1 DOSSIER ON DIATRAEA SPECIES AS PESTS OF SUGARCANE

1
DOSSIER ON DIATRAEA SPECIES AS PESTS OF SUGARCANE
Genus Diatraea Guilding, 1828
Larvae of the genus Diatraea are stemborers of various grasses, and some are pests of sugarcane and maize
(Dyar & Heinrich 1927). This genus is extremely close to Chilo Zincken, but occurs only in North and
South America. According to Bleszynski (1969), Diatraea and Chilo form a compact monophyletic group,
and are kept as distinct genera mainly for practical purposes. Members of the genus Diatraea always lack
ocelli, and the male genitalia often have the tegumen lobed and the uncus and gnathos long. However,
several Chilo species have the ocelli vestigial or absent, which makes the separation of the two genera
difficult (Bleszynski 1969).
Bleszynski (1969) provides the following key to the species of Diatraea:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Forewing with one or two oblique, transverse lines formed usually by rows of small dark dots or
specks .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Forewing without transverse lines .............................................................................................. 21
Face rounded, without a tubercle or corneous point ...................................................................... 3
Face more or less conical, with a tubercle or corneous point ......................................................... 6
Small species with alar expanse up to 23 mm; in forewing M2 and M3 stalked for some distance;
antennae of male with very long setae ........................................................... minimifacta or pittieri
Large species with alar expanse usually more than 23 mm; M2 free of connate; antennae of male
normal ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Forewing light buff; veins, when lined, infuscate; oblique lines faint, dotted ........................... dyari
Forewing yellowish straw-colour or brownish; veins, when lined, brownish; oblique lines generally
contrasting ................................................................................................................................... 5
Forewing with both transverse lines resolved into separate dots on veins, the dots on the subterminal
line elongated ........................................................................................................... crambidoides
Forewing with subterminal line almost continuous and irregularly wavy; median line resolved into
separate dots or short streaks on veins ........................................................................... saccharalis
Male ............................................................................................................................................ 7
Female ...................................................................................................................................... 15
Forewing with pinkish tint; valva with a finger-like costal-basal process ....................................... 8
Forewing without pinkish tint; or valva without finger-like costal-basal process ............................ 9
Coastal-basal process of valva large and stout .................................................................. rufescens
Coastal-basal process of valva thin .................................................................................... centrella
Hind tibia with hair-tuft ............................................................................................................. 10
Hind tibia without hair-tuft ........................................................................................................ 11
Uncus very broad ......................................................................................................... albicrinella
Uncus normal ................................................................................................................ tabernella
Costal-basal process of valva very broad ...................................................................... considerata
Costal-basal process of valva moderate ...................................................................................... 12
Costal-basal process of valva clothed with strong spines ............................................................. 13
2
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Costal-basal process of valva clothed with small spines .............................................................. 14
Costal-basal process of valva not broadened terminally .............................................. guatemalella
Costal-basal process of valva broadened terminally ..................................................... veracruzana
Costal-basal process of valva with terminal part tapering to a point; tegumen lobes truncate ............
.................................................................................................................................. magnifactella
Costal-basal process of valva with terminal part not tapering to a point; tegumen lobes tapering to
rounded apices .............................................................................................................. indigenella
Bursa copulatrix greatly elongate ............................................................................................... 16
Bursa copulatrix not greatly elongate ......................................................................................... 18
Ostium pouch well demarcated from ductus bursae, slightly tapering cephalad ................................
........................................................................................................... guatemalella or veracruzana
Ostium pouch not distinctly demarcated from ductus bursae ....................................................... 17
Scobinate areas surrounding genital opening with distinctly thickened cephalic edges ... considerata
Scobinate areas surrounding genital opening without thickened edges ........................ magnifactella
Ostium bursae not accompanied by a heavily sclerotized plate .................................................... 19
Ostium bursae accompanied by a large heavily sclerotized plate ................................................. 20
Forewing with pinkish tint ............................................................................ centrella or rufescens
Forewing without pinkish tint ....................................................................................... indigenella
Forewing with a wide area on inner margin darker than rest of wing; face convex, with a small blunt
protuberance at apex .................................................................................................... albicrinella
Forewing with inner margin concolorous with rest of wing; face triangularly produced, almost as
long as broad, apex pointed ............................................................................................ tabernella
Male .......................................................................................................................................... 22
Female ...................................................................................................................................... 28
Tegumen with lobes ................................................................................................................... 23
Tegumen without lobes .............................................................................................................. 26
Costal-basal process of valva clothed with strong spines ............................................................. 24
Costal-basal process of valva without spines or clothed with very small spines ........................... 25
Tegumen lobes elongate, with caudal end projected ........................................................... busckella
Tegumen lobes rather triangular .............................................................................................. rosa
Face rounded, without an apical point ........................................................................ flavipennella
Face rounded, with an apical point .......................................................................... impersonatella
Gnathos with a median-dorsal spine-shaped process ...................................................... muellerella
Gnathos without a dorsal spine-shaped process ........................................................................... 27
Arms of juxta-plate with apices distinctly bifurcate ........................................................... lineolata
Arms of juxta-plate with apices not bifurcate, each arm with a subapical small spine ... grandiosella
Genital opening with a contrasting, heavily sclerotized incomplete ring ...................................... 29
Genital opening without a contrasting, heavily sclerotized ring ................................................... 30
Forewing with discal dot ............................................................................................. grandiosella
Forewing without discal dot .......................................................................................... muellerella
Face without an apical point ....................................................................................... flavipennella
Face with an apical point ............................................................................................................ 31
Head, thorax and forewing strongly tinged with salmon-pink ................................ busckella or rosa
Head, thorax and forewing yellowish, buff or brownish, without any salmon-pink ...................... 32
Bursa copulatrix greatly elongated .................................................................................... lineolata
Bursa copulatrix not greatly elongated ..................................................................... impersonatella
3
Male genitalia (after Bleszynski 1969)
Diatraea albicrinella
Diatraea amnemonella
Diatraea busckella
4
Diatraea centrella
Diatraea considerata
Diatraea crambidoides
Diatraea dyari
5
Diatraea flavipennella
Diatraea grandiosella
Diatraea guatemalella
Diatraea impersonatella
6
Diatraea indigenella
Diatraea lineolata
Diatraea magnifactella
Diatraea minimifacta
7
Diatraea muellerella
Diatraea pittieri
Diatraea rosa
Diatraea rufescens
8
Diatraea saccharalis
Diatraea tabernella
Diatraea veracruzana
9
Female genitalia (after Bleszynski 1969)
Diatraea albicrinella
Diatraea considerata
Diatraea busckella
Diatraea crambidoides
Diatraea centrella
10
Diatraea guatemalella
Diatraea dyari
Diatraea flavipennella
Diatraea impersonatella
Diatraea indigenella
Diatraea grandiosella
11
Diatraea lineolata
Diatraea pittieri
Diatraea rosa
Diatraea magnifactella
Diatraea muellerella
Diatraea rufescens
12
Diatraea veracruzana
Diatraea saccharalis
Diatraea tabernella
13
Diatraea saccharalis (Fabricius)
Phalaena saccharalis Fabricius 1794
Crambus sacchari Fabricius 1798
Diatraea sacchari: Guilding, 1828
Crambus leucaniellus Walker 1863
Crambus lineosellus Walker 1863
Chilo obliteratellus Zeller 1863
Diatraea saccharalis var. grenadensis Dyar 1911
Diatraea pedidocta Dyar 1911
Diatraea continens Dyar 1911
Diatraea sacchari f. brasiliensis Van Gorkum and De Waal 1913
Diatraea incomparella Dyar and Heinrich 1927
Diatraea saccharalis: Dyar and Heinrich 1927
Common name(s)
Sugarcane borer.
Distribution
Diatraea saccharalis is widely distributed throughout the Caribbean and Central America, where it is found
in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Guyana, Jamaica, Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico,
Trinidad and West Indies. It was probably introduced into Louisiana in the mid 1800s, and it is currently
distributed from Florida to Texas (Bleszynski 1969).
Host plants
Diatraea saccharalis is principally a pest of sugarcane; other hosts include broom corn, maize, kafir corn,
rice, sorghum, Sudan grass, Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), Andropogon sp., Holcus sp., Panicum spp.,
Paspalum sp., feather grass and vetiver grass (Dyar & Heinrich 1927; Hensley 1971).
Symptoms
Larvae bore into the sugarcane stalks, weakening or killing the plant top, sometimes causing it to break off.
In young plants, the inner whorl of leaves may be killed, resulting in dead hearts, and tunnelling encourages
fungal infection. In maize, larvae attack the whorl early in the season and feed on the young tissues. Light
infestation results in a series of pin holes across the leaf blade and tiny holes into midribs; light-brown frass
can be seen at these holes. Heavy infestation leads to death of the growing point and stunting of growth
(Flynn & Reagan 1984; Flynn et al. 1984). Larvae may also burrow into the ears especially during the
second generation (Rodriguez-del-Bosque et al. 1990).
(A)
(B)
(A) Pinholes caused by young larvae (CIMMYT).
(B) Tunnel made by D. saccharalis and red rot fungus (Texas A&M University)
Economic impact
Studies showed that infestation of D. saccharalis reduces the amount and purity of juice, and sucrose yield
may be decreased by 10-20% (Capinera 2001). Sugarcane borer is also a minor pest of sweet corn in
14
Florida, where the weather favours its survival and sugarcane is abundant (Kelsheimer et al. 1950). In the
lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, the combined damage of D. saccharalis and Eoreuma loftini (Dyar)
equals to approximately 20% of sugarcane internodes annually. In Texas, the share agreements between
farmers and the sugar mill mandate that the mill retains 40% of proceeds as compensation for milling, with
economic losses also shared in the same ratio. Legaspi et al. (1999) calculated the total loss due to borer
damage with the assumption that the value of raw sugar is US$420/t. In that case, 20% bored internodes
will result in a loss of US$1,181.04/ha. For average Texas sugarcane area of 18,200 ha, total losses would
be US$21.5 million (US$12.9 million to the producers and US$8.6 million to the mill).
For more than 40 years, the value used by Louisiana sugarcane farmers as the economic injury level (EIL)
was 10% bored internodes. However, recent varieties released to Louisiana growers are more tolerant than
older varieties, and the percent reduction in sugar/ha loss per 1% internodes bored has decreased from an
average of 0.74 for varieties grown in the 1960s to 0.61 as a mean for the newly released varieties.
Although the cost associated with an insecticide application for borer control has increased nearly 4-fold
from 1971 to present, sugar yields have increased by approximately 60%. However, considering the high
yielding potential and the high susceptibility of the currently grown varieties, a more appropriate value for
the EIL is determined at 6% internodes bored. Nevertheless, this EIL can be raised to 12% if a resistant
variety is grown (White et al. 2008).
In artificial infestation of sweet sorghum field trials, D. saccharalis reduced sugar yield by up to 46%. A
significant relationship between D. saccharalis damage and yield loss indicated an economic injury level of
10% bored internodes, with stalk weight, sucrose levels and total sugars negatively correlated with damage.
Increased fibre content, resulting in less juice, was positively correlated with percent bored internodes.
Information from damage levels, along with survival records, indicated that the economic threshold was
reached when 5% of the sweet sorghum plants contained small D. saccharalis larvae in their leaf sheaths
(Fuller et al. 1988).
It is important to realize that in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the sugarcane industry in the Lower Rio
Grande Valley of Texas was dramatically affected by the rise of the Mexican rice borer (MRB), Eoreuma
loftini (Dyar) (Pyralidae) from an unrecorded pest to the key pest, simultaneously with the sharp decline in
infestation levels by D. saccharalis and the establishment of Cotesia flavipes (Cameron) (Hymenoptera:
Braconidae) as a biological control agent. During the 1990s, MRB comprised about 95% of sugarcane
stalkborers, causing damage levels of 20-30% bored internodes (Legaspi et al. 1997).
Morphology
Eggs
Eggs are flattened and oval in shape, measuring about 1.16 mm in length and 0.75 mm in width. Eggs are
deposited in clusters of about 50, and eggs overlap like fish scales. Eggs can be deposited on both the upper
and lower surface of leaves. Newly deposited eggs are white, but turn orange with age and then acquire a
blackish tinge just before hatching. Duration of the egg stage is 4-6 days. Mean fecundity is about 700 eggs
when borers are reared on corn and sugarcane, but only about 425 when fed Johnson grass (Bessin &
Reagan 1990).
D. saccharalis eggs (Texas A & M University)
Larva
Larvae tend to congregate in the whorl of corn plants and begin feeding almost immediately. They may
feed through the leaf tissue or tunnel through the midrib. Late second- or early third-instars burrow into the
stalk. In winter, larvae are whitish with a brown head, but the summer form of the larva bears large brown
spots on each body segment. The number of instars is variable; Holloway et al. (1928) reported instar
duration of about 3-6, 4-8, 6-9, 4-6, and 4-9 days for instars 1-5, respectively, for larvae fed on sugarcane.
15
When reared on artificial diets, most larvae tend to have six instars. Roe et al. (1982) reported mean head
capsule widths of about 0.29, 0.40, 0.62, 0.93, and 1.32 mm for instars 1-5 in larvae that had six instars.
Larval duration requires 25 to 30 days during warm weather and 30 to 35 days during winter (Capinera
2001).
D. saccharalis larva (John Capinera, University of Florida)
Pupa
The pupa is elongate and slender (16-20 mm long). It is brown in colour and bears prominent pointed
tubercles on the distal segments. Pupation occurs in a tunnel inside the plant, which is cleaned by the larva
and expanded prior to pupation, leaving only a thin layer of plant tissue for the moth to break through at
emergence. Duration of the pupal stage is usually 8-9 days, but may extend for up to 22 days in cool
conditions (Capinera 2001).
D. saccharalis pupa (Texas A&M University).
Adult
The adult is yellowish or yellowish brown in colour with a 18-28 mm wing span in males and 27-39 mm
wingspan in females. The adults are nocturnal and hide during the morning. Oviposition commences at
dusk and continues throughout the evening. Adults may survive for up to 8 days (Capinera 2001).
D. saccharalis adult (William White, USDA).
16
Bleszynski (1969) provides the following description of the adult of D. saccharalis:
Alar expanse 18-39 mm. Face rounded with no corneous point; lower ridge also absent. Forewing
yellowish-beige to light brown with discal dot and both transverse lines present. Hindwing silky white to
dirty creamy-grey. The moth is extremely variable in size and colouration, and the genitalia are the only
diagnostic character.
Male genitalia
Uncus broader than gnathos. The projection of tegumen large, broadly rounded. Valva relatively narrow at
base; basal process subquadrate, from one-third densely clothed with minute spikes. Juxta-plate with two
long narrow arms. Aedeagus straight, tapering apicad, with a small, subapical, finger-like projection.
Female genitalia
Ostium pouch accompanied by two moderately-sized, heavily sclerotized shields. Scobinate areas in front
of genital opening moderately-sized, rounded. Bursa copulatrix much longer than ductus bursae.
Detection methods
Larval distribution in sugarcane fields is described by Hall (1986), who determined that a sample of
sugarcane consisting of five stalks taken from five plants spaced 3 m apart gave a good indication of borer
density. In another study in the USA, Cherry et al. (2001) suggested that fields should be surveyed every 2
or 3 weeks from March until November. The survey method is the same as given by Hall (1986). The
leaves, whorls, and behind leaf-sheaths are examined, and stalks are split to detect tunnelling. 2-3
larvae/100 sampled stalks is a level that causes concern about economic damage. However, no chemical
control is recommended if 50% or greater of the borers are parasitized Cherry et al. (2001).
Biology and ecology
Sosa (1990) recorded that D. saccharalis adults lay significantly more eggs on sugarcane clones (Saccharum
spp.) than on corn (Zea mays), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), rice (Oryza sativa), or wax paper. More eggs
were laid on the leaf surfaces of ‘glabrous’ sugarcane clones than on a pubescent clone. Although fewer
eggs were laid on the leaf surfaces of pubescent clones, oviposition on the midribs (devoid of trichomes)
was higher compared with oviposition on the midrib of glabrous clones. Overall, the glabrous clones
received more than 2.5 times the number of eggs than the pubescent clone.
Larvae overwinter and pupate in the spring. In Louisiana and Texas, adults become active by April or May,
and the borer population continues until autumn. Development time is variable and generations overlap
considerably. There is potential for 4-5 generations to occur annually, but moths are abundant only in
spring and autumn (Fuchs & Harding 1979). In summer, a complete generation may require only 25 days,
while it may last for more than 200 days during winter.
A negative correlation between rainfall and borer abundance has been reported from Louisiana and Puerto
Rico, with heavy rainfall reducing borer survival, particularly during winter (Holloway et al. 1928). Young
larvae in plant whorls are able to tolerate short-term flooding, but heavy rainfall during their dispersal may
lead to high mortality. On the other hand, Hensley (1971) found that winter temperatures in Louisiana
(often below -7°C) causes more than 80% mortality to the overwintering population in crop residues above
the soil surface, but have little impact on larvae in stubble below ground. Later in May-June, dry weather
may cause 50% mortality to the first generation infesting young tillers.
Management
Chemical control
In Louisiana, four insecticides are registered for the control of D. saccharalis: carbofuran, cyfluthrin
(Baythroid), esfenvalerate (Asana) and tebufenozide (Rodriguez et al. 2001). The ecologically friendly
product tebufenozide (Confirm, at 0.146 kg a.i./ha) is an important component of D. saccharalis integrated
pest management program in the Louisiana sugarcane industry, which has had a history of insecticide
related problems with fish and wildlife. The product was found to be specific with no impact on other
secondary pests or natural enemies (Reagan & Posey 2001).
There are major environmental concerns with carbofuran, and the compound is not being promoted for use.
The pyrethroids cyfluthrin and esfenvalerate apparently increase populations of certain secondary pests
(Showler & Reagan 1991). Alternatively, tebufenozide, which belongs to the novel diacylhydrazines class
of insecticides, shows good activity against D. saccharalis (Rodriguez et al. 1995; Ostheimer et al. 1998).
17
Biological control
The Caribbean region and tropical areas of South America have been surveyed extensively for natural
enemies and many species were introduced into the United States with few successes (Clausen 1978).
Fuller & Reagan (1988) studied the role of natural enemies in sugarcane and sorghum, and found that
predator densities were higher in sugarcane due to the greater abundance of red imported fire ant. Other
species such as Orius spp., pirate bugs (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae), lacewings (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae),
tiger beetles (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae), spiders, and foliage-dwelling ground beetle larvae (Coleoptera:
Carabidae) were more abundant in sorghum fields.
Natural enemies
Agathis stigmatera (Agathis stigmaterus) (Cresson) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae): Larval parasitoid.
Successfully imported from Argentina and Peru into the United States and is now well established in Florida
and Louisiana. Reported by King et al. (1981) to result in about 12% parasitism.
Apanteles diatraeae Musebeck, (Hymenoptera: Braconidae): Larval parasitoid. A common parasitoid of
several Diatraea species throughout Mexico (Rodriguez del Bosque & Smith 1991).
Apanteles impunctatus Musebeck (Hymenoptera: Braconidae): Larval parasitoid (Capinera 2001).
Cotesia flavipes Cameron (Hymenoptera: Braconidae): Larval endoparasitoid. Introduced into Central
and South America from Asia. It is considered to be a key late-season parasitoid in the late summer in
Florida, while Meagher et al. (1998) record about 9.0% mortality rates in southern Texas due to parasitism.
In corn, Rodriguez-Del-Bosque et al. (1990) recorded 53.3% parasitism rate following releases of the
parasitoid in the Rio Bravo Experiment Station in Mexico. It was also established in Jamaica in 1982 where
it contributes to the natural control of D. saccharalis (Falloon 2001). This parasitoid species is used
extensively in inundative release programs throughout the Americas. There is evidence that mass releases
in Brazil may have caused a decrease in populations of native tachinid parasitoids of D. saccharalis (Rossi
& Fowler 2004a).
Lixophaga diatraeae (Townsend) (Diptera: Tachinidae): Larval endoparasitoid. Imported and released
repeatedly into the USA, but tends to disappear after a few years. Apparently has the potential to cause high
levels of parasitism, but does not persist well in the field (Capinera 2001).
Lydella minense (Townsend) (= Metagonistylum minense) (Diptera: Tachinidae): Larval-pupal
endoparasitoid. Native to Brazil and contributes to the natural control of D. saccharalis (Rossi & Fowler
2004b). Attacks D. saccharalis in Venezuela (Simmonds 1969).
Paratheresia claripalpis (Townsend) (Diptera: Tachinidae): Larval-pupal endoparasitoid native to Brazil
(Rossi & Fowler 2004b).
Pheidole dentata Mayr (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): Predatory ant (Adams et al. 1981).
Pheidole floridana Emery: Predatory ant (Adams et al. 1981).
Paratheresia claripalpis
Solenopsis invicta Buren (Hymenoptera: Formicidae): The red imported fire ant. Reported to be an
important predator of sugarcane borer in cane fields, and capable of reducing damage from borers by over
90% (Bessin & Reagan 1993).
Trichogramma galloi (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae): Egg parasitoid. Considered an efficient
biological control agent against D. saccharalis in cane fields in Brazil. Also a candidate for use against the
same pest in corn in Brazil (Consoli et al. 2001).
Pathogens
Beauveria bassiana: In Brazil, IBCB 66 is a strain of this entomopathogenic fungus which was found
pathogenic to D. saccharalis (Wenzel et al. 2006).
Cultural practices
In Florida, USA, Anderson & Sosa (2001) showed that the application of calcium silicate slag, a by-product
of electric furnace, was associated with decreased borer intensity. Destroying trash to reduce overwintering
larvae may reduce the population, though burning does not always kill larvae inside the stalks (Capinera
2001). In Chiapas, Mexico, Toledo et al. (2005) showed that harvesting cane by burning resulted in greater
borer and weed abundance, hence, green cane harvesting was recommended as a better practice. Similarly,
Macedo & Araujo (2000) showed that pre- and post-harvesting burning of sugarcane negatively affects
populations of D. saccharalis larval parasitoids (Metagonistylum minense, Paratheresia claripalpis, Cotesia
flavipes) and egg parasitoids (Trichogramma spp.).
18
Host resistance
Extensive studies are available on cultivars resistant to D. saccharalis, and some sugarcane and corn
cultivars display considerable resistance to the borer (Bessin et al. 1990, Bessin & Reagan 1993). Kimbeng
et al. (2006) showed that resistance to D. saccharalis could be increased by diligently selecting and crossing
among the most resistant parents and then focusing selection on progeny within those crosses. However,
resistant varieties tend to have lower yields and sugar contents (White et al. 2006; 2007). White et al.
(2006) showed that sugarcane clones with “pith” sustained fewer damaged internodes and had lower damage
ratings compared to those without pith, though not significantly. In addition, there were individuals within
each subpopulation that were both resistant and susceptible, suggesting that factors other than the presence
or absence of pith were contributing to resistance. Rind hardness and fibre contents were closely associated
with resistance than pith, and fibre content was correlated with resistance in all cases while pith was not
correlated to rind hardness and fibre content. Hence the authors suggested that accumulating these traits
through repetitive phenotypic selection during recurrent selection may account for the lower sugar yields
often observed in borer resistant selections.
White (2000) stated that efforts to import exotic germplasm can be hindered by quarantine considerations.
This is due to the threat of introducing a new pest which negates the potential benefits that may be derived
from new germplasm sources. He suggested to employ a bioassay procedure that uses freeze-dried cane to
eliminate the need for exchanging living plants. Using this procedure, a population of 33 lines of
Saccharum spontaneum L. was evaluated against D. saccharalis, and 3 lines produced larvae significantly
smaller when fed on sheath and internode tissue for 14 days than when fed the same tissue from commercial
standards.
Transgenic sugarcane
Trials in Piracicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil, showed that a gene encoding the Bacillus thuringiensis CryIa(b)
protein can confer resistance onto sugarcane against D. saccharalis under laboratory and field conditions.
This was achieved by the bombardment of embryogenic calluses with tungsten particles coated by plasmids
pCIB4421 (CryIa(b) protein gene from B. thuringiensis with a maize phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase
promoter), pCIB4426 (CryIA(b) protein gene with a pith promoter), and pHA9 (neo gene, conferring
resistance to antibiotics) (Braga et al. 2001).
Pheromone trapping
(9Z,11E)-Hexadeca-9,11-dienal (1) was identified as a major component of the sex pheromone of Diatraea
saccharalis (Svatos et al. 2001).
A study using virgin female gland extracts from three locations in Brazil recognised (Z)-hexadec-11-enal
(2), hexadecanal (3), (9E,11Z)-hexadecadienal (4), (9Z,11Z)-hexadecadienal (5) and (9E,11E)
hexadecadienal (6) as minor components, in addition to the already reported major constituent (9Z,11E)hexadecadienal (1). Only two compounds, (1) and (2), elicited antennal responses (Batista et al. 2002).
Means of movement
The most likely means of entry of D. saccharalis into Australia would be by the introduction of infested
planting material. The chance of the introduction of moths on aircraft, in luggage, or on people is much
smaller, though still significant.
Phytosanitary risk to Australia
Entry potential: Low-medium due to its isolation, but readily transmitted on infected planting material and
adults carried by wind.
Colonisation potential: High in most sugarcane-growing areas.
Spread potential: High, unless strict controls imposed over movement of infested material.
Establishment potential: Depends on biotype present (see Match Indexes for climates at selected locations
and principal Australian areas below).
22
Diatraea considerata Heinrich
Diatraea considerata Heinrich, 1931
Distribution
Mexico (in the states of Sinaloa and Nayant) and Venezuela (Bleszynski 1969; Simmonds 1969).
Host plants
Sugarcane (Bleszynski 1969).
Morphology
Little information is available on this species which is a pest of sugarcane in Mexico. Bleszynski (1969)
provides this description of Diatraea considerata adults: Alar expanse 31-39 mm. Face with tubercle. In
general very similar to the closely related magnifactella, but the sexes show marked contrast in colour.
Male dark greyish-fuscous with concolorous hindwing, female pale brownish straw colour with pure white
hindwing. Subterminal line distinct in both sexes, median line obscure. Discal dot present. Hind tibia of
male without hair tuft.
Male genitalia
Distinguished from magnifactella by the less rounded lobes of the tegumen and by the much broader costal
process of the valva.
Female genitalia
In general similar to those of magnifactella.
Economic impact
Recent damage figures are mentioned by Legaspi et al. (2000), who surveyed selected sugarcane fields in
the state of Jalisco, Mexico, and recorded 1.3-6.3% and 3-4.4% bored internodes due to infestation by D.
considerata and Eoreuma loftini, respectively. The stalkborer population was almost equally divided
between the two species.
Biological control
Apanteles deplanatus (Hymenoptera: Braconidae): Gregarious larval endoparasitoid. Recorded in
southern Mexico on D. considerata on sugarcane and D. magnifactella on both sugarcane and corn. It
attacks middle to late instar larvae. A. deplanatus had been recorded previously from the Mexican states of
Jalisco and Nayarit; currently its known range includes the states of Colima, Michoacan, Morelos, Puebla
and Veracruz (Smith & Rodriguez del Bosque 1994).
Conura acuta (Hymenoptera: Chalcididae): Pupal parasitoid – up to 43% parasitism rates were recorded
in Western Mexico (Vejar-Cota et al. 2005).
Macrocentrus prolificus (Hymenoptera: Braconidae): Larval endoparasitoid. Attacks D. considerata and
D. grandiosella in sugarcane in Mexico (Wharton 1984; Vejar-Cota et al. 2008).
Metagonistylum minense (Diptera: Tachinidae): Larval - pupal endoparasitoid. Attacks D. considerata,
D. magnifactella and D. saccharalis in Venezuela (Simmonds 1969).
Work by (Wiedenmann et al. 2003) showed that D. considerata is a less suitable host for Cotesia chilonis,
C. flavipes and C. sesamiae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) than D. saccharalis.
Pheromone trapping
Gries et al. (1998) identified three aldehydes as the female produced sex pheromone components of D.
considerata: (Z)-11-hexadecenal (Z11-16:Ald), (Z)-7-hexadecenal (Z7-16:Ald), and (Z)-13-octadecenal
(Z13-18:Ald), in a ratio of 74:23:3. In field trapping experiments carried out in cane fields in Mexico, Z1116:Ald, Z7-16:Ald or Z13-18:Ald singly were behaviourally inactive, but in ternary combination were as
attractive as virgin females. Deleting either Z11-16:Ald or Z7-16:Ald from the ternary aldehyde blend
strongly reduced attractiveness, indicating that these two compounds are most important for attraction of
males. Congeneric and sympatric females of D. grandiosella also utilize Z11-16:Ald and Z13-18:Ald as sex
pheromone components.
24
Other species of Diatraea
The followings are species of Diatraea that may be of some economic importance on sugarcane. They are
all found in South and Central America (Bleszynski 1969). Very little information is available on their
biology and methods of management. Management strategies in case of incursion into Australia will be
similar to those implemented against D. saccharalis:
Diatraea centrella* (Moschulsky)
Diatraea dyari Box
Diatraea guatemalella Schaus
Diatraea indigenella Dyar and Heinrich
Diatraea magnifactella Dyar
Diatraea rosa Heinrich
Diatraea tabernella# Dyar
Diatraea veracruzana Box
* References from Trinidad and Guyana refer to this species as a significant pest of sugarcane (Mahadeo
1976; Dasrat et al. 1997).
# Causes considerable losses to cane in certain parts of South America, particularly in Costa Rica (Valverde
et al. 1991).
The following Diatraea species are either of minor importance or only found occasionally in sugarcane.
Their impact on that crop may therefore be minimal. They are all found in South and Central America, and
a few extend to the southern parts of North America (Bleszynski 1969):
Diatraea albicrinella Box
Diatraea amnemonella
Diatraea amazonica
Diatraea busckella Dyar and Heinrich
Diatraea crambidoides (Grote)
Diatraea flavipennella Box: Recent studies from Brazil suggest that this species is appearing as a sugarcane
pest in the state of Alagoas, and that it is displacing Diatraea saccharalis (Freitas et al. 2006).
Diatraea grandiosella Dyar
Diatraea impersonatella (Walker)
Diatraea lineolata (Walker)
Diatraea minimifacta Dyar
Diatraea muellerella Dyar and Heinrich
Diatraea pittieri Box
Diatraea rufescens Box
The followings are other Diatraea species described by Dyar & Heinrich (1927). No recent references are
available on these species and their importance in sugar can maybe negligible if any:
Diatraea angustella Dyar
Diatraea bellifactella Dyar
Diatraea canella Hampson
Diatraea continens Dyar
Diatraea cayennella Dyar and Heinrich
Diatraea evanescens Dyar
Diatraea fuscella Schaus
Diatraea gaga Dyar
Diatraea incomparella Dyar and Heinrich
Diatraea instructella Dyar
Diatraea maronialis Schaus
Diatraea moorella Dyar and Heinrich
Diatraea pallidostricta Dyar
Diatraea pedibarbata Dyar
Diatraea postlineella Schaus
Diatraea strigipennella Dyar
Diatraea schausella Dyar and Heinrich
Diatraea umbrialis Schaus
Diatraea venosalis (Dyar)
Diatraea zeacolella Dyar
25
References
Adams C, Summers TE, Lofgren CS, Focks DA & Prewitt JC. 1981. Interrelationship of ants and the
sugarcane borer in Florida sugarcane fields. Environmental Entomology 10, 415-418.
Anderson DL & Sosa O. 2001. Effect of silicon on expression of resistance to sugarcane borer (Diatraea
saccharalis). Journal - American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 21, 43-50.
Batista PL, Santangelo EM, Stein K, Unelius C R, Eiras AE & Correa A. 2002. Electrophysiological studies
and identification of possible sex pheromone components of Brazilian populations of the sugarcane
borer, Diatraea saccharalis. Journal of Biosciences 57 (7-8), 753-758.
Bessin RT, Moser EB & Reagan TE. 1990. Integration of control tactics for management of the sugarcane
borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Louisiana sugarcane. Journal of Economic Entomology 83, 15631569.
Bessin RT & Reagan TE. 1990. Fecundity of sugarcane borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), as affected by larval
development on gramineous host plants. Environmental Entomology 19, 635-639.
Bessin RT & Reagan TE. 1993. Cultivar resistance and arthropod predation of sugarcane borer
(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) affects incidence of deadhearts in Louisiana sugarcane. Journal of
Economic Entomology 86, 929-932.
Bleszynski S. 1969. The taxonomy of crambinae moth borers of sugarcane. In Pest of sugarcane J. R.
Williams, J. R. Metcalf, R. W. Mungomery and R. Mathes (eds.) Elsevier, New York. 11-59.
Braga DPV, Arrigoni EDB, Burnquist WL, Silva Filho MC & Ulian EC. 2001. A new approach for control
of Diatraea saccharalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) through the expression of an insecticidal CryIa(b)
protein in transgenic sugarcane. Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane
Technologists 24(2), 331-336.
Capinera JL. 2001. Featured creatures, Diatraea saccharalis. University of Florida publication EENY-217.
Cherry RH, Schueneman TJ & Nuessly GS. 2001. Insect Management in Sugarcane. Florida Cooperative
Extension Service publication (http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu).
Clausen CP. 1978. Introduced Parasites and Predators of Arthropod Pests and Weeds: A World Review.
USDA Agriculture. Handbook 480. 545 pp.
Consoli FL, Botelho PSM & Parra JRP. 2001. Selectivity of insecticides to the egg parasitoid
Trichogramma galloi Zucchi, (Hym., Trichogrammatidae). Journal of Applied Entomology 125(1-2),
37-43.
Dasrat B, Rajkumar A, Richards Haynes C, Quashie Williams C & Eastwood D. 1997. Evaluation of
Allorhogas pyralophagus Marsh (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) for the biological control of Diatraea
spp. (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in sugar-cane in Guyana. Crop Protection 16(8), 723-726.
Dyar HG & Heinrich C. 1927. The American moths of the genus Diatraea and allies. Proceedings of U.S.
National Museum 71, 1-48.
Falloon, T. 2001. Evaluation of the biological control program against sugar cane stalk borer, Diatraea
saccharalis F., after two decades of field establishment of Cotesia flavipes(Cameron) in Jamaica.
Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 24(2), 366-369.
Flynn JL & Reagan TE. 1984. Corn phenology in relation to natural and simulated infestations of the
sugarcane borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 77, 1524-1529.
Flynn JL, Reagan TE & Ogunwolu EO. 1984. Establishment and damage of the sugarcane borer
(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in corn as influenced by plant development. Journal of Economic
Entomology 77, 691-697.
Freitas M, Fonseca AP, Silva EL, Mendonça AL, Silva CE, Mendonça AL, Nascimento RR & Sant'ana
AEG. 2006. The predominance of Diatraea flavipennella (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in sugarcane
fields in the state of Alagoas, Brazil. Florida Entomologis 89, 539-540.
Fuchs TW & Harding JA. 1979. Seasonal abundance of the sugarcane borer, Diatraea saccharalis, on
sugarcane and other hosts in the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Southwestern Entomologist 4,
125-131.
Fuller BW & Reagan TE. 1988. Comparative predation of the sugarcane borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on
sweet sorghum and sugarcane. Journal of Economic Entomology 81, 713-717.
Fuller BW, Reagan TE & Flynn JL. 1988. Economic injury level of the sugarcane borer (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae) on sweet sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. Journal of Economic Entomology
81(1), 349-353.
Gries R, Dunkelblum E, Gries G, Baldilla F, Hernandez C, Alvarez F, Perez A, Velasco J & Oehlschlager
AC. 1998. Sex pheromone components of Diatraea considerata (Heinrich) (Lep., Pyralidae). Journal
of Applied Entomology 122(5), 265-268.
Hall DG. 1986. Sampling for the sugarcane borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in sugarcane. Journal of
Economic Entomology 79, 813-816.
26
Hensley SD. 1971. Management of sugarcane borer populations in Louisiana, a decade of change.
Entomophaga 16(1), 133-146.
Holloway TE, Haley WE, Loftin UC & Heinrich C. 1928. The sugar-cane borer in the United States. USDA
Technical Bulletin 41, 77 pp.
Kelsheimer EG, Hayslip NC & Wilson JW. 1950. Control of budworms, earworms and other insects
attacking sweet corn and green corn in Florida. Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 466.
38 pp.
Kimbeng CA, White WH, Miller JD & Legendre BL. 2006. Sugarcane resistance to the sugarcane borer:
response to infestation among progeny derived from resistant and susceptible parents. Sugar Cane
International 24(3), 14-21.
King EG, Sanford J, Smith JW & Martin DF. 1981. Augmentative release of Lixophaga diatraeae (Diptera:
Tachinidae) for suppression of early season sugarcane borer populations in Louisiana. Entomophaga
26(1), 59-69.
Legaspi JC, Legaspi BC, King EG & Saldana R. 1997. Mexican rice borer, Eoreuma loftini (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae) in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas: Its history and control. Subtropical Plant
Science 49, 53-64.
Legaspi JC, Legaspi BC, Irvine JE, Johnson J, Meagher RL & Rozeff N. 1999. Stalkborer damage on yield
and quality of sugarcane in Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Journal of Economic Entomology
92(1), 228-234.
Legaspi JC, Legaspi BC, Lauzière I, Smith JW, Rodríguez-del-Bosque LA, Jones WA & Saldaña RR. 2000.
Incidence of Mexican rice borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and Jalisco fly parasite (Diptera:
Tachinidae) in Mexico. Southwestern Entomologist 25, 21-30.
Long WH & Hensley SD. 1972. Insect pests of sugar cane. Annual Review of Entomology 17, 149- 176.
Macedo N & Araújo JR. 2000. Effects of sugarcane burning on larval and egg parasitoids of Diatraea
saccharalis (Fabr.) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). Anais da Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil 29, 7984.
Mahadeo CR. 1976. Comparison of small moth borer damage survey at Felicite over a 28 year period (19471975) (Diatraea saccharalis, Diatraea centrella, Diatraea impersonatella, sugarcane). Journal of the
Agricultural Society of Trinidad-Tobago 76 (2), 164-169.
Meagher RL, Smith JW, Browning HW & Saldana RR. 1998. Sugarcane stemborers and their parasites in
southern Texas. Environmental entomology 27(3), 759-766.
Ostheimer EA, LM Rodriguez, AE Woolwine, HP Schexnayder Jr & TE Reagan. 1998. Insecticidal control
of the sugarcane borer - small plot test. Arthropod Management Tests 23, 286.
Reagan TE & Posey FR. 2001. A potential stalk-borer insecticide management program that enhances
biological control. Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 24(2), 370373.
Rodriguez del Bosque LA & Smith JW Jr. 1991. Parasitization of Diatraea muellerella on corn in Guerrero,
Mexico. Southwestern Entomologist 16(4), 367-369.
Rodriguez del Bosque LA, Smith JW & Browning HW. 1990. Feeding and pupation sites of Diatraea
lineolata, D. saccharalis, and Eoreuma loftini (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in relation to corn phenology.
Journal of Economic Entomology 83, 850-855.
Rodriguez LM, Ostheimer E, Woolwine A, Reagan TE, Pollet DK & White WH. 1995. Efficacy of aerial
application of selected insecticides against sugarcane borer. Arthropod Management Tests 20, 254255.
Rodriguez LM, Regan TE & Ottea JA. 2001. Susceptibility of Diatraea saccharalis (Lepidoptera:
Crambidae) to tebufenozide. Journal of Economic Entomology 94(6), 1464-1470.
Roe RM, Hammond AM & Sparks TC. 1982. Growth of larval Diatraea saccharalis (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae) on an artificial diet and synchronization of the last larval stadium. Annals of the
Entomological Society of America 75, 421-429.
Rossi MN & Fowler HG. 2004a. Spatial and temporal population interactions between the parasitoids
Cotesia flavipes and Tachinidae flies: considerations on the adverse effects of biological control
practice. Journal of Applied Entomology 128, 112-119.
Rossi MN & Fowler HG. 2004b. Spatial pattern of parasitism in Diatraea saccharalis Fab. (Lep.,
Crambidae) populations at two different spatial scales in sugarcane fields in Brazil. Journal of
Applied Entomology 128, 279-283.
Showler AT & Reagan TE. 1991. Effects of sugarcane borer, weed, and nematode control strategies in
Louisiana sugarcane. Environmental Entomology 20, 358-370.
Simmonds FJ. 1969. Biological control of sugarcane pests: A general survey. In Pests of sugarcane J. R.
Williams, J. R. Metcalf, R. W. Mungomery and R. Mathes (eds.) Elsevier, New York. 11-59.
27
Smith JW Jr & Rodriguez del Bosque LA. 1994. New distribution and host range records for Apanteles
deplanatus (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), a parasite of Diatraea considerata and D. magnifactella
(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), in Mexico. Biological Control 4(3), 249-253.
Sosa O. 1990. Oviposition preference by the sugarcane borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Journal of Economic
Entomology 83(3), 866-868.
Svatos A, Kalinova B, kindl J, Kuldova J, Hovorka O, Rufino R & Oldham N. 2001. Chemical
characterization and synthesis of the major component of the sex pheromone of the sugarcane borer
Diatraea saccharalis. Collection of Czechoslovak Chemical Communications 66(11), 1682-1690.
Toledo Toledo E, Jürgen Pohlan HA, Gehrke Vélez MR & Leyva Galan A. 2005. Green sugarcane versus
burned sugarcane - results of six years in the Soconusco region of Chiapas, Mexico. Sugar Cane
International 23(1), 20-23, 27.
Valverde LA, Badilla F & Fuentes G. 1991. Measurement of sugar losses at factory level caused by
Diatraea tabernella in three sugar cane varieties (Saccharum spp.) in the high zone of San Carlos,
Costa Rica. Sugar Cane 2, 13-16, 17-19, 28-29.
Vejar-Cota G, Echeverría NE & Rodríguez-del-Bosque LA. 2005. Parasitism and development of Conura
acuta (Hymenoptera: Chalcididae) on sugarcane stalkborers (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in Mexico.
Environmental Entomology 34, 1122-1128.
Vejar-Cota G, Rodríguez-del-Bosque LA & Sahagún D. 2008. Economic and ecological impacts of hand
removing dead hearts caused by Diatraea considerate (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) on sugarcane in
Mexico. Southwestern Entomologist 33, 157-159.
Wenzel IM, Giometti FHC & Almeida JEM. 2006. Pathogenicity of IBCB 66 strain of Beauveria bassiana
to the sugar cane weevil Diatraea saccharalis under laboratory conditions. Arquivos do Instituto
Biológico (São Paulo) 73, 259-261.
Wharton RA. 1984. The status of certain Braconidae (Hymenoptera) cultured for biological control
programmes, and description of a new species of Macrocentrus. Proceedings of the Entomological
Society of Washington 86(4), 902-912.
White WH. 2000. Stalkborer bioassays: experiences in Louisiana. Sugarcane pest management in the New
Millennium. 4th Sugarcane Entomology Workshop International Society of Sugar Cane
Technologists, Khon Kaen, Thailand, 7-10 February 2000 28-33.
White WH, Tew TL & Richard EP. 2006. Association of sugarcane pith, rind hardness, and fiber with
resistance to the sugarcane borer. Journal - American Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 26, 87100.
White WH, Tew TL & Richard EP. 2007. Introgressing new sources of sugarcane borer resistance: can
theory become practice? Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 26,
850-853.
White WH, Viator RP, Dufrene EO, Dalley CD, Richard EP, Tew TL. 2008. Re-evaluation of sugarcane
borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) bioeconomics in Louisiana. Crop Protection 27, 1256-1261.
Wiedenmann RN, Smith JW & Rodriguez-del-Bosque LA. 2003. Host suitability of the New World
stalkborer Diatraea considerata for three Old World Cotesia parasitoids. BioControl 48, 659-669.