Research Article

Journal of Orthoptera Research 2021, 30(2): 117-130

Perception and knowledge of grasshoppers among indigenous communities
in tropical forest areas of southern Cameroon: Ecosystem conservation, food

security, and health

CHARLY OumAROU NGouTte!, DAVID HUNTER2, MICHEL LECOQ?

1 Department of Biology and Physiology of Animal Organisms, Faculty of Science, University of Douala, Cameroon.

2 Locust and Grasshopper Control, 125 William Drive, Canberra, Australia.

3 CIRAD, Montpellier, France.

Corresponding author: Charly Oumarou Ngoute (coumaroungoute@yahoo fr)

Academic editor: Daniel Petit | Received 10 February 2021 | Accepted 11 April 2021 | Published 27 August 2021

http://zoobank.org/C153A2D0-9EF2-4624-AB50-6D46E2C02D58

Citation: Oumarou Ngoute C, Hunter D, Lecoq M (2021) Perception and knowledge of grasshoppers among indigenous communities in tropical
forest areas of southern Cameroon: Ecosystem conservation, food security, and health. Journal of Orthoptera Research 30(2): 117-130. https://doi.

org/10.3897/jor.30.64266

Abstract

The increased attention given to health, food security, and biodiversity
conservation in recent years should bring together conventional scientists
and indigenous people to share their knowledge systems for better results.
This work aims to assess how grasshoppers are perceived by the local peo-
ple in southern Cameroon, particularly in terms of food, health, and land-
scape conservation. Villagers were interviewed individually using a rapid
rural assessment method in the form of a semi-structured survey. Nearly
all people (99%) declared that they are able to identify local grasshoppers,
generally through the color of the insect (80%). Crop fields were the most
often cited landscape (16%) in terms of abundance of grasshoppers, with
forest being less mentioned (8%). In general, villagers claimed that grass-
hopper abundance increased with forest degradation. Grasshoppers were
found during all seasons of the year but noted to be more abundant during
the long dry seasons. People found grasshoppers both useful and harmful,
the most harmful reported being Zonocerus variegatus, an important crop
pest. Cassava is the most attacked crop with 75-100% losses. Industrial
crops, such as cocoa, coffee, and bananas, were not cited as being damaged
by grasshoppers. The most effective conventional method cited for the
control of pest grasshoppers is the use of pesticides (53%) with, in most
cases (27%), a 75-100% efficiency. The traditional method of spreading
ash was also often cited (19%), with an estimated efficiency of 25-75%.
Biological methods were neither cited nor used by the villagers. Most of
them (87%) declared that they eat grasshoppers; some sold these insects in
the market (58%) and some used them to treat diseases (11%).

Keywords

biodiversity conservation, Caelifera, crop pest, disease, indigenous people,
Orthoptera

Introduction

Sustainable development is now emerging as an alternative
to conventional development as a way to reduce poverty in the
Third World (UN 2019). A sustainable development perspective

is consistent with the need to conserve ecosystems and agro-
systems for better development (Ulluwishewa 1993, Andres
and Bhullar 2016). In the last century, ecosystem transforma-
tions due to agricultural intensification and rapid industrial
and urban development have imposed pressures on biological
diversity, such that there is an urgent need to create interest and
awareness regarding functional biodiversity (Rastogi and Kumar
2009, Rastogi 2011), biodiversity conservation (Kearns 2010),
and the economic resources provided by biodiversity (Nijkamp
et al. 2008). Accelerated exploitation of natural resources in the
Third World leads to environmental degradation and loss of bio-
diversity, which, combined with the harmful effects of climate
change, threatens to reverse decades of development efforts and
have a negative impact on agriculture, health, settkement, and
infrastructure in developing countries (Thornton et al. 2011). As
a Sub-Saharan African country, Cameroon is seriously affected
because it depends mainly on rain-fed agriculture. Due to the
current effects of climate change, the livelihoods of local farm-
ers are vulnerable to unpredictable floods, prolonged droughts,
and related famine, pests, and diseases, thus calling for adap-
tive strategies to be undertaken (Akinnagbe and Irohibe 2014,
Torquebiau et al. 2016). Early warning systems have proven to be
indispensable in preparedness for such climatic consequences
(Tadesse et al. 2008, Singh and Zommers 2014). This increased
attention to climate change and landscape degradation is bring-
ing together both conventional scientific and indigenous com-
munities to share their knowledge systems (Nakashima et al.
2012). Historically and to date, local communities in different
parts of the world have continued to rely on indigenous knowl-
edge to conserve the environment and deal with natural disas-
ters (Iloka 2016). However, various people now consider that,
especially in Africa, the knowledge of indigenous people should
be included when designing adaptations to natural disasters
and particularly to climate change (Robinson and Herbert 2001,
Joshua and Jiirgen 2013).

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPTERA RESEARCH 2021, 30(2)

118

Indigenous knowledge can be defined as a set of strategies,
practices, tools, explanations, beliefs, intellectual sources, and
other values accumulated through time by indigenous commu-
nities without interference or involvement of hegemonies or ex-
ternal forces (Emeagwali and Sefa-Dei 2014). The knowledge of
indigenous communities has been accumulated through genera-
tions of living in a given environment and allows the members of
these communities to live in harmony with nature; this knowledge
provides valuable tools for food security, health, education, en-
vironmental conservation, and the reduction of the degradation
of natural resources. To a certain extent, indigenous knowledge
allows for the foreseeing of hot weather, periods of seeding, and
anticipation of the rainy season (Mwaura 2008). The use and ap-
plication of appropriate indigenous knowledge systems can pro-
mote environmental conservation and aid in the management
of disasters in terms of disaster prevention, mitigation, recovery,
prediction, early warning, preparedness, response, and rehabilita-
tion (Mwaura 2008). In Africa, the indicators used by indigenous
knowledge systems include temperature variation, astronomical
observations, plant phenology, and the behavior of birds, amphib-
ians, reptiles, and insects (Mwaura 2008). In Tanzania, various en-
vironmental and astronomical means have been used to predict
rainfall, including plant phenology and the behavior and move-
ment of animals such as birds and insects (Chang’a et al. 2010).
In Uganda, indicators for the onset of the dry season include the
appearance and movement of insects, specifically butterflies, red
caterpillars, western honeybees (Apis mellifera Linnaeus, 1758),
and bush-crickets (Ruspolia baileyi Otte, 1997; Joshua and Jurgen
2013). In Ghana, the presence of the bird Butastur rufipennis Sun-
devall, 1850 would indicate an imminent invasion of crops by
locusts (Owusu 2010). According to Mwaura (2008), many people
of Africa use indigenous knowledge on insects’ behavior, such as
grasshoppers, to protect forests used for rituals, i.e., forests that
have trees or animals considered sacred or totems.

Grasshoppers are one of the more diverse taxa in the world
(Zhang 2011). While some species are harmful, many are not, but
all grasshopper species are a crucial link in food chains (Baden-
hausser 2012), playing an important role in the recycling and
equilibrium of natural ecosystems (Hao et al. 2015). The de-
cline in grassland bird species has been shown to have a posi-
tive correlation with an increase in grasshopper densities (Bock
et al. 1992). Grasshoppers are a major component in the diet of
grassland birds, and studies have shown that there is a direct de-
crease in birds when grasshoppers are less abundant (Bock et al.
1992). Grasshoppers are also an important food source for other
fauna in grassland ecosystems (Latchininsky et al. 2011), such as
shrews, moles, bats, armadillos, and anteaters (Srivastava et al.
2009). They are also a food source for many people in the world
(Paul et al. 2016). Several authors have reported that grasshop-
pers and crickets, especially Hieroglyphus africanus Uvarov, 1922,
Acanthacris ruficornis citrina (Serville, 1838), Zonocerus variegatus
(Linnaeus, 1758), Ornithacris cavroisi (Finot, 1907), Brachytrupes
membranaceus (Drury, 1770), Oxya cyanoptera Stal, 1873, Cyrtacan-
thacris aeruginosa (Stoll, 1813), Ornithacris turbida (Walker, 1870),
and Anacridium melanorhodon (Walker, 1870), are the insects pre-
dominantly eaten by humans in Nigeria, Cameroon, Benin, and
in many other parts of Africa because of their high protein content
(Banjo et al. 2006, Riggi et al. 2013, Meutchieye 2019, Zabentung-
wa et al. 2020). According to De Conconi and Moreno (1988),
grasshoppers are also used by many people throughout the world
in the preparation of traditional medicines used to cure certain
diseases; Sphenarium spp., Taeniopoda sp., and Melanoplus sp. are

C. OUMAROU NGOUTE, D. HUNTER AND M. LECOQ

used to treat kidney diseases and intestinal sickness. Nevertheless,
most of the indigenous knowledge on grasshoppers has not been
documented and remains the secret of the local populations of Af-
rica, especially in Cameroon. The aim of this study is to assess the
indigenous knowledge and perception of communities of South
Cameroon on the local forest grasshoppers, especially as it per-
tains to (1) the use of grasshopper diversity to predict the level of
forest degradation; (2) pest grasshoppers, damage to crops, and
known and/or used methods to control these pests; and (3) use of
grasshoppers in medicine, culture, and as a food source.

Materials and methods

Study site.—This study was conducted in villages in the forest ar-
eas of the southern Cameroon plateau (between 3°27'N, 11°32'E
and 4°10'N, 11°49'E). This area covers almost 42% of Cameroon
and is a vast plateau of about 650 m a.s.l., belonging to a strip
of plateau that forms the north and west edges of the Congo ba-
sin (Westphal et al. 1981). It is dominated by a Guinean climate
with four seasons: a long dry season (mid-November to March),
a short rainy season (April to June), a short dry season (July to
August), and a long rainy season (September to mid-November).
Precipitation ranges from 1500 to 2000 mm per year (Santoir and
Bopda 1995). These forests are characterized by the dominance
of Sterculiacae and Ulmacae, which have great expansion poten-
tial, with the undergrowth being invaded by herbaceous plants
such as Maranthacae and Acanthacae (Westphal et al. 1981). In
these ecosystems, the forest cover is not uniform, as it is regularly
degraded because of the economic exploitation of wood and the
practice of slash and burn agriculture. The resulting vegetation
after degradation are the less diversified fallowlands, dominated
by Chromolaena odorata (L.) R.M.King & H.Rob., 1970, Ageratum
conizoides L., 1753, Synedrella nodiflora (L.,) Gaertn, and Imperata
cylindrica (L.) P.Beauv. Plantain and cocoyam, cassava, yam, maize,
and groundnuts are the main food crops (Westphall et al. 1981),
while industrial crops include cocoa, coffee, sweet banana, and oil
palm (Santoir and Bopda 1995). In the southern Cameroon pla-
teau, our surveys were conducted in four regions (Center, South,
East, and Littoral) with the following eight divisions: Mbam and
Inoubou (villages investigated: Tchekos, Biabetom, Bokito, Dang,
Bygna, and Goufe), Mbam and Kim (village investigated: Ngoro),
Mefou and Akono (villages investigated: Ongot and Ngoumou),
Nyong and Kelle (villages investigated: Memel, Elale, and Bof
Makak), Mvilla (villages investigated: Adoum, Mekam, Mang,
Djop, and Biyeyem), Valley of Ntem (villages investigated: Ngut-
adjap, Aloum, Meko, Akonangui, and Olamze), Sanaga Maritime
(village investigated: Ngambe), and High Nyong (village investi-
gated: Ngoyla) (Fig. 1).

Surveys and data analysis.—A total of 341 people were interviewed
individually in the 24 villages selected. Rapid rural appraisal
methods (RRA) (Chambers 1981, Polidoro et al. 2008, Sattout et
al. 2008) were used between January and July 2017; interviews
were conducted using a semi-structured survey form. Thirty-one
questions were asked to each participant: two questions about
personal information (origin, age, sex, and background); eleven
questions on the respondents’ general knowledge of grasshoppers,
the influence of forest degradation on grasshopper diversity, and
on the potential use of these insects to trace the disruption level of
forests due to human activities; nine questions on harmful grass-
hoppers and the methods used to control pest species; and nine
questions on the importance of grasshoppers to the local popula-

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPTERA RESEARCH 2021, 30(2)

C. OUMAROU NGOUTE, D. HUNTER AND M. LECOQ

1 Mbam and Inoubou
2 Mbam and Kim

3 Mefou and Akono
4 Nyong and Kelle

5 Mvilla

6 Valley of Ntem

7 Sanaga Maritime _/
8 High Nyong 2

Fig. 1. Study sites in Cameroon.

tion as a food source or for commerce, medicine, traditional rites,
and magic (See supplementary file). The interviews were done in
French or in the common language of the area with the help of
a local translator. Assessment of the recognition of grasshopper
species by the local people was facilitated by the use of pictures
of many species from the area around the villages. All frequen-
cies (calculated using EXCEL version 2016) were compared using
the Chi? found using the Kruskal-Wallis test in PAST version 4.03
(Hammer et al. 2001). The Mann-Whitney test was used with the
same software for two samples. Differences were considered sig-
nificant at a probability less than 0.05.

Results
Socio-demographic characteristics of the surveyed people

The population studied consisted of 58.9% males (201 re-
spondents) and 41.1% females (140 respondents) (Table 1). Most
respondents were 18-30 years old (40.1%), followed by 31-40
years (22.6%), 51-60 years (14.7%), 41-50 years (12.3%), and
over 60 years (10.3%). Most (53.4%) had a high school level ed-
ucation, while 29.6% had a primary level education and 11.4%
had a university level education. A small number of respondents
(5.6%) never went to school at all.

Grasshopper recognition by local people

Only one respondent said he did not know what a grasshop-
per is. In general, in all the villages, the respondents said that
they know these insects (99.7%) from their personal experiences
(50.4%) or from school (48.7%). Some (33.7%) got their experi-
ence from their neighbors and 18.8% from the media. The peo-

119

Vegetation

Dense forest
Mixed forest
Other

ple surveyed said that they used general coloring (80.1%), form
(66.9%) or odor (30.2%) to recognize grasshoppers, with color
predominating in some divisions, and form predominating in
others (Table 2).

Landscapes reported as habitat for grasshoppers

The data shows that most villagers reported that grasshoppers
were in all landscapes (79.8%) (Table 3). However, some villagers
(16.4%) reported that crop fields hosted grasshoppers more often,
while a few (9.7%) thought grasshoppers were mainly in fallow
lands (9.7%).

The grasshoppers were called by many names, depending on
the village and language: “Etandak” in the Beti language (Mefou
and Akono, Mvilla and Valley of Ntem divisions), “Gomatatai”
and “Ketatai” in the Bafia language (Mbam and Inoubou divi-
sion), “Kané” in the Mvouté language (Mbam and Kim division),
“Ndenga” in the Bassa language (Nyong and Kelle and Sanaga
Maritime), and “Atjembeka” in the Nvjem language (High
Nyong division).

In general, species-specific names do not exist in these villag-
es, with the exception of Z. variegatus, called “Mbakssana” in the
Beti language and “Ikadjala” in the Nvjem language. However, 23
species were recognized by the local people : Parapetasia femorata
Bolivar, 1884, Dictyophorus karschi (Bolivar, 1904), Mazea granulosa
Stal, 1876, and Gemeneta terrea Karsch, 1892 in forest; Odontom-
elus kamerunensis Ramme, 1929, Cyphocerastis tristis Karsch, 1892,
and Eupropacris coerulea (Drury, 1770) in fallow, crop fields, and
forests; Pteropera balachowskyi Donskoff, 1981 and Pteropera mirei
Donskoff, 1981 in fallow lands and forest; Zonocerus variegatus
(Linnaeus, 1758), Oxycatantops spissus (Walker, 1870), Taphronota
ferruginea (Fabricius, 1781), Chirista compta (Walker, 1870), and

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPTERA RESEARCH 2021, 30(2)

120

C. OUMAROU NGOUTE, D. HUNTER AND M. LECOQ

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents in the investigated divisions. Each value represents a frequency in % (num-
ber of respondents); N = size of the sample; p value = probability; y? = value of the Kruskal-Wallis test. The letters a, b, and c represent
the results of the Mann-Whitney test for two samples in the same column; the same letter indicates non-significant differences between

the values.

Comparison Mbam and Mbamand Mefouand Nyong Mvilla Valley of | Sanaga High je P value Total

parameters Inoubou Kim Akono and Kelle Ntem Maritime Nyong
Sex
Male 58.9(50) 43.3(13) 48.5(16) 64.5(20) 59.0(36) 73.7(28) 40.0(12) 78.8(26) 14.2 0.006 58.9(201)
Female 41.1(35) 56.7(17) 51.5(17)-35.5(11) —41.0(25) -—-26.3(10)-—«60.0(18) —-21.2(7) 14.2 0.006 41.1(140)
x? 3.9 1.8 0.04 3.8 2.9 12.6 1.8 16.6 15.3
p value 0.02 0.1 0.8 0.02 0.04 <0.001 0.1 <0.001 <0.001
N 85 30 33 31 61 38 30 33 341
Age (in years)
18 - 30 36.5(31)a 56.7(17)a 42.4(14)a 6.4(2)a 57.4(35)a 36.8(14)a 23.3(7)ab 51.5(17)a 21.9 <0.001 40.1(137)a
31 - 40 21.2(18)b 16.7(5)b.—-18.2(6)b_- 35.5(11)b 16.4(10)b 23.7(9)ab 46.6(14)b 12.1(4)b 9.4 0.01. 22.6(77)b
41 - 50 17.6(15)b 3.3(1)b.—9.1(3)b-—*92.7(3)a—s«6.6(4)b--21.1(8)ab-:16.7(5)a_9.1(3)be— 3.4 0.2 12.3(42)c
51 - 60 11.8(10)b 10.0(3)b_ 30.3(10)ab 19.4(6)ab 9.8(6)b —-10.5(4)b_—s«6.7(2)a.—s-27.3(9)bsi5.7 0.03 = 14.7(50)c
Above 60 12.9(11)b 13.3(4)b —-0.0(0)e_—- 29.0(9)b_-:9.8(6)b_—s-7.9(3)b_—s-6.7(2)a_—0.0(0)c 6.1 0.002 —10.3(35)c
x? 10.1 15.9 11.1 5.8 32.8 6.1 9.7 15.5 61.3
p value < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.02 < 0.001 0.01 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
N 85 30 33 31 61 38 30 33 341
Background
unschooled 8.2(7)b 0.0(0)c 6.0(2)b 6.5(2)c 1.6(1)c 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)c 21.2(7)a 3.8 0.001 5.6(19)a
Primary 34.1(29)a 16.7(5)a_ 39.4(13)a_ 29.0(19)a 18.0(11)a 36.8(14)a 40.0(12)a 24.2(8)a 7.3 0.01 29.6(101)b
High school —45.9(39)a_76.7(23)ab 36.4(12)a 54.8(17)b 68.9(42)b 52.7(20)a 46.7(14)a 45.5(15)b 47.6 <0.001 53.4(182)c
University 11.8(10)b 6.6(2)ab 18.2(6)ab--9.7(3)c_~—-*1.5(7)a_-10.5(4)b--:13.3(4)b —-9.1(3)a 0.8 0.9 11.4(39)d
x? 24.8 33.0 @3 T3i7¢ Dae LOS a9) 6.7 142.7
p value < 0.001 < 0.001 0.004 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.007 < 0.001
N 85 30 33 31 61 38 30 33 341

Acanthacris ruficornis (Fabricius, 1787) in fallow lands and crop
fields; Heteropternis thoracica (Walker, 1970) and Pyrgomorpha vign-
audii (Guérin-Méneville, 1849) near houses, in fallow lands, and
in crop fields; Spathosternum pygmaeum Karsch, 1893, near houses
and in fallow lands; Gymnobothrus temporalis (Stal, 1876), Abisares
viridipennis (Burmeister, 1838), Catantops stramineus (Walker,
1870) and Afroxyrrhepes obscuripes Uvarov, 1943, only in fallow
lands; Atractomorpha acutipennis (Guérin-Méneville, 1844) and Eu-
coptacra anguliflava (Karsch, 1893) near houses, in fallow lands, in
crop fields, and in forest (Appendix 1).

Abundance of grasshoppers in different landscapes, for-
ests, and seasons

Crop fields were cited most often as having an abundant
number of grasshoppers (45.7%), while fallow areas were cited
as having only moderate levels (38.7%) (Fig. 2). Grasshoppers
were seen as being less abundant to rare in forests (37-38.4%)
and rare near houses (49.3%). In general, respondents reported
that the abundance of grasshoppers increased with degradation of
the forest. They recognized that grasshoppers were generally rare
in pristine forests (63.9%) and, in severely degraded forests, they
noted low (27.3%), moderate (41.3%) or high (8.2%) abundance
levels. In general, respondents reported that grasshoppers were
present in all seasons but more abundant during the dry season
than in the rainy season. Mainly, high grasshopper abundance
was reported during the long dry season (39.3%), with lower lev-
els during the short dry season (16.7%) and the long rainy season
(11.7%). Grasshoppers were considered to be least common dur-
ing the short rainy season, the rarest categories being predomi-
nant (31.4%).

Perception of grasshoppers by local people

In all the divisions visited, the respondents recognized grass-
hoppers as both useful and harmful in Mbam and Kim (100%),
Mefou and Akono (94%), Nyong and Kelle (93.5%), Mvilla
(91.8%), Sanaga Maritime (90%), Mbam and Inoubou (88.2%),
High Nyong (63.6%), and Valley of Ntem (50%) (Fig. 3A). Grass-
hoppers were reported as only harmful in seven of the eight di-
visions studied: Valley of Ntem (34.2%), High Nyong (12.2%),
and Sanaga Maritime (10%) had the high frequencies of this re-
sponse, with the four others presenting a low frequency. Only
the respondents of the divisions Mbam and Kim and Nyong and
Kelle did not recognize grasshoppers as harmful. Grasshoppers
were reported as only useful more often by some people in the
High Nyong (21.2%) and Valley of Ntem (13.2%) divisions.

Harmful effects of grasshoppers.—In general, in all the divisions,
the most harmful action of grasshoppers reported by respondents
was damage to crops (Fig. 3B). Some people cited wounds due to
the spines of grasshoppers in Valley of Ntem (28.9%), Mbam and
Inoubou (5.9%), and in Mvilla (1.6%). Skin irritation was only
reported in Mbam and Inoubou (9.4%).

Grasshoppers cited as crop pests.—In all divisions visited, respondents
recognized all grasshopper species as crop pests (51%) (Table 4).
However, in these divisions, only Zonocerus variegatus was cited as
a crop pest having a significant economic impact by a high propor-
tion of respondents (33.1%). With the exception of Oxycatantops
spissus (3.5%) and Pyrgomorpha vignaudii (1.5%), all other grass-
hoppers were cited as crop pests by less than 1% of the respond-
ents and only in the areas of Mbam and Inoubou, and Mvilla.

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPTERA RESEARCH 2021, 30(2)

C. OUMAROU NGOUTE, D. HUNTER AND M. LECOQ

121

Table 2. Recognition of grasshoppers by local people. Frequency in % (number of respondents); N = size of the sample; p value = prob-
ability; v’ = value of the Kruskal-Wallis test. The letters a, b, and c represent the results of the Mann-Whitney test for two samples in the
same column; the same letter indicates non-significant differences between the values.

Comparison Mbam and Mbam and Mefouand Nyongand _ Mvilla

parameters Inoubou Kim
Knowledge of grasshoppers
Yes 100.0(85) 100.0(30)
No 0.0(0) 0.0(0)
2 126.8 44.3
p value < 0.001 < 0.001
N 85 30
Where knowledge was gained
School 47.1(40)a 90.0(27)a
Media 25.9(22)b 23.3(7)b
Neighbor 24.7(21)b =10.0(3)b
Personal 61.2(52)a 33.3(10)b
experience
Ye 23.7 30.2
p value < 0.001 < 0.001
N 85 30
Recognition of grasshoppers
Form 83.5(71)a 93.3(28)a
Color 94.1(80)b 70.0(21)b
Odor 43.5(37)c 20.0(6)c
2 36.2 26.7
p value < 0.001 < 0.001
N 85 30

Akono

100.0(33)
0.0(0)
45.8
< 0.001
33

36.4(12)a
15.2(5)b
18.2(6)ab
63.6(21)c

14.9
< 0.001
33

66.7(22)a
54.5(18)a
27.3(9)b
7.9
0.004
33

Kelle

100.0(31)
0.0(0)
45.7
< 0.001
31

71.0(22)a
19.3(6)b
54.8(17)a
32.3(10)b

14.7
< 0.001
eal

90.3(28)a
80.6(25)a
19.4(6)b
24.8
< 0.001
31

100.0(61)
0.0(0)
90.8
< 0.001
61

21.3(13)a
1.6(1)b

18.0(11)a

90.2(55)c

84.1
< 0.001
61

32.8(20)a
96.7(59)b
18.0(11)c
63.6
< 0.001
61

Valley of
Ntem

100.0(38)
0.0(0)
56.3
< 0.001
38

28.9(11)a
7.9(3)b

60.5(23)c

26.3(10)a

16.2
< 0.001
38

60.5(23)a
86.8(33)b
18.4(7)c
26.9
< 0.001
38

Sanaga

Maritime

100.0(30)
0.0(0)
44.3
< 0.001
30

76.7(23)a
50.0(15)b

53.3(16)ab
23.3(7)c

12.8
< 0.001
30

70.0(21)

53.3(16)

40.0(12)
4.0
0.7
30

High
Nyong

97.0(32)
3.0(1)
44.4
< 0.001
33

54.5(18)a
15.2(5)b
54.5(18)a
21.2(7)b

13.2
< 0.001
Sf

45.5(15)

63.6(21)

45.5(15)
Xe)
0.2
33

xr

43.3
17.8
Sag
68.6

47.6
27 vl
18

p value

2
O22

< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 0.001

< 0.001
< 0.001
0.003

Total

99.7(340)
0.3(1)
506.3

< 0.001
341

48.7(166)a
18.8(64)b
33.7(115)c
50.4(172)a

67.2
< 0.001
341

66.9(228)a
80.1(273)b
30.2(103)a
57.7
< 0.001
341

Table 3. Landscapes reported as habitats for grasshoppers in the divisions studied. Frequency in % (number of respondents); N =
size of the sample; p value = probability; y? = value of the Kruskal-Wallis test. The letters a, b, and c represent the results of the Mann-

Whitney test for two samples in the same column; the same letter indicates non-significant differences between the values.

Landscapes Mbam and Mbam and Mefou and Nyong Mvilla Valley of Sanaga High Nyong
Inoubou Kim Akono and Kelle Ntem Maritime
All landscapes 82.4(70)c 70.0(21)c 84.8(28)c 100.0(31)a 100.0(61)a 68.4(26)a 63.3(19)c 48.5(16)c
Forest 2.4(2)b 3.3(1)a 12.1(4)b_-0.0(0)b.——s«O0.0(0b)~—Ss7.9(3)b-26.7(8)ab ~—-24.2(8)b
Fallow 9.4(8)ab 6.7(2)ab 12.1(4)b ~=0.0(0)b 0.0(0)b 15.8(6)b 16.7(5)ab 24.2(8)b
Crop fields = 14.1(12)a__20.0(6)b.--9.1(3)ab-——:0.0(0)b_—s<0.0(0b)~—s21.1(8)b 36.7(11)b —-48.5(16)c
House 16.5(14)a 16.7(5)ab 0.0(0)a —-0.0(0)b_—s:0.0(0)b_—'10.5(4)b_—-10.0(3)a 3.(1)a
ye 107.8 26.0 47.1 73.9 154.9 28.2 17.0 14.5
p value < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
N 85 30 33 31 61 38 30 33
Hrare less abundant moderately abundant Mabundant
70
= ae A B C
rf
6 50
a
= 40
°
>
2 30
s
= 20
re
10 |
> LM \ i
@ 3S x Ss S. ~ s ¢ s S s
Ros 2 x Z x x i a so oF y es y es 3 ~ P »
J oe & # vos os
x X K x S S
g & & ge Pe e ©
ae ay ase ee FF g
ee ‘
we

Fig. 2. Abundance of grasshoppers in different landscapes (A), forests (B), and seasons (C).

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPTERA RESEARCH 2021, 30(2)

ee

2671)
6.1
DZ

223
4.9

p value

< 0.001
< 0.001
0.002
< 0.001
0.001

Total

79.8(272)c
7.6(26)a
9.7(33)a
16.4(56)b
7.9(27)a
398.6
< 0.001
341

122

C. OUMAROU NGOUTE, D. HUNTER AND M. LECOQ

A B Cc
Buseful ®harmful Museful/narmful pest of crops wounds skin irritation Badults Mnymphs GMadults/nymphs
Se x 100 Ps
=. =100 2 90 = “ap
a 90 c 80 Bn ah
S 80 a 70 3
® 70 © 60 a 60
5 60 Oo» «50 = ~ 50
> 50 S 40 5 40
o 5s 30 = 30
=] 30 co)
oy oS" 820 =
® 20 2 os 20
d= ae SiG 2
10 0 = 10
0 0
DQ O @ w SM
YG O @ wo SUSl YS YS es
S wv VS PM Wh QF WS > © @ @
Fo er HW” CHS TAS FHSS Mw
Pe O' SF fe) S ‘ s\ XS) AS Q
VO SO S & NS LS Oo fe)
Sore” Rs + Ves - ES se ea ge
@ eS a NS < 40" ff x
ws - = ww a a

Fig. 3. Perception of grasshoppers by local people: general perception (A), harmful effects of grasshoppers (B), and development stage

of pest grasshoppers (C).

Table 4. Pest grasshoppers cited by local people. Frequency in % (number of respondents); N = size of the sample; p value = probability;
x = value of the Kruskal-Wallis test. The letters a, b, c, and d represent the results of the Mann-Whitney test for two samples in the same
column; the same letter indicates non-significant differences between the values.

Grasshoppers species Mbamand Mbam Mefouand Nyong Mvilla Valley of Sanaga High x pvalue Total
Inoubou andKim Akono and Kelle Ntem Maritime Nyong

All the species 67.1(57)a 63.3(19)a 42.4(14)a 51.6(16)a 32.8(20)a 31.6(12)a 73.3(22)a 42.4(14)a 24.2 <0.001 51.0(174)a
Zonocerus variegatus 28.2(24)b 53.3(16)b 30.3(10)b 38.7(12)a 55.7(34)b 31.6(12)a 13.3(4)b 3.0(1)b 25.5 <0.001 33.1(113)b
Taphronota ferruginea 2.4(2)c 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)b 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)b 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)b 0.2 0.5 0.6(2)c
Acanthacris ruficornis 1.2(1)c 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)b 1.6(1)cd 0.0(0)b 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)b 0.05 0.9 0.6(2)c
Atractomorpha acutipennis —1.2(1)c 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)b 3.3(2)cd 0.0(0)b 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)b 0.2 0.6 0.9(3)cd
Pyrgomorpha vignaudii 1.2(1)c 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)b 6.6(4)d 0.0(0)b 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)b 0.6 0.06 1.5(5)cd
Oxycatantops spissus 1.2(1)c 16.7(5)c 6.1(2)c 0.0(0)b 6.6(4)d 0.0(0)b 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)b 2.6 <0.001 3.5(12)d
y: 97.8 41.2 18.4 207 48.5 16.2 40.2 14.9 258.7
p value < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
N 85 30 33 31 61 38 30 33 341

Developmental stage of crop pests.—Except in the Sanaga Maritime
(12%), Valley of Ntem (7.9%), and High Nyong (3%) divisions,
the most frequent pest grasshopper stages reported by respondents
were both adults and nymphs (Fig. 3C). However, a few respond-
ents in the Nyong and Kelle division reported that grasshoppers
were only harmful during the nymphal stage (6.5%).

Crops cited as most often damaged by pest grasshoppers.—The crops
most cited by the respondents as affected by pest grasshoppers
were cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz, 1766) (60.1%), corn
(Zea mays L., 1753) (58.1%), groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.,
1753) (35.5%), and okra (Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench,
1794) (27.9%) (Table 5). Less cited were green vegetable (15.5%),
cucumber (Cucumis sativus L., 1753) (9.1%), sweet potato (Ipo-
moea batatas (L.) Lam., 1793) (7.3%), bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.,
1753) (6.2%), macabo-cocoyam (Xanthosoma sagittifolium (L.)
Schott, 1832) (5.3%), and bitter leaf (Vernonia amygdalina Delile)
(2.3%). No other crops were cited.

Impact of pests on crops productivity.—Cassava was most cited
(32.3%) as suffering high losses (75-100%) due to pest grasshop-

pers, followed by corn (12.6%), green vegetable (12.3%), and
groundnut (8.2%) (Fig. 4). The loss of 50-75% of crops was most
cited in the same plants, while a loss of about 25-50% was more
often reported in corn (29.3%) than in cassava (14.7%). High
levels of damage (75-100%) were rarely reported for cucumber
(3%), macabo-cocoyam (3%), and bitter leaf (1.2%).

Methods known and used to control pest grasshoppers.—The conven-
tional grasshopper control methods cited by respondents were
insecticides, weeding, picking by hand, and the use of improved
seeds (Table 6). Insecticides were the most cited (52.5%), but
many thought they were little used due to their high cost. Weeding
(4.5%) and picking (13.5%) grasshoppers by hand were less cited
but most used by the villagers. Improved seeds were rarely cited
(0.6%), and biological methods were not cited at all. Among the
traditional methods, the most cited and used by the villagers was
spreading ash (18.8%), smoke (7.9%), or litter (2.3%) on crops.
Other traditional methods were rarely mentioned or used.

Efficiencies of the methods used to control pest grasshoppers. —Insec-
ticides were considered to be most effective in removing grass-

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPTERA RESEARCH 2021, 30(2)

C. OUMAROU NGOUTE, D. HUNTER AND M. LECOQ 123

hoppers, with 26.7% of respondents saying that insecticides can

remove 75-100% of the grasshoppers in crop fields, although

1.5% said they were not very effective, removing less than 25%

(Fig. 5). Weeding and picking grasshoppers by hand seems to

25 be less effective, as such methods were claimed only by 2.1%
and 8.2% of the people, respectively, to remove 25-50% of

0 | | | | fi

se

@<25% ofloss 25-50% ofloss 50-75% ofloss 75-100% of loss

i)
oO

the grasshoppers in the crops. Improved seeds were rarely used
(0.3%) but, according to the villagers, they guarantee an effi-
ciency of up to 75-100%. A few people (0.9-3.8%) expressed
a belief that the use of smoke can remove up to 50-100% of
pest grasshoppers in the crop fields, but some (1.5-2.1%) pur-

=< 25)
Oo a

oa

frequency of respondents (%)

th alll. hh a walla allll_

rs £¢ Ff SF LF SS & : d : 5 ;
fees ee Bee oe 3s ported it to have less efficiency. A slightly higher proportion
me Ss - oe ee ry (2.3-10.6%) of respondents said ash can efficiently (25-75%)

S vw control pest grasshoppers in crop fields. Other traditional meth-
ods of control were rarely mentioned and cited as having an
Fig. 4. Impact of pest activities on the productivity of crops. efficiency less than 50%.

Table 5. Crops cited by local people as damaged by pest grasshoppers. Frequency in % (number of respondents); N = size of the sam-

ple; p value = probability; x’ = value of the Kruskal-Wallis test. The letters a, b, c, d, e, and f represent the results of the Mann-Whitney

test for two samples in the same column; the same letter indicates non-significant differences between the values.

Crops Mbam and Mbam and Mefou and Nyongand Mvilla Valleyof Sanaga High ve p value Total
Inoubou Kim Akono Kelle Ntem Maritime Nyong

Corn 67.1(57)a 83.3(25)a 48.5(16)a 90.3(28)a 55.8(34)a 21.1(8)a 50.0(15)a 45.5(15)a 36.2 <0.001 58.1(198)a
Cassava 81.2(69)b 66.7(20)a 48.5(16)a 71.0(22)ab 73.8(45)b 28.9(11)a 40.0(12)a 30.3(10)ab 44.5 <0.001 60.1(205)a
Groundnut 43.5(37)c 13.3(4)b 30.3(10)ab 16.1(5)c 59.0(36)a 34.2(13)a 30.0(9)ab 21.2(7)bc 23.5 <0.001 35.5(121)b
Green vegetables 27.1(23)d 16.7(5)b 3.0(1)c 19.4(6)c 19.7(12)c 0.0(0)b 10.0(3)b 9.1(3)be 8.8 0.002 1SS(S3)c
Okra 20.0(17)de 66.7(20)a_ 21.2(7)b 48.4(15)bd 31.1(19)c 23.7(9)a_ 16.7(5)b 9.1(3)be—- 24.4. < 0.001_-~—-27.9(95)d
Cucumber 12.9(11)e 10.0(3)c 3.0(1)c 0.0(O)e 8.2(5)c 15.8(6)a 3.3(1)c 12.(4)bc 1.8 0.5 9-1(31)e
Bean 5.9(5)ef 3.3(1)d 6.1(2)c 12.9(4)f 9.8(6)c 0.0(0)b 3.3(1)c =6.1(2)c ~——:1.0 0.4 6.2(21)ef
Bitter leaf 3.5(3)f 0.0(0)d 3.0(1)c 0.0(0)e 0.0(0)d 0.0(0)b 0.0(0)c 12.(4)be 8.7 <0.001 2.3(8)g
Sweet potato 0.0(0)F 0.0(0)d 6.1(2)c 32.3(10)d 9.8(6)c 0.0(0)b 16.7(5)b 6.1(2)c = 1.9Ss—«i02—S—=7-.3( 25 Jef
Macobo-cocoyam _0.0(0)f 0.0(0)d 0.0(0)c 6.5(2)f 19.7(12)c 0.0(0)b 6.7(2)b 6.1(2)c 5.4 <0.001 5.3(18)f
x? 190.4 86.5 29.9 79.8 108.5 19.7 23.8 13.9 437.6
p value < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
N 85 30 33 31 61 38 30 33 341

Table 6. Methods for controlling pest grasshoppers cited and used by local people. Frequency in % (number of respondents); N = size
of the sample; p value = probability; y? = value of the Kruskal-Wallis test. The letters a, b, c, d, and e represent the results of the Mann-
Whitney test for two samples in the same column; the same letter indicates non-significant differences between the values.

Methods of Mbamand Mbam Mefouand Nyong Mvilla Valleyof Sanaga High xr p value Total
control Inoubou andKim Akono and Kelle Ntem Maritime Nyong

Conventional methods
Insecticide 69.4(59)a 50.0(15)a 24.2(8)a 29.0(25)a 37.7(23)a 57.8(22)a 46.6(14)a 39.4(13)a 28.8 <0.001 52.5(179)a
Weeding 7.1(6)b 0.0(0)b—-21.2(7)a.— 3.2(1)b_-:0.0(0)b_—Ss«0.0(0)b_—Ss“«0.0(0)b_s 3.0(1)b.—s 3.9 =~ < 0.001 ~—4..5(15)b
Picking 2.4(2)b -0.0(0)b_- 42.4(14)b 38.7(12)c 19.7(12)c 7.9(3)b -0.0(0)b-s-:9.1(3)b-—s- 21.5. < 0.001 ~—:13.5(46)c
Improved seed 2.4(2)b 0.0(0)b_—-0.0(0)c_~—-:0.0(0)b-—s:0.0(0)b_—s«0.0(0)b-—s—«O0.0(0)b-—s-<0.0(0)b——s*OL 0.5 0.6(2)d
x? 81.1 16.7 8.9 36.3 L9 26.4 14.6 9.9 173.6
p value < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
N 85 30 33 31 61 38 30 33 341
Traditional methods
Smoke 5.9(5)a 30.0(19)a_~—- 3.0(1) ~—s--0.0(0)a— ss 3.3(2) ~=—:10.5(4)a_—-:13.3(4)a_—6.1(2) 6.1 <0.001 7.9(27)a
Ashes 36.5(31)b 33.3(10)a-3.0(1)--35.5(11)b--1.6(1) ~=—0.0(0)b-—s- 20.0(6)a_s-:12.1(4) 25.0 =< 0.001 ~—-18.8(64)b
Litter 1.2(1)c 13.3(4)a-0.0(0)——«0.0(0)a_—s«0.0(0)_—<0.0(0)b_-—:10.0(3)ab_ 6.1%(2) 1.9 0.003 __2.3(10)c
Paracetamol 1.2(1)c 0.0(0)b 0.0(0) 0.0(0)a 0.0(0) 0.0(0)b 0.0(0)b _—0..(0) 0.03 0.9 0.3(1)d
Cow dung 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)b 0.0(0) 0.0(0)a 0.0(0) 0.0(0)b 3.3(1)ab 0.010) ~_—0..08 0.3 0.3(1)d
Hot pepper water 0.0(0)c 23.3(7)a 0.0(0) 0.0(O)a 0.0(0) 0.0(0)b 0.0(0)b 0.0(0) 4.5 <0.001 2.1 (7)ce
Bell sounds 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)b 0.010) 6.5(2)c 0.0(0) 0.0(0)b 0.0(0)b_~—6..1(2) 0.6 0.02 1.2(4)ce
Tobacco leaf water 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)b 0.0(0) 0.0(O)a 0.0(0) 0.0(0)b 0.0(0)b 3.0(1) 0.08 0.2 0.3(1)d
ye 28.5 133 0.1 10.0 0.2 1.4 3.2 1.3 29.3
p value < 0.001 < 0.001 0.5 < 0.001 0.2 < 0.001 0.002 0.2 < 0.001
N 85 30 33, 31 61 38 30 33 341

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPTERA RESEARCH 2021, 30(2)

124 C. OUMAROU NGOUTE, D. HUNTER AND M. LECOQ

species most often reported as eaten and sold in the markets (Ta-
ble 8). Orthopteran species coming from the families Tettigoni-
dae and Gryllidae were also eaten-fried or braised and marketed
fresh or fried.

Importance of grasshoppers cited by local people

Grasshoppers were reported as used mainly as food (86.8%),
but also sold at markets (57.7%), used as fishing bait (13.2%), or
to treat diseases (10.9%) (Table 7). Grasshoppers are eaten and
commercialized in all the divisions studied, used to treat diseases
in five divisions, and as fishing bait in four. A very few respondents
mentioned using grasshoppers as a charming medium (1.8%),
as being important for ecosystem balance (0.9%), or considered
them to be biological control agents against weeds (0.3%) or a
pollinator agent (0.3%).

Diseases treated with grasshoppers.—Zonocerus variegatus (Fig. 6A)
was cited by the respondents as used to treat a wide variety of
diseases including spleen pain, burns, tuberculosis, angina, ma-
laria and several others (Appendix 2). Atractomorpha acutipennis
(Fig 6C) was crushed to treat disease of the baby’s fontanelle
and sighting this grasshopper was a sign of luck in hunting,
while Oxycatantops spissus (Fig 6B) was used in treatment of

Types of grasshoppers eaten and commercialized.—Zonocerus variega- SOMe diseases and as a charming medium (Appendix 2).

tus and Oxycatantops spissus (Fig. 6) were the two grasshopper

§<25% of efficiency

§ 25-50% of efficiency

50-75% of efficiency ™75-100% of efficiency

frequency of respondents (%)

Fig. 5. Efficiency of the methods used to control pest grasshoppers: conventional methods (A) and traditional methods (B).

Table 7. Importance of grasshoppers cited by local people. Frequency in % (number of respondents); N = size of the sample; p value =
probability; y? = value of the Kruskal-Wallis test. The letters a, b, c, and d represent the results of the Mann-Whitney test for two samples
in the same column; the same letter indicates non-significant differences between the values.

Uses Mbam and Mbam and Mefou and Nyong Mvilla Valley of | Sanaga High xr p value Total
Inoubou Kim Akono and Kelle Ntem Maritime Nyong

Food 89.4(76)a 100.0(30)a 93.9(31)a 83.8(26)a 95.1(58)a 57.8(22)a 90.0(27)a 78.8(26)a 13.8 <0.001 86.8(296)a
Commerce 57.6(49)b 76.7(23)b 72.7(24)b 77.4(24)a 32.8(20)b 34.2(13)b 66.7(20)b 72.7(24)a 29.6 <0.001 57.7(197)b
Treat diseases L7G(15 ye 0.0(0)c 6.1(2)c 32.2(10)b 3.3(2)c —=—-.21.1(8)bc 3—0.0(0)c 3=—:0.0(0)b_— ss sd11.2,—- < 0.001 ~=—: 10.9(37)c
Charming medium ~—_—-2.4(2)d 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)c 10.5(4)bc 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)b 1.2 0.04 1.8(6)d
Fishing bait 16.5(14)c 0.0(0)c ~=—-:0.0(0)c_—-0.0(0)c_—-:21..3(13)b 36.8(14)ab 0.0(0)c 12.1(4)c 14.3 <0.001 13.2(45)c
Pollinator agent 1.2(1)d 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)cd 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)b 0.03 0.9 0.3(1)d
Biological control 1.2(1)d 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)cd 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)b 0.03 0.9 0.3(1)d
Ecosystem balance 0.0(0)d 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)c Cola 0.0(0)c 0.0(0)b 0.6 0.001 0.9(3)d
7 193.3 107.3 102.8 86.9 140.2 is Fa Sos 84.9 81.8 764.6
p value < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
N 85 30 33 31 61 38 30 33 341
Table 8. Grasshoppers and other Orthopterans cited by local people as eaten and sold commercially.

Species/Family Consummation forms Commercialization forms Divisions

Zonocerus variegatus fried or braised Mbam and Inoubou, Mvilla, Valley of Ntem, High

fresh or fried Nyong, Mefou and Akono, Nyong and Kelle
Oxycatantops spissus fried or braised fresh Mbam and Inoubou
Tettigonidae fried or braised fresh or fried All the divisions
Gryllidae fried or braised not sold Mbam and Inoubou

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPTERA RESEARCH 2021, 30(2)

C. OUMAROU NGOUTE, D. HUNTER AND M. LECOQ

125

Fig. 6. Some grasshoppers mainly used/cited by local people: Zonocerus variegatus (pest of crops, fallowland species, use as food and to
treat diseases) (A), Oxycatantops spissus (pest of crops, fallowland species, use as food and to treat diseases) (B), Atractomorpha acutipen-
nis (pest of crops, species of forest edge and fallow, use to treat diseases) (C), Parapetasia femorata (forest species, use as indicator to
characterize forest ecosystems) (D), Mazea granulosa (forest species, use as indicator to characterize forest ecosystems) (E), Gemeneta
terrea (forest species, use as indicator to characterize forest ecosystems) (F).

Discussion

Our data allow an assessment of the perception of grasshop-
pers by local people in Southern Cameroon, particularly in terms
of food, health, and landscape conservation. Grasshoppers are
known to be herbivore insects common to grassland ecosystems
worldwide (Lockwood et al. 2000, Branson et al. 2006). Most of
the respondents interviewed (99.7%) thought grasshoppers were
found in all landscapes.

Our study shows that the local people understand that the
abundance of grasshoppers increases with the degradation or
opening of forests: grasshoppers were reported to be rare in
pristine forests and abundant in much degraded forests, which
is consistent with Badenhausser’s (2012) conclusion that abun-
dance increases with environmental degradation. According to
Latchininsky (1996), in the ex-USSR, some forest Orthopteran
species (especially Tetrix tartara subacute Bey-Biento, 1951, Acrida
oxycephala (Pallas, 1771), Duroniella gracilis Uvarov, 1926, Duroni-
ella kalmyka (Adelung, 1906), and Mesasippus kozhevnikovi iliensis
Mistshenko, 1951) become rare after forest degradation; this au-
thor noted an increase in grassland species in the degraded areas,
especially of Sphingonotus maculatus Uvarov, 1925, Sphingonotus
halocnemi Uvarov, 1925, Sphingonotus satrapes Saussure 1884, and

Sphingoderus carinatus (Saussure, 1888). Hao et al. (2015) sug-
gested that, apart from steppes and deserts, the abundance of
grasshoppers was almost the same in other ecosystems. Unlike
our work, Joshi et al. (1999) reported that in India, species diver-
sity and richness were higher in less disturbed sites, followed by
replanting environments and severely disturbed environments.
These differences show that the behavior of grasshoppers related
to the opening of the environment depends on the eco-climatic
zones and the structure of the vegetation. The changes to ecosys-
tems strongly affect grasshoppers’ behavior, as grasshoppers use
plants as both food and habitat (Latchininsky et al. 2011, Ouma-
rou Ngoute et al. 2020). The challenge is to predict the potential
responses of the grasshoppers, in a given ecosystem, to global
environmental change.

The respondents said grasshoppers were present in all climatic
seasons, but more abundant during the dry seasons. Kijazi et al.
(2013) claimed that indigenous peoples in Nigeria used insect
abundance and movement to predict the onset of the dry season,
and Joshua and Jiirgen (2013) reported that the appearance of the
bushcricket Ruspolia baileyi Otte, 1997 is known to indicate the dry
season in western Uganda. Poubom et al. (2005) and Oladele et
al. (2014) recorded the abundant activity of Z. variegatus during
the dry seasons in Cameroon and Nigeria.

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPTERA RESEARCH 2021, 30(2)

126

In general, respondents recognized grasshoppers as being both
useful and harmful. They reported that all species consume crops,
but only Z. variegatus was recognized as a pest with economic im-
pact. According to Poubom et al. (2005), the majority of farmers
in Cameroon consider insects to be pests, and after the green mite
Mononychellus tanajoa (Bondar, 1938), it is the stinky grasshopper
Z. variegatus that is responsible for most of the damage observed
on crop leaves, especially during the dry seasons. The farmers in-
the study said that Z. variegatus is a polyphagous pest and that its
damage has increased over the past 10 years as forest destruction
has increased (Poubom et al. 2005). Oladele et al. (2014) found
that in Nigeria, grasshoppers were reported as the main pest fol-
lowed by beetles and butterflies; the grasshopper Z. variegatus is
known to be polyphagous in this area and can devastate fields
of vegetables during the dry season. In the same country, Okun-
lola and Ofuya (2010) reported that Z. variegatus is the third most
frequent crop pest after Dysdercus superstitiosus (Fabricius, 1775)
(Hemiptera) and Sylepta derogata (Fabricius, 1775) (Lepidoptera).

Our data reveal that the villagers felt that insecticides were the
most effective method to control pest grasshoppers, but because of
the high cost of chemical insecticides, most farmers used weeding
and picking by hand; biological and ecological methods were not
mentioned. Worldwide, most locust and grasshopper management
programs still rely on chemical pesticides (Zhang et al. 2019). Sug-
gested products, pros and cons, and doses are regularly made pub-
licly available by the FAO Pesticide Referee Group (FAO 2014). In
recent years, a very remarkable advance has been the use of bio-
pesticides, prepared with the fungus Metarhizium acridum, as impor-
tant components of management programs and with good efficacy
(Zhang et al. 2019). However, in our study, traditional methods of
grasshopper control were the most used, which is consistent with the
results of Joshua and Jiirgen (2013), who reported that the majority
of African farmers still depended on indigenous pest management
approaches. In Nigeria, according to Oladele et al. (2014), 76.7%
of farmers use cultural or traditional methods due to the unavail-
ability and high cost of chemical insecticides. In the same country,
Okunlola and Ofuya (2010) found that 76% of farmers were aware
of indigenous methods for the control of vegetable pests. Our study
shows that the most-used traditional methods were spraying smoke
and spreading ash and litter on crops. Respondents reported that
smoke can be up to 75-100% effective in repelling grasshoppers,
but the control of Z. variegatus comes down to hand picking and
human consumption. Poubom et al. (2005) reported that in most
regions of Cameroon, the traditional methods of grasshopper con-
trol were manual collection or capture of edible species that provide
additional food for families. Some local people in southern Cam-
eroon collect grasshopper species (mainly Z. variegatus) as a food
source for poultry. Page (1978) recommends plowing to control Z.
variegatus. When females have laid their eggs in clumps in the soil,
plowing brings the eggs to the surface and causes them to dry out. If
this practice was adopted by all farmers, populations of Z. variegatus
may be greatly reduced and damage minimized (Modder 1994). In
Uganda, the natives use extracts of natural plants to control crop
pests, specifically Capsicum frutescens L., 1753, Tagetes spp., Nicotia-
na tabacum L. 1753, Cypressus spp., Tephrosia vogelii Hook.f., 1849,
Azadirachta indica A.Juss., 1830, Musa spp., Moringa oleifera Lam.,
1785, Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.) A.Gray, 1883, Lantana camara
L., 1753, Phytolacca dodecandra UHer., Vernonia amygdalina Delile,
Aloe spp., Eucalyptus spp., Cannabis sativa L., 1753, Coffea sp., and
Carica papaya L., 1753 (Joshua and Jiirgen 2013). Extracts with in-
secticidal properties come from the roots, stems, leaves, or flowers
of these plants; they have a low spectrum of action, are easily usable,

C. OUMAROU NGOUTE, D. HUNTER AND M. LECOQ

and have few residues capable of accumulating in animal or plant
tissues. However, many farmers have reported that some botanical
formulations take a long time to prepare and are not easy to apply,
especially on a large scale (Mugisha-Kamatenesi et al. 2008).

Most of the respondents (85.9%) in our study said grasshoppers
are used as food in addition to Tettigonidae and Gryllidae, and the
grasshopper species consumed by the local people are Z. variegatus
and O. spissus. Orthoptera species are used as food in many parts of
the world, such as Australia, India, South America, and Africa (van
Huis 2003, Srivastava et al. 2009, Mitsuhashi 2016, Niassy et al.
2016, Jongema 2017, Tchibozo and Lecog 2017). Gullan and Cran-
ston (2010) reported that most of the edible insects used worldwide
come from a relatively small number of orders, including crickets,
grasshoppers, and locusts. According to Riggi et al. (2013), Cole-
optera are the most commonly consumed, and Orthoptera are the
second group of insects consumed in Africa, specifically grasshop-
pers such as Hieroglyphus africanus Uvarov, 1922, Acanthacris ruficor-
nis citrina (Serville, 1838), Ornithacris cavroisi (Finot, 1907), locusts
[Locusta migratoria (Linnaeus, 1758)], and crickets [Brachytrupes
membranaceus (Drury, 1773)| which have a nutritional quality su-
perior or similar to that of the meat products currently available.
Insects as food are not inferior to other sources of protein, such as
other animals or plants (Xiaoming et al. 2010). A recent analysis of
the nutrient composition of Z. variegatus from Nigeria showed high
values of protein, crude lipids, and minerals (potassium, sodium,
and calcium) (Anaduaka et al. 2021). Our study shows that Z. var-
iegatus and O. spissus are also sold in the markets. Bronwyn (2013)
noted that grasshoppers are eaten and sold in the markets of Dima-
pur and Kohima, India: the legs, wings, and viscera are removed,
and they are fried in oil with ingredients such as onion, bamboo,
ginger, and salt. Pemberton and Yamasaki (1995) reported that
grasshoppers appear on restaurant menus in Japan.

Zonocerus variegatus, Atractomorpha acutipennis, and Oxycatan-
tops spissus are used by local people to treat spleen pain, burns,
tuberculosis, angina, malaria, stomachaches, and anal tingling.
Grasshoppers are considered to have therapeutic value in Austra-
lia, India, South America, and Africa (Srivastava et al. 2009). De
Conconi and Moreno (1988) reported that most of the insects
(such as grasshoppers and locusts) sold in the markets in Mexico
are also used as diuretics, analgesics, anesthetics, or aphrodisiacs.
The species Sphenarium spp., Taeniopoda sp., and Melanoplus sp.
are used to treat kidney diseases and intestinal disorders (the hind
legs of grasshoppers are crushed and mixed with water, then drunk
as a powerful diuretic). Locusts of the species Schistocerca spp. are
helpful in cases of postnatal anemia and in pulmonary diseases,
asthma, and chronic cough. The legs of the crickets Acheta do-
mesticus (Linnaeus, 1758) are crushed and mixed with water and
drunk as a diuretic for dropsy edema (De Conconi and Moreno
1988). Lawal and Banjo (2007) reported that the grasshoppers
Z. variegatus and Zabalius lineolatus (Stal, 1873) are used to treat
childhood illness and injuries in Nigeria. Some species are in-
volved in the magic and mystical treatment of diseases in Mexico:
Brachytrypes sp. crickets are used to treat bleeding in women before
delivery (De Conconi and Moreno 1988).

All these examples demonstrate that, as in many regions of the
world, diverse use is made of grasshoppers in southern Cameroon,
whether as a food source, remedies, or as indicators of environ-
mental change. In addition, numerous local solutions (of vary-
ing effectiveness) are used to control pest species. It is important
to continue to identify, understand, and develop this traditional
knowledge as a possible source or at least partial solution to some
of the environmental changes currently underway.

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPTERA RESEARCH 2021, 30(2)

C. OUMAROU NGOUTE, D. HUNTER AND M. LECOQ

Acknowledgements

This work was partially made possible by a Rufford Small
Grant (ID application: 19665-1) from the Rufford Foundation: we
did the surveys during our sensitizations against deforestation in
the divisions of Mefou and Akono, Valley of Ntem, and Mvilla. We
warmly thank all the inhabitants interviewed during our field trips
for their cooperation. We also thank Mrs Guy Raoul Saroua, Ngan,
Joseph Romuald Fotso Njonkam, Martin Lutter Nkoulou, Annette
Friede Hell, and Maurice Nkoulou, who helped in the survey in
the divisions of Valley of Ntem, Nyong and Kelle, Mbam and In-
oubou, High Nyong, and Sanaga Maritime.

References

Akinnagbe OM, Irohibe JJ (2014) Agricultural Adaptation Strategies to Cli-
mate Change Impacts in Africa: A Review. Bangladesh Journal of Agricul-
tural Research 39: 407-418. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjar.v39i3.21984

Anaduaka EG, Uchendu NO, Osuji DO, Ene LN, Amoke OP (2021). Nutri-
tional compositions of two edible insects: Oryctes rhinoceros larva and
Zonocerus variegatus. Heliyon 7: e06531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
heliyon.2021.e06531

Andres C, Bhullar GS (2016) Sustainable Intensification of Tropical Agro-
Ecosystems: Need and Potentials. Frontiers of Environmental Science
4: 1-5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2016.00005

Badenhausser I (2012) Estimation d’Abondance des Criquets (Orthoptera:
Acrididae) dans les Ecosystémes Prairiaux. Annales de la Société En-
tomologique de France 48: 397-406. https://doi.org/10.1080/00379
271.2012.10697787

Banjo AD, Lawal OA, Songonuga EA (2006) The Nutritional Value of Four-
teen Species of Edible Insects in Southwestern Nigeria. African Jour-
nal of Biotechnology 5: 298-301.

Bock CE, Bock JH, Grant MC (1992) Effects of Bird Predation on Grass-
hopper Densities in an Arizona Grassland. Ecological Society of
America 73: 1706-1717. https://doi.org/10.2307/1940022

Branson DH, Joern A, Sword GA (2006) Sustainable Management of Insect
Herbivores in Grassland Ecosystems: New Perspectives in Grasshop-
per Control. BioScience 56: 743-755. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-
3568(2006)56[743:SMOIHI]2.0.CO;2

Bronwyn AE (2013) Culturally and Economically Significant Insects in the
Blouberg Region, Limpopo Province, South Africa. Thesis for the De-
gree of Doctorate of Philosophy in Zoology, University of Limpopo,
South Africa. http://ul.netd.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10386/1002/
Egan_ba_2013.pdf?sequence=1

Chambers R (1981) Rapid rural appraisal: Rationale and repertoire. Pub-
lic Administration and Development Journal 1: 95-106. https://doi.
org/10.1002/pad.4230010202

Chang’a LB, Yanda PZ, Ngana J (2010) Indigenous Knowledge in Seasonal
Rainfall Prediction in Tanzania: A Case of South-Western Highland
of Tanzania. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning 3: 66-72.

De Conconi JR, Moreno JMP (1988) The Utilization of Insects in the Empiri-
cal Medicine of Ancient Mexicans. Journal of Ethnobiology 8: 195-202.

Emeagwali G, Sefa Dei GJ (2014) African Indigenous Knowledge and the
Disciplines. Anti-colonial Educational Perspectives for Transforma-
tive Change, Sense Publishers, AW Rotterdam, Netherlands, 36 pp.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-770-4

FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations] (2014)
Evaluation of field trials data on the efficacy and selectivity of insec-
ticides on locusts and grasshoppers: report to FAO by the Pesticide
Referee Group. Food Agric. Org UN., Rome, 11 pp. http://www.fao.
org/ag/locusts/common/ecg/2241/en/PRG10e.pdf

Gullan PJ, Cranston PS (2010) The Insects: An Outline of Entomology
(Fourth edn.). Carlton: Blackwell Publishing. Oxford, 584 pp.

Hao S, Wang S, Cease A, Le Kang (2015) Landscape Level Patterns of Grass-
hopper’s Communities in Inner Mongolia: Interactive Effects of Live-
stock and Precipitation Gradient. Journal of Landscape Ecology 30:
1657-1668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0247-8

127

Hammer @, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: Paleontological statistics soft-
ware package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica
4: 1-9. http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm

Iloka NG (2016) Indigenous knowledge for disaster risk reduction: An
African perspective. Jamba: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies 8: a272.
https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v8il.272

Jongema Y (2017) List of edibles insects of the world. Laboratory of Ento-
mology, Wageningen University, the Netherlands, 100 pp. https://www.
wur.nl/upload_mm/8/a/6/Ofdfc700-3929-4a74-8b69-f02fd35a1696_
Worldwide%20list%200f%20edible%20insects%202017.pdf

Joshi PC, Lockwood A, Vashishth N, Singh A (1999) Grasshopper (Or-
thoptera: Acridoidea) Community in a Moist Deciduous For-
est in India. Journal of Orthoptera Research 8: 17-23. https://doi.
org/10.2307/3503420

Joshua SO, Jiirgen K (2013) Indigenous Knowledge of Seasonal Weather
Forecasting: A Case Study in Six Regions of Uganda. Journal of Agricul-
tural Sciences 12: 641-648. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2013.412086

Kearns C (2010) Conservation of Biodiversity. Nature Education Knowl-
edge 3: 1-7.

Kijazi AL, Chang’a LB, Liwenga ET, Kanemba A, Nindi SJ (2013) The use of
indigenous knowledge in weather and climate prediction in Mahenge
and Ismani wards, Tanzania. Journal of Geography and Regional
Planning 6: 274-280. https://doi.org/10.5897/JGRP2013.0386

Latchininsky A (1996) Les Conséquences du desséchement de la Mer d’Aral
sur la situation acridienne dans la région. Sécheresse 7: 109-113.

Latchininsky A, Sword G, Sergeev M, Cigliano MM, Lecog M (2011) Lo-
custs and grasshoppers: Behavior, ecology, and biogeography. Psyche
2011: e578327. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/578327

Lawal A, Banjo AD (2007) Survey for the Usage of Arthropods in Tradi-
tional Medicine in Southwestern of Nigeria. Journal of Entomology
4: 104-112. https://doi.org/10.3923/je.2007.104.112

Lockwood JA, Latchininsky AV, Sergeev MG [Eds] (2000) Grasshoppers
and Grassland Health. Managing Grasshopper Outbreaks without
Risking Environmental Disaster. NATO Science Series 2. Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 221 pp. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-94-011-4337-0

Meutchieye F (2019) Edible insects diversity and their importance in Cam-
eroon. In: Edible Insects. IntechOpen Publishers, 10 pp. https://doi.
org/10.5772/intechopen.88109

Mitsuhashi J (2016) Edible Insects of the World. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
296 pp. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315367927

Modder WW (1994) Control of the variegated grasshopper Zonocerus var-
iegatus (L.) on Cassava. African Crop Science Journal 2: 391-406.

Mugisha-Kamatenesi M, Deng AL, Ogendo JO, Omolo EO, Mihale MJ, Otim
M, Buyungo JP, Bett PK (2008) Indigenous knowledge of field insect
pests and their management around Lake Victoria basin in Uganda.
African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 2: 342-348.

Mwaura P (2008) Indigenous Knowledge in Disaster Management in Af-
rica. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, 118 pp.

Nakashima DJ, Galloway McLean K, Thulstrup HD, Ramos Castillo A,
Rubis JT (2012) Weathering Uncertainty: Traditional Knowledge for
Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation. UNESCO and Darwin
UNUP Paris) "120ypp3

Niassy S, Fiaboe KKM, Affognon HD, Akutse KS, Tanga MC, Ekesi S (2016)
African indigenous knowledge on edible insects to guide research and
policy. Journal of Insects as Food and Feed 2: 161-170. https://doi.
org/10.3920/JIFF2015.0085

Nijkamp P, Vindigni G, Nunes PALD (2008) Economic valuation of bio-
diversity: A comparative study. Ecological Economics 67: 217-231.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.003

Okunlola AI, Ofuya TI (2010) Farmers perception of problems in the cul-
tivation of selected leaf vegetables in South Western Nigeria. Sains
Malaysiana 39: 513-518.

Oladele AO, Babarinde SA, Odewole AF, Aremu PA, Popoola K (2014)
Rural farmers perceptions, knowledge and management of insect
pests of fruit vegetables in Ogbomoso agricultural zone of Nige-
ria. International Letters of Natural Sciences 25: 18-28. https://doi.
org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILNS.25.18

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPTERA RESEARCH 2021, 30(2)

128

Oumarou Ngoute C, Kekeunou S, Lecog M, Nzoko Fiemapong AR, Um
Nyobe PCA, Bilong Bilong CF (2020) Effect of anthropogenic pres-
sure on grasshopper (Orthoptera: Acridomorpha) species diversity in
three forests in southern Cameroon. Journal of Orthoptera Research
29: 25-34. https://doi.org/10.3897/jor.29.33373

Owusu EH (2010) The perceptions of local communities towards the conser-
vation of birds in an important bird area in Ghana. West African Journal
of Applied Ecology 13: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.4314/wajae.v13i1.40575

Page WE (1978) Destruction of eggs as an alternative to chemical control
of the grasshopper pest Zonocerus variegatus (1) (Orthoptera: Pyrgo-
morphidae) in Nigeria. Bulletin of Entomological Research 68: 575-
581. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485300009548

Paul A, Frederich M, Uyttenbroeck R, Hatt S, Malik P, Lebecque S, Hamaid-
ia M, Miazek K, Goffin D, Willems L, Deleu M, Fauconnier M-L, Rich-
el A, De Pauw E, Blecker C, Monty A, Francis F Haubruge E, Danthine
S (2016) Grasshoppers as a food source? A review. AgriculturelsLife
Special Issue 1: 337-352. https://doi.org/10.25518/1780-4507.12974

Pemberton RW, Yamasaki T (1995) Insects: Old food in new Japan. Ameri-
can Entomologist 41: 227-229. https://doi.org/10.1093/ae/41.4.227

Polidoro BA, Dahlquist RM, Castillo LE, Morra MJ, Somarriba E, Bosque-
Pe’rez NA (2008) Pesticide application practices, pest knowledge,
and cost-benefits of plantain production in the Bribri-Cabe‘car Indig-
enous Territories, Costa Rica. Environmental Research 108: 98-106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2008.04.003

Poubom CEN, Awah ET, Tchuanyo M, Tengoua F (2005) Farmers’ Percep-
tions of Cassava Pests and Indigenous Control Methods in Came-
roon. International Journal of Pest Management 51: 157-16. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09670870500131863

Rastogi N (2011) Provisioning Services from Ants: Food and Pharmaceuti-
cals. Asian Myrmecology 4: 103-120.

Rastogi N, Kumar D (2009) Functional Biodiversity and Ecophysiology of
Animals. Current Science 96: 1169-1170.

Riggi L, Veronesi M, Verspoor R, MacFarlane C (2013) Exploring En-
tomophagy in Northern Benin -Practices, Perceptions and Possibili-
ties. Bugs for life Publisher, Cotonou, Benin, 48 pp.

Robinson JB, Herbert D (2001) Integrating Climate Change and Sustain-
able Development. International Journal of Global Environmental 1:
130-149. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGENVI.2001.000974

Santoir C, Bopda A (1995) Atlas Régional Sud-Cameroun. ORSTOM, Paris,
54 pp.

Srivastava SK, Babu N, Pandey H (2009) Traditional Insect Bioprospect-
ing - as Human Food and medicine. Indian Journal of Traditional
Knowledge 8: 485-494.

Sattout EJ, Caligari AAPDS, Talhouk ESN (2008) Perspectives for sustain-
able management of cedar forests in Lebanon: situation analysis and
guidelines. Environment Development Sustainability 10: 107-127.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-006-9041-8

Appendix 1

C. OUMAROU NGOUTE, D. HUNTER AND M. LECOQ

Singh A, Zommers Z [Eds] (2014) Reducing Disaster: Early Warning Systems
For Climate Change. Springer, 375 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
94-017-8598-3

Tadesse T, Haile M, Senay G, Wardlow BD, Knutson CL (2008) The
need for integration of drought monitoring tools for proac-
tive food security management in Sub-Saharan Africa. Natural
Resources Forum 32: 265-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-
8947.2008.00211.x

Tchibozo S, Lecoq M (2017) Edible Orthoptera from Africa: preservation
and promotion of traditional knowledge. Metaleptea 37: 24-29.

Thornton PK, Jones PG, Ericksen PJ, Challinor AJ (2011) Agriculture and
food systems in Sub-Saharan Africa in a 4 degrees C+ world. Philo-
sophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physi-
cal and Engineering Sciences: 117-136. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rsta.2010.0246

Torquebiau E, Manley D, Cowan P (2016) Climate change and ag-
riculture worldwide. Heidelberg: Springer, 373 pp. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-94-017-7462-8

Ulluwishewa R (1993) Indigenous knowledge for sustainable develop-
ment: The case of pest control by traditional paddy farmers in Sri
Lanka. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 3: 51-63. https://doi.
org/10.1300/J064v03n01_05

UN [United Nation] (2019) Global Sustainable Development Report: The

Future is Now - Science for Achieving Sustainable Development.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New

York, 216 pp.

Huis A (2003) Insects as food in sub-Saharan Africa. Insect Sci-

ence and Its Application 23: 163-185. https://doi.org/10.1017/

$1742758400023572

Westphal E, Embrechts J, Mbouemboue P, Mouzong-Boyomo, Westphal-
Stevels JMC (1981) L’agriculture autochtone au Cameroun. Miscel-
laneous papers 20 - Landbouwhogescool, Wageningen, the Nether-
lands, 181 pp. https://edepot.wur.nl/445713

Xiaoming C, Ying E Hong Z, Zhiyong C (2010) Review of the nutritive
value of edible insects. In: Durst PB, Johnson DV, Leslie RN, Shono K
(Eds) Forest insects as food: humans bite back. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations Regional, Office for Asia and the
Pacific, Bangkok.

Zabentungwa TH, Rob S, Thinandavha CM (2020) Nutritional composi-
tion of edible insects consumed in Africa: A systematic review. Nutri-
ents 12: e2786. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12092786

Zhang L, Lecog M, Latchininsky AV, Hunter D (2019) Locust and grasshop-
per management. Annual Review of Entomology 64: 15-34. https://
doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-011118-112500

Zhang ZQ (2011) Animal biodiversity: An outline of higher-level classifica-
tion and survey of taxonomic richness. Zootaxa 3148: 1-237. https://
doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3148.1.1

van

Grasshoppers recognized by local people in the different landscapes; + indicates species recognized as present by villagers.

Sub-Familly Grasshoppers species

Acridinae Chirista compta + +
Gymnobothrus temporalis +
Odontomelus + + +
kamerunensis
Catantopinae Abisares viridipennis +
Catantops stramineus +
Eupropacris coerulea + + +
Gemeneta terrea +
Mazea granulosa +

House Fallow Crop Forest

Divisions
Mbam and Inoubou, Mbam and Kim, Mefou and Akono, Mvilla,
Valley of Ntem, Sanaga Maritime
Mbam and Inoubou, Mefou and Akono, Mvilla, Valley of Ntem
Mbam and Inoubou, Mbam and Kim, Mefou and Akono, Nyong and
Kelle, Mvilla, Valley of Ntem
Mbam and Inoubou
Nyong and Kelle, Mvilla, Valley of Ntem
Mbam and Inoubou, Mbam and Kim, Mefou and Akono, Nyong and
Kelle, Mvilla, Valley of Ntem
Mbam and Kim, Mefou and Akono, Mvilla
Mbam and Kim, Mefou and Akono, Mvilla, Valley of Ntem

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPTERA RESEARCH 2021, 30(2)

C. OUMAROU NGOUTE, D. HUNTER AND M. LECOQ

Sub-Familly Grasshoppers species

129

House Fallow Crop Forest Divisions

Catantopinae Oxycatantops spissus + + Mbam and Inoubou, Mbam and Kim, Mefou and Akono, Nyong and
Kelle, Mvilla, Valley of Ntem, Sanaga Maritime
Pteropera balakoswki + + Mbam and Inoubou, Mefou and Akono, Valley of Ntem
Pteropera mirei + + Mbam and Inoubou, Mefou and Akono, Mvilla
Coptacrinae Cyphocerastis tristis + + + Mbam and Inoubou, Mbam and Kim, High Nyong
Eucoptacra anguliflava + + + + Mbam and Inoubou, Mvilla
Cyrtacantacridinae Acanthacris ruficornis + + Mbam and Kim, Mvilla
Spathosterninae Spathosternum pygmaeum + + Mbam and Inoubou, Mbam and Kim, Mvilla, Valley of Ntem
Oedipodinae Heteropternis thoracica + + + Mbam and Inoubou, Mbam and Kim, Mvilla, Valley of Ntem
Pyrgomorphinae Atractomorpha acutipennis — + + + + Mbam and Inoubou, Mbam and Kim, Mefou and Akono, Nyong and
Kelle, Mvilla, Valley of Ntem, High Nyong, Sanaga Maritime
Dictyophorus karschi + Mvilla, Valley of Ntem, Mbam and Kim
Parapetasia femorata + Mbam and Inoubou, Mbam and Kim, Mefou and Akono, Nyong and
Kelle, Mvilla, Valley of Ntem, High Nyong
Pyrgomorpha vignaudii + + + Mbam and Inoubou, Mbam and Kim, Mvilla, Valley of Ntem, Sanaga
Maritime
Taphronota ferruginea Mefou and Akono, Mvilla, Valley of Ntem
Zonocerus variegatus + + Mbam and Inoubou, Mbam and Kim, Mefou and Akono, Nyong and
Kelle, Mvilla, Valley of Ntem, High Nyong, Sanaga Maritime
Tropidopolinae Afroxyrrhepes obscuripes + Mbam and Inoubou
Appendix 2
Diseases cited by local people as treated using grasshoppers.
Grasshoppers Diseases/cultural uses Preparation Posology Divisions
species
Zonocerus Spleen pain Crush the grasshopper and extract its oil Scarify the patient with spines of _Mbam and Inoubou,
variegatus the grasshopper’s legs and rub oil Mvilla
extracted
Spleen pain Remove head and viscera of the grasshopper, wash Eat in three days Mbam and Inoubou
with boiling water, and cook in cucumber dishes
Spleen pain Crush the grasshopper and mix with water Purge the patient with the solution Valley of Ntem
Scabies and burns Crush the grasshopper and mix with red palm oil Rub on the scabies or burns Valley of Ntem
Belly swollen of Remove head and viscera of the grasshopper, wash Eat once daily until disease Mbam and Inoubou
children with boiling water, fry, and mix with red palm oil regression
Tuberculosis Remove head and viscera of the grasshopper, wash Eat daily until disease regression Mbam and Inoubou
with boiling water, and cook in cucumber dishes
Angina Crush the head and viscera grasshopper and mix with Rub on the throat every day during Mvilla
“the king of grass” Algeratum conizoides illness
Malaria Put the grasshopper on the child so the child is stung High Nyong
by its spines
Burn Burn and crush the grasshopper and mix it with a Rub on the wound Mefou and Akono
little water
Anal itching of children Crush head and viscera of the grasshopper and mix Purge the patient with the solution Nyong and Kelle
of 2 to 3 years old with “the king of grass” Algeratum conizoides
Anal itching of children Sting three times the anus of child with the spines of Nyong and Kelle
of 2 to 3 years grasshopper
Atractomorpha « abobo » disease of the Crush grasshoppers Rub on the fontanelle Valley of Ntem
acutipennis baby’s fontanelle
luck Viewed in the forest bya hunter | Mefou and Akono
reflects a successful hunt
Oxycatantops Burns and painful Remove head and viscera of the grasshopper, wash Eat during the period of Mbam and Inoubou
Spissus menstruation of women — with boiling water, and cook in dishes or cucumber menstruation
sauces
Spleen pain Scarify the child at the hip with the spines of Mvilla
grasshopper’s legs
Charming medium Remove grasshopper viscera and cook it with smoked __Give food only to the person you Mbam and Kim

freshwater fish in cucumber dishes want to charm

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPTERA RESEARCH 2021, 30(2)

130 C. OUMAROU NGOUTE, D. HUNTER AND M. LECOQ

Supplementary material 1

Author: Charly Oumarou Ngoute

Data type: Survey sheet

Explanation note: Grasshoppers Survey sheet. This survey sheet
was used in the villages to collect informations about grass-
hoppers.

Copyright notice: This dataset is made available under the Open
Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/
odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODDbL) is a license
agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify,
and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom
for others, provided that the original source and author(s)
are credited.

Link: https://doi.org/10.3897/jor.30.64266.suppl1

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPTERA RESEARCH 2021, 30(2)