Abstract
This study was conducted during two successful growing seasons 2008 and 2009 at different sugarcane plantations in Qina and Sohag governorate, to clarify the physical and chemical changes of sugarcane plants under natural field infestation with white grub. White grub infestation reduces weight and stalk height of plant while the number of internodes/ stalk was increased. Chemical analysis of sugarcane juice showed that, the infestation reduced the brix (weight and volume), purity, sucrose/can, fiber, pol, and sugar recovery by 5.85, 6.30, 7.65, 8.35, 19.35, 9.64 and 12.57%, respectively compared to the uninfested plants. The effect of infestation on protein and isozyme banding pattern was also detected. Several protein bands were disappeared with the infestations and changed in peroxidase and estrase banding profiles was found.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
White grub infestation reduced sugarcane weight and stalk height compared with uninfested plants.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane plants under natural field infestation with white grub”
e1“at different sugarcane plantations in Qina and Sohag governorate”
e2“White grub infestation reduces weight and stalk height of plant”
e4“Chemical analysis of sugarcane juice showed that, the infestation reduced the brix (weight and volume), purity, sucrose/can, fiber, pol, and sugar recovery by 5.85, 6.30, 7.65, 8.35, 19.35, 9.64 and 12.57%, respectively compared to the uninfested plants”
Claim · model-written summary
White grub infestation increased the number of internodes per sugarcane stalk.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane plants under natural field infestation with white grub”
e2“White grub infestation reduces weight and stalk height of plant”
e3“while the number of internodes/ stalk was increased”
Claim · model-written summary
White grub infestation reduced sugarcane juice brix (weight and volume) by 5.85 and 6.30 compared with uninfested plants.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane plants under natural field infestation with white grub”
e4“Chemical analysis of sugarcane juice showed that, the infestation reduced the brix (weight and volume), purity, sucrose/can, fiber, pol, and sugar recovery by 5.85, 6.30, 7.65, 8.35, 19.35, 9.64 and 12.57%, respectively compared to the uninfested plants”
Claim · model-written summary
White grub infestation reduced sugarcane juice purity by 7.65 compared with uninfested plants.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane plants under natural field infestation with white grub”
e4“Chemical analysis of sugarcane juice showed that, the infestation reduced the brix (weight and volume), purity, sucrose/can, fiber, pol, and sugar recovery by 5.85, 6.30, 7.65, 8.35, 19.35, 9.64 and 12.57%, respectively compared to the uninfested plants”
Claim · model-written summary
White grub infestation reduced sugarcane juice sucrose/can by 8.35 compared with uninfested plants.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane plants under natural field infestation with white grub”
e4“Chemical analysis of sugarcane juice showed that, the infestation reduced the brix (weight and volume), purity, sucrose/can, fiber, pol, and sugar recovery by 5.85, 6.30, 7.65, 8.35, 19.35, 9.64 and 12.57%, respectively compared to the uninfested plants”
Claim · model-written summary
White grub infestation reduced sugarcane juice fiber by 19.35 compared with uninfested plants.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane plants under natural field infestation with white grub”
e4“Chemical analysis of sugarcane juice showed that, the infestation reduced the brix (weight and volume), purity, sucrose/can, fiber, pol, and sugar recovery by 5.85, 6.30, 7.65, 8.35, 19.35, 9.64 and 12.57%, respectively compared to the uninfested plants”
Claim · model-written summary
White grub infestation reduced sugarcane juice pol by 9.64 compared with uninfested plants.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane plants under natural field infestation with white grub”
e4“Chemical analysis of sugarcane juice showed that, the infestation reduced the brix (weight and volume), purity, sucrose/can, fiber, pol, and sugar recovery by 5.85, 6.30, 7.65, 8.35, 19.35, 9.64 and 12.57%, respectively compared to the uninfested plants”
Claim · model-written summary
White grub infestation reduced sugarcane juice sugar recovery by 12.57% compared with uninfested plants.
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane plants under natural field infestation with white grub”
e4“Chemical analysis of sugarcane juice showed that, the infestation reduced the brix (weight and volume), purity, sucrose/can, fiber, pol, and sugar recovery by 5.85, 6.30, 7.65, 8.35, 19.35, 9.64 and 12.57%, respectively compared to the uninfested plants”
Claim · model-written summary
White grub infestation made several sugarcane protein bands disappear.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane plants under natural field infestation with white grub”
e5“Several protein bands were disappeared with the infestations”
Claim · model-written summary
White grub infestation changed the peroxidase and esterase banding profiles of sugarcane.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“sugarcane plants under natural field infestation with white grub”
e6“changed in peroxidase and estrase banding profiles was found”
The same questions in other papers
infection · molecular: metabolites · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
infection · quality: sugar starch · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →infection · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.