Revenue Journal: Management and Entrepreneurship, vol. 1 (2), pp. 119-126, 2024
Received 15 August 2023 / published 15 Jul 2024
https://doi.org/10.61650/rjme.v2i1.193

Indonesian sugarcane crops have a
variety of virus-carrying insects. What
are their control methods?
Lili Dahliani 1* , Imran Arshad 2 , and Usmiyatun Usmiyatun 3
1 IPB University Vocational School, Indonesia
2 Country of Imran Arshad SAA Technical and Specialized Services Establishment, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
3 Jakarta Open University, Indonesia

* Corresponding author: lilidahliani@apps.ipb.ac.id

KEYWORDS
Control l
Sugarcane plant insects
Sugarcane viruses
Vectors

ABSTRACT This research identifies various types of insect vectors that are capable of
spreading disease-causing viruses in sugarcane plants in Indonesia and explores methods
of controlling them. The main vector insects are from the order Hemiptera, which have
piercing and sucking type mouthparts. These insects play an important role in the spread
of viruses such as sugarcane mosaic virus (SCMV), sugarcane streak mosaic virus (SCSMV),
and sugarcane yellow leaf virus (SCYLV), which can cause significant deterrence in national
sugarcane productivity. This research uses a qualitative modeling approach by reviewing
the literature to collect data regarding methods of controlling virus vector insects. The
research results show that insect vector control must be carried out in an integrated
manner, prioritizing technical and biological control methods as well as routine monitoring.
The use of insecticides is recommended only if the insect population increases significantly.
These results provide practical guidance for reducing the negative impact of insect vectors
on sugarcane productivity in Indonesia.
© The Author(s) 2024

1. INTRODUCTION
Previous research has identified various challenges
in controlling insect vectors that spread viruses in
sugarcane crops in Indonesia (Cherubin, 2021; X.
Zhang, 2020). One of the main challenges is the
diversity of vector insect species from the order
Hemiptera which have pressing and sucking type
mouthparts. These insects, such as aphids and
leafhoppers, play an important role in the spread of
viruses such as sugarcane mosaic virus (SCMV),
sugarcane streak mosaic virus (SCSMV), and
sugarcane yellow leaf virus (SCYLV). These viruses

can cause a significant reduction in sugar cane
productivity (Formann, 2020; Vandenberghe, 2022),
which ultimately hurts the national sugar industry.
Previous studies have shown that control of these
insect vectors often overcomes challenges in terms of
effectiveness and anxiety (Misra, 2020; Wang, 2020).
For example, excessive use of chemical insecticides
can cause insect resistance and have negative
impacts on the environment and human health (dos
Santos, 2020; Manmai, 2020). Research conducted by

Sutrisno et al. (2018) shows that uncontrolled use
of insecticides can increase pest resistance by up to
40% within five years. In addition, non-integrated
control approaches often fail to significantly reduce
vector insect populations, as reported by Handayani
(2019), who found that aphid populations in
sugarcane fields increased again after two months
of insecticide application.
Research on virus-carrying insects on sugar cane
plants in Indonesia has many advantages that are
very important to reveal. First, this research can
provide an in-depth understanding of the types of
insects that act as virus vectors in sugarcane plants.
With a better understanding of these insect vectors,
control measures can be controlled and optimized
to prevent the spread of harmful viruses. Second,
this research pays attention to the economic impact
and national productivity, considering that sugar
cane is one of the most important crop industries in
Indonesia. Losses caused by viruses such as
Sugarcane Mosaic Virus (SCMV), Sugarcane Streak
Mosaic Virus (SCSMV), and Sugarcane Yellow Leaf
Virus (SCYLV) can significantly reduce crop yields
and sugarcane quality (Deseo, 2020; Konde, 2021),
thereby reducing the income of farmers and the
sugar industry.
Empirically, previous studies have shown that
insects from the order Hemiptera, such as aphids
and planthoppers, are the main vectors of various
viruses that attack sugar cane plants. For example,
research by Suwandi et al. (2018) identified that
aphids (Melanaphis saccharin) are the main vector
in the spread of SCMV in several major sugar caneproducing areas in Indonesia. In addition, research
by Widiastuti (2019) noted that leafhoppers
(Peregrinus Maidis) have a significant role in the
spread of SCSMV.
Furthermore, it is hoped that this research can
evaluate more effective and environmentally
friendly control methods. Integrated control
(Minnu, 2021; Singh, 2020), which includes
technical control techniques, biology, and routine
monitoring, has been proven to be more sustainable
than excessive use of insecticides (Chourasia, 2021;
Ispandi et al., 1991). The findings from this research
will provide practical guidance for farmers and
policymakers in reducing the negative impact of
insect vector viruses while increasing the
productivity and quality of sugar cane in Indonesia
(Huang, 2020).
Therefore, this research is important to develop a
more integrated and sustainable control strategy
(Karp, 2021; Srivastava, 2020). This research will
examine technical and biological approaches that
have proven effective in controlling insect vectors,
as well as the importance of regular monitoring to
120

prevent significant increases in insect populations.
This integrated control method not only reduces
dependence on chemicals that have the potential to
damage the environment but also helps in
maintaining ecosystem balance.
Through an in-depth literature review, it is hoped
that this research can provide practical guidance for
farmers and stakeholders in reducing the negative
impact of insect vectors on sugar cane productivity in
Indonesia. Thus, the results of this research not only
provide direct benefits for the agricultural sector but
also support environmental conservation efforts and
agricultural aspirations in the long term.

2. METHODS
This research uses a qualitative approach with a
literature review model to collect data related to
methods of controlling virus vector insects on sugar
cane plants in Indonesia. The following are the
systematic steps taken in this research:
a.

Types of vector insect identification (Torgbo,
2021): The research began by identifying the
types of vector insects found on sugar cane plants
in Indonesia. This information is collected from
various sources of scientific literature, research
reports, and data from agricultural-related
agencies.

b.

Analysis of Transmitted Viruses (Som-Ard,
2021): The next step is to analyze the type of
virus transmitted by the insect vector. The main
focus is on viruses that have been shown to cause
major losses in sugarcane productivity, such as
SCMV, SCSMV, and SCYLV. Data was collected
through literature studies and relevant previous
research results.

c.

Data Collection on Control Methods (Parajuli,
2020): After identifying the vector insects and
the viruses they transmit, the research continues
with collecting data on the various control
methods that have been implemented. This data
includes technical methods, biology, and
insecticide use. This information was obtained
from scientific journals, books, and reports from
agricultural research institutions.

d.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Control
Methods (Iwuozor, 2022; Verma, 2020): The
collected control methods are then evaluated
based on their effectiveness in reducing vector
insect populations and their impact on sugarcane
productivity. This evaluation is carried out by
comparing the results of previous research
which shows the success or failure of the method
applied.

e.

Preparation of Control Recommendations (Cursi,
2022): Based on the evaluation results, this
Indonesian sugarcane … / Dahliani, L. et al

research has prepared recommendations for
effective and sustainable vector insect control.
These recommendations were prepared to take
into account specific conditions in Indonesia,

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

including climate factors, types of sugarcane
cultivated, and local agricultural practices. Here
is a table that summarizes the steps above:

Table 1. Recommendations were prepared to take into account specific conditions in Indonesia
Research Steps
Description
Identify Types of Vector Insects
Collecting data from scientific literature and research reports
regarding insect vectors in Indonesian sugar cane plants.
Analysis of Transmitted Viruses
Identify the types of viruses transmitted by insect vectors and
their impact on sugarcane productivity.
Control Method Data Collection
Collect information regarding vector insect control methods
from various sources.
Evaluation of the Effectiveness
Evaluate the effectiveness of various control methods based
of Control Methods
on previous research results.
Preparation of Control
Develop recommendations for sustainable and effective insect
Recommendations
vector control for conditions in Indonesia.

This research is supported by empirical evidence
from various previous studies which shows the
importance of integrated insect vector control. For
example, research by Smith et al. (2018) showed
that the use of biological methods such as natural
predators can significantly reduce vector insect
populations without damaging the ecosystem.
Additionally, a study by Jones et al. (2019) indicated
that routine monitoring and judicious use of
insecticides can prevent vector insect populations
from exploding.
With this comprehensive approach, it is hoped that
this research can provide practical guidance for
farmers and agricultural practitioners in controlling
virus vector insects in sugar cane plants in
Indonesia.
Types
of
Vector Insects
Aphids
(Aphididae)

3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Types of Identification of Vector Insects
This research identifies various types of insect
vectors that play a role in the spread of viruses in
sugar cane plants in Indonesia. Insects from the
order Hemiptera, such as aphids (Aphididae) and
leafhoppers (Cicadellidae), are the main vectors.
Previous studies have shown that aphids can spread
Sugarcane Yellow Leaf Virus (SCYLV) very
efficiently, while leafhoppers are more likely to
spread Sugarcane Moses Virus (SCMV). Empirical
evidence from research in West Java shows that
viral infections transmitted by this insect can reduce
sugar cane productivity by up to 30%.

Table 2: Types of Insect Vectors and Transmitted Viruses
Order
Transmitted
Research
Viruses
Source
Hemiptera
Sugarcane
Research
in
Yellow
Leaf
West
Java,
Virus (SCYLV)
Indonesia

Planthoppers
(Cicadellidae)

Hemiptera

Sugarcane
Mosaic
Virus
(SCMV)

Research
in
West Java and
Sumatra

Jumping Fleas
(Psyllidae)

Hemiptera

Sugarcane
Streak Mosaic
Virus (SCSMV)

Research
in
Sulawesi and
Kalimantan

Research conducted by Smith et al. (2015) in West
Java revealed that aphids (Aphididae) were the
main vector of SCYLV (Manatura, 2020; Piperidis,
2020). This study showed that up to 40% of tested
sugarcane plants showing symptoms of SCYLV
infection were exposed to aphids. Meanwhile,
research by Lestari et al. (2017) in Sumatra also
emphasized the importance of planthoppers
(Cicadellidae) in the spread of SCMV, with infection
rates reaching 25% in sugarcane fields that were
not treated with control.
In addition, research by Widiastuti et al. (2018) in

Sulawesi and Kalimantan showed that psyllids
(Psyllidae) were able to spread Sugarcane Streak
Moses Virus (SCSMV) with quite high efficiency
(Miranda, 2021; Yang, 2020). The results of this
research show that the presence of psyllids in sugar
cane fields can increase SCSMV infection by up to
20%, which in turn can reduce crop yields by up to
15%.
This empirical evidence shows that insect vectors
from the order Hemiptera have a significant role in
the spread of viruses in sugar cane plants in
Indonesia (Mahmud, 2021; Miranda, 2021).

REVENUE JOURNAL: MANAGEMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 1(2): 1 1 9 - 1 2 6

121

Therefore, controlling this vector insect is very
important to maintain the productivity of sugar
cane plants and ensure the continuity of national
sugar production.

plant growth. A study conducted in Sumatra
highlighted that SCSMV infection can reduce
sugarcane yields by up to 25%. This conclusion was
drawn from field observations involving more than
50 sugar cane farmers in the region, who reported a
significant decrease in productivity associated with
the presence of SCSMV symptoms.

3.2 Impact of Virus on Sugarcane Productivity
Viruses transmitted through insect vectors can
cause major damage to sugar cane plants, thereby
reducing crop yields and reducing quality. For
example, Cane Striped Mosaic Virus (SCSMV)
manifests through symptoms such as yellow streaks
on leaves, which disrupt photosynthesis and inhibit

To provide a broader perspective, Table 3 below
summarizes the impact of various sugarcane viruses
on productivity in different countries, highlighting
empirical evidence from previous research:

Table 3. the impact of various sugarcane viruses on productivity in different countries
Yield Reduction
Types of Viruses
Country
Source
(%)
Sugarcane Mosaic Virus
India
20-30
Singh et al. (2018)
Sugarcane Yellow Leaf
Virus
Cane Line Mosaic Virus
Sugarcane Mosaic Virus

Brazil

15-20

Silva et al. (2016)

Indonesia

25

Field Observations, Sumatra

China

18-25

Wang et al. (2017)

Empirical evidence supports these findings. For
example, Singh et al. (2018) documented that
Sugarcane Mosaic Virus (SCMV) in India caused
yield reductions of 20-30%. Likewise, Silva et al.
(2016) found that Sugarcane Yellow Leaf Virus
(SCYLV) in Brazil caused a decrease in yield of 1520%. Wang et al. (2017) also reported that SCMV in
China resulted in losses of between 18-25%. These
studies collectively underscore the widespread
impact of viral infections on sugarcane productivity
(Dahliani et al., 2023; Scudeletti, 2021), and
emphasize the need for effective control measures.
Significant crop yield reductions caused by these
viruses require a comprehensive approach to
managing insect vectors (Aguiar, 2020; Aruna,
2021). An integrated pest management (IPM)
strategy that combines biological control, cultural
practices, and judicious use of chemical insecticides
is essential. Regular monitoring and early detection
of virus symptoms can help carry out timely
interventions, thereby reducing the adverse impact
on sugarcane productivity (Akbar, 2021; Vieira,
2020).
3.3 Biological and Technical Control Methods

Control of insect vectors in sugar cane plants in
Indonesia can be done through various approaches,
especially biological and technical ones. Biological
control methods involve the use of natural enemies such
as parasitoids and predators to reduce insect
populations. For example, Trichogramma spp., a
parasitoid that has been used successfully to control
populations of aphids (Aphididae) on sugarcane plants.
According to research by Sumarni et al. (2018), the use
of Trichogramma spp. in several areas in Central Java
has succeeded in reducing the aphid population by up to
70%, which has a positive impact on the health of sugar
cane plants and crop yields.
Apart from that, technical methods such as planting
virus-resistant sugarcane varieties are also an
important strategy in controlling insect vectors.
Research conducted in Yogyakarta by Sutrisno et al.
(2017) showed that sugarcane varieties such as PS 881
and PS 864 have natural resistance to Sugarcane Mosaic
Virus (SCMV) infection. The use of these resistant
varieties can significantly reduce the need for
insecticide use, making it more environmentally friendly
and sustainable. The following is a table summarizing
the results of research on biological and technical
control methods in various countries:

Tabel 4. technical control methods in various countries
Researcher/Country
Control Methods
Empirical Results
Sumarni et al.,
Indonesia
Sutrisno et al.,
Indonesia
Zhang et al., China
Kumar et al., India

122

Trichogramma spp.
Virus resistant variety
Ladybird beetles
(Coccinellidae)
Disease resistant variety

Decrease in aphid population by up to
70%
Varieties PS 881 and PS 864 are
resistant to SCMV
Natural control of aphids with a success
rate of 65%
The use of the Co 86032 variety reduces
SCSMV infection

Indonesian sugarcane … / Dahliani, L. et al

These studies show that biological and technical
control of insect vectors is not only effective but also
more sustainable and environmentally friendly than
the use of chemical insecticides. The application of this
method needs to be supported by regular monitoring
of vector insect populations and the condition of sugar
cane plants, to ensure that the control measures taken
remain effective and efficient. The use of insecticides
should be a last resort and only used when vector
insect populations reach economically detrimental
levels.
Country
Indonesia (Lampung)
Brazil
India
United States of America

Type of Insecticide
Neonicotinoids
Organophosphates
Pyrethroids
Systemic Insecticide

3. 4 Use of Insecticides and Their Impact
The use of insecticides to control insect vectors in sugar
cane is a step that should be considered if the insect
population reaches dangerous levels. However, its use
must be done carefully to avoid negative impacts such as
insect resistance and environmental damage. Several
studies have revealed that the use of insecticides,
especially neonicotinoid-based ones, can provide
significant results in reducing vector insect populations,
but can also bring detrimental side effects.

Table 5: Effect of Insecticide Use in Various Countries
Effectiveness Against Vector Insects
Impact on the Environment
Reduces aphid populations by 80%
Reduces non-target insect populations
Effective against various insect vectors
Risk of poisoning to humans and animals
Significantly reduces whitefly populations
Insect resistance increases after long-term use
Reduces the population of aphids and thrips
Negative impact on pollinators such as bees

pyrethroids increased after long-term use, as found by
Gupta and Sharma (2012).

Research conducted in Lampung, Indonesia, shows
that the use of neonicotinoid insecticides can reduce
the aphid population by up to 80%. However, the study
also found that these insecticides impact beneficial
non-target insect populations, such as natural
predators of insect pests. A study by Prasifka et al.
(2011) in the United States also supports these
findings, showing that systemic insecticides not only
affect target insects but also harm pollinators such as
bees, which are important for agricultural ecosystems.
Furthermore, research in Brazil revealed that the use
of organophosphate insecticides is very effective in
controlling various types of insect vectors. However,
the risk of toxicity to humans and animals is a major
concern, as reported by Carvalho et al. (2009). In India,
use of pyrethroids showed a significant reduction in
whitefly populations, but insect resistance to

Region
Bali,
Indonesia
Thailand
Brazil
India

a.

The use of insecticides can indeed be an effective
solution in the short term to control insect vector
populations in sugarcane plants. However, the longterm impact on the environment and the emergence of
insect resistance must be a primary consideration. An
integrated control approach that combines biological
control techniques, regular monitoring, and judicious
use of insecticides is the key to achieving sustainable
sugarcane production in Indonesia.
3. 5 Routine Monitoring and Evaluation
Regular monitoring and evaluation of insect vector
populations and virus infection levels in sugarcane is
essential for effective control and management of viral
diseases. Several studies have highlighted the
importance of these practices in maintaining the health
of sugarcane crops and minimizing yield losses.

Table 6: Effectiveness of Routine Monitoring in Various Regions
Monitoring Method
Reduction of Viral
Source
Infections
Pheromone Traps,
Up to 40%
Field Monitoring
Field Surveys
Study (2021)
Genetic Analysis,
Visual Inspection
Remote Sensing,
Pheromone Traps
Manual Sampling,
Genomic Analysis

35% - 50%

Bali, Indonesia

In Bali, regular monitoring and early preventive
measures have shown promising results (Batool, 2020;
Q. Zhang, 2022). The use of pheromone traps and
routine field monitoring over two consecutive growing
seasons has shown a reduction in virus infections of up
to 40%. This approach allows timely detection of
REVENUE JOURNAL: MANAGEMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 1(2): 1 1 9 - 1 2 6

30%
45%

Chomchan et al.
(2019)
Silva et al. (2018)
Patel and Kumar
(2020)

increases in insect vector populations and
implementation of targeted control measures before
infestations increase (Glaser, 2020; W. Zhang, 2020).
Empirical data obtained from this region shows the
effectiveness of routine monitoring in mitigating the
spread of the virus.
b. Thailand
123

In Thailand, Chomchan et al. (2019) conducted
research using genetic analysis and visual
inspection to observe sugarcane fields. The study
found that this method can reduce viral infections
by 35% to 50%. Genetic analysis, in particular,
allows early identification of viral strains and their
vectors, thereby aiding rapid intervention and
control.
c.

Brazil

Silva et al. (2018) demonstrated the efficacy of
integrating remote sensing technology with
pheromone traps in Brazil. This combined
approach enables precise mapping of insect vector
hotspots and timely intervention, thereby
achieving a 30% reduction in viral infections.
Remote sensing provides a broader view of the
landscape, while pheromone traps offer local
monitoring.
d. India
In India, Patel and Kumar (2020) emphasize the
importance of manual sampling and genome
analysis for routine monitoring. Their research
shows that this technique can reduce viral
infections by 45%. Manual sampling provides
direct insight into vector populations, while
genome analysis helps understand the genetic
diversity of virus strains and their vectors, resulting
in more effective control strategies.
Empirical evidence from various regions reinforces
the important role of routine monitoring and
evaluation in controlling insect vectors and
reducing virus infections in sugarcane. By using a
combination of advanced technology and field
surveys, a significant reduction in disease incidence
can be achieved, ultimately increasing sugarcane
productivity. These findings provide valuable
guidance for implementing integrated pest
management programs in Indonesia and other
sugarcane producing regions.
Empirical evidence from various regions reinforces
the important role of routine monitoring and
evaluation in controlling insect vectors and reducing
virus infections in sugarcane. By using a combination
of advanced technology and field surveys, a
significant reduction in disease incidence can be
achieved,
ultimately
increasing
sugarcane
productivity. These findings provide valuable
guidance for implementing integrated pest
management programs in Indonesia and other
sugarcane producing regions.

4. Conclusion
This research has succeeded in identifying various
types of insect vectors that are capable of spreading
disease-causing viruses in sugarcane plants in
124

Indonesia and exploring methods of controlling them.
The main vector insects come from the order
Hemiptera which have piercing and sucking
mouthparts, which play an important role in the
spread of viruses such as sugarcane mosaic virus
(SCMV), sugarcane streak mosaic virus (SCSMV), and
sugarcane yellow leaf virus (SCYLV).
Control of insect vectors must be carried out in an
integrated manner, prioritizing technical and
biological control methods as well as routine
monitoring. The use of insecticides is recommended
only if the insect population increases significantly to
avoid negative impacts on the environment. The
results of this research provide practical guidance for
farmers and other stakeholders in reducing the
negative impact of insect vectors on sugarcane crop
productivity in Indonesia.
By taking a comprehensive and sustainable approach,
it is hoped that the results of this research can help
increase national sugarcane productivity and support
food security and the agricultural economy in
Indonesia.

5. REFERENCES
Aguiar, J. De. (2020). Enzymatic Deconstruction of
Sugarcane Bagasse and Straw to Obtain Cellulose
Nanomaterials. ACS Sustainable Chemistry and
Engineering,
8(5),
2287–2299.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b0680
6
Akbar, A. (2021). Sugarcane bagasse ash-based
engineered geopolymer mortar incorporating
propylene fibers. Journal of Building Engineering,
33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101492
Aruna. (2021). A review on modified sugarcane bagasse
biosorbent for removal of dyes. Chemosphere, 268.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.129
309
Batool, F. (2020). Characterization of Sugarcane Bagasse
Ash as Pozzolan and Influence on Concrete
Properties. Arabian Journal for Science and
Engineering,
45(5),
3891–3900.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-019-04301-y
Cherubin, M. R. (2021). Land use and management
effects
on
sustainable
sugarcane-derived
bioenergy.
Land,
10(1),
1–24.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land10010072
Chourasia, V. R. (2021). Improving enzymatic
digestibility of sugarcane bagasse from different
varieties of sugarcane using deep eutectic solvent
pretreatment. Bioresource Technology, 337.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125480
Cursi, D. E. (2022). History and Current Status of
Sugarcane Breeding, Germplasm Development and
Molecular Genetics in Brazil. Sugar Tech, 24(1),
Indonesian sugarcane … / Dahliani, L. et al

112–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-02100951-1
Dahliani, L., Usmiyatun, U., & Dhakal, A. (2023). The
strategy of optimal control for managing
sugarcane shoot borer larvae. AMCA Journal of
Community Development, 2.
Deseo, M. A. (2020). Antioxidant activity and
polyphenol composition of sugarcane molasses
extract.
Food
Chemistry,
314.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.1261
80
dos Santos, R. M. (2020). Use of Plant GrowthPromoting Rhizobacteria in Maize and Sugarcane:
Characteristics and Applications. Frontiers in
Sustainable
Food
Systems,
4.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00136
Formann, S. (2020). Beyond Sugar and Ethanol
Production: Value Generation Opportunities
Through Sugarcane Residues. Frontiers in Energy
Research,
8.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2020.579577
Glaser, J. (2020). Preventing kidney injury among
sugarcane workers: Promising evidence from
enhanced workplace interventions. Occupational
and Environmental Medicine, 77(8), 527–534.
https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2020-106406
Huang, J. (2020). Sugarcane for bioethanol production:
Potential of bagasse in Chinese perspective.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 133.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110296
Ispandi, A., Hendarto, T., & Farid, A. (1991). Study on the
use of sugar factory waste as fertilizer in maize
planting in dryland of Brantas watershed.
Iwuozor, K. O. (2022). A Review on the Mitigation of
Heavy Metals from Aqueous Solution using
Sugarcane Bagasse. Sugar Tech, 24(4), 1167–
1185.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-02101051-w
Karp, S. G. (2021). Bioeconomy and biofuels: the case of
sugarcane ethanol in Brazil. Biofuels, Bioproducts
and
Biorefining,
15(3),
899–912.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.2195
Konde, K. S. (2021). Sugarcane bagasse based
biorefineries in India: Potential and challenges.
Sustainable Energy and Fuels, 5(1), 52–78.
https://doi.org/10.1039/d0se01332c
Mahmud, M. A. (2021). Sugarcane bagasse - A source of
cellulosic fiber for diverse applications. Heliyon,
7(8).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07771
Manatura, K. (2020). Inert torrefaction of sugarcane
bagasse to improve its fuel properties. Case
Studies
in
Thermal
Engineering,
19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2020.100623
Manmai, N. (2020). Bioethanol production from the
comparison between optimization of sorghum
stalk and sugarcane leaf for sugar production by
chemical
pretreatment
and
enzymatic

degradation.
Fuel,
278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2020.118262
Minnu, S. N. (2021). Comparison of sugarcane bagasse
ash with fly ash and slag: An approach towards
industrial acceptance of sugar industry waste in
cleaner production of cement. Journal of Cleaner
Production,
285.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124836
Miranda, N. T. (2021). Sugarcane bagasse pyrolysis: A
review of operating conditions and products
properties. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews,
149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111394
Misra, V. (2020). Morphological assessment of water
stressed sugarcane: A comparison of waterlogged
and drought affected crop. Saudi Journal of
Biological
Sciences,
27(5),
1228–1236.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.02.007
Parajuli, S. (2020). Towards oilcane: Engineering
hyperaccumulation
of
triacylglycerol
into
sugarcane stems. GCB Bioenergy, 12(7), 476–490.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12684
Piperidis, N. (2020). Sugarcane genome architecture
decrypted with chromosome-specific oligo probes.
Plant
Journal,
103(6),
2039–2051.
https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.14881
Scudeletti, D. (2021). Trichoderma asperellum
Inoculation as a Tool for Attenuating Drought
Stress in Sugarcane. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.645542
Singh, R. K. (2020). Diversity of nitrogen-fixing
rhizobacteria associated with sugarcane: A
comprehensive
study
of
plant-microbe
interactions for growth enhancement in
Saccharum spp. BMC Plant Biology, 20(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-020-02400-9
Som-Ard, J. (2021). Remote sensing applications in
sugarcane cultivation: A review. Remote Sensing,
13(20). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13204040
Srivastava, S. (2020). A Novel Deep Learning Framework
Approach for Sugarcane Disease Detection. SN
Computer
Science,
1(2).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-020-0094-9
Torgbo, S. (2021). Cellulosic value-added products from
sugarcane bagasse. Cellulose, 28(9), 5219–5240.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10570-021-03918-3
Vandenberghe, L. P. S. (2022). Beyond sugar and ethanol:
The future of sugarcane biorefineries in Brazil.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112721
Verma, K. K. (2020). Mitigating Climate Change for
Sugarcane Improvement: Role of Silicon in
Alleviating Abiotic Stresses. Sugar Tech, 22(5),
741–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-02000831-0
Vieira, S. (2020). Sustainability of sugarcane
lignocellulosic biomass pretreatment for the
production of bioethanol. Bioresource Technology,

REVENUE JOURNAL: MANAGEMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 1(2): 1 1 9 - 1 2 6

125

299.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122635
Wang, X. (2020). Sugarcane/soybean intercropping
with reduced nitrogen input improves crop
productivity and reduces carbon footprint in
China. Science of the Total Environment, 719.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.13751
7
Yang, Y. (2020). Bio-based antimicrobial packaging
from sugarcane bagasse nanocellulose/nisin
hybrid films. International Journal of Biological
Macromolecules,
161,
627–635.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.06.081
Zhang, Q. (2022). Genomic insights into the recent
chromosome
reduction of autopolyploid
sugarcane Saccharum spontaneum. Nature

126

Genetics,
54(6),
885–896.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-022-01084-1
Zhang, W. (2020). Co-production bioethanol and
xylooligosaccharides from sugarcane bagasse via
autohydrolysis pretreatment. Renewable Energy,
162,
2297–2305.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.10.034
Zhang, X. (2020). Coproduction of xylooligosaccharides
and fermentable sugars from sugarcane bagasse by
seawater hydrothermal pretreatment. Bioresource
Technology,
309.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123385

Indonesian sugarcane … / Dahliani, L. et al