**3.6 Intercropping of sweet pepper with other plants**

It was reported that monocropped pepper, such as pepper, intercropped with maize (*Zea mays*) or eggplant (*Solanum melongena*). Maize acted as a barrier crop for *aphids* (*Aphis gossypii*) and reduced virus infection on pepper in the first part of the cropping season [40, 41]. Eggplant was reported to act as a trap crop for aphids and reduced virus infection on pepper for a longer period than maize [40].

Additionally, Li et al. [42] reported intercropping rosemary with sweet pepper results in the population of three main pest species on sweet pepper. The significant pest population suppression and the absence of adverse effects on natural enemies in the sweet pepper/rosemary intercropping system show the potential of this strategy in the IPM framework. Consequently, intercropping sweet pepper increases yields of pepper intercropped with other crops.

### **3.7 Eliciting plant defenses in sweet pepper**

The exposure of sweet pepper plants to HIPVs such as [*(Z)-*3-hexenol, *(Z)*-3 hexenyl acetate, *(Z)*-3-hexenyl propanoate, *(Z)*-3-hexenyl butanoate, hexyl butanoate, methyl salicylate, and methyl jasmonate] over 48 h activates the sweet pepper immune defense system against various pests [43]. The volatiles inducted the plant defenses due to the regulation of the jasmonic acid and salicylic acid signaling pathway. A principal sweet pepper pest is *Frankliniella occidentalis*, and *Orius laevigatus* is its main natural enemy. HIPV-exposed sweet pepper plants were investigated, and the results showed that only plants exposed to *(Z)*-3-hexenyl propanoate and methyl salicylate repelled *F. occidentalis,* whereas *O. laevigatus* showed a strong preference for plants exposed to *(Z)*-3-hexenol, *(Z)*-3-hexenyl propanoate, *(Z)*-3-hexenyl butanoate, methyl salicylate, and methyl jasmonate. In the related study, treatment of cotyledons of sweet pepper with 50 and 100 μM of jasmonic acid (JA) solution resulted in strong plant's oviposition deterrence against the leaf miner *L. trifolii* [44]. These results demonstrate that HIPVs act as elicitors to sweet pepper plant defenses by enhancing defensive signaling pathways. Enhancing defensive signaling pathways is very important for integrating HIPVs-based approaches in sweet pepper pest management systems, which may provide a sustainable strategy to manage insect pests in horticultural plants.

### **3.8 Resistant cultivars**

Several pepper accessions have been evaluated for thrips resistance, and significant differences in damage levels have been observed [45]. The difference between different accessions was found to be through tolerance. There were attempts to breed pepper plants for simultaneous resistance to arthropod vectors and pathogens though those attempts were not successful. Some pepper accessions were reported to be resistant to *A. gossypii*; however, these plants did not show resistance to the green peach aphid attack. Several commercial peppers exhibited strong resistance to *M. persicae*, as demonstrated by reduced damage to the plants [46]. Interestingly, some pepper cultivars exhibited tolerance to aphid-transmitted viruses [3].

### **3.9 Chemical control**

Weintraub [3] reviewed that even insecticides considered acceptable for use along with some beneficial organisms. For instance, Spinosad that is prepared by fermentation of an actinomycete has been evaluated to control Western flower thrips (WFT) [47]. It was found that while Spinosad was effective against immature and adult WFT, it also showed low toxicity to *Amblyseius cucumeris* exposed to leaves 1 day after *Major Pests and Pest Management Strategies in the Sweet Pepper (*Capsicum annuum*) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106386*

treatment. Spinosad exhibited moderate toxicity to *Orius insidiosus* 1 and 8 days after treatment and high toxicity to *Encarsia formosa* up to 28 days after application [47].
