Specialists Speaking-Ken Legé
Ken Legé
TEXAS
Cotton production across the High and Rolling Plains of West Texas remains a high-risk endeavor, with success largely dependent on a producer’s ability to anticipate and manage numerous challenges — along with a measure of good fortune. Our continual, perpetual nemesis is the lack of rainfall amidst our semi-arid, low humidity environment. While we cannot control the weather and the abiotic stresses it can cause, we can prepare for and manage our pest challenges. Weed pressure represents our largest biotic stress potential, but we cannot ignore the insect pests, even though our region is a relative “insect desert” compared to other regions.
Weed pressure represents the most significant and consistent biotic challenge in West Texas cotton production. Each season, producers must carefully evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pre-plant residual herbicides, particularly given the uncertainty of rainfall needed for activation and return on investment. Because the majority of acreage is dryland, herbicide inputs represent a substantial portion of total variable costs.
A key question growers face is whether to invest in pre-plant residual herbicides before confirming adequate stand establishment. While this decision ultimately depends on field-specific weed history, investing in pre-plant residuals is often advantageous. Even in cases where a cotton stand fails, weed control remains necessary regardless of the subsequent crop re-planted (e.g., cotton, sorghum, corn, or forage crops).
Delaying residual applications until stand establishment is confirmed increases dependence on postemergence herbicides alone. This approach can result in weed escapes, contributing to an expanding seedbank and increasing long-term management challenges. Furthermore, postemergence applications are frequently made under conditions of low humidity, high evaporative demand, and plant stress, all of which can reduce herbicide efficacy. Windy conditions also restrict application windows and increase the risk of off-target movement during this period.
Pre-plant residual applications typically face fewer environmental and logistical limitations. When combined with timely postemergence treatments, they provide a more consistent and integrated approach to weed management. Although no single strategy fits all operations, long-term planning based on field history is essential, as weed pressure remains a predictable and recurring issue in this region.
Insects are generally less consistent as a yield-limiting factor in West Texas compared to other cotton-producing regions. However, this variability can lead to complacency, which increases the risk of economic damage when infestations do occur.
By mid-June, most cotton will have progressed beyond the most vulnerable stages for thrips damage, and attention will shift toward monitoring for fleahoppers. Effective monitoring is critical, as populations may fluctuate between cotton and surrounding vegetation depending on rainfall patterns. Although only a small percentage of acreage typically requires treatment, widespread infestations occur approximately once every 10 years, emphasizing the importance of continued vigilance.
In many cases, preserving beneficial insect populations is more advantageous than treating sub-threshold pest levels. Plant bugs present a similar scenario; they are commonly observed but do not always warrant control measures. Regular scouting — either conducted by the producer or a trained consultant — is essential for informed decision-making.
For organic and non-Bt cotton systems, bollworms remain a consistent concern. Treatable populations are observed annually in portions of these acres. Risk increases when susceptible cotton is located near other host crops such as corn, sorghum, haygrazer, or alfalfa. Under these conditions, intensified scouting efforts are necessary to detect and manage infestations promptly.
The dry winter of 2025–2026 limited biomass production in cover crops, reducing their effectiveness in protecting young cotton seedlings from windblown sand injury. As a result, fields may be more susceptible to sand damage this season. Additionally, remaining residue is expected to deteriorate by mid- to late June, further reducing protective benefits.
Running sandfighters will likely be required to mitigate sand movement. However, these practices demand additional labor, time, and fuel, and can complicate coordination with ongoing weed and insect management operations.
A developing concern across the Cotton Belt is the potential northward expansion of the cotton jassid. The Texas A&M AgriLife Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program has implemented a text-based monitoring and alert system to keep producers informed. To receive updates, text “cotton” to 833-717-0325 to be notified of any alerts. While this pest has not yet been confirmed in our region and we hope it will not be found at all, proactive monitoring is strongly encouraged.
Ken Legé
TEXAS
