Cultural Control of Fall Armyworm : Results of New Approaches

1. Cultural Control of Fall Armyworm
- Results of a New Research Approach
by Christian Thierfelder and Frédéric Baudron CIMMYT

2. Potential Impact of FAW
• FAW consumes over 80 different
crop – cereals preferred
• FAW has the potential to cause
maize yield losses of 8.3 to 20.6
million metric tons per year
• Potential Impact US$2.48 billion
and US$6.19 billion
• Affects seed production,
smallholder farmers and food
security

3. Challenges associated with conventional
FAW control strategies
• Costly for smallholder farmers
• Inaccessible – farmers live in remote areas
• Knowledge intensive
• May control FAW but also beneficial organisms
• Need for solutions in reach of farmers
• Solutions that are environmentally benign as
well

4. Experiences with CA and GMCCs
1. Crotalaria juncea (black Sunnhemp)
2. Crotalaria grahamiana ( common Rattlepot)
3. Crotalaria ochroleuca (red Sunnhemp)
4. Mucuna pruriens (Velvet bean)
6. Cajanus cajan (Pigeon pea)
7. Lablab purpureus (Lablab)
8. Vigna unguiculata (Cowpea)
9. Canavalia ensiformis (Jack bean)
10. Raphanus sativus (Fodder radish)
11. Tephrosia vogelii (Fish bean)
12. Gliricidia sepium

5. Factors affecting leaf damage in farmers’ fields –
initial data from Zimbabwe, 2018

6. Chipinge: 41.5 ± 28.7 %
Makoni: 55.1 ± 26.4 %
Chipinge: 26.4 ± 24.8 %
Makoni: 31.2 ± 26.9 %
Chipinge: 34.5 ± 27.7 %
Makoni: 35.9 ± 25.0 %
Estimates of FAW infestation in the
2 Districts- the GOAL study
Baudron et al. 2019

7. Baudron et al. 2019

8. Baudron et al. 2019

9. Baudron et al. 2019

10. Baudron et al. 2019

11. Baudron et al. 2019

12. First results showed….
• Intercropping with legumes seems to reduce
FAW – not pumpkin
• No-tillage and maybe mulching have an effect
(spiders, ants have hiding space)
• Good agricultural practices e.g. fertilization (rate
and timing), weeding and early planting
reduce FAW
• Push-pull definitely an option but needs to be
adapted to southern Africa
• Carry over of pest in weeds and in irrigated
systems

13. Effect of Push Pull Technology on FAW
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Bungoma Busia Siaya Vihiga Migori Homabay
Mean%plantsdamaged/plot
Different districts inwesternKenya
Push-pull
Maize monocrop
0
50
100
150
200
250
Bungoma Busia Siaya Vihiga Migori Homabay
MeannumberofFAW
larvae/100plants
Different districts in western Kenya
Push-pull
Maize monocrop
• Ecosystem management
approaches can control
FAW while enhancing
biodiversity
Source: Midega et al, 2018

14. USAID – New research trial in Zimbabwe
• Agro-ecological management of Fall armyworm
• Using climate adapted push-pull systems
• Diversification
T6
T3
T1
T5
T4
T2
T4
T1
T2
T6
T5
T3
Brachiaria surrounding the block
District 1
District 2
> 30 m
> 10 m
> 10 m
T1: sole maize (control)
T2: maize + cowpea
T3: maize + pigeonpea
T4: maize + lablab
T5: maize + velvet bean
T6: maize + groundnut

15. Strip cropping – a new way of intercropping

16. First results - incidence and
severity
Baudron and Thierfelder 2019, unpublished

17. Alternative prey – Natural enemies
Baudron and Thierfelder 2019, unpublished

18. What are these species?
Baudron and Thierfelder 2019, unpublished

19. What influences what? – the power of
structural equation modelling!
Baudron and Thierfelder 2019, unpublished
• Legume intercrops
and CA enhance
alternative prey
• This has effects on
natural enemies
• Which causes
control of Fall
Armyworm

20. Predicting Maize yield
Baudron and Thierfelder 2019, unpublished

21. Conclusion
• FAW damage was much lower in 2018/2019 as
compared to previous years
• Legume intercropping has an effect – velvet
bean seems to be the strongest (repelling
effect)
• Combination of CA and GMCCs our best bet!
• The process:
 legume intercropping/CA enhance alternative pray,
 feed for natural enemies,
 Control of FAW

22. Thank you
for your
interest!