Skip to main content

Table 4 Parameters on farmers’ method and frequency of insecticide application for Spodoptera frugiperda management in the two districts of Uganda

From: Farmer perception of impacts of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda J.E. Smith) and transferability of its management practices in Uganda

Study variable

Kamuli

Namutumba

Chi-sq value/ F-test

Chemical use within season

   

 One chemical at a time

40 (80%)

43 (87.7%)

χ2 = 0; df = 3; P = 1.

 Two or more at once

4 (8%)

2 (4.1%)

 

Frequency of use

   

 Once

9 (18%)

4 (8.2%)

F = 26.23; df = 4,9;

P < 0.0015

 Twice

13 (26%)

16 (32.7%)

 

 Thrice

18 (36%)

16 (32.7%)

 

 Four times

1 (2%)

2 (4.1%)

 

 No schedule

2 (4%)

1 (2%)

 

Spraying equipment (Backpack sprayer)

   

 Yes

31(62%)

30 (61.2%)

χ2 = 0; df = 3; P = 1.

 No

13 (26%)

16 (32.7%)

 

Protective gear

   

 Yes

22 (44%)

9 (18.4%)

χ2 = 0; df = 3; P = 1.

 No

23 (46%)

37 (75.5%)

 

Protective gear use

   

 Yes

20 (40%)

3 (6.1%)

χ2 = 0; df = 3; P = 1.

 No

25 (50%)

43 (87.8%)

 

Method of spraying

   

 Random spraying

1 (2%)

0

χ2 = 0; df = 3; P = 1.

 Targeted spraying

42 (84%)

43 (87.8%)

 

Noticed chemicals failing1

   

 Yes

28 (56%)

28 (57.1%)

F = 331.4; df = 2,5;

P < 0.0003

 No

17 (34%)

15 (30.6%)

 

 No idea

5 (10%)

4 (8.2%)

 
  1. 1 By chemical failing, the farmers meant that the FAW could survive and thrive after application of the chemical, i.e., chemical was ineffective to control FAW. Note that application of ≥ two times per season is considered as ‘high dose’ usage. The values (percentages) provided in parenthesis within each column represent the proportion of respondents for a variable under study as a percentage of the total number of respondents interviewed