Abstract
The sugarcane borerDiatrea saccharalis (F.) is the most serious and destructive insect attacking sugarcane in Louisiana. Losses in sugar yields ascribed to damage by this pest were estimated to have averaged 13% anally from 1937 to 1957. Biological and cultural control measures have been of little benefit against economically damaging infestations ofD. saccharalis and insecticides have historically assumed a major role in control programs.
The maximum number of insecticide applications recommended to growers for full-season control ofD. saccharalis on sugarcane has been reduced from 12 to 3 within the past decade. Management practices most responsible for reductions in applications are: 1) discontinuance of insecticidal control of the first generation, 2) improvement of field survey methods for detecting potentially damaging infestations, 3) utilization of an economic injury threshold to ascertain need for insecticide treatment, 4) replacement of ryania and cryolite in control programs with synthetic organic insecticides that provide more effective and longer periods of control, and and 5) more emphasis on host plant resistance to reduce insecticide use.
Résumé
Le foreur de la Canne à sucreDiatraea saccharalis (F.) est le plus important ravageur de la Canne à sucre en Louisiane depuis plusieurs années. Il a causé une perte de production de sucre en moyenne de 13% par an de 1937 à 1957. Les méthodes de lutte biologique et culturale ont eu peu de résultats contre les infestations deD. saccharalis et les insecticides ont historiquement eu un rôle plus significatif.
Le nombre maximum d'applications d'insecticide conseillé aux planteurs a été réduit de 12 à 3 au cours de la dernière décennie. Les mesures prises en ce sens sont: 1o la suppression du traitement contre la première génération depuis que les recherches ont montré que les larves de cette génération ne détruisent pas assez de jeunes plantes pour diminuer la production et que les résultats obtenus n'étaient pas suffisants sur la seconde génération pour justifier la dépense; 2o l'arrêt des applications hebdomadaires systématiques et l'intervention lorsque 5% des tiges sont infestés par de petites larves; 3o l'amélioration des méthodes de surveillance des champs pour mettre en évidence des infestations potentielles, d'après le nombre de larves vivantes; 4o l'utilisation d'insecticides organiques de synthèse très efficaces qui permettent de longs intervalles entre les applications et qui causent les moindres dommages aux populations d'arthropodes utiles; 5o un plus grand accent sur la résistance des plantes-hôtes comme un moyen de lutter contre le foreur de la Canne à sucre et de diminuer l'emploi d'insecticides.
Les avantages de ce programme sont les suivants:
-
-efficacité,
-
-économie,
-
-exécution facile,
-
-réduction des effects contraires sur les autres organismes et
-
-pollution minimum de l'environnement avec des résidus toxiques persistants.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Burrel, R. W. &McCormick, W. J. — 1962. Effect ofTrichogramma releases on parasitism of sugarcane borer eggs. —J. econ. Entom.,55, 880–82.
Cancienne, E. A. &Hensley, S. D. — 1966. How to controlthe sugarcane borer. —Sugar Bull.,44, 268–71.
Charpentier, L. J., McCormick, W. J. & Mathes, R. — 1959. Biological control of the sugarcane borer in Louisiana. —Proc. intern. Congr. Sugarcane Technol. 10th, 865–69.
Clausen, C. P. — 1956. Biological control of insect pests in the continental United States. —U. S. Dept. Agric. tech. Bull., 1149, 151 pp.
Coburn, G. & Hensley, S. D. — 1971. Differential survival of sugarcane borer larvae on two varieties of sugarcane. —J. econ. Entom. (In press).
Davis, L. F. &Hensley, S. D. — 1966. Control of the sugarcane borer with low volume concentrates of insecticide. —Sugar Bull.,45, 86–8.
Dugas, A. L. — 1956. Recommendations for the chemical control of the sugarcane borer in Louisiana. —Sugar Bull.,34, 191–2.
Hensley, S. D., Long, W. H., Roddy, L. R. McCormick, W. J. &Concienne, E. J. — 1961 a. Effects of insecticides on the predaceous arthropod fauna of Louisiana sugarcane fields. —J. econ. Entom.,54, 146–9.
Hensley, S. D., McCormick, W. J., Long, W. H. &Concienne, E. J. — 1961 b. Field tests with new insecticides for control of the sugarcane borer in Louisiana in 1959. —J. econ. Entom.,54, 1153–4.
Hensley, S. D., Long, W. H., Concienne, E. J. &McCormick, W. J. — 1963. Control of first generation sugarcane borer populations in Louisiana. —J. econ. Entom.,56, 407–9.
Hensley, S. D., McCormick, W. J. — 1964. Granular versus spray formulations of endrin for control of the sugarcane borer in Louisiana. —J. econ. Entom.,57, 219–20.
Hensley, S. D., Concienne, E. J., McCormick, W. J. &Charpentier, L. J. — 1967. Azodrin, a new and promising insecticide for control of the sugarcane borer in Louisiana. —Sugar Bull.,45, 110–4.
Hensley, S. D., Concienne, E. J., McCormick, W. J. & Charpentier L. J. —1968. Recent developments in insecticidal control of the sugarcane borer in Louisiana. —Proc. intern. Congr. Sugarcane Technol. 13th, 1365–68.
Hensley, S. D. &Long, W. H. — 1969. Differential yield responses of commerical sugarcane varieties to sugarcane borer damage. —J. econ. Entom.,62, 620–2.
Hensley, S. D., Concienne E. J. & graduate assistants. — 1965–70. Summaries on research on sugarcane insects. (Mimeographed annual reports to the contact Committee of the American Sugarcane League).
Hinds, W. E., Osterberger, B. A. & Dugas, A. L. — 1933. Review of 6 seasons work in Louisiana in controlling the sugarcane moth borer by field colonizations of its egg parasiteTrichogramma minutum Riley. —La. Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull.,235, 33 pp.
Ingram, J. W., Bynum, E. K. & Mathes, R. — 1951. Pests of sugarcane and their control. —U.S. Dept. agr. Circ., 878, 38 pages.
Jaynes, H. A. — 1933. The parasites of the sugarcane borer in Argentina and Peru and their introduction into the United States. —U.S. Dept. agric. tech. Bull., 363, 27 pp.
Jaynes, H. A. & Bynum, E. K. — 1941. Experiments withTrichogramma minutum Riley as a control of the sugarcane borer in Louisiana., —J. econ. Entom. U. S. Dept. Agric. tech. Bull., 743, 42 pp.
Kyle, M. L. & Hensley, S. D. — 1971. Sugarcane borer host plant resistance studies. —Proc. La. Acad. Sci. (In press).
Long, W. H., Hensley, S. D., Concienne, E. J. &McCormick, W. J. — 1961. Field tests with new insecticides for sugarcane borer control in Louisiana in 1960. —J. econ. Entom.,54, 1155–6.
Long, W. H. &Concienne, E. J. — 1964. Critical period for controlling the sugarcane borer in Louisiana. —J. econ. Entom.,57, 350–3.
Long, W. H., Concienne, E. J., Hensley, S. D., McCormick, W. J. &Newsom, L. D. — 1964. Control of the sugarcane borer with insecticides. —J. econ. Entom.,52, 821–4.
Mathes, R. & Charpentier, L. — 1962. Some techniques and observations in studying resistance of sugarcane varieties to the sugarcane borer in Louisiana. —Proc. Intern. Congr. Sugarcane Technol. 11th, 594–602.
Negm, A. A. &Hensley, S. D. — 1967. The relationship of arthropod predators to crop damage inflicted by the sugarcane borer. —J. econ. Entom.,60, 1103–6.
Negm, A. A. &Hensley, S. D. — 1969. Evaluation of certain biological control agents of the sugarcane borer in Louisiana. —J. econ. entom. 62, 1008–13.
— — 1969. A list of spiders in Louisiana sugarcane fields. —Proc. La. Acad. Sci.,32, 50–52.
Yadav, R. P., Anderson, H.L. &Long, W. H. — 1965. Sugarcane borer resistance to insecticides. —J. econ. Entom.,58 1122–4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hensley, S.D. Management of sugarcane borer populations in Louisiana, a decade of change. Entomophaga 16, 133–146 (1971). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02370696
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02370696