Skip to main content
ARS Home » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #88843
Title: FIELD EVALUATIONS OF THE KISS, A TRACTOR-MOUNTED SAMPLER, AND HAND SAMPLING FOR DETECTING BOLL WEEVILS IN PREBLOOM COTTON

Author
item Beerwinkle, Kenneth
item Coppedge, James

Submitted to: Southwestern Entomologist
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 4/3/1998
Publication Date: N/A
Citation: N/A

Interpretive Summary: Field sampling of cotton to detect the presence and population trends of insect pests such as the boll weevil is required to provide farmers and crop consultants the information necessary for sound pest management decisions. Such sampling is conventionally performed by visual examination of individual cotton plants which is labor intensive and costly. Mechanical insect sampling devices have been introduced to increase the efficiency and reduce the costs of the field sampling process. Research was conducted to evaluate the relative efficiencies of a hand-carried pneumatic keep-it-simple sampler (KISS), a tractor-mounted pneumatic sampler (TMS), and the visual plant examination method for early-season detection of boll weevils in prebloom cotton. The overall sampling efficiencies of the KISS and TMS were comparable in terms of reliability of results and labor costs, and the efficiencies of both of these mechanical devices were greatly superior to that of the hand sampling method. The greater portability and lower equipment costs of the KISS in comparison to the TMS should make it the preferred method in many boll weevil sampling applications.

Technical Abstract: Field experiments were conducted to compare the sampling efficacy and reliability of a hand-carried pneumatic keep-it-simple sampler (KISS) to that of a tractor-mounted sampler (TMS) for detecting and quantifying the presence of boll weevils in prebloom cotton, and to compare the sampling efficiencies of the KISS, TMS, and hand sampling methods for characterizing gearly-season boll weevil populations. The sampling efficacy of the KISS was about 50 percent that of the TMS, and its reliability, as measured by replication sample variation, was comparable. Sampling efficacy and reliability of the hand sampling methods were not determined. The overall sampling efficiencies of the KISS and the TMS in terms of reliability of results and cost in man time were comparable, and the efficiencies of both the KISS and the TMS were greatly superior to that of the hand sampling method.