Next Article in Journal
Impacts of Cereal and Legume Cultivation on Soil Properties and Microbial Communities in the Mu Us Desert
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Lighting Type on the Nitrates Concentration, Selective Bioactive Compounds and Yield of Sweet Basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) in Hydroponic Production
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/agronomy15040967
agronomy-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Biofumigation with Brassica Species and Their Derivatives: A Comprehensive Review of an Innovative Pest Control Strategy Targeting Wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae)

by
Luka Batistič
,
Tanja Bohinc
and
Stanislav Trdan
*
Department of Agronomy, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Jamnikarjeva 101, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(4), 967; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040967
Submission received: 21 March 2025 / Revised: 10 April 2025 / Accepted: 14 April 2025 / Published: 16 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Management of Arthropod Pests in Agriculture)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Biofumigation is an eco-friendly agronomic technique that utilizes bioactive compounds from Brassica species to manage soil-borne pests. In our review, we explore it as a sustainable alternative to chemical fumigation, focusing on its potential for controlling wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae). By analyzing existing studies, we assess the efficacy of biofumigation using Brassica plants, with a detailed focus on Brassica juncea (L.) Czern. (Indian mustard) and Brassica carinata A. Braun (Ethiopian mustard), which are rich in glucosinolates (Glns). We also examine glucosinolate decomposition mechanisms, where enzymatic hydrolysis releases isothiocyanates (IsoTs) and other bioactive compounds with pesticidal properties. Our review synthesizes findings from laboratory bioassays, semi-field experiments, and long-term field trials to evaluate the impact of these biofumigants on wireworms, soil health, and broader pest management strategies. Additionally, we discuss how biofumigation may disrupt wireworm feeding behavior while improving soil structure and microbial activity. Despite its promise, several challenges may influence the effectiveness and adoption of biofumigation, including the variability in field efficacy, soil interactions, and barriers to large-scale adoption. We emphasize the need for future research to refine biofumigation applications, enhance IsoT stability, and integrate this method with other pest control strategies to ensure its sustainability in wireworm management.

1. Introduction

Controlling soil-borne phytopathogens remains a persistent challenge in agriculture, requiring innovative and sustainable approaches [1,2]. Intensive conventional farming has historically depended on broad-spectrum chemical pesticides and fumigants to manage such challenges [3]. However, for wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae), one of the most significant soil pests and a focus pest in our review, control measures predominantly rely on soil-applied insecticides [4,5]. Unfortunately, these methods are often limited in efficacy or come with risks to both human health and the environment [6,7].
Wireworms, the soil-dwelling larval stage of click beetles (Coleoptera: Elateridae), are serious agricultural pests, particularly for potato crops (Solanum tuberosum L.) worldwide [4,7]. As polyphagous pests, wireworms primarily damage crops by feeding on seeds and roots of cereals and burrowing into potato tubers, reducing their marketable quality rather than their overall yield [4,8]. In years of inadequate or improper management, damage to potato tubers has been reported to reach up to 45% [9]. Their long life cycle, lasting between 3 and 5 years, further complicates control efforts [10,11].
In Europe, economically significant wireworm species primarily belong to the genus Agriotes. Studies conducted in Slovenia around 20 years ago used pheromone traps to examine the distribution of Agriotes species, identifying 140 Elateridae species in the region [10,12]. The dominant species were Agriotes lineatus (L.), followed by A. obscurus (L.), A. sputator (L.), A. ustulatus (Schaller), and A. brevis Candéze, and this predominance remains largely unchanged over time [10,13].
In North America, wireworms are a similarly persistent pest, but the dominant species belong to different genera, including Melanotus, Conoderus, Aeolus, and Lymonius [7,8,9]. Studies in the United States have identified Melanotus communis (Gyllenhal) as one of the most prevalent species in agricultural fields, particularly in Virginia and Florida, where it accounts for up to 80% of wireworms found in potato crops [7,9]. Other significant pest species include Conoderus lividus (DeGeer), C. vespertinus (Fabricius), C. rudis (Brown), C. falli Lane, Aeolus mellillus (Say), and species from the Lymonius genus, particularly Lymonius californicus (Mannerheim), which is one of the most destructive, causing severe damage to potatoes, wheat, and other crops, especially in the Pacific Northwest and Western United States [7,9].
Historically, wireworm control has relied on soil-applied organophosphate and carbamate insecticides [6]. However, due to regulatory restrictions and environmental concerns, alternative insecticides such as neonicotinoids, pyrethroids, and integrated pest management approaches have gained importance [7,12]. Despite these efforts, wireworm infestations remain difficult to manage, highlighting the need for continued research into sustainable control measures. While chemical insecticides have demonstrated effectiveness [14], growing concerns about their environmental and health impacts have intensified the search for alternatives [15].
This challenge is further illustrated by the historical use and subsequent prohibition of methyl bromide (CH3Br), a fumigant widely employed in vegetable production [16]. Its ban, due to environmental concerns, disrupted established practices in sectors such as vegetable, flower, and seedling cultivation, necessitating the development of alternative control methods [16,17,18,19]. As a result, substitutes like metam-sodium (C2H4NNaS2) and dazomet (C5H10N2S2), which decompose into methyl isothiocyanate, have gained attention as potential solutions [20,21,22]. Nonetheless, all these approaches, including neonicotinoids, pyrethroids, and fumigants, are still based on older mechanisms of pest control, further emphasizing the urgent need for innovative and sustainable strategies [15].
One of the most sustainable wireworm management strategies is the use of biofumigation, which involves plants from the Brassicaceae family known for their natural pesticidal properties [12,15,23]. These plants produce glucosinolate compounds that, upon hydrolysis, release isothiocyanates capable of suppressing various soilborne pests, including nematodes, wireworms, weeds, and pathogenic fungi [23,24,25,26,27,28]. Biofumigation is one of the most promising alternatives to conventional pesticide-based approaches [12,13].
This review examines biofumigation as one of the sustainable alternatives to chemical fumigants and emphasizes its effectiveness, specifically using species of the genus Brassica (Brassica spp.) and their derivatives in managing soil pests, with a focus on wireworms. Biofumigation as part of pest management helps to reduce overreliance on conventional pesticides.

2. Biofumigation and Its Relevance as a Sustainable Alternative to Conventional Pest Control Strategies

Biofumigation is an environmentally friendly agricultural practice that utilizes the natural defense mechanisms of cruciferous and other plants to manage soil-borne pests, diseases, and weeds [13,29]. This concept was proposed by J. A. Kirkegaard, who described the process of cultivating, fragmenting, and incorporating Brassica residues (a general term for species within the Brassicaceae family) to facilitate the release of volatile compounds through the hydrolysis of glucosinolates (Glns) found in plant tissues [29]. Later, it was found that other plants within the Brassicales order, such as Capparaceae and Moringaceae, have biofumigant properties as well [30].
The principles of biofumigation, therefore, involve the use of organic plant materials and animal production residues to naturally suppress soil pests [2,19,31,32,33,34,35]. When these plant tissues decompose, they release bioactive compounds, such as IsoTs, which act as natural fumigants [19,33,36]. This process helps control harmful soil organisms without relying on conventional chemical fumigation. Unlike synthetic fumigants, biofumigation supports sustainable farming by improving soil health while also effectively managing pests [1,12,21,37].

2.1. Bridging the Gap Between Conventional and Sustainable Practices

As explained earlier, conventional chemical fumigation, while effective, sterilizes the soil and disrupts biological activity, conflicting with the principles of organic and agroecological farming [3,37]. Since the 1990s, researchers have explored alternatives to synthetic fumigants with biofumigation emerging as a leading option [21,29]. Field trials in the USA, Italy, Australia, and Slovenia have demonstrated biofumigation’s potential to manage a wide range of soil-borne threats, including plant pathogens, nematodes, wireworms, and weeds [13,19,38,39,40].
Biofumigation aligns with sustainable agricultural policies, as it relies on the controlled release of IsoTs rather than complete soil sterilization [41]. While effective pest and pathogen control typically requires IsoT levels between 517 and 1294 µmol/g soil of methyl isothiocyanate, lower concentrations can still suppress harmful organisms [42,43]. Unlike conventional fumigants, biofumigation offers additional agronomic benefits, such as improving soil structure, enhancing microbial communities, reducing nitrogen leaching, and suppressing weeds [44,45].
Biofumigation differs not only from conventional fumigation but also from other biological soil treatments like biodesinfestation. Some researchers argue that the two processes are quite similar, but their mechanisms set them apart [46]. As explained, biofumigation works by releasing compounds from decomposing plant tissues that help suppress soil pests [21,32]. In contrast, biodesinfestation depends on microbial activity in anaerobic conditions, producing toxic gases and compounds from the decomposing organic matter, which control pathogens [1,46,47].
In contrast to biological methods, chemical fumigants like dazomet as active substances are available [48]. Widely used in Slovenia, this nematicide controls soil-borne nematodes and pathogens through its active ingredient, dazomet, which decomposes into methyl isothiocyanate, which is a volatile pesticidal compound [20]. This compound belongs to the IsoTs group, which includes biologically active substances formed during Gln breakdown [19,30,32,33,34,49,50].

2.2. Benefits of Biofumigation

Biofumigation is a natural and effective method for improving soil health while suppressing weeds, nematodes, and harmful pathogens. By incorporating Brassica residues into the soil, it enhances soil texture, water retention, and microbial diversity, making the soil more fertile and resilient [51]. Additionally, it helps reduce soil compaction and erosion while boosting nutrient availability and biomass accumulation [19,49,52].
The process typically involves cultivating and breaking down Brassica biomass, then mixing it into the soil with water to release bioactive compounds that enhance organic matter and nutrient cycling [33,49]. Recent advancements have also introduced innovative biofumigation products, such as Brassica seed cakes, liquid formulations, pellets, and oils, further improving its efficiency and accessibility [53,54,55,56,57,58].
Moreover, aerobic biofumigation can be combined with other techniques like soil solarization, which is a technique that raises soil temperature using solar energy and a polyethylene cover placed on the moistened soil [1,3,59]. This combined approach, often referred to as ‘soil biosolarization’ [60,61], enhances pest suppression and soil improvement, particularly in tropical regions with high solar radiation [60,61].
Glns are sulfur- and nitrogen-containing secondary metabolites found in plants, particularly in the Brassicaceae family [3,33]. Over 200 Glns have been identified in about 3500 species of this family [2]. They are classified into three types: aromatic, aliphatic, and indole, each producing distinct bioactive compounds upon hydrolysis [62].
The decomposition pathways of Glns and their conversion into bioactive substances are visually represented in the accompanying flowchart (Figure 1). This chart visually illustrates the decomposition of Glns, leading to the release of biofumigant compounds.
Plants with Glns also contain myrosinase, an enzyme that remains separate from Glns in intact plant tissues [34]. When plant cells are damaged due to insect attack, mechanical injury, or pathogen infection, glucosinolates and myrosinase interact, leading to hydrolysis and the formation of intermediate substances, which, upon further reaction with various environmental factors and the presence of metal ions and additional protein factors, result in the release of bioactive products such as IsoTs, nitriles, thiocyanates, epithionitriles, and oxazolidine-2-thiones (Figure 1) [3,25,32,34,63,64,65,66].
Nitriles and thiocyanates are generally considered less toxic than IsoTs [66]. While they may not directly suppress pests and pathogens, they can influence soil health by altering microbial community structures and nutrient cycling processes [66]. However, further research is needed to fully understand their specific impacts on soil health.
Epithionitriles and oxazolidine-2-thiones are Gln hydrolysis products influenced by specifier proteins like epithiospecifier proteins (ESP) and various environmental factors [51,65]. Epithionitriles typically arise from alkenyl glucosinolates in the presence of ESP and ferrous ions, while oxazolidine-2-thiones are linked to specific Gln structures and hydrolysis conditions [65]. Their biological activities are less understood than IsoTs. Epithionitriles may aid plant defense but are less effective against pests and pathogens, while oxazolidine-2-thiones have an unclear role in biofumigation [67].
Environmental factors like temperature, pH, and soil moisture strongly affect Gln hydrolysis during biofumigation. Higher soil moisture enhances IsoT release [19,35], while elevated temperatures also contribute to an increase in Gln hydrolysis, raising IsoT concentrations. pH influences hydrolysis products, with neutral pH favoring the formation of IsoTs and acidic conditions promoting the biosynthesis of nitriles. IsoTs degrade quickly, persisting for only a few days [33,68], but residues with high Gln levels can suppress microbial growth for up to two weeks [68].

3. Utilization Strategies

Biofumigation is a versatile and environmentally friendly practice that can be implemented through various strategies, including growing plants rich in Glns, such as rotational crops or intercrops, incorporating their fresh biomass as green manure, or using processed products such as seed meal and dried plant material [69]. These approaches help retain the activity of IsoTs, the key compounds responsible for biofumigation’s effectiveness [31,70,71].

3.1. Intercropping and Crop Rotation

Biofumigation through crop rotation or intercropping relies on the root exudates, leaf washings, and stubble residues of the used plants [72]. Glns and IsoTs released by their decomposition have been shown to suppress pathogen activity in both natural and managed ecosystems. For example, rotating strawberries (Fragaria × ananassa) with Brassica crops like broccoli has proven effective in controlling Verticillium dahliae (Klebahn), the causal agent of Verticillium wilt [73]. Additionally, a study in southern New Mexico found that incorporating mustard cover crops into a chili pepper rotation system improved soil organic matter, moderated pH, and contributed to pathogen suppression, particularly when biomass production was high [74]. Moreover, benefits such as increased yield and vigor in strawberry plants have been observed even in pathogen-free sites, indicating that biofumigation may offer advantages beyond disease suppression [73]. Additionally, to minimize wireworm damage, susceptible crops should be planted after those that either do not support or actively reduce wireworm populations. For instance, incorporating barley (Hordeum vulgare) and oats (Avena sativa) into crop rotations has been shown to lower wireworm infestations [75].

3.2. Plant-Based Processing By-Products

Gln concentrations are highest in seeds, followed by above- and below-ground plant tissues, with seed concentrations typically 8–10 times higher compared to other plant parts [67,76]. However, these levels are influenced by various factors, including growth stage, environmental conditions, and species interactions [67]. Therefore, by-products from Brassica napus L. (rapeseed), Brassica juncea (Indian mustard), and other Brassica species such as seed oil extraction residues like seed meal and oil cake, represent rich sources of Glns, making them not only valuable soil amendments for horticultural crops but also viable options for biofumigation applications [55,56,57,77]. These residues contain active myrosinase, enabling effective Gln hydrolysis upon exposure to moisture. Studies show that brassicaceous seed meals suppress various pests, including insects, nematodes, fungi, and weeds, and these amendments can enhance soil fertility, contributing to improved crop yield and health [78,79,80]. For example, dried and ground post-harvest Brassica vegetable residues effectively control common scab (Streptomyces scabies [Thaxter]) [81]. Similarly, applying 5 kg/m2 of fresh Brassica amendments reduces bacterial wilt (Ralstonia solanacearum [Smith]) in potatoes by 40–50%. Additionally, rapeseed meal, whether high or low in Glns, helps manage Rhizoctonia solani (Kühn) and Pratylenchus penetrans (Cobb), both linked to apple replant disease [78,79].
Other research on the application of Brassica plant material highlights the benefits of Brassica carinata seed meal (30 t/ha), which has been shown to improve soil structure, increase humified carbon levels, and enhance microbial activity, making it a valuable organic amendment [71]. However, its biofumigant effects, primarily releasing allyl isothiocyanate, showed limited pest suppression [71].
Furthermore, biofumigation with defatted B. carinata seed meal pellets has been tested against Phytophthora nicotianae (Breda de Haan) in pepper crops. While a standard rate (3 t/ha) showed limited efficacy due to microbial degradation, higher rates (6–20 t/ha) significantly reduced pathogen survival, suggesting increased application improves disease control [80].
Similarly, B. juncea granulated seed meal has demonstrated high efficacy in controlling Melolontha melolontha (L.) grubs, a serious soil pest in European agriculture and forestry. In field trials, application of B. juncea granulated seed meal at a concentration sufficient to achieve a glucosinolate content of approximately 293–402 µmol/L of soil resulted in up to 82.2% mortality of M. melolontha larvae [82]. The primary breakdown product, allyl isothiocyanate, exhibited strong biocidal activity, disrupting grub development and significantly reducing pest populations [82].
Additionally, the use of defatted seed meals from B. carinata and B. juncea has also been found to significantly improve biofumigation effectiveness. This is due to enhanced glucosinolate hydrolysis, which leads to prolonged IsoT activity in the soil [23].

3.3. Green Manure

Green manure refers to specific crops grown primarily to be incorporated into the soil to improve its fertility and structure. These crops, often legumes, brassicas, or grasses, help enhance soil organic matter, boost nutrient availability, suppress weeds, and reduce soil-borne diseases and pests [83,84]. In particular, biofumigant green manures, or plough-downs, offer additional benefits by releasing biocidal Gln hydrolysis products upon incorporation into the soil [85,86].
Mojtahedi et al. [87] found that rapeseed (Brassica napus) green manure suppressed root-knot nematodes and increased potato yields by 17–25%. Harding and Wicks [88] found that Indian mustard (B. juncea), rapeseed (B. napus), and radish (Raphanus sativus [L.]) suppressed Verticillium dahliae more effectively than cereals crops. Larkin and Griffin [89] also reported that Brassica species green manures were the most effective in reducing Streptomyces scabies (Thaxter), the causal agent of common scab, in potatoes.
A long-term study by Walker et al. [90] confirmed additional benefits, showing that 10–13 years of ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum [Lam.]) green manuring and indian mustard (B. juncea) biofumigation improved soil structure, increased soil carbon by 20.4%, and boosted arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi by up to 1400%. A 20% increase in carrot (Daucus carota) yields was also recorded in one year.

4. Crops of Interest and Their Biofumigant Properties

Among the studied Brassica crops, B. juncea and B. carinata are of particular interest due to their high concentrations of sinigrin and gluconapin, respectively, which contribute to their improved biofumigation efficacy [63]. Another thing to mention is that the success of biofumigation depends not only on Gln concentration but also on biomass accumulation, which is driven by photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) interception and radiation use efficiency (RUE) [63,91]. Species such as Raphanus sativus, Sinapis alba (L.), B. carinata, and B. juncea exhibit high biomass accumulation, reaching up to 480 g/m2 in Northern Europe due to high PAR interception as well as their RUE [91,92]. While crucifers generally show lower RUE than other cover crops, some Brassica species can achieve high RUE (1.33 g/MJ) under optimal conditions [93].
Beyond their pesticidal properties, these Brassica spp. offer additional agronomic benefits, such as rapid growth, high biomass production, and nutrient recycling. Their use in integrated pest management strategies makes them viable alternatives to chemical pesticides [21,34,49,51,76,94,95]. Given their potential to suppress a wide range of pests, including those from the Elateridae family (of particular relevance to our study due to their presence in our region), these species warrant further investigation. In particular, wireworms from the Agriotes genus pose a significant threat to agricultural systems and soil health in Slovenia [10,12,13]. Consequently, we selected Elateridae species to conduct a comprehensive review of existing research on their management. Specifically, in our review, we assessed the extent to which Brassica plants, especially B. juncea and B. carinata green manure, soil amendments, and their bioactive compounds have been explored as potential control strategies against pests from the Elateridae family.

4.1. Brassica juncea (Indian Mustard)

Rich in sinigrin, B. juncea is a strong biofumigant due to its production of allyl isothiocyanate, a compound with potent biocidal properties [34]. It is also a plant species adaptable to diverse climates and has shown effectiveness against nematodes, fungal pathogens, and insect pests, including wireworms [12,13,23,27]. Studies indicate that incorporating B. juncea into the soil can significantly reduce pest populations through the release of IsoTs during crop incorporation [91,96].
Research has shown that B. juncea used as green manure can help control wireworms by disrupting their development and feeding [27]. Biocidal seed meals from B. juncea have also demonstrated high wireworm mortality under controlled conditions, highlighting their potential as a sustainable pest management tool [97]. In field trials, the effectiveness of defatted seed meals from B. juncea has varied depending on how they were applied. Well-incorporated treatments significantly reduced wireworm populations, while surface applications were less effective [23]. Combining B. juncea biofumigation with microbial-based methods, such as using entomopathogenic fungi like Metarhizium brunneum (Petch), could further enhance pest control [13,98]. Additionally, applying a fungicide like metconazole has been suggested to increase sinigrin levels in B. juncea, improving its biofumigant effectiveness [96].

4.2. Brassica carinata (Ethiopian Mustard)

B. carinata is rich in gluconapin, which hydrolyzes into butenyl isothiocyanate, contributing to its biofumigation potential [34,67]. While less studied than B. juncea for wireworm suppression, its application has demonstrated efficacy against various soil pests, including nematodes and fungal pathogens [21,32]. The incorporation of B. carinata residues into the soil has been associated with increased microbial diversity, which may indirectly contribute to pest suppression [91].
Studies have shown that incorporating B. carinata seed meal into the soil can help reduce wireworm populations. This happens because the meal releases volatile compounds that interfere with larval activity [71]. Adjusting soil moisture and carefully timing the incorporation process can further improve its effectiveness by increasing wireworms’ exposure to these toxic compounds [97]. Research also suggests that B. carinata seed meal works best when deeply incorporated into the soil, as this extends the persistence of its toxic compounds and enhances wireworm suppression [23].
Overall, both B. juncea and B. carinata present strong biofumigation potential, with B. juncea demonstrating higher direct efficacy against wireworms, while B. carinata provides broader soil health benefits. Their inclusion in crop rotations and green manure strategies offers a sustainable alternative to synthetic insecticides [34,63,71,91].

5. Applications of B. juncea and B. carinata in Managing Wireworms

Wireworms, the larvae of the Elateridae family beetles, are persistent soil pests responsible for severe damage to root crops such as potatoes, carrots, and cereals [13]. These larvae thrive in moist soils and have long lifecycles, making them difficult to control using conventional methods [97]. With increasing restrictions on synthetic insecticides, biofumigation with B. juncea and Brassica carinata has emerged as a viable alternative, utilizing glucosinolate-derived IsoTs to suppress wireworm populations while promoting soil health [23].

5.1. Mechanism of Control

Biofumigation works by disrupting wireworms’ feeding and metabolism, ultimately causing tissue damage, dehydration, and metabolic dysfunction, which leads to their death [27]. One of the most potent biocidal compounds in this process is allyl isothiocyanate from B. juncea, which has demonstrated strong insecticidal properties against wireworms in controlled trials [34]; (Table 1). Similarly, butenyl isothiocyanate from B. carinata has comparable toxic effects but remains active in the soil for longer, extending its effectiveness in wireworm management [27].
IsoTs also negatively impact the larvae’s respiratory and nervous systems, further suppressing their activity [34]. Additionally, biofumigant residues also reduce wireworm mobility, making it harder for them to find food, which leads to higher mortality rates [99].

5.2. Efficacy

Studies indicate that biofumigation with B. juncea and B. carinata significantly reduces wireworm populations, with mortality rates exceeding 80% under optimal conditions [23,27]. Additionally, residues of B. juncea and B. carinata incorporated into the soil suppress wireworm activity for up to three weeks, ensuring protection during the phases of crop establishment [34]. Furthermore, the sustained release of products from glucosinolate hydrolysis enhances pest suppression, as these compounds continue to degrade in the soil, maintaining toxic effects over time [98]. Wireworm suppression is more effective in combination with soil moisture management, as adequate hydration accelerates enzymatic breakdown of Glns, enhancing the diffusion of IsoTs [34]. Additionally, combining biofumigation with other approaches and other pest control strategies could further improve wireworm suppression [13,98].

5.3. Implementation Strategies

B. juncea and B. carinata serve as effective rotation crops or green manures in wireworm-infested fields, reducing larval populations before planting susceptible crops like potatoes and cereals [27,72,86]. By integrating biofumigation through strategic crop rotation, green manure applications, and precise incorporation timing, wireworm control can be enhanced while promoting sustainable pest management [23,99]. Chopping or crushing plant biomass before incorporation speeds up glucosinolate breakdown and boosts IsoT release, making biofumigation more effective [12,34]. Late-season applications, in particular, could be more effective, as they target wireworms during their most vulnerable developmental stages [99]. By incorporating B. juncea and B. carinata into pest management systems, growers could effectively suppress wireworm populations while reducing reliance on chemical insecticides, ultimately promoting environmental sustainability and long-term agricultural viability.

6. Global Adoption and Promising Results from Selected Case Studies

Biofumigation with Brassicaceae species has been tested in various regions worldwide, including Italy, Australia, the USA, and Slovenia [13,21,23,27,38,69,71,82,91]. The effectiveness of biofumigation has been widely documented, with studies reporting significant reductions in soilborne pests and increased crop productivity [76].
Wireworms pose a persistent threat to agricultural production, particularly in cereal and root crops [13]. Biofumigation using Brassica spp. has emerged as a promising alternative to chemical pesticides. In this review, we identified twelve studies in which B. juncea and B. carinata have been used against wireworms. All of the studies focus on evaluating the efficacy of different Brassica spp. and their various derivates as new alternatives in pest management against various wireworm species. The compiled studies and their key findings are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Published studies on the use of Brassica species and their derivatives for wireworm (Coleoptera: Elateridae) control.
Table 1. Published studies on the use of Brassica species and their derivatives for wireworm (Coleoptera: Elateridae) control.
Biofumigant AgentPest SpeciesHost PlantControl StrategyExperiment TypeKey FindingsSource
Defatted rapeseed meal (Brassica napus L.)Wireworms (Limonius infuscatus Motschulsky)Soil amendment study (not targeting specific host plants)Application of rapeseed meal as a soil amendment; evaluation of Gln degradation products and their effects on wirewormsLaboratory bioassay and chemical analysisRapeseed meal rapidly produced IsoTs (301 nmol/g, 2 h) and thiocyanate (180 nmol/g, 8 h). Wireworms avoided treated soil within 24 h, despite no reported 17-day toxicity. Repellency was likely due to IsoT presence, with possible thiocyanate contribution.[100]
Allyl isothiocyanateWireworms (Limonius californicus [Mannerheim])Not specified (study focused on soil treatment)Soil amendment with allyl isothiocyanate derived from Glns in Brassica spp.Laboratory bioassayAllyl isothiocyanate was toxic to wireworms at concentrations of 150–300 nmol/g soil, with mortality rates up to 90%. Sublethal doses reduced feeding. Allyl isothiocyanate concentrations decreased rapidly, suggesting its potential use as a short-term control method.[101]
Rapeseed (Brassica napus) seed mealWireworms (Limonius californicus)Not specified (study focused on soil treatment)Soil amendment with rapeseed seed meal containing Glns that decompose to IsoTsLaboratory bioassayRapeseed seed meal (41.7–500 g/kg soil) caused up to 95% wireworm mortality in 7 days. LC50 dropped from 124.8 to 114.4 g/kg by 21 days. IsoTs were the primary toxins, as detoxified meal had no effect.[38]
Defatted biocidal seed meals from B. carinata A. Braun (ISCI7), E. sativa Mill (cv. Nemat), Barbarea verna (Mill.) Asch. (ISCI100), Sinapis alba L. (cv. Pira), and whole/freeze-dried B. juncea (L.) Czern. (ISCI99)Wireworms (Agriotes brevis Candèze, Agriotes sordidus (Illiger), Agriotes ustulatus [Schaller])Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), Maize (Zea mays L.)Defatted biocidal seed meals and whole Brassica spp. plant materialsLaboratory bioassay and semi-natural field trials (pot trials)B. carinata and Eruca sativa Nemat meals were highly effective against wireworms. B. juncea plants caused 100% mortality.[27]
Gln seed meal (B. napus, B. juncea)Various soilborne pests (fungi, bacteria, nematodes, and wireworms)Various crops (focus on soil amendment effects)Seed meals used as soil amendment to control soil-borne pathogens, nematodes, and insectsReview and experimental study (2000–2002)Some bioactive compounds have strong antimicrobial and insecticidal effects.[102]
B. juncea (ISCI20)Soilborne fungi (Pythium spp., Rhizoctonia solani J.G. Kühn), nematodes (Meloidogyne incognita Kofold & White, Heterodera schachtii Schmidt) and wireworms (Agriotes spp.)Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), Winter Wheat (Triticum aestivum)B. juncea plant materialLong-term field trials (13 years)Biofumigation with B. juncea replaced chemical fumigants in potato-wheat rotation, improving soil fertility, reducing CO2 emissions by 700 kg/ha, and sequestering up to 3.5 t/ha of CO2 in soil organic matter.[103]
B. juncea and B. carinataWireworms (Agriotes brevis, Agriotes sordidus, Agriotes ustulatus)Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), Corn (Zea mays)Defatted seed meals, chopped residuesLaboratory bioassay and field trialsInsecticidal effect with high larval mortality and crop protection.[23]
Rapeseed (B. napus), Oilseed Radish (R. sativus L. var. oleifera), Oilseed Rape (B. napus L. var. oleifera), Kale (B. oleracea L. var. acephala), White Mustard (S. alba).Wireworms (A. brevis, A. lineatus, A. obscurus, A. sputator, and A. ustulatus)Potato (Solanum tuberosum)Green Manure, chopped residues incorporated into the soil through ploughingField trialsNo differences in insecticidal effect among the studied cruciferous plants. However, some efficacy was shown compared to the positive control.[13]
Gln plants (B. juncea, B. napus, E. sativa), compost amendments, and bacterial biological control agentsWireworms (Agriotes spp., Limonius spp.), mealybugs (Planococcus citri Risso, Phenacoccus solani Ferris)Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.), Mint (Mentha spicata L.), Tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus L.)Brassica spp., compost amendments, and bacterial biocontrol for pathogen and pest suppressionField trials and greenhouse studiesNotable reduction in pest incidence.[104]
Brassica spp. pellets, calcium cyanamide, limestone dust, propolisWireworms (Agriotes spp.), Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say), early blight (Alternaria solani Sorauer), late blight (Phytophthora infestans Montagne)Potato (Solanum tuberosum)Application of Brassica spp. pellets, calcium cyanamide, limestone dust, and propolis through broadcast, mix-in, spraying, and dusting.Field trialsCalcium cyanamide reduced wireworm damage more than Brassica spp. pellets, which still showed promise. Limestone dust controlled L. decemlineata, and propolis reduced blight. Treated plots had higher yields, making these eco-friendly alternatives promising.[105]
B. junceaWireworms (Agriotes spp.)Potato (Solanum tuberosum)Incorporation of B. juncea into the soil to suppress wireworm damage on potatoesField trialsB. juncea biofumigation significantly reduced wireworm damage in potatoes. IsoTs and their derivatives played a key role in pest suppression.[106]
Brassica spp. seed meal formulationsWireworms (Agriotes spp.)Cereal Crops (Poaceae)Seed meal incorporation, broadcast application in soil to suppress wireworm populationsLaboratory bioassy and field trialsBiofumigant seed meal application altered wireworm behavior, causing repellency and reduced feeding activity.[107]

7. Future Directions and Challenges

7.1. Advancing Biofumigation with Brassicaceae for Wireworm Control

The use of biofumigation as a sustainable pest control strategy has gained significant traction, particularly with Brassicaceae species such as B. juncea and B. carinata [63,96,97,98,108]. The natural release of Gln-derived IsoTs has demonstrated strong potential in managing soil-borne pests, including wireworms (Table 1), which are increasingly challenging to control due to restrictions on conventional insecticides [109]. While biofumigation holds promise, several challenges remain in optimizing this method for large-scale agricultural application, particularly in the context of wireworm suppression.

7.2. Enhancing Efficacy and Consistency in Field Conditions

One of the primary challenges in biofumigation research is achieving consistent efficacy across diverse field conditions. While laboratory bioassays have demonstrated the strong insecticidal effects of B. juncea and B. carinata, as well as their derivatives, against wireworms [27,38,100], field trials often produce variable results due to the quantity of active compounds produced and environmental factors such as soil type, moisture levels, microbial activity, and temperature fluctuations [13,21,63,76,110,111,112]. These variables also influence wireworm behavior and survival, as soil conditions regulate their vertical movement and feeding patterns [113]. Additionally, soil microbial communities play a crucial role in the hydrolysis of glucosinolates into their active IsoTs, thereby affecting the availability and persistence of these bioactive compounds [21]. Moreover, under extreme environmental conditions, such as severe drought, biofumigation alone may not enhance crop yield or help with pest suppression. This underscores the necessity of integrating additional agronomic strategies to ensure long-term pest control and improve overall agricultural sustainability [114,115].
To improve reliability, future research should focus on refining application techniques, including optimizing soil incorporation methods. Mechanical incorporation, irrigation practices, and plastic film sealing all influence IsoT volatilization and retention in the soil [33]. All of these factors also affect wireworm exposure to these fumigant compounds [33,109]. The development of controlled release biofumigant formulations, such as biofumigant pellets and liquid seed meal derivatives, could enhance the consistency and longevity of pest suppression [21,71,84,98]. Given that wireworms have prolonged larval stages in the soil, the persistence of IsoTs in soil environments is crucial for effective control [23,106]. Additionally, future investigations could also explore the integration of myrosinase to enhance IsoTs production, alongside identifying novel myrosinases with superior glucosinolate degradation capabilities and stable enzymatic sources [115]. These advancements could further improve the efficiency and consistency of biofumigation strategies, maximizing their potential for sustainable pest management.
Studies have demonstrated that the developmental stage of a plant at the time of incorporation of plants or other derivatives into the soil significantly influences biofumigation efficacy [86,99]. In Brassica spp., Gln concentrations peak during flowering, but the highest levels generally occur before this stage, making pre-flowering incorporation more effective for pest suppression [63,115,116]. This timing is particularly important for wireworm control, as these pests are highly polyphagous and can adapt to various host crops [109]. Proper synchronization of biofumigant application with the pest’s most vulnerable life stages could enhance its effectiveness.

7.3. Addressing Environmental and Agronomic Trade-Offs

While biofumigation is considered an eco-friendly alternative to chemical fumigants, its broad spectrum effects raise concerns regarding non-target impacts. IsoTs can influence soil microbial communities, potentially disrupting beneficial organisms involved in nutrient cycling and plant health [117]. Additionally, the rapid degradation of IsoTs in certain soils could lead to inconsistent pest control, necessitating repeat applications that may not be economically viable [21].
Future studies should therefore assess long-term impacts on soil microbiomes to determine whether repeated biofumigation applications alter microbial diversity and soil function [51,117,118]. Evaluating nutrient cycling benefits is also critical, as biofumigation contributes organic matter and nitrogen to soils, potentially enhancing crop growth while also acting as an integrated pest management strategy against wireworms [84,109]. Furthermore, balancing pest control with environmental sustainability should be a priority, as IsoT persistence and non-target toxicity must be carefully monitored to avoid unintended ecological disruptions [97].
Recent research suggests that biofumigation effects can be enhanced when combined with other management practices, such as solarization and crop rotation [56]. Notably, incorporating trap cropping strategies, in which wireworms are diverted toward sacrificial plants, may also enhance biofumigation efficacy by ensuring higher pest exposure to toxic IsoTs [97,106]. However, long-term studies are needed to understand how these integrated approaches influence soil health and pest suppression over multiple growing seasons.

7.4. Overcoming Adoption Barriers in Commercial Agriculture

Despite strong research support, the adoption of biofumigation in large-scale farming remains limited. Farmers cite concerns regarding economic feasibility, labor intensity, and uncertainty about long-term effectiveness [97]. Cost and labor requirements are key barriers, as the need for additional field operations, such as growing and incorporating biofumigant crops, can make biofumigation less attractive compared to synthetic pesticides [119]. However, with increasing restrictions on neonicotinoid-based seed treatments, alternative pest management strategies such as biofumigation will likely become more relevant, particularly for controlling persistent soil pests like wireworms [109].
For example, studies in northern Italy have demonstrated that while biofumigation effectively suppresses wireworm populations, farmers hesitate to adopt the practice due to the added costs of cover crop management and biomass incorporation [23,106]. Similarly, in France, growers expressed concerns about the unpredictability of biofumigation efficacy when soil conditions varied significantly from year to year [109,120]. Additionally, in Canada, where wireworms have become a major issue in cereal and potato production, trials showed that while Brassica spp. meal amendments could reduce wireworm populations, adoption was low due to limited awareness and logistical challenges in sourcing and applying biofumigant materials [109,121].
Additionally, integrating biofumigation into existing cropping systems remains a challenge since many farmers rely on short rotations and may not have the flexibility to dedicate land to biofumigant cover crops [21]. Regulatory and market acceptance is another limitation, as although biofumigation aligns with organic and sustainable farming principles, clear guidelines for its application and efficacy assessments are needed to increase adoption [117].
To facilitate adoption, future efforts should focus on developing cost-effective seed meal formulations that offer a more practical alternative to cover cropping. Encouraging farmer education and outreach through demonstration trials and economic analyses is crucial to showcasing the benefits of biofumigation in real-world farming scenarios. Additionally, policy support and incentives could help offset the initial investment required for biofumigation adoption by promoting government programs that support sustainable pest control alternatives [109]. Ultimately, integrating biofumigation with other wireworm management strategies, such as biological control agents and habitat manipulation, may provide a more holistic approach to mitigating wireworm damage while ensuring economic and environmental sustainability.

8. Conclusions

The application of Brassicaceae-based biofumigation, particularly with B. juncea and B. carinata, represents a promising strategy for wireworm management. The natural release of Gln-derived IsoTs has demonstrated strong potential in suppressing wireworm populations by disrupting their feeding behavior and reducing larval survival. However, practical adoption is challenged by field variability, environmental impacts, and economic feasibility. Refining application methods, such as optimizing incorporation techniques, improving IsoT release mechanisms, and developing controlled release formulations, will be critical for improving consistency and maximizing biofumigation efficiency across different soils and climatic conditions. Moreover, studies should focus on tailoring application methods to local soil conditions, optimizing cultivar selection, and integrating region-specific pest management practices.
The phasing out of methyl bromide under the Montreal Protocol has accelerated the need for natural and environmentally friendly soil fumigation alternatives. Biofumigation with Brassica species aligns with this goal, offering a sustainable pest management strategy while contributing to soil health and organic matter enrichment. However, IsoT effectiveness fluctuates based on soil properties, microbial activity, and environmental conditions, necessitating further research on microbial interactions, IsoT persistence, and the optimal timing of biofumigation applications for wireworm suppression. Additionally, integrating biofumigation with complementary practices such as trap cropping, solarization, and targeted tillage can extend its suppressive effects and improve long-term wireworm control.
While biofumigation is a promising alternative to synthetic insecticides, adoption barriers, including cost, labor intensity, and regulatory uncertainties, remain significant. Farmers across Europe and Canada have expressed concerns regarding the economic viability of large-scale biofumigation, particularly in regions with high wireworm pressure. Studies have shown that while Brassica spp.-based biofumigation effectively suppresses wireworm populations, its practical implementation requires efficient integration into existing cropping systems. The development of cost-effective seed meal formulations, farmer education initiatives, and policy incentives could help bridge the gap between research advancements and commercial adoption. Encouraging regulatory frameworks and market acceptance would further support the transition to biofumigation as a mainstream pest control method.
Future research should also focus on enhancing IsoT production through genetic and enzymatic modifications, particularly by leveraging myrosinase activity to improve Gln degradation efficiency. Additionally, long-term studies assessing the persistence of biofumigation effects under different agronomic conditions are needed to determine its sustained impact on wireworm populations. Recognizing that biofumigation is not a standalone solution but rather a component of an integrated pest management approach will be essential for its success. By advancing these research areas and integrating biofumigation into holistic pest control strategies, Brassica spp. crops and their derivatives could play a pivotal role in sustainable wireworm management, reducing reliance on chemical insecticides while supporting resilient agricultural systems. Our review synthesizes existing research on the use of Brassica spp. for wireworm control, compiling data on past and ongoing studies, evaluating the efficacy of various biofumigation techniques, and providing insights into their practical applications. Furthermore, it identifies key knowledge gaps and proposes strategies for optimizing biofumigation methods, hopefully contributing to the development of more effective and scalable wireworm management approaches.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.B. and S.T.; methodology, L.B. and S.T.; software, L.B.; validation, L.B., T.B. and S.T.; formal analysis, L.B.; investigation, L.B.; resources, S.T.; data curation, L.B.; writing—original draft preparation, L.B.; writing—review and editing, L.B. and S.T.; visualization, L.B. and S.T.; supervision, S.T.; project administration, S.T.; funding acquisition, S.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This review paper was conducted as part of the L4-4554 applied research project, which received financial support from the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency (ARIS) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Food of the Republic of Slovenia (MKGP).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
GlnsGlucosinolates
IsoTsIsothiocyanates

References

  1. Gamliel, A.; Van Bruggen, A.H.C. Maintaining soil health for crop production in organic greenhouses. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 208, 120–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dutta, T.K.; Khan, M.R.; Phani, V. Plant-parasitic nematode management via biofumigation using brassica and non-brassica plants: Current status and future prospects. Curr. Plant Biol. 2019, 17, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ladhalakshmi, D.; Madhubala, R.; Sundravadana, S.; Laha, G.S.; Krishnaveni, D.; Sangeetha, G.; Ragothuman, G. Biofumigation in crop disease management. In Sustainable Crop Disease Management Using Natural Products; CABI Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 389–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Parker, W.E.; Howard, J.J. The biology and management of wireworms (Agriotes spp.) on potato with particular reference to the U.K. Agric. For. Entomol. 2001, 3, 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vernon, R.S.; Van Herk, W.; Tolman, J. European wireworms (Agriotes spp.) in North America: Distribution, damage, monitoring, and alternative integrated pest management strategies. IOBC/WPRS Bull. 2005, 28, 73–79. [Google Scholar]
  6. Parker, W.E.; Clarke, A.; Ellis, S.A.; Oakley, J.N. Evaluation of insecticides for the control of wireworms (Agriotes spp.) on potato. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1990, 116, 28–29. [Google Scholar]
  7. Kuhar, T.P.; Alvarez, J.M. Timing of injury and efficacy of soil-applied insecticides against wireworms on potato in Virginia. Crop Prot. 2008, 27, 792–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Johnson, S.N.; Anderson, E.A.; Dawson, G.; Griffiths, D.W. Varietal susceptibility of potatoes to wireworm herbivory. Agric. For. Entomol. 2008, 10, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jansson, R.K.; Lecrone, S.H. Effects of summer cover crop management on wireworm (Coleoptera: Elateridae) abundance and damage to potato. J. Econ. Entomol. 1991, 84, 581–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Milevoj, L.; Gomboc, S.; Bobnar, A.; Mikuš, T.; Gril, T. Efficacy of different density of pheromone traps on an attack of lined click beetles (Agriotes lineatus L.). Acta Agric. Slov. 2005, 85, 375–384. (In Slovenian) [Google Scholar]
  11. Noronha, C. Crop rotation as a management tool for wireworms in potatoes. IOBC/WPRS Bull. 2011, 66, 85–98. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bohinc, T.; Trdan, S. Alternative methods for controlling wireworms (Coleoptera, Elateridae) in the fields. Acta Agric. Slov. 2013, 101, 137–147. (In Slovenian) [Google Scholar]
  13. Laznik, Ž.; Trdan, S.; Vučajnk, F.; Bohinc, T.; Vidrih, M. Cruciferous plants’ use as biofumigants in potato against wireworms. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2014, 64, 606–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Piqué, J.; Eizaguirre, M.; Pons, X. Soil insecticide treatments against maize soil pests and corn borers in Catalonia under traditional crop conditions. Crop Prot. 1998, 17, 557–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rashed, A.; Van Herk, W.G. Pest elaterids of North America: New insights and opportunities for management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2024, 69, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Labrada, R.; Fornasari, L. (Eds.) Global Report on Validated Alternatives to the Use of Methyl Bromide for Soil Fumigation; Food & Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2001; No. 166. [Google Scholar]
  17. Baker, L.W.; Fitzell, D.L.; Seiber, J.N.; Parker, T.R.; Shibamoto, T.; Poore, M.W.; Duncan, D.W. Ambient air concentrations of pesticides in California. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1996, 30, 1365–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Epstein, L. Fifty years since Silent Spring. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2014, 52, 377–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Prasad, P.; Kumar, J.; Pandey, S. Biofumigation: Success and prospects in soilborne plant disease management. JAPSA 2015, 1, 47–59. [Google Scholar]
  20. O’Neill, T.M.; Budge, G.; Shepherd, A.; Ratcliffe, T. Evaluation of a combined dazomet and metam-sodium treatment for pre-plant soil fumigation. Acta Hortic. 2005, 698, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Matthiessen, J.N.; Kirkegaard, J.A. Biofumigation and enhanced biodegradation: Opportunity and challenge in soilborne pest and disease management. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2006, 25, 235–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wang, Q.; Ma, Y.; Yang, H.; Chang, Z. Effect of biofumigation and chemical fumigation on soil microbial community structure and control of pepper Phytophthora blight. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 30, 507–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Furlan, L.; Bonetto, C.; Finotto, A.; Lazzeri, L.; Malaguti, L.; Patalano, G.; Parker, W. The efficacy of biofumigant meals and plants to control wireworm populations. Ind. Crops Prod. 2010, 31, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kirkegaard, J.A.; Wong, P.T.W.; Desmarchelier, J.M. Suppression of fungal root pathogens of cereals by tissues. Plant Pathol. 1996, 45, 593–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Brown, P.D.; Morra, M.J. Control of soil-borne plant pests using glucosinolate-containing plants. Adv. Agron. 1997, 61, 167–231. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zasada, I.A.; Ferris, H. Nematode suppression with brassicaceous amendments: Application based upon glucosinolate profiles. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2004, 36, 1017–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Furlan, L.; Bonetto, C.; Patalano, G.; Lazzeri, L. Potential of biocidal meals to control wireworm populations. In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Biofumigation: A Possible Alternative to Methyl Bromide; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2004; Volume 31, pp. 313–316. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ploeg, A.; López-Pérez, J.A.; Bello, A. Biofumigation to manage plant-parasitic nematodes. In Management of Nematode and Insect-Borne Diseases; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2024; pp. 195–204. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kirkegaard, J.A. Biofumigation—Using Brassica species to control pests and diseases in horticulture and agriculture. In Proceedings of the 9th Australian Research Assembly on Brassicas; Wratten, N., Mailer, R.J., Eds.; The Assembly: Wagga Wagga, Australia, 1993; pp. 77–82. [Google Scholar]
  30. Chhajed, S.; Mostafa, I.; He, Y.; Abou-Hashem, M.; El-Domiaty, M.; Chen, S. Glucosinolate biosynthesis and the glucosinolate–myrosinase system in plant defense. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lazzeri, L.; Leoni, O.; Manici, L.M. Biocidal plant dried pellets for biofumigation. Ind. Crops Prod. 2004, 20, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gimsing, A.L.; Kirkegaard, J.A. Glucosinolates and biofumigation: Fate of glucosinolates and their hydrolysis products in soil. Phytochem. Rev. 2009, 8, 299–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kirkegaard, J. Biofumigation for plant disease control–From the fundamentals to the farming system. In Disease Control in Crops: Biological and Environmentally Friendly Approaches; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; pp. 172–195. [Google Scholar]
  34. Szczygłowska, M.; Piekarska, A.; Konieczka, P.; Namieśnik, J. Use of Brassica plants in the phytoremediation and biofumigation processes. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2011, 12, 7760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kumar, G.K.; Jayasudha, S.M.; Kirankumar, K.C. Disease management by biofumigation in organic farming systems. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2018, 7, 676–679. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ziedan, E.S.H. A review of the efficacy of biofumigation agents in the control of soil-borne plant diseases. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2022, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  37. Van Bruggen, A.H.C.; Finckh, M.R. Plant diseases and management approaches in organic farming systems. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2016, 54, 25–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Elberson, L.R.; Borek, V.; McCaffrey, J.P.; Morra, M.J. Toxicity of rapeseed meal-amended soil to wireworms, Limonius californicus (Coleoptera: Elateridae). J. Agric. Entomol. 1996, 13, 323–330. [Google Scholar]
  39. Karavina, C.; Mandumbu, R. Biofumigation for crop protection: Potential for adoption in Zimbabwe. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2012, 14, 1996–2005. [Google Scholar]
  40. Lazzeri, L.; Malaguti, L.; Cinti, S.; Ugolini, L.; De Nicola, G.R.; Bagatta, M.; Patalano, G. The Brassicaceae biofumigation system for plant cultivation and defense: An Italian twenty-year experience of study and application. Acta Hortic. 2013, 1005, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Morra, M.J.; Kirkegaard, J.A. Isothiocyanate release from soil-incorporated Brassica tissues. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2002, 34, 1683–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Borek, V.; Elberson, L.R.; McCaffrey, J.P.; Morra, M.J. Toxicity of isothiocyanates produced by glucosinolates in Brassicaceae species to black vine weevil eggs. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1998, 46, 5318–5323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jensen, J.; Styrishave, B.; Gimsing, A.L.; Bruun Hansen, H.C. The toxic effects of benzyl glucosinolate and its hydrolysis product, the biofumigant benzyl isothiocyanate, to Folsomia fimetaria. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2010, 29, 359–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Brennan, R.J.B.; Glaze-Corcoran, S.; Wick, R.; Hashemi, M. Biofumigation: An alternative strategy for the control of plant parasitic nematodes. J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 1680–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wieczorek, R.; Zydlik, Z.; Zydlik, P. Biofumigation treatment using Tagetes patula, Sinapis alba and Raphanus sativus changes the biological properties of replanted soil in a fruit tree nursery. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Castellá-Lorenzo, G.; Savigliano, R.; Pizano, M. Breaking the bondage to methyl bromide in agriculture—UNIDO experience. In Proceedings of the VIII International Symposium on Chemical and Non-Chemical Soil and Substrate Disinfestation, Torino, Italy, 13 July 2014; ISHS: Leuven, Belgium, 2014; Volume 1044, pp. 281–287. [Google Scholar]
  47. Larregla, S.; Gandariasbeitia, M.; Ojinaga, M.; Mendarte, S.; Guerrero, M.M.; Ortiz-Barredo, A. Gases released during soil biodisinfestation of pepper greenhouses reduce survival of Phytophthora capsici oospores in Northern Spain. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 663915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. FITO-INFO. Slovenian Information System for Plant Protection; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food, Phytosanitary Administration of the Republic of Slovenia: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  49. Clarkson, J.; Michel, V.; Neilson, R. Mini-Paper—Biofumigation for the Control of Soil-Borne Diseases. EPI-AGRI, Soil-Borne Diseases, 2015, p. 7. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/agri-eip/files/9_eip_sbd_mp_biofumigation_final_0.pdf (accessed on 23 January 2025).
  50. Mawar, R.; Lodha, S. Suppression of soilborne plant pathogens by cruciferous residues. In Organic Amendments and Soil Suppressiveness in Plant Disease Management; Insam, F., Franke-Whittle, S., Goberna, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 413–433. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hanschen, F.S.; Winkelmann, T. Biofumigation for fighting replant disease—A review. Agronomy 2020, 10, 425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ntalli, N.; Caboni, P. A review of isothiocyanates biofumigation activity on plant-parasitic nematodes. Phytochem. Rev. 2017, 16, 827–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lord, J.S.; Lazzeri, L.; Atkinson, H.J.; Urwin, P.E. Biofumigation for control of pale potato cyst nematodes: Activity of Brassica leaf extracts and green manures on Globodera pallida in vitro and in soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 7882–7890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. De Nicola, G.R.; D’Avino, L.; Curto, G.; Malaguti, L.; Ugolini, L.; Cinti, S.; Lazzeri, L. A new biobased liquid formulation with biofumigant and fertilizing properties for drip irrigation distribution. Ind. Crops Prod. 2013, 42, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Curto, G.; Dallavalle, E.; Matteo, R.; Lazzeri, L. Biofumigant effect of new defatted seed meals against the southern root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2016, 169, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wei, F.; Passey, T.; Xu, X. Effects of individual and combined use of biofumigation-derived products on the viability of Verticillium dahliae microsclerotia in soil. Crop Prot. 2016, 79, 170–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Serrano-Pérez, P.; Palo, C.; Rodríguez-Molina, M.C. Efficacy of Brassica carinata pellets to inhibit mycelial growth and chlamydospores germination of Phytophthora nicotianae at different temperature regimes. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 216, 126–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Roncato, S.C.; Stangarlin, J.R.; Kuhn, O.J.; Gonçalves Júnior, A.C.; Dildey, O.D.F.; Gonçalves, E.D.V.; Rissato, B.B.; Broetto, L.; Faria, V.O. Control of Meloidogyne incognita in tomato by Crambe extract using different application forms. Summa Phytopathol. 2018, 44, 261–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gamliel, A.; Katan, J. Control of plant disease through soil solarization. In Disease Control in Crops; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; pp. 196–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ros, M.; Garcia, C.; Hernandez, M.T.; Lacasa, A.; Fernandez, P.; Pascual, J.A. Effects of biosolarization as a methyl bromide alternative for Meloidogyne incognita control on quality of soil under pepper. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2008, 45, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Domínguez, P.; Miranda, L.; Soria, C.; de los Santos, B.; Chamorro, M.; Romero, F.; Daugovish, O.; López-Aranda, J.M.; Medina, J.J. Soil biosolarization for sustainable strawberry production. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 821–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Agerbirk, N.; De Vos, M.; Kim, J.H.; Jander, G. Indole glucosinolate breakdown and its biological effects. Phytochem. Rev. 2009, 8, 101–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kirkegaard, J.A.; Sarwar, M. Biofumigation potential of brassicas. Plant Soil 1998, 201, 71–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Fahey, J.W.; Zalcmann, A.T.; Talalay, P. The chemical diversity and distribution of glucosinolates and isothiocyanates among plants. Phytochemistry 2001, 56, 5–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bhandari, S.R.; Jo, J.S.; Lee, J.G. Comparison of glucosinolate profiles in different tissues of nine Brassica crops. Molecules 2015, 20, 15827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hanschen, F.S.; Yim, B.; Winkelmann, T.; Smalla, K.; Schreiner, M. Degradation of biofumigant isothiocyanates and allyl glucosinolate in soil and their effects on the microbial community composition. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0132931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bellostas, N.; Sørensen, J.C.; Sørensen, H. Profiling glucosinolates in vegetative and reproductive tissues of four Brassica species of the U-triangle for their biofumigation potential. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2007, 87, 1586–1594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Marschner, P.; Rengel, Z. The effects of plant breeding on soil microbes. In Soil Microbiology and Sustainable Crop Production; Dixon, G.R., Tilston, E.L., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 297–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sarwar, M.; Kirkegaard, J.A.; Wong, P.T.W.; Desmarchelier, J.M. Biofumigation potential of brassicas. Plant Soil 1998, 201, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bindumadhavi, G.; Gopi, R. Exploitation of biofumigation and biocontrol agents for the management of soil-borne diseases. In Innovative Approaches in Diagnosis and Management of Crop Diseases; Apple Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2021; pp. 409–435. [Google Scholar]
  71. Monaci, E.; Casucci, C.; De Bernardi, A.; Marini, E.; Landi, L.; Toscano, G.; Romanazzi, G.; Vischetti, C. Brassica carinata seed meal as soil amendment and potential biofumigant. Crops 2022, 2, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ashworth, D.J.; Yates, S.R.; Wang, D.; Luo, L. Natural and synthetic isothiocyanates for pest control in soil. In Biopesticides: State of the Art and Future Opportunities; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; pp. 159–177. [Google Scholar]
  73. Subbarao, K.V.; Kabir, Z.; Martin, F.N.; Koike, S.T. Management of soilborne diseases in strawberry using vegetable rotations. Plant Dis. 2007, 91, 964–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Rudolph, R.E.; Sams, C.; Steiner, R.; Thomas, S.H.; Walker, S.; Uchanski, M.E. Biofumigation performance of four Brassica crops in a green chile pepper (Capsicum annuum) rotation system in southern New Mexico. HortScience 2015, 50, 247–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Milosavljević, I.; Esser, A.D.; Murphy, K.M.; Crowder, D.W. Effects of imidacloprid seed treatments on crop yields and economic returns of cereal crops. Crop Prot. 2019, 119, 166–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Morris, E.K.; Fletcher, R.; Veresoglou, S.D. Effective methods of biofumigation: A meta-analysis. Plant Soil 2020, 446, 379–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Snyder, A.; Morra, M.J.; Johnson-Maynard, J.; Thill, D.C. Seed meals from Brassicaceae oilseed crops as soil amendments: Influence on carrot growth, microbial biomass nitrogen, and nitrogen mineralization. HortScience 2009, 44, 354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Mazzola, M.; Granatstein, D.M.; Elfving, D.C.; Mullinix, K. Suppression of specific apple root pathogens by Brassica napus seed meal amendment regardless of glucosinolate content. Phytopathology 2001, 91, 673–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Mazzola, M.; Hewavitharana, S.S.; Strauss, S.L. Brassica seed meal soil amendments transform the rhizosphere microbiome and improve apple production through resistance to pathogen reinfestation. Phytopathology 2015, 105, 460–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Serrano-Pérez, P.; De Santiago, A.; Rodríguez-Molina, M.C. Biofumigation with pellets of defatted seed meal of Brassica carinata: Factors affecting performance against Phytophthora nicotianae in pepper crops. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 664531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gouws, R.; Wehner, F.C. Biofumigation as an alternative control measure for common scab on seed potatoes in South Africa. Agroindustria 2004, 3, 309–312. [Google Scholar]
  82. Sukovata, L.; Jaworski, T.; Kolk, A. Efficacy of Brassica juncea granulated seed meal against Melolontha grubs. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 70, 260–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. McGuire, A.M. Mustard green manures replace fumigant and improve infiltration in potato cropping systems. Crop Manag. 2003, 2, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Larkin, R.P. Long-term effects of compost amendments and Brassica green manures in potato cropping systems on soil and crop health and productivity. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Riga, E. The effects of Brassica green manures on plant-parasitic and free-living nematodes used in combination with reduced rates of synthetic nematicides. J. Nematol. 2011, 43, 119–121. [Google Scholar]
  86. Cochran, K.A.; Rothrock, C.S. Brassica green manure amendments for management of Rhizoctonia solani in two annual ornamental crops in the field. HortScience 2015, 50, 555–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Mojtahedi, H.; Santo, G.S.; Ingham, R.E. Suppression of Meloidogyne chitwoodi with Sudangrass cultivars as green manure. J. Nematol. 1993, 25, 303–311. [Google Scholar]
  88. Harding, R.B.; Wicks, T.J. In vitro suppression of soil-borne potato pathogens by volatiles released from Brassica residues. In Proceedings of the 2nd Australasian Soil-Borne Diseases Symposium, Lorne, Australia, 5–8 March 2001; pp. 148–149. [Google Scholar]
  89. Larkin, R.P.; Griffin, T.S. Control of soilborne potato diseases using Brassica green manures. Crop Prot. 2007, 26, 1067–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Walker, B.A.; Powell, S.M.; Tegg, R.S.; Doyle, R.B.; Hunt, I.G.; Wilson, C.R. Ten years of green manuring and biofumigation alters soil characteristics and microbiota. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2023, 187, 104836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Arroyo, J.M.; Soler, J.; Linares, R.; Palmero, D. Strategies for selecting potentially effective biofumigant species for optimal biofumigation outcomes. Agriculture 2025, 15, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Elhakeem, A.; van der Werf, W.; Bastiaans, L. Radiation interception and radiation use efficiency in mixtures of winter cover crops. Field Crops Res. 2021, 264, 108034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kuai, J.; Sun, Y.; Zhou, M.; Zhang, P.; Zuo, Q.; Wu, J.; Zhou, G. The effect of nitrogen application and planting density on the radiation use efficiency and the stem lignin metabolism in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Field Crops Res. 2016, 199, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Rahman, M.; Khatun, A.; Liu, L.; Barkla, B.J. Brassicaceae mustards: Traditional and agronomic uses in Australia and New Zealand. Molecules 2018, 23, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ugrenović, V.; Filipović, V.; Jevremović, S.; Marjanović-Jeromela, A.; Popović, V.; Buntić, A.; Delić, D.I. Effect of Brassicaceae as cover crops. Selekcija Semenarstvo 2019, 25, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ngala, B.M.; Haydock, P.P.; Woods, S.; Back, M.A. Biofumigation with Brassica juncea, Raphanus sativus and Eruca sativa for the management of field populations of the potato cyst nematode Globodera pallida. Pest Manag. Sci. 2015, 71, 759–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Barsics, F.; Haubruge, E.; Verheggen, F.J. Wireworms’ management: An overview of the existing methods, with particular regards to Agriotes spp. (Coleoptera: Elateridae). Insects 2013, 4, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Bourdon, P.-A.; Zottele, M.; Baxter, I.; Myrta, A.; Midthassel, A.; Wechselberger, K.F.; Khoja, S.; Bull, J.C.; Hermann, S.; Butt, T.M. Fumigation of three major soil pests (Agriotes lineatus, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera, Phyllopertha horticola) with 3-octanone and 1-octen-3-ol enantiomers. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2022, 32, 863–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Vidrih, M.; Laznik, Ž.; Rupnik, J.; Vučajnk, F.; Bohinc, T.; Trdan, S. Biofumigation as a control method against soil insect pests. In Proceedings of the 10th Slovenian Conference on Plant Protection with International Participation, Podčetrtek, Slovenia, 1–2 March 2011; Plant Protection Society of Slovenia: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2011; pp. 327–331. (In Slovenian). [Google Scholar]
  100. Brown, P.D.; Morra, M.J.; McCaffrey, J.P.; Auld, D.L.; Williams, L. Allelochemicals produced during glucosinolate degradation in soil. J. Chem. Ecol. 1991, 17, 2021–2034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Williams, L.; Morra, M.J.; Brown, P.D.; McCaffrey, J.P. Toxicity of allyl isothiocyanate-amended soil to Limonius californicus (Mann.) (Coleoptera: Elateridae) wireworms. J. Chem. Ecol. 1993, 19, 1033–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Brown, J.; Morra, M.J. Glucosinolate-Containing Seed Meal as a Soil Amendment to Control Plant Pests: 2000–2002 (NREL/SR-510-35254); National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lazzeri, L.; D’Avino, L.; Gies, D. Additional benefits of the efficacy in containing soilborne pest and pathogens with biofumigant plants and materials. In Proceedings of the VII International Symposium on Chemical and Non-Chemical Soil and Substrate Disinfestation, Leuven, Belgium, 13 September 2009; Volume 883, pp. 323–329. [Google Scholar]
  104. Shaltiel-Harpaz, L.; Masaphy, S.; Tsror, L.; Palevsky, E. Biorational, environmentally safe methods for the control of soil pathogens and pests in Israel. In Agriculturally Important Microorganisms: Commercialization and Regulatory Requirements in Asia; Singh, H.B., Sarma, B.K., Keswani, C., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp. 273–291. [Google Scholar]
  105. Bohinc, T.; Vučajnk, F.; Trdan, S. The efficacy of environmentally acceptable products for the control of major potato pests and diseases. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture 2019, 106, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Furlan, L.; Bonetto, C.; Costa, B.; Finotto, A.; Lazzeri, L.; Malaguti, L.; Patalano, G.; Parker, W. Biofumigation as a tool for a holistic approach to integrated wireworm population management. In Proceedings of the Biofumigation 7 Symposium 2021; Michel, V., Gfeller, A., Lutz, M., Back, M., Besri, M., Eds.; Agroscope: Conthey, Switzerland, 2021; Available online: https://youtu.be/NXUfDQpi3qo (accessed on 15 February 2025).
  107. Lazzeri, L.; Pagnotta, E.; Ugolini, L.; Casadei, N.; Malaguti, I.; Cinti, S.; Nanetti, A.; Matteo, R. New tools and new application sectors for biofumigant cropping system. In Biofumigation 7 Symposium 2021; Michel, V., Gfeller, A., Lutz, M., Back, M., Besri, M., Eds.; Agroscope: Conthey, Switzerland, 2021; Available online: https://youtu.be/hH7VdLUE3XE (accessed on 15 February 2025).
  108. Bohinc, T.; Ban, G.S.; Ban, D.; Trdan, S. Glucosinolates in plant protection strategies: A review. Arch. Biol. Sci. 2012, 64, 821–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Poggi, S.; Le Cointe, R.; Lehmhus, J.; Plantegenest, M.; Furlan, L. Alternative strategies for controlling wireworms in field crops: A review. Agriculture 2021, 11, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Bohinc, T.; Trdan, S. Environmental factors affecting the glucosinolate content in Brassicaceae. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2012, 10, 357. [Google Scholar]
  111. Bohinc, T.; Devetak, M.; Trdan, S. Quantity of glucosinolates in 10 cabbage genotypes and their impact on the feeding of Mamestra brassicae caterpillars. Arch. Biol. Sci. 2014, 66, 867–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Ahmed, N.A.-K.; Dechamp-Guillaume, G.; Seassau, C. Biofumigation to protect oilseed crops: Focus on management of soilborne fungi of sunflower. OCL 2020, 27, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Jung, J.; Racca, P.; Schmitt, J.; Kleinhenz, B. SIMAGRIO-W: Development of a prediction model for wireworms in relation to soil moisture, temperature and type. J. Appl. Entomol. 2014, 138, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Chen, D.; Zebarth, B.J.; Goyer, C.; Comeau, L.-P.; Nahar, K.; Dixon, T. Effect of biofumigation on population densities of Pratylenchus spp. and Verticillium spp. and potato yield in Eastern Canada. Am. J. Potato Res. 2022, 99, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Ji, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Fang, W.; Li, Y.; Yan, D.; Cao, A.; Wang, Q. A review of biofumigation effects with plant materials. New Plant Prot. 2024, 1, e21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Donald, D.; Villalta, O.; Pung, H. Managing Soilborne Diseases in Vegetables: Rotation with Green Manure and Biofumigant Crops Shows Disease Control & Yield Benefits. Department of Primary Industries. 2010. Available online: https://ausveg.com.au/app/data/technical-insights/docs/VG07125_Soilborne_Diseases_brochure.pdf (accessed on 14 February 2025).
  117. Nikoukar, A.; Rashed, A. Integrated pest management of wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae) and the rhizosphere in agroecosystems. Insects 2022, 13, 769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Curk, M.; Trdan, S. Benefiting from complexity: Exploring enhanced biological control effectiveness via the simultaneous use of various methods for combating pest pressure in agriculture. Agronomy 2024, 14, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. van Niekerk, A.; Auerbach, R.; Lamprecht, S. Biological and chemical soil fumigation and pest and disease management comparisons in the Western Cape. In Organic Food Systems: Meeting the Needs of Southern Africa; CABI: Oxford, UK, 2020; pp. 264–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Poggi, S.; Le Cointe, R.; Riou, J.-B.; Larroudé, P.; Thibord, J.-B.; Plantegenest, M. Relative influence of climate and agro-environmental factors on wireworm damage risk in maize crops. J. Pest Sci. 2018, 91, 585–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Saguez, J.; Latraverse, A.; De Almeida, J.; Van Herk, W.G.; Vernon, R.S.; Légaré, J.-P.; Moisan-De Serres, J.; Fréchette, M.; Labrie, G. Wireworm in Quebec field crops: Specific community composition in North America. Environ. Entomol. 2017, 46, 814–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 15 00967 g001
Figure 1. Decomposition of glucosinolates in the biofumigation process.
Figure 1. Decomposition of glucosinolates in the biofumigation process.
Agronomy 15 00967 g001
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

Batistič, L.; Bohinc, T.; Trdan, S. Biofumigation with Brassica Species and Their Derivatives: A Comprehensive Review of an Innovative Pest Control Strategy Targeting Wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae). Agronomy 2025, 15, 967. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040967

AMA Style

Batistič L, Bohinc T, Trdan S. Biofumigation with Brassica Species and Their Derivatives: A Comprehensive Review of an Innovative Pest Control Strategy Targeting Wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae). Agronomy. 2025; 15(4):967. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040967

Chicago/Turabian Style

Batistič, Luka, Tanja Bohinc, and Stanislav Trdan. 2025. "Biofumigation with Brassica Species and Their Derivatives: A Comprehensive Review of an Innovative Pest Control Strategy Targeting Wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae)" Agronomy 15, no. 4: 967. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040967

APA Style

Batistič, L., Bohinc, T., & Trdan, S. (2025). Biofumigation with Brassica Species and Their Derivatives: A Comprehensive Review of an Innovative Pest Control Strategy Targeting Wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae). Agronomy, 15(4), 967. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040967

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