Next Article in Journal
New Formulations of Natural Substances Against Insect Pests
Previous Article in Journal
Cell Structure of the Preoral Mycangia of Xyleborus (Coleoptera: Curculiondiae) Ambrosia Beetles
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 16
Issue 6
10.3390/insects16060645
insects-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:
Review

Managing African Armyworm Outbreaks in Sub-Saharan Africa: Current Strategies and Future Directions

by
Grace Kinyanjui
1,2,
Kahsay Tadesse Mawcha
1,3,*,
Lawrence Nkosikhona Malinga
4,5,
Kaitlyn Soobramoney
4,
Phophi Ṋethononda
6,
Yoseph Assefa
7,
Chibuzor Onyinye Okonkwo
1,8 and
Dennis Ndolo
1
1
Biopesticides Group, International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Anzio Road, Observatory, Cape Town 7925, South Africa
2
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Embu, Embu P.O. Box 6-60100, Kenya
3
Department of Plant Sciences, Aksum University, Aksum P.O. Box 314, Ethiopia
4
South African Sugarcane Research Institute, Private Bag X02, Mount Edgecombe 4300, South Africa
5
School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01, Scottsville 3209, South Africa
6
Department of Zoology and Entomology, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute (FABI), University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Lynwood Road, Hatfield, Pretoria 0083, South Africa
7
Department of Crop Production, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Eswatini, Private Bag 4, Luyengo M205, Eswatini
8
Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Calabar, Calabar 540271, Nigeria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2025, 16(6), 645; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16060645
Submission received: 8 May 2025 / Revised: 17 June 2025 / Accepted: 17 June 2025 / Published: 19 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Insect Pest and Vector Management)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Simple Summary

The African armyworm is a destructive, migratory pest that threatens cereal crops and pasture grasses in sub-Saharan Africa, with recent outbreaks resulting in significant agricultural and economic losses. This review addresses the urgent need for improved management strategies by examining the drivers of frequent outbreaks, including climate change, the pest’s biological traits, and gaps in current control practices. This paper aims to evaluate existing surveillance and control methods—such as chemical, biological, and cultural approaches—and to explore innovative technologies, including predictive modeling, artificial intelligence, Bt maize technology, molecular biology, and nanotechnology. This study finds that, while traditional methods offer some control, their limitations necessitate integrated, technology-enabled pest management solutions. It concludes that adopting holistic, regionally coordinated strategies that incorporate farmer education, advanced tools, and updated policy frameworks will significantly improve outbreak response and mitigation. These findings are valuable to society as they provide a roadmap for sustainable pest control, helping to safeguard food security, support farmer livelihoods, and enhance agricultural resilience in the face of escalating climate and pest pressures.

Abstract

The African armyworm Spodoptera exempta (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is a significant pest that affects cereal crops and pasture grasses in sub-Saharan Africa. This migratory pest causes extensive defoliation, which can result in significant yield losses, particularly in maize. This review focuses on the recent outbreaks of the African armyworm and identifies key factors contributing to its success across sub-Saharan Africa. Understanding these factors is essential for developing effective and sustainable pest management strategies. This review emphasizes the importance of innovative technologies and data-driven approaches in managing pest outbreaks and underscores the need to implement technology-enabled integrated pest management (IPM) strategies to control the African armyworm effectively.

1. Introduction

The African armyworm (black armyworm) Spodoptera exempta Walker (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is a significant migratory pest of Poaceae and Cyperaceae species in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) [1,2]. Although endemic to the African region, the pest has also been reported in Arabia, Australasia, and Southeast Asia [2,3,4,5]. Figure 1 shows the global geographical distribution of the African armyworm. In South Africa, the Vhavenda people refer to it as phundulu, often accompanied by the saying, “Phindulu ndi a dzama vhuvhiṊ ndi sia ndo ita”, meaning “Even if I die, I leave destruction behind.” In Afrikaans, it is known as die kommandowurm (“command worm”). Documenting these local names is crucial, as they facilitate pest identification and enhance communication among farmers, extension officers, and researchers. Understanding local terminology enables timely reporting and intervention during outbreaks, ultimately improving pest management strategies.
African armyworm larvae feed voraciously on foliage, resulting in significant yield losses for cereal crops, including maize, rice, and millet. Damage to pasture grasses is particularly severe on Cynodon and Pennisetum species [1]. The pest thrives in tropical and subtropical climates, where warm temperatures and adequate rainfall facilitate its lifecycle. Seasonal migrations enable the pest to spread across large geographical regions, often following the Intertropical Convergence Zone. The rapid surges of the pest population in SSA severely threaten the production of cereal crops and pasture grasses [2,6]. During severe outbreaks, the larvae can also attack plant species within the families Brassicaceae, Solanaceae, Fabaceae, Rosaceae, Zingiberaceae, and Malvaceae [1,2]. In recent times, outbreaks in SSA have become more frequent, raising serious concerns over food security, farmers’ livelihoods, and the economic stability of the affected countries [7,8].
Economic losses caused by the African armyworm outbreaks vary between crops and their stages of development. For instance, larval defoliation on maize was reported to cause yield losses ranging from 9% during the early whorl stage to 100% at the pre-tassel stage [9]. Additionally, up to 92% yield losses were recorded on maize planted in trial fields in Kenya [1]. In Zambia, the African armyworm reduced maize production by 11% in the 2012–2013 cropping season, while losses attributed to this pest in 2017 were estimated to increase to 40% [7]. Crop damage also varies significantly depending on the larval density per outbreak, prevailing climatic conditions, regional differences, and the effectiveness of pest control measures [1]. Damage to pasture grasses often leads to livestock poisoning, potentially causing death and paralysis due to the release of cyanide-like chemicals by grasses infested by the pest [1,2,10].
The increasing food security threats associated with frequent pest outbreaks prompt urgent calls for coordinated responses to mitigate potential damage. This review examines the outbreak dynamics of the African armyworm and factors contributing to the pest’s success in SSA. It also provides various perspectives on improving the management of the pest.

2. Outbreaks in Sub-Saharan Africa

Outbreaks of the African armyworm have been reported throughout the SSA region, particularly in East, Central, and Southern Africa, since 1919 [1,2]. Notable outbreaks were later observed in the early 1990s in East Africa and West Africa in 2000 [11]. The primary outbreaks usually arise from low-density populations and are carried by convergent wind flow during the rainy season to suitable habitats, where they are concentrated [12]. Under favorable environmental conditions, primary outbreaks initiate sequences of secondary outbreaks, which spread to new areas in the direction of prevailing winds [1]. The magnitude of outbreaks in the landing areas depends on the source population, while the prevailing environmental conditions influence the severity of infestation and the extent of agricultural impact [1,2].
Recent reports of severe African armyworm outbreaks were observed in Eastern Africa in 2022 and 2023 [11]. In response to these outbreaks, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) launched a project titled Emergency Support to Manage Outbreaks and Infestation by African armyworm in Eastern Africa in 2023 to extend support to six Eastern African countries, namely Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, and Uganda, to enhance their national capacities in the fight against the pest [13]. In early 2025, pest outbreaks were observed in several Southern African countries, including Botswana, Eswatini, Malawi, Zimbabwe, and South Africa [8].

Outbreaks in South Africa

South Africa has been experiencing significant outbreaks of the African armyworm, which has affected multiple provinces and raised concerns about crop and pasture damage. In February 2025, outbreaks were reported in the Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, and North West provinces [10,14]. Figure 2 shows the provinces where the outbreaks have been reported in South Africa. In the Free State, over 70 cases were reported in districts such as Xhariep (in the towns of Petrusburg, Luckhoff, Jacobsdal, Oppermansgronde, Koffiefontein, and Fauresmith) and Lejweleputswa (in the towns of Boshof, Dealesville, Hertzogville, Hoopstad, and Bothaville) [15,16]. The Mangaung Metro’s Soutpan area was also affected. Other affected areas include Groblersdal (Limpopo), Carolina and Badplaas in Mpumalanga, Pretoria North, and Bronkhorstspruit in Gauteng. In March 2025, infestations were confirmed in districts such as ZF Mgcawu, Pixley ka Seme, and Frances Baard of the Northern Cape province [17]. The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform, and Rural Development (DALRRD) in South Africa, along with provincial authorities, have been actively monitoring the outbreaks and advising farmers to remain vigilant and implement both preventive and curative measures to protect their crops and pastures [10,17].

3. Drivers Facilitating African Armyworm Outbreaks

The frequent outbreaks of the African armyworm are driven by a combination of environmental, biological, and human-related factors, which favor rapid population growth, migration, and infestation of new areas [1,7,11]. Multiple factors driving the outbreaks of the African armyworm are shown in Figure 3. Therefore, a clear understanding of these drivers is crucial for informing the employment of effective pest management strategies. A key factor driving the success of the pest’s sporadic outbreaks in SSA is favorable climatic conditions characterized by warm temperatures, sufficient precipitation, and frequent winds [6]. These conditions favor the growth of large populations of the African armyworm, primarily in several source areas in East Africa, which subsequently spread to the north and south of SSA [1,12,18]. Previous studies also indicate that outbreaks are seasonal and tend to occur during the rainy season following a period of drought [19,20].
The changing climate in recent times, associated with increasing global temperatures and changing precipitation patterns, further impacts the pest’s population dynamics [21,22,23], leading to the increased intensity and frequency of the African armyworm outbreaks. This is due to the associated effects of climate change on insect pests, including an increased number of generations, expansion of geographical distribution, and changes in migratory patterns [23,24,25]. Additionally, despite being endemic in SSA with a range of native predators, parasitoids, and pathogens, biological pest control lags greatly due to the inadequate buildup of populations necessary for optimal natural control of the African armyworm outbreaks [1]. The migratory nature of the African armyworm also impedes parasitoid development and prevents their proliferation to levels required for effective pest control [2].
The African armyworm has an inherently high reproductive capacity and rapid development rate, characteristics of r-reproductive strategists [1,26], which, under favorable environmental conditions, contribute to the successful initiation and resurgence of outbreaks. Additionally, the density-dependent polyphenism exhibited by the African armyworm larvae serves as a major adaptive strategy that drives the ecological success of the migrating populations [1,27,28]. Further, the shift between the cryptic solitary phase and the visible gregarious larvae is rapid and unpredictable, coupled with aggressive feeding behavior and accelerated development of the latter and sudden proliferation of large swarms capable of destroying crops and pastures over vast areas [11,27]. Moreover, adult moths emerging from gregarious larvae exhibit powerful traits, including high fecundity, faster growth rates, and great flight potential [1,27], which enable the pest to colonize and rapidly populate new environments with suitable host plants. The accelerated life cycle and increased reproductive output lead to rapid population growth and an increased likelihood of outbreaks [9,11]. The pest’s high migratory power is also associated with wind convergence, which concentrates and drives moths far distances and contributes to dense swarms that cause severe infestations on foliage [1,12].
Another driving factor is the ability of larvae from low-density populations to thrive on grasslands during the dry season and, upon the onset of rains, develop rapidly into primary outbreaks capable of causing extensive feeding damage in a short period [12,29]. Additionally, the extensive coverage of tropical and subtropical grasslands, which supports large larval populations, and the abundance of cultivated host plants serve as key environmental drivers shaping the geographic spread of the African armyworm outbreaks across SSA [7,30]. Among the human-related factors that facilitate outbreaks are ineffective interventions, such as inadequate monitoring and delayed pest alerts [1,31], which can lead to late reporting, delayed response measures, insufficient pest control, and resurgence of outbreaks.

4. Management of African Armyworm

The management of the African armyworm involves various strategies to control the pest population and mitigate its impact on agriculture. Currently, the effective management of pest outbreaks hinges heavily on proactive pest control approaches, including accurate monitoring and robust early warning and reporting systems, coupled with timely interventions [6,32]. Considerable efforts have been made in monitoring and surveillance using pheromone-based traps, sampling larvae, and radar technology [1,33,34]. Upon the detection of swarms, the most common response measure is the application of chemical insecticides, for which ultra-low volume (ULV) spraying is highly recommended for controlling the African armyworm and other migratory insect pests [1,35,36]. This involves spraying tiny droplets of concentrated insecticides to achieve efficient coverage of large areas with minimal volumes of the formulated product. The common insecticides used to curb the pest’s outbreaks in South Africa include synthetic pyrethroids and carbamates [37]. Other recommended pest control measures, although not often applied, include biological control and integrated pest management (IPM) [33,38]. Overall, a proactive and informed approach is essential for minimizing the economic damage caused by this pest to crops across affected countries in SSA. Further, numerous efforts are required to integrate the existing practices for African armyworm control, including pheromone and light trapping, community-based forecasting, monitoring, and early warning systems, and cultural, biological, and chemical control methods (Figure 4) [1,33].

4.1. Surveillance and Predictive Tools for Early Detection of African Armyworm

The African armyworm is known for its sudden, short-lived outbreaks that can cause devastating crop losses. Therefore, timely and accurate early warning systems are essential for alerting farmers and agricultural stakeholders to the potential of impending outbreaks, enabling proactive pest management and mitigation strategies [31,39]. Given the destructive potential of these outbreaks, understanding the drivers behind population fluctuations is crucial. Using system dynamics modeling in VENSIM—including causal loop diagrams and reinforcing/balancing feedback loops—researchers have simulated the African armyworm population dynamics using data from 1980 to 2023. These simulations underscore the pivotal role of climatic factors, particularly precipitation and humidity, in influencing the pest’s transition between solitary and gregarious phases. The findings demonstrate that variations in these environmental elements, such as precipitation and humidity, significantly affect outbreak patterns across Africa, reinforcing the importance of integrating climate data into early warning systems [11]. In addition, species distribution models (SDMs) can be employed to identify not only regions where the pest has already been reported but also areas with environmental conditions that could support its invasion and potential outbreaks if it were to be introduced [7].

4.2. Biological and Cultural Control of African Armyworm

Among the biological control products developed to control the African armyworm populations, there is the baculovirus S. exempta nucleopolyhedrovirus (SpexNPV) [40]. It is most effective when applied during the early larval stages (first to third instars) of the African armyworm [41]. Early ground and aerial application of SpexNPV can adequately suppress larval populations [33,41]. Since its efficacy depends on targeting specific developmental stages, timely monitoring is essential before application. This is particularly important for smallholder farmers, such as those with less than 2 ha of land and limited resources who often lack adequate knowledge of the pest’s biology and struggle to identify its life stages correctly. Given that environmental factors influence the efficacy of entomopathogenic viruses, a promising solution has been developed through the use of a novel formulation that encapsulates baculovirus in an ENTOSTAT-TiO2 wax coating, effectively shielding the viral DNA from ultraviolet (UV) damage on crop surfaces [42,43]. This innovative approach holds great potential to enhance the stability and longevity of viral biopesticides in the field, improving their performance while potentially lowering application costs.
Previous studies have shown that African armyworm larvae are susceptible to several Bacillus thuringiensis isolates [1,44,45,46]. However, field applications of these isolates have been limited. An early deployment of egg and larval parasitoids has proven effective as a preventive control measure for African armyworm outbreaks [38]. These findings highlight the importance of implementing biological control strategies that utilize both microbial agents and arthropods to manage this pest.
Cultural control methods for Spodoptera species include scouting, crop rotation, early planting, and intercropping [47]. Despite being time-intensive, physical control methods such as hand-picking and digging trenches help reduce pest populations when implemented promptly. Farmers also dig trenches up to 30 cm in depth, which trap the larvae, to which pesticides are thereafter applied [37,48].

4.3. Plant-Derived Compounds for African Armyworm Control

Pesticidal plant extracts provide a sustainable alternative to synthetic pesticides by reducing the risk of insect resistance development and minimizing the health risks to both humans and the environment [49]. The application of aqueous neem seed extract and azadirachtin causes mortality in larval instars of the African armyworm, along with molting abnormalities and the disruption of pupal development [50]. In a separate study, the treatment of final-instar larvae with azadirachtin resulted in adverse effects on oogenesis, reproductive maturation, and fecundity, as well as suppression of protein levels and fat body development in female moths [51]. Despite widespread familiarity with pesticidal plants among smallholder farmers in Africa, their use remains limited [52]. This is mainly due to factors such as limited information on their efficacy and safety, inconsistent performance of plant materials, high costs and complexity of registration processes, and an underdeveloped commercial biopesticides sector [53].

4.4. Integrated Pest Management of the African Armyworm

Integrated pest management (IPM) is an informed decision-making process used to determine which combination of strategies offers the most effective and sustainable management of pests. Although there are currently no established IPM strategies for managing the African armyworm, key management practices for other Spodoptera species can provide valuable insights and be adopted for controlling this pest. One such example is the use of IPM-focused digital tools, including mobile apps and software platforms, implemented for the monitoring and early warning systems of S. frugiperda [54,55,56].
Other IPM strategies recommended for Spodoptera species incorporate crop rotation, intercropping, hand-picking larvae, crushing eggs, the use of pheromone and light traps, refuge areas, biocontrol, chemical control, and training and capacity building farmers [48,56,57,58]. Additionally, recent studies emphasize the importance of climate-smart IPM strategies, particularly for the long-term management of climate change-induced agricultural pests. This includes incorporating practices such as climate-informed forecasting, developing efficient early warning and rapid response systems, enhancing surveillance and innovative solutions with the aid of advanced digital tools, integrating agroecological and biological pest control approaches, developing resilient crop varieties, and facilitating engagement between all relevant stakeholders, including policymakers [59,60]. Moreover, community engagement and collaborative networks are crucial for developing effective IPM strategies and successfully managing this pest [56,61].

4.5. Challenges in the Current Management of the African Armyworm

The life cycle of the African armyworm, which encompasses density-dependent polyphenism, plays a key role in hindering the effective prediction and management of outbreaks [11]. The unpredictable outbreaks result in significant food losses and negatively impact food security in the affected countries [8]. Additionally, ecological and human factors also play a role in population dynamics, which limits the ability to predict and manage outbreaks efficiently [11]. The changing climate, associated with rising global temperatures and extreme weather events, including hotter and longer heatwaves, drought periods, and heavy, unpredictable precipitation, triggers unexpected pest outbreaks, which are difficult to forecast and control [62]. Typically, migratory insects that are adapted to high temperatures tend to undergo longer migration periods, exhibit shorter developmental periods, and experience increased populations due to climate warming. Additionally, global warming induces changes in migration patterns [63,64,65,66,67]. Furthermore, changes to global rainfall patterns, atmospheric nitrogen deposition, and carbon dioxide concentrations could affect insect development, survival, and reproduction, influencing their distribution [66,68].
The long-term use of chemical insecticides often results in decreased susceptibility to the insecticide due to field-evolved resistance [69,70]. Although no significant insecticide resistance has been reported for the African armyworm, the repeated use of chemicals raises serious concerns regarding human health and environmental implications [71]. The baculovirus SpexNPV is highly recommended for controlling the African armyworm [40]. However, previous studies have reported that, when reared at high densities, the pest exhibits greater resistance to NPV infection [72,73]. This is due to the production of high levels of phenoloxidase enzyme in the hemolymph of gregarious larvae, which is essential for eliciting an immune response and, as a result, increasing pathogen resistance [72]. High production costs also limit the application of SpexNPV as a viable alternative to chemical insecticides. The efficacy of entomopathogenic viruses is known to be influenced by abiotic factors, including temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation, and UV exposure [42]. Farmers also attempt to create homemade remedies by mixing larvae killed by SpexNPV with water, but this method has proven ineffective [74]. Furthermore, smallholder farmers may use the same knapsack sprayer for both chemical pesticides and biopesticides, which could lead to cross-contamination, potentially reducing the efficacy of biopesticides due to chemical residues that can inactivate the microbial agents.

4.6. Socio-Economic Consequences

Frequent outbreaks of the African armyworm can have severe socio-economic impacts, affecting not only the agricultural sector but also local communities and economies. This impact is gauged in terms of both production and economic losses, as reported for S. frugiperda in Ethiopia [75]. The infestation of maize crops by the African armyworm leads to reduced yields and production losses ranging from 9% to 100% [1,7,9]. Significant yield losses, in turn, can result in food shortages and higher prices, negatively impacting the overall economy [75]. Additionally, the cost incurred by implementing necessary control measures can place significant financial strain on farmers and significantly impact their livelihoods [76,77].

4.7. Governance and Policy Frameworks

It is imperative that updated policies and procedures are in place to prevent and control African armyworm outbreaks. In South Africa, pest management is governed by the Agricultural Pests Act (Act No. 36 of 1983). Clear policies and procedures ensure that outbreaks are expeditiously reported and addressed. Additionally, it is important that all relevant information is readily accessible to the relevant parties to facilitate accurate species identification and the timely implementation of control measures. Furthermore, there is a need for updated policy frameworks regarding the African armyworm in South Africa, especially considering the recent advancements in pest management strategies.
As a transboundary insect pest in SSA, the successful management of the African armyworm also requires strengthened regional cooperation to help affected countries mitigate the impact of outbreaks. Moreover, intensified efforts are necessary to harmonize relevant regulations and policies across SSA to improve pest surveillance, monitoring, and management at the regional level [78].

5. Advancing Technologies and African Armyworm Management

Recent reports indicate increasing frequency and intensity of African armyworm outbreaks within sub-Saharan African countries [8,11]. This is despite local, national, and regional pest control interventions aimed at combating outbreaks. The alarming trend of increased outbreaks calls for more adaptive strategies and advanced innovations to address the changing migratory patterns effectively.

5.1. Innovative Digital Technologies

Predictive modeling emerges as a significant application in managing pest outbreaks by providing information on environmental suitability and potential migratory patterns of the pest. For instance, SDMs characterize and predict the distribution of a species using species distribution data and environmental variables [79,80]. These models are crucial for pest monitoring and can be used to identify areas vulnerable to outbreaks [81,82]. Statistical, machine learning, and system dynamics models have been employed to predict the distribution and population dynamics of the African armyworm [7,11]. While these models have been instrumental in predicting the spatial and temporal dynamics of the pest, the system dynamics model serves as a more powerful tool because it integrates several factors influencing the pest’s population dynamics, including biological and ecological factors, as well as the impacts of intervention strategies [11].
Further, the integration of geospatial technologies, such as satellite remote sensing, global positioning systems (GPS), and geographic information systems (GIS), into pest management programs for the African armyworm presents excellent opportunities to advance pest surveillance and early warning systems [83]. These digital technologies offer valuable spatial information, making the large-scale monitoring of outbreak occurrences more accurate and reliable [83,84].
Additionally, revolutionizing the management of the African armyworm will require the application of artificial intelligence (AI) domains, including machine learning and deep learning, and their integration with innovative technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), robotics, data analytics, and other digital information systems [85,86,87,88,89]. Considering the similarity in polyphenic development between the African armyworm and the desert locust, Schistocerca gregaria, management strategies for these migratory pests are comparable. Several studies have reported that efficient early warning and monitoring systems based on AI algorithms, remote sensing, and GIS are key to the effective management of S. gregaria outbreaks [35,36,90]. Moreover, Gómez et al. [91] demonstrated the use of SDMs based on machine learning algorithms to identify suitable habitats for S. gregaria, providing information necessary to inform decision-making, improve existing early warning systems, and prevent uncontrollable outbreaks.
Artificial intelligence offers the potential to enhance surveillance and facilitate the real-time and precision monitoring of pest populations. Artificial intelligence models can assist in the prevention of outbreaks by analyzing historical data to predict when and where future infestations are likely to occur [11]. This can help farmers implement control measures when necessary. Effective strategies for managing outbreaks can also be created and improved by utilizing AI models to simulate various outbreak scenarios [7]. With the aid of AI, the ability to accurately identify pest species is enhanced, thereby enabling early detection, which is crucial for effective control [92]. Furthermore, integrating AI-driven technologies into geospatial technologies and predictive modeling facilitates timely and informed decision-making, as well as immediate interventions in managing the pest [89]. Implementing early warning systems also ensures efficient resource management and minimizes economic loss [31].

5.2. Genetically Modified Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Maize

Genetically modified Bt maize events expressing crystal (Cry) proteins have successfully been used to control various lepidopteran pests. In South Africa, two Bt maize events are cultivated for the control of maize stem borers, viz., MON810 (expressing Cry1Ab) and MON89034 (expressing Cry1A.105 + Cry2Ab2) [93]. In a previous study, the first and third instars of the African armyworm, when feeding on MON810 and MON89034 maize, exhibited reduced survival and mean larval weight, with the MON89034 maize event showing higher efficacy [94]. However, 6% of third instar larvae that fed on MON810 maize survived and successfully pupated. These studies demonstrate the applicability of Bt maize technology for controlling the pest. A significant challenge to using Bt maize is the development of field-evolved resistance. This challenge underscores the importance of proactive resistance management strategies, such as incorporating refuge areas [95]. For the management of S. frugiperda in Sub-Saharan Africa, a minimum refuge of 50% and 20% non-Bt maize is recommended for maize containing one or two effective toxins against the species, respectively. It is also recommended that the next generation of Bt maize contains four distinct toxins and a minimum refuge of 10% non-Bt maize [96]. In addition to Cry proteins, transgenic Bt maize events that produce vegetative insecticidal proteins (Vips), particularly Vip3Aa20, are promising candidates for controlling the African armyworm [97,98]. Previous studies have demonstrated the insecticidal activity of Vip3A proteins against various Spodoptera species, including S. frugiperda, S. exigua, and S. litura [98,99,100], highlighting the necessity to evaluate these proteins’ toxicity on African armyworm populations present in different geographical locations across SSA. Furthermore, it is important to explore the potential synergy between Cry and Vip3A proteins to enhance their insecticidal effectiveness against this significant migratory pest [97,98,101]. Importantly, the implementation of Bt maize technology should be considered as part of IPM strategies to improve the control of the African armyworm [96,97].

5.3. Sterile Insect Technique

The sterile insect technique (SIT) aims to reduce pest populations by releasing mass-reared sterile insects into the wild. The sterile males then compete to mate with wild females, resulting in no offspring and thus reducing reproduction and population size [102]. Classical SIT programs use gamma irradiation to sterilize the males. Although the technology offers an environmentally sustainable, species-specific, and resistance-free pest management strategy [102], a significant research gap exists regarding its use in controlling the African armyworm. However, previous studies have demonstrated success with other Spodoptera species [103,104,105]. For instance, a recent study successfully determined an optimal radiation dose and overflooding ratio in S. frugiperda [106]. Similarly, high sterility and mating competitiveness were achieved in S. littoralis, thus indicating the effectiveness of SIT as a management strategy for Spodoptera species [107].

5.4. Molecular Technologies in the Management of African Armyworm

Molecular technologies are increasingly used to advance pest management through insect taxonomy, the analysis of plant–insect interactions, host-plant resistance breeding, genetic transformation to improve SIT, genome editing and gene silencing methods, and other genetic engineering approaches [108,109,110,111]. For instance, advances in genetic engineering have provided new opportunities to improve the performance of sterile males released into the wild and enhance SIT through transgenic technology, gene editing, and RNA interference (RNAi) [112,113]. These studies could open new avenues for improving the control of African armyworm populations.
Exploiting RNAi by triggering the double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) molecules [114] serves as a promising strategy to control the African armyworm. This biotechnological approach has been explored in several insect pests, including Spodoptera species [111,115,116,117,118], although there are no reported studies on the use of RNAi in the African armyworm. Therefore, research should emphasize the application of RNAi-based technologies as a tailored approach to managing the pest. Furthermore, the successful application of an RNA-based strategy will require addressing, among other challenges, the timely and efficient uptake of dsRNA by early instar larvae, as well as the high costs of dsRNA production [119].
The clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated system is a gene editing tool with potential applications in suppressing pest populations [120]. This can be achieved using gene drive to target genes essential to the pest’s survival or fertility, thereby reducing population numbers over time [121]. Genome editing can also reduce or eliminate pesticide resistance, usually through gene knockout, thus making insect pests more susceptible to insecticides [122]. The CRISPR/Cas9 system has been successfully used in Spodoptera species. For instance, previous studies have demonstrated that mutagenesis was effectively induced in S. litura [120] and S. frugiperda [123] by targeting the developmental gene, homeotic abdominal-A gene. Another study on S. litura demonstrated that males exhibited a reduced response to sex pheromones following mutation of the SlitPBP3 gene using the CRISPR/Cas9 system [124]. Additionally, gene knockout was used to investigate the function of Orco, an olfactory receptor gene, in S. littoralis. This study found that Orco knockout resulted in the inability to detect sex pheromones and plant odor [125]. The CRISPR/Cas9 technology also offers a tailored approach to controlling the African armyworm and mitigating its detrimental impact on food and feed production. Therefore, research is needed to modify the genome of the pest and disrupt its growth and development, influence its mating behavior, or induce sterility as observed in other Spodoptera species. Future recommendations also include integrating the CRISPR/Cas9 system with strategies such as SIT to enhance pest management [126].

5.5. Nanotechnology

Nanotechnology presents significant potential for the more effective, sustainable, and environmentally conscious management of African armyworm outbreaks by offering innovative solutions across various aspects of pest control. Chemical and biological pesticides can be formulated through nanoparticle encapsulation for enhanced delivery and controlled release [127,128,129], improving pesticide efficacy and reducing off-target effects. Additionally, nanoformulations enhance solubility and uptake [130] and increase pesticide toxicity via nanoemulsions with superior infiltration capabilities [131]. Previous studies have shown that nanopesticides have great potential in controlling lepidopteran species [132,133,134,135,136,137,138]. For instance, the application of zinc oxide nanoparticles induced body malformation and reduced fecundity in S. frugiperda [139]. Another study reported 98% and 90% mortality in S. litura larvae treated with silver nitrate and zinc oxide nanoparticles, respectively [140].
Various nanomaterials, including nanocapsules, nanogels, nanoparticles, and nanoemulsions, are utilized to formulate and deliver biopesticides, such as plant extracts or microorganisms, thereby improving their stability, longevity, water solubility, and field efficacy [139,141,142,143]. For example, silver nanoparticle formulations of plant extracts have exhibited notable larvicidal activity against S. frugiperda larvae [130,144,145]. Beyond delivery systems, nanosensors can enable the early detection of insect pests or plant stress signals, facilitating timely interventions to prevent extensive outbreaks [130]. Additionally, nanoparticles, like zinc oxide, can exhibit direct insecticidal properties by affecting pest development and life cycles [133,139]. Additionally, nanomaterials can be engineered to disrupt insect physiology or behavior through novel mechanisms [130]. Recent studies are increasingly integrating nanotechnology with RNAi to enhance the delivery of dsRNA using nano-enabled delivery systems, thereby contributing to the improved efficiency and stability of RNAi-based pesticides [118,146,147].
However, despite several advantages, including targeted delivery, controlled release mechanisms, and enhanced efficacy against insect pests, the application of nanotechnology in pest management lags in SSA [148,149]. Further, realizing these benefits necessitates the careful consideration of potential risks, including the environmental fate and toxicity of nanoparticles [150]. Once introduced into the agricultural environment, nanoparticles can undergo a series of complex interactions and transformations that determine their fate and transport within soil and water systems [151,152]. Concerns have also been raised regarding the potential for some nanoparticles to exhibit toxic effects on non-target organisms in the agricultural ecosystem [153]. Hence, further research specifically tailored to the African armyworm and the African agricultural context is crucial for optimizing and ensuring safe application. Importantly, addressing certain limitations, including the high cost of nano-based technologies, production scalability, ecotoxicity concerns, and other regulatory hurdles [149], is crucial to the successful development of nanoformulations for pest control.

6. Technology-Enabled Integrated Pest Management Strategies for African Armyworm

Effective IPM for the African armyworm, while facing challenges due to increasing outbreak frequency and intensity [7,8], necessitates a holistic approach that integrates conventional IPM practices with innovative technologies, such as advanced digital tools, AI, data analytics, predictive modeling, molecular tools, biotechnology, and nanotechnology [7,11,32,78,83,102,111,128,129]. A holistic pest control approach also focuses on proactive measures to prevent pest problems, including monitoring, surveillance, and early warning systems, as well as reactive measures to reduce pest-induced crop losses, such as responsible pesticide use, adoption of biological control, and other sustainable farming practices. A typical technology-enabled IPM approach could employ the application of sensor-based trap systems, drones, statistical and machine learning approaches, and IoT for automatic pest detection and monitoring, coupled with Bt maize technology and the drone-based spraying of SpexNPV and B. thuringiensis as biopesticides, as well as synthetic pyrethroids [38,86,154]. Drone technology plays a crucial role in managing migratory insect pests by facilitating the ULV application of insecticides and enabling surveillance to detect the presence and density of swarms [36,90,155].
Innovative technologies have the potential to transform conventional IPM programs by introducing new tools and data-driven approaches that will facilitate timely interventions and prevent the large-scale destruction of crops and pastures. However, the successful implementation of technology-enabled IPM programs in SSA will require addressing several challenges, such as high costs of innovative technologies, limited accessibility, availability, and affordability, scaling-up constraints, and low uptake by end-users. Strengthening regional cooperation among countries in SSA, particularly through cross-border collaborations, could overcome several challenges by fostering a collective commitment to drive innovations, sharing necessary information, expertise, and resources, and implementing coordinated actions, such as pest surveillance, monitoring, and control. Additionally, continued research is essential to advance African armyworm management, coupled with the development of appropriate regulatory frameworks and a favorable environment that enables innovative technologies. Other critical factors include adequate knowledge and resources to manage the pest, effective planning, timely decision-making, and good communication tools for sharing information on potential outbreaks and disseminating IPM technologies [156]. Importantly, the success of technology-enabled IPM strategies against the African armyworm heavily relies on well-informed farmers. This requires integrating farmers’ training to improve their knowledge of surveillance and pest management and to empower them in community-based forecasting. Additionally, training programs and the sharing of relevant resources are crucial for empowering farmers with the knowledge to interpret early warning systems derived from geospatial technologies [157], to understand the principles behind AI-driven monitoring and intervention strategies [7,11], and to adopt sustainable practices arising from molecular and nanotechnological advancements. Without comprehensive training, the potential benefits of these innovations in achieving more adaptive and effective IPM strategies for the African armyworm will be significantly limited.

7. Conclusions

The increasing outbreaks of the African armyworm in sub-Saharan Africa continue to pose a significant threat to agricultural productivity and food security. This necessitates innovative approaches to fight the pest and reduce its impact on cereal crops and pasture grasses. By integrating technological innovations with conventional methods, the improved control of pest outbreaks can be achieved. Further, addressing the barriers to the successful application of advanced pest control technologies is crucial for harnessing the full potential of technology-enabled IPM strategies against this pest to drive agricultural productivity and food security in SSA. Enhancing regional collaboration and farmer education is also crucial in reducing the impact of this pest across SSA.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.K., K.T.M. and D.N.; writing—original draft preparation, G.K., K.T.M., L.N.M., K.S., P.Ṋ., Y.A. and C.O.O.; writing—review and editing, G.K., K.T.M., L.N.M., K.S., P.Ṋ., Y.A., C.O.O. and D.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors are grateful for the full funding of this research by the African Institute for Capacity Development (AICAD) and the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (ICGEB). The APC was supported by both AICAD and the ICGEB, grant numbers F/KEN24-04 and ZAF/DSI/WESTAR/10, respectively.

Acknowledgments

This work was undertaken with the support of the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology and the African Institute for Capacity Development. However, the views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the institutions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AIArtificial intelligence
BtBacillus thuringiensis
CRISPRClustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats
CryCrystal proteins
DALRRDDepartment of Agriculture, Land Reform, and Rural Development
dsRNADouble-stranded RNA
FAOFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
GISGeographic information systems
GPSGlobal positioning systems
IoTInternet of Things
IPMIntegrated pest management
NPVNucleopolyhedrovirus
RNAiRNA interference
SDMsSpecies distribution models
SITSterile insect technique
SpexNPVSpodoptera exempta nucleopolyhedrovirus
SSASub-Saharan Africa
ULVUltra-low volume
UVUltraviolet
VipsVegetative insecticidal proteins

References

  1. Rose, J.W.; Dewhurst, C.F.; Page, W.W. The African Armyworm Handbook: The Status, Biology, Ecology, Epidemiology and Management of Spodoptera exempta (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), 2nd ed.; Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich: London, UK, 2000; ISBN 0-85954-523-7. [Google Scholar]
  2. Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI). Spodoptera exempta (Black armyworm). CABI Compendium, 29809 Datasheet, 6 April 2020. Available online: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.1079/cabicompendium.29809 (accessed on 29 April 2025).
  3. Fox, K.J. Migrant Lepidoptera in New Zealand 1972–1973. N. Z. Entomol. 1973, 5, 268–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Baker, G.L. An outbreak of Spodoptera exempta (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. PNG Agric. J. 1978, 29, 11–25. [Google Scholar]
  5. Haggis, M.J. Distribution, Frequency of Attack and Seasonal Incidence of the African Armyworm Spodoptera exempta (Walk.) (Lep.: Noctuidae), with Particular Reference to Africa and Southwestern Arabia; Tropical Development and Research Institute: London, UK, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  6. Li, M.; Jin, Z.; Qi, Y.; Zhao, H.; Yang, N.; Guo, J.; Chen, B.; Xian, X.; Liu, W. Risk assessment of Spodoptera exempta against food security: Estimating the potential global overlapping areas of wheat, maize, and rice under climate change. Insects 2024, 15, 348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gómez-Undiano, I.; Musavi, F.; Mushobozi, W.L.; David, G.M.; Day, R.; Early, R.; Wilson, K. Predicting potential global and future distributions of the African armyworm (Spodoptera exempta) using species distribution models. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 16234. [Google Scholar]
  8. Centre for Coordination of Agricultural Research and Development for Southern Africa (CCARDESA). African Armyworm Outbreak Threatens Food Security in Southern Africa. CCARDESA. 6 February 2025. Available online: https://www.ccardesa.org/african-armyworm-outbreak-threatens-food-security-southern-africa (accessed on 29 April 2025).
  9. Cheke, R.A. Potential rates of increase of solitarious and gregarious phases of the African armyworm Spodoptera exempta (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Ecol. Entomol. 1995, 20, 319–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kriel, G. SA Experiences Worst African Armyworm Infestation on Record. Farmer’s Weekly. 27 February 2025. Available online: https://www.farmersweekly.co.za/agri-news/south-africa/sa-experiences-worst-african-armyworm-infestation-on-record/02/ (accessed on 29 April 2025).
  11. Sokame, B.M.; Kipkorir, B.; Agboka, K.M.; Niassy, S.; Belayneh, Y.; Elkahky, M.; Tonnang, H.E. A system dynamics model for predicting African armyworm occurrence and population dynamics. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2025, 380, 109378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rose, D.J.W.; Rose, D.J.W.; Rainey, R.C. The significance of low-density populations of the African armyworm Spodoptera exempta (Walk.). Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 1979, 287, 393–402. [Google Scholar]
  13. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Curbing the March of African Armyworm. Reliefweb News and Press Release 15 June 2023. Available online: https://reliefweb.int/report/kenya/curbing-march-african-armyworm (accessed on 29 April 2025).
  14. Mncwango, S. African Armyworm Detected on Farms in Three Provinces. Farmer’s Weekly. 20 February 2025. Available online: https://www.farmersweekly.co.za/agri-news/south-africa/african-armyworm-detected-on-farms-in-three-provinces/02/ (accessed on 29 April 2025).
  15. Matsimela, M. Update on the Armyworm Outbreak in the Free State. African Farming. 28 March 2025. Available online: https://www.africanfarming.com/2025/03/28/update-on-the-armyworm-outbreak-in-the-free-state/ (accessed on 29 April 2025).
  16. van Burick, N. Armyworms Still Marching. African Farming. 5 April 2025. Available online: https://www.africanfarming.com/2025/04/05/armyworms-still-marching/ (accessed on 29 April 2025).
  17. Hoo, S.K. Agriculture Department Confirms African Armyworm Infestations in Northern Cape. Diamond Fields Advertiser. March 2025. Available online: https://dfa.co.za/news/2025-03-30-agriculture-department-confirms-african-armyworm-infestations-in-northern-cape/ (accessed on 29 April 2025).
  18. Tucker, M.R.; Pedgley, D.E. Rainfall and outbreaks of the African armyworm, Spodoptera exempta (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Bull. Ent. Res. 1983, 73, 195–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Brown, E.S.; Betts, E.; Rainey, R.C. Seasonal changes in distribution of the African armyworm, Spodoptera exempta (wlk.) (Lep., Noctuidae), with special reference to Eastern Africa. Bull. Entomol. Res. 1969, 58, 661–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wilson, K.; Gatehouse, A.G. Seasonal and geographical variation in the migratory potential of outbreak populations of the African armyworm moth, Spodoptera exempta. J. Anim. Ecol. 1993, 62, 169–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Biber-Freudenberger, L.; Ziemacki, J.; Tonnang, H.E.; Borgemeister, C. Future risks of pest species under changing climatic conditions. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0153237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Botha, A.; Kunert, K.J.; Maling’a, J.; Foyer, C.H. Defining biotechnological solutions for insect control in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Energy Secur. 2020, 9, e191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Subedi, B.; Poudel, A.; Aryal, S. The impact of climate change on insect pest biology and ecology: Implications for pest management strategies, crop production, and food security. J. Agric. Food Res. 2023, 14, 100733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Karuppaiah, V.; Sujayanad, G.K. Impact of climate change on population dynamics of insect pests. World J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 8, 240–246. [Google Scholar]
  25. Skendžić, S.; Zovko, M.; Živković, I.P.; Lešić, V.; Lemić, D. The impact of climate change on agricultural insect pests. Insects 2021, 12, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Singh, A. R-reproductive strategy. In Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior; Vonk, J., Shackelford, T., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; Volume 10, pp. 978–983. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lee, K.P.; Simpson, S.J.; Raubenheimer, D. A comparison of nutrient regulation between solitarious and gregarious phases of the specialist caterpillar, Spodoptera exempta (Walker). J. Insect Physiol. 2004, 50, 1171–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cheke, R.A.; Tratalos, J.A. Migration, patchiness, and population processes illustrated by two migrant pests. BioScience 2007, 57, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dewhurst, C.F.; Page, W.W.; Rose, D.J.W. The relationship between outbreaks, rainfall and low density populations of the African armyworm, Spodoptera exempta, in Kenya. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2001, 98, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mazzi, D.; Dorn, S. Movement of insect pests in agricultural landscapes. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2012, 160, 97–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Brown, M.E.; Mugo, S.; Petersen, S.; Klauser, D. Designing a pest and disease outbreak warning system for farmers, agronomists and agricultural input distributors in East Africa. Insects 2022, 13, 232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Prasanna, B.M.; Carvajal-Yepes, M.; Kumar, P.L.; Kawarazuka, N.; Liu, Y.; Mulema, A.A.; McCutcheon, S.; Ibabao, X. Sustainable management of transboundary pests requires holistic and inclusive solutions. Food Secur. 2022, 14, 1449–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mushobozi, W.L.; Grzywacz, D.; Musebe, R.; Kimani, M.; Wilson, K. New approaches to improve the livelihoods of poor farmers and pastoralists in Tanzania through monitoring and control of African armyworm, Spodoptera exempta. Asp. Appl. Biol. 2005, 75, 37–45. [Google Scholar]
  34. Rose, D.J.W.; Page, W.W.; Dewhurst, C.F.; Riley, J.R.; Reynolds, D.R.; Pedgley, D.E.; Tucker, M.R. Downwind migration of the African armyworm moth, Spodoptera exempta, studied by mark-and-capture and by radar. Ecol. Entomol. 1985, 10, 299–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Van Huis, A.; Cressman, K.; Magor, J.I. Preventing desert locust plagues: Optimizing management interventions. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2007, 122, 191–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pandey, M.; Suwal, B.; Kayastha, P.; Suwal, G.; Khanal, D. Desert locust invasion in Nepal and possible management strategies: A review. J. Agric. Food Res. 2021, 5, 100166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mathulwe, L.L. Spodoptera exempta, African Armyworm, in KwaZulu-Natal Grazing Pastures. Research & Technology Bulletin. 2024. Available online: https://www.kzndard.gov.za/images/Documents/researchandtechnologydevelopment/publications/Research_and_Technology_Bulletins/African-Armyworm-in-KwaZulu-Natal-Grazing-Pastures.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2025).
  38. Faithpraise, F.; Idung, J.; Chatwin, C.; Young, R.; Birch, P. Modelling the control of African armyworm (Spodoptera exempta) infestations in cereal crops by deploying naturally beneficial insects. Biosyst. Eng. 2015, 129, 268–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Noar, R.D.; Jahant-Miller, C.J.; Emerine, S.; Hallberg, R. Early warning systems as a component of integrated pest management to prevent the introduction of exotic pests. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2021, 12, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Persson, B. Population fluctuations of the African armyworm, Spodoptera exempta (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in outdoor cages in Kenya. Bull. Ent. Res. 1981, 71, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Grzywacz, D.; Mushobozi, W.L.; Parnell, M.; Jolliffe, F.; Wilson, K. Evaluation of Spodoptera exempta nucleopolyhedrovirus (SpexNPV) for the field control of African armyworm (Spodoptera exempta) in Tanzania. Crop Prot. 2008, 27, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Abbaszadeh, G.; Dhillon, M.K.; Srivastava, C.; Gautam, R.D. Effect of climatic factors on bioefficacy of biopesticides in insect pest management. Biopestic. Int. 2011, 7, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  43. Wilson, K.; Grzywacz, D.; Curcic, I.; Scoates, F.; Harper, K.; Rice, A.; Paul, N.; Dillon, A. A novel formulation technology for baculoviruses protects biopesticide from degradation by ultraviolet radiation. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 13301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Broza, M.; Brownbridge, M.; Hamal, M.; Sneh, B. Control of the African army worm Spodoptera exempta Walker (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Kenyan fields with highly effective strains of Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 1991, 1, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hamal, M.; Brownbridge, M.; Broza, M.; Sneh, B. Screening for highly effective isolates of Bacillus thuringiensis against Spodoptera exempta and Spodoptera littoralis. Phytoparasitica 1991, 19, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bai, C.; Degheele, D.; Jansens, S.; Lambert, B. Activity of insecticidal crystal proteins and strains of Bacillus thuringiensis against Spodoptera exempta (Walker). J. Invertebr. Pathol. 1993, 62, 211–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Akeme, C.N.; Ngosong, C.; Sumbele, S.A.; Aslan, A.; Tening, A.S.; Krah, C.Y.; Kamanga, B.M.; Denih, A.; Nambangia, O.J. Different controlling methods of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in maize farms of small-scale producers in Cameroon. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 911, 012053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ahissou, B.R.; Sawadogo, W.M.; Bokonon-Ganta, A.H.; Somda, I.; Verheggen, F. Integrated pest management options for the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda in West Africa: Challenges and opportunities. A review. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 2021, 25, 192–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Souto, A.L.; Sylvestre, M.; Tölke, E.D.; Tavares, J.F.; Barbosa-Filho, J.M.; Cebrián-Torrejón, G. Plant-derived pesticides as an alternative to pest management and sustainable agricultural production: Prospects, applications and challenges. Molecules 2021, 26, 4835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Tanzubil, P.B.; McCaffery, A.R. Effects of azadirachtin and aqueous neem seed extracts on survival, growth and development of the African armyworm, Spodoptera exempta. Crop Prot. 1990, 9, 383–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tanzubil, P.B.; McCaffery, A.R. Effects of azadirachtin on reproduction in the African armyworm (Spodoptera exempta). Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1990, 57, 115–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Stevenson, P.C.; Isman, M.B.; Belmain, S.R. Pesticidal plants in Africa: A global vision of new biological control products from local uses. Ind. Crops and Prod. 2017, 110, 2–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sola, P.; Mvumi, B.M.; Ogendo, J.O.; Mponda, O.; Kamanula, J.F.; Nyirenda, S.P.; Belmain, S.R.; Stevenson, P.C. Botanical pesticide production, trade and regulatory mechanisms in sub-Saharan Africa: Making a case for plant-based pesticidal products. Food Secur. 2014, 6, 369–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Buchaillot, M.L.; Cairns, J.; Hamadziripi, E.; Wilson, K.; Hughes, D.; Chelal, J.; McCloskey, P.; Kehs, A.; Clinton, N.; Cressman, K.; et al. Multi-scale remote sensing for fall armyworm monitoring and early warning systems. In Proceedings of the IGARSS 2020–2020 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 26 September–2 October 2020; pp. 4886–4889. [Google Scholar]
  55. Tepa-Yotto, G.; Winsou, J.K.; Dahoueto, B.; Tamò, M. Assessing new scouting approaches for field sampling of Spodoptera frugiperda and its parasitoids. In Proceedings of the 1st International Electronic Conference on Entomology, Online, 1–15 July 2021; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  56. Togola, A.; Beyene, Y.; Bocco, R.; Tepa-Yotto, G.; Gowda, M.; Too, A.; Boddupalli, P. Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in Africa: Insights into biology, ecology and impact on staple crops, food systems and management approaches. Front. Agron. 2025, 7, 1538198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rao, M.S.; Prasad, T.V.; Gayatri, D.L.A.; Rao, C.R.; Srinivas, K.; Pratibha, G.; Prabhakar, M.; Singh, V.K. Impact of intercropping and low-external input integrated pest management on Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) in maize. Field Crops Res. 2025, 326, 109868. [Google Scholar]
  58. Talha, M.A.; Rahman, M.M.; Hossain, M.S.; Ali, M.R.; Reza, M.; Khan, M.S.I.; Hossain, M.E. Development of an integrated pest management package for effective control of Spodoptera litura (Fab.) in tropical sugar beet production in Bangladesh. Asian J. Adv. Agric. Res. 2025, 25, 130–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tepa-Yotto, G.T.; Chinwada, P.; Rwomushana, I.; Goergen, G.; Subramanian, S. Integrated management of Spodoptera frugiperda 6 years post detection in Africa: A review. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2022, 52, 100928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zanzana, K.; Dannon, E.A.; Sinzogan, A.A.; Toffa, J.M. Fall armyworm management in a changing climate: An overview of climate-responsive integrated pest management (IPM) strategies for long-term control. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2024, 34, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Karakkottil, P.; Pulamte, L.; Kumar, V. Strategic analysis of collaborative networks in Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) research for improved pest management strategies. Neotrop. Entomol. 2024, 53, 937–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhang, Y.; Zhao, H.; Qi, Y.; Li, M.; Yang, N.; Guo, J.; Xian, X.; Liu, W. Global potential geographical distribution of the Southern armyworm (Spodoptera eridania) under climate change. Biology 2023, 12, 1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Deutsch, C.A.; Tewksbury, J.J.; Huey, R.B.; Sheldon, K.S.; Ghalambor, C.K.; Haak, D.C.; Martin, P.R. Impacts of climate warming on terrestrial ectotherms across latitude. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 6668–6672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Musolin, D.L. Insects in a warmer world: Ecological, physiological and life-history responses of true bugs (heteroptera) to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 2007, 13, 1565–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Stange, E.E.; Ayres, M.P. Climate change impacts: Insects. In Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (eLS); John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  66. Sun, Y.C.; Guo, H.J.; Ge, F. Progress in research on the responses of insects to global climate change. Chin. J. Appl. Entomol. 2017, 54, 539–552. [Google Scholar]
  67. Ward, N.L.; Masters, G.J. Linking climate change and species invasion: An illustration using insect herbivores. Glob. Change Biol. 2007, 13, 1605–1615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ge, F.; Chen, F.J.; Wu, G.; Sun, Y.C. Research advances on the response of insects to elevated CO2 in China. Chin. Bull. Entomol. 2010, 47, 229–235. [Google Scholar]
  69. Yu, S.J.; Nguyen, S.N.; Abo-Elghar, G.E. Biochemical characteristics of insecticide resistance in the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith). Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2003, 77, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Che, W.; Shi, T.; Wu, Y.; Yang, Y. Insecticide resistance status of field populations of Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) from China. J. Econ. Entomol. 2013, 106, 1855–1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Ansari, M.S.; Moraiet, M.A.; Ahmad, S. Insecticides: Impact on the environment and human health. In Environmental Deterioration and Human Health; Malik, A., Grohmann, E., Akhtar, R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 99–123. [Google Scholar]
  72. Reeson, A.F.; Wilson, K.; Gunn, A.; Hails, R.S.; Goulson, D. Baculovirus resistance in the noctuid Spodoptera exempta is phenotypically plastic and responds to population density. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 1998, 265, 1787–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wilson, K.; Reeson, A.F. Density-dependent prophylaxis: Evidence from Lepidoptera–baculovirus interactions? Ecol. Entomol. 1998, 23, 100–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Grzywacz, D.; Stevenson, P.C.; Mushobozi, W.L.; Belmain, S.; Wilson, K. The use of indigenous ecological resources for pest control in Africa. Food Secur. 2014, 6, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Abro, Z.; Kimathi, E.; Groote, H.D.; Tefera, T.; Sevgan, S.; Niassy, S.; Kassie, M. Socioeconomic and health impacts of fall armyworm in Ethiopia. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0257736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Cheke, R.A.; Tucker, M.R. An evaluation of potential economic returns from the strategic control approach to the management of African armyworm Spodoptera exempta (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) populations in Eastern Africa. Crop Prot. 1995, 14, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Makgoba, M.C.; Tshikhudo, P.P.; Nnzeru, L.R.; Makhado, R.A. Impact of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) (J.E. Smith) on small-scale maize farmers and its control strategies in the Limpopo province, South Africa. Jàmbá J. Disaster Risk Stud. 2021, 13, 1016. [Google Scholar]
  78. Srinivasan, R.; Tamò, M.; Subramanian, S. The case for integrated pest management in Africa: Transition from a pesticide-based approach. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2022, 54, 100970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Guisan, A.; Thuiller, W. Predicting species distribution: Offering more than simple habitat models. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 993–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Elith, J.; Leathwick, J.R. Species distribution models: Ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2009, 40, 677–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sutherst, R.W. Pest species distribution modelling: Origins and lessons from history. Biol. Invasions 2014, 16, 239–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Méndez-Vázquez, L.J.; Lira-Noriega, A.; Lasa-Covarrubias, R.; Cerdeira-Estrada, S. Delineation of site-specific management zones for pest control purposes: Exploring precision agriculture and species distribution modeling approaches. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 167, 105101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Shaurub, E.-S.H. Remote sensing and geographic information system applications as early-warning tools in monitoring fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda: A review. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2024, 44, 2241–2258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Zhang, J.; Huang, Y.; Yuan, L.; Yang, G.; Chen, L.; Zhao, C. Using satellite multispectral imagery for damage mapping of armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in maize at a regional scale: Using satellite images to map regional armyworm damage in maize. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2016, 72, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Guimapi, R.A.; Niassy, S.; Mudereri, B.T.; Abdel-Rahman, E.M.; Tepa-Yotto, G.T.; Subramanian, S.; Mohamed, S.A.; Thunes, K.H.; Kimathi, E.; Agboka, K.M.; et al. Harnessing data science to improve integrated management of invasive pest species across Africa: An application to fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2022, 35, e02056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lello, F.; Dida, M.; Mkiramweni, M.; Matiko, J.; Akol, R.; Nsabagwa, M.; Katumba, A. Fruit fly automatic detection and monitoring techniques: A review. Smart Agric. Technol. 2023, 5, 100294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kariyanna, B.; Sowjanya, M. Unravelling the use of artificial intelligence in management of insect pests. Smart Agric. Technol. 2024, 8, 100517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Oyege, I.; Sibitenda, H.; Bhaskar, M.S.B. Deep learning applications for real-time and early detection of fall armyworm, African armyworm, and maize stem borer. Mach. Learn. Appl. 2024, 18, 100596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Vidya Madhuri, E.; Rupali, J.S.; Sharan, S.P.; Sai Pooja, N.; Sujatha, G.S.; Singh, D.P.; Ahmad, K.; Kumar, A.; Prabha, R. Transforming pest management with artificial intelligence technologies: The future of crop protection. J. Crop Health 2025, 77, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Shuang, L.I.; Feng, S.-Q.; Ullah, H.; Tu, X.-B.; Zhang, Z.-H. IPM-biological and integrated management of desert locust. J. Integr. Agric. 2022, 21, 3467–3487. [Google Scholar]
  91. Gómez, D.; Salvador, P.; Sanz, J.; Casanova, C.; Taratiel, D.; Casanova, J.L. Desert locust detection using earth observation satellite data in Mauritania. J. Arid Environ. 2019, 164, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Feng, J.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, K.; Zhao, Y.; Ren, Y.; Chen, Y.; Zhuang, H.; Chen, S. Autonomous detection of Spodoptera frugiperda by feeding symptoms directly from UAV RGB imagery. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Botha, A.S.; Erasmus, A.; du Plessis, H.; Van den Berg, J. Efficacy of Bt maize for control of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in South Africa. J. Econ. Entomol. 2019, 112, 1260–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Venter, J.G. The Response of Lepidopteran Pests to Commercialised Bt Maize in South Africa. Ph.D. Thesis, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  95. Tabashnik, B.E.; Carrière, Y. Global patterns of resistance to Bt crops highlighting pink bollworm in the United States, China, and India. J. Econ. Entomol. 2019, 112, 2513–2523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Van den Berg, J.; Prasanna, B.M.; Midega, C.A.; Ronald, P.C.; Carrière, Y.; Tabashnik, B.E. Managing fall armyworm in Africa: Can Bt maize sustainably improve control? J. Econ. Entomol. 2021, 114, 1934–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Moscardini, V.F.; Marques, L.H.; Santos, A.C.; Rossetto, J.; Silva, O.A.; Rampazzo, P.E.; Castro, B.A. Efficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) maize expressing Cry1f, Cry1a. 105, Cry2ab2 and Vip3aa20 proteins to manage the fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Brazil. Crop Prot. 2020, 137, 105269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Gupta, M.; Kumar, H.; Kaur, S. Vegetative insecticidal protein (Vip): A potential contender from Bacillus thuringiensis for efficient management of various detrimental agricultural pests. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 659736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Tharun Kumar, C.J.; Subhash, A.; Rishika, K.S.; Gupta, M.; Singh, S.; Kalia, V.; Kaur, S. Toxicological impacts of neoteric Vip3a toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis on survival and development of Spodoptera frugiperda and S. litura. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2025, 35, 636–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Zhu, C.; Ruan, L.; Peng, D.; Yu, Z.; Sun, M. Vegetative insecticidal protein enhancing the toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki against Spodoptera exigua. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2006, 42, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Soares Figueiredo, C.; Nunes Lemes, A.R.; Sebastião, I.; Desidério, J.A. Synergism of the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1, Cry2, and Vip3 proteins in Spodoptera frugiperda control. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2019, 188, 798–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Hendrichs, J.; Robinson, A. Sterile insect technique. In Encyclopedia of Insects; Resh, V.H., Cardé, R.T., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2009; pp. 953–957. [Google Scholar]
  103. Sayed, W.A.A.; El-Helaly, A.; Jamal, Z.A.; El-Bendary, H. Effect of a low cost diet on the cotton leaf worm, Spodoptera littoralis nucleopolyhedrosis virus pathogenicity and sterile insect technique. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2021, 31, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Sengupta, M.; Vimal, N.; Angmo, N.; Seth, R.K. Effect of irradiation on reproduction of female Spodoptera litura (Fabr.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in relation to the inherited sterility technique. Insects 2022, 13, 898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Jiang, S.; Sun, X.-T.; Ge, S.-S.; Yang, X.-M.; Wu, K.-M. Mating competitiveness of male Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith) irradiated by X-rays. Insects 2023, 14, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Sun, X.; He, W.; Jiang, S.; Ge, S.; Chu, B.; Liang, G.; Yang, X.; Wu, K. The evaluation on control potential using X-ray to irradiate adult Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Pest Manag. Sci. 2025, 81, 1432–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Hassan, R.S.; Sileem, T.M.; Sayed, W. Radiation dose optimization for improving the sterile insect technique of the cotton leaf worm, Spodoptera littoralis (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Menoufia J. Plant Prot. 2024, 9, 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Zotti, M.; Dos Santos, E.A.; Cagliari, D.; Christiaens, O.; Taning, C.N.T.; Smagghe, G. RNA interference technology in crop protection against arthropod pests, pathogens and nematodes. Pest Manag. Sci. 2018, 74, 1239–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Kumari, P.; Jasrotia, P.; Kumar, D.; Kashyap, P.L.; Kumar, S.; Mishra, C.N.; Kumar, S.; Singh, G.P. Biotechnological approaches for host plant resistance to insect pests. Front. Genet. 2022, 13, 914029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Ramarasu, A.; Asokan, R.; Pavithra, B.S.; Sridhar, V. Innovative molecular approaches for pest management. In Genetic Methods and Tools for Managing Crop Pests; Chakravarthy, A.K., Ed.; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2022; pp. 27–43. [Google Scholar]
  111. Kumar, R.; Yadav, P.; Alamgir, V.D.B.; Singh, P. Molecular methods for the control of insect pests. In Recent Trends in Plant Protection; Mishra, M.K., Kumar, A., Kumar, S., Eds.; New India Publishing Agency: New Delhi, India, 2024; pp. 37–46. [Google Scholar]
  112. Ali, M.W.; Zheng, W.; Sohail, S.; Li, Q.; Zheng, W.; Zhang, H. A genetically enhanced sterile insect technique against the fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) by feeding adult double-stranded RNA. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 4063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Marec, F.; Vreysen, M.J.B. Advances and challenges of using the sterile insect technique for the management of pest lepidoptera. Insects 2019, 10, 371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Gu, L.; Knipple, D.C. Recent advances in RNA interference research in insects: Implications for future insect pest management strategies. Crop Prot. 2013, 45, 36–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Di Lelio, I.; Varricchio, P.; Di Prisco, G.; Marinelli, A.; Lasco, V.; Caccia, S.; Casartelli, M.; Giordana, B.; Rao, R.; Gigliotti, S.; et al. Functional analysis of an immune gene of Spodoptera littoralis by RNAi. J. Insect Physiol. 2014, 64, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Christiaens, O.; Tardajos, M.G.; Martinez Reyna, Z.L.; Dash, M.; Dubruel, P.; Smagghe, G. Increased RNAi efficacy in Spodoptera exigua via the formulation of dsRNA with guanylated polymers. Front. Physiol. 2018, 9, 316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Wan, X.-S.; Shi, M.-R.; Xu, J.; Liu, J.-H.; Ye, H. Interference efficiency and effects of bacterium-mediated RNAi in the fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Insect Sci. 2021, 21, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Dhandapani, R.K.; Gurusamy, D.; Palli, S.R. Protamine–lipid–dsRNA nanoparticles improve RNAi efficiency in the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2022, 70, 6634–6643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Yan, S.; Ren, B.; Zeng, B.; Shen, J. Improving RNAi efficiency for pest control in crop species. BioTechniques 2020, 68, 283–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Bi, H.-L.; Xu, J.; Tan, A.-J.; Huang, Y.-P. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted gene mutagenesis in Spodoptera litura: CRISPR/Cas9 targeted gene in S. litura. Insect Sci. 2016, 23, 469–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Suresh, J.; Naganna, R.; Nikhil, B.S.K.; Reddy, S.S.; Reddy, C.N. The CRISPR/Cas mediated genome editing: A novel insect pest management strategy. Asian J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Environ. Sci. 2021, 23, 205–212. [Google Scholar]
  122. Akbar, R.; Mohi-ud-din, S.; Rafiq, S.; Nisa, R.T.; Sheikh, M.A.; Akhter, A.; Iqbal, I.; Jan, U. Review on: CRISPR-Cas 9: A novel genome editing tool for insect pest management. Biol. Forum Int. J. 2023, 15, 550–553. [Google Scholar]
  123. Wu, K.; Shirk, P.D.; Taylor, C.E.; Furlong, R.B.; Shirk, B.D.; Pinheiro, D.H.; Siegfried, B.D. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knockout of the abdominal-A homeotic gene in fall armyworm moth (Spodoptera frugiperda). PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0208647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Zhu, G.-H.; Xu, J.; Cui, Z.; Dong, X.-T.; Ye, Z.-F.; Niu, D.-J.; Huang, Y.-P.; Dong, S.-L. Functional characterization of SlitPBP3 in Spodoptera litura by CRISPR/Cas9 mediated genome editing. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2016, 75, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Koutroumpa, F.A.; Monsempes, C.; François, M.-C.; de Cian, A.; Royer, C.; Concordet, J.-P.; Jacquin-Joly, E. Heritable genome editing with CRISPR/Cas9 induces anosmia in a crop pest moth. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 29620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Singh, S.; Rahangdale, S.; Pandita, S.; Saxena, G.; Upadhyay, S.K.; Mishra, G.; Verma, P.C. CRISPR/Cas9 for insect pests management: A comprehensive review of advances and applications. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Rai, M.; Ingle, A. Role of nanotechnology in agriculture with special reference to management of insect pests. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2012, 94, 287–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Li, N.; Sun, C.; Jiang, J.; Wang, A.; Wang, C.; Shen, Y.; Huang, B.; An, C.; Cui, B.; Zhao, X.; et al. Advances in controlled-release pesticide formulations with improved efficacy and targetability. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2021, 69, 12579–12597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Tao, R.; You, C.; Qu, Q.; Zhang, X.; Deng, Y.; Ma, W.; Huang, C. Recent advances in the design of controlled- and sustained-release micro/nanocarriers of pesticide. Environ. Sci. Nano 2023, 10, 351–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Nimisha, T.; Deepthy, K.B. Nanotechnology applications in insect pest management—A review. J. Eco-Friendly Agric. 2020, 15, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  131. Nonci, N.; Noveriza, R.; Meilin, A.; Melati, M.; Manzila, I.; Pustika, A.B.; Rahma, H.; Najamuddin, E.; Muis, A. Toxicity test of compound essential oil nanoemulsion on fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda J.E. Smith) eggs. Cogent Food Agric. 2025, 11, 2435584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Bharani, R.S.A.; Namasivayam, S.K.R. Biogenic silver nanoparticles mediated stress on developmental period and gut physiology of major lepidopteran pest Spodoptera litura (Fab.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)—An eco-friendly approach of insect pest control. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2017, 5, 453–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Jameel, M.; Shoeb, M.; Khan, M.T.; Ullah, R.; Mobin, M.; Farooqi, M.K.; Adnan, S.M. Enhanced insecticidal activity of thiamethoxam by zinc oxide nanoparticles: A novel nanotechnology approach for pest control. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 1607–1615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Alimohamadian, M.; Aramideh, S.; Mirfakhraie, S.; Frozan, M. Silica nanoparticle: A potential of non-invasive and as a natural insecticide application for beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua Hubner (Lep.: Noctuidae) control. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 2022, 24, 248–257. [Google Scholar]
  135. Asghar, M.S.; Sarwar, Z.M.; Almadiy, A.A.; Shami, A.; El Hadi Mohamed, R.A.; Ahmed, N.; Waghulade, M.S.; Alam, P.; Abd Al Galil, F.M. Toxicological effects of silver and zinc oxide nanoparticles on the biological and life table parameters of Helicoverpa armigera (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera). Agriculture 2022, 12, 1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Muthusamy, R.; Ramkumar, G.; Kumarasamy, S.; Chi, N.T.L.; Al Obaid, S.; Alfarraj, S.; Karuppusamy, I. Synergism and toxicity of iron nanoparticles derived from Trigonella foenum-graecum against pyrethroid treatment in S. litura and H. armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Environ. Res. 2023, 231, 116079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Wang, J.; Tao, M.; Xu, L.; Fan, N.; Zhao, C.; Xiao, Z.; Wang, Z. Chitosan nanocarriers loaded with salicylic acid for controlling fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) and alleviating oxidative stress in maize plants. Environ. Sci. Nano 2023, 10, 3295–3306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Ruiz-Aguilar, M.Y.; Aguirre-Uribe, L.A.; Ramírez-Barrón, S.N.; Pérez-Luna, Y.D.C.; Castro-del Ángel, E.; Juárez, A.H. Insecticidal efficacy of zinc oxide and silicon dioxide nanoparticles against larvae of Spodoptera frugiperda J. E. Smith (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): Efficacy of nanoparticles on Spodoptera frugiperda. J. Exp. Nanosci. 2025, 20, 2466532. [Google Scholar]
  139. Pittarate, S.; Rajula, J.; Rahman, A.; Vivekanandhan, P.; Thungrabeab, M.; Mekchay, S.; Krutmuang, P. Insecticidal effect of zinc oxide nanoparticles against Spodoptera frugiperda under laboratory conditions. Insects 2021, 12, 1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Shabir, A.; Sarwar, Z.M.; Ali, H. Eco-friendly approaches of zinc oxide and silver nitrate nanoparticles along with plant extracts against Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) under laboratory conditions. Sci. Prog. 2023, 106, 00368504231219171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Athanassiou, C.G.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Benelli, G.; Losic, D.; Usha Rani, P.; Desneux, N. Nanoparticles for pest control: Current status and future perspectives. J. Pest Sci. 2018, 91, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Pittarate, S.; Perumal, V.; Kannan, S.; Mekchay, S.; Thungrabeab, M.; Suttiprapan, P.; Sengottayan, S.-N.; Krutmuang, P. Insecticidal efficacy of nanoparticles against Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) larvae and their impact in the soil. Heliyon 2023, 9, e16133. [Google Scholar]
  143. Yousef, H.A.; Fahmy, H.M.; Arafa, F.N.; Abd Allah, M.Y.; Tawfik, Y.M.; El Halwany, K.K.; El-Ashmanty, B.A.; Al-Anany, F.S.; Mohamed, M.A.; Bassily, M.E. Nanotechnology in pest management: Advantages, applications, and challenges. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2023, 43, 1387–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Gonfa, Y.H.; Tessema, F.B.; Bachheti, A.; Tadesse, M.G.; Eid, E.M.; Abou Fayssal, S.; Adelodun, B.; Choi, K.S.; Širić, I.; Kumar, P.; et al. Essential oil composition of aerial part of Pluchea ovalis (Pers.) DC., silver nanoparticles synthesis, and larvicidal activities against fall armyworm. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Abbas, U.; Majeed, M.Z.; Alkherb, W.A.H.; Alshehri, M.A.; Alkeridis, L.A.; Sayed, S.; Majeed, M.I.; Riaz, M.A. Evaluation of silver nanoformulated plant extracts against larvae of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith), under laboratory and field conditions. Entomol. Res. 2024, 54, e70003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Qiao, H.; Chen, J.; Dong, M.; Shen, J.; Yan, S. Nanocarrier-based eco-friendly RNA pesticides for sustainable management of plant pathogens and pests. Nanomaterials 2024, 14, 1874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Islam, M.S.; Ahmed, M.R.; Noman, M.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, J.; Lu, Z.; Cai, Y.; Ahmed, T.; Li, B.; Wang, Y.; et al. Integrating RNA interference and nanotechnology: A transformative approach in plant protection. Plants 2025, 14, 977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Khandelwal, N.; Barbole, R.S.; Banerjee, S.S.; Chate, G.P.; Biradar, A.V.; Khandare, J.J.; Giri, A.P. Budding trends in integrated pest management using advanced micro- and nano-materials: Challenges and perspectives. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 184, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Jafir, M.; Irfan, M.; Zia-ur-Rehman, M.; Hafeez, F.; Ahmad, J.N.; Sabir, M.A.; Zulfiqar, U.; Iqbal, R.; Zulfiqar, F.; Moosa, A. The global trend of nanomaterial usage to control the important agricultural arthropod pests: A comprehensive review. Plant Stress 2023, 10, 100208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Sajid, M.; Ilyas, M.; Basheer, C.; Tariq, M.; Daud, M.; Baig, N.; Shehzad, F. Impact of nanoparticles on human and environment: Review of toxicity factors, exposures, control strategies, and future prospects. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015, 22, 4122–4143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Chen, H. Metal based nanoparticles in agricultural system: Behavior, transport, and interaction with plants. Chem. Speciat. Bioavailab. 2018, 30, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Zhang, P.; Guo, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Fu, H.; White, J.C.; Lynch, I. Nanomaterial transformation in the soil–plant system: Implications for food safety and application in agriculture. Small 2020, 16, 2000705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Punniyakotti, P.; Vinayagam, S.; Rajamohan, R.; Priya, S.; Moovendhan, M.; Sundaram, T. Environmental fate and ecotoxicological behaviour of pesticides and insecticides in non-target environments: Nanotechnology-based mitigation strategies. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2024, 12, 113349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Hafeez, A.; Husain, M.A.; Singh, S.P.; Chauhan, A.; Khan, M.T.; Kumar, N.; Chauhan, A.; Soni, S.K. Implementation of drone technology for farm monitoring & pesticide spraying: A review. Inf. Process. Agric. 2023, 10, 192–203. [Google Scholar]
  155. Matthews, G.A. New technology for desert locust control. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Dara, S.K. The new integrated pest management paradigm for the modern age. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2019, 10, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Seelan, S.K.; Laguette, S.; Casady, G.M.; Seielstad, G.A. Remote sensing applications for precision agriculture: A learning community approach. Remote Sens. Environ. 2003, 88, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Insects 16 00645 g001
Figure 1. Global distribution of the African armyworm. Countries highlighted in blue show the presence of the pest.
Figure 1. Global distribution of the African armyworm. Countries highlighted in blue show the presence of the pest.
Insects 16 00645 g001
Insects 16 00645 g002
Figure 2. Recent outbreaks of African armyworm in South African provinces.
Figure 2. Recent outbreaks of African armyworm in South African provinces.
Insects 16 00645 g002
Insects 16 00645 g003
Figure 3. Drivers of African armyworm outbreaks in sub-Saharan Africa.
Figure 3. Drivers of African armyworm outbreaks in sub-Saharan Africa.
Insects 16 00645 g003
Insects 16 00645 g004
Figure 4. Management practices for the African armyworm in sub-Saharan Africa.
Figure 4. Management practices for the African armyworm in sub-Saharan Africa.
Insects 16 00645 g004
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

Kinyanjui, G.; Mawcha, K.T.; Malinga, L.N.; Soobramoney, K.; Ṋethononda, P.; Assefa, Y.; Okonkwo, C.O.; Ndolo, D. Managing African Armyworm Outbreaks in Sub-Saharan Africa: Current Strategies and Future Directions. Insects 2025, 16, 645. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16060645

AMA Style

Kinyanjui G, Mawcha KT, Malinga LN, Soobramoney K, Ṋethononda P, Assefa Y, Okonkwo CO, Ndolo D. Managing African Armyworm Outbreaks in Sub-Saharan Africa: Current Strategies and Future Directions. Insects. 2025; 16(6):645. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16060645

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kinyanjui, Grace, Kahsay Tadesse Mawcha, Lawrence Nkosikhona Malinga, Kaitlyn Soobramoney, Phophi Ṋethononda, Yoseph Assefa, Chibuzor Onyinye Okonkwo, and Dennis Ndolo. 2025. "Managing African Armyworm Outbreaks in Sub-Saharan Africa: Current Strategies and Future Directions" Insects 16, no. 6: 645. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16060645

APA Style

Kinyanjui, G., Mawcha, K. T., Malinga, L. N., Soobramoney, K., Ṋethononda, P., Assefa, Y., Okonkwo, C. O., & Ndolo, D. (2025). Managing African Armyworm Outbreaks in Sub-Saharan Africa: Current Strategies and Future Directions. Insects, 16(6), 645. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16060645

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