Browsing Cotton Report 1999 by Authors
Whitefly Management with Insect Growth Regulators and the influence of Lygus ControlsEllsworth, Peter C.; Naranjo, Steve E.; Silvertooth, Jeff; The University of Arizona, Department of Entomology & Maricopa Agricultural Center; USDA-ARS, Western Cotton Research Laboratory, Phoenix, AZ (College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ), 1999)The three keys to whitefly management are sampling, effective chemical use, and avoidance. This study examines factors relevant to the latter two keys in the context of Arizona’s cotton pest spectrum. Insect growth regulators (IGRs) are central to Arizona’s success in whitefly management. The basic usage guidelines developed for the IGRs—initial treatment timing, prescribed intervals between successive uses, and one use each seasonal limits—are all valuable in the development of a sustainable use pattern. Re-treatment timing guidelines for the second IGR has been the subject of investigation for the past two years. However, whitefly pressure in 1998 was strikingly different and lower than in any other post-introduction year. Re-treatment was unnecessary and thus could not be evaluated this year. Lygus, on the other hand, were at damaging levels early in plant development and for a protracted period. Future successes in whitefly management should consider the whole pest spectrum and depend on integrating chemical controls for all sprayed pests. While our primary focus is to optimize management of whiteflies in the context of other pests, this study examined the impact of Lygus controls on whitefly population dynamics and cotton production. Three sprays were required to control Lygus populations in this study. These sprays were atypically non-disruptive to whitefly population dynamics, and instead, helped to suppress low-level populations of whiteflies even further. This lack of disruption may have been due in part to the reduced abundance and role of natural enemies in this study. Lygus sprays did protect yields with a 3-fold advantage over untreated plots. Furthermore, there were a series of negative consequences of poor Lygus control. Plants tended to be more vegetative and more difficult to defoliate. Lower lint turnouts were documented for the Lygus-untreated areas. Sources of this additional loss were identified and included increased gin trash and larger seed size in Lygus-untreated areas. The lint also had significantly more sticking points as measured by manual thermodetector. While all cotton was determined to be non-sticky, this increased contamination may have been also related to the higher trash levels. Because of the differences in outcome in 1997 and 1998 in terms of Lygus spray effects on whiteflies, it is even more imperative that we further test whitefly management systems under near commercial conditions. A better understanding of the relationship between the control programs for these two major pests will help guide decisions on remedial inputs. This study also serves as an annual, replicated, and systematic accounting of whitefly population dynamics and control requirements useful for making historical comparisons across years. Inferences may be drawn about what are and are not the underlying causes of the unusual population dynamics observed in 1998.