Paper · 2025 · Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences

Response of bio-pesticides in the control of Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E.Smith) on maize in two agro-ecological zones of Cameroon

Stéphane Martial Kamtchoum; Nono Carine Temegne; Sime Hervé Djomo; et al.

14
claims
31
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract The fall armyworm (FAW) is a real threat to food security and nutrition in the tropics. Studies show that the damage caused by FAW is severe on maize, resulting in yield losses (15–73%). This work is a contribution to the search for alternatives to chemical control of FAW. The trials were conducted at two localities: Ntui and Foumbot, during the rainy (RS) and dry (DS) seasons (2022–2023) using a completely randomized block design with three replications. Treatments consisted of control (T-), Gremec050WG as a positive control (T +), tobacco, Lantana camara , neem and Rapax. The results showed that plant extracts had an insecticidal effect on FAW infestations compared to the control. Gremec, tobacco and neem significantly reduced the infestation rate of FAW in Foumbot (RS: 16.67%, 20% and 25%; DS: 24.33%, 28.67% and 29%) and Ntui (RS: 12.23%, 15% and 20%; DS: 15.67%, 24,33% and 25%). Treatments with Gremec, tobacco and neem had a significant insecticidal effect on FAW damage compared with the control in both localities. The DS was more sensitive to FAW infestations. Foumbot was more susceptible to FAW (3.92) than Ntui (2.72). In Foumbot, Gremec, tobacco and neem resulted in a significantly lower incidence of dead hearts than the control and other treatments in both the RS and DS. The highest gain yields (t/ha) were obtained with Gremec (2.93), tobacco (2.77) and neem (2.83). Tobacco and neem showed an insecticidal effect comparable to that observed with Gremec and can therefore constitute an alternative to chemical control and a sustainable management strategy for FAW.

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 14

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Plant extracts reduced FAW infestations on maize relative to the control.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
plant extractse0
Interactor
FAWe0pest
Outcome
FAW infestationse0
Direction
decreaseinferrede0
Comparator
controle0

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

t0

“on maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–87 · show in text ↑
e0

“The results showed that plant extracts had an insecticidal effect on FAW infestations compared to the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 590–699 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Gremec significantly reduced the FAW infestation rate on maize in Foumbot (16.67% in the rainy season).

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
Gremece1
Interactor
FAWe1pest
Outcome
infestation rate of FAWe1
Direction
reducede1
Value
16.67%e1
Comparator
controle0
Setting
Foumbote1

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

t0

“on maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–87 · show in text ↑
e0

“The results showed that plant extracts had an insecticidal effect on FAW infestations compared to the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 590–699 · show in text ↑
e1

“Gremec, tobacco and neem significantly reduced the infestation rate of FAW in Foumbot (RS: 16.67%, 20% and 25%; DS: 24.33%, 28.67% and 29%) and Ntui (RS: 12.23%, 15% and 20%; DS: 15.67%, 24,33% and 25%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 701–903 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Tobacco significantly reduced the FAW infestation rate on maize in Foumbot (20% in the rainy season).

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
tobaccoe1
Interactor
FAWe1pest
Outcome
infestation rate of FAWe1
Direction
reducede1
Value
20%e1
Comparator
controle0
Setting
Foumbote1

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

t0

“on maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–87 · show in text ↑
e0

“The results showed that plant extracts had an insecticidal effect on FAW infestations compared to the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 590–699 · show in text ↑
e1

“Gremec, tobacco and neem significantly reduced the infestation rate of FAW in Foumbot (RS: 16.67%, 20% and 25%; DS: 24.33%, 28.67% and 29%) and Ntui (RS: 12.23%, 15% and 20%; DS: 15.67%, 24,33% and 25%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 701–903 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Neem significantly reduced the FAW infestation rate on maize in Foumbot (25% in the rainy season).

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
neeme1
Interactor
FAWe1pest
Outcome
infestation rate of FAWe1
Direction
reducede1
Value
25%e1
Comparator
controle0
Setting
Foumbote1

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

t0

“on maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–87 · show in text ↑
e0

“The results showed that plant extracts had an insecticidal effect on FAW infestations compared to the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 590–699 · show in text ↑
e1

“Gremec, tobacco and neem significantly reduced the infestation rate of FAW in Foumbot (RS: 16.67%, 20% and 25%; DS: 24.33%, 28.67% and 29%) and Ntui (RS: 12.23%, 15% and 20%; DS: 15.67%, 24,33% and 25%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 701–903 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

In Foumbot, Gremec resulted in a significantly lower incidence of dead hearts than the control.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
Gremece4
Outcome
incidence of dead heartse4
Direction
lowere4
Comparator
the controle4
Setting
Foumbote4

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

t0

“on maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–87 · show in text ↑
e4

“In Foumbot, Gremec, tobacco and neem resulted in a significantly lower incidence of dead hearts than the control and other treatments in both the RS and DS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1152–1307 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

In Foumbot, tobacco resulted in a significantly lower incidence of dead hearts than the control.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
tobaccoe4
Outcome
incidence of dead heartse4
Direction
lowere4
Comparator
the controle4
Setting
Foumbote4

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

t0

“on maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–87 · show in text ↑
e4

“In Foumbot, Gremec, tobacco and neem resulted in a significantly lower incidence of dead hearts than the control and other treatments in both the RS and DS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1152–1307 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

In Foumbot, neem resulted in a significantly lower incidence of dead hearts than the control.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
neeme4
Outcome
incidence of dead heartse4
Direction
lowere4
Comparator
the controle4
Setting
Foumbote4

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

t0

“on maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–87 · show in text ↑
e4

“In Foumbot, Gremec, tobacco and neem resulted in a significantly lower incidence of dead hearts than the control and other treatments in both the RS and DS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1152–1307 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The DS season was more sensitive to FAW infestations on maize.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Interactor
FAWe2pest
Outcome
sensitive to FAW infestationse2
Direction
more sensitivee2
Setting
DSe2

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

t0

“on maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–87 · show in text ↑
e2

“The DS was more sensitive to FAW infestations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1044–1089 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foumbot was more susceptible to FAW than Ntui (3.92 against 2.72).

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Interactor
FAWe3pest
Outcome
susceptible to FAWe3
Direction
more susceptiblee3
Value
3.92e3
Comparator
Ntuie3
Setting
Foumbote3

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

t0

“on maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–87 · show in text ↑
e3

“Foumbot was more susceptible to FAW (3.92) than Ntui (2.72)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1091–1150 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Gremec gave the highest gain yield on maize (2.93 t/ha).

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
Gremece5
Outcome
gain yields (t/ha)e5
Direction
higheste5
Value
2.93e5

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

t0

“on maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–87 · show in text ↑
e5

“The highest gain yields (t/ha) were obtained with Gremec (2.93), tobacco (2.77) and neem (2.83)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1309–1404 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tobacco gave a gain yield of 2.77 t/ha on maize.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
tobaccoe5
Outcome
gain yields (t/ha)e5
Direction
higheste5
Value
2.77e5

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

t0

“on maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–87 · show in text ↑
e5

“The highest gain yields (t/ha) were obtained with Gremec (2.93), tobacco (2.77) and neem (2.83)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1309–1404 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Neem gave a gain yield of 2.83 t/ha on maize.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
neeme5
Outcome
gain yields (t/ha)e5
Direction
higheste5
Value
2.83e5

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

t0

“on maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–87 · show in text ↑
e5

“The highest gain yields (t/ha) were obtained with Gremec (2.93), tobacco (2.77) and neem (2.83)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1309–1404 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tobacco showed an insecticidal effect on FAW comparable to Gremec.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
tobaccoe6
Outcome
insecticidal effecte6
Direction
comparablee6
Comparator
Gremece6

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

t0

“on maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–87 · show in text ↑
e6

“Tobacco and neem showed an insecticidal effect comparable to that observed with Gremec”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1406–1492 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Neem showed an insecticidal effect on FAW comparable to Gremec.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Treatment
neeme6
Outcome
insecticidal effecte6
Direction
comparablee6
Comparator
Gremece6

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

t0

“on maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–87 · show in text ↑
e6

“Tobacco and neem showed an insecticidal effect comparable to that observed with Gremec”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1406–1492 · show in text ↑

Nicotiana tabacum · 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 →

Nicotiana tabacum · disease · 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 →

botanical · disease · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

67 papers: 57 positive, 10 negative or no effect

56 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

63 papers more in this group

See all 67 papers →

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

90 papers: 78 positive, 12 negative or no effect

77 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

86 papers more in this group

See all 90 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.