Agricultural Science Digest

  • Chief EditorArvind kumar

  • Print ISSN 0253-150X

  • Online ISSN 0976-0547

  • NAAS Rating 5.52

  • SJR 0.156

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Agricultural Science Digest, volume 34 issue 3 (september 2014) : 207 - 210

SUSCEPTIBILTY OF PROMISING SUGARCANE VARIETIES TO STALK BORER , CHILO AURICILIUS DUDGEON UNDER DIFFERENT LEVELS OF NITROGEN

H.S. Randhawa*
1PAU, Regional Research Station, Gurdaspur 143 521, India
Cite article:- Randhawa* H.S. (2024). SUSCEPTIBILTY OF PROMISING SUGARCANE VARIETIES TO STALK BORER , CHILO AURICILIUS DUDGEON UNDER DIFFERENT LEVELS OF NITROGEN . Agricultural Science Digest. 34(3): 207 - 210. doi: 10.5958/0976-0547.2014.01003.9.

ABSTRACT

A study on susceptibility of promising sugarcane varieties to stalk borer , Chilo auricilius Dudgeon with different levels of nitrogen  was conducted at PAU, Regional  Research Station Gurdaspur during the year 2010-11 and 2011-12. The pooled mean of both the years showed that sugarcane variety CoJ 89 significantly had less (24.53%) incidence of stalk as compared to other two varieties i.e.  CoH 119 (29.28%) and CoJ 85 (35.15%). The incidence of stalk borer increased from 3.70 t0 69.63 percent with increase in nitrogen level from 0 to 90 kg N/ac. The highest cane yield was obtained from the CoH 119 variety at 60 kg N/ac.

REFERENCES

  1. Albert A, Thirumalai M , Krishnamurthy M, Ramaya M, Lourdusamy A and Gopinathan M C (2007) Evaluation of tolerance and susceptibility against internode borer of sugarcane varieties. Sugar Tech. 9(4): 308-311
  2. Anonymous (2012) All India Area, Production and Yield of Sugarcane. www.business-standard. Com/india/news/sugarcane- area-poised-to-rise-by-8-10-in-20.http//icargoa.res.in/sugarcane1.htm found on Google.ask.co
  3. Asokan S, Narayana M A and Mahadevaswamy M (2005) Effect of nitrogen levels and row spacing on yield, ccs and nitrogen uptake in different sugarcane varieties. Sugar Tech. 7(2&3):44-47
  4. Atkinson P R and K J Nuss 1989 Associations between host-plant nitrogen and infestations of the sugarcane borer Eldana saccharina Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Bull. Ent. Res. 79: 489-506
  5. Avasthy P N (1983) Insect pest management for sugarcane in India, In Balasubramanium, M and Solayappan, A R (eds) Sugarcane Pest management in India. Tamil Nadu Cooperative Federation, Madras, India, pp. 71-77.
  6. Awad E l, Hag 1, Mohammed A, Abuna 1and Salah A (2006) Response of sugarcane to different levels of nitrogen in four Estates of the Sudanese Sugar Company. http://www.arcsudan. sd/proceeding/40thmeeting/fulltext%20pdf40/ Sugarcane.pdf.
  7. Brokensha M A (1996) Incentive for cane quality. Proc. Afr. Sug Technol Association 70: 291-292.
  8. Dhaliwal G S, Arora R and Dhawan A K 2004. Crop losses due to insect-pests in Indian Agriculture: An update. Ind. J. Ecol. 31 (1): 1-7
  9. King A G (1989) An Assessment of the loss of in sugarcane yield caused by stalk borer, Eldana sachharina, in Swaziland. Proc. Afr. Sug. Technol. Association 63: 197-201.
  10. Mann S, Y P Madan, J C Mahla and D Singh 2002. Role of different sugarcane genotypes in s relation stalk borer, Chilo aurcilius Ddgn incidence under field condition. Ind J Agric Res 36(3): 212-15.
  11. Meyer J H and Keeping M G (2005) The impact of nitrogen and silicon nutrition on the resistance of sugarcane varieties to Eldana saccharina (Lepidoptera : Pyralidae). Proc Afr Sug Technol ASS. 79: 363
  12. Savant N K Kornodorfer G H Datnoff L E and Synder G H (1999) Silicon nutrition and sugarcane production: a review. J. Plant Nutrition 22: 1853-1903
  13. Thakur N S, Kushwaha B B, Sinha N K and Upadhya S N (2009) Effect of plant density and nitrogen levels on growth, yield attributes and yields of sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) genotypes. Ind J Dryland Agril. Res. Dev. 24(1): 34-38
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)