Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E.Smith) [Lepidoptera: …...G20 Discussion group on ‘Fall Armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E.Smith) [Lepidoptera: Noctuidae]’ Sengottaiyan Vennila1,

G20 Discussion group on Fall Armyworm

Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E.Smith)

[Lepidoptera: Noctuidae]

International Workshop on Facilitating

International Research Collaboration on

Transboundary Plant Pests

November 27, 2019

Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan

G20 Discussion group on

‘Fall Armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E.Smith) [Lepidoptera: Noctuidae]’

Sengottaiyan Vennila1, Zhenying Wang2, Ken Young3, Jeevan Khurana3, Ivan Cruz4, Julian

Chen2, Bernard Reynaud5, Helene Delatte5, Peter Baufeld6, Rajan1, Pio Federico Roversi7,

Elisabetta Gargani7, Akira Otuka8, Youichi Kobori9, Jun Tabata10, Motonori Sasaki10, Hong-

Hyun Park11, Gwan-Seok11, LeeAhmed Mohammed AlJabr12, Suliman Ali Al-Khateeb12, Rob

Meagher13, Rebijith Kayattukandy Balan14, Roger Day15, Prasanna Boddupalli16, Shoki Al-

Dobai17, Elisabetta Tagliati17 and Maged Elkahky17

1 Indian Council of Agricultural Research, India; 2 Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences,

China; 3 The Grains Research and Development Corporation, Australia; 4 Brazilian Agricultural

Research Corporation (Embrapa), Brazil; 5 Agricultural Research Centre for International

Development, France; 6 Julius Kühn-Institute, Germany; 7 Council for Agricultural Research

and Economics, Italy; 8 National Agriculture and Food Research Organization, Japan; 9 Japan

International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences, Japan; 10 Ministry of Agriculture,

Forestry and Fisheries, Japan; 11 National Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Korea; 12 Ministry

of Environment, Water and Agriculture, Saudi Arabia; 13 U.S. Department of Agriculture,

United States;14 Ministry for Primary Industries, New Zealand; 15 Centre for Agriculture and

Bioscience International, United Kingdom, 16 The International Maize and Wheat Improvement

Center (CIMMYT), Kenya and 17 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

MISSION STATEMENT

“Global challenges require global cooperation and collaboration. International

collaboration brings together greater diversity and congregation of ideas involving increased

innovations towards solving problems of transboundary plant pests ranging from prevention,

early detection, delay and reduction of outbreaks through efficient and effective management

of invasions”

CONTENTS Page no.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

ABBREVIATIONS 3

1 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 4

1.1 Origin and Spread in Americas 4

1.2 Invasion in Africa 4

1.3 Invasion and Spread in Asia 4

1.4 FAW amongst G20 Countries 4

2 TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT OF FAW 5

3 SPATIO TEMPORAL SPREAD WITHIN COUNTRY 7

3.1 India 7

3.2 China 7

3.3 Korea 8

3.4 Japan 8

4 FAW DIAGNOSTICS 8

4.1 Morphological 8

4.2 Molecular 9

4.3 Decoding FAW genome 10

5 HOST PROFILE AND PREFERENCES OF FAW 10

6 AREA UNDER FAW INFESTATION 10

7 LEVELS OF FAW INFESTATION 11

8 ESTIMATES OF YIELD LOSS DUE TO FAW 11

9 BIOLOGY OF FAW 11

10 MONITORING TOOLS FOR FAW 12

11 FAW MANAGEMENT 12

11.1 Host Plant Resistance [Native Genetic Resistance] 12

11.2 Host Plant Resistance [Transgenics] 14

11.3 Agro-ecological management of FAW 15

11.4 Biological Control and Biopesticides 15

11.5 FAW Management in India 16

11.6 FAW Management in China 18

11.7 FAW Management in Korea 19

11.8 FAW Management in Japan 19

12 INITIATIVES BY G20 MEMBER COUNTRIES PRE OR POST FAW INVASION 19

12.1 India 19

12.2 China 20

12.3 FAO and FAW 20

12.4 CABI & FAW 21

12.5 CIMMYT and FAW 22

12.6 Constraints on FAW Management 23

13 PROJECTS ON FAW 24

14 WAY FORWARD FOR INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION 24

15 REFERENCES 25-31

Report on ‘FAW Discussion Group’ for the International Workshop on Facilitating International Research Collaboration on Transboundary Plant Pests

Pag

e1

G20 Discussion on

‘Fall Armyworm [Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E.Smith); Lepidoptera: Noctuidae]’

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Fall armyworm [Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith); Lepidoptera:Noctuidae] described

almost two centuries before as native to tropical and subtropical regions of America has

invaded Africa in 2016 and into Asia by 2018 with spread across South East Asian countries

during 2019. Often described as a sporadic pest with outbreaks at irregular intervals

erstwhile, during the last half a decade FAW is emerging as a key pest in areas of recent

invasions, and poses major challenge to maize farm holdings of Africa and Asia. While

primary and economic crop of importance attacked by FAW is maize, the polyphagous

insect also reported to damage sorghum and additional host plants across diverse plant

families. Although regional air transport systems have been attributed to facilitate

transboundary movement of FAW, increasing trade and travel of agricultural commodities

and people across and within continents inclusive of stowaway play a potential role in rapid

spread of the insect. Compendium on invasive species of CABI documents the FAW

invasions geographically in addition to all related resources across globe.

Eleven and nine countries among G20 have presence and absence of FAW, respectively as

of mid - November 2019, with Germany successfully eradicating a single introduction as

early as 1999. Yield loss estimates of recent invasions range from a minimum of one to a

maximum of hundred percent varying with crops and agro ecological regions. Potential

monetary loss projected due to FAW attack in Africa was US$ 16 billion/annum.

Morphological diagnosis of damaging larval and sexually dimorphic adult stages of FAW

is possible at field level. At molecular level FAW, populations have shown existence of corn

(C) and rice (R) strains in addition to their hybrids. Of late, genetic differences among

subpopulations of FAW and mechanisms of adaptation to pesticides have been documented

in China. This could possibly have a greater significance across locations in terms of host

plants and extent of damage inflicted not to mention of evolving diversity in behavioural

patterns such as flight capacities and components of chemical signal (pheromones). Life

history parameters of FAW have been well-documented with reports of optimum

temperature for larval development as 28C with a lower threshold temperature of 10.9°C

and 559 accumulated day-degrees although overwintering by FAW needs to be confirmed

at places of climatic unsuitability. Both detection and monitoring surveys use pheromone

traps and field scouting of FAW although light traps/search lights are deployed in China,

Korea and Japan.

Sources of FAW resistance in maize, sorghum and pearl millet have been identified.

Institutions such as CIMMYT are making intensive efforts for developing/identifying elite

maize germplasm with native genetic resistance to FAW in Africa and Asia. Transgenic

maize across countries of America and Africa involving single or combinations of Bt events

is available offering partial resistance to FAW. Management of FAW by synthesis and

deployment of pest management tools such as cultural, mechanical, biological (natural and


Pag

e2

applied), behavioural (pheromone lures) and chemical insecticides with thresholds available

or adopted at different countries have been elaborated in addition to agro-ecological

measures and traditional methods reducing FAW damage. Insecticides recommended vary

with countries and ‘label claims’ have been an issue due to sudden invasion however are

recommended with tentative approvals.

Each country of invasion has taken various initiatives right from awareness creation,

trainings on identification of FAW and damage, monitoring male moths and damage

scouting and issue of management advisories to keep the population below economic

damage. Web based FAW portals of FAO and CABI [http://www.fao.org/fall-armyworm

and https://www.cabi.org/isc/fallarmyworm] offer a wide range of news, research, practical

extension materials, videos and other resources. Mobile app on FAW Monitoring and Early

Warning System (FAMEWS) implemented by FAO is a step forward to understand the field

dynamics of FAW population and damage over larger areas that can aid in decision

management and it could be used as a platform for linking different stakeholders to each

other.

Almost all participating G20 countries have concerns over FAW occurrence and taking steps

either through quarantine or by management. Considering the large amount of research

findings and experiences available on FAW, member countries where FAW is absent have

remarked the need for effective protocols of FAW inspection of commodities and human

transport by NPPOs facilitated through capacity building for pest risk analysis, certification,

robust documentation, reporting and information exchange. A global platform for studies

on documentation of host plants of FAW, establishing behavioural (feeding/migration/

chemoreception/insecticide resistance) variations in spatial and temporal strains of FAW

would lead to strategic FAW management. Collaboration for holistic understanding of

migratory patterns, overwintering and forecast of FAW in the context of climate change

spearheaded by global organisations embedded with data exchange and analytics would

improve sustainable FAW management and provide lessons for other transboundary pests.

Development of molecular based rapid detection kits for FAW diagnosis, exploitation of

genomics and bioinformatics for host plant resistance and identification of precise blends of

semiochemicals for field use could be areas of collaboration across countries of FAW

presence. Organisations such as CABI, FAO, USDA, CIMMYT and EPPO could play a

pivotal role in bringing together the global community for research collaborations on FAW

considering their areas of expertise, extensive partnerships and willingness with

deliverables applicable to local/regional and international levels. While digital tools for

monitoring and advisory dissemination provide value addition to FAW management in a

globalised era, it is important to ensure that farmers implement the scientific pest

management strategies within their socio - economic and environmental milieu leading to

reduced yield losses, improved crop productivity and enhanced food and livelihood security.

https://www.cabi.org/isc/fallarmyworm


Pag

e3

ABBREVIATIONS

AATF : African Agricultural Technology Foundation

AGRA : Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa

AICRP : All India Coordinated Research Project

AUC : African Union Commission/

CABI : Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International

CERTIS : Centre for Education and Research in Computer Science

CGIAR : Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research

CIMMYT : International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

CORPOICA : The Colombian Corporation for Agricultural Research

DFID : Department for International Development

eDNA : Environmental Deoxyribonucleic acid

EFSA : European Food Safety Authority

EMBRAPA : Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation

EPPO : European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization

ETL : Economic Threshold Level

EU : European Union

EUPHRESCO : European Phytosanitary Research Coordination

FAMEWS : FAW Monitoring and Early Warning System

FAO : Food and Agriculture Organisation

G20 : Group of 20

GEM : Germplasm Enhancement of Maize

ICAR : Indian Council of Agricultural Research

ICIPE : International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology

ICRISAT : International Crop Research Institute for Semi- Arid Tropics

IITA : International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

iNAATs : Isothermal Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests

IPM : Integrated Pest Management

IPPC : International Plant Protection Convention

LAMP : Loop Mediated Amplification

MARA : Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs

MoAI : Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

NBAIR : National Bureau of Agriculturally Important Resources

NATESC : National Agricultural Technology Extension and Service Centre

NPPO : National Plant Protection Organization

NSKE : Neem Seed Kernel Extract

PAD : Precision Agriculture for Development

PRA : Pest Risk Analysis

PRISE : Pest Risk Information SErvice

RPPO : Regional Plant Protection Organization

SfMNPV : Spodoptera frugiperda Multiple Nucleopolyhedrovirus

SAWBO : Scientific Animations Without Borders

USDA : United States Department of Agriculture

USAID : United States Agency for International Development

USDA-ARS : United States Department of Agriculture-Agriculture Research Service


Pag

e4

The Fall Armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E.Smith) [Lepidoptera: Noctuidae]

1. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

1.1. Origin and Spread in Americas

Fall armyworm (FAW) is native to tropical and subtropical Americas. It is a sporadic pest

in the United States with its first record by J. E. Smith in 1797.

Its appearance associated with late summer and fall in North America led to the name Fall

Armyworm (Walton and Luginbill 1916).

A severe outbreak was documented on corn and millets in 1912 (Walton and Luginbill 1916)

and subsequent outbreaks occurred at irregular intervals on maize (Sparks 1979).

1.2. Invasion in Africa

FAW was formally reported for the first time in January 2016 and was found to be

established in the island nation of São Tomé and Príncipe in April 2016, followed by

outbreaks in the Western African countries of Benin, Nigeria, Ghana, and Togo (IPPC

2016).

FAW was speculated to have entered Africa as a stowaway on a passenger flight (Cock et

al. 2017).

By October 2017, FAW was reported throughout the sub-Saharan Africa (FAO 2017).

By 2018, FAW invaded 44 countries of the sub-Saharan Africa (www.cimmyt.org 2018) and

spread in the Indian Ocean islands (Madagascar, Mayotte, Seychelles, Reunion).

FAW was reported in Egypt in June 2019 (IPPC, 2019) and has doubled the threat of FAW

reaching Europe.

Unconfirmed report of FAW in Mauritania does exist.

1.3. Invasion and Spread in Asia

Presence of FAW was confirmed in India during mid May 2018 in Karnataka State of

Southern India (ICAR-NBAIR 2018).

FAW has spread all over Peninsular, Central and West Indian maize growing areas except

Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir provinces of extreme North (Rakshit et al.

2019).

FAW invaded Yemen in South West Asia by July 2018 (FAO 2019).

FAW has spread to Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Myanmar Nepal, and Thailand by December

2018 (https://www.ippc.int); China in January 2019; South Korea and Japan by July 2019

(https://www.cabi.org/isc/).

1.4. FAW amongst G20 Countries

FAW was noticed in Germany in 1999 on maize (3 ha) in Baden-Wuerttemberg as an

introduction with sweet corn and was successfully eradicated (mechanically).

Presence of FAW:- Argentina, Canada, France (Mayotte, La Reunion), United States,

Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, India, Indonesia, China, South Korea and Japan.

Absence of FAW:- United Kingdom, France (mainland), Germany, Italy, Turkey, Saudi

Arabia, Russia, Australia, European Commission.

https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/29810#F194D497-DF0D-4E76-B4B4-3C6866CB97BD

https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/29810#F194D497-DF0D-4E76-B4B4-3C6866CB97BD


Pag

e5

2. TRANSBOUNDARY MOVEMENT

FAW spread was well documented from 1916 in North America (Walton and Luginbill

1916).

FAW moths were reported to fly 100 km per night (Johnson 1987).

Simulations based on night flight activity of FAW combined with time gap between starting

and stopping point of migratory path in USA suggested that the migration is aided by

regional air transport systems (Westbrook et al. 2016).

The spread of FAW since 2016 (as of July 2019)

http://www.fao.org/fall-armyworm/monitoring-tools/faw-maps/en/

http://www.fao.org/fall-armyworm/monitoring-tools/faw-maps/en/


Pag

e6

Texas and Florida of North-America are warm enough to sustain FAW populations year-

round. Further up north, the winters are too cold but with arrival of spring it gets warm

enough for FAW to migrate northwards. By the end of summer, FAW can get as far as

Canada before autumn frost halts its further spread.

Much of sub-Saharan Africa such as both overseas French department of Mayotte and La

Réunion can host year-round FAW populations, but arid and hot northern parts of Africa

are less suitable for FAW. Likelihood of seasonal migrations into Europe are hard to predict.

South and Southeast Asia and Australia have climatic conditions that would permit FAW to

invade.

Climatologic suitability for sustaining FAW populations year-round Purple colors indicate high suitability. Source: Early et al., (2018)

Agrees with its present distribution (https://www.cabi.org)

Natural migration of FAW crossing Arabian Peninsula from East Africa or wind-assisted

migration directly from Africa to South Asia on the Southwest monsoon or stowaway or

contaminants on planes and commodities moving from Africa to Asia are the possible

ways attributed to invasion into India.

Pathway of Asian monsoon could be the possible migration route for FAW from Myanmar

to Southeast Asian countries.

In China, summer monsoon winds through May to July may aid migration of FAW from

Yangtze River Valley northwards into Northern China, the Korean Peninsula and Japan (Wu

et al. 2019a&b).

In Korea, FAW migration is from China associated with winds of May to August every

year (Ma et al. 2019).

Southern China is the estimated source for the FAW initial immigration in southwestern

Japan.

The strongest climatic limits on FAW’s year-round distribution are the coldest annual

temperature and the amount of rain in the wet season.

Northward & Easterly progression of FAW has been a common phenomenon across continents

and countries !!!


Pag

e7

3. SPATIO TEMPORAL SPREAD WITHIN COUNTRY

3.1. India

First detection of FAW in India was in May 2018 in the Southern state of Karnataka.

FAW had spread from peninsular India to north and north east India during 2018 and early

2019. With the progression of monsoon, FAW incidence has been reported from Northern

and Northwestern parts of the country (Rakshit et al. 2019).

FAW spread across India over time (May 2018-September 2019)

3.2. China

The first detection of FAW was in Yunnan Province on January 11, 2019 across 11 counties.

FAW spread northward to infest spring corn from April 2019.

All the Southwest, Southern hilly and main fresh corn growing areas in China had FAW

damage by May 2019.

FAW spread further northward and slowed down since June as preventive and management

strategies were put in place.

The FAW populations are able to reproduce year-round in tropical and south of subtropical

regions in China.


Pag

e8

3.3. Korea

FAW was found first in the corn fields in JeJu Island on June 13, 2019.

By September 2019, FAW was found in 61 fields of 31 counties across

eight provinces.

3.4. Japan

The first FAW occurrence was noticed in Kagoshima, Japan on June 27, 2019.

Five southern prefectures of Kyushu and islands of Okinawa had FAW until mid-July.

FAW larvae were found in Fukushima and Ibaraki of Eastern Japan by August 2019.

Within two months, FAW reached eastern prefectures of Japan, covering about 1100 km.

4. FAW DIAGNOSTICS

4.1. Morphological Identification

FAW is easily identifiable owing to its unique morphological features in larval and adult

stages. Digital identification of FAW is also possible using AI technology.

White inverted ‘Y’ on the head, distinct black spots on body coupled and distinct pattern of

four “dots” on the eighth abdominal segment of larvae (Robert and Nagoshi 2010).

Sexual dimorphism is present in adults. Adult male forewing is greyish brown with reniform

indistinct spot, faintly outlined in black, with a small v-shaped mark (red circled); light

brown orbicular spot, somewhat oval and oblique in shape (green circled) and white patch

at the apical margin of the wing (blue circled). Female forewing is with a mottled

colouration of grey and brown, with brown markings and without white patch (Bhavani et

al. 2019).


Pag

e9

Male genitalia (h in the figure below): (i) valva is broad, almost quadrate and clavus short;

(ii) costal process narrow, elongate, straight with inclined hair structure at tip and (iii)

hampulla slightly curved; juxta concave at base and with a dorsal process; coremata with a

single lobe, aedeagus well developed.

Female genitalia (i in the figure above): hair mass associated is well developed; ventral plate

of ostium bursa with height greater than width; ventrolateral ductus bursae short (length less

than twice the width); completely sclerotized. Appendix bursae partially sclerotized. Corpus

bursae bulbous, length less than twice the width; striate convolutions. Signum present in

basal half of corpus bursae (Ganiger et al. 2018)

4.2. Molecular Diagnosis

Mitochondrial marker diagnostics provided evidence of two strains throughout Africa -

Corn strain “C” predominantly feeding on maize, sorghum and cotton; Rice strain “R” on

rice and turf grass (Juarez et al. 2014;Nagoshi and Meagher 2016).

“R” strain reported in Africa has infestation pattern typical to “C” strain (Srinivasan et al.,

2018). R-strain is rare (<1% of the population) or absent in Africa (Nagoshi 2019a).

Strain based mating behaviour proved that African FAW population is composed of C-

strain and descendants of inter-strain hybrid (Nagoshi 2019a)

FAW population in India belonging to “R” strain (based on COI) (Swamy et al. 2018) did

not feed on rice (Sharanabasappa et al. 2018).

The Indian FAW population was found to be predominantly “C” type by Tpi and “R” type

by COI led to a strong indication of inter-strain hybrids of FAW in Africa and India arising

from a common small founder population (Nagoshi et al. 2019b).

FAW in China includes both “C” and “R” strains (Liu et al. 2019) and no report of FAW in

rice fields at Japan again points to the possibility of common/similar population of recent

invasions.

Recent studies on genome-wide resequencing in China revealed that FAW comprises a

complex inter-strain hybrid with more of corn-strain and less of rice-strain genetic

background. Evidences of two mitochondrial fragments inserted into the nuclear genome

after the differentiation of the two strains exist (Zhang et al. 2019)

Since host profile is influenced by FAW strains, characterisation of populations of FAW from

diverse locations and varied host plants deserve further attention!


Pag

e10

4.3. Decoding FAW genome

Sf21 cell line of 358 Mb size with 11,595 genes sharing significant homology with silkworm

genome was reported (Kakumani et al. 2014).

Sf9 cell line is of 451 Mb size (Subhiksha Nandakumar et al. 2017).

Sequences of “C” and “R” strains of Sf indicated genome of 438 Mb and 371 Mb size

containing 21,700 and 26,329 predicted protein coding genes. Significant expansions of

genes associated with chemosensation and detoxification was found in FAW as against

specialist Lepidoptera. Expansions were largely attributable to tandem duplications, a

possible adaptation mechanism enabling polyphagy (Gouin et al. 2017)

Two chromosome level FAW genomes of male (542.42 Mb with 22,201 predicted genes)

and female (530.77 Mb) adult moths from Yunnan Province, China were characterized.

Expansion of cytochrome P450 and glutathione s-transferase gene families often associated

with pesticide detoxification and tolerance was found. (Liu et al. 2019).

Host range profile, variations in pheromone blend composition and mechanisms of insecticide

resistance of FAW… WHO IS FASTER IN THE EVOLUTIONARY RACE?

5. HOST PROFILE AND PREFERENCES

FAW is polyphagous and infests primarily grasses [maize, rice, sorghum, millets, wheat,

oat, fodder and pasture grasses] with particular preference for maize.

Cotton, soybean and alfalfa are among non-graminaceous crops affected by FAW (Murua

et al. 2006; Nagoshi et al. 2018).

A total of 353 FAW larval host plant species belonging to 76 plant families, with the greatest

number in family Poaceae (106 taxa) > Asteraceae and Fabaceae (31 taxa each). (Montezano

et al. 2018)

India: Maize, sorghum, wheat, paddy, sugarcane, sweet corn, pearl millet, finger millet, little

millet and foxtail millet.

China: Corn (field/sweet & waxy corn), sorghum, millet, sugarcane, Job’s tears, wheat, rice

(very less), Bermuda arrowroot, peanut, banana, cabbage, Chinese cabbage and weeds

Barbary, Crab and Goose grasses

Korea: Sweet and field corn and in a sorghum field (Jindo county) and Sudan grass field

(Jangheung county)

Japan : Corn, sorghum and sugarcane

6. AREA UNDER FAW INFESTATION (AS OF SEPTEMBER 2019)

India: Karnataka State had the highest area affected with FAW (2, 11,300 ha) followed by

Telangana (24,288 ha), Maharashtra (5,144 ha) and others (Rakshit et al. 2019).

China: Infestation was observed in about one million ha of cornfields across China. 80% at

Southwestern Hilly Corn Region with Yunnan (60%) > Guanxi (12%) > Sichuan (7%)

Korea: 50.6 of 15472 ha of corn had FAW infestation.

Japan: Although fodder corn is infested largely, area of damage is currently unknown.


Pag

e11

7. LEVELS OF FAW INFESTATION

Americas: Maximum damage occurs in maize and sorghum (Hardke et al. 2015)

India: Maximum infestation of FAW- maize (100%) > sorghum > (60.1%) > pearl millet

(41.4%) > barnyard millet (22.9%) > finger millet (10.2%). Summer maize also suffers

heavy infestations over winter and spring maize.

In rainy season, damage to sorghum was 1-2% in 2018 and medium to severe during post-

rainy sown season (October-November, 2018).

Korea: Mean plant damage of 1% was noted with heavy damage found from only two

counties (50% in Taean and 15% in Goseong).

8. ESTIMATES OF YIELD LOSS

FAW caused up to 73% yield losses in maize in Latin America (Hruska and Gould 1997).

FAW was predicted to cause 21-53% loss in annual maize production in Africa in absence

of any control measures (Day et al. 2017).

70% defoliation at the 12-leaf causing 15% yield reduction, 25% defoliation causing not

more than 9% yield reduction and <5% yield reduction when damage occurs before the 18-

leaf stage , (FAO).

A potential yield loss due to FAW was estimated to be 21-53 percent amongst African

countries, destroying 8.3 to 20.6 million tonnes of maize valued at US$2.5- 6.2

billion/annum (Day et al. 2017; https://www.iita.org/news-crop/maize/)

China reports 5% and 3% yield loss in South West and South Hilly Corn Region,

respectively.

FAW infestation on sorghum reduced grain yields by 55-80% in South and Central America

(Andrews 1988).

FAW infestation at whorl stage in sorghum caused yield reductions of up to 20% due to

smaller rather than fewer kernels per panicle head (Henderson et al. 1966).

FAW as cutworm in 13 to 22 day old sorghum plants caused up to 50% yield losses in South

and Central America (Andrews 1988).

9. BIOLOGY OF FAW

Lower threshold of temperature : 10C (Sparks 1979; Simmons 1993)

Upper temperature threshold : 38-40C (Barfield et al. 1978; Simmons 1993)

Optimum temperature for larval development of FAW is 28C (Ramirez-Garcia et al. 1987)

At threshold temperature of 10.9°C and 559 day-degrees is required for development (Lopez

et al. 2012).

Threshold temperature of pupae is 14.6°C with 138 day-degrees Celsius for its development

(Ramirez-Garcia et al. 1987).

FAW breeding can be continuous with four to six generations per year in tropics. One or

two generations in northern regions of Americas. FAW overwinters only in Southern Texas

and Florida (Ramirez-Garcia et al. 1987).

Simulations indicated that an increase of 1°C in weekly mean temperatures could almost

double the levels of fall armyworm populations, drawing attention to the possible

consequences of temperature rises for pest dynamics (Garcia et al. 2018).

https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/29810#9CF1FBC6-D00C-4962-AE0F-82E31856EACC


Pag

e12

In India, FAW is not found in winter maize of Northern states where temperature goes below

10ºC.

Egg, larval and pupal periods were 2-3, 14-19 and 9-12 days, respectively with total life

cycle duration of 32-43 days under laboratory conditions on maize in Karnataka, India

(Sharanabasappa et al. 2018).

Developmental duration of FAW Stages (days) – laboratory studies

Parameters Range Mean

Egg - incubation 3.3 - 5.7 4.6 ± 0.23

Larval development 13.7 - 17.6 15.53± 0.31

Pupa/ development 7.3 - 8.3 7.7 ± 0.31

Male longevity 3.7 - 6.3 4.5 ± 0.32

Female longevity 4.7 - 6.0 5.4 ± 0.39

Total life cycle 29.3 - 36.7 31.3 ± 0.66

Fecundity ranged 835-1,169 eggs/female with a mean of 1,064 ± 109.5

[Hyderabad, India (Unpublished)]

10. MONITORING TOOLS

Pheromone trap (10/ha) and general surveillance on presence/absence and visual scouting

for damage if present (India).

Search light trap, black light trap and sex pheromone trap for FAW population monitoring

& scouting of corn plants for damage (China & Japan).

Pheromone trap (one/2 ha) & field sampling (once a week for Corn and once in two weeks

for other crops; Deployment of traps [pheromone/light] along West coast to confirm FAW

flights from China (Korea).

Pheromone traps of Pherobank Wageningen (product code ‘SPFR’) are used at Germany

for detection.

11. FAW MANAGEMENT

11.1. Host Plant Resistance [Native Genetic Resistance]

Maize

Host plant resistance is a central component of the IPM strategy to control FAW (Prasanna

et al. 2018a). FAW tolerant/resistant varieties derived through naturally occurring or

“native” genetic resistance provide practical and economical ways to minimize losses to the

pest.

Most native resistance in maize to FAW is polygenic (based on multiple genes) and

quantitative in nature, conferring “partial resistance”. Research conducted at CIMMYT in

Mexico (Mihm 1997), EMBRAPA in Brazil, USDA-ARS (Mississippi), University of

Florida, and USDA-ARS Germplasm Enhancement of Maize (GEM) Program between

1970s and 1990s, led to development of an array of improved tropical/sub-

tropical/temperate maize inbred lines with partial resistance. The quantitative or polygenic


Pag

e13

nature of native genetic resistance also offers the opportunity to minimize selection pressure

on FAW, and prevents emergence of new resistant strains. Wiseman et al. (1966) first reported FAW resistant lines selected from Antigua 2D × (B10

× B14), Cuba Honduras 46-J and ETO Amarillo were found to be the most resistant

(Wiseman et al. 1967). FAW-resistant lines from Antigua Gpo 2 indicated suggested

prevalence of additive effects (Williams et al. 1978).

Germplasm rating on 1-9 rating (‘Davis scale’) was developed at Mississipi (Davis et al.

1989; Williams & Davis 1989; Davis and Williams 1992) both for resistance breeding as

well as determining action threshold for pesticide sprays.

Ear damage rating developed for corn earworm (Widstrom 1967) was later adapted for

FAW ear feeding resistance too (Ni et al. 2007 & 2012).

A number of temperate maize inbred lines combining resistance to FAW and South western

corn borer (SCB) (Diatraea grandiosella) made available by Corn Host Plant Resistance

Research Unit (USDA-ARS) - germplasm Antigua of Caribbean origin

Classical plant breeding efforts yielded FAW resistant lines MpSWCB-4 (Scott and Davis

1981a); Mp496 (Scott and Davis 1981b); Mp 701, Mp 702 (Scott et al. 1982); Mp 703 -708

(Williams and Davis 1980 & 1984; Williams et al. 1990b; Ni et al. 2008 & 2011); Mp713,

Mp714, Mp716 (Williams et al. 1990a).

Non-temperate (tropical/subtropical) sources of FAW resistance identified include: CMS

23, CMS 14C, CMS 24, Amarillo Cristalino, WP1, 077R2, Guatemala 73, 786, NodzobPre,

Puerto Rico 13, Composto ArcoIris (Viana and Guimaraes 1994); PopG (Welcker et al.

1994); Antigua 2D × (B10 × B14) (Wiseman et al. 1996); 100-R-3 (Abel et al. 2000); CML

333, CML 336 (Ni et al. 2008); FAW 7061 (Ni et al. 2011); UR11003:S0302, CUBA 164-

1; DK7 (Ni et al. 2014); CML 338, CKSBL10008, CKIR04002, CKIR04005 (Prasanna

2019). CIMMYT has derived FAW resistant lines from Caribbean accessions and

CIMMYT’s multiple insect resistant populations (Prasanna et al. 2018b).

Both foliar and ear damage in maize need to be factored while calculating susceptibility

indices. Intensive and precise screening of maize germplasm against FAW under artificial

is undertaken by CIMMYT in a FAW screening facility established in Kiboko, Kenya

(Prasanna et al. 2018b).

Tropical inbred lines for FAW resistance considering predator diversity and density have

been identified (Ni et al. 2014).

CIMMYT is intensively screening maize germplasm against FAW under artificial

infestation in Kiboko, Kenya, leading to identification of promising FAW-tolerant inbred

lines and hybrids. The first set of FAW-tolerant maize hybrids identified by CIMMYT shall

be announced in 2020 (Prasanna Boddupalli, personal communication).

In India, seven promising maize lines have been identified under FAW natural infestation.

Sorghum

Resistant sources against FAW have been reported in sorghum at various crop growth stages

(Wiseman and Gourley 1982, Wiseman and Lovell 1988, Diawara et al. 1991&1992)

Sorghum accession, plant introduction (PI) 147573 was resistant to FAW at 7 days after

artificial infestation over Mp 708 (resistant check) while genotypes 13, 22, ‘GT-IR8′, and

‘GT-IR6 were susceptible, but at 14 days after infestation all the nine sorghum accessions


Pag

e14

in experiment were as resistant as Mp708 with significantly less damage than AB24E

(susceptible check), suggesting that sorghum possess induced resistance in the whorl

(Harris-Shultz 2015).

Diawara et al. (1991) reported 0-33% grain yield reduction in Sorghum resistant lines of

1812573C, CM1821, I812679C, 187273C, and IS7444C due to FAW whorl feeding damage

whereas susceptible line Huerin Inta recorded 76-85% reduction in grain yield.

FAW resistance in pearl millet was also reported in seedling stage in genotypes Tifton no.

153 and Tifton no. 240 and antibiosis was attributed to be the resistance mechanism (Leuck

1968; Leuck 1970).

International exchange of germplasm with native genetic resistance for FAW is important for

its management!

11.2. Host Plant Resistance [Transgenics]

Deploying transgenic or genetically modified crop varieties that express lepidopteran

resistance genes is a strategy to manage FAW damage in maize (Prasanna et al. 2018a).

Several different cry and vip genes have been exploited in Bt maize varieties globally for

over 20 years. The most notable one is the vip3A gene used to confer FAW resistance.

Numerous GM maize hybrids including various combinations of cry and vip genes are

commercially available in Brazil and North America, where over 80% of the total maize

production area is cultivated with Bt maize (Horikoshi et al. 2016).

Bt maize is currently commercially available only in South Africa, where regulatory

authorities have overseen multiple approvals, with more than 15 years of deployment of

such products. Two GM products available that provide protection against FAW: a) The

MON810 event intended to control stem borer also confers partial resistance to FAW (has

been cultivated in South Africa since 1997); and b) the MON89034 event which has

demonstrated efficacy for control of both FAW and stem borer has been cultivated in South

Africa since 2010. MON89034 is recommended for FAW control due to its high efficacy

against the pest, as well as anticipated durability of control over time due to its incorporation

of “stacked” or “pyramided” insect resistance traits.

179 events of Bt harbouring one or more combination of 13 different cry genes have been

commercially approved for cultivation with lepidopteran insect resistance across 13

countries.

Seven genes have been specifically identified for conferring FAW resistance. These are

vip3Aa20, cry1F, cry1Fa2, cry1A.105, cry2Ab2, cry1Ab and mocry1F.

Cry1F was found to reduce more than 50% of the FAW population (Hardke et al. 2011)

In US, 29.44 out of 36.8 million hectares planted Bt maize cultivars in 2017 (USDA

National Agricultural Statistical Service).

Field-evolved resistance to Cry1F and Cry1Ab in FAW populations from Puerto Rico,

Florida and North Carolina (Storer et al. 2010; Huang et al. 2014), Brazil (Farias et al.

2014; Monnerat et al. 2015; Omoto et al. 2016) and Argentina (Chandrasena et al. 2018).

Ingber et al. (2018) found corn-strains and hybrid populations that were more tolerant to Bt

toxins, especially to Cry1F than rice-strain population.

4–35% survivorship of FAW to Cry1Ab was found in South Africa (Botha et al. 2019).

Can transgenics be a dominant solution to manage FAW?


Pag

e15

11.3. Agro-ecological management of FAW

Surface crop residue retention helped in conservation of natural enemies of FAW and

resulted in enhanced pest predation and parasitism (Murreel 2017).

Maize crop with frequent weeding and practicing zero-tillage had lower incidence of FAW

(Baudron et al. 2019).

Habitat management through ‘push–pull’ technology effective for management of maize

stem in Africa extended to FAW management in Africa. [Desmodium spp. or Tephrosia

planted as intercrop ‘push’ the insect outside crop while on the border pest-attractive trap

plant such as napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) or Brachiaria spp ‘pull’ the pest towards

them]

Intercropping with Tephrosia and Desmodium reduced the number of FAW eggs laid on

maize, (Harrison et al. 2019) and reduced FAW infestation up to 86%, with a 2.7-fold

increase in yield (Midega et al. 2018)

Intercropping of pumpkin was found to promote its incidence in Eastern Zimbabwe

(Baudron et al. 2019).

11.4. Biological Control and Biopesticides (see also section 11.5 on situation in India)

Bateman et al. (2018) reviewed biological approaches to FAW control, prioritised a number of

active ingredients based on the on efficacy, safety and other criteria. Research on many of the

priorities is in progress in Africa and Asia.

Classical biological control

When FAW first invaded Africa it was suggested that the egg parasitoid Telenomus remus

could be a candidate for introduction, but it has since been found in several parts of the

continent (Kenis et al. 2019) as well as in Asia including China (Liao et al. 2019). CABI has

made surveys for natural enemies in Latin America, and two previously identified parasitoids

viz., Chelonus insularis (Cresson) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and Eiphosoma laphygmae

Costa Lima (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae), egg/larval and larval parasitoids, respectively, are

considered as potential agents for introduction elsewhere. A Chelonus sp already attacks FAW

in Africa, so introducing another could result in competition.

Augmentation

Production and release of large numbers of FAW natural enemies is reported from Latin

America, particularly using the egg parasitoids Trichogramma pretiosum and Telenomus

remus. The former is easier to rear in large numbers, but is less efficient than T. remus. A

comparison of the cost-effectiveness of different species and approaches to their production,

distribution and application has not been undertaken, but in Africa several organisations are

investigating the possibility of establishing community-based production units.

Botanicals

Extracts of many plants show insecticidal activity against FAW but few have been successfully

commercialised. Azadirachtin (neem) and pyrethrins (pyrethrum) are the products most widely

available, but farmers use a wide range of plants in home preparations. For example, in


Pag

e16

Colombia, CORPOICA provides step-by-step guidance on how to prepare extracts from dried

seeds, leaves and neem fruits, tobacco and chinaberry leaves for FAW control.

Microbial biopesticides

Bateman et al. (2018) identified Spodoptera frugiperda multiple nucleopolyhedrovirus

(SfMNPV) and Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) based products as the best immediate prospects for

FAW management, with potential for Beauvaria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae. Trials

on SfMNPV product (Fawligen) used in the Americas are being conducted in multiple locations

in Africa and Asia. Research is also in progress on entomopathogenic nematodes and other

pathogens of FAW.

Pheromones

Synthetic sex pheromones are widely used for monitoring FAW. Mass trapping is commonly

recommended, but there is little published evidence of its efficacy. Mating disruption is also of

interest as an alternative approach. The cost of pheromones can be prohibitive but Provivi in

USA has developed new methods of production that greatly reduce the costs, and thus increase

the feasibility of mating disruption. Trials are therefore being conducted in East Africa over a

large area that requires area-wide coordination of many small farms.

Regulation for biologicals

Registration processes for biological pest control products and approaches are varied, and in

some cases are disincentive to market entry. Regionally harmonised approaches exist in some

areas (for example, the East African Community has just adopted regional guidelines for the

registration of biopesticides) and can reduce market entry costs.

11.5. FAW Management in India

Cultural

Deep plough the fields to expose pupae to sun light and predatory birds

Add neem cake @ 200kg/acre to the fields when maize is grown with zero tillage or

wherever possible

Maintain field bunds clean and plant flowering plants such as marigold, sesame, niger,

sunflower, coriander and fennel, etc. to attract natural enemies

Timely and uniform sowing over larger area

Follow ridge and furrow planting method instead of flatbed sowing

Plant 3-4 rows of napier grass/hybrid napier as trap crop around maize fields

Intercrop maize with legumes viz., pigeon pea, cowpea, black gram and kidney bean, etc.

in 2:1 to 4:1 ratio

Adopt clean cultivation to eliminate possible alternate hosts

Mechanical/physical

Erect bird perches @10/acre to encourage natural FAW predation by birds

Destruction of egg masses and larvae by crushing

Application of sand or soil mixed with lime in 9:1 ratio into whorl of maize plants


Pag

e17

Behavioural

Install pheromone traps @ 4/acre soon after sowing and monitor moth catches

Installation of pheromone traps @35/ha for mass trapping when traps for monitoring record

a catch of one adult moth/day/trap [ Note: Release of parasitoids should not be opted if mass

trapping is followed].

Biological

Native biocontrol

Natural parasitism by hymenopterans viz., Telenomus sp (Platygastridae),

Trichogramma sp (Trichogrammatidae)., Chelonus sp, Glyptapanteles creatonoti (Viereck)

and Cotesia sp. of Braconidae, Phanerotoma sp. and Campoletis chlorideae Uchida of

Ichneumonidae and Trichomalopsis sp.(Pteromalidae) occur on FAW in maize ecosystem

of India (Shylesha et al. 2018) or some in Africa (Kenis et al. 2019). [Note: Natural levels

of larval parasitism are often very high (20-70%), mostly by braconid wasps].

Fly parasitoids such as Archyta marmoratus (Tachinidae: Diptera) and earwig predator

- Forficula sp also target FAW under natural field conditions.

Pentatomid bugs like Eocanthecona furcellata and Andrallus spinidens were reported to

feed on FAW larvae (Shylesha and Sravika 2018). Other common FAW predators observed

in maize are spiders, predatory wasps, ladybird beetles, mirid bugs, earwigs, and rove

beetles.

Nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV of Sf) and Nomuraea rileyi of S. frugiperda larvae have

been documented.

Applied biocontrol

Botanical: First spray should be with 5% neem seed kernel extract (NSKE)^ or azadiractin,

1500 ppm (1 litre/acre) @ 5ml /litre after observation of one moth/trap/day or 5% FAW

infestation on trap crop or main crop.

Bioagents: Augmentative release of egg parasitoids viz., Telenomus remus (10000/ ha) or

Trichogramma pretiosum @ 125000/ha at 7 and 14 days with the trap catch of one moth/day

observed continuously. (Note: Telenomus remus is a dominating parasitoid when both T.

pretiosum and T. remus were released together; Two releases of parasitoids at weekly

interval should be done. Release of parasitoids should not be opted if mass trapping is

followed].

Microbial pesticides: Whorl application of Bacillus thuringiensis v. kurstaki formulations

(400g/acre) @ 2g/litre or Metarhizium anisopliae or Beauveria bassiana with spore count

of 1×108 cfu/g (1 kg/acre) @ 5g/litre or SfNPV (600 ml/acre) @ 3ml/litre or

entomopathogenic nematode (EPN) (4kg/acre) @20g/litre of water at 5-10% infestation

(sowing to six leaf stage), and /or >10% infestation during seven leaf stage to flowering and

>10% ear damage.

Chemical

Seed treatment: Cyantraniliprole 19.8% + Thiamethoxam 19.8% FS @ 6 ml/kg of seed

offers protection against FAW for 15-20 days.


Pag

e18

Sprays: Application of anyone of Chlorantraniliprole 18.5% SC (200ml/ha) or Spinetoram

11.7% SC (250 ml/ha) or Thiamethoxam 12.6% + Lambda cyhalothrin 9.5% ZC (125ml/ha)

or Emamectin benzoate 5SG (200ml/ha) at >10% infestation (sowing to six leaf stage)

and/or at >20% infestation during seven leaf stage to flowering.

Not more than two chemical sprays are to be used in entire crop duration for Grain corn.

Same chemical should not be chosen for second spray. No or one chemical spray is only

recommended for Sweet, baby and fodder corn in entire crop duration.

11.6. FAW Management in China

Native parasitoids of FAW, such as Telenomus remus, Trichogramma chilonis, Chelonus

munakatae, Cotesia glomerate, Diadegma semiclausum and Exorista japonica were

observed and identified.

Light traps, sex pheromone traps were explored in some regions to control FAW adults.

Biopesticides, including botanicals such as azadirachtin，matrine, rotenone, spinosad, Bt,

Beauveria bassiana, were screened in laboratory and field experiments were carried out for

FAW control.

Egg parasitoids, Telenomous remus was released to control FAW in field with 100% and

84.4% parasitic rate for egg masses and eggs, respectively in fields. Trichogramma chilonis,

T. pretiosum and Meteorus pulchricornis were also evaluated in laboratory.

Predators, Picromerus lewisi, Eocanthecona furcellate, Eurellia pallipes, Coccinella

septempunctata, Hippodamia variegate and Harmonia axyridis are under evaluation in

laboratory.

25 pesticides including chemical and bio insecticides have been recommended for FAW

control till December 31, 2020 by Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of China for

emergency control of FAW as no legal registered insecticides for FAW yet (July 3, 2019).

* FAW management tools applied in Korea are similar to that of managing transboundary pests from China.

Japan

Preventive as well as curative

Laboratory bioassay results showed that insects invading China carry resistance to

organophosphate and pyrethroid pesticides in consistent with the results of molecular

scanning of resistance-related genes, but are sensitive Bt toxins (Cry1Ab) (Zhang et al.

2019).


Pag

e19

11.7. FAW Management in Korea is similar to FAW management tools in China

11.8. FAW Management in Japan

Host plant resistance: Bt Corn is currently unavailable.

Early harvesting and ploughing are implemented in the fields of occurrence.

Pheromone trap and field survey are enforced nationwide for early detection of FAW.

Pheromone-based management tools are currently unavailable.

Use of Emamectin benzoate, Spinetoram, etc for corns, sugarcane, rice, sweet potato,

sorghum, flowers and house plants & Bt wettable powder, Cartap and Acetamiprid &

Fenitrothion for corns for livestock diets is recommended.

12. INITIATIVES BY G20 MEMBER COUNTRIES PRE AND POST FAW INVASION

FAW is a regulated pest at United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Saudi Arabia,

Russia, Australia and European Commission. European Food Safety Authority has

conducted a PRA for FAW in Europe on specific crops

[https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5351] & European Union has

established emergency measures [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019D1598].

12.1. India

Initiatives for the management of FAW have been immediate through detection and

monitoring surveys with large number of awareness programmes conducted across the

country involving federal and State machineries of agriculture and plant protection besides

by private organisations and pesticide industries.

Central IPM centres of Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine and Storage of

Department of Agriculture and Co-operation and Farmers Welfare, Govt. of India, crop

based institutes, All India Coordinated Research projects (maize/biocontrol), thematic

institutions and krishi vigyan kendras of Indian Council of Agricultural Research, State

agricultural universities and developmental departments of agriculture at all States are active

partners of awareness programs/trainings/workshops.

Central and State level committees/sub committees coordinated by Government of India had

once a month interphase meeting to assess the status and recommendations for FAW

management.

An effective IPM for FAW on Maize was devised drawing experiences of African countries

esp. for ETLs.

Chemical insecticides such as Cyantraniliprole 19.8% + Thiamethoxam 19.8% FS,

Spinetoram, and emamectin benzoate 5 SG 11.7% SC for sprays were given ad hoc approval

for use against FAW.

Research publications of reporting on FAW presence on maize and other hosts, research on

morpho and molecular approaches on FAW and identity, documentation of native natural

enemies exist.

Large number of Extension Folders/Leaflets/Pamphlets/Posters were circulated widely in

English and regional languages.


Pag

e20

Radio/TV talks, Audio Visuals/Internet Resources and print media were exploited in a larger

way for dissemination of information on FAW and its management.

Sawbo animation videos on FAW identification & scouting transcript translated in 12

different regional languages were facilitated.

ICT based crop pest surveillance and management advisory across Maharashtra State added

crops of maize. sorghum and sugarcane after report of FAW.

12.2. China

Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences submitted a report

on ‘Rapid spread of crop-devastating fall armyworm in Africa and invasion in India’ to

Department of Agriculture of MARA, China in August 2018.

A review paper “Potential invasion of the crop-devastating insect pest fall armyworm

Spodoptera frugiperda in China” published in Plant Protection in November 2018.

Training to officials and technicians of provincial Plant Protection Stations about

identification, and actions to be taken if FAW invades China on December 6, 2018.

Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Affairs (MARA) sent notifications to Guangxi and Yunnan

Provinces to strengthen the monitoring when FAW invaded Myanmar.

Notification for prevention of FAW was issued by the China-MARA National Agricultural

Technology Extension and Service Centre (NATESC) to provincial Plant Protection

Stations nationwide for preparedness and prevention the invasion of FAW on January 3,

2019.

500 thousands charts for FAW control printed and distributed to agriculture service centers

at township level by MARA.

15 millions of charts for FAW control and related technical materials were printed and

distributed to each village and farms in the important regions of FAW potential spread.

The Chinese government allocated RMB 500m for FAW emergency control in June to the

FAW invaded and potential provinces.

20,000 plant protection specialists and 1 million farmer technicians join the field scouting

this year in China.

12.3. FAO and FAW

FAO is taking an active role in coordinating partners' activities, plans, and approaches to

provide sustainable solutions to the FAW. http://www.fao.org/fall-armyworm provides

immense information under the heads of background, programs and partners, sustainable

management, FAW monitoring, education, and resources. FAO organized an expert meeting

in July 2017 in Ghana to share the knowledge and experiences with their African colleagues.

Out of this consultation, the Development of Farmer Field School Guide for FAW

management and formation of Technical Working Groups were facilitated by FAO in

Africa. In addition, FAO organized several regional workshops on FAW in Africa and Asia

as follow:

o Consultative meeting on FAW in Asia, Bangkok, Thailand, March 2019


Pag

e21

o Multi-stakeholder Regional Workshop on Innovations for Smallholder Farmers for

sustainable management of Fall Armyworm in Africa. Praia, Cabo Verde 21 – 24

October 2019

o Regional Workshop on Sustainable Management of Fall Armyworm in Asia,

Kunming City, Yunnan Province, China-November 2019.

FAO has been working with many partners to identify, validate, and use sustainable pest

management practices for FAW. The experiences from the Americas and Africa are

extremely relevant to the new regions to which the FAW has recently spread: Near East and

Asia. FAO Framework for sustainable management of FAW in Africa, Near East and Asia

has six components viz., Management of FAW, Testing and validation of FAW

management practices, Monitoring, risk assessment & early warning, Longer-term research

& innovations, Policy & regulatory support and Coordination.

FAO has developed an integrated system for FAW Monitoring and Early Warning System

(FAMEWS) for monitoring FAW based on field scouting and pheromone traps. FAMEWS

is including a mobile application for collecting data from the field and a global platform for

mapping and analyzing the collected data. The analyzed data that could be extracted from

the platform is used for monitoring population build-up from several districts and villages

to understand the dynamics of FAW, establish risk zones and enable decision making for

effective management.

FAMEWS is not only for monitoring FAW spread to new areas but it could be also used as

a platform for linking all stakeholders (application users) to each other. FAMEWS

application is offering free advice to the farmers and help them to identify FAW using AI

technology. It also provides a number of open access resources to teach the users about the

natural enemies and how to attract them to the field. The latest version of the system

(FAMEWSv3) is powered by PlantVillage developed by Penn State University, USA.

12.4. CABI & FAW

CABI aims to collate and disseminate information on FAW and its management in

appropriate formats to a wide range of users. The FAW portal

[https://www.cabi.org/isc/fallarmyworm] as a part of Invasive Species Compendium

http://www.fao.org/fall-armyworm/monitoring-tools/famews-global-platform/en/

http://www.fao.org/fall-armyworm/monitoring-tools/famews-global-platform/en/


Pag

e22

contains a wide range of news, research, practical extension materials, videos and other

resources on FAW. CABI is also developing and scaling out innovative solutions to manage

fall armyworm with particular emphasis on lower risk approaches such as farmer-methods,

biopesticides and biological control.

CABI is strengthening phytosanitary systems across Africa, and also identifying and

validating low risk technical solutions against fall armyworm such as biological control

using the pest’s natural enemies, biopesticides and bio-rationales and other low cost cultural

control solutions. Pest Risk Information SErvice (PRISE) for forecasting the risk of fall

armyworm outbreaks for timely large scale alerts and advice to farmers to mitigate pest.

CABI’s Plantwise programme, works closely with national agricultural advisory services in

34 countries, to establish and support sustainable networks of plant clinics, run by trained

plant doctors, where farmers can find practical plant health advice for fall armyworm

management. Through Plantwise, CABI also connects farmers with relevant knowledge

resources - like factsheets, photosheets and Green and Yellow Lists.

Organisations working on FAW as listed on the web portal on FAW include: African

Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF), AgBiTech, Andermatt Biocontrol, CERTIS

Europe B.V., International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT),

International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), International Institute of

Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Precision Agriculture for Development (PAD) of Ministry of

Agriculture and Irrigation (MoAI) Kenya, Lancaster University of UK (Armyworm

network), Penn State University, (PlantVillage), Russell IPM, US, USAID, Agricultural

Research Service (ARS) U.S. Department of Agriculture, International Crop Research

Institute for Semi- Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) and Syngenta. Resources to be included can be

done by mailing [email protected].

12.5. CIMMYT & FAW

CIMMYT, under CGIAR Research Program on MAIZE is undertaking/coordinating several

activities related to implementation of FAW IPM both at Africa and Asia, in partnership with

national and international institutions.

Map on FAW Global Distribution in CABI Portal

https://www.cabi.org/projects/project/62774

https://www.plantwise.org/

https://www.aatf-africa.org/

https://www.aatf-africa.org/

http://www.agbitech.com/

https://www.andermattbiocontrol.com/

https://www.certiseurope.com/home/

https://www.certiseurope.com/home/

http://www.cimmyt.org/

http://www.icipe.org/

http://www.iita.org/

http://www.iita.org/

http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/

https://www.psu.edu/

mailto:[email protected]


Pag

e23

‘FAW IPM Manual for Africa’ was developed in English and released during January 2018

(Prasanna et al. 2018a). It is widely used across Africa and Asia with its versions also

available in French and Portuguese.

Undertaken a multilocation experiment in Kenya (at five locations), besides FAW artificial

infestation in Kiboko screenhouses, to ascertain the relationship between FAW damage at

various stages of maize crop development and the yield loss in a set of hybrids and OPVs.

Introduced a baculovirus based biopesticide (Fawligen) in South Sudan, and undertaken

pilot experiments in maize and sorghum fields on its efficacy, in partnership with CABI,

FAO and local institutions with a subgrant to AgBioTech,

FAW infestation levels and maize grain yield responses under different agronomic

management practices and maize-legume cropping systems in southern Africa were

analysed.

Organized three regional training workshops on FAW management in Africa (one each in

eastern, southern and west Africa) during 2017-2018, with participation of nearly 250

stakeholders from diverse institutions.

Developed and disseminated a SAWBO video on FAW monitoring and scouting, in

partnership with Michigan State University (Bello-Bravo et al. 2018), which was further

translated into more than 20 language variants of Africa and Asia.

Brought out FAW Pest Management Decision Guides, in partnership with CABI, USAID,

and national partners in Kenya and 15 other African countries.

African high-level delegation study tour to Brazil, in partnership with EMBRAPA in March

2018.

An international conference on “Fall Armyworm Research-for-Development – Status and

Priorities for Africa” was organized jointly by CIMMYT, IITA, AUC, FAO, USAID, CABI,

ICIPE, and AGRA, at the AUC campus in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, during Oct 29-31, 2018.

Asian regional workshops on FAW management was organized by CIMMYT in 2019, in

collaboration with various international and national partners at Hyderabad, India (May 1-

3, 2019) and Kathmandu, Nepal (July 29-31, 2019).

12.6. Constraints on FAW Management

Lack of efficient and effective quarantine of agricultural commodities and phytosanitary

measures at all ports of entry and their regular reporting.

Lack of year round detection and delimitation surveys and rapid response immediate to

invasion.

Lack of mechanism of information exchange on occurrence and management of FAW

among neighbouring countries.

Community actions that could be highly effective are difficult to follow due to large number

of smallholdings and varied agro climatic regions having high climatic variability/weather

aberrations, etc.

Making available the quality botanical and microbial pesticides for all FAW infested fields

is a mammoth task.

Mass production and timely supply of parasitoids is a tall order task for larger areas.

Seed treatment as preventive practice would set tone for pesticide treadmill as selection

pressure is offered right from start of crop and generation of FAW.


Pag

e24

Policy of registration of insecticides and Label claim issues prevent use of effective

chemicals on FAW reported elsewhere.

13. PROJECTS ON FAW

EUPHRESCO project FAW-spedcom (2019-2022): Spodoptera frugiperda: spreading,

establishment, damaging potential and control measures [France, Germany, CABI,

Bulgaria, Botswana, South Africa]

German research project for invasive insects and global warming – “ProgRAMM” attempts

to predicting probability of the FAW establishment into a new habitats and crops (e.g.

Mediterranean area) esp. for European union

FAO/IPPC - to launch a three year Global Action for Fall Armyworm Control (2020-2022)

as a major new initiative on FAW steered by FAO and other international stakeholders such

as CGIAR (CIMMYT), CABI, USAID, Regional Plant Protection Organizations (RPPOs).

The goal of the plan is a massive effort to scale up FAW programs and activities to reach

hundreds of millions of affected farmers. The action plan has three key objectives:

o Establish a global coordination and regional collaboration on monitoring, early

warning, and intelligent pest management of FAW

o Reduce crop losses caused by FAW

o Reduce the risk of further spread of FAW to new areas (Europe and South

Pacific)

CABI to establish “FAW Collaboration Platform” with funding from DFID to support the

FAW research and development community in sharing data, insights, good practice and

opportunities for collaboration, etc.

CGIAR (CIMMYT/IITA) – has set up a FAW International Research for Development

(R4D) FAW Consortium with about 45 global institutions as members.

Under the CGIAR Research Program on Maize, CIMMYT is intensively working on native

genetic resistance to FAW.

CIMMYT is implementing projects funded by USAID in Africa and Asia on various aspects

related to FAW management, including host plant resistance, agro-ecological management,

developing and disseminating IPM-based communication resources, capacity development

of national partners and so on.

A project on FAW involving four national institutes is approved in 2019 with support of

National Agricultural Science Fund [India]

A transboundary pest monitoring project between China and southeast Asian countries

[China]

A three- year period national research project for FAW management will be started by end

of this year [China).

FAW IPM studies for identification, forecasting and control methods will be done for next

three years (2020-2022) [Korea]

14. WAY FORWARD FOR INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION

Development of effective protocols for inspection of FAW in countries where FAW is

absent with deployment of certification system and capacity building of National Plant


Pag

e25

Protection Organisations (NPPOs) of member countries for quarantine, phytosanitary

measures (using potential treatments) coupled with robust official documentation and

reporting procedures.

Creation of network among the diagnostic laboratories that are the referent for the

phytosanitary services of the different countries.

Regional collaboration amongst countries for holistic understanding of FAW migratory

patterns, overwintering and forecast of FAW in the context of climate change spearheaded

by global organisations with data exchange and analytics including capacity development

in terms of infrastructure and trained manpower.

A common global platform for comprehensive studies establishing phylogeny and evolution

of spatial and temporal strains of FAW with all available information and possible

approaches.

A coordinated effort for documentation of host plants of FAW with details on damage levels

and FAW development.

Preparation of rapid precise diagnostic detection kits including artificial intelligence,

environmental DNA (eDNA) technology coupled with isothermal nucleic acid amplification

tests (iNAATs) such as loop mediated amplification (LAMP) and their standardisation

Accelerated breeding efforts to develop and deploy elite crop cultivars with native genetic

resistance to FAW through international collaboration.

Development and deployment of precise pheromone blends for monitoring and mass

trapping considering strain variations in relation to geography and host plants of FAW

through semiochemical research.

Test and promote environmentally safer synthetic and bio pesticides for FAW control.

Global organisations such as CABI, FAO, USDA, CIMMYT and EPPO should spearhead

FAW research and development towards successful management through a global network

taking stock of strengths and need of each member country.

Development of customised (regional) digital tools for FAW monitoring and advisory

dissemination.

Ensuring that farmers implement the scientific management strategies against FAW with

socio-economic and environmental harmony involving public and private input suppliers.

Improved collaboration and cooperation in research on management of transboundary pests

and providing an enabling environment for their uptake and implementation.

15. REFERENCES

Abel CA, Wilson RL, W Wiseman BR, White WH and Davis FM (2000) Conventional resistance of

experimental lines to corn ear worm (Lepidoptera : Noctuidae), fall armyworm (Lepidoptera:

Noctuidae), South Western corn borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) and sugarcane borer (Lepidoptera :

Crambidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 93 (3): 982-88.

Andrews KL (1988) Latin American research on Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).

Florida Entomology 71(4):630-53.

Barfield CS, Mitchell ER, Poeb SL (1978) A temperature - dependent model for fall armyworm

development. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 71(1):70-4.


Pag

e26

Bateman, M. L., Day, R. K., Luke, B., Edgington, S., Kuhlmann, U., & Cock, M. J. (2018). Assessment

of potential biopesticide options for managing fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in Africa.

Journal of Applied Entomology 142(9): 805-19.

Bello-Bravo J, Huesing J, Prasanna BM, Goergen G, Eddy R, Tamò M, Pittendrigh BR (2018) IPM-

based animation for Fall Armyworm: A multi-institutional and virtual International collaboration using

the Scientific Animations Without Borders (SAWBO) platform. Outlooks on Pest Management 29:

228-233.

Botha AS, Erasmus A, du Plessis H & Johnnie Van den Berg J (2019) Efficacy of Bt Maize for control

of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in South Africa. Journal of Economic Entomology

112: 1260-66.

Chandrasena DI, Signorini AM, Abratti G, Storer NP, Olaciregui ML, Alves AP, Pilcher CD (2018).

Characterization of field‐evolved resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis‐derived Cry1F δ‐endotoxin in

Spodoptera frugiperda populations from Argentina. Pest Management Science 74:746–754.

doi:10.1002/ps.4776.

Cock, M. J. W., Beseh, P. K., Buddie, A. G., Cafa, G. & Crozier, J (2017). Molecular methods to detect

Spodoptera frugiperda in Ghana, and implications for monitoring the spread of invasive species in

developing countries. Science Reporter,Uk 7.

Davis, F.M. & Williams, W.P. (1992)).Visual rating scales for screening whorl-stage corn for resistance

to fall armyworm. Mississippi Agricultural & Forestry Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin 186,

Mississippi State University, MS39762, USA.

Davis FM, Williams WP & Wiseman BR (1989) Methods used to screen maize for and to determine

mechanisms of resistance to the Southwestern corn borer and fall armyworm, p 101-108 in International

Symposium on Methodologies for Developing Host Plant Resistance to Maize Insects. Mexico, DF:

CIMMYT.

Day R, Abrahams P, Bateman M, Beale T, Clottey V, Cock M, Colmenarez Y, Corniani N, Early R,

Godwin J, Gomez J (2017) Fall armyworm: impacts and implications for Africa. Outlooks on Pest

Management 28(5):196-201.

Diawara MM, Hill NS, Wiseman BR and Isenhour, DJ (1991) Panicle-stage resistance to Spodoptera

frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in converted sorghum assessions. Journal of Economic

Entomology 84: 337-44.

Diawara MM, Wiseman BR, Isenhour DJ and Hill NS (1992) Sorghum Resistance to Whorl Feeding

by Larvae of the Fall Armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Journal of Agricultural Entomology 9(1):

41-53.

FAO (2017) Briefing note on FAO actions on fall armyworm in Africa, Oct. 1, 2017,

http://www.fao.org/3/a-bt415e.pdf.

FAO (2019) Briefing note on FAO actions on fall armyworm.

http://www.fao.org/3/BS183E/bs183e.pdf.

Farias JR DA, Andow RJ, Horikoshi RJ, Sorgatto P, Fresia AC, dos Santos C Omoto (2014) Field-

evolved resistance to Cry1F maize by Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Brazil. Crop

Protection 64:150-58.

Ganiger, PC, Yeshwanth HM, Muralimohan K, Vinay N, Kumar ARV, Chandrashekara K. (2018).

Occurrence of the new invasive pest, fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera:

Noctuidae), in the maize fields of Karnataka, India. Current Science, 115: 621-23.

Garcia AG, Godoy WAC, Thomas JMG, Nagoshi RN, Meagher RL (2018) Delimiting strategic zones

for the development of fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on corn in the State of Florida. Journal

of Economic Entomology 111:120–26.


Pag

e27

Gouin, Anais, Anthony Bretaudeau, Kiwoong Nam, Sylvie Gimenez, Jean-Marc Aury, Bernard Duvic,

Frederique Hilliou et al. (2017) Two genomes of highly polyphagous lepidopteran pests (Spodoptera

frugiperda, Noctuidae) with different host-plant ranges. Scientific reports 7: 11816.

Hardke JT, Leonard BR, Huang F, Jackson RE (2011) Damage and survivorship of fall armyworm

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on transgenic field corn expressing Bacillus thuringiensis Cry proteins. Crop

Protection 30(2):168-72.

Hardke JT, Lorenz GM, Leonard BM (2015) Fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) ecology in south

eastern cotton. International Journal of Pest Management 6 (1): 1-8.

Harrison RD, Thierfelder C, Baudron F, Chinwada P, Midega C, Schaffner U, van den Berg J (2019)

Agro-ecological options for fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda JE Smith) management: Providing

low-cost, smallholder friendly solutions to an invasive pest. Journal of environmental management

243:318-330.

Harris-Shultz KR, Xinzhi Ni, William F Anderson, Joseph E Knoll (2015) Evaluation of whorl

damage by fall Armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on field- and greenhouse-grown sweet sorghum

plants. Journal of Entomological Science 50 (1):14-27.

Henderson CF, Kinzer HG and Thompson EG (1966) Growth and yield of grain sorghum infested in

the whorl with fall armyworm. Journal of Economic Entomology 59: 1001-3.

Horikoshi RJ, Bernardi D, Bernardi O, Malaquias JB, Okuma DM, Miraldo LL, eAmaral FSDA, Omoto

C (2016) Effective dominance of resistance of Spodoptera frugiperda to Bt maize and cotton varieties:

implications for resistance management. Scientific Reports 6: 34864.

Hruska AJ, Gould F (1997) fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and Diatraea lineolata

(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): Impact of larval population level and temporal occurrence on maize yield in

Nicaragua. Journal of Economic Entomology 90(2):611-22.

ICAR-NBAIR (2018). Pest alert: Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Insecta: Lepidoptera).

http://www.nbair.res.in/recent_events/Pest%20Alert%2030th%20July%202018-new1.pdf.

IITA. (2018) Fall armyworm has reached the Indian subcontinent! Available at:

https://www.iita.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Bulletin_2445.pdf.

Ingber DA, Charles E, Mason CE & Flexner L (2018) Cry1 Bt susceptibilities of fall armyworm

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) host strains. Journal of Economic Entomology 111: 361-68.

IPPC (2016) Guidelines for the export, shipment, import, and release of biological control agents and

other beneficial organisms. International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures 3. Rome: FAO.

Retrieved from ICAR-NBAIR. 2018. Pest alert: Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Insecta:

Lepidoptera). (published on 30/07/2018).

Johnson SJ (1987) Migration and the life history strategy of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda

in the Western Hemisphere. Insect Science and Its Application 4-5-6: 543-49.

Juarez ML, Schöfl G, Vera MT, Vilardi JC, Murúa MG, Willink E, Hänniger S, Heckel DG, Groot AT

(2014) Population structure of Spodoptera frugiperda maize and rice host forms in South A merica: are

they host strains? Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 152(3):182-99.

Kakumani, Pavan Kumar, Pawan Malhotra, Sunil K, Mukherjee and Raj K, Bhatnagar (2014).A draft

genome assembly of the army worm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Genomics 104, no. 2: 134-43.

Kenis, M., H. du Plessis, J. Van den Berg, M.N. Ba, G. Goergen, K.E. Kwadjo, I. Baoua, T. Tefera, A.

Buddie, G. Cafà, L. Offord, I. Rwomushana, and A. Polaszek (2019) Telenomus remus, a candidate

parasitoid for the biological control of Spodoptera frugiperda in Africa, is already present on the

continent. Insects 10 (4), 92.

Leuck BD (1970) The role of resistance in pearl millet in control of the fall armyworm. Journal of

Economic Entomology 63: 1679-81.

http://www.nbair.res.in/recent_events/Pest%20Alert%2030th%20July%202018-new1.pdf

https://www.iita.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Bulletin_2445.pdf


Pag

e28

Leuck D B, C M Taliafero, R L Burton, G W Burton, M C Bowman (1968) Fall armyworm resistance

in pearl millet. Journal of Economic Entomology 61: 693–95.

Liao YL, B Yang, MF Xu, W Lin, DS Wang, K Chen & HY Chen (2019) First report of Telenomus

remus parasitizing Spodoptera frugiperda and its natural parasitism in South China. BioRxiv :

https://doi.org/10.1101/697920.

Liu, Huan, Tianming Lan, Dongming Fang, Furong Gui, Hongli Wang, Wei Guo, Xiaofang Cheng

(2019) "Chromosome level draft genomes of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera:

Noctuidae), an alien invasive pest in China. BioRxiv: 671560.

Ma,J., Yun-Ping Wang, Ming-Fei Wu, Bo-Ya Gao, Jie Liu, Gwan-Seok Lee, Akira Otuka, and Gao Hu.

(2019) High risk of the fall armyworm invading into Japan and the Korean Peninsula via overseas

migration. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/662387.

Midega CAO, Pittchar JO, Pickett JA, Hailu GW and Khan Z R (2018) A climate-adapted push-pull

system effectively controls fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J E Smith), in maize in East Africa.

Crop Protection 105: 10-15.

Mihm JA (ed.) (1997) Insect Resistant Maize: Recent Advances and Utilization; Proceedings of an

International Symposium held at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)

27 November-3 December, 1994. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.

Monnerat R, Martins E, Macedo C, Queiroz P, Praça L, Soares CM, Moreira H, Grisi I, Silva J, Soberon

M, Bravo A (2015) Evidence of field-evolved resistance of Spodoptera frugiperda to Bt corn expressing

Cry1F in Brazil that is still sensitive to modified Bt toxins. PLoS One 10:e0119544.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0119544.

Montezano DG, Specht A, Sosa-Gomez DR, Roque-Specht VF, Sousa-Silva JC, Paula-Moraes SV,

Peterson JA and Hunt TE (2018) Host Plants of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the

Americas. African Entomology 26:286–300.

Murreel EG (2017) Can agricultural practices that mitigate or improve crop resilience to climate change

also manage crop pests? Current Opinion in Insect Science 23:81-88.

Murua G, Molina-Ochoa J, Coviella C (2006) Population dynamics of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera

frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and its parasitoids in northwestern Argentina. Florida

Entomologist 89(2):175-82.

Nagoshi RN (2019a) Evidence that a major subpopulation of fall armyworm found in the Western

Hemisphere is rare or absent in Africa, which may limit the range of crops at risk of infestation. PloS

one. 14(4):e0208966.

Nagoshi RN, Dhanani I, Asokan R, Mahadevaswamy HM, Kalleshwaraswamy CM, Meagher RL

(2019b) Genetic characterization of fall armyworm infesting South Africa and India indicate recent

introduction from a common source population. PloS one. 14(5):e0217755.

Nagoshi RN, Goergen G, Tounou KA, Agboka K, Koffi D, Meagher RL (2018) Analysis of strain

distribution, migratory potential, and invasion history of fall armyworm populations in northern Sub-

Saharan Africa. Scientific reports 8(1):3710.

Nagoshi RN, Meagher RL (2016) Using intron sequence comparisons in the triose‐phosphate isomerase

gene to study the divergence of the fall armyworm host strains. Insect molecular biology 25(3):324-37.

Ni X, Chen Y, Hibbard BE, Wilson JP, Williams WP, Buntin GD, Ruberson JR and Li X (2011) Foliar

resistance to fall armyworm in corn germplasm lines that confer resistance to root and ear feeding

insects. Florida Entomologist 94 (4): 971-81.

Ni X, Kedong Da, Buntin GD and Brown SL (2008) Physiological basis of fall armyworm resistance

in seedlings of maize inbred lines with varying levels of silk maysin. Florida Entomologist 91 (4): 537-

45.


Pag

e29

Ni X, Xu W, Blanco MH, Williams WP (2014) Evaluation of fall armyworm resistance in maize

germplasm lines using visual leaf injury rating and predator survey. Insect science, 21(5):541-55.

Ni X, Xu W, Blanco MH, Wilson JP (2012) Evaluation of corn germplasm lines for multiple ear-

colonizing insect and disease resistance. Journal of Economic Entomology, 105(4): 1457-64.

Ni X, Xu W, Krakowsky MD, Buntin GD, Brown SL, Lee RD, Coy AE (2007) Field screening of

experimental corn hybrids and inbred lines for multiple ear feeding insect resistance. Journal of

Economic Entomology, 100: 1704–13.

Omoto, Celso, Oderlei Bernardi, Eloisa Salmeron, Rodrigo J, Sorgatto, Patrick M. Dourado, Augusto

Crivellari, Renato A. Carvalho, Alan Willse, Samuel Martinelli, and Graham P. Head (2016) Field‐

evolved resistance to Cry1Ab maize by Spodoptera frugiperda in Brazil. Pest Management Science72,

no. 9: 1727-36.

Prasanna BM (2019) Host Plant Resistance to Fall Armyworm: Status and Prospects. Presentation at

the WTO Meeting, March 19, 2019.

Prasanna BM, Huesing JE, Eddy R, Peschke VM (eds). (2018a). Fall Armyworm in Africa: A Guide

for Integrated Pest Management, First Edition. Mexico, CDMX: CIMMYT.

Prasanna BM, Bruce A, Winter S, Otim M, Asea G, Sevgan S, Van den Berg J, Beiriger S, Gichuru L,

Trevisan W (2018b). Host Plant resistance to Fall Armyworm, pp. 45–62. In B. M. Prasanna, J.

E. Huesing, R. Eddy, and V. M. Peschke (eds.), Fall armyworm in Africa: a guide for integrated pest

management, 1st ed. Mexico, CDMX: CIMMYT.

Rakshit S, Ballal CR, Prasad YG, Sekhar JC, Lakshmi Soujanya P, Suby SB, Jat SL,. Siva Kumar G,

Prasad JV (2019) Fight against Fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E.Smith).ICAR-Indian

Institute of Maize Research, Ludhiana, Punjab pp 52.

Ramirez-Garcia L, Bravo Mojica H and Llanderal Cazares C (1987) Development of Spodoptera

frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) under different conditions of temperature and

humidity. Agrociencia 67:161-71.

Rwomushana I, Bateman M, Beale T, Beseh P, Cameron K, Chiluba M, Clottey V, Davis T, Day R,

Early R (2018) Fall Armyworm: Impacts and Implications for Africa; Evidence Note Update; CABI:

Oxfordshire, UK.

Scott GE and Davis FM (1981a) Registration of Mp SWCB-4 population of maize. Crop Science

21:148.

Scott GE and Davis FM (1981b) Registration of Mp 496 inbred of maize. Crop Science 21:353.

Scott GE, Davis FM and Williams WP (1982) Registration of Mp 701 and Mp 702 germplasm lines of

maize. Crop Science 22:1270.

Sharanabasappa, Kalleshwaraswamy CM, Maruthi MS, Pavithra HB (2018) Biology of invasive fall

armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on maize. Indian Journal of

Entomology 80(3): 540-43.

Shylesha AN, Sravika A (2018) Natural occurrence of predatory bugs, Eocanthecona furcellata (Wolff)

and Andrallus spinidens (Fabr.) on Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith) (Hemiptera:Pentatomidae) in maize

and their potential in management of fall armyworm. Journal of Biological Control 32:209-11.

Shylesha, AN, Jalali SK, Ankita Gupta, Richa Varshney , Venkatesan T, Pradeeksha Shetty, Rakshit

Ojha , Prabhu C. Ganiger, Omprakash Navik, Subaharan K, Bakthavatsalam K and Chandish R. Ballal

(2018) Studies on new invasive pest Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and

its natural enemies. Journal of Biological Control 32:1-7.

Simmons AM (1993) Effects of constant and fluctuating temperatures and humidities on the survival

of Spodoptera frugiperda pupae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Florida Entomologist 1:333-40.

Sparks AN (1979) A review of the biology of the fall armyworm. Florida Entomologist 1:82-7.

https://www.cabi.org/isc/abstract/19891129671




Pag

e30

Srinivasan R, Malini P, Othim S (2018) Fall armyworm in Africa: which ‘race’is in the race, and why

does it matter? Current Science 114(1):27.

Storer NP, Babcock JM, Schlenz M, Meade T, Thompson GD, Bing JW, Huckaba RM (2010)

Discovery and characterization of field resistance to Bt maize: Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera:

Noctuidae) in Puerto Rico. Journal of Economic Entomology 103:1031–38.

Subhiksha Nandakumar, Hailun Ma Arifa S. Khan (2017) Whole-genome sequence of the Spodoptera

frugiperda Sf9 insect cell line. Genome Announcements.5(34): 829-17.

Swamy HMM, Asokan R, Kalleshwaraswamy CM, Sharanabasappa, Prasad YG, Maruthi MS,

Shashank PR, Devi N, Surakasula A, Adarsha S, Srinivas A, Rao S, Vidyasekhar, Shali Raju M, Reddy

GSS, Nagesh SN (2018) Prevalence of “R” strain and molecular diversity of fall armyworm Spodoptera

frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in India. Indian Journal of Entomology 80(3):544-

53.

Viana and PEO Guimaraes (1994) Maize Resistance to the Lesser Corn stalk Borer and Fall Armyworm

In Brazil. In Mihm, J.A. (ed.). 1997. Insect Resistant Maize:Recent Advances andUtilization;

Proceedings of an International Symposium held at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement

Center (CIMMYT) 27 November-3 December, 1994. Mexico, DF: CIMMYT.

Walton WR, Luginbill P (1916) The Fall Army Worm, Or "grassworm", and its Control. Farmers

bulletin 752, US Department of Agriculture pp16.

Welcker C, Gilet JD, Clavel D, GuineI (1994) Response to selection for resistance to leaf feeding by

fall Armyworm inPopG, a Guadeloupe maize population. In Mihm, J.A. (ed.). 1997. Insect Resistant

Maize:Recent Advances and Utilization. Proceedings of an International Symposium held at the

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) 27 November-3 December, 1994.

Mexico.

Westbrook JK, Nagoshi RN, Meagher RL, Fleischer SJ, Jairam S (2016) Modeling seasonal migration

of fall armyworm moths. International Journal of Biometeorology 60: 255-67.

Widstrom NW (1967) An evaluation of methods for measuring corn earworm injury. Journal of

Economic Entomology 60(3):791-94.

Williams WP and Davi FM (1980) Registration of Mp 703 germplasm line of maize. Crop Science

20:418.

Williams WP and Davis FM (1984) Registration of Mp 705, Mp 706 and Mp 707 germplasm lines of

maize. Crop Science 24:17.

Williams WP, Buckley PM, Hedin PA and Davis FM (1990a) Laboratory bioassay for resistance in

corn to fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and southwestern corn borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae).

Journal of Economic Entomology 83: 1578-81.

Williams WP, Davis FM (1989) Breeding for resistance in maize to southwestern corn borer and fall

armyworm, p 207-210 in Toward insect resistant maize for the third world: Proceedings of the

international symposium on methodologies for developing host plant resistance to maize insects.

Mexico, DF: CIMMYT.

Williams WP, Davis FM and Scott GE (1978) Resistance of corn to leaf–feeding damage by the fall

armyworm. Crop Science 18: 861–863.

Williams WP, Davis FM, Windham GL (1990b) Registration of Mp708 germplasm line of maize. Crop

Science 30(3):757.

Wiseman BR and Gourley R (1982) Fall armywom (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) infestation procedures

and sorghum resistance evaluations. Journal of Economic Entomology 75: 1048-51.

Wiseman BR and Lovell GR (1988) Resistance to the fall armyworm in converted sorghum seedlings

from Ethiopia and Yemen. Journal of Agricultural Entomology 5: 17-20.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Nandakumar%20S%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=28839023

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Ma%20H%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=28839023

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Khan%20AS%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=28839023

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5571409/


Pag

e31

Wiseman BR, Davis FM, Williams WP, and Widstrom NW (1996) Resistance of a maize pop-ulation,

GT-FAWCC (C5), to fall armyworm larvae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Florida Entomologist 79: 329-

36.

Wiseman BR, Painter RH, Wasson CE (1966) Detecting corn seedling differences in the greenhouse

by visual classification of damage by the fall armyworm. Journal of Economic Entomology 59:1211-

14.

Wiseman BR, Wassom CE and Painter RH (1967) Preference of first instar fall armyworm larvae for

corn compared with Tripsacum dactyloides. Journal of Economic Entomology 60:1738-42.

Wu QL, He LM, Jiang YY, Wu KM (2019a) Analysis of migration routes of FAW Spodoptera

frugiperda (J.E.Smith) from Myanmar to China. Plant Protection 45: 1-9.

Wu QL, He LM, Shen XJ, Jiang YY, Liu J, Hu G, Wu KM (2019b) Estimation of potential infestation

area of newly invaded fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda in the Yangtze river valley of China.

Insects 10:298, doi: 10.3390/insects 10090298.

Zhang L , Bo Liu, Weigang Zheng, Conghui Liu, Dandan Zhang, Shengyuan Zhao, Pengjun Xu,

Kenneth Wilson, Amy Withers, Christopher Jones, Judith Smith, Gilson Chipabika, Donald L

Kachigamba, Kiwoong Nam, Emmanuelle d'Alençon, Bei Liu, Xinyue Liang, Minghui Jin, Chao Wu,

Swapan Chakrabarty, Xianming Yang, Yuying Jiang, Jie Liu, Xiaolin Liu, Weipeng Quan, Guirong

Wang, Wei Fan, Wanqiang Qian, Kongming Wu , Yutao Xiao (2019) High-depth resequencing reveals

hybrid population and insecticide resistance characteristics of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda)

invading China. BioRxiv preprint, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/813154.

.

Documents

Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E.Smith) [Lepidoptera: …...G20 Discussion group on ‘Fall Armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E.Smith) [Lepidoptera: Noctuidae]’ Sengottaiyan Vennila1,