The boll weevil in North America: Scientific conflicts over management of environmental resources

This paper is a historical and philosphical reconstruction of how U.S. entomologists attempted to mitigate the depradations of the boll weevil on cotton, the world's most important natural fiber. The boll weevil caused severe losses in the U.S. after 1892. Early control methods were based on altering the cultural practices of cotton growers. The discovery in 1917 that calcium arsenate was an effective insecticide for boll weevils eventually allowed some farmers to rely on chemical control. Development of synthetic, organic insecticides allowed many U.S. growers after 1945 to rely heavily on insecticides for boll weevils. By the 1960s, resistance of boll weevils to insecticides, induction of secondary pest outbreaks, and environmental health hazards threatened cotton production practices based on insecticides. U.S. entomologists devised two new strategies to rescue cotton production from its insecticide crisis: integrated pest management (IPM) and total population management (TPM). Eradication of key insect pests such as boll weevils was envisaged by TPM entomologists with adequate technology. E.F. Knipling, the USDA entomologist who designed TPM, gave 1968 as a target for possible boll weevil eradication. The pilot boll weevil eradication experiment (PBWEE) was conducted in 1971–1973. IPM entomologists argued the futility of attempting to eradicate the boll weevil from the U.S.A., but TPM adherents argued for a second test, which was held in Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina (1978–1980). A new controversy erupted over how to interpret the fact that a few boll weevils were found at the end of the second test. IPM and TPM entomologists were once again pitted against one another on three major issues: defining eradication; explaining secondary pest behavior; and drawing conclusions about the wisdom of a national boll weevil eradication program. Currently, entomologists have reached a stalemate over boll weevil eradication in the U.S. Some entomologists are attempting to synthesize opposing views in the hope of reaching a professional consensus on appropriate boll weevil suppression methods. Significant distinctions separate IPM and TPM and will make it difficult to achieve an agreement. Budgetary problems in the U.S.A. argue for a management rather than eradication stance against boll weevils. The split in the U.S. entomological profession could have adverse effects on efforts to develop insect-control science outside of the U.S.