Push-pull technique was developed in the 1990s in Kenya to manage pest populations through intercropping and trap crops that release semiochemicals. It involves intercropping a main crop with a repellent plant ("push") and bordering the field with an attractive trap crop ("pull") that concentrates pests away from the main crop. For cereal stem borers in East Africa, the technique uses desmodium as the push intercrop and Napier grass as the pull trap crop, with Napier grass attracting and killing over 80% of stem borer larvae through its sticky sap. This reduces pest damage to the main cereal crop while increasing yields by up to 2 tons/hectare.

1. Push Pull Technique In Integrated Pest Management

2. Introduction
Pesticides are used to kill the pests and insects which mainly feed on the economic crops.
However, they could also impose serious negative impacts on the environment. They hamper
the sustainability and normal functioning of the food chains.
Pesticide hazards are common especially due to their mobility in the environment which could
be by water, air and soil.
 They could drastically alter the natural balance of the ecosystem by decimating the non-pest or
non-target beneficial organisms and indirectly favour the population increase of the pests.
So, we opt new Technique for the conservation and utilization of resources available to
modifying the behaviour of insect-pests affecting the crops for sustainability in agriculture
production by reducing the cost of pest management.
The effect of push pull technique adoption is decisive topic because which allow farmers to
increase their productivity and income without increasing their impact on the surrounding
environment or their reliance on frequently unreliable agricultural input markets.

3. History
Push-pull Technology was developed by scientists at the International Centre of Insect Physiology
and Ecology (ICIPE) , in Kenya and Rothamsted Research, in the United Kingdom, in collaboration
with other national partners in the 1990s.
Donors and Funded Projects
Research and development for the push-pull Technique was funded by a number of partners including
the Gatsby Charitable Foundation of the UK, the Rockefeller Foundation, the UK’s Department for
International Development, and the Global Environment Facility of the UNEP, among others.
The EU is also funding ‘Up scaling the benefits of push-pull technology for sustainable agricultural
intensification in East Africa.
Bio-Vision Foundation is funding 'Intensification of push-pull technology for improved food security,
nutrition and incomes’.
Swedish Research Council is funding 'Towards sustainable maize production in East Africa: Cropping
system resilience under climate change'(Resilient push-pull)’.
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation - Norad: is funding: 'Combating Arthropod Pests for
Better Health, Food and Resilience to Climate Change (CAP-Africa)'

4. The term “push-pull” was first conceived as a
Technique for insect pest management by Pyke,
Rice, Sabine and Zaluki in Australia in 1987.
A “push–pull’’ Technique is a cropping
system in which specifically chosen companion
plants are grown in between and around the
main crop.
Define:
These companion plants release semio-
chemicals (stimulo-deterrent diversionary
strategy) that fend off insect pests from the
main crop using an intercrop which is the
“push” component and concurrently attract
insect pests away from the main crop using a
trap crop which is the “pull” component
Fig. 1: Principle of push-pull Technique

5. What is Push ?
In this strategy, the pests are
repelled or deterred away from the
main crop (push) by using stimuli that
mask host apparency or are repellent
or deterrent.
What is Pull ?
The 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.
Fig. 2: Push-pull mechanism

6. Components of Push-Pull Technique
• Visual stimulants
• Host volatiles
• Sex and aggregation pheromones
• Gustatory and oviposition stimulants
•Visual cues
•Synthetic repellents
•Non-host volatiles
•Host-derived semiochemicals
•Anti-aggregation pheromones
•Alarm pheromones
•Antifeedants
•Oviposition deterrents

7. Push components
1.Visual cues: Manipulation of host color, shape, or size to inhibit host orientation and
acceptance behaviors of pests in IPM has rarely been used, as these traits usually lack
specificity and are often impractical to change in hosts.
2. Repellents: Chemical which repel or push the pest from main crop which can be utilized as
push component in this strategy. Frontalin acts as repellent i.e. push the coffee berry borer
Hypothenemus hampei from coffee.
3. Non-Host Volatiles: Volatiles derived from non-hosts can be used to mask host odors or
evoke non host avoidance and repellent behaviors. Plant essential oils such as citronella and
eucalyptus are commercially produced as repellents against hematophagous insects.
4. Host Volatiles: Insects recognize suitable hosts by using key volatiles that are often present
in specific Ratios. Directed host Orientation Ceases, If host odors are presented in inappropriate
ratios, as herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) are produced by plant when herbivores
feed on them. The HIPVs can deter plant utilization by subsequent herbivores as indicators of
competition or induced defenses.

8. 5. Alarm pheromones: Alarm pheromone released when attacked by the natural enemies,
causing avoidance or dispersal behaviour in conspecifics. Many aphid species release (E)-β-
farnesene (Eβf) as alarm pheromone. On main crop application of alarm pheromones which
ward off aphids in the field and Eβf also functions as a kairomonal activity to pull natural
enemies of aphids.
6. Antifeedants: Several antifeedants, including azadirachtin (the primary active component
of neem, derived from Azadirachta indica), applied as NSKE in cotton against H. armigera.
However other plants also have antifeedent compounds viz. pongamia, eucalyptus,
Melia azedarach , Annona.
7. Oviposition deterrents and oviposition deterring pheromones: ODPs are compounds that
prevent or reduce egg deposition and so it can be corporate in the push-pull strategies to
control species that cause damage through this process or whose imagoes are pestiferous.
During egg laying both parasitic and phytophagous insects are known to deposit chemical
signals that modify the behaviour of conspecifics who consequently stay away from depositing
eggs into host that are oviposited by others. The deterrents isolated from non hosts plants have
deterring oviposition of pests, and of these, frequently evaluated formulation was neem-based
formulations and some other plants are also used.

9. Pull Components:
1.Visual stimulants: The visual cues related to the plant growth stage can be important sole
method used to attract pests to traps or trap crops, but they can enhance the effectiveness of
olfactory stimuli. Sexually mature apple maggots, Rhagoletis pomonella attracted towards, red
spheres (7.5 cm in diameter) mimicking ripe fruit. These traps, coated with either sticky
material or contact insecticides and baited with synthetic host odors, have been used
successfully for management of pest.
2. Host volatiles: Host volatiles used in host location, mass-trapping, or in attracticide
strategies. HIPVs are often reliable indicators of the presence of hosts or prey to predators and
parasitoids and are therefore attractive (pull) to these beneficials. The conophthorin acting as
the ‘pull’ (attractant) for Hypothenemus hampei.

10. 3. Sex and aggregation pheromones: Insects release sex and aggregation pheromones to
attract conspecifics for mating and optimizing resource use. Both types of pheromones are
increasingly important components of IPM, particularly in pest monitoring. Traps baited with
these pheromones have a lower detection threshold than other methods and can help in push-
pull strategies to determine the timing of stimuli deployment and population-reducing
interventions.
4. Gustatory and oviposition stimulants: Trap crops may naturally contain oviposition or
gustatory stimulants, which help to retain the pest populations in the trap crop area. Gustatory
stimulants, such as sucrose solutions, have also been applied to traps or trap crops to promote
ingestion of insecticide bait. Food supplements to establish populations of natural enemies and
influence their distribution .

11.  Push-pull Technique in crops
1. Management of cereal stem borers in eastern Africa
 The Push-Pull technology involves use of behaviour modifying stimuli to manipulate the distribution and
abundance of stem borers and beneficial insects for management of stemborer pests .
 It is based on in-depth understanding of chemical ecology, agro biodiversity, plant-plant and insect-plant
interactions, and involves intercropping a cereal crop with a repellent intercrop such as desmodium (push),
with an attractive trap plant such as Napier grass (pull) planted as a border crop around this intercrop.
 Gravid stem borer females are repelled from the main crop and are simultaneously attracted to the trap crop.
 Napier grass produces significantly higher levels of attractive volatile compounds (green leaf volatiles), cues
used by gravid stem borer females to locate host plants, than maize or sorghum.
 There is also an increase of approximately 100-fold in the total amounts of these compounds produced in the
first hour of nightfall by Napier grass (scotophase), the period at which stem borer moths seek host plants for
oviposition, causing the differential oviposition preference.
 However, many of the stem borer larvae, about 80%, do not survive as Napier grass tissues produce sticky sap
in response to feeding by the larvae which traps them causing their mortality.

13.  Legumes in the Desmodium genus (silverleaf, D. uncinatum, greenleaf, D. intortum), on the other hand
produce repellent volatile chemicals that push away the stemborer moths. These include (E)-ß-
ocimene and (E)-4,8-dimethyl-1,3,7-nonatriene, semiochemicals produced during damage to plants by
herbivorous insects are responsible for the repellence of desmodium to stemborers.
 Desmodium also control striga, resulting in significant yield increases of about 2 t/ha per cropping
season. In the elucidation of the mechanisms of striga suppression by D. uncinatum, it was found that, in
addition to benefits derived from increased availability of nitrogen and soil shading, an allelopathic
effect of the root exudates of the legume, produced independently of the presence of striga, is responsible
for this dramatic reduction in an intercrop with maize.
 This combination thus provides a novel means of in situ reduction of the striga seed bank in the soil
through efficient suicidal germination even in the presence of graminaceous host plants in the proximity.
Other Desmodium spp. have also been evaluated and have similar effects on stemborers and striga weed
and are currently being used as intercrops in maize, sorghum and millets.

14. 2. Control of Helicoverpa in Cotton
 Push pull Technique is now used to control the polyphagous lepidopteran pest Helicoverpa
armigera and Helicoverpa punctigera attacking cotton.
 Neem seed extracts are applied to the cotton crop (push) and alongside an attractive trap crop of
either pigeon pea (cajanus cajan) or maize (zea mays) is planted (pull).
 Field trials have shown the efficacy of this approach which is far more than the individual
component alone.
According to experiment on Push-pull technology on cotton for Helicoverpa spp.:
Material for experiment
1. Cotton variety = PKV-Rajat
2. Pigeon pea variety = TAT-10
3. Sunflower variety = Modern

15. Treatment details:
Treatment Details of experiment
T1 Cotton (NSE treated), Pigeon pea (NPV treated)
T2 Cotton (NSE treated), Pigeon pea (untreated)
T3 Cotton (untreated), Pigeon pea (NPV treated)
T4 Cotton (untreated), Pigeon pea(untreated)
T5 Cotton (NSE treated), Sunflower (NPV treated)
T6 Cotton (NSE treated), Sunflower(untreated)
T7 Cotton (untreated), Sunflower (NPV treated)
T8 Cotton (untreated), Sunflower(untreated)
T9 Cotton (NSE and NPV) Cotton (NSE)
T10 Cotton (NSE treated)
T11 Cotton (NOV treated)
T12 Cotton (untreated)
Jadhav et al. (2008)
Akola, Maharashtra

16. Treatment Eggs/plant Larvae/plant % age fruiting damage
T1 5.52
(2.28)
0.86
(0.92)
0.90
(0.95)
T2 5.56
(2.36)
1.47
(1.21)
1.36
(1.17)
T3 11.72
(3.42)
2.81
(1.67)
2.48
(1.57)
T4 13.13
(3.62)
3.33
(1.82)
2.45
(1.72)
T5 5.79
(2.41)
1.10
(1.05)
1.09
(1.04)
T6 6.17
(2.48)
1.74
(1.32)
1.49
(1.22)
T7 12.11
(3.48)
2.95
(1.72)
2.76
(1.66)
T8 13.59
(3.69)
3.44
(1.85)
3.19
(1.78)
T9 8.73
(2.95)
2.19
(1.48)
1.73
(1.31)
T10 9.40
(3.06)
2.51
(1.58)
2.08
(1.44)
T11 14.74
(3.84)
4.09
(2.09)
2.59
(1.61)
T12 15.79
(3.97)
4.89
(2.21)
6.10
(2.47)
F test Sig. Sig. Sig.
SE(m)± 0.02 0.04 0.03
CD @ 5% 0.06 0.12 0.09
Effect of “Push-pull Technique ” on egg laying, Larval and percentage damage on of H.armigera on main crop, Cotton.

17.  Observation
• All observation were recorded 3rd, 7th and 14th DAS. Egg,
larval population and damage in fruiting bodies on main crop
and intercrop.

18. Tr no. Treatment details
Average egg production of
H.armigera per plant Average
3DAS 7DAS 14 DAS
T1 Cotton (NSE treated), Pigeon pea (NPV treated) 7.75 8.76 9.85 8.79
T2 Cotton (NSE treated), Pigeon pea (untreated) 9.58 10.80 12.15 10.84
T3 Cotton (untreated), Pigeon pea (NPV treated) 13.82 14.97 16.05 14.95
T4 Cotton (untreated), Pigeon pea (untreated) 13.28 14.67 16.22 14.72
Effect of Push-pull technology on Egg laying of H.armigera on trap crop, Pigeon pea.
Best treatment was T1 and T2 Application of NSE on cotton reduces egg laying on trap crop also. This is due
to repellent action on cotton as well as pigeon pea, due to less distance between the cotton and pigeon pea.

19. Tr. no Treatment details
Average egg production
of H.armigera per plant Average
3DAS 7DAS 14DAS
T5 Cotton (NSE treated), Sunflower (NPV treated) 2.54 3.12 4.11 3.26
T6 Cotton (NSE treated), Sunflower (untreated) 3.51 4.10 4.94 4.18
T7 Cotton (untreated), Sunflower (NPV treated) 4.31 5.44 6.26 5.34
T8 Cotton (untreated), Sunflower (untreated) 4.98 5.55 6.58 5.70
Tr no. Treatment details
Average egg production of
H.armigera per plant Average
3 DAS 7DAS 14DAS
T1 Cotton (NSE treated), Pigeon pea (NPV treated) 1.65 1.55 2.01 1.64
T2 Cotton (NSE treated), Pigeon pea (untreated) 2.26 2.68 3.03 2.66
T3 Cotton (untreated), Pigeon pea (NPV treated) 2.17 2.45 2.92 2.51
T4 Cotton (untreated), Pigeon pea(untreated) 3.23 3.60 4.04 3.64
Effect push-pull technology on egg laying of H.armigera on trap crop sunflower
Minimum egg laying was observed in T5 and T6
Effect push-pull technology on Larval population of H.armigera on trap crop Pigeon pea
Best effective treatment was T1 followed by T3 Both contain NPV. This indicate that NPV on trap crop
reduced the larval population of H.armigera.

20. Effect push-pull technology on Larval population of H.armigera on trap crop Sunflower
Minimum larval population found inT5 thenT7, NPV plays important role for larval control.
Effect push-pull technology on percent pod damage by H.armigera on trap crop Pigeon pea
Tr. No. Treatment details Average egg production of
H.armigera per plant
Average
3DAS 7DAS 14DAS
T5 Cotton (NSE treated), Sunflower (NPV treated) 0.38 0.42 0.70 0.50
T6 Cotton (NSE treated), Sunflower(untreated) 1.02 1.28 1.71 1.37
T7 Cotton (untreated), Sunflower (NPV treated) 0.84 0.80 1.33 1.01
T8 Cotton (untreated), Sunflower(untreated) 1.126 1.55 1.85 1.55
Tr. no. Treatment details Average egg production of
H.armigera per plant
Average
3 DAS 7DAS 14DAS
T1 Cotton (NSE treated), Pigeon pea (NPV treated) 5.60 9.60 11.20 8.80
T2 Cotton (NSE treated), Pigeon pea(untreated) 13.60 10.40 19.20 14.40
T3 Cotton (untreated), Pigeon pea (NPV treated) 9.60 13.60 12.80 12.00
T4 Cotton (untreated), Pigeon pea(untreated) 12.80 14.40 23.20 16.80
Minimum damage T1 and T3

21. Treatment
Yield kg/ha
Cost of yield
Rs/ha Gross monitory Rs/ha
Cost of
plant
protection
Net return
Rs/ha
Cotton Trap Cotton traps
T1 862 286 17067.60 6149 23216.60 1689 21527.60
T2 580 180 11484.00 3870 15354 858 14496
T3 520 220 10296 4730 15026 831 14195
T4 485 160 9603 3440 13043 0 13043
T5 690 150 13662 2700 16362 1689 14673
T6 519 120 10692 2160 12852 858 11994
T7 489 130 9682 2340 12022 831 11191
T8 475 95 9405 1710 11115.5 0 11115
T9 553 - 10969.20 - 10969.20 1689 9280.20
T10 541 - 10711.80 - 10711.80 858 9853.80
T11 497 - 9860.40 - 9860.40 831 9029.40
T12 450 - 8910.00 - 8910.00 0 8910.00
Economics of Push-pull technology
Maximum yield was found T1 followed by T5

22. 3. Pea leaf weevil management in beans
Sitona lineatus, Pea leaf weevil is a pest of legumes in Europe, the Middle East and United States.
Synthetic aggregation pheromone 4-methyl-3,5-heptanedione acted as pull component and
commercially available neem antifeedant formed the push component of the strategy.
Neem reduced weevil abundance satisfactorily.
 Just to maintain the efficacy repeated application was needed. Speedy removal of the aggregated
weevil population must be done to prevent them from redistributing in the main crop.

23. Advantages of Push-pull Technique
 Push-Pull technology is the first integrated pest and soil fertility management technique that effectively
combines control of both stemborers and striga weed.
 Increase maize yield by 25 % to 30% in the areas where only stem borers are a problem but more than 100%
where both stem borers and striga problem.
 Desmodium controls striga, resulting in significant yield increases.
 Push-pull technology provides all-year round quality fodder, and this is one of the main motivating factors for
its adoption by many livestock farmers.
 Fix nitrogen into your farm by desmodium legume, so we save on fertilizer costs.
 Protect soil from erosion as desmodium acts as a cover crop.
 Retain soil moisture in plot because desmodium acts as a mulch.
 Save on farm labour as you do not have to manually remove striga weed from the farm.
 The push pull components are generally nontoxic and therefore, the strategies are usually integrated with
biological control.
 Due to its multiple benefits, the technology has opened up opportunities for smallholder growth and represents
a platform technology around which new income generation and human nutritional components, such as
livestock keeping, can be added.

24. Limitations of Push-pull Technique
The use of push-pull strategies has some over conventional pest control regimes.
 Limited specificity.
 Less effective to complete with abundant surrounding odor sources for attraction.
 Limitation to development:
o Understanding the behavioral and chemical ecology of the host and pest
o Insufficient knowledge, control break down
o Development of semi-chemical component
 Limitation to adoption:
o Integrated approach to pest control, more complex.
o Requiring monitoring and decision system.
o More insecticide and less knowledge of biological control agent.

25. Conclusion
 The principles of the push-pull Technique are used to minimizing detrimental effect on
environment while maximize control efficacy, competency, sustainability and outputs.
 The push and pull components are generally nontoxic and can be useful for the small and
marginal farmers by reducing cost of cultivation and indirectly uplift the standard of living.
hence, the strategies are usually integrated with biological control and cultural control for
management of pest.
 Although each individual component of the technique may not be as effective as a broad-
spectrum insecticide at reducing pest numbers, the efficacy of push and pull components is
increased through tandem deployment.

26. Future for push-pull technology
 Several new technologies may help develop and improve future push-pull strategies because we better
understand the behaviour of pest and beneficial insects, enabled by advances in analytical techniques,
synthesis procedures, and formulation science, we may have a larger and more effective armory of
semiochemicals and other stimuli for future use.
 In plant-based strategies the use of induced defenses and plants that produce the desired
semiochemicals themselves rather than applying them to the plant, would help make the strategies more
sustainable and available, especially for poor farmer.
 The continued spread of insecticide resistance and the withdrawal of insecticides due of legislation leave
few other alternatives, Adoption would increase.
 Push pull targeted at predator and parasitoids, while enable to manipulation of their distribution for
improved biological control, are just around the corner. This prospect will allow these strategies to
applied in novel ways and increase their use in IPM in future.
 Changing attitudes towards replacing broad spectrum insecticide with new technologies, particularly
semiochmicals tools, to manipulate the behaviour of natural enemies for improved biological control will
enable improved push pull strategies to be developed and used more widely in the future.

27. REFERENCES
Cook, S. M.; Khan, Z. R. and Pickett, J. A. ( 2007). The Use of Push-Pull Strategies in Integrated Pest
Management. Annu. Rev. Entomol, 52: 375–400.
Chatterjee, D. and Kundu, A. (2022). Just Agriculture Multidisciplinary e-news letter, 2 (9): e-ISSN:
2582-8223.
Gaikwad, M. B.; Challa, N.; Panma, Y. and Thakur, P. (2019). Push-pull strategy: Novel approach of
pest management. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 7(5): 220-223.
Jadhav, S. B.; Sadawarte, A. K. and Bhalkare, S. K. (2008). Evaluation on push-pull Technique for the
management of Helicoverpa armigera on Cotton. Indian Journal of Entomolgy, 70(4): 360-364.
http://www.push-pull.net/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push%E2%80%93pull_agricultural_pest_management#:~:text=Push%E2
%80%93pull%20technology%20is%20an,often%20infested%20by%20stem%20borers.