Farmers’ knowledge, experience and management of fall armyworm in a major maize producing municipality in Ghana

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of farmers interviewed on fall armyworm in Ejura-Sekyedumase Municipality, Ghana in 2019/2020

Variable	Description	Number of farmers	Frequency (%)
Sex	Male Female	153 44	77.7 22.3
Age (years)	20–29 30-39 40–49 50-59 60–69 Above 70	25 51 62 42 13 4	12.7 25.9 31.5 21.3 6.6 2.0
Level of education	No formal education Primary JHS SHS Vocational Training College University/ Polytechnic	75 42 35 34 1 5 5	38.1 21.3 17.8 17.3 0.5 2.5 2.5
Farming experience (years)	1–10 11-20 21–30 31-40 Above 40	65 68 40 19 5	33 34.5 20.3 9.6 2.5
Occupation	Only farming Farming and other job(s)	95 102	48.2 51.8

JHS: Junior High School; SHS: Senior High School

Table 2. Farmers’ knowledge on fall armyworm at Ejura-Sekyedumase municipality

Variable	Response	Number of farmers	Frequency (%)
Knowledge on FAW	Yes	197	100
Source of first information on FAW	Media	42	21.3
	Friends and family	37	18.8
	Other farmers	54	27.4
	Farmer group	2	1.0
	MoFA/Extension Officers	62	31.5
Can you identify FAW?	Yes	184	93.4
	No	13	6.6
Farmers who identified FAW correctly	Yes	149	81
	No	35	19
Can you identify adult FAW?	Yes	181	91.9
	No	16	8.1
Farmers who identified adult FAW correctly	Yes	145	80.1
	No	36	19.9
Part of maize plant attacked by FAW	Stem	44	22.3
	Leaves	153	77.7
	Flowers	0	0
Does this pest attack other crops apart from maize?	Yes	87	44.2
	No	110	55.8
Which of the crops is severely attacked?	Maize	76	87.4
	Non-maize	11	12.6
Is FAW indigenous to Ghana?	Yes	62	31.5
	No	135	68.5

Table 3. Farmers’ perception of yield loss due to fall armyworm infestation

Variable	Response	Number of farmers	Frequency (%)
Experience of loss	Yes	158	80
	No	39	20
Yield loss (%) [Range of 8.0 to 83.3%, with a mean of 49.5%]	0–20	9	5.7
	21–40	42	26.6
	41–60	66	41.8
	61–80	40	25.3
	81–100	1	0.6

Table 4. Coping strategies of farmers after experiencing fall armyworm infestation

Relief source	Number of farmers	Frequency (%)
Other jobs	86	45
Borrowing	70	37
Reliance on partner	24	12
Benevolence	11	6

Table 5. Dominant pest management practice at Ejura-Sekyedumase

Variable	Response	Number of farmers	Frequency (%)
Dominant method	Chemical (including bio-insecticides) Cultural Biological Physical	193 4 0 0	98 2 0 0

Table 6. Insecticide usage and adverse side effect

Variable	Response	Number of farmers	Frequency (%)
Use of insecticide	Yes No	196 1	99 1
Experienced side effect	Yes No	96 100	49 51

Table 7. Insecticide usage frequency versus harmful effect

Variable	Estimate	Std. Error	z value	Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept)	−0.06354	0.45633	−0.139	0.889
Usage frequency	−0.41188	0.32012	−1.287	0.198

Table 8. Percentage of farmers who wear personal protective equipment

Use of PPE	Number of farmers	Frequency (%)
Yes	90	45.7
No	107	54.3
Type of PPE used
Head cover	6	3
Wellington boots	32	16.2
Hand gloves	22	11.2
Nose mask	53	26.9
Overall gear	16	8.1
Goggles	5	2.5
Long sleeves	16	8.1

Table 9. Use of personal protective equipment versus harmful effects

Variable	Estimate	Std. Error	z value	Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept)	−0.3594	0.2142	−1.678	0.0934
PPE	−0.5435	0.3045	−1.785	0.0743

Table 10. Logit results on factors influencing farmers’ decision to wear protective equipment

Variable	Estimate	Std. Error	z value	Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept)	2.228955	0.937088	2.379	0.0174
Age	−0.003088	0.014376	−0.215	0.8299
Gender	−0.778704	0.390175	−1.996	0.0460
Experience	−0.157134	0.107740	−1.458	0.1447
Education	−0.173917	0.107418	−1.619	0.1054
Land size	−0.014458	0.023747	−0.609	0.5426

Table 11. Mortality (%) of second instar fall armyworm larvae after exposure to different insecticides

Attack™ [1.9% w/v emamectin benzoate] (24 h of exposure)			Ema Star™ [48 g/L emamectin benzoate + 64 g/L acetamiprid] (24 h of exposure)			Agoo™ [55% Bacillus thuringiensis + 45% monosultap] (120 h of exposure)
Conc. (mL/L)	Ejura	Sekyedumase	Conc. (mL/L)	Ejura	Sekyedumase	Conc. (g/L)	Ejura	Sekyedumase
0.06	100	100	0.43	100	100	0.03	0	0
0.13	100	100	0.83	100	100	0.16	0	0
0.22*	100	100	1.67*	100	100	0.33*	0	0
0.27	100	100	2.50	100	100	0.50	0	0
0.33	100	100	3.30	100	100	0.57	0	0
Control	3.33	0	Control	4.6	0	Control	0	0

Conc: Concentration; *: Recommended rate

Data availability statement

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are included in this published article apart from data containing information that could compromise the identity and privacy of research participants which are available on request from the corresponding author.