|
Insecticide Trials for Control of Tarnished Plant Bug on Cotton
Abstract AbstractThis
bulletin reviews results from small-plot and laboratory
insecticide evaluations of tarnished plant bug, Lygus
lineolaris (Palisot De Beauvois), on cotton in
Mississippi from 1982 to 1997, as well as results from
trials completed in other states and published in "Arthropod
Management Tests." Efficacy of the pyrethroid class of
insecticides has declined over time in Mississippi and other
cotton-growing states since 1982. Organophosphates as a
class demonstrated a sharp decline in efficacy following
1985 in Mississippi and other states. Efficacy of the
carbamate class of insecticides fluctuated greatly over
time, but results did not indicate a continued decline in
efficacy. Two newer classes of insecticides --
chloronicotinyl and fiprole -- show promise for use in
tarnished plant bug management on cotton in Mississippi.
Summaries of a limited number of trials including adjuvants
indicate that efficacy of some organophosphates may be
increased by use of a buffering adjuvant. Tables of
Mississippi evaluations and summaries of individual
compounds, combinations, and rates are presented.
IntroductionThe
tarnished plant bug is an important cotton pest in the
mid-South region of the United States. In the annual cotton
insect loss reports published in the Proceedings of the
Beltwide Cotton conferences, tarnished plant bugs were
listed as the second most important cotton pests in
Mississippi during 1984 and 1989, and the third most
important in 1980, 1983, 1988, 1990, and 1991-1993.
According to Williams (1997), there were more foliar
applications of insecticide applied for tarnished plant bugs
in Mississippi during the 1996 growing year than there were
for the number-one pest group, the heliothentines.
Mississippi producers lost 22,512 bales of cotton during
1997 because of damage from tarnished plant bugs (Williams
1998), making it the third most important cotton insect pest
in 1997. Through the last 12 years, the number of
insecticide applications applied per acre has remained
relatively stable, while the cost of those insecticides has
risen sharply (Figure
1).
Increased crop loss has also been associated with the
tarnished plant bug during this period (Figure
2).
Losses attributed to the tarnished plant bug may well
continue to increase in the future as boll weevil and
budworm are reduced as threats to Mississippi cotton and
coincidental control of tarnished plant bug by treatments
targeting those two insect species declines.
Current trends in pesticide registration requirements by the EPA tend to reduce the profitability in maintaining insecticides in general, and the legislative undercurrent is that of eliminating some of the less environmentally friendly compounds altogether. In order to identify resistance trends and to provide both efficacy and economic considerations for decision making, it is important to historically review the efficacy of all insecticides used for tarnished plant bug control in Mississippi. Although new classes of insecticides have been developed that demonstrate efficacy against tarnished plant bug, they may not completely replace the current standards. One insecticide, imidacloprid, received registration for tarnished plant bug control on cotton in 1996. Fipronil, representing yet another class of chemistry that is effective against tarnished plant bug, is on the registration track. Ondoxicarb, a new compound under development, is also nearing registration on cotton for use against budworm and bollworm. It is reported to have efficacy against the tarnished plant bug. Other compounds yet to be named are under development by the chemical industry. For many years, organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides have been the insecticide classes of choice for control of the tarnished plant bug. Efficacy of organophosphates for plant bug control has fluctuated considerably over the years and within geographical locations of Mississippi (Snodgrass and Scott 1988). There is evidence that resistance of the pest to some compounds is less pronounced early in the season and is more pronounced late in the season after several insecticide applications have been made to the cotton crop (Snodgrass and Scott 1996; Holloway et. al. 1998). These trends are important in the overall program for management decisions in the future, and they emphasize the critical importance of maintaining an arsenal of functional control agents for this pest. This
bulletin is a review of the insecticide evaluations made for
tarnished plant bug control on cotton in Mississippi. It
also includes comments about pesticide evaluations in other
states that have been published in "Arthropod Management
Tests" (previously "Insecticide and Acaricide Tests") in
order to help establish a picture of the control of
tarnished plant bugs in cotton. Methods and MaterialsMost
of the tests summarized herein were applied on cotton
planted and managed as a commercial crop. Plots were
typically four to eight rows wide and 50-60 feet (15.2-18.3
m) long arranged with four rows of unsprayed cotton between
plots. Insecticides were typically applied with a
high-clearance plot spray tractor with nozzles spaced for
38-inch (96.5 cm) row spacing at 19-inch (48.3 cm) centers
(two nozzles per row) with one nozzle directly over the row
and one directly between rows. Evaluations were made 2 or
more days after application by sweep net, drop-cloth, or
visual sampling techniques. The carrier was always water,
and the volumetric application rate ranged from 5 to 10
gallons (18.9-37.8 L) per acre.
A few laboratory studies were completed in an electronically controlled spray chamber. Plant bugs were collected from wild flowers and confined on sprayed leaf disks in Petri dishes for these studies. In other studies, cloth sleeves were used to enclose the upper portions of treated plants and thus cage tarnished plant bugs on the plants. These sleeves were placed over the plants, secured with elastic fasteners, gathered at the point of fastening, and completely covered with aluminum foil before spraying. After the spray application was dry, the aluminum foil was removed. Then, each sleeve was extended, 10 tarnished plant bugs were placed inside, and the upper end was closed with an elastic fastener or string. These plants were cut after 24 hours and searched for survivors. Plant bugs used in sleeve-cage and spray-chamber trials were usually collected from wild host plants by use of sweep nets. Collections were usually made the day before the trial, and plant bugs were held on wild blooms or green beans overnight. To make observations of trends and general comparisons of results between insecticide classes, years, or individual insecticides, the mean insect count for each treatment in each test was normalized against the mean insect count occurring in the untreated or water-treated check plots. The mean insect count from the treated plot was divided by that of the untreated (Efficacy Ratio = Treated/Untreated). This produced an efficacy ratio of 0 for 100% control and 1 for no control. Percent control was then computed by subtracting the efficacy ratio from 1, and multiplying the result by 100 [Percent control = (1 - efficacy ratio) * 100]. Many comparisons made with the normalized data assume that materials tested for tarnished plant bug control were tested at optimum or nearly optimum rates. This assumption allows comparison of insecticide classes or study of trends within an insecticide class over time; however, a few trials used ovicidal or low rates that would lower the means in these summaries. Many test parameters that could significantly affect original test results are ignored in such comparisons, and this should be kept in mind while considering these results. These include temperature during the trial, wind turbulence during application, type of spray equipment used, rainfall or lack of rainfall during the trial, number of samples taken after application, number of applications of insecticide, and other factors. One factor that could significantly affect normalized results -- the time between spray application and evaluation, or days after treatment (DAT) -- will be discussed more fully in the results section. Typically, 2-3 days lapsed between spray application and evaluation, but occasionally 2 or more applications were made during a trial. For our purposes, season-long trials with many applications were restricted to fewer than 12 days after spray application so that comparisons with other tests would be more acceptable. This essentially limited the number of spray applications to two or fewer. ResultsThe
number of plant bugs per sample for Mississippi during
1993-1997 on untreated plots averaged 14.4 (SD=26.1).
Out-of-state trials published in "Arthropod Management
Tests" averaged 15.4 (SD=23.1) insects per untreated sample.
The 1995 season proved to be a high-plant-bug season, and
the untreated plots averaged 24.2 insects per sample, nearly
twice as many as other years (Figure
3).
Sampling differences between trials were not identified in
the results since the initial comparison of treated vs.
untreated plots was always within trials. Thus, we assume
that the sampling was adequate to effectively identify
efficacy, regardless of the evaluation method used (i.e.
visual, sweep-net, or drop-cloth). Table 1 lists the
compounds used in the trials. Summaries of insecticide class
results are reported in Appendix A. Results of individual
Mississippi trials are summarized in Appendix B.
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
General ResultsFigure
4
illustrates the overall efficacy of all classes of compounds
tested in Mississippi since 1982. Based on these evaluations
of the compounds tested, only the newer compounds averaged
above 60% control. These included a fiprole (fipronil), as
well as a chloronicotinyl compound (imidacloprid) and a
pymethrozine. Over time and insecticides, the fiprole and
pymethrozine compounds appear to have provided the best
results. These newer compounds have not been in use long
enough for the selection of resistant plant bug populations
and hence demonstrate high efficacy. The values for
organophosphates in Figure
4
include compounds that demonstrated little efficacy toward
the tarnished plant bug in these studies (ethyl parathion,
azinphosmethyl, and methyl parathion), when in reality
several organophosphates were very effective
(Figure
11).
Organophosphates, pyrethroids, and the chloronicotinyl
insecticides were approximately equivalent in efficacy when
all compounds and rates were considered. The addition of an
adjuvant appears to increase efficacy somewhat overall
(based on a few insecticide/adjuvant entries), but the
insecticidal mixtures tested provided only about 60%
control, similar to organophosphates and pyrethroids. The
organochlorine compound endosulfan averaged over 40%
control; however, the standard error (SE) was broad,
indicating that the compound was not consistently
efficacious. The formamidine insecticide tested
(chlordimiform) was not effective against plant bugs and is
no longer registered for use on cotton.
Pyrethroids ResultsThere
are clear indications of reduced efficacy over time within
the pyrethroid and organophosphate classes. Pyrethroids
evaluated in 1982 provided 94% control, compared with 73% in
1986 and an average of about 56% over the last 5 years
(Figure
5).
Pyrethroids, introduced to the cotton market in the late
1970s and early 1980s, were extremely effective
broad-spectrum insecticides used extensively for bollworm
and budworm control. Tarnished plant bug resistance to
pyrethroids would therefore be expected and has been
documented
(Holloway et al. 1998; Snodgrass and Scott 1996). A decline
of pyrethroid efficacy is not evident from the combined data
from all other cotton-growing states (excluding
Mississippi), as published in "Arthropod Management Tests"
(Figure
6).
Note that tests for efficacy against the tarnished plant bug
are lacking in other states after 1994. Data for all states
(including Mississippi) for 1981-1997 indicate a general
trend over time for decreased pyrethroid efficacy
(Figure
7).
Because of this trend, the summary of individual pyrethroid
efficacy data (Figure
8)
may be misleading. High values for permethrin and
fluvalinate in Figure
8
are probably results of testing during the early years of
pyrethroid use before plant bugs developed resistance.
Danitol (fenpropathrin) has never been registered for use on
Mississippi cotton, but it has seen use in other states for
silver leaf white fly control.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Organophosphate ResultsOrganophosphates
have demonstrated a rather stable efficacy against plant
bugs in the last 5 years in Mississippi. Although an average
of 92 samples indicated 80% control of tarnished plant bugs
by organophosphates in 1982, the average for trials
conducted from 1982-1997 was 57%. Figure
9
summarizes all the organophosphate data over time for all
trials for Mississippi without regard to DAT, number of
applications, or insect stage of growth. Similarly,
Figure
10
summarizes the data for all states. It is obvious that a
great deal of variation in the data occurs from year to year
and that there is a general reduction in efficacy in data
beginning in 1986. Some of the variation in these general
data summaries is undoubtedly related to the number of days
after treatment at which sampling occurred. Organophosphates
tested in Mississippi are summarized in Figure
11.
Some compounds tested in Mississippi provided average
control of more than 50%: acephate, dimethoate, malathion,
dicrotophos, phosphamidon, monocrotophos (monocrotophos is
no longer available for use on cotton), and profenofos.
Efficacy of malathion was boosted to about 95% control in
one instance by the addition of a buffer. Although ULV
malathion was not tested in the small-plot trials,
observations made during boll weevil eradication in East
Mississippi indicate that it is very effective in tarnished
plant bug control. Results for out-of-state studies are
shown in Figure
12.
Dimethoate and malathion indicate good activity on tarnished
plant bugs in the out-of-state data.
![]() ![]() ![]()
Carbamate ResultsFigures
13
and 14
reflect overall efficacy summaries over time for Mississippi
and out of state, respectively. These figures indicate that
carbamates have not been very effective in controlling the
tarnished plant bug. Results have varied drastically from
year to year, and the only outstanding evaluation occurred
in a 1995 Mississippi test using carbofuran. In that test,
mortality was nearly 100%, a result of a single trial and
single application. From 1-7 DAT, control with carbofuran
ranged from none to 97% after a single application. Other
carbamates evaluated in Mississippi were thiodicarb and
oxamyl. Methomyl was evaluated outside Mississippi,
resulting in an overall mean percent control of 59%.
Fenoxycarb (an insect growth regulator), pirimicarb, and
mexicarbate were also evaluated. Mexicarbate was
approximately as effective as methomyl (about 70% control).
However, mexicarbate and pirimicarb are not labeled for use
on cotton in the United States. Fenoxycarb and pirimicarb
were essentially ineffective. Application of methomyl with
an oil appears to increase efficacy above that of methomyl
alone. Addition of the organosilicate adjuvant Kinetic to
oxamyl did not improve efficacy, and plots ended with more
adults in the oxamyl-Kinetic plots than in the untreated
check.
![]()
Miscellaneous Class ResultsFour
additional classes of insecticides were evaluated in
Mississippi. These classes each contain a single compound
that is registered or awaiting registration for use on
cotton. Of these, imidacloprid (a nicotinyl compound) and
fipronil (a fiprole) are effective in tarnished plant bug
control. Both classes provided good control in these tests,
with relatively narrow standard error bands, indicating
consistent efficacy within and across evaluations. Few
evaluations of these compounds from other states were
published in "Arthropod Management Tests" during the years
of this review. Hence, the data for these four classes for
all states are summarized in Figure
15
and represent primarily Mississippi evaluations. Results of
the fiprole (fipronil) and chloronicotinyl (imidacloprid)
compounds in 1997 (Figure
15)
are unexpectedly low. By restricting DAT to less than 5
days, the mean percent control by fipronil is increased
drastically to more than 80% (Figure
16);
however, 1996 results for imidacloprid were somewhat
reduced, and the standard error increased by that
restriction. This finding fits the concept that imidacloprid
may take a longer time for mortality to occur than was the
case with organophosphates or pyrethroids. Figure
17
indicates reduced efficacy relative to increased DAT for
fipronil and imidacloprid. Although this information is
compounded with various test or sampling parameters, it
seems apparent that optimum DAT should be less than 3 days.
Addition of Kinetic, a silicon-based additive, to
imidacloprid gave increased control in 1993 evaluations in
Mississippi, but it did not positively affect efficacy in
1994 or 1995. Overall efficacy of imidacloprid with or
without Kinetic was about 60%. The majority of the trials
containing imidacloprid were conducted with a single
application of insecticide.
Endosulfan,
the only organochlorine evaluated, was inconsistent in its
results, resulting in a large standard error
(Figure
15).
Because it is strictly a contact insecticide, its efficacy
would be highly dependent on good coverage of the plant
during application. Thus, endosulfan tests are perhaps more
sensitive to application parameters such as wind, droplet
size, and volumetric application rate. The data for the 1993
and 1994 evaluations were published as trial means,
indicating that an average of more than one post spray
sample is included in the mean. Mixed Compound ResultsEfficacies
of various mixtures were evaluated over years and rates
(Figure
18).
With the exception of the chlorpyrifos-tralomethrin and
tralomethrin-amitraz mixtures, which include a pyrethroid,
none of the spray mixtures were significantly
efficacious.
SummaryBased
on these evaluations, there is no compound currently
registered for tarnished plant bug management on cotton that
provides excellent control. It is important to realize that
small-plot insecticide evaluations against a highly mobile
pest such as the plant bug may be negatively biased because
of immigrating insects from surrounding cotton during the
period of pesticide evaluation. Insecticides used in
field-sized applications might actually provide much better
control than indicated in this report. In addition, the
number of applications and the DAT prior to sampling are
often critical parameters in pesticide evaluations for the
tarnished plant bug.
Since sprays for boll weevil management secondarily reduced plant bug numbers, the anticipated absence of boll weevils in Mississippi may cause plant bugs to assume greater importance as a cotton pest. In the past, applications of pyrethroids targeting lepidopteran larvae on cotton also reduced tarnished plant bug numbers. Because of broad acceptance of cotton with the Bollgard TM gene and the lower probability for pyrethroid treatment on transgenic cotton, a method to selectively control the tarnished plant bug is becoming a necessity. A search for a bacterial toxin that will affect plant bugs is underway, and work with pheromones and other behavior-related avenues are being explored. Such work might lead to transgenic cotton plants with a gene that produces bug-toxic proteins similar to the budworm-toxic proteins produced by the Bollgard TM gene. It might also lead to attractants or insect growth regulators to selectively manage the pest in cotton. Such control methods are far in the future, however, and we must find ways to effectively manage the pest in cotton with the least disruption to beneficial insects in Mississippi cotton. ReferencesSources
Reporting Evaluations in Mississippi
Holloway,
J.W., B.R. Leonard, J.A. Ottea, J.H. Pankey and J.B.
Graves. 1998. Insecticide resistance and synergism of
pyrethoid toxicity in the tarnished plant bug, Lygus
lineolaris. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., Memphis, TN.
pp. 947-949.
McLaughlin, J.R. 1998. The status of Lygus pheromone research. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., Memphis, TN. pp. 938-940. Merideth, W.R. Jr. 1998. The role of host plant resistance in Lygus management. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., Memphis, TN. pp. 940-944. Ruberson, J.R. 1998. The role of biological control in Lygus spp. management. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., Memphis, TN. pp. 933-938. Scott, W.P., G.L. Snodgrass, and J.W. Smith. 1988. Tarnished plant bug (Hemiptera: Miridae) and predaceous arthropod populations in commercially produced selected nectaried and nectariless cultivars of cotton. J. Entomol. Sci. 23(3):280-286. Snodgrass, G.L. and W.P. Scott. 1988. Tolerance of the tarnished plant bug to dimethoate and acephate in different areas of the Mississippi Delta. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., Memphis, TN. pp. 294-295. Snodgrass, G.L. and W.P. Scott. 1996. Seasonal changes in pyrethroid resistance in tarnished plant bug populations in the Mississippi Delta. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., Memphis, TN. pp. 777-779. Williams, M.R. 1997. Cotton insect losses - 1996. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., Memphis, TN. pp. 834-853. Williams,
M.R. 1998. Cotton insect losses - 1997 compiled for
National Cotton Council. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf.,
Memphis, TN. pp. 904-925. (State
of trial location is indicated parenthetically following the
reference.)
Bannister, J.M., and G.L. Lentz. 1994. Efficacy of insecticides on tarnished plant bug in cotton, 1993. Arthropod Management Tests 19:219-220. (Tennessee) Bannister, J.M., G.L. Lentz, and N.B. Austin. 1995. Efficacy of insecticides on tarnished plant bug in cotton, 1994. Arthropod Management Tests 20:193. (Tennessee) Dacus, J.S., N.P. Tugwell, and R.D. Bagwell. 1991. Evaluation of tarnished plant bug control with dimethoate and plex (sticker-extender), 1990. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 16:180-181. (Arkansas) Dacus, J.S., N.P. Tugwell, and S. Stringer. 1990. Plant bug mortality in cages, 1989. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 15:225. (Arkansas) Gallaher, M., and E. Kowalski. 1983. Insecticide control of plant bugs and effect on beneficial spp, 1982. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 8:191. (Missouri) Gallaher, M.L., and E.L. Kowalski. 1983. Insecticide control demonstration of plant bugs and effect on beneficial spp, 1983. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 8:262. (Missouri) Graham, L.C., and M.J. Gaylor. 1986. Effect of selected insecticides on tarnished plant bugs and predaceous insects in cotton, 1985. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 11:276. (Alabama) Graham, L.C., and M.J. Gaylor. 1988. Effect of selected insecticides on tarnished plant bugs and predaceous insects in cotton, 1986. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 13:242. (Alabama) Graves, J.B., B.R. Leonard, and S. Micinski. 1988. Evaluation of selected insecticides on tarnished plant bugs, cotton fleahoppers, and beneficial arthropods, 1987. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 13:243. (Louisiana) Gross, W.L., M.J. Gaylor, and P.E. Estes. 1982. Residual toxicity studies of eight insecticides on tarnished plant bug, 1981 (laboratory test). Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 7:157. (Alabama) Langston, W.C., and M.F. Schuster. 1986. Control of tarnished plant bugs in cotton, 1986. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 11:246. (Texas) Langston, W.C., and M.F. Schuster. 1989. Cotton pest control, 1987. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 14:241-242. (Texas) Langston, W.C., and M.F. Schuster. 1990. Early season insecticide control with in-furrow insecticides, 1988. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 15:239-240. (Texas) Langston, W.C., and M.F.Schuster. 1981. Mirid control with in-furrow and spray applied insecticides and the ecological impact on natural enemies, Dallas, TX, 1979. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 6:121. (Texas) Lentz, G.L. 1981. Insecticide treatments for plant bug control and their effect on beneficials, 1980. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 6:124-125. (Tennessee) Lentz, G.L. 1982. Insecticide treatments for plant bug control and their effects on beneficials, 1981. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 7:160. (Tennessee) Leonard, B.R., J.B. Graves, A.M. Pavloff, and G. Burris. 1987. Evaluation of selected insecticides on tarnished plant bugs, cotton fleahoppers, and beneficial arthropods, 1986. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 12:233. (Louisiana) Leonard, B.R., J.B. Graves, A.M. Pavloff, and G. Burris. 1989. Activity of selected insecticides, 1988. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 14:248. (Louisiana) Maredia, K.M., and N.P. Tugwell. 1984. Tarnished plant bug control, 1982. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 9:271. (Arkansas) Maredia, K.M., and N.P. Tugwell. 1984. Tarnished plant bug control, 1983. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 9:272. (Arkansas) Martin, S.H., J.B. Graves, C.A. White, B.R. Leonard, and P.A. Clay. 1994. Control of boll weevil and tarnished plant bug in cotton with selected insecticides, 1993. Arthropod Management Tests 19:232-233. (Louisiana) Martin, S.H., J.B. Graves, C.A. White, B.R. Leonard, and P.A. Clay. 1994. Efficacy of selected pyrethroid insecticides against boll weevil and tarnished plant bug in cotton, 1993. Arthropod Management Tests 19:233. (Louisiana) Micinski, S., B.R. Leonard, and J.B. Graves. 1990. Activity of selected insecticides against arthropods in cotton, 1989. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 15:253. (Louisiana) Micinski, S., K.T. Nguyen, B.R. Leonard, and J. B. Graves. 1989. Ovo-Larvicidal activity of selected insecticides, 1988. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 14:254. (Louisiana) Micinski, S., K.T. Nguyen, and J.B. Graves. 1988. Yield Enhancement, 1989. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 13:255. (Louisiana) Micinski, S., M.L. Kirby, and J.B. Graves. 1991. Efficacy of selected insecticides for plant bug control, 1990. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 16:197. (Louisiana) Mincinski, S. 1983. Insecticide treatments for tarnished plant bug and cotton flea hopper control, 1982. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 8:195. (Louisiana) Muehleisen, D.P., and M.J. Gaylor. 1981. Cotton, tarnished plant bug control, 1980. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 6:157. (Alabama) Muehleisen, D.P., and M.J. Gaylor. 1982. Tarnished plant bug control on cotton, 1980. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 7:161. (Alabama) Mullins, W., and M.L. Gallaher. 1982. Insecticide control of plant bugs and effect on beneficial spp., 1981. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 7:162. (Missouri) Pankey, J.H., B.R. Leonard, C.A. White, and J.B. Graves. 1995. Control of boll weevil and tarnished plant bug in cotton with selected insecticides, 1994. Arthropod Management Tests 20:208-209. (Louisiana) Schuster, M.F., and W.C. Langston. 1987. Tarnished plant bug control, 1985. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 12:252. (Texas) Wells, D., J.R. Griffin, and N.P. Tugwell. 1988. Tarnished plant bug mortality, 1987. Insecticide & Acaricide Tests 13:263-264. (Arkansas) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Visit: DAFVM || USDA Search our Site || Need more information about this subject? Last Modified: Tuesday, 09-Aug-05 13:18:46 URL: http://msucares.com/pubs/bulletins/b1083frames.htm Mississippi State University is an equal opportunity institution. Recommendations on this web site do not endorse any commercial products or trade names. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||