Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-t6hkb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T02:22:22.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Notes on the Froghopper Blight of Sugar-cane in Trinidad

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

Extract

There appear to be two main causes of “ blight,” namely, the attacks of the froghoppers (Tomaspis saccharina) and the attacks of root fungi (Marasmius and Odontia).

The susceptibility of the cane to the attacks of these root fungi has been shown to be largely due to unsatisfactory conditions as regards the health of the plant and particularly to conditions of drought—physiological or actual. Moreover, this root disease tends to intensify the effect of the water-shortage. It is suggested that a careful analysis of the evidence might also show that the susceptibility to froghopper attack is due to causes which disturb the water balance of the cane, a disturbance which would be even more marked where root disease was present.

The balance in the water content is dependent upon the simultaneous working of the absorption that takes place through the roots and the transpiration that takes place through the leaves ; if transpiration is excessive the plant makes too great a demand upon the supply of available water in the soil. The humid climate of Trinidad is, therefore, particularly favourable to the growth of the sugar-cane. A favourable climate can, however, be offset by unfavourable soil conditions. The distribution of the rainfall, the conditions of the soil, the degree of atmospheric humidity, the effect of the disturbance of the water-balance upon the nature of the cell-sap, etc., all need to be taken into account. As regards rainfall and blight, it would appear that : (1) Prolonged periods of drought, or of excessive rainfall ; and (2) periods of drought following on spells of excessive wet weather, are both particularly harmful.

In view of the part played by root absorption in the maintenance of the water-balance, a detailed consideration of the root system of the sugar-cane in connection with blight might possibly throw fresh light upon the subject.

A disturbance of the water-balance may also affect the cane's susceptibility to the attacks of insects through its effect upon the physiology of the cane. Is it possible that drought (physiological or actual) or other unfavourable climatic and soil conditions may affect the concentration or constitution of the sugars in the sap in such a way as to render them more attractive to sap-feeding insects ?

The problem is extremely complex. We have seen that root disease is dependant upon the weakness and debility of the cane, resulting from unfavourable environmental conditions and from shortage of water ; that the root disease thus caused intensifies the effect of this water-shortage by lowering the plant's capacity for root absorption ; that the plant, susceptible in any case to attacks of froghoppers as the result of any disturbance in the water-balance, is rendered even more susceptible as a result of root disease. On the other hand, root disease is said to be due to a lack of vitality in the plant ; a plant attacked by froghopper is greatly reduced in vitality, and thus the tendency to root disease is increased.

We have considered the interrelation between the absorption of water by the roots and the transpiration of water through the leaves, and the effect of the water content on the physiology of the plant. We must also consider the interrelation between the attacking froghopper and root fungus, and the cane which is attacked.

Can we decrease the number of attacking organisms, or is it more feasible to increase the cane's resistance to their attack ? In the past the economic entomologist has directed his attention almost entirely to answering the first question ; it is now realised that an answer to the second question is quite as, perhaps even more, urgently demanded. Unhealthy canes are undoubtedly more susceptible to attack than healthy canes, that is, if we use the term “ health ” in its rightful sense as denoting vigour and the capacity to resist adverse environmental conditions, and not merely luxuriant growth.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1926

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

1.Behr, A. (1876). On the Occurrence of Aconitic Acid in Cane Juice and Raw Sugar.—Proc. Amer. Chem. Soc., i.Google Scholar
2.Bodkin, G. E. (1918). Off. Gaz. British Guiana.Google Scholar
3.Bodkin, G. E. (1918). A Note on the recent Froghopper Outbreak.—Jl. Bd. Agric. Brit. Guiana, xi.Google Scholar
4.Browne, C. A. Jr., and Blouin, R. E. (1907). The Chemistry of the Sugar Cane and its Products in Louisiana.—Louisiana State Exp. Sta., Bull. 91.Google Scholar
5.Carmody, P. (1909). An unusual Soil.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Trinidad & Tobago, viii, no. 61.Google Scholar
6.Carmody, P. (1909). Sugar Cane Blight and an Analysis of Soils. Rept. Select Comm. on Sugar Cane Blight.—Proc. Agric. Soc. Trinidad, ix.Google Scholar
7.Collens, A. E. (1906). Report on Diseased Canes at Harmony Hall and Tarouba Estates, Trinidad.—Reprinted in Proc. Agric. Soc. Trinidad, ix.Google Scholar
8.Collens, A. E. (1906). Result of Inspection of Cane Blight Disease at Brechin Castle Estate, Trinidad.—Reprinted in Proc. Agric. Soc. Trinidad, ix.Google Scholar
9.Comes, O. (1916). Prophylaxis in Vegetable Pathology.—Abstract in Internat. Rev. Sci. & Pract. Agric., vii.Google Scholar
10.Deerr, N. (1921). Cane Sugar.Google Scholar
11.Geerligs, H. C. P. (1909). Cane Sugar and its Manufacture.—Manchester.Google Scholar
12.Gough, L. H. (1911). Results obtained in the Study of the Froghopper during the Wet Season of 1910.—Dep. Agric. Trinidad, Circ. no. 8.Google Scholar
13.Hart, J. H. (1893). Cane Diseases and Pests in Trinidad.—Bull. Misc. Inform. Trinidad, i, no. 18.Google Scholar
14.Hines, C. W. (1917). A Study of the Root System of the Sugar Cane and its Application to the Production of Ratoon Crops.—Philip. Agric. Rev., x.Google Scholar
15.Howard, A. (1924). Crop Production in India.Google Scholar
16.Kamerling, Z. (19041905). Archief voor de Suikerindustrie in Nederlandsche Indie, xii & xiii.Google Scholar
17.Kamerling, Z. (1904). Proc. Fourth Congress, United Syndicate of Java Sugar Manufacturers.Google Scholar
18.Kershaw, J. C. (1913). Froghopper Notes.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Trinidad & Tobago, xii.Google Scholar
19.Kershaw, J. C. (1913). How a Froghopper feeds.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Trinidad & Tobago, xii, no. 73.Google Scholar
20.Lewton Brain, L. (1907). A Lecture on Rind Disease of the Sugar Cane.—Hawaiian Sugar Planters Assoc. Exp. Sta. Div. Path. & Phys., Bull. vii.Google Scholar
21.Ling, Roth H. (1883). On the Roots of the Sugar Cane.—Reprint from Jl. Royal Soc. New South Wales, xviii.Google Scholar
22.Lock, C. G. W., Newlands, J. A. R., & Newlands, B. E. R. (1911). Sugar : A Handbook for Planters.Google Scholar
23.Lock, C. G. W., Wigner, G. W., & Harland, R. H. (1882). Sugar Growing and Refining.Google Scholar
24.Maxwell, W. (1901). Irrigation in Hawaii.—U.S. Dep. Agric., Off. Exp. Sta., Bull. 90.Google Scholar
25.McLeod, J. J. (1908). Contributions towards the Study of the Froghopper.—Proc. Agric. Soc. Trinidad, viii.Google Scholar
26.Mumford, E. P. (1925). The Sugar Cane Froghopper.—West Ind. Comm. Circ., xl, no. 711.Google Scholar
27.Mumford, E. P. (1926). Sugar Notes : Controlling the Froghopper.—Daily Argosy, Georgetown, Demerara, cx. Reprinted from West Ind. Comm. Circ.Google Scholar
28.Mumford, E. P. (1926). The Froghopper Blight.—West Ind. Comm. Circ., xli, no. 714–5.Google Scholar
29.Mumford, E. P. (1926). Cotton Stainers and certain other Sap Feeding Insect Pests of the Cotton Plant. (A preliminary enquiry into the effect of climatic and soil conditions upon the incidence of these pests).—London : The Empire Cotton Growing Corporation.Google Scholar
30.Moore, H. W. B. (1919). General Report on Insect Pests for the Year 1918 to Messrs. Curtis, Campbell & Co., and Messrs. Booker Bros., McConnell & Co., Georgetown, Demerara.Google Scholar
31.Nowell, W. (1919). Investigation of the Froghopper Pest and Diseases of Sugar Cane. Mycologists' Report on a Visit to Trinidad.—Council Paper (39) of Govt. of Trinidad.Google Scholar
32.Nowell, W. (1920). Report on a Visit to Trinidad in Connection with Froghopper Blight of Sugar Cane.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Trinidad & Tobago, xix.Google Scholar
33.Nowell, W., and Williams, C. B. (1920). Sugar Cane Blight in Trinidad. A Summary of Conclusions.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Trinidad & Tobago, xix.Google Scholar
34.Onslow, M. W. (1923). Practical Plant Biochemistry. Camb. Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Raciborski, M. W. (1906). Archief voor de Suikerindustrie in Nederlandsche Indie, xiv.Google Scholar
36.Shorey, M. W. (1894). The Sugar Cane.Google Scholar
37.Stubbs, W. C. (1897). Sugar Cane. Baton Rouge, La. : State Bur. Agric. & Immig.Google Scholar
38.Thatcher, R. W. (1921). The Chemistry of Plant Life.—New York : McGraw-Hill Book Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.Urich, F. W. (1909). Froghoppers.—Proc. Agric. Soc. Trinidad, ix.Google Scholar
40.Urich, F. W. (1913). The Sugar Cane Froghopper (Tomaspis varia Fabr.) and Biological Notes on some Cercopids of Trinidad.—Bd. of Agric. Trinidad, Circ. no. 9.Google Scholar
41.Went, F. A. F. C. (1896). Archief voor de Suikerindustrie in Nederlandsche Indie, iv.Google Scholar
42.Williams, C. B. (1919). The relation of Root Fungus to Froghopper Blight of Sugar Cane in Trinidad.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Trinidad & Tobago, xviii.Google Scholar
43.Williams, C. B. (1919). Sugar Cane Varieties and Froghopper Blight in Trinidad.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Trinidad & Tobago, xviii.Google Scholar
44.Williams, C. B. (1919). Rainfall, Sugar Production & Froghopper Blight in Trinidad.—Bull. Dep. Agric. Trinidad & Tobago, xviii.Google Scholar
45.Williams, C. B.* (1921). Report on the Froghopper Blight of Sugar Cane in Trinidad.—Mem. Dep. Agric. Trinidad & Tobago, no. 1.Google Scholar
46.Yoder, O. A. (1911). Notes on the Determination of Acids in Sugar Cane Juice.—Jl. Indus. & Eng. Chem., iii, no. a.Google Scholar
47.Zerban, O. A. (1919). The Louisiana Planter and Sugar Manufacturer, lxi.Google Scholar