143 



ni Hiibner), cotton bollworm ( Heliothis zea Boddie), tobacco budworm ( Hellothis 

 vlrescens Fabricius) , and boll weevil ( Anthonomus grand Is Boheman) but less 

 active against the house fly ( Musca domestic a L.) and house cricket ( Acheta 

 domesticus L.). Additional biological parameters of a single compound, 

 U-46,855, methyl [ [ [methyl-(4-morpholinothio)amino]carbonyl]oxy]ethanimido- 

 thloate, were compared to those of methomyl in the laboratory. U-46,855 

 demonstrated a marked increase in foliar residual life, lower mammalian 

 toxicity, and greater crop selectivity while methomyl was much more resistant 

 to mechanical loss due to rain. Evaluation of chemicals for the control of 

 the bollworm complex in Alabama demonstrated that U-46,855 produced signi- 

 ficantly higher cotton yields than methomyl. 



270. Gilliland, F. R. , Jr. 1972. Influence of simulated aarly-season 



insect damage on growth and yield of cotton. Ala. Agric. Exp. Stn. 

 Bull. 442, 11 pp. 

 The results of this experiment may well give cause for some reassessment 

 of the importance of certain early-season insect infestations. Obviously, 

 the cotton plants have the capacity to replace all of the squares lost to 

 early-season attack from such insects as plant bugs and boll weevil. How- 

 ever, the indication that some early-season loss of squares to insect in- 

 jury might even be beneficial must be considered with caution. Adverse 

 climatic conditions during the period following the loss of early-season 

 squares could seriously inhibit capacity of cotton plants to compensate 

 for the square loss. Also, in the event of an early onset of cold weather 

 in the fall, a delay in the boll maturity, caused by the loss of early- 

 season squares, might have a disastrous effect on yields. One must also 

 consider the impact of providing an abundance of late season squares and 

 developing bolls as food for the diapausing generation of the boll weevil 



/ 



