Abstract
The recent invasion of the fall armyworm (FAW), a voracious pest, into Africa and Asia has resulted in unprecedented increases in insecticide applications, especially in maize cultivation. The health and environmental hazards posed by these chemicals have prompted a call for alternative control practices. Entomopathogenic nematodes are highly lethal to the FAWs, but their application aboveground has been challenging. In this study, we report on season-long field trials with an innocuous biodegradable gel made from carboxymethyl cellulose containing local nematodes that we specifically developed to target the FAW. In several Rwandan maize fields with distinct climatic conditions and natural infestation rates, we compared armyworm presence and damage in control plots and plots that were treated with either our nematode gel formulation, a commercial liquid nematode formulation, or the commonly used contact insecticide cypermethrin. The treatments were applied to the whorl of each plant, which was repeated three to four times, at 2-week intervals, starting when the plants were still seedlings. Although all three treatments reduced leaf damage, only the gel formulation decreased caterpillar infestation by about 50% and yielded an additional ton of maize per hectare compared with untreated plots. Importantly, we believe that the use of nematodes can be cost-effective, since we used nematode doses across the whole season that were at least 3-fold lower than their normal application against belowground pests. The overall results imply that precisely formulated and easy-to-apply nematodes can be a highly effective, affordable, and sustainable alternative to insecticides for FAW control.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
The nematode gel reduced maize leaf damage.
- Treatment
- nematode gel formulatione1
- Interactor
- fall armyworm
.jpg?width=60)
Spodoptera frugiperdae4pest - Outcome
- leaf damagee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- untreated plotse2
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“all three treatments reduced leaf damage”
e1“nematode gel formulation”
e2“compared with untreated plots”
e3“maize fields”
e4“fall armyworm (FAW)”
Claim · model-written summary
The liquid nematode formulation reduced maize leaf damage.
- Treatment
- a commercial liquid nematode formulatione1
- Interactor
- fall armywormSpodoptera frugiperdae4pest
- Outcome
- leaf damagee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- control plotse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“all three treatments reduced leaf damage”
e1“a commercial liquid nematode formulation”
e2“control plots”
e3“maize fields”
e4“fall armyworm (FAW)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cypermethrin reduced maize leaf damage.
- Treatment
- cypermethrine1
- Interactor
- fall armywormSpodoptera frugiperdae4pest
- Outcome
- leaf damagee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- control plotse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“all three treatments reduced leaf damage”
e1“cypermethrin”
e2“control plots”
e3“maize fields”
e4“fall armyworm (FAW)”
Claim · model-written summary
Only the gel formulation decreased caterpillar infestation by about 50%.
- Treatment
- gel formulatione0
- Interactor
- fall armywormSpodoptera frugiperdae3pest
- Outcome
- caterpillar infestatione0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- about 50%e0
- Comparator
- untreated plotse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only the gel formulation decreased caterpillar infestation by about 50%”
e1“compared with untreated plots”
e2“maize fields”
e3“fall armyworm (FAW)”
Claim · model-written summary
The gel formulation added one ton of maize per hectare over untreated plots.
- Treatment
- gel formulatione0
- Interactor
- fall armywormSpodoptera frugiperdae1pest
- Outcome
- maize per hectaree0
- Direction
- additionale0
- Value
- an additional ton of maize per hectaree0
- Comparator
- untreated plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only the gel formulation decreased caterpillar infestation by about 50% and yielded an additional ton of maize per hectare compared with untreated plots”
e1“fall armyworm (FAW)”
Claim · model-written summary
The season-long nematode doses were at least threefold lower than normal belowground-pest application.
- Interactor
- fall armywormSpodoptera frugiperdae2pest
- Outcome
- nematode dosese0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- at least 3-folde0
- Comparator
- their normal application against belowground pestse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“nematode doses across the whole season that were at least 3-fold lower than their normal application against belowground pests”
e1“maize fields”
e2“fall armyworm (FAW)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude precisely formulated nematodes can provide affordable, sustainable armyworm control.
- Treatment
- nematodese0
- Interactor
- fall armywormSpodoptera frugiperdae2pest
- Outcome
- alternative to insecticides for FAW controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“precisely formulated and easy-to-apply nematodes can be a highly effective, affordable, and sustainable alternative to insecticides for FAW control”
e1“maize fields”
e2“fall armyworm (FAW)”
The same questions in other papers
cypermethrin · Spodoptera frugiperda · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.