(Boisduval).

bolls.

Australia,
Southern

Europe, India.

Earias vittella (F.)

Spotted bollworm-

-Terminals,

squares, bolls.

India, Pakistan,
Thailand.

Heliothis armigera

Cotton bollworm—

—Terminals,

Australia,

(Hiibner).

squares, bolls.

Africa, Asia,
Southern

Europe.

Heliothis punctigera
(Wallings).

Budworm-

—Terminals,

squares, bolls.

Australia.

Sacadodes pyralis

False pink

Squares, bolls-

-Central and

Dyar.

bollworm.

South America.

Spodoptera littoralis

Egyptian

Foliage,

Africa.

(Boisduval).

cotton leafworm.

squares.

Spodoptera litura

Old World

Foliage,

Asia,

(F.).

cotton

leafworm.

squares.

Southern Europe,
Hawaii,

Pacific Islands.

Olethreutidae:

Cryptophlebia

leucotreta

False codling
moth.

Bolls---

-Africa.

(Meyrick).

Pseudococcidae:

Maconellicoccus

Hibiscus

Foliage

Asia, Africa.

hirsutus Green.

mealybug.

terminals.

Pyralidae:

Sylepta

Cotton leaf

Foliage-

-Africa, Asia,

derogata (F.).

roller.

Australia,
Pacific Islands.

Pyrrhocoridae:

Dysdercus

Peruvian

Bolls-

-Brazil,

peruvianus

Guerin.

cotton stainer.

Columbia, Peru,
Venezuela.

CONFEREES

Two hundred and twenty entomologists and associated technical workers
concerned with cotton-insect research and control from the agricultural
experiment stations, extension services and other agencies in 14 cotton¬
growing States, the United States Department of Agriculture, industry. Cotton
Incorporated, and the National Cotton Council of America participated in this
conference.

STATES

Alabama

B. L. Freeman, Coop. Ext. Serv., Auburn Univ., Decatur

M. J. Gaylor, Dept, of Zoology-Entomology, Auburn Univ., Auburn
Ron Smith, Coop. Ext. Serv., Auburn Univ., Auburn

Glenn Worley, Coop. Ext. Serv., Auburn Univ., Selma

Arizona

John Bedford, Ariz. Com. of Agri. and Hort., Phoenix

Theo F. Watson, Dept, of Entomology, Univ. of Ariz., Tucson

Arkansas

Gordon Barnes, Coop. Ext. Serv., Univ. of Ark., Little Rock
John Bernhardt, Dept, of Entomology, Univ. of Ark., Fayetteville
Steven L. Clement, Univ. of Ark., Fayetteville
Charles Denver, Consultant, Pickens

Charles Lincoln, Dept, of Entomology, Univ. of Ark., Fayetteville
G. J. Musick, Dept, of Entomology, Univ. of Ark., Fayetteville
W. F. Nicholson, Dept, of Entomology, Univ. of Ark., Fayetteville
Tina Teague, Dept, of Entomology, Univ. of Ark., Fayetteville

California

Ross Cunaha, Telles Ranch, Firebough

J. B. Miller, Telles Ranch, Firebough

Alton Pryor, California Farmers Magazine, Riverside

N. C. Toscano, Dept, of Entomology, University of Calif., Riverside

Georgia

T. Don Canerday, Division of Entomology, Univ. of Ga., Athens
Jim Griffity, Coop. Ext. Serv., Univ. of Ga., Ashburn
G. A. Herzog, Div. of Entomology, Univ. of Ga., Tifton
W. R. Lambert, Coop. Ext. Serv., Univ. of Ga., Tifton
Jim Lawson, Coop. Ext. Serv., Univ. of Ga., Americus
David Mills, Coop. Ext. Serv., Univ. of Ga., Moultrie

Louisiana

E. R. Barrett, Consultant, Monroe

D. F. Clower, Dept, of Entomology, La. State Univ., Baton Rouge
Dorwayne Glover, Consultant, Monroe

Jerry Graves, Dept, of Entomology, La. State Univ., Baton Rouge
J. D. Powell, Coop. Ext. Serv., La. State Univ., Coushatta
J. S. Roussel, Agr. Expt. Station, La. State Univ., Baton Rouge

J. S. Tynes, Coop. Ext. Serv,, La. State Univ., Baton Rouge

Mississippi

Gordon Andrews, Coop. Ext. Serv., Miss. State Univ., Batesville
H. Brandon, Delta Farm Press, Lyon

J. Hamer, Coop. Ext. Serv., Miss. State Univ., Miss State
D. D. Hardee, Consultant, Starkville

Aubrey Harris, Cotton Producer, Glen Allen

Pat Harris, Coop. Ext. Serv., Miss. State Univ., Decatur

R. B. Head, Coop. Ext. Serv., Miss. State Univ., Pontotoc

W. Kitten, MAFES, Miss. State Univ., Stoneville

M. L. Laster, MAFES, Miss. State Univ., Stoneville

James McKeown, Jackson

Walton Mullins, Dept, of Entomology, Miss. State Univ., Miss. State
Jack Oakman, Ag. Test Inc., Clarksdale

Dave Parvin, Economics Dept., Miss. State Univ., Miss. State

Ed Pieters, Dept, of Entomology, Miss. State Univ., Miss. State

H. N. Pitre, Dept, of Entomology, Miss. State Univ., Miss. State

Dan Pitts, Coop. Ext. Serv., Miss. State Univ., Miss. State

W. K. Porter, MAFES, Miss. State Univ., Miss. State

Roy Reid, Coop. Ext. Serv., Miss. State Univ., Stoneville

Ron Seward, Coop. Ext. Serv., Miss. State Univ., Batesville

D. L. Shankland, Dept, of Entomology, Miss. State Univ., Miss. State

K. K. Shaunak, Consultant, Starkville
Douglas Sims, Consultant, Jackson

Michael R. Williams, Coop. Ext. Serv., Miss. State Univ., Pontotoc
D. F. Young, Coop. Ext. Serv., Miss. State Univ., Miss. State

Missouri

Keith Harrendorf, Dept, of Entomology, Univ. of Mo., Portageville
F. G. Jones, Coop. Ext. Serv., Univ. of Mo., Columbia
Edward Kowalski, Coop. Ext. Serv., Univ. of Mo., Portageville
J. M. Magner, Consultant, Webster Grove

New Mexico

Larry Gohlson, Coop. Ext. Serv., New Mexico State Univ., Artesia
North Carolina

J. S. Bacheler, Coop. Ext. Serv., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh
J. R. Bradley, Dept, of Entomology, N.C. State Univ., Raleigh
Mark Braxton, Coop. Ext. Serv., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh
A. S. Elder, N.C. Dept, of Agriculture, Raleigh

Oklahoma

Eldon A. Cleveland, Dept, of Entomology, Cordell

Don C. Peters, Dept, of Entomology, Okla. State Univ., Stillwater
R. G. Price, Dept, of Entomology, Okla. State Univ., Stillwater
Ron Rivers, Coop. Ext. Serv., Okla. State Univ., Altus
J. H. Young, Dept, of Entomology, Okla. State Univ., Stillwater

South Carolina

Harris Barnes, Southeast Farm Press, Columbia
John DuRant, Dept, of Entomology, Clemson Univ., Florence
D. R. Johnson, Coop. Ext. Serv., Clemson Univ., Clemson
D. G. Marley, Dept, of Entomology, Clemson Univ., Clemson
Robert E. Moore, Consultant, Bishopville

Tennessee

Gary Lentz, West Tenn. Expt. Sta., Univ. of Tenn., Jackson
J. E. Pendergrass, Coop. Ext. Serv., Univ. of Tenn., Jackson
Bill Wyatt, Coop. Ext. Serv., Univ. of Tenn., Jackson

Texas

John Benedict, Dept, of Entomology, Texas A&M Univ., Corpus Christi
Roger Boren, Consultant, Donna

James Cate, Dept, of Entomology, Texas A&M Univ., Corpus Christi
C. B. Cowan, Consultant, Waco

R. E. Frisbie, Coop. Ext. Serv., Texas A&M Univ., College Station

R. L. Hanna, Dept, of Entomology, Texas A&M Univ., College Station
W. C. Janny, Coop. Ext. Serv., Texas A&M Univ., Colorado City
Richard Kinzer, Consultant, Uvalde

J. F. Leser, Dept, of Entomology, Texas A&M Univ., Lubbock

F. G. Maxwell, Dept, of Entomology, Texas A&M Univ., College Station

C. M. Meadows, Waco, Texas

S. J. Nemec, Consultant, College Station

Jeffrey Slosser, Dept, of Entomology, Texas A&M Univ., Vernon
Winfield Sterling, Dept, of Entomology, Texas A&M Univ., College Station
Knox Walker, Dept, of Entomology, Texas A&M Univ., College Station
Curt Wilhelm, TACE, Harlingen

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Science and Education Administration

Agricultural Research
R. L. Ridgway, Beltsville, Md.
Southern Region

D. L. Bull, College Station, Tex.

T. C. Cleveland, Stoneville, Miss.

W. H. Crass, Mississippi State, Miss.

T. B. Davich, Mississippi State, Miss.

W. A. Dickerson, Raleigh, N.C.

Howard Dulmage, Brownsville, Tex.

John L. Goodenough, College Station, Tex.
Jack G. Griffin, Mississippi State, Miss.
Jack Haynes, Mississippi State, Miss.

Albert Hartstack, College Station, Tex.

A. R. Hopkins, Florence, S.C.

Johnny M. Jenkins, Mississippi State, Miss.

E. P. Lloyd, Raleigh, N.C.

Bill McGovern, Mississippi State, Miss
G. H. McKibben, Raleigh, N.C.

D. F. Martin, Stoneville, Miss.

M. E. Merkl, Mississippi State, Miss.
Roy Moore, Florence, S.C.

C. R. Parencia, Stoneville, Miss.

W. L. Parrott, Mississippi State, Miss
T. R. Pfrimmer, Stoneville, Miss.

Dave Ranney, Stoneville, Miss.

E. A. Stadelbacher, Stoneville, Miss.
E. A. Taylor, Weslaco, Tex.

D. A. Wolfenbarger, Brownsville, Tex.
J. E. Wright, Mississippi State, Miss.

Western Region

L. A. Bariola, Phoenix, Ariz.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

J. R. Brazzel, Brownsville, Tex.

Milton Ganyard, Raleigh, N.C.

K. R. Keller, Raleigh, N.C.

Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service

Velmar Davis, Washington, D.C.
Irv Starbird, Washington, D.C.

INDUSTRY

Abbott Laboratories

Marcus Adair, Greenville, Miss.
Robert Clark, Jacksonville, Fla.
Ed Gage, La Feria, Tex.

Jim Murray, Lubbock, Tex.

Clyde Sartor, Vicksburg, Miss.
Richard Steeno, Harlingen, Tex.

American Cyanamid Co.

Calvin Alvarez, Princeton, N.J.
K. G. Nolan, Princeton, N.J.

John O’Neil, Marietta, Ga.

American Hoescht Corp .

Howard Kessler, Doraville, Ga.

Biogenesis Inc.

M. A. Maedgin, Jr., Mathis, Tex.
M. A. Maedgin, Sr., Mathis, Tex.
Larry Stapp, Mathis, Tex.

Boots-Hercules Inc.

Ross Allman, Wilmington, Del.

J. D. Land, Greenville, Miss.

Jim Rawson, Greenville, Miss.

Chevron

Arthur Fulford, Greenville, Miss.
Robert Kincade, Greenville, Miss.
Greg Rich, Memphis, Tenn.

Wayne Winner, Dallas, Tex.

CIBA-GEIGY

D. V. Alleman, Greensboro, N.C.

E. T. Cherry, Greensboro, N.C.
Ross Collins, Charlotte, N.C.

B. R. Liles, Greensboro, N.C.
Aithel McMahon, Ardmore, Okla.

Conrel Co.

Drew Horn, Needham Heights, Mass.
Deere & Co.

H. F. Miller, Mesa, Ariz.
Dow Chemical Co.

Mel Kallar, Baton Rouge, La.
Tollie Miller, Wayside, Miss.

Du Pont

R. S. Boyce, Scottsdale, Ariz.
Daryl Drake, Wilmington, Del.
Gordon Elliot, Wilmington, Del.
Arlyn Evans, Memphis, Tenn.

Glenn Hammes, Opelika, Ala.

Frank B. Maxey, Menlo Park, Calif.
Ralph Milan, Bryan, Tex.

K. Potharst, Houston, Tex.

D. L. Reasons, Baton Rouge, La.

Aaron Welch, Memphis, Tenn.

I.M. Wedderspoon, Coral Gables, Fla.

Ethyl Corp.

D. W. Bunch, Baton Rouge, La.
FMC Corp.

D. M. Dunbar, Jackson, Miss.
Jesse Harris, Roswell, Ga.

W. S. Hough, Memphis, Tenn.

A. R. James, Philadelphia, Pa.
Sid McDaniel, Jackson, Miss.
Walton McDonald, Brandon, Miss.
F. R. Racine, Jackson, Miss.
Carl Silker, Jonesboro, Ark.

G & P Seed Co., Inc.

Edwin Gerik, Whitney, Tex.

Jerry Gerik, Aquilla, Tex.

Dan Pustejovsky, Aquilla, Tex.

Hooker Chemical Co.

R. L. Ostrozynski, Niagara Falls, N.Y.
ICI Americas

Steve Harrison, Americus, Ga.
Reynard Moody, Grenada, Miss.
Charles Nashi, Memphis, Tenn.
Jack Root, Scottsdale, Ariz.
Charlie Shirar, Wilmington, Del.
Bane Tyler, Greer, S.C.

Mike Tysowsky, Goldsboro, N.C.
Steve Watkins, Yuma, Ariz.

Marubeni America Corp.

Fugio Okajima, New York, N.Y.

Mobay Chemical Corp.

A. L. Anderson, Kansas City, Mo.
Ming Chan, Columbia, Mo.

C. F. Garner, Kansas City, Mo.

E. R. Rowehl, Harlingen, Tex.

R. E. Wheeler, Vero Beach, Fla.

Monsanto

M. Brito, San Salvador, El Salvador
T. J. Helms, St. Louis, Mo.

C. M. Thomas, St. Louis, Mo.

NOR-AM Inc.

Jack Aldridge, Fresno, Calif.

Olin

Ralph R. Lloyd, Jr., Little Rock, Ark.
Pennwalt Corp.

Eric Barkmeyer, Memphis, Tex.

W. H. Culver, College Station, Tex.

Rohm & Haas Co.

W. S. Hurt, Spring House, Pa.
W. J. Wilson, Searcy, Ark.

Sandoz Inc.

T. D. Blythe, Senatobia, Miss.
L. T. Hargett, Hanover, N.J.

A. M. Seckinger, Jonesboro, Ga.

Shell Chemical Co.

Richard Metz, Houston, Tex.

J. J. Skelsey, Modesto, Calif.

Jim Tuttle, Spring, Tex.

Thompson-Hayward

Wayne Harris, St. Gabriel, La.

C. A. Shadboldt, Kansas City, Kans.

Union Carbide

Brian S. Cheary, Jacksonville, Fla.
R. G. Haines, Jacksonville, Fla.

Jim Palmer, Cary, N.C.

Billy Rowe, Cary, N.C.

Jack E. Smith, Dallas, Tex.

Uniroyal Chemical Co.

Lloyd Harrison, Memphis, Tenn.

Upjohn Co

R. C. Bowers, Kalamazoo, Mich.

P. H. Parham, Kalamazoo, Mich.

Valley Chemical Co.

David Whitehead, Greenville, Miss.

Velsicol

W. F. Strachan, Brandon, Miss.
Rich Wilson, Gainesville, Fla.

Zoecon Corp.

Brooks Bauer, Escalon, Calif.
Manuel Martinez, Yuma, Ariz.
Joe Townsend, Spring, Tex.

NATIONAL COTTON COUNCIL OF AMERICA

J. M. Brown, Memphis, Tenn.

J. Ritchie Smith, Memphis, Tenn.

PLAINS COTTON GROWERS INC.

Ed Dean, Lubbock, Tex.

I.N.I.A.-S.A.R.I.H. Mexico City, Mexico

J. A. Sifuentes

☆ U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1980- 671-123/30A

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SCIENCE AND EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION
P. O. BOX 53326

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 70153

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, S300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE

AGR 101

FIRST CLASS

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Annual conference report on cotton insect research and control"

See other formats