Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:32:24.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intensity levels of stem-borers in maize and sorghum and the effect on yield under different intercropping patterns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

Kenuel Ogwaro
Kenuel Ogwaro
Affiliation:
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), P.O. Box 30772, Nairobi, Kenya
Get access

Abstract

At harvest taller plants of both sorghum and maize produced a greater grain yield, but under intercropping conditions maize always out-yielded sorghum when planted at the same time, whether the sorghum was planted in the same hill as maize, or in alternate hills, or in alternate rows. There were generally more stem-borers in sorghum than in maize, with Chilo partellus predominating. Intercropping increased the level of stem-borers in maize, while infestation was very low in pure stands of maize, and the level of borer infestation in sorghum remained the same. Borers had a considerable effect on yield of maize at Mbita Point, on the shores of Lake Victoria: an infestation level of 38–52% of internodes bored resulted in significant yield loss. Implications of these results for predicting yield reduction due to stem-borers is discussed.

Keywords

Stem-borersmaizesorghumintercroppingeffect on yieldintensity levelsinfestationsowing patterncron vield loss
Type
Research Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 4 , Special Issue 1-2: Crop-Borers and Emerging Strategies for their Control , June 1983 , pp. 33 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allyson, S. (1977) A study of some North American larvae the genus Tetralopha Zeller (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae: Epipaschiinae). Can. Ent. 109, 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berberet, R. C., Morrison, R. D. and Wall, R. G. (1979) Yield reduction caused by the lesser cornstalk-borer in non-irrigated Spanish peanuts. J. econ. Ent. 72, 526–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, A. C. and Sreedharan, A. (1962) Studies of intercropping (2). Castor bean with groundnuts or soyabean. E. Afr. agric. For. J. 28, 7–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, K. M. (1962) Lepidopterous stem-borers of cereals in Nigeria. Bull. ent. Res. 53, 139–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, W. R. (1958) The lepidopterous stalk-borers associated with Gramineae in Uganda. Bull. ent. Res. 49, 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaac, P. V. and Rao, K. V. (1941) A key for the identification of the larvae of the known lepidopterous borers of sugar-cane in India, based on morphological characters. Indian J. agric. Sci. 11, 795–803.Google Scholar
Jackson, R. D. and Peters, D. C. (1963) Biological observations on the European corn-borer in South Eastern Missouri. J. econ. Ent. 56, 741–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, R. E. (1980) European corn-borer: yield losses in relation to hybrid and stage of corn development. J. econ. Ent. 73, 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, R. E., Robinson, J. F. and Berry, E. C. (1980) European corn-borer: yield losses and damage resulting from a simulated natural infestation. J. econ. Ent. 73, 141–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nye, I. W. B. (1960) The insect pests of graminaceous crops in East Africa. Colon. Res. Stud. No. 31, 48 pp. London, H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Strickland, A. H. (1952) The assessment of insect population in relation to crop losses. Trans. Ninth Int. Congr. Ent. Vol. I, pp. 611–618.Google Scholar
Swaine, G. (1957) The maize and sorghum stalk-borer, Busseola fusca (Fuller), in peasant agriculture in Tanganyika Territory. Bull. ent. Res. 48, 711–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, P. T. (1960) Insecticide studies on the maize stalk-borer, Busseola fusca (Fuller), and yield of maize. Bull. ent. Res. 51, 321–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar