Open Access is an initiative that aims to make scientific research freely available to all. To date our community has made over 100 million downloads. It’s based on principles of collaboration, unobstructed discovery, and, most importantly, scientific progression. As PhD students, we found it difficult to access the research we needed, so we decided to create a new Open Access publisher that levels the playing field for scientists across the world. How? By making research easy to access, and puts the academic needs of the researchers before the business interests of publishers.
We are a community of more than 103,000 authors and editors from 3,291 institutions spanning 160 countries, including Nobel Prize winners and some of the world’s most-cited researchers. Publishing on IntechOpen allows authors to earn citations and find new collaborators, meaning more people see your work not only from your own field of study, but from other related fields too.
To purchase hard copies of this book, please contact the representative in India:
CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd.
www.cbspd.com
|
customercare@cbspd.com
The intensive use of insecticides can result in environmental pollution and adverse effects on human health due to the issue of insecticide residue in the environment. To mitigate this, various control techniques, including cultural, biological, and biotechnical methods, or their combinations, can be employed to manage invasive species. One such biotechnical method that has become popular is the use of pheromones. Pheromone techniques enable early pest detection, population monitoring, mass trapping or annihilation, and mating disruption. To maximize their effectiveness, it is important to determine the exact pheromone component, optimization rate, trap design, and saturation rate for each species. In conclusion, implementing these different pheromone-based strategies is essential for providing effective pest management strategies that take regional variations in pheromones into account.
Faculty of Agriculture Engineering, Adnan Menderes University, Aydın, Turkey
*Address all correspondence to: melisusluy@adu.edu.tr
1. Introduction
Pheromones that represent intraspecific communication of the species are considered environmentally friendly for monitoring and controlling insect species. Chemical communication leads to emitting species-specific signals of individuals which causes reactions in different life forms of the same species. In the past pheromones were described as; chemicals involved in intraspecific communication which describes the term “ectohormone” [1] but the term changed into pheromone in 1959 [2, 3]. Detection of the first sex pheromone of the silkworm moth, Bombyx mori (Lepidoptera: Bombycidae) has revealed the necessity of studies on pheromones [4]. In the last decades, more than 600 species of Lepidopteran pheromones were discovered [5, 6] as a consequence sex pheromone global market size increased to 2.4 billion USD per year in 2019 [7]. After World War II, the usage of broad-spectrum insecticides increased dramatically, leading to intensive usage of chemicals which in turn caused residues on food, development of pest resistance, environmental pollution, and posed risks to the health of humans and other living organisms [8]. In the past decades, there are lots of studies about pheromone biosynthesis, new insect pheromones, their modes of action, and their application in integrated pest management. Integrated pest management approach combined with chemical ecology, insect behavior and interaction between organisms provides exploring the pheromones of pests [9]. Pheromones are successful when the pest population density is low, they provide long-term reduction in pest populations and generally do not affect natural enemies.
Insect sex pheromones comprise different components usually one chemical is primary component and efficient to attract mates [10, 11]. Based on their chemical structure and biosynthetic origin, various types of pheromones exist. Type I pheromones, for instance, are characterized by the presence of acetates, alcohols, and aldehydes, and constitute approximately 75% of all moth sex pheromones that are currently known [12]. Type II pheromones consist of hydrocarbons and epoxide derivatives with carbon atoms [12] and contain about 15% of moth sex pheromones reported. Type III pheromones contain hydrocarbons that involve methyl branches. Type 0 pheromones involve methyl-carbinols and methyl ketones and generally belong to the Eriocraniidae and caddisflies (Tricoptera) [6, 13]. The chemical structure of pheromones comprises of carboxylic acids, hydrocarbons, epoxides, lactones, alcohols, esters, aldehydes, ketones, isoprenoids, and triacyl glycerides [6, 14, 15].
There are different kinds of pheromones in the nature. Releaser pheromones such as alarm pheromones cause sudden changes in the behavior of pests while primer pheromones cause slower and longer physiological changes [16, 17, 18]. In the presence of the menace, the secretion begins between the alert members of the same species. After sex pheromones, the alarm pheromones are the most common pheromone produced by insects. Generally, alarm pheromones of some aphid species involve germacrene A, α-pinene, and sesquiterpene (E)-β-farnesene (EBF) [19, 20]. Alarm pheromones are released by some insects to avoid attack by natural enemies. Avoidance and dispersal behavior can be observed when alarm pheromones are released. But some social insects such as bees and ants may respond aggressively to alarm pheromones [16]. Sex pheromones generally attract males over long distances and very low concentrations of sex pheromones can be detected by sensilla of insects [21]. Studies concerned about sex pheromones consist of Lepidoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, and Blattodea since 2000. Especially Noctuidae, Tortricidae, Plutellidae, Crambidae, Bombycidae, Pyralidae, Lymantriidae, Gelechiidae, Geometridae, Lasiocampidae, Sesiidae, Gracillaridae, Erebidae family from Lepidoptera order, Drosophilidae, Tephritidae, Psychodidae from Diptera order, Pseudococcidae and Miridae from Hemiptera order, Scarabaeidae and Buprestidae from Coleoptera order, Blatteidae from Blattodea order were the most studied ones. EPA gave permission in 1978 for the registration of Gossyplure which was the first registered product used for the management of pink bollworm [22]. Insect sex pheromones generally consist of more than three double bonds, aliphatics of 9–18 carbons, and end with an acetate, aldehyde, or alcohol [20]. The weather conditions, time, and host plant availability are important for the release of sex pheromones [17]. Aggregation pheromones provide to generate groups and mating [23] and some species of bark beetles (Scoliytidae: Coleoptera) release aggregation pheromones for mating and feeding [24]. Conversely, anti-aggregation pheromones cause dispersal of individuals for both sexes to find optimum space to feed. Oviposition-deterring pheromones warn insect species to avoid egg-laying on hosts such as females of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) Ceratitis capitata release oviposition determining fruit making pheromone after egg-laying [25]. Trail pheromones provide insects to find nest sites and to mark feeding for social insects such as termites and ants [18]. Home recognition pheromones are observed in social insect colonies. Queens of social insects release “Queens pheromones” to attract workers. Queens benefit for her care and protection while workers gain information about their queen [20]. There are also recruitment pheromones and royal pheromones. Recruitment pheromones lead to leave the nest and migrate to work. Terrestrial ants use recruitment pheromones to follow the trial. Royal pheromones provide termites to find the queen and attract them to follow the trial [20].
Pheromones and pheromones plus plant volatiles and pests respond to those molecules and is gaining importance [26]. The effectiveness of pheromones can be enhanced by plant volatiles (Table 1). In one of the experiments it was mentioned that traps baited with pheromones and host plant, volatiles captured more adults than traps pheromone alone [28]. Aggregation of pheromone ferrugineol with plant volatiles was more effective for the control of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) [29]. Green leaf volatiles (GLV) are six carbon atom groups and consist of alcohols, aldehydes, and acetones. They can improve or inhibit the response of insects to their pheromones. For instance, boll weevil aggregation pheromone with GLV-2-hexenol led to more weevils caught in traps in contrast to pheromone alone [34, 35]. Another example of boll weevil traps comprised of aggregation pheromone of Anthonomus grandis with green leaf volatiles from cotton plants [30]. Fruit volatile benzaldehyde with plum curculio aggregation pheromone increased the trap captures [31, 36]. Similarly, grandisoic acid which is an aggregation pheromone used for monitoring and control of the plum curculio in apple trees [37]. Deciduous plants volatile with pheromones of corn earworm and the codling moth were also more effective than pheromone alone [27]. But GLVs with pheromones interrupted pheromone responses in the Tomicus piniperda, Conophthorus resinosae, Dendroctonus pseudotsugae, and Ips typographus [34]. (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate is an important chemical to locate the diamondback moth P. xylostella’s host [38]. This compound coupled with the synthetic pheromone resulted the highest response of moths. Antennal receptors show that some olfactory receptor neurons (ORNs) responded to GLVs besides GLV’s synergized responses of ORN [39]. Under aphid attack, plants release some compounds which trigger the chemical defense mechanism. These compound attract the aphid predators. In the presence of methyl salicylate the colonization of the aphids was reduced. Methyl salicylate also inhibits males of the Pieris napi from mating.
There are some important properties for trap design. These are height, size, shape, alignment at right angles to the wind, position, and timing of the trap [20]. Some weevils preferred light red color for traps. For efficient usage, traps should be at an exact height such as 50 cm above from the ground [40]. Figure 1 illustrates four different pheromone baited traps for monitoring Pea Leaf Weevil. Pheromone-baited pitfall and ramp traps caught more adults than delta and ground traps. In both pea and lentils, trap location, type of dispenser, dose, and purity of the pheromone, and environmental conditions will affect the trap catches achievements [41].
Figure 1.
Different trap types for Sitona lineatus: (a) Delta Trap, (b) Ground Trap, (c) Ramp Trap, (d) Pitfall Trap [41].
In one of the monitoring experiments, the funnel traps were more attractive when compared to adhesive traps for the monitoring of Palpita unionalis Hubner (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and also more males were caught in the edge instead of the interior part of the forest [42]. Identification, count and removal were easier than adhesive traps and also contamination was less in the funnel trap. It is also mentioned that traps for Cydia pomonella located along the border of the orchards were more successful when compared to traps located 30–50 m inside [43]. Location of the trap such as in apple trees traps positioned at 4 m captured more Cydia pomonella L. (Lepidopetra: Tortricidae) male compared to those positioned 2 m [44]. Also in one of the experiments traps placed on the top of the tree captured more Choristoneura rosaceana Harris (Lepidopetra: Tortricidae) than traps placed in the middle and at the end [45]. One of the experiment groups tested three categories of traps that are bucket style trap, sticky trap, and local trap with three pheromone lure type, they are four-component lure (4C), two-component lure, and three-component lure (3C) for the management of Spodoptera frugiperda. In conclusion, bucket-style trap with 3C lures attracted more fall armyworm moths than other combinations with trap and lures. Another experiment concerning trap design for catching Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera Cerambycidae) [46]. For monitoring intercept panel traps hung on poplar trees, screen sleeve traps wrapped around poplar trunks, intercept panel traps hung on bamboo poles 20 m away from host trees were used. Male produced pheromone alone and baited with a mixture of (−)-linalool, (Z)-3-hexen-1-ol, linalool oxide, trans-caryophyllene, and trans-pinocarveol. Screen sleeve traps baited with a combination of (−)-linalool and the pheromone caught the highest number of beetles while bamboo poles hung on poplar trees caught the lowest number [47]. It is also mentioned that optimization of pheromone lures and the trap design for monitoring Dioryctria abietivorella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) is essential for the management of this pest [48]. Three types of sticky trap (White diamond trap, green delta trap, white wing trap) and a green bucket type trap were compared and the most successful trap was found diamond trap while the least males bucket-style bucket style white trap. There are two types of pheromone application methods. One of them is using pheromones directly which includes mass trapping and area-wide dissemination applications. Area-wide dissemination includes mating disruption, attract & kill, and push & pull strategy. The other one is using pheromones indirectly includes monitoring and detecting the spraying time strategy.
4. Insect pheromones with different application techniques
4.1 Population monitoring
This management technique is responsible for maintaining various aspects such as species detection, controlling treatment time, targeting pest dispersion, early warning, and population density and fluctuation, based on the specific needs of the situation. [49, 50]. At the same time, biodiversity hotspots can be identified and species-specific pests can be monitored without risks to non-target organisms with this management strategy [51]. Synthetically derived pheromone was formula into the dispenser and trap to attract the pests. There are different kinds of pheromone dispensers for monitoring insects population such as plastic laminates, twist ties, wax formulations, polyethylene vials, rubber septa, hollow fibers, and impregnated ropes. The benefits of pheromone-based monitoring include affordability, specificity to certain species, and user-friendliness. However, the success of the process also depends on crucial factors such as the rate of pheromone release, the trap’s design, its color, and the strategic placement of the traps [42, 48, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59]. In the population monitoring technique, to monitor Conotrachelus nenuphar (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) apple trees were baited with grandisonic acid (aggregation pheromone) and benzaldehyde (synthetic fruit volatile) to attract curculio adults. Sex pheromones produced by females are used for the monitoring of Lymantria dispar L. (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) [60], Heliothis spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) populations [61] and Codling moth [62]. Aggregation pheromones usually secreted from males and attract both sexes of pest to mate and feed. They are used to monitor the boll weevil and plum curculio [63, 64, 65, 66]. Some of the pheromone compounds, their hosts, and invasive species were given in Table 2. But these pheromone compounds should be determined according to the climate conditions, region-specific host plant species, and pest species. The number of males in different traps will give you idea to establish the treatment time. Sex pheromones are useful to determine the exact management time and this will help to reduce the cost of the management strategies. The knowledge about pest and geographical distribution will improve the success of catches. Pheromone traps are useful to monitor for mostly Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, and Diptera Family. Climate changes, moth age, moth behavior, moonlight, pheromone release rate, crop cover, crop phenology effects performance of the monitoring strategy [70, 71, 72].
The aim of mass trapping tactic is to eliminate males or females with semi chemicals such as host volatiles, aggregation, and sex pheromones from the target pest population to prevent population growth. Trap design, population level, biology of the pest, density, and immigration can change the success of the application. For example, regarding biology of the target pests, mass trapping is more effective when the pest is univoltine, monogamous, and monophagous instead of multivoltine, polygamous, and polyphagous species [73]. The economic viability of mass trapping as a control measure is determined by the composition of pheromones and the expenses incurred in their production. For instance, Melanotus communis Gyllenhal (Coleoptera: Elateridae) employs a solitary chemical, 3-tetradecanyl acetate, which influences the cost of traps and the manual labor required, ultimately affecting its competitiveness in the farming industry. In banana crops, the technique of mass trapping was employed to control two types of weevils, such as Cosmopolitus sardidus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and Metamosius hemipterus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), using distinct methods. The former was captured using a pitfall trap baited with a pheromone, while the latter was caught with a gallon trap baited with sugarcane and a pheromone. In plots, corn damage diminished by 61–64% during the experiment. Banana bunch weight increased 23% compared to control plots after 12 months of trapping. Trapping for C. sordidus over 200 hectares reduced corn damage up to 62–86%. Insecticide control measures resulted in about 20–30% corn damage while the use of pheromone trapping to manage C. sardidus lowered corn damage to 10% [74]. Optimization of the lures and traps [73], operational costs provide to determine the most suitable method [75, 76] but, inadequate number of traps, polygamous nature of codling moths leads to inadequate control of pests [73]. Surface lubricants [77, 78], surface conditioners (Fluon), insecticides, water, or other physical structures, increase the number of pests collected in traps [18, 78]. Lures that attract both male and female [79] by using one trap to collect different pests will improve the success of mass trapping [29].
Chinese first mass trapping test using rubber septa containing pheromones of Grapholita molesta was found successful. They observed that female mating rates were diminished 74% and 83% in treated orchards compared to control and fruit infestation rates per fruit reduced by 50–70% and thus reduce 50% reduction in cost of insecticide application. In China, a research group found that pheromone compounds identified for Paranthrene tabaniformis in the United States was not effective in the field of China. It was due to the Chinese strain of pheromones consist of compounds in different ratios when compared to United States strain [80]. The field trapping experiments were carried out by various types of trapping systems and different dosages of pheromone lures. At the end, mass trapping system resulted in a significant reduction of this pest with female mating rates decreased by 43–79% and the total pest population reduced by around 57–95%. The use of mass trapping technique was experimented on the overwintering generation of C. suppressalis on rice plants. The results showed a significant decrease of 61% in egg laying and a 57% decrease in rice plant infestation in the treated field, as compared to the field treated with pesticides. [81]. Experiments about some of the pests their host and region was given in Table 3.
Aggregation pheromones of predators can be used for mass trapping such as aggregation pheromones of Coccinella septempunctata L. (Coleoptera) can be used for the management of aphids [84]. Recently this mass trapping tactic is successful for the management of the Japanese beetle, Popillia japonica Newman (Coleoptera: Scarabaidae) [85].
4.3 Attract and kill
Attract and kill method used for capturing and killing the pests. Both field crop and stored product pests are controlling with this method [20]. The attractive method shares similarities with mass trapping, but its effectiveness extends to a broader area and its killing impact is not limited to a single trap [86]. When pest density and immigration rate is low, attract and kill method is working well similar to mass trapping method [73, 87, 88]. For some of the Lepidoptrean pests, attract and kill method is better when compared to mating disruption because attract and kill method does not allow males to recover or mate [89]. In the management strategy Carpophilus spp. aggregation pheromone was incorporated with ripening fruit and insecticide [90]. A. grandis that is a main pest of cotton in the USA and males produce aggregation pheromone grandlure [91]. This aggregation pheromone and control tubes provided strong reduction in pest population [66, 92]. Musca domestica are attracted by muscalure used with co-attractants in attract and kill approaches [93, 94]. In Switzerland 0.16% pheromone and 6% permethrin were used to control codling moth as part of the attract and kill method. Attract and kill method have been effective for Bactrocera dorsalis, Bactrocera cucurbitacea and C. capitata for 50 years [95]. Furthermore there are lots of studies about this attract and kill method (Table 4).
Mating disruption prevents pests to find their mates and hinders their reproduction of them [89, 101, 102, 103, 104]. There are four mechanisms that should take into consideration, one of them is semi chemicals leads to false trail by attracting males away from the females while the other mechanism is camouflage. The presence of semi chemicals pervades the environment, hindering the ability of males to locate females and thereby disrupting the mating process between male and female. Sensory desensitization by overexpressed semi chemicals also leads to hinder males to find females. The last mechanism leads to the emigration of males due to the excess pheromone release. Male cannot find females for mating [20, 105, 106]. Application rate, dispenser design, dispenser height, and trap density are important components for the success of the management technique. There are some important factors that should be considered due to several mating disruption dispensers and formulations. Passive dispensers are leading the way in mating disruption programs due to their ease of application and cost-effectiveness compared to other options available. But they release pheromones continuously. Time of the day and pest flight activity time should be considered. Aerosol dispensers can release pheromones at the exact time, and the amount of pheromones released per unit can be arranged. Aerosol delivery system is faster and cheaper than passive dispensers and never be affected by environmental degradation. Aerosol dispensers target multiple pest species and modern digital electronic technologies support this technique. But wind can affect the efficiency of aerosols and this technique is more effective when applied for large areas [104]. In 1953 China, C. pomonella pheromone lures were placed in apple orchards. After 2 years, the mating rates of female moths reduced by 55–75% and the infestation rate also decreased by 35–77%. This was the first study using mating disruption in China [107, 108].
This technique is environmentally benign, does not affect non-target organisms, and is approved for organic production system [18]. Mating disruption is a successful management strategy for L. dispar [109], Cydia pomonella [110], Lobesia botrana [111], Grapholita molesta [112], Ephestia cautella, Ephestia kuehniella, Plodia interpunctella [113], Cossus insularis [114], Grapholita molesta, Keiferia lycopersicella, Pectinophora gossypiella, Platynota stultana [11, 35, 115], Tuta absoluta [116], Plodia interpunctella (Wjayaratne), Chilo suppressalis [117], Cydia fagiglandana and C. splendana [118]. There are also non-lepidopteran pests Anomala orientalis, Planococcus ficus [119], and Prionus californicus that are affected by mating disruption [120, 121] (Table 5).
Population density is important for the success of this management technique. High density of the population is difficult to control [102, 124, 125, 126, 127]. In one of the studies Borchert and Walgenbach (2000) mentioned that mating disruption was effective in low-density populations of the Platynota idaeusalis [128]. It is also reported that mating disruption application with pesticides or alone did not control Cydia pomonella in high-density population [126]. Attractive plant-derived kairomones with sex-releasing pheromones increased the effectiveness of mating disruption technique [129, 130, 131, 132]. Other successful mating disruption trials in low density have been experimented for Lymantria dispar [35, 133, 134] and Cydia splendana [35, 135]. Especially landscapes such as residential areas, parks, commercial sites, with low density of pest, mating disruption technique are effective. Mating disruption technique was not found effective when males and females were close to each other in space and time [133]. The amount of pheromone lures is also important to increase moth captures. For example, it is observed that the trapping of codling moth males increased when 10–20 mg pheromone was baited [9] or by position traps in the upper canopy [11, 35]. Exposure to a high concentration of pheromone blend lead to generating insensitive males [110] and immigration have an adverse impact on the success of mating disruption [102].
Numerous methods are utilized in mating disruption to dispense pheromones. Examples include microencapsulation, hand-applied dispensers, polymer spirals, and ropes, spray application similar to insecticides, as well as hollow fibers and twist-tie ropes. New devices which have large polymer bags loaded with large amounts of pheromones are used instead of batteries and other puffers. Pheromone release rate, different dispenser types, dispenser placement, or population density will affect the control of pests. Nevertheless, mating disruption is an excellent technique for integrated pest management programs.
In another experiment, mating disruption technique was used to control Tuta absoluta. To assess the efficacy of pheromone lures, six fields were monitored, with three fields treated with pheromones and three fields left as control. The number of male insects detected in traps per week was significantly lower in pheromone-treated fields compared to the control groups in both 2018 and 2019. Specifically, the mean number of males detected per week was 120 ± 16 and 69 ± 15 in the pheromone-treated fields, while it was 299 ± 16 and 230 ± 15 in the control groups, respectively. Moreover, the percentage of infestation rate was significantly lower in pheromone-treated fields than in control fields in both years. Specifically, the mean infestation rate was 4 ± 0.56% and 1 ± 0.52% in the pheromone-treated fields, while it was 11 ± 0.56% and 7 ± 0.52% in the control fields in 2018 and 2019, respectively [116].
In Southeast Germany, Ecoflex fibers have been experimented with in mating disruption trials for the management of Lobesia botrana [136]. Later electrospun mesofibers were became popular with their biodegradable property and also harmless to non-target organisms [137]. Nowadays, Isonet L TT was tried for 3 years in Italy and found to be successful for the control of the L. botrana during the whole season [138].
4.5 Push-pull strategies
Push-pull strategy is first coined by Pyke and coworkers. Repellent and stimuli were used for the management of Helicoverpa species in cotton [139]. Currently, this tactic is also called a “stimulo-deterrent diversion tactic.” There are two types of push-pull strategies, one of them is intercropping with repulsive non-crop plants with attractive trap crop and the other one is semi chemical repellents with attractive pheromone traps. Repellents cause pests to avoid the crop (push) and attracting pests to pheromone traps that remove pests before they find mates or hosts (pull). Insect biology, chemical ecology, and interaction between host plants and natural enemies should be known to apply this strategy [140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145]. Synthetic repellents, host and non-host volatiles, host-derived semi chemicals, antifeedants, oviposition deterrents, and stimulants can be used in these strategies. Traps capture rate depends on (1) trap size and efficiency, (2) traps blends of attractive volatiles, (3) release rates, (4) population density of flying pest insects, and (5) competitive sources of natural attraction. There are some experiments about push and pull strategies for the management of the Lepidoptera family (Helicoverpa armigera, S. frugiperda), Coleoptera family (Sitona lineatus, Leptinotarsa decemlineata, Meligethes aeneus, Dendroctonus ponderosae), and Diptera family (Drosophila suzukii) which were given in Table 6.
The behavior of pests is manipulated by push-pull tactics by combining stimuli for push components and stimuli for pull components. To deter pests, various methods can be employed such as altering the host’s color, shape, or size. DEET (N, N-diethyl-meta-toluamide) is commonly used for warding off cockroaches and lady beetles. On the other hand, volatiles like citronella and eucalyptus essential oils can be utilized to mask host odors or induce non-host avoidance. Semi chemicals, antifeedants such as azadirachtin, alarm pheromones (generally used for aphids) are also used for push components. Visual stimulants, host volatiles (Baits, HIPVs), kairomones-post volatiles, sex and aggregation pheromones, and also gustatory and oviposition stimulants can be used as stimuli for pull components. In one of the case studies to protect the maize and sorghum crops from stem borer pests. Stem borers are repelled from the crops by planting repellent nonhost intercrops like molasses grass (Melinis minutiflora), silverleaf desmodium (Desmodium uncinatum), or greenleaf desmodium (Desmodium intortum) which set as the “push.” Then trap crops like Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) or Sudan grass (Sorghum vulgare sudanense)—the “pull” component are used. For the management of Helicoverpa in cotton, neem seed extracts are applied to the cotton crop as push strategy and pigeon pea (Cacanus cajan) or maize (Zea mays) is planted as a pull strategy. A pull strategy was employed for managing the Colorado potato beetle, wherein the beetle was attracted to host plant volatiles and a potato trap crop was sprayed with an attractant. Additionally, a push strategy was implemented by applying antifeedant neem between the rows.. Then instead of plant volatile Colorado beetle aggregation pheromone (S)-3,7-dimethyl-2-oxo-6-octene-1,3-diol was applied as pull strategy. S. lineatus pea leaf weevil is a pest of legumes its pheromone 4-methyl-3,5-heptanedione used as pull and commercially available neem antifeedant used as push component of the strategy. Another case study was about the management of pollen beetle M. aeneus which is acted on oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Turnip rape was planted as the pull stimuli and lavender (Lavandula angustifolia) was used as a push component and also alkenyl glucosinolates were used as the main attractant of such pest. Another example for a pull and push strategy is Delia antiqua. It is a main pest of onion. Small unmarketable bulbs were used as a trap crop as a pull strategy, cinnamaldehyde is an oviposition deterrent used as a push stimulus. So significant reduction was observed when using this push pull strategy. For the management of Drosophila suzukii, mass trapping was applied as a pull strategy and 1-octen-3-ol which is an oviposition deterrent was used as a push strategy. In the end high reduction in oviposition of D. Suzukii was observed.
There are lots of advantages of push-pull tactics over traditional pest management methods. This strategy can be used both in juveniles and adult stages of pests. Simple, commercially available, nontoxic, and cheap components can be used as a stimuli. This management technique can increase efficiency of individual push and pull components, antifeedants and oviposition deterrents are used as a push tactic and it do not need to struggle with resistance management. Besides there are some disadvantages such as limited specificity, and there are lots of odor sources for attraction. We should develop the technique by understanding the behavioral and chemical ecology of the host pest, and the development of semi chemical components. People generally choose to use insecticide applications instead of biological control agents. But this strategy is a useful tool for integrated pest management programs reducing pesticide input [151]. Enhancement of monitoring and decision-making systems is crucial, and a comprehensive approach is required to regulate the system [152].
The presence of Nepetalactone, an aphid sex pheromone constituent, and (Z)-Jasmone, a plant volatile, can have an impact on aphid parasitoids. In turn, these parasitoids can offer a natural means of controlling aphid populations. While tricosane and pentacosane lady beetle pheromones provide to push the parasitoids from surrounding areas to the treatment crop. These two lady beetle pheromone components (tricosane and pentacosane) used by the Aphidius ervi which is an aphid parasitoid to escape from seven spotted lady beetle [153].
Another example for push-pull strategy is about bark beetles (Scolytidae). Antiaggregation pheromone 3-methylcyclohex-2-en-1-one and aggregation pheromone (frontalin, seudenol, 1-methylcyclohex-2-enol and ethanol) diminished populations of the D. pseudotsugae [154]. Push-pull strategy is also applied with aggregation and anti-aggregation pheromones for the management of other forest pests that are D. ponderosae, Ips paraconfusus, Dendroctonus frontalis [142]. “Verbenone” is an anti-aggregation pheromone that reduces the attract rates of D. ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) [155, 156, 157, 158, 159]. Trees baited with aggregation pheromone grandisoic acid and fruit volatile benzaldehyde attracted plum curculio adults. It is also mentioned that instead of stand art insecticide application pheromone-baited “trap” trees provided satisfactory suppression of fruit injury [37]. As a result, 93% fewer trees were sprayed with insecticide with this “trap” tree approach [37].
Chemical ecology, geographical variation can change aggregation pheromone components [160]. For instance Australian and the Hawaiian populations of the Rhabdoscelus obscurus Boisduval produce male specific 2-methyl-4-octanol. This compound can enhance the attractiveness of Hawaiian populations only. Australian population (E2)-6-methyl-2-hepten-4-ol (rhynchophorol) combined with 2-methyl-4-octanol to attract the Australian males. This experiment shows that interactions between organisms and their pheromone according to their regions should be studied.
The intensive use of pesticides leads to residue problems on food, resistance of pests, environmental pollution, and health problems. Pheromones can be used safely instead of broad-spectrum insecticides in sustainable management strategies. Pheromones are volatile and do not leave residue behind, species-specific and cost-effective and do not cause toxicity. By using pheromones, male adult number, mating rates can be reduced and also insecticide application time can be detected by monitoring strategy. Nowadays studies are mainly about identification, optimization of pheromone components of region-specific species, and also development of new formulations. Active compounds extracted from insect frass can be used as repellent or deterrent for the conspecifics. Besides new strategy is about odorant receptor genes which allows discovery of compounds that can trigger or block these receptors. Plant-insect interactions also should be studied and enzymes involved in the odorants and pheromones degradation should be observed to interfere the chemical communication of insect. The ultimate change will be to improve the process by employing simulation models. One factor of concern is high cost of the pheromones in comparison to pesticide application. For this reason producers, farmers and scientists should reduce the cost of application of pheromones to affordable threshold. Hence they should target low population density, to release pheromone in exact time of flight, to arrange the pheromone release rate, to develop more efficient formulations regarding the ecological conditions and also they should target to use multiple pheromones to monitor several pest simultaneously. Successful implementation of pheromone based management techniques can diminish economic cost and lighten the ecological footprints as this management technique decreases insecticide usage.
1.Beth A. Neglected hormone. Natural Science. 1932;20:177-183
2.Karlson P, Butenandt A. Pheromones (ectohormones) in insects. Annual Review of Entomology. 1959;4:39-58. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.en.04.010159.000351
3.Karlson P, Lüscher M. “Pheromones” a new term for a class of biologically active substances. Nature (London). 1959;183:55-56. DOI: 10.1038/183055a0
4.Butenandt VA. Uber den sexsual-lockstoff des seidenspinners Bombyx mori. Reindarstellung und Konstitution. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung. Teil B. 1959;14:283
5.Petkevicius K, Löfstedt C, Borodina I. Insect sex pheromone production in yeasts and plants. Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 2020;65:259-267. DOI: 10.1016/j.copbio.2020.07.011
6.Rizvi SAH, George J, Reddy GVP, Zeng X, Guerrero A. Latest developments in insect sex pheromone research and its application in agricultural pest management. Insects. 2021;12(6):484. DOI: 10.3390/insects12060484
7.El-Sayed AM, Ganji S, Gross J, Giesen N, Rid M, Lo PL, et al. Climate change risk to pheromone application in pest management. The Science of Nature. 2021;108:47. DOI: 10.1007/s00114-021-01757-7
8.Turgut C. The contamination with organochlorine pesticides and heavy metals in surface water in Küçük Menderes River in Turkey, 2000-2002. Environment International. 2003;29(1):29-32. DOI: 10.1016/S0160-4120(02)00127-7 PMID: 12605933
9.Gut LJ, Stelinski LL, Thomson DR, Miller JR. Behaviour-modifying chemicals: Prospects and constraints in IPM. In: Koul O, Dhaliwal GS, Cuperus GW, editors. Integrated Pest Management: Potential Constraints and Challenges. New York, NY: CABI; 2004. pp. 73-121. DOI: 10.1079/9780851996868.0073
10.Millar JG, McElfresh JS, Romero C, Vila M, Marí-Mena N, Lopez-Vaamonde C. Identification of the sex pheromone of a protected species, the Spanish moon moth Graellsia isabellae. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 2010;36:923-932. DOI: 10.1007/s10886-010-9831-1
11.Welter SC, Pickel C, Millar J, Cave F, Steenwyk RAV, Dunley J. Pheromone mating disruption offers selective management options for key pests. California Agriculture. 2005;59(1):16-22. DOI: 10.3733/ca.v059n01p16
12.Ando T, Inomata SI, Yamamoto M. Lepidopteran sex pheromones. In: Schulz S, editor. The Chemistry of Pheromones and Other Semiochemicals I, Topics in Current Chemistry. Vol. 239. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer; 2004. pp. 51-96. DOI: 10.1007/b95449
13.Löfstedt C, Wahlberg N, Millar JM. Evolutionary patterns of pheromone diversity in Lepidoptera. In: Allison JD, Cardé RT, editors. Pheromone Communication in Moths: Evolution, Behavior and Application. Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press; 2016. pp. 43-78. DOI: 10.1525/9780520964433-005
14.Yew JY, Chung H. Insect pheromones: An overview of function, form, and discovery. Progress in Lipid Research. 2015;59:88-105. DOI: 10.1016/j.plipres.2015.06.001
15.Naka H, Fujii T. Chemical divergences in the sex pheromone communication systems in moths. In: Ishikawa Y, editor. Insect Sex Pheromone Research and Beyond. Singapore: Springer; 2020. pp. 3-17. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-15-3082-1_1
16.Ginzel MD. Olfactory signals. In: Breed M, Moore J, editors. Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior. Vol. 2. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Ltd.; 2010. pp. 584-588
17.Law J, Regnier F. Pheromones. Annual Review of Biochemistry. 1971;40:533-548. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.bi.40.070171.002533
18.Tewari S, Leskey TC, Nielsen AL, Pinero JC, Rodriguez-Saona CR. Use of pheromones in insect pest management, with special attention to weevil pheromones. In: Abrol DP, editor. Integrated Pest Management. New York, USA: Elseiver; 2007. pp. 141-168. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-398529-3.00010-5
19.Vandermoten S, Mescher MC, Francis F, Haubruge E, Verheggen FJ. Aphid alarm pheromone: An overview of current knowledge on biosynthesis and functions. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 2012;42(3):155-163. DOI: 10.1016/ j.ibmb.2011.11.008Ghany
20.Abd El-Ghany NM. Semiochemicals for controlling insect pests. Journal of Plant Protection Research. 2019;59(1):1-11. DOI: 10.24425/jppr.2019.126036
21.Regnier FE, Law JH. Insect pheromones. Journal of Lipid Research. 1968;9:541-551. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-2275(20)42699-9
22.Weatherston I, Minks AK. Regulation of semiochemicals – global aspects. Integrated Pest Management Reviews. 1995;1(1):1-13. DOI: 10.1007/BF00140330
23.Tinzaara W, Dicke M, van Huis A, Gold CS. Use of infochemicals in pest management with special reference to the banana weevil, Cosmopolites sordidus (Germar) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Insect Science and Its Application. 2002;22:241-261. DOI: 10.1017/S1742758400020877
24.Blomquist GJ, Figueroa-Teran R, Aw M, Song M, Gorzalski A, Abbott NL, et al. Pheromone production in bark beetles. Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. 2010;40:699-712. DOI: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2010.07.013
25.Prokopy R, Ziegler J, Wong T. Deterrence of repeated oviposition by fruit-marking pheromone in Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Chemical Ecology. 1978;4:55-63. DOI: 10.1007/BF00988260
26.Baker TC, Heath JJ. Pheromones—function and use in insect control. In Gilbert L I. Iatro K. Gill SS, editors. Molecular Insect Science. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Elsevier; 2004. p. 407-460. DOI:
27.Light DM, Flath RA, Buttery RG, Zalom FG, Rice RE, Jung EB. Host plant green leaf volatiles synergize the synthetic sex pheromones of the corn ear worm and codling moth (Lepidoptera). Chemoecology. 1993;4:145-152. DOI: 10.1007/BF01256549
28.Borden JH, Pureswaran DS, Lafontaine JP. Synergistic blends of monoterpenes for aggregation pheromones of the mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 2008;101:1266-1275. DOI: 10.1093/jee/101.4.1266
29.Hallett RH, Oehlschlager AC, Borden JH. Pheromone trapping protocols for the Asian palm weevil, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). International Journal of Pest Management. 1999;45:231-237. DOI: 10.1080/096708799227842
30.Dickens J. Green leaf volatiles enhance aggregation pheromone of boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 1989;52:191-203. DOI: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.1989.tb01268.x
31.Piñero JC, Prokopy RJ. Field evaluation of plant odor and pheromonal combinations for attracting plum curculios. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 2003;29:2735-2748. DOI: 10.1023/B: JOEC.0000008017.16911.aa
32.Hoffmann A, Bourgeois T, Munoz A, Anton S, Gevar J, Dacher M, et al. A plant volatile alters the perception of sex pheromone blend ratios in a moth. Journal of Comparative Physiology. 2020;206:553-570. DOI: 10.1007/s00359-020-01420-y
33.Ian E, Kirkerud NH, Galizia CG, Berg BG. Coincidience of pheromone and plant odor leads to sensory plasticity in the heliothine olfactory system. PLoS One. 2017, 2017;12(5):e0175513
34.Aldrich JR, Bartelt RJ, Dickens JC, Knight AL, Light DM, Tumlinson JH. Insect chemical ecology research in the United States Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service. Pest Management Science. 2003;59:777-787. DOI: 10.1002/ps.710
35.Reddy GVP, Guerrero A. New pheromones and inset control strategies. In: Vitamin and Hormones. Vol. 83. Elseiver; 2010. pp. 493-519. DOI: 10.1016/S0083-6729(10)83020-1
36.Piñero JC, Wright SE, Prokopy RJ. Response of plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) to odor-baited traps near woods. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2001;94:1386-1397. DOI: 10.1603/0022-0493-94.6.1386
37.Leskey TC, Pinero JC, Prokopy RJ. Odor-baited trap trees: A novel management tool for plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 2008;101:1302-1309. DOI: 10.1603/0022-0493(2008)101[1302:ottanm]2.0.co;2
38.Reddy GVP, Guerrero A. Optimum timing of insecticide applications against diamondback moth Plutella xylostella in cole crops using threshold catches in sex pheromone traps. Pest Management Science. 2001;57:90-94. DOI: 10.1002/1526-4998(200101)57:1<90::AID-PS258>3.0.CO;2-N
39.Ochieng SA, Park KC, Baker TC. Host plant volatiles synergize responses of sex pheromone-specific olfactory receptor neurons in male Helicoverpa zea. Journal of Comparative Physiology. A, Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural and Behavioral Physiology. 2002;188:325-333. DOI: 10.1007/s00359-002-0308-8
40.Reddy GVP, Gadi N, Taianao AJ. Efficient sex pheromone trapping: Catching the sweetpotato weeviş, Cylas formicarius. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 2012;38:846-853. DOI: 10.1007/s10886-012-0160-4
41.Reddy GVP, Shrestha G, Miller DA, Oehlschlager AC. Pheromone-trap monitoring system for pea leaf weevil, Sitona lineatus: Effects of trap type, lure type and trap placement within fields. Insects. 2018;9(3):75. DOI: 10.3390/insects9030075
42.Athanassiou C, Kavallieratos N, Mazomenos B. Effect of trap type, trap color, trapping location, and pheromone dispenser on captures of male Palpita unionalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 2004;97:321-329. DOI: 10.1093/jee/97.2.321
43.Knight AL. Influence of within-orchard trap placement on catch of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in sex pheromone–treated orchards. Environmental Entomology. 2007;36(2):425-432. DOI: 10.1093/ee/36.2.425
44.Epstein DL, Stelinski LL, Miller JR, Grieshop MJ, Gut J. Effects of reservoir dispenser height on efficacy of mating disruption of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in apple. Pest Management Science. 2011;67:975-979. DOI: 10.1002/ps.2141
45.Agnello AM, Reissig WH, Spangler SM, Charlton RE, Kain DP. Trap response and fruit damage by obliquebanded leafroller (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in pheromone-treated apple orchards in New York. Environmental Entomology. 1996;25:268-282. DOI: 10.1093/ee/25.2.268
46.Robert L, Jr M, Agboka K, Tounou AK, Koffi D, Agbevohia KA, et al. Comparison of oheromone trap design and lures for Spodoptera frugiperda in Togo and genetic characterization of moths caught. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 2019;167:507-516. DOI: 10.1111/eea.12795
47.Nehme ME, Keena MA, Zhang A, Baker TC, Xu Z, Hoover K. Evaluating the use of male-produced pheromone components and plant volatiles in two trap design to monitor Anoplophora glabripennis. Environmental Entomology. 2010;39(1):169-176. DOI: 10.1603/EN09177
48.Strong WB, Millar JG, Grant GG, Moreira JA, Chong JM, Rudolph C. Optimization of pheromone lure and trap design for monitoring the fir coneworm, Dioryctria abietivorella. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 2008;126:67-77. DOI: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2007.00635.x
49.Nealis VG, Silk P, Turnquist R, Wu J. Baited pheromone traps track changes in populations of western blackheaded budworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). The Canadian Entomologist. 2010;142:458-465. DOI: 10.4039/n10-033
50.Wall C. Principle of monitoring. In: Ridgway RL, Silverstein RM, Inscoe MN, editors. Behavior Modifying Chemicals for Insect Management. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1990. pp. 9-23. DOI: 10.33338/ef.83484
51.Larsson MC. Pheromones and other semiochemicals for monitoring rare and endangered species. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 2016;42:853-868. DOI: 10.1007/s10886-016-0753-4
52.Bergh JC, Leskey TC, Sousa JM, Zhang A. Diel periodicity of emergence and premating reproductive behaviors of adult dogwood borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae). Environmental Entomology. 2006;35:435-442. DOI: 10.1603/0046-225X-35.2.435
53.Diaz-Gomez O, Malo EA, Patino-Arrellano SA, Rojas JC. Pheromone trap for monitoring Copitarsia decolora (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) activity in cruciferous crops in Mexico. Florida Entomologist. 2012;95:602-609. DOI: 10.2307/23268483
54.Hoddle MS, Millar JG, Hoddle CD, Zou Y, JS ME, Lesch SM. Field optimization of the sex pheromone of Stenoma catenifer (Lepidoptera: Elachistidae): Evaluation of lure types, trap height, male flight distances, and number of traps needed per avocado orchard for detection. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 2011;101:145-152. DOI: 10.1017/S0007485310000301
55.Isaacs R, Van Timmeren S. Monitoring and temperature-based prediction of the whitemarked tussock moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) in blueberry. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2009;102:637-645. DOI: 10.1603/029.102.0223
56.Knight AL, Fisher J. Increased catch of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in semiochemical-baited orange plastic delta-shaped traps. Environmental Entomology. 2006;35:1597-1602. DOI: 10.1093/ee/35.6.1597
57.Leskey TC, Wright SE, Short BD, Khrimian A. Development of behaviorally-based monitoring tools for the brown marmorated stink bug (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) in commercial tree fruit orchards. Journal of Entomological Science. 2012;47:76-85. DOI: 10.18474/0749-8004-47.1.76
58.Roubos CR, Liburd OE. Effect of trap color on captures of grape root borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) males and non-target insects. Journal of Agricultural Urban Entomology. 2008;25:99-109. DOI: 10.3954/1523-5475-25.2.99
59.Sanders C. Evaluation of high-capacity, nonsaturating sex-pheromone traps for monitoring population densities of spruce budworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). The Canadian Entomologist. 1986;118:611-619. DOI: 10.4039/Ent118611-7
60.Kolodny-Hirsch DM, Schwalbe CP. Use of disparlure in the management of the gypsy moth. In: Ridgway RL, Silverstein M, Inscoe MN, editors. Behavior-Modifying Chemicals For Insect Management. New York, USA: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1990. pp. 363-385
61.Lopez JD, Shaver TN, Dickerson WA. Population monitoring of Heliothis. spp. using pheromones. In: Ridgway RL, Silverstein RM, Inscoe MN, editors. Behavior-Modifying Chemicals For Insect Management. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1990. pp. 473-496. DOI: 10.33338/ef.83484
62.Knight AL, Light DM. Developing action thresholds for codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) with pear ester and codlemone baited traps in apple orchards treated with sex pheromone mating disruption. The Canadian Entomologist. 2005;137:739-747. DOI: 10.4039/n05-040
63.Kroschel J, Zegarra O. Attract-and-kill: A new strategy for the management of the potato tuber moths Phthorimaea operculella (Zeller) and Symmetrischema tangolias (Gyen) in potato: Laboratory experiments towards optimising pheromone and insecticide concentration. Pest Management Science. 2010;66:490-496. DOI: 10.1002/ps.3483
64.Leskey TC, Wright SE. Monitoring plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), populations in apple and peach orchards in the mid-Atlantic. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2004;97:79-88. DOI: 10.1603/0022-0493-97.1.79
65.Pinero JC, Agnello AM, Tuttle A, Leskey TC, Faubert H, Koehler G, et al. Effectiveness of odor-baited trap trees for plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) monitoring in commercial apple orchards in the northeast. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2011;104:1613-1621. DOI: 10.1603/EC10310
66.Ridgway RL, Inscoe MN, Dickerson WL. Role of the boll weevil pheromone in pest management. In: Ridgway RL, Silverstein RM, Inscoe MN, editors. Behavior-Modifying Chemicals for Insect Management. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1990. pp. 437-471. DOI: 10.33338/ef.83484
67.Hussain A, Hladun S, Vincent M, Wist TJ, Hillier NK, Mori BA. Development of a pheromone monitoring system for the goosefoot groudling moth, Scrobipalpa atriplicella (von Röslerstamm) in quinoa, Chenopodium quinoa (Wildenow). Crop Protection. 2022;165(8):106166. DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2022.106166
68.Boddum T, Skals N, Wiren M, Baur R, Rauscher S, Hillbur Y. Optimisation of the pheromone blend of the swede midge, Contarinia nasturtii, for monitoring. Pest Management Science. 2009;65(8):851-856. DOI: 10.1002/ps.1762
69.Narava R, Kumar DVSR, Jaba J, Kumar PA, Rao GVR, Rao VS, et al. Development of temporal model for forecasting of Helicoverpa armigera (Noctuidae: Lepidopetra) using arima and artificial neural networks. Journal of Insect Science. 2022;22(3):1-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jisesa/ieac019
70.Hartstack AW, Witz JA. Estimating field populations of tobacco budworm moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) from pheromone trap catches. Environmetal Entomology. 1981;10:908-914. DOI: 10.1093/ee/10.6.908
71.Hartstack AW, Witz JA, Buck DR. Moth traps for the tobacco budworm. Journal of Economic Entomology. 1979;72:519-522. DOI: 10.1093/jee/72.4.519
72.Latheef MA, Witz JA, Lopez JD. Relationships among pheromone trap catches of male corn earworm moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), egg numbers, and phenology in corn. The Canadian Entomologist. 1991;123:271-281. DOI: 10.4039/Ent123271-2
73.El-Sayed AM, Suckling DM, Wearing CH, Byers JA. Potential of mass trapping for long-term pest management and eradication of invasive species. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2006;99:1550-1564. DOI: 10.1603/0022-0493-99.5.1550
74.Alpizar D, Fallas M, Oehlschlager AC, Gonzalez LM. Management of Cosmopolites sordidus and Metamasius hemipterus in banana by pheromone-based mass trapping. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 2012;38:245-252. DOI: 10.1007/s10886-012-0091-0
75.Leskey TC, Bergh JC, Walgenbach JF, Zhang A. Evaluation of pheromone-based management strategies for dogwood borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) in commercial apple orchards. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2009;102:1085-1093. DOI: 10.1603/029.102.0329
76.Yamanaka T. Mating disruption or mass trapping? Numerical simulation analysis of a control strategy for lepidopteran pests. Population Ecology. 2007;49:75-86. DOI: 10.1007/s10144-006-0018-0
77.Allison JD, Johnson CW, Meeker JR, Strom BL, Butler SM. Effect of aerosol surface lubricants on the abundance and richness of selected forest insects captured in multiple-funnel and panel traps. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2011;104:1258-1264. DOI: 10.1603/ec11044
78.Graham EE, Poland TM. Efficacy of fluon conditioning for capturing cerambycid beetles in different trap designs and persistence on panel traps over time. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2012;105:395-401. DOI: 10.1603/EC11432
79.Dai J, Deng J, Du J. Development of bisexual attractants for diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) based on sex pheromone and host volatiles. Applied Entomology and Zoology. 2008;43:631-638. DOI: 10.1303/aez.2008.631
80.Solomon JD. Trapping and biology of Podesesia and Paranthrene. In Symposium. Pheromones of the Sesiidae, USDA, SEA, Agric Res Rep NE (Washington). 1979; 6:47-54.
81.Su JW, Zhang GF, Fan WM, Xuan WJ, Sheng CF. The sex pheromone of the rice stem borer, Chilo suppressalis in paddy fields: Sticky trap and lure storage time and lure dosage. Chinese Journal of Rice Science. 2001;15:197-200 (in Chinese)
82.Noeth KP, Verleur PM, Bouwer MC, Crous JW, Roux J, Hurley BP, et al. Mass trapping of Coryphodema tristis (Lepidoptera: Cossidae) using a sex pheromone in Eucallytus nitens compartments in Mpumalanga, South Africa. Journal of Forest Science. 2020;82(3):271-279. DOI: 10520/ejc-soufor-v82-n3-a9
83.Luo Z, Magsi FH, Li Z, Cai X, Bian L, Liu Y, et al. Development and evaluation of sex pheromone mass trapping technology for Ectropis grisescens: A potential integrated pest management strategy. Insects. 2020;11(1):15. DOI: 10.3390/insects11010015
84.Al Abassi S, Birkett MA, Pettersson J, Pickett JA, Woodcock CM. Ladybird beetle odour identified and found to be responsible for attraction between adults. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences: CMLS. 1998;54:876-879. DOI: 10.1007/s000180050215
85.Pinero JC, Dudenhoeffer AP. Mass trapping designs for organic control of the Japanese beetle, Popillia japonica (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Pest Management Science. 2018;74(7):1687-1693. DOI: 10.1002/ps.4862
86.Trematerra P. Pheromone use in integrated pest management of stored products. In: Pimentel D, editor. Encyclopedia of Pest Management. Vol. II. Cornell University Ithaca, NewYork, USA: Taylor and Francis Group; 2002. pp. 507-510. DOI: 10.1081/E-EPM-120003841
87.El-Sayed M, Suckling DM, Byers JA, Jang EB, Wearing CH. Potential of “lure and kill” in long-term pest management and eradication of invasive species. Journal of Economic Entomology 2009;102(3):815-835. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1603/029.102.0301
88.Charmillot PJ, Hofer D, Pasquier D. Attract and kill: A new method for control of the codling moth Cydia pomonella. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 2000;94:211-216. DOI: 10.1046/j.1570-7458.2000.00621.x
89.Suckling DM. Issues affecting the use of pheromones and other semiochemicals in orchards. Crop Protection. 2000;19:677-683. DOI: 10.1016/S0261-2194(00)00090-9
90.Hossain MS, Williams DG, Mansfield C, Bartelt RJ, Callinan L, II’ichev AL. An attract and kill system to control Carpophilus spp. in Australian stone fruit orchards. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 2006;118:11-19
91.Tumlinson JH, Guelder RC, Hardee DD, Thompson AC, Hedin PA, Mınyard JP. Sex pheromones produced by male boll weevil: Isolation, identification and synthesis. Science. 1969;166:1010-1012. DOI: 10.1126/science.166.3908.1010
92.Smith JW. Boll weevil eradication: Area-wide pest management. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 1998;91:239-247. DOI: 10.1093/aesa/91.3.239
93.Butler SM, Gerry AC, Mullens BA. House fly (Diptera: Muscidae) activity near baits containing (Z)-9-tricosene and efficacy of commercial toxic fly baits on a Southern California dairy. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2007;100:1489-1495. DOI: 10.1093/jee/100.4.1489
94.Geden CJ, Szumlas D, Walker TW. Evaluation of commercial and field-expedient baited traps for house flies, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae). Journal of Vector Ecology. 2009;34:99-103. DOI: 10.1111/j.1948-7134.2009.00012.x
95.Witzgall P, Kirsch P, Cork A. Sex pheromones and their impact on pest management. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 2010;36:80-100. DOI: 10.1007/s10886-009-9737-y
96.Butler GD Jr, Las AS. Predaceous insects: Effect of adding permethrin to the sticker used in gossyplure applications. Journal of Economic Entomology. 1983;76:1448-1451
97.Beasley CA, Henneberry TJ. Combining gossyplure and insecticides in pink bollworm control. California Agriculture. 1984;38:22-24
98.Downham MCA, McVeigh LJ, Moawad GM. Field investigation of an attracticide control technique using the sex pheromone of the Egyptian cotton leafworm, Spodoptera littoralis (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research. 1995;85:463-472
99.Trematerra P. The use of sex pheromones to control Ephestia kuehniella Zeller (Mediterranean flour moth) in flour mills by mass trapping and attracticide (lure and kill) methods. In Highley E, Wright EJ, Banks HJ and Champ BR, editors, Proceedings of the 6th Working Conference on Stored product Protection Canberra, Australia, 375-382.
100.Hossain MS, Williams DG, Mansfield C, Bartelt RJ, Callinon L, Il’ichev AL. An attact and kill system to control Carpophilus spp. in Australian stone fruit orchards. Entomologie Experimentalis et Application. 2006;118(1):11-19. DOI: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2006.00354.x
101.Carde RT. Principles of Mating Disruption. New York, NY, USA: Marcel Dekker; 1990
102.Carde RT, Minks AK. Control of moth pests by mating disruption: Successes and constraints. Annual Review of Entomology. 1995;40:559-585. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.en.40.010195.003015
103.Millar JG. Insect pheromones for integrated pest management: Promise versus reality. Redia. 2007;90:51-55
104.Benelli G, Lucchi A, Thomson D, Ioriatti C. Sex pheromone aerosol devices for mating disruption: Challenges for a brighter future. Insects. 2019;10:308. DOI: 10.3390/insects10100308
105.Barclay HJ, Judd GJR. Models for mating disruption by means of pheromone for insect pest control. Researches on Population Ecology. 1995;37(2):239-247. DOI: 10.1007/BF02515826
106.Mafra-Neto A, Fettig CJ, Unson AS, Rodriguez-Saona C, Holdcraft R, Faleiro JR, et al. Chapter 15: Development of specialized pheromone and lure application technologies (SPLAT®) for management of Coleopteran pests in agricultural and forest systems. In: Gross AD, Coats JR, Duke SO, Seiber JN, editors. Biopesticides: State of the Art and Future Opportunities, ACS Symposium Series. Vol. Vol. 1172. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society; 2014. pp. 214-242. DOI: 10.1021/bk–2014-1172.ch015
107.Zhang XZ. Discovery of Cydia pomonella in China. Acta Entomologica Sinica. 1957;7:467-472
108.Cui G, Zhu JJ. Pheromone–based pest management in China: Past, present and future prospects. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 2016;42:557-570. DOI: 10.1007/s10886-016-0731-x
109.Lance DR, Leonard DS, Mastro VC, Walters ML. Mating disruption as a suppression tactic in programs targeting regulated lepidopteran pests in US. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 2016;42:590-605. DOI: 10.1007/s10886-016-0732-9
110.Witzgall P, Stelinski L, Gut L, Thomson D. Codling moth management and chemical ecology. Annual Review of Entomology. 2008;53:503-522. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ento.53.103106.093323
111.Gordon D, Zahavi T, Anshelevich L, Harel M, Ovadia S, Dunkelblum E, et al. Mating disruption of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): Effect of pheromone formulations and concentrations. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2005;98:135-142. DOI: 10.1093/jee/98.1.135
112.Stelinski LL, Miller JR, Ledebuhr R, Siegert P, Gut LJ. Season-long mating disruption of Grapholita molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) by one machine application of pheromone in wax drops (SPLAT-OFM). Journal of Pest Science. 2007;80:109-117. DOI: 10.1007/s10340-007-0162-0
113.Trematerra P, Athanassiou C, Stejskal V, Sciarretta A, Kavallieratos N, Palyvos N. Large-scale mating disruption of Ephestia spp. and Plodia interpunctella in Czech Republic, Greece and Italy. Journal of Applied Entomology. 2011;135:749-762. DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0418.2011.01632.x
114.Hoshi H, Takabe M, Nakamuta K. Mating disruption of a carpenter moth, Cossus insularis (Lepidoptera: Cossidae) in apple orchards with synthetic sex pheromone, and registration of the pheromone as an agrochemical. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 2016;42:606-611. DOI: 10.1007/s10886-016-0723-x
115.Il’ichev AL. Area-wide application of pheromone mediated mating disruption in sustainable IPM. IOBC WPRS Bulletin. 2006;29:95-104. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1339.0722
116.Ünlü L, Özgür E, Uulu TE. Control of Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in open fşeld tomato crops using the mating disruption technique. Phytooparasitica. 2021;49:385-396. DOI: 10.1007/s12600-021-00881-4
117.Liang Y, Luo M, Fu X, Zheng L, Wei H. Mating disruption of Chilo suppressalis from sex pheromone of another pyralid rice pest Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Journal of Insect Science. 2020;20(3):19. DOI: 10.1093/jisesa/ieaa050
118.Ferracini C, Pogolotti C, Rama F, Lentini G, Saitta V, Mereghetti P, et al. Pheromone-mediated mating disruption as management option for Cydia spp. in Chestnut Orchard. Insects. 2021;12(10):905. DOI: 10.3390/insects12100905
119.Lucchi A, Suma P, Ladurner E, Iodice A, Savino F, Ricciardi R, et al. Managing the vine mealybug, Planococcus ficus, through pheromone-mediated mating disruption. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2019;26:10708-10718. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-04530-6
120.Maki EC, Millar JG, Rodstein J, Hanks LM, Barbour JD. Evaluation of mass trapping and mating disruption for managing Prionus californicus (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in hop production yards. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2011;104:933-938. DOI: 10.1603/EC10454
121.Wenninger EJ, Averill AL. Mating disruption of oriental beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) in cranberry using retrievable, point-source dispensers of sex pheromone. Environmental Entomology. 2006;35(2):458-464. DOI: 10.1603/0046-225X-35.2.458
122.Wijayaratne LKW, Burks CS. Persistence of mating suppression of the Indian meal moth Plodia interpunctella in the presence and absence of commercial mating disruption dispensers.Insects 2020; 11(10):701. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11100701
123.Gavara A, Navarro-Llopis V, Primo J, Vacas S. Influence of weather conditions on Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) mating disruption dispensers’ emission rates and efficacy. Crop Protection. 2022;155:105926. DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2022.105926
124.Gut LJ, Brunner JF. Pheromone-based management of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Washington apple orchards. Journal of Agricultural Entomology. 1998; 15:387-406. ISSN: 0735-939X.
125.Trimble RM. Mating disruption for controlling the codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in organic apple production in southwestern Ontario. The Canadian Entomologist. 1995;127(4):493-505. DOI: 10.4039/Ent127493-4
126.Vickers RA, Thwaite WG, Williams DG, Nicholas AH. Control of codling moth in small plots by mating disruption: Alone and with limited insecticide. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 1998;86:229-239. DOI: 10.1046/j.1570-7458.1998.00285.x
127.Webb RE, Leonhardt BA, Plimmer JR, Tatman KM, Boyd VK, Coehn DL, et al. Effect of racemic disparlure released from grids of plastic ropes on mating success of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) as influenced by dose and by population-density. Journal of Economic Entomology. 1990;83(3):910-916. DOI: 10.1093/jee/83.3.910
128.Borchert DM, Walgenbach JF. Comparison of pheromone-mediated mating disruption and conventional insecticides for management of tufted apple bud moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 2000;93(3):769-776. DOI: 10.1603/0022-0493-93.3.769 PMID: 10902329
129.Ansebo L, Ignell R, Lofqvist J, Hansson BS. Responses to sex pheromone and plant odours by oldfactory seceptor reurons housed in sensilla auricillica of the codling moth, Cydia pomonella (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of Insect Physiology. 2005;51:1066-1074. DOI: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2005.05.003
130.Knight AL, Light DM. Monitoring codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)in sex-pheromone treated orchards with (E)-4,8-dimethyl-1,3,7-nonatriene or pear ester in combination with codlemone and acetic acid. Environmental Entomology. 2012;41:407-414. DOI: 10.1603/EN11310
131.Knight AL, Stelinski LL, Hebert V, Gut L, Light D, Brunner J. Evaluation of novel semiochemicals dispensers simultaneously releasing pear ester and sex pheromone for mating disruption of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of Applied Entomology. 2012;136:79-86. DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0418.2011.01633.x
132.Stelinski LL, Gut LJ, Miller JR. An attempt to increase efficacy of moth mating disruption by co-releasing pheromone with kairomones and to understand possible underlying mechanisms of this technique. Environmental Entomology. 2013;42:158-166. DOI: 10.1603/EN12257
133.Onufrieva KS, Thorpe KW, Hickman AD, Leonard DS, Mastro VC, Roberts EA. Gypsy moth mating disruption in open landscapes. Journal of Agricultural Forest Entomology. 2008;10:175-179. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-9563.2008.00375.x
134.Sharov AA, Leonard D, Liebhold AM, Clemens NS. Evaluation of preventive treatments in low-density gypsy moth populations using pheromone traps. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2002;95:1205-1215. DOI: 10.1603/0022-0493-95.6.1205
135.Antonaroli R. Control of two tortricid chestnut pests by mating disruption. Informatore Agrario. 2000;56:89-91
136.Hummel HE, Lagnner SS, Eisinger MT. Pheromone dispensers, including organic polimer fibers, described in the crop protection literature: Comparasion of their innovation potential. Communications in Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences. 2013;78:233-252 PMID: 25145244
137.Hummel HE, Langner SS, Breuer M. Electrospun mesofibers, a novel biodegredable pheromone dispenser technology, are combined with mechanical deployment for efficient IPM of Lobesia botrana in vineyards. Communications in Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences. 2015;80:331-341 PMID: 27141730
138.Lucchi A, Ladurner E, Iodice A, Savino F, Ricciardi R, Cosci F, et al. Eco-friendly pheromone dispensers-a green route to manage the European grapevine moth? Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2018;25:9426-9442. DOI: 10.1007/s11356-018-1248-3
139.Pyke B, Rice M, Sabine B, Zalucki MP. The push-pull strategy behavioral control of Heliothis. Australian Cotton Growers. 1987;9:7-9
140.Miller JR, Cowles RS. Stimulo-deterrent diversion: A concept and its possible application to onion maggot control. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 1990;16(11):3197-3212. DOI: 10.1007/BF00979619
141.Khan ZR, Pickett JA. The ‘Push–Pull’ strategy for stem borer management: A case study in exploiting biodiversity and chemical ecology. In: Gurr G, Waratten SD, Altieri MA, editors. Ecological Engineering for Pest Management: Advances in Habitat Manipulations for Arthropods. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Publishing; 2004. pp. 155-164
142.Cook SM, Khan ZR, Pickett JA. The use of push-pull strategies in integrated pest management. Annual Review of Entomology. 2007;52:375-400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.52.110405.091407
143.Khan ZR, Midega CAO, Bruce TJA, Hooper AM, Pickett JA. Exploiting phytochemicals for developing a ‘push-pull’ crop protection strategy for cereal farmers in Africa. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2010;61(15):4185-4196. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erq229
144.França de SM, Mariana OP, Cesar AB, José VO. The use of behavioral manipulation techniques on synthetic insecticides optimization. In: Turdan S editors. Insecticides – Development of Safer and More Effective Technologies. InTech Design Team, Croatia, 2013; p. 177-196.DOI: https://doi.org/10.5772/53354
145.Abd El-Ghany NM, Abdel-Razek AS, Djelouah K, Moussa A. Efficacy of some eco-friendly biopesticides against Tuta absoluta (Meyrick). Bioscience Research. 2018;15(1):28-40
146.Smart LE, Blight MM, Pickett JA, Pye BJ. Development of field strategies incorporating semiochemicals for the control of the pea and bean weevil, Sitona lineatus L. Crop Protection. 1994;13:127-135. DOI: 10.1016/0261-2194(94)90163-5
147.Martel JW, Alford AR, Dickens JC. Synthetic host volatiles increase efficacy of trap cropping for management of Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say). Agriculture for Entomology. 2005;7:79-86. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-9555.2005.00248.x
148.Mauchline AL, Osborne JL, Martin AP, Poppy GM, Powel W. The effects of non-host plant essential oil volatiles on the behavior of the pollen beetle Meligethes aeneus. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 2005;114:181-188. DOI: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2005.00237
149.Wallinford AK, Cha DH, Loeb GM. Evaluating a push-pull strategy for management of Drosophila suzukii Matsumura in red raspberry. Pest Management Science. 2018;74:120-125. DOI: 10.1002/ps.4666
150.Midega CAO, Pittchar JO, Pickett JA, Hailu GW, Khan ZR. A climate-adapted push-pull system effectively controls fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J E Smith), in maize in East Africa. Crop Protection. 2018;105:10-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2017.11.003
151.Balaso GM, Nalini C, Yankit P, Thakur P. Push-pull strategy: Novel approach of pest management. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 2019;7(5):220-223
152.Chatterjee D, Kundu A. Push pull strategy of integrated pest management. Just Agriculture. 2022; 2(9):1-6. ISSN: 2582-8223
153.Powell W, Pickett JA. Manipulation of parasitoids for aphid pest management: Progress and prospects. Pest Management Science. 2003;59(2):149-155. DOI: 10.1002/ps.550
154.Ross DW, Daterman GE. Reduction of Douglas-fir beetle infestation of high-risk stands by antiaggregation and aggregation pheromones. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 1994;24:2184-2190. DOI: 10.1139/x94-281
155.Bentz BJ, Kegley S, Gibson K, Thier R. A test of high-dose verbenone for stand-level protection of lodgepole and whitebark pine from mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) attacks. Journal of Aconomic Entomology. 2005;98:1614-1621
156.Borden JH, Birmingham AL, Burleigh JS. Evaluation of the push pull tactic against the mountain pine beetle using verbenone and non-host volatiles in combination with pheromone-baited trees. The Forestry Chronicle. 2006;82:579-590. DOI: 10.5558/tfc82579-4
157.Gillette NE, Hansen EM, Mehmel CJ, Mori SR, Webster JN, Erbilgin N, et al. Area-wide application of verbenone-releasing flakes reduces mortality of whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis caused by the mountain pine beetle Dendroctonus ponderosae. Agricultural and Forest Entomology. 2012;14:367-375. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-9563.2012.00577.x
158.Gilette NE, Mehmet CJ, Mori SR, Webster JN, Wood DL, Erbilgin N, et al. The push-pull tactic for mitigation of mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) damage in lodgepole and whitebark pines. Environmental Entomology. 2012;41:1575-1586. DOI: 10.1603/EN11315
159.Progar RA. Five year operational trial of verbenone to deter mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae.i Coleoptera:Scolytidae) attack of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). Environmental Entomology. 2005;34:1402-1407. DOI: 10.1603/0046-225X-34.6.1402
160.Giblin-Davis RM, Gries R, Crespi B, Robertson LN, Hara AH, Gries G, et al. Aggregation pheromones of two geographical isolates of the New Guinea sugarcane weevil, Rhabdoscelus obscurus. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 2000;26:2763-2780. DOI: 10.1023/A:1026
Written By
Melis Yalçın
Submitted: 20 February 2023Reviewed: 13 March 2023Published: 11 July 2023
Open access peer-reviewed chapter
