Paper · 2024 · Journal of Biological Control

Enhancing pest management - Utilizing supplementary food spray to harness predatory insects against fall armyworm in maize crop of Vinh Phuc Province, Vietnam

ROBERT K. MENSAH; NGUYEN VAN LIEM; BUI VAN DUNG; et al.

7
claims
12
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc

Abstract

The effect of supplementary food spray on the fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) and beneficial insects (predominantly predatory insects) was studied in commercial maize field experiments from 2020 to 2022. The food spray formulation was developed from local ingredients in Vietnam, both with and without neem extract. The sugar-based rice dough product attracted and sustained beneficial insects, significantly reducing fall armyworm populations. Compared to conventional insecticide treatments, the net margin achieved in plots treated with food spray was higher ($3,467) to $3,394 in the conventional insecticide-treated plots demonstrating its economic viability (1 AUD=17.28 VND). Our study observed an average predator-to-prey ratio of 9.2:1 per plant in the food-spray-treated plots, and that was effective in managing the fall armyworm throughout the season. We propose that this ratio can serve as a valuable parameter and decisionmaking tool in food spray-based Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs against fall armyworm in maize fields. Therefore, we suggest that food sprays can be incorporated into IPM strategies to successfully manage fall armyworm infestation in maize crop.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sugar-based rice dough attracted and sustained beneficial insects.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
sugar-based rice dough producte0
Interactor
beneficial insectse0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
attracted and sustained beneficial insectse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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 sugar-based rice dough product attracted and sustained beneficial insects”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 322–399 · show in text ↑
t0

“maize crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 117–127 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The food spray significantly reduced fall armyworm populations.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
food sprayt0
Interactor
fall armywormSpodoptera frugiperdae0pest
Outcome
fall armyworm populationse0
Direction
reducinge0

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

Verbatim

e0

“significantly reducing fall armyworm populations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 401–449 · show in text ↑
t0

“supplementary food spray to harness predatory insects against fall armyworm in maize crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 38–127 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Food-spray plots had a higher net margin of $3,467 than conventional-insecticide plots at $3,394.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
food spraye0
Outcome
net margine0
Direction
highere0
Value
$3,467e0
Qualifier
$3,394e0
Comparator
conventional insecticide-treated plotse0

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 net margin achieved in plots treated with food spray was higher ($3,467) to $3,394 in the conventional insecticide-treated plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 500–632 · show in text ↑
t0

“maize crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 117–127 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Food-spray plots averaged a predator-to-prey ratio of 9.2:1 per plant.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
food-spray-treatede0
Interactor
predatore0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
predator-to-prey ratioe0
Value
9.2:1 per plante0

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

“an average predator-to-prey ratio of 9.2:1 per plant in the food-spray-treated plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 708–792 · show in text ↑
t0

“maize crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 117–127 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The predator-to-prey ratio was effective in managing fall armyworm throughout the season.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Interactor
fall armywormSpodoptera frugiperdae0pest
Outcome
managing the fall armyworme0

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

“that was effective in managing the fall armyworm throughout the season”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 798–868 · show in text ↑
t0

“maize crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 117–127 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors propose predator-to-prey ratio as an IPM decision parameter.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Interactor
fall armywormSpodoptera frugiperdae0pest
Outcome
ratio can serve as a valuable parameter and decisionmaking toole0

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

“this ratio can serve as a valuable parameter and decisionmaking tool in food spray-based Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs against fall armyworm in maize fields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 886–1054 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest incorporating food sprays into IPM for fall armyworm infestation in maize.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Interactor
fall armywormSpodoptera frugiperdae0pest
Outcome
food sprays can be incorporated into IPM strategiese0

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

“food sprays can be incorporated into IPM strategies to successfully manage fall armyworm infestation in maize crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1083–1197 · show in text ↑

Oryza sativa · pest · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

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

21 papers: 20 positive, 1 negative or no effect

19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

17 papers more in this group

See all 21 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.