1. Agronomic Evaluation of At-Plant Insecticides and Nematicides
Cotton Specialist Working Group
Presented By: Tom Barber
University of Arkansas
Division of Agriculture

2. Extension Cotton Specialists Working Group
Auburn University
Charles Burmester
Dale Monks
University of Arkansas
Tom Barber
University of Georgia
Steve Brown
University of Florida
David Wright
University of California – Davis
Bob Hutmacher
Louisiana State University
Sandy Stewart
North Carolina State University
Keith Edmisten
Oklahoma State University
J.C. Banks
Clemson University
Mike Jones
University of Tennessee
Chris Main
Texas AgriLife Extension Service
Randy Boman
Robert Lemon
Virginia Tech
Joel Faircloth
University of Arizona
Randy Norton
Mississippi State University
Darrin Dodds
Kansas State University
Stewart Duncan

3. Regions
Upper SE
Midsouth
West
Lower SE
Southwest

4. Acknowledgements Bayer Crop Science Syngenta Crop Protection
Extension Entomologists
Extension Nematologists

5. At-Plant Insecticide / Nematicide Products
Avicta Complete Pack
Aeris
Temik
Cruiser/Dynasty CST
Untreated
Orthene lf, fb 4-5lf ASN
No Orthene

6. At-Plant Insecticide / Nematicide Products ~ Ratings ~
Vigor = 0-5 (0=dead plants, 5=most vigorous)
Thrips Injury = 0-5 (0=dead plants, 5=no visible injury)
Lint yield (lb/A)
Region
States
Variety
Upper SE
NC, TN, VA
DP 117 B2RF
Lower SE
AL, GA, SC
DP 555 BR
Mid-South
AR, LA
PHY 485 WRF
Southwest
Texas
FM 9063 B2RF

7. At-Plant Insecticide / Nematicide Products ~ Locations, Researchers ~
Alabama
Charles Burmester, Auburn University
Arkansas
Tom Barber, University of Arkansas
Georgia
Steve Brown, University of Georgia
Florida
David Wright, University of Florida
Louisiana
Sandy Stewart, Louisiana State University
North Carolina
Keith Edmisten, North Carolina State University
South Carolina
Mike Jones, Clemson University
Tennessee
Chris Main, University of Tennessee
Texas
Robert Lemon, Texas AgriLife Extension Service
Virginia
Joel Faircloth, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University

8. At-Plant Insecticide/Nematicide Products ~ Belt-wide - Vigor Ratings ~

9. At-Plant Insecticide/Nematicide Products ~ Belt-wide - Thrips Ratings ~

10. At-Plant Insecticide/Nematicide Products ~ Belt-wide - Lint Yield (lb/A) ~

11. At-Plant Insecticide / Nematicide Products ~ Individual Location Charts ~
The following graphs represent variables at individual locations that have significant differences.
Vigor
Thrips Damage
Lint Yield

12. At-Plant Insecticide/Nematicide Products ~ Alabama - Vigor Ratings ~
LSD=0.6
LSD=NS a a a a b
Similar results in Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia
*Means followed by the same letter are not sig. different, Fisher’s Protected LSD, P<0.05.

13. At-Plant Insecticide/Nematicide Products ~ Louisiana - Vigor Ratings ~
LSD=0.7
LSD=0.3 a a a a a b b
*Means followed by the same letter are not sig. different, Fisher’s Protected LSD, P<0.05.

14. At-Plant Insecticide/Nematicide Products ~ South Carolina - Vigor Ratings ~
LSD=0.9
LSD=0.4 a a ab ab b b c
*Means followed by the same letter are not sig. different, Fisher’s Protected LSD, P<0.05.

15. At-Plant Insecticide/Nematicide Products ~ Alabama - Thrips Ratings ~
LSD=0.3
LSD=NS a a a a b
*Means followed by the same letter are not sig. different, Fisher’s Protected LSD, P<0.05.

16. At-Plant Insecticide/Nematicide Products ~ Arkansas - Thrips Ratings ~
LSD=0.42
LSD=NS ab a bc c d
*Means followed by the same letter are not sig. different, Fisher’s Protected LSD, P<0.05.

17. At-Plant Insecticide/Nematicide Products ~ South Carolina - Thrips Ratings ~
LSD=0.8
LSD=0.3 a ab a ab b b c
*Means followed by the same letter are not sig. different, Fisher’s Protected LSD, P<0.05.

18. At-Plant Insecticide/Nematicide Products ~ Tennessee - Thrips Ratings ~
LSD=0.3
LSD=NS a ab ab b c
*Means followed by the same letter are not sig. different, Fisher’s Protected LSD, P<0.05.

19. At-Plant Insecticide/Nematicide Products ~ Virginia - Thrips Ratings ~
LSD=0.3
LSD=NS a a b b c
*Means followed by the same letter are not sig. different, Fisher’s Protected LSD, P<0.05.

20. At-Plant Insecticide/Nematicide Products ~ Arkansas - Lint Yield ~
LSD=107
LSD=NS a a a a b
*Means followed by the same letter are not sig. different, Fisher’s Protected LSD, P<0.05.

21. At-Plant Insecticide/Nematicide Products ~ Georgia - Lint Yield ~
LSD=83
LSD=37 ab a bc a bc c b
*Means followed by the same letter are not sig. different, Fisher’s Protected LSD, P<0.05.

22. At-Plant Insecticide/Nematicide Products ~ Louisiana - Lint Yield ~
LSD=100
LSD=NS a a ab ab b
*Means followed by the same letter are not sig. different, Fisher’s Protected LSD, P<0.10.

23. At-Plant Insecticide/Nematicide Products ~ Tennessee - Lint Yield ~
LSD=66
LSD=NS a a a a b
*Means followed by the same letter are not sig. different, Fisher’s Protected LSD, P<0.05.

24. At-Plant Insecticide/Nematicide Products ~ South Carolina - Lint Yield ~
LSD=111.8
LSD=NS a ab bc c c
*Means followed by the same letter are not sig. different, Fisher’s Protected LSD, P<0.05.

25. Conclusions
There were no differences in seedling vigor, thrips rating or cotton lint yield when data analyzed over all locations.
Vigor
6 out of 10 locations treatments equal and showed increased vigor over check
2 locations where Orthene applications increased vigor
SC - Aeris treatments less vigorous

26. Conclusions Thrips damage Yield
6 locations treatments equal and better than untreated check
3 locations where Aeris not as good as Temik but similar to other treatments
2 locations where Cruiser not as good as Temik
Avicta and Aeris similar except for 2 locations
Yield
6 locations no significant difference
4 locations where treatments better than check
SC- Avicta and Aeris equal to check
Temik higher in SC and GA but lower in LA
1 location where Orthene increased yield.

27. Conclusions
All treatments better than check where thrips were present.
No major differences in seedling vigor among treatments
Orthene applications offered some benefit in a couple locations.
Secondary pests (spider mites)
More data needs to be included such as plant height, total nodes, first fruiting node etc.

28. Future Research Continue project for at least 1 more year.
Analyze Nationally, Regionally and by State to determine if more differences occur.