Talk:Fall armyworm

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Fall armyworm#cite note-3|[3]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Crieber. Peer reviewers: Catejiang, KmarcusBC.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More than one "army worm"?

Reading this webpage, I found the unfamiliar label "army worm" & I came to Wikipedia. This army worm doesn't seem to be the same as that one, especially since this article refers to a New World species, & the web page mentions one in Africa. Obviously, this article needs more information. -- llywrch (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I suggest the section on the 2009 Liberian infestation be deleted as this is not the correct species. 07:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not so hasty - from all I have read, these are indeed army worms (Spodoptera spp), but the problem is with the article in the first place since it focuses exclusively on "fall army worms". Either the article should be renamed, or expanded to included details of other spodoptera. However... there is another problem with the article - large chunks are lifted almost word for word from the Fall Armyworm article from the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. This cannot be acceptable. --Muchado (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm noticing that the second picture is actually of a colony of Tent Caterpillars rather than Army Worms. Maybe this is where you guys are confused? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nesroninc (talk • contribs) 16:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this last comment, I've received some information explaining that the second picture entitled "Army worm larvae feeding on host plant" is not actually a pic of army worms. I'm going to investigate this and determine if it definitely is correct. Daniel.finnan (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into this - I don't think that image is correct either. I've been looking at some other pictures of army worms (Reuters have some good one) and these don't seem to look the same. I think it needs to be removed for accuracy. Also the Flickr user who originally took it does not have it hosted anymore. Daniel.finnan (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the two species articles under "see also", as indeed some of the information here seems to relate to its near relative. JMK (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concerns

This article was listed at the copyright problems board at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 January 27. A considerable portion of this article is duplicated from this site, which posts a prior date of publication. Material will need to be revised or removed unless permission to duplicate this material can be verified. The material seems to have been added with the article's third edit, here. An earlier version of the article can be restored all else failing. I have blanked the article, notified the contributor of the material, and will relist to allow time for contributors to verify permission or propose revised text in temporary space. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a rewrite of the portions of the article in question here, and pending review will either restore the article to this version or do another iteration if needed. FlyingToaster 18:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concerns persisted (see [1]. As the temporary version of the article was not further edited after that date, this article has been cleaned and that temporary version deleted. Contributors to this article are asked to please ensure that all text duplicated from other sources is free for use, either as public domain or licensed compatibly with GFDL. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will be editing/ adding to page extensively

Hi, in the next couple days I will be adding to this page a lot for a class. Crieber (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral Ecology peer reviewer-KmarcusBC

Hi! I just spent some time editing this page as a peer reviewer for Behavioral Ecology. This was a well written and researched page, so most of my edits were minor. I changed around the order and titles of the categories and subcategories to match the lepidoptera standard. KmarcusBC (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Thank you, but I actually think they might make more sense in terms of explaining the butterfly for the Wikipedia assignment in the other way. Crieber (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I have edited a few grammatical errors and fixed any instances of "army worm" into "armyworm" for consistency with the article title. I have also added wiki hyperlinks where other species were mentioned and for terms such as "sexual dimorphism" and "sympatric speciation." My main confusion comes from the term "armyworm" because it can be used to describe different species of armyworms, for example the African armyworm and the true armyworm. The page could benefit from specifying if the references to "armyworm" refer only to the fall armyworm or to all armyworm species. Also, in "Pest of crop plant" a 1797 outbreak was mentioned to have occurred in Georgia. Because the "Geographic range" of the species is listed as the Americas, I am assuming that it is the state in US and not the country, but this should be clarified. Catejiang (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the "armyworm" confusion! Crieber (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have also read through and edited this page. Overall I think this is a really good article with a lot of interested and well explained information. I was particularly interested by the section on caterpillar cannibalism and divergent evolution of subspecies. In this context, you could expand more on food choice if more information is available. I would also suggest adding more information on the appearance and development of the caterpillars, since these are important due to their role as pests. Most of my edits were on grammar and wording to make the writing more clear. I also added a number of links to other Wikipedia articles to help connect this article with others in Wikipedia to help readers find more information. EmilyKathryn (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resectioning of introduced range needed

We have several different sections about introduced range(s) (Fall armyworm#Introduced range, Fall armyworm#Invasive presence in Africa, Fall armyworm#Invasion of Sri Lanka). (Also there can only be one year when it first arrived in Africa, 2013 or 2016. Haven't figured that one out yet either.) If no one else wants to tackle this I will be doing it. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibalism and parasites

Hello @Kellisfm: regarding these edits: I think I was the one who added the text about cannibalism reducing disease and cited it with Van Allen. The later text is incorrect according to Van Allen: Through these three individual- and population-level mechanisms, cannibalism should tend to reduce the prevalence and/or fitness of parasites invading cannibalistic populations. One or more of these mechanisms most likely operates in virtually every cannibalistic population (table 1). Chapman does view cannibalism negatively but is a research paper and so I am uncertain how seriously to take it. I haven't looked for reviews citing it. Anyhow Van Allen is the stronger source between the two and supports supposition that S. frugiperda is cannibalistic to control disease/parasites. Invasive Spices (talk) 1 January 2022 (UTC)