Feeding Sites and Distribution of Fall Armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Larvae on Cotton

Ali, Abbas; Luttrell, R. G.; Pitre, H. N.

doi:10.1093/ee/19.4.1060

Cited by 52 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the multiple-choice feeding trial, the leaves were the preferred part of the plant, whereas in the confinement feeding trial, the preferences shown by the larvae for the leaves and for the bolls did not differ significantly (Figure 2). These results are similar to those found in previously published studies in which newly hatched larvae preferred feeding on leaves (ALI et al, 1990), followed by bracts (FREEMAN, 1999;PEREIRA, 1971) and bolls, which were penetrated by irregularly shaped holes (PEREIRA, 1971). Similar results were obtained by Ali et al (1990), who reported that newly hatched larvae preferred to feed on leaves under both field conditions and in a shade house.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

“…These results are similar to those found in previously published studies in which newly hatched larvae preferred feeding on leaves (ALI et al, 1990), followed by bracts (FREEMAN, 1999;PEREIRA, 1971) and bolls, which were penetrated by irregularly shaped holes (PEREIRA, 1971). Similar results were obtained by Ali et al (1990), who reported that newly hatched larvae preferred to feed on leaves under both field conditions and in a shade house. Significant differences in attractiveness (F = 3.41; p < 0.05) were observed for the different cotton varieties in the multiple-choice feeding arena trial (Table 2).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The feeding preferences of Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. SMITH) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on cotton plant varieties

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. This work evaluated the attractiveness and the non-preference for feeding of newly hatched fall armyworm larvae on the cotton plant parts and different varieties used in the study. The trials were performed at 27 ± 1ºC, a 70% ± 10% relative humidity and a 14h photoperiod. Leaves, bracts, squares and carpel walls of the BRS Itamarati-90 variety and leaves of DeltaOpal, DeltaPenta,, BRS-Cedro, BRS-Ipê, BRSAroeira, IPR-96, IPR-120, BRS-Araçá, IAC-24 and BRS Itamarati-90 varieties were used in attractiveness, multiple-choice and confinement (no-choice) non-preference feeding trials. Twenty larvae were released per petri dish test (arena system) with 10 repetitions. Attractiveness trials were evaluated by counting feeding caterpillars over 60 min. and by measuring non-preference at 24h. Leaves were the most attractive item and were preferred for feeding. In the multiple-choice arena trials, Coodetec-410 was the most attractive variety, and BRS Acala-90, Fibermax-966 and DeltaPenta were the least attractive to fall armyworm larvae. In the non-preference trial, BRS-Araça was the variety favored for feeding. BRS-Cedro, BRS Itamarati-90, DeltaPenta, Coodetec-408 and BRS-Aroeira were the least-favored varieties. In the 60 min. attractiveness trials, 46 min. proved to be the most suitable time for evaluating the attractiveness of cotton plants to newly hatched fall armyworm larvae.Keywords: plant resistance, Gossypium hirsutum, fall armyworm.Preferência alimentar de Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. SMITH) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) em variedades de plantas algodoeiras RESUMO. Avaliou-se atratividade e não-preferência alimentar de lagartas recém-eclodidas de Spodoptera frugiperda por partes de plantas e plantas de variedades de algodoeiro. Testes foram realizados a 27 ± 1ºC, UR de 70% ± 10% e fotofase de 14h. Folhas, brácteas, botões florais e cascas de maçãs da variedade BRS Itamarati-90 e folhas de Fibermax-966, Fibermax-977, DeltaOpal, DeltaPenta, BRS Acala-90, Coodetec-408, Coodetec-409, Coodetec-410, BRS-Cedro, BRS-Ipê, BRS-Aroeira, IPR-96, IPR-120, BRS-Araçá, IAC-24 e BRS Itamarati-90 foram utilizadas nos testes de atratividade e não-preferência para alimentação, com e sem chance de escolha. Utilizaram-se 20 lagartas de S. frugiperda por placa de Petri (sistema de arena) por teste, com 10 repetições. Contaram-se lagartas para avaliar atratividade por 60 min e não-preferência para alimentação por 24 h. Folha foi mais atrativa e preferida para alimentação por lagartas de S. frugiperda. Em livre escolha, Coodetec-410 foi mais atrativa e BRS Acala-90, Fibermax-966 e DeltaPenta, as de menor atratividade à S. frugiperda; BRS-Araçá, mais preferida para alimentação e BRS-Cedro, BRS Itamarati 90, DeltaPenta, Coodetec-408 e BRS-Aroeira, menos preferidas. Considera-se 46 min., tempo mais adequado para avaliar atratividade de algodoeiro a lagartas de S. frugiperda.Palavras-chave: resistência de plantas, Gossypium hirsutum, lagarta-do-cartucho.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

The feeding preferences of Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. SMITH) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on cotton plant varieties

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Greater mobility, reduced susceptibility to natural enemies, and changing nutritional requirements may be factors in the increased peg feeding of older larvae. Studies on other host crops have shown similar age-specific shifts in larval-feeding preference for FAW (1,18,19) and CEW (10,20,23,27).…”

Section: Feeding-site Preference Fall Armyworm and Corn Earwormmentioning

confidence: 81%

Feeding-Site Preference of Fall Armyworm, Corn Earworm, and Granulate Cutworm (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) on Florunner Peanut1

Deitz¹,

Chapin

Adler

1992

Peanut Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The feeding-site preferences of fall armyworm (FAW), Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith), com earworm (CEW), Helicoverpa zea (Boddie), and granulate cutworm (GCW), Agrotis subterranea (F.) were studied on excised laterals and entire plants of Florunner peanut. Sixlarval size classes, based on head-capsule widths, were distinguished for FAW and GCW, and five for CEW. FAW and CEW larvae had very similar feeding behaviors. Both species fed primarily on the terminal three leaves of peanut laterals, but this preference for young foliage declined with larval age. All FAWand CEW size classes fed on blooms, with greatest incidence (21% of feeding observations) occurring in the second through fourth size classes. Axillary-bud feeding by FAW and CEW was greatest (23 and 17% of feeding observation, respectively) in the third size class. The last two larval size classes of FAW and CEW spent 20% of feeding time on R2 pegs. GCW fed primarily on blooms through the first four size classes. Foliage feeding by GCW remained~10% of feeding observations until the fifth size class. GCW did not feed on axillary buds in whole plant studies. Peg feeding by GCW peaked in the fourth and fifth size classes (36% of feeding observations). On whole plants, each FAW consumed 4.8± 1.2 tetrafoliate leaves, severed 6.3±1.6 pegs, and damaged an additional 3.6±1.7 pegs. Each CEW consumed 4.7± 0.8 leaves, severed 7.1±1.6 pegs, and damaged 2.4±1.4 pegs. Each GCW consumed 3.9±0.5 leaves, severed 8.5±2.0 pegs, and damaged 3.5±1.3 pegs. 15,16,25,30). Several studies have referred to the feeding behavior of these noctuids. FAW larvae prefer young leaves that have been unfolded from the terminal bud for two days or less; the last two instars account for more than 80% of defoliation (2, 11). CEW larvae also prefer to feed on terminals and young peanut foliage (15, 16); over 70% of total CEW peanutfoliage consumption occurs during the last two instars (14). Pencoe and Lynch (22) found that 93% of first-instar CEW feeding occurred on terminal foliage, while 5% occurred on blooms. Older GCW larvae feed on foliage and become nocturnal feeders, hiding during the day in the soil or under debris on the soil surface (25). GCW larvae also sever leaf stems and feed on those leaves in contact with the soilduring daylight hours (25). Other than foliage-consumption studies, where only foliage was offered, little is known about the feeding behavior of these species on peanut. Our field observations indicate that canopy-inhabiting larvae feed on many plant parts other than leaves. The purpose of this studywas to determine agespecific feeding preferences of CEW, FAW, and GCWon peanut. A better understanding of the peanut-feeding behavior of these insects should be useful in the development of plant damage models and pest management practices. Materials and MethodsAll tests were conducted on Florunner peanut. Colonies of all three species were established in August 1990, with larvae collected from peanut fields in Barnwell County, S. C. The CEW colony failed that ...

show abstract

“…It was also showed that FAW has significant plant-toplant movement in maize (Pannuti et al, 2016). In cotton, this species also presents larval movement in advanced instars (Ali et al, 1990). Several studies also demonstrated that the feeding and/or behavior mobility of larvae is different between Bt and non-Bt plants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Functional dominance of different aged larvae of Bt-resistant Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on transgenic maize expressing Vip3Aa20 protein

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feeding Sites and Distribution of Fall Armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Larvae on Cotton

Cited by 52 publications

References 0 publications

The feeding preferences of Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. SMITH) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on cotton plant varieties

The feeding preferences of Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. SMITH) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on cotton plant varieties

Feeding-Site Preference of Fall Armyworm, Corn Earworm, and Granulate Cutworm (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) on Florunner Peanut1

Functional dominance of different aged larvae of Bt-resistant Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on transgenic maize expressing Vip3Aa20 protein

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About