Abduchalek B. 2000. Kepadatan populasi Parasitoid Larva Eriborus argenteopilosus Cameron (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) pada Dua Jenis Inang di Pertanaman Brokoli dan Tomat Petani di Daerah Cibodas, Kabupaten Cianjur, Jawa Barat. [Skripsi]. Bogor: Departemen Proteksi Tanaman, Fakultas Pertanian, Institut Pertanian Bogor.
Anggara AW. 2005. Pemencaran dan Kemampuan Parasitoid Telenomus remus
(Nixon) (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae) Pada Dua Tipe Agroekosistem [Tesis]. Bogor: Institut Pertanian Bogor.
Bennet DM, Hofmann AA. 1998. Effect of size and fluactuating asymmetry on field fitness of parasitoid Trichogramma carverae (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Entomological 67, 591-580.
Bouchier RS, Smith SM, Song SJ. 1994. Host acceptance and parasitoid size as predictors of parasitoid quality for mass-reared Trichogramma minutum.
Bio Con 3: 115-39.
[BPS] Biro Pusat Statistik. 2005. Data produksi kubis di Indonesia. http://www.google.com/www.bps.com[6 Agustus 2006].
Bonn A, Gasse M, Rolff J, Martens A. 1996. Increased fluctuating asymmetry in the damselfly Coenagrion puella is correlated with ectoparasitic water mites: implications for fluctuating asymmetry theory. Oecologia 108, 598- 596.
Borror DJ, Triplehorn CA, Johnson NF. 1996. Pengenalan pelajaran serangga. Partosoedjono S, penterjemah. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada Univ pr. 1083h. Crop Protection Compendium [CPC]. 2002. CPC Global Module. Wallingford. Gauthier N, Monge JP, Huignard J. 1997. Sex-allocation behaviour of solitary
ectoparasitoid: effects of host-patch characteristics and female density.
Entomol Exp Appl 82: 167-74
Godfray HCJ. 1994. Parasitoid: Behaviour and Evolutionary Ecology. New Jersey: Princeton Univercity Press.
Gordh G, Legner EF, Caltagirone LE. 1999. Biology of Parasitic Hymenoptera.
In: Bellows TS, Fisher TW (Eds). 1999. Handbook of biological control. California: Academic Press. Pp. 355-381.
Hadi S. 1985. Biologi dan Perilaku Inareolata sp. (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) Parasitoid Larva pada Hama Kubis Crocidolomia binotalis
22 (Zell) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) [Tesis]. Bogor: Program Pascasarjana, Institut Pertanian Bogor.
Heimpel GE, Rosenheim JA. 1998. Egg limitation in parasitoids: a review of evidence and a case study. Bio Con 11: 160-8.
Heriyano N. 2000. Perubahan strategi reproduksi Eriborus argenteopilosus
Cameron (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) sebagai tanggap terhadap ketiadaan inang Crocidolomia binotalis (Zell) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). [Skripsi]. Bogor: Departemen Proteksi Tanaman, Fakultas Pertanian, Institut Pertanian Bogor.
Hoffmann AA, Shirriffs J. 2002. Geographic variation for wing shape in Drosophila serrata. Evolution 56, 1073-1068.
Islamiah M. 2003. Populasi Parasitoid Eriborus argenteopilosus Cameron (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) di Pertanaman Kubis di Daerah Cibodas dan Cisarua. [Skripsi]. Bogor: Departemen Proteksi Tanaman, Fakultas Pertanian, Institut Pertanian Bogor.
Johnson MW. 2000. Biological control of pest. Online page: www2.ctahr.hawaii.edu/ento/Faculty%20and%20post_docs/Marshall/text/Fa ll_2000_BC.pdf.
Kalshoven LGE. 1981. Pest of Crops in Indonesia. Jakarta: PT Ichtiar Baru, Van Hoeve.
Kolliker-Ott UM, Bigler F, Hoffman AA. 2004. Field dispersal and host location of Trichogramma brassicae is influenced by wing size but not wing shape.
Biocontrol 31, 10-1.
Meyer JR. 2005. External Anatomy Wings. In General Entomology ENT 425. Australia. (http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/tutorial/wings.html) Mpho M, Holloway GJ, Callaghan A. 2000. Fluctuating wing asymmetry and
larva density stress in Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae). Bulletin of Entomological Reseach 90,283-279.
Oginawati K. 2006. Analisis risiko penggunaan insektisida Organofosfat terhadap kesehatan petani penyemprot. http://tl.lib.itb.ac.id/go.php?id=jbptitbtl-gdl-s3-2006-katharinao-878
Othman N. 1982. Biology of Crocidolomia binotalis (Zell) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and its parasites fro Cipanas area, West Java (a report of training course research). Bogor: SEAMEO Regional Centre for Tropical Biology. Permadi AH, Sastrosiswojo S. 1993. Kubis. Edisi Pertama. Badan Penelitian
dan Pengembangan Pertanian. Balai Penelitian Hortikultura. Lembang. Pracaya. 2001. Kol alias kubis [edisi dua]. Jakarta. Penebar Swadaya.
23 Quicke DLJ. 1997. Parasitic wasps. Chapman & Hall.London.
Rauf A, Hindayana D, Widodo, Anwar R. 1993. Studi baseline identifikasi dan pengembangan teknologi pengendalian hama terpadu pada sayuran dataran tinggi (survei eksplorasi), penelitian pendukung pengendalian hama terpadu pada sayuran dataran tinggi [Laporan Proyek]. Kerjasama Balai Penelitian Hortikultura Lembang dengan Fakultas Pertanian, IPB.
Rohlf FJ. 1999. Shape statistics: Procructes superimpositions and tangent spaces. State university of new york at stony brook. Journal of Classification 16: 197-223.
Rourke JW. 2004. An evaluation of fluctuating asymmetry as a tool in identifying imperiled Bird Populations. [Thesis]. Departemen of Biology, Faculty of San Diego State University.
Sahari B. 1999. Studi Enkapsulasi Parasitoid Eriborus argenteopilosus Cameron (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) dan Implikasinya pada Inang Crocidolomia binotalis (Zell) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), dan Spodoptera litura (Fabr.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) [Tesis]. Bogor: Program Pascasarjana, Institut Pertanian Bogor.
Sastrosiswojo S, Setiawati W. 1993. Hama-hama tanaman kubis dan cara pengendalian. Lembang: Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian. Balai Penelitian Hortikultura.
Speight MR, Mark DH, Allan DW. 1999. Ecology of insect: Concepts and Applications. Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.
Tofilski A. 2004. Draw Wing, a program for numerical description of insect wings. Journal of Insect Science, 4:7, Available online: insectscience.org/4.17
Uhan ST. 1993. Kehilangan panen karena ulat krop kubis (Crocidolomia binotalis Zell.) dan cara pengendaliannya. Jurnal Hort 3(2): 26-22.
Umayah S. 2003. Pengaruh Perlakuan Insektisida Terhadap Parasitisasi Eriborus argenteopilosus Cameron (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) pada Larva
Crocidolomia binotalis (Zell) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) di Pertanaman Kubis. [Skripsi]. Bogor: Departemen Proteksi Tanaman, Fakultas Pertanian, Institut Pertanian Bogor.
Utami S. 2001. Tanaman Brokoli (Brassica oleraceae var.italica), Pakan Larva
Helicoverpa armigera (Hubn.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Meningkatkan Keberhasilan Hidup Parasitoid Eriborus argenteopilosus Cameron (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) [Skripsi]. Bogor: Departemen Proteksi Tanaman, Fakultas Pertanian, Institut Pertanian Bogor.
24 Van Driesche RG, Thomas SB. 1996. Biologycal Control. New York: Chapman
& Hall.
Van den Bosch R. 1973. An Introduction to Biological Control. London: Plenum Press.
Van Driesche RG, Thomas SB. 1996. Biologycal Control. New York: Chapman & Hall.
Zultika R. 1996. Eksplorasi dan kepadatan populasi telur Spodoptera exigua
Hbn.(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) di daerah geografi berbeda [skripsi]. Bogor: Departemen Proteksi Tanaman, Fakultas Pertanian, Institut Pertanian Bogor.
26 Tabel Lampiran 1 Sidik ragam luas sayap depan jantan pada tiap perlakuan
Sumber db JK KT F P
Perlakuan 5 0,096 0,019 4,51 0,0007 Galat 182 0,778 0,004
Total 187 0,875
Ket: R2=0,110 CV=3,444; Selang kritis ? 2=0,077; 3=0,081
Tabel Lampiran 2 Sidik ragam luas sayap depan betina pada tiap perlakuan
Sumber db JK KT F P
Perlakuan 5 0,029 0,006 0,72 0.611
Galat 107 0,870 0,008 Total 112 0,899
Ket: R2=0,033; CV=4,366; Selang kritis ? 2=0,054; 3=0,056
Tabel Lampiran 3 Sidik ragam jumlah telur pada tiap perlakuan
Sumber db JK KT F P
Perlakuan 5 24928,850 4985,770 1,08 0.03730 Galat 107 491706,513 4595,388
Total 112 516635,513
Ket: R2=0,040; CV=4,368; Selang kritis ? 2=40,33; 3=42,45
Tabel Lampiran 4 Sidik ragam Fluktuasi (FA) sayap jantan pada tiap perlakuan
Sumber db JK KT F P
Perlakuan 5 0,155 0,0310 6,36 0,0001 Galat 182 0,888 0,0049
Total 187 1,043
27 Tabel Lampiran 5 Sidik ragam Fluktuasi (FA) sayap betina pada tiap perlakuan
Sumber db JK KT F P
Perlakuan 5 0,137 0,027 3,14 0,0111 Galat 107 0,937 0,009
Total 112 1,073
Ket: R2=0,128; CV=78,73; Selang kritis ? 2=0,094; 3=0,119
Tabel lampiran 6 Rata-rata harian suhu udara di lapangan selama penelitian
Tempat
Rata-rata suhu udara oC/jam pengambilan
08,00-09.00 09.00-10.00 10.00-11.00 11.00-12.00 Cibodas lereng 34 32.5 31 24 Cibodas lereng 26.5 32 38 37 Cibodas lereng 23.5 33 37 31 Cibodas lereng 34.5 38.5 44 39 Cibodas lereng 38 34.5 27 27 Cibodas datar 36 32 32.5 30 Cibodas datar 26.5 34 33.5 36 Cibodas datar 37 37 35.5 35 Lembang 27 26.5 24 25 Lembang 27 29 24 25
28 Tabel lampiran 7 Rata-rata harian kelembaban udara di lapangan selama
penelitian
Tempat
Rata-rata suhu udara oC/jam pengambilan
08,00-09.00 09.00-10.00 10.00-11.00 11.00-12.00 Cibodas lereng 26 32.5 40.5 64.5 Cibodas lereng 75 64.5 55 55.5 Cibodas lereng 71 65.5 49.5 58 Cibodas lereng 56 51 52.5 53 Cibodas lereng 51.5 59 76 80 Cibodas datar 55 58.5 58 63.5 Cibodas datar 65.5 57.5 56.5 53 Cibodas datar 47 48.5 52.5 56.5 Lembang 65 66.5 71 65 Lembang 65 70 81 81
28 Lampiran 4 Mortalitas Crocidolomia pavonana terhadap dua strain yang berbeda
pada uji lanjutan
Strain Bt Protein Konsentrasi (ppm) Jumlah larva yang diujikan Ulangan Mortalitas (%) 24 JSP 48 JSP 72 JSP Kejajar (25 Mei 2006) Cry 1B kontrol 50 10 0 0 2 5 50 10 0 6 26 8.5 50 10 0 10 22 15 50 10 0 10 26 25 50 10 2 46 80 45 50 10 24 90 98 Cry 1C kontrol 50 10 2 2 6 5 50 10 0 14 34 8.5 50 10 0 6 24 15 50 10 6 52 92 25 50 10 10 54 86 45 50 10 20 70 92 Batu (6 Juli 2006) Cry 1B kontrol 50 10 0 0 0 5 50 10 0 0 2 8.5 50 10 2 14 16 15 50 10 14 60 68 25 50 10 66 84 90 45 50 10 64 90 98 Cry 1C kontrol 50 10 0 0 0 5 50 10 2 4 6 9 50 10 2 6 10 17 50 10 14 42 48 32 50 10 38 92 94 60 50 10 52 92 96
29 Lampiran 5 Larva yang diberi perlakuan Cry B. thuringiensis (a) P. xylostella
(b) C. pavonana
(a)
30 Lampiran 6 Analisis probit P. xylostella strain Lembang
Intercepts and slopes unconstrained. Preparation is ( 2) 1b72
Not estimating natural response
parameter standard error t ratio 1b72 -1.915 0.365 -5.243 SLOPE 2.121 0.322 6.595 Variance-Covariance matrix 1b72 SLOPE 1b72 .1333719 -.1132350 SLOPE -.1132350 .1034718 Chi-squared goodness of fit test
preparation subjects responses expected deviation probability 1b72 50. 22. 19.312 2.688 .386241 50. 26. 28.043 -2.043 .560859 50. 33. 37.078 -4.078 .741563 50. 47. 43.253 3.747 .865050 50. 47. 47.440 -.440 .948792
chi-square 5.1696 degrees of freedom 3 heterogeneity 1.7232
A large chi-square indicates a poor fit of the data by the probit analysis model. Large deviations for expected probabilities near 0 or 1 are especially troublesome. A plot of the data should be consulted. See D. J. Finney, "Probit Analysis" (1972), pages 70-75.
Index of significance for potency estimation:
g(.90)=.21944 g(.95)=.40129 g(.99)=1.3518 "With almost all good sets of data, g will be substantially smaller than
1.0, and seldom greater than 0.4."
- D. J. Finney, "Probit Analysis" (1972), page 79. We will use only the probabilities for which g is less than 0.5
Effective Doses dose limits 0.90 0.95 0.99 LD50 1b72 7.991 lower 4.481 2.845 upper 11.117 12.419 ---
Intercepts and slopes unconstrained. Preparation is ( 4) 1c72
Not estimating natural response
Maximum log-likelihood -149.60126
parameter standard error t ratio 1c72 -1.5408397 .31703222 -4.8601990
SLOPE 1.6274176 .26998757 6.0277500
Variance-Covariance matrix
1c72 SLOPE 1c72 .1005094 -.8231772E-01 SLOPE -.8231772E-01 .7289329E-01
31
preparation subjects responses expected deviation probability 1c72 50. 19. 17.824 1.176 .356488 50. 20. 24.947 -4.947 .498942 50. 38. 32.629 5.371 .652573 50. 38. 38.661 -.661 .773213 50. 43. 43.868 -.868 .877354 chi-square 4.8132 degrees of freedom 3 heterogeneity 1.6044 A large chi-square indicates a poor fit of the data by the probit
analysis model. Large deviations for expected probabilities near 0 or 1 are especially troublesome. A plot of the data should be consulted. See D. J. Finney, "Probit Analysis" (1972), pages 70-75.
Index of significance for potency estimation:
g(.90)=.24456 g(.95)=.44723 g(.99)=1.5065 "With almost all good sets of data, g will be substantially smaller than 1.0, and seldom greater than 0.4."
- D. J. Finney, "Probit Analysis" (1972), page 79.
We will use only the probabilities for which g is less than 0.5
Effective Doses
dose limits 0.90 0.95 0.99
LD50 1c72 8.84709 lower 4.66761 2.72337
32
Lampiran 7 Analisis probit P. xylostella strain Batu
Intercepts and slopes unconstrained. Preparation is ( 2) 1b72
Not estimating natural response
parameter standard error t ratio 1b72 -2.7279980 .42241737 -6.4580630 SLOPE 2.8417912 .37460298 7.5861414 Maximum log-likelihood -130.96155 Variance-Covariance matrix 1b72 SLOPE 1b72 .1784364 -.1529800 SLOPE -.1529800 .1403274 Chi-squared goodness of fit test
preparation subjects responses expected deviation probability 1b72 50. 15. 16.082 -1.082 .321646 50. 24. 26.479 -2.479 .529571 50. 42. 38.140 3.860 .762806 50. 47. 45.308 1.692 .906166 50. 47. 48.926 -1.926 .978515 chi-square 6.4486 degrees of freedom 3 heterogeneity 2.1495 A large chi-square indicates a poor fit of the data by the probit
analysis model. Large deviations for expected probabilities near 0 or 1 are especially troublesome. A plot of the data should be consulted. See D. J. Finney, "Probit Analysis" (1972), pages 70-75.
Index of significance for potency estimation:
g(.90)=.20686 g(.95)=.37829 g(.99)=1.2743 "With almost all good sets of data, g will be substantially smaller than 1.0, and seldom greater than 0.4."
- D. J. Finney, "Probit Analysis" (1972), page 79.
We will use only the probabilities for which g is less than 0.5
Effective Doses
dose limits 0.90 0.95
LD50 1b72 9.11921 lower 5.76651 4.18379
upper 12.33333 13.80037
---
Intercepts and slopes unconstrained. Preparation is ( 4) 1c72
Not estimating natural response
parameter standard error t ratio 1c72 -.10317439 .47363411 -.21783564
SLOPE 1.4789809 .46045198 3.2120198
33
parameter standard error t ratio 1c72 -.10317439 .47363411 -.21783564 SLOPE 1.4789809 .46045198 3.2120198 Variance-Covariance matrix 1c72 SLOPE 1c72 .2243293 -.2088450 SLOPE -.2088450 .2120160
Chi-squared goodness of fit test
preparation subjects responses expected deviation probability 1c72 50. 40. 42.255 -2.255 .845091 50. 48. 45.521 2.479 .910425 50. 48. 47.761 .239 .955213 50. 49. 48.911 .089 .978225 50. 49. 49.578 -.578 .991558 chi-square 3.1155 degrees of freedom 3 heterogeneity 1.0385 A large chi-square indicates a poor fit of the data by the probit
analysis model. Large deviations for expected probabilities near 0 or 1 are especially troublesome. A plot of the data should be consulted. See D. J. Finney, "Probit Analysis" (1972), pages 70-75.
Index of significance for potency estimation:
g(.90)=.55749 g(.95)=1.0195 g(.99)=3.4341 "With almost all good sets of data, g will be substantially smaller than 1.0, and seldom greater than 0.4."
- D. J. Finney, "Probit Analysis" (1972), page 79.
Effective Doses
dose limits 0.90 0.95
34
Lampiran 8 Analisis probit C. pavonana strain Kejajar
Intercepts and slopes unconstrained. Preparation is ( 2) 1b72
Not estimating natural response
parameter standard error t ratio 1b72 -3.1787021 .39814947 -7.9836903
SLOPE 2.7158288 .32943728 8.2438418
Maximum log-likelihood -132.18097
parameter standard error t ratio 1b72 -3.1787021 .39814947 -7.9836903 SLOPE 2.7158288 .32943728 8.2438418 Variance-Covariance matrix 1b72 SLOPE 1b72 .1585230 -.1273624 SLOPE -.1273624 .1085289
Chi-squared goodness of fit test
preparation subjects responses expected deviation probability 1b72 50. 13. 5.910 7.090 .118195 50. 11. 13.562 -2.562 .271248 50. 13. 25.800 -12.800 .516005 50. 40. 36.852 3.148 .737034 50. 49. 45.350 3.650 .906993 chi-square 27.614 degrees of freedom 3 heterogeneity 9.2048 A large chi-square indicates a poor fit of the data by the probit
analysis model. Large deviations for expected probabilities near 0 or 1 are especially troublesome. A plot of the data should be consulted. See D. J. Finney, "Probit Analysis" (1972), pages 70-75.
Index of significance for potency estimation:
g(.90)=.75013 g(.95)=1.3718 g(.99)=4.6208 "With almost all good sets of data, g will be substantially smaller than 1.0, and seldom greater than 0.4."
- D. J. Finney, "Probit Analysis" (1972), page 79.
Effective Doses
dose limits 0.90 0.95
LD50 1b72 14.80592
---
Intercepts and slopes unconstrained. Preparation is ( 4) 1c72
Not estimating natural response
parameter standard error t ratio 1c72 -2.5355368 .37703421 -6.7249516
SLOPE 2.5664928 .32836751 7.8159158
35
parameter standard error t ratio 1c72 -2.5355368 .37703421 -6.7249516 SLOPE 2.5664928 .32836751 7.8159158 Variance-Covariance matrix 1c72 SLOPE 1c72 .1421548 -.1195081 SLOPE -.1195081 .1078252
Chi-squared goodness of fit test
preparation subjects responses expected deviation probability 1c72 50. 17. 13.770 3.230 .275405 50. 12. 23.694 -11.694 .473889 50. 46. 35.214 10.786 .704289 50. 43. 43.122 -.122 .862442 50. 46. 47.938 -1.938 .958760 chi-square 25.090 degrees of freedom 3 heterogeneity 8.3632 A large chi-square indicates a poor fit of the data by the probit
analysis model. Large deviations for expected probabilities near 0 or 1 are especially troublesome. A plot of the data should be consulted. See D. J. Finney, "Probit Analysis" (1972), pages 70-75.
Index of significance for potency estimation:
g(.90)=.75822 g(.95)=1.3866 g(.99)=4.6706 "With almost all good sets of data, g will be substantially smaller than 1.0, and seldom greater than 0.4."
- D. J. Finney, "Probit Analysis" (1972), page 79.
Effective Doses
dose limits 0.90 0.95
36
Lampiran 9 Analisis probit C. pavonana strain Batu
Intercepts and slopes unconstrained. Preparation is ( 2) 1b72
Not estimating natural response
parameter standard error t ratio 1b72 -5.1955955 .55161392 -9.4188985
SLOPE 4.6506807 .47891475 9.7108737
Maximum log-likelihood -80.622575
parameter standard error t ratio 1b72 -5.1955955 .55161392 -9.4188985 SLOPE 4.6506807 .47891475 9.7108737 Variance-Covariance matrix 1b72 SLOPE 1b72 .3042779 -.2587504 SLOPE -.2587504 .2293593
Chi-squared goodness of fit test
preparation subjects responses expected deviation probability 1b72 50. 1. 1.295 -.295 .025893 50. 8. 9.564 -1.564 .191287 50. 34. 30.398 3.602 .607969 50. 45. 45.209 -.209 .904186 50. 49. 49.683 -.683 .993666 chi-square 2.9674 degrees of freedom 3 heterogeneity .99
Index of significance for potency estimation: g(.90)=.02869 g(.95)=.04074 g(.99)=.07036 Effective Doses dose limits 0.90 0.95 LD50 1b72 13.09691 lower 11.93673 11.71627 upper 14.34842 14.60885 ---
Intercepts and slopes unconstrained. Preparation is ( 4) 1c72
Not estimating natural response
parameter standard error t ratio 1c72 -4.5479414 .46039058 -9.8784416
SLOPE 3.7351913 .36941910 10.110986
Maximum log-likelihood -85.933938
parameter standard error t ratio 1c72 -4.5479414 .46039058 -9.8784416 SLOPE 3.7351913 .36941910 10.110986 Variance-Covariance matrix 1c72 SLOPE 1c72 .2119595 -.1653745 SLOPE -.1653745 .1364705
37
Chi-squared goodness of fit test
preparation subjects responses expected deviation probability 1c72 50. 3. 1.318 1.682 .026363 50. 5. 8.132 -3.132 .162641 50. 24. 25.958 -1.958 .519150 50. 47. 42.930 4.070 .858607 50. 48. 49.093 -1.093 .981861 chi-square 8.0217 degrees of freedom 3 heterogeneity 2.6739 A large chi-square indicates a poor fit of the data by the probit
analysis model. Large deviations for expected probabilities near 0 or 1 are especially troublesome. A plot of the data should be consulted. See D. J. Finney, "Probit Analysis" (1972), pages 70-75.
Index of significance for potency estimation: g(.90)=.14486 g(.95)=.26490 g(.99)=.89231
"With almost all good sets of data, g will be substantially smaller than 1.0, and seldom greater than 0.4."
- D. J. Finney, "Probit Analysis" (1972), page 79.
We will use only the probabilities for which g is less than 0.5
Effective Doses
dose limits 0.90 0.95
LD50 1c72 16.50413 lower 12.55348 11.08991
upper 21.79639 24.79901