Study

Evaluation of action thresholds for chronic rice insect pests in the Philippines. I. Less frequently occurring pests and overall assessment

  • 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. (2005) Evaluation of action thresholds for chronic rice insect pests in the Philippines. I. Less frequently occurring pests and overall assessment. International Journal of Pest Management (formerly PANS Pest Articles & News Summaries 1969 - 1975, PANS 1976-1979 & Tropical Pest Management 1980-1992), 51, 45-61.

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. 2005, the same study as Litsinger et al. 2006a and 2006b) found that spraying based on thresholds of pest abundance or damage typically resulted in less control of rice Oryza sativa leaf damage (averaging 31-34% control) than a full protection regime (60%), and similar control to preventative (41%) and farmers’ practice regimes (24%). Rice yields were lower in threshold-based spraying regimes (4.5-4.6 t/ha) than for full protection (5.0 t/ha), similar to preventative (4.8 t/ha) and farmers’ practice (4.5 t/ha) regimes but greater than in untreated plots (4.4 t/ha). Average monetary return from threshold-based spraying ranged from a US$-23/ha loss to a US$48/ha gain, compared to US$-34/ha to US$24/ha with the preventative regime and US$-9/ha to US$28/ha with farmers' practice. Thresholds were studied at 4-9 farms/year in four sites totalling 68 rice crops overall. Plots receiving full protection were sprayed with insecticides weekly. Plots receiving the preventative regime received carbofuran granules and two insecticide (chlorpyrifos) sprays. Farmers' practice involved low insecticide doses and timing based on prevention or very low pest thresholds. Plots measured 100-200 m². Leaf damage was measured relative to 0% control in untreated plots. 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 about 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