Since 2016, the fall armyworm (FAW) Spodoptera frugiperda has spread over extensive areas of the tropics and subtropics, imperiling food security, economic progress and the livelihoods of millions of cereal farmers. Although FAW has received long-standing scientific attention in its home range in the Americas, chemical inputs feature prominently in its mitigation and biological control uptake is globally lagging. Here, building upon a quantitative review of the global literature, we methodically dissect FAW biological control science. Of the known entomopathogens (46), parasitoids (304) and predators (215) of FAW, approx. 40% have been subject to laboratory- or field-level scrutiny. Laboratory-level performance has partially been assessed for 14–18% of the above invertebrate taxa. Yet, organismal, geographic, methodological and thematic biases hamper efforts to relate in-field biodiversity to actual ecosystem service delivery. Often, single-guild ‘snapshot’ surveys are preferred over comprehensive bio-inventories or population dynamics appraisals, trophic interactions are wrongly inferred from co-occurrence, standard pest infestation metrics are lacking and natural enemy censuses are performed arbitrarily. Diurnal biota receive inordinate attention, while egg and pupal predation - the main biotic sources of mortality - are routinely overlooked. Multiple microbial and invertebrate biota are investigated with a view towards mass-rearing and augmentative release, but the basis for agent selection is often unclear. Lastly, conservation biological control receives marginal attention and cross-disciplinary engagement with the agroecology domain is lagging. We lay out several steps, including standardized methodologies, smart use of biodemographic toolkits, networked field trials and a fortification of its ecological underpinnings, to sharpen the science of (FAW) biological control and urge further momentum in its global implementation.
This work is licensed under CC-BY 4.0
This work is licensed under CC-BY 4.0
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2024.105460Score Altmetric:
Dimensions Nombre de citations:
Exporter la citation:
RIS (.ris)
TI - Global scientific progress and shortfalls in biological control of the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda
AU - Wyckhuys, K.A.G.
AU - Akutse, K.S.
AU - Amalin, D.M.
AU - Araj, S.-E.
AU - Barrera, G.
AU - Beltran, M.J.B.
AU - Ben Fekih, I.
AU - Calatayud, P.-A.
AU - Cicero, L.
AU - Cokola, M.C.
AU - Colmenarez, Y.C.
AU - Dessauvages, K.
AU - Dubois, T.
AU - Durocher-Granger, L.
AU - Espinel, C.
AU - Fallet, P.
AU - Fernández-Tri
AB - Since 2016, the fall armyworm (FAW) Spodoptera frugiperda has spread over extensive areas of the tropics and subtropics, imperiling food security, economic progress and the livelihoods of millions of cereal farmers. Although FAW has received long-standing scientific attention in its home range in the Americas, chemical inputs feature prominently in its mitigation and biological control uptake is globally lagging. Here, building upon a quantitative review of the global literature, we methodically dissect FAW biological control science. Of the known entomopathogens (46), parasitoids (304) and predators (215) of FAW, approx. 40% have been subject to laboratory- or field-level scrutiny. Laboratory-level performance has partially been assessed for 14–18% of the above invertebrate taxa. Yet, organismal, geographic, methodological and thematic biases hamper efforts to relate in-field biodiversity to actual ecosystem service delivery. Often, single-guild ‘snapshot’ surveys are preferred over comprehensive bio-inventories or population dynamics appraisals, trophic interactions are wrongly inferred from co-occurrence, standard pest infestation metrics are lacking and natural enemy censuses are performed arbitrarily. Diurnal biota receive inordinate attention, while egg and pupal predation - the main biotic sources of mortality - are routinely overlooked. Multiple microbial and invertebrate biota are investigated with a view towards mass-rearing and augmentative release, but the basis for agent selection is often unclear. Lastly, conservation biological control receives marginal attention and cross-disciplinary engagement with the agroecology domain is lagging. We lay out several steps, including standardized methodologies, smart use of biodemographic toolkits, networked field trials and a fortification of its ecological underpinnings, to sharpen the science of (FAW) biological control and urge further momentum in its global implementation.
PY - 2024
UR - https://www.cifor-icraf.org/knowledge/publication/18690/
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2024.105460
KW - agroecology, armyworm, biological control, chemical pollution, ecosystem services, interdisciplinary research, invasive species, pest management
ER -Endnote (.ciw)
%T Global scientific progress and shortfalls in biological control of the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda
%A Wyckhuys, K.A.G.
%A Akutse, K.S.
%A Amalin, D.M.
%A Araj, S.-E.
%A Barrera, G.
%A Beltran, M.J.B.
%A Ben Fekih, I.
%A Calatayud, P.-A.
%A Cicero, L.
%A Cokola, M.C.
%A Colmenarez, Y.C.
%A Dessauvages, K.
%A Dubois, T.
%A Durocher-Granger, L.
%A Espinel, C.
%A Fallet, P.
%A Fernández-Tri
%D 2024
%U https://www.cifor-icraf.org/knowledge/publication/18690/
%R https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2024.105460
%X Since 2016, the fall armyworm (FAW) Spodoptera frugiperda has spread over extensive areas of the tropics and subtropics, imperiling food security, economic progress and the livelihoods of millions of cereal farmers. Although FAW has received long-standing scientific attention in its home range in the Americas, chemical inputs feature prominently in its mitigation and biological control uptake is globally lagging. Here, building upon a quantitative review of the global literature, we methodically dissect FAW biological control science. Of the known entomopathogens (46), parasitoids (304) and predators (215) of FAW, approx. 40% have been subject to laboratory- or field-level scrutiny. Laboratory-level performance has partially been assessed for 14–18% of the above invertebrate taxa. Yet, organismal, geographic, methodological and thematic biases hamper efforts to relate in-field biodiversity to actual ecosystem service delivery. Often, single-guild ‘snapshot’ surveys are preferred over comprehensive bio-inventories or population dynamics appraisals, trophic interactions are wrongly inferred from co-occurrence, standard pest infestation metrics are lacking and natural enemy censuses are performed arbitrarily. Diurnal biota receive inordinate attention, while egg and pupal predation - the main biotic sources of mortality - are routinely overlooked. Multiple microbial and invertebrate biota are investigated with a view towards mass-rearing and augmentative release, but the basis for agent selection is often unclear. Lastly, conservation biological control receives marginal attention and cross-disciplinary engagement with the agroecology domain is lagging. We lay out several steps, including standardized methodologies, smart use of biodemographic toolkits, networked field trials and a fortification of its ecological underpinnings, to sharpen the science of (FAW) biological control and urge further momentum in its global implementation.
%K agroecology
%K armyworm
%K biological control
%K chemical pollution
%K ecosystem services
%K interdisciplinary research
%K invasive species
%K pest management
Année de publication
2024
ISSN
1090-2112
Auteurs
Wyckhuys, K.A.G.; Akutse, K.S.; Amalin, D.M.; Araj, S.-E.; Barrera, G.; Beltran, M.J.B.; Ben Fekih, I.; Calatayud, P.-A.; Cicero, L.; Cokola, M.C.; Colmenarez, Y.C.; Dessauvages, K.; Dubois, T.; Durocher-Granger, L.; Espinel, C.; Fallet, P.; Fernández-Tri
Langue
English
Mots clés
agroecology, armyworm, biological control, chemical pollution, ecosystem services, interdisciplinary research, invasive species, pest management
Source
Biological Control. 191: 105460
