Agrotis ipsilon (black cutworm)
This page contains a subset of the full datasheet, which can be found on the CABI Compendium. Some datasheets within the Compendium are access-restricted and require either an institutional login or a direct purchase. For more information on accessing the full datasheet, please see the access options help page on the CABI Digital Library.
Identity
- Preferred Scientific Name
- Agrotis ipsilon (Hufnagel, 1766)
- Preferred Common Name
- black cutworm
- Other Scientific Names
- Agrotis aureolum Schaus, 1898
- Agrotis bipars Walker, 1857
- Agrotis frivola Wallengren, 1860
- Agrotis pepoli Bertolini, 1974
- Agrotis spinula
- Agrotis suffusa (Schiffermiller)
- Agrotis telifera Donzel, 1837
- Agrotis ypsilon Hufnagel
- Bombyx idonea Cramer, 1780
- Bombyx spinula Esper, 1786
- Euxoa ipsilon Hufnagel
- Euxoa ypsilon Hufnagel
- Exarnis ypsilon Hübner
- Feltia ipsilon Hufnagel
- Feltia ypsilon Hufnagel
- Lycophotia ypsilon
- Noctua aneituma Walker, 1865
- Noctua suffusa Denis & Schffermuller, 1775
- Noctua ypsilon (S.A. von Rottenberg, 1776)
- Peridroma suffusa Butler
- Phalaena ipsilon Hufnagel, 1766
- Phalaena ypsilon (Cramer)
- Phalaena ypsilon Rottenberg, 1776
- Rhyacia ipsilon Hufnagel
- Rhyacia pernigrata Warren, 1912
- Rhyacia ypsilon (Rottenberg)
- Scotia ipsilon Hufnagel
- Scotia ypsilon (Hufnagel)
- International Common Names
- Englishdark sword grass mothgram cutwormgreasy cutwormliance rusticoverflow wormsilver y-mothtobacco cutwormypsilon dart
- Frenchnoctuelle ypsilonver gris-noir
- Spanishgusano cortador negrogusano grasiento (Argentina)gusano trozador (Mexico)trozador
- Local Common Names
- GermanyYpsiloneulen
- Indonesiaulat tanah
- Italynottua dei leguminottua della canapa
- Japantamana-yaga
- Netherlandszwartbruine aardrups
- Turkeybozkurt
- Portugallagarta rosea
- EPPO Code
- AGROYP
Pictures
Larva
Black cutworm larva with a cut maize plant.
Armon J. Keaster
Adult
Black cutworm moth.
Armon J. Keaster
Adult on lilac
Black cutworm moth on lilac.
Armon J. Keaster
Adult
Agrotis ipsilon (black cutworm); Head lateral view. Aranda, Canberra, Australia. June 2013.
©Donald Hobern/via Flickr - CC BY 2.0
Adult
Agrotis ipsilon (black cutworm); Adult. Aranda, Canberra, Australia. June 2013.
©Donald Hobern/via Flickr - CC BY 2.0
Egg
Agrotis ipsilon (black cutworm); Eggs. December 2014.
Public Domain - Released by USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab/via Flickr
Larva
Agrotis ipsilon (black cutworm); Larva head lateral view. December 2014.
Public Domain - Released by USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab/via Flickr
Larva
Agrotis ipsilon (black cutworm); Larva lateral view. December 2014.
Public Domain - Released by USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab/via Flickr
Pupa
Agrotis ipsilon (black cutworm); Pupa lateral view. December 2014.
Public Domain - Released by USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab/via Flickr
Larva
Agrotis ipsilon (black cutworm); Larva face. December 2014.
Public Domain - Released by USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab/via Flickr
Larva
Agrotis ipsilon (black cutworm); Larva dorsal view. December 2014.
Public Domain - Released by USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab/via Flickr
Pupa
Agrotis ipsilon (black cutworm); Pupa ventral view. December 2014.
Public Domain - Released by USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab/via Flickr
Adult
Agrotis ipsilon (black cutworm); Adult. England. November 2022.
©Patrick Clement/via Flickr - CC BY 2.0
Adult
Agrotis ipsilon (black cutworm); Adult. Wildwood, Missouri, USA. July 2019.
©Andy Reago & Chrissy McClarren/via Flickr - CC BY 2.0
Adult
Agrotis ipsilon (black cutworm); Adult. Bournda, New South Wales, Australia. October 2020.
©Donald Hobern/via Flickr - CC BY 2.0
Adult
Agrotis ipsilon (black cutworm); Adult. Fordham, Cambridgeshire, England. November 2022.
©Ben Sale/via Flickr - CC BY 2.0
Black cutworm (Agrotis ipsilon) larva
Adam Sisson, Iowa State University/via Bugwood.org
Agrotis ipsilon
Clipping of Tomato Transplants by Black Cutworms
"© Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2009"
Distribution
Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
Symptoms
Damage symptoms depend on the size of larvae and the type of crop that is attacked. Agrotis ipsilon is not considered to be a climbing cutworm species, and most of the feeding occurs at soil level (Chandel et al., 2021; Capinera, 2022). The larvae feed above ground until about the fourth instar after which they prefer to remain below the soil surface.
Row crops (cotton, maize, soyabean, etc.)
Quantitative data on the incidence and injuriousness of A. ipsilon larvae is scarce. The injuriousness or pest status commonly depends on the type of crop that is attacked as well as the climatic conditions, weed species complex, etc. Sidhu et al. (2019) reported on larval densities and subsequent damage incidences caused by two cutworm species (A. ipsilon and A. segetum) in villages in India. In maize, the incidence of damaged seedlings ranged between 10 and 28%, while larval numbers ranged between 0.33 and 2.67/m2. Kumar et al. (2007) reported that on an average, the cutworm larvae caused 16.4, 20.2, 19.1, 17.6, 18.4, 33.5 and 19.31% mortality of seedlings of vegetable crops tomato, brinjal, capsicum, cabbage, French beans, cucumber and bitter gourd, respectively. Kishore and Misra (1988) and Das and Ram (1988) reported that the incidence of cutworm damage to potato tubers can be as high as 16.4%.
When early-instar larvae feed on the young leaves of plants, they create 'shot hole' damage symptoms. However, this type of damage is not a very typical symptom of cutworm damage. Shot hole or window-pane type symptoms can be caused by several other soil insect pests that may feed on the leaves of seedlings. In maize, feeding by small larvae can be identified as small, irregular holes in the leaves of seedlings. Cutting of plants is much more common than tunnelling into stems or plant tissue (Sherrod et al., 1979; Archer and Musick, 1977). However, cutworms do not cut plants until they reach the fourth instar (Cook et al., 2003; Joshi et al., 2020; Capinera, 2022). As seedlings of grain crops grow, the growth points move upwards and at the six-leaf stage, the growing point is at or slightly above the soil surface (a stage that occurs approximately 3 weeks after emergence from the soil). The plant’s growth stage at the time of attack is important with respect to its ability to survive cutworm injury. A plant cut below the growing point will not recover. Seedlings injured above the growth point may sometimes regrow, but often do not recover fully (Whitford et al., 1989; Oloumi-Sadeghi et al., 1992). In cotton, severed seedlings and reduced plant stand are also typical A. ipsilon damage.
Damage by fourth-instar larvae is usually observed as a severing (cutting) of young seedlings, often causing death of the severed seedlings. In some cases, wilting may be observed because of partial cutting. In row crops such as cotton, maize and sorghum, loss of plant stand is often the first symptom that cutworms may be present in a field. A single larva may severe several seedlings and will often cut one plant and move on to the next. Relatively small populations of cutworms are capable of destroying entire stands of some crops, such as cotton or maize. When seedlings are too large to be cut, foliar feeding may reduce plant vigour. However, foliar damage by A. ipsilon is not a common symptom of cutworm in row crops.
Identification of A. ipsilon as the pest responsible for injury to a crop in a particular field is difficult due to its habit of tunnelling into the soil during the day and feeding at night. It is therefore difficult to detect larvae to associate with the observed damage symptoms, which could possibly also be due to other soil insect pests.
As plants become larger, late instars occasionally tunnel into the developing stems, for example, maize plants that are 3-4 weeks old. Climbing behaviour in A. ipsilon is not common but when plants become too large to cut or too difficult to tunnel into, larvae may cut off leaves. However, this leaf cutting does not usually cause economic damage to the plant.
Other crops
While A. ipsilon is primarily a pest of crop seedlings, it may also attack the roots, tubers and bulbs of plants. For example, in potato, the larvae can cause damage to the foliage of the crop and cut the tender shoots near soil level (Kahar et al., 2016). Large larvae can damage tubers causing small cavities. Early season damage to the leaves of tobacco plants was reported by Dowd and Lagrimini (2006). The larvae have also been reported to damage the stems of young coffee plants approximately 10 cm above soil level, around 3-4 months after planting (Fernándes et al., 2013).
Turfgrass
Agrotis ipsilon can be a serious pest of turfgrass on golf course putting greens, tees and fairways (Potter, 1998), where larval feeding has been reported to cause sunken pocked marks or depressions on putting greens, resulting in a reduction in the uniformity and smoothness of the playing surface (Potter, 1998). In turfgrass vegetation, moths deposit their eggs on grass blades (Williamson and Potter, 1997a), where the first-instar larvae remain on the foliage feeding during both day and night (Williamson, 1996). Older larvae are nocturnal, feeding either from burrows or while fully exposed on the turf surface (Williamson and Potter, 1997b).
List of Symptoms/Signs
| Symptom or sign | Life stages | Sign or diagnosis | Disease stage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plants/Fruit/external feeding | |||
| Plants/Leaves/external feeding | |||
| Plants/Stems/external feeding | |||
| Plants/Stems/internal feeding | |||
| Plants/Stems/lodging; broken stems | |||
| Plants/Whole plant/dwarfing | |||
| Plants/Whole plant/external feeding | |||
| Plants/Whole plant/wilt |
Prevention and Control
Control
Integrated Pest Management
Cutworms are among the insects that continue to challenge the best efforts at pest management. Cultural control measures, insecticide applications, biological control and host-plant resistance have been evaluated and used for management of this pest.
The type of damage and the potential number of plants damaged by a single larva depends mainly on larval size in relation to the crop stage (Archer and Musick, 1977; Clement, 1982; Clement and McCartney, 1982; Showers et al., 1983). Young larvae (first to third instar) feed on leaves, and older larvae cut or tunnel into the plant, causing the most damage. Furthermore, a larva of a given instar will cut progressively fewer seedlings of maize at each succeeding crop growth stage (Story et al., 1983). For this reason, many factors such as larval abundance on weeds prior to planting of the crop, larval development rates, and crop growth stages play important roles in pest management decisions. Chandel et al. (2021) provided an overview of the ecology and management of cutworms in India in which they refer to various components of integrated pest management such as cultural, chemical and biological control. The use of host-plant resistance as a management tool has also been mentioned by several authors.
Cultural Control and Sanitary Measures
As weeds play a very important role in the biology and ecology of A. ipsilon, management strategies often rely on weed management practices in the period prior to crop establishment. Off-season survival on weedy host plants and environmental conditions ultimately influences the ecology and pest status of this pest. Early season weed species are very attractive to ovipositing females and weed management is therefore often considered the key to successful cutworm control. A study conducted in the USA revealed that damaging populations of A. ipsilon in seedling maize originate from eggs deposited in the spring before maize planting, and agronomic practices that allow the establishment of winter annual and perennial weeds increase the potential for A. ipsilon survival (Troester et al., 1982).
The removal of off-season host plants for a long enough period prior to planting of crops has been reported to be successful for several cutworm species. Weed (host plant) removal results in the starvation of larvae before crop seedlings emerge from the soil. Tillage practices such as clean ploughing of fields and disking 8 to 14 days pre-planting (15 to 21 days before seedling emergence) has been reported to provide effective control of A. ipsilon (Showers et al., 1985). The application of herbicides to do ‘burndown’ before planting would have a similar effect. Proper cultural or chemical control of weeds before planting cotton was also described by Allen et al. (2018) and Gaylor and Foster (1987) as the major management tactic to reduce the potential for cutworm damage in cotton in certain production regions in the USA. Gaylor and Foster (1987) recommended tillage a few weeks before planting to reduce the risk of stand reduction by cutworms. However, any tillage operation or herbicide application within a week of planting, on the day of planting, or in the week following planting will not be effective for control of this and has a limited effect on the survival and development of larvae (Showers et al., 1985).
Host-Plant Resistance
Native resistance of crop species to feeding by A. ipsilon larvae does not seem to be sufficient to protect crops against this pest. The resistance of potato varieties against A. ipsilon larval feeding was reported on by Kumar and Tiwary (2009).
However, certain genetically modified crops seem to hold promise, but this technology is still in the development phase for control of cutworm pests. The development of transgenic crops with resistance to A. ipsilon has been investigated and only in maize is transgenic resistance to this pest commercially available (Marques et al., 2018).
In Brazil, A. ipsilon is effectively controlled with pyramid Bt maize technology expressing Cry1F + Cry1A.105 + Cry2Ab2 + Vip3Aa20 proteins (Marques et al., 2018). Transgenic tobacco plants have been obtained, expressing the gene encoding barley trypsin inhibitor BTI-Cme, and these were shown to be more resistant to A. ipsilon (Carbonero et al., 1999). Lou et al. (2014) reported that, under laboratory conditions, Cry1Ac plus Cry2Ab expressed in transgenic cotton had insignificant resistance to A. ipsilon and did not control this pest effectively. However, transgenic Cry1Ac plus Cry2Ab cotton had a significant effect on the growth and development of larvae. Chen et al. (2017) also reported that insecticidal proteins (Vip3A and Cry1Ac) expressed in Bt cotton provided some control of A. ipsilon larvae in laboratory studies. In cotton, Cui et al. (2002) reported that variable results were obtained with different Cry proteins and that pyramid events such as Cry1Ac+ CpTI cotton was more effective than single-gene events expressing Cry Ac protein. Similar results were reported regarding transgenic soyabean which provided good control of other lepidopteran leaf feeders but not A. ipsilon (Yu et al., 2013). Transgenic (Bt) maize that expresses Cry1Ab protein was also reported not to provide effective control of A. ipsilon (Pilcher et al., 1997).
Grass resistant to A. ipsilon was created by Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) with the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac gene (Salehi et al., 2006).
The application of insecticide sprays at planting is generally not recommended for control of A. ipsilon due to the large size of many of the larvae at that stage of the cropping season, and poor predictability of its occurrence. It is recommended that, after planting, fields be scouted, and curative applications applied if economic damage is anticipated. The application of a pyrethroid insecticide in a narrow band behind the planter was reported to limit economic damage by cutworm if the vegetation has not been destroyed at least 3 weeks prior to planting (Stewart, 2010).
Economic threshold levels for cutworm control depend on many factors including the environment, farming system and cost of pesticides. O’Day et al. (1998) described methods to assess whether economic thresholds have been reached in maize fields in a region of the USA. The following information is important when insecticide sprays are considered, and economic thresholds are used:
• The incidence (%) of damaged plants below and above ground
• Average instar of larvae, based on head capsule size and not length
• Growth stage of the crop (from seedling emergence to the V4 stage)
• Plant stand
O’Day et al. (1998) described different threshold levels for above- and below-ground damage, because yield loss is linked to the parts of seedlings (e.g. growth point or leaves) that are damaged. Economic thresholds set for below-ground damaged seedlings was indicated as 2-4%, while the threshold for seedlings damaged above soil level was 6-8%. The economic threshold for A. ipsilon in maize in the northern Indian maize production plains is 2-3% wilted or cut plants (Chandel et al., 2013). The economic threshold level in this region also varies with the size of the larvae, based on larval feeding symptoms. In potato, the economic threshold level is 1 larva/10 plants (Chandel et al., 2013).
Synthetic Insecticides
Several studies have reported on the efficacy of different insecticides against larvae of A. ipsilon. While the efficacy of corrective insecticide applications may vary, depending on factors described in the section on Biology and Ecology, there seem to be significant developments in the use of seed treatments against A. ipsilon (Andersch and Schwarz, 2003; Meriggi and Caroli, 2008; Allen et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2016; Joshi et al., 2020). Studies with nano-formulations of insecticides showed that A. ipsilon larvae were more susceptible to the nano-forms than the regular forms of insecticides. These promising results could represent a crucial step towards developing efficient nano-insecticides for control of A. ipsilon (Awad et al., 2022). Awad et al. (2022) reported on the development and efficacy of nano-insecticides for control of this pest.
Clothianidin, a synthetic chloronicotinyl insecticide applied as a seed treatment was reported to be effective against A. ipsilon (Andersch and Schwarz, 2003). The efficacy of seed treatment of soyabean was studied by Aquino et al. (2022) who reported that thiamethoxam, cyantraniliprole + thiamethoxam, thiamethoxam + lambda-cyhalothrin, imidacloprid, imidacloprid + thiodicarb and fipronil provided effective control under field conditions. Liu et al. (2016) reported on the efficacy of seed treatment of maize and reported positive results.
In a review of A. ipsilon management options, Rodingpuia and Lalthanzara (2021) reported on some synthetic insecticides and natural products used for cutworm control. Zhang et al. (2022) recently reported that chlorantraniliprole has potential for management of A. ipsilon using food attractants for control of adult moths with the attract-and-kill strategy. In India, diazinon, quinalphos, chlorpyrifos, fenitrothion, deltamethrin and malathion activity were tested against A. ipsilon on potato among which chlorpyrifos was found to be the most effective in controlling A. ipsilon (Tripathi et al., 2003). Chlorpyrifos, quinalphos, cypermethrin, phosalone and carbaryl have also been tested in similar conditions (Kishore and Misra, 2001; Mishra, 2002). Joshi and Solanki (2020) also provide an overview of A. ipsilon management in potato crops.
The development of novel biocides based on spinosad and emamectin benzoate provided alternative options to the use of broad-spectrum insecticides such as pyrethroids and organophosphates which are also highly toxic to natural enemies. Rameash et al. (2014) reported that the application of emamectin benzoate significantly reduced damage of A. ipsilon. Both spinosad and emamectin benzoate provided superior control to chlorpyrifos and the efficacy of control was also related to increased marketable yield of cabbage.
The application of baits for A. ipsilon control has been reported but the efficacy and cost effectiveness thereof should be interpreted against the information provided above regarding the use of economic thresholds and the unpredictability of this pest. The efficacy of various insecticides, including baits, applied for A. ipsilon control was reported by Shakur et al. (2007). In greenhouse experiments with baits, Sechriest (1968) reported effective control of larvae but many of the products used at that time were highly toxic and have since been removed from the industry.
Natural Insecticides and Biopesticides
Natural insecticides such as neem products, methanol extract from Melia azedarach fruits, extract of Bassia muricata, extract of Tephrosia nubica and leaf extracts of Lantana, Parthenium, Hypis and Ipomoea carnea, were found to be effective in controlling A. ipsilon (references cited in Rodingpuia and Lalthanzara (2021)). However, the efficacy of natural products such as these may be highly variable.
Neem products were found to be effective for young seedlings of maize in India (Viji and Bhagat, 2001). A methanol extract of M. azedarach fruits (Schmidt et al., 1997) and of B. muricata (El-Sayed et al., 1998) was found to be toxic to A. ipsilon. Extracts of T. nubica (Sharaby and Ammar, 1997) and a root extract of Rumex nepalensis were found to be effective against A. ipsilon larvae (Thakur, 1997).
Toxin extracts from the marine cyanobacterium, Microcystis aeruginosa, and the sea anemone, Parasicyonis actinostoloides, were found to be toxic to fourth-instar larvae of A. ipsilon (Nassar, 2000).
The bioefficacy of botanical products and microbial pesticides were assessed in several studies (El-Sayed et al., 1998; Badiyala and Sharma, 2007; Hasan and Ansari, 2011). The efficacy of some biopesticides and insecticides applied for A. ipsilon control on maize and potato was reported by Bhagat et al. (2008) and Badiyala and Sharma (2007), respectively. The potential of nucleopolyhedrosis viruses for larval control was reported by Boughton et al. (2001) and El-Salamouny et al. (2003). Combinations of treatments such as different biopesticides, natural enemies of A. ipsilon and insecticides have also been evaluated for their efficacy (Elela and Refaat, 2023). The latter study found that Beauveria bassiana and the chitin synthesis inhibitor, lufenuron, provided effective control of fourth-instar larvae of A. ipsilon. The combined effect of entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) and biopesticides to control A. ipsilon in strawberry fields was investigated by Fetoh et al. (2009) who showed that mixing EPNs with both spinosad and emamectin benzoate increased the efficacy of mixtures under both laboratory and field conditions.
Biological Control
Due to the cosmopolitan distribution of A. ipsilon, numerous parasites, parasitoids and predators have been recorded. In a review of A. ipsilon management in India, Chandel et al. (2021) lists many species of natural enemies and the impacts that they have on different life stages (egg parasitoids, larval and pupal parasitoids) of this pest.
While insect predators are mostly non-specific, ants have been reported to do large-scale predation (up to 62%) on eggs and second-instar larvae of A. ipsilon in turfgrass stands (López and Potter, 2000).
Many parasitoid species have been reported to attack different life stages of A. ipsilon. Recently, Sweelam et al. (2022) reported a phorid species, Megaselia scalaris (Diptera: Phoridae), to be a facultative parasite of A. ipsilon.
Cutworms are greatly susceptible to several strains and species of entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) (Morris and Converse, 1991). The efficacy of EPNs has been investigated in several studies and this strategy of biological control seems to hold promise (Hussaini et al., 2001; Hussaini et al., 2003; Hussaini et al., 2005). A. ipsilon has also been managed effectively with Steinernema carpocapsae on golf courses (Divya and Sankar, 2009). Radhakrishnan et al. (2017) reported that the efficacy of an entomopathogenic nematode species (Steinernema glaseri) (Nematoda: Rhabditidae) provided effective control of A. ipsilon under laboratory and pot culture conditions, and that a reduction of 48% in tuber damage was recorded using this EPN.
Endemic nematodes were investigated in India for effectiveness against A. ipsilon (Hussaini, 2003; Hussaini et al., 2005). Alginate formulations of entomopathogenic nematodes against A. ipsilon caused the maximum mortality (Hussaini et al., 2003). Fresh manure reduced the effectiveness of nematodes against A. ipsilon on maize (Shapiro et al., 1999).
The application of sprays of entomopathogenic bacteria, for example, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), have been reported as effective against larvae of A. ipsilon (Kaiser et al., 2020).
Monitoring and Surveillance (incl. remote sensing)
As A. ipsilon is a cosmopolitan pest, it does not need to be monitored for phytosanitary purposes. It may however be beneficial to monitor for moths of this pest at regional and field-level to detect the presence of migratory moths. According to Veda and Vaishampayan (1993), blue green light attracts large numbers of A. ipsilon moths.
Trapping moths with synthetic sex pheromones is also effective to monitor moth flight activity. Hill et al. (1979) characterized two constituents of sex pheromone of A. ipsilon viz. (z)-7-dodecen-1-yl acetate (I) and (z)-9- tetradecen-1-yl acetate (II), which are emitted in a 5:1 ratio. However, in synthetic sex pheromone developed for A. ipsilon, the most powerful ratio is 3:1. In China, the best blend of (z)-11-hexadecenyl acetate and (z)-11-hexadecen-1-ol for powerful attraction of A. ipsilon is in the ratio of 8:2:2.5:5 and the most effective dose is 30-70 μg of mixture per rubber septa (Wei and Pan, 1986). More males of A. ipsilon are attracted when acetate is added to a mixture of (z)-7-dodecenyl acetate and (z)-9-tetradecenyl acetate (3:1) before impregnating the rubber septa (Wakamura et al., 1986). Medarde et al. (1988) synthesized three active components of the sex pheromone of A. segetum viz. (z)-5-decen-1-ol acetate, (z)-7-decen-1-ol acetate and (z)-9-tetradecenyl acetate. The ratio of constituents in a blend is 1:3:4, and the effective dose is 80 μg/trap (Buleza et al., 1988).
Mitigation
The migratory nature of A. ipsilon moths is evident from the review by Odiyo (1975) who described the seasonal distribution tendencies of this species in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Sugimoto and Kobayashi (1978) discussed the seasonal prevalence and possibility of seasonal migration of A. ipsilon in Japan. The potential future global distribution under climate change conditions was studied by Hayat et al. (2021)
Chemical Control
Due to the variable regulations around (de-)registration of pesticides, we are for the moment not including any specific chemical control recommendations. For further information, we recommend you visit the following resources:
•
EU pesticides database (https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/eu-pesticides-database_en)
•
PAN pesticide database (www.pesticideinfo.org)
•
Your national pesticide guide
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright © CABI. CABI is a registered EU trademark. This article is published under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
History
Published online: 29 October 2024
Language
English
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
SCITE_
Citations
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
EXPORT CITATIONS