Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Casper Nyamukondiwa
 -- 1764 2024-03-11 08:18:57 |
2 format correct
Catherine Yang
 Meta information modification 1764 2024-03-11 08:30:41 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Video Production Services to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Mlambo, S.; Mubayiwa, M.; Tarusikirwa, V.L.; Machekano, H.; Mvumi, B.M.; Nyamukondiwa, C. Spodoptera frugiperda and Prostephanus truncatus Biological Invasions' Impacts. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/56088 (accessed on 16 November 2024).
Mlambo S, Mubayiwa M, Tarusikirwa VL, Machekano H, Mvumi BM, Nyamukondiwa C. Spodoptera frugiperda and Prostephanus truncatus Biological Invasions' Impacts. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/56088. Accessed November 16, 2024.
Mlambo, Shaw, Macdonald Mubayiwa, Vimbai L. Tarusikirwa, Honest Machekano, Brighton M. Mvumi, Casper Nyamukondiwa. "Spodoptera frugiperda and Prostephanus truncatus Biological Invasions' Impacts" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/56088 (accessed November 16, 2024).
Mlambo, S., Mubayiwa, M., Tarusikirwa, V.L., Machekano, H., Mvumi, B.M., & Nyamukondiwa, C. (2024, March 11). Spodoptera frugiperda and Prostephanus truncatus Biological Invasions' Impacts. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/56088
Mlambo, Shaw, et al. "Spodoptera frugiperda and Prostephanus truncatus Biological Invasions' Impacts." Encyclopedia. Web. 11 March, 2024.
Spodoptera frugiperda and Prostephanus truncatus Biological Invasions' Impacts
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/biology13030160

Invasive alien species have environmental, economic and social impacts, disproportionally threatening the livelihood and food security of smallholder farmers in low- and medium-income countries. In most cases, farmers and governments often invest huge sums of money towards synthetic pesticides, the major and first control option used against invading pests, seldom trading off other important sectors, e.g., healthcare and education. Given pesticide resistance, many of these insecticides are often ineffectiv. Furthermore, resource-poor farmers in developing countries usually cannot afford personal protective equipment and lack the knowledge and understanding of chemical pesticides and their safe use, which compromises their proper use and risks exposure to toxic substances, resulting in accidental poisonings. Widespread and indiscriminate use of chemical pesticides also undermine environmental quality (biodiversity loss and pollution of air and water) and the pest control services provided by natural enemies. Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), and the larger grain borer, Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae), two of the most important field and postharvest IAS, respectively, that have invaded Africa. 

invasive insect species Prostephanus truncatus Spodoptera frugiperda

1. Economic Costs of S. frugiperda and P. truncatus Invasions

The impacts of S. frugiperda and P. truncatus can be defined and quantified as economic costs, i.e., expenditures to prevent, reduce or alleviate the losses caused by these pests [1] or the marketing losses resulting from compromised quality. In Africa, IAS generally can cause up to a 35% loss in national gross domestic product (GDP) [2]. Severe maize infestation by S. frugiperda can reduce per capita household income by 44% and increase a household’s likelihood of experiencing hunger by 17% [3]. Infestation by S. frugiperda reduces maize yields by up to 54% [4][5][6] and can cause up to USD 13 billion per annum crop losses across Africa [5]. Various reports have recorded even higher estimated losses per annum see [3][7]. In Ghana and Zambia, the annual loss estimates for 2017 were USD 177 million and USD 159 million, respectively [3]. In Ethiopia, the pest caused an average annual loss of 36% in maize production, reducing yield by 0.225 million tonnes of grain between 2017 and 2019 [8]. In Kenya, S. frugiperda caused losses of approximately 33% of the annual maize production, estimated at approximately 1 million tonnes, with large variations across regions [4][9]. Rwomushana et al. [3] extrapolated that the pest had the potential to cause an annual reduction in maize production in Zimbabwe of approximately 264,000 tonnes, translating into revenue loss of USD 83 million. More costs related to S. frugiperda damage are highlighted in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary table showing the estimated costs related to Spodoptera frugiperda in some African countries. The costs are related to field damage, cost of control (including pesticides) and related. This list may not be exhaustive but represents significant data obtained at the time of writing.
Reported Loss/Costs (USD) Year Loss/Cost Description Country Reference
40.2 million *
(134,000 tonnes maize)		 2017 Field damage to crops, amount of food that can feed 1.1 million people. Ethiopia [10]
2.5–6.2 million (8.3–20.6 tonnes maize) 2022 Estimated yield losses. 12 African countries [5][11]
3 million 2017 For pesticides and provision for replanting. Cost of pesticides per household was USD 14.20 without subsidies and USD 7.30 with subsidies. Zambia [3][11]
159 million 2018 Value of maize field losses. Zambia [11]
4 million   Procurement of plant protection products. Ghana [11]
177 million 2018 Value of maize field losses. Ghana [11]
$25.30 2017 The amount spent on pesticides per household for those without subsidies. For those who received subsidies, the cost was USD 13.30. Ghana [3]
* Using an average regional price of USD 300 per tonne of maize.
On the other hand, grain damage due to P. truncatus can level up to 100% and weight losses between 30 and 50% have been reported in stored maize [12][13][14][15]. Costs related to damage and losses as well as the costs of controlling P. truncatus in maize are scarce primarily because the costs cannot be isolated from those of co-occurring pests such as S. zeamais and Tribolium spp. When S. frugiperda and P. truncatus occur in the same environment, they have the potential to further disrupt vulnerable Africa’s food systems through synergistic interactions. Invasive species also comprise one of the most apparent risks of the globalisation of international trade to both agricultural and related products [16]. This is because IAS can disrupt trade across countries, particularly in developing African regions, where phytosanitary measures are relaxed and ineffective [17]. When the losses caused by the P. truncatus became more apparent in the literature, many African countries declared it a quarantine pest and prohibited the importation of maize from infested countries or after transit through these countries [18]. This approach, however justified at that time, not only caused a loss of export markets to African countries that had a surplus of maize (In particular, Tanzania), but also complicated logistics and increased the costs of the provision of ‘relief maize’ by the international community after the drought in southern Africa in 1991/1992 [19][20]. Combined field and postharvest losses due to S. frugiperda and P. truncatus led to food shortages by removing part of supply from the market, thus contributing to high food prices [21].

2. Direct and Indirect Effects of S. frugiperda and P. truncatus on Human Health and Nutrition

Economic losses experienced when invasive species affect food production also result in negative effects on human health, directly or indirectly. By contributing to huge losses in maize, both S. frugiperda and P. truncatus contribute to malnutrition negatively affecting the health of many people across the continent. Tambo et al. [22] found that households affected by S. frugiperda were 12% more likely to experience hunger, as measured by the household hunger scale. Farm losses incurred have cascading effects of reducing agricultural production, which is largely menial in Africa [23], thus further compounding food insecurity challenges. Human health is also affected by product contamination in storage, i.e., infestation by P. truncatus can increase the moisture content of the stored grains, inadvertently creating a favourable environment for fungal growth, e.g., Aspergillus flavus which can produce some carcinogenic aflatoxins in food products [21]. Furthermore, insect feeding also causes nutritional postharvest losses reducing basic access to nutritious food for consumers [24][25]. Cereal grains comprise 30–60% of the daily caloric intake for humans around the globe [26]. Maize, for instance, is central to food and nutrition security for millions of people in Africa, which consists of 54 countries populated by over one billion people and accounts for 73% of the calorific intake within the region [27][28][29][30]. The consumption of insect-damaged grain which potentially has low nutritional value exposes the population to malnutrition [31].
The initial detection of S. frugiperda and P. truncatus is usually followed by the haphazard use of pesticides, leading also to increased human exposure to pesticides. For example, in 2017, Zimbabwe distributed nearly 102,000 L of pesticide valued at USD 1.97 million to farmers [32]. The continuous and injudicious use of these chemical insecticides poses adverse risks to human and environmental health, including the loss of biodiversity, e.g., natural enemies and pollinators [30][31]. This also increases the costs incurred in mitigating and managing the pest, a feat that is often difficult for resource constrained African farmers [33][34].

3. Ecological Costs of Biological Invasions

Biological invasions rank among the most significant threats to biodiversity and ecosystems and are considered the second most serious cause of species extinctions [35][36]. Their ecological impacts can be so severe that they are considered as one of the major drivers of biodiversity loss across the globe [37][38][39]. They are associated with an average of a 25% decline in native species diversity, and increasing abundances of non-native predators are linked to a 44% decline in native species population [40]. Indeed, the impact of invasion by a single non-native species on the function and structure of ecological communities can be devastating as they have detrimental effects on ecosystem functioning and the delivery of ecosystem services [37][41][42]. The interactions among species in an ecological community can be significantly altered as the introduction of an exotic species can influence species composition, richness and abundance; thereby disrupting the structure of local food webs and patterns of interspecific interactions [41][43]. Using data from InvaCost, a repository of costs of invasive alien species [42], estimated the cumulative cost of biological invasions in Africa to a range between USD 18.2 billion and USD 78.9 billion for the period from 1970 to 2020. Worryingly, the reported costs are mostly associated with the damage caused by invasive alien species without considering those of controlling the incursions. Consequently, the actual total costs were grossly under-estimated. The majority of reported costs are, however, skewed towards the agriculture and health sectors, which are considered economic activities compared to ecosystem services [1].
Field studies conducted in Uganda revealed that the invasion by S. frugiperda has caused the decline of stemborer incidences in maize and the displacement from the maize crop, as their preferred host plant, to sorghum [30][44]. There is interspecific competition among these species at the larval stage in the utilisation of maize—the preferred host [45][46]. Such interactions are likely to influence community structure of these lepidopteran herbivores in areas where they co-exist [30]. Introduction of species into new environments can trigger rapid evolution, for example, functional responses, and thus increasing the damage potential of alien invasive species [47]. Furthermore, multiple introductions of species from different biogeographical regions can result in cryptic interactions leading to admixture of genetic characteristics leading to changes in genomic structure of the IAS [47][48][49]. Rane et al. [50], for example, associated multiple S. frugiperda introductions into Asia and Australia with genetic hybridisation, backcrossing and genome doubling, see also [2], linking these with the introduction of insecticide resistance alleles in established populations. Such genetic hybridisation complicates pest management, leading to increased crop losses.
Similarly, studies have shown that invasive species that occur in postharvest agricultural commodities are often more competitive and can overcome competition and even displace other native species [51][52][53][54]. Quellhorst et al. [52] examined the competition between S. zeamais and P. truncatus on maize at four varying temperatures and found that increasing temperature resulted in elevated population growth of the invasive P. truncatus at the expense of S. zeamais. Other impacts noted included direct competition, changes to ecosystem functioning, hybridisation and predation. Phylogenetic studies by [55] revealed significant additive genetic and environmental effects enhancing some traits (e.g., body weight) in strains of P. truncatus from different geographical locations, increasing fitness and thus invasiveness in certain populations. Similarly, genetic diversity in T. nigrescens characterised by allele insertions and deletions at specific loci may explain the variable success of biological control of P. truncatus with predators from different geographical locations [56]. Ecosystem dynamics are altered through a variety of interacting, mutually reinforcing mechanistic pathways, for example, species’ resource acquisition traits; population densities and the ability to engineer changes to physical environmental conditions [43]. Impacts to the environment such as pollution and development of pesticide resistance in pests arise through excessive and/or overapplication of synthetic pesticides in response to biological invasions [17]. This has negative implications on ecological services as they can lead to death of non-target organisms, e.g., pollinators, predators and parasitoids [57].

References

  1. Zenni, R.D.; Essl, F.; García-Berthou, E.; McDermott, S.M. The economic costs of biological invasions around the world. NeoBiota 2021, 67, 1–9.
  2. Yainna, S.; Tay, W.T.; Durand, K.; Fiteni, E.; Hilliou, F.; Legeai, F.; Clamens, A.-L.; Gimenez, S.; Asokan, R.; Kalleshwaraswamy, C.M.; et al. The evolutionary process of invasion in the fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda). Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 21063.
  3. Rwomushana, I.; Bateman, M.; Beale, T.; Beseh, P.; Cameron, K.; Chiluba, M.; Clottey, V.; Davis, T.; Day, R.; Early, R.; et al. Fall Armyworm: Impacts and Implications for Africa; Evidence Note Update; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2018.
  4. De Groote, H.; Kimenju, S.C.; Munyua, B.; Palmas, S.; Kassie, M.; Bruce, A. Spread and impact of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda JE Smith) in maize production areas of Kenya. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 292, 106804.
  5. 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.
  6. Kumela, T.; Simiyu, J.; Sisay, B.; Likhayo, P.; Mendesil, E.; Gohole, L.; Tefera, T. Farmers’ knowledge, perceptions, and management practices of the new invasive pest, fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in Ethiopia and Kenya. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2019, 65, 1–9.
  7. Eschen, R.; Beale, T.; Bonnin, J.M.; Constantine, K.L.; Duah, S.; Finch, E.A.; Makale, F.; Nunda, W.; Ogunmodede, A.; Pratt, C.F.; et al. Towards estimating the economic cost of invasive alien species to African crop and livestock production. CABI Agric. Biosci. 2021, 2, 1–18.
  8. Abro, Z.; Kimathi, E.; De Groote, H.; Tefera, T.; Sevgan, S.; Niassy, S.; Kassie, M. Socioeconomic and health impacts of fall armyworm in Ethiopia. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0257736.
  9. Kenis, M.; Benelli, G.; Biondi, A.; Calatayud, P.A.; Day, R.; Desneux, N.; Wu, K. Invasiveness, biology, ecology, and management of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Entomol. Gen. 2022, 43, 187–241.
  10. Kassie, M.; Wossen, T.; De Groote, H.; Tefera, T.; Sevgan, S.; Balew, S. Economic impacts of fall armyworm and its management strategies: Evidence from southern Ethiopia. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2020, 47, 1473–1501.
  11. FAO. The Global Action for Fall Armyworm Control: Action Framework 2020–2022. Working Together to Tame the Global Threat; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020.
  12. Tefera, T. Post-harvest losses in African maize in the face of increasing food shortage. Food Secur. 2012, 4, 267–277.
  13. Muatinte, B.L.; Cugala, D.R. Monitoring the Establishment and Dispersal of Teretrius nigrescens Lewis (Coleoptera: Histeridae), a Predator of Prostephanus truncatus Horn (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) in Manica Province, Mozambique. Afr. Entomol. 2015, 23, 251–254.
  14. Mlambo, S.; Mvumi, B.M.; Stathers, T.; Mubayiwa, M.; Nyabako, T. Field efficacy and persistence of synthetic pesticidal dusts on stored maize grain under contrasting agroclimatic conditions. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2018, 76, 129–139.
  15. Mlambo, S.; Mvumi, B.M.; Stathers, T.; Mubayiwa, M.; Nyabako, T. Field efficacy of hermetic and other maize grain storage options under smallholder farmer management. Crop. Prot. 2017, 98, 198–210.
  16. Goodell, K.; Parker, I.M.; Gilbert, G.S. Biological impacts of species invasions: Implications for policy makers. In Incorporating Science, Economics, and Sociology in Developing Sanitary And Phytosanitary Standards In International Trade; Caswell, J., Ed.; National Academic Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2000; pp. 87–117.
  17. Venette, R.C.; Hutchison, W.D. Invasive Insect Species: Global Challenges, Strategies & Opportunities. Front. Insect Sci. 2021, 1, 650520.
  18. Schulten, G.G.M.; Toet, A.J. (Eds.) Technical Papers Presented at the Workshop on the Containment and Control of the Larger Grain Borer; Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development: Arusha, Tanzania; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1988.
  19. Tyler, P.S.; Walker, D.J.; Donaldson, T.J. Management of Drought-Relief Maize; Natural Resources Institute: Chatham, UK, 1994.
  20. Farrell, G.; Schulten, G. Larger Grain Borer in Africa; A History of Efforts to Limit its Impact. Integr. Pest Manag. Rev. 2002, 7, 67–84.
  21. Ngom, D.; Fauconnier, M.L.; Malumba, P.; Dia, C.A.K.M.; Thiaw, C.; Sembène, M. Varietal susceptibility of maize to larger grain borer, Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera; Bostrichidae), based on grain physicochemical parameters. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0232164.
  22. Tambo, J.A.; Kansiime, M.K.; Mugambi, I.; Rwomushana, I.; Kenis, M.; Day, R.K.; Lamontagne-Godwin, J. Understanding smallholders’ responses to fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) invasion: Evidence from five African countries. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 740, 140015.
  23. World Bank; NRI; FAO. Missing Food: The Case of Postharvest Grain Losses in Sub-Saharan African; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
  24. Bechoff, A.; Shee, A.; Mvumi, B.M.; Ngwenyama, P.; Debelo, H.; Ferruzzi, M.G.; Nyanga, L.K.; Mayanja, S.; Tomlins, K.I. Estimation of nutritional postharvest losses along food value chains: A case study of three key food security commodities in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Secur. 2022, 14, 571–590.
  25. Ngwenyama, P.; Mvumi, B.M.; Stathers, T.E.; Nyanga, L.K.; Siziba, S. How different hermetic bag brands and maize varieties affect grain damage and loss during smallholder farmer storage. Crop Prot. 2022, 153, 105861.
  26. Awika, J.M. Major cereal grains production and use around the world. In Advances in Cereal Science: Implications to Food Processing and Health Promotion; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; Volume 1089, pp. 1–13.
  27. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Human Development Report 2015, Work for Human Development; United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): New York, NY, USA, 2015.
  28. Sisay, B.; Simiyu, J.; Mendesil, E.; Likhayo, P.; Ayalew, G.; Mohamed, S.; Subramanian, S.; Tefera, T. Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda Infestations in East Africa: Assessment of Damage and Parasitism. Insects 2019, 10, 195.
  29. Tambo, J.A.; Aliamo, C.; Davis, T.; Mugambi, I.; Romney, D.; Onyango, D.O.; Kansiime, M.; Alokit, C.; Byantwale, S.T. The impact of ICT-enabled extension campaign on farmers’ knowledge and management of fall armyworm in Uganda. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0220844.
  30. Mutyambai, D.M.; Niassy, S.; Calatayud, P.A.; Subramanian, S. Agronomic Factors Influencing Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) Infestation and Damage and Its Co-Occurrence with Stemborers in Maize Cropping Systems in Kenya. Insects 2022, 13, 266.
  31. Durocher-Granger, L.; Mfune, T.; Musesha, M.; Lowry, A.; Reynolds, K.; Buddie, A.; Kenis, M. Factors influencing the occurrence of fall armyworm parasitoids in Zambia. J. Pest Sci. 2021, 94, 1133–1146.
  32. Timilsena, B.P.; Niassy, S.; Kimathi, E.; Abdel-Rahman, E.M.; Seidl-Adams, I.; Wamalwa, M.; Tonnang, H.E.Z.; Ekesi, S.; Hughes, D.P.; Rajotte, E.G.; et al. Potential distribution of fall armyworm in Africa and beyond, considering climate change and irrigation patterns. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 539.
  33. Tarusikirwa, V.L.; Machekano, H.; Mutamiswa, R.; Chidawanyika, F.; Nyamukondiwa, C. Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) on the “offensive” in Africa: Prospects for integrated management initiatives. Insects 2020, 11, 764.
  34. Machekano, H.; Mutamiswa, R.; Nyamukondiwa, C. Evidence of rapid spread and establishment of Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in semi-arid Botswana. Agric. Food Secur. 2018, 7, 48.
  35. Richardson, D.M.; Pyšek, P.; Carlton, J.T. A compendium of essential concepts and terminology in invasion ecology. In Fifty Years of Invasion Ecology: The Legacy of Charles Elton; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; Volume 1, pp. 409–420.
  36. Castaño-Quintero, S.; Escobar-Luján, J.; Osorio-Olvera, L.; Peterson, A.T.; Chiappa-Carrara, X.; Martínez-Meyer, E.; Yañez-Arenas, C. Supraspecific units in correlative niche modeling improves the prediction of geographic potential of biological invasions. PeerJ 2020, 8, e10454.
  37. Pyšek, P.; Hulme, P.E.; Simberloff, D.; Bacher, S.; Blackburn, T.M.; Carlton, J.T.; Dawson, W.; Essl, F.; Foxcroft, L.C.; Genovesi, P.; et al. Scientists’ warning on invasive alien species. Biol. Rev. 2020, 95, 1511–1534.
  38. CBD. Convention on Biological Diversity, Programme of Work on Invasive Alien Species. 2016. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/invasive (accessed on 13 November 2022).
  39. Mačić, V.; Albano, P.G.; Almpanidou, V.; Claudet, J.; Corrales, X.; Essl, F.; Evagelopoulos, A.; Giovos, I.; Jimenez, C.; Kark, S.; et al. Biological Invasions in Conservation Planning: A Global Systematic Review. Front. Mar. Sci. 2018, 5, 178.
  40. Bradley, B.A.; Laginhas, B.B.; Whitlock, R.; Allen, J.M.; Bates, A.E.; Bernatchez, G.; Sorte, C.J. Disentangling the abundance–impact relationship for invasive species. Proc. Nat. Aca. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 9919–9924.
  41. Simberloff, D.; Martin, J.; Genovesi, P.; Maris, V.; Wardle, D.A.; Aronson, J.; Courchamp, F.; Galil, B.; Pascal, M.; Pys, P. Impacts of biological invasions: What’s what and the way forward. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2013, 28, 58–66.
  42. Diagne, C.; Leroy, B.; Vaissière, A.C.; Gozlan, R.E.; Roiz, D.; Jarić, I.; Courchamp, F. High and rising economic costs of biological invasions worldwide. Nature 2021, 592, 571–576.
  43. Ehrenfeld, J.G. Ecosystem Consequences of Biological Invasions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2010, 41, 59–80.
  44. Hailu, G.; Niassy, S.; Bässler, T.; Ochatum, N.; Studer, C.; Salifu, D.; Subramanian, S. Could fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) invasion in Africa contribute to the displacement of cereal stemborers in maize and sorghum cropping systems. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2021, 41, 1753–1762.
  45. Sokame, B.M.; Subramanian, S.; Kilalo, D.C.; Juma, G.; Calatayud, P. Larval dispersal of the invasive fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, the exotic stemborer Chilo partellus, and indigenous maize stemborers in Africa. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2020, 168, 322–331.
  46. Ntiri, E.S.; Calatayud, P.-A.; Berg, J.V.D.; Le Ru, B.P. Spatio-Temporal Interactions Between Maize Lepidopteran Stemborer Communities and Possible Implications From the Recent Invasion of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Sub-Saharan Africa. Environ. Entomol. 2019, 48, 573–582.
  47. Jaric, I.; Heger, T.; Monzon, F.C.; Jeschke, J.M.; Kowarik, I.; Mcconkey, K.R.; Py, P.; Sagouis, A.; Essl, F. Crypticity in Biological Invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2019, 34, 291–302.
  48. Wang, J.; Huang, Y.; Huang, L.; Dong, Y.; Huang, W.; Ma, H.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, X.; Chen, X.; Xu, Y. Migration risk of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) from North Africa to Southern Europe. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1141470.
  49. Sherpa, S.; Després, L. The evolutionary dynamics of biological invasions: A multi-approach perspective. Evol. Appl. 2021, 14, 1463–1484.
  50. Rane, R.; Walsh, T.K.; Lenancker, P.; Gock, A.; Dao, T.H.; Nguyen, V.L.; Khin, T.N.; Amalin, D.; Chittarath, K.; Faheem, M.; et al. Complex multiple introductions drive fall armyworm invasions into Asia and Australia. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 660.
  51. Baliota, G.V.; Scheff, D.S.; Morrison, W.R.; Athanassiou, C.G. Competition between Prostephanus truncatus and Sitophilus oryzae on maize: The species that gets there first matters. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2022, 112, 520–527.
  52. Quellhorst, H.; Athanassiou, C.G.; Bruce, A.; Scully, E.D.; Morrison, W.R., III. Temperature-mediated competition between the invasive larger grain borer (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) and the cosmopolitan maize weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Environ. Entomol. 2020, 49, 255–264.
  53. Athanassiou, C.G.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Throne, J.E.; Nakas, C.T. Competition among Species of Stored-Product Psocids (Psocoptera) in Stored Grain. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e102867.
  54. Sakka, M.K.; Athanassiou, C.G. Competition of three stored-product bostrychids on different temperatures and commodities. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2018, 79, 34–39.
  55. Guntrip, J.; Sibly, R.; Smith, R. A phenotypic and genetic comparison of egg to adult life-history traits between and within two strains of the larger grain borer, Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 1996, 32, 213–223.
  56. Omondi, B.; Berg, J.v.D.; Masiga, D.; Schulthess, F. Phylogeographic structure of Teretrius nigrescens (Coleoptera: Histeridae) predator of the invasive post harvest pest Prostephanus truncatus (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 2011, 101, 521–532.
  57. Blacquière, T.; Smagghe, G.; van Gestel, C.A.M.; Mommaerts, V. Neonicotinoids in bees: A review on concentrations, side-effects and risk assessment. Ecotoxicology 2012, 21, 973–992.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
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 :
Shaw Mlambo
,
Macdonald Mubayiwa
,
Vimbai L. Tarusikirwa
,
Honest Machekano
,
Brighton M. Mvumi
,
Casper Nyamukondiwa
View Times: 419
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 11 Mar 2024
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    ScholarVision Creations
    Feedback