National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1981. Cotton Boll Weevil: An Evaluation of USDA Programs : a Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18570.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1981. Cotton Boll Weevil: An Evaluation of USDA Programs : a Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18570.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1981. Cotton Boll Weevil: An Evaluation of USDA Programs : a Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18570.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1981. Cotton Boll Weevil: An Evaluation of USDA Programs : a Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18570.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1981. Cotton Boll Weevil: An Evaluation of USDA Programs : a Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18570.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1981. Cotton Boll Weevil: An Evaluation of USDA Programs : a Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18570.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1981. Cotton Boll Weevil: An Evaluation of USDA Programs : a Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18570.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1981. Cotton Boll Weevil: An Evaluation of USDA Programs : a Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18570.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1981. Cotton Boll Weevil: An Evaluation of USDA Programs : a Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18570.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1981. Cotton Boll Weevil: An Evaluation of USDA Programs : a Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18570.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1981. Cotton Boll Weevil: An Evaluation of USDA Programs : a Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18570.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1981. Cotton Boll Weevil: An Evaluation of USDA Programs : a Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18570.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1981. Cotton Boll Weevil: An Evaluation of USDA Programs : a Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18570.
×
Page R13

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Cotton Boll Weevil: An Evaluation of USDA Programs A Report Prepared, ty Jtye^ ,.x. ~P ro r< r £ <* i Committee on Cotton Insect Management Board on Agriculture and Renewable Resources Commission on Natural Resources National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1981 AUG 3 1 1981 LIBRARY

e, / NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the Committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee con- sisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in l9l6 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. The Council oper- ates in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy under the authority of its congressional charter of l863, which establishes the Academy as a private, nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation. The Council has become the principal operat- ing agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in the conduct of their services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communi- ties. It is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine were established in l964 and l970, respectively, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences. This study was supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

COMMITTEE ON ALTERNATIVE PROGRAMS FOR BELTWIDE COTTON INSECT MANAGEMENT Gordon E. Guyer (Chairman), Michigan State University L. Don Anderson, Cotton Hybrids, Inc. DeRyee A. Crossley, Jr., University of Georgia Dick D. Davis, New Mexico State University Harry E. Gallaway, Nevada State Department of Agriculture, retired Robert L. Metcalf, University of Illinois Arnold A. Paulsen, Iowa State University Earle S. Raun, Pest Management Consultants, Inc. David E. Reichle, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Harold T. Reynolds, University of California, Riverside Richard J. Sauer, University of Minnesota Consultants Carter M. Harrison, Michigan State University Dean L. Haynes, Michigan State University Staff Philip Ross, Executive Secretary Selma P. Baron, Staff Officer Sheridan E. Caldwell, Administrative Secretary Mary L. Sutton, Administrative Assistant James E. Tavares, Senior Staff Officer iii

BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES George K. Davis (Chairman), University of Florida, retired Neville P. Clarke (Vice Chairman), Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station William L. Brown, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. Robert O. Herrmann, Pennsylvania State University Minoru Hironaka, University of Idaho Laurence R. Jahn, Wildlife Management Institute Bernard S. Schweigert, University of California, Davis E. Wayne Shell, Auburn University George R. Staebler, Weyerhaeuser Co., retired Champ B. Tanner, University of Wisconsin John F. Timmons, Iowa State University Paul E. Waggoner, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven Philip Ross, Executive Secretary COMMISSION ON NATURAL RESOURCES Robert M. White (Chairman), University Corporation for Atmospheric Research Timothy Atkeson, Steptoe & Johnson Stanley I. Auerbach, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Neville P. Clarke, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station Norman A. Copeland, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., retired George K. Davis, University of Florida, retired Joseph L. Fisher, The Wilderness Society Edward D. Goldberg, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Charles J. Mankin, Oklahoma Geological Survey Norton Nelson, New York University Medical Center Daniel A. Okun, University of North Carolina David Pimentel, Cornell University John E. Tilton, Pennsylvania State University E. Bright Wilson, Harvard University; ex officio Wallace D. Bowman, Executive Director iv

PREFACE The United States is a major world supplier of cotton. U.S. production of cotton lint plus seed was valued at $5.l billion in l979 and $4.7 billion in l980. Cotton is the fourth most valuable crop in the United States after corn, soybean, and wheat. Because it is grown only in the South, it represents only 6.8 to 8.l percent of the total crop receipts for the United States. For the l4 cotton- producing states, however, it represents about l8 to 20 percent of the total crop receipts. The cotton crop is vulnerable to attack from several insects everywhere, but especially in the humid Southeast. The cotton boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis, attacks developing cotton flowers (pin- head squares) and young cotton bolls and causes them to fall off the plant. Insecticides used to control the boll weevil have an effect on other insects found on cotton as well, and as a result work against modern insect pest strategies directed toward encouraging natural predators and parasites of the cotton insects. The cotton boll weevil entered the United States from Mexico in the late l800s and is now a key pest in about half the cotton acreage in the United States, seriously infesting 7.3 million acres of a total l4 million. It is a marginal pest on an additional l.7 million acres. For l970-l972, boll weevils cost cotton farmers nearly $260 million each year in direct crop loss plus control costs (SEA l98l). In l958 the National Cotton Council at their annual convention recommended government action to eradicate the boll weevil. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) set up a Working Group on Boll Weevil Research Programs to respond to this recommendation, and the Working Group proposed that an interdisciplinary research laboratory be established to concentrate on new approaches to boll weevil con- trol. In l962 the USDA established the Boll Weevil Research Laboratory in Mississippi State, Mississippi. By l968, USDA scientists concluded that boll weevil control technology had advanced sufficiently to justify a field trial of the feasibility of eradication, and a boll weevil eradication test was

undertaken in southwest Mississippi. The test area selected was considered to be one of the roost difficult areas in which to achieve eradication of the boll weevil. The data from the two-year test completed in l973 did not conclusively demonstrate the feasibility of eradicating the boll weevil. A second large-scale eradication trial was recommended for either northwest Texas or North Carolina and Virginia. In l978, two large-scale trials, the Boll Weevil Eradication (BWE) trial in Virginia and North Carolina and the Opti- mum Pest Management (OPM) trial in Mississippi, were initiated by the USDA to assess which boll weevil/cotton insect management system would be most effective, economical, and environmentally acceptable if implemented beltwide, throughout the cotton-producing areas in the United States. The USDA appointed four evaluation teams to review the data from the BWE and OPM trials. Teams of economists, biologists, and environmentalists and an overall evaluation team were asked to evaluate the data from the two trials, along with data from additional sources, and to assess and compare the impact of different pest control strategies across the Cotton Belt. The reports prepared by these evaluation teams constitute the USDA's evaluations of beltwide boll weevil/cotton insect management programs. In the winter of l978-l979, USDA asked the Board on Agricul- ture and Renewable Resources of the National Research Council to set up a committee of scientists with expertise in program evaluation and technical expertise in cotton production, entomology, economics, ecology, and statistical analysis to study the conduct and results of the two trials that had just gotten under way and to review the USDA's evaluation team reports that were to assess the practicability of alternative programs for beltwide cotton insect management. The NRC Committee was to consider several cotton insect management programs including current insect control (CIC) programs practiced by cotton producers as implemented by the Cooperative Extension Service, USDA, grower organizations, and private consultants; the OPM trial in Mississippi; the BWE program in Virginia and North Carolina; and other programs including combinations of those mentioned above. At the conclusion of the trials and the overall evaluation, the NRC Committee was asked to appraise the technical effectiveness of the BWE and OPM trials in relation to alternative pest control options and to assess the biological, economic, and environmental implications of implementing the BWE, OPM, and alternative programs in boll-weevil-infested areas of the Cotton Belt. In undertaking its task the NRC Committee visited the BWE trial in Virginia and North Carolina and the OPM trial in Mississippi and talked with the program management staff, USDA Cooperative Extension Service and research specialists, growers in the programs, and pest control consultants. We met with entomologists from the cotton- producing states as well as private pest control consultants. Mem- bers of the NRC Committee also attended meetings of the USDA Interagency Working Group, the environmental, biological, and economic evaluation teams of USDA, the Southern Plant Board, and the vi

National Plant Board, and meetings on pheromone trapping technology and the Boll Weevil Sterility Program. During the course of the study, I, as chairman, met with the USDA Boll Weevil Policy Group to discuss the status of the Committee's activities and their concerns about certain aspects of the field trials and evaluation plans. A major difficulty we encountered was the delays in availability of the final evaluation reports from the USDA evaluation teams. Without these final reports we could not proceed effectively with our review and assessment. The final biological, environmental, and economic reports from USDA were delayed three to six months, and the crucial USDA overall evaluation team report was delayed three months—from February 20 until May l9, l98l. We accommodated these delays by adjusting to a more intensive review schedule. The USDA has also prepared an Executive Overview, dated May 20, l98l. While we approve the efforts in this additional overview to identify and explore new and improved alternatives, these new scenarios cannot be evaluated on the basis of the data from the BWE and OPM trials. Special appreciation is extended to those who coordinated the research in the trial programs for their cooperation and efforts to maintain appropriate communication with the NRC Committee. Kenneth R. Keller, USDA Overall Program Coordinator, provided valuable assistance as USDA's liaison to the NRC Committee. We wish to express our appreciation to him. We also wish to thank Philip Ross, Executive Secretary of BARR, staff officers James E. Tavares and Selma P. Baron, and secretaries Mary Lou Sutton and Sheridan E. Caldwell for their assistance. Dean L. Haynes and Carter M. Harrison served as consultants and helped in the preparation of this report. We are grateful for their assistance. The content of the report, however, and the views expressed in it remain the sole responsibility of the NRC Committee. Gordon E. Guyer, Chairman Committee on Alternative Programs for Beltwide Cotton Insect Management vii

CONTENTS SUMMARY l Conclusions 3 Overview 3 USDA Biological Evaluation Team Report 3 USDA Economic Evaluation Team Report 4 USDA Environmental Evaluation Team Report 5 Operational and Sociological Considerations 6 Recommendation 7 CHAPTER l: COTTON CULTURE AND COTTON INSECT PESTS 8 Cotton and Cotton Culture in the United States 8 Cotton Production 9 The Ecosystem Concept l6 The Cotton Agroecosystem l7 Cotton Insects l7 Key Cotton Insect Pests l8 Beneficial Arthropods l8 CHAPTER 2: COTTON INSECT CONTROL 20 History of Insecticide Use on Cotton 20 The Arsenical Period 20 The Organochlorine Period 2l The Organophosphorus Period 22 The Current Period 24 Overall Chemical Use 24 Resistance of Cotton Pests to Insecticides 24 Holistic Pest Control and Pesticide Use 28 Recent Developments in Cotton Insect Control 28 Plant Breeding and Cultural Management of Cotton 28 Breeding Strategies for Host Plant Resistance (HPR).... 30 Short Season Varieties of Cotton 30 Host Plant Resistance Against the Boll Weevil 3l Host Plant Resistance Against Other Key Pests 32 ix

The Prospects for Host Plant Resistance (HPR) 34 Pheromones of Cotton Insect Pests 34 Boll Weevil 35 Pink Bollworm 37 Male Sterilization 37 Dif lubenzuron 39 Degradative Pathways ....40 Persistence 40 Toxicology 4l CHAPTER 3: PUBLICLY SUPPORTED PEST CONTROL 42 Legislative Historical Background 42 Cotton Insect Pests 45 CHAPTER 4: DESCRIPTION OF THE OPM AND BWE TRIALS AND OPTIONS FOR FUTURE PEST MANAGEMENT 52 The OPM Trial 52 The BWE Trial 53 Alternate Pest Control Strategies for Use in the Cotton Belt . 55 OPM Options 55 The BWE Option 56 CHAPTER 5: APPRAISAL OF THE OPM AND BWE TRIALS AND PLANS FOR THEIR BELTWIDE APPLICATION 58 Introduction 58 Biological Considerations 60 Homogeneity of Eradication Trial Versus Heterogeneity of Cotton Belt 60 Pheromone Traps 62 Use of Traps in the OPM Trial. 63 Use of Traps in the BWE Trial 63 Pheromone Traps: Some Unanswered Questions. . 63 Migration and Dispersal of the Boll Weevil 65 Role of Sterile Males in Eradication 67 Effect of Boll Weevil Eradication on Biological Control of Heliothis 68 Insecticide Use 68 Host Plant Resistance (HPR) 69 Beneficial Arthropods 7l Biological Consequences of Failure 7l Biological Consequences of Success 73 Economic Considerations 74 Consumer Benefits 75 Economic Consequences of Program Failure 78 Evaluation of Program Costs 78 Environmental Considerations 79 Monitoring the Environmental Effects of OPM, CIC, and BWE Trials 80 Generic Environmental Issues 80

Environmental Toxicology and Health 82 Environmental Quality 94 Endangered and Threatened Species 95 Unresolved Issues 95 Conclusions 97 Sociological Implications l02 Optimum Pest Management l02 Pest Management Associations and Cooperatives l02 Current Insect Control (CIC) l03 APPENDIX A: USDA DEFINITIONS OF ALTERNATIVE BELTWIDE COTTON INSECT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OPTIONS l04 APPENDIX B: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE REPORTS EVALUATED. .l08 APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE USDA ECONOMIC EVALUATION, by Arnold Paulsen ll0 REFERENCES l20 xi

FIGURES l.l Actual and projected levels of cotton's share of the total fiber market l0 l.2 Actual and projected annual average growth rates of world fiber use l0 l.3 Actual and projected annual average growth rates of cotton use ll l.4 Actual and projected annual average growth rates of cotton production l2 l.5 U.S. harvested cotton acreage by regions l5 5.l Cotton distribution in the boll weevil-infested area of the Cotton Belt divided into zones of program operations 72 xiii

TABLES l.l Average cotton acreage, yield and production l975-l979 for 10 major cotton producing states and the total for the United States l4 2.1 Measures of susceptibility and resistance of Heliothis bollworm and budworm to various insecticides 23 2.2 Use of insecticides on cotton in the United States, l964-l976 25 2.3 Multiple insecticide resistance in insect and mite pests of cotton in the United States 27 2.4 Sex pheromones of insect pests of cotton 36 3.l Successful plant pest eradication programs from conterminous United States, APHIS . 46 5.1 Host plant resistance (HPR) factors and their relative effect on cotton yield and susceptibility to key cotton insect pests 70 5.2 Present values of benefits and costs for alternative boll weevil management programs 76 5.3 Mean values of insecticide residue in ppm in cropland soils, 1969 83 5.4 Average concentrations of insecticide in the air in ng/n»3 in suburban areas in the United States, 1972 and l977 84 5.5 Average insecticide residue levels in woodcock wing muscle tissue (ppm), l97l-l972 86 5.6 Average insecticide residue levels in human adipose tissues, l968. ............................ .87 xv

5.7 Cotton insecticide data for OPM sample fields in Panola County, Mississippi 89 5.8 Cotton insecticide data for CIC-MS sample fields in pontotoc County, Mississippi 90 5.9 Avian toxicity data for selected insecticides 9l 5.l0 Acute mammalian toxicity data for selected insecticides ... .92 5.ll Aquatic toxicity data for selected insecticides 93 5.l2 Overall index ("Q" index) for OPM, BWE, and CIC, l978-l980, as calculated by the USDA Environmental Evaluation Team ... .96 5.l3 Factors which need to be considered in developing a beltwide environmental assessment of boll weevil eradication from cotton production regions of the United States 98 5.l4 Example of extant data resources available for a beltwide environmental assessment of boll weevil eradication from cotton production regions of the United States 99 xvi

Next: SUMMARY »
Cotton Boll Weevil: An Evaluation of USDA Programs : a Report Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!