Global Advances and Regional Strategies in Maize Pest Management: A Contemporary Review

Abstract

Maize (Zea mays) is a global staple crop that plays a critical role in food security; however, its production is increasingly threatened by insect pests. These challenges have intensified due to globalization, climate change, and agricultural intensification. Invasive species such as Spodoptera frugiperda have caused substantial yield losses across Africa and Asia, while native pests including Ostrinia furnacalis and Diabrotica virgifera virgifera continue to develop resistance to pesticides and Bt maize. Pest profiles differ considerably across regions, resulting in different management programs. The Americas rely heavily on integrated strategies combining Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) maize, crop rotation, and precision pesticide applications; Africa emphasizes low-cost solutions such as climate-adapted push–pull systems and microbial biopesticides; Asia prioritizes policy-driven integrated pest management (IPM) and large-scale releases of Trichogramma spp.; Europe focuses on agroecological practices and precision monitoring technologies; and Oceania adopts integrated approaches tailored to irrigated and rainfed production systems. Integrated pest management remains the cornerstone of sustainable maize protection, combining advanced monitoring technologies (e.g., remote sensing and AI-based models), cultural practices (such as intercropping and improved resistant varieties), biological control (including natural enemies and microbial agents), behavioral manipulation (e.g., pheromone traps and push–pull strategies), and regulated chemical control with resistance management. Emerging technologies, including digital agriculture, CRISPR-based breeding, and ecological engineering, offer promising opportunities for future pest management. However, major challenges remain, including insufficient cross-border collaboration, widespread pesticide resistance, unequal access to advanced technologies, and uncertainties in pest dynamics under climate change. Addressing these issues will require coordinated global monitoring networks, equitable technology transfer, promotion of agroecological practices, and standardized resistance management frameworks. Sustainable maize pest management therefore depends on transnational cooperation and innovative, context-specific strategies to safeguard global food security in a changing climate.

Keywords

maize pest / global IPM / sustainable agriculture / invasive species / climate resilience

1 INTRODUCTION

Maize (Zea mays) is a cornerstone of global food security, ranking first among cereal crops in total production and serving as an essential source of food, feed, and industrial raw materials (Erenstein et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2025). It is cultivated across diverse agroecosystems ranging from temperate corn belts to tropical smallholder farming systems, supporting the livelihoods of billions of people worldwide.

Despite its global importance, maize production faces increasing threats from insect pests (Savary et al., 2019). The distribution and severity of these pests have been significantly reshaped by globalization, climate change, and intensified agricultural practices (Bebber et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2022). Among these threats, the transboundary spread of invasive pests—most notably the fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda)—has become a major global concern. Since its spread beyond the Americas, this pest has caused severe maize yield losses valued at billions of dollars annually in Africa and Asia (Jing et al., 2020; Nyamutukwa et al., 2022; Palli et al., 2023). Climate change further exacerbates pest-related challenges. Rising temperatures accelerate pest metabolism, expand geographical ranges, and increase overwintering survival rates, thereby increasing the frequency and severity of pest outbreaks (Deutsch et al., 2018; Haider et al., 2025). At the same time, agricultural intensification—characterized by monoculture systems and heavy reliance on chemical pesticides—has disrupted natural pest regulation mechanisms, promoted pesticide resistance, and degraded ecosystem services (Desneux et al., 2007; Emery et al., 2021). Under these circumstances, the development of integrated, sustainable, and regionally adapted pest management strategies has become increasingly urgent. This review synthesizes global advances in maize pest management, compares regional pest complexes and control frameworks, highlights emerging technologies and innovations, and identifies key challenges and future research directions. By integrating global perspectives with regional experiences, this review aims to provide a comprehensive reference for researchers, policymakers, and agricultural practitioners working to safeguard maize production and global food security.

2 Global and Regional Pest Profiles and Management

Maize is cultivated across multiple continents under highly diverse climatic, economic, and technological conditions. As a result, the composition of economically important maize insect pests varies substantially among regions of the world (Savary et al., 2019). Chiang (1978) provided one of the earliest global compilations of maize insect pests of economic importance in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Building on this foundation, the present review updates the global inventory of maize insect pests based on recent literature (Fig. 1). Understanding these regional differences is essential for designing pest management strategies that are appropriate to local ecological and socioeconomic contexts (Table 1).

2.1 The Americas

The Americas represent the native range of several major maize pests and therefore experience complex pest assemblages. The fall armyworm (S. frugiperda) is a highly polyphagous species native to tropical and subtropical regions of the Americas and is capable of causing significant damage to maize and other crops (Kenis et al., 2023). Another major pest is the western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera), which has developed resistance to both insecticides and Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) maize across the U.S. Corn Belt (Gassmann et al., 2025; Pereira et al., 2022). Additional important pests include the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis) and the corn earworm (Helicoverpa zea), both of which have evolved resistance to multiple Bt toxins (Tabashnik and Carrière, 2019; Yang et al., 2020). Management strategies in the Americas rely heavily on integrated approaches that combine transgenic Bt maize (e.g., Cry1Ab, Cry2Ab, Vip3Aa20), crop rotation—particularly to control corn rootworm—and targeted chemical control measures (Reay-Jones et al., 2016; Ye et al., 2025). In order to delay the development of insect resistance to the toxins, refuges of non-Bt maize are planted to ensure a pool of susceptible target pests for mating and mingling with any Bt-resistant pests that emerge. The practice of "refuge-in-a-bag" (RIB), in which 5% or 10% non-Bt seed is mixed into a bag of Bt maize, has been widely adopted by seed companies for maize-growing regions in the U.S. (Walsh and Battagliotti, 2025). Brazil implements structured refuge strategies, which consist of a separate block or strip of non-Bt maize (typically 5%–20% of the total area) adjacent to or within a Bt maize field, to delay the evolution of resistance. In addition, the combined management of entomopathogenic fungi resulted in a reduction in Dalbulus maidis infestation (Maia et al., 2025; Walsh and Battagliotti, 2025). Biological control also contributes to pest suppression, with augmentative releases of egg parasitoids such as Trichogramma spp. and Telenomus remus widely applied against lepidopteran pests (Bueno et al., 2023; Kenis et al., 2023).

2.2 Africa

Maize pest dynamics in Africa have changed dramatically following the invasion of the fall armyworm in 2016. Since its introduction, the pest has spread to more than 44 countries and is estimated to cause annual yield losses of US$2.5–US$6.3 billion (Midega et al., 2018; Nyamutukwa et al., 2022). Native pests, including the African stem borer (Busseola fusca) and the spotted stem borer (Chilo partellus), continue to cause substantial damage, with B. fusca populations in South Africa having developed resistance to Cry1Ab Bt maize (Strydom et al., 2025; Tefera et al., 2016). Other economically important pests include the sorghum stem borer (Sesamia calamistis) and aphids such as Rhopalosiphum maidis, which transmit plant viruses (Kebede et al., 2019; Li et al., 2022). Pest management in Africa is constrained by limited financial resources, restricted access to advanced technologies, and the vulnerability of smallholder farming systems (Baudron et al., 2019; Van den Berg et al., 2022). Consequently, many management strategies emphasize affordable and scalable approaches. The climate-adapted push–pull system is among the most successful examples, combining maize intercropped with drought-tolerant Desmodium species and border planting of Brachiaria grasses to repel pests and attract natural enemies (Alexandridis et al., 2023; Midega et al., 2018). Additional strategies include the application of microbial biopesticides such as Metarhizium anisopliae and Bacillus thuringiensis, as well as farmer field schools that promote knowledge exchange and IPM adoption (Aravindaram et al., 2026; Nyamutukwa et al., 2022).

2.3 Asia

Asia’s maize pest complex is dominated by the Asian corn borer (Ostrinia furnacalis), which causes annual yield losses of 6–9 million tons in China alone (Zang et al., 2021). The fall armyworm invaded Asia in 2018, becoming a major threat to maize production in China and India (Ganiger et al., 2018; Jing et al., 2020; Song et al., 2025). Other key pests include the oriental armyworm (Mythimna separata), the maize borer (Conogethes punctiferalis, C. partellus), and aphids (R. maidis, Aphis gossypii) (Dong et al., 2023; Li et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023a). Management strategies in Asia are characterized by policy-led IPM campaigns, large-scale biological control, and technological innovation. China has promoted the mass release of Trichogramma spp. (e.g., Tr. dendrolimi, Tr. ostriniae) for controlling the Asian corn borer, covering nearly 4 million hectares annually (Zang et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2024). Trichogramma chilonis can be released against corn stem borer, C. partellus in India (Shera et al., 2017). Pheromone traps and intelligent monitoring systems (e.g., improved YOLO models for pest detection) are widely used for surveillance (Deng et al., 2023; Lv et al., 2022). Additionally, transgenic Bt maize (e.g., MON810, Cry1Ab+Cry2Ab+Cry1Fa) is being evaluated and deployed to control lepidopteran pests, with strict resistance monitoring in place (Suby et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2025; Li et al., 2020).

2.4 Europe

In Europe, maize pest communities are primarily dominated by the European corn borer and the western corn rootworm, the latter of which was introduced from North America and has become an invasive pest in several countries (García et al., 2023; Pereira et al., 2022). Aphid species such as Rhopalosiphum padi and Sitobion avenae are also important pests due to their role in transmitting barley yellow dwarf viruses (Gilabert et al., 2017). In addition, the spotted stem borer (C. partellus) has recently invaded Turkey and expanded its distribution to multiple provinces (Akmese et al., 2023; Pehlivan and Atakan, 2025). Bt maize producing Cry1Ab has been cultivated in Spain and Portugal since 1998, with resistance management based on the high-dose/refuge strategy and systematic monitoring programs (García et al., 2023). Furthermore, crop rotation and habitat management practices—including flower strips and hedgerows—are promoted to enhance natural enemy populations and support biological pest control (Camerini et al., 2024; Yousefi et al., 2024). Precision monitoring technologies, such as pheromone traps and automated digital monitoring systems, are increasingly used to track pest populations and guide management decisions (Kwadha et al., 2025; Purice and Grozea, 2025).

2.5 Oceania

The maize pest complex in Oceania includes the corn earworm (Helicoverpa armigera), and cosmopolitan armyworm (M. separata) (Bird et al., 2023; Trolove et al., 2024). More recently, the fall armyworm has invaded Australia, further increasing pest pressure in the region (Kenis et al., 2023). Management strategies in Oceania emphasize integrated approaches adapted to both irrigated and rainfed production systems, with a strong focus on biological control and reduced reliance on chemical pesticides. Conservation of natural enemies—such as Hymenopteran parasitoids—plays an important role in suppressing pest populations (Fagan-Jeffrie et al., 2024). Microbial biopesticides and precision pesticide applications are also widely adopted (Van den Berg and du Plessis, 2022; Vivekanandhan et al., 2023). Pest monitoring systems primarily rely on pheromone traps and regular field scouting to detect infestations at an early stage (Sisay et al., 2024). In New Zealand, the use of legume-based cover crops has been shown to suppress weeds, reduce pest damage, and improve maize yields while lowering armyworm populations (Trolove et al., 2024).

3 Integrated Pest Management on Maize

Integrated pest management represents a holistic approach that combines multiple tactics for sustainable pest control. The following sections examine key IPM components and their implementation across global maize production systems (Fig. 2).

3.1 Monitoring and forecasting: global technological advancement

Commercialized monitoring and forecasting tools for maize insect pests have advanced significantly, integrating remote sensing and automated trapping systems. Satellite-based platforms such as Sentinel-2 and Landsat 8 are now routinely used for large-scale surveillance of crop health and pest damage, with spectral bands in visible and shortwave infrared regions effectively detecting maize ear damage caused by H. armigera (Lv et al., 2022; Sári-Barnácz et al., 2023). Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) equipped with multispectral sensors provide high-resolution imagery for real-time field monitoring, enabling early detection of pest infestations and precise assessment of crop health (Martin and Latheef, 2019; Yan et al., 2025).

Pheromone-based trapping remains a widely adopted commercial method. Sex pheromone lures and traps are routinely used to monitor population dynamics of H. armigera, O. furnacalis, and S. frugiperda in maize fields (Kim et al., 2018; Sisay et al., 2024). Food attractant-based traps have also been commercialized for S. frugiperda, providing comparable performance to sex pheromones and enabling the capture of both sexes, which improves forecasting of fecundity and migration (He et al., 2023). These commercialized technologies collectively enable data-driven, proactive pest management in maize production systems worldwide.

3.2 Cultural practices: global practices and adaptation

Cultural practices constitute an essential component of integrated pest management, aiming to reduce pest pressure through crop management strategies, genetic improvement and diversified cropping systems.

Among genetic control approaches, transgenic Bt maize remains the most widely adopted technology for controlling lepidopteran pests. Pyramided Bt traits, such as Cry1Ab+Cry2Ab+Cry1Fa, provide broad-spectrum protection against multiple insect species and have been widely implemented in several maize-producing regions (Chen et al., 2025; Yang et al., 2024). However, the evolution of pest resistance poses a growing challenge, with species such as Busseola fusca and S. frugiperda developing resistance to both single and stacked Bt toxins (Strydom et al., 2025; Van den Berg and du Plessis, 2022). In the United States, resistance management for Bt maize includes refuge strategies designed to maintain susceptible pest populations and delay resistance evolution. Similarly, in China, refuge systems involving Bt maize combined with non-Bt cotton have been used to delay resistance development in pests such as the pink bollworm (Gassmann and Reisig, 2023; Tabashnik and Carrière, 2019).

In addition to genetic approaches, crop diversification strategies play a key role in cultural pest management. Intercropping systems, particularly those involving legumes such as cowpea, pigeon pea, or alfalfa, can reduce pest infestations by disrupting pest host-finding behavior and enhancing populations of natural enemies (Soujanya et al., 2024; Wu et al., 2022). Crop rotation remains another important strategy, especially maize–soybean rotations used to suppress western corn rootworm populations. However, behavioral adaptations in some pest species have reduced the effectiveness of rotation in certain regions (Gray et al., 2009; Jacobi et al., 2022).

Overall, cultural practices contribute to pest suppression while simultaneously improving agroecosystem resilience and sustainability.

3.3 Biological control: international experience and innovation

Biological control represents a cornerstone of sustainable maize pest management, relying on natural enemies, microbial insecticides, and conservation strategies to suppress pest populations while minimizing environmental impacts. These approaches have been widely adopted across maize-producing regions as essential components of integrated pest management programs.

Egg parasitoids of the genus Trichogramma are among the most extensively used biological control agents worldwide. Large-scale releases of these parasitoids have been implemented in several countries, including China, India, and Myanmar, to control key lepidopteran pests such as the Asian corn borer and the fall armyworm (Dai et al., 2026; Myint et al., 2023; Zang et al., 2021). Among them, Trichogramma dendrolimi demonstrates enhanced and prolonged parasitism of Asian corn borer eggs when released at different developmental stages. In contrast, the parasitism efficiency of Trichogramma ostriniae appears less sensitive to release timing and can be significantly enhanced when the parasitoids are reared on the factitious host Antheraea pernyi, which improves their fitness and parasitism capacity (Iqbal et al., 2021; Li et al., 2024; Zang et al., 2021). In addition to Trichogramma species, other parasitoids and predators contribute significantly to maize pest suppression. For example, parasitoids such as T. remus and predators including Chrysoperla carnea are frequently used to manage lepidopteran pests in maize fields (Bueno et al., 2024; Huang et al., 2026; Franeta et al., 2025). These natural enemies play an important role in regulating pest populations, particularly when integrated with other IPM practices.

Microbial biopesticides have also gained increasing attention as environmentally friendly alternatives to chemical insecticides. Entomopathogenic fungi such as Beauveria bassiana and M. anisopliae, bacterial agents such as B. thuringiensis, and viral agents including nuclear polyhedrosis virus have demonstrated effectiveness against a range of maize pests. Recent innovations have further enhanced the performance of microbial agents. For example, the integration of B. bassiana with graphene oxide (GO-Bb nanocomposites) improves its thermal stability and ultraviolet tolerance, thereby enhancing its effectiveness against the Asian corn borer while simultaneously promoting maize seedling growth (Feng et al., 2023; Zhan et al., 2026). Similarly, M. anisopliae has shown high pathogenicity against fall armyworm larvae while posing minimal risks to non-target organisms such as earthworms (Aravindaram et al., 2026; Vivekanandhan et al., 2023).

Conservation biological control further strengthens pest regulation by enhancing habitats that support natural enemy populations. Habitat manipulation strategies—such as the establishment of flower strips, hedgerows, and field margins—can significantly increase the abundance and diversity of predators and parasitoids in maize fields (Gurr et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2025a; Wang et al., 2026). Agri-environmental practices that increase habitat complexity have been shown to improve pest suppression. For instance, in Ethiopia, maize fields bordered by complex hedgerows and enset (Ensete ventricosum) fields support higher predator abundance than fields adjacent to simpler hedgerows or khat plantations (Kebede et al., 2018). Similarly, in China, herbaceous strips significantly increased insect biodiversity—particularly populations of parasitic wasps and Staphylinidae—both within the strips and in adjacent maize fields. These ecological infrastructures effectively suppressed herbivorous insect populations and resulted in a maize yield increase of approximately 14.5% ± 2.3% compared with control fields (Yan et al., 2026).

Collectively, these international experiences demonstrate that biological control—through augmentative releases, microbial agents, and habitat management—plays a critical role in sustainable maize pest management. Continued innovation in biological control technologies and ecological approaches will further enhance their effectiveness and integration within global IPM programs.

3.4 Behavioral control: technological diffusion

Behavioral control strategies exploit the behavioral responses of pests to environmental cues in order to reduce infestation and crop damage. These methods are increasingly integrated into modern pest management programs due to their ecological compatibility and compatibility with other IPM strategies.

Intelligent trapping technologies—including light traps, pheromone traps, and color sticky traps—are widely used for both pest monitoring and mass trapping. Advanced light traps equipped with sensors and neural network algorithms can selectively capture nocturnal pests such as moths while minimizing non-target insect capture (Hinojosa-Dávalos et al., 2025; Yi et al., 2025). Pheromone traps are also highly effective for monitoring pest populations and guiding management decisions. For example, a ternary blend of (Z)-12-tetradecenyl acetate, (E)-12-tetradecenyl acetate, and n-tetradecyl acetate has been identified as the most effective attractant for male Asian corn borers in Xinjiang, China (Deng et al., 2023; Sisay et al., 2024).

Color sticky traps provide another efficient monitoring tool. Yellow traps corresponding to wavelengths around 580 nm have been shown to effectively capture pests such as Monolepta hieroglyphica, particularly when placed near field edges at heights approximately 40 cm above the maize ear level (Yi et al., 2025; Ziaie-Juybari et al., 2021).

Additional behavioral and physical control methods are also emerging. Ultrasonic repellents are being explored in pilot applications in Europe, while drip irrigation systems delivering insecticides such as dimethoate or thiamethoxam enable targeted control of soil-dwelling pests with reduced environmental exposure (Yan et al., 2023; Zheng et al., 2020). Plant volatile-mediated strategies have also gained increasing attention. The push–pull system, originally developed in Africa, exploits pest responses to plant-derived volatiles to repel pests from maize while attracting them to trap crops. This system has demonstrated remarkable effectiveness, reducing fall armyworm damage by up to 82.7% and increasing maize yields by approximately 2.7 times (Luttermoser et al., 2023; Midega et al., 2018; Mobarak et al., 2025).

Recent innovations further expand behavioral control technologies. For instance, UV-protective, water-resistant, and biodegradable micro/nanofiber mats have been developed to enable controlled release of repellents, providing sustained management of pests such as Holotrichia oblita (Li et al., 2026).

3.5 Chemical control: resistance management

Despite increasing emphasis on ecological approaches, chemical control remains an important component of integrated pest management in maize production systems. However, its use is increasingly guided by standardized practices aimed at reducing environmental impacts and slowing the development of pest resistance. Diamides (e.g., chlorantraniliprole) are the most popular and core pesticides in maize pest control, and the characteristic application is the combination of neem oil and pyrethroids (Gray et al., 2009; Ye et al., 2025). These practices are concise and in line with regional planting characteristics and regulatory requirements.

Advances in precision agriculture technologies have improved the efficiency and accuracy of pesticide applications. Tools such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and electrostatic spray nozzles enable targeted pesticide delivery, improving coverage while reducing spray drift and chemical waste (Martin and Latheef, 2019; Yan et al., 2025). Seed treatments with neonicotinoid insecticides, including imidacloprid, are widely used to control early-season pests, although their effectiveness varies depending on pest species and environmental conditions (Douglas and Tooker, 2015; Zhang et al., 2023).

Managing insecticide resistance has become a major global priority. Effective resistance management strategies typically involve rotating insecticides with different modes of action, using synergists, and integrating chemical control with biological and cultural methods. International monitoring programs also play an important role in resistance management. Global databases and surveillance networks track resistance evolution in pest populations, while standardized bioassays are used to assess pest susceptibility to insecticides and Bt toxins (Li et al., 2020; Strydom et al., 2019). These coordinated efforts support the development of evidence-based resistance management strategies and contribute to the long-term sustainability of pest control programs.

4 Emerging Technologies and Innovations

4.1 Digital and precision agriculture

Recent innovations leverage remote sensing, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), artificial intelligence (AI), and IoT-based monitoring to enable real-time, data-driven pest management.

Remote sensing technologies, drones, and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven analytical models now play increasingly important roles in maize pest monitoring systems. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) equipped with multispectral sensors provide high-resolution real-time imagery for early detection of pest infestations and improved crop health assessment (Martin and Latheef, 2019; Yan et al., 2025).

AI and machine learning have further enhanced pest detection capabilities: deep-learning models such as Maize-YOLO and improved YOLOv3 algorithms can automatically identify maize pests from field images with high accuracy, achieving mean average precision (mAP) exceeding 76% (Wang et al., 2025b; Yang et al., 2023).

Neural-network-guided smart traps with light and rain sensors can selectively capture nocturnal pests while minimizing non-target catches (Hinojosa-Dávalos et al., 2025). Automated digital monitoring systems (e.g., iScout®) provide continuous temporal data on adult activity, complementing traditional traps (Purice & Grozea, 2025). Food attractants have been validated for monitoring S. frugiperda seasonal abundance, enabling better forecasting (He et al., 2023).

Beyond detection, predictive modeling plays a crucial role. Ecological niche models like MaxEnt and CLIMEX are widely used to predict pest distribution and potential spread under current and future climate scenarios (Li et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2018). IoT-integrated monitoring platforms incorporate sensors for temperature, humidity, and pest activity, delivering real-time data to farmers via mobile applications (He et al., 2023; Yan et al., 2025). Decision support tools—including dynamic Bayesian network models and other machine learning approaches—synthesize monitoring data, climatic datasets, and pest biological traits to forecast outbreaks and inform control decisions (Bebber et al., 2019; Cros et al., 2021; Haider et al., 2025). Finally, precision application technologies such as UAVs fitted with electrostatic nozzles and variable rate technology (VRT) facilitate site-specific pesticide delivery, minimizing waste and environmental footprint (Martin and Latheef, 2019; Yan et al., 2025).

4.2 Biotechnology and genomics

Biotechnology and genomics are accelerating the development of pest-resistant maize germplasm. Multiplex genome editing of whole gene families (e.g., BREEDIT pipeline) improves complex traits such as leaf architecture and yield in maize (Lorenzo et al., 2023). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutations in cadherin, ABCC2, and ABCC3 revealed functional redundancy in Bt toxin pathways against O. furnacalis, providing insights for resistance management (Wang et al., 2025c). The technology is also used to create smart-canopy architecture (e.g., lac1 mutant) for high-density planting (Tian et al., 2024). Recent reviews highlight CRISPR’s potential for enhancing biotic and abiotic stress tolerance (Chen et al., 2024; Li et al., 2025).

New pyramided Bt events (e.g., Cry1Ab+Cry2Ab+Cry1Fa) show high efficacy against multiple lepidopteran pests, including S. frugiperda, H. armigera, and O. furnacalis (Chen et al., 2025). However, resistance evolution remains a concern, with sequential resistance documented in western corn rootworm (Gassmann et al., 2025) and B. fusca (Strydom et al., 2025). Blended refuge strategies and structured refuges are being refined for smallholder systems (Kang et al., 2025).

QTL mapping and multi-omics profiling identified candidate genes (e.g., Zm00001d035736) for corn leaf aphid resistance, involving flavonoid biosynthesis and jasmonic acid pathways (Wang et al., 2023b). Physical defense mechanisms against spider mites were linked to stomatal traits (Di et al., 2024).

Although not yet extensively documented in the reviewed field studies, RNAi-based biopesticides (e.g., spray-induced gene silencing) represent a promising next-generation strategy for species-specific pest control. Future research should focus on developing stable dsRNA formulations and assessing their field efficacy against key maize pests such as O. furnacalis and S. frugiperda.

4.3 Ecological engineering

Ecological engineering centers on the design of agroecosystems to strengthen natural pest regulation and reduce dependence on synthetic inputs. Habitat manipulation strategies—including intercropping, cover cropping, and flower strip establishment—enhance agroecosystem biodiversity and furnish resources for natural enemies (Kebede et al., 2018; Yousefi et al., 2024). Maize–alfalfa intercropping reduces fall armyworm incidence by 80% and improves the land equivalent ratio, whereas legume cover crops suppress weeds and mitigate pest injury (Trolove et al., 2024; Wu et al., 2022). Landscape-level management practices—such as reducing monocropping and augmenting habitat heterogeneity—boost the biocontrol services provided by beneficial arthropods. In France, landscape grassland cover reduces aphid colonization of maize; in Ethiopia, smaller field dimensions and greater field border density correlate with higher predator abundance (Gilabert et al., 2017; Kebede et al., 2019). The push-pull cropping system, a flagship ecological engineering approach, employs plant semiochemicals to repel pests and recruit natural enemies, delivering sustainable pest suppression across sub-Saharan Africa and Asia (Erdei et al., 2024; Midega et al., 2018).

4.4 Climate-smart pest management

Climate-smart pest management seeks to adapt to and mitigate climate-driven shifts in pest population dynamics. Predictive modeling leveraging climatic datasets and species distribution models (SDMs) forecasts shifts in pest geographic ranges and outbreak risk, guiding adaptive management (Li et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2018). Resilient cropping systems—such as drought-tolerant maize intercropped with drought-resistant legumes—reduce crop vulnerability to climate extremes and associated pest pressure (Alexandridis et al., 2023; Zanzana et al., 2025). Adaptive tactics include adjusting sowing dates to evade peak pest pressure, modifying irrigation regimes to disrupt pest habitats, and deploying pest-resistant cultivars adapted to altered climatic conditions (Haider et al., 2025; Rezaei et al., 2023). Climate-smart IPM merges these practices with biological, physical, and chemical control to build agroecosystem resilience. For instance, in the United States, climate change projections identify regions at elevated risk of aflatoxin contamination, directing targeted monitoring and mitigation (Wang et al., 2022; Yu et al., 2022).

4.5 Nanotechnology and advanced delivery systems

Nanomaterials are emerging as tools to enhance the efficacy of biocontrol agents and reduce pesticide use. Graphene oxide (GO) as a nanocarrier for B. bassiana (GO-Bb nanocomposite) improved spore thermal stability and UV resilience. Field experiments showed that GO-Bb reduced O. furnacalis damage, activated phytohormone signaling, and up-regulated benzoxazinoid (BX) defense genes, offering dual benefits for pest control and plant growth (Zhan et al., 2026).

A methacrylic-anhydride-functionalized cellulose nanocrystal-stabilized high internal phase Pickering emulsion (MCNCs-HIPPE) was developed for imidacloprid delivery. The formulation exhibited cellulase-promoted and temperature-dependent release, improved leaf adhesion, rain resistance, and lower LC₅₀ against R. maidis compared to a commercial emulsifiable concentrate, with reduced environmental risk (Zhou et al., 2026). Combining RNAi with nanocarriers (e.g., layered double hydroxide or chitosan nanoparticles) could enable efficient delivery of dsRNA into pest insects. Although not yet reported in the current literature set for maize pests, such platforms hold great promise for sequence-specific, environmentally benign pest control.

5 Challenges and Barriers to Implementation

5.1 Inadequate cross-border collaboration and information sharing

Fragmented cross-national pest monitoring networks delay early warning of invasive pests such as the fall armyworm, which spreads rapidly across national boundaries (Bebber et al., 2019; Guo et al., 2024; Song et al., 2025). Divergent phytosanitary regulations and data-sharing protocols impede coordinated transboundary pest suppression, resulting in inconsistent management and recurrent invasions (Kenis et al., 2023; Muniappan et al., 2024). Limited pest identification and monitoring capacity in low- and middle-income countries exacerbates this gap, with numerous pests remaining unreported or misdiagnosed (Bebber et al., 2019; Nyamutukwa et al., 2022).

5.2 Widespread pesticide resistance and environmental risks

Pesticide resistance constitutes a global crisis, with S. frugiperda evolving resistance to multiple insecticide classes in more than 40 countries (Strydom et al., 2025; Van den Berg and du Plessis, 2022). Bt resistance is similarly pervasive: B. fusca exhibits resistance to Cry1Ab Bt maize in South Africa, and H. zea is resistant to Cry1 and Cry2 toxins in the United States (Gassmann et al., 2025; Tabashnik and Carrière, 2019). Overreliance on pesticides drives environmental contamination; neonicotinoid exposure impairs pollinators and other non-target organisms across Europe and North America (Desneux et al., 2007; Douglas and Tooker, 2015).

5.3 Uneven access to advanced technologies

A pronounced technology adoption gap persists between developed and developing nations. Transgenic Bt maize and intelligent monitoring equipment are widely deployed in the United States and Europe, yet high costs and limited availability restrict uptake by smallholder farmers in Africa and Asia (Baudron et al., 2019; Van den Berg et al., 2022). Policy constraints—including restrictions on genetically modified (GM) crops in parts of Europe—further limit technological access (García et al., 2023; Yousefi et al., 2024). This digital and biotechnological divide widens global food security disparities, leaving developing regions disproportionately vulnerable to pest outbreaks.

5.4 Uncertainty of pest dynamics under climate change

Climate change is reshaping pest distribution, phenology, and population dynamics, complicating outbreak prediction and effective control strategy design (Bebber et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2022). Elevated temperatures accelerate pest metabolism and reproductive rates, increasing outbreak frequency and severity; altered precipitation regimes modify pest habitats and natural enemy communities (Deutsch et al., 2018; Haider et al., 2025). Erratic climatic events—including extreme droughts and floods—disrupt pest management operations and reduce the efficacy of cultural and chemical tactics (Hou et al., 2024; Rezaei et al., 2023).

6 CONCLUSION

Effective maize pest management represents a multifaceted global challenge requiring integrated, adaptive, and geographically tailored strategies. The rapid range expansion of invasive pests, intensifying climate change impacts, and agricultural intensification have collectively restructured pest dynamics across major maize-producing regions. Concurrently, persistent constraints—including insufficient cross-border coordination, widespread pesticide and Bt resistance, and inequitable access to innovative technologies—continue to limit the efficacy and sustainability of pest management practices. Regional pest complexes and management frameworks vary substantially due to differences in agroecological conditions, technical capacity, and policy environments. Nonetheless, several unifying principles have emerged globally. IPM—integrating monitoring technologies, cultural practices, biological control, behavioral manipulation, and judicious chemical use—remains the gold-standard framework for sustainable maize pest control. Continued refinement of resistance management protocols, particularly for Bt crops and synthetic pesticides, is critical to preserving long-term control efficacy.

Emerging technologies—including AI-driven pest surveillance, digital and precision agriculture tools, CRISPR-based crop improvement, and ecological engineering—offer transformative potential to boost pest management efficiency and sustainability. However, successful scaling of these innovations depends on enabling policy environments, effective technology transfer, and equitable farmer access, especially in developing regions where maize is a cornerstone of food security. Future research and policy priorities should prioritize the establishment of global pest monitoring and early-warning networks, strengthened international cooperation in pest surveillance and management, and the promotion of agroecological practices that enhance ecosystem resilience. Additionally, standardized resistance management frameworks and accelerated development of eco-friendly pest control technologies are indispensable to mitigating long-term risks associated with pest adaptation and environmental degradation. Ultimately, sustainable maize pest management demands coordinated global action that integrates scientific innovation, regional empirical knowledge, and inclusive agricultural policies. By fostering international collaboration and developing context-responsive pest management strategies, we can safeguard maize production, minimize environmental harm, and strengthen global food security amid ongoing climatic and ecological change.

References

[1] Akmese V , Öztemiz S , Akçali E . et al. Spotted stem borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) infestation in corn fields of Turkiye. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 2023, 47(5): 645–651

[2] Alexandridis N , Feit B , Kihara J . et al. Climate change and ecological intensification of agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa-A systems approach to predict maize yield under push-pull technology. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 2023, 352: 108511

[3] Amarghioalei R G , Talmaciu N , Herea M . et al. Chemical control of Western Corn Rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera Le Conte, Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in Eastern Romania. Insects, 2025, 16(3): 293

[4] Aravindaram K , Dibbad S H , Yadav S . et al. Biocontrol potential of microbial biopesticides for management of invasive pest fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda in maize. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, 2026, 133: 6

[5] Baudron F , Zaman-Allah M A , Chaipa I . et al. Understanding the factors influencing fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda JE Smith) damage in African smallholder maize fields and quantifying its impact on yield. A case study in Eastern Zimbabwe. Crop Protection, 2019, 120: 141–150

[6] Bebber D P , Field E , Gui H . et al. Many unreported crop pests and pathogens are probably already present. Global Change Biology, 2019, 25(8): 2703–2713

[7] Bebber D P , Ramotowski M A T , Gurr S J . Crop pests and pathogens move polewards in a warming world. Nature Climate Change, 2013, 3(11): 985–988

[8] Bird L J , Walker P W , Drynan L J . Frequency and diversity of indoxacarb resistance in Australian Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 2023, 116(6): 2154–2165

[9] Bueno A D , Sutil W P , Maciel R M A . et al. Challenges and opportunities of using egg parasitoids in FAW augmentative biological control in Brazil. Biological Control, 2023, 186: 105344

[10] Bueno A D F , Sutil W P , Cingolani M F . et al. Using egg parasitoids to manage caterpillars in soybean and maize: benefits, challenges, and major recommendations. Insects, 2024, 15(11): 869

[11] Camerini G , Maini S , Limonta L . Impact of chemical insecticide application on beneficial insects in maize. Insects, 2024, 15(4): 224

[12] Chakroun M , Banyuls N , Walsh T . et al. Characterization of the resistance to Vip3Aa in Helicoverpa armigera from Australia and the role of midgut processing and receptor binding. Scientific Reports, 2016, 6: 24311

[13] Chen F , Chen L , Yan Z . et al. Recent advances of CRISPR-based genome editing for enhancing staple crops. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2024, 15: 1478398

[14] Chen S , Yang X , Kang G . et al. Efficacy of Bt-(Cry1Ab+Cry2Ab +Cry1Fa) maize against Spodoptera frugiperda and other lepidopteran migratory pests in tropical Asia. Pest Management Science, 2025, 82(3): 2275–2285

[15] Chiang H C . Pest management in corn. Annual Review of Entomology, 1978, 23: 101–123

[16] Cros M J , Aubertot J N , Gaba S . et al. Improving pest monitoring networks using a simulation-based approach to contribute to pesticide reduction. Theoretical Population Biology, 2021, 141: 24–33

[17] Dai X , Chen H , Liu Y . et al. Trichogramma ostriniae as a sustainable biological control agent against Ostrinia furnacalis: an eight-year field and laboratory study in China. Journal of Pest Science, 2026, 99: 40

[18] Deng J , Lan C , Zhou J . et al. Analysis of sex pheromone production and field trapping of the Asian corn borer (Ostrinia furnacalis Guénéé) in Xinjiang, China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2023, 22(4): 1093–1103

[19] Desneux N , Decourtye A , Delpuech J M . The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods. Annual Review of Entomology, 2007, 52: 81–106

[20] Deutsch C A , Tewksbury J J , Tigchelaar M . et al. Increase in crop losses to insect pests in a warming climate. Science, 2018, 361(6405): 916–919

[21] Di N , Shi Z , Harwood J D . et al. Laboratory and field evaluation of maize resistance to the two-spotted spider mite. Tetranychus urticae. Journal of Pest Science, 2024, 97(3): 1515–1523

[22] Dong Z , Li C , Song Y . et al. Population genetics of the yellow peach moth, Conogethes punctiferalis, reveals landscape-mediated genetic distribution in agroecosystems. Entomologia Generalis, 2023, 43(4): 861–869

[23] Douglas M R , Tooker J F . Large-scale deployment of seed treatments has driven rapid increase in use of neonicotinoid insecticides and preemptive pest management in US field crops. Environmental Science & Technology, 2015, 49(8): 5088–5097

[24] Emery S E , Jonsson M , Silva H . et al. High agricultural intensity at the landscape scale benefits pests, but low intensity practices at the local scale can mitigate these effects. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 2021, 306: 107199

[25] Erdei A L , David A B , Savvidou E C . et al. The push-pull intercrop Desmodium does not repel, but intercepts and kills pests. Elife, 2024, 13: e88695

[26] Erenstein O , Jaleta M , Sonder K . et al. Global maize production, consumption and trade: trends and R&D implications. Food Security, 2022, 14(5): 1295–1319

[27] Fagan-Jeffries E P , Miles M M , Atkin-Zaldivar T C C . et al. Hymenopteran parasitoids of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)) in Australia, with the description of five new species in the families Braconidae and Eulophidae. Austral Entomology, 2024, 63(2): 136–174

[28] Feng M , Zhang Y , Coates B S . et al. Assessment of Beauveria bassiana for the biological control of corn borer, Ostrinia furnacalis, in sweet maize by irrigation application. BioControl, 2023, 68(1): 49–60

[29] Franeta F , Duric A , Dunderski D . et al. Biological solutions for higher maize yield and reduced stalk damage caused by the European Corn Borer, Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner). Agronomy-Basel, 2025, 15(4): 764

[30] Ganiger P C , Yeshwanth H M , Muralimohan K . et al. Occurrence of the new invasive pest, fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in the maize fields of Karnataka, India. Current Science, 2018, 115(4): 621–623

[31] García M , García-Benítez C , Ortego F . et al. Monitoring insect resistance to Bt maize in the European Union: update, challenges, and future prospects. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2023, 116(2): 275–288

[32] Gassmann A J , Brenizer B , Kropf A L . et al. Sequential evolution of resistance by western corn rootworm to multiple Bacillus thuringiensis traits in transgenic maize. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025, 122(11): e2422337122

[33] Gassmann A J , Reisig D D . Management of insect pests with Bt crops in the United States. Annual Review of Entomology, 2023, 68: 31–49

[34] Gilabert A , Gauffre B , Parisey N . et al. Influence of the surrounding landscape on the colonization rate of cereal aphids and phytovirus transmission in autumn. Journal of Pest Science, 2017, 90(2): 447–457

[35] Gray M E , Sappington T W , Miller N J . et al. Adaptation and invasiveness of Western Corn Rootworm: intensifying research on a worsening pest. Annual Review of Entomology, 2009, 54: 303–321

[36] Guo J , Shi J , Han H . et al. Competitive interactions between invasive fall armyworm and Asian corn borer at intraspecific and interspecific level on the same feeding guild. Insect Science, 2024, 31(4): 1313–1325

[37] Gurr G M , Wratten S D , Landis D A . et al. Habitat management to suppress pest populations: progress and prospects. Annual Review of Entomology, 2017, 62: 91–109

[38] Haider K , Abbas D , Ullah F . et al. Climate-driven insect pest outbreaks and food security risks: a review of adaptive strategies for resilient agriculture. Journal of Pest Science, 2025, 99: 12

[39] He W , Wang L , Lv C . et al. Use of food attractants to monitor and forecast Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) seasonal abundance in southern China. Journal of Pest Science, 2023, 96(4): 1509–1521

[40] Hinojosa-Dávalos J , Robles-García M A , Gutiérrez-Lomelí M . et al. Neural network-guided smart trap for selective monitoring of nocturnal pest insects in agriculture. Agriculture-Basel, 2025, 15(14): 1562

[41] Hou M , Li Y , Biswas A . et al. Concurrent drought threatens wheat and maize production and will widen crop yield gaps in the future. Agricultural Systems, 2024, 220: 104056

[42] Huang M , Shen Z , Chen Y . et al. Biocontrol potential of the egg-larval parasitoid Chelonus bifoveolatus and egg parasitoid Telenomus remus against fall armyworm. Crop Protection, 2026, 199: 107399

[43] Iqbal A, Chen Y, Hou Y, et al. 2021. Rearing Trichogramma ostriniae on the factitious host Antheraea pernyi via multiparasitism with Trichogramma chilonis facilitates enhanced biocontrol potential against Ostrinia furnacalis. Biological Control, 156: 104567.

[44] Jacobi V G , Fernández P C , Zavala J A . The stink bug Dichelops furcatus: a new pest of corn that emerges from soybean stubble. Pest Management Science, 2022, 78(6): 2113–2120

[45] Jing D , Guo J , Jiang Y . et al. Initial detections and spread of invasive Spodoptera frugiperda in China and comparisons with other noctuid larvae in cornfields using molecular techniques. Insect Science, 2020, 27(4): 780–790

[46] Kacar G, Butrón A, Kontogiannatos D, et al. 2023. Recent trends in management strategies for two major maize borers: Ostrinia nubilalis and Sesamia nonagrioides. Journal of Pest Science, 96: 879−901.

[47] Kang G D , Yang X M , Zhang H W . et al. Refuge strategies for managing resistance to Bt maize in fall armyworm in smallholder farming systems: a case study from China. Journal of Pest Science, 2025, 98(3): 1551–1566

[48] Kebede Y , Bianchi F , Baudron F . et al. Implications of changes in land cover and landscape structure for the biocontrol potential of stemborers in Ethiopia. Biological Control, 2018, 122: 1–10

[49] Kebede Y , Bianchi F , Baudron F . et al. Landscape composition overrides field level management effects on maize stemborer control in Ethiopia. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 2019, 279: 65–73

[50] Kenis M , Benelli G , Biondi A . et al. Invasiveness, biology, ecology, and management of the fall armyworm. Spodoptera frugiperda. Entomologia Generalis, 2023, 43(2): 187–241

[51] Kim J , Kwon M , Park K J . et al. Monitoring of four major lepidopteran pests in Korean cornfields and management of Helicoverpa armigera. Entomological Research, 2018, 48(4): 308–316

[52] Kwadha C A , Saveer A M , Wada-Katsumata A . et al. Visual cues enhance effectiveness of pheromone-baited traps for the corn earworm moth, Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 2025, 118(2): 662–671

[53] Li D , Li Z , Wang X . et al. Increasing risk of aphids spreading plant viruses in maize fields on both sides of China's Heihe-Tengchong line under climate change. Pest Management Science, 2022, 78(7): 3061–3070

[54] Li E , Cui C , Shangguan W . et al. Integrated UV-protective, water-resistant, and biodegradable core-shell micro/nanofiber mats enabling controlled repellent delivery for sustained pest management. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2026, 530: 173664

[55] Li G , Huang J , Ji T . et al. Baseline susceptibility and resistance allele frequency in Ostrinia furnacalis related to Cry1 toxins in the Huanghuaihai summer corn region of China. Pest Management Science, 2020, 76(12): 4311–4317

[56] Li G , An L , Yang W . et al. Integrated biotechnological and AI innovations for crop improvement. Nature, 2025, 643(8073): 925–937

[57] Li H, Li C, Dai P, et al. 2024. Selective and persistent toxicity of seven insecticides to five egg parasitoids of Spodoptera frugiperda. CABI Agriculture and Bioscience, 5: 8.

[58] Liu H , Liu J , Zhai Z . et al. Maize2035: A decadal vision for intelligent maize breeding. Molecular Plant, 2025, 18(2): 313–332

[59] Lorenzo C D , Debray K , Herwegh D . et al. BREEDIT: a multiplex genome editing strategy to improve complex quantitative traits in maize. Plant Cell, 2023, 35(1): 218–238

[60] Luttermoser T , Khan Z R , Midega C A O . et al. Are pests adapting to the push-pull system? Ecologically intensified farms in Kenya maintain successful pest control over time. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 2023, 347: 108345

[61] Lv J , Li W , Fan M . et al. Detecting pests from light-trapping images based on improved YOLOv3 model and instance augmentation. Frontiers in Plant Science, 2022, 13: 939498

[62] Maia P T N , Santos N M , Mendes S M . et al. Sustainable control of Dalbulus maidis: A field study with entomopathogenic fungi. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 2025, 173(11): 1156–1164

[63] Martin D E , Latheef M A . Aerial application methods control spider mites on corn in Kansas, USA. Experimental and Applied Acarology, 2019, 77(4): 571–582

[64] Midega C A O , Pittchar J O , Pickett J A . et al. A climate-adapted push-pull system effectively controls fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J E Smith), in maize in East Africa. Crop Protection, 2018, 105: 10–15

[65] Mobarak S H , Basit A , Gui S . et al. Volatile organic compounds as mediators in plant-herbivore interactions: mechanisms and evolutionary consequences. Entomologia Generalis, 2025, 45(4): 975–990

[66] Muniappan R , Sah L P , Nyaupane S . et al. Insect parasitoids of fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Africa and Asia and their adoption in integrated pest management of maize in Nepal. Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 2024, 15(1): 38

[67] Myint Y Y , Huang X , Bai S . et al. Field evaluation of Trichogramma strains collected from Myanmar for biological control of Asian corn borer, Ostrinia furnacalis (Guénéé) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) and sustainable maize production. Crop Protection, 2023, 171: 106284

[68] Nyamutukwa S , Mvumi B M , Chinwada P . Sustainable management of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith): challenges and proposed solutions from an African perspective. International Journal of Pest Management, 2022, 70(4): 676–694

[69] Olmstead D L , Nault B A , Shelton A M . Biology, ecology, and evolving management of Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in sweet corn in the United States. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2016, 109(4): 1667–1676

[70] Otim M H , Alibu S , Asea G . et al. Performance of Bt maize event MON810 in controlling maize stem borers Chilo partellus and Busseola fusca in Uganda. Crop Protection, 2022, 156: 105945

[71] Palli S R , Biondi A , Desneux N . et al. The fall armyworm: recent advances in biology and management. Journal of Pest Science, 2023, 96: 1341–1343

[72] Pehlivan S , Atakan E . Dominance of invasive Chilo partellus over native stem borers in maize fields of Türkiye. Phytoparasitica, 2025, 54: 1

[73] Pereira A E , Geisert R W , Hibbard B E . Maize inbred Mp708 is highly susceptible to Western Corn Rootworm, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), in field and greenhouse assays. Journal of Insect Science, 2022, 22(6): 8

[74] Purice D M , Grozea I . Field comparison of manual and automated trapping systems for monitoring Diabrotica virgifera virgifera adults in maize. Agriculture-Basel, 2025, 16(1): 96

[75] Reay-Jones F P F , Bessin R T , Brewer M J . et al. Impact of Lepidoptera (Crambidae, Noctuidae, and Pyralidae) pests on Corn containing pyramided Bt traits and a blended refuge in the Southern United States. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2016, 109(4): 1859–1871

[76] Rezaei E E , Webber H , Asseng S . et al. Climate change impacts on crop yields. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 2023, 4(12): 831–846

[77] Sári-Barnácz F E , Zalai M , Toepfer S . et al. Suitability of satellite imagery for surveillance of maize ear damage by cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) larvae. Remote Sensing, 2023, 15(23): 5602

[78] Savary S , Willocquet L , Pethybridge S J . et al. The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2019, 3: 430–439

[79] Shera P S, Sharma S, Jindal J, et al. 2017. On-farm impact of egg parasitoid, Trichogramma chilonis against maize stem borer, Chilo partellus in Punjab. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 87: 1412−1415.

[80] Sisay B , Subramanian S , Weldon C W . et al. Evaluation of pheromone lures, trap designs and placement heights for monitoring the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in maize fields of Kenya. Crop Protection, 2024, 176: 106523

[81] Song Y , Zhang H , Wu K . Transboundary migration of Spodoptera frugiperda between China and the South-Southeast Asian region. Journal of Pest Science, 2025, 98(2): 1159–1171

[82] Soujanya P L , VaniSree K , Giri G S . et al. Intercropping in maize reduces fall armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) infestation, supports natural enemies, and enhances yield. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 2024, 373: 109130

[83] Strydom E , Erasmus A , du Plessis H . et al. Resistance status of Busseola fusca (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) populations to single- and stacked-gene Bt maize in South Africa. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2019, 112(1): 305–315

[84] Strydom E , Erasmus A , Friis S . et al. Incipient resistance of the African maize stemborer, Busseola fusca (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to Cry2Ab2 maize in South Africa. Pest Management Science, 2025, 81(3): 1307–1315

[85] Suby S B , Soujanya P L , Yadava P . et al. Invasion of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in India: nature, distribution, management and potential impact. Current Science, 2020, 119(1): 44–51

[86] Tabashnik B E , Carrière Y . Global patterns of resistance to Bt crops highlighting pink bollworm in the United States, China, and India. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2019, 112(6): 2513–2523

[87] Tefera T , Mugo S , Mwimali M . et al. Resistance of Bt-maize (MON810) against the stem borers Busseola fusca (Fuller) and Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) and its yield performance in Kenya. Crop Protection, 2016, 89: 202–208

[88] Tian J , Wang C L , Chen F Y . et al. Maize smart-canopy architecture enhances yield at high densities. Nature, 2024, 632(8025): 576–584

[89] Trolove M R , James T K , Wynne-Jones B H . et al. Winter cover crops to reduce herbicide inputs into spring-planted maize pastoral systems in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 2024, 67(1): 66–80

[90] Van den Berg J , du Plessis H . Chemical control and insecticide resistance in Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 2022, 115(6): 1761–1771

[91] Van den Berg J , Greyvenstein B , du Plessis H . Insect resistance management facing African smallholder farmers under climate change. Current Opinion in Insect Science, 2022, 50: 100894

[92] Vivekanandhan P , Swathy K , Lucy A . et al. Entomopathogenic fungi based microbial insecticides and their physiological and biochemical effects on Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith). Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, 2023, 13: 1254475

[93] Walsh G C , Battagliotti C . Evaluation of different marking and trapping methods for Spodoptera frugiperda used to assess structured refuges in Bt maize. Journal of Pest Science, 2025, 98(2): 1053–1062

[94] Wang C , Wang X , Jin Z . et al. Occurrence of crop pests and diseases has largely increased in China since 1970. Nature Food, 2022, 3(1): 57–65

[95] Wang J , Li S , Yuan W . et al. Ecological wisdom: functional plant Cosmos bipinnata enhances fitness traits of predator Harmonia axyridis strengthening biological control in greenhouse production. Agriculture Communications, 2025a, 3(3): 100097

[96] Wang J , Xu Q , Hatt S . et al. Optimizing conservation biological control through spatial arrangement of companion plants in agroecosystems. Entomologia Generalis, 2026, 46(1): 39–47

[97] Wang L , He L , Zhu X . et al. Large-area field application confirms the effectiveness of toxicant-infused bait for managing Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) in maize fields. Pest Management Science, 2023a, 79(12): 5405–5417

[98] Wang Q , Liu Y , Zheng Q . et al. SMC-YOLO: a high-precision maize insect pest-detection method. Agronomy-Basel, 2025b, 15(1): 195

[99] Wang T , Wang K , Wang C . et al. Combining quantitative trait locus mapping with multiomics profiling reveals genetic control of corn leaf aphid (Rhopalosiphum maidis) resistance in maize. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2023b, 74(12): 3749–3764

[100] Wang X , Yue Y , Zhai Y . et al. Functional redundancy in the toxic pathway of Bt protein Cry1Ab, but not Cry1Fa, against the Asian corn borer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025c, 122(16): e2503674122

[101] Wang Y, Hou Y, Iqbal A, et al. 2024. Inundative release of Trichogramma dendrolimi at different developmental stages enhances the control efficacy over Ostrinia furnacalis. Journal of Pest Science, 97(4): 1889−1898.

[102] Wu K , Jiang C , Zhou S . et al. Optimizing arrangement and density in maize and alfalfa intercropping and the reduced incidence of the invasive fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in southern China. Field Crops Research, 2022, 287: 108637

[103] Wu L, Hill M P, Thomson L J, et al. 2018. Assessing the current and future biological control potential of Trichogramma ostriniae on its hosts Ostrinia furnacalis and Ostrinia nubilalis. Pest Management Science, 74(6): 1513−1523.

[104] Yan W , Zheng Q , Yang L . et al. Efficacy of drip irrigation with thiamethoxam on control of Monolepta hieroglyphica, and uptake, translocation and dietary risk of thiamethoxam in maize. Pest Management Science, 2023, 79(12): 4931–4941

[105] Yan X, Zhang X, Liu Y, et al. 2026. Enhancing agricultural biodiversity and pest control through strategic herbaceous strips: insights from a two-year field experiment. Entomologia Generalis. [epub ahead of print] doi: 10.1127/entomologia/3297.

[106] Yan Y , Song F , Sun J . The application of UAV technology in maize crop protection strategies: a review. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 2025, 237: 110679

[107] Yang F , Head G P , Price P A . et al. Inheritance of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2Ab2 protein resistance in Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Pest Management Science, 2020, 76(11): 3676–3684

[108] Yang S , Xing Z , Wang H . et al. Maize-YOLO: a new high-precision and real-time method for maize pest detection. Insects, 2023, 14(3): 278

[109] Yang X , Chen S , Liu D . et al. Insect resistant and glyphosate tolerant maize, Bt11 x MIR162 x GA21, can enhance management of fall armyworm and weeds in tropical Asia. Entomologia Generalis, 2024, 44(4): 853–863

[110] Yazdani M , Baker G . A plant volatile-based attractant formulation is not attractive to Diadegma semiclausum (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Austral Entomology, 2018, 57(3): 359–364

[111] Ye Z , Difonzo C , Hennessy D A . et al. Too much of a good thing: Lessons from compromised rootworm Bt maize in the US Corn Belt. Science, 2025, 387(6737): 984–989

[112] Yi C, Tang Z, Khashaveh A, et al. 2026. Integrating phototaxis research with pest control: laboratory-based wavelength preference screening and field efficacy evaluation of sticky traps for Monolepta hieroglyphica management. Pest Management Science, 82(4): 3077−3085.

[113] Yousefi M , Marja R , Barmettler E . et al. The effectiveness of intercropping and agri-environmental schemes on ecosystem service of biological pest control: a meta-analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2024, 44(2): 15

[114] Yu J , Hennessy D A , Tack J . et al. Climate change will increase aflatoxin presence in US corn. Environmental Research Letters, 2022, 17: 054017

[115] Zang L , Wang S , Zhang F . et al. Biological control with Trichogramma in China: history, present status, and perspectives. Annual Review of Entomology, 2021, 66(1): 463–484

[116] Zanzana K , Sinzogan A , Tepa-Yotto G T . et al. Synergistic effects of maize-pigeon pea intercropping and low-dose fertilization on fall armyworm control. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 2025, 394: 109892

[117] Zhan Z , Batool R , Wang X . et al. Graphene oxide enhances the dual role of Beauveria bassiana in biocontrol of the Asian corn borer and promotion of the maize seedling growth under field conditions. Chemical Engineering Journal, 2026, 529: 173004

[118] Zhang Z , Li Y , Li X . et al. Efficacy of imidacloprid seed treatments against four wheat aphids under laboratory and field conditions. Plants-Basel, 2023, 12(2): 238

[119] Zheng F , Jiang H , Jia J . et al. Effect of dimethoate in controlling Monolepta hieroglyphica (Motschulsky) and its distribution in maize by drip irrigation. Pest Management Science, 2020, 76(4): 1523–1530

[120] Zhou E , Ding J , Ma R . et al. Highly stable cellulose-based HIPPE pesticide delivery system: high control efficiency and low environmental risk. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 2026, 14: 1502–1515

[121] Ziaie-Juybari H , Pirdashti H , Abo-Elyousr K A M . et al. Abiotic benefits of intercropping legumes and maize to reduce pests. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection, 2021, 54(17-18): 1539–1552

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Global advances and regional strategies in maize pest management: a contemporary review