Putative Repellent Research Articles

Evaluating putative repellent \u2018push\u2019 and attractive \u2018pull\u2019 components for manipulating the odour orientation of host-seeking malaria vectors in the peri-domestic space

BackgroundNovel malaria vector control approaches aim to combine tools for maximum protection. This study aimed to evaluate novel and re-evaluate existing putative repellent ‘push’ and attractive ‘pull’ components for manipulating the odour orientation of malaria vectors in the peri-domestic space.MethodsAnopheles arabiensis outdoor human landing catches and trap comparisons were implemented in large semi-field systems to (i) test the efficacy of Citriodiol® or transfluthrin-treated fabric strips positioned in house eave gaps as push components for preventing bites; (ii) understand the efficacy of MB5-baited Suna-traps in attracting vectors in the presence of a human being; (iii) assess 2-butanone as a CO2 replacement for trapping; (iv) determine the protection provided by a full push-pull set up. The air concentrations of the chemical constituents of the push–pull set-up were quantified.ResultsMicroencapsulated Citriodiol® eave strips did not provide outdoor protection against host-seeking An. arabiensis. Transfluthrin-treated strips reduced the odds of a mosquito landing on the human volunteer (OR 0.17; 95% CI 0.12–0.23). This impact was lower (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.52–0.66) during the push-pull experiment, which was associated with low nighttime temperatures likely affecting the transfluthrin vaporisation. The MB5-baited Suna trap supplemented with CO2 attracted only a third of the released mosquitoes in the absence of a human being; however, with a human volunteer in the same system, the trap caught < 1% of all released mosquitoes. The volunteer consistently attracted over two-thirds of all mosquitoes released. This was the case in the absence (‘pull’ only) and in the presence of a spatial repellent (‘push-pull’), indicating that in its current configuration the tested ‘pull’ does not provide a valuable addition to a spatial repellent. The chemical 2-butanone was ineffective in replacing CO2. Transfluthrin was detectable in the air space but with a strong linear reduction in concentrations over 5 m from release. The MB5 constituent chemicals were only irregularly detected, potentially suggesting insufficient release and concentration in the air for attraction.ConclusionThis step-by-step evaluation of the selected ‘push’ and ‘pull’ components led to a better understanding of their ability to affect host-seeking behaviours of the malaria vector An. arabiensis in the peri-domestic space and helps to gauge the impact such tools would have when used in the field for monitoring or control.Graphical

Natural Compounds as Spider Repellents: Fact or Myth?

Although some spiders are globally invasive, found at high densities, and may be considered pests (particularly those that are toxic to humans), there are few pest management methods based on experimental data. 'Common wisdom' and advertisements on internet websites assert that a number of natural substances repel spiders. We tested whether the three substances cited most frequently (lemon oil, peppermint oil, and chestnut-fruits) effectively repelled female spiders or whether these were myths. We presented each of the putative repellents versus a control in a two-choice assay and tested responses of females of three invasive spider species in two different families: theridiids, Latrodectus geometricus C. L. Koch (Araneae: Theridiidae) and Steatoda grossa C. L. Koch (Araneae: Theridiidae) and the araneid, Araneus diadematus Clerck . Chestnuts (Araneae: Araneidae) and mint oil strongly repelled L. geometricus and A. diadematus. S. grossa was less sensitive to these chemicals but had a slight tendency to avoid chestnuts. However, lemon oil, the substance most likely to be cited as a repellent (over 1,000,000 hits on Google), had no effect on any of these spiders. We conclude that volatiles released by mint oil and chestnuts may be effective in deterring spider settlement in two different families of spiders, but lemon oil as a repellent is a myth.

Glucosinolate Profiles in Cabbage Genotypes Influence the Preferential Feeding of Diamondback Moth (Plutella xylostella).

Diamondback moth (DBM), Plutella xylostella L., is a devastating pest of cabbage worldwide whose feeding attributes are influenced by glucosinolate profiles of the plant. Identifying the specific glucosinolates associated with plants’ resistance mechanism can provide cues to novel points of intervention in developing resistant cultivars. We studied the DBM larval feeding preference and extent of damage on cabbage leaves via controlled glass-house and in vitro multiple- and two-choice feeding tests. These feeding attributes were associated with the individual glucosinolate profiles, analyzed by HPLC, of each of the eight cabbage genotypes using multivariate analytical approach to identify the glucosinolates that may have roles in resistance. Both the glass-house and in vitro multiple-choice feeding tests identified the genotype BN4303, BN4059, and BN4072 as the least preferred (resistant) and Rubra, YR Gold and BN3383 as most preferred (susceptible) genotypes by DBM larvae. The principal component analysis separated the genotypes based on lower feeding scores in association with higher contents of glucobrassicin, glucoiberin, glucoiberverin in one direction and 4-hydroxyglucobrassicin, glucoerucin, glucoraphanin, and progoitrin in opposite direction in a way to explain the major variation in resistant versus susceptible genotypes based on their extent of preference and leaf area damage. The simultaneous presence (or higher contents) of glucobrassicin, glucoiberin, and glucoiberverin and the absence (or lower contents) of 4-hydroxyglucobrassicin, glucoerucin, glucoraphanin, and progoitrin in the least preferred genotypes and vice-versa in most preferred genotypes indicated their apparent role as putative repellents and attractants of DBM larvae in cabbage genotypes, respectively. These novel findings add to the current knowledgebase on the roles of glucosinolates in plant–herbivore interactions and will be helpful in setting breeding priorities for improving the resistance against DBM in cabbage using conventional and biotechnological approaches.

An evaluation of silver-stage American Eel conspecific chemical cueing during outmigration

American Eel Anguilla rostrata abundance has declined in recent decades, in part because sexually maturing, silver-stage adults, outmigrating from freshwater to oceanic spawning grounds, encounter migratory blockades or perish when passing through active hydroelectric turbines. To help improve downstream passage effectiveness and increase survival rates, the role of silver-stage American Eel conspecific chemical cueing during outmigration was investigated using a new type of bioassay. Inside a laboratory flume, downstream-swimming eels were exposed to both live (putative attractant) and dead (putative repellent) conspecific washings to determine whether their trajectory of downstream movement, level of activity, or time spent inside targeted areas of the arena changed after exposure. Silver eels were not attracted to or repulsed by either odor, as none of five scoring metrics indicated a behavioral response. Results did not support the hypothesis that conspecific chemical cueing is a mechanism for downstream migration coordination or danger avoidance; however responses may not have been readily apparent in this type of assay. Fisheries managers may opt to focus future research on more feasible restoration efforts using alternate experimental designs to remedy this ecological issue.

Something in the air? The impact of volatiles on mollusc attack of oilseed rape seedlings.

Mounting concerns about balancing food security with the environmental impacts of agro-chemical use underpin the need to better understand the mechanisms by which crop plants, particularly during the vulnerable seedling stage, attract or repel herbivores. The feeding preferences of the mollusc Helix aspersa were determined for several oilseed rape (Brassica napus) cultivars and a rank order of acceptability was established. This was compared with glucosinolate concentrations and volatile organic compound (VOC) profiles to determine whether seedling acceptability to molluscs was linked to either form of defence. While VOC profiles for each oilseed rape cultivar could be separated by canonical discriminant analysis and associated with mollusc feeding preferences, glucosinolate profiles were unrelated to snail feeding behaviour. A mixture of monoterpenes (α-pinene, β-myrcene and δ-3-carene) was identified as a putative attractant, while a blend of the green leaf volatiles 3-hexen-1-ol, 3-hexen-1-ol acetate and the monoterpene α-terpinene was identified as a putative repellent mix. Added to the VOC profile of oilseed rape seedlings, the 'repellent' mix reduced mollusc selection, while the 'attractant' mix had no effect. Despite the widespread assumption that seedling selection by generalist herbivores is governed by chemical defence and taste, we show that olfactory cues may be more important. Oilseed rape may be atypical of wild plants, but our ability to identify repellent volatile organic compounds that can influence snail olfactory selection points to new methods for crop protection using modified VOC profiles during the vulnerable seedling stage.

Evaluating sub-lethal effects of orchard-applied pyrethroids using video-tracking software to quantify honey bee behaviors

Managed honey bee, Apis mellifera L., colonies are contracted to pollinate fruit and nut orchards improving crop quality and yield. Colonies placed in orchards are potentially exposed to pyrethroid insecticides used for broad-spectrum pest control. Pyrethroids have been reported to pose minimal risk to bees due to their low application rates in the field and putative repellent properties. This repellency is believed to alter foraging behavior with the benefit of preventing bees from encountering a lethal dose in the field. However, sub-lethal exposure to pyrethroids may adversely impact bee behavior potentially resulting in social dysfunction or disruption of foraging.This study quantified behaviors associated with sub-lethal exposure to orchard-applied pyrethroids including, lambda-cyhalothrin, esfenvalerate, and permethrin, using video tracking software, Ethovision XT (Noldus Information Technologies). Bee locomotion, social interaction, and time spent near a food source were measured over a 24-h period. Bees treated with a pyrethroid traveled 30–71% less than control bees. Social interaction time decreased by 43% for bees treated with a high sub-lethal dose of esfenvalerate. Bees exposed to a high sub-lethal dose of permethrin spent 67% less time in social interaction and spent more than 5 times as long in the food zone compared to control bees.

The First Order Transfer Function in the Analysis of Agrochemical Data in Honey Bees (Apis Mellifera L.): Proboscis Extension Reflex (PER) Studies.

This paper describes a mathematical model of the learning process suitable for studies of conditioning using the proboscis extension reflex (PER) in honey bees when bees are exposed to agrochemicals. Although procedural variations exist in the way laboratories use the PER paradigm, proboscis conditioning is widely used to investigate the influence of pesticides and repellents on honey bee learning. Despite the availability of several mathematical models of the learning process, no attempts have been made to apply a mathematical model to the learning curve in honey bees exposed to agrochemicals. Our model is based on the standard transfer function in the form Y = B3e−B2 (X−1) + B4 (1−e−B2 (X−1)) where X is the trial number, Y is the proportion of correct responses, B2 is the learning rate, B3 is readiness to learn, and B4 is ability to learn. We reanalyze previously published data on the effect of several classes of agrochemicals including: (1) those that are considered harmless to bees (e.g., pymetrozine, essential oils, dicofol); (2) sublethal exposure to pesticides known to harm honey bees (e.g., coumaphos, cyfluthrin, fluvalinate, permethrin); and (3) putative repellents of honey bees (e.g., butyric acid, citronella). The model revealed additional effects not detected with standard statistical tests of significance.

Generic Insect Repellent Detector from the Fruit Fly Drosophila melanogaster

BackgroundInsect repellents are prophylactic tools against a number of vector-borne diseases. There is growing demand for repellents outperforming DEET in cost and safety, but with the current technologies R&D of a new product takes almost 10 years, with a prohibitive cost of $30 million dollar in part due to the demand for large-scale synthesis of thousands of test compounds of which only 1 may reach the market. R&D could be expedited and cost dramatically reduced with a molecular/physiological target to streamline putative repellents for final efficacy and toxicological tests.MethodologyUsing olfactory-based choice assay we show here that the fruit fly is repelled by not only DEET, but also IR3535 and picaridin thus suggesting they might have “generic repellent detector(s),” which may be of practical applications in new repellent screenings. We performed single unit recordings from all olfactory sensilla in the antennae and maxillary palps. Although the ab3A neuron in the wild type flies responded to picaridin, it was unresponsive to DEET and IR3535. By contrast, a neuron housed in the palp basiconic sensilla pb1 responded to DEET, IR3535, and picaridin, with apparent sensitivity higher than that of the DEET detectors in the mosquitoes Culex quinquefasciatus and Aedes aegypti. DmOr42a was transplanted from pb1 to the “empty neuron” and showed to be sensitive to the three insect repellents.ConclusionsFor the first time we have demonstrated that the fruit fly avoids not only DEET but also IR3535 and picaridin, and identified an olfactory receptor neuron (ORN), which is sensitive to these three major insect repellents. We have also identified the insect repellent-sensitive receptor, DmOr42a. This generic detector fulfils the requirements for a simplified bioassay for early screening of test insect repellents.

Responses of Glossina morsitans morsitans to blends of electroantennographically active compounds in the odors of its preferred (buffalo and ox) and nonpreferred (waterbuck) hosts.

In a previous study, comparison of the behavior of teneral Glossina morsitans morsitans on waterbuck, Kobus defassa (a refractory host), and on two preferred hosts, buffalo, Syncerus caffer, and ox, Bos indicus, suggested the presence of allomones in the waterbuck odor. Examination of the volatile odors by coupled gas chromatography-electroantennographic detection showed that the antennal receptors of the flies detected constituents common to the three bovids (phenols and aldehydes), as well as a series of compounds specific to waterbuck, including C8-C13 methyl ketones, delta-octalactone, and phenols. In this study, behavioral respones of teneral G. m. morsitans to different blends of these compounds were evaluated in a choice wind tunnel. The flies' responses to known or putative attractant blends (the latter comprising EAG-active constituents common to all three animals and those common to buffalo and ox, excluding the known tseste attractants, 4-methylphenol and 3-n-propylphenol), and to putative repellent (the blend of EAG-active compounds specific to the waterbuck volatiles), were different. A major difference related to their initial and final behaviors. When a choice of attractant blends (known or putative) and clean air was presented, flies initially responded by flying upwind toward the odor source, but later moved downwind and rested on either side of the tunnel, with some preference for the side with the odor treatments. However, when presented with a choice of waterbuck-specific blend (putative repellent) and clean air, the flies' initial reaction appeared random; flies flew upwind on either side, but eventually settled down on the odorless side of the tunnel. Flies that flew up the odor plume showed an aversion behavior to the blend. The results lend further support to previous indications for the existence of a tsetse repellent blend in waterbuck body odor and additional attractive constituents in buffalo and ox body odors.