Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources (2020) 3(1): 345-359

ISSN: 2661-6270 (Print), ISSN: 2661-6289 (Online)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v3i1.27186

Review Article

Threats of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) incidence in

Nepal and it’s integrated management-A review
Sudhan Bhusal1* and Enjila Chapagain1
1
Agriculture and Forestry University, College of Natural Resource Management,
Puranchaur, Kaski, Nepal

*Correspondence: sudhanvusal@gmail.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5051-454X
Received: July 2, 2019; Accepted: October 9, 2019; Published: January 7, 2020

© Copyright: Bhusal and Chapagain (2020)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial

4.0 International License .

ABSTRACT
Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) is in the state of major threat for Nepal especially in maize although it
has more than 80 host to continue its life cycle. After its first incidence in Africa in 2016, it has already spread
in more than 100 countries within a short period of time. It was seen in India for the first time in 2018. Due to
the open border between Nepal and India, there is high threat of pest incidence in Nepal. The temperature
regime of Nepal is highly suitable for the pest establishment. Now is the time to think about the pest which can
cause severe damage to the second most produced cereal crop of Nepal i.e. maize. Management of the pest is
possible through many biological, chemical and cultural means. Planting of legumes as a trap crop and
ploughing field properly before planting the field can be a best possible cultural method of managing the pest.
Natural enemies like Telenomus, Trichogramma chilotraeae for controlling the eggs, Bacillus thuringiensis for
larvae and Brachymeria ovata for pupa of Fall Armyworm are found to be effective in Maize and Vegetables.
Similarly, Neem extracts are found be larvicidal and the oil extracted from the seeds of long pepper are found to
be checking spermatogenesis of the pest. Chemicals like Methomyl, Cyfluthrin, Methyl parathion are used to
control the pest. Use of chemicals at the initiation of the pest spread is discouraged as it can hamper the natural
enemy present in the surrounding ecology. However, the use of pesticides can be done below the economic
threshold level so that the pest does not develop any resistance towards the chemicals.
Keywords: Fall Armyworm, Integrated Pest Management, maize

Correct citation: Bhusal, S., & Chapagain, E. (2020). Threats of fall armyworm (Spodoptera
frugiperda) incidence in Nepal and it’s integrated management-A review. Journal of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, 3(1), 345-359.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v3i1.27186

345
Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources (2020) 3(1): 345-359
ISSN: 2661-6270 (Print), ISSN: 2661-6289 (Online)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v3i1.27186
INTRODUCTION
Maize is the third most important cereal grain after wheat and rice globally, which is also called
the “Queen of Cereals” because of its highest genetic yield potential (Jeyaraman, 2017). Maize is
a traditional crop that is generally cultivated in the rainfed uplands in the hills as a source of food,
feed and fodder which is generally cultivated as a single crop during summer season or relayed
with millet in the late season (Paudyal et al., 2001). The total Area (900,288 ha), Production
(2,300,121 t) and Yield (2555 t/ha) of Maize in Nepal ranks second after the Area (1552469 ha),
Production (5230327 t) and Yield (3369 t/ha) of Rice with the maximum production (665975 t) of
maize in Eastern Development Region and minimum production (98947 t) in Far-Western
Development Region (MoAD, 2018). Demand of maize crop is increasing in higher amount every
year due to the higher nutritional benefits. Nutritionally, maize grains have 10% protein, 4% oil,
70% carbohydrate, 2-3% crude fibers, besides having Vitamin A and E, nicotinic acid and
riboflavin but its protein Zein is deficient in tryptophan and lysine among essential acids and is
deficient in calcium (Joshi, 2015). One of the major reasons for the decline in maize productivity
is due to the insect pest infestation. The crop losses due to the presence of insects vary from
country to country. Similarly, the crop losses also vary according to the pests. Maize stem borers
cause significantly more damage to the crop in comparison to aphids and grasshoppers (Neupane
& Subedi, 2019). The insect pests of maize field include cut worms, maize stem borer, white grub
and chaffer beetle, armyworm, gram pod borer, wireworm, hairy caterpillar and so on. (Arifie et
al., 2019). However, the losses are also seen during the storage of grains by various storage pests
like weevils and moth.

Fall Armyworm (FAW) (Spodoptera frugiperda) (Lepidoptera; Noctuidae) is also a major

pest of maize field. The pest is native to tropical and subtropical regions of the Americas and
is the key insect pest of maize in tropical (Sisay et al., 2019). Researchers have shown that
this pest can cause high damage to the crop. Results like loss of photosynthetic area, impaired
reproduction, direct damage to grain, lodging and structural damage in the whorl are the
damages seen in the maize plant. (Chimweta et al., 2019). The fall armyworm is polyphagous
and its hosts exceed 80 plant species including maize, sorghum, cotton, rice, millet, peanut,
alfalfa, and other cultivated and wild plant species (Belay, et al., 2012). There are two strains
of the fall armyworm, namely, the rice strain and the maize strain (Adamczyk et al., 1997).
Among those two strains, the maize strain is more prevalent and feeds on maize leaves and
stem. In Nicaragua, Huis, 1981 found a 33% increase in maize yield when plants were
protected with an insecticide. According to (Hruska & Gould, 1997), infestations during the
mid-to-late corn stage resulted in yield losses of 15-73% when 55-100% of the plants were
infested with S. frugiperda.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) refers to the management of insects and pests through the
proper use of locally available biological resources and minimal use of pesticides. It is a
broad-based approach of pest control whose major objective is to suppress pests below the
economic injury level. In other way, Integrated Pest Management is an approach which
discourages pest population by use of justified level of pesticides. IPM emphasizes the
growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to Agri-ecosystems and
encourages natural pest control mechanisms so that risks to human health and environment is
reduced or minimized (FAO, 2019a).

346
Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources (2020) 3(1): 345-359
ISSN: 2661-6270 (Print), ISSN: 2661-6289 (Online)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v3i1.27186

Origin and Distribution of Fall Armyworm:

Although being native to tropical and subtropical regions of Americas, FAW was first detected in
Central and Western Africa in early 2016 (Benin, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, and Togo) and
further reported and confirmed in the whole of mainland Southern Africa (except Lesotho), in
Madagascar and Seychelles (Island State) (FAO, 2018). By 30 January 2018, FAW had been
detected and reported in almost all Sub Saharan African countries, except Djibouti, Eritrea and
Lesotho (FAO, 2018). Being distributed to 40 sub- Saharan African countries, the pest has
already migrated to India where first incidence was seen in July, 2018 (Beshir et al., 2019).
FAW population distribution (table 1) can be summarized as,

Table 1: Global distribution of Fall Armyworm

S.N. Areas No. of Countries (Incidence of FAW)
1. Africa 43
2. North America 41
3. Central America 38
4. South America 28
5. Asia 9*
Source: (Dively, 2018)
(*= Among the nine countries in Asia, the presence of FAW is unofficial in Thailand)

Threats of Fall Armyworm Incidence in Nepal:

Several researches and data have shown that Fall Armyworm is a rapid migrating pest of
maize which have significantly high damage to the crop. (Rose et al., 1975) reported that Fall
Armyworm can fly over 1600 Km in just 30 hours. This data redirects towards the possibility
of Fall Armyworm spreading towards Nepal from India. In India, Fall Armyworm has
already been present in different states like Karnataka, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Andhra
Pradesh, Odisha, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal (CABI, 2019). All these regions are tropical
regions of India. Thus, there is a maximum possibility of Incidence of Fall Armyworm in
Tropical Regions i.e. Terai region of Nepal. In addition to this, Nepal and India are sharing
open border and there is no any restriction in the border during the import and export of
goods. Due to the open border between Nepal and India, fruits and vegetables from India
enter Nepal without any quarantines and proper checking. This might be a major reason for
the pest to be introduced in Nepal. Similarly, Maize being a second ranked crop in terms of
production in Nepal, there are many commercial growers and production area of maize in
Nepal is very high. This also adds to the possibility of the Fall Armyworm spread in Nepal
which is a voracious feeder of maize. In addition to this, other crop species like sorghum,
cotton, rice, millet and other host species that are cultivated in Nepal could be an attraction to
the pest.

FAO believed that there is a high probability of the pest to reach Nepal soon. (CABI, 2019)
mentioned that the deadly pest has a voracious appetite for maize and other crops and its
impact would be huge for the Nepalese farmers and economy. They believed that the climatic
conditions in Nepal are suitable for the establishment of Fall Armyworm populations, which
could potentially cause up to 100 percent crop loss in maize if not managed properly. Thus,
Nepalese people must be prepared and be ready for the threats that can be caused by the
FAW.
347
Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources (2020) 3(1): 345-359
ISSN: 2661-6270 (Print), ISSN: 2661-6289 (Online)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v3i1.27186

Status of American Fall armyworm in Nepal

Lab reports have already confirmed the presence of Fall armyworm in Nepal. Plant
Quarantine and Pesticide Management Center (NPPO, 2019) has confirmed the presence of
this pest in Nepal after the lab reports in 12th August, 2019 showed positivity towards the
presence of the pest in Nepal. Lab test for the pest was continuously done in Nepal by the
NPPO after the pest was introduced in the Karnataka state of India. The first two lab reports
from the samples collected from all Nepal (Jhapa in the east to Dang in the west) confirmed
the pest to be Spodoptera litura and the test for the third time confirmed the presence of
Spodoptera frugiperda in Nepal (Guragain, 2019). Online Khabar, a national level online
news channel of Nepal notified that Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC) reported
the first sighting of FAW, locally known as Phaujikira, in Nepal. According to NARC, the
first case was reported from Nawalparasi district of western Nepal. After this, the pest was
also observed in Chitwan and (FAO, 2019b) confirms the geographical distribution of the
pest in Mid inner terai and mid hills of Nepal.

Loss assessment of the pest in Nepal has not been done because of the recent introduction in
the few regions of the country. However, to control the pest, CIMMYT has been putting
efforts to evaluate the efficacy of push-pull cropping system which is considered one among
the best climate-smart technologies (Pradhan et al., 2019). It has been reported that the
CIMMYT is using two crops: Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) and silverleaf
desmodium legume (Desmodium uncinatum). Among them, Desmodium is intercropped in
rows with the maize crop and napier grass is cropped surrounding the maize. It has been
believed that the desmodium plays a great role in repelling the fall armyworm moth by
producing volatile compounds and Napier attracts the female moths by producing chemical
compounds (Pradhan, et al., 2019). This push-pull strategy helps in the controlling the maize
field from fall armyworm without any adverse effect to the environment.

Pest Identification
Major pests that can be observed in a maize field of Nepal are Sesamia, Helicoverpa, Chilo
partellus, Armyworm (Mythimna separata), cutworm, grasshopper, field cricket, white grub,
termites, tiger beetle, red ant and many other pest species. These insect data are based on the
two years research on types of pests that are attracted to black light trap and maize crop in
Kaski district. FAW is also a major pest of maize in African Countries that could totally
damage a maize field.

Moving towards the FAW identification, In the male moth, the forewing generally is shaded
grey and brown, with triangular white spots at the tip and near the center of the wing while
the forewings of females are less distinctly marked, ranging from a uniform greyish brown to
a fine mottling of grey and brown (Prasanna et al., 2018).

Damage Symptoms
Larvae is the voracious feeder which causes a huge damage by defoliating the host. When the
number of larvae increases in a field, they begin to defoliate every plant that comes on their
way while spreading in the maize field. The typical damage symptom of FAW is presence of
holes in the maize leaves due to the feeding of epidermal tissues by the young larvae. (Sisay
348
 Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources (2020) 3(1): 345-359
ISSN: 2661-6270 (Print), ISSN: 2661-6289 (Online)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v3i1.27186
et al., 2019)

Loss Assessment
Although primary damage to the foliage is done by the younger larvae, (Abrahams, et al.,
2017) and (Capinera, 2017) reported that the major reason for the reduction in yield and
quality of the maize grains is due to the feeding of the cob and kernels by the larger larvae
that are present in the whorls of older plants. A research has shown that the estimated
national mean loss of maize in Ghana was 45% (range 22-67%), and in Zambia 40% (range
25-50%) (CABI, 2017). (Abrahams, et al., 2017) estimated that without control measures, fall
armyworm is expected to reduce maize yield by 8.3 to 20.6 million tons per year of the total
expected production of 39 million tons per year. (Hruska & Gould, 1997) reported yield
losses ranging from 15 to 73% when 55 to 100% of the maize plants were infested with the
fall armyworm during mid through late whorl stage in Nicaragua. (Chimweta et al., 2019)
have reported leaf, silk and tassel damage levels ranging between 25 and 50% and grain yield
decrease of 58%. Similarly, (CABI, 2019) believed that FAW could potentially cause up to
100 percent maize crop loss in Nepal, if not managed properly because of the suitable
climatic conditions for pest establishment.

Significance of the Pest

Being a highly migratory in nature, the pest can cause huge damage to the crop species.
Causing severe loss in the African Countries, FAW has already been the matter of ache to the
farmers in Asia too. The pest cannot survive in extreme hot areas and the optimum
temperature for the pest spreading is about 280C. The pest is believed to survive in the clay
soil mixed with sand i.e. sandy clay or clay-sand soil in which the pupation and adult
emergence is favored (CABI, 2019). Similarly, the emergence of pest in such soil increases
with increase in temperature i.e. directly proportional to temperature and decreases with
increase in relative humidity i.e. inversely proportional to relative humidity. (CABI, 2019)

Biology of the Pest

Being a lepidopteran pest, life cycle of FAW completes in four phases viz. Egg, larva, Pupa
and Adult. The pest requires 30 days in summer, 60 days in autumn and spring to complete
its life cycle. However, the duration may be prolonged to 80 to 90 days during winter season
(Luginbill, 1928). Every stage of the pest metamorphosis is described as,

Egg
Approximately, Egg masses containing 150-200 eggs are laid by the female in two to four
layers that are deep on the surface to the lower part of the leaf (CABI, 2019). The egg is
dome shaped that measures 0.4 mm in diameter and 0.3 mm in height, pale yellow or creamy
in color at the time of oviposition which later changes into light brown before hatching
(CABI, 2019), (Prasanna et al., 2018). A female can lay about 1500 eggs on an average
which may rise over to 2000 (maximum) (Igyuve, et al., 2018). The eggs are laid in masses in
the surface of the leaf, generally underside. Abdomen of the female moth bear a layer of
scales that are grey to pink in color called setae which cover the egg masses and protect them.
It is believed that providing a temperature of 20-300C helps the egg to be matured within 2-3
days.

349
 Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources (2020) 3(1): 345-359
ISSN: 2661-6270 (Print), ISSN: 2661-6289 (Online)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v3i1.27186
Larvae
The larval stage of Fall Armyworm completes in six instar stages. The larva at its young
stage are greenish in color having black head that changes into orange in the second instar
whereas formation of lateral white lines and conversion of the dorsal body surface into
brownish color is the feature of third instar larva. The color of head changes to reddish brown
that is mottled with white while white sub dorsal and lateral lines in the brownish body is
observed during the stage of fourth to sixth instars (Igyuve et al., 2018). Black tubercles were
found dorsally on the body which bears spines (Sharanabasappa et al., 2018). The larvae in
the back contains 3 yellow stripes followed by a black and again yellow stripe on the side
whereas on the second to last segment, four dark spots are seen that forms a square. (FAO,
2018). The young larvae feeds on the leaves near the surface of the ground for the first few
days and then climbs up onto the corn plant to consume all leaf tissue leaving only the veins
and midrib after about one week (Bohnenblust & Tooker, 2012). Larvae have four pairs of
fleshy abdominal prolegs in addition to the pair at the end of the body (Bessin, 2019). Full-
grown larvae have body length of about 1-1/2 inches (38 mm) long (CABI, 2019). (Pitre &
Hogg, 1983) reported that the longevity of larval period is about 14-30 days depending upon
the weather.

Pupa
The full-grown larva stops feeding, turns greenish and bright brown color during the prepupal
period (Sharanabasappa, et al., 2018). Usually, pupation occurs in the soil 2-8 cm deep which
also can occur in reproductive parts such as mature maize ears; However, if the soil surface is
hard, the leaf debris and other material are webbed together on the soil surface by the larvae
so as to form a cocoon (CABI, 2019). The larva binds the particles of soil together to form a
loose, oval and 20-30 mm long cocoon inside which a reddish-brown pupa measuring 14 to
18 mm in length and 4.5 mm in width resides (Igyuve et al., 2018). The pupal stage duration
depends upon the weather which completes in 8 to 9 days in summer and in 20 to 30 days in
cooler season (CABI, 2019). For Pupal Sexing, the distance between the genital opening and
anal slot is observed. Male pupa is the one having shorter distance and female is the one
having more distance (Sharanabasappa et al., 2018).

Adult
Adult male is smaller than female having 1.6 cm of body length and wingspan of 3.7 cm with
body length of 1.7 cm and wingspan of 3.8 cm in case of female. Male can be easily
distinguished with its forewing that is mottled and contains a discal cell having straw color on
three quarters and dark brown on one quarter of the area with triangular white spots at the tip
and near the center of the wing (CABI, 2019). However, females cannot be distinguished
with their forewings since they are less distinctly marked which ranges from uniform greyish
brown to a fine mottling of grey and brown and in both the sexes, the hindwing is iridescent
silver-white containing a narrow dark border. (Igyuve et al., 2018). According to (CABI,
2019), the nocturnal behavior of the adult makes them active generally during the warm and
humid evenings. Female moths have a pre-oviposition period of 3 to 4 days after which
laying of eggs occur during the first 4 to 5 days of life up to 3 weeks in some cases, and the
duration of the adult life ranges about 7 to 21 days with an average of 10 days (Prasanna et
al., 2018).

350
 Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources (2020) 3(1): 345-359
ISSN: 2661-6270 (Print), ISSN: 2661-6289 (Online)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v3i1.27186
Integrated Pest Management:
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is the best and preferred method of FAW management
(Day et al., 2017). Control methods need to be utilized in a way that are sustainable and cost-
effective and the risks caused by them to the environment and humans are as minimum as
possible (Bateman et al., 2018). Due to the devastating loss caused by the pest, many farmers
do not want to take the risk of IPM and use chemicals to control the pest directly. However,
in Nepal, the pest is in the phase of incidence, thus the IPM method of pest control will be the
best method for management. IPM method of pest management includes various practices of
pest control like cultural, physical and biological methods.

Cultural Methods:
The major cultural practices that are efficient for the management of these pests are
plantation of trap crops like legumes. Plantation of beans at the edges of maize field 10 days
prior to the plantation of maize will attract the FAW towards the bean and hence maize can
be protected. Another major cultural practice can be planting early or with the other farmers
that have field near to own field. This will cause the equal distribution of FAW in all fields.
However, if the maize crop is planted late, the pest will have high probability of entering the
field due to the lack of maize in nearby fields. Planting of maize earlier than the actual date
will bypass the time of arrival of the pest and hence crop could be protected or less infected.
Another major management method to be considered is ploughing properly before planting
the maize crop. This will expose the pupa of FAW in soil to the birds and predators. Hence
the FAW population can be reduced. However, the larvae and pupa can also be killed by
exposing them during the winter season. The larvae cannot resist the freezing temperature
and hence die (CABI, 2019). In line with this, deep tillage and plant residue after harvest
favor the pest to rest in the soil. If the pest population is low, handpicking of larvae and pupa
can also be practiced but this practice is not generally proper in case of higher infestations.
Sanitation of the field, clean cultivation and proper weeding are the other major cultural
practices. Similarly, plantation of scented and flowering plants like coriander, fennel, rose,
marigold etc. can attract natural pest of FAW and hence reduce the pest population. Push-pull
strategy is also one of the strategies of cultural management of the pest in which maize is
intercropped with pest-repellent “Push crop” (Desmodium spp), surrounded by pest-attractive
“pull crop” (Napier Grass, Pennisetum purpureum or Brachiaria spp) (Dively, 2018).

Pest Monitoring:
For the successful implementation of an Integrated Pest Management program, effective
monitoring activity is required. Pheromones and Light traps are effective monitoring tools for
FAW management. According to (Klun et al., 1996). The sex pheromone for S. frugiperda
contains (Z)-9-Tetradecenyl acetate (Z-9-14: OAca) which is common to Trichoplusia ni,
Spodoptera exigua and Agrotis ipsilon exigua. In Tomato, Lucerne and cotton fields, mating
disruption for S. exigua was possible by the release of (9Z, 12E)-9, 12-tetradecadienyl acetate
at high concentration. Thus, (Shorey et al., 1994) believed that the mating disruption may be
possible. Universal bucket type pheromones are used in which sex pheromones or chemicals
produced by females to attract males are kept which can travel a very long distance through
air and make the monitoring easy whereas most commonly used pheromones are sex
pheromones and aggregation pheromones (Prasanna et al., 2018). Similarly, Light traps are
also used in the monitoring of fall armyworm. The nocturnal behavior of the moth makes it
351
 Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources (2020) 3(1): 345-359
ISSN: 2661-6270 (Print), ISSN: 2661-6289 (Online)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v3i1.27186
monitorable through black light traps.

Biological Control
If the management of a pest in a crop field is done using another insect which is the natural
enemy of the pest, then it is called the biological control of the pest. Biologically, a pest can
be controlled using pathogen, parasites or predators. Telenomus remus is one of the important
biological agents that is used to control FAW in the maize and vegetable fields. It is so small
that it can enter inside the FAW eggs and lay offspring inside. These offspring grow and eat
the egg of fall armyworm. When the offspring develop into adult, it comes out breaking the
shell and hence the FAW can be controlled.

Parasites
Trichogrammatoidea armigera is used in the control of FAW and helicoverpa eggs which is
the main reason of its mass production in the ICRISAT-Niger Laboratory (Prasanna et al.,
2018).

Table 2: Parasitic Natural Enemies of Fall Armyworm

S.N. Natural Enemy Life Stage Host
1 Archytas incertus Larva Maize
2 Archytas marmoratus Larva/Pupae Maize/Sorghum
3 Campoletis flavicincta Larva Maize
4 Chelonus curvimaculatus Eggs/Larva Maize
5 Chelonus insularis Eggs/Larva Maize/Sorghum
6 Cotesia marginiventris Larva Maize
7 Cotesia ruficrus Larva Maize
8 Euplectrus platyhypenae Larva Maize
9 Glyptapanteles creatonoti Larva Maize
10 Lespesia archippivora Larva Maize
11 Microchelonus heliopae Eggs/Larva Maize
12 Brachymeria ovata Pupa
13 Telenomus remus Eggs Maize/Vegetables
14 Trichogramma achaeae Eggs Maize
15 Trichogramma chilotraeae Eggs Maize
16 Trichogramma pretiosum Eggs Maize
17 Trichogramma rojasi Eggs Maize
Source: (CABI, 2019)
Among the several biological control agents of FAW, Chelonus insularis Cresson
(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) is the most dispersed biological control agent geographically.
The relationship of leaf consumption between healthy and parasitized (by Chelonis insularis)
caterpillars is 15:1, meaning less damage to the plant (Prasanna et al., 2018). Among the
several parasites and parasitoids of FAW, some are listed below in the table 2 with their host
(mostly maize) and life stage of the pest in which they attack.

Pathogens
The larva which is affected by pathogens start to change the color into increased pale and its
352
 Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources (2020) 3(1): 345-359
ISSN: 2661-6270 (Print), ISSN: 2661-6289 (Online)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v3i1.27186
movement is decreased when touched. But, the major way to detect a FAW larvae diseased
from pathogen is when it is dead. Particularly for FAW larvae infected with baculovirus, the
dead larvae will generally be observed in the upper parts of the maize plant and will hang
upside down (Prasanna et al., 2018). The major entomopathogens that are helpful in the
management of FAW in maize are listed below in the table 3.

Table 3: Pathogenic Natural Enemy of Fall Armyworm

S.N. Natural Enemy Life Stage
1 Bacillus cereus Larvae
2 Bacillus thuringiensis Larvae
3 Bacillus thuringiensis alesti Larvae
4 Bacillus thuringiensis darmstadiensis Larvae
5 Bacillus thuringiensis thuringiensis Larvae
6 Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki Larvae
7 Beauveria bassiana Eggs/Larvae
8 Granulosis virus Larvae
9 Metarhizium anisopliae Eggs/Larvae
10 Nucleopolyhedrosis virus Larvae
Source: (CABI, 2019)

Predators:
The most preferred site of FAW in maize is the maize whorl inside which a predatory earwig,
Doru luteipes (Scudder) lays its eggs (Reis et al., 1988) and occurs throughout the maize crop
cycle. Nymphs of D. luteipes consume 8–12 larvae daily, while in the adult stage they
consume 10-21 larvae of S. frugiperda daily (Reis et al., 1988). According to (Pasini et al.,
2007), the FAW eggs are equal to the insect pupa flour and pollen that are required for the
preparation of artificial diets for rearing of D. luteipes. Some of the predators of FAW in
maize are in the table 4 below.

353
 Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources (2020) 3(1): 345-359
ISSN: 2661-6270 (Print), ISSN: 2661-6289 (Online)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v3i1.27186
Table 4: Predators of FAW larva and pupa in maize
S.N. Natural Enemy Life Stage
1 Calleida decora Larva
2 Calosoma alternans Larva
3 Calosoma sayi Larva
4 Carabidae Larva/pupa
5 Doru luteipes
6 Doru taeniatum
7 Ectatomma ruidum
8 Geocoris punctipes
9 Stelopolybia pallipes
10 Podisus maculiventris
Source: (CABI, 2019)

Botanical Pesticides
The pesticides which are derived from plant or plant extracts are called as plant-based
pesticides or botanical pesticides. The botanical pesticides are recommended because they
neither harm the farmers nor the natural enemies of the pest. Similarly, Botanical pesticides
are environment friendly, degradable and easy to use. Among the large group of plants that
have insecticidal properties, some are used in the management of FAW (Table 5).

Table 5: Potential botanical pesticides against FAW, based on studies in America

S.N. Species Family Extract Mode of Action
1 Neem, Azadirachta Meliaceae 0.25% Neem Oil Larvicidal with up to 80%
indica mortality in the lab
2 Aglaia cordata Hiern Meliaceae Hexane and ethanol Larvicidal with up to
extracts of seeds 100% mortality in the lab
3 Annona mucosa Jacquin Annonaceae Ethanolic extract from Larval growth inhibition
seeds
4 Vernonia holosenicea, Asteraceae Ethanol extracts from Ovicidal
Lychnophora leaves
ramosissima, and
Chromolaena chaseae
5 Cedrela salvadorensis Meliaceae Dichloromethane Insect growth regulating
and Cedrela dugessi extracts of wood (IGR) and larvicidal with
up to 95% mortality
6 Long pepper, Piper Piperaceae Essential oil from seeds affects spermatogenesis
hispidinervum and hence egg laying
7 Chinaberry, Melia Meliaceae Ethanolic extracts of Antifeedant to larva;
azedarach leaves synergistic with pesticide
8 Jatropha gossypifolia Euphorbiaceae Ethanolic extracts of Antifeedant to larva;
leaves synergistic with pesticide
9 Castor, Ricinus Euphorbiaceae Castor oil and Ricinine Growth inhibition and
communis (seed extracts) larvicidal
Source: (Prasanna et al., 2018)

Chemical Control
Chemical pest control refers to the control of pests using the chemical pesticides. Pesticides
are synthetically produced chemical compounds that are developed in such a way that they
354
 Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources (2020) 3(1): 345-359
ISSN: 2661-6270 (Print), ISSN: 2661-6289 (Online)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v3i1.27186
affect the certain life stage of pest and hence the effect of pest on the crop will be reduced or
the pest will die.

Different insecticides and pesticides are used in different FAW-infected countries due to the
higher risk of other management practices. Insect control using chemicals is the risk-free
method of the pest control. In IPM, the use of pesticides is not considered good. However, the
use of chemicals under the economic threshold does not harm the human health excessively.
For the control of FAW pest, carbamate insecticide like Methomyl, Pyrethroid insecticide and
common household pesticide, Cyfluthrin and organophosphate insecticide, methyl parathion
can be used (Table 6). (Tumma & Chandrika, 2018)

Insect Resistance Management (IRM)

Use of same chemical pesticide on the same place to control same pest for a long period of
time makes the pest resistance to the chemicals applied. The pest develop character that the
Mode of Action (MOA) of the pesticide does not work properly on the pest. If the chemicals
are used according to the dose and label directions, they can be considered as a great and safe
tool in the pest control. However, the negligence and haphazard use of chemical can be a
major issue to the human as well as plant health.

Laboratory experiments have demonstrated that evolution of insect resistance to pest-control

measures can be delayed or prevented in the presence of natural enemies (Liu X et al., 2014).
However, indiscriminate spraying of toxic pesticides often adversely affects these natural
enemies, reducing benefits from biocontrol (Meagher et al., 2016) and the secondary pest
population may increase eventually. The FAW in tropical climates completes its life cycle in
30-40 days so avoiding treating successive generations of FAW with the same active
ingredient and rotating active ingredient with products that have ingredients with different
modes of action every 30 days may reduce the resistance of the pest. The pesticides must be
applied at the recommended rates, intervals, and seasonal totals, as specified by the label and
the instructions because the pesticide label specifies how often and at what rate an insecticide
should be applied per season which are based on research, and are designed to slow down the
development of insecticide resistance in the FAW population. (Prasanna et al., 2018)

Table 6: Agrochemicals registered to control FAW in South Africa

S. Brand Name Active Type Resistance Registered for Use on the
N. Ingredients Group and crops:
Subgroup
1. Agropyrifos Chlorpyrifos Contact 1A Maize, pastures and Potatoes
insecticide
2. Pyrinex 480 Chlorpyrifos Contact 1A Maize
EC insecticide
3. Methomex 900 Methomyl Contact 1A Maize
SP insecticide
4. Marshal 48 EC Carbosulfan Systemic 1A Maize
insecticide
5. Vitex 50 Emamectin Stomach 6 Cruciferae (cabbage, broccoli,
benzoate translaminar cauliflower and brussels
insecticide sprouts), maize, sweetcorn
6. Ag-Tap 500 Cartap Contact and 14 Barley, cabbage, canola,
SP hydrochloride systemic action maize, onions, potatoes,
355
Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources (2020) 3(1): 345-359
ISSN: 2661-6270 (Print), ISSN: 2661-6289 (Online)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v3i1.27186
insecticide sorghum, soybeans,
sugarcane, sunflower,
sweetcorn and wheat
cauliflower and brussels
sprouts)
7. Akito Betacypermethr Stomach and 3A maize, sorghum, sweetcorn,
in contact wheat, tomatoes, peas, lupins,
insecticide Lucerne, groundnuts and
Cruciferae (cabbage, broccoli,

Insecticide Resistance MOA Groups and subgroups:

Group 1: Acetylcholine esterase (AChE) inhibitors
Sub-Group 1A: Carbamates
Group 3: Sodium channel modulators
Sub-Group 3A: Pyrethrins & Pyrethroids
Group 6: Chloride channel activators
Group 14: Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) blockers
Source: (IRAC South Africa, 2018)
Note: The trade name or brand name of the chemical that would be used in Nepal can be
different because these are the chemicals available in South Africa.

CONCLUSION
Fall Armyworm is a highly damaging pest of maize. It has a very rapid spreading capacity.
It’s spread in Africa from America was also rapid. Some of the news channel already
reported its presence in Nepal. Its entry in Nepal may cause up to 100% yield decline as
warned by FAO. Although the loss assessment of the pest in Nepal is not calculated yet,
CIMMYT has been working to control the pest in Nepal through evaluation of push-pull
strategy in which Napier grass and Desmodium are cultivated with maize crop. Furthermore,
the major step that can be taken is to strengthen the quarantine measures at the India-Nepal
Border so that the further entry of pest through different medium can be controlled. Regular
monitoring and scouting for the presence of the pest should be done. If in case, the spreading
of FAW in Nepal occurred, it should be managed at the primary level using the integrated
pest management methods like cultural control, biological control and use of chemicals
below the economic injury level. However, the use of chemicals during the initial phase of
pest spreading is not suggested as it can harm the natural enemies of the pest too.

Authors Contribution
Chapagain, E: Collected the information. Bhusal. S: wrote the paper.

Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding publication of this
manuscript.

356
 Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources (2020) 3(1): 345-359
ISSN: 2661-6270 (Print), ISSN: 2661-6289 (Online)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v3i1.27186
REFERENCES

Adamczyk, J., Holloway, J., Leonard, B., & Graves, J. (1997). Susceptibility of fall
armyworm collected from different plant hosts to selected insecticides and transgenic
Bt cotton. The Journal of Cotton Science 1, 21-28.
Bateman, M., Day, R., Luke, B., Edgington, S., Kuhlmann, U., & Cock, M. (2018).
Assessment of potential biopesticide options for managing fall armyworm
(Spodoptera frugiperda) in Africa. Journal of Applied Entomology 142(9), 805-819.
Belay, D., Huckaba, R., & Foster, J. E. (2012). Susceptibility of the Fall Armyworm,
Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), at Santa Isabel, Puerto Rico, to
Different Insecticides. Florida Entomologist 95(2), 476-478.
Beshir, A., Shrestha, H., & Pradhan, B. (2019). Research Program on Maize. Retrieved from
https://maize.org/destructive-pest-alert-fall-armyworm-faw-is-paving-its-way-to-
nepal/
Bessin, R. (2019). Fall Armyworm in Corn. Retrieved from
https://entomology.ca.uky.edu/ef110
Bohnenblust, E., & Tooker, J. (2012). Fall Armyworm as a Pest of Field Corn. Retrieved
from https://ento.psu.edu/extension/factsheets/fall-armyworm
CABI. (2017). Fall Armyworm: Impacts and Implications for Africa. Retrieved from
https://www.invasive-species.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/03/Fall-
Armyworm-Evidence-Note-September-2017.pdf
CABI. (2019). Spodoptera frugiperda (fall armyworm). Retrieved from
https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/29810
Capinera, J. (2017). Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Insecta:
Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Retrieved from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in255
Chimweta, M., Nyakudya, I., Jimu, L., & Mashingaidze, A. B. (2019). Fall armyworm
[Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith)] damage in maize: management options for
flood-recession cropping smallholder farmers. International Journal of Pest
Management, 1-13.
Day, R., Abrahams, P., Bateman, M., Beale, T., Clottey, V., Cock, M., & Witt, A. (2017).
Fall armyworm: Impacts and implications for Africa. Outlooks on Pest Management,
28, 196-201.
Dively, G. (2018). Management of Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) with emphasis on
Bt Transgenic Technology. Retrieved from https://usunrome.usmission.gov/wp-
content/uploads/sites/54/2018-Africa-FAW-Talk_Rome-pdf.pdf
FAO. (2018). Integrated management of the Fall Armyworm on maize. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/3/i8665en/i8665en.pdf
FAO. (2019a). AGP - Integrated Pest Management. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/thematic-sitemap/theme/pests/ipm/en/

357
 Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources (2020) 3(1): 345-359
ISSN: 2661-6270 (Print), ISSN: 2661-6289 (Online)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v3i1.27186
FAO. (2019b). Spodoptera frugiperda (Fall Armyworm). Retrieved from
https://www.ippc.int/en/countries/nepal/pestreports/2019/08/spodoptera-frugiperda-
fall-armyworm/
Guragain. M. (2019). Lab report confirms entry of American fall armyworm in Nepal.
Retrieved from https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.com/news/lab-report-confirms-
entry-of-american-fall-armyworm-in-nepal/
Hruska, A., & 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, 611-622.
Huis, A. (1981). Integrated Pest Management in the Small Farmer's Maize Crop in
Nicaragua. Wageningen, Netherland: Mededelingen LandBouwhoge School.
Igyuve, T., Ojo, G., Ugbaa, M., & Ochigbo, A. (2018). Fall Army Worm (Spodoptera
Frugiperda); It’s Biology, Impact And Control On Maize Production In Nigeria.
Nigerian Journal Of Crop Science Vol. 5, 70-79.
IRAC South Africa. (2018). Integrated Pest Management (IPM) & Insect Resistance
Management (IRM) for Fall Armyworm in South African Maize. Retrieved from
https://www.irac-online.org/documents/ipm-irm-for-fall-armyworm-in-s-african-
maize/
Jeyaraman, S. (2017). Field Crops Production and Management Vol I. New Delhi: Oxford
and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt Ltd.
Joshi, M. (2015). TextBook of Field Crops. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited.
Klun, J., Potts, W., & Oliver, J. (1996). Four species of noctuid moths degrade sex
pheromone by a common antennal metabolic Pathway. Journal of Entomological
Science, 404-413.
Liu X, C. M., Collins, H., Onstad, D., Roush, R., Zhang, Q., Earle, E., & Shelton, A. (2014).
Natural enemies delay insect resistance to Bt Crops. PLoS ONE, 9(3), 1-5.
Luginbill, P. (1928). The Fall Army Worm. Washington D.C.: U.S. Dept. Of Agriculture.
Meagher, R., Nuessly, G., Nagoshi, R., & Hay-Roe, M. (2016). Parasitoids attacking fall
armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in sweet corn habitats. Biological Control 95,
66-72.
MoAD. (2018). Statistical Information On Nepalese Agriculture 2016/17. Kathmandu,
Nepal: Ministry of Agriculture, Land Management and Cooperatives.
Neupane, S., & Subedi, S. (2019). Life cycle study of maize stem borer (Chilo partellus
Swinhoe) under laboratory condition at National Maize Research Program, Rampur,
Chitwan, Nepal. Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2(1), 338-346. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v2i1.26099
NPPO. (2019). NPPO Nepal Declares the INVASION of American Fall Armyworm
(Spodoptera frugiperda) in Nepal. Retrieved from
http://www.npponepal.gov.np/noticedetail/20/2019/82947178

358
 Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources (2020) 3(1): 345-359
ISSN: 2661-6270 (Print), ISSN: 2661-6289 (Online)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/janr.v3i1.27186
Pasini, A., Parra, J., & Lopes, J. (2007). Artificial diet for rearing Doru luteipes
(Scudder)(Dermaptera:Forficulidae), a predator of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera
frugiperda (JE Smith)(Lepidoptera:Noctuidae). Neotropical Entomology 36, 308-311.
Paudyal, K., Ransom, J., Rajbhandari, N., Adhikari, K., Gerpacio, R., & Pingali, P. (2001).
Maize in Nepal: Production Systems, Constraints and Priorities for Research.
Kathmandu: NARC and CIMMYT.
Pitre, H., & Hogg, D. (1983). Development of the fall armyworm on cotton, soybean and
corn. Journal of the Georgia Entomological Society 18, 187-194.
Pradhan, B., Rusinamhodzi, L., & Subedi, R. (1983). System uses plants to lure fall
armyworm away from maize fields. Retrieved from
https://www.cimmyt.org/news/system-uses-plants-to-lure-fall-armyworm-away-from-
maize-fields/
Prasanna, B., Huesing, J., Eddy, R., & Virginia, R. (2019). Fall Armyworm in Africa: A guide
for Integrated Pest Management. Mexico: USAID and CIMMYT.
Reis, L., Oliveira, L., & Cruz, I. (1988). Doru luteipes Biology and Potential in Spodoptera
Control. Brazilian Agricultural Research, 23, 333-342.
Rose, A., Silversides, R., & Lindquist, O. (1975 ). Migration Flight By An Aphid,
Rhopalosiphum Maidis (Hemiptera: Aphididae), And A Noctuid, Spodoptera
Frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). The Canadian Entomologist, 107(6), 567-576.
Sharanabasappa, D., Kalleshwaraswamy, C.M., Maruthi, M., & Pavithra, H. (2018). Biology
of Invasive Fall Army Worm Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae) on Maize. Indian Journal of Entomology, 80(3), 540-543.
Shorey, H., Summers, C., Sisk, C., & Gerber, R. (1994). Disruption of pheromone
communication in Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) in tomatoes, alfalfa,
and cotton. Environmental Entomology, 1529-1533.
Sisay, B., Tefera, T., Wakgari, M., Ayalew, G., & Mendesil, E. (2019). The Efficacy of
Selected Synthetic Insecticides and Botanicals against Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera
frugiperda, in Maize. Insects, 1-14
Tumma, M., & Chandrika, K. (2018). Fall Armyworm [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://vikaspedia.in/agriculture/crop-production/integrated-pest-managment/fall-
armyworm-faw

359