Hubbry Logo
Pink bollwormPink bollwormMain
Open search
Pink bollworm
Community hub
Pink bollworm
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Pink bollworm
Pink bollworm
Pink bollworm
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Pink bollworm
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Order: Lepidoptera
Family: Gelechiidae
Genus: Pectinophora
Species:
P. gossypiella
Binomial name
Pectinophora gossypiella
(Saunders, 1844)
Synonyms
  • Depressaria gossypiella Saunders, 1844
  • Gelechia gossypiella
  • Platyedra gossypiella
  • Gelechia umbripennis Walsingham, 1885

The pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella; Spanish: lagarta rosada) is an insect known for being a pest in cotton farming. The adult is a small, thin, gray moth with fringed wings. The larva is a dull white caterpillar with eight pairs of legs[1] with conspicuous pink banding along its dorsum. The larva reaches one half inch in length.

The female moth lays eggs in a cotton boll, and when the larvae emerge from the eggs, they inflict damage through feeding. They chew through the cotton lint to feed on the seeds. Since cotton is used for both fiber and seed oil, the damage is twofold. Their disruption of the protective tissue around the boll is a portal of entry for other insects and fungi.

The pink bollworm is native to Asia, but has become an invasive species in most of the world's cotton-growing regions. It reached the cotton belt in the southern United States by the 1920s. It was a major pest in the cotton fields of the southern California deserts. The USDA announced in 2018[2] that it had been eradicated from the continental United States, through the synergistic combination of using transgenic Bt cotton and releasing sterile males.[3]

In parts of India, the pink bollworm is now resistant to first generation transgenic Bt cotton (Bollgard cotton) that expresses a single Bt gene (Cry1Ac).[4] Monsanto has admitted that this variety is ineffective against the pink bollworm pest in parts of Gujarat, India.[5] Infestation on susceptible cotton is generally controlled with insecticides. Once a crop has been harvested, the field is plowed under as soon as possible to stop the life cycle of the new generation of pink bollworm. Unharvested bolls harbor the larvae, so these are destroyed. The plants are plowed into the earth and the fields are irrigated liberally to drown out remaining pests. Some farmers burn the stubble after harvest. Surviving bollworms will overwinter in the field and re-infest the following season. Populations of bollworms are also controlled with mating disruption, chemicals, and releases of sterile males which mate with the females but fail to fertilize their eggs.

  • Caterpillar
    Caterpillar
  • Illustrated Life Cycle
    Illustrated Life Cycle

Footnotes

[edit]

General reference

[edit]
  • New Standard Encyclopedia, © 1990 Chicago, Illinois
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Pink bollworm

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders), is a lepidopteran in the Gelechiidae, recognized as one of the most destructive pests of ( spp.) worldwide due to its larvae boring into developing bolls and feeding on and lint. Adults are small moths with a of 15-20 mm, featuring mottled brown forewings and hindwings, while larvae are initially , turning pinkish with brown head and dark dorsal bands as they mature. First described in 1843 from specimens in , where it was initially observed damaging , the pest's origin remains uncertain but likely Asian, with subsequent spread via human-mediated transport to , the , and other regions. Its cryptic feeding habit within bolls complicates detection and control, often resulting in reduced seed yield, lowered content, prevented boll opening, and economic losses from yield reductions and management costs exceeding tens of millions annually in affected areas. Key management approaches have evolved from early reliance on insecticides and cultural practices—such as timely planting, irrigation control, and crop sanitation—to incorporating biological controls, pheromone traps for monitoring and mating disruption, and transgenic varieties engineered to produce Bacillus thuringiensis toxins lethal to the larvae. These strategies achieved notable success, including the eradication of established populations from the by 2018 through synergistic use of Bt crops and sterile releases, substantially cutting control expenditures and yield impacts. However, the pest's capacity for rapid adaptation has led to field-evolved resistance to Bt toxins in regions like , where adoption initially suppressed populations but later permitted resurgences with green boll damage exceeding economic thresholds post-2015, underscoring the need for diversified, resistance-monitoring tactics.

Taxonomy and Description

Taxonomic Classification

The pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) is a of in the Gelechiidae, order , known primarily as a pest of crops. Its binomial name was established by Wilson Saunders in 1844, originally described as Depressaria gossypiella. The species belongs to the genus Pectinophora, which comprises three recognized species: P. gossypiella, P. scutigera (endemic to ), and P. endema. The full taxonomic hierarchy is:
  • Kingdom: Animalia
  • Phylum:
  • Subphylum:
  • Class: Insecta
  • Subclass:
  • Infraclass:
  • Order:
  • Family: Gelechiidae
  • Subfamily: Chelariinae
  • Tribe: Chelariini
  • Genus: Pectinophora
  • Species: Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders, 1844)
This classification reflects standard entomological for gelechiid , with no significant revisions noted in recent peer-reviewed .

Morphological Characteristics

The adult pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella, is a small gelechiid with a ranging from 10 to 15 mm. The forewings are dark brown, featuring indistinct blotches of darker fuscous scales and a darker terminal band, while the hindwings are lighter gray with long fringes. The head is reddish-brown, with pale scales on the labial palps and filiform antennae. Adults possess vestigial mouthparts, rendering them incapable of feeding. Eggs are elongate-oval in shape, measuring 0.4–0.6 mm in length and 0.2–0.3 mm in width, with a smooth, ribbed visible under magnification. They are typically laid singly on flowers, squares, or bolls, adhering firmly to the surface. Neonate larvae are minute, caterpillars with dark brown heads, growing to 12–13 mm in length at maturity. Mature larvae exhibit a dull body with wide transverse pinkish bands dorsally and darker pigmentation ventrally; they possess three pairs of true legs and up to five pairs of prolegs. The head capsule is dark brown, and the body tapers posteriorly. Pupae measure 8–10 mm in length, appearing plump and reddish-brown, with a pointed posterior end terminating in a short, stout, upwardly curved cremaster. Pupation occurs within silken cocoons formed inside damaged bolls or in soil.

Life Cycle and Ecology

Developmental Stages

The pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella, exhibits holometabolous development, progressing through four distinct stages: egg, larva, pupa, and adult. Under optimal temperatures of approximately 25–30°C, the full cycle typically spans 32–35 days, though durations vary with environmental conditions such as temperature and host availability. Eggs are laid singly by adult females, primarily on flowers, squares, or bolls, appearing as tiny (0.4–0.6 mm), flattened, oval structures initially white and turning reddish before hatching. Hatching occurs after 3–4 days, with females capable of depositing 100–300 eggs over their 5–10 day lifespan. Larvae, the primary damaging stage, undergo four s over 12–15 days under favorable conditions, though periods up to 20–30 days have been recorded in cooler environments. Early instars (1–3) are translucent white, approximately 0.5–5 mm long, and mine into flower buds or bolls; the fourth instar develops a pink hue, reaching 10–13 mm, and bores deeper, feeding on seeds and lint while producing tunnels sealed with silk. Larvae may enter in later instars for overwintering, extending survival up to 180 days in or crop residues. Pupation follows larval exit from bolls, occurring in , , or within bolls inside silk-lined tunnels; pupae measure 7–10 mm, are reddish-brown, and immobile, requiring 6–10 days to emerge as adults. Adults are small moths with a 10–16 mm , featuring mottled gray-brown forewings with darker bands and white hindwings; they are nocturnal, with males displaying pheromone-attracting brushes on hind legs, and do not feed significantly, prioritizing reproduction.
StageDuration (days, ~25–30°C)Key Characteristics
Egg3–4Oval, 0.4–0.6 mm, laid singly on host tissues
Larva12–15 (4 instars)Boring pests, pink in final instar, up to 13 mm
Pupa6–10Reddish-brown, 7–10 mm, in cocoons or soil
Adult5–10Small moth, 10–16 mm wingspan, non-feeding

Environmental Influences on Biology

The biology of the pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) is profoundly shaped by , which governs developmental rates across life stages. Optimal temperatures for larval survival and development range from 25°C to 30°C, with the total developmental period shortening as temperatures rise from 20°C to 40°C; for instance, , larval, and pupal durations are significantly prolonged at 20°C compared to 40°C, though survival declines at extremes beyond 35.5°C. The lower developmental threshold is approximately 13.4°C, above which accumulated heat units (around 500 degree-days per generation) drive progression from to . Higher temperatures, such as 28°C, enhance overall growth capacity and , peaking at 30°C with up to 106 eggs per female, while 20°C yields only about 55 eggs, reflecting reduced reproductive output under cooler conditions. Photoperiod exerts primary control over induction, with short day lengths (13 hours of light or less per day) triggering facultative in late-instar larvae, enabling overwintering survival in temperate regions. Under these inductive photoperiods, cooler temperatures amplify incidence, whereas longer photoperiods (14-16 hours) prevent or terminate it, accelerating pupation; for example, exposure to 16-hour days terminates more rapidly than shorter ones, independent of . Temperature interacts with photoperiod, as increasing from 25°C to 35°C under extended light periods hastens termination, underscoring the interplay of these factors in seasonal . Humidity influences developmental , with 60% relative humidity promoting larval and pupal growth more effectively than higher or lower levels, which can delay or impair progression. Rainfall typically exerts a suppressive effect on by disrupting oviposition and larval establishment, though its direct impact on individual is less pronounced than or photoperiod; correlations show negative influences on rates during wet periods. These abiotic drivers collectively modulate , survival, and reproductive potential, with warming projected to favor faster cycles and reduced in cotton-growing regions.

Distribution and Invasion History

Origins and Global Spread

The pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders), originated in the Indo-Australian region, with its native range likely spanning parts of , and the eastern area extending to northwestern via the Indonesian archipelago. The species was first described in 1843 based on specimens collected in in 1842, where it is considered indigenous and associated with wild hosts. Human activities, particularly the international trade in cotton seeds, lint, and bolls, facilitated the pest's rapid dispersal from its native range to other cotton-producing areas. Early introductions occurred in by 1903–1910, in 1906, before 1918, and and in the early 20th century. Documented spread continued to and (now ) by the 1950s, establishing it as a key pest across , , and the . In the Americas, P. gossypiella was first detected in , , in 1917, probably via infested shipments from . It expanded to , , , , and by the mid-1950s, reaching in 1963 and prompting large-scale suppression efforts. Australia recorded its presence in cotton in 1924, with subsequent establishment primarily in . By the late , the pink bollworm had invaded nearly all global cotton-growing regions, including , becoming a pest due to its capacity for cryptic survival in and human-assisted transport. Eradication succeeded in the continental by 2018 through combined tactics like sterile insect releases and transgenic , though sporadic detections persist in border areas.

Factors Facilitating Dispersal

The pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella, exhibits limited natural long-distance dispersal due to its dependence on as a primary host and relatively sluggish flight capabilities, with continental invasions primarily driven by activities rather than passive migration. Adult moths achieve short-range local dispersal within through powered flight, with tethered-flight tests indicating mean accumulated distances of approximately 41 km for 1-day-old females over durations of about 24 hours. Longer-range movements, up to 56–105 km into isolated fields, occur sporadically, often wind-assisted, as documented in historical windborne spreads from to in 1936 and over regions. Human-mediated transport via trade constitutes the dominant factor in global invasions, enabling the movement of diapausing larvae hidden within seeds, bolls, lint, or across borders and regions. Early 20th-century trace infestations from to , , and the (1911–1913), to , and to (1917), all linked to contaminated shipments. Domestic spread is amplified by agricultural processing, such as ginning mills and oil extraction industries handling infested , which disperses viable larvae to new areas without adequate or . Larval stages also facilitate on or equipment during planting and harvesting. Agricultural practices further enhance dispersal by sustaining high populations capable of flight or transport. Late-season cotton retention, delayed boll opening, and incomplete crop termination leave overwintering sites that boost moth emergence and local flight activity the following season. Inadequate post-harvest , such as unremoved bolls or volunteer , provides reservoirs for diapausing larvae, indirectly facilitating spread through subsequent human or wind-mediated movement. Favorable environmental conditions, including mild temperatures and supporting multiple generations, compound these effects by increasing reproductive output and dispersal propensity.

Economic and Agricultural Impact

Mechanisms of Crop Damage

The pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella, inflicts primarily through its larval stage, which bores into structures such as squares, flowers, and bolls. moths lay eggs singly on these parts, and upon hatching, neonate larvae penetrate the tissues to feed internally. This boring action disrupts normal development, leading to premature shedding of affected squares and flowers. Once inside bolls, larvae tunnel through the boll wall and chew into the developing seeds, consuming the contents while moving from seed to seed. In the process, they cut and stain the surrounding lint fibers, compromising fiber quality and integrity. Mature larvae eventually exit the boll, creating holes that expose the interior to environmental stressors. These entry and exit wounds facilitate secondary infections by fungi and bacteria, often resulting in boll rot, particularly from pathogens like Aspergillus species. The combined feeding and resultant pathologies reduce viability, lint weight, and overall boll integrity, directly impairing yield and harvestable quality.

Quantified Losses and Historical Outbreaks

In the United States, prior to eradication efforts, the pink bollworm inflicted annual losses exceeding $32 million on producers through direct yield reductions and control expenditures, particularly in states like , , , and . These costs encompassed both inputs and forgone production, with uncontrolled infestations potentially causing up to 61% yield loss in affected fields, though chemical controls typically limited damage to around 9%. In alone, statewide damage estimates from 1979 to 1995 averaged 0.05–4.5% of yields attributable to the pest. In , a leading producer, pink bollworm outbreaks have resulted in substantial yield reductions, with protected plots yielding 2304.27 kg/ha compared to 1478.73 kg/ha in unprotected ones, equating to 35.83% avoidable loss in varieties. Zonal green boll damage in southern averaged 4.84% from 2007 onward, escalating above economic threshold levels after 2015 amid resistance development, with survival rates rising notably between 2014 and 2017. Globally, the pest is estimated to cause 20–40% reductions in yield without intervention, though actual annual yield losses hover around 3.75% when accounting for variable efficacy. Historically, the pink bollworm first appeared in the U.S. in 1917 near , following incursions from that rendered it a significant threat by 1916, prompting the to enact the Pink Bollworm Act in 1917 for regulatory suppression. In , infestations peaked in the mid-2000s, with 2005 records indicating 2.6 billion larvae statewide and 15.3% boll infestation rates prior to intensified transgenic and sterile insect interventions. Outbreaks in intensified post-2015, correlating with Bt toxin resistance, leading to widespread green boll damage exceeding 1.67% and necessitating renewed chemical applications across central and southern regions. Earlier global detections include introductions to in 1918 and in 1924, where sporadic economic infestations have persisted in cotton belts despite controls.

Control Strategies

Cultural and Chemical Controls

Cultural controls for the pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) emphasize agronomic practices that disrupt the pest's life cycle and reduce overwintering populations. Synchronized planting and harvesting dates create a mandatory host-free period, typically 2-3 months in winter, preventing larval diapause and emergence of subsequent generations. Stalk destruction through shredding, disking, deep plowing, or flooding fields post-harvest exposes and kills diapausing larvae in bolls, achieving mortality rates exceeding 90% when implemented promptly after harvest. Early planting following a closed season further limits generational overlap, while crop rotation with non-hosts like grains minimizes residual infestations, though cotton monoculture in major regions like the U.S. Southwest necessitates strict adherence to these timed practices for efficacy. These methods form the foundational layer in area-wide management programs, such as the USDA's Southwest Pink Bollworm Eradication Program initiated in the early , where cultural tactics reduced baseline populations before integrating other strategies, enabling near-elimination in treated zones by 2018. However, inconsistent farmer compliance, such as delayed shredding, can undermine results, as overwintering larvae survival correlates inversely with depth and timing. Chemical controls rely on targeted applications against eggs and early-instar larvae on surfaces, as mature larvae bore into bolls, rendering contact sprays ineffective. Effective agents include , which demonstrated superior larval mortality (up to 95% reduction in field trials) and lower impact on natural enemies compared to broad-spectrum options. Other recommended insecticides encompass , benzoate, and spinosad, with applications timed to peak moth activity via traps, achieving 80-90% control when resistance levels are low. In regions like , where chemical use constitutes about 21% of total pesticides as of 2023, overuse has driven resistance, necessitating rotation with novel modes of action to sustain efficacy. Historical trials, such as those in California's in 1967, identified organophosphates like Guthion (azinphos-methyl) and carbamates like Sevin () as highly effective, reducing boll infestation by 70-85%, though modern programs limit sprays to preserve biological controls and mitigate resistance. In eradication efforts, chemical interventions are minimized, applied only when monitoring thresholds exceed 1-2% infested bolls, prioritizing precision over blanket treatments to avoid secondary pest resurgence. Overall, standalone chemical reliance has declined since the due to documented resistance evolution, with integrated use alongside cultural practices yielding superior long-term suppression.

Biological and Integrated Approaches

Biological control strategies for the pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) primarily rely on augmentative releases of parasitoids and the exploitation of native predators and microbial agents. Egg parasitoids in the genus Trichogramma, such as T. bactrae and T. evanescens, target host eggs, with field releases of T. evanescens reducing infestation levels by 68.88% relative to untreated controls in cotton trials. Similarly, T. bactrae has demonstrated field efficacy in lowering larval density per boll by 1.5-fold when released inundatively. Native predators, including ladybird beetles (Coccinellidae), spiders, ants, and birds, consume eggs and first-instar larvae, contributing to early-stage mortality in cotton agroecosystems, though their impact is density-dependent and enhanced by conserving field biodiversity. Entomopathogenic nematodes, notably Heterorhabditis indica strains CICR-HI-CL and CICR-HI-MN, exhibit high virulence against larvae and pupae; laboratory assays recorded 100% mortality of second- to fourth-instar larvae at 30–50 infective juveniles per larva for the more effective CICR-HI-CL strain, with LD50 values as low as 4.45 infective juveniles per third-instar larva. Biopesticides like azadirachtin (1500 ppm) and spinosad (Entrust formulation at 1.25–2 oz/acre) provide selective suppression, achieving 30–44% reduction in larval incidence while minimizing harm to non-target organisms. Integrated pest management (IPM) for pink bollworm combines these biological elements with monitoring, cultural practices, and targeted chemical interventions to sustain long-term suppression while mitigating resistance risks. -baited traps monitor adult activity, enabling timely decisions on releases or applications, with peak flights often occurring 55–60 days after sowing. Manual removal of rosette flowers, which serve as larval refugia, integrates directly with augmentation to disrupt development. In multi-year farmer-field evaluations (2018–2021) in southern , , an IPM module incorporating traps, rosette flower destruction, applications, and selective insecticides like thiodicarb (75% WP) lowered mean boll to 38–40% while delivering benefit-cost ratios of 1.35–2.07, surpassing farmer practices (1.11–1.36). Areawide IPM emphasizes uniform adoption across regions to interrupt dispersal, preserving natural enemy populations through avoidance of broad-spectrum sprays and incorporation of host-free fallow periods (e.g., 90 days in California's ), which can reduce overwintering populations by 50–70% via post-harvest shredding and . Such approaches prioritize empirical thresholds—e.g., 2% boll —for intervention, fostering resilience against outbreaks documented in resistant scenarios.

Sterile Insect Technique

The sterile insect technique (SIT) for pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) involves mass-rearing laboratory colonies of the moth, sterilizing male pupae through gamma irradiation, and releasing the sterile males into to compete with wild males for mating with fertile females, thereby suppressing population growth by producing non-viable offspring. This species-specific, environmentally benign method has been integral to and eradication efforts, particularly when integrated with other tactics like cultivation and . Initial applications in the United States began in 1968 as a in California's to prevent establishment in uninfested regions, with sterile moths released aerially at densities of approximately 1,000 per acre during peak flight periods. In the broader eradication program spanning the and , SIT was scaled up through a dedicated rearing facility in , capable of producing millions of sterile moths weekly for aerial distribution over infested areas. Release rates typically ranged from 100 to 500 sterile males per acre, adjusted based on trap catches of wild moths to maintain overflooding ratios that ensure competitive mating disadvantage for wild males. The technique's efficacy was enhanced by synchronizing releases with wild moth and combining them with mandatory host-free periods post-harvest to eliminate larval refugia. A multitactic approach synergizing SIT with transgenic , which expresses Bacillus thuringiensis toxins lethal to pink bollworm larvae, proved pivotal for eradication success across a seven-state region in and the southern U.S. This integration reduced wild populations to levels where sterile releases could drive them to , culminating in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's declaration of pink bollworm eradication from all U.S. -producing areas on October 19, 2018, after over 20 years of coordinated efforts and no detections in pheromone traps since 2011 in key states like . The program saved U.S. farmers an estimated $192 million in control costs between 2014 and 2019 by obviating routine applications. Challenges included maintaining genetic quality in mass-reared colonies to avoid fitness declines, which were mitigated through periodic with field strains and genetic monitoring.

Genetic Resistance Challenges

Evolution of Pesticide Resistance

The pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) rapidly evolved to chemical insecticides following their widespread deployment in production, primarily due to intense selection pressure from multiple annual applications targeting larval stages within bolls. Early emerged to chlorinated hydrocarbons like , with laboratory bioassays of field-collected moths from in 1962 demonstrating survival rates indicative of appreciable tolerance compared to susceptible baselines. This marked an initial shift, as prior controls such as arsenic-based compounds had already faced efficacy declines in regions like and since the pest's recognition in the early , though documented data on pre- remains sparse. By the 1970s and 1980s, resistance extended to organophosphates (e.g., parathion-methyl) and carbamates, with field strains in exhibiting elevated lethal concentrations requiring synergists to reveal underlying detoxification mechanisms like enhanced activity. , introduced in the late 1970s, faced similar fates; in , tolerance increased gradually from the early 1980s, correlating with high-volume sprays exceeding 10 applications per season in some areas, leading to resistance ratios of several-fold in monitored populations. In , while resistance ratios stayed low (often below 10-fold), parallel high resistance (23- to 57-fold) developed to cyclodienes like , reflecting regional variations in rotation and usage intensity. Field-evolved resistance in by the early 2000s encompassed multiple classes, including organophosphates and pyrethroids, with bioassays showing survival rates up to 80% at recommended field doses, attributed to combined metabolic and target-site insensitivities. These patterns, observed across continents, highlighted the pest's genetic adaptability—often involving polygenic traits with low fitness costs in resistant strains—necessitating diversified controls to delay further escalation. By the mid-1990s, such resistance had rendered many conventional insecticides ineffective in key areas, paving the way for transgenic alternatives despite ongoing challenges.

Bt Toxin Resistance Dynamics

Field-evolved resistance to the Cry1Ac in pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) was first documented in , with laboratory bioassays of field-collected insects from Gujarat's in 2009–2010 revealing survival rates on bolls up to 10-fold higher than susceptible strains, indicating resistance had evolved by 2008. Subsequent surveys across confirmed widespread resistance to Cry1Ac by 2011–2012, correlating with intensified adoption since 2002 and limited adherence to refuge requirements for non-, which failed to sustain susceptible alleles at sufficient frequencies. In regions like and , resistance allele frequencies in (cad1B) reached 0.1–0.3 by 2013, accelerating under continuous selection pressure from single-toxin varieties. Resistance dynamics shifted with the deployment of pyramided Bt cotton expressing Cry1Ac + Cry2Ab (Bollgard II) in India from 2006, initially delaying but not preventing cross-resistance; by 2015–2017, field populations showed 20–50% survival on dual-toxin plants in central and southern India, driven by independent mutations in cad1B for Cry1Ac and ABC transporter genes (ABCA2) for Cry2Ab. Unlike in the southwestern U.S., where structured refuges (20–50% non-Bt cotton) and area-wide suppression maintained low resistance frequencies (<0.01 for Cry1Ac survivors in Arizona fields from 1996–2005), Indian dynamics featured rapid allele frequency escalation due to near-monoculture Bt planting (95%+ adoption) and off-season host availability promoting overwintering of resistant genotypes. Molecular mechanisms center on reduced toxin binding to midgut receptors, with dominant cadherin alleles like r16 disrupting Cry1Ac oligomerization and pore formation, conferring 100–10,000-fold resistance in homozygous larvae; field-selected strains exhibit polygenic inheritance involving 2–5 loci, though cad1B variants predominate. For Cry2Ab, CRISPR-induced ABCA2 knockouts mimic field resistance, reducing toxin sensitivity via altered transporter function without fitness costs in toxin-free environments. Empirical data from diet-overlay bioassays indicate resistant larvae incur 10–20% lower pupal weight and fecundity on non-Bt hosts compared to susceptibles, yet this cost diminishes in heterogeneous fields, enabling persistence. Monitoring studies in South India as of 2024 report resistant allele frequencies exceeding 0.5 for Cry1Ac + Cry2Ab in refuge-compliant fields, underscoring how incomplete dominance and gene flow from untreated refugia amplify resistance spread at rates modeled as 0.1–0.2 per generation under high-dose selection. In China, susceptibility declined 5–10-fold to Cry1Ac from 2005–2010 in northern provinces, prefiguring India's trajectory absent proactive interventions like sterile insect releases. These patterns highlight causal drivers: intense, landscape-scale selection erodes high-dose/refuge efficacy when compliance lags, contrasting successes in regulated systems where resistance remains negligible.

Biotechnology Interventions

Development and Deployment of Bt Cotton

Bt cotton varieties were developed by incorporating genes from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a soil bacterium that produces Cry proteins toxic to lepidopteran larvae, including the (Pectinophora gossypiella), into the cotton genome via Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. This genetic modification aimed to provide intrinsic protection against bollworm damage, reducing reliance on chemical insecticides. Early research in the 1980s and 1990s focused on identifying and isolating Bt genes such as cry1Ac, which disrupts larval midgut function upon ingestion, leading to starvation and death. Commercial development accelerated in the early 1990s, with Monsanto licensing Bt technology and collaborating with cotton breeders like Delta and Pine Land Company to create varieties such as NuCOTN 33B, incorporating the cry1Ac gene. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the first Bt cotton for field trials in 1993 and granted commercial registration in 1995, allowing planting on approximately 2 million acres by 1996, primarily targeting tobacco budworm and bollworm complexes that included pink bollworm in southwestern states. In parallel, Chinese researchers independently transformed cotton with Bt genes, achieving approvals for commercial cultivation in 1997, where pink bollworm posed a significant threat. Deployment expanded globally in regions with heavy pink bollworm infestations. In the United States, Bt cotton adoption reached over 50% of planted acreage by 1998, with mandatory refuge strategies—non-Bt cotton strips to delay resistance—implemented to sustain efficacy against pink bollworm. India saw its first Bt cotton approvals in 2002 through a joint venture between Monsanto and Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco), commercializing Bollgard varieties expressing cry1Ac; adoption surged to 95% of cotton area by 2013, driven by reductions in bollworm-related losses. Stacked-gene versions, combining cry1Ac with cry2Ab for broader spectrum control, followed in the U.S. by 1997 and later elsewhere, enhancing deployment against resistant pink bollworm populations. By the mid-2000s, Bt cotton covered over 14 million hectares worldwide, with key expansions in Pakistan, Brazil, and South Africa, often integrated with area-wide management to suppress pink bollworm.

Empirical Outcomes in Bt Adoption Regions

In regions adopting Bt cotton targeting (Pectinophora gossypiella), initial empirical outcomes included substantial reductions in bollworm damage, insecticide applications for this pest, and associated yield gains. For instance, in India following widespread Bt adoption starting in 2002, farmers reported 30-50% fewer insecticide sprays against bollworms and yield increases of 20-30% in early years, attributed to effective Cry1Ac toxin suppression of populations. Similarly, in China after Bt cotton commercialization in 1997, pesticide use for lepidopteran pests dropped by over 50% in adopting areas, with control contributing to net yield benefits despite secondary pest shifts. These gains stemmed from the toxin's high-dose expression, which killed susceptible larvae and delayed resistance evolution under structured refuge strategies. However, outcomes varied by region due to differences in refuge compliance, hybrid practices, and integrated management. In the United States, Bt cotton deployment from 1996, combined with mandatory non-Bt refuges (typically 20% of acreage), sustained susceptibility in pink bollworm populations for over a decade, enabling near-eradication by 2018 through synergistic sterile insect releases that reduced fertile mating by up to 99% in treated fields. Computer simulations validated this approach, projecting pest extinction within 5-10 years under realistic parameters of Bt efficacy and sterile moth inundation. In contrast, China's strategy of hybridizing Bt and non-Bt cotton seeds reversed emerging resistance; an 11-year field study (2006-2016) in multiple provinces showed pink bollworm survival on Bt plants declining from 5-10% to near zero, as hybrid vigor and gene flow from non-Bt pollen maintained refuge-like dilution without separate plantings. In India, early successes eroded due to unstructured refuges and unstructured planting, fostering rapid resistance evolution. By 2009-2010, field-evolved resistance to Cry1Ac was documented, with survivor frequencies exceeding 50% in Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh, correlating with pink bollworm resurgence and renewed yield losses of 20-25% in affected bolls. This contrasted with China's outcomes, where low initial resistance alleles (frequency <0.01) were managed proactively, versus India's higher baseline and non-compliance, leading to allele frequencies reaching 0.05-0.06 by 2015. Empirical monitoring via bioassays confirmed that US and Chinese protocols—emphasizing high-dose Bt expression and susceptibility dilution—prolonged efficacy far beyond India's experience, underscoring causal links between management fidelity and durable control. Overall, Bt adoption averted billions in potential losses globally but highlighted resistance risks without vigilant countermeasures.

Eradication and Management Successes

United States and Mexico Programs

The bilateral pink bollworm eradication program between the United States and Mexico commenced in 2001, targeting cotton-producing regions in the southwestern U.S. (including , , , and ) and northern Mexico (primarily Chihuahua). The initiative, coordinated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) and Mexican authorities, integrated sterile insect technique (SIT) with widespread adoption of varieties expressing Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab toxins lethal to pink bollworm larvae. Over 4.5 billion sterile moths were released annually across the region from 2006 to 2010, reducing fertile mating and population densities. In the U.S., the program phased eradication starting in the El Paso/Trans-Pecos region of Texas and New Mexico in 2001, expanding to Arizona and California by 2006. Arizona's population, exceeding 2 billion larvae in 2005, declined to undetectable levels by 2014 through mandatory Bt cotton planting (reaching 95% adoption by 2010), pheromone traps for monitoring, and host-free periods. Eradication was declared complete in Puerto Rico in 2002, Texas in 2015, and the continental U.S. by March 2018, with USDA lifting federal quarantines in September 2018 after no detections in over 500,000 traps. This effort saved U.S. cotton growers approximately $192 million in control costs from 2014 to 2019. Mexico's component focused on northwestern states, synchronizing with U.S. efforts to prevent reinfestation. By 2008, reproductive evidence had vanished in most treated areas of northern Chihuahua, with sterile releases and Bt cotton suppressing populations below economic thresholds. Cross-border collaboration included shared trap data and moth releases, addressing the pest's diapause-enabled overwintering and migration. Although full continental eradication in Mexico remains ongoing, the program's border-aligned successes halted U.S. reinvasions, demonstrating efficacy of area-wide suppression over isolated farm-level controls.

Lessons from Regional Variations

In regions like the United States and Mexico, coordinated area-wide programs integrating Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton with sterile insect technique (SIT) releases eradicated pink bollworm by 2018, reducing annual control costs by an estimated $192 million for U.S. farmers from 2014 to 2019 through mandatory compliance, intensive monitoring, and suppression of residual populations across borders. This success stemmed from deploying billions of sterile moths alongside Bt crops, which synergistically prevented mating and reinforced toxin efficacy, achieving near-zero infestation in cotton fields. Conversely, in India, heavy reliance on single-toxin Bt cotton varieties since 2002, coupled with inconsistent refuge planting (often below 20% compliance) and year-round cotton cultivation, accelerated resistance evolution, culminating in widespread outbreaks from 2017 onward that infested up to 30% of bolls in affected areas and rendered Bt ineffective as a standalone control by 2020. These failures underscore how fragmented smallholder farming—prevalent in India with over 90% of cotton on plots under 2 hectares—hinders uniform resistance management, unlike the large-scale, regulated operations in North America that enabled synchronized tactics. In China, field resistance to Bt toxins emerged by the mid-2010s in some provinces, linked to high adoption rates exceeding 95% without diversified refuges, yet multi-toxin "pyramid" varieties and localized SIT trials have partially mitigated resurgence, maintaining yields above non-Bt baselines in monitored regions as of 2023. Australia's stricter biosecurity, including early detection and eradication of incursions since the 1920s, combined with deployment under mandatory IPM protocols, has sustained low pink bollworm densities without widespread resistance, as genomic surveys confirm susceptible populations persisting through 2023. Key lessons include the necessity of diversified interventions—such as combining genetic toxins with sterile releases—to avert resistance, the superiority of enforced area-wide coordination over voluntary measures in diverse farm scales, and proactive genomic monitoring to detect variants early, as delays in India amplified economic losses exceeding $500 million annually by 2019. Regions succeeding emphasized causal suppression of gene flow via border controls and fallow periods, revealing that isolated Bt reliance fosters rapid adaptation in high-density host environments, while integrated systems exploit bollworm's limited dispersal (typically under 100 km) for containment.

Future Prospects and Emerging Methods

Resistance Monitoring and Mitigation

Resistance monitoring for pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella) to Bt toxins in primarily relies on annual surveys mandated by regulatory bodies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where Bt registrants collect field populations of target lepidopteran pests, including pink bollworm, and conduct laboratory bioassays to assess susceptibility shifts. These bioassays typically involve rearing neonate larvae on artificial diets amended with escalating concentrations of Bt toxins like Cry1Ac or Cry2Ab to calculate median lethal concentrations (LC50) or survival rates, enabling detection of resistance frequency increases over time. In regions like , monitoring incorporates weekly field surveys across -growing zones to quantify green boll damage percentages under unprotected conditions, revealing resistance establishment when damage levels in Bt and non-Bt plots converge, as observed post-2014 for Cry1Ac + Cry2Ab . Molecular methods complement bioassays by screening for known resistance alleles, such as mutations in the receptor (e.g., r1, r2, r3 alleles) via DNA-based diagnostics on field-collected samples, which have tracked low but persistent resistance frequencies in susceptible U.S. populations since Bt cotton deployment. F2 screening assays, where field-collected are inbred to homozygous recessive states and tested for survival on Bt-treated media, provide baseline data for recessive resistance frequencies, with U.S. studies from 1996–2005 estimating Cry1Ac resistance at less than 0.1% before eradication efforts. In contrast, South Indian populations in 2025 showed elevated resistant frequencies exceeding 50% in some areas, underscoring the need for region-specific genomic surveillance to preempt field failures. Mitigation strategies center on insect resistance management (IRM) protocols, with non-Bt refuges—typically 20% unstructured or 5% unsprayed structured plantings—designed to sustain susceptible genotypes for with rare resistant individuals, delaying resistance under high-dose Bt expression assumptions. Effective refuge compliance in the U.S. Southwest, combined with eradication via sterile releases, maintained pink bollworm susceptibility and contributed to pest elimination by 2018, whereas non-compliance in accelerated resistance to Cry1Ac by 2009 and dual-toxin varieties by 2014, resulting in 20–30% yield losses. Pyramiding multiple Bt toxins (e.g., Cry1Ac + Cry2Ab) in stacked varieties reduces selection pressure on single modes of action, with empirical data showing initial near-100% control of pink bollworm before cross-resistance emergence in high-infestation zones. Integrated pest management (IPM) enhancements, including timely insecticide applications during larval windows and cultural practices to minimize off-season survival, further mitigate carryover populations that amplify resistance spread. Emerging approaches integrate RNA interference (RNAi) with Bt toxins for synergistic mortality, targeting pink bollworm-specific genes to counter binding-site resistance mechanisms while preserving refuge efficacy. Ongoing genomic monitoring and adaptive IRM, informed by real-time allele frequency data, are projected to extend Bt cotton durability amid global resistance patterns documented in 19 field-evolved cases since 1996.

Novel Genetic and Technological Solutions

(RNAi) technologies offer a targeted approach to disrupt pink bollworm , potentially complementing or supplanting Bt-based methods amid resistance concerns. Transgenic engineered to produce double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) targeting the CYP6AE14 gene, involved in detoxification, induced high larval mortality rates exceeding 90% in feeding assays conducted in 2010, demonstrating RNAi-mediated suppression of pest survival without broad-spectrum toxicity. Similarly, dietary delivery of dsRNA silencing vacuolar-ATPase () subunits A and B in neonate larvae resulted in 18.9% to 26.7% mortality at 200 ng doses, as evidenced by bioassays in 2016, by impairing proton pumps essential for nutrient absorption and ion balance. Pyramiding RNAi constructs with Bt toxins in varieties, tested in and settings since 2017, has shown synergistic effects, reducing pink bollworm survival by targeting multiple pathways and delaying resistance evolution compared to single-mode Bt deployment. Genetic enhancements to the (SIT) incorporate transgenic s to boost release efficacy and monitoring. A 2012 study developed a pink bollworm with engineered repressible , where a tetracycline-suppressible lethal allows viable rearing in labs but induces sterility or death in field-released males without , potentially replacing radiation-induced sterility that can reduce competitiveness by up to 50%. Fluorescent marker s integrated via transposon vectors, field-tested in 2011, enabled precise discrimination of sterile from wild moths in traps, improving program and confirming over 99% sterility in releases while minimizing non-target impacts. Mass releases of susceptible lab-reared males, modeled in 2015 simulations, diluted Bt-resistant alleles in populations by 20-40% over generations, offering a low-cost genetic dilution strategy integrable with SIT. CRISPR/Cas9 editing has advanced mechanistic insights into resistance while paving pathways for engineered control agents. In experiments, CRISPR-induced knockouts of the PgABCA2 conferred resistance to Cry2Ab in lab strains, validating its role in Bt binding and highlighting editing's utility for rapid in lepidopterans. Such tools could enable creation of self-limiting strains or suppressors, though field applications remain preclinical; for instance, 2023 genome assemblies of pink bollworm facilitated CRISPR targeting of detoxification repertoires, potentially informing RNAi or -insensitive pest variants for release. Ongoing USDA efforts since leverage CRISPR to validate resistance loci, underscoring its precision over random mutagenesis for developing resilient control genetics.

References

  1. https://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/pinkbollworm/pinkbollworm.pdf
  2. http://download.ceris.purdue.edu/file/3121
  3. https://www.nal.usda.gov/collections/special-collections/usda-pink-bollworm-project-photograph-collection
  4. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2019115118
  5. https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/cotton/pink-bollworm/
  6. https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=400856
  7. https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2018/10/19/usda-announces-pink-bollworm-eradication-significantly-saving-cotton-farmers-yearly-control-costs
  8. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-89575-z
  9. http://entomologytoday.org/2019/07/22/pink-bollworm-versus-bt-cotton-three-countries-three-results/
  10. https://www.invasive.org/browse/subinfo.cfm?sub=4934
  11. http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/species.php?hodges=2261
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/pink-bollworm
  13. https://www.insectimages.org/browse/subject/4934?tab=subject-info
  14. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.1079/cabicompendium.39417
  15. https://a-z-animals.com/animals/pink-bollworm/
  16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/pectinophora
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261219419303308
  18. https://idtools.org/id/pbw/Pectinophora_gossypiella.html
  19. https://cales.arizona.edu/crop/cotton/insects/pbw/NCCPBWnewsNo2.pdf
  20. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-65241-8
  21. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1018364722006759
  22. https://journal.agrimetassociation.org/index.php/jam/article/view/2367
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022191063901070
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0022191063901070
  25. https://academic.oup.com/aesa/article-abstract/57/2/170/150937
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11610462/
  27. https://aaj.net.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2015_article_622-23.pdf
  28. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/agriculture/pink-bollworms-thrive-in-higher-temperatures-need-for-better-pest-management-amidst-climate-change-study
  29. https://www.lsuagcenter.com/~/media/system/d/6/c/c/d6ccf9fba62fafe91c00b84fa61c906f/p3908_bugbizpinkbollworm_124pdf.pdf
  30. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-A-PURL-gpo23717/pdf/GOVPUB-A-PURL-gpo23717.pdf
  31. https://faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/biotact/ch-86.htm
  32. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2008.00800.x
  33. https://tsusinvasives.org/home/database/pectinophora-gossypiella
  34. https://www.lsuagcenter.com/profiles/madeleinestout/articles/page1706211946267
  35. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-38504-z
  36. http://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/species.php?hodges=19580
  37. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233653829_Flight_Potential_of_Pink_Bollworm_Pectinophora_gossypiella_Saunders_Lepidoptera_Gelechiidae
  38. https://bioone.org/journalArticle/Download?urlId=10.1603%252F0046-225X-35.4.887
  39. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104996442500132X
  40. https://idtools.org/id/pbw/Pectinophora_gossypiella_2.html
  41. https://www.trece.com/wp-content/uploads/PBW_IPM-Partner-Guidelines-for-Use.pdf
  42. https://caps.ceris.purdue.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Pectinophora-gossypiella-cotton-manual-reference.pdf
  43. https://www.cotton.org/tech/pest/bollworm/
  44. https://www.cotton.org/beltwide/proceedings/getPDF.cfm?year=1996&paper=V156.pdf
  45. https://www.mathsjournal.com/pdf/2024/vol9issue1S/PartE/S-9-1-49-409.pdf
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308521X24003962
  47. https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/pink-bollworm
  48. https://www.the-scientist.com/how-america-s-cotton-farmers-eradicated-the-pink-bollworm-73039
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9959750/
  50. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/SWPnkBwrm.pdf
  51. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pbw-erad-plan2-08.pdf
  52. https://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969.1/87724/pdf_635.pdf
  53. https://cales.arizona.edu/crop/cotton/insects/pbw/NCCPBWnewsNo1.pdf
  54. https://www.thepharmajournal.com/archives/2023/vol12issue9/PartE/12-7-80-207.pdf
  55. https://jcottonres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42397-023-00163-w
  56. https://californiaagriculture.org/api/v1/articles/112566-chemical-control-of-pink-bollworm-in-imperial-valley.pdf
  57. https://cotton.az.gov/pink-bollworm
  58. https://www.cotton.org/beltwide/proceedings/getPDF.cfm?year=2004&paper=H037.pdf
  59. https://biotechbenefits.croplife.org/paper/performance-and-field-efficacy-of-indigenous-egg-parasitoid-trichogrammatoidea-bactrae-hymenoptera-trichogrammatidae-against-the-cotton-pink-bollworm-pectinophora-gossypiella-saunders-lepidopter/
  60. https://jcottonres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42397-023-00159-6
  61. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09670874.2022.2096269
  62. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4450/10/11/371
  63. http://entomologytoday.org/2021/02/16/how-science-wiped-out-invasive-pink-bollworm-united-states/
  64. https://www.cotton.org/beltwide/proceedings/8395/abstracts/1129.cfm
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261219401001314
  66. https://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=ajbmb.2011.337.348
  67. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21438121/
  68. https://ejbpc.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41938-023-00703-1
  69. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0436708100
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6521048/
  71. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4450/14/2/201
  72. https://jcottonres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42397-024-00192-z
  73. https://jcottonres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42397-024-00198-7
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022201125001867
  75. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022201112001140
  76. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36835770/
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5033217/
  78. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/oc/np/btcotton/btcotton.pdf
  79. https://cales.arizona.edu/pubs/general/resrpt1996/t_cotton.html
  80. https://ejbpc.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41938-018-0051-2
  81. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/genetically-modified-organisms-in-developing-countries/commercial-use-and-governance-of-bt-cotton-in-china/D811D2DFA81134C9B9038D37840B728C
  82. https://www.ars.usda.gov/arsuserfiles/4056/naranjoellsworth%2520swe2010.pdf
  83. https://www.global-agriculture.com/india-region/the-journey-of-bt-cotton-in-india-a-historical-overview-and-its-impact-on-agriculture/
  84. https://www.bayer.in/en/mahyco-monsanto-biotech-mmb
  85. https://www.isaaa.org/kc/globalstatus/crop/gmcotton/globaladopt.htm
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3406847/
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308521X11001764
  88. https://agbioforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/AgBioForum_9_2_69.pdf
  89. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0507857102
  90. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/20200500/Pubs%25202022/Tabashnik%2520et%2520al.%25202021%2520PNAS%2520118%25201%2520e2019115118.pdf
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5448178/
  92. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029975
  93. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31254345/
  94. https://academic.oup.com/jee/article/112/6/2513/5524246
  95. https://jcottonres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42397-020-00074-0
  96. https://www.cotton.org/beltwide/proceedings/2005-2022/data/conferences/2006/pdfs/1313-1319.pdf
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7817146/
  98. https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2020/synergy-between-biotech-and-classical-control-tactics-rid-us-of-invasive-pest/
  99. https://www.cotton.org/beltwide/proceedings/2005-2022/data/conferences/2008/papers/8419.pdf
  100. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33443170/
  101. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389380005_Resistance_development_in_pink_bollworm_Pectinophora_Gossypiella_Saunders_against_Bt_cotton_and_its%27_establishment_as_mid_season_pest_in_India
  102. https://www.epa.gov/regulation-biotechnology-under-tsca-and-fifra/bt-cotton-resistance-monitoring-studies-submitted-epa
  103. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/37022/morin_et_al_ibmb_34_2004_1225.pdf
  104. https://www.epa.gov/regulation-biotechnology-under-tsca-and-fifra/insect-resistance-management-bt-plant-incorporated
  105. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22572905/
  106. https://academic.oup.com/jee/article-abstract/112/6/2513/5524246
  107. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11248-010-9450-1
  108. https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJB/article-full-text/0B4787F61541
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5552478/
  110. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0050922
  111. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024110
  112. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89771-7
  113. https://academic.oup.com/g3journal/article/13/4/jkad040/7040364
  114. https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/project/?accnNo=438517&fy=2021
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.