Towards the sustainable control of diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella L.) in cruciferous crops: current trends, resistance mechanisms, and future frontiers

Abstract

Diamondback moth (DBM, Plutella xylostella L.) is one of the most damaging pests of cruciferous crops, causing significant economic losses in multiple agri-food production systems globally. The high reproductive potential of DBM, rapid adaptability to diverse ecological zones, and resistance to several synthetic insecticides destabilize their integrated pest management (IPM) efforts. Here, we critically synthesize the current knowledge on DBM research across key IPM thematic areas, including biocontrol, insecticide use, phytochemistry interactions, insect-associated microbiomes and insecticide resistance, as well as the impact of climate alterations. This review has emphasized the importance of evidence based on insecticide applications, which have encouraged the development of resistance and are not sustainable for use in insect population management. However, the availability of other options for biocontrol agents, such as parasitoids, predators, entomopathogens, and host-plant resistance, has also been significant and sustainable for the management of DBM population. Apart from this, the effects of climate fluctuation have increased the spread of DBM population, which has also necessitated the use of adaptive strategies for its management, such as advanced pest surveillance systems, genome editing, and climate resilient cropping systems for breeding resistance to the pest. Despite significant technological advancements, key research gaps remain, including a limited understanding of DBM interactions with phytopathogens, as well as the socio-economic and policy-related barriers that hinder the adoption of IPM. Hence, future goal for DBM control would be implementing robust, sustainable, eco-friendly, and technology-driven approaches to reduce the development of resistance to conventional insecticides and achieving maximum control effects. Future approaches should focus on multidisciplinary collaboration, farmer awareness, and policy support to improve sustainable DBM management. In conclusion, our review provides practical information for improving IPM strategies against DBM populations, ensuring food security, and developing long-term resilience of plant production systems under increasing ecological and climate change pressures.

Graphical Abstract

1 Introduction

Vegetable crops are essential to global agriculture, serving as a key source of human nutrition while contributing significantly to household incomes and national economies. Their importance extends beyond dietary sustenance, supporting economic growth through both domestic and international trade (Bisht et al., 2023). Among vegetable crops, brassicas, such as kale, cabbage, broccoli, brussels sprouts, and cauliflower are particularly important due to their high nutritional value and adaptability to diverse vegetable production systems (Sivapragasam et al., 2010; Satheesh and Fanta, 2020). For example, cabbage is rich in carbohydrates, proteins, dietary fibers, and essential micronutrients, including vitamins C and K, calcium, and potassium (Li et al., 2024). Similarly, kale contains abundant antioxidants, flavonoids, and bioactive compounds that support metabolic and cardiovascular health (Wang et al., 2022). Furthermore, brassicas serve as staple dietary crops in many regions of the globe where alternative nutritional sources are limited (Halder and Seni, 2021; Cartea and Velasco, 2007; Bisht et al., 2023). In the USA, these leafy green crops not only bolster nutritional balance but also contribute to a major component of agricultural revenues because of increasing market demand (Thavarajah et al., 2016; Nunes and Deliberador, 2025). Favorable climatic conditions, biotechnological advancements, and growing consumer awareness of health benefits have collectively driven a substantial increase in brassica production. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database (FAOSTAT), the annual value of brassica production in the world ranges from $26 billion to over $67.5 billion (FAO, 2025).

Infestations by diamondback moth (DBM; Plutella xylostella L., Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) continue to pose challenges to brassica production globally (Hopkins et al., 2009; Ali et al., 2024; Araya et al., 2024). DBM larval feeding causes the characteristic ‘windowpane’ damage on leaves, reducing crop marketability. Moreover, the short generation time, high fecundity, and wide ecological adaptability of DBM create persistent population pressure across production systems (Grzywacz et al., 2010; Jurat-Fuentes et al., 2021). DBM has rapidly evolved resistance to multiple insecticide classes and, therefore, raises production costs, reduces control efficacy, and causes greater environmental pollution (Liu et al., 2012; Jiang et al., 2015; Riley et al., 2020; Banazeer et al., 2022; Shehzad et al., 2023; Dunn et al., 2024). Consequently, DBM is considered one of the most insecticide-resistant agricultural pests globally, with resistance documented against numerous insecticide classes (Elzen and Hardee, 2003; Ziska and McConnell, 2016; Shakeel et al., 2017; Bakthatvatsalam et al., 2022; Araya et al., 2024). The overuse of chemical insecticides has intensified selection pressure, further increasing resistance development in DBM populations worldwide. In addition, the other adverse effects of synthetic pesticides include damage to soil health, reduced arthropod populations such as pollinators and natural enemies, and pose risks to human and animal health, water bodies, and overall agri-environmental sustainability (Aktar et al., 2009; Rani et al., 2021; Lengai et al., 2022; Karaoğlan et al., 2024).

The current devastating impact of DBM on crops and the declining efficacy of conventional insecticides clearly demonstrate the urgent need for ecologically based sustainable pest management frameworks. Thus, better integration of biocontrol, host-plant resistance, cultural measures, and novel emerging digital technologies is critical for developing sustainable and robust, integrated pest management (IPM) programs against DBM. Parasitoids such as Diadegma, Apanteles, Diadromus, Cotesia, and Oomyzus spp. provide effective population-level suppression via stage-specific parasitism and high host specificity, making them environmentally compatible across diverse production systems (Talekar and Shelton, 1993; Sarfraz et al., 2005; Grzywacz et al., 2010; Ayalew and Hopkins, 2013; Scaramozzino et al., 2017; Jurat-Fuentes et al., 2021; Paudel et al., 2022). Furthermore, microbial control agents, including entomopathogenic fungi (EPF) such as Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae, as well as bacterial formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), are increasingly recognized as substantial biocontrol tools for DBM management. For example, Bt subspecies such as Bt Aizawai and Bt Kurstaki produce multiple insecticidal proteins, including crystal (Cry) proteins and vegetative insecticidal proteins (Vip) etc., that specifically target DBM larvae, providing selective and environmentally safer alternatives (Palma et al., 2014; Shahid et al., 2021; Panwar and Szczepaniec, 2024), compared to synthetic pesticides. Furthermore, some Bt strains remain effective against insecticide resistant DBM (Baragamaarachchi et al., 2019). Similarly, EPFs infect pests and can significantly increase mortality under favorable environmental conditions (Elzen and Hardee, 2003; Araya et al., 2024).

Another important component of agroecological pest control approaches involves optimizing agronomic practices such as crop rotation, intercropping, mixture cropping, and the use of cover crops. These cultural practices also favor bottom-up enhancement of soil health and create suitable habitats for natural enemies via the emission of plant-derived phytochemicals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (Teasdale and Daughtry, 1993; Chang et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2024; Mäkinen et al., 2024). For instance, intercropping with aromatic companion plants, such as, sweet alyssum (Lobularia maritima) and virginia pepperweed (Lepidium virginicum) increase VOCs emission, disrupt insect-pest behavior, while improving the efficiency of natural enemies attraction and activity, ultimately reducing insect-pest densities (Zhong et al., 2024). Likewise, VOC-rich cover crops contribute to semiochemical landscapes that deter herbivorous pests while enhancing biological control services (Gurr et al., 2016; Mena and Gospodarek, 2024; Lamzira et al., 2025). In push-pull systems, repellent intercrops “push” DBM away from the main crop, whereas attractive trap plants “pull” the pest toward alternative hosts, thereby reducing infestation pressure and crop damage (Mayanglambam et al., 2021). Furthermore, recent advancements in digital technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI)-driven and real-time pest monitoring (e.g., AI-powered traps), automated drones (e.g., monitoring, trapping, targeted and precise pesticide applications etc.), predictive modeling tools, are expected to further enhance the efficiency and sustainability of DBM management programs.

Despite these advances, significant knowledge gaps still exist, particularly concerning the scalability of agroecological interventions, the interactions among companion planting, and natural enemies, as well as insecticides and their resilience to changing climatic conditions (Razo-Belman and Ozuna, 2023). Therefore, this review critically examines the agroecological impacts, emerging issues, and sustainable control strategies for DBM in cruciferous crops. Specifically, the review aims to: [1] evaluate the impact of insecticide resistance in DBM; [2] assess biological, cultural, and microbial control methods within IPM frameworks for sustainable management of DBM; [3] examine the role of phytochemistry and climatic changes in DBM suppression; and [4] identify key knowledge gaps and future research directions. By addressing these objectives, this review provides important insights into mitigating the growing impact of DBM populations, thereby paving the way for sustainable agricultural systems that improve vegetable crop productivity, and food safety and security. In addition, this review is distinguished by its cross-disciplinary synthesis of DBM IPM research, linking resistance evolution, biological control, plant defense, microbiome effects, and climate change impacts.

2 Impact of diamondback moth feeding on plant development systems

The feeding behavior and infestation characteristics of DBM larvae in cruciferous crops are well documented. Common symptoms include small irregular holes in leaves, windowpane damage (leaf skeletonization), tissue loss due to leaf defoliation, stunted growth, damage to buds and growing points, and poor quality of harvested products (Table 1). During severe infestations, leaves may appear ragged, leading to decreased photosynthetic ability and impaired plant development, leading to substantial yield losses (Paudel et al., 2022; Budhathoki et al., 2022). Despite the extensive damage caused by DBM larval feeding, its role in the direct transmission of phytopathogens such as viruses, fungi, and bacteria, remains unclear (Table 1). Current evidence indicates that DBM does not act as a biological vector of plant pathogens in vegetable cropping systems (Paudel et al., 2022; Budhathoki et al., 2022). Unlike other insect-pests such as aphids and/or whiteflies, DBM lacks the physiological mechanisms needed to transmit pathogens internally through feeding or reproduction. However, indirect transmission of secondary infections may likely be possible, as DBM larval feeding inflicts significant wounds on plant tissues. These injuries may create entry points for opportunistic pathogens present in the surrounding environments. Such conditions may predispose plants to secondary infections, especially in high humidity or poor field sanitation practices. While these infections may aggravate crop deterioration, a definitive causal relationship has not been proven between DBM and specific pathogen introduction or systemic dissemination. Nevertheless, the main challenge associated with DBM infestation remains the severe foliar damage and leaf skeletonization (Table 1) (Troczka et al., 2012; Asante et al., 2025; Jurat-Fuentes et al., 2021; Paudel et al., 2022; Budhathoki et al., 2022). Meanwhile, the worldwide costs associated with DBM management and residual crop losses have been conservatively estimated at $4 to $5 billion annually. This highlights its status as one of the most destructive pests of brassica crops worldwide (Muthomi et al., 2025; Zalucki et al., 2012).

2.1 Economic and environmental impacts of diamondback moth on crop production

The economic threshold for DBM infestation refers to the pest density at which the cost of crop damage exceeds the cost of implementing control measures. For example, in the USA, this threshold generally ranges from 0.1 to 0.3 larvae per plant, although it varies depending on several factors such as crop type, market value, geographic location, crop growth stage, and overall production costs. Once DBM populations exceed this threshold, farmers are often required to intensify pest management strategies, frequently relying on synthetic pesticides (see Table 2) input for rapid suppression (Furlong et al., 2013; Bahar et al., 2014; Philips et al., 2014; Bhandari et al., 2020; Asante et al., 2025). However, the control method of heavily depending on chemical input poses significant challenges. These include: (1) the rapid development of pesticide resistance, (2) environmental pollution through pesticide runoff and residue build-up, and (3) loss of agro-biodiversity including both above- and belowground organisms due to broad-spectrum toxicity. Such impacts may contribute to soil health degradation, pollution of water bodies, and reductions in beneficial arthropods and soil microorganisms (Perez et al., 2000; Sarfraz et al., 2005, 2006; Aktar et al., 2009; Schellhorn et al., 2014; Furlong et al., 2013; Riley et al., 2020; Lengai et al., 2022). DBM infestations cause considerable yield losses, mainly for farmers who grow cruciferous crops (like cabbage, cauliflower, brussels sprouts, kale, broccoli, among others). According to the USA agricultural sector, DBM plant damage led to significant economic losses that include both direct crop damage and indirect management expenses associated with intensive pest control practices. Direct losses include reduction in marketable produce quality, and increased expenditure on repeated pesticide use, due to visible foliar damage. Moreover, larval feeding behavior also limits photosynthetic efficiency and plant productivity as they prefer tender plant tissue (Furlong et al., 2013; Asante et al., 2025; Zalucki et al., 2012; Philips et al., 2014).

Besides, the increasing cost of managing DBM has become a financial burden to farmers. Repeated infestations and the growing resistance of DBM populations to insecticides have reduced farm profitability and undermined economic stability. These challenges threaten food safety and security while contributing to broader agroecological concerns (Schellhorn et al., 2014; Zalucki et al., 2012; Philips et al., 2014). To address the economic and ecological challenges associated with DBM, sustainable IPM approaches are essential. IPM promotes long-term agricultural sustainability via integration of biocontrol agents, resistant plant varieties, precise levels of biopesticides, time and dose of insecticide applications, cultural practices, and emerging modern digital technologies. All of these approaches reduce the reliance on large amounts of synthetic chemicals, but maintain healthy agricultural productivity and biodiversity (Schellhorn et al., 2014; Furlong et al., 2013; Asante et al., 2025). The strategies of habitat management of natural enemies, diversified cropping systems, and the utilization of pest-resistant cultivars are among the most promising methods that can jointly used to suppress DBM populations. The fact that DBM is capable of long-distance migration and dispersal is a threat because it can spread insecticide-resistant strains across different regions. Consequently, what initially appears to be a localized pest outbreak can rapidly develop into a wider transboundary agricultural threat.

3 Biological control of diamondback moth

Biocontrol agents play a crucial role in the sustainable control of DBM in vegetable cropping systems. Unlike chemical insecticides, which can promote insecticide resistance, environmental pollution, and adverse effects on non-target organisms, biological control relies on natural enemies, including predators, parasitoids, and microbial-based pesticides, to suppress DBM populations in an ecologically sustainable and environmentally friendly manner (Shelton et al., 2002; Ayalew and Hopkins, 2013; Sarfraz et al., 2005; Sithole et al., 2019; Halder and Seni, 2021) (Table 3). These agents not only help control DBM effectively but also supports agroecosystem health by conserving biodiversity and promoting beneficial insects and microorganisms. Their inclusion into other IPM schemes has demonstrated decreased reliance on synthetic pesticides while ensuring long-term pest regulation and improving stability within the ecosystem (Furlong et al., 2004; Sarfraz et al., 2005, 2006).

In the case of natural enemies, parasitoids such as Cotesia plutellae and Trichogramma spp. are highly effective against DBM. These parasitoids target larval and egg stages, respectively, and are particularly effective against early instars of DBM. In addition, predators like Solenopsis invicta, Chrysoperla carnea, spiders, lacewings and lady beetles contribute significantly in managing DBM across multiple life stages under open-field environmental conditions (Table 3) (Johnson et al., 1988; Macharia et al., 2005; Philips et al., 2014; Gurr et al., 2016, 2018). It is interesting to note that intercropping corn and canola with alfalfa has proven to greatly enhance parasitoid and predator populations, while reducing DBM density and improving plant yield (Tajmiri et al. 2017). Similarly, sweet alyssum and virginia pepperweed have been shown to attract beneficial insects and support parasitoid and predator populations (Johanowicz and Mitchell, 2000; LaMondia et al., 2002).

Microbial-based control agents, including Bt, B. bassiana, and M. anisopliae, are also alternatives for DBM management. For example, Bt produces Cry and Vip toxins that disrupt the digestive systems of DBM larvae and other susceptible insects. In contrast, EPF infect hosts through spore adhesion, germination, and cuticle penetration, leading to mortality (Table 3) (Grzywacz et al., 2010; Shabbir et al., 2021; Shehzad et al., 2021; Rai and Halder, 2023). Nevertheless, further studies are needed to enhance the efficiency of biocontrol by considering issues such as climatic fluctuations, habitat complexity, and the integration of emerging pest management technologies to enhance the long-term effectiveness of biocontrol programs.

3.1 Challenges in implementing biological control

Despite its enormous potential, the implementation of biocontrol in open field settings faces multiple challenges that limit its broad adoption and efficacy. Environmental variability is one of the major limiting factors. Such field conditions expose biocontrol agents to fluctuating temperatures, UV radiation, rainfall, and humidity, that can negatively affect their survival, reproduction, persistence, and overall efficacy (Machekano et al., 2017). Furthermore, the high reproductive rate of DBM can outpace the suppressive effects of natural enemies, particularly when their populations are insufficient to regulate pest populations, resulting in pest recurrence (Moorthy et al., 2022).

The migratory behavior of DBM further exacerbates control efforts by reintroducing their populations into regions where management strategies had previously achieved effective suppression. Another important concern is the potential ecological risks associated with the introduction of non-native biocontrol agents. Such introductions may disturb local ecosystems, compete with native beneficial species, or adversely affect non-target organisms (Lengai et al., 2022). However, synthetic pesticide applications, which are often used concurrently with biological control agents, can diminish beneficial organisms’ survival, compromising biocontrol efficacy (Machekano et al., 2020; Pasupathi et al., 2022). Recent studies have also recorded the resistance of DBM to microbial agents, like Bt (Table 3). This resistance is largely attributed to the pest’s high genetic plasticity, rapid life cycle, and behavioral adaptations, which facilitate the rapid evolution of resistance (Jurat-Fuentes et al., 2021). Alongside biological and ecological constraints, economic and knowledge-based barriers also impede the adoption of biocontrol. Many farmers are either uninformed about existing biocontrol technologies and/or lack confidence in their efficacy relative to rapid-acting chemical options (Machekano et al., 2017; Asante et al., 2025). Moreover, insufficient technical capacity hinders effective implementation, particularly among small- and large-scale vegetable producers (Mondédji et al., 2021; Fulano et al., 2021).

3.2 Impact of climate fluctuations on biocontrol and its interaction with diamondback moth

Climate-related impacts, especially rising global temperatures and erratic precipitation patterns, has profound implications for the population dynamics and management of DBM. Increasing environmental temperatures have been shown to accelerate DBM development by reducing the duration of each life stage and increasing the number of generations produced per season (Gurr et al., 2018). Furthermore, climate-induced environmental changes have expanded the geographical distribution of DBM into formerly unsuitable, cooler regions where survival and reproduction were once limited (Bahar et al., 2014). This range expansion complicates management efforts, especially in regions with previous history of major DBM outbreaks, where monitoring systems and effective control measures are frequently absent.

Changes in precipitation patterns, a defining characteristic of temperature change, also have substantial effects on DBM populations and the resilience of brassica host plants. Drought stress negatively impairs the physiological performance of plants by reducing the synthesis and transport of crucial secondary metabolites, including glucosinolates, flavonoids, terpenoids, and phenolic compounds. These metabolites play critical roles in plant defense against herbivorous insects (Higdon et al., 2007; Hopkins et al., 2009; Farias et al., 2020; Ali et al., 2024). The reduction of these chemical defenses, as well as reduced rainfall and lower humidity levels, makes brassica crops more vulnerable to DBM infestation and enhances larval survival and reproduction (Sithole et al., 2019; Santos et al., 2020). Moreover, these climate-driven changes may promote uncontrolled DBM population growth and intensify crop damage, especially in kale and cabbage production systems (Saleh et al., 2023). As a result, shifts in precipitation patterns not only weaken host plant resistance but also disrupt the ecological balance needed for effective biocontrol.

Climate variability also impacts the natural enemies of DBM, including important parasitoids and generalist predators (see Table 3). Increased temperatures may disrupt synchronization between the life cycles of biocontrol agents and their hosts, thereby reducing the efficacy of parasitism (Chen et al., 2020; Saleh et al., 2023). Such asynchrony interferes with the timing essential for successful parasitism during susceptible phases of DBM development (Ngowi et al., 2017). Moreover, extreme heat conditions can reduce reproductive and survival rates of natural enemies, undermining the efficacy of biocontrol programs (Santos et al., 2020). Similarly, predator populations may decline due to habitat alterations and shifts in crop distribution caused by climate variation. These changes can reduce predator access to infested crops and subsequently decrease natural predation pressure. Ngowi et al. (2017) and Mastore et al. (2019) further showed that increased temperatures and reduced moisture levels negatively affect the microbial-based spore viability and virulence, thereby reducing their efficacy against DBM.

Integrating chemical, biological, and cultural management strategies while adapting them to local environmental variability can improve the resilience and adaptability of IPM under changing climatic conditions (Fathipour and Mirhosseini, 2017). A key strategy entails cultivating and implementing climate-resilient brassica cultivars that demonstrate tolerance to drought and heat stress, while maintaining resistance to DBM feeding (Ngowi et al., 2017; Machekano et al., 2020; Mastore et al., 2019). In addition, intercropping brassica crops with non-host plants and/or aromatic herbs can disrupt pest orientation through olfactory and visual cues while attracting natural predators and parasitoids into diversified agroecosystems (Mayanglambam et al., 2021). Cover crops may also enhance soil moisture retention, suppress weeds, and provide shelter for beneficial arthropods. Furthermore, novel innovation technologies, including predictive models, remote sensing, climate-based decision-support tools, and real-time pest monitoring systems have considerable potential to improve the effectiveness and sustainability of DBM management under future climate scenarios.

4 The role of synthetic insecticides and resistance mechanisms in diamondback moth

The management of DBM has primarily depended on the repeated applications of synthetic insecticides, including diamides, pyrethroids, and organophosphates, and among other chemical classes (see Table 2). These insecticides act through different physiological mechanisms, distinct target sites, and MoA depending on their chemical class, as described in Figure 1 and Table 2. However, their extensive and repeated use has led to the widespread development of resistance in DBM populations. Resistance reduces the efficacy of chemical control, increases pest pressure, escalates economic losses, and contributes to agroecological damage. Alarmingly, DBM has evolved resistance to nearly all major classes of synthetic insecticides (Table 2), posing a significant challenge to its sustainable management (Jiang et al., 2015; Dunn et al., (2025); Sindhu et al., 2018; Qin et al., 2018; Li et al., 2019; Riley et al., 2020; Dunn et al., 2024; Elakkiya et al., 2024). This insecticide resistance is mainly attributed to well characterized mechanisms: enhanced biochemical detoxification and target-site mutations. Enhanced metabolic detoxification involves the increased activity of detoxification enzymes that degrade or neutralize insecticides before they reach their target sites. Target-site mutations, in contrast, reduce insecticide binding sensitivity, thereby decreasing the effectiveness of insecticidal compounds (Figure 1).

Figure 1

We reviewed numerous DBM insecticide resistance case studies, ranging from the earliest records and FAO technical reports in the 1960s to recent molecular studies published across Asia, Africa, Europe, the Americas, and Oceania. The compiled evidence in Table 2 includes both field-evolved resistance and laboratory bioassays conducted on DBM populations. Studies range from early qualitative reports of control failures in Indonesia, Jamaica, Barbados, South Africa, and Malaysia to modern quantitative resistance monitoring and mechanism-focused studies across China, India, Pakistan, Japan, Taiwan, Brazil, Benin, Togo, USA, Australia, and several European countries. Together, these studies (see Table 2) provide a global overview of synthetic insecticide resistance on DBM within the IRAC MoA framework.

Beyond resistance, extensive use of synthetic pesticides continues to pose severe environmental and human health risks. These include pollution of aquatic ecosystems, environmental contamination, and harmful effects on non-target organisms (Deng et al., 2016; Karaoğlan et al., 2024). The overuse of broad-spectrum insecticides can also reduce populations of natural enemies, weakening ecosystem-based pest suppression and triggering the risk of secondary pest outbreaks (Rani et al., 2021). For example, Diadegma insulare and Oomyzus sokolowskii (see Table 3) are highly susceptible to commonly used synthetic pesticides (see Table 2). Laboratory bioassays have shown high mortality of these parasitoids following exposure to different insecticides (Cordero et al., 2007; Roubos et al., 2014; Ramírez-Cerón et al., 2022). In addition to their direct effects on natural enemies, several studies also suggest that DBM gut microbiota may contribute to host adaptation and insecticide resistance. For example, an association between Enterococcus and chlorpyrifos resistance has been reported. Furthermore, Enterococcus spp. have been shown to enhance chlorpyrifos resistance in DBM, with resistant strains often harboring a higher relative abundance of Firmicutes and a lower abundances of Proteobacteria compared with susceptible strains (Xia et al., 2018, 2023).

Beyond Enterococcus, earlier studies comparing prothiofos-resistant, prothiofos-susceptible and field-caught DBM populations showed that resistant larvae have more diverse assemblage of gut bacteria, including Pseudomonas, Stenotrophomonas, Acinetobacter and Serratia marcescens. In contrast, susceptible larvae possess a less diverse gut microbiota, whereas field populations are largely dominated by Serratia. Siderophore-producing Pseudomonas strains inhibited several EPF, including B. bassiana and M. anisopliae, while chitinase-producing S. marcescens enhanced larval growth, indicating that resistance-associated microbiota can simultaneously protect DBM from microbial natural enemies and improve nutrition (Indiragandhi et al., 2007). Similar patterns were observed for pyrethroid resistance, where deltamethrin-resistant, deltamethrin-susceptible and field populations differed markedly in midgut community structure and in the phenotypic traits of the predominant midgut symbiont E. mundtii, reinforcing the view that DBM insecticide resistance is embedded within a broader context in which gut bacteria modulate both xenobiotic responses and interactions with natural enemies (Li et al., 2019a).

Pesticide exposure may cause human health problems, like skin irritation and respiratory issues. Long-term exposure has also been associated with more serious health risks, including cancers, hormonal disruption, and developmental disorders, especially among children and agricultural workers (Rani et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2024). These ongoing effects have shown that we need to move toward smarter and more sustainable IPM strategies. Such strategies should incorporate ecological engineering, biocontrol, resistance management, and farmer education to support healthy and sustainable food production (Deng et al., 2016; Rani et al., 2021; Pasupathi et al., 2022; Jalloh et al., 2026).

5 Impact of phytochemical on diamondback moth

Semiochemicals, including pheromones, allomones, and kairomones, are increasingly recognized as essential components in sustainable management of DBM populations (Tables 4 and 5). These chemical compounds, whether naturally produced and/or synthetically formulated, strongly influence insect behavior, including mate finding, host location, oviposition, and interactions with natural enemies (Matthews, 2019; Bakthatvatsalam et al., 2022; Gonzalez et al., 2023). Consequently, strategies such as mating disruption, attract-and-kill systems, mass trapping, host-plant deterrence, and the enhancement of natural enemy recruitment through herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) have emerged as environmentally sustainable approaches for DBM management (Tables 4 and 5) (Ayalew and Hopkins, 2013; Pickett and Khan, 2016; Rizvi et al., 2021, 2022; Sohrawardy et al., 2021; Bhandari et al., 2020; Razo-Belman and Ozuna, 2023). In addition, plant secondary metabolites and VOCs including glucosinolates, terpenoids, alkaloids, and flavonoids, play vital roles in reducing DBM feeding and infestation (Robin et al., 2017; Hussain et al., 2020; Opio et al., 2025). These compounds may function as oviposition deterrents or toxicants upon ingestion, thereby minimizing pest pressure and enhancing plant tolerance. Among the most common VOCs produced during plant-herbivore interactions are indole, methyl salicylate, and green leaf volatiles (GLVs). These compounds play a crucial role in multitrophic interactions. For example, GLVs, such as (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate, are released following leaf damage and function both as feeding deterrents and signaling molecules that attract parasitoids (Bui et al., 2024; Hussain et al., 2020). These chemical signals not only contribute to direct plant defense but also serve as communication cues for neighboring plants, enabling them to enhance their own resistance responses. This phenomenon is commonly known as “plant-plant communication” (Holopainen and Blande, 2024). For example, glucosinolates can interfere with host plant signals, pest orientation, and feeding attractants, thereby reducing DBM infestation levels (Rani et al., 2021; Prasad, 2022; Bui et al., 2024; Opio et al., 2025). Upon tissue damage, glucosinolates are hydrolyzed by myrosinase enzymes into a range of bioactive compounds, most notably isothiocyanates. These compounds are detrimental to herbivorous insects by causing toxicity and feeding inhibition in DBM larvae and contribute to the suppression of subsequent infestations (Mumm and Dicke, 2007). Furthermore, the breakdown products of glucosinolate alter the VOCs emission profiles, influencing DBM behavior and promoting tri-trophic interaction via attraction of natural enemies (Cartea and Velasco, 2007). Also, when methyl salicylate is emitted by reaction to herbivore-plant interaction, it effectively repels oviposition of DBM, while attracting beneficial parasitoids. In contrast, methyl jasmonates stimulate systemic plant defense responses and enhances crop resilience against DBM attack (Li et al., 2019a, 2019b, 2021). It is important that we understand how breeding programs alter glucosinolate concentrations and other phytochemical profiles is essential because such modifications may influence organoleptic properties, allelochemical defenses, and plant-pest resistance traits (Müller et al., 2010; Cartea and Velasco, 2007). Using plant semiochemicals in IPM programs boosts control effectiveness while decreasing dependence on synthetic insecticides. This approach also helps safeguard beneficial insect populations and supports overall agroecosystem stability and biodiversity (Bruce et al., 2005; Pickett and Khan, 2016; Matthews, 2019) (Tables 4, 5).

6 Challenges and future research directions

With the advancement of science and technology, our understanding of DBM biology, ecology, and management has been improved significantly over the past two decades. However, numerous knowledge gaps and limitations as well as practical challenges continue to persist, which significantly impede the long-term sustainability, efficacy, and agroecological balance of existing control strategies. One notably unexplored aspect of DBM is its potential role in influencing plant-pathogen interactions. The feeding mechanism not only reduces plant quality and yield but may also predispose plants to secondary opportunistic microbial pathogens (Sarfraz et al., 2006; Chu et al., 2016; Karssemeijer et al., 2020). Additionally, the physical damage caused by larval feeding can inhibit plant immune responses, potentially altering the defense system and phyllosphere microbiome. This change could increase host plants susceptibility to disease (via salivary secretions that include immune-suppressive and/or pathogen-promoting enzymes), which remain largely uncharacterized. Future studies should therefore examine DBM-induced microbiome alterations and plant-pathogen interactions, which may enhance integrated pest and disease management systems. Addressing these intricate relationships is vital for designing robust IPM programs that improve agricultural sustainability.

Despite the efficacy of other IPM practices in reducing DBM populations beyond reliance on chemical insecticides, their use and adaptation remains limited. This is particularly evident among resource constrained farmers who may be slow or unable to adopt new technologies. A major limitation is the financial cost associated with IPM components, including pheromone traps, biocontrol products, pest-resistant cultivars, and parasitoids and/or predators augmentation (Shelton et al., 2002; Asante et al., 2025; Matthews, 2019). Furthermore, a lack of farmer awareness, insecticide-based extension services, and limited on-farm engagement by researchers or extension workers hinder the dissemination and practical training required for effective IPM implementation. Regulatory and commercialization challenges, including lengthy registration procedures, inconsistent regulatory frameworks, and limited availability of locally adapted biopesticide products, further restrict access to IPM technologies, particularly in developing countries (Jalloh et al., 2026). These barriers reduce the adoption of sustainable DBM management tools. To address these issues, investment in farmer capacity-building programs, strengthened extension networks, subsidized IPM inputs, and supportive policy frameworks that facilitate registration, commercialization, and adoption of sustainable pest management tools are essential. Policy initiatives that promote farmer training, improve access to biopesticides and biological control agents, and strengthen institutional support for IPM could substantially enhance the sustainability and accessibility of DBM management programs (Parsa et al., 2014; Pretty and Bharucha, 2015; Jalloh et al., 2026) (Table 6).

Future research should focus on developing DBM-resistant brassica crops. Genome editing and gene-silencing technologies, such as CRISPR-Cas9, and RNAi, may provide promising tools for enhancing resistance to DBM and other pests, similar to the role of transgenic Bt crops (Xu et al., 2022) in pest management. Simultaneously, entomopathogenic fungi, bacteria, nematodes, and viruses should be further evaluated as bioinsecticides in a single or dual treatments. These agents may provide more sustainable alternatives and strengthen IPM systems for DBM control (Singh et al., 2024). Improving microbial pesticides through effective delivery systems and climate-resilient strains is also important for augmenting their efficacy. Future studies should focus on enhancing semiochemical stability, formulation, and open-field performance through nano-formulations, controlled-release systems, and plant-incorporated volatiles. Moreover, optimizing landscape diversification, habitat management, and agroecological intensification are crucial for strengthening natural enemies control processes.

Advanced digital technologies should also be incorporated into future DBM management programs. These include AI-driven real-time pest monitoring, AI-powered traps, automated drones, predictive modeling, remote sensing, and climate-beneficial pest support tools. Such technologies can guide adaptive interventions and improve the precision and sustainability of pest management under changing environmental conditions. Overall, educating growers on sustainable pest control and improving access to IPM technologies are vital steps toward decreasing heavy synthetic pesticides dependence. These efforts can improve plant health, conserve ecosystem services, and safeguard the economic viability of cruciferous crop production.

7 Conclusions

The DBM poses a significant threat to the production of cruciferous crops worldwide. This pest causes substantial yield losses, reduces crop quality, and imposes serious economic burdens on growers. This devastating pest feeds on plant foliage, causing severe defoliation and leaf skeletonization that render produce unmarketable, particularly in high-demand agricultural markets. Consequently, this represents a major challenge for farmers who rely on these crops for food production and income generation. Although various control measures, particularly synthetic pesticides, have been widely adopted for DBM management, the pest has demonstrated an alarming ability to develop resistance to nearly all major insecticide classes (see Table 2). This resistance, coupled with the DBM rapid life cycle, high ecological adaptability and reproductive capacity, and increasing geographical expansion exacerbated by climate fluctuations, severely undermines conventional management strategies. Furthermore, DBM infestation not only threatens crop productivity, but may also predispose plants to secondary pathogen infections via feeding-induced tissue damage, weakened plant defense responses, and potential alteration in host-associated microbiomes. However, these interactions remain poorly understood and require further investigation. Addressing these complex challenges requires a sustainable ecologically based management approach. Integrating cultural practices, biocontrol agents, semiochemicals, and cutting-edge precision technologies into a robust IPM framework will be essential for long-term DBM suppression. Advances in phytochemistry offer new environmentally sound pathways for pest deterrence and the enhancement of natural enemies activity. At the same time, biotechnological innovations, including CRISPR-Cas9, RNAi, and transgenic pest-resistant varieties, and smart farming digital technologies, offer promising long-term strategies for managing evolving insecticide-resistant DBM populations. However, the successful implementation of these technologies will depend on overcoming major barriers, including high costs, limited farmer awareness, and perceived complexity of IPM. Therefore, targeted policy support, farmer education, and stronger collaboration between researchers and farming communities are critical for improving adoption and sustainability. As we advance, multidisciplinary collaboration among entomologists, agronomists, molecular biologists, microbiologists, plant pathologists, agri-engineers, and extension specialists, as well as policymakers will be essential for developing effective and sustainable DBM management strategies in the USA and beyond. These efforts will not only help control the DBM but also contribute to a more sustainable and healthy food system in the face of growing biotic and abiotic stressors.

References

• 1

  AgboyiL.KetohG.MartinT.GlithoI.TamoM. (2016). Pesticide resistance in Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) populations from Togo and Benin. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci.36, 204–210. doi: 10.1017/S1742758416000138

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  AktarM. W.SenguptaD.ChowdhuryA. (2009). Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: Their benefits and hazards. Interdiscip. Toxicol.2, 1. doi: 10.2478/v10102-009-0001-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  AliJ.TonğaA.IslamT.MirS.MukarramM.KonôpkováA. S.et al. (2024). Defense strategies and associated phytohormonal regulation in Brassica plants in response to chewing and sap-sucking insects. Frontiers in Plant Science15, 1376917. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1376917

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  ArayaA.GebretsadkanA.FitiwyI.Tewelde-berhanS.TadesseT. (2024). Effects of bio-rational insecticides on diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella L.) and cabbage aphid (Brevicoryne brassicae L.) on cabbage. Open Agric. J.17(1), e187433152307240. doi: 10.2174/18743315-V17-E230828-2023-23

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  AsanteI. S.AfunJ. V. K.OsekreE. A. (2025). Farmers’ perceptions of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.), and their adoption of various control methods in cabbage production: Insights from smallholder cabbage farmers in Ghana. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, 45(2), 723–740. doi: 10.1007/s42690-025-01468-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  AyalewG.HopkinsR. J. (2013). Selecting the right parasitoid for the environment in classical biological control programmes: The case of Diadegma semiclausum (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) and Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) in the Kofele highland of Ethiopia. Biocontrol Sci. Technol.23, 1284–1295. doi: 10.1080/09583157.2013.827153

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  Badenes-PérezF. R.GershenzonJ.HeckelD. G. (2020). Plant glucosinolate content increases susceptibility to diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) regardless of its diet. J. Pest Sci.93, 491–506. doi: 10.1007/s10340-019-01139-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  BaharM. H.SorokaJ. J.GrenkowL.DosdallL. M. (2014). New threshold temperatures for the development of a North American diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) population and its larval parasitoid, Diadegma insulare (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). Environ. Entomol.43, 1443–1452. doi: 10.1603/EN14055

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  BakerG. J.KovaliskiJ. (1999). Detection of insecticide resistance in Plutella xylostella (L.) populations in crucifer crops in South Australia. Aust. J. Entomol.38, 132–138. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-6055.1999.00087.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  BakthatvatsalamN.SubharanK.ManiM. (2022). Semiochemicals and their potential use in pest management in horticultural crops. Trends Hortic. Entomology (1), 283–312. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-0343-4_9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  BanazeerA.AfzalM. B. S.HassanS.IjazM.ShadS. A.SerrãoJ. E. (2022). Status of insecticide resistance in Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) from 1997 to 2019: Cross-resistance, genetics, biological costs, underlying mechanisms, and implications for management. Phytoparasitica50(2), 465–485. doi: 10.1007/s12600-021-00959-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  BaragamaarachchiR. Y.SamarasekeraJ. K. R. R.WeerasenaO. V. D. S. J.LamourK.Jurat-FuentesJ. L. (2019). Identification of a native Bacillus thuringiensis strain from Sri Lanka active against Dipel-resistant Plutella xylostella. PeerJ7, e7535. doi: 10.7717/peerj.7535

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  BautistaM. A. M.BhandaryB.WijeratneA. J.MichelA. P.HoyC. W.MittapalliO. (2015). Evidence for trade-offs in detoxification and chemosensation gene signatures in Plutella xylostella. Pest. Manage. Sci.71, 423–432. doi: 10.1002/ps.3822

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  BhandariK. B.TorranceP.HuffmanE.BennettJ.RileyD. G. (2020). Insecticide resistance in diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) in Georgia. J. Entomol. Sci.55, 416–420. doi: 10.18474/0749-8004-55.3.416

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  BishtA.KrishnaV.Savita (2023). “ Production technology of underutilized vegetables of Brassicaceae Family,” in Production Technology of Underutilized Vegetable Crops, (Cham, Switzerland, Springer International Publishing) 173–237. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-15385-3_10

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  BruceT. J. A.WadhamsL. J.WoodcockC. M. (2005). Insect host location: A volatile situation. Trends Plant Sci.10, 269–274. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2005.04.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  BudhathokiS.SipesB. S.ShikanoI.MyersR. Y.ManandharR.WangK. H. (2022). Integrating trap cropping and entomopathogenic nematode foliar sprays to manage diamondback moth and imported cabbage worm. Horticulturae8, 1073. doi: 10.3390/horticulturae8111073

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  BuiT. N. T.MofikoyaA.BlandeJ. D.HolopainenJ. K.HimanenS. J. (2024). Intercropping organic broccoli with Rhododendron tomentosum and Fagopyrum esculentum: A test of bottom-up and top-down strategies for reducing herbivory. Arthropod-Plant Interact.18 (6), 1237–1251. doi: 10.1007/s11829-023-10033-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  CalvinW.PalumboJ. (2024). Chlorantraniliprole resistance associated with Plutella xylostella outbreaks in Arizona Brassica crops. J. Econ. Entomol.117, 2608–2617. doi: 10.1093/jee/toae212

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  CarteaM. E.VelascoP. (2007). Glucosinolates in Brassica foods: bioavailability in food and significance for human health. Phytochemistry Reviews, 7 (2), 213–229. doi: 10.1007/s11101-007-9072-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  ChangC. C.DaiS. M.ChenC. Y.HuangL. H.ChenY. H.HsuJ. C. (2024). Insecticide resistance and characteristics of mutations related to target site insensitivity of diamondback moths in Taiwan. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol.203, 106001. doi: 10.1016/J.PESTBP.2024.106001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  ChenW.AmirM. B.LiaoY.YuH.HeW.LuZ. (2023). New Insights into the Plutella xylostella Detoxifying Enzymes: Sequence Evolution, Structural Similarity, Functional Diversity, and Application Prospects of Glucosinolate Sulfatases. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry71 (29), 10952–10969. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.3c03246

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  ChenY.MaoJ.ReynoldsO. L.ChenW.HeW.YouM.et al. (2020). Alyssum (Lobularia maritima) selectively attracts and enhances the performance of Cotesia vestalis, a parasitoid of Plutella xylostella. Sci. Rep.10, 1–9. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-62021-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  ChuZ. J.WangY. J.YingS. H.WangX. W.FengM. G. (2016). Genome-wide host-pathogen interaction unveiled by transcriptomic response of diamondback moth to fungal infection. PloS One11, e0152908. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152908

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  ClueverJ. D.PetersonJ. A.WrightR. J.Salgado AstudilloS.Swoboda-BhattaraiK.Colombo Da LuzP.et al. (2024). Testing the efficacy of Trichogramma ostriniae (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) as a inundative biological control agent in Western Nebraska. Environ. Entomol. 54(1), 23–78. doi: 10.1093/EE/NVAE113

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  CorderoR. J.BloomquistJ. R.KuharT. P. (2007). Susceptibility of two diamondback moth parasitoids, Diadegma insulare and Oomyzus sokolowskii, to selected commercial insecticides. Biol. Control42, 48–54. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2007.04.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  DengZ. Z.ZhangF.WuZ. L.YuZ. Y.WuG. (2016). Chlorpyrifos-induced hormesis in insecticide-resistant and -susceptible Plutella xylostella under normal and high temperatures. Bull. Entomol. Res.106, 378–386. doi: 10.1017/S000748531600002X

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  DezianianA.SajapA. S.LauW. H.OmarD.KadirH. A.MohamedR.et al. (2010). Morphological characteristics of Plutella xylostella granulovirus and its effects on diamondback moth larvae. Am. J. Agric. Biol. Sci.5, 43–49. doi: 10.3844/ajabssp.2010.43.49

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  DourisV.SteinbachD.PanteleriR.LivadarasI.PickettJ. A.Van LeeuwenT.et al. (2016). Resistance mutation conserved between insects and mites unravels the benzoylurea insecticide mode of action on chitin biosynthesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113 (51), 14692–14697. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1618258113

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  DunnT. P.BakiM. A.CremonezP. S. G.RileyD. G.SparksA. N.SmithH.et al. (2025). Temporal variation in target site mutations is associated with diamide cross-resistance in diamondback moth populations (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) from Florida and Georgia, USA. Insects16, 1179. doi: 10.3390/insects16111179

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  DunnT.ChampagneD. E.RileyD. G.SmithH.BennettJ. E. (2022). A target site mutation associated with diamide insecticide resistance in the diamondback moth Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) is widespread in South Georgia and Florida populations. J. Econ. Entomol.115, 289–296. doi: 10.1093/jee/toab223

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  DunnT. P.CremonezP. S. G.FuruyaA.BrownW. S.NagaokaM. M.PowellC. B.et al. (2024). Regional changes of maximum dose insecticide responses in diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) populations from Georgia and Florida, USA. J. Econ. Entomol.117, 2628–2635. doi: 10.1093/jee/toae218

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  ElakkiyaK.MuruganM.KrishnamoorthyS. V.SenthilN.VijayalakshmiD. (2024). Susceptibility to diamides differs in the field populations of Plutella xylostella and Spodoptera litura feeding on cole crops. J. Asia-Pac. Entomol.27, 102341. doi: 10.1016/J.ASPEN.2024.102341

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  ElzenG. W.HardeeD. D. (2003). United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service: Current status of insecticide resistance management and risk assessment. Pest. Manage. Sci.59, 770–776. doi: 10.1002/ps.659

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  EziahV.RoseH. A.CliftA. D.MansfieldS. (2008). Susceptibility of four field populations of the diamondback moth Plutella xylostella L. (Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae) to six insecticides in the Sydney region of New South Wales, Australia. Aust. J. Entomol.47, 355–360. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-6055.2008.00668.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  FAO (1965). Report of the fourth session of the FAO working party of experts on resistance of pests to pesticides (Rome: FAO) (Accessed May 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  FAO (1967). Report of the fifth session of the FAO working party of experts on resistance of pests to pesticides (Rome: FAO) (Accessed May 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  FAO (1968). Report of the first session of the FAO working party of experts on resistance of pests to pesticides (Rome: FAO) (Accessed May 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  FAO (2025). FAOSTAT Statistical Database. Available online at: https://www.fao.org/faostat/ (Accessed May 20, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  FariasE. S.SantosR. C.CarmoD. G.SoaresJ. R. S.CostaT. L.SantosA. A.et al. (2020). Life tables for the diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) in southeast Brazil indicate ants and spiders as leading mortality factors. Ann. Appl. Biol.178, 498–507. doi: 10.1111/aab.12656

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  FarrarR. R.ShapiroM.ShepardB. M. (2007). "Relative activity of baculoviruses of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). BioControl52, 657–664. doi: 10.1007/s10526-006-9048-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  FathipourY.MirhosseiniM. A. (2017). “ Diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) management,” in Integrated Management of Insect Pests on Canola & Other Brassica Oilseed Crops, (Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: CABI).13–43. doi: 10.1079/9781780648200.0013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  FernandoH. E. 1965. (1965). In: FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) Annual Reports. (Accessed May 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  FulanoA. M.LengaiG. M. W.MuthomiJ. W. (2021). Phytosanitary and technical quality challenges in export fresh vegetables and strategies to compliance with market requirements: Case of smallholder snap beans in Kenya. Sustainability13, 1546. doi: 10.3390/SU13031546

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  FurlongM. J.Shu-ShengL.Yin-QuanL.Shi-JianG.ZaluckiM. P. (2004). Experimental analysis of the influence of pest management practice on the efficacy of an endemic arthropod natural enemy complex of the diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella). J. Econ. Entomol.97, 1814–1822. doi: 10.1093/jee/97.6.1814

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  FurlongM. J.WrightD. J.DosdallL. M. (2013). Diamondback moth ecology and management: Problems, progress, and prospects. Annu. Rev. Entomol.58, 517–541. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-120811-153605

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  GaoX.YangJ.XuB.XieW.WangS.ZhangY.et al. (2016). Identification and Characterization of the Gene CYP340W1 from Plutella xylostella and Its Possible Involvement in Resistance to Abamectin. International Journal of Molecular Sciences17 (3), 274. doi: 10.3390/ijms17030274

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  GongY.WangC.YangY.WuS.WuY. (2010). Characterization of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin Cry1Ac in Plutella xylostella from China. J. Invertebr. Pathol.104, 90–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jip.2010.02.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  GonzalezF.RodríguezC.OehlschlagerC. (2023). Economic benefits from the use of mass trapping in the management of diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella, in Central America. Insects14, 149. doi: 10.3390/insects14020149

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  GrzywaczD.RossbachA.RaufA.RussellD. A.SrinivasanR.SheltonA. M. (2010). Current control methods for diamondback moth: A review. Int. J. Pest Manage.56, 245–255. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2009.08.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  GuoZ.GongL.KangS.ZhouJ.SunD.QinJ.et al. (2020). Comprehensive analysis of Cry1Ac protoxin activation mediated by midgut proteases in susceptible and resistant Plutella xylostella (L.). Pesticide biochemistry and physiology, 163, 23–30. doi: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2019.10.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  GurrG. M.ReynoldsO. L.JohnsonA. C.DesneuxN.ZaluckiM. P.FurlongM. J.et al. (2018). Landscape ecology and expanding range of biocontrol agent taxa enhance prospects for diamondback moth management. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.38, 1–16. doi: 10.1007/S13593-018-0500-Z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  GurrG. M.WrattenS. D.LandisD. A. (2016). Habitat management to enhance biological control: Progress and prospects. Annu. Rev. Entomol.61, 91–112. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-031616-035050

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  HalderJ.SeniA. (2021). “ Biological management of major vegetable insect pests with macro- and microorganisms,” in Springer Nature, (Cham, Switzerland, Springer Nature Switzerland AG), 233–252. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-67231-7_10

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  HigdonJ. V.DelageB.WilliamsD. E.DashwoodR. H. (2007). Cruciferous vegetables and human cancer risk: Epidemiologic evidence and mechanistic basis. Pharmacol. Res.55, 224–236. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2007.01.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  HolopainenJ. K.BlandeJ. D. (2024). Potential of Plant-Plant Communication to Improve Sustainable Pest Control. The Concept of Ecostacking: Techniques & Applications. (Wallingford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, CABI). 49–61. doi: 10.1079/9781789248715.0005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  HopkinsR. J.van DamN. M.van LoonJ. J. A. (2009). Role of glucosinolates in insect–plant relationships and multitrophic interactions. Annu. Rev. Entomol.54, 57–83. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.54.110807.090623

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  HuangX.QuanX.WangX.YunY.PengY. (2018). Is the spider a good biological control agent for Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Zoologia (Curitiba)35, 1–8. doi: 10.3897/zoologia.35.e23481

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  HussainM.LinY.ArthursS.BanoS.QasimM.WangL.et al. (2020). Diamondback moth larvae trigger host plant volatiles that lure its adult females for oviposition. Insects11, 725. doi: 10.3390/insects11110725

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  IndiragandhiP.AnandhamR.MadhaiyanM.PoonguzhaliS.KimG.SaravananV.et al. (2007). Cultivable bacteria associated with larval gut of prothiofos-resistant, prothiofos-susceptible and field-caught populations of diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella and their potential for, antagonism towards entomopathogenic fungi and host insect nutrition. J. Appl. Microbiol.103, 2664–2675. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03506.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  IqbalM.VerkerkR. H.FurlongM. J.OngP. C.RahmanS. A.WrightD. J. (1996). Evidence for Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) subsp. kurstaki HD‐1, Bt subsp. aizawai and Abamectin in Field Populations of Plutella xylostella from Malaysia. Pestic. Sci.48, 89–97. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9063(199609)48:1<89::AID-PS450>3.0.CO;2-B

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  JallohA. A.PalS.UyiO.MalhotraP.SchmidtJ. M.ToewsM. D.et al. (2026). Biopesticides and biological control agents: advances, integration, and prospects for sustainable pest management. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems10, 1805083. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2026.1805083

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  JiangT.WuS.YangT.GaoC. (2015). Monitoring field populations of Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) for resistance to eight insecticides in China. Florida Entomologist98, 65–73. doi: 10.1653/024.098.0112

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  JohanowiczD. L.MitchellE. R. (2000). “ Effects of sweet alyssum flowers on the longevity of the parasitoid wasps Cotesia marginiventris (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and Diadegma insulare (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae),” in Florida Entomologist, (Florida Entomological Society, Gainesville, Florida, USA), 41–47. Available online at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3496226 (Accessed June 13, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 65

  JohnsonR. D. (1953). Plutella maculipennis resistance to DDT in Java. J. Econ. Entomol.46, 176. doi: 10.1093/jee/46.1.176

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  JohnsonM. W.MitchellW. C.RobinM. R.CushingN. L.RethwischM. D. (1988). Parasitization of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), in Hawaii. Proc. Hawaiian Entomological Soc.28, 197–203. Available online at: https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/items/5bf97948-8c00-4b71-a4c6-59345b3e06fa.

  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Jurat-FuentesJ. L.HeckelD. G.FerréJ. (2021). Mechanisms of resistance to insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis. Annu. Rev. Entomol.66, 121–140. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-052620-073348

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  KaraoğlanB.AlkassabA. T.BorgesS.FisherT.Link-VrabieC.McVeyE.et al. (2024). Microbial pesticides: Challenges and future perspectives for non-target organism testing. Environ. Sci. Eur.36, 1–40. doi: 10.1186/S12302-024-01017-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  KarssemeijerP. N.ReicheltM.GershenzonJ.van LoonJ.DickeM. (2020). Foliar herbivory by caterpillars and aphids differentially affects phytohormonal signalling in roots and plant defence to a root herbivore. Plant Cell Environ.43, 775–786. doi: 10.1111/pce.13707

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  KhakameS. K.WangX.WuY. (2013). Baseline toxicity and cross-resistance relationships of metaflumizone and indoxacarb in Plutella xylostella. J. Econ. Entomol.106, 1423–1429. doi: 10.1603/EC12494

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  KhaliqA.AttiqueM. N. R.SayyedA. H. (2007). Evidence for resistance to pyrethroids and organophosphates in Plutella xylostella from Pakistan. Bull. Entomol. Res.97, 191–200. doi: 10.1017/S0007485307004877

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  LaMondiaJ. A.ElmerW. H.MervoshT. L.CowlesR. S. (2002). Integrated management of strawberry pests by rotation and intercropping. Crop Prot.21, 837–846. doi: 10.1016/S0261-2194(02)00050-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  LamziraR.El FakhouriK.BoulamtatR.KemalS. A.OubayoucefA.RamdaniC.et al. (2025). Multifunctional roles of intercropping in insect pest management. Front. Sustain. Food Syst.9, 1599254. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1599254

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  LengaiG. M. W.FulanoA. M.MuthomiJ. W. (2022). Improving access to export market for fresh vegetables through reduction of phytosanitary and pesticide residue constraints. Sustainability14, 8183. doi: 10.3390/SU14138183

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  LiZ.FurlongM. J.YonowT.KriticosD. J.BaoH.YinF.et al. (2019). Management and population dynamics of diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella): Planting regimes, crop hygiene, biological control and timing of interventions. Bull. Entomol. Res.109, 257–265. doi: 10.1017/S0007485318000500

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  LiW.JinD.ShiC.LiF. (2019a). Midgut bacteria in deltamethrin-resistant, deltamethrin-susceptible, and field-caught populations of Plutella xylostella, and phenomics of the predominant midgut bacterium Enterococcus mundtii. Sci. Rep.7, 1–13. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-02138-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  LiX.ShiH.GaoX.LiangP. (2019b). Characterization of UDP‐glucuronosyl transferase genes and their possible roles in multi‐insecticide resistance in Plutella xylostella (L.). Pest. Manage. Sci.74, 695–704. doi: 10.1002/ps.4765

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  LiX.WangY.CaiC.JiJ.HanF.ZhangL.et al. (2024). Large-scale gene expression alterations introduced by structural variation drive morphotype diversification in Brassica oleracea. Nat. Genet.56, 517–529. doi: 10.1038/s41588-024-01655-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  LiR.ZhuB.ShanJ.LiL.LiangP.GaoX. (2021). Functional analysis of a carboxylesterase gene involved in beta-cypermethrin and phoxim resistance in Plutella xylostella. Pest. Manage. Sci.77, 2097–2105. doi: 10.1002/ps.6238

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  Lima NetoJ. E.RibeiroL. M. S.SiqueiraH. A. A. (2021). Inheritance and fitness of chlorfenapyr resistance in Plutella xylostella. Pest. Manage. Sci.77, 3007–3015. doi: 10.1093/jee/toaa299

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  LinQ.JinF.HuZ.ChenH.YinF.LiZ.et al. (2013). Transcriptome Analysis of Chlorantraniliprole Resistance Development in the Diamondback Moth Plutella xylostella. PLoS ONE, 8 (8), e72314. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0072314

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  LiraR.NascimentoD. V.TorresJ. B.SiqueiraH. A. A. (2019). Predation on diamondback moth larvae and aphid by resistant and susceptible lady beetle, Eriopis connexa. Neotrop. Entomol.48, 909–918. doi: 10.1007/s13744-019-00702-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  LiuM.TzengY.SunC. (1982). Insecticide resistance in the diamondback moth1. Journal of Economic Entomology, 75 (1), 153–155. doi: 10.1093/jee/75.1.153

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  LiuX.ChenM.CollinsH. L.OnstadD.RoushR.ZhangQ.et al. (2012). Effect of insecticides and Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) genotype on a predator and parasitoid and implications for the evolution of insecticide resistance. J. Econ. Entomol.105, 354–362. doi: 10.1603/EC11299

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  LiuX.NingY.WangH.WangK. (2015). Cross‐resistance, mode of inheritance, synergism, and fitness effects of cyantraniliprole resistance in Plutella xylostella. Entomol. Exp. Et Appl., 157(3), 271–278. doi: 10.1111/eea.12361

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  LutinskiJ. A.LutinskiC. J.OrtizA.ZembruskiF. S.RipkeM. O.GarciaF. R. M. (2024). Biological control using ants: Current status, opportunities, and limitations. Agronomy14, 1558. doi: 10.3390/agronomy14071558

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  MachariaI.LöhrB.De GrooteH. (2005). Assessing the potential impact of biological control of Plutella xylostella (diamondback moth) in cabbage production in Kenya. Crop Prot.24, 981–989. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2005.02.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  MachekanoH.MvumiB. M.NyamukondiwaC. (2017). Diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.) in southern Africa: Research trends, challenges and insights on sustainable management options. Sustainability9, 91. doi: 10.3390/SU9020091

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  MachekanoH.MvumiB. M.NyamukondiwaC. (2020). Plutella xylostella (L.): Pest status, control practices, perceptions and knowledge on existing and alternative management options in arid small-scale farming environments. Int. J. Pest Manage.66, 48–64. doi: 10.1080/09670874.2018.1552380

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  MäkinenJ. K.SaussureS.RuhanenH.RätyE.BlandeJ. D. (2024). Effects of diversified volatile profiles on olfactory orientation of flea beetles Phyllotreta spp. and the diamondback moth Plutella xylostella. Plant Biol. 27(5), 883–890. doi: 10.1111/PLB.13722

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  MallottM.HammS.TroczkaB. J.RandallE.PymA.GrantC.et al. (2019). A flavin-dependent monooxygenase confers resistance to chlorantraniliprole in Plutella xylostella. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol.115, 103–112. doi: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2019.103247

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  MastoreM.QuadroniS.ToscanoA.MottadelliN.BrivioM. F. (2019). Susceptibility to entomopathogens and modulation of basal immunity in two insect models at different temperatures. J. Therm. Biol.79, 15–23. doi: 10.1016/J.JTHERBIO.2018.11.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  MatthewsG. (2019). Chemical control in IPM systems: Advances in selective pesticides and application systems, in Integrated Management of Insect Pests: Current & Future Developments. Eds. KoganM.HeinrichsE. A. (Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press), 681–708. Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337032583_Integrated_management_of_insect_pests_Current_and_future_developments.

  • Google Scholar

• 94

  MayanglambamS.SinghK. D.RajashekarY. (2021). Current biological approaches for management of crucifer pests. Sci. Rep.11, 1–9. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-91088-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  MenaG. T.GospodarekJ. (2024). White mustard, sweet alyssum, and coriander as insectary plants in agricultural systems: Impacts on ecosystem services and yield of crops. Agriculture14, 550. doi: 10.3390/agriculture14040550

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  MitchellE. R.HuG. Y.OkineJ. S.CarpenterJ. E. (1999). Parasitism of diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: plutellidae) larvae by Cotesia plutellae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and Diadegma insulare (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) in cabbage fields after inundative releases of C. plutellae. J. Entomol. Sci.34, 101–112. doi: 10.18474/0749-8004-34.1.101

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  MohanM.GujarG. T. (2002). Geographical variation in larval susceptibility of Plutella xylostella to Bt formulations in India. Bull. Entomol. Res.92, 489–498. doi: 10.1079/BER2002195

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  MohanM.GujarG. T. (2003). Local variation in susceptibility of Plutella xylostella to insecticides in Tamil Nadu. Crop Prot.22, 495–504. doi: 10.1016/S0261-2194(02)00201-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  MondédjiA. D.SilvieP.NyamadorW. S.MartinP.AgboyiL. K.AmévoinK.et al. (2021). Cabbage production in west Africa and IPM with a focus on plant-based extracts and a complementary worldwide vision. Plants10, 529. doi: 10.3390/plants10030529

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  MoorthyP. N. K.PrasannakumarN. R.ManiM.SarojaS.RanganathH. R. (2022). Pests and their management in cruciferous vegetables. Trends Hortic Entomology, Chapter 1, Springer, Singapore3(1), 997–1011. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-0343-4_41

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  MüllerR.de VosM.SunJ. Y.SønderbyI. E.HalkierB. A.WittstockU.et al. (2010). Differential effects of indole and aliphatic glucosinolates on lepidopteran herbivores. J. Chem. Ecol.36, 905–913. doi: 10.1007/s10886-010-9825-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  MummR.DickeM. (2010). Variation in natural plant products and the attraction of bodyguards involved in indirect plant defense. Can. J. Zool.88, 628–667. doi: 10.1139/z10-032

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  MuthomiP. K.SealD.LiburdO. E. (2025). Diamondback moth management in Cole Crops. EDIS, 2025(2), 1–5. doi: 10.32473/edis-in1443-2025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  NehareS.GhodkiB. S.LandeG. K.PawadeV.ThakareA. S. (2010). Inheritance of resistance and cross-resistance patterns in indoxacarb-resistant Plutella xylostella. Entomol. Res.40, 18–25. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-5967.2009.00261.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  NgowiB. V.TonnangH. E. Z.MwangiE. M.JohanssonT.AmbaleJ.NdegwaP. N.et al. (2017). Temperature-dependent phenology of Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae): Simulation and visualization of current and future distributions along the Eastern Afromontane. PloS One12, e0173590. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173590

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  NinsinK. D. (2004). Selection for resistance to acetamiprid and other insecticides in Plutella xylostella. J. Appl. Entomol.128, 445–451. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0418.2004.00870.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  NunesL. C.DeliberadorL. R. (2025). What motivates people to purchase food products with traceability systems? A structural equation modeling approach. Food Qual. Preference122, 105301. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105301

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  OpioB.MutyambaiD. M.ChesetoX.OmuseE. R.JallohA. A.MumoN. N.et al. (2025). Push-pull cropping system soil legacies enhance glucosinolate production and subsequent defense against Diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) larvae in Kale (Brassica oleracea). Discover Plants. 2 (1), 346. doi: 10.1007/s44372-025-00420-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  PalmaL.MuñozD.BerryC.MurilloJ.CaballeroP. (2014). Bacillus thuringiensis toxins: An overview of their biocidal activity. Toxins6, 3296–3325. doi: 10.3390/toxins6123296

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  PanwarN.SzczepaniecA. (2024). Endophytic entomopathogenic fungi as biological control agents of insect pests. Pest Management Science80 (12), 6033–6040. doi: 10.1002/ps.8322

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  ParsaS.MorseS.BonifacioA.ChancellorT. C. B.CondoriB.Crespo-PerezV.et al. (2014). Obstacles to integrated pest management adoption in developing countries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.111, 3889–3894. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1312693111

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  PasupathiE.EdwardY. S. J. T.KannanM.RamalingamJ. (2022). Monitoring the development of resistance in diamondback moth (DBM) Plutella xylostella (L.) to diamide group of insecticides. J. Entomol. Res.46, 111–115. doi: 10.5958/0974-4576.2022.00019.6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  PatraS.DhoteV.SarkarS.IndiaK. V. K. U. B. K. V. C. 1.SamantaA. (2017). Evaluation of novel insecticides against diamondback moth and natural enemies in cabbage ecosystem. J. Environ. Biol.38, 1383–1389. doi: 10.22438/jeb/38/6/mrn-439

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  PaudelA.YadavP. K.KarnaP. (2022). Diamondback moth Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus 1758) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae); A real menace to crucifers and its integrated management tactics. Turkish J. Agric. - Food. Sci. Technol.10, 2504–2515. doi: 10.24925/turjaf.v10I12.2504-2515.5231

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  PavithraV.SujayanandG. K.ChandraA.PandeyS.JagadeeswaranR.KumarV.et al. (2025). Toxicity, protein profiling and PCR detection of cry, vip3A and chi36 gene in multi-trait Bacillus thuringiensis strains against Helicoverpa armigera Hubner and Meloidogyne incognita Kofold and White. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci.46, 229–242. doi: 10.1007/s42690-025-01675-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  PerezC. J.AlvaradoP.NarváezC.MirandaF.HernándezL.VanegasH.et al. (2000). Assessment of insecticide resistance in five insect pests attacking field and vegetable crops in Nicaragua. J. Econ. Entomol.93, 1779–1787. doi: 10.1603/0022-0493-93.6.1779

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  PerezC. J.TangJ. D.SheltonA. M. (1997). Comparison of leaf-dip and diet bioassays for monitoring Bacillus thuringiensis resistance in field populations of diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). J. Econ. Entomol.90, 94–101. doi: 10.1093/jee/90.1.94

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  PerngF. S.YaoM. C.HungC. F.SunC. N. (1988). Teflubenzuron resistance in Plutella xylostella. J. Econ. Entomol.81, 1277–1282. doi: 10.1093/jee/81.5.1277

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  PhilipsC. R.FuZ.KuharT. P.SheltonA. M.CorderoR. J. (2014). Natural history, ecology, and management of diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), with emphasis on the United States. J. Integr. Pest Manage.5, D1–D11. doi: 10.1603/IPM14012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  PickettJ. A.KhanZ. R. (2016). Plant volatile‐mediated signalling and its application in agriculture: successes and challenges. New Phytol.212, 856–870. doi: 10.1111/nph.14274

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  PrasadK. V. H. (2022). “ Insect chemical ecology,” in Insect Ecology: Concepts to Management ( Springer Nature, Singapore), 61–76. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-1782-0_7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  PrettyJ.BharuchaZ. P. (2015). Integrated pest management for sustainable intensification of agriculture in Asia and Africa. Insects6, 152–182. doi: 10.3390/insects6010152

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  PudasainiR.ChouM. Y.WuT. J.DaiS. M. (2022). Insecticide resistance and control failure likelihood analysis in Plutella xylostella populations from Taiwan. J. Econ. Entomol.115, 835–843. doi: 10.1093/jee/toac048

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  QiW.MaX.HeW.ChenW.ZouM.GurrG. M.et al. (2016). Characterization and expression profiling of ATP-binding cassette transporter genes in the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.). BMC Genomics17 (1), 760. doi: 10.1186/s12864-016-3096-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  QianL.CaoG.SongJ.YinQ.HanZ. (2008). Biochemical mechanisms conferring cross-resistance between tebufenozide and abamectin in Plutella xylostella. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol.91, 175–179. doi: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2008.03.011

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  QinC.WangC.WangY.SunS.WangH.XueC (2018). Resistance monitoring and mechanism of resistance to chlorantraniliprole and flubendiamide in Plutella xylostella. Journal of Economic Entomology111(2), 853–859. doi: 10.1093/jee/toy043

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  RaiA.HalderJ. (2023). Insect pests of underutilized vegetables and their management: An appraisal. Curr. Horticulture11, 9–22. doi: 10.5958/2455-7560.2023.00037.7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  Ramírez-CerónD.Rodríguez-LeyvaE.Lomeli-FloresJ. R.Soto-RojasL.Ramírez-AlarcónS.Segura-MirandaA. (2022). Toxicity and residual activity of insecticides against Diadegma insulare, a parasitoid of the diamondback moth. Insects13, 514. doi: 10.3390/insects13060514

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  RaniL.ThapaK.KanojiaN.SharmaN.SinghS.GrewalA. S.et al. (2021). An extensive review on the consequences of chemical pesticides on human health and environment. J. Cleaner Prod.283, 124657. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124657

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  Razo-BelmanR.OzunaC. (2023). Volatile organic compounds: A review of their current applications as pest biocontrol and disease management. Horticulturae9, 441. doi: 10.3390/horticulturae9040441

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  RibeiroL. M. S.Wanderley-TeixeiraV.CunhaF. M.TeixeiraA. A. C.SiqueiraH. A. A. (2012). Immunological response of resistant and susceptible Plutella xylostella to Bacillus thuringiensis. Rev. Colombiana Entomología38, 208–214. doi: 10.25100/socolen.v38i2.8994

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  RileyD.SmithH.BennettJ.TorranceP.HuffmanE.SparksA.et al. (2020). Regional survey of diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) response to maximum dosages of insecticides in Georgia and Florida. J. Econ. Entomol.113, 2458–2464. doi: 10.1093/jee/toaa125

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  RizviS. A. H.GeorgeJ.ReddyG. V. P.ZengX.GuerreroA. (2021). Latest developments in insect sex pheromone research and its application in agricultural pest management. Insects12, 484. doi: 10.3390/insects12060484

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  RizviS. Z. M.ReynoldsO. L.HaqueA.FurlongM. J.MoJ.MeloM. C.et al. (2022). Prospects for habitat management to suppress vegetable pests in Australia. Austral Entomol.61, 3–28. doi: 10.1111/aen.12588

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  RobinA. H. K.HossainM. R.ParkJ. I.KimH. R.NouI. S. (2017). Glucosinolate profiles in cabbage genotypes influence the preferential feeding of diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella). Front. Plant Sci.8, 269073. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01244

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  RoubosC. R.Rodriguez-SaonaC.IsaacsR. (2014). Mitigating the effects of insecticides on arthropod biological control at field and landscape scales. Biol. Control75, 28–38. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2014.01.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  SalehH. M. M.DeyD.TomarB. S. (2023). The hymenopterous parasitoids of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), on cruciferous vegetables in Delhi, India. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control, 33(1), 93. doi: 10.1186/s41938-023-00735-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  SantosV. C.de SiqueiraH. A. A.da SilvaJ. E.de FariasM. J. C. (2011). Insecticide resistance in Plutella xylostella populations from Pernambuco, Brazil. Neotrop. Entomol.40, 264–270. doi: 10.1590/s1519-566x2011000200017

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  SantosA. A.RibeiroA. V.GroomS. V. C.FariasE. S.CarmoD. G.SantosR. C.et al. (2020). Season and weather affect the mortality of immature stages of Ascia monuste orseis (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) caused by natural factors. Austral Entomol.59, 810–818. doi: 10.1111/aen.12500

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  SarfrazM.DosdallL. M.KeddieB. A. (2006). Diamondback moth-host plant interactions: Implications for pest management. Crop Prot.25, 625–639. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2005.09.011

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  SarfrazM.KeddieA. B.DosdallL. M. (2005). Biological control of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella: A review. Biocontrol Sci. Technol.15, 763–789. doi: 10.1080/09583150500136956

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  SatheeshN.FantaS. W. (2020). Kale: Review on nutritional composition, bio-active compounds, anti-nutritional factors, health beneficial properties and value-added products. Cogent Food. Agric.6, 1811048. doi: 10.1080/23311932.2020.1811048

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  SayyedA. H.AttiqueM. N. R.KhaliqA. (2005). Stability of field-selected resistance to insecticides in Plutella xylostella from Pakistan. J. Appl. Entomol.129, 542–548. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0418.2005.01010.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  SayyedA. H.CrickmoreN.WrightD. J. (2001). Cyt1Aa from Bacillus thuringiensis synergizes Cry1Ac toxicity in resistant Plutella xylostella. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.67, 5859–5861. doi: 10.1128/aem.67.12.5859-5861.2001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  SayyedA. H.MooresG.CrickmoreN.WrightD. J. (2008). Cross-resistance between a Bt Cry toxin and non-Bt insecticides in Plutella xylostella. Pest. Manage. Sci.64, 813–819. doi: 10.1002/ps.1570

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  SayyedA. H.WrightD. J. (2001). Cross-resistance and inheritance of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin Cry1Ac in Plutella xylostella. Pest. Manage. Sci.57, 413–421. doi: 10.1002/ps.313

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  SayyedA. H.WrightD. J. (2004). Fipronil resistance in Plutella xylostella: Inheritance and number of genes involved. J. Econ. Entomol.97, 2043–2050. doi: 10.1093/jee/97.6.2043

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  ScaramozzinoP. L.LoniA.LucchiA. (2017). A review of insect parasitoids associated with lobesia botrana (Denis & schiffermüller 1775) in Italy. 1. Diptera tachinidae and Hymenoptera braconidae (lepidoptera, tortricidae). ZooKeys2017, 67–100. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.647.11098

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  SchellhornN.BianchiF.HsuC. (2014). Movement of entomophagous arthropods in agricultural landscapes: Links to pest suppression. Annual Review of Entomology59 (1), 559–581. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-011613-161952

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  ShabbirM. Z.YangX.BatoolR.YinF.KendraP. E.LiZ. Y. (2021). Bacillus thuringiensis and Chlorantraniliprole trigger the expression of detoxification-related genes in the larval midgut of Plutella xylostella. Front. Physiol.12, 780255. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.780255

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  ShakeelM.FarooqM.NasimW.AkramW.KhanF. Z. A.JaleelW.et al. (2017). Environment polluting conventional chemical control compared to an environmentally friendly IPM approach for control of diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.), in China: A review. Environ. Sci. pollut. Res.24, 14537–14550. doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-8996-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  ShehzadM.BodlahI.SiddiquiJ. A.BodlahM. A.FareenA. G. E.IslamW. (2023). Recent insights into pesticide resistance mechanisms in Plutella xylostella and possible management strategies. Environ. Sci. pollut. Res.30, 95296–95311. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-29271-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  ShehzadM.TariqM.MukhtarT.GulzarA. (2021). On the virulence of the entomopathogenic fungi, Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae (Ascomycota: Hypocreales), against the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control31, 1–7. doi: 10.1186/s41938-021-00428-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  SheltonA. M.Badenes-PerezF. R. (2006). Concepts and applications of trap cropping in pest management. Annu. Rev. Entomol.51, 285–308. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.150959

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  SheltonA. M.WilseyW. T.HoebekeE. R.SchmaedickM. A. (2002). Parasitoids of cabbage Lepidoptera in central New York. J. Entomol. Sci.37, 270–271. doi: 10.18474/0749-8004-37.3.270

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  SindhuT.VenkatesanT.PrabhuD.JeyakanthanJ.GracyG. R.JalaliS. K.et al. (2018). Insecticide-resistance mechanism of Plutella xylostella (L.) associated with amino acid substitutions in acetylcholinesterase-1: A molecular docking and molecular dynamics investigation. Comput. Biol. Chem.77, 240–250. doi: 10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2018.09.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  SinghS.BhoiT. K.SunaniS. K.MajumdarS. K.SrinivasP.SahooM. R.et al. (2024). “ Insect pest management strategies in organic vegetable cultivation,” in Advances in Organic Farming: Crop Production & Management. Eds. BrahmaS.UpadhyayV.NathR. K.SarmaR.DeviE. P. ( Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press), 467–490. doi: 10.1201/9781003502715-30

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  SinghD.JacksonG.HunterD.FullertonR.LebotV.TaylorM.et al. (2012). Taro leaf blight: A threat to food security. Agriculture2, 182–203. doi: 10.3390/agriculture2030182

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  SitholeR.NyamukondiwaC.ChinwadaP.LohrB. (2019). Population dynamics of the diamondback moth and its parasitoids in Zimbabwe. Biol. Control133, 66–74. doi: 10.1016/J.biocontrol.2019.03.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  SivapragasamA.SyedA. R.Abdul R.A. (2010). “ Integrated pest management for cruciferous vegetables in Southeast Asia,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Management of the Diamondback Moth and Other Crucifer Pests. Eds. SheltonA. M.CollinsH. L.SrinivasanR. (Taiwan: AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center), 10–19. Available online at: https://worldveg.tind.io/record/74465/files/eb0521.pdf (Accessed January 18, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 161

  SohrawardyH.DebnathJ.FatemaAl Mahbub RahatA.IslamT. (2021). Eco-friendly management of insect pests in agriculture by pheromones: A review. Ecol. J.3(2), 203–215. Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358078249_ECO-FRIENDLY_MANAGEMENT_OF_INSECT_PESTS_IN_AGRICULTURE_BY_PHEROMONES_A_REVIEW.

  • Google Scholar

• 162

  SonodaS.KataokaY. (2016). Genotyping for the G4946E ryanodine receptor mutation in Plutella xylostella considering gene duplication. Appl. Entomol. Zool.51, 195–204. doi: 10.1007/s13355-015-0385-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  SonodaS.ShiX.SongD.LiangP.GaoX.ZhangY.et al. (2014). Duplication of the acetylcholinesterase gene in diamondback moth strains with varying sensitivities to acephate. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol.48, 83–90. doi: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2014.02.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  SothS.GlareT. R.HamptonJ. G.CardS. D.BrookesJ. J. (2022). Biological control of diamondback moth increased efficacy with mixtures of Beauveria fungi. Microorganisms10, 646. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms10030646

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  SparksT. C.DrippsJ. E.WatsonG. B.ParoonagianD. (2012). Resistance and cross-resistance to the spinosyns–a review and analysis. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol.102, 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2011.11.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  SunX.HuaW.ZhuB.LiangP.GaoX. (2023). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated D472N substitution in Rdl1 confers low resistance to abamectin in Plutella xylostella. Pest. Manage. Sci.79, 1–10. doi: 10.1002/ps.7252

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  SunJ.LiangP.GaoX. (2010). Inheritance of resistance to the non-steroidal ecdysone agonist fufenozide in Plutella xylostella. Pest. Manage. Sci.66, 406–411. doi: 10.1002/ps.1891

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  TabashnikB. E.CushingN. L.JohnsonM. W. (1987). Diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: plutellidae) resistance to insecticides in Hawaii: Intra-Island Variation and Cross-Resistance. J. Econ. Entomol.80, 1091–1099. doi: 10.1093/jee/80.6.1091

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  TajmiriP.FathiS. A. A.GolizadehA.Nouri-GanbalaniG. (2017). Strip-intercropping canola with annual alfalfa improves biological control of Plutella xylostella (L.) and crop yield. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci.37, 208–216. doi: 10.1017/S1742758417000145

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  TalekarN. S.SheltonA. M. (1993). Biology, ecology, and management of the diamondback moth. Annu. Rev. Entomol.38, 275–301. doi: 10.1146/annurev.en.38.010193.001423

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  TamilselvanR.KennedyJ.SuganthiA. (2020). Monitoring the resistance and baseline susceptibility of Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) against spinetoram in Tamil Nadu, India. Crop Protection, 142, 105491. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105491

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  TangJ. D.CollinsH. L.RoushR. T.MetzT. D.EarleE. D.SheltonA. M. (1999). Survival, weight gain and oviposition of resistant and susceptible Plutella xylostella on broccoli expressing Cry1Ac. J. Econ. Entomol.92, 47–55. doi: 10.1093/jee/92.1.47

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  TangZ. H.GongK. Y.YouZ. P. (1988). Present status and countermeasures of insecticide resistance in agricultural pests in China. Pestic. Sci.23, 189–198. doi: 10.1002/ps.2780230212

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  TeasdaleJ. R.DaughtryC. S. T. (1993). Weed Suppression by Live and Desiccated Hairy Vetch (Vicia villosa). Weed Science, 41 (2), 207–212. doi: 10.1017/s0043174500076074

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  TenhumbergB.PoehlingH. M. (1995). Syrphids as natural enemies of cereal aphids in Germany: aspects of their biology and efficacy in different years and regions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.52, 39–43. doi: 10.1016/0167-8809(94)09007-T

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  ThavarajahD.ThavarajahP.AbareA.BasnagalaS.LacherC.SmithP.et al. (2016). Mineral micronutrient and prebiotic carbohydrate profiles of USA-grown kale (Brassica oleracea L. var. acephala). J. Food Compos. Anal.52, 9–15. doi: 10.1016/j.jfca.2016.07.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  TroczkaB.ZimmerC. T.EliasJ.SchornC.BassC.DaviesT. G. E. (2012). Resistance to diamide insecticides in Plutella xylostella is associated with a point mutation in the ryanodine receptor. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol.42, 873–880. doi: 10.1016/j.ibmb.2012.09.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  WangX.LiuS. (2002). Effects of host age on the performance of >Diadromus collaris, a pupal parasitoid of >Plutella xylostella. BioControl, 47 (3), 293–307. doi: 10.1023/a:1014820727833

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  WangL.LiX. F.ZhangJ.ZhaoJ. Z.WuQ. J.XuB.et al. (2007). Monitoring resistance to Bt Cry1Ac, Cry1Ba, and formulations in Plutella xylostella. J. Appl. Entomol.131, 441–446. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0418.2007.01187.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  WangJ.LiuZ.DouJ.LvJ.JinN.JinL.et al. (2022). A comparative study on the nutrients, mineral elements, and antioxidant compounds in different types of cruciferous vegetables. Agronomy12, 3121. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12123121

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  WangX. L.SuW.ZhangJ. H.YangY. H.DongK.WuY. D. (2015). Two Novel sodium channel mutations associated with resistance to indoxacarb and metaflumizone in Plutella xylostella. Insect Sci.22, 1–9. doi: 10.1111/1744-7917.12226

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182

  WangX.WuY. (2012). High levels of resistance to chlorantraniliprole evolved in field populations of Plutella xylostella. J. Econ. Entomol.105, 1019–1023. doi: 10.1603/EC12059

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  WangX.WuS.GaoW.WuY. (2016). Dominant inheritance of field-evolved resistance to fipronil in Plutella xylostella. J. Econ. Entomol.109, 334–338. doi: 10.1093/jee/tov317

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  WangX.ZhangJ.YangY.WuY. (2023). Equivalent intensity but differential dominance of sodium channel blocker insecticide resistance conferred by F1845Y and V1848I mutations of the voltage‐gated sodium channel in Plutella xylostella. Insect Sci.30, 125–134. doi: 10.1111/1744-7917.13042

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  WangJ.ZhengX.YuanJ.WangS.XuB.WangS.et al. (2021). Insecticide resistance monitoring of Plutella xylostella populations in China. J. Econ. Entomol.114, 1–12. doi: 10.1093/jee/toab027

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 186

  XiaY.LuY.ShenJ.GaoX.QiuH.LiJ. (2014). Resistance monitoring for eight insecticides in Plutella xylostella in central China. Crop Prot.63, 131–137. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2014.03.011

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  XiaX.SunB.GurrG. M.VasseurL.XueM.YouM. (2018). Gut microbiota mediate insecticide resistance in the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.). Front. Microbiol.9, 25. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00025

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 188

  XiaX.WangQ.GurrG. M.VasseurL.HanS.YouM. (2023). Gut bacteria mediated adaptation of diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella, to secondary metabolites of host plants. mSystems8, e0082623. doi: 10.1128/msystems.00826-23

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  XiuxiaL.LiR.ZhuB.GaoX.LiangP. (2018). Overexpression of cytochrome P450 CYP6BG1 may contribute to chlorantraniliprole resistance in Plutella xylostella (L.). Pest. Manage. Sci.74, 1386–1393. doi: 10.1002/ps.4816

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  XuX.Harvey-SamuelT.SiddiquiH. A.De AngJ. X.AndersonM. E.ReitmayerC. M.et al. (2022). Toward a CRISPR-Cas9-Based Gene Drive in the Diamondback Moth Plutella xylostella. The CRISPR Journal, 5(2), 224–236. doi: 10.1089/crispr.2021.0129

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 191

  XuJ.WangZ.WangY.MaH.ZhuH.LiuJ.et al. (2020). ABCC2 participates in resistance of Plutella xylostella to chemical insecticides. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol.162, 52–59. doi: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2019.08.010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 192

  YiC. G.HieuT. T.LeeS. H.ChoiB.KwonM.AhnY. (2015). Toxicity of Lavandula oil constituents to susceptible and pyrethroid-resistant Plutella xylostella. Pest. Manage. Sci.71, 152–159. doi: 10.1002/ps.4098

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  YuS. J.NguyenS. N. (1992). Detection and biochemical characterization of insecticide resistance in the diamondback moth. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol.44, 74–81. doi: 10.1016/0048-3575(92)90011-N

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194

  ZagoH.SiqueiraH. A. A.PereiraE. J. G.PicançoM. C.BarrosR. (2014). Resistance and behavioural response of Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) populations to Bacillus thuringiensis formulations. Pest. Manage. Sci.70, 488–495. doi: 10.1002/ps.3600

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 195

  ZaluckiM. P.ShabbirA.SilvaR.AdamsonD.LiuS. S.FurlongM. J. (2012). Estimating the economic cost of one of the world's major insect pests, Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae): Just how long is a piece of string. J. Econ. Entomol.105, 1115–1129. doi: 10.1603/ec12107

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196

  ZhangK.RaoW.ZhuL.ZhangS.ChenJ.ZhouS.et al. (2024). Fitness costs, realized heritability, and mechanism of resistance to tenvermectin B in Plutella xylostella. Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol.116, 1–15. doi: 10.1002/arch.22144

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 197

  ZhangS.ZhangX.ShenJ.MaoK.YouH.LiJ.et al. (2016). Susceptibility of field populations of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella, to a selection of insecticides in Central China. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 132, 38–46. doi: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2016.01.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 198

  ZhaoJ. Z.CollinsH. L.LiY. X.MauR. F. L.ThompsonG. D.et al. (2006). Monitoring of Diamondback Moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) Resistance to Spinosad, Indoxacarb, and Emamectin Benzoate. J. Econ. Entomol.99, 176–181. doi: 10.1603/0022-0493(2006)099[0176:MODMLP]2.0.CO;2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 199

  ZhaoS.JiangD.WangF.YangY.TabashnikB. E.WuY. (2021). Independent and Synergistic Effects of Knocking out Two ABC Transporter Genes on Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis Toxins Cry1Ac and Cry1Fa in Diamondback Moth. Toxins13, 1–17. doi: 10.3390/toxins13010009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 200

  Zhen-DiH.XiaF. E. N. G.Qing-shengL. I. N.Huan-YuC.Zhen-YuL.FeiY. I. N.et al. (2014). Biochemical mechanism of chlorantraniliprole resistance in the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella Linnaeus. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 13(11), 2452–2459. doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(14)60748-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 201

  ZhongJ.PanW.JiangS.HuY.YangG.ZhangK.et al. (2024). Evaluating the impact of alyssum flower strips on biological control of key pests in flue‐cured tobacco agroecosystems. J. Appl. Entomol.148, 1245–1260. doi: 10.1111/jen.13337

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 202

  ZhouW.ArcotY.MedinaR. F.BernalJ.Cisneros-ZevallosL.AkbulutM. E. S. (2024). Integrated pest management: An update on the sustainability approach to crop protection. ACS Omega. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.4c06628

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 203

  ZhuJ. Y.XiangZ. W.ZhangS. Z.KangZ. W.FanY. L.LiuT. X. (2021). A new pest management strategy: Transforming a non‐host plant into a dead‐end trap crop for the diamondback moth Plutella xylostella L. Pest. Manage. Sci.77, 1094–1101. doi: 10.1002/ps.6126

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 204

  ZhuX.YangY.WuQ.WangS.XieW.GuoZ.et al. (2016). Lack of fitness costs and inheritance of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac toxin in a near-isogenic strain of Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Pest. Manage. Sci.72, 289–297. doi: 10.1002/ps.3991

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 205

  ZiskaL. H.McConnellL. L. (2016). Climate change, carbon dioxide, and pest biology: Monitor, mitigate, manage. J. Agric. Food. Chem.64, 6–12. doi: 10.1021/jf506101h

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 206

  ZolfaghariM.GhadamyariM. (2021). Mode of inheritance of chlorpyrifos resistance in Plutella xylostella. Int. J. Pest Manage.67, 1–10. doi: 10.1080/09670874.2020.1871531

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 207

  ZolfaghariM.YinF.Jurat-FuentesJ. L.XiaoY.PengZ.WangJ.et al. (2024). Effects of Bt treatment on detoxification gene expression in chlorantraniliprole-resistant Plutella xylostella. Insects15, 1–12. doi: 10.3390/insects15080595

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar