<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id>1807-8621</journal-id>
<journal-title><![CDATA[Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy]]></journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title><![CDATA[Acta Sci., Agron.]]></abbrev-journal-title>
<issn>1807-8621</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Editora da Universidade Estadual de Maringá - EDUEM]]></publisher-name>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id>S1807-86212012000200002</article-id>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4025/actasciagron.v34i2.11577</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[The feeding preferences of Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. SMITH) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on cotton plant varieties]]></article-title>
<article-title xml:lang="pt"><![CDATA[Preferência alimentar de Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. SMITH) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) em variedades de plantas algodoeiras]]></article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Campos]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Zeneide Ribeiro]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A01"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Boiça-Júnior]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Arlindo Leal]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A02"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Valério Filho]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Walter Veriano]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A03"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Campos]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Ostenildo Ribeiro]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A04"/>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[Campos]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[Alcebíades Ribeiro]]></given-names>
</name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="A01"/>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<aff id="A01">
<institution><![CDATA[,Faculdade de Engenharia Departamento de Fitossanidade ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Ilha Solteira São Paulo]]></addr-line>
<country>Brazil</country>
</aff>
<aff id="A02">
<institution><![CDATA[,Universidade Estadual Paulista Julio de Mesquita Filho Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias Departamento de Fitossanidade]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Jaboticabal São Paulo]]></addr-line>
<country>Brazil</country>
</aff>
<aff id="A03">
<institution><![CDATA[,Faculdade de Engenharia Departamento de Matemática ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Ilha Solteira São Paulo]]></addr-line>
<country>Brazil</country>
</aff>
<aff id="A04">
<institution><![CDATA[,Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso Curso de Agronomia ]]></institution>
<addr-line><![CDATA[Mato Grosso ]]></addr-line>
<country>Brazil</country>
</aff>
<pub-date pub-type="pub">
<day>00</day>
<month>06</month>
<year>2012</year>
</pub-date>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<day>00</day>
<month>06</month>
<year>2012</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>34</volume>
<numero>2</numero>
<fpage>125</fpage>
<lpage>130</lpage>
<copyright-statement/>
<copyright-year/>
<self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&amp;pid=S1807-86212012000200002&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso&amp;tlng=en"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&amp;pid=S1807-86212012000200002&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso&amp;tlng=en"></self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_pdf&amp;pid=S1807-86212012000200002&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso&amp;tlng=en"></self-uri><abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="en"><p><![CDATA[This work evaluated the attractiveness and the non-preference for feeding of newly hatched fall armyworm larvae on the cotton plant parts and different varieties used in the study. The trials were performed at 27 ± 1ºC, a 70% ± 10% relative humidity and a 14h photoperiod. Leaves, bracts, squares and carpel walls of the BRS Itamarati-90 variety and leaves of Fibermax-966, Fibermax-977, DeltaOpal, DeltaPenta, BRS Acala-90, Coodetec-408, Coodetec-409, Coodetec-410, BRS-Cedro, BRS-Ipê, BRS-Aroeira, IPR-96, IPR-120, BRS-Araçá, IAC-24 and BRS Itamarati-90 varieties were used in attractiveness, multiple-choice and confinement (no-choice) non-preference feeding trials. Twenty larvae were released per petri dish test (arena system) with 10 repetitions. Attractiveness trials were evaluated by counting feeding caterpillars over 60 min. and by measuring non-preference at 24h. Leaves were the most attractive item and were preferred for feeding. In the multiple-choice arena trials, Coodetec-410 was the most attractive variety, and BRS Acala-90, Fibermax-966 and DeltaPenta were the least attractive to fall armyworm larvae. In the non-preference trial, BRS-Araça was the variety favored for feeding. BRS-Cedro, BRS Itamarati-90, DeltaPenta, Coodetec-408 and BRS-Aroeira were the least-favored varieties. In the 60 min. attractiveness trials, 46 min. proved to be the most suitable time for evaluating the attractiveness of cotton plants to newly hatched fall armyworm larvae.]]></p></abstract>
<abstract abstract-type="short" xml:lang="pt"><p><![CDATA[Avaliou-se atratividade e não-preferência alimentar de lagartas recém-eclodidas de Spodoptera frugiperda por partes de plantas e plantas de variedades de algodoeiro. Testes foram realizados a 27 ± 1ºC, UR de 70% ± 10% e fotofase de 14h. Folhas, brácteas, botões florais e cascas de maçãs da variedade BRS Itamarati-90 e folhas de Fibermax-966, Fibermax-977, DeltaOpal, DeltaPenta, BRS Acala-90, Coodetec-408, Coodetec-409, Coodetec-410, BRS-Cedro, BRS-Ipê, BRS-Aroeira, IPR-96, IPR-120, BRS-Araçá, IAC-24 e BRS Itamarati-90 foram utilizadas nos testes de atratividade e não-preferência para alimentação, com e sem chance de escolha. Utilizaram-se 20 lagartas de S. frugiperda por placa de Petri (sistema de arena) por teste, com 10 repetições. Contaram-se lagartas para avaliar atratividade por 60 min e não-preferência para alimentação por 24 h. Folha foi mais atrativa e preferida para alimentação por lagartas de S. frugiperda. Em livre escolha, Coodetec-410 foi mais atrativa e BRS Acala-90, Fibermax-966 e DeltaPenta, as de menor atratividade à S. frugiperda; BRS-Araçá, mais preferida para alimentação e BRS-Cedro, BRS Itamarati 90, DeltaPenta, Coodetec-408 e BRS-Aroeira, menos preferidas. Considera-se 46 min., tempo mais adequado para avaliar atratividade de algodoeiro a lagartas de S. frugiperda.]]></p></abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[plant resistance]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[Gossypium hirsutum]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="en"><![CDATA[fall armyworm]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[resistência de plantas]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[Gossypium hirsutum]]></kwd>
<kwd lng="pt"><![CDATA[lagarta-do-cartucho]]></kwd>
</kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front><body><![CDATA[ <p align="right"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>CROP    PROTECTION</b></font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><a name="top"></a><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="4"><b>The    feeding preferences of <i>Spodoptera frugiperda</i> (J. E. SMITH) (Lepidoptera:    Noctuidae) on cotton plant varieties</b></font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3"><b>Prefer&ecirc;ncia    alimentar de <i>Spodoptera frugiperda</i> (J. E. SMITH) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)    em variedades de plantas algodoeiras</b></font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Zeneide Ribeiro    Campos<sup>I</sup>; Arlindo Leal Boi&ccedil;a-J&uacute;nior<sup>II</sup>; Walter    Veriano Val&eacute;rio Filho<sup>III</sup>; Ostenildo Ribeiro Campos<sup>IV</sup>;    Alceb&iacute;ades Ribeiro Campos<sup>I, <a href="#back">*</a></sup></b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><sup>I</sup>Departamento    de Fitossanidade, Engenharia Rural e Solos, Faculdade de Engenharia, Av. Brasil,    56, 15385-000, Ilha Solteira, S&atilde;o Paulo, Brazil    <br>   <sup>II</sup>Departamento de Fitossanidade, Faculdade de Ci&ecirc;ncias Agr&aacute;rias    e Veterin&aacute;rias, Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho",    Jaboticabal, S&atilde;o Paulo, Brazil    ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<br>   <sup>III</sup>Departamento de Matem&aacute;tica, Faculdade de Engenharia, Ilha    Solteira, S&atilde;o Paulo, Brazil    <br>   <sup>IV</sup>Curso de Agronomia, Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Alta    Floresta, Mato Grosso, Brazil</font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p> <hr size="1" noshade>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>ABSTRACT</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> This work evaluated    the attractiveness and the non-preference for feeding of newly hatched fall    armyworm larvae on the cotton plant parts and different varieties used in the    study. The trials were performed at 27 &#177; 1&#186;C, a 70% &#177; 10% relative    humidity and a 14h photoperiod. Leaves, bracts, squares and carpel walls of    the BRS Itamarati-90 variety and leaves of Fibermax-966, Fibermax-977, DeltaOpal,    DeltaPenta, BRS Acala-90, Coodetec-408, Coodetec-409, Coodetec-410, BRS-Cedro,    BRS-Ip&ecirc;, BRS-Aroeira, IPR-96, IPR-120, BRS-Ara&ccedil;&aacute;, IAC-24    and BRS Itamarati-90 varieties were used in attractiveness, multiple-choice    and confinement (no-choice) non-preference feeding trials. Twenty larvae were    released per petri dish test (arena system) with 10 repetitions. Attractiveness    trials were evaluated by counting feeding caterpillars over 60 min. and by measuring    non-preference at 24h. Leaves were the most attractive item and were preferred    for feeding. In the multiple-choice arena trials, Coodetec-410 was the most    attractive variety, and BRS Acala-90, Fibermax-966 and DeltaPenta were the least    attractive to fall armyworm larvae. In the non-preference trial, BRS-Ara&ccedil;a    was the variety favored for feeding. BRS-Cedro, BRS Itamarati-90, DeltaPenta,    Coodetec-408 and BRS-Aroeira were the least-favored varieties. In the 60 min.    attractiveness trials, 46 min. proved to be the most suitable time for evaluating    the attractiveness of cotton plants to newly hatched fall armyworm larvae.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Keywords:</b>    plant resistance, <i>Gossypium hirsutum</i>, fall armyworm.</font></p> <hr size="1" noshade>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>RESUMO</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Avaliou-se atratividade    e n&atilde;o-prefer&ecirc;ncia alimentar de lagartas rec&eacute;m-eclodidas    de <i>Spodoptera frugiperda</i> por partes de plantas e plantas de variedades    de algodoeiro. Testes foram realizados a 27 &#177; 1&#186;C, UR de 70% &#177;    10% e fotofase de 14h. Folhas, br&aacute;cteas, bot&otilde;es florais e cascas    de ma&ccedil;&atilde;s da variedade BRS Itamarati-90 e folhas de Fibermax-966,    Fibermax-977, DeltaOpal, DeltaPenta, BRS Acala-90, Coodetec-408, Coodetec-409,    Coodetec-410, BRS-Cedro, BRS-Ip&ecirc;, BRS-Aroeira, IPR-96, IPR-120, BRS-Ara&ccedil;&aacute;,    IAC-24 e BRS Itamarati-90 foram utilizadas nos testes de atratividade e n&atilde;o-prefer&ecirc;ncia    para alimenta&ccedil;&atilde;o, com e sem chance de escolha. Utilizaram-se 20    lagartas de <i>S. frugiperda</i> por placa de Petri (sistema de arena) por teste,    com 10 repeti&ccedil;&otilde;es. Contaram-se lagartas para avaliar atratividade    por 60 min e n&atilde;o-prefer&ecirc;ncia para alimenta&ccedil;&atilde;o por    24 h. Folha foi mais atrativa e preferida para alimenta&ccedil;&atilde;o por    lagartas de <i>S. frugiperda.</i> Em livre escolha, Coodetec-410 foi mais atrativa    e BRS Acala-90, Fibermax-966 e DeltaPenta, as de menor atratividade &agrave;    <i>S. frugiperda</i>; BRS-Ara&ccedil;&aacute;, mais preferida para alimenta&ccedil;&atilde;o    e BRS-Cedro, BRS Itamarati 90, DeltaPenta, Coodetec-408 e BRS-Aroeira, menos    preferidas. Considera-se 46 min., tempo mais adequado para avaliar atratividade    de algodoeiro a lagartas de <i>S. frugiperda.</i></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Palavras-chave:</b>    resist&ecirc;ncia de plantas, <i>Gossypium hirsutum</i>, lagarta-do-cartucho.</font></p> <hr size="1" noshade>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3"><b>Introduction</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The fall armyworm,    <i>Spodoptera frugiperda</i> (J. E. Smith), a native species of tropical and    subtropical regions of the Americas, is geographically widespread (LUGINBILL,    1928) and feeds on a wide range of cultivated plants (LUGINBILL, 1928). Although    the fall armyworm prefers to feed on plants of the grass family (maize, millet,    wheat, sorghum, rice and sugar cane), it will attack other such economically    important crops as peanuts, potato, soybean and cotton (ALI et al., 1989).</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The fall armyworm,    considered one of the chief pests of maize in North America (WISEMAN et al.,    1966), finds the climate of Brazil favorable and encounters diverse food items    in all regions and throughout the year (SANTOS, 2001; SOARES; VIEIRA, 1998;    SILVA et al., 2009).</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">This insect pest    inhabits all cotton-producing regions. It is particularly prevalent where cotton    is rotated with wheat, oats or maize or is grown close to maize-producing areas    (DEGRANDE, 1998). It has caused considerable damage to cotton plants in many    areas of Brazil, in particular, in the Brazilian Savanna (Cerrado) where the    climate is favorable, there is excessive and inappropriate spraying of insecticides    and the schedule of crop rotation favors the increase of armyworm populations    (SOARES; ARA&Uacute;JO, 2001).</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The fall armyworm    causes damage at all stages in the development of cotton plants, from seedlings    to the ripening of the fruits (ALI et al., 1989; GALLO et al., 2002; SANTOS,    2001). The larvae cut young plants at the stem base and thereby reduce the standing    crop (ALI et al., 1989; SANTOS, 2001; GALLO et al., 2002). In more mature plants,    larvae select the non-lignified upper part of the stem; scrape off the epidermis    of the bracts, the squares, the blooms, the bolls (SANTOS, 2001) and the apical    shoot meristems, penetrate and damage squares, blooms and developed bolls (ALI    et al., 1989; GALLO et al., 2002); destroy leaves; and penetrate the stems when    there are no bolls (ALI et al., 1989; GALLO et al., 2002). The penetration of    bolls by the fall armyworm causes a reduction in the quantity and quality of    fiber and increases the susceptibility to disease of these reproductive organs    under different climatic conditions. High economic losses result from these    damaging effects (LUTTRELL; MINK, 1999).</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The high levels    of damage caused by the fall armyworm to cotton plants in Brazil the economic    importance of the crop (SOARES; VIEIRA, 1998), the use of chemical insecticides    as the only control measure (VALICENTE; FONSECA, 2004) and the scarcity of data    regarding new control tactics justify studies of the feeding habits of the fall    armyworm on cotton plants. These studies can potentially with a possible contribute    to the optimization of measures for the management of this pest.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The aim of this    work was to evaluate the attractiveness of different cotton plant parts and    varieties to newly hatched fall armyworm larvae and the non-preference of the    larvae for feeding on these plant parts and cotton varieties.</font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3"><b>Material and    methods</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The studies reported    in this paper were performed non-in the Entomology Laboratory of the Phytosanitary,    Rural Engineering and Soils Department of the Engineering School (UNESP), Ilha    Solteira, S&atilde;o Paulo State, in 2007.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Fall armyworms    were obtained from the National Maize and Sorghum Research Center (CNPMS - EMBRAPA)    located in Sete Lagoas, Minas Gerais. They were reared and maintained in the    laboratory on an artificial diet (KASTEN JR. et al., 1978). The breeding methodology    described by Parra (1986) was used. The breeding conditions were a temperature    of 27 &#177; 1&#186;C, a relative humidity of 70 &#177; 10% and a photoperiod    of 14h.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Attractiveness    trials and multiple-choice and confinement (no-choice) non-preference feeding    trials for parts of the plants (leaves, bracts (2.0 x 1.0 cm), squares and 2-cm    carpel walls of bolls) were using the BRS Itamarati-90 cotton variety. The preferred    part of the plant identified in these initial trials was then used to differentiate    between cotton varieties in subsequent tests of attractiveness and non-preference    for feeding. The following varieties were utilized in this trial: Fibermax-966,    Fibermax-977, DeltaOpal, DeltaPenta, BRS Acala-90, Coodetec-408, Coodetec-409,    Coodetec-410, BRS-Cedro, BRS-Ip&ecirc;, BRS-Aroeira, IPR-96, IPR-120, BRS-Ara&ccedil;&aacute;,    IAC-24 and BRS Itamarati 90.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Attractiveness    was defined as the capacity of different parts of the plant or cotton varieties    to attract newly hatched fall armyworm larvae within 60 min. of their release.    Non-preference was defined as the capacity of parts of the plant and plant varieties    to remain relatively uneaten up to 24h after release. The non-preference capacity    of a plant part was therefore deemed to be relatively greater if a relatively    small number of larvae were found to be feeding on that part 24h after the release    of the larvae.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">In the laboratory,    the selected plant parts (leaves, bolls, squares and bracts) were rinsed in    distilled water to eliminate contaminants. Excess water was removed using paper    towels. Two-centimeter leaf discs, sections of the carpel walls of bolls and    bracts (2.0 x 1.0 cm), and entire squares were utilized.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Attractiveness    of parts of the cotton plant to fall armyworm larvae</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The leaf discs,    the sections of the carpel wall of bolls and bracts, and the entire squares    were placed equidistant on damp filter paper in a 9 cm-diameter petri dish (2.0    cm high) in a feeding choice arena system. Twenty newly hatched larvae were    released in each of ten replications. The total numbers of larvae attracted    by the different parts of the plant were counted at 5, 10, 20, 25, 30 and 60    min. after release.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Non-preference    for feeding of fall armyworm larvae on different parts of the cotton plant in    multiple-choice and confinement (no-choice) feeding trials</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">In the multiple-choice    feeding trial, the procedures and material utilized were the same as for the    attractiveness trial. In the no-choice trial, only one part of the plant was    placed on damp filter paper in each 6 cm-diameter petri dish (2.0 cm high).    For each of 10 replications, twenty newly hatched larvae were released into    the petri dishes. The total number of larvae feeding on the parts of the plants    24h after release was used for the evaluation.</font></p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Attractiveness    of different cotton varieties to fall armyworm larvae</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">In the arena system,    20 newly hatched larvae were released for each of ten replications. Leaf discs    of the different cotton varieties were placed in 20 cm-diameter petri dishes    (3.0 cm high) on damp filter paper. The total number of larvae attracted to    each leaf disc at 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 and 60 min. after release was used to evaluate    attractiveness.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Non-preference    for feeding of fall armyworm larvae on different cotton varieties in multiple-choice    and confinement (no-choice) feeding trials</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">In the multiple-choice    feeding trial, the procedures were the same as those adopted for the attractiveness    trial. In the no-choice feeding trial, each variety was placed on damp filter    paper in one 6 cm-diameter petri dish (2.0 cm high). For each of ten replications,    twenty newly hatched larvae were released into the petri dishes. The total number    of larvae feeding on the leaf discs 24h after release was used for the evaluation.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Experimental    design and statistical analysis</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">A randomized block    design with plots subdivided over time was utilized for the attractiveness trials.    Additionally, a randomized block design was employed for the non-preference    multiple-choice feeding trials. However, a completely randomized design was    utilized for the non-preference no-choice feeding trials. The data were analyzed    with the analysis of variance procedure. The means were compared using the Tukey    test. Polynomial regression was used to analyze the data on attractiveness as    a function of time.</font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Results and    discussion</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">In the multiple-choice    feeding trial, the different parts of the BRS Itamarati-90 cotton plant showed    significant differences in attractiveness (F = 18.28; p &lt; 0.05). The leaves    and bracts were the most attractive parts. Next in attractiveness were the carpel    wall of the bolls and the squares (<a href="#t1">Table 1</a>). The high attractiveness    of leaves and bracts was apparent from the 5<sup>th</sup> minute after presentation,    and this pattern continued throughout the trial. The results of the trial showed    that the leaves and the bracts were adequate for evaluating the attractiveness    of cotton plants to fall armyworms. These plant parts were therefore selected    for use in the subsequent tests.</font></p>     <p><a name="t1"></a></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p align="center"><img src="/img/revistas/asagr/v34n2/02t01.jpg"></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">For the leaves,    bracts and carpel walls of the bolls, the numbers of larvae increased at each    time interval after release until the end of the evaluation. However, fewer    larvae fed on squares, and the number of larvae feeding varied less over time    (<a href="#f1">Figure 1</a>; F = 2.5; p &lt; 0.05). By using the formula y =    -0.000579x<sup>2</sup> + 0.0548x + 2.729 derived from a polynomial regression    analysis of the attractiveness data, a period of 46 min. was found to be sufficient    to evaluate the attractiveness of different parts of cotton plants to newly    hatched fall armyworm larvae.</font></p>     <p><a name="f1"></a></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p align="center"><img src="/img/revistas/asagr/v34n2/02f01.jpg"></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The feeding preferences    of the fall armyworm larvae for different parts of the BRS Itamarati-90 variety    differed significantly (<a href="#f2">Figure 2</a>; choice, F = 22.60; p &lt;    0.05 and no-choice, F = 9.50; p &lt; 0.05). In the multiple-choice feeding trial,    the leaves were the preferred part of the plant, whereas in the confinement    feeding trial, the preferences shown by the larvae for the leaves and for the    bolls did not differ significantly (<a href="#f2">Figure 2</a>). These results    are similar to those found in previously published studies in which newly hatched    larvae preferred feeding on leaves (ALI et al., 1990), followed by bracts (FREEMAN,    1999; PEREIRA, 1971) and bolls, which were penetrated by irregularly shaped    holes (PEREIRA, 1971). Similar results were obtained by Ali et al. (1990), who    reported that newly hatched larvae preferred to feed on leaves under both field    conditions and in a shade house.</font></p>     <p><a name="f2"></a></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p align="center"><img src="/img/revistas/asagr/v34n2/02f02.jpg"></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Significant differences    in attractiveness (F = 3.41; p &lt; 0.05) were observed for the different cotton    varieties in the multiple-choice feeding arena trial (<a href="/img/revistas/asagr/v34n2/02t02.jpg">Table    2</a>). Coodetec-410 proved to be significantly more attractive to larvae, whereas    DeltaPenta, BRS Acala-90 and Fibermax-966 were the least attractive (<a href="/img/revistas/asagr/v34n2/02t02.jpg">Table    2</a>). From 5 to 60 min. after release, the numbers of larvae feeding on the    varieties Coodetec-410, Coodetec-408, BRS-Ip&ecirc; and BRS-Cedro (<a href="#f3">Figure    3</a>) increased. These varieties were the most attractive (the numbers of larvae    feeding on them were higher) (<a href="/img/revistas/asagr/v34n2/02t02.jpg">Table 2</a>).</font></p>     <p><a name="f3"></a></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p align="center"><img src="/img/revistas/asagr/v34n2/02f03.jpg"></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The varieties BRS    Acala-90, Fibermax-966 and DeltaPenta were less attractive. The numbers of feeding    larvae were smaller and varied less (<a href="#f4">Figure 4</a>). In the trials    on the attractiveness of cotton plants to larvae (F = 1.68; p &lt; 0.05), the    polynomial regression equation showed that 46 min. was a sufficient amount of    time to evaluate the feeding pattern of the larvae on cotton varieties. After    this period, the number of feeding larvae on each variety decreased (<a href="#f3">Figures    3</a> and <a href="#f4">4</a>).</font></p>     <p><a name="f4"></a></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p align="center"><img src="/img/revistas/asagr/v34n2/02f04.jpg"></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Significant differences    in the feeding non-preference of the larvae were observed for the different    cotton varieties in the multiple-choice feeding arena (<a href="#f5">Figure    5</a>; F = 2.53; p &lt; 0.05). A larger number of larvae fed on BRS-Ara&ccedil;&aacute;.    This variety was therefore the favored variety. Coodetec-408, BRS-Aroeira, BRS-Cedro,    BRS Itamarati-90 and DeltaPenta were the least-preferred varieties (<a href="#f5">Figure    5</a>). No significant difference was observed in respect to non-preference    for feeding of newly-hatched fall armyworm larvae between the different cotton    varieties in the no-choice feeding trial (<a href="#f5">Figure 5</a>; F = 1.36;    p &gt; 0.05).</font></p>     <p><a name="f5"></a></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p align="center"><img src="/img/revistas/asagr/v34n2/02f05.jpg"></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3"><b>Conclusion</b></font></p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">In general, the    leaves proved to be the most suitable part of the plant with which to study    the attractiveness and non-preference for feeding on cotton plants in newly    hatched fall armyworm larvae. Among the different varieties assessed, BRS Acala-90,    Fibermax-966 and DeltaPenta were the least attractive, whereas DeltaPenta was    the least preferred for feeding in the feeding choice arena trial. Under laboratory    conditions, it was observed that 46 min after the beginning of the attractiveness    trial was the best time at which to evaluate the attractiveness of the varieties    of cotton plants to newly hatched larvae of this insect pest.</font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="3"><b>References</b></font></p>     <!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">ALI, A.; LUTTRELL,    R. G.; PITRE, H. N. Feeding sites and distribution of fall armyworm (Lepidoptera:    Noctuidae) larvae on cotton. <b>Environmental Entomology</b>, v. 19, n. 4, p.    1060-1067, 1990.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=000084&pid=S1807-8621201200020000200001&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></font></p>     <!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">ALI, A.; LUTTRELL,    R. G.; PITRE, H. N.; DAVIS, F. M. Distribution of fall armyworm (Lepidoptera:    Noctuidae) egg masses on cotton. <b>Environmental Entomology</b>, v. 18, n.    5, p. 881-885, 1989.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=000086&pid=S1807-8621201200020000200002&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></font></p>     <!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">DEGRANDE, P E.    <b>Guia pr&aacute;tico de controle das pragas do algodoeiro</b>. Dourados: UFMS,    1998.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=000088&pid=S1807-8621201200020000200003&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></font></p>     <!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">FREEMAN, B. L.    Cotton insect pests. In: FOSHEE. <b>Cotton Scouting Handbook</b>. &#91;S.l.&#93;:    Alabama Cooperative Extension System, 1999. (PubID: ANR-409).    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=000090&pid=S1807-8621201200020000200004&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></font></p>     <!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">GALLO, D.; NAKANO,    O.; NETO, S. S.; CARVALHO, R. P. L.; BATISTA, G. C.; BERTI FILHO, E. B.; PARRA,    J. R. P.; ZUCCHI, R. A.; ALVES, S. B.; VENDRAMIN, J. D.; MARCHINI, L. C.; LOPES,    J. R. S.; OMOTO, C. <b>Entomologia Agr&iacute;cola</b>. Piracicaba: Fealq, 2002.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=000092&pid=S1807-8621201200020000200005&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></font></p>     <!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">KASTEN JR., P.;    PRECETTI, A. A. C. M.; PARRA, J. R. P. Dados biol&oacute;gicos comparativos    de <i>Spodoptera frugiperda</i> (J. E. SMITH, 1797) em duas dietas artificiais    e substrato natural. <b>Revista de Agricultura</b>, v. 53, n. 1-2, p. 69-78,    1978.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=000094&pid=S1807-8621201200020000200006&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></font></p>     <!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">LUGINBILL, P. The    fall armyworm. <b>Technical Bulletin United States Department of Agriculture,</b>    v. 34, p. 1-91, 1928.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=000096&pid=S1807-8621201200020000200007&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></font></p>     <!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">LUTTRELL, R. G.;    MINK, J. S. Damage to cotton fruiting structures by the fall armyworm, <i>Spodoptera    frugiperda</i> (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). <b>Journal of Cotton Science</b>, v.    3, n. 2, p. 35-44, 1999.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=000098&pid=S1807-8621201200020000200008&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></font></p>     <!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">PARRA, J. R. P.    Cria&ccedil;&atilde;o de insetos para estudos com pat&oacute;genos. In: ALVES,    S. B. (Coord.). <b>Controle microbiano de insetos</b>. S&atilde;o Paulo: Manole,    1986. p. 348-373.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=000100&pid=S1807-8621201200020000200009&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></font></p>     <!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">PEREIRA, L. H.    A lagarta <i>Spodoptera frugiperda</i> (Smith e Abbot, 1797) nos algodoeiros    do Paran&aacute;. <b>Arquivos de Biologia e Tecnologia</b>, v. 14, p. 6-7, 1971.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=000102&pid=S1807-8621201200020000200010&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></font></p>     <!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">SANTOS, W. J. Identifica&ccedil;&atilde;o,    biologia, amostragem e controle das pragas do algodoeiro. In: <b>Algod&atilde;o:    Tecnologia de Produ&ccedil;&atilde;o/Embrapa Agropecu&aacute;ria Oeste</b>:    Embrapa Algod&atilde;o. Dourados: Embrapa Agropecu&aacute;ria Oeste, 2001. p.    181-2003.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=000104&pid=S1807-8621201200020000200011&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></font></p>     <!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">SILVA, A. B.; BATISTA,    J. L.; BRITO, C. H. Capacidade predat&oacute;ria de <i>Eurobellia annulipes</i>    (Lucas, 1947) sobre <i>Spodoptera frugiperda</i> (Smith, 1797). <b>Acta Scientiarum.    Agronomy</b>, v. 31, n. 1, p. 7-11, 2009.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=000106&pid=S1807-8621201200020000200012&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></font></p>     <!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">SOARES, J. J.;    ARA&Uacute;JO, L. H. A. Guerra &agrave; lagarta militar (<i>Spodoptera frugiperda</i>).    <b>Revista Cultivar</b>, v. III, p. 6-8, 2001.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=000108&pid=S1807-8621201200020000200013&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></font></p>     <!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">SOARES, J. J.;    VIEIRA, R. M. <b><i>Spodoptera frugiperda</i> amea&ccedil;a a cotonicultura    brasileira</b>. Campina Grande: Embrapa-CNPA, 1998.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=000110&pid=S1807-8621201200020000200014&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></font></p>     <!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">VALICENTE, F. H.;    FONSECA, M. M. Susceptibilidade da lagarta-do-cartucho do milho <i>Spodoptera    frugiperda</i>, a diferentes isolados de <i>Bacillus thuringiensis</i>. <b>Revista    Brasileira de Milho Sorgo</b>, v. 3, n. 1, p. 21-29, 2004.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=000112&pid=S1807-8621201200020000200015&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></font></p>     <!-- ref --><p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">WISEMAN, B. R.;    PAINTER, R. H.; WASSOM, C. E. Detecting corn seedling differences in the greenhouse    by visual classification of damage by the fall armyworm. <b>Journal of Economic    Entomology</b>, v. 59, n. 5, p. 1211-1214, 1966.    &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[&#160;<a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="javascript: window.open('/scielo.php?script=sci_nlinks&ref=000114&pid=S1807-8621201200020000200016&lng=','','width=640,height=500,resizable=yes,scrollbars=1,menubar=yes,');">Links</a>&#160;]<!-- end-ref --></font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Received on October    30, 2010.    <br>   Accepted on May 28, 2011.</font></p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p>&nbsp;</p>     <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">License information:    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons    Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction    in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.    ]]></body>
<body><![CDATA[<br>   <a name="back"></a><a href="#top">*</a> Autor para correspond&ecirc;ncia. E-mail:    <a href="mailto:campos@bio.feis.unesp.br">campos@bio.feis.unesp.br</a></font></p>      ]]></body><back>
<ref-list>
<ref id="B1">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[ALI]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[LUTTRELL]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R. G.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[PITRE]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[H. N.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Feeding sites and distribution of fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae on cotton]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Environmental Entomology]]></source>
<year>1990</year>
<volume>19</volume>
<numero>4</numero>
<issue>4</issue>
<page-range>1060-1067</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B2">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[ALI]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[LUTTRELL]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R. G.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[PITRE]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[H. N.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[DAVIS]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[F. M.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Distribution of fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) egg masses on cotton]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Environmental Entomology]]></source>
<year>1989</year>
<volume>18</volume>
<numero>5</numero>
<issue>5</issue>
<page-range>881-885</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B3">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[DEGRANDE]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P E.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Guia prático de controle das pragas do algodoeiro]]></source>
<year>1998</year>
<publisher-loc><![CDATA[Dourados ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[UFMS]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B4">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[FREEMAN]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[B. L.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Cotton insect pests]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="editor">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[FOSHEE]]></surname>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Cotton Scouting Handbook]]></source>
<year>1999</year>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Alabama Cooperative Extension System]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B5">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[GALLO]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[D.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[NAKANO]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[O.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[NETO]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S. S.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[CARVALHO]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R. P. L.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[BATISTA]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[G. C.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[BERTI FILHO]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[E. B.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[PARRA]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J. R. P.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[ZUCCHI]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R. A.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[ALVES]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S. B.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[VENDRAMIN]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J. D.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[MARCHINI]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L. C.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[LOPES]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J. R. S.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[OMOTO]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Entomologia Agrícola]]></source>
<year>2002</year>
<publisher-loc><![CDATA[Piracicaba ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Fealq]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B6">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[KASTEN JR.]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[PRECETTI]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A. A. C. M.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[PARRA]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J. R. P.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="pt"><![CDATA[Dados biológicos comparativos de Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. SMITH, 1797) em duas dietas artificiais e substrato natural]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Revista de Agricultura]]></source>
<year>1978</year>
<volume>53</volume>
<numero>1-2</numero>
<issue>1-2</issue>
<page-range>69-78</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B7">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[LUGINBILL]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[P.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[The fall armyworm]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Technical Bulletin United States Department of Agriculture]]></source>
<year>1928</year>
<volume>34</volume>
<page-range>1-91</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B8">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[LUTTRELL]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R. G.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[MINK]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J. S.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Damage to cotton fruiting structures by the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Journal of Cotton Science]]></source>
<year>1999</year>
<volume>3</volume>
<numero>2</numero>
<issue>2</issue>
<page-range>35-44</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B9">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[PARRA]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J. R. P.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="pt"><![CDATA[Criação de insetos para estudos com patógenos]]></article-title>
<person-group person-group-type="editor">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[ALVES]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[S. B.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Controle microbiano de insetos]]></source>
<year>1986</year>
<page-range>348-373</page-range><publisher-loc><![CDATA[São Paulo ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Manole]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B10">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[PEREIRA]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L. H.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[A lagarta Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith e Abbot, 1797) nos algodoeiros do Paraná]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Arquivos de Biologia e Tecnologia]]></source>
<year>1971</year>
<volume>14</volume>
<page-range>6-7</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B11">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[SANTOS]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[W. J.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="pt"><![CDATA[Identificação, biologia, amostragem e controle das pragas do algodoeiro]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Algodão: Tecnologia de Produção/Embrapa Agropecuária Oeste]]></source>
<year>2001</year>
<page-range>181-2003</page-range><publisher-loc><![CDATA[Dourados ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Embrapa AlgodãoEmbrapa Agropecuária Oeste]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B12">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[SILVA]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[A. B.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[BATISTA]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J. L.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[BRITO]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C. H.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="pt"><![CDATA[Capacidade predatória de Eurobellia annulipes (Lucas, 1947) sobre Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith, 1797)]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy]]></source>
<year>2009</year>
<volume>31</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>7-11</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B13">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[SOARES]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J. J.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[ARAÚJO]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[L. H. A.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="pt"><![CDATA[Guerra à lagarta militar (Spodoptera frugiperda)]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Revista Cultivar]]></source>
<year>2001</year>
<volume>III</volume>
<page-range>6-8</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B14">
<nlm-citation citation-type="book">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[SOARES]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[J. J.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[VIEIRA]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R. M.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<source><![CDATA[Spodoptera frugiperda ameaça a cotonicultura brasileira]]></source>
<year>1998</year>
<publisher-loc><![CDATA[Campina Grande ]]></publisher-loc>
<publisher-name><![CDATA[Embrapa-CNPA]]></publisher-name>
</nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B15">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[VALICENTE]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[F. H.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[FONSECA]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[M. M.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="pt"><![CDATA[Susceptibilidade da lagarta-do-cartucho do milho Spodoptera frugiperda, a diferentes isolados de Bacillus thuringiensis]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Revista Brasileira de Milho Sorgo]]></source>
<year>2004</year>
<volume>3</volume>
<numero>1</numero>
<issue>1</issue>
<page-range>21-29</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
<ref id="B16">
<nlm-citation citation-type="journal">
<person-group person-group-type="author">
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[WISEMAN]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[B. R.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[PAINTER]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[R. H.]]></given-names>
</name>
<name>
<surname><![CDATA[WASSOM]]></surname>
<given-names><![CDATA[C. E.]]></given-names>
</name>
</person-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en"><![CDATA[Detecting corn seedling differences in the greenhouse by visual classification of damage by the fall armyworm]]></article-title>
<source><![CDATA[Journal of Economic Entomology]]></source>
<year>1966</year>
<volume>59</volume>
<numero>5</numero>
<issue>5</issue>
<page-range>1211-1214</page-range></nlm-citation>
</ref>
</ref-list>
</back>
</article>
