DEVELOPMENT OF AN IPM PROGRAM

Development of an IPM program



ABSTRACT

Insecticide treatments and agronomic variables were combined in 1985 and 1986 to study their effect on pest impact in cotton. The results from the chemical treatments are described in this report. Foliar insecticides were applied on a calendar basis (every 10-14 days), as customary for cotton producers in the region, but termination and initiation dates were varied in 1985 and 1986, respectively, to manipulate levels of late and early season pests. Systemic insecticide (aldicarb; Temik® 15G) was applied as a side-dressing at approximately the second week of green bolls at rates of 1200 and 450 g AI/ha, and 1500 and 450 g AI/ha in 1985 and 1986, respectively. Plants from foliar insecticide treated versus untreated showed mean total yield loss of 31 % and 26% in the absence of foliar insecticide in 1985 and 1986, respectively. Boll retention was largely unaffected by the insecticide treatments; however the harvestability of retained bolls was significantly decreased in the absence of foliar insecticide applications. Pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella Saunders, and cotton leafperforator, Bucculatrix thurberiella Busck were primary pests. In 1985, termination of foliar insecticide applications on 8/29 (=3500 DO, planting date, 4/8) showed no yield benefit over an 8/19, 3300 DO termination date (6 applications versus 5, respectively). Yield loss was significantly increased in 1986 as initiation of insecticide applications was delayed beyond 3.4 PBW infested bolls per meter2, cumulative from the appearance of 14-21 day old bolls (6/20, 1200 DO; planting date, 3/15).

ABSTRACT1

List of Tables3

List of Figures4

Introduction5

Cotton Agronomy6

Cotton Growth Stages8

Growth Requirments11

Methods of Planting12

1. Growing a healthy crop12

2. Keeping track of insects and damage12

3. Beneficial insects12

It is important to utilise the beneficial insects and not abuse them12

4. Preventing the development of insecticide resistance12

5. Managing crop and weed hosts12

6. Using trap crops effectively12

7. Supporting IPM through communication and training12

Fact Sheet of Major Pests of Cotton13

IPM Program16

Differences18

Conclusion18

Recommendations20

List of Tables

Table: 1………………………………………………………………………………..10

Table: 2………………………………………………………………………………..13

Table: 3………………………………………………………………………………..14

Table: 4………………………………………………………………………………..16

List of Figures

Figure: 1………………………………………………………………………………..7

Figure: 2………………………………………………………………………………..8

Figure: 3………………………………………………………………………………..9

Development of an IPM program

Introduction

Studies of optimal timing of insecticide applications in cotton have varied greatly in their results. Some researchers have reported increased yield by controlling early season pests such as thrips, Lygus spp., or flea hoppers, i.e. through the use of foliar or systemic insecticides (Johnson et al., 1988; Scott et at. 1986, 1987). Crop earliness may also be enhanced by early insect control through the prevention of damage to the growth terminal or of loss of early season fruit, which can cause delayed fruit production and maturation (Treacy et at, 1986; Walker et al., 1974; Laster and Davis, 1967). However, other studies have found that early-season treatment for pests such as Lygus spp., thrips, flea hoppers, and aphids may show no increase in yield over late treatment regimes or untreated control plots (Ratchford, 1986, 1987; Scott et aI., 1987; Terry et aI., 1986; Micinski, 1987). Waiting too long in the season to apply insecticides against pests such as bollworms, Heliothis spp. and boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis Boheman, may lead to an inability to regain control ...