A reappraisal of internode borer (Chilo sacchariphagus indicus) impact on sugarcane


Abstract views: 83 / PDF downloads: 38

Authors

  • J Srikanth ICAR - SUGARCANE BREEDING INSTITUTE
  • N Geetha
  • M. Punithavalli
  • P. Mahesh
  • L. Saravanan ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources
  • B. Singaravelu
  • K P Salin ICAR-Sugarcane Breeding InstituteCoimbatore-641007, Tamil Nadu
  • C. Yogambal

https://doi.org/10.37580/JSR.2022.3.12.92-102

Keywords:

Sugarcane, Chilo sacchariphagus indicus, infestation categories, impact, growth parameters, yield, quality, internode borer

Abstract

Damage due to internode borer Chilo sacchariphagus indicus (Kapur) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in sugarcane (cv Co 86032) was assessed at harvest in three crop seasons (2019-2022). Attacked canes were segregated into seven infestation categories based on single or multiple bore holes in top, middle and/or bottom portions. For each infested cane, number of internodes, number of bored internodes, cane length, cane diameter and cane weight were recorded and compared among infestation categories by ANOVA. In an independent sample of 6-month old attacked canes, length and diameter of attacked internodes and unattacked top and bottom internodes were recorded. The data were subjected to factorial analysis for growth parameters with internode position and borer status as two factors. Further, growth parameters of infested and healthy cane segments were compared using Student's t-test.Results of three-season field data indicated that percent of contribution of sample canes with multiple bore holes was generally lower than that of canes with single holes. Percent of intensity was significantly higher in canes with multiple bore holes than in canes with single bore hole. Internode number, cane diameter, cane length and cane weight did not differ among different categories of infested and uninfested canes. Per cent of intensity was generally not related to growth and yield parameters. Further, growth parameters such as length, diameter, surface area and volume of internodes, and weight, weight/unit area and weight/unit volume of cane segments were lower in affected canes than those in healthy canes. Borer attacked internodes became shorter and thinner than the lower unaffected internodes but the internodes forming above the affected ones showed recovery in length and diameter. The results of the study are discussed in relation to earlier published work and some future requirements are projected.

Author Biographies

  • J Srikanth, ICAR - SUGARCANE BREEDING INSTITUTE

    ICAR - SUGARCANE BREEDING INSTITUTE

  • L. Saravanan, ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources

    ICAR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources

  • K P Salin, ICAR-Sugarcane Breeding InstituteCoimbatore-641007, Tamil Nadu

    Principal Scientist, Entomology Section, ICAR-Sugarcane Breeding InstituteCoimbatore-641007, Tamil Nadu

References

Bakshiram B, Karuppaiyan R, Hemaprabha G. 2022. Sugarcane Breeding. In: Yadava DK, Dikshit HK, Mishra GP, Tripathi S. (eds), Fundamentals of Field Crop Breeding, pp 499–570. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9257-4_9

David H. 1986. The internode borer, Chilo sacchariphagus indicus (Kapur). In: David H, Easwaramoorthy S, Jayanthi R (eds), Sugarcane Entomology in India, pp. 121–134. Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Coimbatore, India.

David H, Ranganathan V. 1960. Influence of internode borer on the quality of juice in sugarcane. Indian J Sugarcane Res Dev 4:209-12.

Easwaramoorthy S, Srikanth J, Shanmugasundaram M, Kumar R. 1998. Field evaluation of Cotesia flavipes against internode borer Chilo sacchariphagus indicus of sugarcane. Sugarcane No.2:18-21.

Geetha N, Shekinah ED, Rakkiyappan P. 2009. Comparative impact of release frequency of Trichogramma chilonis Ishii against Chilo sacchariphagus indicus (Kapur) in sugarcane. Journal of Biological Control 23(4):343-351.

Mahesh P, Srikanth J, Chandran K, Singaravelu B. 2018. Resistance of Saccharum spp. against Chilo sacchariphagus indicus (Kapur) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in India. Experimental Agriculture 54(1):83-95.

Mukunthan N, Rakkiyappan P. 1989. Bunchy top formation in sugar cane caused by the internode borer and its effect on yield and quality. SugarCane 2:17–19.

Srikanth J, Easwaramoorthy S, Jalali SK. 2016. A 100 years of biological control of sugarcane pests in India: Review and perspective. CAB Reviews. 11, No. 013:1-32.

Srikanth J, Kurup NK. 2011. Damage pattern of sugarcane internode borer Chilo sacchariphagus indicus (Kapur) in Tamil Nadu State, southern India. International Sugar Journal 113(1352): 590-594.

Srikanth J. 2007. Integrated management of sugarcane pests. In: Rajula Chandran, Thiagarajan R, Puthira Prathap, D, Vijayan Nair N (eds). Sugarcane, Extn Publ No.130:162-174. Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Coimbatore.

Srikanth J, Sivaraman K, Kurup NK, Chandrasekhar SD, Kailasam C, Asokan R, Rakkiyappan P, Hari K, Ramesh Sundar A, Somasekhar N, Dhara Jothi B. 2009. Pest dynamics and management in long-term organic and conventional sugarcane production systems. Proceedings of Annual Convention of Sugar Technologists Association of India 70:A16-A45

Srikanth J, Sivaraman K, Kurup NK, Chandrasekhar SD, Sundara B, Rakkiyappan P, Hari K, Ramesh Sundar A, Sankaranarayanan C. 2013. Pest scenario in long-term organic and conventional sugarcane production systems. Journal of Sugarcane Research 3(1):47-61.

Srikanth J, Easwaramoorthy S, Jalali SK. 2016. A 100 years of biological control of sugarcane pests in India: Review and perspective. CAB Reviews. 11, No. 013:1-32.

StatSoft Inc. 2004. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 7. www.statsoft.com.

Yalawar S, Pradeep S, Ajith Kumar MA, Hosamani V, Rampure S. 2010. Biology of sugarcane internode borer, Chilo sacchariphagus indicus (Kapur). Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 23(1):140–141.

Downloads

Submitted

17-03-2023

Published

27-08-2023

How to Cite

A reappraisal of internode borer (Chilo sacchariphagus indicus) impact on sugarcane. (2023). Journal of Sugarcane Research, 12(1), 92-102. https://doi.org/10.37580/JSR.2022.3.12.92-102
Citation