The fall armyworm strain associated with most rice, millet, and pasture infestations in the Western Hemisphere is rare or absent in Ghana and Togo.

The moth pest fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is now present throughout much of the Eastern Hemisphere where it poses a significant economic threat to a number of crops. Native to the Western Hemisphere, fall armyworm is one of the primary pests of corn in the Americas and periodically causes significant economic damage to sorghum, millet, cotton, rice, and forage grasses. This broad host range is in part the result of two populations historically designated as host strains (C-strain and R-strain) that differ in their host plant preferences. Reports of infestations in Africa have to date mostly been limited to the C-strain preferred crops of corn and sorghum, with little evidence of an R-strain presence. However, this could reflect a bias in monitoring intensity, with the R-strain perhaps being more prevalent in other crop systems that have not been as routinely examined for the pest. Because knowledge of whether and to what extent both strains are present is critical to assessments of crops at immediate risk, we analyzed specimens obtained from a systematic survey of pasture grass and rice fields, habitats typically preferred by the R-strain, done contemporaneously with collections from corn fields in Ghana and Togo. Substantial larval infestations were only observed in corn, while pheromone trap capture numbers were high only in corn and rice habitats. Little to no fall armyworm were found in the pasture setting. Comparisons with a meta-analysis of studies from South America identified differences in the pattern of strain-specific markers typically found in fall armyworm collected from rice habitats between the two hemispheres. Genetic tests of specimens from rice and corn area traps failed to show evidence of differential mating between strains. These results are consistent with the R-strain being rare or even absent in Africa and, at least for the Ghana-Togo area, this R-strain lack does not appear to be due to limitations in pest monitoring. The implications of these results to the crops at risk in Africa and the accuracy of existing molecular markers of strain identity are discussed.

Introduction

Fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), is a moth native to the Western Hemisphere where it is a major pest of corn and several other crops. Its discovery in western Africa in 2016 [1] and subsequent detections in eastern and southern Africa (2017) [2, 3], India (2018) [4], southeastern Asia (2018–2019) [2, 5], and most recently in Australia (2020) [6], presents a threat to agriculture in the Eastern Hemisphere estimated to be in the billions USD with corn (maize) the most impacted [3]. The potential for losses in other crops is significant given fall armyworm behavior in the Western Hemisphere where it is capable of feeding on over 350 different host plants, although consistent economic damage is generally limited to corn, rice, sorghum, millet, soybean, wheat, alfalfa, cotton, turf, and feed grass crops [7, 8].

Major contributors to this broad host range are two populations denoted as “host strains”, with the C-strain preferentially impacting corn, sorghum, and cotton while the R-strain predominates in alfalfa, pasture, and forage grasses [9-11]. The host strains are morphologically indistinguishable, with the initial descriptions based on molecular differences found in populations collected from corn and rice, leading to their designation as the “corn strain” and “rice strain” [12]. However, some studies found substantial variability in the strain markers found in collections from rice, particularly when compared to other rice-strain preferred hosts such as pasture and turf grasses [13, 14]. These observations suggest that rice is probably not the primary host for this fall armyworm group and brings into question its strain specificity. For this reason, we have taken to designating the corn and rice strains as the C-strain and R-strain, respectively, but note that both sets of terms are found in the literature.

The taxonomic and genetic status of the two fall armyworm host strains remain uncertain and controversial. Since their original designation as strains [12, 15], the characterizations of the groups have ranged from “host forms” where the divergence is relatively small [13], to “sibling species” associated with evidence of significant reproductive isolation [16]. Genomic studies have been similarly inconclusive with reports for both the presence [17] and absence [18] of significant nuclear genomic differences between strains. Molecular markers remain the best definer of strain identity, as empirically demonstrated by strong correlations between genetic polymorphisms and host plant in fall armyworm surveyed from multiple locations in the Western Hemisphere [14, 19, 20].

The strain-specifying genetic markers include segments of the mitochondrial Cytochrome Oxidase Subunit I (COI) gene and the Z-chromosome Tpi gene that encodes for the housekeeping enzyme Triosephosphate isomerase [19, 21, 22]. In both cases, single base polymorphisms in the coding regions distinguish the strains, with C-strain denoted by COI-CS and TpiC, and the R-strain by COI-RS and TpiR. Being on different genetic elements, the correspondence between the COI and Tpi strain haplotypes can be lost with mating between strains. This is generally not the case in Western Hemisphere populations where agreement between the COI and Tpi strain markers approximates 80% [19], indicating a strong bias for productive mating within strains. This is supported by more detailed analysis of the Tpi markers. In the Lepidoptera ZW/ZZ sex determination system fall armyworm males carry two copies of the Tpi gene, making it possible to obtain TpiC/TpiR heterozygotes indicative of potential interstrain hybrids [19, 23]. These have been found in Western Hemisphere field populations, though at frequencies significantly lower than expected by allele frequencies, which is suggestive of limited mating between strains [23]. These observations are consistent with laboratory studies describing partial but significant barriers to interstrain hybridization [24-26].

The fall armyworm populations found in the Eastern Hemisphere are unusual in that the great majority in most locations show disagreement between the COI and Tpi strain haplotypes. Specifically, populations in eastern and southern Africa [27], India [28], and Myanmar [2] are primarily of the COI-RS TpiC configuration, making unclear their strain identification. Because virtually all the Eastern Hemisphere specimens tested to date were collected from the C-strain associated hosts corn and sorghum, it appears that these populations are behaviorally of the C-strain and COI is no longer an indicator of fall armyworm plant host preference. In contrast, the observed predominance of TpiC is consistent with the collection data and with Tpi remaining an accurate marker of strain identity. However, an important caveat is that these observations are so far limited to fall armyworm collected from C-strain preferred host plants. The strain marker composition of specimens using R-strain hosts in Africa is currently undetermined.

The apparent rarity of the R-strain in the Eastern Hemisphere as indicated by both the near absence of TpiR [2, 27–29] and the infrequency of reports of fall armyworm infestations outside of corn and sorghum, suggests that R-strain preferred crops are at low risk for this pest in Africa and Asia. However, it is possible that these observations reflect inadequate monitoring for this pest, with significant populations of the R-strain present but undetected in habitats such as pasture and rice fields that may not be surveyed for fall armyworm as intensely as corn. In the absence of more extensive surveys and collections from R-strain associated host plants the possible presence of the R-strain in Africa remains uncertain.

To address these issues, we obtained specimens from systematic surveys of fall armyworm from pasture, rice fields, and corn fields located in the western African countries of Ghana and Togo [30, 31]. Because many specimens were collected from pheromone traps in rice, we performed a meta-analysis of genetic studies of fall armyworm collected from rice in South America to ascertain the strain and genetic marker composition we should expect for this host plant. The Ghana-Togo collections were then analyzed and compared for their distributions of the COI and Tpi markers. The results were used to assess the frequency of the R-strain at the different surveyed locations. The implications of the data on the risk to R-strain preferred crops such as rice, millet, and pasture grasses in Africa are discussed.

Materials and methods

Fall armyworm individuals were collected from multiple sites and time periods in Ghana and Togo (Fig 1). Specimens from 2016 and 2017 were limited to larval collections from corn and were previously described (Table 1). Collections from October 2018 to January 2019 were from pheromone traps in habitats represented by corn, rice, or pasture grasses [30, 31]. Attempts were made throughout the 2018–9 survey period to collect larvae from rice and pasture grasses, but observed infestations were rare and only a small number could be processed for genetic analysis. All specimens were stored refrigerated or air dried at ambient temperature until transport by mail to CMAVE, Gainesville, FL USA for DNA preparation. Fall armyworm data from Florida and Texas were derived from collections previously used to study strain mating behavior in the field [23, 32].

Fig 1

Map showing locations of fall armyworm collections in Ghana and Togo.

Major towns near locations surveyed in 2018 are labeled. Sites are described in Table 1. The map was generated using QGIS version 2.18.2 (Open Source Geospatial Foundation).

Table 1

Information for fall armyworm collections.

Date	Country	Nearest town	Host	Type	Reference
Sep 2016	Ghana	Multiple	Corn	Larval	[27]
Oct-Jan 2018–9	Ghana	Ejura	Corn	Trap	[31]
Oct-Jan 2018–9	Ghana	Kpong	Rice	Trap	[31]
Oct-Jan 2018–9	Ghana	Kpong	Pasture	Trap	[31]
Jul-Oct 2016	Togo	Multiple	Corn	Larval	[33]
May-Aug 2017	Togo	Lomé	Corn	Trap	[28]
Oct-Jan 2018–9	Togo	Vogan	Corn	Trap	[31]
Oct-Jan 2018–9	Togo	Kovie	Rice	Trap	[31]
Oct-Jan 2018–9	Togo	Avetenou	Pasture	Trap	[31]
Sep 2005	Florida, USA	Hague	Corn	Trap	[34]
Jan-Feb 2012	Florida, USA	Orlando	Corn	Trap	[34]
Nov-Dec 2006	Texas, USA	Corpus Christi	Corn	Trap	[32]
Jan-Apr 2012	Texas, USA	Weslaco	Corn	Trap	[32]

DNA preparation and PCR amplification

DNA from individual specimens were isolated as previously described with minor modifications [32]. In brief, specimens were homogenized in 1.5 ml of phosphate buffered saline (PBS, 20 mM sodium phosphate, 150 mM NaCl, pH 8.0) using a tissue homogenizer (PRO Scientific Inc., Oxford, CT) or hand-held Dounce homogenizer then pelleted by centrifugation at 6000 g for 5 min at room temperature. The pellet was resuspended in 800 μl Genomic Lysis buffer (Zymo Research, Orange, CA) by gentle vortexing and incubated at 55°C for 15 min, followed by centrifugation at 10,000 rpm for 5 min. The supernatant was transferred to a Zymo-Spin III column (Zymo Research, Orange, CA) and processed according to manufacturer’s instructions.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification was performed using a 30-μl reaction mix containing 3 μl of 10X manufacturer’s reaction buffer, 1 μl 10 mM dNTP, 0.5 μl 20-μM primer mix, 1 μl DNA template (between 0.05–0.5 μg), 0.5 units Taq DNA polymerase (New England Biolabs, Beverly, MA) with the remaining volume water. The thermocycling program was 94°C (1 min), followed by 33 cycles of 92°C (30 s), 56°C (45 s), 72°C (45 s), and a final segment of 72°C for 3 min. Amplification of COI used the primer pair COI-891F (5’-TACACGAGCATATTTTACATC-3’) and COI-1472R (5’-GCTGGTGGTAAATTTTGATATC-3’) to produce a 603-bp fragment. Amplification of the Tpi region was done with the primers Tpi412F (5’-CCGGACTGAAGGTTATCGCTTG -3’) and Tpi1140R (5’-GCGGAAGCATTCGCTGACAACC -3’) that spans a variable length intron to produce a fragment with a mean length of 500 bp. Primers were synthesized by Integrated DNA Technologies (Coralville, IA). Gel electrophoresis and fragment isolation were done as previously described [32]. DNA sequencing was performed directly from the gel purified PCR fragments by Sanger sequencing, using primers COI-924F or Tpi412F (Genewiz, South Plainfield, NJ).

The specimens were of variable quality and in many cases a single PCR amplification did not produce sufficient product. In these cases, a nested PCR protocol was performed. For COIB analysis, the first PCR amplification was performed with the primer pair COI-891F and COI-1472R. One microliter of this first reaction was amplified using primers COI-924F (5’- TTATTGCTGTACCAACAGG-3’) and COI-1303R (5’-CAGGATARTCAGAATATCGACG-3’). For the Tpi marker, the first amplification was performed using primers Tpi469F (5’-AAGGACATCGGAGCCAACTG-3’) and Tpi1195R (5’-AGTCACTGACCCACCATACTG-3’). One microliter of the first reaction was then amplified using primers Tpi412F and Tpi1140R. Relative locations of the primers are described in Fig 2.

Fig 2

Schematic of gene segments used for the genetic analysis.

A. COIB segment of the mitochondrial COI gene showing location of the strain diagnostic mCOI1164 SNP as well as two additional polymorphic sites showing the same strain-specificity. Nucleotides observed at each SNP are listed below arrows and the configurations associated with COI-CS and COI-RS described. B. Segment of the nuclear Tpi gene showing location of the gTpi183 site that is diagnostic of strain identity in Western Hemisphere populations. Site gTpi168 shows a similar polymorphic distribution as gTpi183. The gTpi180 polymorphism is not typically found in the Western Hemisphere but is present in Africa. Nucleotides observed at each site are listed below arrows and the configuration associated with TpiC and TpiR indicated. Because Tpi is Z-linked, males have two copies of the gene and so can be heterozygous for these polymorphisms (TpiH). Site gTpi192 is polymorphic for C or T in both strains (strain nonspecific). Nomenclature follows IUPAC convention where Y = C or T; S = C or G; R = A or G; and D = A, G, or T. Small block arrows denote location of relevant primers used for PCR and DNA sequencing.

Determination of strain-identity using COI and Tpi

The diagnostic genetic markers that distinguish the C-strain and R-strain are single nucleotide polymorphisms typically associated with neutral substitutions (Fig 2A and 2B). COI and Tpi gene sites are preceded by an "m" (mitochondria) or "g" (genomic), respectively. This is followed by the gene name, number of base pairs from the predicted translational start site for COI, or the 5’ start of the exon for Tpi. The observation of multiple nucleotides possible at a given position is described using IUPAC convention (R: A or G, Y: C or T, W: A or T, K: G or T, S: C or G, D: A or G or T).

To facilitate the screening of large number of samples, strain identity was defined by a single site in COI and Tpi, though the accuracy of this determination was continually checked by comparisons with nearby strain-specific SNPs. Strain identity defined by COIB, a segment of the COI gene lying near the 3’ end, was determined by SNP mCOI1164, with an A or G signifying C-strain and a T indicating R-strain (Fig 2A). Sites mCOI1176 and mCOI1182 show a similar polymorphism pattern as mCOI1164. Strain identity by Tpi is defined SNP gTpi183 found in the fourth exon of the predicted Tpi coding region (Fig 2B). The nearby SNP, gTpi168 shows the same pattern as gTpi183. The gTpi180 polymorphism segregates with gTpi168 and gTpi183 in African fall armyworm populations, but this site is only infrequently polymorphic and not strain-specific in Western Hemisphere populations [27].

To more accurately calculate Tpi haplotype frequency, the TpiH data were added to the TpiC and TpiR counts as follows. In collections from pheromone traps, all specimens are male and therefore carry two copies of the Tpi gene, with TpiH carrying one copy each of TpiC and TpiR. In these collections the number of the TpiC haplotype was calculated by 2(number of TpiC specimens) + (number of TpiH specimens) and the TpiR haplotype by 2(TpiR) + (TpiH). In the larval collections gender was typically not identified. In this case a 1:1 sex ratio was assumed with half the collection considered male. In these collections the number of Tpi haplotypes was calculated as 1.5(TpiC) + (TpiH) or 1.5(TpiR) + (TpiH).

Testing for strain-specific mating behavior in field populations

The segment of the Tpi gene used to identify strain also carries a SNP, gTpi192, that shows much less strain-specificity than the nearby strain-diagnostic gTpi183 site (Fig 2B). These were used to develop a method for assessing strain-specific mating behavior in field populations [23]. Productive matings within strains (intrastrain mating, C X C and R X R) occurs at a much higher frequency than mating between strains (interstrain mating, C X R and R X C) [19, 24–26]. A consequence of this strain-specific mating bias is that heterozygosity at the strain-specific site gTpi183 is significantly reduced relative to the less specific gTpi192 site, which can be compared using the inbreeding coefficient F [23, 32]. Heterozygotes at each site is detected by examination of the DNA sequence chromatograph curves. Specifically, both gTpi183 and gTpi192 are polymorphic for C and T so an overlapping C and T profile is indicative of heterozygosity.

The frequencies of the C-allele and T-allele were estimated using Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium analysis. The allele frequencies for C and T are given by p and q, respectively, such that p + q = 1, with p calculated by the equation p = freqCC + 0.5[freqY], where freqCC is the observed frequency of CC homozygotes and freqY the observed frequency of Y (CT) heterozygotes. The frequency of the T-allele (q) is then given by the equation q = 1—p. The local expected heterozygote frequency, H, is equal to the equation H = 2pq. The local observed heterozygote frequency, H, is given by the empirically determined freqY (the frequency of overlapping chromatograph curves). Wright’s local inbreeding coefficient, F = (H—H)/H, was calculated for SNPs gTpi183 and gTpi192.

All collections used to study interstrain mating frequencies were derived from pheromone trap captures. This means that all specimens are adult males and therefore carry two copies of the Tpi gene.

DNA sequence and statistical analysis

DNA sequence alignments and comparisons were performed using programs available on the Geneious 10.0.7 software (Biomatters, Auckland, New Zealand). Basic mathematical calculations and generation of graphs were done using Excel and PowerPoint (Microsoft, Redmond, WA). Other statistical analyses including ANOVA and t-tests were performed using GraphPad Prism version 9.1.0 for Mac (GraphPad Software, La Jolla California USA). ANOVA calculations were combined with Tukey multiple comparisons testing to make pair-wise comparisons.

Results

Fall armyworm collections from different host plants

A systematic effort was made from October 2018 to January 2019 to collect fall armyworm from corn, rice and pasture grass habitats by pheromone trapping [26]. Substantial numbers were collected from the corn and rice traps, but not in the pasture habitat (Fig 3A and 3B). At the Ghana sites, captures were highest in the corn habitat, peaking in mid-December, while the rice site captures were observed by late October and remained unchanged through December (Fig 3A). At the Togo sites, captures were highest in the rice habitat and were still rising at the end of December while captures in the corn fields peaked in mid-November (Fig 3B).

Fig 3

Graph of fall armyworm pheromone trap captures in corn, pasture, and rice habitats in Ghana (A) and Togo (B).

Higher frequency of R-strain markers in South American rice infestations

Rice is a major food source for many parts of the world that are now threatened by fall armyworm. To better assess the risk to rice posed by this pest, we performed a meta-analysis of fall armyworm strain distributions in rice crops in South America, where most published studies of this type have been done. Juarez et al (2012) found substantial variations in strain composition in collections from rice as determined by the COIB marker, with the frequency of the R-strain COI-RS marker ranging from 0 to 100% ([9], Fig 4A). More consistently high COI-RS frequencies were reported in two other studies examining rice collections from Brazil [35] and Argentina [14]. Similar variability was found in collections from corn, but with a lower average frequency. Overall, 63% (5/8) of the rice collections showed a COI-RS majority compared to 21% (5/24) of corn collections. Despite the high variability the mean COI-RS frequency was statistically different between the two host crops, with the R-strain marker more prevalent in fall armyworm from rice hosts than corn (P = 0.0405, t = 2.141, df = 30). These findings are consistent with those using the TpiR marker for these collections (Fig 4B). The R-strain TpiR marker was in the majority in 67% of collections from rice versus 6% from corn, with a statistically significant difference in mean frequency (P = 0.0013, t = 3.731, df = 20). These data indicate that in South American populations, the R-strain as defined by the COI and Tpi molecular markers does prefer rice over corn hosts in the field, though it can be found in both plant species at highly variable frequencies.

Fig 4

Bar graphs showing distribution of the R-strain markers COI-RS (A) and TpiR (B) in rice and corn habitats in Argentina and Brazil.

Data are from three studies, Juarez et al. (2012) [9], Machado et al. (2007) [35], and Murua et al. (2015) [14]. Mean frequencies (± standard deviation) are noted above columns with different letters indicating statistically significant differences using a two-tailed t-test.

The R-strain markers are not preferentially found in Ghana-Togo rice fields

The COI-RS marker was in the minority in all the rice collections and was similarly distributed in corn where only one of six collections had a COI-RS majority (Fig 5A). The difference in mean COI-RS frequencies for the three groups (Ghana-Togo rice, Ghana-Togo corn, Florida-Texas corn) were not significant by ANOVA analysis (P = 0.3892, r = 0.3144, F = 1.146), indicating no specific association of this marker with host plant.

Fig 5

Bar graphs showing distribution of the R-strain markers COI-RS (A) and TpiR (B) in rice and corn habitats in Ghana and Togo.

Collections are as described in Table 1. Mean haplotype frequencies (± standard deviation) are noted above columns. Within each graph, frequencies with different lower-case letters are statistically different. Numbers in brackets indicate specimens tested from each collection. For TpiR, the graphs show the frequencies of TpiR hemizygotes or homozygotes (dark fill) and TpiH heterozygotes (diagonal lines). TpiR haplotype frequencies were calculated by combining these classes as described in the Methods.

In all locations in Ghana and Togo, most of the TpiR haplotype was heterozygous with TpiC (TpiH), which made up 13% of the collected specimens compared to less than 2% that were either hemizygous or homozygous for TpiR (Fig 5B). This contrasts with Florida and Texas collections from corn where TpiR hemizygotes/homozygotes outnumbered TpiH, with a mean TpiR frequency of 31% (Fig 5B). ANOVA analysis of the mean frequencies of the TpiR haplotype as calculated from the TpiR and TpiH numbers indicated a significant difference between the Ghana-Togo and Florida-Texas collections (P = 0.0003, r = 0.9634, F = 65.78). Specifically, significant differences were observed between the mean TpiR frequency found in Florida-Texas corn versus both Ghana-Togo rice (P = 0.009) and Ghana-Togo corn (P = 0.002), but not between the Ghana-Togo rice and corn collections (P = 0.3485). These findings are consistent with previous observations that TpiR frequencies at corn sites in Africa are consistently lower than what is typical for Western Hemisphere corn site collections [22, 30].

No significant fall armyworm infestations in rice or pasture

Despite the high level of trap collections in the rice habitat, very few larvae were detected infesting rice plants. Five larval specimens collected from rice were examined. Four were identified as Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) based on the COIB DNA sequence, while one displayed the fall armyworm COI-RS and TpiC markers. Trap captures in the pasture habitat were rare and no larvae were detected. We obtained genetic data from two specimens and both expressed the COI-CS TpiC markers. Larvae were also found in a nearby field of cabbage, an atypical fall armyworm host. Of the eight specimens examined one appeared to be S. littoralis, three were COI-CS TpiC, and four were COI-RS TpiC.

Fall armyworm in rice habitats do not display strain-specific mating patterns

To test whether the TpiR moths in the rice collections are behaving in a manner consistent with the R-strain, we applied a strategy that measures the degree of differential mating between strains (as identified by Tpi) in field populations [23]. Because the polymorphisms at the strain-specific gTpi183 SNP are asymmetrically distributed between strains, heterozygotes at this site arise primarily from interstrain matings. In comparison, heterozygotes at the nearby nonspecific gTpi192 SNP can occur by either interstrain or intrastrain hybridization. Since laboratory studies indicate that mating between strains is reduced relative to intrastrain hybridization [24, 26], the frequency of heterozygotes at gTpi183 in field populations should be lower than expected from random mating and lower than observed for gTpi192. In summary, the difference in heterozygosity between gTpi183 and gTpi192 is a measure of the effect of strains on hybridization, with gTpi192 acting as an internal control for factors unrelated to strain mating behavior.

The detection of differential mating is exemplified in the pheromone trap collections from Florida and Texas. The frequency of heterozygotes was measured by the inbreeding coefficient F, a metric that compares the heterozygote frequency observed with that expected from the allele frequencies and the assumption of random mating. The F metric approaches +1.0 when heterozygotes occur less frequently than expected (observed < expected), nears -1.0 when the converse is true (observed > expected), and ranges around 0.0 when mating is random (observed = expected). The four collections from Florida and Texas consistently show for the strain-specific gTpi183 site an F greater than 0.5 with a mean of 0.67, which was significantly different from the mean F of 0.07 for the nonspecific gTpi192 site (two-tailed paired t test, P = 0.0016, t = 10.99, df = 3) (Fig 6). The differences between the gTpi183 and gTpi192 F values (designated δ) ranged from 0.48 to 0.78 with a mean of 0.59. These results are consistent with interstrain mating barriers limiting gTpi183 heterozygote formation while normal levels of intrastrain mating produce frequencies of gTpi192 heterozygotes at levels approximating that expected from random mating.

Fig 6

Bar graph of the inbreeding coefficient, F, calculated for different fall armyworm collections.

The number above each column pair denotes the difference (δ) between the F values, δ = (gTpi183 F)–(gTpi192 F). Numbers in brackets indicate specimens tested from each collection.

In comparison the mean δ for the four Ghana and Togo pheromone trap collections was 0.03, indicating no differential mating between TpiR and TpiC fall armyworm (Fig 6). However, a difference between the rice and corn collections was observed, as both rice collections displayed positive δ values of 0.26 (Ghana) and 0.15 (Togo) compared to the negative δ values (-0.17 and -0.19 for the Ghana and Togo, respectively) found in the corn collections. These are much lower than the mean δ for Florida and Texas (0.59). Overall, there was no significant difference between mean gTpi183 and gTpi192 F values (two-tailed t-test, P = 0.5893, t = 0.5701, df = 6) for the Ghana and Togo collections, while a significant difference was observed for δ between the Ghana-Togo and Florida-Texas collections (two-tailed unpaired t test, P = 0.007a, t = 3.963, df = 6).

Discussion

The presence of the fall armyworm R-strain in Africa would have significant consequences to agriculture in the affected areas by increasing the range of crops at risk of substantial and consistent infestations. To further investigate this issue, we made a concerted effort to obtain specimens from expected R-strain host plants for genetic analysis. Difficulties in finding larval infestations in rice and pasture grasses were compensated for with pheromone traps, a method previously shown to be far more efficient at collecting fall armyworm while still capable of revealing strain differences in habitat distribution [10, 14, 36, 37].

Despite these efforts, very few moths were detected in pasture settings (Fig 3), which in the Western hemisphere is a major source of the R-strain [10]. In contrast, substantial numbers of fall armyworm were collected from pheromone traps placed in rice sites in Ghana and especially Togo during most of the survey period. However, very few larvae in rice were detected at both locations. This non-correspondence between trap numbers and local infestations suggests that the rice trap captures may have originated from other hosts. In both Ghana and Togo, rice is grown in lowlands where adequate water for most of the year allows multiple crops to be grown contemporaneously and in proximity. Because the farms in this western African area are usually small, less than two hectares in size, the rice habitat collection sites were unavoidably located within 1–2 kilometers of corn and other crops [30, 31]. These factors make it possible, if not likely, that fall armyworm collected in the rice field pheromone traps originated from nearby corn or other hosts. A similar lack of fall armyworm infestations in rice was observed by one of us (G. G.) who participated in systematic surveys of a large array of rice varieties grown on the campus of IITA Cotonou, Benin and found no fall armyworm larvae despite frequent infestations in other crops in the area. Regardless of origin, fall armyworm found in rice traps were similar to those found elsewhere in being predominantly of the TpiC haplotype. In summary, we found no evidence for the R-strain either in terms of TpiR frequency or observations of significant fall armyworm infestations in R-strain preferred pasture or rice host plants.

The disagreement between the COI and Tpi strain haplotypes found in most African fall armyworm populations could be explained by interstrain hybridization [32]. Specifically, an R-strain female crossed to a C-strain male (R X C) will produce female progeny that carry the COI-RS mitochondria haplotype and are hemizygous for TpiC (TpiC/W). The mating of these hybrid females to C-strain males will then produce a stable COI-RS TpiC lineage. We believe it likely that the association of Tpi with strain identity is because it is linked to one or more genes driving divergence between strains, a supposition supported by the mapping to the Z-chromosome of a locus that confers partial sterility in interstrain hybrids [25]. If correct, then even after crosses leading to the disassociation of the COI haplotyped from strain identity the TpiC marker would still be linked to functions that define the C-strain and thereby remain an accurate strain marker.

The genetic studies to date indicate that the described set of interstrain crosses is plausible. There is evidence that the R X C cross does occur in field populations and at a higher frequency than that of the reciprocal mating [19, 20]. Laboratory studies show that the resultant hybrid females can productively mate with C-strain males, though with much reduced fertility [24, 25]. The fertility of subsequent generations is unknown but is presumably high given the predominance of this genotype in Africa. Why this hybrid lineage should have expanded in Africa is not known, but it was previously hypothesized that this could be due to the unusual circumstances faced by an invasive propagule [27]. Genetic admixture is known to occur when previously separated populations of the same species are introduced into a novel habitat [38, 39], which in the case of fall armyworm would mean higher rates of interstrain hybridization. In addition, a small initial population can lead to inbreeding depression within strains [38], thereby leading to fitness advantages for the interstrain hybrids. While clearly speculative, this scenario provides an explanation for discordance between the COI and Tpi strain markers and the continued preference of these hybrids to C-strain host plants.

We reasoned that if the Tpi haplotypes are still accurate markers of strain identity in Africa, then the relative frequencies of TpiC, TpiR, and TpiH should reveal evidence of differential mating similar to that observed in the Western Hemisphere [23]. Unfortunately, the results of this analysis were variable and inconclusive, with a suggestion of differential mating in the rice collections that was much lower in magnitude than that observed in Florida-Texas and not confirmed by the collections in Ghana-Togo corn (Fig 6). Potentially complicating this analysis is that the frequency of TpiR homozygotes in Ghana and Togo is very low, making up less than 2% (11/686) of the sampled specimens. Furthermore, of the few males carrying TpiR, most were heterozygous with TpiC (TpiH, Fig 5), a potentially hybrid genotype where the expected mating behavior is unknown. This contrasts with the Florida-Texas populations from corn where 24% (70/292) of the collection were homozygous TpiR compared to 15% (45/292) TpiH. Therefore, we think it possible that the frequency of TpiR homozygous males in the Ghana-Togo collections may be too low to consistently detect differential mating between strains by this method.

In conclusion, the results to date indicate that the fall armyworm R-strain is not (yet) present in significant numbers in Africa, reducing the immediate risk of economic damage to rice, millet, pasture, and forage grasses. The COI marker continues to be disassociated from strain identity in African fall armyworm populations while the status of the Tpi markers is uncertain and likely to remain so until the occurrence of either TpiR or infestations in R-strain associated host plants increase to levels that allow for conclusive testing. However, given the correspondence of the TpiR marker to the R-strain in Western Hemisphere populations, the continued surveillance for TpiR in the Eastern Hemisphere is recommended as the introduction or augmentation of the R-strain by invasion could greatly exacerbate the economic damage caused by this species.

6 May 2021

PONE-D-21-10287

The fall armyworm strain associated with most rice, millet, and pasture infestations in the Western Hemisphere is rare or absent in Ghana and Togo.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nagoshi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 15 June 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ramzi Mansour

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

and

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contains map images which may be copyrighted.

All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish this figure specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figure from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish this figure under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Nagoshi et al. analyzed marker sequences (mt-CO1 and TPI) from the samples collected both from rice and corn fields in the fall amryworm and concluded that rice strains do not exist or rarely exist in West Africa. I believe that their argument is supported by their result. However, I have the following concerns.

1. As the authors already showed in their previous papers, the vast majority of fall armyworms in Africa are hybrids between corn and rice strains. A genomic analysis does show evidence that invasive populations are a mixture of corn and rice strains (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1755-0998.13219). Thus, what we know now is that fall armyworms from corn fiend in invasive populations are hybrids, not corn strain.

Thus, if similar sequences were observed between samples from corn and rice fields, it is fair to say that the samples from rice fields are hybrids, not corn strain.

But throughout the whole manuscript, it appears that they assume that African fall armyworms from corn fields are corn strains. But this assumption seems to be incorrect.

2. In the same context, they have to make it clear what they mean corn strain and rice strain. Are they a taxonomic group? Or just grouping according to the sampling site?

3. Line 51-52. Independent segregation between CO1 and TPI is not true. A half of nuclear genomes is from mother. Thus, 50% of genomes co-segregate with mt-CO1.

4. Table 1, to me, larvae collected from plants by hand could be very different from adults collected by pheromone trap. The adults collected near rice field might have grown up in corn field. They need to show that these adults were grown up on rice field in order not to say that corn strains accidentally arrived near rice fields.

5. L229-L230. They have to provide a reference. And it is really unclear because, at L23-L25, they say that fall armyworms are not a major risk for rice.

6. L347. Indeed, they analyzed a very low number of samples from rice field. Thus, all statistical analyses could not be performed properly because of insufficient statistical power. I do understand that it could have been difficult to collect insects from rice field. And this fact itself might be sufficient to say that there is no established population on rice field.

Reviewer #2: In this paper, authors described “The fall armyworm strain associated with most rice, millet, and pasture infestations in the Western Hemisphere is rare or absent in Ghana and Togo.” Authors have field detection and lab hybrid work upon FAW. Data providing was sufficiently enough, while the inconsistent or conflict recognition on R-strain or C-strain confuse their result and the following discussion.

Actually, authors have a conflict result upon the FAW recognition of R-strain and C-strain between the mitochondrial and nuclear DNA markers, i.e. intermediate types of COI-CS/TpiC and COI-RS/TpiC. They also mentioned and suggested that the COI gene, is not an accurate indicator of strain identity for the African fall armyworm populations. Therefore, how do they elucidate definitely the R-strain is rare or absent in Africa.

Several molecular evidences have shown that R- and C-strains with undistinguishable morphology are generally sympatric in the field, implying the possibility of genetic exchange between the two evolutionary groups. Moreover, molecular evidences also revealed that more than two genetically distinct clusters existed in FAW; therefore, distinguishing the C-strain from Rice-form based on their host plant and genetic markers is unlikely necessary. Authors also shown African FAW do not display strain-specific mating patterns.

It is undoubtedly important work to know the population structure upon African FAW, but it documented unsuitable based on R- and C-strain.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: suggestion.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

15 May 2021

Response to Journal.

< 3. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contains map images which may be copyrighted.>

Added to Figure legend that the map image is QGIS open source.

Response to reviewers.

We thank the reviewers for their comments and have tried to address all the concerns. Extensive changes were made to the introduction and discussion to provide a clearer explanation of the strains and markers, as well as the rationale for the experiments. Minor alterations were made to Figures 5 and 6 that did not change the conclusions made from the data. Reviewer’s comments are bracketed (< >).

<1. As the authors already showed in their previous papers, the vast majority of fall armyworms in Africa are hybrids between corn and rice strains… Thus, what we know now is that fall armyworms from corn field in invasive populations are hybrids, not corn strain.>

The assertion that the Africa fall armyworm are hybrids is an explanation for their unusual configuration of genetic markers. However, there is no indication that they are hybrid in their strain identity (in other words as far as we can tell the African fall armyworm are behaving like the C-strain in their plant host use). A paragraph was added to the introduction (lines 71-79) to explain this distinction.

fall armyworms from corn fields are corn strains. But this assumption seems to be incorrect.>

We have gone through the manuscript to remove such assumptions. For example, the term C-strain or corn strain are not used in the Results section. Instead, the specimens are described by their COI or Tpi haplotype. We also now provide in the discussion an explanation of why we believe the African fall armyworms can be considered C-strain (lines 375-385)

<2. In the same context, they have to make it clear what they mean corn strain and rice strain. Are they a taxonomic group? Or just grouping according to the sampling site?>

We added a paragraph to the introduction describing the difficulties in categorizing what the strains represent (lines 47-55). In addition, we note that lines 56-70 in the introduction describe method and rationale for how we defined strains in this paper.

<3. Line 51-52. Independent segregation between CO1 and TPI is not true. A half of nuclear genomes is from mother. Thus, 50% of genomes co-segregate with mt-CO1.>

We corrected this error in lines 60-62.

<4. Table 1, to me, larvae collected from plants by hand could be very different from adults collected by pheromone trap. The adults collected near rice field might have grown up in corn field. They need to show that these adults were grown up on rice field in order not to say that corn strains accidentally arrived near rice fields.>

As noted in lines 184-190, the larval collections are treated differently from pheromone trap collections when appropriate. We discuss at some length the possibility that the rice pheromone trap specimens come from other hosts (lines 360-372) and have tempered our conclusions with that in mind. We added references to examples where pheromone traps in the Western Hemisphere have successfully collected populations with strain identities that correspond with the local host plants (lines 354-355).

<5. L229-L230. They have to provide a reference. And it is really unclear because, at L23-L25, they say that fall armyworms are not a major risk for rice.>

We don’t believe a reference here is unnecessary since in this section we describe in detail fall armyworm infestations of rice in South America (references are in 243-247). We also removed lines 23-25 from the revised abstract.

<6. L347. Indeed, they analyzed a very low number of samples from rice field. Thus, all statistical analyses could not be performed properly because of insufficient statistical power. I do understand that it could have been difficult to collect insects from rice field. And this fact itself might be sufficient to say that there is no established population on rice field.>

We do not understand this criticism. If we look at Figure 5 for example the sample size for rice ranged from 45 to 109, which is pretty high for this type of study and similar in range to the sampling from corn.

Reviewer #2: In this paper, authors described “The fall armyworm strain associated with most rice, millet, and pasture infestations in the Western Hemisphere is rare or absent in Ghana and Togo.” Authors have field detection and lab hybrid work upon FAW. Data providing was sufficiently enough, while the inconsistent or conflict recognition on R-strain or C-strain confuse their result and the following discussion.>

We made major revisions to the introduction and discussion to address this criticism.

COI-CS/TpiC and COI-RS/TpiC. They also mentioned and suggested that the COI gene, is not an accurate indicator of strain identity for the African fall armyworm populations. Therefore, how do they elucidate definitely the R-strain is rare or absent in Africa.>

The conclusion that the R-strain is rare is based on the frequency of the TpiR marker and lack of fall armyworm in host plants and habitats preferred by the R-strain. In response to the reviewer, we expanded the relevant section of the Discussion on this point (lines 349-374). We also describe why we believe that the Tpi marker may still be relevant for strain identification in the introduction (lines 71-79) and Discussion (lines 375-399).

Rice-form based on their host plant and genetic markers is unlikely necessary. >

Not sure what other genetic clusters are being referred to here, but we believe the strains are of particular importance because they differentiate fall armyworm based on plant host use. This has important implication when determining what plant types are at risk. We added a section to better explain this point of view to the introduction (lines 71-86). We also added additional material to the discussion describing our interpretation of the fall armyworm strains found in Africa (lines 375-399).

It is undoubtedly important work to know the population structure upon African FAW, but it documented unsuitable based on R- and C-strain.>

We disagree. At this time the strain markers are the only ones that have been demonstrated (in the Americas) to distinguish fall armyworm for their host plant preference, which has obvious relevance to identifying what crops are at risk. As detailed above, we have made extensive revisions to the introduction and discussion to explain our perspective.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

27 May 2021

PONE-D-21-10287R1

The fall armyworm strain associated with most rice, millet, and pasture infestations in the Western Hemisphere is rare or absent in Ghana and Togo.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nagoshi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 11 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ramzi Mansour

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Authors could have an outstanding elucidation for African FAW structure, while the R-strain and C-strain is now not a natural recognition.

As the authors showed either in the previous version or this version, L71-79, that hybridization between Corn-strain and Rice-strain has been occurred and showed disagreement between the mtCOI and nrTpi strain haplotypes. Authors also know that there have several publishings documented that more than two genetic lineages could be found in FAW. It is already unmeaningful to distinguish R- from C-strains for FAW as I have suggested in the previous version. It is undoubtedly important work to know the population structure upon African FAW, but the R- and C-strain documentation should be abandoned.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: suggestion for R1.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

29 May 2021

We do not agree with the reviewer’s comments.

The primary objection of the reviewer is: “It is already unmeaningful to distinguish R- from C-strains for FAW as I have suggested in the previous version”. We strongly disagree with that statement and believe the reviewer has not taken into consideration the following points.

First, all previous work on FAW population genetics in Africa have been done on specimens collected from corn or less frequently sorghum. These are host plants associated with the C-strain. Very little is known about whether FAW is associated with R-strain hosts in Africa and if so, what the strain composition of these might be. I want to emphasize that point, the characterization of FAW associated with R-strain host plants in Africa has not been done previously and without that analysis one cannot assume the absence of the R-strain in Africa. To do so, as appears to be what is being suggested by the reviewer, is not good science. This point is explicitly made several times in the paper (see for example lines 8-16 in the abstract, lines 85-89 in the introduction, and lines 353-354 in the Discussion). It is even alluded to in the lines noted by the reviewer (L71-79) where we state “Because virtually all the Eastern Hemisphere specimens tested to date were collected from the C-strain associated hosts corn and sorghum,…” (L74-76).

This is the issue being addressed by this manuscript. This is the first, and so far only, attempt to systematically collect and genetically analyze FAW in Africa from R-strain hosts. As such we believe it is a critically important paper for assessing the status of the two strains in Africa. To make this point explicitly clear lines 79-81 and 88-89 were added to the Introduction.

Second, the assertion by the reviewer that the strains are no longer relevant in Africa and that

“the R- and C-strain documentation should be abandoned” is at best premature and most likely wrong. The defining characteristic of the strains is host plant preference. The defining characteristic of the C-strain is that it primarily infests corn and sorghum fields, only occasionally rice, and very rarely pasture grasses. This manuscript demonstrates that the Africa FAW is showing a similar preference pattern. It is found in corn, is ambiguous in rice (trap captures but little evidence of larval infestation), and virtually absent in pasture grasses. So even if there was an ancestral hybridization event between the strains, the Africa FAW population is effectively still behaving like the C-strain. What has changed is that COI is no longer an accurate strain marker. This point is explicitly made in Lines 74-78 in the Introduction and 384-387 in the Discussion. We also provided an explanation for how this might have occurred where an early hybridization event between strains disassociated the COI marker but still maintained a C-strain identity/behavior (lines 377-401).

Third, the reviewer does not consider the fact that the R-strain does exist in the Western Hemisphere and so could enter Africa at any time. So even if the current African FAW is a hybrid, secondary introductions of FAW to Africa could return both strains into the continent with potential economic consequences. Therefore, continued surveillance of Africa populations with the strain markers is still relevant and important as is noted in lines 421-424.

The reviewer also stated: “Authors also know that there have several publishings (sic) documented that more than two genetic lineages could be found in FAW.” We believe these lineages are irrelevant to this paper as the lineages are not associated with host preference. This paper is about whether the two FAW lineages associated with different host plant preferences in the Western Hemisphere are present in Africa.

In summary, we believe the reviewer’s objections are not reasonable and stem from assumptions that are premature and probably incorrect. This manuscript represents the first systematic attempt to find and genetically characterize Africa FAW in the R-strain hosts of rice and pasture grasses. This information is critical to the assessment as to whether the fall armyworm population likely to threaten rice, millet, and pasture grasses is present Africa.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers2.docx

Click here for additional data file.

8 Jun 2021

The fall armyworm strain associated with most rice, millet, and pasture infestations in the Western Hemisphere is rare or absent in Ghana and Togo.

PONE-D-21-10287R2

Dear Dr. Nagoshi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication (BUT, please see and apply ADDITIONAL EDITOR COMMENTS below) and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ramzi Mansour

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

The following revisions should be made by the authors on the PROOFS of their accepted article:

L23 (Abstract):  please replace "Ghana-Togo region"   with   "Ghana-Togo area"

L27 (Introduction):  please replace  "(Spodoptera frugiperda) is"    with    "Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is"

L34:  please replace "plant hosts"  with  "host plants"

L54:  please replace "and plant host"   with  "and host plant"

L100 (Materials and methods):  please replace "Fall armyworm was collected"   with   "Fall armyworm individuals were collected"

L124:  please leave one space after "6000"

L124:  please delete the  " . "   after   "5 min"

L130:  10 mM

L145:  please add a comma before  "the first PCR"

L185-186:   the number of TpiH specimens were incorporated ??   something is wrong here, please correct (the numbers ?)

L238 (Figure 3 caption):  please replace  "pheromone trap capture numbers"   with  "pheromone trap captures"

L259:  please replace  "plant types"   with   "plant species"

L263:  please add  "and"   before  "Murua"

L298:  please add the Authorship, Order and Family  "(Boisduval) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)"    just after  "Spodoptera littoralis"  as this species is mentioned for the first time here

L299:  the common name abbreviation "FAW" is mentioned for the first time in the paper with no previous definition; for consistency with what is written throughout the text, I'd suggest replacing "FAW"  with  "fall armyworm"

L301:  Larvae were also

L327:  please leave one space before  "(Fig 6)"

L352 (Discussion):  please replace  "affected regions"    with   "affected areas"

L358:  please add a comma after  "efforts"

L364:  please add a comma after "and Togo"

L365-366:   please replace  "in this region"  with  "in this western African area"

L368:  please change to ", that fall armyworms collected in the"

L373-373:  please change to  "Regardless of origin, fall armyworms found in rice traps were"

L419:  please replace  "Africa populations"   with  "African fall armyworm populations"

L420:  associated host plants

Reviewers' comments:

11 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-10287R2

The fall armyworm strain associated with most rice, millet, and pasture infestations in the Western Hemisphere is rare or absent in Ghana and Togo.

Dear Dr. Nagoshi:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ramzi Mansour

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE