push pulla atul (nasa)

8/7/2019 push pulla atul (nasa)

1/64


2/64

Seminar presentation

on

Exploitation of Push pull technology in pestmanagement

ByKale Atul Nandkishor

(Enroll no-HH-1559)Course Title -SeminarCourse No. ENT- 521

Seminar In-charge

Dr. U. P. Barkhade

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY,

POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE

DR.P.D.K.V,AKOLA


3/64


4/64


5/64

INTRODUCTION

Chemical method of control remained the most favorite toolin plant protection for about 4 to 5 decades.

Now a days IPM come forward to overcome the insecticidalproblem

Many other technology used as a substitute for chemicalmethod of control

For this ,the Push-pull is a new concept which is a behaviourmanipulation strategy in which in which behaviour modifyingstimuli are integrated with a pest control agent.

Goal = The Push-pull strategy is to concentrate the pest in alimited areas , which would then be targeted with lessinsecticide or other pest control tools.


6/64

In this Push pull strategy in which, the pests are repelled or deterredaway 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 andattractive stimuli, to other areas such as traps or trap cropswhere they are concentrated, facilitating their control.

Most of work on Push-pull strategies has targeted pest behavior, sothis relates mostly to pests rather than the manipulation ofbeneficial organisms.

The Push-pull strategies primarily include visual and chemical cuesor signals.

Habitat diversification strategies have attracted much interest aspest management strategies.

For example, trap crops can be plants of a preferred growth stage,cultivar or species that divert pest pressure from the main cropbecause they are more attractive.


7/64

The term Push-pull was first conceived as a strategy forIntegrated Pest Management by Pyke et. al 1987

They investigated the use of repellent and attractive stimuli,deployed in tandem to manipulate the distribution ofHelicoverpa spp. in Cotton to reduce reliance on

insecticides.

The concept was later formalized and refined by Miller andCowles in US (1990) who termed the strategy Stimulo-deterrent diversion while developing alternative toinsecticides for control of the onion maggot(Delia antique)


8/64

Principles

Push-pull strategies use a combination of behavior modifyingstimuli to manipulate the distribution and abundance ofpest and or beneficial insects for pest management.

Strategies targeted against pests. Try to reduce their abundance

on the protected resource. for example, a crop or farmanimal.What is push?

The pests are repelled or deterred away from resource byusing stimuli or are repellent or deterrent.

What is Pull ?The pests are simultaneously attracted by using

highly apparent and attractive stimuli, to other areas such as traps ortrap crops where they are concentrated . Facilitating theirelimination.


9/64

Push

Pul

l


10/64

Stimuli for Push components

Visual cues

Synthetic repellentsNon host volatilesAntiaggregation pheromonesAntifeedantsOviposition deterrents andoviposition deterring pheromones.

Stimuli for Pull components

Visual stimulus

Host volatilesAggregation pheromonesSex pheromonesGustatory stimulus


11/64

Visual distractions

Non-host volatiles

Anti-aggregation pheromones

Alarm pheromones Oviposition deterrents Antifeedants

Visual stimulants

Host volatiles

Aggregation pheromones

Sex pheromones Oviposition stimulants Gustatory stimulants

Pull

Pull

Push

PushPush


12/64

Push Components

vVisual cuesManipulation of host colour, shape or size . But this is often

impractical to change in hosts. However, by understanding how can atleast be minimized or even disrupted.

vSynthetic repellants

Repellents such as MNDA (N-methyl- neo- decanomide ) andDEET(N,N-diethyl-3-methyl benzamide) are commercially available andmay be used in Push-pull strategies against cockroaches and invasivelady beetles.

DEET is considered the most effective commercial repellent availableand is used primarily to repel hematophagous insect.

vNon host volatilesVolatile derived from non hosts can be used to mask odour or

evoke non host avoidance and repellent behaviors.Plant essential oils such as citronella and eucalyptus are

commercially produced as repellent against hematophagous insects.


13/64

For example: PMD (P-methane-3-8-diol) isolated from Lemon

eucalyptus oil of Eucalyptus citriodora , has been registered byU.S. Environmental Protection Agency for use againstmosquitoes.

vHost-derived semiochemicals

1.The Codling Moth (Cydia pomonella) was repelled by the odorsof Apples at inappropriate phenological stages.

2.Methyl salicylate and Jasmone are HIPVs repellents to Aphidswhen released in the field.

3. HIPVs are produced by the plant as indirect defenses thatattract natural enemies of herbivore .(HIPV= Herbivore Induced Plant Volatiles)


14/64

vAntiaggregation pheromones

Antiaggregation pheromones control the spatial distribution of insectsand reduce intraspecific competition for limited resources.

vAlarm pheromones1.The alarm pheromone for many pest, aphids is (E)--

farnesene (Ef). It can be applied to the main crop to repel aphids infield.

2. Ef also functions as a kairomones pull for natural enemies

of aphids.

vAntifeedants1.Several Antifeedants, including aza-diractin , have toxic effects at

normal treatment rates.

2. The drimone dialdehyde polygodial , first isolated from the waterpepper (Polygonum hydropiper) and warburganal, isolated from Warburgiavgandensis . These show repellent activity against several agricultural and somedomestic (urban) pests.


15/64

vOviposition deterrents and oviposition deterring pheromones

1. These prevent or reduce egg deposition, so have the potential in

Push-pull strategies to control species that cause damage through thisprocess.

2. Botanical deterrents isolated from non-hosts have deterredoviposition by pests.

3. Petroleum oil sprays and some natural enemy food supplements alsodeter oviposition by some phytophagous insects.

4. ODPs are another class of pheromones that enable female insects toavoid laying egg on previously exploited hosts, thereby reducingintraspecific competition.

5. Application of synthetic ODPs of the European cherry fruit fly infield trials showed that it can successfully protect cherry trees (Prunnusavium).

6. According to zeyaur-khan if 1 tree in every 10 trees were leftuntreated and baited with visually attractive sticky traps, the strategywould be more effective.


16/64

vVisual stimulants1. It can enhance the effectiveness of olfactory stimuli.

2. Blue and Black traps, approximating the size of mammalian host , areused to control cattle tsetse fly (Glossina spp.).

3. Red spheres (7.5 cm. in dia.) mimicking ripe fruit attracted sexuallymature apple maggots (Rbagoletis pomonella)

4. These traps, coated with either sticky material or contact insecticides andbaited with synthetic host odours.

vHost volatiles

1. Host volatiles used in host location, can be used to bait traps formonitoring , mass trapping or in attracticide strategies


17/64

2. Hematophagous dipterans are attracted to mammalianassociated volatiles such as CO2, 1-octen-3-ol and acetone

3. HIPVs are often reliable indicators of the presence of hosts or prey topredatory and parasitoids and are therefore attractive to beneficial

4. For example. salicylate and (z)-jasmone

vSex and aggregation pheromones

1. Male produced pheromones that attract female over along range are most useful in direct control strategies.

2. Male produced sex pheromones from the sand fly have been

indentified and synthetically produced and may used for control ofleishmaniasis in Latin America.


18/64

vGustatory and oviposition stimulants

1. Trap crops may naturally contain oviposition orGustatory stimuli which help to retain the pest population inthe trap crop area.

2. Gustatory stimulants, Such as sucrose solution,have also been applied to traps or trap crops to promoteingestion of insecticide bait


19/64

qNatural products or nature-identical synthetic analogs

qVegetative diversification: Intercropping and trapcropping

qAntixenotic cultivars

qTraps


20/64

Natural products or nature-identical synthetic

analogs

The seminochemicals used are natural products and canbe extracted from plants(e.g. essential oils) or insects

Vegetative diversificationA. Inter-cropping

B. Trap cropping

Antixenotic cultivars

1. It is related to non-preferenceExample. Trichomes of wild potato release the aphidsalarm pheromones Ef, which acts as a allomone and repelsaphids at short distance.


21/64

Traps

1. It is used in mass trapping orattracticide strategies can deliver visual stimuli

2. Trap design and positioning areimportance and can be maximized by adoptinga systematic approach in which the behavior ofthe insect is closely observed.


22/64

Control of Helicoverpa on Cotton by using Push-pull strategy

Helicoverpa species are polyphagous lepidopterous pest ofwide range of crops.

The potential of combining the application of neem seed extracts to themain crop (push) with and attractive trap crop, either pigeon pea (Cajanuscajan) or maize (Z. mays)(pull) to protect cotton (G. hirsutum)

Trap crop efficiency was increased by application of a sugar insecticidemixture.

In India neem, combined with a pigeon pea or okra (Abelmosebus

esculentus) trap crop , was on effective strategy against Helicoverpa armigera

Push-pull technology was studied at Dr.P.D.K.V.Akola. by S.B.Jadhavand Dr. A.K. Sadawarte . (2007) Helicoverpa spp.


23/64

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 )

T10 Cotton (NSE treated)

T11 Cotton (NPV treated)

T12 Cotton (untreated)

Treatment details


24/64

Result

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


25/64

Effect of Push-pull technology on Egg laying of H.armigera on trap crop, Pigeon pea.

Trn

o.

Treatment details Average egg production

ofH.armigera per plant

Average

3 DAS 7DAS 14DAS

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


26/64

Effect of Push-pull technology on Egg laying of H.armigera on trap crop , Sunflower.

Trn

o.

Treatment details Average egg production


Average

3 DAS 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


27/64

Effect of Push-pull technology on Larval population of H.armigera on trapcrop, Pigeon pea.

Trn

o.

Treatment details Average larval population


Average

3 DAS 7DAS 14DAS






28/64

Effect of Push-pull technology on Larval population of H.armigera on trap crop,Sunflower

Trn

o.

Treatment details Average larval population


Average

3 DAS 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


29/64

Trno. Treatment details Average pod damage of

H.armigera per plant

Average

3 DAS 7DAS 14DAS





Effect of push pull technology on percent pod damage by H. armigera ontrap crop pigeon pea


30/64

Economics of Push-pull technologyTreatment Yield kg/ha Cost of yield Rs/ha Gross monitory

Rs/ha

Cost of plant

protection

Rs/ha

Net return

Rs/ha

Cotton Trap Cotton trap

T1 862 786 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


31/64

Push-pull for management of cereal stem borers in eastern Africa

Stem borers are one of the major constraints to increased maize

production.

At least four species of stem borer (Chilo partelus, Eldanasaccharina, Busseola fusca and Sesamia calamiatis) infest maize andsorghum crop in the region.

Reported yield losses of 30 to 40% of potential output

Stem borers are difficult to control, largely because of the crypticand nocturnal habits of Adult moths and the protection providedby the stem of the host crop for immature stages.


32/64

This Push-Pull technology does not use any chemicaldeterrents or toxins, but uses repellent plants to deter the pest

from the main crop

The Push-pull strategies for cereal stem borers involves,trapping of stem borers on highly attractant trap plants (pull)while driving them away from the main crop using repellent

intercrops(push).

Plants that have been indentified as effective in the push-pulltactics include Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) , Sudangrass (Sorghum vulgare sudanense), Molasses grass (Melinis

minutiflora) and Desmodium (Desmodium uncinatum andD.intortum)


33/64

Napier and sudan grass are used as trap plants, where asmolasses grass and desmodium repel ovipositing stem borers .

Molasses grass, when intercropped with maize, not only

reduce the infestation of the maize by stem borers , but alsoincreased stem borer parasitism by natural enemies.

This Push-pull strategies also used for control of striga weeds

in maize


34/64

Cereal production biotic constraints addressed by the pushpull system:(a) Striga hermonthica weed; (b) maize grown alone damaged by Striga;(c) stemborer larva inside a stem; (d) maize intercropped with Desmodium

uncinatum and not damaged by Striga


35/64

Figure . Parasitism of stemborer larvae by Cotesia sesameae inmaize-M. minutiflora intercrops planted in various ratios

Nairobi, Kenya

Khan et al., (1997)


36/64

How Push-pull strategies works

The plant chemistry responsible for stem borer control involves release ofattractive volatile from trap plants and repellant volatiles from theintercrops.

To understand the chemical ecology of the push-pull strategies, volatilechemicals from trap and repellent plants have been investigated using gas

chromatography (GC) coupled electro antennagraphy on the antennae ofstem borers and their natural enemies.

GC peaks consistently associated with EAG activity were tentativelyidentified by GC coupled mass spectrometry(GC-MS) and identity wasconfirmed using authentic samples


37/64

A general hypothesis developed during this work on insect pests is thatnon host plants are recognized by colonizing insects through the release ofrepellent or masking semiochemicals

Compounds produced by Poaceae family are (E)- - ocimene, -caryophyllene, humulene and (E)-4,8-diamethyl-3,7-nanatriene

Ocimene and nonatriene had already been encounted as semiochemicsproduced during damage to plants by hervivorous insects

It is likely that these compounds being also with a high level of stemborer

colonization and in some circumstances , acting as foraging cues forparasitoids, would be repellent to ovipositing stemborers


38/64

Investigating the legume volatiles, it was shown that D. uncinatum alsoproduced the ocimene and nonatriene. The smell pushes away the mothsfrom the maize crop.

When Napier grass use as trap crop, stemborer oviposit heavily on it. Itproduces a gummy substance which restricts larval development and onlyfew survive to adulthood.

A trap crop of sudan grass also increased efficiency of stem borer

natural enemies when it is surrounded by field

Napier grass is also planted around the maize crop as a trap plant and itattract female moth

When egg hatch and the small larvae bore into napier grass stem, theplant produces a sticky substance like glue,which traps them and theydie.


39/64

In addition , desmodium , interplanted among the maize , reduces strigaweed.

It has been shown that nitrogen fixed by desmodium and chemicals

produced by roots of desmodium are responsible for suppressing thestriga weed. Therefore, striga does not grow in the maize-desmodiumintercrop


40/64

Trap crops to attract moths to reduced pest problems incrops: Napier and other fodder grasses

Intercrops with repellant properties: legumes

Striga control by intercropping with Desmodium species(legumes)

Push pull on stem borer of Maize


41/64

Lay-out of push-pull plot

Mark out a plot measuring 21mX21m by using tape

Put a peg at each corner of measured area, put more pegs all around theplot at interval of 75 cm.

What not to do?

Do not plant push-pull in less than 21mX21m plots. Because N. grass tends togrow tall and therefore creating shading effect on maize crop

Preparing and laying out the push-

pull plot


42/64

Planting order.

I. Planting of Napier grass

vBana is the best variety of Napier grass for use in push pull in

Africa. At corner it is plant as 75cmX75cm, 3 rows around corner

II. Planting desmodium


43/64

III. Planting of Maize

vIt is planted in straight line between the rows of

desmodium. It is ensure that the first row of maize is atleast 1m away from the inner row of Napier grass75cmX30 cm distance

qHow to prepare the second season Push-pull plot ?

Cut back the desmodium leaving a stubble of 6cm above the ground encourage regrowth andapplied between desmodium row.


44/64

If we follow good management practices the napiergrass and desmodium we will establish this year will

benefit your push pull plot for 5 or more years

General view of Push pull plot


45/64

Push & Pull encompasses intercropping maize with the legume

Desmodium and a border row of Napier grass around the plot

Push & Pull


46/64

Year

Place Maize + Napier2 Maize + Napier +desmodium3

Maize + Napier+ Molasses3

Stemborer

damage (%)

Stemborer

40

maize

plants

Stembor

er

damage

(%)

Stemborer

s/

40 maize

plants

Stembor

er

damage

(%)

Stembor

ers/40

maize

plantsT C T C T C T C T C T C

1998 Trans Nzoia 8.3 18.8 18.6 37.3 4.8 20. 7.7 45.4 6.

5

18.9 10.

2

41.6

Suba 14.9 25.7 16.9 35.9 6.7 21.6 8 39.4 - - - -

1999 Trans Nzoia 11.7 23.1 22.6 49.6 9.7 18.5 13.6 41.8 12

.1

19.9 7.6 39.9

Suba 18.7 29.3 22.7 425.8 13.

5

36.6 19.7 57.4 - - - -

Stemborer damage and population on maize

Kenya Khan et al. (2001)


47/64

Another Experiment on Bt- maize

qIntegration of Bt-maze and Push-pull strategy could further playan important role in the resistance management.

Plots are

1. Bt-maize under push-pull

2. Bt-maize monocrop

3. Non-Bt-under push-pull

4. Non-Bt-maize monocrop


48/64

vOviposition preference and egg predation studies

Observation

vBars marked with different letters

(lower case for egg batch numbersand upper case for predation rates

vThere were , however nosignificant difference in number ofegg batches between non-Bt-maizeand Bt-maize monocrop

vHighest no. of C.partellus eggbatches were recorded in maizemonocrop

vThere were no significantdifference in Bt-maize under pushpull and non-Bt-maize under pushpull for egg batches


49/64

Predation rates of C.partellus eggs was significantly higher in the push-pullthan maize monocrop treatment.

B.fusca predation rates were always less than 1% so no recordedhere.

qPredators

Ants( formacidae), earwing (forficulidae), and spider( lycosidae) were the main stem borer predator recorded

Earwing and Spiders seemed to be most important group. Theywere significantly more abundant in the push pull than maizemonocrop plots

both the predators generally more abundant in push pull thanin maize abundant monocrops plots and their populationseemed unaffected by the Bt-maize


50/64

Fig . Means represent data averages of fourplots during twocropping seasons. Within a predator group,bars marked with

different letters

Fig. Means represent data averages oftwo cropping seasons. Within apredator group, bars marked withdifferent letters


51/64

C.Partellus and B.fusca egg mortality on control and exclusion in both maizeand push pull


52/64

Economics of push-pull

Economics of push-pull strategy as compared to farmer s practice in

six districts in Kenya (from Khan et al., unpublished)


53/64


54/64

Disadvantages

vThe major constraint to widespread technologytransfer is availability of desmodium seed.

vDiffusion and adaptation of technology


55/64

Push-pull for control of urban pest

Control of CockroachesI. Aggregation in the German Cockroaches (Blattella

germanica) is induced by pheromones contained intheir frass.

II. The pheromones comprise volatile attractant (severalalkylomines and(R,S) -1-dimethylamino-2-methyl-propanol) and contact chemoreceptive arrestants(blattellastanoside-A and B derived from - sitosterol)

III. Attractant and pheromones are used commercially in

attracticide traps for cockroaches

IV. A push pull strategies comprising the insect repellentN- methylneodecanamide and a feses (i.e.pheromone-containing)- contaminated surface asattractant with insecticide based food bait has been

evaluated.


56/64

qThis strategy is improved by using Biopesticides based on theentomopathogen M. anisopliae are registered for cockroach control in

some countries

qAlso chemical derived from the Catnip plant (Nepeta caturia) are beingdeveloped as botanical repellents and could replace synthetic repellentsas push component in this strategy.

qIn laboratory test, catnip essential oil performed better than DEET inrepelling cockroaches


57/64

PushPush--pull technology in Horticulturepull technology in Horticulture

Control of Onion maggots

vDelia antique is an important pest of onion (Alium cepa) in northern temperateregions (Canada,Europe,and US)

vOnion culls (small or sprouting unmarketable bulbs) Have been used as a trap crop.It used to divert oviposition from seedling onions

vUnless fly densities are unusually low this strategy alone is unlikely to provideadequate control and a push pull strategies has been suggested

vCinnamaldehyde was selected as a promising oviposition deterrent

vPush pull strategy comprising potted cull onions as trap plants and seedling treated

with cinnamaldehyde (50% formulated in activated charcoal)

vEach component reduced oviposition significantly after 2 days, but they had thegreatest effects when combined together as a push pull treatmentAlthough this strategy still remains to be tested in the field


58/64

Control ofControl of ThripsThrips on Chrysanthemumon Chrysanthemum

Western flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis) are a serious pest of

greenhouse grown Chrysanthemum

They cause feeding damage and transmit viruses and their presence isunacceptable in flowers for market

The predatory mite Amblyseius cucumeris is used in IPM strategies but preyon first instar larvae and control is not always maintained

The predatory bug Orius laevigatus has potential for controlling thrips onflower and predatory mites Stratiolaelaps mites and Gaeolaeps aculifer

showed potential for controlling ground dwelling thrips stages


59/64

To make such a combination of predators economical, a push pullstrategies being developed to push thrips from targeted plants andconcentrated them on trap plants where predators are released or

maintained

Volatiles of the non-host plant rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) showedpotential to be used in this strategy as thrips repellents but they were alsorepellent the predatory bugs O.laevigatus

Negative effect of push pull components on beneficial should beminimized, so the antifeedant polygodial (Extracted from Tasmanniastipitata) was selected for use as a push in this system

For practical reasons , a pull based on preferred cultivars of

Chrysanthemum was sought by growers and a bronze coloured cultivarSpringtime was found to be most attractive and provided pollen for themaintenance of predators in the absence of thrips


60/64

Trap plants were effective when baited with the attractive host plantvolatile E f, reducing infestation on the antifeedant treated main crop

The thrips alarm pheromone decyl and dodecyl acetateand the recentlyindentified aggregation pheromone (R)-Lavandutyl acephate and neryl(S)-2-methyl butanoate may be suitable as additional push-pull

components respectively.

The alarm pheromone increased take off and decreased landing rates inAdults .


61/64

Advantages of PushAdvantages of Push--pull strategypull strategy

Increased efficiency of individual push and pull component

Improved potential for use of antifeedants and ovipostion deterren

Increase efficiency of population reducing components

Resistance management


62/64

Disadvantages of push pullDisadvantages of push pull

q Limitation to development

A good understanding of behavioral and chemicalecology of the host pest infestation and effect of the strategies onbeneficial is essential but requires considerable research efforts.

If knowledge is insufficient, control may break down.

Development of semiochemical component is often limited byformulation and delivery technology.

q Limitation to adoption

An integrated approach to pest control is more complex,

requiring monitoring and decision systemMore belief on insecticide and low knowledge of biological

control agent


63/64

Future for push pull technologyFuture for push pull technology

qThe continued spread of insecticide resistance and the withdrawal ofinsecticides due of legislation leave few other alternatives. Great future for Pushpull technology

qPush pull targeted at predator and parasitoid, while enable to manipulation of

their distribution for improved biological control, are just around the corner. Thisprospect will allow these strategies to applied in novel ways and increase theiruse in IPM in future

qChanging attitudes towards replacing broad spectrum insecticide with newtechnologies, particularly semiochmical tools, to manipulate the behavior ofnatural enemies for improved biological control will enable improved push pull

strategies to be developed and used more widely in the future


64/64

Documents

push pulla atul (nasa)