Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:06:56.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Demographic analysis and biotic potential of Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on pea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2024

Shubham Sharma Open the ORCID record for Shubham Sharma [Opens in a new window] ,
Prem Lal Sharma ,
Prajjval Sharma Open the ORCID record for Prajjval Sharma [Opens in a new window] ,
Subhash Chander Verma ,
Nidhi Sharma Open the ORCID record for Nidhi Sharma [Opens in a new window]  and
Priyanka Sharma Open the ORCID record for Priyanka Sharma [Opens in a new window]
Shubham Sharma
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Dr YS Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, HP 173230, India
Prem Lal Sharma
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Dr YS Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, HP 173230, India
Prajjval Sharma*
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Dr YS Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, HP 173230, India
Subhash Chander Verma
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Dr YS Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, HP 173230, India
Nidhi Sharma
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Dr YS Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, HP 173230, India
Priyanka Sharma
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Dr YS Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, HP 173230, India
*
Corresponding author: Prajjval Sharma; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The fall armyworm (FAW), Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is a highly destructive polyphagous pest that primarily damages maize. Maize is considered a most versatile crop for growing intercrops due to the wide row it needs. Maize–pea intercropping is preferred by small and marginal farmers worldwide due to various advantages including higher yield and improved economic benefits. However, the success of this intercropping system may be hampered if pea could sustain the FAW population. Thus, to clarify the fitness and potential effect of S. frugiperda on pea, we analysed the survival and development of S. frugiperda fed on pea leaves in the laboratory and constructed age-stage and two-sex life tables. Results showed that FAW successfully completed its life cycle when fed on pea and produced fertile offspring. The pre-adult duration was significantly higher on pea than maize. The net reproductive rate, intrinsic and finite rate of population increase on pea (135.06 offspring per individual, 0.12 offspring per individual per day and 1.13 times per day) were all significantly different from those on maize (417.64 offspring per individual, 0.19 offspring per individual per day and 1.21 times per day). The probability of survival of S. frugiperda at each stage was lower when fed on pea leaves than that of maize-fed larvae. Due to the overlapping growth periods of the maize and pea, S. frugiperda can easily proliferate throughout the year by shifting between adjacent crops. Thus, this study revealed the adaptability of S. frugiperda for pea and provides the foundation for further assessment of FAW risk to other inter-crops.

Keywords

fall armywormpeapopulation parameterspopulation projectiontwo-sex life table
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 114 , Issue 4 , August 2024 , pp. 514 - 523
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

The fall armyworm (FAW), Spodoptera frugiperda, formerly known as Laphygma frugiperda (Smith and Abbott), is a serious pest of maize native to tropical and subtropical regions of the Americas since 1797 (Goergen et al., Reference Goergen, Kumar, Sankung, Togola and Tamo2016; Rwomushana, Reference Rwomushana2019). However, in 2016, it invaded Africa and abruptly advanced throughout most African countries and later in Asia. In India, this alarming pest was detected first time in 2018 in Karnataka and has now been spread to almost all the maize-growing states (Sharanabasappa et al., Reference Sharanabasappa, Kalleshwaraswamy, Asokan, Mahadeva, Swamv, Maruthi, Pavithra, Hegde, Navi, Prabhu and Goergen2018). According to a preliminary calculation, FAW was expected to affect about 170,000 ha of maize crops in ten Indian states (Sangomla and Kukreti, Reference Sangomla and Kukreti2023). The prolificacy of S. frugiperda (egg masses usually contain hundreds of eggs) and its potentiality to emigrate long distances are the two peculiar traits that facilitated it to invade more than 80 countries worldwide (Wu et al., Reference Wu, Zhang, Liu, Cheng, Su, Sappington and Jiang2022).

FAW is known to infest more than 353 plants belonging to 76 different families; mostly under Poaceae followed by Asteraceae and Fabaceae (Montezano et al., Reference Montezano, Specht, Sosa-Gomez, Roque-Specht, Sousa-Silva, Paula-Moraes, Peterson and Hunt2018), implicating that polyphagy can enable it to develop or sustain populations outside of the primary cropping areas or cropping season imparting larger pest pressure. This wider host range of FAW in comparison to other congeneric species like Spodoptera cosmioides (Walker), Spodoptera eridania (Stoll), Spodoptera albula (Walker) and Spodoptera dolichos (Fabricius) (Montezano et al., Reference Montezano, Specht and Bbarros2014; Specht and Roque-Specht, Reference Specht and Roque-Specht2016) has entitled it to the distinction of an invasive species. Although FAW larvae have a decided preference for grasses such as maize and sorghum (its main hosts), various other crops including weeds are also attacked. Spodoptera frugiperda has been reported to feed in large numbers on the leaves, stems and reproductive parts of Solanum lycopersicum Mill. (Tietz, Reference Tietz1972), Capsicum annum L. (Casmuz et al., Reference Casmuz, Juarez, Socias, Murua, Prieto, Medina and Gastaminza2010), Brassica oleracea var. capitata L., Zingiber officinale Roscoe, Citrus sinensis L. Osbeck, Prunus persica L. Batsch, Fragaria ananassa Duchesne, Abelmoschus esculentus L. Moench, Solanum tuberosum L. etc. (Rwomushana, Reference Rwomushana2019). The potential of FAW to sustain on both crop and non-crop plants including weeds enables it to maintain the population year-round (Montezano et al., Reference Montezano, Specht, Sosa-Gomez, Roque-Specht, Sousa-Silva, Paula-Moraes, Peterson and Hunt2018).

India is a tropical country that favours rapid reproduction and multiplication of FAW. The peak activity period of FAW is from July to September in India, thus becoming a major threat to the Kharif maize crop. To escape excess rainfalls and higher incidence of insects in Kharif season, maize is also cultivated in Rabi season in different parts of the country. However, various studies have reported cold hardiness in stages of FAW resulting in damage to winter crops which in turn can empower FAW to sustain throughout the year (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Zhao, Wu, Li and Wu2021; Vatanparast and Park, Reference Vatanparast and Park2022; Qi et al., Reference Qi, Hong, Chen and Liang2024). Consequently, when Kharif maize is absent, FAW being a polyphagous pest may shift to crops in succession after Kharif maize or to other inter-crops. Maize–pea intercropping is widely practiced worldwide including India, due to the complementary use of N sources by intercropping with legumes (Aulakh, Reference Aulakh2020). However, information on the host susceptibility of S. frugiperda to companion plants like pea in the intercropping system and crops grown in succession is lacking. Such knowledge is requisite to assess the biotic potential of S. frugiperda on different crops at risk. Life tables provide comprehensive information on the insect population dynamics and their fitness by including all life-history parameters and reproduction of both sexes (Huang et al., Reference Huang, Chi and Smith2017; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Guo, Gao, He, Bai, Zhang and Wang2020). In this study, we assessed the life table data of FAW reared on pea and analysed the population fitness. Our research aimed to provide comprehensive knowledge about the FAW population growth and possible damage to pea with the objective of providing helpful information for the application of fruitful FAW management tactics in the newly FAW-invaded agricultural ecosystems.

Materials and methods

Insect

FAW larvae were field-collected in Experimental Farm, Department of Entomology Dr YS Parmar University and Forestry, Nauni, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, India (1275 m amsl; 31.28oN; 76.94oE), and reared in the laboratory at 25 ± 0.5°C, 70 ± 5% RH and 14L:10D photoperiod. The pest was raised on the respective host for one generation before being used in the experiments.

Host plant raising

Maize (Zea mays L. var. Early Composite) and pea (Pisum sativum var. sativum L. var. Azad P-1) plants were grown as per the standard package of practices at the experimental farm of the Department of Entomology. Due to the different growth cycles of plant species, 25-day-old maize and 35-day-old pea leaves were used to feed S. frugiperda larvae.

Larval feeding trials

The trials were performed in Biological Control Research Laboratory of the Department of Entomology, Dr YS Parmar University and Forestry, Nauni, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, India at 25 ± 0.5°C, 70 ± 5% RH and 14L:10D photoperiod. Newly emerged adults obtained from mass culture were paired and placed in separate plastic cylindrical containers covered with nylon mesh on one side (150 × 150). Ten egg masses (one from each container) laid on host leaves within 24 h period were randomly selected. Ten eggs were then randomly picked from each egg mass. The neonate larvae hatched from selected 100 eggs were reared individually on the test host plants in Petri plates (100 mm). Petri plates with fresh leaves were changed daily to ensure sufficient food for larvae. The larval development and survival were recorded until death, pupation or pupal emergence. Newly eclosed adults were kept in pairs in plastic cylindrical containers (1L) covered on one side with nylon mesh (150 × 150). All adults were fed daily with 30% (v/v) honey solution in cotton swabs. FAW adults that mated successfully included 20 pairs that were fed with maize, and 14 pairs that were fed with pea. Each pair was offered with host leaves as a substrate for oviposition. Observations on the duration of different developmental stages, adult longevity, pre-oviposition and oviposition periods, fecundity and sex ratio were recorded.

Life table analysis

Life tables of S. frugiperda reared on maize and pea leaves were constructed and analysed based on the age-stage, two-sex life table theory using the TWOSEX-MSChart program (Chi, Reference Chi2022b).

The age-stage survival rate (sxj, probability that a newly laid egg can survive to age x and stage j) and age-stage specific fecundity (fxj, number of eggs produced by female adult at age x) were computed. These parameters accurately illustrate the biological characteristics of S. frugiperda. The age-specific survival rate (lx) and age-specific fecundity (mx) were calculated as:

$$l_x = \mathop \sum \limits_{\,j = 1}^m s_{xj}$$
$$m_x = \displaystyle{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{\,j = 1}^m s_{xj}f_{xj}} \over {l_x}}$$

where m is the number of stages.

The gross reproductive rate (GRR) was calculated as:

$$GRR = \mathop \sum \limits_{x = 0}^\infty m_x$$

The net reproductive rate (R 0), defined as the rate of multiplication of the population in a generation, represented in terms of number of offspring produced per generation was calculated as summation of the product of lx and mx, i.e.

$$R_0 = \mathop \sum \limits_{x = 0}^\infty \mathop \sum \limits_{\,j = 1}^m s_{xj}f_{xj}$$
$$ = \mathop \sum \limits_{x = 0}^\infty l_xm_x$$

The true intrinsic rate of increase (r) is the number of offspring produced by an individual in a day (offspring per individual per day) and was calculated by using the Lotka–Euler equation:

$$\mathop \sum \limits_{x = 0}^\infty e^{{-}r( {x + 1} ) }l_xm_x = 1$$

The mean generation time (T) is defined as the time period required by a population to increase to R 0-fold of its size as time approaches infinity and population settles down to a stable age-stage distribution and was calculated by:

$$T = \displaystyle{{lnR_0} \over r}$$

The finite rate of increase (λ) is the rate of multiplication of population in a day (times per day) and was calculated as:

$$\lambda = e^r$$

The doubling time (DT), the time required by a population to double its size, was calculated by the formula:

$$DT = {{ln2} \over r}$$

Age-stage-specific life expectancy (exj) is the time that an individual of age x and stage j is predicted to live. It was calculated by the formula:

$$e_{xj} = \mathop \sum \limits_{i = x}^\infty \mathop \sum \limits_{y = j}^m {s}^{\prime}_{iy}$$

where, s'iy = probability that an individual of age x and stage j can survive to age i and stage y assuming s'xj = 1.

Age-specific reproductive value (vxj), the contribution of an individual of age x and stage j to the future population, was calculated by the formula:

$$v_{xj} = \displaystyle{{e^{r( {x + 1} ) }} \over {s_{xj}}}\mathop \sum \limits_{i = x}^\infty e^{{-}r( {i + 1} ) }\mathop \sum \limits_{y = j}^m s^{\prime}_{iy}f_{iy}$$

The life table parameters for the two host treatments were estimated using the bootstrap technique with 100,000 resampled data for calculating the means and standard error of population parameters. The differences in population parameters, development duration and reproductive values among host plants were compared using the paired bootstrap test in the program of TWOSEX-MSChart (P < 0.05).

Population projection of Spodoptera frugiperda

The life table data for S. frugiperda reared on maize and pea were used to project the population growth and its uncertainty to elucidate the predicted population size using the computer program TIMING-MSChart (Chi, Reference Chi2022a). The population growth for 200 days was projected for an initial population of ten eggs. The results of the 100,000 bootstrap sampling of the intrinsic rate of increase (r) obtained in the previous section were sorted to find the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the sorted bootstrap samples. We then utilised the bootstrap life table samples that generated the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the intrinsic rate of increase (r) to project the population growth. The results indicate the confidence interval of the population.

Results

Developmental biology, reproduction and life table of Spodoptera frugiperda

Spodoptera frugiperda successfully completed its life cycle by feeding on pea leaves. The developmental duration of each larval instar, prepupal and pupal stage of S. frugiperda fed on pea leaves was significantly longer than that on maize leaves (table 1). The female longevity, male longevity and adult preoviposition period (APOP) were significantly higher on maize than on pea. The mean fecundity of S. frugiperda on maize (1265.58 eggs per female) and pea (710.84 eggs per female) was significantly different (table 2). The survival rate from egg stage to adult female and male was 33 and 20% on maize, and 19 and 14% on pea, with a sex ratio of 1.65:1 and 1.36:1, respectively (table 2; fig. 1).

Table 1. Developmental biology of Spodoptera frugiperda on maize and pea

Means in the row with different alphabetical superscript differ significantly by the paired bootstrap test (P < 0.05).

Table 2. Population growth parameters of Spodoptera frugiperda on maize and pea

Means in the row with different alphabetical superscript differ significantly by the paired bootstrap test (P < 0.05).

Figure 1. Age-stage-specific survival rate (sxj) of the Spodoptera frugiperda reared on maize and pea.

The age-stage-specific survival rate (sxj) of S. frugiperda is shown in fig. 1. Due to the variation in developmental rates among individuals as well as between sexes, there was overlapping between different stages. The survival rate of the sixth larval instar and pupa was much higher on maize (61 and 57%, respectively) than on pea (45 and 39%, respectively). The number of eggs laid by adult female at age x is shown as fx in fig. 2. The fx of S. frugiperda fed on maize and pea increased initially before declining, and peaked on the 31st and 41st days, respectively. The curve of lx is a simplified version of the curves of sxj. The lx curve of S. frugiperda fed on maize significantly decreased from 35th day, and its survival rate decreased to zero by 43rd day, whereas the age-specific survival rate of S. frugiperda fed on pea leaves dropped rapidly from 42nd day, and by 48th day, it had dropped to zero (fig. 2).

Figure 2. Age-specific survival rate (lx), female age-specific fecundity (fx), age-specific fecundity of the total population (mx) and age-specific maternity (lxmx) of the Spodoptera frugiperda reared on maize and pea.

The age-stage-specific life expectancy (exj) explains the future expected life duration of an individual of age x and stage j (fig. 3). The life expectancies of newly laid eggs (e 01) were 25.01 and 23.04 days on maize and pea, respectively. The exj of adult females fell from 15.70 on maize to 11.11 days on pea, while the maximum exj of adult males, 15.74 days, was observed on maize, but decreased to 10.21 days on pea (fig. 3).

Figure 3. Age-stage-specific life expectancy (exj) of the Spodoptera frugiperda reared on maize and pea.

The reproductive value (vxj) shows the contribution of an individual of age x and stage j to the future population (fig. 4). After the emergence of adult females of S. frugiperda at 23 and 34 days on maize and pea, the vxj jumped to 280.79 and 330.06 eggs, respectively, while the peak vxj occurred at 29 days (728.41 eggs) and 38 days (514.88 eggs) on maize and pea, respectively. The duration of vxj of female adults was 16 days on maize whereas it was 12 days on pea (fig. 4).

Figure 4. Age-stage-specific reproductive value (vxj) of the Spodoptera frugiperda reared on maize and pea.

Population parameters of Spodoptera frugiperda

The population growth parameters of S. frugiperda were significantly influenced by the host plant. The net reproductive rate (R 0) of FAW reared on maize (417.64 offspring per individual) was significantly higher than that of FAW reared on pea (135.06 offspring per individual). Feeding on maize achieved higher values of intrinsic rate of increase (r), finite rate of increase (λ) than feeding on pea (table 2). Since the r and λ values on both crops were greater than 0 and 1, respectively, it implies that S. frugiperda can successfully sustain its population both on maize and pea. The λ values of the pea-fed populations and maize-fed populations of S. frugiperda indicate that the two populations grew continuously and geometrically at the rates of 1.13- and 1.21-fold per day, respectively. Contrarily, the mean generation time (T) of pea-fed populations (41.5 days) was 1.29 times that of maize-fed populations (31.14 days). The doubling time (DT) was significantly longer when FAW was fed on pea, while the gross reproductive rate (GRR) was significantly higher on maize (799.48 offspring per individual) than pea (455.2 offspring per individual) (table 2).

Population projection of Spodoptera frugiperda

The population projection showed that S. frugiperda reared on maize would grow faster than on pea (fig. 5). In the simulation period of 200 days, the total population size on log scale was higher on maize (16.53), than on pea (9.96). Beginning with ten eggs, the population fed on maize was expected to go through six generations, while five generations on pea. As the age-stage, two-sex life table can express the stage differentiation; the development of each life stage can be noticed (fig. 6). Figure 7 describes the growth and dynamics of each life stage of S. frugiperda in a logarithmic scale. The positive rate demonstrates an increase of a stage from time t to t + 1, and the negative rate indicates a decrease in stage size. The intrinsic rate of increase (r) displays the multiplication potential of a population under ideal conditions when the population approaches stable age-stage distribution. The curves of the stage-specific growth rates of S. frugiperda raised on maize leaves approached the intrinsic rate of increase in 200 days. Alternatively, the population growths of S. frugiperda on maize and pea were highly uncertain; this could be attributed to variations in developmental speed and fertility among individuals. The variability of population growth was projected by using life tables from the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the intrinsic rate of increase (fig. 5).

Figure 5. Total population size of the Spodoptera frugiperda projected by using life tables of 0.975 and 0.025 percentiles of intrinsic rate on increase (r) on maize and pea with an initial population of ten eggs.

Figure 6. Population projection of Spodoptera frugiperda reared on maize and pea with an initial population of ten eggs.

Figure 7. Stage growth rate of Spodoptera frugiperda reared on maize and pea with an initial population of ten eggs.

Discussion

Nutrition has a major role in the development of insect herbivores, and the resources acquired during development translate to resource allocation among key life history traits throughout an individual's life (Nestel et al., Reference Nestel, Papadopoulos, Pascacio-Villafan, Righini, Altuzar-Molina and Aluja2016). Larval-derived dietary reserves are crucial in affecting insects’ adult fitness (Salgado and Saastamoinen, Reference Salgado and Saastamoinen2019). Because of the diversified range of hosts, many pests including FAW are successfully flourishing not only during the crop development period but also over the off-season (Moraes et al., Reference Moraes, Ferreira Da Silva, Leite, Karam and Mendes2020). As FAW has been reported to damage a variety of plants, only certain plant species can support its complete development, e.g. maize, sorghum, sugarcane, potato, cotton etc. (Barros et al., Reference Barros, Torres, Ruberson and Oliveira2010; Maruthadurai and Ramesh, Reference Maruthadurai and Ramesh2020; Zhou et al., Reference Zhou, Qin, Wang, Zheng and Lu2022) while other plant species may not support complete development of S. frugiperda but may still be utilised by larvae or adults for feeding and oviposition, e.g. cabbage, eggplant and Coix (Liu et al., Reference Liu, Wang and Zhong2019; Zou and Yang, Reference Zou and Yang2019; Zhou et al., Reference Zhou, Li, Su, Wang, Zheng and Lu2020). The results of the present study revealed that S. frugiperda can complete its life cycle on pea, suggesting that pea is an alternative host plant for this insect.

The longer developmental duration, higher survival rate, higher fecundity and other population growth parameters of FAW on maize observed in the present study suggest that maize is a highly susceptible host plant compared to pea. However, the biotic potential of S. frugiperda noted on pea in the present study corroborates with previous studies carried out on its favoured hosts. For instance, the larval duration of FAW reared on pea leaves (20.36 days) is similar to that reported when reared on sorghum (19.4 days), soybean (16.65 days), tomato (21.23 days) and cotton (22.81 days) (Wang et al., Reference Wang, He, Zhang, Liu, Jing and Zhang2020; He et al., Reference He, Wang, Chen, Ge, Wyckhuys and Wu2021; Li-hong et al., Reference Li-Hong, Cao, Gui-Yun, Xi-Bin, Zhi-Yan, Hong and Chao-Xing2021). This varying offspring performance of FAW can be due to the differences in larval food utilisation efficiency. El-Shennawy et al. (Reference El-Shennawy, Sabra and Kandil2022) also recorded a low larval mortality, high growth rate and fast development time of FAW when reared on pea indicating that nutritional contents of pea are suitable for its growth and development. The female adult longevity of S. frugiperda in the present study is 9.79 days on pea which is comparable with that reported when raised on soybean (9.33 days) (Wang et al., Reference Wang, He, Zhang, Liu, Jing and Zhang2020). Certainly, differences in the type of food ingested have a major impact on the development of herbivorous insect larvae and on the reproduction of adults even under the similar conditions, which in turn governs the change trend of the entire insect population. When reared on pea leaves, FAW females started oviposition after 4 days of emergence and continued to oviposit for 3.95 days. However, Wang et al. (Reference Wang, He, Zhang, Liu, Jing and Zhang2020) reported an APOP of 2.89 days and 7.22 oviposition days when reared on maize. The fecundity of S. frugiperda reared on pea in the present study was 710.84 eggs per female which is in accordance with that reported when fed with maize leaves (955.62 eggs per female), rice leaves (590.77 eggs per female) (Acharya et al., Reference Acharya, Malekera, Dhungana, Sharma and Lee2022) and cotton leaves (803.51 eggs per female) (Wang et al., Reference Wang, He, Zhang, Liu, Jing and Zhang2020). Similarly, El-Shennawy et al. (Reference El-Shennawy, Sabra and Kandil2022) reported a fecundity of 880.67 eggs per female when reared on pea. The population growth parameters of S. frugiperda recorded in pea are similar to the previous studies, on its preferred hosts. The net reproductive rate of FAW on maize was recorded to be 134.43 offspring per individual (He et al., Reference He, Wang, Chen, Ge, Wyckhuys and Wu2021), 114.59 offspring per individual, 172.23 offspring per individual at 20 and 25°C, respectively (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Chen, Yang and Liu2022), which are in line with the present study (135.06 offspring per individual). The r and λ of the FAW in the current study were greater than 0 and 1, respectively, which indicates that pea could also be a potential host crop for this pest.

Population projections drawn on the basis of life table rates display the stage structure and damage potential of a pest population. As intercropping maize with legumes including pea is a common practice, when egg masses are laid by S. frugiperda on maize, their offspring can transfer to adjacent legume fields. Although the early larval development of FAW occurs on maize, later instars are capable of moving to legume fields after attacking maize. Furthermore, the damage to peas in a maize/pea intercropping system may be more severe than that in single cropping systems of peas, as per the observations of damage in a sugarcane–maize intercropping system (Tai et al., Reference Tai, Guo, Yang, Zhang, Liu, Yang, Song, Xia, He, Lin and Wang2019). Davidson-Lowe et al. (Reference Davidson-Lowe, Ray, Murrell, Kaye and Ali2021) studied the performance and behaviour of FAW larvae on maize grown after different cover crops including pea. FAW larvae oriented more frequently towards maize plants grown in soil after radish and pea cover crops and had 90.4% higher weight when fed on maize grown after pea than triticale. Additionally, the emission of volatile organic compounds and total soil inorganic nitrogen was highest in maize plants grown after pea; resulting in attraction of FAW larvae to maize plants grown after pea. Various other studies have also shown the positive correlation between nitrogen availability and volatile terpene emissions leading to increased herbivore attractiveness to plants grown under increased nitrogen availability (Ormeño et al., Reference Ormeño, Goldstein and Niinemets2011; Ormeño and Fernandez, Reference Ormeño and Fernandez2012).

In India, Rabi maize has emerged as an important crop in the non-traditional areas widely planted in October–November, and pea is also planted in October–December as sole or inter-crop, resulting in an overlap of these crops. Moreover, many other suitable host plants, e.g. soybean, sorghum, rice, vegetable crops, etc., are commonly grown in India all year round. The presence of these alternate hosts could be the reason for S. frugiperda outbreaks occurring annually in maize fields. Assessing the impact of different host plant species on the bio-ecology of insect pests is critical for their management. The high population growth potential of S. frugiperda on pea observed in this study showed the suitability of this pest in sustaining FAW population. As shown in the present study, life table studies provide the most extensive understanding of the stage differentiation, reproduction and survival of pest populations. These findings provide a strong scientific foundation for formulating an effective and timely integrated pest management programme for managing S. frugiperda.

Data availability

The datasets created during and/or examined during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Author contributions

Shubham Sharma: writing, investigation and methodology; Prem Lal Sharma: supervision and editing; Prajjval Sharma: investigation, writing – review and data analysis; Subhash Chander Verma: supervision and editing; Nidhi Sharma: supervision and formal analysis; Priyanka Sharma: formal analysis. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Financial support

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This research did not involve any human participants and/or animals, other than the Spodoptera frugiperda.

References

Acharya, R, Malekera, MJ, Dhungana, SK, Sharma, SR and Lee, KY (2022) Impact of rice and potato host plants is higher on the reproduction than growth of corn strain fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insects 13, 256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aulakh, G (2020) Studies on intercropping of maize (Zea mays L.) with pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotype. Indian Journal of Ecology 46, 354–357.Google Scholar
Barros, EM, Torres, JB, Ruberson, JR and Oliveira, MD (2010) Development of Spodoptera frugiperda on different hosts and damage to reproductive structures in cotton. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 137, 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casmuz, A, Juarez, ML, Socias, MG, Murua, MG, Prieto, S, Medina, S and Gastaminza, WE (2010) Revision de loshospederos del gusanocogollero del maiz, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Revista de La Sociedad Entomologica Argentina 69, 209–231.Google Scholar
Chen, Y, Guo, J, Gao, Z, He, K, Bai, S, Zhang, T and Wang, Z (2020) Performance of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) fed on six host plants: potential risks to mid-high latitude crops in China. Journal of Agricultural Science 12, 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, YC, Chen, DF, Yang, MF and Liu, JF (2022) The effect of temperatures and hosts on the life cycle of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insects 13, 211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chi, H (2022a) Timing-MS Chart: Computer Program for Population Projection Based on Age-Stage, Two-Sex Life Table. Taichung, Taiwan: National Chung Hsing University, http://140.120.197.173/Ecology/ Accessed 20 October 2023.Google Scholar
Chi, H (2022b) TWOSEX-MS Chart: A Computer Program for the Age-Stage, Two-Sex Life Table Analysis. Taichung, Taiwan: National Chung Hsing University, http://140.120.197.173/Ecology/Download/Twosex-MSChart.zip Accessed 20 October 2023.Google Scholar
Davidson-Lowe, E, Ray, S, Murrell, E, Kaye, J and Ali, JG (2021) Cover crop soil legacies alter phytochemistry and resistance to fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in maize. Environmental Entomology 50, 958–967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
El-Shennawy, RM, Sabra, IM and Kandil, MAA (2022) Biology and growth index of fall army armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) reared on different host plants. Asian Journal of Advances in Research 5, 904–912.Google Scholar
Goergen, G, Kumar, PL, Sankung, SB, Togola, A and Tamo, M (2016) First report of outbreaks of the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (J E Smith) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae), a new alien invasive pest in west and central Africa. PLoS ONE 11, e0165632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, LM, Wang, TL, Chen, YC, Ge, SS, Wyckhuys, KAG and Wu, KM (2021) Larval diet affects development and reproduction of East Asian strain of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 20, 736–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, H-W, Chi, H and Smith, CL (2017) Linking demography and consumption of Henosepilachna vigintioctopunctata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) fed on Solanum photeinocarpum (Solanales: Solanaceae): with a new method to project the uncertainty of population growth and consumption. Journal of Economic Entomology 111, 1–9.Google Scholar
Li-Hong, W, Cao, Z, Gui-Yun, L, Xi-Bin, Y, Zhi-Yan, W, Hong, L and Chao-Xing, Y (2021) Fitness of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda to three solanaceous vegetables. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 20, 755–763.Google Scholar
Liu, YQ, Wang, XQ and Zhong, YW (2019) Fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda feeding on cabbage in Zhejiang. Plant Protection 45, 90–91.Google Scholar
Maruthadurai, R and Ramesh, R (2020) Occurrence, damage pattern and biology of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on fodder crops and green amaranth in Goa, India. Phytoparasitica 48, 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montezano, DG, Specht, A and Bbarros, NM (2014) Immature stages of the armyworm, Spodoptera eridania: developmental parameters and host plants. Journal of Insect Science 238, 1–11.Google Scholar
Montezano, DG, Specht, A, Sosa-Gomez, DR, Roque-Specht, VF, Sousa-Silva, JC, Paula-Moraes, SV, Peterson, JA and Hunt, J (2018) Host plants of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Americas. African Entomology 26, 286–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moraes, T, Ferreira Da Silva, A, Leite, N, Karam, D and Mendes, S (2020) Survival and development of Fall Armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in weeds during the off-season. Florida Entomologist 103, 288–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nestel, D, Papadopoulos, NT, Pascacio-Villafan, C, Righini, N, Altuzar-Molina, AR and Aluja, M (2016) Resource allocation and compensation during development in holometabolous insects. Journal of Insect Physiology 95, 78–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ormeño, E and Fernandez, C (2012) Effect of soil nutrient on production and diversity of volatile terpenoids from plants. Current Bioactive Compounds 8, 71–79.Google ScholarPubMed
Ormeño, E, Goldstein, A and Niinemets, Ü (2011) Extracting and trapping biogenic volatile organic compounds stored in plant species. Trends in Analytical Chemistry: TRAC 30, 978–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qi, XW, Hong, L, Chen, J and Liang, YY (2024) Fitness and cold tolerance of Spodoptera frugiperda fed on corn and two winter crops. Journal of Applied Entomology 148, 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rwomushana, I (2019) Spodoptera frugiperda (fall armyworm). Invasive Species Compendium, CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/ISC.29810.20203373913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salgado, AL and Saastamoinen, M (2019) Developmental stage-dependent response and preference for host plant quality in an insect herbivore. Animal Behaviour 150, 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sangomla, A and Kukreti, I (2023) Fall armyworm attack: the damage done. Available at https://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/agriculture/fall-armyworm-attack-the-damage-done-63445Google Scholar
Sharanabasappa, , Kalleshwaraswamy, CM, Asokan, R, Mahadeva, , Swamv, HMM, Maruthi, MS, Pavithra, HB, Hegde, K, Navi, S, Prabhu, ST and Goergen, G (2018) First report of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J E Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), an alien invasive pest on maize in India. Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems 24, 23–29.Google Scholar
Specht, A and Roque-Specht, VF (2016) Immature stages of Spodoptera cosmioides (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): developmental parameters and host plants. Zoologia 33, e20160053. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1984-4689zool-20160053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tai, HK, Guo, JF, Yang, SC, Zhang, F, Liu, J, Yang, YQ, Song, M, Xia, YG, He, K, Lin, QX and Wang, ZY (2019) Biological characteristics and damage symptoms of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, on sugarcane in Dehong preference of Yunnan Province. Plant Protection 45, 75–79.Google Scholar
Tietz, HM (1972) An index to the described life histories, early stages and hosts of the macro Lepidoptera of the continental United States and Canada. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 81, 120–121.Google Scholar
Vatanparast, M and Park, Y (2022) Cold tolerance strategies of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Scientific Reports 12, 4129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, W, He, P, Zhang, Y, Liu, T, Jing, X and Zhang, S (2020) The population growth of Spodoptera frugiperda on six cash crop species and implications for its occurrence and damage potential in China. Insects 11, 639. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11090639CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, F, Zhang, L, Liu, Y, Cheng, Y, Su, J, Sappington, TW and Jiang, X (2022) Population development, fecundity, and flight of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) reared on three green manure crops: implications for an ecologically based pest management approach in China. Journal of Economic Entomology 115, 124–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, DD, Zhao, S, Wu, QL, Li, Y and Wu, KM (2021) Cold hardiness of the invasive fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda in China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 20, 764–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, SC, Li, SB, Su, RR, Wang, XY, Zheng, XL and Lu, W (2020) Preliminary report on the damage of Spodoptera frugiperda on Maranta arundinacea in Guangxi. Plant Protection 46, 209–211.Google Scholar
Zhou, S, Qin, Y, Wang, X, Zheng, X and Lu, W (2022) Fitness of the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda to a new host plant, banana (Musa nana Lour.). Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture 9, 78. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-022-00341-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zou, CH and Yang, JJ (2019) Spodoptera frugiperda harms Coix. China Plant Protection 39, 47.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Developmental biology of Spodoptera frugiperda on maize and pea

Figure 1

Table 2. Population growth parameters of Spodoptera frugiperda on maize and pea

Figure 2

Figure 1. Age-stage-specific survival rate (sxj) of the Spodoptera frugiperda reared on maize and pea.

Figure 3

Figure 2. Age-specific survival rate (lx), female age-specific fecundity (fx), age-specific fecundity of the total population (mx) and age-specific maternity (lxmx) of the Spodoptera frugiperda reared on maize and pea.

Figure 4

Figure 3. Age-stage-specific life expectancy (exj) of the Spodoptera frugiperda reared on maize and pea.

Figure 5

Figure 4. Age-stage-specific reproductive value (vxj) of the Spodoptera frugiperda reared on maize and pea.

Figure 6

Figure 5. Total population size of the Spodoptera frugiperda projected by using life tables of 0.975 and 0.025 percentiles of intrinsic rate on increase (r) on maize and pea with an initial population of ten eggs.

Figure 7

Figure 6. Population projection of Spodoptera frugiperda reared on maize and pea with an initial population of ten eggs.

Figure 8

Figure 7. Stage growth rate of Spodoptera frugiperda reared on maize and pea with an initial population of ten eggs.