INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF , Pyrilla perpusilla WLK. (HOMOPTERA : ) IN PUNJAB, PAKISTAN

By

Amer Rasul 94-ag-1212 M.Sc. (Hons.) Agri Entomology

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN AGRICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, FAISALABAD PAKISTAN 2011

i

The Controller of Examinations, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.

We, supervisory committee certify that contents and form of thesis submitted by

Mr. Amer Rasul (94-ag-1212) have been found satisfactory and recommend that it may be processed for evaluation by external examiner(s) for the award of degree.

SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN ______(DR. MANSOOR UL HASAN)

MEMBER ______(DR. ANJUM SUHAIL)

MEMBER ______(DR. SHAHBAZ TALIB SAHI)

ii

Dedicated

To

My Beloved Parents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to the ALMIGHTY ALLAH, the propitious, the benevolent and the sovereign, whose blessing and glory flourished my thoughts and thrived my ambitions, giving me talented teachers, affectionate parents, sweet sisters and caring brothers. Trampling lips and wet eyes praise the HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD (Peace be upon him), for enlightening our conscience with the essence of faith in ALLAH, converging all His kindness and mercy upon him.

With profound gratitude and a deep sence of devotion, I wish to thank my worthy supervisor, Dr. Mansoor-ul-Hassan, Professor, Department of Agri. Entomology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, for his co-operative/encouraging attitude, utilizing help, keen interest, valuable comments and guidance throughout the course of this study.

I do not find appropriate words to express my deep gratitude to my sincere and respectable teachers: Dr. Muhammad Ashfaq (T.I.), Meritorious Professor, Department of Agri. Entomology, U.A.F.; Dr. Anjum Suhail, Professor, Department of Agri. Entomology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad and Dr. Shahbaz Talib Sahi, for their inestimable encouragement, affectionate and constructive criticism, useful comments, sympathetic attitude and technical guidance throughout the course of these studies. I am specially thankful to Dr. Amjid Ali, Entomologist, Entomological Research Institute, AARI, Faisalabad, for his kind guidelines and novel ideas, which enabled me to developed a proper research mindset in me.

I offer an encomium admiration to Dr. Khalid Gill, Ex. Director General Research, AARI Faisalabad, Dr. Arshad Ali Chattah, Ex. Director Sugarcane research Institute AARI Faisalabad and my uncle Dr. Manzoor Ahmad, Ex Entomologist, Entomological Research Institute Faisalabad for facilitation and encouragement.

My gratitude will remain incomplete, if I do not mention the contribution of Dr. Rashad Rasool Khan, Dr. Moazzam Rafiq Khan, Dr. Muhammad Asim Shabbir, Dr. Amer Habib, Jabbar Ahmad, Dilshad Aslam and Dr. Ahmad Din as well as other friends and colleagues, who have always encouraged me, during my studies. I am highly indebted for their kind, polite and friendly behavior.

Last, but not the least, I am greatly indebted to my Parents, Sister, Brothers (Asif Rasool and Kashif Rasool), Sons (Abdullah and Abdur Rehman), Nieces (Aliza, Uswa, Mukarma and Mahnoor ) and, specially to my beloved wife-for their love, heartfelt endless good wishes, mellifluous affections, which hearten me to achieve success in every sphere of life and that made this pursuit a success.

May ALLAH bless all these people with long, happy and peaceful lives (Ameen).

AMER RASUL

iv

CONTENTS

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 19 4 RESULTS 27 5 DISCUSSION 75 6 SUMMARY 81 REFERENCES 85

Detailed contents Page # CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5 2.1 -plant resistance 5 2.2 Abiotic Factors 7 2.3 Biological control 8 2.4 Biochemical Factors 13 2.5 Chemical Control 14 2.6 Cultural Control 16 2.7 Integration of Control Methods 17 CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 19 3.1 Climate of the Study Area 19 3.2 Screening of the Varieties 19 3.2.1 Preliminary Screening, during 2006 19 3.2.2 Final Screening during 2007 20 3.2.3 Data Collection 20 3.2.4 Host-Plant Susceptibility Indices (HPSIs) 20 3.3 Role of Abiotic Factors, in the Fluctuating Pest-Population 21 3.4 Methodology to Test the Mechanisms of Resistance 21 3.4.1 Physio-morphic Basis of Resistance 21 3.4.1.1 Leaf-spine density (cm2) 21 3.4.1.2 Leaf-width (cm) 21 3.4.1.3 Leaf-length (cm) 21 3.4.1.4 Cane-diameter (cm) 21 3.4.1.5 Cane-length (m) 21 3.4.2 Chemical Factors 22 3.4.2.1 Nitrogen Contents 22 3.4.2.2 Fat Contents 22 3.4.2.3 Total Minerals 22 3.4.2.4 Carbohydrates 22 3.4.2.5 Micro and Macro Nutrients 23 Wet digestion of the plant-tissues for the macro and 3.4.2.5.1 23 micro-nutrient analyses 3.4.3 Qualitative Analysis of the sugar contents 23 3.4.3.1 Fiber Contents 23 3.4.3.2 POL (%) 24 3.4.3.3 Brix(%) 24 3.4.3.4 Commercial Cane Sugar (CCS) 24 3.5 Statistical Analysis 25 3.6 Management of the Sugarcane Pyrilla 25

vi Detailed contents Page # CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 27

4.1 Host- Plant Resistance 28 4.1.1 Preliminary Screening Trials 28 4.1.1.1 Varietal Differences 28 4.1.1.2 Abundance Period of the Pest 29 4.1.2 Final Screening Trials 33 4.1.2.1 Varietal Differences 33 4.1.2.2 Abundance Period of the Pest 34 4.1.3 Host-Plant Susceptibility Indices (HPSIs) 37 Role of weather in the population fluctuations of p. 4.2 41 Perpusilla, on sugarcane Population Trend Versus the Weather 4.2.1 41 Factors, During 2006 Population Trend Versus the Weather 4.2.2 41 Factors, During 2007 Correlation coefficient Values Between 4.2.3 Weather Factors and the Population of P. 44 perpusilla Multivariate Linear Regression Models, Between the Population of P. perpusilla 4.2.4 and Weather Factors 44

4.2.4.1 Impact, During 2006 44 4.2.4.2 Impact, During 2007 45 Impact of Weather Factors on the 4.2.4.3 Population Fluctuations of P. perpusilla, on 45 Cumulative Basis, for Both the Study Years 4.3 Physio-Morphic And Chemical Plant-Characters 50 4.3.1 Physio-morphic Plant Characters 50 4.3.1.1 Leaf-width (cm) 50 4.3.1.2 Leaf-length (cm) 50 2 4.3.1.3 Leaf-Spine Density (cm ) 51 4.3.1.4 Cane- Length (m) 51 4.3.1.5 Cane-Diameter (cm) 52 4.3.2 Chemical Plant-Factors 54 4.3.2.1 Nitrogen Contents (%) 54 4.3.2.2 Phosphorus (%) 54 4.3.2.3 Total Minerals (%). 55 4.3.2.4 Calcium Contents (%). 55 4.3.2.5 Magnesium Contents (%). 55

vii Detailed contents Page # 4.3.2.6 Fat-Contents (%) 56 4.3.2.7 Carbohydrates (%) 56 4.3.2.8 Copper-Contents (ppm) 56 4.3.2.9 Zinc (ppm) 57 4.3.3 Sugar Analysis 58 4.3.3.1 POL (%) 58 4.3.3.2 Brix-Contents (%) 58 4.3.3.3 Commercial Cane-Sugar (CCS) 58 4.3.3.4 Fiber-Contents (%) 59 Role of Physio-morphic Plant-Characters in 4.3.4 61 the Expression of Resistance 4.3.4.1 Correlation Coefficient Values 61 4.3.4.2 Multivariate Linear Regression Models 61 Role of Chemical Plant-Characters in the 4.3.5 64 Expression of Resistance Correlation Between the Chemical Plant- 4.3.5.1 Characters and the Population of 64 P. perpusilla 4.3.5.2 Multivariate Linear Regression Models 64 4.4 Integrated Pest Management 67 IPM Impact on the Population of P. 4.4.1 67 perpusilla Treatment Effects on the Population of P. 4.4.1.1 67 perpusilla Treatment Effect, at Various Dates of 4.4.1.2 70 Observation Interactional Effect Among the Dates of 4.4.1.3 70 Observation & Various Control Methods. 4.4.2 IPM Impact on the Sugarcane Yield 72 4.4.3 Cost Benefit Ratio 72 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 75 5.1 Host-Plant Resistance 76 Period of Abundance and Role of Weather 5.2 76 in the Expression of Resistance Physio-morphic and Chemical Plant- 5.3 77 Resistance against P. perpusilla 5.4 Integrated Pest Management 78 CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY 81 REFERENCES 85 APPENDICES 92

viii LIST OF TABLES

Sr.# TITLE Page #

1. AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE DATA, REGARDING 30 THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, PER LEAF, IN DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF SUGARCANE, AT VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATION.

1.a A COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE DATA, REGARDING THE 31 POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, PER LEAF, ON VARIOUS GENOTYPES OF SUGARCANE, DURING 2006.

1.b A COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE DATA, REGARDING THE 32 POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, PER LEAF, AT VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATIONS, ON SUGARCANE, DURING 2006.

2. AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE DATA, REGARDING 35 THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, PER LEAF, IN DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF SUGARCANE, AT VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATION, DURING 2007.

2.a A COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE DATA, REGARDING THE 35 POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, PER LEAF, ON VARIOUS GENOTYPES OF SUGARCANE, DURING 2007.

2.b A COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE DATA, REGARDING THE 36 POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, PER LEAF, ON VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATION ON SUGARCANE, DURING 2007.

3. THE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT VALUES (r), BETWEEN THE 46 POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, PER LEAF, ON SUGARCANE AND WEATHER FACTORS, DURING 2006 AND 2007 INDIVIDUALLY AS WELL AS ON CUMMULATIVE BASIS.

4. THE IMPACT OF WEATHER FACTORS, ON THE POPULATION 47 OF Pyrilla perpusilla, DURING 2006.

5. THE IMPACT OF WEATHER FACTORS, ON THE POPULATION 48 OF Pyrilla perpusilla, DURING 2007.

6. THE IMPACT OF WEATHER FACTORS, ON THE POPULATION 49 OF Pyrilla perpusilla, FOR BOTH YEARS, ON CUMULATIVE BASIS.

ix

7. A COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE DATA, REGARDING 53 PHYSIO-MORPHIC CHARACTERS OF THE PLANTS IN VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE.

8. A COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE DATA, REGARDING 60 CHEMICAL CHARACTERS OF PLANTS, IN VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE.

9. THE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT VALUES BETWEEN THE 62 POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla AND PHSIO-MORPHIC PLANT CHARACTERS.

10. THE MULTIVARIATE LINEAR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, 63 BETWEEN PHYSIO-MORPHIC PLANT CHARACTERS AND THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla.

11. THE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT VALUES BETWEEN THE 65 POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla AND DIFFERENT CHEMICAL PLNAT CHARACTERS.

12. THE MULTIVARIATE LINEAR ANALYSIS OF THE VARIANCE, 66 BETWEEN CHEMICAL PLANT CHARACTERS AND POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla.

13. AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE DATA, REGARDING 68 THE EFFECT OF VARIOUS METHODS, FOR THE CONTROL OF Pyrilla perpusilla, IN THE RESISTANT VARIETY OF SUGARCANE, AT VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATION.

13a. A COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE DATA, REGARDING THE 69 POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, ON RESISTANT VARIETY OF THE SUGARCANE, IN VARIOUS CONTROL METHODS.

14. A COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE DATA, REGARDING THE 71 POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, ON RESISTANT VARIETY OF SUGARCANE, IN VARIOUS METHODS OF CONTROL, AT VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATION.

15. AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE AND COMPARISON OF MEANS 73 FOR THE DATA, REGARDING CANE-YIELD (MONDS/HA), IN DIFFERENT TREATMENTS.

16. A COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE DATA, REGARDING THE 73 CANE-YIELD (MONDS/HA), IN DIFFERENT TREATMENTS.

17. THE COST BENEFIT RATIO. 74

x LIST OF FIGURES

Sr.# TITLE Page #

1. THE HOST-PLANTS SUSCEPTIBILITY INDICES (%), BASED ON 38 THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, ON SELECTED GENOTYPES OF SUGARCANE, DURING 2006.

2. THE HOST-PLANT SUSCEPTIBILITY INDICES (%), BASED ON 39 THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, ON SELECTED GENOTYPES OF SUGARCANE, DURING 2007.

3. THE HOST-PLANT SUSCEPTIBILITY INDICES (%), BASED ON 40 THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, ON SELECTED GENOTYPES OF SUGARCANE, DURING 2006-2007 ON CUMULATIVE BASIS.

4. FLUCTUATIONS IN THE PYRILLA-POPULATION, PER LEAF, 42 VERSUS THE WEATHER FACTORS, DURING 2006.

5. FLUCTUATIONS IN THE PYRILLA POPULATION, PER LEAF, 43 VERSUS THE WEATHER FACTORS, DURING 2007.

xi LIST OF APPENDICES

Sr.# TITLE Page #

1. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 92 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 07.05.06.

2. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 93 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 14.05.06.

3. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 94 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 21.05.06.

4. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 95 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 28.05.06.

5. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 96 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 04.06.06.

6. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 97 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 11 .06.06.

7. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 98 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 18.06.06.

8. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 99 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 25.06.06.

9. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 100 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 02.07.06.

10. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 101 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 09.07.06.

11. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 102 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 16.07.06.

xii 12. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 103 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 23.07.06.

13. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 104 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 30.07.06.

14. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 105 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 06.08.06.

15. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 106 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 13.08.06.

16. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 107 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 20.08.06.

17. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 108 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 27.08.06.

18. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 109 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 12.05.2007.

19. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 109 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 19.05.2007.

20. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 110 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 26.05.2007.

21. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 110 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 02.06.2007.

22. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 111 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 09.06.2007.

23. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 111 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 16.06.2007.

24. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 112

xiii + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 23.06.2007.

25. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 112 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 30.06.2007.

26. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 113 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 07.07.2007.

27. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 113 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 14.07.2007.

28. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 114 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 21.07.2007.

29. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 114 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 28.07.2007.

30. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 115 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 04.08.2007.

31. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 115 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 11.08.2007.

32. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 116 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 18.08.2007.

33. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS 116 + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 25.08.2007.

34. DATA, REGARDING THE WEATHER FACTORS, DURING 2006. 117

35. DATA, REGARDING THE WEATHER FACTORS, DURING 2007. 118

36. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING THE 119 LEAF-WIDTH (cm) IN VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE.

37. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING 120 LEAF-LENGTH (cm) IN VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE. 38. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING 121

xiv LEAF-SPINE-DENSITY (cm2) IN VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE.

39. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING 122 CANE-LENGTH (m) IN VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE.

40. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING 123 CANE-DIAMETER (cm) IN VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE.

41. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING 124 NITROGEN (%) IN LEAVES, OF THE VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE.

42. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING 125 PHOSPHORUS PERCENTAGE, IN THE LEAVES OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE.

43. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING 126 TOTAL MINERAL PERCENTAGE, IN THE LEAVES OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE.

44. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING 127 CALCIUM PERCENTAGE, IN THE LEAVES OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE.

45. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING 128 MAGNESIUM PERCENTAGE, IN THE LEAVES OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE.

46. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING FAT 129 PERCENTAGE, IN THE LEAVES OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE.

47. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING 130 CARBOHYDRATES (%), IN THE LEAVES OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE.

48. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING THE 131 COPPER-CONTENTS (ppm), IN THE LEAVES OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE.

49. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING THE 132 ZINC CONTENTS (ppm), IN THE LEAVES OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE.

xv 50. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING THE 133 POL PERCENTAGE, IN THE SUGAR, OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE.

51. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING THE 134 BRIX PERCENTAGE, IN THE SUGAR, OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE.

52. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING THE 135 CCS PERCENTAGE, IN THE SUGAR, OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE.

53. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING THE 136 FIBER CONTENTS (%), IN THE SUGAR, OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE.

54. POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, ON THE RESISTANT 137 GENOTYPE OF SUGARCANE, IN VARIOUS CONTROL METHODS AT DIFFERENT DATES OF OBSERVATIONS.

55. DATA, REGARDING THE CANE-YIELD (MOND/HA), IN 138 VARIOUS METHODS, APPLIED FOR THE CONTROL OF POPULATION OF THE Pyrilla perpusilla, ON THE RESISTANT GENOTYPE, OF SUGARCANE.

xvi ABSTRACT The study was conducted on IPM of P. perpusilla, on various sugarcane genotypes, in the research area of Sugarcane Research Institute, AARI, Faisalabad, during 2006 to 2008. Twenty genotypes of sugarcane were tested for their resistance/susceptibility under replicated field trials against P. perpusilla, as a preliminary screening experiment. The most resistant variety, HSF-240 was selected for further experiments after final screening trials. The role of weather in the population fluctuations of the pest was also determined. Various physio-morphic and chemical plant-characters, viz., leaf width, leaf length, leaf spines density, cane length, cane diameter, nitrogen, phosphorus, total minerals, calcium, magnesium, fat, CHO, copper, zinc, POL, Brix, CCS and fiber contents were determined from the selected genotypes with the objective to ascertain the role of these factors, towards the resistance/susceptibility, against the pest, under test. Various control methods, like, cultural (fortnightly hoeing, detrashing of older leaf two times and trash mulching at the time of sowing), biological (release of cocoons of @ 2500/ha four times from June 15 to September 15) , chemical (carbofuron @ 35 kg/ha from one month after sowing and coupled with earthing up), were applied singly and in their possible combinations, such as, biological + cultural, biological + chemical, cultural + chemical and cultural + chemical + biological control with the objective to keep the pest population below the economic threshold level and to find the most economical and effective method of control, for communication to the farmers. Application of cultural + chemical + biological controls in combination, resulted in a minimum population of P. perpusilla i.e., 0.32/leaf, whereas cultural methods showed a maximum population of 3.65/leaf, of the pest. The maximum yield, was recorded to be 3415.67 mounds/ha, in those treatments where cultural + chemical + biological control methods, were implicated and the minimum yield of 2214.33 mounds/ha, was observed, in application of cultural method. The application of cultural + chemical + biological control methods resulted in maximum net gain i.e., Rs. 149167/- with a cost-benefit ratio of 9.44 and was found to be the best treatment. Chapter-1

INTRODUCTION

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.), a member of genus Saccharum and family Poaceae is highly polyploidy, with no diploid (2n= 2x = 20). Sugarcane is a thick, tall, perennial grass which tillers, at the base, to produce a stem of 3-4m height. Leafy appearance of sugarcane is due to its abundant tillers and numerous nodes, producing leaves. It is cultivated in the tropical and subtropical regions of the world, primarily for its ability to store a high concentration of sucrose within the internodes of the stem. It is one of the most important cash crop of Pakistan, plays a pivotal role in the development of the economy. Due to its wide range of adaptability, it supplies more than 60% of the world sugar and basic raw material for Pakistan Sugar Industry and is thus, second to the Textile Industry, in the country. Besides producing white sugar, a large percentage of cane is utilized in the production of “Gur”, “Shakkar” and “Khand Sari Sugar”. Different byproducts, like, molasses and bagase are also produced from the sugarcane. Bagase is a fibrous portion used as an feed, which is limited due to its low digestibility, even in the ruminants (Allen et al., 1997); whereas, molasses are a thick syrup-residue, used for alcoholic fermentation (Sansoucy et al., 1988; Mackintosh, 2000). Pakistan occupies an important position in the cane-producing countries of the world. It ranks fifth in cane-acreage and production and almost 15th in sugar- production. It is grown on an area of about one million hectares in Pakistan. The province of Sindh shares 26 %, Punjab 62 %, and N.W.F.P. shares 16 % of the total cultivated area. The national average cane yield (~ 47 t ha-1), is far below the existing potential. With respect to the cane-yield, Sindh, with 53 t ha-1, is the leading province, followed by the N.W.F.P. (45 t ha-1) and Punjab (40 t ha-1). Sugarcane is an important cash crop and shares 4.5 percent in value added of agriculture and 0.9 percent in GDP, respectively. For 2007-08, the area under sugarcane crop was targeted at 1039 thousand hectares as against 1029 thousand hectares of last year. However, sugarcane has been sown in the area of 1241 thousand hectares, 20.6

1 percent higher than target and 13.5 percent higher than last year. Sugarcane production, for the year 2007-08, is estimated to be 63.9 million tons, the highest ever in the country’s history, as against 54.7 million tons for the last year. This indicates significant improvement of 16.8 percent over the production for the last year. The main reasons of higher sugarcane production are high prices of sugarcane received by the growers last year, encouraging them to increase area under production, judicious application of fertilizers, improvement in the cultural practices, and better management (G.O.P. 2007- 08) Amongst various factors, responsible for low yield, pests are the major cause. In Pakistan, exact estimates of the yield losses, due to the insect attack, are lacking; but, it has been reported that the top-borer, Gurdaspur borer and the Pyrilla cause a reduction in the yield from 15-20, 10-20 and 30-35 percent, respectively. In some cases, as high as 80-85 percent reduction, in the crop yield, due to the insect attack, has been reported (Zubair et al., 2006). Sugarcane leaf-hopper, Pyrilla perpusilla Wlk. (Lophopidae: Homoptera), commonly known as Pyrilla, has recently become an endemic pest and is posing a great threat to the sugar industry, in Pakistan (Khanzada, 1992). Pyrilla perpusilla is a serious pest of the sugarcane and both nymphs and adults, feed on it as well as on other secondary host plants, by sucking the cell-sap, that extensively affects its production (Kumar and Yadav, 2006). The pest remains active through out the year with 3-4 numbers of generations with optimum activity from July to September and survive on wheat, and oat etc. during winter (Shah and Saleem, 2002). The adults as well as the nymphs inflict a heavy damage to the plant and excrete a thick transparent liquid, known as honey dew, which ultimately makes a good medium for the growth of black mould. The mould reduces the photosynthetic activity of the leaves and reduces about 25% of the sugar-yield. The cane juice becomes high in glucose, tunes insipid and if used, for making gur, gives a soggy mass, which does not solidify properly (Chaudhry and Ansari, 1988). An early-infestation, during the grand growth period of cane, adversely affects the yield, while the late-infestation from September onwards, mostly affects the sucrose contents of cane, in the field (Puri and Siddharth, 2001).

2 These losses, in sugarcane, can only be minimized with a proper protection of the cane-crop from insect pests, with a scientifically designed IPM Program, throughout the year. Pesticides are applied as and when needed, in combination with cultural practices, resistant varieties as well as with an introduction and conservation of the natural enemies. Pesticides will continue to play an important role in the IPM Program. The primary difference, however, is that these products will be used selectively and judiciously. The farmers usually rely on insecticides, for a quick control of this pest insect. This practice has created the problems of resistance, resurgences of the pest populations, outbreak of the secondary pests, destruction of the beneficial , such as, parasites, predators and pollinators, insecticide-residues in the food chain, environmental pollution and also a high cost for the control of resistant insect-pest populations. The above mentioned hazards of insecticides have diverted the attention of scientists, to search the alternates to overcome this complex situation. Integrated pest management (IPM), is the adoption of most suitable techniques with a minimum disturbance of the ecosystem. The IPM techniques involve the use of mechanical, cultural, varietal, biological, chemical, sex-pheromone and light trap practices, together. To adopt an IPM, in sugarcane, the first step is to know the ecosystem and the pest- complex of sugarcane. The pest status and pest carry-over must be studied, by means of surveys, monitoring, identification, economic threshold and population dynamics, among other informations. Cultural practices, such as trash-mulching, timely-planting, propping, detrashing, avoid water logging, avoid crop lodging, light earthing in May and June and a balanced use of fertilizers, help in the control of some pests, like the shoot-borer, top- borer and black-bug etc. Varieties with hard mid-rib, errect and narrow leaves are less preferred by the top-borer and pyrilla (Madan, 2001). The Integrated Pest Management (IPM), is the most, desired approach, which intends to integrate on more than one possible control measures to keep the insect pests below an economic threshold level. Hence, the problem necessitates the establishment of an IPM strategy in which ideal factors are to be considered. Therefore, in the present study, various control methods, viz., varietal resistance, cultural and chemical factors have been integrated with the following objectives.

3  To determine the resistance/susceptibility, for P. perpusilla, in various available commercial varieties as well as advanced genotypes of the Sugarcane, based on the population build-up.  To determine the physio-chemical plant-factors, responsible for the plant resistance, against pyrilla.  To determine the role of abiotic factors in the population build-ups.  To integrate various control methods, like cultural, biological & chemical methods, to find out the most effective & economical, of them for an IPM strategy, for the control of P. perpusilla and for recommendation to the farmers.

4 Chapter-2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The literature, regarding this study is discussed separately, under following headings:

2.1 Host-plant resistance Choudhary et al., in 1999, screened 31 sugarcane cultivars, for resistance to Pyrilla perpusilla. The cultivars, Co 89019, CoJN-87-381, CoJN-87-221, CoJN-86-586 and CoJN-87-263, were the least susceptible to the pest (less than three insects/leaf); whereas, the cultivars, Co 86006, Co 86005, Co 87002 and CoC 671 were highly susceptible (above eight insects/leaf). Deepak et al. (1999) determined the susceptibility of the mid-late genotypes of sugarcane, to the P. perpusilla, infestation among different genotypes. They found that the correlation were non-significant, between the P. perpusilla, population, and cane - diameter, cane-height, green leaves per cane, no. of millable cane, commercial cane-sugar and percent brix. Genotypes with a leaf width of more than 4.45 cm, had a numerically larger pest-population than in the narrow leaved cultivars. The significant positive correlation, was observed between the leaf-width and pest-population. Kumarasinghe et al. (2001) studied the morphological basis of sugarcane resistance to the sucking pest, Pyrilla perpusilla, across a wide genetic range of sugarcane cultivars. The observed mean relative-growth-rate (MRGR), obtained by confining first and third instar nymphs onto the leaves was compared with the variations in the leaf-spine density, thickness of phloem tissues and the distance of the phloem vessels from the epidermis. These characteristics were found to determine the growth of the first (84.4% of the variance in growth rate explained) and third instar (32% variance explained) to a variable degree. The most important characteristics for the antibiotic- resistance, were the spine-density and thickness of the phloem fiber-layer, in the minor vascular bundle, which together determined an up to 82.8% of the variance of MRGR, in the first instar.

5 Madan (2001) reported that Varieties with a hard mid-rib as well as, errect and narrow leaves, are less preferred by the top-borer and pyrilla. Biological control of Pyrilla, is the major achievement in Haryana as well as India. If any pest is not controlled by the above said methods, only then, should chemical control measures be adopted. For an IPM, steps or aspects, such as, advanced planning, pest build-up, monitoring and survey of major pests, must be kept in mind. Kishore et al. (2002) New sources of resistance have been identified against the shoot fly, Atherigona soccata, stem borer, Chilo partellus and sugarcane leaf-hopper, Pyrilla perpusilla. Eleven lines, namely, SPV 1517, SPV 1518, SPH 1270, SPH 1183, SPH 1148, SPH 1280, SPV 1562, SPV 1572, SPV 1575, SPV 1576, SPH 1363, showed resistance against the shoot-fly; thirteen lines namely, SPV 1518, SPV 1489, SPV 462, SPH 1148, SPH 1270, SPH 1280, CSH 17, SPV 1572, SPV 1563, SPV 1565, CSH 16, SPH 1335 and CSV 15,have shown resistance against stem borer and five lines, namely, SPV 1489, CSH 18, SPH 1270, SPV 1567 and SPH 1365 have shown resistance against the Pyrilla. The parental lines, which were resistant against different pests, were: AKMS 14A and C43N against the shoot-fly; 463A and 27A against the stem-borer and C43 against the Pyrilla. Two entries, namely, SPV 1518 and SPV 1572 were identified as multiple resistance sources, showing resistance to both to the shoot flies and to the stem borer. The most important aspect of these investigations was that all these varieties and hybrids, were agronomically suitable and high yielder’s. Shrivastava, et al. (2003) have reported that Sugarcane genotypes, possess differential resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses, which adversely affect the sugarcane and sugar-productivity, per se. This review is an effort to elucidate physiological characteristics, imparting resistance/ tolerance to the biotic stresses, including, insect pests,diseases and abiotic stresses, such as drought and water-logging. Certain physiological attributes, such as tight leaf-sheaths imparted multiple resistance against the inter-node borer, pyrilla and lygaeid bugs; aged canes, imparted resistance to the mealy bugs, eye-spot , rust diseases and waterlogged conditions. Similarly, polyphenol oxidase [catechol oxidase] activity,was seen to be related to resistance against the red rot and water logged conditions. Resistance to certain stresses, is also confound with a number of other morphological or physiological characteristics. These characteristics,

6 could be considered as physiological basis for resistance to the biotic and abiotic stresses, and also used, as a marker for the marker-assisted, selection, in directed breeding programmes.

2.2 Abiotic Factors Singh and Kalra, (1951) stated that the pyrilla-epidemic occurred when a high humidity, coupled with a low maximum temperature, during the summer months and low rainfall and long dry intervals, during the monsoon months. Brar and Bains, (1979) studied various mortality factors, during different generations of Pyrilla. Lethal effect of the high temperature, above (40 °C), particularly on an egg stage, was a key mortality factor in the first generation. Adult migration and rate of and predators, was an important factor in the second and third generations. Reduced fecundity, due to Epipyropes sp. and the effect of low temperature, were the additional factors of mortality in the fourth generation. Dhaliwal, et al. (1987) Studied the lethal effect of high temperature, on various life stages of the Pyrilla perpusilla, and on 3 of its parasitoids by exposing the insects to 40,43 ,45 and 47° C, for 1, 2, 3 and 4 h, at each temperature, in the laboratory. The early nymphal stage of P. perpusilla, was the most vulnerable and suffered 45.6% mortality, after exposure to 45° C, for 2 h. The most susceptible stage to high temperatures, of Epiricania melanoleuca, which attacks both nymphs and adults of the host, was the adult with its mortality being 50, 91.7 and 100%, at exposures to 40° C, for 3 h; 43°C, for 2 h; and to 45° C, for 1 h, respectively. The differences, in survival, between the host and its parasitoids, are discussed, in relation to the pre-monsoon conditions prevailing in the Punjab, India. Ganehiarachchi and Fernando (2000) revealed that the Sugarcane plant hopper, Pyrilla perpusilla, caused enormous damage to the crop, by sucking cell-sap from the leaves. In the wet zone of Sri Lanka, the number of eggs, nymphs and adults, was high in July, August and October 1993, April and September 1994, and February and March 1995. The population size of P. perpusilla, showed a negative correlation with the rainfall and humidity and a positive correlation with the minimum temperature. A hymenopteran , of P. perpusilla, Parachrysocharis javensis and nine species of predators were

7 recorded in the plot. The main factors, responsible for the fluctuation of population size of P. perpusilla are the egg parasitoid, predators and rainfall. Mishra, (2005) reported that pyrilla is more active, in the humid areas than in the drier ones; Hot and dry winds, during summer, bring down the population; while a high humidity (around 50%), due to light showers coupled with persistent easterly winds, during May and June or intermittent long periods of drought (7-16 days), during July- August, accelerate the multiplication of Pyrilla perpusilla. Gangwar et al., 2008 reported that a temperature above 40°C and a relative humidity less than 50 per cent, alongwith westerly wind will drastically reduce the population of pyrilla. This condition is likely to come during May-June.

2.3 Biological control Chaudhary, et al. (1987) checked the role of natural enemies in the suppression of sugarcane leafhopper, Pyrilla perpusilla (Walker). An outbreak of Pyrilla perpusilla occurred on sugarcane, , and , in Haryana, India, in 1985. In most parts of the State, the lophopid was noticed from July onwards, with average populations as high as 137.1 nymphs and adults, per leaf. Owing to heavy parasitism of eggs (24.5-60%) by Ooencyrius papilionis and Telrastichus pyrilla and nymphs and adults (12.5-24.6%) by Epiricania melanoleuca, in mid-September, the population dropped to negligible levels in some areas. In other areas parasitism of the nymphs and adults remained low and the population remained high upto the early November, despite a heavy egg-parasitism. This permitted oviposition by the adult females, in leaf sheaths, in November and December. Pawar, et al. (1988) reported that the introduction and colonization of Epiricania melanolenca (Fletcher), for the bio-control of sugarcane pyrilla, in Saurasthra region of Gujrat state. Egg masses and live-cocoons of the epipyropid, Epiricania melanoleuca, were released for the control of the lophopid Pyrilla perpusilla, in 41 sugarcane fields, in Gujarat, India, in October 1985 and periodically, from October to July 1986. The parasitoid was recovered 12-30 days after the release, indicating that it had become established.

8 Prasad, et al. (1988) studied the augmentation of Epiricania melanoleuca, for the control of Pyrilla perpusilla, in western Uttar Pradesh. Before the release of the parasitoid, 1-7 eggs, 3-30 nymphs and 1-20 adults of P. perpusilla, were recorded, per leaf and the percentage parasitism of nymphs and adults, was 5-10 and 1-10, respectively. Following the release of E. melanoleuca, during July, the parasitism of nymphs and adults reached 30-40 and 10-15%, in August, and 80 and 30-40%, in September, and the pest- population was, effectively suppressed. Khan and Kanhaya, (1988), studied the population dynamics of Epiricania melanoleuca (Fletcher), a potential natural enemy of Pyrilla perpusilla Walker, on different cultivars of sugarcane. Fluctuations in parasitism, of the sugarcane pest, Pyrilla perpusilla by Epiricania melanoleuca were studied on different varieties in Uttar Pradesh, India. Percentage parasitism of the nymphs and adults was highest on the variety, Co. 62399, as was abundance of the pest. Mean parasitism of nymphs, on the different varieties, ranged from 17.92 to 29.44% and of adults, from 14.21 to 25.41%. The fluctuations in parasitism observed was attributed to the weather conditions and pest- population. The parasitoid over-wintered in the egg stage, on un-harvested canes leaves, or trash in the harvested fields. Ansari, et al. (1989), controlled the sugarcane pyrilla, by the use of Epiricania melanoleuca (Fletcher), in Karnataka. Egg masses and cocoons of the epipyropid, Epiricania melanoleuca were released in the sugarcane plantations, in Karnataka, India, for the control of sugarcane pyrilla Pyrilla perpusilla during 1983-84. Subsequently, eggs and cocoons, were observed, in the field, and the pest-population was found to be reduced. Joshi and Sharma, (1989) conducted a field-trial, in Rajasthan, India, in 1981, to determine the efficacy of augmenting, E. melanoleuca, to control P. Perpusilla and to determine, which cultural practices conserved the parasitoid. A total of 2000, 4000, 8000 and 12000 live-cocoons of the parasitoid were released, per hectare and insignificant reductions in the incidence of P. Perpusilla were noticed after the release of 8000 and 12000 cocoons/hectare. Various cultural practices tested parasitizations was (53.91% in October). When 75% of the ratoon fields were burned this treatment also supported high numbers of {Lepidoptera}. Another technique, in which about, one thing, the trash was

9 saved and re-spread, after burning of the coming ratoon area, also led to high rates of parasitism and a low incidenceof the pest (46.23% & 109.5 adults /45 leaves in November, respectively) and this practice led comparatively, to lower populations of borers than 75% burning. Patnaik, et al. (1990) observed the seasonal activity and suppressive action of Epiricania melanoleuca, a nymphal adult ecto-parasite of Pyrilla perpusilla, in sugarcane in an area with endemic populations of P. perpusilla, in the Puri district of Orissa, India, where the ecto-parasite had been introduced against the pest. Peak P. perpusilla, activity was observed in the 2nd fortnight of September; whereas, the ecto-parasite activity, reached its peak activity with a time lag of one month. The ecto-parasite/pest ratio which was 1:64 in the 2nd fortnight of August declined to 1:0.25 in the 2nd fortnight of October, indicating the suppressive role of the ecto-parasite, over the pest. Joshi, and Sharma, (1992) investigated the population dynamics of the ecto- parasite Epiricania melanoleuca (used as a biological control agent of Pyrilla perpusilla) on sugarcane crops, in arid condition, in Rajastan, India, in 1981-83. The first individuals were recorded on a ratoon crop, in March. The peak-parasitism of the host was observed in October (47.9%) P. perpusilla parasitized), declining in December, when very few parasitized hosts were observed. E. melanoleuca overwintered as eggs or pupae. Madan and Chaudhary, (1995), studied the extent of natural parasitization of Pyrilla perpusilla Walker, and a seasonal abundance of Epiricania melanoleuca (Fletcher) in Haryana, India, during 1984, There was no parasitism of adults or nymphs of the sugarcane pest, Pyrilla perpusilla, by Epiricania melanoleuca, from January to the first week of March. Parasitism of nymphs was observed in the second half of March and of adults in April. Parasitism decreased from 11.1-13.6% in April, to 5.0%, in May, 4.0%, in June and 1.3% in July. From July onwards, percentage parasitism started to rise, reaching 80.5%, in October Rana et al. (2002) studied the population dynamics of Pyrilla perpusilla Wlk., and its parasite Epiricania melanoleuca Fletcher at Faisalabad. Population of Pyrilla appeared in March, April and April while that of parasite in May, April and April at the Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad, Chak No.6/JB and Chak No. 109/RB, respectively. Peak population of Pyrilla and Epiricania, were recorded, during August.

10 Population of the parasites was found to be increasing, in proportion to that of its host. Highly positive correlations were found between the population of Pyrilla and Epiricania. The percentage parasitism ranged, was recorded from a low level of 4.16 to 64.74%,in the experimental areas respectively. Pawar et al. ( 2002) recorded the history of the effective control of sugarcane pyrilla, P. perpusilla, in 1999, by its potential nymphal and adult parasitoid, E. melanoleuca, in 5 divisions of Western Uttar Pradesh, India, covering an area of 577 901 ha. A survey was conducted, in 1999, to record observations, on the biological control of P. perpusilla by E. melanoleuca. The sugarcane pyrilla, which initially appeared on fodder sorghum, later migrated to sugarcane in June-July. The pyrilla and its parasitoid population, were assessed, at fortnightly intervals. The leaves of sorghum containing parasitoids, were transferred to the sugarcane fields. Its potential nymph and adult parasitoid, E. melanoleuca, played a major role, in controlling the pyrilla population. The aerial insecticidal spraying operation resulted in net savings of about Rs. 17.56. Seneviratne et al., 2002, worked on the Biological control of the sugarcane plant- hopper by the moth, Epiricania melanoleuca (Fletcher) in Sri Lanka. . Several releases of eggs of the parasitoid moth, E. melanoleuca, into two sugarcane plantations, in 1992-93, showed that the parasitoid established and controlled the SCPH effectively, within a period of 1-2 years. Post-release population estimates, revealed that the higher levels of SCPH populations (68 individuals per leaf), were brought under control (below one individual per leaf) and maintained by the parasitoid, successfully, during the subsequent five-year period. The parasitoid, naturally, dispersed and established, within a period of two years, in other sugarcane plantations too, located more than 50 km away, from the release fields, confirming its efficiency as a biological control agent on the SCPH. Sanehdeep et al., (2003), carried out fortnightly surveys, in April, May and June, to monitor the incidence of insect pests, on sugarcane, cultivated in 2000-03, in Jalandhar and Kapurthala, districts of Punjab, India. The incidence of insect pests, except for the top-borer (Scirpophaga excerptalis), was negligible on a planted crop. On ratoon crop, there was a variation in pyrilla (Pyrilla perpusilla) population, in both districts. It was very high in Phillaur (more than 100 nymphs per leaf in some fields), and Phagwara whorl (more than 200 nymphs per leaf in some fields), blocks of Jalandhar and

11 Kapurthala, respectively. However, it was low (less than 8 nymphs per leaf), in other blocks of both districts; where, no pyrilla-population was observed. Epiricania melanoleuca (parasitoid of pyrilla), was absent in all the fields, except in Western block and Adampur block of Jalandhar; where, 2-5 adults, per plant, and plenty of cocoons of E. melanoleuca, were observed. Mishkat and Khalid, during 2007, investigated the population dynamics of the Sugarcane Plant-hopper Pyrilla perpusilla Walker (Lophopidae: Homoptera) and that of its natural enemies, at District Mandi Baha-ud-din (Punjab). They found that there were two peaks of P. perpusilla population during November 2003 (14 egg batches/leaf, 65 nymphs & 25 adults /leaf) and May 2004 (15 egg batches/leaf, 45 nymphs & 12 adults /leaf) whereas, nymphal-adult ectoparasitoid, Epiricania melanoleuca was at peak (95%) during September, 2004. Rajak, (2007) explained that Epiricania melanoleuca (Fletcher) is a potential ectoparasitoid,which successfully control the sugarcane leaf hopper, P. perpusilla Walker, through field colonizations, in many parts of the Indian Sub-continent. Rajak. (2008), recorded the seasonal variation, in parasitism, on P. perpusilla. The fields, were kept free from insecticidal applications. During 2004, their was no parasitization in the month of April; while, 3.7±0.2% nymphs were parasitized, in May, 1st fortnight. With an increase in the population of Pyrilla, ,a rise in parasitization by Epiricania melanoleuca, started and reached its peak 80.5±4.9% on nymphs in 2nd fortnight of November. Adult parasitization (6.2±0.5%), was noticed in the 1st fortnight of May and it touched its peak of 77±5.1% in 2nd fortnight of November. While, during 2005, parasitization was observed to be 82.3±4.8%, on nymphs, and 75±3.9% on adults, in November. The range of parasitization by E. melanoleuca, on nymphs + adults was 5.0±0.4 to 78.8±5.0 % and 4.8±0.7 to 78.7±4.4%, during 2004 and 2005, respectively. A significant negative correlation, with maximum(r = -0.825) and minimum (r = -0.800) temperatures and a non-significant positive correlation with the relative humidity (r = 0.352) and rainfall (r = 0.242) was also observed. Gangwar et al. (2008) studied the bio-suppression of sugarcane leaf-hopper, Pyrilla perpusilla Walker, during epidemics, by its potential nymphal and adult ecto-parasitoid. Epiricania melanoleuca (Fletcher) in command area of three sugar mills of Uttar Pradesh

12 covering an area of approximately 40,000 ha with commendable success, that could serve as a model for pest management, in other areas, also. The sugarcane Pyrilla, which initially appeared on wheat, fodder sorghum, barley and the grown-up sugarcane, later migrated to autumn, spring plant and ratoon, during March, April. The over-wintering population of nymphs, survived to a great extent, due to the mild-winter, which favored the fast multiplication of nymphs into adults. These nymphs developed into adults, during March and started breeding profusely and caused havoc. The population of pyrilla and its parasitoid was assessed during a rapid roving survey. The leaves, bearing parasitoids, were redistributed in the sugarcane fields @ 5000 cocoons + 5 Lacs eggs/ ha or 10000 cocoons/ ha, in the absence of Epiricania eggs. The E. melanoleuca, played a major role to control the pyrilla-population. The insecticidal spraying operation, which was not recommended, resulted in a saving of about Rs. 1600/ha, besides avoiding environmental pollution. The splendid control of the pyrilla-epidemic, has once again, proved that the conservation of natural enemies and augmentation through the field-redistribution could be effective components, in the bio-suppression of pyrilla. Hence, it is inferred that if the ecto-parasitoid, Epiricania melanoleuca, cocoon, is available, in field @ 1-5/leaf, at a pyrilla-population level, ranging from 20 to 150 nymphs +adults/leaf, the insecticides should not be sprayed, at all.

2.4 Biochemical Factors Kumarasinghe and Jepson, 2003, studied the antixenotic effects of the foliar morphological and chemical characteristics, such as the spine-density, leaf-colour, leaf- width, hydroxamic acid (Hx) levels, and previous feeding damage, on feeding and oviposition of the sucking pest of sugarcane, Pyrilla perpusilla Walker. They observed that feeding preference, was affected by the leaf-colour (c 2 = 10.2; P< 0.05) and Hx levels (c 2 = 21.668; P< 0.05); whereas, the oviposition-preference was affected by the leaf-spine density (c 2 = 8.959; P<0.05) and Hx levels (c 2 = 12.584; P<0.05). Previously infested leaves, showed a resistance to feeding after five days of continuous infestation, with P. perpusilla (c 2 = 7.225; P< 0.05). The antibiotic characteristics of a particular cultivar, was found to be independent from its antixenotic effects.

13 Kumarasinghe and Wratten, (1998), Studied the biochemical basis resistance, conferred by hydroxamic acid in sugarcane, to P. perpusilla, with 6 cultivars. Hydroxamic acids, DIBOA & DIMBOA, were found in leaves, at concentrations not inimical to the pest. Hydroxamic acid concentrations were highest in the basic & mid section of the leaves. Deepak et al. (1999) reported that the correlation was non-significant, between leaf-hopper population and cane-diameter, can-height, green leaves/cane, NMC, C.C.S and that between the brix %.

2.5 Chemical Control Sheikh, (1968), found that Malathion 37 EC., Diazinon 60 EC and Dimecron 100 EC, at the rates of 1.1 Ibs, 0.45 Ibs and 03.75 Ibs, respectively gave 99.4%, 98.7% and 98.7% mortality of the adults of sugarcane- pyrilla, after 48 hours. Singh and Mavi (1972), tested that 9% Malathion, at the rate of 0.56, 0.85 and 1.12 litre, per hectare, caused a mortality of adults of pyrilla sp. from 88.9 to 100% and 100% on the first ,third and fifth days after treatment. Marwat and Khan (1987), tested Disulfoton 10 G, Endosulfan 5G, Phosmet 5 G, Cartap 4 G, Fensulfothion 5 G, Thioyclam 5G, and Carbofuran 3G @ 25, 25, 30, 20, 25, & 30 kg/ha, respectively, for 2 years, against the major sucking pests of sugarcane. The systemic insecticides Disulfton and Carbouran showed the best control of Pyrilla perpusilla. Aleurolobus barodensis and Macropes tinctus in both years, the yields with two, were higher than with the use of other compounds, and much higher than that for the control. Rahim (1989), studied the effect of malathion, dimethoate, chlorpyrifos, azinphosmethyl, phorate, acephate and HCH, on sugarcane pyrilla. Malathion was found to be the most effective, followed by phorate, azinphos-methyl, dimethoate, chlorpyrifos, HCH and acephate. Patel et al. (1993), evaluated granular insecticides against the sugarcane leaf- hopper and found that, in field and laboratory trials, carried out in Gujarat, India, during 1990, on the efficacy of 6 different insecticides, against Pyrilla perpusilla in sugarcane, phorate, at 1 kg a.i./ha, was the most effective.

14 Singh et al., 1995, determined the relative toxicities of pyrethroids against the adults and nymphs of the sugarcane pest, Pyrilla perpusilla. A comparison of the relative resistance values, of adults and nymphs, indicated that the adults were more resistant to chlorfluazuron, fenpropathrin and fenvalerate; while, nymphs were more susceptible to the lambda-cyhalothrin, cypermethrin, fluvalinate, decamethrin [deltamethrin] and flucythrinate. Singla et al,. in 1997 reported that the effect spraying of 0.1% Thiodan 35EC (endosulfan), in variable bands, on the feeding stages of Pyrilla perpusilla (Walker), was studied, in sugarcane in the Indian Punjab, during 1988 and 1993. The mortality of nymphs and adults, 5 days after spraying, indicated that all the treatments, including the control (sprayed), were at par, during the two years Tripathi and Katiyar (1998), evaluated some insecticides against the sugarcane leaf-hopper, P. perpusilla, & its ecto-parasitoid, Epiricania melanoleuca. Foliar applications of chlorpyrifos, malathion, Achook [based on Azadirchta indica], dimethoate, endosulfan, decamethrin [deltamethrin] and methyl-O-demeton [demeton-O- methyl] to the sugarcane, in Uttar Pradesh, caused reductions in the population of Pyrilla perpusilla Walker, to the extent of 86.76, 86.23, 27.30, 83.66, 84.60, 84.01 and 82.30 (in 24 hr), and 97.86, 96.96, 46.36, 95.36, 96.56, 96.23 and 94.66 (7 days) in 1994, and 86.96, 84.50, 25.96, 81.26, 84.10, 82.36 and 80.76 (24 hr), and 98.13, 97.33, 46.60, 93.80, 96.96, 95.93 and 93.16 per cent (7 days), during 1995. The corresponding reductions in the untreated control plots were 2.36 and 3.73, and 2.20 and 3.90 per cent during 1994 and 1995, respectively. After 96 hours, of the application of insecticides, an increase in the number of cocoons and egg-masses and a reduction in the fecundity (9.20 to 18.23 per cent) of E. melanoleuca (F.) were recorded during 1994 and 1995. The overall performance, revealed that endosulfan was the most effective, in respect to the toxicity to the pest as well as safety to the ecto-parasitoid. Tripathi (2004), determined the relative safety values of 9 insecticides, on the basis of LC 50 and LC 90, against the Pyrilla perpusilla and its ecto-parasitoid, E. melanoleuca. The relative safety indices of deltamethrin, quinalphos, monocrotophos, chlorpyriphos, malathion, dimethoate, endosulfan, methyl-0-demeton and Achook (azadirachtin), were 0.96000, 0.75242, 0.65605, 1.10243, 0.95061, 0.98775, 1.11583,

15 0.922885, 1.37134 and 0.90140, 0.47519, 0.36113, 1.02782, 0.98828, 0.83630, 1.29197, 0.96350, 1.55518, on the basis of LC-50 and LC-90, respectively. Thus, Achook, endosulfan and chlorpyriphos proved less toxic; dimethoate, deltamethrin, malathion, methyl-0 demeton, moderately toxic; and quinalphos, and monocrotophos proved to be highly toxic to the actoparasitoid. In the field Achook, endosulfan and dimethoate proved to be less harmful than chlorpyrifos, deltamethrin, malathion and methyl-0-demeton.

2.6 Cultural Control Several research workers have recommended various cultural practices, for the control of pyrilla. Mohyuddin and Qureshi (1999, 2000), reported that the farmers burn trash, after harvesting sugarcane. In trash, 100% eggs of Pyrilla are parasitized in January and February, by the egg-parasitoids. It was ensured, not to burn the trash, till the end of March. Where, some of the trash, was not burnt but kept on the sides of the fields, excellent control was achieved. The early availability of the egg-parasitoids was ensured. At present, this method is extensively used in Sindh. Perrin, (1978) recommended that the multiple cropping is a good method of pyrilla control. Masih et al. (1988) recommended that wheat, intercropped with sugarcane, keeps the pyrilla population, to a minimum level. Brar et al. (1983) studied that the trash-burning or mulching, does not affect the pest populations, as the development from nymphs to the adults, takes place on the living plants. Kathiresan (2004), described that the removal of old, dried, yellowish green, bottom leaves of the sugarcane crop, is called de-trashing. This single-operation, has several advantages of reducing the pest menace, like, pyrilla, white flies, mealy bugs, inter node- borer and removing the sprouted buds in the cane-stalk. Besides this, aeration and sanitation of the cane-fields can be improved and it reduces the rodent and reptile problems, also. This can improve the cane-yield and quality.

16 2.7 Integration of Control Methods Madan (2001) described that an integrated pest management (IPM), is the adoption of most suitable techniques with the minimum disturbance of an ecosystem. Certain IPM techniques include the use of mechanical, cultural, varietals, chemical, sex - pheromones, light-traps and chemo-sterilants together. To adopt an IPM in sugarcane, the first step is to know the ecosystem and pest complex of sugarcane. The pest status and pest carry-over must be studied by means of surveys, monitoring, identification, economic thresholds and population-dynamics, among the others. Cultural practices, such as trash-mulching, timely-planting, propping, detrashing, avoid water logging, avoid crop lodging, light earthing in May and June and a balanced use of fertilizers can help in the control of some pests, like, shoot-borer, top-borer and black-bug etc. Varieties with a hard mid-rib, errect and narrow leaves, are less preferred by the top-borer and pyrilla. Biological control of Pyrilla is the major achievement in Haryana, India. If any pest is not controlled by the above methods, only, then, should the chemical control measures, be adopted. For an IPM, steps or aspects, such as, advanced planning, pest build-ups, monitoring and the survey of major pests, must be kept in mind. Singh et al. (2001), demonstrated the Biological control-based integrated pest management (BIPM), over 400 ha of the sugarcane, in the Morinda cooperative sugar mill area (Punjab, India), in 1999. The BIPM components were cultural, mechanical and biological control, with need-based application of insecticides. The incidence of stalk borer was reduced by 79%; the incidence of early shoot-borer and top-borer remained 2.07 and 1.90%, respectively, in the BIPM area. BIPM, increased the income by Rs. 1 210 950 due to the increase in sugar-recovery and saved the farmers a total of Rs. 48 400. Similarly, the natural control of pyrilla saved the farmers a total of Rs. 50 000 to 1 lakh. Verma et al. (2002) studied the Eco-friendly pest-control in sugarcane. To protect crops from the insect pests we use insecticides, pesticides and other chemicals so that we may get a high productivity. But, these chemicals create environmental pollution and hazards to the human health. To avoid these, there is need to adopt non-conventional measures, viz., the cultural, mechanical, the use of resistant varieties and biological control agents.

17 Rana et al. (2002) studied the efficacy of different control measures, against sugarcane-borers and pyrilla in a ratoon crop. Minimum population of the sugarcane pyrilla (0.45 and 0.28 individuals/leaf) was found where cocoons of Epiricania melanoleuca were placed followed by the treatment with Furadan 3G (12 kg/acre) (0.85 and 0.67 individuals/leaf) as a against check (3.75 and 4.05 individuals/leaf). Wasim (2007) studied the comparison of chemical control and biological control, against the sucking insect-pest complex of sugarcane. He found that Cartap 4G @ 12 Kg/acre, was found to be most effective for the control of P. perpusilla, followed by Furadan 3G @ 14Kg/acre and the chemical control, was more effective as compared to the biological control method

18 Chapter-3

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiments, related to the present studies, were conducted in the research area of Directorate of Sugarcane, Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan, from February 2006 to October 2008.

3.1 Climate of the Study Area The climate is, however, varied in Pakistan, viz., semi-tropical to subtropical as well as continental. The summer is very hot, but the winter in cold. The mean maximum temperature, in summer, is 36.11°C and the mean minimum, is 24.25°C. The temperature, in hot weather, touches 49.69°C. In winter, the temperature, sometimes, falls considerably below the means and, in December-January, it occasionally, goes even below the freezing point. The average annual rainfall is less than 500 mm (Pasha, 1979). Dust storms, are frequent from April to May. Frost may also occur, intermittently, for a week or two, during December and January (Khan, 1987).

3.2 Screening of the Varieties Studies were carried out to screen out the material for the final investigations. Experiments were laid out in a Randomized Complete Black Design (RCBD), in the Research Area, Directorate of Sugarcane, Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad. The crop was sown in a North-West direction, for each experiment. The sets, consisting of two buds, of each variety, were placed together, side by side, longitudinally.

3.2.1 Preliminary Screening, during 2006 The objective of this study was to screen out the resistant and susceptible varieties, on the basis of pyrilla-population, for the final investigations. Twenty commercial varieties and advanced lines of the sugarcane, viz, HSF 240, CPF 243, S-2002-US-114, S-2003-US-165, SPF-213, SPF-234, CP-77-400, S-2002-US- 637, S-2000-US-50, S-2003-US=809, S-2002-US-140, S-2002-US-104, CP-72-2086, S-

19 2002-US-133, S-2002-US-447, HSF-242, HSF-245, CPHS-35, S-2003-US-394 and S- 2003-US-623, were sown on February 15, 2006. The experiment was repeated thrice, with a plot size of 13m×3.05m and a row to row distance of 0.76m, in a randomized complete block design. No plant protection measures were applied to treat the optimum conditions, for the pest attack. All the recommended agronomic practices, were applied, during the experiment Ten leaves were selected, randomly, from each plot, to check the population- density of test insect, per leaf. Observations were taken, on weekly basis. Three genotypes, each showing resistant, susceptible and intermediate response were selected for further experiments. There were nine genotypes, in total, to be selected.

3.2.2 Final Screening during 2007 Nine genotypes of sugarcane, i.e., CPHS-35, S-2003-US-394, S-2003-US-623 (susceptible), S-2003-US=809, S-2002-US-140, S-2002-US-104 (intermediate), HSF 240, CPF 243 and S-2002-US-114, basis of population-density per leaf, were selected from the preliminary trials, during 2006, for a further study. These were, sown on Feb 20, 2007, in three repeats. The size of plot was kept as 13m x 4.58 m and a row to row distance was kept to be 0.76 m. There were five rows, in each plot, for each variety. The data, regarding the pyrilla-population, were recorded. The data on the Morphea-pysio- chemical plant-factors were studied from other four rows and correlated with the insect- pest population.

3.2.3 Data Collection The data, regarding the pyrilla-population, per leaf, were recorded, randomly, throughout the season, consistently, at an interval of 7 ± 2 days starting from May, 2006 to 2007.

3.2.4 Host-Plant Susceptibility Indices (HPSIs) Plant-susceptibility indices, based on the adult/ nymph population of Pyrilla, on different selected genotype of sugarcane, were determined, using an IBM compatible computer, with a Microsoft chart package. However, HPSI may be calculated by the following formula,

20 B - A HPSI (%) = 100------× 100 B Where; A= Adult/nymph population, in an individual genotype of Sugarcane, and B= Adult/nymph population, in all genotype of Sugarcane.

3.3 Role of Abiotic Factors, in the Fluctuating Pest-Population Correlations of various abiotic factors, like, the temperature, relative humidity and rainfall, with the pest-population, were studied. Coefficient of determination values, were also determined through processing the data into a Multiple Regression, by an IBM Compatible Computer and M-stat package was used for this purpose.

3.4 Methodology to Test the Mechanisms of Resistance 3.4.1 Physio-morphic Basis of Resistance Following Physio-morphic characteristics were studied in the nine selected genotypes. 3.4.1.1 Leaf-spine density (cm2) Four leaves were taken, randomly, from different plants, from each plot. Each leaf-sheath was examined from three different spots, under a stereo-microscope. Then number of hairs, were counted from an area of one cm2. 3.4.1.2 Leaf-width (cm) The width of leaf-blade, was measured from the central point of the leaf-blade, from five, randomly, selected leaves, the help of an ordinary measuring tape. 3.4.1.3 Leaf-length (cm) The length of the total leaf-blade was measured, from five, randomly selected, leaves from each plot, with an ordinary plastic measuring-tape. 3.4.1.4 Cane-diameter (cm) The mean diameter of the cane was calculated, from five, randomly selected, canes, using a vernier caliper. 3.4.1.5 Cane-length (m) Five plants were selected, randomly, and their length was measured, from the ground level to the plant-canopy, with the help of an ordinary measuring-tape.

21

3.4.2 Chemical Factors The procedure, used for the determination of chemical factors, was adopted from AACC (2000) and is briefly describes as under: 3.4.2.1 Nitrogen Contents The Kjeldhal’s method, as described in AACC (2000) method No. 46-10, was used to determine the nitrogen contents, in each sample, by digesting 0.5 g of the dried

leaf-tissue powder with concentrated H2SO4 in the presence of a catalyst. During digestion, the organic compounds are oxidized and the nitrogen is converted to ammonium sulphate. In a distillation apparatus, in an alkaline media, the ammonia is liberated, which is collected in a flask, containing 4 % boric acid solution, using methyl red, as an indicator. The nitrogen contents, in each sample, were determined, by titrating

against the 0.1N H2SO4 solution. 3.4.2.2 Fat Contents The fat contents, in 2-3g, of each moisture-free sample, were estimated it samples through a Soxhlet apparatus, for 2-3 hours, using petroleum ether, as a solvent, according to the procedure described in AACC (2000), method No.30-10.

Weight of ether extract Fat % = ------× 100 Weight of sample

3.4.2.3 Total Minerals The total minerals, in each sample, were determined, as a total inorganic matter, by following the procedure, given in AACC (2000), method No. 08-01. Oven dried, 5 g sample, was charred on the burner and then, ignited in a muffle- furnace at a temperature of 550-600 ºC, for 5-6 hours or till grayish-ash appearance. The experiment was repeated four times. The total mineral contents were calculated, according to following formula.

Weight of ash Total mineral content % = ------× 100 Weight of the sample

3.4.2.4 Carbohydrates Following formula was used for the determination of carbohydrates.

22 Carbohydrate (%) = 100 - crude protein + %fats + crude fiber + % ash. There were three replications for the determination of each component. 3.4.2.5 Micro and Macro nutrients 3.4.2.5.1Wet digestion of the plant-tissues for the macro and micro-nutrient analyses Macro and micro nutrient determinations were made from the nitric-perchloric acid-digest of the plant tissues. The essential features of the method were as follows. Plant material (1.00 g oven dried basis), was predigested in Taylor digestion

tubes, at a room temperature, in 10 ml. of a 2:1 mixture of HNO2-HCLO4, overnight or until the vigorous reaction phase, was over. Small, short-stemmed, funnels were placed in the mouth of the tubes to reflux acid. After the preliminary digestion, tubes were placed in a cold, aluminum block digester and the temperature raised to 150 °C, for 1 hour, after which the U-shaped glass-rods were placed, under each funnel to permit the exit of volatile-vapours. Temperature, was slowly increased, until all traces of HNO3, had disappeared, after which the U-shaped glass-rods, were removed and the temperature raised to 235 °C. Time was noted, when, dense, white-fumes of HCIO4 appeared in the tubes and the digestion continued for 30 minutes, more. Samples were removed from the digester, allowed to cool, for few minutes, and a few drops of distilled water added, carefully, through the funnel. After the vapours, had condensed, water was added in small increments, washing down walls of the tubes and funnels. Appropriate dilutions, were made with distilled water. The solution of each tube was mixed and, then, left undisturbed, for a few hours. Supernatant liquid, was, then decanted, and Ca, Mg, Zn and Cu, in the aliquots, were analyzed by an atomic absorption spectrophotometer (Wright and Stuezynski. 1996). Potassium and Sodium, in the plant digests, were determined by through the flame photometry (Sparks, 1996) and Phosphorus was determined calorimetrically by the vanadomolyhdo-phosphoric-acid colour method (Jackson, 1958).

3.4.3 Qualitative Analysis of the sugar contents 3.4.3.1 Fiber Contents Cane fiber contents, were estimated with the help of a Bag Washing Method used by Payne (1968). One section of the % meter-length was cut from each of the cane stalks, from the sample. The sample-size consisted of nine cane-stalks, representing an equal

23 number from the upper, middle and lower portion, of each variety. The samples were crushed with a shredder and mixed, thoroughly. Out of thus prepared, test material, 200 gms were taken and transferred to a cloth-bag and, then, washed in the washing machine, till the washing was clear. Surplus water was squeezed out and the material was placed, in a drying oven and dried, sufficiently, so that the fiber could be removed easily from the bag. The drying-tray, was, then, replaced in the oven and dried to a constant weight, for about three hours at 120-130 °C. Further estimations were taken, by using the following formula (Payne, 1968). Weight of dried sample % fiber = ------× 100 Weight of sample +lost during preparation.

3.4.3.2 POL (%) A sample of 200 ml of the cane-juice was taken in the Erlenmeyer flask, with the help of filter-leaf and pipette. For a perfect clarification lead Acetate, was added and shaken well. This solution was then filtered. Out of the filtrate, 25 ml was discarded. The funnel, was covered with a watch glass, while filtering. The saccharimeter-tube, was rinsed, three times, with portions of the filtrate and traced to five concordant readings. Calculations, were made following Payne (1968). 3.4.3.3 Brix (%) Brix percentage of the samples was estimated with the help of a Brix-Hydrometer, which determined the percentage, by weight, of the apparent soluble-solid, in the sugar- solution, at 20°C. 3.4.3.4 Commercial Cane Sugar (CCS) The CCS was, calculated, using the following formula.

3 P (1-F+ 5) - B (1- F +3) CCS (%) = ------2 100 2 100 Where; CCS = Commercial cane sugar, P = Pol apparent sucrose, F = Fibre contents, and B = Brix percentage.

24 3.5 Statistical Analysis The data, regarding the population of the pest during both the study years were analyzed by two way analysis of variance and the means were compared by DMR test at P = 0.05. The data regarding morpho-physio and chemical plant characters were analyzed for analysis of variance by following RCB Design, to determine the significance of treatments. The means, were compared by a DMR test, at P = 0.05. The data, on morpho- physio-chemical plant-factors, were correlated with the pest-population data. Multivariate regression-models, by steps, were developed between the pest-population and various morpho-chemical plant-factors. The data were also processed for Principle Component Analysis, for searching out suitable models, for factor or factors, contributing the most towards resistance, against Pyrilla. IBM compatible computer was used for analyzing the data, with an M-state, C package. The data were transformed into the square-roots, before proceeding for the analysis. 3.6 Management of the Sugarcane Pyrilla The study was conducted, in the research area, Directorate of Sugarcane, Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad, Punjab Pakistan, from February 2008 to October 2008. The most resistant, variety HSF-240, was selected from screening trials and used for a further study. Management of sugarcane pyrilla, was carried out, with different control measures, individually, and in their possible combinations, as under: T1 = Cultural Control;  Fortnightly hoeing and destruction of weeds, to remove alternate host-plants.  Detrashing of older leaves, twice, during the season.  Trash mulching, at the time of sowing. T2 = Biological Control;  Placing of cocoons of Epiricania melanoleuca @ 2500 cocoons, per ha. between sugarcane leaves, after an interval of one month, four times in the season, starting from June, 15 to Septmber, 15. T3 = Chemical Control;  Application of Carbofuron @ 35 Kg, per ha. Starting from one month, after sowing, and coupled with the earthing-up. T4 = Biological control + Cultural Control;

25 T5 = Biological Control + Chemical Control; T6 = Cultural + Chemical Control; T7 = Cultural + Chemical Control + Biological Control; and T8 = Control. The crop was sown on Feb 20, 2008 in an RCBD, with three replications. The size of the plot was kept as 13m × 4.5 m, with a row to row distance of 0.76 m. There were five rows, in each plot. The data, regarding the Pyrilla-population, per leaf, were recorded, fortnightly (15±2 days). Treatments means, were compared by a DMR test, at P=0.05. The whole analysis was performed, using IBM compatible computer, with an M stat package.

26 Chapter-4

RESULTS

This study was conducted, on an integrated pest management of the sugarcane pyrilla, Pyrilla perpusilla Wlk. Twenty genotypes of sugarcane, viz., HSF-240, CPF- 243, S-2002-US-114, S-2003-US-165, SPF-213, SPF-234, CP-77-400, S-2002-US-50, S- 2003-US-809, S-2002-US-140, S-2002-US-104, CP-72-2086, S-2002-US-133, S-2002- US-447, HSF-242, HSF-245, CPHS-35, S-2003-US-394 and S-2003-US-623, were studied for their resistance/susceptibility responses, against P. perpusilla as a preliminary screening trial, during 2006. From this trial three genotypes of sugarcane, viz., HSF-240, CPF-243 and S-2002-US-114 showing a comparatively resistant trend: three genotypes, viz., CPHS-35, S-2003-US-394 and S-2003-US-623 with susceptible responses and three genotypes, viz., S-2003-US-809, S-2002-US-140 and S-2002-US-104, having intermediate trends towards the pest-population were selected for the final screening trials, during 2007 and for the determination of physio-morphic and chemical characters of the plant leaves and sugar etc. Host- plant susceptibility indices, were also calculated, based on the population data. The role of weather, in the population fluctuations of the pest, during both the study years, were also determined through simple correlation and multiple linear regression equations, alongwith the coefficient of determination, values. The impact of various physio-morphic and chemical plant-characters was also determined, by processing the data into simple correlations and multiple linear regression analyses of variance. Various control methods, viz., cultural control (fortnightly hoeing and destruction of weeds to remove alternate host plants, and detrashing of older leaves twice during the season and trash-mulching): biological control (placing of cocoons of Epiricania nelanoleuca @ 2500 cocoons, per ha, between sugarcane leaves, four times, in the season, starting from June 15 to September 15); chemical control (carbofuran @ 35 kg/ha, starting one month, after sowing, and coupled with earthing-up) and in their all possible combinations, viz., biological control + cultural, biological + chemical, cultural + chemical and cultural + chemical + biological control. Cost benefit ratio, for each IPM

27 technique, was also worked out for the recommendation to the farmers. The results are given, as under in the following sections:

4.1. HOST- PLANT RESISTANCE 4.1.1. Preliminary Screening Trials 4.1.1.1. Varietal Differences. The data, regarding th population of P. perpusilla (nymphs + adults), per leaf, on different genotypes of sugarcane, at various dates of observation, are presented in Appendices 1 to 17. The analysis of variance for the same, revealed a significant difference (P < 0.01) among the dates of observation and genotypes of the sugarcane. The interactional response, among dates of observation and genotypes showed a non significant variation (Table 1). The means, were compared by DMR Test at P=0.05 (Table 1 a). The maximum population of P. perpusilla, was recorded to be 13.67, per leaf, on the genotype S-2003-US-623 and it differed, significantly, from those observed in all other genotypes. The genotype, CPHS-35 had 13.01 individuals, per leaf, of the pest, and did not show a significant difference with those recorded on S-2003-US-394 and HSF-245, with 13.14 and 12.78, P. perpusilla, per leaf, respectively. The minimum population of P. perpusilla, was observed to be 4.03, per leaf, on HSF-240 and was, at par, statistically, with those recorded on CPF-243, with 4.30 insects, per leaf. The latter mentioned genotype, also showed a non-significant difference from those observed on S- 2002-US-114 and S-2003-US-165 with 4.39 and 4.54 insects, per leaf, respectively. The genotypes, S-2003-US-809 and S-2002-US-140, with 9.15 and 9.41, per leaf, population of P. perpusilla, respectively, showed a non-significant variation, with each other and were categorized as intermediate. The latter mentioned figure also showed a non- significant difference with those found on S-2002-US-104 and CP-72-2086, with 9.52 and 9.57, per leaf, population of P. perpusilla, respectively. The population of P. perpusilla was recorded to be 9.94, 11.13 and 12.04, per leaf, on S-2002-US-133, S- 1002-US-447 and HSF-242, respectively and it did not show a significant difference with one another. The population of P. perpusilla was observed to be 9.07, per leaf, on S- 2000-US-50 and it had a significant variation with those found on all other genotypes. A non-significant variation was found to exist among SPF-213. SPF-234 and CP-77-400,

28 with 8.44, 8.47 and 8.73, a population of P. perpusilla per leaf, respectively. The latter mentioned figures also showed a non-significant difference with those recorded on S- 2002-US-637, having 8.75, per leaf, population of the pest. Keeping in view the above results, it was observed that the genotypes HSF-240, CPF-243 and S-2002-US-114, showed a comparatively resistant response, with a minimum population of the pest, that ranged from 4.03 to 4.39, per leaf; whereas, the genotypes S-2003-US-623, S-2003-US- 394 and CPHS-35 appeared to be comparatively susceptible genotypes, with a maximum population of the pest ranging from 13.01 to 13.67, per leaf. Furthermore S-2003-US- 809, S-2002-US-140 and S-2002-US-104, showed an intermediate response, with a population range of 9.15 to 9.52, per leaf. These genotypes, were selected for further screening trials, in order to confirm the results obtained in the preliminary screening experiments.

4.1.1.2 Abundance Period of the Pest The comparison of means for the data, regarding the population of P. perpusilla per leaf, at various dates of observation, on sugarcane during 2006 are given in Table 1 (b). The results revealed that a maximum population of the pest, was recorded to be 17.88, per leaf, on August 06 and it did not differ significantly from that of 17.64 per leaf, on August 13. A significant decreasing trend was observed, thereafter, i.e., 16.56 and 15.26 on August 20 and August 27, respectively. The minimum population of the pest, was recorded to be 1.37, per leaf, on May 14 and significant variations, were found to exist among the dates of observation upto June 18. The population of P. perpusilla, was recorded to be 4.85, per leaf, on June 25 and a significantly increasing trend was continuously observed, on the subsequent dates of observation upto the July 30th, i.e., 17.03 per leaf. From these results, it was concluded that the last week of July and the month of August, were favourable for the maximum development of the pest.

29 Table 1. AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, PER LEAF, IN DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF SUGARCANE, AT VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATION

SOV DF MS F. Ratio Replications 2 0.327 0.61 Date of observations (A) 16 1962.340 3676.40 ** Genotypes (B) 19 463.434 868.23 ** A X B 304 7.046 3.20 Error 678 0.534

CV = 7.94% ** = Significant at P < 0.01.

30 Table 1 a. A COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, PER LEAF, ON VARIOUS GENOTYPES OF SUGARCANE, DURING 2006

Genotypes Means

HSF 240 4.03 m * CPF 243 4.30 lm * S-2002-US-114 4.39 l * S-2003-US-165 4.54 l SPF-213 8.44 k SPF-234 8.47 jk CP-77-400 8.73 jk S-2002-US-637 8.75 j S-2000-US-50 9.07 I S-2003-US=809 9.15 hi ** S-2002-US-140 9.41 gh ** S-2002-US-104 9.52 g ** CP-72-2086 9.57 g S-2002-US-133 9.94 f S-2002-US-447 11.13 e HSF-242 12.04 d HSF-245 12.78 c CPHS-35 13.01 bc *** S-2003-US-394 13.14 b *** S-2003-US-623 13.67 a *** LSD at P = 0.05 0.2841

Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by a DMR test. * = Resistant. ** = Intermediate, and *** = Susceptible

31 Table 1b. A COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, PER LEAF, AT VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATIONS, ON SUGARCANE, DURING 2006

Date of observations Means May 07 1.64 l May 15 1.37 m May 21 5.05 k May 28 5.62 j June 04 5.46 h June 11 6.14 i June 18 5.08 k June 25 4.85 k July 02 6.03 I July 09 7.71 g July 16 9.68 f July 23 12.45 e July30 17.03 b August 06 17.88 a August 13 17.64 a August 20 16.56 c August 27 15.26 d

Means, sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by a DMR test.

32 4.1.2. Final Screening Trials Nine genotypes of sugarcane; 3 showing resistant (HSF-240, CPF-243 and S- 2002-US-114); 3 showing susceptible (S-2003-US-623, S-2003-US-394 and CPHS-35) and 3 showing intermediate (S-2003-US-809, S-2002-US-140 and S-2002-US-104) responses were tested for their resistance/susceptibility trends, against the P. perpusilla on its population basis during 2007. The data, regarding the population of P. perpusilla, nymphs + adults, per leaf, on different genotypes, on sugarcane, at various dates of observation, are given in Appendices 18 to 33. The analysis of variance for the same, are shown in Table-2. The results revealed a significant difference (P< 0.01) among dates of observation, genotypes and interactions among genotypes and dates of observation. The means were compared by a DMR Test, at P = 0.05 {Table 2(a) and 2(b)}. The results are presented under the following sub-sections.

4.1.2.1. Varietal Differences The mean comparison of the data, regarding the population of P. perpusilla, per leaf, on various selected genotypes of sugarcane revealed that the genotype S-2003-US- 623, possessed maximum population of P. perpusilla and appeared to be comparatively susceptible, with a population of 17.24 pests per leaf, which differed significantly from those observed in all other genotypes. The minimum population of the pest was recorded to be 4.84, per leaf, on HSF-240 and it showed a relatively resistant trend, which did not differ, significantly, from 4.97, per leaf, found on the genotype, CPF-243. The genotypes, S-2002-US-114, S-2003-US-809, S-2002-US-140, S-2002-US-104, CPHS-35 and S- 2003-US-394 showed a population of 5.64, 8.89, 9.58, 10.55, 15.49 and 16.19 P. perpusilla individuals, per leaf, respectively, which differed, significantly, with one another. From these results, it was observed that the genotype S-2003-US-623, was found to be comparatively susceptible; whereas, HSF-240, showed resistance responses, with a maximum (17.24 per leaf) and minimum (8.84 per leaf) population of P. perpusilla, respectively. Furthermore, it was also observed that all the genotypes, showed a similar trend, in response to the population of P. perpusilla, as that observed during 2006, in the preliminary screening trials.

33 4.1.2.2. Abundance Period of the Pest The comparison of means for the data, regarding the population of P. perpusilla per leaf, at various dates of observation on sugarcane, during 2007 (Table 2 b) revealed that the minimum population of the pest was recorded to be 1.07, per leaf, on May 12 and this population, increased to a significant level upto 1.84, per leaf, on June 02. The population of the pest, was decreased down to 1.61, per leaf, on June 09 and an increasing trend, was again observed, on the subsequent dates of observation upto 31.02, per leaf, on August 25. From these results, it was concluded that the month of August, was the most favourable for the development of the pest.

34 Table 2. AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, PER LEAF, IN DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF SUGARCANE, AT VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATION, DURING 2007

SOV DF MS F. Ratio Replication 2 6.299 10.89 Dates of observation (D) 15 3115.301 5386.78 ** Genotypes (G) 8 1154.0151 1995.45 ** D X G 120 77.824 134.57 ** Error 286 0.578

CV = 7.33% ** = Significant at P < 0.01.

Table 2 a. A COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, PER LEAF, ON VARIOUS GENOTYPES OF SUGARCANE, DURING 2007

Genotypes Means HSF-240 4.84 h CPF-243 4.97 h S-2002-US-114 5.64 g S-2003-US-809 8.89 f S-2002-US-140 9.58 e S-2002-US-104 10.55 d CPHS-35 15.49 c S-2003-US-394 16.19 b S-2003-US-623 17.24 a LSD at P = 0.05 0.35

Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by a DMR test.

35 Table 2b. A COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, PER LEAF, ON VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATION ON SUGARCANE, DURING 2007

Date of Observation Means

May 12 1.07 l May 19 1.13 l May 26 1.50 kl June 02 1.84 jk June 09 1.61 kl June 16 1.92 jk June 23 2.37 j June 30 3.66 i July 07 5.66 h July 14 9.56 g July 21 13.11 f July 28 17.70 e August 04 20.59 d August 11 24.82 c August 18 28.45 b August 25 31.02 a LSD at P = 0.05 0.50

Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different, by a DMR test.

36 4.1.3. Host-Plant Susceptibility Indices (HPSIs) The results, pertaining to the HPSIs, during 2006, 2007 and on an average basis, in various selected genotypes of sugarcane, are presented in Figs. 1 to 3, respectively. The objective of this study was to determine the level of resistance/susceptibility, within the test material, in percentages. The results (Fig. 1) revealed that the genotypes HSF-240, CPF-243 and S-2002- US-114 appeared, as comparatively resistant genotypes, each showed 5.00 percent HPSI; whereas S-2003-US-623 had a maximum HPSI, i.e. 18.00 percent and appeared to be comparatively susceptible to the pest. The descending order of other genotype was that S- 2003-US-394 > CPHS-35 > S-2002-US-104 > S-2002-US-140 and S-2003-US-809 with 16.00, 16.00, 12.00, 12.00 and 11.00 percent HPSIs, respectively. The results presented in Fig.2, showed a similar trend, with minor variations, as that observed, during 2006. However, HSF-240 and CPF-243 each showed 5.00 percent HPSI and appeared comparatively resistant; whereas, S-2003-US-623 had a maximum HPSI i.e., 19.00 percent and was found to be comparatively susceptible. The ascending position of other genotypes was that S-2002-US-114 < S-2003-US-809 < S-2002-US-140 < S-2002-US-104 < CPHS-35 and S-2003-US-394, with 6.00, 10.00, 10.00, 11.00, 17.00 and 17.00 percent HPSIs, respectively. The HPSI values, observed from Fig. 3 revealed that HSF-240 and CPF-243 were found to be comparatively resistant with an HPSI of 5 percent; whereas, S-2003-US-623 appeared to be susceptible with a maximum HPSI of 18.00 percent. The other genotypes, in an ascending order, were S-2002-US-114 < S-2003-US-809 < S-2002-US-140 < S- 2002-US-104 < CPHS-35 and S-2003-US-394, with HPSIs of 6.00, 10.00, 11.00, 12.00, 16.00 and 17.00, respectively.

37

Fig. 1. THE HOST-PLANT SUSCEPTIBILITY INDICES (%), BASED ON THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, ON SELECTED GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, DURING 2006.

HSF-240 CPF-243 18% 5% 5% 5% S-2002-US-114

11% S-2003-US-809 16% S-2002-US-140 S-2002-US-104 12% CPHS-35 16% 12% S-2003-US-394 S-2003-US-623

38

Fig. 2. THE HOST-PLANT SUSCEPTIBILITY INDICES (%), BASED ON THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, ON SELECTED GENOTYPES OF SUGARCANE, DURING 2007

HSF-240 5% CPF-243 19% 5% 6% S-2002-US-114

10% S-2003-US-809 S-2002-US-140 17% 10% S-2002-US-104 CPHS-35 11% 17% S-2003-US-394 S-2003-US-623

39

Fig. 3. THE HOST-PLANT SUSCEPTIBILITY INDICES (%), BASED ON THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, ON SELECTED GENOTYPES OF SUGARCANE, DURING 2006-2007 ON CUMULATIVE BASIS

HSF-240 CPF-243 18% 5% 5% 6% S-2002-US-114

10% S-2003-US-809 17% S-2002-US-140 11% S-2002-US-104 CPHS-35 16% 12% S-2003-US-394 S-2003-US-623

40 4.2. ROLE OF WEATHER IN THE POPULATION FLUCTUATIONS OF P. PERPUSILLA, ON SUGARCANE

The population trend influenced by the weather factors, such as, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, average temperature, relative humidity and rainfall for the years 2006 and 2007 is depicted graphically, in Figs. 4 and 5, with the objective to observe the weather relationship with the population of P. perpusilla, in sugarcane. The results are described as under.

4.2.1. Population Trend Versus the Weather Factors, During 2006 The results presented in Fig. 4 revealed that the maximum population of the pest was recorded on August 06. The maximum temperature, minimum temperature, average temperature, relative humidity and rainfall, on the said date, were 35.14 °C, 26.31 °C, 30.72 °C, 76.85% and 41.60 mm which favored the pest development and was a good combination for forecasting. Fig. 4, indicated that the population fluctuated from May 07 to June 25 and it ranged from 1.37 to 4.85. The population of the pest, showed an increasing trend on the subsequent dates of observation continuously upto August 06. A significant decreasing trend, was observed, there afterwards, further, in broad sense, the weather factors prevailed, during the month of August, found to be the most favorable for the development of the pest.

4.2.2. Population Trend Versus the Weather Factors, During 2007 The population fluctuation of P. perpusilla, per leaf, influenced by the various weather factors during 2007 is depicted in Fig. 5. The minimum pest-population, was recorded to be 1.07, per leaf, on May 12 and an increasing trend was continuously observed, on the subsequent dates of observation till August 25 and showed 31.02 individuals, per leaf. The prevailing weather factors on the maximum level of pest- population were 37.40 °C, 24.10 °C, 30.80 °C, 65.30% RH and 17.00 mm rainfall. It was further observed, that the month of August, in broader sense, showed a higher pest- population and was influenced by the weather factors.

41

Fig. 4 FLUCTUATIONS IN THE PYRILLA-POPULATION, PER LEAF, VERSUS THE WEATHER FACTORS, DURING 2006

Fluctuation in Pyrilla Population per leaf versus Weather Factors During 2006

45 90.00

40 80.00

35 70.00

30 60.00 Population

Maxim um 25 50.00 Minim um

Temp. 20 40.00 Average

RH (%)

15 30.00 Average, RH& RF Rainfall (mm) 10 20.00 Population, Maximum & Minimum Maximum Population,

5 10.00

0 0.00 7-May 14-May 21-May 28-May 4-Jun 11-Jun 18-Jun 25-Jun 2-Jul 9-Jul 16-Jul 23-Jul 30-Jul 6-Aug 13-Aug 20-Aug 27-Aug Dates

Maximum temperature 35.14 °C Minimum temperature of 26.31 °C Average temperature of 30.72 °C RH 76.85% RF 41.60 mm

42

Fig. 5 FLUCTUATIONS IN THE PYRILLA POPULATION, PER LEAF, VERSUS THE WEATHER FACTORS, DURING 2007

Fluctuation in Pyrilla Population per leaf versus Weather Factors During 2007

45 90

40 80

35 70

30 60 Population

Max imum Temp. °C 25 50 Minimum Temp. °C

Temp. 20 40 Average Temp. °C

RH (%)

15 30 Average, RH & RF Rainf all (mm) 10 20 Population, Maximum & Minimum Population,

5 10

0 0 12-May 19-May 26- 2-Jun 9-Jun 16-Jun 23-Jun 30-Jun 7-Jul 14-Jul 21-Jul 28-Jul 4-Aug 11-Aug 18-Aug 25-Aug 27-Aug May Dates

Maximum temperature 37.40 °C Minimum temperature 24.10 °C Average temperature 30.80 °C RH 65.30%, RF 17.00 mm

43 4.2.3. Correlation coefficient Values Between Weather Factors and the Population of P. perpusilla

The results pertaining to the correlation coefficient values, between P. perpusilla, per leaf, on sugarcane, and the weather factors, during both the study years, separately, as well as, on cumulative basis, are presented in Table 3. It was evident from the results that maximum temperature, during 2007 showed a negative and significant correlation (P < 0.05) with the pest-population with an r-value of 0.497. The effect of minimum temperature, during 2006, was recorded to be positive and significant (P < 0.05) with an r-value of 0.516. Relative humidity, showed a positive and significant correlation (P < 0.01) with the pest-population having an r-value of 0.898, 0.651 and 0.636 for 2006, 2007 and on cumulative basis, respectively. Rainfall did not show a significant correlation with the pest-population, during both the study years as well as on the cumulative basis.

4.2.4. Multivariate Linear Regression Models, Between the Population of P. perpusilla and Weather Factors

The data on the weather factors, viz., maximum temperature, minimum temperature, average temperature, relative humidity and rainfall, were computed for a Multiple Linear Regression analysis of variance with the population of the pest, for the both study years, separately, as well as, on cumulative basis, with the objective to determine the impact of a single weather factor as well as of the various combinations on the pest population. The percent contribution of each factor on the fluctuations of the pest-population was also observed by calculating the coefficient of determination values. The results showing the impact, of each year, as well as, on cumulative basis, are presented, as under:

4.2.4.1. Impact, During 2006 The results, regarding the impact of weather factors on the population of P. perpusilla, during 2006, are presented in Table 4. It is evident from the results that the maximum temperature contributed 8.6% role towards the population fluctuation of the pest and this role increased upto 26.09% with the effect of minimum temperature, when added. The average temperature played only 2.9% part in the population fluctuations of

44 the pest. A role of 43.04% was obtained only for the relative humidity, which appeared to be the most important factor and contributed the maximum in the population fluctuations of the pest. Rainfall showed a minimum role, i.e., 0.3% and was not so important. From these results, it was concluded that the minimum temperature and relative humidity were the most important factors, which played maximum role, i.e., 26.9 and 43.4%, respectively, in the population-fluctuations of the pest.

4.2.4.2. Impact, During 2007 The impact of weather factors on the population of P. perpusilla, during 2007 are given in Table 5. From these results it was observed that the maximum temperature, contributed the maximum, i.e., 24.5% towards the population fluctuation of the pest. The influence of minimum temperature was, however, calculated to be 5.3%. Average temperature showed 2.4% impact, relative humidity 13.3% and rainfall exerted 10.0% influence, on the population fluctuations of the pest. From these results, it as observed that the maximum temperature was the most important factor, which played maximum role in the population fluctuations followed by the relative humidity and rainfall.

4.2.4.3. Impact of Weather Factors on the Population Fluctuations of P. perpusilla, on Cumulative Basis, for Both the Study Years

The results, pertaining to the impact of weather factors, on the population of P. perpusilla, for both years of study, on cumulative basis, are given in Table 6. It is evident from the results that the relative humidity showed a maximum impact (25.2%) on the population fluctuations of the pest, followed by an average temperature (10.2%), minimum temperature (9.0%), maximum temperature (6.3%) and rainfall (1.6%). The 100 R2 value was calculated to be 52.3, when the effect of all the weather factors, was computed together.

45 Table 3. THE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT VALUES (r), BETWEEN THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, PER LEAF, ON SUGARCANE AND WEATHER FACTORS, DURING 2006 AND 2007 INDIVIDUALLY AS WELL AS ON CUMMULATIVE BASIS

YEAR TEMPERATURE °C Relative Rainfall Maximum Minimum Average Humidity (mm) (%) 2006 -0.294 0.516 * -0.089 0.898 ** 0.225 2007 -0.497 * 0.155 -0.401 0.651 ** 0.131 Cumulative -0.251 0.299 -0.276 0.636 ** 0.162

* = Significant at P < 0.05. ** Significant at P < 0.01.

46 Table 4. THE IMPACT OF WEATHER FACTORS, ON THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, DURING 2006

Regression Equations R2 100R2 Impact (%) Y = 5.4065 – 0.4021 X1 0.086 8.6 8.6 *Y = -2.4069 – 0.4062 X1 + 1.5329 *X2 0.355 35.5 26.9 Y = 2.6661 – 0.2965 X1 + 1.7316 X2 – 1.1942 X3 0.384 38.4 2.9 **Y=-3.5551+0.0804 X1 0.2902 X2–0.0524 X3+0.6521 **X4 0.818 81.8 43.4 ** Y=-3.2164+0.0604 X1+0.0604 X2+0.1991 X2-0.0291 0.821 82.1 0.3 X3+0.6768**X4–0.0260 X5

R2 = Coefficient of Determination * = Significant at P < 0.05. ** Significant at P < 0.01.

Y = Pyrilla Population X1 = Maximum Temperature °C X2 = Minimum Temperature °C X3 = Average Temperature °C X4 = RH % X5 = RF (mm)

47 Table 5. THE IMPACT OF WEATHER FACTORS, ON THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, DURING 2007

Regression Equations R2 100R2 Impact (%) *Y = 29.8590 – 4.3210 *X1 0.245 24.5 24.5 Y = 20.7072 – 4.6211 *X1 + 2.1857 X2 0.298 29.8 5.3 Y = 22.1090 – 3.3108 X1 + 2.6477 X2 – 2.1110 X3 0.322 32.2 2.4 Y = - 0.6723+0.9740 X1+0.4236 X2–2.3530 X3+1.1612X4 0.455 45.5 13.3 Y =-0.4997+2.5448 X1–3.8593 X2–1.5259 X3+2.2260 0.555 55.5 10.0 *X4–0.3538 X5

R2 = Coefficient of Determination * = Significant at P < 0.05.

Y = Pyrilla Population X1 = Maximum Temperature °C X2 = Minimum Temperature °C X3 = Average Temperature °C X4 = RH % X5 = RF (mm)

48 Table 6. THE IMPACT OF WEATHER FACTORS, ON THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, FOR BOTH YEARS, ON CUMULATIVE BASIS

Regression Equations R2 100R2 Impact (%) Y = 6.8300 – 0.6292 X1 0.063 6.3 6.3 Y = - 0.7049 – 0.6316 X1 + 1.4866 X2 0.153 15.3 9.0 *Y = 10.5405 – 0.2827 X1+ 2.069 *X2 – 2.8970 *X3 0.255 25.5 10.2 **Y=1.5428+0.2136X1+0.3855X2–1.3628 X3+0.784**X4 0.507 50.7 25.2 **Y = 2.7545+0.1644 X1–0.8304 X2–1.2229 X3+0.9066 0.523 52.3 1.6 X4–0.0878 X5

R2 = Coefficient of Determination * = Significant at P < 0.05. ** Significant at P < 0.01.

Y = Pyrilla Population X1 = Maximum Temperature °C X2 = Minimum Temperature °C X3 = Average Temperature °C X4 = RH % X5 = RF (mm)

49 4.3. PHYSIO-MORPHIC AND CHEMICAL PLANT-CHARACTERS Various physio-morphic (leaf width, leaf length, leaf spines density, cane length and cane diameter) and chemical-plant characters (nitrogen, phosphorus, total minerals, calcium, magnesium, fat, copper, zinc, POL, brix, CCS and Fiber contents) were determined, from nine selected genotypes, of sugarcane obtained from the preliminary screening trials. The objectives of these studies were to determine the variations of these factors, quantitatively, among the genotypes and calculate their impact on the population fluctuations of the pest, by computing the data into a simple correlation and multiple linear regression analysis. The results are presented, under the following sub-sections.

4.3.1. Physio-morphic Plant Characters 4.3.1.1. Leaf Width (cm) The data, regarding the leaf-width (cm) and their analysis of variance, are given in appendix 36. The results, showed a significant difference (P < 0.05) regarding the leaf- width in different selected genotypes of sugarcane. The comparison of means for the data is presented in (Table 7, column A). It is evident from the results that the maximum leaf- width was recorded to be 6.16 cm on the leaves of CPHS-35, and it did not show a significant variation from a leaf-width of 4.84 cm on S-2003-US-623. The latter mentioned figure also showed a non-significant variation in rest of the genotypes. The leaf-width in rest of the genotypes, ranged from a minimum of 3.80 to a maximum of 4.72 cm. From these results, it was concluded that the genotypes, CPHS-35 possessed a maximum leaf-width; whereas, HSF-240 had the minimum (3.80 cm) leaf-width.

4.3.1.2. Leaf -Length (cm) The data, regarding the leaf-length, in various selected genotypes of sugarcane along-with the analysis of variance, are shown in appendix 37. The results revealed a significant difference (P < 0.01) among the genotypes. The means were compared by a DMR Test, at P= 0.05 (Table 7, Column B). The genotype, S-2002-US-104 showed a maximum leaf-length, i.e., 160.33 cm and it differed, significantly, from those observed in all other genotypes. The minimum leaf-length was recorded to be 121.67 cm, on genotype, S-2002-US-114 and it also showed significant variations among the other genotypes. Non-significant difference was observed between HSF-240 and S-2003-US-

50 623 with a leaf-length of 151 and 152.00 cm, respectively. Similarly the genotypes S- 2002-US-140 and S-2003-US-394, with leaf-length of 142.00 and 143.33 cm, respectively which had a non significant difference with each other. The genotype CPF- 243, S-2003-US-809, and CPHS-35 with the leaf-length of 147.67, 128.33 and 138.33 cm, respectively showed a significant variation, with one another. From these results, it was concluded that the genotype, S-2002-US-104 possessed the maximum leaf-length; whereas, S-2002-US-114, had the minimum.

4.3.1.3. Leaf-Spine Density (cm2) The data, pertaining to the leaf-spine density, on different selected genotypes of sugarcane and their analysis of variance, are shown in Appendix 38. The results revealed highly significant differences among the genotypes. The means, were compared by a DMR Test at P=0.05 (Table 7, Column C). It is clear from the results that the genotype, CPF-243 showed a maximum leaf-spine density, i.e., 31.37 cm2 and it did not differ, significantly, from the spine densities of 30.80 and 30.27 cm2 on HSF-240 and S-2002- US-114, respectively. The minimum spine-density was recorded to be 5.10 cm2, on genotype S-2003-US-394 and was found at par, statistically, with that of 5.57 cm2 and 6.13 cm2, on S-2003-US-623 and CPHS-35, respectively. The genotypes S-2003--US- 809, S-2002-US-104 and S-2002-US-140 possessed the leaf-spine densities of 21.57 cm2, 19.03 cm2 and 18.80 cm2, respectively. The latter mentioned two genotypes did not show a significant difference with each other. From these results, it was concluded that the genotypes, S-2003-US-394 possessed the lowest leaf-spines, i.e., 5.10 cm2 and the genotype CPF-243, had a maximum leaf spines, i.e., 31.37 cm2 on its leaves.

4.3.1.4. Cane- Length (m) The data, relating to the cane- length, in different selected genotype of the sugarcane, along-with analysis of variance, are shown in Appendix 39. The results revealed a significant difference with (P < 0.01), among genotypes. The means were compared by a DMR Test, at P=0.05 (Table 7, Column D). The genotypes, S-2002-US- 104 showed a maximum cane-length, i.e., 3.56 m and it differed, significantly, from those observed on all other genotypes. The minimum cane-length, i.e., 2.27 m was recorded in genotype, CPF-243 and it did not show a significant difference with that of 2.33 m, in

51 genotypes S-2002-US-140. The latter mentioned genotypes also showed a non-significant difference, with those observed in HSF-240 with a cane-length of 2.37 meter. A non- significant difference was also observed between CPHS-35 and S-2003-US-394 with a cane-length of 2.90 m and 2.89 m, respectively. Similarly, the cane-length of 2.58m and 2.55m observed in genotypes S-2003-US-809 and S-2003-US-623, respectively, also showed a non-significant difference, with each other. The genotypes, S-2002-US-114 showed a cane-length of 2.67m and it differed significantly from those observed in all other genotypes. From these results, it was concluded that the genotypes, S-2002-US-104 showed a maximum cane-length; whereas, the genotype CPF-243, had the minimum cane-length.

4.3.1.5. Cane-Diameter (cm) The data relating to the cane-diameter and their analysis of variance are presented in Appendix 40. The results revealed a highly significant difference among the genotypes. The means were compared by a DMR Test at P-0.05 (Table 7, Column E). The maximum cane-diameter was recorded to be 2.68 cm in genotypes, S-2002-US-104 and it differed significantly from those observed in all other genotypes. The minimum cane-diameter was observed to be 2.45 cm in genotypes, CPHS-35 and it did not show a significant difference from a cane-diameter of 2.47, 2.49, 2.49, 2.49, and 2.50 cm in the cases of HSF-240, S-2003-US-809, S-2003-US-394, S-2003-US-623 and S-2002-US- 114, respectively. A non-significant variation was also found to exist between CPF-243 and S-2002-US-140, with a cane-diameter of 2.56 and 2.61 cm, respectively. From these results it was concluded that the genotype, S-2002-US-104, showed a maximum cane- diameter (2.68 cm); whereas, CPHS-35 had a minimum cane-diameter (2.45 cm).

52 Table 7. A COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE DATA, REGARDING PHYSIO-MORPHIC CHARACTERS OF THE PLANTS IN VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE

Name of Leaf width Leaf Length Hair Density Cane Length Cane Diameter Genotypes (cm) (cm) (cm2) (m) (cm) HSF-240 3.80 b 151.00 b 30.80 a 2.37 e 2.47 c CPF-243 3.82 b 147.67 c 31.37 a 2.27 f 2.56 b S-2002-US-114 3.92 b 121.67 g 30.27 a 2.67 c 2.50 c S-2003-US-809 4.43 b 128.33 f 21.57 b 2.58 d 2.49 c S-2002-US-140 4.51 b 142.00 d 18.80 c 2.33 ef 2.61 b S-2002-US-104 4.58 b 160.33 a 19.03 c 3.56 a 2.68 a CPHS-35 6.16 a 138.33 e 6.13 d 2.90 b 2.45 c S-2003-US-394 4.72 b 143.33 d 5.10 d 2.89 b 2.49 c S-2003-US-623 4.84 ab 152.00 b 5.57 d 2.55 d 2.49 c LSD at 5% 0.13 3.08 1.89 0.07 0.05

Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different.

53 4.3.2. Chemical Plant-Factors 4.3.2.1. Nitrogen Contents (%) The data and their analysis of variance, pertaining to the nitrogen contents, in the leaves of various selected sugarcane genotypes, are depicted in Appendix 41. The results revealed a significant difference (P < 0.01) among the genotypes. The means were compared by a DMR Test at P=0.05 (Table 8, Column A). The maximum nitrogen percentage was recorded to be 2.27 percent in the leaves of S-2003-US-623 and it did not differ, significantly, from those observed in the leaves of S-2003-US-394 and CPHS-35, with 2.23 and 2.19 percent nitrogen contents, respectively. The minimum nitrogen contents, were recorded to be 1.85% in the leaves of S-2002-US-114 and it also did not show a significant variation from those found in the leaves of CPF-243 and HSF-240, with 1.86% and 1.89% nitrogen contents, respectively. A non-significant variation, was also found to exist between S-2002-US-140 and S-2002-US-104 with nitrogen contents of 2.09 and 2.10%, respectively. The genotype, S-2003-US-809, showed a nitrogen percentage of 1.97%, in their leaves, which differed, significantly, from those found in all other genotypes. From these results, it was concluded that S-2003-US-623 showed maximum nitrogen-percentage, i.e., 2.27; whereas, S-2002-US-114 showed a minimum percentage of nitrogen, i.e., 1.85%.

4.3.2.2. Phosphorus (%) The results, relating to the phosphorus contents, in the leaves of various selected genotypes of sugarcane along with analysis of the variance, are presented in Appendix 42. The results revealed a highly significant difference among the genotypes. The means were compared by a DMR Test, at P=0.05 (Table 8, Column B). The genotypes HSF- 240, CPF-243 and S-2002-US-114 showed a maximum phosphorus percentage in their leaves, i.e., 2.11 for each of them and it did not differ significantly with one another. The minimum phosphorus contents were recorded to be 0.168% in the leaves of CPHS-35, and did not differ significantly from 0.169, 0.170, 0.182, 0.183 and 0.185% phosphorus, in the leaves of S-2003-US-394, S0-2003-US-623, S-2002-US-104, S-2003-US-809 and S-2002-US-140, respectively. From these results it was concluded that the genotypes resistant to the pest, possessed a higher phosphorus percentage, in their leaves; whereas,

54 the genotypes comparatively susceptible to the pest, showed a minimum phosphorus percentage, in their leaves.

4.3.2.3. Total Minerals (%) The data, pertaining to the total minerals, in the leaves of various selected genotypes of sugarcane along with their analysis of variance, are shown in appendix 43. The results revealed a non-significant variation among the genotypes. The means were given in Table 8, column C. As the genotypes differed non-significantly, regarding total minerals, therefore nothing could be drawn out of these results. However, the total minerals, in the leaves of various selected genotypes, ranged from a minimum of 6.65 to a maximum of 6.75 percent.

4.3.2.4. Calcium-Contents (%) Significant variations were found to exist among genotypes, regarding the calcium percentage, in their leaves (Appendix 44; Table 8, Column D). The maximum calcium percentage was recorded to be 0.16 percent in the leaves of each of S-2003-US- 809 and S-2002-US-140 and it did not show a significant variation, with each other. The minimum calcium percentage was recorded to be 0.14 in the leaves of HSF-240 and it did not show a significant difference with the remaining genotypes that showed 0.15% calcium-contents in their leaves.

4.3.2.5. Magnesium-Contents (%) Differences were found to be significant, among the genotypes, regarding the magnesium-contents, in their leaves (Appendix 45; Table 8, Column E). The maximum magnesium-contents were recorded to be 0.165 percent, in the leaves of CPHS-35, and it did not show a significant difference with those observed in the leaves of S-2002-US-104 and S-2003-US-623, each with 0.160 percent, magnesium-contents. The minimum magnesium-contents were recorded to be 0.144%, in the leaves of HSF-240, and which did not show a significant variation with the magnesium-contents of 0.146 and 0.148% in the leaves of CPF-243 and S-2002-US-114, respectively. The genotype S-2003-US-394 possessed 0.152% magnesium-contents, in their leaves, and showed a non-significant difference with 0.153%, 0.156%, 0.148% and 0.146% in the leaves of S-2002-US-140, S-

55 2003-US-809, S-2002-US-114 and CPF-243, respectively. From these results, it was concluded that the genotype, CPHS-35, showed a maximum magnesium percentage, in their leaves; whereas, HSF-240 had minimum magnesium-contents, in their leaves.

4.3.2.6. Fat-Contents (%) The results, showed non-significant differences, among the genotypes, regarding the fat-percentage, in their leaves (Appendix 46; Table 8, Column F). As the results were found to be non-significant therefore, nothing could be concluded. However, S-2002-US- 140, showed the minimum fat-contents, i.e., 2.16%; whereas, the maximum percentage of fat was recorded to be 2.19, in the leaves of each HSF-240, S-2002-US-114, S-2003-US- 394 and S-2003-US-623.

4.3.2.7. Carbohydrates (%) The data, and their analysis of variance, regarding the CHO-contents in the leaves of various selected genotypes of sugarcane, are given in Appendix 47. The results revealed significant differences (P < 0.01). The means were compared by a DMR Test at P=0.05 (Table 8, Column G). The maximum CHO-percentage was recorded to be 54.20, in the leaves of S-2003-US-623 and it did not differ, significantly, from that of 53.78 and 53.68%, in the leaves of S-2003-US-394 and CPHS-35, respectively. The minimum CHO-contents were observed to be 48.96%, in the leaves of HSF-240, and it showed non-significant difference with those found in the leavers of CPF-243 and S-2002-US- 114, with 78.74 and 48.92% CHO-contents, respectively. Non-significant variations were found to exist among S-2003-US-809, S-2002-US-140 and S-2002-US-104 with 50.72, 51.12, 51.62%, CHO-contents, respectively. From these results, it was observed that susceptible genotypes showed a maximum CHO-percentage in their leaves; whereas, the comparatively resistant genotype, to P. perpusilla, showed minimum CHO-contents in their leaves.

4.3.2.8. Copper-Contents (ppm) Significant variations were found to exist among genotypes, regarding the copper- contents, in their leaves (Appendix 48; Table 8, Column H). The maximum copper- contents were recorded to be 3.79 ppm in the leaves of CPF-243, and it did not show a

56 significant difference from 3.77 ppm, 3.78 ppm, 3.74 ppm and 3.71 ppm, in the leaves of HSF-240, S-2002-US-114, S-2003-US-394 and CPHS-35, respectively. The minimum copper-contents were observed to be 3.64 ppm, in the leaves of S-2003-US-809 and it did not show a significant variation with 3.68 ppm, 3.70 ppm, 3.71 ppm, and 3.70 ppm, in the leaves of S-2002-US-140, S-2002-US-104, CPHS-35 and S-2003-US-623, respectively. From these results it was concluded that the genotype CPF-243 possessed the maximum copper-contents, in their leaves; whereas, S-2003-US-809 showed the minimum copper- contents.

4.3.2.9. Zinc (ppm) The data and their analysis of variance, regarding the zinc-contents, in the leaves of various selected genotypes of sugarcane, are shown in Appendix 49. The results show a significant difference among the genotypes (P < 0.01). The means were compared by a DMR Test at P=0.05 (Table 8, Column I). The maximum zinc-contents were recorded to be 20.28 ppm, in the leaves of S-2002-US-114 and it did not show a significant difference with those observed in the leaves of HSF-240 and CPF-243, with 20.21 and 20.20 ppm, zinc-contents, respectively. Non-significant difference was also found to exist between S-2003-US-809 and S-2002-US-140, with 19.39 ppm and 19.20 ppm zinc- contents, respectively. The minimum zinc-contents were found to be 17.19 ppm, in the leaves of CPHS-35 and it differed, significantly, from those observed in the leaves of all other genotypes. The genotype S-2003-US=-394, possessed 18.33 ppm, zinc-contents in their leaves and also showed a significant variation with those observed in the leaves of all other genotypes. The zinc-contents of 18.80 ppm, in the leaves of S-2002-US-104, also differed, significantly, from those observed in the leaves of all other genotype. Non- significant variation was found to exist between S-2003-US-623 and S-2002-US-140 with 19.09 and 19.20 ppm, zinc-contents, respectively. From these results, it was concluded that the genotype, S-2002-US-114 had maximum zinc-contents; whereas, CPHS-35 had minimum zinc-contents in their leaves.

57 4.3.3 SUGAR ANALYSIS 4.3.3.1 POL (%) Variations were found to be significant among the genotypes, regarding POL (Appendix 50; Table 8, Column J). The maximum POL contents were recorded to be 19.47% in the sugar-contents of genotype CPF-243, and it did not show a significant difference with S-2002-US-114, showing 19.12% POL. The minimum POL contents were observed to be 18.46%, in the sugar-contents of CPHS-35 and it did not show a significant variation with those observed in the sugar-contents of S-2003-US-623, S- 2003-US-394, S-2002-US-140 and S-2003-US-809, with 18.59%, 18.65%, 18.63% and 18.65%, respectively. The genotype, HSF-240 showed 19.05% POL, in its sugar-contents and it did not show significant variation with those observed in the sugar-contents of S- 2002-US-114, S-2003-US-809, S-2002-US-140, S-2002-US-104 and S-2003-US-394 with 19.12, 18.65, 18.63, 18.92 and 18.65% POL, respectively. From these results, it was concluded that the genotype, CPF-243 showed maximum POL-contents; whereas, CPHS- 35 had the minimum POL-contents in their sugars.

4.3.3.2 Brix-Contents (%) Variations were found to be significant among the genotypes, regarding the brix- percentage (appendix 51; Table 8, Column K). The results revealed that the maximum brix-percentage was recorded to be 22.33 and it differed, significantly, from those found in the sugar-contents of all other genotypes. The minimum brix-contents were recorded to be 20.55% in the sugar-contents of S-2002-US-104, which did not show a significant difference with those found in the sugar-contents of S-2003-US-394, S-2003-US-623, S- 2003-US-809, S-2002-US-114 and CPF-243, with a brix-percentage of 20.69, 20.75, 20.83, 20.87 and 20.89, respectively. The brix-contents of 21.34 and 21.62%, in the sugar-contents of CPHS-35 and S- 2002-US-140, did not show a significant difference with each other.

4.3.3.3 Commercial Cane-Sugar (CCS) The data, pertaining to the CCS contents, in the sugar of various selected genotypes of sugarcane, along with their analysis of variance are presented in Appendix 52. The results show a significant difference (P<0.01) among the genotypes. The

58 comparison of means for the data is shown in Table 8, Column L. The maximum CCS- contents were recorded to be 13.22% in the sugar-contents of HSF-240 which did not show a significant difference with 13.17, 12.97, 12.97 and 13.16% CCS in the sugar contents of S-2002-US-104, CPHS-35, S-2003-US-394 and S-2003-US-623, respectively. Minimum percentage of CCS was recorded to be 12.42 in the genotype, S- 2003-US-809 and it did not show a significant variation from 12.60%, 12.70% and 12.72%, in the sugar-contents of S-2002-US-114, CPS-243 and S-2002-US-140, respectively. From these results, it was concluded that HSF-240 showed a maximum CCS; whereas, S-2003-US-809 possessed the minimum CCS.

4.3.3.4 Fiber-Contents (%) The data and their analysis of variance, relating to the fiber-contents in different selected genotypes of sugarcane, are given in Appendix 53. The analysis of variance for the same revealed a highly significant variation, among genotypes. The means were compared by a DMR Test at P=0.05 (Table 8, Column M). The maximum fiber-contents were recorded to be 14.80% in sugar-contents of S-2002-US-114 that did not show a significant difference with 14.77%, each, in CPF-243 and HSF-240, respectively. The minimum fiber-contents were found to be 11.92% in CPHS-35 which differed significantly, from those observed in all other genotypes. A non-significant difference was found to exist between S-2003-US-394 and S-2003-US-623 showing 12.18 and 12.30% of the fiber contents, respectively. Similarly, the genotypes S-2003-US-809, S- 2002-US-140 and S-2002-US-104, showed 13.73, 13.83 and 13.85% fiber-contents, which did not show a significant difference with one another. From these results, it was concluded that the genotype, S-2002-US-114 showed the maximum fiber-percentage; whereas, the genotype CPHS-35 possessed the minimum fiber-contents, in their sugar.

59 Table 8. A COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE DATA, REGARDING CHEMICAL CHARACTERS OF PLANTS, IN VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE

Name of N Phosp. Total Ca. Mg Fat CHO Cu Zn POL Brix CCS Fiber Genotypes Min. HSF-240 1.89 0.211 6.75 0.14 b 0.144 2.19 48.96 3.77 20.21 19.05 22.33 13.22 14.77 d a f c ab a bc a a a CPF-243 1.86 0.211 6.69 0.15 b 0.146 2.18 48.74 3.79 20.20 19.47 20.89 12.70 14.77 d a ef c a a a cd bc a S-2002-US-114 1.85 0.211 6.65 0.15 b 0.148 2.19 48.92 3.78 20.28 19.12 20.87 12.60 14.80 d a def c ab a ab cd c a S-2003-US-809 1.97 0.183 6.68 0.16 a 0.156 2.18 50.72 3.64 19.39 18.65 20.83 12.42 13.73 c b bc b d b cde cd c b S-2002-US-140 2.09 0.185 6.69 0.16 a 0.153 2.16 51.12 3.68 19.20 18.63 21.62 12.72 13.83 b b cd b cd bc cde b bc b S-2002-US-104 2.10 0.182 6.69 0.15 b 0.160 2.17 51.62 3.70 18.80 18.92 20.55 13.17 13.85 b b ab b bcd d bcd d a b CPHS-35 2.19 0.168 6.70 0.15 b 0.165 2.18 53.68 3.71 17.19 18.46 21.34 12.97 11.92 a b a a abcd f e bc ab d S-2003-US-394 2.23 0.169 6.67 0.15 b 0.152 2.19 53.78 3.74 18.33 18.65 20.69 12.97 12.18 a b cde a abc e cde d ab c S-2003-US-623 2.27 0.170 6.67 0.15 b 0.160 2.19 54.20 3.70 19.09 18.49 20.75 12.16 12.30 a b ab a bcd c de d a c LSD at 5% 0.07 0.01 Ns 0.005 0.005 Ns 0.90 0.07 0.24 0.40 0.51 0.31 0.18

Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different by DMR Test.

60 4.3.4. Role of Physio-morphic Plant-Characters in the Expression of Resistance 4.3.4.1. Correlation Coefficient Values The results, pertaining to the correlation coefficient values, between the population of P. perpusilla and physio-morphic plant-characters, are given in Table 9. It was evident from the results, that the leaf-width showed a positive and significant correlation (P < 0.01) with the population of P. perpusilla, having an r-value of 0.644. The leaf-spine had a negative effect and a significant correlation (P < 0.01) with the population of the pest, having a r-value of 0.978. Positive and significant correlation (P < 0.05) between pest-population and cane-length was observed with a correlation coefficient values of 0.428. Leaf-length and cane-diameter did not show a significant correlation with the pest population.

4.3.4.2. Multivariate Linear Regression Models The results, regarding the Multivariate Linear Regression analysis, alongwith the coefficient of determination values, between the physio-morphic plant-characters and the population of P. perpusilla are given in Table 10. The results revealed that all the regression models showed significant impact on the population of the pest. Leaf-width and leaf-spines, showed the maximum impact on the population fluctuation of the pest, i.e., 41.5 and 51.9%, respectively. Leaf-length showed 2.3% role in the population fluctuation of the pest; whereas, cane-length and cane-diameter showed 0.7 and 0.5% role, in the population fluctuations of the pest. The 100 R2 values, was observed to be 96.9 when the effect of all physio-morphic plant-characters were computed together. From these results it was concluded, that leaf-spine character was the most important factors followed by leaf-width.

61 Table 9. THE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT VALUES BETWEEN THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla AND PHSIO-MORPHIC PLANT CHARACTERS

PHSICO-MORPHOLOGICAL PLANT CHARACTERS r-value Leaf Area 0.644 ** Leaf Length 0.187 Leaf Spines Density -0.978 ** Cane length 0.428 * Cane Diameter -0.166

* = Significant at P < 0.05. ** Significant at P < 0.01.

62 Table 10. THE MULTIVARIATE LINEAR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, BETWEEN PHYSIO-MORPHIC PLANT CHARACTERS AND THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla

Regression Equation R2 100R2 Impact (%) **Y = -2.2795+2.4606**x1 0.415 41.5 41.5 **Y = -4.8860+2.4303**x1+0.2239x2 0.438 43.8 2.3 **Y = 4.6756+0.1235x1+0.03568x2-0.5167**x3 0.957 95.7 51.9 **Y = 3.9776+0.04753x1+0.00937x2-0.507**x3+0.6425*x4 0.964 96.4 0.7 **Y=0.4365+0.00915x1-0.0371x2-0.5322**x3+0.4254x4+2.6868x5 0.969 96.9 0.5

Where: X1 = Leaf width (cm) X2 = Leaf Length (cm) X3 = Leaf Spines Density (cm2) X4 = Cane Length (m) X5 = Cane Diameter (cm)

63 4.3.5. Role of Chemical Plant-Characters in the Expression of Resistance 4.3.5.1. Correlation Between the Chemical Plant-Characters and the Population of P. perpusilla The correlation coefficient values, between the population of P. perpusilla and chemical plant-characters, are given in Table 11. Nitrogen, Magnesium and CHO, showed a positive and highly significant correlation with the pest- population having r- values of 0.944, 0.727 and 0.976, respectively. The CCS-contents, also, exerted a positive and significant correlation, at a P level of 0.05, with 0.396 r-value. Phosphorus, POL,Zn and fiber contents showed a negative and highly significant correlation with the pest-population having r-values of 0.908, 0.726 and 0.949, respectively. The copper- contents showed a negative and significant correlation with a P level of 0.05, having an r- value of 0.435, with the population of the pest. Total-minerals, calcium, fat contents and brix percentage in the sugarcane varieties, showed a non-significant correlation with the pest- population.

4.3.5.2. Multivariate Linear Regression Models The results, regarding the impact of various chemical plant-characters, on the population fluctuation of the pest, in the form of multivariate linear regression models, along with the coefficient of determination values, are shown in Table 12. It was evident from the results, that all the models exerted a significant impact on the pest-population, when the effect of chemical plant-characters was computed, singly, as well as, in various combinations. Furthermore, the impact of nitrogen was found to be the most significant, which showed a maximum role, i.e., 89.1% in the population fluctuations of the pest, followed by that of phosphorus, with a 3.7% role. All the other factors were not as important, as they showed the lowest or a zero percent contribution, towards the population fluctuation of the pest.

64 Table 11. THE CORRELATION COEFFICIENT VALUES BETWEEN THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla AND DIFFERENT CHEMICAL PLNAT CHARACTERS

CHEMICAL PLANT CHARACTERS r- value Nitrogen 0.944 ** Phosphorous -0.908 ** Total Minerals -0.016 Calcium -0.037 Magnesium 0.727 ** Fat -0.198 CHO 0.976** Copper -0.435 * Zinc -0.791 ** POL -0.726 ** Brix -0.207 CCS 0.396 * Fiber -0.949**

*= Significant at P < 0.05 ** = Significant at P < 0.01

65 Table 12. THE MULTIVARIATE LINEAR ANALYSIS OF THE VARIANCE, BETWEEN CHEMICAL PLANT CHARACTERS AND OPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla

Regression Equation R2 100R2 Impact (%) **Y = -18.3022+10.349**x1 0.891 89.1 89.1 **Y = 12.6522+8.8928**x1-28.538**x2 0.928 92.8 3.7 **Y = 20.9334+8.9649**x1-28.193**x2-3.2398x3 0.930 93.0 0.2 **Y = 22.0274+8.9417**x1-28.302**x2-3.2005x3-1.3359x4 0.930 93.0 0.0 **Y = 16.9068+8.8244**x1-26.069**x2-2.9778x3-4.6986x4+6.8960x5 0.930 93.0 0.0 **Y=-18.6585+8.048**x1-22.005*x2-4.8523x3-6.9555x4+23.694x5 0.937 93.7 0.7 +16.316x6 **Y = -24.0386+3.7262*x1-10.122x2-0.6078x3+2.5798x4+0.9892x5 0.969 96.9 3.2 + 4.5721x6+2.9139**x7 **Y = -7.5929+3.9063**x1-7.3141x2-1.6835x3-3.0675x4-3.7924x5 0.971 97.1 0.2 +3.8452x6+2.9809**x7-3.4479x8 **Y = -7.9785+3.9187*x1-7.4326x2-1.6239x3-3.0384x4-3.7297x5 0.971 97.1 0.0 +3.8491x6+2.9861**x7-3.4171x8+0.0276x9 ** Y = -10.28747+3.7434*x1-7.5408x2-1.4418x3-2.7206x4-3.7451x5 0.971 97.1 0.0 +3.6690x6 +3.1049**x7-3.6548x8-+0.0037x9+4.5799x10 **Y = -9.235+3.2300x1–5.7742x2–2.9326x3–3.5084x4–4.4846x5+4.6607x6 0.973 97.3 0.2 +3.3514 **x7 – 4.1302 x8 – 0.0187 x9 + 0.6711 x10 + 0.0528 x11 **Y=-6.802+3.6497x1–4.8629x2–2.7109x3–5.1532x4-4.5151x5+4.2859x6 0.974 97.4 0.1 +3.2957**x7–4.4290x8–0.0383x9+0.6772x10+0.0502x11–0.3849x12 **Y=-19.9628+2.5968x1–4.8256x2–3.4394x3–3.3002x4+14.457x5+7.1327x6 0.983 98.3 0.9 +2.0673*x7-1.7928x8+0.6090x9+0.8476x10+0.04224x11-0.0078x12 -1.6589**x13

Where: X1 = Nitrogen (%) X2 = Phosphorous (%) X3 = Total Minerals (%) X4 = Calcium (%) X5 = Magnesium (%) X6 = Fat (%) X7 = Carbohydrates (%) X8 = Copper (ppm) X9 = Zinc (ppm) X10 =POL (%) X11 = Brix (%) X12 = CCS (%) X13 = Fiber (%)

66 4.4. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT Various control methods, such as, cultural control (fortnightly hoeing, detrashing of older leaves two times, trash mulching ), biological control (placing of cocoons of Epiricania melanoleuca 2500 cocoons per ha, four times in the season from June 15 to September 15), chemical control (carbofuron @ 35 kg/ha starting from one month after sowing and coupled with earthing up), were applied, singly, and in their possible integrations, viz., biological + cultural control, biological + chemical control, cultural + chemical control and cultural + chemical + biological control on the resistant genotype (HSF-240) obtained from screening trials, with the objective to minimize the pest attack and find the most economic and effective method for control, by determining the cost benefit ratio. The results are presented, as under:

4.4.1. IPM Impact on the Population of P. perpusilla 4.4.1.1. Treatment Effects on the Population of P. perpusilla The data regarding the population of P. perpusilla, on resistant genotype of sugarcane, in various control methods, at different dates of observations, are given in Appendix 54. The analysis of variance for the same is shown in Table 13, which revealed significant differences (P < 0.01), among the dates of observation, various control methods and in their various interactional combinations. The means, were compared by a DMR Test, at P=0.05 and the results are presented in Table 13 a. The application of biological + cultural + chemical control, in integration, resulted in a minimum population of P. perpusilla, and it did not differ, significantly, from other treatments, where cultural + chemical and biological + chemical control, were applied in combination each, showing 0.42/leaf population of P. perpusilla. The maximum population of the pest was recorded to be 3.65/leaf, in those treatments, where cultural methods were practiced and it differed significantly from those observed in all other treatments. The biological and chemical control methods, when applied, singly, resulted in 0.99 and 0.64/leaf population of the P. perpusilla, which differed significantly with each other. The latter mentioned figures, showed a non-significant variation with those where biological and cultural control methods were integrated, together and resulted in 0.53/leaf population of the pest. From these results, it was observed that the plots, where cultural+ chemical + biological methods, were integrated, together, proved to be the best treatment, for the control of the pest.

67 Table 13. AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE DATA, REGARDING THE EFFECT OF VARIOUS METHODS, FOR THE CONTROL OF Pyrilla perpusilla, IN THE RESISTANT VARIETY OF SUGARCANE, AT VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATION

SOV D.F. M.S. F. Ratio Replications 2 0.003 0.06 Dates of observation (D) 9 31.159 628.45 ** Methods (M) 7 199.647 4026.62 ** D X M 63 10.680 215.40 ** Error 158 0.050

CV = 12.23 ** = Significant at P < 0.01.

68 Table 13 a. A COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, ON RESISTANT VARIETY OF THE SUGARCANE, IN VARIOUS CONTROL METHODS

Control Measures Average T1 = Cultural Control 3.65 b T2 = Biological Control 0.99 c T3 = Chemical Control 0.64 d T4 = Biological control + Cultural Control 0.53 de T5 = Biological Control + Chemical Control 0.42 ef T6 = Cultural + Chemical Control 0.42 ef T7 = Cultural + Chemical Control + Biological Control 0.32 f T8 = Control 7.59 a Average LSD = 0.13

Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different by DMR Test at P = 0.05

69 4.4.1.2. Treatment Effect, at Various Dates of Observation

The effect of treatment was significant, at various dates of observation. There was no need to describe these results, because the effect of control treatments was computed with the effect of other treatments.

4.4.1.3. Interactional Effect Among the Dates of Observation & Various Control

Methods

The results regarding the interactional response among various treatments, and dates of observations, are presented in Table 14. Significant differences were found to exist, among various treatments and dates of observation. The population of P. perpusilla, significantly reduced in all the treatments, as against the control. Maximum control of the pest, was recorded at all the dates of observation, in those treatments, where cultural + chemical + biological control methods, were applied in an integrated form, followed by the biological + chemical, cultural + chemical and biological + cultural control measures. All the treatments had a significant control of the population, against the control treatment, at all the dates of observation.

70 Table 14. A COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, ON RESISTANT VARIETY OF SUGARCANE, IN VARIOUS METHODS OF CONTROL, AT VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATION.

Methods Interaction among Dates of Observation and Various Control Methods (LSD = 0.36) 15.05.08 31.05.08 16.06.08 01.07.08 16.07.08 31.07.08 15.08.08 30.08.08 15.09.08 30.09.08 Av. T1 0.60 0.83 1.30 2.90 1.90 4.07 5.27 7.20 6.23 6.20 3.65 stuvwxyz[\ qrstuvw nop k m i h f g g b T2 0.47 0.67 0.93 1.63 1.10 1.03 1.07 0.97 0.97 1.07 0.99 vwxyz[\]^ qrstuvwxyz qrstu mn opq pqrs pqr pqrst pqrst opqr c T3 0.23 0.27 0.57 0.70 0.43 0.63 0.70 0.93 0.83 1.07 0.64 [\]^ yz[\]^ tuvwxyz[\]^ qrstuvwxy wxyz[\]^ rstuvwxyz[ qrstuvwxy pqestu qrstuvw opqr d T4 0.23 0.13 0.33 0.60 0.37 0.50 0.70 0.77 0.77 0.90 0.53 [\]^ ] ^ xyz[\]^ stuvwxyz[\ [\]^ uvwxyz[\]^ qrstuvwxy qrstuvwx qrstuvwx pqrstuv de T5 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.47 0.20 0.47 0.57 0.70 0.67 0.77 0.42 ^ ^ \]^ vwxyz[\]^ [\]^ vwxyz[\]^ tuvwxyz[\] qrstuvwxy qrstuvwxyz qrstuvwx ef T6 0.23 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.27 0.37 0.53 0.67 0.60 0.77 0.42 [\]^ [\]^ [\]^ wxyz[\]^ yz[\]^ xyz[\]^ tuvwxyz[\]^ qrstuvwxyz qrstuvwxyz[\ qrstuvwx ef T7 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.27 0.10 0.33 0.43 0.57 0.53 0.73 0.32 ^ ^ yz[\]^ ^ xyz[\]^ wxyz[\]^ tuvwxyz[\]^ tuvwxyz[\] qrstuvwx f T8 0.93 1.47 2.50 6.50 3.70 8.33 10.67 13.80 12.60 15.43 7.59 pqrstu No l g j e d b c a a Av. LSD 0.35 0.47 0.76 1.68 1.01 1.97 1.49 3.20 2.90 3.67 = 0.13 I I h f g e d b c a

Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different by DMR Test at P = 0.05 Where: T1 = Cultural Control T2 = Biological Control T3 = Chemical Control T4 = Biological + Cultural Control T5 = Biological + Chemical Control T6 = Cultural + Chemical Control T7 = Cultural + Chemical + Biological Control T8 = Control

71 4.4.2. IPM Impact on the Sugarcane Yield The data, regarding the cane-yield (monds per ha), in different treatments, are given in Appendix 55. The analysis of variance of the same, showed a highly significant difference, among the treatments (Table 15). The means, were compared by a DMR Test, at P=0.05 (Table 16). It is evident from the results, that the maximum yield (3415.67 monds/ha), was obtained in those plots where cultural + chemical and biological control methods, were integrated and it differed significantly from those recorded in all other treatments. The application of cultural method, yielded the minimum output, i.e., 2214.33 monds/ha of the cane-yield and, also, differed significantly from those obtained in all other treatments. The descending order of other treatments was that cultural + chemical control> biological + chemical control> chemical control> biological + cultural control and biological control with 3284.33, 3198.33, 2804.00, 2719.00 and 2571.33 monds/ha, respectively. In general it was observed, from these results, that the application of chemical insecticide (carbofuran) alone, or in combination with other control methods proved to be the best and resulted in a maximum cane-yield, as compared to those methods, where chemical control was not applied.

4.4.3. Cost Benefit Ratio The results, pertaining to the cost benefit ratio, in term of the total income, net gain over check and CBR, are shown in Table 17. The results revealed that a maximum cost benefit ratio (1:16.81) was observed in those treatments, where biological control was applied singly. The net gain over check to the farmers was calculated to be Rs. 64733/- and was not, so encouraging, as those treatments where cultural+ chemical + biological control methods, were integrated which the return net-gain to the farmer Rs. 149167/-. But, in this treatment the cost benefit ratio was obtained to be 1: 9.44 and this was due to a high treatment cost, i.e., Rs.15800/-. The minimum cost benefit ratio was observed to be 1:6.45 in those treatments, where cultural methods were applied. The cost benefit ratios of 11.53, 11.28, 9.35 and 13.96 were obtained in those plots, where cultural + chemical, biological + chemical, biological + cultural and chemical control were applied, respectively. From these results, it was observed that although the cost benefit ratio, was maximum in the biological control application, yet the net gain over check, was not so encouraging as compared to those treatments, where cultural + chemical + biological control, were integrated. Thus, this treatment proved to be good for recommendation to the farmers.

72 Table 15. AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE AND COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE DATA, REGARDING CANE-YIELD (MONDS/HA), IN DIFFERENT TREATMENTS

SOV D.F. M.S. F. Ratio Replications 2 387.375 1.00 Treatments 7 828212.327 2132.77 ** Error 14 388.327

CV = 0.71 ** = Significant at P < 0.01.

Table 16. A COMPARISON OF MEANS FOR THE DATA, REGARDING THE CANE-YIELD (MONDS/HA), IN DIFFERENT TREATMENTS

Name of Treatment Means T1 = Cultural Control 2214.33 g T2 = Biological Control 2571.33 f T3 = Chemical Control 2804.00 d T4 = Biological control + Cultural Control 2719.00 e T5 = Biological Control + Chemical Control 3198.33 c T6 = Cultural + Chemical Control 3284.33 b T7 = Cultural + Chemical Control + Biological Control 3415.67 a T8 = Control 1924.00 h LSD at 5% 34.50

Means sharing similar letters are not significantly different by DMR Test

73 Table 17. THE COST BENEFIT RATIO

Name of Treatment Total Net Gain Treatment CBR Income Over Cost (Rs) (Rs.) Check T1 = Cultural Control 221433 29033 4500 1:6.45 T2 = Biological Control 257133 64733 4000 1:16.81 T3 = Chemical Control 280400 88000 7300 1:13.96 T4 = Biological + Cultural Control 271900 79500 8500 1:9.35 T5 = Biological + Chemical Control 319833 127433 11300 1:11.28 T6 = Cultural + Chemical Control 328433 136033 11800 1:11.53 T7 = Cultural + Chemical + Biological Control 341567 149167 15800 1:9.44 T8 = Control 192400

74 Chapter-5

DISCUSSION

The study was conducted to integrate various control methods, like, resistant variety, cultural, biological and chemical for the control of P. perpusilla on sugarcane, during 2006 and 2007, in the research area of Sugarcane Research Institute (AARI), Faisalabad. Twenty genotypes of sugarcane, viz. HSF-240, CPF-243, S-2000-US-114, S- 2003-US-165, SPF-213, SPF-234, CP-77-400, S-2002-US-737, S-2002-US-50, S-2003- US-809, S-2002-US-140, S-2002-US-104, CP-72-2086, S-2002-US-133, S-2002-US- 447, HSF-242, HSF-245, CPHS-35, S-2003-US-394 and S-2003-US-623, were sown following an RCBD with three replications, during 2006, with the objective to screen out resistant and susceptible genotypes, based on the population density count, of P. perpusilla. From these studies nine genotypes; three showing resistant (HSF-240, CPF- 243 and S-2002-US-114), three showing susceptible (CPHS-35, S-2003-US-394 and S- 2003-US-623) and three (S-2003-US-80-9, S-2002-US-140 and S-2002-US-104) showing intermediate responses, were selected for the final studies, during 2007. These genotypes were sown under the same arrangements, mentioned above for the confirmation of the results, obtained in the preliminary screening trials. Physio-morphic and chemical plant-factors were also determined with the objective to find their impact on the resistance/susceptibility, of the pest. Role of weather, towards the population fluctuation of the pest was also determined by processing the data of both years of study, into simple correlations and a multiple linear regression analysis. Various control methods, like, biological, cultural and chemical (carbofuran), were applied, singly, and in their possible combinations, to a selected resistant genotype of sugarcane (HSF-240).

75 The results are discussed under the following sub-headings.

5.1. Host-Plant Resistance All the genotypes under study differed significantly, from one another, regarding the population of P. perpusilla, per leaf, during both the study years. The genotypes HSF- 240, CPF-243 and S-2002-US-114 were found to be comparatively resistant; whereas S- 2003-US-623, S-2003-US-394 and CPHS-35 were relatively susceptible, with a minimum population range of 4.03 to 4.30 insects per leaf and 13.01 to 13.67, per leaf, respectively. The host-plant susceptibility indices revealed that HSF-240, CPF-243 had the lowest HPSIs i.e., 5% each; whereas, S-2003-US-623, showed 18% HPSI, and were categorized as resistant and susceptible genotypes, respectively. The present findings are however, in line, but cannot be compared with those of Chaudhary et al. (1999), Kishore et al. 2002 and Shrivastava et al. 2003, who studied the response of various genotypes of sugarcane for resistance/susceptibility, other than those studied in the present dissertation.

5.2. Period of Abundance and Role of Weather in the Expression of Resistance In the present studies 1st week of August, during 2006, was found to be the most favourable period, which resulted in a maximum population of P. perpusilla, i.e., 17.88% at 35.14 °C of the maximum temperature, 25.75 °C minimum temperature, 30.72 °C average temperature, 76.85% RH and at 41.60 mm rainfall; whereas, during 2007, the last week of August, showed the highest population of P. perpusilla, per leaf, i.e., 31.02 at a maximum temperature of 37.40 °C, minimum temperature of 24.10 °C, average temperature of 30.80 °C, 65.30% of RH and 17mm of the rainfall. In general, it was observed that the month of August showed maximum population of the pest and it was found to be the most favourable period, for the pest-development. The present findings are in conformity with those of Mishra (2005), who reported that the month of July, August accelerate the multiplication of P. perpusilla; whereas Gangwar et al., (2008) reported that temperature above 40 °C and relative humidity less than 50% alongwith westerly wind will drastically reduce the population of Pyrilla and this condition, is likely to come during May-June. Furthermore, in the present studies, relative humidity exerted a significant and positive correlation with the pest-population, during both the study years separately, as well as on cumulative basis. Minimum temperature, during 2006, had a

76 positive and significant correlation (P < 0.05), while the maximum temperature, during 2007, showed a negative and significant correlation (P < 0.05). The present findings, can partially be compared with those of Singh and Kalra (1951), who stated that Pyrilla epidemic occurred when high humidity was coupled with low maximum temperature, during summer months and low rainfall and long intervals, during monsoon months, but in the present studies humidity, minimum and maximum temperature, showed maximum contribution towards the population fluctuations of the pest. The present findings, are not in conformity with those of Ganehiarachchi and Fernando (2000), who reported a negative correlation with rainfall and humidity and a positive correlation with the minimum temperature; whereas, in the present studies relative humidity showed a highly significant and positive correlation with the pest population. The present findings, however, are in conformity with those of Mishra (2005), who reported that Pyrilla is more active in the humid areas. The present findings cannot be compared with those of Brar and Bains (1979), Dhaliwal et al. (1987) due to differences in their materials and methods.

5.3. Physio-morphic and Chemical Plant-Resistance against P. perpusilla All the physio-morphic (leaf width, leaf length, leaf spine density, cane length and cane diameter) and chemical plant-characters (nitrogen, phosphorus, total minerals, calcium magnesium, fat, CHO, copper, zinc, POL, brix, CCS and fiber contents) showed a significant difference among genotypes except total minerals and fat contents. Amongst various physio-morphic plant-characters, leaf-width (P < 0.01) and cane-length (P < 0.05), with r-values 0.644 and 0.425, respectively showed a significant and positive correlation with the pest population; whereas, the leaf spine density, had a negative and significant correlation (P < 0.01) with the pest density. Cane-diameter and leaf-length exerted a non-significant correlation with the pest population. Multivariate linear analysis of variance, revealed that leaf spine was the most important character, which exerted 51.9% impact on the population-fluctuations of the pest, followed by that of the leaf width, with 41.5% contribution in the population-fluctuations of the insect pest. The present findings are in conformity with those of Kumarasinghe et al. (2001) who stated that spine-density is the most important character for anti-biotic resistance, against the P.

77 perpusilla. Similarly, Kumarasinghe and Jepson, (2003), who reported that oviposition preference was affected by the leaf-spine density. The present findings can partially be compared with those of Deepak et al. (1999) who reported that cane-diameter and cane- length showed a non significant correlation with the leaf-hopper population; but, in the present studies cane-diameter showed a non-significant; while, cane-length showed a significant and positive correlation with the pest-population. In the present study, amongst the chemical plant characters, nitrogen, magnesium and CHO showed a highly significant and positive correlation with the pest-population; whereas, phosphorus, zinc, POL and fiber contents exerted a negative and significant correlation (P < 0.01) with the pest-population. Copper-contents also showed a negative and significant correlation (P < 0.05); while the CCS exerted a positive and significant correlation (P < 0.05) with the pest-density. Total minerals, calcium, fat and brix contents showed a non-significant correlation and a negative response with the pest-population. The present findings are in partial agreement, with those of Deepak et al. (1999), who reported the effect of cane- diameter, cane-height, brix and CCS to be non-significant with the P. perpusilla population. But in the present studies, cane-height and CCS, showed a significant correlation with the pest-density. In the present studies, the results obtained from a multivariate linear regression models revealed that nitrogen-contents, in the plant, exerted a maximum impact, i.e., 89.1% on the population fluctuations of the pest. All the other factors, showed a negligible contribution. The present findings cannot be compared with those of Kumarasinghe and Wratten (1998) due to the differences in their materials and methods.

5.4. Integrated Pest Management Various control methods, like, cultural (fortnightly hoeing from June 15 to September 15, 2007, de-trashing of older leaves two times, once in June and second in first week of August and trash mulching at the time of sowing), biological (release of cocoons of Epiricania melanoleuca @ 2500 cocoons/ha four times from June 15 to September 15) and chemical (carbofuron @ 35 kg/ha starting one month after sowing and coupled with earthing up), were studied, singly, and in their possible interactions, viz., biological + cultural, biological + chemical, cultural + chemical and cultural +

78 chemical + biological) on selected resistant genotype of sugarcane (HSF-240). The results regarding cane-yield, monds per hectare revealed significant variations among the treatments. Cultural + chemical + biological control methods showed the maximum yield (3415.67 monds/ha); whereas, the cultural method, alone, resulted in a minimum yield (2214.33 monds/ha). The results revealed a significant difference, among the treatments regarding the population of P. perpusilla. The application of cultural + chemical + biological control, resulted in a minimum population of the pest, i.e., 0.32/leaf followed by the cultural + chemical and biological + chemical applications, each showing a pest population of 0.42/leaf. Maximum population of the pest, was recorded to be 3.65/leaf, in the application of cultural methods, which, also, showed significant reduction in the population of the pest against the control (7.59/leaf). The application of biological control singly, and in combination with cultural practices, resulted in an intermediate trend, in the population reduction. Keeping in view the results of cost-benefit ratio, the application of biological control was found to be the most benefited to the farmers, with a maximum cost benefit ratio of 16.81, followed by that with the application of chemical control with a CBR of 13.96. The present findings are in conformity with the findings of Madan (2001), who reported that the biological control of Pyrilla is the major achievement. Similarly, Rajak (2007) and Gangwar et al. (2008), controlled P. perpusilla population with the ecto-parasitoid. Pawar et al. (2002), also, reported that E. melanoleuca, played a major role in controlling the pyrilla-population. The present findings cannot be compared with those of Chaudhary et al. (1987), Pawar et al. (1988), Prasad et al. (1988), Khan and Kanhaya (1988), Ansari et al. (1989), Joshi and Sharma (1989), Patnaik et al. (1990), Joshi and Sharma (1992), Madan and Chaudhary (1995), Rana et al. (2002), Seneviratne et al. (2002), Sanehdeep et al. (2003), Mishkat and Khalid (2007) and Rajak (2008), who studied various parameters for parasitism of E. melanoleuca under variable environmental conditions. In the present studies, if the results, regarding net-gain over check, were kept under consideration, it was observed that the maximum net-gain was found in those treatments where cultural + chemical + biological control methods were integrated showing Rs.149167/-, as a net-gain, over the check, with a CBR of 9.44. The present findings cannot be compared with those of Sheikh (1968), Singh and Mavi, (1972), Marwat and Khan (1987), Rahim (1989), Patel et al. (1993), Singh et al.

79 (1995), Singla et al. (1997), Tripathi and Katiyar (1998) and Tripathi (2004), who applied various chemical pesticides for the control of P. perpusilla other than those studied in the present dissertation. In the present study, the application of cultural methods, viz., fortnightly hoeing + detrashing of older leaves + trash mulching, showed a significant control of the pest and resulted in a population of 3.65 P. perpusilla per leaf as against 7.59 in control. The present findings cannot be compared with those of Mohyuddin and Qureshi (1999, 2000), who reported that trash mulching, alone, gave 100% eggs parasitization, by the ecto-parasite. Similarly the present findings cannot be compared with those of Perrin (1978), Masih et al. (1988) and Brar et al. (1983), who studied different cultural control methods, as those included in the present project. Kathiresan (2004) reported that de-trashing can improve the cane yield and quality. The present findings are in conformity with those of Madan (2001), who reported that the biological control of pyrilla is the major achievement, in Haryana. The present findings can be compared with those of Singh et al. (2001), because he adopted integrated approaches, like cultural, mechanical and biological, with need based insecticides, and reported that natural control of pyrilla saved the farmers a total of Rs. 50000/- to Rs. 100000/-. The present findings can be compared with those of Verma et al. (2002), Rana et al. (2002), Wasim (2007), who controlled the population of P. perpusilla with the introduction of ecto-parasite, integrated with the chemical application and found a significant control of the pest.

80 Chapter-6

SUMMARY

The study was conducted on IPM of P. perpusilla, on various sugarcane genotypes, in the research area of Sugarcane Research Institute, AARI, Faisalabad, during 2006 to 2008. Twenty genotypes of sugarcane viz., HSF-240, CPF-243, S-2002-US-114, S-2003-US- 165, SPF-213, SPF-234, CP-77-400, S-2002-US-637, S-2002-US-50, S-2003-US-809, S- 2002-US-140, S-2002-US-104, CP-72-2086, S-2002-US-133, S-2002-US-447, HSF-242, HSF-245, CPHS-35, S-2003-US-394 and S-2003-US-623, were tested for their resistance susceptibility under replicated field trials against P. perpusilla, as a preliminary screening experiment, during 2006. Based on the population-density count, 3 genotypes, viz., HSF- 240, CPF-243 and S-2002-US-114 showing resistance responses, 3 genotypes viz. CPHS- 35, S-2003-US-394 and S-2003-US-623 showing susceptible trends and 3 genotypes viz. S-2003-US-809, S-2002-US-140 and S-2002-US-104 exerting intermediate trends against the pest under test were selected for the final screening trials during 2007. The role of weather in the population fluctuations of the pest was also determined by processing the data into a simple correlation and a multiple linear regression analysis, along-with the coefficient of determination values. Various physio-morphic and chemical plant- characters, viz., leaf width, leaf length, leaf spines density, cane length, cane diameter, nitrogen, phosphorus, total minerals, calcium, magnesium, fat, CHO, copper, zinc, POL, Brix, CCS and fiber contents were determined from the selected genotypes with the objective to ascertain the role of these factors, towards the resistance/susceptibility, against the pest, under test. Various control methods, like, cultural (fortnightly hoeing, detrashing of older leaf two times and trash mulching at the time of sowing), biological (release of cocoons of Epiricania melanoleuca @ 2500/ha four times from June 15 to September 15) , chemical (carbofuron @ 35 kg/ha from one month after sowing and coupled with earthing up), were applied singly and in their possible combinations, such as, biological + cultural, biological + chemical, cultural + chemical and cultural + chemical + biological control with the objective to keep the pest population below the

81 economic threshold level and to find the most economical and effective method of control, for communication to the farmers. The results are summarized as under:  Significant variations were found to exist among the genotypes in the preliminary screening trial. The genotypes in descending position are as under: S-2003-US-623 > S-2003-US-394 > CPHS- 35 > HSF-245 > HSF-242> S-2002- US-447 > S-2002-US-133 > CP-72-2086 > S-2002-US-104 > S-2002-US-140 > S-2003-US-809 > S-2000-US-50 > S-2002-US-637 > CP-77-400 > SPF-234 > SPF-213 > S-2003-US-165 > S-2002-US-114 > CPF-243 > and HSF-240.  The selected genotypes differed significantly, from one an other. The descending positions of these genotypes is as under: S-2002-US-623 > S-2003-US-634 > CPHS-35 > S-2002-US-104 > S-2002-US- 140 > S-2002-US-809 > S-2002-US-114 > CPF-243 and HSF-240. Furthermore the population ranged from minimum of 4.84 to 17.24/leaf of the pest under study.  The month of August, was found to be the most favourable period for the development of the pest in both the study years and resulted in maximum population.  The genotypes HSF-240, CPF-243 and S-2002-US-114 were found to be comparatively resistant and resulted in minimum host-plant susceptibility indices, while, S-2003-US-623 proved to be comparatively susceptible, in both the study years and on an average of two years population data.  The maximum temperature of 35.14°C, minimum temperature of 26.31°C, average temperature of 30.72 °C, RH of 76.85% and RF of 41.60 mm during 2006 and maximum temperature of 37.40 °C, minimum temperature of 24.10 °C, average temperature of 30.80 °C, RH. of 65.30% and a RF. of 17mm during 2007, were the favourable weather conditions for the maximum development of the pest. In general the month of August was a very crucial period and resulted in a maximum increase of the pest.  Maximum temperature, during 2007 showed a negative and significant correlation, whereas the minimum temperature, during 2006 exerted a positive and significant correlation with the pest population. Relative humidity, during

82 both the study years and on cumulative basis exerted a positive and significant correlation (P < 0.01) with the population of P. perpusilla.  Relative humidity, played maximum role, i.e., 43.4% in the population fluctuations of the pest followed by that of the minimum temperature, with 26.9% contribution during 2006, except during 2007, when the maximum temperature had a maximum impact of 24.5% on the population of the pest, followed by that of the relative humidity, with 13.3% role, in the fluctuations of the pest. On an average basis, for both years, relative humidity proved to be the most important factor, which contributed the maximum in population fluctuation of P. perpusilla on sugarcane.  All the physio-morphic and chemical plant characters showed significant difference in various selected genotypes of sugarcane except total minerals and fat percentage in the leaves.  Leaf-width, nitrogen, magnesium and CHO, showed a positive and highly significant correlation with the pest-population, whereas, leaf-spines, phosphorus, zinc, POL and fiber contents had a negative and highly significant correlation with the pest.  Leaf-spines density was the most important factors, which contributed the maximum, i.e., 51.9% in the population fluctuations of the pest followed by the leaf-width with 41.5% impact.  Nitrogen contents, in the leaves of sugarcane genotypes, had maximum impact of 89.1% on the population fluctuations of the pest, and proved to be the most important factor among the chemical characters.  Application of cultural + chemical + biological controls in combination, resulted in a minimum population of P. perpusilla i.e., 0.32/leaf, whereas cultural methods showed a maximum population of 3.65/leaf, of the pest.  The maximum yield, was recorded to be 3415.67 mounds/ha, in those treatments where cultural + chemical + biological control methods, were implicated and the minimum yield of 2214.33 mounds/ha, was observed, in application of cultural method.

83  The application of cultural + chemical + biological control methods resulted in maximum net gain i.e., Rs. 149167/- with a cost-benefit ratio of 9.44 and was found to be the best treatment.  The maximum cost benefit ratio of 16.81 was obtained in the application of biological methods with a net gain of Rs. 64733/-.

84

REFERENCES

AACC (American Association of Cereal Chemists) 2000. Approved methods of American Association of cereal chemists, AACC. Inc., St. Paul., Minnesota.

Allen, C. J., M. J. Mackay, J. H. Aylward and J. A. Cambell. 1997. New technologies for sugar milling and By-product modification. In “Intensive Sugarcane Production: Meeting the Challenges Beyond 2000”, B A Keating. JR Wilson, (eds.) CAB International, Wallingford, UK. PP267-285.

Ansari, M. A., A. D. Pawar, S. N. Ahmed and T. Nagaraja. 1989. Sugarcane pyrilla control by the use of Epiricania melanoleuca (Fletcher) in Karnataka. Plant protection bulletin, 41(1-2):28-30, Centeral Biological Control Station, Bangalore, India.

Brar, R. S. and S. S. Bains. 1979. Population dynamics of Pyrilla perpusilla Walker Mortality factors. Ind. J. Eco. 6: 110-121.

Brar, R. S., P. N. Avasthy and S. Kishan. 1983. Sugarcane trash in relation to multiplication of Pyrilla and its parasitoid, Epipyrops melanoleuca Fletcher. Maharashtra Sugar 8: 35-37.

Chaudhary, M. A. and N. A. Ansari. 1988. Insect pests of sugarcane in Pakistan. Prog. Farm. 8(4): 10-18.

Chaudhary, A. K., A. P. Singh, A. Chatterjee and K. D. Deepak. 1999. Varietal preference of leaf hopper, Pyrilla perpusilla in sugarcane. Crop. Res. Hisar. 17(3): 399-402.

Chaudhary, J. P., S. K. Kaushik, R. Singh and K. K. Mrig, 1987. Role of natural enemies in the suppression of sugarcane leafhopper, Pyrilla perpusilla (Walker) FAO Plant Protection Bulletin, 35(1): 15-19.

85 Deepak, K. D., A. K. Chaudhary and A. P. Singh, 1999. Screening of some promising mid-late sugarcane genotypes against leaf hopper, Pyrilla perpusilla. Crop. Res. Hisar. 17(1): 125-128.

Dhaliwal, Z. S., R. S. Bal and S. S. Bains. 1987. Lethal effect of high temperature on various life stages of Pyrilla perpusilla (Walker) and its important parasitoids. Ind. J. of Ecol. 14 (2): 266-272.

Ganehiarachchi, G. A. S. M. and I. V. S. Fernando. 2000. Population dynamics of the sugarcane plant hopper, Pyrilla perpusilla in the wet zone of Sri Lanka. Trop. Sci. 40(3): 144-153.

Gangwar, S.K., D. C. Srivastava, R. K. Tewari, M. R. Singh and D. C. Rajak. 2008. Management of Pyrilla perpusilla Walker in sugarcane with ecto-parasitoid Epiricania melanoleuca Fletcher, during epidemics in sub-tropical Ind. Sugar Tech., 10(2): 162-165.

Government of Pakistan, 2007-08. Economic Survey of Pakistan. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, State Bank of Pakistan, pp. 21-22.

Jackson, M. L. 1958. Soil Chemical analysis. Printice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Chiffs, New Jersey.

Joshi, R. K. and S. K. Sharma. 1989. Augmentation and conservation of Epiricania melanoleuca Fletcher, for the population management of sugarcane leafhopper, Pyrilla perpusilla Walker, under arid conditions of Rajasthan. Ind. Sugar. 39 (8): 625- 628.

Joshi, R. K. and S. K. Sharma. 1992. Seasonal parasitization and carryover of Epiricania melanoleuca Fletcher, an ecto-parasite of Pyrilla perpusilla Walker, under arid conditions. Annals Arid Zone. 31(1): 33-35.

Kathiresan, G. 2004. Karumpuk kathi - a new sugarcane de-trasher. Cooperative-Sugar. 35(12): 939-940.

86 Khan, L. 1987. Bionomics and control of the melon fruitfly, Dacus cucurbitae Coq. (Dipt.: Tephritidae). Ph.D. Thesis, Deptt. Agri. Entomol., Univ. Agri., Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Khan, M. and A. Kanhaya. 1988. Population dynamics of Epiricania melanoleuca Fletcher, a potential natural enemy of Pyrilla perpusilla Walker, on different cultivars of sugarcane. Ind. J. Pl. Prot. 16(1): 89-92.

Khanzada, A. G. 1992. A comprehensive review of research work on sugarcane leaf hopper, Pyrilla perpusilla Wlk. J. Agri. Res., Lhr. 30(2): 271-282.

Kishore, P., S. R. Babu, U. Singh and G. Rai. 2002. New sources of resistance against shoot fly, Atherigona soccata Rondani, stem borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) and sugarcane leafhopper, Pyrilla perpusilla Walker in newly developed sorghum varieties and hybrids. J. Ent. Res. 26(2): 101-112.

Kumar, A. and Yadav, P. R. 2006. Studies on biomass of sugarcane pest, Pyrilla perpusilla walker under Western u.p. conditions. J of Exp. Zool. 9 (1): 173-180.

Kuhmarasinghe, N. C. and P. C. Jepson. 2003. Antexenotic effect of sugarcane leaves on feeding and oviposition by Pyrilla perpusilla. Sugar Tech. 5(1/2): 11-19.

Kumarasinghe, N. C. and S. D. Wratten. 1998. Hydroxamic acids in sugarcane & their effect on the sugarcane plant hopper, P. perpusilla. Sugarcane No. 5 18-22. Division of pest management, sugarcane research institute, Uda., Walawe, 70190, Srilanka.

Kumarasinghe, N. C., S. D. Wratten and P. C. Jepson. 2001. Morphological basis for resistance in sugarcane to Pyrilla perpusilla (Homoptera: Lophopidae). Int. J. P. Manag. 47(2): 127-134.

Mackintosh, D. 2000. Sugar milling, In “Manual of Cane Growing”, M Hogarth, P Allsopp. (eds.) Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations, Indooroopilly, Australia. PP 369-377.

87 Madan, Y. P. and J. P. Choudhary. 1995. Extent of natural parasitization of Pyrilla perpusilla Walker and seasonal abundance of Epiricania melanoleuca Fletcher. Ind. Sugar, 45(9): 683-688.

Madan, Y. P. 2001. Integrated pest management in sugarcane. Indian-sugar. 50(12): 867- 871.

Marwat, G. N. K. and A. A. Khan. 1987. Using granules against sucking insect pests of sugarcane. Pak. J. Agric. Res. 8 (1): 57-60.

Masih, R., A. A Nashmi and N. A. Khan. 1988. Effect of different intercropping on the incidence of insect pests of sugarcane. Ibid. 9 (4): 469-472.

Mishkat, U. and M. Khalid. 2007. Population Dynamics of Sugarcane Plant hopper, Pyrilla perpusilla Walker (Lophopidae: Homoptera) and its natural enemies at District Mandi Baha-ud-din (Punjab). Pak. J. Zool. 39(3): 153-157.

Mishra, S. R. 2005. Plant Protection and Pest Management. Discovery Publishing House, New Delhi, India., pp. 147.

Mohyuddin, A. I. and M. A. Qureshi. 1999. Successful experience in Integrated Pest Management Pakistan. Proc. workshop on Integrated Pest Management of Agricultural Pests of OIC Member Countries in Asia, 8-11March, 1999, Islamabad. pp. 24-36.

Mohyuddin, A. I. and M. A. Qureshi. 2000. History of sugarcane Pyrilla perpusilla (Walk.) and its biological control based Integrated Pest Management, in Pakistan. Proc. Ann. Convention Sugar Tech. Rawalpindi, 28-29 August, 2000, pp.186-192

Pasha, M. R. 1979. Pre-investment study, Faisalabad District. Directorate of Industries and Mineral Development, Punjab, PP. 38.

Patel, D. R., M. B. Patel and C. B. Patel. 1993. Evaluation of granular insecticides against sugarcane leaf hopper, Pyrilla perpusilla Walker, on sugarcane. Gujrat Agric. Univ. Res. J. 19(1): 52-55.

88 Patnaik, N. C. J. N. Mohanty, B. K. Mishra and M. K. Ghode, 1990. Control of sugarcane pyrilla by Epiricania melanoleuca (Fletcher) (Epipyropidae: Lepidoptera) in Puri District of Orissa. J. Biol. Cont. 4 (1): 15-17.

Pawar, A. D., M. P. Misra and J. Singh, 2002. Role of Epiricania melanoleuca (Fletcher) in biological control of sugarcane pyrilla, Pyrilla perpusilla (Walk.) outbreak, in 1999, in Western Uttar Pradesh. J. Biol. Cont. 16(1): 71-76

Pawar, A. D., R. Asre and B. I. Shukla. 1988. Introduction and colonization of Epiricania melanoleuca (Fletcher) for the bio-control of sugarcane pyrilla, in Saurasthra region of Gujarat state. Plant protection bulletin, Ind. 40(1): 1-4

Payne, J. H. 1968. Sugarcane Factory analytical Control. Elsevier Pub. Co., Amsterdam, London, New York.

Perrin, R. M. 1978. Pest management in multiple cropping systems. Agro-Ecosystems, 3: 93-118.

Prasad, J., R. Singh and A. D. Pawar. 1988. Augmentation of Epiricania melanoleuca for the control of Pyrilla perpusilla in western Uttar Pradesh. Plant protection bulletin, Ind. 40 (1): 29-31.

Puri, K. D. and K. Sidhart, 2001. Effect of Pyrilla epidemic (1999-2000) on Sugarcane yield and sucrose. Proc. 63rd Ann. Conv. Sugar Tech. Assoc., Ind., 25th to 27th August, 2001. A60-A68.

Rahim, A. 1989. Efficacy of different organophosphorus insecticides against sugarcane leaf hopper, Pyrilla perpusilla Walk. (Fulgoridea: Homoptera) outbreak in Sindh, Pakistan. Proc. Pak. Cong. Zool. 9: 15-18.

Rajak, D. C. 2007. Colonization & redistribution of Epiricania melanoleuca Fletcher against P. perpusilla Walker. Ann. Pl. Protec. Sci. 15: 83-86.

Rajak, D.C. 2008. Parasitism and hyper parasitism on Pyrilla perpusilla Walker in sugarcane ecosystem. Sugar Tech. 10 (2): 150- 153.

89 Rana, Z. A. I. Haq, and A. Tufail. 2002. Efficacy of different control measures against sugarcane borers and pyrilla in ratoon crop. Pak. J. Agric. Res. 40(2): 99-103.

Rana, Z. A., M. S. Muhammad and A. H. Ali. 2002. Population dynamics of Pyrilla perpusilla Wlk. and its parasite Epiricania melanoleuca (Fletcher) at Faisalabad. Pak. J. Agric. Res. 17(3): 267-272.

Shah, H. A and Saleem, M. A. 2002. Applied Entomology. 2nd ed. Izhar Sons Printers, Lahore.pp 92.

Sanehdeep K., K. Vijay and D. S. Brar. 2003. Surveillance and monitoring of insect pests of sugarcane in Jalandhar and Kapurthala Districts of Punjab. Insect Environment, : 9 (3): 117-118.

Sansoucy, R., G. Arts and R. A. Leng. 1988. Mollasses-urea blocks as a multinutrient supplement for ruminants. http:// www.fao.org/ docrep/003/s8850e/S8850E24.htm

Seneviratne, J. A. U. T. and N. C. Kumarasinghe. 2002. Biological control of the sugarcane plant hopper by the moth Epiricania melanoleuca (Fletcher) in Sri Lanka. Sugar Tech. 4(2): 26-32.

Sheikh, F. R. 1968. Control of sugarcane pests by air in Mardan district during Kharif, 1964. Agric. Pak. 19 (4): 673-684.

Shrivastava, A. K., D. C. Srivastava, S. Solomon, M. K. Srivastava and I. Singh. 2003. Physiological characters imparting resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses in sugarcane. Sugar-Tech. 2003; 5(3): 105-120.

Singh, D. S., P. Sircar and S. Dhingra. 1995. Relative susceptibility of adults and nymphs of sugarcane leaf hopper Pyrilla perpusilla Wlk. (Lophidae: Hopmoptera). Ind. J. Ent. 57(1): 22-25.

Singh, H. and A. N. Kalra. 1951. Sugarcane Pyrilla (Pyrilla perpusilla Wlk.) a serious pest of sugarcane. Proceedings of the 1st Biennial Conference of Sugarcane Research & Development Workers, Coimbaiore, Pt. II: 100-107.

90 Singh, H. and G. S. Mavi. 1972. Concentrate spraying with ground equipment for control of pest of field crops. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 42 (1): 5-10.

Singh, S. P., S. Jagmohan, K. S. Brar, S. Maninder and S. Darshan. 2001. Demonstration of biological control based integrated pest management on sugarcane in Morinda mill area in Punjab. Ind. J. Sugarcane Tech. 16(1): 58-64.

Singla, M. L., Z. S. Dhaliwal, M. S. Duhra and P. K. Chhuneja, 1997. Effect of band application of endosulfan on population of sugarcane leafhopper, Pyrilla perpusilla (Walker). J. Ins. Sci. 10(2): 200-201.

Sparks, D. I., (ed.). 1996. Methods of soil analysis, part 3: Chemical methods, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.

Tripathi, G, M., and R. R. Katiyar. 1998. Evaluation of some insecticides against sugar cane leaf hopper, Pyrilla perpusilla and its ecto-parasitoid. Epiricania melanoleuca. Ind. J. Entomol. 60(4): 391-395.

Tripathi, G. M. 2004. Relative safety indices of certain insecticides to Epiricania melanoleuca. Fletcher for management of Pyrilla perpusilla Walker. Ind. J. Entomol. 66(3): 202-205.

Verma, A., J. Chandra, and R. K. Tanwar, 2002. Eco-friendly pest control in sugarcane. Indian Farming (India). (Feb 2002), 51(11): 40-43.

Wasim, M. A. 2007. Comparison of chemical control and biological control of sucking insect pest complex of sugarcane. M.Sc. Thesis, U.A.F., Pakistan, PP. 80-83.

Wright, R. J. and T. Stuezynski. 1996. Atomic absorption spectrophotometery, pp 65-90. In D.L., Sparks (ed.). Methods of soil analysis, part 3; Chemical Methods, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.

Zubair, M., S. Ahmad, A. Rasool and M. A. Farooq. 2006. Sugar crop research programme report, PARC, Islamabad, Pakistan.

91 Appendix 1. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 07.05.06

Name of Genotype R1 R2 R3 HSF 240 0.5 0.6 0.6 CPF 243 0.7 0.6 0.4 S-2002-US-114 0.5 0.4 0.6 S-2003-US-165 0.7 0.5 0.5 SPF-234 1.0 1.2 1.3 SPF-213 1.2 1.3 1.4 CP-77-400 1.5 1.6 1.7 S-2002-US-637 1.8 1.6 1.5 S-2000-US-50 1.6 1.7 1.7 S-2003-US=809 1.5 1.1 1.6 CP-72-2086 1.2 1.3 1.2 S-2002-US-140 1.1 1.3 1.4 S-2002-US-104 1.2 1.4 1.3 S-2002-US-133 1.5 1.4 1.3 S-2002-US-447 1.2 1.3 1.2 HSF-242 2.4 2.3 3.3 HSF-245 3.1 3.2 2.7 CPHS-35 3.4 3.5 3.6 S-2003-US-394 4.1 3.1 3.2 S-2003-US-623 4.2 3.6 3.3

92 Appendix 2. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 14.05.06

Name of Genotype R1 R2 R3 HSF 240 0.4 0.5 0.4 CPF 243 0.5 0.7 0.8 S-2002-US-114 0.3 0.4 0.6 S-2003-US-165 0.4 0.5 0.7 SPF-234 0.8 0.9 0.8 SPF-213 1.0 1.1 1.2 CP-77-400 0.9 0.8 0.9 S-2002-US-637 1.2 1.2 1.3 S-2000-US-50 1.4 1.0 1.2 S-2003-US=809 1.0 0.9 0.5 CP-72-2086 0.9 0.8 0.9 S-2002-US-140 1.2 1.3 1.1 S-2002-US-104 1.3 1.0 1.4 S-2002-US-133 1.6 1.2 1.5 S-2002-US-447 1.4 1.2 1.0 HSF-242 2.9 2.1 2.4 HSF-245 2.8 2.9 2.5 CPHS-35 3.0 3.2 3.5 S-2003-US-394 2.8 2.6 2.4 S-2003-US-623 2.4 2.5 2.3

93 Appendix 3. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 21.05.06

Name of Genotype R1 R2 R3 HSF 240 1.4 1.5 1.6 CPF 243 1.3 1.2 1.4 S-2002-US-114 1.5 1.3 1.6 S-2003-US-165 2.0 1.3 1.6 SPF-234 4.2 4.5 4.8 SPF-213 4.5 4.6 4.2 CP-77-400 4.3 4.6 4.7 S-2002-US-637 4.5 4.3 4.6 S-2000-US-50 4.3 5.1 4.9 S-2003-US=809 4.3 5.2 6.1 CP-72-2086 6.3 5.7 4.3 S-2002-US-140 4.7 4.9 5.3 S-2002-US-104 5.4 5.4 5.3 S-2002-US-133 4.9 4.8 5.4 S-2002-US-447 5.6 5.7 5.8 HSF-242 8.7 7.8 8.9 HSF-245 4.9 8.7 7.4 CPHS-35 5.5 6.9 7.9 S-2003-US-394 8.5 10.0 9.2 S-2003-US-623 8.3 9.7 9.5

94 Appendix 4. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 28.05.06

Name of Genotype R1 R2 R3 HSF 240 1.5 1.6 1.5 CPF 243 1.4 1.3 1.5 S-2002-US-114 1.6 1.5 1.6 S-2003-US-165 1.8 1.6 1.8 SPF-234 4.3 4.5 4.2 SPF-213 4.6 4.7 4.3 CP-77-400 5.2 4.9 5.8 S-2002-US-637 6.2 5.4 4.9 S-2000-US-50 6.7 6.8 5.9 S-2003-US=809 5.3 6.2 4.8 CP-72-2086 8.1 3.2 6.7 S-2002-US-140 5.6 7.6 4.9 S-2002-US-104 6.2 5.8 7.2 S-2002-US-133 7.2 6.7 5.5 S-2002-US-447 4.7 5.2 4.9 HSF-242 8.1 8.2 6.7 HSF-245 10.0 11.2 7.2 CPHS-35 9.8 8.5 10.0 S-2003-US-394 8.3 8.7 6.9 S-2003-US-623 9.1 10.2 11.3

95 Appendix 5. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 04.06.06

Name of Genotype R1 R2 R3 HSF 240 1.8 1.9 1.7 CPF 243 1.5 1.5 1.7 S-2002-US-114 1.8 1.7 1.8 S-2003-US-165 1.0 1.8 1.2 SPF-234 6.3 6.5 6.2 SPF-213 6.6 6.7 6.3 CP-77-400 7.2 6.9 5.8 S-2002-US-637 6.3 6.4 6.9 S-2000-US-50 7.7 7.8 6.9 S-2003-US=809 6.4 7.3 5.9 CP-72-2086 9.2 6.7 7.8 S-2002-US-140 6.7 8.8 5.1 S-2002-US-104 7.3 7.9 8.2 S-2002-US-133 8.2 7.8 7.5 S-2002-US-447 6.7 6.2 5.9 HSF-242 8.1 9.2 7.7 HSF-245 10.0 10.0 8.5 CPHS-35 10.8 8.4 9.2 S-2003-US-394 8.2 8.8 7.9 S-2003-US-623 10.2 9.2 11.4

96 Appendix 6. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 11 .06.06

Name of Genotype R1 R2 R3 HSF 240 2.1 2.3 2.4 CPF 243 1.8 2.0 2.2 S-2002-US-114 2.2 2.5 2.6 S-2003-US-165 1.8 2.1 2.3 SPF-234 6.5 4.7 8.1 SPF-213 6.3 6.4 5.8 CP-77-400 6.3 5.9 5.9 S-2002-US-637 5.4 5.7 6.9 S-2000-US-50 7.2 6.7 7.2 S-2003-US=809 7.2 6.3 6.2 CP-72-2086 8.2 6.5 6.8 S-2002-US-140 6.5 7.8 6.1 S-2002-US-104 6.3 5.9 6.2 S-2002-US-133 8.3 6.7 6.9 S-2002-US-447 6.3 6.4 5.9 HSF-242 7.5 8.5 7.4 HSF-245 9.2 8.3 8.2 CPHS-35 9.6 8.4 8.3 S-2003-US-394 7.2 8.2 6.7 S-2003-US-623 9.2 9.3 10.4

97 Appendix 7. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 18.06.06

Name of Genotype R1 R2 R3 HSF 240 1.8 1.7 1.9 CPF 243 1.6 1.7 1.7 S-2002-US-114 1.7 2.2 2.4 S-2003-US-165 1.8 2.0 1.8 SPF-234 5.6 3.7 6.1 SPF-213 5.3 5.4 5.4 CP-77-400 4.3 4.9 4.7 S-2002-US-637 4.4 4.7 5.9 S-2000-US-50 6.2 5.7 5.2 S-2003-US=809 5.2 4.3 5.2 CP-72-2086 6.2 5.5 5.7 S-2002-US-140 5.5 6.8 5.1 S-2002-US-104 5.3 4.9 5.2 S-2002-US-133 6.3 5.7 5.7 S-2002-US-447 5.3 5.2 5.7 HSF-242 6.4 6.3 6.7 HSF-245 7.2 7.4 6.3 CPHS-35 7.6 7.4 7.5 S-2003-US-394 6.2 7.3 5.7 S-2003-US-623 8.3 7.6 8.4

98 Appendix 8. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 25.06.06

Name of Genotype R1 R2 R3 HSF 240 1.3 1.4 1.6 CPF 243 1.3 1.5 1.6 S-2002-US-114 1.4 1.7 2.0 S-2003-US-165 1.4 1.6 1.3 SPF-234 4.6 3.7 5.1 SPF-213 4.4 4.5 4.2 CP-77-400 4.2 4.4 4.3 S-2002-US-637 4.3 5.1 4.9 S-2000-US-50 4.7 4.5 5.2 S-2003-US=809 3.9 4.8 4.6 CP-72-2086 4.5 5.1 4.2 S-2002-US-140 3.8 8.1 3.4 S-2002-US-104 5.1 5.6 4.9 S-2002-US-133 4.6 5.3 5.4 S-2002-US-447 5.5 5.1 6.0 HSF-242 7.2 6.9 7.8 HSF-245 8.1 6.2 7.9 CPHS-35 8.5 8.2 6.7 S-2003-US-394 8.6 6.8 7.7 S-2003-US-623 7.5 8.3 8.5

99 Appendix 9. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 02.07.06

Name of Genotype R1 R2 R3 HSF 240 1.5 1.6 1.8 CPF 243 1.7 1.6 1.7 S-2002-US-114 1.7 1.9 2.1 S-2003-US-165 2.2 1.7 2.5 SPF-234 5.6 4.7 6.1 SPF-213 4.6 4.7 5.2 CP-77-400 5.2 5.4 5.3 S-2002-US-637 5.3 6.1 5.9 S-2000-US-50 5.8 5.6 6.3 S-2003-US=809 5.0 5.9 5.7 CP-72-2086 5.7 6.3 6.4 S-2002-US-140 5.8 8.1 5.8 S-2002-US-104 6.3 6.9 5.9 S-2002-US-133 5.6 6.6 6.8 S-2002-US-447 6.5 6.5 6.3 HSF-242 9.2 8.9 9.7 HSF-245 10.2 8.5 9.9 CPHS-35 10.4 10.5 8.9 S-2003-US-394 10.5 8.9 9.8 S-2003-US-623 9.6 10.3 10.5

100 Appendix 10. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 09.07.06

Name of Genotype R1 R2 R3 HSF 240 2.5 2.7 2.8 CPF 243 2.8 2.9 3.0 S-2002-US-114 2.9 3.1 3.4 S-2003-US-165 3.2 3.1 3.5 SPF-234 7.6 6.7 8.1 SPF-213 6.6 6.7 6.7 CP-77-400 7.3 7.3 7.7 S-2002-US-637 7.4 7.1 7.9 S-2000-US-50 5.9 6.9 7.9 S-2003-US=809 7.2 7.7 7.9 CP-72-2086 7.9 8.3 8.7 S-2002-US-140 7.8 10.1 7.9 S-2002-US-104 8.3 8.7 7.6 S-2002-US-133 7.6 8.7 8.8 S-2002-US-447 8.7 8.9 8.6 HSF-242 9.4 8.9 10.1 HSF-245 12.3 10.6 11.9 CPHS-35 11.4 12.5 10.9 S-2003-US-394 12.4 11.9 11.7 S-2003-US-623 11.6 12.3 11.5

101 Appendix 11. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 16.07.06

Name of Genotype R1 R2 R3 HSF 240 4.5 4.8 4.6 CPF 243 4.8 4.9 5.0 S-2002-US-114 4.7 5.2 5.3 S-2003-US-165 5.2 5.1 5.2 SPF-234 9.7 8.9 9.2 SPF-213 8.6 8.6 8.9 CP-77-400 9.3 9.2 10.0 S-2002-US-637 9.4 9.1 9.8 S-2000-US-50 8.9 8.6 9.9 S-2003-US=809 9.5 10.0 10.5 CP-72-2086 10.2 10.3 10.7 S-2002-US-140 9.8 12.1 9.9 S-2002-US-104 10.3 10.7 9.5 S-2002-US-133 9.4 10.5 11.0 S-2002-US-447 10.9 9.8 10.6 HSF-242 11.4 10.9 12.1 HSF-245 12.3 12.6 13.9 CPHS-35 13.4 14.5 12.9 S-2003-US-394 14.6 13.8 13.4 S-2003-US-623 13.8 14.5 13.7

102 Appendix 12. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 23.07.06

Name of Genotype R1 R2 R3 HSF 240 6.5 7.8 6.6 CPF 243 7.8 6.9 7.0 S-2002-US-114 6.7 7.2 7.3 S-2003-US-165 7.2 7.1 7.6 SPF-234 11.7 10.9 11.2 SPF-213 11.6 10.6 10.9 CP-77-400 11.3 12.2 12.5 S-2002-US-637 12.4 11.1 11.8 S-2000-US-50 10.9 11.6 11.9 S-2003-US=809 11.5 12.0 12.5 CP-72-2086 12.2 12.7 13.0 S-2002-US-140 11.8 12.1 12.9 S-2002-US-104 13.1 12.7 12.6 S-2002-US-133 12.4 12.9 14.0 S-2002-US-447 16.9 15.8 13.6 HSF-242 15.4 15.9 15.2 HSF-245 16.4 16.6 14.9 CPHS-35 14.6 17.9 16.8 S-2003-US-394 17.6 18.8 17.5 S-2003-US-623 18.8 17.9 17.7

103 Appendix 13. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 30.07.06

Name of Genotype R1 R2 R3 HSF 240 8.5 7.8 8.9 CPF 243 9.8 8.9 9.0 S-2002-US-114 8.6 9.1 9.5 S-2003-US-165 9.4 9.6 10.2 SPF-234 14.7 14.9 15.2 SPF-213 15.6 15.3 14.9 CP-77-400 16.2 17.3 16.8 S-2002-US-637 16.4 16.1 16.0 S-2000-US-50 14.9 16.6 17.2 S-2003-US=809 16.5 16.0 17.5 CP-72-2086 17.2 19.0 18.0 S-2002-US-140 16.8 18.4 17.6 S-2002-US-104 18.5 17.6 17.0 S-2002-US-133 17.1 18.0 19.2 S-2002-US-447 22.9 21.8 20.6 HSF-242 20.4 22.7 21.8 HSF-245 23.4 22.6 20.9 CPHS-35 21.6 23.0 24.1 S-2003-US-394 24.6 23.2 24.5 S-2003-US-623 25.9 24.2 22.1

104 Appendix 14. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 06.08.06

Name of Genotype R1 R2 R3 HSF 240 9.5 8.6 9.7 CPF 243 10.8 9.9 9.0 S-2002-US-114 9.6 9.1 10.5 S-2003-US-165 10.4 10.2 10.5 SPF-234 15.7 15.8 16.2 SPF-213 16.8 17.3 19.9 CP-77-400 18.2 17.3 17.9 S-2002-US-637 16.4 16.5 16.4 S-2000-US-50 16.9 18.7 18.2 S-2003-US=809 18.5 18.7 18.5 CP-72-2086 17.3 19.6 18.5 S-2002-US-140 16.8 18.2 18.5 S-2002-US-104 18.7 18.9 18.2 S-2002-US-133 19.2 18.5 20.2 S-2002-US-447 24.9 23.7 22.9 HSF-242 21.4 23.9 22.5 HSF-245 25.4 22.6 22.9 CPHS-35 23.7 23.8 24.9 S-2003-US-394 24.7 23.8 24.6 S-2003-US-623 25.7 24.8 23.1

105 Appendix 15. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 13.08.06

Name of Genotype R1 R2 R3 HSF 240 8.5 8.6 9.0 CPF 243 9.8 9.9 9.2 S-2002-US-114 9.7 9.5 10.5 S-2003-US-165 10.2 10.0 10.3 SPF-234 16.7 16.7 16.2 SPF-213 17.9 17.3 15.9 CP-77-400 17.2 13.9 16.7 S-2002-US-637 16.4 16.3 17.0 S-2000-US-50 17.0 18.3 17.9 S-2003-US=809 17.0 18.1 19.4 CP-72-2086 17.5 19.2 18.1 S-2002-US-140 16.7 18.3 18.3 S-2002-US-104 18.2 17.3 17.9 S-2002-US-133 19.0 19.1 18.9 S-2002-US-447 24.2 22.9 21.8 HSF-242 20.5 22.7 21.2 HSF-245 22.7 23.2 23.7 CPHS-35 24.6 23.4 23.1 S-2003-US-394 24.7 25.1 22.5 S-2003-US-623 24.7 24.2 23.6

106 Appendix 16. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 20.08.06

Name of Genotype R1 R2 R3 HSF 240 7.5 7.4 8.5 CPF 243 8.8 9.7 8.9 S-2002-US-114 8.7 8.5 9.4 S-2003-US-165 9.2 9.1 9.6 SPF-234 15.7 15.2 15.6 SPF-213 15.9 15.3 15.8 CP-77-400 16.2 13.9 15.6 S-2002-US-637 15.1 15.2 16.0 S-2000-US-50 16.3 17.2 16.8 S-2003-US=809 17.0 16.1 17.3 CP-72-2086 15.5 17.3 16.4 S-2002-US-140 16.2 15.6 16.3 S-2002-US-104 16.7 16.3 16.2 S-2002-US-133 17.2 18.3 17.7 S-2002-US-447 24.3 21.4 21.2 HSF-242 20.5 22.6 21.4 HSF-245 21.7 22.3 22.1 CPHS-35 23.6 22.4 21.9 S-2003-US-394 23.2 23.1 22.0 S-2003-US-623 23.7 22.6 22.3

107 Appendix 17. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 27.08.06

Name of Genotype R1 R2 R3 HSF 240 6.5 7.4 7.4 CPF 243 7.6 8.5 7.3 S-2002-US-114 7.4 8.1 8.2 S-2003-US-165 8.2 8.1 9.3 SPF-234 14.7 14.7 13.9 SPF-213 14.4 13.4 14.7 CP-77-400 15.2 13.1 15.1 S-2002-US-637 14.2 14.7 15.0 S-2000-US-50 14.3 15.3 14.6 S-2003-US=809 15.0 14.2 15.4 CP-72-2086 14.3 16.0 14.9 S-2002-US-140 14.2 15.1 14.9 S-2002-US-104 15.6 14.9 15.1 S-2002-US-133 15.2 17.3 16.1 S-2002-US-447 22.2 21.4 19.7 HSF-242 19.6 21.6 20.5 HSF-245 20.7 21.3 19.9 CPHS-35 21.3 20.8 20.2 S-2003-US-394 21.6 20.9 21.4 S-2003-US-623 21.2 20.9 21.1

108 Appendix 18. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 12.05.2007

Genotypes R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 0.0 0.4 0.3 CPF-243 0.2 0.0 0.0 S-2002-US-114 0.3 0.5 0.2 S-2003-US-809 0.8 0.4 0.9 S-2002-US-140 0.7 0.8 0.6 S-2002-US-104 1.0 0.7 0.5 CPHS-35 2.1 1.9 2.3 S-2003-US-394 2.5 1.7 2.6 S-2003-US-623 3.0 2.2 2.4

Appendix 19. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 19.05.2007

Genotypes R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 0.2 0.3 0.1 CPF-243 0.3 0.5 0.2 S-2002-US-114 0.4 0.3 0.2 S-2003-US-809 1.0 0.6 0.7 S-2002-US-140 0.7 0.9 0.4 S-2002-US-104 1.1 0.8 0.6 CPHS-35 2.0 2.3 1.9 S-2003-US-394 2.4 2.6 2.3 S-2003-US-623 2.7 2.5 2.6

109 Appendix 20. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 26.05.2007

Genotypes R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 0.5 0.6 0.4 CPF-243 0.5 0.7 0.5 S-2002-US-114 0.7 0.6 0.5 S-2003-US-809 1.5 1.1 1.2 S-2002-US-140 1.0 1.2 0.9 S-2002-US-104 1.5 1.3 0.8 CPHS-35 2.4 2.8 2.9 S-2003-US-394 2.7 2.9 2.8 S-2003-US-623 3.1 2.8 3.0

Appendix 21. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 02.06.2007

Genotypes R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 0.7 0.8 0.7 CPF-243 0.8 0.9 0.6 S-2002-US-114 0.9 0.8 0.6 S-2003-US-809 1.7 1.3 1.6 S-2002-US-140 1.4 1.6 1.3 S-2002-US-104 1.9 1.7 1.3 CPHS-35 3.0 3.4 3.5 S-2003-US-394 2.9 3.1 3.4 S-2003-US-623 3.6 3.3 3.6

110 Appendix 22. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 09.06.2007

Genotypes R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 0.5 0.6 0.6 CPF-243 0.6 0.8 0.7 S-2002-US-114 0.7 0.6 0.8 S-2003-US-809 1.6 1.5 1.4 S-2002-US-140 1.1 1.0 1.4 S-2002-US-104 1.6 1.3 1.4 CPHS-35 2.7 2.9 3.2 S-2003-US-394 2.4 2.7 2.9 S-2003-US-623 3.0 2.8 2.7

Appendix 23. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 16.06.2007

Genotypes R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 0.7 0.8 0.7 CPF-243 0.8 0.9 1.0 S-2002-US-114 0.9 0.8 1.2 S-2003-US-809 1.9 1.8 1.7 S-2002-US-140 1.4 1.2 1.7 S-2002-US-104 1.9 1.6 1.7 CPHS-35 3.2 3.4 3.0 S-2003-US-394 2.9 3.2 3.4 S-2003-US-623 3.5 3.2 3.4

111 Appendix 24. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 23.06.2007

Genotypes R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 0.9 1.1 1.0 CPF-243 1.1 1.3 1.5 S-2002-US-114 1.3 1.2 1.6 S-2003-US-809 2.5 2.3 2.1 S-2002-US-140 1.9 1.7 2.2 S-2002-US-104 2.3 2.1 2.4 CPHS-35 3.7 3.9 3.5 S-2003-US-394 3.4 3.7 3.9 S-2003-US-623 3.9 3.6 3.8

Appendix 25. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 30.06.2007

Genotypes R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 1.5 1.8 1.6 CPF-243 1.7 1.9 2.2 S-2002-US-114 2.0 1.9 2.3 S-2003-US-809 3.5 3.3 2.9 S-2002-US-140 2.9 2.7 3.5 S-2002-US-104 3.3 3.4 3.4 CPHS-35 4.8 5.2 5.4 S-2003-US-394 5.4 5.7 6.2 S-2003-US-623 6.9 6.6 6.7

112 Appendix 26. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 07.07.2007

Genotypes R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 2.5 2.7 2.4 CPF-243 2.8 2.9 2.5 S-2002-US-114 3.1 2.7 3.3 S-2003-US-809 5.6 5.7 5.8 S-2002-US-140 5.9 5.4 6.2 S-2002-US-104 5.3 5.4 5.2 CPHS-35 7.8 8.2 8.7 S-2003-US-394 8.4 8.4 9.5 S-2003-US-623 10.2 10.6 10.7

Appendix 27. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 14.07.2007

Genotypes R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 4.3 5.0 4.4 CPF-243 4.8 4.8 4.7 S-2002-US-114 5.3 6.0 5.3 S-2003-US-809 8.6 9.2 8.8 S-2002-US-140 9.9 9.6 10.5 S-2002-US-104 8.9 10.4 11.0 CPHS-35 12.6 12.2 13.5 S-2003-US-394 13.4 14.0 14.5 S-2003-US-623 15.2 15.8 15.6

113 Appendix 28. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 21.07.2007

Genotypes R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 6.3 7.1 6.4 CPF-243 6.9 6.7 6.8 S-2002-US-114 7.4 8.0 8.4 S-2003-US-809 11.6 12.4 12.8 S-2002-US-140 12.9 13.0 13.5 S-2002-US-104 14.0 14.4 15.0 CPHS-35 17.7 18.0 18.5 S-2003-US-394 19.5 18.7 20.0 S-2003-US-623 21.0 22.0 19.6

Appendix 29. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 28.07.2007

Genotypes R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 8.3 9.1 8.3 CPF-243 8.5 9.0 8.7 S-2002-US-114 9.6 10.2 10.5 S-2003-US-809 15.6 16.3 16.9 S-2002-US-140 17.6 18.2 19.0 S-2002-US-104 19.2 18.8 20.0 CPHS-35 22.7 24.2 25.8 S-2003-US-394 26.5 25.4 26.2 S-2003-US-623 28.3 26.5 28.6

114 Appendix 30. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 04.08.2007

Genotypes R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 10.3 11.1 10.5 CPF-243 10.7 11.0 10.4 S-2002-US-114 11.5 12.1 12.5 S-2003-US-809 17.6 18.3 18.5 S-2002-US-140 19.6 20.2 19.8 S-2002-US-104 21.2 20.8 21.3 CPHS-35 28.4 30.5 31.2 S-2003-US-394 33.3 31.5 32.4 S-2003-US-623 33.0 31.0 34.2

Appendix 31. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 11.08.2007

Genotypes R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 11.4 12.2 11.5 CPF-243 11.4 10.9 11.6 S-2002-US-114 12.4 13.5 14.0 S-2003-US-809 19.6 21.3 22.5 S-2002-US-140 20.5 23.4 23.6 S-2002-US-104 25.0 25.8 26.0 CPHS-35 36.4 37.5 39.2 S-2003-US-394 38.3 39.0 40.7 S-2003-US-623 41.2 38.5 42.7

115 Appendix 32. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 18.08.2007

Genotypes R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 12.5 13.4 12.8 CPF-243 12.7 13.0 13.1 S-2002-US-114 14.4 15.5 16.2 S-2003-US-809 22.6 23.4 25.4 S-2002-US-140 23.5 26.2 27.0 S-2002-US-104 28.1 28.8 28.9 CPHS-35 42.4 43.5 45.4 S-2003-US-394 45.2 45.4 46.0 S-2003-US-623 47.2 46.7 48.8

Appendix 33. DATA, REGARDING THE POPULATION OF PYRILLA (NYMPHS + ADULTS), PER LEAF, ON DIFFERENT GENOTYPES OF THE SUGARCANE, ON 25.08.2007

Genotypes R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 14.5 13.6 14.8 CPF-243 14.6 15.0 15.3 S-2002-US-114 16.4 17.5 18.4 S-2003-US-809 24.6 25.4 26.4 S-2002-US-140 25.6 26.9 28.2 S-2002-US-104 30.1 31.0 31.6 CPHS-35 47.4 47.5 49.2 S-2003-US-394 50.2 48.4 49.5 S-2003-US-623 52.2 49.8 53.9

116 Appendix 34. DATA, REGARDING THE WEATHER FACTORS, DURING 2006

Date Temperature °C RH (%) Rainfall Maximum Minimum Average (mm) May 07 41.5 (6.48) 23.24 (4.87) 32.37 (5.73) 34.28 (5.89) 0.00 (0.71) May 14 42.62 (6.64) 25.40 (5.09) 34.51 (5.92) 32.07 (5.70) 0.00 (0.71) May 21 38.95 (6.28) 21.2 (4.66) 30.10 (5.53) 42.92 (6.58) 15.20 (3.96) May 28 40.72 (6.42) 25.5 (5.09) 33.11 (5.79) 43.57 (6.59) 7.20 (2.77) June 04 40.51 (6.40) 26.38 (5.18) 33.44 (5.78) 34.00 (5.87) 0.00 (0.71) June 11 41.44 (6.47) 24.40 (4.99) 32.92 (5.78) 30.35 (5.55) 0.00 (0.71) June 18 37.07 (6.13) 20.38 (4.57) 28.72 (5.41) 42.40 (6.55) 4.00 (2.12) June 25 39.4 (6.32) 24.40 (4.99) 31.90 (5.69) 46.85 (6.88) 17.20 (4.21) July 02 37.54 (6.17) 25.78 (5.13) 31.66 (5.67) 63.85 (8.02) 25.00 (5.05) July 09 40.02 (6.36) 28.30 (5.37) 34.16 (5.88) 56.14 (7.52) 0.00 (0.71) July 16 34.67 (3.52) 24.42 (4.99) 29.54 (5.48) 68.28 (8.29) 29.20 (5.45) July 23 39.12 (6.29) 27.71 (5.31) 33.41 (5.82) 66.57 (8.18) 0.00 (0.71) July 30 35.05 (5.96) 26.37 (6.07) 30.71 (5.58) 77.07 (8.81) 0.00 (0.71) August 06 35.14 (5.97) 26.31 (5.18) 30.72 (5.59) 76.85 (8.79) 41.60 (6.49) August 13 35.88 (6.03) 25.75 (5.12) 30.81 (5.59) 75.92 (8.74) 0.00 (0.71) August 20 36.74 (6.10) 26.12 (5.16) 31.43 (5.65) 80.64 (9.00) 54.50 (7.42) August 27 37.54 (6.17) 26.10 (5.16) 31.82 (5.68) 79.50 (8.94) 0.00 (0.71)

117 Appendix 35. DATA, REGARDING THE WEATHER FACTORS, DURING 2007

Date Temperature °C RH (%) Rainfall Maximum Minimum Average (mm) May 12 39.60 (6.33 ) 23.30 (4.87) 31.45 (5.65) 40.71 (6.42) 4.00 (2.12) May 19 41.20 (6.46) 26.20 (5.17) 33.20 (5.84) 45.14 (6.75) 0.00 (0.71) May 26 38.90 (6.28) 23.70 (4.92) 31.30 (5.63) 36.30 (6.06) 0.00 (0.71) June 02 39.30 (6.31) 22.52 (4.79) 30.90 (5.60) 36.90 (6.11) 0.00 (0.71) June 09 42.70 (6.57) 25.90 (5.13) 34.30 (5.89) 38.00 (6.20) 0.00 (0.71) June 16 42.70 (6.57) 25.90 (5.14) 34.30 (5.89) 54.10 (7.39) 20.00 (4.52) June 23 35.30 (5.98) 24.40 (4.99) 29.85 (5.50) 62.90 (7.96) 9.90 (3.22) June 30 37.30 (6.15) 25.90 (5.14) 31.60 (5.66) 64.00 (8.03) 0.50 (1.00) July 07 36.90 (6.12) 27.10 (5.25) 31.90 (5.69) 66.40 (8.17 15.30 (3.97) July 14 36.70 (6.09) 21.20 (4.65) 28.9 (5.42) 64.90 (8.08) 77.40 (8.82) July 21 35.60 (6.01) 24.70 (5.02) 30.10 (5.53) 65.00 (8.09) 42.30 (6.54) July 28 36.40 (6.07) 25.40 (5.08) 30.90 (5.60) 67.60 (8.25) 21.40 (4.67) August 04 37.80 (6.18) 26.70 (5.22) 32.30 (5.73) 62.40 (7.93) 0.00 (0.71) August 11 37.20 (6.14) 26.40 (5.18) 31.80 (5.68) 63.00 (7.97) 0.00 (0.71) August 18 38.10 (6.21) 26.30 (5.17) 32.20 (5.72) 64.00 (8.03) 0.00 (0.71) August 25 37.40 (6.16) 24.10 (4.95) 30.80 (5.59) 65.30 (8.11) 17.00 (4.18)

118 Appendix 36. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING THE LEAF-WIDTH (cm) IN VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE

GENOTYPES R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 3.81 (2.08) 3.80 (2.07) 3.79 (2.07) CPF-243 3.82 (2.08 3.85 (2.09) 3.80 (2.07) S-2002-US-114 3.92 (2.10) 3.90 (2.09) 3.93 (2.10) S-2003-US-809 4.40 (2.21) 4.45 (2.22) 4.43 (2.22 S-2002-US-140 4.50 (2.23) 4.52 (2.24) 4.52 (2.24) S-2002-US-104 4.53 (2.24) 4.60 (2.26) 4.57 (2.25) CPHS-35 4.81 (2.30) 8.85 (3.06) 4.83 (2.31) S-2003-US-394 4.66 (2.27) 4.72 (2.28) 4.79 (2.30) S-2003-US-623 4.84 (2.31) 4.82 (2.31) 4.87 (2.32)

ANOVA S.O.V D.F. M.S. F. RATIO Replication 2 0.624 1.04 Genotypes 8 1.584 2.64 * Error 16 0.600 CV = 17.09%

119 Appendix 37. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING LEAF-LENGTH (cm) IN VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE

GENOTYPES R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 151.00 (12.3) 149.00 (12.2) 153.00 (12.4) CPF-243 146.00 (12.1) 148.00 (12.2) 149.00 (12.2) S-2002-US-114 120.00 (10.9) 122.00 (11.1) 123.00 (11.1) S-2003-US-809 (127.00 (11.30 128.00 (11.3) 130.00 (11.4) S-2002-US-140 (140.00 (11.8) 142.00 (11.9) 144.00 (12.0) S-2002-US-104 160.00 (12.7) 162.00 (12.7) 159.00 (12.6) CPHS-35 138.00 (11.77) (140.00 (11.8) 137.00 (11.7) S-2003-US-394 (143.00 (11.90) 145.00 (12.1) 142.00 (11.9) S-2003-US-623 152.00 (12.3) 155.00 (12.5 14.90 (12.2)

ANOVA S.O.V D.F. M.S. F. RATIO Replication 2 5.593 1.76 Genotypes 8 434.898 136.94 ** Error 16 3.176 CV = 1.25%

120 Appendix 38. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING LEAF-SPINE-DENSITY (cm2) IN VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE

GENOTYPES R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 30.00 (5.52) 32.10 (5.71) 30.30 (5.55) CPF-243 29.00 (5.43) 32.00 (5.70) 33.10 (5.79) S-2002-US-114 30.00 (5.50) 29.80 (5.50) 31.00 (5.61) S-2003-US-809 20.20 (4.55) 21.50 (4.69) 23.00 (4.85) S-2002-US-140 20.00 (4.52) 18.90 (4.40) 17.50 (4.24) S-2002-US-104 18.50 (4.36) 19.90 (4.53) 18.70 (4.30) CPHS-35 5.50 (2.45) 6.00 (2.55) 6.90 (2.72) S-2003-US-394 4.00 (2.12) 5.20 (6.9) 6.10 (2.57) S-2003-US-623 6.00 (2.55) 5.50 (2.45) 5.20 (2.39)

ANOVA S.O.V D.F. M.S. F. RATIO Replication 2 2.483 2.07 Genotypes 8 361.625 301.12 ** Error 16 1.201 CV = 5.85%

121 Appendix 39. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING CANE-LENGTH (m) IN VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE

GENOTYPES R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 2.34 (1.68) 2.36 (1.69) 2.40 (1.70) CPF-243 2.24 (1.65) 2.30 (1.67) 2.28 (1.67) S-2002-US-114 2.65 (1.77) 2.70 (1.79) 2.68 (1.78) S-2003-US-809 2.55 (1.75) 2.61 (1.76) 2.57 (1.75) S-2002-US-140 2.28 (1.67) 2.40 (1.70) 2.32 (1.68) S-2002-US-104 3.64 (2.03) 3.50 (2.00) 3.54 (2.01) CPHS-35 2.90 (1.84) 2.92 (1.85) 2.89 (1.84) S-2003-US-394 2.96 (1.86) 2.87 (1.83) 2.85 (1.83) S-2003-US-623 2.51 (1.73) 2.52 (1.74) 2.61 (1.76)

ANOVA S.O.V D.F. M.S. F. RATIO Replication 2 0.000 0.15 Genotypes 8 0.481 205.42 ** Error 16 0.002 CV = 1.80%

122 Appendix 40. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING CANE-DIAMETER (cm) IN VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE

GENOTYPES R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 2.45 (1.71) 2.47 (1.72) 2.50 (1.73) CPF-243 2.52 (1.74) 2.55 (1.75) 2.62 (1.77) S-2002-US-114 2.47 (1.72) 2.56 (1.75) 2.48 (1.73) S-2003-US-809 2.49 (1.73) 2.55 (1.75) 2.44 (1.71) S-2002-US-140 2.60 (1.76) 2.65 (1.77) 2.57 (1.75) S-2002-US-104 2.65 (1.77) 2.70 (1.79) 2.68 (1.78) CPHS-35 2.42 (1.71) 2.48 (1.73) 2.44 (1.71) S-2003-US-394 2.48 (1.73) 2.52 (1.74) 2.47 (1.72) S-2003-US-623 2.53 (1.74) 2.50 (1.73) 2.44 (1.71)

ANOVA S.O.V D.F. M.S. F. RATIO Replication 2 0.005 3.74 Genotypes 8 0.016 13.10 ** Error 16 0.001 CV = 1.40%

123 Appendix 41. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING NITROGEN (%) IN LEAVES, OF THE VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE

GENOTYPES R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 1.90 (1.55) 1.89 (1.55) 1.87 (1.54) CPF-243 1.86 (1.54) 1.88 (1.54) 1.85 (1.53) S-2002-US-114 1.83 (1.53) 1.86 (1.54) 1.85 (1.53) S-2003-US-809 1.95 (1.56) 1.97 (1.54) 1.98 (1.57) S-2002-US-140 1.99 (1.58) 2.10 (1.61) 2.20 (1.64) S-2002-US-104 2.12 (1.62) 2.10 (1.61) 2.09 (1.61) CPHS-35 2.18 (1.64) 2.19 (1.64) 2.22 (1.65) S-2003-US-394 2.14 (1.65) 2.25 (1.66) 2.19 (1.64) S-2003-US-623 2.25 (1.66) 2.28 (1.66) 2.27 (1.66)

ANOVA S.O.V D.F. M.S. F. RATIO Replication 2 0.001 0.95 Genotypes 8 0.080 51.82 ** Error 16 0.002 CV = 1.92%

124 Appendix 42. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING PHOSPHORUS PERCENTAGE, IN THE LEAVES OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE

GENOTYPES R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 0.210 (0.842) 0.213 (0.844) 0.211 (0.843) CPF-243 0.209 (0.842) 0.211 (0.843) 0.212 (0.844) S-2002-US-114 0.213 (0.844) 0.214 (0.845) 0.212 (0.844) S-2003-US-809 0.182 (0.825) 0.183 (0.826) 0.184 (0.827) S-2002-US-140 0.182 0.835) 0.184 (0.827) 0.186 (0.828) S-2002-US-104 0.180 (0.824) 0.182 (0.826) 0.183 (0.826) CPHS-35 0.168 (0.817) 0.169 (0.818) 0.167 (0.816) S-2003-US-394 0.169 (0.818) 0.170 (0.818) 0.168 (0.817) S-2003-US-623 0.169 (0.818) 0.170 (0.818) 0.172 (0.819)

ANOVA S.O.V D.F. M.S. F. RATIO Replication 2 0.000 3.22 Genotypes 8 0.001 830.67 ** Error 16 0.0001 CV = 0.60%.

125 Appendix 43. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING TOTAL MINERAL PERCENTAGE, IN THE LEAVES OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE

GENOTYPES R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 6.80 (2.70) 6.76 (2.69) 6.69 (2.68) CPF-243 6.63 (2.67) 6.77(2.69) 6.66(2.67) S-2002-US-114 6.63 (2.67) 6.65(2.67) 6.67(2.68) S-2003-US-809 6.75 (2.69) 6.67(2.68) 6.63(2.67) S-2002-US-140 6.65(2.67) 6.71(2.68) 6.70(2.68) S-2002-US-104 6.67 (2.68) 6.69(2.68) 6.71(2.68) CPHS-35 6.70 (2.68) 6.72(2.69) 6.69(2.68) S-2003-US-394 6.67 (2.68) 6.66 (2.67) 6.68(2.68) S-2003-US-623 6.67(2.68) 6.69(2.68) 6.67(2.68)

ANOVA S.O.V D.F. M.S. F. RATIO Replication 2 0.001 0.85 Genotypes 8 0.002 1.37 ns Error 16 0.002 CV = 0.61%

126 Appendix 44. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING CALCIUM PERCENTAGE, IN THE LEAVES OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE

GENOTYPES R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 0.144 (0.80) 0.145 (0.80) 0.145(0.80) CPF-243 0.148(0.80) 0.150(0.80) 0.149(0.80) S-2002-US-114 0.148(0.80) 0.150(0.80) 0.149(0.80) S-2003-US-809 0.157(0.81) 0.159(0.81) 0.156(0.80) S-2002-US-140 0.162 (0.81) 0.159(0.81) 0.160(0.81) S-2002-US-104 0.149(0.80) 0.150(0.80) 0.151(0.81) CPHS-35 1.48(0.80) 0.149(0.80) 0.150(0.80) S-2003-US-394 0.147(0.80) 0.148(0.80) 0.150(0.80) S-2003-US-623 0.148(0.80) 0.150(0.80) 0.149 (0.80)

ANOVA S.O.V D.F. M.S. F. RATIO Replication 2 0.000 2.25 Genotypes 8 0.000 59.45 ** Error 16 0.00001 CV = 0.73%

127 Appendix 45. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING MAGNESIUM PERCENTAGE, IN THE LEAVES OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE

GENOTYPES R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 0.146(0.80) 0.143(0.80) 0.144(0.80) CPF-243 0.148(0.80) 0.145(0.80) 0.146(0.80) S-2002-US-114 0.147(0.80) 0.148(0.80) 0.149(0.80) S-2003-US-809 0.155(0.81) 0.156(0.81) 0.158(0.81) S-2002-US-140 0.152(0.81) 0.154(0.81) 0.153(0.81) S-2002-US-104 0.160(0.81) 0.162(0.81) 0.159(0.81) CPHS-35 0.165(0.81) 0.164(0.81) 0.165(0.81) S-2003-US-394 0.149(0.80) 0.152(0.81) 0.154(0.81) S-2003-US-623 0.159(0.81) 0.160(0.81) 0.162(0.81)

ANOVA S.O.V D.F. M.S. F. RATIO Replication 2 0.000 1.04 Genotypes 8 0.000 65.67 ** Error 16 0.0001 CV = 0.97%

128 Appendix 46. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING FAT PERCENTAGE, IN THE LEAVES OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE

GENOTYPES R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 2.18(1.64) 2.20(1.64) 2.19(1.64) CPF-243 2.17(1.63) 2.18(1.64) 2.19(1.64) S-2002-US-114 2.19(1.64) 2.20(1.64) 2.18(1.64) S-2003-US-809 2.18(1.63) 2.17(1.63) 2.19(1.64) S-2002-US-140 2.15(1.63) 2.16(1.63) 2.18(1.64) S-2002-US-104 2.17(1.63) 2.16(1.63) 2.18(1.64) CPHS-35 2.20(1.64) 2.18(1.64) 2.18(1.64) S-2003-US-394 2.21(1.65) 2.18(1.64) 2.20(1.64) S-2003-US-623 2.20(1.64) 2.19(1.64) 2.18(1.64)

ANOVA S.O.V D.F. M.S. F. RATIO Replication 2 0.000 0.50 Genotypes 8 0.000 2.45 ns Error 16 0.0001 CV = 0.54%

129 Appendix 47. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING CARBOHYDRATES (%), IN THE LEAVES OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE

GENOTYPES R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 48.65(7.01) 49.32(7.03) 48.91(7.03) CPF-243 48.32(6.98) 48.39(6.99) 49.52(7.07) S-2002-US-114 49.50(7.07) 48.36(6.99) 48.90(7.03) S-2003-US-809 50.50(7.14) 50.80(7.16) 50.87(7.17) S-2002-US-140 51.52(7.21) 50.90(7.17) 50.95(7.17) S-2002-US-104 52.00(7.24) 51.15(7.19) 51.70(7.22) CPHS-35 53.08(7.32) 54.23(7.39) 53.73(7.36) S-2003-US-394 53.40(7.34) 54.34(7.40) 53.62(7.36) S-2003-US-623 53.40(7.34) 54.85(7.44) 54.35(7.41)

ANOVA S.O.V D.F. M.S. F. RATIO Replication 2 0.161 0.59 Genotypes 8 14.399 52.55 ** Error 16 0.274 CV = 1.02%

130 Appendix 48. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING THE COPPER-CONTENTS (ppm), IN THE LEAVES OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE

GENOTYPES R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 3.77(2.07) 3.78(2.07) 3.76(2.06) CPF-243 3.78(2.07) 3.79(2.07) 3.80(2.07) S-2002-US-114 3.75(2.06) 3.78(2.07) 3.81(2.08) S-2003-US-809 3.52(2.00) 3.66(2.04) 3.75(2.06) S-2002-US-140 3.70(2.05) 3.66(2.04) 3.67(2.04) S-2002-US-104 3.72(2.05) 3.68(2.04) 3.69(2.04) CPHS-35 3.70(2.05) 3.71(2.05) 3.72(2.05) S-2003-US-394 3.75(2.06) 3.76(2.06) 3.72(2.05) S-2003-US-623 3.67(2.04) 3.72(2.05) 3.70(2.05)

ANOVA S.O.V D.F. M.S. F. RATIO Replication 2 0.002 1.08 Genotypes 8 0.008 4.19 ** Error 16 0.002 CV = 1.15%

131 Appendix 49. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING THE ZINC CONTENTS (ppm), IN THE LEAVES OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE

GENOTYPES R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 20.27(4.56) 20.15(4.43) 20.22(4.55) CPF-243 20.18(4.55) 20.19(4.55) 20.24(4.55) S-2002-US-114 20.30(4.56) 20.28(4.56) 20.26(4.55) S-2003-US-809 19.40(4.46) 19.38(4.46) 19.39(4.46) S-2002-US-140 19.32(4.45) 19.37(4.46) 18.90(4.40) S-2002-US-104 18.76(4.39) 18.77(4.39) 18.87(4.40) CPHS-35 17.19(4.21) 17.17(4.20) 17.22(4.21) S-2003-US-394 18.20(4.32) 18.15(4.32) 18.65(4.38) S-2003-US-623 19.20(4.44) 18.97(4.41) 19.10(4.43)

ANOVA S.O.V D.F. M.S. F. RATIO Replication 2 0.006 0.31 Genotypes 8 6.069 154.27 ** Error 16 0.020 CV = 0.74%

132 Appendix 50. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING THE POL PERCENTAGE, IN THE SUGAR, OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE

GENOTYPES R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 19.38(4.46) 18.90(4.40) 18.87(4.40) CPF-243 19.67(4.49) 19.50(4.47) 19.25(4.44) S-2002-US-114 18.97(4.41) 19.53(4.47) 18.87(4.40) S-2003-US-809 18.50(4.36) 18.57(4.37) 18.88(4.40) S-2002-US-140 18.56(4.37) 18.59(4.37) 18.75(4.39) S-2002-US-104 18.70(4.38) 18.90(4.40) 19.15(4.43) CPHS-35 18.25(4.33) 18.39(4.34) 18.75(4.39) S-2003-US-394 18.69(4.38) 18.50(4.36) 18.76(4.39) S-2003-US-623 18.44(4.35) 19.57(4.37) 18.47(4.35)

ANOVA S.O.V D.F. M.S. F. RATIO Replication 2 0.010 0.18 Genotypes 8 0.340 6.26 ** Error 16 0.054 CV = 1.24%

133 Appendix 51. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING THE BRIX PERCENTAGE, IN THE SUGAR, OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE

GENOTYPES R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 22.73(4.82) 21.85(4.73) 22.40(4.78) CPF-243 20.73(4.61) 21.15(4.65) 20.80(4.61) S-2002-US-114 20.62(4.54) 21.10(4.64) 20.90(4.63) S-2003-US-809 20.90(4.63) 20.85(4.62) 20.75(4.61) S-2002-US-140 21.68(4.71) 21.67(4.71) 21.50(4.69) S-2002-US-104 20.70(4.60) 21.02(4.64) 20.92(4.63) CPHS-35 21.50(4.69) 21.56(4.69) 20.97(4.63) S-2003-US-394 20.65(4.59) 20.54(4.59) 20.87(4.62) S-2003-US-623 20.60(4.59) 20.85(4.57) 20.79(4.61)

ANOVA S.O.V D.F. M.S. F. RATIO Replication 2 0.008 0.09 Genotypes 8 0.974 11.37 ** Error 16 0.086 CV = 1.39%

134 Appendix 52. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING THE CCS PERCENTAGE, IN THE SUGAR, OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE

GENOTYPES R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 13.15 (3.61) 13.42(3.73) 13.09(3.68) CPF-243 12.65(3.63) 12.69(3.63) 12.75(3.64) S-2002-US-114 12.65(3.63) 12.60(3.62) 12.55(3.61) S-2003-US-809 12.42(3.59) 12.39(3.59) 12.45(3.59) S-2002-US-140 12.26(3.57) 13.01(3.67) 12.90(3.66) S-2002-US-104 12.82(3.65) 13.44(3.73) 13.24(3.71) CPHS-35 12.87(3.66) 12.90(3.66) 13.15(3.69) S-2003-US-394 12.78(3.64) 12.97(3.67) 13.17(3.69) S-2003-US-623 13.19(3.70) 13.18(3.69) 13.10(3.69)

ANOVA S.O.V D.F. M.S. F. RATIO Replication 2 0.109 3.42 Genotypes 8 0.240 7.51 ** Error 16 0.032 CV = 1.39%

135 Appendix 53. DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE, REGARDING THE FIBER CONTENTS (%), IN THE SUGAR, OF VARIOUS SELECTED GENOTYPES, OF THE SUGARCANE

GENOTYPES R1 R2 R3 HSF-240 14.90(3.92) 14.60(3.88) 14.80(3.91) CPF-243 14.70(3.89) 14.75(3.90) 14.85(3.91) S-2002-US-114 14.76(3.91) 14.80(3.91) 14.84(3.91) S-2003-US-809 13.65(3.76) 13.70(3.77) 13.85(3.91) S-2002-US-140 13.81(3.78) 13.90(3.79) 13.78(3.78) S-2002-US-104 13.78(3.48) 13.85(3.79) 13.92(3.79) CPHS-35 11.65(3.56) 12.15(3.56) 11.97(3.53) S-2003-US-394 12.15(3.57) 12.17(3.55) 12.23(3.57) S-2003-US-623 12.25 12.29(3.58) 12.35(3.58)

ANOVA S.O.V D.F. M.S. F. RATIO Replication 2 0.025 2.12 Genotypes 8 4.052 345.01 ** Error 16 0.012 CV = 0.80%

136 Appendix 54. POPULATION OF Pyrilla perpusilla, ON THE RESISTANT GENOTYPE OF SUGARCANE, IN VARIOUS CONTROL METHODS AT DIFFERENT DATES OF OBSERVATIONS

T.# DATES OF OBSERVATIONS 15.05.2008 31.05.2008 16.06.2008 01.07.2008 16.07.2008 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 T1 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.3 1.2 1.4 2.0 1.9 1.8 3.0 2.9 2.8 T2 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.8 T3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.6 T4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.5 T5 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 T6 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.4 T7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 T8 1.00 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.5 1.5 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.5 3.7 3.9 6.3 6.7 6.5

T.# DATES OF OBSERVATIONS 31.07.2008 15.08.2008 30.08.2008 15.09.2008 30.09.2008 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 T1 4.1 4.2 3.9 5.3 5.2 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.4 7.5 7.2 6.9 6.9 7.2 7.5 T2 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.8 1.2 0.9 0.8 1.3 1.0 0.9 T3 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 T4 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 T5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 T6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 T7 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 T8 8.4 8.0 8.6 10.2 10.5 11.3 12.6 12.4 12.8 13.6 14.0 13.8 14.8 15.3 16.2

Where; T1 = Cultural Control T2 = Biological Control T3 = Chemical Control T4 = Biological + Cultural Control T5 = Biological + Chemical Control T6 = Cultural + Chemical Control T7 = Cultural + Chemical + Biological Control T8 = Control

137 Appendix 55. DATA, REGARDING THE CANE-YIELD (MOND/HA), IN VARIOUS METHODS, APPLIED FOR THE CONTROL OF POPULATION OF THE Pyrilla perpusilla, ON THE RESISTANT GENOTYPE, OF SUGARCANE

Treatments R1 R2 R3 T1 2198 2210 2235 T2 2575 2582 2557 T3 2805 2790 2817 T4 2746 2677 2734 T5 3198 3187 3210 T6 3270 3295 3288 T7 3433 3397 3417 T8 1901 1940 1931

Where; T1 = Cultural Control T2 = Biological Control T3 = Chemical Control T4 = Biological + Cultural Control T5 = Biological + Chemical Control T6 = Cultural + Chemical Control T7 = Cultural + Chemical + Biological Control T8 = Control

138