Next Article in Journal
Phylogenetic Analyses and Transcriptional Survey Reveal the Characteristics, Evolution, and Expression Profile of NBS-Type Resistance Genes in Papaya
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Seaweed-Extract-Based Organic Fertilizers on the Levels of Mineral Elements, Sugar–Acid Components and Hormones in Fuji Apples
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 13
Issue 4
10.3390/agronomy13040971
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Lighting in Dark Periods Reduced the Fecundity of Spodoptera frugiperda and Limited Its Population Growth

by
Xi Yuan
1,2,3,†,
Shengbao Wei
1,3,4,5,†,
Dunsong Li
2,* and
Jiaen Zhang
1,3,4,5,*
1
College of Natural Resources and Environment, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
2
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of High Technology for Plant Protection, Plant Protection Research Institute, Guangdong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Guangzhou 510640, China
3
Guangdong Engineering Technology Research Centre of Modern Eco-Agriculture and Circular Agriculture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
4
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Eco-Circular Agriculture, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
5
Key Laboratory of Agro-Environment in the Tropics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Agronomy 2023, 13(4), 971; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13040971
Submission received: 25 February 2023 / Revised: 16 March 2023 / Accepted: 19 March 2023 / Published: 25 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Pest and Disease Management)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Light is a crucial environmental factor implicated in the temporal regulation of important biological events of insects, and some insects are usually sexually active in dark periods. However, the effects of light during dark periods on the growth, development, and fecundity of Spodoptera frugiperda, an important agricultural pest, remain unknown. In this study, we evaluated the effects of lighting in dark periods on the biological parameters of S. frugiperda in laboratory conditions. Our results showed that lighting in dark periods significantly prolonged the pre-adult stage and reduced the pupal survival and emergence rate. Moreover, the results indicated that the adult stage is the photoperiod-sensitive stage of S. frugiperda, and the fecundity and longevity of adults significantly reduced under lighting in dark periods, and the number of eggs per female moth decreased by 99% compared with the control. The mean generation time (T) of S. frugiperda population was the longest, and the intrinsic rate of natural increase (r) and finite rate of increase (λ) were the smallest under lighting in dark periods, and the population growth of S. frugiperda was significantly limited. Our findings may provide valuable insights to develop effective integrated pest management strategies to control S. frugiperda.

1. Introduction

Crop pathogens and pests cause severe crop yield reduction in agricultural systems and result in substantial economic losses worldwide [1]. Crop pests are responsible for up to 40% yield losses annually around the world, with an estimated value of $70 billion in lost production [2]. Currently, invasive species have gained considerable attention, especially invasive pests, seriously threatening crop productivity and global food security [3]. Invasive pests reduce the yield and quality of agricultural production by undermining the stability of local food systems [1]. At the same time, international trade activities and worldwide travel mean that crop pests could travel farther and faster [4]. Therefore, effective control and management of invasive pests is one of the important challenges to safeguard global food security.
Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae), known as the fall armyworm, one of the most destructive insect pests in the world [5], can feed on 353 different kinds of plants belonging to 76 plant families, including major food crops such as wheat, rice, corn, and sorghum [4,6]. S. frugiperda is a small moth native to tropical and subtropical regions of the Americas, which has been widely spread around the world due to its ability to migrate over long distances [7]. Maize is the preferred host for the invasion of S. frugiperda [8]. Since S. frugiperda successfully invaded China through long-distance migration from Myanmar in 2018, it has caused a serious reduction in maize production, posing a serious threat to maize production and food security of China [9]. Recently, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations released The Global Action for Fall Armyworm Control to ensure coordinated cooperation at national, regional, and global levels to take strong measures for effective management and control of the pest [4]. Common control options for S. frugiperda include chemical [10,11], biological [12,13], physicochemical traps [14,15] and agronomic options [16,17]. However, due to large-scale use of insecticides, S. frugiperda has developed resistance to most insecticides [18,19]. Biological control and physicochemical traps are effective ways to achieve green and sustainable control [20]. Among them, the physicochemical traps mainly used the chemotaxis and phototaxis of S. frugiperda to trap-and-kill larvae and adults [21]. Light traps are one of the important means to predict and control Lepidoptera, and have been widely used in Helicoverpa armigera populations monitoring [22,23].
Light is an important ecological factor, which is of great significance to the growth and development, tropism behavior and population reproduction of insects [24,25]. For example, Hori et al. [26] reported that the eggs, larvae, pupae, and adults of Drosophila melanogaster died under the radiation of short-wavelengths visible light, with the highest lethality under the blue light. Artificial light at night affected the endocrine, reproductive, and neural development of Aquatica ficta firefly larvae, and the mortality rate of A. ficta larvae increased after two weeks of artificial light at night. [27]. The circadian clock system is closely related to the day-night alternation and is commonly observed in insects [28]. The light requirement of insects usually depends on their life stages and biological characteristics [29]. A day is commonly divided into two phases in studies of the effects of photoperiod on insects, namely the photophase (light periods) and scotophase (dark periods) [30]. The scotophase is the active phases of reproductive behavior of Noctuidae [31], and the reproductive behaviors such as female calling, male courtship and mating of S. frugiperda are also active in scotophase [32]. For some species of insects, illumination in the scotophase prolongs the pre-oviposition period and reduces the number of mating and egg production [33]. S. frugiperda adults could rapidly enter a light-adapted state after light stimuli in a dark environment [34]. Meng et al. [35] reported that under the photoperiods of 16L:8D, the shortest larval duration and pre-oviposition duration of S. frugiperda were observed, and the intrinsic rate of natural increase and finite rate of increase both were higher. Chen et al. [36] also found that compared with the other four photoperiods, egg hatching rate of S. frugiperda was the highest under photoperiods of 16L:8D, and the longer the timing of light exposure, the higher the pupal eclosion rate. These studies mainly focused on the effects of different photoperiods, especially the light-dark ratio on S. frugiperda, and not enough attention was paid to the light in the scotophase. Lighting in dark periods interferes with the reproductive behavior of some insects [37], and we hypothesized that lighting in the dark periods would reduce the fecundity of S. frugiperda and thus limit its population development. A recent report analyzed the phototactic responses of S. frugiperda from the molecular level, and explicitly point out that light traps could be used for the control of S. frugiperda [38]. However, to our knowledge, control and management of S. frugiperda by using light in scotophase has not been reported to date. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the impacts of light in scotophase on the growth, development, and reproduction of S. frugiperda, to provide insights for the control and management strategies of S. frugiperda.
In this study, we assessed the effects of lighting in dark periods on the biological parameters of S. frugiperda in laboratory conditions. The objectives of this study were (1) to clarify the effects of light in dark periods on the growth, development, and fecundity of S. frugiperda, (2) to determine the changes in the life-table parameters of S. frugiperda populations and predict population dynamics. Our results may provide valuable insights to develop effective integrated pest management strategies to control S. frugiperda.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Insect’s Source and Rearing

The larvae of S. frugiperda was collected from maize plants in Yangjiang City, Guangdong Province, China, and raised for multiple generations in an incubator (RDZ-300D-4W, Ningbo Jiangnan Instrument Factory, Ningbo, China) for experiments. Larvae of S. frugiperda were fed on an artificial diet that changed daily until pupation, and the component and preparation of the artificial diet referred to Su et al. [39]. After emergence, adults were fed 15% honey water through a daily refreshed cotton ball. S. frugiperda was maintained at 27 ± 1 °C and 85 ± 10% relative humidity (RH) under a 14L:10D photoperiod, and the light intensity was 3000 lx.

2.2. Experimental Design

In this study, the experiment consisted of two sections. The first experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of different light regimes on the development and survival of the larvae of S. frugiperda, and included three treatments, LL, DD and CK. The second experiment was conducted to explore the influence of different light regimes on adult fecundity and longevity, and consisted of five treatments (LL, CK-L, CK, CK-D and DD). In the second experiment, the lifecycles of S. frugiperda were divided into egg-pupal stage and adult stage, and different photoperiods were set for the two stages. The treatment with a photoperiod of 14L:10D in both the egg-pupal stage and adult stage was set as a control (CK), and a total of five treatments were set up. The details of each treatment are presented in Table 1. All the climatic incubators used in this study were the same as mentioned above.

2.2.1. Development and Survival

There were three replicates in the LL, CK and DD treatments, with 100 larvae for each replicate, and the development duration and survival rate of S. frugiperda under the three treatments were recorded. The feeding technology and culture conditions for the larvae were the same as described above for each treatment, except for the difference in photoperiods.
Larvae were reared individually in a transparent Petri dish (1 cm in height, 5 cm in diameter) until pupal emergence. The time of pupation, emergence and death were observed and recorded daily, the duration of larvae, pupae and adults was noted, and the pupation, emergence, and daily survival rates were calculated. At the peak of pupation, 50 pupae were randomly selected from each treatment, and the weight and length of the pupae were measured on the day of pupation.

2.2.2. Adult Fecundity and Longevity

Once a larvae pupated, each pupa was independently loaded into a Petri dish. During the peak eclosion date of each treatment, the adults that emerged on the same day were paired in paper tubes, with a diameter of 8 cm and a height of 20 cm, and the internal volumes of the paper tube was 0.001 m3. There were five treatments with three replicates, and 20 pairs for each replicate. Moths were randomly selected with an equal sex ratio of 20 males and 20 females for each replicate, and paired into paper tubes, survival and oviposition of adults were observed and documented daily until the female adults died. The white paper that the same material as the tube was used for oviposition substrates, and adults rearing, and culture conditions were same as mentioned above. If the male died in the paper tube but female still survived, another male from the same replicate was supplied to meet the need for female fecundity, but if the female died, it was considered to have finished breeding. When the female moth laid eggs in the paper tube, the eggs were carefully removed, and the number of egg masses and eggs were counted.

2.2.3. Life Table Parameters and Population Dynamics

According to the methods of Chi and Liu [40] and Chi [41], life table parameters of the experimental population were calculated, including the net reproductive rate (R0), generation time (T), intrinsic natural growth rate (r) and finite growth rate (λ). Timing-MSChart was used to predict the population dynamics of S. frugiperda population in the next 60 days. The calculation equations for the life table parameters are as follows:
l x = ∑ j = 1 m S x j
m x = ∑ j = 1 m S x j f x j ∑ j = 1 m S x j
∑ x = 0 ∞ l x m x e − r x + 1 = 1
R 0 = ∑ x = 0 ∞ l x m x
T = l n R 0 r
λ = e r
where x and m are the time interval in days (d) and the number of stages, respectively; Sxj is the survival rate of S. frugiperda from egg development to x days old and developmental stage j, lx is the survival rate of S. frugiperda from egg to x days old, fx is the age-specific fecundity at age x, mx is the mean population fecundity from egg to x days old, and lxmx is the product of lx and mx.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

All data were statistically analyzed by Microsoft Excel 2016 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) and SPSS software (SPSS 20.0, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA), and the data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) followed by Duncans test. The Shapiro–Wilk test was used to test for data normality, and the Levene test was performed to test for homogeneity of variance. Post hoc test was performed by Dunnett test. The life table parameters were calculated by TWOSEX-MSChart, and the population dynamics were predicted by Timing-MSChart software (Version 2022.02.27) [42].

3. Results

3.1. Development and Survival

Constant light (LL, 24L:0D) greatly affected the growth and development of S. frugiperda (Table 2). For development duration, the egg-larval stage was significantly prolonged by 2.19 d (F = 468, df = 69.001, p < 0.01) under constant light compared with CK (14L:10D), and the pupal stage was remarkably shortened by 0.63 d, with longer and larger pupae which were observed in the LL treatment. Although there were significant differences in development duration under different light regimes, larval survival and pupation rate were not significantly different compared with CK. However, the emergence rate was affected by the constant light, which was reduced by 57.48% compared with CK, while constant darkness (DD, 0L:24D) was more conducive to pupation and emergence of S. frugiperda and had the highest pupation and emergence rates.

3.2. Adult Fecundity and Longevity

Continuous light significantly decreased the fecundity and longevity of adult S. frugiperda (Table 3). Under the LL treatment and the treatment of lighting in the scotophase at the adult stage (CK-L), the number of eggs per female moth, oviposition days and oviposition probability were significantly lower than those of the other three treatments. The number of eggs per female moth under the LL and CK-L treatments decreased by 99% on average compared with CK (Table 3). There were significant differences in the number of eggs per female and oviposition days between CK-L and CK treatments, whereas no differences between LL and CK-L treatments were observed. Similar results were found among DD, CK-D and CK treatments, which indicated that the adult stage is the photoperiod-sensitive stage of S. frugiperda. Both the constant light and dark environments significantly reduced the number of eggs per female moth and oviposition days, but continuous light conditions (LL and CK-L) had a greater impact on adult fecundity. In addition, adult longevity significantly decreased under the lighting in scotophase, which reduced by 50% and 25% in LL and CK-L treatments compared with CK, respectively, while the dark environments (DD and CK-L) had no significant effects on adult longevity.

3.3. Life Table Parameters

Constant light greatly affected the life table parameters of S. frugiperda (Table 4). Compared with CK, the mean generation time was prolonged, and the net reproduction rate, intrinsic rate of increase, and finite rate of increase remarkably decreased under continuous light environments (LL and CK-L). Compared with CK, the mean generation time in the LL treatment increased by 4.44 days, and the net reproductive rate significantly decreased, which indicated that the population growth of S. frugiperda was reduced by 99% in the LL treatment. Life table parameters of S. frugiperda were also affected in continuous dark environments (DD and CK-D), but the influences were far less than that of continuous light environments (LL and CK-L).

3.4. Population Dynamics

With 10 eggs as the initial value, the Timing-MSChart software was used to predict the population dynamics of S. frugiperda in the next 60 days under different light regimes, based on our life table parameters (Figure 1). The results indicated that the population growth of S. frugiperda was not obvious, and the population was only 10 after 60 days in continuous light conditions (LL and CK-L). However, the populations in the CK and continuous dark environments (DD and CK-D) increased rapidly, and the number of individuals in the populations increased from 10 to more than 100 thousand after 60 days. These results demonstrated that the lighting in scotophase had a significant inhibition effect on the population growth of S. frugiperda.

4. Discussion

The reproduction behavior of S. frugiperda is commonly active in dark periods, understanding the influences of light on S. frugiperda during dark periods is of great significance for using light traps to monitor and manage the pest. In present study, we evaluated the effects of lighting in dark periods on the growth, development, and reproduction of S. frugiperda.
Light is a crucial environmental factor that synchronizes endogenous rhythms with the circadian cycle, which is implicated in temporal regulation of important biological events such as egg hatching, adult eclosion and development, diapause, and mating [28,43,44]. Our study demonstrated that photoperiod significantly affected the developmental progression of S. frugiperda, which is consistent with previous findings [35,36]. Compared with CK treatment (14L:10D), the egg-larvae and the pre-adult stage were prolonged in both all-light (24L:0D, LL) and all-dark photoperiodic condition (0L:24D, DD), but the pupae in the all-light condition were larger and longer than those in all-dark condition. This may be related to the fact that larvae have more time for feeding and growth in light conditions. The development rate of insects is directly affected by photoperiod, which is mainly attributable to the variation in daily activity duration [45]. Hormonal imbalances caused by different photoperiods may lead to changes in the duration of development in some insects, as indicated by Cymborowski and Giebułtowicz [46]. In nature, insects survive in an impending harsh environment by altering the development rate of their larvae in response to the seasonal shift in photoperiod [47,48]. For example, the larvae of Aedes albopictus accelerated their development and reduced body size to adapt the seasonal time constraints in a short photoperiod [49]. However, the influences of photoperiod on the development duration of insect are not always consistent, and the direction mainly depends on the biological characteristics of species. For example, Telenomus remus had the fastest development rate with the shortest average generation time under 24L: 0D photoperiod [50], while Sclerodermus pupariae developed faster in a short-day condition [51]. Although the significant difference existed in larval development duration of S. frugiperda among different light regimes, larval survival and pupation rate had no significant differences. However, the constant light significantly impacted the survival and emergence of the pupae, and the emergence rate was greatly reduced by the constant light treatment, while the highest emergence rate was found in the constant darkness condition, and the result is closely related to the biological characteristics of the larva pupation and emergence in the soil under natural conditions, because they usually spend the pupal period at 2–8 cm in the soil [52].
We further explored the response of S. frugiperda at different developmental stages to photoperiod, and the results showed that the adult stage is the photoperiod-sensitive stage of S. frugiperda. The constant light (LL) or constant light at adult stage (CK-L) had a negative impact on the fecundity and adult longevity of S. frugiperda, but the constant light (LL) has a greater impact. Compared with the control, the number of eggs per female adult in the constant light or the constant light at adult stage (CK-L) decreased by 99%, while those in the constant darkness or the constant darkness at adult stage (CK-D) decreased by more than 50%. Similar results have been reported in the study of other insects, Velarde et al. [53] illustrated that the adult stage of Galerucella calmariensis L is its photoperiod-sensitive stage, and the larval and pupal exposure to long-day or short-day conditions has no effect on adult ovariole development. However, the individuals which completed their lifecycle in a short photoperiod, had smaller ovaries and few developed eggs, and the photoperiod regulated oogenesis via neuroendocrine system [53,54]. S. frugiperda are always sexually active in dark periods, and the mate attraction of S. frugiperda is mediated by a species-specific sex pheromone, which is the product of endogenous rhythm regulation and is affected by the length and intensity of light during dark periods [5,29]. When the female of Ephestia kuehniella mated with the male raised in the constant light, its fecundity significantly decreased compared with the control [46], and the reason for that is continuous light influence on the eupyrene sperm production [55]. Furthermore, our results indicated that the longevity of adults under constant light was significantly shortened. Generally, the physiology of many insects is mainly prepared for reproduction when they are exposed to a long-day condition [56]. For Aedes triseriatus, the signals at the end of the season would cause a shift in terminal investment, which changed from the investment in lifespan and future reproduction to the current reproduction, even at the cost of shortening the adult lifespan [57], and this may explain the shortened longevity of the adults of S. frugiperda under constant light (LL and CK-L). The life table parameters showed that the longest mean generation time and the smallest r and λ for the experimental population were attained under the constant light treatment (LL). Population dynamics were predicted by Timing-MSChart software, and the results suggested that population growth of S. frugiperda was effectively inhibited under constant light.
Light is the most important environmental factor for plant growth and development [58]. The application of the technology of supplementary light at night by using light-emitting diodes (LEDs) as light sources in horticultural crop production practices has been increasing in recent years [59,60]. S. frugiperda is a polyphagous pest that can feed on more than 353 plant species, including some important horticultural crops such as strawberry, tomato, vine grape and watermelon [6]. Understanding the effects of lighting in dark periods on the growth, development, and reproduction of S. frugiperda will help to continuously monitor and manage the invasive pest in controlled cultivation in the future. However, there are large differences in light quality, duration, and intensity in the production practice of supplementing light at night for controlled cultivation. Therefore, these factors should be fully taken into account when future studies on the effect of lighting in dark period on S. frugiperda are conducted.

5. Conclusions

We conclude that lighting in dark periods reduced the fecundity of and limited the population growth. Pupal survival and emergence rate were significantly reduced; the adult stage is the photoperiod-sensitive stage of S. frugiperda, and the fecundity and longevity of adults significantly reduced under lighting in dark periods. The life table parameters and population dynamics prediction suggested that the mean generation time of S. frugiperda population was the longest, and the r and λ were the smallest under lighting in dark periods, and the population growth of S. frugiperda was significantly inhibited. Our findings suggested that lighting in dark periods could be used to control S. frugiperda., which may provide valuable insights into the control of S. frugiperda and the development of integrated pest management strategies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.Y. and J.Z.; methodology, X.Y.; software, X.Y.; validation, X.Y.; formal analysis, X.Y. and S.W.; investigation, X.Y.; resources, X.Y. and S.W.; data curation, X.Y. and S.W.; writing—original draft preparation, X.Y. and S.W.; writing—review and editing, J.Z.; visualization, S.W.; supervision, J.Z.; project administration, J.Z.; funding acquisition, J.Z. and D.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Key R&D Program of China (2021YFD1400703); Key-Area Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province (2021B0202030002); the Innovation Team Construction Project of Modern Agricultural Industry Technology Systems of Guangdong Province (2022KJ105); Guangdong Provincial Special Project of Rural Revitalization Strategy (Document No. (2021)12).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank the students in our lab for their experiment support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Savary, S.; Willocquet, L.; Pethybridge, S.J.; Esker, P.; McRoberts, N.; Nelson, A. The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 3, 430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. IPPC Secretariat; Gullino, M.; Albajes, R.; Al-Jboory, I.; Angelotti, F.; Chakraborty, S.; Garrett, K.; Hurley, B.; Juroszek, P.; Makkouk, K.; et al. Scientific Review of the Impact of Climate Change on Plant Pests—A Global Challenge to Prevent and Mitigate Plant Pest Risks in Agriculture, Forestry and Ecosystems; FAO on behalf of the IPPC Secretariat: Rome, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  3. Desneux, N.; Luna, M.G.; Guillemaud, T.; Urbaneja, A. The invasive South American tomato pinworm, Tuta absoluta, continues to spread in Afro-Eurasia and beyond: The new threat to tomato world production. J. Pest Sci. 2011, 84, 403–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. FAO. The Global Action for Fall Armyworm Control: A Resource Mobilization Guide; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  5. Tay, W.T.; Meagher, R.L., Jr.; Czepak, C.; Groot, A.T. Spodoptera frugiperda: Ecology, Evolution, and Management Options of an Invasive Species. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2023, 68, 299–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Montezano, D.G.; Specht, A.; Sosa-Gomez, D.R.; Roque-Specht, V.F.; Sousa-Silva, J.C.; Paula-Moraes, S.V.; Peterson, J.A.; Hunt, T.E. Host plants of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Americas. Afr. Entomol. 2018, 26, 286–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Westbrook, J.K.; Nagoshi, R.N.; Meagher, R.L.; Fleischer, S.J.; Jairam, S. Modeling seasonal migration of fall armyworm moths. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2016, 60, 255–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Baudron, F.; Zaman-Allah, M.A.; Chaipa, I.; Chari, N.; Chinwada, P. Understanding the factors influencing fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda JE Smith) damage in African smallholder maize fields and quantifying its impact on yield. A case study in Eastern Zimbabwe. Crop Protect. 2019, 120, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, X.J.; Wu, M.F.; Ma, J.; Gao, B.Y.; Wu, Q.L.; Chen, A.D.; Liu, J.; Jiang, Y.Y.; Zhai, B.P.; Early, R.; et al. Prediction of migratory routes of the invasive fall armyworm in eastern China using a trajectory analytical approach. Pest Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 454–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Togola, A.; Meseka, S.; Menkir, A.; Badu-Apraku, B.; Boukar, O.; Tamò, M.; Djouaka, R. Measurement of Pesticide Residues from Chemical Control of the Invasive Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in a Maize Experimental Field in Mokwa, Nigeria. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Yin, X.; Yang, G.-F.; Niu, D.-B.; Chen, J.; Liao, M.; Cao, H.-Q.; Sheng, C.-W. Identification and pharmacological characterization of histamine-gated chloride channels in the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2022, 140, 103698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Shylesha, A.N.; Jalali, S.K.; Gupta, A.; Varshney, R.; Venkatesan, T.; Shetty, P.; Ojha, R.; Ganiger, P.C.; Navik, O.; Subaharan, K.; et al. Studies on new invasive pest Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and its natural enemies. J. Biol. Control 2018, 32, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Zhao, H.X.; Xian, X.Q.; Yang, N.W.; Zhang, Y.J.; Liu, H.; Wan, F.H.; Guo, J.Y.; Liu, W.X. Insights from the biogeographic approach for biocontrol of invasive alien pests: Estimating the ecological niche overlap of three egg parasitoids against Spodoptera frugiperda in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 862, 160785. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cruz-Esteban, S.; Rojas, J.C.; Sánchez-Guillén, D.; Cruz-López, L.; Malo, E.A. Geographic variation in pheromone component ratio and antennal responses, but not in attraction, to sex pheromones among fall armyworm populations infesting corn in Mexico. J. Pest Sci. 2018, 91, 973–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Malo, E.A.; Cruz-Esteban, S.; Gonzalez, F.J.; Rojas, J.C. A Home-Made Trap Baited With Sex Pheromone for Monitoring Spodoptera frugiperda Males (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Corn crops in Mexico. J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 1674–1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hailu, G.; Niassy, S.; Zeyaur, K.R.; Ochatum, N.; Subramanian, S. Maize–Legume Intercropping and Push–Pull for Management of Fall Armyworm, Stemborers, and Striga in Uganda. Agron. J. 2018, 110, 2513–2522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Harrison, R.D.; Thierfelder, C.; Baudron, F.; Chinwada, P.; Midega, C.; Schaffner, U.; van den Berg, J. Agro-ecological options for fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda JE Smith) management: Providing low-cost, smallholder friendly solutions to an invasive pest. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 243, 318–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Fatoretto, J.C.; Michel, A.P.; Silva Filho, M.C.; Silva, N. Adaptive Potential of Fall Armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Limits Bt Trait Durability in Brazil. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2017, 8, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Moar, W.J.; Pusztai-Carey, M.; Van Faassen, H.; Bosch, D.; Frutos, R.; Rang, C.; Luo, K.; Adang, M.J. Development of Bacillus thuringiensis CryIC Resistance by Spodoptera exigua (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1995, 61, 2086–2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Wu, K. Management strategies of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in China. Plant Prot. 2020, 46, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  21. Yang, P.; Zhu, X.; Guo, J.; Wang, Z. Strategy and advice for managing the fall armyworm in China. Plant Prot. 2019, 45, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  22. Feng, H.; Wu, X.; Bo, W.; Kongming, W. Seasonal Migration of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Over the Bohai Sea. J. Econ. Entomol. 2009, 102, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Maelzer, D.A.; Zalucki, M.P. Analysis of long-term light-trap data for Helicoverpa spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Australia: The effect of climate and crop host plants. Bull. Entomol. Res. 1999, 89, 455–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Di Cara, F.; King-Jones, K. How Clocks and Hormones Act in Concert to Control the Timing of Insect Development. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 2013, 105, 1–36. [Google Scholar]
  25. Yamaguchi, S.; Desplan, C.; Heisenberg, M. Contribution of photoreceptor subtypes to spectral wavelength preference in Drosophila. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 5634–5639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Hori, M.; Shibuya, K.; Sato, M.; Saito, Y. Lethal effects of short-wavelength visible light on insects. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 7383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Chen, Y.R.; Wei, W.L.; Tzeng, D.T.W.; Owens, A.C.S.; Tang, H.C.; Wu, C.S.; Lin, S.S.; Zhong, S.; Yang, E.C. Effects of artificial light at night (ALAN) on gene expression of Aquatica ficta firefly larvae. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 281, 116944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yan, S.; Liu, Y.-J.; Zhu, J.-L.; Cui, W.-N.; Zhang, X.-F.; Yang, Y.-H.; Liu, X.-M.; Zhang, Q.-W.; Liu, X.-X. Daily expression of two circadian clock genes in compound eyes of Helicoverpa armigera: Evidence for peripheral tissue circadian timing. Insect Sci. 2019, 26, 217–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Philogene, B.; McNeil, J. The influence of light on the non-diapause related aspects of development and reproduction in insects. Photochem. Photobiol. 2008, 40, 753–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Leather, S.; Walters, K.; Bale, J.S. The Ecology of Insect Overwintering; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  31. Cardé, R.T.; Roelofs, W.L. Temperature modification of male sex pheromone response and factors affecting female calling in Holomelina immaculata (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae). Can. Entomol. 1973, 105, 1505–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Zhang, L.; Wang, F.; Wan, X.; Xu, J.; Ye, H. Reproductive behavior and circadian rhythms of Spodoptera frugiperda. J. Environ. Entomol. 2022, 44, 509–522. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sun, X.; Xu, R.; Ge, S.; Fu, X.; Xincheng, Z.; Wu, K. Effects of photoperiod on the eclosion, reproduction and flight performance of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Environ. Entomol. 2019, 41, 1045–1056. [Google Scholar]
  34. Jiang, Y.; Wu, Y.; Li, T.; Miao, J.; Gong, Z.; Duan, Y.; Mei, S.; Wang, X.; Liu, Q. Light and dark adaptation of adult compound eyes of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) and their transformation rate to light-adapted stateunder yellow light. Acta Entomol. Sin. 2021, 64, 1120–1126. [Google Scholar]
  35. Meng, L.; Jiang, X.; Li, P.; Xia, J.; Zhang, T.; Cheng, Y.; Zhang, L. Comparison of bisexual life tables of Spodoptera frugiperda in differentphotoperiods. Plant Prot. 2022, 48, 63–73. [Google Scholar]
  36. Chen, S.; Chen, Q.; Liu, H.; Liu, C.; Liu, Y.; Liu, X. Effects of photoperiod on the growth and development of Spodoptera frugiperda. China Plant Prot. 2021, 41, 5–9. [Google Scholar]
  37. Wang, F.; Li, L.; Wei, Q.; Gu, Y.; Huang, C.; Liao, R.; Liao, S. Effects of different light environments on oviposition of Conopomorpha sinensis and itscontrol efficacy in field. J. South. Agric. 2020, 51, 313–318. [Google Scholar]
  38. Liu, Y.; Zhang, D.; Yang, L.; Dong, Y.; Liang, G.; Philip, D.; Ren, G.; Xu, P.; Wu, K. Analysis of phototactic responses in Spodoptera frugiperda using Helicoverpa armigera as control. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 821–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Su, X.; Li, C.; Huang, S.; Liu, W.; Zhang, Y.; Pan, Z. Optimization of artificial diet and rearing condition of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E Smith). J. Environ. Entomol. 2019, 41, 992–998. [Google Scholar]
  40. Chi, H.; Liu, H.S.I. Two new methods for study of insect population ecology. Bull. Inst. Zool. Acad. Sin. 1985, 24, 225–240. [Google Scholar]
  41. Chi, H. Life-Table Analysis Incorporating Both Sexes and Variable Development Rates Among Individuals. Environ. Entomol. 1988, 17, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chi, H. TWOSEX-MSChart: A Computer Program for the Age-Stage, Two-Sex Life Table Analysis; National Chung Hsing University: Taichung, Taiwan, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  43. Merlin, C.; Lucas, P.; Rochat, D.; François, M.-C.; Maïbèche-Coisne, M.; Jacquin-Joly, E. An Antennal Circadian Clock and Circadian Rhythms in Peripheral Pheromone Reception in the Moth Spodoptera littoralis. J. Biol. Rhythm. 2007, 22, 502–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zhu, L.; Liu, W.; Tan, Q.-Q.; Lei, C.-L.; Wang, X.-P. Differential expression of circadian clock genes in two strains of beetles reveals candidates related to photoperiodic induction of summer diapause. Gene 2017, 603, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Danks, H.V. Insect Dormancy: An Ecological Perspective; Biological Survey of Canada (Terrestrial Arthropods), National Museum of Natural Sciences: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1987.
  46. Cymborowski, B.; Giebułtowicz, J.M. Effect of photoperiod on development and fecundity in the flour moth, Ephestia kuehniella. J. Insect Physiol. 1976, 22, 1213–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bradshaw, W.E.; Lounibos, L.P. Photoperiodic control of development in the pitcher-plant mosquito, Wyeomyia smithii. Can. J. Zool. 1972, 50, 713–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bradshaw, W.E.; Holzapfel, C.M. Biology of tree-hole mosquitoes: Photoperiodic control of development in northern Toxorhynchites rutilus (Coq.). Can. J. Zool. 1975, 53, 889–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yee, D.A.; Juliano, S.A.; Vamosi, S.M. Seasonal Photoperiods Alter Developmental Time and Mass of an Invasive Mosquito, Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae), Across Its North-South Range in the United States. J. Med. Entomol. 2012, 49, 825–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Chen, W.B.; Weng, Q.F.; Nie, R.; Zhang, H.Z.; Jing, X.Y.; Wang, M.Q.; Li, Y.Y.; Mao, J.J.; Zhang, L.S. Optimizing photoperiod, exposure time, and host-to-parasitoid ratio for mass-rearing of Telenomus remus, an egg parasitoid of Spodoptera frugiperda, on Spodoptera litura eggs. Insects 2021, 12, 1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hu, S.; Wang, X.-Y.; Yang, Z.-Q.; Duan, J.J. Effects of photoperiod and light intensity on wing dimorphism and development in the parasitoid Sclerodermus pupariae (Hymenoptera: Bethylidae). Biol. Control 2019, 133, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rwomushana, I. Spodoptera Frugiperda (Fall Armyworm); CABI Compendium; CABI International: Oxfordshire, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  53. Velarde, R.A.M.; Wiedenmann, R.N.; Voegtlin, D.J. Influence of photoperiod on the overwintering induction of Galerucella calmariensis L. BioControl 2002, 47, 587–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Malaquias, J.B.; Ramalho, F.S.; Fernandes, F.S.; Souza, J.V.S.; Azeredo, T.L. Effects of photoperiod on the development and growth of Podisus nigrispinus, a predator of cotton leafworm. Phytoparasitica 2009, 37, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Riemann, J.G.; Thorson, B.J.; Ruud, R.L. Daily cycle of release of sperm from the testes of the Mediterranean flour moth. J. Insect Physiol. 1974, 20, 195–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Determination of optimum temperature and photoperiod for mass production of Oxya hyla hyla (Serville). Turk. J. Zool. 2012, 36, 329–339.
  57. Kingsolver, J.G.; Huey, R. Size, temperature, and fitness: Three rules. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2008, 10, 251–268. [Google Scholar]
  58. Demotes-Mainard, S.; Péron, T.; Corot, A.; Bertheloot, J.; Le Gourrierec, J.; Pelleschi-Travier, S.; Crespel, L.; Morel, P.; Huché-Thélier, L.; Boumaza, R.; et al. Plant responses to red and far-red lights, applications in horticulture. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2016, 121, 4–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Huang, Q.; Xie, S.; Cao, M.; Chen, L.; Li, M.; Qin, J.; Li, W.; Yu, H.; Que, M.; Chen, G. Effects of supplementary illumination at night on leaf nutrition and fruit quality folspring fruit of Kyoho grape. J. South. Agric. 2019, 50, 781–787. [Google Scholar]
  60. Li, X.; Lu, W.; Hu, G.; Wang, X.C.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, G.X.; Fang, Z. Effects of light-emitting diode supplementary lighting on the winter growth of greenhouse plants in the Yangtze River Delta of China. Bot. Stud. 2016, 57, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Agronomy 13 00971 g001 550
Figure 1. Population dynamics of Spodoptera frugiperda under different light regimes. LL, CK, and DD indicated that Spodoptera frugiperda completes its life history under photoperiods of 24:0, 14:10, and 0:24 L:D, respectively. CK-L and CK-D indicated that the egg-pupal stage of Spodoptera frugiperda is under 14:10 L:D photoperiod, while the adult stage is under 24:0 and 0:24 L:D photoperiods, respectively.
Figure 1. Population dynamics of Spodoptera frugiperda under different light regimes. LL, CK, and DD indicated that Spodoptera frugiperda completes its life history under photoperiods of 24:0, 14:10, and 0:24 L:D, respectively. CK-L and CK-D indicated that the egg-pupal stage of Spodoptera frugiperda is under 14:10 L:D photoperiod, while the adult stage is under 24:0 and 0:24 L:D photoperiods, respectively.
Agronomy 13 00971 g001
Table
Table 1. Different light regimes and their symbols.
Table 1. Different light regimes and their symbols.
TreatmentPhotoperiod (L:D)
The First ExperimentThe Second Experiment
Egg-Pupal StageFrom Egg-Pupal StageTo Adult Stage
LL24:024:024:0
CK-L—14:1024:0
CK14:1014:1014:10
CK-D—14:100:24
DD0:240:240:24
LL, CK, and DD indicated that Spodoptera frugiperda completes its life history under photoperiods of 24:0, 14:10, and 0:24 L:D, respectively. CK-L and CK-D indicated that the egg-pupal stage of Spodoptera frugiperda is under 14:10 L:D photoperiod, while the adult stage is under 24:0 and 0:24 L:D photoperiods, respectively.
Table
Table 2. Effects of lighting in dark periods on the growth and development of Spodoptera frugiperda.
Table 2. Effects of lighting in dark periods on the growth and development of Spodoptera frugiperda.
TreatmentLLCKDD
Egg-larval stage (d)18.99 ± 0.19 a16.80 ± 0.08 b17.31 ± 0.10 b
Pupal stage (d)8.02 ± 0.14 c8.65 ± 0.08 b9.06 ± 0.07 a
Pre-adult stage (d)23.44 ± 0.09 a22.59 ± 0.09 b23.42 ± 0.06 a
Pupal weight (g)
Female0.30 ± 0.01 a0.25 ± 0.00 b0.21 ± 0.00 c
Male0.29 ± 0.00 a0.23 ± 0.01 b0.23 ± 0.01 b
Pupal length (mm)
Female18.31 ± 0.12 a17.14 ± 0.14 b16.36 ± 0.14 c
Male18.47 ± 0.12 a17.44 ± 0.19 b17.22 ± 0.1 b
Pupation rate (%)93.82 ± 0.68 b96.40 ± 0.55 ab97.07 ± 1.67 a
Pupal emergence rate (%)31.31 ± 7.13 b88.79 ± 2.85 a94.53 ± 3.02 a
LL, CK, and DD indicated that Spodoptera frugiperda completes its life history under photoperiods of 24:0, 14:10, and 0:24 L:D, respectively. Data are mean ± standard errors (SE), and different lowercase letters in the same row indicate significant difference at p < 0.05 level by Duncan’s new multiple range test.
Table
Table 3. The fecundity and longevity of Spodoptera frugiperda in different light regimes.
Table 3. The fecundity and longevity of Spodoptera frugiperda in different light regimes.
TreatmentLLCK-LCKCK-DDD
Adult pre-oviposition period (d)6.50 ± 0.29 ab8.00 ± 1.00 a3.27 ± 0.59 b6.07 ± 0.69 ab4.94 ± 0.57 ab
Total pre-oviposition period (d)30.00 ± 0.00 a30.00 ± 0.00 a25.93 ± 0.59 a28.64 ± 0.70 a28.34 ± 0.58 a
Number of eggs per female moth3.57 ± 1.80 c5.90 ± 4.92 c662.65 ± 70.02 a310.43 ± 45.06 b327.97 ± 59.73 b
Oviposition days (d)0.07 ± 0.03 c0.03 ± 0.02 c2.72 ± 0.27 a1.63 ± 0.20 b1.45 ± 0.22 b
Oviposition probability (%)6.67 ± 3.33 b3.33 ± 3.33 b83.33 ± 3.33 a70.00 ± 10 a63.33 ± 9.28 a
Female longevity (d)6.67 ± 0.52 c9.53 ± 0.32 b12.79 ± 0.76 a12.41 ± 0.46 a11.51 ± 0.39 a
Male longevity (d)6.22 ± 0.36 c9.31 ± 0.25 b11.77 ± 0.51 a10.66 ± 2.79 a10.64 ± 0.32 a
LL, CK, and DD indicated that Spodoptera frugiperda completes its life history under photoperiods of 24:0, 14:10, and 0:24 L:D, respectively. CK-L and CK-D indicated that the egg-pupal stage of Spodoptera frugiperda is under 14:10 L:D photoperiod, while the adult stage is under 24:0 and 0:24 L:D photoperiods, respectively. Data are mean ± standard errors (SE), and different lowercase letters in the same row indicate significant differences at p < 0.05 level by Duncan’s new multiple range test.
Table
Table 4. Population life table parameters for Spodoptera frugiperda in different light regimes.
Table 4. Population life table parameters for Spodoptera frugiperda in different light regimes.
TreatmentR0T (d)r (d−1)λ (d−1)
LL2.33 ± 1.14 c31.00± 0.00 a0.0272 ± 0.0181 c1.0276 ± 0.0184 c
CK-L3.77 ± 2.97 c30.35 ± 0.81 a0.0437 ± 0.0277 c1.0447 ± 0.0286 c
CK268.68 ± 49.45 a26.56 ± 0.34 c0.2106 ± 0.0079 a1.2344 ± 0.0097 a
CK-L137.87 ± 29.88 b28.51 ± 0.61 b0.1728 ± 0.0100 b1.1886 ± 0.0118 b
DD189.74 ± 40.15 ab27.92 ± 0.26 b0.1879 ± 0.0088 ab1.2067 ± 0.0105 ab
LL, CK, and DD indicated that Spodoptera frugiperda completes its life history under photoperiods of 24:0, 14:10, and 0:24 L:D, respectively. CK-L and CK-D indicated that the egg-pupal stage of Spodoptera frugiperda is under 14:10 L:D photoperiod, while the adult stage is under 24:0 and 0:24 L:D photoperiods, respectively. R0, T, r and λ indicate net reproduction rate, mean generation time, intrinsic rate of increase and finite rate of increase, respectively. Data are mean ± standard errors (SE), and different lowercase letters in the same column indicate significant differences at p < 0.05 level by Duncan’s new multiple range test.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yuan, X.; Wei, S.; Li, D.; Zhang, J. Lighting in Dark Periods Reduced the Fecundity of Spodoptera frugiperda and Limited Its Population Growth. Agronomy 2023, 13, 971. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13040971

AMA Style

Yuan X, Wei S, Li D, Zhang J. Lighting in Dark Periods Reduced the Fecundity of Spodoptera frugiperda and Limited Its Population Growth. Agronomy. 2023; 13(4):971. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13040971

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yuan, Xi, Shengbao Wei, Dunsong Li, and Jiaen Zhang. 2023. "Lighting in Dark Periods Reduced the Fecundity of Spodoptera frugiperda and Limited Its Population Growth" Agronomy 13, no. 4: 971. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13040971

APA Style

Yuan, X., Wei, S., Li, D., & Zhang, J. (2023). Lighting in Dark Periods Reduced the Fecundity of Spodoptera frugiperda and Limited Its Population Growth. Agronomy, 13(4), 971. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13040971

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