Page 1 of 16
Discoveries in Agriculture and Food Sciences - Vol. 12, No. 5
Publication Date: October 25, 2024
DOI:10.14738/dafs.125.17660.
Mbemba, K. F., Rwegasira, G. M., & Tryphone, G. M. (2024). Insecticide Spray Guide for the Control of Spodoptera Frugiperda JE
Smith (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Basing on Maize Crop Injury Signs. Discoveries in Agriculture and Food Sciences, 12(5). 53-68.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Insecticide Spray Guide for the Control of Spodoptera Frugiperda
JE Smith (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Basing on Maize Crop Injury
Signs
Mbemba, K. F.
Department of Crop Science and Horticulture,
Sokoine University of Agriculture, P. O. Box 3005
Chuo Kikuu, Morogoro, Tanzania
Rwegasira, G. M.
Department of Crop Science and Horticulture,
Sokoine University of Agriculture, P. O. Box 3005
Chuo Kikuu, Morogoro, Tanzania
Tryphone, G. M.
Department of Crop Science and Horticulture,
Sokoine University of Agriculture, P. O. Box 3005
Chuo Kikuu, Morogoro, Tanzania
ABSTRACT
Fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith), is a polyphagous migratory pest
that attacks more than 353 plant species among which are major crops in Africa.
Farmers have been opting for insecticide-based control despite the lack of clear
guides on the suitable insecticides and right timing for application. Farmers
respond to S. frugiperda through injury signs inflicted on maize crop but it’s less
known how effective is the injury signs-based decisions. This study aimed at
establishing the right choice of insecticides and timing of application based on crop
injury signs. Ten farmer-preferred insecticides were used against S. frugiperda on
damaged maize crop in the field. Obtained results suggested that injury sign-based
application of insecticides has significant (p < 0.001) effect on mortality of S.
frugiperda larvae. Ninja plus 5EC, Profecron 720 EC, Multi alpha plus 150 EC and
Duduba 450 EC, caused highest mortality of S. frugiperda in all experiments while
Thunder 145 OD and Attakan 350 SC were the least effective. The obtained yields
suggested a significant impact of applied insecticides whereby plots treated with
Duduba 450 EC produced highest yield (4tons/ha) compared to non-treated plot
(2.2 tons/ha). The findings from this study proves for the first time that S.
frugiperda can be effectively managed through tallying of insecticide spray with
injury signs manifested on maize crop. The developed insecticides advisory spray
guide should be recommended as S. frugiperda field management option which is
easily understandable by the farmers.
Keywords: Fall armyworm, crop injury signs, pest management, Insecticide spray guide.
Page 2 of 16
54
Discoveries in Agriculture and Food Sciences (DAFS) Vol 12, Issue 5, October- 2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
INTRODUCTION
Fall armyworm (FAW), Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is a
relatively new pest of maize in Africa (FAO and CABI, 2019). The pest is native to tropical and
subtropical regions of the western hemisphere from the United States of America to Argentina
(Day et al. 2017; Midega et al. 2018; CABI, 2020). Currently, S. frugiperda has spread to several
counties in Africa, that include East and Central African countries and caused significant yield
losses on maize (Zea mays L.) of around 8.3 to 20.6 million metric tons per year under the
absence of control methods, while affecting over 300 million people in Africa, who, directly or
indirectly, depend on the crop for food and well-being (Abrahams et al. 2017; Midega et al.
2018). The pest is polyphagous and migratory and has a wide host range of over 353 different
plant species (Firake and Behere 2020) many of which are important crops in Tanzania and the
rest of Africa including Maize (Zea mays), Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), Rice (Oryza sativa), Sugar
cane (Saccharum officinarum), Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata), Soybean (Glycine max), Groundnut
(Arachis hypogaea), Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), Round potato (Solanum tuberosum),
Amaranthus (Amaranthus tuberculatus), Grape (Vitis spp), Orange (Citrus sinensis), Papaya
(Carica papaya), Napier (Pennisetum purpureum), Desmodium (Desmodium uncinatum) and
various ornamental plants.
Due to its polyphagous and migratory nature, S. frugiperda has become a pest of concern
wherever is reported to occur. The pest was first detected in West Africa in 2016 and later
spread to the whole of Central, Southern, Eastern, and Northern Africa in early, 2017 (Midega
et al. 2018). By 2018 the pest was present in more than 44 countries in Africa which suggested
a major threat to food security in the continent (Day et al. 2018). In February 2017 S. frugiperda
was first detected in Rukwa, Tanzania and thereafter found in the other border regions
including Ruvuma and Mbeya. It is believed that the pest may have come into Tanzania through
self-flight from the neighboring Zambia. The pest always occurs in high numbers, have ability
to migrate long distances and feed on broad host range which makes other control options less
efficient and instead use of insecticides have been found to be more effective (Belay et al. 2012).
Experiences in its native ranges of Americas indicates that, the common management strategy
for the S. frugiperda has been the use of insecticides spray and genetically modified crop (Bt
maize) (Sisay, 2018). In Africa insecticides have been widely used as emergency response to
deal with the distribution of the pest and minimize damage on maize (Abraham et al. 2017;
Sisay, 2018). Despite the current use of insecticides, there have been reports of high resistance
ratio to flubendiamide, chlorantraniliprole, chlorpyrifos, thiodicarb, methomyl, triflumuron,
spinetoram, permethrin, deltamethrin and zeta-cypermethrin (Gutierrez-Moreno et al. 2017).
The research report by Fernandez et al. (2019) confirmed that the combination of
Flubendiamide with a pyrethroid showed better efficiency in the control of S. frugiperda (Santos
et al. 2016).
The outbreak of S. frugiperda in Tanzania found the country unprepared which led to the
country’s pesticide regulatory authority (The Tanzania Plant Health and Pesticide Authority- TPHPA) to bank on few choices among the available insecticides to establish a list of advised
insecticides for use. Unfortunately, the recommended insecticides were not available to every
location and distribution of elite products could not match with the pace at which S. frugiperda
Page 3 of 16
55
Mbemba, K. F., Rwegasira, G. M., & Tryphone, G. M. (2024). Insecticide Spray Guide for the Control of Spodoptera Frugiperda JE Smith (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae) Basing on Maize Crop Injury Signs. Discoveries in Agriculture and Food Sciences, 12(5). 53-68.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/dafs.125.17660
was spreading (Kiva et al. 2023). Consequently, farmers opted for whatever was available at
their disposal in attempt to rescue some harvest from their maize crop. Some unscrupulous
traders took advantage of the observed vacuums and prescribed whatever they had to
unsuspecting farmers. The outcome of using insecticides was disappointing and could not
satisfy farmers because most of them proved ineffective against S. frugiperda (Kiva et al. 2022).
While farmers feared of most products being counterfeit, quick survey (Prof. Rwegasira G. M,
unpublished data) indicated that most insecticides were genuine although not recommended
for use against S. frugiperda. Poor application techniques including dosages and timing of
application as well as resistance against the used insecticides previously reported on S.
frugiperda were suspected to be among causes of insecticides inefficacy. Fernandes et al. (2019)
reported that the six instar stages of S. frugiperda have varied responses to insecticides and the
more advances the stage the higher the chances of resistance against insecticides. Farmers in
Tanzania apply insecticides as response to pests’ injuries on crop. Very often, the need to apply
insecticides is determined by the magnitude of crop injury such that the pest is never controlled
until the inflicted injuries on crops become unbearable. Moreover, there has been no crop
injury-based guide that would help farmers to make rational decision on when and which
insecticide to apply. Practical advice on insecticide spray guide would be the one that primarily
considers crop injury signs and less on pest characteristics. Objectives of this study were to; (i)
document the injury signs caused by S. frugiperda on maize crop, (ii) to determine the reliability
of injury signs in guiding choices of insecticides to apply and (iii) to determine field efficacy of
selected insecticides on S. frugiperda
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Location
The study was conducted under field condition at Mikese in Morogoro, Tanzania (Fig 1) located
at latitude 83046'S, longitude of 30038'E and altitude of 394m above sea level. The soil of the
area was Sandy loam.
Figure 1: Study sites as extracted from Tanzanian map (Top left)
Page 4 of 16
56
Discoveries in Agriculture and Food Sciences (DAFS) Vol 12, Issue 5, October- 2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Establishment of Spodoptera frugiperda Colony
Spodoptera frugiperda larvae and eggs were collected from maize plots at Sokoine University
of Agriculture (SUA) Edward Moringe Campus and some farms in villages around the campus.
About 300 fourth instar S. frugiperda larvae were collected, preserved live and kept in different
containers. The larvae were reared in cages of 100 cm x 50 cm x 50 cm in dimension. The cages
were covered with wire mesh to allow good ventilation for the larvae to survive. Larvae were
fed daily on tender maize leaves of about 10-15 days old obtained from a side plot established
to serve as source of forage for reared colonies. The leaves were changed daily.
At pre-pupal stage the larvae were transferred to other containers filled with one-third of soil
to support pupation. Sterile cotton soaked in a honey solution was placed in a petri dish inside
the oviposition cage as a food source for the emerging adults. Newly emerged moths were
allowed to mate. Adults that emerged on the same day were counted and isolated into cohorts
of 30 individuals at a ratio of 15 :15 (male: female) and placed in rearing cages. A cohort was
established following the protocols described by Prasanna et al. (2018) and maintained for
three generations. About 2-3 days old egg batches were collected from the oviposition cages
and placed in a sterile plastic containers. Eggs were monitored daily for hatching; as soon as
the first instars emerged, they were provided with tender and fresh maize leaves (Deryck,
1979). The rearing was done at room temperature 26°C and 76% RH. Insect rearing was done
in several batches until sufficient population was obtained and maintained to run the
experiment. Second generation (F2) larvae were used for the study (Deryck, 1979; Cruz et al.
2010; Hardke et al. 2011).
Preparation of Insecticides
Ten different insecticides were used as detailed (Table 1). Each insecticide was thoroughly
mixed with water as per manufacturer’s recommendation for 5-10 minutes prior to application.
Experimental Design and Maize Crop Establishment
The study was laid out as factorial experiment in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD)
with 44 treatment combinations replicated three times. Factor A consisted of four maize crop
injury signs (window pane, circular holes, irregular holes and extensive defoliation) and Factor
B consisted of ten insecticides and a control making 11 treatments. Land preparation was done
by a tractor and leveling by using a hand hoe. Each plot had three rows, five plants per row.
Dimension of each plot was 3.375 m2 (2.25m x 1.5m). The distance from one replication to
another was 2m, from one plot to another was 1m and the total experiment area was 1589.5m2.
Maize seeds of the variety DKC 90-89 was purchased from agro-dealers and planted at a spacing
75cm by 30cm. Insecticides were likewise purchased from trusted agro-dealer with batch
numbers confirmed with TPRI through an official toll-free number 0800110031. The eleven
treatments were applied as per randomization plan. All agronomic practices including thinning,
gap filling, weeding, and fertilizer application were carried out in the field as per standard
recommendations.
Artificial Infestation
Artificial infestation of 10 S. frugiperda larvae (1st instar) was done to all maize seedlings two
weeks after emergency. This activity was done early in the morning (between 7:00 am to 9:00
Page 5 of 16
57
Mbemba, K. F., Rwegasira, G. M., & Tryphone, G. M. (2024). Insecticide Spray Guide for the Control of Spodoptera Frugiperda JE Smith (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae) Basing on Maize Crop Injury Signs. Discoveries in Agriculture and Food Sciences, 12(5). 53-68.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/dafs.125.17660
am) to avoid exposing the neonate to harsh environment (Prasanna et al. 2018). Monitoring for
injury signs was done on daily basis and insecticides were applied after at least 50 of target
plants had manifested the respective injury signs. Field incidence was determined by counting
the observed infested plant leaves over the total number of maize plants per plot times a
hundred, whereas the damage severity was determined by assessing the damage severity on
maize plant following damage score (1-5) as described by Fotso et al. (2019) (Table 2).
Table 1: List of insecticides used in the experiment against Spodoptera frugiperda
Trade name Active ingredient (a.i) Insecticide group Dosage (mls/l)
of water)
Mode of
entry
Belt 480 SC Flubendiamide Diamide 10mls/20l Contact
Ninja plus 5EC Lamdacyhalothrin 50g/l Pyrethroid 50mls/20l Contact
Duduba 450EC Cypermethrin 150g/l and
Chloropyrifos 300g/l
Pyrethroid and
Organophosphate
48mls/20l Contact and
Systemic
Thunder 145 OD Imidaclopride 100g/l- Betacyflurine 45g/l
Neonicotinoids and
Pyrethroid
10mls/20l Contact and
Systemic
Snow Thunder16EC Theamethoxam Emamectin- benzoate
Neonicotinoids and
Avermectins
38mls/20l Contact and
Systemic
Multi-Alpha plus
150EC
Emamectin Benzoate 50 g/l
Alphacypermethrin 100 g/l
Avermectins and
Pyrethroid
20mls/20l Contact and
Systemic
Dudu acelamectin 5
EC
Alphacypermethrin,
Acetamiprid 100 g/l
Phosphine and
Neonicotinoids
30mls/20l Contact
Attakan 350 SC Imidacloprid Neonicotinoids 20mls/20l Contact
Liberate 200 EC Emamectin benzoate,
Indoxacarb 140.5g/l
Avermectins and
Indoxacarb
10mls/20l Contact and
Systemic
Profecron 720EC Profenophos 720g/l Organophosphate 20mls/20l Contact
Treatment Application
Eleven treatments (Ten insecticides plus water as control) were used. These insecticides were
well mixed with water according to manufacturer’s recommendation. A knapsack sprayer
(Matabi Super Agro 16) calibrated to deliver 87.90 L per hectare through a hollow cone nozzles
was used for insecticide application. Spray of insecticides was done 24 to 48 h after maize crop
injury signs namely; window pane, circular holes, irregular holes and extensive defoliation
caused by (1st and 2nd instar), (2nd and 3rd instar), (3rd and 4th instar) and (4th to 6th instar) of S.
frugiperda was observed. Insecticide spray was done twice at a 14 days interval.
Data Collection
Five days after first spray, destructive sampling of five randomly selected maize plants from
each plot was done and the number of dead larvae and live larvae were recorded. Seven days
after each of the insecticide applications, number of infested leaves and total number of leaves
per plants were recorded from the remaining ten plants per plot. Incidence was calculated using
formula described by Sisay et al. (2019).
% FAW incidence =
Number of FAW infested plants
Total number of plants observedx 100
Damage severity score was recorded at seven days intervals by visual aid using a rating scale
from 1 to 5 for scoring damage severity on whorl-stage plants as described by Fotso et al.
Page 6 of 16
58
Discoveries in Agriculture and Food Sciences (DAFS) Vol 12, Issue 5, October- 2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
(2019) (Table 2). Plant height and leaf number were recorded at 70 days after seed emergency.
After maize plant has attained maturity, maize cobs were sun dried for 5 days, threshed and
sun dried again for 3 days and the moisture content of maize grain was measured by using
moisture meter and the yield (kg/plot) of dry maize grain at 14% moisture content was
obtained per each plot and recorded.
Table 2: Visual rating scale for Spodoptera frugiperda damage severity
Rating scale Description
1. Healthy maize without damage.
2. 1-10% leaf damage or presence of damage from FAW limited to characteristics
window or < 5mm diameter and or destruction of only the leaf cuticle.
3. 11-25% leaf damage with presence of chewed areas < 5mm, funnel leaves still intact.
4. 26-50% leaf damage with presence of chewed areas larger than 1 cm, the funnel
slightly damaged or less severe.
5. > 50% leaf damage, plant stunting and funnel damaged severely.
Source: Fotso et al., 2019.
Data Analysis
Data were for tested for normalization and found to be not normally distributed and therefore
were normalized using the arcsine formula: arcsin [√(xi/100)] was used, where ‘xi’ is each
observation score (Gomez and Gomez, 1984). Two-way ANOVA was performed using Genstat
software 16th edition on the data collected and Tukey ‘s honest significance difference was used
for means separation at p < 0.05.
RESULTS
Spodoptera frugiperda Larval Mortality After Insecticide Application
The results showed that there were highly significant (p < 0.001) difference among maize crop
injury signs for the percentage mortality caused by different insecticides (Table 3). Circular
holes showed the highest mortality rate with no significant difference from window pane and
irregular holes, but extensive defoliation had the lowest mortality rate of S. frugiperda larvae.
Extensive defoliation is associated with advanced injury level often inflicted by the instar 4-6
stages.
Table 3: Spodoptera frugiperda larvae mortality 5 days after insecticides application
based on crop injury signs on maize
Crop injury sign % Mortality (Recovered) % Mortality (Unrecovered)
Extensive defoliation 77.27a 22.73a
Irregular holes 84.85b 15.15b
Window pane 86.36b 13.64b
Circular holes 88.89b 11.11b
Mean 84.34 15.66
SE 1.769 1.312
CV 12.1 10.3
p-value 0.001 0.001
Means within a column followed by different letters are significantly different at (p < 0.05) (Tukey ́s Test). CV=
Coefficient of variation, SE= Standard error mean.
Page 7 of 16
59
Mbemba, K. F., Rwegasira, G. M., & Tryphone, G. M. (2024). Insecticide Spray Guide for the Control of Spodoptera Frugiperda JE Smith (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae) Basing on Maize Crop Injury Signs. Discoveries in Agriculture and Food Sciences, 12(5). 53-68.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/dafs.125.17660
Interaction between Maize Crop Injury Sign and Insecticides on S. frugiperda Mortality
The results (Table 4) suggested that, treatment combination of maize crop injury sign and
insecticides had significant effect (F = 1.2, Df = 30, p ≤ 0.001). Treatment combination between
window pane with (Belt 480 SC, Duduba 450 EC, Multi alpha plus 150 EC, Profecron 720 EC and
Snow Thunder 16 EC) had the highest mortality (100%) five days after insecticide application.
Window pane with Attakan 350 SC had the lowest mortality (72.22%). Treatment combination
between Circular holes with Multi alpha plus 150 EC, Profecron 720 EC and Snow Thunder 16
EC, Liberate 200 EC and Dudu acelamectin 5EC had the highest mortality (100%) whereas
treatment combination between circular holes with Thunder 145 OD had lowest mortality
(88.88%). Treatment combination between irregular holes with multi Alpha plus had the
highest mortality (100%) whereas with Snow thunder 16EC had the lowest mortality (77.78%).
Extensive defoliation with Multi Alpha Plus 150 EC had the highest mortality (100%) whereas
the lowest mortality (66.67%) was recorded when combined with Attakan 350 SC.
Table 4: Interaction effect of maize crop injury sign and insecticides on mortality of
Spodoptera frugiperda under field condition
Crop injury sign-insecticide Mortality (%)
Circular Holes xWater 16.67a
Extensive Defoliation xWater 16.67a
Irregular Holes xWater 16.67a
Window Pane xWater 16.67a
Extensive Defoliation xAttakan 350 SC 66.67b
Extensive Defoliation xThunder 145 OD 66.67b
Window Pane xAttakan 350 SC 72.22b
Extensive Defoliation xNinja Plus 5 EC 77.78b
Extensive Defoliation xBelt 480 SC 77.78b
Irregular Holes Snow xThunder 16 EC 77.78b
Window Pane Thunder x145 OD 77.78b
Extensive Defoliation xDudu Acelamectin 5 EC 83.33b
Extensive Defoliation xLiberate 200 EC 83.33b
Irregular Holes xNinja Plus 5 EC 83.33b
Extensive Defoliation xSnow Thunder 16 EC 88.89b
Circular Holes xThunder 145 OD 88.89b
Irregular Holes xBelt 480 SC 88.89b
Irregular Holes xDudu Acelamectin 5 EC 88.89b
Irregular Holes xThunder 145 OD 88.89b
Circular Holes xAttakan 350 SC 88.89b
Circular Holes xNinja Plus 5 EC 94.44b
Extensive Defoliation xDuduba 450 EC 94.44b
Extensive Defoliation xProfecron 720 EC 94.44b
Window Pane Dudu xAcelamectin 5 EC 94.44b
Window Pane xLiberate 200 EC 94.44b
Window Pane xNinja Plus 5 EC 94.44b
Circular Holes xBelt 480 SC 94.44b
Circular Holes xDuduba 450 EC 94.44b
Irregular Holes xAttakan 350 SC 94.44b
Page 8 of 16
60
Discoveries in Agriculture and Food Sciences (DAFS) Vol 12, Issue 5, October- 2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Irregular Holes xDuduba 450 EC 94.44b
Window Pane xProfecron 720 EC 100b
Circular Holes xDudu Acelamectin 5 EC 100b
Circular Holes xLiberate 200 EC 100b
Circular Holes xMulti Alpha Plus 150 EC 100b
Circular Holes xProfecron 720 EC 100b
Circular Holes xSnow Thunder 16 EC 100b
Extensive Defoliation xMulti Alpha Plus 150 EC 100b
Irregular Holes xLiberate 200 EC 100b
Irregular Holes xMulti Alpha Plus 150 EC 100b
Window Pane xBelt 480 SC 100b
Window Pane xDuduba 450 EC 100b
Window Pane xMulti Alpha Plus 150 EC 100b
Window Pane xSnow Thunder 16 EC 100b
Irregular Holes xProfecron 720 EC 100b
Mean 84.34
SE 5.868
Cv% 12.1
p-Value 0.001
Means within a column followed by different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05 (Tukey ́s Test). CV=
Coefficient of variation, SE= Standard error mean
Incidence of S. frugiperda on Maize Crop After Two Consecutive Insecticide Sprays Based
on Crop Injury Sign
Obtained results suggested a significant (F = 4.31, Df = 3, p < 0.001) difference in S. frugiperda
incidence on maize leaf among the different maize crop injury sign after treatment application
(Table 5). Window pane, circular holes and extensive defoliation plots had highest incidence
level of S. frugiperda compared to irregular holes plot which had the lowest incidence after the
1st spray. For the 2nd spray, results showed that there was a decrease in percent S. frugiperda
incidence levels compared to the 1st spray. Generally, the foliar incidences decreased with the
two consecutive insecticide sprays despite not attaining the lowest level.
Table 5: S. frugiperda incidence on maize crop with respect to crop injury signs after
two consecutive insecticide sprays
Crop injury sign % Incidence before
Spray
% Incidence after 1st
Spray
% Incidence after 2nd
Spray
Irregular holes 63.52b 40.69a 17.17a
Extensive
defoliation
75.32a 42.8b 17.62a
Window pane 61.29b 43.64b 18.73b
Circular holes 60.11b 43.94b 18.81b
Mean 65 43 18.08
SE 1.2 0.3 1.487
CV 10.5 1.2 14.2
p-value 0.001 0.001 0.001
Means within a column followed by different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 (Tukey ́s Test). CV=
Coefficient of variation, SE= Standard error mean.
Page 9 of 16
61
Mbemba, K. F., Rwegasira, G. M., & Tryphone, G. M. (2024). Insecticide Spray Guide for the Control of Spodoptera Frugiperda JE Smith (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae) Basing on Maize Crop Injury Signs. Discoveries in Agriculture and Food Sciences, 12(5). 53-68.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/dafs.125.17660
Interaction between Maize Crop Injury Signs and Insecticides on S. frugiperda Incidence
after 1st and 2nd Sprays
Obtained results (Table 6) suggested that, treatment combination between maize crop injury
signs and insecticides after 1st and 2nd spray had significant effects at p < 0.001 and p = 0.02
respectively. Treatment combination between window pane and insecticide indicated that,
Snow thunder 16EC and Thunder 145 OD had the highest incidence 60% and 57.78% after 1st
spray and belt 480 SC and Multi alpha plus 150 EC had lowest incidences of about 37.8%.
Treatment combination between circular holes and insecticide showed that, Thunder 145 OD
had highest incidence (61.1%) and Ninja plus 5 EC and Duduba 450 EC manifested lowest
incidence 31.5% after 1st spray. Treatment combination of irregular holes and insecticide
showed that, liberate 200 EC had the highest incidence (49.2%) after 1st spray and Duduba 450
EC showed the lowest incidence (31.75%) after the 1st spray. Treatment combination between
extensive defoliation and insecticide showed that, Thunder 145 OD had the highest incidence
(50%) after 1st spray and Multi alpha plus 150 EC had the lowest incidence (37.5%) after 1st
spray.
Treatment combination between window pane and insecticides suggested that, Attakan 350 SC
had the highest incidence (20.83%) while Duduba 450EC had the lowest incidence (2.78%)
after 2nd spray. Treatment combination between circular holes and insecticides suggested that,
Dudu acelamectin 5EC and Attakan 350 SC had highest incidence (16.5%) after the 2nd spray
and Multi alpha plus 150 EC and Profecron 720 EC showed lowest incidence (2.47%) after 2nd
spray. Treatment combination between irregular holes and insecticides suggested that, Attakan
350SC had the highest incidence (23.33%) whereas Duduba 450EC and Profecron 720 EC
manifested lowest incidence after the 2nd spray. Treatment combination between extensive
defoliation and insecticides suggested that, Attakan 350 SC had the highest incidence (17.17%)
while Duduba 450 EC manifested the lowest incidence (2.02%) to extensive defoliation plots
after 2nd spray. Generally, there was a reduction in pest incidence on maize plants after the 2nd
spray.
Damage Severity Scores of S. frugiperda on Maize Crop After Two Consecutive Sprays
Highly significant (p < 0.001) differences among maize crop injury and damage severity scores
for both sprays were observed (Fig. 2). Prior to the 1st spray, extensive defoliation plots tallied
with the highest damage severity score whereas the window pane plots tallied with the lowest
damage severity score. Similar scenario was recorded during the 1st and the 2nd spray. The
impact of insecticide spray on severity score was greater in extensively defoliated plots from
4.7 to about 2.0 compared to the window pane level which had a slight impact from the score
2.0 to about 1.7. Generally, the observed trend suggested significant reductions of damage
severity scores after the 2nd spray compared to the 1st spray.
Interaction Effect of Maize Crop Injury Sign and Insecticides on Maize Damage Severity
After 1st and 2nd Spray Application
The treatment combinations between maize crop injury signs and insecticides had very
significant (p < 0.001) effects in reduction of maize damage severity (Table 7). The combination
of window pane injury level and insecticides indicated that Dudu acelamectin 5 EC and Attakan
350 SC suffered highest damage severity with scores of 1.7 and 1.3 respectively after 1st and
Page 10 of 16
62
Discoveries in Agriculture and Food Sciences (DAFS) Vol 12, Issue 5, October- 2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
1.2 and 1.3 respectively after 2nd spray. Conversely, the insecticides; Multi alpha plus 150EC
and Ninja plus 5EC manifested the lowest damage severity score (1.2) after 1st spray and
Profecron 720 EC and Ninja plus had lowest damage severity of 1.04 and 0.9 respectively after
the 2nd spray. Treatment combination between circular holes and insecticides indicated
Thunder 145 OD and Belt 480 SC to exhibit damage severity score of 2.98 and 2.8 respectively
after the 1st spray. The application of Profecron 720EC on circular holes plots led to lowest
damage severity (1.4) after the 1st spray while Liberate 200 EC had highest damage severity
(1.4). Duduba 450 EC had lowest damage severity (1.0) after 2nd spray. Treatment combination
between extensive defoliation and insecticides showed that, Dudu acelamectin 5EC had highest
damage severity (4.7) after 1st spray whereas Profecron 720EC showed lowest damage (1.9).
After the 2nd spray Attakan 350 SC showed highest damage severity (1.8) whereas Multi alpha
plus showed the lowest damage severity (1.03) after second spray.
Table 6: Interactions between maize crop injury sign and insecticides on S. frugiperda
incidence after 1st and 2nd spray under field condition
Crop injury sign % Incidence
before Spray
% Incidence
after 1st Spray
% Incidence
after 2nd Spray
Circular Holes x Ninja Plus 5 EC 61.23a 31.48a 9.88ag
Circular Holes x Duduba 450 EC 60.58a 31.48a 3.7abc
Irregular Holes x Duduba 450 EC 62.11a 31.75a 2.22a
Irregular Holes x Ninja Plus 5 EC 63.21a 34.9ab 9.88ad
Irregular Holes x Multi Alpha Plus 150 EC 64.01a 36.5abc 3.33ab
Ext Defoliation x Multi Alpha Plus 150 EC 74.30b 37.5ad 9.09af
Window Pane x Belt 480 SC 61.34a 37.7ad 8.33a-e
Window Pane x Multi Alpha Plus 150 EC 60.19a 37.7ad 4.17abc
Irregular Holes x Profecron 720 EC 62.17a 38.1ad 2.22a
Circular Holes x Multi Alpha Plus 150 EC 59.10a 38.8ae 2.47ab
Extensive Defoliation x Duduba 450 EC 76.56b 38.9ae 2.02a
Circular Holes x Profecron 720 EC 60.00a 38.8ae 2.47ab
Window Pane x Ninja Plus 5 EC 62.11a 40.0af 8.33ae
Extensive Defoliation x Ninja Plus 5 EC 75.11b 41.6af 7.07ad
Extensive Defoliation x Profecron 720 EC 74.78b 41.6af 6.06ad
Circular Holes x Snow Thunder 16 EC 61.10a 44.4bg 11.11ag
Window Pane x Attakan 350 SC 62.00a 44.4bg 20.83efg
Window Pane x Dudu Acelamectin 5 EC 61.15a 44.4bg 18.06dg
Window Pane x Duduba 450 EC 58.90a 44.4bg 3.7ab
Irregular Holes x Belt 480 SC 64.13a 44.4bg 7.78ae
Ext Defoliation x Liberate 200 EC 76.11b 45.8bg 13.13ag
Ext Defoliation x Attakan 350 SC 74.34b 45.8bg 17.17cg
Ext Defoliation x Dudu Acelamectin 5 EC 74.23b 45.8bg 13.13ag
Ext Defoliation x Snow Thunder 16 EC 75.00b 45.8bg 13.13ag
Circular Holes x Belt 480 SC 61.12a 46.3bh 12.35bg
Window Pane x Liberate 200 EC 61.25a 46.6bh 18.06dg
Window Pane x Profecron 720 EC 60.92a 46.6bh 4.17abc
Extensive Defoliation x Belt 480 SC 75.59b 47.2ch 14.14ag
Irregular Holes x Attakan 350 SC 64.10a 47.2ch 23.33g
Page 11 of 16
63
Mbemba, K. F., Rwegasira, G. M., & Tryphone, G. M. (2024). Insecticide Spray Guide for the Control of Spodoptera Frugiperda JE Smith (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae) Basing on Maize Crop Injury Signs. Discoveries in Agriculture and Food Sciences, 12(5). 53-68.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/dafs.125.17660
Irregular Holes x Dudu Acelamectin 5 EC 63.87a 47.2ch 11.11a
Irregular Holes x Snow Thunder 16 EC 63.42a 47.2ch 10.0ag
Irregular Holes x Thunder 145 OD 64.12a 47.2ch 13.33ag
Irregular Holes x Liberate 200 EC 62.16a 49.21di 22.22fg
Extensive Defoliation x Thunder 145 OD 76.11b 50.0ej 14.14ag
Circular Holes x Liberate 200 EC 59.90a 51.85fj 13.58ag
Circular Holes x Dudu Acelamectin 5 EC 60.23a 53.7gj 16.05bg
Circular Holes x Attakan 350 SC 59.79a 55.5gj 16.05bg
Window Pane x Thunder 145 OD 62.11a 57.78hij 19.44dg
Window Pane x Snow Thunder 16 EC 61.91a 60.0ij 11.11ag
Circular Holes x Thunder 145 OD 60.13a 61.11j 13.58ag
Circular Holes x Water 61.22a 88.89k 96.97h
Extensive Defoliation x Water 75.11b 95.83k 96.97h
Irregular Holes x Water 63.52a 100.0k 86.67h
Window Pane x Water 61.21a 100.0k 91.67h
Mean 65.04 49.18 18.08
SE 6.763 2.1 2.62
CV% 12.25 12.8 15.4
p-Value 0.01 0.001 0.02
Means within a column followed by different letters are significantly different at p < 0.05 (Tukey ́s Test). CV=
Coefficient of variation, SE= Standard error mean
Figure 2: Damage severity score of S. frugiperda on maize plant before and after two
consecutive sprays
Table 7: Interaction between maize crop injury sign caused by S. frugiperda and
insecticides on maize damage severity after 1st and 2nd spray application
Crop injury sign-Insecticides Severity score
before Spray
Severity score
after 1st Spray
Severity score
after 2nd Spray
Window Pane x Ninja Plus 150 EC 1.9a 1.201a 0.984a
Ext defoliation x Multi Alpha Plus 150 EC 4.3d 2.344f-m 1.033a
Irregular holes x Profecron 720 EC 3.5c 1.674a-g 1.036ab
Circular holes x Duduba 450 EC 2.8b 1.542a-g 1.039abc
Irregular holes x Multi Alpha Plus 150 EC 3.5c 2.059a-g 1.039abc
Page 12 of 16
64
Discoveries in Agriculture and Food Sciences (DAFS) Vol 12, Issue 5, October- 2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Window Pane x Profecron 720 EC 1.8a 1.257ab 1.041bc
Extensive defoliation x Profecron 720 EC 4.7d 1.989f-n 1.1cd
Window Pane x Multi Alpha Plus 150 EC 1.9a 1.201a 1.1cd
Circular Holes x Profecron 720 EC 3.1c 1.423a-e 1.1cd
Irregular Holes x Duduba 450 EC 3.6c 1.822d-k 1.1cd
Circular Holes x Multi Alpha Plus 150 EC 2.89b 1.633b-i 1.125de
Window Pane x Duduba 450 EC 2ab 1.278abc 1.125de
Window Pane x Liberate 200 EC 2.1ab 1.388a-d 1.125de
Window Pane x Thunder 145 OD 2.3ab 1.344a-d 1.167ef
Circular Holes x Dudu Acelamectin 5 EC 3.51c 1.7c-j 1.167ef
Extensive Defoliation x Snow Thunder 16
EC
4.3d 2.067i-o 1.201efg
Circular Holes x Ninja Plus 5 EC 3.12ab 1.611b-h 1.202efg
Irregular Holes x Ninja Plus 5 EC 3.6c 2.467e-l 1.226fgh
Ext Defoliation x Dudu Acelamectin 5 EC 4.10d 4.79m-p 1.227fgh
Window Pane x Dudu Acelamectin 5 EC 2.2ab 1.542a-f 1.247hij
Circular Holes x Attakan 350 SC 2,5ab 2.133b-h 1.253ijk
Irregular Holes x Dudu Acelamectin 5 EC 3.4c 1.634k-o 1.256ijk
Circular Holes x Thunder 145 OD 2.9bc 1.267b-i 1.256jkl
Window Pane x Belt 480 SC 1.8a 1.2abc 1.212kl
Window Pane x Snow Thunder 16 EC 1.97a 1.4a-d 1.313kl
Extensive Defoliation x Belt 480 SC 4.7d 2.533opq 1.313kl
Window Pane x Attakan 350 SC 1.6a 1.364a-d 1.342lm
Irregular Holes x Attakan 350 SC 3.9cd 2.7l-o 1.4m
Irregular Holes x Belt 480 SC 3.3c 2.278nop 1.4m
Circular Holes x Belt 480 EC 2.8ab 2.311g-n 1.42mn
Circular Holes x Snow Thunder 16 EC 2.98ab 1.944h-n 1.42mn
Irregular Holes x Snow Thunder 16 EC 3.6c 1.989k-o 1.431no
Circular Holes x Liberate 200 EC 2.87bc 2.1f-n 1.433o
Extensive Defoliation x Liberate 200EC 4,9d 1.9pq 1.433o
Irregular Holes x Thunder 145 OD 3.5c 2.7j-o 1.5op
Extensive Defoliation x Thunder 145 OD 5.2de 2.033qr 1.5op
Extensive Defoliation x Ninja Plus 5 EC 4.4d 3.078m-p 1.743p
Extensive Defoliation x Attakan 350SC 4.1cd 2.544l-p 1.8q
Extensive Defoliation x Duduba 450 EC 4.0cd 2.278k-o 1.8q
Irregular Holes x Liberate 200EC 3.3c 2.244h-n 2.533r
Window Pane x Water 2.1a 3.1r 4.722t
Extensive Defoliation x Water 3.1c 5t 5t
Circular Holes x Water 2.9ab 3.33r 5t
Irregular holes x Water 3.76c 4s 5t
Mean 3.2 2 1.652
SE 4.632 2.8 0.262
Cv (%) 11.62 19 27.7
p-Value 0.001 0.001 0.001
Means within a column followed by different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05 (Tukey ́s Test). CV=
Coefficient of variation, SE= Standard error mean
Page 13 of 16
65
Mbemba, K. F., Rwegasira, G. M., & Tryphone, G. M. (2024). Insecticide Spray Guide for the Control of Spodoptera Frugiperda JE Smith (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae) Basing on Maize Crop Injury Signs. Discoveries in Agriculture and Food Sciences, 12(5). 53-68.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/dafs.125.17660
Maize Crop Injury-Based Insecticide Spray Guide for the Management of S. frugiperda
Crop injury-based insecticide spray guide have been established (Table 8) as the output of the
conducted field experiment. This advisory spray guide will help farmers to manage Spodoptera
frugiperda by making rational decision on selection of appropriate insecticides basing on the
observed pest injury on maize crop.
Table 8: Maize crop injury-based insecticide spray guide for the management of S.
frugiperda
Injury sign on
maize crop
Possible larval
instar stage
Advised insecticide spray and regime
Window
pane
Larval instar 1-2 Use contact insecticides with single or multiple ingredient such as
Lamdacyhalothrin (Ninja plus 5EC) Emamectin Benzoate and
Indoxacarb (Liberate 200EC), Cypermethrin and Chloropyrifos (Duduba
450 EC). Apply twice, first application when 30% of the crop injury sign
is observed and second application 14 days after first application.
Circular holes Larval instar 2-3 Use fast acting and effective insecticides such as Alphacypermethrin
and Acetamiprid (Dudu Acelamectin 5EC), Lamdacyhalothrin (Ninja
plus 5EC), Emamectin Benzoate and Indoxacarb (Liberate 200EC).
Apply twice, first application once 30% of the crop injury sign is
observed and second application 14 days after first application.
Irregular
holes
Larval instar 3-4 Use fast acting, systemic insecticide such as Flubendiamide (Belt 480
SC), Lamdacyhalothrin (Ninja plus 5EC), Emamectin Benzoate, (Snow
Thunder 16EC). Apply twice, first application once 30% of the crop
injury sign is observed and second application14 days after first
application.
Extensive
defoliation
Larval instar 4-6 Use fast acting, systemic & highly poisonous insecticide with multiple
active ingredient such as Emamectin Benzoate and Alphacypermethrin
(Multi Alpha Plus 150 EC), Profenofos (Profecron 720 EC),
Cypermethrin and Chloropyrifos (Duduba 450 EC). Apply twice, first
application when 30% of the crop injury sign is observed and second
application 14 days after first application.
DISCUSSION
Window pane, circular holes and irregular holes plots had highest S. frugiperda larval mortality
rate compared to extensively defoliated plots. This may be due to the fact that crop injury signs
from window pane plots to irregular holes maize are caused by fall armyworm larval instar
stages 1-4 of which are very young and easily succumbs to insecticides compared to larval
instar 4-6 which are less susceptible. Similar findings were reported by Hardke et al. (2011)
that larvae become more tolerant to insecticides as larval age and size increases. Furthermore,
Adamczyk et al. (1999) found out that first instars are more susceptible to insecticides
compared to the later instars. Cruz et al. (2012) also found out that application of insecticides
to early S. frugiperda larvae results to high mortality as they are very susceptible to many
insecticides.
The study also revealed that damage severity score increases from window pane to extensive
defoliation plots. These results may be due the fact that the early maize crop injury signs from
Page 14 of 16
66
Discoveries in Agriculture and Food Sciences (DAFS) Vol 12, Issue 5, October- 2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
window pane to irregular holes, the S. frugiperda larval instar stages which causes injury are
instars 1-4. Due to their smallest in size they cause less damage to the maize plant as compared
to the later stages like 4-6 instars which are large in size and consume large amount of plant
leaves and therefore causing high damage severity. Similar results were reported (Adamczyk
et al. 1999). Fernandez et al. (2019) reported that, the new born caterpillars are easily killed by
insecticides, while at their advanced developmental stages the efficiency of the insecticides
decreases. The results from this study also revealed that there is significant difference among
insecticides in reducing damage severity score as it was observed that Profecron 720 EC had
lowest damage severity score whereas Thunder 145 OD and Attakan 350 SC had highest
damage severity percentage for both 1st and 2nd spray. The results on incidence and damage
severity after treatment application showed that, as time increase the incidence and damage
severity decreases and this may be due to the residual toxicity of the insecticides. Other workers
(Hardke et al. 2011; Sisay, 2019) reported similar findings that larval mortality increased with
time after insecticide application. In addition, Belay et al. (2012) observed that, as time
increases the mortality of S. frugiperda larvae also increases.
Effective control of S. frugiperda under field condition based on the observed maize crop injury
signs may be achieved by considering the following spray guide; i) For window pane, Use
synthetic insecticide with active ingredient such as Lamdacyhalothrin (Ninja plus 5EC),
Emamectin Benzoate and Indoxacarb (Liberate 200EC), Cypermethrin and Chloropyrifos
(Duduba 450 EC). ii) For Circular holes, Use synthetic insecticide with active ingredient such as
Alphacypermethrin and Acetamiprid (Dudu Acelamectin 5EC), Lamdacyhalothrin (Ninja plus
5EC), Emamectin Benzoate and Indoxacarb (Liberate 200EC). iii) For Irregular/rugged holes:
Use synthetic insecticide with active ingredient such as Flubendiamide (Belt 480 SC),
Lamdacyhalothrin (Ninja plus 5EC), and Emamectin Benzoate (Snow Thunder 16EC). iv) For
Extensive defoliation and production of fuss: Use synthetic strong insecticide with contact or
systemic active ingredient such as Emamectin Benzoate and Alphacypermethrin (Multi Alpha
Plus 150 EC), Profenofos (Profecron 720 EC) and Cypermethrin and Chloropyrifos (Duduba 450
EC).
CONCLUSION
Different insecticides had varied effectiveness in controlling S. frugiperda larval instars albeit
at varied developmental stages. Contact insecticides with single or multiple ingredients such as
Lamdacyhalothrin (Ninja plus 5EC) could effectively control the pest at the early stages of
development when window pane is a main injury sign. As the pest advances to instar stages 2
to 3 causing circular holes on maize leaves as the main injury sign, the pest could easily be taken
care of by fast acting and highly effective insecticides such as Alphacypermethrin and
Acetamiprid (Dudu Acelamectin 5EC) and others with similar mode of action such as
Lamdacyhalothrin (Ninja plus 5EC), Emamectin Benzoate and Indoxacarb (Liberate 200EC).
Fast acting insecticides with multiple active ingredients such as Flubendiamide (Belt 480 SC)
and Lamdacyhalothrin (Ninja plus 5EC) were best suited to irregular holes injury signs,
whereas at extensive defoliation the pest would best be treated using fast acting and highly
poisonous insecticides with multiple active ingredient such as Emamectin Benzoate and
Alphacypermethrin (Multi Alpha Plus 150 EC) and Profenofos (Profecron 720 EC).
Page 15 of 16
67
Mbemba, K. F., Rwegasira, G. M., & Tryphone, G. M. (2024). Insecticide Spray Guide for the Control of Spodoptera Frugiperda JE Smith (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae) Basing on Maize Crop Injury Signs. Discoveries in Agriculture and Food Sciences, 12(5). 53-68.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/dafs.125.17660
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Authors would like to acknowledge the management of GR Farm based in Mikere area in
Morogoro District for allowing us to conduct the experiments freely in their farm at no land
hiring costs.
References
Abrahams, P., Bateman, M., Beale, T., Clottey, V., Cock, M., Colmenarez, Y., Corniani, N., Day, R., Early, R., Godwin, J.
and Gomez, J., (2017). Fall armyworm: impacts and implications for Africa. Evidence Note (2). [http://www.cabi.org/
faw.htm] site visited on 12/04/2020.
Adamczyk Jr, J. J., Leonard, B. R. and Graves, J. B. (1999). Toxicity of selected insecticides to fall armyworms
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in laboratory bioassay studies. Florida Entomologist, 230-236.
Belay, D. K., Huckaba, R. M. and Foster, J. E. (2012). Susceptibility of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), at Santa Isabel, Puerto Rico, to different insecticides. Florida Entomologist, 95(2): 476-478.
CABI (2019). Datasheet. Spodoptera frugiperda (fall army worm). Invasive Species Compendium
http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/29810 [Accessed April 2020].
Cruz, I., Figueiredo, M. D. L. C., Silva, R. B. D., Silva, I. F. D., Paula, C. D. and Foster, J. E. (2012). Using sex pheromone
traps in the decision-making process for pesticide application against fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda [Smith]
[Lepidoptera: Noctuidae]) larvae in maize. International Journal of Pest Management, 58(1): 83-90.
Day, R., Abrahams, P., Bateman, M., Beale, T., Clottey, V., Cock, M. and Gomez, J. (2017). Fall armyworm: impacts and
implications for Africa. Outlooks on Pest Management 28(5): 196-201.
Deryck, P.W. (1979). Laboratory rearing of the fall armyworm. Florida Entomological Society 62(2): 87-91.
FAO, (2018) Integrated management of the Fall Armyworm on maize: A guide for Farmer Field School in Africa.
[http://www.fao.org/faw], site visited on 14/4/2020.
FAO and CABI (2019). Community-Based Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) Monitoring, Early warning and
Management, Training of Trainers Manual, First Edition. 112 pp. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
Fernandez, F. O., Abreu, J. A., Christ, L. M. and Rosa, A. P. (2019). Efficacy of insecticides against Spodoptera
frugiperda (Smith, 1797). Journal of Agricutural Science, 11, 494-503.
Firake, D. M. and Behere, G. T. (2020). Natural mortality of invasive fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith)
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in maize agro ecosystems of northeast India. Biological Control, 148, 104303.
Fotso Kuate, A., Hanna, R., Doumtsop Fotio, A. R., Abang, A. F., Nanga, S. N., Ngatat, S. and Fiaboe, K. K. M. (2019).
Spodoptera frugiperda Smith (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Cameroon: Case study on its distribution, damage, pesticide
use, genetic differentiation and host plants. PloS one, 14(4), e0215749.
Goergen, G, Kumar, P. L, Sankung, S. B, Togola, A. and Tamo, M. (2016). 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, 11(10): e0165632.
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural research, 2nd edition, Singapore: John
wiley and Sons.
Page 16 of 16
68
Discoveries in Agriculture and Food Sciences (DAFS) Vol 12, Issue 5, October- 2024
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Gutierrez-Moreno, R. A. (2017). Susceptibility of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae) to Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) proteins and synthetic insecticides from different corn production systems in
Mexico and Puerto Rico. Dissertation for Award of PHD at Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA, 3- 17pp.
Hardke, J. T., Temple, J. H., Leonard, B. R. and Jackson, R. E. (2011). Laboratory toxicity and field efficacy of selected
insecticides against fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Florida Entomologist, 272-278.
Kiva M. F., G. M. Tryphone and G. M. Rwegasira (2022). Response of Spodoptera frugiperda Larval Instars to
Commonly Used Insecticides in Tanzania. Asian Plant Research Journal 10(4): 1-12, 2022. DOI:
10.9734/APRJ/2022/v10i4195.
Kiva M. F., Rwegasira, G. M., & Tryphone, G. M. (2023). Studies on the Influence of Altitude on Abundance of Fall
Armyworm (Spodoptera Frugiperda (Je Smith)) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Tanzania. Discoveries in Agriculture and
Food Sciences, 11(4). 43-54.
Midega, C. A., Pittchar, J. O., Pickett, J. A., Hailu, G. W. and Khan, Z. R. (2018). A climate-adapted push-pull system
effectively controls fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith), in maize in East Africa. Crop Protection 105: 10 -
15.
Negrisoli Jr, A.S., Garcia, M.S. and Negrisoli, C.R.B. (2010). Compatibility of entomopathogenic nematodes (Nematoda:
Rhabditida) with registered insecticides for Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith, 1797) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) under
laboratory conditions. Crop protection 29(6): 545-549.
Prasanna B.M., Joseph E.H. and Regina E, Virginia M. P, (Ed.) (2018). Fall Armyworm in Africa: A guide for integrated
pest management. Proceedings of CIMMYT Workshop, Entebbe, Uganda.16-17 September 2017. 107pp.
Santos, A. C. V. D., Fernandes, C. C., Lopes, L. and SOUSA, A. H. D. (2016). Insecticidal oils from amazon plants in
control of fall armyworm. Revista Caatinga, 29(3): 642-647.
Sisay B, Simiyu J, Malusi P, Likhayo P, Mendesil E, Elibariki N, Wakgari M, Ayalew, G. and Tefera, T. (2018). First report
of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), natural enemies from Africa. Journal of
Applied Entomology 142(8): 800 – 804.
Sisay, B., Tefera, T., Wakgari, M., Ayalew, G. and Mendesil, E. (2019). The Efficacy of Selected Synthetic Insecticides
and Botanicals against Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda in Maize. Insects 10(2): 45.
Sisay, B. (2018). Evaluation of Different Management options of Fall Armyworm, (JE Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)
and Assessment of its Parasitoids in Some Parts of Ethiopia. Dissertation for Award of MSc Degree at Hamaraya
University, Ethiopia, 18-28pp.
Thumar, R. K., Zala, M. B., Varma, H. S., Dhobi, C. B., Patel, B. N., Patel, M. B. and Borad, P. K. (2020). Evaluation of
insecticides against fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) infesting maize. International Journal of Chemical
Studies; SP-8(4): 100-104.