Insecticide efficacy is often equated with direct mortality — but that’s only part of the story. Some compounds, especially neurotoxic insecticides like pyrethroids, produce sublethal effects that disrupt pest behavior and physiology without causing immediate death. These responses may include irritancy, hyperactivity, avoidance, mating disruption, or interference with aggregation and feeding behavior. Sublethal exposure could impact a pest’s ability to mate and pass on its genes. While the pest may be alive, the product has “removed” the pest from their ultimate biological goal of reproduction.
In mosquito control, sublethal exposure to pyrethroids can trigger behavioral changes — either through detection of insecticides at a distance (repellency) or agitation after contact (irritancy) —both of which can reduce human-vector contact. While these categories often overlap, it is useful to distinguish between them: repellency involves sensory-driven avoidance without contact, typically mediated by olfactory receptors in the antennae, whereas irritancy results from neurotoxic effects that provoke escape responses after contact.
Among these sublethal responses, spatial repellency plays a particularly important role in mosquito management. Volatile insecticides delivered via spatial sprays or emanators create an airborne barrier that discourages mosquitoes from entering or remaining in treated areas. For pests such as termites, ants, cockroaches, bed bugs, and other occasional invaders, sublethal responses to insecticides are often viewed as problematic. It is commonly—but incorrectly—assumed that these pests can reliably detect and avoid treated surfaces. In reality, predictable and consistent repellency is primarily observed in subterranean termites. Although ants are often believed to avoid insecticide-treated areas, studies show that they typically continue foraging over such surfaces, suggesting that true repellency does not apply. For most other pests, behavioral responses to insecticides vary depending on species, physiology, environmental context, and product formulation. Below, we explore how these sublethal effects influence outcomes for key urban pests when exposed to pyrethroids.
Not So Repelled: Why German Cockroaches Still Cross the Line
German cockroaches offer a compelling example of how sublethal insecticide effects can challenge traditional assumptions about repellency. Pyrethroids are widely considered to provoke strong and predictable behavioral responses, including repellency. However, recent studies under controlled laboratory conditions have demonstrated that German cockroaches still make contact with pyrethroid-treated surfaces—contradicting the common belief that these compounds are strongly repellent. This finding is consistent with the low volatility of many pyrethroids, which limits their potential to exert true spatial repellency. These observations have led to the suggestion that placing cockroach gel baits on or near pyrethroid-treated surfaces may not diminish bait effectiveness, as cockroaches appear to continue foraging over treated areas. While contact with pyrethroids can produce an irritant effect that prompts temporary retreat or relocation to untreated zones, cockroaches often resume nocturnal activity and may re-encounter treated surfaces or nearby baits, resulting in continued exposure. More research is needed, particularly on formulations that combine neonicotinoids with pyrethroids, to better understand how these chemistries interact to influence contact irritancy, avoidance behavior, and foraging dynamics in cockroaches under both laboratory and field conditions.
Termites: A Distinct Case of Ground-Level Repellency
Termites are one of the few pest groups that consistently demonstrate true repellency to some insecticides—especially pyrethroids like permethrin, bifenthrin, and cypermethrin. Numerous studies have shown that subterranean termites actively avoid soil treated with these compounds, altering their tunneling behavior or abandoning the area entirely. This reliable avoidance response plays a key role in forming chemical barriers that protect structures by preventing termite entry. Because of this consistent behavior, pyrethroid-based termiticides have long been marketed and used as repellent soil treatments, in contrast to non-repellent options like fipronil or imidacloprid, which termites unknowingly traverse, enabling colony-level suppression through horizontal transfer.
Ants: A Case Where “Repellency” Doesn’t Apply
The commonly held belief that pyrethroids always act as repellents has been challenged in ants, with research showing that foraging individuals do not actively avoid pyrethroid-treated surfaces. Although ants are highly sensitive to chemical cues and communicate extensively through pheromones, studies have demonstrated that ants continue to behave normally—following trails and foraging—even after stepping onto treated areas. The perceived “repellency” in some cases likely results not from active avoidance, but from the insecticide killing foragers before trails are firmly established. Field trials, such as those involving Argentine ants and bifenthrin-treated panels, further support this: ants continued to cross treated surfaces and died within minutes, without evidence of behavioral avoidance. These findings suggest that pyrethroids can be used effectively against ants in perimeter applications, provided formulations are applied strategically to zones of activity.
A similar response might be expected in other occasional invaders—such as scorpions (Fig. 1), stink bugs, lady beetles, boxelder bugs, ground beetles, earwigs, crickets, and sowbugs—which often move along treated structural edges and surfaces both around buildings and when entering indoor spaces. While further research is needed to better characterize the behavioral responses of these pests to pyrethroid-based formulations, leveraging the contact-based exposure observed in ants could improve the overall effectiveness of insecticide applications in both indoor and outdoor general pest management programs.
Conclusion: Rethinking Repellency in Pest Control
The idea that pyrethroids universally repel pests is an oversimplification. As this review shows, true and predictable repellency is largely limited to subterranean termites, whose soil-foraging behavior makes them uniquely sensitive to pyrethroid-treated zones. For other pests—including ants, cockroaches, bed bugs, and occasional invaders—behavioral responses to pyrethroids are far more nuanced. Many species do not actively avoid treated surfaces, and in some cases, sublethal effects such as agitation or increased mobility may even enhance exposure to insecticides or drive pests toward strategically placed control tools like baits or dusts.
Recognizing the complexity of these sublethal responses is essential for developing effective, pest-specific strategies. Rather than treating repellency as an all-or-nothing phenomenon, pest management professionals should consider how formulation type, application strategy, and environmental context influence pest behavior. When approached thoughtfully, sublethal effects—often seen as limitations—can instead be leveraged as assets, helping to improve outcomes across a range of urban pest control programs. This may be especially true for occasional invaders, where non-repellency can promote greater contact with treated surfaces and increase the likelihood of effective control.
Pest Management Webinar: Innovating for Unmatched Roach Control in Every Environment
Broadcast: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 11:00 am to 12:00 pm EST
Learning Objectives:
- Effective Roach Control Strategies: Learn how to achieve fast, reliable knockdown and long-term control for even the toughest roach infestations.
- Overcoming Roach Resistance: Discover proven approaches to managing evolving resistance in roach populations and maintaining consistent results.
- Maximizing Coverage and Efficiency: Find out how to reach hard-to-access areas and enhance the overall effectiveness of your treatments.
References
- Haynes, K. F. (1988). Sublethal effects of neurotoxic insecticides on insect behavior. Annual Review of Entomology, 33, 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.33.010188.001053
- Moore, D. J., & Miller, D. M. (2006). Laboratory evaluation of insecticide product efficacy for control of Cimex lectularius. Journal of Economic Entomology, 2080–2086.
- Romero, A., Potter, M. F., & Haynes, K. F. (2009). Behavioral responses of the bed bug to insecticide residues. Journal of Medical Entomology, 46, 51–57.
- Thanispong, K., Achee, N. L., Bangs, M. J., Grieco, J. P., Suwonkerd, W., Prabaripai, A., & Chareonviriyaphap, T. (2009). Irritancy and repellency behavioral responses of three strains of Aedes aegypti exposed to DDT and α-cypermethrin. Journal of Medical Entomology, 46, 1407–1414
- FMC Australasia. (2021). Repellents vs Non-Repellents: It’s Not All Black and White. FMC Corporation educational brochure. © FMC Australasia
- Romero, A., Agnew, J., Paysen, E., & Blakely, B. (2021, October 19). Arizona bark scorpions and their responses to insecticides. PCT Convention Extra 2021. https://www.pctonline.com/article/arizona-bark-scorpions-and-their-responses-to-insecticides/
- Gaire, S., Gondhalekar, A. D., & Scharf, M. E. (2024). Behavioral responses of field‐collected German cockroaches to pyrethroids and implications for resistance management. Pest Management Science, 80, 4323-441.


