Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T16:07:33.553Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of different host plants on the developmental aspects and growth parameters of Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) under laboratory conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2026

Mridula Open the ORCID record for Mridula [Opens in a new window] ,
Naveen Aggarwal  and
Jawala Jindal
Mridula*
Affiliation:
Insect Ecology Laboratory, Department of Entomology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India
Naveen Aggarwal
Affiliation:
Insect Ecology Laboratory, Department of Entomology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India
Jawala Jindal
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Breeding & Genetics, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India
*
Corresponding author: Mridula; Email: ykmridula@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Content of image described in text.

The fall armyworm (FAW), Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith), feeds on a wide range of host plants, necessitating evaluation of host-specific effects on its development and reproduction. Age-stage, two-sex life table analysis was utilised to quantify developmental and population parameters on seven hosts: Maize (Zea mays), Napier bajra (Pennisetum purpureum x P. glaucum), Guinea grass (Megathyrsus maximus), Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan), Mung bean (Vigna radiata), Soybean (Glycine max), and Desmodium gangeticum under controlled conditions (26 ± 1°C; 65 ± 5% RH; 14L:10D). FAW completed development on all hosts except Desmodium, as larval survival failed, underscoring its unsuitabilityand potential as a deterrent crop. Maize was the most suitable host, supporting shortest larval (12.89 days) and pupal (7.87 days) durations, highest pupal weight (197.02 mg), fecundity (733.28 eggs per female), and superior population parameters, including the highest intrinsic rate of increase (rm = 0.213), net reproductive rate (R₀ = 366.64), and shortest generation time (T = 27.63 days). Napier bajra and guinea grass supported moderate performance, suggesting potential as trap crops under laboratory conditions. Legumes were unsuitable for different developmental stages, indicating their potential as a suppressive host. Mung bean was the destitute host, with prolonged larval (27.02 days) and pupal (9.85 days) durations, lowest pupal weight (127.32 mg), reduced fecundity (152.91 eggs per female), and suppressed demographic parameters (rm = 0.079; R₀ = 33.64; T = 44.74 days). These host-mediated responses provide biologically grounded insights for trap and deterrent crop selection for strengthening habitat-manipulation strategies for FAW management in Indian agroecosystems.

Keywords

biologyfall armywormhost plantsmaizetwo-sex life table

Information

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 116 , Issue 5 , October 2026 , pp. 613 - 626
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

Host plants strongly influence insect herbivore performance through variations in nutritional profiles and defensive chemistry (House, Reference House1961; Meagher and Nagoshi, Reference Meagher and Nagoshi2004; Wetzel et al., Reference Wetzel, Kharouba, Robinson, Holyoak and Karban2016; Jing et al., Reference Jing, Huang, Li, Zhou, Ren, Li, Xing, Zhang, Xi and Bo2021; He et al., Reference He, Wu, Gao and Wu2021b). Such host-dependent effects are reflected in measurable life-history traits, including larval and pupal duration, survivorship, adult longevity, fecundity and population growth parameters, which together determine host suitability. The availability of diverse hosts can further facilitate behavioural shifts and niche expansion, promoting rapid pest adaptation (Barros et al., Reference Barros, Torres, Ruberson and Oliveira2010).

The fall armyworm (FAW), Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), is a highly polyphagous pest, known to feed on 353 plant species across 76 families (Montezano et al., Reference Montezano, Specht, Sosa-Gómez, Roque-Specht, Sousa-Silva, Paula Moraes, Peterson and Hunt2018). It comprises two genetically distinct strains, the corn (sfC) and rice (sfR) strains, exhibiting differential host preferences (Yainna et al., Reference Yainna, Tay, Durand, Fiteni, Hilliou and Legeai2022). Invasive Asian populations are dominated by the C-strain and interstrain hybrids, with the R-strain being rare or absent, reflecting regional variation driven by local adaptation and hybridisation (Nagoshi, Reference Nagoshi2022). As a generalist, FAW readily switches to alternative hosts when preferred ones are scarce and can utilise forage grasses (Buntin, Reference Buntin1986). In general, grasses (Poaceae) often provide nutrient balances that promote rapid development, whereas legumes (Fabaceae) may impose nutritional or chemical constraints (e.g. protease inhibitors, phenolics, tannins) that reduce survival or prolong development. Therefore, host identity strongly determines FAW biological performance and potential population outbreaks.

FAW was first detected in India in 2018 and has since spread widely (EPPO, 2018; Ganiger et al., Reference Ganiger, Yeshwanth, Muralimohan, Vinay, Kumar and Chandrashekara2018; Sharanabasappa et al., Reference Sharanabasappa, Kalleshwaraswamy, Asokan, Mahadevaswamy, Maruthi and Pavithra2018). Larval feeding on whorls, ears and tassels often leads to considerable global yield losses, often exceeding 30–50% under outbreak conditions (Sarmento et al., Reference Sarmento, Aguiar, Aguiar, Vieira, Oliveira and Holtz2002; Guo et al., Reference Guo, Zhao, He, Zhang and Wang2018; Wu et al., Reference Wu, Wu, Fan and Zhang2021b), underlining the need for sustainable management strategies. Habitat manipulation strategies, particularly the push–pull approach, which combines repellent intercrops with attractive trap crops, has shown promise for FAW control (Khan et al., Reference Khan, Pickett, Berg, Wadhams and Woodcock2000, Reference Khan, Midega, Wadhams, Pickett and Mumuni2007, Reference Khan, Midega, Pittchar, Pickett and Bruce2011; Cook et al., Reference Cook, Khan and Pickett2007); however, the efficacy of these systems depends on the choice of host plants used as push or pull crops, which may vary at a particular location (Guera et al., Reference Guera, Castrejón-Ayala, Robledo, Jiménez-Pérez, Sánchez-Rivera, Salazar-Marcial and Flores Moctezuma2021). Most available evidence on push–pull systems originates from East Africa, and therefore its applicability requires validation under Indian agro-ecological conditions.

Despite extensive studies on FAW biology across different host plants globally, information from India remains limited, especially using the age-stage, two-sex life-table approach (Chi and Liu, Reference Chi and Liu1985), which accounts for stage differentiation and incorporates the contribution of both sexes and thus provides a more accurate representation of population dynamics (Lewis, Reference Lewis1942; Leslie, Reference Leslie1945; Birch, Reference Birch1948; Carey, Reference Carey1993; Huang and Chi, Reference Huang and Chi2011). To address this gap, we conducted controlled laboratory assays and constructed an age-stage, two-sex life-table to compare the suitability of seven host plants commonly found in India to S. frugiperda: Maize, Zea mays (L.) (Poales: Poaceae), Napier bajra (Pennisetum purpureum (L.) R. Br. x Pennisetum glaucum Schumach.) (Poales: Poaceae), Guinea grass, Megathyrsus maximus (Jacq.) B.K. Simon and S.W.L. Jacobs (Poales: Poaceae), Pigeon pea, Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. (Fabales: Fabaceae), Mung bean, Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek (Fabales: Fabaceae), Soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. (Fabales: Fabaceae), and Desmodium gangeticum (L.) de Candolle (Fabales: Fabaceae). By identifying hosts that enhance or suppress FAW development and population growth, the study aims to provide biologically grounded insights for trap and deterrent crop selection and strengthening ecological management strategies in India. Accordingly, the research was guided by the two primary objectives: (i) to study the biological and developmental traits of S. frugiperda across these host plants, and (ii) to estimate age-stage, two-sex life table parameters to determine how host identity influences FAW population growth.

Materials and methods

Location

The study was conducted in the Insect Ecology Laboratory, Department of Entomology, Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), Ludhiana, India (30°54′35″N, 75°51′26″E), at an altitude of 247 meters above sea level.

Host plants

This study evaluated seven host plants: Maize (hybrid, PMH 13), Napier bajra (hybrid, PBN342), Guinea grass (variety, PGG 518), Pigeon pea (variety, AL 882), Mung bean (variety, ML 2056), Soybean, (variety, SL 958), and D. gangeticum (local variety, Kerala Forest Research Institute [KFRI], Kerala). D. gangeticum, being native to and widely available in India (Vaghela et al., Reference Vaghela, Buddhadev and Shukla2013), was selected for the study based on its availability and relevance to local agroecosystems.

Maize seeds were obtained from the Principal Maize Breeder; guinea grass seeds and Napier bajra slips from the Principal Forage Breeder; mung bean, pigeon pea, and soybean seeds from the Principal Pulse and Oilseed Breeder, Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, PAU, Ludhiana; and Desmodium seeds from the KFRI, Kerala. The seeds of various host plants were sown in earthen pots (27 × 25 cm) containing a soil: well-rotten farmyard manure mixture (2:1), following PAU’s Package of Practices (Anonymous, 2024). For Napier bajra, slips were used instead of seeds. Desmodium was sown as per the recommendations of KFRI (Anonymous, 2025).

Healthy plants were maintained in an insect-proof screenhouse covered with 40-mesh nylon netting at the Entomological Research Farm, PAU. Fully expanded leaves from 15 to 20-day-old plants were used for all laboratory bioassays.

Insect colony

The mass rearing of S. frugiperda was conducted in the Insect Ecology Laboratory, Department of Entomology, PAU, Ludhiana, under controlled conditions (26 ± 1°C; 65 ± 5%; 14L:10D) within Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) incubators (Remi CHM-12 Plus). To initiate the colony, 10 field-collected egg masses were obtained from maize plants in the PAU research fields. Each egg mass was placed separately in Petri dishes (11 × 2.5 cm). Upon hatching, neonates were supplied with fresh leaf discs from 15 to 20-day-old potted maize plants and were replaced daily to maintain freshness and minimise desiccation. After the first moult, larvae were isolated individually into plastic vials (4.5 × 3 cm) to prevent cannibalism and reared on fresh maize leaves until pupation. Pupae were transferred to plastic jars (10 × 15 cm) containing moist sand and lined with filter paper, with 10 pupae per jar.

Following adult emergence, synchronously emerged pairs (one male and one female emerging on the same day) were released in oviposition cages (30 × 30 × 30 cm) for mating. After 24 h, young maize seedlings (4–5 leaf stage) were introduced as oviposition substrate, and adults were provided with 10% honey-soaked cotton as food. Egg masses laid by these pairs were reared on maize for one laboratory generation to establish a uniform colony, thereby reducing field-derived variability before initiating the experiments.

Developmental aspects, longevity, oviposition period and fecundity

The eggs obtained from the mass-reared S. frugiperda culture were used to study its biological aspects on the seven host plants. One egg mass was placed in each petri dish containing fresh leaves of each host plant, respectively. After hatching, 10 neonates per dish were randomly selected and reared on 1.5 cm leaf or whorl cuttings from 20-day-old plants under controlled conditions (26 ± 1°C with 65 ± 5% RH; 14L:10D) in BOD incubators. Following the first moult, second instar larvae from each petri dish were transferred individually to plastic vials and provided ad libitum with fresh leaves of the same host until pupation; individual rearing prevented cannibalism and allowed tracking of individual development. Each treatment (host) comprised five biologically independent replicates, with 10 larvae per replicate, resulting in a total sample size of 50 larvae per host. The larval period was recorded from hatching to pupation, and daily observations were made to track the duration of each instar. Pupae were removed from vials and weighed within 24 h of pupation using an analytical balance (AND Company Limited, HR-250AZ), and the duration from pupation to adult emergence was recorded as the pupal period.

Upon adult emergence, one male and one female emerging on the same day were paired and released into oviposition cages provided with a 20-day-old potted plant of the respective host to assess reproductive traits, including the adult pre-oviposition period (APOP), total pre-oviposition period (TPOP), oviposition period, fecundity and adult longevity. The total life cycle duration on different host plants was determined as the time from egg hatching to adult emergence.

Life table parameters and analysis

An age-stage, two-sex life table was constructed using the TWOSEX-MS Chart software (Chi and Liu, Reference Chi and Liu1985; Chi, Reference Chi1988) to analyse the life-history data of S. frugiperda across all host plant treatments. The same synchronised cohort that was used for the developmental study was followed throughout their life cycle, and the resulting survival and fecundity data were used for life table analysis. The following parameters were worked out:

  1. a. Net reproductive rate (R o), indicating the average number of offspring produced by a female during her lifetime, was estimated by summing the products of ‘lx’ and ‘mx’ across all age intervals, using the formula:

Ro equals sigma summation lxmx \begin{equation*}{{\text{R}}_{\text{o}}} = \sum {l_x}{m_x}\end{equation*}

where, lx = proportion of female survivors at the start of age interval ‘x’

mx = no. of female offspring produced per female at age ‘x’

  1. b. Mean generation time (T), represents the average age of females in a cohort at the time they give birth to offspring. It was determined using the following formula:

upper T equals sigma summation backslash nolimitsx period lx period mx sigma summation backslash nolimitslxmx \begin{equation*}{\text{T}} = \frac{{\mathop \sum \nolimits^ { }x.{ }{l_x}.{m_x}}}{{{ }\mathop \sum \nolimits^ { }{l_x}{m_x}}}\end{equation*}

where, x = pivotal age in days

  1. c. Intrinsic rate of population increase (rm), was estimated by recording the number of surviving individuals and the average number of female offspring produced at each age interval. These values were then used to calculate ‘rm’ using the following formula:

sigma summation x equals 0 infinity e minus rm left parenthesis x plus 1 right parenthesis lxmx equals 1 \begin{equation*}\mathop \sum \limits_{x = 0}^\infty {e^{ - rm\left( {x + 1} \right)}}lxmx = 1\end{equation*}

where, e = base of the natural logarithm

r = intrinsic rate of increase

The finite rate of natural increase (λ) is the number of females per female per day and was determined as:

lamda equals antilogerm \begin{equation*}{{\lambda = \text {antilog} }}{{\text{e}}^{{\text{rm}}}}\end{equation*}

  1. d. Doubling time (DT) is the time taken in days by a species to double its population and was calculated using the formula:

DT equals ln 2 slash rm \begin{equation*}{\text{DT = ln 2/}}{{\text{r}}_{\text{m}}}\end{equation*}

where, ln = natural log (e = 2.718)

  1. e. Gross reproductive rate (GRR), represents the total number of female eggs produced per female and was determined using the following formula:

GRR equals sigma summation x equals 0 infinity mx \begin{equation*}GRR = \mathop \sum \limits_{x = 0}^\infty {m_x}\end{equation*}

  1. f. Age-specific survival rate (lx), indicates the likelihood that a newly laid egg will survive up to age x and was calculated using the following formula:

lx equals sigma summation j equals 1 msxj \begin{equation*}{l_x} = \,\mathop \sum \limits_{j = 1}^m {s_{xj}}\end{equation*}

where, Sxj = Probability that a newly laid egg can survive to age x and stage j

  1. g. Age-specific fecundity (mx), represents the number of eggs laid by an individual at age x and was determined using the following formula:

mx equals sigma summation backslash nolimitsj equals 1 msxjfxjlx \begin{equation*}{m_x} = \frac{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{j = 1}^m {s_{xj}}\,{f_{xj}}}}{{{l_x}}}\end{equation*}

where, fxj = number of hatched eggs produced by female adult at age x

Data analysis

The performance of FAW, on different host plants was analysed using SPSS v20.0 software programme. Treatment means were compared using one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s HSD test at a five per cent significance level, under a completely randomised design (Gomez and Gomez, Reference Gomez and Gomez1984). The population parameters of S. frugiperda were worked out with the help of the TWOSEX-MS Chart (version 07.06.2024) (Chi and Liu, Reference Chi and Liu1985; Chi, Reference Chi1988). Their standard errors were estimated using 100,000 bootstrap resamples, and differences among host plant treatments were evaluated using the paired bootstrap test (Reddy and Chi, Reference Reddy and Chi2015; Bahari et al., Reference Bahari, Fathipour, Talebi and Alipour2018).

Results

Larval duration of FAW on different hosts

The total larval duration and the duration of individual larval instars of S. frugiperda differed significantly among all the test plants (F 5,24 = 562.10, P < 0.05) (table 1). The shortest larval period was observed on maize (12.89 ± 0.45 days), followed by Napier bajra (16.26 ± 0.18 days) and guinea grass (17.30 ± 0.14 days), suggesting that these hosts provide the most suitable conditions for faster larval development. In contrast, the longest larval durations were observed on mung bean (27.02 ± 0.29 days), pigeon pea (24.22 ± 0.08 days), and soybean (24.67 ± 0.16 days), suggesting delayed development likely due to poor nutritional quality or plant defence mechanisms. Notably, larvae were unable to survive on Desmodium under laboratory conditions, indicating antibiosis. This confirms Desmodium as a strong non-host and highlights its potential as a push crop. As a result of complete larval mortality, further evaluation of biological and reproductive parameters on Desmodium was not possible.

Table 1.

Larval duration of the fall armyworm, S. frugiperda reared on different host plants (26 ± 1°C; 65 ± 5% RH; 14L:10D)

Total larval duration was shortest on maize at 12.89 days and longest on mung bean at 27.02 days, with soybean and pigeon pea near 24 days. See long description.
a Long description

Mean duration in days with standard error is listed for larval instars 1st through 7th and for total larval duration, by host plant. Maize shows 1st 1.86, 2nd 2.21, 3rd 2.05, 4th 1.96, 5th 2.20, 6th 2.61, 7th is shown as a dash, and total 12.89. Napier bajra shows 1st 2.04, 2nd 2.24, 3rd 2.56, 4th 2.38, 5th 2.78, 6th 4.27, 7th is a dash, and total 16.26. Guinea grass shows 1st 2.64, 2nd 2.96, 3rd 2.37, 4th 2.34, 5th 3.38, 6th 3.61, 7th is a dash, and total 17.30. Soybean includes a 7th instar and lists 1st 3.81, 2nd 3.12, 3rd 3.68, 4th 3.20, 5th 2.71, 6th 3.94, 7th 4.20, and total 24.67. Pigeon pea includes a 7th instar and lists 1st 4.08, 2nd 3.39, 3rd 2.69, 4th 2.30, 5th 3.18, 6th 3.42, 7th 5.17, and total 24.22. Mung bean includes a 7th instar and lists 1st 5.30, 2nd 4.52, 3rd 3.53, 4th 3.15, 5th 3.08, 6th 3.22, 7th 4.22, and total 27.02. Desmodium shows dashes for all instars and for total larval duration.

d, days.

a Values are the mean ± S.E. of five replicates.

The number of larval instars also varied among different host plants. Larvae completed development in six instars on maize, Napier bajra, and guinea grass, whereas an additional seventh instar was observed on legumes (soybean, pigeon pea, and mung bean), contributing to their prolonged larval duration.

Pupal duration, pupal weight, total duration and adult longevity

The developmental parameters of FAW fed on different hosts are summarised in table 2. Pre-pupal and pupal durations varied significantly (F 5,24 = 42.42, P < 0.05), with the shortest durations on maize (1.28 ± 0.05, 7.87 ± 0.18 days, respectively), while mung bean and pigeon pea resulted in the longest pre-adult stage, indicating delayed development. Pupal weight also varied significantly (F 5,24 = 75.76, P < 0.05). Larvae reared on maize recorded the highest mean pupal weight (197.02 ± 3.42 mg), significantly greater than all other hosts. Napier bajra (180.75 ± 4.14 mg) and guinea grass (174.31 ± 2.36 mg) supported significantly higher pupal weights compared to soybean, pigeon pea, and mung bean, though still lower than maize. Among legumes, the mung bean (127.32 ± 1.84 mg) was the lowest overall, suggesting that the reduced pupal weights observed on leguminous hosts may indicate nutritional stress.

Table 2.

Comparative biology and development of the fall armyworm, S. frugiperda reared on different host plants (26 ± 1°C; 65 ± 5% RH; 14L:10D)

Across host plants, maize has the shortest total duration at 22.03 days and the highest pupal weight at 197.02 mg, while mung bean has the longest total duration at 38.65 days. See long description.
Table 2 Long description

Development and adult longevity of S. frugiperda are listed by host plant for pre pupal duration in days, pupal duration in days, pupal weight in mg, total duration in days, adult longevity in days, male longevity in days, and female longevity in days. Maize reports pre pupal duration 1.28 plus or minus 0.05, pupal duration 7.87 plus or minus 0.18, pupal weight 197.02 plus or minus 3.42, adult longevity 8.81 plus or minus 0.15, male longevity 7.78 plus or minus 0.10, and female longevity 9.57 plus or minus 0.19. Napier bajra reports 1.38 plus or minus 0.03, 8.98 plus or minus 0.06, 180.75 plus or minus 4.14, total duration 26.62 plus or minus 0.13, adult longevity 7.92 plus or minus 0.08, male longevity 7.47 plus or minus 0.16, and female longevity 8.19 plus or minus 0.12. Guinea grass reports 1.46 plus or minus 0.04, 8.53 plus or minus 0.07, 174.31 plus or minus 2.36, total duration 27.28 plus or minus 0.20, adult longevity 7.08 plus or minus 0.11, male longevity 6.55 plus or minus 0.17, and female longevity 7.50 plus or minus 0.18. Soybean reports 1.65 plus or minus 0.04, 8.99 plus or minus 0.15, 143.54 plus or minus 3.40, total duration 35.30 plus or minus 0.13, adult longevity 7.34 plus or minus 0.11, male longevity 6.83 plus or minus 0.11, and female longevity 7.98 plus or minus 0.18. Pigeon pea reports 1.84 plus or minus 0.05, 9.51 plus or minus 0.08, 137.51 plus or minus 3.41, total duration 35.57 plus or minus 0.12, adult longevity 7.92 plus or minus 0.12, male longevity 7.40 plus or minus 0.17, and female longevity 8.68 plus or minus 0.13. Mung bean reports 1.78 plus or minus 0.03, 9.85 plus or minus 0.04, 127.32 plus or minus 1.84, adult longevity 6.98 plus or minus 0.17, male longevity 6.52 plus or minus 0.14, and female longevity 7.67 plus or minus 0.23. Desmodium shows a dash in every measurement column.

d, days; mg, milligram.

a Values are the mean ± S.E. of five replicates.

Adult longevity varied significantly across host plants (F 5,24 = 28.72, P < 0.05), with the longest adult lifespan on maize (8.81 ± 0.15 days). Mung bean resulted in the shortest longevity (6.98 ± 0.17 days). Females consistently lived longer than males across all hosts. The total developmental period varied significantly (F 5,24 = 336.28, P < 0.05), being shortest on maize (22.03 ± 0.59 days), followed by Napier bajra (26.62 ± 0.13 days) and guinea grass (27.28 ± 0.20 days). Mung bean (38.65 ± 0.30 days), pigeon pea (35.57 ± 0.12 days), and soybean (35.30 ± 0.13 days) had the longest durations, indicating slower development on leguminous hosts.

Reproductive parameters

The results indicated that the examined reproductive parameters were significantly affected by the different host plants studied (table 3). The shortest APOP was observed on Napier bajra (2.40 ± 0.13 days). In contrast, significantly longer APOP values were recorded on mung bean (3.64 ± 0.20 days). TPOP was significantly shortest on maize (25.16 ± 0.46 days), followed by Napier bajra (29.80 ± 0.42 days) and guinea grass (30.26 ± 0.49 days), with no significant difference between the latter two. In contrast, mung bean exhibited a significantly longer TPOP (43.09 ± 0.58 days), followed by pigeon pea (39.85 ± 0.54 days) and soybean (39.00 ± 0.36 days), indicating delayed reproductive maturity on these leguminous hosts. Oviposition period followed the same trend, with the longest period observed on maize (5.04 ± 0.14 days) and the shortest in mung bean (2.55 ± 0.16 days).

Table 3.

Effect of different host plants on the reproductive parameters of S. frugiperda under laboratory conditions (26 ± 1°C; 65 ± 5% RH; 14L:10D)

Maize had the highest fecundity at 733.28 plus or minus 14.02 total eggs per female, while mung bean had the lowest at 152.91 plus or minus 3.87. See long description.
Table 3 Long description

Reproductive parameters are listed by host plant for APOP in days, TPOP in days, oviposition period in days, and fecundity in total eggs per female, each reported as mean plus or minus S. E. with letter markers. Maize: APOP 2.48 plus or minus 0.10b, TPOP 25.16 plus or minus 0.46d, oviposition period 5.04 plus or minus 0.14a, fecundity 733.28 plus or minus 14.02a. Napier Grass: APOP 2.40 plus or minus 0.13b, TPOP 29.80 plus or minus 0.42c, oviposition period 3.93 plus or minus 0.15b, fecundity 463.67 plus or minus 8.74b. Guinea Grass: APOP 2.53 plus or minus 0.12b, TPOP 30.26 plus or minus 0.49c, oviposition period 3.68 plus or minus 0.11b, fecundity 444.79 plus or minus 8.27b. Soybean: APOP 3.23 plus or minus 0.12a, TPOP 39.00 plus or minus 0.36b, oviposition period 2.69 plus or minus 0.13c, fecundity 240.77 plus or minus 5.77c. Pigeon pea: APOP 3.38 plus or minus 0.14a, TPOP 39.85 plus or minus 0.54b, oviposition period 2.85 plus or minus 0.15c, fecundity 191.85 plus or minus 5.00d. Mung bean: APOP 3.64 plus or minus 0.20a, TPOP 43.09 plus or minus 0.58a, oviposition period 2.55 plus or minus 0.16c, fecundity 152.91 plus or minus 3.87e.

APOP, adult pre-oviposition period; TPOP, total pre-oviposition period (from egg to first oviposition).

a Values are mean ± S.E. of five replicates.

Fecundity varied significantly among the tested host plants. The highest fecundity was recorded in females reared on maize (733.28 ± 14.02 eggs per female), which was significantly greater than on all other hosts, highlighting its superior suitability for reproduction. Intermediate egg production was observed in cohorts reared on Napier bajra (463.67 ± 8.74 eggs per female) and guinea grass (444.79 ± 8.27 eggs per female). In contrast, significantly lower fecundity was recorded when the pest was reared on legumes, soybean (240.77 ± 5.77 eggs per female), pigeon pea (191.85 ± 5.00 eggs per female), and mung bean (152.81 ± 3.87 eggs per female), suggesting these hosts are less conducive to reproductive success in S. frugiperda.

Life table study of FAW

Age-stage specific survival rate (Sxj)

The age-stage-specific survival rate (Sxj) represents the probability that a newly hatched S. frugiperda egg survives to age x and stage j across different host plants (fig. 1). From egg to the last larval instar, the highest Sxj was observed on Napier bajra (0.78), followed by guinea grass (0.62), maize (0.58), soybean (0.56), pigeon pea (0.50), and the lowest on mung bean (0.42). Pupal survival (Sxj) was highest on maize (0.90), followed by guinea grass (0.76), soybean and pigeon pea (0.60 each), mung bean (0.54), and lowest on Napier bajra (0.50), where a sharp decline during late larval stages indicated increasing mortality approaching pupation. For the adult stage, both female and male Sxj values were highest on maize, followed by guinea grass and Napier bajra, and lowest on soybean, pigeon pea, and mung bean. Across all host plants, S. frugiperda egg survival peaked early but dropped to zero by day 3. Larval survival followed sequential peaks, ending around day 19 in maize and day 22 in guinea grass. In contrast, legumes showed higher mortality during early larval stages (L2–L5 in soybean; L3–L6 in pigeon pea and mung bean), with improved survival in the final instar (L7), which declined by day 32 in soybean and mung bean. Pupal survival was relatively stable but varied in duration from days 15–22 in maize, 18–27 in Napier bajra, and 18–28 in guinea grass, while lasting longer in legumes, days 27–35 in soybean, 26–36 in pigeon pea, and 29–39 in mung bean, before gradually declining as adults emerged. The adult emergence began earlier in graminaceous hosts (day 20 in maize, day 25 in Napier) compared to legumes. Female survival peaked on days 28 (maize), 31 (Napier), and 29 (guinea), with males showing slightly shorter lifespans. In legumes, males emerged earlier than females in pigeon pea and mung bean, with adult survival peaking later from days 37–42 in soybean, 37–43 in pigeon pea, and 41–46 in mung bean, followed by a steady decline. Overall, maize followed by guinea grass and Napier bajra showed shorter developmental durations with earlier peaks, while legumes exhibited delayed development, high early-stage mortality, and prolonged survival in later stages.

Figure 1.

Age-stage specific survival rate (Sxj) of S. frugiperda on maize, Napier bajra, Guinea grass, soybean, pigeon pea and mung bean under laboratory conditions (26 ± 1°C; 65 ± 5% RH; 14L:10D).

Six multi-line charts show age-stage survival of S. frugiperda on maize, Napier bajra, Guinea grass, soybean, pigeon pea and mung bean. See long description.
Figure 1 Long description

The graphs compare age-stage specific survival rates of S. frugiperda from egg to adult stages across six host plants. Each graph has the horizontal axis labeled as Age (Days) ranging from 0 to 60 and the vertical axis labeled as Age-stage specific survival rate (Sxj) ranging from 0.0 to 1.2. The series include Egg, L1 to L6 larval stages, Prep, Pupa, Female and Male. Maize: Early larval stages peak around 5 to 10 days. Pupa survival peaks around 25 days, with adult survival extending to 40 days. Napier bajra: Similar early peaks as maize, but pupa survival peaks slightly earlier around 20 days. Adult survival extends to 35 days. Guinea grass: Early larval peaks are around 5 to 10 days. Pupa survival peaks around 25 days, with adult survival extending to 40 days. Soybean: Early larval stages peak around 10 to 15 days. Pupa survival peaks around 30 days, with adult survival extending to 50 days. Pigeon pea: Early larval stages peak around 10 to 20 days. Pupa survival peaks around 35 days, with adult survival extending to 50 days. Mung bean: Early larval stages peak around 10 to 20 days. Pupa survival peaks around 35 days, with adult survival extending to 50 days. Distinct markers differentiate each stage, highlighting variations in survival rates and timing across host plants. Maize shows shorter developmental durations, while legumes exhibit delayed development and prolonged survival in later stages.

Age-specific survival rate (lx), age-stage specific fecundity (fx) and age-specific fecundity (mx)

The age-specific survival curves (lx) of S. frugiperda on various host plants (fig. 2), illustrate the probability of survival of a newborn to age x. Among the hosts, maize-fed individuals showed the earliest onset of oviposition, with females laying their first and last eggs on the 22nd and 35th days, respectively, with the highest initial survival probability (lx = 0.90) and a sharp decline to 0.04 by the end of oviposition. Napier bajra (27th–36th day, lx = 0.50–0.10) and guinea grass (26th–37th day, lx = 0.78–0.10) showed intermediate patterns. In contrast, legume-fed moths began ovipositing later, starting on the 37th day in soybean and pigeon pea, and on the 40th day in mung bean, with final egg laying extending to the 43rd, 45th, and 48th days, respectively, and the survival probabilities of 0.62–0.28 in soybean, 0.60–0.16 in pigeon pea, and 0.52–0.14 in mung bean. A notable decline in lx occurred after the 26th day in maize, 31st in Napier bajra, 28th in guinea grass, 38th in soybean, 37th in pigeon pea, and 40th in mung bean, indicating host-dependent differences in adult longevity and mortality. Age-specific fecundity (mx) and age-stage specific fecundity (fx), also shown in fig. 2, highlight significant variations in reproductive potential across hosts. Peak mx was highest in maize (98.50 eggs), followed by Napier bajra (67.18) and guinea grass (52.48), while much lower values were observed in soybean (30.46), pigeon pea (21.29), and mung bean (16.82). A similar trend was seen in fx, with the highest value in maize (116 eggs/female/day), followed by Napier bajra (105.57), guinea grass (95.13), soybean (66), pigeon pea (42.57), and the lowest in mung bean (37).

Figure 2.

Age-specific survival rate (lx), age-stage specific fecundity (fx), age-specific fecundity (mx) and age-specific maternity (lxmx) on maize, Napier bajra, Guinea grass, soybean, pigeon pea and mung bean under laboratory conditions (26 ± 1°C; 65 ± 5% RH; 14L:10D).

A set of six multi-line graphs showing age-specific survival rate and fecundity on maize, Napier bajra, Guinea grass, soybean, pigeon pea and mung bean. See long description.
Figure 2 Long description

Maize: The graph shows age-specific survival rate and fecundity over 50 days. Survival rate starts at 1.0 and declines sharply after day 22, reaching near zero by day 35. Fecundity peaks around day 22 at approximately 98 eggs. Napier bajra: Survival rate begins at 0.5, declining after day 27, reaching near zero by day 36. Fecundity peaks around day 27 at approximately 67 eggs. Guinea grass: Survival rate starts at 0.78, declining after day 26, reaching near zero by day 37. Fecundity peaks around day 26 at approximately 52 eggs. Soybean: Survival rate starts at 0.62, declining after day 38, reaching near zero by day 43. Fecundity peaks around day 37 at approximately 30 eggs. Pigeon pea: Survival rate starts at 0.60, declining after day 37, reaching near zero by day 45. Fecundity peaks around day 37 at approximately 21 eggs. Mung bean: Survival rate starts at 0.52, declining after day 40, reaching near zero by day 48. Fecundity peaks around day 40 at approximately 16 eggs. Legend identifies lines as l subscript x, f subscript x, m subscript x, l subscript x m subscript x. Each graph shows survival rate declining and fecundity peaking at different times, highlighting host-dependent differences.

Age-stage specific life expectancy (exj)

The age-stage specific life expectancy (exj) of S. frugiperda on six host plants (fig. 3) reflects the expected remaining lifespan after reaching a specific age (x) and stage (j). The value of exj showed a downward trend on all host plants with life expectancy values of 29.42, 26.30, 30.18, 28.86, 29.02 and 27.58 days, on maize, Napier bajra, guinea grass, soybean, pigeon pea and mung bean, respectively, at age 0 (e01). These values represent the mean longevity of newly emerged individuals. Notably, exj was lower during the early stages (egg and L1) on leguminous hosts, indicating that S. frugiperda developed more slowly on legumes compared to grasses.

Figure 3.

Age-stage specific life expectancy (exj) of maize, Napier bajra, Guinea grass, soybean, pigeon pea and mung bean under laboratory conditions (26 ± 1°C; 65 ± 5% RH; 14L:10D).

A multi-line graph set comparing age-stage specific life expectancy across maize, Napier bajra, Guinea grass, soybean, pigeon pea and mung bean. See long description.
Figure 3 Long description

Each graph has the horizontal axis labeled Age (Days) ranging from 0 to 50 or 60 and the vertical axis labeled Life expectancy (exj) with varying ranges. The legend includes stages: Egg, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, Pupa, Female, Male. Lines are visually distinguished by different markers and styles. Maize: Lines start at higher life expectancy values and descend rapidly, with Egg and L1 stages showing the highest initial values. Napier bajra: Similar rapid decline, with Egg stage starting highest. Guinea grass: Shows a gradual decline, with L1 and L2 stages starting higher. Soybean: Lines drop quickly, with Egg stage initially highest. Pigeon pea: Displays a steep decline, with Egg stage starting highest. Mung bean: Shows varied decline rates, with Egg and L1 stages initially highest. Across all crops, early stages like Egg and L1 generally start with higher life expectancy, dropping rapidly as age increases. Mung bean shows more variation in decline rates compared to others. The graphs illustrate differences in life expectancy trends across stages and crops, highlighting how legumes and grasses affect development differently.

Age-stage reproductive value (Vxj)

The age-stage reproductive value (Vxj) remained minimal during the early developmental stages (egg and larval instars) across all host plants, indicating no reproductive contribution during these phases (fig. 4). A gradual increase in Vxj values was observed during the pupal stage and peaked sharply in adult females. The highest reproductive peak was observed on maize (406.07 on day 24), followed by Napier bajra (310.94 on day 29), guinea grass (253.70 on day 31), soybean (186.87 on day 38), pigeon pea (151.18 on day 38), and the lowest on mung bean (123.70 on day 41). The timing and magnitude of peaks varied, with earlier and higher values on maize, indicating superior reproductive potential and faster development compared to other hosts.

Figure 4.

Age-stage reproductive value (Vxj) of maize, Napier bajra, Guinea grass, soybean, pigeon pea and mung bean under laboratory conditions (26 ± 1°C; 65 ± 5% RH; 14L:10D).

A set of 6 line graphs showing age stage reproductive value (Vxj) across age (Days) for maize, Napier bajra, Guinea grass, soybean, pigeon pea and mung bean. See long description.
Figure 4 Long description

Maize. The horizontal axis label is Age (Days). The horizontal axis range is 0 to 50. The vertical axis label is Age stage reproductive value (Vxj). The vertical axis range is 0 to 450. A legend lists Egg, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, Pupa, Female. The plotted series use lines with point markers. The Female series forms the tallest curve, rising after about 20 days, reaching a labeled peak value 406.07, then declining toward later ages. The Egg and larval series remain close to the baseline across early ages. The Pupa series rises to a smaller peak before the Female peak and then declines. Napier bajra. The horizontal axis label is Age (Days). The horizontal axis range is 0 to 50. The vertical axis label is Age stage reproductive value (Vxj). The vertical axis range is 0 to 350. A legend lists Egg, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, Pupa, Female. The plotted series use lines with point markers. The Female series forms the tallest curve, rising after about 20 days, reaching a labeled peak value 310.94, then declining toward later ages. The Egg and larval series remain close to the baseline across early ages. The Pupa series rises to a smaller peak before the Female peak and then declines. Guinea grass. The horizontal axis label is Age (Days). The horizontal axis range is 0 to 50. The vertical axis label is Age stage reproductive value (Vxj). The vertical axis range is 0 to 300. A legend lists Egg, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, Pupa, Female. The plotted series use lines with point markers. The Female series forms the tallest curve, rising after about 20 days, reaching a labeled peak value 253.70, then declining toward later ages. The Egg and larval series remain close to the baseline across early ages. The Pupa series rises to a smaller peak before the Female peak and then declines. Soybean. The horizontal axis label is Age (Days). The horizontal axis range is 0 to 50. The vertical axis label is Age stage reproductive value (Vxj). The vertical axis range is 0 to 200. A legend lists Egg, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, Pupa, Female. The plotted series use lines with point markers. The Female series forms the tallest curve, rising at later ages than in the first three graphs, reaching a labeled peak value 186.87, then dropping sharply toward later ages. The Egg and larval series remain close to the baseline across early ages. The Pupa series rises to a smaller peak before the Female peak and then declines. Pigeon pea. The horizontal axis label is Age (Days). The horizontal axis range is 0 to 60. The vertical axis label is Age stage reproductive value (Vxj). The vertical axis range is 0 to 160. A legend lists Egg, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, Pupa, Female. The plotted series use lines with point markers. The Female series forms the tallest curve, rising at later ages, reaching a labeled peak value 151.18, then dropping sharply toward later ages. The Egg and larval series remain close to the baseline across early ages. The Pupa series rises to a smaller peak before the Female peak and then declines. Mung bean. The horizontal axis label is Age (Days). The horizontal axis range is 0 to 60. The vertical axis label is Age stage reproductive value (Vxj). The vertical axis range is 0 to 140. A legend lists Egg, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, Pupa, Female. The plotted series use lines with point markers. The Female series forms the tallest curve, rising at later ages, reaching a labeled peak value 123.70, then dropping sharply toward later ages. The Egg and larval series remain close to the baseline across early ages. The Pupa series rises to a smaller peak before the Female peak and then declines. Across the six graphs, the labeled Female peak values are 406.07 for Maize, 310.94 for Napier bajra, 253.70 for Guinea grass, 186.87 for Soybean, 151.18 for Pigeon pea and 123.70 for Mung bean.

Population growth parameters

The population growth parameters of S. frugiperda varied across different host plants based on paired bootstrap comparisons (table 4). Overall, maize supported the most favourable conditions for population growth, exhibiting the highest net reproductive rate (R₀ = 366.64 ± 52.12; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 264.34–468.76), intrinsic rate of increase (rm = 0.213 ± 0.0062; 95% CI: 0.200–0.224), finite rate of increase (λ = 1.24 ± 0.0076; 95% CI: 1.22–1.25), and GRR (679.60 ± 129.68 offspring), along with the shortest mean generation time (T = 27.63 ± 0.43 days; 95% CI: 26.86–28.54) and DT (3.24 ± 0.10 days). Napier bajra and guinea grass showed moderate suitability. In contrast, leguminous hosts supported the slowest population growth. Mung bean showed the lowest R₀ (33.64 ± 8.99; 95% CI: 17.42–52.18), rm (0.079 ± 0.0065; 95% CI: 0.063–0.088), λ (1.08 ± 0.0071; 95% CI: 1.06–1.09), GRR (92.64 ± 24.30), and the longest T (44.74 ± 0.56 days; 95% CI: 43.71–45.93) and DT (8.82 ± 0.86 days) among the legumes. These results indicate delayed development and poor reproductive performance of S. frugiperda on legumes compared to grasses.

Table 4.

Effect of various host plants on population growth parameters of S. frugiperda under laboratory conditions (26 ± 1°C; 65 ± 5% RH; 14L:10D)

Maize has the highest values across all population growth parameters, including R0 366.64 and rm 0.213, while mung bean has the lowest, including R0 33.64 and rm 0.079. See long description.
Table 4 Long description

Population growth parameters are listed for S. frugiperda on six host plants, with columns for net reproductive rate R0 in females per female, mean generation time T in days, innate capacity for increase rm in females per female per days, finite rate of increase lambda in female per days, doubling time DT in days, and gross reproduction rate GRR in offspring. Maize: R0 366.64 plus or minus 52.12a, T 27.63 plus or minus 0.43d, rm 0.213 plus or minus 0.0062a, lambda 1.24 plus or minus 0.0076a, DT 3.24 plus or minus 0.10d, GRR 679.60 plus or minus 129.68a. Napier bajra: R0 139.10 plus or minus 30.10b, T 32.03 plus or minus 0.43c, rm 0.154 plus or minus 0.0074b, lambda 1.17 plus or minus 0.0086b, DT 4.50 plus or minus 0.23c, GRR 346.18 plus or minus 62.08b. Guinea grass: R0 169.02 plus or minus 30.70b, T 32.33 plus or minus 0.50c, rm 0.158 plus or minus 0.0063b, lambda 1.17 plus or minus 0.0074b, DT 4.37 plus or minus 0.18c, GRR 323.84 plus or minus 62.73b. Soybean: R0 62.60 plus or minus 14.96c, T 40.85 plus or minus 0.38b, rm 0.101 plus or minus 0.0063c, lambda 1.11 plus or minus 0.0069c, DT 6.84 plus or minus 0.46b, GRR 115.59 plus or minus 24.39c. Pigeon pea: R0 49.88 plus or minus 11.97c, T 41.71 plus or minus 0.54b, rm 0.094 plus or minus 0.0062cd, lambda 1.10 plus or minus 0.0068cd, DT 7.39 plus or minus 0.53ab, GRR 113.22 plus or minus 24.80c. Mung bean: R0 33.64 plus or minus 8.99c, T 44.74 plus or minus 0.56a, rm 0.079 plus or minus 0.0065d, lambda 1.08 plus or minus 0.0071d, DT 8.82 plus or minus 0.86a, GRR 92.64 plus or minus 24.30c.

a Values are mean ± S.E.; means within a column followed by different letters indicate significant differences based on paired bootstrap (100,000 resamplings) using TWOSEX-MSChart.

Discussion

Larval duration of FAW on different hosts

Host identity markedly affects the development of S. frugiperda. Although invasive FAW populations are reported to be predominantly the corn strain (Durand et al., Reference Durand, An and Nam2024) and interstrain hybrids (Nagoshi, Reference Nagoshi2022), their broad host range continues to complicate management. The push–pull approach offers an efficient and sustainable option for stem borers and armyworms, yet its success depends on identifying effective, locally adapted components, including host plants. In this context, grasses (Poaceae), which support S. frugiperda development, may serve as potential trap components, while legumes, due to their lower nutritional quality, may act as deterrents. Consistent with this, our study showed that larval development was expeditious on maize, followed by Napier bajra and guinea grass and longest on mung bean, pigeon pea and soybean, suggesting reduced suitability of leguminous hosts. Prolonged development on legumes likely reflects below-par nutritional profiles or the presence of anti-nutritional factors such as protease inhibitors that reduce digestive efficiency and nutrient assimilation (Sels et al., Reference Sels, Mathys, De Coninck, Cammue and De Bolle2008; Silva et al., Reference Silva, Almeida, Moura, Silva, Freitas and Jesus2016; Singh et al., Reference Singh, Singh, Shevkani, Singh and Kaur2017). Additionally, diet-specific metabolites may remain unmetabolised and accumulate in larvae, potentially harming fitness and further contributing to extended development on these hosts (Olazcuaga et al., Reference Olazcuaga, Baltenweck, Leménager, Maia-Grondard, Claudel, Hugueney and Foucaud2023). Similar findings were reported by Chen et al. (Reference Chen, Guo, Gao, He, Bai, Zhang and Wang2020), He et al. (Reference He, Wu, Gao and Wu2021b), Bi et al. (Reference Bi, Wang, Xu, Hu, Wang, Hu and Xu2023), and Gebretsadik et al. (Reference Gebretsadik, Liu, Yin, Zhao, Li, Chen, Zhang, Chen and Chen2023) with larvae developing faster on maize than on legumes. FAW’s preference for C4 plants (such as maize and other grasses) over C3 plants (including soybean, pigeon pea, and mung bean) is further attributed to the nutritional superiority of C4 hosts (Buntin, Reference Buntin1986; Lewter et al., Reference Lewter, Szalanski, Nagoshi, Meagher, Owens and Luttrellm2006). While grasses produce allelochemicals like DIMBOA and MBOA, which FAW can effectively detoxify via stereoselective reglucosylation (Veenstra et al., Reference Veenstra, Pashley and Ottea1995; Wouters et al., Reference Wouters, Reichelt, Glauser, Bauer, Erb, Gershenzon and Vassão2014; Kokubo et al., Reference Kokubo, Nishizaka, Ube, Yabuta, Tebayashi, Ueno and Ishihara2016), legume-derived compounds such as glyceollin may be more challenging to metabolise (Raffa, Reference Raffa1987). These findings reinforce maize as the most suitable host, followed by Napier bajra and guinea grass, and highlight the potential of legumes to limit FAW growth, supporting their role in integrated pest management (IPM) and push–pull systems.

In the present study, larvae failed to survive on D. gangeticum, identifying it as a highly unsuitable or deterrent host. Erdei et al. (Reference Erdei, David, Savvidou, Džemedžionaitė, Chakravarthy, Molnár and Dekker2024) similarly observed developmental arrest on D. intortum, with no larvae moulting beyond the first instar. Additionally, Coleman (Reference Coleman2016) reported Desmodium’s immobilising effects on insects and small vertebrates, suggesting a broad-spectrum defence. This supports its potential use as a push crop candidate in Indian maize-based IPM systems.

Typically, S. frugiperda undergoes six larval instars (He et al., Reference He, Zhao and Wu2020; Xie et al., Reference Xie, Zhi, Ye, Zhou, Li, Liang, Yue, Li, Zeng and Hu2021; Acharya et al., Reference Acharya, Malekera, Dhungana, Sharma and Lee2022). Larvae on maize, Napier, and guinea grass followed this pattern in our study; however, those on soybean, pigeon pea, and mung bean developed through seven instars, prolonging their larval period. Similar host-dependent variation in larval instars has also been documented by Pencoe and Martin (Reference Pencoe and Martin1981), He et al. (Reference He, Wu, Gao and Wu2021b), Zhou et al. (Reference Zhou, Qin, Wang, Zheng and Lu2022), and Chen et al. (Reference Chen, Itza, Kafle and Chang2023). This variability in the number of instars can arise from several biotic and abiotic factors (Esperk et al., Reference Esperk, Tammaru and Nylin2007), and given that environmental conditions were kept constant, it is reasonable to attribute these differences primarily to host plant quality.

Pupal duration, pupal weight, total duration and adult longevity

The development of S. frugiperda varied significantly across host plants, underscoring the influence of larval diet on pre-pupal, pupal, adult, and total development. Maize supported the shortest pre-pupal and pupal periods, followed by Napier and guinea grass, while mung bean resulted in the longest durations. These findings align with Silva et al. (Reference Silva, Bueno, Andrade, Stecca, Neves and Oliveira2017), Praveen and Mallapur (Reference Praveen and Mallapur2019), Chen et al. (Reference Chen, Guo, Gao, He, Bai, Zhang and Wang2020), Maruthadurai and Ramesh (Reference Maruthadurai and Ramesh2020), Sivaranjani et al. (Reference Sivaranjani, Srinivasan, Vinothkumar and Ravikesavan2021), and Gebretsadik et al. (Reference Gebretsadik, Liu, Yin, Zhao, Li, Chen, Zhang, Chen and Chen2023), who consistently reported faster development on grasses and slower on legumes. Nevertheless, discrepancies exist in the literature. For instance, Wang et al. (Reference Wang, Zhu, Jin, Hou and Liu2025) found no significant difference between maize and soybean, while Tao et al. (Reference Tao, Zhang, Zhang, Deng, Zhang, Zhang, Li and Jiang2024) observed generational shifts, with soybean-fed larvae pupating earlier in F₀ but later in F₁. Such variation may stem from environmental variation or host-induced generational effects (Silva et al., Reference Silva, Bueno, Andrade, Stecca, Neves and Oliveira2017).

Pupal weight, an indicator of larval nutrition and adult fitness (Wu and Li, Reference Wu and Li1993; Soto et al., Reference Soto, Padró, Milla Carmona, Tuero, Carreira and Soto2018), was maximum on maize, followed by Napier and guinea, and lowest on legumes, with mung bean producing the lightest pupae. These findings suggest that carbohydrate-rich grasses promote heavier pupae and stress resilience, whereas protein-rich legumes often yield smaller, less robust individuals (Pascacio-Villafán et al., Reference Pascacio-Villafán, Williams, Birke and Aluja2016; Tayal et al., Reference Tayal, Somavat, Rodriguez, Thomas, Christoffersen and Kariyat2020). Similar host-dependent trends in pupal mass have been reported across multiple studies (Maruthadurai and Ramesh, Reference Maruthadurai and Ramesh2020; Wang et al., Reference Wang, He, Zhang, Liu, Jing and Zhang2020; He et al., Reference He, Wu, Gao and Wu2021b; Bi et al., Reference Bi, Wang, Xu, Hu, Wang, Hu and Xu2023; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Itza, Kafle and Chang2023; Babu et al., Reference Babu, Singh, Ojha, Saini, Dhaka and George2025), and prolonged development on nutritionally inferior hosts may represent a compensatory mechanism to achieve sufficient pupal weight (Carvalho et al., Reference Carvalho, Machado, Neitzke, Erdmann, Oliveira, Bernardi and da Rosa2022).

Adult longevity followed the same trend, with the longest lifespan on maize and the shortest on legumes, corroborating Praveen and Mallapur (Reference Praveen and Mallapur2019) and Chen et al. (Reference Chen, Itza, Kafle and Chang2023). Females consistently outlived males on all hosts, peaking on maize (9.57 vs. 7.78 days), suggesting higher reproductive investment. Total development time mirrored these patterns, with maize supporting the shortest life cycle, followed by Napier and guinea grass, reinforcing the potential of these grasses as trap crops. In contrast, legumes led to prolonged development, likely driven by low nutritional quality and the presence of defensive secondary metabolites, particularly proteinase inhibitors that interfere with digestive enzymes (Kunitz, Reference Kunitz1946; Pusztal et al., Reference Pusztal, Grant, Brown, Stewart, Bardocz, Ewen and Hilder1992; Birk, Reference Birk2003; Edwards and Singh, Reference Edwards and Singh2006; Müller et al., Reference Müller, Bonacci, Batthyany, Amé, Carrari, Gieco and Asis2017; Negi et al., Reference Negi, Chand, Thakur and Nath2018). These biochemical defences likely underpin the extended development and reduced performance observed on leguminous hosts.

Reproductive parameters

Reproductive parameters of S. frugiperda varied significantly across host plants. APOP was shortest on Napier and longest on mung bean, indicating earlier reproductive onset on grasses, while TPOP was shortest on maize and longest on mung bean, reflecting delayed sexual maturity on legumes. Similar host-specific variations have been reported, with maize and grasses supporting significantly shorter APOP and TPOP compared to legumes, reinforcing their role as suitable hosts for early oviposition, while legumes are associated with delayed reproductive development (Saminathan et al., Reference Saminathan, Roseleen and Rajanbabu2022; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Itza, Kafle and Chang2023; Gebretsadik et al., Reference Gebretsadik, Liu, Yin, Zhao, Li, Chen, Zhang, Chen and Chen2023; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Zhu, Jin, Hou and Liu2025).

The oviposition period was longest on maize, intermediate on Napier and guinea grass, and shortest on mung bean, soybean, and pigeon pea, suggesting that legumes may limit reproductive windows. These reproductive outcomes support the ‘mother-knows-best’ hypothesis, whereby females prefer hosts that optimise offspring performance (Singer et al., Reference Singer, Thomas, Billington and Parmesan1994; Leal and Zucoloto, Reference Leal and Zucoloto2008; Gripenberg et al., Reference Gripenberg, Mayhew, Parnell and Roslim2010). While our results align with most studies reporting extended oviposition on maize and Napier (Saminathan et al., Reference Saminathan, Roseleen and Rajanbabu2022; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Itza, Kafle and Chang2023; Gebretsadik et al., Reference Gebretsadik, Liu, Yin, Zhao, Li, Chen, Zhang, Chen and Chen2023), some discrepancies exist, such as longer oviposition on soybean or cabbage, indicating variation due to plant part, variety, or genotype (Sotelo-Cardona et al., Reference Sotelo-Cardona, Chuang, Lin, Chiang and Ramasamy2021; Jatin et al., Reference Jatin, Tomar, Kukanur, Kota, Ramana, Mishra and Jaba2023; Babu et al., Reference Babu, Singh, Ojha, Saini, Dhaka and George2025).

Fecundity followed a similar trend, highest on maize, followed by Napier, and lowest on mung bean, underscoring the influence of larval nutrition on reproductive output since adults were provided identical diets (Awmack and Leather, Reference Awmack and Leather2002; He et al., Reference He, Wang, Chen, Ge, Wyckhuys and Wu2021a). These results corroborate previous work showing consistently higher fecundity on maize and grasses than legumes (Pencoe and Martin, Reference Pencoe and Martin1981; Wu et al., Reference Wu, Cao, Long, Yang, Wei, Liao, Hong and Hu2021a; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Zhu, Jin, Hou and Liu2025). High fecundity values reported on Napier (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Itza, Kafle and Chang2023), likewise support our ranking of Napier as the second-most suitable host after maize. Overall, maize remained the most favourable host for FAW reproduction, followed by grasses, while legumes consistently emerged as poor reproductive hosts.

Life table studies

The age-stage, two-sex life table is a powerful tool for assessing insect population fitness and predicting the demographic dynamics of pest species (Chi, Reference Chi1988; Shi et al., Reference Shi, Fu, Li, Chi and You2023). The larval survival (Sxj) was highest on Napier bajra, followed by guinea grass and maize, whereas mung bean supported the lowest survival. Contrastingly, pupal survival peaked on maize, and declined sharply on Napier, indicating elevated mortality near pupation that may enhance its potential as a trap crop. Adult survival (Sxj) was also highest on maize and lowest on legumes, likely reflecting the influence of host plant biochemical and nutritional traits on the growth and population dynamics of S. frugiperda (Wang et al., Reference Wang, He, Liu, Jing and Zhang2023; Babu et al., Reference Babu, Singh, Ojha, Saini, Dhaka and George2025). These patterns are consistent with earlier reports showing declining larval and pupal survival on Napier (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Itza, Kafle and Chang2023), high mid-instar mortality on mung bean and soybean (Bi et al., Reference Bi, Wang, Xu, Hu, Wang, Hu and Xu2023), and consistently superior survival on maize compared with legumes (Wang et al., Reference Wang, Zhu, Jin, Hou and Liu2025).

Age-specific survival curves (lx) and fecundity (mx, fx) curves further highlighted maize as the most suitable host, with early oviposition onset and high peak fecundity. Napier and guinea grass showed intermediate suitability, whereas legume-fed moths delayed oviposition, lower fecundity and higher larval mortalities, particularly on mung bean and pigeon pea. Soybean performed slightly better but still resulted in rapid survival decline and delayed reproduction, consistent with He et al. (Reference He, Wu, Gao and Wu2021b) and Wang et al. (Reference Wang, Zhu, Jin, Hou and Liu2025).

These demographic differences are likely linked to host-plant sterol composition. In S. frugiperda, key developmental processes like vitellogenesis, oogenesis, and metamorphosis depend on dietary sterols for juvenile hormone and 20-hydroxyecdysone synthesis (Nijhout, Reference Nijhout1994; Bellés, Reference Bellés, Coast and Webster1998; Ou and King-Jones, Reference Ou and King-Jones2013). Maize, rich in β-sitosterol, stigmasterol, and campesterol, facilitates efficient hormone biosynthesis (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Li, Zhang, Hou, Guo, Dong and Li2024), while legumes provide a narrower sterol profile that constrains hormone production (Behmer et al., Reference Behmer, Olszewski, Sebastiani, Palka, Sparacino, Sciarrno and Grebenok2013), helping explain the markedly higher survival and fecundity on maize and lower survival rates on legumes.

Age-stage specific life expectancy (exj) declined with age across all hosts, reflecting natural senescence, but legumes showed reduced early-stage exj, indicating poor initial survival conditions. Similar rapid declines in early-instar life expectancy on mung bean and soybean were reported by Bi et al. (Reference Bi, Wang, Xu, Hu, Wang, Hu and Xu2023). Nutritional inadequacies, presence of anti-feedant compounds, and defence metabolites in legumes likely impair feeding and metabolism, contributing to reduced survival (Schoonhoven et al., Reference Schoonhoven, van Loon and Dicke2005; Peruca et al., Reference Peruca, Coelho, da Silva, Pistori, Ravaglia, Roel and Alcantara2018).

Age-stage reproductive value (vxj) also varied sharply with host quality. Maize supported the highest and earliest reproductive peak (406.07 on day 24), followed by moderately high but delayed peaks on Napier and guinea grass. Legumes demonstrated significantly reduced vxj, with mung bean recording the lowest value (123.70 on day 41), reflecting delayed and diminished reproductive capacity. Our findings align with Wang et al. (Reference Wang, Zhu, Jin, Hou and Liu2025), who reported earlier and substantially higher vx j values on maize than soybean. Overall, maize consistently facilitated rapid population buildup, while legumes delayed and suppressed reproduction, reinforcing their potential role as deterrent hosts in FAW management. However, field validation is required before recommending cropping system changes.

Population parameters

Life table parameters (R₀, rm, λ, T, DT, GRR) are essential indicators for evaluating the impact of host plants on insect population dynamics (Atlihan et al., Reference Atlihan, Kasap, Özgökçe, Polat-Akköprü and Chi2017), and these parameters often vary with host suitability (Wu et al., Reference Wu, Cao, Long, Yang, Wei, Liao, Hong and Hu2021a; Ahmed et al., Reference Ahmed, Cao, Jaleel, Amir, Ali, Smagghe and Liu2022). In our study, S. frugiperda exhibited its highest reproductive and intrinsic growth rates on maize, which recorded the greatest R₀, rm, λ and GRR, alongside the shortest generation and DTs. This strong demographic performance reinforces maize as the most suitable host, consistent with earlier reports (Wu et al., Reference Wu, Cao, Long, Yang, Wei, Liao, Hong and Hu2021a; Gopalakrishnan and Kalia, Reference Gopalakrishnan and Kalia2022; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Cheng, Wang, Liu, Fu, Zhang and Chen2022; Gebretsadik et al., Reference Gebretsadik, Liu, Yin, Zhao, Li, Chen, Zhang, Chen and Chen2023). Napier bajra and guinea grass supported moderate population growth, whereas legumes showed the lowest R₀ (33.64–62.60) and longest generation times, indicating reduced suitability. Mung bean performed the poorest, with the lowest R₀, rm, λ, GRR and longest T, mirroring findings from Bi et al. (Reference Bi, Wang, Xu, Hu, Wang, Hu and Xu2023) and Wang et al. (Reference Wang, Zhu, Jin, Hou and Liu2025) that recorded poor performance on soybean and mung bean.

The prolonged TPOP on legumes likely suppressed rm and λ, potentially due to the presence of toxic secondary metabolites or nutrient deficiencies (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Guo, Gao, He, Bai, Zhang and Wang2020). Nevertheless, all hosts maintained rm > 0 and λ > 1, indicating potential for population increase, albeit much slower on legumes. Collectively, these results emphasise the significant influence of host plant species on the reproductive potential and population growth dynamics of S. frugiperda, reinforcing the suitability of maize as a primary host that supports rapid population increase. Grasses such as Napier bajra and guinea grass provide intermediate suitability and show potential as effective trap crops, while leguminous crops appear less conducive to pest proliferation. This knowledge is critical for predicting outbreaks and guiding host-based management. Furthermore, S. frugiperda can persist through the maize off-season by exploiting alternative hosts, particularly grasses such as Napier or Natal grass (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Itza, Kafle and Chang2023), underscoring the need for off-season weed and alternative host management in integrated pest strategies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, FAW performed best on maize, which supported the speedy development, higher pupal weight, longer adult longevity and maximum fecundity, indicating that maize acts as a primary amplifier host. Napier bajra and guinea grass were moderately suitable, while legumes significantly delayed development, reduced fitness and fecundity, indicating their role as suppressive crops. Desmodium was entirely unsuitable, with no larvae surviving to pupation, suggesting its potential as an effective deterrent crop. Age-stage, two-sex life table analyses further highlighted maize as the most conducive host, with the highest population growth potential compared to other hosts. Napier bajra and guinea grass supported moderate population expansion and thus show potential as trap crops within habitat-management frameworks. Conversely, legumes, due to their poor suitability and consequent suppression of population growth, show potential as effective ‘push’ components by reducing FAW establishment, with mung bean being particularly suitable due to its widespread cultivation in India. These results, however, were obtained under laboratory conditions and require field validation. The demographic patterns revealed across host plants in this study offer critical insights for forecasting FAW population trajectories and for developing ecologically grounded, cost-effective management strategies suited to Indian agroecosystems. Nevertheless, further work on host nutritional profiles, defensive chemistry, and the prevalence of FAW strains is required to clarify the mechanisms underlying host suitability.

Acknowledgements

The authors express their sincere gratitude to the Department of Entomology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, for extending the required facilities and support for this research. We also thank the Principal Maize, Forage, Pulse and Oilseed Breeders, Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, PAU, Ludhiana, and the Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI), Kerala, for supplying host plant seeds.

Author contributions

Mridula: Conducted the research, performed data analysis, and drafted the manuscript. Naveen Aggarwal: Conceptualised the study, supervised the research, secured resources, and contributed to manuscript review and editing. Jawala Jindal: Provided supervision and contributed to manuscript review and editing.

Competing interests

There are no conflicts of interest declared by the authors.

References

Acharya, R, Malekera, MJ, Dhungana, SK, Sharma, SR and Lee, KY (2022) Impact of rice and potato host plants is higher on the reproduction than growth of corn strain fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insects 13(3), 256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ahmed, MA, Cao, HH, Jaleel, W, Amir, MB, Ali, MY, Smagghe, G and Liu, TX (2022) Oviposition preference and two-sex life table of Plutella xylostella and its association with defensive enzymes in three Brassicaceae crops. Crop Protection 151, 105816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2024) Package of Practices for Kharif Crops. Ludhiana: Punjab Agricultural University, pp. 27–109.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2025) Kerala Forest Research Institute. Available at https://www.kfri.res.in/seeds.asp (accessed 21 March 2025).Google Scholar
Atlihan, R, Kasap, İ, Özgökçe, MS, Polat-Akköprü, E and Chi, H (2017) Population growth of Dysaphis pyri (Hemiptera: Aphididae) on different pear cultivars with discussion on curve fitting in life table studies. Journal of Economic Entomology 110(4), 1890–1898.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Awmack, CS and Leather, SR (2002) Host plant quality and fecundity in herbivorous insects. Annual Review of Entomology 47(1), 817–844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Babu, SR, Singh, B, Ojha, ML, Saini, K, Dhaka, DK and George, DD (2025) Host plant mediated differences on biotic potential and nutritional indices of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Phytoparasitica 54, 13.Google Scholar
Bahari, F, Fathipour, Y, Talebi, AA and Alipour, Z (2018) Long-term feeding on greenhouse cucumber affects life table parameters of two-spotted spider mite and its predator Phytoseiulus persimilis. Systematic and Applied Acarology 23(12), 2304–2317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barros, EM, Torres, JB, Ruberson, JR and Oliveira, MD (2010) Development of Spodoptera frugiperda on different hosts and damage to reproductive structures in cotton. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 137, 237–245.Google Scholar
Behmer, ST, Olszewski, N, Sebastiani, J, Palka, S, Sparacino, G, Sciarrno, E and Grebenok, RJ (2013) Plant phloem sterol content: Forms, putative functions, and implications for phloem-feeding insects. Frontiers of Plant Science 4, 370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bellés, X (1998) Endocrine effectors in insect vitellogenesis. In Coast, GM and Webster, SG (eds.), Recent Advances in Arthropod Endocrinology. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press, pp. 68–90.Google Scholar
Bi, S, Wang, Y, Xu, T, Hu, B, Wang, Z, Hu, F and Xu, L (2023) Application potential of push-pull cropping of maize and beans to fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) management in China. Preprint (Version 1) available at Research Square Available at https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2745649/v1 (accessed 18 May 2025).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birch, LC (1948) The intrinsic rate of natural increase of an insect population. Journal of Animal Ecology 17(1), 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birk, Y (2003) Plant Protease Inhibitors: Significance in Nutrition, Plant Protection, Cancer Prevention and Genetic Engineering. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Buntin, GD (1986) A review of plant response to fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith), injury in selected field and forage crops. Florida Entomologist 69(3), 549–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, JR (1993) Applied Demography for Biologists, with Special Emphasis on Insects. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, IF, Machado, LL, Neitzke, CG, Erdmann, LL, Oliveira, LT, Bernardi, D and da Rosa, APSA (2022) Biological parameters and fertility life table of Spodoptera frugiperda in different host plants. Journal of Agricultural Science 14(10), 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, WH, Itza, B, Kafle, L and Chang, TY (2023) Life table study of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on three host plants under laboratory conditions. Insects 14(4), 329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Y, Guo, J, Gao, Z, He, K, Bai, S, Zhang, T and Wang, Z (2020) Performance of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) fed on six host plants: Potential risks to mid-high latitude crops in China. Journal of Agricultural Science 12(10), 10–5539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, H (1988) Life-table analysis incorporating both sexes and variable development rates among individuals. Environmental Entomology 17(1), 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, HSIN and Liu, HJBIZAS (1985) Two new methods for the study of insect population ecology. Bulletin of the Institute of Zoology, Academia Sinica 24, 225–240.Google Scholar
Coleman, D (2016) The dangers of Desmodium. Available at http://www.cocreate4science.org/wp-content/uploads/Desmodium-poster-pdf.pdf (accessed 18 May 2025).Google Scholar
Cook, SM, Khan, ZR and Pickett, JA (2007) The use of push-pull strategies in integrated pest management. Annual Review of Entomology 52(1), 375–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Durand, K, An, H and Nam, K (2024) Invasive fall armyworms are corn strain. Scientific Reports 14(1), 5696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, O and Singh, KB (2006) Resistance to insect pests: What do legumes have to offer? Euphytica 147(1-2), 273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EPPO, (2018) EPPO Global Database: Spodoptera frugiperda (LAPHFR). Available at https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/LAPHFR (accessed 16 October 2024).Google Scholar
Erdei, AL, David, AB, Savvidou, EC, Džemedžionaitė, V, Chakravarthy, A, Molnár, BP and Dekker, T (2024) The push-pull intercrop Desmodium does not repel, but intercepts and kills pests. Elife 13, e88695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esperk, T, Tammaru, T and Nylin, S (2007) Intraspecific variability in number of larval instars in insects. Journal of Economic Entomology 100(3), 627–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ganiger, PC, Yeshwanth, HM, Muralimohan, K, Vinay, N, Kumar, ARV and Chandrashekara, K (2018) Occurrence of the new invasive pest, fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in the maize fields of Karnataka, India. Current Science 115(4), 621–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebretsadik, KG, Liu, Y, Yin, Y, Zhao, X, Li, X, Chen, F, Zhang, Y, Chen, J and Chen, A (2023) population growth of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda fed on cereal and pulse host plants cultivated in Yunnan Province, China. Plants 12(4), 950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gomez, KA and Gomez, AA (1984) Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd edn. New York: Wiley Interscience, p. 680.Google Scholar
Gopalakrishnan, R and Kalia, VK (2022) Biology and biometric characteristics of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) reared on different host plants with regard to diet. Pest Management Science 78, 2043–2051.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gripenberg, S, Mayhew, PJ, Parnell, MK and Roslim, T (2010) A meta-analysis of preference-performance relationships in phytophagous insects. Ecology Letters 13(3), 383–393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guera, OGM, Castrejón-Ayala, F, Robledo, N, Jiménez-Pérez, A, Sánchez-Rivera, G, Salazar-Marcial, L and Flores Moctezuma, HE (2021) Effectiveness of push–pull systems to fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) management in maize crops in Morelos, Mexico. Insects 12(4), 298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guo, J, Zhao, J, He, K, Zhang, F and Wang, Z (2018) Potential invasion of the crop devastating insect pest fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda to China. Plant Protection 44, 1–10.Google Scholar
He, LM, Wang, TL, Chen, YC, Ge, SS, Wyckhuys, KA and Wu, KM (2021a) Larval diet affects development and reproduction of East Asian strain of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 20(3), 736–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, LM, Wu, QL, Gao, XW and Wu, KM (2021b) Population life tables for the invasive fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda fed on major oil crops planted in China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 20(3), 745–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, LM, Zhao, SY and Wu, KM (2020) Study on the damage of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda to peanut. Journal of Plant Protection 46, 28–33.Google Scholar
House, H (1961) Insect nutrition. Annual Review of Entomology 6(1), 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y and Chi, H (2011) The age-stage, two-sex life table with an offspring sex ratio dependent on female age. Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 60, 337–345.Google Scholar
Jatin, K, Tomar, SPS, Kukanur, V, Kota, S, Ramana, N, Mishra, S and Jaba, J (2023) Influence of various hosts on the life cycle, morphometrics, feeding and ovipositional preference for invasive fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith). Preprint available at Research Square https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3169067/v1 (accessed 21 May 2025).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jing, W, Huang, C, Li, CY, Zhou, HX, Ren, YL, Li, ZY, Xing, LS, Zhang, B, Xi, Q and Bo, L (2021) Biology, invasion and management of the agricultural invader: Fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Journal of Integrative Agriculture 20, 646–663.Google Scholar
Khan, ZR, Midega, CA, Pittchar, J, Pickett, J and Bruce, T (2011) Push-pull technology: A conservation agriculture approach for integrated management of insect pests, weeds and soil health in Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9(1), 162–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, ZR, Midega, CA, Wadhams, LJ, Pickett, JA and Mumuni, A (2007) Evaluation of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) varieties for use as trap plants for the management of African stemborer (Busseola fusca) in a push-pull strategy. Entomologia Experimentalis Et Applicata 124(2), 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, ZR, Pickett, JA, Berg, JVD, Wadhams, LJ and Woodcock, CM (2000) Exploiting chemical ecology and species diversity: Stem borer and striga control for maize and sorghum in Africa. Pest Management Science 56(11), 957–962.3.0.CO;2-T>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kokubo, Y, Nishizaka, M, Ube, N, Yabuta, Y, Tebayashi, S, Ueno, K and Ishihara, A (2016) Distribution of the tryptophan pathway-derived defensive secondary metabolites gramine and benzoxazinones in Poaceae. Bioscience Biotechnology and Biochemistry 81(3), 431–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kunitz, M (1946) Crystalline soybean trypsin inhibitor. Journal of General Physiology 29(3), 149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leal, TBS and Zucoloto, FS (2008) Selection of artificial hosts for oviposition by wild Anastrepha obliqua (Macquart) (Diptera, Tephritidae): Influence of adult food and effect of experience. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 52(3), 467–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, PH (1945) On the use of matrices in certain population mathematics. Biometrika 33(3), 183–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, EG (1942) On the generation and growth of a population. The Indian Journal of Statistics 6, 93–96.Google Scholar
Lewter, JA, Szalanski, AL, Nagoshi, RN, Meagher, RL, Owens, CB and Luttrellm, RG (2006) Genetic variation within and between strains of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Florida Entomologist 89(1), 63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, H, Cheng, Y, Wang, Q, Liu, X, Fu, Y, Zhang, Y and Chen, J (2022) Push-pull plants in wheat intercropping system to manage Spodoptera frugiperda. Journal of Pest Science 3, 1–15.Google Scholar
Maruthadurai, R and Ramesh, R (2020) Occurrence, damage pattern and biology of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on fodder crops and green amaranth in Goa, India. Phytoparasitica 48(1), 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meagher, RL and Nagoshi, RN (2004) Population dynamics and occurrence of Spodoptera frugiperda host strains in southern Florida. Ecological Entomology 29(5), 614–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montezano, DG, Specht, A, Sosa-Gómez, DR, Roque-Specht, VF, Sousa-Silva, JC, Paula Moraes, SV, Peterson, JA and Hunt, TE (2018) Host plants of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Americas. African Entomology 26(2), 286–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, V, Bonacci, G, Batthyany, C, Amé, MV, Carrari, F, Gieco, J and Asis, R (2017) Peanut seed cultivars with contrasting resistance to Aspergillus parasiticus colonization display differential temporal response of protease inhibitors. Phytopathology 107(4), 474–482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagoshi, RN (2022) Observations of genetic differentiation between the fall armyworm host strains. PLoS ONE 17(11), e0277510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Negi, P, Chand, S, Thakur, N and Nath, AK (2018) Biological activity of serine protease inhibitor isolated from the seeds of Phaseolus vulgaris. Agricultural Research 7, 265–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nijhout, HF (1994) Insect Hormones. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, p. 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olazcuaga, L, Baltenweck, R, Leménager, N, Maia-Grondard, A, Claudel, P, Hugueney, P and Foucaud, J (2023) Metabolic consequences of various fruit-based diets in a generalist insect species. Elife 12, e84370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ou, Q and King-Jones, K (2013) What goes up must come down: Transcription factors have their say in making ecdysone pulses. Current Topics in Developmental Biology 103, 35–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pascacio-Villafán, C, Williams, T, Birke, A and Aluja, M (2016) Nutritional and non-nutritional food components modulate phenotypic variation but not physiological trade-offs in an insect. Scientific Reports 6(1), 29413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pencoe, N and Martin, P (1981) Development and reproduction of fall armyworms on several wild grasses. Environmental Entomology 10(6), 999–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peruca, RD, Coelho, RG, da Silva, GG, Pistori, H, Ravaglia, LM, Roel, AR and Alcantara, GB (2018) Impacts of soybean-induced defenses on Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) development. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 12(2), 257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Praveen, T and Mallapur, CP (2019) Studies on host range of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) under laboratory conditions. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 7, 1385–1387.Google Scholar
Pusztal, A, Grant, G, Brown, DJ, Stewart, JC, Bardocz, S, Ewen, SWB and Hilder, V (1992) Nutritional evaluation of the trypsin (EC 3.4. 21.4) inhibitor from cowpea (Vigna unguiculata Walp.). British Journal of Nutrition 68(3), 783–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raffa, KF (1987) Maintenance of innate feeding preferences by a polyphagous insect despite ingestion of applied deleterious chemicals. Entomologia Experimentalis Et Applicata 44(3), 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, GV and Chi, H (2015) Demographic comparison of sweet potato weevil reared on a major host, Ipomoea batatas, and an alternative host, I. triloba. Scientific Reports 5(1), 11871–11879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saminathan, ALNV, Roseleen, SSJ and Rajanbabu, V (2022) Oviposition preference of Fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) (JE Smith) among monocot and dicot plants. Ecology Environment and Conservation 28, 554–558.Google Scholar
Sarmento, RDA, Aguiar, RDS, Aguiar, RASS, Vieira, SMJ, Oliveira, HG and Holtz, AM (2002) Biology review, occurrence and control of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) in corn in Brazil. Journal of Biosciences 18, 41–48.Google Scholar
Schoonhoven, LM, van Loon, JJA and Dicke, M (2005) Insect-plant Biology. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Hampshire.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sels, J, Mathys, J, De Coninck, BMA, Cammue, BPA and De Bolle, MFC (2008) Plant pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins: A focus on PR peptides. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 46, 941–950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharanabasappa, , Kalleshwaraswamy, CM, Asokan, R, Mahadevaswamy, HM, Maruthi, MS and Pavithra, HB (2018) Biology of invasive fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on maize. Journal of Entomology 80, 540–543.Google Scholar
Shi, MZ, Fu, JW, Li, JY, Chi, H and You, MS (2023) Projection of insect population dynamics with age-stage, two-sex life table and its application in pest management. Acta Entomologica Sinica 66, 255–266.Google Scholar
Silva, DMD, Bueno, ADF, Andrade, K, Stecca, CDS, Neves, PMOJ and Oliveira, MCND (2017) Biology and nutrition of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) fed on different food sources. Scientia Agricola 74(1), 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, TRFB, Almeida, ACDS, Moura, TDL, Silva, ARD, Freitas, SDS and Jesus, FG (2016) Effect of the flavonoid rutin on the biology of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Acta Scientiarum Agronomy 38(2), 165–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, MC, Thomas, CD, Billington, HL and Parmesan, C (1994) Correlates of speed of evolution of host preference in a set of twelve populations of the butterfly Euphydryas editha. Ecoscience 1(2), 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, B, Singh, JP, Shevkani, K, Singh, N and Kaur, A (2017) Bioactive constituents in pulses and their health benefits. Journal of Food Science and Technology 54, 858–870.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sivaranjani, RS, Srinivasan, T, Vinothkumar, B and Ravikesavan, R (2021) Influence of host plants on the biology of maize fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith). Journal of Pharmaceutical Innovation 10, 1230–1236.Google Scholar
Sotelo-Cardona, P, Chuang, WP, Lin, MY, Chiang, M and Ramasamy, S (2021) Oviposition preference not necessarily predicts offspring performance in the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on vegetable crops. Scientific Reports 11(1), 15885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soto, EM, Padró, J, Milla Carmona, P, Tuero, DT, Carreira, VP and Soto, IM (2018) Pupal emergence pattern in cactophilic Drosophila and the effect of host plants. Insect Science 25(6), 1108–1118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tao, WC, Zhang, XY, Zhang, Y, Deng, XY, Zhang, HL, Zhang, ZH, Li, Q and Jiang, CX (2024) Effects of the host plants of the maize-based intercropping systems on the growth, development and preference of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insects 15(1), 26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tayal, M, Somavat, P, Rodriguez, I, Thomas, T, Christoffersen, B and Kariyat, R (2020) Polyphenol-rich purple corn pericarp extract adversely impacts herbivore growth and development. Insects 11(2), 98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaghela, B, Buddhadev, S and Shukla, L (2013) Pharmacological activities of Desmodium gangeticum: An overview. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 4, 264–278.Google Scholar
Veenstra, KH, Pashley, DP and Ottea, JA (1995) Host-plant adaptation in fall armyworm host strains: Comparasion of food consumption, utilization, and detoxication enzyme activities. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 88(1), 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, W, He, P, Liu, T, Jing, X and Zhang, S (2023) Comparative studies of ovipositional preference, larval feeding selectivity, and nutritional indices of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on 6 crops. Journal of Economic Entomology 116(3), 790–797.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, W, He, P, Zhang, Y, Liu, T, Jing, X and Zhang, S (2020) The population growth of Spodoptera frugiperda on six cash crop species and implications for its occurrence and damage potential in China. Insects 11(9), 639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, Z, Zhu, H, Jin, DC, Hou, JT and Liu, X (2025) Effects of three different host plants on two sex life table parameters of the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda. Scientific Reports 15(1), 141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wetzel, WC, Kharouba, HM, Robinson, M, Holyoak, M and Karban, R (2016) Variability in plant nutrients reduces insect herbivore performance. Nature 539(7629), 425–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wouters, FC, Reichelt, M, Glauser, G, Bauer, E, Erb, M, Gershenzon, J and Vassão, DG (2014) Reglucosylation of the benzoxazinoid DIMBOA with inversion of stereochemical configuration is a detoxification strategy in lepidopteran herbivores. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 53(42), 11320–11324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, KJ and Li, MH (1993) Nutritional ecology of the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera (Hübner): Life tables of the population on the artificial diets with different protein levels. Acta Entomologica Sinica 36, 21–28.Google Scholar
Wu, LH, Cao, Z, Long, GY, Yang, XB, Wei, ZY, Liao, YJ, Hong, Y and Hu, CX (2021a) Fitness of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda to three solanaceous vegetables. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 20(3), 755–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, P, Wu, F, Fan, J and Zhang, R (2021b) Potential economic impact of invasive fall armyworm on mainly affected crops in China. Journal of Pest Science 94(4), 1065–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xie, W, Zhi, J, Ye, J, Zhou, Y, Li, C, Liang, Y, Yue, W, Li, D, Zeng, G and Hu, C (2021) Age-stage, two-sex life table analysis of Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) reared on maize and kidney bean. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture 8(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yainna, S, Tay, WT, Durand, K, Fiteni, E, Hilliou, F and Legeai, F (2022) The evolutionary process of invasion in the fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda). Scientific Reports 12(1), 21063.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, W, Li, H, Zhang, C, Hou, J, Guo, X, Dong, D and Li, X (2024) Impact of maize nutrient composition on the developmental defects of Spodoptera frugiperda. Agronomy 14, 690.Google Scholar
Zhou, S, Qin, Y, Wang, X, Zheng, X and Lu, W (2022) Fitness of the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda to a new host plant, banana (Musa nana Lour.). Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture 9(1), 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Larval duration of the fall armyworm, S. frugiperda reared on different host plants (26 ± 1°C; 65 ± 5% RH; 14L:10D)a long description.

Figure 1

Table 2. Comparative biology and development of the fall armyworm, S. frugiperda reared on different host plants (26 ± 1°C; 65 ± 5% RH; 14L:10D)Table 2 long description.

Figure 2

Table 3. Effect of different host plants on the reproductive parameters of S. frugiperda under laboratory conditions (26 ± 1°C; 65 ± 5% RH; 14L:10D)Table 3 long description.

Figure 3

Figure 1. Age-stage specific survival rate (Sxj) of S. frugiperda on maize, Napier bajra, Guinea grass, soybean, pigeon pea and mung bean under laboratory conditions (26 ± 1°C; 65 ± 5% RH; 14L:10D).Figure 1 long description.

Figure 4

Figure 2. Age-specific survival rate (lx), age-stage specific fecundity (fx), age-specific fecundity (mx) and age-specific maternity (lxmx) on maize, Napier bajra, Guinea grass, soybean, pigeon pea and mung bean under laboratory conditions (26 ± 1°C; 65 ± 5% RH; 14L:10D).Figure 2 long description.

Figure 5

Figure 3. Age-stage specific life expectancy (exj) of maize, Napier bajra, Guinea grass, soybean, pigeon pea and mung bean under laboratory conditions (26 ± 1°C; 65 ± 5% RH; 14L:10D).Figure 3 long description.

Figure 6

Figure 4. Age-stage reproductive value (Vxj) of maize, Napier bajra, Guinea grass, soybean, pigeon pea and mung bean under laboratory conditions (26 ± 1°C; 65 ± 5% RH; 14L:10D).Figure 4 long description.

Figure 7

Table 4. Effect of various host plants on population growth parameters of S. frugiperda under laboratory conditions (26 ± 1°C; 65 ± 5% RH; 14L:10D)Table 4 long description.