Thus, our current findings could have broad impacts not only for rootstock selection in commercial Carfilzomib citriculture, but also for use of attractants in other agroecosystems as demonstrated in blueberry fields. Here, we identified an additional naturally occurring species of EPN responsive to pregeijerene that was not found in Florida. Pregeijerene may thus have extensive application for enhancing native biological control of root feeding insects, including those, which attack a wide range of crops. However, we recognize that plants should benefit from the proposed function of herbivoreinduced responses. Our experiments were not designed to assess improved crop fitness as a result of attracting beneficial natural enemies by application of pregeijerene. However, there is strong evidence that plants benefit from the cascading effects caused by EPN-induced suppression of herbivores, and our future work will determine whether crop yield is affected by HIPV-mediated manipulation of EPN behavior. Where most aboveground studies have identified blends of volatiles as being responsible for the attraction of natural enemies, analogous belowground studies that identify an attractant in an agricultural system have demonstrated that a single compound can elicit natural enemy responses. This certainly makes application potentially less complex, but also points to an interesting potential property of belowground cues and natural enemy response. Future work should evaluate the complexity of belowground cues and the range of volatiles that cause belowground natural enemies, like EPNs, to respond. Only recently have new methodologies been employed to investigate chemicals stimulating changes in EPN behavior and much more progress is necessary to understand these relationships. Plants alter their phenotypes in response to cues that provide information about their neighbors. One example of plantplant interactions is plant responses to cues released by neighbors that are attacked by herbivores, and we now have at least ten wellaccepted examples of plants that adjust their phenotypes in response to cues released by damaged neighbors. In most of these cases, plants sense a volatile cue from a damaged neighbor and induce defensive metabolites, sensitivity to future damage, or anatomical structures in order to defend themselves from their herbivores. The defensive response may be adaptive if damage to the neighbor forecasts an increase in herbivore pressure to the plant receiving the cue. There is good reason to suspect that relationships among cueemitting and cue-receiving plants may alter a plant’s response to a damaged neighbor. An individual may be more likely to respond to the cues released by a close relative for at least three reasons: 1) kin selection may favor honest signals between related neighbors, 2) the emitter and receiver may share traits that shape resistance or susceptibility to particular herbivores, and 3) the cue may be more easily recognized, especially if cues and receptors are variable among individuals.