AERIAL SPRAYS OF FIPRONIL FOR CONTROL OF BOLL WEEVIL
I. W. Kirk and S. J. Harp
USDA, ARS, Areawide Pest Management Research College Station, TX
And A. M. Wiese
Rhône-Poulenc Ag Company Plano, TX
Abstract
Aerial electrostatic application and fipronil are potential improvements in technology for controlling and eradicating cotton boll weevil. A small field study of aerial applications of electrostatic fipronil, fipronil in ULV oil, and ULV malathion was conducted in Burleson County, TX. ULV malathion delivered more dye tracer to top-canopy cotton leaves than the other treatments. Electrostatic fipronil had higher boll weevil mortalities in leaf bioassays three days after application than the other treatments. Fipronil in ULV oil had lower spray deposits and lower boll weevil mortalities than the other treatments. These technologies need further evaluation in large-scale field studies.
Summary
Electrostatic aerial spray systems have been developed and offer potential for increased spray deposits and reduced spray drift. Fipronil was shown to be readily adaptable to electrostatic charging and a label for use on cotton is being pursued by the manufacturer for possible use as an alternative toxicant in boll weevil eradication programs. A small field study was designed to compare electrostatically applied fipronil, fipronil in ULV oil, and ULV malathion. Electrostatic fipronil had higher boll weevil mortalities on day 3 after spray application than the other treatments. Fipronil in ULV oil gave lower boll weevil mortalities on days 0 and 3 after spray application than either electrostatic fipronil or ULV malathion. Large scale field studies with electrostatic fipronil are warranted based on this preliminary study.
Acknowledgments
Appreciation is expressed to W. D. Sealock, Manager, Texas A&M University Farm for making cotton acreage available for this study. Special appreciation is expressed to Osama El-lissy and Phil Hopkins, TBWEF, Inc. for providing ULV malathion for the study. H. H. Tom piloted the aircraft. W. C. Hoffmann, P. C. Jank, and C. B. Harris assisted with field operations, sample processing, and data analyses.
Trade names are mentioned solely for the purpose of providing specific information. Mention of a trade name does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of the product by the U. S. Department of Agriculture or the National Cotton Council, and does not imply endorsement of the product over other products not mentioned.
References
Abbott, W. S. 1925. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 18:265-267.
Carlton, J. B., I. W. Kirk, and M. A. Latheef. 1995. Cotton pesticide deposition from aerial electrostatic charged sprays. ASAE Paper No. AA95-007. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASAE.
Carlton, J. B. 1999. Technique to reduce chemical usage and concomittant drift from aerial sprays. US Patent No. 5,975,425.
Mulrooney, J. E., D. A. Wolfenbarger, K. D. Howard, and D. Goli. 1998. Efficacy of ultra low volume and high volume applications of fipronil against the boll weevil. J. Cotton Sci. 2(3):110-116.
Reed, D. K., M. Christian, and R. G. Jones. 1998. Aerial application of fipronil (Regent®) vs. malathion in replicated field test for boll weevil. Proceedings Beltwide Cotton Conferences. 1262-1265.