Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:38:47.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reassessment of sampling relationships for Helicoverpa spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Australian cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Gina E. Dillon  and
Gary P. Fitt
Gina E. Dillon*
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Entomology, Narrabri, NSW, Australia
Gary P. Fitt
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Entomology, Narrabri, NSW, Australia
*
Ms. G. E. Dillon, CSIRO Division of Entomol ogy, Locked Bag 59, Narrabri, NSW 2390, Australia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) and H. punctigera (Wallengren) are major pests of cotton in Australia. The density of eggs and larvae of these species are sampled regularly throughout the growing season to assess the need for insecticidal control. A sampling system now widely used is based on binomial sampling combined with a series of conversion relationships developed as part of the SIRATAC computer based pest management system established in the early 1980s. A three year study was initiated to reassess the binomial sampling conversion relationship in the light of changed agronomic practices and new cotton varieties. New relationships were established to predict the mean number of Helicoverpa spp. present, based upon the number of infested plants found within a sample. Relationships are reported for the sampling of whole plants and the sampling of the terminal (top 20 cm) portion of cotton plants only. These new relationships will be incorporated into entomoLOGIC, a personal computer based pest management system now released to replace SIRATAC.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 85 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 321 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Binns, M.R. & Bostanian, N.J. (1988) Binomial and censored sampling in estimation and decision making for the negative binomial distribution. Biometrics 44, 473–483.Google Scholar
Binns, M.R. & Bostanian, N.J. (1990) Robustness in empirically based binomial decision rules for integrated pest management. Journal of Economic Entomology 83, 420–427.Google Scholar
Brook, K.D. & Hearn, A.B. (1990) The SIRATAC pest management computer program: program content (July 1988). 108 pp. CSIRO Division of Plant Industry Technical Paper, Canberra.Google Scholar
Ellington, J., Kiser, K., Ferguson, G. & Cardenas, M. (1984) A comparison of sweepnet, absolute and Insectavac sampling methods in cotton ecosystems. Journal of Economic Entomology 77, 599–605.Google Scholar
Fitt, G.P. (1994) Cotton pest management. Part 3. An Australian perspective. Annual Review of Entomology 39, 543–562.Google Scholar
Gerrard, D.J. & Chiang, H.C. (1970) Density estimation of corn rootworm egg populations based upon frequency of occurrence. Ecology 51, 237–245.Google Scholar
Hearn, A.B. & Fitt, G.P. (1992) Cotton cropping systems. pp. 85–142 in Pearson, C.J. (Ed.). Ecosystems of the world-field crop ecosystems. Amsterdam, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hillhouse, T.L. & Pitre, H.N. (1976) Oviposition by Heliothis on soybeans and cotton. Journal of Economic Entomology 69, 144–146.Google Scholar
Ives, P.M. & Hearn, A.B. (1987) The SIRATAC system for cotton pest management in Australia. pp. 251–270 in Teng, P.S. (Ed.) Crop loss assessment and pest management. St Paul Minnesota, APS Press.Google Scholar
Jayaraj, S. (1982) Biological and ecological studies of Heliothis. pp. 17–28 in Reed, W. & Kumble, V. (Eds) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Heliothis management. 15–20 November 1981. Patancheru, Andra Pradesh, India. International Crops Research Institute for Semi-arid Tropics.Google Scholar
Kuno, E. (1986) Evaluation of statistical precision and design of efficient sampling for the population estimation based on frequency of occurrence. Researches on Population Ecology 28, 305–319.Google Scholar
Lincoln, C.G. & Phillips, J.R. (1979) Point sample scouting. pp. 102–104in Sterling, W.L.(Chairman) Economic thresholds and sampling for Heliothis species on cotton, corn, soybeans and other host plants. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin 231. Blackwell, North America Inc.Google Scholar
Mabbett, T.H. & Nachapong, M. (1984) Within-plant distributions of Heliothis armigera eggs on cotton in Thailand. Tropical Pest Management 30, 367–371.Google Scholar
McKewen, L.D., McFarlane, S.D. & Madden, W.R. (1992) entomoLOGlC and hydroLOGIC-what's happening? pp. 323–327 in Proceedings of the Sixth Australian Cotton Conference. Broadbeach Queensland.Google Scholar
Nachman, G. (1984) Estimates of mean population density and spatial distribution of Tetranychus urticae (Acarina: Tetranychidae) and Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) based upon the proportion of empty sample units. Journal of Applied Ecology 21, 903–913.Google Scholar
Payne, R.W., Lane, P.W., Ainsley, A.E., Bicknell, K.E., Digby, P.G.N., Harding, S.A., Leech, P.K., Simpson, H.R., Todd, A.D., Verrier, P.J., White, R.P., Gower, J.C., Tuncliffe Wilson, G. & Paterson, L.J. (1987) Genstat 5 Reference Manual. 749 pp. Oxford, Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pielou, D.P. (1960) Contagious distribution in the European red mite, Panonychus ulmi (Koch) and a method of grading population densities from a count of mite-free leaves. Canadian Journal of Zoology 38, 645–653.Google Scholar
Room, P.M. & Wardhaugh, K.G. (1977) Seasonal occurrence of insects other than Heliothis spp. feeding on cotton in the Namoi Valley of New South Wales. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 16, 165–174.Google Scholar
Schaalje, G.B., Butts, R.A. & Lysyk, T.J. (1991) Simulation studies of binomial sampling: a new variance estimator and density predictor, with special reference to the Russian wheat aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae). Journal of Economic Entomology 84, 140–147.Google Scholar
Siratac Ltd (1988) SIRATAC management manual. 92 pp. SIRATAC Limited, PO Box 126 Wee Waa, NSW 2388 Australia.Google Scholar
Smith, A.M. & Hepworth, G. (1992) Sampling statistics and a sampling plan for eggs of pea weevil (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 85, 1791–1796.Google Scholar
Tippett, L.H.C. (1932) A modified method of counting particles. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A 137, 434–446.Google Scholar
Williams, M.R., Wagner, T.L., Willers, J.L. & Olson, R.L. (1992) A scouting protocol for arthropod pests in cotton. pp. 787–789 in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences,Jan 10–14 1992.New Orleans, Louisiana.Google Scholar
Wilson, L.T. & Room, P.M. (1982) The relative efficiency and reliability of three methods of sampling arthropods in Australian cotton fields. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 21, 175–181.Google Scholar
Wilson, L.T. & Room, P.M. (1983) Clumping patterns of fruit and arthropods in cotton, with implications for binomial sampling. Environmental Entomology 12, 50–54.Google Scholar
Wilson, L.T. & Waite, G.K. (1982) Feeding pattern of Australian Heliothis in cotton. Environmental Entomology 11, 297–300.Google Scholar
Wilson, L.T., Gutierrez, A.P. & Leigh, T.F. (1980) Within-plant distribution of the immatures of Heliothis zea (Boddie) on cotton. Hilgardia 48, 12–23.Google Scholar