|
Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences
Vol. 11(1), pp. 48-56, 2021
ISSN: 2276-7770
Copyright ©2021, the copyright of this article is
retained by the author(s)
https://gjournals.org/GJAS
|
|
Review of
Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda)
invasion in Nigeria and lessons learned for sustainable food production
Timothy Oluwafemi Ajiboye1; Sunday E. Aladele1;
Marcus Ogunbiyi2; Mayowa R. Olubiyi1;
Clement Michael1; Olusola T. Oduoye 1; Olabisi
Olajire1; Oluwafeyidara Oyewole1
1.
National Centre for Genetic Resources and
Biotechnology (NACGRAB), Moor Plantation, PMB 5382, Ibadan, Nigeria.
2.
Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development, South West Regional Office, Moor Plantation, Ibadan.
|
ARTICLE INFO
|
ABSTRACT
|
|
Article
No.: 032120051
Type: Research
|
Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) is a lepidopterous
insect pest belonging to the family noctuidae. This
insect pest was first discovered more than 200 years ago but was first
recognized as a serious economic pest about 93 years ago (Luginbill
1928). The study of review of Fall Armyworm in Nigeria was carried out to
know the present status, and various methods of control being used by
farmers. The methodology used is to search the available literature on the
status and the methods of control being employed by farmers. It was
discovered that in the states in Nigeria where Fall Armyworm (FAW) was
reported, an average of 395.05 hectares were affected per state.
Average of $52.7m was lost per state so far since 2016 in state affected by
FAW in Nigeria. Despite that there have been concerted efforts by various
stakeholders in controlling FAW, many farmers have
abandoned maize farming while sale of green maize during harvest has reduced
drastically. It was also discovered that farmers employed various materials
both conventional and unconventional for the control of Fall Armyworm (FAW).
This discovery is very important in FAW and environmental management and
policy briefs.
|
|
Accepted: 22/01/2021
Published: 27/04/2021
|
|
*Corresponding
Author
Ajiboye
TO
E-mail:
ajiboyefemi2002@ yahoo.com
|
|
Keywords: Fall armyworm; Lepidopterous; Noctuidae; economic pest; Environmental management;
Policy briefs
|
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda)
has suddenly become a major pest of Cereals in Africa.
However, in 2016,
there was an outbreak of insect pest called Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in Nigeria, later Benin,
Togo, Ghana and other West African countries. The worse hit cereals were maize
(Zea mays) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) (Koffi
et al., 2020). Spodoptera frugiperda is native to Tropical and Sub-tropical
regions of America (Wiseman 1987, Odeyemi,
2018). It was first recognized as a serious economic pest over 200 years ago (Luginbill, 1928; Wiseman, 1987). It is one of only few
pests that periodically disperse and breed throughout the United States of
America (Wiseman, 1987). The Fall Armyworm constitutes pests and causes serious
damage and destruction to many crops in various areas of South Eastern United
States, Mexico and Central and South America (Wiseman and Davis, 1979; Wiseman,
1987). It is a long distance and migratory transboundary
pest. It is a harmful insect that has been rapidly spreading out African
continent (2016), South- East Asia (2018) and Southern part of China (2019).
Fall Armyworm is polyphagous and is found not only on
poaceae (maize, sorghum, sugarcane, rice, etc.) but
it is also found on peanuts, cotton, Brassicaceae, (Cabbage: Brassica
oleracea var capitata), Curcurbitaceae
(Cucumber: Cucumis sativus) and Solanaceae (Potato: Solanum tuberosum). It is also reported to have been causing
extensive damage to oil palm nurseries in Cote d’Ivoire since 2016 (N’guessan, 2019). Spodoptera frugiperda belong to the family Noctuidae.
Distribution
Fall armyworm is an important pest of sorghum
in tropical America. It is found in sorghum fields in Southeastern USA. It is
one of the biotic constrains to sorghum production in Tropical America. Sorghum
production in much of Central and South America have also been reported to be
affected by Fall Armyworm (ICRISAT, 1989; Ajiboye
2019; Kofi et al.2020). There was severe outbreak of Fall Armyworm in
Southeastern, USA in 1975, 1976 and 1977. The estimated losses in US dollars
was $61.2 million in 1975 and $31.9 million in 1976, while in 1977 losses in
Georgia alone were estimated at $137.5 million (Sparks, 1979; ICRISAT, 1989; Ajiboye 2019). Fall Armyworm is also known to stray North
from Southeastern, USA to South central and South
eastern Canada (Bland and Jacques, 1978). Recently, Fall Armyworm has now
spread to African continent, South East Asia and Southern part of China and
Australia in 2020.
Other
Species of Spodoptera in Africa
Before the outbreak of the frugiperda
species of Spodoptera, some species of Spodoptera found in Africa
include cotton leafworm called Spodoptera littoralis. This is called Egyptian
cotton leafworm. The host range include cereals like Zea mays
(maize), Oryza
sp., and other crops such as groundnut (Arachis hypogea),
cowpea (Vigna unguiculata),
tomato (Lycopersicon esculentus),
onion (Allium cepa),
cabbage(Brassica oleracea
var capitata), okra (Abelmoschus spp), cotton
(Gossypium
sp.), vegetables and fruits (NRI 1996; Koffi et al.
2020).
Spodoptera littoralis constitute pest to
cotton by the damage it causes to foliage of tobacco. This results in the
reduction of yield of tobacco and death of young tobacco plants. The larva also
attack stem, foliage and green pods of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). The larva of Spodoptera littoralis
also attacks leaves of cocoa (Theobroma cacao)
and likewise the leaves of okra, tomato, cabbage, onion, eggplant and sesame (Sesamum indicum).
Another species of Spodoptera that is common in Africa before the
invasion of frugiperda
is Spodoptera exempta (Odeyemi 2016). It is
usually referred to as Africa armyworm. The larva attack leaves of maize (Zea mays), millet (Pennisetum glaucum), rice (Oryza glaberrima; Oryza sativa) and sorghum (Sorghum
sp.)
Biology of
Spodoptera frugiperda(Fall
Armyworm)
Fall armyworm has complete metamorphosis.
Adult lays eggs on immature plants and hatch in about 3-5days. The larvae which
emerge in 14- 28 days may tunnel directly into the maize ear. Pupation takes
place in the soil for about 7-14days after development. The pupae then changes
to adult. The adult moth lives for about 11-14days. The cycle repeats in warmer
climates. Fall armyworm is highly migratory and can migrate as far as 100s of
kilometer and can move from one country to another by migration. Life cycle of
the fall armyworm takes about 30 -40 days (Prasanna
et al., 2018).
Host
Plants of Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda)
Fall armyworm has over 80 host plants but
known to prefer grasses (Dively, 2018; Chidege et al., 2019). Among the plants in the world that
serve as host plants for fall armyworm include – maize (sweet maize and field
maize), Sorghum, Bermuda grass, grass weeds (crab grass), Alfafa,
barley, buckwheat, cotton, clover, oat, millet, peanut (groundnut), rice,
ryegrass, sugarbeet, Sudan grass, soybean, sugarcane,
tobacco, wheat, sweetpotato, turnip, tomato, cabbage,
cucumber, apple, grape, orange, papaya (pawpaw), strawberry, oil palm and some
flowers (Dively, 2018).
Agricultural Crops
infestation of Fall Armyworm (FAW).
Fall armyworm normally attack the seedlings
of cereal crops like maize, sorghum, etc and turn the leaves of the plant to rag looking mass.
The larva normally damages the whorl of the plants. High infestation can
destroy the growing tip of maize or sorghum and can prevent ear formation in
maize. Fall armyworm normally attacks the ears or cobs of maize formed as well.
Cereals
belong to the family Poaceae. They play vital role in
the nourishment of both humans and animals. They store longer and are easily
transported. Therefore, cereals movement for the purpose of trade and as germplasm is sacrosanct. Cereals are very rich in energy,
protein, mineral elements such as potassium and calcium, vitamin A, vitamin C
and essential amino acids. Cereals are consumed in different forms: pastes,
noodles, cakes, breads, drinks, etc. the major cereal crops in Nigeria are
maize, rice, sorghum, wheat, pearl millet, sugar cane and fonio
millet.
According to Dively (2018), the damage is estimated at $13.3 billion and
is a major threat to food security.
Case study
of Agricultural crops infestation of Fall Armyworm in Nigeria
In Nigeria, fall armyworm is a threat to agro
and agro-allied industries. In the areas affected by fall armyworm in Nigeria,
average of 395.05 hectares of land is affected per state. Average crop loss of
68.2 % (in maize production) has been recorded per state affected by fall
armyworm. Average of $52.7m was lost per state so far since 2016 in states
affected by fall armyworm. Despite that there have been efforts
in 12 states in Nigeria as at 2018, many farmers have abandoned maize
planting in those parts of the country while sale of green maize during time of
harvest have reduced drastically (Odeyemi, 2018; Ajiboye, 2019).
Control of
Fall Armyworm
Various control approach have been employed
in the control of fall armyworm in Nigeria. However, the control option that
will give quick “knock down” is the first line of action that a typical African
farmer will think of. But the environment is as important as control of fall
armyworm. Both old and new classes of pesticides are being used for the control
of fall armyworm in Nigeria. However, the best control option is the Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) that integrates both the use of insecticides, cultural
and biological control in economic and environmental balanced approach.
The thresholds
recommended for farmers in Africa include when 10-30% of the maize are infested
with early whorl stage of Fall armyworm or when 30-50% of the maize field are
infested with late whorl and pretassel stages of Fall
armyworm or when 10-30% maize fields are infested with tassel silking and ear stages for commercial farmers.
The cultural methods
employed by the farmers include intercropping of susceptible crops (e.g. maize,
sorghum) with crops not susceptible (like yam, cassava, etc.). Also, early
planting or the use of early maturing varieties of maize has been found
effective. The practice of closed season, which is, burning of residue of maize
stubbles and stem after the harvest to kill pupae or diapausing
larvae of Fall armyworm or other Lepidoptera species (Adesiyun 1983). Thus
the heat generated can kill the pupae in the soil. Deep tillage that destroys
pupae in the soil may also be effective.
Table 1:
Foliar Treatments- Higher Risk Insecticides for FAW in the US
|
Product Name
|
Active
Ingredients
|
Other
Comments
|
|
Lannate
|
Methomyl*
|
Available in Africa
|
|
Lorsban
|
Chlorpyrifos*
|
Pyrinex (+ SP)
|
|
Asana
|
Esfenvalerate*
|
Available in Africa
|
|
Perm-UP
|
Permethrin*
|
Available in Africa
|
|
Baythroid
|
Beta- cyfluthrin*
|
Thunder (+ neo)
|
|
Declare
|
Gamma cyhalothrin*
|
|
|
Bifenture,
capture, sniper
|
Bifenthrin
|
Available in Africa
|
|
Hero
|
Zeta- cypermethrin*
+ bifenthrin*
|
|
|
Warrior, capture, generics
|
Lambda- cyhalothrin*
|
Super top (+neo)
|
|
Mustang Maxx
|
Zeta- cypermethrin*
|
Chemaprid
|
|
Tombstone
|
Cyfluthrin*
|
Available in Africa
|
|
Avaunt
|
Indoxacard
|
Avata, viper
(+SP)
|
|
Besiege
|
Lambda- cyhalothrin*
+ chlorantraniliprole
|
|
Restricted use products have 12-48hours
re-entry and 1-7 days harvest interval. All classified highly hazardous or
require mitigation measures to reduce risks.
(Author: Professor Galen Dively,
Emeritus Professor, Department of Entomology, University
of Maryland: Management of Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) with emphasis on Bt Transgenic Technology)
Table 2:
Foliar Treatment- soft insecticides for FAW control in the US
|
Product
Name
|
Active
Ingredients
|
Other
Comments
|
|
Coragen, Premio
|
Chorantraniliprole
|
Available in Africa
|
|
Volian Targo
|
Chorantraniliprole + abamectin
|
Available in Africa
|
|
Minecto Pro
|
Cyantraniliprole
|
Available in Africa
|
|
Belt
|
Flubendiamide
|
Available in Africa
|
|
Blackhawk, Entrust
|
Spinosad
|
Available in Africa
|
|
Radiant, Exalt
|
Spinetoram
|
|
|
Match
|
Lufenuron
|
Available in Africa
|
|
Intrepid
|
Methoxyfenozide
|
|
|
Rimon
|
Novaluron
|
|
|
Dimilin
|
Diflubenzuron
|
Available in Africa
|
|
Neemix, many
others
|
Azadiractin
|
Available in Africa
|
|
Able, Agree
|
Bacillus
thuringiensis
|
Bypel, Agoo
|
(Author: Professor Galen Dively,
Emeritus Professor, Department of Entomology, University
of Maryland: Management of Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) with emphasis on Bt Transgenic Technology).
Table 3:
List of insecticides used for FAW control in Nigeria
|
Product Name
|
Active Ingredients
|
Other Comments
|
|
Ampligo
|
Chlorantroniliprole+ lambda
– cyhalothrin
|
Used in Nigeria
|
|
Magicforce
|
Lambda – cyhalothrin
+ dimethroate
|
Used in Nigeria
|
|
Ematrex
|
Emamectin
benzoate
|
Used in Nigeria
|
|
Best action
|
Cypermethrin + dimethroate
|
Used in Nigeria
|
|
Tihan
|
Spirotetiamat 75g/l +
flubenbiamide
|
Used in Nigeria
|
|
Caterpillar force
|
Dichlorvos (DDVP)
100g/l
|
Used in Nigeria
|
|
Strongforce
|
Methomyl 90% Sp family carbamate
|
Used in Nigeria
|
|
Goldmax
|
Trade secret*
|
Used in Nigeria
|
|
Relambda
|
Lambda- cyhalothrin
|
Used in Nigeria
|
|
Picco
|
Fatty acid methylester
|
Used in Nigeria
|
(Compilation by Ajiboye,
T.O 2020)
*Active
ingredient- not known.
Biological
Control
The use of entomopathogenic
fungi, bacteria and virus are promising. However, they have not been found
sufficient without the addition of other control methods because they may be
too slow to prevent economic damage and also they are influenced by weather
conditions. Though, there is prospect for development of biopesticide
of viruses, bacteria and fungi, the use of predators and parasitoids also has
prospects. Among the predators are Earwig spp. (skirt and blouse) (Forficula auricularia),
ground beetles, predacious bugs, various types of lady beetle, Telenomus spp., Campoletis flavicinta, Chelonus spp. Parasites and parasitoids include tachinid fly, Winthemia trinitatis and Trichogramma.
Use of
Resistant Varieties
The use of host plant resistance combined
with carefully timed minimum insecticide application (that will not disrupt the
natural enemy balance) and appropriate cultural practices have been advocated
as the appropriate integrated management for managing insect pests (Jackai and Singh, 1983; Pitan and
Odebiyi, 2002; Ajiboye,
2018). This is particularly true of Fall armyworm.
However, all efforts to get maize with complete resistance to Fall armyworm have not yielded complete success. Africa
maize germplasms have not shown promising level of
resistance to Fall armyworm (Dively
2018). Host plant resistance is
particularly good for resource constrain African farmers with low level of
application knowledge of other control methods and inadequate financial
resources for purchase of inputs such as pesticides (Ajiboye,
2018; Dively, 2018).
Other
control methods
However, there are various types of local
control employed by farmers. These include the use of detergent soaked in
water, use of battery carbide (dry cell); others include the use of wood ash,
soap, neem extract, and other botanicals. Some
farmers in Tanzania, just like Nigeria also used wood ash and soap (Chidege et al., 2019)
Research
Gaps
There is need to research into the use of
host plant resistance for the control of fall armyworm in Africa. This is
especially true for African farmers who will find it safer and cheaper than
other control methods. Also, this will be equally good for African farmers who
prefer to use open pollinated varieties (OPV) and select seeds for the next
planting season from the current year harvest.
Other possible
research questions (even though strains
of maize and rice fall armyworm have been found (Pashley
1986; Nagashi and Meagher 2004), include whether
there have been interspecific hybridization between Spodoptera littoralis, Spodoptera frugiperda and also between S. exempta X S. frugiperda. Even
there is possibility of cross between Spodoptera frugiperda X Spodoptera exigua , likewise,
there is possibility of cross between Spodoptera frugiperda X Spodoptera ornithogali . Also, there is need to find out
possibility of intergeneric hybridization between Spodoptera spp
and other Lepidoptera (stem borer) affecting maize in Africa. Although, Ajiboye, 2018 found out that after sequencing maize stem
borers, possible options in the process of identification with BLAST was Spodoptera litura which
showed 75% resemblance to the samples to
be identified though they were identified as Eldana saccharina. Likewise, another sample
identified as Eldana saccharina
shows 79% resemblance to Spodoptera litura (Ajiboye, 2018). There
is also need to show whether there have been three-way cross between Spodoptera littoralis X Spodoptera exempta
X Spodoptera frugiperda. If this occurs, a virulent strain may be
produced. This has occurred in the case of plant parasite, Striga hermonthica and Striga aspera though a reciprocal cross. (Berner et al., 1997; Ajiboye
et al., 2011).
CONCLUSION
Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) has joined the arrays of
Lepidoptera pests ravaging crops in Africa especially Nigeria and has become
part of cohorts of pests constituting biological constraints to cereals
especially maize production and other crop production. This is threatening food
security in Africa. Nigeria population will be 400 million by year 2050
(Ibrahim, 2019; Ajiboye et al., 2019). This necessitates the importance of pest control to
increase food production needed to feed the expanding population.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study was supported by the grant
from KAFACI (Project NO: KAB20200109), Rural Development Administration of
Korea.
REFERENCES
1.
Ajiboye, T. O (2018).
Relative abundance and molecular characterization of stem borers and evaluation
of maize (Zea mays L.) Genotypes for resistance in Nigeria.
Thesis submitted for award of degree of Philosophy to the Department of Crop
Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ilorin, Ilorin,
Nigeria.
2.
Ajiboye, T.O
(2019). Project proposal of Integrated Management of Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda)
for sustainable food security in Africa (Nigeria). National centre
for Genetic Resources and Biotechnology (NACGRAB).
3.
Dively, G.
(2018). Management of Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda),
with emphasis on Bt Transgenic Technology. Galen Dively. Emeritus Professor, Department of Entomology,
University of Maryland. https://usunrome.usmission.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2018-Africa-FAW-Talk_Rome-pdf.pdf.
4.
Ibrahim, A.B (2017). Genetically Engineered
Crops and Food Security in Nigeria. Policy Brief No. 012017
5.
ICRISAT (International Crop Research for Semi
-Arid Tropics) (1989). International Workshop on Sorghum Stem Borers, 17-20
Nov, 1987, ICRISAT Center, India, Patancheru, A. P 502 324, India: ICRISAT.
6.
Jackai, L.E.N
and Singh, S. R (1983). Varietal Resistant in the Integrated Pest Management of
cowpea pests. Insects Science and its Application 4: 199- 203.
7.
Koffi, D., Agbooka K., Adenka, D. K., Osae, M., Tounou, A.K., Adjevi, M.K.A., Fening K.O., and
Meagher Jr R. L (2020). Maize infestation of Fall Armyworm
(Lepidoptera:Noctuidae)
within Agro-Ecological Zones of Togo and Ghana in West Africa 3yr after its
invasion. Environmental Entomology, Vol. XX, No. XX, 2020 doi:
10.1093/ee/nvaa048. Research.
8.
Luginbill, P. 1928.
The farm armyworm. Technical Bulletin no 34, Washington, D.C., USA: United
States Department of Agriculture. 92pp.
9.
NRI (1996). A guide to Insect pests of
Nigerian crops- Identification, Biology, and Control. Natural Resources
Institute. Overseas development Administration.
10.
Nagoshi R.N and
Meagher R.L (2004). Behaviour and distribution of the
two Fall armyworm host strains in Florida. Florida
Entomologist, 87(4): 440-449(2004). http://doi.org/10.1653/0015-4040(2004)
087[0440: BADOTT] 2.0CO; 2
11.
N’guessan A. H
(2019). Project proposal of Integrated Management of Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda)
for sustainable food security in Africa (Cote d’Ivoire).Centre National de Recherche Agronomique, Cote
d’Ivoire.
12.
Odeyemi, O
(2016). The emergent insect pest of Maize: The Ecology, biology and Control of
Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda)
(Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): in proceedings of
the sensitization and training workshop of stakeholders on Armyworm outbeak in Maize and its control.
13.
Odeyemi, O
(2018). Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda
J.E.Smith) (Lepidotera: Noctuidae): The journey so far in Nigeria. Brief Update on
FAO intervention. September 2018.
14.
Olufemi O. R. Pitan and Odebiyi J. A (2002).
Effects of Intra- Row Spacing of cowpea on Pod- sucking Bug population and
damage in Ibadan, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Entomology (2002) 19: 31-39.
15.
Pashley D.P
(1986). Host-associated genetic differentiation in fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): a sibling species complex? Ann. Entomol. Soc Am 79: 898-904.
Google Scholar
16.
Prasanna B.M, Huesing J.E, Eddy R, Preschke V.M
(eds). Fall armyworm in
Africa. A guide for Integrated Pest Management, First Edition. Mexico, CDMX:
CIMMYT.
17.
Roger G. Bland and H.E. Jacques (1978). How
to know the insects. The pictured Key Nature Series. Wm
C. Brown Company Publishers Dubuque, Iowa.
18.
Sparks, A. N. (1979). A review of the biology
of the fall armyworm. Florida Entomologist 62:87-91
19.
Wiseman, B.R (1987). Technological advances
for determining resistance in maize to Heliothis (Helicoverpa) Zea (Boddie). Presented at the International Symposium on
Methodologies used for Determining Resistance in Maize to Insects. 9-13 March,
1987, Mexico, Apartado Postal 6-641, Mexico 6, D.F.,
CIMMYT: Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento
de Maiz y Trigo.
20.
Wiseman, B.R., and Davis, F. M. (1979). Plant
resistance to the fall armyworm. Florida Entomologist 62: 123-130.
|
Cite this Article: Ajiboye TO; Aladele SE; Ogunbiyi M; Olubiyi MR; Michael C; Oduoye
OT; Olajire O; Oyewole O
(2021). Review of Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) invasion in Nigeria and lessons learned
for sustainable food production. Greener
Journal of Agricultural Sciences 11(1): 48-56.
|
|
GREENER SCHOLARLY
PUBLICATIONS
|
|
gjournals.org
|
REVIEW COMMENTS
SECTION I:
|
|
Manuscript Number: 032120051
Manuscript Title: Review
of Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda)
invasion and lessons learned for sustainable food production in Nigeria
Reviewer’s Details: Deleted
|
SECTION
II: Comments on the sections of Manuscript below.
|
Title:
|
The title is
not complete. Please, include place of armyworm invasion.
You have not
presented how this pest has constituted a major threat to the food security
situation in Africa especially in Nigeria. You may need to x-ray the hunger
and food security situation in Africa and especially Nigeria to really find
the place of crop pests in this discourse. you may find some important
information about these issues in these links: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2019.08.001
https://premierpublishers.org/ajaerd/19120820382
|
|
Abstract:
|
You may need
to rewrite this section in a summarized manner incorporating the ingredients
of a typical abstract (brief intro/objective of the study, methodology, your
major findings, very brief conclusion and a recommendation enamating from the
findings in your study). You may not need to give historical background of
the subject but present a brief background information about it.
|
|
Introduction:
|
Author(s) needs
to present more robust background information
in this section. Please, can you provide historical background of
armyworm before becoming a major pest of cereals in Africa? You need to give
robust background information about armyworm and sustantiate the need to link
it to the major crops. You may need to include the names of some crops
belonging to these families (please, check the edited manuscript).
|
|
Methodology:
|
|
|
Results:
|
|
|
Discussion/Conclusion:
|
You may need to
modify this section by incorporating some recommendations enamating from the
findings in this study and present a more concise conclusion. You may check
the edited manuscript for other comments.
|
|
References:
|
Some
other recent, relevant and highly retrievable references may be added in the
introduction and results and discussion sections of this study.
|
|
Tables, Figures, Graphs and additional files:
|
|
|
Others:
|
|
Section
III: Please answer YES or NO. Read carefully before answer. You can give
further details to your answers to these questions in section VII below.
|
Is the title of the manuscript befitting
for the manuscript? If no, please suggest in section II.
|
Yes
|
|
Have the experiments been properly performed and are
they adequate?
|
|
|
Do you think a wrong study method has been applied?
|
|
|
Have you observed
manipulation and forging of data to suit the result and conclusion of the
study?
|
No
|
|
Does the provided data
adequately support the result and conclusion?
|
Yes
|
|
Should more data be provided to support the conclusion?
|
|
|
Has the author cited
relevant works by other scholars?
|
Yes
|
|
Do you consider the
citations irrelevant to the study or inadequate?
|
No
|
|
Are there ethical issues
or issues of competing interests you would like to raise? If yes, please give
details in section VII.
|
No
|
|
Does the manuscript
need further proofreading (English and grammatical corrections)?
|
Yes
|
SECTION IV:
Please answer the questions below.
|
What is the type of
manuscript (Research, review, short comm., technical note etc)?
|
Review
|
|
What subject area does
the manuscript fit?
|
Crop Production
|
|
Will you like to be
sent the revised manuscript?
|
|
SECTION V: Please rate the following: (Kindly Mark X where related)
|
Novelty/originality:
|
Technical correctness:
|
Importance to the
field:
|
|
Excellent
|
|
Excellent
|
|
Excellent
|
|
|
Good
|
|
Good
|
|
Good
|
x
|
|
Fair
|
x
|
Fair
|
x
|
Fair
|
|
|
Poor
|
|
Poor
|
|
Poor
|
|
|
English/ Grammar
|
Logic, clarity,
structure & flow
|
Presentation &
Style
|
|
Excellent
|
|
Excellent
|
|
Excellent
|
|
|
Good
|
|
Good
|
|
Good
|
|
|
Fair
|
x
|
Fair
|
X
|
Fair
|
x
|
|
Poor
|
|
Poor
|
|
Poor
|
|
SECTION VI: Overall Assessment/Score: (Kindly place your score where related)
|
Article Assessment
|
Score Range
|
Your Score
|
|
Excellent
|
81
-100
|
|
|
Very Good
|
61 -
80
|
|
|
Good
|
41 -
60
|
55
|
|
Fair
|
21 -
40
|
|
|
Poor
|
0 - 20
|
|
SECTION
VII: Additional Comments
Please add any additional comments: