Economic Injury Levels for Bt-resistant Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Cotton

Author(s):  
Alejandro I Del Pozo-Valdivia ◽  
Dominic D Reisig ◽  
Lewis Braswell ◽  
Jeremy K Greene ◽  
Phillip Roberts ◽  
...  

Abstract Thresholds for Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) in cotton Gossypium hirsutum L. have been understudied since the widespread adoption of Bt cotton in the United States. Our study was possible due to the widespread presence of H. zea populations with Cry-toxin resistance. We initiated progressive spray timing experiments using three Bt cotton brands (Deltapine, Stoneville, and Phytogen) widely planted across the U.S. Cotton Belt expressing pyramided toxins in the Cry1A, Cry2, and Vip3Aa19 families. We timed foliar insecticide treatments based on week of bloom to manipulate H. zea populations in tandem with crop development during 2017 and 2018. We hypothesized that non-Bt cotton, cotton expressing Cry toxins alone, and cotton expressing Cry and Vip3Aa19 toxins would respond differently to H. zea feeding. We calculated economic injury levels to support the development of economic thresholds from significant responses. Pressure from H. zea was high during both years. Squares and bolls damaged by H. zea had the strongest negative yield associations, followed by larval number on squares. There were fewer yield associations with larval number on bolls and with number of H. zea eggs on the plant. Larval population levels were very low on varieties expressing Vip3Aa19. Yield response varied across experiments and varieties, suggesting that it is difficult to pinpoint precise economic injury levels. Nonetheless, our results generally suggest that current economic thresholds for H. zea in cotton are too high. Economic injury levels from comparisons between non-Bt varieties and those expressing only Cry toxins could inform future thresholds once H. zea evolves resistance to Vip3Aa19.

2008 ◽  
Vol 101 (5) ◽  
pp. 1594-1599 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Gore ◽  
J. J. Adamczyk ◽  
A. Catchot ◽  
R. Jackson

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall G. Luttrell ◽  
Ryan E. Jackson

Author(s):  
Wilfrid Calvin ◽  
Fei Yang ◽  
Sebe A Brown ◽  
Angus L Catchot ◽  
Whitney D Crow ◽  
...  

Abstract Widespread field-evolved resistance of bollworm [Helicoverpa zea (Boddie)] to Cry1 and Cry2 Bt proteins has threatened the utility of Bt cotton for managing bollworm. Consequently, foliar insecticide applications have been widely adopted to provide necessary additional control. Field experiments were conducted across the Mid-South and in Texas to devise economic thresholds for foliar insecticide applications targeting bollworm in cotton. Bt cotton technologies including TwinLink (TL; Cry1Ab+Cry2Ae), TwinLink Plus (TLP; Cry1Ab+Cry2Ae+Vip3Aa), Bollgard II (BG2; Cry1Ac+Cry2Ab), Bollgard 3 (BG3; Cry1Ac+Cry2Ab+Vip3Aa), WideStrike (WS; Cry1Ac+Cry1F), WideStrike 3 (WS3; Cry1Ac+Cry1F+Vip3Aa), and a non-Bt (NBT) variety were evaluated. Gain threshold, economic injury level, and economic thresholds were determined. A 6% fruiting form injury threshold was selected and compared with preventive treatments utilizing chlorantraniliprole. Additionally, the differences in yield from spraying bollworms was compared among Bt cotton technologies. The 6% fruiting form injury threshold resulted in a 25 and 75% reduction in insecticide applications relative to preventive sprays for WS and BG2, respectively. All Bt technologies tested in the current study exhibited a positive increase in yield from insecticide application. The frequency of yield increase from spraying WS was comparable to that of NBT. Significant yield increases due to insecticide application occurred less frequently in triple-gene Bt cotton. However, their frequencies were close to the dual-gene Bt cotton, except for WS. The results of our study suggest that 6% fruiting form injury is a viable threshold, and incorporating a vetted economic threshold into an Integrated Pest Management program targeting bollworm should improve the sustainability of cotton production.


2008 ◽  
Vol 101 (5) ◽  
pp. 1594-1599 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Gore ◽  
J. J. Adamczyk ◽  
A. Catchot ◽  
R. Jackson

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Hoidal ◽  
Robert L Koch

Abstract Economic thresholds (ETs) are a foundational principle of integrated pest management but are not always widely accepted by farmers and agricultural professionals. This article reports on a survey of Minnesota farmer and agricultural professional perceptions of the ET for soybean aphid, Aphis glycines Matsumura (Hempitera: Aphididae). We discuss insights for Extension programs on how to frame the importance of thresholds and teach stakeholders to use them effectively. Key takeaways include farmers and agricultural professionals often worry about combined effects of insect, disease, and physiological pressures, whereas effects of interactions with these other stressors are seldom discussed in educational outreach. Across groups, there is a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between ETs and economic injury level. Many survey participants reported believing in the ET but lacked the time and capacity to fully implement it. Sales agronomists and farmers were the least likely groups to trust the university-determined soybean aphid ET, whereas commercial pesticide applicators and independent consultants were the most likely groups to trust it. Based on these results, we recommend adapting communication about ETs based on the target audience to address common misconceptions and barriers to ET use that are unique to each group.


2013 ◽  
Vol 106 (3) ◽  
pp. 1274-1285 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Paula-Moraes ◽  
T. E. Hunt ◽  
R. J. Wright ◽  
G. L. Hein ◽  
E. E. Blankenship

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly A. Barnett ◽  
A. Stanley Culpepper ◽  
Alan C. York ◽  
Lawrence E. Steckel

Glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds, especially GR Palmer amaranth, are very problematic for cotton growers in the Southeast and Midsouth regions of the United States. Glufosinate can control GR Palmer amaranth, and growers are transitioning to glufosinate-based systems. Palmer amaranth must be small for consistently effective control by glufosinate. Because this weed grows rapidly, growers are not always timely with applications. With widespread resistance to acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides, growers have few herbicide options to mix with glufosinate to improve control of larger weeds. In a field study using a WideStrike®cotton cultivar, we evaluated fluometuron at 140 to 1,120 g ai ha−1mixed with the ammonium salt of glufosinate at 485 g ae ha−1for control of GR Palmer amaranth 13 and 26 cm tall. Standard PRE- and POST-directed herbicides were included in the systems. Glufosinate alone injured the WideStrike® cotton less than 10%. Fluometuron increased injury up to 25% but did not adversely affect yield. Glufosinate controlled 13-cm Palmer amaranth at least 90%, and there was no improvement in weed control nor a cotton yield response to fluometuron mixed with glufosinate. Palmer amaranth 26 cm tall was controlled only 59% by glufosinate. Fluometuron mixed with glufosinate increased control of the larger weeds up to 28% and there was a trend for greater yields. However, delaying applications until weeds were 26 cm reduced yield 22% relative to timely application. Our results suggest fluometuron mixed with glufosinate may be of some benefit when attempting to control large Palmer amaranth. However, mixing fluometuron with glufosinate is not a substitute for a timely glufosinate application.


Author(s):  
Patricia J. Vittum

This chapter examines the principles of integrated pest management (IPM). IPM often is defined as a program that, in the context of the environment and the population dynamics of pests, uses many different techniques and strategies in as compatible a manner as possible to maintain pest population levels below those causing economic injury. The concept of IPM was initially developed in traditional agriculture, where the success of a crop was measured in economic yield (quantity and quality of produce). The key to such agricultural IPM programs has always been establishing consistent and reliable “economic thresholds” — pest populations at which the cost of expected crop damage exceeds the cost of implementing control. In turf, the expected economic benefit from reducing a pest population usually is much more difficult to measure than in agriculture. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the economic value of suppressing pest insects. As a result, “economic thresholds” in turf IPM usually are more accurately described as “tolerance levels,” or “action thresholds.” In a turf IPM program, the turf manager must determine what pest populations can be tolerated without incurring unacceptable damage. The basic components of an IPM approach include assessing a site, monitoring and predicting pest activity, setting thresholds, managing turf stress, identifying and optimizing management options, and evaluating the results.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document