论文部分内容阅读
Abstract This study was conducted to explore and seek high-efficiency and safe green control techniques on sugarcane borers, promote green control of diseases and pests of sugarcane and build a resource-conserving, environmentally friendly and sustainable governance system of diseases and pests of sugarcane. A new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers, abamectin·Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and tebufenozide were selected and applied in field trials. The use of the new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2) in combination with 0.05% abamectin·10 billion active gemmae/g B. thuringiensis (Bt) WP (1.8 kg/hm2) or new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2) in combination with 200 g/L tebufenozide SC (1.5 L/hm2) were the best in the sugarcane production. New sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers should be installed in early march, and biological agents were mixed with water 900 kg per hectare and sprayed evenly sugarcane plants at the beginning of April. Their control effects of dead heart rate and bored stalk rate could be more than 69.98% and 49.09%, respectively, which were superior to that of the control pesticide 3.6% bisultap GR (90 kg/hm2). The results showed that new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers in combination with abamectin·B. thuringiensis (Bt) or tebufenozide was the optimum mode of green control techniques on sugarcane borers. When it was alternately or coordinately used with other technology, it could delay the emergence and development of drug resistance, and it was worthy of widespread popularization and application in sugarcane area.
Key words Sugarcane borer; New sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers + biological agents; Green control; Control effect evaluation
Sugarcane borers are a class of pests that are widely distributed in many sugarcane planting countries and are seriously harmful to sugarcane. The larvae bore and eat cane stems, severely reducing yield and sugar［1-3］. The Yunnan sugarcane area is most widely distributed with Sesamia inferens Walker and Argyroploce schistaceana (Snellen), which often cause a great loss of sugarcane, seriously affecting sugarcane yield and quality［4-5］. In recent years, a variety of borers such as S. inferens and A. schistaceana have increased population density, resulting in the dead heart rate and bored stalk rate sharply increasing, sugarcane yield and sugar loss increasing year by year, and thus huge economic losses to sugarcane producing areas［6-10］. Strengthening scientific and effective prevention and control of sugarcane borers and reducing damage loss are of great significance to ensure the sustainable development of cane sugar industry. The control methods of sugarcane borers are mainly repeated use of highly toxic non-specific pesticides, resulting in pesticide residues and environmental pollution［4,11-17］. Therefore, it is a new task faced by plant protection workers today to control pests from a comprehensive and environmental perspective.
In order to explore and seek efficient and safe green control technology of sugarcane borers, and promote green prevention and control of sugarcane pests, the comprehensive prevention and control effects of a new sex pheromone trap, avermectin·Bacillus thuringiensis and tebufenozide against sugarcane borers were studied, with an attempt to lay a foundation and provide technical support for achieving green control of sugarcane pests and diseases, reducing the use of agrochemicals and improving sugarcane quality.
Materials and Methods
Test biological agents and sources
The test biological agents were sex pheromone traps of sugarcane borers (NewCon·Inc.), and avermectin·B. thuringiensis and tebufenozide (Shanghai Weidi Biochemical Nanchang Co., Ltd.). The control agent was 3.6% bisultap GR (Hebei Haoyang Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.).
Control objects
The control objects were S. inferens Walkera and A. schistaceana (Snellen).
General situation of test field
The experiment was carried out at the scientific research experimental base of Sugarcane Research Institute, Yunnan Province. The test field was flat and had medium fertility and convenient irrigation and drainage. The soil was clay loam, with a pH of 6.2, and had an organic matter content of 2.05%. The variety was ROC22. The first-year ratoon plants had a row spacing of 1 m, and the water and fertilizer management and growth vigor were relatively consistent.
Experiment design
The experiment was designed with 5 treatments as following: the new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2), new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2)+ 0.05% abamectin 10 billion active gemmae/g B. thuringiensis (Bt) WP (1.8 kg/hm2), new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2)+200 g/L tebufenozide SC (1.5 L/hm2), 3.6% bisultap GR 90 kg/hm2 and blank control. Each treatment was done with three replicates, and there were 15 plots totally, in randomized block arrangement. Each plot had an area of 66 m2.
The 3.6% bisultap GR and blank control treatment areas were separated from the new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers by more than 50 m to avoid interference with the sex pheromone. Treatment time and methods
The new sex pheromone traps of sugarcane borers were installed on March 5, and the lures were replaced every 15-20 d; 0.05% abamectin 10 billion active gemmae/g B. thuringiensis (Bt) WP and 200 g/L tebufenozide SC were diluted with water 900 kg per hectare and sprayed to sugarcane plants evenly, on April 13, April 22 and May 3; and 3.6% bisultap GR was mixed with chemical fertilizer at a ratio of 1∶10 and broadcasted to the base of sugarcane plants on April 13.
Control effect investigation
The dead heart rate was investigated in June, and the damaged plant rate was investigated in December. The number of total seedlings (50 seedlings) and the number of dead heart seedlings (bored plants) in each plot were investigated, respectively, and the average value of dead heart rate (bored stalk rate) was calculated. The control effects were analyzed and evaluated, respectively.
Dead heart rate (%)=Number of dead heart seedlings/Number of total investigated seedlings×100
Bored stalk rate (%)=Number of bored seedlings/Number of total investigated seedlings×100
Control effect (%)＝［Dead heart rate (bored stalk rate) in control-Dead heart rate (bored stalk rate) in treatment］/Dead heart rate (bored stalk rate) in control×100
Data processing
The investigation results were subjected to analysis of significance of difference by the Duncans new multiple range method using the SAS 9.0 statistical analysis software.
Results and Analysis
Control effects of various treatments on dead heart rate
It can be seen from Table 1 that each of the tested biological agents had a good control effect against borers, but the treatment effects were different. Among them, new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2) had the worst control effect, which was significantly poorer than other biological agent treatments and 3.6% bisultap GR (90 kg/hm2); new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2)in combination with 0.05% avermectin ·10 billion active gemmae/g B. thuringiensis (Bt) WP (1.8 kg/hm2) sprayed on April 13 showed the best control effect, which was significantly better than other biological agent treatments and 3.6% bisultap GR (90 kg/hm2); and the effects of other biological agent treatments were basically the same as that of 3.6% bisultap GR (90 kg/hm2).
It can also be seen from Table 1 that different treatments of the tested biological agents had different prevention and control effects on bored stalk rate. Among them, new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2) exhibited the worst control effect, which was significantly poorer than other biological agent treatments and 3.6% bisultap GR (90 kg/hm2); new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2) in combination with 0.05% avermectin ·10 billion active gemmae/g B. thuringiensis (Bt) WP (1.8 kg/hm2) sprayed on April 13 showed the best control effect, which was significantly better than other biological agent treatments and 3.6% bisultap GR (90 kg/hm2); and the control effects of other biological agent treatments were basically the same as that of 3.6% bisultap GR (90 kg/hm2). Conclusions and Discussion
The results of this study showed that the single use of the new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers was poor in the control effects of dead heart rate and bored stalk rate, which were significantly lower than those of the control pesticide 3.6% bisultap GR. The combination of the new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers and 0.05% avermectin ·B. thuringiensis WP or tebufenozide had a good control effect, which was significantly better than single use and the control pesticide 3.6% bisultap GR, which accords with the research results of Xu et al.［18］and Chen et al.［19］. It can be seen that the combination of the new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers and 0.05% avermectin ·B. thuringiensis WP or tebufenozide is an ideal green control technical model for sugarcane borers. The use of the new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2) in combination with 0.05% abamectin ·10 billion active gemmae/g B. thuringiensis (Bt) WP (1.8 kg/hm2) or new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2) in combination with 200 g/L tebufenozide SC (1.5 L/hm2) were the best in the sugarcane production. New sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers should be installed in early march, and biological agents were mixed with water 900 kg per hectare and sprayed evenly to sugarcane plants at the beginning of April.
For a long time, the prevention and control of sugarcane has relied on chemical control, and even the use of highly toxic chemicals, causing serious environmental pollution and posing a threat to humans and animals and environmental safety. How to reduce the dependence on chemical pesticides, especially to eliminate the use of highly toxic pesticides, to find efficient and safe green prevention and control technology are problems that must be paid attention to at present. Studies have shown that green prevention and control techniques such as light attraction, sexual attraction, Trichogramma, biological missiles and biological agents have good control effects on sugarcane borers［4,18-21］. In the promotion of sugarcane industry development, we should focus on the reduction of chemical pesticides and pay attention to the integration and coordination of various green prevention and control technologies.
References
［1］SALLAM N, ACHADIAN E, KRISTINI A, et al. Monitoring sugarcane moth borers in Indonesia: Towards better preparedness for exotic incursions［J］. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 2010, 32: 181-192. ［2］GOEBEL FR, ACHADIAN E, KRISTINI A, et al. Investigation of crop losses due to moth borers in Indonesia［J］. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 2011, 33: 9.
［3］MCGUIRE PJ, DIANPRATIWI T, ACHADIAN E, et al. Extension of better control practices for moth borers in the indonesian sugar industry［J］. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 2012, 34:10.
［4］HUANG YK, LI WF. Color description of modern sugarcane diseases and insect pests［M］. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2016, pp.108-109. (in Chinese)
［5］LEUL M, THANGAVEL S. Diversity of sugarcane borer species and their extent of damage status on cane and sugar yield in three commercial sugarcane plantations of Ethiopia［J］. Journal of Agricultural Technology, 2013, 9(6):1461-1473.
［6］YAO Q, HUANG QL, NING ZJ, et al. Damage and sugarcane yield and sucrose content by borers, prionid and termites and their control［J］. Guangxi Sugarcane & cane sugar, 2006 (3): 3-6. (in Chinese)
［7］AN YX, GUAN CX. Atlas of sugarcane pests and diseases and control［M］. Guangzhou: Jinan University Press, 2009. (in Chinese)
［8］XIONG GR, LI ZP, FENG CL, et al. Primary investigation and control strategies on the insect pests of sugarcan in Hainan Province［J］. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2010, 31 (12):2243-2249. (in Chinese)
［9］XIE XM, LIN MJ, YANG LH, et al. The causes of heavier damage of sugarcane borers and the management and control［J］. Sugarcane and Canesugar, 2012 (6):26-29. (in Chinese)
［10］LI WF, SHAN HL, HUANG YK, et al. Occurrence dynamics and control strategies of major pests and diseases of sugarcane in Yunnan［J］. Sugar Crops of China, 2013 (1): 59-62. (in Chinese)
［11］GONG HL, GUAN CX, LIN MJ. Report on controls of main sugarcane insects using furadan 3G［J］. Sugarcane and Canesugar, 2005(2):11-14. (in Chinese)
［12］LIANG JH, LI KH, TAN ZY, et al. Field efficacy of 5% new pesticide type "kekewusun" on insect pests of sugarcane［J］. Journal of Southern Agriculture, 2010, 41(5):441-443. (in Chinese)
［13］FANG F, LAI KP, YE YQ, et al. Field efficacy of chlorpyrifos cartap granule (8%) in controlling sugarcane borer［J］. Journal of Southern Agriculture, 2010, 41(1):24-26. (in Chinese)
［14］ REN AF, GENG P, AN GD, et al. Control effect of chlorobenzamide 200 g/L SC against sugarcane borers［J］. Guangdong Agricultural Sciences, 2012(11):102-103. (in Chinese)
［15］LUO YW, TAN ZQ, LIANG T, et al. Test of 30% durivo SC on sugarcane borer and woolly aphid in ratoon cane field［J］. Sugar Crops of China, 2015, 37(1):28-30. (in Chinese) ［16］ JIANG XD, LONG XZ, ZENG XR, et al. Experiment on the field efficacy of 20% dinotefuran soluble granules on sugarcane borers and woolly aphids［J］. Guangxi Plant Protection, 2015, 28(4):11-13. (in Chinese)
［17］WANG ZP, JIANG HT, CHEN Y, et al. The field efficacy test of 22% fipronil FS to borers and Baliothrips serratus on sugarcane［J］. Hubei Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 55(13): 3334-3348. (in Chinese)
［18］XU HL, LIN MJ, LI JH, et al. Application of green integrated management technology on sugarcane borers［J］. Journal of Environmental Entomology, 2016, 38(3): 589-594. (in Chinese)
［19］CHEN LL, TAN BR, XIE YL, et al. Control effect of Trichogramma + sexual attraction integrated mode on sugarcane borers［J］. Guangxi Plant Protection, 2016, 29(2): 1-4. (in Chinese)
［20］LUO HJ, LI G, WEI X, et al. Experiment and demonstration on the control of sugarcane borer with "Biological Missile"［J］. Journal of Guangxi Agriculture, 2015, 30(2): 25-29. (in Chinese)
［21］ASHOK V, TANDAN BK. Pathogenicity of three entomogenous fungi against insect pests of sugarcane［J］. Journal of Biological Control, 1996, 34: 87-91.
Key words Sugarcane borer; New sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers + biological agents; Green control; Control effect evaluation
Sugarcane borers are a class of pests that are widely distributed in many sugarcane planting countries and are seriously harmful to sugarcane. The larvae bore and eat cane stems, severely reducing yield and sugar［1-3］. The Yunnan sugarcane area is most widely distributed with Sesamia inferens Walker and Argyroploce schistaceana (Snellen), which often cause a great loss of sugarcane, seriously affecting sugarcane yield and quality［4-5］. In recent years, a variety of borers such as S. inferens and A. schistaceana have increased population density, resulting in the dead heart rate and bored stalk rate sharply increasing, sugarcane yield and sugar loss increasing year by year, and thus huge economic losses to sugarcane producing areas［6-10］. Strengthening scientific and effective prevention and control of sugarcane borers and reducing damage loss are of great significance to ensure the sustainable development of cane sugar industry. The control methods of sugarcane borers are mainly repeated use of highly toxic non-specific pesticides, resulting in pesticide residues and environmental pollution［4,11-17］. Therefore, it is a new task faced by plant protection workers today to control pests from a comprehensive and environmental perspective.
In order to explore and seek efficient and safe green control technology of sugarcane borers, and promote green prevention and control of sugarcane pests, the comprehensive prevention and control effects of a new sex pheromone trap, avermectin·Bacillus thuringiensis and tebufenozide against sugarcane borers were studied, with an attempt to lay a foundation and provide technical support for achieving green control of sugarcane pests and diseases, reducing the use of agrochemicals and improving sugarcane quality.
Materials and Methods
Test biological agents and sources
The test biological agents were sex pheromone traps of sugarcane borers (NewCon·Inc.), and avermectin·B. thuringiensis and tebufenozide (Shanghai Weidi Biochemical Nanchang Co., Ltd.). The control agent was 3.6% bisultap GR (Hebei Haoyang Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.).
Control objects
The control objects were S. inferens Walkera and A. schistaceana (Snellen).
General situation of test field
The experiment was carried out at the scientific research experimental base of Sugarcane Research Institute, Yunnan Province. The test field was flat and had medium fertility and convenient irrigation and drainage. The soil was clay loam, with a pH of 6.2, and had an organic matter content of 2.05%. The variety was ROC22. The first-year ratoon plants had a row spacing of 1 m, and the water and fertilizer management and growth vigor were relatively consistent.
Experiment design
The experiment was designed with 5 treatments as following: the new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2), new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2)+ 0.05% abamectin 10 billion active gemmae/g B. thuringiensis (Bt) WP (1.8 kg/hm2), new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2)+200 g/L tebufenozide SC (1.5 L/hm2), 3.6% bisultap GR 90 kg/hm2 and blank control. Each treatment was done with three replicates, and there were 15 plots totally, in randomized block arrangement. Each plot had an area of 66 m2.
The 3.6% bisultap GR and blank control treatment areas were separated from the new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers by more than 50 m to avoid interference with the sex pheromone. Treatment time and methods
The new sex pheromone traps of sugarcane borers were installed on March 5, and the lures were replaced every 15-20 d; 0.05% abamectin 10 billion active gemmae/g B. thuringiensis (Bt) WP and 200 g/L tebufenozide SC were diluted with water 900 kg per hectare and sprayed to sugarcane plants evenly, on April 13, April 22 and May 3; and 3.6% bisultap GR was mixed with chemical fertilizer at a ratio of 1∶10 and broadcasted to the base of sugarcane plants on April 13.
Control effect investigation
The dead heart rate was investigated in June, and the damaged plant rate was investigated in December. The number of total seedlings (50 seedlings) and the number of dead heart seedlings (bored plants) in each plot were investigated, respectively, and the average value of dead heart rate (bored stalk rate) was calculated. The control effects were analyzed and evaluated, respectively.
Dead heart rate (%)=Number of dead heart seedlings/Number of total investigated seedlings×100
Bored stalk rate (%)=Number of bored seedlings/Number of total investigated seedlings×100
Control effect (%)＝［Dead heart rate (bored stalk rate) in control-Dead heart rate (bored stalk rate) in treatment］/Dead heart rate (bored stalk rate) in control×100
Data processing
The investigation results were subjected to analysis of significance of difference by the Duncans new multiple range method using the SAS 9.0 statistical analysis software.
Results and Analysis
Control effects of various treatments on dead heart rate
It can be seen from Table 1 that each of the tested biological agents had a good control effect against borers, but the treatment effects were different. Among them, new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2) had the worst control effect, which was significantly poorer than other biological agent treatments and 3.6% bisultap GR (90 kg/hm2); new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2)in combination with 0.05% avermectin ·10 billion active gemmae/g B. thuringiensis (Bt) WP (1.8 kg/hm2) sprayed on April 13 showed the best control effect, which was significantly better than other biological agent treatments and 3.6% bisultap GR (90 kg/hm2); and the effects of other biological agent treatments were basically the same as that of 3.6% bisultap GR (90 kg/hm2).
It can also be seen from Table 1 that different treatments of the tested biological agents had different prevention and control effects on bored stalk rate. Among them, new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2) exhibited the worst control effect, which was significantly poorer than other biological agent treatments and 3.6% bisultap GR (90 kg/hm2); new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2) in combination with 0.05% avermectin ·10 billion active gemmae/g B. thuringiensis (Bt) WP (1.8 kg/hm2) sprayed on April 13 showed the best control effect, which was significantly better than other biological agent treatments and 3.6% bisultap GR (90 kg/hm2); and the control effects of other biological agent treatments were basically the same as that of 3.6% bisultap GR (90 kg/hm2). Conclusions and Discussion
The results of this study showed that the single use of the new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers was poor in the control effects of dead heart rate and bored stalk rate, which were significantly lower than those of the control pesticide 3.6% bisultap GR. The combination of the new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers and 0.05% avermectin ·B. thuringiensis WP or tebufenozide had a good control effect, which was significantly better than single use and the control pesticide 3.6% bisultap GR, which accords with the research results of Xu et al.［18］and Chen et al.［19］. It can be seen that the combination of the new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers and 0.05% avermectin ·B. thuringiensis WP or tebufenozide is an ideal green control technical model for sugarcane borers. The use of the new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2) in combination with 0.05% abamectin ·10 billion active gemmae/g B. thuringiensis (Bt) WP (1.8 kg/hm2) or new sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers (6 traps/hm2) in combination with 200 g/L tebufenozide SC (1.5 L/hm2) were the best in the sugarcane production. New sex pheromone trap of sugarcane borers should be installed in early march, and biological agents were mixed with water 900 kg per hectare and sprayed evenly to sugarcane plants at the beginning of April.
For a long time, the prevention and control of sugarcane has relied on chemical control, and even the use of highly toxic chemicals, causing serious environmental pollution and posing a threat to humans and animals and environmental safety. How to reduce the dependence on chemical pesticides, especially to eliminate the use of highly toxic pesticides, to find efficient and safe green prevention and control technology are problems that must be paid attention to at present. Studies have shown that green prevention and control techniques such as light attraction, sexual attraction, Trichogramma, biological missiles and biological agents have good control effects on sugarcane borers［4,18-21］. In the promotion of sugarcane industry development, we should focus on the reduction of chemical pesticides and pay attention to the integration and coordination of various green prevention and control technologies.
References
［1］SALLAM N, ACHADIAN E, KRISTINI A, et al. Monitoring sugarcane moth borers in Indonesia: Towards better preparedness for exotic incursions［J］. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 2010, 32: 181-192. ［2］GOEBEL FR, ACHADIAN E, KRISTINI A, et al. Investigation of crop losses due to moth borers in Indonesia［J］. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 2011, 33: 9.
［3］MCGUIRE PJ, DIANPRATIWI T, ACHADIAN E, et al. Extension of better control practices for moth borers in the indonesian sugar industry［J］. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists, 2012, 34:10.
［4］HUANG YK, LI WF. Color description of modern sugarcane diseases and insect pests［M］. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2016, pp.108-109. (in Chinese)
［5］LEUL M, THANGAVEL S. Diversity of sugarcane borer species and their extent of damage status on cane and sugar yield in three commercial sugarcane plantations of Ethiopia［J］. Journal of Agricultural Technology, 2013, 9(6):1461-1473.
［6］YAO Q, HUANG QL, NING ZJ, et al. Damage and sugarcane yield and sucrose content by borers, prionid and termites and their control［J］. Guangxi Sugarcane & cane sugar, 2006 (3): 3-6. (in Chinese)
［7］AN YX, GUAN CX. Atlas of sugarcane pests and diseases and control［M］. Guangzhou: Jinan University Press, 2009. (in Chinese)
［8］XIONG GR, LI ZP, FENG CL, et al. Primary investigation and control strategies on the insect pests of sugarcan in Hainan Province［J］. Chinese Journal of Tropical Crops, 2010, 31 (12):2243-2249. (in Chinese)
［9］XIE XM, LIN MJ, YANG LH, et al. The causes of heavier damage of sugarcane borers and the management and control［J］. Sugarcane and Canesugar, 2012 (6):26-29. (in Chinese)
［10］LI WF, SHAN HL, HUANG YK, et al. Occurrence dynamics and control strategies of major pests and diseases of sugarcane in Yunnan［J］. Sugar Crops of China, 2013 (1): 59-62. (in Chinese)
［11］GONG HL, GUAN CX, LIN MJ. Report on controls of main sugarcane insects using furadan 3G［J］. Sugarcane and Canesugar, 2005(2):11-14. (in Chinese)
［12］LIANG JH, LI KH, TAN ZY, et al. Field efficacy of 5% new pesticide type "kekewusun" on insect pests of sugarcane［J］. Journal of Southern Agriculture, 2010, 41(5):441-443. (in Chinese)
［13］FANG F, LAI KP, YE YQ, et al. Field efficacy of chlorpyrifos cartap granule (8%) in controlling sugarcane borer［J］. Journal of Southern Agriculture, 2010, 41(1):24-26. (in Chinese)
［14］ REN AF, GENG P, AN GD, et al. Control effect of chlorobenzamide 200 g/L SC against sugarcane borers［J］. Guangdong Agricultural Sciences, 2012(11):102-103. (in Chinese)
［15］LUO YW, TAN ZQ, LIANG T, et al. Test of 30% durivo SC on sugarcane borer and woolly aphid in ratoon cane field［J］. Sugar Crops of China, 2015, 37(1):28-30. (in Chinese) ［16］ JIANG XD, LONG XZ, ZENG XR, et al. Experiment on the field efficacy of 20% dinotefuran soluble granules on sugarcane borers and woolly aphids［J］. Guangxi Plant Protection, 2015, 28(4):11-13. (in Chinese)
［17］WANG ZP, JIANG HT, CHEN Y, et al. The field efficacy test of 22% fipronil FS to borers and Baliothrips serratus on sugarcane［J］. Hubei Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 55(13): 3334-3348. (in Chinese)
［18］XU HL, LIN MJ, LI JH, et al. Application of green integrated management technology on sugarcane borers［J］. Journal of Environmental Entomology, 2016, 38(3): 589-594. (in Chinese)
［19］CHEN LL, TAN BR, XIE YL, et al. Control effect of Trichogramma + sexual attraction integrated mode on sugarcane borers［J］. Guangxi Plant Protection, 2016, 29(2): 1-4. (in Chinese)
［20］LUO HJ, LI G, WEI X, et al. Experiment and demonstration on the control of sugarcane borer with "Biological Missile"［J］. Journal of Guangxi Agriculture, 2015, 30(2): 25-29. (in Chinese)
［21］ASHOK V, TANDAN BK. Pathogenicity of three entomogenous fungi against insect pests of sugarcane［J］. Journal of Biological Control, 1996, 34: 87-91.