Keywords:

Chili peppers

Ecacy

Bioinsecticides

Infestation

Yield

Capsaicin in the control of Spodoptera frugiperda in corn (Zea mays L.) var. Blanco Urubamba

Capsaicina en el control de Spodoptera frugiperda en maíz (Zea mays L.) var. Blanco Urubamba

Capsaicina no controle de Spodoptera frugiperda em milho (Zea mays L.) var. Blanco Urubamba

Hecar Herrera Marchino

Agustina Valverde-Rodríguez

Manuel Jorge Castillo Nole

Laura Carmen Barrionuevo Torres

Luisa Madolyn Alvarez-Benaute

Miltao Edelio Campos-Albornoz

Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2026, 43(1): e264302

ISSN 2477-9407

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47280/RevFacAgron(LUZ).v43.n1.II

Crop production

Associate editor: Dra. Evelyn Pérez Pérez

University of Zulia, Faculty of Agronomy

Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional

Hermilio Valdizan, Huánuco, Perú.

Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional Daniel

Alcides Carrión, Cerro de Pasco, Perú.

Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación, Carrera Profesional

de Biología y química, Universidad Nacional Hermilio

Valdizan, Huánuco, Perú.

Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional

Hermilio Valdizan, Huánuco, Perú.

Received: 08-05-2025

Accepted: 28-10-2025

Published: 26-12-2025

Abstract

Spodoptera frugiperda Smith (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) causes

severe losses in corn (Zea mays L.) crops, which leads to the

evaluation of sustainable management alternatives. The objective

of this research was to determine the ecacy of capsaicin in

controlling S. frugiperda in the corn Blanco Urubamba var. A

randomized complete block design with six treatments and three

replicates was used: four concentrations of water-soluble capsaicin

(6.70; 10.05; 13.40 and 16.75 mL.L

¹), rocoto pepper extract

(Capsicum pubescens Ruiz & Pav. (Solanaceae), 50 g.L

¹), and an

absolute control. Applications were made at 80, 90, 100, 110, and

120 days after sowing (das). The 16.75 mL.L

¹ dose was the most

eective, reducing larval density from 3.12 to 0.13 larvae per plant,

and the infestation percentage from 61.12 to 2.78 %, with a control

ecacy of 96.69 %. Intermediate concentrations (13.40 and 10.05

mL.L

-1

) also showed signicant eects, with nal ecacies of

93.83 and 85.19 %, respectively. T1 had moderate ecacy (78.30

%), while T5 recorded the lowest control values (72.86 %), with

increasing infestations being observed in the control. In terms

of yield, T4 (16.75 mL.L

¹) produced ears of 16.77 cm in length

and 385.13 g in average weight, reaching a yield of 17.12 t.ha

compared to 9.54 t.ha

¹ for the control. In conclusion, water-soluble

capsaicin, especially at 16.75 mL.L

¹, proved to be an eective and

sustainable alternative for the management of S. frugiperda in corn.

This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.

Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2026, 43(1): e264302 January-March. ISSN 2477-9409.

2-6 |

Resumen

Spodoptera frugiperda Smith (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

ocasiona severas pérdidas en el cultivo de maíz (Zea mays L.), esto

conlleva a evaluar alternativas sostenibles de manejo. El objetivo

de la investigación fue determinar la ecacia de la capsaicina en el

control de S. frugiperda en maíz var. Blanco Urubamba. Se utilizó

un diseño de bloques completamente al azar con seis tratamientos y

tres repeticiones: cuatro concentraciones de capsaicina hidrosoluble

(6,70; 10,05; 13,40 y 16,75 mL.L

-1

), extracto de rocoto (Capsicum

pubescens Ruiz & Pav. (Solanaceae), 50 g.L

-1

) y un testigo absoluto.

Las aplicaciones se realizaron a los 80, 90, 100, 110 y 120 días

después de la siembra (dds). La dosis de 16,75 mL.L

-1

fue la más

efectiva, reduciendo la densidad larvaria de 3,12 a 0,13 larvas por

planta, el porcentaje de infestación de 61,12 a 2,78 % con una

ecacia de control de 96,69 %. Las concentraciones intermedias

(13,40 y 10,05 mL.L

-1

) también mostraron efectos signicativos,

con ecacias nales de 93,83 y 85,19 %, respectivamente. T1 tuvo

ecacia moderada (78,30 %), mientras que T5 registró los menores

valores de control (72,86 %), observándose infestaciones crecientes

en el testigo. En rendimiento, T4 (16,75 mL.L

-1

) produjo mazorcas

de 16,77 cm de longitud y 385,13 g de peso promedio, alcanzando

un rendimiento de 17,12 t.ha

-1

frente a 9,54 t.ha

-1

del testigo. En

conclusión, la capsaicina hidrosoluble, especialmente a 16,75 mL.L

-1

demostró ser una alternativa ecaz y sostenible para el manejo de S.

frugiperda en maíz.

Palabras clave: ajíes, ecacia, bioinsecticidas, infestación,

rendimiento

Resumo

Spodoptera frugiperda Smith (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) causa

perdas severas em culturas de milho (Zea mays L.), o que leva

à avaliação de alternativas de manejo sustentável. O objetivo

desta pesquisa foi determinar a ecácia da capsaicina no controle

de S. frugiperda em milho Blanco Urubamba var. Utilizou-se o

delineamento em blocos casualizados com seis tratamentos e três

repetições: quatro concentrações de capsaicina solúvel em água (6,70;

10,05; 13,40 e 16,75 mL.L

¹), extrato de rocoto (Capsicum pubescens

Ruiz & Pav. (Solanaceae), 50 g.L

¹) e uma testemunha absoluta.

As aplicações foram feitas aos 80, 90, 100, 110 e 120 dias após o

plantio (das). A dose de 16,75 mL.L

¹ foi a mais efetiva, reduzindo a

densidade larval de 3,12 para 0,13 larvas por planta, o percentual de

infestação de 61,12 para 2,78 %, com ecácia de controle de 96,69

%. Concentrações intermediárias (13,40 e 10,05 mL.L

¹) também

apresentaram efeitos signicativos, com ecácias nais de 93,83 e

85,19 %, respectivamente. T1 apresentou ecácia moderada (78,30

%), enquanto T5 registrou os menores valores de controle (72,86

%), sendo observadas infestações crescentes na testemunha. Em

termos de produtividade, o T4 (16,75 mL.L

¹) produziu espigas

com 16,77 cm de comprimento e 385,13 g de peso médio, atingindo

uma produtividade de 17,12 t.ha

¹, contra 9,54 t.ha

¹ da testemunha.

Conclui-se que a capsaicina hidrossolúvel, especialmente na dose de

16,75 mL.L

¹, demonstrou ser uma alternativa ecaz e sustentável

para o manejo de S. frugiperda na cultura do milho.

Palavras-chave: pimentas, ecácia, bioinseticidas, infestação,

rendimento

Introduction

Spodoptera frugiperda Walker (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) is a

polyphagous pest that poses the greatest threat to corn crops from

its early stages of growth, causing economic losses of up to 60 % in

tropical and subtropical regions (Lamsal et al., 2020; Clark et al.,

2007). During the larval stage, S. frugiperda feeds voraciously on

leaves and tender shoots, aecting the vegetative development of

corn (Neira and Pérez, 2020; Paredes-Sánchez et al., 2021; Ministry

of Agricultural Development and Irrigation [MIDAGRI], 2020).

Various studies indicate that the incidence and damage caused by the

pest decrease after the stem elongation phase (Montezano et al., 2018;

Du Plessis et al., 2020). According to Du Plessis et al. (2020), its

adaptability to adverse geographical conditions and a wide variety of

plants, including larvae of the same species, increase its devastating

impact on agricultural systems (Du Plessis et al., 2020).

In Peru, the management of S. frugiperda has been hindered by

the excessive and indiscriminate use of chemical insecticides (Van

den Berg & Du Plessis, 2022; Miranda et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2023).

In response to these problems, sustainable alternatives based on

plant-based insecticides have been explored, including compounds

extracted from chili peppers (Capsicum annuum) (Solanaceae),

in particular capsaicin (8-methyl-N-vanillyl-6-nonenamide), an

alkaloid found in the fruit of Capsicum spp. (Ahn et al., 2011;

Ahmed, 2022; Caterina et al., 1997; Aza-González et al., 2011).

It has been documented that capsaicin inhibits oviposition in the

onion y Delia antiqua Meigen (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) (Cowles et

al., 1989) and reduces the feeding of the ladybug Henosepilachna

vigintioctomaculata Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) (Hori

et al., 2011). In addition, it has larvicidal activity against Anopheles

stephensi Liston (Diptera: Culicidae) and Culex quinquefasciatus

Say (Diptera: Culicidae) (Madhumathy et al., 2007), and larvae of S.

frugiperda (Santoa and Santos, 2024).

Capsaicin acts as an irritant, which induces a repellent response

in insects (Castillo-López et al., 2017; Ahmed, 2022), also minimizes

environmental risks and does not leave toxic residues (Gonçalves et

al., 2021; Cárdenas-De la Peña et al., 2022; Figueroa et al., 2019;

Rakesh et al., 2024).

The objective of this study was to evaluate the ecacy of

capsaicin in the control of S. frugiperda, determining its eectiveness

in reducing larvae and exploring its potential as a sustainable solution

in the phytosanitary control of this pest in corn crops.

Materials and methods

Study area

The study was carried out in the Huánuco region (8°36’25.4’’

south latitude; 77°09’15.7’’ west longitude, 3,034 m a.s.l.), Peru.

Tropical lower montane dry forest (bs-MBT) (Holdridge, 1987). The

climate is temperate, with temperatures between 17.5 °C and 8.0 °C,

seasonal precipitation, and moderate thermal amplitude (National

Service of Meteorology and Hydrology of Peru [SENAMHI], 2024).

Plant material

The plant material was corn (Zea mays L.) var. Blanco Urubamba,

selected for its wide local adaptability and regional economic value.

Experimental design

A randomized complete block design (RCBD) was used,

consisting of four blocks, six treatments, and three replications. The

plots were 4.50 m x 3.60 m (16.2 m²) with four rows and 10 plants

per row, planted at a distance of 0.90 m between rows and 0.30 m

between plants, as well as 2 m between blocks.

This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.

Herrera et al. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2026, 43(1): e264302

3-6 |

This transformation stabilizes the variance and normalizes the

distribution of proportional data, allowing the application of more

robust parametric statistical analyses. The transformed values were

subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess signicant

dierences between treatments. The means were compared using

Tukey’s multiple range test with a signicance level of p<0.05. The

statistical analysis was carried out using the INFOSTAT software

version 2023, which allowed estimating the values of F, coecients

of variation, and contrasts of means with precision.

Results and discussion

Larval density of Spodoptera frugiperda

Before the application of the treatments, an average density of

Spodoptera frugiperda per plant was observed, gures that were

statistically homogeneous in the experimental plot, classied as

moderate infestation level 3 (Davis and Williams, 1992). This

degree of infestation implies a signicant impact on foliage and a

considerable decrease in corn yield.

From the rst application, it was evident that the T4 treatment

reduced the density, followed by T3 and T2 (Table 1). T1 and T5 did

not show statistically signicant dierences between them (p>0.05),

but they did exceed T6, which maintained the highest larval density

with an average of 3.63 larvae per plant during the rst evaluation.

This substance interferes with the sensory systems of insects, causing

loss of appetite or even death, depending on the dose and frequency

of application (Chabaane et al., 2021).

At 90 das, the T4 and T3 treatments showed ecacy, respectively,

with no statistical dierences between the treatments (p≤0.05).

The T2 treatment also showed a considerable reduction, while the

T6 control again recorded the highest value. The decrease in larval

density was conrmed at 100 and 120 das, a moment at which T4,

T2, and T3 treatments achieved the lowest population density of

S. frugiperda. These results demonstrate the sustained ecacy of

capsaicin as an integrated pest management tool, highlighting its

potential to signicantly reduce the presence of S. frugiperda and,

with it, mitigate foliar damage and improve crop yield.

The results obtained support the ecacy of capsaicin in the

control of S. frugiperda, conrming its potential as a phytosanitary

tool in the management of agricultural pests. As pointed out by

Negrete and Morales (2003), this compound has the ability to directly

The treatments consisted of four concentrations of water-soluble

capsaicin (Bioxter®) at doses of 6.70, 10.05, 13.40, and 16.75

mL.L⁻¹; a treatment with rocoto pepper extract (Capsicum pubescens

Ruiz & Pav., Solanaceae) at doses of 50 g.L⁻¹ and an absolute control

(without application).

The applications were carried out with a backpack spray (Jacto

PJH model, Brazil) at constant pressure, at 80, 90, 100, 110, and 120

days after sowing (das) of the corn plants. Capsaicin was applied to

corn buds that had larvae in early stages (L1 to L3), visually identied

by their size (3-15 mm), these being the most susceptible stages of the

insect (Stirle et al., 2024).

Variables evaluated

Larval infestation. It was determined by counting live larvae per

plant. For each evaluation, 10 plants per plot were randomly selected,

which represented 40 plants per treatment, and a total of 240 plants

per evaluation. Larval density. It was obtained by calculating in each

plant and by plot, the proportion of infested plants with respect to the

total evaluated (10 plants), and then the value of the four replicates

per treatment was averaged. Infestation percentage. It was estimated

by calculating the proportion of infested plants with respect to the total

evaluated, according to the equation of Neira and Pérez (2020) (Eq. 1).

(Eq. 1)

Control eciency. It was estimated using the equation of

Henderson and Tilton (1955) (Eq. 2).

(Eq. 2)

Where:

Cd: is the number of insects in the control after treatment, Ta:

is the number of insects in the treatment before treatment, Ca: is

the number of insects in the control before treatment, and Td: is the

number of insects in the treatment after treatment. Crop yield. It was

quantied as a function of the weight of the ears using a digital scale

(Precisur, Truper base 5EA, Peru) and expressed in t.ha

¹.

Statistical analysis

The percentage data were transformed using equation 3 (Eq. 3).

(Eq. 3)

Where: y: represents the original percentage value and Y’: the

transformed value.

Infestation (%) =

Number of infested plants

Number of plants evaluated

X 100

Efficacy (%) =

[1-(cdxTa)]

cdxTa

X 100

Y´= arcsin (

( )

100

)

Table 1. Larval population density of Spodoptera frugiperda, average of larvae pre- and post-application of the treatments in corn (Zea

mays L.) var. Blanco Urubamba.

Treatment Pre-application

Average larvae per plant

Days after sowing (das)

80 90 100 110 120

T1 (capsaicin 6.70 mL.L

-1

) 3.17 a 2.41 d 2.31 d 1.78 c 1.64 b 0.82 b

T2 (capsaicin 10.05 mL.L

-1

) 3.12 a 2.09 c 1.97 c 1.46 b 1.19 ab 0.55 ab

T3 (capsaicin 13.40 mL.L

-1

) 3.15 a 1.81 b 1.69 b 1.19 a 1.16 ab 0.23 a

T4 (capsaicin 16.75 mL.L

-1

) 3.12 a 1.43 a 1.32 a 1.01 a 0.66 a 0.13 a

T5 (Rocoto pepper extract) 3.16 a 2.52 d 2.40 d 1.90 c 1.66 b 1.01 b

T6 (Absolute control) 3.13 a 3.63 e 4.13 e 4.66 d 4.43 c 3.75 c

CV (%) 3.01 4.41 4.15 17.94 19.34

Sx: ± 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.16 0.10

p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Means with a common letter are not dierent, Tukey’s multiple range test (p>0.05).

This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.

Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2026, 43(1): e264302 January-March. ISSN 2477-9409.

4-6 |

aect the nervous system of larvae, generating neurological alterations

that translate into disorientation, decreased appetite, and, consequently,

a drastic reduction in their ability to feed and develop properly. These

physiological alterations signicantly increase the mortality rate of

insects, which favors the population control of pests in a natural and

sustainable way.

Capsaicin represents between 0.1 and 1 % of the weight of the fruit,

a key range for its insecticidal action (Meckelmann et al., 2015; Li et

al., 2019; Salgado-Aristizabal et al., 2024). Its concentration enhances

toxic and repellent eects. In addition, it plays a natural defensive

role in Capsicum plants against herbivores (Ahn et al., 2011). It acts

on TRPV1 receptors in insects, causing irritation and death (Reyes-

Escogido et al., 2011), and can lead to cumulative neurotoxic eects

(Castillo-López et al., 2017).

However, other studies present partially dierent results. For

example, Ahn et al. (2011) found that Helicoverpa assulta, a lepidoptera

specialized in nightshades (Solanaceae), showed physiological

tolerance to capsaicin, indicating that the insecticidal response varies

by species and their level of specialization. This suggests that the high

eect observed in S. frugiperda, a generalist species, is partly due to its

lower adaptive tolerance to secondary metabolites such as capsaicin.

Additionally, these ndings are consistent with the reports of

Figueroa et al. (2019), who used extracts of Capsicum chinense Jacq.

(Solanaceae) and observed a 70 % reduction in S. frugiperda infestation

in corn under tropical conditions. This supports the applicability of the

present study in Andean temperate climates, such as Huánuco, and

expands the evidence of ecacy in various ecosystems.

On the other hand, treatments with rocoto pepper extract (T5),

although less eective than commercial capsaicin formulations,

showed a signicant tendency to reduce infestation. This behavior

can be attributed to the lower concentration and natural variability of

capsaicinoids present in the artisanal extract, as noted by Rakesh et

al. (2024), who showed that the formulation and type of Capsicum

signicantly inuence insecticidal potency.

The larval reduction observed in this study is associated with

higher crop yield, in agreement with Zelaya-Molina et al. (2022),

who linked the use of capsaicin extracts with productive increases in

tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.).

However, factors such as photodegradation, environmental persistence,

and formulation cost should be considered, as suggested by Sánchez-

Alonso et al. (2024), who recommend ecotoxicological studies and

large-scale eld tests.

Despite the typical cannibalism of S. frugiperda in early larval

stages (Chapman et al., 1999; Capinera, 2017), a high larval density

was observed in the absolute control. Montezano et al. (2018) explain

this phenomenon by the staggered oviposition, which generates

overlapping cohorts, delaying the manifestation of cannibalism.

On the other hand, Chapman et al. (1999) pointed out that

cannibalism in S. frugiperda decreases when there is abundant food and

low competition between larvae. Tang et al. (2024) conrmed that this

behavior arises under stress, food scarcity, or connement, conditions that

were absent in the present study, where plots with high leaf availability

were observed, as in the control. In this regard, it has been reported that

capsaicin does not promote cannibalism but acts as a repellent or inhibitor

of food (Reyes-Escogido et al., 2011; Hori et al., 2011).

Therefore, the persistence of the number of larvae in some plots

during the evaluation time does not necessarily imply the absence of

cannibalism, but a balance between the rate of re-infestation (new

ovipositions), the initial density, the action of the bioinsecticide, and

the availability of food, factors that together can explain the observed

dynamics.

Larval incidence of Spodoptera frugiperda

The evaluations before the application of the treatments revealed

that the percentage of infested plants ranged between 58.38 and

63.89 %, which, according to the scale of Davis and Williams

(1992), corresponds to a moderate level of infestation. This degree of

aectation represents a considerable risk to crop yield, thus justifying

the implementation of control measures.

After the rst application of capsaicin-based treatments (80 das), a

notable decrease in the proportion of plants infested by S. frugiperda

larvae was evidenced, especially in the T4 and T3 treatments (Table 2),

which reduced the levels.

The decrease in larval infestation was accentuated from the

third application (100 das), when the T4 treatment reduced the

percentage of infested plants equivalent to a decrease of 68.8 %,

compared to the initial record. In the fourth (110 das) and fth (120

das) application, the decreasing trend was maintained, reaching the

minimum infestation value observed in the entire trial in the last

evaluation: only 2.78 % of the plants presented live larvae under T4

treatment (Table 2), while the absolute control was exceeded by %.

These results conrm the cumulative ecacy of the T4 treatment as

the applications progressed, evidencing its capacity to sustainably

control the S. frugiperda population in the corn crop.

On the other hand, the eects of capsaicin can vary depending on

the species of insect. Ahn et al. (2011) demonstrated that Helicoverpa

Table 2. Average number of infested plants in corn (Zea mays L.) var. Blanco Urubamba, pre- and post-application of the treatments.

Treatment

Infested plants (%)

Days after sowing (das)

80 90 100 110 120

T1 (capsaicin 6.70 mL.L

-1

) 50.00 bc 38.89 bc 27.78 ab 19.44 a 13.89 a

T2 (capsaicin 10.05 mL.L

-1

) 44.44 bc 33.33 abc 22.22 ab 16.67 a 8.33 a

T3 (capsaicin 13.40 mL.L

-1

) 33.33 ab 22.22 ab 16.67 ab 13.89 a 5.56 a

T4 (capsaicin 16.75 mL.L

-1

) 22.22 a 16.67 a 13.89 a 8.33 a 2.78 a

T5 (Rocoto pepper extract) 61.12 c 47.23 cd 33.34 b 22.22 a 16.67 a

T6 (Absolute control) 63.89 c 66.67 d 69.45 c 66.67 b 52.78 b

CV (%) 11.98 15.65 15.48 19.64 20.89

Sx: ± 0.17 0.20 0.21 0.24 0.28

p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Tukey’s test (p<0.05). Figures with the same letters within the same column are statistically the same.

This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.

Herrera et al. Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2026, 43(1): e264302

5-6 |

assulta Guenée (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), a species specic to the

consumption of plants in the family Solanaceae, showed signicant

physiological tolerance to capsaicin, in contrast to generalist insects

such as Spodoptera frugiperda J.E. Smith (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae),

Heliothis virescens Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), Helicoverpa

armigera Hübner (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), and Helicoverpa zea

Boddie (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).

In a pioneering study, Helicoverpa assulta in the crop of

nightshades (Solanaceae) exhibited physiological tolerance to

capsaicin: its growth increased with chronic exposures, while in

generalist species such as S. frugiperda, H. virescens, H. armigera,

and H. zea, a reduction in larval growth rate, increased mortality,

and negative eects on digestive indices were observed, such as the

relative consumption rate (RCR), the relative growth rate (RGR),

and the insect conversion eciency (ECI) (Ahn et al., 2011). This

indicates that the insecticidal response of capsaicin is not uniform,

varying according to the metabolic and adaptive capacity of each

species. Research by Zhu et al. (2020) has related these dierences to

the enzymatic activity of detoxication. Helicoverpa assulta Guenée

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) showed a greater ability to metabolize

capsaicin and dihydrocapsaicin in tissues such as the midgut and fat

body, while in H. armigera these metabolic pathways were less active.

This supports the hypothesis that specialist insects develop adaptive

mechanisms to tolerate specic compounds from their host plants.

Likewise, recent studies with generalist insects (S. latifascia) fed

diets with dierent levels of capsaicin synthesis reported clear adverse

eects (Chabaane et al., 2021). This rearms that, in generalist

species, capsaicin is a phytosanitary agent with high ecacy.

Ecacy of control of Spodoptera frugiperda larvae

The control ecacy of each treatment was estimated using the

formula proposed by Henderson and Tilton (1955), which allows

comparing the population dynamics between treatments and absolute

control, correcting for possible natural variations. The T4 treatment

was the most ecient, followed by T3 and T2 treatments (p<0.05)

(Table 3). The reduction of S. frugiperda larvae observed after the

application of capsaicin as a treatment could be due to its action as

a toxic and repellent agent (Ileer et al., 2022), this shows that the

ability of capsaicin to modulate the activity of the larval nervous

system constitutes a relevant mechanism of action, which supports

its potential application as a bioactive agent in integrated pest

management strategies.

Corn yield

The yield of the corn crop showed statistically signicant

dierences (p<0.05) between treatments (Table 4), with an increasing

trend associated with capsaicin concentration. The T4 treatment

achieved the highest yield. The T4, T3, and T2 treatments formed

a statistically dierent group compared to the T6, while T1 and T5

showed intermediate yields.

The T3 and T4 treatments caused a notable decrease in the levels

of S. frugiperda infestation. These ndings coincide with those

obtained by Zelaya-Molina et al. (2022), who showed that capsaicin

signicantly reduces infestation in tomato (S. lycopersicum) and

cucumber (C. sativus) crops.

Table 4. Average yield of corn crop (Z. mays) var. Blanco

Urubamba (t.ha⁻¹) under dierent capsaicin treatments.

Treatments Yield (t.ha

⁻¹

)

T1 (Capsaicin, 6.70 mL.L

⁻¹

) 11.56 ± 0.11 bc

T2 (Capsaicin, 10.05 mL.L

⁻¹

) 12.04 ± 0.14 ab

T3 (Capsaicin, 13.40 mL.L

⁻¹

) 14.09 ± 0.12 ab

T4 (Capsaicin, 16.75 mL.L

⁻¹

) 17.12 ± 0.15 a

T5 (Rocoto pepper extract) 11.43 ± 0.09 bc

T6 (Absolute control) 9.31 ± 0.12 c

C.V. (%): 3.28; p-value <0.05. Same letters indicate treatments without statistically signicant

dierences, according to Tukey at 5 %.

In turn, these results are supported by what was stated by Sinha

et al. (2011), who pointed out that capsaicin eliminates various

invertebrates.

After the rst application (80 das), a signicant increase in

the ecacy of T4 treatment for controlling S. frugiperda larvae

was observed. The dierences found could be associated with

environmental factors, which, according to Zelaya-Molina et al.

(2022), directly inuence the ability of S. frugiperda to cause

damage to corn crops. Similarly, Cabrera et al. (2016) reported that

formulations of natural origin helped to reduce the incidence of the

green leafhopper (Empoasca kraemeri, Ross, and Moore).

Conclusions

The application of water-soluble capsaicin proved to be highly

eective in the control of Spodoptera frugiperda in corn (Zea mays

L.) var. Blanco Urubamba, highlighting the dose of 16.75 mL.L

-¹

for

Table 3. Ecacy in the control of Spodoptera frugiperda larvae in corn (Zea mays L.) var. Blanco Urubamba, post-application of the

treatments.

Treatment

Ecacy in the control of Spodoptera frugiperda larvae (%)

Days after sowing (das)

80 90 100 110 120

T1 (capsaicin 6.70 mL.L

-1

) 33.58 d 44.13 d 61.77 d 62.78 b 78.30 bc

T2 (capsaicin 10.05 mL.L

-1

) 42.58 c 52.43 c 68.62 c 72.91 ab 85.19 abc

T3 (capsaicin 13.40 mL.L

-1

) 50.06 b 59.02 b 74.56 b 73.97 ab 93.83 ab

T4 (capsaicin 16.75 mL.L

-1

) 60.57 a 68.21 a 78.32 a 85.21 a 96.69 a

T5 (Rocoto pepper extract) 30.67 d 41.92 d 59.29 d 62.51 b 72.86 bc

CV (%) 3.05 3.42 3.78 12.32 11.42

Sx: ± 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.16 0.21

p-value 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003

Means with a common letter are not dierent (p>0.05).

This scientic publication in digital format is a continuation of the Printed Review: Legal Deposit pp 196802ZU42, ISSN 0378-7818.

Rev. Fac. Agron. (LUZ). 2026, 43(1): e264302 January-March. ISSN 2477-9409.

6-6 |

its ability to reduce larval density and infestation, which resulted

in a signicant increase in yield. These results show its potential

as a sustainable alternative to conventional chemical insecticides,

providing both agronomic and environmental benets.

Literature cited

Ahmed, Q. (2022). Evaluation of tea tree extract formulation for the control of the

cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii (Homoptera: Aphididae) on Capsicum annuum

in the glasshouse. Journal of Biopesticides, 15(1), 31-38. https://doi.

org/10.57182/jbiopestic.15.1.31-38

Ahn, S., Badenes-Pérez, F., & Heckel, D. (2011). A host-plant specialist, Helicoverpa

assulta, is more tolerant to capsaicin from Capsicum annuum than other

noctuid species. Journal of Insect Physiology, 57(9), 1212-1219. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2011.05.015

Aza-González, C., Núñez-Palenius, H., & Ochoa-Alejo, N. (2011). Molecular biology

of capsaicinoid biosynthesis in chili pepper (Capsicum spp.). Plant Cell

Reports, 30, 695-706. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00299-010-

0968-8

Cabrera Verdezoto, R., Morán Morán, J., Mora Velasquez, B., Molina Triviño, H.,

Moncayo Carreño, O., Díaz Ocampo, E., & Cabrera Verdesoto, C. (2016).

Evaluación de dos insecticidas naturales y un químico en el control de plagas

en el cultivo de frejol en el litoral ecuatoriano. Idesia (Arica), 34(5), 27-35.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-34292016005000025

Capinera, J. L. (2017). Encyclopedia of entomology. Springer.

Cárdenas-De la Peña, A., Muñoz-MadridAlba, A., Montero-Solís, F., & Hernández-

Arzaba, J. (2022). Factibilidad económica de biopreparados: Una

alternativa en la producción de hortalizas en Valle de Santiago, Guanajuato,

México. Agro-Divulgación, 2(4), 49-51. https://agrodivulgacion-colpos.org/

index.php/1agrodivulgacion1/article/view/92

Castillo-López, I., Rodríguez-Africano, P., Montes-Pérez, R., & González-Valderrama,

D. (2017). Fauna silvestre que afecta los cultivos en Boyacá y control del

daño a cultivos de maíz. Ciencia y Agricultura, 14(1), 75-84. https://doi.

org/10.19053/01228420.v14.n1.2017.6090

Caterina, M., Schumacher, M., Tominaga, M., Rosen, T., Levine, J., & Julius,

D. (1997). The capsaicin receptor: a heat-activated ion channel in the

pain pathway. Nature, 389(6653), 816-824. https://www.nature.com/

articles/39807

Chabaane, Y., Arce, C., Glauser, G., & Benrey, B. (2021). Altered capsaicin levels in

domesticated chili pepper varieties aect the interaction between a generalist

herbivore and its ectoparasitoid. Journal of Pest Science, 95, 735-747. https://

doi.org/10.1007/s10340-021-01399-8

Chapman, J., Williams, T., Martínez, A., Cisneros, J., Caballero, P., Cave, R.,

& Goulson, D. (1999). Does cannibalism in Spodoptera frugiperda

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) reduce the risk of Bt resistance? Journal of

Economic Entomology, 92(4), 935-940. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/92.4.935

Clark, P., Molina-Ochoa, J., Martinelli, S., Skoda, S., Isenhour, D., Lee, D., Krumm,

J., & Foster, J. (2007). Population variation of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera

frugiperda, in the Western Hemisphere. Journal of Insect Science, 7(1), 5.

https://doi.org/10.1673/031.007.0501

Cowles, R., Keller, J., & Miller, J. (1989). Pungent spices, ground red pepper, and

synthetic capsaicin as onion y ovipositional deterrents. Journal of Chemical

Ecology, 15, 719-730. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/bf01014714

Davis, F., Ng, S., & Williams, W. (1992). Visual rating scales for screening whorl-

stage corn for resistance to fall armyworm. Mississippi Agricultural and

Forestry Experiment Station. Technical Bulletin, 186, 1-9.

Du Plessis, H., Schlemmer, M., & Van den Berg, J. (2020). The eect of

temperature on the development of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera:

Noctuidae). Insects, 11(4), 228. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11040228

Figueroa Gualteros, A., Castro Triviño, E., & Castro Salazar, H. (2019). Efecto

bioplaguicida de extractos vegetales para el control de Spodoptera frugiperda

en el cultivo de maíz (Zea mays). Acta Biológica Colombiana, 24(1), 58-66.

https://doi.org/10.15446/abc.v24n1.69333

Gonçalves, G., Lira, S., GlSSI, D., & Vendramim, J. (2021). Bioactivity of extracts from

solanaceae against Zabrotes subfasciatus. Acta Biológica Colombiana, 26(1),

62-71. https://doi.org/10.15446/abc.v26n1.84712

Henderson, F., & Tilton, W. (1955). Tests with acaricides against the brown wheat

mite 12. Journal of Economic Entomology, 48(2), 157-161. https://doi.

org/10.1093/jee/48.2.157

Holdridge, L. (1987). Ecología basada en zonas de vida. Agroamerica.

Hori, M., Nakamura, H., Fujii, Y., Suzuki, Y., & Matsuda, K. (2011). Chemicals

aecting the feeding preference of the Solanaceae‐feeding lady beetle

Henosepilachna vigintioctomaculata (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Journal

of Applied Entomology, 135(1‐2), 121-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-

0418.2010.01519.x

Ileer, V., Peralta, J., Palacios, C., & Burgos, A. (2022). Bioinsecticidas elaborados con

extractos botánicos utilizados contra Spodoptera spp. en el cultivo de sandía

(Citrullus lanatus T.) en Los Ríos-Ecuador. Uniciencia, 36(1), 659-669.

http://doi.org/10.15359/ru.36-1.42

Kim, S., Boo, K., Na, Y., & Tak, J. (2023). Screening of insecticidal activity of plant

essential oils and extract-based formulations against four agricultural insect

pests and their risk assessment. Journal of Asia-Pacic Entomology, 26(4),

102127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aspen.2023.102127

Lamsal, S., Sibi, S., & Yadav, S. (2020). Fall armyworm in South Asia: Threats

and management. Asian Journal of Advances in Agricultural Research,

13(3), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajaar/2020/v13i330106

Li, B., Yang, M., Shi, R., & Ye, M. (2019). Insecticidal activity of natural

capsaicinoids against several agricultural insects. Natural Product

Communications, 14(7). https://doi.org/10.1177/1934578X19862695

Madhumathy, A., Aivazi, A., & Vijayan, V. (2007). Larvicidal ecacy of Capsicum

annum against Anopheles stephensi and Culex quinquefasciatus. Journal

of Vector Borne Diseases, 44(3), 223-226. PMID: 17896626.

Meckelmann, S., Jansen, C., Riegel, D., van Zonneveld, M., Ríos, L., Peña, K.,

Mueller-Seitz, E., & Petz, M. (2015). Phytochemicals in native Peruvian

Capsicum pubescens (Rocoto). European Food Research and Technology,

241(6), 817-825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-015-2506-y

Ministerio de Desarrollo Agrario y Riego. (2020). Anuario estadísticas de la

producción agrícola y ganadera. Lima, Perú, Dirección de Estadística

Agraria. http://frenteweb.minagri.gob.pe/sisca/?mod=consultacult

Miranda, A., Espejo, Y., Salas, J., Gonzales, H., Aguilera, J., & Martínez, L.

(2021). Bioplaguicidas: Mecanismos de acción biocida en insectos

plaga. Research, Society and Development, 10(7), e42010716893. https://

doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i7.16893

Montezano, D., Sosa-Gómez, D., Specht, A., Roque-Specht, V., Sousa-Silva, J.,

Paula-Moraes, S., Peterson, J., & Hunt, T. (2018). Host plants of Spodoptera

frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Americas. African Entomology,

26(2), 286-300. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-112bc26060

Negrete, F., & Morales, J. (2003). El gusano cogollero del maíz: (Spodoptera

frugiperda. Smith): Manejo del gusano cogollero del maíz utilizando

extractos de plantas. Corpoica. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12324/2220

Neira, M., & Pérez, E. (2020). Manejo ecológico para el control de Spodoptera

frugiperda en el cultivo de maíz amarillo duro en las regiones de

Lambayeque y La Libertad. Instituto Nacional de Innovación Agraria -

INIA. https://repositorio.inia.gob.pe/handle/20.500.12955/1148

Paredes-Sánchez, F., Rivera, G., Bocanegra-García, V., Martínez-Padrón,

H., Berrones-Morales, M., Niño-García, N., & Herrera-Mayorga, V.

(2021). Avances en estrategias de control contra Spodoptera frugiperda.

Una revisión. Moléculas, 26(18), 5587. https://doi.org/10.3390/

molecules26185587

Rakesh, V., Patgiri, P., Borah, A., Nandhini, D., & Gogoi, I. (2024). Comparative

study on the repellency and chemical proles of dierent chilli peppers

formulations against Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

in stored wheat. Journal of Stored Products Research, 106, 102312.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2024.102312

Reyes-Escogido, M., Gonzalez-Mondragon, E., & Vazquez-Tzompantzi, E. (2011).

Chemical and pharmacological aspects of capsaicin. Molecules, 16(2),

1253-1270. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules16021253

Salgado-Aristizabal, N., Galvis-Nieto, J., Narvaez-Perez, J., Jurado-Erazo,

D., Rodríguez, L., & Orrego, C. (2024). Evaluation of a sustainable

production of encapsulated chili pepper powder (Capsicum pubescens)

through convective and vacuum drying. Processes, 12(10), 2154. https://

doi.org/10.3390/pr12102154

Sánchez-Alonso, I., Fonseca-González, A., Olmedo-Juárez, A., Olivares-Pérez,

J., González-Cortazar, M., Monteon-Ojeda, A., & Rojas Hernández, S.

(2024). Insecticidal activity of two organic extracts from Libidibia coriaria

(Jacq.) Schltdl. fruits against Spodoptera frugiperda JE Smith. Natural

Product Research, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2024.2368274

Santoa, L., & Santos, L. (2024). Eect of Capsicum chinense as a botanical

insecticide on the mortality of Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith)

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in soybeans. Contribuciones a las Ciencias

Sociales, 17(13), e13891. https://doi.org/10.55905/revconv.17n.13-370

Servicio Nacional de Meteorología e Hidrología del Perú. (2024). Datos

climáticos históricos de la región Huánuco 1991-2020. Plataforma de

Datos Climáticos. https://www.senamhi.gob.pe

Sinha, R., Shaham, Y., & Heilig, M. (2011). Translational and reverse

translational research on the role of stress in drug craving and

relapse. Psychopharmacology, 218, 69-82. https://link.springer.com/

article/10.1007/s00213-011-2263-y

Stirle, J., Matias, J., Mendes, G., Moscardini, V., Maia, J., Michaud, J., &

Gontijo, P. (2024). Dierential susceptibility of Spodoptera frugiperda

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to single versus pyramided Bt traits in Brazilian

soybean: what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger?. Pest Management

Science, 80(12), 6535-6544. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.8391

Tang, X., Lyu, B., Lu, H., Tang, J., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Eects of cannibalism

on the growth and development of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera:

Noctuidae). International Journal of Pest Management, 70(4), 1423-

1433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2022.2140856

Van den Berg, J., & du Plessis, H. (2022). Chemical control and insecticide resistance

in Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Journal of Economic

Entomology, 115(6), 1761-1771. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toac108

Zelaya-Molina, L., Chávez-Díaz, I., De los Santos-Villalobos, S., Cruz-Cárdenas,

C., Ruíz-Ramírez, S., & Rojas-Anaya, E. (2022). Control biológico

de plagas en la agricultura mexicana. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias

Agrícolas, 13(SPE27), 69-79. https://doi.org/10.29312/remexca.

v13i27.3251

Zhu, J., Tian, K., Reilly, C., & Qiu, X. (2020). Capsaicinoid metabolism by the

generalist Helicoverpa armigera and specialist H. assulta: Species and

tissue dierences. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 163, 164-174.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2019.11.013