Global scientific progress and shortfalls in biological control of the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda
Kris A. G. Wyckhuys, Komivi Senyo Akutse, Divina Amalin, Salah‐Eddin Araj, Gloria Barrera, Marie Joy B. Beltran, Ibtissem Ben Fekih, Paul‐André Calatayud, Lizette Cicero, Marcellin Cuma Cokola, Yelitza C. Colmenárez, Kenza Dessauvages, Thomas Dubois, L. Durocher-Granger, Carlos Espinel, Patrick Fallet, José Fernández-Triana, Frédéric Francis, Juliana Gómez, Khalid Haddi, Rhett D. Harrison, Muhammad Haseeb, Natasha Sant ́Anna Iwanicki, Lara R. Jaber, Fathiya M. Khamis, Jesusa C. Legaspi, Refugio J. Lomeli-Flores, Rogério Biaggioni Lopes, Baoqian Lyu, James Montoya‐Lerma, Melissa P. Montecalvo, Andrew Polaszek, Tung D. Nguyen, Ihsan Nurkomar, James E. O’Hara, Jermaine D. Perier, Ricardo Ramírez‐Romero, Francisco Javier Sánchez‐García, Ann Marie S. Robinson-Baker, Luís Cláudio Paterno Silveira, Larisner Simeon, Leellen F. Solter, Oscar F. Santos‐Amaya, Elijah J. Talamas, Wagner de Souza Tavares, Rogelio Trabanino, Ted C. J. Turlings, F. H. Valicente, Carlos Vásquez, Zhenying Wang, Ana Paula Gonçalves da Silva Wengrat, Lian‐Sheng Zang, Wei Zhang, Kennedy J. Zimba, Kongming Wu, Maged Elkahky, Buyung Hadi
Abstract
Since 2016, the fall armyworm (FAW) Spodoptera frugiperda has spread over extensive areas of the tropics and subtropics, imperiling food security, economic progress and the livelihoods of millions of cereal farmers. Although FAW has received long-standing scientific attention in its home range in the Americas, chemical inputs feature prominently in its mitigation and biological control uptake is globally lagging. Here, building upon a quantitative review of the global literature, we methodically dissect FAW biological control science. Of the known entomopathogens (46), parasitoids (310) and predators (215) of FAW, approx. 40% have been subject to laboratory- or field-level scrutiny. Laboratory-level performance has partially been assessed for 14–18% of the above invertebrate taxa. Yet, organismal, geographic, methodological and thematic biases hamper efforts to relate in-field animal biodiversity to biological control services. Often, single-guild ‘snapshot’ surveys are preferred over comprehensive bio-inventories or population dynamics appraisals, trophic interactions remain undocumented, standard pest infestation metrics are lacking and natural enemy censuses are performed arbitrarily. Diurnal biota receive inordinate attention, while egg and pupal predation - the main biotic sources of mortality - are routinely overlooked. Multiple microbial and invertebrate biota are investigated with a view towards mass-rearing and augmentative release. Meanwhile, conservation biological control receives marginal attention and cross-disciplinary engagement with the agroecology domain is lagging. We lay out several steps, including standardized methodologies, smart use of biodemographic toolkits, networked field trials and a fortification of its ecological underpinnings, to sharpen the science of (FAW) biological control and urge further momentum in its global implementation.