“Lure and kill” technology has been used for several decades in pest management and eradication of invasive species. In lure and kill, the insect pest attracted by a semiochemical lure is not “entrapped” at the source of the attractant as in mass trapping, but instead the insect is subjected to a killing agent, which eliminates affected individuals from the population after a short period. In past decades, a growing scientific literature has been published on this concept. This article provides the first review on the potential of lure and kill in long-term pest management and eradication of invasive species. We present a summary of lure and kill, either when used as a stand-alone control method or in combination with other methods. We discuss its efficacy in comparison with other control methods. Several case studies in which lure and kill has been used with the aims of long-term pest management (e.g., pink bollworm, Egyptian cotton leafworm, codling moth, apple maggot, biting flies, and bark beetles) or the eradication of invasive species (e.g., tephritid fruit flies and boll weevils) are provided. Subsequently, we identify essential knowledge required for successful lure and kill programs that include lure competitiveness with natural odor source; lure density; lure formulation and release rate; pest population density and risk of immigration; and biology and ecology of the target species. The risks associated with lure and kill, especially when used in the eradication programs, are highlighted. We comment on the cost-effectiveness of this technology and its strengths and weaknesses, and list key reasons for success and failure. We conclude that lure and kill can be highly effective in controlling small, low-density, isolated populations, and thus it has the potential to add value to long-term pest management. In the eradication of invasive species, lure and kill offers a major advantage in effectiveness by its being inverse density dependent and it provides some improvements in efficacy over related control methods. However, the inclusion of insecticides or sterilants in lure and kill formulations presents a major obstacle to public acceptance.

Eradication is the deliberate elimination of a species from an area. Given that international quarantine measures can never be 100% effective, surveillance for newly arrived populations of nonnative species coupled with their eradication represents an important strategy for excluding potentially damaging insect species. Historically, eradication efforts have not always been successful and have sometimes been met with public opposition. But new developments in our understanding of the dynamics of low-density populations, the availability of highly effective treatment tactics, and bioeconomic analyses of eradication strategies offer new opportunities for developing more effective surveillance and eradication programs. A key component that connects these new developments is the harnessing of Allee effects, which naturally promote localized species extinction. Here we review these developments and suggest how research might enhance eradication strategies.

Semiochemical-based pest management programs comprise three major approaches that are being used to provide environmentally friendly control methods of insect pests: mass trapping, "lure and kill," and mating disruption. In this article, we review the potential of mass trapping in long-term pest management as well as in the eradication of invasive species. We discuss similarities and differences between mass trapping and other two main approaches of semiochemical-based pest management programs. We highlight several study cases where mass trapping has been used either in long-term pest management [e.g., codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.); pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders); bark beetles, palm weevils, corn rootworms (Diabrotica spp.); and fruit flies] or in eradication of invasive species [e.g., gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (L.); and boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis grandis Boheman). We list the critical issues that affect the efficacy of mass trapping and compare these with previously published models developed to investigate mass trapping efficacy in pest control. We conclude that mass trapping has good potential to suppress or eradicate low-density, isolated pest populations; however, its full potential in pest management has not been adequately realized and therefore encourages further research and development of this technology.

A systematic review focused by plant on non-target impacts from agents deliberately introduced for the biological control of weeds found significant non-target impacts to be rare. The magnitude of direct impact of 43 biocontrol agents on 140 non-target plants was retrospectively categorized using a risk management framework for ecological impacts of invasive species (minimal, minor, moderate, major, massive). The vast majority of agents introduced for classical biological control of weeds (>99% of 512 agents released) have had no known significant adverse effects on non-target plants thus far; major effects suppressing non-target plant populations could be expected to be detectable. Most direct non-target impacts on plants (91.6%) were categorized as minimal or minor in magnitude with no known adverse long-term impact on non-target plant populations, but a few cacti and thistles are affected at moderate (n = 3), major (n = 7) to massive (n = 1) scale. The largest direct impacts are from two agents (Cactoblastis cactorum on native cacti and Rhinocyllus conicus on native thistles), but these introductions would not be permitted today as more balanced attitudes exist to plant biodiversity, driven by both society and the scientific community. Our analysis shows (as far as is known), weed biological control agents have a biosafety track record of >99% of cases avoiding significant non-target impacts on plant populations. Some impacts could have been overlooked, but this seems unlikely to change the basic distribution of very limited adverse effects. Fewer non-target impacts can be expected in future because of improved science and incorporation of wider values. Failure to use biological control represents a significant opportunity cost from the certainty of ongoing adverse impacts from invasive weeds. It is recommended that a simple five-step scale be used to better communicate the risk of consequences from both action (classical biological control) and no action (ongoing impacts from invasive weeds).