CHAPTER I

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 Global production and distribution of maize crops

Corn, or maize (Zea mays L.), is one of the most widely grown
staple grains in the world and is grown on around 200 million hectares of
land worldwide. It was domesticated in southern Mexico and Latin
America around 9,000 years ago (Awika, 2011; Kennett et al., 2020).
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO), global maize production has consistently increased in recent
decades. In 2022, global maize production was estimated at
approximately 1.2 billion metric tons, making it the largest cereal crop in
terms of volume (FAO, 2023). Maize is mainly used as animal feed in
many Asian nations and accounts for more than 20% of daily food intake
for humans (Erenstein, 2010; Shiferaw et al., 2011).

1.2 Maize crop Production in Pakistan

Maize is cultivated on approximately 1.7 million hectares across

Pakistan (PES, 2023-24). Maize production is largely concentrated in
Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), which together produce nearly all
of the country's maize. As a staple food, 99% of maize production comes
from these two provinces, with KP contributing 51% and Punjab
contributing 48% (Tariq and Iqbal, 2010; MNFS&R, 2022). It contributes a
key role in the agriculture sector of Pakistan, particularly in province
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa making it a significant source of income for farmers
and is also used as livestock feed, boosting animal husbandry productivity
(Bangash , 2020) .The maize crop is cultivated in various districts of
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, including Peshawar , Nowshera , Malakand ,
Mardan, Dir, and Swat, as documented by Abid et al. (2014) and
Muhammad et al. (2012).
 Swat District of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province is located at 34°46′58″ N and
72°21′43″ E, bordering Chitral in the north, Dir in the west, and Gilgit-Baltistan in the
northeast. It covers an area of 5337 km2 and has a population of 1.26 million
(Bangash,2012). The average rainfall in the study area ranges from 1000 to 1200 mm
annually. Most of the population is dependent on natural resources including agriculture,
horticulture, livestock, fisheries, tourism, and forest resources (Dahri etal.,2011; Khan and
Shahrukh,2009).

Soil and climatic conditions of Pakistan are highly favourable for maize production.
But unfortunately in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and especially in Swat district yet its average yield
is very low. The reasons for low yield are non-availability of high yielding hybrids
genotypes, high cost of maize seeds, lack of scientific knowledge of farmers, improper use of
fertilizer, and insufficient availability of irrigation water at proper time, high cost of
irrigation, improper sowing date and lack of modern production technology. The social
problem includes the damage of seeds of birds, the damage effect by insect’s pest, and theft
in maize cob. (Uddin et al.,2021; Rafique et al.,2004).

However, it faces challenges from insect pests that affect corn or

maize during their vegetative and generative phases. These pests include
seed flies (Atherigona sp.), leaf eaters (Spodoptera litura, Mythimna
separata), leaf rollers, stem borers (Ostrinia furnacalis), cob borers
(Helicoverpa sp.), Aphis sp., grasshoppers and Fall Armyworm,
(Spodoptera frugiperda) (Arshad et al., 2019).

The Fall Armyworm (FAW), which causes economic damage to

various crops, including cereals, forage, and grasses, especially maize,
rice, sorghum, and other key arable crops like soybean and cotton was
demonstrated in studies by Barros et al. (2010), Oliveira et al. (2014), and
Wu et al. (2021).

1.3 Annual Yield Losses due to Fall Armyworm

The country-wise research database reveals that annual yield

losses caused by Fall Armyworm (FAW) vary according to the variety of
host plants. In Pakistan, fodder crops experience 100% yield loss (Gilal et
al., 2020), whereas in India, losses range from 33% to 36% (Aruna et al.,
2019). In the Americas, losses range from 30% to 70%, and in Africa, they
can be as high as 11% to 100% (Berg et al., 2021). In Asia, reported
losses range 50% to 80% (Adhikari et al., 2020).

1.4 Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda)

The Fall Armyworm has been reported as a Polyphagous insect

that was originally distributed as a pest in the Americas but has since
invaded most of Africa and parts of the Middle East, Asia, and Australia
over the last six years (Kenis et al., 2022). The Fall Armyworm was first
identified on maize in Sindh, Pakistan, during, the 2019 cropping season
(Naeem-Ullah et al., 2019). Following this initial detection, the pest has
progressively spread across maize cultivation areas in Sindh, Punjab, and
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (FAO,2019; Gilal et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2020).
Taxonomical and morphological studies of the Fall Armyworm have
revealed that it belongs to the Spodoptera genus, which comprises about
31 species distributed across six continents. Approximately 15 of these
species, including S. frugiperda, are important pests of many cultivated
plants (Pogue, 2002). In a study, it was observed that some species within
the genus Spodoptera, such as Spodoptera frugiperda, are grass feeders
due to their mouth parts (Kergoat et al., 2012).

1.5 Life cycle of Fall Armyworm (FAW)

The Fall Armyworm completes its life cycle by producing 100-200 egg
masses on the leaves of host plants. The insect undergoes a series of
stages during its development, including the egg stage, six caterpillar
instars, pupa, and final adult moth stage, all within approximately 30 days
during the winter months. In summer, this cycle is shortened to
approximately 60 days. Notably, the Fall Armyworm does not enter a
diapause stage throughout its lifespan (Capinera, 2014; FAO, 2020).

1.6 Damage of Fall Armyworm

 The adults, or moths, of FAW hide during the day in the whorls of
maize cobs and are active during the night. The female moth lays eggs
below and above the surface of maize leaves or at the below plant parts
or maize whorls. After hatching, the larvae secrete silken thread-like
materials and disperse in the whole field through wind. In early stages,
from first to third instars, larvae feed on leaves, leaving patches like
scratches that appear whitish in colour. FAW causes damages’ in
vegetative and reproductive stages; in the vegetative case, the leaves
caused elongated and ragged holes, resulting in effects on photosynthetic
parts and stunted growth and decreased yield. During the reproductive
stages, the larvae feed and bore through the side or top of ear heads,
which has an impact on the quality of the yield (Deshmukh et al., 2021).

1.7 Distribution Pattern of FAW

In an adult stage of FAW, it can fly longer and cover an area of about 300 miles. The
movement of air in weather could be the cause of this high migration rate. The most prevalent
insect pest in tropical America is the fall armyworm, which is common in both tropical and
subtropical areas of the nation. By the end of 2016, it initially emerged in West Africa and
quickly spread to Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where was subsequently confirmed in 44
African nations (Sisay et al., 2019).

According to the research data base, both FAW strains invaded Africa from the Americas
through cargo containers, commercial flights, or airplane holds. From there, they dispersed
via wind (Day et al., 2017). Fall armyworm, first reported in Karnataka, India in 2018, has
spread to various Asian regions including different states of (CABI, 2020). The insect
problem has been experienced by various Asian nations, including Japan, China, Cambodia,
Bangladesh, Myanmar, Indonesia, Thailand, Korea, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and China (FAO,
2019).in Pakistan it was first reported in Sindh during 2019 and then spread to the whole
countries (Naeem-Ullah et al., 2019).

1.7 Host plants

The research observations on potential, population dynamics and survival

of the Fall Armyworm revealed that The host range of fall armyworm comprises
around 353 plant species, including 76 families of various grain and vegetable crops,
including maize, rice, millet, sorghum, wheat, sugarcane, millet, cotton, soybean, cowpea,
potato, groundnut (Montezano et al. 2018: Ayra-Pardo et al. 2021). but the Fall
Armyworm prefers maize and is found higher in the population in host
plant preference than the three other host plants: sorghum, wheat, and
rice (Altaf et al., 2022).

1.8 Management strategies used against Spodoptera frugiperda

1.8.1 Physical and Mechanical Control Approach

Mechanical and physical approach plays a key role in the management of FAW distribution
and management (Ali et al., 2021). Physical and Mechanical control methods are essential
components of FAW management, particularly in organic and sustainable farming systems.
When combined with other IPM strategies, they can significantly reduce FAW damage to 54
% while minimizing environmental harm. (Assefa, 2018).in this approach different colour
and types of traps are installed to FAW in 1.5 height is to be most effective (Tanyi et
al.,2022).

1.8.2Cultural control Approach

In this method worldwide different types of cultural practices were used to kept the damage
level of FAW minimum at Field level in famers. the researcher mixed different types of
chemicals with sand and ash and in small scale in famers in Africa and found effective while
in other hand by changing sowing dates as wells as Nutrition level and irrigation timing, crop
rotation has a very common effect on pest managements observed (Sharma etal.,2022;
FAO,2019).

1.8.3 Chemical control approach

Different types and group of insecticides was used worldwide against the key pest including,
methyl parathion, methomyl, pyrethroids, organophosphate insecticide, and cyfluthrin and
botanical oil, Neem oil, tobacco leaf extract, citronella oil were tested by researcher at
laboratory and Field level and efficient results were observed (Mumtaz etal., 2022; Badhai et
al., 2020 ).

1.8.4 Bio -agent or biological control agent application approach

Different bio agent such virus, fungi and Nematodes has been used for the reduction of FAW
infestation at different stages of FAW in maize field (Ali et al., 2021b; Tabbasum et al.,
2022; Kanedi et al., 2023). The bio-agent Trichogramma species (Hymenoptera: Tricho
grammatidae): has used against FAW is effective but its required skilful person, timing,
dosage, and field application techniques, as mismanagement can reduce efficacy
(Abbas ,2022; Navik etal.,2023).

1.9 Integrated approach against Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera

frugiperda)

Worldwide various strategies have been applied, including push-

full methods and cultural control practices against the novel pest Fall
Armyworm, as previously reported in field crops (Hailu et al.,
2021).However, biological control strategies, having used bio control
agent, are their component like Trichogramma spp, Telenomus spp for
the effective methodology have been employed , the other important
component of IPM (integrated pest management ), botanical and bio-
pesticides for effective IPM have been also tested and are better options
for FAW control (Anyanda et al., 2022). However, it has been noted that
many of these products are often unreachable and highly priced, limiting
small farmers' access to these products in Pakistan. Each of these
management’s techniques options has its limitations when used in
isolation. Therefore, an integrated approach is the best choice for
effective management and control strategies against pest Fall Armyworm.

Limited information is available in Pakistan regarding the developmental

biology, biotic potential, and life history, and various parameters of the
novel pest, Spodoptera frugiperda, which feeds on diverse plant species.
To address this knowledge gap, this study aims to fulfill the following
objectives:

Objectives
1. To evaluate different hybrid and open pollinated maize varieties
against Fall Armyworm.
2. To investigate how weather patterns and sowing dates affect Fall
Armyworm population dynamics in Swat.
3. Studying Lure-Based Attractants in Traps for Fall Armyworm Moth
management.
4. To assess the effectiveness of chemical insecticides (Laboratory
bioassay and Field applications) against Fall Armyworm in maize.
5. Development of an IPM module for management of Fall Armyworm
in maize crop.

REFERENCES
Abbas, A., F. Ullah, M.Hafeez, X.Han, M.Z.N. Dara, H. Gul and C.R. Zhao.2022.
Biological control of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Agronomy, 12(11):
2704.

Ayra-Pardo, C., S. Huang, Y. Kan, and D.J. Wright. 2021. Impact of invasive fall
armyworm on plant and arthropod communities and implications for crop protection.
Intern. J. Pest. Management, 1-12.

Abid, S., I. Raza, A. Khalil, M.N. Khan, S. Anwar and M.A. Masood.
2014.Trend analysis and forecasting of maize area and production
in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Pakistan. Euro. Academic. Research, 2(4):
4653- 4664.

Adhikari, K., S. Bhandari, L. Dhakal and J. Shrestha. 2020. Fall Armyworm

(Spodoptera frugiperda): A threat in crop production in Africa and
Asia. Peruvian.J.Agron. Europe, 4(3):121-133.

Ali, A., M.A. Zeshan, M. Mehtab, S.Khursheed, M. Mudasir, M. Abid and A. Tahir. 2021b.
A comprehensive note on Trichoderma as a potential biocontrol agent against soil
borne fungal pathogens: a review. Plant Protection, 5(3): 171-196.

Ali, A., M.A. Zeshan, Y. Iftikhar, M.U. Ghani,M.A. Anjum and M. Amin 2021. Biophysical
properties of Sugarcane Mosaic Virus (SCMV) and its management. Journal of Pure
and applied Agriculture, 6(1): 64-72. http://jpaa.aiou.edu.pk/.

Anyanda, G. N., A.Y.Bruce, D. Makumbi, M.Ahonsi, R.Kahuthia-Gathu,S.E. Namikoye

and B.M.Prasanna. 2022. Reproductive potential of Fall Armyworm Spodoptera
frugiperda (JE Smith) and effects of feeding on diverse maize genotypes
under artificial infestation. Frontiers in Insect. Science, 2: 950815

Arshad , A., A. Munawar, F. Ahmad and M.I.Mastoi. 2019. Varietal

susceptibility of local and hybrid maize against Atherigona soccata
(Diptera: Muscidae) under field conditions. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud.
7: 36–41

Aruna, B., M.Bhaskar,P. Bagade andN. Rawal.2019. Yield losses in maize (Zea mays) due
to fall armyworm infestation and potential IoT-based interventions for its control. J.
Entomol. a Zool. Studies, 7 (5), 920-927

Assefa, F. 2018. Status of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda), biology and control
measures on maize crop in Ethiopia: a review. International Journal of
Entomological Research, 6(2), 75-85. https://doi.org/10.33687/entomol.006.02.2498.
Awika, J. M., 2011. Major cereal grains production and use around the world. In
Advances in cereal science: implications to food processing and health
promotion (pp. 1-13) American Chemical Society

Badhai, S., A.K.Gupta and B. Koiri. 2020. Integrated management of fall armyworm
(Spodoptera frugiperda) in maize crop. Reviews in Food and Agriculture, 1(1), 27-
29. http://doi.org/10.26480/rfna.01.2020.27.29

Bangash, A. U. J., 2020. Managing the agricultural sector through

Muzara’ah: Implementing an Islamic economic participatory mode
of financing. Int. J. Is. Bus and Manag. 4(1): 27-42.

Bangash, S.2012. Socio-economic conditions of post-conflict Swat. A critical appraisal. J.

Peace Dev., 2, 66–79.

Barros, E. M., J.B.Torres, J.R.Ruberson and M.D.

Oliveira.2010.Development of Spodoptera frugiperda on different
hosts and damage to reproductive structures in cotton.Entomologia
Experimentalis et Applicata, 137(3): 237–245.

Berg,V.D., C. Britz and H.D.Plesis 2021.Maize Yield Response to Chemical

Control of Spodoptera frugiperda at Different Plant Growth Stages
in South Africa, Agriculture 11(9):826

Birhanu Sisay , B., T.Tefera , M. Wakgari , G. Ayalew and E. Mendesil .2019. The
Efficacy of Selected Synthetic Insecticides and Botanicals against Fall
Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, in Maize.Insects.10(2): 45.

CABI.2020. Spodoptera frugiperda (fall armyworm). Invasive Species Compendium.

Retrived from: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/29810

Dahri, Z.H., B. Ahmad, L.H. Leach and S. Ahmad.2011. Satellite-based snow cover
distribution and associated snowmelt runoff modeling in Swat River Basin of
Pakistan. Proc. Pak. Acad. Sci. 48, 19–32.

Day, R., P. Abrahams, M. Bateman, T.Beale, V. Clottey, M.Cock and J. Godwin,2017.

Fall armyworm: Impacts and implications for Africa. Outlooks on Pest
Management, 28(5), 196–201.https://doi.org/10.1564/v28_oct_02

Deshmukh, S. S., B.M.Prasanna,C.M. Kalleshwaraswamy, J.Jaba and

B.Choudhary.2021. Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda).
Polyphagous pests of crops, 349-372.

Erenstein, O. 2010., The evolving maize sector in Asia: Challenges and

opportunities. J. New Seeds, 11(1):1-15.
Food and Agriculture Organization. 2019.The Global status of Fall
Armyworm and its spread in Asia.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.2023. FAOSTAT:

Crops. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/faostat/

Gilal, A. A., L.Bashir, M.Faheem, A.Rajput, J.A. Soomro,S. Kunbhar and

J.G.M. Sahito. 2020.First record of invasive Fall Armyworm
(Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith)(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)) in corn
fields of Sindh, Pakistan. Pak. J. Agri.Rese, 33(2): 247-252.

Hailu, G., S.Niassy, T.Bässler, N.Ochatum, C.Studer, D.Salifu and S.Subramanian.2021.

Could fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) invasion in Africa
contribute to the displacement of cereal stem borers in maize and sorghum cropping
systems. Intern. J. Tropical Insect Science, 41(2):1753-1762.

Kanedi, M. 2023. Larvicide effects of Bacillus sp isolated from soil against fall armyworm
Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). GSC Biological and
Pharmaceutical Sciences, 22(03): 028-034.

Kenis, M., G.Benelli, A.Biondi, P.A.Calatayud, R.Day, N.Desneux and

K.Wu. 2022. Invasiveness, biology, ecology, and management of
the Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Entomo. Generalis.43
(2):187-241.

Kennett, D. J., K.M.Prufer, B.J.Culleton,R.J. George, M.Robinson, W.R.

Trask and S.M.Gutierrez. 2020.Early isotopic evidence for maize as
a staple grain in the Americas. Science Advances, 6 (23):
eaba3245.

Kergoat, G. J., D.P. Prowell, B.P.Le Ru, A.Mitchell, P.Dumas, A.L. Clamens
and J.F.Silvain,. 2012. Disentangling dispersal, vicariance and
adaptive radiation patterns: a case study using armyworms in the
pest genus Spodoptera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution, 65(3): 855-870.

Khan, H. A., Ali, N, M.U. Farooq,N. Asif,T.A. Gill and U. Khalique. 2020.First
authentic report of Fall Armyworm presence in Faisalabad Pakistan.
J. Entomol .Zool Stud, 8(4): 1512-1514.

Khan, S. R., S.R. Khan.2009. Assessing poverty deforestation links: Evidence from Swat,
Pakistan. Ecological Economics, 68(10): 2607-2618.

Ministry of National Food Security & Research Government of Pakistan

 and Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan, 2021-2022.Islamabad
Pakistan.

Montezano, D. G., A. Specht, D. R. Sosa Gómez, V.F. Roque-Specht, J. C. Sousa Silva,

S.V. Paula-Moraes, J. A. Peterson and T. E. Hunt. 2018. Host plants of Spodoptera
frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Americas. African Entomol.26(2): 286
300

Muhammd, N., M.Ashiq, A. Gaffar, A.Sattar and M. Arshad.

2012.Comparative efficacy of new herbicides for weed control in
maize (Zea mays L.). Pak. J. Weed.Sci. Research, 18 (2).

Mumtaz, H., M.Z. Majeed, M . Afzal, M . Arshad, A.Mehmood and M.Qasim.

2022. The efficacy of selected synthetic insecticide formulations
against fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) under
laboratory, semi-field and field conditions. Pak.J. Zool, 56(1): 147-
155.

Navik, O., Y.Yele,S.C. Kedar and S.N. Sushil.2023. Biological control of fall armyworm
Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) using egg parasitoids, Trichogramma species
(Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae): a review. Egypt. J. Biolog. Pest Control, 33(1):
118.

Oliveira,C. M., A.M.Auad, S.M. Mendes and M.R Frizzas.2014.Crop losses

and the economic impact of insect pests on Brazilian agriculture.
Crop Protection (Guildford, Surrey), 56: 50–54.

Pakistan Economics survey .2023-24. Finance division government of

Pakistan. Chapter .02 Agriculture page 23. maize. Pest.Sci.94:1075-1089.

Pogue, M. G. 2002.A world revision of the genus Spodoptera Guenée

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Memoires of the American Entomological
Society, 43, 1–202.

Rafique M., A. Hussain. Mahmood, A.W. Alvi and M.B Alvi .2004. Heritability and
interrelationships among grain yield and yield components in maize (Zea mays L.).
Int’l J Agric and Biol 6(6): 1113-1114.

Sharma,S. , S. Tiwari , R. B. Thapa , S. Pokhrel and S. Neupane .2022. Laboratory bioassay

of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) larva using various insecticides. J. Agri.
Forest.University.5,133-138.

Shiferaw, B., B.M.Prasanna, J.Hellin and M.Bänziger. 2011. Crops that

feed the world six. Past successes and future challenges to the role
 played by maize in global food security. Food security, 3:307-327.

Tanyi, C. B., T.E.Njock and N.N. Ntonifor.2022.Potential of indigenous low- cost lures for
monitoring and as a component of integrated management of fall armyworm
Spodoptera frugiperda. Research square.DOI:doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1631013/v1

Tabbasum, I., A.Ali, U. Shafique, I. Bibi,B. Khalid, N. Ijaz and M.U. Naseer.2022.
Role of endophytic fungal species in plant growth promotion and in sustainable
agricultural productions: a review. The J. Microb. Molecular Genetics, 3(1):1-21.

Tariq, M. and H . Iqbal. 2010.Maize in Pakistan–an overview. Agric. and

Natural Resources, 44(5):757-763.

Uddin, I., S. Shah, S. Khan and Z. Khan.2021. An economic study on maize production in
some selected areas of Swat District. Economic consultant, 33 (1): 25-39.

Wu, P., F.Wu, J.Fan, and R. Zhang. 2021. Potential economic impact of
invasive Fall Armyworm on mainly affected crops in China. J. Pest.
Sci, 94(4):1065–1073.