Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry related to this topic through the link below: https://encyclopedia.pub/user/video_add?id=37890
Check Note
2000/2000
Ver. Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 1848 2022-12-03 04:49:30 |
2 format Meta information modification 1848 2022-12-05 02:36:57 | |
3 format Meta information modification 1848 2022-12-09 02:48:01 |
Biological Control of Fall Armyworm
Edit
Upload a video

The fall armyworm (FAW), Spodoptera frugiperda, is one of the most important invasive pests worldwide, resulting in considerable losses in host crops. FAW comprises two genetic strains, such as the “rice strain”, which prefers rice and other grass species, and the “maize strain”, which feeds upon maize and sorghum. Potential control measures are generally more applicable to the farmers who lack financial assets to buy chemical insecticides or costly pure seeds. The adverse effects of pesticides on the ecosystem and human’s health and the development of resistance to insect pests have exaggerated efforts to find an alternative strategy that is cost-effective, low-risk and target-specific. Therefore, biological control is widely considered as one of the most important options for insect pest management. 

fall armyworm biopesticides predators parasitoids entomopathogens
Information
Subjects: Entomology
View Times: 85
Revisions: 3 times (View History)
Update Date: 09 Dec 2022
Table of Contents

    1. Introduction

    The fall armyworm (FAW), Spodoptera frugiperda, is the most important pest worldwide, resulting in considerable yield losses in maize. FAW was first reported in 1797 as a devouring pest endemic to subtropical and tropical regions of America. It belongs to the family Noctuidae under the order Lepidoptera and was first reported in the African continent [1]. FAW is a devastating pest that damages 186 plant species belonging to 42 families. Poaceae, Fabaceae, Solanaceae, Asteraceae, Rosaceae, Chenopodiaceous Brassicaceae, and Cyperaceae are mostly affected. It results in about 58% yield loss in maize [2][3]. FAW is known to feed voraciously on more than 350 plant species, especially maize, rice, and sorghum, which might cause significant agricultural losses worldwide [3][4][5]. The first confirmed reports of FAW invasion were documented from West Africa in early 2016, and then spread throughout sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia [1][6]. Now, this pest has been spread in more than 109 countries [3]. In India, it was first identified in May 2018, causing major losses to farmers in Karnataka and other southern Indian states [7]. FAW was first discovered in Nepal in May 2019 through morphological and genetic identification approaches [8].
    FAW is an important notorious pest which attacks maize and various other crops belonging to the family Gramineae [9]. It is a polyphagous insect pest with over 80 host plants that causes severe damage to cereal crops and vegetables [1][10][11]. The young curl of leaves, ears, and tassels have been preferred, resulting in significant loss to maize crop [12]. FAW travels approximately 500 km before starting oviposition [10]. A single generation of FAW moths can disperse more than 500 km distance from the emergence location, owing to the wind, until they are sexually mature [11][13][14].
    FAW is comprised of two genetic strains: the “rice strain”, which prefers rice and other grass species, and the “maize strain”, which feeds primarily on maize and occasionally on sorghum [15]. When FAW arrives in large numbers, especially with an offensive effect, it is determined to pose a long-term and damaging threat to many important crops, as the surrounding circumstances provide a comfortable environment for a variety of host plant species pre-favorable weather conditions for reproduction in various areas [1][4][16].
    Biological control strategies are more appropriate to farmers who do not have the financial capability to purchase chemical insecticides and expensive seeds [17]. Microbial formulations are available in the market that are made from pathogens, arthropod natural enemies, and are more profitable in agricultural systems [3][18]. Recently, the microbial formulation production costs have been significantly reduced because these are mainly mass produced in liquid medium [3][19]. The repetitive use of synthetic pesticides in the field may prove detrimental to humans and the environment, have increased input cost, and, furthermore, initiate resistance and resurgence [20][21][22][23][24][25]. The larvae of the FAW caterpillar are deeply embedded in the leaf curls and corn ears, resulting in control failures. However, it comes to feed on plants at night or dawn and twilight [26].

    2. Categories of Biological Control Agents

    Predators and Parasitoids

    About 150 parasitoid species have been identified from different regions of America and Caribbean. Ashley [27] reported 53 different parasitoid species, including Apanteles marginiventris, Chelonus insularis, Ophion spp. Ternelucha spp. Rogus laphygmae, Campoletis grioti, Ephisoma vitticole, and Meteorus autographae in S. frugiperda eggs and larvae. More than 44% of natural parasitism has been recorded in the non-sprayed fields of America [13]. These species showed at least 45.3% of parasitism level [28]. Seven species of parasitoids and three species of predators were identified from Ghana to control S. frugiperda [29]. These seven parasitoid species are listed as Anatrichus erinaceus (Loew), M. testacea, C. icipe, Bracon sp., C. bifoveolatus, C. luteum, and an uncertain tachinid fly (Diptera: Tachinidae), while the three species of predators include Peprius nodulipes (Signoret), Haematochares obscuripennis (Stal), and Pheidole megacephala F. [29]. The parasitism degree and regional differences in the presence of species have been reported [28][29][30]. This finding is based on crop stage and type changes, agronomic methods, and geographic regions [31][32]. Coccygidium luteum was reported from Kenya and Tanzania, which causes up to 9–19% parasitism in S. frugipera [28].
    To control the increasing pest population of S. frugiperda in America, mass breeding and release of predators and parasitoids have been used to manage other pests [2][33][34][35]. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the implementation of classical biocontrol due to its high cost is required by the Government to control S. frugiperda [33]. Native parasitoids having a better level of parasitism have been observed from different vicinities of SSA [28][29][30][36]. The best way to control FAW is augmentative biocontrol, releasing predators to overcome the increasing pest population of FAW [33]. In America, Trichogramma parasitoids have been used to efficiently control the eggs of S. frugiperda [10][35]. Scientists at ICIPE in Kenya and Agboyi et al. [36] observed that Trichogramma and Telenomus parasitoid can efficiently augmentative biocontrol against S. frugiperda. Before FAW neonates emerge, parasitoids (Trichogramma and Telenomus) are introduced into maize fields, search for FAW egg masses, and lay their eggs on them to limit the FAW population at the egg stage [37].
    In Africa, Lepidopterous species have been parasitized by C. luteum, the lepidopterous species including Crypsotidia mesosema (Hampson), Spodoptera exigua (Hübner), Prophanti ssp. Spodoptera exempta (Walker), Condica capensis (Guenée), and Cydia ptychora (Meyrick) [38]. Coccygidium luteum has been reported in Africa and many other countries, such as Nigeria, Madagascar, Kenya, Guinea, Congo, Ethiopia, Namibia, Mauritius, Rodrigues Island, Tanzania, Uganda, Somalia, South Africa, and Cameroon [36]. Coccygidium luteum is a solitary koinobiont parasitoid that belongs to the Braconid subfamily Agathidinae, which includes more than 46 species [39][40]. As biocontrol agents, Agathidinae species in this subfamily are not well known regarding their efficacy against insect pests and are rarely studied [41]. In China, C. luteum controls the eggs of many Spodoptera species [42][43]. Parasitoids can complete several generations in 90 days, leading to the emergence of early-maturing varieties of maize in West Africa [44]. Populations of natural enemies are affected due to the occurrence of variation in parasitism [45]. In the United States, parasitism levels were lower on average than previously reported levels, i.e., 15.5% [46], 35% [47], 8.1% [48], 28.3% [49], 18.3% [50], and 13.8% [51]. Agboyi et al. [36] reported parasitoids of 10 different species from the various localities of Ghana and Benin. These species are Trichogramma spp. Meteoridea cf, Charops spp, Drino quadrizonula (Thomson), Metopius discolour (Tosquinet), Telenomus remus, Chelonus bifoveolatus (Szpligeti), Coccygidium luteum, Pristomerus pallidus (Kriechbaumer), and Cotesia icipe [36]. Introduction, conservation, and augmentation are the three basic techniques for promotion of a biological control system in an ecosystem. Hymenoptera insects act as egg and larval parasitoids that are collected from FAW-infested areas. Further assistance might be given to stabilize the system either through inoculative or inundative releases.

    3. Botanical Pesticides

    Local farmers have claimed that botanical extracts from local plants are beneficial [10]. Botanical pesticides are a better alternative to synthetic insecticides, which could be more harmful to the environment, increase consumer cost, and delay recovery [52][53][54][55]. Such pesticides are also responsible for increased pest resistance [56][57][58][59]. Few botanical extracts include Chrysanthemum cinerariifollium, Jatropha curcas, Nicotina tabacum, Milletia ferruginea, Phytolacea docendra, and Croton macrostachyus, which could be used as insect pest control [60]. Around 50 botanical pesticides were found to be registered for controlling FAW in more than 30 countries. Among those, 23 are recommended for field trials and bioassays [2][61]. Solaris 6 SC® was shown to be the most effective insecticide against immature fall armyworms, followed by botanical extracts of garlic and neem, as well as detergent [10].
    Botanical pesticides caused 80% mortality under laboratory conditions [62]. According to different reports and studies, these botanicals are effective against FAW [63][64]. Neem extracts have shown 70% mortality in FAW [65][66]. Eucalyptus urograndis was found to be more helpful in saving maize from pests [64]. The seed powder of Carica papaya was discovered as an efficient chemical insecticide [67]. Neem oil containing 0.17–0.33% concentration reduces FAW damage in maize [63].
    Botanical insecticides are target-specific, non-hazardous for the environment, and safe for natural enemies as compared to chemical pesticides [68]. Thus, their application promotes FAW natural parasitism up to 60% in comparison with pesticide-treated areas [49].
    A recent study conducted in Ghana recommends farmers to use intercropping technique during the first nine weeks of crop establishment because foliage of a crop remains too soft for FAW neonates; therefore, moths are attracted by crop to lay eggs [69]. Under this duration, intercropping encouraged natural biological control agents to establish under the prevailing conditions. It resultantly checked the FAW population [13]. Push–pull technology (PPT) is now suggested for FAW management [37]. International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) introduced this method to control stem borers in maize. The push–pull technology comprises intercropping maize with drought-tolerant greenleaf Desmodium intortum (Mill.) Urb., while Brachiaria cv Mulato II is planted as a border crop surrounding the intercrop. Desmodium plays an important role in protecting maize crops by repelling moths away with the emission of semiochemicals [16]. At least 80% of FAW infestations can be eliminated using this technique [16][37]. In Uganda, FAW infestation levels on maize using PPT were 36–38%, compared to 95% when single cropping was used. PPT is better than maize-legume intercropping for controlling FAW infestation [70]. Botanical or biopesticides are recommended as an alternative to hazardous synthetic insecticides, such as pyrethroids and organophosphorus compounds, which can influence and interfere with environmental conditions, and increase expense, resurgence, and insect resistance.
    Because of their low cost and accessibility, farmers and growers in developing countries use botanical, eco-friendly, sustainable techniques to manage insect pests of field crops and stored goods. Milletia ferruginea, Azadirachta indica, Croton macrostachyus, Jatropha curcas, Phytolacea docendra, Chrysanthemum cinerariifollium, and Nicotina tabacum extracts have been exploited successfully against insect pests [71]. Azadirachta indica seed extract causes the highest mortality in FAW at the larval stage [66]. Martínez et al. [72] discovered that the Argemone ochroleuca causes FAW mortality by reducing feeding behavior and stunting larval growth. Various botanical plant extracts could increase insecticidal efficiency against FAW [73]. Several products, such as extracts of Azadirachtin from neem and pyrethrins from pyrethrum, have been successfully commercialized, while others, such as those based on garlic, ryanodine, quassia, nicotine, and rotenone, have been registered worldwide [74]. Commercial products are available under different formulations and mode of action, applied diluted with water or sprayed with chemical insecticides and dust formulation. Furthermore, there are difficulties in application mode, such as neem-based solutions having high photosensitivity for Azadirachtin, resulting in a lower residual impact in fields due to sunlight exposure [62]. Few botanicals, including neem (Azadirachta indica), pyrethrum (Tanacetum cinerariifolium), fish-poison bean (Tephrosia vogelii), wild sage (Lantana camara), West African pepper (Piper guineense), wild marigold (Tagetes minuta), onion (Allium sativum, Allium cepa), tobacco (Nicotiana sp.), chilies (Capsicum sp.), lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus), chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum sp.), wild sunflower (Tithonia diversifolia), acacia (Acacia sp.), jatropha (Jatropha curcas), and Persian lilac (Melia azedarach), have good insecticidal properties in managing stemborers in Africa [75][76][77].

    References

    1. Goergen, G.; Kumar, P.L.; Sankung, S.B.; Togola, A.; Tamò, M. First report of outbreaks of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae), a new alien invasive pest in west and central Africa. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0165632.
    2. Kumar, R.M.; Gadratagi, B.G.; Paramesh, V.; Kumar, P.; Madivalar, Y.; Narayanappa, N.; Ullah, F. Sustainable Management of Invasive fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2150.
    3. Kenis, M.; Benelli, G.; Biondi, A.; Calatayud, P.A.; Day, R.; Desneux, N.; Harrison, R.D.; Kriticos, D.; Rwomushana, I.; Van den Berg, J.; et al. Invasiveness, biology, ecology, and management of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Entomol. Gen. 2022.
    4. Montezano, D.G.; Sosa-Gómez, D.R.; Roque-Specht, V.F. Host plants of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Americas. Afr. Entomol. 2018, 26, 16.
    5. Wang, P.; He, P.C.; Hu, L.; Chi, X.L.; Keller, M.A.; Chu, D. Host selection and adaptation of the invasive pest Spodoptera frugiperda to indica and japonica rice cultivars. Entomol. Gen. 2022, 42, 403–411.
    6. Nagoshi, R.; Htain, N.; Boughton, D.; Zhang, L.; Xiao, Y.; Nagoshi, B.; Mota-Sanchez, D. Southeastern Asia fall armyworms are closely related to populations in Africa and India, consistent with common origin and recent migration. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1421.
    7. Sharanabasappa, S.D.; Kalleshwaraswamy, C.M.; Maruthi, M.S.; Pavithra, H.B. Biology of invasive fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on maize. Ind. J. Entomol. 2018, 80, 540–543.
    8. Bajracharya, A.; Bhat, B.; Sharma, P.; Shashank, P.; Meshra, N.; Hashmi, T. First Record of fall armyworm. Ind. J. Entomol. 2019, 81, 635–639.
    9. Andrews, K.L. The whorlworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, in Central America and neighbouring areas. Fla. Entomol. 1980, 63, 456–467.
    10. Prasanna, B.; Huesing, J.; Eddy, R.; Peschke, V. Fall Armyworm in Africa: A Guide for Integrated Pest Management; USAID; CIMMYT: Mexico City, Mexico, 2018.
    11. Wu, P.; Ren, Q.; Wang, W.; Ma, Z.; Zhang, R. A bet-hedging strategy rather than just a classic fast life-history strategy exhibited by invasive fall armyworm. Entomol. Gen. 2021, 41, 337–344.
    12. De-Almeida, S.R.; De-Souza, A.R.W.; Vieira, S.M.J.; De-Oliveira, H.G.; Holtz, A.M. Biology review, occurrence and control of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in corn in Brazil. J. Biosci. 2002, 18, 41–48.
    13. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Sustainable Management of the Fall Armyworm in Africa; FAO Programme for Action; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017.
    14. Pogue, M.G. A World Revision of the Genus Spodoptera Guenée: (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae); American Entomological Society Philadelphia, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
    15. Sparks, A.N. A review of the biology of fall armyworm. Fla. Entomol. 1979, 62, 82–87.
    16. Midega, C.A.O.; Pittchar, J.O.; Pickett, J.A.; Hailu, G.W.; Khan, Z.R. A climate-adapted push-pull system effectively controls fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E Smith), in maize in East Africa. Crop Prot. 2018, 105, 10–15.
    17. Abate, T.; Van-Huis, A.; Ampofo, J.K.O. Pest management strategies in traditional agriculture: An African perspective. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2000, 45, 631–659.
    18. Pilkington, L.J.; Messelink, G.; Van-Lenteren, J.C.; Le-Mottee, K. “Protected biological control” Biological pest management in the greenhouse industry. Biol. Control 2010, 52, 216–220.
    19. Mahmoud, M. Biology and use of entomopathogenic nematodes in insect pest bio-control, a generic view in Moldova. Cercet. Agron. 2016, 49, 85–105.
    20. Weisenburger, D.D. Human health effects of agrichemical use. Hum. Pathol. 1993, 24, 571–576.
    21. Desneux, N.; Decourtye, A.; Delpuech, J.-M. The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2007, 52, 81–106.
    22. Ullah, F.; Gul, H.; Desneux, N.; Gao, X.; Song, D. Imidacloprid-induced hormesis effects on demographic traits of the melon aphid, Aphis gossypii. Entomol. Gen. 2019, 39, 325–337.
    23. Ullah, F.; Gul, H.; Tariq, K.; Desneux, N.; Gao, X.; Song, D. Acetamiprid resistance and fitness costs of melon aphid, Aphis gossypii: An age-stage, two-sex life table study. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2020, 171, 104729.
    24. Ullah, F.; Gul, H.; Tariq, K.; Desneux, N.; Gao, X.; Song, D. Functional analysis of cytochrome P450 genes linked with acetamiprid resistance in melon aphid, Aphis gossypii. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2020, 175, 104687.
    25. Qu, Y.; Ullah, F.; Luo, C.; Monticelli, L.S.; Lavoir, A.V.; Gao, X.; Song, D.; Desneux, N. Sublethal effects of beta-cypermethrin modulate interspecific interactions between the specialist and generalist aphid species of soybean crops. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2020, 206, 111302.
    26. Day, R.; Abrahams, P.; Bateman, M.; Beale, T.; Clottey, V.; Cock, M.; Colmenarez, Y.; Corniani, N.; Early, R.; Godwin, J.; et al. Fall armyworm: Impacts and implications for Africa. Outlooks Pest Manag. 2017, 28, 196–201.
    27. Ashley, T.R. Classification and distribution of fall armyworm parasites. Fla. Entomol. 1979, 62, 114–123.
    28. Sisay, B.; Simiyu, J.; Malusi, P.; Likhayo, P.; Mendesil, E.; Elibariki, N.; Tefera, T. First report of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), natural enemies from Africa. J. Appl. Entomol. 2018, 142, 800–804.
    29. Koffi, D.; Kyerematen, R.; Eziah, V.Y.; Agboka, K.; Adom, M.; Goergen, G.; Meagher, R.L. Natural enemies of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Ghana. Fla. Entomol. 2020, 103, 85.
    30. Kenis, M.; DuPlessis, H.; VandenBerg, J.; Ba, M.N.; Goergen, G.; Kwadjo, K.E.; Baoua, I.; Tefera, T.; Buddie, A.; Cafà, G.; et al. Telenomus remus, a Candidate Parasitoid for the Biological Control of Spodoptera frugiperda in Africa, is already Present on the continent. Insects 2019, 10, 92.
    31. Hay-Roe, M.M.; Meagher, R.L.; Nagoshi, R.N.; Newman, Y. Distributional patterns of fall armyworm parasitoids in a corn field and a pasture field in Florida. Biol. Control 2016, 96, 48–56.
    32. Ruíz-Nájera, R.E.; Molina-Ochoa, J.; Carpenter, J.E.; Espinosa-Moreno, J.A. Survey for Hymenopteran and Dipteran parasitoids of the fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Chiapas, Mexico. J. Agric. Urban Entomol. 2007, 24, 35–42.
    33. FAO. Integrated Management of the Fall Armyworm on Maize: A Guide for Farmer Field Schools in Africa; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2018.
    34. Parra, J.R.P.; Zucchi, R.A. Trichogramma in Brazil: Feasibility of use after twenty years of research. Neotrop. Entomol. 2004, 33, 271–281.
    35. Soares, M.A.; Leão, G.; Leite, D.; Zanuncio, J.C. Quality control of Trichogramma atopovirilia and Trichogramma pretiosum (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) adults reared under laboratory conditions. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2012, 55, 305–311.
    36. Agboyi, L.K.; Goergen, G.; Beseh, P.; Mensah, S.A.; Clottey, V.A.; Glikpo, R.; Buddie, A.; Cafà, G.; Offord, L.; Day, R.; et al. Parasitoid Complex of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, in Ghana and Benin. Insects 2020, 11, 68.
    37. ICIPE (International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology). Combating the Fall Armyworm in Africa—The European Union (EU) Provides New Funding to ICIPE. 2018. Available online: www.icipe.org (accessed on 15 December 2021).
    38. Van, N.; Wasp, S. Web: Hymenoptera of the Afro-Tropical Region. 2019. Available online: www.waspweb.org (accessed on 15 December 2021).
    39. Sharkey, M.J. Cladistics and tribal classification of the Agathidinae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). J. Nat. Hist. 1992, 26, 425–447.
    40. Sharkey, M.J. Two new genera of Agathidinae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) with a key to the genera of the New World. Zootaxa 2006, 1185, 37–51.
    41. Farahani, S.; Talebi, A.; Rakhshani, E.; Achterberg, C.; Sharkey, M. A contribution to the knowledge of Agathidinae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) from Iran with description of a new species. Biologia 2014, 69, 228–235.
    42. Chou, L.Y. Note on Telenomus remus (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae). In Bulletin of Society of Entomology; National Chung-Hsing University: Taichung, Taiwan, 1987; Volume 20, pp. 15–20.
    43. Tang, Y.L.; Chen, K.W.; Xu, Z.F. Study on ontogenesis of Telenomus remus Nixon (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae). J. Changjiang Veg. 2010, 18, 1–3.
    44. Oluwaranti, A.; Fakorede, M.A.B.; Badu-Apraku, B. Grain yield of maize varieties of different maturity groups under marginal rainfall conditions. J. Agric. Sci. 2008, 53, 183–191.
    45. Kogan, M.; Gerling, D.; Maddox, J.V. Enhancement of biological control in annual agricultural environments. In Handbook of Biological Control; Bellows, T., Fisher, T., Eds.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999; pp. 789–818.
    46. Wheeler, G.S.; Ashley, T.R.; Andrews, K.L. Larval parasitoids and pathogens of the fall armyworm in Honduran maize. Entomophaga 1989, 34, 331–340.
    47. Rios-Velasco, C.; Gallegos-Morales, G.; Cambero-Campos, J.; Cerna-Chávez, E.; Rincón-Castro, M.C.D.; Valenzuela-García, R. Natural enemies of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Coahuila, México. Fla. Entomol. 2011, 94, 723–726.
    48. Ordóñez-García, M.; Rios-Velasco, C.; Berlanga-Reyes, D.I.; Acosta-Muñiz, C.H.; Salas-Marina, M.; Cambero-Campos, O.J. Occurrence of natural enemies of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Chihuahua, Mexico. Fla. Entomol. 2015, 98, 843–847.
    49. Meagher, R.L.; Nuessly, G.S.; Nagoshi, R.N.; Hay-Roe, M.M. Parasitoids attacking fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in sweet corn habitats. Biol. Control 2016, 95, 66–72.
    50. Murúa, M.G.; Molina-Ochoa, J.; Fidalgo, P. Natural distribution of parasitoids of larvae of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda in Argentina. J. Insect Sci. 2009, 9, 20.
    51. Molina-Ochoa, J.; Carpenter, J.E.; Lezama-Gutiérrez, R.; Foster, J.E.; González-Ramírez, M.; Angel-Sahagún, C.A.; Farías-Larios, J. Natural distribution of hymenopteran parasitoids of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae in México. Fla. Entomol. 2004, 87, 461–472.
    52. Shah, F.M.; Razaq, M.; Ali, Q.; Ali, A.; Shad, S.A.; Aslam, M.; Hardy, I.C. Action threshold development in cabbage pest management using synthetic and botanical insecticides. Entomol. Gen. 2020, 40, 157–172.
    53. Pavela, R.; Morshedloo, M.R.; Mumivand, H.; Khorsand, G.J.; Karami, A.; Maggi, F.; Desneux, N.; Benelli, G. Phenolic monoterpene-rich essential oils from Apiaceae and Lamiaceae species: Insecticidal activity and safety evaluation on non-target earthworms. Entomol. Gen. 2020, 40, 421–435.
    54. Badshah, K.; Ullah, F.; Ahmad, B.; Ahmad, S.; Alam, S.; Ullah, M.; Jamil, M.; Sardar, S. Management of Lycoriella ingenua (Diptera: Sciaridae) on oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus) through different botanicals. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2021, 41, 1435–1440.
    55. Ullah, M.; Ullah, F.; Khan, M.A.; Ahmad, S.; Jamil, M.; Sardar, S.; Tariq, K.; Ahmed, N. Efficacy of various natural plant extracts and the synthetic insecticide cypermethrin 25EC against Leucinodes orbonalis and their impact on natural enemies in brinjal crop. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2021, 42, 173–182.
    56. Gul, H.; Ullah, F.; Biondi, A.; Desneux, N.; Qian, D.; Gao, X.; Song, D. Resistance against clothianidin and associated fitness costs in the chive maggot, Bradysia odoriphaga. Entomol. Gen. 2019, 39, 81–92.
    57. Wang, X.; Xu, X.; Ullah, F.; Ding, Q.; Gao, X.; Desneux, N.; Song, D. Comparison of full-length transcriptomes of different imidacloprid-resistant strains of Rhopalosiphum padi (L.). Entomol. Gen. 2021, 41, 289–304.
    58. Shan, J.; Zhu, B.; Gu, S.; Liang, P.; Gao, X. Development of resistance to chlorantraniliprole represses sex pheromone responses in male Plutella xylostella (L.). Entomol. Gen. 2021, 41, 615–625.
    59. Paula, D.P.; Lozano, R.E.; Menger, J.P.; Andow, D.A.; Koch, R.L. Identification of point mutations related to pyrethroid resistance in voltage-gated sodium channel genes in Aphis glycines. Entomol. Gen. 2021, 41, 243–255.
    60. Jirnmci, E. Efficacy of botanical extracts against termites, Macrotermes spp., (Lsoptera: Termiticlae) under laboratory conditions. Int. J. Agric. Res. 2014, 9, 60–73.
    61. Bateman, M.L.; Day, R.K.; Luke, B.; Edgington, S.; Kuhlmann, U.; Cock, M.J.W. Assessment of potential biopesticide options for managing fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in Africa. J. Appl. Entomol. 2018, 142, 805–819.
    62. Tavares, W.S.; Costa, M.A.; Cruz, I.; Silveira, R.D.; Serrão, J.E.; Zanuncio, J.C. Selective effects of natural and synthetic insecticides on mortality of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and its predator Eriopis connexa (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). J. Environ. Sci. Health 2010, 45, 557–561.
    63. Babendreier, D.; Agboyi, L.K.; Beseh, P.; Osae, M.; Nboyine, J.; Ofori, S.E.K.; Frimpong, J.O.; Attuquaye Clottey, V.; Kenis, M. The efficacy of alternative, environmentally friendly plant protection measures for control of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, in maize. Insects 2020, 11, 240.
    64. Hruska, A.J. Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) management by smallholders. CAB Rev. 2019, 14, 43.
    65. Maredia, K.M.; Segura, O.L.; Mihm, J.A. Effects of neem, Azadirachta indica on six species of maize insect pests. Trop. Pest Manag. 1992, 38, 190–195.
    66. Silva, M.S.; Maria, S.; Broglio, F.; Cristina, R.; Trindade, P.; Ferrreira, E.S.; Gomes, I.B.; Micheletti, L.B. Toxicity and application of neem in fall armyworm. Comun. Sci. 2015, 6, 359–364.
    67. Figueroa-Brito, R.; Villa-Ayala, P.; López-Olguín, J.F.; Peña, H.; Pacheco-Aguilar, J.R.; Ramos-López, M.A. Nitrogen fertilization sources and insecticidal activity of aqueous seeds extract of Carica papaya against Spodoptera frugiperda in maize. Cienc. Investig. Agrar. 2013, 40, 567–577.
    68. Mora, J.; Blanco-Metzler, H. Evaluation of botanical insecticides in controlling the population of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) present on corn crops (Zea mays) located in Santa Cruz, Guanacate. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 215, 012013.
    69. Nboyine, J.A.; Kusi, F.; Abudulai, M.; Badii, B.K.; Zakaria, M.; Adu, G.B.; Haruna, A.; Seidu, A.; Osei, V.; Alhassan, S.; et al. A new pest, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith), in tropical Africa: Its seasonal dynamics and damage in maize fields in northern Ghana. Crop Prot. 2020, 127, 104960.
    70. Hailu, G.; Niassy, S.; Zeyaur, K.R.; Ochatum, N.; Subramanian, S. Maize-legume intercropping and push–pull for management of fall armyworm, stemborers, and striga in Uganda. Agronomy 2018, 110, 2513–2522.
    71. Schmutterer, H. Which insect pests can be controlled by application of neem seed kernel extracts under field conditions? Z. Angew. Entomol. 1985, 100, 468–475.
    72. Martínez, A.M.; Aguado-Pedraza, A.J.; Viñuela, E.; Rodríguez-Enríquez, C.L.; Lobit, P.; Gómez, B.; Pineda, S. Effects of ethanolic extracts of Argemone ochroleuca (Papaveraceae) on the food consumption and development of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Fla. Entomol. 2017, 100, 339–345.
    73. Batista-Pereira, L.G.; Stein, K.; Paula, A.F.; Moreira, J.A.; Cruz, I.; Figueiredo, M.L.C.; Perri, J.; Corrêa, A.G. Isolation, identification, synthesis and field evaluation of the sex pheromone of the Brazilian population of Spodoptera frugiperda. J. Chem. Ecol. 2006, 32, 1085–1099.
    74. Isman, M.B. Neem and other botanical insecticides: Barriers to commercialization. Phytoparasitica 1997, 25, 339–344.
    75. Ogendo, J.O.; Deng, A.L.; Omollo, E.O.; Matasyoh, J.C.; Tuey, R.K.; Khan, Z.R. Management of stem borers using selected botanical pesticides in a maize-bean cropping system. Egerton J. Sci. Technol. 2013, 13, 21–38.
    76. Mugisha, K.M.; Deng, A.L.; Ogendo, J.O.; Omolo, E.O.; Mihale, M.J.; Otim, M.; Buyungo, J.P.; Bett, P.K. Indigenous knowledge of field insect pests and their management around Lake Victoria basin in Uganda. Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 2, 342–348.
    77. Stevenson, P.C.; Isman, M.B.; Belmain, S.R. Pesticidal plants in Africa: A global vision of new biological control products from local uses. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 110, 2–9.
    More
    Information
    Subjects: Entomology
    Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register : , , , , , ,
    View Times: 85
    Revisions: 3 times (View History)
    Update Date: 09 Dec 2022
    Table of Contents
      1000/1000

      Confirm

      Are you sure you want to delete?

      Video Upload Options

      Do you have a full video?
      Cite
      If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
      Abbas, A.; Ullah, F.; Hafeez, M.; Han, X.; Dara, M.Z.N.; Gul, H.; Zhao, C.R. Biological Control of Fall Armyworm. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/37890 (accessed on 27 January 2023).
      Abbas A, Ullah F, Hafeez M, Han X, Dara MZN, Gul H, et al. Biological Control of Fall Armyworm. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/37890. Accessed January 27, 2023.
      Abbas, Arzlan, Farman Ullah, Muhammad Hafeez, Xiao Han, Muhammad Zulqar Nain Dara, Hina Gul, Chen Ri Zhao. "Biological Control of Fall Armyworm," Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/37890 (accessed January 27, 2023).
      Abbas, A., Ullah, F., Hafeez, M., Han, X., Dara, M.Z.N., Gul, H., & Zhao, C.R. (2022, December 03). Biological Control of Fall Armyworm. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/37890
      Abbas, Arzlan, et al. ''Biological Control of Fall Armyworm.'' Encyclopedia. Web. 03 December, 2022.
      Top
      Feedback