Fall armyworm, Spodopterafrugiperda, is a crop pest native to the Americas, which has invaded and spread throughout sub-Saharan Africa within two years. Recent estimates of 20–50% maize yield loss in Africa suggest severe impact on livelihoods. Fall armyworm is still infilling its potential range in Africa and could spread to other continents. In order to understand fall armyworm’s year-round, global, potential distribution, we used evidence of the effects of temperature and precipitation on fall armyworm life-history, combined with data on native and African distributions to construct Species Distribution Models (SDMs). We also investigated the strength of trade and transportation pathways that could carry fall armyworm beyond Africa. Up till now, fall armyworm has only invaded areas that have a climate similar to the native distribution, validating the use of climatic SDMs. The strongest climatic limits on fall armyworm’s year-round distribution are the coldest annual temperature and the amount of rain in the wet season. Much of sub-Saharan Africa can host year-round fall armyworm populations, but the likelihoods of colonising North Africa and seasonal migrations into Europe are hard to predict. South and Southeast Asia and Australia have climate conditions that would permit fall armyworm to invade. Current trade and transportation routes reveal Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand face high threat of fall armyworm invasions originating from Africa.
BACKGROUND This paper documents farmer perceptions and management practices for fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiderda J.E. Smith), providing a baseline for the development of sustainable pest management strategies. RESULTS 91% of farmers correctly identified fall armyworm, and reported it as the most important maize pest during 2016/2017 cropping season, affecting nearly half of cultivated area. Estimated maize yield loss during the season, attributed to fall armyworm was 28%. A majority of farmers (60%) used pesticides for fall armyworm control, along with other cultural/physical practices – hand picking and crushing egg masses/caterpillars (36%), and application of ash/sand in the funnel (19%). Farmers used various pesticide active ingredients, and protective measures were inadequate; >50% of farmers did not use any protective measures while spraying. Significantly more male than female farmers used pesticides (P = 0.05), and the reverse was true for cultural practices. Significant maize yield differences (P = 0.001) were observed by gender, attributed to differences in utilization of production inputs/practices. At least 77% of farmers received and shared agricultural advice, which can be optimized to spread information on fall armyworm management options. CONCLUSION Increased use of pesticides to manage fall armyworm poses health and environmental risks, besides the high cost for farmers and governments. Research into cultural and indigenous practices used by farmers will offer opportunities for alternative and sustainable management practices. Research efforts should pay attention to gender differences in access to resources and inputs. Tackling fall armyworm at the farm level, and averting yield losses will require integrated messaging addressing other production risks. © 2019 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
Global preparedness minimizes the risk to food supplies
Since its emergence in Africa in 2016, fall armyworm (FAW) has spread rapidly and poses a severe threat to the food security and livelihood of millions of smallholder farmers in the continent. Using survey data from Ghana and Zambia, we examined FAW prevention and control methods implemented by farm households and their impacts on maize output and household consumption of self-produced maize. The main control methods used included pesticide application and handpicking of larvae, while access to information on FAW was a key driver behind the implementation of the control methods. Results from an endogenous switching regression showed that the implementation of a FAW management strategy significantly enhanced maize yield and households' own maize consumption. When disentangling the impacts of the main control methods, we found that the combination of pesticide application and handpicking of larvae produced the highest yield gain of 125%. We concluded that the current interventions put in place by farmers to tackle FAW infestations are providing positive outcomes, but successful management of the pest will require more actions, including raising awareness to enhance the adoption of control interventions and exploring other control options.
Fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, is a crop pest native to the Americas, which has invaded and spread throughout sub-Saharan Africa within two years. Recent estimates of 20-50% maize yield loss in Africa suggest severe damage to livelihoods. Fall armyworm is still infilling its potential range in Africa, and could spread to other continents. In order to understand fall armyworm’s year-round, global, potential distribution, we used evidence of the effects of temperature and precipitation on fall armyworm life-history, combined with data on native and African distributions to construct Species Distribution Models (SDMs). Fall armyworm has only invaded areas that have a climate similar to the native distribution, validating the use of climatic SDMs. The strongest climatic limits on fall armyworm’s year-round distribution are the coldest annual temperature and the amount of rain in the wet season. Much of sub-Saharan Africa can host year-round fall armyworm populations, but the likelihoods of colonising North Africa and seasonal migrations into Europe are hard to predict. South and Southeast Asia and Australia have climate that would permit fall armyworm to invade. Current trade and transportation routes reveal Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand face high threat of fall armyworm invasions originating from Africa.
The fall armyworm (FAW, Spodoptera frugiperda) originates from the tropical and sub‐tropical regions of the Americas. Recently it was reported for the first time in Africa and has since spread rapidly across more than 30 countries in the continent. Chemical pesticides are being promoted and used for FAW management, but where application practices and/or the active ingredients are unsafe there is a need to make effective, low‐risk products available. Given that biopesticides such as microbials and microbial extracts, macrobials and semiochemicals are generally considered to be lower risk options for pest management, they are a promising avenue for exploration. When used in conjunction with good crop management, they can help to keep pest levels under control, reducing the need to apply other pesticides. This study provides a basis for designing interventions to make biopesticides more widely available for FAW control in Africa. It summarizes assessments of the registered pesticides and biopesticides for 30 countries, 11 in FAW's native range and 19 in Africa. The report identifies biopesticide active ingredients (AI) which are registered for use against FAW and provides an assessment of how appropriate these will be for use by smallholder farmers in Africa. For each biopesticide AI identified, detailed profiles were developed which covered the efficacy of the AI against FAW; the human health and environmental hazards associated with the AI; the agronomic sustainability of the AI; and whether or not the AI is practical for smallholder farmers to use. Using these data, a list of priority biopesticides for which follow‐up action is recommended was compiled. Fifty biopesticide AI were identified, which have been registered in one or more of the 30 countries for FAW management. Twenty‐three of these are recommended for follow‐up, for example field trials or bioassays.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.