Skip to main content

Fitness of the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda to a new host plant, banana (Musa nana Lour.)



The fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda is a highly destructive agricultural pest that primarily damages maize in China. However, there were no reports of S. frugiperda damage to banana until it was observed on bananas in the wild. This suggested that banana crops may be potential hosts of the pest. To clarify the fitness and potential impact of S. frugiperda on banana, this study analysed the survival and development of S. frugiperda fed on bananas in the laboratory and constructed age-stage and two-sex life tables.


Larvae of S. frugiperda fed on bananas completed their life cycles and produced fertile offspring, but the larvae had eight instars and presented longer developmental duration, slower population growth, and lower body weight than maize-fed larvae. Furthermore, the banana-fed S. frugiperda had longer adult longevity and preoviposition periods than the maize-fed larvae, while the opposite tendency was observed for oviposition days and egg production. Based on age-stage and two-sex life tables, the survival probability at each stage of S. frugiperda fed on bananas was lower than that of maize-fed larvae, and banana-fed S. frugiperda showed lower reproductive capacity.


Although banana is not an ideal host for the fall armyworm, it may be colonized by the species in situations in which the population density is high or the preferred host is scarce. Therefore, it is essential to prevent the pest from transferring to bananas and thereby increasing the number of sources of outbreaks.

Graphical Abstract


The fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is a worldwide agricultural pest native to the tropics and subtropics of the Western Hemisphere [1]. It is a highly polyphagous moth that reportedly attacks over 350 hosts across 76 plant families, including Poaceae (106 species), Asteraceae (31 species) and Fabaceae (31 species) [2]. S. frugiperda can migrate over long distances. In 2016, invasion of Africa by S. frugiperda was reported; this was the first time this species was found outside its origin [3], and in May 2018 it was found in Asia [4]. Since then, S. frugiperda has spread to 47 African nations and 18 Asian countries, and now to Australia, where it poses a serious threat to crops [5]. In addition, feeding by S. frugiperda larvae can introduce saprophytic and pathogenic fungi, leading to infestation of crops and grains and resulting in significant preharvest losses and loss of grain quality [6,7,8].

S. frugiperda adults and larvae were first detected in China on December 11, 2018, and January 11, 2019 [9, 10], and it was confirmed that they belonged to a corn strain through gene fragment sequencing analysis [11]. The corn strain S. frugiperda prefers to attack maize (Zea mays) during its process of spreading [12]. According to a survey conducted in 2019, maize accounts for 98.6% of the total area of crops damaged by S. frugiperda in China [13]. Furthermore, feeding on maize appears to be more beneficial for S. frugiperda development and population growth than feeding on other crops such as rice (Oryza sativa), potato (Saccharum officinarum), wheat (Triticum aestivum) and soybean (Glycine max) [14,15,16,17]. On June 26, 2019, S. frugiperda larvae were observed feeding on bananas in Wuming District (23° 9′ 42.69″ N, 108° 16′ 44.13″ E), Nanning City, Guangxi, P. R. China (see Additional file 1, 2, 3). As a strategic crop for food security, bananas are highly valued for their nutritional quality [18,19,20] and are grown in more than 100 countries and regions around the world [21]. Bananas are also the most traded and consumed fruit internationally and are a major source of economic growth and income in many rural areas, creating jobs and providing foreign exchange value for many countries [22].

Factors that contribute to fluctuation of pest populations in the field include population density, reproductive rate, climatic conditions, and the abundance of natural enemies; the quality, availability, distribution and preference of the pest for alternate hosts also play an important role [23,24,25,26,27]. Food limitations play a key role in controlling insect populations since herbivore life history traits are influenced by host-plant characteristics [28]. For instance, an insect’s body size can be affected by the quality of its host plant, thereby determining life history parameters such as survival, longevity and fecundity [29, 30]. The presence of immature individuals of a species on any crop does not necessarily imply that the plant was a host for the insect [31].

Life tables are widely used as research tools in insect population ecology and pest management [32]. Compared with the traditional life table, the age-stage and two-sex life table not only takes into account the variability in developmental duration among individuals of both sexes, but also integrates the changes in the developmental speed changes of all stages in the form of stage distribution; thus, it can accurately describe the instar differentiation of insects and the generational overlap of populations [33,34,35,36]. Elucidating how well pests are adapted to different hosts can provide insights into pest dynamics in the field and thereby facilitate the timely adoption of prevention and control strategies [37]. It is essential to explore whether S. frugiperda feeding on bananas can develop to maturity and acquire the ability to produce fertile offspring. Therefore, in this study the survival and development of S. frugiperda on banana and maize were compared using age-stage and two-sex life tables with the goal of clarifying the adaptability of the species to banana. The study was designed to provide information on potential threats and risks to banana production, analyse the population source, and monitor and forecast S. frugiperda infestation of banana.

Materials and methods

Host plants

The test plant cultivars used in this study were banana variety (Williams B6; Guangxi Rural Export-oriented Economic Development Co., Ltd., Guangxi, China) and maize hybrid (Mei Yu Jia Tian Nuo No. 3; Hainan Lvchuan Seedling Co., Ltd., Hainan, China). Banana and maize were grown under field conditions without the use of pesticides. Maize seedlings at the three-leaf stage and newly developed banana leaves were used in the experiments.

Insect culture

S. frugiperda larvae at the 4th–6th instar were collected from maize fields in Shuangdou Village (22° 52′ 47.27″N, 109° 14′ 14.85″ E) in Jiaoyi Township, Hengzhou City, Guangxi, P. R. China on June 6, 2020. The larvae were reared in 11.5-cm diameter plastic petri dishes and fed an artificial diet [38]. The dishes containing the larvae were kept in an artificial climate chamber at 25 ± 2 °C, 75 ± 5% RH and 14 h L:10 h D photoperiod until pupation occurred. The newly emerged moths were paired (one female and one male) and introduced in plastic cups (11.5 cm in diameter and 15.5 cm in height) and fed with a 10% honey solution supplied through a small cotton wick. Eggs were collected daily and deposited in plastic petri dishes (9 cm diameter) until the emergence of the neonate larvae. Newly hatched larvae of the fifth generation raised on artificial diets were used in the following experiments.

Life history traits study

Three hundred newly hatched larvae were randomly selected and reared individually in plastic petri dishes (11.5 cm in diameter) on banana leaves or maize leaves (control) in the artificial climate chamber described above until pupation. Survival was checked daily, and larval instars were determined by checking for moulted exoskeletons. The larvae on the first day of each instar and the pupae on the second day were weighed with an electronic balance (JJ224BF; Changshu Shuangjie Testing Instrument Factory, Jiangsu, China).

The methods used to culture adults and eggs were the same as stated above. The longevity and reproduction, including the number of progeny eggs and their hatching, of each S. frugiperda adult were recorded.

Construction and analysis of the age-stage, two‑sex life table

Life tables of S. frugiperda were constructed and analysed based on the age-stage, two-sex life table theory and method [33, 34] using the TWOSEX-MSChart program [39].

The age-stage survival rate (Sxj), is the probability that a newly hatched individual will survive to age x and stage j, and age-stage specific fecundity (fxj) is the number of fertile eggs produced by the female adult at age x. These parameters accurately represent the biological characteristics of S. frugiperda [40]. The age-specific survival rate (lx) was calculated as

$${\text{l}}_{{\text{x}}} { = }\mathop \sum \limits_{{\text{j = 1}}}^{{\text{m}}} {\text{S}}_{{{\text{xj}}}} ,$$

where m is the number of stages. If all individuals of age x are included, this value expresses the age-specific fecundity (mx) of the total population:

$${\text{m}}_{{\text{x}}} { = }\frac{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{{\text{j = 1}}}^{{\text{m}}} {\text{S}}_{{{\text{xj}}}} {\text{f}}_{{{\text{xj}}}} }}{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{{\text{j = 1}}}^{{\text{m}}} {\text{S}}_{{{\text{xj}}}} }}.$$

The net reproductive rate (Ro) is defined as the total number of progeny that a female produces during her lifetime and is calculated as

$${\text{R}}_{{\text{o}}} { = }\mathop \sum \limits_{{\text{x = 0}}}^{\infty } {\text{l}}_{{\text{x}}} {\text{m}}_{{\text{x}}} .$$

The intrinsic rate of increase (r) is an important indicator of population characteristics. When the population is in an unrestricted environment and the age structure of the population is stable, r is the instantaneous growth rate of the population. r was calculated using the iterative bisection method with age indexed from zero, as in [35, 41]:

$$\mathop \sum \limits_{{\text{x = 0}}}^{\infty } {\text{e}}^{{ - {\text{r}}\left( {\text{x + 1}} \right)}} {\text{l}}_{{\text{x}}} {\text{m}}_{{\text{x}}} { = 1}{\text{.}}$$

The finite rate of increase (λ) is the theoretical value that represents the growth of the population per unit time; it is measured as er [42]:

$${\uplambda }\; = \;{\text{e}}^{{\text{r}}} .$$

The mean generation time (T) is defined as the amount of time a population requires to increase its size R0-fold as time approaches infinity and the population achieves a stable age-stage distribution. The mean generation time is calculated as:

$${\text{T = }}\frac{{{\text{lnR}}_{{\text{o}}} }}{{\text{r}}}.$$

Statistical analysis

The Mann–Whitney U test (U test) was used to identify differences between groups of S. frugiperda with respect to duration of development, body weight, female and male longevity, preoviposition period, oviposition days and eggs per female. Differences in adult sex ratios were compared using a nonparametric test (binomial test). The life table parameters were calculated using TWOSEX-MSChart software and the results were plotted using GraphPad Prism 8.0.1 (GraphPad Software Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). A probability level of P < 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 26.0 (IBM Corp., Chicago, IL, USA).


Developmental duration and body weight of S. frugiperda

S. frugiperda completed its life cycle by feeding on bananas (Table 1). Maize-fed larvae had six instars, while banana-fed larvae had eight instars. The developmental durations of the 7th and 8th instar larvae fed on bananas were 11.27 ± 0.14 days and 14.71 ± 0.21 days, respectively. The developmental duration of each larval instar, prepupal and pupal stage of S. frugiperda fed on bananas was significantly longer than that of the control (1st, Z = − 20.832, P < 0.001; 2nd, Z = − 19.652, P < 0.001; 3rd, Z = − 19.133, P < 0.001; 4th, Z = − 18.542, P < 0.001; 5th, Z = − 18.288, P < 0.001; 6th, Z = −  17.255, P < 0.001; prepupa, Z = − 9.991, P < 0.001; pupa, Z = − 2.663, P = 0.008). The larvae fed on bananas had a developmental duration of 64.94 ± 0.35 days, 3.43 times longer than that of the control larvae (18.93 ± 0.07 d). There was no significant difference in the hatching periods of the two groups of progeny eggs (Z = −  1.292, P = 0.197).

Table 1 Effects of banana and maize on developmental duration, body weight of S. frugiperda

The difference in the body weights of 1st instar larvae fed maize and banana was not statistically significant (Z = −  0.551, P = 0.582) (Table 1). However, the body weights of 2nd to 6th instar banana-fed larvae were significantly lower than those of maize-fed larvae (2nd, Z =  − 10.694, P < 0.001; 3rd, Z =  − 11.526, P < 0.001; 4th, Z = − 11.008, P < 0.001; 5th, Z =  − 10.374, P < 0.001; 6th, Z = − 10.490, P < 0.001). Interestingly, the 8th instar larvae fed bananas weighed less (453.56 ± 7.03 mg) than 6th instar larvae fed maize (496.08 ± 10.23 mg). The average pupal weight of the individuals reared on maize (242.01 ± 23.87 mg) was significantly greater than that of the individuals reared on banana (132.02 ± 2.72 mg); it was 1.83 times that of the banana group (Z = −  11.012, P < 0.001).

Reproduction of S. frugiperda

There was no significant difference in the sex ratios of the two populations reared on banana and maize. The female longevity, male longevity and preoviposition period of S. frugiperda in the banana-fed populations were significantly longer than those in the controls, while oviposition days and the number of eggs laid per female in banana-fed populations were significantly lower than those in controls (Table 2).

Table 2 Effects of banana and maize on reproduction of S. frugiperda

Life table

The age-stage survival rate (Sxj) is the probability that a newborn larva will survive to age x while in stage j (Fig. 1). Significant overlaps between stages were observed under both crops. The banana-fed populations of S. frugiperda completed the larval stage on Day 74, the pupal stage on Day 83, and eclosion on Day 68, while the corresponding times for the maize-fed populations were Day 23, 36 and 27, respectively. The Sxj that a newly hatched larva fed on maize would survive to the pupal stage was 0.90, considerably higher than that for larvae fed on banana (0.26). The Sxj values of S. frugiperda females and males from first instar larva to adult were 0.10 and 0.09, respectively, for larvae fed on banana and 0.39 and 0.40, respectively, for larvae fed on maize.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Effects of banana and maize on age-stage survival rate (Sxj) of S. frugiperda. L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L7 and L8 represent 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th instar larvae, respectively

The age-specific survival rate lx is the probability that a newly hatched larva will survive to age x; because this parameter includes all individuals of the cohort and ignores stage differentiation, the lx curve is a simplified version of the Sxj curve (Fig. 2). Higher peaks of age-stage specific fecundity (fx), age-specific fecundity (mx), and lxmx were observed in S. frugiperda reared on maize than in S. frugiperda reared on banana. The maize-reared populations of S. frugiperda oviposited from Day 28 to the end of Day 39, and the banana-reared populations of S. frugiperda oviposited from Day 68 to the end of Day 88. Most of the females of in the maize-reared populations laid eggs on Days 31–33, while those in the banana-reared populations had multiple irregular oviposition peaks during the breeding period. The highest fx peak of females reared on banana occurred on Day 72, and the mean fecundity was 156.50 eggs, while the highest fx peak of females reared on maize occurred on Day 32, and the mean fecundity was 158.02 eggs.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Effects of banana and maize on age-specific survival rate (lx), age-stage specific fecundity (fx), age-specific fecundity (mx) and lxmx of S. frugiperda

Life table parameters

The net reproductive rate (Ro) of S. frugiperda reared on maize was 253.98 progeny per female, much higher than that of S. frugiperda reared on banana (39.22 progeny per female) (Table 3). The intrinsic rate of increase (r) and the finite rate of increase (λ) for S. frugiperda reared on banana were 0.05 d−1 and 1.05 d−1, respectively, lower than those for S. frugiperda reared on maize (r = 0.17 d−1, λ = 1.18 d−1). The r and λ values for both groups were greater than 0 and greater than 1, respectively, indicating that S. frugiperda can complete generational proliferation whether feeding on banana or maize. The λ values of the banana-fed populations and maize-fed populations of S. frugiperda were 1.05 d−1 and 1.18 d−1, respectively, indicating that the two populations grew continuously and geometrically at rates of 1.05-fold and 1.18-fold per day, respectively, under these conditions. On the other hand, the mean generation time (T) of the banana-fed populations (T = 78.48 d) of S. frugiperda was 2.38 times longer than that of the maize-fed populations (T = 33.03 d).

Table 3 Effects of banana and maize on life table parameters of S. frugiperda


Herbivorous insects can generally complete their entire life cycles (egg to adult) on a host plant that can be considered an alternative host. S. frugiperda has been reported to damage a variety of plants [2, 38, 43]. Some plant species may support the complete development of S. frugiperda. For example, this pest can complete its life cycle on maize, sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum), rice (Oryza sativa), potato, cotton (Gossypium spp.), and amaranth (Amaranthus viridis) [44,45,46,47,48,49,50]. However, other plant species may not support complete development of S. frugiperda but may still be used by larvae or adults for feeding and laying eggs. For example, although damage to cabbage (Brassica oleracea), maranta (Maranta arundinacea), and coix (Coix lacryma-jobi) has been reported, no evidence that S. frugiperda can complete its life cycle on these plants [51,52,53]. The results of current study showed that S. frugiperda can complete its life cycle on banana plants, suggesting that banana is an alternative host plant for this insect pest.

Since S. frugiperda larvae were first observed to damage bananas in this study, and the larvae used in the study were either hatched on bananas or transferred from weeds of the family Gramineae, such as Eleusine indica, Setaria viridis and Digitaria sanguinalis [54, 55]. In Guangxi, spring maize is planted in early February, and it enters the late growth or harvest period in June. At this time, autumn maize and fresh maize were not yet been sown [56]. It may be that the absence of an ideal host causes female moths to lay their eggs on more numerous and occasional hosts, such as the perennial herb banana, rather than on their preferred host, but their larvae are underfed on the occasional hosts. Nevertheless, the presence of even a few surviving larvae can ensure the presence of some individuals on the occasional hosts until the population increases in the next growing season of the preferred crop. In addition, the abundance of natural enemies on some host plants may also cause females to lay eggs on less nutritious hosts to better protect their offspring [57, 58]. However, whether deposition of eggs on bananas by female S. frugiperda protects their offspring from predation or parasitization by natural enemies needs further study.

Undoubtedly, differences in the type of food consumed have a great impact on the growth and development of herbivorous insect larvae and on the reproduction of adults even under the same environmental conditions, and this in turn affects the change trend of the entire insect population [30, 59]. Although our results show that banana is an alternative host plant for S. frugiperda, we found that S. frugiperda feeding on bananas have a longer ontogeny cycle and lower survival and fecundity than maize-fed S. frugiperda. This finding indicates that although banana plants supply S. frugiperda with the nutrients required to complete its entire life cycle, growth on banana is not conducive to optimal development of its population.

A number of studies have reported that S. frugiperda has six larval instars [15, 17, 37, 48, 50]. However, the present study identified up to eight larval instars, and He et al. [17, 60] also reported a similar result. To date, no other study of S. frugiperda has shown this phenomenon, but there are examples showing a similar occurrence of eight instars in other species, including Malacosoma disstria [61], S. exigua [62] and Chilo suppressalis [63].

Notably, our findings indicated that although the sex ratios of in the banana- and maize-reared populations did not differ significantly, the females and males in the banana-reared population lived significantly longer than those in the maize-reared population and that the females in the maize-reared populations had shorter preoviposition periods, more oviposition days, and higher fecundity. Previous studies have shown that the opportunity to reproduce closely related to longevity; therefore, decreased longevity in response to current reproductive efforts was used to estimate the costs of reproduction [64]. For example, the parasitic wasp Itoplectis naranyae has a shortened lifespan after parasitizing its hosts, suggesting that parasitization has reproductive costs in terms of egg production [65]. It is also possible that nutritional restriction is responsible for this difference. For instance, in the case of complete feeding, Grandison et al. [66] found that the addition of amino acids increased fecundity and shortened longevity in flies.


In conclusion, bananas are alternative but not ideal hosts of S. frugiperda compared to maize. Even so, in situations in which the population density is too high or the preferred host is scarce, it is still critical to prevent S. frugiperda from transferring to bananas and thereby increasing the number of sources of outbreak. On the other hand, larval instars of S. frugiperda reared on banana had longer developmental times than those reared on maize. These findings may be applied to the design of a comprehensive integrated pest management strategy and may help explain the rapid expansion of this polyphagous species across different areas in China. Our results show that banana can serve as an alternative host for S. frugiperda during the maize harvest or during offseason planting.

Availability of data and materials

A reasonable request to the corresponding author can gain access to the data that support this study's findings. The data are not publicly accessible due to ethical and privacy considerations.


  1. Sparks AN. A review of the biology of the fall armyworm. Fla Entomol. 1979;62(2):82–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Montezano DG, Specht A, Sosa-Gómez DR, Roque-Specht VF, Sousa-Silva JC, Paula-Moraes SV, et al. Host plants of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Americas. Afr Entomol. 2018;26(2):286–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Goergen G, Kumar PL, Sankung SB, Togola A, Tamo M. First report of outbreaks of the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (J E Smith) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae), a new alien invasive pest in west and central Africa. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(10): e0165632.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Sharanabasappa SD, Kalleshwaraswamy CM, Asokan R, Swamy HMM, Maruthi MS, Pavithra HB, et al. First report of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), an alien invasive pest on maize in India. Pest Manag Horti Ecosyst. 2018;24(1):23–9.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wan J, Huang C, Li CY, Zhou HX, Ren YL, Li ZY, et al. Biology, invasion and management of the agricultural invader: fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J Integr Agr. 2021;20(3):646–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Day R, Abrahams P, Bateman M, Beale T, Clottey V, Cock M, et al. Fall armyworm: impacts and implications for Africa. Outlooks Agr. 2017;28(5):196–201.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kasoma C, Shimelis H, Laing MD. Fall armyworm invasion in Africa: implications for maize production and breeding. J Crop Improv. 2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Overton K, Maino JL, Day R, Umina PA, Bett B, Carnovale D, et al. Global crop impacts, yield losses and action thresholds for fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda): a review. Crop Protect. 2021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jiang YY, Liu J, Zhu XM. Analysis on the occurrence dynamics of invasion and future trend of fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda in China. China Plant Protect. 2019;39(2):33–5.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sun XX, Hu CX, Jia HR, Wu QL, Shen XJ, Zhao SY, et al. Case study on the first immigration of fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda invading into China. J Integr Agr. 2021;20(3):664–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhang L, Liu B, Jiang YY, Liu J, Wu KM, Xiao YT. Molecular characterization analysis of fall armyworm populations in China. Plant Protect. 2019;45(4):20–7.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wang L, Chen KW, Lu YY. Long-distance spreading speed and trend predication of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. China J Environ Entomol. 2019;41(4):683–94.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jiang YY, Liu J, Xie MC, Li YH, Yang JJ, Zhang ML, et al. Observation on law of diffusion damage of Spodoptera frugiperda in China in 2019. Plant Protect. 2019;45(6):10–19.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Wu ZW, Shi PQ, Zeng YH, Huang WF, Huang ZQ, Ma XH, et al. Population life tables of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) fed on three host plants. Plant Protect. 2019;45(6):59–64.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Qiu LM, Liu QQ, Yang XJ, Huang XY, Guan RF, Liu BP, et al. Feeding and oviposition preference and fitness of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), on rice and maize. Acta Entomol Sin. 2020;63(5):604–12.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sun Y, Liu XG, Lv GQ, Hao XZ, Li SH, Li GP. Comparison of population fitness of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) feeding on wheat and different varieties of maize. Plant Protect. 2020;46(4):126–31.

    Google Scholar 

  17. He LM, Wu QL, Gao XW, Wu KM. Population life tables for the invasive fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda fed on major oil crops planted in China. J Integr Agr. 2020;19:2–11.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fahrasmane L, Parfait B, Aurore G. Bananas, a source of compounds with health properties. Acta Hortic. 2014;1040:75–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nyine M, Uwimana B, Swennen R, Batte M, Brown A, Christelova P, et al. Trait variation and genetic diversity in a banana genomic selection training population. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(6): e0178734.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Martínez-Solorzano GE, Rey-Brina JC, Pargas-Pichardo RE, Enrique-Manzanilla E. Fusarium wilt by tropical race 4: current status and presence in the American continent. Agron Mesoamericana. 2020;31(1):259–76.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Drenth A, Kema G. The vulnerability of bananas to globally emerging disease threats. Phytopathology. 2021;111(12):2146–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Martínez-Solorzano GU, Rey-Brina JC. Bananas (Musa AAA): importance, production and trade in Covid-19 times. Agron Mesoamericana. 2021;32(3):1034–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Guedes RNC, Zanuncio TV, Zanuncio JC, Medeiros AGB. Species richness and fluctuation of defoliator Lepidoptera populations in Brazilian plantations of Eucalyptus grandis as affected by plant age and weather factors. Forest Ecol Manag. 2000;137:179–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Saeed S, Sayyed AH, Ahmad I. Effect of host plants on life-history traits of Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J Pest Sci. 2010;83:165–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kajita Y, Evans EW. Alfalfa fields promote high reproductive rate of an invasive predatory lady beetle. Biol Invasions. 2010;12(7):2293–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Moanaro, Choudhary JS. Influence of weather parameters on population dynamics of thrips and mites on summer season cowpea in Eastern Plateau and Hill region of India. J Agrometeorol. 2016;18(2):296–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Elsensohn JE, Schal C, Burrack HJ. Plasticity in oviposition site selection behavior in Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in relation to adult density and host distribution and quality. J Econ Entomol. 2021;114(4):1517–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Umbanhowar J, Hastings A. The impact of resource limitation and the phenology of parasitoid attack on the duration of insect herbivore outbreaks. Theor Popul Biol. 2002;62(3):259–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sequeira R, Dixon AFG. Life history responses to host quality changes and competition in the Turkey-oak aphid, Myzocallis boerneri (Hemiptera: Sternorrhyncha: Callaphididae). Eur J Entomol. 1996;93(1):53–8.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Awmack CS, Leather SR. Host plant quality and fecundity in herbivorous insects. Annu Rev Entomol. 2022;47:817–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zalucki MP, Daglish G, Firempong S, Twine P. The biology and ecology of Heliothis armigera (Hubner) and H. punctigera Wallengren (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Australia: what do we know? Aust J Zool. 1986;34:779–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wang WQ, Zheng YQ, Chen B, Soukasmone P, Xiao GL. Effects of different host plants on the growth, development and fecundity of potato tuber moth Phthorimaea operculella based on the age-stage two-sex life table. J Plant Protect. 2020;47(3):488–96.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Chi H, Liu H. Two new methods for the study of insect population ecology. Bull I Zool. 1985;24(2):225–40.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Chi H. Life-table analysis incorporating both sexes and variable development rates among individuals. Environ Entomol. 1988;17(1):26–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Chi H, Su HY. Age-stage, two-sex life tables of Aphidius gifuensis (Ashmead) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and its host Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Homoptera: Aphididae) with mathematical proof of the relationship between female fecundity and the net reproductive rate. Popul Ecol. 2006;35(1):10–21.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Qi X, Fu JW, You MS. Age-stage, two-sex life table and its application in population ecology and integrated pest management. Acta Entomol Sin. 2019;62(2):255–62.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Xie W, Zhi JR, Ye JQ, Zhou YM, Li C, Liang YJ, et al. Age-stage, two-sex life table analysis of Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) reared on maize and kidney bean. Chem Biol Technol Ag. 2021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Prasanna BM, Huesing JE, Eddy R, Peschke VM. Fall armyworm in Africa: a guide for integrated pest management. 1st ed. Mexico: The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center; 2018.

  39. Chi H. TWOSEX-MSChart: a computer program for the age-stage, two-sex life table analysis. 2022. National Chung Hsing University, Taichung Taiwan. Accessed 21 Feb 2022.

  40. Jha RK, Chi H, Tang LC. A comparison of artificial diet and hybrid sweet corn for the rearing of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) based on life table characteristics. Environ Entomol. 2012;41(1):30–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Goodman D. Optimal life histories, optimal notation, and the value of reproductive value. Am Nat. 1982;119(6):803–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Cai WZ, Pang XF, Hua BZ, Liang GW, Song DL. General entomology. 2nd ed. Beijing: China gricultural University Press; 2011. p. 443.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wu KM. Management strategies of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in China. Plant Protect. 2020;46(2):1–5.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Sharanabasappa SD, Kalleshwaraswamy CM, Maruthi MS, Pavithra HB. Biology of invasive fall army worm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on maize. Indian J Entomol. 2018;80(3):540–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Prasifka JR, Bradshaw JD, Meagher RL, Nagoshi RN, Steffey KL, Gray ME. Development and feeding of fall armyworm on Miscanthus × giganteus and switchgrass. J Econ Entomol. 2009;102(6):2154–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Barros EM, Torres JB, Ruberson JR, Oliveira MD. Development of Spodoptera frugiperda on different hosts and damage to reproductive structures in cotton. Entomol Exp Appl. 2010;137(3):237–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhao M, Yang JG, Wang ZY, Zhu JS, Jiang YY, Xu ZC, et al. Spodoptera frugiperda were found damaging potato in Shandong province. Plant Protect. 2019;45(6):84–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Huang Q, Ling Y, Jiang T, Pang GQ, Jiang XB, Fu CQ, et al. Feeding preference and adaptability of Spodoptera frugiperda on three host plant. J Environ Entomol. 2019;41(6):1141–5.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Maruthadurai R, Ramesh R. Occurrence, damage pattern and biology of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on fodder crops and green amaranth in Goa India. Phytoparasitica. 2020;48(10):15–23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Acharya R, Malekera MJ, Dhungana SK, Sharma SR, Lee KY. Impact of rice and potato host plants is higher on the reproduction than growth of corn strain fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insects. 2022.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Zou CH, Yang JJ. Spodoptera frugiperda harms Coix. China Plant Protect. 2019;39(8):47.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Liu YQ, Wang XQ, Zhong YW. Fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda feeding on cabbage in Zhejiang. Plant Protect. 2019;45(6):90–1.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Zhou SC, Li SB, Su RR, Wang XY, Zheng XL, Lu W. Preliminary report on the damage of Spodoptera frugiperda on Maranta arundinacea in Guangxi. Plant Protect. 2020;46(2):209–211+221.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Fang M, Yao L, Tang QF, Li GT, Jiang XC. Feeding adaptability of fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda to several weeds. J Plant Protect. 2020;47(5):1055–61.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Moraes T, da Silva AF, Leite NA, Karam D, Mendes SM. Survival and development of fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in weeds during the off-season. Fla Entomol Soc. 2020;103(2):288–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Guangxi Agriculture and Rural Affairs Bureau: Agricultural Technology Promotion Column. Accessed 12 Apr2022.

  57. Thompson JN. Evolutionary ecology of the relationship between oviposition preference and performance of offspring in phytophagous insects. Entomol Exp Appl. 1988;47(1):3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Reigada C, Guimaraes KF, Parra JRP. Relative fitness of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on seven host plants: a perspective for IPM in Brazil. J Insect Sci. 2016;16(1):1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Qin JD. The physiological bases of host-plant specificity of phytophagous insects. Acta Entomol Sin. 1980;23(1):106–22.

    Google Scholar 

  60. He LM, Zhao SY, Wu KM. Study on the damage of fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda to peanut. Plant Protect. 2020;46(1):28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Jones BC, Despland E. Effects of synchronization with host plant phenology occur early in the larval development of a spring folivore. Can J Zool. 2006;84(4):628–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Chen Y, Ruberson JR, Olson DM. Nitrogen fertilization rate affects feeding, larval performance, and oviposition preference of the beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua, on cotton. Entomol Exp Appl. 2008;126(3):244–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Luo GH, Yao J, Yang Q, Zhang ZC, Hoffmann AA, Fang JC. Variability in development of the striped rice borer, Chilo suppressalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), due to instar number and last instar duration. Sci Rep. 2016;6(1):35231.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Kotiaho JS, Simmons LW. Longevity cost of reproduction for males but no longevity cost of mating or courtship for females in the male-dimorphic dung beetle Onthophagus binodis. J Insect Physiol. 2003;49:817–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Liu HY, Ueno T. The importance of food and host on the fecundity and longevity of a host-feeding parasitoid wasp. J Fac Agr Kyushu U. 2012;57(1):121–5.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Grandison RC, Piper MDW, Partridge L. Amino acid imbalance explains extension of lifespan by dietary restriction in Drosophila. Nature. 2009;24(7276):1061–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We are grateful to Prof. Hsin Chi of the National Chung Hsing University in Taiwan for providing the "age-stage, two-sex life table" software.


This work was funded by China Guangxi Innovation-Driven Projects, grant number AA17202017 and Guangxi Key Laboratory of Agro-environment and Agric-products safety.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



SCZ contributed to experimental work, data analysis, and writing the article. YXQ established S. frugiperda laboratory colonies and recorded experimental data. XYW directed the experiments and edited the original draft. WL and XLZ designed experiments and performed project administration, supervision, review, and editing of the original draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wen Lu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

The damage of Spodoptera frugiperda to bananas.

Additional file 2.

Spodoptera frugiperda larvae on bananas.

Additional file 3.

The oviposition site of Spodoptera frugiperda to bananas.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhou, S., Qin, Y., Wang, X. et al. Fitness of the fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda to a new host plant, banana (Musa nana Lour.). Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 9, 78 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: