Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) feeding incidence and survival on Bt maize in relation to maize in the landscape

Background Characterizing Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) damage to maize (Zea mays L.) in relation to the spatiotemporal composition of Bt crops is essential to understand how landscape composition affects H. zea abundance. To examine this relationship, paired Bt (expressing Cry1A.105 + Cry2Ab2) and non‐Bt maize plots were sampled across North and South Carolina during 2017–2019. Kernel damage and larval exit holes were measured following larval development. To understand how maize abundance surrounding sample sites related to feeding damage and larval development, we quantified maize abundance in a 1 km buffer surrounding the sample site and examined the relationship between local maize abundance and kernel damage and larval exit holes. Results Across the years and locations, damage in Bt maize was widespread but significantly lower than in non‐Bt maize, indicating that despite the widespread occurrence of resistance to Cry toxins in maize, Bt maize still provides a measurable reduction in damage. There were negative relationships between kernel injury and ears with larval exit holes in both Bt and non‐Bt maize and the proportion of maize in the landscape during the current year. Conclusion Despite the widespread occurrence of resistance to Cry toxins in maize, this resistance is incomplete, and on average Bt maize continues to provide a measurable reduction in damage. We interpret the negative relationship between abundance of maize within 1 km of the sample location and maize infestation levels, as measured by kernel damage and larval exit holes, to reflect dispersion of the ovipositing moth population over available maize within the local landscape. © 2022 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry. Helicoverpa resistance to Cry toxins in maize is widespread. We found that H. zea damage in maize was low in landscapes dominated by high abundances of maize and high in landscapes dominated by low abundances of maize. The response was the same for feeding on both Bt and non‐Bt maize.