Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control

FIELD RESISTANCE OF NEW PROMISING SUGARCANE CLONES AGAINST TOP

BORER AND SUGARCANE MOSAIC VIRUS IN INDONESIA
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: EBPC-D-18-00242

Full Title: FIELD RESISTANCE OF NEW PROMISING SUGARCANE CLONES AGAINST TOP
BORER AND SUGARCANE MOSAIC VIRUS IN INDONESIA

Article Type: Research

Funding Information:

Abstract: Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) possesses a high economic value since it
serves as a basic material for the production of sugar. Sugar production in Indonesia
faces several major obstacles, one of which is infestation from pests and disease
especially top borer and mosaic virus. This research aimed to identify the resistance of
new sugarcane clones to top borer and mosaic virus so that they can be utilized to
develop top borer and mosaic virus -resistant sugarcane and to improve productivity.
To test the field resistance of new promising sugarcane clones, an experiment was
conducted in Ngemplak Experimental Station. Fifty-nine potential clones with one
controlling variety (PS-921 variety or Kentung) were tested for their relative degree of
tolerance and susceptibility against top borers infestation and mosaic virus incidence.
These sugarcane clones were grown in Randomized Block Design with three
replications. Each variety was planted in a plot consisting of 3 rows @ 5-meter length.
The seedling was planted 50 cm apart so that the number of plants per plot was 30
plants. The distance of PKP (from center to center) was 100 cm, while the distance
between replicates was 3m. The observation included the types and percentage of top
borer infestation and mosaic virus incidence at two weeks interval. The results showed
that some of the new sugarcane clones were tolerant to top borer infestation and
mosaic incidence. The lowest sugarcane top borer infestation (tolerant category) was
found in five sugarcane clones, i.e. PS.06.334, PS 04.257, PS 06.356, PS 06.381 and
PS 04.259. Meanwhile, the lowest sugarcane mosaic virus incidence (tolerant
category) was found in one sugarcane clones, i.e. PS.05.258. programs. The top borer
infestation and mosaic virus incidence negatively affected the height of the sugarcane
plant, the length of the processed stalk, the weight of the stalk, yield, production, and
the sugar content. The resistant clones identified in this study could be used as
sources of top borer and mosaic virus resistance in sugarcane breeding.

Corresponding Author: Heri - Prabowo, MSc.

Indonesian Sweetener and Fiber Crops Research Institute
Malang, East Java INDONESIA

Corresponding Author Secondary

Information:

Corresponding Author's Institution: Indonesian Sweetener and Fiber Crops Research Institute

Corresponding Author's Secondary

Institution:

First Author: Heri - Prabowo, MSc.

First Author Secondary Information:

Order of Authors: Heri - Prabowo, MSc.

Nur - Asbani, MSi

Supriadi - -, Bachelor Degree

Bambang - Heliyanto, PhD.

Sri - Adikadarsih, MSc

Order of Authors Secondary Information:

Suggested Reviewers: Moataz Abdelmonem Mahmoud Moustafa, PhD,

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
 Assist. Professor, Cairo University
moataz.moustafa79@gmail.com
He expert in Insect resistance

Mohamed Samir Tawfik Abbas, PhD,

Researcher, Department of Biological Control, Plant Protection Research Institute,
Dokki, Giza, Egypt
samra_mst@hotmail.com
H expert in biological control

Opposed Reviewers:

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Cover Letter Click here to access/download;Cover Letter;COVERING
LETTER sugarcane.docx

TITLE PAGE

FIELD RESISTANCE OF NEW PROMISING SUGARCANE CLONES AGAINST BORER IN INDONESIA

Heri Prabowo1a, Nur Asbani1b, Supriyadi1c, Bambang Heliyanto1d, and Sri Adikadarsih1e
1
Indonesian Sweetener and Fiber Crops Research Institute
Jl Raya Karangploso Kotak Pos 199, Malang, East Java, Indonesia 65152
Correspondence : aheribalittas@gmail.com, bnurasbani@yahoo.com, csupriyadi@yahoo.com,
d
b.heliyanto@yahoo.com and eadikadarsih@yahoo.com
 COVERING LETTER

Editorial Department of Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest control

Dear Editor of Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest control,

I am pleased to submit an original research article entitled “Field resistance of new promising
sugarcane clones against top borer and sugarcane mosaic virus in Indonesia” by Heri Prabowo, Nur Asbani,
Supriyadi, Bambang Heliyanto and Sri Adikadarsih for consideration for publication in Egyptian
Journal of Biological Pest control. We are all researcher from Indonesian sweetener and fiber crops
research institute with address Jl Raya Karangploso Kotak Pos 199, Malang, East Java, Indonesia 65152.
Details contact all author i.e. Heri Prabowo (heribalittas@gmail.com), Nur Asbani
(nurasbani@yahoo.com), Supriyadi (supriyadi@yahoo.com), Bambang Heliyanto
(b.heliyanto@yahoo.com) and Sri Adikadarsih (adikadarsih@yahoo.com).

In this manuscript, we show that the resistant sugarcane clones identified in this study could be
used as sources of top borer and mosaic virus resistance in sugarcane breeding. The five sugarcane clones
PS.06.334, PS 04.257, PS 06.356, PS 06.381 and PS 04.259 could be uses as sugarcane clones resistance
to control top borer infestation. Meanwhile, for controlling mosaic virus, we can use sugarcane clone
PS.05.258.

We believe that this manuscript is appropriate for publication by Egyptian

Journal of Biological Pest control because it gives information about sugarcane clones resistant to top
borer and mosaic virus which can integrate in integrated pest management program.

This manuscript has not been published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. We
have no conflicts of interest to disclose. The second author, third author, fourth writer, and fifth author agreed to
publish the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. We clarify that figures or tables on this
paper have not previously been published elsewhere.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Heri Prabowo

Indonesian Sweetener and Fiber Crops Research Institute (ISFCRI).

Jl Raya Karangploso Kotak Pos 199, Malang, East Java, Indonesia 65152.
Blinded Manuscript Click here to access/download;Blinded Manuscript;borer heri
prabowo egypt2.docx
Click here to view linked References

FIELD RESISTANCE OF NEW PROMISING SUGARCANE CLONES AGAINST TOP

1
2 BORER AND SUGARCANE MOSAIC VIRUS IN INDONESIA
3
4 Abstract.
5 Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) possesses a high economic value since it serves as a basic material for the
6 production of sugar. Sugar production in Indonesia faces several major obstacles, one of which is infestation from pests
7 and disease especially top borer and mosaic virus. This research aimed to identify the resistance of new sugarcane clones
8 to top borer and mosaic virus so that they can be utilized to develop top borer and mosaic virus -resistant sugarcane and
9 to improve productivity. To test the field resistance of new promising sugarcane clones, an experiment was conducted in
10 Ngemplak Experimental Station. Fifty-nine potential clones with one controlling variety (PS-921 variety or Kentung) were
11
12
tested for their relative degree of tolerance and susceptibility against top borers infestation and mosaic virus incidence.
13 These sugarcane clones were grown in Randomized Block Design with three replications. Each variety was planted in a
14 plot consisting of 3 rows @ 5-meter length. The seedling was planted 50 cm apart so that the number of plants per plot
15 was 30 plants. The distance of PKP (from center to center) was 100 cm, while the distance between replicates was 3m.
16 The observation included the types and percentage of top borer infestation and mosaic virus incidence at two weeks
17 interval. The results showed that some of the new sugarcane clones were tolerant to top borer infestation and mosaic
18 incidence. The lowest sugarcane top borer infestation (tolerant category) was found in five sugarcane clones, i.e.
19 PS.06.334, PS 04.257, PS 06.356, PS 06.381 and PS 04.259. Meanwhile, the lowest sugarcane mosaic virus incidence
20
(tolerant category) was found in one sugarcane clones, i.e. PS.05.258. programs. The top borer infestation and mosaic
21
22 virus incidence negatively affected the height of the sugarcane plant, the length of the processed stalk, the weight of the
23 stalk, yield, production, and the sugar content. The resistant clones identified in this study could be used as sources of top
24 borer and mosaic virus resistance in sugarcane breeding.
25
26 Keywords: sugarcane, top borer, mosaic virus, field resistance, S. officinarum.
27
28
29 Background
30
31 Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) is the crop produced in the greatest quantities globally. A lot of benefit
32
33 from sugarcane, such as this plant mostly grown by resource-poor farmers who generate income from the sale of
34 sugarcane, important energy material and can promote sustainable development (Cai and Wu, 2006). In Indonesia,
35
36 sugarcane is widely cultivated on Java Island, Sumatera Island, and Sulawesi Island. In 2015, the sugarcane area in
37
38 Indonesia had reached 461,732 hectares, producing 5,683 kg/Ha yield production. However, it still could not meet the
39 national sugar consumption (GSMA,2016).
40
41 Sugar production in Indonesia faces several obstacles, one of which is infestation from pests and diseases.
42
43 Sugarcane is prone to pest and disease infestation which can lead in large losses (DSD, 2013;Goebel et al. 2014). More
44 than 100 pest found in sugarcane are in the form of insects, such as white top borer, white stem borer, giant white stem
45
46 borer, sugarcane woolly aphid, and white grubs (Magarey et al. 2010). Pests and diseases on sugarcane caused 37 %
47
48 total loss of sugar in the total sugar production, and 13 % of it was due to the infestation of pests. The infestation of
49 sugarcane borers in Indonesia, especially in West Java and East Java province was reaching 111.982,08 hectares and
50
51 the loss was estimated to be worth Rp. 163,531,890.-. Losses due to borers have been estimated from 20.78 to 57.9%
52
53 (Anwar et al. 2004). In Indonesia, sugarcane losses due to borer was estimated about 14,5 % (Goebel et al. 2011).
54 Sugarcane borer is regarded as the most parasitic pest infestationing Gramineae plants in all over the world. Only
55
56 sugarcane in Australia and Fiji that is free from the infestation of malignant borers. Borers are classified in the order of
57
58 Lepidoptera, which include moths (with dull wing colors) and butterflies (with colorful and bright wings) (Achadian et al.
59 2011) Borers from Lepidoptera order are mostly more damaging than borers from Coleoptera order. Based on the parts
60
61
62 1
63
64
65
 they infestation, moth borers are divided into four categories, i.e. top borer, stalk borer,and root borer (Goebel and Sallam,
2011; Sallam, 2006, Long and Hensley, 1972).
1
2 The main types of borers that infested sugarcane are Chilo auricilius, C. sacchariphagus, Scirpophaga
3
4 excerptalis, Sesamia inferens and Tetramoera schistaceana (Sallam, 2006, Easwaramoorthy,2009, Geerligs, 2010).
5 Among these, C. sacchariphagus, and S.excerptalis, are mostly appear in Java Island (Sallam, 2006). Such five species
6
7 have caused sugarcane destruction since they directly affected the essential parts of sugarcane, especially on its growing
8
9 point. S. excerptalis infestations both young and mature sugarcane plants. Meanwhile, the Chilo species only infested
10 young sugarcane and subsequently damage the inner part of the stalks and internodes (Sallam and Allsopp. 2005,Goebel
11
12 and Sallam, 2011; Showler and Reagan 2012).
13
14 Sugarcane mosaic virus (SCMV) is one of important virus pathogen causing severe effect on sugarcane
15 production in the world. This pathogen is a single positive sense-strand RNA virus belonging to the genus Potyvirus and
16
17 transmitted by aphid vectors, poses a grave threat to some plant such as sugarcane, maize, sorghum, and other poaceous
18
19 plant. The effect of this mosaic virus will decrease the production and sugar content (Goncalves et al. 2012; Wu and Chen,
20 2012; Zhang et al., 2003). Putra et al. (2014) report that infection of mosaic virus is negatively effect to sugarcane and
21
22 decrease production about 20% with 50% of incidence. Sugarcane which have mosaic virus shows yellowing lethal
23
24 necrosis, chlorotic spot, severe mosaic associated with streak or stripe pattern and chlorosis on the leaves. Mosaic virus
25 disturbing in photosynthetic and at the end resulting in yield lost for both crop yield and sugar production (Addy et al. 2017;
26
27 Gemechu et al. 2004)
28
29 Realizing the negative effects caused by the top borer and mosaic virus, therefore it is necessary to obtain
30 information regarding the types of sugarcane, especially new sugarcane clones which are resistant to top borer and mosaic
31
32 virus of sugarcane. From this field resistance test would lead to the development of novel strategies for effective plant
33
34 protection especially developing a new resistant clones that could be used as sources of top borer and mosaic virus
35 resistance in sugarcane breeding programs. Therefore, the yield of sugarcane could be improved. This research aimed to
36
37 identify the resistance of new sugarcane clones to top borer and mosaic virus so that they can be utilized to develop top
38
39 borer and mosaic virus -resistant sugarcane and to improve productivity.
40
41
42 Materials and Methods
43
44 Characteristic of Sugarcane Clones
45
46
The use of sugarcane was based on the selection results of 330 potential clones in 2011, based on the height,
47
48 diameter, and brix value. 59 potential clones that have been evaluated were chosen through the selection, along with one
49
50 controlling variety (PS-921 variety or Kentung) for comparison (Table 1).
51
52
53 Field Resistance Experiment
54 This experiment was conducted in Ngemplak Experimental Station, Pati Regency, Central Java, from January to
55
56 April 2013 which an area previously known as of high mosaic and top borer incidence in Central Java. Fifty nine potential
57
58 clones with one controlling variety (PS-921 variety or Kentung) were grown in randomized Block Design with three
59 replications. Each variety was planted in a plot consisting of 3 rows @ 5 meter length. The seedling was planted 50 cm
60
61 apart, so that the number of plants per plot was 30 plants. The distance of PKP (from center to center) was 100 cm, while
62 2
63
64
65
 the distance between replicates was 3m. Sugarcane clones were evaluated for top borer and mosaic incidence and
severity under natural infection conditions. The observation included the types and percentage of top borer infestation and
1
2 mosaic virus incidence at two weeks interval. The sampling process included taking samples of 24 sugarcane stalks per
3
4 plot were taken systematically from 2 lines from the center, with 0. 5 meter interval and 2 week observation time interval.
5 The observed parameters included the types, and infestation rate of top borer infestation and percentage of mosaic virus
6
7 incidence. The top borer infestation was counted by using the following formula:
8 a
9 B = ( ) x100%
10 b
11 which :
12
13 B = percentage of pest infestation, a = the number of cane stem infestated by pest, b = total stem observed
14
The sugarcane mosaic virus infestation was counted by using the following formula:
15
16 a
M = ( ) x100%
17 b
18
19 which :
20 M = percentage of SCMV incidence, a = the number of cane clumps infestated by SCMV, b = total clumps
21
22 observed
23
24
25 Criteria of pest infestation Singh et al. (2013) (Table 2) (Singh et al. 2003):
26
27 Effect borer infestation and mosaic virus incidence on sugarcane growth
28
29 To determine the effect of borer infestation and mosaic virus on sugarcane growth some parameter were
30 observed. The parameters observed were the height of the sugarcane plant, the length of the processed stalk, the weight
31
32 of the stalk, and the sugar contenton twelve-month plant ages. Each parameter used 24 plants. Measurements of this
33
34 parameters were grouped according to the criteria of borer infestation (highly susceptible, susceptible, moderately tolerant,
35
and tolerant) and then we compared the rate of borer infestation on sugarcane growth and the rate of mosaic virus
36
37 incidence on sugarcane growth
38
39
40
Statistical analysis
41
42 The percentage of pest infestation, the percentage of mosaic virus incidence, the highest of the height of the
43
44 sugarcane plant, the length of the processed stalk, the weight of the stalk, and the sugar content were analyzed with
45
analysis of variation (ANOVA) and Duncan test at 5% significance level using SPSS 16.0 software.
46
47
48 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
49
50
Field evaluation of new sugarcane clones against top borer (S. excerptalis)
51
52
53 Data in table 3 showed that variance analysis showed significant values (p<0.01), which mean that significant
54
55 differences between the different sugarcane clones and their reaction to borer infestation. The observation at 25 week
56
57 presented that most of the new sugarcane clones were not tolerance to top borer infestation. The resistance of the new
58 sugarcane clones varied to tolerant (low infestation), moderately tolerant (medium infestation), susceptible (hight
59
60
61
62 3
63
64
65
 infestation) and highly susceptible (very high infestation). Out of 60 clones screened for top borer resistance, 37 showed
a borer infestation lower than 10%. Of these 37, 29 were moderately resistant, and eight tolerant.
1
2 Severe infestation of top borer was found on the clone series of PS04.129 (20.08%), PS 04.117 (23.86%), PS
3
4 05.165 (27.15%), PS 04.392 (28.41%) and PS 05.258 (34.97%), which are higher than the control variety (kentung), i.e.
5 5.68 %. The lowest sugarcane borer infestation (tolerant category) was found in five sugarcane clones, for top borer i.e.
6
7 PS.06.334, PS 04.257, PS 06.356, PS 06.381 and PS 04.259 (Table 4).
8
9 On a 4-week old sugarcane plant, the top borer infestation is still low but increased rapidly on the tenth week and
10 actively returned when the plant reaches 22-week old (Figure 1). Such a trend is in agreement with other research reporting
11
12 that sugarcane borer infestation will increase up to the fifth week with the highest presentation of 10.67 % on the PS 881
13
14 variety (Prabowo and Supriyadi, 2014)The high rate of sugarcane borer infestation needs to be paid attention to since a
15 sugarcane plant is prone to the sugarcane borer infestation when it reaches 4-month (17-18 weeks) old. The impacts of
16
17 the infestation shall include heart death and abnormal growth. Sugarcane plants cannot tolerate sugarcane borers. Such
18
19 fact is obvious since there is a number of new sugarcane clones that experience medium to heavy infestations with the
20 highest percentage of infestation of 34.97 %. There are only eight clones of sugarcane that have low intensity of infestation
21
22 (<5 %), namely the PS.05.430, PS.06.370, PS.05.193, PS.06.334, PS.04.257, PS.06.356, PS.06.381, and PS 04.259.
23
24 Resistance varieties is the simplest technology for applications among farmers since it does not require a complex
25 process application, any special technology trainings for farmers, most economical and most feasible method (Zao, 2004;
26
27 Rutherford and Conlong, 2010). Use of resistant varieties which is compatible with biological control methods is one of the
28
29 major components of integrated pest management programme (Brewer and Elliot, 2004). Varieties which are possessing
30 pest and disease resistance with highest yield and sucrose content are the ideal source though it is very difficult to
31
32 assembling. During the combination of pest and disease-resistant varieties, the sugarcane top borers and mosaic virus
33
34 are one of the major problems faced in sugarcane cultivation. Therefore, information on sugarcane borer infestation,
35 mosaic virus incidence, and sugarcane resistance to sugarcane top borer and mosaic virus is very necessary.
36
37 The most alarming infestation of sugarcane borers is made by top borers since they can cause a dead heart both
38
39 at young and mature sugarcane plants. The sugarcane borer infestation can be identified from the activities of larvae on
40 leaves since the infestation focuses more on the leaves rather than on the stalks. Yellowish white-colored larvae make
41
42 crossing movements resulting in holes on leaves, large borer holes on the midrib, and a vertical hole for the moth to get
43
44 out. Infestationed sugarcane plants would show an irregular shape and turn yellow on some infestationed parts (Achadian
45 et al. 2011; Narasimhan et al. 2001).
46
47 In the field resistance of new sugarcane clones to top borers showed that the new sugarcane clones have different
48
49 response against top borer. The sugarcane clones have variable respond from tolerant, moderately tolerant, and
50 susceptible with percentage of borer infestation between 2,78 – 34,97%. Severe infestation of top borer was found on the
51
52 clone series of PS04.129 (20.08%), PS 04.117 (23.86%), PS 05.165 (27.15%), PS 04.392 (28.41%) and PS 05.258
53
54 (34.97%), which are higher than the control variety (kentung), i.e. 5.68 %. Meanwhile, the lowest sugarcane top borer
55 infestation (tolerant category) was found in five sugarcane clones, i.e. PS.06.334, PS 04.257, PS 06.356, PS 06.381 and
56
57 PS 04.259. According to the previous research conducted by Singh et al. (2003), the average intensity of top borer
58
59 infestation on Vis-à-vis genotype sugarcane during the growing period from 1995-1996, 1996-1997, and 1997-1998 was
60 approximately 0.0 up to 56.6 % (Singh et al. 2003). The most attracting genotypes are S-91-499, Co 37031,and 5-91-
61
62 4
63
64
65
 281with the invasion intensity of 36.0, 56.6 and 10.2, respectively, which are categorized as susceptible, very susceptible,
and moderately tolerant. Samson et al. (2017), reported that Sugarcane plant damaged based on the clones that used in
1
2 the field. Sugarcane plant exhibited a range of susceptibilities to borer, some being heavily attacked and some appearing
3
4 relatively resistant. Kumar et al. (2010) reported that, among 44 sugarcane genotypes tested against top borer, 35
5 genotypes have moderate susceptibility, with the highest intensity of infestation found in COBLN-02173 genotype (33.10
6
7 %) (Kumar et al. 2010). The findings of a study conducted by Taleb et al. (2005) showed that sugarcane top borer cause
8
9 damage on seven sugarcane cones, i.e. I 93-93, I 103-93, I 110-93, I 154-93, I 172-93, I 197-93 and I 204-93 of
10 approximately 20.31-37.27 % (Taleb et al. 2005) Mahesh et al. (2016) revealed that pest development will be rapidly
11
12 increased when sugarcane borers find an ecosystem with ideal weather, especially on July. In India, the average
13
14 sugarcane borer infestation rate is approximately 4-16 %.
15 According to Singh et al. (2003), top borer infestation is categorized into four criteria, namely tolerant (0.0-5.0 %),
16
17 moderately tolerant (5.1-10.0 %), susceptible (10.1-20.0 %) and highly susceptible (>20.0) (Singh et al. 2003). Out of all
18
19 tested genotypes in India, 23 of them were categorized as tolerant, 29 of them were in susceptible category, and 20 of
20 them were categorized as highly susceptible. Compared with other research, even though the percentage of top borer
21
22 infestation on the sugarcane clones was relatively high but the percentage was still less than those reported in another
23
24 research. Although the infestation rate is less than those in other countries, such infestation rate was categorized as
25 medium to heavy infestation so that it needs serious attention in relation with the release plan of such clones as an
26
27 everlasting and superior variety of sugarcane.
28
29
30 Effect top borer infestation on sugarcane growth
31
32 Data in figure 2,3,4,and 5 showed that variance analysis showed significant values (p<0.01), which mean that
33
34 significant differences between the different sugarcane with some resistance criteria and their reaction to the height of the
35 sugarcane plant, the length of the processed stalk, the weight of the stalk, and the sugar content.The tolerant clones gave
36
37 the highest of the height of the sugarcane plant, the length of the processed stalk, the weight of the stalk, and the sugar
38
39 contentwere 310,12 cm; 265,48 cm; 2.120,11 gr; and 9% respectively. Whereas the highly susceptible clones gave the
40 lowest height of the sugarcane plant, the length of the processed stalk, the weight of the stalk, and the sugar contentwere
41
42 278,86 cm; 235,1 cm; 1.492,28 gr; and 8,7% respectively.
43
44
45 Field evaluation of new sugarcane clones against mosaic virus (SCMV)
46
47 Data in table 4 showed that variance analysis showed significant values (p<0.01), which mean that significant
48
49 differences between the different sugarcane clones and their reaction to mosaic virus incidence. The observation at 25
50 week presented that most of the new sugarcane clones were not tolerance to mosaic virus incidence. The resistance of
51
52 the new sugarcane clones varied to tolerant (low incidence), moderately tolerant (medium incidence), susceptible (hight
53
54 incidence) and highly susceptible (very high incidence). Out of 60 clones screened for mosaic virus resistance, five clones
55 showed a mosaic virus incidence lower than 10%. Of these five, four were moderately resistant, and one tolerant.
56
57 Severe incidence of mosaic virus was found on the clone series of PS.04.401 (76.39%), PS 06.199 (72.22%), PS
58
59 05.551 (69.4%), PS 06.204 (68.06%) and PS 06.356 (56.94%), which are higher than the control variety (kentung), i.e.
60
61
62 5
63
64
65
 31.94 %. The lowest sugarcane mosaic virus (tolerant category) was found in one sugarcane clones i.e. PS.05.258 (Table
4).
1
2 The results of field trial of different clones for resistance to top borer revealed that a severe or high infestation
3
4 causes a disruption or delay in sugarcane growth. The infestation negatively affects the height of the sugarcane plant, the
5 length of the processed stalk, the weight of the stalk, and the sugar content (figure 2,3,4,and 5). A sugarcane borer
6
7 infestation on a very young plant caused its death so that it compensates by forming a new plant. Therefore, if the
8
9 infestation continues, the sugarcane plant will concentrate on forming a new plant and not on growing so that it will affect
10 the height of the plant, the length of the processed stalk, the weight of the stalk, and the sugar content. This research is in
11
12 line with a research performed by Goebel et al. (2011) stating that sugarcane borer infestation causes a decrease in
13
14 sugarcane quantity and quality, such as its sucrose content, production, and sucrose product (Goebel and Sallam, 2011).
15 Previous studies conducted by Bhavani, et al. (2012), have suggested that least susceptible sugarcane genotype growth
16
17 better than high susceptible sugarcane genotype (Bhavani et al. 2012)The least susceptible sugarcane genotype, 98 A
18
19 125 showed the lowest top borer growth index (1.53) whereas the high susceptible genotype, Co M 9902 showed the
20 highest growth index (4.71) which was twice that of Co 0110. It is mean that least susceptible sugarcane genotype have
21
22 the antibiosis mechanism.to early shoot borer and influencing the biology, establishment of early shoot borer. With this
23
24 antibiosis mechanism makes this sugarcane genotype growth better than high susceptible genotype.
25
26 Effect mosaic virus incidence on sugarcane growth
27
28
29 Data in figure 6,7,8, and 9 showed that variance analysis showed significant values (p<0.01), which mean that
30 significant differences between the different sugarcane clones with some mosaic virus resistance criteria and their reaction
31
32 to the height of the sugarcane plant, the length of the processed stalk, the weight of the stalk, and the sugar content. The
33
34 tolerant clones gave the highest of the height of the sugarcane plant, the length of the processed stalk, the weight of the
35 stalk, and the sugar content were 299,52 cm; 260,64 cm; 2.420,56 gr; and 9,4% respectively. Whereas the highly
36
37 susceptible clones gave the lowest height of the sugarcane plant, the length of the processed stalk, the weight of the stalk,
38
39 and the sugar content were 290 cm; 243,75 cm; 1.755,97 gr; and 8,7% respectively.
40 Beside resistant test to top borer, we also do test against mosaic virus. we evaluate the resistance of new
41
42 sugarcane clones to mosaic virus incidence. In this evaluation we tested the field resistance of new sugarcane clones to
43
44 mosaic virus. In the field trial showed that the new sugarcane clones have different response against mosaic virus. The
45 sugarcane clones have variable respond from tolerant, moderately tolerant, and susceptible with percentage of borer
46
47 infestation between 1,39-76,39%. Severe incidence of mosaic virus was found on the clone series of PS04.129 (76,39%),
48
49 PS 06.199 (72.22%), PS 05.551 (69.4%), PS 06.204 (68.06%) and PS 06.356 (56.94%), which are higher than the control
50 variety (kentung), i.e. 31.94 %. Meanwhile, the lowest sugarcane mosaic virus incidence (tolerant category) was found in
51
52 one sugarcane clones, i.e. PS.05.258 (1.39%). According to the previous research conducted by Landell and Bressiani
53
54 (2003), there are some brazilian sugarcane varieties that resistant to mosaic virus i.e IACSP95-3028, IACSP95-5000,
55 IACSP94-2094 and IACSP96-2042. The resistance varieties to mosaic virus possibly because obtain resistance character
56
57 from its parent through the process of crossing with Saccharum spontaneum. According to Silva et al. (2014), the lowest
58
59 sugarcane mosaic virus incidence (tolerant category) was found in two s Sugarcane Wild Accessions, i.e. S. barberi and
60 S. spontaneum. These two sugarcane wild accession have morphological character that resist to mosaic virus and could
61
62 6
63
64
65
 be gen donor for assembling sugarcane which tolerant to mosaic virus. Liu et al. (2017), report that it is a great opportunity
to develop resistant plant to control mosaic virus. Characterize and mapping resistance gene to this virus is important to
1
2 control this pathogen in the future. If we compare with another research, developing sugarcane clones which resistant to
3
4 mosaic virus in Indonesia is possible and it gives promising component for control mosaic virus.
5 On field trial of sugarcane clone resistant to mosaic virus revealed that a severe or high mosaic virus incidence
6
7 causes a disruption or delay in sugarcane growth. The mosaic virus incidence negatively affects the height of the
8
9 sugarcane plant, the length of the processed stalk, the weight of the stalk, and the sugar content. The result in our study
10 that showed high mosaic virus incidence causes a disruption or delay in sugarcane growth similar to that reported by
11
12 Viswanathan and Balamuralikrishnan (2005), the mosaic virus incidence disturbing photosynthetic efficiency, and makes
13
14 growth and yield of sugarcane decreasing.
15 Sugarcane clones which tolerant to mosaic virus needed to develop in the future because this disease impairs
16
17 photosynthetic efficiency, reduction in growth and yield parameters (Viswanathan and Balamuralikrishnan 2005),
18
19 Nowadays, it is difficult to control this disease therefore sugarcane clone which tolerat to this disease could be develop
20 and can be used as parents would be highly useful in the introgression programs focused in increase of production and
21
22 sugar content.
23
24
25 Conclusions
26
27 In conclusion, according to the results of this study, The lowest sugarcane borer infestation (tolerant category)
28
29 was found in five sugarcane clones, for top borer i.e. PS.06.334, PS 04.257, PS 06.356, PS 06.381 and PS 04.259.
30 Meanwhile, the lowest sugarcane mosaic virus incidence (tolerant category) was found in one sugarcane clones, i.e.
31
32 PS.05.258 (1.39%). The top borer infestation and mosaic virus incidence negatively affected the height of the sugarcane
33
34 plant, the length of the processed stalk, the weight of the stalk, yield, production, and the sugar content. It is evident that
35 yield losses may be high in high susceptible clones than the resistant. Similarly, yield losses may decrease as the clones
36
37 changed their reaction from the susceptible to resistant. The resistant clones identified in this study could be used as
38
39 sources of top borers and mosaic virus resistance in the integrated pest management programs focused in increase of
40 production and sugar content.
41
42 In the future, The resistant clones identified in this study could be used as sources of top borer and mosaic virus
43
44 resistance in sugarcane breeding. The five sugarcane clones PS.06.334, PS 04.257, PS 06.356, PS 06.381 and PS
45 04.259 could be uses as sugarcane clones resistance to control top borer infestation. Meanwhile, for controlling mosaic
46
47 virus, we can use sugarcane clone PS.05.258.
48
49
50 Acknowledgements
51
We would like to thank to Presidential Council for Education and Scientific Research (Government of Egypt) for allow to
52
53 this manuscript for published in Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control.
54
55 Funding
56 This research was supported by Indonesian agency for agricultural research and development, Ministry of Agriculture,
57 Republic of Indonesia.
58
59 Availability of data and materials
60
61
62 7
63
64
65
 All data of the study have been presented in the manuscript, and the materials, which are used in this study, are of high
quality and grade.
1
2 Ethics approval and consent to participate
3 Not applicable
4
5 Consent for publication
6 Not applicable
7
8
9 Publisher’s Note
10 Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
11
12 Author details
13 1Indonesian Sweetener and Fiber Crops Research Institute, East Java, Indonesia.
14
15
16
References
17
18 Achadian EM Kristiani A Magarey RC Sallam N Samson P Goebel FR Lonie K (2011) Pest and disease of sugarcane. P3GI and BSES
19 Limited, Australia and Aciar, p 154.
20 Addy HS Heri A Wahyudi S Sholeh A (2017) Detection and Response of Sugarcane against the Infection of Sugarcane Mosaic Virus
21 ( SCMV ) in Indonesia. Agronomy 50;1-11.
22 Anwar MS Ali HW Ahmad T Chatta AA (2004) Integrated management of sugarcane insects. Pak. Sugarcane J 6: 28-31.
23
24 Bhavani SB Reddy KD Rao RV Lakshmi MB (2012) Biochemical Basis for Antibiosis Mechanism of Resistance in Sugarcane to Early
25 Shoot Borer, Chilo infuscatellus. Tropical Agricultural Research 23 (2):126– 141.
26 Brewer MJ Elliott NC (2004) Biological control of cereal aphids and mediating effects of host plant and habitat manipulations. Annual
27 Review of Entomology 49: 219–242.
28 Cai WY Wu SJ (2006) Sugarcane for energy - a new highlight of sugarcane and sugar industry development. Sugarcane and
29 Canesugar 3:22-25.
30 Chaudhary JP Yadav SR (1995) Screening of promising sugarcane genotypes against top borer Scirpophaga excerptalis Walker
31 (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) under semi-natural conditions. Indian Sugar 45:173-182.
32 Directorate of Sugarcane Development (DSD) (2013) Major Insect Pest Management Of Sugarcane Crop.
33 http://dsd.dacnet.nic.in/PestManage.htm.General Secretariat Ministry of Agriculture. 2016. Outlook of sugar cane:
34 agricultural commodities of estate sub-sector. General Secretariat Ministry of Agriculture. Jakarta [Indonesia]
35 Easwaramoorthy S (2009) Biological control of sugarcane pests : presents status and future thrusts. In: Rajeev KGM Upadhyay H,
36 Chamola OBP, Dueby P. (eds). Integrated pest and disease management. APH Publishing Corporation. India. p. 363.
37 Goebel FR Achadian E Kristini A Sochib M Adi H (2011) Investigation of crop losses due to moth borers in indonesia, Proc Aust Soc
38 Sugar Cane Technol 33:1–9.
39 Goebel FR Sallam N (2011) New pest threats for sugarcane in the new bioeconomy and how to manage them. Current Opinion in
40 Environmental Sustainability 3: 81–89.
41 Goebel FR Achadian E Mcguire P (2014) The economic impact of sugarcane moth borers in Indonesia. Sugar Tech 16 (4): 405–410.
42 Goncalves MC Pinto LR Souza SC Landell MGA (2012) Virus diseases of sugarcane. A constant challenge to sugarcane breeding in
43 Brazil. Functional Plant Science & Biotechnology 6:108–116.
44 Geerligs HCP (2010) The world's cane sugar industry: past and present. Cambridge University Press. New York. p. 3-39
45 Long WH Hensley SD (1972) Insect pests of sugar cane. Annual Review of Entomology 17: 149-176.
46 Sallam N Achadian E Kristini A Sochib M Adi H (2010) Monitoring sugarcane moth borers in Indonesia: towards better preparedness
47 for exotic incursions. Proceedings of the 2010 Conference of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists held at
48 Bundaberg, Queensland, Australia, 11-14 May 2010 2010 pp. 181-192
49 Gemechu AL Chiemsombat P Attathom S (2004) “The Variations among Isolates of Sugarcane Mosaic Virus in Thailand as Determined
50 by Virus-Host Interaction.” 379:369–79.
51 Kumar A Chand H Dwivedi GP (2010) Evaluation of sugarcane genotypes for their field reaction to top borer (Scripophaga excerptalis
52 Walk.) under Bihar condition. Journal of Environment and Ecology. Vol. 28 No. 4 pp. 2249-2251
53
Landell MGA Bressiani JA (2008) Melhoramento gen_etico, caracterizaç~ao e manejo varietal. In: Dinardo-Miranda, L.L., Vasconcelos,
54
A.C.M., Landell, M.G. de A., et al. (Eds.), Cana-de-açúcar. Editora IAC, Campinas, 101-127, 149.
55
Liu Q Liu H Gong Y Tao Y Jiang L Zuo W Yang Q Ye J Lai J Wu J Lubberstedt T Xu M (2017) An Atypical Thioredoxin Imparts Early
56
Resistance to Sugarcane Mosaic Virus in Maize. Mol. Plant. 10, 483–497.
57
Mahesh P Srikanth J Chandran K Singaravelu B (2016) Resistance of saccharum spp. against chilo sacchariphagus indicus (Kapur)
58
(Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in india. Experimental Agriculture, 1:1–13
59
60
61
62 8
63
64
65
 Magarey RC Kristini A Sallam N Samson PR Achadian E Mcguire PJ Lonie KJ (2010) IPM strategies for pest and disease control in
indonesia: project overview and outcomes from recent aciar-funded research. Proceedings of the Australian Society of
Sugar Cane Technologists, 32:169–180.
1
Narasimhan S Partho PD Kannan S (2001) Pheromone technology and management of sugarcane pest chillo infuscatellus snell the
2
early shoot borrer: a case study. In: Upadhyay RK, Mukerji KG, Chamola BP. (eds). Biocontrol potential and its exploitation
3
in sustainable agriculture. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. New York. Volume 2. p. 183-189.
4
Putra LK Kristini A Achadian EM Damayanti TA (2014) Sugarcane streak mosaic virus in Indonesia: Distribution, characterization, yield
5
6 losses and management approaches. Sugar Tech 2014, 16, 392–399.
7 Prabowo H Supriyadi (2014) Intensitas serangan penggerek pucuk tebu (Scirpophaga excerptalis Walker) pada lahan persemaian
8 tebu di kebun percobaan Muktiharjo, Pati, Jawa Tengah. Prosiding semiloka pemanis dan serat. Malang.
9 Pramono D (1995) Sugarcane white grub in Indonesia. Paper contributed for crop compedium. CAB International, London. 21 pp.
10 Rutherford RS Conlong DE (2010) Combating sugarcane pests in South Africa: from researching biotic interactions to biointensive
11 integrated pest management in the field. Proceedings of International Society of Sugarcane Technologists 27: 1–17
12 Sallam MNS (2006) A review of sugarcane stem borers and their natural enemies in Asia and Indian Ocean Islands: An Australian
13 perspective. Annales de La Societe Entomologique de France, 42:263–283.
14 Sallam MS Allsopp PG (2005) Our home is girt by sea - but how well are we prepared in Australia for exotic cane borers?. Proceedings
15 of the 2005 Conference of the Australian Society for Sugar Cane Technologists, Bundaberg, 3 - 6 May 2005. pp 358 - 366.
16 Samson PR Korowi K Sallam N (2017) ‘Resistance of Australian sugarcane clones to moth and weevil borers in Papua New Guinea’,
17 Crop Protection. Elsevier Ltd, 96, pp. 14–21. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2017.01.001.
18 Showler A Reagan T (2012) Ecology and tactics of control for three sugarcane stalkboring species in the Western Hemisphere and
19 Africa. p. 1–15. In: “Sugarcane: Production, Cultivation and Uses” (J. Goncalves, K. Correia, ed.). Nova
20 Science, New York, USA, 366 pp.Singh M, Singh D, Madan YP, Mahla JC. 2003. Sugarcane genotypes vis-a-vis Top Borrer
21 (Scirpophagaexcerptalis Walker) under field conditions. Indian J. Agric. Res., 37 : 44 - 47
22 Silva MF Goncalves MC Melloni MNG Perecin D Landell MGA Xavier MA Pinto LR (2014) Screening Sugarcane Wild Accessions for
23 Resistance to Sugarcane Mosaic Virus (SCMV). Sugar Tech. September 2014
24 Taleb MA Rahman MA Salam MA (2005) Screening of promising sugarcane clones against insect pests under field condition. Journal
25 of Agriculture & Rural Development (Gazipur) 2005 Vol. 3 No. 1/2 pp. 93-97
26 Wu L Chen Y (2012) Sugarcane mosaic virus-long history but still a threatt to industry. Crop Protection. Volume 42. p. 74-78
27 Viswanathan R Balamuralikrishnan M (2005) Impact of mosaic infection on growth and yield of sugarcane. Sugar Tech 7: 61–65.
28 Zao T (2004) Control of insect pest in sugarcane: ipm approaches in china. Sugar Tech Journal 6(4) : 273–279.
29 Zhang HL Zhao JP Liu SS Zhang DP Liu YL (2013) Tm-22 confers different resistance responses against Tobacco mosaic virus
30 dependent on its expression level. Mol. Plant 6:971–974.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 9
63
64
65
Table Click here to access/download;Table;table.docx

1 Table 1. Potential high yield clones and control varieties which evaluated on this research

No Clones No Clones No Clones

1 PS.04.401 21 PS.06.369 41 PS.05.428
2 PS.06.195 22 PS.05.251 42 PS.04.430
3 PS.04.120 23 PS.04.194 43 PS.04.162
4 PS.04.129 24 PS.05.258 44 PS.06.305
5 PS.04.259 25 PS.04.237 45 PS.06.199
6 PS.04.257 26 PS.06.400 46 PS.06.281
7 PS.05.390 27 PS.04.380 47 PS.06.290
8 PS.06.356 28 PS.05.333 48 PS.06.222
9 PS.04.125 29 PS.05.124 49 PS.06.391
10 PS.05.311 30 PS.04.253 50 PS.06.365
11 PS.06.188 31 PS.05.246 51 PS.04.158
12 PS.04.117 32 PS.05.455 52 PS.06.370
13 PS.05.526 33 PS.05.327 53 PS.05.166
14 PS.06.395 34 PS.05.393 54 PS.04.244
15 PS.06.401 35 PS.05.193 55 PS.06.103
16 PS.05.123 36 PS.04.392 56 PS.04.303
17 PS.06.324 37 PS.05.465 57 PS.05.130
18 PS.05.165 38 PS.06.204 58 PS.05.551
19 PS.04.165 39 PS.06.181 59 PS.05.473
20 PS.06.121 40 PS.06.334 60 Control/Kentung
2
3 Table 2. Resistance criteria of sugar cane against borer and mosaic virus
Type of borer Criteria

Tolerant Moderately Susceptible Higly

tolerant susceptible
top borer (%) <5 5.1-10 10.1-20.0 above 20
mosaic virus (%) <5 5.1-10 10.1-20.0 above 20
4

5 Table 3. The average top borer infestation on sugarcane at 25th week.

No, Clones Borer criteria No, Clones Pest criteria
Infestation (%) Infestation (%)
1 PS.05.258 34,97abcd Higly susceptible 31 PS.05.253 8,84efghij Moderately tolerant

2 PS.04.392 28,41efghij Higly susceptible 32 PS.04.165 8,21hij Moderately tolerant

3 PS.05.165 27,15bcdef Higly susceptible 33 PS.05.251 8,21efghij Moderately tolerant

4 PS.04.117 23,86cdef Higly susceptible 34 PS.05.166 8,08defghij Moderately tolerant

5 PS.04.129 20,08efghij Higly susceptible 35 PS.06.369 8,08ghij Moderately tolerant

6 PS.06.199 18,69defghij Susceptible 36 PS.05.551 7,95cdefghi Moderately tolerant

7 PS.04.125 17,93efghij Susceptible 37 PS.06.395 7,95efghij Moderately tolerant

8 PS.04.401 17,80bcdef Susceptible 38 PS.05.428 7,83defghij Moderately tolerant

9 PS.04.194 16,79efghij Susceptible 39 PS.06.195 7,70efghij Moderately tolerant

10 PS.05.390 15,53ij Susceptible 40 PS.06.103 7,70cdefgh Moderately tolerant

11 PS.06.400 14,90ij Susceptible 41 PS.05.246 7,20efghij Moderately tolerant

1
 12 PS.06.181 13,13defghij Susceptible 42 PS.06.188 6,94efghij Moderately tolerant

13 PS.06.391 12,88ab Susceptible 43 PS.06.121 6,94cdef Moderately tolerant

14 PS.05.333 12,12bcde Susceptible 44 PS.06.365 6,69defghij Moderately tolerant

15 PS.04.120 11,87cdefghi Susceptible 45 PS.05.327 6,69efghij Moderately tolerant

16 PS.05.526 11,74cdefghi Susceptible 46 PS.05.311 6,44defghij Moderately tolerant

17 PS.04.162 11,62cdefghij Susceptible 47 PS.05.473 6,19defghij Moderately tolerant

18 PS.05.123 11,62abc Susceptible 48 PS.06.205 6,19ij Moderately tolerant

19 PS.05.124 11,11fghij Susceptible 49 PS.06.324 5,81fghij Moderately tolerant

20 PS.05.130 11,11j Susceptible 50 kentung 5,68efghij Moderately tolerant

21 PS.06.401 11,11efghij Susceptible 51 PS.06.303 5,18ij Moderately tolerant

22 PS.04.237 10,61efghij Susceptible 52 PS.05.244 5,10efghij Moderately tolerant

23 PS.05.465 10,10efghij Susceptible 53 PS.05.430 4,92efghij Tolerant

24 PS.06.204 9,97efghij Moderately tolerant 54 PS.06.370 4,80ghij Tolerant

25 PS.05.393 9,72a Moderately tolerant 55 PS.05.193 4,42ij Tolerant

26 PS.06.290 9,47efghij Moderately tolerant 56 PS.06.334 3,91cdefghi Tolerant

27 PS.05.455 9,34efghij Moderately tolerant 57 PS.04.257 3,41efghij Tolerant

28 PS.04.158 9,22cdefghi Moderately tolerant 58 PS.06.356 3,03cdefg Tolerant

29 PS.04.380 8,96cdef Moderately tolerant 59 PS.06.381 3,03defghij Tolerant

30 PS.06.222 8,96efghij Moderately tolerant 60 PS.04.259 2,78fghij Tolerant

6 *Each value is the mean of 3 replications with 24 plants each

7 **Values within a column followed by different letters are significantly different at the 0.05 level
8

9 Table 4. The average mosaic virus incidence on sugarcane at 25th week.

Mosaic
Mosaic virus virus
No, Clones criteria No, Clones criteria
incidence (%) incidence
(%)
29.17
1 PS.04.401 76.39 j Higly susceptible 31 PS.04.117 Higly susceptible
abcdefgh
29.17abcde
2 PS.06.199 72.22 ij Higly susceptible 32 PS.04.162 Higly susceptible
fgh
27.78abcde
3 PS.05.551 69.4 abc Higly susceptible 33 PS.06.401 Higly susceptible
fg
27.78abcde
4 PS.06.204 68.06 hij Higly susceptible 34 PS.06.205 Higly susceptible
fg
25.00abcde
5 PS.06.356 56.94 ghij Higly susceptible 35 PS.06.222 Higly susceptible
fg
25.00abcde
6 PS.06.195 56.94 ghij Higly susceptible 36 PS.06.381 Higly susceptible
fg
22.22abcde
7 PS.05.428 56.94 ghij Higly susceptible 37 PS.04.120 Susceptible
fg
20.83abcde
8 PS.06.370 55.56 fghij Higly susceptible 38 PS.04.257 Susceptible
fg
20.83
9 PS.05.165 55.56 fghij Higly susceptible 39 PS.05.473 Susceptible
abcdefg
19.44abcde
10 PS.06.290 54.17efghij Higly susceptible 40 PS.05.244 Susceptible
fg
19.44abcde
11 PS.04.158 54.17efghij Higly susceptible 41 PS.06.334 Susceptible
fg
19.44abcde
12 PS.05.166 50.00defghij Higly susceptible 42 PS.05.465 Susceptible
fg
18.06abcde
13 PS.05.253 55.56 abc Higly susceptible 43 PS.06.324 Susceptible
fg
18.06
14 PS.05.430 45.83 cdefghij Higly susceptible 44 PS.04.259 Susceptible
abcdefg

2
 16.67
15 PS.06.369 45.83cdefghij Higly susceptible 45 PS.05.124 Susceptible
abcdefg
16.67
16 PS.04.237 43.06bcdefghij Higly susceptible 46 PS.06.303 Susceptible
abcdefg
15.28
17 PS.06.181 41.67abcdefghij Higly susceptible 47 PS.04.392 Susceptible
abcdef
15.28
18 PS.05.130 41.67 ab Higly susceptible 48 PS.05.390 Susceptible
abcdef
19 PS.06.391 38.89 abcdefghij Higly susceptible 49 PS.05.393 13.89abcde Susceptible

20 PS.04.194 38.89 abcdefghij Higly susceptible 50 PS.05.333 12.500abcd Susceptible

21 PS.06.365 38.89 abcdefghij Higly susceptible 51 PS.05.123 12.500abcd Susceptible

22 PS.05.311 38.89 abcdefghij Higly susceptible 52 PS.06.188 12.50 abcd Susceptible

Susceptible
23 PS.05.193 37.50 abcdefghij Higly susceptible 53 PS.04.129 12.50abcd
Susceptible
24 PS.06.121 37.50 abcdefghij Higly susceptible 54 PS.04.165 11.11 abcd
Susceptible
25 PS.05.246 34.72 abcdefghi Higly susceptible 55 PS.04.125 11.11abcd

26 PS.05.455 33.33 abcdefghi Higly susceptible 56 PS.05.251 9.72 abcd Moderately tolerant

27 kentung 31.94 abcdefgh Higly susceptible 57 PS.05.327 9.72 abcd Moderately tolerant

28 PS.06.103 31.94 abcdefgh Higly susceptible 58 PS.04.380 8.33 abcd Moderately tolerant

29 PS.06.400 31.94 abcdefgh Higly susceptible 59 PS.06.395 8.33 abc Moderately tolerant

30 PS.05.526 30.56 abcdefgh Higly susceptible 60 PS.05.258 1.39 a Tolerant

10 *Each value is the mean of 3 replications with 24 plants each
11 **Values within a column followed by different letters are significantly different at the 0.05 level
12
13

3
 b
Figure Click here to access/download;Figure;figure.docx

25

Top borer infestation (%)

20

15

10

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

2 Age of the plant (week)

3 Fig 1. Top borer infestation on sugar cane at 25 week old.
4

300 a ab b b
250
the height of the plant (cm)

200
150
243,8 260,6
100 255,0 258,7

50
0
Highly Susceptible Moderately Tolerant
susceptible tolerant

resistance criteria

5 Fig 2. Relationship between top borer resistance criteria and the height of the plant. Bars represent the standard errors of the means.
6 Means sharing similar letters for each location are insignificantly different at (P > 0.05), using DMRT Test.
7

ab b
300 a ab
the length of the processed stalk

250
200
150 252,9 258,5 265,5
235,1
(cm)

100
50
0
Highly Susceptible Moderately Tolerant
susceptible tolerant

resistance criteria

8 Fig 3. Relationship between top borer resistance criteria and the length of the processed stalk. Bars represent the standard errors of the means.
9 Means sharing similar letters for each location are insignificantly different at (P > 0.05), using DMRT Test.
10
11

1
 b
2500 b
ab

the weight of the stalk (gr)

2000 a

1500
1000
1492,8 1740,8 1915,7 2120,1
500
0
Highly Susceptible Moderately Tolerant
susceptible tolerant
resistance criteria

12 Fig 4. Relationship between top borer resistance criteria and the weight of the stalk. Bars represent the standard errors of the means. Means
13 sharing similar letters for each location are insignificantly different at (P > 0.05), using DMRT Test.
14

a ab b b
10
8
cane sugar (%)
Commercial

6
4 8.7 8,9 8,9 9
2
0
Highly Susceptible Moderately Tolerant
susceptible tolerant

resistance criteria
15
16
17 Fig 5. Relationship between top borer resistance criteria and the sugar content. Bars represent the standard errors of the means. Means
18 sharing similar letters for each location are insignificantly different at (P > 0.05), using DMRT Test.
19

b c c
the height of the plant (cm)

350 a
300
250
200
150
290,0 297,2 299,5 299,5
100
50
0
Highly Susceptible Moderately Tolerant
susceptible tolerant

resistance criteria

20 Fig 6. Relationship between mosaic virus resistance criteria and the height of the plant. Bars represent the standard errors of the means.
21 Means sharing similar letters for each location are insignificantly different at (P > 0.05), using DMRT Test.
22
23

2
 the length of the processed stalk (cm)
300 b c d
a
250
200
150
100 243,8 255,0 258,7 260,6
50
0
Highly Susceptible Moderately Tolerant
susceptible tolerant

resistance criteria

24 Fig 7. Relationship between mosaic virus resistance criteria and the length of the processed stalk. Bars represent the standard errors of the
25 means. Means sharing similar letters for each location are insignificantly different at (P > 0.05), using DMRT Test.
26
27
the weight of the stalk (gr)

3000 d
c
2500 b
a
2000
1500
1000
500 1755,9 1767,0 2568,9 2420,6
0
Highly Susceptible Moderately Tolerant
susceptible tolerant

resistance criteria

28 Fig 8. Relationship between mosaic virus resistance criteria and the weight of the stalk. Bars represent the standard errors of the means.
29 Means sharing similar letters for each location are insignificantly different at (P > 0.05), using DMRT Test.
30
31

12 d
a b c
10
the sugar content (%)

8
6
4
8.7 8,8 8,9 9.4
2
0
Highly Susceptible Moderately Tolerant
susceptible tolerant

resistance criteria

32 Fig 9. Relationship between mosaic virus resistance criteria and the sugar content. Bars represent the standard errors of the means. Means
33 sharing similar letters for each location are insignificantly different at (P > 0.05), using DMRT Test.
34
35