Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 336

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Understanding the factors influencing fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda J.E. Smith) damage in African smallholder maize fields and quantifying its impact on yield. A case study in Eastern Zimbabwe

Open access
Baudron, Frédéric, Zaman-Allah, Mainassara Abdou, Chaipa, Isaac, Chari, Newton, Chinwada, Peter·2019·Crop Protection

Abstract

Fall armyworm (FAW, Spodoptera frugiperda J.E. Smith) is an invasive lepidopteran pest established in most of sub-Saharan Africa since 2016. Although the immediate reaction of governments has been to invest in chemical pesticides, control methods based on agronomic management would be more affordable to resource-constrained smallholders and minimize risks for health and the environment. However, little is known about the most effective agronomic practices that could control FAW under typical African smallholder conditions. In addition, the impact of FAW damage on yield in Africa has been reported as very large, but these estimates are mainly based on farmers' perceptions, and not on rigorous field scouting methods. Thus, the objectives of this study were to understand the factors influencing FAW damage in African smallholder maize fields and quantify its impact on yield, using two districts of Eastern Zimbabwe as cases. A total of 791 smallholder maize plots were scouted for FAW damage and the head of the corresponding farming household interviewed. Grain yield was later determined in about 20% of these fields. FAW damage was found to be significantly reduced by frequent weeding operations and by minimum- and zero-tillage. Conversely, pumpkin intercropping was found to significantly increase FAW damage. FAW damage was also found to be higher for some maize varieties, although these varieties may not be the lowest yielding. If the incidence of plants with FAW damage symptoms recorded in this research (32–48%, depending on the estimate used) is commensurate with what other studies conducted on the continent found, our best estimate of the impact of FAW damage on yield (11.57%) is much lower than what these studies reported. Although our study presents limitations, losses due to FAW damage in Africa could have been over-estimated. The threat that FAW represents for African smallholders, although very real, should not divert attention away from other pressing challenges they face.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cropro.2019.01.028

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 25 references

Cited by

See all 336

Metadata

Authors
Baudron, F., Zaman-Allah, M. A., Chaipa, I., Chari, N., & Chinwada, P.
Venue
Crop Protection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-06
Volume
120
Pages
141-150
ISSN
0261-2194 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2914558541
Cited by
336
References
25
FWCI
27.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Understanding the factors influencing fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda J.E. Smith) damage in African smallholder maize fields and quantifying its impact on yield. A case study in Eastern Zimbabwe. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cropro.2019.01.028
The paper
Baudron, F., Zaman-Allah, M. A., Chaipa, I., Chari, N., & Chinwada, P. (2019). Understanding the factors influencing fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda J.E. Smith) damage in African smallholder maize fields and quantifying its impact on yield. A case study in Eastern Zimbabwe. Crop Protection. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2019.01.028

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.