Under
the Radar, Deep in the Canopy
Brown
Stink Bugs in Arizona Cotton
Peter C. Ellsworth,
Lydia Brown & Ayman Mostafa
A) Brown Stink Bug (BSB)
The Brown Stink Bug (Euschistus
servus)
(BSB) (A)
is rarely
damaging in Arizona cotton, but at high densities, they can reduce yield and quality.
BSBs
pierce bolls
to
feed on developing seeds; young bolls (<10 d old) (B)
may
shed when these are the only sizes available to the bugs
(C). BSB can cause
carpel
and seed injury
(D), stain
lint,
lower
yields and quality, and encourage boll
rot organisms.
Successfully
attacked bolls will have callus warts (E) on the
interior of the carpel wall or brown stains on lint (F)
and seeds.
An
externally visible small brown pockmark on the boll surface does not
necessarily mean the boll interior is damaged; bolls must be opened to
determine if injury has occurred.
B) Small bolls shed during very early fruiting
There is no
recent Arizona-specific information available for monitoring or
decision-making. We must rely on information from the Southeastern U.S. Stink
bug action thresholds are based on the percentage of internally damaged bolls
(bolls with
any internal injury). Collect at
least 25 1-inch
bolls from each field, avoiding field edges. The
boll
sample must
consist of
properly sized bolls, which give easily when squeezed and
are 0.9–1.1
inches in
diameter.
Boll sizes for stink bug sampling
Crack and inspect bolls for internal injury. If
any warts or stained lint are present, count that boll as injured.
Chemical control may be warranted when 20% or more of the boll sample have
warts or stained lint and
stink bugs are present in the field. The Southeast has developed dynamic
thresholds for stink bugs, because cotton’s
susceptibility to stink bugs varies. Very early and very late in the season,
stink bugs do not pose as much of a threat and higher percentages of injured
bolls can
be tolerated, up to 50% with warts or stained lint. Maturing bolls are
relatively safe from stink bug feeding injury starting
at 25
days of age
or once they are ≥1.25 inches in diameter; internal injury to lint
is unlikely.
C) Damage to young bolls (1–10 days old) may cause shed
D) Damaged 1 inch diameter boll
E) Callus warts from on the carpel interior (similar to pink bollworm injury)
F) Stink bug feeding injury can result in stained lint
Research in Arizona as far back as the 1950s
confirms that stink bugs are not caught in
representative numbers in standard sweep net sampling,
because they drop rapidly from plants and are frequently located on the plant
below the range of a normal net stroke. Do NOT rely
on sweep net sampling alone, except to confirm BSB
presence in
the field. Small
boll sampling is required to schedule and to assess chemical
controls.
There have
been no BSB specific chemical control studies since the early 1960s, when BSB
was often associated with alfalfa production. So we
must
rely on the Southeast; however, even there, most chemicals are screened against
a complex of unrelated stink bugs (Green Stink Bug &
Southern Green
Stink Bug). Lab bio-assay
results
for
BSB show that Bidrin is
highly effective
(Fig. 1). Though
a standard
there,
this old
organophosphate is not registered for use in Arizona. Bidrin is
significantly more effective on Euschistus
spp. than
bifenthrin
(Capture), but
not more so than acephate (Orthene). Acephate
at the
full label rate of 1 lb ai / A may provide control of BSB.
Belay is an
option for helping
suppress stink bug populations in general but should not be relied on as a
rescue tool. Few other products are effective.
Figure
1. Topical BSB lab insecticide
efficacy (% at 24 hr)
in Arkansas (bars) & Field efficacy (% 2–4 DAT) in Georgia
against Euschistus
spp. (dots ± SEM); adapted from Greene et al.
2005, Proc. Beltw.
Cotton Proceedings & P. Roberts, unpubl.
data. *Endigo
at 4–5.5 oz. Products and lbs active ingredient per acre tested shown on left; chemical classes shown on right.
Special thanks to Drs. Phillip Roberts (Univ. of Georgia) and Jeremy Greene (Clemson University) for permission to use their data in Figure 1 and for comments on earlier drafts.
Special thanks to Drs. Phillip Roberts (Univ. of Georgia) and Jeremy Greene (Clemson University) for permission to use their data in Figure 1 and for comments on earlier drafts.
Any products, services, or
organizations that are mentioned, shown, or indirectly implied in this
publication do not imply endorsement by the University of Arizona.
Also
see: