1984
DOI: 10.1093/jee/77.3.798
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Heliothis spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Damage and Yield Loss Estimated from Commercial Cotton Fields

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

1989
1989
1989
1989

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, spraying on a damage threshold of 10% elicited a mean of four sprays, which gave a higher yield than cotton under a preventive regime of six sprays, indicating that some level of damage to cotton may actually stimulate it to a greater yield. Similar observations have previously been noted by Kincade et al (1970), McKinlay & Geering (1957 and Liapis et al (1984). Such compensatory behaviour was further illustrated by the fact that seed cotton yield from the unsprayed treatment was only 41-6% less than that from the standard regime.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For example, spraying on a damage threshold of 10% elicited a mean of four sprays, which gave a higher yield than cotton under a preventive regime of six sprays, indicating that some level of damage to cotton may actually stimulate it to a greater yield. Similar observations have previously been noted by Kincade et al (1970), McKinlay & Geering (1957 and Liapis et al (1984). Such compensatory behaviour was further illustrated by the fact that seed cotton yield from the unsprayed treatment was only 41-6% less than that from the standard regime.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…Most sprays timed on the basis of damage thresholds were carried out during the first four weeks of flowering (Table I). This fits in well with the feeding behaviour of Heliothinae spp., which tend to prefer flower buds to bolls (Liapis et al, 1984). Also, early weeks of flowering tend to coincide with influxes of H. armigera from alternative hosts flowering prior to cotton (Bebbington & Disney, 1953;Kabissa, 1981) and from diapausing pupae (Valentine, 1956).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%