Boll Weevil | New Georgia Encyclopedia Last edited by NGE Staff on 10/12/2016 The boll Boll Weevil weevil greatly affected Georgia's long history of cotton production between 1915, when the insect was introduced to Georgia, and the early 1990s, when it was eliminated as an economic pest. Yield losses associated with the boll weevil reduced cotton acreage from a historical high of 5.2 million acres during 1914 to 2.6 million acres in 1923. Although insecticides provided temporary relief, the cotton industry remained unprofitable, and planted acreage continued to decline, to a low of 115,000 acres in 1983. The boll weevil's decimation of the cotton industry in the South had implications for the entire region. The pest was a driving force behind the "great migration" of poor tenant farmers into northern cities, and the state's dependence on cash-crop production left its soil depleted and prone to erosion . In 1987 Georgia growers began participating in a program to eradicate the boll weevil.

Over a period of years the program proved successful, and Georgia producers have increased cotton acreage and yields significantly while reducing their dependence on insecticides. The adult boll weevil measures from three to eight millimeters from the tip of the snout to the abdomen, which is half the length of its body. Its color is usually reddish or grayish brown but may vary according to age and size. A distinctive characteristic is the double-toothed spur on the inner surface of each front leg. A newly hatched larva is inconspicuous, and the mature larva is white, legless, and about thirteen millimeters long. Larvae complete development in cotton fruiting structures. The primary damage to cotton occurs when female boll weevils deposit eggs in fruiting structures (e.g., flower buds, squares, seed pods, or bolls) on developing cotton plants. Upon hatching, the boll weevil larvae or grubs feed in the square, causing it to be shed by the plant or rendering the bolls unsuitable for harvest. Boll Weevil Before eradication the boll weevil was the chief pest of cotton in Georgia as well as in other areas of the cotton belt.

Indeed, the boll weevil was such an economic pest that it engendered an unprecedented amount of research and pesticide application. In 1972 it was estimated that one-third of all pesticides in the United States was applied to cotton for boll weevil prevention. Intensive use of broad-spectrum insecticides for boll-weevil control, such as calcium arsenate and DDT, often caused outbreaks of other insect pests because these insecticides cause the destruction of natural enemies that suppress various pest species in cotton, such as parasites and predatory insects. Fields that used broad-spectrum insecticides often had a loss in yield similar to that in fields that did not use broad-spectrum insecticides. The term "pesticide treadmill" was coined in the early 1970s to describe this cycle as it relates to the boll weevil: pesticides were developed and overapplied, the population of natural predators that were not targeted by the pesticide increased, and then new pesticides were developed and overapplied. This cycle both harmed the environment and did little to reduce crop loss. Additional hurdles to the boll weevil's eradication included the boll weevil's reproductive resilience.

Studies found that even if 90 percent of a boll weevil population was treated in a given area, then the remaining population could still reproduce and reinfest the surrounding area after only four generations, which takes less time than a typical growing season. Several Boll Weevil Trap biological factors made it possible to eliminate the boll weevil. The ability to mass-produce boll weevil pheromones in 1972 and the development of advanced boll weevil traps were integral parts of boll weevil eradication. These traps were useful because they allowed farmers to limit the number of boll weevils on their land and because they allowed farmers to detect small populations of boll weevils before they ballooned into a large infestation Cultural practices for boll-weevil management, or non-insecticide means of reducing risk or avoiding particular insect infestations, include early planting, stimulating rapid plant growth and development with appropriate fertility and weed-management programs, and using early-maturing varieties. In addition to the use of such cultural practices as stalk destruction after harvest, which eliminated plant hosts for reproduction, infested fields were treated with the insecticide malathion.

All cotton growers in Georgia are required to participate in the Boll Weevil Eradication Program (BWEP). Since elimination of the boll weevil as an economic pest, insecticide use in cotton has been reduced by approximately 75 percent, and yield losses associated with insects have been reduced by 50 percent. Today the eradication of the boll weevil is considered one of the world's best examples of "integrated pest management," which is the reduction of agricultural pests through means that are minimally damaging to the environment. The most damaging and frequent insect pests that Georgia growers encounter today are bollworm and tobacco budworm (both caterpillar pests that feed on squares and bolls). Others include the cotton aphid, beet armyworm, cutworm, fall armyworm, tarnished plant bug, cotton fleahopper, soybean looper, stink bugs, thrips, and whiteflies. Modern Georgia cotton producers continue to take an integrated approach to insect management, using such natural controls as predatory bugs to suppress pest populations. Insecticides remain a critical component of insect-management programs but are used only on an as-needed basis on in-field pest populations.

The BWEP is an ongoing program, as boll-weevil reinfestation continues to be a threat to the cotton industry. Boll weevils have been eradicated in most of the country, but they still plague parts of Texas. Cotton growers pay an annual assessment on each acre of cotton planted to monitor for and eliminate reinfestations if they occur. Boll weevil traps can be commonly observed on the perimeter of Georgia cotton fields during late summer and early fall. For the Georgia cotton industry, the BWEP has been a tremendous success from both an environmental and an economic perspective. Though Georgia's cotton yield has not yet surpassed the highs seen before the boll weevil infestation, Georgians increased cotton yields ten times over between 1982 and 2012. Georgia farmers planted around 131,000 acres of cotton in 1982 and nearly 1.3 million acres in 2012. You Might Also Like Boll Weevil - Strangley Celebrated Pest - Boiled Peanut World The boll weevil is a beetle that feeds on cotton buds, and cotton flowers. He's a lookin' for a home.

This beetle threatened to destroy cotton farming in North America at the turn of the 20th century. The weevil moved from Mexican cotton fields into Texas in 1892. The cotton bug reached Louisiana by 1900. Alabama's first infestation of the boll weevil was identified September 3, 1910, in Mobile County by state entomologist Warren E. Hines. The beetle found a home in all Alabama cotton fields by 1917. All southern USA cotton fields were infested with the pest by 1922. The cotton bug could not be stopped. Boll Weevils Spread from 1892 to 1922 Boll Weevil Songs The cottons bug's territory expanded amidst eradication efforts. In song the boll weevil became a powerful metaphor for the struggle of the working man. Southern US musicians wrote many songs about this bug. The earliest version is believed to be Charlie Patton's "Mississippi Bo Weavil Blues" written 1908, recorded in 1929.

Charlie Patton - Charley Patton "Mississippi Bo Weavil Blues" - June 1929, Richmond, Indiana The "Father of the Delta Blues" was born in Hinds County, Mississippi, circa 1891. Charlie's family moved to the Dockery Plantation sawmill, and cotton farm near Ruleville, Mississippi, when he was about 9 years old. It was at Dockery that Charlie learned guitar from Henry Sloan. Patton became an accomplished guitarist by age 19. Musicologist Robert Palmer writes that Charlie played "deep blues, white hillbilly songs, nineteenth-century ballads, and other varieties of black and white country dance music with equal facility." Ma Rainey and her Georgia Band - Gertrude Malissa Pridgett "New Bo-Weavil Blues" - 1923, Chicago, Illinois Gertrude Malissa Nix Pridgett was born on April 26, 1886, in Columbus, Georgia. Gertrude married William "Pa" Rainey February 2, 1904. The couple toured and performed for several years with F.S. Wolcott's Rabbit Foot Minstrels.

Later the Raineys were billed as "Rainey and Rainey, Assassinators of the Blues." She recorded her first eight songs with Chicago's Paramount Records in December 1923. Rainey recorded more than 100 original songs over the next 5 years. Ma recorded "Jelly Bean Blues," "Countin the Blue," and "See, See Rider" with Louis Armstrong in 1924. Paramount billed Ma Rainey as the "The Mother of the Blues." Charlie "Dad" Nelson - Charlie Nelson "Cotton Field Blues" - 1926, Chicago, Illinois Charlie Nelson recorded 8 songs during 3 Paramount recording sessions in Chicago, Illinois, between September 1926, and April 1927. These 8 songs were released on four 78 rpm records by Paramount Records. Some titles listed him as "Dad Nelson and his Guitar" or "Dad Nelson." He played guitar, 6 string banjo, kazoo, and sang on these original compositions. "Cotton Field Blues" was recorded in 1926. Jaybird Coleman - Burl C.

Coleman 'Boll Weavil Blues' - August 5, 1927, Birmingham, Alabama Burl C. "Jaybird" Coleman was born on May 20, 1896, in Gainesville, Alabama. Jaybird served the US Army at Ft. McClellan in Anniston, Alabama, between 1917, and 1919. This is where he began singing blues to entertain the troops. Coleman teamed up with "Big Joe Williams in the Birmingham Jug Band," and toured with the Rabbit Foot Minstrels from 1922 to 1924. Jaybird recorded with 3 Birmingham labels in 1927; Gennett, Silvertone, and Black Patti. Author Paul Oliver writes of Coleman "His technique was close to the field holler with a sung vocal line, and then an interpreting response on the harmonica." Lead Belly - Huddie William Ledbetter 'The Boll Weevil' - 1934, Angola Prison, Louisiana Lead Belly was born Huddie William Ledbetter on the Jeter Plantation near Mooringsport, Louisiana in January 1888.

His family moved to Bowie County, Texas, when Ledbetter was 5 yrs old. Lead Belly's signature instrument was the 12 string guitar but he also played the accordion, violin, piano, harmonica, mandolin, and concertina. His temper landed him in prison many times between 1915, and 1934. Ledbetter was freed from Lousiana's Angola prison in 1934 due to good behavior. "Boll Weevil" recording by John, and Alan Lomax inside Angola prison, 1934. Tex Ritter and Mantan Moreland - Woodward Maurice Ritter 'The Boll Weevil' from 'Riders of the Frontier' - 1939 Woodward Maurice Ritter was born in Murvaul, Texas, on January 12, 1905. Tex was an American country music singer, and movie actor popular from the mid 1930s through the 60s. His broadcasting experience began in 1928 on KPRC in Houston.

In the 1930s Ritter starred on the radio programs "The Lone Star Rangers," and "Cowboy Tom's Roundup." In 1936 Tex moved to Los Angeles to make motion pictures. Mantan Moreland, born in Monroe, Louisiana on September 3, 1902, started in Vaudeville, performing on Broadway, and touring Europe. His movie experience began with low budget race movies but his comedic charm earned him roles in larger films. Moreland is best known for his role as the chauffeur "Birmingham Brown" in the Monogram movie series "Charlie Chan." Blind Willie McTell - William Samuel McTier 'Boll Weevil' - November 5, 1940, Atlanta, Georgia William Samuel McTier was born in Thomson, Georgia on May 5, 1898. William learned guitar from his family, and neighbors in Statesboro, Georgia. Willie was born blind in one eye, and lost sight in the other eye by late childhood. He traveled, and performed widely despite being sightless.

McTell recorded for several labels under different names; Blind Willie McTell, Blind Sammie, Georgia Bill, Hot Shot Willie, Blind Willie, Barrelhouse Sammie, and Pig & Whistle Red. Blind Willie wrote "Statesboro Blues" which he recorded on October 17, 1928, in Atlanta, Georgia, for Victor records. McTell traveled the circuit between Atlanta, Augusta, Savannah, and Macon in the 1920's, and 1930's. He recorded "Boll Weevil" November 5, 1940, in Atlanta, Georgia (John Lomax session). Mother Maybelle and the Carter Sisters with Carl Smith 'Boll Weevil' - Grand Ole Opry, ca. 1957, Nashville, Tennessee "Mother Maybelle and the Carter Sisters" consisted of Maybelle Carter, and her 3 daughters - June, Helen, and Anita. They first aired on radio station WRNL in Richmond, Virginia in June 1943. The Carter Sisters then moved to WRVA, and became a headliner on the Barn Dance Show.

In 1948 they accepted an offer from WNOX in Knoxville, Tennessee, joining the "Tennessee Barn Dance," and "Mid-Day Merry-Go-Round." In 1950 the group accepted an offer from the Grand Ole Opry where they regularly performed for about 10 years. Brook Benton - Benjamin Franklin Peay 'The Boll Weevil' - 1961 Benjamin Franklin Peay was born on September 19, 1931, in Lugoff, South Carolina. Peay moved to New York in 1948 to pursue his musical career singing with several gospel groups. He later joined R&B group "The Sandmen," recording on Okeh records. Okeh encouraged Peay to become a solo artist, and changed his name to Brook Benton. Brook became a popular rock & roll, rhythm & blues, and pop singer/songwriter during the late 1950s, and early 60s.

His hits include "It's Just A Matter Of Time," and "Endlessly." In 1970 Benton had a comeback covering "Rainy Night in Georgia." Lyn Earlington and the Bourbon Street Seven 'D.D.T And The Boll-Weevil' - 1961 This groovin 1961 recording by Lyn Earlington, with Sherman Conrad, and his Bourbon Street Seven, transforms the traditional boll weevil story by introducing DDT into the picture. This odd song parodies Benton's version. DDT was a popular pesticide in the 1950's, and the 1960's, before it was banned in the USA in 1972, due to environmental concerns. Per this song, DDT changes the weevils attitude. In reality, DDT only provided a temporary defense against the mighty cotton bug. Little bug causes big changes in the South In 1913, Coffee County agent John Pittman traveled by train from Alabama to Texas to study cotton crop damage from boll weevils. Upon returning to Enterprise, Alabama, Pittman advised local farmers to diversify their crops. The farmers could not comply.

Banks were reluctant to loan seed money for crops other than cotton, and farmers could not afford to abandon cotton without seed money for an alternative crop. Boll weevils grabbed the attention of southeastern Alabama farmers, and bankers in 1915 when the beetle destroyed 60% of Coffee County's cotton. Peanuts replace Cotton in Alabama In 1916, John Pittman, and Moultrie Sessions (banker, and cotton merchant) traveled from Enterprise, Alabama, to Virginia, and North Carolina to learn about the profitable crops in those states. During this trip Pittman, and Sessions decided that peanuts were the best crop for Coffee County. Sessions convinced local farmer C.W. Baston to plant his 125 acre farm with peanuts in 1916. Baston's 1916 peanut crop thrived, while cotton farmers suffered increased losses to the boll weevil. Farmers in southeast Alabama were now convinced they should grow peanuts, and the banks began to finance that effort. Coffee County produced more than one million bushels of peanuts in 1917, and became the USA's largest peanut producing county in 1919.

Growing and processing peanuts became a very lucrative industry in southern Alabama, and Georgia during the early 20th century. This change benefited the soil, farmers, consumers, and communities. Peanut growing took root in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, New Mexico, Texas, South Carolina, Virginia, and North Carolina as a result of the boll weevil's sweeping damage to America's cotton crops. Boll Weevil Monument in Enterprise, Alabama On December 11, 1919, Enterprise, Alabama, installed a monument celebrating the cotton bug as a result of the region's prosperity growing and processing peanuts following the fall of cotton. "In profound appreciation of the Boll Weevil, and what it has done as the Herald of Prosperity this monument was erected by the citizens of Enterprise, Coffee County, Alabama." Original 1919 Enterprise Boll Weevil Monument Boll Weevil added to the top of the Enterprise monument in 1949. The Original Boll Weevil Statue was Replaced with a Fiberglass Replica on Dec. 15, 1998 Search this site. Boll Weevil Boll Weevil Boll Weevil Anthonomus grandis Description.

The adult boll weevil is a small, brown to grayish-brown beetle. It has a distinctive gently curved, black snout which is about ½ the length of the body. Boll weevils can be distinguished from other weevils by the two spurs on its front legs Just behind the head, the thorax normally has a light whitish stripe that ends where the thorax joins the abdomen. The body of the boll weevil is covered with short, tan brown and grey scales which give it a slightly fuzzy appearance. The boll weevil can be distinguished from many other weevils by the spurs on its front legs. Many weevils have a spur at this location, but only the boll weevil and a few of its close relatives have a double spur. Adult weevils vary in size from slightly more than 1/8 inch to almost ½ inch in length. Boll weevil grub feeding in a square Immature stages of the boll weevil live inside squares and bolls where they are protected from most natural enemies and insecticides. Eggs are seldom seen since they are small and are deposited inside a square or boll.

The larva is a small, white, c-shaped, legless grub with a tan to brown head and chewing mouthparts. Grubs vary in size from very small to ½ inch in length. The pupae or “resting” stage of the boll weevil is 3/8 to ½ inch long and cream colored. With dark eyes and a snout already formed, it has begun to develop the characteristics of the adult stage. The adult boll weevil spends the winter in hibernation, called “diapause,” without food and returns to cotton in the early spring the following year. In areas where winters are warm and host cotton is available, reproduction can occur throughout the year. Overwintering 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 overwintered boll weevil adults concentrate in early planted fields nearest overwintering habitat where cotton is squaring. Adult boll weevils feed on tender growth in plant terminals if the young cotton does not have squares. In the early season, boll weevils colonize localized spots and do not generally invade the entire field.

Despite having boll in it’s name, the boll weevil prefers to feed on and lay eggs in squares. 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. Boll weevil egg punctures 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. Boll weevil feeding sites can usually be distinguished from caterpillar feeding by the bright yellow-orange frass which does not contain webbing typical of most caterpillar frass Damage. Adult boll weevil feeding causes little crop damage. It does, however, indicate the presence of adult weevils which are (or will soon be) laying eggs. As weevils feed, a small hole is formed at the site. If a female weevil determines that the site is suitable for egg laying, she enlarges the hole 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 hole. This sticky secretion hardens to form a wart-like protuberance on the outside of the square or small boll that can be easily seen and felt. A few days after a boll weevil egg is laid in a square, the egg hatches and the larvae begins feeding. Subsequently, the square begins to dry out and develop a lighter yellowish green color. The square bracts flare open and the square falls to the ground. In contrast with oviposition punctures, feeding punctures in squares usually do not change color, flare or fall to the ground. Also, bolls which are damaged by boll weevil feeding or egg laying normally do not fall from the plant. Square and boll damage often result in yield loss. Most of the yield loss comes from damage associated with oviposition and larval feeding inside cotton fruit. Heavily infested cotton may produce rank vegetative growth with few harvestable bolls. Management and decision making. Cultural management. Cultural control strategies have been the cornerstone of boll weevil suppression programs formany years and they are essential elements of boll weevil eradication.

A number of decisions that affect boll weevil population development are made before planting. Choices of tillage systems, varieties, fertilization, planting dates and irrigation amount and timing affect boll weevil survival, reproduction and damage potential. To optimize boll weevil suppression, cotton should be planted as soon as the soil has warmed sufficiently to support strong germination and stand establishment (65 degrees F at the 8 inch depth for 10 days with warm weather forecast). Bt cotton varieties should be strongly considered to suppress caterpillar pests in fields that are expected to receive several boll weevil eradication treatments. The best management system for boll weevils (and most other cotton pests) is to begin the season with a compact planting window for all fields in the area. Well adapted, determinant or intermediate maturing varieties should be selected. Boll weevil colonization in cotton is closely related to the fruiting of the plant, with the greatest numbers of overwintered boll weevils entering cotton fields after squares are present. Therefore, the extent of overwintered boll weevil infestation depends on the size of the emerging weevil population and the availability of squaring cotton.

Thus, in the more temperate portion of the state, early planted cotton and fields adjacent to ideal overwintering habitat are much more likely to have a significant boll weevil infestation than cotton planted later in the season or fields farther away from good overwintering habitat. Excessive fertilizer and water inputs should be avoided. The cotton crop should be managed to set and mature fruit rapidly. Managing the crop for earliness during the production season makes early harvest possible and minimizes the risk of crop loss from tropical storms. Competitive yields with reduced risk of crop loss can be produced using these practices and the stage is set for early, thorough stalk destruction to deprive boll weevils of late season food. It is critical during boll weevil eradication for farmers to keep fields and non-crop areas free of cotton plants both during the growing season and after harvest. Cotton plants in these situations can be destroyed using herbicides and/or tillage equipment. Biological control. While biological control has been a large part of the management system for many crop pests, its role in the management and eradication of boll weevil has been limited.

Predators, parasites and pathogens of boll weevil exist, but cannot be relied upon to significantly limit boll weevil populations in Texas. It is important, however, to monitor and manage natural enemy populations in pest management systems that involve intensive insecticide use, such as active boll weevil eradication. Natural enemies suppress populations of secondary pests such as whiteflies, aphids, beet armyworms, bollworms and tobacco budworms. Populations of these pests can increase to damaging levels when populations of their natural enemies are low. Scouting. Pheromone traps are a very effective tool for boll weevil population detection and they are the primary means of boll weevil detection used by boll weevil eradication programs. However, visual inspection of squares, blooms and small bolls is important as well. When checking fields one should inspect white blooms and inside the bracts of squares and small bolls for the presence of boll weevil adults. The square and the boll walls (inside the bracts) should be inspected for boll weevil punctures.

When boll weevil punctured squares or small bolls are found in a field (either on the plants or on the ground) boll weevils are present and the find should be reported the local boll weevil eradication office. Small open holes in fruit may be boll weevil feeding punctures or they may be the result of feeding by other insects. The hole left by boll weevil feeding is small (about 1/32 inch in diameter), but larger than the pin-prick type damage left by plant bugs or stinkbugs. Feeding damage left by small bollworms is often similar to and easily mistaken for boll weevil damage. This confusing small worm damage is often associated with Bt cotton. The toxin kills the worms before they grow and leave larger feeding holes which are easily identified as worm damage. The presence of feeding holes 1/16 inch in diameter or larger indicate the damage was caused by one of the caterpillar pests (commonly bollworm or tobacco budworm). When smaller holes are present and fine webbing can be seen at the site, a small bollworm or budworm was responsible (since boll weevils do not produce webbing).

Insect droppings within the bracts of bolls or squares provide less certain, but none-the-less useful indications as to which insect produced the damage. Boll weevils produce scattered, powdery or grainy flecks of bright yellow or orange droppings. Worm droppings are usually clumped at the site of the damage, less powdery, and less bright yellow or orange in color. When only one or two damaged squares are found, it is often difficult to definitively determine whether the damage was caused by a small worm or a weevil. It is usually helpful to spend a little more time looking at fruit on plants or picked up from the ground nearby. If more damaged fruit can be found or boll weevils are seen, you can determine with greater confidence what caused the damage. Boll weevil eradication. All Texas cotton acreage is now in the boll weevil eradi­cation program, Any detection of boll weevil adults or boll weevil punctured squares should be reported to the local Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation office or the state Foundation office at (325) 672-2800.

If you determine that you would like to make an insecticide application targeting boll weevil in addition to efforts by eradication directed applications, please contact the Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation before doing so. There are a number of things a producer can do to aid boll weevil eradication effort; some of which are critical. Communicate to boll weevil eradication personnel the location of all cotton fields or areas where volunteer cotton exists. Allow boll weevil eradication personnel vehicular access to all cotton fields for trapping and mist blowing. Ensure that pheromone traps are kept standing and operational. Promptly alert eradication personnel of any adult weevils or suspected weevil damage found. Destroy volunteer cotton from fence rows, ditch banks, other crops, and any other place where it is found. The Boll Weevil in Missouri: History, Biology and Management Clyde E. Sorenson MU Delta Center The cotton boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis grandis, is the most important pest of cotton in much of America's Cotton Belt. Its importance is due not only to the considerable damage it does but also to its disruption of management programs that target other pests.

High numbers of boll weevils can cause you to apply insecticide repeatedly during the growing season because the boll weevil goes through several overlapping generations during every crop season, reproduces quickly, moves often and can be controlled with insecticides only during its adult stage. Applying insecticides can reduce populations of organisms that regulate the populations of other cotton pests, such as aphids, plant bugs and the bollworm complex. The presence of significant boll weevil populations dictates, to some extent, the management of other pests. History and distribution The boll weevil is not native to the United States. It originated in Mexico and Central America where it fed on native tree cottons. It probably adapted to domesticated cottons in Central America in pre-Columbian times. It was first detected in the United States in Texas, about 1892. The boll weevil spread across the Cotton Belt at an average rate of about 60 miles a year and made it to the Carolinas by 1922. It was first detected in Missouri about 1913.

Today, you can find the boll weevil in the mid-South cotton-production region, which is Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi and Tennessee, and in Texas, New Mexico and parts of Alabama. States successfully eradicating the boll weevil are North Carolina, South Carolina, California, Florida, Georgia and parts of Alabama. Another subspecies of the boll weevil is found in Arizona, but it feeds predominantly on a wild relative of cotton. The boll weevil is found throughout the Missouri cotton-production region, and cotton is the only host of the boll weevil in the state. It appears to be most abundant along Crowley's Ridge, a north-south ridge extending from the Ozarks south into Arkansas, and in areas near major waterways (Figure 1). Researchers are trying to definitively establish the distribution in the state. Figure 1 Distribution of boll weevils in southern Missouri, spring 1994. The insect's life cycle The boll weevil, like all beetles, undergoes complete metamorphosis. Female boll weevils deposit eggs in cotton flower buds, called squares, and in small bolls.

Each female may produce as many as 200 eggs during her life span. The female seals the oviposition hole with frass, or droppings, leaving a characteristic brown, raised area at the site. The bracts of infested squares usually yellow, flare and the squares drop from the plant. Infested bolls may or may not drop. Larvae hatching from the eggs feed on the square or boll tissue for approximately seven days to 14 days (depending on temperature) and then pupate. The pupal stage lasts about five days, after which the new adult emerges. Newly emerged adults feed on squares, pollen or bolls. Females begin laying eggs three days to five days after they emerge. Generation time from egg to egg averages about 18 days to 21 days, although it can be shorter or longer depending on environmental conditions. Figure 2 illustrates the life cycle of the boll weevil. Figure 2 The boll weevil has four stages in its life cycle: egg, larva, pupa and adult. Under favorable conditions, it completes the cycle in 2-1/2 to 3 weeks.

Toward the end of summer, as cotton plants mature and days grow shorter, most emerging adult weevils enter a pre-diapause state. Diapause is a resting state comparable to hibernation that adult boll weevils enter to survive winter. Pre-diapause boll weevils typically don't mate but instead spend a great deal of time feeding to build up fat reserves for the winter. During this phase of the annual cycle, boll weevils travel great distances. Individual insects may move more than 30 miles in search of remaining food or wintering habitat. Diapausing boll weevils generally spend the winter in leaf litter in wooded areas near cotton fields. However, a few overwinter in fence rows, grass banks and other sites. Survival is highest in hardwood litter sites. The boll weevils remain in these overwintering sites until warming temperatures, lengthening days and perhaps moisture trigger the break of diapause. Abundance from year to year varies dramatically because of fluctuations in the severity of winters. Spring-emerging boll weevils search for the nearest cotton field and search for squares there.

Those emerging before squares are available may feed on the terminal buds of cotton plants or on the pollen of flowering plants around the field. The boll weevil, however, must have cotton pollen available to successfully mate. Once males feed on squares, they produce a pheromone, released in their frass, that is attractive to both females and males. Females are attracted because pheromone identifies not only an oviposition resource but a food source as well. Females know that males can't produce the pheromone until they find squares. Males are attracted to the pheromone because it identifies food and possible mates. Once females respond to the pheromone, the insects mate, and the annual cycle starts again. The insects may produce three generations to five generations a year in southeastern Missouri. Mortality factors Over the course of a year, many factors contribute to boll weevil mortality. These factors include predation, parasitism, disease, weather and others. Predation is a relatively minor component in boll weevil population dynamics compared with other insect pests. Because most of the life cycle is spent inside the square, weevils tend to be safe from predators.

However, studies have shown that some ants, especially fire ants, are effective predators of boll weevils. A number of insects, spiders, birds and other animals eat adult boll weevils, but these predators only have a minor effect on infestations. Parasites also have little effect on boll weevil populations. Several native parasitic wasps do attack weevil larvae but rarely in numbers high enough to reduce populations. An exotic parasitic wasp, Catolaccus grandis, is effective, but it cannot overwinter at these latitudes. It may be useful in release programs, though. Disease organisms do kill some boll weevils, but again, normally not at levels that will control infestations. Suicidal emergence can be a significant factor. In some years, many boll weevils come out of diapause long before cotton squares are available. Because most (but not all) emerging weevils will live for only about two weeks without cotton pollen, most of these early emergers die without reproducing. Weather is probably the most important cause of boll weevil death in Missouri (and much of the rest of the Cotton Belt).

Because the boll weevil is a tropical insect that traveled north, it is not well-adapted to the climate of much of the United States. Boll weevils start to die at about 23 degrees Fahrenheit; the percentage that dies increases as the temperature drops. Research we've conducted shows that most boll weevils don't survive after an hour at 5 degrees Fahrenheit. Because overwintering boll weevils are insulated by leaf litter, air temperatures usually have to drop lower than the values mentioned above. Snow or ice cover also insulate effectively and protect boll weevils from lethal temperatures. In most years in Missouri, less than 10 percent of the boll weevils that enter wintering habitat survive to spring. A series of severe winters in the late 1970s virtually eradicated the weevil in Missouri; populations did not recover until the late 1980s. High heat, drought and cultivation may kill some larvae during the growing season. The impact of these factors has not been measured in the mid-South growing region. The boll weevil's damage Most damage to cotton by the boll weevil is caused by females laying eggs and larvae feeding.

In heavy infestations, nearly every square receives an egg as soon as it is large enough to support the development of a larva (when squares are roughly the size of a pencil eraser); under these conditions, virtually no fruit may be set. The potential for damage is greater because of the boll weevil's short generation time. Two or more generations may occur during viable fruit set. You could lose more than 50 percent of your crop to boll weevils; complete crop failures have occurred. Squares and small bolls fed on by adult boll weevils typically drop from the plant. Larger bolls may not drop but may be more susceptible to invasion by boll-rot organisms. Adults feed on terminals of seedling cotton before squares are available. In rare instances, this feeding causes enough injury to reduce stand or retard plant growth. Management Winter is probably the most effective killer of boll weevils each year in Missouri. Unfortunately, you can't modify the weather or wintering habitat in this area. However, you can manage boll weevil populations through a combination of cultural and chemical control strategies. An important tool for boll weevil management is the pheromone trap.

This trap uses a synthetic version of the pheromone produced by male boll weevils to attract weevils of both sexes. These traps give good information on the activity and the number of weevils in a cotton field. Cultural control Cultivation destroys some of the larvae in squares that have fallen off the plant, but other practices are more useful. Managing a crop for earliness establishes much of the fruit before boll weevil numbers rise, and it reduces the time the crop is vulnerable to the insect. Early planting (as soil temperatures allow), early maturing varieties, fertility management to prevent lush, late-season growth, using growth regulators such as Pix (mepiquat chloride) and other earliness practices help reduce boll weevil impact. In some years, a substantial number of weevils can develop in a field after harvest, particularly if harvest was early and regrowth occurs. Destroy crop residues as soon as possible after harvest to reduce overwintering populations. Mowing with a flail or rotary mower is preferable to disking or otherwise trying to bury the residue. To be effective, destroy residue on an area-wide basis.

If only a few growers leave residue standing through the fall, enough boll weevils can be produced to infest neighboring growers' acreage the following spring. Chemical control You can use three types of insecticide applications during the cotton-growing season to reduce boll weevil populations. The first two types reduce populations during the growing season; the third reduces populations going into wintering habitat. The first kind of boll weevil insecticide treatment frequently is called a "pin-head square" application. Time the application to coincide with the appearance of the first squares, when they are about the size of a kitchen matchhead. A well-timed pin-head square application can greatly reduce the number of boll weevil colonizers in a field and may eliminate the need for more insecticide treatments later in the season. Pin-head applications are, therefore, the most important chemical "tools" available for boll weevil management. Base your decision to make a pin-head application on pheromone-trap captures. Place pheromone traps when plants emerge at a rate of one trap per 10 acres to 20 acres.

You should treat your crop if, during a two-week period prior to the appearance of the first square, you capture one weevil to two weevils in each trap each week. The second type of boll weevil insecticide application is an "in-season," threshold-based treatment. These are directed at populations that have exceeded the economic threshold and that will cause economic loss if left unchecked. Missouri's threshold is 10 percent to 15 percent squares with boll weevil punctures. Examine a minimum of 100 randomly selected squares before you decide whether to treat. Begin scouting when the first squares are one-third grown (about the size of a pencil eraser), and continue weekly until cutout (when square production drops off). You may need to repeat in-season treatments at four-day to five-day intervals until the population is reduced. Late in the season (during and after cutout), raise the threshold to reflect the increasing scarcity of squares. At this time the threshold should be between 20 percent to 30 percent punctured squares, and you should examine small bolls for signs of adult feeding and egg laying.

The third type of insecticide treatment option to use against boll weevils is the "diapause-control" spray. Its goal is to reduce the number of boll weevils entering wintering habitat. If you want the diapause-control treatment to be effective, make it part of an area-wide program. Diapause-control sprays are applied to cotton fields after the crop is made but before boll weevils move to wintering habitat (in Missouri this would be about the beginning of September). You may spray several times prior to harvest at 10-day to 14-day intervals. Discontinue when the crop residue is destroyed or killing frost occurs. The need for diapause treatments is based on damage rates in the field and pheromone trap captures. Eradicating the boll weevil The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), in cooperation with state governments and grower organizations, is coordinating a nationwide effort to eradicate the boll weevil from U.S. cotton-production regions.

The program uses intensive pheromone trapping, pin-head applications based on pheromone trapping, in-season insecticide applications when needed and intensive diapause-control programs to reduce populations to far below economic significance. As of 1994, boll weevils had been eradicated from North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, California, Arizona and parts of Alabama. Active programs are underway in Alabama, Texas and parts of Tennessee and Mississippi. In North Carolina, where the boll weevil has been eradicated the longest, cotton acreages have increased from fewer than 100,000 acres to more than 450,000 acres. Insecticide applications have been reduced by approximately 50 percent. In Georgia, insecticide applications have been cut from 10 to 12 per season to about four per season, and acreage has grown from fewer than 200,000 acres to almost 1,000,000 acres. A regional plan exists for eradicating the boll weevil from the mid-South growing region.

Current plans call for an eradication program to begin in the Missouri production region in 1999-2000, at the same time as in northwestern Tennessee and northeastern Arkansas. This three-state area would be the last to come into the mid-South regional program. The rationale for this late entry is that waiting may allow for a severe winter, which could reduce populations naturally. Grower participation is mandatory if a program is established in an area. The decision to initiate the program is made by a vote of cotton growers in the proposed program area. State legislation is required to enable the program. Costs of the programs have been shared; growers pay for 70 percent of the program, and the government picks up 30 percent. Eradication programs usually last at least three years; future programs will be five years long. The highest costs come during the first two years, but the payment structure usually is designed so that costs are spread out. Total costs have ranged from approximately $50 to $150 an acre. The range in costs is due to varying levels of boll weevil pressure in program regions and the timing of program initiation.

We can expect costs in any program undertaken in Missouri to be lower than these rates because of relatively low boll weevil numbers and the concentration of cotton acreage in a relatively small area of the state. Find MU Extension on Consequences - The Boll Weevil Blight's history and consequences The Boll Weevil Blight's history and consequences Consequences the consequences of the weevil As I said before, during the Civil War, a lot of black population left the South. During the following years, more and more population was abandoning the South because of the bad situation. Overall, these states lost more than 500,000 black people during the war decade, and over 800,000 after the war, during 1920s; this was called the Great Migration.

There were several reasons why people migrated such as schools for their children, better treatment by the Police, opportunity to vote, social equality with Whites; in order words, African-Americans basically left to escape the discrimination and racial segregation of late 19th century constitutions and Jim Crow lawshowever, this paper is going to be focused mainly in the Black migration because it is the one related with the Boll Weevil blight which is the one we are talking about here. This migration happened because sometimes people are repelled from their accustomed location and attracted to some other place. Usually, the reasons are economic; the push-pull model has served in order to explain the Great Migration from the South. Experts say that migration expects an expected increase in wealth. This framework is somehow richer in testable hypotheses than the push-pull approach; for example it says that shorter moves are more likely than longer moves and that young people are more likely to move than older people. The investment approach emphasizes that an opportunity people may have may also help migration; for example, people may leave an area where the incomes are rising but they know that in other places they can get their incomes to rise faster. In this case, no obvious push forces them to leave that place.

The most important push factor that made people to migrate was the high wages that other places were offering in the North. The main push was the boll weevil and several other factors such as floods and storms wreaking havoc among the Southern cotton economy. The assumed causal structure of the Great Migration appears quite simple: reduced migration and consequently expanded opportunities for industrial employment at higher wages pulled blacks north-ward. Also, the boll weevil infestation and other cotton diseases in the cotton economy repelled them from the South. During the war decade, the Carolinas contributed heavily to the northward migration before the arrival of the boll weevil. On the other hand, Texas, where the boll weevil has resided well since 1892 and where the yield reduction was substantial during the war decade, experienced a great migratory gain in black migration. The push factor is presented here. Evidently, blacks in all the cotton-belt states were about equally subject to the opportunities in the north. Then, if the pull-push explanation is valid, differential rates of out-migration in black people in the cotton-belt states should be associated with differentials in the damage done to the cotton economy by the boll weevil.

The push hypothesis can be tested in various ways. The first test is to relate the rank order of black outmigration rates to the rank order of reductions from full yield of cotton due to boll weevil infestation. For the war decade the coefficient of rank correlation is 0.361; for the 1920s is 0.648. The second test is to relate rank order of black outmigration rates to the rank order of reductions from full yield of cotton due to all causes. For 1910-1919 the rank correlation is 0.043; for the 1920s is 0.261; neither of which differs from 0. A third set of sets calls for relating the rank order of changes between the war decade and the twenties. On this basis, the coefficient of rank correlation is 0.776 when changed in outmigration rates are related to changes in boll weevil damage and 0.710 when related to changes in overall damage to the cotton yield. Both coefficients differ significant from zero.

If we take together these results, it is suggested that neither boll weevils nor other factors influencing cotton yields were significant in determining black outmigration rates during the war decade. However, the boll weevil and other factors reducing cotton yields appeared to have played an important role. It has been shown that neither weevil damage nor overall damage to the cotton crop provides a significant correlation. A test of this hypothesis calls for relating rates of outmigration to level of income per workers, the expected correlation being negative. This data estimates of service income per black worker have been prepared. In the picture below we can see the differences in black income in the ten Cotton-Belt States from 1910-1930, and if we focus the data in Georgia we can see how it changed from 8 to 7 until 5, so this may be another reason why people were migrating. This means that the incomes of black workers were very low during that period which made a lot of people migrate in order to get a better salary. There are three different stages in the Great Migration.

The first one occurred during the years 1916-1919, the second during 1920- 1923 and a third during 1924-1929.For several reasons, the causal structures of the northward migration during these stages, differed markedly especially between the first and the second. In order to see this, we must consider the boll weevil infestation, cotton prices, foreign migration, noting changes in these variables over time, and in the case of the weevil, the impact on the Southern states. Many contemporaries thought that the arrival of the weevil meant, not only an immediate disaster but also a permanent change in the agricultural economy of the South. As farmers learnt how to alter their methods of production in order to reduce the weevil, they generally abandoned their hasty attempts to diversify and returned to their traditional specialization in cotton. As the weevil was spreading through the South, it did create great havoc and great economic changes in those affected areas. Behind that, we can say that some adjustments were being made in order to change the economy back to normal, a condition that now included an additional risk of weevil damage and an additional cost of reducing those risks.

In any year before 1920, the losses their growers had were huge and they were due to the weevil infestation. The ‘’boll weevil depression’’ which was the strongest phase of the whole weevil infestation was mainly during 1920-1923. Movements in cotton prices were remarkable in order to determine whether yield reductions would entail hardship for the cotton growers. If the weevil cut the cotton yield in 10% while the price advanced by 10%, the farmers’ income was unchanged. During the war, the situation of the cotton was even better, the price of cotton rose in far greater proportion than the reduction from the full yield due to boll weevils. Areas experiencing the yield reduction had hard times when it comes to income reductions. But in the cotton economy as a whole, the years of 1916 to 1919 were a time of unprecedented prosperity for both whites and blacks. As Fabian Lange states that ''Within 5 years of contact, total cotton production declined by about 50 percent. This decline relative to unaffected counties was permanent and evident in both cotton acreage and yields.

The negative effects on yields appear to out-weigh those on acreage.'' (The Impact of the Boll Weevil, 2008). We can realize how even in unaffected counties the decline was obvious and devastating, so this is also supporting my point that this blight caused terrible trouble in the areas. The next picture is also supporting this quote by reflecting the reduction of the yield of cotton and also the prices and the immigration. The year 1920 opened a new stage in the Great Migration. For four consecutive years, boll weevil damage would remain unprecedented levels. In 1921, the worst year for cotton crops, the damage done by weevil alone exceeded 30% of a full yield for the entire American crop. Eight of the ten cotton-belt states experienced their peak year for weevil damage during 1920-1923. The worst hit was in Oklahoma and Georgia with weevil losses of 41 and 45 percent respectively in 1921. The incomes of many cotton growers approached the vanishing point.

Although prices recovered from 1922-1924, the fatal blow for many rural blacks had already been dealt; immigration had recovered its old vigor too. After 1923, weevil damage fell substantially, reaching levels during 1924-1926 comparable to those of the prewar years. The weevil caused serious and lasting damage in local economies even though the cotton industry expanded during this period. As the weevil vas being spread through the American South, it disrupted local economies, reduced the value of lands (which was a very important thing), and triggered regional population movements. The boll weevil had great effects on local agricultural production activity in the American South. To provide a first look at the overall impact of the weevil figure 2 shows results from a simple specification. Just by looking at the graphic we can see how the Boll Weevil was increasing as the years went by, so that meant that the crops were getting more and more damaged. The secular trend towards increased cotton production contrasts sharply with the impact of the weevil on local production conditions. The figure 2 shows that the impact of the weevil on local productions was huge.

These estimates imply that the weevil was associated with a decline of total output by about 50 percent. Comparing columns 2 and 3 indicates that both yields and acreage declined, but that the contrast with the weevil led to greater yield losses than acreage reductions. The weevil’s arrival also had impacts on land values. The measured impact of the arrival of the boll weevil on land values depended on how much land was employed in farming cotton and varied with time relative to contact. As Fabian Lange states ''the arrival of the weevil and its effect on the productivity of land were well known and the real estate markets of the South succeeded, at least partially, in pricing this into local farm land values prior to contact.'' This was a very smart thing to do in order to try to prevent some damage although I don't think this helped a lot. We can find several differences among counties. Counties that were very engaged in cotton farming saw heavy declines in prices of around 20-40 percent in the 10 years prior and subsequent to the arrival of the weevil. Surprisingly, these declines started before the weevil got to the county.

The arrival of the weevil and its effects on productivity of land were well known. However, for counties which were heavily engaged with cotton farming, the prices kept decreasing for over five more years after the weevil arrived. In the charts below we can see how the land prices were changing drastically and also we can see the differences in cotton share too, how it increases. The figure above represents the impact of the arrival of the boll weevil on land prices in counties that were less dependent on cotton. It shows that the land values were basically unchanged more than 5 years after prior or after contact. However, land prices rose for 7 to 8 years with the arrival of the weevil. About 2 years before the arrival of the weevil, the prices increased rapidly, peaked around the time the weevil arrived and then decreased again. It is weird that the prices increased when the weevil arrived, but there are several possible explanations for this. Farmers and specialized inputs in agriculture might have been bidding for suitable land for other crops as cotton farming became less attractive. Another explanation may be that the approach of the weevil released labor from cotton farming and that made the reduction of local wages. This would benefit land owners engaged with activities different from cotton farming.

Of the approach of the weevil released large number of laborers from cotton intensive counties, then we could expect that the population would rise in neighboring counties that were not really engaged with cotton farming. Moreover, we can also expect that migrant workers might move in advance of the weevil, swelling populations who are very engaged with cotton farming but not yet affected by the weevil. We could expect a peak in population numbers in the year the weevil arrived in a county and when farmers hoped to harvest one last bumper crop. The population movements among those counties were significantly small in those counties which were specialized in cotton farming. In counties where were heavily engaged with cotton, the population had a rise; however, the population numbers declined to about 10 percent lower levels than in the period prior to the arrival of the weevil. The population recovered later, from eight to nine years after the weevil arrived. Map of the spread of the Boll Weevil, 1892-1922 After all this explanation of what the weevil is, its consequences, how it started, how to treat it and how they treated it, it is important to highlight that the majority of the growers went bankrupt because of the weevil.

Its crops became useless because of the weevil infestation and also the floods they had, so all these situations made that the growers couldn’t maintain their crops alive. This created serious problems in their economies and situations. It is also important to say as I just said that there was a big movement of population between counties and even states because of this problem of the weevil which was called ‘‘Great Migration’’; people looking for better land conditions where there are no weevils and they can either start over with their cotton cultivations or grow something else. Moreover, this weevil infestation also made the prices and value of the land change. As I said before, the prices of the land in counties very engaged with cotton farming, the growers could see a decrease in their prices 10 years before the weevil arrived; and also after the weevil left, the prices kept decreasing during the 5 years after the weevil was not present anymore. WORKS CITED: - ‘‘The Boll Weevil, The Cotton Economy, and The Black Migration 1910-1930’’. Agricultural History. Higgs, Robert. Vol. 50, No.

2, Web., April 1976, pp. 335-350. - ‘’Cotton’’. The New Georgia Encyclopedia. C. Giesen, James. Mississipi State University, Web., 20 April 2009. - ‘’ Cotton. " How Products Are Made. 2001. Encyclopedia.com. 6 Feb. 2013 - ‘‘Bacterial Blight (Angular Leaf Spot) of cotton’’. Creswell, Tom. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Plant Pathology Extension. 29 Jan. 2004. - ‘’ Cotton Leaf Diseases –UGA Thomas County Exentension’’. County, Tom. University of Georgia. 8 sept. 2010. - ‘’The Impact of Boll Weevil, 1892-1932’’. Lange, Fabian; Olmstead L. Alan,Rhode. Yale University, UC Davis, Univ. of Arizona& NBER. Feb. 2008 - Brook Benton- The Boll Weevil Song. Benton, Brook. Youtube. 23 Sept. 2010.

- ‘‘Patterns of Farm Rental in the Georgia Cotton Belt, 1880-1900’’. The Journal of Economic History. Higgs, Robert. Vol. 34, No.2, Web., June 1974, pp. 468-482. - ‘’ Cotton’s rebound in Georgia’’. Webb, Jimmy. Cottonfarming. Leary, Ga. Create a free website History Engine: Tools for Collaborative Education and Research | Episodes Rating: 4.29 (17 votes) Cotton: it was one of the most valuable crops in the agricultural South, and it was under attack by a seemingly indestructible new beetle known as the boll weevil. On September 27, 1895, an announcement ran in the Chicago Daily Tribune explaining the recent arrival of the boll weevil population to the United States. The species moved up from Mexico into certain areas of Texas and was wreaking havoc on cotton crops. The U.S. Agricultural Department considered the cotton boll weevil to be one of the most harmful pests to have existed in the United States.

The boll weevil appeared to reproduce rapidly in some areas while in others, populations spread more slowly. Despite scientific studies which took place in Brownsville near the Rio Grande, no solution had yet been discovered to control the boll weevil population. They continued to make their home in cotton bolls, their only known habitat, and ruin cotton crops in Mexico and Texas. After Texas cotton crops endured years of droughts and inclement weather, the boll weevil made its first appearance in Texas near Corpus Christi in the early 1890s. The boll weevil caused mass destruction in cotton crops as it fed on and laid its eggs in the fruiting structures of the cotton plant. Resistant to common insecticides of the time, boll weevil populations were able to spread across the entire state of Texas and eventually covered a vast area including North Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee. In this region known as the Cotton Belt, the pest caused a decrease in cotton productivity over a period of thirty years. While the boll weevil population fanned out across the region, its damages were most heavily concentrated in southern Texas.

Prior to the Civil War, Texas had not been a high producer of cotton; in 1850, Texas had one of the smallest cotton crops in the South. Yet during the Civil War and leading up to the twentieth century, cotton production in Texas flourished and grew from 58 thousand bales produced in 1850 to 2,584 thousand in 1900 when it was a top cotton producer. As cotton production increased in Texas, the effects of the boll weevil became more far-reaching and added to the volatility farmers faced in the cotton industry. An official with the U.S. Department of Agriculture toured an area in southern Texas in 1894 and reported that around 90 percent of the cotton crop was damaged due to the boll weevil. Ten years later, one estimate revealed that 700,000 bales of cotton were ruined by the boll weevil population in one year, totaling costs of 42 million in Texas. Many southern states continue to work today to keep boll weevils and their capability of destruction under control.

Citations "Work of the Cotton Boll Weevil: This Pest Has but Recently Appeared in the United States," Chicago (IL) Daily Tribune, September 27, 1895.

Question: Which crop in particular is damaged by the Boll Weevil?
Answer: COTTON