Next Article in Journal
Analysis of Multinational Builders’ Corruption Based on Evolutionary Game from the Perspective of International Reputation
Previous Article in Journal
UAS-Based Thermal Photogrammetry for Microscale Surface Urban Heat Island Intensity Assessment in Support of Sustainable Urban Development (A Case Study of Lyulin Housing Complex, Sofia City, Bulgaria)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/su16051767
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Enhancing Food Grains Storage Systems through Insect Pest Detection and Control Measures for Maize and Beans: Ensuring Food Security Post-COVID-19 Tanzania

by
Maneno Y. Chidege
1,2,*,
Pavithravani B. Venkataramana
1 and
Patrick A. Ndakidemi
1
1
The Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology (NM-AIST), +255, Arusha P.O. Box 447, Tanzania
2
Tanzania Plant Health and Pesticides Authority (TPHPA), +255, Arusha P.O. Box 3024, Tanzania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(5), 1767; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051767
Submission received: 8 October 2023 / Revised: 16 January 2024 / Accepted: 19 January 2024 / Published: 21 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Food)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
COVID-19 poses a significant threat to the present and future of mankind. The emergence of diverse strains during the pandemic creates uncertainty regarding their disappearance or resurgence. Lockdown measures and travel restrictions impact national and household food systems, hindering the movement of people and goods. Effective COVID-19 control requires science-based preventive measures and consideration of food availability. In Tanzania, resource-constrained farmers rely on the self-storage of food crops. Precise pest control information and tailored detection/storage systems are essential for preserving major staple foods such as maize and beans, which face frequent infestation by beetles and moths. Traditional methods used before the pandemic are insufficient compared to advanced global alternatives. This paper reviewed about 175 publications from different databases, dated from 1984 to 2023 (2023 to 2014 = 134, 2013 to 2004 = 26 and 2003 to 1984 = 15), assessing storage management for maize and beans. Identifying gaps between Tanzania and global advancements aiming to empower farming communities with the latest technologies and ensuring food security amid the pandemic.

1. Introduction

Cereals and legumes play a crucial role in ensuring food availability, particularly in developing nations like Eastern Africa [1,2]. Legumes, in particular, are valuable sources of proteins, vitamins, minerals, and dietary fibres [3,4]. The global and Tanzania legume consumption is estimated at 6.5 and 16.2 kg/capita/year, respectively (Figure 1). In the regions of East and Southern Africa, Phaseolus vulgaris, commonly known as beans, holds significant importance both as a food crop and a cash crop [5]. It is worth noting that more than 34% of rural smallholder farmers cultivate beans, with a substantial portion, ranging from 16% to 41%, being sold for income generation.
Maize (Zea mays L.), on the other hand, holds significant importance in Sub-Saharan Africa, serving as a staple food, animal feed, source of income, and raw material for various industries [6,7]. Globally, maize is consumed at an estimate of 45.1 kg/capita/year while about 46.8 kg/capita/year is consumed in Tanzania (Figure 2). In Tanzania alone, over 7.4 million farmers are engaged in maize cultivation [8,9]. The global concerns of food security, hunger, and increasing poverty levels, especially in developing nations, highlight the pressing need for effective agricultural strategies [10]. While much emphasis has been placed on crop production, it is crucial to address the significant postharvest losses experienced in developing countries [11].
Postharvest loss is predominantly caused by insect pests ranging from 30–40% in cereals and 30–73% in legumes [5,12,13]. Notably, the major pests responsible for these losses include Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky, 1855 (Coleoptera: Curculionidea): Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae), and Rhyzopertha dominica (Fabricius, 1792) for maize, and Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius, 1775) for legumes [14]. Addressing these pest infestations is crucial to mitigate the significant losses encountered during the post-harvest stage.
In addition to the Ukraine war and global climate change, the world is currently under threat from SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19), a disease that has profound implications for the health, education, and socioeconomic conditions of agricultural communities [15]. The implementation of lockdowns, social restrictions, and travel bans poses a significant risk to global food supply chains [16,17]. Policies aimed at preventing the spread of the disease also impact food production strategies [15,18]. Food security, which is as crucial as public health, hinges on the availability of staple foods within communities affected by social restrictions aimed at combating the virus [15]. Insufficient measures to prevent COVID-19 impede agricultural production and distribution. The global disparity in food availability and pricing further exacerbates food scarcity, particularly in rural areas [10]. The economic impact of the disease during the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in widespread starvation [19]. This was greatly contributed by the rise of food prices [20]. It is essential to establish effective storage and protection systems for food products during times of crisis, such as the ongoing global pandemic [21].
This review of various databases (Figure 3 and Figure 4) aims to examine the global advancements in maize and bean storage systems, recent methods of storage insect pest detection, and pest management while identifying gaps within the Tanzanian context. In so doing, the review will contribute to SDG 2, which emphasizes ending hunger, achieving food security, improving nutrition, and promoting sustainable agriculture. This information will assist rural communities in acquiring knowledge on how to store their own staple foods during crisis situations (Figure 5).

2. Common Storage Insect Pests of Maize

A multitude of insect species worldwide can inflict damage on maize grains, with the majority belonging to the coleopteran and lepidopteran groups [22]. Among these species are rice weevils (Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)), lesser grain borers (Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae)), large grain borers (Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera; Bostrichidae)), maize weevils (Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)), khapra beetles (Trogoderma granarium Everts (Insecta: Coleoptera: Dermestidae), red flour beetles (Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), granary weevils (Sitophilus granarius (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), cigarette beetles (Lasioderma serricorne (F.) (Coleoptera: Anobiidae), drugstore beetles (Stegobium paniceum (Linnaeus, 1758) (Coleoptera: Ptinidae), Angoumois grain moths (Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), rice moths (Corcyra cephalonica (Stainton) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), sawtoothed grain beetles (Oryzaephilus surinamensis (L.) (Coleoptera: Silvanidae), long-headed flour beetles (Latheticus oryzae Waterhouse (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae), confused flour beetles (Tribolium confusum Jacquelin Du Val (Coleoptera Tenebrionidae), large flour beetles (Tribolium destructor Uyttenboogaart (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), Indian meal moths (Plodia interpunctella (Hubner 1857) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), yellow mealworms (Tenebrio molitor (Linnaeus) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), flat grain beetles (Cryptolestes pusillus (Schönherr) (Coleoptera: Laemophloeidae), and almond moths (Cadra cautella (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). In East Africa, P. truncatus and S. zeamais are the most destructive species [23]. Both species, P. truncatus and S. zeamais, are pre and post-harvest primary coleopteran pests of maize inflicting grain loss between 5% and 45% during storage [24]. If left unchecked, these storage pests can cause substantial losses in both the quality and quantity of maize grains [25].

3. Common Storage Insect Pests of Beans

The most significant insect pests that affect bean storage include Chinese bruchid (Linnaeus, 1758) (Callosobruchus chinensis) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), Pulse beetle (Callosobruchus maculatus) (Fabricius 1775) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), Bean weevil (Callosobruchus analis (Fabricius, 1781) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), Bean weevil (Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say, 1831) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), Mexican Bean Weevil (Zabrotes subfasciatus) (Bohemann, 1833) (Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae, Bruchinae), Bruchidius incarnatus (Boheman, 1833) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), Broadbean seed beetle (Bruchus rufimanus (Boheman, 1833); Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), Bruchus dentipes (Baudi 1886) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), Bruchidius quinqueguttatus (Olivier, 1795) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), Bruchus emarginatus (Allard, 1868) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), Bruchus ervi (Frölich, 1799) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae, Bruchus lentis (Frölich, 1799) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae, and Bruchus pisorum (Linnaeus, 1758) Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae [5,26,27]. Among these pests, C. chinensis is particularly damaging and can cause losses of up to 50% in beans, peas, and lentils [12].

4. Cereals and Legumes Storage Systems

On-farm storage systems are widely employed in many developing countries and play a crucial role in ensuring continuous food availability throughout the year [28]. These systems encompass various structures and techniques, such as fireplaces, cribs, roofs, woven granaries, mesh or net structures, bins, underground pits, and wooden platforms [29,30]. Such storage methods are particularly suitable for maize grains that have been stored intact with the ear corn. In Asia and Mexico, maize is often stored on elevated rafters to reduce moisture content and deter insect infestations [31]. Wrapping bamboo and wooden poles with wire mesh or steel netting is another common practice for storage bins in China and Central America [32]. Woven granaries made from bamboo and straws are also widely used in Asia, Africa, and Latin America [29].
Dunkel [33] provides a description of underground grain storage pits coated with straw or woven bamboo. In India, traditional grain storage structures such as Kanaja (mud and cow dung smeared bamboo structure), kothi (built store), sanduka (wooden boxes for cereals and legumes), utrani (burnt clay pots), and hagevu (underground pit of stones or straws) are widely utilized [34]. In order to enhance grain storage conditions, mud clay pots coated with cement or bitumen are also employed [28]. Additionally, in Nepal, bins made of mud sandwiched between polyethylenes are utilized [28]. However, these storage structures have the drawback of occupying space even when empty.
Polypropylene synthetic bags and sisal sacks are widely employed and highly beneficial to farming communities. These bags offer portability for both storage and transportation purposes, occupying minimal space when filled with grain as well as when empty [30]. Their versatility and convenience make them valuable tools in agricultural storage practices.
Non-hermetic storage systems, such as self-built household silos, community storage buildings, and warehouses, are commonly found in many developing countries. These storage facilities can be complemented with various pesticides to eliminate any existing insect pests. However, non-hermetic storage solutions lack an airtight barrier, making them ineffective in eradicating insects already present in the grains [35]. Although these storage systems offer protection against theft, their inability to create an air barrier limits their efficacy in pest control.
Hermetic storage systems are designed to modify the atmospheric conditions within airtight silos or bags, reducing oxygen levels and increasing CO2 concentrations to inhibit the respiration of storage insects [36]. These systems have been proven effective in preserving the quality and quantity of various grains, including maize [37], cowpea [38], and rice [39], across different agroecological settings. Airtight bags, among the available storage solutions, are both technically and economically feasible for farmers [40]. These hermetic bags typically consist of polyethylene bags (80-micron thickness) layered between polypropylene or traditional bags with capacities ranging from 25 kg to 100 kg [41]. While metal silos are a more expensive option due to the cost of galvanized iron sheets, labor, and transportation [42,43]. Hermetic bags are susceptible to punctures caused by sharp objects, grains, and rodent damage during transport or storage. Another alternative is the silo-bag, a tube-like structure made of a plastic bag capable of storing approximately 200 metric tonnes of maize, wheat, or soybean [44]. In addition, other forms of hermetic metal silos include cocoons which are widely used in Rwanda, Ghana, and the Philippines for storage of shelled and unshelled maize. This type is modified to absorb gases against the deformation of the storage system [45].
In Tanzania, traditional storage options such as open barrels, jute or polypropylene sacks/bags, and Vihenge bins were commonly used before and during the COVID-19 pandemic [1,46]. The duration of grain storage typically ranged from three months to a year, depending on factors like crop quantity, storage capacity, and farmer preferences [1]. However, new storage technologies like Zerofly bags [47] and airtight bags [48] have emerged in some regions of East Africa. Although these technologies provide effective protection against storage pests, the knowledge and skills of farmers in their proper usage vary significantly across farming communities in the region. Additionally, many sellers promote and market these new technologies without considering the need for farmer training on the correct application. The current understanding and adoption of these advanced technologies, as well as their appropriate implementation in Tanzania, remain inadequately explored.

5. Storage Pest Detection Methods

Accurate and timely pest detection in storage facilities is crucial for effective pest control. The advancements in pest detection technologies globally have encompassed a range of tools and techniques, from simple to sophisticated. However, there is a notable knowledge gap in storage pest detection methods specific to East Africa. In Tanzania for example, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, pest infestations in storage were primarily identified through sensory evaluation, such as smell and visual inspection of maize for signs of decay, along with long-term temperature monitoring in the storage containers [49]. Recently, [50] studied acoustic, pitfall trap, and visual surveys of stored product insect pests in Kenya and found them to be useful detection methods. Despite the usefulness smell and visual inspection are time-consuming and susceptible to grain losses. Acoustic methods have been developed and are widely used on a global scale for detecting infestations of internally feeding insects. These methods include both expensive commercial devices [51] and low-cost electronic sound-sensing detection devices [52]. These innovative insect detection techniques offer automated pest detection systems for granaries and warehouses. Deep learning approaches, machine learning techniques, image processing techniques, and opto-acoustic techniques are among the methods mentioned in the literature [52].
Chen, et al. [53] conducted a study on an automatic pest detection system based on YOLOv4, a classic single-stage deep learning object detection model, and found it to be more than 95% accurate in detecting beetles and weevils in storage facilities. Another study by [54] demonstrated the effectiveness of improved YOLOv5 in detecting and identifying multiple pests in granaries. Nyabako, et al. [55] concluded that machine learning can be used to predict P. truncatus populations and associated grain damage.
Modern insect detection methods, such as soft X-ray detection, near-infrared spectroscopy, laser detection, and convolutional neural networks (CNNs), have also been shown to be effective in detecting storage pests [56,57,58,59]. Some authors have illustrated modern machine learning models that not only detect but also estimate insect populations in storage facilities for decision-making purposes. These models include Region-based Convolutional Neural Networks (R-CNN) [60], Fast Region-based Convolutional Neural Networks (Fast-RCNN) [60,61], Modified Dilated Residual Networks (MDRN) [62], RetinaNet [63], Single Shot MultiBox (SSD) [64], and U-net-like frequency-enhanced saliency (FESNet) [65]. An improved extended residual network detection using computer vision has also been proposed by [66]. However, Ref. [1] tested only a few of these methods in some East African countries, including Tanzania, despite their limited use by smallholder farmers in the country. While these novel insect detection techniques offer precision and timeliness, they are expensive and challenging to detect immature insects hidden within grains.

6. Management of Storage Insect Pests

In stores, insect pests can be effectively controlled using a range of methods including biological, chemical, botanical, and cultural approaches, as well as through host-plant resistance, irradiation, hermetic bags and silos, Zerofly bags, silicon dioxide, chlorine dioxide, ozone gas, radio frequencies, diatomaceous earth, Long-Lasting Insecticide-incorporated Netting (LLIN), and essential oils derived from various plants. These methods can be employed individually or in combination, depending on factors such as the complexity of the pest population, farmers’ knowledge, and affordability. Before the incidence of COVID-19 farmers in Tanzania were only using synthetic pesticides such as organophosphate and synthetic pyrethroids, botanicals, hermetic bags, metal silos and diatomaceous earths [67]. The selection and application of these control techniques for combating storage insect pests usually vary considerably depending on the specific commodity and the farming community involved. Each method has its advantages and limitations, and their suitability is often influenced by factors such as the type of pest, local environmental conditions, available resources, and regulatory considerations. Therefore, an integrated approach that combines multiple strategies tailored to the specific circumstances is often recommended for effective and sustainable pest management in storage facilities.

6.1. Chemical Control

The effective control of storage insect pests in different commodities often requires the use of specific active ingredients, either individually or in combination. Ref. [68] extensively discussed the combined use of pirimiphos-methyl and permethrin or fenitrothion and fenvalerate to control the pest complex consisting of P. truncatus, Sitophilus sp., and T. castaneum. Gourgouta, et al. [69] found that a commercial cypermethrin formulation was effective against S. oryzae, O. surinamensis, R. dominica, and P. truncatus infesting wheat and maize. Various fumigants have also been employed for grain fumigation to combat storage pests. Phosphine, sulfuryl fluoride, ethyl formate, methyl bromide, carbonyl sulfide, propylene oxide, and allyl isothiocyanate have been used for this purpose. Phosphine and methyl bromide are commonly used and effective for large-scale fumigation of storage facilities [70,71]. In addition to fumigants, alternative control methods have been explored. Ozone gas (O3) has demonstrated efficacy against phosphine-resistant strains of red flour beetles, saw-toothed grain beetles, maize weevils, and rice weevils [72,73]. Chlorine dioxide has shown effectiveness against red flour beetles, lesser grain borers, saw-toothed grain beetles, maize weevils, and rice weevils [74,75,76]. Ref. [77] also found that a combination of wood vinegar and the chemical insecticide deltamethrin was 90% effective against Sitophilus oryzae. It is important to note that the choice of control method and active ingredient depends on the target pest species, the type of commodity being protected, and factors such as safety, environmental impact, and regulatory considerations. Further research and evaluation are needed to determine the optimal combination and application techniques for efficient and sustainable pest management in storage facilities.

6.2. Botanicals

Botanicals contain active substances that are effective in fighting storage pests. In many plants, especially essential oils, they have insecticidal properties [78]. These plants are used for the purpose of keeping pests out of stored grains. In the past, dried or ground plants have been mixed with stored grains. [79] collected and examined 59 pesticidal herbs in Sub-Saharan African countries and found Capsicum annuum L., Aloe vera Miller, Croton macrostachyus Hochst, Boswellia papyrifera, Kleinia spp., Vernonia amygdalina Del., Euphorbia spp., and Carissa schimperi to be effective against storage pests [79]. Farmers use them as insecticides in the form of plant extracts and powders to protect storage insect pests such as Sitophilus oryzae, Sitophilus zeamais, Callosobruchus chinensis, C. maculates, Tribolium castaneum, Rhyzopertha dominica, and Trogoderma granarium Everts [80].
According to the findings by [81], powders and essential oils (EOs) of Artemisia absinthium aerial parts, Melia azedarach fruits, Trigonella foenum-graecum seeds, and Peganum harmala seeds can fight adult T. castaneum in cereal grains. [82] discovered that neem seed, leaf powder, and garlic can lower rice weevil populations by more than 65%.
Essential oils (EOs) extracted from various plants have shown great potential as insecticides against storage insect pests, with diversified mechanisms of action and safety for mammals and non-target organisms [83]. These plant bioactives exhibit fumigant, contact toxicity, repellent, antifeedant, ovicidal, oviposition deterrent, and larvicidal activities. They can also interfere with neurotransmitters involved in nerve impulses, such as acetylcholine esterase (AChE), octopamine, and amino butyric acid (ABA). The extraction method of essential oils can influence their toxicity against stored insect pests. [84] found that ultrasound extraction of Ocimum basilicum resulted in toxicity against adult Sitophilus zeamais. Ref. [85] tested the toxicity of nanoencapsulated Eucalyptus largiflorens on the cowpea weevil, C. maculatus, and observed persistent and toxic. Mint and rosemary essential oils were found to affect the mating fitness of C. maculatus [86]. Ref. [87] discovered that lemongrass essential oil and citral had a significant antifeedant effect on C. maculatus. A comprehensive review on stored-product pest management [88], highlighted the efficacy of essential oils such as eucalyptol, camphor, linalool, eugenol, limonene, terpinen-4-ol, menthone, and anethole in terms of fumigation and contact toxicity. Ref. [89] investigated essential oil-based nanoemulsions of Carlina acaulis L., Mentha longifolia (L.) Huds., and Hazomalania voyronii (Jum.) and found them to be effective against S. oryzae. A review conducted by [90] revealed that EOs from 121 species and 26 families exhibit efficacy against C. maculatus. These EOs primarily consist of terpenoids and sesquiterpenoids, acting as fumigants, contact toxins, and repellents. Despite the effectiveness of EOs against storage pests, their practical application in Tanzania is still limited due to a lack of appropriate dosage, insufficient knowledge, and limited availability. Further research and exploration are needed to determine the optimal application methods and formulations for the utilization of EOs in storage pest management in Tanzania.

6.3. Long-Lasting Insecticide-Incorporated Netting (LLIN)

The use of LLIN technology, initially developed for controlling disease vectors in tropical regions, has recently been tested in agriculture [91]. While previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of LLIN against storage beetles, it has also been utilized as an insect trap in crop plants and for managing nuisance pests in residential settings [92]. In a study by [93], the effects of LLIN were compared between immature and mature T. castaneum and T. variabile. The researchers found that the movement and dispersal abilities of the adult beetles were significantly reduced compared to the larvae when exposed to LLIN. This research highlights the potential of LLIN technology as a versatile tool for pest management, not only in storage environments but also in agricultural crops and residential settings. Further studies are needed to explore its efficacy against various pests and optimize its application strategies in different contexts.

6.4. Insects Growth Regulator (IGR)

Methoprene and pyriproxyfen are insect growth regulators (IGRs) commonly used in agricultural systems for pest control [94]. These IGRs have been tested in combination with deltamethrin and cyfluthrin against storage pests, with a particular focus on immature insects [95]. IGRs are typically insecticides that target insect juvenile hormones (JH) and can include hormone analogues [96]. Their mode of action involves affecting the growth, development, metamorphosis, and chitin synthesis of immature insects [97]. The different modes of action of IGRs are classified as juvenile hormone agonists, ecdysteroid agonists, and chitin synthesis inhibitors [98]. These insect growth regulators have a significant impact on insect growth, reproduction, and behavior [99]. Studies by [94] have shown the effectiveness of methoprene against pests such as R. dominica, T. castaneum, and S. cerealella in maize, paddy, and wheat. Methoprene has also demonstrated efficacy against P. interpunctella, T. castaneum, C. ferrugineus, and R. dominica, leading to a disruption in the development (metamorphosis) of immature insects and a subsequent reduction in insect populations on infested commodities [100,101]. Overall, IGRs, particularly methoprene, have shown promise in controlling storage pests by targeting their growth, development, and reproduction, leading to effective population reduction. Further research is needed to explore their application in different pest management strategies and agricultural contexts.

6.5. Cultural Control

The implementation of certain measures and changes in storage environments and practices can significantly reduce the likelihood of infestation by primary storage pests such as S. zeamais and P. truncatus. These methods include removing residues from the previous harvest and regularly adjusting the ambient temperature [102,103]. Increasing the airflow rate during aeration has been found to have a greater impact on reducing populations of adult Sitophilus spp. and R. dominica [104]. Ref. [105] demonstrated that controlling S. granaries and C. chinensis can be achieved by using hypoxic nitrogen at concentrations ranging from 99% to 100% in silos. The resistance of host plants to storage pests is influenced by biochemical and physical characteristics, such as high phenolic concentrations [106]. Ref. [107] investigated the susceptibility of different maize genotypes to the larger grain borer and found that protein content is an important trait determining maize grain susceptibility to this pest. Loneliness has been shown to affect the life expectancy of male and female Callosobruchus spp. [86]. Additionally, periodic disturbance of maize grains and beans can effectively suppress populations of storage pests such as S. zeamais and A. obtectus by more than 90% [108]. By implementing these measures and understanding the factors influencing susceptibility in host plants and changes in storage environments, it is possible to mitigate the infestation of primary storage pests and enhance pest management strategies in storage facilities.

6.6. Biological Control

Teretrius nigrescens, a predator, has been proven to be highly beneficial in controlling P. truncatus populations in various countries, including Togo, Kenya, Benin, Ghana, Tanzania, and Malawi [109]. In the case of S. zeamais, several studies have been conducted to identify potential bio-control agents, with one standout candidate being Theocolax elegans, a small wasp (1–2 mm) that targets primary grain pests such as Sitophilus spp., R. dominica, S. paniceum, Callosobruchus spp., and S. cerealella [110]. Interactions between Beauveria bassiana and Isaria fumosorosea were found to be more than 66% effective against weevils, specifically Sitophilus spp. [111]. Recent research by [112] demonstrated that M. anisopliae and I. fumosorosea are highly effective against S. granarius and S. oryzae, resulting in 84–90% mortality rates. Ref. [113] reported that M. anisopliae and Diatomaceous earth (DE) exhibited remarkable efficacy, causing more than 95% mortality in insects such as R. dominica, S. oryzae, and T. confusum. These studies highlight the potential of bio-control agents and entomopathogenic fungi in the management of storage pests. By harnessing the predatory abilities of insects like T. nigrescens, the parasitic nature of wasps such as Theocolax elegans, and the effectiveness of entomopathogenic fungi like Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae, it is possible to develop environmentally friendly and sustainable approaches for pest control in grain storage facilities.

6.7. Hermetic Storage

Hermetic storage technology is a method that involves creating a sealed storage environment where carbon dioxide (CO2) accumulates, and oxygen levels are depleted, creating an inhospitable condition for the survival of insects and fungi [45,114,115]. In a sealed storage condition for maize grains, insects and fungi consume the available oxygen, leading to unfavorable conditions for their survival [48]. An on-farm trial conducted by Likhayo, et al. [116] in Naivasha and Nakuru, Kenya, demonstrated the efficacy of hermetic storage. They observed that weight losses of maize grains were only 1.5% and 1.8% in metal silos and super Grain IV-R bags, respectively, compared to a substantial 32% in polypropylene bags after 270 days of storage. This finding highlights the high efficacy of hermetic storage in preserving grain quality. Ref. [117] tested the effectiveness of Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bags in Benin, Ghana, and Burkina Faso. They found that PICS bags achieved 95–100% mortality of adult P. truncatus and S. zeamais, indicating their efficacy in controlling these pests. In the study by [47], Zerofly bags were evaluated for their effectiveness against S. oryzae, T. castaneum, and R. dominica. The results showed that these bags provided a 99% mortality rate in less than three hours, demonstrating their ability to protect maize grains from storage insect pests. Furthermore, Deltamethrin-infused Zerofly bags were found to be highly effective in controlling stored insect pests. Ref. [6] evaluated different hermetic bag storage methods and found that Zerofly hermetic bags, PICS bags, and non-hermetic Zerofly bags were highly effective in controlling insects and aflatoxin in maize grains. A study conducted by [118] investigated the efficacy of PICS bags and metal silos over a seven-month storage period. The results showed that both PICS bags and metal silos were highly effective in controlling the storage of insect pests. Collectively, these studies demonstrate the effectiveness of hermetic storage technologies, such as PICS bags, Zerofly bags, and metal silos, in controlling the storage of insect pests and preserving grain quality over extended periods of storage. These methods provide valuable options for farmers to mitigate post-harvest losses and ensure food security.

6.8. Inert Substances

Inert substances, such as diatomaceous earth (DE), amorphous silicon dioxide, and diamond dust, have been observed to cause cuticular abrasion and absorb lipids in insect cuticles [119]. Ref. [120] conducted a study investigating the synergistic effects of Spinosad, diatomaceous earth, and Trichoderma harzianum against S. oryzae. The combination was found to be effective in controlling the insect population. In a similarly designed study, Saeed, Wakil, Farooq, Shakeel, Arain and Shakeel [119] demonstrated the effectiveness of combining M. anisopliae and diatomaceous earth (specifically Grain-Guard) against Latheticus paeta, C. ferrugineus, R. dominica, and T. castaneum. Agrafioti [121] conducted research on silicon dioxide (SiO2) coated insect-proof nets and their effectiveness against S. oryzae. The study found a 100% reduction in the insect population after seven days of exposure to the nets. Ref. [122] tested several inert substances and found them to be effective against khapra beetle (T. granarium). Fields [123] found that pea-protein-treated grains resulted in a few C. ferrugineus, S. oryzae, S. zeamais, T. castaneum, and T. confusum. The majority of these substances showed advantageous effects in reducing the T. granarium population. The use of inert substances, such as diatomaceous earth, amorphous silicon dioxide, and diamond dust, either alone or in combination with other control agents, has been shown to be effective in controlling various storage insect pests. These findings contribute to the development of alternative and environmentally friendly approaches for pest management in storage systems.

6.9. Mass Trapping

Pheromones can be utilized for monitoring and controlling stored-product insects [124]. Savoldelli and Trematerra [125], review indicated pheromones to be a promising tool for monitoring and control through mass-trapping and mating-disruption of stored-product insect pests. Food oils have been utilized as kairomones to attract adult T. castaneum beetles. The pheromones, specifically 4,8-dimethyldecanal, and the kairomone properties of food oils have been found to significantly impact the trapping of T. castaneum adults and the emergence of their progeny, providing valuable insights into the chemical ecology and behavior of these storage pests [126]. Fargo [127] showed that differences in insect species, grain temperatures, and trapping duration can affect trap catches during the estimation of insect abundance in stores.

6.10. Ionizing Radiation

Ionizing radiation is a well-established method employed for sterilizing, eradicating, or preventing the emergence of insect pests in food products. By inducing oxidative stress and causing DNA damage, ionizing radiation effectively eliminates infestations. Various sources of ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays from cobalt-60 and cesium-137, high-energy electrons, X-rays, and UV radiation, are commonly utilized for this purpose in the food industry [128]. In the case of P. interpunctella, [129] discovered that neutron irradiation proved to be an effective means of control. Another promising approach is radiofrequency heating, as demonstrated by [130], which allows for pest control through the application of heat without leaving behind chemical residues. While many management options have been extensively researched and implemented against storage pests in sub-Saharan Africa and other regions, their application in Tanzania remains limited, highlighting the need to bridge this gap in knowledge and practice.

7. Conclusions and Prospect

Finally, this review emphasizes the importance of improving storage practices for staple foods in developing countries like Tanzania, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to ensure food availability for smallholder farming communities. The grain storage systems, pest detection techniques, and control practices for maize and beans, which are the main staple foods in Tanzania, are summarized. The review highlights that traditional methods were predominantly used for pest detection and control in Tanzania before and during COVID-19, while more advanced techniques and technologies are available globally.
The document underscores the need for an agricultural extension system in Tanzania to address the gap in pest detection and control measures in storage facilities, drawing from the global outlook and adopting modern approaches. It also suggests that control measures effective against one pest can be tested and applied to closely related pests, as seen in other regions. This information provides valuable guidance for developing comprehensive storage insect control strategies targeting stored maize and beans in Tanzania.
By implementing these measures, Tanzania can enhance its food security and ensure a steady food supply beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. The tabulated information (Table 1) presented in this review serves as a valuable resource, broadening the range of options for grain storage pest control measures and aiding in the development of effective and sustainable pest management packages for stored maize and beans in the country.

Author Contributions

M.Y.C., P.B.V. and P.A.N. conceptualization, M.Y.C. literature search, M.Y.C., P.B.V. and P.A.N. original draft preparation, review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Tanzania Plant Health and Pesticides Authority (TPHPA) and Nelson Mandela—African Institution of Science and Technology (NM-AIST) workers for their support and encouragement.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Kiobia, D.; Tumbo, S.D.; Cantillo, J.; Rohde, B.; Mallikarjunan, P.; Mankin, R. Characterization of sounds in maize produced by internally feeding insects: Investigations to develop inexpensive devices for detection of Prostephanus truncatus (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) and Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in small-scale storage facilities in sub-Saharan Africa. Fla. Entomol. 2015, 98, 405–409. [Google Scholar]
  2. Mutungi, C.; Tungu, J.; Amri, J.; Gaspar, A.; Abass, A. Nutritional benefits of improved post-harvest handling practices for maize and common beans in Northern Tanzania: A quantitative farm-level assessment. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2022, 95, 101918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Broughton, W.J.; Hernández, G.; Blair, M.; Beebe, S.; Gepts, P.; Vanderleyden, J. Beans (Phaseolus spp.)–model food legumes. Plant Soil 2003, 252, 55–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Castro-Guerrero, N.A.; Isidra-Arellano, M.C.; Mendoza-Cozatl, D.G.; Valdés-López, O. Common bean: A legume model on the rise for unraveling responses and adaptations to iron, zinc, and phosphate deficiencies. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mesele, T.; Dibaba, K.; Mendesil, E. Farmers’ perceptions of Mexican bean weevil, Zabrotes subfasciatus (Boheman), and pest management practices in Southern Ethiopia. Adv. Agric. 2019, 2019, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mutambuki, K.; Likhayo, P. Efficacy of different hermetic bag storage technologies against insect pests and aflatoxin incidence in stored maize grain. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2021, 111, 499–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Nwosu, L.C. Maize and the maize weevil: Advances and innovations in postharvest control of the pest. Food Qual. Saf. 2018, 2, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Edson, S.A.; Akyoo, A.M. Implication of quality uncertainty on market exchange: The case of seed industry in Kilolo district, Tanzania. Emerald Open Res. 2021, 2, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mutungi, C.; Muthoni, F.; Bekunda, M.; Gaspar, A.; Kabula, E.; Abass, A. Physical quality of maize grain harvested and stored by smallholder farmers in the Northern highlands of Tanzania: Effects of harvesting and pre-storage handling practices in two marginally contrasting agro-locations. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2019, 84, 101517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Workie, E.; Mackolil, J.; Nyika, J.; Ramadas, S. Deciphering the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on food security, agriculture, and livelihoods: A review of the evidence from developing countries. Curr. Res. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 2, 100014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Keneni, G.; Bekele, E.; Getu, E.; Imtiaz, M.; Damte, T.; Mulatu, B.; Dagne, K. Breeding food legumes for resistance to storage insect pests: Potential and limitations. Sustainability 2011, 3, 1399–1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Endshaw, W.; Hiruy, B. The distribution, frequency of occurrence, and the status of stored faba bean insect pests in relation to food security in Farta District, North West Ethiopia. Cogent Food Agric. 2020, 6, 1832400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Quellhorst, H.; Athanassiou, C.G.; Bruce, A.; Scully, E.D.; Morrison III, W.R. Temperature-mediated competition between the invasive larger grain borer (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) and the cosmopolitan maize weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Environ. Entomol. 2020, 49, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kumar, D.; Kalita, P. Reducing postharvest losses during storage of grain crops to strengthen food security in developing countries. Foods 2017, 6, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Darma, S.; Darma, D.C. Food security management for Indonesia: The strategy during the Covid-19 pandemic. Manag. Dyn. Knowl. Econ. 2020, 8, 371. [Google Scholar]
  16. Maggo, D. Impact of COVID-19 on Smallholder Farmers–Insights from India. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 2020. Available online: https://www.wbcsd.org/Overview/News-Insights/WBCSD-insights/Impact-of-COVID-19-on-smallholder-farmers-in-India (accessed on 20 June 2021).
  17. Mehra, R.; Kumar, H.; Kumar, N.; Kumar, S. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Food Supply Chain (FSC) and Human Health. In Integrated Management-Standing up for a Sustainable World; Eureka Publications: West Wickham, UK, 2021; pp. 311–319. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ilmi, P.I.; Jhauharotul, M.; Eka, H.A. The Impact of Health Awareness, Food Safety Attention, and Attitude Factors towards Consumer Purchase Interest of Food Products Post-Rise of COVID-19. Russ. J. Agric. Socio-Econ. Sci. 2020, 122, 332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Arthur, E.; Obeng-Akrofi, G.; Awafo, E.A.; Akowuah, J.O. Comparative assessment of three storage methods for preserving maize grain to enhance food security post COVID-19. Sci. Afr. 2023, 19, e01582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Food & Agriculture Organization. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022: Repurposing Food and Agricultural Policies to Make Healthy Diets More Affordable; Food & Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2022; Volume 2022. [Google Scholar]
  21. Adler, C.; Athanassiou, C.; Carvalho, M.O.; Emekci, M.; Gvozdenac, S.; Hamel, D.; Riudavets, J.; Stejskal, V.; Trdan, S.; Trematerra, P. Changes in the distribution and pest risk of stored product insects in Europe due to global warming: Need for pan-European pest monitoring and improved food-safety. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2022, 97, 101977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Manu, N.; Opit, G.; Osekre, E.; Arthur, F.; Mbata, G.; Armstrong, P.; Danso, J.; McNeill, S.; Campbell, J. Moisture content, insect pest infestation and mycotoxin levels of maize in markets in the northern region of Ghana. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2019, 80, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. López-Castillo, L.M.; Silva-Fernández, S.E.; Winkler, R.; Bergvinson, D.J.; Arnason, J.T.; García-Lara, S. Postharvest insect resistance in maize. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2018, 77, 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Altunç, Y.E.; Agrafioti, P.; Lampiri, E.; Güncan, A.; Tsialtas, I.T.; Athanassiou, C.G. Population growth of Prostephanus truncatus and Sitophilus zeamais and infestation patterns in three maize hybrids. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2023, 101, 102091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nwaubani, S.I.; Otitodun, G.O.; Ajao, S.K.; Opit, G.P.; Ala, A.A.; Omobowale, M.O.; Ogwumike, J.C.; Abel, G.I.; Ogundare, M.O.; Braimah, J.A. Assessing efficacies of insect pest management methods for stored bagged maize preservation in storehouses located in Nigerian markets. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 86, 101566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Abate, T.; Ampofo, J.K.O. Insect pests of beans in Africa: Their ecology and management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1996, 41, 45–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hajam, Y.A.; Kumar, R. Management of stored grain pest with special reference to Callosobruchus maculatus, a major pest of cowpea: A review. Heliyon 2022, 8, e08703. [Google Scholar]
  28. Manandhar, A.; Milindi, P.; Shah, A. An overview of the post-harvest grain storage practices of smallholder farmers in developing countries. Agriculture 2018, 8, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nukenine, E. Stored product protection in Africa: Past, present and future. Jul.-Kühn-Arch. 2010, 26, 425. [Google Scholar]
  30. Zorya, S.; Morgan, N.; Diaz Rios, L.; Hodges, R.; Bennett, B.; Stathers, T.; Lamb, J. Missing Food: The Case of Postharvest Grain Losses in Sub-Saharan Africa; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  31. Moreno, L.L.; Tuxill, J.; Moo, E.Y.; Reyes, L.A.; Alejo, J.C.; Jarvis, D.I. Traditional maize storage methods of Mayan farmers in Yucatan, Mexico: Implications for seed selection and crop diversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 2006, 15, 1771–1795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shengbin, L. Study on farm grain storage in China. In Proceedings of the 9th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil, 15–18 October 2006; pp. 47–52. [Google Scholar]
  33. Dunkel, F. Underground and earth sheltered food storage: Historical, geographic, and economic considerations. Undergr. Space 1985, 9, 5–6. [Google Scholar]
  34. Nagnur, S.; Channal, G.; Channamma, N. Indigenous grain structures and methods of storage. Indian J. Tradit. Knowl. 2006, 5, 114–117. [Google Scholar]
  35. Obeng-Akrofi, G.; Maier, D.E.; White, W.S.; Akowuah, J.O.; Bartosik, R.; Cardoso, L. Effectiveness of hermetic bag storage technology to preserve physical quality attributes of shea nuts. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2023, 101, 102086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yewle, N.R.; Gupta, S.V.; Patil, B.N.; Mann, S.; Kandasamy, P. Hermetic SuperGrain bags for controlling storage losses caused by Callosobruchus maculatus Fabricius (Coleoptera: Bruchinae) in stored mung bean (Vigna radiata). Bull. Entomol. Res. 2023, 113, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Brumm, T.J.; Bern, C.J.; Webber, D.F. Hermetic storage of maize grain in repurposed food oil containers to control maize weevils. J. Stored Prod. Postharvest Res. 2021, 12, 42–46. [Google Scholar]
  38. Baoua, I.; Amadou, L.; Lowenberg-DeBoer, J.; Murdock, L. Side by side comparison of GrainPro and PICS bags for postharvest preservation of cowpea grain in Niger. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2013, 54, 13–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Covele, G.; Gulube, A.; Tivana, L.; Ribeiro-Barros, A.I.; Carvalho, M.O.; Ndayiragije, A.; Nguenha, R. Effectiveness of hermetic containers in controlling paddy rice (Oryza sativa L.) storage insect pests. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 89, 101710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Alemu, G.T.; Nigussie, Z.; Haregeweyn, N.; Berhanie, Z.; Wondimagegnehu, B.A.; Ayalew, Z.; Molla, D.; Okoyo, E.N.; Baributsa, D. Cost-benefit analysis of on-farm grain storage hermetic bags among small-scale maize growers in northwestern Ethiopia. Crop Prot. 2021, 143, 105478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Opoku, B.; Osekre, E.A.; Opit, G.; Bosomtwe, A.; Bingham, G.V. Evaluation of Hermetic Storage Bags for the Preservation of Yellow Maize in Poultry Farms in Dormaa Ahenkro, Ghana. Insects 2023, 14, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. De Groote, H.; Gunaratna, N.S.; Fisher, M.; Kebebe, E.; Mmbando, F.; Friesen, D. The effectiveness of extension strategies for increasing the adoption of biofortified crops: The case of quality protein maize in East Africa. Food Secur. 2016, 8, 1101–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gitonga, Z.M.; De Groote, H.; Kassie, M.; Tefera, T. Impact of metal silos on households’ maize storage, storage losses and food security: An application of a propensity score matching. Food Policy 2013, 43, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bartosik, R.; Urcola, H.; Cardoso, L.; Maciel, G.; Busato, P. Silo-bag system for storage of grains, seeds and by-products: A review and research agenda. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2023, 100, 102061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Navarro, S. The use of modified and controlled atmospheres for the disinfestation of stored products. J. Pest Sci. 2012, 85, 301–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mulungu, L.S.; Ndilahomba, B.; Nyange, C.; Mwatawala, M.W.; Mwalilino, J.; Joseph, C.; Mgina, C.A. Efficacy of Chrysanthemum cinerariaefolium, Neorautanenia mitis and Gnidia kraussiana against larger grain borer (Prostephanus truncatus Horn) and maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamays Motschulsky) on maize (Zea mays L.) grain seeds. J. Entomol. 2011, 8, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Paudyal, S.; Opit, G.P.; Arthur, F.H.; Bingham, G.V.; Payton, M.E.; Gautam, S.G.; Noden, B. Effectiveness of the ZeroFly® storage bag fabric against stored-product insects. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2017, 73, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Baributsa, D.; Njoroge, A. The use and profitability of hermetic technologies for grain storage among smallholder farmers in eastern Kenya. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 87, 101618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Abass, A.B.; Fischler, M.; Schneider, K.; Daudi, S.; Gaspar, A.; Rüst, J.; Kabula, E.; Ndunguru, G.; Madulu, D.; Msola, D. On-farm comparison of different postharvest storage technologies in a maize farming system of Tanzania Central Corridor. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2018, 77, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Njoroge, A.; Affognon, H.; Richter, U.; Hensel, O.; Rohde, B.; Chen, D.; Mankin, R. Acoustic, pitfall trap, and visual surveys of stored product insect pests in Kenyan warehouses. Insects 2019, 10, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Mankin, R.W.; Hagstrum, D.W.; Smith, M.T.; Roda, A.; Kairo, M.T. Perspective and promise: A century of insect acoustic detection and monitoring. Am. Entomol. 2011, 57, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mankin, R.; Hagstrum, D.; Guo, M.; Eliopoulos, P.; Njoroge, A. Automated applications of acoustics for stored product insect detection, monitoring, and management. Insects 2021, 12, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chen, C.; Liang, Y.; Zhou, L.; Tang, X.; Dai, M. An automatic inspection system for pest detection in granaries using YOLOv4. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2022, 201, 107302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chu, J.; Li, Y.; Feng, H.; Weng, X.; Ruan, Y. Research on Multi-Scale Pest Detection and Identification Method in Granary Based on Improved YOLOv5. Agriculture 2023, 13, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Nyabako, T.; Mvumi, B.M.; Stathers, T.; Mlambo, S.; Mubayiwa, M. Predicting Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) populations and associated grain damage in smallholder farmers’ maize stores: A machine learning approach. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 87, 101592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Biancolillo, A.; Firmani, P.; Bucci, R.; Magrì, A.; Marini, F. Determination of insect infestation on stored rice by near infrared (NIR) spectroscopy. Microchem. J. 2019, 145, 252–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hashim, N.; Onwude, D.I.; Maringgal, B. Technological advances in postharvest management of food grains. In Research and Technological Advances in Food Sciences; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 371–406. [Google Scholar]
  58. Li, J.; Zhou, H.; Wang, Z.; Jia, Q. Multi-scale detection of stored-grain insects for intelligent monitoring. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 168, 105114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhu, L.; Ma, Q.; Chen, J.; Zhao, G. Current progress on innovative pest detection techniques for stored cereal grains and thereof powders. Food Chem. 2022, 396, 133706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Girshick, R. Fast r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Santiago, Chile, 7–13 December 2015; pp. 1440–1448. [Google Scholar]
  61. Ren, S.; He, K.; Girshick, R.; Sun, J. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2015, 28, 1137–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Zhang, Y.; Zhong, W.; Pan, H. Identification of stored grain pests by modified residual network. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2021, 182, 105983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mesías-Ruiz, G.A.; Pérez-Ortiz, M.; Dorado, J.; de Castro, A.I.; Peña, J.M. Boosting precision crop protection towards agriculture 5.0 via machine learning and emerging technologies: A contextual review. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1143326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Deng, Z.; Wang, P.; Song, X.; Wang, C.; Chen, J.; Wu, L. Research on granary pest detection based on SSD. Comput. Eng. Appl. 2020, 56, 214–218. [Google Scholar]
  65. Yu, J.; Zhai, F.; Liu, N.; Shen, Y.; Pan, Q. FESNet: Frequency-Enhanced Saliency Detection Network for Grain Pest Segmentation. Insects 2023, 14, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zhang, K.; Wang, W.; Lv, Z.; Fan, Y.; Song, Y. Computer vision detection of foreign objects in coal processing using attention CNN. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2021, 102, 104242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Channa, H.; Ricker-Gilbert, J.; Feleke, S.; Abdoulaye, T. Overcoming smallholder farmers’ post-harvest constraints through harvest loans and storage technology: Insights from a randomized controlled trial in Tanzania. J. Dev. Econ. 2022, 157, 102851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Arthur, F.H.; Johnson, J.A.; Neven, L.G.; Hallman, G.J.; Follett, P.A. Insect pest management in postharvest ecosystems in the United States of America. Outlooks Pest Manag. 2009, 20, 279–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gourgouta, M.; Rumbos, C.I.; Athanassiou, C.G. Residual toxicity of a commercial cypermethrin formulation on grains against four major storage beetles. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2019, 83, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Paul, A.; Radhakrishnan, M.; Anandakumar, S.; Shanmugasundaram, S.; Anandharamakrishnan, C. Disinfestation techniques for major cereals: A status report. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 1125–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Nayak, M.K.; Daglish, G.J.; Phillips, T.W.; Ebert, P.R. Resistance to the fumigant phosphine and its management in insect pests of stored products: A global perspective. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2020, 65, 333–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Boyer, S.; Zhang, H.; Lempérière, G. A review of control methods and resistance mechanisms in stored-product insects. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2012, 102, 213–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Dong, X. Response of Stored Grain Insect Pests and Barley to Ozone Treatment. Ph.D. Thesis, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  74. Ayub, A.; Srithilat, K.; Fatima, I.; Panduro-Tenazoa, N.M.; Ahmed, I.; Akhtar, M.U.; Shabbir, W.; Ahmad, K.; Muhammad, A. Arsenic in drinking water: Overview of removal strategies and role of chitosan biosorbent for its remediation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 64312–64344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Buenavista, R.M. Sorption Kinetics and Equilibrium Isotherms of Phosphine and Evaluation of Chlorine Dioxide Gas during Wheat Fumigation. Master’s Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  76. Bhadriraju, S. Efficacy of chlorine dioxide gas against five stored-product insect species. Effic. Chlorine Dioxide Gas Against Five Stored-Prod. Insect Species. 2015, 111, 159–168. [Google Scholar]
  77. Aly, H.M.; Wahba, T.F.; Hassan, N.A. Pyroligneous acid derived from ficus benjamina wastes synergize deltamethrin against Sitophilus oryzae. Egypt. Acad. J. Biol. Sci. F. Toxicol. Pest Control 2022, 14, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bnina, E.B.; Hajlaoui, H.; Chaieb, I.; Said, M.B.; Jannet, H.B.; Daami-Remadi, M. Chemical composition, antimicrobial and insecticidal activities of the tunisian Citrus aurantium essential oils. Czech J. Food Sci. 2019, 37, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sola, P.; Mvumi, B.; Ogendo, J.; Mponda, O.; Kamanula, J.; Nyirenda, S.; Belmain, S.; Stevenson, P. Botanical pesticide production, trade and regulatory mechanisms in sub-Saharan Africa: Making a case for plant-based pesticidal products. Food Secur. 2014, 6, 369–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bezabih, G.; Satheesh, N.; Workneh Fanta, S.; Wale, M.; Atlabachew, M. Reducing postharvest loss of stored grains using plant-based biopesticides: A review of past research efforts. Adv. Agric. 2022, 2022, 6946916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Naimi, I.; Zefzoufi, M.; Bouamama, H.; M’hamed, T.B. Chemical composition and repellent effects of powders and essential oils of Artemisia absinthium, Melia azedarach, Trigonella foenum-graecum, and Peganum harmala on Tribolium castaneum (Herbst)(Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 182, 114817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Tesfaye, A.; Jenber, A.J.; Mintesnot, M. Survey of storage insect pests and management of rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae, using botanicals on sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) at Jawi District, Northwestern Ethiopia. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2021, 54, 2085–2100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Chaudhari, A.K.; Singh, V.K.; Kedia, A.; Das, S.; Dubey, N.K. Essential oils and their bioactive compounds as eco-friendly novel green pesticides for management of storage insect pests: Prospects and retrospects. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 18918–18940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. da Silva Moura, E.; D’Antonino Faroni, L.R.; Fernandes Heleno, F.; Aparecida Zinato Rodrigues, A.; Figueiredo Prates, L.H.; Lopes Ribeiro de Queiroz, M.E. Optimal extraction of Ocimum basilicum essential oil by association of ultrasound and hydrodistillation and its potential as a biopesticide against a major stored grains pest. Molecules 2020, 25, 2781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Ebadollahi, A.; Jalali Sendi, J.; Setzer, W.N.; Changbunjong, T. Encapsulation of Eucalyptus largiflorens essential oil by mesoporous silicates for effective control of the cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius)(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Molecules 2022, 27, 3531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Amiri, A.; Bandani, A.R. Does timing of post-stressor exposure mating matter for parental effect? J. Stored Prod. Res. 2022, 99, 102021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Loko, Y.L.E.; Medegan Fagla, S.; Kassa, P.; Ahouansou, C.A.; Toffa, J.; Glinma, B.; Dougnon, V.; Koukoui, O.; Djogbenou, S.L.; Tamò, M. Bioactivity of essential oils of Cymbopogon citratus (DC) Stapf and Cymbopogon nardus (L.) W. Watson from Benin against Dinoderus porcellus Lesne (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) infesting yam chips. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2021, 41, 511–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Karabörklü, S.; Ayvaz, A. A comprehensive review of effective essential oil components in stored-product pest management. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2023, 130, 449–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kavallieratos, N.G.; Bonacucina, G.; Nika, E.P.; Skourti, A.; Georgakopoulou, S.K.C.; Filintas, C.S.; Panariti, A.M.E.; Maggi, F.; Petrelli, R.; Ferrati, M. The Type of Grain Counts: Effectiveness of Three Essential Oil-Based Nanoemulsions against Sitophilus oryzae. Plants 2023, 12, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Mssillou, I.; Agour, A.; Allali, A.; Saghrouchni, H.; Bourhia, M.; El Moussaoui, A.; Salamatullah, A.M.; Alzahrani, A.; Aboul-Soud, M.A.; Giesy, J.P. Antioxidant, Antimicrobial, and Insecticidal Properties of a Chemically Characterized Essential Oil from the Leaves of Dittrichia viscosa L. Molecules 2022, 27, 2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Morrison III, W.R.; Wilkins, R.V.; Gerken, A.R.; Scheff, D.S.; Zhu, K.Y.; Arthur, F.H.; Campbell, J.F. Mobility of adult Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and Rhyzopertha dominica (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) after exposure to long-lasting insecticide-incorporated netting. J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 2443–2453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Wilkins, R.V. Implementing Long-Lasting Insecticide Netting as a Tool for Diversifying Integrated Pest Management Programs of Stored Product Insects. Master’s Thesis, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  93. Wilkins, R.V.; Zhu, K.Y.; Campbell, J.F.; Morrison III, W.R. Mobility and dispersal of two cosmopolitan stored-product insects are adversely affected by long-lasting insecticide netting in a life stage-dependent manner. J. Econ. Entomol. 2020, 113, 1768–1779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Arthur, F. Efficacy of methoprene for multi-year protection of stored wheat, brown rice, rough rice and corn. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2016, 68, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Arthur, F.; Ghimire, M.; Myers, S.; Phillips, T. Evaluation of pyrethroid insecticides and insect growth regulators applied to different surfaces for control of Trogoderma granarium (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) the khapra beetle. J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 612–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Villalobos-Sambucaro, M.J.; Nouzova, M.; Ramirez, C.E.; Eugenia Alzugaray, M.; Fernandez-Lima, F.; Ronderos, J.R.; Noriega, F.G. The juvenile hormone described in Rhodnius prolixus by Wigglesworth is juvenile hormone III skipped bisepoxide. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 3091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Oberlander, H.; Silhacek, D.L. Insect growth regulators. In Alternatives to Pesticides in Stored-Product IPM; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2000; pp. 147–163. [Google Scholar]
  98. Oberlander, H.; Silhacek, D.L.; Shaaya, E.; Ishaaya, I. Current status and future perspectives of the use of insect growth regulators for the control of stored product insects. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1997, 33, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pener, M.P.; Dhadialla, T.S. An overview of insect growth disruptors; applied aspects. Adv. Insect Physiol. 2012, 43, 1–162. [Google Scholar]
  100. Liu, S.S.; Arthur, F.H.; VanGundy, D.; Phillips, T.W. Combination of methoprene and controlled aeration to manage insects in stored wheat. Insects 2016, 7, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Mondal, K.; Parween, S. Insect growth regulators and their potential in the management of stored-product insect pests. Integr. Pest Manag. Rev. 2000, 5, 255–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Arthur, F.; Morrison III, W.R. Methodology for assessing progeny production and grain damage on commodities treated with insecticides. Agronomy 2020, 10, 804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Hamel, D.; Rozman, V.; Liška, A. Storage of Cereals in Warehouses with or without Pesticides. Insects 2020, 11, 846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Yang, Y.; Wilson, L.T.; Arthur, F.H.; Wang, J.; Jia, C. Regional analysis of bin aeration as an alternative to insecticidal control for post-harvest management of Sitophilus oryzae (L.) and Rhyzopertha dominica (F.). Ecol. Model. 2017, 359, 165–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Aulicky, R.; Shah, J.A.; Kolar, V.; Li, Z.; Stejskal, V. Control of stored agro-commodity pests Sitophilus granarius and Callosobruchus chinensis by nitrogen hypoxic atmospheres: Laboratory and field validations. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Brilinger, D.; Wille, C.L.; da Rosa, J.M.; Franco, C.R.; Boff, M.I.C. Susceptibility of Brazilian maize landraces to the attack of Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 88, 101677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Mwololo, J.; Mugo, S.; Tefera, T.; Okori, P.; Munyiri, S.; Semagn, K.; Otim, M.; Beyene, Y. Resistance of tropical maize genotypes to the larger grain borer. J. Pest Sci. 2012, 85, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Sserunjogi, M.; Bern, C.; Brumm, T.; Maier, D. Periodic disturbance time interval for suppression of the maize weevils, Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in stored maize (Zea mays L.). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2021, 94, 101875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Borgemeister, C.; Holst, N.; Hodges, R.J. Biological control and other pest management options for larger grain borer Prostephanus truncatus. In Biological Control in IPM Systems in Africa; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2003; pp. 311–328. [Google Scholar]
  110. Athanassiou, C.G.; Arthur, F.H.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Throne, J.E. Efficacy of spinosad and methoprene, applied alone or in combination, against six stored-product insect species. J. Pest Sci. 2011, 84, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Mantzoukas, S.; Zikou, A.; Triantafillou, V.; Lagogiannis, I.; Eliopoulos, P.A. Interactions between Beauveria bassiana and Isaria fumosorosea and their hosts Sitophilus granarius (L.) and Sitophilus oryzae (L.)(Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Insects 2019, 10, 362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Atta, B.; Rizwan, M.; Sabir, A.M.; Gogi, M.D.; Farooq, M.A.; Batta, Y.A. Efficacy of Entomopathogenic Fungi against Brown Planthopper Nilaparvata Lugens (Stål)(Homoptera: Delphacidae) under Controlled Conditions. Gesunde Pflanz. 2020, 72, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Kavallieratos, N.; Athanassiou, C.; Michalaki, M.; Batta, Y.; Rigatos, H.; Pashalidou, F.; Balotis, G.; Tomanović, Ž.; Vayias, B. Effect of the combined use of Metarhizium anisopliae (Metschinkoff) Sorokin and diatomaceous earth for the control of three stored-product beetle species. Crop Prot. 2006, 25, 1087–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Chigoverah, A.; Mvumi, B. Comparative efficacy of four hermetic bag brands against Prostephanus truncatus (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) in Stored Maize Grain. J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 2467–2475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Villers, P.; Navarro, S.; De Bruin, T. New applications of hermetic storage for grain storage and transport. In Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection, Estoril, Portugal, 27 June–2 July 2010; pp. 446–451. [Google Scholar]
  116. Likhayo, P.; Bruce, A.Y.; Mutambuki, K.; Tefera, T.; Mueke, J. On-farm evaluation of hermetic technology against maize storage pests in Kenya. J. Econ. Entomol. 2016, 109, 1943–1950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Baoua, I.; Amadou, L.; Ousmane, B.; Baributsa, D.; Murdock, L. PICS bags for post-harvest storage of maize grain in West Africa. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2014, 58, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Kuyu, C.G.; Tola, Y.B.; Mohammed, A.; Mengesh, A.; Mpagalile, J.J. Evaluation of different grain storage technologies against storage insect pests over an extended storage time. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2022, 96, 101945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Saeed, N.; Wakil, W.; Farooq, M.; Shakeel, M.; Arain, M.S.; Shakeel, Q. Evaluating the combination of Metarhizium anisopliae and an enhanced form of diatomaceous earth (Grain-Guard) for the environmentally friendly control of stored grain pests. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2020, 192, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Gad, H.A.; Al-Anany, M.S.; Abdelgaleil, S.A. Enhancement the efficacy of spinosad for the control Sitophilus oryzae by combined application with diatomaceous earth and Trichoderma harzianum. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 88, 101663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Agrafioti, P.; Faliagka, S.; Lampiri, E.; Orth, M.; Pätzel, M.; Katsoulas, N.; Athanassiou, C.G. Evaluation of silica-coated insect proof nets for the control of Aphis fabae, Sitophilus oryzae, and Tribolium confusum. Nanomaterials 2020, 10, 1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Kavallieratos, N.G.; Athanassiou, C.G.; Boukouvala, M.C.; Tsekos, G.T. Influence of different non-grain commodities on the population growth of Trogoderma granarium Everts (Coleoptera: Dermestidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2019, 81, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Fields, P.; Xie, Y.; Hou, X. Repellent effect of pea (Pisum sativum) fractions against stored-product insects. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2001, 37, 359–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Burkholder, W.E.; Ma, M. Pheromones for monitoring and control of stored-product insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1985, 30, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Savoldelli, S.; Trematerra, P. Mass-trapping, mating-disruption and attracticide methods for managing stored-product insects: Success stories and research needs. Stewart Postharvest Rev. 2011, 7, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  126. Dissanayaka, D.; Sammani, A.; Wijayaratne, L. Aggregation pheromone 4, 8-dimethyldecanal and kairomone affect the orientation of Tribolium castaneum (Herbst)(Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) adults. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2018, 79, 144–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Fargo, W.; Epperly, D.; Cuperus, G.; Clary, B.; Noyes, R. Effect of temperature and duration of trapping on four stored grain insect species. J. Econ. Entomol. 1989, 82, 970–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Hallman, G.J. Control of stored product pests by ionizing radiation. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2013, 52, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Hassan, R.S.; Mahmoud, E.A.; Sileem, T.M.; Sayed, W.A. Evaluation of fast neutron irradiation as a new control method against the Indian meal moth, Plodia interpunctella (Hübner). J. Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci. 2019, 12, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Hou, L.; Johnson, J.A.; Wang, S. Radio frequency heating for postharvest control of pests in agricultural products: A review. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 113, 106–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Muniswamy, K.; Sugumar, A.; Yarrakula, S.; Manickam, L.; DV, C. Effect of ozone fumigation on controlling common storage pest Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) in proso millet during storage. Ozone Sci. Eng. 2023, 45, 543–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Cao, Y.; Xu, K.; Zhu, X.; Bai, Y.; Yang, W.; Li, C. Role of modified atmosphere in pest control and mechanism of its effect on insects. Front. Physiol. 2019, 10, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Li, B.; Subramanyam, B. Toxicity of chlorine dioxide gas to phosphine-susceptible and-resistant adults of five stored-product insect species: Influence of temperature and food during gas exposure. J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 1947–1957. [Google Scholar]
  134. Soujanya, P.L.; Sekhar, J.; Kumar, P.; Sunil, N.; Prasad, C.V.; Mallavadhani, U. Potentiality of botanical agents for the management of post harvest insects of maize: A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 53, 2169–2184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Mackled, M.I.; El-Hefny, M.; Bin-Jumah, M.; Wahba, T.F.; Allam, A.A. Assessment of the toxicity of natural oils from Mentha piperita, Pinus roxburghii, and Rosa spp. against three stored product insects. Processes 2019, 7, 861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Plata-Rueda, A.; Martínez, L.C.; da Silva Rolim, G.; Coelho, R.P.; Santos, M.H.; de Souza Tavares, W.; Zanuncio, J.C.; Serrão, J.E. Insecticidal and repellent activities of Cymbopogon citratus (Poaceae) essential oil and its terpenoids (citral and geranyl acetate) against Ulomoides dermestoides. Crop Prot. 2020, 137, 105299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Radünz, A.; Radünz, M.; Bizollo, A.; Tramontin, M.; Radünz, L.; Mariot, M.; Tempel-Stumpf, E.; Calisto, J.; Zaniol, F.; Albeny-Simões, D. Insecticidal and repellent activity of native and exotic lemongrass on Maize weevil. Braz. J. Biol. 2022, 84, e252990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Ahsaei, S.M.; Rodriguez-Rojo, S.; Salgado, M.; Cocero, M.J.; Talebi-Jahromi, K.; Amoabediny, G. Insecticidal activity of spray dried microencapsulated essential oils of Rosmarinus officinalis and Zataria multiflora against Tribolium confusum. Crop Prot. 2020, 128, 104996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Oyedeji, A.; Okunowo, W.; Osuntoki, A.; Olabode, T.; Ayo-Folorunso, F. Insecticidal and biochemical activity of essential oil from Citrus sinensis peel and constituents on Callosobrunchus maculatus and Sitophilus zeamais. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2020, 168, 104643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Lazarević, J.; Jevremović, S.; Kostić, I.; Kostić, M.; Vuleta, A.; Manitašević Jovanović, S.; Šešlija Jovanović, D. Toxic, oviposition deterrent and oxidative stress effects of Thymus vulgaris essential oil against Acanthoscelides obtectus. Insects 2020, 11, 563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Hamilton, K.; White, N.D.; Jian, F.; Fields, P.G. Hemp (Cannabis sativa) seed for reproduction of stored-product insects. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2021, 92, 101787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Negahban, M.; Moharramipour, S.; Sefidkon, F. Fumigant toxicity of essential oil from Artemisia sieberi Besser against three stored-product insects. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2007, 43, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Kiran, S.; Prakash, B. Assessment of toxicity, antifeedant activity, and biochemical responses in stored-grain insects exposed to lethal and sublethal doses of Gaultheria procumbens L. essential oil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 10518–10524. [Google Scholar]
  144. Kim, S.-W.; Lee, H.-R.; Jang, M.-J.; Jung, C.-S.; Park, I.-K. Fumigant toxicity of Lamiaceae plant essential oils and blends of their constituents against adult rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae. Molecules 2016, 21, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Kiran, S.; Kujur, A.; Patel, L.; Ramalakshmi, K.; Prakash, B. Assessment of toxicity and biochemical mechanisms underlying the insecticidal activity of chemically characterized Boswellia carterii essential oil against insect pest of legume seeds. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2017, 139, 17–23. [Google Scholar]
  146. de Lira Pimentel, C.S.; de Lima Albuquerque, B.N.; da Rocha, S.K.L.; Dutra, K.A.; Silva, D.G.R.; dos Santos, F.H.G.; Vieira, G.J.d.S.G.; dos Santos Oliveira, H.V.; Paiva, P.M.G.; Napoleão, T.H. Insecticidal potential of essential oil from inflorescences of Etlingera elatior and its major constituents against Sitophilus zeamais. Ind. Crops Prod. 2023, 203, 117154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Wang, Y.; Zhang, L.-T.; Feng, Y.-X.; Zhang, D.; Guo, S.-S.; Pang, X.; Geng, Z.-F.; Xi, C.; Du, S.-S. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Upadhyay, R.K.; Jaiswal, G. Evaluation of biological activities of Piper nigrum oil against Tribolium castaneum. Bull. Insectology 2007, 60, 57. [Google Scholar]
  149. Sang, Y.; Wang, P.; Liu, J.; Hao, Y.; Wang, X. Chemical composition of essential oils from three Rhododendron species and their repellent, insecticidal and fumigant activities. Chem. Biodivers. 2022, 19, e202200740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Pang, X.; Feng, Y.-X.; Qi, X.-J.; Wang, Y.; Almaz, B.; Xi, C.; Du, S.-S. Toxicity and repellent activity of essential oil from Mentha piperita Linn. leaves and its major monoterpenoids against three stored product insects. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 7618–7627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Araújo, A.; Oliveira, J.V.d.; França, S.M.; Navarro, D.M.; Dutra, K.d.A. Toxicity and repellency of essential oils in the management of Sitophilus zeamais. Rev. Bras. De Eng. Agrícola E Ambient. 2019, 23, 372–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Fogang, H.P.D.; Womeni, H.M.; Piombo, G.; Barouh, N.; Tapondjou, L.A. Bioefficacy of essential and vegetable oils of Zanthoxylum xanthoxyloides seeds against Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say)(Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Food Prot. 2012, 75, 547–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Nattudurai, G.; Baskar, K.; Paulraj, M.G.; Islam, V.I.H.; Ignacimuthu, S.; Duraipandiyan, V. Toxic effect of Atalantia monophylla essential oil on Callosobruchus maculatus and Sitophilus oryzae. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 1619–1629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Mahdi, K.-R.; Behnam, A.-B. Fumigant toxicity and repellency effect of orange leaves Citrus sinensis (L.) Essential Oil on Rhyzopertha dominica and Lasioderma serricorne. J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants 2018, 21, 577–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Wang, Y.; Guo, S.; Cao, J.; Pang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Geng, Z.; Sang, Y.; Du, S. Toxic and Repellent Effects of Volatile Phenylpropenes from Asarum heterotropoides on Lasioderma serricorne and Liposcelis bostrychophila. Molecules 2018, 23, 2131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Hu, J.; Wang, W.; Dai, J.; Zhu, L. Chemical composition and biological activity against Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) of Artemisia brachyloba essential oil. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 128, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Liu, Z.; Ho, S. Bioactivity of the essential oil extracted from Evodia rutaecarpa Hook f. et Thomas against the grain storage insects, Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. and Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). J. Stored Prod. Res. 1999, 35, 317–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Tunç, İ.; Berger, B.; Erler, F.; Dağlı, F. Ovicidal activity of essential oils from five plants against two stored-product insects. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2000, 36, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Tripathi, A.K.; Prajapati, V.; Aggarwal, K.K.; Kumar, S. Insecticidal and ovicidal activity of the essential oil of Anethum sowa Kurz against Callosobruchus maculatus F.(Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2001, 21, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Papachristos, D.P.; Karamanoli, K.I.; Stamopoulos, D.C.; Menkissoglu-Spiroudi, U. The relationship between the chemical composition of three essential oils and their insecticidal activity against Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say). Pest Manag. Sci. Former. Pestic. Sci. 2004, 60, 514–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Shukla, R.; Singh, P.; Prakash, B.; Kumar, A.; Mishra, P.K.; Dubey, N.K. Efficacy of essential oils of Lippia alba (Mill.) NE Brown and Callistemon lanceolatus (Sm.) Sweet and their major constituents on mortality, oviposition and feeding behaviour of pulse beetle, Callosobruchus chinensis L. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 2277–2283. [Google Scholar]
  162. Kedia, A.; Prakash, B.; Mishra, P.K.; Chanotiya, C.; Dubey, N.K. Antifungal, antiaflatoxigenic, and insecticidal efficacy of spearmint (Mentha spicata L.) essential oil. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2014, 89, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Shukla, R.; Singh, P.; Prakash, B.; Dubey, N. Assessment of Essential Oil of Acorus calamus L. and its Major Constituent β-Asarone in Post Harvest Management of Callosobruchus chinensis L. J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants 2016, 19, 542–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Silvestre, W.; Livinalli, N.; Baldasso, C.; Tessaro, I. Pervaporation in the separation of essential oil components: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 93, 42–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Huang, Y.; Tan, J.; Kini, R.; Ho, S. Toxic and antifeedant action of nutmeg oil against Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) and Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1997, 33, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Fathi, A.; Shakarami, J. Larvicidal effects of essential oils of five species of Eucalyptus against Tribolium confusum (du Val) and T. castaneum (Herbest). Int. J. Agric. Crop Sci. (IJACS) 2014, 7, 220–224. [Google Scholar]
  167. Wang, Y.; Zhang, L.-T.; Feng, Y.-X.; Guo, S.-S.; Pang, X.; Zhang, D.; Geng, Z.-F.; Du, S.-S. Insecticidal and repellent efficacy against stored-product insects of oxygenated monoterpenes and 2-dodecanone of the essential oil from Zanthoxylum planispinum var. dintanensis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 24988–24997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Abdullahi, A.A. Bioactivities of Hyptissuaveolens and Tephrosiavogelii Leaves Extracts on Prostephanus truncatus. Master’s Thesis, Kwara State University, Malete, Nigeria, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  169. Ngwenyama, P.; Mvumi, B.M.; Stathers, T.E.; Nyanga, L.K.; Siziba, S. How different hermetic bag brands and maize varieties affect grain damage and loss during smallholder farmer storage. Crop Prot. 2022, 153, 105861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Bergvinson, D.; García-Lara, S. Synergistic effects of insect-resistant maize and Teretrius nigrescens on the reduction of grain losses caused by Prostephanus truncatus (Horn.). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2011, 47, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Wakil, W.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Nika, E.P.; Ali, A.; Yaseen, T.; Asrar, M. Two are better than one: The combinations of Beauveria bassiana, diatomaceous earth, and indoxacarb as effective wheat protectants. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 41864–41877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Athanassiou, C.G.; Arthur, F.H. Cool down–warm up: Differential responses of stored product insects after gradual temperature changes. Insects 2020, 11, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Ak, K. Efficacy of entomopathogenic fungi against the stored-grain pests, Sitophilus granarius L. and S. oryzae L.(Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2019, 29, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Mesele, T.; Dibaba, K.; Garbaba, C.A.; Mendesil, E. Effectiveness of different storage structures for the management of Mexican bean weevil, Zabrotes subfasciatus (Boheman)(Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on stored common bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. (Fabaceae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2022, 96, 101928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Patil, H.; Shejale, K.P.; Jabaraj, R.; Shah, N.; Kumar, G. Disinfestation of red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum) present in almonds (Prunus dulcis) using microwave heating and evaluation of quality and shelf life of almonds. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 87, 101616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 01767 g001
Figure 1. Worldwide and Tanzania beans consumption by regions (FAO Stat 2021).
Figure 1. Worldwide and Tanzania beans consumption by regions (FAO Stat 2021).
Sustainability 16 01767 g001
Sustainability 16 01767 g002
Figure 2. Worldwide and Tanzania maize consumption (FAO Stat 2021).
Figure 2. Worldwide and Tanzania maize consumption (FAO Stat 2021).
Sustainability 16 01767 g002
Sustainability 16 01767 g003
Figure 3. Number of publications reviewed per database.
Figure 3. Number of publications reviewed per database.
Sustainability 16 01767 g003
Sustainability 16 01767 g004
Figure 4. Number of publications reviewed every five years from 1984 to 2023.
Figure 4. Number of publications reviewed every five years from 1984 to 2023.
Sustainability 16 01767 g004
Sustainability 16 01767 g005
Figure 5. Systematic framework of storage pest and commodity specific advanced food storage measures to ensure food availability post COVID-19 crisis.
Figure 5. Systematic framework of storage pest and commodity specific advanced food storage measures to ensure food availability post COVID-19 crisis.
Sustainability 16 01767 g005
Table 1. Summary of storage pest management strategies, crops, mode of action, and their respective insect pests.
Table 1. Summary of storage pest management strategies, crops, mode of action, and their respective insect pests.
MethodProduct Common NamesInsect PestInsect StageMode of ActionCropsReferences
ChemicalDeltamethrin, Pirimiphos-methyl + permethrin, fenitrothion + fenvalerate,P. truncatus, Sitophilus sp. and Tribolium castaneumLarval and adultToxicityMaize[68]
CypermethrinSitophilus oryzae (L.), Oryzaephilus surinamensis (L.), Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) and Prostephanus truncatesLarval and adultToxicityMaize[69]
Fumigants (phosphine, sulfuryl fluoride, ethyl formate, methyl bromide, carbonyl sulfide, propylene oxide and allyl isothiocyanate).All storage insect pestsEgg, Larval, Pupa and adultToxicityMaize and Beans[70]
Ozone gas (O3)Tribolium castaneum, Oryzaephilus surinamensis Sitophilus zeamais, Rhyzopertha dominica and Sitophilus oryzaeEgg, Larval, Pupa and adultToxicityMaize[131,132]
Chlorine dioxideTribolium castaneum, Rhyzopertha dominica, Oryzaephilus surinamensis, Sitophilus zeamais and Sitophilus oryzae.Adult and LarvaToxicityMaize[133]
BotanicalsMentha piperita, Pinus roxburghii and Rosa spp.S. zeamais and S. oryzaeLarva and Adult Maize[134,135]
Cymbopogon citratusSitophilus granariusAdultToxicityMaize[136,137]
Rosmarinus officinalis and Zataria multifloraTribolium confusum.AdultToxicityMaize[138]
Citrus sinensis peelSitophilus zeamaisAdultToxicityMaize [139]
Thymus vulgarisAcanthoscelides obtectusAdultToxicity, Oviposition deterrent and OxidativeBeans[140]
Cannabis sativaCryptolestes ferrugineus, Rhyzopertha dominica,
Sitophilus oryzae, Cryptolestes turcicus, Tribolium confusum and Stegobium paniceum		AdultToxicityMaize[141]
Artemisia sieberiS. oryzae, T. castaneum and R. dominicaLarva and adultToxicityMaize[83,142]
Gomortega keule and Laurelia sempervirensA. obtectusLarvaToxicityBeans[83]
Rosmarinus officinalisS. oryzae and
O. surinamensis		Larva and adultToxicityMaize[143]
Eucalyptus lehmannii and E. astringensT. Castaneum and R. dominicaLarva and adultToxicityMaize [83]
Hyssopus officinalis, Origanum majorana and Thymus zygisS. oryzaeLarva and adultToxicityMaize[144]
Boswellia carteriiC. chinensis and
C. maculatus		Larva and adultToxicityBeans[145]
Lippia javonicaS. zeamaisLarva and adultToxicityMaize[146]
Evodia lenticellataT. castaneum, L. serricorne and L. bostrychophilaLarva and adultToxicityMaize[147]
Cinnamomum
zeylanicum and Syzygium aromaticum		S. granariusLarva and adultToxicityMaize[136]
Melissa officinalisT. castaneumLarva and adultToxicityMaize[148]
Ostericum
viridiflorum		T. castaneumLarva and adultToxicityMaize[149]
Mentha piperitaT. castaneum,
L. serricorne and L. bostrychophila		Larva and adultToxicityMaize[150]
Lippia origanoides,
Tagetes lucida, Rosmarinus officinalis, Cananga
odorata, Eucalyptus citriodora and Cymbopogon citratus		S. zeamaisLarva and adultToxicityMaize[151]
Zanthoxylum
Xanthoxyloides		A. obtectusLarva and adultToxicityBeans[152]
Atalantia monophylla andS. oryzae,Larva and adultToxicityMaize [153]
Citrus
sinensis		R. dominica
and L. serricorne		Larva and adultToxicityMaize[154]
Asarum
heterotropoides		L. serricorne and L. bostrychophilaLarva and adultToxicityMaize[155]
Artemisia brachylobaT. castaneumLarva and adultToxicityMaize[156]
Evodia rutaecarpaS. oryzae and
T. castaneum		Larva and adultToxicityMaize[157]
Tagetus terniflora, Cymbopogon
citratus and Elionurus muticus		S. oryzaeLarva and adultToxicityMaize[83]
Gaultheria procumbensS. oryzae and R. dominicaLarva and adultToxicityMaize[143]
Pimpinella
anisum, Cuminum cyminum, Eucalyptus camaldulensis,
Origanum syriacum and Rosmarinus officinalis.		T. confusumeggsToxicityMaize[158]
Anethum sowaC. maculatusAdultsOviposition deterrencyBeans[159]
Lavandula hybrida,
Rosmarinus officinalis and Eucalyptus globulus.		A. obtectusAdultsOviposition deterrencyBeans[160]
Lippia alba and
Callistemon lanceolatus		C. lanceolatus
C. chinensis		AdultOviposition
deterrency		Beans[161]
Mentha spicataC. chinensisAdultsOviposition deterrencyBeans[162]
Acorus calamusC. chinensisAdultsOvicidalBeans[163]
Boswellia carteriiC. chinensis and C. maculatusEggs, larva and adult.Larvicidal, Ovicidal
and Oviposition deterrents		Beans[145]
Atalantia monophyllaC. maculatusEggsOvicidal activityBeans[153]
Vanillosmopsis arboreaC. maculatusAdultsOviposition deterrencyBeans[164]
Lippia sp., L. somulensis, L. grandifolia, L. wilmsii, L. dauensis and L. javanica.S. zeamaisLarvaLarvicidalMaize[83]
Myristica fragransT. castaneumlarvaLarvicidalMaize[165]
Piper nigrumT. castaneumlarvaeLarvicidalMaize[148]
Eucalyptus camaldulensis,
E. viminalis, E. microtheca, E. grandis and E. sargentii		T. confusum and
T. castaneum		larvaeLarvicidalMaize[166]
Cuminum cyminumC. chinensis and S. oryzaelarvaeLarvicidalMaize[83]
Crithimum maritimumO. surinamensis, S. granarius and
S. oryzae		larvaeLarvicidalMaize[83]
Zanthoxylum planispinumTribolium castaneum, Lasioderma serricorne, and Liposcelis bostrychophilaAdultContact toxicity and repellentMaize[167]
Long-lasting Insecticide-incorporated Netting (LLIN)LLINTribolium castaneum, T. variabile and Rhyzopertha dominica,Adult and larvaReduced movement and dispersalMaize[93]
Insect Growth Regulator (IGR)MethopreneRhyzopertha dominica, Tribolium castaneum and Sitotroga cerealellalarvaAffect development, reproduction and behavior Maize[94]
Combined methodsmethoprene + controlled aerationPlodia interpunctella, Tribolium castaneum, Cryptolestes ferrugineus and Rhyzopertha dominica.LarvaAffect development, reproduction and behaviorMaize[100]
Wood vinegar + deltermethrinSitophilus oryzaeLarva and adultToxicityMaize[77]
Hypoxic nitrogen + SiloS. granariesAll stagesToxicityMaize[105]
Spinosad + diatomaceous earth + Trichoderma harzianumSitophilus oryzaeAll stagesToxicityMaize[120]
crystalline silica + abamectinP. truncatusAdult and larvaToxicityMaize[168]
Hermetic bag + varietiesSitophilus zeamais, Sitotroga cerealella, Tribolium castaneum and Cryptolestes sppAdultsReduced populationMaize[169]
Resistant varieties + Teretrius nigrescensP. truncatusAdult and larvaReduced populationMaize[170]
Metarhizium anisopliae + diatomaceous earth (DE)Rhyzopertha dominica, Sitophilus oryzae and Tribolium confusum, L. paeta, C. ferrugineus and T. castaneumLarva and adultToxicityMaize[119]
Beauveria bassiana + diatomaceous earth + abamectinT. castaneumLarvaToxicityWheat[171]
Cultural methodsRemoval of infested residuesMost primary storage insect pests like S. zeamais and P. truncatusAll stagesReduced populationMaize and Beans[110,172]
Increase in aeration airflow rateSitophilus spp. and Rhyzopertha dominicaAdultReduced populations.Maize[104]
Grains petiodic disturbanceSitophilus spp. and Acanthoscelides obtectusAdultsReduced populationsMaize and Beans[108]
Resistance varietiesP. truncatusAdults and larvaReduced populationMaize[107]
Biological ControlTeretrius nigrescensP. truncatusAdultPredationMaize[109]
Theocolax elegansSitophilus spp., Rhyzopertha dominica, Stegobium paniceum and Sitotroga cerealellalarvaPredationMaize [110]
Beauveria bassiana + Isaria fumosoroseaSitophilus sp.Larva and adultParasitismMaize[111]
M. anisopliae + I. fumosoroseaS. granarius and S. oryzaeLarva and adultParasitismMaize[173]
Hermitic storageMetal silo and Super Grain IV-R bagsAll storage insectsAll stagesAsphyxiationMaize[116]
PICS bagsP. Truncatus, S. zeamais and Zabrotes subfasciatusAll stagesAsphyxiationMaize and Beans[117,174]
Zerofly bagsPolypropylene + deltamethrinS. oryzae and T. castaneumLarva and adultsToxicityMaize[6,47]
Mass trapping4,8-dimethyldecanal and kairomoneTribolium castaneumAdultAttractionMaize[126]
Ionizing Radiationneutron irradiationPlodia interpunctellaAdultToxicityMaize[129]
radiofrequency heatingVarious storage insectsAll stagesToxicityMaize and Beans[130]
microwave heatingTribolium castaneumAdultToxicityMaize[175]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chidege, M.Y.; Venkataramana, P.B.; Ndakidemi, P.A. Enhancing Food Grains Storage Systems through Insect Pest Detection and Control Measures for Maize and Beans: Ensuring Food Security Post-COVID-19 Tanzania. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1767. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051767

AMA Style

Chidege MY, Venkataramana PB, Ndakidemi PA. Enhancing Food Grains Storage Systems through Insect Pest Detection and Control Measures for Maize and Beans: Ensuring Food Security Post-COVID-19 Tanzania. Sustainability. 2024; 16(5):1767. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051767

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chidege, Maneno Y., Pavithravani B. Venkataramana, and Patrick A. Ndakidemi. 2024. "Enhancing Food Grains Storage Systems through Insect Pest Detection and Control Measures for Maize and Beans: Ensuring Food Security Post-COVID-19 Tanzania" Sustainability 16, no. 5: 1767. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051767

APA Style

Chidege, M. Y., Venkataramana, P. B., & Ndakidemi, P. A. (2024). Enhancing Food Grains Storage Systems through Insect Pest Detection and Control Measures for Maize and Beans: Ensuring Food Security Post-COVID-19 Tanzania. Sustainability, 16(5), 1767. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051767

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop