Efficacy of some new chemistry insecticides against fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda and estimation of maize crop water productivity under different irrigation regimes

Efficacy of some new chemistry insecticides against fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda and estimation of maize crop water productivity under different irrigation regimes | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Efficacy of some new chemistry insecticides against fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda and estimation of maize crop water productivity under different irrigation regimes Habibur Rehman, Qurban Ali, Rabia Kanwal, Khalid Naveed, Faizan Amjad, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5639961/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Maize is an important cereal crop worldwide. Maize crop production is hampered by various factors including the insect pest infestation. The current research was executed to probe out the toxic effect of Flubendiamide, Spinetoram, Chlorantraniliprole, Tetraniliprole and Chlorfenpyr against fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda . Results revealed that larvae count per plant were found reduced with increase in post-treatment period and comparatively lower larvae count (1.10 mean larvae plant − 1 ) was recorded in case of Spinetoram after 7 days of first spray which further reduced to minimum count i.e. 0.12 larvae plant − 1 with application of second spray of the insecticide. Flubendamide was the next effective one (0.37 larvae plant − 1 ) while chlorfenpyr was found comparatively less effective (0.92 larvae plant − 1 ) after exposure period of 7 days but was superior over control plot (4.23 mean larvae plant − 1 . Results of infested plants per plot showed that maximum infestation (5.89 mean infested plants plot − 1 ) were recorded in case of control plot while the minimum (1.96 mean infested plant per plot − 1 ) were enumerated in case of Spinetoram treated plot. Outcomes of crop water productivity showed that maximum crop water productivity (2.78 kgm − 3 ) was recorded in case of Spinetoram treated plot followed by flubendiamide plot (2.65 kgm − 3 ), chlorantraniliprole (2.27 kgm − 3 ) under drip irrigation while the lowest value i.e. 1.35 kgm − 3 was calculated in control plot under flood irrigation. Hence, use of new chemistry insecticide along with high efficiency irrigation system can be effective for the control of fall armyworm leading to maximization of crop yield and productivity. Insect pest infestation. Toxicity. Post-treatment period. Crop yield. High efficiency irrigation. Larvae count Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Agriculture is the main driving force for economy of Pakistan and plays a vital role in the gross domestic product (GDP). Maize ranks as the 3rd most important cereal after wheat and rice whereas overall 4th high yielding agricultural crop of Pakistan (Tariq and Iqbal 2010 ). It is also called as queen of cereal (Manasa et al. 2018 ). Soil with 6.5–7.5 pH best suits for the production of Maize crop. It is potential source of dietary substances like starch (72%), fatty acid (10%), proteins (10%), sugar (3%) and vitamins (3–5%) (Adnan and Bilal 2020 ). It is also being used as fodder for animals and extraction of cooking oil (Erenstein et al. 2022 ). Maize is being cultivated on an area of 1.3 million hectares in variety of climatic zones ranging 30 meters above from the sea level all over the Pakistan (Rizwanullah et al. 2023 ). Maize crop yield is reducing yearly owing to different abiotic and biotic aspects (Deressa et al. 2024 ). Among biotic factors, insect pests and pathogens are of serious concern in maize production worldwide (Cui et al. 2024 ) including Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Thailand, China, Africa, Brazil, Nepal, Vietnam and Philippines (KiZarkani et al. 2020). Reproductive as well as non-reproductive phases of maize are extremely vulnerable to be attacked by numerous insect pests (Kharwal et al. 2024 ). During the past few years, a new Spodoptera species, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) had described in several maize growing zones worldwide, resulting in massive yield losses (Assefa et al. 2018; Overton et al. 2021) even in Pakistan (Yousaf et al. 2022 ). S. frugiperda can feed on around 353 host plants belonging to 76 families causing notable crop production loss (Wang et al. 2020 ). This species is turning into a severe menace to the food security worldwide, hence, there is dire necessity of an efficient insect control tactic to control this most destructive insect pests to safeguard the Pakistan economy by reducing yield loss in maize crop. Management of fall armyworm in Pakistan and other developing countries is mainly done through conventionally used synthetic insecticides (Jalali et al. 2024 ). They are not cognizant regarding destiny of conventionally used insecticides. Repeated and overdose of synthetic insecticides has resulted in environmental hazards, mortality of beneficial insects, residue in crop produce, development of new biotypes, resistance and resurgence in insect pests (Ayilara et al. 2023 ). Therefore, newly develop formulations of insecticides with novel mode of action may be potential alternates to counter these issues. New chemistry insecticides have gained much attention these days. These insecticides are safer for human and surroundings and derived from different chemical groups. Among these, Diamides (i.e. Flubendiamide), Anthranilic Diamides (i.e. Chlorantraniliprole), Spinosyns (i.e. Spinetoram) and Halogenated pyrroles (i.e. Chlorfenpyre) are most famous ones (Ahmed et al. 2015). Beside the biotic issues (i.e. insect pest infestation) in maize crop, water scarcity is becoming major issue for the farmers these days (Xio et al. 2023). To achieve the maize crop on sustainable basis in terms of more crop per drop (i.e. enhanced crop water productivity), there is need of improved irrigation method. Drip irrigation is effective method of irrigation being practiced these days. The water is applied drop by drop near the root zone of the plants according to plant needs (Wen et al. 2023 ). In view of contemporary scenario of yield losses in maize crop, the present research trial was executed for the management of this notorious insect pest by use of new chemistry insecticides and to compare crop water productivity under two irrigation methods. Novelty Statement It is to our best knowledge that before this study, no such study for the estimation of toxicity of new chemistry insecticides especially vayego insecticide against fall armyworm on maize P – 4040 hybrid under efficiency irrigation in comparison with flood irrigation plot has been executed in the country (Pakistan) and this will be served as reference point for upcoming research trials. Outcomes of our research trial will open new horizons for young researchers and serve the maize growing community. Materials and Methods Study site Toxicity bioassays were executed in RCBD design at Water Management Research Farm (WMRF), Renala Khurd, Okara, Latitude: 30° 48' 17.51" N Longitude: 73° 35' 59.99" E, during Kharif season 2021–2022. There were overall five treatments together with control plot and each treatment was repeated in thrice. Table 1 Treatments descriptions Table 1 Treatments descriptions Treatments Commercial name Active ingredient Company Name Dose rate/acre T 1 Belt® 480 SC Flubendiamide Bayer Crop Science T 2 Radiant Spinetoram Arysta Life Science T 3 Coragen Chlorantraniliprole FMC T 4 Vayego Tetraniliprole Bayer Crop Science T 5 Pirate Chlorfenpyr Swat Agro Chemicals Control - - - - All the insecticides were purchase from Syngenta Pesticides Company, Punjab, Pakistan. Crop husbandry Maize hybrid P – 4040 of Monsanto Company was sown as trial crop. Water was applied through drip irrigation system according to crop water requirement. All other crop-raising practices were carried out to ensure healthy crop and no insecticides other than those comprised in the experiment were practiced. The foliar insecticides were applied at the scratching stage, a typical symptom of initiation of the fall armyworm (Khan et al. 2020). The experimental field area of 674.16 m 2 . The six treatments were randomly allocated to plots in each replication and one was kept free of chemical as check. Surveillance of insect attacked plants and dead heart was done by taking visual count of 10 arbitrarily nominated plants from every experimental plot (i.e. from 2 middle plant rows of plot) after seven days intervals basis from July up to mid of the September, when they had approximately vanished from the maize crop (Zulfiqar et al. 2010). Outcomes hence obtained were pooled into mean insect pest attack of C. partellus . Later on, percent insect pest attack/plant and dead heart was calculated. Irrigation practices Insecticides plots were irrigated through drip irrigation while control plot was irrigated through conventional irrigation methods i.e. flood irrigation. Toxicity bioassays The recommended dose rates of the new chemistry insecticides; Belt, Radiant, Coragen, Vayego and Pirate were applied in research plots arranged under Randomized Block Design (RBD). All the treatments and control were replicated in thrice. Before applying the insecticides, it was ensured that no spraying activity was done earlier in research trial site but in toxicity bioassays. The insecticides were sprayed with the help of hand knapsack provided. Insecticides were sprayed at two times after the planting date. The first spray was sprayed at 15 days after the sowing of crops whereas second application was done after 15 days of first round of spray. FAW larvae were counted a day before the spraying activity and then afterward 1, 3, 5 and 7 days of each application of the insecticides at five arbitrarily nominated maize plants along the length of 1 m row of every treatment leaving outermost row of maize plants. Mean infestation (%) of fall armyworm (FAW) Treatment effect on insect pest infestation was calculated by formula as given below; \(\:\) \(\:\text{M}\text{e}\text{a}\text{n}\:\text{p}\text{l}\text{a}\text{n}\text{t}\:\text{i}\text{n}\text{f}\text{e}\text{s}\text{t}\text{a}\text{t}\text{i}\text{o}\text{n}\:\left(\text{%}\right)=\frac{\text{A}\text{v}\text{e}\text{r}\text{a}\text{g}\text{e}\:\text{o}\text{f}\:\text{i}\text{n}\text{f}\text{e}\text{s}\text{t}\text{e}\text{d}\:\text{p}\text{l}\text{a}\text{n}\text{t}\text{s}/\text{p}\text{l}\text{o}\text{t}}{\text{T}\text{o}\text{t}\text{a}\text{l}\:\text{n}\text{u}\text{m}\text{b}\text{e}\text{r}\:\text{o}\text{f}\:\text{p}\text{l}\text{a}\text{n}\text{t}\text{s}/\text{p}\text{l}\text{o}\text{t}}\times\:100\) Mean infestation reduction over control (%) It was calculated through following formula; $$\:\text{R}\text{e}\text{d}\text{u}\text{c}\text{t}\text{i}\text{o}\text{n}\:\text{i}\text{n}\text{f}\text{e}\text{s}\text{t}\text{a}\text{t}\text{i}\text{o}\text{n}\:\left(\text{%}\right)=\frac{{\text{P}}_{1}-{\text{P}}_{2\dots\:.\:}{\text{P}}_{5\:}}{{\text{P}}_{1}}\times\:100$$ Where, P 1 = dead heart/ plant infestation in control plot P 2 ....P 6 = dead heart/ plant infestation/in treated plot Crop Water productivity It was determined by dividing grain yield by total applied irrigation water and is expressed as according (Awan et al. 2007) as follows: $$\:\text{W}\text{a}\text{t}\text{e}\text{r}\:\text{P}\text{r}\text{o}\text{d}\text{u}\text{c}\text{t}\text{i}\text{v}\text{i}\text{t}\text{y}\:(\text{k}\text{g}/{\text{m}}^{3})=\frac{\text{G}\text{r}\text{a}\text{i}\text{n}\:\text{Y}\text{i}\text{e}\text{l}\text{d}\:(\text{K}\text{g}/\text{h}\text{a})\:}{\text{A}\text{m}\text{o}\text{u}\text{n}\text{t}\:\text{o}\text{f}\:\text{w}\text{a}\text{t}\text{e}\text{r}\:\text{a}\text{p}\text{p}\text{l}\text{i}\text{e}\text{d}\:({\text{m}}^{3}/\text{h}\text{a})}\:\times\:100$$ Statistical analysis The collected data was analyzed through SigmaStat software. Treatments means were separated through LSD Test at (P ≤ 0.05), as defined by (Steel and Torrie 1980). Result Toxicity of the insecticides against FAW As shown in Table 2 , mean incidence of S. frugiperda population all the treatment proved effective over control. Radiant proved the most effective (0.12 mean FAW larvae /plant) followed by Belt (0.37 larvae counts/plant), Vayego (0.58 larvae/plant), Coragen (0.70 larvae/plant) by post-treatment period of 7 days while comparatively greater mean larvae count (0.92 larvae/plant) were recorded in case of Pirate but was superior over control. There were comparatively greater FAW larvae count by post-treatment period of 7 days than 5,3 and 1 days. Table 2 Comparative toxic effects of different new chemistry insecticides against 3rd instar larvae of Spodoptera frugiperda Insecticides LPP at DBS Mean no. of FAW larvae plant − 1 1st spray 2nd Spray 1 DAS 3 DAS 5 DAS 7 DAS 1 DAS 3 DAS 5 DAS 7 DAS Belt 2.50 2.10b 1.89bc 1.78bc 1.55c 1.41b 1.14d 1.00cd 0.37e Radiant 2.45 1.92b 1.71bc 1.54c 1.00d 1.30c 1.10d 0.95cd 0.12e Coragen 2.35 2.18b 2.12b 1.90b 1.75bc 1.54b 1.35bc 1.21c 0.70de Vayego 2.43 2.13b 1.82bc 1.80bc 1.71bc 1.48b 1.18c 1.10cd 0.58de Pirate 2.39 2.27b 2.19b 1.96bc 1.80bc 1.69b 1.29c 1.14cd 0.92d Control 2.56 2.65a 4.61a 4.70a 5.00a 3.12a 3.19a 3.65a 4.23a Treatment means sharing similar lettering were not significantly different (p > 0.05). DBS = days before spray, DAS = Days after spray, LPP = Larvae per plant Table 2 Comparative toxic effects of different new chemistry insecticides against 3rd instar larvae of Spodoptera frugiperda Treatment means sharing similar lettering were not significantly different (p > 0.05). DBS = days before spray, DAS = Days after spray, LPP = Larvae per plant Data in Fig. 1 reveals overall mean incidence of FAW larvae per maize plant. The value of FAW larvae counts were comparatively greater after first spray which got reduced after the second application of the new chemistry insecticides. Radiant proved the most effective amongst all and pirate was proved the least effective. Outcomes in Fig. 2 shows variation in mean larvae count per maize plants under the application of the new chemistry insecticides. Mean infested maize plants were comparatively greater before the application of treatments which reduced with increase in post-treatment period. Maximum infestation (2.1 mean infested plants/plot) were recorded in case of Pirate while the lowest infestation (1.23 mean infested plants/plot) were enumerated in case of Radiant sprayed plot. In case of control plot, there was increase in mean infested plants over the exposure periods. Data in Table 3 reflects overall mean infestation values recorded during the entire study period as well as reduction in infestation over the control plot. Maximum infestation (2.48 mean infested plants/plot) were recorded in case of Pirate insecticide sprayed plot while the lowest infestation (1.96 mean infested plants/plot) were noted in case of the experimental plot where Radiant insecticide was sprayed. All the insecticides were proved superior over control Table 3 Comparison of mean infestation caused by Spodoptera frugiperda under different treatments Treatments Overall mean infestation Infestation reduction (%) over control Coragen 2.45 (20.67) 56.10 Pirate 2.48 (23.56) 52.21 Vayego 2.32 (19.96) 61.39 Flubendiamide 2.17 (13.21) 65.43 Radiant 1.96 (10.17) 75.28 Control 5.89 (35.42) - S.D.m (±) (3.75) - C.D. (P = 0.05) (2.21) - *CD = Critical difference, S.D.m = Standard deviation of mean, values in parenthesis are of are √X + 0.5 transformed value Table 3 Comparison of mean infestation caused by Spodoptera frugiperda under different treatments *CD = Critical difference, S.D.m = Standard deviation of mean, values in parenthesis are of are √X + 0.5 transformed value Crop Water Productivity (CWP) Data in Fig. 3 shows variation in crop water productivity of maize crop under different treatment plots under two different irrigation practices. Maximum CWP (2.78 kgm − 3 ) was computed in case of Radiant sprayed plot under drip irrigation followed by Belt (2.65 kgm − 3 ), Vayego (2.41 kgm − 3 ), while comparatively low CWP (1.85 kgm − 3 ) in case of Pirate sprayed plot but superior over control plot, under flood irrigation. Discussion Various insecticides were evaluated against S. frugiperda larvae under field conditions. Outcomes of the current research trial can serve as baseline information for the management of fall armyworm in Pakistan and worldwide. The present research trial displayed that population of pest was noted remarkably lower in all the tested treatments like Coragen, Pirate, Vayego, Flubendiamide and Radiant compared with check plot. The mortality percentage of pest was enhanced with increase in exposure period. Deshmukh et al. ( 2020 ) evaluated the toxicity of some new chemistry insecticides against S. frugiperda larvae under field situations and noted similar trend of increased larval mortality of FAW over time period as was noted in our research work. Hardke et al. (2011) recorded 2–5% mortality response of FAW by application of that chlorantraniliprole and some other new chemistry insecticides with post-treatment period of seven days. Likewise, Khan et al. (2017) recorded remarkable reduction in insect infestation compared with control plot but using new chemistry insecticides in pomegranate orchards. In another research work, carried out by Daves et al. (2009) new chemistry insecticide, spinosad proved effective against larval stage of field crops insect pests afterward fourteen days of the insecticide application. The decrease in pest infestation owing to use of insecticides can improve the crop production. Our outcomes of the research trial are in accordance with Gutierrez-Moreno et al. (2019) had described that decrease in insect pest infestation improved maize crop output. It was noted that emamectin benzoate proved effective against the fall armyworm larvae. Moreover, it was also noted that larval mortality percentage can upsurge if insecticides spray ensured at initial phases of maize crop and insect pest growth as was noted in our research work. The impact of insecticides was reduced whorl stage of the crop as the larvae hide under whorl of leaves, not exposed to insecticides and can thrive. In a research work, carried out by Belay et al. (2012) 80% larval mortality was noted with post-treatment period of 96 hours by application of some new chemistry insecticides; spinosad, flubendamide, chlorantraniliprole and fenvalerate. The infestation percentage of the fall armyworm is growing with every coming day on numerous plants particularly maize in Pakistan but yet no suitable insect control approach has been assumed (Ramzan et al. 2021). Farmers without concerning with entomologists are using available chemicals which can result in resistance development in this insect pests against pesticides available in market. The recurrent use of the available synthetic insecticide not only cause resistance development in insect pests but put hazards to our environment and health-related issues in human being. There is necessity to implement environmentally safe chemicals which are also safe to human health. More toxicological research trials are desired to check against the FAW. Achieving crop yield with efficient use of water is becoming goal of every grower due to prevailing situation of water scarcity. Drip irrigation one of the efficient irrigation systems. Many other researchers have also carried out estimation of crop water productivity of different agricultural crops under drip irrigation system in comparison with flood irrigation but different agricultural crops and maize hybrids other than P–4040 like Zou et al. ( 2020 ) studied crop water productivity on maize crop on drip irrigation system in comparison with flood irrigation and recorded crop water productivity ranging as 2.5–3.5 kgm − 3 as was recorded in my research work. However, the values were somewhat lower in our research work compared with this study which may be due to difference in maize hybrid in the both studies. In a research work, carried out by Xio et al. (2023) recorded comparatively greater crop water productivity as was noted in our research work. Similarly, Wen et al. ( 2023 ) also estimated the crop water productivity of maize hybrid other than P–4040 and recorded comparatively greater value of crop water productivity as was recorded in my research work which supported my results. Likewise, Payero et al. ( 2009 ) and Rodrigues et al. ( 2013 ) also studied the crop water productivity. Conclusions From the present research work, it could be concluded that new chemistry insecticides especially spinetoram proved the most effective against fall armyworm and resulted in 75.28% reduction in insect infestation. Flubendiamide was the next effective one against fall armyworm. Moreover, drip irrigation method is more efficient method of irrigation which resulted in comparatively greater crop productivity value over the experimental plot under flood irrigation (i.e. control). Declarations Conflict of interest The authors have declared no conflict of interest. Author’s Contribution HR conceptualized and conducted the research. QA helped manuscript writing. RK helped in finalization of methodology. KN and FA helped in data collection. NAA helped in final draft preparation. TM helped in data analysis. Acknowledgement The authors pay thanks to On Farm Water Management Department for and Jaffer Agro-services for arranging services of drip irrigation system. References Adnan M, Bilal HM (2020) Role of Boron Nutrition on Growth, Phenology and Yield of Maize ( Zea Mays L.) Hybrids: A Review. Open Biol Sci J 4(1):1–8. https://doi.org10.46718/JBGSR.2020.04.000110 Ahmad M, Mehmood R (2015) Monitoring of resistance to new chemistry insecticides in Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Pakistan. J Econ Entomol 108(3):1279–1288. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tov085 Assefa F (2018) Status of fall armyworm ( Spodoptera frugiperda ), biology and control measures on maize crop in Ethiopia: a review. Int J Entomol Res 6(2):75–85. https://doi.org/10.33687/entomol.006.02.2498 Ayilara MS, Adeleke BS, Akinola SA, Fayose CA, Adeyemi UT, Gbadegesin LA et al (2023) Biopesticides as a promising alternative to synthetic pesticides: A case for microbial pesticides, phytopesticides, and nanobiopesticides. Front Microbiol 14:1040901. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1040901 Cui HY, Sciligo A, Tan XL, Hui C, Zhang YS, Li W et al (2024) Dynamic trends in maize diseases and pests across six regions in China over two decades. Crop Prot 186:106930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2024.106930 Deshmukh S, Pavithra HB, Kalleshwaraswamy CM, Shivanna BK, Maruthi MS, Mota-Sanchez D (2020) Field efficacy of insecticides for management of invasive fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on maize in India. Fla Entomol 103(2):221–227. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.103.0211 Deressa T, Adugna G, Suresh LM, Bekeko Z, Opoku J, Vaughan M et al (2024) Biophysical factors and agronomic practices associated with Fusarium ear rot and fumonisin contamination of maize in multiple agroecosystems in Ethiopia. Crop Sci 64(2):827–845. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.21159 Erenstein O, Jaleta M, Sonder K, Mottaleb K, Prasanna BM (2022) Global maize production, consumption and trade: trends and R&D implications. Food Secur 14(5):1295–1319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01288-7 Jalali AI, Ali M, Hammad HM, Khan FZA (2024) Effects of Biorational Approaches and Synthetic Pesticides on Fall Armyworm Management and Arthropod Diversity in Maize. Pak J Zool 56(6):1–9. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/20231114071402 Kharwal D, Sharma A, Sharma PK (2024) Assessment of Lepidopteran Pest Dynamics in Maize: Dominance of Spodoptera frugiperda and Implications for Targeted Management in Himachal Pradesh, India. J Exp Agric Int 46(10):738–743. https://doi.org/10.9734/jeai/2024/v46i102997 Manasa P, Maitra S, Reddy MD (2018) Effect of summer maize-legume intercropping system on growth, productivity and competitive ability of crops. Int J Eng Tech Manage Res 8(12):2871–2875 Payero JO, Tarkalson DD, Irmak S, Davison D, Petersen JL (2009) Effect of timing of a deficit-irrigation allocation on corn evapotranspiration, yield, water use efficiency and dry mass. Agric Water Manage 96(10):1387–1397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.03.022 Qadir J, Awan MS, Baloch IH, Shah MA, Nadim N (2013) Application of micronutrients for yield enhancement in rice. Gomal Uni J Res 4:45–76 Rizwanullah M, Yang A, Nasrullah M, Zhou X, Rahim A (2023) Resilience in maize production for food security: Evaluating the role of climate-related abiotic stress in Pakistan. Heliyon 9(11):e22140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22140 Rodrigues GC, Paredes P, Gonçalves MJ, Alves I, Pereira LS (2013) Comparing sprinkler and drip irrigation systems for full and deficit irrigated maize using multicriteria analysis and simulation modelling: Ranking for water saving vs. farm economic returns. Agric Water Manag 126:85–96. https://doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2013.05.005 Tariq M, Iqbal H (2010) Maize in Pakistan-An Overview. Kasetsart J Nat Sci 44:757–763 Wang W, He P, Zhang Y, Liu T, Jing X, Zhang S (2020) The population growth of Spodoptera frugiperda on six cash crop species and implications for its occurrence and damage potential in China. Insects 11(9):639. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11090639 Wen Y, Wu X, Liu J, Zhang J, Song L, Zhu Y, Wang Z (2023) Effects of drip irrigation timing and water temperature on soil conditions, cotton phenological period, and fiber quality under plastic film mulching. Agric Water Manag 287:108435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108435 Xiao C, Ji Q, Zhang F, Li Y, Fan J, Hou X, Gong K (2023) Effects of various soil water potential thresholds for drip irrigation on soil salinity, seed cotton yield and water productivity of cotton in northwest China. Water Manage 279:108172 Yousaf S, Rehman A, Masood M, Ali K, Suleman N (2022) Occurrence and molecular identification of an invasive rice strain of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) from Sindh, Pakistan, using mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I gene sequences. J Plant Dis Prot 129(1):71–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41348-021-00548-6 Zou H, Fan J, Zhang F, Xiang Y, Wu L, Yan S (2020) Optimization of drip irrigation and fertilization regimes for high grain yield, crop water productivity and economic benefits of spring maize in Northwest China. Agric Water Manag 230:105986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105986 Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5639961","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":450604758,"identity":"9aaf1867-c497-4e35-b576-5f9f34f5101f","order_by":0,"name":"Habibur Rehman","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6099-1665","institution":"Water Research Institute","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Habibur","middleName":"","lastName":"Rehman","suffix":""},{"id":450604759,"identity":"5b15291a-d441-47e0-b2a6-90a1da4ed7de","order_by":1,"name":"Qurban Ali","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"AARI: Ayub Agricultural Research Institute","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Qurban","middleName":"","lastName":"Ali","suffix":""},{"id":450604760,"identity":"cf497583-e9a2-420a-9b69-732229929b01","order_by":2,"name":"Rabia Kanwal","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ayub Agricultural Research Institute","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rabia","middleName":"","lastName":"Kanwal","suffix":""},{"id":450604761,"identity":"7a4147c5-1086-427a-bf09-2458fe4d32a0","order_by":3,"name":"Khalid Naveed","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Agriculture Faisalabad","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Khalid","middleName":"","lastName":"Naveed","suffix":""},{"id":450604762,"identity":"d38e0e2c-d4a6-4458-9273-e30bbc5fda6a","order_by":4,"name":"Faizan Amjad","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Seed Control and Certification Institute","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Faizan","middleName":"","lastName":"Amjad","suffix":""},{"id":450604763,"identity":"27fc57d0-6938-46f6-83dc-4ae7a888848b","order_by":5,"name":"Najuf Awais Anjum","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ayub Agricultural Research Institute","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Najuf","middleName":"Awais","lastName":"Anjum","suffix":""},{"id":450604764,"identity":"e1fa80f8-b482-4584-a561-ef82fe0da53a","order_by":6,"name":"Talha Mushtaq","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Agriculture Faisalabad","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Talha","middleName":"","lastName":"Mushtaq","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-12-13 17:57:35","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5639961/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5639961/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":82348944,"identity":"d6ccd0ea-fe99-4463-b227-c3be1ce7d986","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-09 10:44:23","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":15585,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparative mean infestation of \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e after different exposure periods under different foliar insecticides. Vertical bars show standard error of means at 5% probability level.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinedrawingimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5639961/v1/c32252420288ce5bbc394236.png"},{"id":82350487,"identity":"dedace25-72a1-4a64-b171-afa9db7ff4bf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-09 10:52:24","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":10335,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparative mean infestation of \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e after different exposure periods under different foliar insecticides.\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c/strong\u003eVertical bars show standard error of means at 5% probability level.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinedrawingimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5639961/v1/6afb6baeac089913d44f0749.png"},{"id":82350489,"identity":"2a43c6d6-9370-4825-a70d-1c63b1bc0391","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-09 10:52:24","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":9920,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparison of Crop Water of maize crop under different treatments and irrigation regimes.\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c/strong\u003eVertical bars show standard error of means at 5% probability level. Treatment means sharing similar lettering are statistical similar.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Onlinedrawingimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5639961/v1/4ecc71c9dc8be65728686af3.png"},{"id":92944328,"identity":"cea33abb-b2f9-41d2-9464-ed4eb66ba134","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-07 12:04:27","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":823748,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5639961/v1/85671923-e720-4cd1-97cb-36bb59a366af.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"Efficacy of some new chemistry insecticides against fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda and estimation of maize crop water productivity under different irrigation regimes","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eAgriculture is the main driving force for economy of Pakistan and plays a vital role in the gross domestic product (GDP). Maize ranks as the 3rd most important cereal after wheat and rice whereas overall 4th high yielding agricultural crop of Pakistan (Tariq and Iqbal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). It is also called as queen of cereal (Manasa et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Soil with 6.5\u0026ndash;7.5 pH best suits for the production of Maize crop. It is potential source of dietary substances like starch (72%), fatty acid (10%), proteins (10%), sugar (3%) and vitamins (3\u0026ndash;5%) (Adnan and Bilal \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). It is also being used as fodder for animals and extraction of cooking oil (Erenstein et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Maize is being cultivated on an area of 1.3\u0026nbsp;million hectares in variety of climatic zones ranging 30 meters above from the sea level all over the Pakistan (Rizwanullah et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMaize crop yield is reducing yearly owing to different abiotic and biotic aspects (Deressa et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Among biotic factors, insect pests and pathogens are of serious concern in maize production worldwide (Cui et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) including Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Thailand, China, Africa, Brazil, Nepal, Vietnam and Philippines (KiZarkani et al. 2020). Reproductive as well as non-reproductive phases of maize are extremely vulnerable to be attacked by numerous insect pests (Kharwal et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). During the past few years, a new Spodoptera species, \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) had described in several maize growing zones worldwide, resulting in massive yield losses (Assefa et al. 2018; Overton et al. 2021) even in Pakistan (Yousaf et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e can feed on around 353 host plants belonging to 76 families causing notable crop production loss (Wang et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). This species is turning into a severe menace to the food security worldwide, hence, there is dire necessity of an efficient insect control tactic to control this most destructive insect pests to safeguard the Pakistan economy by reducing yield loss in maize crop.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eManagement of fall armyworm in Pakistan and other developing countries is mainly done through conventionally used synthetic insecticides (Jalali et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). They are not cognizant regarding destiny of conventionally used insecticides. Repeated and overdose of synthetic insecticides has resulted in environmental hazards, mortality of beneficial insects, residue in crop produce, development of new biotypes, resistance and resurgence in insect pests (Ayilara et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, newly develop formulations of insecticides with novel mode of action may be potential alternates to counter these issues. New chemistry insecticides have gained much attention these days. These insecticides are safer for human and surroundings and derived from different chemical groups. Among these, Diamides (i.e. Flubendiamide), Anthranilic Diamides (i.e. Chlorantraniliprole), Spinosyns (i.e. Spinetoram) and Halogenated pyrroles (i.e. Chlorfenpyre) are most famous ones (Ahmed et al. 2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBeside the biotic issues (i.e. insect pest infestation) in maize crop, water scarcity is becoming major issue for the farmers these days (Xio et al. 2023). To achieve the maize crop on sustainable basis in terms of more crop per drop (i.e. enhanced crop water productivity), there is need of improved irrigation method. Drip irrigation is effective method of irrigation being practiced these days. The water is applied drop by drop near the root zone of the plants according to plant needs (Wen et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn view of contemporary scenario of yield losses in maize crop, the present research trial was executed for the management of this notorious insect pest by use of new chemistry insecticides and to compare crop water productivity under two irrigation methods.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eNovelty Statement\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eIt is to our best knowledge that before this study, no such study for the estimation of toxicity of new chemistry insecticides especially vayego insecticide against fall armyworm on maize P \u0026ndash; 4040 hybrid under efficiency irrigation in comparison with flood irrigation plot has been executed in the country (Pakistan) and this will be served as reference point for upcoming research trials. Outcomes of our research trial will open new horizons for young researchers and serve the maize growing community.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy site\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eToxicity bioassays were executed in RCBD design at Water Management Research Farm (WMRF), Renala Khurd, Okara, Latitude: 30° 48' 17.51\" N Longitude: 73° 35' 59.99\" E, during Kharif season 2021–2022. There were overall five treatments together with control plot and each treatment was repeated in thrice.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e Treatments descriptions\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreatments descriptions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreatments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommercial name\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eActive ingredient\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompany Name\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDose rate/acre\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eT\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBelt® 480 SC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlubendiamide\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBayer Crop Science\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eT\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRadiant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpinetoram\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArysta Life Science\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eT\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoragen\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChlorantraniliprole\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFMC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eT\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e4\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVayego\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTetraniliprole\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBayer Crop Science\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eT\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e5\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePirate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChlorfenpyr\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSwat Agro Chemicals\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eControl\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e-\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e-\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e-\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e-\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll the insecticides were purchase from Syngenta Pesticides Company, Punjab, Pakistan.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCrop husbandry\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMaize hybrid P – 4040 of Monsanto Company was sown as trial crop. Water was applied through drip irrigation system according to crop water requirement. All other crop-raising practices were carried out to ensure healthy crop and no insecticides other than those comprised in the experiment were practiced. The foliar insecticides were applied at the scratching stage, a typical symptom of initiation of the fall armyworm (Khan et al. 2020). The experimental field area of 674.16 m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. The six treatments were randomly allocated to plots in each replication and one was kept free of chemical as check. Surveillance of insect attacked plants and dead heart was done by taking visual count of 10 arbitrarily nominated plants from every experimental plot (i.e. from 2 middle plant rows of plot) after seven days intervals basis from July up to mid of the September, when they had approximately vanished from the maize crop (Zulfiqar et al. 2010). Outcomes hence obtained were pooled into mean insect pest attack of \u003cem\u003eC. partellus\u003c/em\u003e. Later on, percent insect pest attack/plant and dead heart was calculated.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIrrigation practices\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInsecticides plots were irrigated through drip irrigation while control plot was irrigated through conventional irrigation methods i.e. flood irrigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eToxicity bioassays\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe recommended dose rates of the new chemistry insecticides; Belt, Radiant, Coragen, Vayego and Pirate were applied in research plots arranged under Randomized Block Design (RBD). All the treatments and control were replicated in thrice. Before applying the insecticides, it was ensured that no spraying activity was done earlier in research trial site but in toxicity bioassays. The insecticides were sprayed with the help of hand knapsack provided. Insecticides were sprayed at two times after the planting date. The first spray was sprayed at 15 days after the sowing of crops whereas second application was done after 15 days of first round of spray. FAW larvae were counted a day before the spraying activity and then afterward 1, 3, 5 and 7 days of each application of the insecticides at five arbitrarily nominated maize plants along the length of 1 m row of every treatment leaving outermost row of maize plants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMean infestation (%) of fall armyworm (FAW)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreatment effect on insect pest infestation was calculated by formula as given below;\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:\\text{M}\\text{e}\\text{a}\\text{n}\\:\\text{p}\\text{l}\\text{a}\\text{n}\\text{t}\\:\\text{i}\\text{n}\\text{f}\\text{e}\\text{s}\\text{t}\\text{a}\\text{t}\\text{i}\\text{o}\\text{n}\\:\\left(\\text{%}\\right)=\\frac{\\text{A}\\text{v}\\text{e}\\text{r}\\text{a}\\text{g}\\text{e}\\:\\text{o}\\text{f}\\:\\text{i}\\text{n}\\text{f}\\text{e}\\text{s}\\text{t}\\text{e}\\text{d}\\:\\text{p}\\text{l}\\text{a}\\text{n}\\text{t}\\text{s}/\\text{p}\\text{l}\\text{o}\\text{t}}{\\text{T}\\text{o}\\text{t}\\text{a}\\text{l}\\:\\text{n}\\text{u}\\text{m}\\text{b}\\text{e}\\text{r}\\:\\text{o}\\text{f}\\:\\text{p}\\text{l}\\text{a}\\text{n}\\text{t}\\text{s}/\\text{p}\\text{l}\\text{o}\\text{t}}\\times\\:100\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMean infestation reduction over control (%)\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt was calculated through following formula;\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Equa\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equa\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\:\\text{R}\\text{e}\\text{d}\\text{u}\\text{c}\\text{t}\\text{i}\\text{o}\\text{n}\\:\\text{i}\\text{n}\\text{f}\\text{e}\\text{s}\\text{t}\\text{a}\\text{t}\\text{i}\\text{o}\\text{n}\\:\\left(\\text{%}\\right)=\\frac{{\\text{P}}_{1}-{\\text{P}}_{2\\dots\\:.\\:}{\\text{P}}_{5\\:}}{{\\text{P}}_{1}}\\times\\:100$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e = dead heart/ plant infestation in control plot\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e....P\u003csub\u003e6\u003c/sub\u003e = dead heart/ plant infestation/in treated plot\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eCrop Water productivity\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt was determined by dividing grain yield by total applied irrigation water and is expressed as according (Awan et al. 2007) as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Equb\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\u003cdiv format=\"TEX\" class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equb\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\n$$\\:\\text{W}\\text{a}\\text{t}\\text{e}\\text{r}\\:\\text{P}\\text{r}\\text{o}\\text{d}\\text{u}\\text{c}\\text{t}\\text{i}\\text{v}\\text{i}\\text{t}\\text{y}\\:(\\text{k}\\text{g}/{\\text{m}}^{3})=\\frac{\\text{G}\\text{r}\\text{a}\\text{i}\\text{n}\\:\\text{Y}\\text{i}\\text{e}\\text{l}\\text{d}\\:(\\text{K}\\text{g}/\\text{h}\\text{a})\\:}{\\text{A}\\text{m}\\text{o}\\text{u}\\text{n}\\text{t}\\:\\text{o}\\text{f}\\:\\text{w}\\text{a}\\text{t}\\text{e}\\text{r}\\:\\text{a}\\text{p}\\text{p}\\text{l}\\text{i}\\text{e}\\text{d}\\:({\\text{m}}^{3}/\\text{h}\\text{a})}\\:\\times\\:100$$\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe collected data was analyzed through SigmaStat software. Treatments means were separated through LSD Test at (P ≤ 0.05), as defined by (Steel and Torrie 1980).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Result","content":"\u003ch2\u003eToxicity of the insecticides against FAW\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, mean incidence of \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e population all the treatment proved effective over control. Radiant proved the most effective (0.12 mean FAW larvae /plant) followed by Belt (0.37 larvae counts/plant), Vayego (0.58 larvae/plant), Coragen (0.70 larvae/plant) by post-treatment period of 7 days while comparatively greater mean larvae count (0.92 larvae/plant) were recorded in case of Pirate but was superior over control. There were comparatively greater FAW larvae count by post-treatment period of 7 days than 5,3 and 1 days.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparative toxic effects of different new chemistry insecticides against 3rd instar larvae of \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInsecticides\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLPP at DBS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"8\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean no. of FAW larvae plant\u003csup\u003e− 1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1st spray\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2nd Spray\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 DAS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 DAS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 DAS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 DAS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 DAS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 DAS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5 DAS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7 DAS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBelt\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.50\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.10b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.89bc\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.78bc\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.55c\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.41b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.14d\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00cd\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.37e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRadiant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.92b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.71bc\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.54c\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00d\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.30c\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.10d\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.95cd\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.12e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoragen\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.35\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.18b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.12b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.90b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.75bc\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.54b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.35bc\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.21c\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.70de\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVayego\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.13b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.82bc\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.80bc\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.71bc\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.48b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.18c\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.10cd\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.58de\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePirate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.27b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.19b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.96bc\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.80bc\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.69b\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.29c\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.14cd\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.92d\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.56\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.65a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.61a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.70a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.00a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.12a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.19a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.65a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.23a\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"10\"\u003eTreatment means sharing similar lettering were not significantly different (p \u0026gt; 0.05). DBS = days before spray, DAS = Days after spray, LPP = Larvae per plant\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e Comparative toxic effects of different new chemistry insecticides against 3rd instar larvae of \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTreatment means sharing similar lettering were not significantly different (p \u0026gt; 0.05). DBS = days before spray, DAS = Days after spray, LPP = Larvae per plant\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eData in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e reveals overall mean incidence of FAW larvae per maize plant. The value of FAW larvae counts were comparatively greater after first spray which got reduced after the second application of the new chemistry insecticides. Radiant proved the most effective amongst all and pirate was proved the least effective.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOutcomes in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows variation in mean larvae count per maize plants under the application of the new chemistry insecticides. Mean infested maize plants were comparatively greater before the application of treatments which reduced with increase in post-treatment period. Maximum infestation (2.1 mean infested plants/plot) were recorded in case of Pirate while the lowest infestation (1.23 mean infested plants/plot) were enumerated in case of Radiant sprayed plot. In case of control plot, there was increase in mean infested plants over the exposure periods.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eData in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e reflects overall mean infestation values recorded during the entire study period as well as reduction in infestation over the control plot. Maximum infestation (2.48 mean infested plants/plot) were recorded in case of Pirate insecticide sprayed plot while the lowest infestation (1.96 mean infested plants/plot) were noted in case of the experimental plot where Radiant insecticide was sprayed. All the insecticides were proved superior over control\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparison of mean infestation caused by \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e under different treatments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreatments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall mean infestation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInfestation reduction (%) over control\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoragen\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.45 (20.67)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e56.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePirate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.48 (23.56)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e52.21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVayego\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.32 (19.96)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e61.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFlubendiamide\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.17 (13.21)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65.43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRadiant\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.96 (10.17)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75.28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.89 (35.42)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS.D.m (±)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(3.75)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC.D. (P = 0.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e(2.21)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e*CD = Critical difference, S.D.m = Standard deviation of mean, values in parenthesis are of are √X + 0.5 transformed value\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e \u003cb\u003eComparison of mean infestation caused by\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/b\u003e \u003cb\u003eunder different treatments\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e*CD = Critical difference, S.D.m = Standard deviation of mean, values in parenthesis are of are √X + 0.5 transformed value\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCrop Water Productivity (CWP)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eData in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e shows variation in crop water productivity of maize crop under different treatment plots under two different irrigation practices. Maximum CWP (2.78 kgm\u003csup\u003e− 3\u003c/sup\u003e) was computed in case of Radiant sprayed plot under drip irrigation followed by Belt (2.65 kgm\u003csup\u003e− 3\u003c/sup\u003e), Vayego (2.41 kgm\u003csup\u003e− 3\u003c/sup\u003e), while comparatively low CWP (1.85 kgm\u003csup\u003e− 3\u003c/sup\u003e) in case of Pirate sprayed plot but superior over control plot, under flood irrigation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eVarious insecticides were evaluated against \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e larvae under field conditions. Outcomes of the current research trial can serve as baseline information for the management of fall armyworm in Pakistan and worldwide. The present research trial displayed that population of pest was noted remarkably lower in all the tested treatments like Coragen, Pirate, Vayego, Flubendiamide and Radiant compared with check plot. The mortality percentage of pest was enhanced with increase in exposure period. Deshmukh et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) evaluated the toxicity of some new chemistry insecticides against \u003cem\u003eS. frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e larvae under field situations and noted similar trend of increased larval mortality of FAW over time period as was noted in our research work. Hardke et al. (2011) recorded 2\u0026ndash;5% mortality response of FAW by application of that chlorantraniliprole and some other new chemistry insecticides with post-treatment period of seven days. Likewise, Khan et al. (2017) recorded remarkable reduction in insect infestation compared with control plot but using new chemistry insecticides in pomegranate orchards. In another research work, carried out by Daves et al. (2009) new chemistry insecticide, spinosad proved effective against larval stage of field crops insect pests afterward fourteen days of the insecticide application. The decrease in pest infestation owing to use of insecticides can improve the crop production. Our outcomes of the research trial are in accordance with Gutierrez-Moreno et al. (2019) had described that decrease in insect pest infestation improved maize crop output. It was noted that emamectin benzoate proved effective against the fall armyworm larvae. Moreover, it was also noted that larval mortality percentage can upsurge if insecticides spray ensured at initial phases of maize crop and insect pest growth as was noted in our research work. The impact of insecticides was reduced whorl stage of the crop as the larvae hide under whorl of leaves, not exposed to insecticides and can thrive. In a research work, carried out by Belay et al. (2012) 80% larval mortality was noted with post-treatment period of 96 hours by application of some new chemistry insecticides; spinosad, flubendamide, chlorantraniliprole and fenvalerate. The infestation percentage of the fall armyworm is growing with every coming day on numerous plants particularly maize in Pakistan but yet no suitable insect control approach has been assumed (Ramzan et al. 2021). Farmers without concerning with entomologists are using available chemicals which can result in resistance development in this insect pests against pesticides available in market. The recurrent use of the available synthetic insecticide not only cause resistance development in insect pests but put hazards to our environment and health-related issues in human being. There is necessity to implement environmentally safe chemicals which are also safe to human health. More toxicological research trials are desired to check against the FAW.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAchieving crop yield with efficient use of water is becoming goal of every grower due to prevailing situation of water scarcity. Drip irrigation one of the efficient irrigation systems. Many other researchers have also carried out estimation of crop water productivity of different agricultural crops under drip irrigation system in comparison with flood irrigation but different agricultural crops and maize hybrids other than P\u0026ndash;4040 like Zou et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) studied crop water productivity on maize crop on drip irrigation system in comparison with flood irrigation and recorded crop water productivity ranging as 2.5\u0026ndash;3.5 kgm\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3\u003c/sup\u003e as was recorded in my research work. However, the values were somewhat lower in our research work compared with this study which may be due to difference in maize hybrid in the both studies. In a research work, carried out by Xio et al. (2023) recorded comparatively greater crop water productivity as was noted in our research work. Similarly, Wen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) also estimated the crop water productivity of maize hybrid other than P\u0026ndash;4040 and recorded comparatively greater value of crop water productivity as was recorded in my research work which supported my results. Likewise, Payero et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) and Rodrigues et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) also studied the crop water productivity.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eFrom the present research work, it could be concluded that new chemistry insecticides especially spinetoram proved the most effective against fall armyworm and resulted in 75.28% reduction in insect infestation. Flubendiamide was the next effective one against fall armyworm. Moreover, drip irrigation method is more efficient method of irrigation which resulted in comparatively greater crop productivity value over the experimental plot under flood irrigation (i.e. control).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":" \u003ch2\u003eConflict of interest\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors have declared no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor\u0026rsquo;s Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eHR conceptualized and conducted the research. QA helped manuscript writing. RK helped in finalization of methodology. KN and FA helped in data collection. NAA helped in final draft preparation. TM helped in data analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors pay thanks to On Farm Water Management Department for and Jaffer Agro-services for arranging services of drip irrigation system.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdnan M, Bilal HM (2020) Role of Boron Nutrition on Growth, Phenology and Yield of Maize (\u003cem\u003eZea Mays\u003c/em\u003e L.) Hybrids: A Review. Open Biol Sci J 4(1):1\u0026ndash;8. https://doi.org10.46718/JBGSR.2020.04.000110\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAhmad M, Mehmood R (2015) Monitoring of resistance to new chemistry insecticides in \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera litura\u003c/em\u003e (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Pakistan. J Econ Entomol 108(3):1279\u0026ndash;1288. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tov085\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/jee/tov085\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAssefa F (2018) Status of fall armyworm (\u003cem\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e), biology and control measures on maize crop in Ethiopia: a review. Int J Entomol Res 6(2):75\u0026ndash;85. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.33687/entomol.006.02.2498\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.33687/entomol.006.02.2498\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAyilara MS, Adeleke BS, Akinola SA, Fayose CA, Adeyemi UT, Gbadegesin LA et al (2023) Biopesticides as a promising alternative to synthetic pesticides: A case for microbial pesticides, phytopesticides, and nanobiopesticides. Front Microbiol 14:1040901. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1040901\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fmicb.2023.1040901\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCui HY, Sciligo A, Tan XL, Hui C, Zhang YS, Li W et al (2024) Dynamic trends in maize diseases and pests across six regions in China over two decades. Crop Prot 186:106930. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2024.106930\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cropro.2024.106930\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeshmukh S, Pavithra HB, Kalleshwaraswamy CM, Shivanna BK, Maruthi MS, Mota-Sanchez D (2020) Field efficacy of insecticides for management of invasive fall armyworm, \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e (JE Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on maize in India. Fla Entomol 103(2):221\u0026ndash;227. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1653/024.103.0211\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1653/024.103.0211\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDeressa T, Adugna G, Suresh LM, Bekeko Z, Opoku J, Vaughan M et al (2024) Biophysical factors and agronomic practices associated with Fusarium ear rot and fumonisin contamination of maize in multiple agroecosystems in Ethiopia. Crop Sci 64(2):827\u0026ndash;845. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.21159\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/csc2.21159\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErenstein O, Jaleta M, Sonder K, Mottaleb K, Prasanna BM (2022) Global maize production, consumption and trade: trends and R\u0026amp;D implications. Food Secur 14(5):1295\u0026ndash;1319. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01288-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12571-022-01288-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJalali AI, Ali M, Hammad HM, Khan FZA (2024) Effects of Biorational Approaches and Synthetic Pesticides on Fall Armyworm Management and Arthropod Diversity in Maize. Pak J Zool 56(6):1\u0026ndash;9. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/20231114071402\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17582/journal.pjz/20231114071402\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKharwal D, Sharma A, Sharma PK (2024) Assessment of Lepidopteran Pest Dynamics in Maize: Dominance of \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e and Implications for Targeted Management in Himachal Pradesh, India. J Exp Agric Int 46(10):738\u0026ndash;743. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.9734/jeai/2024/v46i102997\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.9734/jeai/2024/v46i102997\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eManasa P, Maitra S, Reddy MD (2018) Effect of summer maize-legume intercropping system on growth, productivity and competitive ability of crops. Int J Eng Tech Manage Res 8(12):2871\u0026ndash;2875\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePayero JO, Tarkalson DD, Irmak S, Davison D, Petersen JL (2009) Effect of timing of a deficit-irrigation allocation on corn evapotranspiration, yield, water use efficiency and dry mass. Agric Water Manage 96(10):1387\u0026ndash;1397. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.03.022\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.agwat.2009.03.022\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQadir J, Awan MS, Baloch IH, Shah MA, Nadim N (2013) Application of micronutrients for yield enhancement in rice. Gomal Uni J Res 4:45\u0026ndash;76\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRizwanullah M, Yang A, Nasrullah M, Zhou X, Rahim A (2023) Resilience in maize production for food security: Evaluating the role of climate-related abiotic stress in Pakistan. Heliyon 9(11):e22140. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22140\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22140\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRodrigues GC, Paredes P, Gon\u0026ccedil;alves MJ, Alves I, Pereira LS (2013) Comparing sprinkler and drip irrigation systems for full and deficit irrigated maize using multicriteria analysis and simulation modelling: Ranking for water saving vs. farm economic returns. Agric Water Manag 126:85\u0026ndash;96. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2013.05.005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2013.05.005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTariq M, Iqbal H (2010) Maize in Pakistan-An Overview. Kasetsart J Nat Sci 44:757\u0026ndash;763\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang W, He P, Zhang Y, Liu T, Jing X, Zhang S (2020) The population growth of \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e on six cash crop species and implications for its occurrence and damage potential in China. Insects 11(9):639. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/insects11090639\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/insects11090639\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWen Y, Wu X, Liu J, Zhang J, Song L, Zhu Y, Wang Z (2023) Effects of drip irrigation timing and water temperature on soil conditions, cotton phenological period, and fiber quality under plastic film mulching. Agric Water Manag 287:108435. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108435\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108435\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXiao C, Ji Q, Zhang F, Li Y, Fan J, Hou X, Gong K (2023) Effects of various soil water potential thresholds for drip irrigation on soil salinity, seed cotton yield and water productivity of cotton in northwest China. Water Manage 279:108172\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYousaf S, Rehman A, Masood M, Ali K, Suleman N (2022) Occurrence and molecular identification of an invasive rice strain of fall armyworm, \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) from Sindh, Pakistan, using mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I gene sequences. J Plant Dis Prot 129(1):71\u0026ndash;78. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s41348-021-00548-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s41348-021-00548-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZou H, Fan J, Zhang F, Xiang Y, Wu L, Yan S (2020) Optimization of drip irrigation and fertilization regimes for high grain yield, crop water productivity and economic benefits of spring maize in Northwest China. Agric Water Manag 230:105986. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105986\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105986\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Insect pest infestation. Toxicity. Post-treatment period. Crop yield. High efficiency irrigation. Larvae count","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5639961/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5639961/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eMaize is an important cereal crop worldwide. Maize crop production is hampered by various factors including the insect pest infestation. The current research was executed to probe out the toxic effect of Flubendiamide, Spinetoram, Chlorantraniliprole, Tetraniliprole and Chlorfenpyr against fall armyworm, \u003cem\u003eSpodoptera frugiperda\u003c/em\u003e. Results revealed that larvae count per plant were found reduced with increase in post-treatment period and comparatively lower larvae count (1.10 mean larvae plant\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e) was recorded in case of Spinetoram after 7 days of first spray which further reduced to minimum count i.e. 0.12 larvae plant\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e with application of second spray of the insecticide. Flubendamide was the next effective one (0.37 larvae plant\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e) while chlorfenpyr was found comparatively less effective (0.92 larvae plant\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e) after exposure period of 7 days but was superior over control plot (4.23 mean larvae plant\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e. Results of infested plants per plot showed that maximum infestation (5.89 mean infested plants plot\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e) were recorded in case of control plot while the minimum (1.96 mean infested plant per plot\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e) were enumerated in case of Spinetoram treated plot. Outcomes of crop water productivity showed that maximum crop water productivity (2.78 kgm\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3\u003c/sup\u003e) was recorded in case of Spinetoram treated plot followed by flubendiamide plot (2.65 kgm\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3\u003c/sup\u003e), chlorantraniliprole (2.27 kgm\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3\u003c/sup\u003e) under drip irrigation while the lowest value i.e. 1.35 kgm\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;3\u003c/sup\u003e was calculated in control plot under flood irrigation. Hence, use of new chemistry insecticide along with high efficiency irrigation system can be effective for the control of fall armyworm leading to maximization of crop yield and productivity.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Efficacy of some new chemistry insecticides against fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda and estimation of maize crop water productivity under different irrigation regimes","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-09 10:44:19","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5639961/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ac9583e3-668d-4c6b-b4a6-db65c7a4c0f4","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 9th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-10-07T11:56:20+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-09 10:44:19","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5639961","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5639961","identity":"rs-5639961","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}