VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE FACULTY OF AGRONOMY UNDERGRADUATE THESIS TITLE: “RESEARCH ON PHEROMONE LURES AND TRAPS FOR MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT OF THE FALL ARMYWORM Spodoptera frugiperda (J E Smith) ON MAIZE IN VINH PHUC, VIETNAM 2020” Student : PHAM TRUNG KIEN Code : 611611 Class : K61KHCTT Supervisor : Dr TRAN THI THU PHUONG Department : ENTOMOLOGY HA NOI – 2021 THE GUARANTEE I hereby guarantee that this undergraduate thesis is my research work The graduation thesis research data and results are honest and have never been published The information cited in this graduation thesis has a clear origin Any assistances in implementing this study has been appreciated i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT In order to complete the undergraduate thesis, in addition to my own endeavors, I have received enthusiastic support and guidance from teachers, family, and friends First of all, I would like to express my earnest gratitude to Dr NGUYEN THI THU PHUONG, Department of Entomology, Vietnam National University of Agriculture directly instructed me wholeheartedly and helped me in the process of completing my graduation thesis I would like to express my sincere thanks to all the teachers of the Department of Entomology, Vietnam National University of Agriculture for their support, making the best conditions for me to implement my graduation thesis Finally, I would like to sincerely thank my family, relatives, friends who have helped and encouraged me throughout the process of doing the thesis This thesis is hard to avoid shortcomings I hope to get the remarks of teachers and readers My sincere thanks! Hanoi, March 4th, 2021 Student PHAM TRUNG KIEN ii TABLE OF CONTENT THE GUARANTEE i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii TABLE OF CONTENT iii LIST OF ABBREVIATION vi LIST OF TABLE vii LIST OF FIGURE viii LIST OF DIAGRAM ix ABSTRACT x PART I: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Objective and Requirement 1.2.1 Objectives 1.2.2 Requirements PART II: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Research over the World 2.1.1 Taxonomic Tree 2.1.2 Distribution 2.1.3 Symptoms 2.1.4 Damage 2.1.5 Description and Life Cycle 2.1.6 Host Range 2.1.7 Management 2.1.8 Female sex pheromone of fall armyworm 11 2.2 Research in Vietnam 14 2.2.1 Situation 14 2.2.2 Symptoms 16 2.2.3 Morphological and biological of fall armyworm 17 iii 2.2.4 Management 17 2.2.5 Sex pheromone application in Vietnam 18 PART III: MATERIAL AND METHOD 19 3.1 Objectives and Materials 19 3.2 Location and Time 19 3.3 Target 19 3.4 Methods 20 3.4.1 Field survey 20 3.4.2 Method of rearing insect in experiments of biological characteristic of S frugiperda 21 3.4.3 Method of investigation the method applied pheromone lures and traps on the field 23 3.4.4 Calculation methods 27 3.4.5 Data processing 28 PART IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 29 4.1 Harmful symptoms of fall armyworm in Vinh Phuc, Hanoi 29 4.2 Morphological characteristic of fall armyworm 30 4.3 Biological characteristic of fall armyworm 35 4.3.1 Fall armyworm size 35 4.3.2 Development time 37 4.3.3 Food consuming ability 39 4.3.4 Mortality and sex ratio 40 4.4 Pheromone lure types experiment in Vinh Phuc 41 4.5 Pheromone trap types experiment in Vinh Phuc 44 4.6 Pheromone trap height experiment in Vinh Phuc 48 4.7 Pheromone trap distance experiment in Vinh Phuc 49 PART V: CONCLUSION 52 5.1 Conclusion 52 5.2 Recommendation 52 REFERENCES 53 iv APPENDIX 57 v LIST OF ABBREVIATION FAO Food and Agriculture Organization CABI Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International FAW Fall armyworm TM Treatment vi LIST OF TABLE Table 2.1 Vietnam corn planted and FAW infected area from October 2019 to May 2020 16 Table 4.1 Head capsule width of larvae fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda 35 Table 4.2 Length, width and weight of pupa and wingspan ranged of male and female adult fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda 36 Table 4.3 The development time of male and female adult fall armyworm 38 Table 4.4 Food consuming ability of larvae fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda on maize 39 Table 4.5 Mortality of fall armyworm in laboratory 40 Table 4.6 The density of fall armyworm on the maize field of pheromone experiment in Vinh Phuc 2020 41 Table 4.7 Number of male adult captured in different pheromone lure types in Vinh Phuc 2020 43 Table 4.8 The density of fall armyworm on the maize field of pheromone trap colour and Chinese trap experiment compare to control in Vinh Phuc 2020 45 Table 4.9 Number of male adult captured in different pheromone traps colour (window) in Vinh Phuc 2020 46 Table 4.10 Number of male adult captured in different pheromone traps colour (funnel) in Vinh Phuc 2020 47 Table 4.11 The density of fall armyworm on the maize field of pheromone trap height experiment in Vinh Phuc 2020 48 Table 4.12 Number of male adult captured in different pheromone traps height experiment in Vinh Phuc 2020 49 Table 4.13 The density of fall armyworm on the maize field of distance pheromone trap experiment in Vinh Phuc 2020 50 Table 4.14 Number of male adult captured in different pheromone traps distance experiment in Vinh Phuc 2020 50 vii LIST OF FIGURE Figure 3.1 Sample scouting pattern for maize 21 Figure 3.2 Rearing fall armyworm eggs in plastic box 22 Figure 3.3 Mating cage (A); Plastic cage for mating pairs (B) 23 Figure 3.4 Bucket funnel trap 25 Figure 3.5 Hand-made trap (funnel) (A); Hand-made trap (windown) (B); Chinese trap (C) 25 Figure 4.1 First instar's symptom 29 Figure 4.2 Second to sixth instar’s symptom 30 Figure 4.3 Egg masses of Fall armyworm 31 Figure 4.4 First instar larvae Figure 4.5 Second instar larvae 32 Figure 4.6 Third instar larvae Figure 4.7 Fourth instar larvae 32 Figure 4.8 Fifth instar larvae Figure 4.9 Sixth instar larvae 33 Figure 4.10 Pupa of fall armyworm 34 Figure 4.11 Female adult (A); Male adult (B) 34 viii LIST OF DIAGRAM Diagram 3.1 Pheromone lure types experiment 24 Diagram 3.2 Pheromone trap colour (windown) experiment 26 Diagram 3.3 Pheromone trap colour (funnel) experiment 26 ix Within Groups 13.500 58 Total 13.650 59 000 000 Within Groups 11.733 58 202 Total 11.733 59 267 267 Within Groups 9.333 58 161 Total 9.600 59 Between Groups 3.267 3.267 Within Groups 26.467 58 456 Total 29.733 59 Between Groups 68.267 68.267 Within Groups 79.667 58 1.374 147.933 59 Between Groups Fifth Between Groups Sixth Pupa Life Total 233 000 1.000 1.657 203 7.159 010 49.700 000 \ Food consuming ability Minimum Maximum Std Error of Mean Mean 3rd Instar 78 28.95 1.98 4th Instar 53 239 124.47 5.26 5th Instar 213 1110 610.93 30.30 6th Instar 131 1282 770.63 50.37 1282 408.99 23.90 Total Tukey HSD Food consuming ability N Subset for alpha = 0.05 61 3rd Instar 60 28.9500 4th Instar 60 124.4667 5th Instar 90 6th Instar 60 Sig 610.9333 770.6333 127 1.000 1.000 The density of fall armyworm in control field Mean Std Error of Mean 3-4 leaves 3.20 0.51 6-7 leaves 3.00 0.45 8-9 leaves 1.70 0.30 9-13 leaves 3.30 0.76 10-14 leaves 0.50 0.22 11-14 leaves 0.20 0.13 12-15 leaves 0.00 0.00 12-16 leaves 0.00 0.00 12-16 leaves 0.00 0.00 Total 1.32 0.19 Control Mean Std Error of Mean 3-4 leaves 3.20 0.51 6-7 leaves 3.00 0.45 8-9 leaves 1.70 0.30 9-13 leaves 3.30 0.76 Total 2.80 0.28 The density of fall armyworm of pheromone lure types experiment Mean Std Error of Mean 2-4 leaves 3.20 51 \ 62 5-6 leaves 2.60 69 7-9 leaves 1.50 43 9-12 leaves 50 22 10-12 leaves 40 22 11-14 leaves 10 10 12-15 leaves 00 00 12-16 leaves 00 00 12-16 leaves 00 00 Total 92 16 \ ANOVA The density of fall armyworm on the Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig maize field of pheromone experiment in Vinh Phuc 2020 Between Groups 2-4 leaves 000 000 Within Groups 47.200 18 2.622 Total 47.200 19 800 800 Within Groups 60.400 18 3.356 Total 61.200 19 200 200 Within Groups 24.600 18 1.367 Total 24.800 19 Between Groups 39.200 39.200 Within Groups 56.600 18 3.144 Total 95.800 19 Between Groups 5-6 leaves Between Groups 7-9 leaves 9-12 leaves 63 000 1.000 238 631 146 707 12.466 002 Between Groups 10-12 leaves 050 050 Within Groups 8.900 18 494 Total 8.950 19 050 050 Within Groups 2.500 18 139 Total 2.550 19 Between Groups 000 000 Within Groups 000 18 000 Total 000 19 Between Groups 000 000 Within Groups 000 18 000 Total 000 19 Between Groups 000 000 Within Groups 000 18 000 Total 000 19 Between Groups 11-14 leaves 12-15 leaves 12-16 leaves 12-16 leaves 101 754 360 556 \ Pheromone lure types experiment Minimum Maximum Sum Mean Std Error of Mean % of Total Sum TM1 104 1730 18.60 2.16 19.70% TM2 96 1748 18.80 2.34 19.90% TM3 159 1933 20.78 3.17 22.00% TM4 43 131 1.41 0.62 1.50% TM5 45 156 1.68 0.52 1.80% TM6 103 1038 11.16 1.66 11.80% TM7 85 1237 13.30 1.81 14.10% TM8 2.44 9.20% 148 811 64 8.72 TM9 Total 0.10 0.03 0.10% 159 8793 10.51 0.69 100.00% Tukey HSD Pheromone lure N Subset for alpha = 0.05 types experiment TM9 93 0968 TM4 93 1.4086 1.4086 TM5 93 1.6774 1.6774 TM8 93 TM6 93 11.1613 11.1613 TM7 93 13.3011 13.3011 13.3011 TM1 93 18.6022 18.6022 TM2 93 18.7957 18.7957 TM3 93 Sig 8.7204 8.7204 20.7849 1.000 147 749 109 126 The density of fall armyworm of pheromone trap colour experiment TM1 TM2 3-4 leaves Mean 2.90 1.90 Std Error of Mean 0.35 0.53 Mean 1.60 1.20 Std Error of Mean 0.78 0.70 Mean 0.40 0.20 Std Error of Mean 0.22 0.20 Mean 0.30 0.10 Std Error of Mean 0.15 0.10 Mean 1.30 0.85 5-6 leaves 7-8 leaves 9-11 leaves Total 65 Std Error of Mean 0.27 The density of fall armyworm of Chinese trap experiment Mean Std Error of Mean 3-4 leaves 2.00 0.54 6-7 leaves 2.50 0.22 7-8 leaves 0.90 0.35 9-11 leaves 1.70 0.58 Total 1.78 0.23 Pheromone trap colour (windown) experiment Sum Mean Std Error of Mean Minimum Maximum % of Total Sum Treatment 94 1.08 0.21 12.8% Treatment 209 2.40 0.45 24 28.4% Treatment 105 1.21 0.24 11 14.3% Treatment 107 1.23 0.23 14.5% Treatment 221 2.54 0.62 28 30.0% Total 736 1.69 0.17 28 100.0% \ Tukey HSD Pheromone trap colour N Subset for alpha (windown) experiment = 0.05 Green 1.0767 Blue 1.2067 White 1.2333 Yellow 2.4000 Control 2.5400 Sig .458 66 0.25 Pheromone trap colour (funnel) experiment Std Error of Mean % of Total Sum Minimum Maximum Sum Mean White 27 0.31 0.08 5.90% Green 31 0.36 0.09 6.80% Blue 17 0.20 0.05 3.70% Yellow 46 0.53 0.11 10.10% Control 31 333 3.83 0.76 73.30% Total 31 454 1.04 0.17 100.00% Pheromone trap colour N Subset for alpha = 0.05 (funnel) experiment Blue 87 1954 White 87 3103 Green 87 3563 Yellow 87 5287 Control 87 Sig 3.8276 961 1.000 \ Chinese trap experiment Sum Mean Std Error of Mean Minimum Maximum Treatment 77 89 16 Total 77 89 16 \ 3-4 leaves Tukey HSD 67 Density of fall armyworm on N Subset for alpha the maize field of pheromone = 0.05 trap colour and Chinese trap Trap colour (funnel) 10 1.9000 Chinese trap 10 2.0000 Trap colour (window) 10 2.9000 Control (commercial trap) 10 3.2000 Sig .251 5-6 leaves Tukey HSD Density of fall armyworm on N Subset for alpha the maize field of pheromone = 0.05 trap colour and Chinese trap Trap colour (funnel) 10 1.2000 Trap colour (window) 10 1.6000 Chinese trap 10 2.5000 Control (commercial trap) 10 3.0000 Sig .143 7-8 leaves Tukey HSD Density of fall armyworm on N Subset for alpha = 0.05 the maize field of pheromone trap colour and Chinese trap Trap colour (funnel) 10 2000 68 Trap colour (window) 10 4000 Chinese trap 10 9000 Control (commercial trap) 10 9000 1.7000 Sig .287 184 9-11 leaves Tukey HSD Density of fall armyworm on N Subset for alpha = 0.05 the maize field of pheromone trap colour and Chinese trap Trap colour (funnel) 10 1000 Trap colour (window) 10 3000 Chinese trap 10 1.7000 Control (commercial trap) 10 1.7000 3.3000 Sig .111 111 The density of fall armyworm in pheromone trap height experiment TM1 TM2 TM3 TM4 3-4 leaves Mean 3.20 2.50 2.90 2.40 Std Error of Mean 65 50 38 40 Mean 50 2.60 2.60 2.00 Std Error of Mean 22 96 90 75 Mean 50 20 40 30 Std Error of Mean 22 13 16 15 Mean 20 10 10 10 Std Error of Mean 13 10 10 10 Mean 1.10 1.35 1.50 1.20 Std Error of Mean 26 33 31 26 6-7 leaves 9-10 leaves 9-11 leaves Total \ 69 Tukey HSD Density of fall armyworm on N Subset for alpha the maize field of pheromone = 0.05 trap height experiment 1.7m 10 2.4000 2.0m 10 2.5000 1.5m 10 2.9000 1.2m 10 3.2000 Sig .663 6-7 leaves Tukey HSD Density of fall armyworm on N Subset for alpha the maize field of pheromone = 0.05 trap height experiment 1.2m 10 5000 1.7m 10 2.0000 1.5m 10 2.6000 2.0m 10 2.6000 Sig .227 9-10 leaves Tukey HSD Density of fall armyworm on the maize field of pheromone N Subset for alpha = 0.05 trap height experiment 70 2.0m 10 2000 1.7m 10 3000 1.5m 10 4000 1.2m 10 5000 Sig .608 9-11 leaves Tukey HSD Density of fall armyworm on N Subset for alpha the maize field of pheromone = 0.05 trap height experiment 1.5m 10 1000 1.7m 10 1000 2.0m 10 1000 1.2m 10 2000 Sig .916 Pheromone trap height experiment Sum Mean Std Error of Mean Minimum Maximum % of Total Sum Treatment 185.00 2.13 0.46 0.00 23 29.2% Treatment 113.00 1.30 0.29 0.00 16 17.8% Treatment 180.00 2.07 0.62 0.00 46 28.4% Treatment 156.00 1.79 0.41 0.00 16 24.6% Total 634.00 1.82 0.23 0.00 46 100.0% \ Pheromone trap height experiment N Subset for alpha = 0.05 71 2.0m 1.3000 1.7m 1.7933 1.5m 2.0700 1.2m 2.1267 Sig .776 The density of fall armyworm on the maize field of distance pheromone trap experiment TM1 TM2 TM3 TM4 3-4 leaves Mean 2.70 2.60 2.20 3.20 Std Error of Mean 0.68 0.43 0.65 0.65 Mean 3.60 1.60 2.50 0.70 Std Error of Mean 1.28 0.58 1.00 0.21 Mean 0.30 0.40 0.10 0.50 Std Error of Mean 0.15 0.16 0.10 0.22 Mean 0.90 0.40 0.50 0.20 Std Error of Mean 0.41 0.22 0.22 0.13 Mean 1.88 1.25 1.33 1.15 Std Error of Mean 0.42 0.24 0.34 0.26 6-7 leaves 7-8 leaves 9-11 leaves Total 3-4 leaves Tukey HSD Density of fall armyworm on N Subset for alpha the maize field of distance = 0.05 pheromone trap experiment 30m 10 2.2000 40m 10 2.6000 50m 10 2.7000 72 20m 10 3.2000 Sig .655 6-7 leaves Tukey HSD Density of fall armyworm on N Subset for alpha the maize field of distance = 0.05 pheromone trap experiment 20m 10 7000 40m 10 1.6000 30m 10 2.5000 50m 10 3.6000 Sig .103 7-8 leaves Tukey HSD Density of fall armyworm on N Subset for alpha the maize field of distance = 0.05 pheromone trap experiment 30m 10 1000 50m 10 3000 40m 10 4000 20m 10 5000 Sig .336 9-11 leaves 73 Tukey HSD Density of fall armyworm on N Subset for alpha the maize field of distance = 0.05 pheromone trap experiment 20m 10 2000 40m 10 4000 30m 10 5000 50m 10 9000 Sig .262 Pheromone trap distance experiment Minimum Maximum Sum Mean Std Error of Mean % of Total Sum Treatment 17 189 2.17 0.45 23.4% Treatment 24 234 2.69 0.57 29.0% Treatment 27 198 2.28 0.56 24.6% Treatment 23 185 2.13 0.46 23.0% Total 27 806 2.32 0.26 100.0% Tukey HSD Pheromone N Subset for alpha trap distance = 0.05 experiment 20m 2.1267 50m 2.1767 30m 2.2767 40m 2.6900 Sig .943 74 75