Next Article in Journal
Knockout of GmCKX3 Enhances Soybean Seed Yield via Cytokinin-Mediated Cell Expansion and Lipid Accumulation
Previous Article in Journal
A Framework for Predicting Winter Wheat Yield in Northern China with Triple Cross-Attention and Multi-Source Data Fusion
Previous Article in Special Issue
Olfactory Responses of Frankliniella occidentalis and Orius similis to Volatiles from Houttuynia cordata: Implications for Thrip Management
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 14
Issue 14
10.3390/plants14142204
plants-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

Potential of Essential Oils and Major EO Constituents in the Chemical Control of Spodoptera frugiperda

by
Virginia Lara Usseglio
1,2,3,*,
Magalí Beato
1,3,
José Sebastián Dambolena
1,2,3 and
María Paula Zunino
1,2,3
1
Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (IMBiV-CONICET-UNC), Córdoba X5000, Argentina
2
Cátedra de Química Orgánica y Productos Naturales (FCEFyN-UNC), Córdoba X5000, Argentina
3
Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología de los Alimentos (ICTA-FCEFyN-UNC), Córdoba X5000, Argentina
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2025, 14(14), 2204; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14142204
Submission received: 23 May 2025 / Revised: 11 July 2025 / Accepted: 14 July 2025 / Published: 16 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Chemical Ecology of Plant and Insect Pests)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Spodoptera frugiperda is a major agricultural pest worldwide, causing significant economic loss to maize crops. Its control largely depends on synthetic pesticides, which contribute to resistance development, harm non-target organisms, and lead to environmental degradation. Essential oils and their main components offer a more sustainable and ecologically sound alternative for the management of S. frugiperda. This study evaluated the effects of selected essential oils and their bioactive compounds on the survival and behavior of S. frugiperda using toxicity and preference assays. Peppermint essential oil and its major constituent, pulegone, significantly reduced the survival of S. frugiperda, with effects similar to those caused by synthetic insecticides. Eucalyptus essential oil and its main compound, 1,8-cineole, also influenced the behavior of S. frugiperda, suggesting potential for use in repellents. These findings highlight the use of essential oils and their main constituents/active constituents as bioinsecticides and their integration into environmentally friendly pest management strategies.

1. Introduction

Maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the most important crops worldwide and a crucial component in animal feed and industrial applications [1]. In the 2023/24 season, world corn production was 1224.3 million metric tons, the main cereal harvested, followed by wheat and rice [2,3]. Its production is threatened by various biotic and abiotic stresses, among which insect pests play a major role in yield reduction and quality deterioration [4]. The fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda), a highly destructive lepidopteran pest, has gained global notoriety due to its rapid spread and devastating effects on maize crops [5,6].
Spodoptera frugiperda is a polyphagous insect that primarily targets maize but can also infest a wide range of crops, including rice, sorghum, and cotton [7]. Its ability to migrate long distances, coupled with its high reproductive rate and adaptability to environmental conditions, has allowed its spread [8,9,10]. The larval stages of S. frugiperda feed on maize leaves, stems, and reproductive structures, leading to severe defoliation and reduced photosynthetic efficiency, which results in significant yield loss [4,7].
Synthetic chemical insecticides have been widely used as a primary control strategy [4,11]. These pesticides have provided effective pest management and have helped sustain maize production in many regions. However, its misuse has raised serious concerns over its effects on human health, environmental sustainability, non-target organism toxicity, and the development of resistance in S. frugiperda populations [11]. Resistance to insecticides such as pyrethroids, organophosphates, and neonicotinoids has been reported in multiple regions, reducing the efficacy of conventional control methods and increasing the reliance on higher doses or more potent chemicals.
Exploring environmentally friendly and sustainable options for crop protection has thus become increasingly urgent. One promising alternative is the use of plant-derived bioactive compounds, particularly essential oils (EOs). EOs are complex mixtures of volatile secondary metabolites extracted from aromatic plants and are known for their insecticidal, repellent, and antifeedant properties [12,13,14]. The application of EOs in pest management has gained increasing attention due to their biodegradability, low toxicity to non-target organisms, and potential to reduce dependency on synthetic pesticides [15]. These natural compounds represent promising and sustainable tools for reducing S. frugiperda populations while minimizing environmental and health risks associated with conventional pesticides [16,17,18,19,20,21]. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the effects of EOs and their major components on the survival and attraction/repellence response of S. frugiperda.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Essential Oil Composition

Table 1 presents the major compounds identified by GC-MS in Peppermint, Eucalyptus, and Orange EOs. In the case of Peppermint EO (Minthostachys verticillata), the main constituent identified was pulegone (~69%) as the predominant compound, followed by menthone (~21%). For orange EO (Citrus sinensis), limonene was the principal component, accounting for approximately 97% of the composition, while the remaining 3% consisted of compounds present at concentrations below 1%. Finally, the main compound found in eucalyptus EO (Eucalyptus globulus) was 1,8-cineole (~81%), followed by α-pinene and o-cymene at lower percentages (≅7%).

2.2. Insecticidal Activity

Figure 1 shows the contact effect of EOs and their major constituents on the survival of second-instar S. frugiperda larvae. The most effective EO was Peppermint, reaching 100% mortality at 0.5 μg/insect, followed by Eucalyptus, which did not exceed 80% mortality at the highest concentration tested (Figure 1A). On the other hand, the effect of the major compounds studied showed that pulegone had the greatest toxicity (Figure 1B), lower than that exhibited by the EO, indicating that the mixture of compounds has a synergistic effect on the survival of S. frugiperda. Authors have found this harmful effect of pulegone not only in toxicity tests but also in antifeedant assays [24,25,26]. The highly toxic effects of pulegone, and therefore of Peppermint EO, may be due to alpha and beta unsaturation and the carbonyl group in this molecule. In a previous study, we found that chemical compounds with these characteristics exerted significant harmful effects not only on Spodoptera species but also on other insect pests [10,27,28].
As 1,8-cineole and limonene, the predominant compounds in Eucalyptus and Orange Eos, respectively, exhibited similar effects, which were notably lower than those in pulegone (Figure 1B). In the case of 1,8-cineole, the mortality rate at the tested concentrations was similar to that observed for the highest concentration of Eucalyptus EO, which could be attributed to the action of this pure compound. In Orange EO, mortality did not exceed 50%, which was similar to that of pure limonene. As a positive control for toxicity, the synthetic insecticide Zamuray 10® was used, whose active ingredient is bifenthrin (10% w/v). As shown in Figure 1, mortality caused by this insecticide was 100% at all concentrations tested. In the case of Peppermint EO, a comparable effect was observed at 0.5 μg/insect, as previously noted, whereas for pulegone, it was not achieved until 2 μg/insect.
The present study demonstrates the insecticidal potential of EOs and their major compounds against second-instar S. frugiperda larvae. Among the tested EOs, Peppermint EO showed the highest larvicidal activity, achieving complete mortality at concentrations as low as 0.5 μg/insect. This finding highlights the potent bioactivity of Peppermint EO, which appears comparable to that of the synthetic insecticide bifenthrin, used as a positive control. In addition, Eucalyptus EO also demonstrated notable activity, although it did not exceed 80% mortality, even at the highest concentration tested. This difference in efficacy between Peppermint and Eucalyptus EOs may be attributed to differences in their chemical composition, particularly the relative concentration and type of active organic compounds present.
Although pulegone was the most toxic pure compound evaluated, its efficacy remained lower than that of the complete Peppermint EO, suggesting a synergistic effect of its components that enhances its insecticidal activity. This synergism agrees with that in previous reports, indicating that complex mixtures in EOs can act more effectively than isolated components due to additive or synergistic interactions [29]. For example, menthone, the second most abundant compound in this EO, has demonstrated toxic effects on various insects [30,31,32], suggesting that its presence may enhance the insecticidal activity of pulegone. In contrast, 1,8-cineole and limonene displayed significantly lower toxicity. The mortality caused by 1,8-cineole was comparable to that observed at the highest concentration of Eucalyptus EO, suggesting that the activity of Eucalyptus EO may be largely attributed to this compound. Compounds such as α-pinene and o-cymene show low or negligible toxicity against S. frugiperda larvae, confirming that the observed effect is primarily attributable to the presence of 1,8-cineole [10]. However, this was not the case for Orange EO, as both essential oil and pure limonene caused less than 50% mortality, indicating limited insecticidal efficacy. Although the effects of orange EO and limonene have limited effects on insect survival, studies have shown that both significantly reduce nutrient reserves (lipids, proteins, sugars, and glycogen), decreasing fertility, longevity, and anti-feeding effects [33,34]. Hence, different studies should be conducted to evaluate their potential for controlling this pest.
Overall, these results underscore the potential of Peppermint EO as a natural, plant-based insecticidal agent against S. frugiperda, offering an effective and environmentally friendly alternative to conventional synthetic insecticides. Future studies should focus on characterizing the interaction between the components in EOs to better understand and harness their synergistic properties for pest control.

2.3. Attraction/Repellence Response

To evaluate the effect of EOs and their main components on the preference of S. frugiperda, attraction/repellency bioassays were conducted in a circular arena. Figure 2 shows the repellence index (RI) obtained after exposing this insect to EOs at three concentrations (0.0006, 0.006, and 0.06 µL/cm2) and at three points (15, 30, and 120 min of exposure). At the lowest concentration (0.0006 µL/cm2), Eucalyptus EO was the only treatment that produced a statistically significant repellent effect on insect behavior at the three times evaluated (p-value < 0.05), with a repellence index (RI) of 66.67 ± 25.62%, a trend that remained consistent after 30 min exposure (RI: 50.00 ± 26.91%, p-value < 0.05) and 120 min exposure (RI: 66.67 ± 25.69%, p-value < 0.05). After 120 min exposure, Orange EOs also exhibited statistically significant repellent effects, reaching the same level of repellency as that of Eucalyptus EO. As concentration increased, variations in insect response were observed. Larvae of S. frugiperda exposed to 0.006 µL/cm2 exhibited no defined behavioral response at shorter exposure times to the selected EOs. However, after 30 min, Eucalyptus EO showed a repellent effect (RI: 66.67 ± 23.57%, p-value < 0.05), which disappeared after 120 min of exposure. At 120 min, only Orange EO induced a significant behavioral effect, showing a repellent response (RI: 83.33 ± 25.46%, p-value < 0.05), as also observed at the lowest concentration (0.0006 µL/cm2). Finally, at the highest concentration (0.06 µL/cm2), only Orange EO produced a statistically significant response from S. frugiperda, being repellent after 30 and 120 min exposure (RI: 50.00 ± 26.69% and RI: 50.00 ± 26.75%, respectively).
In parallel, the effect of the major EO compounds on the behavior of S. frugiperda was evaluated using the same concentrations and exposure times as described previously (Figure 3). Eugenol was used as a positive control for repellence [35,36,37]. At the lowest tested concentration (0.0006 µL/cm2), pulegone showed an attractive trend, which was statistically significant only after 15 min exposure (RI: −53.85 ± 26.09%, p-value < 0.05). In contrast to the results observed for 1,8-cineole, a statistical behavioral response was noted from S. frugiperda at this concentration. However, at 0.006 µL/cm2, 1,8-cineole showed a repellent effect after 15 min of exposure (RI: 66.67 ± 22.30%, p-value < 0.05), while the attractant effect previously observed for pulegone at 0.0006 µL/cm2 was not replicated. At all concentrations tested, limonene showed no statistically significant effects on the behavior of S. frugiperda; however, a repellent tendency of this compound was observed. Additionally, at 0.06 µL/cm2, none of the tested compounds showed a clear behavioral response. Notably, under this condition, the repellent effect of eugenol, used as a positive control, was also absent at 15 min, suggesting a potential methodological issue related to the rapid saturation of organic compound vapors in the headspace of the device used, which could hinder the selection of insects.
The behavioral assays conducted in this study provide valuable insights into the olfactory-mediated responses of S. frugiperda larvae to selected EOs and their major constituents. Overall, our results demonstrate that both the composition and concentration of EOs and their constituents play a central role in determining their attractant or repellent effects on lepidopteran pests.
At low concentrations (0.0006 µL/cm2), Eucalyptus EO exhibited a statistically significant repellent effect after both 15 and 30 min exposure, a trend that was not observed at higher concentrations or longer exposure times. This repellent response of Eucalyptus EO was also reported by Wang et al. (2023) [20] in larvae and adults of S. frugiperda, as well as by other authors in larvae and adults of other lepidopteran species [38,39,40], indicating that the repellent effect of this EO may be preserved across this group of insect pests. These authors also noted a repellent effect of Lemon EO [20], whose main component, as in Orange EO, is limonene, suggesting that the effect observed in our study may be attributed to high percentages of this compound in its composition. The concentration-dependent response of EO may reflect a natural ecological interaction, where lower concentrations of major EO compounds mimic host plant volatiles, while higher concentrations may confuse or repel insects due to olfactory saturation or toxic effects [41]. Interestingly, 1,8-cineole did not replicate the repellent effect of the whole oil at the same concentration, suggesting a synergistic interaction among the constituents of EOs [24,42]. This underlines the importance of evaluating both whole EOs and isolated components, as the biological activity of EOs is often not attributable to a single compound [29].
The repellent effect of Orange EO, particularly at longer exposure times and higher concentrations (e.g., 0.06 µL/cm2 at 120 min), suggests that specific terpenes in this oil may have a prolonged stimulating effect on larval olfaction. This consistent repellence at low and high concentrations underscores its potential as a repellent pest management strategy. In contrast, pulegone showed a significant attractant effect at low concentrations and short exposure times; yet this response was not maintained at higher doses or with prolonged exposure, indicating that its attractant properties may be transient or subject to rapid desensitization in the larval olfactory system. Wang et al. (2023) [20] reported a repellent effect of Peppermint EO that we have been unable to determine in our work; however, lack of information on the scientific name of the species used and its main components introduces uncertainty about whether the extract originated from the same plant species, limiting comparison of results.
The behavioral neutrality observed at the highest concentration tested (0.06 µL/cm2) for all compounds suggests that olfactory saturation or vapor-phase interference may have affected larval choice. Rapid saturation of the arena’s headspace may have caused a uniform distribution of volatiles, preventing larvae from detecting a concentration gradient and thus impairing their ability to choose between odor sources. This finding underlines the need to optimize experimental conditions, particularly in behavioral assays involving volatile compounds, where air circulation and spatial distribution are crucial.
Our findings emphasize the complexity of insect–plant chemical interactions and the context-dependent nature of behavioral responses to semiochemicals. Although certain EOs and their major components are promising behavioral modulators of S. frugiperda, future research should further explore the mechanisms of olfactory reception, potential habituation effects, and the interaction between EO constituents. This knowledge is essential for the development of effective and sustainable pest management strategies based on natural products.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. EOs and Major EO Constituents

The EOs used in this work were Orange (EO) (Citrus sinensis L.), Peppermint (EO) (Minthostachys verticillata Griseb.), and Eucalyptus EO (Eucalyptus globulus Labill.). Peppermint and Eucalyptus EOs were provided by a group of local producers from Valle de Calamuchita, Córdoba, Argentina, and were obtained from aerial parts by hydrodistillation using a Clevenger apparatus. Orange EO was obtained by cold pressing the peels and supplied by ECA Agroindustria (Concordia, Entre Ríos, Argentina). To determine the composition of each EO, chromatographic analysis was performed using a Perkin-Elmer Clarus 600 gas chromatograph coupled with an ion trap mass detector (GC-MS). EOs were diluted in hexane (1:10 v/v), and 1 μL of solution was injected. An ELITE 5 ms capillary column (60 m × 0.25 mm i.d. and 0.25 µm coating thickness) was employed for separating the individual components. The chromatographic conditions were as follows: Injector at 250 °C in splitless mode; oven temperature programming: 50 °C (2 min)–5 °C/min (1 min)–240 °C (5 min); total run time 45 min; and constant detector temperature of 240 °C. Helium served as the carrier gas (flow rate = 1.5 mL/min), and compounds were identified by comparing their retention indices and mass spectra with published data and available libraries (NIST, Gaithersburg, MD, USA [43]).
Most EO constituents used in this investigation were (Figure 4): ®-2-Isopropylidene-5-methylcyclohexanone ((+)-pulegone), 1,3,3-Trimethyl-2-oxabicyclo[2.2.2]octane (1,8-cineole), (R)-4-Isopropenyl-1-methyl-1-cyclohexen®(R)-(+)-limonene), and 2-Methoxy-4-(2-propenyl)phenol (eugenol). All organic compounds were purchased from Merck® (Buenos Aires, Argentina). Zamuray 10 (2-methylbiphenyl-3-ylmethyl (Z)-(1RS)-cis-3-(2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-enyl)-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate, bifenthrin) from Gleba®, a commercial insecticide, was used as a positive control.

3.2. Insects

Spodoptera frugiperda larvae were maintained under controlled laboratory conditions (28 ± 2 °C and 70 ± 5% relative humidity (RH)). Second-instar larvae were used according to the optimal stage for chemical control of S. frugiperda, as determined by Insect Resistance Management (IRM) and the Program and Insecticide Resistance Action Committee [10,44].
The larvae were fed an artificial diet containing the following main ingredients: bean flour (150 g), wheat germ (35 g), yeast (40 g), vitamins (2 g), agar (40 g), methylparaben (3 g), sodium benzoate (3 g), sorbic acid (1 g), ascorbic acid (6 g), streptomycin (0.16 g), oxytetracycline (2.16 g), formaldehyde 40% v/v (2 mL), and distilled water (1 L).

3.3. Topical Application Bioassay

The toxicity of EOs and their major constituents was determined according to Silva Bibiano et al. (2022) [45]. Briefly, EOs and organic compounds were solubilized in acetone to generate stock solutions. Then, 1 µL of the solution was topically administered with a Hamilton syringe into the second thoracic segment of the larvae. The concentrations tested were 0.13, 0.25, 0.75, 1.0, and 1.5 μg/insect for EOs and 0.13, 0.25, 0.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 μg/insect for pure compounds. For the negative control, 1 μL of acetone was topically applied to each larva. The positive control consisted of the commercial insecticide Zamuray 10, applied at the same concentrations as those used for EOs and pure compounds. The larvae were then separated and placed with food in Petri dishes to prevent cannibalism, and mortality was recorded at 24 h [45]. The experiments were performed at 28 ± 2 °C and 70 ± 5% RH. Five replicates for each treatment were performed twice.

3.4. Attractant/Repellent Activity Assay

The effect of EOs and their major constituents on Spodoptera frugiperda preference was determined following Beato et al. (2022) [46] with some modifications. Briefly, a Whatman filter paper disk (6 cm diameter) was placed at the bottom of a glass Petri dish and separated into two halves. Increasing concentrations of EOs or organic compounds were added to half of the paper disk (0.06, 0.006, and 0.0006 μL/cm2) and the other half was treated with acetone (control). Each half of the paper disk was embedded in 150 μL of solution (acetone for control and EO or organic compound diluted in acetone for treatments) and left for 5 min until the solvent evaporated. For each petri dish, one S. frugiperda larva deprived of food was released, and its position (control or treatment) was recorded at 15, 30, and 120 min. The experiment was performed at 28 ± 2 °C and 70 ± 5% RH. A repellence index (RI) was calculated according to Nerio et al. (2009) [47] with some modifications:
R I = C − T × 100
where T represents the number of insects on the treated half of the plate, and C represents the number of insects in the control half. Negative RI values indicate attraction, and positive values indicate repellence [47]. All experiments were carried out five times and twice per concentration, and the position of the treatments was varied. The position of each larva (control or treatment) was determined individually.

3.5. Statistical Analysis

The statistical difference in the mortality rate was determined using ANOVA. A paired t-test was used to determine the statistical difference in the choice of insects, and ANOVA was used for comparison of RIs. The assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were tested. These analyses were carried out with the statistical software Navure® (Córdoba, Argentina).

4. Conclusions

This study highlights the dual bioactivity of selected EOs and their major constituents in Spodoptera frugiperda larvae, demonstrating both lethal and behavioral effects. Peppermint EO has emerged as the most effective insecticidal agent, achieving 100% larval mortality at low doses, an effect largely attributed to pulegone and the synergistic interactions among its constituents.
Behavioral assays revealed that Eucalyptus and Orange EOs acted as effective repellents, particularly at low concentrations and longer exposure times. Notably, pulegone exhibited a transient attractive effect, stressing the importance of exposure time and concentration in modulating larval behavior.
Overall, these findings underscore the potential of Peppermint and Eucalyptus EOs as natural alternatives for managing S. frugiperda through toxicity and behavioral disruption. Further research should explore formulation strategies, field validation, and the role of synergistic effects in developing eco-friendly pest management tools. The results of this study could contribute to the formulation of eco-friendly pest control strategies that align with sustainable agricultural principles, ultimately reducing the ecological footprint of maize protection practices.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: V.L.U., J.S.D. and M.P.Z. Methodology and formal analysis: V.L.U. and M.B. Investigation: V.L.U. Resources: V.L.U., J.S.D. and M.P.Z. Writing—original draft preparation: V.L.U., J.S.D., M.B. and M.P.Z. Supervision: J.S.D. and M.P.Z. Funding acquisition: V.L.U., J.S.D. and M.P.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Agency for Scientific and Technological Promotion (ANPCyT), Argentina, PICT-2021-I-INVI-00084, and SeCyT CONSOLIDAR from the Secretary of Science and Technique (SeCyT-UNC).

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request (vusseglio@imbiv.unc.edu.ar).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Marta Ojeda and the rural producers of Cambio Rural at the Calamuchita Valley, Córdoba Province, for donating essential oils from their aromatic plant plantations. The authors would also like to thank Carolina Mosconi, for her professional assistance with the linguistic revision of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Gerard, G.S.; Simón, M.R. Maíz: Usos y Comercialización. In Cereales de Verano; Golik, S.I., Simón, M.R., Eds.; Editorial de la Universidad de La Plata: La Plata, Argentina, 2018; pp. 177–190. ISBN 978-950-34-1658-7. [Google Scholar]
  2. Orús, A. Distribución Porcentual de La Producción Mundial de Maíz En La Temporada 2023/2024, Por País. Available online: https://es.statista.com/estadisticas/1496435/cuota-de-produccion-de-maiz-por-pais/ (accessed on 11 March 2025).
  3. Orús, A. Producción de Cereales en Todo el Mundo en 2023/2024, Por Tipo. Available online: https://es.statista.com/estadisticas/1140499/produccion-mundial-de-cereales-por-tipo/ (accessed on 11 March 2025).
  4. Simón, M.R.; Dietz, J.I.; Schierenbeck, M. Maíz: Manejo de Plagas María. In Cereales de Verano; Simón, M.R., Golik, S.I., Eds.; Editorial de la Universidad de La Plata: La Plata, Argentina, 2018; pp. 101–132. ISBN 9781873671009. [Google Scholar]
  5. Tay, W.T.; Rane, R.V.; Padovan, A.; Walsh, T.K.; Elfekih, S.; Downes, S.; Nam, K.; D’Alençon, E.; Zhang, J.; Wu, Y.; et al. Global Population Genomic Signature of Spodoptera frugiperda (Fall Armyworm) Supports Complex Introduction Events across the Old World. Commun. Biol. 2022, 5, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Overton, K.; Maino, J.L.; Day, R.; Umina, P.A.; Bett, B.; Carnovale, D.; Ekesi, S.; Meagher, R.; Reynolds, O.L. Global Crop Impacts, Yield Losses and Action Thresholds for Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda): A Review. Crop Prot. 2021, 145, 105641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lezaun, J. Gusano Cogollero: Una Plaga de Alto Impacto. Available online: https://www.croplifela.org/es/plagas/listado-de-plagas/gusano-cogollero (accessed on 22 May 2025).
  8. Sharma, S.; Tiwari, S.; Thapa, R.B.; Neupane, S.; Reddy, G.V.P.; Pokhrel, S.; Muniappan, R. Life Cycle and Morphometrics of Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on Maize Crop. SAARC J. Agric. 2022, 20, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Westbrook, J.K.; Nagoshi, R.N.; Meagher, R.L.; Fleischer, S.J.; Jairam, S. Modeling Seasonal Migration of Fall Armyworm Moths. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2016, 60, 255–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Usseglio, V.L.; Dambolena, J.S.; Zunino, M.P. Can Essential Oils Be a Natural Alternative for the Control of Spodoptera frugiperda? A Review of Toxicity Methods and Their Modes of Action. Plants 2023, 12, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Van Den Berg, J.; Du Plessis, H. Chemical Control and Insecticide Resistance in Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2022, 115, 1761–1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Isman, M.B. Botanical Insecticides, Deterrents, and Repellents in Modern Agriculture and an Increasingly Regulated World. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2006, 51, 45–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Isman, M.B. Botanical Insecticides in the Twenty-First Century-Fulfilling Their Promise? Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2020, 65, 233–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Regnault-Roger, C.; Vincent, C.; Arnason, J.T. Essential Oils in Insect Control: Low-Risk Products in a High-Stakes World. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2012, 57, 405–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Mossa, A.T.H. Green Pesticides: Essential Oils as Biopesticides in Insect-Pest Management. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 9, 354–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Negrini, M.; Fidelis, E.G.; Schurt, D.A.; Silva, F.S.; Pereira, R.S.; Bizzo, H.R. Insecticidal Activity of Essential Oils in Controlling Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Arq. Inst. Biol. 2019, 86, e1112018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Souza, T.F.; Favero, S.; Conte, C.O. Bioatividade de Óleos Essenciais de Espécies de Eucalipto Para o Controle de Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith, 1797) (Lepidoptera : Noctuidae). Rev. Bras. Agroecol. 2010, 5, 157–164. [Google Scholar]
  18. Knaak, N.; Wiest, S.L.F.; Andreis, T.F.; Fiuza, L.M. Toxicity of Essential Oils to the Larvae of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Biopestic. 2013, 6, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dutra, K.; Wanderley-Teixeira, V.; Guedes, C.; Cruz, G.; Navarro, D.; Monteiro, A.; Agra, A.; Lapa Neto, C.; Teixeira, Á. Toxicity of Essential Oils of Leaves of Plants from the Genus Piper with Influence on the Nutritional Parameters of Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Essent. Oil-Bear. Plants 2020, 23, 213–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, T.; Zhao, J.; Ren, Y.; Lei, Y.; Liu, Y.; Guo, X.; Li, M.; Tang, J.; Ji, X.; Peng, J. Bioactivity of Some Plant Essential Oils Against Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Res. Sq. 2023; preprint. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sombra, K.E.S.; de Aguiar, C.V.S.; de Oliveira, S.J.; Barbosa, M.G.; Zocolo, G.J.; Pastori, P.L. Potential Pesticide of Three Essential Oils Against Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2020, 80, 617–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Adams, R.P. Identification of Essential Oil Components by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, 4th ed.; Allured Publ.: Carol Stream, IL, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  23. López, P.L.; Juncos, N.S.; Grosso, N.R.; Olmedo, R.H. Minthostachys Mollis Essential Oil and Its Combination with Tert-Butylhydroquinone for Control of Lipid Oxidation. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2022, 124, 2200081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pavela, R.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Maggi, F.; Desneux, N.; Benelli, G. Essential Oil Antifeedants Against Armyworms: Promises and Challenges. Entomol. Gen. 2023, 43, 689–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Santana, O.; Andrés, M.F.; Sanz, J.; Errahmani, N.; Abdeslam, L.; González-Coloma, A. Valorization of Essential Oils from Moroccan Aromatic Plants. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2014, 9, 1109–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kimbaris, A.C.; González-Coloma, A.; Andrés, M.F.; Vidali, V.P.; Polissiou, M.G.; Santana-Méridas, O. Biocidal Compounds from Mentha sp. Essential Oils and Their Structure–Activity Relationships. Chem. Biodivers. 2017, 14, e1600270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Peschiutta, M.L.; Brito, V.D.; Achimón, F.; Zunino, M.P.; Usseglio, V.L.; Zygadlo, J.A. New Insecticide Delivery Method for the Control of Sitophilus zeamais in Stored Maize. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2019, 83, 185–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Herrera, J.M.; Zunino, M.P.; Dambolena, J.S.; Pizzolitto, R.P.; Gañan, N.A.; Lucini, E.I.; Zygadlo, J.A. Terpene Ketones as Natural Insecticides Against Sitophilus zeamais. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 70, 435–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Monteiro, I.N.; Ferreira, L.O.G.; de Oliveira, A.K.M.; Favero, S.; Figueiredo, P.L.B.; Maia, J.G.S.; Monteiro, O.S.; Matias, R. Toxicity of the Lippia Gracilis Essential Oil Chemotype, Pinene-Cineole-Limonene, on Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2021, 41, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chaubey, M.K. Insecticidal Activities of Natural Volatile Compounds Against Pulse Beetle, Callosobruchus Chinensis (Bruchidae). Acta Sci. Biol. Sci. 2024, 46, e68787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liu, Z.L.; Chu, S.S.; Jiang, G.H. Toxicity of Schizonpeta multifida Essential Oil and Its Constituent Compounds towards Two Grain Storage Insects. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 905–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Baker, O.S.; Norris, E.J.; Burgess, E.R. Insecticidal and Synergistic Potential of Three Monoterpenoids against the Yellow Fever Mosquito, Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae), and the House Fly, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae). Molecules 2023, 28, 3250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Villafañe, E.; Tolosa, D.; Bardón, A.; Neske, A. Toxic Effects of Citrus aurantium and C. limon Essential Oils on Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Nat. Prod. Commun. 2011, 6, 1389–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Cruz, G.S.; Wanderley-Teixeira, V.; Oliveira, J.V.; D’ assunção, C.G.; Cunha, F.M.; Teixeira, Á.A.C.; Guedes, C.A.; Dutra, K.A.; Barbosa, D.R.S.; Breda, M.O. Effect of Trans-Anethole, Limonene and Your Combination in Nutritional Components and Their Reflection on Reproductive Parameters and Testicular Apoptosis in Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Chem. Biol. Interact. 2017, 263, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Pimenta, T.A.; da Silva, A.B.; Farias, L.R.A.; Cruz, G.S.; Teixeira, V.W.; Teixeira, Á.A.C.; Silva, N.L.; Trindade, R.C.P. Bioactivity, Biochemical Mechanisms, and Olfactory Effects of the Essential Oil from Syzygium aromaticum and Its Major Compound Eugenol on Sitophilus zeamais L. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Res. Sq. 2025; preprint. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zuo, J.; Lan, R.; Lv, N.; Lin, Y.; Hao, L.; Zhou, X.; Zhou, H. A Promising Plant-Based Eugenol-Loaded Nano Delivery System (EUG@CMC-PGMA-CS) for Enhanced Antibacterial and Insect Repellent Behavior. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 2024, 7, 1643–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lobo, A.P.; Gomes da Camara, C.A.; Ramos de Melo, J.P.; Martins de Moraes, M. Chemical Composition and Repellent Activity of Essential Oils from the Leaves of Cinnamomum zeylanicum and Eugenia uniflora against Diaphania hyalinata L. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2019, 126, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rekioua, N.; Boumendjel, M.; Taibi, F.; Samar, M.F.; Jemaa, J.M.B.; Benaliouch, F.; Negro, C.; Nicoli, F.; De Bellis, L.; Boushih, E.; et al. Insecticidal Effect of Eucalyptus Globulus and Rosmarinus Officinalis Essential Oils on a Stored Food Pest Ephestia Kuehniella (Lepidoptera, Pyralidea). Cell Mol. Biol. 2022, 68, 144–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Lo Pinto, M.; Vella, L.; Agrò, A. Oviposition Deterrence and Repellent Activities of Selected Essential Oils against Tuta absoluta Meyrick (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae): Laboratory and Greenhouse Investigations. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2022, 42, 3455–3464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ramos de Melo, J.P.; Gomes da Câmara, C.A.; de Moraes, M.M. Bioactivity of Formulas Containing Essential Oils from the Family Myrtaceae for the Management of Deltamethrin-Resistant Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Phytoparasitica 2023, 51, 305–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Conchou, L.; Lucas, P.; Meslin, C.; Proffit, M.; Staudt, M.; Renou, M. Insect Odorscapes: From Plant Volatiles to Natural Olfactory Scenes. Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Drozdz, T.; Couzi, P.; Massot, M.; Conti, B.; Ascrizzi, R.; Siaussat, D. Combination of Chitosan and Essential Oils for Tomatoes Protection Against the Insect Pest Spodoptera Littoralis (Lepidoptera Noctuidae). Insects 2025, 16, 718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST/EPA/NIH Mass Spectral Library; NIST: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2008.
  44. Programa Manejo de Resistencia de Insectos (MRI); Insecticide Resistance Action Committee (IRAC Argentina). Cogollero (Spodoptera frugiperda) en el Cultivo de Maíz: Bases Para Su Manejo y Control en Sistemas de Producción; Rem, A., Ed.; 2019; ISBN 9788578110796. ISSN 2250-5350. Available online: https://www.aapresid.org.ar/blog/cogollero-cultivo-maiz (accessed on 22 May 2025).
  45. Silva Bibiano, C.; Alves, D.S.; Freire, B.C.; Vilela Bertolucci, S.K.; Carvalho, G.A. Toxicity of Essential Oils and Pure Compounds of Lamiaceae Species against Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and Their Safety for the Nontarget Organism Trichogramma Pretiosum (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Crop Prot. 2022, 158, 106011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Beato, M.; Usseglio, V.L.; Pizzolitto, R.P.; Merlo, C.; Dambolena, J.S.; Zunino, M.P.; Zygadlo, J.A.; Omarini, A.B. Biotransformation as a Source of Potential Controlling Natural Mixtures of Sitophilus zeamais. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2022, 45, 102536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nerio, L.S.; Olivero-Verbel, J.; Stashenko, E.E. Repellent Activity of Essential Oils from Seven Aromatic Plants Grown in Colombia Against Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2009, 45, 212–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 14 02204 g001
Figure 1. Toxic effects of essential oils (A) and their major compounds (B) against the S. frugiperda second larval stage. C+: Positive control for toxicity (commercial insecticide Zamuray10®). Different letters indicate statistical differences between treatments, as determined by ANOVA and DGC tests (p < 0.05).
Figure 1. Toxic effects of essential oils (A) and their major compounds (B) against the S. frugiperda second larval stage. C+: Positive control for toxicity (commercial insecticide Zamuray10®). Different letters indicate statistical differences between treatments, as determined by ANOVA and DGC tests (p < 0.05).
Plants 14 02204 g001
Plants 14 02204 g002
Figure 2. Repellence Index (%) of S. frugiperda, second larval stage, exposed to essential oils three times (15, 30, and 120 min). Positive values indicate repellence, and negative values indicate attraction. * refers to statistical differences for a paired t-test (p < 0.05), and different letters denote statistical differences between RI by ANOVA and DGC test (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Repellence Index (%) of S. frugiperda, second larval stage, exposed to essential oils three times (15, 30, and 120 min). Positive values indicate repellence, and negative values indicate attraction. * refers to statistical differences for a paired t-test (p < 0.05), and different letters denote statistical differences between RI by ANOVA and DGC test (p < 0.05).
Plants 14 02204 g002
Plants 14 02204 g003
Figure 3. Repellence Index (%) of S. frugiperda, second larval stage, exposed to major EO constituents three times (15, 30, and 120 min). Positive values indicate repellence, and negative values indicate attraction. * refers to statistical differences for a paired t-test (p < 0.05), and different letters denote statistical differences between RI by ANOVA and DGC test (p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Repellence Index (%) of S. frugiperda, second larval stage, exposed to major EO constituents three times (15, 30, and 120 min). Positive values indicate repellence, and negative values indicate attraction. * refers to statistical differences for a paired t-test (p < 0.05), and different letters denote statistical differences between RI by ANOVA and DGC test (p < 0.05).
Plants 14 02204 g003
Plants 14 02204 g004
Figure 4. Molecular structure of major EO constituents.
Figure 4. Molecular structure of major EO constituents.
Plants 14 02204 g004
Table 1. Relative percentage concentrations of the constituents of Eucalyptus, Peppermint, and Orange essential oils (EOs) according to their elution order in gas chromatography analysis.
Table 1. Relative percentage concentrations of the constituents of Eucalyptus, Peppermint, and Orange essential oils (EOs) according to their elution order in gas chromatography analysis.
Calculated Retention IndexTheoretical Retention Index [22] *CompoundsEucalyptus EOPeppermint EOOrange EOMethods of Identification
924930α-thujenendtrtrGCMS
930939α-pinene7.330.220.44GCMS-Co
969975sabinene1.820.110.22GCMS
972979β-pinene1.320.29trGCMS-Co
987991β-myrceneTr0.211.35GCMS-Co
1008999octanalndndtrGCMS
10201026o-cymene7.73ndtrGCMS
10241029limonene 0.1197.26GCMS-Co
102810311,8-cineole81.80ndndGCMS-Co
10321037cis-β-ocimenend1.7ndGCMS
10441050trans-β-ocimenend0.62ndGCMS
10541060γ-terpinenendtrndGCMS
10951097linaloolnd0.380.22GCMS-Co
11071101nonanalndndtrGCMS
11461142trans-limonene oxidendndtrGCMS
11481153menthonend21.42ndGCMS-Co
11581163isomenthonend0.49ndGCMS
11651188 [23] **trans-isopulegonend0.60ndGCMS
11861189α-terpineolnd0.13trGCMS-Co
12051202decanalndnd0.16GCMS
12331237pulegonend69.2ndGCMS-Co
12391243carvonendndtrGCMS-Co
12491253piperitonend0.49ndGCMS
14171419β-caryophyllenend0.25trGCMS-Co
14331434gurjunenend0.33ndGCMS
14841485germacrene Dnd2.34trGCMS
Total 10098.89100
tr: Stands for trace amounts of the compound and is used when the average amount of a particular compound is <0.05%. nd: Not determined. GCMS: Peak identification based on MS comparison with file spectra. Co: Peak identification based on a standard comparison with relative retention time. * Theoretical RI from Adams (2007) [22]. ** RI calculated by López et al. (2022) [23].
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

Usseglio, V.L.; Beato, M.; Dambolena, J.S.; Zunino, M.P. Potential of Essential Oils and Major EO Constituents in the Chemical Control of Spodoptera frugiperda. Plants 2025, 14, 2204. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14142204

AMA Style

Usseglio VL, Beato M, Dambolena JS, Zunino MP. Potential of Essential Oils and Major EO Constituents in the Chemical Control of Spodoptera frugiperda. Plants. 2025; 14(14):2204. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14142204

Chicago/Turabian Style

Usseglio, Virginia Lara, Magalí Beato, José Sebastián Dambolena, and María Paula Zunino. 2025. "Potential of Essential Oils and Major EO Constituents in the Chemical Control of Spodoptera frugiperda" Plants 14, no. 14: 2204. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14142204

APA Style

Usseglio, V. L., Beato, M., Dambolena, J. S., & Zunino, M. P. (2025). Potential of Essential Oils and Major EO Constituents in the Chemical Control of Spodoptera frugiperda. Plants, 14(14), 2204. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14142204

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