The family Tephritidae (Diptera) includes species that are highly invasive and harmful to crops. Due to globalization, international trade, and human displacement, their spread is continuously increasing. Unfortunately, the control of tephritid flies is still closely linked to the use of synthetic insecticides, which are responsible for detrimental effects on the environment and human health. Recently, research is looking for alternative and more eco-friendly tools to be adopted in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs. In this regard, essential oils (EOs) and their main compounds represent a promising alternative to chemical insecticides. EOs are made up of phytoconstituents formed from the secondary metabolism of many plants and can act as attractants or toxics, depending on the dose. Because of this unique characteristic, EOs and their main constituents are promising tools that can be used both in Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) programs and in the “lure and kill” technique, exploiting the attractiveness of the product in the former case and its toxicity in the latter. In this article, current knowledge on the biological and behavioral effects of EOs and their main constituents on tephritid fruit flies is reviewed, mainly focusing on species belonging to the Anastrepha, Bactrocera, Ceratitis, and Zeugodacus genera. The mechanisms of action of EOs, their real-world applications, and challenges related to their use in IPM are critically discussed.

Among botanical insecticides based on essential oils (EOs) or their main components, Carlina acaulis EO and the aromatic polyacetylene carlina oxide, constituting more than 90% of its EO, were recently proven to be effective against the larvae and adults of some insect vectors and pests. In this study, the toxicity of C. acaulis EO and carlina oxide were tested on Bactrocera oleae adults using a protein bait formulation. The LC₅₀ values of the C. acaulis EO and carlina oxide were 706 ppm and 1052 ppm, respectively. Electroantennographic (EAG) tests on B. oleae adults showed that both carlina EO and oxide elicited EAG dose-dependent responses in male and female antennae. The responses to the EO were significantly higher than those to carlina oxide, indicating that other compounds, despite their lower concentrations, can play a relevant role. Moreover, Y-tube assays carried out to assess the potential attractiveness or repellency of carlina oxide LC₉₀ to B. oleae adults showed that it was unattractive to both males and females of B. oleae, and the time spent by both sexes in either the control or the treatment arm did not differ significantly. Overall, this study points out the potential use of C. acaulis EO and carlina oxide for the development of green and effective “lure-and-kill” tools.