Paper · 2026 · Journal of Experimental Agriculture International

Evaluating the Efficacy of Neem (Azadirachta indica) and Chili (Capsicum spp.) Extracts for the Control of Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in Maize (Zea mays) Production in Zambia

Kaneta Liywalii; Allan Tembo; Otton Muyabe; et al.

6
claims
14
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Maize (Zea mays L.) is the staple crop in Zambia but is threatened by fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda), a pest capable of causing major yield losses. Dependence on synthetic pesticides is increasingly unsustainable due to high costs, resistance development and environmental risks. This study evaluated neem (Azadirachta indica) and chili (Capsicum spp.) extracts, applied individually and in combination, under field conditions in Mulobezi District. A randomized complete block design with four treatments was set up using neem extract, chili extract, a neem–chili mixture, and an untreated control on maize variety SC 513. Extracts were prepared to standard concentrations and applied to the whorl, while data on larval mortality and foliar damage were analyzed using ANOVA in R version 4.2.0. The findings revealed that neem extract achieved the highest efficacy, with mortality above 65 percent and substantial reductions in leaf injury. Chili extract provided moderate control at about 40 percent, while the neem–chilli mixture showed no improvement over neem alone. The findings confirm neem as a reliable, affordable, and environmentally safe option for smallholder farmers, with chili serving as a supplementary measure. Promoting neem within Integrated Pest Management could reduce dependence on synthetic pesticides and strengthen food security in Zambia.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Neem extract gave the highest efficacy against fall armyworm larvae on maize, with mortality above 65 percent.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Material
SC 513e1
Treatment
neem extracte2
Interactor
fall armywormSpodoptera frugiperdae4pest
Outcome
efficacye2
Direction
higheste2
Value
above 65 percente2
Comparator
untreated controle1
Setting
Mulobezi Districte3

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

e1

“an untreated control on maize variety SC 513”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 584–628 · show in text ↑
e2

“The findings revealed that neem extract achieved the highest efficacy, with mortality above 65 percent and substantial reductions in leaf injury”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 801–945 · show in text ↑
e3

“under field conditions in Mulobezi District”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 411–454 · show in text ↑
e4

“Maize (Zea mays L.) is the staple crop in Zambia but is threatened by fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda), a pest capable of causing major yield losses”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–153 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chili extract gave moderate control of fall armyworm on maize, at about 40 percent.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
Chili extracte5
Outcome
controle5
Value
about 40 percente5
Qualifier
moderatee5

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

e1

“an untreated control on maize variety SC 513”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 584–628 · show in text ↑
e5

“Chili extract provided moderate control at about 40 percent”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 947–1006 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The neem–chilli mixture showed no improvement in control over neem alone on maize.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
neem–chilli mixturee6
Outcome
improvemente6
Direction
no improvemente6
Comparator
neem alonee6

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

e1

“an untreated control on maize variety SC 513”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 584–628 · show in text ↑
e6

“while the neem–chilli mixture showed no improvement over neem alone”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1008–1075 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Neem extract substantially reduced leaf injury on maize compared with the untreated control.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
neem extracte2
Outcome
leaf injurye2
Direction
reductionse2
Comparator
untreated controle1

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

e1

“an untreated control on maize variety SC 513”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 584–628 · show in text ↑
e2

“The findings revealed that neem extract achieved the highest efficacy, with mortality above 65 percent and substantial reductions in leaf injury”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 801–945 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors conclude that neem is a reliable, affordable and environmentally safe option for smallholder maize farmers.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
neeme7
Outcome
option for smallholder farmerse7

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

e1

“an untreated control on maize variety SC 513”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 584–628 · show in text ↑
e7

“The findings confirm neem as a reliable, affordable, and environmentally safe option for smallholder farmers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1077–1185 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest promoting neem within Integrated Pest Management could reduce dependence on synthetic pesticides in maize production.

Taxon
MaizeZea mayse1
Treatment
Promoting neeme2
Outcome
dependence on synthetic pesticidese2

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

e1

“Maize (Zea mays L.) is the staple crop in Zambia but is threatened by fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda), a pest capable of causing major yield losses”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–153 · show in text ↑
e2

“Promoting neem within Integrated Pest Management could reduce dependence on synthetic pesticides and strengthen food security in Zambia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1234–1369 · show in text ↑

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

11 papers: 9 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

botanical · crop injury · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 3 positive, 7 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

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

53 papers: 49 positive, 4 negative or no effect

48 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

49 papers more in this group

See all 53 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.