Required citation:

IPPC Secretariat. 2021. Prevention, preparedness and response guidelines for Spodoptera frugiperda. Rome. FAO on behalf of the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb5880en

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

ISBN 978-92-5-135034-8
E-ISBN 978-92-5-135036-2 (MOBI)
© FAO, 2021

Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode).

Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original [Language] edition shall be the authoritative edition.”

Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules and any arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.

Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org.

Text in this document is not an official legal interpretation of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) or its related documents, and is produced for public information only. To translate this material please contact ippc@fao.org for information about a co-publishing agreement.

Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) (FAW) is an insect that can cause unprecedented impacts to crops – particularly maize (Zea mays; also known as corn), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), rice (Oryza sativa) and other agricultural crops – if not managed properly. The introduction and spread of this pest should be prevented where still possible. It is important to note that, to date, none of the more than 70 countries in which FAW has been detected has been able to eradicate this pest and significant pest populations have established in affected countries.

The aim of these guidelines is to help national plant protection organizations (NPPOs) to take suitable actions at the proper time against FAW through timely detection to prevent or slow the spread of the pest and reduce its negative impact. The guidelines are directed at NPPOs of countries where FAW fulfils the requirements to be regulated as a quarantine pest for applying internal quarantine and biosecurity measures.

The guidelines give general information on the distribution and biology of the pest (section 1), followed by technical details of what needs to be included in prevention, preparedness (section 2) and response plans for FAW (section 3). Figure 1 summarizes the actions to be taken by the NPPO.

When the pest is absent, countries should prepare a response plan, as well as a prevention and preparedness plan, so that they are ready if the pest is subsequently detected in their territory.

The guidelines also summarize the elements to be taken into account when drafting a communication plan.

Contents

Abstract

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations and acronyms

Explanatory note

1. Distribution and biology of the pest

1.1 Distribution of the pest

1.2 Biology of the pest

2. Prevention and preparedness plan: when the pest is still absent

2.1 Pest risk analysis

2.2 Phytosanitary regulation

2.3 Inspection and diagnostics

2.4 Surveillance

2.5 Communication and information sharing with stakeholders

3. Response plan: when the pest is officially detected and confirmed

3.1 Delimiting surveys

3.2 Phytosanitary measures to be implemented once an outbreak is officially detected

3.3 Suppression of the pest to reduce pest populations

3.4 Communication and information sharing with stakeholders

4. References

Appendix 1:

Checklist to draft and implement prevention, preparedness and response plans for fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda)

A While fall armyworm (FAW) is still absent from the country, prevention, preparedness and response plans should be drafted, and the prevention and preparedness plan should be implemented

B Once an outbreak is officially detected in the country, the response plan should be implemented

Acknowledgments

This document has been developed by experts of the FAO-IPPC Fall Armyworm Technical Working Group on “Quarantine and Phytosanitary Measures”, under the oversight of the IPPC Implementation and Capacity Development Committee. This document was also open to consultation through the IPPC Online Commenting System.

Abbreviations and acronyms

CABI Center for Agricultural Bioscience International

EFSA European Food Safety Authority

EPPO European and Mediterranean Plant Prtoection Convention

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FAMEWS FAW Monitoring and Early Warning System

FAW Fall armyworm

IPPC International Plant Protection Convention

IPM Integrated Pest Management

ISPM International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures

NPPO National Plant Protection Organization

PRA Pest risk analysis

Explanatory note

The guidelines refer to relevant International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) and other guides developed under the auspices of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) Secretariat. The terms used in the guidelines are consistent with ISPM 5 (Glossary of phytosanitary terms).

Further information can be found in the series of publications on FAW available at http://www.fao.org/fall-armyworm/resources/en/ and on the dedicated FAW web page maintained by the IPPC Secretariat at https://www.ippc.int/en/the-global-action-for-fall-armyworm-control/. A comprehensive information portal on the pest, maintained by CABI and containing materials from multiple organizations, is available at https://www.cabi.org/isc/fallarmyworm.

1. Distribution and biology of the pest

1.1
Distribution of the pest

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has maintained a map of the worldwide spread of FAW since 2016 (see http://www.fao.org/fall-armyworm/monitoring-tools/faw-map/en/) and the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) maintains a referenced list of the pest status of countries across the world (see https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/LAPHFR/distribution).

Fall armyworm originates from tropical and subtropical regions of the Americas and is present across those regions. It has recently spread across sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, parts of the Near East and Northern Africa (NENA) and parts of Oceania. As of April 2021, it is only present in Canary Island in Europe, and absent or of limited distribution in some countries in NENA and in the Pacific.

As part of their national reporting obligations, contracting parties to the IPPC should update the pest status of their territories – including for FAW – on the International Phytosanitary Portal (www.ippc.int).

1.2
Biology of the pest

Detailed factsheets for Spodoptera frugiperda are provided by several organizations, including CABI (2020), EPPO (2020a) and the University of Florida (Capinera, 2017). In addition, a poster and a video on the life cycle of the pest are provided by FAO and CABI (2019a), respectively. General information only is provided below.

► Taxonomic position: Animalia: Arthropoda: Insecta: Lepidoptera: Noctuidae.

► Plant hosts: Fall armyworm is highly polyphagous, with its larvae recorded feeding on more than 350 plants from more than 75 families (see details in section 2.4).

► There are two FAW genotypes based on the host-plant preference: FAW is composed of two commonly recognized strains, the so-called “corn strain” (Sfc) and the “rice strain” (Sfr). There are no distinguishable morphological characters to differentiate between Sfc and Sfr, and identification is currently achieved via molecular diagnostics. Introgression has been detected between different populations.

► Developmental temperature range: Fall armyworm is a tropical and subtropical species and its optimal developmental temperature has been reported to range from 23.9 to 32.2°C (Barfield, Mitchell and Poe, 1978). The annual minimum temperature is important for FAW, as it is unable to enter diapause and will not survive below a certain temperature. This minimum temperature for development has been variously reported as 10°C (Wood, Poe and Leppla, 1979), 9.5–10.9°C (Busato et al., 2005), 12.74 – 13.16°C (Ali, Luttrell and Schneider, 1990) and 13.8°C (Hogg, Pitre and Anderson, 1982).

► Egg-laying capacity per female: Females are highly fecund. They are capable of laying up to eight egg masses per generation, with the number of eggs in each egg mass ranging from just a few (e.g. nine) to more than 700. A single female may lay over 1 500 eggs during her life-time (Luginbill, 1928; Capinera, 2017).

► Number of generations per year: At its optimal temperature, FAW could achieve six to eight generations per year. Its development cycle can be completed in about 28 days under optimal development temperature conditions, with this extending up to 90 days under colder temperatures (Luginbill, 1928; Sparks, 1979; Vickery, 1929).

► Long-distance natural spread: The adult FAW moth is a strong flyer and, with the assistance of prevailing wind, has been reported to travel at least 100 km per night (Johnson, 1987). Adult FAW moths have been known to travel 1 600 km in 30 hours from Mississippi in the United States of America to southern Canada (Rose, Silversides and Lindquist, 1975). Wind-assisted dispersal is a potential pathway of long distance natural spread. FAW therefore has a remarkable dispersal capacity, a feature that is understood to have evolved as part of its life history strategy (Johnson, 1987).

► Pathways of introduction: Larvae and pupae of FAW can be transported with traded commodities, especially in parts of plants such as vegetables or fruits, and sometimes on herbaceous ornamentals (Seymour, Roberts and Davis, 1985; Cock et al., 2017). In addition, the adults or eggs could potentially gain entry to a country as a hitchhiker pest on international flights, for instance via tourists luggage (Cock et al., 2017; Early et al., 2018). Wind-assisted natural dispersal is another potential natural pathway of introduction (Cock et al., 2017).

► Resistance development: FAW readily develops resistance to conventional pesticides used for its control. See the Arthropod Pesticide Resistance Database maintained by Michigan State University (2020) for the pesticide resistance status of FAW. An analysis of genes related to pesticide and Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) resistance showed that the risk of FAW developing resistance to conventional pesticides is very high (Zhang et al. 2019).

2. Prevention and preparedness plan: when the pest is still absent

Figure 1 above summarizes the actions to be taken when the pest is absent, through a prevention and preparedness plan. A prevention and preparedness plan sets out all the activities to be undertaken while FAW is absent from the territory, namely, pest risk analysis (PRA), updating of phytosanitary regulations (including the potential for response measures), inspection and diagnostics, and surveillance to be reported to the IPPC Secretariat through National Reporting Obligations.

2.1
Pest risk analysis

Pest risk analysis is the process of evaluating biological or other scientific and economic evidence to determine whether an organism is a pest, whether it should be regulated, and the strength of any phytosanitary measures to be taken against it” (ISPM 5). Pest risk analysis should be undertaken in accordance with ISPM 2 (Framework for pest risk analysis) and ISPM 11 (Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests). It includes analysis of the pathways by which the pest of concern may enter. Countries are encouraged to conduct a comprehensive PRA when the pest is still absent.

According to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) pest risk assessment (EFSA Panel on Plant Health et al., 2018), FAW could enter new countries through international trade. Being a polyphagous pest, it was intercepted on commodities entering Europe and could continue to arrive on several products, such as sweet or hot peppers (Capsicum spp.), eggplant (Solanum melongena), African eggplant (Solanum macrocarpon), African scarlet eggplant (Solanum aethiopicum), asparagus (Asparagus officinalis), maize (Zea mais), and cut rose flowers (Rosa spp.). The pathway models in the EFSA pest risk assessment indicate that sweet or hot peppers are the most likely pathway for entry of FAW into the European Union, even though peppers are not the preferred hosts. Adults or eggs of FAW can also travel as stowaway on international flights. This is confirmed by interceptions of FAW egg masses found in various parts of aircraft coming from Central and South America (Cock at al., 2017).

A physiologically-based population dynamics model of Spodoptera frugiperda (Gilioli et al., 2021a) has been applied to explore the potential risk posed by FAW to Europe (Gilioli et al., 2021b). Results show that the species can establish in Europe with 3-4 generations per year in the coastal areas of the Mediterranean basin and in some warmer inland areas of southern Europe. The species can generate transient populations in southern and in central Europe that can reach, during the favourable season, population abundance representing a risk to susceptible crops.

A pathway analysis for Australia indicates that the majority of FAW interception records in Australia are from fresh asparagus, which could contain eggs and larvae. Sweet or hot peppers, bitter melon (Momordica spp.), African eggplant , eggplants, maize (excluding seeds and grain) and cut flowers are also likely pathways for FAW on imported commodities (Australian Government, 2020).

Given the high rate of natural spread of FAW, it is highly likely to enter countries by natural dispersal. Indeed, FAW may continue to spread within northern Africa and could relatively easily enter southern European countries (particularly the Andalusia region in Spain and Sicily in Italy) through migration. In the Pacific, FAW has been detected in the north-west region of Papua New Guinea that borders the Bismarck Sea (Madang Province, May 2020; Tay et al., in prep.), and in New Caledonia (January 2021; FAO 2021). With the detection in New Caledonia (16/12/2020), invasion of other Melanesia countries is considered likely by the Pacific Community.

FAW was detected in more than 70 countries and none has been able to eradicate this pest and significant pest populations have established in these affected countries.

2.2
Phytosanitary regulations

Following the PRA, the regulated status of this pest should be updated, if needed, as well as the list of commodities subject to phytosanitary import requirements and other preventive measures, and the measures applicable and other priority activities.

In the European Union, FAW is a quarantine pest under the Commission Implementing Regulation 2019/2072 (Annex II, part A; European Commission, 2019a). It is also considered a priority quarantine pest under the Commission Delegated Regulation 2019/1702 (European Commission, 2019b). In addition, there are some specific phytosanitary import requirements regarding this pest on some plants (which should be reflected by an additional declaration on the phytosanitary certificate). These requirements are permanent until further notice on plants such as chrysanthemums/chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum spp.), carnation (Dianthus spp.) and geranium (Pelargonium spp.) (Annex VII to Implementing Regulation 2019/2072, point 25). These requirements take the form of provisional emergency measures for fruits of sweet or hot peppers, bitter melon, African scarlet eggplant, African eggplant and eggplants, and plants – other than live pollen, plant tissue cultures, seeds and grains – of maize originating in third countries other than Switzerland, as per the Commission Implementing Decision 2018/638 (European Commission, 2018) amended by the Commission Implementing Decision 2019/1598 (European Commission, 2019c).

In Australia, the NPPO has implemented its regulation through the PRA process for high-risk FAW host plants and included FAW on the National Priority Plant Pest List as a priority target for surveillance, inspection, diagnostics and stakeholder awareness (Australian Government, 2020).

2.3
Inspection and diagnostics

Inspection and diagnostics should be put in place to detect and identify the pest. All stages of the pest can be detected visually, with a hand lens for early stages, and specimens can be collected by hand or a sweep net (adults). In addition to inspection, pheromones traps are useful at borders to detect any accidental introduction. To identify specimens found, further confirmation is needed through morphological characteristics or molecular diagnostics. Adults can sometimes be found and collected by hand, especially in a commodity that is transported or stored in cool conditions. Eggs can be found on all above-ground plant parts, mostly on the underside of leaves.

Inspection

Inspection is defined as official visual examination of plants, plant products or other regulated articles to determine if pests are present or to determine compliance with phytosanitary regulations. “Official” being defined as established, authorized or performed by a national plant protection organization (ISPM 5). Phytosanitary inspections of consignments that are likely to be pathways for the entry of FAW (e.g. of plants of maize, fruit of sweet or hot peppers, fruit of eggplants; EFSA, 2018) should be conducted at the point of entry. Cock et al. (2017) assumed that introduction of FAW into Africa was through travellers luggage, therefore inspections of luggage in high risk locations should be conducted. When conducting an inspection, methods should be consistent with ISPM 23 (Guidelines for inspection) and ISPM 31 (Methodologies for sampling consignments).

The IPPC guide on Import verification (FAO, 2015a) also contains useful information. The sample size (in terms of the minimum number of individuals selected from the lot or consignment to be examined) should be determined taking into account the statistical background provided in ISPM 31. Where FAW is regulated in but not yet reported from the area of import, the objective should be to aim to detect an infestation level of one percent or more with a confidence level of ≥ 99 percent.

Targeting of quarantine border inspections should be based not just on the FAW pest status of the exporting country but also on the host commodity (such as cut flowers or asparagus). Countries are encouraged to conduct comprehensive PRA and to keep up-to-date information on FAW distribution and the pest status of individual countries by referring to the International Phytosanitary Portal and relevant papers and journals. The North American Plant Protection Organization resource and training module on risk-based sampling also contains useful information (NAPPO, 2020).

Morphological keys and the bibliography allow adult moths to be identified with a high degree of confidence, based essentially on the genitalia. However, border interceptions should rely on a combination of keys and pathway considerations as There are risks of misidentification (see section on Diagnostics).

Identification leaflets on FAW are available, for example the ones developed by FAO and CABI (2019b, c), the Australian Grains Research & Development Corporation (GRDC, 2020), CottonInfo (2020), the Indian Institute for Maize Research (Firake et al., 2019) and the Quebec Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ministère de l’agriculture, des pêches et de l’alimentation du Québec) (RAP–MAPAQ, 2018). Such identification leaflets should also be made available to field staff.

For visual examination of consignments, plant-health inspectors should be equipped with some of the important tools such as (a torch, knife and magnifying lens (10×)). The place where the inspection is conducted should be well lit. The visual examination should begin with an overall examination of the commodity. Visual examination of the container and packaging should be conducted to determine if any eggs, larvae, or adults are present on any of the surfaces.

Any part of the plant sample with characteristic symptoms of lepidopteran feeding damage should be removed for further thorough examination. Destructive sampling of a number of randomly selected consignment samples (e.g. corn cobs, cut flower bunches, asparagus bunches) may be conducted to look for larvae which may have bored into the commodity (plant material). Plant damage symptoms caused by lepidopteran stem-borers (foliar and ear damage) and Helicoverpa armigera (ear damage) can be easily mistaken for those caused by FAW. Symptoms caused by larvae are not specific to Spodoptera spp. but generic for most primarily foliage feeding Lepidoptera species.

If suspected S. frugiperda are detected, specimens should be sent to the designated laboratory to confirm the species identity. Before being sent to the laboratory, larvae should be boiled and then placed in 70 percent ethanol for morphological identification or should be placed in 95–100 percent ethanol for molecular identification, and adults placed either in wrapped paper inside hermetic containers (taking care to preserve the wings, which are fragile) or in ethanol. Wing patterns and colours will not be preserved in ethanol. If the inspector suspects the presence of exotic Spodoptera species, especially S. frugiperda, the lot or consignment should be detained under official control.

Diagnostics

The diagnostic activities for the identification of the species should be carried out by the laboratory of the NPPO or by another laboratory under the authority of the NPPO. ISPM 27 (Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests) and the IPPC Guide to delivering phytosanitary diagnostic services (FAO, 2016a) provide useful general information on diagnostics.

A diagnostic protocol covering Spodoptera littoralis, Spodoptera litura, Spodoptera frugiperda and Spodoptera eridania has been approved and published by EPPO (2015), including morphological and molecular identification.

Morphological identification is best carried out on adult stages if it is to be reliable. However, experts with experience on this genus may make an identification to species level based on the morphology of immature stages (in particular late instar larvae), with due consideration of the context. The morphological identification of the eggs is not possible.

Molecular identification can be relatively time-consuming, especially if a DNA-sequencing facility and service provider are not readily accessible. In this case, morphological identification from larvae or adult moths by an experienced person can potentially help with timely confirmation of suspect specimens. Reliable identification of S. eridania, S. frugiperda, S. littoralis and S. litura can be readily achieved via well-established molecular tests such as sequence identity confirmation. Guidance on when a molecular test is recommended is provided in the EPPO diagnostic protocol, in the sections on morphological identification of the different stages and species. The identification of S. eridania, S. frugiperda, S. littoralis and S. litura can also be performed using four simplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test that can be combined into a single method based on TaqMan chemistry (Van De Vossenberg and Van Der Straten, 2014).

Molecular diagnostics based on the partial mitochondrial DNA cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (mtCOI) gene has been the most widely used approach for species confirmation, this also allowing the differentiation of “rice” and “corn” host preference (i.e. Sfr and Sfc). A loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) test has been developed in South Korea (Kim et al., 2020). Another LAMP test to support diagnosis of FAW at the border and in surveillance is being developed by Agriculture Victoria in Australia (Australian Government, 2020).

Species-level morphological identification is possible for late instar larvae but is more difficult and usually requires consideration of contextual information, including the type and extent of damage. There are risks of misidentification with at least three other Spodoptera species – S. eridania, S. littoralis and S. litura – that must be discounted to confirm identification of FAW. Larvae of (primarily) Poaceae-feeding species, like S. cilium, S. exempta and S. mauritia, S. exigua but also S. ornithogalli, are easily confused with S. frugiperda. Larvae of several other noctuid genera, for instance Agrotis, are highly similar to S. frugiperda. Early larval stages of most other noctuid species are very difficult to distinguish morphologically from those of FAW.

2.4
Surveillance

Surveillance is an official process which collects and records data on pest presence or absence by survey, monitoring or other procedures (ISPM 5). ISPM 6 (Surveillance) and the IPPC guide on Plant pest surveillance (FAO, 2016b) are useful general references to be consulted. EFSA Pest survey card on Spodoptera fugiperda (EFSA, 2020) could also be consulted.

Host range and part of host affected

Fall armyworm is extremely polyphagous. A recent review suggests it has been recorded on over 350 host species from more than 75 families, although it prefers for monocotyledons, mainly Poaceae, and also for Asteraceae and Fabaceae (Montezano et al., 2018). A detailed host list is provided by EPPO (2020c). Fall armyworm causes substantial damage to crops of maize, rice, sorghum, cotton (Gossypium spp.), soybean (Glycine max) and sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) around the world and its range extends to potatoes (Solanum tuberosum), tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum), cucurbits (Cucurbitaceae) and several other vegetable and fruit crops (Casmuz et al., 2010). Damage can severely reduce production, particularly when FAW is present in high population numbers. Fall armyworm can be found on almost all types of commodities of plants or above-ground plant parts. Fruits can also be infested by eggs or, more often, by larvae. Young seedlings are usually targeted as larvae emerge at the beginning of the growing season, but mature plants are also attacked as larvae age. Larvae begin feeding in the whorl and feeding extends to leaves, stems and reproductive parts; larger larvae may cut the plant at the base. Effects on plants in the natural environment are less well known.

Symptoms and pest damage

The larval stage is the only life stage that causes crop damage. Feeding begins after hatching, though the damage from young larvae on leaves is superficial. The larvae are mainly external feeders, especially in or on young plants, while later-instar larvae can completely destroy all plant parts including stems, branches, leaves and reproductive structures (Czepak et al., 2019; EPPO, 2020a). In Zea mais, as the larvae move into the whorl they begin feeding more, and as they develop they skeletonize the leaves. If the plant is older, larvae may travel to the cob or fruit and feed on the developing seeds. It is noteworthy that plant damage due to FAW infestation does not necessarily result in yield loss; pest injury can be inflicted to a certain degree without resulting in significant loss in yield (Juarez, Twigg and Timmermans 2004). In addition, plant damage incurred at some growth stages does not translate to yield loss.

Symptoms of the presence of larvae are holes in fruits or leaves along with the presence of excrement. Early stages are likely to be found by scraping the epidermis of the underside of the leaves, but this is not always the case: for instance in cut flowers such as rose, larvae tend to migrate to the flowers very soon after hatching. Symptoms caused by the larvae are not specific to Spodoptera but are generic for most, primarily foliage-feeding, lepidopteran species. Under natural conditions, pupation takes place in the soil where the pupae are difficult to detect. However, pupae can occasionally be found in commodities without soil, since fully grown larvae will always pupate, regardless whether or not soil is present.

Recovery of plants is dependent on FAW population numbers, but where infestation is high, the damage from larvae is often too extensive and plant death is common. In maize, FAW destroys silks and tassels, limiting the plants’ ability to fertilize. Damage in a field attacked by FAW has been compared to that of hailstorm damage (CABI, 2019a) and feeding damage will often lead to secondary infections such as from fungi.

The FAW Monitoring and Early Warning System (FAMEWS) app and global platform provides a way to pool and visualize surveillance information (see below).

Detection surveys

A detection survey is a survey conducted in an area to determine if pests are present (ISPM 5). Detection surveys should be conducted regularly to rapidly identify individuals or populations of FAW which have been accidentally introduced or have spread naturally.

These detection surveys can be conducted by collecting FAW samples by trapping or visual inspections for identification.

There are many FAW surveillance protocols available; for example, the FAO and CABI (2019b) instructions, the protocols outlined by Kearns et al. (2020), and the EFSA FAW surveillance guidelines (Kinkar, Delbianco and Vos, 2020) that detail specific objective-oriented considerations. The Australian Government provides detailed operational instructions on selecting a site, placing and maintaining a trap, submitting samples and managing data (Britton and Greenwood, 2020; see also Government of Western Australia, 2018). Field scouting protocols can also be found in the FAO Farmers Field Schools guide for FAW management (FAO, 2018).

Adults of S. frugiperda, specifically females but also ‘older’ males having lost part of the scales, have a non-descript external appearance. They may be overlooked easily if mistaken for common noctuid species, especially in areas where the presence of S. frugiperda is not (yet) expected. This may hamper early detection in the field, if growers are not aware of the possible introduction of S.frugiperda (e.g. through natural dispersal). Together with the fact that also the larvae are easily misidentified, this is the reason why surveying with pheromone traps in areas neighbouring areas where S. frugiperda is present is extremely important.

Trapping

In the field and in production-, storage-, handling- and other facilities, adults can also be detected with the aid of light traps and pheromone traps. Pheromone traps allow adult males to be caught, although this may include non-target species. Light traps are species-nonspecific and catch both female and male adults.

Sensitivity and specificity. Trap–lure combinations can differ significantly in both sensitivity and specificity, depending on strain and geographical variation within FAW populations. Intraspecific variation in FAW is well recognized and there are corresponding strong, intraspecific variations in the composition and response to pheromones. This became apparent in central and South America, when there were poor responses to traps containing lures from North America (Andrade, Rodriguez and Oehlschlager, 2000; Malo et al., 2001).

Subsequent sex-pheromone characterization has revealed considerable differences between North and South American populations (Batista-Pereira et al., 2006), and lure compositions have been adjusted for use in these regions. Recent research from populations in Togo has also shown differential responses to trap–lure combinations (Meagher et al., 2019).

Given this variability, it may be necessary to conduct field trials of trap–lure combinations for early detection to optimize trapping success for previously unmonitored populations. These trials should be carried out in areas where the pest is already present, and therefore this information can be used for early detection in areas that are still free of the pest.

Lures. Although FAW lure composition varies, it can be refined easily within known populations through comparative studies. All lure types trialled for FAW in various studies around the world have captured FAW moths, but the efficiency has varied and as an early-detection indicator in low populations this efficiency may be crucial to meeting programme objectives. These lures cannot be used for in-crop monitoring. Because there would not be a correlation between the number of moths trapped adjacent to a host crop and intensity of FAW infestations in the crop. Ref: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0089255.

Lures should be replaced every three to five weeks, depending on the weather as heavy or prolonged rain or strong winds may degrade the lures’ efficacy faster. Lures are dispensed on a rubber septum, which is hung in the selected trap design and pierced to release the pheromone.

Traps. The trap height is commonly 1.5 m but always just above the canopy level of the grasses. Traps are placed at a minimum of 20 m apart for monitoring. Most trap types are likely to be suitable during the dry season. However, to be effective across seasons they must also be durable during the high rainfall events of the wet season, which is when high numbers of moths are likely to be present. The trap types described below have been used successfully in various places around the world, but durability and cost vary. Both trap type and lure composition influence by-catch numbers. Overall bucket traps (preferably yellow – Gilson et al., 2018) are the most suitable for FAW monitoring and delta traps are the most effective for FAW detection surveys. However, the design of the trap is very likely to need refining to withstand high rainfall events.

Visual examination

Visual examination is an examination using the unaided eye, lens, stereoscope or other optical microscope (ISPM 5).

The larvae of FAW are nocturnal and commonly feed deep in the parts of plants where they cannot be easily seen, making visual surveillance time-consuming. Nevertheless, the plants should be examined visually for FAW if any of the following conditions apply:

► the damage includes skeletonizing of leaves or large borer-type holes;

► the damage occurs overnight;

► the damage occurs after rainfall or irrigation events.

The damage caused by FAW is not specific to this species but is similar to that of other foliage-feeding lepidopterans. Nevertheless, when FAW is present, large amounts of frass that resembles sawdust when dry are obvious and skeletonizing of leaves is common. Depending on the crop, surveillance may require plant parts such as new leaves to be pulled apart; in maize, for instance, the whorl, ear, cob and tassels should be examined for damage.

Survey locations

Trapping surveys for FAW should be conducted in regions where the pest has not been detected previously and could establish (endangered areas according to the PRA conducted) or in regions where migratory populations can be expected. This can be supported by surveillance in those parts of the region with susceptible crops. If entry of FAW is thought to be most likely by human action (travel, trade), surveys should concentrate on points of entry of freight and travelers. Countries bordering on countries/areas where FAW is present, and if natural spread is thought to be most likely, surveys should concentrate on the border area. Also locations where imported commercial commodities may be handled, selected or repacked, and inferior quality may be discarded pose a higher risk for entry.

Survey timing and frequency

According to the best estimates for entry by natural pathways, winds blowing FAW adults into an area are most likely to occur during the wet season in tropical areas. However, FAW is likely to reproduce all year round in tropical areas and is likely to take advantage of wet microclimates, including irrigated areas, during the drier months. Trapping surveillance in tropical areas should therefore be conducted all year long, although trapping may be periodic, rather than continuous, depending on logistical constraints. Visual surveillance should coincide with the growing season and high rainfall or irrigation events.

In cooler regions where seasonal incursions are expected, trapping and visual surveillance should coincide with migratory patterns in the FAW populations.

General surveillance

In addition to detection surveys, useful information on FAW presence can also be obtained by conducting general surveillance. General surveillance is a process whereby information on pests of concern in an area is gathered from various sources (ISPM 6). A citizen-science programme may be coordinated to encourage relevant stakeholders and the general public to watch out for FAW, as done in Australia. Simple FAW identification and information resources may be provided to importers, growers and home gardeners to encourage them to report suspected cases of FAW and hence help authorities to identify and report FAW incursions (e.g. Australian Government, 2020). See also section 2.5. More detailed information and training programmes should be offered to those involved in the production and handling of herbaceous and horticultural crops to promote and support the reporting of cases of suspected FAW presence.

The FAMEWS mobile app

The FAW Monitoring and Early Warning System (FAMEWS) mobile app (FAO, 2020a) is an application provided by FAO for smartphones. It can be used as a tool in both detection and delimiting surveys (see section 3.1), and could be used every time a field is scouted and pheromone traps are checked for FAW. It also allows surveillance information to be pooled and visualized.

The app has the following parts:

► data entry – to collect, record and transmit:

■ basic farm data

■ scouting data (collected manually or using artificial intelligence)

■ trap data

■ immediate advice from field officers to stakeholders (farmers, growers, industry representatives);

► integrated pest management (IPM) education;

► digital library;

► chat to share experiences;

► expert resources.

Data are entered by making selections from drop-down lists. For each item, a useful explanation is provided to help the user enter accurate data. In some cases, this explanation includes photos – for instance of different pests and natural enemies. The app is intuitive, easy and fast to use. It is currently available in 29 languages.

The FAMEWS mobile app is mobile app is available for free download on smartphones. This tool is currently being improved and upgraded by FAO.

2.5
Communication and information sharing with stakeholders

Communication is a critical element in monitoring FAW effectively pre-incursion and in managing FAW effectively once its presence has been detected. The IPPC guide to pest risk communication (FAO, 2019a) and the IPPC guide on Managing relationships with stakeholders (FAO, 2015b) provide guidance to NPPOs on identifying and engaging with stakeholders and on developing pest risk communication strategies, including guidance on the key goals and concepts of pest risk communication, the factors that may influence its success and the principles of good pest risk communication.

NPPOs are highly encouraged, even when the FAW is still absent, to publish their FAW prevention, preparedness, and response plans on their websites.

A stakeholder awareness programme, particularyfor farmers and growers is beneficial, and should include information on how to identify FAW, what should be done if FAW is suspected, how to report to the NPPO and other relevant information that might be required. For example, communications and awareness materials from the Australian NPPO, have been developed to meet different stakeholder needs and, include NPPO information on FAW (official scientific and national-response information), jurisdictional information (operational and technical information, provided by states and territories to industry and farmers, on surveillance, management and reporting), and industry information (targeted industry information, resources and reference materials provided by affected industries – such as grain, cotton and horticulture – to support their specific industries). For the EPPO region, a datasheet and a poster are available for NPPOs to raise awareness about FAW (EPPO, 2020a and EPPO, 2020b).

3. Implementation of the response plan: when the pest is officially detected and confirmed

The response plan sets out the phytosanitary measures that are to be applied to contain or limit the spread of FAW once the pest is officially detected and confirmed, as shown in Figure 1. These include delimiting surveys, preventive measures, phytosanitary measures and measures to suppress the pest population and its spread. The response plan should be implemented immediately once FAW is officially found in a new territory. The prevention and preparedness plan should also continue to be implemented for the parts of the country where the pest is still absent.

3.1
Delimiting surveys

A delimiting survey is a survey conducted to establish the boundaries of an area considered to be infested by or free from a pest (ISPM 5).

If FAW is detected during detection surveys or if a report of a suspected case of FAW is verified, a programme of delimiting surveys should be put in place to establish the boundaries of the infested area. A distance of 100 km is usually considered an adequate cost-effective compromise for the radius of the area to be investigated, depending on the data available on the mobility of the insect (which varies depending on climatic conditions). In the territory falling within this area, the phytosanitary authorities should conduct surveys through inspections and trapping, fovouring, the areas cultivated with susceptible crops, in particular with maize, sorghum and rice but at the same time guaranteeing homogeneous coverage of the entire area.

3.2
Phytosanitary measures to be implemented once FAW is officially detected

The following phytosanitary measures should be implemented once FAW is officially detected.

► If FAW is detected in an imported consignment, the infested commodity should be immediately destroyed or treated to prevent the spread of the pest. All lots of the same consignment should be checked and, if necessary, treated or destroyed. The NPPO should notify the relevant national and international levels bodies of the pest interception. Cold storage as incubation for 3 hours at -2°C to 5°C kills more than 80% of FAW females (Luginbill, 1928).

► If FAW is detected in a site that poses a high pest risk, such as storage places for imported plants including vegetables, the source of the infestation should be traced, and the infested plants or vegetables destroyed or treated. It is important to check all plants including vegetables present on the site that may have been infested by the pest. An accurate specific surveillance programme should be implemented around the site to ensure that the pest has not already spread to the surrounding environment. Specific surveillance is a process whereby information on pests of concern in an area is obtained by the NPPO over a defined period (ISPM 6) and can include detection surveys.

► If FAW is detected in places of production or in the wild, pesticide treatments or other control measures should be applied and surveys should be intensified on maize and other host plants throughout the country.

► If the pest is not yet widespread throughout the country, the NPPO may officially establish a demarcated area (infested area + buffer zone (ISPM 5)) in which phytosanitary measures are implemented and the rest of the country may be considered as a pest free area (ISPM 4 (Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas), ISPM 10 (Requirements for the establishment of pest free places of production and pest free production sites), FAO, 2019b). A declaration of a pest free area should be supported by the results of detection surveys and similarly maintained. Given the great flying capacity of FAW, it is very difficult to define the radius of the buffer zone; the NPPO could consider entire provinces or administrative districts as areas where the pest is considered to be present.

Caution: Fall armyworm has a high rate of spread of more than 100 km in one night; it is very polyphagous and can be easily confused with other pests. These factors render its early detection difficult. Biological factors such as high reproductive rates and short generation time have made the eradication of FAW impossible. Eradication of FAW was attempted in Taiwan and Brunei, involving total destruction (cut and burn) of infested maize crops, but this was unsuccessful in preventing resurgence of FAW. In Australia, eradication of FAW was deemed not feasible (e.g. see FAO, 2020b) following rapid detection of FAW at multiple sites (EPPO, 2020d). Eradication has also been deemed not feasible in New Caledonia (IPPC, 2021). Governmental agencies therefore swiftly transitioned to advising industries and state government agencies to mitigate and manage the pest via chemical control as a short-term solution, and to invest and develop IPM strategies for long-term, ecologically responsible solutions. It is important to note that, to date, none of the more than 70 countries in which FAW has been detected has been able to eradicate this pest and significant pest populations have established in these affected countries.

3.3
Suppression of the pest to reduce pest populations

Suppression is the application of phytosanitary measures in an infested area to reduce pest populations (ISPM 5). Phytosanitary measures include legislation, regulation or official procedures, some of which have been discussed in other sections.

Potential suppression methods are summarized in Table 1.

A more comprehensive analysis of suppression methods and evidence for their effectiveness is available in relation to Outcome 2 of the FAO Global Action (see FAO, 2020b). It is emphasized that IPM is the preferred overall approach for suppression, but that different methods will be appropriate in different situations. Choosing which method to use where and when, at national, local or farm level, is critical to effective IPM. Those decisions are not discussed here but should be based on appropriate surveillance or monitoring. In order to meet the phytosanitary import requirements of importing countries, a systems approach may be appropriate, as detailed in ISPM 14 (The use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management).

Any suppression method being considered for use can be evaluated against several criteria.

► Cost-effectiveness. At the simplest level, the cost of control must be less than the value of crop loss avoided for it to be worthwhile. Opportunity and other costs may also need to be considered.

► Efficacy. Results demonstrating a positive effect in controlled trials in an appropriate context are desirable, though not always available.

► Safety. Control methods, particularly pesticides, can be hazardous to human and environmental health. Safety should be considered even during the selection and prioritization of methods to be implemented. If a relatively hazardous method is to be used, recommended precautions should be followed to mitigate human and environmental health risks. Inherent in this consideration is compatibility among methods. A suppression method that is hazardous against terrestrial arthropods, for example, may be inherently incompatible with the use of biological-control methods.

► Availability. The availability of regulated products such as seeds of pest-resistant or pesttolerant varieties and plant protection products is initially determined by their registration status, and only products registered for a particular situation should be considered. Even registered products may not be widely stocked if distribution is expensive or the perceived market is small. The availability of other inputs, such as seeds of companion or intercropping plants may also be a constraint.

► Scalability. The scalability varies between methods according to their commercial potential (for certain technologies) or complexity and potential trade-offs (for certain practices).

Reference documents include the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) guide to IPM for FAW in Africa (Prasanna et al., 2018), the FAO guide to integrated management for FAW on maize (FAO, 2018) and the FAO FAW Guidance Notes 9 and 11 on sustainable management of FAW (FAO, 2020c, 2020d).

In addition, general guidelines for the development of a regional IPM strategy are being drawn up in collaboration with the FAO FAW Technical Committee (TWG 1-6) (FAO, 2021).

Further information is available in FAO (2018, 2020c, 2020d), Jepson et al. (2020), Prasanna et al. (2018) and Rwomushana et al. (2018).

3.4
Communication and information sharing with stakeholders

Once FAW is detected, a dedicated communications team and a spokesperson from the NPPO should be appointed to draft a communication plan.

Communication strategies will need to quickly adapt to address the urgent need for clear, timely, consistent, relevant and science-based information targeted to the needs of different stakeholders. Building trust and credibility through inclusive dialogue and participation is critical from the beginning, particularly as the arrival of FAW presents a complex and new threat to farmers. Sound and consistent advice that can support farmers in managing FAW is critical. Identification of the different stakeholders involved and their needs is essential so that communication modes can be appropriately targeted. In the example of the Australian FAW response, the NPPO and government agencies needed to support stakeholders and growers by providing technical advice, coordination and support. but it was found that the on-the-ground response and management of FAW was better implemented and delivered at the industry and grower level. The communications plan should, therefore, always consider the specific context. Clear advice for preparing a FAW preparedness plan and communication strategy in the event of an out-break is available in CABI (2019b). See section 2.4 and Annex 1 for further information.

References

Ali, A., Luttrell, R.G., Schneider, J.C. 1990. Effects of temperature and larval diet on development of the fall army worm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 1990, 83: 725–733. https://academic.oup.com/aesa/article-abstract/83/4/725/25988?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Australian Government. 2020. Fall armyworm and other exotic armyworms. In: Department of Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment [online]. Canberra. [Cited 26 November 2020]. https://www.agriculture.gov.au/pests-diseases-weeds/plant/exotic-armyworm

Barfield, C.S., Mitchell, E.R., Poe, S.L. 1978. A temperature-dependent model for fall armyworm development. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 71: 70–74.

Batista-Pereira, L.G., Stein, K., de Paula, A.F., Moreira, J.A., Cruz, I., de Lourdes C. Figueiredo, M., Perri Jr., J. & Corrêa, A.G. 2006. Isolation, identification, synthesis, and field evaluation of the sex pheromone of the Brazilian population of Spodoptera frugiperda. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 32: 1085–1099.

Britton, D. & Greenwood, T. 2020. Fall armyworm trapping and surveillance manual. Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. 21 pp.

Busato, G.R., Grützmacher, A.D., Garcia, M.S., Giolo, F.P., Zotti, M.J., de Magalhães Bandeira, J. 2005. Thermal requirements and estimate of the number of generations of biotypes “corn” and “rice” of Spodoptera frugiperda. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 40(4): 329–335.

CABI. 2019a. Fall armyworm: life cycle and damage to maize [video]. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZxVouWM-t4&feature=youtu.be

CABI. 2019b. Framework for strategic communication during pest outbreaks: Learning from fall armyworm, 1st edn [online]. 45 pp. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.cabi.org/cabi-publications/framework-for-strategic-communication-during-pest-outbreaks-learning-from-fall-armyworm/

CABI. 2020. Spodoptera frugiperda (fall armyworm) datasheet. In: Invasive species compendium [online]. Wallingford, UK, CABI. [Cited 17 December 2020] https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/29810

Capinera, J.L. 2017. Fall armyworm. In: E. Rhodes, ed. Feature creatures, entomology & nematology [online]. First published July 1999, Publication Number: EENY-98; latest version May 2017, reviewed June 2020. University of Florida. [Cited 4 November 2020]. http://entnem-dept.ufl.edu/creatures/field/fall_armyworm.htm

Casmuz, A, Juárez, M.L., Socías, M.G., Murúa, M.G., Prieto, S., Medina, S., Willink, E. & Gastaminza, G. 2010. [Review of the host plants of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).] Revista de la Sociedad Entomológica Argentina, 69: 209–231 (in Spanish).

Cock, M.J.W., Beseh, P.K., Buddie, A.G., Cafá, G. & Crozier, J. 2017. Molecular methods to detect Spodoptera frugiperda in Ghana, and implications for monitoring the spread of invasive species in developing countries. Scientific Reports, 7: 4103 [online]. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04238-y

CottonInfo. 2020. From endemics to exotics: Identifying cluster caterpillar, northern armyworm and fall armyworm [online]. February 2020. Australia, Cottoninfo. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.cottoninfo.com.au/sites/default/files/documents/ID_guide_sc2.pdf

Czepak, C., Tay, W.T., Otim, M., Roy, S.R., Godinho, K.C.A., Magalhães, V. & Collier, K.F.S. 2019. Spodoptera special. Cultivar Grandes Culturas, 244, 26–36 [online]. September 2019 (up-dated August 2020). [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.grupocultivar.com.br/ativemanager/uploads/arquivos/noticias/13e5a7f140c80a3a9f1f11e46c9a5575.pdf

European Commission. 2018. Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/638 of 23 April 2018 establishing emergency measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of the harmful organism Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith) (notified under document C(2018) 2291). Official Journal of the European Union L, 105: 31–34. (also available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32018D0638&qid=1603457836318).

European Commission. 2019a. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 of 28 November 2019 establishing uniform conditions for the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and the Council, as regards protective measures against pests of plants, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019. Official Journal of the European Union L, 319: 1–279. (also available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2019/2072/oj).

European Commission. 2019b. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/1702 of 1 August 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing the list of priority pests. Official Journal of the European Union L, 260: 8–10. (also available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32019R1702&qid=1603457697207).

European Commission. 2019c. Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1598 of 26 September 2019 amending Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/638 establishing emergency measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of the harmful organism Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith) (notified under document C(2019) 6818). Official Journal of the European Union L, 248: 86–87. (also available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32019D1598&qid=1603457929862).

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Plant Health, Jeger, M., Bragard, C., Caffier, D., Candresse, T., Chatzivassiliou, E., Dehnen-Schmutz, K. 2018. Pest risk assessment of Spodoptera frugiperda for the European Union. EFSA Journal, 16(8): e05351 [online]. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5351

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Delbianco A., Kinkar M., Vos S. 2020. Pest survey card on Spodoptera frugiperda. EFSA supporting publication 2020:EN-1895. 29pp. doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2020. EN-1895 (also available at https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1895)

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). 2015. Diagnostic protocol for Spodoptera littoralis, Spodoptera litura, Spodoptera frugiperda, Spodoptera eridania.PM7/124. EPPO Bulletin, 45(3), 410–444. (also available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/epp.12258).

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). 2020a. Spodoptera frugiperda datasheet. In: EPPO Global Database. EPPO data-sheets on pests recommended for regulation [online]. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/laphfr/datasheet

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). 2020b. Cooommunication kits – Templates for pest specific posters and leaflets – Spodoptera frugiperda. [Cited 19 April 2021]. https://www.eppo.int/RESOURCES/eppo_publications/pest_specific_posters

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). 2020c. Spodoptera frugiperda hosts. In: EPPO Global Database. EPPO datasheets on pests recommended for regulation [online]. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/LAPH-FR/hosts

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO). 2020d. Spodoptera frugiperda distribution details in Australia. In: EPPO Global Data-base. EPPO Reporting Service (2020/031, 2020/071, 2020/093) [online]. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://gd.eppo.int/taxon/LAPHFR/distribution/AU

FAO. 2015a. Import verification: A guide to import verification for national plant protection organizations [online]. Rome, IPPC Secretariat, FAO. 29 pp. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/86041/

FAO. 2015b. Managing relationships with stakeholders: A guide to stakeholder relations for national plant protection organizations [online]. Rome, IPPC Secretariat, FAO. 55 pp. [Cited 17 December 2020]. http://www.fao.org/3/ca6383en/CA6383EN.pdf

FAO. 2016a. Guide to delivering phytosanitary diagnostic services [online]. 127 pp. Rome, IPPC Secretariat, FAO. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/86076/

FAO. 2016b. Plant pest surveillance: A guide to understand the principal requirements of surveillance programmes for national plant protection organizations [online]. Rome, IPPC Secretariat, FAO. 55 pp. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/86051/

FAO. 2018. Integrated management of the fall armyworm on maize: A guide for Farmer Field Schools in Africa. Rome. viii + 127 pp. (also available at http://www.fao.org/3/i8665en/I8665EN.PDF)

FAO. 2019a. IPPC guide to pest risk communication: A guide for national plant protection organizations on communicating with stakeholders about pest risks [online]. Rome, IPPC Secretariat, FAO. 59 pp. [Cited 17 December 2020]. http://www.fao.org/3/ca3997en/ca3997en.pdf

FAO. 2019b. Guide for Establishing and Maintaining Pest Free Areas. Understanding the principal requirements for pest free areas, pest free places of production, pest free production sites and areas of low pest prevalence. [online]. Rome, IPPC Secretariat, FAO. 128 pp. [Cited 17 December 2020]. http://www.fao.org/3/ca5844en/CA5844EN.pdf

FAO. 2020a. Fall armyworm monitoring and early warning system (FAMEWS): A mobile app and global platform for monitoring FAW. Guidance Note 10 [online]. Rome. 4 pp. [Cited 17 December 2020]. http://www.fao.org/3/ca9484en/ca9484en.pdf

FAO. 2020b. The Global Action for Fall Armyworm Control: Action framework 2020–2022. Working together to tame the global threat. Rome. viii + 36 pp. (also available at https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9252en).

FAO. 2020c. Technical guidelines for sustainable management of fall armyworm in its year-round breeding areas. Guidance Note 9 [online]. Rome. 8 pp. [Cited 18 December 2020]. http://www.fao.org/3/ca8967en/ca8967en.pdf

FAO. 2020d. Technical guidelines for sustainable management of fall armyworm along its seasonal migration pathways. Guidance Note 11 [online]. Rome. 7 pp. [Cited 18 December 2020]. http://www.fao.org/3/ca9486en/ca9486en.pdf

FAO. 2021. General Guidelines for Developing and Implementing Regional IPM Strategy for Fall Armyworm Control in Demonstration Countries. [Cited 20 April 2021]. https://www.regione.lombardia.it/wps/wcm/connect/e7818e29-0f46-4a26-888b-63085070dfd5/05_GILIOLI+-+FAW+-+2021-03-23-finale_2_EN.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-e7818e29-0f46-4a26-888b-63085070dfd5-nzfBM.d

FAO & CABI. 2019a. Fall armyworm: life cycle and damage to maize [online]. Rome & Wallingford, UK, FAO & CABI. 1 pp. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.cabi.org/isc/FullTextPDF/2019/20197800314.pdf

FAO & CABI. 2019b. Fall armyworm field handbook: Identification and management, 1st edn [online]. Rome & Wallingford, UK, FAO & CABI. 38 pp. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.cabi.org/isc/FullText-PDF/2019/20197200644.pdf

FAO & CABI. 2019c. Fall armyworm photo guide: Identification [online]. Rome & Wallingford, UK, FAO & CABI. 2 pp. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.cabi.org/isc/FullTextPDF/2019/20197800315.pdf

Firake, D.M., Behere, G.T., Subhash, B. & Prakash, N. 2019. Fall armyworm: Diagnosis and management (an extension pocket book). Umiam, India, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Research Complex for North Eastern Hill (NEH) Region. 48 pp.

Gilson, C., Francisco, G., Bingham, G. & Matimelo, M. 2018. Efficacy of a pheromone trap with insecticide-treated long-lasting screen against fall armyworm (faw), Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidopera: Noctuidae). Outlooks on Pest Management, 29: 215–219.

Gilioli, G., Colli, P., Colturato, M., Gervasio, P., & Sperandio, G. (2021a). A nonlinear model for stage-structured population dynamics with nonlocal density-dependent regulation: An application to the fall armyworm moth. Mathematical Biosciences, 108573.

Gilioli, G., Sperandio, G., & Simonetto, A. (2021b). Development of a tool for the analysis and the management of the risks of Spodoptera frugiperda. Available at the website of Regione Lombardia [Link Regione Lombardia]

Government of Western Australia. 2018. Fall armyworm surveillance trapping manual [online]. Government of Western Australia, Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. 15 pp. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/sites/gateway/files/DPIRD%20Fall%20armyworm%20surveillance-trapping%20training%20manual_1.pdf

Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC). 2020. Fall armyworm portal. In: Grains Research and Development Corporation [online]. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/resources/fall-armyworm

Hogg, D.B., Pitre, H.N. & Anderson, R.E. 1982. Assessment of early-season phenology of the fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Mississippi. Environmental Entomology, 11: 705–710.

IPPC. 2021. Detection of Spodoptera frugiperda (fall armyworm) in New Caledonia. [Cited 16 April 2021]. https://www.ippc.int/fr/countries/new-caledonia/pestreports/2021/01/-0/

ISPM 2. 2019. Framework for pest risk analysis [online]. Rome, IPPC Secretariat, FAO. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/592/

ISPM 4. 2017. Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas [online]. Rome, IPPC Secretariat, FAO. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://assets.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2017/05/ISPM_04_1995_En_2017-05-23_PostCPM12_InkAm.pdf

ISPM 5. 2019. Glossary of phytosanitary terms [online]. Rome, IPPC Secretariat, FAO. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/622/

ISPM 6. 2018. Surveillance [online]. Rome, IPPC Secretariat, FAO. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/615/

ISPM 11. 2019. Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests [online]. Rome, IPPC Secretariat, FAO. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/639/

ISPM 14. 2019. The use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management [online]. Rome, IPPC Secretariat, FAO. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/607/

ISPM 29. 2017. Recognition of pest free areas and areas of low pest prevalence Rome, IPPC Secretariat, FAO. [Cited 17 December 2020. https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/590/

ISPM 23. 2019. Guidelines for inspection [online]. Rome, IPPC Secretariat, FAO. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/598/

ISPM 27. 2016. Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests [online]. Rome, IPPC Secretariat, FAO. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/593/

ISPM 31. 2016. Methodologies for sampling of consignments [online]. Rome, IPPC Secretariat, FAO. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/588/

Jepson, P.C., Murray, K., Bach, O., Bonilla, M.A. & Neumeister, L. 2020. Selection of pesticides to reduce human and environmental health risks: A global guideline and minimum pesticides list. The Lancet Planetary Health, 4: e56-63 [online]. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(19)30266-9

Johnson, S.J. 1987. Migration and life history strategy of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda in the western hemisphere. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 8(4/5/6): 543–549. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-tropical-insect-science/article/abs/migration-and-the-life-history-strategy-of-the-fall-armyworm-spodoptera-frugiperda-in-the-western-hemisphere/EB7A3F758E7F1436A2FEC-DE39278CB61#

Juarez, M., Twigg, R., and Timmermans, M. 2004. Specification of adaxial cell fate during maize leaf development. Development 131: 4533–4544. [Cited 16 April 2021] https://journals.biologists.com/dev/article/131/18/4533/42306/Specification-of-adaxial-cell-fate-during-maize

Kearns, S., Bett, B., Carnovale, D., Maino, J., Lye, J., Overton, K., Wong, C. et al. 2020. Fall armyworm continuity plan: Australian grains industry, version 1 [online]. A Grains Research and Development Corporation Investment Initiative. Plant Health Australia. iv + 75 pp. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.planthealthaustralia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Fall-Armworm-Continuity-Plan-2.pdf

Kim, J., Nam, H.Y., Kwon, M., Kim, H.J., Yi, H.-J., Haenniger, S., Unbehend, M. & Heckel, D.G. (2020). Development of a simple and accurate molecular tool for Spodoptera frugiperda species identification using LAMP. bioRxiv: 2020.04.07.029678 [online]. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.07.029678

Kinkar, M., Delbianco, A. & Vos, S. 2020. Pest survey card on Spodoptera frugiperda. EFSA Supporting Publications: 2020:EN-1895 [online]. 29 pp. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1895

Luginbill, P. 1928. The fall army worm. United States Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin, 34: 1–91.

Malo, E.A., Cruz-Lopez, L., Valle-Mora, J., Virgen, A., Sanchez, J.A., Rojas, J.C. 2001. Evaluation of commercial lures and traps for monitoring male fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the coastal region of Chiapas, Mexico. The Florida Entomologist, 84(4): 659–664.

Meagher Jr, R.L., Agboka, K., Tounou, A.K., Koffi, D. Agbevohia, K.A., Amouze, T.R., Adjévi, K.M. & Nagoshi, R.N. 2019. Comparison of pheromone trap design and lures for Spodoptera frugiperda in Togo and genetic characterization of moths caught. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 167(6): 507–516.

Michigan State University. 2020. Spodoptera frugiperda. In: Arthropod Pesticide Resistance Database [online]. East Lansing, United States of America, Michigan State University. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.pesticideresistance.org/display.php?page=species&arId=200

Montezano, D.G., Specht, A., Sosa-Gómez, D.R., Roque-Specht, V.F., Sousa-Silva, J.C., Paula-Moraes, S.V., Peterson, J.A. & Hunt, T.E. 2018. Host plants of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Americas. African Entomology, 26: 286–300.

North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO). Resources and learning tools for risk-based sampling. In: North American Plant Protection Organization [online]. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://nappo.org/english/learning-tools/Resources-and-Learning-Tools-for-Risk-Based-Sampling

Prasanna, B.M., Huesing, J.E., Eddy, R. & Peschke, V.M. 2018. Fall armyworm in Africa: A guide for integrated pest management, 1st edn. Mexico City, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT). vii + 109 pp.

Réseau d’avertissement phytosanitaire (RAP) – Ministère de l’agriculture, des pêches et de l’alimentation du Québec (MAPAQ). 2018. Fiche technique – Maïs sucré: Légionnaire d’automne [online]. Quebec, Canada, MAPAQ. 7 pp. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.agrireseau.net/documents/Document_97303.pdf

Rose, A.H., Silversides, R.H. & Lindquist, O.H. 1975. Migration flight by an aphid, Rhopalosiphum maidis (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and a noctuid, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). The Canadian Entomologist, 107(6): 567–576.

Rwomushana, I., Bateman, M., Beale, T., Beseh, P., Cameron, K., Chiluba, M., Clottey, V. et al. 2018. Fall armyworm: impacts and implications for Africa. CABI Evidence Note, October 2018 [online]. Wallingford, UK, CABI. 51 pp. [Cited 17 December 2020]. https://www.invasive-species.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/FAW-Evidence-Note-October-2018.pdf

Seymour, P.R., Roberts, H. & Davis, M.E. (Compilers). 1985. Insects and other invertebrates found in plant material imported into England and Wales, 1984. Reference Book, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, UK, 442/84. iii + 72 pp.

Sparks, AN. 1979. A review of the biology of the fall armyworm. The Florida Entomologist, 62(2): 82–87.

Tay, W.T., Kuniata, L., James, W. & Walsh, T.K. In prep. Confirmation of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Papua New Guinea by molecular diagnostics. BioInvations Records.

Van De Vossenberg, B.T.L.H. & Van Der Straten, M.J. 2014. Development and validation of real-time PCR test for the identification of four Spodoptera species: Spodoptera eridania, Spodoptera frugiperda, Spodoptera littoralis, and Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 107(4): 1643–1654.

Vickery, RA. 1929. Studies of the fall army worm in the Gulf coast region of Texas. United States Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin, 138: 1–63.

Wood, J.R., Poe, S.L. & Leppla, NC. 1979. Winter survival of fall armyworm pupae in Florida. Environmental Entomology, 8: 249–252.

APPENDIX 1

Checklist to draft and implement prevention, preparedness and response plans for fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda)

A.
While fall armyworm (FAW) is still absent from the country, prevention, preparedness and response plans should be drafted, and the prevention and preparedness plan should be implemented

Actions to be taken include the following:

Conduct a pest risk analysis (PRA) for FAW in the country of the national plant protection organization (NPPO), which can be based on published PRA documents conducted in areas with similar characteristics.

Include Spodoptera frugiperda in the list of quarantine pests in the national phytosanitary regulation.

Identify (i) a reference laboratory to confirm the pest species identity, and (ii) an official FAW diagnostic protocol published by relevant plant protection authorities or scientific communities (e.g. Van De Vossenberg and Van Der Straten, 2014; EPPO, 2015). Include national diagnostic protocols and procedures in prevention, preparedness and response plans to ensure consistency of identification methods (morphological or molecular). Multiple laboratories may be used to provide FAW identification and diagnostics, but all need to be working from nationally consistent diagnostic protocols.

Draft FAW prevention, preparedness and response plans with relevant NPPO staff at national and local levels and in consultation with relevant stakeholders (e.g. producer organizations; seeds organizations; harvest and transformation centres for crops, fruits and vegetables; and sellers of crops, fruits and vegetables). Inform such stakeholders about the impacts and status of the pest and any other relevant information related to the plans. Stakeholders may also be actively engaged in surveillance and in the implementation of phytosanitary measures. The IPPC guide on Managing relationships with stakeholders should be consulted (FAO, 2015b).

Define clearly the roles, responsibilities and command structure of those who are to implement the plan. Emergency plant-pest response plans and organizational arrangements will vary from country to country but should be consistent with other animal and plant quarantine and biosecurity plans for the country in question.

Establish national FAW response and management units to plan, coordinate and manage the FAW response activity across policy, technical and operational functions.

Organize training courses for NPPO staff, particularly on surveillance activities and phytosanitary measures, to ensure proficiency in implementing the plans.

Conduct general surveillance through public education and awareness-raising initiatives addressed to stakeholders, particularly maize producers as maize is the most attractive crop for FAW. Conduct specific surveillance by detection surveys for FAW, based on visual examination and the use of pheromone traps.

Develop and implement an awareness programme for small stakeholders and growers.

Check the availability of plant-protection products and biological-control agents considered to be most effective against FAW as reported in the published, peer-reviewed, scientific literature (e.g. Jepson et al., 2020). In the event of shortfalls in availability, the NPPO should urge the relevant bodies to advance the production or import, the registration, and the marketing of whatever is needed to implement effective, safe, economically sustainable and low-environmental-impact control, such as the use of lower-risk pesticides (Jepson et al., 2020).

Secure financial resources to provide a general annual budget for implementing the FAW prevention, preparedness and response plans. In some cases, it may not be practical to wait for annual funding budgets, in which case national FAW funding may need to be part of an emergency budget and resourcing arrangements to activate rapid and immediate responses.

Coordinate and exchange information with regional and neighbouring countries to help regulation of trade pathways posing a pest risk and of potential natural-pathway routes.

Organize simulation exercises with all stakeholders to promote good operational preparedness, identify gaps in the response plan and raise awareness at government, industry and local levels.

B.
Once an outbreak is officially detected in the country, the response plan should be implemented

An outbreak is defined as “a recently detected pest population, including an incursion, or a sudden significant increase of an established pest population in an area” (ISPM 5).

Activities to be undertaken include:

Comply with the national reporting obligations of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and share the outbreak information with the IPPC Secretariat and other relevant bodies (e.g. Europhyt for European Union countries).

Activate the national FAW response and management units described above.

Appoint a dedicated communications team and a spokesperson from the NPPO, and draft a communication plan.

Implement all activities of the response plan as necessary, including the communication plan listed above.

Revise and update the FAW prevention, preparedness and response plans to adapt to the situation.