Economic optimisation of Heliothis thresholds on cotton using a pest management model

Cox, P. G.; Marsden, S. G.; Brook, K. D.; Talpaz, Hovav; Hearn, A. B.

doi:10.1016/0308-521x(91)90084-n

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They rated production of an early maturing crop as a high priority. Subsequent work by Cox et al (1991), using the SIRATAC models, confirmed that placing a high value on earliness would significantly reduce optimal early season Heliothis thresholds. Furthermore, the underlying simulation models may not have been accurately tracking the compensation of the cotton crop in response to early insect damage (Brook et al, 1992a,b,c).…”

Section: Siratacmentioning

confidence: 92%

Some issues in the design of agricultural decision support systems

Cox

1996

Agricultural Systems

Self Cite

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Siratacmentioning

confidence: 92%

Some issues in the design of agricultural decision support systems

Cox

1996

Agricultural Systems

Self Cite

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Cotton, unlike other crops, has the ability to compensate to some degree from early-season damage sustained from pests such as thrips or nematodes [7,54]. There are a number of factors that influence the plant's ability to compensate, including but not limited to soil fertility, damage timing and severity, and environmental conditions [55][56][57]. Optimal environmental conditions over the course of the study aided in the plant's ability to compensate for the early-season stress of tobacco thrips and reniform nematode infestations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Tillage, At-Planting Treatment, and Nematicide on Tobacco Thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) and Reniform Nematode (Tylenchida: Hoplolamidae) Management in Cotton

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are numerous early-season pests of cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L., that are economically important, including tobacco thrips, Frankliniella fusca (Hinds), and reniform nematode, Rotylenchulus reniformis (Linford & Oliveira). Both of these species have the potential to reduce plant growth and delay crop maturity, ultimately resulting in reduced yields. A field study was conducted during 2015 and 2016 to evaluate the influence of tillage, at-planting insecticide treatment, and nematicide treatment on pest management, cotton development, and yield. Treatment factors consisted of two levels of tillage (no-tillage and conventional tillage); seven levels of at-planting insecticide treatments (imidacloprid, imidacloprid plus thiodicarb, thiamethoxam, thiamethoxam plus abamectin, acephate plus terbufos, aldicarb, and an untreated control); and two levels of nematicide (no nematicide and 1,3-dichloropropene). There were no significant interactions between tillage, at-planting insecticide treatment, or nematicide for any parameters nor was there a difference in the main effect of nematicide on thrips control or damage. The main effects of tillage and at-planting insecticide treatment impacted thrips densities and damage. The no-tillage treatments and aldicarb in-furrow or acephate seed treatment plus terbufos in-furrow significantly reduced thrips populations. Early-season plant response was impacted by tillage and at-planting insecticide treatment; however, that did not result in significant yield differences. In regard to nematicide treatment, the use of 1,3-dichloropropene resulted in lower yields than the untreated.

show abstract

“…Cotton plants subjected to loss of squares by insect pests during the early growing season subsequently abscised fewer squares and thus retained more fruit later in the growing season (Stewart and Sterling, 1989;Wilson, 1986). Many factors influence the ability of cotton to compensate for fruit loss by square removal (Stewart et al, 2001) such as soil fertility (Guo et al, 1985;Sheng and Ma, 1986), fruit age, injury time and severity, and weather conditions (Cox et al, 1990;Hearn and Rosa, 1984;Sadras, 1995). Cotton cultivars (Brook et al, 1992a, b;Mann et al, 1997;Mulrooney et al, 1992), planting density, and number of fruiting branches (Bi et al, 1991) are other key factors affecting the compensation capacity of cotton.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ability of Cotton on the Texas High Plains to Compensate for Pre-bloom Square Loss and Impact on Yield and Fiber Quality

Kerns¹,

Fromme²,

Baugh³

et al. 2016

JCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the High Plains region of Texas it is not unusual for cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) to suffer pre-bloom fruit loss from insect injury or abiotic factors. The objective of this study was to investigate cotton’s ability to compensate pre-bloom square loss and determine the impact this loss had on yield and fiber quality. Experiments were conducted in Lubbock, TX in 2009, 2010, and 2011 evaluating the impact of 0 to 100% pre-bloom square removal on cotton yield and fiber quality. During 2009 and 2010, cotton was able to either compensate up to 100% pre-bloom fruit loss, or suffered environmentally induced square loss resulting in limited boll carrying capacity that equalized yields and boll density across square removal treatments. If compensation was the reason for the lack of differences among treatments, the plants appear to compensate by producing more secondary or tertiary position fruit, as well as retaining additional mid- to upper-canopy fruit. However, evidence suggested that fiber quality may decline in some compensated bolls due to maturity issues. When environmental conditions were harsh, as in 2011, the cotton plant did not appear to be able to compensate fully for yield due to some pre-bloom fruit loss. This was most evident when an early-season termination event, such as a freeze, was simulated. Where cotton was allowed to mature fully, overcompensation was evident in 2011, with the greatest yields occurring at approximately 27% pre-bloom square removal. As with previous years, fiber quality in 2011 might be impacted adversely from compensated fruit.

show abstract

Economic optimisation of Heliothis thresholds on cotton using a pest management model

Cited by 9 publications

References 14 publications

Some issues in the design of agricultural decision support systems

Some issues in the design of agricultural decision support systems

Evaluation of Tillage, At-Planting Treatment, and Nematicide on Tobacco Thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) and Reniform Nematode (Tylenchida: Hoplolamidae) Management in Cotton

Ability of Cotton on the Texas High Plains to Compensate for Pre-bloom Square Loss and Impact on Yield and Fiber Quality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About