Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Aug 31;21(8):e0355844. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0355844

Factors affecting the infestation status of African sugarcane stalk borer (Eldana saccharina Walker) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Tanzania

Hamis Daniel Wambura 1,2,*, Gration Mutashoberwa Rwegasira 1, Martin John Martin 3
Editor: Noé Aguilar-Rivera4
PMCID: PMC13528964  PMID: 42672014

Abstract

Sugarcane is an important crop that contributes substantially to sugar production globally and across Sub-Saharan Africa. However, its productivity is constrained by stem borer infestations, particularly Eldana saccharina. The pest reduces sugarcane yield by up to 30% and about 18% of sucrose content is compromised. Nonetheless, the influence of ecological parameters on its pest status in Tanzania remains poorly understood. This study evaluated the influence of season, altitude, crop age, and sugarcane variety on E. saccharina infestation in Tanzania. A stratified multistage cross-sectional survey was conducted across three altitudes representing low, medium, and high altitudes. In total, 711 blocks were surveyed, and infestation was assessed from 50 randomly sampled stalks per block. The infestation was quantified as the total number of E. saccharina larvae recovered per 50 stalks alongside other damage parameters. Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models in R, with likelihood ratio tests and Type III Wald x2 tests. Infestation was highest at high altitude in both seasons and was significantly influenced by season x altitude x crop-age interaction ( X2=9.58, P<0.0083). Internal stalk-tissue- damage was significantly greater at high-altitude during the rainy season (P = 0.04). Boring intensity was significantly higher at medium and high-altitudes during the rainy season (P =0.013;P = 0.004, respectively), with the bottom stalk part most affected (P = 0.001). Higher infestation was observed in mixed-variety blocks and in cultivars N41 and N49. These findings show that altitude, season, and crop-age are determinants of E. saccharina infestation in Tanzania and should guide pest management strategies.

1. Introduction

Sugarcane is a perennial, high-value commercial crop cultivated globally to meet increasing sugar demand [1,2]. Current production exceeds two billion metric tons annually, with Brazil leading global output at approximately 798 million metric tons, followed by India at 421.15 million metric tons [3]. In Sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa is the dominant producer, contributing about 17.94 million metric tons, while in East Africa, Uganda leads regional production with approximately 6.19 million metric tons [2]. In Tanzania, sugarcane is an important commercial crop, contributing substantially to domestic sugar production and rural livelihoods [4]. National survey data show that the crop is cultivated on approximately 53,398 ha, indicating its wide production base in the country [4]. More recent reports indicate that the sugar industry produced 431,736.74 tons of sugar in the 2024/25 season [5]. In addition to its contribution to national sugar supply, the sector is economically significant because it generates employment, with about 28,500 direct and 95,000 indirect employment opportunities estimated across the sugarcane value chain [5,6]. Despite its economic significance, sugarcane productivity is constrained by multiple biotic and abiotic factors [7,8]. Abiotic factors such as drought, extreme temperature and soil nutrient limitations affect sugarcane growth and sucrose accumulation [9]. Biotic factors, particularly insect pests, pose substantial threats to sugarcane yields. Among these, stem borers are recognized as the most destructive pests in sugarcane production. Key species of global importance include Eldana saccharina in Africa, Diatraea saccharalis in the Americas, Chilo sacchariphagus in Asia and the Indian Ocean region, and Scirpophaga exerptalis in South Asia [10,11]. In Sub-Saharan Africa, E. saccharina is regarded as the most economically important stem borer because it causes substantial losses in cane yield and sucrose content [9]. Like other stem borers, E. saccharina is also difficult to manage effectively, as its larvae develop internally within sugarcane stalk tissues, where they are protected from contact insecticides and less accessible to natural enemies, thus, reducing the effectiveness of conversional control measures [12].

The pest was first recorded in West Africa more than a century ago and subsequently spread across major sugarcane-producing regions including Mozambique, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Benin, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania [13]. In South Africa, E. saccharina became established in the early 1900s and was formally recognized as a serious economic pest by 1939 after documented yield reductions up to 30% and sucrose losses approaching 18% [14]. Similar economic importance was later reported in East Africa, where the pest was recorded in Tanzania in the early twentieth century before spreading regionally [15].

The distribution of E. saccharina has not remained static. Historically, confined largely to coastal and lowland regions in countries like South Africa and Ethiopia [16–18], the pest has progressively expanded into inland and higher altitude sugarcane-producing zones [19]. Such shifts have been associated with environmental and climatic changes [20,21]. Seasonal rainfall patterns, altitude-related temperatures, crop age and sugarcane variety susceptibility have been reported to influence infestation level, larval survivability, and the extent of internal stalk damage [14,22–24]. For instance, increased infestation levels have been documented during dry seasons in lowland areas of South Africa and Ethiopia [16,17,19], whereas seasonal infestation patterns in other agroecological settings, including some cooler or higher-altitude regions may vary depending on local environmental conditions [14]. Moreover, excessive nitrogen application can increase Eldana saccharina infestation because it promotes lush, nitrogen-rich cane tissues that improve larval growth and survival, particularly when the crop is under water stress [25,26]. In contrast, moisture-conserving practices can reduce infestation by minimizing plant stress, which is closely associated with increased E. saccharina damage [25,27]. Other agronomic practices that influence E. saccharina infestation include the use of resistant varieties, avoidance of prolonged carry-over cane, targeted residue and stubble management in heavily infested fields, and habitat-management approaches such as push-pull systems [25]. Older sugarcane (> 12 months) is frequently associated with higher larval densities and greater internal tissue redness, possibly because older plants provide more favorable microclimatic conditions and more suitable oviposition substrates for E. saccharina including dead leaf sheaths and dry leaf material [1,28,29]. In addition, cultivation of susceptible varieties, including N46 and N49, has been linked to increased infestation intensity and concentrated damage in bottom stalk part [25].

Despite extensive regional documentation, information on the status and spatial distribution of E. saccharina in Tanzania remained obscured. The existed information were mainly speculations on the history of occurrence and a few unpublished reports that were insufficiently quantitative with limited evidence on infestation incidence, intensity, and within-stalk-damage patterns across Tanzanian agroecological zones. Given the environmental variability and recent expansion on sugarcane cultivation into new production areas, an updated assessment of the pest’s status was required. Therefore, this study aimed at establishing the status of E. saccharina in Tanzania by quantifying infestation across high, medium, and low altitude agroecological zones. Specifically, the study assessed larval density (number of E. saccharina per 50 stalks), percentage of stalks bored, percentage of internal stalk tissue damage, and distribution of bored plant parts to determine spatial variation in infestation intensity and damage severity [22,25,30]. The study also explored the sugarcane varieties that contributed to the increased E. saccharina infestations across the altitudes. By providing a cross-sectional evaluation across environmental gradients, the findings have direct implications for pest surveillance and field-level management, thus, contribute fundamental information necessary for deployment of strategic zone-specific management of the pest in Tanzania sugarcane production systems.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Description of the study area

The study was conducted across three agroecological zones categorized by altitude: high, medium, and low [3]. The low-altitude area included sugarcane fields situated at altitudes below 600 meters above sea level (m a.s.l), while fields at elevations between 601 and 1000 m a.s.l were classified as medium altitude. The high-altitude zone comprised sugarcane fields located above 1000 m a.s.l [31]. Each altitude zone represented sugarcane fields belonging to different sugarcane producing companies (Table 1). The companies included Kagera Sugar Company Limited, located at een betwhigh altitude S 1° 00’ to 2° 45’, and E 30° 25’ to 32° 40’ at altitude of 1400 m a.s.l in Kagera Region northwestern part of Tanzania; Tanganyika Planting Company Limited, located at medium altitude S 3° 45’ and E 37° 37’ at an altitude of 950 m a.s.l in Kilimanjaro Region in northeastern Tanzania; and two companies, Kilombero Sugar Company Limited and Mtibwa Sugar Estates at low-altitude zone, located at S 7° 44’, E 37° 00’ and S 6° 09’, E 37° 50’ respectively, in Morogoro Region in eastern Tanzania (Fig 1). High-altitude zone is characterized by relatively cooler conditions, temperature ranging from 20 °C to 28 °C, and receives biannual rainfall of about 500–2000 mm annually [22,32]. The medium-altitude zone experiences intermediate climatic conditions where annual temperatures range from 17 °C to 29 °C and rainfall is also bimodal, ranging from 600 to 2100 mm [33]. The zone receives long rains from March to May and short rains from October to December. The low-altitude zone is relatively warmer, with temperatures of 18–30 °C, receiving bimodal rainfall ranging from 600 to 1800 mm annually [34]. Across these altitudes, environmental differences in temperature and rainfall distribution create distinct ecological settings for assessing E. saccharina infestation.

Table 1. Main characteristics of the study area representing low, medium, and high altitude agroecological zones in Tanzania.



Altitude


Company/Estate


Region
Approximate altitude (m a.s.l) Environmental characteristics Number of sampled blocks
High Kagera Sugar Company Limited Kagera 1400 Cooler conditions, higher elevation, distinct rainy and dry periods 325


Medium
Tanganyika Planting Company Limited (TPC Kilimanjaro 950 Intermediate elevation and temperature conditions 175
Low Kilombero Sugar Company Limited Morogoro <600 Warmer lowland conditions 70
Mtibwa Sugar Estates Morogoro <600 Warmer lowland conditions 141

Fig 1. A map of the study sites showing altitude classes and sugarcane-producing company locations in Tanzania.

Fig 1

The map was created by the authors using QGIS software (version 3.44.8) from geographical coordinates collected during the study. Administrative boundary data were obtained from shape files from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) available at (https://www.nbs.go.tz/statistics/geographic-information-system-gis), a public national institution, and are publicly available for use under CC BY 4.0 or equivalent open license.

2.2. Experimental design

A stratified, multistage cross-sectional sampling design was implemented in the survey undertaken to assess and quantify E. saccharina infestation across altitudes [35]. Altitude (high, medium, and low) constituted the primary strata, within each stratum, sugarcane fields in a company serving as the sampling frame. Sugarcane block disposition maps were obtained from each company and used to generate a complete list of cultivated units. This was followed with selection of blocks using a finite population sampling approach. The required number of blocks per stratum was estimated using finite population formula by Yamane [36] as follows:

n=N(1+N(e)2. (1)

Whereby n is the required sample size, N is the total number of cultivated blocks in respective sugarcane-producing company, and ``e" is the allowable margin of error (set at 5%).

From the total numbers of cultivated blocks which was 2933 blocks computed from 2022 units in the high altitude, 317 units in the medium altitude, and 594 units in the low altitude, the established sample sizes were; 325 blocks in the high altitude, 175 blocks in the medium altitude, and 211 blocks in the low altitude zones.

Field surveys were conducted during locally defined rainy and dry seasons in 2025 to assess E. saccharina infestation under contrasting environmental conditions. These sampling periods were based on the rainfall patterns of each altitude class and were not assumed as priori to represent peak infestation periods. Assessments were performed in February-March (rainy season) and May-June (dry season) at high altitude zone, March-April (rainy season) and July-August (dry season) at the medium altitude and March (rainy season) and August-September (dry season) at the low altitude. This seasonal framework was used because rainfall influences sugarcane growth, crop moisture status, and plant stress, which in turn affect the suitability of the crop to E. saccharina oviposition, larval establishment, survival, and internal stalk tissue damage [14,25,37]. Since rainfall amount and season distribution differ among locations, locally defined rainy and dry periods were used to compare infestation patterns across the three study altitude classes.

2.3. Sampling and sampling design

Random sampling was made from the complete list of identified blocks to ensure spatial coverage across the entire estate. Sugarcane crop aged ≥ 3 months were selected for assessment targeting the stalks that have developed sufficient internodes and tissue structure to allow E. saccharina larval boring and establishment for detection of infestation and internal damage as per other workers [25,38]. Each randomly selected block constituted a primary sampling unit. Because the study was designed to quantify E. saccharina infestation under existing commercial production conditions, crop age (months after planting) and sugarcane variety were not used as pre-stratification criteria during block selection. Instead, these variables were recorded for each randomly selected blocks at the time of sampling. Consequently, the distribution of crop ages (months after planting) and varieties was not uniform across altitude classes, but reflected the actual planting structure within the surveyed estates. In this study, crop age refers to the number of moths after planting at the time of sampling, rather than cutting or harvest age. Assessment of E. saccharina infestation within blocks followed the standardized field survey protocol developed by SASRI (2023). Within each selected block, sampling was conducted along diagonal transects to ensure representative spatial coverage. A total of 50 sugarcane stalks were randomly selected per block, distributed evenly along the transects extending from one corner of the block to the opposite corner. To capture both edge and central field conditions, 40 stalks were sampled along the block peripheral (edges) at regular intervals, while an additional 10 stalks were sampled along the central transect. At each sampling point, stalks were selected at random and assessed for infestation and damage parameters following the established protocol. This systematic spatial altitude reduced edge or clustering effects and ensured coverage of both peripheral and interior block sections.

Sampling was conducted at the block level, with block sizes ranging from 5 to 22 ha. Although the SASRI protocol recommends sampling up to 100 stalks in blocks of ≤ 5 ha, estate management restricted destructive sampling to a maximum of 50 stalks per block. Consequently, a fixed sample size of 50 stalks was applied uniformly across all blocks, regardless of block size. This approach ensured methodological consistency and comparability of infestation estimates across blocks and altitudes, as each block constituted the primary management unit in the estates and was therefore treated as the independent sampling unit for infestation assessment.

2.4. Data collection

Within each sampled block, 50 sugarcane stalks were randomly selected and assessed individually, each stalk was cut approximately 5 cm above ground level and initially examined for visible signs of E. saccharina infestation, including characteristic entry or exit holes. The position of damage along the stalk was recorded as bottom, middle, or top. Each stalk was then split longitudinally into two halves (half of four parts) to allow internal inspection. The total number of internodes per stalk and the number of bored internodes were recorded. The presence and number of E. saccharina larvae and/or pupae were documented. Internal tissue damage was quantified by measuring the length of red discoloration within the stalk (stalk length red (m), which served as proxy for pest-induced internal tissue damage. The recorded data therefore included block name, sugarcane variety, collection date, crop age (months after planting), stalk length (m), number of internodes per stalk, number of internodes bored, stalk length red (m), position of damage along the stalk, and number of E. saccharina larvae and/or pupae detected. The damage recorded in this study represents natural field incidence of E. saccharina infestation rather than experimentally induced injury. Field symptoms included bored stalks, internal reddish discoloration of stalk tissues, and larval occurrence within stalks [18,25]. These symptoms are consistent with stalk-boring damage caused by E. saccharina. Stepwise flow-chart of the sampling protocol is presented in Fig 2 below for clarity.

Fig 2. Flow chart of the sampling protocol used to assess E. saccharina infestation in sugarcane fields across three altitude classes in Tanzania.

Fig 2

2.5. Ethics statement

This study methodology was approved by the Ethics Review Board of the College of Agriculture, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania (Approval Number: SUA/DPRTC/PCS/D/2022/0003/04). The study did not involve human participants, human biological materials, personal data, or vertebrate animals. Therefore, informed written or verbal consent from individual participants was not applicable. The study involved field assessment of Eldana saccharina infestation and sugarcane stalk damage in commercial sugarcane fields. Permission to access the fields and conduct destructive sugarcane stalk sampling was obtained verbally from the management of the respective sugarcane-producing companies before data collection.

2.6. Data analysis

Raw field data were first summarized into infestation and damage metrics following standard procedures described by the South African Sugarcane Research Institute SASRI (2023). Infestation intensity was expressed as the number of Eldana saccharina larvae and/or pupae per 50 stalks (e/50 stalks). Boring intensity was calculated as the proportion of internodes bored per stalk, while internal tissue damage was quantified as the proportion of the stalk length exhibiting red discoloration (total stalk length red/total stalk length). In addition, the presence of boring along the stalk was categorized by position (bottom, middle, top) for subsequent analysis (S1 Table).

Prior to modelling, the distribution of the response variables was examined using graphical and diagnostic methods to guide model selection. All responses were analysed within a generalized linear mixed modelling (GLMM) framework to account for abnormal distribution of data and the hierarchical sampling design. Count data were modelled using a negative binomial error distribution with a log link function, as this distribution accommodates the discrete, non-normal and overdispersion characteristics of count responses. Proportion data (bounded between 0 and 1) were analysed using GLMMs with a beta error distribution and logit link function.

Specifically, infestation intensity (e/50 stalks) was analysed using GLMMs with a negative binomial distribution and log link function in R using glmmTMB package [39]. Season (rainy and dry), altitude (high, medium and low), and crop age (centred continuous variable) were included as fixed effects with their interactions, while Block names were included as random factor to account for the hierarchical sampling structure and non-independence of observations within blocks. The fitted model was:

log (μ)= β0+β1season+β2altitude+β3crop age+ interactions+bblock (2)

Where (µ) is the expected number of E. saccharina individuals per 50 stalks, β0 is the intercept, β terms represent fixed effects and their interactions, and bblock is the random effect associated with block.

A count-based sensitivity analysis was conducted in R statistical software to evaluate the adequacy of the 50 stalks sampling protocol. Since infestation was analyzed as Eldana saccharina larval and/or pupae count per 50 stalks, detection probability was estimated on the count scale using the fitted negative binomial distribution model. The probability of detecting at least one larva/pupa was calculated across a range of expected mean counts and compared between the observed 50-stalk and a hypothetical 100-stalk sampling protocol. This analysis assessed whether 50 stalks were sufficient for detecting field-level infestation patterns and identified the potential risk of under-detecting very low of highly localized infestation.

Proportion-based response variables (internal tissue damage and boring intensity) were analyzed using GLMMs with a beta error distribution and logit link function. Seasons, altitude and crop age (centered continuous) were included as fixed effects, together with their interactions to evaluate whether damage severity varied across altitudes and developmental stages while block name was fitted as a random factor. The fitted models were:

  • i Beta model for percentage stalk length red

logit (π)=season x altitude x poly (crop agec, 2)+bblock (3)

Where 𝜋 is the expected percentage of stalk length reddened and bblock is the random effect of the block. The polynomial term for crop age was included to accommodate potential non-linear age effects.

  • ii Binomial model for percentage stalk bored

logit (θ)=season x altitude x crop agec+bblock (4)

Where θ is expected proportion of the internodes bored and bblock is the random block effect

Boring incidence along sugarcane stalk parts (bottom, middle, and top) was also analysed using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) with a binomial error distribution and logit function, as the response variable was binary (presence/absence of boring). Stalk part, season, altitude, and their interactions were included as fixed effects to evaluate dependent variation in infestation along the sugarcane stalk. Block name was fitted as a random factor to account for non-independence of observations within sampling units. The variation in boring incidence along sugarcane stalk parts was modelled as:

Logitpijkl= β0+ β1parti+β2seasonj+ β3altitudek+ β4crop agel+interactions+bblock (5)

Where pijkl is the probability of boring occurrence, β0 is the intercept, β terms represent fixed effects and their interactions, and bblock is the random effect associated with block.

The same identified blocks were assessed during the rainy and dry seasons. Each observation represented one block-season determination based on 50 sampled sugarcane stalks (S2 Table). Because the survey was conducted under commercial field conditions, planting dates differed among estates and blocks; therefore, the exact crop ages (months after planting) represented the dataset varied among altitudes and seasons (S2 Table). Thus, crop age was treated as a continuous covariate in the GLMM rather than a categorical treatment [39,40]. Each block-level record represented one infestation determination based on 50 sampled stalks, and all observations were analysed jointly in a single model including season, altitude, crop age (months after planting), and their interactions [39].

Model adequacy was assessed using simulation-based residual diagnostics implemented in the DHARMa package [41], including tests for dispersion, zero inflation, and deviations from model assumptions, supported by visual inspection of residual patterns The statistical significance of fixed effects and their interactions for infestation intensity and proportional based responses was assessed using likelihood ratio tests. For the binomial model of boring incidence along stalk parts, statistical significance was assessed using Type III Wald x2 tests implemented in the car package [42]. Where significant effects were detected, post hoc pairwise comparisons of estimated marginal means were performed using the emmeans package [43], with Tukey-adjusted p-values. Estimated marginal means were presented with 95% confidence intervals (p ≤ 0.05).

An internal validation analysis was also conducted to assess whether the field damage indicators were biologically consistent with observed E. saccharina infestation. The number of larvae and/or pupae recorded per 50 stalks was correlated with measured damage variables, including percentage stalks bored, percentage stalk length red, total red stalk length, and total number of internodes bored. Because larval count and damage variables were non-normally distributed and included zero values, Spearman’s rank correlation was used. The Benjamin-Hochberg procedure was applied to adjust P values for multiple comparisons.

The influence of sugarcane variety on E. saccharina infestation was analyzed separately from the main ecological model because varieties were unevenly distributed across altitude categories [39]. Since several varieties occurred only within specific altitude class (S3 Table), variety was treated as nested within altitude by creating an altitudexvariety interaction factor. Infestation intensity was then analyzed using the number of E. saccharina larvae per 50 stalks as the response variable. Prior to analysis, altitude-variety combinations with fewer than five observations and ≥ 90% zero counts were excluded to avoid unstable estimates and convergence problems [40,44]. A negative binomial generalized linear mixed model was fitted using altitude, season, their interaction, and nested variety as fixed effects, with block include as a random factor to account for non-independence of observations within sampling block. A zero-inflated negative binomial model was also fitted and compared with the standard negative binomial model using Akaike’s Information Criterion. Model fit was evaluated using simulated residual diagnostics in DHARMa R package. Estimated marginal means were then generated for varieties within each altitude class, and Tukey-adjusted pairwise comparisons were summarized using compact letter displays. Predicted means and 95% confidence intervals were plotted to show relative varietal infestation levels within each altitude class. Thus, the varietal influence on E. saccharina infestation was modelled as:

Logμijklm=β0+β1seasoni+β2altitudej+β3crop agek+β4(altitudej:varietyl)+bblockm (6)

Where μijklm is the expected number of E. saccharina larvae per 50 sampled stalks, varietyj represents variety nested within altitude, and bblockm is the random block effect to account for non-independence among observations collected from the same sugarcane block and to capture unmeasured block-level variability such as management history, soil conditions, microclimate, and local pest pressure.

3. Results

3.1. Sensitivity analysis of the 50-stalk sampling protocol

The count-based sensitivity analysis showed that detection probability increased with expected mean E. saccharina larval count per 50 stalks. When expected infestation was very low, detection probability under the 50-stalk protocol was limited. For instance, at expected mean counts of 0.5 and 1 larva per 50 stalks, the probability of detecting at least one individual were 36.4% and 56.4%, respectively. Detection improved under a hypothetical 100-stalk protocol, reaching 59.5% and 81% at the same expected mean counts. However, at an expected mean count of 5 individuals per 50 stalks, detection probability was already high under the 50-stalk protocol, reaching 93%, compared with 99.5% under 100-stalk sampling protocol. At expected mean counts of 10 and 20 individuals per 50 stalks, detection probabilities under 50-stalk sampling were 97.9% and 99.5%, respectively. These results indicate that the 50-stalk sampling protocol was adequate for detecting moderate to high infestation levels, but less sensitive for very low or highly localized E. saccharina infestation.

3.2. Model-fit statistics for negative binomial generalized linear mixed model fitted to Eldana saccharina infestation count for 50 stalks per block

The model was fitted using 1,422 observations and 698 block-level random-effect groups. The model converged successfully, with the lower value of Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) of 3515.31, Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) of 3588.95, log-likelihood of −1743.66, and a negative-binomial dispersion parameter of 2.30. The random-intercept variance for block identity was 1.953, corresponding to a standard deviation of 1.398, indicating substantial unexplained block-level heterogeneity in Eldana saccharina infestation.

3.3. Variations in E. saccharina infestation across altitudes

Field infestation was confirmed by the presence of bored stalks, internal stalk tissue red, and larvae within sugarcane stalks, indicating natural E. saccharina incidence in the surveyed fields. The Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT) from the negative binomial generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) revealed that E. saccharina infestation varied significantly (P < 0.05) with season, altitude, and crop age (Table 2). The fixed effects of season, altitude, and crop age were all significant (P < 0.001). Significant two-way interactions were also observed between season and crop age (X2=23.57, P < 0.001) and between altitude and crop age (X2=12.81, P=0.0017), indicating that the effect of crop age on infestation differed across seasons and altitude classes. In contrast, the season X altitude interaction was not significant ( x2=0.39, P=0.82) suggesting that seasonal differences in infestation were not consistent across altitude classes when crop age was not considered (Table 2). Further to this, a three-way interaction between season, altitude, and crop age was significant ( x2=9.58,  P<0.0083).

Table 2. Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT) evaluating the effect of season, altitude, crop age, and their interactions on E. saccharina infestations in Tanzania.

Source of variation Chi-square (x2) P-value
Season 56.44 <0.001
Altitude 341.42 <0.001
Crop age 43.91 <0.001
Season*altitude 0.39 0.82
Season*crop age 23.57 <0.001
Altitude*crop age 12.81 0.0017
Season*altitude*crop age 9.58 0.008

The post-hoc analyses (Table 3) indicated that the significant season, altitude, and crop age interaction was primarily driven by a strong positive effect of crop age on E. saccharina infestation at high altitude during both dry and the rainy season (P < 0.002 and P < 0.001, respectively). Additionally, during the dry season, sugarcane crops aged 3–9 months after planting were significantly (P < 0.001) infested whereas the older crops aging 12–18 months after planting were significantly infested during the rainy season, whereas crop-age effects were non-significant at low and medium altitudes and during the dry season.

Table 3. Post-hoc pairwise seasonal contrasts of predicted E. saccharina infestation across altitudes and crop ages. Positive Z-ratios indicate greater model predicted infestation during the dry season, whereas negative Z-ratio values represent greater predicted infestation during the rainy season. Significance differences were assessed at P ≤ 0.05.

Altitude Crop age Dry/Rain ratio Z-ratio P – Value
Low altitude 3 0.85 −0.19 0.85
Low altitude 6 1.48 0.70 0.48
Low altitude 9 2.57 1.70 0.09
Low altitude 12 4.48 1.79 0.07
Low altitude 15 7.79 1.68 0.09
Low altitude 18 13.54 1.60 0.11
Medium altitude 3 10.81 1.09 0.28
Medium altitude 6 7.20 1.23 0.22
Medium altitude 9 4.80 1.32 0.19
Medium altitude 12 3.19 1.04 0.29
Medium altitude 15 2.13 0.52 0.60
Medium altitude 18 1.42 0.18 0.86
High altitude 3 9.83 6.71 < 0.001
High altitude 6 5.15 6.92 < 0.001
High altitude 9 2.70 6.43 < 0.001
High altitude 12 1.42 2.43 0.01
High altitude 15 0.74 −1.44 0.15
High altitude 18 0.39 −3.08 0.002

Model-predicted infestation generally increased with crop age, but this increase was statistically evident (P < 0.01) at high altitude, particularly in older crops (>12 months) during the rainy season (Fig 3). At low altitude, infestation levels remained close to zero across all crop ages in both seasons. At medium altitude, infestation remained relatively low, although significant seasonal differences were detected only at early crop ages approximately 6 months (Fig 3), while no significant seasonal differences were observed at later crop ages, indicating weak seasonal effect.

Fig 3. Seasonal effects on E. saccharina infestation across altitudes and crop ages; * P<0.05, ** P<0.01, *** P<0.001, ns = not significant.

Fig 3

The same altitudinal and seasonal pattern was reflected in the percentage of stalks bored (Table 4). Seasonal contrasts averaged over crop age showed no significant dry-rainy season differences in percentage stalks bored at the low altitude (estimate 0.02, P = 0.34). In contrast, the dry-rainy season contrast was negative and significant at medium altitude (estimate = −0.10, P = 0.013) and high altitude (estimate = −0.05, P = 0.004), indicating higher predicted stalk-boring incidence during the rainy season than during the dry season in these altitude classes. However, because the season X alitude X crop age interaction was significant, these averaged contrasts should be interpreted together with the age-specific predicted responses.

Table 4. Model estimated seasonal differences in the percentage sugarcane stalks bored within each altitude. Estimates represent the contrast between the dry and rain seasons averaged over crop age; negative estimates indicate higher predicted boring during the rainy season.

Altitude Estimate SE Z-ratio P – value
Low altitude 0.02 0.02 0.95 0.34
Medium altitude −0.10 0.04 −2.48 0.013
High altitude −0.05 0.02 −2.83 0.004

The boring percentage was further observed to be high in both high and medium altitudes, specifically to crop ages with approximately 12 months and above (Fig 4). On the other hand, low to average boring percentages were noted in low altitude.

Fig 4. Influence of crop age on the percentage sugarcane stalk bored caused by E. saccharina across the seasons and altitudes.

Fig 4

3.4. Extent of internal red stalk tissue damage caused by E. saccharina infestation

The likelihood ratio test (Table 5) showed that damage intensity expressed as the percentage stalk length red was highly significantly influenced by season, altitude and crop age rather than being driven by any single factor (all 𝐏<0.001).

Table 5. Likelihood ratio test results for effects of season, altitude, and crop age, and their interactions on percentage stalk length red caused by E. saccharina.

Source of variation Chi-square (x2) P – value
Season 480.1 < 0.001
Altitude 218.1 < 0.001
Crop age 109.1 < 0.001
Season*altitude 89.71 < 0.001
Season*crop age 14.92 < 0.002
Altitude*crop age 34.77 < 0.001
Season*altitude*crop age 11.52 <0.003

The post-hoc analyses (Table 6) showed that seasonal effects on internal tissue damage varied across altitudes. At low altitude, internal stalk damage was significantly higher during the dry season (𝐏<0.0072). In contrast, at high altitude, the negative seasonal estimate indicated significantly higher internal tissue damage during the rainy season (𝐏<0.04). At medium altitude, seasonal differences in the internal stalk tissue damage were not statistically significant.

Table 6. Seasonal effect on damages of internal sugarcane stalk tissues caused by E. saccharina. Estimates represent the contrast between the dry and rain seasons averaged over crop age; negative estimates indicate higher predicted boring during the rainy season.

Altitude Estimate SE Z-ratio P – value
Low altitude 0.07 0.03 2.69 0.0072
Medium altitude −0.15 0.21 −0.71 0.48
High altitude −0.06 0.03 −1.97 0.04

With respect to crop age, post-hoc analyses further indicated that the percentage of stalk length red increased with increasing crop age (Fig 5). At low altitude, internal stalk tissue damage remained predominantly within the average class across crop ages. At high altitude, the damage increased markedly with crop age, reaching significantly high levels from approximately 12 months onward in both dry and rainy seasons. In contrast, internal stalk damage tended to increase with crop age at medium altitude and significantly high infestation (P < 0.01) was observed during the dry season (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Damages of internal sugarcane stalk tissues caused by E. saccharina across crop ages in each season and altitude.

Fig 5

3.5. Determinants of sugarcane stalk part boring by E. saccharina

Type III Wald chi-square test revealed that the probability of E. saccharina boring a sugarcane stalk was strongly influenced by stalk part, season, altitude, and crop age, as indicated by highly significant main effects and the interactions (Fig 6). This confirms that infestation is not uniform within the plant across seasons and altitudes.

Fig 6. Effects of season, altitude, crop age and their interaction in different bored parts of sugarcane stalks due to E. saccharina infestation.

Fig 6

Predicted boring probabilities of E. saccharina differed among sugarcane stalk parts depending on season and altitude (Fig 7). In all season and altitude combinations, the bottom stalk part exhibited the highest predicted probability of boredom, whereas the top part consistently showed the lowest values, with the middle part intermediate. Post-hoc analysis revealed significant differences among stalk parts at medium and high altitudes in both dry and rainy seasons. At low altitude, part-specific differences were less pronounced during the rainy season, where the middle and top stalk parts did not differ significantly, although both remained less bored than the bottom part. Generally, infestation followed a clear vertical gradient along the stalk, modulated by the environmental conditions (Fig 7).

Fig 7. Model-predicted probabilities of E. saccharina boring among sugarcane stalk parts across seasons and altitudes, with bars showing estimated means ± 95% confidence intervals and brackets with asterisks indicating significant pairwise differences within each season and altitude combination.

Fig 7

3.6. Internal validation of sugarcane stalk-damage indicators

Internal validation of the damage assessment showed that Eldana saccharina larval counts per 50 stalks were positively associated with most measured sugarcane stalk-damage indicators such as percentage stalk length red, total stalk length red, percentage stalks bored, and total number of internodes bored. The strongest associations were observed between larval counts and percentage stalk length red (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (ρs) = 0.61, P < 0.001) and total red stalk length ((Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.60, P < 0.001). Positive correlations were also observed between larval counts and percentage stalks bored ((Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.56, P < 0.001) and total number of internodes bored (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.56, P < 0.001). These results indicate that higher E. saccharina larval counts were generally associated with greater internal stalk-tissue damage.

3.7. Sugarcane varietal influence on E. saccharina infestation within altitudes

In the high altitude, infestation intensity was markedly greater than in the low altitude (Fig.8). Within the high-altitude, sugarcane fields with mixed varieties, N41 and N49 exhibited the highest predicted infestation levels, although several varieties did not differ statistically from each other. In contrast, infestation at low altitude remained uniformly low, with no significant varietal differences, despite slightly higher mean counts in N36 and N25 (Fig 8). Similarly, varietal differences at medium altitude were not statistically significant, although mixed varieties and N30 showed comparatively higher numerical infestation levels.

Fig 8. E. saccharina infestation intensity across altitudes and sugarcane varieties. Bars sharing the same letter suggest a statistical insignificance in infestation intensity at P ≤ 0.05.

Fig 8

4. Discussion

The presented findings suggest that E. saccharina infestation and resultant damages were influenced by significant interactions among season, altitude, and crop age. Infestation increased with crop age at high altitude during both rainy and dry seasons across crop ages. In this study, terms such as “greater” and “lower” infestation are used to describe relative differences among altitudes, seasons, crop ages (months after planting) and varieties, rather than locally validated economic injury thresholds. More counts of E. saccharina were observed in older crops (>12 months), especially during the rainy season. Despite the generally low infestations at low altitude, the recorded internal stalk tissue damage was relatively higher particularly during the dry season. At high altitude the internal damage was greater in both dry and rainy seasons, especially in older crops. Medium-altitude sites, however, was manifested with significantly greater infestation during the dry season, especially in crops older than 11 months. Greater stalk-boring intensity was recorded at medium and high altitudes with the bottom parts of the stalk being mostly affected. Fields with mixed varieties (particularly N41 and N49) exhibited greater infestation with E. saccharina at medium and high altitudes, while N36 and N25 sugarcane varieties had greater mean counts of the borer at low altitude.

Similar observations have been reported in northern Ivory Coast [22, 45] that E. saccharina infestation increased during the rainy season in sugarcane fields. Whereas their study was primarily structured around establishing the effect of cropping seasons, the present study further incorporates altitudinal gradients and crop age to increase clarity on the interacting environmental drivers of infestation intensity. Similarly, Mulcahy et al. (2023), in evaluating push-pull technology for E. saccharina management in South Africa, documented higher incidences of the pest in highland areas compared to mid-altitude and coastal regions, underscoring the role of altitudinal variations in shaping infestation risks. The elevated infestations observed at high altitude during the rainy season in this study may be attributed to prolonged crop growth particularly in fields exceeding 12 months, which led to thicker stalks and greater biomass favoring suitable environment for the pest survival. Such structural characteristics increase oviposition opportunities and provide favorable larval refugia, thereby enhancing establishment and survival of the pest [24]. Because some surveyed fields remained in the fields for more than 12 months before harvest, older crops could have a longer exposure period to E. saccharina oviposition and larval establishment. This prolonged exposure, together with more developed stalk tissues, may partly explain the greater infestation and internal stalk tissue damage recorded in older crops [24,25]. The observed increase in infestation in older crops is also biologically plausible because E. saccharina larvae bore into sugarcane stalk tissues, where they remain protected and continue feeding internally [28, 46]. Previous studies on the biology of E. saccharina have shown that females oviposit mainly in concealed sites such as leaf sheaths to which eggs hatch within a few days, and larvae subsequently enter and tunnel within stalk tissues [47, 48]. Other studies have also documented high fecundity, repeated mating capacity, and temperature-sensitive physiological responses, all of which support the potential for population build-up under favorable field conditions [47–49]. Climate-based modelling studies further indicated that temperature and seasonal conditions can influence generation turnover and phenological variations in E. saccharina [22, 30]. Therefore, the seasonal and altitudinal differences observed in the present study are consistent with the known biology of the pest, although direct measurements of the life-cycle parameters were not conducted. The findings should therefore be interpreted as field-level infestation patterns shaped by crop age, season, altitude-related environmental conditions, and host-plant characteristics

Studies elsewhere suggested that water stress increases susceptibility of sugarcane to E. saccharina, resulting in greater larva penetration and elevated boring intensity that increase the internal stalk tissue damage [25,50]. A comparable pattern was observed in the present study, whereby significantly greater internal tissue damage occurred at low altitude during the dry season, when moisture limitation was most pronounced. Under such conditions, physiological stress likely reduces stalk resistance and facilitates larvae infestation and establishment [22]. Consistent with stem borer ecology, neonates rapidly penetrate plant tissue, where the internal environment provides a buffered microclimate that enhances survival relative to exposed conditions [15,51]. However, the greater boring intensity and internal tissue damage recorded at high and medium altitudes during the rainy season likely reflect a different pattern and mechanisms that triggers boring of canes. In these environments, increased moisture and favorable thermal conditions could have enhanced E. saccharina survival, development, and population growth [23,30], thereby increasing infestation pressure. In summary, at high-altitude, the stronger rainy-season infestation in older crops may reflect favorable moisture conditions, suitable temperature and relative humidity, and longer crop exposure [15,47,52], which together may support oviposition, larval establishment, and population build-up. By contrast, at low altitude, dry-season conditions may increase plant stress, reduce stalk vigor, and predispose can tissues to greater visible internal damage even when live infestation counts remain low. Therefore, the two patterns should not be interpreted as contradictory, rather they suggest that E. saccharina infestation intensity and stalk damage severity may be driven by different combinations of pest population pressure, crop age, environmental suitability and host-plant stress.

The positive correlations between E. saccharina larval counts and measured damage indicators support the reliability of the field damage assessment of this study. In particular, the association between larval counts and percentage stalk length red, total red stalk length, percentage stalks bored, and bored internodes indicates that the recorded damage variables were biologically consistent with infestation intensity [46,53]. However, the correlations were moderate rather than perfect, which is expected because larval counts represent cumulative feeding damage that may persist after larvae have moved, pupate, or died [39,40].

Adult E. saccharina preferentially oviposit beneath older leaves of sugarcane which are predominantly located at the bottom part of the stalk [25,30]. Because eggs deposition occurs near these bottom nodes, newly hatched larvae typically penetrate the nearest accessible internodes, resulting in a greater concentration of boring in the bottom part compared to middle and top parts [54]. The vertical distribution of leaf sheaths therefore directly influences the spatial pattern of larval establishment [16]. In the present study, sugarcane crops older than 12 months exhibited significantly higher boring intensity in the bottom third part of the stalk, consistently matching the reported pattern that E. saccharina is a pest of mature sugarcane [53]. Available reports further suggest that females E. saccharina prefer to oviposit on dead leaves which concentrate around the lower stalk parts [9,53]. Thus, the significant damage to the bottom part of the stalk may reflect on the greater suitability of older cane for E. saccharina infestation.

Altitude may influence Eldana saccharina infestation through its association with temperature, relative humidity, rainfall patterns, and crop phenology [37,55]. Although life-cycle parameters were not directly measured in the present study, previous work has shown that E. saccharina development, survival, reproduction performance, and adult physiological traits are temperature-sensitive [49,56]. For instance, the laboratory and rearing studies commonly maintain E saccharina under warm and moderately humid conditions, approximately 25–33 °C and 70–75% Relative Humidity (RH), which appear favorable for survival, development, and colony maintenance [47,49]. Additionally, successful larval rearing has been reported at 26 ± 2 °Cand 72 ± 5% RH, while other experimental work has used 25 ± 1 °C and 70 ± 10% RH [47,49]. Moreover, developmental temperature also affects adult water-balance traits, with lower developmental temperatures increasing water-loss rate and reducing adult survival time, indicating that temperature can influence pest performance beyond larval development alone [48]. Therefore, differences in temperatures and moisture conditions across altitudes may influence larval development, adult emergence, reproduction, desiccation tolerance, and seasonal population build-up [19]. In the present study, the stronger infestation response observed in older crops at high altitude during the rainy season may reflect the combine effects of crop age, seasonal moisture, and altitude-related environmental suitability. However, because direct life-cycle measurements were not conducted, this interpretation should be considered biological plausible but inferential. Future studies should quantify egg development, larval duration, pupation, adult emergence, fecundity, and generation time across altitude zones to clarify how altitude gradient modifies E. saccharina population dynamics under Tanzania sugarcane-growing conditions.

Varietal composition may have contributed to the observed variation in E. saccharina infestation across altitudes [25]. In the present study, greater infestation was associated with varieties N41 and N49, particularly in high-altitude fields. These cultivars have previously been classified as susceptible under South African production conditions [25], suggesting that varietal characteristics could partly play the predisposition factor to the elevated infestation as observed in fields at high altitude. However, the specific plant traits responsible for susceptibility were not directly measured in the present study, varietal susceptibility to stalk borers may be associated with morphological and biochemical characteristics such as stalk hardness, rind thickness, fibre content, internode structure, leaf-sheath adherence, stalk moisture, and defensible compounds, which can influence oviposition preference, larval penetration, establishment, and internal feeding success [25,57,58]. For N49, previous South African variety information identifies it as susceptible to E. saccharina and recommends that it should not be carried over in irrigated areas [25]. The variety is also characterized by very high sucrose content, moderate fiber content, and a tendency to lodge under very high tonnages, characteristics favoring E. saccharina infestation preferences [57,59]. On the other hand, the response of N41 sugarcane variety to E. saccharina infestation may depend strongly on growing environment, crop stress, and crop age [25]. Therefore, the greater infestation recorded in fields containing N41 and N49 should be interpreted as field-level association between varietal composition and infestation intensity, rather than direct proof of the specific traits responsible for susceptibility under Tanzania sugarcane-production conditions. However, because varieties were not uniformly distributed across all altitudes and reflected estate-specific planting practices, varietal effects should be interpreted cautiously and in relation to altitude, season, and crop age.

The occurrence of susceptible varieties within production areas planted with mixed varietal stands may also influence local infestation patterns. Previous work has shown that greater pest pressure can occur where susceptible varieties are grown together with resistant or tolerant varieties [22]. Whenever highly susceptible varieties are incorporated in resistant ones, the former tends to act as focal points for E. saccharina oviposition with subsequent larval build-up, thereby increasing overall infestation intensity and associated internal tissue damage. This may be particularly important in older crops, where longer exposure time allows infestation to accumulate [25]. Therefore, while the results suggest that varietal susceptibility may have contributed to the higher infestation recorded in some high-altitude fields, the observed pattern likely reflects the combine influence of varietal composition, altitude-related environmental conditions, seasons, and crop age.

The obtained results have great implications for sugarcane-producers as the crop age has been reported to have a significant influence on increasing E. saccharina infestations across the seasons and altitude. Thus, timely harvest scheduling, especially avoiding prolonged carry-over beyond approximately 11–12 months in medium and high-altitude fields should be considered when developing an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) package against the pest. As the method has been previously observed to reduce the yield losses associated with E. saccharina infestation [45,60]. Furthermore, the observed variation in E. saccharina infestation across altitudes, seasons, and crop ages has direct implications for pest surveillance and field-level management. Infestation was consistently low in low-altitude fields, whereas medium and high altitude fields showed greater stalk-boring incidence, particularly in older crops. This suggests that monitoring programmes particularly in the medium and high altitudes should prioritize older sugarcane fields, especially those aged 12 months and above. The stronger infestation response during the rainy season at high altitude further indicates that seasonal scouting should be intensified during periods when crop age and environmental conditions coincide to increase infestation risk.

Although the present study provides important insights into the infestation patterns of E. saccharina in Tanzania, its scope was limited to sugarcane-producing companies located across the selected altitude gradient translated to different altitude. These companies typically grow improved varieties reported to possess intermediate to substantial resistance to E. saccharina [25,60], and the farming is characterized by year-round irrigation service which supplements the cane abilities to resist the pest infestation due to improved crop vigor and limited water stress which buffers the pest damage [61]. Thus, a different scenario is expected in smallholder production systems where access to irrigation and fertilization are probably limiting. Because such provisions are not commonly practiced, findings from the current study should be interpreted with caution when considering the management options for E. saccharina under small holder farming systems. When extrapolating these results to the broader national context, such dynamics should be taken on-board to avoid misguiding the sugarcane growers. Based on the limitations of the current study that the pest infestation trend and dynamics under small holding farming systems was not covered, we recommend that future studies should endeavor to include farmers’ fields to enable a more representative and reliable conclusion on the infestation status of E. saccharina in Tanzania. Moreover, the current study quantified infestation status and stalk-boring incidence, it did not estimate yield losses associated with E. saccharina damage such as sucrose reduction, or monetary losses, thus, the absence of direct economic loss estimates is also a limitation of this study. Future work should combine infestation assessments with yield, cane-quality, and sucrose measurements to quantify economic injury levels under Tanzanian production conditions. Such studies would allow infestation thresholds to be linked to economic losses and would support more precise decision-making for E. saccharina management. Furthermore, although the results show clearly variation in E. saccharina infestation with altitude, season, crop age, and varietal composition, the study did not directly determine whether these patterns represent long-term typical population behavior in each landscape. This is because infestation may vary among years depending on rainfall distribution, temperature, relative humidity, crop management, harvest scheduling, variety development and pest carry-over from surrounding fields. Therefore, confirming the typicality and persistence of these patterns will require multi-year landscape-level monitoring that integrates pest abundance, crop phenology, weather conditions, varietal distribution, and management practices across repeated production cycles.

A further limitation of the study was the restriction imposed by sugarcane-producing companies on destructive stalk sampling. Although South Africa Sugarcane Research Institute (SASRI) protocol recommends sampling 100 stalks per 5 ha, only 50 stalks per block were permitted in the present study because of concerns about crop damage in commercial fields. This reduced sampling intensity may have lowered the probability of detecting very low, patchy, or highly localized E. saccharina infestations, and may therefore have contributed to underestimation of infestation in some blocks. Nevertheless, the same sampling procedure was applied consistently across altitudes, seasons, and crop age, allowing standardized comparison of infestation patterns across the surveyed estates. Future studies should also consider larger destructive samples, repeated within-season sampling methods to improve detection of spatially patchy infestations under commercial production conditions.

5. Conclusion

Eldana saccharina infestation has been demonstrated to be strongly structured by season, altitude, and crop age. The high-altitude agroecological zone consistently recorded the highest E. saccharina infestation in both seasons. Elevated infestation levels were observed during the dry season across younger than or approximately equal to 9 months old stalk, whereas in the rainy season infestation was predominantly concentrated in older crops (>12 months), showing elevated boring intensity and internal stalk tissue damage. Although infestation levels were lower at the low-altitude, internal tissue damage was comparatively high, indicating that visible pest density does not always reflect physiological injury. Damage was concentrated in the bottom stalk part, while the top sections were least affected. Mixed-variety planting, especially involving N41 and N49, increased susceptibility at high altitude. These findings suggest that management practices against E. saccharina should be tailored to specific agroecological conditions and crop growth stages rather than applying uniform interventions across all production areas.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Raw data used for the analysis process.

(PDF)

pone.0355844.s001.pdf (1.2MB, pdf)
S2 Table. Distribution of block-season observations and stalks assessed across crop age categories, altitudes and seasons.

(PDF)

pone.0355844.s002.pdf (109.2KB, pdf)
S3 Table. Distribution of sugarcane varieties across sampling sites.

(PDF)

pone.0355844.s003.pdf (2.3MB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

The management of sugarcane-producing companies in Tanzania namely; Kagera Sugar Company Limited, Tanganyika Planting Company Limited (TPC), Kilombero Sugar Company Limited, and Mtibwa Sugar Estates are acknowledged for granting the permission to use their sugarcane fields for this study and their experienced technical personnel to support the data collection phase.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript as Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by the Mwalimu Nyerere University of Agriculture and Technology (MNUAT) internal funds. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Singels A, Jackson P, Inman-Bamber G. Sugarcane. Crop physiology case histories for major crops. 2020. p. 674–713. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-819194-1.00021-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Food and Agriculture Organization. Agricultural production statistics 2010–2023. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization. 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global agro-ecological zones (GAEZ v4) – model documentation. Rome, Italy and Laxenburg, Austria: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.United Republic of Tanzania. 2016/17 Annual Agriculture Sample Survey Initial Report. Dodoma. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.United Republic of Tanzania. Hotuba ya bajeti ya Wizara ya Kilimo kwa mwaka wa fedha 2026/2027. Dodoma, Tanzania; 2026. Apr. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mbua IA, Atta-Aidoo J. Acreage supply response of sugarcane out-growers in Tanzania: A vector error correction model (VECM) approach. Cogent Food Agric. 2023;9(1). doi: 10.1080/23311932.2023.2229575 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Schultz N, Pereira W, de Albuquerque Silva P, Baldani JI, Boddey RM, Alves BJR, et al. Yield of sugarcane varieties and their sugar quality grown in different soil types and inoculated with a diazotrophic bacteria consortium. Plant Production Science. 2017;20(4):366–74. doi: 10.1080/1343943x.2017.1374869 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mehdi F, Cao Z, Zhang S, Gan Y, Cai W, Peng L, et al. Factors affecting the production of sugarcane yield and sucrose accumulation: suggested potential biological solutions. Front Plant Sci. 2024;15:1374228. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1374228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Li A-M, Chen Z-L, Liao F, Zhao Y, Qin C-X, Wang M, et al. Sugarcane borers: species, distribution, damage and management options. J Pest Sci. 2024;97(3):1171–201. doi: 10.1007/s10340-024-01750-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wilson BE, Salgado LD, Villegas JM. Optimizing chemical control for Diatraea saccharalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in sugarcane. Crop Protection. 2022;152:105843. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2021.105843 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.He-Ling L, Ji-Li W, Yong-Hao Y, Xian-Ru Z, Ren-Fu M, Yuan-Yuan G, et al. Rhythms of pheromone titer in 2 sugarcane pest species Chilo sacchariphagus and Chilo infuscatellus (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). J Insect Sci. 2025;25(5):ieaf084. doi: 10.1093/jisesa/ieaf084 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Msele KP, Munyai C, Albertse EH, Malinga LN. Baseline susceptibility of Eldana saccharina to Coragen® SC: implications for resistance monitoring and management in sugarcane. Biology and life sciences forum. 2026;54(1):8. doi: 10.3390/blsf2025054008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Peter B, Anne W, Silke S. Express-PRA for Eldana saccharina. Indonesia. 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mélanie B, Yah CO, Goebel FR. Outbreaks of the African sugarcane stalk borer Eldana saccharina Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in sugarcane plantations of the northern Ivory Coast: management strategies under implementation. Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists. 2019;30:880–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kfir R, Overholt WA, Khan ZR, Polaszek A. Biology and management of economically important lepidopteran cereal stem borers in Africa. Annu Rev Entomol. 2002;47:701–31. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.47.091201.145254 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Assefa Y, Conlong DE, van den Berg J, Mitchell A. Distribution of sugarcane stem borers and their natural enemies in small-scale farmers’ fields, adjacent margins and wetlands of Ethiopia. International Journal of Pest Management. 2010;56(3):233–41. doi: 10.1080/09670870903470223 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Assefa Y, Conlong DE, Mitchell A. Status of Eldana saccharina (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), its host plants and natural enemies in Ethiopia. Bull Entomol Res. 2006;96(5):497–504. doi: 10.1079/ber2006451 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Goebel FR, Way MJ, Gossard C. The status of Eldana saccharina (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in the South African sugar industry based on regular survey data. In: Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists’ Association, 2005. 337–46.
  • 19.Assefa Y, Van den Berg J, Mitchell A, Le Rü BP, Conlong DE. Record of Eldana saccharina Walker (Lep, Pyralidae) in inland South Africa and its genetic relationship with the coastal population. J Applied Entomology. 2009;133(6):449–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0418.2009.01390.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.King H, Conlong DE, Mitchell A. Genetic differentiation in Eldana saccharina (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): Evidence from the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I and II genes. Proc S Afr Sug Technol Ass. 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Peng Y, Jin M, Li Z, Li H, Zhang L, Yu S. Population genomics provide insights into the evolution and adaptation of the Asia corn borer. Mol Biol Evol. 2023;40(5). doi: 10.1093/molbev/msad112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Msomba BH, Ndaki PM, Joseph CO. Pest dynamics in relation to climate and varietal resistance: implications for sustainable management in Kagera sugar plantation, Tanzania. Discov Agric. 2025;3(1). doi: 10.1007/s44279-025-00336-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kleynhans E, Conlong DE, Terblanche JS. Host plant-related variation in thermal tolerance of Eldana saccharina. Entomol Exp Appl. 2014;150(2):113–22. doi: 10.1111/eea.12144 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ntirenganya E, Goftishu M, Sokame BM, Assefa Y, Nsengimana V. Pest status and dynamic of sugarcane stemborer (Eldana saccharina) in sugarcane plantations of Nyabugogo tropical Wetland, Rwanda. Int J Trop Insect Sci. 2025;46(1):395–408. doi: 10.1007/s42690-025-01690-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.South African Sugarcane Research Institute (SASRI). Controlling Eldana in the South African Sugar Industry. Mount Edgecombe, South Africa: South African Sugarcane Research Institute (SASRI). 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.B. Péné C, Coulibaly-Ouattara Y. Sugarcane yields, juice quality and stem borer (Eldana saccharina W) infestations as influenced by increasing nitrogen rates in Ferké, Northern Ivory Coast. J Agric Crop Res. 2019;7(5):72–81. doi: 10.33495/jacr_v7i5.19.115 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mulcahy M, Conlong D, Hill M. Determining the efficacy of push-pull for management of Eldana saccharina (Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in sugarcane through on-farm field trials in KwaZulu-Natal. Afr Entomol. 2023;31. doi: 10.17159/2254-8854/2023/a15654 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Crépin BP, Mélanie BB, François RG, Yah CO. Early harvesting of rainfed plant cane to prevent heavy infestations of Eldana saccharina (Lepidoptera, Pyralidae) in Ferké sugarcane plantations, Ivory Coast. JASAE. 2019;15(3):1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ramburan S. Interactions affecting the optimal harvest age of sugarcane in rainfed regions of South Africa. Field Crops Research. 2015;183:276–81. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2015.08.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kleynhans E, Barton MG, Conlong DE, Terblanche JS. Population dynamics of Eldana saccharina Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): application of a biophysical model to understand phenological variation in an agricultural pest. Bull Entomol Res. 2018;108(3):283–94. doi: 10.1017/S0007485317000712 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.United Republic of Tanzania. Mwongozo wa uzalishaji mazao kulingana na kanda za kiikolojia. Dodoma: United Republic of Tanzania. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Otte I, Detsch F, Mwangomo E, Hemp A, Appelhans T, Nauss T. Multidecadal trends and interannual variability of rainfall as observed from five lowland stations at Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. J Hydrometeorology. 2017;18(2):349–61. doi: 10.1175/JHM-D-16-0062.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Otte I, Detsch F, Mwangomo E, Hemp A, Appelhans T, Nauss T. Multidecadal Trends and Interannual Variability of Rainfall as Observed from Five Lowland Stations at Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Journal of Hydrometeorology. 2017;18(2):349–61. doi: 10.1175/jhm-d-16-0062.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kacholi DS. Population structure, harvesting rate and regeneration status of four woody species in Kimboza forest reserve, Morogoro region - Tanzania. Plants Environ. 2020;2(3):94–100. doi: 10.22271/2582-3744.2020.sep.94 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Mcmaugh T. Guidelines for surveillance for plant pests in Asia and the Pacific. 2005. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/114089/files/119.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Yamane T. Statistics, an introductory analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row. 1967. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ntirenganya E, Goftishu M, Sokame BM, Assefa Y, Nsengimana V. Pest status and dynamic of sugarcane stemborer (Eldana saccharina) in sugarcane plantations of Nyabugogo tropical Wetland, Rwanda. Int J Trop Insect Sci. 2025;46(1):395–408. doi: 10.1007/s42690-025-01690-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Li A-M, Chen Z-L, Liao F, Zhao Y, Qin C-X, Wang M, et al. Sugarcane borers: species, distribution, damage and management options. J Pest Sci. 2024;97(3):1171–201. doi: 10.1007/s10340-024-01750-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Brooks M, Bolker B, Kristensen K, Maechler M, Magnusson A, Skaug H, et al. Generalized Linear Mixed Models using Template model builder. CRAN. 2026. doi: 10.32614/CRAN.package.glmmTMB [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Brooks ME, Kristensen K, van Benthem KJ, Magnusson A, Berg CW, Nielsen A, et al. glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. R Journal. 2017;9(2):378–400. doi: 10.32614/RJ-2017-066 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hartig F. DHARMa: Residual diagnostics for hierarchical (Multi-Level / Mixed) regression models. R package (CRAN). 2024. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Fox J, Weisberg S, Price B. Companion to applied regression. CRAN: Contributed packages. 2026. doi: 10.32614/CRAN.package.car [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Lenth V, Piaskowski J. Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. CRAN. 2025. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Joshi A, Geroldinger A, Jiricka L, Senchaudhuri P, Corcoran C, Heinze G. Solutions to problems of nonexistence of parameter estimates and sparse data bias in Poisson regression. Stat Methods Med Res. 2022;31(2):253–66. doi: 10.1177/09622802211065405 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Bi Péné C. Stem Borer (<i>Eldana saccharina</i> W) Infestation Outbreak in Sugarcane Plantations of Northern Ivory Coast: Management Strategies Under Implementation. BIO. 2018;6(4):27. doi: 10.11648/j.bio.20180604.11 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Mulcahy M, Conlong D, Hill M. Determining the efficacy of push-pull for management of Eldana saccharina (Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in sugarcane through on-farm field trials in KwaZulu-Natal. Afr Entomol. 2023;31. doi: 10.17159/2254-8854/2023/a15654 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ngomane NC, Terblanche JS, Conlong DE. The Addition of Sterols and Cryoprotectants to Optimize a Diet Developed for Eldana saccharina Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Using the Carcass Milling Technique. Insects. 2022;13(4):314. doi: 10.3390/insects13040314 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kleynhans E, Conlong DE, Terblanche JS. Direct and indirect effects of development temperature on adult water balance traits of Eldana saccharina (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J Insect Physiol. 2014;68:69–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2014.06.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Walton AJ, Conlong DE. General biology ofEldana saccharina(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): A Target for the Sterile Insect Technique. Florida Entomologist. 2016;99(sp1):30–5. doi: 10.1653/024.099.sp105 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kvedaras OL, Keeping MG, Goebel F-R, Byrne MJ. Water stress augments silicon-mediated resistance of susceptible sugarcane cultivars to the stalk borer Eldana saccharina (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Bull Entomol Res. 2007;97(2):175–83. doi: 10.1017/S0007485307004853 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Way MJ, Goebel FR. Patterns of damage from Eldana saccharina (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in the South African sugar industry. Proc S Afr Sug Technol Ass. 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Rebaudo F, Faye E, Dangles O. Microclimate Data Improve Predictions of Insect Abundance Models Based on Calibrated Spatiotemporal Temperatures. Front Physiol. 2016;7:139. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2016.00139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Rutherford RS. IPM for Eldana control: An Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach for the control of the stalk borer Eldana saccharina Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). 2015. http://www.sasa.org.za/Files/BM_IPM%20for%20eldana.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kvedaras OL, Keeping MG, Goebel FR, Byrne MJ. Larval performance of the pyralid borerEldana saccharinaWalker and stalk damage in sugarcane: Influence of plant silicon, cultivar and feeding site. International Journal of Pest Management. 2007;53(3):183–94. doi: 10.1080/09670870601110956 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Assefa Y. Sugarcane stem borers in Ethiopia: ecology and phylogeography. http://hdl.handle.net/10413/3213 2006. Accessed 2026 March 29. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Conlong DE, Rutherford RS. Conventional and New Biological and Habitat Interventions for Integrated Pest Management Systems: Review and Case Studies using Eldana saccharina Walker(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Integrated Pest Management: Innovation-Development Process. Springer Netherlands. 2009. p. 241–61. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8992-3_10 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Mortazavi Malekshah SA, Naseri B, Ranjbar Aghdam H, Razmjou J, Fathi SAA, Ebadollahi A, et al. Physicochemical Properties of Sugarcane Cultivars Affected Life History and Population Growth Parameters of Sesamia nonagrioides (Lefebvre) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insects. 2022;13(10):901. doi: 10.3390/insects13100901 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Tomaz AC, Coutinho AE, Soares BO, Peternelli LA, Pereira EJG, Barbosa MHP. Assessing resistance of sugarcane varieties to sugarcane borer Diatraea saccharalis Fab. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). Bull Entomol Res. 2018;108(4):547–55. doi: 10.1017/S0007485317001183 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Dlamini NE, Franke AC, Zhou M. Sugarcane (saccharum officinarum L.) traits associated with ratooning ability. Journal of Crop Improvement. 2024;38(5):411–39. doi: 10.1080/15427528.2024.2359407 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Horton PM, Hearne JW, Apaloo J, Conlong DE, Way MJ, Uys P. Investigating strategies for minimising damage caused by the sugarcane pest Eldana saccharina. Agric Syst. 2002;74(2):271–86. doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(01)00089-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Bhatt R, Kumar R, Kashyap L, Alataway A, Dewidar AZ, Mattar MA. Growth, Yield, Quality and Insect-Pests in Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) as Affected by Differential Regimes of Irrigation and Potash under Stressed Conditions. Agronomy. 2022;12(8):1942. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12081942 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Noé Aguilar-Rivera

23 Jun 2026

Factors affecting the infestation status of African sugarcane stalk borer (Eldana saccharina Walker) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Tanzania

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Wambura,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 22 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Noé Aguilar-Rivera

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

3. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The manuscript addresses an important issue related to sugarcane pest ecology and provides valuable information on the influence of ecological parameters on Eldana saccharina infestation in Tanzania. The study is comprehensive, statistically supported, and relevant for integrated pest management strategies. However, the manuscript requires substantial language editing, clarification of methodology, improvement in statistical presentation, and refinement of discussion and interpretation before it can be considered for publication.

Reviewer #2: The study addresses a relevant pest management question with appropriate spatial scope, but methodological transparency issues, statistical reporting gaps, and temporal/citation inconsistencies prevent acceptance in current form. The core findings are potentially valuable, particularly the altitude × season × age interaction, but the manuscript requires following revisions:

Correct temporal discrepancies — Verify and correct the survey year (2024 or 2025) and ensure all citations have accurate publication years.

Revise statistical presentation:

a) Clarify equation (3) and (4) with correctly matched variables

b) Provide full model output including random effect variances

c) Add a table of post-hoc comparisons for the three-way interaction

Address sampling limitations:

a) Conduct sensitivity analysis to justify n=50

b) Discuss potential bias from estate restrictions in limitations section

Improve figure integration — Embed figures within manuscript or provide a consolidated figure file with clear captions.

Clarify contradictory findings — Expand discussion on why high-altitude rainy season (moist) and low-altitude dry season (stressed) both show elevated damage, possibly through different mechanisms.

Also do the following additions for better understandings of the study:

a) Map of study sites showing altitude zones and company locations

b) Flow diagram of sampling protocol

c) Validation data for damage assessment (e.g., correlation between red stalk length and larval counts)

d) Results section Restructuring -- Combine Results 3.1 and 3.3, as they address related infestation metrics

Reviewer #3: This manuscript provides a useful assessment of Eldana saccharina infestation across three zones in Tanzania. While the study is well-structured and offers informative data, but it lacks the broader context required for a global audience.

The scope of the study is limited to a survey of infestation status; it does not quantify the actual economic losses caused by E. saccharina in the surveyed locations. The manuscript fails to connect these findings to practical management strategies or discuss how the current data can be utilized to improve pest control in the region.

Apart from this, the manuscript would benefit significantly from the inclusion of high-quality images demonstrating the natural incidence of E. saccharina in the field.

I believe the current submission requires substantial improvements to meet the standards of PLOS ONE. The current version does not sufficiently bridge the gap between survey data and global scientific impact.

Reviewer #4: Abstract

No major concerns are evident from the structure of the abstract. However, a careful evaluation of the Materials and Methods section and the consistency between the statistical analyses and the conclusions drawn is recommended.

The methodological approach should be described more clearly, and the results should be interpreted more thoroughly to ensure that the conclusions are adequately supported. In addition, it is not sufficiently clear from the abstract how many treatments were included in the study.

Introduction

The Introduction would benefit from the inclusion of background information on sugarcane production in Tanzania. Providing information on the importance of the crop, the extent of cultivation, and its economic relevance in the country would help to better justify the study and place the results in an appropriate context.

Materials and methods

More detailed information on the study areas should be provided to facilitate the interpretation of the results. Including a Table summarizing the main characteristics of each site and/or a map showing their geographical locations would greatly improve the clarity of the manuscript and help readers better understand the environmental differences among the study zones.

I consider that it would be highly valuable to present this information in a more organized manner, so that the number of samples evaluated for each variety (currently not specified in the Materials and Methods section), as well as cutting age, altitude, company, and other relevant details, are clearly indicated. This would facilitate a better understanding and interpretation of the results.

Please note that the term crop ages does not refer to cutting ages, but rather to the number of months after planting. I recommend revising this terminology throughout the manuscript to ensure clarity and avoid misinterpretation.

Results

It is difficult to interpret the results without an integrated analysis of all the data. How many observations or determinations were performed for each crop age? In addition, how does the life cycle of the borer vary across the different altitudes, and was its potential influence over altitude on the results considered? I suggest conducting an integrated analysis of all variables and their interactions, as this would allow more robust inferences to be made and would strengthen the conclusions drawn from the study.

Furthermore, how are the varieties distributed among the sampling sites? Since different varieties may exhibit distinct responses, it would be important to clarify how varietal distribution could have influenced the observed results.

I believe that, with a more comprehensive analysis, the results could become more relevant and provide stronger scientific insights. In its current form, it is difficult to draw robust interpretations from the data. At present, the study appears to have primarily local significance, and it may be more suitable for publication in a journal with a specific focus on entomology

Reviewer #5: Factors affecting the infestation status of African sugarcane stalk borer (Eldana saccharina Walker) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Tanzania

Abstract: Ok

Keywords: Ok

Introduction: Line 56 – 58 Has the type of management used for sugarcane affected the presence and spread of pests? Line 58 – 60 Are there other sites where E. saccharina behaves in this way (documented)? In introduction, it is necessary to mention the type of agronomic management that is done to sugarcane in the area.

Materials and methods: In the description of the study area, it is suggested to include a location map so that the reader knows where the study area is located. Line 106 – 109 Do the rainy seasons coincide with the infestation seasons? It would be better to explain the relationship between E. saccharina and the environment (rainfall), relating the insect's life stages, sugarcane growth, and the amount of precipitation in each location.

Results: Line 200 - 201 There is a very strong relationship between climate and sugarcane production. Line 212-214 Do the rainfall values match the insect's environmental requirements? The results are well described, but it is difficult to understand the population variations of the insect versus the environmental conditions, since it is not known whether the damage caused by the insect to the plant is normal.

Discussion: Line 301 – 311 What quantity is considered "high infestation" or "low infestation"? Are there any international records for economic damage thresholds? If so, please mention them. Line 312 – 316 Are there no more reports? It is one of the most important phytosanitary problems on the African continent; are there no further studies on the insect's biological behavior? Line 312 How long does the sugarcane last before the harvest? More than 12 months? Line 346 – 348 What characteristics do these varieties have that make them more susceptible? Line 357 How many months are early harvests? Further research is needed on the insect's characteristics. The description of the insect's behavior at different altitudes, ages, etc., is well described in the manuscript, but it remains to be determined whether this behavior is typical in the landscapes studied.

Conclusion: It's good, but it's very short

Reference: Ok

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Rajeev Kumar

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Danish Ibrar

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes:  LUIS ALBERTO OLVERA-VARGAS

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-26-23049.pdf

pone.0355844.s004.pdf (2.3MB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2026 Aug 31;21(8):e0355844. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0355844.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


14 Jul 2026

The Academic Editor and Reviewers

PLOS ONE

Dear academic editor and reviewers

RE: AUTHOR’S RESPONSES TO THE RAISED EDITOR AND REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS

The authors for the manuscript titled “Factors affecting the infestation status of African sugarcane stalk borer (Eldana saccharina Walker) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Tanzania” sincerely thank the reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive comments that have helped us improve the manuscript. The following are the authors responses to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments;

Changes to financial disclosure

I would like to make a slight change to the financial disclosure; The statement should now read as follows “This research was supported by the Mwalimu Nyerere University of Agriculture and Technology (MNUAT) internal funds. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Abstract

The comments have helped us improve the abstract and clarity of the methodological description. The authors have revised the abstract and relevant sections of the manuscript accordingly. The point-by-point responses are provided below.

The abstract does not clearly describe the methodological approach, and the consistency between the statistical analyses and the conclusions should be improved.

Response: The abstract has been revised to state more clearly that the study was a stratified multistage cross-sectional survey. We also specified that the study was conducted in major sugarcane areas of Tanzania across three altitude classes representing low, medium, and high altitudes. The authors also stated that a total of 711 blocks were surveyed, and that the infestation was analyzed using generalized linear mixed models with likelihood ratio tests and Type III Wald X^2 tests. We also revised the concluding statements to ensure that they reflect the observed statistical associations and do not overstate inference.

It is not sufficiently clear from the abstract how many treatments were included in the study

Response: The authors do appreciate this observation. Because this study was observational rather than experimental, no imposed treatments were applied. We have clarified this by describing the study as a field survey conducted across defined explanatory factors namely season, altitude, crop age, and sugarcane variety, rather than treatments.

The term “crop age” is commonly used for cutting ages, not for different months of growth

Response: This also is an important comment. In this study, “crop age” referred to the chronological age of the standing cane in months at the time of sampling, rather than cutting or harvest age. To avoid ambiguity, we retained the term but clarified it explicitly in the manuscript as “crop age (months at sampling)” in the materials and methods section and when appropriate in the results

In the phrase “E. saccharina infestation was assessed using larvae per 50 stalks alongside other damage parameters”, how many larvae were assessed?

Response: The authors agree that this wording was unclear. No fixed Number of larvae was assumed. Rather, infestation was quantified as the total number of E. saccharina larvae recovered from 50 randomly sampled stalks within each sampled block. The sentence has been revised accordingly in the abstract.

Introduction

Reviewer 4 comment:

The introduction would benefit from the inclusion of background information on sugarcane production in Tanzania. Providing information on the importance of the crop, the extent of cultivation, and its economic relevance in the country would help to better justify the study and place the results in an appropriate context

Response: The authors agree that the introduction required more Tanzania-specific background to better justify the study. We have therefore revised the introduction to include brief information on the importance of sugarcane in Tanzania, its extent of cultivation, and its economic relevance. These additions strengthen the study background and better situate the significance of E. saccharina in the Tanzania sugarcane production systems.

Reviewer 5 comment

Line 56 – 58 Has the type of management used for sugarcane affected the presence and spread of pests?

Response: Thank you for this important comment. The statement has been revised to acknowledge that agronomic management can influence E. saccharina infestation. Specifically, the revised text now clarifies that excessive nitrogen application may increase infestation by improving host suitability for larval development, particularly under moisture-stressed conditions, whereas moisture-conserving practices may reduce infestation by maintaining crop vigor and reducing plant stress. The statement has also been expanded to mention other relevant management factors including varietal resistance, carry-over crop management, residue and stubble handling, and habitat-management practices. These revisions have been incorporated in the introduction.

Line 58 – 60 Are there other sites where E. saccharina behaves in this way (documented)? In introduction, it is necessary to mention the type of agronomic management that is done to sugarcane in the area.

Response: The authors agree that the original wording may have overgeneralized the evidence. Our intention was to indicate that seasonal infestation patterns of Eldana saccharina may vary across agroecological settings. We have therefore revised the sentence to avoid implying that this rainy-season pattern is widely documented across multiple sites unless specifically supported by published evidence. The revised text now presents this as a context-dependent pattern rather than a broad generalization.

Materials and methods

Reviewer 2 comments:

Correct temporal discrepancies — Verify and correct the survey year (2024 or 2025) and ensure all citations have accurate publication years.

Response: The manuscript has been carefully checked and the survey year has been corrected throughout the text to ensure consistency. All in-text citations and reference-list entries have also been reviewed to verify that publication years are accurate and consistent between the manuscript text and the reference section. These corrections have been incorporated into the revised manuscript

Add a flow diagram of sampling protocol

Response: A flow diagram illustrating the sampling protocol has been included to improve clarity and facilitate understanding of the study design, block selection, and within-block sampling process.

Clarify equation (3) and (4) with correctly matched variables

Response: Equation 3 and 4 and their accompanying definitions have been revised to ensure that the modeled parameters correctly match the corresponding response variables. Specifically, equation 3 now refers to the expected percentage of stalk length reddened, whereas equation 4 refers to the expected proportion of internodes bored.

Reviewer 4 comments:

I consider that it would be highly valuable to present this information in a more organized manner, so that the number of samples evaluated for each variety (currently not specified in the Materials and Methods section), as well as cutting age, altitude, company, and other relevant details, are clearly indicated. This would facilitate a better understanding and interpretation of the results.

Response: The materials and methods section has been revised to provide more detailed information on the study areas. In addition, table summarizing the main characteristics of each study site and a map showing their geographical locations have been included to improve clarity and to assist readers in understanding the environmental differences among the study zones.

I consider that it would be highly valuable to present this information in a more organized manner, so that the number of samples evaluated for each variety (currently not specified in the Materials and Methods section), as well as cutting age, altitude, company, and other relevant details, are clearly indicated. This would facilitate a better understanding and interpretation of the results.

Response: The sampling and sampling design section has been revised to clarify the observational nature of the study and the block-base sampling framework. The revised text now states more explicitly that sugarcane blocks were the primary sampling units and that blocks were randomly selected within each estate to ensure spatial coverage. Its also clarifies that crop age and sugarcane variety were not used as pre-stratification criteria, but were recorded as characteristics of the randomly selected commercial blocks during field assessment. This explains why the distribution of crop ages and varieties was not uniform across altitude classes. These revisions improve transparency of the sampling framework and facilitate interpretation of the results.

Line 106 – 109 Do the rainy seasons coincide with the infestation seasons? It would be better to explain the relationship between E. saccharina and the environment (rainfall), relating the insect's life stages, sugarcane growth, and the amount of precipitation in each location.

Response: The paragraph has been revised to clarify that the rainy and dry seasons used in the survey were defined according to the local rainfall patterns of each altitude classes and were not assumed a priori to coincide with peak infestation periods. The revised text now explains that precipitation influences sugarcane growth, crop moisture status, and plant stress, which in turn affect host suitability for E. saccharina oviposition, larval establishment, survival, and internal stalk damage. It also clarifies that rainfall amount and seasonal distribution differ among locations and locally defined rainy and dry periods were therefore used to compare infestation patterns across the three study zones.

Results

Reviewer 1 comments

Why variety is not included as a fixed factor in the model and likelihood ratio test table?

Response: The inclusion of sugarcane variety in the main generalized linear mixed model was initially explored alongside season, altitude, crop age, and their interactions. However, the variety variable was highly unbalanced across the study sites, with several varieties occurring only within a single altitude zone or represented by very few observations. As a result, including variety in the full ecological model produced rank-deficient design matrices, convergence problems, and unstable parameter estimates, which reduced the reliability of statistical inference. Therefore, variety was excluded to maintain model stability and interpretability. The influence of sugarcane variety was therefore assessed separately using a nested analytical framework, where varieties were compared within their respective altitude zones.

This approach provided a more appropriate ecological description of varietal differences while avoiding confounding between variety and altitude due to the unbalanced distribution of varieties across attitudes. The methods and results sections have been revised to clarify this analytical decision

Table 5. Why seasonal

Table 5. Why was the contrast column was included while it has the same information?

Response: The table was intended to present the seasonal contrast between dry and rain seasons within each altitude class. The caption has been revised to make this clearer, and the term “across crop ages” has been changed to “averaged over crop age” because crop age was included in the model but not displayed as a separate grouping factor in the table. The “contrast” column has also been removed because all rows represented the same comparison, dry season-rain season. The information is now provided in the table caption to avoid redundancy.

Reviewer 2 comments

Results section Restructuring -- Combine Results 3.1 and 3.3, as they address related infestation metrics.

Response: The infestation count and percentage stalk-bored results have been merged into a single subsection because both represent closely related measures of stalk-boring incidence. The revised section now reports the likelihood ratio test results once, followed by post-hoc and predicted-response outputs to explain the significant season X altitude X crop age interaction. The percentage stalk-bored results were used to show how the observed infestation pattern translated into visible stalk damage across altitude class. The seasonal contrast has also been clarified as dry season-rainy season, with negative estimates indicating higher predicted boring during the rainy season.

Provide full model output including random effect variances

Response: Full model output has now been added to the results section. In addition to the likelihood-ratio test table, the revised results now include the negative-binomial dispersion parameter, convergence information, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion, Random effect variance, and standard deviation.

Conduct sensitivity analysis to justify n=50

Response: A count-based sensitivity analysis has now been added to justify the 50-stalk sampling protocol. Because the main response variable was Eldana saccharina larval count per 50 stalks, the sensitivity analysis was conducted on the count scale using the fitted negative binomial distribution. The analysis compared detection probability and expected relative variability under the observe 50-stalk and a hypothetical 100-stalk sampling protocols. The results showed that 50-stalk sampling was less sensitive when expected infestation was very low, particularly below 1-2 individuals per 50 stalks. However, detection probability increased rapidly with expected count and 93% at 5 individuals per 50 stalks, 97.9% at 10 individuals per 50 stalks, and 99.5% at 20 individuals per 50 stalks. The manuscript has therefore been revised to clarify that the 50-stalk sampling protocol was adequate for detecting moderate to high infestation levels and for comparing field-level patterns among altitudes, seasons, and crop ages, while acknowledging possible under-detection of very low or highly localized infestation.

Validation data for damage assessment (e.g., correlation between red stalk length and larval counts

Response: The authors now included an internal validation analysis of the damage assessment. Spearman’s rank correlation was used to test the association between E. saccharina larval counts per 50 stalks and measured stalk damage indicators. The analysis indicated positive and significant correlations between larval counts and percentage stalk length red (ρs = 0.61, P < 0.001), total red stalk length (ρs = 0.6, P < 0.001), percentage stalks bored (ρs = 0.56, P < 0.001), and total number of bored internodes (ρs = 0.56, P < 0.001). These findings support the biological consistency of the damage assessment. The manuscript has been revised to include this analysis and clarify that damage indicators represent cumulative feeding injury, while larval counts represent infestation detected at the time of sampling.

Reviewer 3 comments

This manuscript provides a useful assessment of Eldana saccharina infestation across three zones in Tanzania. While the study is well-structured and offers informative data, but it lacks the broader context required for a global audience. The scope of the study is limited to a survey of infestation status; it does not quantify the actual economic losses caused by E. saccharina in the surveyed locations. The manuscript fails to connect these findings to practical management strategies or discuss how the current data can be utilized to improve pest control in the region. Apart from this, the manuscript would benefit significantly from the inclusion of high-quality images demonstrating the natural incidence of E. saccharina in the field.

Response: The manuscript has been revised to provide broader context on the importance of E. saccharina infestation in sugarcane production systems and clarify the relevance of the Tanzanian survey for pest surveillance and regional management planning. Additional text has been included in the discussion to explain how the observed variation across altitudes, seasons, and crop ages can guide practical monitoring, particularly by prioritizi

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0355844.s005.docx (31.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Noé Aguilar-Rivera

28 Jul 2026

<p>Factors affecting the infestation status of African sugarcane stalk borer (Eldana saccharina  Walker) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in Tanzania

PONE-D-26-23049R1

Dear Dr. Hamis Daniel Wambura

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Noé Aguilar-Rivera

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Acceptance letter

Noé Aguilar-Rivera

PONE-D-26-23049R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Wambura,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS One and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS One Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Noé Aguilar-Rivera

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Raw data used for the analysis process.

    (PDF)

    pone.0355844.s001.pdf (1.2MB, pdf)
    S2 Table. Distribution of block-season observations and stalks assessed across crop age categories, altitudes and seasons.

    (PDF)

    pone.0355844.s002.pdf (109.2KB, pdf)
    S3 Table. Distribution of sugarcane varieties across sampling sites.

    (PDF)

    pone.0355844.s003.pdf (2.3MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-26-23049.pdf

    pone.0355844.s004.pdf (2.3MB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0355844.s005.docx (31.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript as Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES