This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Push-pull cropping integrates repellent ‘push’ plants with attractive ‘pull’ plants to manage insect pests and other ecosystem services. Whilst field evidence showed that push-pull cropping provides protection against diamondback moth (DBM) ( Plutella xylostella) , the mechanisms remain underexplored. This study investigated the influence of soil legacies formed under the push-pull system on kale ( Brassica oleracea var. acephala ) defense against DBM larvae. We compared responses of DBM larvae to kale grown in medium and old push-pull-conditioned soil to those grown in control soil using behavioural assays, larval performance tests, and glucosinolate profiling. Behavioural and feeding assays revealed a significant reduction in DBM larval survival (0–24%), feeding activity (leaf area eaten: 0.31–0.68 cm²), and orientation (28–32%) on kale grown in push-pull-conditioned soil. Phytochemical analyses indicated elevated concentrations of key glucosinolates, including gluconapin, glucoiberin, sinigrin, and glucobrassicin (0.01–1.08 ng sinigrin equivalents/g) from kale grown in push-pull-conditioned soil compared to those grown in control soil (0.1–0.87 ng sinigrin equivalents/g). Notably, glucocheirolin and glucotropaeolin were uniquely detected in kale planted in old push-pull-conditioned soil. These secondary metabolites are associated with defense against insect herbivory and potential dietary benefits to humans. Our study demonstrates that soil conditioned by push-pull can enhance the kale’s defense against pest herbivory through plant-soil feedback, paving the way for the sustainable production of kales.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Opio et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: