Study

Evaluation of action thresholds for chronic rice insect pests in the Philippines. IV. Stemborers

  • Published source details Litsinger J.A., Bandong J.P., Canapi B.L., dela Cruz C.G., Pantua P.C., Alviola A.L. & Batay-An E.H. (2006) Evaluation of action thresholds for chronic rice insect pests in the Philippines. IV. Stemborers. International Journal of Pest Management (formerly PANS Pest Articles & News Summaries 1969 - 1975, PANS 1976-1979 & Tropical Pest Management 1980-1992), 52, 195-207.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use pesticides only when pests or crop damage reach threshold levels

Action Link
Natural Pest Control
  1. Use pesticides only when pests or crop damage reach threshold levels

    A 13-year randomised, replicated, controlled study in the Philippines (Litsinger et al. 2006b, the same study as Litsinger et al. 2005 and 2006a) found greater rice Oryza sativa yield (by 130-299 kg/ha) when sprays were based on thresholds of stem borer Scirpophaga spp. egg abundance and rice plant damage compared with no treatment. Thresholds based on moth abundance resulted in similar yields to untreated controls (17-65 kg/ha difference). The most effective thresholds assessed deadhearts (percentage of leaves killed by stem borers) and enabled correct decisions to spray/not spray on 90-99% of occasions. The most effective threshold level depended on the stage of crop growth (5%, 25% and 10% deadhearts for initial, flowering and ripening stages, respectively). At best, insecticides (endosulfan, chlorpyrifos or chlorpyrifos and BMPC) controlled 36% of plant damage and at worst they increased damage by 5% (at three weeks after planting). Thresholds were studied at 4-9 farms/year in each of four sites, totalling 68 rice crops overall. Thresholds and unsprayed controls were tested in 100-200 mĀ² plots. Decisions were considered correct if deadhearts reached 5-15% per 20 plant hills, and if yield loss exceeded 250 kg/ha (in additional control plots). Comparisons to a conventional spraying regime and effects on natural enemies were not presented.

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More aboutĀ What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust