PHM 508

(Integrated Pest Management)

Push-Pull technology as component of

Biological control

Course instructor: Dr Tange Denis A.

 Presented by
• NGEMENYA JOEL RINDA AV17A022
• ZAH DILIX SHIRRI AV16A113
• DIOMO NDOLI KARL AV17A003
• NZALIE FEZEU CLEMENT AV17A044
 Topics
• Genesis of push-pull strategy
• Principles of push-pull technology
• Cited examples of successful application of this
method.
• Adoption of the strategy technology transfer.
• Challenges
• Advantages
• Conclusion and lessons learned
 Definition of terms

 PUSH: This is the repelling or deterring of pest away

from useful resources(crops) by using stimuli that
mask host apparency or are repellent or deterrents.

 PULL: This is when pests are simultaneously

attracted using highly apparent and attractive stimuli,
to other areas such as traps or trap crops where they
are concentrated facilitating their control or
elimination.
Cook et al., 2006

Page 1
 Push-Pull strategies is the use of various combination of
behavior-modifying stimuli to manipulate the distribution
and abundance of pest and/or beneficial insects for pest
management.

 The term push-pull was first conceived as strategy for insect

pest management(IPM) by Pyke et al. in Australia in 1987, to
manipulate the distribution of Helicoverpa spp in cotton to
reduce insecticide use to which the moths were becoming
resistant.

 The concept was later formalized by Miller and Cowles, who

termed the strategy stimulus-deterrent diversion while
developing alternatives to insecticides for control of the
onion maggot.
Page 2
 Stimuli for Push components
 Visual cues: manipulation of host color, shape or size
to inhibit host orientation and acceptance behaviours
of pest(rarely used in IPM).

 Synthetic repellents: MNDA(N-methyl

neodecanamide) and DEET(N,N-diethyl-3-methyl
benzamide, or N,N,diethyl-m-totuamide) are used to
control Stem borers in maize, cabbage root flies.

 Non host volatiles: used to mask host odors or evoke

non-host avoidance and repellent behaviors.
Page 3
 Antifeedants: most are plant derived such as
Azadirachtin(primary component of neem, derived from
Azadirachta indica). Has toxic effects at normal
treatment rates.

 Oviposition deterrents: prevent or reduce egg

deposition and control species whose imagoes are
pestiferous. Numerous botanical deterrents isolated from
non-hosts have deterred oviposition by pest, eg Neem-
based formulations.

 Other examples of push stimuli include; alarm

pheromones, anti-aggregation pheromones, host-derived
semio-chemicals. Page 4
 Stimuli for Pull components
 Visual stimulants: to attract pests to traps or trap crops
and enhance the effectiveness of olfactory stimuli.

 Host volatile: In host location, used in bait traps for

monitoring, mass trapping or in attracticide strategies. To
continue, knowledge of host specificity and preference,
used in traps or to increase the effectiveness of trap crops.
 Sex and aggregation pheromones: to attract corn specifics
for mating and optimizing resources, used in pest
monitoring. It is used in direct control strategies where
male pheromones attract females.
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
 Highlights on success stories of push-pull
method.
 The following examples below depict some successful trials
carried out in the using the push and pull technology;

 The control of the stem borer (Chilo partellus) and striga

(striga hermonthica) weed on maize crops in East Africa,
most notably Kenya.
 The stem borer pest and striga weed caused alot of serious
damage on crops in kenya and many East African countries.

 This led to immediated action by researchers from the

Rothamsted Research Station and International Center of Insect
physiology and Ecology (ICPE) worked in East Africa(Kenya)

Page 8
 To look for an ecologically best pest management
solution for stem borers and striga weed causing lots
of destruction on famers crops.

 Alot of research was done which lead to the discovery

and successful use of some plant species such as the
Napier grass( Pennisetum purpureum) which served
as a trap crop to “pull” stem borers away from the
maize when planted at the borders of the crop field.
 This lepidopteran pest, stem borer caused a lot of
damage on farmers crops by attacking their cereal
crops at its growth stages ,laying their eggs inside the
stem of the crop plant.
Page 9
 This pest at the time caused damage leading to 80% of small
farmers crop yields.
 Also, the plant Desmodium (D. unicinatum ) a leguminous
plant contributed to “push” stem borers away from the
maize crop and also possessed an allelopathic effect by
producing and releasing chemicals from the roots that
helped to control the invasion of striga weed, causing it to be
stunted when intercropped with the maize crop.

 There was also another plant species used for this for the
stemborer control which was the Molasses grass,which when
intercropped with maize increases parasitism on stem
borer,killing it in the process by the organsim Cotesia
sesamiae
Page 10
 Striga or witch weed is a parasitic weed that also
affected cereal crops a lot in this area by stunting
crop growth,leading to loss of 30-100% of yields.
 Their research using this technology helped the
manage pest and increase animal forage as well as
enhance enhance soil quality.
 Use of this strategy lead to over 96000 farmers in
East Africa adopting this technology.

 Overall, increased their maize yields form an average

1 ton to 3.5 tons per hectare and without use of any
chemical insecticides and with minimal use of
external inputs.
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
 Others experiments were conducted using the push-pull
method such as;

 Push-pull strategy with trap crops, Neem and nuclear

polyhedrosis virus for insecticide resistance management
in Helicoverpa amigera(bollworm) in cotton (India).

 Artificial applied plant volatile organic compounds

modify the behavior of a pest with no adverse effect on its
natural enemies in the field, this was done to control the
cabbage root fly, Delia radicum on Brassica
oleracea( Broccoli) in france.
Lamy et al.,2016

Page 14
 Adoption And Technology Transfer
 Technology transfer for this push–pull system
requires new approaches, and,

 Although such transfer benefits by a tradition of

companion cropping, training is required for
extension services and farmers, and availability of
seed or other planting material, although, being
perennial, these companion plants are one-off
inputs.

Page 15
 Adoption And Technology Transfer

 All the companion plants are valuable forage for dairy

(cow and goat) husbandry and potentiate zero grazing,
which is advantageous in the high population density
rural areas in which most of the population live in sub-
Saharan Africa.

 The legume inter-crop plants, Desmodium spp., also

fix nitrogen, with Duncinatum being able to add
approximately 110 kgN/ha/yr and contributing
approximately 160 kg/ha/yr equivalent of nitrogen
fertilizer.

Page 16
 Adoption And Technology Transfer
 Desmodium spp. intercrops also control parasitic striga
weeds, for example, Striga hermonthica , via release of
allelopathic C-glycosylated flavonoids , which represents
another facet of push–pull in providing weed control.

 Overall, there is a high take-up and retention in regions

where the technology is transferred; for example, in
western Kenya in 2013, nearly 60,000 farmers are using
these techniques.

 Although this represents a very small percentage of the

millions of people who could benefit, so far there have
been very few resources for technology transfer.
Page 17
 Challenges of Push-Pull strategy
 Limitation to development
- Understanding of behavioral and chemical ecology of the host
pest.
- Insufficient knowledge, control break down.
- Development of semio-chemical components.

 Limitation of adoption
-Integrated approach to pest control,more complex.
-Requiring monitoring and decisions system.
-More insecticides and low knowledge of control agents.

Cook et al.,2006
Page 18
 Lessons learned
• Push-pull is not only a sustainable farming system,
but can also protect the new generation of
GM(Genetically modified) crops against
development of resistance by pests.

• Although considerable work still needs to be done

for all the new tools of biotechnology to be
exploited in push–pull, agriculture must sustainably
produce more food on less land as it is lost through
diversion to other uses and climate change, and so
presents an extremely important target for new
biotechnological studies.
Page 19
 Advantages of push-pull strategy

 Attract both immature and Adult stages.

 Simple, commercially available and cheap
components.
 Improved potential for use of Antifeedants and
oviposition deterrants.
 Resistance management
 Increased efficiency of individual push-pull
components population reducing.

Page 20
 References
33. Cook SM, Smart LE, Martin JL, Murray DA, Watts NP,
Williams IH. 2006. Exploitation of host plant preferences in
pest management strategies for oilseed rape (Brassica
 napus). Entomol. Exp. Appl. 119:221–29

 Khan, Zeyaur. et al. “Economic performance of the

‘push-pull’ technology for stemborer and Striga control
in smallholder farming systems in western Kenya.”. Crop
Protection 27.7 (2008): 1084-1097

Page 21
Tha
nk
You
!!!

Page 22