Next Article in Journal
Comparing a New Non-Invasive Vineyard Yield Estimation Approach Based on Image Analysis with Manual Sample-Based Methods
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of the Airblast Settings on the Vertical Spray Profile: Implementation on an On-Line Decision Aid for Citrus Treatments
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Fall Armyworm Tolerance of Maize Parental Lines, Experimental Hybrids, and Commercial Cultivars in Southern Africa

Prince M. Matova
Casper N. Kamutando
Dumisani Kutywayo
Cosmos Magorokosho
2 and
Maryke Labuschagne
Department of Research and Specialist Services, Causeway, Harare P.O. Box CY550, Zimbabwe
Former International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre, Mt Pleasant, Harare P.O. Box MP163, Zimbabwe
Department of Plant Sciences, University of the Free State, P.O. Box 339, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa
Department of Plant Production Sciences and Technologies, University of Zimbabwe, Mt Pleasant, Harare P.O. Box MP167, Zimbabwe
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(6), 1463;
Submission received: 4 May 2022 / Revised: 15 June 2022 / Accepted: 15 June 2022 / Published: 17 June 2022


Fall armyworm [Spodoptera frugiperda (J./E. Smith); FAW] is negatively impacting sustainable maize production, particularly in smallholder farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Two sets of germplasm (commercial cultivars and experimental hybrids, and local and exotic inbred lines) were evaluated under managed and natural FAW infestation to identify FAW tolerant material with superior grain yield performance. Significant genotypic effects on foliar FAW damage, ear FAW damage, and grain yield were observed. Commercial cultivars were significantly more affected by FAW infestation than experimental hybrids, as evidenced by high foliar and ear damage scores, yet they out-yielded experimental genotypes. The introduced FAW donor lines (CML338, CML67, CML121, and CML334) showed better tolerance to FAW, individually and in hybrid combinations. Local inbred lines, SV1P, CML491, and CML 539, also showed FAW tolerance. Hybrids and open pollinated varieties were more vulnerable to FAW damage at early growth stages, but they grew out of it through the mid to late whorl stages. Inbred lines showed increasing damage as they grew to maturity. Husk cover, ear rot, anthesis date, and plant height were highly correlated with FAW tolerance. The identified local and exotic lines with FAW tolerance will contribute to FAW resistance breeding in southern Africa.

1. Introduction

Maize is one of the most important food security crops in Africa. In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) alone, approximately 38 million metric tons of maize per year is produced to feed and sustain over 300 million families [1,2]. While maize production in SSA is dominated by smallholder farmers, production is complicated and compromised by an array of challenges which include drought, poor soil fertility, insect pests and diseases, inferior seed, and limited financial resources [3,4,5]. The world population is projected to increase by 25% in the next 30 years [6] and there is growing demand for maize in SSA, driven by population growth, rapid urbanization, and per capita consumption demand growth [7,8]. Unlike developed countries, more than 63% of maize produced in SSA is for human consumption [9].
The smallholder farmers of SSA have poor mitigation strategies to the various stresses affecting maize production. In 2016, SSA was invaded by a trans-boundary, polyphagous insect pest: fall armyworm [Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith); FAW] [10,11,12]. FAW has caused significant crop yield losses across SSA since its arrival on the continent [13,14,15]. Maize is FAW’s most preferred crop, and several reports have indicated that most cultivars currently in production across most of SSA are susceptible to the pest [14,15,16].
Host–plant resistance is the ability of a plant to resist pest damage or injury that causes death of the plant or economic yield loss and it is expressed by the degree of the damage by the pest on the host plant, and is the best long-term strategy for overcoming the effects of this pest [17]. Host–plant resistance has been classified into three different categories, which are non-preference, antibiosis, and tolerance [18]. Antibiosis affects the growth, survival, and reproductive capacity of the pest and it is the major mechanism responsible for FAW resistance in resistant genotypes [19]. Non-preference confers resistance mainly by making the plant not a preferred habitat by the pest mainly because of the presence of hairs on the leaves and stems, thick leaf cuticles, and shiny leaf texture [20]. Tolerance is more of a partial resistance mechanism; it refers to the ability of a plant to survive and yield satisfactorily despite hosting a significant pest population [20]. Partial resistance confers horizontal resistance, which is more durable and takes longer to break down [21,22].
In parts of the world, breeding for resistance to FAW was largely replaced by the introduction of Bt maize. In Brazil, FAW was controlled with insecticides until insecticide resistance developed, which lead to the introduction of Bt maize [21,23]. Bt maize has also effectively managed FAW in the Americas [24]. This is significant, as genetically modified maize represents more than 85% of the maize produced in the USA, Brazil, and Argentina [25]. The use of Bt maize in SSA is probably not feasible (with the exception of South Africa) due to high seed costs and the low maize prices small-scale farmers receive, which is characteristic of the SSA market [12].
There has not been a deliberate study to investigate the response of cultivars under production in SSA to FAW infestation [17,26], yet this information is important in guiding smallholder farmers, breeders, seed companies, and policy makers on the right cultivars in the region. This information will also contribute towards targeted FAW resistance breeding, which needs to be implemented in the region. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to (i) identify locally adapted germplasm (commercial cultivars, experimental hybrids, and inbred lines) with good FAW tolerance and superior yield performance under FAW infestation, (ii) determine agronomic traits correlated with FAW tolerance in maize hybrids, open pollinated varieties (OPVs), and inbred lines, and (iii) estimate the impact of natural FAW infestation on grain yield. This information can guide seed supply systems and breeding in the wake of FAW outbreaks.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Germplasm Tested

A collection of 60 genotypes, consisting of old and new commercial cultivars registered for cultivation in Zimbabwe, and experimental hybrids were used (Table 1) as well as 63 inbred lines, some of which are parents in the commercial hybrids (Table 2). This germplasm was developed by the Crop Breeding Institute (CBI) of Zimbabwe, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), and HarvestPlus, while the cultivars and experimental hybrids were sourced from CBI, CIMMYT, and various seed houses in Zimbabwe. The inbred lines used in the inbred line trial constituted the most prominent parental materials for hybrids developed by CBI and CIMMYT. The commercial cultivars included OPVs and hybrids developed or introduced by CBI since 1909, as well as cultivars developed and released by CIMMYT and different seed houses in Zimbabwe. Some of the cultivars are currently grown in a number of countries across the East and Southern African regions (ESA). As there are currently no FAW susceptible and tolerant checks for the region, this material was screened as is in the FAW hotspot areas.

2.2. Trial Sites, Experimental Design and Agronomic Management

The trials were established under managed FAW (FAW control trial) and natural FAW infestation across different sites in Zimbabwe during the 2019 and 2020 summer seasons. Under managed FAW environments, insecticides were used to control FAW, including Thionex (Endosulfan 50%), Carbaryl (Carbaryl 85WP), Dimethoate (Dimethoate 40EC), Karate (Lambda cyhalothrin 5EC), Ecoterex (Deltamethrin and Pirimiphos methyl), Emamectin benzoate/Macten (Emamectin benzoate 5), Super dash (Emamectin benzoate and Acetamiprid), Ampligo (Chlorantraniliprole and Lambda), and Belt (Flubendiamide). A routine FAW control strategy was followed [11] where chemicals were applied when egg masses were spotted on at least 5% of the crop or when 25% of the crop at early whorl stage (or 40% at late whorl stage) showed physical damage caused by the pest and when live pests were visible on the crop. Recommended application rates were used, and the crops were sprayed every two weeks or when the need arose.
The lowveld research sites (Chiredzi and Chisumbanje) have traditionally been used for maize stalk borer screening as they naturally have a high and active infestation population of stem borers, FAW, and other insect pests due to their inherent high temperature and low rainfall characteristic. The other sites in Harare—Gwebi and Kadoma—represent major maize production areas of Zimbabwe, and usually have significant FAW populations during the maize growing season.
The Department of Research and Specialist Services (DR&SS) site—Harare (17°48′ S, 31°03′ E, 1506 m above sea level (masl), rainfall for 2019 and 2020 respectively 502.7 and 436.3 mm), and Gwebi Variety Testing Centre (17°41′ S, 30°32′ E, 1448 masl, rainfall for 2019 and 2020 respectively 571.5 and 542.5 mm) were used in both years, while CIMMYT Harare (17°48′ S, 31°85′ E, 1506 masl, 557.2 mm rainfall for 2019) and Chisumbanje (20°05′ S, 32°15′ E, 421 masl, 441.9 mm rainfall in 2019) were used only in 2019, and Chiredzi (21°01′ S, 21°25′ E, 1409 masl, 419.2 mm rainfall in 2020), Rattray-Arnold Research Station (RARS) (17°14′ S, 31°14′ E, 1341 masl, 543.8 mm rainfall in 2020), and Kadoma-Cotton Research Institute (18°94′ S, 29°25′ E, 1149, masl, 474.8 mm rainfall in 2020) were used during 2020.
The commercial cultivar experiment was laid out in a 10 × 6 α (0, 1) lattice design, while the inbred line experiment was laid out in a 9 × 7 α (0, 1) lattice design, with both experiments having two replications at each testing site. The experimental unit for all environments was one 4 m row plot, except at DR&SS-Harare and CIMMYT-Harare that had 2 m row plots, with inter-row and intra-row spacing of 0.75 and 0.25 m, respectively. The experimental plants were thinned to one plant per planting station at the two-leaf stage (approximately three weeks after planting) to give a crop population density of about 53,000 plants ha−1. Planting station refers to the position of a plant in row. The plants in the experiments were grown using standard agronomic practices for maize production. Optimal fertilizer rates of 400 kg ha−1 for both compound D (7N:14P:7K) basal applications and ammonium nitrate (AN) (34.5N) for top dressing were applied at all environments. Weeds were controlled using herbicides and hand weeding where necessary.

2.3. Data Collection and Analysis

For trials at each site, the following characteristics were recorded per plot: (i) foliar FAW damage (FFAWD) at 4, 8 and 12 week intervals, (ii) anthesis date (AD), (iii) plant height (PH) at harvesting, (iv) Husk cover (HC), (v) ear FAW damage (EFAWD), (vi) ear rots (ER), and (vii) grain yield (GYD) per plot adjusted to 12.5% moisture content. The presence of FAW was determined through visual assessment of the active larvae and FAW damage scores were the main indicators of the extent of the FAW pressure. FFAWD damage was recorded following the modified Davis scale as described previously [11] where scores 1–2 = resistant, 2–5 = partial resistance, 5–7 = susceptible, 7–9 = highly susceptible [1 = no visible leaf-feeding damage, highly resistant, 2 = few pinholes on 1–2 older leaves, resistant, 3 = several shot-hole injuries on a few leaves (2.5 cm long) on 8–10 leaves, plus a few small- to mid-sized uniform to irregular-shaped holes (basement membrane consumed) eaten from the whorl and/or furl leaves, partially resistant, 6 = several large elongated lesions present on several whorl and furl leaves and/or several large uniform to irregular-shaped holes eaten from furl and whorl leaves, susceptible, 7 = many elongated lesions of all sizes present on several whorl and furl leaves plus several large uniform to irregular-shaped holes eaten from the whorl and furl leaves, susceptible, 8 = many elongated lesions of all sizes present on most whorl and furl leaves plus many mid- to large-sized uniform to irregular-shaped holes eaten from the whorl and furl leaves, highly susceptible, 9 = whorl and furl leaves almost totally destroyed and plant dying as a result of extensive foliar damage, highly susceptible].
EFAWD was scored as follows [11]: 1 = no damage to the ear, highly resistant, 2 = damage to a few kernels (<5) or less than 5% damage to an ear, resistant, 3 = damage to a few kernels (6–15) or less than 10% damage to an ear, resistant, 4 = damage to 16–30 kernels or less than 15% damage to an ear, partially resistant, 5 = damage to 31–50 kernels or less than 25% damage to an ear, partially resistant, 6 = damage to 51–75 kernels or more than 35% but less than 50% damage to an ear, susceptible, 7 = damage to 76–100 kernels or more than 50% but less than 60% damage to an ear, susceptible, 8 = damage to >100 kernels or more than 60% but less than 100% damage to an ear, highly susceptible, 9 = almost 100% damage to an ear, highly susceptible.
All the other agronomic traits were recorded as described previously [27,28]. The collected phenotypic data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Genstat Discovery Software V18.0 [29]. Best linear unbiased predictions (BLUPs) and broad sense heritability estimates (H2), and genetic correlations between agronomic traits as well as identifying traits correlated with FAW tolerance were estimated using the Multi-environment Trials Analysis in R (META-R) v2.1 R package software [30]. For each trait, sites with H2 values lower than 20% were dropped from the combined analysis. Means were separated using the Tukey’s multiple comparison test in Genstat Discovery Software [29]. In the ANOVA model, genotypes were considered fixed, while replications within environments, and environments, were considered random.

3. Results

3.1. Performance of the Commercial Cultivars and Their Corresponding Inbred Line Parents under Natural Fall Armyworm Infestation

Significant (p < 0.05) genotype effects were seen for FAW infestation on both foliar and ear damage across cultivars and inbred lines evaluated (Table 3 and Table 4). Grain yield and yield related traits (anthesis date, plant height, and ear rot) differed significantly (p < 0.05) across cultivars and inbred lines evaluated under FAW infestation. The minimum average FFAWD Davis score for cultivars and experimental hybrids was 3.36 while the highest score was 5.73 (Table 3), whereas for inbred lines, the average FFAWD ranged from 2.62 to 6.34 (Table 4). Generally, FFAWD was higher than EFAWD for both cultivars and inbred lines.

3.2. Private and Public Sector Hybrids and Open Pollinated Varieties with Substantial Levels of Fall Armyworm Tolerance and Superior Yield Performance

In Table 5, the commercial genotypes were grouped according to source of development for easier interpretation. Among the private sector commercial cultivars that were identified as showing tolerance to FAW according to the Davies scoring scale, the hybrids PAN53 (average FFAWD = 4.73, EFAWD = 2.65; GYD = 3.85 t ha−1), Mutsa MN521 (average FFAWD = 4.58, EFAWD = 2.88; GYD = 3.63 t ha−1), ZAP61 (average FFAWD = 4.77, EFAWD = 3.18; GYD = 3.13 t ha−1) and Manjanja MN421 (average FFAWD = 4.74, EFAWD = 2.95; GYD = 3.09 t ha−1) had good grain yield potential and showed partial tolerance to FAW. Within the public sector cluster (national breeding program), the DR&SS registered varieties, ZS246A (average FFAWD = 4.51, EFAWD = 2.73; GYD = 3.24 t ha−1) and ZS242A (average FFAWD = 4.38, EFAWD = 2.92; GYD = 3.04 t ha−1), as well as an experimental hybrid identified as 113WH330 (average FFAWD = 4.81, EFAWD = 2.72; GYD = 3.23 t ha−1) were the best in terms of FAW tolerance and grain yield performance. Additionally, in the public sector (CIMMYT breeding program), a total of eight experimental hybrids showing FAW tolerance and good grain yield performance under FAW infestation were identified. All these genotypes had a statistically similar yield.
With the exception of CZH128 (average FFAWD = 4.78, EFAWD = 2.59; GYD = 3.60 t ha−1), the other seven hybrids were crosses between a FAW resistant donor inbred line parent with a CIMMYT elite line, designated as CIMMYT maize line (CML) or an experimental inbred line parent. For example, genotype 55 (CIMExp/CML334) (GYD = 3.35 t ha−1), a cross between a CIMMYT experimental inbred line and a late flowering FAW resistant donor inbred line parent, CML334, ranked seventh for grain yield performance among the 60 evaluated genotypes under natural FAW infestation.
There was a general trend of decreasing FFAWD scores for FAW resistant hybrids from 4 to 12 weeks after planting (Table 5). All commercial cultivars and experimental hybrids had the lowest scores at 12 weeks after crop emergence. FFAWD tolerance of some of the genotypes is likely due to non-preference resulting from increased pubescence on stems and leaves. This was particularly true for the experimental hybrids from crosses between FAW resistant donor inbred line parents (such as genotype CML338/CML67) that had minimal damage on leaves, silks, and ears.

3.3. Grain Yield and Agronomic Performance of Cultivars, Experimental Hybrids, and Inbred Lines under Control (Managed Fall Armyworm) Conditions

The mean grain yield performance under control conditions in the commercial cultivar/hybrid trial was 5.99 t ha−1, while the mean average FFAWD and EFAWD scores were 0.36 and 0.44 respectively (Table 6). The top 10 commercial genotypes and top 10 inbred lines in terms of yield, with their associated characteristics, were also listed in Table 6. The best performers were PAN-7M-81 (GYD = 8.96 t ha−1, average FFAWD = 2.46, EFAWD = 2.51), PHB30G19 (GYD = 8.87 t ha−1, average FFAWD = 2.44, EFAWD = 1.94), PAN-4M-23 (GYD = 8.62 t ha−1, average FFAWD = 2.63, EFAWD = 2.14), PAN53 (GYD = 8.40 t ha−1, average FFAWD = 2.70, EFAWD = 1.92), Mukwa (GYD = 8.39 t ha−1, average FFAWD = 2.52, EFAWD = 2.28), ZS265 (GYD = 7.78 t ha−1, FFAWD = 2.62, EFAWD = 1.90), ZS269 (GYD = 7.65 t ha−1, Avg-FFAWD = 2.63, EFAWD = 2.16), and NTS51 (GYD = 7.64 t ha−1, average FFAWD = 2.47, EFAWD = 2.38). The hybrids CIMExp/CML345 and CML338/CML334 were the only two experimental hybrids that were among the best 10 yielding entries under control conditions.
In contrast to this, grain yields were not significantly different for inbred lines under control conditions at Harare during the 2019 and 2020 summer seasons (Table 6). However, genotypes showed differential performance (p < 0.05) for average FFAWD, FFAWD at 12 weeks, EFAWD and AD while there were no differences across genotypes for FFAWD at 8 weeks. The mean GYD for inbred lines under managed FAW was 0.77 t ha−1, and the means for average FFAWD and EFAWD were 3.88 and 3.37 respectively.

3.4. Sources of Fall Armyworm Tolerance in Public Sector Breeding Programs

For the selected public sector (National and CIMMYT breeding programs) FAW resistant genotypes (listed in Table 5), parental inbred lines making up the hybrids were tracked in inbred line trials in order to explore sources of tolerance among the publicly available maize germplasm pools in Zimbabwe (Table 7). From the national breeding program registered cultivars, the parental inbred line CLHP0005 (average FFAWD Rank = 9; average FFAWD = 4.39; EFAWD = 4.61; GYD = 0.5 t ha−1), which is a parental line in the hybrids ZS246A and ZS242A, proved to be the best source for FAW resistance. From the CIMMYT breeding program, an inbred line parent identified as CML334 (average FFAWD Rank = 8; average FFAWD = 4.35; EFAWD = 2.01; GYD = 0.48 t ha−1), a parental line in the experimental hybrid, CIMExp/CML334, was identified as the best source of FAW resistance.
Comparing mean grain yields attained under natural FAW infestation (2.57 t ha−1) against 5.99 t ha−1 realized under managed conditions, FAW infestation caused a yield loss of 57.1% in hybrids and OPVs evaluated under the commercial cultivar and experimental hybrid trials (Table 5 and Table 6). Slightly lower, but similar yield damage was also observed on inbred lines where the average grain yield performance under FAW stress was 0.39 t ha−1 while it was 0.77 t ha−1 under managed conditions (Table 6 and Table 7). This translates to a yield penalty of 49.4%.
The other potential sources of FAW resistance, but that are not involved as parents in the selected hybrid genotypes, were CML67 (average FFAWD Rank = 1; average FFAWD = 2.75; EFAWD = 3.48; GYD = 0.50 t ha−1), CML121 (average FFAWD Rank = 2; Avg-FFAWD = 3.05; EFAWD = 2.33; GYD = 0.57 t ha−1), CML338 (average FFAWD Rank = 3; average FFAWD = 3.63; EFAWD = 2.82; GYD = 0.62 t ha−1); CML346 (average FFAWD Rank = 4; average FFAWD = 3.79; EFAWD = 2.47; GYD = 0.44 t ha−1), SV1P (average FFAWD Rank = 5; average FFAWD = 3.89; EFAWD = 2.46; GYD = 1.05 t ha−1), and CML331 and CML491, with the majority of them being CIMMYT FAW tolerance donor lines (Table 7). The most susceptible lines were WW01408 (average FFAWD Rank = 61; average FFAWD = 6.04; EFAWD = 3.02; GYD = 0.28 t ha−1) and HX482P (average FFAWD Rank = 62; average FFAWD = 6.39; EFAWD = 3.17; GYD = 0.28 t ha−1) (Table 6). The inbred lines SV1P and CML491 are parents of commercial cultivars.
Genotypes that had higher EFAWD had corresponding higher levels of ER. Generally, ER increased with increasing levels of FFAWD, EFAWD, and open HC. CML67 had the lowest FFAWD scores, lowest incidence of ER, and lower levels of open HC compared to HX482P, which had higher FFAWD and EFAWD scores and ER counts (Table 7). Four of the FAW resistant donor inbred lines (CML67, CML121, CML346, and CML338) had good HC ranging between 1.86–2.66, which was comparable to that of SV1P and CML491. Line CML331 had HC counts that were comparable to those of CML304, CLHP0003, CLHP0005, and CML543. Contrary to the observation on commercial cultivars and experimental hybrids, inbred lines showed a general trend of increasing FFAWD from 4–12 weeks under FAW infestation across genotypes (Table 7). Ear rots were generally high, and they were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in older inbred lines, particularly those with higher FFAWD scores, such as HX482P and WW01408. Similarly, higher levels of poor HC were associated with high levels FFAWD and EFAWD.

3.5. Genetic Correlations between Fall Armyworm Damage Parameters and Grain Yield and Yield Related Variables across Genotypes and Environments

In both hybrids/OPVs and inbred line trials, FAW damage had significantly negative effects (p < 0.05) on grain yield performance across genotypes except for EFAWD on inbred lines where the correlation was very small, positive, and insignificant (Table 8). For hybrids/OPVs the negative correlation between GYD and FAW damage was highest between GYD and EFAWD (r = −0.57; p < 0.0001) and FFAWD at 12 weeks (r = −0.56; p < 0.0001) (Table 8). ER had the highest negative effect on grain yield (r = −0.90, p < 0.0001). The associations between the different FAWD parameters were all positive and highly significant (p < 0.0001), ranging from a lowest of r = 0.52 between EFAWD and FFAWD at 8 weeks, and a highest of r = 0.99 between FFAWD at 4 and 8 weeks as well as between average FFAWD and FFAWD at 8 weeks (Table 8).
Again, ER showed high positive and highly significant (p < 0.0001) correlations with FAWD parameters. Similarly, PH positively and significantly (p < 0.001) correlated with GYD and AD (Table 8). For inbred lines, the associations between FAWD parameters were all positive and highly significant (p < 0.0001) except for average FFAWD with FFAWD at 4 weeks (r = 0.03) and EFAWD with FFAWD at 8 weeks (r = 0.14).
EFAWD correlated highly negatively (r = −0.74, p < 0.0001) with PH. In contrast, EFAWD showed positive and highly significant associations with HC (r = 0.46; p < 0.0001) and ER (r = 0.49; p < 0.0001). Plant height was negatively associated with GYD and all FAW damage parameters, but only significantly for EFAWD (r = −0.74; p < 0.0001) (Table 8).

4. Discussion

This study evaluated two sets of germplasm for their tolerance to FAW and superior grain yield performance on sites with naturally moderate to high FAW infestation, designated as natural infestation environments, as well as under controlled FAW conditions (managed FAW). FAW populations were not quantified, but infestation pressure in all environments was sufficient to cause a differential response across genotypes. No other pests were observed on the trials during the growing season, although Chiredzi and Chisumbanje do often have stalk borer infestation. This implies that varietal screening for FAW tolerance can be effectively implemented under natural FAW infestation. The current study is the second reported study that has evaluated germplasm resources in SSA under natural FAW infestation after the first [31]. The findings are encouraging for national research programs and other breeding programs across SSA that have no access to artificial screening environments for FAW tolerance breeding, as they can effectively evaluate their breeding materials under natural FAW infestation. The highly significant differences between genotypes demonstrated that there is sufficient genetic variability for effective FAW tolerance breeding. Average FFAWD scores as low as 4.49 and as high as 5.98 were observed in the hybrid/OPV germplasm set while 2.75 and 6.39 were the lowest and highest average FFAWD scores recorded on inbred lines. These differ from the average FFAWD and EFAWD values of 2.62 and 2.22, respectively, for cultivars, and 3.88 and 3.37, respectively, for inbred lines, observed under managed FAW conditions. Generally, FFAWD scores were lowest and highest on inbred lines compared to commercial cultivars and experimental hybrids. This is primarily because hybrids and OPVs, which constituted the commercial cultivars and experimental hybrids, are generally vigorous and tend to tolerate FAW attacks better than inbred lines. This concurs with a previous study [32] which reported that vigorous genotypes, particularly those showing heterosis, can out-perform their inbred line counterparts that are affected by slow growth and inbreeding depression.
Vigorous genotypes showed a general tendency to grow out of FFAWD as they developed from young to mature plants. Highest FFAWD scores were observed at 4 weeks after crop emergence and the scores improved from 8–12 weeks after crop emergence. Genotype CML543/CML334 had a Davis score of 6.43 at 4 weeks after crop emergence, and then recorded 5.70 and 4.66 at 8 and 12 weeks after crop emergence, respectively. In contrast, inbred line FFAWD scores generally increased over time of 4, 8 and 12 weeks after crop emergence. This further supports the fact that inbred lines are less vigorous, weaker and have slower growth compared to hybrids and landraces [33,34], hence they tend to suffer more foliar FAW damage compared to hybrids and OPVs. Maize generally has the capacity to recover from moderate to average FAW foliar damage [25]. However, this is only possible under good moisture and nutrient conditions.
Lower FFAWD scores were noted on hybrids constituted from CIMMYT lines and FAW donor lines as well as crosses between donor lines. This indicates that FAW donor lines included in this study have the potential to resist FAW and can be used to quickly develop hybrids that can be used in the interim to protect smallholder farmers’ maize crop from FAW damage. The experiences from the Americas were reviewed as possibly helping in reducing the impact of FAW in Africa and Asia, which highlighted varietal acceptance concerns due to preferences [12] which is an issue in this study as well. The most resistant donor lines were CML67, CML121, and CML338, which have red and yellow grains and may not be readily accepted by farmers and consumers in Zimbabwe and most of ESA due to color preference for white maize [20]. In contrast, the lines CML346, CML139, and CML334 showed acceptable FAW tolerance both as hybrid parents and inbred lines. The three have white flint-like to flint grains, hence hybrids constituted from these may be quickly accepted by farmers in the region. It is therefore imperative that maize breeders consider these in developing white maize hybrids that can be rapidly released to counter the effects of FAW attack on maize. In addition, as was suggested by the water efficient maize for Africa (WEMA) project findings [11,35], gene stacking through introgression crosses among FAW resistant donor lines, together with elite and adapted FAW resistant lines such as SV1P and CML491, can result in good tolerance against FAW.
Two orange maize cultivars ZS242A and ZS246A, and four white grain cultivars, which include the very early—early maturing hybrids, Manjanja MN421 and Mutsa MN521 and the medium maturity hybrids PAN53 and ZAP61, were the only commercial hybrids that were among the top performers under FAW infestation. The list of the least resistant cultivars to FFAWD was dominated by most of the hybrids that are currently active and dominant on the market, as well as some old OPVs released by DR&SS. This suggests that most smallholder farmers who have limited capacity to control FAW using chemicals may suffer significant FFAWD damage from the pest. However, GYD rankings of cultivars and experimental varieties evaluated under FAW infestation showed that the pool of current commercial cultivars, despite being susceptible to FAW damage, still out-yielded most experimental varieties constituted from FAW donor lines. This was also reported in a previous study in the Americas [36] which found that agronomically good genotypes were susceptible to FAW, but they still yielded better than the resistant, but agronomically poor genotypes. In southern Africa it was reported [14,15] that cultivars in commercial production are susceptible to FAW, with yield losses in the range of 11.5–16.4%. There is need to introgress FAW tolerance in parental lines of commercial cultivars so that they can perform better under FAW infestation. The three hybrids PAN53, ZS246A, and Mutsa MN521 that were identified among the most FFAWD resistant cultivars, were also among the top 10 grain yielders under FAW infestation. Inbred lines CLHP0005 and CML304 are parental lines for ZS242A, and CLHP0005 is also a parent of the hybrid ZS246A. These two hybrids exhibited superior grain yield performance and low FFAWD scores under natural FAW infestation. This implies that the superior performance of ZS242A and ZS246A under FAW infestation was due to the superiority of their parental inbred lines under FAW infestation conditions, particularly CLHP0005. Further improvement through FAW tolerance introgression on these lines will likely enhance FAW tolerance in these improved cultivars.
The inbred lines SV1P and CML491 are commercial inbred lines developed and registered by DR&SS and CIMMYT respectively. In this study, these two inbred lines demonstrated outstanding tolerance to FAW damage and the ability to yield significantly better under FAW infestation compared to most of the commercial inbred lines evaluated. SV1P is a parent of commercial cultivar ZS259 that is currently off the market in Zimbabwe, and was not included in this study. The quality protein maize (QPM) inbred line CML491 is a parent of a released QPM maize hybrid in Zimbabwe, ZS225Q. The hybrid was included in the study, but it was omitted from the analysis due to poor germination. The superior tolerance to FAW of CML491 was also noted and reported previously [31] in Zambia. Further breeding using these two inbred lines has good potential for the development of elite, adapted, and productive lines with enhanced FAW resistance.
SV1P is an extra early maturing genotype. This suggests that most of its FAW tolerance could have been due to early growth and development. This inbred line has the ability to grow fast, therefore flowering and maturing early. This could allow its rapid growth through the most vulnerable and preferred growth stages by FAW [11,33]. A study in Zambia [32] identified an extra early OPV, Pool 16, among the genotypes selected for good tolerance to FAW. The current study noted that AD was highly significant and positively correlated with FFAWD, this indicates that genotypes that mature early have the capacity to escape FAW damage as observed in this study as well as previously [31]. Again, CML539 was selected among the genotypes that exhibited low levels of FAW damage during early stages of growth. CML539 is an early maturing inbred line developed by CIMMYT. In the current study, the inbred line CML539 was again identified among the top 10 grain yielders under FAW infestation, with a yield of 0.92 t ha−1. Another local commercial line, DPTY9...*9 was among the best grain yielders under FAW infestation.
A number of studies have reported that depending on level of infestation, FAW damage can cause yield losses of up to 100% [37,38,39,40]. Comparing the grain yields realized under natural FAW infestation with those attained under managed FAW conditions, the current study showed a yield penalty of between 49–57% due to FAW infestation. This concurs with 2017 figures reported in Kenya [40]. They noted grain yield losses in the range of 53–54%. This is also in line with observations in a study in Nicaragua [33] where 15–73% yield losses from 55–100% infestation at mid to late whorl stages were reported. The same study noted that maize is more tolerant to FAW infestation at early vegetative growth stages. This differs from observations from the current study that hybrids and OPVs are more vulnerable at early growth stages, and they grow out of the FAW damage as they develop through mid to late whorl stages. Similarly, inbred lines were more vulnerable at early vegetative growth stages and without any control efforts, and unlike hybrids and OPVs, inbred lines showed a trend of increasing damage as they grew to maturity.
The different FAWD parameters which included FFAWD at 4 weeks, FFAWD at 8 weeks, FFAWD at 12 weeks and EFAWD, showed high positive correlations among them, suggesting that only one of these can be used for selection. For hybrids and OPVs, PH showed high and positive associations with GYD and AD. This shows that PH is a good indicator of yield under FAW infestation. The inbred lines showed high and positive associations of EFAWD with HC and ER. This suggested that genotypes with poor HC are likely to have high EFAWD and ER.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrated that screening for FAW tolerance can be effectively performed under natural infestation conditions. Most cultivars currently in production have poor tolerance to FAW, with a few exceptions, which include PAN53, ZS242A, ZS246A, Mutsa MN521, Manajanja MN421, and ZAP61. Though most cultivars are susceptible to FAW, their vigor allows them to produce acceptable grain yield, as they tend to grow out of FAW damage over time. The commercial inbred lines SV1P and CML491 exhibited acceptable FAW resistance, and together with CML539, CLHP0005, CML304, and DPTY9…*9 they produced high grain yield under FAW infestation. These lines are recommended as potential sources for breeding for FAW resistance. HC, ER, AD, and PH were correlated with FAW resistance, hence they can be used for selecting genotypes resistant to FAW. FAW infestation in this study reduced grain yield by 49%–57%.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.M.M. and C.M, Methodology, C.M. and P.M.M., Resources, C.M. and D.K., Supervision, M.L. and C.N.K., Software, C.N.K. and P.M.M., Formal analysis, P.M.M. and C.N.K., Data curation, P.M.M. and C.M., Writing—original draft preparation, P.M.M., Writing—review and editing, P.M.M., C.N.K., M.L., D.K. and C.M., Project administration, C.M. and P.M.M., Funding acquisition, C.M. and M.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This project was funded by Stress Tolerant Maize for Africa (STMA, Grant No. OPP1134248) project funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and USAID, and the MAIZE CGIAR research program.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

The authors have complied with local and national regulations for using plants/seeds.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available from the main author.


We are grateful to the Crop Breeding Institute under the Department of Research and Specialist Services in the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Water, Climate and Rural Resettlement of Zimbabwe, CIMMYT and various seed houses in Zimbabwe for providing germplasm and testing sites.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Kumela, T.; Simiyu, J.; Sisay, B.; Likhayo, P.; Mendesil, E.; Gohole, L.; Tefera, T. Farmers’ knowledge, perceptions, and management practices of the new invasive pest, fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in Ethiopia and Kenya. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2019, 65, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nyaga, C.; Gowda, M.; Beyene, Y.; Muriithi, W.T.; Makumbi, D.; Olsen, M.S.; Suresh, L.M.; Bright, J.M.; Das, B.; Prasanna, B.M. Genome-wide analyses and prediction of resistance to MLN in large tropical maize germplasm. Genes 2020, 11, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Smale, M.; Byerlee, D.; Jayne, T. Maize Revolutions in Sub-Saharan Africa. In An African Green Revolution; Otsuka, K., Larson, D., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Edmeades, G.O.; Trevisan, W.; Prasanna, B.M.; Campos, H. Tropical Maize (Zea mays L.). In Genetic Improvement of Tropical Crops; Campos, H., Caligari, P.D.S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 57–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. CIMMYT. Stress Tolerant Maize for Africa. CIMMYT. 2019. Available online: (accessed on 10 February 2020).
  6. Wang, H.; Wei, J.; Li, P.; Wang, Y.; Ge, Z.; Qian, J.; Fan, Y.; Ni, J.; Xu, Y.; Yang, Z.; et al. Integrating GWAS and gene expression analysis identifies candidate genes for root morphology traits in maize at the seedling stage. Genes 2019, 10, 773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Shiferaw, B.; Prasanna, B.M.; Hellin, J.; Bänziger, M. Crops that feed the world 10. Past successes and future challenges to the role played by wheat in global food security. Food Secur. 2011, 5, 307–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Ekpa, O.; Palacios-Rojas, N.; Kruseman, G.; Fogliano, V.; Linnemann, A.R. Sub-Saharan African maize-based foods: Technological perspectives to increase the food and nutrition security impacts of maize breeding programmes. Glob. Food Sec. 2018, 17, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Santpoort, R. The drivers of maize area expansion in sub-Saharan Africa. How policies to boost maize production overlook the interests of smallholder farmers. Land 2020, 9, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Nagoshi, R.N.; Goergen, G.; Tounou, K.A.; Agboka, K.; Koffi, D.; Meagher, R.L. Analysis of strain distribution, migratory potential, and invasion history of fall armyworm populations in northern Sub-Saharan Africa. Sci. Rep. 2016, 8, 3710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Prasanna, B.M.; Huesing, J.E.; Eddy, R.; Peschke, V.M. Fall Armyworm in Africa: A Guide for Integrated Pest Management, 1st ed.; CDMX: El Batan, Mexico, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  12. Wightman, J.A. Can lessons learned 30 years ago contribute to reducing the impact of the fall army worm Spodoptera frugiperda in Africa and India? Outlook Agric. 2018, 47, 259–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Abrahams, P.; Bateman, M.; Beale, T.; Clottey, V.; Cock, M.; Colmenarez, Y.; Corniani, N.; Day, R.; Early, R.; Godwin, J.; et al. Fall Armyworm: Impacts and Implications for Africa; Evidence Note (2); CABI: Oxfordshire, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  14. Baudron, F.; Zaman-Allah, M.A.; Chaipa, I.; Chari, N.; Chinwada, P. Understanding the factors influencing fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda J.E. Smith) damage in African smallholder maize fields and quantifying its impact on yield. A case study in Eastern Zimbabwe. Crop Prot. 2019, 120, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kansiime, M.K.; Mugambi, I.; Rwomushana, I.; Nunda, W.; Lamontagne-Godwin, J.; Rware, H.; Phiri, N.A.; Chipabika, G.; Ndlovu, M.; Day, R. Farmer perception of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiderda J.E. Smith) and farm-level management practices in Zambia. Pest Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 2840–2850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Kasoma, C.; Shimelis, H.; Laing, M.D.; Shayanowako, A.I.T.; Mathew, I. Revealing the genetic diversity of maize (Zea mays L.) populations by phenotypic traits and DArTseq markers for variable resistance to fall armyworm. Genet. Res. Crop Evol. 2021, 68, 243–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Matova, P.M.; Kamutando, C.N.; Magorokosho, C.; Kutywayo, D.; Gutsa, F.; Labuschagne, M. Fall-armyworm invasion, control practices and prospects of breeding fall-armyworm-resistant maize in Sub-Saharan Africa: A review. Crop Sci. 2020, 60, 2951–2970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Stout, M.J. Host-Plant Resistance in Pest Management. In Integrated Pest Management: Current Concepts and Ecological Perspective; Abrol, D.P., Ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Williams, W.P.; Sagers, J.B.; Hanten, J.A.; Davis, F.M.; Buckley, P.M. Corn germplasm evaluated for resistance to fall armyworm and southwestern corn borer. Crop Sci. 1997, 37, 957–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mihm, J.A. Insect Resistant Maize: Recent Advances and Utilization. In Proceedings of an International Symposium Held at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT); CIMMYT: Texcoco, Mexico, 1997; Volume 5, 302p, Available online: (accessed on 10 February 2020).
  21. Fatoretto, J.C.; Michel, A.P.; Filho, M.C.S.; Silva, N. Adaptive potential of fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) limits Bt trait durability in Brazil. J. Int. Pest Manag. 2017, 8, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chandrasena, D.I.; Signorini, A.M.; Abratti, G.; Storer, N.P.; Olaciregui, M.L.; Alves, A.P.; Pilcher, C.D. Characterization of field-evolved resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis-derived Cry1F δ-endotoxin in Spodoptera frugiperda populations from Argentina. Pest Manag. Sci. 2018, 74, 746–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Sisay, B.; Simiyu, J.; Malusi, P.; Likhayo, P.; Mendesil, E.; Elibariki, N.; Wakgari, M.; Ayalew, G.; Tefera, T. First report of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), natural enemies from Africa. J. Appl. Entom. 2018, 142, 800–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Womack, E.D.; Warburton, M.L.; Williams, W.P. Mapping of quantitative trait loci for resistance to fall armyworm and southwestern corn borer leaf-feeding damage in maize. Crop Sci. 2018, 58, 529–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hruska, A.J. Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) management by smallholders. CAB Rev. 2019, 14, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Keno, T.; Azmach, G.; Wegary, D.; Worku, M.B.T.; Wolde, L.; Deressa, T.; Abebe, B.; Chibsa, T.; Suresh, L.M. Major biotic maize production stresses in Ethiopia and their management through host resistance. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2018, 13, 1042–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Magorokosho, C.; Vivek, B.J.; MacRobert, J.F. Characterization of Maize Germplasm Grown in Eastern and Southern Africa: Results of the 2007 Regional Trials Coordinated by CIMMYT; CIMMYT: Harare, Zimbabwe, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  28. Masuka, B.P.; van Biljon, A.; Cairns, J.E.; Das, B.; Labuschagne, M.; MacRobert, J.; Makumbi, D.; Magorokosho, C.; Zaman-Allah, M.; Ogugo, V.; et al. Genetic diversity among selected elite CIMMYT maize hybrids in east and Southern Africa. Crop Sci. 2017, 57, 2395–2404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. VSN International. Genstats for Windows, 18th ed.; VSN International: Hemel Hempstead, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  30. Alvarado, G.; Rodríguez, F.M.; Pacheco, A.; Burgueño, J.; Crossa, J.; Vargas, M.; Pérez-Rodrígues, P.; Lopez-Cruz, M.A. META-R: A software to analyze data from multi-environment plant breeding trials. Crop J. 2020, 8, 745–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kasoma, C.; Shimelis, H.; Laing, M.; Shayanowako, A.I.T.; Mathew, I. Screening of inbred lines of tropical maize for resistance to fall armyworm, and for yield and yield-related traits. Crop Prot. 2020, 136, 105218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fu, D.; Xiao, M.; Hayward, A.; Jiang, G.; Zhu, L.; Zhou, Q.; Li, J.; Zhang, M. What is crop heterosis: New insights into an old topic. J. Appl. Genet. 2014, 56, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Azeez, M.A.; Adubi, A.O.; Durodola, F.A. Landraces and Crop Genetic Improvement. In Rediscovery of Landraces as a Resource for the Future; Grillo, O., Ed.; InTechOpen: London, UK, 2018; Available online: (accessed on 10 February 2020).
  34. Ibraheem, F.; El-Ghareeb, E.M. Assessment of natural variability in leaf morphological and physiological traits in maize inbreds and their related hybrids during early vegetative growth. Egypt J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2019, 6, 25–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. ISAAA. ISAAA Briefs. Brief 53. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2017: Biotech Crop Adoption Surges as Economic Benefits Accumulate in 22 Years; ISAAA: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kumar, H. Plant damage and grain yield reduction by fall armyworm and stem borers on certain maize hybrids containing resistance genes from varying sources under experimental and farmers field conditions. Crop Prot. 2002, 21, 563–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hruska, A.J.; Gould, F. Fall Armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and Diatraea lineolata (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): Impact of larval population level and temporal occurrence on maize yield in Nicaragua. J. Econ. Entomol. 1997, 90, 611–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Arias, R.S.; Blanco, C.A.; Portilla, M.; Snodgrass, G.L.; Scheffler, B.E. First microsatellites from Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and their potential use for population genetics. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2011, 104, 576–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. De Oliveira, N.C.; Suzukawa, A.K.; Pereira, C.B.; Santos, H.V.; Hanel, A.; de Albuquerque, F.A.; Scapim, C.A. Popcorn genotypes resistance to fall armyworm. Ciência Rural 2018, 48, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. De Groote, H.; Kimenju, S.C.; Munyua, B.; Palmas, S.; Kassie, M.; Bruce, A. Spread and impact of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda J.E. Smith) in maize production areas of Kenya. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 292, 106804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Description of commercial cultivars evaluated for tolerance to fall armyworm under natural infestation in Zimbabwe.
Table 1. Description of commercial cultivars evaluated for tolerance to fall armyworm under natural infestation in Zimbabwe.
CodeNameSourceYear of ReleaseProduction RegionGrain Color and TextureMarket Status
1Salisbury whiteCBIUnknownZimbabwe and ESAWDInactive
2Southern crossCBIUnknownZimbabwe and ESAWInactive
3Hickory kingCBIIntroducedZimbabwe and ESAWInactive
19SR52CBI1962Zimbabwe and ESAWDInactive
20ZS242ACBI2015Zimbabwe and ESAOFActive
21ZS246ACBI2016Zimbabwe and ESAOFActive
25ZM309CIMMYT2009Zimbabwe and ESAWFActive
26ZM401CIMMYT2009Zimbabwe and ESAWActive
27ZM421CIMMYT2002Zimbabwe and ESAWActive
28ZM521CIMMYT2002Zimbabwe and ESAWActive
31PAN53PANNAR2007Zimbabwe and ESAWActive
32PAN4M-23PANNAR Zimbabwe and ESAWActive
33PAN-7M-81PANNAR2013Zimbabwe and ESAWActive
34PHB30G19PIONEER2008Zimbabwe and ESAWActive
37SeedCo Exp1SeedCoExperimentalN/AWN/A
38SeedCo Exp2SeedCoExperimentalN/AWN/A
39Manjanja MN421Mukushi2015Zimbabwe, South Africa, ZambiaWActive
40Mutsa MN521Mukushi2014Zimbabwe, South Africa, ZambiaWActive
41Maka MN625Mukushi2018Zimbabwe, South Africa, ZambiaWActive
42MukwaMukushi2016Zimbabwe, South Africa, ZambiaWActive
43Pris601Pristine2010Zimbabwe and ESAWActive
44ZAP61Agriseeds2008Zimbabwe and ESAWActive
45ZAP63Agriseeds2015Zimbabwe and ESAWActive
46ZAP43Agriseeds2015Zimbabwe and ESAWActive
47ZAP55Agriseeds2015Zimbabwe and ESAWActive
WD, White and Dent; W, White; Y, Yellow; WF, White and Flint; WDL, White and Dent like; WFL, White and Flint like; YD, Yellow and Dent; YF, Yellow and Flint; YDL, Yellow and Dent like; YFL, Yellow and Flint like; OD, Orange and Dent; OF, Orange and Flint; ODL, Orange and Dent like; OFL, Orange and Flint like.
Table 2. Description of inbred lines evaluated for fall armyworm tolerance in Zimbabwe.
Table 2. Description of inbred lines evaluated for fall armyworm tolerance in Zimbabwe.
NameSource GermplasmAdaptation/ProgramMaturityGrain Color/TextureHeterotic Group
2Kba, SV1P,CBIAfrica MA/STVery EarlyW
N3.2.3.3; NAW5885, K64R, RA214P, RA150P, WCoby1P, YCoby7P, QRD69P, RS98P, RS61P, PR15P, RA267P, RA294P, GQL5, WW01408CBIAfrica MA/STEarly/Intermediate/
RL17P, EL77P, HX482P, HX439, HS253, BC108PCBIAfrica MA/STIntermediate/LateYN3/SC
CLHP0003, CLHP0005, CLHP00306, CLHP00478, DPTY9…*9, CLHP00476, CLHP0286, CLHP00448HarvestPlusAfrica MA/STEarly/Intermediate/LateOA/B
CZL1112, CZL12010, CZL1227, CZL1315, CZL1311, CZL15025CIMMYT ZimbabweAfrica MA/STEarly/Intermediate/
DJL173833, DJL173527, CIMExp60CIMMYT ZimbabweAfrica MA/STIntermediate/LateWA/B
CML67AntiguaLowlandLateY, SD
CML139CIMMYTSubtropicalIntermediateY, SF
CML181CIMMYTSubtropicalIntermediateW, D
CML300SintAmTSRLowlandEarlyY, F
CNL312P500SubtropicalIntermediateW, SFA Tester
CML331RECSubtropicalEarlyW, SDAB
CML338P590BSubtropicalEarlyY, SFB
CML346P390LowlandIntermediateW, FB
CML395IITAAfrica MA/STLateW, SFB Tester
CML442RECAfrica MA/STIntermediateW, DA Tester
CML444P43Africa MA/STLateW, SDB Tester
CML491RECLowlandLateW, FA
CML511RecycledAfrica MA/STEarly/IntermedWB
CML539CIMMYTAfrica MA/STEarly/IntermedW, SF/SDA
W, White; Y, Yellow; O, Orange; D, Dent; F, Flint; SD, Semi-dent; SF, Semi-flint; MA, Mid-altitude; ST, Sub-tropical; Intermed, Intermediate; NA, Not available.
Table 3. Analysis of variance for leaf and ear fall armyworm damage scores and selected agronomic traits of commercial cultivars and experimental hybrids under natural fall armyworm infestation sites in Zimbabwe, during the 2019 and 2020 summer seasons.
Table 3. Analysis of variance for leaf and ear fall armyworm damage scores and selected agronomic traits of commercial cultivars and experimental hybrids under natural fall armyworm infestation sites in Zimbabwe, during the 2019 and 2020 summer seasons.
Environment8104.96 ***10138.99 ***578.364 ***62244.24 ***826,140.2 ***
Replication (Environment)94.06 ***111.0463.15 *7466.06 ***91517.2 ***
Block (Replication × Site)1622.59 ***1982.09 ***1082.08 ***12662.37 ***161660.2 ***
Genotype5910.32 ***594.77 ***582.71 ***5876.37 ***582088.3 ***
Genotype × Environment4482.09 ***5700.77 **2801.3933222.96 **439514.3 ***
Phenotypic variance 3.11 2.20 2.12 41.52 792.69
Genotypic variance 0.57 0.24 0.12 5.35 111.85
G × E variance 0.57 0.12 0.19 3.30 107.71
Environmental variance 0.95 1.21 0.68 15.77 288.44
PCV (%) 68.57 30.35 53.02 9.50 88.94
GCV (%) 29.48 10.13 12.67 3.36 33.41
Broad-sense heritability (%) 0.82 0.87 0.49 0.76 0.78
LSD 2.09 1.52 2.08 8.15 36.56
Grand mean 2.57 4.88 2.74 67.83 31.66
Minimum 0.94 3.36 2.20 64.04 20.14
Maximum 3.85 5.73 3.27 72.15 60.48
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; DF = degrees of freedom; GYD = grain yield; Avg-FFAWD = average foliar fall armyworm damage; EFAWD = ear fall armyworm damage; AD = anthesis date; ER = ear rot; PCV = phenotypic coefficient of variance; GCV = genotypic coefficient of variance; LSD = least significant difference.
Table 4. Analysis of variance for fall armyworm damage scores and agronomic traits of inbred lines evaluated across natural fall armyworm infestation sites during the 2019 and 2020 seasons.
Table 4. Analysis of variance for fall armyworm damage scores and agronomic traits of inbred lines evaluated across natural fall armyworm infestation sites during the 2019 and 2020 seasons.
Environment (E)63.43 ***9130.95 **421.92 ***516,905.8 ***62293.32 ***456,525.00 ***2394.73 ***
Rep (Env)70.13105.55 ***51.9361145.8 *7235.63 ***580735.87
Blk (Rep × Site)1100.251602.97 ***803.23 **96822.7 ***112108.97 ***7820624860.33 *
Genotype (G)600.77 ***6110.18 ***584.26 ***62970.2 ***62260.86 ***592916.00 *6090.15 ***
GE2750.195240.95 ***1951.9297477.7316150.59 ***173130411160.82 *
P-Variance 0.31 2.54 2.85 648.95 180.33 2840.34 56.96
G-Variance 0.06 0.58 0.62 61.98 15.51 328.78 7.31
GxE-Variance 0.02 0.17 0.05 42.27 114.55 122.75 8.36
Env-Variance 0.04 1.10 0.23 132.39 22.50 614.80 2.88
PCV (%) 126.03 32.67 55.50 27,036.00 17.81 108.14 241.42
GCV (%) 54.94 15.54 25.97 8.46 5.23 36.79 86.48
Heritability (%) 0.79 0.92 0.77 0.60 0.46 0.68 0.42
LSD 0.82 1.62 2.63 39.44 10.42 71.12 12.83
Grand mean 0.44 4.88 3.04 93.10 75.38 49.29 3.13
Minimum 0.20 2.62 1.89 79.08 69.57 23.62 1.84
Maximum 1.18 6.34 5.18 106.28 90.79 86.29 12.12
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; DF = degrees of freedom; GYD = grain yield; FFAWD-Avg = average foliar fall armyworm damage; EFAWD = ear fall armyworm damage; PH = plant height; AD = anthesis date; ER = ear rot; HC = husk cover; Rep = replication; Env = environment; p-Variance = phenotypic variance; G-Variance = genotypic variance; PCV = phenotypic coefficient of variance; GCV = genotypic coefficient of variance; LSD = least significant difference.
Table 5. Identified fall armyworm resistant genotypes with acceptable yield among the 60 entries evaluated across natural Fall armyworm infested sites in Zimbabwe during the 2019–2020 seasons.
Table 5. Identified fall armyworm resistant genotypes with acceptable yield among the 60 entries evaluated across natural Fall armyworm infested sites in Zimbabwe during the 2019–2020 seasons.
Cultivar NameEntryGYD
t ha−1
4 wks
8 wks
12 wks
Private Sector CultivarsPAN53313.8515.315.063.814.732.65
Mutsa MN521403.6345.154.793.934.582.88
Manjanja MN421393.09155.
Public Sector (DR&SS) CultivarsZS246A213.2495.264.903.724.512.73
Public Sector (CIMMYT) ExperimentalsCZH128293.6054.975.104.134.782.59
Heritability 0.82 0.520.820.770.870.49
Grand Mean 2.57 5.385.104.264.882.74
GYD = grain yield; FFAWD-Avg = average foliar fall armyworm damage; FFAWD 4 wks = foliar fall armyworm damage at 4 weeks after crop emergence; FFAWD 8 wks = foliar fall armyworm damage at 8 weeks after crop emergence; FFAWD 12 wks = foliar fall armyworm damage at 12 weeks after crop emergence; EFAWD = ear fall armyworm damage.
Table 6. Grain yield and agronomic performance of the best ten cultivars and experimental hybrids and best ten inbred lines evaluated under managed fall armyworm conditions in Zimbabwe during the 2019–2020 seasons.
Table 6. Grain yield and agronomic performance of the best ten cultivars and experimental hybrids and best ten inbred lines evaluated under managed fall armyworm conditions in Zimbabwe during the 2019–2020 seasons.
Cultivar NameGenotypeGYDRankPHEHADFFAWD 4 wksFFAWD 8 wksFFAWD 12 wksFFAWD AvgEFAWDER
Heritability0.80 0.650.590.630.180.420.240.360.440.68
Grand Mean5.99 176.4571.4869.362.602.452.692.622.2223.81
LSD2.73 29.0921.924.921.481.101.560.971.3225.74
Inbred lines
DPTY9… * 9380.94878.803.523.073.253.45
Heritability0.20 0.630.66 0.69
Grand Mean0.77 3.964.12 81.94
LSD1.35 9.342.032.481.811.96
GYD = grain yield; FFAWD-Avg = average foliar fall armyworm damage; FFAWD 4 wks = foliar fall armyworm damage at 4 weeks after crop emergence; FFAWD 8 wks = foliar fall armyworm damage at 8 weeks after crop emergence; FFAWD 12 wks = foliar fall armyworm damage at 12 weeks after crop emergence; EFAWD = ear fall armyworm damage; AD = anthesis date.
Table 7. Fall armyworm tolerance and grain yield performance of inbred parental lines of FAW resistant public commercial and experimental hybrids and other FAW resistant inbred lines evaluated under natural FAW infested sites in Zimbabwe during the 2019–2020 seasons.
Table 7. Fall armyworm tolerance and grain yield performance of inbred parental lines of FAW resistant public commercial and experimental hybrids and other FAW resistant inbred lines evaluated under natural FAW infested sites in Zimbabwe during the 2019–2020 seasons.
Genotype CodeFFAWD AverageRankFFAWD 4 wksFFAWD 8 wksFFAWD 12 wksEFAWDGYD t ha−1ER%ADHCPH
Parental inbred linesCLHP0005254.3994.614.614.933.470.5041.7773.494.88102.58
Other good inbred linesCML67502.7513.442.972.833.480.5023.6273.092.6676.63
Most susceptibleWW01408236.04614.726.567.003.020.2845.3175.323.0382.84
Heritability 0.90 0.590.880.860.720.740.680.400.420.66
Mean 5.14 4.505.525.592.950.3949.2975.463.1389.93
LSD 1.60 1.512.212.262.730.6971.1210.4112.8336.58
GYD = grain yield; FFAWD-Avg = average foliar fall armyworm damage; FFAWD 4 wks = foliar fall armyworm damage at 4 weeks after crop emergence; FFAWD 8 wks = foliar fall armyworm damage at 8 weeks after crop emergence; FFAWD 12 wks = foliar fall armyworm damage at 12 weeks after crop emergence; EFAWD = ear fall armyworm damage; GYD = grain yield; ER = ear rot; AD = anthesis date; HC = husk cover; PH = plant height.
Table 8. Genetic correlations between grain yield and yield related traits with fall armyworm damage scores at different crop growth stages determined under natural fall armyworm infestation in Zimbabwe during 2019–2020 seasons.
Table 8. Genetic correlations between grain yield and yield related traits with fall armyworm damage scores at different crop growth stages determined under natural fall armyworm infestation in Zimbabwe during 2019–2020 seasons.
FFAWD_4_wks−0.47 ***
FFAWD_8_wks−0.31 *0.66 ***
FFAWD_12_wks−0.56 ***0.99 ***0.98 ***
Avg_FFAWD−0.43 ***0.70 ***0.99 ***0.89 ***
EFAWD−0.57 ***0.55 ***0.52 ***0.53 ***0.43 ***
AD−0.29 *0.73 ***−0.38 **
PH0.56 ***−0.46 ***−0.27 *−0.14−0.18−0.250.38 **
ER−0.90 ***0.44 ***0.53 ***0.89 ***0.58 ***0.46 ***0.56 ***−0.05NA
FFAWD 4 wks−0.99 ***
FFAWD 8 wks−0.48 ***0.09
FFAWD 12 wks−0.44 **0.54 ***0.99 ***
Avg FFAWD−0.52 ***0.031.00 ***0.99 ***
EFAWD0.030.83 ***0.140.62 ***0.31 *
AD−0.54 ***0.99 ***0.72 ***0.67 ***0.63 ***−0.21
PH−0.03−0.07−0.23−0.13−0.22−0.74 ***0.21
HC−0.83 ***−0.010.04−0.07−0.090.46 ***0.090.02
ER−0.67 ***1.00 ***0.68 ***1.00 ***0.75 ***0.49 ***0.12−0.32 *0.99 ***
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; GYD = grain yield; Avg-FFAWD = average foliar fall armyworm damage; FFAWD 4 wks = foliar fall armyworm damage at 4 weeks after crop emergence; FFAWD 8 wks = foliar fall armyworm damage at 8 weeks after crop emergence; FFAWD 12 wks = foliar fall armyworm damage at 12 weeks after crop emergence; EFAWD = ear fall armyworm damage; AD = anthesis date; PH = plant height; HC = husk cover; ER = ear rot.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Matova, P.M.; Kamutando, C.N.; Kutywayo, D.; Magorokosho, C.; Labuschagne, M. Fall Armyworm Tolerance of Maize Parental Lines, Experimental Hybrids, and Commercial Cultivars in Southern Africa. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1463.

AMA Style

Matova PM, Kamutando CN, Kutywayo D, Magorokosho C, Labuschagne M. Fall Armyworm Tolerance of Maize Parental Lines, Experimental Hybrids, and Commercial Cultivars in Southern Africa. Agronomy. 2022; 12(6):1463.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Matova, Prince M., Casper N. Kamutando, Dumisani Kutywayo, Cosmos Magorokosho, and Maryke Labuschagne. 2022. "Fall Armyworm Tolerance of Maize Parental Lines, Experimental Hybrids, and Commercial Cultivars in Southern Africa" Agronomy 12, no. 6: 1463.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop