Next Article in Journal
Genetic Diversity Analysis of Phenotypic Traits in Jujube Germplasm Resources
Previous Article in Journal
Dose-Dependent Effects of Paecilomyces variotii Extract on Drought Resistance in Pear Trees: Plant Growth, Soil Enzyme Activities, and Root Exudates
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/agronomy15092062
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Attractiveness of Food Baits and Tea Volatile Components to Mirid Bug Apolygus lucorum in Tea Plantation

by
Zhifei Jia
1,
Binghai Gong
1,
Yusheng Li
2,
Yongyu Xu
1 and
Zhenzhen Chen
1,*
1
State Key Laboratory of Wheat Improvement, College of Plant Protection, Shandong Agricultural University, Tai’an 271018, China
2
Shandong Agricultural Technology Extension Center, Jinan 250100, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(9), 2062; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092062
Submission received: 27 July 2025 / Revised: 21 August 2025 / Accepted: 26 August 2025 / Published: 27 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Pest and Disease Management)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Apolygus lucorum is one of the main pests affecting tea quality. Chemical control is the primary method for managing this pest, but issues such as pesticide residues and the development of resistance are inevitable. The pest’s extensive host range holds significant practical implications for developing novel food baits. This study first investigated the preference of adult A. lucorum for tea branches under different conditions and various host plants by using the Y-tube olfactometer. Subsequently, the trapping efficacy of active tea volatile components and food baits was tested. The results revealed that adult A. lucorum exhibited a stronger preference for healthy and mechanically damaged tea branches, while they avoided branches infested with high densities of conspecifics. Adult A. lucorum showed significantly higher selection rates for Gossypium hirsutum, Vigna radiata leaf, Glycine max leaf, Phaseolus vulgaris, Lablab purpureus, and Brassica pekinensis compared with healthy tea branches. In field trials, three tea volatile baits showed effective trapping performance, (E,E)-α-farnesene, nonanal, and (Z)-3-hexenol. Three mixture baits of foods and tea plant volatiles, B. pekinensis + (Z)-3-hexenol, P. vulgaris + (E,E)-α-farnesene, and S. melongena + (Z)-3-hexenol, not only demonstrated high attractiveness but also maintained a residual effect period as long as 20 days. This study provides new insights and approaches for the integrated management of A. lucorum and offers technical support for the development of novel green pest control technologies in tea plantations.

1. Introduction

Apolygus lucorum (Hemiptera: Miridae) is currently a major economic crop pest in China, South Korea, and Japan [1]. It has a diverse diet and a wide range of hosts, with 288 species of host plants from 54 families having been identified, including cotton, beans, alfalfa, mulberry, hemp, maize, potatoes, melons, medicinal plants, flowers, artemisia, cruciferous vegetables, and various fruit trees [2,3]. In tea plantations, it undergoes five generations per year. The main stage of damage is the first generation of nymphs before and after the spring tea harvest, greatly affecting the yield and quality of spring tea. It prefers warm and humid environments, and in recent years, its population density has significantly increased due to climate change and the promotion of monoculture planting patterns [4]. Research indicates that non-chemical interventions, including habitat manipulation and conservation biological control, while effective in moderating A. lucorum densities, often require supplementation with judicious insecticide applications to maintain economic viability in sensitive high-value agricultural systems under current IPM frameworks [5,6]. Due to prolonged and extensive insecticide application, the resistance of A. lucorum has exhibited a steady increase [7,8]. This implies an urgent need for safer, greener, and more efficient prevention and control strategies.
Both female and male A. lucorum are attracted to tea shoots, which suggests that certain volatile compounds in the tea shoots may be responsible for this attraction [3]. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) play a pivotal role in modulating the intricate interactions between plants and other organisms within the same ecological environment [9]. (E,E)-α-farnesene, linalool, hexanol, (E)-2-hexenal, (Z)-3-hexenol, and nonanal are common volatile compounds found in tea plants [10,11,12,13]. Previous research has discovered that they can exhibit strong binding affinity with the chemosensory proteins (CSPs) of Aleurocanthus spiniferus (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae), a significant pest of tea plants, indicating their potential to be developed into attractants for tea plant pest control [14]. Most of them have already been employed in the field control of tea plant pests. For instance, (Z)-3-hexenol, (E)-2-hexenal, and linalool have been used as attractants for Empoasca onukii (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) in tea plantations [15,16], and they have also been developed as attractants for Empoasca vitis (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) [10]. Terpenoids such as (Z)-3-hexenol and (E,E)-α-farnesene are typically released when tea plants are attacked by herbivores [17].
As an effective biological control strategy, food trapping technology has been successfully applied in the management of agricultural pests, stored product pests, and public health pests [18,19,20]. This method is highly regarded for its strong specificity, significant effectiveness, environmental friendliness, lack of pollution, and ease of accessibility. Additionally, it helps reduce reliance on and overuse of chemical pesticides [21]. For instance, food baits that mimic the food sources of adult fruit flies are among the primary attractants used in fruit fly traps [22,23]. Compared with sex attractants, food-based attractants offer several advantages, such as suitability for species without known male attractants and the ability to capture both females and males of the target species [24]. Currently, various control strategies employing food-based attractants are gaining widespread attention in the field of biological pest control and have become a focal point of research.
Food-based attractants, as a low-cost and environmentally friendly pest control method, have been developed and applied in agricultural production [21]. However, research on food-based attractants targeting A. lucorum in tea plantations remains limited. To identify effective food-based attractants for A. lucorum, this study employed Y-tube experiments to determine the host plant preferences of adult A. lucorum and validated these findings through field trials, ultimately aiming to discover natural and eco-friendly food-based attractants. This research study provides novel insights and approaches for the integrated pest management of A. lucorum, offers technical support for developing novel green pest control technologies in tea plantations, and contributes positively to the sustainable development of tea cultivation systems.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Tested Plants

The tea branches collected from the tea plantation were brought to the laboratory and processed as follows.
Healthy tea branches: Pruning shears were used to cut approximately 20–25 cm long branches from 2-year-old healthy tea plants, ensuring smooth and even cuts. These branches were free from pest damage and physical injuries to avoid any mechanical impact on the branches. The cut tea branches were placed in containers and thoroughly washed with distilled water to effectively remove surface contaminants and impurities. The cut ends of the branches were wrapped with cotton treated with distilled water.
Mechanically damaged tea branches: Twelve hours before the test, a blade was used to make random cuts on 2-year-old healthy tea branches and apical shoots to simulate the pruning process of tea trees.
A. lucorum-infested tea branches: Newly emerged 1-day-old adult A. lucorum were starved for 6 h and then placed on 2-year-old healthy tea branches at densities of 2, 6, 10, 20, and 30 individuals per branch. The branches with the insects were then placed in 15 cm × 15 cm × 15 cm mesh cages (120 mesh) and kept in a controlled climate chamber (T = 25 °C, RH = 60% ± 5%) for 12 h before being used in subsequent experiments.
Capsicum annuum, Gossypium hirsutum, Solanum melongena, Vigna radiata, Glycine max, Phaseolus vulgaris, Lablab purpureus, Brassica pekinensis, and Medicago sativa were cultivated in a controlled greenhouse environment. The plants were individually enclosed in 1 m × 1 m × 1 m mesh cages (120 mesh) to prevent infestation by other pests. For the Y-tube tests, approximately 10–25 cm long branches were cut from C. annuum, G. hirsutum, S. melongena, P. vulgaris, L. purpureus, B. pekinensis, and M. sativa, ensuring that the weight of each branch was equivalent to that of the healthy tea branches (100 g) used in each experimental group. Impurities from the plant branches were thoroughly washed with distilled water and allowed to air-dry naturally. The cut ends were wrapped with cotton treated with distilled water for 12 h to prepare for subsequent experiments. For V. radiata and G. max, petiole-removed leaf blades were used, with their fresh weight adjusted to match that of the healthy tea branches in each experimental group.

2.2. Tested Insects

A. lucorum were collected from the tea plantation base of Shandong Taishan Chaxigu Agricultural Development Co., Ltd. (36°22′ N, 116°94′ E). From May to November, the insects were captured using sweep nets in the experimental tea sheds and collected in insect net bags. They were then transported to the laboratory and reared in 50 cm × 50 cm mesh cages (120 mesh). The test insects were maintained on a diet of P. vulgaris pods for successive generations. During the adult stage, a cotton ball soaked with 5% honey water was provided in the rearing cages as a nutritional supplement. After thirteen generations of stable laboratory colony propagation, adult insects were used for the experiments. Before two plants were tested for preference, the test insects remained on the corresponding cultivars for 48 h.

2.3. Y-Tube Test

The Y-tube olfactometer and experimental protocol followed the method described by Han and Chen [25]. One adult A. lucorum was introduced into the Y-tube for each trial, with 60 replicates conducted. A choice was recorded when the adult moved 5 cm past the Y-junction and remained there for over 30 s. If no choice was made within 10 min, the trial was marked as a non-response. After each test, the Y-tube was wiped with absolute ethanol to eliminate any residual traces left by the adults. To minimize potential biases from physical factors such as light or positional effects, the positions of the Y-tube and the Mengel-type wash bottle were swapped after every 10 insects tested. After completing each treatment group, the Mengel-type wash bottle, Y-tube, and medical-grade silicone tubing were thoroughly cleaned, and the sealing film was replaced. The components were then dried in an oven at 70 °C to remove any residual odors. Before the experiment, we placed adult A. lucorum in a Y-tube with both arms connected to clean air. Specifically, the odor vials in both arms were empty, and airflow was generated by an air sampler. After passing through distilled water and activated charcoal, the airflow was directed directly into both arms of the Y-tube to confirm the absence of positional bias in arm selection.

2.4. Field Experiment of the Tea Volatile Compound Bait

The experiments were conducted in August 2022 at the tea plantation base of Shandong Taishan Tea Valley Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., in Daiyue District, Tai’an, China (36°22′ N, 116°94′ E), and in October 2023 at the tea plantation under the management of Taishan Jiuqu White Tea Co., Ltd., in Daiyue District, Tai’an, China (36°35′ N, 117°33′ E). The tested tea plants were perennial Camellia sinensis cv. Fuding White Tea. The experimental tea plots feature uniform terrain and are planted with 4-year-old Fuding white tea cultivars. The dimensions and spacing of the tea sheds are illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Green pest control practices were implemented throughout the plantation, maintaining optimal ecological conditions in the tea plantations. Chemical pesticides were strictly minimized and applied only as a last resort, preserving beneficial arthropod populations and overall plantation ecology. Specifically, the green pest management measures comprised (1) deploying yellow sticky traps (50 traps/ha) and (2) implementing cultural practices including regular pruning (maintaining canopy height at 1.0–1.2 m) and balanced fertilization. The last application occurred in March–April 2022 and March–April 2023. Lambda-cyhalothrin (emulsifiable concentrate, EC) was applied at a rate of 10 g a.i./ha. Applications were limited to one per distinct outbreak event, strictly observing pre-harvest intervals.
The attractants for tests were formulated as six tea volatile components diluted with hexane to three concentrations (0.1, 0.01, and 0.001 g/mL) and adsorbed onto a rubber dispenser (Keyun, Co., Ltd., Jiyuan, China), each containing 500 μL. The following treatments were included: (i) attractants combined with yellow sticky traps (25 × 20 cm; Lvpusen Technology, Ltd., Quanzhou, China); (ii) yellow sticky traps alone; (iii) attractants paired with white sticky traps (25 × 20 cm; Lvpusen Technology, Ltd., Quanzhou, China); (iv) white sticky traps alone. The field trial included three replicate plots, with each plot being situated in a different field of the same tea plantation (as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2). A bamboo pole (1.5 m high) was inserted into the tea canopy as a suspension point, with pole spacing set to 5 m (in 2022) and 2 m (in 2023). The spacing of trapping points was determined based on the population density of A. lucorum in different tea plantations. The trapping devices were suspended from the bamboo poles at a height of 10 cm above the tea canopy. Surveys were conducted at 7 days and 14 days after the start of the experiment. During each survey, the sticky traps were replaced, while the tea volatile compound baits were retained without replacement.

2.5. Food Bait Trials

The trial was conducted in April 2024 at the tea plantation base in Gongjiazhuang, Laiwu District, Jinan City, Shandong Province, China (36°32′ N, 117°40′ E). The tested tea plants were perennial C. sinensis cv. Fuding White Tea. Experimental tea sheds with uniform topography, consistent tea plant age, and identical cultivar distribution were selected for the trials, with plot sizes and spacing as shown in Figure 3. Green pest control methods, including the strict minimization of chemical pesticides applied only as a last resort, were employed to preserve beneficial arthropod populations and plantation ecology under the prevailing favorable conditions. Specifically, the green pest management measures comprised (1) deploying yellow sticky traps (50 traps/ha) and (2) implementing cultural practices including regular pruning (maintaining canopy height at 0.8–1.0 m) and balanced fertilization. No synthetic pesticides have been applied in this tea plantation since the garden closure treatment using lime sulfur (calcium polysulfide) in November 2023. For food-based baiting, leaves and fruits of B. pekinensis, L. purpureus, P. vulgaris, C. annuum, and S. melongena were used. These materials were rinsed with deionized water, soaked for 30 min to remove surface debris, and combined with healthy plant stems and leaves to a total weight of 100 g (stem-to-fruit ratio of 1:1 by weight). The mixture was chopped and placed in breathable nonwoven fabric bags (10 cm × 15 cm). Seven compounds were diluted with hexane: 0.001 g/mL (Z)-3-hexenol, 0.001 g/mL (E,E)-α-farnesene, 0.01 g/mL nonanal, 0.001 g/mL (Z)-3-hexenol + (E,E)-α-farnesene (1:1, v/v), 0.001 g/mL (Z)-3-hexenol + nonanal (1:10, v/v), 0.001 g/mL (E,E)-α-farnesene + nonanal (1:10, v/v), and 0.001 g/mL (Z)-3-hexenol + (E,E)-α-farnesene + nonanal (1:1:10, v/v/v). They were adsorbed onto a rubber dispenser (Keyun, Co., Ltd., Jiyuan, China), each containing 500 μL. Each chemical lure was placed in a food bait bag and paired with a white sticky trap (20 cm × 26 cm; Keyun, Co., Ltd., Jiyuan, China). Empty white sticky traps served as controls (CK). Bamboo poles (1.5 m high) were inserted into the tea canopy as suspension points, with pole spacing set to 3 m, and the trapping devices were suspended from the bamboo poles at a height of 10 cm above the tea shoots. The number of A. lucorum trapped was counted every five days, and the sticky traps were replaced at the same time. Throughout the duration of the experiment, the chemical baits remained unchanged, while the food baits were renewed every two days.

2.6. Data Analysis

Data on field trials were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The normality of the residuals was tested for all data using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Means were compared using Tukey’s b multiple range test or the Games–Howell test, depending on whether the treatment and control variances were equal (Shapiro–Wilk test, p > 0.05) or unequal (Shapiro–Wilk test, p < 0.05). The Y-tube olfactometer behavioral test data were analyzed using a chi-squared test (p < 0.05) to determine differences between pairs of treatments. Non-choice individuals were recorded but excluded from the statistical analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Preference of Apolygus lucorum Adults for Tea Branches

Compared with air, A. lucorum adults exhibited significant attraction toward both healthy tea branches and mechanically damaged tea branches (Figure 4A), with selection rates of 70.00% (χ2 = 21.353, p < 0.001) and 58.33% (χ2 = 4.091, p = 0.043), respectively. However, there was no significant preference between healthy and mechanically damaged tea branches (χ2 = 0.164, p = 0.686) (Figure 4B).
When the number of released pre-infested adult A. lucorum was fewer than six, A. lucorum adults showed no significant preference between A. lucorum-infested tea branches and air (two adults: χ2 = 0.158, p = 0.691; six adults: χ2 = 0.019, p = 0.891). When the number of pre-infested adults exceeded 10, a significant shift occurred, with A. lucorum adults showing a significant preference for air (10 adults: χ2 = 4.741, p = 0.029; 20 adults: χ2 = 5.233, p = 0.022; 30 adults: χ2 = 19.612, p < 0.001) (Figure 4C).
When fewer than 10 pre-infested adult A. lucorum were released, A. lucorum adults showed no significant preference between A. lucorum-infested tea branches and mechanically damaged tea branches (2 adults: χ2 = 0.021, p = 0.884; 6 adults: χ2 = 0.164, p = 0.686; 10 adults: χ2 = 1.280, p = 0.258). When the number of pre-infested adults exceeded 20, a significant preference for mechanically damaged branches was observed (20 adults: χ2 = 7.681, p = 0.006; 30 adults: χ2 = 15.364, p < 0.001) (Figure 4D).
When fewer than 10 pre-infested adult A. lucorum were released, A. lucorum adults showed no preference between A. lucorum-infested tea branches and healthy tea branches (2 adults: χ2 = 0.308, p = 0.579; 6 adults: χ2 = 0.333, p = 0.564; 10 adults: χ2 = 1.231, p = 0.267). When the number of pre-infested adults exceeded 20, a significant shift occurred, with A. lucorum showing a significant preference for healthy tea branches (20 adults: χ2 = 12.255, p < 0.001; 30 adults: χ2 = 13.520, p < 0.001) (Figure 4E).

3.2. Preference of Apolygus lucorum Adults for Different Host Plants

The preference of A. lucorum adults varied among different host plants (Figure 5). When presented with B. pekinensis and healthy tea branches, 31 adults chose B. pekinensis (selection rate: 51.67%), while 17 adults chose healthy tea branches (selection rate: 28.33%). The preference between the two differed significantly (χ2 = 4.083, p = 0.043). Compared with L. purpureus, healthy tea branches were selected by 13 adults (selection rate: 21.67%), which was significantly lower than the 48.33% that chose L. purpureus (χ2 = 6.095, p = 0.014). For p. vulgaris, 31 adults made a selection (selection rate: 51.67%), which was significantly higher than the number of adults that chose healthy tea branches (χ2 = 4.083, p = 0.043). Similarly, the selection rates for G. max leaves (55.00%), V. radiata leaves (55.00%), and G. hirsutum (56.67%) were all significantly higher than that for healthy tea branches (G. max leaves: χ2 = 7.681, p = 0.006; V. radiata leaves: χ2 = 6.750, p = 0.009; G. hirsutum: χ2 = 10.522, p = 0.010).
When M. sativa was paired with healthy tea branches, 28 adults chose M. sativa (selection rate: 46.67%), while 18 adults chose healthy tea branches (selection rate: 30.00%). The preference between the two was not statistically significant (χ2 = 2.174, p > 0.05). Similarly, when paired with healthy tea branches, A. lucorum adults showed no significant preference for S. melongena (χ2 = 0.455, p > 0.05) and C. annuum (χ2 = 3.756, p = 0.050).

3.3. Field Trial of Tea Volatile Components

In August 2022, when 0.001 g/mL (E,E)-α-farnesene and 0.001 g/mL (Z)-3-hexenol were applied to white sticky traps, the average number of trapped A. lucorum was higher over 14 consecutive days than when using yellow sticky traps or white sticky traps alone. After 7 days, the white sticky traps laced with 0.001 g/mL (E,E)-α-farnesene captured four times and three times more A. lucorum than the yellow sticky traps and white sticky traps used alone, respectively. The white sticky traps combined with 0.001 g/mL (Z)-3-hexenol captured approximately five times and four times more A. lucorum than the yellow sticky traps and white sticky traps used alone, respectively (Figure 6). After 14 days, the white sticky traps laced with 0.001 g/mL (E,E)-α-farnesene captured 5 times and 3.5 times more A. lucorum than the yellow sticky traps and white sticky traps used alone, respectively. The white sticky traps combined with 0.001 g/mL (Z)-3-hexenol captured approximately 5 times and 3.3 times more A. lucorum than the yellow sticky traps and white sticky traps used alone, respectively (Figure 7). When 0.001 g/mL nonanal bait was added to white sticky traps, the average number of trapped A. lucorum after 14 days was 6.67 ± 1.76, which was significantly higher than that of yellow sticky traps alone (1.33 ± 0.33, p = 0.039) (Figure 7).
In October 2023, when 0.001 g/mL (E,E)-α-farnesene bait was added to white sticky traps, the average number of trapped A. lucorum after 7 days was 13.00 ± 1.74, which was significantly higher than that of white (4.80 ± 0.92, p = 0.020) or yellow (4.40 ± 0.72, p = 0.016) sticky traps alone (Figure 8). When 0.01 g/mL nonanal bait was added to white sticky traps, the average numbers of trapped A. lucorum after 7 and 14 days were 12.20 ± 2.51 and 24.33 ± 2.96, respectively, both significantly higher than that of yellow sticky traps alone (p7 d = 0.045, p14 d = 0.035) (Figure 8 and Figure 9). Similarly, when 0.001 g/mL (Z)-3-hexenol bait was added to white sticky traps, the average number of trapped A. lucorum after 14 days was 25.67 ± 2.96, significantly higher than that of yellow sticky traps alone (5.67 ± 1.76, p = 0.034) (Figure 9).
Therefore, three tea volatile baits, 0.001 g/mL (E,E)-α-farnesene, 0.01 g/mL nonanal, and 0.001 g/mL (Z)-3-hexenol, were selected and combined with food bait for the field trapping of A. lucorum.

3.4. Field Trial of Host Plants

To identify more effective attractants, we evaluated the attractiveness of individual host plants and their combinations with volatile compounds to A. lucorum (Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14). The B. pekinensis + (Z)-3-hexenol combination captured significantly more A. lucorum than other treatments from day 1 to 20, though B. pekinensis alone showed no significant attraction. Similarly, the P. vulgaris + (E,E)-α-farnesene combination yielded significantly higher trap catches than P. vulgaris alone and controls from day 1 to 20. In contrast, the C. annuum + (E,E)-α-farnesene combination only enhanced attraction significantly during the early periods (days 1–5 and 6–10). The S. melongena + (Z)-3-hexenol combination also significantly outperformed both the control and S. melongena-only treatments from day 1 to 20. Notably, L. purpureus exhibited no significant attraction neither alone nor when combined with volatiles.

4. Discussion

It is well known that tea plants have the characteristic of requiring regular picking and pruning, making mechanical damage an unavoidable type of injury. This study found that adult A. lucorum exhibit a preference for mechanically damaged tea branches in the Y-tube olfactometer compared with air. VOCs play a significant role in the process of pests locating their hosts from a distance [26]. Significant variability in VOC quantities was observed among conspecific plants, particularly evident in both the undamaged and mechanically cut leaf treatments [27]. Plant-emitted VOCs can serve as attractants to attract herbivores or as repellents to drive them away [27,28,29,30]. Therefore, it is speculated that the VOCs released from mechanically damaged tea branches may exhibit enhanced attractiveness to adult A. lucorum. Research has demonstrated that certain stenophagous herbivores showed a distinct preference for mechanically damaged host plants over intact ones. A case in point is the vine weevil (Otiorhynchus sulcatus), which not only showed a significant attraction to undamaged Euonymus fortunei cv. Dart’s Blanket compared with clean air but also showed a marked preference for mechanically damaged specimens over their undamaged counterparts [27]. This appears to be a slight discrepancy with respect to our findings. In the current study, adult A. lucorum did not show a significant preference between healthy and mechanically damaged tea branches in the Y-tube olfactometer, although they showed a distinct preference for both types of branches when compared with clean air. This phenomenon might be attributed to the degree of mechanical damage applied. Other studies have reported a positive relationship between the extent of physical damage and the amount of volatile emissions, indicating that prolonged mechanical damage can stimulate greater release of VOCs [31,32]. However, this has not been tested yet in tea plants.
In this study, high-density infestations of A. lucorum (individuals > 20) were found to inhibit subsequent feeding by conspecifics, whereas low-density pre-infestations (individuals < 10) did not show such inhibitory effects. Similar results have been reported on G. hirsutum, where A. lucorum showed no significant attraction to volatiles emitted by plants damaged by one bug; only at higher infestation densities (four bugs) did A. lucorum show obvious repellency [33]. Some research has demonstrated that plant-induced defense mechanisms follow a pest density-dependent response [34,35]. The increase in pest density leads to the release of new compounds and an overall rise in the amount of volatile substances, which has specific effects on each plant–pest–natural enemy relationship [33,36,37]. Previous research indicated that the total amount of herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) in G. hirsutum infested by A. lucorum significantly increases. The majority of the notably increased volatile compounds and new compounds are terpenoids [33]. Extensive studies have proved that terpenoids play the most crucial role in the plant’s defense against A. lucorum [33,38,39].
In order to screen for effective plant-derived attractants for A. lucorum, we selected six volatile components from tea plants [(E,E)-α-farnesene, linalool, hexanol, (E)-2-hexenal, (Z)-3-hexenol, and nonanal], most of which have already been developed as attractants for other pests in tea plantations [10,15,16]. The results showed that A. lucorum were significantly attracted to specific concentrations of (E,E)-α-farnesene, nonanal, and (Z)-3-hexenol. (Z)-3-hexenol is released by tea plants as a defense mechanism against herbivores and contributes to the distinctive grassy aroma of green tea [11,12,40,41]. (Z)-3-hexenol, (E,E)-α-farnesene, and other terpenoids can be released when herbivores attack tea trees [17]. These compounds typically serve a defensive role [42]. However, in our study, they exhibited an attractant effect on A. lucorum at low doses (specifically, 500 μL hexane solutions at a concentration of 0.001 g/mL). This indicates that concentration has a significant impact on the characteristics of the compounds.
To further optimize the baits derived from tea plant volatiles, we attempted to incorporate food baits into the effective trapping components identified through screening. Prior to this, we conducted a comparison in a Y-tube olfactometer between nine host plants and healthy tea branches and identified six plants that A. lucorum preferred. Subsequently, five cost-effective food baits were selected to combine with the tea volatile compound baits for the field trapping of A. lucorum. The results demonstrated that four mixture baits—B. pekinensis + (Z)-3-hexenol, P. vulgaris + (E,E)-α-farnesene, S. melongena + (Z)-3-hexenol, and C. annuum + (E,E)-α-farnesene—exerted significant effects. Although the attractiveness of L. purpureus to A. lucorum is higher than that of tea trees in the Y-tube, it did not reach significant levels in the field. This may be related to the complex background odors of the tea gardens. A similar observation was made in a study of Drosophila suzukii attractant volatiles, where the co-attractiveness of certain compounds varied under different background odor conditions, suggesting that background odor can influence the detection of potential attractants [22,43]. Furthermore, these discrepancies may also be attributed to factors including the volatile degradation of compounds [44], microclimate conditions [45,46], and wind-mediated dispersal [47,48]. In contrast to controlled laboratory settings, field environments promote the breakdown of volatiles through exposure to sunlight, oxygen, and microbial activity, leading to compositional changes [49]. Microclimatic variables such as temperature and humidity further modulate the release of volatile organic compounds, a phenomenon documented in studies on apple branches [46]. Additionally, wind disperses odor plumes, altering both their spatial concentration and gradient, with effects diminishing over shorter distances [46].
In this study, the longest attractant efficacy of a blend of food and tea plant volatiles was 20 days, not exceeding 25 days in any case. The duration of effectiveness may be influenced by the attractant dispenser. Field trials revealed that polyethylene matrix dispensers loaded with trimedlure for Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) could release active compounds and attract the pest for up to 12 weeks, whereas conventional cotton dispensers typically remained effective for only 6–8 weeks [50]. A recent study demonstrated that core-shell micro–nano-fiber mats fabricated through coaxial electrospinning using environmentally friendly polymers and loaded with food attractants for Loxostege sticticalis adults (1-octen-3-ol, trans-2-hexenal, linalool, and anethole) achieved sustained release for over 80 days [51]. These findings suggest that subsequent research should focus on developing suitable dispensing systems to enhance the longevity of attractants for A. lucorum, thereby increasing their commercial viability and promoting the wider adoption of these attractants.

5. Conclusions

In summary, this study found that healthy and mechanically damaged tea branches were more attractive to A. lucorum, while branches infested by higher densities (>20 individuals) of A. lucorum exhibited repellency against conspecifics. Field trials confirmed the effective trapping performance of three tea volatiles: (E,E)-α-farnesene, nonanal, and (Z)-3-hexenol. Three specific food-volatile combinations (B. pekinensis + (Z)-3-hexenol, P. vulgaris + (E,E)-α-farnesene, and S. melongena + (Z)-3-hexenol) demonstrated both high attractiveness and extended residual activity. This study provides novel insights and approaches for the trapping control of A. lucorum. The identified compounds and blended attractants exhibit environmentally friendly, efficient, safe, and sustainable characteristics, demonstrating significant commercial potential.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.C.; Data curation, Y.X.; Funding acquisition, Y.X.; Investigation, Z.J.; Methodology, Z.J., B.G., Y.L. and Z.C.; Software, Z.J., B.G., Y.L. and Z.C.; Supervision, Z.J. and Z.C.; Validation, B.G. and Y.L.; Visualization, Z.J.; Writing—original draft, Z.J., Y.X. and Z.C.; Writing—review and editing, Z.J., Y.L., Y.X. and Z.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research study was funded by the National Key Research & Development Program of China (2023 YFD1700405), the Agricultural Major Technology Collaborative Promotion Project of Shandong Province (SDNYXTTG-2024–30), and the Modern Tea Industry Technology System of Shandong Province (SDAIT-19–04).

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon request.

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank all the staff and students of the Laboratory of Insect Ecology and Physiology (Shandong Agricultural University).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Tian, Y.; Wang, H.; Hou, J.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Z.; Cai, X. Occurrence and distribution of Apolygus lucorum on weed hosts and tea plants in tea plantation ecosystems. Insects 2019, 10, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lu, Y.; Wu, K.; Wyckhuys, K.A.; Guo, Y. Overwintering hosts of Apolygus lucorum (Hemiptera: Miridae) in northern China. Crop Prot. 2010, 29, 1026–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lu, Y.; Wyckhuys, K.A.; Wu, K. Pest status, bio-ecology, and area-wide management of mirids in East Asia. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2024, 69, 393–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lu, Y.; Wu, K.; Jiang, Y.; Guo, Y.; Desneux, N. Widespread adoption of Bt cotton and insecticide decrease promotes biocontrol services. Nature 2012, 487, 362–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Snodgrass, G.L.; Scott, W.P. Seasonal changes in pyrethroid resistance in tarnished plant bug (Heteroptera: Miridae) populations during a three-year period in the delta area of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. J. Econ. Entomol. 2000, 93, 441–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lu, Y.H.; Wu, K.M.; Wyckhuys, K.A.G. Potential of mungbean,Vigna radiatus as a trap crop for managing Apolygus lucorum (Hemiptera: Miridae) on Bt cotton. Crop Prot. 2009, 28, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhang, P.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, X.; Song, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, F. Field resistance monitoring of Apolygus lucorum (Hemiptera: Miridae) in Shandong, China to seven commonly used insecticides. Crop Prot. 2015, 76, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, X.; Su, H.; Wang, J.; Li, G.; Feng, H.; Zhang, J. Monitoring of insecticide resistance for Apolygus lucorum populations in the apple orchard in China. Crop Prot. 2023, 170, 106279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhang, X.; Wei, L.; Wang, Z.; Wang, T. Physiological and molecular features of Puccinellia tenuiflora tolerating salt and alkaline-salt stress. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2013, 55, 262–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Mu, D.; Cui, L.; Ge, J.; Wang, M.; Liu, L.; Yu, X.; Zhang, Q.; Han, B. Behavioral responses for evaluating the attractiveness of specific tea shoot volatiles to the tea green leafhopper, Empoaca vitis. Insect Sci. 2012, 19, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sun, X.L.; Wang, G.C.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, X.Z.; Jin, Z.J.; Chen, Z.M. Volatiles emitted from tea plants infested by Ectropis obliqua larvae are attractive to conspecific moths. J. Chem. Ecol. 2014, 40, 1080–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cai, X.M.; Sun, X.L.; Dong, W.X.; Wang, G.C.; Chen, Z.M. Herbivore species, infestation time, and herbivore density affect induced volatiles in tea plants. Chemoecology 2014, 24, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cai, X.M.; Xu, X.X.; Bian, L.; Luo, Z.X.; Xin, Z.J.; Chen, Z.M. Attractiveness of host volatiles combined with background visual cues to the tea leafhopper, Empoasca vitis. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2015, 157, 291–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jia, Z.; Li, Z.; Li, D.; Kang, Z.; Xu, Y.; Chen, Z. Two chemosensory proteins in Aleurocanthus spiniferus are involved in the recognition of host VOCs. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2024, 11, 183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bian, L.; Cai, X.M.; Luo, Z.X.; Li, Z.Q.; Xin, Z.J.; Chen, Z.M. Design of an attractant for Empoasca onukii (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) based on the volatile components of fresh tea leaves. J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 629–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chen, K.; Huang, M.X.; Shi, Q.C.; Xie, X.; Jin, L.H.; Xu, W.M.; Li, X.Y. Screening of a potential leafhopper attractants and their applications in tea plantations. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B 2019, 54, 858–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Wang, X.; Zeng, L.; Liao, Y.; Li, J.; Tang, J.; Yang, Z. Formation of α-farnesene in tea (Camellia sinensis) leaves induced by herbivore-derived wounding and its effect on neighboring tea plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 4151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Contreras-Miranda, J.A.; Piovesan, B.; Ueno, B.; Bernardi, D.; Botton, M.; Nava, D.E. Use of preservatives in vegetable protein-based food attractants for monitoring Anastrepha fraterculus (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Peach Orchards. Neotrop. Entomol. 2021, 50, 476–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Sabier, M.; Wang, J.; Zhang, T.; Jin, J.; Wang, Z.; Shen, B.; Deng, J.; Liu, X.; Zhou, G. The attractiveness of a food based lure and its component volatiles to the stored-grain pest Oryzaephilus surinamensis (L.). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2022, 98, 102000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shelly, T.E.; Fezza, T.J. Field studies of synthetic food-based attractants for detecting invasive fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Asia-Pac. Entomol. 2024, 27, 102313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cai, X.; Li, Z.; Pan, H.; Lu, Y. Research and application of food-based attractants of herbivorous insect pests. Chin. J. Biol. Control. 2018, 34, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Huang, J.; Gut, L.; Grieshop, M. Evaluation of food-based attractants for Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Environ. Entomol. 2017, 46, 878–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Reisenman, C.E.; Scott, K. Food-derived volatiles enhance consumption in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Exp. Biol. 2019, 222, jeb202762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Epsky, N.D.; Kendra, P.E.; Schnell, E.Q. History and development of food-based attractants. In Trapping and the Detection Control, and Regulation of Tephritid Fruit Flies: Lures, Area-Wide Programs, and Trade Implications; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 75–118. [Google Scholar]
  25. Han, B.Y.; Chen, Z.M. Behavioral and electrophysiological responses ofnatural enemies to synomones from tea shoots and kairomones from tea aphids, Toxoptera aurantii. J. Chem. Ecol. 2002, 28, 2203–2219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Huang, Q.; Han, X.; Zhang, G.; Zhu-Salzman, K.; Cheng, W. Plant volatiles mediate host selection of Sitodiplosis mosellana (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) among wheat varieties. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2022, 70, 10466–10475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Smith, L.; Beck, J.J. Effect of mechanical damage on emission of volatile organic compounds from plant leaves and implications for evaluation of host plant specificity of prospective biological control agents of weeds. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2013, 23, 880–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yang, G.; Zhang, Y.N.; Gurr, G.M.; Vasseur, L.; You, M.S. Electroantennogram and behavioral responses of Cotesia plutellae to plant volatiles. Insect Sci. 2016, 23, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Xiu, C.L.; Xu, B.; Pan, H.S.; Zhang, W.; Yang, Y.; Lu, Y. Volatiles from Sophora japonica flowers attract Harmonia axyridis adults (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). J. Integr. Agric. 2019, 18, 873–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yuan, G.G.; Zhao, L.C.; Du, Y.W.; Yu, H.; Shi, X.B.; Chen, W.C. Repellence or attraction: Secondary metabolites in pepper mediate attraction and defense against Spodoptera litura. Pest Manag. Sci. 2022, 78, 4859–4870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bricchi, I.; Leitner, M.; Foti, M.; Mithöfer, A.; Boland, W.; Maffei, M.E. Robotic mechanical wounding (MecWorm) versus herbivore-induced responses: Early signaling and volatile emission in Lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus L.). Planta 2010, 232, 719–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Copolovici, L.; Kännaste, A.; Remmel, T.; Vislap, V.; Niinemets, Ü. Volatile emissions from Alnus glutionosa induced by herbivory are quantitatively related to the extent of damage. J. Chem. Ecol. 2011, 37, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chen, H.; Su, H.; Zhang, S.; Jing, T.; Liu, Z.; Yang, Y. The Effect of mirid density on volatile-mediated foraging behaviour of Apolygus lucorum and Peristenus spretus. Insects 2021, 12, 870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shiojiri, K.; Ozawa, R.; Kugimiya, S.; Uefune, M.; van Wijk, M.; Sabelis, M.W.; Takabayashi, J.; Hector, A. Herbivore-specific, density-dependent induction of plant volatiles: Honest or “Cry Wolf” signals? PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e12161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ramirez, R.A. and Eubanks, M.D. Herbivore density mediates the indirect effect of herbivores on plants via induced resistance and apparent competition. Ecosphere 2016, 7, e01218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ingegno, B.L.; Pansa, M.G.; Tavella, L. Plant preference in the zoophytophagous generalist predator Macrolophus pygmaeus (Heteroptera: Miridae). Biol. Control 2011, 58, 174–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Benelli, G.; Revadi, S.; Carpita, A.; Giunti, G.; Raspi, A.; Anfora, G.; Canale, A. Behavioral and electrophysiological responses of the parasitic wasp Psyttalia concolor (Szepligeti) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to Ceratitis capitata-induced fruit volatiles. Biol. Control 2013, 64, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Turlings, T.C.; Erb, M. Tritrophic interactions mediated by herbivore-induced plant volatiles: Mechanisms, ecological relevance, and application potential. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2018, 63, 433–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Zhang, L.; Lu, G.; Huang, X.; Guo, H.; Su, X.; Han, L.; Zhang, Y.; Qi, Z.; Xiao, Y.; Cheng, H. Overexpression of the caryophyllene synthase gene GhTPS1 in cotton negatively affects multiple pests while attracting parasitoids. Pest Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 1722–1730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dong, F.; Yang, Z.; Baldermann, S.; Sato, Y.; Asai, T.; Watanabe, N. Herbivore-induced volatiles from tea (Camellia sinensis) plants and their involvement in intraplant communication and changes in endogenous nonvolatile metabolites. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 13131–13135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Jing, T.T.; Zhang, N.; Gao, T.; Zhao, M.; Jin, J.; Chen, Y.; Xu, M.; Wan, X.; Schwab, W.; Song, C. Glucosylation of (Z)-3-hexenol informs intraspecies interactions in plants: A case study in Camellia sinensis. Plant Cell Environ. 2019, 42, 1352–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lin, J.; Wang, D.; Chen, X.; Köllner, T.G.; Mazarei, M.; Guo, H.; Pantalone, V.R.; Arelli, P.; Stewart, C.N.; Wang, N.; et al. An (E,E)-α-farnesene synthase gene of soybean has a role in defence against nematodes and is involved in synthesizing insect-induced volatiles. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2017, 15, 510–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Cha, D.H.; Loeb, G.M.; Linn Jr, C.E.; Hesler, S.P.; Landolt, P.J. A multiple-choice bioassay approach for rapid screening of key attractant volatiles. Environ. Entomol. 2018, 47, 946–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Gong, X.; Huang, J.; Xu, Y.; Li, Z.; Li, L.; Li, D.; Belwal, T.; Jeandet, P.; Luo, Z.; Xu, Y. Deterioration of plant volatile organic compounds in food: Consequence, mechanism, detection, and control. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2023, 131, 61–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. de Brito-Machado, D.; Ramos, Y.J.; Defaveri, A.C.A.E.; de Queiroz, G.A.; Guimarães, E.F.; de Lima Moreira, D. Volatile chemical variation of essential oils and their correlation with insects, phenology, ontogeny and microclimate: Piper mollicomum Kunth, a case of study. Plants 2022, 11, 3535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Vallat, A.; Gu, H.; Dorn, S. How rainfall, relative humidity and temperature influence volatile emissions from apple trees in situ. Phytochemistry 2005, 66, 1540–1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cai, X.; Guo, Y.; Bian, L.; Luo, Z.; Li, Z.; Xiu, C.; Fu, N.; Chen, Z. Variation in the ratio of compounds in a plant volatile blend during transmission by wind. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 6176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Heil, M.; Silva Bueno, J.C. Within-plant signaling by volatiles leads to induction and priming of an indirect plant defense in nature. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 5467–5472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Douma, J.C.; Ganzeveld, L.N.; Unsicker, S.B.; Boeckler, G.A.; Dicke, M. What makes a volatile organic compound a reliable indicator of insect herbivory? Plant Cell Environ. 2019, 42, 3308–3325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bayoumy, M.H.; El-Metwally, M.M.; El-Adly, R.A.; Majerus, T.M. Improving the lifetime efficiency of trimedlure-dispensing system in trap** the fruit fly Ceratitis capitata using polyethylene matrix. J. Econ. Entomol. 2020, 113, 315–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Cui, C.; Shangguan, W.; Li, K.; Jiang, X.; Wang, Z.; Yin, J.; Cao, L. Plant volatiles-loaded core-shell micro-nano fibers to achieve efficient and sustained bisexual attraction to pests. J. Nanobiotechnol. 2025, 23, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Agronomy 15 02062 g001
Figure 1. Demonstration fields at the tea plantation base of Shandong Taishan Tea Valley Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., in Daiyue District, Tai’an, China. (A) Aerial view of the three plots. The red dashed line indicates the location of the demonstration fields within the tea plantation. (B) Aerial view of plot 1. A1–A10 represent the dimensions of the tea canopies, and D1–D4 indicate the distances between the tea canopies. (C) Aerial view of plot 2. B1–B8 represent the dimensions of the tea canopies, and D1–D3 indicate the distances between the tea canopies. (D) Aerial view of plot 3. C1–C6 represent the dimensions of the tea canopies, and D1–D2 indicate the distances between the tea canopies.
Figure 1. Demonstration fields at the tea plantation base of Shandong Taishan Tea Valley Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., in Daiyue District, Tai’an, China. (A) Aerial view of the three plots. The red dashed line indicates the location of the demonstration fields within the tea plantation. (B) Aerial view of plot 1. A1–A10 represent the dimensions of the tea canopies, and D1–D4 indicate the distances between the tea canopies. (C) Aerial view of plot 2. B1–B8 represent the dimensions of the tea canopies, and D1–D3 indicate the distances between the tea canopies. (D) Aerial view of plot 3. C1–C6 represent the dimensions of the tea canopies, and D1–D2 indicate the distances between the tea canopies.
Agronomy 15 02062 g001
Agronomy 15 02062 g002
Figure 2. Demonstration fields at the tea plantation base of Taishan Jiuqu White Tea Co., Ltd., in Daiyue District, Tai’an, China. (A) Aerial view of the tea plantation. The red dashed line indicates the location of the demonstration fields within the tea plantation. (B) Aerial view of three plots. A1–A2 represent the dimensions of plot 1; B1–B2 represent the dimensions of plot 2; C1–C2 represent the dimensions of plot 3; D1–D2 indicate the distances between the three plots.
Figure 2. Demonstration fields at the tea plantation base of Taishan Jiuqu White Tea Co., Ltd., in Daiyue District, Tai’an, China. (A) Aerial view of the tea plantation. The red dashed line indicates the location of the demonstration fields within the tea plantation. (B) Aerial view of three plots. A1–A2 represent the dimensions of plot 1; B1–B2 represent the dimensions of plot 2; C1–C2 represent the dimensions of plot 3; D1–D2 indicate the distances between the three plots.
Agronomy 15 02062 g002
Agronomy 15 02062 g003
Figure 3. Demonstration fields at the tea plantation base of Gongjiazhuang, Laiwu District, Jinan City, China. (A) Aerial view of the tea plantation. The red dashed line indicates the location of the demonstration fields within the tea plantation. (B) Aerial view of three plots. A1–A2 represent the dimensions of plot 1; B1–B6 represent the dimensions of plot 2; C1–C2 represent the dimensions of plot 3; D1–D3 indicate the distances between the tea canopies.
Figure 3. Demonstration fields at the tea plantation base of Gongjiazhuang, Laiwu District, Jinan City, China. (A) Aerial view of the tea plantation. The red dashed line indicates the location of the demonstration fields within the tea plantation. (B) Aerial view of three plots. A1–A2 represent the dimensions of plot 1; B1–B6 represent the dimensions of plot 2; C1–C2 represent the dimensions of plot 3; D1–D3 indicate the distances between the tea canopies.
Agronomy 15 02062 g003
Agronomy 15 02062 g004
Figure 4. Responses of A. lucorum adults to different treatments of tea branches in the Y-tube olfactometer. HCS: healthy tea branches; DCS: mechanically damaged tea branches. (A) DCS vs. AIR and HCS vs. AIR. (B) HCS vs. DCS. (C) Adult A. lucorum-infested tea branches vs. AIR. (D) Adult A. lucorum-infested tea branches vs. DCS. (E) Adult A. lucorum-infested tea branches vs. HCS. The different numbers in the bars represent the number of mirid bugs on infected tea branches. Asterisks and n.s. indicate significant (* p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01) and non-significant preference between the two tea cultivars by the chi-squared test, respectively.
Figure 4. Responses of A. lucorum adults to different treatments of tea branches in the Y-tube olfactometer. HCS: healthy tea branches; DCS: mechanically damaged tea branches. (A) DCS vs. AIR and HCS vs. AIR. (B) HCS vs. DCS. (C) Adult A. lucorum-infested tea branches vs. AIR. (D) Adult A. lucorum-infested tea branches vs. DCS. (E) Adult A. lucorum-infested tea branches vs. HCS. The different numbers in the bars represent the number of mirid bugs on infected tea branches. Asterisks and n.s. indicate significant (* p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01) and non-significant preference between the two tea cultivars by the chi-squared test, respectively.
Agronomy 15 02062 g004
Agronomy 15 02062 g005
Figure 5. Responses of A. lucorum adults to different host plants. HCS: healthy tea branches; CA: C. annuum; GS: G. hirsutum; SM: S. melongena; VRL: V. radiata leaf; GML: G. max leaf; PV: P. vulgaris; LP: L. purpureus; BP: B. pekinensis; MS: M. sativa. Asterisks and n.s. indicate significant (* p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01) and non-significant preference between the two tea cultivars by the chi-squared test, respectively.
Figure 5. Responses of A. lucorum adults to different host plants. HCS: healthy tea branches; CA: C. annuum; GS: G. hirsutum; SM: S. melongena; VRL: V. radiata leaf; GML: G. max leaf; PV: P. vulgaris; LP: L. purpureus; BP: B. pekinensis; MS: M. sativa. Asterisks and n.s. indicate significant (* p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01) and non-significant preference between the two tea cultivars by the chi-squared test, respectively.
Agronomy 15 02062 g005
Agronomy 15 02062 g006
Figure 6. Number of A. lucorum in the sticky traps containing 500 μL of hexane solution of the tea volatile components (E,E)-α-farnesene (A), linalool (B), hexanol (C), (E)-2-hexenal (D), (Z)-3-hexenol (E), and nonanal (F) at different concentrations (0.1, 0.01, and 0.001 g/mL) 7 d after the traps were placed in August 2022. Bars indicate standard error. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences in the number of A. lucorum for different treatments (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance).
Figure 6. Number of A. lucorum in the sticky traps containing 500 μL of hexane solution of the tea volatile components (E,E)-α-farnesene (A), linalool (B), hexanol (C), (E)-2-hexenal (D), (Z)-3-hexenol (E), and nonanal (F) at different concentrations (0.1, 0.01, and 0.001 g/mL) 7 d after the traps were placed in August 2022. Bars indicate standard error. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences in the number of A. lucorum for different treatments (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance).
Agronomy 15 02062 g006
Agronomy 15 02062 g007
Figure 7. Number of A. lucorum in the sticky traps containing 500 μL of hexane solution of the tea volatile components (E,E)-α-farnesene (A), linalool (B), hexanol (C), (E)-2-hexenal (D), (Z)-3-hexenol (E), and nonanal (F) at different concentrations (0.1, 0.01, and 0.001 g/mL) 14 d after the traps were placed in August 2022. Bars indicate standard error. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences in the number of A. lucorum for different treatments (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance).
Figure 7. Number of A. lucorum in the sticky traps containing 500 μL of hexane solution of the tea volatile components (E,E)-α-farnesene (A), linalool (B), hexanol (C), (E)-2-hexenal (D), (Z)-3-hexenol (E), and nonanal (F) at different concentrations (0.1, 0.01, and 0.001 g/mL) 14 d after the traps were placed in August 2022. Bars indicate standard error. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences in the number of A. lucorum for different treatments (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance).
Agronomy 15 02062 g007
Agronomy 15 02062 g008
Figure 8. Number of A. lucorum in the sticky traps containing 500 μL of hexane solution of the tea volatile components (E,E)-α-farnesene (A), linalool (B), hexanol (C), (E)-2-hexenal (D), (Z)-3-hexenol (E), and nonanal (F) at different concentrations (0.1, 0.01, and 0.001 g/mL) 7 d after the traps were placed in October 2023. Bars indicate standard error. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences in the number of A. lucorum for different treatments (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance).
Figure 8. Number of A. lucorum in the sticky traps containing 500 μL of hexane solution of the tea volatile components (E,E)-α-farnesene (A), linalool (B), hexanol (C), (E)-2-hexenal (D), (Z)-3-hexenol (E), and nonanal (F) at different concentrations (0.1, 0.01, and 0.001 g/mL) 7 d after the traps were placed in October 2023. Bars indicate standard error. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences in the number of A. lucorum for different treatments (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance).
Agronomy 15 02062 g008
Agronomy 15 02062 g009
Figure 9. Number of A. lucorum in the sticky traps containing 500 μL of hexane solution of the tea volatile components (E,E)-α-farnesene (A), linalool (B), hexanol (C), (E)-2-hexenal (D), (Z)-3-hexenol (E), and nonanal (F) at different concentrations (0.1, 0.01, and 0.001 g/mL) 14 d after the traps were placed in October 2023. Bars indicate standard error. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences in the number of A. lucorum for different treatments (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance).
Figure 9. Number of A. lucorum in the sticky traps containing 500 μL of hexane solution of the tea volatile components (E,E)-α-farnesene (A), linalool (B), hexanol (C), (E)-2-hexenal (D), (Z)-3-hexenol (E), and nonanal (F) at different concentrations (0.1, 0.01, and 0.001 g/mL) 14 d after the traps were placed in October 2023. Bars indicate standard error. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences in the number of A. lucorum for different treatments (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance).
Agronomy 15 02062 g009
Agronomy 15 02062 g010
Figure 10. Number of A. lucorum in the lure traps combining B. pekinensis and tea volatile component baits 1–5 d (A), 6–10 d (B), 11–15 d (C), 16–20 d (D), and 21–25 d (E) after the traps were placed in April 2024. BP: B. pekinensis; Z: (Z)-3-hexenol; F: (E,E)-α-farnesene; N: nonanal. Bars indicate standard error. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences in the number of A. lucorum for different treatments (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance).
Figure 10. Number of A. lucorum in the lure traps combining B. pekinensis and tea volatile component baits 1–5 d (A), 6–10 d (B), 11–15 d (C), 16–20 d (D), and 21–25 d (E) after the traps were placed in April 2024. BP: B. pekinensis; Z: (Z)-3-hexenol; F: (E,E)-α-farnesene; N: nonanal. Bars indicate standard error. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences in the number of A. lucorum for different treatments (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance).
Agronomy 15 02062 g010
Agronomy 15 02062 g011
Figure 11. Number of A. lucorum in the lure traps combining L. purpureus and tea volatile component baits 1–5 d (A), 6–10 d (B), 11–15 d (C), 16–20 d (D), and 21–25 d (E) after the traps were placed in April 2024. LP: L. purpureus; Z: (Z)-3-hexenol; F: (E,E)-α-farnesene; N: nonanal. Bars indicate standard error. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences in the number of A. lucorum for different treatments (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance).
Figure 11. Number of A. lucorum in the lure traps combining L. purpureus and tea volatile component baits 1–5 d (A), 6–10 d (B), 11–15 d (C), 16–20 d (D), and 21–25 d (E) after the traps were placed in April 2024. LP: L. purpureus; Z: (Z)-3-hexenol; F: (E,E)-α-farnesene; N: nonanal. Bars indicate standard error. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences in the number of A. lucorum for different treatments (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance).
Agronomy 15 02062 g011
Agronomy 15 02062 g012
Figure 12. Number of A. lucorum in the lure traps combining P. vulgaris and tea volatile component baits 1–5 d (A), 6–10 d (B), 11–15 d (C), 16–20 d (D), and 21–25 d (E) after the traps were placed in April 2024. PV: P. vulgaris; Z: (Z)-3-hexenol; F: (E,E)-α-farnesene; N: nonanal. Bars indicate standard error. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences in the number of A. lucorum for different treatments (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance).
Figure 12. Number of A. lucorum in the lure traps combining P. vulgaris and tea volatile component baits 1–5 d (A), 6–10 d (B), 11–15 d (C), 16–20 d (D), and 21–25 d (E) after the traps were placed in April 2024. PV: P. vulgaris; Z: (Z)-3-hexenol; F: (E,E)-α-farnesene; N: nonanal. Bars indicate standard error. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences in the number of A. lucorum for different treatments (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance).
Agronomy 15 02062 g012
Agronomy 15 02062 g013
Figure 13. Number of A. lucorum in the lure traps combining C. annuum and tea volatile component baits 1–5 d (A), 6–10 d (B), 11–15 d (C), 16–20 d (D), and 21–25 d (E) after the traps were placed in April 2024. CA: C. annuum; Z: (Z)-3-hexenol; F: (E,E)-α-farnesene; N: nonanal. Bars indicate standard error. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences in the number of A. lucorum for different treatments (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance).
Figure 13. Number of A. lucorum in the lure traps combining C. annuum and tea volatile component baits 1–5 d (A), 6–10 d (B), 11–15 d (C), 16–20 d (D), and 21–25 d (E) after the traps were placed in April 2024. CA: C. annuum; Z: (Z)-3-hexenol; F: (E,E)-α-farnesene; N: nonanal. Bars indicate standard error. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences in the number of A. lucorum for different treatments (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance).
Agronomy 15 02062 g013
Agronomy 15 02062 g014
Figure 14. Number of A. lucorum in the lure traps combining S. melongena and tea volatile component baits 1–5 d (A), 6–10 d (B), 11–15 d (C), 16–20 d (D), and 21–25 d (E) after the traps were placed in April 2024. SM: S. melongena; Z: (Z)-3-hexenol; F: (E,E)-α-farnesene; N: nonanal. Bars indicate standard error. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences in the number of A. lucorum for different treatments (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance).
Figure 14. Number of A. lucorum in the lure traps combining S. melongena and tea volatile component baits 1–5 d (A), 6–10 d (B), 11–15 d (C), 16–20 d (D), and 21–25 d (E) after the traps were placed in April 2024. SM: S. melongena; Z: (Z)-3-hexenol; F: (E,E)-α-farnesene; N: nonanal. Bars indicate standard error. Different letters above bars indicate significant differences in the number of A. lucorum for different treatments (p < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance).
Agronomy 15 02062 g014
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jia, Z.; Gong, B.; Li, Y.; Xu, Y.; Chen, Z. Attractiveness of Food Baits and Tea Volatile Components to Mirid Bug Apolygus lucorum in Tea Plantation. Agronomy 2025, 15, 2062. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092062

AMA Style

Jia Z, Gong B, Li Y, Xu Y, Chen Z. Attractiveness of Food Baits and Tea Volatile Components to Mirid Bug Apolygus lucorum in Tea Plantation. Agronomy. 2025; 15(9):2062. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092062

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jia, Zhifei, Binghai Gong, Yusheng Li, Yongyu Xu, and Zhenzhen Chen. 2025. "Attractiveness of Food Baits and Tea Volatile Components to Mirid Bug Apolygus lucorum in Tea Plantation" Agronomy 15, no. 9: 2062. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092062

APA Style

Jia, Z., Gong, B., Li, Y., Xu, Y., & Chen, Z. (2025). Attractiveness of Food Baits and Tea Volatile Components to Mirid Bug Apolygus lucorum in Tea Plantation. Agronomy, 15(9), 2062. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092062

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop