Biology and morphometrics of the sugarcane whitefly, Aleurolobus barodensis maskell, under laboratory conditions

Besides direct damage through phloem feeding, whiteflies excrete honeydew that promotes the growth of sooty mould, thereby reducing photosynthetic efficiency and market quality of crops (Dodiya et al., 2024) [11] . Whitefly (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) are significant sap-sucking pest of sugarcane, with Aleurolobus barodensis Maskell standing out as the most economically devastating species. Historically, A. barodensis has caused severe yield limiting outbreaks across Indian states, including notable epidemics in Gujarat and Maharashtra (David, 1992) [5] . Throughout their egg, nymph and adult life cycle, the sap-sucking nymphs cause the most damage by turning leaves yellow or pinkish. This feeding severely stunts early crop growth and degrades juice quality later in the season (Minaei et al., 2010) [23] . Understanding the biology, seasonal incidence and population dynamics of insect pests is fundamental for developing effective and sustainable integrated pest management (IPM) strategies (Dodiya et al., 2025) [12] . Effective management of A. barodensis requires localized biological data, which is currently limited. Therefore, this study details the sugarcane whitefly's biology and life history to bridge this knowledge gap, providing critical baseline data to predict outbreaks and mitigate extensive crop damage.

Materials and Methods

In order to study the life history of sugarcane whitefly, a laboratory trial was carried out at Biocontrol laboratory, Department of Entomology, NMCA, NAU, Navsari during kharif, 2025 at 29.71 ± 3.65℃ temperature and 43.60 ± 7.43 per cent relative humidity. The morphometric parameters of all life stages of A. barodensis were studied under a cilika trinocular stereo zoom microscope fitted with a tablet integrated digital head (Maker: Medprime; Version: MPT/MKT/2025). The obtained data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics.

Test insect rearing technique

Sugarcane whitefly was reared in the laboratory condition for the present investigation as per the methodology suggested by Kunjadia (1988) [20] and Askarianzadeh and Minaeimoghadam (2018) [2] with slight modifications. Sugarcane crop, variety Co-86032 was raised in pots as well as micro plot (12 m × 4 m) behind Biocontrol laboratory for the present investigation. Initial culture of sugarcane whitefly was obtained by collecting adults from the infested field with the help of aspirator and also damaged leaves were brought to biocontrol laboratory in perforated polyethene bags and released on potted sugarcane plants. Selected leaf of potted plant was covered with polythene bag to prevent escape of released insects. To provide aeration, pin holes were made in the polythene bag covers. After about 24 hours, bags with insect were removed and eggs laid on leaves were counted based on size of egg strip. Freshly laid eggs on the leaves of potted plants were marked by drawing circle around them and they were observed for the study of life history of A. barodensis. Thus, all the pots prepared were kept behind Biocontrol laboratory and utilized for further investigation.

Egg

Freshly laid eggs were examined daily at room temperature to monitor changes in their shape, size, and color. A counted number of these eggs were continuously observed until a nymph emerged, which marked a successful hatch. This daily monitoring allowed for the calculation of the average incubation period, while the hatching percentage was determined by calculating the ratio of successfully hatched eggs to the total number of eggs initially kept under observation.

Total number of eggs observed × 100

Nymph

To determine the nymphal instars of A. barodensis, daily microscopic observations were conducted against a light source from egg hatching until pupation. Moulting between stages was confirmed by the presence of shed exuviae on the leaves, allowing researchers to accurately record the shape, size, and color of each specific instar.

Puparium (Plural: Puparia)

The morphology specifically the shape, size, and color of A. barodensis puparia was examined. Additionally, the pupal period was determined by measuring the duration from the initial formation of the puparium until the successful emergence of the adult.

Adult

Adults emerged under the laboratory condition were observed under microscope to study their shape, size, colour and the sex difference.

Sex ratio

To determine the sex ratio, 1,000 adult sugarcane whiteflies were collected from the micro plot using an aspirator and examined under a microscope. The specimens were differentiated by sex, with females specifically identified by the presence of an ovipositor.

Oviposition

To study the oviposition period, infested leaves with puparia were maintained in water filled glass jars (20 × 15 cm), supported by an Expanded Polystyrene Sheet (EPS). The leaf ends were submerged through slits sealed with cotton to prevent insects from entering the water, and the jars were secured with muslin cloth. Freshly emerged male and female pairs were isolated daily into separate jars and provided with a fresh sugarcane leaf for feeding and egglaying. The reproductive timeline was recorded in three phases: pre-oviposition (adult emergence to the first egg laid), oviposition (the duration of active egg laying), and post-oviposition (the cessation of egg laying until the female's death).

Fecundity

To determine fecundity, 30 set of male and female of A. barodensis collected from the micro plot were isolated in glass jars (20 × 15 cm). The eggs laid by each mated female were counted daily during the morning hours until her death, with the total number of eggs produced over her entire lifespan recorded as her overall fecundity.

Adult longevity

Longevity of male and female were calculated separately from the date of emergence till the death of adult.

Results

Eggs

Female sugarcane whiteflies laid eggs exclusively on the lower leaf lamina, strictly avoiding the midrib and sheath. The eggs are typically laid in single and occasionally double lines, with the highest density found on the middle and distal portions of the leaf. When freshly laid, the eggs were creamy yellow, conical, and had a round base with a stalk at one end. After a few hours, they turned light brown to grey, eventually darkening to a shiny black just before hatching (Photo 1). The eggs measured 0.21 to 0.32 mm in length (average 0.26 ± 0.03 mm) and 0.11 to 0.21 mm in breadth (average 0.16 ± 0.03 mm) (Table 1). The incubation period (Table 2) averaged 8.97 ± 0.93 days, with an overall range of 8 to 11 days. The hatching percentage of A. barodensis eggs ranged from 70 to 100 per cent (mean = 92 ± 8.47%).

Nymph

During the study of its biological attributes, the nymph of A. barodensis underwent two moults, resulting in three nymphal instars. The moulting was determined by the presence of exuviae. Eggs hatched via longitudinal rupture of the chorion, releasing tiny, pale-yellow first instar nymphs (crawlers) equipped with three pairs of legs. These active nymphs migrated a few centimetres across the leaf to locate suitable feeding sites. Upon settling, their colour changed to shiny black, and they became sessile, remaining permanently attached throughout subsequent developmental stages until adult emergence (Photo 1). First instar nymphs measured 0.30-0.40 mm (mean = 0.35 ± 0.03 mm) in length and 0.16-0.23 mm (mean = 0.20 ± 0.02 mm) in breadth (Table 1). Duration of first instar nymph varied from 2 to 5 days with mean duration of 3.23 ± 1.04 days (Table 2). Freshly moulted second instar nymphs were larger and more flattened than first instars, featuring a gently convex dorsal surface. Their initial light black coloration gradually darkened with maturity, accompanied by the secretion of a white, waxy substance that accumulated along the body margins to form a prominent, characteristic smoky white fringe (Photo 1). The morphometric parameters of second instar A. barodensis nymphs (Table 1) ranged from 0.59 to 0.75 mm in length (mean: 0.67 ± 0.05 mm) and 0.27 to 0.35 mm in breadth (mean: 0.32 ± 0.03 mm). Data presented in Table 2 revealed that the duration of the second instar nymph ranged from 3 to 7 days, with an average developmental period of 4.80 ± 1.03 days. The third instar nymph resembled the second instar in overall morphology but was distinguishably larger, exhibiting an oval to elongated oval body shape. Freshly moulted nymphs appeared dark in coloration and were surrounded by a welldeveloped, highly conspicuous white waxy marginal fringe (Photo 1). The morphometric parameters of third instar A. barodensis nymphs (Table 1) ranged from 1.30 to 1.62 mm in length (mean: 1.45 ± 0.09 mm) and 0.56 to 0.70 mm in breadth (mean: 0.62 ± 0.04 mm). The third instar duration ranged from 4 to 7 days. The total nymphal developmental period of the sugarcane whitefly ranged from 11 to 17 days, with a mean duration of 13.23 ± 1.65 days (Table 2).

Puparium

Freshly formed puparia were oval, ash coloured, and morphologically identical to the final nymphal instar except for an increase in size. Over several days, they gradually darkened to black, developed a covering of white waxy powder across the body, and formed a distinct marginal waxy fringe (Photo 1). The morphometric data (Table 1) indicated that pupae ranged from 2.36 to 2.97 mm in length (mean: 2.28 ± 0.23 mm) and 0.99 to 1.29 mm in breadth (mean: 0.99 ± 0.15 mm). The puparium period (Table 2) ranged from 10 to 13 days, with a mean duration of 11.60 ± 1.07 days.

Adult

Newly emerged A. barodensis adults exhibited weak flight capability and were characterized by a pale yellow head, red eyes, and a pale yellow abdomen that broadened medially before tapering posteriorly. The wings were smoky white, occasionally mottled with dark spots. Pronounced sexual dimorphism was observed, females were noticeably larger with a broader abdomen terminating in a needle-like ovipositor, whereas males possessed a spindle-shaped abdomen equipped with terminal, pincer-like claspers for copulation. Both nymphs and adults utilize piercing-sucking stylet mouthparts to extract phloem sap from host plant tissues (Photo 1). The morphometrics of adult A. barodensis (Table 1) demonstrate distinct sexual size dimorphism, with females being significantly larger than males. Female body length ranged from 1.64 to 2.12 mm (mean: 1.92 ± 0.13 mm), with an abdominal breadth of 0.65 to 0.89 mm (mean: 0.75 ± 0.07 mm). Conversely, adult males exhibited smaller dimensions, measuring 1.10 to 1.47 mm in body length (mean: 1.31 ± 0.10 mm) and 0.21 to 0.45 mm in abdominal breadth (mean: 0.30 ± 0.08 mm). Adult emergence was characterized by a 'T' shaped exit slit on the puparium dorsum, marking the completion of the developmental period. Adult emergence ranged from 76.92 to 95.65 per cent, with a mean rate of 89.81 ± 4.12 per cent (Table 2). Female fecundity ranged from 31 to 92 eggs, with a mean capacity of 65.77 ± 15.22 eggs (Table 2).

Sex ratio

Observations on 1,000 laboratory reared adults (235 males, 765 females) demonstrated a female bias (Table 2), with the male to female sex ratio ranging from 1:2.22 to 1:5.00 (mean: 1:3.46).

Oviposition period

The pre-oviposition, oviposition, and post-oviposition periods lasted 2 to 5 hours (mean: 2.90 ± 1.06 hours), 31 to 38 hours (mean: 34.36 ± 1.83 hours), and 4 to 7 days (mean: 5.37 ± 1.13 days), respectively (Table 2).

Adult longevity

Adult survival ranged from 38 to 46 hours for females (mean: 42.63 ± 2.27 hours) compared to 25 to 30 hours for males (mean: 26.77 ± 1.52 hours), demonstrating significantly greater longevity in A. barodensis females (Table 2).

Total Life Cycle

The data presented in Table 2 indicate that the total lifespan of females ranged from 32.58 to 39.83 days (mean: 35.58 ± 2.07 days), whereas male lifespan varied from 31.13 to 39.04 days (mean: 34.92 ± 2.05 days).

Discussion

The observed oviposition behavior laying eggs in single linear arrangements along the leaf lamina with higher densities on middle and distal sections corroborates earlier reports (Kunjadia, 1988;Thumar & Kapadia, 1995;Bhatti et al., 2025;Likhith et al., 2025) [20, ] . Egg morphometrics (mean: 0.21 ± 0.02 × 0.12 ± 0.02 mm) also conform to previous studies on sugarcane whitefly (Kunjadia, 1988;

Charernsom & Suasa-ard, 1989; Likhith et al., 2025) [20, ] , though notably smaller than A. rugioperculatus (0.3426 ± 0.0028 × 0.1720 ± 0.0034 mm; Elango et al., 2026), with variations likely driven by regional agro-climatic factors.

The observed incubation period aligns with Kunjadia, 1988 [20] [2] (6.85 ± 0.92 days) and Bhatti et al., 2025 (7.33 ± 1.03 days), but diverging from the 15-17 days period recorded by Inayatullah (1984). Furthermore, egg hatchability corresponded closely with Kunjadia, 1988 [20] (95.75%) and Likhith et al., 2025 (95.00%), with minor inter study discrepancies attributable to meteorological conditions. Documentation of three nymphal instars agrees with extensive prior research (Inayatullah, 1984 [, 20, 2, ] , contrasting only with Charernsom and Suasaard (1989), who reported four instars for A. barodensis a deviation likely influenced by environmental differences. Morphometrically, first instar nymphs corroborated Kunjadia, 1988 [20] (0.34 ± 0.03 × ~0.18 mm) and Likhith et al., 2025 (0.36 ± 0.01 × ~0.18 mm), partially conformed to the larger dimensions of Elango et al., 2026 (0.41 ± 0.007 × 0.26 ± 0.05 mm), and diverged from the smaller morphometrics of Charernsom and Suasa-ard, 1989 (0.29 ± 0.01 × 0.15 ± 0.01 mm). The observed shiny black coloration and mean first instar duration aligned with Kunjadia, 1988 [20] (2.43 ± 1.04 days) and Thumar and Kapadia, 1995 (2.53 ± 0.64 days), but differed from durations reported by Charernsom and Suasa-ard, 1989 (1.61 ± 0.67 days), Likhith et al., 2025 (4.78 ± 0.44 days), and Bhatti et al., 2025 (5.27 ± 1.19 days). Second instar morphometrics partially confirmed findings by Kunjadia, 1988 [20] (length: 0.48-0.63 mm, mean: 0.57 ± 0.06 mm; breadth: 0.30 ± 0.03 mm) and Likhith et al., 2025 (length: 0.44-0.60 mm, mean: 0.54 ± 0.05 mm; breadth: 0.30 ± 0.03 mm), but contrasted with smaller dimensions recorded by Charernsom and Suasa-ard, 1989 (0.52 ± 0.04 × 0.26 ± 0.01 mm) and larger measurements of A. rugioperculatus (0.83 ± 0.08 × 0.38 ± 0.04 mm; Suriya et al., 2023). Second instar duration matched periods documented by Inayatullah, 1984 (4-6 days), Kunjadia, 1988 [20] (3-5 days), Thumar and Kapadia, 1995 barodensis measurements by Kunjadia, 1988 [20] (length: 1.14-1.23 mm, mean: 1.20 ± 0.03 mm; breadth: 0.57-0.66 mm, mean: 0.61 ± 0.03 mm) and Likhith et al., 2025 (length: 1.16-1.24 mm, mean: 1.21 ± 0.02 mm; breadth: 0.58-0.71 mm, mean: 0.62 ± 0.03 mm), while exceeding smaller dimensions reported by Charernsom and Suasa-ard, 1989 (0.98 ± 0.12 × 0.47 ± 0.06 mm). Third instar duration corresponded closely with Inayatullah, 1984 (5-6 days), Charernsom and Suasa-ard, 1989 (5.77 ± 1.13 days), and Bhatti et al., 2025 (5.83 ± 1.68 days), partially conforming to shorter periods observed by Kunjadia, 1988 [20] 1988 [20] (10.85 ± 1.34 days) and Thumar and Kapadia, 1995 (11. Kunjadia (1988) [20] , Charernsom and Suasa-ard (1989), and Likhith et al. (2025), who observed mean lengths of 2.04 ± 0.39, 1.9 ± 0.33, and 2.03 ± 0.28 mm, alongside mean breadths of 0.98 ± 0.19, 0.88 ± 0.15, and 0.95 ± 0.23 mm, respectively. The puparium period strongly aligns with Inayatullah, 1984 (10-12 days) and Likhith et al., 2025 (10-12 days; mean: 11.05 ± 0.79 days), partially conforms to Kunjadia, 1988 [20] (10.67 ± 0.98 days) and Thumar and Kapadia, 1995 (10.80 ± 0.93 days), but diverges from Bhatti et al. (2025), who reported a shorter average of 9.23 ± 1.43 days (range: 8-13 days). Present adult morphometrics differ slightly from Kunjadia (1988) [20] and Likhith et al. (2025), who recorded smaller mean body lengths for female A. barodensis (1.71 ± 0.12 mm and 1.79 ± 0.18 mm, respectively) and males (1.18 ± 0.09 mm and 1.24 ± 0.08 mm, respectively), alongside narrower abdominal breadths for females (0.66 ± 0.04 mm and 0.64 ± 0.06 mm) and males (0.26 ± 0.03 mm and 0.27 ± 0.05 mm). The observed male to female sex ratio aligns with Thumar and Kapadia, 1995 (1:3.08 for A. barodensis), showing a similar female biased trend to Gurmail and Naveen, 2023 (1:2.47 for B. tabaci), but contrasting with the higher female predominance recorded for A. barodensis by Kunjadia, 1988 [20] (1:4.75). Present findings differed from the notably shorter mean pre-oviposition periods of Kunjadia, 1988) [20] (1.15 ± 0.13 hours), Thumar and Kapadia, 1995 (1.13 ± 0.09 hours), and Likhith et al., 2025 (1.18 ± 0.17 hours); active oviposition aligned closely with Likhith et al., 2025 (1.43 ± 0.29 days), but deviated from the shorter durations of Kunjadia, 1988 [20] (29.27 ± 0.80 hours) and Thumar and Kapadia, 1995 (29 ± 0.21 hours); and post-oviposition diverged from the shorter mean periods recorded by Kunjadia, 1988 [20] (2.20 ± 0.25 hours), Thumar and Kapadia, 1995 [24] for N. andropogonis (mean: 61.80 eggs/female), but diverges from lower mean rates documented for A. barodensis by Inayatullah, 1984 (54.00 ± 15.00 eggs/female), Kunjadia, 1988 [20] (51.00 ± 9.90), Thumar and Kapadia, 1995 (50.08 ± 10.33), and Likhith et al., 2025 (52.25 ± 8.20). Adult longevity conforms closely to Kunjadia (1988) [20] , who recorded mean lifespans of 28.6 ± 2.20 hours (range: 26-35 hours) for males and 32.62 ± 0.65 hours (range: 31.25-34.00 hours) for females, but diverges sharply from Askarianzadeh and Minaeimoghadam (2018) [2] , Bhatti et al. (2025), and Likhith et al. (2025), who documented substantially longer lifespans for the sugarcane whitefly at 4.15 ± 0.35, 3.00 ± 0.77, and 3.47 ± 0.42 days for males, and 6.00 ± 0.66, 3.73 ± 1.14, and 4.81 ± 0.39 days for females, respectively. Finally, comparable total lifespans were reported by Likhith et al. (2025) for A. barodensis, averaging 37.59 ± 2.28 days for females and 36.24 ± 2.20 days for males, which aligns with the mean egg to adult developmental period of 32.17 ± 3.35 days documented by Thumar and Kapadia (1995).

Conclusion

The laboratory evaluation of Aleurolobus barodensis Maskell reveals critical biological traits that contribute to its severity as a specialized pest of sugarcane. Its life cycle spanning approximately 35 days from egg to adult death is strongly reinforced by a female-biased sex ratio (1:3.46), high egg hatchability (92%), and substantial female fecundity (averaging ~66 eggs). Morphologically, the development of a prominent white waxy fringe from the second nymphal instar onward, culminating in a waxy puparium, provides the insect with significant physical protection against environmental stressors and conventional contact insecticides.

Acknowledgement

Acknowledgement:The authors gratefully acknowledge Navsari Agricultural University for providing the financial support required to conduct this research.

References

1. Anonymous. UPAg, Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India [Internet]. 2025 [cited 2026 Feb 22]. Available from: https://www.upag.gov.in/
2. Askarianzadeh A, Minaeimoghadam M. Biology, natural enemies and damage of the sugarcane whitefly Neomaskellia andropogonis (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) in Iran. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science. 2018;38(4):381-386. DOI:10.1017/S1742758418000164.
3. Bhatti IB, Bajkani JK, Randhawa NK, Kachelo GA, Mastoi MA, Farhan U. Biology and morphology of different stages of sugarcane whitefly Aleurolobus barodensis Mask in Sindh. Planta Animalia. 2025;4(2):111-115. DOI:10.71454/PA.004.02.0103.
4. Charernsom K, Suasa-ard W. Sugarcane whitefly, Aleurolobus barodensis Maskell, and its parasites in Thailand. In: Proceedings of the XX Congress of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists; 1989. p. 769-802.
5. David AK. The sugarcane whitefly, Aleurolobus barodensis (Maskell). In: David BV, editor. Pest Management and Pesticides: Indian Scenario. Madras: Namrutha Publications; 1992. p. 34-50.
6. David H, Nandagopal V. Pests of sugarcane distribution, symptomatology, attack and identification. In: David H, Easwaramoorthy S, Jayanthi R, editors. Sugarcane Entomology in India. Coimbatore: Sugarcane Breeding Institute; 1986. p. 1-29.
7. Del Milagro Jorrat M, Araujo PZ, Mele FD. Sugarcane water footprint in the province of Tucumán, Argentina: comparison between different management practices. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;188:521-529. DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.242.
8. Dodiya RD, Italiya JV. Impact of pseudo resistance in pest management. Biotica Research Today. 2022;4:612614.
9. Dodiya RD, Barad AH, Italiya JV, Pathan NP, Bhatt NA. Host suitability of tobacco leaf eating caterpillar Spodoptera litura (F.) under laboratory condition. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management. 2023;14(8):1186-1195.
10. Dodiya RD, Barad AH, Pathan NP, Raghunandan BL. Trichogramma: a promising biocontrol agent. International Journal of Economic Plants. 2023;10:192199.
11. Dodiya RD, Haldhar SM, Mitra D, Barad AH. New host plant records of rugose spiralling whitefly, Aleurodicus rugioperculatus Martin (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Aleyrodidae) in diverse habitats. Journal of Agriculture and Ecology. 2024;19:66-76.
12. Dodiya RD, Patel PS, Pathan NP, Deb S. Temporal patterns of aphid infestations in coriander. Journal of Agriculture and Ecology. 2025;20:77-83.
13. Elango K, Nelson J, Tamilnayagan T, Palaniappan DK. Morphological, molecular characterization, life cycle and age specific life table parameters of coconut rugose spiralling whitefly, Aleurodicus rugioperculatus Martin: an invasive pest of India. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science. 2026:1-14. DOI:10.1007/s42690-026-01763-0.
14. Geetha MV, Kalyanasundaram M, Jayaraj J, Shanthi M, Vijayashanthi VA, Hemalatha D, et al. Pests of sugarcane. In: Omkar, editor. Pests and Their Management. Singapore: Springer; 2018. p. 241-310.
15. Gujja B, Loganandhan N, Vinod Goud V, Agarwal M, Dalai S. Sustainable sugarcane initiative: improving sugarcane cultivation in India [Internet]. Hyderabad: ICRISAT; 2009 [cited 2026 May 4]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10919/68473
16. Gurmail S, Naveen A. Biology of whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) on brinjal. Journal of Entomological Research. 2023;47(3):563-568. DOI:10.5958/09744576.2023.00103.2.
17. Inayatullah C. Sugar-cane aleurodids, Aleurolobus barodensis (Maskell) and Neomaskellia andropogonis Corbett (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae), and their natural enemies in Pakistan. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science. 1984;5(4):279-282.
18. James G, Tate B. Sugarcane. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 2004. p. 223.
19. Koohzad-Mohammadi P, Ziaee M, Nikpay A. Insecticides from different classes impact on Neomaskellia andropogonis population under sugarcane field conditions. Sugar Tech. 2017;19:623631. DOI:10.1007/s12355-017-0532-8.
20. Kunjadia. Biology and control of sugarcane whitefly (Aleurolobus barodensis Mask.) [Aleyrodidae: Homoptera] [MSc thesis]. Navsari: Navsari Agricultural University; 1988.
21. Likhith KH, Prakash HT, Biradar AH, Hotkar S. Biological and morphometric studies of sugarcane whitefly, Aleurolobus barodensis (Maskell) (Aleyrodidae: Homoptera). Journal of Advances in Biology & Biotechnology. 2025;28(7):987-996. DOI:10.9734/jabb/2025/v28i72615.
22. Long WH, Hensley SD. Insect pests of sugarcane. Annual Review of Entomology. 1972;17:149-176. DOI:10.1146/annurev.en.17.010172.001053.
23. Minaei MM, Shishehbor P, Soleymannezhadian E, Askarianzadeh AR. Seasonal population dynamics of sugarcane whitefly, Neomaskellia andropogonis Corbett (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) in south of Khuzestan. Plant Protection. 2010;32(2):15-23.
24. Minaeimoghadam M, Shishebor P, Soleimannejadian E, Askarianzadeh A. Biology of sugarcane whitefly, Neomaskellia andropogonis Corbett (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on four sugarcane cultivars under International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research https://www.biochemjournal.com laboratory conditions. Plant Protection (Scientific Journal of Agriculture). 2009;32(1):49-56.
25. OECD, FAO. OECD-FAO agricultural outlook 20232032. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2023. p. 171. DOI:10.1787/08801ab7-en.
26. Suriya S, Preetha G, Balakrishnan N, Sheela J. Seasonal incidence, population dynamics and morphometric traits of exotic coconut whiteflies in southern Tamil Nadu. Journal of Horticultural Sciences. 2023;18(1):216-222. DOI:10.24154/jhs.v18i1.2167.
27. Thumar RK, Kapadia MN. Biology and population dynamics of sugarcane whitefly, Aleurolobus barodensis Maskell under Junagadh conditions of Gujarat. Gujarat Agricultural University Research Journal. 1995;20(2):103-107.