The push-pull intercrop Desmodium does not repel, but intercepts and kills pests

  1. Anna L Erdei
  2. Aneth B David
  3. Eleni C Savvidou
  4. Vaida Džemedžionaitė
  5. Advaith Chakravarthy
  6. Béla P Molnár
  7. Teun Dekker  Is a corresponding author
  1. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
  2. University of Dar es Salaam, Sweden
  3. University of Thessaly, Greece
  4. Plant Protection Institute, Hungary

Abstract

Over two decades ago, an intercropping strategy was developed that received critical acclaim for synergizing food security with ecosystem resilience in smallholder farming. The push-pull strategy reportedly suppresses lepidopteran pests in maize through a combination of a repellent intercrop (push), commonly Desmodium spp., and an attractive, border crop (pull). Key in the system is the intercrop's constitutive release of volatile terpenoids that repel herbivores. However, the earlier described volatiles were not detectable in the headspace of Desmodium, and only minimally upon herbivory. This was independent of soil type, microbiome composition, and whether collections were made in the laboratory or in the field. Further, in oviposition choice tests in a wind tunnel, maize with or without an odor background of Desmodium was equally attractive for the invasive pest Spodoptera frugiperda. In search of an alternative mechanism, we found that neonate larvae strongly preferred Desmodium over maize. However, their development stagnated and no larva survived. In addition, older larvae were frequently seen impaled and immobilized by the dense network of silica-fortified, non-glandular trichomes. Thus, our data suggest that Desmodium may act through intercepting and decimating dispersing larval offspring rather than adult deterrence. As a hallmark of sustainable pest control, maize-Desmodium push-pull intercropping has inspired countless efforts to emulate stimulo-deterrent diversion in other cropping systems. However, detailed knowledge of the actual mechanisms is required to rationally improve the strategy, and translate the concept to other cropping systems.

Data availability

https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/The_push-pull_intercrop_Desmodium_does_not_repel_but_intercepts_and_kills_pest/19297730

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Anna L Erdei

    Department of Plant Protection Biology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Aneth B David

    Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Eleni C Savvidou

    Department of Agriculture Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Vaida Džemedžionaitė

    Department of Plant Protection Biology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Advaith Chakravarthy

    Department of Plant Protection Biology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Béla P Molnár

    Department of Chemical Ecology, Plant Protection Institute, Budapest, Hungary
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Teun Dekker

    Department of Plant Protection Biology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden
    For correspondence
    teun.dekker@slu.se
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5395-6602

Funding

No external funding was received for this work.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Youngsung Joo, Seoul National University, Republic of Korea

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: March 8, 2022 (view preprint)
  2. Received: April 17, 2023
  3. Accepted: March 7, 2024
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: March 13, 2024 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: April 16, 2024 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2024, Erdei et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 452
    views
  • 90
    downloads
  • 0
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Anna L Erdei
  2. Aneth B David
  3. Eleni C Savvidou
  4. Vaida Džemedžionaitė
  5. Advaith Chakravarthy
  6. Béla P Molnár
  7. Teun Dekker
(2024)
The push-pull intercrop Desmodium does not repel, but intercepts and kills pests
eLife 13:e88695.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.88695

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.88695

Further reading

    1. Ecology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Théo Constant, F Stephen Dobson ... Sylvain Giroud
    Research Article

    Seasonal animal dormancy is widely interpreted as a physiological response for surviving energetic challenges during the harshest times of the year (the physiological constraint hypothesis). However, there are other mutually non-exclusive hypotheses to explain the timing of animal dormancy, that is, entry into and emergence from hibernation (i.e. dormancy phenology). Survival advantages of dormancy that have been proposed are reduced risks of predation and competition (the ‘life-history’ hypothesis), but comparative tests across animal species are few. Using the phylogenetic comparative method applied to more than 20 hibernating mammalian species, we found support for both hypotheses as explanations for the phenology of dormancy. In accordance with the life-history hypotheses, sex differences in hibernation emergence and immergence were favored by the sex difference in reproductive effort. In addition, physiological constraint may influence the trade-off between survival and reproduction such that low temperatures and precipitation, as well as smaller body mass, influence sex differences in phenology. We also compiled initial evidence that ectotherm dormancy may be (1) less temperature dependent than previously thought and (2) associated with trade-offs consistent with the life-history hypothesis. Thus, dormancy during non-life-threatening periods that are unfavorable for reproduction may be more widespread than previously thought.

    1. Ecology
    Ari Grele, Tara J Massad ... Lora A Richards
    Research Article

    Declines in biodiversity generated by anthropogenic stressors at both species and population levels can alter emergent processes instrumental to ecosystem function and resilience. As such, understanding the role of biodiversity in ecosystem function and its response to climate perturbation is increasingly important, especially in tropical systems where responses to changes in biodiversity are less predictable and more challenging to assess experimentally. Using large-scale transplant experiments conducted at five neotropical sites, we documented the impacts of changes in intraspecific and interspecific plant richness in the genus Piper on insect herbivory, insect richness, and ecosystem resilience to perturbations in water availability. We found that reductions of both intraspecific and interspecific Piper diversity had measurable and site-specific effects on herbivory, herbivorous insect richness, and plant mortality. The responses of these ecosystem-relevant processes to reduced intraspecific Piper richness were often similar in magnitude to the effects of reduced interspecific richness. Increased water availability reduced herbivory by 4.2% overall, and the response of herbivorous insect richness and herbivory to water availability were altered by both intra- and interspecific richness in a site-dependent manner. Our results underscore the role of intraspecific and interspecific richness as foundations of ecosystem function and the importance of community and location-specific contingencies in controlling function in complex tropical systems.