Presentation regarding the principles of push pull strategies and its application in insect pest management

1. 10/26/20171
WELCOME

2. UNIVERSITY OF HORTICULTURAL SCIENCES,
BAGALKOT
Seminar- I
SACHIN, U. S
II Ph. D (Ento.)
Department of Entomology
COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURE, BAGALKOT
10/26/2017 2

3. 3

4. Topic division
GENESIS OF PUSH- PULL STRATEGY
PRINCIPLE OF THE PUSH-PULL STRATEGY
COMPONENTS OF THE PUSH-PULL STRATEGY
PULL COMPONENTS
PUSH COMPONENTS
DELIVERY OF PUSH AND PULL STIMULI
APPLICATION IN PEST MANAGEMENT : EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES
BOTTLENECKS
CONCLUSION
4

5. Crop protection
Predictable and economic food production
Chemical method (4 to 5 decades)
Human health problems
Environmental impact
Need to be followed by approaches involving direct
association with the crop plants themselves
IPM Many technologies
Push-Pull
5

6. Genesis of Push- Pull Strategy
6

7. • Miller and Cowles in US (1990)
“ Stimulo deterrent diversion “
Alternative to insecticides
for control
• Pyke et. al
(1987)
&
to reduce reliance on insecticides.
Genesis
Onion maggot (Delia antique)
7Cook et al., 2006

8.  Push pull strategy, the pests are repelled
or deterred away from the main crop
(push) by using stimuli that mask host
appearance or are repellent or deterrent .
 Pests are simultaneously attracted (pull),
using highly apparent and attractive
stimuli, to other areas such as traps or trap
crops where they are concentrated,
facilitating their control
PRINCIPLE
8
Cook et al., 2006

9. Fig. 1. Push pull system 9

10. • Achieved either directly, by modifying the crop,
or by companion crops grown between the
main crop rows.
• Also creates a means of exploiting natural
populations of beneficial organisms by
releasing semio-chemicals that attract
parasitoids or increase their foraging.
Push
effect
• Involves trap plants grown
• Ex.: as a perimeter to the main crop and
which are attractive to the pest, promoting
egg laying.
Pull
effect
10Cook et al., 2006

11. 11

12. Objective
 To maximize control efficacy,
 Efficiency
 Sustainability
 Output
 Minimizing negative environmental effects.
 The development of reliable, robust, and sustainable push-pull
strategies requires a clear scientific understanding of the pest’s biology
and the behavioral/chemical ecology of the interactions with its hosts
and natural enemies.
 The specific combination of components differs in each strategy
according to the pest to be controlled (its specificity, sensory abilities,
and mobility) and the resource targeted for protection.
12Cook et al., 2006

13. Fig. 2. COMPONENTS OF THE PUSH-PULL STRATEGY
To Push:
Antifeedants, non-host
volatiles, plant defense visual
cues, synthetic repellents,
alarm pheromones and
oviposition deterrents.
“Pull”
To Pull;
Sex and aggregation
pheromones, Gustatory
and oviposition
stimulant, host
volatiles, visual
stimulants
Trap crop
“Push”
Economi
c crop
13
Cook et al., 2006

14. Visual cues
 Manipulation of host color, shape or size to inhibit host orientation and acceptance
behaviours of pests.
 In IPM, it has rarely been used,
lack specificity
impractical to change in hosts
Synthetic repellents
• MNDA (N-methyl neodecanamide) and DEET (N,N-diethyl-3-methyl benzamide, or
N,N,diethyl-m-toluamide) are commercially available
• Used in push-pull strategies against cockroaches and invasive lady beetles.
• DEET: most effective commercial repellent available, repel hematophagous insects.
Non host volatiles
• Used to mask host odors or evoke nonhost avoidance and repellent behaviors.
• Plant essential oils : Citronella and Eucalyptus repellents against hematophagous
insects.
PMD (p-menthane-3,8-diol), from lemon eucalyptus oil of
Eucalyptus citriodora, use against mosquitoes.
Camphor repellent for Asian lady beetle (Harmonia axyridis),
Stimuli for Push components
14Cook et al., 2006

15. Host-derived semio-chemicals
 Insects recognize hosts key volatiles present in specific ratios. If, inappropriate ratios,
directed host orientation ceases
 Repellent behaviors elicited if the host odors signal poor-quality
 Ex.: Codling moth (Cydia pomonella) repelled by the odors of apple at inappropriate
phenological stages
Anti-aggregation pheromones
• Control the spatial distribution of insects and reduce intraspecific competition for limited
resources.
• Multifunctional pheromones: Attractive at low concentrations, repellent at high
concentrations,
Ex.: bark beetles to optimize host use.
Alarm pheromones
• Released when attacked by natural enemies, causing avoidance or dispersal behavior in
conspecifics.
• Ex. Aphids release (E)-β-farnesene (Eβf). Can be applied to the main crop to repel
aphids.
• Eβf also functions as a kairomone pull for natural enemies of aphids 15
Cook et al., 2006

16. Antifeedants
 Most antifeedants are plant derived
 Ex.:
 Azadirachtin (the primary active component of neem, derived from Azadirachta
indica), have toxic effects at normal treatment rates.
 Drimane dialdehydes polygodial, (from water pepper (Polygonum hydropiper))
 Warburganal (from Warburgia ugandensis) show repellent activity against several
agricultural and some domestic (urban) pests.
Oviposition deterrents
• Prevent or reduce egg deposition and control species whose imagoes are
pestiferous .
• Numerous botanical deterrents isolated from nonhosts have deterred
oviposition by pests,
Ex.: Neem-based formulations.
Petroleum oil sprays
Application of synthetic ODP of the European cherry fruit fly (Rhagoletis
cerasi) [N-[15-(β-D-glucopyranosyl)-8-hydroxypalmitoyl] taurine] in field trials 16Cook et al., 2006

17. Stimuli for Pull Components
Visual stimulants
• Sole method,
• To attract pests to traps or trap crops & enhance the effectiveness of olfactory
stimuli.
• In plant-based strategies, the visual cues related to the plant growth stage is
important.
Ex.: Red spheres mimicking ripe fruit attracted sexually mature apple maggots,
Rhagoletis pomonella.Host volatiles
• In host location: used in bait traps for monitoring, mass-trapping or in
attracticide strategies.
• Knowledge of host specificity and preferences, the attractiveness of synthetic
host odour blends can be maximized.
• Used in traps or to increase the effectiveness of trap crops.
17
Cook et al., 2006

18. Sex and aggregation pheromones
 To attract conspecifics for mating and optimizing resource use.
 Pest monitoring.
 Traps baited with these pheromones ,
 Male pheromones, attract females, useful in direct control strategies.
Gustatory and oviposition stimulants
• Trap crops: Oviposition or gustatory stimulants,
Retain the pest populations in the trap crop area.
• Gustatory stimulants: sucrose solutions, applied to traps or trap crops to
promote ingestion of insecticide bait.
• Food supplements & natural enemies.
18
Cook et al., 2006

19. Delivery of Push-Pull stimuli
 Natural products or nature-identical synthetic analogs
 Vegetative diversification:
Inter cropping
Trap cropping
 Antixenotic cultivars
 Traps
19Cook et al., 2006

20. Application in pest management :
Experimental Studies
20

21. 21

22. Crop: Maize
Push component: Desmodium
Pull component : Napier grass
Pest : Stemborers (Chilo partellus) and striga weed, (Striga
hermonthica)
Study sites: 14 districts in western Kenya
20 farmers from each district
22
Khan et al., 2007

23. The parasitic witchweed, Striga hermonthica
A sleeping enemy
The larva of Chilo partellus
inside maize stem
A active enemy
Plate 1. Enemies of Maize crop
23
Khan et al., 2007

24. Plate 2. Maize field with border rows of Napier grass and an intercrop of Desmodium
uncinatum
Maize
Desmodium
Napier grass
Maize
Desmodium
Napier grass
24
Khan et al., 2007

25. Table 1. Mean (±S.E.) seasonal per centage of maize plants damaged by stem borer larvae at
10 weeks after crop emergence in plots of maize planted in sole stands (mono crop –
mm) or in ‘push–pull’ (pp)
District
Cropping seasons
Long rains 2004 Short rains 2004 Long rains 2005 Short rains 2005
mm pp mm pp Mm pp mm pp
Suba 22.7 (1.0) 7.8 (0.6) 25.7 (6.7) 5.0 (0.9) 20.5 (1.0) 3.6 (0.4) 25.8 (1.4) 6.1 (0.7)
Bungoma 19.6 (1.0) 5.8 (0.5) 20.4 (1.0) 5.5 (0.3) 12.6 (1.0) 5.1 (0.6) 19.2 (0.9) 9.7 (0.8)
Vihiga 2.1 (1.1) 1.0 (0.2) 3.7 (0.4) 0.9 (0.2) 15.3 (1.0) 5.6 (0.4) 17.2 (2.2) 7.1 (0.7)
Busia 10.3 (1.2) 4.2 (0.8) 22.0 (1.8) 8.5 (0.9) 15.2 (1.2) 5.1 (1.2) 22.5 (1.4) 9.0 (1.2)
Rachuonyo 18.0 (1.0) 4.7 (0.8) 11.8 (0.7) 1.0 (0.4) 2.7 (1.2) 0.0 4.9 (0.8) 0.9 (0.3)
Migori 31.0 (1.7) 15.7 (1.3) 38.6 (2.1) 21.6 (1.2) 28.0 (1.8) 5.3 (0.4) 28.0 (1.4) 7.1 (0.7)
Homabay 15.5 (0.6) 10.6 (1.5) 12.1 (0.7) 5.8 (0.3) 11.7 (0.8) 4.4 (0.4) 11.4 (0.8) 3.6 (0.2)
Kisii 16.3 (2.9) 5.6 (0.9) 9.1 (2.0) 3.0 (0.7) 10.2 (1.1) 3.3 (0.5) 12.1 (1.5) 4.7 (0.8)
Siaya 4.2 (0.4) 1.6 (0.4) 8.6 (1.2) 2.4 (0.3) 9.5 (1.5) 3.0 (0.5) 15.0 (1.5) 3.3 (0.4)
T. Nzoia 19.0 (0.9) 6.8 (0.4) *a *a 15.4 (1.0) 5.6 (0.3) *a *a
Kuria 14.2 (2.0) 8.6 (1.0) 15.4 (0.9) 3.4 (0.6) 30.9 (1.7) 4.1 (0.5) 31.2 (1.4) 1.3 (0.3)
Teso * * * * 12.6 (0.5) 5.0 (0.6) 13.4 (1.4) 5.1 (1.0)
Butere * * * * 31.3 (2.9) 6.2 (1.3) 32.8 (2.4) 6.8 (0.7)
Bondo * * * * 14.0 (2.2) 8.3 (1.7) 4.2 (0.7) 4.1 (0.4)
In all districts and seasons, except Vihiga during the long rainy season (March–August) of 2004 and Bondo during the short rainy
season (October–January) of 2005, proportions of maize damaged by stemborers were significantly lower in the ‘push–pull’ than in the
maize monocrop plots ( p < 0.05, t-test). Means represent data averages of 20 farmers in each district. T. Nzoia, Trans Nzoia; *a, no
short rainy season in Trans Nzoia district; *, before technology was introduced in the district.
a Counted from 100 tagged maize plants.
25
Khan et al., 2007

26. Table 2. Mean (± S.E.) actual seasonal Striga hermonthica countsa in plots of maize planted in
sole stands (monocrop–mm) or in ‘push–pull’ (pp) at 10 weeks after crop emergence
District0
Cropping season
Long rains 2004 Short rains 2004 Long rains 2005 Short rains 2005
mm pp mm pp mm pp mm pp
Suba 266 (66) 38 (7) 159 (45) 9 (3) 190 (34) 9 (2) 174 (28) 7 (2)
Bungoma 151 (16) 4 (1) 98 (7) 11 (3) 177 (28) 12 (3) 119 (10) 4 (1)
Vihiga 393 (46) 52 (9) 354 (43) 91 (17) 602 (73) 88 (24) 171 (29) 32 (6)
Busia 463 (109) 26 (6) 196 (34) 68 (17) 477 (96) 90 (31) 764 (120) 99 (44)
Rachuonyo 409 (55) 121 (29) 336 (47) 26 (5) 284 (29) 14 (2) 206 (20) 20 (3)
Migori 575 (56) 231 (27) 561 (38) 102 (11) 516 (64) 60 (10) 317 (43) 26 (3)
Homabay 125 (25) 56 (16) 12 (1) 6 (1) 257 (47) 74 (26) 205 (27) 16 (3)
Kisii 42 (23) 4 (1) 18 (14) 5 (2) 28 (15) 3 (1) 23 (7) 4 (2)
Siaya 876 (93) 77 (9) 486 (40) 81 (10) 494 (60) 91 (24) 409 (41) 42 (7)
Kuria 23 (13) 2 (1) 231 (50) 8 (2) 215 (26) 6 (2) 223 (19) 1 (1)
Teso * * * * 1384 (74) 220 (63) 760 (68) 8 (2)
Butere * * * * 620 (99) 150 (37) 297 (40) 79 (11)
Bondo * * * * 620 (99) 161 (30) 135 (12) 18 (4)
In all districts and seasons, S. hermonthica counts were significantly lower in the ‘push–pull’ than in the
maize monocrop plots ( p < 0.05, t-test). Means represent data averages of 20 farmers in each district. *,
before the introduction of the technology in the districts,
a Number of striga per 100 maize plants 26
Khan et al., 2007

27. Table 3. Mean (± S.E.) grain yields of maize (t/ha) planted in sole stands (monocrop–
mm) or in ‘push–pull’ (pp)
District
Cropping season
Long rains 2004 Short rains 2004 Long rains 2005 Short rains 2005
mm pp mm pp mm pp mm pp
Suba 1.6 (0.1) 2.9 (0.2) 1.8 (0.1) 4.2 (0.1) 1.5 (0.1) 3.8 (0.1) 1.1 (0.1) 2.5 (0.1)
Bungoma 2.1 (0.1) 4.8 (0.3) 1.7 (0.0) 3.2 (0.1) 2.8 (0.1) 4.5 (0.1) 1.2 (0.1) 2.1 (0.2)
Vihiga 3.1 (0.4) 5.3 (0.3) 2.7 (0.3) 5.6 (0.3) 2.6 (0.2) 4.5 (0.3) 2.8 (0.2) 4.9 (0.1)
Busia 1.9 (0.2) 4.1 (0.2) 2.0 (0.1) 4.2 (0.1) 2.7 (0.2) 5.6 (0.3) 2 (0.1) 3.4 (0.2)
Rachuonyo 1.9 (0.2) 3.7 (0.3) 2.6 (0.1) 4.8 (0.1) 1.6 (0.1) 3.9 (0.2) 2.4 (0.3) 3.6 (0.3)
Migori 2.7 (0.1) 4.4 (0.1) 2.1 (0.2) 4.1 (0.2) 1.7 (0.1) 3.6 (0.2) 0.8 (0.0) 3.0 (0.1)
Homabay 1.6 (0.4) 3 (0.3) 2.3 (0.1) 3.2 (0.2) 2.2 (0.2) 4.3 (0.2) 1.2 (0.2) 2.5 (0.3)
Kisii 2 (0.1) 2.6 (0.2) 3.2 (0.1) 4.3 (0.1) 3.7 (0.1) 4.4 (0.1) 3.3 (0.2) 4.2 (0.2)
Siaya 2.3 (0.3) 3.4 (0.4) 1.3 (0.2) 2.3 (0.3) 1.7 (0.2) 2.9 (0.3) 2 (0.1) 4.2 (0.2)
T. Nzoia 3.6 (0.1) 4.6 (0.1) *a *a 4.1 (0.1) 5.7 (0.1) *a *a
Kuria 2 (0.1) 2.6 (0.2) 2.5 (0.1) 4.6 (0.2) 1.7 (0) 4.2 (0.1) 1.4 (0.0) 4.2 (0.1)
Teso * * * * 1.1 (0.2) 3.8 (0.2) 0.9 (0.1) 1.9 (0.1)
Butere * * * * 2.5 (0.1) 5.6 (0.2) 2.9 (0.1) 5.8 (0.1)
Bondo * * * * 0.9 (0.3) 1.7 (0.2) 0.3 (0.1) 0.8 (0.1)
In all districts and seasons, maize grain yields were significantly higher in the ‘push–pull’ than in the maize
monocrop plots ( p < 0.05, t-test). Means represent data averages of 20 farmers in each district, *a, no short
rainy season in Trans Nzoia district 27Khan et al., 2007

28. Fig. 3. Diagrammatic presentation of ‘push–pull’ strategy for control of maize
stem borer 28Khan et al., 2007

29. Chemicals:
Desmodium:- Foliage
Volatile chemicals, such as
(E)ßocimene and (E)4,8dimethyl1,3,7-
nonatriene, which repel the stemborer
moths from the maize ('push')
Roots: produce chemicals which stimulate Striga
seed germination, such as 4'',5''dihydro5,2',4‘
trihydroxy5''isopropenylfurano(2'',3'';7,6)-
isoflavanone,
Others which inhibit their attachment to
maize roots, such as
4'',5''dihydro2'methoxy5,4'dihydroxy5''-
isopropenylfurano-
(2'',3'';7,6)isoflavanone(suicidal germination)
Napier grass: octanal, nonanal,
naphthalene, 4-
allylanisole, eugenol and linalool, attract fe
male moths ('pull') to lay eggs.
Fig. 4. Diagrammatic presentation of Desmodium plant emmiting Volatile
chemicals
29Khan et al., 2007

30. Fig. 5. Benifits of Push-Pull System 30
Benefits of ‘Push- Pull System

31. 31

32. Table 4. Effect of Push-pull Strategy with Conjunctive use of Trap Crops, Neem and
HaNPV on Bollworm Incidence in Cotton
Treatments
Mean no. of
eggs per 10
plants#
Mean no. of
larvae per
10 plants#
% Damage
on fruiting
bodies*
% Boll
damage(open
boll basis)*
% Locule
damage*
Kapas
Yield
(q ha¯1)
Cotton (NSKE treated) +
Okra (NPV treated)
10.8 (3.3)ab 6.4 (2.6)a 10.9 (19.2)a 11. 2 (19.5)a 8.9 (17.2)a 18.3a
Cotton (NSKE treated) +
Okra (NPV untreated)
9.9 (3.2)a 7.0 (2.7)a 14.1 (22.0)b 14. 1 (22.0) b 10.4 (18.7)b 17.6ab
Cotton (NSKE untreated) + Okra
(NPV treated)
18.8 (4.3)c 17.6 (4.3)d 25.0 (29.9)d 29. 1 (32.6)ef 21.0 (27.2)ef 14.3def
Cotton (NSKE untreated) + Okra
(NPV untreated)
18.9 (4.4)c 18.8 (4.4)d 25.2 (30.0)d 29. 7 (33.0)ef 21.2 (27.4)ef 13.8ef
Cotton (NSKE treated)+
Pigeonpea (NPV treated)
12.0 (3.5)b 10.0 (3.2)b 20.8 (27.1)c 23. 1 (28.7)c 17.3 (24.5)c 17.2abc
Cotton (NSKE treated) +
Pigeonpea(NPV untreated)
11.8 (3.4)b 10.5 (3.3)b 22.2 (28.1)c 24. 4 (29.5)de 18.0 (25.0)cd 15.8b-e
Cotton (NSKE untreated) +
Pigeonpea (NPV treated)
18.8 (4.3)c 17.4 (4.2)d 26.0 (30.6)d 28. 4 (32.2)de 21.8 (27.8)fg 13.5f
Cotton (NSKE untreated) +
Pigeonpea (NPV untreated)
20.9 (4.6)c 19.2 (4.4)d 28.2 (32.0)e 30.9 (33.7)f 23.2 (28.7)g 12.8fg
Cotton (NSKE and
NPV treated)
20.0 (4.5)c 11.1 (3.4)bc 21.1 (27.3)c 23.9 (9.2)c 19.0 (25.8)de 16.1a-d
Cotton (NSKE treated) 19.4 (4.4)c 12.5 (3.5)c 24.9 (29.9)d 26.9 (31.2)d 19.4 (26.1)de 15.6cde
Cotton (NPV treated) 31.9 (5.6)d 26.6 (5.2)e 29.1(32.6)ef 36.9 (37.4)g 28.9 (32.4)h 11.2gh
Cotton sole crop
(untreated check)
32.2 (5.7)d 30.3 (5.5)f 30.9 (33.7)f 40.0 (39.19)f 35.0 (36.2)I 9.9h
32
# Figures in parentheses are square root transformed values * Figures in parentheses are arcsine transformed values
Means in a column followed by the same letter(s) are not significantly different (P = 0.05) by DMRT
Duraimurugan and Regupathy , 2005

33. Table 5. Effect of Trap Crops and Restricted Application of NSKE on
Cotton on the Preference of Helicoverpa armigera
Cropping
system
NSKE 5% spray on
cotton
Crops Egg Larvae
P PR P PR
Cotton + Okra
Cotton untreated
with NSKE
Cotton 18.91 18.81
Okra 29.44 1:1.55 21.55 1:1.14
Cotton treated
with NSKE
Cotton 9. 91 7
Okra 34.22 1:3.45 23.88 1:3.41
Cotton +
Pigeonpea Cotton untreated
with NSKE
Cotton 20.91 19.18
Pigeonpea 22.33 1:1.06 19.9 1:1.03
Cotton treated
with NSKE
Cotton 11.75 10.54
Pigeonpea 24 1:2.04 24.72 1:2.34
Cotton sole crop Cotton untreated
with NSKE Cotton 32.16 30.27
Cotton treated
with NSKE Cotton 19.41 12.45
P-Mean population per ten plants
PR-Preference ratio=Population of pest on trap crop/ Population of pest on cotton
33
Duraimurugan and Regupathy , 2005

34. 34

35. Target Crop: Broccoli (Brassica oleracea L. var. Italica cv. Marathon)
Push component: Five synthetic VOCs (dimethyl disulfide,
linalool, geraniol, eucalyptol and citronellol)
Pull component : Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa L. subsp.
Pekinensis Lour. cv. Michiili)
Pest : Cabbage root fly Delia radicum
Study sites: Experimental field station at Le Rheu, France, 2016
35
Lamy et al., 2016

36. Fig. 6. Schematic representation of the experimental field formed of four blocks themselves divided into
six plots (a) and detail on a plot (b) 36Lamy et al., 2016

37. Table 6. Mean number (± SE) of D. radicum eggs per felt trap and per
week depending on the treatment
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6
Control 1.1 ± 0.1a 1.7 ± 0.2a 3.7 ± 0.6a 17.3 ± 1.1a 8.2 ± 0.8a 0.5 ± 0.1a
DMDS 1.0 ± 0.4a 1.2 ± 0.1a 2.8 ± 0.9ab 13.6 ± 0.5b 7.2 ± 0.4ab 0.2 ± 0.1a
Geraniol 1.1 ± 0.4a 1.6 ± 0.4a 2.5 ± 0.5ab 12.7 ± 0.5bc 7.1 ± 0.7ab 0.2 ± 0.1a
Linalool 1.2 ± 0.3a 1.2 ± 0.2a 2.5 ± 0.1ab 15.7 ± 0.9a 7.6 ± 0.6ab 0.4 ± 0.0a
Citronellol 0.8 ± 0.3a 1.0 ± 0.3a 2.2 ± 0.4ab 11.2 ± 0.3cd 6.1 ± 0.5bc 0.2 ± 0.0a
Eucalyptol 0.7 ± 0.1a 0.9 ± 0.1a 1.7 ± 0.3b 10.0 ± 0.6d 4.3 ± 0.5c 0.1 ± 0.0a
37
Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments during a given week (LMM, leastsquares means). Bold
figures indicate significant differences (P0.05) from the control. Underlined figures indicate a number of eggs laid superior
to the agronomic ‘warning’ threshold of seven eggs per felt trap per week, above which a pesticide treatment is
recommended
Lamy et al., 2016

38. 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
Control DMDS Geraniol Linalool Citronellol Eucaluptol
ProportionofT.rapaeperpupae
Meannumbers(±SE)ofD.radicumpupaeandT.rapaeperplant
VOCs
Pupae per plant T. rapae per plant T. rapae portion
ab
Fig. 7. Mean numbers (±SE) of D. radicum pupae and Trybliographa rapae per broccoli and proportion of
T. rapae per pupae, as a function of treatment. Different letters indicate significant differences
between treatments (P0.05) for D. radicum pupae per plant (GLM, least-squares means)
38
a
ab
ab
ab
b
Lamy et al., 2016

39. Table 7.Mean number (±SE) of arthropods per groups and per plot depending
on the crop
Chinese
cabbage
Broccoli Statistics
X2 df P
Metallina sp. and
Bembidion sp.
4.4 ± 0.3a 12.8 ± 1.0b 68.14 1 <0.001
Other Carabidae 3.9 ± 0.3b 2.4 ± 0.2a 27.71 1 <0.001
Aleochara bipustulata 3.5 ± 0.5b 0.6 ± 0.1a 151.66 1 <0.001
Other Staphylinidae 2.8 ± 0.3b 0.5 ± 0.1a 185.6 1 <0.001
Different letters indicate significant differences (P0.05) between crops (GLM, least-squares
means)
39
Lamy et al.,, 2016

40. 40
Van-Tol et al., 2006

41. Target Crop: Onion
Push component: Four plant essential oils
Pull component : Ethyl iso -nicotinate
Pest : Thrips, Thrips tabaci
Study sites: Pasture field at Lincoln, New Zealand. 2006
41
Van-Tol et al., 2006

42. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
A. arborescens O. majorana O. gratissimum M. alternifolia
PercentreductionofT.tabaci
Treatment
Sorrounding plates treated with essential oil Sorrounding plates treated with ethyl iso-nicotinate
Fig. 8.Percentage reduction of female Thrips tabaci relative to a control on four sticky white-coloured plates placed
horizontally in a pasture field at the four cardinal directions (N, S, E, W), sprayed with 1 ml essential oil per plate
(blue bars), surrounding a central plate sprayed with 1 ml of the onion thrip attractant ethyl iso nicotinate (n = 4)
and four surrounding plates sprayed with 1 ml ethyl iso-nicotinate per plate (red bars) surrounding a central plate
sprayed with 1 ml of essential oil (n = 4). Bars marked with three asterisks present significantly different percentage
thrips on the surrounding plates relative to the control treatments at P<0.001.
42
***
***
***
Artemisia arborescence
Origanum majorana
Ocimum graticimum
Melaleuca alternifolia
Van-Tol et al., 2006

43. 43

44. Target Crop: Five different plants:
Broccoli (Brassica oleracea), Chinese cabbage (B. rapa
pekinensis),
White mustard (Sinapis alba), and two genotypes of Oilseed
rape (B. napus ‘Yudal’ and ‘Darmorbzh’).
Pest : Cabbage Root Fly, Delia radicum
Study sites: Nijmegen, Netherlands. 2015
44
Kergunteuil et al., 2015

45. Tubular olfacrometer 45
60 cm

46. 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Section n° 1 [0-20 cm] Section n° 2 [20-40 cm] Section n° 3 [40-60 cm]
Meantime(sec)spentineachsection
Pure air n=30 Sinapis alba n=30 B. napus (Darmor−bzh) n=38
Brassica oleracea n=30 B. napus (Yudal) n=29 B. rapa pekinensis n=30
Fig. 10. Mean time in seconds (± SE) spent by Delium radicum females exposed to various undamaged
brassicaceous plants and to pure air in a tubular olfactometer, optically subdivided into 3 notional
sections (section n°1: fly entrance; section n°2: middle section; section n°3: entrance of airflow in
the tube). 46
Kergunteuil et al., 2015

47. Table 9. Emission of volatiles per plant (relative to internal standard±se) released by
undamaged vegetative parts of five brassicaceous plants during 24 hr
Compounds Sinapis alba n=12 Brassica napus
(Darmor-bzh)
n=12
B. oleracea
n=12
B. napus (Yudal)
n=11
B. rapa
pekinensis
n=12
1. 1-Hexanol - - - 0.16±0.04 -
2. α-Thujene - 0.14±0.03 a 0.07±0.01 b - -
3. α-Pinene 0.20±0.05 d 0.43±0.07 b 1.11±0.13 a 0.33±0.06 c 0.22±0.06 d
4. α-Phellandrene - 0.46±0.09 b 1.85±0.32 a - -
5. Myrcene 0.13±0.02 e 0.66±0.06 b 0.25±0.04 c 0.22±0.05 cd 1.91±0.18 a
6. Hexyl acetate - - - 0.27±0.14 -
7. Limonene 1.65±0.66 NS 1.88±0.59 NS 3.18±0.60 NS 1.64±0.51 NS 1.79±0.74 NS
8. 1,8-Cineole - - 2.96±1.14 - -
9. Linalool - - 0.17±0.04 b - 6.05±0.46a
10. Nonanal - 0.14±0.03 NS - 0.15±0.04 NS -
11. α-Copaene - - - 1.03±0.11 -
12. β-Elemene - 0.21±0.04 - - -
13.β-Caryophyllene 0.37±0.17c - - 26.18±0.12 a 2.09±0.41 b
14. Humulene - - - 7.15±0.12 a 0.53±0.12 b
15. α-Farnesene - - 7.41±1.52 a - 0.24±0.04 b
47
Kergunteuil et al., 2015

48. 48

49. Target Crop: Bell Peppers
Push component: ultraviolet (UV)-reflective mulch and foliar
applications of kaolin
Pull component : Sunflower companion plants
Pest : Thrips, Frankliniella bispinosa
Study sites: Glades Crop Care, Inc., 949 Turner Quay, Jupiter, Florida,
2014
49
Julian et al., 2014

50. Fig. 11. The mean number (SEM) per 10 pepper flowers (n12 samples) of adult F. Bispinosa females, adult F. Bispinosa
males, Frankliniella larvae, adult O. insidiosus, adult O. pumilio, and Orius species nymphs on each 2011 sample
date in the treatments with and without sunflower companion plants for data pooled across mulch and kaolin
treatments in the experiments conducted in Palm Beach County, FL (*, ** indicates significance at 0.05 and 0.01
levels according to analysis of variance and subsequent orthogonal treatment comparisons). 50Julian et al., 2014

51. Fig. 12. The mean number (SEM) per 10 pepper flowers (n12 samples) of adult F. bispinosa females, adult F. bispinosa
males, Frankliniella larvae, adult O. insidiosus, adult O. pumilio, and Orius species nymphs on each 2011 sample date
in the treatments of black mulch no kaolin, black mulch plus kaolin, and UV-reflective mulch no kaolin for data
pooled across plots with and without sunflower companion plants in the experiments conducted in Palm Beach
County, FL (*, **, *** indicates significance at 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 levels according to analysis of variance and
subsequent orthogonal treatment comparisons). 51Julian et al., 2014

52. Fig. 13. The mean number (SEM) per 10 pepper flowers (n18 samples) of adult F. bispinosa females, adult F. Bispinosa males, Frankliniella
larvae, adult O. insidiosus, adult O. pumilio, and Orius species nymphs on each 2012 sample date in the treatments with and without
kaolin for data pooled across mulch and sunflower treatments in the experiments conducted in Palm Beach County, FL (*, **, ***
indicates signiÞcance at 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 levels according to analysis of variance and subsequent orthogonal treatment
comparisons). 52Julian et al., 2014

53. 53

54. Push component: 14 plant essential oils
Pull component : (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate
Pest : Tea green leaf hopper, Empoasca vitis
Study sites: Tea Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of
Agricultural Science in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, China,
2015
54
Zang and Chen, 2016

55. Table 10. The 14 plant essential oils tested for repellent effect on Empoasca vitis
Family Scientific name Common name Extracted organ Purity (%)
Lamiaceae Agastache rugosa Ageratum Leaf ≥95
Lavandula pedunculata Lavender Leaf ≥95
Melissa officinalis Melissa Leaf ≥95
Mentha haplocalyx Peppermint Leaf ≥80
Ocimum basilicum Basil Leaf ≥85
Perilla frutescens Perilla Leaf ≥99
Rosmarinus officinalis Rosemary Leaf ≥99
Thymus mongolicus Thyme Leaf ≥99
Lauraceae Cinnamomum zeylanicum Cinnamon Bark ≥85
Apiaceae Cuminum cyminum Cumin Seed ≥99
Poaceae Cymbopogon martini Palmarosa Leaf ≥50
Cymbopogon nardus Citronella Leaf ≥75
Myrtaceae Eucalyptus polybractea Eucalyptus Leaf ≥80
Geraniaceae Pelargoniumgraveolens Geranium Leaf ≥80
55
Zang and Chen, 2016

56. v
Fig. 16. Behavioral responses of Empoasca vitis adults in a Y-tube olfactometer to volatiles from 14 plant essential
oils at four concentrations tested against pure air: (A) ageratum, (B) cinnamon, (C) cumin, (D) palmarosa, (E)
citronella, (F) eucalyptus, (G) lavender, (H) melissa, (I) peppermint, (J) basil, (K) geranium, (L) perilla, (M)
rosemary, and (N) thyme. The number of E. vitis adults making a choice within 5 min was 30 per
treatment.Numbers on the bars indicate the repellency (%) of the essential oil against E. vitis. v2 test:
*P<0.05, **P<0.01.
CB
G
FE
A
D
K
J
I
H
N
M
L
56
Zang and Chen, 2016

57. Fig. 17. Plan of traps in tea plantation.
57
Zang and Chen, 2016

58. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
North South East West Central(**)
a
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
North South East West Central(**)
Plate of control treatmentPlate of control treatment
%E.vitiscaughtperplate
Fig. 18. The distribution of Empoasca vitis caught per yellowsticky plate for each water-attractant
combination (n = 6). (A) Central (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate-treated plate surrounded by four water-
treated control plates. (B) Water-treated central control plate surrounded by four (Z)-3-hexenyl
acetate-treated plates. Plates sprayed with 1.0 ml of (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate are gray, and plates
sprayed with 1.0 ml of water are white. Means within a panel capped with different letters are
significantly different (Tukey’s HSDtest: P<0.05). Asterisks indicate a significantly different
distribution of E. vitis on plates of the same compass direction between the two control
treatments (A vs. B) (independent samples t-test: **P<0.01; N, S, E, and W: P>0.05). 58
Zang and Chen, 2016

59. Fig. 19. Percent reductions of Empoasca vitis relative to a control on four sticky yellow plates placed horizontally in the
field at the four cardinal directions (N, S, E,W). Treatments 3–7: the four plates were sprayed with 1.0 ml essential oil
each (white bars), which surrounded a central plate sprayed with 1.0 ml of the attractant (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate;
treatments 8–12: the four plates were sprayed with 1.0 ml (Z)-3- hexenyl acetate each (gray bars) surrounding a
central plate sprayed with 1.0 ml of essential oil (all treatments: n = 6). Bars marked with asterisks represent
significantly different percentages of E. vitis on the surrounding plates relative to the control treatments
(independent samples t-test: P<0.01).
59Zang and Chen, 2016

60. Advantages
 Attract both immature & adult stages
 Simple, commercially available & cheap components
 Increased efficiency of individual push and pull components: -
population reducing
 Improved potential for use of antifeedants and oviposition
deterrents
 Resistance management 60Cook et al., 2006

61. Bottlenecks
Limited specificity
Less effective to compete with abundant surrounding odour sources for
attraction
Limitation to development
•Understanding of behavioral and chemical ecology of the host pest
•Insufficient knowledge, control break down.
•Development of semiochemical component
Limitation to adoption
•Integrated approach to pest control, more complex,
•Requiring monitoring and decision system.
•More insecticide and low knowledge of biological control agent 61
Cook et al., 2006

62. 62

63. 10/26/2017
63