Abstract
Economic losses from insect herbivory in agroecosystems has driven the development of integrated pest management strategies that reduce pest incidence and damage; however, traditional chemicals-based control is either being complemented or substituted with sustainable and integrated methods. Major sustainable pest management strategies revolve around improving host plant resistance, and one of these traits of interest is Brown midrib (BMR). Originally developed to increase nutritional value and ease of digestion for animal agriculture, BMR is a recessive plant gene usually found in annual grasses, including sorghum and sorghum-sudangrass hybrids. In sorghum-sudangrass, BMR expressed plants have lower amounts of lignin, which produces a less fibrous, more digestible crop, with possible implications for plant defense against herbivores- an area currently unexplored. Fall Armyworm (FAW; Spodoptera frugiperda) is a ruinous pest posing immense threat for sorghum producers by severely defoliating crops and being present in every plant stage. Using FAW, we tested the effect of seed treatment, BMR, and plant age on FAW growth, development, and plant defense responses in sorghum-sudangrass. Our results show that seed treatment did not affect growth or development, or herbivory. However, presence of BMR significantly reduced pupal mass relative to its non-BMR counterpart, alongside a significant reduction in adult mass. We also found that plant age was a major factor as FAW gained significantly less mass, had longer pupation times, and had lower pupal mass on the oldest plant stage explored, 60-days, compared to younger plants. These findings collectively show that pest management strategies should consider plant age, and that the effects of BMR on plant defenses should also be studied.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), is one of the most agriculturally important crops grown across the world, historically being grown for centuries in Africa and Asia1.However, sorghum production in the United States has exponentially increased since the 1980s, and the United States is now producing approximately 25% of the world’s sorghum crop1,2. Similar to other grasses, sorghum and sorghum-sudangrass (Sorghum x drummondii) face attack from over 150 insect species, many of them attacking specific parts of the plant that include, but are not limited to, sorghum shoot fly (Atherigona soccata), multiple stem borers (Chilo partellus, Busseola fusca, Diatraea saccharalis), armyworms (Spodoptera exemtpa and S. frugiperda), aphids (Melanaphis sacchari, Schizaphis graminum), amongst others3,4. To combat the large swath of pests that constantly damage sorghum leading to yield loss, growers employ various management strategies not only based on target pests, but also reliant on cost and location. For example, in North America Lepidopteran pests have historically been managed in sorghum, maize, and similar crops primarily through transgenic hybrid crops expressing the insecticidal properties of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), or genetically altered crops to produce elevated levels of defense compounds, one example being flavonoids5,6.Conversely, in Asian and African agricultural systems with smaller holding sizes, cultural practices involving early planting and intercropping are the primary methods utilized for the management of sorghum pests6,7.
While cultural practices are well incorporated in many regions, they have not been found to be the most impactful in reducing yield loss due to herbivory8 and similarly Bt crops have shown accelerated Bt resistance in insect populations from fields without lengthy exposure to use of Bt crops9,10. This unfilled gap in easily applied sorghum-pest control, paired with the increase in sorghum production in the United States warrants new integrated pest control management strategies be developed. Alongside this rapid increase in sorghum production comes a rapid increase of sorghum pests the region is not accustomed to managing- and fall armyworm, FAW (Spodoptera frugiperda)11 is a major one.
FAW is a widely distributed, polyphagous generalist herbivore pest known primarily for its destructive defoliation during larval stages12,13,14. Despite its destructive notoriety, FAW appears to be recently emerging in regions unable to manage them such as Egypt15, Uganda16, and India17,18,19, and it is forecasted to extend more as global climate patterns change20. Additionally, since Bt and cultural practices may not achieve the desired level of FAW control, research has shifted toward harsher insecticide practices and in particular, seed treatments21,22. While Muraro’s group22 found a reduction in FAW damage on seed treated maize plants 7 and 14 days after emergence, after 20 days seed treated maize showed no difference in FAW damage when compared to maize without seed treatments. Chanda’s group21 also observed a delayed infestation via seed treatment coatings in maize; however, failed to find any decrease in FAW damage after infestation. Another study23 evaluated the effect of seed treatments on FAW via laboratory bioassays of soybean seed treatments and found significant reductions in FAW survival in most treatment evaluations within key growth stages. Clearly, there is an urgent need to explore alternative methods to manage FAW, including a closer look at host plant resistance.
Brown midrib (BMR) is a recessive plant trait that is visually seen as a reddish-brown pigmentation in the leaf midrib and stem of the plant, usually in sorghum, maize, and millets24. The reddish-brown pigmentation has largely been found to be associated with lower lignin levels, alongside an assumed increase of its digestibility as forage24,25,26,27. For example, studies have found BMR plants lower in neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent lignin (ADL) concentrations when compared to non-BMR genotypes28. The increased digestibility because of lower lignin content has implications for animal agriculture, as dairy cow milk yield, milk protein, and milk fat content was not affected by a BMR diet, which is lower in cost to the producer, when compared to a traditional corn silage diet29. In integrated pest management, BMR has been found to have differential effects based on the type of insect pest being controlled, as a result of the genetic changes to the plant from the BMR trait30,31,32. For example, Dowd31 found Lepidopteran pests (H. zea, S. frugiperda) weighed significantly less when feeding on BMR leaves than those feeding on wild-type leaves, and mortality showed similar trend. Much of the implications of BMR as it relates to insects revolves around pest species, primarily herbivores, but involves resistance against microorganisms and diseases as well33,34,35. Because of its increased digestibility, it has been thought that BMR plants are generally more susceptible to insect herbivory. However, a study shows a neutral result when looking at digestibility as a factor, showing that final instar Southern armyworm (Persectania ewingii) that were fed seedling Triticum aestivum with differing amounts of NDF, neutral detergent solubles, and dry matter, did not lead to increased mass gain in the caterpillars regardless of higher digestibility, nor was there a difference in overall consumption33. Another group, while they found no difference in consumption between BMR and non-BMR plants, found BMR plants had significantly higher density of thrips, corn leaf aphids (Rhopalosiphum maidis), and were also more susceptible to FAW34. Collectively, the results from these studies warrant additional examination of BMR on insect herbivory.
While higher in digestibility, there are concerns that reduced lignin makes BMR mutant plants more vulnerable to stalk rot and weaker in stalk strength. Similar to caterpillars not gaining increased mass on BMR plants, Tesso and Ejeta35 found BMR plants did not exhibit stalk collapse as a result of proposed lower stalk strength, nor were they more susceptible to stalk rot after Macrophomina phaseolina inoculation. When comparing BMR sorghum to non-BMR sorghum, it was shown that BMR sorghum tissues to be more readily degraded than similar tissues in the non-BMR line36. This was due to BMR plant leaf blades having significantly lower NDF, blades and sheaths lower in permanganate lignin (PML), and tissues higher in in vitro dry matter digestibility36. Mutant BMR plants showed higher levels of aldehydes, alongside increased presence of benzodioxane when compared to wild type leaves37. BMR plants have also been found to have lower trans-p-coumaric acid concentrations, and a lower p-coumaric acid to ferulic acid ratio28. Coumaric acid is known to be used by plants to induce defense strategies, primarily against insects38. Coumaric acid directly deterred both S. litura and Amsacta albistriga via antiherbivore effects, while indirectly deterring both herbivores via natural enemy attraction, the parasitoid Trichogramma chilonis39. Similar antibiosis effects of coumaric acid have been observed in other lepidopterans, such as Chilo partellus40. The mechanism of its anti-herbivory properties has been explained by Lim41, which found coumaric acid inhibiting tyrosinase, a known key enzyme for the insect molting process. Since most studies on BMR and pest management shows differential and species-specific effects, our goal was to critically examine how the differences between BMR and non-BMR sorghum affects FAW life history traits, and whether they are affected by host plant age.
To examine the role of BMR, plant age, and in host plant resistance of sorghum-sudangrass hybrids against FAW, we used a combination of greenhouse and lab experiments utilizing three sorghum-sudangrass genotypes: two BMR and one non-BMR genotype each with a seed treatment made up of two fungicides, fludioxonil and metalaxyl, and our insecticide being evaluated, spinosad, treated by and obtained from Richardson Seeds (Vega, Texas, USA) alongside non-treated control seeds. We used sorghum-sudangrass as our study system since the crop is commonly grown for feed, has been previously used for similar studies42, and was commercially available with BMR and non-BMR genotypes. We then designed FAW growth and development bioassays structured around the following questions: (1) does the presence of BMR influence the growth and development of FAW under short exposure (2) does the presence of BMR influence the amount of herbivory on sorghum-sudangrass plants at different plant ages, (3) do commercially available seed treatments influence the growth and development of FAW, and (4) whether FAW exposed to BMR sorghum-sudangrass or seed-treated sorghum-sudangrass are able to pupate and eclose successfully, measured in pupal and adult mass? We hypothesized that BMR will have differential effects on the growth and development of FAW on BMR sorghum-sudangrass but also on herbivory related injury suffered by the plant. We predicted that older sorghum-sudangrass plants will be more detrimental to FAW development, based on a previous study that reported more damage on younger BMR leaves and significantly less damage on older BMR leaves31. We also hypothesized that seed-treated sorghum-sudangrass will have little to no effect on the growth and development of FAW, nor will it reduce its herbivory as multiple studies have shown low success of systemic insecticides, especially in later instars43,44.
Materials and methods
Plant material-sorghum-sudangrass
For all sorghum-sudangrass plant genotypes (S425 - No BMR) treated and untreated, S60 (Contains BMR) treated and untreated, S72 (Contains BMR) treated and untreated, described in this study were obtained from Richardson Seeds (Richardson Seeds Ltd, Vega, Texas, USA). These genotypes were chosen because of their similarities in growth traits. Plants were grown in DL33 Deepot Tree Pots (6.9 cm diameter, 20.3 cm deep, Greenhouse Megastore, Danville, Illinois, USA) with seeds being sown in LB15 potting soil (Farmers Co-Op, Van Buren, Arkansas, USA). The plants were fertilized with Osmocote Plus 15-9-12 (ICL Specialty Fertilizers) every 14 days and received iron chelate micronutrient (Sprint 330 Chelated Iron 10%) every 14 days. Plants were grown in a greenhouse with a 16-h-light/8-h-dark photoperiod, 28 °C, 50–60% relative humidity. The following experiments were replicated on all three of the following sorghum-sudangrass stages, indicated in days after germination: 10-days old (3-leaf stage), 25-days old (panicle inflation stage), 60-days old (booting stage). Voucher specimens for the species have been previously deposited (after identification) at herbarium from previous work on this species. Permissions to conduct experiments and collect seeds have been obtained from the seed company. All experimental protocols followed institutional, national, and international guidelines and legislation.
Insects- fall armyworm
FAW were purchased as eggs (Frontier Agricultural, Newark, Delaware, USA). FAW eggs were allowed to hatch inside the laboratory at 25 °C and were then reared on an artificial wheat-based germ diet (Product Code: F9772; Frontier Agricultural, Newark, Delaware, USA). The diet was made as per specifications from the supplier, as well as our previous work: 1000 mL of water was heated in an iron cooking pot on a hot plate with mechanical stirring until boiling, followed by the addition of 200 g of General-Purpose Lepidoptera Diet added in slowly to be thoroughly mixed without clumping. Once thoroughly mixed, 8 g Agar powder was added into the mixture and mixed thoroughly again. The completed mixture was added to plastic Sterilite 6-quart storage boxes (Walmart; Bentonville, Arkansas, USA) and left at room temperature for 4 hours for cooling before being refrigerated42.
Experiments
Snapshot exposure experiment
FAW were reared on artificial diet until reaching 2nd instar, at which larvae were then weighed before being placed on sorghum-sudangrass plants in the greenhouse. FAW were placed within bags, and these bags were then securely tied to sorghum-sudangrass plants using drawstring organza bags (10.2 cm × 15.2 cm, Volcanic, Amazon, Seattle, Washington, USA) with one FAW per plant. Fifteen caterpillars were individually placed on each plant per each of the 6 treatments, S425 (non-BMR) treated and untreated, S60 (BMR) treated and untreated, S72 (BMR) treated and untreated (N = 90), alongside 30 caterpillars continuing to be reared on artificial diet as a control (N = 30). FAW fed on plant material within the bag for 48 h before being removed from the plant and weighed again. Plant tissue fed on by FAW was then scaled from 0–4 to analyze extent of herbivory on each individual plant45. Pre-exposure and post-exposure mass were then used to calculate mass gain normalized for initial mass42. This experiment was replicated on all three of the stated sorghum-sudangrass stages, 10-days old (3-leaf stage), 25-days old (panicle inflation stage), 60-days old (booting stage).
Continuous FAW exposure experiment with fresh leaves
For this experiment, FAW eggs were allowed to hatch inside the laboratory at 25 ℃ and were then reared exclusively on freshly cut sorghum-sudangrass leaves (leaves harvested for these bioassays were from young, fully developed from the top, ~10 leaves) from each of the six treatments: S425 (non-BMR) treated and untreated, S60 (BMR) treated and untreated, S72 (BMR) treated and untreated, N = 120. FAW were individually placed in plastic cups closed with lids (Dart Container Corporation, Mason, Michigan, USA) with enough plant material to never be starved. Cups were cleaned daily to avoid excess humidity and frass, alongside sorghum-sudangrass leaves replaced daily. Twenty caterpillars were reared on an artificial wheat-based germ diet, as described previously, to serve as control, N = 20. Once caterpillars reached 2nd instar, they were weighed daily for analysis of growth and development46. This experiment was also replicated on all three stages, 10-days old (3-leaf stage), 25-days old (panicle inflation stage), 60-days old (booting stage).
Plant-based diet exposure experiment
In this experiment, FAW eggs were allowed to hatch inside the laboratory at 25 ℃ and were then reared on different artificial wheat-germ-based diets. Control diet was made following supplier specifications of 1000 mL water, 8 g agar powder, and 200 g Lepidopteran diet powder; however, plant-based diets were made with the addition of 10% plant material (plant material was selected from the top of the plant, taking multiple, large fully developed leaves), such as 20 g plant material: 180 g Lepidopteran diet powder, based on our previous studies42 to test host plant toxicity under controlled conditions. For this experiment, freshly collected leaf material was finely ground using mortar-and-pestle, and then added to the diet just before cooling. FAW were then placed prior to hatching on plant-based diets from each of the 6 treatments, S425 (non-BMR) treated and untreated, S60 (BMR) treated and untreated, S72 (BMR) treated and untreated, and control, N = 140, in the similar plastic cups as mentioned before. Artificial diet was cut into ~1 cm3 blocks and replaced every 2 days to avoid desiccation and excessive moisture build up in the cup. Once caterpillars reached 2nd instar, they were weighed daily for estimating growth and development. This experiment was also replicated with plant material from all three sorghum-sudangrass stages, 10-days old (3-leaf stage), 25-days old (Panicle Inflation Stage), 60-days old (Booting Stage).
Statistical analysis
For all the experiments, our statistical model had four factors: sorghum-sudangrass age (10d, 25d, 60d), sorghum-sudangrass genotype (S425, S60, S72) seed treatment (untreated, treated), and BMR presence (No BMR, contains BMR).We pooled genotypes to narrow our scope to age, seed treatment, and BMR presence, and used Analysis of Variance for continuous variables (Total Mass Gain, Early Mass Gain, Late Mass Gain, Time to Pupation, Pupal Mass, and Adult Mass), and Ordinal logistic regression for discrete scale date (Plant Damage). Pairwise post hoc comparisons were carried out using Tukey’s test.
Results
Snapshot exposure experiment
Mass gain
Pre- and post-exposure caterpillar weights (g) were recorded and mass gain was then calculated expressed as a %.
Mass gain analysis for the effect of BMR (ANOVA: P < 0.0001, Fig. 1a) found no significant difference between BMR (Mean ± SE, 155.3 ± 11.69), and non-BMR (189.4 ± 21.48), yet BMR (P = 0.0047) and non-BMR (P < 0.0001) both FAW gained significantly more mass than the artificial diet control (100.67 ± 8.736). Mass gain analysis for the effect of seed treatment (ANOVA: P = 0.0002, Fig. 1b) found no significant difference between treated (169.8 ± 16.93), and untreated (164.2 ± 13.4), yet treated (P = 0.0009) and untreated (P = 0.0016) both gained significantly more FAW mass than the artificial diet control (100.7 ± 8.734). Mass gain analysis for the effect of plant age (ANOVA: P < 0.0001, Fig. 1c) found caterpillars exposed to 25-day (170.8 ± 13.2; P = 0.0002) and 60-day (166.9 ± 18.2, P = 0.0021) plants gained significantly more mass than caterpillars exposed to 10-day plants (100.3 ± 9.04).
Plant damage
Plant damage was measured on a scale (0–4; 0:0%, 1:25%, 2:50%, 3:75%, 4:100%) following the methods described previously45. There was no difference in plant damage between BMR plants, and non-BMR plants (ordinal logistic regression (OLR): P = 0.8370, Fig. 2a), and between seed-treated and untreated plants (OLR: P = 0.8718, Fig. 2b); however, 10-day old plants had significantly more caterpillar damage (OLR: P < 0.0001, Fig. 2c) than 25-day and 60-day old plants.
Continuous fresh leaf exposure experiment
Total average mass gain
Total average mass gain (%) was calculated from the mean of each caterpillar’s daily growth. Mass gain analysis for the effect of BMR (ANOVA: P = 0.0088; Fig. 3a) on caterpillars fed on fresh leaves continuously, found that caterpillars fed on BMR plants (43.11 ± 8.00) gained significantly more mass than caterpillars on the artificial diet control (8.85 ± 2.79, P = 0.0065), yet for both there was no significant difference with mass gain on non-BMR plants (26.89 ± 3.88). Mass gain analysis for the effect of seed treatment (ANOVA: P = 0.0066, Fig. 3b) on caterpillars fed on fresh leaves found that caterpillars fed on untreated plants (45.5 ± 9.69) gained significantly more mass than caterpillars on artificial diet control (8.85 ± 2.79; P = 0.046), yet for both there was no significant difference with mass gain on Treated plants (30.18 ± 4.07). Mass gain analysis for the effect of plant age (ANOVA: P < 0.001, Fig. 3c) on caterpillars fed on fresh leaves found that caterpillars fed on 10-day old plants (57.63 ± 11.1) gained significantly more mass (ANOVA: P < 0.001, Fig. 3c) than those fed on 25 (20.86 ± 5.76; P = 0.0053), and 60-day old plants (14.06 ± 1.12; P < 0.0001).
Time to pupation
Time to pupation was calculated from how long it took caterpillars to pupate from their hatching date. Time to pupation (days) analysis for the effect of BMR presence (ANOVA: P < 0.0001, Fig. 4a) on pupation times found no significant difference in pupation times between caterpillars on BMR leaves (26.02 ± 0.31) and non-BMR leaves (25.4 ± 0.99), yet BMR (P < 0.0001) and non-BMR (P = 0.0003) both took significantly longer to pupate than the artificial diet control (21.72 ± 0.46). Time to pupation analysis for the effect of seed treatments (ANOVA: P < 0.0001, Fig. 4b) on pupation times found no significant difference in pupation times between caterpillars on treated leaves (26.1 ± 0.65) and untreated leaves (25.9 ± 0.34) yet treated (P < 0.0001) and untreated (P < 0.0001) both took significantly longer to pupate than the artificial diet control (21.72 ± 0.46). Time to pupation analysis for the effect of plant age (ANOVA: P < 0.0001, Fig. 4c) on pupation times found caterpillars fed on 10-day old leaves (25.3 ± 0.33; P = 0.0137) took significantly longer to pupate than caterpillars fed on 25-day leaves (23.2 ± 0.75; P = 0.0018), which took significantly longer to pupate than those fed on 60-day leaves (19.2 ± 0.98).
Pupal mass
Pupal mass was calculated from pupal mass after the first day of pupation. Pupal mass analysis for the effect of BMR presence (ANOVA: P = 0.0019, Fig. 5a) on pupal mass found that caterpillars that pupated from feeding on BMR leaves (0.154 ± 0.005) had significantly lower pupal mass than the artificial diet control (0.207 ± 0.013; P = 0.0012), although neither had a significant difference in pupal mass than caterpillars fed on non-BMR leaves (0.182 ± 0.012). Pupal mass analysis for the effect of seed treatment (ANOVA: P = 0.0063, Fig 5b) on pupal mass found no significant difference between caterpillars fed on treated leaves (0.161 ± 0.007) and untreated leaves (0.163 ± 0.007), yet the artificial diet control pupae (0.207 ± 0.013) were significantly heavier than both (P=0.0305; P=0.0123 respectively). Pupal analysis for the effect of plant age (ANOVA: P = 0.0026, Fig. 5c) on pupal mass found that caterpillars that pupated from feeding on 25-day old plants (0.214 ± 0.016) were significantly heavier than those fed 10-day old plants (0.175 ± 0.042; P = 0.0311), and 60-day old plants (0.130 ± 0.033; P = 0.0031).
Adult mass
Adult mass was calculated from eclosed pupae. Adult mass analysis for the effect of BMR presence (ANOVA: P = 0.0030, Fig. 6a) on adult mass found that FAW that had fed on BMR leaves (0.179 ± 0.051) were significantly lower in mass than those fed on non-BMR leaves (0.209 ± 0.024; P = 0.0044), and the artificial diet control (0.17 ± 0.012; P = 0.0152). Adult mass analysis for the effect of seed treatment (ANOVA: P = 0.4509, Fig. 6b) on adult mass found that there was no significant difference between adults that had fed on treated (0.148 ± 0.032) leaves, untreated (0.156 ± 0.019) leaves, and the artificial diet control (0.179 ± 0.012). Adult mass analysis for the effect of plant age (ANOVA: P = 0.9031, Fig. 6c) on adult mass found that there was no significant difference between adults that had fed on 10 (0.168 ± 0.013), 25 (0.170 ± 0.02), and 60-day old plants (0.156 ± 0.028).
Plant-based diet exposure experiment
Total average mass gain
Total average mass gain was calculated from the mean of each caterpillar’s daily growth. Mass gain analysis for the effect of BMR presence (ANOVA: P = 0.3854, Fig. 7a) on caterpillars fed on different artificial leaf-diets found no significant differences in mass gain between BMR diets (17.17 ± 2.20), non-BMR diets (22.4 ± 3.57), and the artificial diet control (17.6 ± 2.28). Mass gain analysis for the effect of seed treatment (ANOVA: P = 0.3854, Fig. 7b) on caterpillars fed on seed treated artificial leaf-diets found no significant differences (ANOVA: P = 0.3854, Fig. 7b) in mass gain between treated diets (20.5 ± 0.272), untreated diets (17.1 ± 2.60), and the artificial diet control (17.6 ± 2.28). Mass gain analysis for the effect of plant age (ANOVA: P < 0.0001, Fig. 7c) on caterpillars fed on artificial leaf-diets from different aged plants found caterpillars gained significantly more mass (P < 0.0001) on 10-day old plants (40.5 ± 3.95) than 25-day old plants (14.2 ± 1.37), which were significantly heavier than those on 60-day old plants (1.12 ± 1.02; P = 0.0005).
Time to pupation
Time to pupation was calculated from the length of time required from hatching to pupation. Time to pupation analysis for the effect of BMR presence (ANOVA: P = 0.0134, Fig. 8a) on pupation times found no significant difference in pupation times between caterpillars on BMR leaf-diets (20.05 ± 0.202) and non-BMR leaf diets (20.2 ± 0.238), yet BMR (P = 0.0102) and non-BMR (P = 0.0471) both took significantly less time to pupate than the artificial diet control (21.29 ± 0.45). Time to pupation analysis for the effect of seed treatment (ANOVA: P = 0.0003, Fig. 8b) on pupation times found significantly faster pupation times (P = 0.0120) between caterpillars on untreated leaf-diets (19.7 ± 0.177) than treated leaf-diets (20.6 ± 0.265) and the artificial control diet (25.9 ± 0.34; P = 0.0007). Time to pupation analysis for the effect of plant age (ANOVA: P < 0.0001, Fig. 8c) on pupation times found caterpillars fed on 10-day old diets (18.05 ± 0.088) were significantly faster (P < 0.0001) than 60-day old diets (19.93 ± 0.267), which were significantly faster (P < 0.0001) than those fed on 25-day old diets (21.75 ± 0.172).
Pupal mass
Pupal mass was calculated from pupal mass after the first day of pupation. Pupal mass (g) analysis for the effect of BMR presence (ANOVA: P = 0.0358, Fig. 9a) on pupal mass found that caterpillars that pupated from feeding on BMR diets (0.183 ± 0.004) were significantly lower (P = 0.0311) in mass than those on non-BMR diets (0.204 ± 0.008), although neither were significantly different from the artificial diet control (0.196±0.10). Pupal mass analysis for the effect of seed treatment (ANOVA: P = 0.5938, Fig. 9b) on pupal mass found no significant difference in mass between caterpillars that pupated by feeding on treated leaf-diets (0.187 ± 0.007), untreated leaf-diets (0.194 ± 0.004), and the artificial diet control (0.196 ± 0.057). Pupal mass analysis for the effect of plant age (ANOVA: P= 0.4662, Fig. 9c) on pupal mass found no significant difference in mass between caterpillars that pupated on 10 (0.185 ± 0.006), 25 (0.194 ± 0.005), and 60-day old leaf-diets (0.196 ± 0.0102).
Adult mass
Adult mass was calculated from eclosed pupae. Adult mass analysis for the effect of BMR presence (ANOVA: P = 0.8786, Fig. 10a) in leaf-diets on adult mass found no significant difference in adult mass on BMR diets (0.160±0.012), non-BMR diets (0.155 ± 0.012), and the artificial diet control (0.164 ± 0.010). Adult mass analysis for the effect of seed treatment leaf-diets (ANOVA: P = 0.7736, Fig. 10b) on adult mass found no significant difference in adult mass between treated diets (0.166 ± 0.02), untreated diets (0.155 ± 0.008), and the artificial diet control (0.164±0.0544). Adult mass analysis for the effect of plant age (ANOVA: P = 0.1682, Fig. 10c) on adult mass found no significant differences in adult mass between adults who fed as larvae on 10 (0.142 ± 0.007), 25 (0.170 ± 0.011), and 60-day old plant diets (0.164 ± 0.025).
Discussion
In this study, we evaluated the effect of BMR, seed treatment, and plant age on the growth and development of FAW. We monitored BMR sorghum-sudangrass x FAW interactions through multiple lenses: 48-hour snapshot exposure, continuous leaf feeding, and life cycle on artificial diet fortified with fresh leaf extract. Our hypothesis that seed treatments would not have an effect on FAW growth and development, or on their ability to damage sorghum-sudangrass was supported, with no effects from seed treatment. However, we also hypothesized that older plants would be the most detrimental to FAW, yet while that was mostly supported, in the 48 h exposure snapshot experiment we saw the opposite. As for BMR, we hypothesized differential effects throughout every experiment; however, BMR had no effect on FAW in larval stages until the adult and pupal stages.
The snapshot exposure experiments allowed us to understand the immediate response of FAW larvae to the seed treatment, to BMR, but also how plant age affects these larvae in the short term. When sensing herbivory, plants are able to respond by mobilizing local defenses to areas of herbivore feeding, or by releasing volatile organic compounds with the purpose of attracting natural enemies47,48. FAW, however, are highly mobile and have been shown to evade plant defenses by damaging a plant and moving on to another plant, or by feeding on different tissues of the same plant49,50,51. The snapshot exposure experiments give insight into how FAW are affected when spatially constrained and unable to perform movement-based evasion of plant defenses. Both continuous experiments exploring the entire FAW life cycle shed light on if FAW can overcome adverse effects in their diet later in their life cycle, or if detriments brought upon by our factors are insurmountable. While some studies have observed the effect of one of these factors, very few studies have taken them together and thoroughly monitored the FAW growth and development.
First, we found that seed treatments appeared to have almost no effect on FAW growth and development. These findings echo those of Muraro’s group22 which found no effect from seed treatments on FAW after 20 days of sowing, alongside those of Assefa52 which found seed treatments as ineffective and inconclusive for FAW control in Ethiopia. These results are also in line with Thrash’s group23, in which they found FAW survival to be the most affected by seed treatments. The seed treatment in our experiment, spinosad, acts on the ganglia and central nervous system (CNS) of target insect pests and disrupting acetylcholine pathways and receptors53,54. Spinosad is biologically derived from soil bacteria, Saccharopolyspora spinosa, and has been reported to be promising for integrated pest management because of its biological origin, low off-target effects55. Additionally, it is not known to share cross-resistance with more widely used insecticides55. However, the issue our study and more recent research has shown is that spinosad is not always effective, and almost always requires concurrent use of another insecticide to achieve efficient control, or a dramatic increase in dosage, as 200 ppm showed little effects while 1000–2000 ppm displayed high mortality in Lepidoptera56,57. While spinosad has been shown to be effective in controlled tests, Hertlein’s group57 also found that full sunlight and a large presence of organic matter may reduce spinosad’s efficacy, which may explain why we saw no effect of the insecticide in our snapshot experiment performed in a greenhouse, regardless of the phonological stage of the plant. Regarding seed treatments, our results indicate that seed treatments other than spinosad should be further evaluated for FAW control, alongside novel pest management strategies.
Plant age as a factor in FAW growth and development is highly important as it serves to develop action and economic thresholds58,59. Predicting pest infestations, and specifically FAW infestations, has been a prime concern for researchers and growers, and understanding what plant stages are most resistant or susceptible is key to developing management practices based around planting dates with expected pest infestation periods, and applying this data to changing pest patterns alongside global warming60,61,62,63. Our most conclusive results were found when monitoring the effect of plant age on FAW. We found that FAW exposed to 10-day old sorghum-sudangrass plants for a short period, i.e. 48 h exposure, gained less mass after this period, had the most herbivory damage, and gained the most mass in both continuous leaves and diet experiments; however, on continuous leaf diet they took the longest to pupate. This contradicts our other pupation time results as they were found to pupate the fastest on plant-based artificial diets. FAW on continuous leaf diets had the lowest growth on 60-day old plants, alongside losing significantly more mass in the final days of development leading to pupation on plant-based diets when compared to those feeding on 10-day old diets. One study64 that analyzed sorghum waxes found that different stages in plant growth had different amounts of wax, and different chemical compositions of wax, both of which were highly variable until the grain heads became apparent. Although FAW did not pupate slower than those on 25-day old diets (the slowest pupation rate), they pupated significantly slower than those on 10-day old diets. While these adverse effects of 25-day old plants are not uncommon, they are usually seen in the reproductive stages of the plant, while in sorghum this is close to the transition point between vegetative and reproductive stages65,66,67.
A major driver of this study was the lack of a body of work on BMR as a host plant resistance trait, and therefore more work on BMR may shed light on these promising results and their mechanism(s). The effect of FAW on sorghum-sudangrass and sorghum has been well studied, especially with regard to FAW feeding leading to elevated levels of flavonoid compounds in sorghum-FAW interactions48. Flavonoids are crucial in providing host plant resistance46,68, and in sorghum, this being further supported by a sequential herbivory study by Kundu69 in which FAW feeding first lead to drastic defense trait induction, measured by accumulation of total flavonoids. Sorghum flavonoids also have been shown to impose stress on another feeding guild insect, corn leaf aphids (Rhopalosiphum maidis), increasing the likelihood of alate development and reduction in colonization numbers70. Our knowledge gap therefore lies in understanding how BMR affects these defenses. Our results indicate that that when fed on BMR fresh leaves continuously, FAW had significantly lower pupal mass than the artificial diet control and a significantly lower adult mass than both the artificial diet control and non BMR plants. In the same vein, we found that when fed on plant-based artificial diets, FAW that fed on BMR diets also had significantly lower pupal mass than their non BMR counterparts. In Lepidoptera, pupal mass is a traditional indicator of adult traits, which translate into fitness, therefore reductions in pupal mass have been shown to hinder the overall fitness of the insect71,72. This data supports the idea that BMR does have an effect on herbivore performance and shows that further studies into the effect of BMR on pest insects should be expanded outside of FAW. Also, since this was consistent across ages of the plant and seed treatments, we predict that BMR is affecting FAW possibly through sorghum defense pathways. One possibility is through the modification of lignin biosynthesis in BMR mutants that leads to cascading effects in the plant’s ability to respond to biotic factors, primarily herbivore pressure73. One such hypothesis is that the reduced lignin pathway leads to an increase in flavonoid synthesis, which are known for their defense properties74. While it is understood that there are tradeoffs due to BMR mutations within the plant, such as changes in metabolites, silencing, or overexpression of genes, further studies are required to understand the effect of BMR on surface defenses, primarily epicuticular waxes and trichomes, which has not been studied thoroughly48,69,75.
The adverse effects of BMR and later plant ages (25 and 60 days) on FAW growth and development found in this study also warrant deeper examination into their mechanism and modes of action. For example, plant growth stage being harmful to FAW in later stages is most likely due to altered wax concentrations76,77 and secondary metabolites78,79 found on older leaves. However, this does not explain the few cases where 25-day old leaves were more harmful to FAW growth and development than 60-day old leaves, although this could be tested by quantifying the wax content and abundance since only few studies have examined it80.
To conclude, our data from snapshot exposure, continuous fresh leaf exposure, and plant-based artificial diets- a collective and comprehensive examination of FAW growth and development, strongly supports the idea that BMR and plant age play a large role in deterring FAW herbivory by impeding their growth and development. Moving forward, the mechanisms of how these coalesce with plant resistance should be explored through studies that quantify differences in primary and secondary metabolites, and direct and indirect defenses, an area we are currently exploring.
Data availability
The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Maunder, A. B. Sorghum worldwide. Sorghum Millet Dis. 11, 17 (2002).
Hariprasanna, K. & Rakshit, S. Economic importance of sorghum. In The Sorghum Genome (eds Rakshit, S. & Wang, Y.-H.) 1–25 (Springer International Publishing, 2016).
Sharma, H. C. Host-plant resistance to insects in sorghum and its role in integrated pest management. Crop Prot. 12(1), 11–34 (1993).
Young, W. R. & Teetes, G. L. Sorghum entomology. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 22(1), 193–218 (1977).
Yang, F. et al. Susceptibility of Louisiana and Florida populations of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to pyramided Bt corn containing Genuity® VT Double Pro™ and SmartStax™ traits. Fla. Entomol. 96(3), 714–723 (2013).
Chatterjee, D. et al. Sorghum and maize flavonoids are detrimental to growth and survival of fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda. J. Pest Sci. 96(4), 1551–1567 (2023).
Hruska, A. J. Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) management by smallholders (2019).
Trenbath, B. R. Intercropping for the management of pests and diseases. Field Crops Res. 34(3–4), 381–405 (1993).
Huang, F. et al. Cry1F resistance in fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda: Single gene versus pyramided Bt maize. PLoS One 9(11), e112958 (2014).
Bernardi, D. et al. Cross-resistance between Cry1 proteins in fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) may affect the durability of current pyramided Bt maize hybrids in Brazil. PLoS One 10(10), e0140130 (2015).
Pair, S. D., Raulston, J. R., Sparks, A. N. & Martin, P. B. Fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) parasitoids: Differential spring distribution and incidence on corn and sorghum in the Southern United States and Northeastern México. Environ. Entomol. 15(2), 342–348 (1986).
Naharki, K., Regmi, S. & Shrestha, N. A review on invasion and management of fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda in Nepal. Rev. Food Agric. 1(1), 6–11 (2020).
Guo, J., Zhao, J., He, K., Zhang, F. & Wang, Z. Potential invasion of the crop-devastating insect pest fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda to China. Plant Prot. 44(6), 1–10 (2018).
Luginbill, P. The fall army worm (No. 34). US Department of Agriculture (1928).
Mohamed, H. O. et al. First record of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on sorghum plants, a new invasive pest in Upper Egypt. Egypt. Acad. J. Biol. Sci. A Entomol. 15(1), 15–23 (2022).
Hailu, G. et al. Could fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) invasion in Africa contribute to the displacement of cereal stemborers in maize and sorghum cropping systems. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 41, 1753–1762 (2021).
Venkateswarlu, U., Johnson, M., Narasimhulu, R. & Muralikrishna, T. Occurrence of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae), a new pest on bajra and sorghum in the fields of agricultural research station, Ananthapuramu, Andhra Pradesh, India. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 6(6), 811–813 (2018).
Chormule, A. et al. First report of the fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) on sugarcane and other crops from Maharashtra, India. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 7(1), 114–117 (2019).
Prabhakar, M. et al. Detecting the invasive fall armyworm pest incidence in farm fields of southern India using Sentinel-2A satellite data. Geocarto Int. 37(13), 3801–3816 (2022).
Early, R., González-Moreno, P., Murphy, S. T. & Day, R. Forecasting the global extent of invasion of the cereal pest Spodoptera frugiperda, the fall armyworm. NeoBiota 40, 25–50 (2018).
Chanda, M. et al. Farmer evaluation of pesticide seed-coating to control fall armyworm in maize. Crop Prot. 148, 105691 (2021).
Muraro, D. S. et al. Performance of seed treatments applied on Bt and non-Bt maize against fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Environ. Entomol. 49(5), 1137–1144 (2020).
Thrash, B. et al. Laboratory evaluations of lepidopteran-active soybean seed treatments on survivorship of fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae. Fla. Entomol. 96(3), 724–728 (2013).
Cherney, J. H., Cherney, D. J. R., Akin, D. E. & Axtell, J. D. Potential of brown-midrib, low-lignin mutants for improving forage quality. Adv. Agron. 46, 157–198 (1991).
Sattler, S. E., Funnell-Harris, D. L. & Pedersen, J. F. Brown midrib mutations and their importance to the utilization of maize, sorghum, and pearl millet lignocellulosic tissues. Plant Sci. 178(3), 229–238 (2010).
Porter, K. S., Axtell, J. D., Lechtenberg, V. L. & Colenbrander, V. F. Phenotype, fiber composition, and in vitro dry matter disappearance of chemically induced brown midrib (bmr) mutants of sorghum 1. Crop Sci. 18(2), 205–208 (1978).
Scully, E. D. et al. Characterization of novel Brown midrib 6 mutations affecting lignin biosynthesis in sorghum. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 58(2), 136–149 (2016).
Fritz, J. O., Moore, K. J. & Jaster, E. H. Jr. Digestion kinetics and cell wall composition of brown midrib Sorghum ✕ Sudangrass morphological components. Crop Sci. 30(1), 213–219 (1990).
Colombini, S., Rapetti, L., Colombo, D., Galassi, G. & Crovetto, G. M. Brown midrib forage sorghum silage for the dairy cow: Nutritive value and comparison with corn silage in the diet. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 9(3), e53 (2010).
Zhao, W., Yang, P., Kang, L. & Cui, F. Different pathogenicities of Rice stripe virus from the insect vector and from viruliferous plants. New Phytologist 210(1), 196–207 (2016).
Dowd, P. F. & Sattler, S. E. Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) responses to Sorghum bicolor (Poales: Poaceae) tissues from lowered lignin lines. J. Insect Sci. 15(1), 2 (2015).
Dowd, P. F., Funnell-Harris, D. L. & Sattler, S. E. Field damage of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) with reduced lignin levels by naturally occurring insect pests and pathogens. J. Pest Sci. 89, 885–895 (2016).
Hochuli, D. F. & Roberts, F. M. Approximate digestibility of fibre for a graminivorous caterpillar. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 81(1), 15–20 (1996).
Martin, P. B., Hanna, W. W., Johnson, J. C. Jr., Monson, W. G. & Utley, P. R. Insect pests, insect damage, and phytotoxicity in insecticide-treated and untreated sorghum possessing a brown-midrib character. Sorghum Newslett. 23, 99–100 (1980).
Tesso, T. & Ejeta, G. Stalk strength and reaction to infection by Macrophomina phaseolina of brown midrib maize (Zea mays) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Field Crops Res. 120(2), 271–275 (2011).
Akin, D. E. et al. Normal-12 and brown midrib-12 sorghum. II. Chemical variations and digestibility 1. Agron. J. 78(5), 832–837 (1986).
Marita, J. M., Vermerris, W., Ralph, J. & Hatfield, R. D. Variations in the cell wall composition of maize brown midrib mutants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 51(5), 1313–1321 (2003).
Dowd, P. F. & Vega, F. E. Enzymatic oxidation products of allelochemicals as a basis for resistance against insects: Effects on the corn leafhopper Dalbulus maidis. Nat. Toxins 4(2), 85–91 (1996).
Sambangi, P. & Pathipati, U. R. Physiological effects of resveratrol and coumaric acid on two major groundnut pests and their egg parasitoid behavior. Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol. 91(4), 230–245 (2016).
Kumar, P. & Suby, S. B. Antibiosis effect of phenolic acids (ferulic acid and p-coumaric acid) on maize spotted stem borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Indian J. Entomol. 75(3), 247–250 (2013).
Lim, J. Y., Ishiguro, K. & Kubo, I. Tyrosinase inhibitory p-Coumaric acid from Ginseng leaves. Phytother. Res. 13(5), 371–375 (1999).
Tayal, M. et al. Polyphenol-rich purple corn pericarp extract adversely impacts herbivore growth and development. Insects 11(2), 98 (2020).
Akot, B. M. B. Efficacy of seed dressers and resistance of sorghum varieties in the management of fall armyworm. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi (2020).
Gutiérrez-Moreno, R. et al. Field-evolved resistance of the fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to synthetic insecticides in Puerto Rico and Mexico. J. Econ. Entomol. 112(2), 792–802 (2019).
Kariyat, R., Chavana, J. & Kaur, J. An inexpensive and comprehensive method to examine and quantify field insect community influenced by host plant olfactory cues. Bio-protocol 8(16), e2967–e2967 (2018).
Singh, S. & Kariyat, R. R. Exposure to polyphenol-rich purple corn pericarp extract restricts fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) growth. Plant Signal. Behav. 15(9), 1784545 (2020).
Zhuang, X. et al. Dynamic evolution of herbivore-induced sesquiterpene biosynthesis in sorghum and related grass crops. Plant J. 69(1), 70–80 (2012).
Grover, S. et al. Dynamic regulation of phenylpropanoid pathway metabolites in modulating sorghum defense against fall armyworm. Front. Plant Sci. 13, 1019266 (2022).
Knipling, E. F. 1980 Fall Armyworm Symposium: Regional management of the fall armyworm–a realistic approach?. Fla Entomol. 63, 468–480 (1980).
Kenis, M. et al. Invasiveness, biology, ecology, and management of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Entomol. Gen. https://doi.org/10.1127/entomologia/2022/1659 (2022).
Turchen, L. M., Cosme, L. Jr., Yack, J. E. & Guedes, R. N. C. What’s shaking for caterpillars? Leaf-borne vibratory stimuli and behavioral responses in the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. J. Pest Sci. 96(4), 1483–1496 (2023).
Assefa, F. & Ayalew, D. Status and control measures of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) infestations in maize fields in Ethiopia: A review. Cogent Food Agric. 5(1), 1641902 (2019).
Salgado, V. L. Studies on the mode of action of spinosad: Insect symptoms and physiological correlates. Pest. Biochem. Physiol. 60(2), 91–102 (1998).
Salgado, V. L., Sheets, J. J., Watson, G. B. & Schmidt, A. L. Studies on the mode of action of spinosad: The internal effective concentration and the concentration dependence of neural excitation. Pest. Biochem. Physiol. 60(2), 103–110 (1998).
Sarfraz, M., Dosdall, L. M. & Keddie, B. A. Spinosad: A promising tool for integrated pest management. Outlooks Pest Manag. 16(2), 78–84 (2005).
Cisneros, J. et al. Toxic effects of spinosad on predatory insects. Biol. Control 23(2), 156–163 (2002).
Hertlein, M. B. et al. A review of spinosad as a natural product for larval mosquito control. J. Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 26(1), 67–87 (2010).
Overton, K. et al. Global crop impacts, yield losses and action thresholds for fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda): A review. Crop Prot. 145, 105641 (2021).
Day, R. et al. Fall armyworm: Impacts and implications for Africa. Outlooks Pest Manag. 28(5), 196–201 (2017).
Hunt, T. N. 1980 Fall Armyworm Symposium: Monitoring and predicting fall armyworm infestations in North Carolina. Fla. Entomol. 63, 361–363 (1980).
Skendžić, S., Zovko, M., Živković, I. P., Lešić, V. & Lemić, D. The impact of climate change on agricultural insect pests. Insects 12(5), 440 (2021).
Ladányi, M. & Horváth, L. A review of the potential climate change impact on insect populations-general and agricultural aspects. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 8(2), 143–152 (2010).
Sharma, H. C. Climate change effects on insects: Implications for crop protection and food security. J. Crop Improv. 28(2), 229–259 (2014).
Cannon, C. & Kummerow, F. A. A comparison of plant and grain wax from two varieties of sorghum. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 34(10), 519–520 (1957).
Belsky, A. J., Carson, W. P., Jensen, C. L. & Fox, G. A. Overcompensation by plants: Herbivore optimization or red herring?. Evolut. Ecol. 7, 109–121 (1993).
Gerik, T., Bean, B. W., & Vanderlip, R. Sorghum growth and development. Texas FARMER Collection (2003).
Roozeboom, K. L. & Prasad, P. V. Sorghum growth and development. In Sorghum: A State of the Art and Future Perspetives Vol. 58 (eds Ciampitti, I. A. & Prasad, P. V. V.) 155–172 (Soil Science Society of America, 2019).
Singh, S., Kaur, I. & Kariyat, R. The multifunctional roles of polyphenols in plant-herbivore interactions. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22(3), 1442 (2021).
Kundu, P. et al. Sorghum defense responses to sequential attack by insect herbivores of different feeding guilds. Planta 258(2), 35 (2023).
Kariyat, R. R. et al. Sorghum 3-deoxyanthocyanidin flavonoids confer resistance against corn leaf aphid. J. Chem. Ecol. 45, 502–514 (2019).
Miller, W. E. Extrinsic effects on fecundity-maternal weight relations in capital-breeding Lepidoptera. J. Lepid. Soc. 59(3), 143 (2005).
Murúa, M. G. et al. Fitness and mating compatibility of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) populations from different host plant species and regions in Argentina. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 101(3), 639–649 (2008).
Liu, Q., Luo, L. & Zheng, L. Lignins: Biosynthesis and biological functions in plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 19(2), 335 (2018).
Tetreault, H. M. et al. Global responses of resistant and susceptible sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) to sugarcane aphid (Melanaphis sacchari). Front. Plant Sci. 10, 426693 (2019).
Watts, S. & Kariyat, R. Picking sides: Feeding on the abaxial leaf surface is costly for caterpillars. Planta 253, 1–6 (2021).
Kariyat, R. R. et al. Feeding on glandular and non-glandular leaf trichomes negatively affect growth and development in tobacco hornworm (Manduca sexta) caterpillars. Arthropod. Plant Interact. 13, 321–333 (2019).
Cardona, J. B. et al. Sugars and cuticular waxes impact sugarcane aphid (Melanaphis sacchari) colonization on different developmental stages of sorghum. Plant Sci. 330, 111646 (2023).
Beran, F., Köllner, T. G., Gershenzon, J. & Tholl, D. Chemical convergence between plants and insects: Biosynthetic origins and functions of common secondary metabolites. New Phytologist 223(1), 52–67 (2019).
War, A. R. et al. Plant defense and insect adaptation with reference to secondary metabolites. In Co-Evolution of Secondary Metabolites (eds Mérillon, J.-M. & Ramawat, K. G.) 795–822 (Springer International Publishing, 2020).
Avato, P., Bianchi, G. & Mariani, G. Epicuticular waxes of Sorghum and some compositional changes with plant age. Phytochemistry 23(12), 2843–2846 (1984).
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge Brandon Wodka at the University of Arkansas Green House complex for his support.
Funding
This work was partially supported by USDA-NIFA grant 2022-67013-36882 awarded to Joe Louis and Rupesh Kariyat.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Alejandro Vasquez, Joe Louis and Rupesh Kariyat developed the study conception and design. Material preparation was performed by Kelly Loftin and Alejandro Vasquez. Data collection was performed by Alejandro Vasquez, Devi Balakrishnan, and Jessica Ayala. Data analysis was performed by Alejandro Vasquez, Joe Louis and Rupesh Kariyat. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Alejandro Vasquez and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Vasquez, A., Balakrishnan, D., Ayala, J. et al. Brown midrib (BMR) and plant age impact fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) growth and development in sorghum-sudangrass (Sorghum x drummondii). Sci Rep 14, 12649 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-63397-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-63397-x
- Springer Nature Limited