Resistance of sugarcane cultivars to Mahanarva fimbriolata

Abstract

photoperiod) to carry out laboratory tests to evaluate adult feeding and female oviposition preferences (using both free-choice and no-choice tests) as well as the effects of the cultivars on nymph development and the cultivars tolerance to the pest attack. The least attractive cultivar for adult feeding and oviposition in free-choice test was RB867515, which was also one of those that received the fewest eggs in the no-choice oviposition tests. Cultivar CTC9 showed the highest level of antibiosis resistance, with a root nymph survival rate of 52.5%. Finally, cultivar RB966928 was the most tolerant to M. fimbriolata, but it showed 19% reduction in aboveground biomass weight due to the pest.

Assessing resistance of sugarcane varieties to sugarcane borer Diatraea saccharalis Fab. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae)

“…The sugarcane borer, Diatraea saccharalis Fabr. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), is a major pest of sugarcane in the American continent (Long & Hensley, 1972; Posey et al , 2006; Dinardo-Miranda, 2008; Vargas et al , 2015). Early-instar larvae feed on the leaf parenchyma and leaf sheaths, whereas older larvae bore into the stalks, disrupting the physiological integrity of the plant by reducing the movement of sucrose down the stalk and inhibiting the movement of nutrients and water, as well as causing stalk lodging.…”

“…The use of synthetic pesticides has been increasing, but pesticides are inappropriate because of poor penetration into the stalk tissue and environmental damage (Gitahy et al , 2007). Hence, host–plant resistance to D. saccharalis emerges as an economically and environmentally effective control measure, which if available, would provide substantial benefits to sugarcane production (Milligan et al , 2003; Posey et al , 2006; Dinardo-Miranda, 2008; Vargas et al , 2015).…”

Sustentabilidade em Foco: Abordagens Interdisciplinares em Agropecuária e Meio Ambiente

“…Ainda, essa praga diminui a capacidade de moagem da indústria por intermédio dos danos nos caules, os quais costumam estarem rachados, deteriorados e contaminados, tornando a recuperação de açúcar difícil, além de inibir a fermentação (DINARDO-MIRANDA, 2018). Com ciclo biológico em média de 60 dias, a magnitude dos prejuízos ocasionados por M. fimbriolata vai depender da população da praga, tamanho das plantas quanto infestadas e a tolerância da variedade, podendo comprometer até 60% da produção (DINARDO-MIRANDA et al, 2018). Seus danos ocorrem ainda na fase de ninfa, quando passam a se alimentar da seiva, extraindo água e nutrientes das plantas, e injetam toxinas nas raízes, sendo um período de difícil identificação desta praga, visto se fixarem na base do colmo, ficando protegidas por uma espécie de espuma (Figura 4) que evita sua desidratação (SYNGENTA, 2021).…”