Toxicity and Feeding Deterrence Activity of Mentha×piperita and Baccharis milleflora Essential Oils on Microtheca ochroloma (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)

Abstract

This study evaluated the bioactivity of Mentha×piperita L. (Lamiaceae) and Baccharis milleflora Less. (DC.) (Asteraceae) essential oils (EOs) against the yellowmargined leaf beetle Microtheca ochroloma Stål, 1860 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), under laboratory conditions. Different EOs concentrations were tested on adults and larvae for toxicity, through topical application, and for feeding deterrence, using treated Chinese cabbage cut leaves. M. piperita EO showed higher toxicity to adults (LC₅₀ = 0.06%) than to larvae (LC₅₀ = 1.33%) and reduced the foliar consumption to 7.76% in adults and 10.93% in larvae at EO concentrations of 0.10% and 0.15%, respectively. The EO of B. milleflora showed relatively lower toxicity (LC₅₀ = 1.12% to adults and 1.67% to larvae) but a stronger feeding deterrence effect, with foliar consumption reduced to 0% in adults and 0.09% in larvae at a 1% EO concentration. However, higher EOs concentrations (0.3% and 2% of M. piperita and B. milleflora, respectively) caused phytotoxic effects on leaves, emphasizing the need for carefully managed dosages to prevent crop damage. This study is the first to test EOs against M. ochroloma and the first to evaluate B. milleflora EO on a defoliating beetle, highlighting their potential as innovative biopesticides with effective toxicity and feeding deterrence at low concentrations.

Keywords:
biopesticide; natural product; botanical insecticide; plant protection; yellowmargined leaf beetle.

HIGHLIGHTS

• First report on the effects of EOs against M. ochroloma.

• First report of toxicity and feeding deterrence of B. milleflora EO against a leaf beetle (Chrysomelidae).

• M. piperita and B. milleflora EOs showed low LC50 and LC90 values in adults and larvae and reduced the foliar consumption at low concentrations.

• M. piperita and B. milleflora EOs caused phytotoxicity on Chinese cabbage cut leaves at concentrations higher than those effective for feeding deterrence.

INTRODUCTION

Environmental concerns about the inappropriate use of synthetic pesticides - such as their toxicity, non-biodegradability, and pesticide residues - have led to increased interest in natural pesticides as a sustainable solution. Biopesticides, often plant-derived, are less disruptive to ecosystems, reduce health risks, and support long-term agricultural sustainability [¹,²]. Natural pesticides now represent a viable, eco-friendly alternative, in line with global shifts toward sustainable agriculture [³,⁴].

Many plants produce secondary metabolites, such as terpenes, with insecticidal properties, which can be used in pest management [⁵]. Botanical insecticides are an attractive alternative due to their low environmental and human health risks [⁶,⁷] and effectiveness against various insect pests [⁸].

In this context, the genus Mentha (Lamiaceae) stands out, comprising around 42 species and 15 hybrids, with Mentha×piperita L., or peppermint, recognized globally for its medicinal and commercial value [⁹,¹⁰]. The essential oil (EO) of M. piperita is characterized by dominant monoterpenes including L-menthol (35-60%) and menthone (15-25%), alongside bioactive minor constituents such as neomenthol, menthyl acetate, 1,8-cineole, and limonene [¹¹-¹³]. This complex chemistry mediates its significant repellency and toxicity against economically important insects [¹¹,¹²,¹⁴-¹⁶]. Furthermore, Mentha EOs attract beneficial predators, enhancing their utility in integrated pest management (IPM) programs [¹⁷].

In addition, the genus Baccharis (Asteraceae) includes approximately 435 species native to the Americas, with 179 found in Brazil, including B. milleflora Less. (DC.) [¹⁸]. Chemical profiling of B. milleflora EO reveals a distinct sesquiterpene-rich composition, dominated by bicyclogermacrene, germacrene-D, and (E)-caryophyllene, with notable contributions from α-pinene, β-pinene, spathulenol, limonene, and α-thujene [¹⁹-²¹]. This phytochemical diversity correlates with documented larvicidal, fumigant, repellent, and insecticidal properties [²¹-²³], highlighting its potential as an eco-friendly biopesticide.

This study investigates the bioactivity of M. piperita and B. milleflora EOs against the yellow-margined leaf beetle, Microtheca ochroloma Stål, 1860 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Native to South America and invasive in the United States, M. ochroloma is particularly damaging to brassica crops in organic farming systems [²⁴,²⁵]. While it poses minimal threat to conventional agriculture, where synthetic insecticides effectively control the pest [²⁶], M. ochroloma presents a significant challenge for organic growers who rely on alternative pest management strategies [²⁴].

In this context, this study investigates the bioactivity of both EOs on adults and larvae of M. ochroloma, assessing their toxicity through topical application to determine lethal concentrations (LC₅₀ and LC₉₀), as well as their feeding deterrence effects through relative foliar consumption (RFC) on treated Chinese cabbage leaves.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Source of Essential Oils (EOs)

M. piperita EO was commercially obtained from Quinarí® (Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil). According to the manufacturer, the main chemical constituents of this batch are L-menthol (45%) and menthone (23.3%). The full chemical characterization, including the complete GC chromatogram provided by the supplier for the exact batch used in the bioassays, is presented in Supplementary Material S1. B. milleflora EO was kindly donated by the Laboratory of Pharmacognosy (State University of Ponta Grossa, Brazil). This oil was extracted by hydrodistillation using a Clevenger-type apparatus (USP XXV, 2002) for 6 h from aerial parts of air-dried plants, collected during Spring in Ponta Grossa, Brazil. Immediately after extraction, it was stored in sealed amber glass vials at (4 ± 0.5)°C prior to donation. Its chemical composition was previously characterized by GC-MS [¹⁹], with major constituents identified as bicyclogermacrene (12.16%), germacrene-D (11.18%), (E)-caryophyllene (9.28%), α-humulene (8.05%), δ-cadinene (4.31%), and β-bisabolene (4.09%). Upon receipt, both EOs were stored in amber glass vials under dark conditions at room temperature (25 ± 2°C) until use.

Microtheca ochroloma rearing

Adult insects of Microtheca ochroloma were initially collected from Chinese cabbage (Brassica rapa subsp. pekinensis) crops at the State Agricultural College Augusto Ribas, Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil (25°05'41.4"S, 50°06'33.2"W; 909 m altitude). A laboratory colony was established in ventilated plastic rearing cages (35 × 48 × 32 cm) under controlled conditions (25 ± 2°C, 70% RH, 12:12 h L:D photoperiod), with organic Chinese cabbage leaves provided ad libitum as food source. Eggs were collected daily from paper linings placed beneath the cages and transferred to smaller plastic containers (11 × 11 × 3.5 cm) covered with fine mesh voile fabric. Larvae were maintained under identical environmental conditions and fed fresh cabbage leaves until pupation. Pupae were then transferred to 2 L transparent plastic containers with mesh-covered ventilation, initiating the first acclimated generation. Bioassays utilized third-generation adults for topical toxicity tests, fifth-generation adults for feeding deterrence assays, and larvae from later generations (exact generation unknown) for both tests.

Toxicity of M. piperita and B. milleflora EOs on adults of M. ochroloma

To assess the toxicity of B. milleflora and M. piperita EOs and estimate the LC₅₀ and LC₉₀, a topical application assay was conducted. Insect adults were treated with 5 µL of diluted oils applied to the dorsal side of each insect, over the elytra, using a micropipette. The EOs were diluted in acetone at the following concentrations (v/v): 0.0625%, 0.25%, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 3%, and 4% for B. milleflora; and 0.0125%, 0.025%, 0.05%, 0.07%, 0.1%, 0.15%, 0.2%, and 0.3% for M. piperita. The control was pure acetone. Five replicates of 10 insects per concentration were maintained in Petri dishes (n = 50), following a completely randomized design. Insects were anesthetized at -5°C for 3 minutes before application and kept under rearing conditions. Mortality was recorded 48 hours post-application, with dead insects showing no movement when stimulated. Previous tests confirmed that neither the acetone application nor the anesthesia conditions caused mortality in the insects.

Feeding deterrence effect of M. piperita and B. milleflora EOs on adults of M. ochroloma

To assess the feeding deterrence effect of EOs, a no-choice foliar consumption test was performed using Chinese cabbage cut leaves. The oils were diluted in a Tween 80 solution (0.01%) and applied in the following concentrations: 0.0625%, 0.125%, 0.25%, 0.5%, 1%, and 2% for B. milleflora EO, and 0.03%, 0.06%, 0.1%, 0.15%, 0.2%, and 0.3% for M. piperita EO. Leaf discs (5 cm diameter) were immersed in the solutions for 10 seconds, dried for 1 hour, and placed in Petri dishes with 10 unsexed adult insects per treatment. The insects were kept under rearing conditions for 24 hours without feeding, then allowed to feed on the treated leaves for 24 hours. The cut leaves were photographed before and after the test to evaluate the relative foliar consumption (RFC), with the consumption expressed as a percentage (%) of the total leaf area. The RFC was measured using ImageJ software, with five replicates per treatment in a completely randomized design.

Bioactivity of EOs on M. ochroloma larvae

The toxicity and feeding deterrence assays were repeated with fourth instar M. ochroloma larvae, which show more intense defoliation than adults, especially at this stage [²⁴]. For toxicity, previous tests indicated that larvae are more resistant to M. piperita EO, so the concentrations used were 0.25%, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, and 3% for both EOs, with eight larvae per plate. For feeding deterrence, larvae were tested with B. milleflora EO at concentrations of 0.125%, 0.25%, 0.5%, 1%, and 1.5%, and M. piperita EO at 0.03%, 0.06%, 0.1%, 0.15%, and 0.2%. Six larvae were used per plate, following a period of 8 hours without feeding to prevent mortality, as determined in previous tests. Additionally, six larvae per plate prevented complete consumption of the control leaves.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses employed generalized linear models (GLMs) for insect mortality, lethal concentration values (LC₅₀/LC₉₀), and relative foliar consumption (RFC). Toxicity data were modeled using quasi-binomial distribution with probit link function. Dose-response relationships were fitted to: Prob(Mortality) = Φ(β₀ + β₁·log(Conc+1)), with log(x+1)-transformed concentrations to linearize responses. Lethal concentrations and 95% confidence intervals were calculated via inverse prediction using the delta method (dose.p function from MASS package) [²⁷] followed by back-transformation (exp(estimate)-1). Model adequacy was verified through half-normal plots with simulation envelopes (hnp package) (Figure S2), confirming goodness-of-fit when ≤15% of residuals fell outside envelopes [²⁸]. Hypothesis testing for LC₅₀/LC₉₀ equality (p<0.05) used likelihood ratio tests implemented per Wheeler and coauthors methodology [²⁹]. Feeding deterrence data were analyzed with Gaussian GLMs. Foliar consumption data were compared using Deviance analysis with Fisher's mean comparisons (p<0.05) (ExpDes.pt v.1.1.2) [³⁰]. The concentration-response curves for mortality and the graphs of relative foliar consumption are provided in the Supplementary Material (Figures S4 and S5).

RESULTS

Toxicity of M. piperita and B. milleflora EOs on M. ochroloma

The toxicity of M. piperita and B. milleflora essential oils (EOs) on M. ochroloma adults and larvae was evaluated based on their LC₅₀ and LC₉₀ values after 48 hours of exposure (Table 1). M. piperita EO exhibited higher toxicity to adults, with an LC₅₀ of 0.06% and an LC₉₀ of 0.17%, compared to B. milleflora EO, which had LC₅₀ and LC₉₀ values of 1.12% and 2.93%, respectively. For larvae, M. piperita EO showed an LC₅₀ of 1.33% and LC₉₀ of 3.60%, while B. milleflora EO exhibited slightly lower toxicity with LC₅₀ and LC₉₀ values of 1.67% and 3.68%. The ratio test (Table 2) confirmed that M. piperita EO was significantly more toxic to adults than B. milleflora EO (p < 0.05). Additionally, adults were more susceptible to M. piperita EO than larvae (p < 0.05), whereas no significant differences were observed between adults and larvae for B. milleflora EO (Table 2).

Table 1
Toxicity of the EOs of Baccharis milleflora and Mentha×piperita, diluted in acetone (v/v), on adults and larvae of Microtheca ochroloma, after 48h.

EOs	N	AC ± SE	LC50 (%) (95% CI)	LC90 (%) (95% CI)	χ2	p
B. milleflora
Adults	400	1.55 ± 0.14	1.12 (0.94 - 1.30)	2.93 (2.41 - 3.53)	-11.000	<0.001
Larvae	240	2.25 ± 0.27	1.67 (1.39 - 1.99)	3.68 (2.80 - 4.75)	-8.289	<0.001
M. piperita
Adults	450	0.77 ± 0.16	0.06 (0.04 - 0.07)	0.17 (0.13 - 0.20)	-4.809	<0.001
Larvae	240	1.59 ± 0.21	1.33 (1.06 - 1.62)	3.60 (2.61 - 4.86)	-7.724	<0.001

Table 2
Comparison between the LC₅₀ and LC₉₀ values of the EOs of Baccharis milleflora and Mentha×piperita on adults and larvae of Microtheca ochroloma, through the ratio test.

Proportion Test	SE	LC50		LC90
		χ2	p	χ2	p
Adults B - Adults M	0.147	2.04	0.040	3.59	<0.001
Larvae B - Larvae M	0.091	0.66	0.507	0.08	0.935
Adults B - Larvae B	0.079	11.29	0.198	0.95	0.341
Adults M - Larvae M	0.154	2.21	0.027	3.86	<0.001

Feeding deterrence effect of M. piperita and B. milleflora EOs on M. ochroloma

The feeding deterrence effect was assessed by analyzing the Relative Foliar Consumption (RFC) of adults and larvae of M. ochroloma feeding on treated Chinese cabbage cut leaves submitted to different concentrations (v/v) of the EOs diluted in acetone. Both EOs significantly reduced RFC in adults and larvae, as shown by the deviance analysis (Table 3, p < 0.05). No mortality was observed in concentrations tested, except for 2% (B. milleflora) and 0.3% (M. piperita).

Table 3
Deviance analysis of Relative Foliar Consumption (RFC) of adults and larvae of Microtheca ochroloma, in chinese cabbage leaf cuts submitted to Baccharis milleflora and Mentha×piperita EOs.

EOs	df	Dev. Res.	p
B. milleflora
Adults	28	0.7587	<0.001
Larvae	28	0.6405	0.044
M. piperita
Adults	28	0.0916	<0.001
Larvae	28	0.3322	0.003

In adults, B. milleflora EO reduced RFC values at concentrations as low as 0.0625%, with complete deterrence (0.00% RFC) observed at 1% (Table 4). Larvae showed significant reductions in RFC only at concentrations of 0.25% or higher. Similarly, M. piperita EO reduced RFC in adults at 0.03%, with complete deterrence achieved at 0.30%. For larvae, reductions in RFC were significant starting at 0.10%, with minimal consumption (11.71 ± 0.87%) at 0.20%. Both EOs achieved a complete reduction in leaf consumption at concentrations of 0.3% (M. piperita) and 2% (B. milleflora) (Table 4), however, this resulted in phytotoxic effects on Chinese cabbage cut leaves. Consequently, these concentrations were excluded from the comparative analyses and the tests involving larvae.

Table 4
Relative Foliar Consumption - RFC (%) of adults and larvae of Microtheca ochroloma feeding on treated Chinese cabbage cut leaves submitted to different concentrations (v/v) of Baccharis milleflora and Mentha×piperita EOs diluted in acetone.

Baccharis milleflora			Mentha×piperita
Concentration	Adults	Larvae	Concentration	Adults	Larvae
0%	27.70 ± 2.17 a	31.59 ± 4.39 a	0%	27.70 ± 2.17 a	31.59 ± 4.39 a
0.0625%	15.75 ± 3.42 b	-	0.03%	22.29 ± 1.84 ab	25.48 ± 5.46 ab
0.125%	12.10 ± 3.67 bc	30.33 ± 3.23 a	0.06%	20.56 ± 2.84 b	23.83 ± 4.68 ab
0.25%	5.82 ± 2.25 c	12.79 ± 3.14 b	0.10%	23.03 ± 1.45 ab	10.93 ± 2.88 c
0.5%	0.82 ± 0.68 d	8.45 ± 1.16 b	0.15%	7.76 ± 2.10 c	21.10 ± 7.47 ab
1%	0.00 ± 0.00 d	0.09 ± 0.05 c	0.20%	6.98 ± 2.97 c	11.71 ± 0.87 bc
1.5%	-	0.17 ± 0.08 c	0.30%*	0.00 ± 0.00	-
2%*	0.00 ± 0.00	-	-	-	-

• Means followed by the same letter in the column do not differ from each other (Fisher 5%).
• ^*
  Phytotoxic effect on Chinese cabbage leaves.

DISCUSSION

The insecticidal effects of EOs are largely attributed to their ability to penetrate the insect cuticle [⁷]. Consequently, fourth instar larvae of M. ochroloma, with their softer cuticle, were expected to be less tolerant than adults. This aligns with Taghizadeh Saroukolai et al. [³¹] , who observed higher LC₅₀ values for adults compared to larvae of Leptinotarsa decemlineata when treated with Mentha spicata EO. However, in this study, the larvae showed higher tolerance to M. piperita EO and exhibited no significant differences from adults when exposed to B. milleflora EO. The insecticidal activity of EOs is mainly due to terpenes, which act individually or synergistically [³²,³³] and may be metabolized differently depending on the insect's developmental stage. For instance, Khorram et al. [³⁴] found that while limonene and myrcene were toxic to both larvae and adults of L. decemlineata, α-pinene was toxic only to adults. Thus, evaluating individual components of M. piperita and B. milleflora EOs is essential to fully elucidate their effects.

Both EOs showed potential for controlling M. ochroloma, with M. piperita demonstrating particularly low LC₅₀ values against adults. Pinto, Vella and Agrò [³⁵] also reported low LC₅₀ (0.39%) of this EO for Tuta absoluta adults within 24 hours, while Pang et al. (2020) found similar values for other species, such as Tribolium castaneum (0.6%). Despite extensive research on M. piperita, studies on B. milleflora are limited. However, Eccel et al. [²³] highlighted the broader insecticidal potential of Baccharis species (B. articulata, B. calvescens, and B. milleflora) against pests such as Anticarsia gemmatalis, Sitophilus zeamais, and Lucilia cuprina. Their findings indicate that B. milleflora demonstrated the lowest lethal concentrations for A. gemmatalis, with an LC₅₀ of 0.52% (0.48-0.55%) and an LC₉₀ of 1.09% (1.03-1.15%), underscoring its potency at low doses.

Toxicity from topical application can be attributed to damage inflicted on the insect's nervous and/or respiratory systems, as this is the primary route of intoxication for substances absorbed through the cuticle [³⁶]. The observed mortality may also be linked to the lipophilic nature and low molecular weight of EO constituents, which facilitate diffusion through cell membranes, leading to physiological disturbances and eventual death in the insect [¹⁸]. Furthermore, these constituents can inhibit acetylcholinesterase activity [³³,³⁷], a mechanism verified in adults of Sitophilus zeamais and T. castaneum [³⁸,³⁹]. Additionally, limonene, found in both M. piperita and B. milleflora EOs, can disrupt the lipids within the insect exoskeleton’s cuticle, leading to histological alterations in the brain and deformities in larvae and adults [²¹], along with dehydration and death [¹¹].

The major compounds identified in the essential oil of Baccharis milleflora have been reported in the literature to exhibit a wide range of biological activities, particularly toxicity and insecticidal effects. Cruz et al. [⁴⁰] evaluated the toxicity of essential oil from Croton argyrophyllus (Euphorbiaceae) against Aedes aegypti larvae and adults and showed lethal doses to control the insect reproduction. The oil was primarily composed of bicyclogermacrene (10.43%) among other compounds [⁴⁰]. Similarly, Al-Ghanim et al. [⁴¹] assessed the insecticidal potential of essential oil from Matricaria chamomilla, which was rich in germacrene D (9.4%), against malaria and Zika virus vector mosquitoes, revealing maximum toxicity against third-instar larvae. Wang et al. [⁴²] analyzed the composition of essential oils from spice plants against stored-product insects and, through chromatographic analysis, reported a caryophyllene content of 9.44%, which exhibited significant toxicity against Tribolium castaneum and Liposcelis bostrychophila. These works show that the compounds found in B. milleflora EO have toxicity and deterrent effects against insects in general.

In contrast with topical application, the EOs consumed with treated leaves remain in the insects' intestines, allowing for extended periods of metabolization and/or excretion of the chemicals. This may explain the absence of mortality observed in the foliar consumption test for deterrence analysis (except for 0.3% and 2%, for M. piperita and B. milleflora respectively). However, it is likely that with a longer evaluation period, residual toxic effects would manifest. For example, previous studies on EOs, such as orange, sesame, and camphor, have demonstrated delayed larval and pupal development in Spodoptera littoralis, along with a significant reduction in adult emergence rates, suggesting potential long-term impacts of EOs on insect development [⁴³].

Although 0.3% concentration of M. piperita and 2% of B. milleflora completely inhibited insects feeding, due to 100% mortality, both proved phytotoxic to leaves, making them unsuitable for application at these doses (Figure S7). Previous studies have also reported phytotoxic effects of M. piperita EO on leaves, demonstrating its herbicidal properties against various weed species [⁴⁴-⁴⁶]. However, it has also been shown to cause phytotoxic damage to crops such as maize, rice, and tomatoes, even at low concentrations (0.125%) [⁴⁵]. This highlights the importance of careful handling of EOs and utilizing appropriate formulations and dosages to prevent harm to the target crops.

The toxic and deterrent activities shown in this study highlight EO’s as potential candidates for the development of botanical natural insecticides. The ability of M.×piperita EO to cause significant adult mortality at low concentrations and of B. milleflora EO to completely suppress feeding at 1% illustrates their complementary bioactivities, which are relevant for integrated pest control strategies. Essential oils, due to their multicomponent nature, are known to act on multiple molecular targets in insects, helping to delay resistance development [⁴⁷-⁴⁸]. Additionally, their biodegradability and minimal environmental persistence make them attractive for eco-friendly pest management, particularly in organic systems [⁴⁹-⁵⁰]. However, the phytotoxic effects observed at higher concentrations also underscore the importance of optimizing application rates and formulations to ensure crop safety. Advances in formulation technologies, such as nanoemulsions and encapsulation systems, have been shown to reduce essential oil volatility, increase efficacy, and mitigate phytotoxicity under field conditions [⁵¹-⁵²].

Further studies are needed to evaluate the residual toxic effects of EOs, as the current toxicity and feeding deterrence tests were limited to 48h and 24h, respectively. Extended observation windows are crucial, as residual exposure may induce sublethal effects altering insect physiology and generational fitness [⁵³], while potentially selecting for resistance mechanisms in progeny populations [⁵⁴]. Additionally, the effects on natural enemies and pollinators must be assessed to ensure selectivity and prevent ecological imbalances in agroecosystems. While some studies, such as Imdorf et al. [⁵³-⁵⁵], reported bee mortality at concentrations effective against Varroa destructor, others, like Ebert et al. [⁵⁴-⁵⁶], found that Mentha EOs reduced mite populations without harming bees. Moreover, M. piperita EO showed attractiveness to beneficial insects, including Chrysoperla carnea and Coccinella ladybugs [¹⁷], highlighting its potential for integrated pest management.

Finally, field trials are essential since EOs are highly volatile and do not persist long in the environment. To enhance efficacy and longevity, formulation technologies that protect the EO constituents, such as nanoencapsulation methods offer viable solutions to enhance efficacy through controlled release mechanisms [⁷,⁵⁵-⁵⁷]. These nanoformulations have already proven successful against diverse pests, including Anopheles stephensi [⁵⁶-⁵⁸] and stored-grain pests [⁵⁷-⁵⁹]. Adapting these established delivery systems for field applications could significantly improve their effectiveness in controlling defoliating insects like M. ochroloma.

CONCLUSION

The EOs of B. milleflora and M. piperita exhibited significant toxicity and feeding deterrence against M. ochroloma, indicating their potential as biopesticides. Both oils showed efficacy at low concentrations, resulting in marked reductions in leaf consumption across larval and adult stages. This study is particularly innovative, as it represents the first application of EOs against M. ochroloma and the first instance of B. milleflora oil being tested on a defoliating beetle. However, future work should address two key aspects: potential phytotoxicity at higher concentrations, and validation through field trials with nanoformulations to overcome limitations of controlled-condition testing. Nevertheless, the findings in this study contribute to the growing body of research on natural biopesticides and provide valuable insights toward developing efficient, sustainable pest management solutions.

• Funding:
  This research received no external funding.
• Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
• Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Material Suplementar

https://doi.org/10.48331/SCIELODATA.FQYVDU

Supplementary PDF

Supplementary PDF

Supplementary PDF

Supplementary PDF

Supplementary PDF

Supplementary PDF

Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

The authors declare that large language models and other generative artificial intelligence (AI) or AI-assisted technologies cannot be credited as authors and have not been listed as authors of this paper.

The authors declare that no generative artificial intelligence (AI) or AI-assisted technologies were used to generate or modify the scientific content of this manuscript, including the conception of the study, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of results, or creation of original text, figures, tables or graphical abstracts, apart from routine tools for spelling, grammar checking and reference management that do not create original scholarly content.

Acknowledgments:

The authors thank Dr. Camilla Pereira for kindly providing a sample of Baccharis milleflora essential oil, used in this study. We also acknowledge the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for the fellowship to F.S.D. (88887.696139/2022-00), the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) for the grant to A.N. (2023/03886-1), and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for the grant to A.R.S. (314977/2025-2).

Data Availability Statement:

Data are available on reasonable request for corresponding author.

REFERENCES

• ¹ Swapan C, Mainak B, Deewa B, Tanmoy M. Natural pesticides for pest control in agricultural crops: an alternative and eco-friendly method. Plant Sci Today. 2024 Jan 14;11(1):433-50. https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.2547
  » https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.2547
• ² Kiri IZ, Eghosa O, Usman HB, Biliyaminu A. The use of botanicals as pesticides: history, development and emerging challenges. Dutse J Pure Appl Sci. 2024 Apr 27;10(1a):191-207. https://doi.org/10.4314/dujopas.v10i1a.21
  » https://doi.org/10.4314/dujopas.v10i1a.21
• ³ Isman MB. Bridging the gap: moving botanical insecticides from the laboratory to the farm. Ind Crops Prod. 2017 Dec 30;110:10-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.07.012
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.07.012
• ⁴ Peeriga R, Balagani PK, Atmakuri LR. Prominence of biopesticides to supersede chemical pesticides in sustainable agriculture. Int J Pharmacogn Pharm Sci. 2023;5(1):81-5. https://doi.org/10.33545/27067009.2023.v5.i1a.104
  » https://doi.org/10.33545/27067009.2023.v5.i1a.104
• ⁵ Erb M. Plant defenses against herbivory: closing the fitness gap. Trends Plant Sci. 2018 Mar 1;23(3):187-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2017.11.005
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2017.11.005
• ⁶ Mouden S, Klinkhamer PGL, Choi YH, Leiss KA. Towards eco-friendly crop protection: natural deep eutectic solvents and defensive secondary metabolites. Phytochem Rev. 2017 Oct 1;16(5):935-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11101-017-9502-8
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11101-017-9502-8
• ⁷ Isman MB. Commercial development of plant essential oils and their constituents as active ingredients in bioinsecticides. Phytochem Rev. 2020 Apr 1;19(2):235-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11101-019-09653-9
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11101-019-09653-9
• ⁸ Jyotsna B, Patil S, Prakash YS, Rathnagiri P, Kavi Kishor PB, Jalaja N. Essential oils from plant resources as potent insecticides and repellents: current status and future perspectives. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol. 2024 Oct 1;61:103395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2024.103395
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2024.103395
• ⁹ Singh P, Pandey AK. Prospective of essential oils of the genus Mentha as biopesticides: a review. Front Plant Sci. 2018 Sep 10;9:1295. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01295
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01295
• ¹⁰ Hudz N, Kobylinska L, Pokajewicz K, Horčinová Sedláčková V, Fedin R, Voloshyn M, et al. Mentha piperita: essential oil and extracts, their biological activities, and perspectives on the development of new medicinal and cosmetic products. Molecules. 2023 Jan;28(21):7444. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28217444
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28217444
• ¹¹ Park CG, Jang M, Yoon KA, Kim J. Insecticidal and acetylcholinesterase inhibitory activities of Lamiaceae plant essential oils and their major components against Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Ind Crops Prod. 2016 Oct 30;89:507-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.06.008
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.06.008
• ¹² Ramos RS, Rodrigues ABL, Farias ALF, Simões RC, Pinheiro MT, Ferreira RM dos A, et al. Chemical composition and in vitro antioxidant, cytotoxic, antimicrobial, and larvicidal activities of the essential oil of Mentha piperita L. (Lamiaceae). Sci World J. 2017;2017:4927214. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4927214
  » https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4927214
• ¹³ Alvarenga JP, Braga AF, Pacheco FV, Carvalho AA de, Pinto JEBP, Bertolucci SKV. Seasonal variation in essential oil content and chemical profile of mint in southeast of Brazil. Cienc Rural. 2021 Jul 7;51:e20200979. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20200979
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20200979
• ¹⁴ Saeidi K, Mirfakhraie S. Chemical composition and insecticidal activity Mentha piperita L. essential oil against the cowpea seed beetle Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J Entomol Acarol Res [Internet]. 2017 Dec 31 [cited 2025 Jun 22];49(3). https://doi.org/10.4081/jear.2017.6769
  » https://doi.org/10.4081/jear.2017.6769
• ¹⁵ Koundal R, Dolma SK, Chand G, Agnihotri VK, Reddy SGE. Chemical composition and insecticidal properties of essential oils against diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella L.). Toxin Rev. 2020 Oct 1;39(4):371-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/15569543.2018.1536668
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/15569543.2018.1536668
• ¹⁶ Li J, Tian B. Peppermint essential oil toxicity to the pear psylla (Hemiptera: Psyllidae) and potential applications in the field. J Econ Entomol. 2020 Jun 6;113(3):1307-14. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toaa009
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toaa009
• ¹⁷ El-Samahy MFM, Khafagy IF, El-Ghobary AMA. Efficiency of silica nanoparticles, two bioinsecticides, peppermint extract and insecticide in controlling cotton leafworm, Spodoptera littoralis Boisd. and their effects on some associated natural enemies in sugar beet fields. J Plant Prot Pathol. 2015 Sep 1;6(9):1221-30.
• ¹⁸ Budel JM, Wang M, Raman V, Zhao J, Khan SI, Rehman JU, et al. Essential oils of five Baccharis species: investigations on the chemical composition and biological activities. Molecules. 2018 Oct;23(10):2620. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23102620
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23102620
• ¹⁹ Pereira CB, Kanunfre CC, Farago PV, Borsato DM, Budel JM, de Noronha Sales Maia BHL, et al. Cytotoxic mechanism of Baccharis milleflora (Less.) DC. essential oil. Toxicol In Vitro. 2017 Aug 1;42:214-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2017.04.031
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2017.04.031
• ²⁰ Trombin-Souza M, Amaral W, Pascoalino JAL, Oliveira RA, Bizzo HR, et al. Chemical composition of the essential oils of Baccharis species from southern Brazil: a comparative study using multivariate statistical analysis. J Essent Oil Res. 2017 Sep 3;29(5):400-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/10412905.2017.1322007
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/10412905.2017.1322007
• ²¹ Souza MT de, Bernardi D, Melo DJ de, Zarbin PHG, Zawadneak MAC. Insecticidal and oviposition deterrent effects of essential oils of Baccharis spp. and histological assessment against Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Sci Rep. 2021 Feb 17;11(1):3944. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83557-7
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-83557-7
• ²² Ramos Campos F, Bressan J, Godoy Jasinski VC, Zuccolotto T, da Silva LE, Bonancio Cerqueira L. Baccharis (Asteraceae): chemical constituents and biological activities. Chem Biodivers. 2016;13(1):1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbdv.201400363
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/cbdv.201400363
• ²³ Eccel C, Zimmermann RC, Giraldi GT, Foerster LA, de Bitencourt Frasson V, Chaaban A, et al. Baccharis essential oils from the Atlantic Forest as sources of natural pesticides. Ind Crops Prod. 2024 Sep 1;215:118589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2024.118589
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2024.118589
• ²⁴ Balusu RR, Rhodes EM, Majumdar A, Cave RD, Liburd OE, Fadamiro HY. Biology, ecology, and management of Microtheca ochroloma (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in organic crucifer production. J Integr Pest Manag. 2017 Jan 1;8(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmx007
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmx007
• ²⁵ Manrique V, Montemayor CO, Cave RD, Skvarch EA, Smith BW. Effect of straw mulch on populations of Microtheca ochroloma (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) and ground predators in turnip Brassica rapa in Florida. Fla Entomol. 2010 Sep;93(3):407-11. https://doi.org/10.1653/024.093.0314
  » https://doi.org/10.1653/024.093.0314
• ²⁶ Rhodes EM, Liburd OE. Yellowmargined leaf beetle: a pest of cole crops: ENY-872/IN1049, 9/2014. EDIS. 2015 May 6;2015(3):4. https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-in1049-2015
  » https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-in1049-2015
• ²⁷ Venables WN, Ripley BD. Modern Applied Statistics with S. 4th ed. New York: Springer; 2002. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2
• ²⁸ Moral RA, Hinde J, Demétrio CGB. Half-normal plots and overdispersed models in R: the hnp package. J Stat Softw. 2017 Nov 13;81:1-23. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v081.i10
  » https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v081.i10
• ²⁹ Wheeler MW, Park RM, Bailer AJ. Comparing median lethal concentration values using confidence interval overlap or ratio tests. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2006 May 1;25(5):1441-4. https://doi.org/10.1897/05-320R.1
  » https://doi.org/10.1897/05-320R.1
• ³⁰ Ferreira EB, Cavalcanti PP, Nogueira DA. ExpDes: an R package for ANOVA and experimental designs. Appl Math. 2014 Nov 4;5(19):2952-8. https://doi.org/10.4236/am.2014.519280
  » https://doi.org/10.4236/am.2014.519280
• ³¹ Taghizadeh Saroukolai A, Nouri-Ganbalani G, Rafiee-Dastjerdi H, Hadian J. Antifeedant activity and toxicity of some plant essential oils to Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Plant Prot Sci. 2014 Dec 31;50(4):207-16. https://doi.org/10.17221/9/2014-PPS
  » https://doi.org/10.17221/9/2014-PPS
• ³² Pavela R. Acute, synergistic and antagonistic effects of some aromatic compounds on the Spodoptera littoralis Boisd. (Lep., Noctuidae) larvae. Ind Crops Prod. 2014 Sep 1;60:247-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2014.06.030
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2014.06.030
• ³³ Isman MB, Tak JH. Inhibition of acetylcholinesterase by essential oils and monoterpenoids: a relevant mode of action for insecticidal essential oils? Biopestic Int. 2017;13(2):71-8.
• ³⁴ Khorram MS, Nasabi NT, Jafarnia S, Khosroshahi S. The toxicity of selected monoterpene hydrocarbons as single compounds and mixtures against different developmental stages of Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J Entomol. 2011;8(5):404-16. https://doi.org/10.3923/je.2011.404.416
  » https://doi.org/10.3923/je.2011.404.416
• ³⁵ Pinto ML, Vella L, Agrò A. Adulticidal activity of essential oils of Mentha piperita L., Cupressus sempervirens L., and Eucalyptus globulus Labill. against the tomato leafminer Tuta absoluta Meyrick (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). J Entomol Zool Stud. 2020;8(6):1721-8.
• ³⁶ Jankowska M, Rogalska J, Wyszkowska J, Stankiewicz M. Molecular targets for components of essential oils in the insect nervous system-a review. Molecules. 2018 Jan;23(1):34. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23010034
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23010034
• ³⁷ Hung NH, Quan PM, Satyal P, Dai DN, Hoa VV, Huy NG, et al. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitory activities of essential oils from Vietnamese traditional medicinal plants. Molecules. 2022 Oct 20;27(20):7092. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27207092
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27207092
• ³⁸ Abdelgaleil SAM, Badawy MEI, Mohamed MIE, Shawir MS. Chemical composition and fumigant toxicity of essential oils isolated from Egyptian plants against stored product insects Sitophilus oryzae (L.) and Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). In: Navarro S, Banks HJ, Jayas DS, Bell CH, Noyes RT, Ferizli AG, Emekci M, Isikber AA, Alagusundaram K, editors. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products; 2012 Oct 15-19; Antalya, Turkey. Turkey: ARBER Professional Congress Services; 2012. p. 50-7.
• ³⁹ Rajkumar V, Gunasekaran C, Christy IK, Dharmaraj J, Chinnaraj P, Paul CA. Toxicity, antifeedant and biochemical efficacy of Mentha piperita L. essential oil and their major constituents against stored grain pest. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2019 May 1;156:138-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2019.02.016
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2019.02.016
• ⁴⁰ Cruz RCD, Silva SLCE, Souza IA, Gualberto SA, Carvalho KS, Santos FR, et al. Toxicological evaluation of essential oil from the leaves of Croton argyrophyllus (Euphorbiaceae) on Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) and Mus musculus (Rodentia: Muridae). J Med Entomol. 2017;54(4):985-93. https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjw239
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/jme/tjw239
• ⁴¹ Al-Ghanim KA, Krishnappa K, Pandiyan J, Nicoletti M, Gurunathan B, Govindarajan M. Insecticidal potential of Matricaria chamomilla's essential oil and its components (E)-β-farnesene, germacrene D, and α-bisabolol oxide A against agricultural pests, malaria, and Zika virus vectors. Agriculture. 2023;13(4):779. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040779
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040779
• ⁴² Wang Y, Zhang LT, Feng YX, Zhang D, Guo SS, Pang X, et al. Comparative evaluation of the chemical composition and bioactivities of essential oils from four spice plants (Lauraceae) against stored-product insects. Ind Crops Prod. 2019;140:111640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.111640
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.111640
• ⁴³ Ismail S. Sublethal effects of some essential oils on the developmental and reproduction of the Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval). Prog Chem Biochem Res. 2020 Nov 1;3(4):287-95. https://doi.org/10.22034/pcbr.2020.113629
  » https://doi.org/10.22034/pcbr.2020.113629
• ⁴⁴ Mahdavikia F, Saharkhiz MJ. Phytotoxic activity of essential oil and water extract of peppermint (Mentha × piperita L. CV. Mitcham). J Appl Res Med Aromat Plants. 2015 Dec 1;2(4):146-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmap.2015.09.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmap.2015.09.003
• ⁴⁵ Ibáñez MD, Blázquez MA. Phytotoxicity of essential oils on selected weeds: potential hazard on food crops. Plants (Basel). 2018 Dec;7(4):79. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants7040079
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/plants7040079
• ⁴⁶ Verdeguer M, Castañeda LG, Torres-Pagan N, Llorens-Molina JA, Carrubba A. Control of Erigeron bonariensis with Thymbra capitata, Mentha piperita, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, and Santolina chamaecyparissus essential oils. Molecules. 2020 Jan;25(3):562. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25030562
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25030562
• ⁴⁷ Gupta I, Singh R, Muthusamy S, Sharma M, Grewal K, Singh HP, et al. Plant essential oils as biopesticides: applications, mechanisms, innovations, and constraints. Plants (Basel). 2023 Aug 10;12(16):2916. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12162916
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12162916
• ⁴⁸ Popescu IE, Gostin IN, Blidar CF. An overview of the mechanisms of action and administration technologies of the essential oils used as green insecticides. Agriengineering. 2024 Apr 26;6(2):1195-217. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering6020068
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering6020068
• ⁴⁹ Assadpour E, Can Karaça A, Fasamanesh M, et al. Application of essential oils as natural biopesticides; recent advances. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2024;64(19):6477-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2023.2170317
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2023.2170317
• ⁵⁰ Mossa ATH. Green pesticides: essential oils as biopesticides in insect-pest management. J Environ Sci Technol. 2016;9(5):354-78. https://doi.org/10.3923/jest.2016.354.378
  » https://doi.org/10.3923/jest.2016.354.378
• ⁵¹ Pavela R, Benelli, G. Essential oils as ecofriendly biopesticides? Challenges and recent advances. Trends Plant Sci. 2016 Dec;21(12):1000-07. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2016.10.005
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2016.10.005
• ⁵² Sarmah K, Anbalagan T, Marimuthu M, Mariappan P, Angappan S, Vaithiyanathan S. Innovative formulation strategies for botanicaland essential oil-based insecticides. J Pest Sci. 2025 Jan;98:1-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-024-01846-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-024-01846-2
• ⁵³ Farhadi B, Amiri A, Pourabad RF, Bandani AR. Transgenerational effects of peppermint essential oil on life table parameters and antioxidant enzymes in Callosobruchus maculatus Sci Rep. 2025;15:20721. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-08563-5
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-08563-5
• ⁵⁴ Krzyżowski M, Baran B, Francikowski J. Intergenerational transmission of resistance of Callosobruchus maculatus to essential oil treatment. Molecules. 2021 Jul 27;26(15):4541. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26154541
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26154541
• ⁵⁵ Imdorf A, Bogdanov S, Ochoa RI, Calderone NW. Use of essential oils for the control of Varroa jacobsoni Oud. in honey bee colonies. Apidologie. 1999;30(2-3):209-28. https://doi.org/10.1051/apido:19990210
  » https://doi.org/10.1051/apido:19990210
• ⁵⁶ Ebert TA, Kevan PG, Bishop BL, Kevan SD, Downer RA. Oral toxicity of essential oils and organic acids fed to honey bees (Apis mellifera). J Apic Res. 2007 Jan 1;46(4):220-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.2007.11101398
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.2007.11101398
• ⁵⁷ Kavetsou E, Koutsoukos S, Daferera D, Polissiou MG, Karagiannis D, Perdikis DCh, et al. Encapsulation of Mentha pulegium essential oil in yeast cell microcarriers: an approach to environmentally friendly pesticides. J Agric Food Chem. 2019 May 1;67(17):4746-53. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.8b05149
  » https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.8b05149
• ⁵⁸ Narasimman M, Natesan V, Mayakrishnan V, Rajendran J, Venkatesan A, Kim SJ. Preparation and optimization of peppermint (Mentha piperita) essential oil nanoemulsion with effective herbal larvicidal, pupicidal, and ovicidal activity against Anopheles stephensi Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2022;23(11):1367-76. https://doi.org/10.2174/1389201023666211215125621
  » https://doi.org/10.2174/1389201023666211215125621
• ⁵⁹ Rajkumar V, Gunasekaran C, Paul CA, Dharmaraj J. Development of encapsulated peppermint essential oil in chitosan nanoparticles: characterization and biological efficacy against stored-grain pest control. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2020 Nov 1;170:104679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2020.104679
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2020.104679

• Editor-in-Chief:
  Paulo Vitor Farago

• Associate Editor:
  Renata Marino Romano

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  14 Sept 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  26 June 2025
• Accepted
  02 May 2026