Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T13:34:53.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Heliothis armigera (Hb.) (Noctuidae) in Western Tanganyika. II.—Ecology and natural and chemical control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

W. Reed
Affiliation:
Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Wildlife, Western Research Centre, Ukiriguru, Mwanza, United Republic of Tanzania

Abstract

In Western Tanganyika, Heliothis armigera (Hb.) occurs as a major pest of cotton from February to April, but also feeds on many other host plants. The dry season (August–October) is spanned usually by diapause pupae, the moths emerging from which oviposit on a species of Gleome, on which the first generation develops, giving rise to adults in November–December. Larvae of the second generation feed mainly on early-sown maize, and it is usually those of the third and fourth generations that attack cotton. Two subsequent generations occur on a variety of host plants, including late cotton, maize and legumes. The increasing severity of the attacks of Heliothis on cotton has accompanied the replacement of sorghum by maize in recent years. Maize is not only an intermediate host on which Heliothis builds up before it attacks cotton but also a source of diapause pupae later in the season.

In studies of the natural control of H. armigera, based on regular sampling of eggs and larvae on host plants in the field, the most important parasites were the Tachinids Drino imberbis (Wied.) and Goniophthalmus halli Mesnil, and field observations suggested that a species of Chrysopa (Neuroptera) was the main predator. Increasing use of insecticides may be reducing the effectiveness of natural control. A polyhedral virus was common, mainly found in larvae of Heliothis feeding on maize. The control of Heliothis on cotton by cultural methods was attempted by banning early sowing of maize and by sowing strips of maize in cotton fields as trap crops. Neither method is practicable on a large scale. Early sowing of cotton appears to be the best means of withstanding attack by Heliothis, for the local strains of cotton are able to compensate by later growth even for a very heavy Heliothis attack, provided they are sown early enough to utilise the late rains.

In cotton that was subject to a heavy attack by H. armigera, five applications at 2-week intervals of DDT at 1 lb. per acre gave good control of the larvae and increased the yield from about 200 lb. seed cotton per acre to about 500 lb., the difference being mainly in the early pickings. The addition of toxaphene increased the yield, probably by controlling Earias spp., but neither toxaphene alone nor carbaryl appeared to control Heliothis. The numbers of eggs laid were higher on cotton treated with DDT than on untreated cotton.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brown, K. J. (1962). Agronomy and crop physiology.—Progr. Rep. Exp. Stas Emp. Cott. Gr. Corp. 1960–61 Tanganyika Lake Prov. p. 8.Google Scholar
Coaker, T. H. (1958). Experiments with a virus disease of the cotton bollworm Heliothis armigera (Hbn.)Ann. appl. Biol. 46 pp. 536541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coaker, T. H. (1959). Investigations on Heliothis armigera (Hb.) in Uganda.—Bull. ent. Res. 50 pp: 487506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, J. E., Newsom, L. D. & Roussel, J. S. (1956). Response of Heliothis zea (Boddie) and H. virescens to DDT and endrin in laboratory toxicity studies.—J. econ. Ent. 49 pp. 368371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, F. S. (1939). Investigations on the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera, Hübn. (obsoleta Fabr.) Part I.—The annual march of bollworm incidence and related factors.—Bull. ent. Res. 30 pp. 321338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, F. S. (1940). Investigations on the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera, Hübn. Part III. Relationships between oviposition and the flowering curves of food-plants.—Bull. ent. Res. 31 pp. 147177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, F. S., Hutchinson, H. & Marshall, J. (1938). Investigations on the American and red bollworms.—Progr. Rep. Exp. Stas Emp. Cott. Gr. Corp. 1936–37 p. 26.Google Scholar
Reed, W. (1965). Heliothis armigera (Hb.) (Noctuidae) in Western Tanganyika. I.—Biology, with special reference to the pupal stage.—Bull. ent. Res. 56 pp. 117125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tunstall, J. P. & Matthews, G. A. (1961). Cotton insect control recommendations for 1961–62 in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.—Rhod. agric. J. 58 pp. 289299.Google Scholar