Next Article in Journal
Antimalarial and Antileishmanial Flavonoids from Calendula officinalis Flowers
Previous Article in Journal
Dynamic of Grassland Degradation and Its Driving Forces from Climate Variation and Human Activities in Central Asia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 13
Issue 11
10.3390/agronomy13112764
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Lignocellulosic Composition Not Associated with Stem Borer Resistance in Select Louisiana Sugarcane Cultivars

by
Hannah J. Penn
*,
Richard M. Johnson
*,
Katie A. Richard
,
Randy T. Richard
and
William H. White
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Sugarcane Research, Houma, LA 70360, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2023, 13(11), 2764; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13112764
Submission received: 6 October 2023 / Revised: 30 October 2023 / Accepted: 31 October 2023 / Published: 3 November 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Pest and Disease Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The two most economically damaging insect pests of sugarcane in Louisiana are the sugarcane borer (SCB) and the newly invasive Mexican rice borer (MRB), both of which can be managed in part with cultivar resistance. High stalk fiber levels is a well-documented aspect of stem borer resistance but is inversely correlated with recoverable sugar levels. However, lignocellulosic components such as hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin are associated with resistance to other borer species in poaceous crops, potentially indicating mechanisms that may provide resistance without substantial trade-offs in yield. The goal of this study was to determine whether lignocellulosic composition varied among four cultivars—HoCP 85-845, HoCP 04-838, Ho 07-613, and HoCP 00-950—selected based on known variation in SCB and MRB resistance and total fiber content. We estimated lignocellulosic composition as well as Brix throughout the growing season and the total stalk fiber and recoverable sugar content at harvest for both plant cane and first ratoon crop years. We found that the Brix content throughout the growing season, as well as total fiber and sugar content at harvest, were significantly associated with the cultivar, aligning with previously documented trends in borer resistance (i.e., higher Brix and lower total fiber indicate a more susceptible cultivar). While lignocellulosic composition during the growing season was not associated with cultivar or resistance to either borer species, it was significantly impacted by sampling month and crop year. These data indicate the potential influence of alternative resistance mechanisms and interactions with abiotic conditions.

1. Introduction

Stem borers continue to be a major economic pest of sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) produced in the United States and throughout the world [1,2,3,4]. In Louisiana, the sugarcane borer (SCB; Diatraea saccharalis (Fabricius); Lepidoptera: Crambidae) is considered the primary insect pest, with an estimated economic impact of USD 8.0 million annually [5]. The other primary insect pest of concern is the Mexican rice borer (MRB; Eoreuma loftini (Dyar); Lepidoptera: Crambidae) [4,6,7], which was first documented in sugarcane growing areas of the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) in south Texas in the 1980s [8]. By 2008, MRB had spread north along the Texas Gulf Coast [9,10] and into Louisiana [11]. Since its introduction into Louisiana, MRB has been expanding at a rate of 17.69 km per year [12,13], causing an estimated USD 412 loss per hectare, depending on the sugarcane cultivar and agronomic practices [14,15].
Resistant sugarcane cultivars are a major component of integrated pest management for sugarcane stem borers in the U.S. [4] and globally [16,17,18,19]. However, because MRB is a relatively recent pest in Louisiana, much of the regional cultivar testing for borer resistance has focused on SCB [20,21,22] rather than MRB, which has been examined more thoroughly in south Texas [7,23]. Prior work indicates that cultivar resistance may operate similarly between the two borer species [24] with some deviations (such as the HoCP 04-838 cultivar, which is resistant to SCB but not MRB) [25]. One aspect in determining the extent of cultivar resistance to either borer species is stalk fiber content, often associated with rind hardness [26,27]. The relationship between fiber and borer resistance has also been reported for other stem borer species in sugarcane [28,29], as well as in other poaceous crops such as maize [30,31,32] and sorghum [33,34].
Although fiber content is positively associated with borer resistance, it is negatively associated with sucrose recovery, such that high-fiber cultivars are generally eliminated in the early stages of breeding [35]. A total fiber content of 13.8% is considered the upper limit for acceptable fiber in the Louisiana cultivar development program (LSU, USDA, and ASCL). Sugarcane varieties that are developed for energy production are not subject to this fiber level restriction and could benefit from any stem borer resistance associated with higher fiber levels. Further, high fiber content does not guarantee borer resistance, as HoCP 85-845 has high fiber content and borer resistance while CP 70-321 has lower fiber content but still exhibits good resistance [36]; furthermore, HoCP 04-838 has a higher fiber content but exhibits only moderate resistance to borers [25], and the low-fiber Ho 07-613 [37] has been categorized as moderately resistant to SCB.
Given the limitations observed by utilizing total fiber content as an indication of borer resistance, investigating the variation in lignocellulosic biomass and composition among cultivars of differing borer resistance, particularly those components that change throughout the growing season (when borers are most active), would be useful [38]. For instance, if a particular lignocellulosic component is responsible for resistance, breeding can focus on increased levels of that component but decreased levels of other components, to keep total fiber low while increasing borer resistance. These components include hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin, which can be estimated using neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL). In corn, selection for harder rinds has been shown to increase crude fiber content, cellulose, and lignin, with an associated increase in stem borer resistance [39]. Fiber content—as characterized by NDF, ADF, and ADL—is associated with cultivar resistance to moth borers [39,40]. In another experiment in India, assessments of spotted stem borer (Chilo partellus (C. Swinhoe); Lepidoptera: Crambidae) damage in sugarcane cultivars indicated that cultivars with higher cellulose and lignin had greater borer resistance [41]. Similarly, Santiago et al. [40] reported an inverse relationship between ADF and lignin levels and the ease of stalk entry for the pink stalk borer (Sesamia nonagrioides (Lefèbvre); Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Further, changes in particular lignocellulosic components, such as those characterized by ADF and ADL, in the growing bud or upper-most internodes may be of particular importance, as these areas are most susceptible to borer entry [40].
In Louisiana, the overall fiber content at harvest is correlated with greater borer resistance, and we anticipated that associated differences in the lignocellulosic composition of the individual cultivars would be observed throughout the growing season, when borers cause most of their damage. If this is the case, these data could potentially be used to determine aspects of plant resistance that align with current industry fiber standards and can be determined in the absence of borers. Therefore, the goal of this study was to characterize the lignocellulosic composition of several commercial Louisiana sugarcane cultivars varying in resistance to either the sugarcane borer or the Mexican rice borer.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Field Site and Experimental Design

To test the cultivar differences in lignocellulosic composition with respect to known sugarcane borer and Mexican rice borer resistance classifications, we conducted a field test over two years at the USDA-ARS Ardoyne Farm in Schriever, LA, USA (29°37′55″ N, 90°50′57″ W). The Mexican rice borer was not detected at this location during these years. The four cultivars (HoCP 85-845, HoCP 04-838, Ho 07-613, and HoCP 00-950) of sugarcane chosen for this study (Table 1) were selected based on the borer resistance obtained from prior annual yield reduction evaluations at the Ardoyne Farm in Schriever, LA, USA and the LSU AgCenter Sugarcane Research Station in St. Gabriel, LA, USA. The soil at the study site consists of a Cancienne silty clay loam soil (fine-silty, mixed, superactive, nonacid, hyperthermic Fluvaquentic Epiaquepts). The field site was split for a randomized complete block design with four replicate blocks of the four cultivar plots (Table 1). Each plot was three rows wide (1.83 m row spacing) and 15.24 m long. Hot-water-treated whole stalks were hand-cut then hand-planted in two running lines on 28 September 2016. The seed cane was then covered with approximately 6–8 cm of packed soil.
Fields were managed from planting through to the first ratoon harvest in the fall of 2018 according to standard agronomic practices for weeds and fertilizer. Borer presence in the field was monitored visually each summer, and when first instar larvae were observed under leaf sheaths, plots were treated. To prevent borer injury from altering fiber content [42], SCB were controlled monthly starting in May, one month prior to the first sampling period, with CO2 back-pack sprayer applications of tebufenozide at a rate of 0.584 L/ha (Confirm® 2F Insecticide, Gowan, Yuma, AZ, USA). Each monthly application corresponded to the estimated sugarcane borer generation periods and occurred immediately after sample collection for that month.

2.2. Growing Season Sample Collection

Fiber and juice samples were taken three times per crop year throughout the growing season (June, July, and August). June corresponds to the emergence of the second sugarcane borer generation, the most economically damaging generation in Louisiana production each year. During this period, only a few full internodes were observed above ground, so the whole stalk was sampled. For July and August sampling dates, as top-most internodes are the most borer-susceptible, only the top 3–4 internodes were sampled [35,43]. For each plot and sampling date, 10 stalks from the center row were collected and stripped of leaves; then, targeted internodes were cut from the whole stalk using loppers and crushed with a core press as below. The Brix content of the expressed juice was analyzed using a digital handheld Altago 3810 PAL-1 refractometer (Atago USA, Inc., Bellevue, WA, USA). The Brix content of the handheld refractometer was evaluated for accuracy on two sampling dates (June 2017 and June 2018) using laboratory assessments (below).
The fiber samples were dried at 50 °C for 72 h before being finely chopped using a Wiley Laboratory Mill, Model 4 (Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, NJ, USA). Samples were then split into two ~0.5 g sub-samples per stalk and placed into labeled ANKOM bags. Samples were processed for neutral detergent fiber (NDF) then acid detergent fiber (ADF) using the ANKOM 2000 Automated Fiber Analyzer (ANKOM Technology, Macedon, NY, USA) [44] according to the manufacturer instructions. Acid detergent lignin (ADL) analysis and ashed crucible analysis (ash) using a muffle furnace set to 550 °C were then conducted according to the methods from [45]. Each analysis included blank samples to account for bag weights in sample processing. The NDF, ADF, and ADL values were then used to estimate cellulose and hemicellulose content according to manufacturer instructions and previously published literature [41,46]. Hemicellulose was calculated by subtracting ADF from NDF; cellulose was calculated by subtracting ADL from ADF. Lignin was calculated using the ADL values after removing ash values [46].

2.3. Harvest Sample Collection

Plots were harvested (plant cane: 28 November 2017; 1st ratoon: 14 November 2018) using a single-row chopper harvester. The weights of the collected stalks were recorded for the first and third rows of each plot using a modified single-axle high-dump billet wagon equipped with load sensors mounted on the spindles at the end of the axle and on the wagon hitch. For analysis of total stalk fiber and juice contents, a sub-sample of harvested billets was taken from each plot during harvest using a billet sampler mounted to the weigh wagon. The juice from the subsamples was extracted using the pre-breaker, via the core press sampling method [47]. The extracted juice was immediately analyzed for Brix and sucrose content. The stalk moisture content and fiber content was calculated after drying the juiced sample residue at 50 °C for 72 h [47]. The amount of theoretical recoverable sucrose (TRS, kg·Mg−1) was calculated from the Brix, sucrose content, and fiber content. TRS was then coupled with the biomass data to calculate the biomass (Mg·ha−1) and sugar yield (Mg·ha−1).

2.4. Statistical Analyses

All statistical analyses were conducted in R v.4.0.3 [48] using general linear mixed models (GLMMs), using the package lme4 [49]. The field replicate block was used as a random effect in all models. Lignocellulosic composition (hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin) was assessed using the dependent variables of cultivar, month, crop year, and the interaction terms of cultivar × month, cultivar × crop year, month × crop year, and cultivar × month × crop year. Brix readings taken during the field season were evaluated similarly to lignocellulosic composition sampled throughout the growing season. Analysis of the means was conducted in cases of model significance using Tukey’s HSD (α = 0.05), using the “emmeans” package [50]. Associations of lignocellulosic composition (hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin) and Brix content as well as particular lignocellulosic components collected during each growing season were determined using principal component analysis (PCA), using the function “prcomp” in the package “FactoMineR” [51] with a Hellinger transformation to standardize variables. Harvest metrics (% fiber content, sucrose content, biomass, and sugar yield) were evaluated similarly with GLMMs using cultivar, crop year, and the cultivar × crop year interaction term specified as dependent variables. All data were graphed using “ggplot2” [52].

3. Results

3.1. Growing Season Lignocellulosic Composition

When we evaluated stalk lignocellulosic composition (hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin) throughout the growing season, we found significant month, crop year, and month × crop year effects but no significant impact of cultivar (Table 2). While hemicellulose values tended to be numerically greater in cultivars with greater SCB resistance (Figure 1A), cultivar was not statistically significant in the model. Hemicellulose generally increased throughout the plant cane growing season, with August values being significantly greater than June values (p < 0.05). However, in the first ratoon, hemicellulose values were not significantly different throughout the entire growing season. Cellulose values (Figure 1B) tended to follow trends of overall fiber content as stated in cultivar releases; however, similar to hemicellulose, cultivar was not statistically significant. Cellulose significantly peaked in July (p < 0.05) each crop year and was significantly greater throughout the first ratoon compared to plant cane (p < 0.05). Lignin content (Figure 1C) was numerically, though not significantly, greater in HoCP 85-845, a cultivar resistant to both SCB and MRB. While overall cultivar patterns fell along the spectrum of SCB resistance, cultivar was not statistically significant. In plant cane, lignin significantly decreased each month throughout the growing season (p < 0.05). However, in the first ratoon, the opposite trend was observed, where lignin significantly increased each month of the growing season (p < 0.05). July values were the same for each crop year.

3.2. Growing Season Brix

To ensure accurate values, Brix readings, taken with the handheld refractometer, were compared to laboratory values taken in June for each crop year. Brix collected in the field did not significantly differ from simultaneous measurements assessed in the laboratory for June in plant cane (ANOVA; F1,30 = 2.835, p = 0.103) or first ratoon (ANOVA; F1,30 = 1.144, p = 0.293). Brix collected throughout the growing season was significantly associated with sugarcane cultivar, month, and crop year (Table 2). Further, both the cultivar × month and month × crop year interaction terms were significant. Brix was generally greater in the more SCB-susceptible cultivars (Figure 2). This trend was more significant later in each growing season, where HoCP 00-950 had greater values (p < 0.05) than HoCP 85-845 and HoCP 04-838 in July and greater values (p < 0.05) than all other cultivars in August. Brix values were significantly lower (p < 0.05) for each month in the first ratoon relative to the corresponding month in plant cane, though the overall cultivar-related trends were similar between crop years.

3.3. Growing Season PCA

When we conducted PCA to determine the associations of lignocellulosic composition and Brix (Figure 3) throughout the growing season, we observed separation by crop year (Figure 4A) but no obvious groupings by cultivar (Figure 4B), SCB resistance (Figure 4C), or MRB resistance (Figure 4D). When grouped by a combination of month and crop year (Figure 5), months were not grouped together but rather grouped by crop year. The overall trend of the month and crop year data aligned with what the GLMMs indicated (Table 2). Within this analysis, PC1 accounted for 55.44% of variation, and PC2 accounted for 28.08% of variation. Similar patterns of association were found when only the lignocellulosic composition collected during the growing season was assessed: only crop year appeared to have obvious groupings. Within this PCA, PC1 accounted for 63.98% of variation, and PC2 accounted for 35.99% of variation.

3.4. Harvest Metrics

For most harvest metrics—fiber content (%), sucrose content (kg·Mg−1), cane biomass (Mg·ha−1), and sugar yield (Mg·ha−1)—cultivar and crop year were significant (Table 3) but did not interact. Fiber content (Figure 6A) was greater at harvest in HoCP 85-845 compared to Ho 07-613 and HoCP 00-950 (p < 0.05), matching cultivar release values (Table 1). Fiber content was also greater in plant cane relative to the first ratoon (p < 0.05), with cultivar trends similar between crop years. Sucrose content (Figure 6B) was significantly higher in HoCP 00-950 relative to all other cultivars (p < 0.05) and in plant cane relative to the first ratoon (p < 0.05). Cane biomass (Figure 6C) was greater in HoCP 85-845 compared to HoCP 04-838 (p < 0.05) and in the first ratoon relative to plant cane (p < 0.05). Sugar yield per ha (Figure 6D) did not significantly differ with cultivar but was significantly greater in the first ratoon compared to plant cane (p < 0.05).

4. Discussion

While higher total fiber content is known to be associated with increased stem borer resistance in sugarcane, it is inversely related to recoverable sugar levels, making higher-fiber cultivars unacceptable to the industry. However, lignocellulosic components such as hemicellulose, cellulose, or lignin are associated with stem borer resistance in poaceous crops, potentially indicating a way to obtain fiber-based resistance without the large trade-off in yield. Given this, the goal of this study was to determine whether lignocellulosic composition was associated with cultivar resistance to the two economically damaging stem borer species in Louisiana. We found that Brix content throughout the growing season as well as total fiber and sucrose content at harvest were significantly associated with cultivars, aligning with previously documented trends in borer resistance. While we did not observe any associations of cultivar- or borer-specific resistance classification with lignocellulosic composition (as measured throughout the growing season), we found significant impacts of month and crop year.
Prior work has indicated that lignocellulosic composition may be indicative of borer resistance [39,40,41]; however, this was not the case in our dataset, indicating that the sampled lignocellulosic components may not be the primary mechanisms of resistance in these cultivars. Our data better align with assessments of cultivar resistance in maize, where damage was dependent in part on plant toughness (often associated with fiber content) but not specific components such as lignin [53]. Similarly, lignocellulosic composition (ADF, NDF, cellulose, and lignin) was not associated with resistance to the pink stalk borer (S. nonagrioides) or European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner); Lepidoptera: Crambidae) [54,55]. The lack of observed composition differences in our dataset may also be due to several factors, such as not having a sensitive enough fiber test [56]. Future studies will evaluate the use of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectral analyses to characterize the fiber lignocellulosic components [57].
Another potential explanation of the lack of response is that we were not targeting the correct location on the stalk to characterize the differences in lignocellulosic composition. The importance of sample location on fiber content and composition has been indicated in a study by Chaudhary and Yadav [58], where the lignin content of sugarcane leaf midribs but not the lignin or cellulose content of stalk growing points or leaf blades influence top borer (Scirpophaga excerptalis (Walker); Lepidoptera: Crambidae) resistance. In our study, we targeted the top three internodes because these are typically the most susceptible to borer damage at the time we sampled. The area where particular lignocellulosic components may be most influential on the stalk could be more restricted than what we sampled, such as the area located between the node complex and the pulvinus line in the internode [59], obscuring the influence of any particular component. Further, the importance of sample location may be determined, in part, by borer species, as MRB larvae have been shown to attack lower, older internodes in addition to upper internodes [60], whereas SCBs prefer upper internodes [35]; this potentially explains the association with SCB-resistant varieties.
Cultivar differences in internode aging may further account for time-related differences in lignocellulosic composition observed in the upper-most internodes sampled. An evaluation of Louisiana commercial cultivars indicated that as sugarcane internodes elongate, the amount of cellulose, lignin, and sucrose increases while hemicellulose decreases [46]. Lingle and Thomson [46] further found that differences in hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin were based on the interaction of cultivar and internode age. Further, each fiber component exhibited different cultivar by age trends. They observed that week-old internodes also had the highest levels of hemicellulose but only differed among cultivars after four weeks, and the overall rate of lignin increase differed with cultivar [46].
Similar to our data, in addition to within-season shifts, Lingle and Thomson [46] observed large impacts of year on lignocellulosic composition, indicating a potential interaction of cultivar and environment. Large variation in abiotic conditions (e.g., water and temperature) can contribute variations in plant composition across months and crop years, which may in turn alter susceptibility to insect pests [61,62,63]. For instance, waterlogging can reduce plant growth and inhibit processes such as photosynthesis that may impact stalk weights and leaf nutrient contents [63]. Drought stress may increase fiber and decrease sugar content in sugarcane and do so in cultivar-dependent ways [63,64,65]. Alternatively, in grain sorghum, drought stress decreases lignin while not impacting hemicellulose [66]. However, to capture cultivar interactions with environmental factors via changes in composition, much longer-term datasets encompassing a range of abiotic conditions will be required.
While within-growing-season lignocellulosic composition did not significantly differ among the assessed cultivars, our data indicated that Brix content and total fiber content at harvest mostly aligned with previously known SCB resistance patterns. Further, the cultivar that was resistant to SCB but susceptible to MRB (HoCP 04-838) and the cultivar considered only moderately resistant to both borers (Ho 07-613) exhibited similar trends in these metrics, potentially indicating that other mechanisms may be responsible for resistance in these cultivars. Several authors have suggested that other aspects of plant chemistry (e.g., flavonoid content and wax components) may be more important or interact with fiber content to determine cultivar resistance to stem borers [26,28,67]. These avenues of future research, along with the above-mentioned updates in fiber analyses and accounting for cultivar variation given abiotic conditions, may better inform future cultivar resistance breeding for stem borers.

5. Conclusions

This study did not find any significant correlation between stem borer resistance classifications or sugarcane cultivars and lignocellulosic components (hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin) as sampled from the upper-most internodes. However, these components did significantly differ with sampling month (June, July, and August) and crop year (plant cane or first ratoon), indicating interactions of cultivar with gaining processes and abiotic conditions. Brix content as sampled throughout the growing season was correlated with cultivar, with greater borer resistance being correlated with lower Brix. Lower sucrose and higher fiber content at harvest for each crop was similarly associated with cultivars and stem borer resistance. Future research will explore more sensitive methods to characterize individual lignocellulosic components and potentially target other locations on the stalk to determine whether a relation can be found between lignocellulosic composition and cultivar borer resistance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.H.W.; methodology, W.H.W. and R.M.J.; formal analysis, H.J.P.; investigation, K.A.R. and R.T.R.; resources, R.M.J.; data curation, H.J.P.; writing—original draft preparation, H.J.P.; writing—review and editing, all authors; visualization, H.J.P.; supervision, R.M.J.; project administration, K.A.R. and R.T.R. All authors have rpead and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded entirely by the USDA ARS.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Anna Hale, Himaya Parilla Mula-Michel, and Paul White for assistance with fiber analyses. We would also like to thank Chandler Richard, Paidon Gravois, and Jansen Folse for assisting in the laboratory and Brenda King and Chandler Richard for assisting in the harvest of all field experiments. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Holloway, T.E.; Loftin, U.C. The Sugar-Cane Moth Borer; United State Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1919. [Google Scholar]
  2. Dyar, H.G.; Heinrich, C. The American Moths of the Genus Diatraea and Allies. Proc. U. S. Natl. Mus. 1927, 71, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Long, W.H.; Hensley, S.D. Insect Pests of Sugar Cane. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1972, 17, 149–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Reagan, T.E.; Mulcahy, M.M. Interaction of Cultural, Biological, and Varietal Controls for Management of Stalk Borers in Louisiana Sugarcane. Insects 2019, 10, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Wilson, B.E. Successful Integrated Pest Management Minimizes the Economic Impact of Diatraea saccharalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) on the Louisiana Sugarcane Industry. J. Econ. Entomol. 2020, 114, 468–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dyar, H.G. Seven New Crambids from the United States. Insecutor Inscitiae Menstruus 1917, 5, 84–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Showler, A.T. Mexican Rice Borer Control Tactics in United States Sugarcane. Insects 2019, 10, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Johnson, K.J.R.; Van Leerdam, M.B. Range Extension of Acigona loftini into the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Sugar Azucar. 1981, 76, 34. [Google Scholar]
  9. Browning, H.W.; Way, M.O.; Drees, B.M. Managing the Mexican Rice Borer in Texas. Bull. Tex. Agric. Ext. Serv. 1989, B-1620. [Google Scholar]
  10. Reay-Jones, F.P.F.; Wilson, L.T.; Way, M.O.; Reagan, T.E.; Carlton, C.E. Movement of Mexican Rice Borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) through the Texas Rice Belt. J. Econ. Entomol. 2007, 100, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hummel, N.A.; Hardy, T.; Reagan, T.E.; Pollet, D.; Carlton, C.; Stout, M.J.; Beuzelin, J.M.; Akbar, W.; White, W. Monitoring and First Discovery of the Mexican Rice Borer Eoreuma loftini (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in Louisiana. Fla. Entomol. 2010, 93, 123–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wilson, B.E.; Hardy, T.N.; Beuzelin, J.M.; VanWeelden, M.T.; Reagan, T.E.; Miller, R.; Meaux, J.; Stout, M.J.; Carlton, C.E. Expansion of the Mexican Rice Borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) into Rice and Sugarcane in Louisiana. Environ. Entomol. 2015, 44, 757–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Wilson, B.E.; Beuzelin, J.M.; Reagan, T.E. Population Distribution and Range Expansion of the Invasive Mexican Rice Borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in Louisiana. Environ. Entomol. 2017, 46, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Legaspi, J.C.; Legaspi, B.C., Jr.; Irvine, J.E.; Johnson, J.; Meagher, R.L., Jr.; Rozeff, N. Stalkborer Damage on Yield and Quality of Sugarcane in Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. J. Econ. Entomol. 1999, 92, 228–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Reay-Jones, F.P.F.; Wilson, L.T.; Reagan, T.E.; Legendre, B.L.; Way, M.O. Predicting Economic Losses from the Continued Spread of the Mexican Rice Borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2008, 101, 237–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Kfir, R.; Overholt, W.A.; Khan, Z.R.; Polaszek, A. Biology and Management of Economically Important Lepidopteran Cereal Stem Borers in Africa. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2002, 47, 701–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Abbasipour, H.; Askarianzadeh, A. Identification of Physical and Biochemical Agents Related to Resistance in Different Sugarcane Cultivars to Stalk Borers, Sesamia spp. (Lep.: Noctuidae). In Crop Plant Resistance to Biotic and Abiotic Factors: Current Potential and Future Demands, Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Plant Protection and Plant Health in Europe, Julius Kühn-Institut, Berlin-Dahlem, Germany, 14–16 May 2009; Julius Kühn-Institut: Berlin-Dahlem, Germany, 2009; Volume 2009, pp. 130–136. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kouame, D.K.; Pene, C.B.; Zouzou, M. Evaluation of sugarcane varietal resistance to the African tropical stem borer (Eldana saccharina Walker) in Ivory Coast. J. Appl. Biosci. 2010, 26, 1614–1622. [Google Scholar]
  19. Nikpay, A. Evaluation of Varietal Resistance of Commercial Sugarcane Varieties to Stalk Borers, Sesamia spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), under Field Conditions. Acta Entomol. Sin. 2016, 59, 785–790. [Google Scholar]
  20. Bessin, R.T.; Moser, E.B.; Reagan, T.E. Integration of Control Tactics for Management of the Sugarcane Borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Louisiana Sugarcane. J. Econ. Entomol. 1990, 83, 1563–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bessin, R.T.; Reagan, T.E. Cultivar Resistance and Arthropod Predation of Sugarcane Borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Affects Incidence of Deadhearts in Louisiana Sugarcane. J. Econ. Entomol. 1993, 86, 929–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mathes, R.; Charpentier, L.J. Some Techniques and Observations in Studying the Resistance of Sugar Cane Varieties to the Sugar Cane Borer in Louisiana. In Proceedings of the International Society of Sugarcane Technologists, 11th Congress, Réduit, Mauritius, 24 September–5 October 1962; International Society of Sugarcane Technologists: Réduit, Mauritius, 1963; Volume 6, pp. 594–603. [Google Scholar]
  23. Meagher, R.L.; Irvine, J.E.; Breene, R.G.; Pfannenstiel, R.S.; Gallo-Meagher, M. Resistance Mechanisms of Sugarcane to Mexican Rice Borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 1996, 89, 536–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhou, M.M.; Kimbeng, C.A.; da Silva, J.A.; White, W.H. Cross-Resistance between the Mexican Rice Borer and the Sugarcane Borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae): A Case Study Using Sugarcane Breeding Populations. Crop Sci. 2010, 50, 861–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hale, A.L.; White, W.H.; Dufrene, E.O.; Tew, T.L.; Grisham, M.P.; Pan, Y.B.; Miller, J.D. HoCP 04-838—A New Sugarcane Variety for Louisiana. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 2012, 32, 84–85. [Google Scholar]
  26. Keeping, M.G.; Rutherford, R.S. Resistance Mechanisms of South African Sugarcane to the Stalk Borer Eldana Saccharina (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): A Review. Proc. S. Afr. Sugar Cane Technol. Assoc. 2004, 78, 307–311. [Google Scholar]
  27. Singh, S.P.; Nigam, A.; Singh, R.K. Influence of Rind Hardness on Sugarcane Quality. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 35951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rutherford, R.S.; Meyer, J.H.; Smith, G.S.; Van Staden, J. Resistance to Eldana Saccharina (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Sugarcane and Some Phytochemical Correlations. Proc. S. Afr. Sugar Cane Technol. Assoc. 1993, 67, 82–87. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sanghera, G.S.; Kumar, A. A Review on Mechanisms, Screening and Engineering for Pest Resistance in Sugarcane (Saccharum spp.). J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2018, 7, 187–194. [Google Scholar]
  30. Butrón, A.; Malvar, R.A.; Revilla, P.; Soengas, P.; Ordás, A.; Geiger, H.H. Rind Puncture Resistance in Maize: Inheritance and Relationship with Resistance to Pink Stem Borer Attack. Plant Breed. 2002, 121, 378–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Santiago, R.; Souto, X.C.; Sotelo, J.; Butrón, A.; Malvar, R.A. Relationship between Maize Stem Structural Characteristics and Resistance to Pink Stem Borer (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Attack. J. Econ. Entomol. 2003, 96, 1563–1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Guo, J.; He, K.; Meng, Y.; Hellmich, R.L.; Chen, S.; Lopez, M.D.; Lauter, N.; Wang, Z. Asian Corn Borer Damage Is Affected by Rind Penetration Strength of Corn Stalks in a Spatiotemporally Dependent Manner. Plant Direct 2022, 6, e381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Singh, B.U.; Rana, B.S. Varietal Resistance in Sorghum to Spotted Stem Borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe). Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 1989, 10, 3–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Besheit, R.; Helmy, S.; Bachoosh, S. Assessment of Resistance to Pink Stem Borer and Aphid Infestation in Sweet Sorghum Cultivars and Their Productivity and Technological Traits under Four Sowing Dates. Egypt. J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 70, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. White, W.H.; Tew, T.L.; Richard, E.P. Association of Sugarcane Pith, Rind Hardness, and Fiber with Resistance to the Sugarcane Borer. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 2006, 26, 87–100. [Google Scholar]
  36. Posey, F.R.; White, W.H.; Reay-Jones, F.P.F.; Gravois, K.; Salassi, M.E.; Leonard, B.R.; Reagan, T.E. Sugarcane Borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) Management Threshold Assessment on Four Sugarcane Cultivars. J. Econ. Entomol. 2006, 99, 966–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Hale, A.L.; Todd, J.; Pan, Y.-B.; Tew, T.L.; Veremis, J.C.; White, W.; Dufrene, E.O.; Grisham, M.P.; Gravois, K.A.; Jackson, W.; et al. Registration of ‘Ho 07-613’ Sugarcane. J. Plant Regist. 2022, 16, 351–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fuchs, T.W.; Harding, J.A. Oviposition Patterns, Egg Parasitism, and Spring Emergence of the Sugarcane Borer, Diatraea Saccharalis. Environ. Entomol. 1978, 7, 601–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Martin, S.A.; Darrah, L.L.; Hibbard, B.E. Divergent Selection for Rind Penetrometer Resistance and Its Effects on European Corn Borer Damage and Stalk Traits in Corn. Crop Sci. 2004, 44, 711–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Santiago, R.; Butrón, A.; Revilla, P.; Malvar, R.A. Is the Basal Area of Maize Internodes Involved in Borer Resistance? BMC Plant Biol. 2011, 11, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bhavani, B.; Reddy, K.D.; Rao, N.V.; Lakshmi, M.B. Biochemical Basis for Antibiosis Mechanism of Resistance in Sugarcane to Early Shoot Borer, Chilo Infuscatellus Snellen. Trop. Agric. Res. 2012, 23, 126–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rossato, J.A.d.S.; Costa, G.H.G.; Madaleno, L.L.; Mutton, M.J.R.; Higley, L.G.; Fernandes, O.A. Characterization and Impact of the Sugarcane Borer on Sugarcane Yield and Quality. Agron. J. 2013, 105, 643–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Martin, F.A.; Richard, C.A.; Hensley, S.D. Host Resistance to Diatraea saccharalis (F.): Relationship of Sugarcane Internode Hardness to Larval Damage. Environ. Entomol. 1975, 4, 687–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Terrill, T.H.; Wolfe, R.M.; Muir, J.P. Factors Affecting ANKOMTM Fiber Analysis of Forage and Browse Varying in Condensed Tannin Concentration. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 2723–2726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Goering, H.K.; Van Soest, P.J. Forage Fiber Analysis (Apparatus, Reagents, Procedures, and Some Applications); USDA ARS: Beltsville, MD, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lingle, S.E.; Thomson, J.L. Sugarcane Internode Composition during Crop Development. Bioenerg. Res. 2012, 5, 168–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Legendre, B.L. The Core/Press Method for Predicting the Sugar Yield from Cane for Use in Cane Payment. Sugar J. 1992, 54, 2–7. [Google Scholar]
  48. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2023. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 30 October 2023).
  49. Bates, D.; Mächler, M.; Bolker, B.; Walker, S. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 2015, 67, 1–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lenth, R.V.; Buerkner, P.; Herve, M.; Love, J.; Miguez, F.; Riebl, H.; Singmann, H. Emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, Aka Least-Squares Means, version 1.7. 2; R Core Team: Vienna, Austria, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  51. Husson, F.; Josse, J.; Le, S. FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Analysis. J. Stat. Softw. 2008, 25, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wickam, H. Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016; ISBN 978-3-319-24277-4. [Google Scholar]
  53. Williams, P.W.; Davis, F.M.; Buckley, P.M.; Hedin, P.A.; Baker, G.T.; Luthe, D.S. Factors Associated with Resistance to Fall Armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and Southwestern Corn Borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in Corn at Different Vegetative Stages. J. Econ. Entomol. 1998, 91, 1471–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Buendgen, M.R.; Coors, J.G.; Grombacher, A.W.; Russell, W.A. European Corn Borer Resistance and Cell Wall Composition of Three Maize Populations. Crop Sci. 1990, 30, 505–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. López-Malvar, A.; Ordás, B.; Souto, C.; Encina, A.; Malvar, R.A.; Santiago, R. Chemical Changes during Maize Tissue Aging and Its Relationship with Mediterranean Corn Borer Resistance. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 9180–9185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hall, M.B.; Mertens, D.R. Comparison of Alternative Neutral Detergent Fiber Methods to the AOAC Definitive Method. J. Dairy Sci. 2023, 106, 5364–5378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. White, P.M.; Rice, C.W.; Baldock, J.A.; Tuinstra, M.R. Soil Biological Properties Following Additions of Bmr Mutant Grain Sorghum. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2007, 39, 1518–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Chaudhary, J.P.; Yadav, S.R. Effect of Different Levels of Cellulose, Lignin, Silica and Ash Contents Available in Mid-Ribs, Growing Points and Leaf Blades of Sugarcane Genotypes on Incidence of Top Borer, Scirpophaga excerptalis Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Coop. Sugar 1998, 29, 337. [Google Scholar]
  59. Sandoya, G.; Santiago, R.; Malvar, R.A.; Butrón, A. Evaluation of Structural and Antibiosis Resistance Mechanisms during Selection against Mediterranean Corn Borer (Sesamia nonagrioides Lef) in the Maize Synthetic EPS12. Crop Prot. 2010, 29, 7–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Spurgeon, D.W.; Raulston, J.R.; Lingren, P.D.; Shaver, T.N. Vertical Distribution of Mexican Rice Borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Larvae and Tunnels in Lower Rio Grande Valley Sugarcane. J. Econ. Entomol. 1999, 92, 870–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Azevedo, R.A.; Carvalho, R.F.; Cia, M.C.; Gratão, P.L. Sugarcane under Pressure: An Overview of Biochemical and Physiological Studies of Abiotic Stress. Trop. Plant Biol. 2011, 4, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lakshmanan, P.; Robinson, N. Stress Physiology: Abiotic Stresses. In Sugarcane: Physiology, Biochemistry, and Functional Biology; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 411–434. ISBN 978-1-118-77128-0. [Google Scholar]
  63. Gomathi, R.; Vasantha, S.; Venkataramana, S.; Rao, P.G.; Rakkiyappan, P. Response of Sugarcane to Abiotic Stresses and Management. In Current Status of Sugarcane Research in India; Nova Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 55–87. ISBN 978-1-63463-458-8. [Google Scholar]
  64. Vasantha, S.; Gomathi, R.; Brindha, C. Growth and Nutrient Composition of Sugarcane Genotypes Subjected to Salinity and Drought Stresses. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2017, 48, 989–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Leanasawat, N.; Kosittrakun, M.; Lontom, W.; Songsri, P. Physiological and Agronomic Traits of Certain Sugarcane Genotypes Grown under Field Conditions as Influenced by Early Drought Stress. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Perrier, L.; Rouan, L.; Jaffuel, S.; Clément-Vidal, A.; Roques, S.; Soutiras, A.; Baptiste, C.; Bastianelli, D.; Fabre, D.; Dubois, C.; et al. Plasticity of Sorghum Stem Biomass Accumulation in Response to Water Deficit: A Multiscale Analysis from Internode Tissue to Plant Level. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Nuss, K.J.; Bond, R.S.; Atkinson, P.R. Susceptibility of Sugarcane to the Borer Eldana Saccharina Walker and Selection for Resistance. In Proceedings of the Annual Congress-South African Sugar Technologists’ Association, Durban, South Africa, 16–19 June 1986; pp. 153–155. [Google Scholar]
Agronomy 13 02764 g001
Figure 1. Lignocellulosic components—(A) hemicellulose (%), (B) cellulose, and (C) lignin (%)—for each month of sampling during the growing season per cultivar and crop year. Center points indicate the associated general linear mixed-model-predicted means with bars indicating standard errors; cultivars indicated by color.
Figure 1. Lignocellulosic components—(A) hemicellulose (%), (B) cellulose, and (C) lignin (%)—for each month of sampling during the growing season per cultivar and crop year. Center points indicate the associated general linear mixed-model-predicted means with bars indicating standard errors; cultivars indicated by color.
Agronomy 13 02764 g001
Agronomy 13 02764 g002
Figure 2. Brix readings for each month of sampling during the growing season per cultivar and crop year. Center points indicate the associated general linear mixed-model-predicted means with bars indicating standard errors; cultivars indicated by color.
Figure 2. Brix readings for each month of sampling during the growing season per cultivar and crop year. Center points indicate the associated general linear mixed-model-predicted means with bars indicating standard errors; cultivars indicated by color.
Agronomy 13 02764 g002
Agronomy 13 02764 g003
Figure 3. Biplot for the principal component analysis of lignocellulosic composition (hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin) and Brix content collected throughout each growing season, with variables indicated by red arrows and labels and individual samples indicated by points.
Figure 3. Biplot for the principal component analysis of lignocellulosic composition (hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin) and Brix content collected throughout each growing season, with variables indicated by red arrows and labels and individual samples indicated by points.
Agronomy 13 02764 g003
Agronomy 13 02764 g004
Figure 4. Principal component analysis of lignocellulosic composition (hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin) and Brix content collected throughout each growing season grouped by (A) crop year, (B) cultivar, (C) sugarcane borer (SCB) resistance classification, and (D) Mexican rice borer (MRB) resistance classification. Points represent individual sample coordinates; groupings are indicated by ellipses and color.
Figure 4. Principal component analysis of lignocellulosic composition (hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin) and Brix content collected throughout each growing season grouped by (A) crop year, (B) cultivar, (C) sugarcane borer (SCB) resistance classification, and (D) Mexican rice borer (MRB) resistance classification. Points represent individual sample coordinates; groupings are indicated by ellipses and color.
Agronomy 13 02764 g004
Agronomy 13 02764 g005
Figure 5. Principal components analysis of lignocellulosic composition (hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin) and Brix content collected throughout each growing season grouped by a combination (age) of collection month and crop year. Points represent individual sample coordinates; groupings are indicated by ellipses and color. Lighter tones indicate earlier in the growing season, cool tones indicate plant cane, and warm tones indicate 1st ratoon.
Figure 5. Principal components analysis of lignocellulosic composition (hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin) and Brix content collected throughout each growing season grouped by a combination (age) of collection month and crop year. Points represent individual sample coordinates; groupings are indicated by ellipses and color. Lighter tones indicate earlier in the growing season, cool tones indicate plant cane, and warm tones indicate 1st ratoon.
Agronomy 13 02764 g005
Agronomy 13 02764 g006
Figure 6. Harvest metrics—(A) fiber (%) content, (B) sucrose content (kg·Mg−1), (C) cane biomass (Mg·ha−1), and (D) sugar yield (Mg·ha−1)—per cultivar and crop year. Center points indicate the associated model-predicted means with bars indicating standard errors; cultivars indicated by color.
Figure 6. Harvest metrics—(A) fiber (%) content, (B) sucrose content (kg·Mg−1), (C) cane biomass (Mg·ha−1), and (D) sugar yield (Mg·ha−1)—per cultivar and crop year. Center points indicate the associated model-predicted means with bars indicating standard errors; cultivars indicated by color.
Agronomy 13 02764 g006
Table 1. Selected Louisiana sugarcane cultivars and previously published average fiber content (%) at harvest, as used in this study to assess lignocellulosic composition with respect to prior sugarcane borer (SCB) and Mexican rice borer (MRB) comprehensive resistance classifications.
Table 1. Selected Louisiana sugarcane cultivars and previously published average fiber content (%) at harvest, as used in this study to assess lignocellulosic composition with respect to prior sugarcane borer (SCB) and Mexican rice borer (MRB) comprehensive resistance classifications.
CultivarFiber ContentSCB ResistanceMRB Resistance
HoCP 85-845High (13.2%)ResistantResistant
HoCP 04-838High (13.3%)ResistantSusceptible
Ho 07-613Low (10.2%)Moderately resistantModerately resistant
HoCP 00-950Moderate (11.5%)SusceptibleSusceptible
Table 2. General linear mixed model output for each lignocellulosic component and Brix as collected from the top 3–4 internodes of 4 cultivars throughout the growing season (June, July, and August) for 2 crop years (plant cane and 1st ratoon).
Table 2. General linear mixed model output for each lignocellulosic component and Brix as collected from the top 3–4 internodes of 4 cultivars throughout the growing season (June, July, and August) for 2 crop years (plant cane and 1st ratoon).
ComponentSourceDFNDFDF Ratiop-Value
HemicelluloseCultivar3700.8310.481
Month2704.5350.014
Crop year1701.4590.231
Cultivar × Month6701.2960.271
Cultivar × Crop year3701.7290.169
Month × Crop year2708.782<0.001
Cultivar × Month × Crop year6700.9790.446
CelluloseCultivar3690.3720.774
Month26918.583<0.001
Crop year169238.073<0.001
Cultivar × Month6691.2700.283
Cultivar × Crop year3691.9580.128
Month × Crop year2692.6730.076
Cultivar × Month × Crop year6691.6430.149
LigninCultivar3691.7510.165
Month2693.0430.054
Crop year1690.3700.545
Cultivar × Month6690.6590.683
Cultivar × Crop year3691.5380.212
Month × Crop year26955.603<0.001
Cultivar × Month × Crop year6690.3060.932
BrixCultivar36920.131<0.001
Month269866.908<0.001
Crop year169750.462<0.001
Cultivar × Month6694.4390.001
Cultivar × Crop year3691.4080.248
Month × Crop year26924.719<0.001
Cultivar × Month × Crop year6691.1760.329
Table 3. General linear mixed model output for metrics collected for 4 cultivars at harvest for two crop years (plant cane and 1st ratoon).
Table 3. General linear mixed model output for metrics collected for 4 cultivars at harvest for two crop years (plant cane and 1st ratoon).
VariableSourceDFNDFDF Ratiop-Value
Fiber (%)Cultivar3218.9010.001
Crop year12147.684<0.001
Cultivar × Crop year3210.5900.629
Sucrose content (kg·Mg−1)Cultivar32119.136<0.001
Crop year12159.012<0.001
Cultivar × Crop year3212.6460.076
Cane (Mg·ha−1)Cultivar3213.5580.032
Crop year121265.533<0.001
Cultivar × Crop year3211.6900.200
Sugar (Mg·ha−1)Cultivar3212.5530.083
Crop year121119.881<0.001
Cultivar × Crop year3211.1180.364
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Penn, H.J.; Johnson, R.M.; Richard, K.A.; Richard, R.T.; White, W.H. Lignocellulosic Composition Not Associated with Stem Borer Resistance in Select Louisiana Sugarcane Cultivars. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2764. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13112764

AMA Style

Penn HJ, Johnson RM, Richard KA, Richard RT, White WH. Lignocellulosic Composition Not Associated with Stem Borer Resistance in Select Louisiana Sugarcane Cultivars. Agronomy. 2023; 13(11):2764. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13112764

Chicago/Turabian Style

Penn, Hannah J., Richard M. Johnson, Katie A. Richard, Randy T. Richard, and William H. White. 2023. "Lignocellulosic Composition Not Associated with Stem Borer Resistance in Select Louisiana Sugarcane Cultivars" Agronomy 13, no. 11: 2764. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13112764

APA Style

Penn, H. J., Johnson, R. M., Richard, K. A., Richard, R. T., & White, W. H. (2023). Lignocellulosic Composition Not Associated with Stem Borer Resistance in Select Louisiana Sugarcane Cultivars. Agronomy, 13(11), 2764. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13112764

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop