Subscribe Now Subscribe Today
Research Article
 

Influence of Pest Management Levels on the Yield of Different Cotton Strains



G. A. Muhammad Aslam, Herzog and R. B. Chalfant
 
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit Linkedin StumbleUpon E-mail
ABSTRACT

Thirty four cotton strains were planted in three field experiments with three levels [A (intense pesticide use), B (intermediate use of pesticides) and C (low pesticide use)] of pest management at the University of Georgia, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, USA. The susceptible cultivar, Stoneville 213, cotton line was compared with STHG 3-1, STHG 4-4, LAHG 820060, ARS-TX-HIGOS2, LAHG 810065, LAHG 810063, ARS-TX-HGOSI and ARS TX-HIGOS3, TIFCOT 56 and TAMCOT CD 3H, GATIR-84-662, PD-0786, 86MRH-7, MISCOT TB-27-96, MSCOT 7913-S, MISCOT 7913-84 JBW 503 and UARK 2402, JBW 504, GATR 84-634, GATIR 84-664, GATIR 84-663, GATIR 84-635 and MISCOT 7913-84 had equal yield. The other lines either did not differ from Stoneville 213 in yield or had less yield than the latter. There was a difference in yield, seed cotton kg ha–1 and or lint kg ha–1 in all levels indicating that the management levels had some influence on the yield of different strains.

Services
Related Articles in ASCI
Similar Articles in this Journal
Search in Google Scholar
View Citation
Report Citation

 
  How to cite this article:

G. A. Muhammad Aslam, Herzog and R. B. Chalfant, 1998. Influence of Pest Management Levels on the Yield of Different Cotton Strains. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 1: 248-251.

DOI: 10.3923/pjbs.1998.248.251

URL: https://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=pjbs.1998.248.251

Introduction

Based on Kojel and Lewis (1984), cotton is at once a fiber, food and feed crop. It is a unique crop species that has been a participant in many epics of history and is grown on more than 32 million hectares of land in the world (Anonymous 1988). It is attacked by a complex of insect pests and receives massive amounts of pesticides from their control (Gutierrez et al., 1981). Based on Adkisson et al. (1982) almost 50% of all insecticides applied to crops in United States are applied to cotton, based on Metcalf (1994), insecticides are the most powerful tool available for use in cotton yield increases with 3 of the 4 insecticides treatments when compared with the untreated check. Jenkins et al. (1981) reported seed cotton yields from 1973 to 2922 kg ha–1 when insecticides were used. They further reported the per ha yield of the commercial variety Stoneville 213 as 2540 kg under similar situation. Hopkins et al. (1985) also studied the influence of insect damage and insecticide spray regimens on cotton yield.

The objective of these studies is to see the influence of Insect Management levels on the yield of different cotton strains using Stoneville 213, a commercial, susceptible check.

Materials And Methods

Three field experiments were conducted at the university of Georgia, Coastal Plain Experiment Station Tifton, Georgia, USA.

In experiment 1, twenty strains of cotton (including Stoneville 213 as a susceptible check) were planted in May 13 at the Ponder Experimental Farm in plots maintained under three levels (A, B, C) of pest management. In level A, cypermenthrin (CymbushR 3E), a pyrethroid and broad-spectrum insecticide was applied at a rate of 0.056 kg ha–1 twice weekly for fourteen times from July 15 through September 2. In level B, the insecticides were applied at the same rate at two weeks intervals for four times from July 18 through August 29, while in level C, no insecticides were applied. The three levels were kept separate from one another to avoid drift from pesticidal applications. The cotton lines were replicated three times in each level using randomized block designs. The plots consisted of two rows, 10.67 m in length ans 1.83 m in width. Fertilizer (5-10-15) was applied at a rate of 42.01, 84.028, 126.04 kg of N, P, K per ha, respectively. Also 33.61 kg of nitrogen/ha was side dressed four weeks after planting.

In experiment 2, twenty cotton strains, including 14 new lines not evaluated in experiment 1, were planted on May 8 at the Ponder Experimental Farm. The experimental details were the same as in Experiment 1 except for pesticidal regimes in levels A and B. In level A, cypermethrin was applied at the same rate/internal as in Experiment 1 for 17 times from July 6 through September 1. In level B, the insecticide was applied at the same rate number and interval as in 1986 from July 14 through August 25. Also during this year, due to an obligatory federal boll weevil eradication program, azinphosmethyl (GuthionR 2L), an organophosphate insecticide was applied using 0.28 kg(ai) ha–1, twice weekly from July 6 through November 12 for a total of 30 applications in all plots.

Experiment 3 was conducted in field ca 15 km from experiments 1 and 2 near the main campus of Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton. Five lines of cotton (including Stoneville 213) were planted on May 28. A split plot experimental design was used with three replications. The three levels of pest management (A, B and C) were replicated three times within each replication and within each level, the cotton lines were planted in a random order. Fertilizer was applied at the same rate as in experiments 1 and 2. Cypermethrin was applied at the same rate and interval as in experiment 1 and 2 from July 7 through September 8 for seventeen times in level A and from July 13 through September 1 for four times in level B. In the last week of July, an infestation of aphids, Aphis gossyppi Glover, developed. Accordingly, dicrotophos (BidrinR 8EC) was applied using 0.224 kg (ai) ha–1 on August 7 in all the levels. Due to an obligatory federal boll weevil eradication program, Guthion 2L was applied at a rate of 0.28 kg (ai) ha–1, weekly from September 16 through November 12, for a total on nine times TX-6 nozzles/row, ground speed 4.83 km ha–1 delivering 77.6 L of total spray volume/ha was used in all the experiments fo apply the insecticides. Approximately ten days before harvest, a tank mix of the defoliants, DroppR 50 WP [0.23 kg (ai) ha–1]+DEFR 6EC [0.84 kg (ai) ha–1] were applied in all the three experiments. The cotton was harvested in experiments 1, 2 and 3 on November 15, 19 and 13 respectively. In experiment No. 1, cotton yield was recorded as lbs of lint/plot, while in experiments No. 2 and 3 as lbs of seed-cotton/plot. Yields recorded were adjusted to kg of lint and/or seed-cotton/ha. The statistical analysis in experiments 1 and 2 was done as three randomized block design nested with the main plots, while in experiment No. 3, as a split plot design using SAS (SAS Institute 1986). T Test (LSD) as recommended by Benedict (1983) were applied to the means.

On the basis of groupings of the T Tests and comparing with Stoneville 213, the lines were classified as having high yield, when the yield was significantly higher than Stoneville 213; equal yield, when the yield did not differ significantly from Stoneville 213; low yield, when the yield was significantly lower than Stoneville 213 and intermediate when the yield was in between the qual and low.

Results And Discussion

Experiment 1: The means of the entries of the three levels show that 86MRH-6. TXCDP 37 HH showed low lint yield, TAMCOT CAB-CS had and intermediate lint yields, while all other lines did not differ significantly from Stoneville 213. The entries different significantly within levels in yield. Stoneville 213 showed the highest lint yield in level A but it did not differ significantly from the other lines excluding GATIR 84-663, GATIR 84-634, GATIR 84-664, 86 MRH-6, 86 MRH-7, TAMCOT-CAB-CS and TXCDP 37HH which showed less yield. In level B, 86MRH-6, TXCDP 37HH and TAMCOT-CAB-CS showed less lint yield than Stoneville 213. In level C, 86 MRH-7, JBW504, LAHG 810063, UARK 2402, GATIR 84-664 and GATIR 84-662 showed significantly more lint yield Stoneville 213 (Table 1).

The level A showed the highest lint yield, level B intermediate while level C the lowest.

Experiment 2: MO 84-701 showed numerically the highest yields of seed-cotton, but did not differ significantly from Stoneville 213, DES 920, LAHG 810060 and TAMDCOT CAB-CS.

Table 1: Lint yield (kg ha–1 ) of selected cotton strains grown under three levels of pest management Tifton, GA; 1986
Means within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different based on T test (LSD), DF = 114, p = 0.05, *LSD = 219.54; LSD for */ = 126.75. Critical value of T = 1.98099, A* = High, B* = Medium and C* = Low

Table 2:Lint yield (kg ha–1 ) of selected cotton strains grown under three levels of pest management (Experiment No. 2) Tifton, GA; 1987
Means within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different based on T test (LSD), DF = 114, p = 0.05, *LSD = 219.54; */LSD = 333.41. Critical value of T = 1.98099, A* = High, B* = Intermediate and C* = minimum

Table 3:Seed cotton yield (kg ha–1 ) of selected cotton strains grown under three levels of pest management (Experiment No. 3) Tifton, GA; 1987
Means with in cilumns followed by the same small and within rows by the same capital letters are not significantly different based on T test (LSD), p = 0.05, *LSD, DF and critical value for columns: 463.24, 24 abd 2.06390; for rows: 749.1156502, minimum applications of the insecticides

All other strains excluding ARS-TX-HIGOS2, GATR 84-662, MISCOT TB-27-7, LAHG 810063, LAHG 810065, TAMCOT CD3H and STHG 4-4 were statistically similar to Stoneville 213. The former lines are classified as possessing intermediate yield while STHG 4-4 had a low yield (Table 2). Level A had the highest yield of seed cotton, level B intermediate while C had the lowest yield.

Experiment 3: The highest yield of seed-cotton was shown by LAGH 810063 and MISCOT 7913-4 but not significantly different from that Stoneville 213. STHG 3-3 had an intermediate yield while ARS-TX-HGOS a low yield when compared with Stoneville 213. The latter two strains did not differ significantly among levels (Table 3). MISCOT 7913-84 although showing susceptibility to Stoneville 213 in yield which indicates tolerance to the attack of insect pests-a kind of resistance as classified by Painter (1951). No significant difference in yield occurred among management levels (Table 3). Concluding the results of the 3 experiments, it could be said that STHG 6-1, STGH 4-4, LAGH 820060, ARS-TX-HIGOS 2, LAHG 810063, ARS-TX-HIGOS 2, LAHG TXPHIGOS3, TFCOT 56, TMCOT CD 3H, GATIR 84-662, PD-0786, MISCOT 7913-S, MISCOT 7913-H, JBW 503, UARK 2402, JBW 504, GATIR 84-634, GATIR 84-665, GATIR 84-664, GATIR 84-663, GATIR 84-635 and MISCOT 7913-84 had equal yield when compared with Stoneville 213. The other lines either did not differ from the standard in yield or had less yield in all the levels indicating in the yield of different cotton strains. Metcalf (1994) has indicated insecticides as the most powerful tool of pest management. Hopkins et al. (1985) had also reported the influence of insecticide spray regiments on cotton yield. Jenkins et al. (1981) had reported seed cotton yield from 1973 to 2922 kg ha–1 when insecticides were used. Also similar results are found in our studies. The yield of Stoneville 213 is also similar as reported by Jenkins et al. (1981). Watson (1974) had also shown significant cotton yield increase with insecticide uses.

REFERENCES
1:  Adkisson, P.L., G.A. Niles, J.K. Walker, L.S. Bird and H.B. Scott, 1982. Controlling cotton's insect pests: A new system. Science, 216: 19-22.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

2:  Anonymous, 1998. World cotton situation. FAS FC 6-88, United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, USA., pp: 28.

3:  Benedict, J.H., 1983. Methods of evaluating cotton for resistance to the boll weevil Anthomonus grandis, Gossypium spp., comparisons, cotton lines. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 280, Vol. 61, pp: 19-26.

4:  Gutierrez, A.P., R. Daxl, G.L. Quant and L.A. Falcon, 1981. Estimating economic thresholds for bollworm, Heliothis zea Boddie and boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis Boh., damage in Nicaraguan cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. Environ. Entomol., 10: 872-879.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

5:  Hopkins, A.R., R.F. Moore and W. James, 1985. Influence of insect damage and insecticide spray regimens on cotton yield in 1981 and 1982. J. Econ. Entomol., 78: 263-268.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

6:  Jenkins, J.N., W.L. Parrott and J.C. Mccarty, Jr., 1981. Heliothis virescens resistance in cotton. Proceedings of the Conference on Research Beltwide Cotton, January 4-8, 1981, National Cotton Council of America, New Orleans, LA., USA., pp: 70-.

7:  Kojel, R.J. and C.F. Lewis, 1984. Cotton. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America and Soil Science Society of America Inc., Madison, WI., USA., Pages: 605.

8:  Metcalf, R.L., 1994. Insecticides in Pest Management. In: Introduction to Insect Pest Management, Metcalf, R.L. and W.H. Luckmann (Eds.). John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, pp: 245-284.

9:  Painter, R.H., 1951. Insect Resistance in Crop Plants. MacMillan, New York, USA., Pages: 520.

10:  SAS., 1986. SAS User's Guide: Statistics Circle. SAS Institute, Cary, NC., USA.

11:  Watson, T.F., 1974. Tobacco budworm and bollworm control in Western cotton. Proceedings of the Western Cotton, March 5-7, 1974, Phoenix, Arizona, pp: 38-.

©  2021 Science Alert. All Rights Reserved