Medical Journals

Boll Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Damage to Cotton Bolls Under Standard and Proactive Spraying.

Authors:
  • Showler Allan T

From: USDA-ARS-APMRU, Kika de la Garza Subtropical Agricultural Research Center, 2413 East Highway 83, Weslaco, TX 78596, USA. ashowler@weslaco.ars.usda.gov

Journal of economic entomology

  • Publish Date: Aug 2006
  • ISSN: 0022-0493
  • Volume: 99
  • Issue: 4
  • Pages: 1251-7
  • Medium: Print
  • Language: English
  • Citation (JAMA): Showler Allan T, et al. Boll Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Damage to Cotton Bolls Under Standard and Proactive Spraying.. J. Econ. Entomol. Aug 2006;99:1251-7

Abstract

In some parts of the boll weevil’s, Anthonomus grandis grandis (Boheman) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), distribution from the United States to Argentina, insecticides are applied after cut-out (end of square production) when bolls are the predominant stage of fruiting body. This study demonstrates that the standard spray regime in southern Texas, which involves insecticide applications after cut-out, did not result in more bolls than a nonsprayed control. An alternative “proactive” spray regime focusing on protecting large squares before cut-out resulted in 1.9- to 2.5-fold more bolls in the lower half of the canopies than the control. At one of two experimental field locations, the percentage of damaged boll carpels was 3-fold greater in the standard spray regime’s lower canopy than in the proactive spray regime, and the percentage in the control was 1.6-fold greater than in the standard regime. At both experimental field locations, the upper canopy control had 2.1- to 2.3-fold greater percentages of carpel damage than the proactive spray regime. The standard spray regime resulted in 2.3-fold greater percentage of carpel damage than the proactive regime. In the control and the standard spray regime, percentages of upper canopy nondamaged bolls were mostly lower than or not different from percentages of bolls with one, two, three, or all four carpels damaged, but in the proactive regime, percentage of nondamaged bolls in the upper canopy was greater than percentages of bolls with one or more damaged carpels. Reasons for the ineffectiveness of the standard spray regime and the benefits observed in the proactive approach are discussed.

Mesh Headings (Keywords): Animals, Gossypium, Insecticides, Weevils


Check for Full Text / PubMed Unique Identifier (PMID): 16937679


This abstract is part of PubMed, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. PubMed includes more than 17 million citations from MEDLINE and other life science journals for biomedical articles. See Copyright and Disclaimers.

Linked medical terms appearing on this page are added by Healia to help readers find more information and are not part of the original PubMed document.

The data herein was last updated on July 8th, 2008 and may not reflect the most current and accurate data available from NLM.


Advertisements

About | Privacy Policy | Business Solutions | Advertise | Contact | Add Healia to your site

©2012. Healia / Meredith Corporation  

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. All content on this Web site, including medical opinion and any other health-related information, is for informational purposes only and should not be used for a specific diagnosis or individual treatment plan for any situation. Use of this site and the information contained herein does not create a doctor-patient relationship. Always seek the direct advice of your doctor in connection with any questions or issues you may have regarding your own health or the health of others.