4.7 Article

The Effect of Wood Ash and Soil Applications on the Behavior and Survival of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Larvae on Maize

期刊

INSECTS
卷 14, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/insects14100813

关键词

maize pest management; alternative control methods; integrated pest management; smallholder farmers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cryptic feeding inside maize whorls makes it difficult to control fall armyworm (FAW). Smallholder farmers use alternative methods of control, of which the efficacy is uncertain. We found that wood ash and soil have a certain level of efficacy in controlling FAW, but the effectiveness varies greatly.
Cryptic feeding inside maize whorls makes it difficult to control fall armyworm (FAW). Smallholder farmers use alternative methods of control, of which the efficacy is uncertain. We determined the efficacy of wood ash and soil for the control of FAW and recorded its effect on larval preference and ballooning. Maize plants were artificially infested with larvae of different instars and treatments were either soil, wet ash, or dry ash, applied as single preventative or curative applications. Larvae exhibited non-preference for treated leaves in choice tests. The efficacy of treatments varied largely between experiments. Under laboratory conditions, ash treatments resulted in significant mortality of 1st and 5th instars. Dry and wet ash as curative applications for 1st instars resulted in 67 and 66% mortality, respectively, compared to mortality recorded in the control (22%). Under field conditions, survival of 3rd instars on treated plants was low (21-34%), compared to 70% on untreated plants. Due to the high variability in efficacy, the use of these alternative methods does not guarantee effective control. They do, however, have a place in IPM systems if applied as soon as infestations are observed and when larvae as still small. Recommendations on the use of ash and soil as spot treatments against FAW are provided.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据