This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]On: 18 December 2014, At: 03:27Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Sustainable AgriculturePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa20

Cultural Control Practices in Cotton Pest Managementin Tropical AfricaI. Javaid aa Faculty of Agriculture, Botswana College of Agriculture, Gaborone, BotswanaPublished online: 21 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: I. Javaid (1995) Cultural Control Practices in Cotton Pest Management in Tropical Africa, Journal ofSustainable Agriculture, 5:1-2, 171-185, DOI: 10.1300/J064v05n01_12

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J064v05n01_12

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Cultural Control Practicesin Cotton Pest Management

in Tropical Africa

I. Javaid

ABSTRACT. Insect pests are a major constraint in cotton produc-tion in Africa. The role of cultural practices, especially in the man-agement of cotton pests in Africa is examined. Some cultural prac-tices such as early planting after the closed season, stalk destructionand resistant varieties have played an extremely vital role in themanagement of some major cotton pests such as red bollworm (Di-paropsis castanea), pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) andcotton jassid (Empoasca sp.) respectively. The cultural practices canbe easily integrated with other practices and thus have a tremendouspotential for the management of other cotton pests in many coun-tries. They can reduce the usage of insecticides to sustain cottonproduction in Africa, especially at small-scale farms. However, somecultural techniques remain under utilized. More research and adop-tion of culturally-oriented insect pest management of cotton in tropi-cal Africa is stressed.

INTRODUCTION

The Cotton crop is attacked by a large number of insect pests.Hargreaves (1948) recorded over 1000 species of insects feeding oncotton. Of these, 482 have been reported from Africa south of theSahara. However the most important insect pests within Africa arebollworms (Heliothis spp., Diparopsis spp., Pectinophora gossi-

I. Javaid is affiliated with Botswana College of Agriculture, Faculty of Agri-culture, Private Bag 0027 Gaborone, Botswana.

Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Vol. 5(1/2) 1995E 1995 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 171

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 0

3:27

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE172

piella, Cryptophlebia leucotreta), leaf eaters (Spodoptera littoralis),leaf-rollers (Sylepta derogata), loopers (Tricoplusia sp.), jassids(Empoasca sp.), aphids (Aphis gossypii), whitefly (Bemisia tabacci),cotton stainers (Dysdercus spp.), Lygus bugs (Lygus hesperus), He-lopeltis bugs (Helopeltis spp.), mites (Tetranychus spp.) and grass-hoppers (Zonocerus spp.) (Matthews 1989; Cauquil 1989; Pearson1958; Ripper and George 1965; Burgess 1983; Prentice 1972). In-sect pests cause considerable damage to cotton plants at almost allgrowth stages. They reduce yield and affect the quality of seedcotton. The losses in the yield of cotton caused by insects to theworldwide cotton crop have been estimated to be an average of 16%of the potential crop (Cramer 1967). In many African countries,cotton is grown by small-scale farmers and losses due to insectpests are expected to be higher than average. In some cases, lossesup to 80% have been reported (Bruinsma 1985). The application ofinsecticides has played an important role in protecting the cottoncrop from insect damage, increasing cotton yield significantly. Thishas been clearly illustrated by a series of trials in Central Africa(Tunstall and Matthews 1966) and also in many other countries.The use of insecticides has also created various well-known prob-lems. In the Sudan, whitefly was a minor pest prior to 1945 (DDTera) and is now a potential threat to the cotton industry there (Grif-fiths 1984). The whitefly also became resistant to various syntheticpyrethroids and organophosphates in the Sudan Gezira Scheme(Dittrich et al. 1985). The recent cotton harvests from Sudan havebeen affected by sticky lint caused by severe whitefly infestations(Eeverleens 1983). In Egypt, insecticide resistance can lead to in-sufficient control of leafworm and heavy infestations of Heliothis in1974 (Georghiou 1975; Brader 1979). The resistance to dimethoatehas also occurred in red spider mite in Central Africa (Duncombe1973). In addition, the economic disasters due to overuse of insecti-cides in Central America are also well known in cotton pest man-agement (Kumar 1983). The sole use of insecticides does not pro-vide a lasting solution for the control of cotton insect pests.Therefore, if control of cotton insect pests has to be less dependenton insecticides, there could be a greater need for conservation ofbiological agents and close collaboration of farmers on culturalmethods (Matthews 1989). Additionally, the cotton crop is often

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 0

3:27

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Research, Reviews, Practices and Technology 173

attacked by a different complex of insect pests in each country andwhere several pests occur, more than one tactic is needed. More-over, careful integration of techniques is needed so that they do notoppose each other but harmonize to provide cost-effective controlon a long term basis. In Africa, the small-scale farmers are oftenresponsible for most cotton production and IPM has been sug-gested to offer the best approach to solve the insect pest problemson a small scale level (Brader 1979). IPM strategies should fitlocal conditions and be promoted in conjunction with improvedagricultural practices (Schulten 1987). The cultural control tech-niques used along with judicious use of insecticides and other IPMcomponents provides a strong basis for ecologically-oriented pestmanagement systems. Most cultural control methods are con-cerned with making the environment unfavorable for the insectpests and thereby either averting damage or limiting its severity(Kumar 1984).Slight improvements of cultural practices in conjunction with

other control measures can improve the effectiveness of overallIPM programs. Therefore, cultural practices which have a greatpotential for improvements of cotton in Africa are examined anddiscussed here.

Cultivation

Early cultivation to destroy insect pupae in soil is one of the mostwidely adopted cultural control techniques in Francophone cotton-growing countries in Sub Sahara Africa (Burkina Faso, CentralAfrican Republic, Chad, Cote D Ivoire, Mali, Niger, Senegal andTogo) (Cauquil 1989). Deep ploughing during autumn can burypupae of Heliothis and Diparopsis. During spring the adult mothswill not be able to find their way to the soil surface (Matthews1989). This reduces the first generation of these pests in the follow-ing year in Botswana (Ingram et al. 1973). Cultivation and weedingusing hand hoes between the rows also reduces the number ofHeliothis and Spodoptera pupae where they are crushed in the soil(Ingram et al. 1973). In Swaziland, clean cultivation is very desir-able for the control of cutworms. Good cultivation will not leaveany food for the larvae and they die within 10 days (Bhembe 1989).A cotton weevil (Apion soleatum) was known to build up large

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 0

3:27

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE174

populations in perennial and ratooned cotton in East Africa, until itwas controlled by annual cultivations (Pearson 1958). Cultivationalso affects the eggs of grasshoppers (Zonocerus spp.) (Matthews1989).

Time of Sowing

The dates of sowing cotton must be worked out for each countryor a region in order to combat insect pest problems. Early sowing isgenerally recommended to avoid a massive end of season build upof some insect pests (Ingram et al. 1973). Early planting after theclosed season reduces populations of Diparopsis, Heliothis andother key pests of cotton in Zambia, Botswana and Tanzania (In-gram et al. 1973; Bashir et al. 1991; Bohlen 1973; Bohlen 1982). Inmany cotton growing countries in Africa, cotton sowing is dictatedby the onset of rains, and the late-sown cotton yields poorly even inthe absence of pest attack (Matthews 1984). Early sowing of cottonis emphasized in Zambia and a delay of one month in sowing canreduce cotton yields by 50% (Sikazwe et al. 1989). In Nigeria, iffarmers sow cotton at a latter stage after weeding has been com-pleted on cereals and legume crops, the yields are generally too lowto justify the use of insecticides (Matthews 1984). In Egypt, thesowing date to avoid Pectinophora gossypiella is fixed at around 15March. The peak emergence of the pink bollworm occurs in the firsthalf of May when the cotton plants are too small to suffer severeattacks (Brader 1979). The incidence of stainers (Dysdercus spp.)depends on the crop season and the sequence of fruiting of wildhosts. Alteration in the date of sowing in relation to this is some-times possible and must be specific to each country. Early-sowncotton in Uganda, despite the damage it suffers from Lygus,succeeds in producing larger structures than late-sown cotton andultimately results in a higher yield (Pearson 1958). However, in theSudan (Gezira), early-sown cotton was found to be more liable toincreased jassid and whitefly infestation (Schultz et al. 1967). Thesowing of cotton at the optimum time is essential to provide poten-tial yields worth protecting (Matthews 1984). However, in generalthe sowing of cotton in much of Africa south of the Sahara must bedone as early in the season as possible (Prentice 1972).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 0

3:27

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Research, Reviews, Practices and Technology 175

Fertilizer Application

In Sudan, large fertilizer applications at sowing time increase thewhitefly attacks (Tarr 1952). Excessive use of fertilizers is condu-cive to the outbreak of certain pests. Over-fertilization with nitrogenincreases severity of jassid and whitefly attacks and also prolongsthe period of insect control (Kumar 1984). Poor soil conditions caninfluence the prevalence of Helopeltis bugs and jassids (Golding1945). The optimum fertilizer requirements for best pest controlneed to be worked out for each location. Well-fertilized crops haveshown larger yield increases from chemical pest control (Snow andTaylor 1952). However, in some countries like Zambia, cottonplanted after a well-fertilized maize crop, under good management,without additional fertilizer, can yield between 1500 to 2000 Kg/ha(Nelson, 1972). Many small scale cotton growers in Zambia do notapply any fertilizer to their cotton crops.

Irrigation

In many African countries cotton is grown as a rain-fed crop.However, in some countries like Sudan and Egypt, irrigation is alsoapplied to the cotton crop. Cutting off the irrigation, to avoid pro-longed boll formation, is desirable. This will reduce the over-win-tering populations of Pectinophora and Diparopsis. A late seasonincrease in whitefly populations is also reduced if irrigation isstopped early. Early termination of irrigation accelerates crop matu-rity and is important in the control of late bollworm attack. Infesta-tions of thrips (Calothrips) in Sudan were minimized by reductionin the interval between irrigations so that water-soaked pupae inclay soils prevented adult emergence (Matthews 1989). Seriouscutworm infestations are associated with irrigated areas where thelarvae can survive on a variety of crops throughout the year. Also,whitefly populations are able to survive better where irrigation in-creases the overall areas of hosts such as okra, cucumber, beans,tobacco and tomatoes in Sudan (Matthews 1989). In Egypt, cottonleafworm breeds in winter and spring in clover fields. The mothsemerge from clover fields and lay eggs on cotton. Irrigation ofclover must be stopped after May 10 to keep soils dry and causemortality or malformation of at least 50% of Spodoptera littoralis.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 0

3:27

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE176

Irrigation of cotton after May 10 prohibits leafworm infestation. Alaw on irrigation was passed as early as 1913 (Brader 1979). How-ever, water shortage, poor soils and cool spells usually result in agreater jassid outbreak (Ripper and George 1965). In the Sudan(Gezira scheme) unofficial irrigation of fallow lands for grazingprovides host plants for cotton pests in the dry periods prior tosowing cotton (Matthews 1989).

Weed Control

The destruction of weeds has been found to reduce the amount ofdamage to crops, including cotton, markedly (Ingram et al. 1973).In the Sudan the eradication of wild pest hosts before cotton is sownis not practical but reducing the areas of irrigated fallows, especiallybefore the first heavy rainfall, is thought to reduce local populationsof insect pests including whiteflies. The sequence of crops andweeds allows for 12 months of whitefly populations (Matthews1989). Weeding cotton plants at regular intervals is usually recom-mended for the control of cotton pests in Zambia (Javaid 1992).Way and Cammel (1981) have argued that where weeds are scarce,pests can become more adopted to crops and this may increase theselection for resistance to pesticides on treated crops. Little isknown about the importance of weeds or the effects of herbicides,in the context of integrated control programmes. The role of weedsto act as alternative hosts for various insect pests of cotton needs tobe emphasized to small scale cotton growers in various parts ofAfrica (Javaid et al. 1987). Early weeding in cotton is an importantcultural control measure because some insects lay eggs on weeds(Bohlen 1980). Early weeding also encourages healthy seedlingswhich can withstand the attack of insect pests (Bohlen 1973) and ishighly recommended in Francophone countries (Cauquil 1989).

Closed Season

The use of the closed season is one of the most important culturalpractices for the management of cotton insect pests in Africa. Itgenerally lasts for two to three months between harvesting andsowing of the next crop. Legislation has been enacted in many

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 0

3:27

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Research, Reviews, Practices and Technology 177

countries to enforce the closed season. It is illegal to grow cotton inNigeria during the closed season which lasts from 1 March to 1 Julyin the north and from 15 March to 15 June in the south for thecontrol of Pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella). During thisperiod, all growth from old cotton is destroyed. Similar legislationhas been enacted in Kenya (Kumar 1974). The farmers are advisedto uproot their cotton crops by early June in order to reduce popula-tions of Diparopsis and Dysdercus in Botswana (Ingram et al.1973). The pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) became avery serious pest in Lower Shire Valley in Malawi in 1962 when noclosed season was observed (Matthews 1989). The red bollworm(Diparopsis castenia) is regarded as a key pest in many countries inAfrica and its survival is greatest where plants are allowed to growduring the dry season. The closed season was introduced in Zim-babwe in 1936 (Mckinstry 1938) and in Malawi in 1952 (Matthews1989). The enforcement of a closed season is an essential featurefor the control of cotton insect pests in Sudan. All cotton plantsmust be destroyed soon after harvest by May 31 and this practice isenforced by legislation (Anonymous 1960). Similarly, all cottonplants in Zambia must be destroyed after harvest annually to pre-vent the carry over of pests and to observe the closed season. Cottonplants must be destroyed by first of October (Sikazwe et al. 1989;Nelson 1972). The leaf perforator (Buccalatrix sp.) is another insectpest which has been controlled in many countries by a closed sea-son (Matthews 1989). The closed season is recommended for thedry season in tropical Africa and provides a significant check onthese pests.

Stalk Destruction

Destruction of stalks at the end of the cotton season is consideredto be important in many countries to reduce the carry over of peststo the next crop. In many African countries, the dates of uprooting,shredding and ploughing in the cotton crop is prescribed by law inorder to control various insect pests (Matthews 1984). All cottonplants in Malawi must be destroyed before 15 August except in theKaronga Lakeshire area where the date is extended to 15 Septemberbecause the rains start late in the season (Anonymous 1976). It isalso recommended that plants must be shredded and turned into

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 0

3:27

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE178

organic manure (Saka 1989). The objective is to reduce the inci-dence of Pink bollworm and other pests in the following season.The uprooting of cotton plants and destruction of crop residues inearly August, to ensure 2 to 3 months without cotton, was highlyeffective in controlling Pectinophora which was recorded in 1963when farmers failed to observe regulations in Malawi (Matthews etal. 1965). In the Sudan, the pink bollworm remained as a minor pestbecause farmers not only uprooted plants but cleared the fields andburnt the trash to reduce the risk of bacterial blight of cotton in thenext season. The destruction of crop residues, volunteer plants andabandoned cotton is considered to be essential against pink boll-worm (Kumar 1984). Stalk destruction is also recommended tocontrol Diparopsis. If all cotton residues are collected and de-stroyed carefully, about 90% of the larvae in the fields are destroyed(Ripper and George 1965). In the Sudan, the removal and eradica-tion of alternative hosts has been suggested to control spiny boll-worms and stainer bugs (Ripper and George 1965). In Egypt, fire-wood is a valuable resource. The bolls on cotton stalks harbour pinkbollworm larvae so that initial infestations in the following seasonare the worst, particularly in the fields close to villages (Matthews1989). People have an age old custom for relying on dry cottonsticks as an important source of fuel in their homes, otherwise thecontrol of pink bollworm could have been much easier and simpler(Salama 1983). However, picking and burning of infested and drybolls at the end of the growing season can reduce the carryover ofpink bollworm to the next season and heat treatment can kill thediapausing pupae in the seeds. These two cultural practices are usedin Egypt (Brader 1979). In Uganda, the hand collection of Helopeltisbugs, coupled with the destruction of badly damaged cotton plants,has been suggested (Tothill 1940). All cotton residues must be burntin Tanzania (Bohlen 1973). In Francophone cotton-growing coun-tries in Africa, the burning of cotton residue after harvest is one ofthe most widely adopted cultural practices (Cauquil 1989).

Host Resistance

The earlier commercial glabrous varieties introduced into south-ern Africa in the 1920s were so severely affected by jassids (Em-poasca spp.) that only a few farmers continued to grow cotton

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 0

3:27

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Research, Reviews, Practices and Technology 179

(Matthews 1989). The selection of a pubescent variety (U-4) was anearly success by plant breeders in decreasing jassid damage (Parnell1925). The pubescence character of cotton has been used for anumber of years in Africa to protect cotton from jassids. The cottonvarieties currently grown in central and southern Africa are mostlyhairy, which makes it difficult for jassids to feed upon it (Saka1989). Pubescent varieties have been reported to be resistant to pinkbollworm because their trichomes interlock the bracts and protectthe buds (Smith et al. 1975). In Zimbabwe, Heliothis was known inthe 1960s to lay more eggs on hairy leaves than on smooth-leavedvarieties and it was found to be desirable to retain hairy leaf charac-teristics because of resistance to jassid damage (Brettell 1983).Heliothis laid few eggs on glabrous cotton, particularly in smallplots where moths can choose pubescent varieties. But in large plotsof individual varieties, differences in oviposition were no longersignificant at the time of peak oviposition (Tunstall 1965). Thepubescent varieties have also been reported to be more susceptibleto whitefly infestation (Mound 1965). Some efforts have been di-rected to evaluate frego cottons for susceptibility to various insectpests in Africa. Frego bracts are narrow, relaxing away from thelower bud or bolls. Cotton varieties with frego bracts were attackedless by Earias in Uganda (Reed 1974) and have also given goodresults in Tanzania (Nyambo 1985), but have been reported to besusceptible to Lygus spp. and cotton leaf rollers (Tingey et al. 1975).Indeed, one of the current problems associated with plant breedinghas been the fact that resistance factors effective against one pestspecies may increase susceptibility to another pest or group ofinsect pest species (Summy and King 1992). In Zimbabwe, it wasobserved that a nectarless trait (plants without extra floral and leafnectaries) reduced egg laying by Heliothis and Diparopsis, comparedwith nectared varieties. However, the reduction in egg laying wasnot sufficient and in addition it was observed that since lacewings(predators of various cotton pests) require nectar in their diet, suchvarieties might affect lacewing populations (Brettell 1983). Howev-er, cultivars with nectarless characters were capable of reducingpopulations of Lygus species and bollworms up to 50% in theUnited States (Meredith et al. 1973; Wilson 1980). In the case ofleaf rollers (Sylepta spp.) it has been reported that attacks are more

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 0

3:27

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE180

severe on succulent varieties of cotton. Attempts were also made inSudan to control stainers by the selection of resistant cotton. How-ever, no significant results were obtained (Ripper and George1965). The okra type leaf cotton varieties have less foliage, permitmore light to the cotton canopy and allow improved spray applica-tions. These varieties have received considerable attention in Sudan(Bindra 1983), but these carry low market values due to low staplelength. More research is needed on the long-stapled okra leaf typecotton varieties.Many cotton varieties in Africa possess gossypol which is toxic

to non ruminants. Therefore, glandless varieties of cotton withoutgossypol are highly desirable (Matthews 1989). However, variouscotton pests such as Earias and Heliothis cause more damage tothese varieties (Reed 1974). Also, red spider mites have been re-ported to lay more eggs on these varieties (Schuter et al. 1972).However, in Ivory Coast, various glandless varieties have givenyields as high as 1297 kg/ha (Hua and Richard 1986).

Trap Cropping

It has been suggested that tasselling maize may act as a trap cropfor Heliothis because it is said to be more attractive for Heliothisoviposition than cotton. The bollworm infestation may be reducedif cotton and maize are planted close together, in such a way that thevulnerable young boll formation stage of cotton coincides with thetasseling stage of maize (Bohlen 1973). Pearson and Ulleyt (1934)found that period of attractiveness of maize was too short in south-ern Africa and sequential sowing of maize was impractical inrainfed areas. The trap crop has to be more attractive to the peststhan cotton over the whole period that cotton itself is susceptible toattack. Stride (1969) studied the possibility of intercropping Cissus(a common weed in Uganda) as a trap crop for mirids and suggestedthat unless a profitable crop such as alfalfa is used, farmers areunlikely to adopt the system. In Sudan, Lubia has been reported tohave a distinctive scent when not in flowering and has a strongattraction for Heliothis and could divert moths away from cotton(Ripper and George 1965). In Zimbabwe, hyacinth bean is alsoknown to divert Heliothis away from cotton (Abate 1988). In theSudan the use of Hibiscus esculentis as a trap crop has been sug-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 0

3:27

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Research, Reviews, Practices and Technology 181

gested for the control of cotton leafroller. The trap crop is uprootedand destroyed (Sweeny 1956). It has been suggested that there is apossibility to explore effectiveness of maize and other plants as atrap for late bollworm of cotton (Argyroploce leucotreta) in Ugan-da. The application of a polyhedrosis virus to control Heliothis incotton is more effective in sorghum over a much longer period thancotton (Room 1975; Room and Daust 1975) in Botswana. Sorghumhas a potential to be used as a trap crop to reduce the activities ofHeliothis on cotton. In the Sudan, whitefly infestations are worse oncotton in years of heavier rainfall that allows populations to buildup on natural vegetation around irrigated areas before the cotton isplanted. The whitefly infestation trapped in such areas can betreated with insecticide (Matthews 1989). Trap cropping has beenused in the United States in combination with early sowing ofcotton for the management of bollweevil (Anthonmas grandis)(Mally 1901).

Crop Rotations

Cotton is a useful rotation crop with maize in central Africa dueto the beneficial effect of its deep roots on the soil structure. It is oneof the oldest and most widespread practices used to reduce insectpest problems. Crop rotations are important cultural techniques forthe control of many crop pests. If a rotation is followed, the dia-pausing pupae of Diparopsis in the soil will have to search for newcotton fields (Matthews 1989). However, cotton’s rotation withmaize may increase the risk of a heavier infestation of certain pestssuch as Heliothis which survives on a wider range of hosts (Mat-thews 1989). If a sequence of irrigated crops is available for 12months the whitefly population generally increases.

CONCLUSIONS

Cultural control practices have a long history of successful use inAfrica. Many cultural practices for the control of cotton insect pestshave been practiced with great success (Brader 1979). In manyAfrican countries, labor is available for many cultural practices andthe use of these measures needs to be stressed more. Cultural prac-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 0

3:27

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE182

tices might not provide a complete control of insect pests and thefarmers will have to consider the use of other tactics such as insecti-cides. Cultural control methods are more effective when used incombination with other control strategies. These methods togetherwith judicious use of insecticides provide a strong base for ecologi-cally-oriented pest management systems which enhance and sustaincotton production. Cotton in Africa is produced mostly by small-scale farmers and cultural practices are generally regarded to bemore suitable under local conditions. Cultural practices provide abaseline for integration with other practices. In some cases, only apartial control of pests by cultural practices is desirable and thiscould reduce the usage of insecticides. However, cultural practicesfor the management of cotton pests need to be emphasized. Morefunding from international donor agencies for more research oncultural control practices is needed. Cotton pest management hasbeen completely ignored at various International Research Institutesin the African continent. Regional cooperation between Franco-phone and English-speaking countries does not exist. Efforts forsuch coordination have been scarce. More research efforts need tobe directed towards insect pest resistant and high yielding varietiesin Africa. More rapidly-maturing varieties could avoid or escapethe damage by some late season insect pests. The economics andsocioeconomic aspects of cultural practices also need to be eval-uated at a broader level.

REFERENCES

Abate, T. (1988) Experiments with trap cropping against African bollworm Helio-this armigera in Ethiopia. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 48:135-140.

Anonymous (1960) Legislation relating to plant disease and agricultural pests.Republic of the Sudan. Ministry of Agriculture, Dept. of Agric. Plant Protec-tion Div. Handbook no.1.

Anonymous (1976) Cotton Handbook of Malawi. Ministry of Agriculture andNatural Resources, Lilongwe Malawi. 115 pp.

Bashir, E.A., Biney H, Islam S.S. and Pathak V.K. (1991) Extensive national fieldsurveys for the detection, identification and assessment of major pests anddiseases of cereals and horticultural crops. Tech. Report No. 5, UNDP/FAOproject BOT/88/004. 153 pp.

Bindra, O.S. (1983) Insect resistance in cotton in Sudan. In: Lambert, F., Waller,J.M. and Van der Graff, N.A. (eds) durable resistance in crops. Plenum press,New York pp. 227-9.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 0

3:27

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Research, Reviews, Practices and Technology 183

Bohlen, E. (1973) Cotton pests in Tanzania and their control. Verlog Paul Parey.Berlin and Hamburg 142 pp.

Bohlen E. (1982) Cotton pests in Africa. Lint Company of Zambia Ltd, Lusaka incooperation with AGRO-PROGRESS GMBH. Consulting Engineers. D-5300Bon West Germany. 21 pp.

Brader, L. (1979). Integrated pest control in the developing world. Ann. Rev.Entomol. 24: 225-54.

Brettell, J.H. (1983) Strategies for cotton bollworm control in Zimbabwe. Zim-babwe Agric. J. 80: 105-108.

Bruinsma, W. (1985) Cotton pest control in Zambia. Lint Company of Zambia ltd.37 pp.

Bhembe, B. (1989). Integrated pest management in cotton. In: Namponia, C.R.(ed) Strategy for Integrated Pest Management and weed control in SADCCcountries. Proc. of a SADCC workshop held in Mbabane Swaziland. August1-4, 1968.

Burgess, M.W. (1983) Development of Cotton Pest Management in Zimbabwe.Crop Prot. 2: 247-250.

Cauquil, J. (1989) New developments in cotton protection in sub Saharan Frenchspeaking Africa. Paper presented at the ICAC conference in Washington,USA, October 1989.

Crammer, H.H. (1967) Plant protection and world crop production. Farbenfabri-ken Bayar ag, Leverkusen, W. Germany

Dittrich, V., Hassan, S.O. and Ernest H.H. (1985) Sudanese cotton and the white-fly: a case study of the emergence of a new primary pest. Crop Prot. 4: 161-76.

Duncombe, W.C. (1973) The acaricide spray rotation for cotton. Rhod. Agric. J.70: 115-18.

Everleens, K.G. (1983) Cotton insect control in the Sudan Gezira: analysis of acrisis. Crop Prot. 2: 273-87.

Georghiou, G.P. (1975). A further study of insecticide resistance in the cottonleafworm (Spodoptera littoralis Boised) and its monitoring in the Arab Repub-lic of Egypt, Consult. Rep. Roome: FAO, AGO: DP/EGY/71/591. 26 pp.

Golding, F.D. (1945) Notes on Helopeltis sanquineus popp. on cotton in Nigeria.Bull. Ent. Res. 36: 75-78.

Griffiths, W.T. (1984) A review of the development of cotton pest problems in theSudan Gezira. M. Sc. thesis University of London. (unpublished).

Hargreaves, H. (1948) List of recorded insects of the world. CommonwealthInstitute of Entomology, London, 50 pp.

Hau, B. and Richard, G. (1986) Results of the first large scale growing of gland-less varieties in the Ivory Coast. Cot. Fib. Trop. 41: 1000-1.

Ingram, W.R., Irving N.S. and Roome R.E. (1973). Handbook on the control ofAgricultural Pests in Botswana. Government Printer Gaborone, 129 pp.

Javaid I., Zulu J.N., Matthews, G.A. and Norton G.A. (1987) Cotton insect pestmanagement at small scale farms in Zambia. 1: Farmers perceptions. InsectScience Applic. 8: 1001-1006.

Javaid I. (1992) Weed control practices in cotton in Zambia. Cot. Fib. Trop. 47: 1-5.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 0

3:27

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE184

Kumar, R. (1983). Management of cotton pests. pp. 177-182. In: A. Youdeoweiand M.W. Service (ed.). Pests and Vector Management in The Tropics. Long-man. 399 pp.

Kumar, R. (1984) Insect pest control with special reference to African agriculture.Edward Arnold. London 298 pp.

Mally, F.W. (1901) The Mexican cotton bollweevil. USA Farmers bull. No. 130.Matthews, G.A., Tunstall J.P. and Mckinley, D.J. (1965) Outbreak of pink boll-

worm (Pectinophora gossipiella) in Rhodesia and Malawi. Cott. Gr. Rev. 42:197-208.

Matthews, G.A. (1984) Pest Management. Longman. London 231 pp.Matthews, G.A. (1989) Cotton insect pest management and their control. Long-

man. 199 pp.Mckinstry, A.H. (1938). Major pests of cotton in Southern Africa. In: Third

conference on cotton growing problems. Emp. Cott. Gr. Corp. London, p. 102.Meredith, W.R., Rainy Jr. C.D., Laster M.L. and Bridge, R.R. (1973) Agronomic

potential of nectarless cotton. J. Environ. Qual. 2: 141-144.Mound, L.A. (1965) Effect of leaf hair on cotton whitefly populations in Sudan

gezira. Cott. Gr. Rev. 42: 33-40.Nelson, P.T. (1972). How to grow series No. 6. Cotton. Dept. Agric. Lusaka,

Zambia.Nyambo, B.T. (1985) Cotton insect resistance studies in the western cotton grow-

ing areas of Tanzania. Insect Sci. Applic. 6: 379-84.Parnell, F.R. (1925) Prog. Rep. Exp. Stas., 1923-25. Emp. Cott. Gr. Corp., Lon-

don, p. 5.Pearson, F.S. and Ullyet G. (1934) Investigations on the control of the American

and red bollworms of cotton in South Africa. Bull. Ent. Res. 25 pp. 349-38.Pearson, E.O. (1958) The insect pests of cotton in tropical Africa. Emp. Cott. Gr.

Corp. and Commonw. Inst. Ent., London.Prentice, A.N. (1972) Cotton with special reference to Africa. Longman 282 pp.Ripper, W.E. and George M. (1965) Cotton Pests of the Sudan. Blackwells Scien-

tific publications. Oxford 345 pp.Reed, W. (1974) Selection of cotton varieties for resistance to insect pests in

Uganda. Cott. Gr. Rev. 51: 106-23.Room, R.E. (1975) Field trials with a nuclear polyhidrosis virus disease and

Bacillus thuringiensis against Heliothis armigera (Hbn.) larvae on sorghumand cotton in Botswana. Bull. Ent. Res. 65: 507-14.

Room, R.E. and Daust, R.A. (1975) Survival of the nuclear polyhidrosis virus ofHeliothis armigera (Hbn.) on crops and in soil in Botswana J. Invert. Path.27: 7-12.

Salama, H.S. (1983) Cotton management in Egypt. Crop Prot. 2: 183-91.Saka, V.W. (1989) Present and future development of integrated Pest management

in SADCC. A case for Malawi. In Namponyam, C.R (ed.) Strategy for Inte-grated Pest Management and weed control in SADCC countries. Proc. of aSADCC workshop held in Mbabane Swaziland. August 1-4, 1988.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 0

3:27

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Research, Reviews, Practices and Technology 185

Schuter, M.F., Maxwell, F.G. and Jenkens, J.W. (1972) Antibiosis to two spottedspider mites in upland and American Prima Cotton. J. Econ. Ento. 65: 1110-11.

Schulton, G.G.M. (1987) Challenges facing agricultural entomology in the trop-ics. Insect Sci. Applic. 8: 397-405.

Schults, R.L., Jackson J.E. and Faulkner, R.C. (1967) Studies on the sowing datesof cotton in the Sudan Gezira. 11. The relationship between the sowing dateand the incidence on insect pests. J. Agric. Sci. 69: 317-27.

Sikazwe, E., Pons J., and Marcous B. (1989) Cotton in Zambia. Agronomicalpractices and pest control. Lint Company of Zambia Ltd. P.O. Box 30178,Lusaka Zambia. 16 pp.

Stride, G.O. (1969) On the biology and ecology of Lygus vosselleri (Heteroptera:miridae) with special reference to its host plant relationship. J. Ento. Soc. Sth.Afr. 31: 17-59.

Smith R.L., Wilson R.L. and Wilson F.D. (1975) Resistance of cotton plant hairsto the mobility of first instars of the pink bollworm. J. Econ. Ent. 68: 679-83.

Snow, O.W. and Taylor J. (1952) The large scale control of cotton jassid in theGezira and white Nile areas of the sudan. Bull. Ent. Res. 43: 479-502.

Summy K.R. and King E.G. (1992) Cultural control of cotton insect pests in theUnited States. Crop Prot. 11: 307-319.

Sweeny, R.C.H. (1956) A Summary of information on insect pests of cotton in theNuba Mountains, Kordofan (unpublished).

Tarr, S.A.J. (1952) Ann. Rep. Res. Division, Min. of Agric. Sect. of Bot. & plant path.Tingey, W.M., Leigh, T.F. and Hyer, A.H. (1975) Lygus hesperus, growth, surviv-

al and egg laying resistance of cotton genotypes. J. Econ. Ent. 68: 28-30.Tothill, J.D. (1940) Agriculture in Uganda. Oxford University Press, London. 551 pp.Tunstall, J.P. (1965) Ovipositional response of Diparopsis and Heliothis to cotton

varietal differences. Cotton Pest Research Scheme Annual Report for 1962/63in Ministry of Agriculture Research Report, p. 59.

Tunstall, J.P. and Matthews G.A. (1966) Large-scale spraying trials for the controlof cotton pests in Central Africa. Cott. Gr. Rev. 43: 121-39.

Way, J.M. and Cammell, M.E. (1981) Effects of weeds and weed control oninvertebrate pest ecology, in: J. M. Thresh (ed). Pests, pathogens and vegeta-tion. Pitman, London, pp. 443-58.

Wilson, F.D. (1980) Cotton cultivars resistant to the pink bollworm. pp. 46-51. InGraham H.M. (ed) Pink bollworm control in the Western united States. Agric.Revs. Manuals ARM-W-16. SEA-USDA, Washington, D.C.

RECEIVED: 04/13/93REVISED: 09/20/93

ACCEPTED: 09/29/93

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

rizo

na]

at 0

3:27

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14