Abstract
Gravid culicine mosquitoes rely on olfactory cues for selecting breeding sites containing organic detritus. While this capacity of the mosquitoes is used for surveillance and control, the current methodology is unwieldy, unreliable and expensive in time and labour. This study evaluated the dose-dependent attraction and oviposition response of gravid Culex quinquefasciatus to alfalfa infusions. Through combined chemical and electrophysiological analyses, bioactive volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the headspace of alfalfa infusions, eliciting attraction, were identified. While phenolic and indolic compounds were the most abundant bioactive VOCs, additional VOCs, including a monoterpene, were required to elicit a significant behavioural response to the synthetic odour blend of alfalfa infusions. Comparative analysis with the commercially available mosquito oviposition pheromone (MOP) was also conducted demonstrating that this standardised synthetic alfalfa infusion odour blend offers a promising lure for targeted surveillance and control of Culex mosquitoes, which may contribute to disease prevention and public health protection.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Plant detritus found in breeding sites constitutes a significant portion of the diet for mosquito larvae (Merritt et al. 1992; Yee et al. 2007), and has a noticeable impact on the development and survival of larvae (Asmare et al. 2017; Kesavaraju et al. 2009; Murrell and Juliano 2008; Ye-Ebiyo et al. 2000, 2003), as well as on the size of emerging adults (Kivuyo et al. 2014; Merritt et al. 1992; Ye-Ebiyo et al. 2000, 2003). To evaluate and select breeding sites containing organic detritus, gravid culicine mosquitoes rely on olfactory cues (Afify and Galizia 2015; Khan et al. 2022 and references therein). Behavioural experiments demonstrate that culicine mosquitoes generally display a species-specific response to the odour emanating from detritus from various plant species or infusions thereof, including, but not limited to Acacia schaffneri, Arundinaria gigantea, Cynodon dactylon, Medicago sativa, Quercus alba and Quercus virginiana (Afify and Galizia 2015; Hazard et al. 1967; McPhatter and Debboun 2009; Ponnusamy et al. 2009, 2010).
Infusions crafted from plant matter have found an application as lures in gravid traps (Barrera et al. 2014; Chadee et al. 1993; Du and Millar 1999b; Estallo et al. 2011; Mackay et al. 2013; Maciel-de-Freitas et al. 2008; Millar et al. 1992; Mulatier et al. 2022; Musunzaji et al. 2023; Polson et al. 2002; Rawlins et al. 1998; Reiter and Colon 1991; Reiter et al. 1991; Russell and Ritchie 2004; Sant’Ana et al. 2006; Szumlas et al. 1996; Trexler et al. 1998). These lures have aided in the detection and monitoring of arbovirus vectors, and arbovirus testing, during disease outbreaks (Burkett-Cadena and Mullen 2007; Eiras et al. 2014; Johnson et al. 2018; Morrison et al. 2008; Nasci et al. 2002; Polson et al. 2002; Reiter 1986; Ritchie et al. 2014; Seenivasagan et al. 2019; Strickman 1988; Tsai et al. 1989). Due to their affordability and ease of making, plant infusions made from M. sativa (alfalfa) are frequently employed as lures in gravid traps for culicine mosquitoes (Allan et al. 2005; Barrera et al. 2014; Bazin and Williams 2018; Chadee and Ritchie 2010; Eiras et al. 2014; Eiras et al. 2021; Mackay et al. 2013; Reisen and Meyer 1990; Ritchie 2001; Snetselaar et al. 2014; Tarter et al. 2019). Alfalfa infusions trigger attraction of gravid Culex quinquefasciatus and stimulate egg laying in Aedes aegypti under laboratory conditions (Afify and Galizia 2015; Allan et al. 2005; Day 2016; Hazard et al. 1967; Reisen and Meyer 1990). In semi-field and field environments, the adoption of alfalfa infusion stands out as a promising alternative due to its efficacy, cost-effectiveness and specificity in luring gravid culicine mosquitoes, and thus complements existing control strategies (Bazin and Williams 2018; Chadee and Ritchie 2010; Eiras et al. 2014, 2021; Ritchie et al. 2014). The rapid decomposition of plant infusions and the lack of standardization in making these infusions, however, pose a challenge, as the efficiency of the lure may vary significantly between batches and over time, making their use impractical and unreliable for field application (Bazin and Williams 2018; Mullin 2020).
Gravid culicines respond behaviourally to a complex blend of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emanating from detritus, or infusions thereof, which originate from either the plant material or the associated microbiota (Arbaoui and Chua 2014; Barbosa et al. 2007; Benzon and Apperson 1988; Carrieri et al. 2009; Du and Millar 1999a; Hazard et al. 1967; Huang et al. 2006; Isoei and Millar 1996; Millar et al. 1992; Ponnusamy et al. 2008, 2009; Sant’Ana et al. 2006; Sumba et al. 2004; Trexler et al. 2003). The most common chemical classes of VOCs associated with plant infusions are indolic and phenolic compounds, as well as short- to medium chain alcohols, esters and ketones (Afify and Galizia 2015; Khan et al. 2022). Several of these VOCs have been tested either individually or in blends, for their ability to attract or stimulate gravid mosquitoes to lay eggs, of which indole, 3-methylindole, phenol, 4-ethylphenol, 4-methylphenol and nonanal have received most attention (Afify and Galizia 2015; Allan and Kline 1995; Du and Millar 1999a; Khan et al. 2022; Millar et al. 1992). When compared to blends, individual compounds generally exhibit relatively lower attractiveness or stimulatory effects on egg laying in gravid mosquitoes (Afify and Galizia 2015; Allan and Kline 1995; Baak-Baak et al. 2013; Du and Millar 1999a; Girard et al. 2021; Khan et al. 2022; Mboera et al. 2000a; Millar et al. 1992). An increased understanding of the bioactive VOCs associated with detritus, and how these regulate the attraction of gravid mosquitoes can provide novel tools for surveillance and control of nuisance and disease vectoring mosquitoes.
This study assessed the dose-dependent attraction and oviposition of gravid Cx. quinquefasciatus in response to alfalfa infusions, and aimed to identify a synthetic blend of bioactive VOCs eliciting attraction, employing a combination of behavioural and electrophysiological bioassays. The results of this study may pave the way for the development of a novel lure that can be used in a targeted and environmentally sustainable strategy for mosquito surveillance and control, which ultimately could contribute to disease prevention and public health protection.
Materials and Methods
Mosquito Rearing
Culex quinquefasciatus (Thai) were reared under controlled laboratory conditions at 27 ± 2 ºC, with a relative humidity of 70 ± 2% and a 12 h:12 h light:dark (L:D) photoperiod. The larvae were reared in plastic trays (20 cm × 30 cm × 10 cm), half filled with distilled water, and fed with fish food (Best Friend Flakes Complete, Best Friend, Solna, Sweden or Supervit Tablets B, Tropical Tadeusz Ogrodnik, Chorzów, Poland). The pupae were collected and transferred to 30 ml containers, which were placed in BugDorm-1 cages (30 cm × 30 cm × 30 cm; Mega View Science, Taichung, Taiwan). Upon emergence, the adult mosquitoes of both sexes were provided ad libitum access to a 10% sucrose solution through a filter paper wick. For colony maintenance and bioassays, 4–5 days post-emergence (dpe) adults were allowed to feed on sheep blood (Håtunalab AB, Bro, Sweden) from a membrane feeder (Hemotek, Discovery Workshops, Accrington, UK) for 1 h. Gravid mosquitoes, 3 d post-blood meal (pbm) were used for the experiments.
Preparation of Alfalfa Infusions
The alfalfa (M. sativa) infusions were made following the methods described by Reiter (1983) and Millar et al. (1992). For the preparation, 225 g of alfalfa hay (Zoogiganten, Lomma, Sweden), 10 g of brewer's yeast, and 10 g of lactalbumen hydrolysate (Sigma-Aldrich Chemie GmbH, Steinheim, Germany) were added to 40 l of tap water, in a closed container, at room temperature, and allowed to sit under anaerobic conditions for 7 days. Thereafter, the infusion was filtered using a sieve and filter paper into 1 l glass bottles. For behavioural assays, the stock infusion was diluted with distilled water to obtain 0.001%, 0.01%, 0.1%, 1% and 10% solutions. For each round of bioassay, a new batch of infusion was prepared to ensure a consistent infusion for the experiments.
Oviposition Bioassay
To assess the attraction and preference of gravid Cx. quinquefasciatus for egg laying in response to the alfalfa infusion, a two-choice oviposition assay, in Bugdorm-1 cages, was used. In each cage, two polypropylene cups (30 ml), filled with either distilled water (10 ml) or an equivalent volume of diluted infusion, were placed in opposite corners of the cage. To mitigate bias, the position of the cups was alternated between experiments. Ten gravid females (3 d pbm) were introduced into the cages at Zeitgeber time (ZT) 10, and then allowed access to the oviposition cups overnight until ZT 2. Thirty replicates were conducted for each treatment.
Headspace Collection of Alfalfa Infusions
To collect headspace volatiles, a charcoal-filtered continuous airstream (1 l min−1) was passed over 0.1 l of a 7-day alfalfa infusion in a sterile glass bottle (1 l) using a diaphragm vacuum pump (KNF Neuberger, Freiburg, Germany) for 3 h. Aeration columns, consisting of Teflon™ tubing (6 cm × 3 mm internal diameter), holding 35 mg of Super Q adsorbent (80/100 mesh; Alltech, Deerfield, IL, USA) between polypropylene wool plugs and Teflon™ stoppers, were used to adsorb the volatile compounds from the headspace. Prior to use, the columns were rinsed with 1 ml of re-distilled n-hexane (LabScan, Malmö, Sweden). The adsorbed volatiles from four replicates were subsequently eluted with 300 μl of re-distilled n-hexane and pooled for combined gas chromatography and electroantennographic detection (GC-EAD) analysis.
Electrophysiology
The GC-EAD analysis was conducted using an Agilent 6890N GC (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, USA). The GC was equipped with an HP-5MS fused silica column (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm; Agilent Technologies), using hydrogen as the carrier gas at an average linear flow of 45 cm s−1. Aliquots of the extract (2 µl) were injected in splitless mode (30 s, injector temperature 225 °C). The column temperature was set at 35 °C (3 min hold) and then increased to 290 °C at 10 °C min−1 (10 min hold). Nitrogen (4 psi) was added to the effluent from the GC column, and then split 1:1 in a Gerstel 3D/2 low dead volume four-way cross (Gerstel, Mülheim, Germany) directed towards the flame ionization detector and the EAD. The GC effluent for the EAD passed through a Gerstel ODP-2 transfer line (Gerstel), with the temperature tracing that of the GC, into a glass tube (30 cm, 8 mm inner diameter). The effluent from the transfer line was mixed with charcoal-filtered, humidified air (1.5 l min−1) and passed over the antenna, placed 0.5 cm from the opening of the glass tube.
For the EAD analysis, the head, including the antennae, was carefully removed. Two glass electrodes, a reference, and a recording electrode, were filled with Beadle-Ephrussi Ringer solution. The reference electrode was inserted into the foramen of the head, whereas the recording electrode was placed over the trimmed tip segment of an antenna. To amplify the signals, the recording electrode was connected to a pre-amplifier (10 ×) and then to a high impedance DC amplifier interface box (IDAC-2; Syntech, Kirchgarten, Germany). At least three consistent recordings were performed from different individual mosquitoes. The recorded antennal responses to the samples were collected and analysed using GC-EAD 2011 software (version 1.2.3, Syntech).
Chemical Analysis
The extract used for the GC-EAD analysis was subjected to combined GC and mass spectrometry (MS) analysis, using two different types of fused silica capillary columns (60 m × 0.25 mm, 0.25 μm film thickness), DB-Wax (7890B GC and 5977A MS; Agilent Technologies) and HP-5MS UI (6890 GC and 5975 MS; Agilent Technologies). Helium was employed as the carrier gas with an average linear flow rate of 35 cm s−1. The column oven program used was consistent with that of the GC-EAD analyses. The volatile compounds detected by the antennal recordings during the GC-EAD analysis were identified based on retention times (Kovats indices) and mass spectra. The mass spectral data were compared with standard library data (NIST05, Agilent Technologies) to aid in the identification process. In addition, the chirality of α-pinene and linalool was identified using an HP 6890 GC 5973 MS instrument (Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, USA), equipped with a J&W Cyclodex-B column (60 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm; Agilent Technologies), with helium as the carrier gas (32 cm s−1). The GC oven program was optimized for peak separation using synthetic standards. A 2 µl aliquot of the alfalfa headspace sample was injected onto the GC–MS, with co-injected synthetic standards aiding peak identification. In addition, antennal responses to binary blends of the chiral compounds, after installing the Cyclodex-B column into the GC-EAD system described above, allowed for validation of the bioactive VOC enantiomer. To quantify the relative abundance of the bioactive compounds, an internal standard of 100 ng of heptyl acetate (99.8%; Aldrich) was added to the headspace extract.
The identified compounds were validated by comparison with authentic standards: methyl isovalerate (Cas no. 556–24-1; Sigma-Aldrich, 98%), 1-heptanol (Cas no. 111-70-6; Sigma-Aldrich, 98%), (±)-α-pinene (Cas no. 80-56-8; Aldrich, 97%), (1R)-(+)-α-pinene (CAS no. 7785-70-8; Sigma, 98%), (1S)-(-)-α-pinene (Cas no. 7785-26-4; Aldrich, 99%), phenol (Cas no. 108–95-2; Aldrich, 99%), (±)-linalool (Cas no. 78-70-6; Sigma-Aldrich, 99%), (1S)-(-)-linalool (Cas no. 126-91-0; Sigma-Aldrich, 98%), 4-ethylphenol (Cas no. 123-07-9; Aldrich, 99%), 4-ethylguaiacol (Cas no. 2785-89-9; Sigma-Aldrich, 98%), indole (Cas no. 120-72-9; Aldrich, 99%) and undecanone (Cas no. 112-12-9; Aldrich, 90%).
Behavioural Assay with Synthetic Blends
To assess the behavioural attraction of gravid Cx. quinquefasciatus to synthetic blends of the VOCs identified from the headspace of alfalfa infusions, a straight tube olfactometer was used (Majeed et al. 2017). The olfactometer (80 cm × 10 cm i.d.) was illuminated from above by red light (40 lx). Charcoal-filtered and humidified air (25 ± 2 °C, 65 ± 2% RH) passed through the bioassay at 30 cm s−1. Experiments were conducted during the first two hours of scotophase, which is the peak time for oviposition of Cx. quinquefasciatus (Beehler et al. 1993).
A stock solution of the synthetic blend, consisting of the nine electrophysiologically active VOCs at the average detected ratio within the four pooled headspace collections, was prepared. The blend was diluted in pentane (Merck), and released by diffusion from a wick dispenser, with release rates between 1.5 to 450 ng min−1 of α-pinene. Pentane was used as the control. In addition, subtractive synthetic blends, in which an individual VOC was removed from the full blend, were tested. The wick dispenser was made out of a 1.5 ml glass vial with a hole in the centre of the cap through which a cotton wick encased in Teflon protruded into the air (Karlsson et al. 2013). The wick dispenser allows for the release of all compounds in constant ratio throughout the experiment. The wick dispenser was placed inside a glass wash bottle (250 ml; Lenz Laborglas, Wertheim, Germany). Humidified and charcoal-filtered air (0.3 l min−1) was passed through the wash bottle and delivered via low-density polyethylene tubing at the upwind end of the olfactometer. For comparison, the mosquito oviposition pheromone (MOP), 6-acetoxy-5-hexadecanolide (Cas no. 81792-36-1; Bedoukian. Research Inc., Danbury, Connecticut USA) was tested in a dose-dependent manner. The MOP was diluted in n-hexane (LabScan) and pipetted onto a 1 cm2 filter paper (55 mm; Munktell Filter AB, Ahlstrom-Munksjö AB, Helsinki, Finland), and then suspended from a steal wire at the upwind end of the olfactometer. A filter paper with n-hexane only was used as a control. The filter paper was replaced after each replicate.
Two hours prior to the experiments, gravid mosquitoes (4 d pbm), in groups of five, were collected and transferred to release cages. At the time of the experiment, a release cage was placed downwind of the assay and the mosquitoes were allowed 30 s to acclimatize. After 30 s, the butterfly valve of the cage was opened and after two minutes the number of females reaching the upwind end of the olfactometer was recorded, and the proportion of mosquitoes reaching the upwind side of the assay was calculated. Ten replicates were performed for each of the treatments.
Statistical Analyses
For the oviposition experiments, using alfalfa infusions, an oviposition attraction index (OAI) was calculated as (T − C)/(T + C), in which T represents the number of egg rafts laid associated with the test, and C represents the number of egg rafts laid on the controls. A response index was computed as (S)/(R + N) to analyse data from the attraction assay in the straight tube olfactometer, in which S represents the number of mosquitoes responding to the test odour, R denotes the number of mosquitoes in the release cage and N indicates no response to the test odour. The behavioural responses of gravid Cx. quinquefasciatus in the oviposition bioassay and the straight tube olfactometer were evaluated using a binary logistic regression analysis in SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 20, IBM Corp, Armonk, USA), in which the dependent variable was weighted by the number of eggs laid in the oviposition assay and the number of responding mosquitoes in the attraction assay.
Results
Oviposition Preference of Culex quinquefasciatus to Alfalfa Infusion
Gravid Cx. quinquefasciatus exhibited a dose-dependent attraction and oviposition response to the alfalfa infusion. Females preferred to lay significantly more eggs in the treated versus the control oviposition cups (χ2 = 5.61, 95% CI 17.10–35.56; P = 0.0001; Fig. 1).
Antennally Bioactive Compounds in Alfalfa Infusion
The GC-EAD and GC–MS analyses identified nine bioactive VOCs detected by the antenna of gravid Cx. quinquefasciatus: methyl isovalerate, 1-heptanol, (1R)-(+)-α-pinene, phenol, (1S)-(-)-linalool, 4-ethylphenol, 4-ethylguaiacol, indole and undecanone (Fig. 2). The total release rate of these VOCs was approximately 209 ng min−1, with 4-ethylphenol and indole as the most abundant VOCs (Fig. 2).
Attraction to a Synthetic Alfalfa Infusion Odour Blend and MOP
A synthetic alfalfa infusion odour blend was constructed, based on the detected ratio of bioactive VOCs (Fig. 2), and then tested for its ability to attract gravid Cx. quinquefasciatus in a straight tube olfactometer. The blend elicited a dose-dependent attraction, in the ng min−1 range, which was significantly higher than that to the solvent control (pentane) (χ2 = 7.33, 95% CI 1.09–1.91; P = 0.0001; Fig. 3a). Behavioural assays, using subtractive blends, from which individual VOCs were removed from the full synthetic alfalfa infusion odour blend, unequivocally demonstrated that the complete synthetic blend is required to elicit a significant attraction of Cx. quinquefasciatus (χ2 = 8.49, 95% CI 1.53–2.47; P = 0.0001; Fig. 4). To evaluate the effectiveness of the synthetic alfalfa infusion odour blend, experiments were conducted to compare the behavioural responses of gravid Cx. quinquefasciatus to MOP. MOP elicited a dose-dependent attraction, in the µg range, which was significantly higher than that to the control, at the higher doses tested (χ2 = 20.92, 95% CI 3.98–4.82; P = 0.0001; Fig. 3b).
Discussion
Plant infusions, including alfalfa, attract and stimulate egg laying in gravid culicine mosquitoes (this study, Afify and Galizia 2015; Bentley and Day 1989; Du and Millar 1999a; Girard et al. 2021; Isoei and Millar 1996; Khan et al. 2022; Lewis et al. 1974; McPhatter and Dubboun 2009; O’Gower 1963; Reisen and Meyer 1990; Reiter and Colon 1991). Through combined GC-EAD and GC–MS analyses, bioactive VOCs from the headspace of alfalfa infusions were identified. While indolic and phenolic compounds were the most abundant VOCs, straight-tube olfactometer assays demonstrated that these VOCs act in combination with other VOCs to elicit attraction of gravid Cx. quinquefasciatus. In comparison with MOP, which required a relatively high dose to induce attraction, gravid Cx. quinquefasciatus responded to lower doses of the synthetic alfalfa odour blend, suggesting that this blend could be a cost-effective and efficient alternative for monitoring and control of Cx. quinquefasciatus, in combination with other integrated vector management strategies. Further analysis is, however, required to assess the release rates of the two attractants to confirm their respective bioactivity.
Indolic and phenolic compounds are the chemical classes typically associated with decaying vegetation (Afify and Galizia 2015; Allan and Kline 1995; Du and Millar 1999a; Eneh et al. 2016; Khan et al. 2022; Millar et al. 1992). Indole, phenol, 4-ethylphenol and 4-ethylguaiacol, identified in the headspace of alfalfa infusions, have all previously been demonstrated to be associated with various plant infusions (Afify and Galizia 2015; Allan and Kline 1995; Du and Millar 1999a; Eneh et al. 2016; Khan et al. 2022; Millar et al. 1992; Navarro-Silva et al. 2009). Evaluated, either alone or in combination, these indolic and phenolic compounds are known to regulate the behavioural response of gravid culicine mosquitoes to suitable oviposition sites (Allan and Kline 1995; Beehler et al. 1994; Du and Millar 1999a; Khan et al. 2022; Millar et al. 1992). While required for the attraction of gravid Cx. quinquefasciatus, these VOCs act in combination with other VOCs from various chemical classes, including monoterpenes, which have not been previously described to be associated with plant infusion VOC emanates (Afify and Galizia 2015; Allan and Kline 1995; Day 2016; Du and Millar 1999a; Eneh et al. 2016; Khan et al. 2022; Millar et al. 1992). The findings of this study are in line with the recent advancements within the field of chemical ecology, which have highlighted the importance of blend recognition and discrimination in regulating odour-mediated responses of mosquitoes to various resources (Afify and Galizia 2015; Hurem and Dudding 2015; Ignell and Hill 2020; Khan et al. 2022; Wooding et al. 2020).
The MOP (Laurence and Pickett 1982, 1985) is currently the only commercially available semiochemical used for the surveillance and control of Culex mosquitoes (Gowrishankar and Latha 2018; Mboera et al. 2000a, b; Mihou and Michaelakis 2010; Mwingira et al. 2020; Olagbemiro et al. 2004; Otieno et al. 1988; Wooding et al. 2020). Initially produced through expensive asymmetric syntheses and routes to obtain the required racemic product (Dawson et al. 1989; Hurem and Dudding 2015; Mihou and Michaelakis 2010; Olagbemiro et al. 1999; Olagbemiro et al. 2004), MOP is currently produced through green chemistry (Pickett and Woodcock 2007), although availability and cost are still restrictive. While the results from the current laboratory assays suggest that a synthetic alfalfa infusion odour blend may be sufficient in luring gravid Culex mosquitoes to traps, future laboratory and field studies are required to assess possible synergies between these semiochemicals, as suggested by previous studies assessing the effect of combinations of MOP and various plant infusions (Barbosa et al. 2007; Braks et al. 2007; Blackwell et al. 1993; Day 2016; Mboera et al. 1999, 2000a, b; Michaelakis et al. 2009; Mihou and Michaelakis 2010; Mwingira et al. 2020; Olagbemiro et al. 2004; Otieno et al. 1988; Wooding et al. 2020).
The synthetic alfalfa infusion odour provides a novel lure for the surveillance and control of gravid Culex quinquefasciatus. A synthetic odour will overcome the inherent problems with using plant infusions, and would allow for a standard lure that will maintain its efficacy over time and in between batches. Future assessment under field conditions will allow for a broader evaluation of its efficiency in attracting other mosquito species that are attracted and prefer to lay eggs in and around fermented vegetation. Such field studies will also allow for the assessment of costs to produce long-lasting lures for professionals and consumers alike.
Data Availability
Data is provided within the manuscript
References
Afify A, Galizia CG (2015) Chemosensory cues for mosquito oviposition site selection. J Med Entomol 52:120–130. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tju024
Allan SA, Kline DL (1995) Evaluation of organic infusions and synthetic compounds mediating oviposition in Aedes albopictus and Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J Chem Ecol 21:1847–1860. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02033681
Allan SA, Bernier UR, Kline DL (2005) Evaluation of oviposition substrates and organic infusions on collection of Culex in Florida. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 21:268–273. https://doi.org/10.2987/8756-971x(2005)21[268:eoosao]2.0.co;2
Arbaoui AA, Chua TH (2014) Bacteria as a source of oviposition attractant for Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. Trop Biomed 31:134–142
Asmare Y, Hopkins RJ, Tekie H, Hill SR, Ignell R (2017) Grass pollen affects survival and development of larval Anopheles arabiensis (Diptera: Culicidae). J Insect Sci 17:93. https://doi.org/10.1093/jisesa/iex067
Baak-Baak CM, Rodríguez-Ramírez AD, García-Rejón JE, Ríos-Delgado S, Torres-Estrada JL (2013) Development and laboratory evaluation of chemically-based baited ovitrap for the monitoring of Aedes aegypti. J Vector Ecol 38:175–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1948-7134.2013.12024.x
Barbosa RM, Souto A, Eiras AE, Regis L (2007) Laboratory and field evaluation of an oviposition trap for Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae). Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 102:523–529. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0074-02762007005000058
Barrera R, Amador M, Acevedo V, Hemme RR, Félix G (2014) Sustained, area-wide control of Aedes aegypti using CDC autocidal gravid ovitraps. Am J Trop Med Hyg 91:1269–1276. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.14-0426
Bazin M, Williams CR (2018) Mosquito traps for urban surveillance: collection efficacy and potential for use by citizen scientists. J Vector Ecol 43:98–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvec.12288
Beehler JW, Webb JP, Mulla MS (1993) Spatial and circadian oviposition patterns in an urban population of Culex quinquefasciatus. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 9:385–388
Beehler J, Millar J, Mulla M (1994) Field evaluation of synthetic compounds mediating oviposition in Culexmosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). J Chem Ecol 20:281–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02064436
Bentley MD, Day JF (1989) Chemical ecology and behavioral aspects of mosquito oviposition. Ann Rev Entomol 34:401–421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.34.010189.002153
Benzon GL, Apperson CS (1988) Reexamination of chemically mediated oviposition behavior in Aedes aegypti (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 25:158–164. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmedent/25.3.158
Blackwell A, Mordue (Luntz) AJ, Hansson BS, Wadhams LJ, Pickett JA (1993) A behavioural and electrophysiological study of oviposition cues for Culex quinquefasciatus. Physiol Entomol 18:343–348
Braks MA, Leal WS, Cardé RT (2007) Oviposition responses of gravid female Culex quinquefasciatus to egg rafts and low doses of oviposition pheromone under semifield conditions. J Chem Ecol 33:567–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-006-9223-8
Burkett-Cadena ND, Mullen GR (2007) Field comparison of Bermuda-hay infusion to infusions of emergent aquatic vegetation for collecting female mosquitoes. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 23:117–123. https://doi.org/10.2987/8756971x(2007)23[117:fcobit]2.0.co;2
Carrieri M, Masetti A, Albieri A, Maccagnani B, Bellini R (2009) Larvicidal activity and influence of Bacillus thuringiensis Var. Israelensis on Aedes albopictus oviposition in Ovitraps during a two-week check interval protocol. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 25:149–155. https://doi.org/10.2987/08-5852.1
Chadee DD, Lakhan A, Ramdath WR, Persad RC (1993) Oviposition response of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes to different concentrations of hay infusion in Trinidad, West Indies. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 9:346–348
Chadee DD, Ritchie SA (2010) Efficacy of sticky and standard ovitraps for Aedes aegypti in Trinidad, West Indies. J Vector Ecol 35:395–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1948-7134.2010.00098.x
Dawson GW, Laurence BR, Pickett JA, Pile MM, Wadhams LJ (1989) A note on the mosquito oviposition pheromone. Pestic Sci 27:277–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.2780270307
Day J (2016) Mosquito oviposition behavior and vector control. Insects 7:65. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects7040065
Du Y, Millar JG (1999a) Electroantennogram and oviposition bioassay responses of Culex quinquefasciatus and Culex tarsalis (Diptera: Culicidae) to chemicals in odors from Bermuda grass infusions. J Med Entomol 36:158–166. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmedent/36.2.158
Du Y, Millar JG (1999b) Oviposition responses of gravid Culex quinquefasciatus and Culex tarsalis to bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus) infusions. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 15:500–509
Eiras AE, Buhagiar TS, Ritchie SA (2014) Development of the gravid Aedes trap for the capture of adult female container-exploiting mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 51:200–209. https://doi.org/10.1603/me13104
Eiras AE, Costa LH, Batista-Pereira LG, Paixão KS, Batista EPA (2021) Semi-field assessment of the Gravid Aedes Trap (GAT) with the aim of controlling Aedes (Stegomyia) aegypti populations. PLoS ONE 16:e0250893. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250893
Eneh LK, Okal MN, Borg-Karlson A-K, Fillinger U, Lindh JM (2016) Gravid Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto avoid ovipositing in Bermuda grass hay infusion and it’s volatiles in two choice egg-count bioassays. Malar J 15:276. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-016-1330-6
Estallo EL, Ludueña-Almeida FF, Visintin AM, Scavuzzo CM, Introini MV, Zaidenberg M, Almirón WR (2011) Prevention of dengue outbreaks through Aedes aegypti oviposition activity for casting method. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 11:543–549. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2009.0165
Gowrishankar S, Latha BR (2018) Exploiting oviposition pheromone-an innovative way to control mosquitoes. J Vet Parasitol 32:73–77. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-0813.2018.00015.3
Girard M, Martin E, Vallon L, Raquin V, Bellet C, Rozier Y, Desouhant E, Hay AE, Luis P, Valiente Moro C, Minard G (2021) Microorganisms associated with mosquito oviposition sites: Implications for habitat selection and insect life histories. Microorganisms 9:1589. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9081589
Hazard EI, Mayer MS, Savaoe KE (1967) Attraction and oviposition stimulation of gravid female mosquitoes by bacteria from hay infusion. Mosq News 27:133–136
Huang J, Miller JR, Chen SC, Vulule JM, Walker ED (2006) Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae) oviposition in response to agarose media and cultured bacterial volatiles. J Med Entomol 43:498–504. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmedent/43.3.498
Hurem D, Dudding T (2015) Enantioselective synthesis of mosquito oviposition pheromone and its epimer from a naturally occurring fatty acid. RSC Adv 5:101732–101739. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5ra19306k
Ignell R, Hill SR (2020) Malaria mosquito chemical ecology. Curr Opin Insect Sci 40:6–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2020.03.008
Isoei J, Millar JG (1996) Water deprivation and light affect responses of Culex tarsalis (Diptera: Culicidae) to oviposition site cues. Environ Entomol 25:1383–1390. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/25.6.1383
Johnson BJ, Brosch D, Christiansen A, Wells E, Wells M, Bhandoola AF, Milne A, Garrison S, Fonseca DM (2018) Neighbors help neighbors control urban mosquitoes. Sci Rep 8:15797. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34161-9
Karlsson MF, Birgersson G, Witzgall P (2013) Guatemalan potato moth Tecia solanivora distinguish odour profiles from qualitatively different potatoes Solanum tuberosum L. Phytochem 85:72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2012.09.015
Kesavaraju B, Afify A, Gaugler R (2009) Growth and survival of Invasive Aedes albopictus larvae on Diospyros virginiana leaves. J Med Entomol 46:465–470. https://doi.org/10.1603/033.046.0308
Khan Z, Ignell R, Hill SR (2022) Odour-mediated oviposition-site selection by mosquitoes. In: Ignell R, Lazzari CR, Lorenzo MG, Hill SR (eds) Sensory ecology of disease vectors. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 373–417
Kivuyo HS, Mbazi PH, Kisika DS, Munga S, Rumisha SF, Urasa FM, Kweka EJ (2014) Performance of five food regimes on Anopheles gambiae senso stricto larval rearing to adult emergence in insectary. PLoS One 9:e110671. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110671
Laurence BR, Pickett JA (1982) Erythro-6-acetoxy-5-hexadecanolide, the major component of a mosquito oviposition attractant pheromone. J Chem Soc Chem Commun 1:59–60
Laurence B, Pickett J (1985) An oviposition attractant pheromone in Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae). Bull Entomol Res 75:283–290. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007485300014371
Lewis LF, Clark TB, O’Grady JJ, Christenson DM (1974) Collecting ovigerous Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus Say near favorable resting sites with louvered traps baited with infusions of alfalfa pellets. Mosq News 34:436–439
Mackay AJ, Amador M, Barrera R (2013) An improved autocidal gravid ovitrap for the control and surveillance of Aedes aegypti. Parasit Vectors 6:225. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-6-225
Maciel-de-Freitas R, Peres RC, Alves F, Brandolini MB (2008) Mosquito traps designed to capture Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) females: preliminary comparison of Adultrap, MosquiTRAP and backpack aspirator efficiency in a dengue-endemic area of Brazil. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 103:602–605. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0074-02762008000600016
Majeed S, Hill SR, Birgersson G, Ignell R (2017) Detection and perception of generic host volatiles by mosquitoes: Responses to CO2 constrains host-seeking behaviour. R Soc Open Sci 4:170189. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170189
Mboera LEG, Mdira KY, Salum FM, Takken W, Pickett JA (1999) Influence of synthetic oviposition pheromone and volatiles from soakage pits and grass infusions upon oviposition site selection of Culex mosquitoes in Tanzania. J Chem Ecol 25:1855–1865
Mboera LEG, Takken W, Mdira KY, Chuwa GJ, Pickett JA (2000a) Oviposition and behavioral responses of Culex quinquefasciatus to skatole and synthetic oviposition pheromone in Tanzania. J Chem Ecol 26:1193–1203. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005432010721
Mboera LE, Takken W, Mdira KY, Pickett JA (2000b) Sampling gravid Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) in Tanzania with traps baited with synthetic oviposition pheromone and grass infusions. J Med Entomol 37:172–176. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-2585-37.1.172
McPhatter LP, Debboun M (2009) Attractiveness of botanical infusions to ovipositing Culex quinquefasciatus, Cx. nigripalpus, and Cx. erraticus in San Antonio. Texas J Am Mosq Control Assoc 25:508–510. https://doi.org/10.2987/09-5930.1
Merritt RW, Dadd RH, Walker ED (1992) Feeding behavior, natural food, and nutritional relationships of larval mosquitoes. Annu Rev Entomol 37:349–374. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.37.010192.002025
Michaelakis A, Mihou AP, Koliopoulos G (2009) Influence of the microencapsulated pheromone from aged infusion as an oviposition medium of the West Nile virus vector Culex pipiens. Parasitol Res 104:1005–1009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00436-008-1282-z
Millar JG, Chaney JD, Mulla MS (1992) Identification of oviposition attractants for Culex quinquefasciatus from fermented Bermuda grass infusions. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 8:11–17
Mihou AP, Michaelakis A (2010) Oviposition aggregation pheromone for Culex mosquitoes: bioactivity and synthetic approaches. Hell Plant Prot J 3:33–56
Morrison AC, Zielinski-Gutierrez E, Scott TW, Rosenberg R (2008) Defining challenges and proposing solutions for control of the virus vector Aedes aegypti. PLoS Med 5:e68. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050068
Mulatier M, Boullis A, Vega-Rúa A (2022) Semiochemical oviposition cues to control Aedes aegypti gravid females: state of the art and proposed framework for their validation. Parasit Vectors 15:228. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-022-05337-0
Mullin LJ (2020) The effects of infusion water type and fermentation time on mosquitoes and non-target organisms collected in the CDC’S autocidal gravid ovitrap. J Fla Mosq Control Assoc 67:23–27
Murrell EG, Juliano SA (2008) Detritus type alters the outcome of interspecific competition between Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 45:375–383. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-2585(2008)45[375:dtatoo]2.0.co;2
Musunzaji PS, Ndenga BA, Mzee S, Abubakar LU, Kitron UD, Labeaud AD, Mutuku FM (2023) Oviposition preferences of Aedes aegypti in Msambweni, Kwale County, Kenya. J Am Mosq Control Asso 39:85–95. https://doi.org/10.2987/22-7103
Mwingira V, Mboera LE, Dicke M, Takken W (2020) Exploiting the chemical ecology of mosquito oviposition behavior in mosquito surveillance and control: a review. J Vector Ecol 45:155–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvec.12387
Nasci RS, Komar N, Marfin AA, Ludwig GV, Kramer LD, Daniels TJ, Falco RC, Campbell SR, Brookes K, Gottfried KL, Burkhalter KL, Aspen SE, Kerst AJ, Lanciotti RS, Moore CG (2002) Detection of West Nile virus-infected mosquitoes and seropositive juvenile birds in the vicinity of virus-positive dead birds. Am J Trop Med Hyg 67:492–496. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.2002.67.492
Navarro-Silva MA, Marques FA, Duque LJE (2009) Review of semiochemicals that mediate the oviposition of mosquitoes: a possible sustainable tool for the control and monitoring of Culicidae. Rev Bras Entomol 53:1–6
O’Gower AK (1963) Environmental stimuli and the oviposition behaviour of Aedes aegypti var. queenslandis Theobald (Diptera, Culicidae). Anim Behav 11:189–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(63)90028-9
Olagbemiro TO, Birkett MA, Mordue (Luntz) AJ, Pickett JA (1999) Production of (5R,6S)-6-acetoxy-5-hexadecanolide, the mosquito oviposition pheromone, from the seed oil of the summer cypress plant, Kochia scoparia (Chenopodiaceae). J Agric Food Chem 47:3411–3415.https://doi.org/10.1021/jf990294b
Olagbemiro TO, Birkett MA, Mordue Luntz AJ, Pickett JA (2004) Laboratory and field responses of the mosquito, Culex quinquefasciatus, to plant-derived Culex spp. oviposition pheromone and the oviposition cue skatole. J Chem Ecol 30:965–976
Otieno WA, Onyango TO, Pile MM, Laurence BR, Dawson GW, Wadhams LJ, Pickett JA (1988) A field trial of the synthetic oviposition pheromone with Culex quinquefasciatus say (Diptera: Culicidae) in Kenya. Bull Entomol Res 78:463–470. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485300013213
Pickett JA, Woodcock CM (2007) The role of mosquito olfaction in oviposition site location and in the avoidance of unsuitable hosts. In: Bock Gregory R, Cardew Gail (eds) Ciba Foundation symposium 200-olfaction in mosquito-host interactions: Ciba foundation symposium 200. Wiley, Chichester, pp 109–119
Polson KA, Curtis C, Seng CM, Olson JG, Chantha N, Rawlins SC (2002) The use of ovitraps baited with hay infusion for surveillance of Aedes aegypti in Cambodia. Dengue Bull 26:178–184. https://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/15940. Accessed 10 Jan 2024
Ponnusamy L, Xu N, Nojima S, Wesson DM, Schal C, Apperson CS (2008) Identification of bacteria and bacteria-associated chemical cues that mediate oviposition site preferences by Aedes aegypti. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9262–9267. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0802505105
Ponnusamy L, Wesson DM, Arellano C, Schal C (2009) Species composition of bacterial communities influences attraction of mosquitoes to experimental plant infusions. Microb Ecol 59:158–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-009-9565-1
Ponnusamy L, Xu N, Böröczky K, Wesson DM, Abu Ayyash L, Schal C, Apperson CS (2010) Oviposition responses of the mosquitoes Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus to experimental plant infusions in laboratory bioassays. J Chem Ecol 36:709–719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-010-9806-2
Rawlins SC, Martinez R, Wiltsire S, Legall G (1998) Comparison of surveillance systems for the dengue vector Aedes aegypti in Port of Spain, Trinidad. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 14:131–136
Reisen WK, Meyer RP (1990) Attractiveness of selected oviposition substrates for gravid Culex tarsalis and Culex quinquefasciatus in California. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 6:244–250
Reiter P (1983) A portable battery-operated trap for collecting gravid Culex mosquitoes. Mosq News 43:496–498
Reiter PA (1986) Standardized procedure for the quantitative surveillance of certain Culex mosquitoes by egg raft collection. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 2:219–221
Reiter P, Colon M (1991) Enhancement of the CDC ovitrap with hay infusions for daily monitoring of Aedes aegypti populations. J Am Mosquito Control Assoc 7:52–55
Reiter P, Amador MA, Colon N (1991) Enhancement of the CDC ovitrap with hay infusions for daily monitoring of Aedes aegypti populations. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 7:52–55
Ritchie SA (2001) Effect of some animal feeds and oviposition substrates on Aedes oviposition in ovitraps in Cairns, Australia. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 17:206–208
Ritchie SA, Buhagiar TS, Townsend M, Hoffmann A, Van Den Hurk AF, McMahon JL, Eiras AE (2014) Field validation of the Gravid Aedes Trap (GAT) for collection of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 51:210–219. https://doi.org/10.1603/me1310105
Russell RC, Ritchie SA (2004) Surveillance and behavioral investigations of Aedes aegypti and Aedes polynesiensis in Moorea, French Polynesia, using a sticky ovitrap. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 20:370–375
Sant’ana AL, Roque RA, Eiras AE (2006) Characteristics of grass infusions as oviposition attractants to Aedes (Stegomyia) (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 43:214–220. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmedent/43.2.214
Seenivasagan T, Sharma A, Yadav R, Tyagi V, Singh R, Sukumaran D (2019) Plant infusions mediate oviposition of malaria, dengue and filariasis vectors: push-pull approach for vector surveillance and control. J Biopestic 12:95–103
Snetselaar J, Andriessen R, Suer RA, Osinga AJ, Knols BGJ, Farenhorst M (2014) Development and evaluation of a novel contamination device that targets multiple life-stages of Aedes aegypti. Parasit Vectors 7:200. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-3305-7-200
Strickman D (1988) Rate of oviposition by Culex quinquefasciatusin San Antonio, Texas, during three years. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 4:339–344
Sumba LA, Okoth K, Deng AL, Githure J, Knols BG, Beier JC, Hassanali A (2004) Daily oviposition patterns of the African malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae Giles (Diptera: Culicidae) on different types of aqueous substrates. J Circadian Rhythms 2:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1740-3391-2-6
Szumlas DE, Apperson CS, Powell EE (1996) Seasonal occurrence and abundance of Aedes triseriatus and other mosquitoes in a La Crosse virus-endemic area of western North Carolina. J Am Vet Med Assoc 12:184–193
Tarter KD, Levy CE, Yaglom HD, Adams LE, Plante L, Casal MG, Gouge DH, Rathman R, Stokka D, Weiss J, Venkat H, Walker KR (2019) Using citizen science to enhance surveillance of Aedes aegypti in Arizona, 2015–17. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 35:11–18. https://doi.org/10.2987/18-6789.1
Trexler JD, Apperson CS, Schal C (1998) Laboratory and field evaluations of oviposition responses of Aedes albopictus and Aedes triseriatus (Diptera: Culicidae) to oak leaf infusions. J Med Entomol 35:967–976. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmedent/35.6.967
Trexler JD, Apperson CS, Zurek L, Gemeno C, Schal C, Kaufman M, Walker E, Watson DW, Wallace L (2003) Role of bacteria in mediating the oviposition responses of Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Med Entomol 40:841–848. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-2585-40.6.841
Tsai TF, Smith GC, Happ CM, Kirk LJ, Jakob WL, Bolin RA, Francy DB, Lampert KJ (1989) Surveillance of St. Louis encephalitis virus vectors in Grand Junction, Colorado, in 1987. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 5:161–165
Wooding M, Naudé Y, Rohwer E, Bouwer M (2020) Controlling mosquitoes with semiochemicals: a review. Parasit Vectors 13:80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-020-3960-3
Yee DA, Kaufman MG, Juliano SA (2007) The significance of ratios of detritus types and micro-organism productivity to competitive interactions between aquatic insect detritivores. J Anim Ecol 76:1105–1115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01297.x
Ye-Ebiyo Y, PollackSpielman RJA (2000) Enhanced development in nature of larval Anopheles arabiensis mosquitoes feeding on maize pollen. Am J Trop Med Hyg 63:90–93. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.2000.63.90
Ye-Ebiyo Y, Pollack RJ, Kiszewski A, Spielman A (2003) Enhancement of development of larval Anopheles arabiensis by proximity to flowering maize (Zea mays) in turbid water and when crowded. Am J Trop Med Hyg 68:748–752. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.2003.68.748
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Thomas Svensson for conducting the behavioural analyses with, and odour collections from, alfalfa infusions.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. This work was supported by the Swedish research council Formas (215-2010-594) to RI.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
RI and SRH designed the study and supervised BW and EI. BW and EI conducted the behavioural and electrophysiological bioassays. GB contributed his expertise to the chemical analyses. BW and RI wrote the manuscript, while SRH and EI critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wondwosen, B., Isberg, E., Birgersson, G. et al. Synthetic Alfalfa Infusion Odour Attracts Gravid Culex quinquefasciatus Under Laboratory Conditions. J Chem Ecol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-024-01528-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-024-01528-4