Subscribe Now Subscribe Today
Research Article
 

Evaluation of Several Programs of Sequences Pesticides Application on Cotton Bollworms and Some Other Sucking Pests in Cotton Field



A.E.M. Abd El-Mageed, E.M. Anwar, L.R.A. Elgohary and H.F. Dahi
 
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit Linkedin StumbleUpon E-mail
ABSTRACT

Field experiments were carried to evaluate five programs with three sprays of application using nine insecticides belongs to five different chemical groups on reducing the infestation of cotton bollworms, pink bollworm Pectinophora gossypiella (Saund.) and spiny bollworm Earias insulana (Boisd.) and some other sucking pests, cotton whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Genn.), cotton aphids, Aphis gossypii (Colov.), cotton jassid Empoasca lypica (de Berg), cotton thrips Thrips tabaci (L.) and spider mite Tetranychus urticae (Koch) in Dakahlia Governorate during 2005 cotton season. According to general of reduction average it is clear that both the program 1 (1st Spray Beta-cyfluthrin, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad) and the program 4 (1st Spray Lufenuron, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad) induced the highest effect representing 81.04 and 81.08% reduction in pink bollworm larval population, respectively. The percentages of infestation of the spiny bollworm recorded during the season in each of experimental plots at three tested sprays were too low. Also, the results obtained revealed that all programs were significantly reduced the population density of the sucking pests at any date of inspection during all application.

Services
Related Articles in ASCI
Search in Google Scholar
View Citation
Report Citation

 
  How to cite this article:

A.E.M. Abd El-Mageed, E.M. Anwar, L.R.A. Elgohary and H.F. Dahi, 2007. Evaluation of Several Programs of Sequences Pesticides Application on Cotton Bollworms and Some Other Sucking Pests in Cotton Field. Journal of Entomology, 4: 93-103.

DOI: 10.3923/je.2007.93.103

URL: https://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=je.2007.93.103

INTRODUCTION

Profitable cotton production in Egypt must depend on successful and efficient insect management programme which reduces the risk disastrous crop losses by pests (El-Basyouni, 2003). Cotton is attacked by various pests during the different stages of its development. Many insect species have been reported on cotton and some of these species are regarded as major pests that can destroy the plants in a few days (Mireulle et al., 1999). The pink bollworm Pectinophora gossypiella (Saud.) and the spiny bollworm Earias insulana (Boisd.) are major pests attacking cotton in Egypt, which cause a severe reduction in its yield and quality (Abou Kahla et al., 1990). The whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Genn.), the cotton aphids, Aphis gossypii (Glover) and the cotton leafhopper, Empoasca lybica (De Berg) are considered among the economic pests of cotton plants in Egypt (Abdel-salam, 1995; Samy, 1999). The success of cotton bollworm control programme relies of use pesticides belonging to different groups in certain sequence, timing of application and interval of spraying (Watson et al., 1986; El-Feel et al., 1991). Previously carbamate insecticides were usually used at the last spray for controlling the spiny bollworm (Thiodiocarb and Carbaryl have been used focussing on carbaryl since 1999). Since 2005, the Egyptian Committee for Agricultural Pesticides (ECAP, 2005) was decision debarring applied the Carbamate group through spray rotation programs. So, it is becoming necessary to find a promising compound environmentally safe and effective against Spiny bollwom to be used instead Carbaryl. Conventional insecticides have not provided a long-term solution to the pink bollworm problem (Henneberry, 1986), moreover as a result of continued massive use of certain synthetic insecticides against the cotton pests, tolerant and resistant strains have been developed (Schmutterer, 1985). Ministry of Agriculture in Egypt is hoping to find a product safe, low dose in the environment, with satisfactory killing power specially for spiny bollworm. So, spinosad was chosen because it is classified by EPA as a reduced risk product and awarded the green chemical challenge award from the white house in the USA in 1999 (Temerak, 2003).

The purpose of this study was to evaluate five programs with three sprays of application using nine insecticides belongs to different five groups include on a new biocide (Spinosad) on reducing the infestation of cotton bollworms, pink bollworm Pectinophora gossypiella and spiny bollworm Earias insulana and some other sucking pests, cotton whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Genn.), aphids, Aphis gossypii (Colov.), cotton jassid Empoasca lypica (de Berg), cotton thrips Thrips tabaci (L.) and spider mite Tetranychus urticae (Koch) in cotton field during 2005 season.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experimental Design
The experiments were conducted at Aga district, Dakahlia Governorate to evaluate five programs with three sprays of application using nine insecticides belongs to five different chemical groups (Table 1). The fields were cultivated with Giza 86 cotton variety on April 15, 2005 and the normal agricultural practices were applied. The experimental area was divided into plots of 1/16 of a feddan each and the treatments were arranged in randomized complete blocks with four replicates each. Plots were isolated from each other by unplanted corridors (1 m width) that separated replicates. A ground motor sprayer was used to spray the chemical dilutions. The volume of spray solution was 400 L /feddan.

Procedures of Evaluating the Treatments
According to the protocol of the ministry of agricultural, three application of each insecticide took place at two weeks intervals. To evaluate the effect of tested treatments against cotton bollworms, samples of 100 green boll per treatment (25 bolls for each replicate) were taken at random and dissected. The number of larvae of bollworms in the green bolls was recorded before the first spray and then bolls samples took place every week and so the percent of reduction was calculated.

Table 1: Tested programs of application against cotton bollworms and some other sucking pests in cotton field
Image for - Evaluation of Several Programs of Sequences Pesticides Application on Cotton Bollworms and Some Other Sucking Pests in Cotton Field

Regarding to the sucking pests, samples of 100 cotton leaves (25 leaves for each replicate) were collected at random from the inner rows of each plot to estimate the population counts of sucking pests which previous mentioned. The leaves were collected early in the morning from different levels of the plant and brought to the laboratory and examined by a binocular microscope. The upper and the lower surfaces of the leaf were inspected and the number of aphids (nymphs and adults), whitefly (nymphs), jassid (nymphs), thrips (nymphs) and spider mite were recorded. Sampling and counting were made just before treatment then after 7 and 14 days of spraying. Percent reduction in infestation was estimated using Henderson and Tilton (1955) equation to determine the effect of the tested insecticides.

Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis were carried out to determine the differences between treatments after spraying by using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) computed by Costat Statistical Software, 1990.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Efficiency of Tested Programs Against the Bollworms
Efficiency of Tested Programs Against the Pink Bollworm
Data presented in Table 2 revealed that all tested programs reduced the rate of the pink bollworm larvae Pectinophora gossypiella (Saund.) during the three sprays. According to general of reduction average it is clear that both the program 1 (1st Spray Beta-cyfluthrin, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad) and the program 4 (1st Spray Lufenuron, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad) induced the highest effect representing 81.04 and 81.08% reduction in larval population, respectively. While the program 5 (1st Spray Abamectin, 2nd Spray Alpha-Cypermethrin and 3rd Spray Spinosad) suppressed the number of pink bollworm larvae by 73.85% compared with the control, whereas the program 2 (1st Spray Manf 6, 2nd Spray Methoxyfenozide and 3rd Spray Spinosad) and the program 3 (1st Spray Chlorpyrifos, 2nd Spray Manf 6 and 3rd Spray Spinosad) were similar in their effect giving 70.94 and 71.87% reduction in pink bollworm larvae, respectively.

Efficiency of Tested Programs Against the Spiny Bollworm
Results in Table 3 showed that the percentages of infestation of the spiny bollworm Earias insulana (Boisd.) that recorded during the season in each of experimental plots at three tested sprays were too low especially with the program 1 (1st Spray Beta-cyfluthrin, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad), the program 2 (1st Spray Manf 6, 2nd Spray Methoxyfenozide and 3rd Spray Spinosad) and the program 5 (1st Spray Abamectin, 2nd Spray Alpha-Cypermethrin and 3rd Spray Spinosad). However, the total mean of spiny bollworm infestation percent for the program 3 (1st Spray Chlorpyrifos, 2nd Spray Manf 6 and 3rd Spray Spinosad) and the program 4 (1st Spray Lufenuron, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad) were the same value, it reached 0.5% compared to the control 1.3%.

Efficiency of Tested Programs Against Sucking Pests
Efficiency Against the Whitefly
The results obtained in Table 4 revealed that all programs were significantly reduced the population density of whitefly nymph Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) at any date of inspection during all application. At 1st spray, Abamectin at the program 5 gave the best effect (70.90%), while Beta-cyfluthrin at the program 1 gave the lowest effect (48.42%). Manf 6 at the Program 3 was surpass all the other treatment on the reduction of whitefly population density it reached 84.44%, in addition Malathion at the program 1 was the lowest effective treatments (39.44%) at 2nd Spray. The maximum activity of Spinosad was reached its upper limit at the program 3 at the 3rd Spray.

Table 2: The efficacy of various five programs against the pink bollworm larvae Pectinophora gossypiella (Saund.) after three sprays
Image for - Evaluation of Several Programs of Sequences Pesticides Application on Cotton Bollworms and Some Other Sucking Pests in Cotton Field
Means followed by the same letter in each column are not significantly different according to duncan multiple range test at 5%; Program 1: 1st Spray Beta-cyfluthrin, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 2: 1st Spray Manf 6, 2nd Spray Methoxyfenozide and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 3: 1st Spray Chlorpyrifos, 2nd Spray Manf 6 and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 4: 1st Spray Lufenuron, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 5: 1st Spray Abamectin, 2nd Spray Alpha-Cypermethrin and 3rd Spray Spinosad
Table 3: The efficacy of various five programs against the spiny bollworm Earias insulana (Boisd.) after three sprays
Image for - Evaluation of Several Programs of Sequences Pesticides Application on Cotton Bollworms and Some Other Sucking Pests in Cotton Field
Program 1: 1st Spray Beta-cyfluthrin, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 2: 1st Spray Manf 6, 2nd Spray Methoxyfenozide and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 3: 1st Spray Chlorpyrifos, 2nd Spray Manf 6 and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 4: 1st Spray Lufenuron, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 5: 1st Spray Abamectin, 2nd Spray Alpha-Cypermethrin and 3rd Spray Spinosad

Table 4: The efficacy of various five programs against the whitefly nymph Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) after three sprays
Image for - Evaluation of Several Programs of Sequences Pesticides Application on Cotton Bollworms and Some Other Sucking Pests in Cotton Field
Means followed by the same letter in each column are not significantly different according to duncan multiple range test at 5%; Program 1: 1st Spray Beta-cyfluthrin, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 2: 1st Spray Manf 6, 2nd Spray Methoxyfenozide and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 3: 1st Spray Chlorpyrifos, 2nd Spray Manf 6 and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 4: 1st Spray Lufenuron, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 5: 1st Spray Abamectin, 2nd Spray Alpha-Cypermethrin and 3rd Spray Spinosad

Table 5: The efficacy of various five programs against the cotton aphids, Aphis gossypii (Glover) after three sprays
Image for - Evaluation of Several Programs of Sequences Pesticides Application on Cotton Bollworms and Some Other Sucking Pests in Cotton Field
Means followed by the same letter in each column are not significantly different according to duncan multiple range test at 5%; Program 1: 1st Spray Beta-cyfluthrin, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 2: 1st Spray Manf 6, 2nd Spray Methoxyfenozide and 3rd Spray Spinosad. Program 3: 1st Spray Chlorpyrifos, 2nd Spray Manf 6 and 3rd Spray Spinosad. Program 4: 1st Spray Lufenuron, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad. Program 5: 1st Spray Abamectin, 2nd Spray Alpha-Cypermethrin and 3rd Spray Spinosad

Table 6: The efficacy of various five programs against the cotton jassid Empoasca lypica (de Berg) after three sprays
Image for - Evaluation of Several Programs of Sequences Pesticides Application on Cotton Bollworms and Some Other Sucking Pests in Cotton Field
Means followed by the same letter in each column are not significantly different according to duncan multiple range test at 5%; Program 1: 1st Spray Beta-cyfluthrin, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 2: 1st Spray Manf 6, 2nd Spray Methoxyfenozide and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 3: 1st Spray Chlorpyrifos, 2nd Spray Manf 6 and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 4: 1st Spray Lufenuron, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 5: 1st Spray Abamectin, 2nd Spray Alpha-Cypermethrin and 3rd Spray Spinosad

Table 7: The efficacy of various five programs against the cotton thrips Thrips tabaci (L.) after three sprays
Image for - Evaluation of Several Programs of Sequences Pesticides Application on Cotton Bollworms and Some Other Sucking Pests in Cotton Field
Means followed by the same letter in each column are not significantly different according to duncan multiple range test at 5%; Program 1: 1st Spray Beta-cyfluthrin, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 2: 1st Spray Manf 6, 2nd Spray Methoxyfenozide and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 3: 1st Spray Chlorpyrifos, 2nd Spray Manf 6 and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 4: 1st Spray Lufenuron, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 5: 1st Spray Abamectin, 2nd Spray Alpha-Cypermethrin and 3rd Spray Spinosad

Table 8: The efficacy of various five programs against the spider mite Tetranychus urticae (Koch) after three sprays
Image for - Evaluation of Several Programs of Sequences Pesticides Application on Cotton Bollworms and Some Other Sucking Pests in Cotton Field
Means followed by the same letter in each column are not significantly different according to duncan multiple range test at 5%; Program 1: 1st Spray Beta-cyfluthrin, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 2: 1st Spray Manf 6, 2nd Spray Methoxyfenozide and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 3: 1st Spray Chlorpyrifos, 2nd Spray Manf 6 and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 4: 1st Spray Lufenuron, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad; Program 5: 1st Spray Abamectin, 2nd Spray Alpha-Cypermethrin and 3rd Spray Spinosad

The tested programs were arranged according to general of reduction average in a descending order as follows: Program 3 (1st Spray Chlorpyrifos, 2nd Spray Manf 6 and 3rd Spray Spinosad) > Program 5 (1st Spray Abamectin, 2nd Spray Alpha-Cypermethrin and 3rd Spray Spinosad) ≥ Program 2 (1st Spray Manf 6, 2nd Spray Methoxyfenozide and 3rd Spray Spinosad) ≥ Program 4 (1st Spray Lufenuron, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad) > Program 1 (1st Spray Beta-cyfluthrin, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad).

Efficiency Against the Cotton Aphid
Data in Table 5 revealed that, Manf 6 at the program 2 was the most effective treatment (78.98%), while Abamectin at the program 5 was the lowest one (38.31%) at 1st Spray against the cotton aphids, Aphis gossypii (Glover). The other treatment could be arranged between them with significant differences. Concerning the 2nd Spray data cleared that all programs have the same previous trend of arrangement but with high level of reduction of population density. The maximum activity of Spinosad was reached its upper limit at the program 3 at the 3rd Spray.

The efficiency of the tested programs can be arranged according to general of reduction average in a descending order as follows: Program 2 (1st Spray Manf 6, 2nd Spray Methoxyfenozide and 3rd Spray Spinosad) > Program 3 (1st Spray Chlorpyrifos, 2nd Spray Manf 6 and 3rd Spray Spinosad) > Program 4 (1st Spray Lufenuron, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad) > Program 1 (1st Spray Beta-cyfluthrin, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad) > Program 5 (1st Spray Abamectin, 2nd Spray Alpha-Cypermethrin and 3rd Spray Spinosad).

Efficiency Against the Cotton Jassid
Data presented in Table 6 showed that, all tested programs gave sufficient control against cotton jassid Empoasca lypica (de Berg) after three sprays. Beta-cyfluthrin, Lufenuron and Chlorpyrifos at the program 1, 4 and 3 gave the best effect (74.88, 74.68 and 73.87%) at 1st spray, respectively, meantime there were no significant differences between both Abamectin at the program 5 and Manf 6 at the program 2 (69.94 and 68.84%), respectively. After treatment with the 2nd Spray, Malathion at the program 1 recorded the highest effect and significantly surpassed than the other treatments 85.34%, while Methoxyfenozide at the program 2 showed that lowest effect 57.18%. The maximum activity of Spinosad was reached its upper limit at the program 1 and 4 at the 3rd Spray.

Statistical analysis of the general of reduction average of the tested programs can be arranged in a descending order as follows: Program 1 (1st Spray Beta-cyfluthrin, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad) ≥ Program 4 (1st Spray Lufenuron, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad) > Program 5 (1st Spray Abamectin, 2nd Spray Alpha-Cypermethrin and 3rd Spray Spinosad) ≥ Program 3 (1st Spray Chlorpyrifos, 2nd Spray Manf 6 and 3rd Spray Spinosad) > Program 2 (1st Spray Manf 6, 2nd Spray Methoxyfenozide and 3rd Spray Spinosad).

Efficiency Against the Cotton Thrips
The results cleared that, program 4 (1st Spray Lufenuron, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad) was characteristic during all thee sprays against the cotton thrips Thrips tabaci (L.) it reached the upper limit of effective 92.11% after the 3rd Spray. In contrary, Program 1 (1st Spray Beta-cyfluthrin, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad) was the lowest one during the same evaluation, it reached the lower limit of effective 43.74% after the 3rd Spray (Table 7) .

The tested programs were arranged according to general of reduction average in a descending order as follows: Program 4 (1st Spray Lufenuron, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad) > Program 5 (1st Spray Abamectin, 2nd Spray Alpha-Cypermethrin and 3rd Spray Spinosad) > Program 2 (1st Spray Manf 6, 2nd Spray Methoxyfenozide and 3rd Spray Spinosad) > Program 3 (1st Spray Chlorpyrifos, 2nd Spray Manf 6 and 3rd Spray Spinosad) > Program 1 (1st Spray Beta-cyfluthrin, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad).

Efficiency Against the Spider Mite
The results presented in Table 8 revealed that Abamectin at the program 5 and Chlorpyrifos at the program 3 were the most effective they gave 68.00 and 67.53% reduction in the population density of spider mite Tetranychus urticae (Koch) followed by Manf 6 at the program 2 and Beta-cyfluthrin at the program 1 (64.79 and 63.87%), while Lufenuron at the program 4 was the lowest one (58.51%) at 1st Spray. Regarding the 2nd Spray data cleared that all programs have interchanges of arrangement where Methoxyfenozide at the program 2 was recorded the highest effect (77.93%) while Malathion at the program 4 was still the lowest one(62.28%). Concerning the 3rd Spray Spinosad showed reduce in reduction of the population density of spider mite in all programs except with at the program 4.

The efficiency of the tested programs can be arranged according to general of reduction average in a descending order as follows: Program 2 (1st Spray Manf 6, 2nd Spray Methoxyfenozide and 3rd Spray Spinosad) > Program 1(1st Spray Beta-cyfluthrin, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad) > Program 4 (1st Spray Lufenuron, 2nd Spray Malathion and 3rd Spray Spinosad) ≥ Program 3 (1st Spray Chlorpyrifos, 2nd Spray Manf 6 and 3rd Spray Spinosad) > Program 5 (1st Spray Abamectin, 2nd Spray Alpha-Cypermethrin and 3rd Spray Spinosad).

The most of yield and quality losses are caused by insect pests, such as the cotton bollworms (Kaushik et al., 1969). The larvae of pink and spiny bollworms attack plants at the beginning of the fruiting stage causing a huge losses to the cotton green bolls, fibers and seeds and accordingly great reduction in the cotton yield (Taneja and Jayaswal, 1984; Sidhu and Dahawan, 1986; Khurana and Verma, 1990; Romeilah, 1997). From the opening of the first boll until harvest (late season), the cotton crop is most sensitive to whitefly and aphids damage at this time because honeydew can contaminate the exposed cotton lint which reduce quality (Butler et al., 1988). Moreover, severe infestations of the jassid, cotton thrips and spider mite in cotton field. Recently, the National Cotton Council estimated that U.S. cotton producers’ annual losses to pink bollworm are about $21 million due to prevention, control costs and lower yields caused by plant damage (NCC, 2001). In Egypt, China and Brazil, it commonly causes cotton losses of up to 20%, although losses can be much higher. From ours previous results noticed that the effect of the third spray (Spinosad for all programs) was highly apparent against the pink bollworm larvae when followed by 1st Spray Lufenuron and 2nd Spray Malathion. El-Feel et al. (1991) cited that the most appropriate interval between sprays was 2 weeks, with application beginning in July in control of Pectinophora gossypiella. Mourad et al. (1991) studied the efficiency of four spray sequences of insecticides against Pectinophora gossypiella and Earias insulana on cotton. They found that Larvin, Tamaron, Dimethoate and Dimethoate sequence was the most effective. Our results in agreement with the finding of Emara et al. (2002) they cited that it could be generally recommend, as 1st spray Chlorpyrifos 75WG followed by Sumialfa as 2nd spray followed by Spinosad 24 SC alone or in combination with mineral oil at the last spray in order to achieve the lowest infestations of both bollworms specially spiny bollworm. Also, Temerak (2003) reported that the best program of field rotation trials for control of both bollworms utilized Chlorpyrifos-ethyl mixed with Hexaflumuron, followed by Es-fenvalerate, Profenfos and ending with Spinosad+oil. This program showed 92% reduction. Other programs were in descending order as reduction %; program ending with Carbaryl (88.5), Spinosad alone (77) and Thiodiocarb (69). Abou-Kahla et al. (1992) found that the sequence which contain organophosphours compounds had the higher effects against Empoasca lypica and Aphis gossypii, while Bemisia tabaci was more affected by treatments of Tamron combi, Decis and Cyanox.

REFERENCES

1:  Abdel-Salam, A.H., 1995. The biotic factor: Evaluation of their performance under natural conditions in cotton plantation. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Mansoura University, Egypt.

2:  Abou-Kahla, M.M., A. El-Zanan, B. Magda, El-Kady and A.S. El-Deeb, 1990. Evaluation of the toxic activity of four insecticidal groups upon spodoptera littorals (boisd.) Pectinophora gossypiella (Saud.) and Earias insulana (Boisd.) in relation to their side effects on fiber quality and seed properties. J. Agric. Res. Tanta Univ., 16: 121-131.

3:  Abou-Kahla, M.M., A.E.M. El-Sorady, R.M. Salem and A.M. Hussain, 1992. Impact of several sequences of insecticides against certain cotton pests and the associated predators in cotton fields. J. Agric. Res., Tanta Univ., 18: 804-817.

4:  Butler, G.D., Jr. D. Rimon and T.J. Henneberry, 1988. Bemisia Tabaci (Genn.) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae): Populations of different cotton varieties and cotton stickiness in Israel. Crop Prot., 7: 43-47.

5:  Costat Software, 1990. Microcomputer program analysis. Version 4.20, CoHort Software, Berkeley, CA., USA.

6:  El-Basyouni, S.A., 2003. Sex pheromone traps: A tool for infestation prediction by the spiny bollworm Earias insulana (boisd.) on tow cotton varieties with respect to some weather factors. J. Agric. Sci., Mansoura Univ., 28: 2327-2334.

7:  El-Feel, E.A., A.A. Khidr, M.M. Abou Kahla and M.G. Abbass, 1991. Effect of sequence, time intervals and early spray of different insecticides on pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossipella (Sound.) infestation and cotton yield. Egypt. J. Agric. Res., 69: 73-81.

8:  Emara, S.A., H.I. Omar, I.S. Abd El-Wahab, H.F. Dahi, 2002. Different rotation of insecticidal spraying programs for controlling cotton bollworms with reference to the new natural product, spinosad. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference, Plant Protection Research Institute, December 21-24, 2002, Cairo, Egypt, pp: 774-778

9:  Henderson, C.F. and E.W. Tilton, 1955. Tests with acaricides against the brown wheat mite. J. Econ. Entomol., 48: 157-161.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

10:  Kaushik, V.K., V.S. Rather and N.K. Sood, 1969. Incidence of bollworm and losses caused to cotton in Madhya. Preash. J. Ent., 2: 175-177.

11:  Khurana, A.D. and A.N. Verma, 1990. Comparative damage caused by bollworm and yield of seed cotton during a dry and wet year in Haryana. J. Insect. Sci., 3: 180-182.

12:  Mireulle, L., S. Ades, S.U. Joseph, B. Gary, B. Dean, J.A. Hoffman and P. Bullet, 1999. Isolation from the lepidopteran heliothes virescens of a novel insect defensin with potent antifiungal activity. J. Boil. Chem., 274: 320-326.

13:  Mourad, M.A., M.E. Omar and A.A. Mahran, 1991. Alternate use of insecticides against the cotton bollworms Pectinophora gossypiella Saund. and Earias insulana Boisd. Egypt. J. Agric. Res., 69: 99-106.

14:  National Cotton Council of America., 2001. Pink bollworm eradication: A window of opportunity. pp: 1-6.

15:  Romeilah, M.A., 1997. Investigation on Implimentation of certain agricultural practices and specific chemical agents in the cotton IPM program. Ph.D. Thesis, Fac. of Agric. Ain Shams University, 1997.

16:  Samy, M.A., 1999. Ecological studies on population density of Aphis gossypii (Glover) and Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) on okra and cotton plantations at Kafer El-Sheikh Governorate. J. Agric. Sci., Mansoura Univ., 24: 3107-3114.

17:  Schmutterer, H., 1985. Which insect pests can be controlled by application of neem seed kernel extracts under field conditions? J. Applied Entomol., 100: 468-475.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

18:  Sidhu, A.S. and A.K. Dahawan, 1986. Bollworm damage and carry over in Hirsutum cotton in Punjab. J. Res. Punjab Agric. Univ., 23: 444-450.

19:  Taneja, S.L. and A.P. Jayaswal, 1984. Seasonal activity of bollworms on some varieties of cotton in Haryana. Indian J. Entomol., 46: 340-345.

20:  Temerak, S.A., 2003. Differential susceptibility of pink and spiny bollworms to the ova-larvicidal activity of spinosad, a natural metabolite of the actinomycete saccharopolyspora spinosa with special reference to solve the field failure of thiodiocarb in the current resistance rotation spraying program in Egypt. Resistant Pest Manage., 13: 42-46.

21:  Watson, W.M., A.M. Rashed, N.M. Hussein and M.W. Guirguis, 1986. Potencies of certain insecticides against the pink bollworm Pectinophora gossypiella (Saund.) as influenced by chemical control program in Egypt. Bull. Ent. Soc. Egypt Econ. Ser., 15: 79-86.

©  2021 Science Alert. All Rights Reserved