Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp9 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Multidimensional characterisation of maize resistance to fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith)

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.15650
Submitted
21 May 2026
Published
17-10-2026

Abstract

Fall armyworm (FAW) is a major constraint in maize production and cause considerable yield loss. Although chemical control methods are being widely used for management of FAW, there are increasing concerns regarding issues like pesticide resistance and ecological imbalance. Exploiting host plant resistance represents the most eco-friendly and cost-effective approach.  Growing resistant varieties are one of the ecofriendly approach in FAW management. A prime phase in the line of research is identification of resistant sources and underlying mechanisms contributing towards resistance. Present study integrates field screening, ovipositional preference assay, volatile profiling, and olfactory behavioural assays to characterize resistance in maize genotypes against FAW. Initial screening trials across two seasons revealed a dominance of susceptible genotypes, with DMRE 63 exhibiting resistance and CML 122 as moderate resistance. Leaf damage was highest at 14 days after infestation which corresponds to late larval feeding stage. Ovipositional preference study revealed DMRE 63 had lowest egg deposition under choice and no-choice conditions, indicating antixenosis. Induction of resistance is clearly evidenced through volatile profiling, showing distinct variation among genotypes in healthy, infested plants. Resistant genotype DMRE 63 produced biologically active aldehydes and inducible terpenoid–ketone compounds, whereas susceptible genotype CML 170 was dominated by structural hydrocarbons. Olfactometer assays confirmed behavioural avoidance of infested plants in resistant, moderately resistant, susceptible genotypes. Principal component analysis explained 96.7% variability, linking resistance to behavioural deterrence and reduced oviposition which are components of antixenosis mechanism. This study highlights the need to integrate field screening with chemical ecology ensuring sustainable pest management.

References

  1. 1. Overton K, Maino JL, Day R, Umina PA, Bett B, Carnovale D, et al. Global crop impacts, yield losses and action thresholds for fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda): a review. Crop Prot. 2021;145:105641. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2021.105641
  2. 2. Abro Z, Kimathi E, De Groote H, Tefera T, Sevgan S, Niassy S, et al. Socioeconomic and health impacts of fall armyworm in Ethiopia. PLoS One. 2021;16:e0257736. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257736
  3. 3. Yang X, Wyckhuys KA, Jia X, Nie F, Wu K. Fall armyworm invasion heightens pesticide expenditure among Chinese smallholder farmers. J Environ Manage. 2021;282:111949. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.111949
  4. 4. Smith WEC, Shivaji R, Williams WP, Luthe DS, Sandoya GV, Smith CL, et al. A maize line resistant to herbivory constitutively releases (E)-β-caryophyllene. J Econ Entomol. 2012;105:120–8. http://doi.org/10.1603/EC11107
  5. 5. Prasanna BM, Bruce A, Winter S, Otim M, Asea G, Sevgan S, et al. Host plant resistance to fall armyworm. In: Prasanna BM, Huesing JE, Eddy R, Peschke VM, editors. Fall armyworm in Africa: a guide for integrated pest management. Mexico: CIMMYT; 2018. p. 45–57.
  6. 6. Prasanna BM, Bruce A, Beyene Y, Makumbi D, Gowda M, Asim M, et al. Host plant resistance in maize to fall armyworm. In: Prasanna BM, Huesing JE, Peschke VM, Eddy R, editors. Fall armyworm in Asia: a guide for integrated pest management. Mexico: CIMMYT; 2021. p. 99–113.
  7. 7. Yobila NO, Bruce AY, Okuku GO, Marangy C, Makumbi D, Beyene Y, et al. Assessment of resistance mechanisms to fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda, in tropical maize inbred lines. Agronomy. 2023;13:203. http://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010203
  8. 8. Prasanna BM, Bruce A, Beyene Y, Makumbi D, Gowda M, Asim M, et al. Host plant resistance for fall armyworm management in maize: relevance, status and prospects in Africa and Asia. Theor Appl Genet. 2022;135:3897–916. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-022-04073-4
  9. 9. War AR, Taggar GK, Hussain B, Taggar MS, Nair R, Sharma HC. Plant defence against herbivory and insect adaptations. AoB Plants. 2018;10:ply037. http://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/ply037
  10. 10. Aartsma Y, Bianchi FJ, van der Werf W, Poelman EH, Dicke M. Herbivore-induced plant volatiles and tritrophic interactions across spatial scales. New Phytol. 2017;216:1054–63. http://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14475
  11. 11. Prithiva JN, Jeyarani S, Indhumathi J, Sathiah N, Baskaran V, Srinivasan T, et al. Standardisation of artificial diet for fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith), mass culturing to accomplish research needs of management strategies. Curr Sci. 2025;128:627–32. http://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v128/i6/627-632
  12. 12. Davis FM, Wiseman BR, Williams WP, Widstrom NW. Insect colony, planting date and plant growth stage effects on screening maize for leaf feeding resistance to fall armyworm. Fla Entomol. 1996;79:317–28. http://doi.org/10.2307/3495580
  13. 13. Davis FM, Williams WP. Visual rating scales for screening whorl-stage corn for resistance to fall armyworm. Starkville (MS): Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, Mississippi State University; 1992. Tech Bull No. 186.
  14. 14. Wang WW, He PY, Liu TX, Jing XF, Zhang SZ. Comparative studies of ovipositional preference, larval feeding selectivity and nutritional indices of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on 6 crops. J Econ Entomol. 2023;116:790–7. http://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toad065
  15. 15. Ingber DA, McDonald JH, Mason CE, Flexner L. Oviposition preferences, Bt susceptibilities and tissue feeding of fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) host strains. Pest Manag Sci. 2021;77:4091–9. http://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6434
  16. 16. Jayanthi PDK, Woodcock CM, Caulfield J, Birkett MA, Bruce TJ. Isolation and identification of host cues from mango, Mangifera indica, that attract gravid female oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis. J Chem Ecol. 2012;38:361–9. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-012-0093-y
  17. 17. Saravanan S, Shanmugam PS, Subaharan K, Murugan M, Prakash K, Ashok K, et al. Integrating electrophysiology, behavioral response and docking studies to decipher odorant-binding protein function in the brinjal shoot and fruit borer, Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee. J Comp Physiol A. 2026;212:211–21. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-025-01777-y
  18. 18. Sparks AN. A review of the biology of the fall armyworm. Fla Entomol. 1979;62:82–7. http://doi.org/10.2307/3494083
  19. 19. Abang AF, Nanga NS, Agbodzavu MK, Fotso AK, Suh C, Masso C, et al. Maize plants can recover from fall armyworm damage under optimum crop production conditions in humid tropical agro-ecologies. J Econ Entomol. 2024;117:2269–80. http://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toae235
  20. 20. Lakshmi Soujanya P, Sekhar JC, Yathish KR, Karjagi CG, Rao KS, Suby SB, et al. Leaf damage based phenotyping technique and its validation against fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith), in maize. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:906207. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.906207
  21. 21. Zhang QY, Zhang YL, Quandahor P, Gou YP, Li CC, Zhang KX, et al. Oviposition preference and age-stage, two-sex life table analysis of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on different maize varieties. Insects. 2023;14:413. http://doi.org/10.3390/insects14050413
  22. 22. Nogueira L, Costa EN, Di Bello MM, Diniz JF, Ribeiro ZA, Boiça Júnior AL. Oviposition preference and antibiosis to Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Brazilian maize landraces. J Econ Entomol. 2019;112:939–47. http://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toy388
  23. 23. Ortiz-Carreón FR, Bernal JS, Rojas JC, Cruz-López L, Kolomiets MV, Malo EA. Fall armyworm females choose host plants that are detrimental to their offspring's performance but young larvae amend their mother's choices. Entomol Exp Appl. 2025;173:21–31. http://doi.org/10.1111/eea.13512
  24. 24. Yactayo-Chang JP, Mendoza J, Willms SD, Rering CC, Beck JJ, Block AK. Zea mays volatiles that influence oviposition and feeding behaviors of Spodoptera frugiperda. J Chem Ecol. 2021;47:799–809. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-021-01302-w
  25. 25. Yactayo-Chang JP, Broadhead GT, Housler RJ, Resende Jr MFR, Verma K, Louis J, et al. Maize terpene synthase 1 impacts insect behavior via the production of monoterpene volatiles β-myrcene and linalool. Phytochem. 2024;218:113957. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2023.113957
  26. 26. Degen T, Dillmann C, Marion-Poll F, Turlings TC. High genetic variability of herbivore-induced volatile emission within a broad range of maize inbred lines. Plant Physiol. 2004;135:1928–38. http://doi.org/10.1104/pp.104.039891
  27. 27. Molnár BP, Tóth Z, Fejes-Tóth A, Dekker T, Kárpáti Z. Electrophysiologically-active maize volatiles attract gravid female European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis. J Chem Ecol. 2015;41:997–1005. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-015-0640-4
  28. 28. Huang CH, Yan FM, Byers JA, Wang RJ, Xu CR. Volatiles induced by the larvae of the Asian corn borer (Ostrinia furnacalis) in maize plants affect behavior of conspecific larvae and female adults. Insect Sci. 2009;16:311–20. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7917.2009.01257.x
  29. 29. Block AK, Vaughan MM, Schmelz EA, Christensen SA. Biosynthesis and function of terpenoid defence compounds in maize (Zea mays). Planta. 2019;249:21–30. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-018-2999-2
  30. 30. Arimura GI, Matsui K, Takabayashi J. Chemical and molecular ecology of herbivore-induced plant volatiles: proximate factors and their ultimate functions. Plant Cell Physiol. 2009;50:911–23. http://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcp030
  31. 31. Chen L, Li X, Zhang J, He T, Huang J, Zhang Z, et al. Comprehensive metabolome and volatilome analyses in eggplant and tomato reveal their differential responses to Tuta absoluta infestation. Front Plant Sci. 2021;12:757230. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.757230
  32. 32. Sotelo-Leyva C, Flores-Juárez C, Bernal-Linares AK, González-Cortazar M, Toledo-Hernández E, Marquina-Bahena S, et al. Chemical composition of Bessera elegans (Asparagaceae) flower extracts and their insecticidal effect against Melanaphis sacchari Zehntner (Hemiptera: Aphididae). S Afr J Bot. 2023;156:186–91. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2023.03.015
  33. 33. dos Santos IB, Lopes MdS, Bini AP, Tschoeke BAP, Verssani BAW, Figueredo EF, et al. The Eucalyptus cuticular waxes contribute in preformed defence against Austropuccinia psidii. Front Plant Sci. 2019;9:1978. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01978
  34. 34. Padmavathi C, Paul AV. Saturated hydrocarbons as kairomonal source for the egg parasitoid, Trichogramma chilonis Ishii (Hym., Trichogrammatidae). J Appl Entomol. 2009;122:29–32. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1998.tb01456.x
  35. 35. Ueno I, Kanedawara T, Inoue K, Watanabe S, Ômura H. Cabbage leaf epicuticular wax deters female oviposition and larval feeding of Pieris rapae. J Chem Ecol. 2025;51:45. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-025-01597-z
  36. 36. Trase OW, McCartney N, Ali JG. Suppression of belowground volatiles in maize depends on cover crop legacy and genotype. J Chem Ecol. 2025;51:85. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-025-01632-z
  37. 37. Barbero F. Cuticular lipids as a cross-talk among ants, plants and butterflies. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17:1966. http://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17121966
  38. 38. Gouinguené SP, Turlings TC. The effects of abiotic factors on induced volatile emissions in corn plants. Plant Physiol. 2002;129:1296-307. http://doi.org/10.1104/pp.001941
  39. 39. Wu W, Wu H, Liang R, Huang S, Meng L, Zhang M, et al. Light regulates the synthesis and accumulation of plant secondary metabolites. Front Plant Sci. 2025;16:1644472. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1644472
  40. 40. de Lange ES, Laplanche D, Guo H, Xu W, Vlimant M, Erb M, et al. Spodoptera frugiperda caterpillars suppress herbivore-induced volatile emissions in maize. J Chem Ecol. 2020;46:344–60. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-020-01153-x
  41. 41. Signoretti AG, Peñaflor MF, Bento JM. Fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), female moths respond to herbivore-induced corn volatiles. Neotrop Entomol. 2012;41:22–6. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-011-0003-y
  42. 42. Wei JN, Zhu J, Kang L. Volatiles released from bean plants in response to agromyzid flies. Planta. 2006;224:279–87. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-005-0212-x
  43. 43. Wu J, Cao Y, Teng D, Shan S, Geng T, Huang X, et al. Volatiles of different resistant cotton varieties mediate the host preference of mirid bug Apolygus lucorum. Front Plant Sci. 2024;15:1428234. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1428234
  44. 44. Zheng S, Chen R, Wang L, Pan S, Liu W, Zhu X, et al. Effect of metabolic changes in Aphis gossypii-damaged cotton plants on oviposition preference and larval development of subsequent Helicoverpa armigera. J Agric Food Chem. 2022;70:9584–95. http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.2c02876
  45. 45. Yang D, Fan H, Hu R, Huang Y, Sheng C, Cao H, et al. Characterization of core maize volatiles induced by Spodoptera frugiperda that alter the mating-mediated approach-avoidance behaviors of Mythimna separata. J Integr Agric. 2025;24:655–67. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jia.2024.05.029
  46. 46. Pamidi LS, Sekhar JC, Yathish KR, Karjagi CG, Rao KS, Suby SB, et al. Characterization of antixenosis and antibiosis resistance to the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) in maize. Phytoparasitica. 2025;53:4. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12600-024-01228-5
  47. 47. Kumar DS, Soujanya PL, Kumar VM, Yathish KR, Venkateswarlu R, Karjagi CG, et al. Resistance in diverse maize genotypes to invasive fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) reveals potential morpho-biochemical traits. Crop Prot. 2025;187:106956. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2024.106956
  48. 48. Bernaola L, Butterfield TS, Tai TH, Stout MJ. Epicuticular wax rice mutants show reduced resistance to rice water weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Environ Entomol. 2021;50:948–57. http://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvab060
  49. 49. Yang G, Espelie KE, Todd JW, Culbreath AK, Pittman RN, Demski JW. Characterization of cuticular lipids from cultivated and wild peanut species and their effect on feeding by fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Peanut Sci. 1995;22: 49–54. http://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-22-1-12
  50. 50. Atee F, Palanisamy SR, Marimuthu M, Thulasy S, Rajasekaran R, Natesan S. Biochemical basis of resistance toward maize insect pests of different feeding guild and their inter-guild interactions. Planta. 2025;261:129. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-025-04793-z
  51. 51. Zhou S, Jander G. Engineering insect resistance using plant specialized metabolites. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2021;70:115–21. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2021.03.005
  52. 52. Robert CA, Erb M, Hiltpold I, Hibbard BE, Gaillard MD, Bilat J, et al. Genetically engineered maize plants reveal distinct costs and benefits of constitutive volatile emissions in the field. Plant Biotechnol J. 2013;11:628–39. http://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12053

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.