Journal of Phytopathology and Pest Management 10(1): 37-48, 2023

pISSN: 2356-8577 eISSN: 2356-6507

Journal homepage: http://ppmj.net/

∗Corresponding author: Marotea Vitrac,

E-mail: maroteav@gmail.com

37

Arthropod fauna and rats in organic sugarcane in Tahiti

Marotea Vitrac1*, Taivini Teai1, Ines Shili-Touzi2, François-Régis Goebel3

1Research Mixt Unity about Insular Ecosystems in Ocenia (UMR 241 EIO), University of French Polynesia, Punaauia, French Polynesia

2ADI-Suds, ISTOM Ecole supérieur d’Agrodéveloppement International, Angers, France

3Agroecology and Sustainable Intensification of Annual Crops Department, CIRAD, Agricultural Research for Development, Montpellier, France

Abstract

Keywords: Saccharum officinarum, noble canes, arthropods, rats, Tahiti, organic agriculture.

As organic sugarcane is promised to an important development in French Polynesia

thank to the high-quality rum produced in this part of the world, preliminary studies

on main biotic constraints were conducted on this crop between 2018 and 2021 to

better apprehend their control. Visual observations at regular intervals and captures

using different types of traps were carried out to collect and identify the arthropod

fauna in Tahiti Island. With no surprise, stemborer insects were the most important

pests of sugarcane in these different areas. We were also able to identify key

predators and parasitoids that are important to preserve for natural control of these

pests. Stem borers and rats are a big concern in most islands and like the other pests,

we make propositions here to implement some tactics of agroecological crop

protection.

ER Yeşim, 2023

38

1. Introduction

No main agricultural crops (maize, soya,

wheat, beans) is cultivated in French Polynesia

due to the small size of the agricultural land

owned by farmers, generally between 0.5 to 10

ha. However, the sugarcane sector has strong

development potential in several islands of

French Polynesia and mainly in Tahiti as rum

sales from small specific productions are

increasing worldwide. Actually, the studies

conducted regarding arthropod fauna in the

islands of French Polynesia were mainly

related to vegetables and market gardening

which are the only cash crops since the end of

the twentieth century (Paulian, 1998). Despite

the isolation and geographical remoteness of

the islands of French Polynesia, an interesting

entomological richness in term of insect

species (harmful and useful) is observed and

most of the insects and mites were probably

introduced by humans through commercial

routes or by so-called passenger traffics

(Ryckewaert, 1984). In this context, the

sugarcane areas are still modest, around 50

hectares in total (whom 10 hectares under

organic certification standards) and this crop is

conducted according to organic farming

methods and produces an exceptional rum,

with an IGP (Protected Geographical

Indication) approach. In Polynesian farms,

Saccharum spp. modern canes are grown with

Saccharum officinarum noble canes (Vitrac et

al., 2018a). The presence of noble canes

guarantees a rum with a strong aromatic

character (non-published data). The use of this

type of canes, which are very sensitive to pests,

diseases and weeds (Vitrac et al., 2018b), is

unusual and it is mainly devoted to rum

industry. In such a context of strong

development of this crop in the near future, it is

necessary to carry out a preliminary inventory

of arthropod pests in order to prevent the crop

from heavy damage and yield loss, especially

regarding the high sensitivity of noble canes,

the development of diseases and the resulting

disturbance of the whole sector. This article

does not mention weeds, a topic that has

already been published (Vitrac et al., 2019a).

The focus of this study was put on arthropods

and rats, such as stem borers and their natural

enemies: predators and parasitoids according

to visual field inspections and the use of

different types of traps to investigate the

arthropod diversity. These studies, conducted

between 2018 and 2021 have made possible

their identification for the very first time in this

particular context of organic certified and

agroecological fields. As an example, it seems

that organic conversion had an effect on the

composition of saprophagous macrofauna

fields in Martinique island (Coulis, 2021)

where thousands of hectares of conventional

sugarcane were grown for more than 30 years.

Therefore, we wanted to know the type of

arthropod fauna living and developing in the

specific context of organic sugarcane. In the

manual of crop protection published in Tahiti

(Hammes et al., 1989; Hammes & Putoa,

1986), some insects such as Rhabdoscelus

obscurus Boisduval were already mentioned as

stem borer, but nothing regarding other borer

species such as Chilo saccariphagus or

Tetramoera schistaceana which causes

important damages and yield losses in China

(Pan et al., 2021). C. sacchariphagus and

Eldana saccharina are also mentioned as key

stem borers in Reunion Island (Goebel & Way,

2009) but these authors didn’t mention R.

obscurus. This situation is not unique and is

similar to what is observed in other countries

such as Australia and Fiji were no Lepidoptera

stem borers are found but R.obscurus is present

(Goebel & Salam, 2011). Moreover, the rats

are in the list of key pests of sugarcane in

Polynesia (Sechan, 1987; Hood et al., 1970). A

preliminary study has already been conducted

by Vitrac et al. (2018b), showing the high

sensitivity of S. officinarum noble canes). In

this study, preliminary results are presented

about the biodiversity of arthropods and rats in

sugar cane for the very first time and additional

information is given on the biology of pests

and their damage and explore possible avenues

for an agroecological management plan, such

as the push-pull technique, which use attractive

ER Yeşim, 2023

39

plants around or inside the sugarcane fields to

reduce pest populations by using selective

treatments only done inside these special areas

(Nibouche et al., 2019).

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Agricultural practices in organic sugarcane

production

All the fields studied were organic certified for

both European (UE) and Pacific rules

(NOAB). Vitrac et al. (2019a) defined the

following soil preparation and cultural

practices: before planting, the soil was worked

to a depth of 15 cm then furrowed in twin rows,

close together: 50 cm and distant from each

other of 1.60 m. This spacing of 1.60 m (inter

row) allows the passage of a small 4x4 tractor

of 16 Horsepower (HP) equipped with a rotary

cutter with blades allowing the mechanical

weeding over 1.1 m in width. The arrangement

in double rows makes it possible to densify the

planting, the double row having to end up

merging into a single and wide row. Due to the

scarcity of plant material from recent local

surveys, planting was carried out with 8-week-

old plants raised in the nursery from one-eye

cuttings (Poser et al., 2020). The seedlings

were manually transplanted into the furrows at

50 cm intervals and in staggered rows, their

survival rate was close to 100%. The weeding

on the row was carried out using a “serpette”,

the local name for a small manual hoe. Organic

compatible organo-mineral fertilization

consisted of three inputs of distillery vinasses

(20 t/ha, source of K), composted horse

manure (5 t/ha, source of NP) and crushed

dolomite (2 t/ha, source of CaMg), applied

directly, mainly in the rows at the foot of the

canes. These organic fertilizers were applied

for the first time after the first post-planting

weeding. Rainfall and temperatures were

recorded using an automatic gauge between

January 2018 and October 2020.

2.2 Experimental sites and observation plots

2.2.1 Afaahiti site

This site (17°45'15.8"S 149°15'24.1"W) was

free of any crop and is representative of natural

vegetation and biodiversity, allowing organic

certification. A plot of modern RRV sugarcane

variety (red color modern Saccharum spp.

variety found locally, non-published data) was

planted in April 2018 on 2 500 m2 with a light

slope of about 3%. Different trapping systems

(soil surface, aerial) were installed in May

2018 in an experimental design of 12 plots

(Figure 1) comprising a set of one pitfall trap

(white cylinder plastic container of 1 liter) and

one yellow sticky trap (50 × 30 cm fixed at 50

cm height) per plot. The pitfall traps were

buried in the soil, filled with a 100ml of

solution containing 10 g/l of saccharose and

were covered by yellowish roof to avoid water

from rainfall coming inside the trap. Yellow

color was chosen because of its attractiveness

regarding insects. The insects were captured,

identified and counted. Material was discarded

after counting and reinstalled at each period:

15/12/2018; 5/2/2019 only for pitfall traps and

25/3/2019; 15/5/2019; 15/7/2019 and 5/9/2019

for pitfall and sticky traps.

2.2.2 Toahotu site

This site (17°45'30.1"S 149°17'21.4"W) was

the first plantation of organic certified

sugarcane plants in 2013 on old pineapple

fields stopped in 2007. It was renewed and

grown with varieties of noble canes in 2016 on

3000 m2, a plot where most of the research

studies regarding noble varieties were usually

conducted from 2016 (Vitrac et al., 2018b). In

2019, 3rd ratoon was in process. No insect traps

(pitfall or sticky) were used on this site. Only

borers were monitored. No statistical analysis

ER Yeşim, 2023

40

was done regarding arthropods observations

and inventory because of the high variability

regarding the number of insects captured in our

traps (unnatural distribution of populations).

2.3 Observations of stem borers

In Afaahiti site, a sample of 6 stems for 12

plots (72 stems) were harvested at 3 periods of

time (15/5/2019; 15/7/2019 and 5/9/2019) and

were split open longitudinally to check the

presence or absence of stem borers (Figure 1).

Sampling in Toahotu site was conducted at the

same period: 15/5/2019; 15/7/2019 and

5/9/2019. Six stems were harvested at 10 m,

triplicates sampled on the same row, for the

same variety, in the middle row to avoid

border effects (18 canes per variety). Varieties

were the following: 2 nobles Saccharum

officinarum varieties found locally in 2014,

JRP (yellowish color cane, non-published

data) and RBV (light red purple striped color

cane, non-published data) and 2 modern ones,

RRV and B69566 (introduced from CIRAD

Visacane in 2016). In Toahotu site, samples

were also observed in September 2018. In this

case 3 bunches of 30 stalks were harvested on

10m. Triplicates were also sampled on the

same row, for the same variety, in the middle

row to avoid border effects.

Figure 1: Afaahiti experimental plot. Arthropods (aerial and soil fauna) and rats were

monitored during 10 months between December 2018 and September 2019 on this first

organic certified plantation of modern RRV sugarcane variety.

3% slope

S

rows of sugarcane

2m²N 6 5 4 3 2 1

S S S S

R R

1,2, […] 12: 12 plots S Sticky traps Pit fall traps

R : rat traps reproduced on each plots: sampled borer cane plants

10m R: counted stalks attacked by rtats on 10m

1

2

3

6

9

8

5

7

10m R

12

4

10

11

P

B

P

B

ER Yeşim, 2023

41

2.4 Observations of rat populations

For both Afaahiti and Toahotu sites, two

mechanical traps for rat control were installed

in March 2019 on the 3rd ratoon of the variety

B69566 every time in border of plots, close to

the natural vegetation. These traps use a

chemical pheromone to attract them and a

mechanical killing system and allow us to

count killed rats (electronic counter). Control

and counting of killed rats were conducted

every 2 weeks between April and October

2019, and then these killed rats were removed

after each control. In addition, in July and

September 2019, the stalks attacked by rats

were counted on 3x10m inside the field on the

middle row of each plot for each site (Figure

1). A treatment with Brodifacoum (0.005%)

was applied in the first week of July 2019. The

same procedure was applied one year before,

in June and July 2018 in Toahotu site for four

varieties, modern ones as RRV and B69566

and also two noble canes as JRP and RBV.

2.5 Statistical analysis regarding stem borers

and rats

Data was analyzed using the statistical

software XLSTAT 19.4.45191. A population

probability law (normal distribution) and

descriptive statistical parameters such as mean

and standard deviations were processed.

Means comparison tests of Mann Whitney

(samples<30) were used to compare borers

populations between varieties sampled.

2.6 Sampling and identification of macrofauna

Rainfall and temperatures were recorded using

an automatic gauge between January 2018 and

October 2020 in Afaahiti site. In Figure (2),

the successive weeding operations since

planting are positioned in relation to the

harvests and the monthly rainfall. All

measurements were conducted on the row

located on the middle of each plot (grey

columns on Figure 1) to avoid border effects.

Figure 2: Pattern of rainfall and temperatures in Afaahiti site and successive operations since planting in April

2018 (black arrows show plantation and harvest in early October 2019). For all the macrofauna observations;

P: pitfall traps; S: sticky traps; B: borers. Discontinued black arrows (June and December 2018) shows

operations of maintenance (mechanical and manual weed removing).

ER Yeşim, 2023

42

All arthropods collected in the pitfall and

sticky traps for 10 months were photographed

at each period for each sample. For pitfall

traps, samples were kept in 90° alcohol

solution and identified by entomologists from

CIRAD, based in Montpellier, using the

database of images and morphological

characteristics observed under a

stereomicroscope. Regarding the borer

species, stalks were split opened to visualize

attacks and tunnels inside the internodes.

Damaged stalks were counted, and the insects

were collected and also kept in alcohol for

further identification.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Arthropods

The arthropods levels and diversity are

presented in Figure (3). In pitfall traps, 29

different arthropods were identified whom 15

of more than 1% represented 94.83% of the

global amount. The 5 most abundant species

represented 74.87% of the number of

arthropods captured; they were composed of

natural predators such as Chelisoches morio

(25.07%) and Coleoptera Coccinelidae

(22.79%) and also insect pests (Scolytidae,

8.63%). C. morio (Dermaptera, Forficulidae)

was the main species captured. This species is

an important natural predator of crop pests

(Zhong et al., 2016). Spiders as generalist

predators were also well represented in our

catches (3.51%). It was the most

representative group within the 10 species

found between 1 and 5%. It is also observed

the presence of the centipede Scolopendra sp.

(Myriapoda) (0.89%) which is a generalist

predator of many insect species. In the sticky

traps, we identified 25 different arthropods

whom 7 of more than 1% represented 88.15%

of the global amount. C. morio was also

captured (1.30%) in these traps where 87.47%

are flies. It was also noticed that the presence

of bees which are good pollinators is

interesting in organic sugarcane fields free of

pesticides.

Figure 3: Cumulative numbers of arthropods (abundance) from pitfall (left) and sticky

(right) traps with different levels from grey to black for each period of sampling.

ER Yeşim, 2023

43

A global amount of 992 arthropods collected in

this context of organic agriculture during the

10 months of sampling and regarding the

observations, we found 14 orders and 33

families (Table 1). Atencio et al. (2019) also

found a great diversity in similar context of

agroecological sugarcane plantations with

4735 insects collected for 26 months.

Table 1: Identification of arthropods captured in our traps in Tahiti.

Order

Family

Genus

Species

Common name

Feeding

Role

Coleoptera

Curculionidae

Rhabdoscelus

obscurus

Cane weevil

Sugarcane

Pest

Coleoptera

Cetonidae

Protaecia

fusca

Mottled flower

Flowers, fruits

Pest

Coleoptera

Elateridae

Chalcolepidius

silbermanni

Click beetle

Roots

Pest

Coleoptera

Carabidae

Carabid beetle

Invertebrates

Predator

Coleoptera

Scolytidae

Xyloborus

perforans

Borer beetle

Wood

Pest

Coleoptera

Nitidulidae

Carpophilus

humeralis

Pineapple beetle

Pineapple, cane

Pest

Coleoptera

Staphylinidae

Small rove beetle

Invertebrates

Predator

Lepidoptera

Noctuidae

Spodoptera

mauritia

Armyworm

Leaves

Pest

Lepidoptera

Nymphalidae

Melanitis

leda solendra

Evening brown

Leaves

Pest

Lepidoptera

Crambidae

Marasmia

trapezalis

Leafeater moth

Leaves

Pest

Lepidoptera

Lycaenidae

Lampides

boeticus

Azuré porte-queue

Leaves

Pest

Hemiptera

Plataspidae

Brachyplatys

subaeneus

Black bean bug

Sap sucking

Pest

Dermaptera

Chelisochidae

Chelisoches

morio

Earwigs

Invertebrates

Predator

Neuroptera

Chrysopidae

Chrysoperla

congrua

Green lacewings

Invertebrates

Predator

Dyctioptera

Iridopterigydae

Tropidomantis

tenera

Preying mantis

Invertebrates

Predator

Orthoptera

Tettigoniidae

Conocephalus

longipennis

Meadow grasshopper

Invertebrates

Predator

Diptera

Tephritidae

Euaresta

bella

Fruit fly

flowers, fruits

Pest

Diptera

Syrphidae

Hover fly

Invertebrates

Predator

Diptera

Dolichopodidae

Green fly

Invertebrates

Predator

Hymenoptera

Vespidae

Polistes

olivaceus

Hornets

Invertebrates

Predator

Hymenoptera

Sphecidae

Pryonix

spp

Thread-waisted wasp

Invertebrates

Predator

Hymenoptera

Ichneumonidae

Ophion

spp

Parasitic wasp

Invertebrates

Predator

Hymenoptera

Formicidae

Solenopsis

geminata

Fire ant

Invertebrates

Predator

Blattodea

Blatellidae

Blatella

germanica

German cockroach

Invertebrates

Predator

Hemiptera

Lygaeidae

Nysius

spp

False chinch bug

Sap sucking

Pest

Hemiptera

Delphacidae

Peregrinus

maidis

Corn planthopper

Sap sucking

Pest

Hemiptera

Derbidae

Cedusa

spp

Blue panthopper

Sap sucking

Pest

Hemiptera

Pseudococcidae

Saccharicoccus

sachari

Pink mealybugs

Sap sucking

Pest

Hemiptera

Pseudococcidae

Antonina

graminis

Grey mealybugs

Sap sucking

Pest

Hemiptera

Aleyrodidae

Neomaskellia

bergii

Sugarcane whitefly

Sap sucking

Pest

Myriapoda

Scolopendridae

Scolopendra

Invertebrates

Predator

Myriapoda

Centipede

Invertebrates

Predator

Arachnida

Tetragnathidae

Spider

Invertebrates

Predator

Arachnida

Salticidae

Plexippus

paykulli

Spider

Invertebrates

predator

It is admitted that arthropods diversity and

abundance are low under conventional

sugarcane agriculture, but studies are scarce

and even mineral or organic fertilization does

have significant effects on diversity and

amounts on invertebrate populations (Chi et

al., 2020). Moreover Coulis (2021) found no

significant difference between organic (in

conversion) and conventional fields regarding

the diversity of soil macrofauna. However,

these studies were limited to the saprophagous

macrofauna and didn’t consider the arthropod

biodiversity of the aerial parts of sugarcane as

we did in this present study. In addition, the

impact of pesticides in the upper part of the

vegetation is generally higher as most of flying

predators and parasitoids live there and their

activity is obviously limited by the use of

chemical spraying (Snchez-Bayo, 2011).

Loranger et al. (1998) showed the influence of

pesticides under different agricultural systems

in a similar context in Martinique and their

clear impact on reducing arthropods’ presence

and activity. But as agriculture is still

underdeveloped in Tahiti, an interesting

richness in terms of insect species is generally

observed (Hammes et al., 1989; Ryckewaert,

1984) even if the use of pesticides can be very

ER Yeşim, 2023

44

high locally (Ryckewaert, 2004). It indicates to

us a good level of biodiversity in our organic

cultivated sugarcane fields.

3.2 Stem borers

The main species of stemborer found in

Tahitian sugarcane is Rhabdoscelus obscurus

Boisduval (Figure 4) already mentioned by

Hammes et al. (1989). No other borer species

were observed. The infestation levels are

indicated in Table (2). They are about 6,1% for

the lower average of 1,1 canes infested by 18

samples and 51.7% for the highest (RBV,

Toahotu, 2018). These percentages are

representative about what Goebel et al. (2005)

found in South Africa: between 7,3 and 26,1%

of infested canes. Considering all the results,

the noble variety RBV is the most infested,

followed by B69566 (unauthorized under IGP

approach in 2022). Damage levels by R.

obscurus increased from May to September

following the maturation of the canes. At this

stage, cane stems are ready to be harvested and

RBV variety could be used only to attract R.

obscurus without any other treatments. It is

similar to push-pull strategy used by Nibouche

et al. (2019) with Erianthus arundinaceus as a

trap crop for the sugarcane stem borer Chilo

sacchariphagus. The difference is that no

treatment is needed and RBV variety can be

used as a useful plant which could be

harvested at the same time as the rest of the

fields contrary to B69566 which is not

authorized under IGP approach in 2022. It is

possible to cultivate it because of its good

ratoon (Vitrac et al., 2019b) and we could

plant for example 1 to 10 rows of canes.

Another way of control, added to the use of

RBV variety, could be to find a specific

parasitoid like Pan et al. (2021) did, using

Trichogramma and sex pheromones for

trapping and control Chilo sacchariphagus

and Tetramoera schistaceana.

Figure 4: Rhabdoscelus obscurus (Coleoptera, Curculionidae) Boisduval: adults on

the left and larva on the right (black and white scale in mm) and inside an infested

cane. Comparison of damaged stalks with the presence of holes and healthy canes

(in middle). Photos of the author (2019).

In Table (2), we observed that no RRV canes

were infested by stem borers in Afaahiti in

2019 for the 72 canes sampled for the whole

period. This result is surprising because in

Toahotu site RRV variety was infested in 2018

and in 2019 (3rd ratoon). We can thus

hypothesize that some contexts (like Afaahiti

in 2019) are free of stemborers regarding the

first plantation. We can also note the low level

of infested JRP variety. This is the major

potential of S. officinarum noble cane variety

regarding the Polynesian rum industry (Vitrac

ER Yeşim, 2023

45

et al., 2019b). Noble varieties produce less

sugar and less biomass than modern varieties

(Vitrac et al., 2019b), especially in the early

season of June and July. At this stage, B69566

and RRV modern varieties present a Brix of 1

degree more than noble RBV and JRP and

higher concentrations in sucrose make them

more attractive for pests including stem borers

in this case. With a push-pull approach, we

could implement an experiment comprising

several rows of B69566 (unauthorized under

IGP approach in 2022) outside the fields to be

harvested, to attract stem borers and detect

their presence by using mechanical +

pheromone trapping as an efficient warning

system.

Table 2: Number of canes infested by stem borers on experimental sites.

Site

15/05/2019

15/07/2019

05/09/2019

Average

Standard deviation

Average

Standard deviation

Average

Standard deviation

Afaahiti 2019

RRV

0

-

0

-

0

-

Toahotu 2019

RRV

0

- ns

2.1

0.52 *

3

0.55 **

B69566

2.3

0.52 **

4.3

0.52 **

1.1

0.41 *

JRP

0

- ns

1.2

0.41 *

1.1

0.41 *

RBV

3.3

0.55 **

1.1

0.41 *

3.2

0.55 **

Toahotu 2018

15/9/18

RRV

5.3

1.5 *

B69566

5.3

1.5 *

JRP

1.3

1.2 **

RBV

9.3

3.1 ***

3.3 Rats

As weeds are the main constraints during the

vegetation period of sugarcane (Vitrac et al.,

2019a), rats are the most damaging pests

during the maturation period particularly on

noble canes where rat damage can totally

destroy the cane stalks before harvest (Vitrac

et al., 2018b). The identified rat killed by traps

by morphological approach (Séchan, 1987)

was Rattus exulans. No Rattus Norvegicus,

Rattus rattus or mice were observed. In 1970,

Hood et al. have already shown the big impact

of rats (Ratttus exulans) on Hawaian Polynesian

plantations aged of 15 months, with 5% of

stalks attacked by month. This period can be

compared to our plantation in the period of

July. The Figure (5) shows the levels of trapped rats

which increased from April to July and then

decreased after the treatment in September. It

seems that the response to Brodifacoum

treatment was more effective in Toahotu site.

Newly strip damaged are still quite high in

September for both sites due to the increase of

rat populations from June where the sugar

maturation generally starts. Brodifacoum (and

other raticides) treatment is accepted under

organic certified following a specific protocol:

several plastic tubes containing the rat baits are

placed inside the fields, and two or three days

after bait consumption, these plastic tubes are

removed. As an alternative to these baits, a

local mixture can be done to produce natural

baits, using Glyricidia sepium which is present

in Tahiti and French Polynesia (Berkelaar,

2011). It has the same effect as chemical

products such as Brodifacoum stopping the

synthesis of K vitamin. We can see in Table

(3) the low level of attacked JRP variety as it

was observed for borers. Noble varieties produce

less sugar and less biomass than modern varieties

(Vitrac et al., 2019b) (even if such a difference

is not significant in our context), especially in

the early season of June and July.

ER Yeşim, 2023

46

Figure 5: (Evolution of killed rats by mechanical trapping. The black arrow indicates a

treatment using Brodifacoum 0,05% in early July 2019 for both sites.

At this stage, B69566 and RRV modern

varieties present a Brix of 1 degree more than

noble RBV and JRP. With a push-pull approach, we

can implement an experiment comprising some

rows of B69566, which is significantly more

attacked than the other varieties (Table 3), outside

the fields (because unharvestable under IGP

approach in 2022), to attract rats and detect

their presence by using mechanical and pheromone

trapping as an efficient warning system.

Table 3: Rat damages in Toahotu site in 2018 and Brix degrees.

Toahotu

2018

June

July

Rat damages

Brix

Rat damages

Brix

Total

Average

Standard deviation

Average

Standard deviation

Total

Average

Standard deviation

Average

Standard deviation

RRV

31

10,33

3,06

13,70

2,14

23

7,67

3,21

16,32

0,32

B69566

36

12,00

8,72

14,92

1,92

52

17,33

4,62

15,01

1,80

JRP

0

-

15,55

1,05

0

-

14,50

1,14

RBV

0

-

12,24

1,07

0

-

15,20

0,09

4. Conclusion

In this study, we identified the main arthropods

problems in the context of organic sugarcane

in Tahiti. We also generated for the first time

in French Polynesia a preliminary list of

arthropods, comprising insect pests, natural

predators, and parasitoids in this agrosystem.

An interesting functional biodiversity is

present, and its richness is mainly due to the

organically certified fields cultivated by small

producers. At the moment, the whole area of

sugarcane in Tahiti and other islands of French

Polynesia is not strengthened by pests and

diseases. However, sugarcane areas will

probably grow rapidly, and it is of utmost

importance to encourage organic cultivation

that will be able to preserve biodiversity in a

sustainable way. A knowledge base system

associated with a decision support system for

pest management (Martin et al., 2020) should

be an integrated method to follow for the

sustainable production of noble canes. Having

considered this, it is not forgotten that these

old varieties were first abandoned because of

their susceptibility to diseases (Vitrac et al.,

2018a) and replaced by modern Saccharum

spp. varieties. A better knowledge of the

potential of these noble canes and their uses is

the first step to building a highly valuable

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

April May June July Aug. Sept.

Fresh stripe damaged

Killed rats

Afaahiti Toahotu

ER Yeşim, 2023

47

agroecological context to provide the best

sugarcanes to this rum industry. The push-pull

approach using different types of sugarcane

and also companion plants should be further

tested and proposed as an agroecological crop

protection strategy.

References

Abd Elhafiz A, Abd Elhafiz A, Gaur SS,

Hamdany N, Osman M, Lakshmi TVR,

2015. Chlorella vulgaris and Chlorella

pyrenoidosa live cells appear to be

promising sustainable biofertilizer to

grow rice, lettuce, cucumber and eggplant

in the UAE Soils. Recent Research in

Science and Technology 7: 14–21.

Atencio VR, Goebel FR, Miranda RJ, 2019.

Entomofauna associated with sugarcane

in Panama. Sugar Tech 21(4): 605–618.

Chi L, Huerta E, lvarez-Sols D, K-Quej V,

Mendoza-Vega J, 2020. Abundance and

diversity of soil macroinvertebrates in

sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) plantations

under organic and chemical fertilization

in Belize. Acta Zoolgica Mexicana

(nueva serie) 36: 1–19.

Coulis M, 2021. Abundance, biomass and

community composition of soil

saprophagous macrofauna in conventional

and organic sugarcane fields. Applied

Soil Ecology 164: 103923.

Hammes C, Putoa R, 1986. Catalogue des

insectes et acariens d’intért agricole en

Polynésie franaise. Centre ORSTOM de

Tahiti.

Hammes C, Chant H, Mu L, 1989. Manuel, de

défense des cultures en Polynésie française.

Office of Scientific and Technical

Research Overseas (ORSTOM), France.

Goebel R, Way MJ, Gossard C, 2005. The

status of Eldana saccharina

(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in the South

African sugar industry based on regular

survey data. In: Proceedings of the South

Africa Sugarcane Technologists

Association, pp. 337–346.

Goebel FR, Way MJ, 2009. Crop losses due to

two sugarcane stem borers in Reunion

and South Africa. Sugar Cane

International 27(3): p. 107–111.

Goebel FR, Sallam N, 2011. New pest threats

for sugarcane in the new bioeconomy and

how to manage them. Current Opinion in

Environmental Sustainability 3: 81–89

Loranger G, Ponge JF, Blanchart E, Lavelle P,

1998. Influence of agricultural practices

on arthropod communities in a vertisol

(Martinique). European Journal of Soil

Biology 34(4): 157–165.

Martin P, Silvie P, Marnotte P, Goebel FR,

2020. A decision support system for

determining sugarcane pest reservoir.

Sugar Tech 22: 655–661.

Nibouche S, Tibere R, Costet L, 2019.

Erianthus arundinaceus as a trap crop for

the sugarcane stem borer Chilo

sacchariphagus: Field validation and

disease risk assessment. Crop Protection

124: 104877.

Pan X, Shang X, Wei J, Huang C, Nikpay A,

Goebel FR, 2021. Biological control of

sugarcane borers in the province of

Guangxi, China: the importance of

Trichogramma releases and sex

pheromones for field monitoring and

trapping. International Sugar Journal

123 : 190–193.

Paulian R, 1998. Les insectes de Tahiti.

Editions Boube, Paris, France.

Poser C, Chabanne A, Martin J, Gueno JM,

Ribotte JC, Tumoine L, Le Bras J,

Christina M, Goebel FR, 2018. Farming

for the future: improving productivity

ER Yeşim, 2023

48

and ecological resilience in sugarcane

production systems, In: ISSCT

Agricultural Engineering, Agronomy and

Extension Workshop, Saint Gilles,

Réunion, France.

Ryckewaert P, 1984. Observations sur les

rhopalocres de Polynsie franaise.

Alexanor 14(4): 155–159.

Ryckewaert P, 2004. Rapport de mission à

Tahiti du 22 mars au 2 avril 2004.

CIRAD-FLHOR, Montpellier, France, 16

p.

Snchez-Bayo F, 2011. Impacts of

Agricultural Pesticides on Terrestrial

Ecosystems. In: Ecological Impacts of

Toxic Chemicals. Centre for

Ecotoxicology, University of Technology

Sydney, Australia, pp. 63–87.

Vitrac M, Martin J, Teai T, Shili-Touzi I,

Goebel FR, 2019a. Des cannes nobles

tahitiennes cultivées en bio anéanties par

le wedelia Sphagneticola trilobata : une

mésaventure à surmonter. In : 24e

Conférence du COLUMA : Journées

internationales sur la lutte contre les

mauvaises herbes. Végéphyl. Alfortville :

Végéphyl, 11 p. Conférence du

CCOLUMA : Journées internationales

sur la lutte contre les mauvaises herbes,

Orléans, France.

Vitrac M, Teai T, Goebel FR, Shili-Touzi I,

2019b. Noble sugarcanes and modern

cultivars in Tahiti relative to organic rum

production : description and key

characteristics. AGROFOR International

Journal 4(2): 20–27.

Vitrac M., Teai, T., Goebel, F. R., 2018a.

Sugarcanes and the Saccharum genus in

French Polynesia: historical and future

potential uses. In: CIPAM 10: 10ème

Colloque International sur les Plantes

Aromatiques et Médicinales et

Cosmétopées, Punaauia, French

Polynesia.

Vitrac M, Teai T, Goebel FR, Shili-Touzi I,

2018b. Organic sugarcane cultivation in

Tahiti. AGROFOR International Journal

3(3): 31–38.

Zhong B, Lv C, Qin W, 2016. Preliminary

study on biology and feeding capacity of

Chelisoches morio (Fabricius)

(Dermaptera:Chelisochidae) on

Tirathaba rufivena (Walker).

SpringerPlus 5: 1944.