SUMMARY Various control methods such as cultural (de-trashing the older leafs during July and September) biological

(release of 2nd instars larva per plant on the appearance of the pest at fortnightly interval throughout the crop season), chemical ( application of Imidacloprid 200 SL @ 568 ml/ha on pest reaching at ETL by making path for passage with the help of power sprayer) and botanical (application of neem seed kernel extract 5% @ 6.17 liter/ha twice in the season on August 26 and September 27, 2009) were applied singly and in their possible combinations for the control of whitefly on a resistant and a susceptible genotypes of sugarcane. There were sixteen treatments in total including control. The experiment was sown in two sets (one for resistant genotype and the other for susceptible) at three localities viz. in the farmers field near Shakarganj Sugar Mills, Jhang, Kamalia Sugar Mills Toba Tek Singh and Chinar Sugar Mills Tandlianwala, Faisalabad, following randomized complete block design with three replications. The data on the population of whitefly ( nymphs + Adults) were recorded at fortnightly interval from each locality. The results revealed that the population of whitefly in the farmers field near Shakarganj Sugar Mills, Jhang and Kamalia Sugar Mills Toba Tek Singh did not reach to a desired level, therefore, no plant protection measure were taken. The results obtained from the farmers field near Chinar Sugar Mills, Tandlianwala, Faisalabad are summarized as under: Population count of whitefly revealed significant variation among dates of observation, treatments and between genotypes. The maximum control of whitefly was recorded to be 1.57 per leaf and 3.49 per leaf with maximum population reduction of 72.45 and 65.68% in resistant (HSF-242) and susceptible (CPF-243) genotypes of sugarcane, respectively in those plots where all the control methods were applied in combinations. The release of 2nd instars larva per leaf of Chrysoperla carnea showed minimum control of whitefly with 4.40 and 8.22 individuals per leaf with minimum reduction in population of whitefly i.e. 22.80 and 19.17% in resistant and susceptible genotypes of sugarcane, respectively. The population of whitefly was higher in susceptible genotype of sugarcane as compared to resistant genotype in all the treatments including control. Cane yield (Kg/ha) also showed significant difference between genotypes, among treatments and between the interaction of genotypes and treatments. The
101

application of all the control methods in combination resulted in maximum cane yield i.e. 114311.6 and 122446.0 Kg/ha in susceptible and resistant genotypes of sugarcane with maximum increase in yield over control i.e. 24.27 and 20.17%, respectively. The release of C. carnea showed discouraging results with minimum cane yield i.e. 92410.8 and 106967.6 kg/ha with minimum increase over control i.e. 0.46 and 4.97% in susceptible and resistant genotypes, respectively. The application of Imidacloprid 200 SL @ 568 ml/ha twice in the season when applied alone showed maximum cost benefit ratio i.e. 1: 4.25 and 1: 8.06 in susceptible and resistant genotypes of sugarcane, respectively followed by detrashing of older leaves twice in the season showing CBR of 1: 2.17 and 6.31 in susceptible and resistant genotypes of sugarcane, respectively. The minimum CBRs were recorded to be 1: 0.07 and 1: 0.90 in those treatments where predator was released in susceptible and resistant genotypes of sugarcane, respectively. Recommendations The genotype CPF-243 was found to be the resistant against whitefly on sugarcane crop showing minimum population of the pest and maximum yield of cane as compared to the other genotypes included in the study. This genotype is recommended to the farmers for cultivation in the fields and recommended for plant breeders that they should incorporate this genotypes based on the physical and chemical plant traits in their genetic materials for further improvement. Imidacloprid is recommended for the control of whitefly on sugarcane crop as it resulted in maximum cost benefit ratio followed by de-trashing of older leaves.

102