Paper · 2024 · Insects

Effects of the Host Plants of the Maize-Based Intercropping Systems on the Growth, Development and Preference of Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

Wen-Cai Tao; Xue-Yan Zhang; Yue Zhang; et al.

12
claims
18
verbatim quotes
23
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

In this paper, the effects of maize and its three intercropping plants, sweet potato, soybean and peanut, on the growth and development of FAW, feeding preference of larvae, olfactory response and oviposition preference of adults were studied in the laboratory. The results showed that maize and peanut were suitable for the survival and development of FAW, while sweet potato and soybean were not suitable for multigenerational reproduction. The larvae significantly preferred to feed on maize compared to the other three plants. The olfactory response test indicated that soybean showed a strong deterrent effect against FAW adults. Furthermore, the intercropping plants reduced the host selection rate of adults compared to maize alone. In two-choice tests of the maize vs. the intercropping plants, the female adult preferred to oviposit and lay more eggs on maize rather than on the intercropping plants. The intercropping plants significantly reduced the oviposition selection of FAW adults when the combination (maize + intercropping plant), especially soybean and sweet potato, was compared to maize alone. These may be the reasons for why the maize-soybean intercropping system reduced FAW damage in the field. We also speculated that the maize-sweet potato system may also reduce the FAW damage. This study provided a theoretical basis for the comprehensive management of FAW by utilizing an intercropping system.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 12

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Maize supported fall armyworm survival and development.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Interactor
FAWe0pest
Outcome
survival and development of FAWe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maize and peanut were suitable for the survival and development of FAW”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 286–356 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Peanut supported fall armyworm survival and development.

Interactor
FAWe0pest
Outcome
survival and development of FAWe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maize and peanut were suitable for the survival and development of FAW”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 286–356 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sweet potato was unsuitable for multigenerational fall armyworm reproduction.

Taxon
sweet potatoIpomoea batatase0
Interactor
Fall ArmywormSpodoptera frugiperdat0pest
Outcome
multigenerational reproductione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Ipomoea batatas
Ipomoea batatas · TaxonEarth100 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Spodoptera frugiperda
Spodoptera frugiperda · InteractorUSGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab from Beltsville, Maryland, USA · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“sweet potato and soybean were not suitable for multigenerational reproduction”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 364–441 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fall Armyworm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 113–126 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soybean was unsuitable for multigenerational fall armyworm reproduction.

Taxon
soybeanGlycine maxe0
Interactor
Fall ArmywormSpodoptera frugiperdat0pest
Outcome
multigenerational reproductione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Spodoptera frugiperda
Spodoptera frugiperda · InteractorUSGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab from Beltsville, Maryland, USA · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“sweet potato and soybean were not suitable for multigenerational reproduction”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 364–441 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fall Armyworm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 113–126 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Larvae significantly preferred maize over the other three plants.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Interactor
Fall ArmywormSpodoptera frugiperdat0pest
Outcome
larvae significantly preferred to feed on maizee0
Direction
preferrede0
Comparator
the other three plantse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Spodoptera frugiperda
Spodoptera frugiperda · InteractorUSGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab from Beltsville, Maryland, USA · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The larvae significantly preferred to feed on maize compared to the other three plants.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 443–530 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fall Armyworm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 113–126 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soybean strongly deterred adult fall armyworms in olfactory tests.

Taxon
soybeanGlycine maxe0
Interactor
FAWe0pest
Outcome
strong deterrent effect against FAW adultse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“soybean showed a strong deterrent effect against FAW adults”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 574–633 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping plants reduced adult host selection relative to maize alone.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
intercropping plantse0
Interactor
Fall ArmywormSpodoptera frugiperdat0pest
Outcome
host selection rate of adultse0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
maize alonee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Spodoptera frugiperda
Spodoptera frugiperda · InteractorUSGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab from Beltsville, Maryland, USA · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the intercropping plants reduced the host selection rate of adults compared to maize alone”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 648–738 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fall Armyworm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 113–126 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Females preferred to oviposit on maize rather than intercropping plants.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Interactor
Fall ArmywormSpodoptera frugiperdat0pest
Outcome
oviposite0
Direction
preferrede0
Comparator
intercropping plantse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Spodoptera frugiperda
Spodoptera frugiperda · InteractorUSGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab from Beltsville, Maryland, USA · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the female adult preferred to oviposit and lay more eggs on maize rather than on the intercropping plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 803–908 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fall Armyworm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 113–126 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Females laid more eggs on maize than intercropping plants.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Interactor
Fall ArmywormSpodoptera frugiperdat0pest
Outcome
eggse0
Direction
moree0
Comparator
intercropping plantse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Spodoptera frugiperda
Spodoptera frugiperda · InteractorUSGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab from Beltsville, Maryland, USA · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the female adult preferred to oviposit and lay more eggs on maize rather than on the intercropping plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 803–908 · show in text ↑
t0

“Fall Armyworm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 113–126 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping plants significantly reduced adult oviposition selection versus maize alone.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
maize + intercropping plante0
Interactor
FAWe0pest
Outcome
oviposition selection of FAW adultse0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
maize alonee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The intercropping plants significantly reduced the oviposition selection of FAW adults when the combination (maize + intercropping plant), especially soybean and sweet potato, was compared to maize alone.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 910–1114 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest maize-soybean intercropping reduced field fall armyworm damage.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
maize-soybean intercropping systeme0
Interactor
FAWe0pest
Outcome
FAW damagee0
Direction
reducede0
Setting
fielde0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the maize-soybean intercropping system reduced FAW damage in the field”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1148–1218 · show in text ↑
Intervention effecthypothesisoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors speculate maize-sweet potato intercropping may reduce fall armyworm damage.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
maize-sweet potato systeme0
Interactor
FAWe0pest
Outcome
FAW damagee0
Direction
reducee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the maize-sweet potato system may also reduce the FAW damage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1244–1304 · show in text ↑

Solanum tuberosum · pest · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

intercropping · Spodoptera frugiperda · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

intercropping · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

38 papers: 31 positive, 7 negative or no effect

30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

34 papers more in this group

See all 38 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.