CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Corn is an important crop in the Philippines. Data from the Bureau

of Agricultural Statistics reveal that the country is almost sufficient in corn

at 99% and one of the general varieties is Sweet corn. Sweet corn, table

corn or sugar corn, is one of the sweetest, most important staple crop next

to rice. Scientifically, a sweet corn is called Zea mays var. saccharata, a

cultivar of field corn Zea mays L.. Production of special types of corn such

as popcorn, waxy (or glutinous) corn, high lysine/trptophan corn and sweet

corn was found to be very promising as livelihood for farmers. This is

because sweet corn is simpler to grow, labor-saving, less prone to insect

pest infestation, and is oftentimes more profitable than growing corn for

grain (Lucas and Salacup et al., 2017).

Corn, also called Indian corn or maize, cereal plant of the grass

family (Poaceae) and its edible grain. The domesticated crop originated in

the Americans and is one of the most widely distributed of the world’s food

crops. Corn is used as livestock feed, as human food, as biofuel, and as

raw material in industry. In the United States the colourful variegated strains

known as Indian corn are traditionally used in autumn harvest decorations

(www.britannica.com).

1
 Corn provides generous amounts of vitamins ( Vit. B1, Vit. B5, Vit. 9-

folic acid, Vit. C and Vit. E) and minerals (Iron, Magnesium and

Phosphorus). Corn is also a good source of antioxidants, complex

carbohydrates and dietary fiber. It helps in alleviating symptoms of kidney

problems, including renal dysfunction, can provide relief for gout, gives the

body more energy, since it is a body building food, and contains dietary fiber

that can prevent constipation, and iron that may prevent symptoms caused

by anemia (USDA National Nutrient Database).

However, like crops grown in monoculture production, sweet corn

have its hosts of pests. One of these is the corn borer. In corn, larvae usually

initiate feeding either at the base of the plant or in the whorl. If feeding

begins at the base, the larvae will gradually move up the stem. Frass and

castings can be seen protruding out of holes located at the base, and the

associated damage will be a dead or wilted whorl while the rest of the leaves

remain green (Bessin et al.,1995).

Coronitas is also known as wide sage or lantana weed. It is hefty

extensive evergreen shrub which can grow up to 3 m in height and has a

strong scent. It is a perpetual shrub found growing up to 2000 m altitude

in tropical, sub tropical and clement parts of the world. All parts of thisplant

have been used conventionally for numerous illnesses all through the world.

The leaves of this plant were used as an antibacterial and antihypertensive

agent, roots for the treatment of malaria, rheumatism, and skin rashes

(Kalita., et al 2012).

2
 The Asiatic corn borer, Ostrinia furnacalis (Guenee), has a wide

distribution from northern Asia to Australia. The corn borer is the most

destructive pest of corn throughout the Asian tropical regions, for instance

Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines. Corn plant damage due

to the corn borer causes crop losses up to 20 to 80% in the Philippines

(Afidchao, 2013).

Farmers commonly use insecticides to reduce occurrence of pests

in their farms but this entails additional cost. With this, it is beneficial to look

at widespread plants, such as Coronitas (Lantana camara), that can be

used as potential alternative to insecticides.

Statement of the problem

1. Is Coronitas (Lantana camara) leaf extract effective on the control

on stem borer (0strinia furnicalis Guenee) of Sweet corn (Zea

mays var. saccharata)?

2. What concentration of Coronitas leaf extract is the most effective

on stem borer (0strinia furnicalis Guenee) of Sweet corn (Zea

mays var. saccharata)?

3
Objectives of the Study

The study aimed to determine the efficacy of Coronitas (Lantana

camara) leaf extract on the control of stem borer (0strinia furnicalis Guenee)

of sweet corn (Zea mays var. saccharata).

Specifically the study aimed to:

1. Determine the concentration of Coronitas (Lantana camara) leaf

extract that is most effective in the control the corn borer (0strinia

furnicalis Guenee) of sweet corn (Zea mays var. saccharata).

2. Compare the effectiveness of Coronitas (Lantana camara) leaf

extract on the control of corn borer (0strinia furnicalis Guenee) to

commercial insecticide.

Significance of the Study

The result of the study showed potential of the Coronitas leaf extract

for controlling stem borer of sweet corn is one way of finding alternative for

chemical pesticides which are hazardous to health as well as to the

environment. This study will help farmers living in remote areas who have

no financial capability to access costly prepared insecticides by using this

plant Coronitas that is widely distributed in the province yet unused

resource.

4
Scope and Limitation

The study is focused only in the efficacy of Coronitas (Lantana

camara) leaf extract against stem borer of sweet corn (Zea mays var

saccharata). Data gathered was limited only to the occurrence of stem borer

other insect pests emergence were not considered but it is listed as

observation.

The effect of extreme weather condition that had hampered the

growth of the crop was not included as parameter. The size of the area is

limited which effected the spacing of plants employed in lay-out of

experimental area.

5
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Coronitas (Lantana camara) Description

The word Lantana camara derives from Latin ‘lento’ which means to

bend (Ghisalberti, 2000). The species was first described and given its

binomial name by Linnaeus in 1753 (Munir, 1996; Kumarasamyraja et al.,

2012). It is the genus of verbenaceae family with 600 varieties existing

worldwide. Lantana camara, a native species of South, Central America and

the Caribbean islands (Baars, 2002), has its presence recorded even in

Brazil, Florida, Jamaica, Mexico, and Trinidad. The species is spread over

wide geographical range in neotropics but none is reported from Old World

(Day et al., 2003; Sanders, 2006; GISIN, 2011). Some species of Lantana

camara are also believed to originate from Africa and one from India

(Priyanka et al., 2013).

Fig. 1 Coronitas (Lantana camara) shrub

6
 Corinitas (Lantana camara), also known as wild sage, is a thorny

multi-stemmed, deciduous shrub with an average height of 2m (6ft). The

shrub’s taxonomic position is defined as belonging to the class of

magnoliopsida, order lamiales, family verbenaceae and genus Lantana

(GISIN, 2011). Stems are square in outline, covered with bristly hairs when

green, often armed or with scattered small prickles. Lantana camara

possesses a strong root system. The roots even after repeated cuttings give

new flush of shoots. Leaves are opposite, simple, with long petioles, oval

blades which are rough and hairy and have blunt toothed margins. The

leaves of Lantana camara have a strong aroma. Its flowers are small, multi-

colored, in stalked, dense in flat-topped clusters with a corolla having

narrow tube with four short spreading lobes. Their flowers undergo color

change subsequent to anthesis. These flowers occurs in cluster which

includes white-pink-lavendar or yellow-orange-red mix. The yellow

coloration of the flower provides visual cue to pollinators and change in color

is initiated on the act of pollination. Berries of Lantana camara are round,

fleshy, 2-seeded drupe with initially green in color and turning purple and

finally to blue-black color. However, the berries are very poisonous in nature

though these are attractive to insects and birds. Seeds germination is easy

and faster in Lantana camara (Priyanka et al., 2013).

Lantana camara is a low, erect or subscandent, vigorous shrub

which can grow to 2 - 4 meters in height. The leaf is ovate or ovate oblong,

2 - 10 cm long and 2 - 6 cm wide, arranged in opposite pairs. Leaves are

7
bright green, rough, finely hairy, with serrate margins and emit a pungent

odour when crushed. The stem in cultivated varieties is often non- thorny

and in weedy varieties with recurved prickles. It is woody, square in cross

section, hairy when young, cylindrical and up to 15 cm thick as it grows

older. Lantana is able to climb to 15 m with the support of other vegetation.

Flower heads contain 20 - 40 flowers, usually 2.5 cm across; the colour

varies from white, cream or yellow to orange pink, purple and red. Flowering

occurs between August and March, or all year round if adequate moisture

and light are available. Pollinators include lepidopteran species and thrips.

The fruit is a greenish blue-black colour, 5 - 7 mm in diameter, drupaceous,

shining, with two nutlets; seed setting takes place between September to

May with 1 - 20 seeds on each flower head. Mature plants produce up to

12,000 seeds annually. Seed germination occurs when sufficient moisture

is present; germination is reduced by low light conditions. The root system

is very strong with a main taproot and a mat of many shallow side roots.

The diverse and broad geographic distribution of lantana is a

reflection of its wide ecological tolerance. It occurs in diverse habitats and

on a variety of soil types. Lantana generally grows best in open, un-shaded

conditions such as wastelands, the edges of rain forests, on beachfronts, in

agricultural areas, grasslands, riparian zones, scrub/shrub lands, urban

areas, wetlands and forests recovering from fire or logging. Roadsides,

railway tracks and canal banks are favored by the species. It doesn't grow

at ambient temperatures below 5 C. The plant is found at altitudes from sea

8
level to 2,000 m and can thrive very well under rainfall ranging from 750 to

5000 mm per annum. Lantana does not invade intact rain forests, but is

found on their margins. Where natural forests have been disturbed through

logging creating gaps, Lantana encroaches in the gaps. Further logging

aggravates the condition and allows lantana to spread or become thicker in

its growth. It cannot survive under dense, intact canopies of taller native

forest species. The plant is susceptible to frosts and low temperatures,

saline soils, boggy or hydromorphic soils, low rainfall, coralline soils with

poor water-holding capacities and high incidence of tropical hurricanes

(Asia - Pacific Forest Invasive Species Network).

Mode of infestation

Lantana grows impenetrable thickets that can suppress the growth

of native species. The plant can also grow individually in clumps or as dense

thickets, crowding out more desirable species. In disturbed native forests it

can become the dominant understorey species, disrupting succession and

decreasing biodiversity. As the density of Lantana in natural forest areas

increases, species richness decreases. Layering is a form of vegetative

reproduction in Lantana where the stem send roots into soil, allowing it to

quickly form very dense stands and spread short distances (Asia - Pacific

Forest Invasive Species Network).

9
Uses Coronitas (Lantana camara)

Lantana is mainly used as a herbal medicine and in some areas as

firewood and mulch. In some countries it is planted as a hedge to contain

or keep out livestock. Leaf extracts of Lantana exhibit antimicrobial,

fungicidal, insecticidal and nematicidal properties. Verbascoside, which

possesses antimicrobial, immunosuppressive and antitumor activities, has

been isolated from Lantana. Lantana oil is sometimes used for the treatment

of skin itches, as an antiseptic for wounds and externally for leprosy and

scabies. Also, the plant extracts are used in folk medicine for the treatment

of cancers, chicken pox, measles, asthma, ulcers, swellings, eczema,

tumors, high blood pressure, bilious fevers, catarrhal infections, tetanus,

rheumatism and malaria. The stems of Lantana, if treated by the sulphate

process, can be used to produce paper. Its other uses include, making

baskets and temporary shelters and fuel for cooking and heating. In some

areas, Lantana may provide shelter and vital winter food for many native

birds. A number of endangered bird species utilize Lantana thickets when

their natural habitat is unavailable. In Australia, the vulnerable black-

breasted buttonquail, Turnix melanogaster, feeds and roosts in Lantana

thickets adjacent to vine forest, which is its more favoured habitat. While

buttonquails prefer intact vine forest, Lantana provides an important

temporary refuge for them between forest remnants. In central Kenya,

where natural riverine thickets have been almost completely cleared, the

endangered bird Turdoides hindei, has become dependent on Lantana

10
thickets, and unless sufficient suitable natural habitat can be restored the

survival of this species depends on the retention of Lantana bushes. Apart

from benefiting some bird species, lantana is a major nectar source for

many species of butterflies and moths. The plant can prevent soil

compaction and erosion and is a source of organic matter for pasture

renovation. In Australia, ornamental Lantana is an excellent source of

income in the nursery sector. (Asia - Pacific Forest Invasive Species

Network)

Mechanical control of Coronitas (Lantana Camara)

Stickraking, bulldozing, ploughing and grubbing (medium sized

plants) are the main methods of control. Hand cutting using brush cutters,

hand pulling, chain pulling and flame weeding are also used. Re-growth

will be imminent if the rootstock is not removed while weeding. In India, use

of elephants to uproot Lantana was practiced. However, mechanical control

is suitable only for small areas and is not recommended in areas susceptible

to erosion. Fire is often used prior to mechanical or herbicidal control to

improve their effectiveness or as a follow-up to such methods. Fire itself can

provide some control when used under the right conditions, especially if the

fires are hot and the Lantana is actively growing. But, while using fire as a

management tool, the risk to people and property must be avoided. Burning

is not recommended in natural forest areas and vine thickets for various

reasons. Re-vegetation of a treated site by planting trees or encouraging

naturally occurring seedlings is a key component of a Lantana management

11
program. Another possibility of revegetation is sowing a pasture that

outcompetes with and smothers Lantana. Preventing grazing for the first six

months to one year will assist the growth of the pasture. (Asia - Pacific

Forest Invasive Species Network)

Identification and Control of Corn Borer (Ostrinia furnicalis)

Feed on a wide range of crop and wild plants in addition to corn.

Unlike the Corn Earworm, European Corn Borers most commonly feed on

the leaves and stems of its host plant – only occasionally venturing into the

ears of the corn crop. European Corn Borers can survive typical Canadian

winter conditions – therefore they can be present in fields from the start of

the growing season. Mature Corn Borer larvae overwinter in the stalks of

the plants remaining from the previous year. In spring, the larvae chew an

exit hole in the stalks – but then return to stalks to pupate – exiting from this

hole several weeks later as a mature moth. On warm calm evenings in late

June to early July the moths begin to disperse, looking for new host plants

– including emerging corn crops. Eggs are laid on the undersides of the

leaves. Within a few weeks the eggs hatch and the caterpillar larvae

disperse – typically heading for dark moist locations such as the whorl of

leaves at the center of a developing corn plant. As the corn plants begin

tassel out the caterpillars seek a new sheltered place to hide - typically by

boring into the stem or the developing ear of corn. In the short growing

season available in Saskatchewan there is only time for a single generation

of Corn Borers each year (http://veg.usaska.ca.earwormpdf).

12
 The Asiatic corn borer, Ostrinia furnacalis (Guenee) , has a wide

distribution from northern Asia to Australia. The corn borer is the most

destructive pest of corn throughout the Asian tropical regions, for instance

Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines. Corn plant damage due

to the corn borer causes crop losses up to 20 to 80% in the Philippines. It

was estimated that the loss is equivalent to multi-million peso when

calculated on the basis of the country's annual corn production of 3 billion

pesos, or to about 4 tons/ha of grain yield 1 · 1l of a hybrid cultivar currently

used in the Philippine Government's Masagana Program. Insecticidal

application to control the corn borer involves drawbacks such as high cost,

development of insect resistance, adverse effects on natural enemies, and

hazard to human health. To compensate these shortcomings, alternative

methods are urgently needed. Adoption of resistant varieties could become

the most reliable method to protect corn from corn borer attacks (Hirai et

at.,1985).

Effective management of the crop residues that harbor the

overwintering larvae is crucial to managing European Corn Borers. Over

80% of the larvae can be eliminated by shredding and then ploughing under

the residual corn stalks in the fall. By contrast, disking under the crop

residues does not provide adequate control. Crop residue management

also cannot protect against any larvae that overwinter in the stalks of weeds

growing in the head lands or other adjacent uncultivated areas. The moths

can also travel from other nearby corn fields. Growers should therefore still

13
monitor their crop for signs of invasion by Corn Borers. Phermone traps

should be placed on the edges of emerging corn fields in late June.

Growers should also scout the lower leaves of the crop, looking for the

obvious egg masses. The Borer moths tend to lay their eggs on the biggest

plants available – therefore growers should pay particular attention to early

planted crops or large, fast growing cultivars. Early plantings around the

edge of a field can potentially serve as a trap crop for Corn Borers.

The larvae of the Corn Borer are only susceptible to control using

standard contact insecticides during the time they are feeding in the

relatively open leaf whorl of the developing corn plant. The same range of

standard pesticides recommended for control of Corn Earworms also work

on Corn Borers. This includes the biological control products such as

Spinosad and the Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki. Thorough coverage

of the target tissues is again crucial in getting acceptable control of Corn

Borers using any of these pesticides. Multiple applications of these

pesticides will again be required to protect the growing corn plant from

multiple flights of moths. Growers should rotate between classes of

pesticide to slow the development of pesticide tolerance. Once the Borers

move inside the stem or ears they are no longer susceptible to standard

contact pesticides. They are however still susceptible to control via the B.t

toxin that is expressed in genetically engineered lines of corn. See the

Corn Earworm section for more information on genetic engineering of sweet

corn for insect pest resistance (http://veg.usaska.ca.earworm.pdf).

14
Impacts of Corn Borer

Corn Borer is a mainly a pest of maize and sweetcorn. Reduction of

maize yield was assessed in Taiwan. Each larva caused 1.7% yield loss of

field maize in the spring crop and 4.4, 5.6 and 2.5% loss of sweetcorn in the

autumn, winter and spring crops, respectively. The number of cavities was

amore reliable indicator of yield loss than the number of larvae or pupae

(Bessin et al.,1995).

An economic threshold of not more than one larva per plant was

established in the Philippines (Morallo-Rejesus et al., 1990). Field losses of

4.8-30.9% were recorded, depending on location.

The time of appearance of adults in cotton fields in China could be

forecast on the basis of the rate of development of the larvae in the fields.

The threshold for control was 0.9-1.1 egg masses\100 plants in the first

generation and 3.1 egg masses\100 plants in the second (Bessin et

al.,1995).

The Common Stalk (Stem) Borer

Biology and Life cycle

The ¾ to 2 inch long common stalk borer, also referred to common

stem borer, larvae are relatively easy to identify because of their distinct

coloration. They usually have a brownish to purple color with white lines

running longitudinally down the body. There is an obvious saddle in the lines

one fourth of the way down from the head creating an area that is a solid

15
brown or purple color. This break takes up roughly one fourth of the entire

body. As the larvae mature however, the distinguishing white lines

disappear, and the majority of body color turns to a brownish-gray. At this

later stage they can be confused with both the cutworm and European corn

borer larvae (Bessin et al.,1995).

The adult common stalk borer is a grayish moth with a wingspan of

1 to 1¼ inch. The front wings are a darker gray color with white or silver

spots aligned in two rows. The hind wings are a lighter gray color. The adult

moths typically fly at night and are not attracted to light. The adult female is

capable of laying up to 2000 eggs per season. The whitish eggs are laid

individually or in groups during late summer or early fall in grasses or rolled

up plant leaves. Eggs will then overwinter and hatch in late April or early

May. It can take a period of four to five weeks for all eggs to hatch

(www.vegedge.umn.edu/pest-profiles/pest/common-stalk-borer).

After hatching, the larvae will immediately burrow into the closest

stem. This will most likely be a grass or weed stem since these are preferred

sites for adults to lay their eggs. By June, the larvae become too large for

their initial location and will be forced to move into nearby crops that can

provide better protection. In late July or early August the larvae are reaching

maturity having gone through 7-10 instars (www.vegedge.umn.edu/pest-

profiles/pest/common-stalk-borer).

After maturing, the larvae create cells in the topsoil where they will

pupate (some larvae may pupate inside of the stem). The pupae are brown

16
and take 2-6 weeks to develop into adults. In late August, early September,

or even into October, the adults will emerge, mate, and lay eggs. Adults will

not overwinter, and there is only one generation per year

(www.vegedge.umn.edu/pest-profiles/pest/common-stalk-borer).

Damage of Stem Borer (Ostrinia Furnicalis)

Physiological loss occurs when larvae bore into the stalk and

interfere with the transport of water and nutrients in the stalk, resulting in

yield reduction; this is the most important yield loss due to stem borer

feeding. Feeding by small larvae on leaves produces ‘shot hole’ injury, or

small, circular holes on the leaves (Hadi., et al 2016).

Stem borer populations fluctuate from year to year and can be more

severe in some fields than others. There are two generations of this insect

each year. The first generation occurs from early June to early July and is

most damaging to early-planted corn. Damage is primarily due to borer

tunneling in leaf midribs and the stalk. The second generation in August and

September is a greater threat to late-planted corn. Borers of this generation

tunnel in ears, ear shanks and stalks. Stalk breakage may be serious. Borer

entrance holes in corn plants also provide a site for stalk rot pathogens to

enter the plant. The first generation is most vulnerable to chemical control.

Treatment should be considered if "shot-hole" damage is apparent on 25%

of the plants and live larvae are present in the whorls. One application

should be sufficient against the first generation. Your county agent for

17
agriculture can give you accurate information on when to expect damage.

(Hadi., et al 2016).

The second generation of corn borers presents a much greater

control challenge. First generation larvae were generally concentrated in

the whorl, which provided a good collection funnel for the insecticide spray

or granules. On tasseled corn, the second generation borers are dispersed

over the plant and protected behind leaf sheaths and in axils. In this

situation, plant coverage with the foliar spray is very important. Also

egglaying for the second generation occurs over a long period of time. If

borer populations are high, it is possible that two or more sprays may be

necessary to achieve satisfactory control (Hadi., et al 2016).

Damage to corn caused by the stem borer is characterized by wilting

and/or dying of the upper leaves or by ragged irregular holes chewed in the

newly unrolled leaves. The characteristic is caused by the insect boring into

the stalk at the soil level and tunneling upward. It may also climb up the

plant and tunnel downward into the whorl, creating the ragged holes. A

considerable amount of frass or sawdust-like borer feces can be seen in the

whorl or coming out of the borer entry hole in the stalk. Corn plants from 2

to 24 inches tall may be attacked (Bessin., et al 2011).

In conventional corn, damage is usually confined to weedy border

rows along fences, grass waterways and contour strips, while weedy no-till

fields may have damage throughout. Plants damaged by stalk borers are

often stunted and/or misshapen and may die. Infested plants (if they

18
survive) may or may not produce harvestable ears. If they do, ears are

usually smaller than normal. Those plants that do not produce ears compete

with productive plants for water, nutrients and sunlight (Bessin., et al 2011).

In maize, feeding first occurs in the whorl. Shotholes are visible when

the leaf unrolls from the whorl. Later, the larvae bore down midribs of leaves

into the stalk. Frass and silk near entrance holes are evidence of the

presence of larvae. Extensive amounts of frass may be seen at the collar.

They also bore into the tunnel within the tassel, ear, ear shank and stalk,

forming cavities.

Cavities produced by borers interfere with the translocation of water

and nutrients. Cavities also reduce the strength of the stalk and ear shank,

thereby predisposing the corn plants to stalk breakage and ear drop, which

is aggravated by high winds or other adverse environmental conditions

(Radcliffe et at., .1996).

Stalk borer larvae inquire corn plants in june and early july. They

feed on leaves in the whorl and then tunnel into the stalk, or they burrow

into the base of the plant and tunnel up through the center of the stalk. Leaf

feeding alone not cause economic damage (Wright et al., 2012).

Tunneling into the stalk can result in deformed or stunted plants can

die. Plants attacked at earlier growth stages tend to be more severely

injured. A single stalk borer larva may attack more than one plant if the first

plant does not support the larva as it increases in size (Wright et al., 2012)

19
Cultural Control

Controlling weeds and grasses in and around the field is the most

useful preventative measure available. Precise timing is necessary though

since burning or mowing these areas at the wrong time could actually

increase the movement of larvae into the field. There are two important

times when this method is most effective. First, mow or burn surrounding

grasses and weeds in mid August. This will reduce locations for the adults

to lay eggs, which overwinter. Another good time to burn down or mow

weeds is during the early spring just before eggs hatch. It is important to

make sure that eggs have not hatched though because mowing or burning

will force the surviving larvae out of the weeds and into the neighboring

crops.

Having an early planting date can also help lessen the severity of the

damage. Larger plants are less susceptible to injury, so the longer a plant

has to mature before larvae move into the field the better (Bessin et

al.,1995).

Plants that attack at earlier developmental stages tend to produce

fewer and smaller ears than do plants attack at later developmental stages.

Early planted fields may escape somestalk borer damage, but this varies

from year to year, depending on when the eggs begin to hatch. Fields that

are planted late and have grass terraces or grass waterways and yearly

grass problems within the field are highest risk for stem borer damage

(Davis et al., 2010).

20
Organic control

Single plants affected can be carefully split open and the larvae

removed. The stem then needs to be banded back together. Another

organic option is to stick a needle in at regular intervals along the stem. The

needle will hopefully hit and kill the larvae inside (Bessin et al.,1995).

Biological Control

Birds and small mammals are among the natural predators of the

common stalk borer. Naturally occurring beneficial insects include a

Tachinid, Gymno chaeta ryficornis, Braconids, Apanteus papaipemae and

Meteorus leviventris, an Inchneumoid, Lissonota brumnea and a Eulophid,

Sympiesis viridula (Bessin et al.,1995)

Sweet Corn ((Zea mays var. saccharata)

Growth and Development Stages of Corn

Vegetative Stages The vegetative stages are described using the

leaf collar method, which is defined by the number of collars on the plant.

Leaves are counted from the lowermost first (rounded-tip) leaf to the

uppermost leaf with a leaf collar, which is the connection between the leaf

blade and the leaf sheath. The leaves in the whorl that are not fully

expanded are not counted (Bell et al., 2017).

A number of classification approaches can be used to identify a corn

plant’s growth stage. However, in South Dakota the most widely used

21
system is the Iowa State classification approach (Ritchie et al., 1993). This

system divides corn growth and development into vegetative (V) and

reproductive (R) stages. The VE (emergence) occurs when the coleoptile

pushes through the soil surface. After emergence, the vegetative stages are

designated numerical subdivisions as V1, V2, V3; through Vn where n is the

number of leaves with collar visible until the tassel emerges (VT). The collar

is where the leaf blade visually breaks away from the sheath and the stalk

of the corn plant, and vegetative growth stages are based upon the number

of visible leaf collars. Leaves within the whorl, not fully expanded and with

no visible leaf collar are not included. For example, a plant with 3 collars

would be called a V3 plant, although more than 3 leaves may be showing

on a plant (Darby, H., and J. Lauer. Critical stages in the life of a corn plant,

Plant Physiology).

Fig. 2 Growth and Development Stages of Corn

22
 Growth and Development Stages in Corn

Growth and development stages in corn. Vegetative Stages

Reproductive Stages VE Emergence R1 Silking - silks visible outside the

husks V1 First leaf collar R2 Blister - kernels are white and resemble a

blister in shape V2 Second leaf collar R3 Milk - kernels are yellow on the

outside with a milky inner fluid V3 Third leaf collar R4 Dough - milky inner

fluid thickens to a pasty consistency V(n) nth leaf collars visible R5 Dent -

nearly all kernels are denting VT Tasseling - last branch of tassel is

completely visible R6 Physiological maturity - the black abscission layer has

formed (Adapted from Ritchie et al., 1993).

Reproductive Stages and Kernel Development

Tassel (VT) – bottom-most branch of tassel completely visible and silk has

not emerged.

Silking (R1) – silks visible outside the husks.

Blister (R2) – kernels white on outside, clear liquid inside.

23
Milk (R3) – kernel yellow outside, milky white fluid inside.

Dough (R4) – kernel fluid thick/pasty, cob pink or red.

Dent (R5) – most kernels at least partially dented.

Physiological Maturity (R6) – milk line no longer evident, black layer

formed. Maximum dry weight is attained (www.pioneer.com)

Fig. 3 Reproductive Stages and Kernel Development

Rate of Development

Emergence may occur as rapidly as 4 or 5 days after planting in

warm moist soil, or may take 3 weeks or more in cool soils. A new leaf will

appear about every 3 days during early growth, while later leaves

developing during warmer conditions may appear in 1 to 2 days. Full season

hybrids in central Nebraska typically can produce 21 to 22 leaves. Earlier

maturing hybrids will produce fewer leaves. The rate of development after

pollination is given in. Bear in mind that development may be faster than

24
suggested here under higher than normal temperatures or slower under

lower than normal temperatures (Ramson et al., 2013).

Influence of Environmental Factors on the Growth of the Corn Plant

Under Field Conditions

Plant growth, measured either as the gradual and continued

enlargement of the vegetative parts or as the ultimate production of the

reproductive organs, is modified by the environmental factors which

surround the plant. In either case the magnitude of the response of the plant

and the variation in the environmental factors are more easily determined

than is the effect of one or all of these environmental factors on the

development of the plant. To obtain quantitative measures of the influence

of environmental factors on the growth of plants, most investigators have

studied each factor separately. This is especially true of laboratory and

greenhouse experiments where an attempt is made to keep all the factors

constant, except one. Few investigators have attempted to study the

influence of environmental factors on plants grown under field conditions

because of the uncertainty of adequately evaluating the influence of these

factors.

Recent advances in statistical methods, however, provide means of

segregating different factors and of relating a given factor to one or more

definite responses of the plant. Another difficulty encountered in field

studies dealing with the effect of environment is that only one crop can ,be

matured each season while the results of several seasons are necessary to

25
obtain measurable variations in factors. In this study it was possible, within

a given season, to modify certain ·of the environmental factors by varying

the rate of planting. A third difficulty arises in that organisms show variation

in their rate of growth at different stages of their life ,cycle. Consideration

was given, therefore, to the stage of development of the plant in evaluating

the effect of the factors on any particular growth response. Experiments on

which this paper is based have been carried on under field conditions for 4

years. Factors of the environment included in the study are rainfall, available

soil moisture (Eisele et al., 1938).

26
 CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY

Time and Locale of Study

The study was conducted from January to April 2018 at Department

of Natural Sciences, Isabela State University, Cabagan, Campus.

Seedling production

Garden soil, carbonized rice hull and vermicompost were mixed as

soil media at a ratio of 1:1:1. The substrate was placed in the plastic cups

with the addition of vermicompost, and were placed in a partly shaded place

during its critical stage of the seedlings and gradually expose to sunlight

thereafter.

Soil Analysis

Soil sample from the experimental area collected and subjected to

nutrient analysis at DA-CVRC Ilagan, Isabela as basis of computing the

right amount of fertilizer to applied (See Appendix C for results of soil

analysis).

Land Preparation and Lay-out of the Experimental Area

The area was harrowed 2 weeks before transplanting. Second

harrowing was done five days before planting to allow weeds to decay.

Raising of was done 1 week before transplanting.

27
 The area was divided into 3 blocks representing the replications with

0.50 meter distance from each other. Each block was subdivided into 5 plots

at 0.50 meter apart representing the treatments. The 2.5m x 3.5m with a

total of 63 plants per plot. The total land area was 442 sq. meters. The area

was laid out in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). (See

Appendix C Fig.8 for the photo documentation of Land Preparation).

Preparation of Plant Extract

The collected fresh leaves were chopped into small pieces then

osteorized with water following what is needed in each treatment used in

the study.

Treatment 1 (T1) (25%) 750 mL of water + 250 grams of leaves

Treatment 2 (T2) (50%) 500 mL of water + 500 grams of leaves

Treatment 3 (T3) 250 mL of water + 750 grams of leaves

(75%)
Treatment 4 (T4) Commercial Insecticides
Treatment 5 (T5) Control

The osteorized run for about 2 minutes until the leaves were grated

into fine fibers. After the osteorized procedure, the fluid portion was

separate with the use of fine meshed cloth and placed in lean bottle

separately (See Appendix C Fig.6 for photo documentation of Preparation

of Plant Extract).

28
Fertilization

Basal Application

Fertilizer application done in splitted manner. Basal application was

done before planting the seedling by putting the required fertilizer per hill as

computed from the recommended rate per hectare. While the second

application which is the side dressing of Urea will be done 3 weeks after

transplanting with application (See Appendix C Fig. 7 for the photo

documentation of basal application).

Planting of Sweet Corn

Transplanting done 3 weeks after emergence. Transplanting was

done early in the morning in order to minimize transpiration of the seedlings

and permit them to recover faster. The soil around the plant base was

pressed for faster root establishment. The recommended distance of

planting was followed at 0.30 cm between hills and 0.35 cm between rows

in each plot. The plant was watered immediately after transplanting (See

Appendix C Fig.9 for photo documentation of Planting of Sweet Corn).

Data Analysis

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess the significant

difference among the 5 treatments, as well as through the observed

occurrence of corn borer during the duration of the study.

29
Pest Monitoring

Weekly monitoring of stem borer incidence was done from early

vegetation to harvesting. In the absence of stem borer, traces of stem borer

was recorded such as presence of frames or the excrete on the bored stem.

Presence of stem borer in the corn land was captured.

30
Experimental Lay-out
Fig. 4 The experimental was laid out using a Complete Randomized

Block Design (CRBD) as shown in figure below.

3.5 meter

R1 T1 R2 T3 R3 T2

0.30 meter

R1 T3 R2 T4 R3 T3

2.5 meter

R1 T5 R2 T1 R3 T5
0.5 meter 5

15 meter

R1 T2 R2 T5 R3 T4

R1 T4 R2 T2 R3 T1

10 meter

31
 CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This section present the result of this study, including the analysis,

significance and discussion thereof. It is presented as follows: (a) Plant leaf

holes as indicating the occurrence of corn borer in the plants (b) Plant stem

holes about indicating the damage brought on the plant stem brought about

by the corn borers (c) Effect of Stem Borer on Leaves and Stem of Corn.

Efficacy of Coronitas Against Ostrinia furnicalis

A. Effect on Number of Leaf Holes

(a.)* (b.)
Fig. 5 Comparison of leaves holes by corn borer as shown in literature (a)
and as photographed from actual experiment plant in the study (b)
(*Lifted from Marlin E. Rice, 2010)

When leaves emerge the holes feeding signs, In the leaves can be

seen. Most of the mature larvae will bore into the stalks, feed, and finish

32
development there. First generation damage includes leaf feeding and stalk

boring (Peairs et al., 2014)

In week 2, the data shows the T5 (control) has a highest mean no. of

holes in leaves at 27.33, mean no. of holes followed by T3 (75%) at 15, T1

(25%) at 8.67, T4 (commercial insecticides) at 7.33, and the lowest is

recorded by T2 (50%) at 3.33 mean no. of holes in leaves (See Figure 2).

In week 3, the data shows the T5 (control) has a highest mean no. of

holes in leaves at 21.67, mean no. of holes followed by T2 (50%) at 19.67,

T4 (commercial insecticide) at 16.67, T1 (25%) at 15.33, and the lowest is

recorded by T3 (75%) at 13.67 mean no. of holes in leaves (See Figure 4).

In week 4, the data shows the T5 (control) has a highest mean no. of

holes in leaves at 37.67, mean no. of holes followed by T2 (50%) at 24.33,

T1 (25%) at 18, T4 (commercial insecticides) at 11.67, and the lowest is

recorded by T3 (75%) at 4 mean no. of holes in leaves (See Figure 4).

In week 5, the data shows the T1 (75%) has a highest mean no. of

holes in leaves at 9.33, mean no. of holes followed by T5 (control) at 8, T2

(50%) at 6, T4 (commercial insecticides) at 3, and the lowest is recorded by

T3 (75%) at 0.67 mean number of holes in leaves (See Figure 4).

In summary, the treatment that exhibited the highest number of holes

in leaves was the T5 (Control). This is understandable because only water

was used for this particular plot. In terms of number of holes for Week 1 and

Week 2, T2 (50%) showed the lowest mean incidence of corn borer. While

33
during Week 3 and Week 4, T4 (commercial insecticide) showed the mean

incidence. This means during the earlier stages of growth, T 2 has a potential

against corn borer as this had the lowest number of leaf holes but as the

plant grew, T4 (commercial insecticide) became more effective. Lowest

number of leave holes through all treatments occurred during Week 5.

50
45
40
Mean no. of leavess Holes

35
30 T1
25 T2

20 T3

15 T4

10 T5

5
0
WK1 WK2 WK3 WK4 WK5
WEEKS

Fig. 6 Mean Number of Leaf Holes

Presented below is the statistical analysis for mean number of leaf

hold. In terms of occurrence of leaf holes in Week 1 to Week 4, the highest

mean number was observed in T5 (control) at 27.87 while in Week 5, T1

(25% concentration) had the highest mean number. This means that the

lowest concentration of coronitas T1 (25%) and pure water T5 (control) were

least effective against corn borer.

34
 The lowest mean number in the Week 1 and Week 2 is T 2 (50%

concentration) the lowest total of treatment at 11.47 while in the Week 3,

Week 4 and Week 5 the lowest mean number is T 3 (75% concentration)

(See Table 1). Based of the study there is no significant on mean number

of leaf holes among the 5 treatments. Based from the descriptive reflected

from the T4 (commercial insecticide) registered the lowest occurrence of

corn borer while the T2 (50%) concentration registered the second to the

lowest occurrence of corn borer and the T5 (control) registered the highest

occurrence of corn borer. The effect of T 2 (50%) concentration has a

potential to T4 (commercial insecticide) since there is no significant among

the 5 treatments.

Table 1. Statistical analysis of leaf holes Added Weekly

TREATMENTS Week1 Week2 Week3 Week 4 Week 5 Total
T1 21.33 8.67 15.33 18.00 9.33 14.53
T2 4.00 3.33 19.67 24.33 6.00 11.47
T3 32.33 15.00 13.67 8.67 0.67 14.07
T4 10.67 7.33 16.67 11.67 3.00 9.87
T5 44.67 27.33 21.67 37.67 8.00 27.87
F 1.15 1.33 0.27 1.11 2.62 2.59
NS NS NS NS NS NS
F = 2.86 at 0.05 level of significance

35
 B. Effect on Mean Stem Holes

(a.)* (b.)
Fig. 7 Comparison of stem holes by stem borer as shown in literature (a)
and as photographed from actual experiment plant in the study (b)
(*Image from Shutterstock, 2013)

The Larvae feed on leaves or into the stem of the plant making the

plant appear wilted or deformed with visible holes on the stem and leaves

(Wright et al., 2000).

In Week 1 and 2, shows the no incidence of stem borer, in Week 3

shows the T2 (50%) has a highest mean number of holes in stem at 0.67,

and the lowest is recorded by T3 (75%) at 0.33 mean number of holes in

stem. In Week 4, shows the incidence of stem borer, in T3 (75%) & T5

(control) has a highest mean number of holes in stem at 0.67, and the lowest

is recorded by T1 (25%) at 0.33 mean number of holes. In Week 5, shows

the T5 (control) have one as its mean number of hole in stem. The lowest

was recorded in T1 (25%) at 0.33 mean number of holes in stem.

36
 Based on this, the mean incidence of stem borer was the highest at

T5 (Control). This is because T5 only had plain water applied. This means

the plants at T5 did not have any protection against pests including corn

borer. The lowest mean incidence of stem borer was recorded at T2 (50%)

concentration. This means the T2 has a potential against corn borer. The

only incidence of stem borer for T2 was recorded during Week 3 due to

several factors during the duration of data gathering in number of holes in

the stem of the plants.

1.2

1
Mean no. of Stem Holes

0.8
T1
0.6 T2
T3
0.4
T4
T5
0.2

0
WK1 WK2 WK3 WK4 WK5
Weeks

Fig. 8 Mean number of Stem Holes

The result of the statistical analysis for stem borer is presented in

Table 2. During Week 1 and Week 2 there were no occurrence of stem

borer, thus the zero values in Week 1 and Week 2. During Week 3, there

were no observed occurrence of stem borer for T1, T4 and T5. T2 had an

average stem holes of 0.67 while T 3 had 0.33. Based of the study there is

no significant on mean number of stem holes among the 5 treatments.

37
Based from the descriptive reflected from the T 4 (control) registered no

holes compare to the other treatments while the T2 (50%) The effect of T2

(50%) concentration has a insecticidal effect to T4 (commercial insecticide)

since there is no significant on mean number among the 5 treatments.

Table 2. Statistical analysis of stem holes

TREATMENTS WEEK 1 WEEK 2 WEEK 3 WEEK 4 WEEK 5 Total
T1 0 0 0 0.33 0.33 0.132
T2 0 0 0.67 0 0 0.134
T3 0 0 0.33 0.67 0 0.2
T4 0 0 0 0 0 0
T5 0 0 0 0.67 1 0.334
F 0.8 0.55 0.85 0.84
NS NS NS NS
F = 2.86 at 0.05 level of significance

C. Effect of Stem Borer on Leaves and Stem of Corn

Attack of corn borer on leaf started at Week 1 of observation, while

attack on stem started at Week 3. In Week 2, Week 3 and Week 4, the

number of leaf holes observed among the corn plants through all treatments

increased. In Week 5, in all treatments, the number of leaf holes decreased.

In terms of average occurrence of leaf and stem holes throughout Week 1

to Week 5, the highest mean number was observed in the T5 (Control). The

lowest mean occurrence of leaf holes were observed in T2 (50%) for Week

1 and 2, and T4 (commercial insecticide) for Week 2 and 4. In terms of stem

holes, the lowest mean occurrence were observed in T4 (commercial

38
insecticide) through all weeks while there were only occurrence of stem

holes in Week 3 for T2 (50%).

This suggests that among treatments, T2 (50%) had the best

potential in terms of reducing the effects of stem borer. Based on the

statistical analysis (see Table 1 and 2), the effect of T2 (50%) has potential

against stem borer but not statistically comparable to T4 (commercial

insecticide) since there were no significant difference between the

treatments. Several factors could have possibly affected the efficacy of the

treatments of Corinatas (Lantana camara), including: (a) limitations on the

area of the study which affected the spacing of the experimental layout, (b)

extreme weather conditions specifically the lack of rain which induced

water-stress that had hampered the growth of the crops, and (c) limitations

in the method of application of extracts, as well as the influence of wind

direction, could have affected the distribution and efficiency of the applied

extract.

39
 CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The study on the Effect of Coronitas (Lantana camara) on the Control

of Stem Borer in the Sweet Corn (Zea mays var. saccharata) production

was under taken using the Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD)

with the following treatments, T1- 25% 250 grams of leaves and 500 ml

water, T2- 50% 500 grams of leaves and 500 ml of water, T3- 75% 750

grams of leaves and 250 mml of water and T4- Commercial insecticide

(Karate) and T5- Control (no insecticide).

The incidence of stem borer started on Week 3. There were no

incidence of stem borer for the first two weeks. T1- 25% had the same mean

number of stem holes (0.33) through Week 4 to Week 5. T2- 50% only had

occurrence of stem borer during Week 2 (0.67). There were no occurrence

of stem holes for T4 through Week 1 to Week 5. T3- 75% only had occurrence

of stem borer during Week 4. T5- Control had the highest mean number of

holes through all weeks.

Unlike holes on the stems, holes on leaves were present from Week

1. T1, T3 and T4 have no particular trend in terms of occurrence of leaf holes

through the weeks. T2 had the lowest occurrence of leaf holes from Week 1

40
and 2, but increased in Week 3 and Week 4. T 5 had the highest mean

number of holes through all weeks.

Conclusions

Based on the result of the study, the following conclusions were

drawn:

1. Among the different prepared concentrations of Coronitas (Lantana

camara) leaf extract Treatment 2 (50%) concentration showed a

potential effect against Stem borer in terms of reduced mean number

of stem holes.

2. The research findings showed that the Treatment 2 (50%)

concentration of Coronitas (Lantana camara) leaf extract has a

potential to the commercial insecticide used as positive control.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of the study, the following are recommended:

1. The used of 50% Coronitas (Lantana camara) leaves extract with

50% ( 500 grams of leaves and 500 ml of water) has a potential in

controlling stem borer, utilization of these by farmers can present

economic benefits.

41
2. The study can be conducted again during dry and wet season to

evaluate the effect of temperature in the intensity of corn borer

infestation and the potential of Coronitas (Lantana camara) extract

against the said pest.

3. Another study can be conducted using other crops to explore the

extent of applicability of Coronitas (Lantana camara) as organic

pesticide.

4. Isolation of the active component of the extract that contributed the

potential against corn borer will allow for better evaluation of its

potential and can be explored for product development.

42
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Asia Pacific Forest Invasive Species network, Lantana camara.

Afidchao, M. and Geert de Snoo. 2013. Asian Corn Borer (ACB) and non
ACB pest in GM corn (Zea mays L.) in the Philippines. Pest
Management Science 69(7).
Balaji Upendranath Singh Æ Nadoor Seetharama, 2008, Host plant
interactions of the corn planthopper, Peregrinus maidis Ashm.
(Homoptera: Delphacidae) in maize and sorghum agroecosystems

Bayung Hadi, Robert Wright, 2016, Center for Invsive Species and
Ecosystem Health at the University of Georgia.

Danilo M. Legacion, Yoshio Hirai, 1985, Improvement of the Mass Rearing

Techniques for the Asiatic Corn Borer Ostrinia furnacalis (Guenee
in the Philippine.

Darby, H., and J. Lauer. Critical stages in the life of a corn plant, Plant
Physiology.

Davis PM Pedigo LP. 1991b, Injury profiles and yield responces of seedling
corn attack by stem borer. Journal of Economic Entomology.

Edward B. Radcliffe, William D. Hutchison, Rafael E. Canceldo, 1996,

Integrated Pest Management Concepts, Tactics, Strategies, and
Case Studies.
F.B. Peairs, 2014, Stem borers in Colorado Field VCorn.
Harold F. Eisele, 1938, Influencce of Evironmental Factors on the Growth
of the Corn plant under field conditions.
Joel Ransom, 2013, Corn Growth and Management Quick Guide.
Jourdan Belle and Amarillo, 2017, Corn Growth Stages and Development,
Texas Agrilife, Extensuon and Research Agronomist.
Kalita, S., Kumar, G., Longanathan, K., and Rao, B. 2012. A review on
Medical Properties of Lantana camara Linn. Research Jornal of
Pharmacy and Technology 5(6):711-715.
M. Rice and P. Davis, 2010. Stalk borer ecology and IPM in corn.
Marina B. Lucas and Cherry E. Salacup, 2017. Efficacy of Rose Bangle
(Lantana camara) in controlling Corn Borer (Ostrinia furnacalis) and
Corn Earworm (Helicoverpa zea) of Sweet Corn (Zea mays var.
saccharata)

43
Neen Priyanaka, P K, Joshi, 2013. A review of Lantana camara studies in
India, International and journal of Scientific and Research
Publications, Volume 3, issue 10, October 2013.
Ric Bessin, 1995. The Common Stalk Borer in Corn, Extension
Entomologist University of Kentucky College of Agriculture.
Ritchie, S.W., J.J. Hanway, G.O. Benson, and J.C. Herman. 1993. How a
corn plant develops, Special Report No. 48, Iowa State University.
Ric Bessin, 2011. The Common Stalk Borer in Corn, Extension
Entomologist University of Kentucky College of Agriculture.
Robert J. Wright, Tom E. Hunt, Keith J. Jarvi, 2012, Common Stalk Borer in
Corn.
Singh BU, Rana BS (1992) Stability of resistance to corn planthopper,
Peregrinus maidis (Ashmead) in sorghum germplasm. Insect Sci
Appl 13:251–263
Wright, R.J., Hunt, K. Jarvi. 2000, Common Stalk Borer.

Website
http://veg.usaka.ca.earworm.pdf
www.vegedge.umn.edu/pest-profiles/pest/common-stalk-borer
www.britannica.com
www.ag.ndsu.edu
www.pioneer.com
www.iGrow.com

44
APPENDICES

45
 APPENDIX A
(Weekly Data of Leaf and Stem Holes)
Table 3. Weekly Data of Occurrence of Leaves Holes

WEEK 1 I II III TOTAL MEAN

T1 34 10 20 64 21.33
T2 3 7 2 12 4.00
T3 88 4 5 97 32.33
T4 0 0 32 32 10.67
T5 74 25 35 134 44.67
WEEK 2
T1 13 2 11 26 8.67
T2 0 5 5 10 3.33
T3 23 2 20 45 15.00
T4 0 16 6 22 7.33
T5 59 12 11 82 27.33
WEEK 3
T1 15 5 26 46 15.33
T2 17 23 19 59 19.67
T3 14 1 26 41 13.67
T4 34 14 2 50 16.67
T5 19 29 17 65 21.67
WEEK 4
T1 26 19 9 54 18.00
T2 29 20 24 73 24.33
T3 15 0 11 26 8.67
T4 6 26 3 35 11.67
T5 82 14 17 113 37.67
WEEK 5
T1 6 9 13 28 9.33
T2 5 10 3 18 6.00
T3 2 0 0 2 0.67
T4 3 6 0 9 3.00
T5 4 15 5 24 8.00

Weekly Added Mean Number of Occurrence of Leaves Holes

TREATMENTS WK1 WK2 WK3 WK4 WK5
T1 21.33 8.67 15.33 18.00 9.33
T2 4.00 3.33 19.67 24.33 6.00
T3 32.33 15.00 13.67 8.67 0.67
T4 10.67 7.33 16.67 11.67 3.00
T5 44.67 27.33 21.67 37.67 8.00

46
 Table 4. Weekly Data of Occurrence of Stem Borer
Stem Holes
REPLICATES
WEEK3 I II III TOTAL MEAN
T1 0 0 0 0 0.00
T2 0 0 2 2 0.67
T3 0 1 0 1 0.33
T4 0 0 0 0 0.00
T5 0 0 0 0 0.00
WEEK 4
T1 0 1 0 1 0.33
T2 0 0 0 0 0.00
T3 0 2 0 2 0.67
T4 0 0 0 0 0.00
T5 0 2 0 2 0.67
WEEK 5
T1 0 0 1 1 0.33
T2 0 0 0 0 0.00
T3 0 0 0 0 0.00
T4 0 0 0 0 0.00
T5 0 0 3 3 1.00

Weekly Added Mean Number of Occurrence of Stem Holes

TREATMENTS WK1 WK2 WK3 WK4 WK5

T1 0 0 0 0.33 0.33
T2 0 0 0.67 0 0
T3 0 0 0.33 0.67 0
T4 0 0 0 0 0
T5 0 0 0 0.67 1

47
 APPENDIX B
(Meteorological Data)
TABLE 5. Meteorological Data of January
(Source: Northern Luzon Regional PAGASA Services Division)

January Temperature Relative Rainfall Wind Minutes of

Humidity (mm) Speed Sunshine
January 2018 Minimum Maximum Mean
1 210 250 230 91 1.4 1 60
2 201 269 235 88 0 1 162
3 211 260 236 89 0 0 18
4 210 285 248 92 0 1 96
5 232 312 272 81 1.8 1 480
6 222 312 268 82 0 1 432
7 227 317 272 80 0 1 564
8 244 326 285 79 0 2 570
9 224 300 262 83 0.1 1 186
10 198 242 220 92 0.6 3 00
11 180 252 216 88 0.2 3 00
12 175 235 205 84 T 2 48
13 170 233 202 86 0.4 2 60
14 175 245 210 87 T 1 28
15 211 275 243 82 0 1 174
16 220 300 260 81 0 1 324
17 223 266 245 88 0.1 1 00
18 218 280 242 90 0.8 1 00
19 190 295 243 86 0 0 222
20 222 295 259 82 T 1 480
21 223 289 256 88 0 1 186
22 215 324 270 78 0 1 486
23 215 311 263 82 0 1 434
24 226 290 258 82 T 1 60
25 228 280 254 91 0.4 0 84
26 235 310 273 83 1.2 1 186
27 219 260 240 90 0 1 00
28 203 282 243 86 0 2 00
29 210 270 240 88 0 2 66
30 205 268 237 83 0 1 42
31 202 290 246 82 0 1 270
Total 590.5 820.2 82 37 5712
Mean/Extreme 21.1 29.3 24.6 85 2 95.2

48
 TABLE 6. Meteorological Data of February

February Temperature Relative Rainfall Average Minutes of

February, 2018 Minimum Maximum Mean Humidity (mm) Speed Sunshine
1 206 290 248 82 0 2 510
2 200 282 241 79 0 2 240
3 195 265 230 87 0.2 2 120
4 195 273 234 84 T 3 324
5 175 255 215 86 T 2 264
6 176 250 213 88 0.5 2 168
7 190 238 214 92 3.6 1 60
8 202 265 234 90 1.7 1 48
9 210 265 238 92 2.6 1 48
10 225 281 253 93 T 1 54
11 208 287 248 87 0 3 48
12 198 272 235 82 0 3 180
13 198 252 225 85 0.8 0 120
14 210 271 241 84 0 1 72
15 222 320 271 80 0 1 228
16 235 348 292 78 0 1 576
17 236 305 271 86 0 2 348
18 233 306 270 84 1.8 1 186
19 200 340 270 77 0 1 354
20 215 342 279 76 0 1 364
21 233 340 287 72 0 1 588
22 230 330 280 77 0 1 480
23 22 295 259 87 4.5 1 144
24 206 315 261 83 0 1 384
25 224 325 275 72 0 1 426
26 217 290 254 88 4.2 1 144
27 223 283 253 89 0.9 0
28 221 317 269 83 2.4 1 330
29
30
31
Total 590.5 820.2 23.2 38 7,008
Mean/Extreme 21.1 29.3 25.2 83 2 116.8

49
 TABLE 7. Meteorological Data of March

MARCH 2018 Temperature Minutes

Relative Average
Day of the Rainfall(mm) of
Minimum Maximum Mean Humidity Speed
Month Sunshine
1 230 225 283 81 0 1 324
2 220 355 290 76 0 2 558
3 239 352 296 72 0 2 576
4 215 360 288 69 0 2 564
5 225 359 292 71 0 2 582
6 236 342 289 75 T 2 516
7 224 307 266 78 T 1 156
8 200 332 266 75 0 2 462
9 195 287 241 81 4 3 150
10 190 246 218 81 0 3 0
11 190 285 238 70 0 1 234
12 191 300 246 74 0 1 360
13 179 315 247 70 0 1 552
14 225 315 269 71 T 1 300
15 228 347 288 70 0 1 408
16 215 350 283 68 0 2 516
17 233 310 272 77 5 2 318
18 228 330 279 73 0 1 312
19 230 360 295 69 0 1 546
20 218 352 285 69 0 1 510
21 218 320 269 73 0 3 564
22 198 287 243 66 0 2 42
23 183 300 242 68 0 1 53
24 206 292 249 64 0 1 66
25 195 310 253 69 0 1 390
26 200 314 257 68 0 2 540
27 202 300 251 74 0 2 222
28 187 316 252 70 0 2 408
29 211 326 269 73 0 2 594
30 215 315 265 76 1 3 48
31 198 298 248 70 0 2 186
Total 652.4 991 1 53 11,057
Mean/Extreme 21 320 26.5 72 2 183.3

50
TABLE 8. Meteorological Data of April

APRIL 2018 Temperature Rainfall Minutes

Relative Average
Day of the (mm) of
Minimum Maximum Mean Humidity Speed
Month Sunshine
1 218 327 273 69 0 2 438
2 218 325 272 73 0 2 318
3 224 318 271 76 0 1 318
4 238 332 285 73 0.6 1 348
5 240 340 290 70 0 1 352
6 225 355 290 66 0 2 382
7 215 287 251 81 1 3 164
8 211 280 246 79 2 2 54
9 232 305 269 79 T 1 60
10 218 310 264 86 5 0 114
11 232 379 306 69 0 2 564
12 240 378 309 68 0 2 546
13 230 385 308 61 0 2 630
14 243 380 312 82 0 2 624
15 245 375 310 80 0 2 492
16 238 362 300 67 0 1 522
17 240 362 301 83 0 2 612
18 240 344 292 74 4 2 636
19 225 345 285 71 0 1 450
20 223 355 289 70 0 2 606
21 235 327 281 73 0 1 312
22 235 373 304 67 T 1 438
23 250 370 320 60 0 2 618
24 227 385 306 72 41.4 1 396
25 245 353 299 73 0 2 564
26 247 360 306 71 0 1 576
27 250 353 302 69 0 2 576
28 253 350 302 69 0 1 492
29 250 355 303 71 0 2 450
30 243 365 304 71 0 2 540
31
Total 703 1045.5 50.4 13290
Mean/Extreme 23.4 34.9 29.2 72 360 221.5

51
 APPENDIX C
(Result of Soil Analysis)

52
 APPENDIX D
(Approved Communication Letter)

53
 APPENDIX E
( PHOTO DOCUMENTATION)

Fig. 9 Photographs showing the preparation of Coronitas Extract

54
 Fig. 10 Photographs showing the preparation of fertilizers

Fig. 11 Land Preparation and Lay-out of the Experimental Area

55
Fig. 12 Photographs showing the transferring the seedling of sweet corn

Fig. 13 Photographs show the applying the treatments

56
Fig. 14 Photographs showing the gathering of the data

57
 Appendix F
(Budgetary Expenses)

Description Unit Cost Total Cost

I. Proposal Preparation
Internet Surfing 200 200
Printing 250 250
Photo copy 100 100
Folder 50 50
II. Conduct of the Study
Labor 3450 3450
Transportation 3000 3000
Seeds 2000 2000
Fertilizers 500 500
Insecticide 190 190
Fence (Wires) 3500 3500
Others 1000 1000
III. Writing and Presentation
Internet Surfing 200 200
Printing 200 200
Photo Copy 50(4) 200
Folder 10(5) 50
IV. Manuscript
Editing 500 500
Defence Fee 700 700
Binding 190(8) 1520
Total 17,610

58