Managing

Fall Armyworm
A guide to low cost pest management approaches

1
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank the Norwegian Agency
for Development Cooperation (NORAD) who
funded this work.

Any views expressed in this publication are

those of the authors. They do not necessarily
represent the views of CIFOR-ICRAF, the
editors, the authors’ institutions, the financial
sponsors or the reviewers.
 Introduction

Fall armyworm (FAW), scientific name

Spodoptera frugiperda Smith, is an
invasive pest that first arrived in sub-
Saharan Africa in 2016.

It is a pest of maize and other cereals,

although it can eat many plants, and
when it first arrived, fearful of the damage
it might wreak, regional governments
released millions of USD to purchase
and distribute pesticides to farmers.
Unfortunately, many of these chemicals Since 2016, we have learnt a lot about the
were not effective. In addition, there biology of FAW in Africa1,2. We understand
are serious risks to human health and that the impact of FAW is not as severe
environment from the misuse of chemical as originally feared. In most places most
pesticides. of the time, it causes little damage. Many
native natural enemies attack FAW and
help keep its population under control.
Furthermore, there are many low-cost
options farmers can use to reduce FAW
populations and control outbreaks when
they occur.

We urge farmers to adopt an Integrated

Pest Management, or IPM, approach,
which emphasizes PREVENTION and
MONITORING. Pesticides may be used
as a last resort, when monitoring has
determined that pest populations have
reached an ‘action threshold’. However, the
use of BIOLOGICALS is preferred, as these
better protect natural enemies. It is also
essential that when pesticides are used,
farmers apply safety protocols and proper
application techniques to ensure efficacy
and minimise environmental damage and
1 health risks. 3
 How to recognise Fall Armyworm (FAW)

FAW usually lays its eggs on leaves and these can be identified
from their grey-whitish colour and covering of fuzzy scales.
FAW larvae can be identified from the inverted Y on the face
and the presence of a square of four dots on the second last
segment.

Adult FAW are moths and fly at night, so are less often seen
unless you are trapping them. They can be recognised from the
white patches on the hide wings.

Damage caused by smaller FAW larvae can be recognised from

the pinholes in leaves. Larger FAW larvae hide in the whorl and
shred the young leaves. Their presence can also be recognised
from the damp, yellow-brown frass they produce in the whorl.

4
Natural enemies

Natural enemies are organisms living in farmers’ fields that attack pests.

Many are insects, including parasitoids and predators, but they also include fungi,
nematodes and others. Bats are very important natural enemies that feed on adult FAW
and some birds also eat the larvae. It is important to protect natural enemies, as they are
the farmers’ best friends in the fight against FAW and other pests.

Greenbul Bird
African
Flycatcher Bird

Insectivorous
Bat Hunting Spider

Predatory
Beetles
Earwigs

Ant Social Wasp

Assassin Bug
Parasitoids

5
 Prevention

Avoid late planting

After the dry season, FAW populations are naturally very low3. Timely planting, after
the first three good rains, will ensure the crop passes through the vulnerable stages
before the FAW population has had a chance to build up.

If you plant late (i.e. 1-2 months after initial plantings), FAW can move from neighbouring
fields on to the newly planted maize and will often cause a lot of damage.

6 3
Practice good soil management
Healthy plants are more resistant to pest dry season, as this removes all the organic
attack and can recover from damage. matter and exposes soils to erosion when
In fact, maize can recover from severe the first rains arrive. An added advantage of
damage with little loss of yield, if plants using natural fertilisers is that it provides a
are healthy4. good habitat for natural enemies.

Best is to manage soils using natural If you are using chemical fertilisers or
fertilisers, such as animal manure or combining chemical fertilisers with natural
compost. Alternatively, use nitrogen fixing soil management approaches, such as
plants like fertiliser trees. These approaches mulching, be sure to apply the correct
not only provide the crop with sufficient dosage. It is better to manage a smaller
nutrition, but also enhance the biological area of maize properly than to under-
activity of the soil, which enables the maize fertilise a larger area. Weak plants do not
to absorb nutrients efficiently. It is essential recover from FAW attack well and yields
to promote soil carbon through practices are likely to be reduced. Many farmers
such as minimum tillage and residue report that their fields recover from FAW
retention (or adding mulch), and through attack after Urea top dressing is added.
crop rotation. Organic matter improves This is expected because the Urea provides
soil structure, water holding capacity and the nitrogen the maize needs during its
encourages biological activity. The worst growth spurt.
thing you can do is to burn your fields in the

7
 Intercropping with legumes
Intercropping maize with legumes, such a gap of 105-130 cm (i.e. ally system).
as cowpea, ground nuts, beans, velvet This provides more light for the intercrop
beans and pigeonpea, or fertiliser trees leading to more robust growth. The
like Faidherbia, Tephrosia or Gliricidia, intercrop is planted into the gap at the
reduces FAW infestation and damage5,6. same time as the maize. However, if
The intercrop provides ground cover, planting velvet bean, lablab or other cover-
thereby providing good habitat for natural crops that have very strong growth, it is
enemies, and may also discourage FAW best to plant these one month later to
moths from laying eggs. avoid smothering the maize. For shrub-like
intercrops and fertiliser trees, including
When intercropping with legume crops or pigeonpea, Faidherbia, Tephrosia and
cover-crops, it is best to plant two rows Gliricidia, usually 5-6 rows of maize are
of maize about 45 cm apart followed by planted between alleys of the intercrop.

105-130cm 105-130cm

45 cm 45 cm 45 cm
Cowpea Cowpea

Maize Maize Maize

8
 Push-Pull
Push-Pull’ is where an intercrop (the ‘push’), usually
Desmodium, is combined with a ‘pull’ crop, such as Bracharia
grass, that is planted around the edges of a field.

Push-Pull has been shown to be effective in reducing FAW

infestation in dry environments in East Africa7. Its attraction to
farmers depends on whether the Desmodium and Bracharia can
be used for fodder, and also if there is a risk of Striga infestation,
because Desmodium is effective for controlling Striga.

Desmodium Desmodium

Maize Maize
Brancharia Brancharia
Grass Grass

9
 Trapping adult FAW moths
A simple trap can be made from a 2 litre When the moths are attracted to the trap,
soda bottle painted yellow. A pheromone they fall into the water and drown. Because
lure is used to attract male moths and the pheromones only attract the males,
the traps is filled with water with a little the trap does not prevent FAW infestation,
detergent. but they disrupt the mating and reduce the
population.

10 cm
opening

Pheromone
stick

10
Biological control
There are different types of biological Good practices for conservation biological
control. In classical biological control, a control include protecting fragments of
natural enemy of the pest from its area native forest, and planting or regenerating
of origin is introduced to control the native trees and shrubs along field
pest. In augmentative biological control a boundaries. Species that produce showy
company breeds native natural enemies flowers are especially good, as parasitoids
in a laboratory and then sells them to a feed on the nectar. Critically important is to
farmer (or government) to release. For avoid using chemical pesticides, as these
conservation biological control, farmers kill natural enemies. The most important
modify the environment around their predators include social wasps and ants,
fields to encourage natural enemies so be sure to protect their nests. If you find
by providing habitat, alternative food a bat roost, be sure to protect it too, as the
sources, or nest sites. bats feed on the adult moths.

11
 FAW resistant / tolerant varieties
A number of FAW resistant and tolerant seed varieties
are now available.

These show good yield responses to intense FAW attack.

Hence, farmers may wish to use these in hotspot areas
where FAW infestations are typically high. However,
in other areas, where FAW infestations are not usually
severe, farmers are likely to get better yields using their
normal choice of variety.

Pesticide seed coatings

Certain systemic pesticides are available as seed coatings, and
have been found to be effective against FAW (e.g. FortenzaTM Dua).

Farmers in hotspot areas, where FAW infestations are typically

high, may wish to use this approach. However, these pesticides
have severe impacts on natural enemies and soil organisms8, and
hence are not advised where FAW infestations are not expected to
be severe. In addition, farmers must use the appropriate protective
clothing. Handling of seeds coated in pesticides poses a high health
risk through direct contact with the skin or via food eaten with
contaminated hands.

912 10
 Monitoring

The only reliable way to assess the survey 5 points by walking a W-shape or
severity of a FAW infestation is through zigzag through the plot, with each leg of
scouting and assessing the damage to the W or zigzag being about 20-25 m. At
plants. each survey point, the farmer inspects
the 10 closest plants (it is important that
Pheromone traps indicate that FAW is in the farmer does not search for infested
an area and hence provide some early plants, as this will inflate the estimates of
warning, but are not a reliable indicator the severity of an infestation). For each
of the severity of an attack3. Infestation of the ten plants, the farmer checks the
rate (i.e. the proportion of plants with FAW top three leaves and whorl and assesses
larvae) is also unreliable, because many whether these have i) no damage, ii) light
of the younger larvae will be eaten before damage or iii) severe damage. If 10 or more
they do much damage2. The only reliable are severely damaged out of the 50 plants
indicator is the amount of FAW induced inspected, the farmer should consider
damage to the crop, and especially the interventions to control the population
proportion of severely damaged plants. (see below). If the number of severely
damaged plants is between 2 and 9, or 10
Starting around two weeks after or more plants are lightly damaged, the
emergence, fields should be scouted farmer should monitor the field weekly to
every two weeks throughout the growing determine if the infestation gets worse.
season. To scout a field, the farmer should

10 plants 10 plants
10 plants
20

20
-25

-2
5m
20
m

2
-25

0 -2
m

5m

10 plants 10 plants

11 139
Interventions to control FAW populations

Cultural interventions

Picking or crushing
FAW eggs can be crushed between finger and
thumb, while the larvae can be picked out of
the whorl.

Rainfall forces FAW larvae to crawl out of the

whorl to avoid drowning, so picking immediately
after heavy rain is more efficient and avoids
damaging the growing tip.

Sand and ash

A little fine river sand or a mixture of sand and
ash can be poured into whorls that have FAW
larvae.

The sand acts as an irritant that damages the

skin and prevents the FAW larvae from feeding.
Some farmers have used soil, but this is likely to
be less effective than fine sand.

14 12
10
 Fish soup
A thin stew of fish or a mixture of fish soup and sugar
can be dribbled into the whorl and on to the leaves of
plants with FAW larvae.

The fish attracts ants and other predators, which then

attack the FAW larvae. The advantage of fish soup is
that it also acts as a foliar fertilizer and improves plant
growth.

Water and detergent

Spraying (or dribbling) water with a little
detergent into the whorl of infested plants kills
the FAW larvae by drowning.

It is important not to put too much detergent into

the water, as this will burn the plant. A quarter
of a teaspoon of powdered detergent per litre of
water is plenty.

13 1511
 Biological pesticides

There are a number of biological and safety warnings for effective and safe
pesticides that are effective against use of biological pesticides.
FAW. These include mating disruptors
(e.g. PherogenTM), feeding inhibitors Neem is a very effective biological
(e.g. Neem, Azadirachta indica), pesticide against FAW4. While commercial
Nucleoployhedrovirus (NPV) (e.g. formulations exist, it is also possible to
FawligenTM), entopathogenic fungi and make your own. Harvest 5 kg of Neem
nematodes. leaves, remove the midrib, and crush using
a pestle and mortar. Add the crushed
Biologicals tend to be more expensive than leaves to 5 litres of water and leave to
chemical pesticides, but they are very soak over-night. Filter the liquid using a
effective and do not harm natural enemies cloth and add a teaspoon of detergent to
so are to be preferred. It is important to the water before applying the liquid to the
understand that biological pesticides do crop using a knapsack sprayer. The pestle
not poison pests and so the FAW larvae and mortar should be scrubbed out and
often persist on the crop for a period of washed thoroughly before it is used to
time (e.g. 7-14 days) after application of prepare food again (or preferably, reserve
the pesticide. However, they are sickening one only for preparing Neem). Neem is a
and do little damage. Some biological feeding inhibitor, which makes the FAW
pesticides require multiple applications larvae feel sick and prevents them feeding,
to be effective. It is important to follow so that they slowly starve and die.
dosage instructions, application techniques

5L
16 14
 Chemical pesticides

There are a number of chemical pesticides that are known to be effective against
FAW (Table 1)8. These are mostly newer formulations and hence often more expensive.
However, many older formulations are not effective because of the development of pest
resistance.

Table 1: Chemical pesticides know to show high efficacy against FAW. The table is
organised according to the risk to human health and the environment.

Acephate, gamma-cyhalothrin,
High risk pesticides requiring
lambda-cyhalothrin, cypermethrin,
maximum PPE with engineering and
deltamethrin, diflubenzuron,
behavioural mitigation
emamectin benzoate, fenvalerate

High risk pesticides to human health

and the environment requiring Bifenthrin, alpha-cypermethrin,
double-layer PPE and either eye or beta-cypermethrin, indoxacarb
respirator protection or both

Lower risk pesticides to human Lufenuron, novaluron, spinetoram,

health requiring single-layer PPE, but spinosad, teflubenzuron,
high environmental risk triflumuron

Lower risk pesticides to human Bacillus thuringiensis serovar aizawai,

health and environment requiring chlorantraniliprole, flubendiamide,
single-layer PPE methoxyfenozide, pyrethrum

Source: Jepson et al 2020. Lancet Planetary Health 4: e56-e63

It is important that farmers appreciate that chemical pesticides often impact natural
enemies more than they impact the pest. Hence, they should only be used as a last
resort. It is essential that proper dosages, application techniques and safety precautions
are applied.

15 17
 Trap crops

Protecting cobs against

FAW damage
If a crop is moderately to heavily infested during the
vegetative phase, FAW can sometimes cause appreciable
damage to the cobs.

To avoid this, farmers can use freshly planted maize as a

trap crop. Just prior to the tasselling stage, 2-4 rows of
maize are planted around the plot (or along paths within the
plot). As the young maize emerges, the FAW will move on to
the young plants thereby protecting the cobs. The trap crop
can be destroyed after the cobs have been harvested.

18
Futher Reading
1. Kenis, M., Benelli, G., Biondi, A., Calatayud, P.-A., Day, R., Desneux, N.,
Harrison, R.D. et al. In press. Invasiveness, biology, ecology, and management
of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Entomologia Generalis. Available
from https://doi.org/10.1127/entomologia/2022/1659

2. Harrison, R., Banda, J., Chipabika, G., Chisonga, C., Katema, C., Mabote Ndalamei, D.,
Nyirenda, S. & Tembo, H. 2022. Low Impact of Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda
Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Across Smallholder Fields in Malawi and Zambia.
Journal of economic entomology, 115(6): 1783–1789.

3. Niassy, S., Agbodzavu, M.K., Kimathi, E., Mutune, B., Abdel-Rahman, E.F.M., Salifu, D.,
Hailu, G. et al. 2021. Bioecology of fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith),
its management and potential patterns of seasonal spread in Africa. PloS one, 16(6):
e0249042.

4. Hruska, A.J. 2019. Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) management by

smallholders. CAB Reviews Perspectives in Agriculture Veterinary Science Nutrition
and Natural Resources, 14(043). https://doi.org/10.1079/pavsnnr201914043.

5. Harrison, R.D., Thierfelder, C., Baudron, F., Chinwada, P., Midega, C., Schaffner, U.
& van den Berg, J. 2019. Agro-ecological options for fall armyworm (Spodoptera
frugiperda JE Smith) management: Providing low-cost, smallholder friendly solutions
to an invasive pest. Journal of environmental management, 243: 318–330.

6. Hailu, G., Niassy, S., Zeyaur, K.R., Ochatum, N. & Subramanian, S. 2018. Maize–legume
intercropping and push–pull for management of Fall Armyworm, stemborers, and
Striga in Uganda. Agronomy Journal, 10: 2513:2522.

7. Midega, C.A.O., Pittchar, J.O., Pickett, J.A., Hailu, G.W. & Khan, Z.R. 2018. A climate-
adapted push-pull system effectively controls fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda
(J E Smith), in maize in East Africa. Crop protection, 105: 10–15.

8. Jepson, P.C., Murray, K., Bach, O., Bonilla, M.A. & Neumeister, L. 2020. Selection of
pesticides to reduce human and environmental health risks: a global guideline and
minimum pesticides list. The Lancet. Planetary health, 4(2): e56–e63.

19
CIFOR-ICRAF harnesses the power of trees, forests, and agroforestry landscapes to
address the most pressing global challenges of our time – biodiversity loss, climate
change, food security, livelihoods and inequity.

cifor-icraf.org

Production: CIFOR-ICRAF Communications, Outreach and Engagement Team