Diagnostic Methods For Cotton Boll Weevil 2011

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox
http://www.padil.gov.au/pbt | Cotton Boll Weevil - Anthonomus grandis
Diagnostic Methods
for
Cotton Boll Weevil

Anthonomus grandis
Last Updated: 16 September 2010 | PDF Made Date: 18 February 2011 | page 1 / 21

Introduction
A little more than a century ago, Anthonomus grandis (boll weevil) migrated from Mexico to the U.S. and spread rapidly throughout the Cotton Belt. Since then, the National Cotton Council of America estimates that it has cost America's cotton producers more than $US15 billion from yield losses and costs to control the insect pest.
In 1958, the National Cotton Council officially recognized the economic havoc the boll weevil was wreaking on U.S. cotton production. With Congressional leadership and support, a USDA Boll Weevil Research Lab was created followed by eradication experiments, a trial eradication program and an areawide boll weevil control program on Texas' High Plains and Rolling Plains to prevent the weevil's migration.
In the late 1970s, the National Boll Weevil Eradication Program was launched by USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) along the Virginia-North Carolina border.
The program later expanded into other Southeastern states. Simultaneously, programs were launched in southwestern Arizona, southern California and a portion of northwest Mexico.
Today, 6.5 million cotton acres are active in the eradication program with eradication already achieved on 4.5 million acres. Eradication will begin on an additional 1.5 million acres in the fall of 2000. The goal is to eradicate the weevil as an economic pest from the U.S.
The boll weevil is no longer an economic threat in the Southeast, Arizona and California. The weevil is still costing growers about $300 million annually, mostly in the Mid-South and in Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico. The program had cost over $US250 million up to the year 2000.

Biology
Stages of Development
The boll weevil is a pollen feeder; its survival is diminished without squaring cotton, although adult boll weevils emerging from overwintering quarters may subsist on other plants for short periods (e.g., an average of 18 days on yellow woolywhite in the Rolling Plains area). After adult weevils feed on cotton for 3 to 7 days and mate, they lay eggs in squares that have reached at least the "one-third grown stage" (approximately 1/4 inch in diameter). Egg laying may occur in smaller squares; however, sufficient feeding material is not available for a high percentage of larvae to develop to the adult stage. Late in the season eggs may be laid in small bolls, but squares are preferred.
It takes the eggs 2.5 to 5 days to hatch into the grublike larva that feeds inside the square or small boll. After larval development begins the infested square turns yellow, bracts open or flare and the fruiting form falls off the plant. The larva feeds for 7 to 14 days before pupating inside the square or small boll. During the next 4 to 6 days the pupal stage changes into an adult boll weevil. The newly developed adult eats its way out of the square or small boll and feeds on other fruiting forms for about 5 days. During this time the weevil mates and females begin to lay eggs. The entire cycle takes 16 to 18 days under ideal conditions. Six or seven generations may be produced each year with each female having the capability of laying approximately 200 eggs.
Adult weevils hibernate through winter in surface trash or litter in woodland and along channel banks near cotton field as well as in trash around gins and farm buildings (Smith and Harris, 1994). These emerge the following spring.

Figure 1. Pupa in damaged boll. Photographer: Clemson University - USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series. Image 1235198 www.invasive.org
Figure 2. Larva in square. Photographer: Clemson University - USDA Cooperative Extension Slide

Series. Image 1235199
Description of life stages
EGG - The pearly white eggs are elliptical and approximately 0.85 mm long. The soft shell allows the egg to fit into almost any crevice. A. grandis eggs are seldom seen since they are deposited inside a square or boll. Females will deposit an average of 100 - 300 eggs each, typivally placing one egg per square or boll.
LARVA - The newly hatched larvae are inconspicuous, being only slightly larger than the egg. The mature larva is white, legless, and around 13 mm long. The head and mouthparts are brown, with a curved and wrinkled body.
Immature stages are found inside [cotton plant] squares [flower buds] and bolls.
PUPA - White initially, then turns brown as development progresses. The pupal or 'resting' stage of A. grandis is 0.95 to 1.27 cm long and cream to brown coloured with eyes and an obvious snout (Global Invasive Species Database, Pencoe and Phillips 1987).
ADULT - The adult weevil measures from 3 mm to 1.3 cm from the tip of the snout to the tip of the abdomen. There is considerable variation in size from slightly more than 0.32 cm to almost 1.27 cm in length.
Anthonomus grandis eggs hatch into the grub like larva in 2.5 to 5 days and they feed on the inside of the square or small boll. After larval development begins the infested square turns yellow, bracts open or flare and the fruiting form falls off the plant. The larva feeds for 7 to 14 days before pupating inside the square or small boll. During the next 4 to 6 days the pupal stage changes into an adult. The newly developed adult eats its way out of the square or small boll and feeds on other fruiting forms for about 5 days. During this time the weevil mates and females begin to lay eggs. The entire cycle takes 16 to 18 days under ideal conditions. Six or seven generations may be produced each year with each female having the capability of laying approximately 200 eggs (Global Invasive Species Database).

Adult weevils hibernate through winter in surface trash or litter in woodland and along channel banks near cotton field as well as in trash around gins and farm buildings (Smith and Harris, 1994). These emerge the following spring.
Host Range
The principal host of A. grandis grandis is cotton, including Gossypium barbadense, G. hirsutum and wild Gossypium spp. There is also significant reproduction of boll weevils in nature on a number of wild malvaceous hosts including Cienfuegosia drummondii, C. rosei, Hampea rovirosae and Pseudabutilon lazani. Marginal reproduction has also been observed on Hibiscus syriacus. A. g. thurberiae mainly feeds on the wild Gossypium thurberi but also on cultivated cotton. Wild Malvaceae might be attacked and act as reservoirs.
Recorded Hosts:
Upland or American Cotton Gossypium hirsutum Egyptian Cotton Gossypium barbadense Gossypium thurberiGossypium davidsoniiGossypium harknessiiGossypium lobatum Gossypium laxum
Additionally, the boll weevil reproduces on wild malvaceous plants, primarily of five genera: Gossypium, Cienfuegosia, Thespesia, Hampea and Hibiscus. The insect also utilizes other plants, such as wild Malvaceae as food to sustain its populations during critical periods (Bottrell 1983, Pencoe and Phillips 1987).
Distribution
Native range: Mexico and Central America. Known introduced range: United States, Venezuela, Columbia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Argentina (Ramalho and Wanderley (Global Invasive Species Database).
Taken from CABI Crop Protection Compendium 2002.

Anthonomus grandis World Distribution Map
Europe
Greece: absent, never occurred (EPPO, 2002) Italy: absent, never occurred (EPPO, 2002) Spain: absent, never occurred (EPPO, 2002)
Africa
Benin: absent, unreliable record (EPPO, 2002) South Africa: absent, intercepted only (EPPO, 2002)
Western Hemisphere
Argentina: restricted distribution (EPPO, 2002) Belize: present, no further details (Anon., 1992; EPPO, 2002) Brazil: Alagoas: present, no further details (Degrande, 1991; EPPO, 2002) Bahia: present, no further details (Degrande, 1991; EPPO, 2002) Ceara: present, no further details (Degrande, 1991; EPPO, 2002) Maranhao: present, no further details (Degrande, 1991; EPPO, 2002) Matto Grosso do Sul: present, no further details (Degrande, 1991; EPPO, 2002) Minas Gerais: present, no further details (Degrande, 1991; EPPO, 2002)

Paraiba: present, no further details (Braga Sobrinho et al., 1983; Bleicher & Almeida, 1991; EPPO, 2002) Parana: present, no further details (Santos, 1989; EPPO, 2002) Pernambuco: present, no further details (Coutinho & Cavalcanti, 1988; Ramalho & Jesus, 1988; Bleicher & Almeida, 1991a,b; EPPO, 2002) Piau: present, no further details (Degrande, 1991; EPPO, 2002) Rio Grande do Norte: present, no further details (Degrande, 1991; EPPO, 2002) Sao Paulo: present, no further details (Habib & Fernandes, 1983; Ramiro et al., 1989; Gabriel et al., 1991; EPPO, 2002) Colombia: restricted distribution (Warner, 1966; Lobaton & Garcia, 1981; Alvarez & Martinez, 1985; EPPO, 2002) Costa Rica: present, no further details (Warner, 1996; Johnson et al., 1973; EPPO, 2002) Cuba: widespread (Warner, 1966; Degrande, 1991; EPPO, 2002) Dominican Republic: widespread (O'Brien & Wibmer, 1982; Degrande, 1991; EPPO, 2002) Ecuador: absent, invalid record (EPPO, 2002) El Salvador: present, no further details (Warner, 1966; Vigil, 1971; Vaissayre & Alvarado, 1982; EPPO, 2002) Guatemala: present, no further details (Warner, 1966; EPPO, 2002) Haiti: widespread (Warner, 1966; Degrande, 1991; EPPO, 2002) Honduras: present, no further details (Warner, 1966; Howell, 1978; EPPO, 2002) Martinique: present, no further details (EPPO, 2002) Mexico: widespread (Jones et al., 1989; Pacheco-Covarrubias, 1992; EPPO, 2002) Nicaragua: present, no further details (Warner, 1966; Dxl, 1985; Swesey & Daxl, 1988; EPPO, 2002) Paraguay: restricted distribution (Nikiphoroff & Whitaker, 1992; EPPO, 2002) Saint Kitts and Nevis: present, no further details (EPPO, 2002) USA: Alabama: eradicated (Boyd, 1976; EPPO, 2002) Arizona: eradicated (Warner, 1966; Henneberry et al., 1991; EPPO, 2002) Arkansas: restricted distribution (Bourland & Waddle, 1988; EPPO, 2002) California: eradicated (Degrande, 1991; Anon., 1992; EPPO, 2002) Florida: eradicated (Leggett, 1979; Anon., 1992; Villavaso et al., 1992; EPPO, 2002) Georgia (USA): eradicated (Leonhardt et al., 1991; Haneyet al., 1996; EPPO, 2002) Kansas: restricted distribution (EPPO, 2002) Louisiana: restricted distribution (Kennedy et al., 1991; EPPO, 2002) Mississippi: restricted distribution (Haynes, 1987; EPPO, 2002) Missouri: restricted distribution (Warner, 1966; EPPO, 2002) New Mexico: restricted distribution (EPPO, 2002) North Carolina: eradicated (Carlson & Suguiyama, 1983; Anon., 1992; EPPO, 2002) Oklahoma: restricted distribution (Young et al., 1983; EPPO, 2002) South Carolina: eradicated (Leggett et al., 1988; Terranova et al., 1991; EPPO, 2002) Tennessee: restricted distribution (Mullins & Lentz, 1981; EPPO, 2002) Texas: widespread (Fuchs & Minzenmayer, 1990; Carroll et al., 1993; EPPO, 2002) Virginia: eradicated (Wright & Villavaso, 1983; Anon., 1992; EPPO, 2002) Venezuela: widespread (Warner, 1966; Diaz, 1978; EPPO, 2002)

Potential distribution in Australia
It is likely that it could establish over much of our cotton belt (Lewis).
Transmission
Thermal convection may disperse flying adult weevils for long distances, especially in arid areas (up to 72 km has been recorded). In central Texas the greatest dispersal occurs from mid-August to September. In trade, boll weevils may be carried with cotton seeds or bolls, with raw cotton and various cotton products.
Human-aided dispersal
Road vehicles (long distance) Translocation of machinery/equipment Transportation of habitat material
Effect
Yield losses have been estimated at 7-20% prior to the implementation of eradication programs. Since its entry into the US from Mexico, the boll weevil has destroyed and reduced the quality of several billion dollars worth of cotton, over an area of 3 million hectares. In the 1970s, USA cotton producers lost $200 million US or more annually, with suppression costs an additional $75 million US. Approximately one third of all pesticides applied to crops in the USA are used to control boll weevil.
Risk Analysis
The following risk analysis for Anthonomus grandis is based on the methodology in Biosecurity Australia's guidelines on Import Risk Analysis for Plants and Plant Products (2001).

Entry potential Rating = MEDIUM
A. grandis could enter on seeds or bolls of cotton from countries (or states in the USA) where it occurs. Raw cotton from the same origin (including waste fabric, waste cotton, cotton seed cake, meal, bags that have been used as a container for lint or any form of un-manufactured cotton) could carry the weevil and should be fumigated (with phosphine or methyl bromide; FAO, 1983). Imported machinery could also harbour infested bolls or adult beetles.
Establishment potential Rating = HIGH
If A. grandis reached the Australian cotton growing regions it would be likely to establish. There are a range of malvaceous weeds found on and around cotton farms that could potentially be hosts. Climatically the Australian cotton growing regions are reasonably similar to parts of the USA where this pest is well established. Furthermore, there is often volunteer cotton on cotton farms that could serves as a reservoir for this pest.
Spread potential following establishment Rating = HIGH
The adult can fly and be carried on wind, (up to 272 km has been recorded using marked individuals). Also the weevil could move in cotton trash. In the USA the boll weevil front advanced at about 80 km per year.
Economic impact Rating = HIGH
Since its entry into Texas in the 1890s from Central America, the boll weevil has destroyed and reduced the quality of several billion dollars' worth of cotton, over 3 million ha. In the 1970s, USA cotton

producers lost $US200 million or more annually; suppression costs an additional $US75 million annually; in fact, nearly one third of all pesticides applied to crops in the USA are used to control this pest. Azinphos-methyl and parathion-methyl have been the two most widely used insecticides, more recently in addition to pyrethroids.
In Australia damage to cotton could similarly be very high. Current transgenic varieties producing the Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab toxins do not provide any control of this pest.
Eradication of the pest is probably possible, though the chances of quick success would be dramatically heightened with early detection. The limited host range increases the likely effectiveness of strategies employed in cotton. The USA eradication system relies on use of insecticides routinely during the cotton season to prevent establishment and survival of the boll weevil in cotton. This relies on use of broad spectrum insecticides which are detrimental to IPM systems. Other tools include pheromones (e.g. lure and kill strategies), destruction of overwinter sites, a cotton free period, use of short season varieties that set fruit before weevil numbers build, trap crops, conservation of beneficials and sterile male release (see Smith and Harris, 1994).
Environmental impact Rating = LOW
A. grandis could impact on native Australian Gossypium species (>40) and Malvaceae if it reached areas in which they grow. The host range of A. grandis is limited, suggesting that damage to native species would not be substantial, but there is limited information on whether Australian Malvaceae may be impacted. These native species could also act as a reservoir for A. grandis.
There would be potential environmental risks associated additional chemical inputs to control A. grandis.
Conclusions
Overall risk: Rating = Moderate

Taxonomy
Classification
Kingdom Animalia Phylum Arthropoda Class Insecta Order Coleoptera Family Curculionidae Genus Anthonomus Species grandis
Name and Synonyms

Synonyms:
Anthonomus thurberiae (Pierce 1913) Anthonomus grandis Boheman, 1843
Common Names:
Boll weevil Cotton Boll Weevil
Identification Keys
Jones, R.W., Burke, H.R. (1997). New species and host plants of the Anthonomus grandis species group

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 99(4): 705 - 719.
Experts
Dale W. Spurgeon (USDA, ARS, APMRU) Email: spurgeon@usda-apmru.tamu.edu Address: 2771 F&B Road College Station, Texas 77845 Phone: (979)260-9217 Fax: (979)260-9386

Detection
Symptom Description
The early stage of attack is recognizable by a small puncture (either egg or feeding puncture) at the side of the flower bud. The bracteoles subsequently spread out, and buds turn brown and fall off. In later attacks, flowers turn yellow and fall to the ground, as do small bolls. Punctured large bolls usually remain on the plant, but will be of poor quality.
Although adult boll weevil feeding causes little damage, it indicates the presence of weevils and that egg laying will soon follow. There are distinct differences between feeding and egg-laying punctures.
As weevils feed, a small cavity is formed at the site of feeding. If a female weevil determines that the feeding site is suitable for egg laying, she enlarges the cavity slightly and inserts her ovipositor (egg-laying tube) to deposit a single egg in the cavity. When the ovipositor is withdrawn she secretes a sticky substance that covers the cavity. This sticky secretion hardens to form a wart-like protuberance that can be easily seen and felt. Feeding punctures usually have no sticky covering and therefore no wart-like protuberance.
Most of the damage is due to larval development inside fruiting forms. Feeding larvae eventually cause cotton squares and small bolls to shed or damage developing lint in larger bolls. Heavily infested cotton may produce much foliage but few mature bolls.
Symptom Images

Figure 3. A. grandis damage. An egg-laying puncture may be seen on the upper right edge of square on the left; a typical feeding puncture appears in square on the right. Photographer: Clemson University USDA Cooperative Extension Slide Series. Image 1435143 www.invasive.org.
Sites of Infection/Infestation
Eggs are laid in flower buds and young bolls, where larvae hatch and feed.
Factors Influencing Occurrence

In temperate zones Anthonomus grandis spends the winter in hibernation, called 'diapause', without food and returns to cotton in the early spring the following year. Over-wintering quarters usually consist of fence rows, broadleaved plant litter along creek bottoms, ditch banks and other protected, wooded areas near cotton fields. In the spring, over-wintered adults concentrate in early-planted fields nearest to over-wintering habitat where cotton is squaring. In subtropical zones, over wintering adults may remain active through much of the non-cotton season (Global Invasive Species Database).

Identification
Morphological Methods
The adult boll weevil is an elongated oval brown to greyish-brown beetle, measuring about 5 mm without the rostrum, which is 3 mm long and round (see Figure 1). There is considerable variation in size from slightly more than 1/8 inch to almost inch in length. The upper side of the elytra is pale, marked by fine parallel lines and moderately densely clothed with smooth hairs. All femora, and especially the front pair, are provided with a strong tooth on the inner side.
Immature stages are found inside squares and bolls. The boll weevil egg is seldom seen since it is deposited inside a square or boll. The larva is white and legless with a brownish head and chewing mouthparts. This grub varies in size from very small to inch in length. The pupal stage of the weevil is 3/8 to inch long and cream coloured with eyes and an obvious snout.
The species is segregated by several adult characteristics into:
a) A. grandis grandis: South-eastern boll weevil.
b) A. grandis thurberiae: Thurberia boll weevil.
c) Intermediates: Mexican boll weevil.

Figure 4. A. grandis adult on a boll. Image Agricultural Research Service (USA). Image Number K2742-6.
ADULT - The adult weevil measures from 3 mm to 1.3 cm from the tip of the snout to the tip of the abdomen. There is considerable variation in size from slightly more than 0.32 cm to almost 1.27 cm in length.
The brown to greyish brown body of the beetle is covered with short, fine hair, giving it a fuzzy appearance. Colour can vary from reddish to yellowish brown to dark brown, according to its age and size. The elytra are pitted and grooved.
A. grandis' snout is approximately half as long as its body. It is slightly curved and has chewing mouthparts on the end. A distinctive characteristic are the two spurs on each prothoracic femur. The mosothoracic femurs have only one spur.
The antennae are elbowed with a club-shaped tip. Antennae of the males are inserted approximately 1/3 the distance from the tip of a coarsely punctuate snout to the eyes, whereas the antennae of females are inserted about 2/5 the distance from the tip of a more smooth and shiny snout to the eyes.

Figure 5. Cotton boll weevil - adult. Photo: F. Benci, Boll Weevil Research Laboratory.
Figure 6. Close-up of an adult Cotton boll weevil. Photo: Pest and Diseases Image Library, Australia.

Figure 7. Head of the Cotton boll weevil, also showing the two spurs on the front legs. Photo: Pest and Diseases Image Library, Australia.
Figure 8. The Cotton boll weevil body showing the fine, fuzzy hair and the pitted / grooved elytra. Photo: Pest and Diseases Image Library, Australia.
Potentially misidentified species

Anthonomus hunteri Burke and Cate - close morphological affinities to A. grandis.
Anthonomus hunteri is known to develop only on Hampera trilobata Standley, a plant endemic to the Yucatan Peninsula, Belize and northern Guatemala, while A. grandis has a wider host range within Gossypieae.
Molecular Methods
Kim et al. (2009). Molecular diagnostic for boll weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) based on amplification of three species-specific microsatellites. J Econ Entomol 102: 759-766.

Further Information
Acknowledgements
The information displayed on these Cotton Boll Weevil webpages was sourced from the Pest Risk Review for Cotton Boll Weevil and was kindly provided Plant Health Australia.
References
Burke, H.R., Clark, W.E., Cross, W.H. (1984). Larvae and pupae of the Anthonomus subgenus Anthonomorphus dietz, A. grandis, Boheman and A. hunteri Burke and Cate (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Southwestern Entomologist, 9: 84 - 90.
Jones, R.W., Burke, H.R. (1997). New species and host plants of the Anthonomus grandis species group (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 99(4): 705 - 719.
Kim KS, Szendri Z, Rodriguez-Saona C, Mulder PG Jr, Sappington TW. (2009). Molecular diagnostic for boll weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) based on amplification of three species-specific microsatellites. J Econ Entomol 102: 759-766.
Reardon, B.J., Suh, C.P.C., Spurgeon, D.W. (2002). Head capsule widths of larval instars of the boll weevil. Southwestern Entomologist, Scientific Note, 27(3/4): 291 - 292.
Sappington, T.W., Spugeon, D.W. (2000). Preferred technique for adult sex determination of the boll weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 93(3): 610 - 615.
Smith, J.W. and Harris, F. A. (1994) Anthonomus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). In, Insect pests of cotton (G.A. Matthews and J. P. Tunstall eds), CAB International, Wallingford, UK. pp223 - 258.

Diagnostic Methods For Cotton Boll Weevil 2011

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Diagnostic Methods For Cotton Boll Weevil 2011

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

http://www.padil.gov.au/pbt | Cotton Boll Weevil - Anthonomus grandis

Cotton Boll Weevil

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

Series. Image 1235199

Description of life stages

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

Taken from CABI Crop Protection Compendium 2002.

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

Anthonomus grandis World Distribution Map

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

Potential distribution in Australia

Road vehicles (long distance) Translocation of machinery/equipment Transportation of habitat material

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

Entry potential Rating = MEDIUM

Establishment potential Rating = HIGH

Spread potential following establishment Rating = HIGH

Economic impact Rating = HIGH

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

Environmental impact Rating = LOW

Overall risk: Rating = Moderate

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

Name and Synonyms

Anthonomus thurberiae (Pierce 1913) Anthonomus grandis Boheman, 1843

Boll weevil Cotton Boll Weevil

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

Factors Influencing Occurrence

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

The species is segregated by several adult characteristics into:

a) A. grandis grandis: South-eastern boll weevil.

b) A. grandis thurberiae: Thurberia boll weevil.

c) Intermediates: Mexican boll weevil.

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

Potentially misidentified species

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

Anthonomus hunteri Burke and Cate - close morphological affinities to A. grandis.

PaDIL - Plant Biosecurity Toolbox

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen