Next Article in Journal
Parasite Prevalence May Drive the Biotic Impoverishment of New England (USA) Bumble Bee Communities
Previous Article in Journal
GOBP1 from the Variegated Cutworm Peridroma saucia (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Displays High Binding Affinities to the Behavioral Attractant (Z)-3-Hexenyl acetate
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 12
Issue 10
10.3390/insects12100940
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Hemp Pest Spectrum and Potential Relationship between Helicoverpa zea Infestation and Hemp Production in the United States in the Face of Climate Change

by
Olufemi S. Ajayi
* and
Michelle Samuel-Foo
Department of Biological Sciences, Alabama State University, Montgomery, AL 36104, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2021, 12(10), 940; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12100940
Submission received: 2 September 2021 / Revised: 6 October 2021 / Accepted: 12 October 2021 / Published: 15 October 2021
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Cultivation of industrial hemp Cannabis sativa in the United States is now being expanded due to the recent legalization of the crop. Multiple insect pests attack the crop. One of the common pests is the corn earworm Helicoverpa zea that causes extensive damage to the marketable parts of hemp. Changing global climate may lead to expansion of the geographic range of insect pests. Thus, growers of this crop in the United States have to face new and intense pest problems now and in the years to come. Here, we assess the potential relationship between corn earworm infestation and hemp production in the US in the face of climate change. We also provide an update on the arthropods associated with hemp cultivation across the US. Climate change can affect aspects of interactions between hemp and corn earworm. Temperature and photoperiod affect the development and diapause process in H. zea. Drought leads to a reduction in hemp growth. Overall, our assessment suggests the selection of varieties resistant to stresses from climate and insects. Host plant diversity may prevent populations of corn earworm from reaching outbreak levels. Ongoing research on effective management of H. zea on hemp is critical.

Abstract

There has been a resurgence in the cultivation of industrial hemp, Cannabis sativa L., in the United States since its recent legalization. This may facilitate increased populations of arthropods associated with the plant. Hemp pests target highly marketable parts of the plant, such as flowers, stalks, and leaves, which ultimately results in a decline in the quality. Industrial hemp can be used for several purposes including production of fiber, grain, and cannabidiol. Thus, proper management of pests is essential to achieve a substantial yield of hemp in the face of climate change. In this review, we provide updates on various arthropods associated with industrial hemp in the United States and examine the potential impact of climate change on corn earworm (CEW) Helicoverpa zea Boddie, a major hemp pest. For example, temperature and photoperiod affect the development and diapause process in CEW. Additionally, drought can lead to a reduction in hemp growth. Host plant diversity of CEW may prevent populations of the pest from reaching outbreak levels. It is suggested that hemp varieties resistant to drought, high soil salinity, cold, heat, humidity, and common pests and diseases should be selected. Ongoing research on effective management of CEW in hemp is critical.

1. Introduction

Industrial hemp or hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) cultivation is assuming new geographical borders around the world [1,2,3]. It is of medicinal, industrial, and economic importance. It is usually cultivated for production of long and strong bast fibers, seeds, oil, and food (Figure 1) [4]. Hemp contains extremely low amounts of the psychoactive cannabinoid Δ 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Cannabis plants that contain a concentration of less than 0.3% THC are considered hemp; while those above this concentration are considered marijuana [5]. Here, we regard industrial hemp as hemp varieties with amounts of less than 0.3% THC.
The legality of hemp cultivation varies worldwide. A unique aspect of hemp history in the US is the ban of its cultivation in 1937 when the federal Marihuana Tax Act effectively criminalized almost all cannabis cultivation [6]. The Agricultural Act of 2014 (also called the 2014 Farm Bill) reintroduced industrial hemp production through state pilot programs [7]. In 2018, the Agriculture Improvement Act, also known as the 2018 Farm Bill, re-legalized commercial hemp production in the US [8]. These decades of prohibition of cultivation resulted in little to no research on hemp in the US. Since 2014, however, legalization of industrial hemp in the US has resulted in increased interest in the cultivation of the crop (Figure 2) [7,9]. Despite this increase, the hemp industry is still regarded as emerging; and there is a lack of established production methods around the country [10]. This has resulted in many producers modifying and experimenting with hemp production. Presently, there are efforts around North America to develop improved cultivars for production of one or more of the commodities derived from industrial hemp [4,11,12]. Some varieties are being developed for improvement of their CBD contents, fiber production, and grain content [7]. Stakeholders in the US want breeding and genetics research to produce stable and uniform cultivars and regional adaptability [13].
Growing conditions for hemp cultivation are documented in the literature [14]; however, optimal growing conditions are expected to vary according to cultivar. An important aspect of hemp cultivation is the management of arthropod pests. As with any crop, successful cultivation of hemp can include integrated pest management strategies. Efficient management of arthropod pests on hemp starts with surveying and properly identifying its insect community. There are reports of arthropods associated with hemp globally [15] and within the US [12]. However, with the current expansion in the cultivation of hemp across several states, reports/knowledge of arthropod pests needs to be updated. Furthermore, surveys have suggested negative grower experiences with hemp production especially from first-time or inexperienced hemp growers [10]. This highlights the need to educate growers on arthropod communities and pest control on hemp.
One of the most important challenges facing agriculture worldwide is management of abiotic stressors, including increasing temperatures and prolonged periods of drought. Such climatic anomalies are expected to drive the spread of arthropods [16,17], including those associated with hemp. In addition, biotic factors play a decisive role in species spatial distributions presently and will continue under future climate change [18]. The market value of industrial hemp in the US is impacted due to several pest insect species increasingly located on the crop [12]. Some authors have previously reviewed arthropods of hemp. Mostafa and Messenger [19] reported about 272 species of insect and mite species associated with Cannabis globally. McPartland et al. [15] described about 150 species of insects and mites associated with hemp. Cranshaw et al. [12] described several arthropod pests associated with the production of hemp and the associated pest management needs in the US. Here, we review and update the arthropods (both pests and beneficials) affecting industrial hemp across the US. Furthermore, we discuss how climate change could affect one of the prevalent pests.

2. Industrial Hemp Pests

Many phytophagous insects feed on industrial hemp, though only some species attain pest status [12,15]. Cranshaw et al. [12] arranged arthropods on hemp across the United States into the following categories—pests: defoliators, sucking insects and mites on leaves, stem and stalk borers, sucking insects associated with flowers and seeds, chewing insects that damage flower buds and seeds, and root feeders; natural enemy species: predators, parasitoids, pathogens; and pollinators.
Some pests and beneficial arthropods reported on hemp in the US are listed in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. Some arthropods that are currently considered as neither pest nor beneficial to hemp that exist in the US are listed in Table 3.
There are some challenges to sampling in hemp, therefore future directions should include some standardization of methods. For example, there are limitations in using just a visual count in comparison to sweep-net and beat-into-alcohol methods. Other methods of collection used are pitfall traps and yellow sticky cards. A factor that could strongly influence sampling in hemp is that neighboring crops to hemp can impact insect community. Furthermore, weather pattern can impact the insect types and the population densities.

3. Corn Earworm and Hemp: Potential Effects of Climate Change

Corn earworm Helicoverpa zea (Boddie, 1850) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is native to the Americas [15]. Helicoverpa zea is very common on hemp plants across the United States (Table 1). It is a polyphagous, multivoltine insect pest and has a wide range of hosts, including many vegetables, field crops, fruits, flowers, and weeds. It causes serious damage in several crops, including corn, tomato, pepper, cotton, sorghum, and lettuce [34]. Around the world, it is called by a plethora of common names, including corn earworm, cotton bollworm, tobacco budworm, tobacco fruitworm, and vetchworm [15].
Helicoverpa zea overwinters as a pupa within the soil; in the US, successful overwintering occurs only in the southern USA, as H. zea cannot successfully overwinter at areas above 39° N [15,35]. Adults emerge from overwintering pupae in spring, and can then migrate throughout most of the United States and southern Canada during the growing season [36]. Adults mate and females lay eggs in floral inflorescences. A single female can lay up to 1500 eggs in her lifetime [37,38]. Emerged larvae feed on and injure hemp bud material, causing “bud rot” [39]. In North America, H. zea produces one to seven generations per year, depending on the latitude (e.g., one to two generations in Ontario, seven generations in south Texas) [40,41,42,43,44]. Like most multivoltine insects, its development and diapause termination are expected to be driven by temperature, while its diapause initiation triggered by photoperiod [45]. Helicoverpa zea pupae are chill-intolerant, thus they are unable to withstand freezing and are subject to much prefreeze mortality [46]. Sex does not influence the cold response of H. zea pupae [46,47]. Enhanced cold hardiness is gained through diapause in H. zea pupae [46,47,48]. It has been predicted that H. zea would respond to climate change by altering its voltinism [49].
Over the last decades, many studies on climate trends have been carried out and results demonstrate that patterns of temperature and precipitation are rapidly shifting, affecting large parts of our planet, in both animals and plants [50,51,52,53,54]. Some plant and animal species may react to climate change by showing some degree of adaptation and mitigation of its effects [55,56]. It is expected that over the coming decades, many plant and animal species will be affected in all aspects of their biology [57], and that adaptation to counterbalance impacts of climate change will be a challenge. Several aspects of insect biology can be affected by warmer temperatures, including survival and reproduction [58]. Furthermore, climate change can impact aspects of plant-insect interactions including host resistance and quality [59,60,61,62]. Natural enemies of pest insects can also be impacted by climate change [63,64,65]. These natural enemies, including parasitoids and predators, are dependent on the resilience of their host insects in the face of climate change, thus further exacerbating the stress on them [64].
In the US, climate change is a growing threat to biodiversity and ecosystems, and their services [66]. For example, in the Mid-Atlantic region of the US, where Cannabis hemp is widely cultivated, it is anticipated that by mid- to late- century (i.e., 2035–2049 and 2085–2099), there will be a warmer climate with a wetter Autumn and Spring and a drier late summer season; this is expected to cause damage to plants [67]. An increasing number of studies show a link between drought and reduced hemp growth, including stem and fiber yield e.g., [68]. Furthermore, climate change is making the western US more arid [69]. This has contributed to drier soils [70], widespread plant death [71], and more severe wildfires [72]. Hemp is a tall plant with a wide root system (at least 0.5 m deep) and it is a good candidate for soil phytoremediation as it grows fast and easily in dense stands [73]. However, several environmental conditions such as drought, flooding, heat, and salinity affect the level of hormones in plants [68,74,75,76,77,78]. For example, under water stress, there is reduced transport of cytokinins from the root (the site of biosynthesis) to shoots [79,80]. This reduction in cytokinin is expected to bring about a shift towards maleness [78,81]. If this occurs in Cannabis plants, then it would ultimately influence the quantity and type of insects such as pollinators on hemp plants. Furthermore, it has been predicted that the US may experience warmer winters, resulting in diminished vernalization [82,83], a process required to promote flowering in certain types of crops. It is suggested that hemp varieties resistant to drought, high soil salinity, cold, heat, humidity, and common pests and diseases should be selected [84].
The mouthpart type of phytophagous insects influences their reaction to stress-induced plant changes [85]. For instance, decreased water content, tougher foliage, elevated levels of allelochemicals and reduced nitrogen availability all reduce nutritional quality of host plant tissue for chewing insects (e.g., corn earworm) [86]. Corn earworm herbivory increases the levels of chemical defense in cotton and has caused a significant decline in the nutritional quality of the plant as a host [87]. A similar severe decline in the nutritional quality of other plants such as soybean, geranium, and clover also occurred by corn earworm herbivory [88,89,90,91]. Recent studies have demonstrated that infestations of corn earworm on C. sativa increases the levels of cannabidiol (CBD) and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) beyond the 0.3% legal limit [92].
Some of the most prevalent and consistent pests of hemp are also major insect pests of corn (Zea mays L.). These include the European corn borer [Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner)] and corn earworm [Helicoverpa zea (Boddie)]. Studies have shown that O. nubilalis antennae consistently responded to at least four chemical compounds, which all co-occur in both corn and hemp [93]. This suggests that these plant volatile compounds are cues used by these insects in herbivory. More research into the role of plant volatile compounds in the mechanisms of host location by these pests on hemp plants is needed.
Though outbreaks of H. zea have occured in some regions of the United States where C. sativa is cultivated, host-plant diversity may prevent populations of H. zea from reaching outbreak levels [94]. Host plants of the generalist H. zea larvae include corn, tomato, and cotton, which are all economically important crops in the United States. H. zea is regarded as a serious pest of these crops making effective management of H. zea necessary. In the evaluation of biological insecticides to manage H. zea in CBD hemp in Virginia, Entrust SC (Spinosad) had a significantly lower incidence of bud rot than all other treatments [95]. Furthermore, no signs of phytotoxicity were observed from any of the biopesticide treatments in the study. In a similar study, Entrust (Spinosad) resulted in significantly fewer corn earworms and less damage than untreated control [96]. Furthermore, in another study, Entrust (Spinosad) resulted in a significantly higher corn earworm mortality (95%) than any other tested biological or organic insecticide products on field-collected corn earworms tested in laboratory assays after four days [97]. In a second bioassay, Pyganic and Entrust performed significantly better than all other treatments, resulting in 100% and 97.5% respective mortality in lab-reared corn earworms [97]. A likely reason for the difference between lab-reared and wild-caught populations could be that resistance to Cry1AB Bt proteins is widespread in Virginia corn earworms [97].
Stressed plants are expected to have reduced defenses and therefore greater vulnerability to herbivores (plant stress hypothesis; [98,99,100]). A similar pattern might be expected with the vulnerability of stressed C. sativa plants to herbivores such as H. zea. However, the plant vigor hypothesis contradicts this. For example, Inbar et al. [101] reported that larval growth rates of H. zea were higher on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) exposed to optimal growing conditions, but lower on those exposed to stress. Whether stressed or not, morphological defense mechanisms of C. sativa may override the extent to which chewing herbivores such as H. zea damage the plant. For example, H. zea was negatively affected by trichome density on yellow monkey flower Mimulus guttatus [100]. This may be similar to the response of H. zea to stressed C. sativa.

4. Conclusions

Helicoverpa zea is a polyphagous insect pest on hemp, Cannabis sativa. In North America, the pest produces one to seven generations per year, depending on the latitude. Like most multivoltine insects, its development and diapause termination are expected to be driven by temperature, while its diapause initiation by photoperiod. Helicoverpa zea pupae are chill-intolerant, thus subject to much prefreeze mortality. H. zea could respond to climate change by altering its voltinism. Furthermore, climate change can affect aspects of interactions between hemp and corn earworm, including host resistance and quality. Natural enemies of corn earworm are dependent on the resilience of their host in the face of climate change. Water stress on hemp could bring about a shift towards maleness in the plant, and this could ultimately influence the quantity and type of insects such as pollinators on hemp. Drought leads to a reduction in hemp growth. Infestations of corn earworm on hemp increases the level of THC beyond the 0.3% threshold point at which cannabinoid content is used to distinguish strains of hemp from marijuana. Plant volatile compounds could be involved in cues used by H. zea in herbivory. Though outbreaks of corn earworm have been experienced in some regions of the United States where hemp is cultivated, host-plant diversity may prevent populations of corn earworm from reaching outbreak levels in regions with such diversity compared with those without. Ongoing research on effective management of H. zea on hemp is critical. Future research should focus on understanding abiotic stress responses in hemp, corn earworm and its natural enemies in hemp. Impacts of climate change on industrial hemp production mediated through changes in populations of serious insect pests such as corn earworm need to be given more attention for planning and devising adaptation and mitigation strategies for future management programs. There are still gaps in information that need to be addressed in order to allow production of management plans for these arthropod pests. It is also necessary to encourage the conservation of beneficial insects on hemp, to use these arthropods as pest control strategies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.S.A. and M.S.-F.; writing—original draft preparation, O.S.A.; writing—review and editing, O.S.A. and M.S.-F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We are grateful to the U. S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, Institutional Services (Title III, Part B, HBCU Program).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Caitlin Reeves (Alabama State University), Tolulope Morawo (Navy Environmental and Preventive Medicine Unit 5), and Ana Chicas-Mosier (Auburn University) for reviewing the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Shahzad, A. Hemp fiber and its composites—A review. J. Compos. Mater. 2012, 46, 973–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tang, K.; Struik, P.C.; Yin, X.; Thouminot, C.; Bjelková, M.; Stramkale, V.; Amaducci, S. Comparing hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) cultivars for dual-purpose production under contrasting environments. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2016, 87, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fortenbery, T.R.; Bennett, M. Opportunities for commercial hemp production. Rev. Agr. Econ. 2004, 26, 97–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Salentijn, E.M.J.; Zhang, Q.; Amaducci, S.; Yang, M.; Trindade, L.M. New developments in fiber hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) breeding. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2015, 68, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Small, E.; Cronquist, A. A practical and natural taxonomy for Cannabis. Taxon 1976, 25, 405–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Johnson, N. American Weed: A History of Cannabis Cultivation in the United States. EchoGéo 2019, 48, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Tyler, M.; Shepherd, J.; Olson, D.; Snell, W.; Proper, S.; Thornsbury, S. Economic Viability of Industrial Hemp in the United States: A Review of State Pilot Programs; EIB-217; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
  8. Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018: Public Law Number 115-334, United States of America. 2018. Available online: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-115publ334 (accessed on 10 October 2021).
  9. Witkowski, T.H. Cannabis marketing systems and social change in the United States. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Macromarketing Conference, Chicago, IL, USA, 25–28 June 2015. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cui, X.; Smith, S.A. University of Tennessee Extension’s 2020 Hemp Industry Survey. 2000. Available online: www.utia.tennessee.edu (accessed on 4 January 2021).
  11. Fike, J. Industrial hemp: Renewed opportunities for an ancient crop. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2016, 35, 406–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cranshaw, W.; Schreiner, M.; Britt, K.; Kuhar, T.P.; McPartland, J.; Grant, J. Developing Insect Pest Management Systems for Hemp in the United States: A Work in Progress. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2019, 10, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ellison, S. Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) research priorities: Opinions from United States hemp stakeholders. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 2021, 13, 562–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Adesina, I.; Bhowmik, A.; Sharma, H.; Shahbazi, A. A review on the current state of knowledge of growing conditions, agronomic soil health practices and utilities of hemp in the United States. Agriculture 2020, 10, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. McPartland, J.M.; Clarke, R.C.; Watson, D.P. Hemp Diseases and Pests: Management and Biological Control; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ladányi, M.; Horváth, L. A review of the potential climate change impact on insect populations–General and agricultural aspects. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2010, 8, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ajayi, O.S.; Appel, A.G.; Chen, L.; Fadamiro, H.Y. Comparative cutaneous water loss and desiccation tolerance of four Solenopsis spp. (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the Southeastern United States. Insects 2020, 11, 418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Leach, K.; Montgomery, W.I.; Reid, N. Modelling the influence of biotic factors on species distribution patterns. Ecol. Model. 2016, 337, 96–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Mostafa, A.R.; Messenger, P.S. Insects and mites associated with plants of the genera, Argemone, Cannabis, Glaucium, Erythroxylum, Eschscholtzia, Humulus and Papaver. Unpublished work. 1972. [Google Scholar]
  20. Anderson, R.; Zaric, M.; Rilakovic, A.; Kruger, G.; Peterson, J. Diversity and Abundance of Arthropods in Industrial Hemp Fields of Nebraska. In Proceedings of the Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting, Online, 15–18 November 2020. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lewins, S.; Darby, H. Insect pests of industrial hemp in the Northeastern US. In Proceedings of the Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting, Online, 15–18 November 2020. [Google Scholar]
  22. Villa, E.; Pitt, W.J.; Nachappa, P. Cannabis aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae), a New Vector of Potato Virus Y Infecting Hemp. In Proceedings of the Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting, Online, 15–18 November 2020. [Google Scholar]
  23. Nixon, J.; Samuel-Foo, M.; Kesheimer, K. Insect Pests of Industrial Hemp. In Proceedings of the Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting, Online, 15–18 November 2020. [Google Scholar]
  24. Villanueva, R.T.; Viloria, Z.J.; Klueppel, R.; Bradley, C. Biology, Damage, Suitability as Prey of Ladybugs, and Chemical Control of the Cannabis Aphid. In Proceedings of the Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting, Online, 15–18 November 2020. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lemay, J.; Scott-Dupree, C. Biological Control in Odour Space: The Next Frontier. In Proceedings of the Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting, Online, 15–18 November 2020. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zobel, E.; Fiorellino, N.M.; Ristvey, A. An Overview of the Insect Community Found in Fiber and Grain Industrial Hemp Grown on the Eastern Shore of Maryland in 2020. In Proceedings of the Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting, Online, 15–18 November 2020. [Google Scholar]
  27. Chiginsky, J.; Langemeier, K.; White, S.; Cranshaw, W.S.; Fulladolsa, A.C.; Stenglein, M.; Nachappa, P. Hemp Virome Revealed, and the Ecology of Beet Curly Top Virus in Hemp in Colorado. In Proceedings of the Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting, Online, 15–18 November 2020. [Google Scholar]
  28. Burrack, H.J.; Ganji, N.; Pulkoski, M. Arthropod Pest Management of Hemp in North Carolina. In Proceedings of the Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting, Online, 15–18 November 2020. [Google Scholar]
  29. Pulkoski, M.; Burrack, H.J. Method Development for Plant Response to Insect Feeding Modes Study in Industrial Hemp (Cannabis sativa). In Proceedings of the Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting, Online, 15–18 November 2020. [Google Scholar]
  30. Cosner, J.; Grant, J.F.; Kelly, H. Influence of Hemp Variety and Fertilizer Rate on Populations of Corn Earworm, Helicoverpa zea, and Plant Characteristics. In Proceedings of the Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting, Online, 15–18 November 2020. [Google Scholar]
  31. Fritz, B. Progress in Biopesticides for Hemp IPM. In Proceedings of the Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting, Online, 15–18 November 2020. [Google Scholar]
  32. Zebelo, S.; Jackson, B.; Gilbert, L.; Tolosa, T.; Volkis, V. Impact of Insect Herbivores on the Δ9THC and CBD Levels in Hemp. In Proceedings of the Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting, Online, 15–18 November 2020. [Google Scholar]
  33. Grant, J.; Hale, F. Beneficials on Hemp: What You Need to Know. In Proceedings of the Entomological Society of America Annual Meeting, Online, 15–18 November 2020. [Google Scholar]
  34. Cranshaw, W.; Shetlar, D. Garden Insects of North America: The Ultimate Guide to Backyard Bugs; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  35. Hardwick, D.F. The corn earworm complex. Mem. Entomol. Soc. Can. 1965, 40, 1–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Reay-Jones, F.P.F. Pest status and management of corn earworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in field corn in the United States. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2019, 10, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Akkawi, M.M.; Scott, D.R. The effect of age of parents on the progeny of diapaused and non-diapaused Heliothis zea. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1984, 35, 235–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fitt, G.P. The ecology of Heliothis species in relation to agroecosystems. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1989, 34, 17–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Britt, K.E.; Kuhar, T.P.; Cranshaw, W.; McCullough, C.T.; Taylor, S.V.; Arends, B.R.; Burrack, H.; Pulkoski, M.; Owens, D.; Tolosa, T.A.; et al. Pest management needs and limitations for corn earworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), an emergent key pest of hemp in the United States. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2021, 12, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Quaintance, A.L.; Brues, C.T. The cotton bollworm. USDA Bur. Ent. Bul. 1905, 50, 98–99. [Google Scholar]
  41. Brazzel, J.R.; Newsom, L.D.; Roussel, J.S.; Lincoln, C.; Williams, F.J.; Barnes, G. Bollworm and tobacco budworm as cotton pests in Louisiana and Arkansas. La. Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 1953, 482, 47. [Google Scholar]
  42. Neunzig, H.H. Biology of the Tobacco Budworm and the Corn Earworm in North Carolina; North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station: Raleigh, NC, USA, 1969; p. 196. [Google Scholar]
  43. Hoffmann, M.P.; Wilson, L.T.; Zalom, F.G. Area-wide pheromone trapping of Helicoverpa zea and Heliothis phloxiphaga (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys of California. J. Econ. Entomol. 1991, 84, 902–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Coop, L.B.; Drapek, R.J.; Croft, B.A.; Fisher, G.C. Relationship of corn earworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) pheromone catch and silking to infestation levels in Oregon sweet corn. J. Econ. Entomol. 1992, 85, 240–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tobin, P.C.; Nagarkatti, S.; Loeb, G.; Saunders, M.C. Historical and projected interactions between climate change and insect voltinism in a multivoltine species. Global Change Biol. 2008, 14, 951–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Morey, A.C.; Hutchison, W.D.; Venette, R.C.; Burkness, E.C. Cold hardiness of Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) pupae. Environ. Entomol. 2012, 41, 172–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Ditman, L.P.; Weiland, G.S.; Guill, J.H. The metabolism in the corn earworm. J. Econ. Entomol. 1940, 33, 282–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Eger, J.E.; Witz, J.A.; Hartstack, W.; Sterling, W.L. Survival of pupae of Heliothis virescens and Heliothis zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) at low temperatures. Can. Entomol. 1982, 114, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ziter, C.; Robinson, E.A.; Newman, J.A. Climate change and voltinism in Californian insect pest species: Sensitivity to location, scenario and climate model choice. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2012, 18, 2771–2780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S.L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M.I., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021; In press. [Google Scholar]
  51. Coley, P.D. Possible effects of climate change on plant/herbivore interactions in moist tropical forests. Clim. Chang. 1998, 39, 455–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cannon, R.J.C. The implications of predicted climate change for insect pests in the UK, with emphasis on non-indigenous species. Glob. Chang. Biol. 1998, 4, 785–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ockendon, N.; Baker, D.J.; Carr, J.A.; White, E.C.; Almond, R.E.A.; Amano, T.; Bertram, E.; Bradbury, R.B.; Bradley, C.; Butchart, S.H.M.; et al. Mechanisms underpinning climatic impacts on natural populations: Altered species interactions are more important than direct effects. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2014, 20, 2221–2229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Parmesan, C.; Hanley, M.E. Plants and climate change: Complexities and surprises. Ann. Bot-Lond. 2015, 116, 849–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Stange, E.E.; Ayres, M.P. Climate change impacts: Insects. In Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS); John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  57. Mattson, W.J.; Haack, R.A. Role of drought in outbreaks of plant-eating insects. Bioscience 1987, 37, 110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Allen, C.D.; Macalady, A.K.; Chenchouni, H.; Bachelet, D.; McDowell, N.; Vennetier, M.; Kitzberger, T.; Rigling, A.; Breshears, D.D.; Hogg, E.H.T.; et al. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 660–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Choi, W.I.L. Influence of global warming on forest coleopteran communities with special reference to ambrosia and bark beetles. J. Asia Pac. Entomol. 2011, 14, 227–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sallé, A.; Nageleisen, L.; Lieutier, F. Bark and wood boring insects involved in oak declines in Europe: Current knowledge and future prospects in a context of climate change. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 328, 79–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Stireman, J.O.; Dyer, L.A.; Janzen, D.H.; Singer, M.S.; Lill, J.T.; Marquis, R.J.; Ricklefs, R.E.; Gentry, G.L.; Hallwachs, W.; Coley, P.D.; et al. Climatic unpredictability and parasitism of caterpillars: Implications of global warming. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 17384–17387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Hance, T.; van Baaren, J.; Vernon, P.; Boivin, G. Impact of extreme temperatures on parasitoids in a climate change perspective. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2007, 52, 107–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Klapwijk, M.J.; Ayres, M.P.; Battisti, A.; Larsson, S. Assessing the impact of climate change on groundwater quality in Turkey. In Insect Outbreaks Revisited; Barbosa, P., Letourneau, D.K., Agrawal, A.A., Eds.; Blackwell Publishing: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 429–450. [Google Scholar]
  64. Skelly, D.K.; Joseph, L.N.; Possingham, H.P.; Freidenburg, L.K.; Farrugia, T.J.; Kinnison, M.T.; Hendry, A.P. Evolutionary responses to climate change. Conserv. Biol. 2007, 21, 1353–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Tiberi, R.; Branco, M.; Bracalini, M.; Croci, F.; Panzavolta, T. Cork oak pests: A review of insect damage and management. Ann. For. Sci. 2016, 73, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Weiskopf, S.R.; Rubenstein, M.A.; Crozier, L.G.; Gaichas, S.; Griffis, R.; Halofsky, J.E.; Hyde, K.J.W.; Morelli, T.L.; Morisette, J.T.; Muñoz, R.C.; et al. Climate change effects on biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services, and natural resource management in the United States. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 733, 137782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Paul, M.; Dangol, S.; Kholodovsky, V.; Sapkota, A.R.; Negahban-Azar, M.; Lansing, S. Modeling the Impacts of Climate Change on Crop Yield and Irrigation in the Monocacy River Watershed, USA. Climate 2020, 8, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Amaducci, S.; Zatta, A.; Pelatti, F.; Venturi, G. Influence of agronomic factors on yield and quality of hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) fibre and implication for an innovative production system. Field Crop. Res. 2008, 107, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Overpeck, J.T.; Udall, B. Climate change and the aridification of North America. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 11856–11858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Williams, A.P.; Cook, E.R.; Smerdon, J.E.; Cook, B.I.; Abatzoglou, J.T.; Bolles, K.; Baek, S.H.; Badger, A.M.; Livneh, B. Large contribution from anthropogenic warming to an emerging North American megadrought. Science 2020, 368, 314–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Breshears, D.D.; Cobb, N.S.; Rich, P.M.; Price, K.P.; Allen, C.D.; Balice, R.G.; Romme, W.H.; Kastens, J.H.; Floyd, M.L.; Belnap, J.; et al. Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 15144–15148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Abatzoglou, J.T.; Williams, A.P. Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 11770–11775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Citterio, S.; Santagostino, A.; Fumagalli, P.; Prato, N.; Ranalli, P.; Sgorbati, S. Heavy metal tolerance and accumulation of Cd, Cr and Ni by Cannabis sativa L. Plant Soil 2003, 256, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Burrows, W.J.; Carr, D.J. Effects of flooding the root system of sunflower plants on the cytokinin content in xylem sap. Physiol. Plant. 1969, 22, 1105–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Itai, C.; Ben-Zioni, A. Regulations of plant response to high temperature. In Mechanisms of Regulation of Plant Growth; Bieleski, R.L., Ferguson, A.R., Cresswell, M.M., Eds.; The Royal Society of: Wellington, New Zealand, 1974; pp. 477–482. [Google Scholar]
  76. Itai, C.; Richmond, A.; Vaadia, Y. The role of root cytokinins during water and salinity stress. Israel J. Bot. 1968, 17, 187–195. [Google Scholar]
  77. Itai, C.; Ben-Zioni, A.; Ordin, L. Correlative changes in endogenous hormone levels and shoot growth induced by short heat treatments to the root. Physiol. Plant. 1973, 29, 355–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Freeman, D.C.; Harper, K.T.; Charnov, E.L. Sex change in plants: Old and new observations and new hypotheses. Oecologia 1980, 47, 222–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Itai, C.; Vaadia, Y. Kinetin-like activity in root exudate of water-stressed sunflower plants. Physiol. PIant. 1965, 18, 941–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Itai, C.; Vaadia, Y. Cytokinin activity in water-stressed shoots. Plant Physiol. 1970, 47, 87–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Chailakhyan, M.K. Genetic and hormonal regulation of growth, flowering, and sex expression in plants. Am. J. Bot. 1979, 66, 717–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Parker, L.; Abatzoglou, J. Warming Winters Reduce Chill Accumulation for Peach Production in the Southeastern United States. Climate 2019, 7, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Petersen, L. Impact of Climate Change on Twenty-First Century Crop Yields in the U.S. Climate 2019, 7, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Watson, D.P.; Clarke, R.C. Genetic Future of Hemp. 2014. Available online: http://www.internationalhempassociation.org/jiha/jiha4111.html (accessed on 4 January 2021).
  85. Huberty, A.F.; Denno, R.F. Plant water stress and its consequences for herbivorous insects: A new synthesis. Ecology 2004, 85, 1383–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Netherer, S.; Schopf, A. Potential effects of climate change on insect herbivores in European forests—General aspects and the pine processionary moth as specific example. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 831–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Bi, J.L.; Murphy, J.B.; Felton, G.W. Antinutritive and oxidative components as mechanisms of induced resistance in cotton to Helicoverpa zea. J. Chem. Ecol. 1997, 23, 97–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Bi, J.L.; Felton, G.W.; Mueller, A.J. Induced resistance in soybean to Helicoverpa zea: Role of plant protein quality. J. Chem. Ecol. 1994, 20, 183–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Felton, G.W.; Summers, C.B.; Mueller, A.J. Oxidative responses in soybean foliage to herbivory by bean leaf beetle and three-cornered alfalfa hopper. J. Chem. Ecol. 1994, 20, 639–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Felton, G.W.; Bi, J.L.; Mueller, A.J.; Duffey, S.S. Potential role of lipoxygenases in defense against insect herbivory. J. Chem. Ecol. 1994, 20, 651–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Bi, J.L.; Felton, G.W. Foliar oxidative stress and insect herbivory: Primary compounds, secondary metabolites, and reactive oxygen species as components of induced resistance. J. Chem. Ecol. 1995, 21, 1511–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Jackson, B.; Gilbert, L.; Tolosa, T.; Henry, S.; Volkis, V.; Zebelo, S. The impact of insect herbivory in the level of cannabinoids in CBD hemp varieties. Res. Sq. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Bengtsson, M.; Karpati, Z.; Szöcs, G.; Reuveny, H.; Yang, Z.; Witzgall, P. Flight tunnel responses of Z strain European corn borer females to corn and hemp plants. Environ. Entomol. 2006, 35, 1238–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sudbrink, D.L.; Grant, J.F. Wild host plants of Helicoverpa zea and Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Eastern Tennessee. Environ. Entomol. 1995, 24, 1080–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Britt, K.E.; Reed, D.; Kuhar, T.P. Evaluation of biological insecticides to manage corn earworm in CBD hemp, 2020. Arthropod Manag. Tests 2021, 46, tsab108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Doughty, H.B.; Britt, K.E.; Kuhar, T.P. Evaluation of biological insecticides to control corn earworm in hemp, 2019. Arthropod Manag. Tests 2020, 45, tsaa081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Britt, K.E.; Kuhar, T.P. Laboratory bioassays of biological/organic insecticides to control corn earworm on hemp in Virginia, 2019. Arthropod Manag. Tests 2020, 45, tsaa102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. White, T.C.R. An index to measure weather-induced stress of trees associated with outbreaks of psyllids in Australia. Ecology 1969, 50, 905–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Stamp, N. Out of the quagmire of plant defense hypotheses. Q. Rev. Biol. 2003, 78, 23–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  100. Haber, A.I.; Sustache, J.R.; Carr, D.E. A generalist and a specialist herbivore are differentially affected by inbreeding and trichomes in Mimulus guttatus. Ecosphere 2018, 9, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Inbar, M.; Doostdar, H.; Mayer, R.T. Suitability of stressed and vigorous plants to various insect herbivores. Oikos 2001, 94, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Insects 12 00940 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of multi-purpose hemp utilization. Graphic is from Salentijn et al. [4].
Figure 1. Flowchart of multi-purpose hemp utilization. Graphic is from Salentijn et al. [4].
Insects 12 00940 g001
Insects 12 00940 g002 550
Figure 2. United States hemp acreage and greenhouse area, reported 2014–2018. Graphic is from Tyler et al. [7].
Figure 2. United States hemp acreage and greenhouse area, reported 2014–2018. Graphic is from Tyler et al. [7].
Insects 12 00940 g002
Table
Table 1. A list of some pest arthropods reported on hemp in the United States.
Table 1. A list of some pest arthropods reported on hemp in the United States.
FamilyCommon NameScientific Name (for Those Identified to Species)Damage TypeLocation FoundReferences
AcrididaeGrasshopper PestField[20]
AeolothripidaeThrips PestField[20,21]
AphididaeCannabis aphidPhorodon cannabis Field & greenhouse[20,21,22,23,24,25]
CercopidaeSpittlebug PestField[20]
Chrysomelidaee.g., Spotted cucumber beetle, Leaf beetleDiabrotica undecimpunctata; Diabrotica v. virgifera;Herbaceous pestField[20,21,26]
CicadellidaeLeafhoppers, e.g., Beet leafhoppere.g., Circulifer tenellusPest (some transmits beet curly top virus)Field[20,21,27,28]
CoreidaeLeaf-footed bug Sucking-piercing pestField[26]
CrambidaeEuropean corn borerOstrinia nubilalisPestField[21]
CurculionidaeWeevil Herbaceous pestField[20,26]
ElateridaeClick beetle PestField[20]
FormicidaeFire antSolenopsis invictaPestField[20,23]
MeloidaeBlister beetle Herbaceous pestField[26]
MembracidaeTreehopper PestField[20]
MiridaeTarnished plant bugLygus lineolarisSucking-piercing pestField[20,26]
NoctuidaeCorn earwormHelicoverpa zeaPrimarily, laceration of reproductive branch tipField[23,26,28,29,30,31,32]
PentatomidaeStink bug Sucking-piercing pestField[20,26,28]
RhopalidaeHibiscus scentless plant bugNiesthrea louisianicaSucking-piercing pestField[26]
RhyparochromidaeSeed bug PestField[20]
ScarabaeidaeScarabs, e.g., Japanese beetle, Green June beetlee.g., Popillia japonicaHerbaceous pestField[20,21,26]
TarsonemidaeBroad mitesPolyphagotarsonemus latusPestGreenhouse[28]
TetranychidaeTwo-spotted spider miteTetranychus urticaePestGreenhouse[29,31]
TortricidaeEuroasian hemp borer (adults & larvae)Grapholita delineanaPestField[20,23]
Table
Table 2. A list of some beneficial arthropods reported on hemp in the United States.
Table 2. A list of some beneficial arthropods reported on hemp in the United States.
FamilyCommon Name (If Any)Scientific Name (for Those Identified to Species)Association TypeLocation FoundReferences
AnthocoridaeInsidious flower bugOrius insidiosusBeneficialField[20]
AnthicidaeAnt-like beetle BeneficialField[20]
AraneaeSpiders Natural enemy (predator)Field[20,33]
BraconidaeBraconidsCardiochiles spp.Natural enemy (parasitoid)Field[33]
CarabidaeTiger beetles BeneficialField[20]
ChrysopidaeGreen lacewing Natural enemy (predator)Field[20,26]
CoccinellidaeLady beetleHippodamia convergens; Coleomegilla maculata; Hyperaspis lugubris; Cycloneda munda; Cycloneda sanguinea; Harmonia axyridisNatural enemy (predator)Field & greenhouse[20,24,26]
DolichopodidaeLong-legged flies BeneficialField[20]
GeocoridaeBig-eyed bugGeocoris spp.Natural enemyField[26]
HemerobiidaeBrown lacewings BeneficialField[20]
IchneumonidaeIchneumonids Natural enemy (parasitoid)Field[33]
NabidaeDamsel bugs BeneficialField[20]
PentatomidaeSpined soldier bugPodisus maculiventrisNatural enemyField[26]
ReduviidaeAssassin bug BeneficialField[20]
SyrphidaeSyrphid larvae Natural enemy (predator)Field[20,33]
TachinidaeTachinids Natural enemy (parasitoid)Field[33]
VespidaePaper wasps Natural enemy (predator)Field[33]
Opiliones (spider) BeneficialField[20]
Table
Table 3. A list of some arthropods considered neither pest nor beneficial reported on hemp in the United States.
Table 3. A list of some arthropods considered neither pest nor beneficial reported on hemp in the United States.
FamilyCommon Name (If Any)Association TypeLocation FoundReferences
CerambycidaeLonghorn beetleOtherField[20]
CleridaeCheckered beetlesOtherField[20]
GryllidaeCricketOtherField[20]
LatridiidaeMinute brown scavenger beetles or fungus beetleOtherField[20]
MordellidaeTumbling flower beetlesOtherField[20]
NitidulidaeSap beetleOtherField[20]
PieridaePierid butterflyOtherField[20]
SilvanidaeSilvan flat bark beetlesOtherField[20]
StaphylinidaeRove beetleOtherField[20]
TipulidaeCrane flyOtherField[20]
Caddisflies (in the order Trichoptera)OtherField[20]
Centipede (in the class Chilopoda)OtherField[20]
Millipede (in the class Diplopoda)OtherField[20]
Booklice, barklice or barkflies (in the order Psocoptera)OtherField[20]
Leaf mining fly (larvae)OtherField[28]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ajayi, O.S.; Samuel-Foo, M. Hemp Pest Spectrum and Potential Relationship between Helicoverpa zea Infestation and Hemp Production in the United States in the Face of Climate Change. Insects 2021, 12, 940. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12100940

AMA Style

Ajayi OS, Samuel-Foo M. Hemp Pest Spectrum and Potential Relationship between Helicoverpa zea Infestation and Hemp Production in the United States in the Face of Climate Change. Insects. 2021; 12(10):940. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12100940

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ajayi, Olufemi S., and Michelle Samuel-Foo. 2021. "Hemp Pest Spectrum and Potential Relationship between Helicoverpa zea Infestation and Hemp Production in the United States in the Face of Climate Change" Insects 12, no. 10: 940. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12100940

APA Style

Ajayi, O. S., & Samuel-Foo, M. (2021). Hemp Pest Spectrum and Potential Relationship between Helicoverpa zea Infestation and Hemp Production in the United States in the Face of Climate Change. Insects, 12(10), 940. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12100940

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop