Current IssueSpecial IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueSpecial IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

Review Article

Harnessing High-voltage Electric Fields for Pest Management- Current Advances and Future Prospects: A Review

T
T. Mohanaselvan1,*
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5389-0889
D
D. Dhalin1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0647-2397
P
P. Athira1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3610-4202
S
Sanchu Sukumaran1
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4940-2871
D
Dipak S. Khatawkar1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2738-0299
1Department of Farm Machinery and Power Engineering, Kelappaji College of Agricultural Engineering and Food Technology, Kerala Agricultural University, Tavanur, Malappuram-679 573, Kerala, India.

ABSTRACT

The pervasive impact of insect pests on global agricultural productivity necessitates the development of sustainable and eco-compatible pest management solutions. The electric field (EF) technology with high voltage input has emerged as a promising avenue for integrated pest management (IPM). It leverages non-contact electrostatic forces to disrupt insect behaviour and physiology without reliance on synthetic chemical agents. This review systematically elucidates the underlying physical principles governing EF generation, including Coulombic interactions, dielectric polarization and electrostatic discharge phenomena, while correlating these mechanisms with insect’s neurobiological and physiological responses. These electrostatic interventions are categorized into repelling, trapping and electrocution modalities. The review further integrates findings on bioelectric interactions, transient charge discharges and water-mediated conductivity within insect bodies that potentiate control effects. Different pest species exhibit distinct behavioral thresholds across the spectrum of applied voltages, indicating that high-voltage electric fields can be optimized for target-specific pest management while minimizing broader ecological impacts. Within this framework, EF-based technologies demonstrate transformative potential as environmentally benign alternatives to chemical pesticides. Ultimately, the work advocates for targeted interdisciplinary research to refine operational parameters, enhance selectivity and ensure sustainable applicability across diverse agro-ecosystems.

INTRODUCTION

Pest-induced losses are now widely recognized as a critical factor in the global decline of agricultural productivity. Recent studies estimating that insect pests contribute to approximately 38% of total crop losses worldwide (Junaid and Gokce, 2024). Insect pests remain a major challenge which leads to severe crop losses and compromised storage quality, especially in tropical areas where losses can be as high as 70% (Mahato, 2014; Cerda et al., 2017; Seethapathy, 2025). The extent of these losses is closely influenced by variables such as the type of farming systems employed, regional economic conditions and the capacity to adopt advanced agricultural technologies. Estimates suggest that crop losses due to pests and diseases range from 20% to 40% across different continents, at both national and regional scales. These impacts are particularly severe for essential food and cash crops. While a combination of biotic and abiotic stressors contributes to agricultural losses, insect pests remain among the most significant drivers. Among the major challenges affecting agricultural production, insect pests accounted for the largest proportion (26%), followed by weeds (23%), global warming (17%), anthropogenic factors (14%), salinity (13%) and post-harvest losses (7%) (Oerke, 2006; Junaid and Gokce, 2024).
       
The United Nations’ commitment to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals highlights the critical need for ensuring food security and promoting sustainable agriculture in the face of rapid population growth. However, the widespread and excessive use of synthetic chemical pesticides has not only targeted pests but also caused significant harm to ecosystems, reduced food quality and endangered beneficial insects within agroecosystems. Although chemical control remains the most commonly employed pest management method among farmers, increasing concerns over its environmental impact and associated health risks have underscored the urgent need for safer alternative approaches. In response, eco-friendly pest management strategies have been incorporated into the integrated pest management (IPM) framework to reduce farmers’ reliance on harmful chemicals (Hawkins et al., 2019; Longkumer et al., 2024; Ullah et al., 2025). The overarching goal is to safeguard crops from pests and diseases through environmentally sustainable techniques, such as biological (Ambethgar et al., 2025; Bhandari and Paudel, 2024) and physical control methods.
       
The rising risk from new and invasive pest species emphasizes the vital need for sustainable and environmentally friendly pest management technologies to optimize crop yields and enhance profitability. In this context, electric fields (EFs) have emerged as a promising non-chemical approach to pest control. An electric field refers to the region surrounding an electric charge where it can exert a force on other charges. Notably, high-voltage electric fields can induce various electrostatic phenomena, some of which may be harnessed for pest control (Kusakari et al., 2023). Physical pest control methods, including those based on electrostatics, offer a viable alternative that aligns well with IPM principles. These approaches help to reduce environmental impact, lower pesticide usage and slow the development of pesticide resistance. Considering these advantages, this review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the basic principle and role of electrostatic technologies in pest management (Table 1).

Table 1: Pest management methods and principles.



Electric field generation in accordance with pest control
 
An electric field can be generated around a charged conductor, such as copper or iron. When a negative voltage generator is used, it draws free electrons (negative charges) from the ground and transfers them to the conductor. This results in the accumulation of negative charges on the surface of the conductor. Due to dielectric polarization and the electrification of the insulating material, negative charges also appear on the outer surface of the conductor’s insulation (Fig 1).

Fig 1: Cross sectional view of electric field formation (Kusakari et al., 2023).


       
The amount of electricity involved in this electrification process is directly proportional to the applied voltage. As the applied voltage increases, the amount of induced charge also increases. This voltage, measured relative to the earth ground, is referred to as the applied potential difference. Higher potential difference leads to stronger electrostatic effects, resulting in more intense attractive or repulsive forces. These forces can be effectively used to trap or repel insects in electrostatic pest control systems.
       
An electrostatic field is generated around a charged, insulated conductor. In this field, the accumulated charge on the conductor remains stable and does not discharge. However, when oppositely charged poles create an electric field, an electrical discharge may occur if the applied voltage exceeds a certain threshold, even if the conductors are insulated. The region where discharge occurs is referred to as a dynamic electric field, while the region where no discharge takes place is called a static electric field (Fig 2).

Fig 2: Characterization of electric field (Kusakari et al., 2023).


 
Neurobiological and physiological effects of efs on insects
 
Neurobiological effects
 
The ability to detect electric forces, known as electroreception, has been observed in a variety of organisms, including sharks, chimeras, skates, rays, insects and nematodes (Gabel et al., 2007; Newton et al., 2019). As insects approach an electric field, they are more likely to be repelled when the field strength increases. Insects fully exposed to electric fields show noticeable alterations in their locomotion, including reduced travel distances, slower movement and more frequent directional changes. These behavioural shifts highlight the influence of electric fields on insect movement patterns (Jackson et al., 2011). Experiments testing the response of animals to electric fields found that both movement behaviour and the tendency to avoid the field were dependent on field strength. In cockroaches (Periplaneta americana Linn., Blattidae: Blattodea), for instance, the deflection of antennae by the electric field enabled field detection. However, when the antennae were surgically removed, the cockroaches lost this ability, confirming the role of antennae in electroreception (Hunt et al., 2005; Newland et al., 2008). In bumblebees (Bombus terrestris Linn., Apidae: Hymenoptera), the deflection of both sensory hairs and antennae increased with higher electric charge, indicating that sensory hairs play a role in electroreception (Sutton et al., 2016). Similarly, the housefly (Musca domestica Linn., Muscidae: Diptera.) exhibited avoidance behaviour when exposed to static electric fields in the range of 100 to150 kV·m-1 (Perumpral et al., 1978). Increased locomotion was observed in various insects, including fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, Drosophilidae: Diptera), honey bees (Apis mellifera Linn., Apidae: Hymenoptera) and blowflies (Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, Calliphoridae: Diptera) (Picton ,1966; Watson, 1984). Additionally, mechanoreceptors located in the antennal region of bees were found to be more sensitive to electric fields compared to mechanoreceptors in other areas (Greggers et al., 2013).
       
To evaluate the evading behaviour in response to static electric fields, researchers used a Y-bioassay system. This assay includes three arms: one charged, one uncharged and a vertical arm used to release the insects. A dual gooseneck cold light source was directed into each arm to encourage the insects’ upward movement. The behavioural response to electric fields was effectively assessed using this method (Fig 3). In fruit flies, the evading behaviour was driven by wing movements and changes in amine levels (Newland et al., 2015). Minimum behavioural thresholds for electric field detection vary among different species. A comparison of these thresholds and the corresponding electric field strengths is shown in Fig 4.

Fig 3: Y-bio assay.



Fig 4: Minimum behavioral thresholds of electric field (England and Robert, 2022).


 
Physiological effects
 
Several studies have explored the effects of electric fields on insect species, revealing notable physiological changes. For instance, exposure to electric field led to a reduction in both the total number of eggs laid per mating couple and the number of larvae emerged (Fedrizzi et al., 2020). Furthermore, when four insect species honey bees (Apis mellifera Linn., Apidae: Hymenoptera), american cockroach (Periplaneta americana Linn., Blattidae: Blattodea), indian stick insect (Carausius morosus Sinéty, Phasmatidae: Phasmatodea) and wasp (Vespula vulgaris Linn., Vespidae: Hymenoptera) were exposed to static electric fields, increased food and oxygen consumption was observed across all species. However, early mortality was notably high in bee species (Altmann, 1969). Longer-term exposure to static electric fields also caused a reduction in egg deposition and increased mortality in the phantom hemlock looper (Nepytia phantasmaria Strecker, Geometridae: Lepidoptera) (Edwards, 1961). Direct exposure of diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella Linn., Plutellidae: Lepidoptera) eggs to high voltage electric field led to longer growth cycles and reduced reproductive capacity (Jia et al., 2023). Despite these findings, the neurobiological and physiological effects of electric fields on insects have not been fully utilized in insect control strategies. This presents a significant opportunity for future studies, as harnessing the electroreceptive responses of certain insect species could prove valuable in controlling populations that actively respond to electric fields. Analysis of the behaviour of both pests and pollinators to the exposure of electric field identify the minimum behavioural threshold which can be utilized in target specific action.
 
Electrostatics based technologies for pest control
 
Technologies for capturing insects
 
The bi-functional electric screen consists of an insulated conductive wire (ICW) positioned between two earthed metal nets. The ICW is negatively charged, which induces a negative charge on the outer surface of the insulator sleeve through dielectric polarization. This, in turn, electrostatically induces a positive charge on the inner surface of the adjacent metal net, thereby generating an electric field between the ICW and the net. To evaluate the screen’s ability to capture insects, cigarette beetles (Lasioderma serricorne Fabricius, Ptinidae: Coleoptera) and vinegar flies (Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, Drosophilidae: Diptera) were introduced into the space between the ICW and the metal net. When the ICW was charged to a negative voltage exceeding 4.1 kV, a strong insect capture effect was observed (Matsuda et al., 2011). Another type of electric field screen consists of two voltage generators that supply either positive or negative voltages to insulated conductor wires (ICWs), which are arranged in three parallel layers. The ICWs in each layer were connected to a negative or positive voltage generator and to another at 5-mm intervals. They discovered that, even with a wind speed of 7 m·s-1, the force generated was sufficiently enough at ≥1.2 kV for the ICWs to capture every mosquito. The same principle can be applied in the case of agricultural pest control system (Matsuda et al., 2015a).
       
An electrostatic insect-capturing device, consisting of a double-charged dipolar electric field screen (DD-screen) with oppositely charged insulator tubes, was mounted on a drone. The tubes were connected to a voltage generator after their inner surfaces were coated with a conductive paste (electro-conductive acrylic paste containing silver or copper filler) to enable charging. Insects approaching the device were captured upon contact with the tubes due to the electric field generated by the opposing charges. The DD-screen developed in this study was lightweight enough to be carried by a drone (Kakutani et al., 2021a). The screen was attached to the drone perpendicular to the direction of drone movement. The applied voltage of 6.5 kV could trap all the insects (flies with body length ranging from 1.8 to 3.8 mm) entered the electric field. The ICWs were placed at regular intervals along a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe and covered with a cylindrical stainless steel (SS) net to form an electrostatic insect sweeper. To generate an electric field between them, the ICWs and the net were connected to a direct current (DC) voltage generator powered by 3-volt batteries housed within the handle. The ICWs and net were charged with opposite polarities. During operation, the sweeper was gently passed over plant leaves, effectively attracting whiteflies (Bemisia tabaci Gennadius, Aleyrodidae: Hemiptera) present on the foliage. When the ICWs were charged to voltages exceeding 1.5 kV, the electric field was strong enough to capture all adult insects, regardless of their size or species (Takikawa et al., 2015).     
       
The bamboo blind-type electric field screen (Bb-EFS) creates a pest-free environment by preventing the entry of viruliferous whiteflies. Two electrostatic DC voltage generators supply the insulated round iron conductor bars (IBs) in the Bb-EFS with either a positive or negative voltage. The IBs are alternately connected to the positive and negative generators and are arranged in parallel at 4 mm intervals. Due to the strong electric field generated by a voltage of ≥5.0 kV, the IBs are capable of capturing all insects approaching the screen (Takikawa et al., 2020a). A phototactic electrostatic insect trap was developed to target whiteflies, leaf miners and thrips. A Double-Charged Dipolar Electric Field Producer (DDEFP) was constructed by filling transparent, soft PVC tubes with water. These tubes were arranged in parallel with a fixed separation distance of 5 mm. The electrodes of grounded negative and positive voltage generators were inserted into the water within the respective tubes to generate oppositely charged water, thereby creating a dipolar electric field (Takikawa et al., 2021). The charged water polarized the outer surface of the tubing through dielectric polarization, generating an electric field between the oppositely charged tubes. To attract phototactic insects, the water was tinted yellow using watercolor paste and placed inside the transparent insulating tubing, resulting in the yellow-colored DDEFP. A voltage level of 1.2 kV was sufficient to achieve complete capture of the test insects.
       
The fundamental mechanism behind insect capture using electrostatic devices was investigated by Kakutani et al., (2012) and Takikawa et al., (2020b). Kakutani et al., (2012) proposed that insect attraction to the electric field is due to the formation of a transient bioelectric discharge. This occurs when an insect enters the electric field which is having some electrical charge or becoming polarized, experiences a rapid discharge of that charge toward the grounded (earthed) electrode. Takikawa et al., (2020b) further explained that this discharge is facilitated by the conductivity of water within the insect’s body. Because insect tissues contain water and electrolytes, they can conduct electricity. When an insect enters the electric field, the field induces polarization and the body’s internal conductivity allows for charge movement. This interaction results in a discharge pathway, often transient, between the insect and the electrode. This bioelectric event contributes directly to the insect-control effect, either stunning, immobilizing, or drawing the insect toward the charged elements of the device.
 
Technologies for repelling insects
 
Iron ICWs were arranged in parallel and connected to form a single charged dipolar electric field screen. The DC voltage generator supplied a negative charge to the ICWs, while an earthed SS net was positioned on one side of the ICW layer (Fig 5). At a voltage of 2.0 kV, the screen effectively repelled all insect targets approaching the net. The voltage thresholds required to repel various insect species are listed in Table 2 (Matsuda et al., 2015b). 

Fig 5: Construction of single charged dipolar electric field screen (Matsuda et al., 2015b).



Table 2: Voltage of avoidance for various insect species (Matsuda et al., 2015b).

 
       
The single charged dipolar electric field screen (Fig 6) consisted of a DC voltage generator, insulated iron conductor wires arranged in parallel and two metal nets positioned on either side of the ICW layer. To prevent whitefly intrusion, these screens were installed on greenhouse windows. When a negative voltage of 1.5 to 2.5 kV was applied, all whiteflies that reached the outer surface of the screen net immediately retreated (Nonomura et al., 2012; 2014). A repelling mechanism with single row of ICWs was constructed to evaluate its effectiveness against host-seeking mosquitoes (Aedes aegypti Linn., Culicidae: Diptera). The EFs generated by the ICWs successfully repelled female mosquitoes, with EF strengths ranging from 0 kV·cm-1 (control) to 9.15 kV·cm-1. Repellence increased with EF strength, plateauing at levels above 3.66 kV·cm-1, where repellence rates reached 54.1 percent to 58.3 percent (Jobe et al., 2024). More recently, mosquitoes were effectively excluded from target areas using a single row of alternating-polarity conductors. In cage experiments involving parallel copper plates (spaced 20 mm apart between the insect release area and a human-baited lure zone) and in room-scale experiments using aluminium blinds (placed 20 mm apart between release and lure rooms), more than 90 per cent of mosquitoes were repelled at EF strengths of 1.25 and 1.5 kV·cm-1 (Gordon et al., 2022).  Additionally, Tam (2020) reported that electrostatic fields exhibited strong repellent effects against common house mosquitoes (Culex pipiens Linn., Culicidae: Diptera) at a voltage level of 9.8 kV. The same principle can be adopted and modified for development of pest control mechanism for agricultural pests specifically in protected cultivation environment.

Fig 6: Structure of the single-charged dipolar (SCD) screen (Nonomura et al., 2012; 2014).


       
A voltage generator and a grounded metal net (G-MN) were used to establish a static electric field (S-EF) by electrostatically polarizing the system. A negatively charged, PVC-insulated iron plate (N-PIP) was positioned opposite to the G-MN. The S-EF was generated in the space between the N-PIP and the G-MN, as field electrons were repelled by the negative charge of the N-PIP and driven toward the ground through the G-MN. When an adult Turkestan cockroach (Shelfordella lateralis Walker, Blattidae: Blattodea) was released into the area enclosed by the device, it instinctively moved backward and extended its antennae into the S-EF (Matsuda et al., 2021). The configuration of the static electric field generator is shown in Fig 7. Corona and arc discharging screen (CADS) was developed to repel and exterminate stable flies and houseflies in cattle barns (Fig 8). The negatively charged net was surrounded by ozone and negative ions created by the electric field, which prevented houseflies from getting within. Additionally, stable flies (Stomoxys calcitrans Linn., Muscidae: Diptera) that did not display avoidance behavior were repelled by the screen’s arc discharge of sparks. At voltages (5 to 9.8 kV), all flies released avoiding the metal net of the CADS entirely (Takikawa et al., 2024).

Fig 7: Configuration of the static electric field producer (S-EFP) (Matsuda et al., 2021).



Fig 8: Corona and arc discharging screen (MN metal net; PF- polypropylene frame) (Takikawa et al., 2024).


 
Technologies for electrocuting insects
 
A solar-powered electrocuting device was developed to control bloodworm species (Chironomus spp.) in rice fields as an eco-friendly alternative to harmful chemical pesticides. The device generates a high-voltage current just below the soil surface to kill both adult bloodworms and their larvae. The highest efficiency was achieved with a voltage of 20 kV, an electrode depth of 180 mm and treatment time of 30-minute, resulting in the greatest reduction of both adult and larval bloodworm populations. The results showed that the device was more effective than the chemical insecticide. Being solar-powered, it also minimizes environmental pollution, offering a safer method for bloodworm control. The device can treat a 5 m2 soil surface area per application (El_Sayed and Refaay, 2024). The components used in constructing the solar-powered electrocuting device are shown in Fig 9. The intelligent electronic trap consists of features for attracting, detecting, differentiating and eliminating the insects which approaches the trap. The key functions of the trap were to attracting insects, detecting when an insect lands on the trap, identifying the insect’s family with a low error rate to differentiate between pests and non-target insects and eliminating the pest without harming other insects. Additionally, the trap should be affordable, environmentally friendly and safe to humans, animals and birds in case of accidental contact. The LEDs and volatile insect attractants were used to attract the nocturnal insects towards the trap. The application of high voltage is related to eliminating pests (Petrauskas et al., 2024). The conceptual design of the trap is given in Fig 10.

Fig 9: Solar powered electrocuting device (El-Sayed and Refaay, 2024).



Fig 10: Intelligent electronic trap (Petrauskas et al., 2024).


       
The arc-discharge zapper (ADZ) was developed to kill larger insects emerging from soil beds. The ADZ featured negatively charged, non-insulated iron plates (NNPs) and grounded conductor plates (GCPs) arranged alternately in parallel at specified intervals (Fig 11). The ADZ generated a discharge-producing electric field between the NNPs and GCPs, which killed the insects. The voltage range applied varies between -1 to -9 kV (Matsuda and Toyoda, 2022). With the same principle Kakutani et al., (2023) developed electrostatic arc producing device using negatively charged metal nets instead of conductor plates. Similar electrocuting designs are being reported by various researchers to eliminate the insect pests. High voltage electrical discharge device called KAHRATRAP was developed to capture insects (Benmimoun et al., 2007). Device for producing electric discharge to control the weeds and houseflies emerging from soil was developed by Matsuda et al., (2020). Electrostatically eradication of rice weevils (Sitophilus oryzae Linn., Curculionidae: Coleoptera) in rice grains by selective arcing was done by Kakutani et al., (2021b). El-Sayed and Mosa (2021) developed an electrical sterilization device for stored grains. Device for selective destruction of rice weevils nesting in stored rice was developed by Matsuda et al., (2018).

Fig 11: Arc discharge zapper (Matsuda and Toyoda, 2022).


 
Practical applications in pest control
 
Agricultural pests and pathogens can be effectively controlled using electric fields (Shimizu et al., 2007). Research has shown that the conidia (spores) of certain pathogenic fungi often carry a net negative surface charge, which may facilitate their adhesion to surfaces. Such electrostatic interactions likely contribute to the ability of fungal spores to attach to plants and animals, as well as to enhance their proliferation in natural environments (Boucias et al., 1988). Devices known as electrostatic precipitators employ strong electric fields to attract and trap harmful fungal spores, thereby preventing them from reaching crops (Moriura et al., 2006). In addition, electrostatic devices have been adapted to repel insect pests. These devices exploit the insects’ inherent electric charges to attract them toward a voltage source, effectively preventing their access to crops or stored food (Kakutani et al., 2012). Furthermore, Takikawa et al., (2015) demonstrated that such devices can even be applied to eliminate insects from plants that are already infested. An ozone-generating spore precipitator was developed to control both airborne and root-borne pathogens in hydroponically grown tomato plants. The original design used a negatively charged wire inside an acrylic cylinder, creating dielectric polarization across the walls. This produced a non-discharging electrostatic field that attracted spores to the cylinder surface through dielectrophoretic forces. In the modified version, positively charged inner wire enhanced ozone generation efficiency. This adjustment reversed the polarization pattern but still retained effective spore attraction. A corona discharge zone was created by positioning the wire tip near a grounded metal ring at the cylinder’s end. Ozone formed in this region was driven along the cylinder by ionic wind and collected via an outlet pipe. A multi-cylinder array acted as a protective nursery enclosure for plants. It provided dual disinfection by capturing airborne conidia (Oidium neolycopersici) and suppressing root pathogens (Ralstonia solanacearum, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici). This integration of electrostatic spore capture with corona-based ozone sterilization offers a novel, synergistic approach for pathogen management in controlled-environment agriculture (Shimizu et al., 2007).

CONCLUSION

Numerous insect species pose serious threats not only to human health but also to livestock and agricultural productivity. While chemical insecticides remain the primary method of pest control, the growing problem of pesticide resistance and environmental contamination highlights the urgent need for alternative, non-chemical solutions. High-voltage electric field technology has emerged as a promising strategy to address these challenges. Electric fields can be employed to repel, trap, or electrocute target insects, thereby reducing dependence on harmful chemical pesticides. This approach offers an environmentally friendly and sustainable alternative for pest management. However, to ensure effective and long-term implementation, further research is required to understand the mechanisms of interaction between insects and electric fields, optimize the technology for different insect species and habitats and assess its ecological safety. One of the most significant phenomena associated with electric fields is their strong attractive force, which underpins the function of electric field screens (EFS). These screens utilize electrostatic attraction to create an air-shield barrier that excludes airborne particles and pests. EFS systems have proven effective in preventing the entry of fine particulate matter such as smoke, allergenic pollen grains, fungal spores and flying insect pests into controlled environments. The potential applications of electric field screens are broad and include residential buildings, hospitals, educational institutions, crop greenhouses, post-harvest storage and processing facilities and livestock housing. With their adaptable design and broad applicability, EFS technologies represent a major advancement in sustainable pest management. Nevertheless, continued investigation is essential to refine system design, enhance species-specific efficacy and validate long-term safety under real-world conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Authors acknowledges the Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur (India) for providing infrastructure and useful resources.
 
Disclaimers
 
The views and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of their affiliated institutions. The authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, but do not accept any liability for any direct or indirect losses resulting from the use of this content.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article. No funding or sponsorship influenced the design of the study, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

REFERENCES


  1. Altmann, G. (1969). Die physiologische Wirkung elektrischer Felder auf Organismen. Archiv für Meteorologie, Geophysik und Bioklimatologie. Serie B. 17(2): 269-290.

  2. Ambethgar, A.S., Rameshkumar, A., Krishna, K.R. and Sundaresan, S. (2025). Biological control of pests in major tropical vegetable crops: A review. Agricultural Reviews. 46(4): 515-530. doi: 10.18805/ag.R-2635.

  3. Benmimoun, Y., Flazi, S. and Tilmatine, A. (2007). Electrical solution to fight harmful insects influence of lamp-light color. Advances in Electrical and Computer Engineering. 7(2): 45-48.

  4. Bhandari, M.K. and Paudel, M. (2024). Genetic, biological and sterile insect techniques: Insect pest management strategies: A review. Agricultural Reviews. 45(3): 390-399. doi: 10.18805/ag.RF-311.

  5. Boucias, D.G., Pendland, J.C. and Latge, J. (1988). Nonspecific factors involved in attachment of entomopathogenic deuteromycetes to host insect cuticle. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 54(7): 1795-1805.

  6. Cerda, R., Avelino, J., Gary, C., Tixier, P., Lechevallier, E. and Allinne, C. (2017). Primary and secondary yield losses caused by pests and diseases: Assessment and modeling in coffee. Plos One. 12(1): e0169133.

  7. Dittmar, P.J., Dufault, N.S., Desaeger, J., Noling, J.W., Stansly, P.A. and Boyd, N.S. (2018). Integrated Pest Management. In: Vegetable Production Handbook. [Dittmar, P.J., Freeman, J.H., Paret, M.L. and Smith, H.A.  (Eds.)], UF/IFAS Extension. (pp. 19-33).

  8. Edwards, D.K. (1961). Influence of electrical field on pupation and oviposition in nepytia phantasmaria Stkr. (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Nature. 191(4792): 976-976.

  9. El_Sayed, A.S. and Refaay, M.M.S. (2024). Development of a solar- powered device for bloodworm control in rice fields. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal. 26(3): 58-70.

  10. El-Sayed, A.S. and Mosa, S.E.A. (2021). Development of an electrical sterilization device for stored grains. Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering. 12(10): 627-638.

  11. England, S.J. and Robert, D. (2022). The ecology of electricity and electroreception. Biological Reviews. 97(1): 383-413.

  12. Fedrizzi, M., Pagano, M., Guerrieri, M., Tomasone, R., Musmeci, S., Arnone, S., Sasso, R., Cristofaro, M., Antonucci, F. and Santangelo, E., (2020). Electrocution and containment methods to reduce the activity of red palm weevil (Rhynchophorus ferrugineus, Ol.). Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research. 18(4): e1006-e1006.

  13. Gabel, C.V., Gabel, H., Pavlichin, D., Kao, A., Clark, D.A. and Samuel, A.D. (2007). Neural circuits mediate electrosensory behavior in Caenorhabditis elegans. Journal of Neuroscience. 27(28): 7586-7596.

  14. Gordon, U., Tanveer, F., Rose, A. and Paaijmans, K. (2022). Repelling Mosquitoes with Electric Fields. In: Advances in Arthropod Repellents. [Coats, J., Corona, C. and Debboun, M. (Eds.)], Academic Press. (pp. 95-112).

  15. Greggers, U., Koch, G., Schmidt, V., Dürr, A., Floriou-Servou, A., Piepenbrock, D., Göpfert, M.C. and Menzel, R. (2013). Reception and learning of electric fields in bees. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 280(1759): 20130528.

  16. Hawkins, N.J., Bass, C., Dixon, A. and Neve, P. (2019). The evolutionary origins of pesticide resistance. Biological Reviews. 94(1): 135-155.

  17. Hunt, E.P., Jackson, C.W. and Newland, P.L. (2005). “Electrorepellancy” behaviour of Periplaneta americana exposed to friction charged dielectric surfaces. Journal of Electrostatics. 63(6-10): 853-859.

  18. Jackson, C.W., Hunt, E., Sharkh, S. and Newland, P.L. (2011). Static electric fields modify the locomotory behaviour of cockroaches. Journal of Experimental Biology. 214(12): 2020-2026.

  19. Jia, L., Xu, S., Shang, H., Guo, J., Yan, X., Liu, C., Li, G. and Luo, K. (2023). High-voltage electrostatic fields adversely affect the performance of diamondback moths over five consecutive generations. Agronomy. 3(4): 1008.

  20. Jobe, N.B., Erickson, M., Rydberg, S. E., Huijben, S. and Paaijmans, K.P. (2024). Repelling Aedes aegypti mosquitoes with electric fields using insulated conductor wires. Plos Neglected Tropical Diseases. 18(9): e0012493.

  21. Junaid, M.D. and Gokce, A.F. (2024). Global agricultural losses and their causes. Bulletin of Biological and Allied Sciences Research. 9(1): 66-66.

  22. Kakutani, K., Matsuda, Y. and Toyoda, H. (2023). A simple and safe electrostatic method for managing houseflies emerging from underground pupae. Agronomy. 13(2): 310.

  23. Kakutani, K., Matsuda, Y., Haneda, K., Nonomura, T., Kimbara, J., Kusakari, S., Osamura, K. and Toyoda, H. (2012). Insects are electrified in an electric field by deprivation of their negative charge. Annals of Applied Biology. 160(3): 250- 259.

  24. Kakutani, K., Matsuda, Y., Nonomura, T., Takikawa, Y., Osamura, K. and Toyoda, H. (2021a). Remote-controlled monitoring of flying pests with an electrostatic insect capturing apparatus carried by an unmanned aerial vehicle. Agriculture. 11(2): 176. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture 11020176.

  25. Kakutani, K., Takikawa, Y. and Matsuda, Y. (2021b). Selective arcing electrostatically eradicates rice weevils in rice grains. Insects. 12(6): 522. https://doi.org/10.3390/ insects12060522.

  26. Kumar, A., Bhople, B.S. and Jeganathan, J. (2025). Balancing food security and environmental health: the dual challenge of pesticide use in India. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 32(9): 4949-4956.

  27. Kusakari, S.I., Matsuda, Y. and Toyoda, H. (2023). Electrostatic insect repulsion, capture and arc-discharge techniques for physical pest management in greenhouses. Agronomy. 13(1): 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010023.

  28. Longkumer, I.Y., Ahmad, M.A., Choudhary, S., Laichattiwar, M.A. and Bajia, R. (2024). Validation of integrated pest management modules against piercing and sucking insect pest of rice. Agricultural Science Digest. 44(2): 351-354. doi: 10.18805/ag.D-5823.

  29. Mahato, A. (2014). Climate change and its impact on agriculture. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 4(4): 1-6.

  30. Matsuda, Y., Kakutani, K., Nonomura, T., Kimbara, J., Osamura, K., Kusakar, S. and Toyoda, H. (2015a). Safe housing ensured by an electric field screen that excludes insect-net permeating haematophagous mosquitoes carrying human pathogens. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 646(1): 012002. 

  31. Matsuda, Y., Nonomura, T. and Toyoda, H. (2021). Turkestan cockroaches avoid entering a static electric field upon perceiving an attractive force applied to antennae inserted into the field. Insects. 12(7): 621. https://doi.org/10.3390/ insects12070621.

  32. Matsuda, Y. and Toyoda, H. (2022). Target-size-dependent appli cation of electrostatic techniques for pest management in greenhouses. Agronomy. 13(1): 125.

  33. Matsuda, Y., Nonomura, T., Kakutani, K., Kimbara, J., Osamura, K., Kusakari, S. and Toyoda, H. (2015b). Avoidance of an electric field by insects: Fundamental biological phenomenon for an electrostatic pest-exclusion strategy. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 646(1): 012003.

  34. Matsuda, Y., Nonomura, T., Kakutani, K., Takikawa, Y., Kimbara, J., Kasaishi, Y., Osamura, K., Kusakari, S.I. and Toyoda, H. (2011). A newly devised electric field screen for avoidance and capture of cigarette beetles and vinegar flies. Crop Protection. 30(2): 155-162.

  35. Matsuda, Y., Shimizu, K., Sonoda, T. and Takikawa, Y. (2020). Use of electric discharge for simultaneous control of weeds and houseflies emerging from soil. Insects. 11(12): 861.

  36. Matsuda, Y., Takikawa, Y. and Nonomura, T. (2018). Selective electrostatic eradication of Sitophilus oryzae nesting in stored rice. Journal of Food Technology and Preservation. 2(1): 15-20.

  37. Moriura, N., Matsuda, Y., Oichi, W., Nakashima, S., Hirai, T., Nonomura, T., Kakutani, K., Kusakari, S., Higashi, K. and Toyoda, H. (2006). An apparatus for collecting total conidia of Blumeria graminis f. sp. hordei from leaf colonies using electrostatic attraction. Plant Pathology. 55(3): 367-374.

  38. Newland, P.L., Al Ghamdi, M.S., Sharkh, S., Aonuma, H. and Jackson, C.W. (2015). Exposure to static electric fields leads to changes in biogenic amine levels in the brains of Drosophila. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 282(1812): 20151198.

  39. Newland, P.L., Hunt, E., Sharkh, S.M., Hama, N., Takahata, M. and Jackson, C.W. (2008). Static electric field detection and behavioural avoidance in cockroaches. Journal of Experimental Biology. 211(23): 3682-3690.

  40. Newton, K.C., Gill, A.B. and Kajiura, S.M. (2019). Electroreception in marine fishes: chondrichthyans. Journal of Fish Biology. 95(1): 135-154.

  41. Nonomura, T., Matsuda, Y., Kakutani, K., Kimbara, J., Osamura, K., Kusakari, S.I. and Toyoda, H. (2012). An electric field strongly deters whiteflies from entering window-open greenhouses in an electrostatic insect exclusion strategy. European journal of plant pathology. 134(4): 661-670.

  42. Nonomura, T., Matsuda, Y., Kakutani, K., Takikawa, Y., Kimbara, J., Osamura, K., Kusakari, S.I. and Toyoda, H. (2014). Prevention of whitefly entry from a greenhouse entrance by furnishing an airflow-oriented pre-entrance room guarded with electric field screens. Journal of Agricultural Science. 6(12): 172.

  43. Oerke, E.C. (2006). Crop losses to pests. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 144(1): 31-43.

  44. Perumpral, J.V., Earp, U.F. and Stanley, J.M. (1978). Effects of electrostatic field on locational preference of house flies and flight activities of cabbage loopers. Environmental Entomology. 7(3): 482-486.

  45. Petrauskas, L.N., Haase, K., Schmidt, G.C., Hübler, A.C., Mannsfeld, S.C., Ellinger, F. and Boroujeni, B.K. (2024). Potential application of organic electronics in electrical sensing of insects and integrated pest management towards developing ecofriendly replacements for chemical insecticides. Advanced Science. 11(4): 2304849.

  46. Picton, H.D. (1966). Some responses of Drosophila to weak magnetic and electrostatic fields. Nature. 211(5046): 303-304.

  47. Reddy, A.A., Reddy, M. and Mathur, V. (2024). Pesticide use, regulation and policies in Indian agriculture. Sustainability. 16(17): 7839.

  48. Seethapathy, P. (2025). Potential of Trichoderma in Combating Insect Pests. In: The Role of Entomopathogenic Fungi in Agriculture. CRC Press. (pp. 162-182).

  49. Shimizu, K., Matsuda, Y., Nonomura, T., Ikeda, H., Tamura, N., Kusakari, S., Kimbara, J. and Toyoda, H. (2007). Dual protection of hydroponic tomatoes from rhizosphere pathogens Ralstonia solanacearum and Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis lycopersici and airborne conidia of Oidium neolycopersici with an ozone generative electrostatic spore precipitator. Plant Pathology. 56(6): 987-997.

  50. Sutton, G.P., Clarke, D., Morley, E.L. and Robert, D. (2016). Mechanosensory hairs in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) detect weak electric fields. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 113(26): 7261-7265.

  51. Takikawa, Y., Matsuda, Y., Kakutani, K., Nonomura, T., Kusakari, S.I., Okada, K., Kimbara, J., Osamura, K. and Toyoda, H. (2015). Electrostatic insect sweeper for eliminating whiteflies colonizing host plants: a complementary pest control device in an electric field screen-guarded greenhouse. Insects. 6(2): 442-454.

  52. Takikawa, Y., Matsuda, Y., Kakutani, K., Sonoda, T. and Toyoda, H. (2024). A simple window screen to create electric discharges for repelling and exterminating stable flies and houseflies in cattle barns. Agriculture. 14(9): 1435.

  53. Takikawa, Y., Matsuda, Y., Nonomura, T., Kakutani, K., Kusakari, S.I. and Toyoda, H. (2020a). Exclusion of flying insect pests from a plastic hoop greenhouse by a bamboo blind-type electric field screen. Journal of Agricultural Science. 12(2): 50.

  54. Takikawa, Y., Nonomura, T., Sonoda, T. and Matsuda, Y. (2021). Developing a phototactic electrostatic insect trap targeting whiteflies, leafminers and thrips in greenhouses. Insects. 12(11): 960.

  55. Takikawa, Y., Takami, T. and Kakutani, K. (2020b). Body water- mediated conductivity actualizes the insect-control functions of electric fields in houseflies. Insects. 11(9): 561.

  56. Tam, J. (2020). Electrostatic fields have strong repellency effects against culex pipiens. bioRxiv. 2020-08.

  57. Thakur, K., Sharma, A. and Sharma, K. (2021). Management of agricultural insect pests with physical control methods. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 10(6): 306-314.

  58. Toyoda, H. (Ed.). (2020). Phytoprotection Science and Technology: Comprehensive Approaches to Crop Protection. RAEFSS Publishing Department.

  59. Ullah, F., Guru-Pirasanna-Pandi, G., Murtaza, G., Sarangi, S., Gul, H., Li, X., Chavarín-Gómez, L.E., Ramírez-Romero, R., Guedes, R.N.C., Desneux, N. and Lu, Y. (2025). Evolving strategies in agroecosystem pest control: Transitioning from chemical to green management. Journal of Pest Science. 98(4): 2307-2324.

  60. Watson, D.B. (1984). Effect of an electric field on insects. New Zealand Journal of Science. 27: 139-140.

  61. Wyckhuys, K.A., Hughes, A.C., Buamas, C., Johnson, A.C., Vasseur, L., Reymondin, L., Deguine, J.P. and Sheil, D. (2019). Biological control of an agricultural pest protects tropical forests. Communications Biology. 2(1): 10.
Published In
Agricultural Science Digest
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
22
Views
0
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Review Article

    Harnessing High-voltage Electric Fields for Pest Management- Current Advances and Future Prospects: A Review

    T
    T. Mohanaselvan1,*
    https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5389-0889
    D
    D. Dhalin1
    https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0647-2397
    P
    P. Athira1
    https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3610-4202
    S
    Sanchu Sukumaran1
    https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4940-2871
    D
    Dipak S. Khatawkar1
    https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2738-0299
    1Department of Farm Machinery and Power Engineering, Kelappaji College of Agricultural Engineering and Food Technology, Kerala Agricultural University, Tavanur, Malappuram-679 573, Kerala, India.

    ABSTRACT

    The pervasive impact of insect pests on global agricultural productivity necessitates the development of sustainable and eco-compatible pest management solutions. The electric field (EF) technology with high voltage input has emerged as a promising avenue for integrated pest management (IPM). It leverages non-contact electrostatic forces to disrupt insect behaviour and physiology without reliance on synthetic chemical agents. This review systematically elucidates the underlying physical principles governing EF generation, including Coulombic interactions, dielectric polarization and electrostatic discharge phenomena, while correlating these mechanisms with insect’s neurobiological and physiological responses. These electrostatic interventions are categorized into repelling, trapping and electrocution modalities. The review further integrates findings on bioelectric interactions, transient charge discharges and water-mediated conductivity within insect bodies that potentiate control effects. Different pest species exhibit distinct behavioral thresholds across the spectrum of applied voltages, indicating that high-voltage electric fields can be optimized for target-specific pest management while minimizing broader ecological impacts. Within this framework, EF-based technologies demonstrate transformative potential as environmentally benign alternatives to chemical pesticides. Ultimately, the work advocates for targeted interdisciplinary research to refine operational parameters, enhance selectivity and ensure sustainable applicability across diverse agro-ecosystems.

    INTRODUCTION

    Pest-induced losses are now widely recognized as a critical factor in the global decline of agricultural productivity. Recent studies estimating that insect pests contribute to approximately 38% of total crop losses worldwide (Junaid and Gokce, 2024). Insect pests remain a major challenge which leads to severe crop losses and compromised storage quality, especially in tropical areas where losses can be as high as 70% (Mahato, 2014; Cerda et al., 2017; Seethapathy, 2025). The extent of these losses is closely influenced by variables such as the type of farming systems employed, regional economic conditions and the capacity to adopt advanced agricultural technologies. Estimates suggest that crop losses due to pests and diseases range from 20% to 40% across different continents, at both national and regional scales. These impacts are particularly severe for essential food and cash crops. While a combination of biotic and abiotic stressors contributes to agricultural losses, insect pests remain among the most significant drivers. Among the major challenges affecting agricultural production, insect pests accounted for the largest proportion (26%), followed by weeds (23%), global warming (17%), anthropogenic factors (14%), salinity (13%) and post-harvest losses (7%) (Oerke, 2006; Junaid and Gokce, 2024).
           
    The United Nations’ commitment to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals highlights the critical need for ensuring food security and promoting sustainable agriculture in the face of rapid population growth. However, the widespread and excessive use of synthetic chemical pesticides has not only targeted pests but also caused significant harm to ecosystems, reduced food quality and endangered beneficial insects within agroecosystems. Although chemical control remains the most commonly employed pest management method among farmers, increasing concerns over its environmental impact and associated health risks have underscored the urgent need for safer alternative approaches. In response, eco-friendly pest management strategies have been incorporated into the integrated pest management (IPM) framework to reduce farmers’ reliance on harmful chemicals (Hawkins et al., 2019; Longkumer et al., 2024; Ullah et al., 2025). The overarching goal is to safeguard crops from pests and diseases through environmentally sustainable techniques, such as biological (Ambethgar et al., 2025; Bhandari and Paudel, 2024) and physical control methods.
           
    The rising risk from new and invasive pest species emphasizes the vital need for sustainable and environmentally friendly pest management technologies to optimize crop yields and enhance profitability. In this context, electric fields (EFs) have emerged as a promising non-chemical approach to pest control. An electric field refers to the region surrounding an electric charge where it can exert a force on other charges. Notably, high-voltage electric fields can induce various electrostatic phenomena, some of which may be harnessed for pest control (Kusakari et al., 2023). Physical pest control methods, including those based on electrostatics, offer a viable alternative that aligns well with IPM principles. These approaches help to reduce environmental impact, lower pesticide usage and slow the development of pesticide resistance. Considering these advantages, this review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the basic principle and role of electrostatic technologies in pest management (Table 1).

    Table 1: Pest management methods and principles.



    Electric field generation in accordance with pest control
     
    An electric field can be generated around a charged conductor, such as copper or iron. When a negative voltage generator is used, it draws free electrons (negative charges) from the ground and transfers them to the conductor. This results in the accumulation of negative charges on the surface of the conductor. Due to dielectric polarization and the electrification of the insulating material, negative charges also appear on the outer surface of the conductor’s insulation (Fig 1).

    Fig 1: Cross sectional view of electric field formation (Kusakari et al., 2023).


           
    The amount of electricity involved in this electrification process is directly proportional to the applied voltage. As the applied voltage increases, the amount of induced charge also increases. This voltage, measured relative to the earth ground, is referred to as the applied potential difference. Higher potential difference leads to stronger electrostatic effects, resulting in more intense attractive or repulsive forces. These forces can be effectively used to trap or repel insects in electrostatic pest control systems.
           
    An electrostatic field is generated around a charged, insulated conductor. In this field, the accumulated charge on the conductor remains stable and does not discharge. However, when oppositely charged poles create an electric field, an electrical discharge may occur if the applied voltage exceeds a certain threshold, even if the conductors are insulated. The region where discharge occurs is referred to as a dynamic electric field, while the region where no discharge takes place is called a static electric field (Fig 2).

    Fig 2: Characterization of electric field (Kusakari et al., 2023).


     
    Neurobiological and physiological effects of efs on insects
     
    Neurobiological effects
     
    The ability to detect electric forces, known as electroreception, has been observed in a variety of organisms, including sharks, chimeras, skates, rays, insects and nematodes (Gabel et al., 2007; Newton et al., 2019). As insects approach an electric field, they are more likely to be repelled when the field strength increases. Insects fully exposed to electric fields show noticeable alterations in their locomotion, including reduced travel distances, slower movement and more frequent directional changes. These behavioural shifts highlight the influence of electric fields on insect movement patterns (Jackson et al., 2011). Experiments testing the response of animals to electric fields found that both movement behaviour and the tendency to avoid the field were dependent on field strength. In cockroaches (Periplaneta americana Linn., Blattidae: Blattodea), for instance, the deflection of antennae by the electric field enabled field detection. However, when the antennae were surgically removed, the cockroaches lost this ability, confirming the role of antennae in electroreception (Hunt et al., 2005; Newland et al., 2008). In bumblebees (Bombus terrestris Linn., Apidae: Hymenoptera), the deflection of both sensory hairs and antennae increased with higher electric charge, indicating that sensory hairs play a role in electroreception (Sutton et al., 2016). Similarly, the housefly (Musca domestica Linn., Muscidae: Diptera.) exhibited avoidance behaviour when exposed to static electric fields in the range of 100 to150 kV·m-1 (Perumpral et al., 1978). Increased locomotion was observed in various insects, including fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, Drosophilidae: Diptera), honey bees (Apis mellifera Linn., Apidae: Hymenoptera) and blowflies (Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, Calliphoridae: Diptera) (Picton ,1966; Watson, 1984). Additionally, mechanoreceptors located in the antennal region of bees were found to be more sensitive to electric fields compared to mechanoreceptors in other areas (Greggers et al., 2013).
           
    To evaluate the evading behaviour in response to static electric fields, researchers used a Y-bioassay system. This assay includes three arms: one charged, one uncharged and a vertical arm used to release the insects. A dual gooseneck cold light source was directed into each arm to encourage the insects’ upward movement. The behavioural response to electric fields was effectively assessed using this method (Fig 3). In fruit flies, the evading behaviour was driven by wing movements and changes in amine levels (Newland et al., 2015). Minimum behavioural thresholds for electric field detection vary among different species. A comparison of these thresholds and the corresponding electric field strengths is shown in Fig 4.

    Fig 3: Y-bio assay.



    Fig 4: Minimum behavioral thresholds of electric field (England and Robert, 2022).


     
    Physiological effects
     
    Several studies have explored the effects of electric fields on insect species, revealing notable physiological changes. For instance, exposure to electric field led to a reduction in both the total number of eggs laid per mating couple and the number of larvae emerged (Fedrizzi et al., 2020). Furthermore, when four insect species honey bees (Apis mellifera Linn., Apidae: Hymenoptera), american cockroach (Periplaneta americana Linn., Blattidae: Blattodea), indian stick insect (Carausius morosus Sinéty, Phasmatidae: Phasmatodea) and wasp (Vespula vulgaris Linn., Vespidae: Hymenoptera) were exposed to static electric fields, increased food and oxygen consumption was observed across all species. However, early mortality was notably high in bee species (Altmann, 1969). Longer-term exposure to static electric fields also caused a reduction in egg deposition and increased mortality in the phantom hemlock looper (Nepytia phantasmaria Strecker, Geometridae: Lepidoptera) (Edwards, 1961). Direct exposure of diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella Linn., Plutellidae: Lepidoptera) eggs to high voltage electric field led to longer growth cycles and reduced reproductive capacity (Jia et al., 2023). Despite these findings, the neurobiological and physiological effects of electric fields on insects have not been fully utilized in insect control strategies. This presents a significant opportunity for future studies, as harnessing the electroreceptive responses of certain insect species could prove valuable in controlling populations that actively respond to electric fields. Analysis of the behaviour of both pests and pollinators to the exposure of electric field identify the minimum behavioural threshold which can be utilized in target specific action.
     
    Electrostatics based technologies for pest control
     
    Technologies for capturing insects
     
    The bi-functional electric screen consists of an insulated conductive wire (ICW) positioned between two earthed metal nets. The ICW is negatively charged, which induces a negative charge on the outer surface of the insulator sleeve through dielectric polarization. This, in turn, electrostatically induces a positive charge on the inner surface of the adjacent metal net, thereby generating an electric field between the ICW and the net. To evaluate the screen’s ability to capture insects, cigarette beetles (Lasioderma serricorne Fabricius, Ptinidae: Coleoptera) and vinegar flies (Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, Drosophilidae: Diptera) were introduced into the space between the ICW and the metal net. When the ICW was charged to a negative voltage exceeding 4.1 kV, a strong insect capture effect was observed (Matsuda et al., 2011). Another type of electric field screen consists of two voltage generators that supply either positive or negative voltages to insulated conductor wires (ICWs), which are arranged in three parallel layers. The ICWs in each layer were connected to a negative or positive voltage generator and to another at 5-mm intervals. They discovered that, even with a wind speed of 7 m·s-1, the force generated was sufficiently enough at ≥1.2 kV for the ICWs to capture every mosquito. The same principle can be applied in the case of agricultural pest control system (Matsuda et al., 2015a).
           
    An electrostatic insect-capturing device, consisting of a double-charged dipolar electric field screen (DD-screen) with oppositely charged insulator tubes, was mounted on a drone. The tubes were connected to a voltage generator after their inner surfaces were coated with a conductive paste (electro-conductive acrylic paste containing silver or copper filler) to enable charging. Insects approaching the device were captured upon contact with the tubes due to the electric field generated by the opposing charges. The DD-screen developed in this study was lightweight enough to be carried by a drone (Kakutani et al., 2021a). The screen was attached to the drone perpendicular to the direction of drone movement. The applied voltage of 6.5 kV could trap all the insects (flies with body length ranging from 1.8 to 3.8 mm) entered the electric field. The ICWs were placed at regular intervals along a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe and covered with a cylindrical stainless steel (SS) net to form an electrostatic insect sweeper. To generate an electric field between them, the ICWs and the net were connected to a direct current (DC) voltage generator powered by 3-volt batteries housed within the handle. The ICWs and net were charged with opposite polarities. During operation, the sweeper was gently passed over plant leaves, effectively attracting whiteflies (Bemisia tabaci Gennadius, Aleyrodidae: Hemiptera) present on the foliage. When the ICWs were charged to voltages exceeding 1.5 kV, the electric field was strong enough to capture all adult insects, regardless of their size or species (Takikawa et al., 2015).     
           
    The bamboo blind-type electric field screen (Bb-EFS) creates a pest-free environment by preventing the entry of viruliferous whiteflies. Two electrostatic DC voltage generators supply the insulated round iron conductor bars (IBs) in the Bb-EFS with either a positive or negative voltage. The IBs are alternately connected to the positive and negative generators and are arranged in parallel at 4 mm intervals. Due to the strong electric field generated by a voltage of ≥5.0 kV, the IBs are capable of capturing all insects approaching the screen (Takikawa et al., 2020a). A phototactic electrostatic insect trap was developed to target whiteflies, leaf miners and thrips. A Double-Charged Dipolar Electric Field Producer (DDEFP) was constructed by filling transparent, soft PVC tubes with water. These tubes were arranged in parallel with a fixed separation distance of 5 mm. The electrodes of grounded negative and positive voltage generators were inserted into the water within the respective tubes to generate oppositely charged water, thereby creating a dipolar electric field (Takikawa et al., 2021). The charged water polarized the outer surface of the tubing through dielectric polarization, generating an electric field between the oppositely charged tubes. To attract phototactic insects, the water was tinted yellow using watercolor paste and placed inside the transparent insulating tubing, resulting in the yellow-colored DDEFP. A voltage level of 1.2 kV was sufficient to achieve complete capture of the test insects.
           
    The fundamental mechanism behind insect capture using electrostatic devices was investigated by Kakutani et al., (2012) and Takikawa et al., (2020b). Kakutani et al., (2012) proposed that insect attraction to the electric field is due to the formation of a transient bioelectric discharge. This occurs when an insect enters the electric field which is having some electrical charge or becoming polarized, experiences a rapid discharge of that charge toward the grounded (earthed) electrode. Takikawa et al., (2020b) further explained that this discharge is facilitated by the conductivity of water within the insect’s body. Because insect tissues contain water and electrolytes, they can conduct electricity. When an insect enters the electric field, the field induces polarization and the body’s internal conductivity allows for charge movement. This interaction results in a discharge pathway, often transient, between the insect and the electrode. This bioelectric event contributes directly to the insect-control effect, either stunning, immobilizing, or drawing the insect toward the charged elements of the device.
     
    Technologies for repelling insects
     
    Iron ICWs were arranged in parallel and connected to form a single charged dipolar electric field screen. The DC voltage generator supplied a negative charge to the ICWs, while an earthed SS net was positioned on one side of the ICW layer (Fig 5). At a voltage of 2.0 kV, the screen effectively repelled all insect targets approaching the net. The voltage thresholds required to repel various insect species are listed in Table 2 (Matsuda et al., 2015b). 

    Fig 5: Construction of single charged dipolar electric field screen (Matsuda et al., 2015b).



    Table 2: Voltage of avoidance for various insect species (Matsuda et al., 2015b).

     
           
    The single charged dipolar electric field screen (Fig 6) consisted of a DC voltage generator, insulated iron conductor wires arranged in parallel and two metal nets positioned on either side of the ICW layer. To prevent whitefly intrusion, these screens were installed on greenhouse windows. When a negative voltage of 1.5 to 2.5 kV was applied, all whiteflies that reached the outer surface of the screen net immediately retreated (Nonomura et al., 2012; 2014). A repelling mechanism with single row of ICWs was constructed to evaluate its effectiveness against host-seeking mosquitoes (Aedes aegypti Linn., Culicidae: Diptera). The EFs generated by the ICWs successfully repelled female mosquitoes, with EF strengths ranging from 0 kV·cm-1 (control) to 9.15 kV·cm-1. Repellence increased with EF strength, plateauing at levels above 3.66 kV·cm-1, where repellence rates reached 54.1 percent to 58.3 percent (Jobe et al., 2024). More recently, mosquitoes were effectively excluded from target areas using a single row of alternating-polarity conductors. In cage experiments involving parallel copper plates (spaced 20 mm apart between the insect release area and a human-baited lure zone) and in room-scale experiments using aluminium blinds (placed 20 mm apart between release and lure rooms), more than 90 per cent of mosquitoes were repelled at EF strengths of 1.25 and 1.5 kV·cm-1 (Gordon et al., 2022).  Additionally, Tam (2020) reported that electrostatic fields exhibited strong repellent effects against common house mosquitoes (Culex pipiens Linn., Culicidae: Diptera) at a voltage level of 9.8 kV. The same principle can be adopted and modified for development of pest control mechanism for agricultural pests specifically in protected cultivation environment.

    Fig 6: Structure of the single-charged dipolar (SCD) screen (Nonomura et al., 2012; 2014).


           
    A voltage generator and a grounded metal net (G-MN) were used to establish a static electric field (S-EF) by electrostatically polarizing the system. A negatively charged, PVC-insulated iron plate (N-PIP) was positioned opposite to the G-MN. The S-EF was generated in the space between the N-PIP and the G-MN, as field electrons were repelled by the negative charge of the N-PIP and driven toward the ground through the G-MN. When an adult Turkestan cockroach (Shelfordella lateralis Walker, Blattidae: Blattodea) was released into the area enclosed by the device, it instinctively moved backward and extended its antennae into the S-EF (Matsuda et al., 2021). The configuration of the static electric field generator is shown in Fig 7. Corona and arc discharging screen (CADS) was developed to repel and exterminate stable flies and houseflies in cattle barns (Fig 8). The negatively charged net was surrounded by ozone and negative ions created by the electric field, which prevented houseflies from getting within. Additionally, stable flies (Stomoxys calcitrans Linn., Muscidae: Diptera) that did not display avoidance behavior were repelled by the screen’s arc discharge of sparks. At voltages (5 to 9.8 kV), all flies released avoiding the metal net of the CADS entirely (Takikawa et al., 2024).

    Fig 7: Configuration of the static electric field producer (S-EFP) (Matsuda et al., 2021).



    Fig 8: Corona and arc discharging screen (MN metal net; PF- polypropylene frame) (Takikawa et al., 2024).


     
    Technologies for electrocuting insects
     
    A solar-powered electrocuting device was developed to control bloodworm species (Chironomus spp.) in rice fields as an eco-friendly alternative to harmful chemical pesticides. The device generates a high-voltage current just below the soil surface to kill both adult bloodworms and their larvae. The highest efficiency was achieved with a voltage of 20 kV, an electrode depth of 180 mm and treatment time of 30-minute, resulting in the greatest reduction of both adult and larval bloodworm populations. The results showed that the device was more effective than the chemical insecticide. Being solar-powered, it also minimizes environmental pollution, offering a safer method for bloodworm control. The device can treat a 5 m2 soil surface area per application (El_Sayed and Refaay, 2024). The components used in constructing the solar-powered electrocuting device are shown in Fig 9. The intelligent electronic trap consists of features for attracting, detecting, differentiating and eliminating the insects which approaches the trap. The key functions of the trap were to attracting insects, detecting when an insect lands on the trap, identifying the insect’s family with a low error rate to differentiate between pests and non-target insects and eliminating the pest without harming other insects. Additionally, the trap should be affordable, environmentally friendly and safe to humans, animals and birds in case of accidental contact. The LEDs and volatile insect attractants were used to attract the nocturnal insects towards the trap. The application of high voltage is related to eliminating pests (Petrauskas et al., 2024). The conceptual design of the trap is given in Fig 10.

    Fig 9: Solar powered electrocuting device (El-Sayed and Refaay, 2024).



    Fig 10: Intelligent electronic trap (Petrauskas et al., 2024).


           
    The arc-discharge zapper (ADZ) was developed to kill larger insects emerging from soil beds. The ADZ featured negatively charged, non-insulated iron plates (NNPs) and grounded conductor plates (GCPs) arranged alternately in parallel at specified intervals (Fig 11). The ADZ generated a discharge-producing electric field between the NNPs and GCPs, which killed the insects. The voltage range applied varies between -1 to -9 kV (Matsuda and Toyoda, 2022). With the same principle Kakutani et al., (2023) developed electrostatic arc producing device using negatively charged metal nets instead of conductor plates. Similar electrocuting designs are being reported by various researchers to eliminate the insect pests. High voltage electrical discharge device called KAHRATRAP was developed to capture insects (Benmimoun et al., 2007). Device for producing electric discharge to control the weeds and houseflies emerging from soil was developed by Matsuda et al., (2020). Electrostatically eradication of rice weevils (Sitophilus oryzae Linn., Curculionidae: Coleoptera) in rice grains by selective arcing was done by Kakutani et al., (2021b). El-Sayed and Mosa (2021) developed an electrical sterilization device for stored grains. Device for selective destruction of rice weevils nesting in stored rice was developed by Matsuda et al., (2018).

    Fig 11: Arc discharge zapper (Matsuda and Toyoda, 2022).


     
    Practical applications in pest control
     
    Agricultural pests and pathogens can be effectively controlled using electric fields (Shimizu et al., 2007). Research has shown that the conidia (spores) of certain pathogenic fungi often carry a net negative surface charge, which may facilitate their adhesion to surfaces. Such electrostatic interactions likely contribute to the ability of fungal spores to attach to plants and animals, as well as to enhance their proliferation in natural environments (Boucias et al., 1988). Devices known as electrostatic precipitators employ strong electric fields to attract and trap harmful fungal spores, thereby preventing them from reaching crops (Moriura et al., 2006). In addition, electrostatic devices have been adapted to repel insect pests. These devices exploit the insects’ inherent electric charges to attract them toward a voltage source, effectively preventing their access to crops or stored food (Kakutani et al., 2012). Furthermore, Takikawa et al., (2015) demonstrated that such devices can even be applied to eliminate insects from plants that are already infested. An ozone-generating spore precipitator was developed to control both airborne and root-borne pathogens in hydroponically grown tomato plants. The original design used a negatively charged wire inside an acrylic cylinder, creating dielectric polarization across the walls. This produced a non-discharging electrostatic field that attracted spores to the cylinder surface through dielectrophoretic forces. In the modified version, positively charged inner wire enhanced ozone generation efficiency. This adjustment reversed the polarization pattern but still retained effective spore attraction. A corona discharge zone was created by positioning the wire tip near a grounded metal ring at the cylinder’s end. Ozone formed in this region was driven along the cylinder by ionic wind and collected via an outlet pipe. A multi-cylinder array acted as a protective nursery enclosure for plants. It provided dual disinfection by capturing airborne conidia (Oidium neolycopersici) and suppressing root pathogens (Ralstonia solanacearum, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici). This integration of electrostatic spore capture with corona-based ozone sterilization offers a novel, synergistic approach for pathogen management in controlled-environment agriculture (Shimizu et al., 2007).

    CONCLUSION

    Numerous insect species pose serious threats not only to human health but also to livestock and agricultural productivity. While chemical insecticides remain the primary method of pest control, the growing problem of pesticide resistance and environmental contamination highlights the urgent need for alternative, non-chemical solutions. High-voltage electric field technology has emerged as a promising strategy to address these challenges. Electric fields can be employed to repel, trap, or electrocute target insects, thereby reducing dependence on harmful chemical pesticides. This approach offers an environmentally friendly and sustainable alternative for pest management. However, to ensure effective and long-term implementation, further research is required to understand the mechanisms of interaction between insects and electric fields, optimize the technology for different insect species and habitats and assess its ecological safety. One of the most significant phenomena associated with electric fields is their strong attractive force, which underpins the function of electric field screens (EFS). These screens utilize electrostatic attraction to create an air-shield barrier that excludes airborne particles and pests. EFS systems have proven effective in preventing the entry of fine particulate matter such as smoke, allergenic pollen grains, fungal spores and flying insect pests into controlled environments. The potential applications of electric field screens are broad and include residential buildings, hospitals, educational institutions, crop greenhouses, post-harvest storage and processing facilities and livestock housing. With their adaptable design and broad applicability, EFS technologies represent a major advancement in sustainable pest management. Nevertheless, continued investigation is essential to refine system design, enhance species-specific efficacy and validate long-term safety under real-world conditions.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

    Authors acknowledges the Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur (India) for providing infrastructure and useful resources.
     
    Disclaimers
     
    The views and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of their affiliated institutions. The authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, but do not accept any liability for any direct or indirect losses resulting from the use of this content.

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST

    The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article. No funding or sponsorship influenced the design of the study, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

    REFERENCES


    1. Altmann, G. (1969). Die physiologische Wirkung elektrischer Felder auf Organismen. Archiv für Meteorologie, Geophysik und Bioklimatologie. Serie B. 17(2): 269-290.

    2. Ambethgar, A.S., Rameshkumar, A., Krishna, K.R. and Sundaresan, S. (2025). Biological control of pests in major tropical vegetable crops: A review. Agricultural Reviews. 46(4): 515-530. doi: 10.18805/ag.R-2635.

    3. Benmimoun, Y., Flazi, S. and Tilmatine, A. (2007). Electrical solution to fight harmful insects influence of lamp-light color. Advances in Electrical and Computer Engineering. 7(2): 45-48.

    4. Bhandari, M.K. and Paudel, M. (2024). Genetic, biological and sterile insect techniques: Insect pest management strategies: A review. Agricultural Reviews. 45(3): 390-399. doi: 10.18805/ag.RF-311.

    5. Boucias, D.G., Pendland, J.C. and Latge, J. (1988). Nonspecific factors involved in attachment of entomopathogenic deuteromycetes to host insect cuticle. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 54(7): 1795-1805.

    6. Cerda, R., Avelino, J., Gary, C., Tixier, P., Lechevallier, E. and Allinne, C. (2017). Primary and secondary yield losses caused by pests and diseases: Assessment and modeling in coffee. Plos One. 12(1): e0169133.

    7. Dittmar, P.J., Dufault, N.S., Desaeger, J., Noling, J.W., Stansly, P.A. and Boyd, N.S. (2018). Integrated Pest Management. In: Vegetable Production Handbook. [Dittmar, P.J., Freeman, J.H., Paret, M.L. and Smith, H.A.  (Eds.)], UF/IFAS Extension. (pp. 19-33).

    8. Edwards, D.K. (1961). Influence of electrical field on pupation and oviposition in nepytia phantasmaria Stkr. (Lepidoptera: Geometridae). Nature. 191(4792): 976-976.

    9. El_Sayed, A.S. and Refaay, M.M.S. (2024). Development of a solar- powered device for bloodworm control in rice fields. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal. 26(3): 58-70.

    10. El-Sayed, A.S. and Mosa, S.E.A. (2021). Development of an electrical sterilization device for stored grains. Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering. 12(10): 627-638.

    11. England, S.J. and Robert, D. (2022). The ecology of electricity and electroreception. Biological Reviews. 97(1): 383-413.

    12. Fedrizzi, M., Pagano, M., Guerrieri, M., Tomasone, R., Musmeci, S., Arnone, S., Sasso, R., Cristofaro, M., Antonucci, F. and Santangelo, E., (2020). Electrocution and containment methods to reduce the activity of red palm weevil (Rhynchophorus ferrugineus, Ol.). Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research. 18(4): e1006-e1006.

    13. Gabel, C.V., Gabel, H., Pavlichin, D., Kao, A., Clark, D.A. and Samuel, A.D. (2007). Neural circuits mediate electrosensory behavior in Caenorhabditis elegans. Journal of Neuroscience. 27(28): 7586-7596.

    14. Gordon, U., Tanveer, F., Rose, A. and Paaijmans, K. (2022). Repelling Mosquitoes with Electric Fields. In: Advances in Arthropod Repellents. [Coats, J., Corona, C. and Debboun, M. (Eds.)], Academic Press. (pp. 95-112).

    15. Greggers, U., Koch, G., Schmidt, V., Dürr, A., Floriou-Servou, A., Piepenbrock, D., Göpfert, M.C. and Menzel, R. (2013). Reception and learning of electric fields in bees. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 280(1759): 20130528.

    16. Hawkins, N.J., Bass, C., Dixon, A. and Neve, P. (2019). The evolutionary origins of pesticide resistance. Biological Reviews. 94(1): 135-155.

    17. Hunt, E.P., Jackson, C.W. and Newland, P.L. (2005). “Electrorepellancy” behaviour of Periplaneta americana exposed to friction charged dielectric surfaces. Journal of Electrostatics. 63(6-10): 853-859.

    18. Jackson, C.W., Hunt, E., Sharkh, S. and Newland, P.L. (2011). Static electric fields modify the locomotory behaviour of cockroaches. Journal of Experimental Biology. 214(12): 2020-2026.

    19. Jia, L., Xu, S., Shang, H., Guo, J., Yan, X., Liu, C., Li, G. and Luo, K. (2023). High-voltage electrostatic fields adversely affect the performance of diamondback moths over five consecutive generations. Agronomy. 3(4): 1008.

    20. Jobe, N.B., Erickson, M., Rydberg, S. E., Huijben, S. and Paaijmans, K.P. (2024). Repelling Aedes aegypti mosquitoes with electric fields using insulated conductor wires. Plos Neglected Tropical Diseases. 18(9): e0012493.

    21. Junaid, M.D. and Gokce, A.F. (2024). Global agricultural losses and their causes. Bulletin of Biological and Allied Sciences Research. 9(1): 66-66.

    22. Kakutani, K., Matsuda, Y. and Toyoda, H. (2023). A simple and safe electrostatic method for managing houseflies emerging from underground pupae. Agronomy. 13(2): 310.

    23. Kakutani, K., Matsuda, Y., Haneda, K., Nonomura, T., Kimbara, J., Kusakari, S., Osamura, K. and Toyoda, H. (2012). Insects are electrified in an electric field by deprivation of their negative charge. Annals of Applied Biology. 160(3): 250- 259.

    24. Kakutani, K., Matsuda, Y., Nonomura, T., Takikawa, Y., Osamura, K. and Toyoda, H. (2021a). Remote-controlled monitoring of flying pests with an electrostatic insect capturing apparatus carried by an unmanned aerial vehicle. Agriculture. 11(2): 176. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture 11020176.

    25. Kakutani, K., Takikawa, Y. and Matsuda, Y. (2021b). Selective arcing electrostatically eradicates rice weevils in rice grains. Insects. 12(6): 522. https://doi.org/10.3390/ insects12060522.

    26. Kumar, A., Bhople, B.S. and Jeganathan, J. (2025). Balancing food security and environmental health: the dual challenge of pesticide use in India. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 32(9): 4949-4956.

    27. Kusakari, S.I., Matsuda, Y. and Toyoda, H. (2023). Electrostatic insect repulsion, capture and arc-discharge techniques for physical pest management in greenhouses. Agronomy. 13(1): 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010023.

    28. Longkumer, I.Y., Ahmad, M.A., Choudhary, S., Laichattiwar, M.A. and Bajia, R. (2024). Validation of integrated pest management modules against piercing and sucking insect pest of rice. Agricultural Science Digest. 44(2): 351-354. doi: 10.18805/ag.D-5823.

    29. Mahato, A. (2014). Climate change and its impact on agriculture. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 4(4): 1-6.

    30. Matsuda, Y., Kakutani, K., Nonomura, T., Kimbara, J., Osamura, K., Kusakar, S. and Toyoda, H. (2015a). Safe housing ensured by an electric field screen that excludes insect-net permeating haematophagous mosquitoes carrying human pathogens. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 646(1): 012002. 

    31. Matsuda, Y., Nonomura, T. and Toyoda, H. (2021). Turkestan cockroaches avoid entering a static electric field upon perceiving an attractive force applied to antennae inserted into the field. Insects. 12(7): 621. https://doi.org/10.3390/ insects12070621.

    32. Matsuda, Y. and Toyoda, H. (2022). Target-size-dependent appli cation of electrostatic techniques for pest management in greenhouses. Agronomy. 13(1): 125.

    33. Matsuda, Y., Nonomura, T., Kakutani, K., Kimbara, J., Osamura, K., Kusakari, S. and Toyoda, H. (2015b). Avoidance of an electric field by insects: Fundamental biological phenomenon for an electrostatic pest-exclusion strategy. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 646(1): 012003.

    34. Matsuda, Y., Nonomura, T., Kakutani, K., Takikawa, Y., Kimbara, J., Kasaishi, Y., Osamura, K., Kusakari, S.I. and Toyoda, H. (2011). A newly devised electric field screen for avoidance and capture of cigarette beetles and vinegar flies. Crop Protection. 30(2): 155-162.

    35. Matsuda, Y., Shimizu, K., Sonoda, T. and Takikawa, Y. (2020). Use of electric discharge for simultaneous control of weeds and houseflies emerging from soil. Insects. 11(12): 861.

    36. Matsuda, Y., Takikawa, Y. and Nonomura, T. (2018). Selective electrostatic eradication of Sitophilus oryzae nesting in stored rice. Journal of Food Technology and Preservation. 2(1): 15-20.

    37. Moriura, N., Matsuda, Y., Oichi, W., Nakashima, S., Hirai, T., Nonomura, T., Kakutani, K., Kusakari, S., Higashi, K. and Toyoda, H. (2006). An apparatus for collecting total conidia of Blumeria graminis f. sp. hordei from leaf colonies using electrostatic attraction. Plant Pathology. 55(3): 367-374.

    38. Newland, P.L., Al Ghamdi, M.S., Sharkh, S., Aonuma, H. and Jackson, C.W. (2015). Exposure to static electric fields leads to changes in biogenic amine levels in the brains of Drosophila. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 282(1812): 20151198.

    39. Newland, P.L., Hunt, E., Sharkh, S.M., Hama, N., Takahata, M. and Jackson, C.W. (2008). Static electric field detection and behavioural avoidance in cockroaches. Journal of Experimental Biology. 211(23): 3682-3690.

    40. Newton, K.C., Gill, A.B. and Kajiura, S.M. (2019). Electroreception in marine fishes: chondrichthyans. Journal of Fish Biology. 95(1): 135-154.

    41. Nonomura, T., Matsuda, Y., Kakutani, K., Kimbara, J., Osamura, K., Kusakari, S.I. and Toyoda, H. (2012). An electric field strongly deters whiteflies from entering window-open greenhouses in an electrostatic insect exclusion strategy. European journal of plant pathology. 134(4): 661-670.

    42. Nonomura, T., Matsuda, Y., Kakutani, K., Takikawa, Y., Kimbara, J., Osamura, K., Kusakari, S.I. and Toyoda, H. (2014). Prevention of whitefly entry from a greenhouse entrance by furnishing an airflow-oriented pre-entrance room guarded with electric field screens. Journal of Agricultural Science. 6(12): 172.

    43. Oerke, E.C. (2006). Crop losses to pests. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 144(1): 31-43.

    44. Perumpral, J.V., Earp, U.F. and Stanley, J.M. (1978). Effects of electrostatic field on locational preference of house flies and flight activities of cabbage loopers. Environmental Entomology. 7(3): 482-486.

    45. Petrauskas, L.N., Haase, K., Schmidt, G.C., Hübler, A.C., Mannsfeld, S.C., Ellinger, F. and Boroujeni, B.K. (2024). Potential application of organic electronics in electrical sensing of insects and integrated pest management towards developing ecofriendly replacements for chemical insecticides. Advanced Science. 11(4): 2304849.

    46. Picton, H.D. (1966). Some responses of Drosophila to weak magnetic and electrostatic fields. Nature. 211(5046): 303-304.

    47. Reddy, A.A., Reddy, M. and Mathur, V. (2024). Pesticide use, regulation and policies in Indian agriculture. Sustainability. 16(17): 7839.

    48. Seethapathy, P. (2025). Potential of Trichoderma in Combating Insect Pests. In: The Role of Entomopathogenic Fungi in Agriculture. CRC Press. (pp. 162-182).

    49. Shimizu, K., Matsuda, Y., Nonomura, T., Ikeda, H., Tamura, N., Kusakari, S., Kimbara, J. and Toyoda, H. (2007). Dual protection of hydroponic tomatoes from rhizosphere pathogens Ralstonia solanacearum and Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis lycopersici and airborne conidia of Oidium neolycopersici with an ozone generative electrostatic spore precipitator. Plant Pathology. 56(6): 987-997.

    50. Sutton, G.P., Clarke, D., Morley, E.L. and Robert, D. (2016). Mechanosensory hairs in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) detect weak electric fields. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 113(26): 7261-7265.

    51. Takikawa, Y., Matsuda, Y., Kakutani, K., Nonomura, T., Kusakari, S.I., Okada, K., Kimbara, J., Osamura, K. and Toyoda, H. (2015). Electrostatic insect sweeper for eliminating whiteflies colonizing host plants: a complementary pest control device in an electric field screen-guarded greenhouse. Insects. 6(2): 442-454.

    52. Takikawa, Y., Matsuda, Y., Kakutani, K., Sonoda, T. and Toyoda, H. (2024). A simple window screen to create electric discharges for repelling and exterminating stable flies and houseflies in cattle barns. Agriculture. 14(9): 1435.

    53. Takikawa, Y., Matsuda, Y., Nonomura, T., Kakutani, K., Kusakari, S.I. and Toyoda, H. (2020a). Exclusion of flying insect pests from a plastic hoop greenhouse by a bamboo blind-type electric field screen. Journal of Agricultural Science. 12(2): 50.

    54. Takikawa, Y., Nonomura, T., Sonoda, T. and Matsuda, Y. (2021). Developing a phototactic electrostatic insect trap targeting whiteflies, leafminers and thrips in greenhouses. Insects. 12(11): 960.

    55. Takikawa, Y., Takami, T. and Kakutani, K. (2020b). Body water- mediated conductivity actualizes the insect-control functions of electric fields in houseflies. Insects. 11(9): 561.

    56. Tam, J. (2020). Electrostatic fields have strong repellency effects against culex pipiens. bioRxiv. 2020-08.

    57. Thakur, K., Sharma, A. and Sharma, K. (2021). Management of agricultural insect pests with physical control methods. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 10(6): 306-314.

    58. Toyoda, H. (Ed.). (2020). Phytoprotection Science and Technology: Comprehensive Approaches to Crop Protection. RAEFSS Publishing Department.

    59. Ullah, F., Guru-Pirasanna-Pandi, G., Murtaza, G., Sarangi, S., Gul, H., Li, X., Chavarín-Gómez, L.E., Ramírez-Romero, R., Guedes, R.N.C., Desneux, N. and Lu, Y. (2025). Evolving strategies in agroecosystem pest control: Transitioning from chemical to green management. Journal of Pest Science. 98(4): 2307-2324.

    60. Watson, D.B. (1984). Effect of an electric field on insects. New Zealand Journal of Science. 27: 139-140.

    61. Wyckhuys, K.A., Hughes, A.C., Buamas, C., Johnson, A.C., Vasseur, L., Reymondin, L., Deguine, J.P. and Sheil, D. (2019). Biological control of an agricultural pest protects tropical forests. Communications Biology. 2(1): 10.
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Agricultural Science Digest

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)