Progress Report Series No. 105
Agricultural Experiment Station
AUBURN UNIVERSITY
R. Dennis Rouse, Director
Auburn, Alabama
A Pest Management System For
Cotton Insect Pest Suppression
By F. R. Gilliland, Jr.,1 W. R. Lambert,
2
J. R. Weeks,
2
and R. L. Davis
2
RECOGNITION OF THE PROBLEMS associated with ex-
cessive insecticide use for cotton insect control, such
as insecticide resistance, high production costs, and
environmental contamination, has prompted research
for more ecologically sound techniques for control-
ling insect pests, particularly the boll weevil, An-
thonomus grandis Boheman and the bollworm com-
plex, Heliothis spp. Brazzel (2) originated the con-
cept of diapause control, in which insecticides are
applied in the autumn to reduce overwintering boll
weevil populations. The identification and synthesis of
a male-produced aggregating pheromone suggested
by Tumlinson and others (21) and the development of
traps baited with male weevils or the synthetic phe-
romone by Cross (5), Hardee (7,8,9), Leggett and oth-
ers (16) made it possible to trap many of the spring-
emerging overwintered boll weevils before they
could infest cotton fields. Hopkins and Taft (10)
and later Cowan (4), Coppedge (3), Ridgeway and
others (19) reported that the systemic insecticide
aldicarb (Temik) was very effective against popula-
tions of overwintered boll weevil.
The use of early-planted cotton as a trap crop to
protect the regular planted cotton crop was sug-
gested by Hunter (11), Coad (12), Fenton and Dun-
nam (6), Isley (13,14) and others. More recently, re-
sult of experiments conducted in Louisiana by Brad-
ley (1) have revealed that a trap crop of early-planted
cotton located adjacent to overwintering habitat and
treated periodically with foliar sprays of methyl para-
thion protected the remainder of the field from boll
weevil invasion until mid-season. Taft et al. (20) re-
ported promising results from experiments in which
pheromone-baited traps, in-furrow and 
sidedress ap-
1 Associate Professor, Department of Zoology and Entomology.
2 Graduate Assistants, Department 
of Zoology and Entomology.
plications of aldicarb, and sprays of toxaphene plus
DDT plus methyl parathion were combined in an
integrated program for boll weevil suppression.
Lloyd and others (17) designed an integrated system
for boll weevil control in which sterilized male boll
weevils were confined on plants adjacent to rows
of aldicarb-treated cotton. They suggested that the
aggregating pheromone produced by confined males
would attract emerging overwintered weevils to the
aldicarb-treated cotton where they would be killed.
Their data indicated the potential effectiveness of
the combination against low-density populations of
overwintered weevils. However, bollworm popula-
tions were significantly greater in the aldicarb-
treated rows than in untreated portions of the field.
Cowan (4), Ridgeway and others (19) have observed
similar increases of bollworm populations on aldicarb-
treated cotton. The increase is attributable, at least
in part, to increased oviposition by bollworm moths
on the aldicarb-treated plants (R. L. Ridgeway, pers.
comm.) Thus, while progress has been made to
develop integrated systems for boll weevil suppres-
sion, the practices employed, such as aldicarb treat-
ments, often encourage or intensify problems with
potentially important pests such as bollworms.
An integrated system designed to take advan-
tage of the several boll weevil suppression techniques
available and to minimize the possibility of Heliothis
spp. population increases was tested in 1972. The
experiments were conducted as part of a research
program being conducted in conjunction with the
Pilot Boll Weevil Eradication Experiment underway
in parts of Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana
(Knipling, 15). The insect suppression techniques
employed in the integrated pest management system
included: (1) Reproduction diapause control; (2)
DECEMBER 1973
early-planted, aldicarb-treated cotton as a trap crop;
(3) aggregation pheromone bait stations in the trap
plots; (4) pheromone-baited traps around the periph-
ery of the cotton fields; and (5) foliar sprays of
chlordimeform (Galecron or Fundal). The first
four are boll weevil suppression techniques being
used in the eradication experiment and the 
fifth
(chlordimeform) was included for Heliothis spp.
suppression.
The rationale for the above combination of sup-
pression techniques was as follows: (1) The com-
bined use of reproduction diapause control, aldicarb,
early-planted trap plots, and the boll weevil aggre-
gating pheromone should achieve effective boll
weevil suppression; (2) the use of aldicarb 
and the
early-planting procedure should create 
differential
attractiveness of the trap plots for adult 
Heliothis
feeding and oviposition; (3) chlordimeform is an 
in-
secticide known to be ovicidal for Heliothis eggs,
and workers in Arkansas have observed that when
chlordimeform is ingested by Heliothis moths, 
their
fecundity and fertility are reduced. Therefore, if
adult bollworm activity, such as feeding and oviposi-
tion, could be concentrated in the trap plots, the
chlordimeform sprays should kill a high percentage
of the eggs deposited. If female moths could 
be
induced to feed on the droplets of the chlordimeform
spray, their fecundity and fertility would be reduced
even though they might oviposit in other parts 
of
the field.
PROCEDURES
A four-row trap crop of an early-fruiting cotton
variety (Quapaw) was planted in each of nine cot-
ton fields (8-15 acres each) in Covington County,
Mississippi. Each trap plot was planted 2 to 3
weeks prior to the remainder of the crop. The trap
plots were not planted along the edge of the field;
they were planted toward the center of each field
in a site that was considered optimum for achieving
good seed germination, seedling emergence, and
attractiveness for boll weevils entering the field from
hibernation quarters. Aldicarb at 1.0 lb active/acre
was applied in-furrow at planting. At the pinhead
square stage (about 6 weeks after planting), additional
aldicarb was applied to the trap crop as a sidedress
application at 2.0 lb active/acre. The nine fields
used in this test treatment were located in the 1st
Buffer Zone of the Pilot Boll Weevil Eradication
Experiment area (Knipling (15)) and had received
a 13-application reproduction diapause control pro-
gram the previous fall. Pheromone traps (Leggett
and Cross (16)) baited with a formulation of the
synthetic male-produced aggregating pheromone
were maintained around each field as part of the
operational procedure of the eradication experiment.
Also, pheromone bait stations, consisting of one unit
of the formulated pheromone, were placed at about
200-ft intervals in each trap plot. The pheromone
traps and bait stations were serviced weekly.
In nine other fields located approximately 10 miles
away in Smith County, a somewhat different pest
management system was implemented. In these fields
the trap plots received aldicarb in the same manner
as the first nine fields, but were planted only 2 to 3
days prior to the remainder of the field. These fields
were located in the 2nd Buffer Zone of the eradica-
tion experiment; thus, they received only eight re-
production diapause control treatments; no pherom-
one traps were maintained around the fields, and no
pheromone bait stations were maintained in the trap
plots.
Chlordimeform sprays were applied to the trap
plots in six of the nine fields in each of the two loca-
tions when potentially damaging infestations of boll-
worm were indicated. Applications were made with
a high clearance sprayer at a rate of 0.25 lb active/
acre in a total spray volume of 6-10 gallons. Sugar
was added to the chlordimeform mixture (5 lb/gal)
in an effort to increase the attractiveness of the trap
crops as a site for feeding and oviposition by
Heliothis adults. Applications were made in the
late afternoon and early evening (4:00-7:00 p.m.) so
that the spray droplets would persist on the foliage
as long as possible.
Insect populations were assessed by examining
whole plants in trap plots and regular cotton, start-
ing from seedling emergence and ending with termi-
nation of the test (July 27). Sampling sites in the
trap plots were selected so that the influence of the
pheromone bait stations could be measured; sites in
the regular crop were selected both adjacent to
(within 1-5 rows) and at a distance (50 or more
feet) from the trap crop. Additional sampling was
conducted from June 14, until termination of the
test with a mechanical sampler mounted on a high
clearance spray machine developed by McCoy (18).
These samples were returned to the laboratory for
subsequent examination.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Emerging overwintered boll weevils were cap-
tured in the pheromone-baited Leggett traps around
the periphery of the fields throughout the test
period. However, the majority of emerging weevils
were captured from early to mid-June (Figure 1).
Whole plant counts (Table 1) indicated that the
early planted trap crops were very effective in at-
tracting the over-wintered weevils that missed the
pheromone traps and entered the fields. No weevils
SUMMARY
In summary, the aldicarb-treated, 
early planted
trap crop system was very effective 
in attracting and
concentrating early-season boll weevil 
and bollworm
populations in cotton. Damaging 
infestations of
these pests were not sustained 
in the regular crop
throughout the test period. Although 
further re-
search is needed to clarify the role 
of each of the
insect suppression factors involved 
in the experi-
ment, and while improvements 
must be made in
mid-season suppression of Heliothis, 
it seems obvious
from these studies that the pest management 
system
tested has great potential for cotton insect 
pest sup-
pression.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank Mr. F. J. 
Boyd and
other personnel of USDA, APHIS for their 
assistance
in conducting these studies. This 
work was sup-
ported by CSRS Grants, 116-15-06 and 
216-15-95.
the late May sidedress application of aldicarb in
the trap plots.
In general, Heliothis infestations reached a sig-
nificant level only during a 2-week period in mid-
June. Egg counts 
(Table 5) show 
the differential
attractiveness of the trap crops for Heliothis oviposi-
tion, especially in June. A decrease in differential
attractiveness in favor of the trap crops was ob-
served as the regular crops grew and overcame the
difference in size and maturity. By mid-July the
regular crops appeared to be at least as attractive
for oviposition.
Egg counts in the trap crops treated with foliar
sprays of chlordimeform plus sugar-water indicated
that the addition of sugar did not generate additional
Heliothis oviposition. 
However, this conclusion,
based on weekly egg counts, may be erroneous be-
cause the weekly egg counts were made prior to
each spray application. Eggs deposited subsequent
to the sprays would have hatched or been killed by
the chlordimeform or beneficial organisms before
the next count was made.
Infestations of Heliothis larvae (Table 6) ap-
peared to follow the same general trends established
by egg counts. However, destruction of eggs and
small larvae by beneficial arthropods appeared to be
a more significant factor in the regular crops. Al-
though larval counts in the trap crops sprayed with
chlordimeform plus sugar-water were consistently
less than in the control trap crops, a comparison of
egg and larval counts in the two trap crop systems
indicated little Heliothis suppression by the chlor-
dimeform. Counts of bollworm-damaged squares
(Table 7) indicated better results from the chlordi-
meform sprays.
Counts of predaceous insects, i.e., big-eyed bugs,
Geocoris spp. (Table 8) and lady beetles, Coccinel-
lidae (Table 9), revealed dramatic differences in the
numbers of these beneficial organisms in the aldi-
carb-treated trap crops and the non-treated crop.
TABLE 5. Heliothis SPP. EGGS IN FIELDS USED FOR ALDICARB-
TREATED TRAP CROP EVALUATION, COVINGTON AND
SMITH COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI, 1972
Location-Treatment Av. no. eggs/acre on indicated date'
Covington Co. 6/14 6/22 6/28 7/5 7/13 7/21
Trap crop 10,400 5,265 0 867 0 433
Regular crop 0 1,510 0 867 0 2,167
Trap crop ?
Chlordimeform
2 
3,216 4,959 1,950 1,083 0 433
Regular crop 1,818 1,003 867 433 433 433
Smith Co. 6/14 6/21 6/28 7/6 7/12 7/19
Trap crop 5,494 0 2,167 1,733
Regular crop 3,900 0 ... ..
Trap crop +
Chlordimeform 1,485 8,456 1,733 1,083 0
Regular crop 3.293 4,024 217 1,300 0
Dashes indicate data were not collected.
- Chlordimeform-sugar-water sprays applied following egg
counts on 6/14, 6/21, and 6/28 in Covington County and 6/15
and 6/22 in Smith County.
These differences occurred despite the greater abun-
dance of Heliothis eggs and larvae on plants in the
trap crops (tables 5, 6). The differences in number
of predators in the trap crops versus the regular crop
might have been even greater had there been more
Heliothis forms in the regular crop to serve as preda-
tor hosts.
TABLE 6. Heliothis SPP. LARVAL INFESTATIONS IN FIELDS USED
FOR ALDICARB-TREATED TRAP CROP EVALUATION, COVINGTON
AND SMITH COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI, 1972
Location-Treatment Av. no. larvae/acre on indicated date'
Covington Co. 6/14 6/22 6/28 7/5 7/13 7/21
Trap crop 18,200 8,343 3,900 3,900 867 1,733
Regular crop 0 0 867 0 0 1,733
Trap crop +
Chlordimeform' 8,450 6,702 5,200 1,800 1,517 650
Regular crop 0 361 217 867 217 650
Smith Co. 6/14 6/21 6/28 7/6 7/12 7/19
Trap crop 3,852 -2,600 867 1,300
Regular crop 4,833 433 0 0
Trap crop +
Chlordimeform' 2,476 4,879 433 867 1,300
Regular crop 0 843 0 433 217
SDashes indicate data were not collected.
2 Chlordimeform-sugar-water sprays applied 6.14, 6/21, and
6/28 in Covington County and 6/15 and 6/22 in Smith County.
TABLE 7. PERCENTAGE Heliothis DAMAGED SQUARES IN FIELDS USED
FOn ALDICARB-TREATED TRAP CROP EVALUATION, COVINGTON
AND SMITH COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI, 1972
Location-Treatment 
Av. percentage damaged 
squares on
indicated date'
Regular crop 0 11 6 2 1 2
Trap crop +
Chlordimeform' 28 11 16 7 3 1
Regular crop 0 4 8 7 2 2
Smith Co. 6/14 6/21 6/28 7/6 7/12 
7/19
Trap crop - 21 --- 7 3 2
Regular crop --- 12 .. 
3 1 0.5
Trap crop +
Chlordimeform' 13 12 4 3 1
Regular crop 0 7 2 0.5 0.2
'Dashes indicate data were not collected.
2 Chlordimeform-sugar-water 
sprays applied 6/14, 6/21, 
and
6/28 in Covington County and 6/15 and 6/22 in Smith County.
TABLE 8. MECHANICALLY-COLLECTED SAMPLES OF BIG-EYED BUGS,
Geocoris SPP., IN ALDICARB-TREATED TRAP CROP EVALUATION,
COVINGTON AND SMITH COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI, 1972
Location-Treatment Av. no. Geocoris/acre on indicated date
Covington Co. 6/14 6/22 6/28 7/6 7/19
Trap crop 748 339 811 194 20
Regular crop 276 787 835 352 32
Smith Co. 6/15 6/21 7/5 7/12 7/20 7/26
Trap crop 358 316 401 375 342 637
Regular crop 715 1,486 543 940 1,044 1,339
TABLE 9. MECHANICALLY-COLLECTED SAMPLES OF LADY BEETLES
COCCINELLIDAE, IN ALDICARB-TREATED TRAP CROP EVALUATION,
COVINGTON AND SMITH COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI, 1972
Location-Treatment Av. no. Coccinellidae/acre on indicated date
Covington Co. 6/14 6/22 6/28 7/6 7/19
Trap crop 1,203 636 568 656 40
Regular crop 528 1,228 1,073 803 81
Smith Co. 6/15 6/21 7/5 7/12 7/20 7/26
Trap crop 406 511 424 342 355 312
Regular crop 504 1,040 535 572 745 780
TABLE 1. WHOLE PLANT COUNTS OF 
BOLL WEEVIL POPULATIONS IN ALDICARB-TREATED 
TRAP CROP EVALUATION,
COVINGTON AND SMITH COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI, 1972
Av. no. weevils/acre on indicated date'
4/27 5/4 
5/18 5/24 
5/31 6/7 
6/14 6/21 
6/28 7/5 
7/13 7/20 
7/27
Covington Co.
Trap crop 0 0 9 50 14 14 0 0 0 1,296 1,296 
576 --
Regular crop.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0 --
Smith Co.
Trap crop 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 
144 576 1,296 0
Regular Crop.... 7 0 0 
0 0 1,152 1,152 0
1 Dashes indicate cotton was not large enough to make counts.
were found in whole plant samples in the non-treated
regular crops during the entire sampling period in
the Covington County fields. In the Smith County
fields however, weevil populations in the trap crops
and regular crops did not differ appreciably. The
lack of any difference in the two treatments in Smith
County fields was especially evident in early July,
when F, generation weevils began emerging. The
effectiveness of the Covington County trap, crops
was attributed to the fact that they were planted
and fruited much earlier than the regular cotton
(Table 2). The pheromone bait stations maintained
in these trap crops undoubtedly enhanced their at-
tractiveness; almost all weevils located by the whole
plant sampling method prior to F
1 
emergence were
found within 15 feet of the bait stations. Conversely,
in the Smith County fields the differential in the
trap plots and the regular crop was only temporary;
by early July no appreciable difference in size and
fruiting was apparent. The absence of pheromone
bait stations in the Smith County trap plots further
reduced the chances for differential attractiveness
in favor of the trap plots. However, effectiveness of
the trap plot system in both locations could not be
accurately measured by live weevil counts alone.
The aldicarb treatments in the trap crops undoubt-
edly killed many of the weevils feeding on cotton
plants in the four treated rows. Since a practical
method for findiding and counting the dead weevils
was unavailable, the live weevil counts made during
whole plant sampling were biased against the trap
plots.
Mechanically collected samples of live weevils
(Table 3) and damaged square counts (Table 4)
confirmed the effectiveness of the trap-crop system
in Covington County and the relative ineffective-
ness of the Smith County system for boll weevil
suppression. Weevil infestations were slow to de-
velop in the Smith County fields, but subsequently
reached higher levels than in the Covington County
fields. It seems probable that the higher July in-
festations in Smith County were the result of a more
general distribution of overwintered weevils in the
regular crop. However, most of the overwintered
weevils entering the fields in Covington County were
attracted to the trap crop and died after feeding on
the aldicarb-treated cotton.
Heliothis infestations in the aldicarb-treated trap
crops were appreciably greater than in the regular
crop during most of the sampling period (tables
5-7). These differences appeared greatest soon after
TABLE 2. COTTON SQUARE PRODUCTION IN FIELDS USED FOR ALDI-
CARB-TREATED TRAP CROP EVALUATION, COVINGTON AND
SMITH COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI, 1972
Location-Treatment Av. sqs/acre (thousands) on indicated date'
Covington Co. 6/14 6/22 6/28 7/5 7/13 7/21
Trap crop 158.6 175.9 129.2 197.2 262.2 315.0
Regular crop 1.7 33.6 40.7 78.4 182.9 198.5
Trap crop +
Chlordimeform
2  
116.2 269.1 176.4 253.9 247.9 177.5
Regular crop 8.7 27.0 62.8 80.8 138.8 172.5
Smith Co. 6/14 6/21 6/28 7/6 7/12 7/19
Trap crop - 106.1 149.9 218.8 239.6
Regular crop 14.7 126.5 153.8 198.9
Trap crop +
Chlordimeform' 58.4 110.6 178.8 230.1 193.1
Regular crop 4.0 23.6 114.4 203.8 211.9
1 Dashes indicate data were not collected.
2Chlordimeform-sugar-water 
sprays applied 6/14, 
6/21, and
6/28 in Covington County and 6/15 and 6/22 in Smith County.
TABLE 3. MECHANICALLY-COLLECTED SAMPLES OF BOLL WEEVIL
POPULATIONS IN ALDICARB-TREATED TRAP CROP EVALUATION,
COVINGTON AND SMITH COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI, 1972
Location-Treatment Av. no. weevils/acre on indicated date'
Covington Co. 6/14 6/22 6/28 7/8 7/19
Trap crop 14.4 72.0 14.4 54.9 46.2
Regular crop 7.2 0 8.7 5.7 8.7
Smith Co. 6/15 6/21 6/28 7/5 7/20
Trap crop 0 0 18.6 78.0
Regular cron 0 0 18.6 69.3
' Dashes indicate data were not collected.
TABLE 4. BOLL WEEVIL DAMAGED SQUARES IN FIELDS USED FOR
ALDICARB-TREATED CROP EVALUATION, COVINGTON AND
SMITH COUNTIES, MISSISSIPPI, 1972
Location-Treatment 
Av. percentage 
ovip.-punct. sqs. 
on
indicated date'
Covington Co. 6/14 6/22 6/28 7/5 7/138 7/21
Trap crop 0 0.5 4.9 4.2 10.0 8.7
Regular crop 0.1 0 0 1.4 2.6 3.7
Smith Co. 6/14 6/21 6/28 7/6 7/12 7/19
Trap crop 0 0 8.1 6.5 16.7
Regular crop 0 0 .. 7.1 5.4 15.8
'Dashes indicate data were not collected.
LITERATURE CITED
(1) BRADLEY, J. R., JR. 1967. Oriented 
Movement of the
Boll Weevil in Response to Trap Crop Plantings, Foliage
Color and Sex Pheromone. Ph.D. Dissertation, Louisi-
ana State University, 73 p.
(2) BRAZZEL, J. R. 1959. The Effect of Late-Season Ap-
plications of Insecticides on Diapausing 
Boll Weevils.
J. Econ. Entom. 52:1042-45.
(3) COPPEDGE, J. R., D. A. LINDQUIST, R. L. 
RIDGEWAY,
C. B. COWAN, AND L. A. BARIOLA. 
1969. Sidedress
Applications of Union Carbide UC-21149 for Control 
of
Overwintered Boll Weevils. J. Econ. Entom. 62:558-65.
(4) COWAN, C. B., JR., R. L. RIDGEWAY, J. 
W. DAvIs, J. K.
WALKER, W. C. WATKINS, JR., AND R. F. DUDLEY. 1966.
Systematic Insecticides for Control of Cotton Insects.
J. Econ. Entom. 59:958-61.
(5) CROss, W. H., D. D. HARDEE, F. NICHOLS, H. C. MITCH-
ELL, E. B. MITCHELL, P. M. HUDDLESTON, AND J. G.
TUMLINSON. 1969. Attraction of Female Boll Weevils
to Traps Baited with Males or Extracts 
of Males. J.
Econ. Entom. 62:154-61.
(6) FENTON, F. A., AND E. W. DUNNAM. 1928. Dispersal
of the Cotton Boll Weevil, Anthonomus grandis Boh.
J. Agr. Res. 36(2):143.
(7) HARDEE, D. D., W. H. CRoss, AND E. B. MITCHELL.
1969. Male Boll Weevils are More Attractive than
Cotton Plants to Other Boll Weevils. J. Econ. Entom.
62:165-9.
(8) HARDEE, D. D., W. H. CRoss, P. M. HUDDLESTON, AND
T. B. DAVICH. 1970. Survey and Control of the Boll
Weevil in West Texas with Traps Baited with Males.
J. Econ. Entom. 63:1041-8.
(9) HARDEE, D. D., O. H. LINDIG, AND T. B. DAVICH. 1971.
Suppression of Populations of Boll Weevils over a Large
Area in West Texas with Pheromone Traps in 1969.
J. Econ. Entom. 64:928-33.
(10) HOPKINS, A. R., AND H. M. TAFT. 1965. Control of
Certain Cotton Pests with a New Systemic Insecticide,
UC-21149. J. Econ. Entom. 58:749-9.
(11) HUNTER, W. D. 1917. The Boll Weevil Problem with
Special Reference to Means of Reducing Damage.
USDA Farmers Bulletin. 848: 40 p.
(12) HUNTER, W. D., AND 
B. R. COAD. 1923. The 
Boll
Weevil Problem. USDA Farmers Bull. 1329. 30 p.
(13) ISELY, D. 1934. Relationship 
Between Early Varieties
of Cotton and Boll Weevil Injury. J. Econ. Entom.
27:762-6.
(14) ISELY, D. 1950. Control 
of the Boll Weevil and the
Cotton Aphid in Arkansas. Ark. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull.
496. 42 p.
(15) KNIPLING, E. F. 1971. 
Boll Weevil and Pink Bollworm
Eradication: Progress and Plans, In Summ. Proc. 1971
Beltwide Cotton Prod. Mech. Conf.
(16) LEGGETT, J. E., AND W. H. CRoss. 1971. A New Trap
for Capturing Boll Weevils. USDA Coop. Econ. Ins.
Rpt. 21:773-4.
(17) LLOYD, E. P., W. P. SCOTT, K. 
K. SHAUNAK, F. C. TIN-
GLE, AND T. B. DAVICH. 1972. A Modified Trapping
System for Suppressing Low-Density Populations of
Overwintered Boll Weevils. J. Econ. Entom. 65:1144-7.
(18) McCoY, J. R. 1971. Evaluation 
of Air Flow Systems
for the Collection of Insects from Cotton. M.S. Thesis.
Mississippi State University, State College, Mississippi.
(19) RIDGEWAY, R. L., S. L. JONES, J. R. COPPEDGE, AND
D. A. LINDQUIST. 1968. Systemic Activity of 2-methyl-2
(methylthio) propionaldehyde 0-(methylcarbamoyl)
oxime (UC-21149) in the Cotton Plant with Special
References to the Boll Weevil. J. Econ. Entom. 61:
1705-12.
(20) TAFT, H. M., A. R. HOPKINS, AND S. H. ROACH. 1972.
Suppression of Emerging, Early-Season Boll Weevils
Using Integrated Control. J. Econ. Entom. 65:1664-6.
(21) TUMLINSON, j. H., D. D. HARDEE, 
R. C. UELDNER,
A. C. THOMPSON, P. A. HEDLIN, AND J. P. MINYARD.
1969. Sex Pheromones Produced by Male Boll Weevils:
Isolation, Identification and Synthesis. Science 166:
1010-12.
Auburn University Is An Equal Opportunity Employer