From the “Why do we care that agricultural pests can’t lay eggs properly? – Oh wait, we don’t!” department…and Eurekalert.
Rising carbon dioxide level disrupts insects’ ability to choose optimal egg-laying sites
Climate change is rapidly reshaping ecosystems across the globe, and new research has identified a previously unrecognized consequence: disrupted insect reproductive behavior. A recent study published in National Science Review reveals that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are interfering with how agricultural pests choose egg-laying sites—posing significant risks to biodiversity, food security, and pest management strategies.
Insects, despite their adaptability, are especially sensitive to shifts in environmental conditions. As global temperatures rise and atmospheric composition changes, their behavior is changing in ways that ripple through ecosystems. CO2, the primary greenhouse gas driving global warming, has increased from 278 ppm in 1750 to approximately 420 ppm in 2023. Emerging evidence shows that elevated CO2 levels—alongside pollutants such as ozone and nitrogen oxides—are disrupting insects’ ability to detect chemical cues essential for reproduction and survival. Until now, the underlying mechanisms remained poorly understood.
Now, an international collaborative study by scientists from the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and the Max Planck Institute has provided key insights. Focusing on Helicoverpa armigera—the cotton bollworm, a major global crop pest—the team discovered that females normally use plant-emitted CO2 to locate suitable egg-laying sites, particularly favoring younger leaves that emit higher CO2 gradients. These sites are critical for larval survival and development. However, under elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations, this behavior is significantly disrupted. The study found that moths’ CO2-sensing ability is impaired, causing them to lay eggs in less suitable locations. “This disruption is akin to confusing a key olfactory cue from a GPS system,” said Prof. Guirong Wang, lead author of the study. “Without accurate CO2 signals, the insects struggle to find ideal egg-laying sites, which could affect pest population dynamics and agricultural damage.”
To understand the biological basis for this disruption, the researchers identified three CO2-detecting gustatory receptors—HarmGR1, HarmGR2, and HarmGR3. When any of these receptors were genetically deleted, the moths’ ability to detect CO2 impaired, resulting in disoriented egg-laying behavior.
The study’s simulations paint a worrying future: if atmospheric CO2 reaches 1000 ppm by 2100, moths’ preference for optimal egg-laying sites could drop by up to 75%. This would likely reduce larval survival, destabilize pest populations, and alter biodiversity and ecological balance.

Beyond the alarming ecological implications, these findings point to new opportunities. “By targeting the CO2 receptors, we can explore novel, eco-friendly pest control strategies,” said Dr. Qiuyan Cheng, first author of the paper. One promising approach is RNA interference (RNAi), a gene-silencing technique already used in mosquito control, which could disrupt pest reproduction without harmful chemicals.
The study adds to growing evidence that climate change is influencing insect behavior in complex and unexpected ways—not only through temperature shifts but also via direct changes to atmospheric chemistry. With global CO2 levels on track to exceed 1000 ppm by the end of the century, researchers stress the urgent need for both emissions reductions and innovative agricultural adaptation.
Journal
National Science Review DOI 10.1093/nsr/nwaf270
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hallelujah! What this actually means is that it can never be worse than we thought.
I think it means things can be better than we thought. Who thinks disrupting agricultural pests is a bad thing? I mean, farmers spend millions spraying to eliminate pests of all kinds, and I would venture to guess that all those sprays are worse for the environment writ large than a little CO2.
The study adds to growing evidence that climate change is…
…really being done to death.
And getting very boring- like the rest of the woke stuff. My biggest problem with the woke stuff is that I’m just tired of hearing it.
So, instead of being woke (awake and alert) you are being put to sleep (anti-woke).
/h
Our widdle pwanet is soooo delicate! Any teeny weeny widdle change will make it cwy!
Bingo! 🙂
I worked outdoors for 50 years. The environment ain’t delicate. It’s us humans that are delicate cwybabies. 🙂
Back in Dec 1980 I started Drafting School at PIT (Phoenix Institute of Technology). Part of their monetary assistance programs included various government grants that were paid out through a work program. I worked off my grant at the Cotton Research Lab separating Male Boll Weevil pupa from female Boll Weevil Pupa. The reasoning was to develop a breed that was sterile in an effort to control the species and eliminate potential crop damages.
If all it takes to control the Boll Weevil population is a slight increase in CO2 then the Phoenix Cotton Research Lab is … Out of Business.
PROBLEM SOLVED.
no more cross breeding Blue Eyed Females and Red Eyed Males or Yellow Eyed Males and Green Eyed Females. 🤔
“ I worked off my grant at the Cotton Research Lab separating Male Boll Weevil pupa from female Boll Weevil Pupa.”
I’m having trouble thinking of anything more exciting than that!
Sorry to spoil the remainder of your ultra boring life with my sordid tales of Sexing Weevil Pupa
I don’t know boll weevil sex is probably pretty exciting………not.
Maybe not to you, but it has kept the boll weevils enthralled for millions of years.
Sometimes these discussions here get very funny! 🙂
Yes I had a good laugh for a Tuesday morning. Makes for a better day. 🙋♂️😃
Maybe… chick sexing?
I guess I should have added a /sarc.
depends on what sort of chicks 🙂
And which definition of Sexing
When I went to college, most of the girls were already quite sexy. No additional sexting was necessary.
When I was in college, I was fussy- didn’t like most of the chicks I saw. Now that I’m 75, it seems most of the young women look very good!
Ah yes, the moral dilemmas we face. Trying to select from the lesser of two weevils.
That happens every four years in the USA.
Ditto, to above.
I remember that from Master and Commander.
That is one ugly pun-my brain hurts….
It is the green-eyed females that are most dangerous! 🙂
So, you were a sex worker?
/humor
“…scientists from the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences…”
more china BS …
China has built their industry to serve western markets and dominate. More than 90% of the equipment used in Australia’s very expensive energy transition is produced in China.
China needs the climate scam in the west to be maintained..
This article is propaganda dressed as science.
Well, they got paid.
Ironically, they might be right in that the huge increases in vegetation due to our inadvertent but wildly positive airborne fertilizer scheme may have changed the fertility landscape for organisms with moth-sized brains.
Have at it ……
2.0 deg C in 100 years, and they think they can detect something like this in insects!? I do not believe it, just what are they counting?
They’re Counting on the vacuous brain pans of US CC Zealots to react to the panic induced by socialist journalism reporting these things.
Can’t think of any possible downside to a natural pest control like this report describes.
My thought too. If the cotton bollworm is “a major global crop pest” but rising CO2 is affecting their ability to find favourable egg laying sites surely this is a good thing?
However have insects survived without our aid! 6000 ppm during the dino eras, down in the 200s just a couple of centuries ago, mein Gott! that is cutting it close! Hang on, little buddies, we’re coming to the rescue!
There are only two reasons to do climate attribution studies since the outcome is already preordained. 1. To get a grant 2. To get published.
Third reason: to promote a political agenda.
It’s Chinese…
Its all governments!
All B’crats think it makes them sound “caring”.
I agree, but they’re mostly fooled. The Chinese are doing this deliberately to bolster their economy at everyone else’s expense.
I try to get through my days without reading something that renders me dumber than I was to start with.
Now today has become a “setback day”. 🙁
I award them no points, and may Gaia have mercy on their souls.
What souls?
rrrrr souls
Do you remember when researching meant providing results, instead of presenting political ideology? Pepperidge Farm does…
“With global CO2 levels on track to exceed 1000 ppm by the end of the century, researchers stress the urgent need for both emissions reductions and innovative agricultural adaptation.”
Wow, that’s a lot more margin over starvation levels than I would have thought possible even with a more aggressive use of fossil fuels! Nice!
(1000 – 425) / 74 = +7.77 ppm/year to get to 1,000 ppm by 2100.
last 10 years growth rate averages to around +2.5 ppm/year.
So, a +7.77 ppm/year is 3X current rate. 1,000 ppm by 2100 is Not gonna happen.
Not by a long ways.
Agreed.
I asked ChatGPT to figure out using known sinks how many barrels of oil it would take to get to 1000 ppm, the number the paper is based on.
It came up with 23 trillion barrels. Known reserves on the planet are about 1.5 trillion.
We’d have to burn ALL the oil then 15 times that much in coal and gas.
Sorry fear mongers, your test scenario is possible in the lab, but not in the great outdoors.
These are the dang things that survive because they can build up immunity to pesticides. But they can’t lay eggs because of a small increase in an already small concentration of CO2.
Their statement doesn’t even say the insects are in trouble. It basically says they adapt. So what’s the problem?
Having said that, cockroaches will still probably inherit the world.
They’re certainly trying to force the rest of us to kowtow to their Net Zero demands
YGTBFKM!
XYZPDQ?
“Simulations”? What did they simulate? Real world out in the wild? Or, a terrarium with increased CO2 and a couple of female moths?
They cut out the insects’ CO2 sensors.
Mr. Gorman: Not a couple, they probably started with ten female moths. They had to reject 8 non-conforming moths that appeared to benefit from more CO2. Being Climate Scientists, they called this “robust statistics.”
And adjusting the data.
Most insects do not live and breed in the Mauna Loa atmosphere of approx 280 to 440 ppm CO2. They live in microclimates where the CO2 does not approach uniformity or even predictability.
A valid study would require CO2 measurement many times a day in the few hundred cubic metres of air in which the insect lives, grows and breeds. Even then, many other factors besides CO2 would need measurement and interpretation.
The authors see the topic at kindergarten levels of comprehension.
Geoff S
Unfortunately, kindergarten is also the level of their target audience.
True this. Indoctrinate them as young as you can, they’ll carry it with them all their lives.
I was indoctrinated with German songs in Kindergarten.
Alle meine enten schwimmen auf der see,
schwimmen auf der see…
But the seas are boiling!
Hmmm, pre cooked fowl – handy
Methinks belief in the Magic Molecule has replaced belief in Satan as the author of all evil, for the sophisticated sciency crowd who wouldn’t be caught dead believing in a Creator…
You need to follow this to its logical conclusion. No more bugs means no more things that eat bugs like birds and reptiles which means no more things that eat birds and reptiles which means no more bigger reptiles or mammals or whatever eats birds and reptiles which mean, at some point, no more people which is the ultimate goal of most environmentalists so they should be applauding elevated CO2 levels. It gives them what they want most. No more people.
Honestly after spending 7 years on the 405 in LA no more people has its pluses because there are way to many people on the 405
Note a few of the key words, like “if” and “could”. The study might have a bit more credibility if it used “a possibility” or “outside chance” of these things occurring, particularly since the UN’s numbers themselves show that agricultural output worldwide has been consistently increasing for several decades now.
Well, I for one hope that it disrupts the egg laying of hover flies so that the damn things die off and can’t pester me all summer while I’m trying to enjoy a cool drink on me deck.
Then of course, with more CO2 in the air, there will be more young leaves for the weevils to pick from. I see no mention in the summary that this was considered.
Climate alarmists always see the glass as half-empty rather than half-full.
They see the glass as shattered all over the floor.
You can tell they know they are losing by how desperate they have become. I’m glad they aren’t on our side.
What a bizarre paper. The penultimate paragraph raises the possibility that this research “could potentially serve as targets for innovative pest management strategies” and notes (without any disapproval) that “Similar approaches have been successful in the management of other pest insects”. Yet they end the next, and final, paragraph with “Our study underscores the urgent need to mitigate anthropogenic CO2 emissions to preserve ecosystem stability”.