• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Front Matter
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Nature and extent of damage
 Oviposition and seasonal devel...
 Habits
 Materials used and results...
 Control recommendations
 Essentials for effective contr...
 The Alachua County grasshopper...
 Precautions
 Acknowledgments
 Bibliography






Title: Grasshoppers and their control
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00026527/00001
 Material Information
Title: Grasshoppers and their control
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 30 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Kuitert, Louis Cornelius, 1912-
Connin, R. V ( Richard V. ), 1921-
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1953
 Subjects
Subject: Locusts -- Control -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 30.
Statement of Responsibility: by L.C. Kuitert and R.V. Connin.
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: This collection includes items related to Florida’s environments, ecosystems, and species. It includes the subcollections of Florida Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit project documents, the Florida Sea Grant technical series, the Florida Geological Survey series, the Howard T. Odum Center for Wetland technical reports, and other entities devoted to the study and preservation of Florida's natural resources.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00026527
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000926031
oclc - 18270421
notis - AEN6690

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Front Matter
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Table of Contents
        Page 4
    Introduction
        Page 5
    Nature and extent of damage
        Page 6
        The injurious species
            Page 6
            Page 7
        Southern red-legged grasshopper
            Page 8
        Eater Lubber Grasshopper
            Page 8
            Page 9
    Oviposition and seasonal development
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Habits
        Page 14
        Parasites and predators
            Page 14
    Materials used and results of tests
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
    Control recommendations
        Page 18
        Cultural control
            Page 19
        Chemical Control
            Page 19
            Page 20
            Page 21
        Spraying and dusting equipment
            Page 22
            Page 23
            Page 24
            Page 25
    Essentials for effective control
        Page 26
    The Alachua County grasshopper control program
        Page 27
    Precautions
        Page 28
        Handling and using
            Page 28
        Residue hazard to animals
            Page 29
    Acknowledgments
        Page 29
    Bibliography
        Page 30
Full Text


Bulletin 516


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS
WILLARD M. FIFIELD, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA








Grasshoppers and Their Control

By L. C. KUITERT and R. V. CONNIN


Fig. 1.-Grasshopper damage to corn. The insects migrated from border-
ing fencerow. (Photograph by H. E. Bratley.)


March 1953










BOARD OF CONTROL

Frank M. Harris, Chairman, St. Petersburg
Hollis Rinehart, Miami
Eli H. Fink, Jacksonville
George J. White, Sr., Mount Dora
Mrs. Alfred I. duPont, Jacksonville
George W. English, Ji., Ft. Lauderdale
W. Glenn Miller, Monticello
W. F. Powers, Secretary, Tallahassee

EXECUTIVE STAFF
J. Hillis Miller, Ph.D., Presidents
J. Wayne Reitz, Ph.D., Provost for Agr.3
Willard M. Fifield, M.S., Director
J. R. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Asso. Director
L. 0. Gratz, Ph.D., Assistant Director
Rogers L. Bartley, B.S., Admin. Mgr.8
Geo. R. Freeman, B.S., Farm Superintendent

MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
H. G. Hamilton, Ph.D., Agr. Economist 1
R. E. L. Greene, Ph.D., Agr. Economist 3
M. A. Brooker, Ph.D., Agr. Economist 3
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Associate
D. E. Allever, M.S., Associate
D. L. Brooke, M.S.A., Associate
M. R. Godwin, Ph.D., Associate3
W. K. McPherson, M.S., Economist 3
Eric Thor, M.S., Asso. Agr. Economist 3
J. L. Tennant, Ph.D., Agr. Economist
Cecil N. Smith, M.A., Asso. Agr. Economist
Levi A. Powell, Sr., M.S.A., Assistant
Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)
G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agri. Economist
J. C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agricultural
Statistician 2
J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statistician 2
J. K. Lankford, B.S., Agr. Statistician

AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
Frazier Rogers, M.S.A., Agr. Engineer' 3
J. M. Myers, B.S., Asso. Agr. Engineer
J. S. Norton, M.S., Asst. Agr. Eng.
AGRONOMY
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist1
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomist
H. C. Harris, Ph.D., Agronomist
R. W. Bledsoe, Ph.D., Agronomist
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Associate
Darrel D. Morey, Ph.D., Associate 2
Fred A. Clark, M.S., Assistant2
Myron G. Grennell, B.S.A.E., Assistant
E. S. Horner, Ph.D., Assistant
A. T. Wallace, Ph.D., Assistant
D. E. McCloud, Ph.D., Assistant
G. C. Nutter, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND NUTRITION
T. J. Cunha, Ph.D., An. Husb.' 3
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Animal Nutritionist 3
S. John Folks, Jr., M.S.A., Asst. An. Husb. 3
A. M. Pearson, Ph.D., Asso. An. Husb.3
John P. Feaster, Ph.D., Asst. An. Natri.
H. D. Wallace, Ph.D., Asst. An. Husb.3
M. Koger, Ph.D., An. Husbandman 3
E. F. Johnston, M.S., Asst. An. Hush. 3
J. F. Hentges, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. An. Husb. 3
L. R. Arrington, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
DAIRY SCIENCE
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D., Dairy Tech.1
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husb.3
S. P. Marshall, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Husb.3
W. A. Krienke, M.S., Asso. Dairy Tech.3
P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Asst. Dairy Husb. 3
Leon Mull, Ph.D., Asso. Dairy Tech. 3
H. H. Wilkowske, Ph.D., Asst. Dairy Tech. 3
James M. Wing, Ph.D., Asst. Dairy Husb.


EDITORIAL
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editors
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Associa e Editor3
L. Odell Griffith, B.A.J., Asst. Editor 3
J. N. Joiner, B.S.A., Assistant Editor 3
William G. Mitchell, A.B.J., Assistant Editor
ENTOMOLOGY
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Entomologist1
L. C. Kuitert, Ph.D., Associate
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant
F. A. Robinson, M.S., Asst. Apiculturist
R. E. Waites, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
HOME ECONOMICS
Ouida D. Abbott, Ph.D., Home Econ.'
R. B. French. Ph.D., Biochemist

HORTICULTURE
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist
F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Horticulturists
Albert P. Lorz, Ph.D., Horticulturist
R. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
R. A. Dennison, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. H. Sharpe, M.S., Asso. Horticulturist
V. F. Nettles, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Horticulturist
R. D. Dickey, M.S.A., Asso. Hort.
L. H. Halsey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
C. B. Hall, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
Austin Griffiths, Jr., B.S., Asst. Hort.
S. E. McFadden, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
C. H. VanMiddelem, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
Buford D. Thompson, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
James Montelaro, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
M. W. Hoover, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
LIBRARY
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian
PLANT PATHOLOGY
W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologista
Phares Decker, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist and
Botanist 3
Robert W. Earhart, Ph.D., Plant Path.3
Howard N. Miller, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Lillian E. Arnold. M.S., Asst. Botanist
C. W. Anderson, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
POULTRY HUSBANDRY
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Husb.'
J. C. Driggers, Ph.D., Asso. Poultry Hush.
SOILS
F. B. Smith Ph.D., Microbiologist'
Gaylord M. Volk, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Nathan Gammon, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Ralph G. Leighty, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor 2
G. D. Thornton, Ph.D., Asso. Microbiologist a
Charles F. Eno, Ph.D., Ass;. Soils Micro-
biologist
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
R. E. Caldwell, M.S.A., Asst. Chemist34
V. W. Carlisle, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor
J. H. Walker, M.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
S. N. Edson, M. S., Asat. Soil Surveyor 3
William K. Robertson, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
O. E. Cruz, B.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
W. G. Blue, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
J. G. A. Fiskel, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist 3
L. C. Hammond, Ph.D., Asst. Soil Physicist3
H. L. Breland, Ph.D., Asst. Soils Chem.
VETERINARY SCIENCE
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M.. Veterinarian 1 3
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Veterinarian
C. F. Simpson, D.V.M., Asso. Veterinarian
L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist
Glenn Van Ness, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry
Pathologist 3
W. P. Dennis. D.V.M., Asst. Parasitologist
E. W. Swarthout, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry
Pathologist (Dade City)










BRANCH STATIONS

NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY
W. C. Rhoades, Jr., M.S., Entomologist in
Charge
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
L. G. Thompson, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
W. H. Chapman, M.S., Asso. Agronomist
Frank S. Baker, Jr., B.S., Asst. An. Husb.
T. E. Webb, B.S.A., Asst. Agronomist
Frank E. Guthrie, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
Mobile Unit, Monticello
R. W. Wallace, B.S., Associate Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Marianna
R. W. Lipscomb, M.S., Associate Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Pensacola
R. L. Smith, M.S., Associate Agronomist
Mobile Unit, Chipley
J. B. White, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist

CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED
A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Entomologist
R. F. Suit, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
E. P. Ducharme, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
C. R. Stearns, Jr., B.S.A., Asso. Chemist
J. W. Sites, Ph.D., Horticulturist
H. 0. Sterling, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
H. J. Reitz, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Francine Fisher, M.S., Asst. Plant Path.
I. W. Wander, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
J. W. Kesterson, M.S., Asso. Chemist
R. Hendrickson, B.S., Asst. Chemist
Ivan Stewart, Ph.D., Asst. Biochemist
D. S. Prosser, Jr., B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
R. W. Olsen, B.S., Biochemist
F. W. Wenzel, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist
Alvin H. Rouse, M.S., Asso. Chemist
H. W. Ford, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
L. C. Knorr, Ph.D., Asso. Histologist
R. M. Pratt, Ph.D., Asso. Ent.-Pathologist
J. W. Davis, B.S.A., Asst. in Ent.-Path.
W. A. Simanton, Ph.D., Entomologist
E. J. Deszyck, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
C. D. Leonard, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
W. T. Lono, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
M. II. Muma, Ph.D., Asso. Entomologist
F. J. Reynolds, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
W. F. Spencer, Ph.D., Asst. Chem.
I. H. Holtsberg, B.S.A., Asst. Ento.-Path.
K. G. Townsend, B.S.A., Asst. Ento.-Path.
J. B. Weeks, B.S., Asst. Ento.-Path.
R. B. Johnson, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
W. F. Newhall, Ph.D., Asst. Biochem.
W. F. Grierson-Jackson, Ph.D., Asst. Chem.
Roger Patrick, Ph.D., Bacteriologist
Marion F. Oberbacher, Ph.D., Asst. Plant
Physiologist
Evert J. Elvin, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist

EVERGLADES STATION, BELLE GLADE
W. T. Forsee, Jr., Ph.D., Chemist in Charge
R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Fiber Technologist
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Physiologist
J. W. Randolph, M.S., Agricultural Engr.
R. W. Kidder, M.S., Asso. Animal Husb.
C. C. Seale, Associate Agronomist
N. C. Hayslip, B.S.A., Asso. Entomologist
E. A. Wolf, M.S., Asst. Horticulturist
W. H. Thames, M.S., Asst. Entomologist
W. N. Stoner, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
W. G. Genung, B.S.A., Asst. Entomologist
Frank V. Stevenson, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
Robert J. Allen, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
V. E. Green, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
J. F. Darby, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
H. L. Chapman, Jr., M.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.
V. L. Guzman, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
M. R. Bedsole, M.S.A., Asst. Chem.
J. C. Stephens, B.S., Drainage Engineer2
A. E. Kretschmer, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Soils
Chem.


SUB-TROPICAL STATION, HOMESTEAD
Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
D. 0. Wolfenbarger, Ph.D., Entomologist
Francis B. Lincoln, Ph.D., Horticulturist
Robert A. Conover, Ph.D., Plant Path.
John L. Malcolm, Ph.D., Asso. Soils Chemist
R. W. Harkness, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist
R. Bruce Ledin, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.
J. C. Noonan, M.S., Asst. Hort.
M. H. -Gallatin, B.S., Soil Conservationist2

WEST CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION,
BROOKSVILLE
Marian W. Hazen, M.S., Animal Husband-
man in Charge 2

RANGE CATTLE STATION, ONA
W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
E. M. Hodges, Ph.D., Agronomist
D. W. Jones, M.S., Asst. Soil Technologist

CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION, SANFORD
R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Vice-Dir. in Charge
J. W. Wilson, Sc.D., Entomologist
P. J. Westgate, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
Ben. F. Whitner, Jr., B.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Geo. Swank, Jr., Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.

WEST FLORIDA STATION, JAY
C. E. Hutton, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
H. W. Lundy, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist
W. R. Langford, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist

SUWANNEE VALLEY STATION,
LIVE OAK
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomist in Charge

GULF COAST STATION, BRADENTON
E. L. Spencer, Ph.D., Soils Chemist in Charge
E. G. Kelsheimer, Ph.D., Entomologist
David G. A. Kelbert, Asso. Horticulturist
Robert O. Magie, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
J. M. Walter, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
Donald S. Burgis, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
C. M. Geraldson, Ph.D., Asst. Horticulturist
Amegda Jack, M.S., Asst. Soils Chemist


FIELD LABORATORIES

Watermelon, Grape, Pasture-Leesburg
J. M. Crall, Ph.D., Associate Plant Path-
ologist Acting in Charge
C. C. Helms, Jr., B.S., Asst. Agronomist
L. H. Stover, Assistant in Horticulture
Strawberry-Plant City
A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist

Vegetables-Hastings
A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge
E. N. McCubbin, Ph.D., Horticulturist
T. M. Dobrovsky, Ph.D., Asst. Entomologist
Pecans-Monticello
A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asso. Entomologist 2
John R. Large, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
Frost Forecasting-Lakeland
Warren O. Johnson, B.S., Meterologist in
Chg. 2

1 Head of Department
2 In cooperation with U. S.
SCooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
4 On leave













CONTENTS


Page
INTRODUCTION .-.................. .........--..... ..- ....---- --- -.. ... 5

NATURE AND EXTENT OF DAMAGE ..................... .-- ------- ------------- 6

THE INJURIOUS SPECIES ....................--..-..-......------------.--- 6

American Grasshopper ... --.... ~.-- -----...-.........- ----.-- ............ .... 6

Southern Red-legged Grasshopper .......-----.........-...............------- 8

Eastern Lubber Grasshopper ..................................... .. ............-.- 8

OVIPOSITION AND SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT ...--.........--- ---.........-----------..-- 10

HABITS .................... ...... -........................... ------...........- 14

PARASITES AND PREDATORS ..........-.-....---...--- --.--------- --.----- 14

MATERIALS USED AND RESULTS OF TESTS .......-........-------------.....---... 15

CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS ...-...........-..... ------ ------------------ 18

Cultural Control ............................ .. .... .. ......... .......... 19

Chem ical Control .................. .. ............. ........... ... .. .. ............ 19

Spraying and Dusting Equipment ....--..--------..-............... ................ 22

ESSENTIALS FOR EFFECTIVE CONTROL ............. ....-------- ........ ................. 26

THE ALACHUA COUNTY GRASSHOPPER CONTROL PROGRAM ................- ....... 27

PRECAUTIONS ............---- ... ..... ....-----------. --... ... --- .-....- ----- ------ 28

H handling and U sing ... ....... ... ..-.......... ........ ....... .....- ...... .-......... 28

Residue Hazard to Animals .-- ......-..-..-..-......... ......... ...................-- ..... 29

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......-...------- ............... ...- ...--...........-.......- 29

BIBLIOGRAPHY .... ........ .- --.. ---....... .... -- ---------- -- ---..... ..... ..--- ..--. 30










Grasshoppers and Their Control

L. C. KUITERT and R. V. CONNIN1

INTRODUCTION
Occasionally grasshoppers have been of minor economic im-
portance in southeastern United States for many years. Certain
localities have suffered from occasional outbreaks of serious
proportions. Actual damage to crops is difficult to evaluate,
since other insect pests usually are found together with the
hopper infestations on cultivated crops.
During the recent grasshopper outbreak which reached its
peak in 1950 in Alachua County and adjacent Florida counties,
observations indicated that most of the grasshoppers originated
in "laid out" fields and fence rows. Cultivated fields were in-
fested by the hoppers migrating into them. Considerable work
on the control of grasshoppers was done in 1951 in Florida and
results were closely correlated with those obtained in other places.
Control measures suggested herein probably would be effective
throughout the Southeastern United States.
This publication describes some of the grasshopper species of
economic importance in Florida. Also, it discusses the crops
damaged and the nature and extent of damage, and gives infor-
mation on the biology, habits and behavior of the grasshoppers
and descriptions of their various life stages. This bulletin was
written to aid farmers who have grasshopper problems. Effec-
tive methods of control are given major emphasis.
These control measures are based on numerous experiments
made to determine the effectiveness of insecticides and to test
various types of sprayers and dusters. The section on insecti-.
cides includes five materials which have been found of value in
the control of grasshoppers. Their use can reduce the cost of
control appreciably, especially when large acreages are to be
treated.
In the bibliography are listed reference materials which may
be useful to growers and others who may have special problems
or interests.

1 Associate Entomologist, Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, and
Entomologist, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, Agricultural
Research Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, re-
spectively.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


NATURE AND EXTENT OF DAMAGE
Although grasshoppers have definite food preferences, they
will feed on almost any green plant. They will attack most crop
plants and cause serious damage wherever they become numer-
ous. Crops injured by grasshoppers include corn, oats, rye,
peanuts, hairy indigo, lupine, sugarcane, hegari and other grain
sorghums, tobacco, cotton and vegetables. Appreciable injury
to young citrus, peach, slash pine and tung trees has been ob-
served.
Injurious outbreaks of the American grasshopper are always
found in dry sandy upland localities. This species may be
especially numerous in abandoned fields with low growing shrubs,
tall grasses and sedges. It shows a marked preference for
grassy areas having considerable tall herbage consisting of dog
fennel, briers, scrub oaks, sedges and other tall grasses. It is
common also in such cover crops as hairy indigo and lupine.
Grasshoppers damage crops mainly by gnawing and eating the
leafy part of the plant (Fig. 1). On numerous occasions seedling
plants of oats, rye, peanuts, lupines, and vegetables, such as
beans, cabbage and tomatoes, have been eaten to the ground.
In some instances, when feeding was extensive, seedling plants
were killed.
The amount of damage done varies considerably from year to
year, depending to a large extent on the species of grasshopper,
the number present, the growing condition of the crop, and the
use of insecticides. Grasshopper numbers fluctuate, depending
upon the number of their parasites and predators, cultural con-
trol practices which destroy the eggs and young, and climatic
factors. During cool, wet weather grasshoppers die in appreci-
able numbers from disease.

THE INJURIOUS SPECIES
AMERICAN GRASSHOPPER
The American grasshopper, Schistocerca americana (Drury),
commonly referred to as the bird grasshopper, is one of our
largest species. Measuring from head to end of folded wings,
the females are over 21/2 inches, while the males are less than 2
inches in length. The males are more slender than the females
(Fig. 2).
The general body color of the adults is a reddish-brown. The







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


NATURE AND EXTENT OF DAMAGE
Although grasshoppers have definite food preferences, they
will feed on almost any green plant. They will attack most crop
plants and cause serious damage wherever they become numer-
ous. Crops injured by grasshoppers include corn, oats, rye,
peanuts, hairy indigo, lupine, sugarcane, hegari and other grain
sorghums, tobacco, cotton and vegetables. Appreciable injury
to young citrus, peach, slash pine and tung trees has been ob-
served.
Injurious outbreaks of the American grasshopper are always
found in dry sandy upland localities. This species may be
especially numerous in abandoned fields with low growing shrubs,
tall grasses and sedges. It shows a marked preference for
grassy areas having considerable tall herbage consisting of dog
fennel, briers, scrub oaks, sedges and other tall grasses. It is
common also in such cover crops as hairy indigo and lupine.
Grasshoppers damage crops mainly by gnawing and eating the
leafy part of the plant (Fig. 1). On numerous occasions seedling
plants of oats, rye, peanuts, lupines, and vegetables, such as
beans, cabbage and tomatoes, have been eaten to the ground.
In some instances, when feeding was extensive, seedling plants
were killed.
The amount of damage done varies considerably from year to
year, depending to a large extent on the species of grasshopper,
the number present, the growing condition of the crop, and the
use of insecticides. Grasshopper numbers fluctuate, depending
upon the number of their parasites and predators, cultural con-
trol practices which destroy the eggs and young, and climatic
factors. During cool, wet weather grasshoppers die in appreci-
able numbers from disease.

THE INJURIOUS SPECIES
AMERICAN GRASSHOPPER
The American grasshopper, Schistocerca americana (Drury),
commonly referred to as the bird grasshopper, is one of our
largest species. Measuring from head to end of folded wings,
the females are over 21/2 inches, while the males are less than 2
inches in length. The males are more slender than the females
(Fig. 2).
The general body color of the adults is a reddish-brown. The







Grasshoppers and Their Control


front wings, thorax and abdomen have numerous brown patches.
A prominent light yellowish line is present on the back. As the
adults become sexually mature, the general body color changes
to a light straw-yellow with patches remaining brown. This
species is a good jumper, with long and stout hind legs. When
disturbed it takes to flight with a rustling sound.
There are two generations a year and this species overwinters
as an adult. Hatching of the first generation nymphs begins
during the last week in April and continues during most of May,
with the peak of the hatch occurring during the second week of
May. Hatching of the second generation nymphs begins the
latter part of July and continues through most of August, with
the peak of the hatch occurring about August 15. The nymphs
tend to congregate in a cluster close to the place where they
hatched for several days to several weeks before spreading out
over the general area. This grasshopper is found throughout the
southeastern United States.

Fig. 2.-Adult American or bird grasshoppers. Two on left, females; two
on right, males.













0 ,






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


SOUTHERN RED-LEGGED GRASSHOPPER
This species, Melanoplus femur-rubrum propinquus Scudder,
(Fig. 3) is by far the most numerous of all the grasshoppers in
the Southeast. It is medium-sized, about one inch in length
when full grown, and has a brownish-red body color above and a
greenish color beneath. The long narrow part of the hind legs
is a deep red color with numerous black spines. This is a
slender-bodied long-winged grasshopper. It is an excellent
jumper and usually flies noiselessly.


L












Fig. 3.-Adult red-legged grasshoppers. Females on left; males on right.
There are two generations a year, with perhaps a partial third.
Its range extends from Florida to southern North Carolina and
westward to northern Alabama. In the more northern parts of
its range it overwinters in the egg stage, while in Florida it may
overwinter in the late immature stages.
EASTERN LUBBER GRASSHOPPER
This species, Romalea microptera (Beauvois), is our largest
grasshopper (Figs. 4 and 5). The males are usually 2 inches
long, while the females frequently exceed 21/_ inches. It has
short wings, never exceeding three-fourths of the length of the
abdomen. It is incapable of flight. This grasshopper is very
slow and clumsy in movement, crawling feebly over the ground
after being knocked off of a plant. Due to the weak hind legs it
can leap only short distances.
The young of the lubber locust differ much in color from the
adults. They are greenish-black and have a narrow dorsal
stripe and the front legs and sides of the head are blood-red. As






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


SOUTHERN RED-LEGGED GRASSHOPPER
This species, Melanoplus femur-rubrum propinquus Scudder,
(Fig. 3) is by far the most numerous of all the grasshoppers in
the Southeast. It is medium-sized, about one inch in length
when full grown, and has a brownish-red body color above and a
greenish color beneath. The long narrow part of the hind legs
is a deep red color with numerous black spines. This is a
slender-bodied long-winged grasshopper. It is an excellent
jumper and usually flies noiselessly.


L












Fig. 3.-Adult red-legged grasshoppers. Females on left; males on right.
There are two generations a year, with perhaps a partial third.
Its range extends from Florida to southern North Carolina and
westward to northern Alabama. In the more northern parts of
its range it overwinters in the egg stage, while in Florida it may
overwinter in the late immature stages.
EASTERN LUBBER GRASSHOPPER
This species, Romalea microptera (Beauvois), is our largest
grasshopper (Figs. 4 and 5). The males are usually 2 inches
long, while the females frequently exceed 21/_ inches. It has
short wings, never exceeding three-fourths of the length of the
abdomen. It is incapable of flight. This grasshopper is very
slow and clumsy in movement, crawling feebly over the ground
after being knocked off of a plant. Due to the weak hind legs it
can leap only short distances.
The young of the lubber locust differ much in color from the
adults. They are greenish-black and have a narrow dorsal
stripe and the front legs and sides of the head are blood-red. As





Grasshoppers and Their Control


the insects increase in size the red markings change to an orange-
yellow color. In the early stages they are gregarious, 50 to
75 of them often being found on a single plant.


L
r


L


'1C4CH


Eastern lubber grasshopper. Female above, male below.


. I


Fig. 4.-Adult





Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


At times this grasshopper is injurious on truck farms. It at-
tacks all kinds of vegetables, lilies, gladiolus and melons and is
known to climb peach and fig trees to devour the fruit.


"N"


*

&


Fig. 5.-Top view of Eastern lubber grasshopper. Female left, male right.
Its range extends from southern Florida northward through
Georgia and South Carolina and westward through Alabama and
Mississippi.
OVIPOSITION AND SEASONAL DEVELOPMENT
In general the processes of egg laying, hatching, and develop-
ment are similar for all species of injurious grasshoppers. The
insect passes through three distinct forms during life: the egg,
nymph or growing stage, and adult.


Ilt





Grasshoppers and Their Control


11










s *'


-)/
^ <


~r\.i~,Pre~lPr~""- urs


Fig. 6.-Top: Mucilaginous plug which closes cavity in which eggs are
laid; center: eggs removed from adult female; bottom: eggs removed from
soil.


~--~F3~~ -L~QI)I~YI~G


. .






Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Oviposition.-The female grasshopper feeds for several days
to several weeks, then mates and begins to lay eggs. The eggs
are laid well below the surface of the ground. The female selects
a firm soil, preferably along roadsides or fence rows, in idle
fields or sometimes in the open areas in lupine and peanut or
other fields. She works her abdomen downward into the soil by
means of the ovipositor, which consists of the four hard, pointed,
finger-like projections at the end of the abdomen. She then de-
posits her eggs in the lower portion of the hole.
While the eggs are being laid, a sticky, frothy liquid is added,
which hardens as it dries. This either forms a pod or aids in
holding the eggs in a compact mass (Fig. 6). The number of










I I i i,| f 1 1 I I. I I1 11 .i













Fig. 7.-The immature
stages of American grass-
hopper. First four instars
above; last two instars,
showing wing pads, right.






Grasshoppers and Their Control


eggs laid in each mass varies from 20 to 100 or more, depending
on the species. Most female grasshoppers lay from one to three
egg masses.
Seasonal Development.-Most species of grasshoppers in the
North Central and Mountain States deposit their eggs in the late
fall and overwinter in the egg stage. In Florida, however, the
red-legged grasshopper passes the winter in the late immature
stages, while the American grasshopper overwinters in the adult
stage.
In general, the bulk of the eggs hatch in April. After the eggs
hatch the young grasshoppers push to the surface of the ground
and begin feeding on the nearest vegetation. The immature
stages of the American grasshopper (Figs. 7 and 8), and of the
other species, are similar to the adult except that they do not
have wings and the head is proportionately larger when com-
pared with the rest of the body.




















Fig. 8.-Cluster or group of immature American grasshoppers.

All grasshoppers increase in size by molting. The young
grasshopper grows a much larger, elastic body wall beneath the
old one. As the old body wall stretches, it finally breaks open
along the back and the insect emerges. The newly molted grass-
hopper expands considerably before the body wall hardens.
Usually six such molts, or increases in size, occur before the in-







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


sect reaches the adult stage. When a grasshopper is examined
and found to have fully developed wings it is certain to be an
adult. No further increase in size will take place.

HABITS
Grasshoppers are most active on warm, sunny days. They
seldom move any great distance from their breeding areas ex-
cept when a lack of food material or other unfavorable factor
forces them to do so. Under normal conditions it is probable
that the injurious species of Florida, except for the American
grasshopper, remain within a fourth of a mile of the breeding
area. Combating grasshoppers in the young stages in the breed-
ing areas will save time, labor and material-as well as crops.
During the fall and winter months margins of oats and lupine
fields may be appreciably damaged by grasshoppers. Most
species leave such fields during the afternoon and move into areas
having more cover to spend the night. This movement has been
observed on numerous occasions, and indicates why marginal
treatment frequently is sufficient for control. This habit is also
displayed during other periods of the year, although it is not as
evident.
PARASITES AND PREDATORS
Parasites.-Overwintering American grasshoppers have been
collected containing 3 to 10 dipterous larvae. These fly maggots
were identified as a species belonging to the family of the general
group which are parasitic on grasshoppers.
Bee-flies (family BOMBYLIIDAE) were extremely numerous
at certain times in areas heavily infested with grasshoppers.
The larvae of these flies are parasitic on grasshopper eggs.
Predators.-During the winter months of 1951 large flocks of
robins were observed feeding on adult American grasshoppers.
The robins congregated in extremely large numbers in pastures
and fields which were heavily infested. Observations indicated
that the robins broke off the wings and legs before eating the
insects. This observation was substantiated by finding large
numbers of these remains in the areas where the birds were
numerous. Only light infestations of American grasshoppers
were found in previously heavily infested areas after the robins
moved on to other areas. Other birds observed feeding on grass-
hoppers included mocking birds, crows and red-headed wood-
peckers.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


sect reaches the adult stage. When a grasshopper is examined
and found to have fully developed wings it is certain to be an
adult. No further increase in size will take place.

HABITS
Grasshoppers are most active on warm, sunny days. They
seldom move any great distance from their breeding areas ex-
cept when a lack of food material or other unfavorable factor
forces them to do so. Under normal conditions it is probable
that the injurious species of Florida, except for the American
grasshopper, remain within a fourth of a mile of the breeding
area. Combating grasshoppers in the young stages in the breed-
ing areas will save time, labor and material-as well as crops.
During the fall and winter months margins of oats and lupine
fields may be appreciably damaged by grasshoppers. Most
species leave such fields during the afternoon and move into areas
having more cover to spend the night. This movement has been
observed on numerous occasions, and indicates why marginal
treatment frequently is sufficient for control. This habit is also
displayed during other periods of the year, although it is not as
evident.
PARASITES AND PREDATORS
Parasites.-Overwintering American grasshoppers have been
collected containing 3 to 10 dipterous larvae. These fly maggots
were identified as a species belonging to the family of the general
group which are parasitic on grasshoppers.
Bee-flies (family BOMBYLIIDAE) were extremely numerous
at certain times in areas heavily infested with grasshoppers.
The larvae of these flies are parasitic on grasshopper eggs.
Predators.-During the winter months of 1951 large flocks of
robins were observed feeding on adult American grasshoppers.
The robins congregated in extremely large numbers in pastures
and fields which were heavily infested. Observations indicated
that the robins broke off the wings and legs before eating the
insects. This observation was substantiated by finding large
numbers of these remains in the areas where the birds were
numerous. Only light infestations of American grasshoppers
were found in previously heavily infested areas after the robins
moved on to other areas. Other birds observed feeding on grass-
hoppers included mocking birds, crows and red-headed wood-
peckers.







Grasshoppers and Their Control


Blister beetles were extremely numerous in fields heavily in-
fested with grasshoppers in Alachua County, Florida, during
1951. Since it is known that the larvae of these beetles feed on
grasshopper eggs, it is very likely that grasshopper eggs consti-
tuted a large proportion of their diet.
Grasshoppers frequently fall prey to several species of web-
spinning spiders. In addition several species of praying mantids
capture and feed on the nymphs. It is not known how effective
these are in reducing the grasshopper population.

MATERIALS USED AND RESULTS OF TESTS
A number of tests were made during the 1951 season to find
how effective some of the organic insecticides are for the con-
trol of grasshoppers. All were conducted in Alachua County,
Florida. Several series of treatments were made with different
materials, used at different dosages and applied with various
types of equipment. Commercially prepared materials were
used in all tests, and all dosages were determined as the amount
of active ingredient per acre.
Estimates of the grasshopper population before and after
treatment were made by sweeping the plots with an insect net.
Twenty sweeps per plot were made in the plot tests and 30
sweeps per plot were made in the field test. Pre-treatment
counts were made one or two days before treatment and post-
treatment counts were made three and five days after treat-
ment. The total number of grasshoppers collected from the four
replicates in the small-plot tests and from three replicates in the
large-plot tests are given in Tables 1 and 2.
Small-plot Tests.-The small plots were 66 by 66 feet and
contained 0.1 acre. All treatments were replicated four times
and one untreated check plot was included with each replication.
The dusts were applied with crank-type hand dusters (Niagara)
and the sprays with a three-gallon pneumatic-type hand sprayer
(Hudson). The amount of dust applied was determined by
weighing the duster after filling it with material before treat-
ment and reweighing it after each application.
For the sprays, it was found that three gallons of water were
sufficient to give uniform coverage of a 0.1-acre plot. To obtain
the desired dosage, the required amount of emulsion concen-
trate was added to water to give this amount of spray. The
spray was applied at a pressure of 30 to 40 pounds per square








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


inch. In applying both sprays and dusts, the nozzle or exhaust
tube was held at such a distance from the ground that a swath
of approximately 3.5 feet was treated. Thus, 10 round trips
were made per plot for each treatment. All treatments were
made early in the morning when the air was quiet to minimize
the danger of drifting. Results from these treatments are given
in Table 1.
TABLE 1.-EFFECTIVENESS OF INSECTICIDES IN CONTROLLING GRASSHOPPERS
WHEN APPLIED WITH HAND EQUIPMENT TO SMALL PLOTS.

Number Grasshoppers Collected-
Total Four Replications
Active 1 (20 sweeps each plot)
Material I Ingredients I
Iper Acre Pre- I Post-treatment Count
treatment I After I After
SCount [ 3 Days 5 Days

Series I
Aldrin 2.5% ......... 10.4 oz. 734 37 10
Toxaphene 10% .... 2.55 lbs. 661 63 63
Parathion 2% ........ 6.24 oz. 812 62 67
Lindane 3% ....... 11.8 oz. 943 218 217
Chlordane 5% .......- 1.42 lbs. 777 281 320
Check ............... .... ............ 726 914 753
Series II
Aldrin 2.5% ......... 9.5 oz. 676 4 10
Aldrin 23% ..........
(Emul. Conc.) I 5 oz. 607 9 8
Toxaphene 10% .... 1 3.45 lbs. 763 25 13
Parathion 2% ...I.. 1 9.6 oz. 842 7 46
Lindane 3% ........... 12.3 oz. 723 159 168
Check ................... ................ 590 685 607
Series III
Dieldrin 18.5%
(Emul. Cone.) .... 1.5 oz. 497 13 17
Heptachlor 48%/
(Emul. Cone.) .... 4 oz. 629 16 17
Aldrin 5% ............ 4.4 oz. 520 21 35
Chlordane 5% ........ 1 1.30 lbs. 552 29 32
Parathion 1% ........ 4.1 oz. 577 57 106
Check ...................... ................ 576 425 407

All materials except lindane, 1 percent parathion dust and
one of the chlordane dust treatments gave average mortalities
of 91 percent or higher after three days. The chlordane used
in one test had been in an opened bag since the previous season
and the poor results obtained from this older material suggest
that it had lost considerable toxicity. The dust used in the
second test was obtained after the tests had been initiated, and it
gave much better kills.








Grasshoppers and Their Control


Large-plot Tests.-Plots used in these tests were 0.4, 0.5, 0.8
and 1.0 acre in size. Four series of tests were made, using a
low-gallonage row-crop sprayer mounted on a one-ton truck to
apply the insecticides. The sprayer was operated at 40 pounds
pressure and was calibrated to apply five gallons per acre. The
spray boom with 18 nozzles covered a swath of 18.5 feet. Ma-
terials were applied at various times during the day. All treat-
ments were replicated three times and an untreated plot was in-
cluded in each replicate. Only emulsion concentrates were used
in these tests. The insecticides used and the rates of application
based on active ingredients applied per acre, along with results
of the tests, are given in Table 2.

TABLE 2.-EFFECTIVENESS OF INSECTICIDES APPLIED WITH POWER EQUIP-
MENT IN CONTROLLING GRASSHOPPERS IN LARGE-PLOT TESTS.

I Number Grasshoppers Collected-
S Total, Three Replications
(Emulsifiable Cone.) Active I (20 sweeps each plot)
Material I Ingredients
per Acre I Pre- Post-treatment Count
I treatment IAfter IAfter
I C-nnt 3 Days 5 Days
0.4-Acre Plots

Aldrin 23% ............. 4 oz. 280 10 2
Toxaphene 60% ........ 1.5 lbs. 332 9 9
Lindane 20% ............. 8 oz. 288 54 52
Check ...................... .. ........... 317 328 297
0.5-Acre Plots

Dieldrin 18.5% .......... 1.5 oz. 303 5 8
Chlordane 72% .......... 1 lb. 310 13 12
Heptachlor 24% ........ 2 oz. 319 16 11
Toxaphene 60% ........ 1.5 lbs. 269 21 18
Aldrin 23% ............... 2.0 oz. 309 22 25
Check ........................ .. 1 ............ 267 208 213
0.8-Acre Plots

Dieldrin 18.5% .......... 1.5 oz. 293 2 7
Aldrin 23% ................ 2 oz. I 268 7 12
Check ................. .........._.. 1 456 358 1 450
1.0-Acre Plots

Chlordane 72% .......... 1 lb. 1 249 8 8
Toxaphene 60% ...... 1.5 lbs. i 345 5 13
Aldrin 23% ..--.......... 2 oz. [ 225 8 23
Check ............... .. ...- .. ......----. 264 157 217

All materials except lindane gave excellent results. Dieldrin
at 1.5 ounces and heptachlor at 2 ounces of active ingredient per







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


acre gave 98 and 94 percent mortality, respectively, in three days
and 97 and 96 percent in five days. Aldrin at 2 ounces of active
ingredients per acre averaged 95 percent mortality in three days
and 93 percent in five days. Toxaphene used at 1.5 pounds of
active ingredient per acre averaged 95 percent kill at the end of
three and five days, while chlordane used at 1 pound of active
ingredient per acre averaged 94 percent mortality in three days
and 95 percent in five days.
Field Tests.-Insecticides were applied to an abandoned pas-
ture with the row-crop sprayer used in the large-plot tests and
with a jeep-mounted sprayer having an oscillating boom-blower
mounted at the rear. The blower sprayer operated at a pressure
of 40 pounds per square inch and was calibrated to apply two
gallons per acre. The width of the swath covered by this ma-
chine was 40 feet.
Dieldrin was applied to approximately 16 acres with the jeep
sprayer and aldrin and toxaphene were applied with the row-
crop sprayer to plots of approximately eight acres each. The
treatments were not replicated. An untreated area of approxi-
mately four acres was left at one end of the field. Sweeps of the
plots were made three days before and three days after treat-
ment. The data for these experiments are given in Table 3.
TABLE 3.-EFFECTIVENESS OF INSECTICIDES APPLIED WITH POWER
SPRAYERS IN FIELD TESTS.
Percent
Material (Emulsifiable I Active Ingredient Mortality
Concentrate) per Acre After 3 Days
Dieldrin 18.5 percent .............. 1.5 oz. 97
Aldrin 23 percent .................... 2 oz. 95
Toxaphene 60 percent ........... 1.5 lbs. 95

Apparently, one machine was as satisfactory as the other and
the three treatments were equally effective. This field was re-
visited about three weeks after treatment and all sprayed areas
were still free of grasshoppers. At that time it was possible to
distinguish between the untreated plot and the adjacent treated
plot within a few feet by the presence or absence of grasshoppers.

CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS
The control measures suggested herein are made on the basis
of observations and extensive experimental data. They are
divided into two categories: cultural control practices, which are







Grasshoppers and Their Control


aimed at destroying eggs; and chemical control measures, which
are designed to eliminate young and adults.
CULTURAL CONTROL
Cultivation.-For the most part, cultivation for control is only
practical and effective under specific conditions. Plowing or
disking idle fields in which grasshopper eggs have been deposited
crushes many egg pods and exposes others to depradations by
enemies and disease. However, it is necessary to time the prac-
tice properly if it is to be effective.
Late fall or winter plowing will not destroy eggs of the Ameri-
can and red-legged grasshoppers, as the eggs of these species
are not laid until late March and April. Thus, if eggs of these
two grasshoppers are to be destroyed, cultivation should be de-
layed until the middle or latter part of April. There is no need
for haste, since plowing or disking after the eggs have hatched
also results in the destruction of the young grasshoppers.
Nymphs die from starvation, exposure to the hot soil and preda-
tors. If this practice interferes with the planting schedule it is
advisable to use other methods of control.
Burning.-If burning is delayed until after the eggs are
hatched it is effective. The nymphs are weak jumpers and can-
not fly, and thus are unable to escape. The practice of "burning-
over" grassy areas for controlling grasshoppers is unsatisfactory
when the insects are in the egg and adult stages.
Early Planting.-Serious destruction of crops frequently can
be avoided by early planting. This is true because only adult
grasshoppers will be present during the growing period, and the
adults do not consume large quantities of food. Thus, even
though large numbers of adults are present, feeding damage is
negligible and the crop can be made before the nymphal stages
are present in serious numbers. Maturing corn is not attractive
to the young grasshoppers.
Using Animals.-The authors have observed fields where hogs
apparently have reduced the number of adult American grass-
hoppers. The efficiency of the hogs in destroying grasshopper
eggs was not determined, but they did reduce appreciably the
nymphal population in some areas.

CHEMICAL CONTROL
Insecticidal Sprays and Dusts.-Several of the new organic
insecticides are extremely effective in controlling grasshoppers.







Grasshoppers and Their Control


aimed at destroying eggs; and chemical control measures, which
are designed to eliminate young and adults.
CULTURAL CONTROL
Cultivation.-For the most part, cultivation for control is only
practical and effective under specific conditions. Plowing or
disking idle fields in which grasshopper eggs have been deposited
crushes many egg pods and exposes others to depradations by
enemies and disease. However, it is necessary to time the prac-
tice properly if it is to be effective.
Late fall or winter plowing will not destroy eggs of the Ameri-
can and red-legged grasshoppers, as the eggs of these species
are not laid until late March and April. Thus, if eggs of these
two grasshoppers are to be destroyed, cultivation should be de-
layed until the middle or latter part of April. There is no need
for haste, since plowing or disking after the eggs have hatched
also results in the destruction of the young grasshoppers.
Nymphs die from starvation, exposure to the hot soil and preda-
tors. If this practice interferes with the planting schedule it is
advisable to use other methods of control.
Burning.-If burning is delayed until after the eggs are
hatched it is effective. The nymphs are weak jumpers and can-
not fly, and thus are unable to escape. The practice of "burning-
over" grassy areas for controlling grasshoppers is unsatisfactory
when the insects are in the egg and adult stages.
Early Planting.-Serious destruction of crops frequently can
be avoided by early planting. This is true because only adult
grasshoppers will be present during the growing period, and the
adults do not consume large quantities of food. Thus, even
though large numbers of adults are present, feeding damage is
negligible and the crop can be made before the nymphal stages
are present in serious numbers. Maturing corn is not attractive
to the young grasshoppers.
Using Animals.-The authors have observed fields where hogs
apparently have reduced the number of adult American grass-
hoppers. The efficiency of the hogs in destroying grasshopper
eggs was not determined, but they did reduce appreciably the
nymphal population in some areas.

CHEMICAL CONTROL
Insecticidal Sprays and Dusts.-Several of the new organic
insecticides are extremely effective in controlling grasshoppers.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Toxaphene, chlordane, aldrin, dieldrin, parathion and heptachlor
were all satisfactory. These materials gave quick and high
initial kills and continued to be effective over a long period. The
older poison baits had to compete with succulent foliage to be
eaten and required considerable time to be effective. However,
grasshoppers are affected immediately and stop feeding after
eating or coming in contact with minute amounts of the new
insecticide sprays or dusts.
When applied as sprays, the insecticide should be diluted with
water to provide sufficient bulk so that the active ingredients
can be evenly distributed over the vegetation. There are two
general types of spray materials: wettable powders and emulsi-
fiable concentrates. 'Nearly all of the insecticides recommended
for sprays form suspensions when mixed with water. For this
reason they must be thoroughly agitated before making applica-
tion. When applied as dusts the insecticide is diluted with clay
or diatomaceous earth (and can be so purchased) for sufficient
bulk so that minute amounts may be distributed over the vegeta-
tion.
Dosages and Formulations.-The dosages recommended in
Table 4 are based on the amount of technical material required
per acre. These rates of application have given high initial kills
and continued to kill for periods of from one to six weeks.
Residual action varies considerably with the insecticide and is
influenced by weather conditions. The smaller figure in the last
column of Table 4 indicates the maximum length of time of ef-
fectiveness under adverse conditions, while the larger figure is
based on optimum conditions. Slightly lower dosages are effec-
tive in controlling most immature stages; however, the higher
dosages should be used to obtain the long-continued killing action
so that any grasshoppers hatching after application will be
killed.
Emulsifiable concentrates and wettable powder sprays gener-
ally are more effective than equivalent dosages of dusts. What-
ever the formulation or dilution of spray used, the quantity of
active ingredient in it to be applied per acre should conform to
the dosage figure given in the table. The amount of water used
can vary to suit your equipment.
Each grower usually knows how many gallons of spray his
sprayer applies to an acre and can add the required dosage of
insecticide to the needed amount of water. If you do not know
the rate of application of your sprayer, determine this prior to











TABLE 4.-RECOMMENDED DOSAGES OF INSECTICIDE FOR GRASSHOPPER CONTROL.


Wettable Powders I
Pounds


Emulsifiable Concentrate
Pints


DUSTS II
Per- funds
Per- Pounds 'I


Acre 1I cent Dmr
25% 40% 50% I 40% 50% 600% | Acre I

Toxaphene 1/ lbs. 6 4 I 3 1 32 3 21/2 10 20-25 i 2-4

I 1 45 to 48% ii
Chlordane 1 lb. 4 2/2 2 II 2Y2 -- 1%/ 5 20-25 I 2-4
_____________________I 2 i
HI 22%1
Aldrin 2 oz. % .... I 2.5 10-15 I 3-6
-----------II III
1/ 1/2 2-

Heptachlor 2-4 oz. -1l .... I -M1 .... .-.. 2.5 8-15 1 2-4

Dieldrin -% 2-3 oz. 1 5-7 4-7
Dieldrin I-% oz. 2-3 o.. -- ,II .... II 4-7
I~z. I ______ II ______I


Irsecticide


Amount
of
Technical
Material
per


Amounts Required per Acre
SPRAYS


Period of
Residual
Action-
Weeks


Amounts Required per Acre
SPRAYS


------~--------~--







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


making any treatment. The equipment used should be carefully
adjusted so that the rate of application is accurately controlled.
Using too much material is wasteful and increases the danger
of harmful residues, while the use of too little is also wasteful of
labor and materials because it will not prevent crop losses. It
is extremely important that the insecticide be distributed uni-
formly over the area to be treated.
Border Treatments.-As most grasshoppers prefer to lay their
eggs in firmly packed soil, extensive breeding seldom is found
in cultivated fields. Usually cultivated crops are damaged by
grasshoppers migrating into the field from adjacent breeding
areas (Fig. 1). Damage often can be minimized by treating a
strip 50 to 75 feet in width between the breeding area and the
crop to be protected. Immature stages of grasshoppers passing
through this treated area come in contact with sufficient in-
secticide residue to kill them before they can invade the untreated
portion of the field.
This method is not effective in controlling adults, since they
can readily fly over this area and avoid contact with the insecti-
cides. Treatment of the margins of cultivated fields of corn,
oats, rye and lupines, along with the borders of the breeding
area, is an excellent way to control nymphs.and if properly timed
saves on materials and time and reduces damage to the crop.

SPRAYING AND DUSTING EQUIPMENT
Any type of equipment which will give good coverage of the
vegetation can be used satisfactorily for controlling grasshop-
pers. Various types are available. However, only the equipment,
used in grasshopper control tests during 1951 is discussed here.
Hand-Operated Sprayers and Dusters.-This equipment is de-
signed for small scale operations. Its use is limited to spot
applications to low-growing row crops, such as peanuts, and to
small or confined breeding areas, such as fence rows and road-
sides.
The compressed air sprayer (Fig. 9) was used extensively in
small-plot (1/10 acre) tests. It must be pumped up several
times while the tank is being emptied to maintain a pressure of
30 to 50 pounds per square inch. This type of sprayer does not
have an agitator. To aid in keeping the insecticide well mixed
and in suspension the tank should be shaken each time it is
pumped up.






Grasshoppers and Their Control


wlr.


Fig. 9.-Spot application, using compressed air sprayer.
The knapsack sprayer (Fig. 10) has a pump which maintains
a uniform pressure. Most of these sprayers are equipped with
an agitator which keeps the spray mixed. It is comparable to
the compressed air sprayer in usefulness.





Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Fig. 10.-Spot application, using knapsack sprayer.


The rotary hand duster (Fig. 11) is somewhat easier to operate
than the hand sprayers and is more versatile. It is economical,
as the dusts can be placed uniformly where needed. Excellent


i*ilj
i


bi~J~i4Rs~-j~






Grasshoppers and Their Control


coverage is possible and a considerably larger area can be treated
without the operator tiring than when using hand sprayers.
Power Sprayers and Dusters.-When grasshopper breeding is


Fig. 11.-Spot application along fencerow, using rotary crank-type duster.






26 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations
extensive and several acres require treatment, this type of
equipment is necessary to obtain good results. Numerous types
are available and in use. Small motors or power take-off units
supply the power. These are standardized and can be used on
most tractors or on trucks (Figs. 12 and 13). No one machine
has any particular advantage over another as far as grasshopper
control is concerned. Control was just as effective when the
recommended amount of an insecticide was applied by the con-
ventional sprayer at a rate of 80 to 100 gallons per acre as when
it was applied by equipment dispensing only five gallons of spray
per acre.

ESSENTIALS FOR EFFECTIVE CONTROL
The saying that "each farmer raises his own grasshoppers", is
usually true. No known true migration of grasshoppers occurs
in the southeastern United States, but lateral movements of
several miles have been observed. The cheapest and most effec-
tive method of controlling grasshoppers is to destroy the nymphs
before they leave the breeding areas. This reduces the amount
of injury to crops. When grasshoppers are permitted to become
adults and invade cultivated crops, their control is difficult and
expensive.
Sometimes grasshoppers may become so numerous in an area

Fig. 12.-Power duster which operates from a power take-off unit.







Grasshoppers and Their Control


that community cooperation is necessary to control them. Under
these conditions the grasshoppers which are not controlled be-
come a menace to neighboring farmers. The only satisfactory
method of controlling them is to get everyone to cooperate under
organized leadership. During the grasshopper outbreak in 1950-
51, the Alachua County Grasshopper Control Organization was
instrumental in obtaining state and federal aid and in bringing
about a successful solution to the problem.

THE ALACHUA COUNTY GRASSHOPPER CONTROL
PROGRAM
One frequent cause of failure to control grasshopper outbreaks
is a lack of cooperation between landowners in the infested area.
A discussion of the program recently used in Florida will serve
to illustrate how this cooperation was achieved.
During the grasshopper outbreak in 1950 in Alachua and sur-
rounding counties in Florida, interested farmers and others
grouped together and began a control program on a community
basis. A committee was appointed to find what the possibilities
were of getting financial and other aid to help fight the grass-
hoppers. This committee, the Alachua County Grasshopper Con-
trol Committee, helped get state and federal aid, as well as get-
ting a research and control program started in the area. The
Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, in cooperation with
the Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, U.S.D.A., was

Fig. 13.-High concentration-low gallonage power sprayer, with power
furnished by a small motor.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


given the responsibility of evaluating insecticides and formulat-
ing a control program. Much of the information in this bulletin
was obtained from the research work carried on in connection
with this program.
The Florida State Plant Board, in cooperation with the Bureau
of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, accepted that portion of
the program which involved control of the grasshoppers along
roadsides and railroad right of ways, and in idle fields of absentee
owners. The Plant Commissioner of the State Plant Board
transferred 17 grove inspectors to the area to make surveys of
breeding areas and to operate spray equipment furnished by the
Bureau for applying insecticides. During the course of this
work some 8,000 acres of infested lands were treated with in-
gecticides. The two insecticides used were toxaphene and
aldrin. These materials were used at the rates recommended in
Table 4. These rates effectively controlled the grasshoppers in
all instances.
Since costs of insecticides will vary from year to year and in
different areas, cost should be considered when selecting a ma-
terial to use. For example, in 1951 the cost of materials re-
quired to treat an acre with toxaphene in the emulsion form was
$1.50 to $1.66; in the dust form it was $1.56 to $2.18; the cost
per acre for aldrin used as an emulsion was $0.45 and for aldrin
dust it was $0.90 to $1.04. Information on costs of the other
materials is not presented. You should contact your county
agent for this information if you plan to use any of them.
In general, results obtained from insecticides applied under
field conditions correlated well with results of the small plot
tests. Results of field tests also indicated that the insecticides
were most effective against the early nymphal stages. When
young grasshoppers first appear in abundance, plans should be
made for controlling them and treatment applied as soon as pos-
sible. When one of the insecticides having a long residual effect
is used to treat an area, any grasshoppers hatching in this area
several weeks after treatment will be killed.

PRECAUTIONS
HANDLING AND USING
Several precautions should be observed when handling the
insecticides. Remember that all insecticides are poisons and
handle them with extreme care. Strictly observe all precautions







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


given the responsibility of evaluating insecticides and formulat-
ing a control program. Much of the information in this bulletin
was obtained from the research work carried on in connection
with this program.
The Florida State Plant Board, in cooperation with the Bureau
of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, accepted that portion of
the program which involved control of the grasshoppers along
roadsides and railroad right of ways, and in idle fields of absentee
owners. The Plant Commissioner of the State Plant Board
transferred 17 grove inspectors to the area to make surveys of
breeding areas and to operate spray equipment furnished by the
Bureau for applying insecticides. During the course of this
work some 8,000 acres of infested lands were treated with in-
gecticides. The two insecticides used were toxaphene and
aldrin. These materials were used at the rates recommended in
Table 4. These rates effectively controlled the grasshoppers in
all instances.
Since costs of insecticides will vary from year to year and in
different areas, cost should be considered when selecting a ma-
terial to use. For example, in 1951 the cost of materials re-
quired to treat an acre with toxaphene in the emulsion form was
$1.50 to $1.66; in the dust form it was $1.56 to $2.18; the cost
per acre for aldrin used as an emulsion was $0.45 and for aldrin
dust it was $0.90 to $1.04. Information on costs of the other
materials is not presented. You should contact your county
agent for this information if you plan to use any of them.
In general, results obtained from insecticides applied under
field conditions correlated well with results of the small plot
tests. Results of field tests also indicated that the insecticides
were most effective against the early nymphal stages. When
young grasshoppers first appear in abundance, plans should be
made for controlling them and treatment applied as soon as pos-
sible. When one of the insecticides having a long residual effect
is used to treat an area, any grasshoppers hatching in this area
several weeks after treatment will be killed.

PRECAUTIONS
HANDLING AND USING
Several precautions should be observed when handling the
insecticides. Remember that all insecticides are poisons and
handle them with extreme care. Strictly observe all precautions







Grasshoppers and Their Control


printed on the containers. Keep the materials labeled at all
times to prevent any possible doubt regarding insecticide con-
tainers and their contents. Persons applying the materials in
the field should avoid breathing the dust or spray particles.
Some of the chemicals are absorbed through the skin and under
certain conditions the insecticides or the solvent may cause irri-
tation to the skin. Wash off immediately with soap and water
any material which comes in contact with the skin. Operators
of spraying and dusting machines should bathe and change to
clean clothing following exposure to any of these insecticides.
In the research and control programs in Alachua County,
Florida, during 1951 no illnesses or ill effects were reported
which could be attributed to these insecticides.
RESIDUE HAZARD TO ANIMALS
Some of the insecticides used for grasshopper control ac-
cumulate in the fatty tissues of animals and are given off in
milk and butterfat. Do not feed forage contaminated with any
of these materials to dairy animals or to animals being finished
for slaughter. If these chemicals are used on crops grown for
human consumption, do not apply them to the parts of the plants
that will be eaten or marketed unless the residues can and will
be removed by washing or stripping. When in doubt, contact
your County Agent for further instructions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers wish to express their appreciation to all who
aided in making this bulletin possible. Members of the Alachua
County Grasshopper Control Organization helped bring about
the establishment of the research and control programs and in
obtaining funds for the control program. Mr. A. C. Brown,
former Plant Commissioner of the State Plant Board, made
possible the transfer of Plant Board personnel and obtained
materials and equipment used in the control program. Mr. G.
W. Dekle and the late Mr. H. S. McClanahan of the Plant
Board aided the research group immeasurably in locating suit-
able areas for the test work, in obtaining the necessary clearance
and in evaluating results of field tests. Mr. Andrew Frazer,
Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, U.S.D.A., gave
many helpful suggestions and much useful advice. Appreciation
is also due to Dr. A. N. Tissot, Florida Agricultural Experiment
Station, and Dr. J. R. Parker, Bureau of Entomology and Plant







Grasshoppers and Their Control


printed on the containers. Keep the materials labeled at all
times to prevent any possible doubt regarding insecticide con-
tainers and their contents. Persons applying the materials in
the field should avoid breathing the dust or spray particles.
Some of the chemicals are absorbed through the skin and under
certain conditions the insecticides or the solvent may cause irri-
tation to the skin. Wash off immediately with soap and water
any material which comes in contact with the skin. Operators
of spraying and dusting machines should bathe and change to
clean clothing following exposure to any of these insecticides.
In the research and control programs in Alachua County,
Florida, during 1951 no illnesses or ill effects were reported
which could be attributed to these insecticides.
RESIDUE HAZARD TO ANIMALS
Some of the insecticides used for grasshopper control ac-
cumulate in the fatty tissues of animals and are given off in
milk and butterfat. Do not feed forage contaminated with any
of these materials to dairy animals or to animals being finished
for slaughter. If these chemicals are used on crops grown for
human consumption, do not apply them to the parts of the plants
that will be eaten or marketed unless the residues can and will
be removed by washing or stripping. When in doubt, contact
your County Agent for further instructions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writers wish to express their appreciation to all who
aided in making this bulletin possible. Members of the Alachua
County Grasshopper Control Organization helped bring about
the establishment of the research and control programs and in
obtaining funds for the control program. Mr. A. C. Brown,
former Plant Commissioner of the State Plant Board, made
possible the transfer of Plant Board personnel and obtained
materials and equipment used in the control program. Mr. G.
W. Dekle and the late Mr. H. S. McClanahan of the Plant
Board aided the research group immeasurably in locating suit-
able areas for the test work, in obtaining the necessary clearance
and in evaluating results of field tests. Mr. Andrew Frazer,
Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine, U.S.D.A., gave
many helpful suggestions and much useful advice. Appreciation
is also due to Dr. A. N. Tissot, Florida Agricultural Experiment
Station, and Dr. J. R. Parker, Bureau of Entomology and Plant







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Quarantine, U.S.D.A., for their cooperation, very helpful advice
and review of the manuscript. Mr. F. A. Robinson, Florida
Agricultural Experiment Station, kindly made the photographs.


BIBLIOGRAPHY
BLATCHLEY, W. S. Orthoptera of Northeastern America. Nature Publish-
ing Co., Indianapolis. 1920.
SCONNIN, R. V., and L. C. KUITERT. Control of the American grasshopper
with organic insecticides in Florida. Jour. of Econ. Ento. 45: 4: 684-
687. Aug. 1952.
GRIFFITHS, JAMES T., and W. L. THOMPSON. Grasshopper control in citrus
Groves in Florida. Proceedings Fla. State Hort. Soc. LIX: 8-86. 1947.
GRIFFITHS, J. T., and W. L. THOMPSON. Grasshoppers in citrus groves.
Fla. Agri. Exp. Sta. Bul. 496. 1952.
HOWARD, L. O. Damage by the American locust. Insect Life VII: 3: 220-
229. 1894.
SHOTWELL, ROBERT L. Life histories and habits of some grasshoppers of
economic importance on the Great Plains. USDA Tech. Bul. 774. 1941.
SWAKELAND, CLAUDE, and J. R. PARKER. Grasshopper control with aldrin,
chlordane and toxaphene. USDA Bur. Ent. and P1. Quar. PA-149. 1951.
K/KUITERT, L. C., and R. V. CONNIN. Biology of the American grasshopper
in the Southeastern United States. Fla. Entomologist. 35: 1. 1952.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs