MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410218650 · doi:10.1016/j.jspr.2025.102674

Chemical cues in grain storage: A review on semiochemical types, pest behavior, and control strategies

2025· review· en· W4410218650 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Stored Products Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSemiochemicalPEST analysisPest controlChemical controlBiologyIntegrated pest managementAgronomyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The excessive reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides has led to adverse environmental impacts, prompting the exploration of sustainable alternatives like semiochemicals (pheromones and allelochemicals) for pest management. These chemical compounds offer innovative approaches to controlling stored product insects, which pose significant threats to global food security by infesting and degrading grains and stored food products. This review delves into different kinds of semiochemicals, their action mechanism, and their applications in insect control methods, including mass trapping, mating disruption, attract-and-kill, and push-and-pull strategies. Recent advancements at the molecular level, particularly in understanding pheromone receptors, have enhanced insights into insect recognition and response to chemical signals. Different kinds of semiochemicals and their roles in managing stored grain pests belonging to Coleoptera , Lepidoptera , and Psocoptera are discussed. Additionally, the effectiveness of various pheromone-based traps, such as sticky, funnel and cone, pitfall, and light-activated traps, in grain storage monitoring are discussed, along with insights from field and laboratory case studies. Integration of pheromone traps with biological, chemical, and mechanical control methods is examined to highlight the potential for holistic pest management strategies. Despite their effectiveness, challenges such as environmental variability and species-specific responses persist. Future directions emphasize innovations in pheromone synthesis, trap design, and interdisciplinary approaches to enhance scalability and applicability across diverse storage ecosystems. This review underscores the critical role of semiochemical-mediated techniques in reducing stored product losses, offering a sustainable and effective alternative to chemical pesticides. • Covers semiochemicals, including pheromones and allelochemicals. in pest ecology and behavior. • Outlines pest control strategies like attracticides, mass trapping, and push-pull. • Reviews trap types and effectiveness in stored product pest monitoring. • Discusses combining pheromones with other methods and related challenges. • Summarizes global trends and future directions in semiochemical pest control.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it