International Journal of Pest Management, JulySeptember 2006; 52(3): 181 194

Evaluation of action thresholds for chronic rice insect pests in the Philippines. III. Leaffolders

J. A. LITSINGER1, J. P. BANDONG2, B. L. CANAPI3, C. G. DELA CRUZ2, P. C. PANTUA2, A. L. ALVIOLA2, & E. H. BATAY-AN III4
Dixon, CA, USA, 2International Rice Research Institute, Metro Manila, Philippines, 3Monsanto Philippines, Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, and 4Philippine Department of Agriculture, Philippines
1

Abstract Action thresholds (AT) as insecticide application decision tools were developed and tested against rice leaffolders Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenee) and Marasmia patnalis Bradley (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) in four sites and 68 crops over a 13-year period in the Philippines. Leaffolder damage levels were generally low with a mean over all sites and crops of 2 3% damaged leaves (DL) and 6 9% in a given site as a per-crop average based on weekly samplings, with highest incidence per eld on a given sampling date of 48%DL. The damage incidence over a typical crop cycle formed a bell-shaped curve with maximum numbers in the late reproductive and early ripening stages. Continuous population buildup over the planting cycle did not occur in any one site over the season, thus a strategy of monitoring earlier planted elds to forewarn against impending economic damage had no basis. ATs were based on different levels of percentage DL, number of larvae per hill (L), and density of ushed moths. Collectively ATs were surpassed in 1, 12, and 4% of elds in each of the three main growth stages. A scoring system was based on benchmark criteria including both leaffolder damage and yield loss. The 15%DL threshold performed best in all growth stages, only equaled by 1L in the vegetative stage, scoring 93 99% correct decisions in each of the growth stages. Flushed moths produced the most false positive decisions and the lowest performance scores. The best insecticide response gave only a disappointing 53% control and therefore was a signicant weakness in using AT technology. BPMC, endosulfan, and monocrotophos performed the best and azinphos-ethyl and Bt the least. Sites with the highest densities had the most rapid rise in damage levels, thus requiring more frequent monitoring. Low leaffolder damage levels were most likely due to the activity of natural enemies. Given the ability of high tillering varieties to compensate from pest damage, farmers would be better off embracing integrated crop management as a preventative measure to bolster inherent tolerance levels combined with crop monitoring based on historical population levels. In sites with a record of high damage levels, monitoring should start 4 weeks after transplanting (WT) on a weekly basis and more risk averse farmers may increase the interval to twice a week during ag leaf stage. In sites with lower observed levels, monitoring can begin 6 WT on a weekly basis and continue through the ag leaf stage. Signicant yield increases were recorded with the best AT characters despite evidence of modern rices to tolerate high damage levels. Reasons for this apparent paradox are discussed.

Keywords: Pest control, irrigated rice, insecticides, decision-making, yield loss, plant tolerance, planting date, colonization pattern

1. Introduction Rice in the Philippines is attacked by a complex of ve leaffolder species, foremost of which in irrigated wetland environments are Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guenee and Marasmia patnalis (Bradley) (Barrion et al. 1991). Leaffolders are considered to be chronic pests in that they are omnipresent and at times cause signicant yield losses as determined by the insecticide check method (Litsinger et al. 1987). Larvae of the pyralid moths tie the edges of the tips of leaves together with silken threads forming a protective cavity within which they feed by scraping epidermal tissue from leaf blades reducing photosynthesis. Colonization occurs throughout the rice crop but the most signicant loss occurs during the grain lling

stages from damage to the ag leaf and the penultimate leaf blade (Bautista et al. 1984). A large array of natural enemies dominated by egg and larval predators, larval parasitoids, and larval pathogens often keep densities in check (Barrion et al. 1991). Larvae feed on the upper part of the plant where insecticide coverage by the common leveroperated, knapsack sprayer is highest. They are susceptible to most rice insecticides particularly when larvae transfer to new leaf blades during development. Eggs are laid openly on the leaf blades thus are exposed to ovicides. Moths, ushed from their daytime rice foliage resting places during application, also come into contact with insecticide spray. This is the third paper in a series that reports on the development of action threshold (AT) decision tools

Correspondence: James A. Litsinger, 1365 Jacobs Place, Dixon, CA 95620, USA. Tel: 1 707 678 9068. Fax: 1 707 678 9069. E-mail: jlitsinger@thegrid.net ISSN 0967-0874 print/ISSN 1366-5863 online 2006 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/09670870600664490

182

J. A. Litsinger et al. The egg stage used in other countries (Way et al. 1991) was considered too difcult for Filipino farmers to see. The original characters were based on percentage damaged leaves and the newer ones on larval and moth densities. As development of ATs was iterative there was no balanced design to test many characters and response variables in a given eld. Most characters were tested in the four study sites providing further replication. Data analysis after each season entailed comparing yield in the threshold treatments to that in the untreated check. The design of the yield loss trials included treatments that partitioned losses by the three major growth stages. Yield loss results were scrutinized to determine if yield loss occurred in each growth stage where thresholds were reached. If no yield loss was recorded but thresholds were reached, levels were raised the following season and vice versa if yield loss did occur and no threshold was reached. Data were graphed to illustrate the dynamic weekly pest abundance as reported in Litsinger et al. (2005). The original AT character for leaffolders was based on different percentages of damaged leaves with levels adjusted by growth stage based on local crop tolerances. The crops ability to compensate varies with growth stage, higher in the vegetative stage than the reproductive and ripening stages (Litsinger et al. 1987), as after ag leaves are formed, damage to the top two leaves is most correlated to yield loss (Bautista et al. 1984). Levels of damaged leaves (DL) ranged from 5 to 30% with higher levels (10 30%) in the more tolerant vegetative stage (15%DL range 10 15% and 30%DL range 25 30%), but lowered (5 15%) in the reproductive and ripening stages (5%DL and 15%DL range 10 15%). During the ripening stage only the top two leaves were monitored, thus data are percentage damaged ag and penultimate leaves. Various attempts were carried out to obtain earlier warnings including sampling in neighbors elds (NF) planted 1 2 weeks ahead (NF25%DL range 25 30% in the vegetative stage and NF15%DL range 5 15% in the later stages) as well as monitoring larvae and moths, which precede moths. Folded leaves facilitated crop monitoring and were opened to record living larvae. Various densities were tested ranging from 0.25 to 6 larvae(L)/hill in 20-hill samples: 1L (range 0.75 1 larvae), 2L (1.5 2), and 6L (3 6) in the vegetative stage and 0.5L (range 0.25 0.5 larvae), 1L (0.75 1), and 2L (2 3) in the other stages. Moths were noted to be particularly abundant at times and took ight when a person walked through the elds. Farmers noticed this and used it as a basis for insecticide decision-making (Bandong et al. 2002) that we now test. Leaffolder moths are easily distinguishable by morphology and ight behavior from other lepidopterous pests such as defoliators and stemborers. Two levels (2 moths and 6 moths/20 linear m) were termed as 2Moths and 6Moths characters.

for insecticide application for the common rice insect pests in the Philippines. Damage functions have not been worked out for chronic insect pests thus empirically derived ATs have been utilized along with surveillance methods (Dyck et al. 1981; Reissig et al. 1986; Way et al. 1991). The purpose of this series of papers was to compare efcacies among a range of AT characters for each chronic pest to determine the most economically viable and acceptable to farmers (Waibel 1986; Smith et al. 1989). A number of the threshold characters being evaluated came from Filipino farmers (Bandong et al. 2002). In the studies, researchers performed the monitoring and corrective responses. Capabilities of farmers being able to carry out the ATs guided technology development and all trials were performed on-farm with farmer co-operators. ATs were composed of a character to measure, a level for that character, a sampling plan, and a corrective response, normally an insecticide that would entail a recommended dosage and timing. Application of nitrogen in response to ATs was reported in Litisnger et al. (2005) as an alternative to insecticides. Threshold characters tested included percentage damaged leaves, number of larvae, and number of moths ushed from the crop. 2. Materials and methods The four study sites, research teams, and experimental design were discussed in Litsinger et al. (2005). 2.1. Action thresholds Thresholds are multifaceted involving a number of variables, any one of which affect efcacy. The rst variable is a character such as an insect stage (number of larvae per hill or number of moths per m). Third is the sampling unit (e.g., percentage of damaged leaves or number of larvae in a sample of 20 hills or number of moths ushed per 20 m walked). Normally each character was eld tested at two threshold levels each season per site, termed low level (e.g., 2 moths per 20 m) and high level (e.g., 6 moths per 20 m) (see Section 2.3 on sampling methods). The levels of each of these thresholds were adjusted season to season as deemed necessary in an iterative process based on performance (e.g., tested variously as 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 6 larvae/hill). Thus, sites with higher pest pressure and more rapid colonization rates evolved lower threshold levels in both the low and high level treatments and vice versa for sites with lower pest pressure and less rapid rates. Lower levels were needed to respond to high infestations as the damage curves were steeper and earlier warning was required. Having two or more levels tested per crop enabled more reliable adjustments to be made. New characters were continually being developed in an effort to improve performance.

Evaluation of action thresholds for rice leaffolders 2.2. Corrective response Another set of variables is associated with the corrective insecticide response triggered by a threshold as explained in Litsinger et al. (2005). Damaged leaves were assessed for a period of 1 4 weeks after treatment (WT), allowing ample time for the crop to recover by generating new undamaged leaves. In the tropics, new leaves emerge every 4 days during the vegetative stage that last about 3 weeks each (Yoshida 1981). Tillering has mostly terminated by the end of the vegetative stage. In addition to assessing damage, insecticide was evaluated on control of larvae. Percentage control using each threshold character was based comparing counts in the untreated check. Five insecticides were evaluated including those that had been found to be less toxic to benecial predators (Bandong and Litsinger 1986). Insecticide sprays were only applied as single applications. For the damaged leaf character, if larvae were not present on 10% of damaged leaves, no insecticide was applied even if the damage level exceeded the threshold. It was reasoned that the population had pupated and insecticide has no effect against pupae. The insecticides tested included monocrotophos, BPMC, and azinphos-ethyl all at 0.4 kg a.i./ha dosages. A formulation of Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner (B.t.) (Dipel) was also tested at 1 kg/ha of formulated product as a further means of sparing natural enemies. 2.3. Sampling methods Leaffolder incidence was sampled weekly in the threshold treatments and untreated check, but only once per growth stage in the yield loss treatments. Pest monitoring for AT decision making was carried out in the respective threshold plots rather than the untreated check. Pest densities or damage levels were measured on a per-hill basis with the sample size of 20 hills taken in a stratied pattern. Mechanical hand counters were used to tally the number of leaves per hill with pest damage recorded on leaf blades. One person scored the hill while another recorded data. Moths were ushed using a wooden improvised hockey stick the length of the standard sweep net brushed side and side in a pendulum swing ahead of the person while walking. The number of steps was calibrated for a 20-m distance. 2.4. Threshold assessment In order to assess the outcome of each AT character and in the absence of adequate damage functions, the pest infestation and yield loss were scored against benchmark infestation and yield loss levels in each growth stage. Combining pest damage to yield loss was necessary to assess the economic impact in a given crop growth stage. The benchmarks were based on average insect pest infestation levels that were associated with the losses based on 2.5. Response assessment

183

previous economic analyses of the basic threshold characters (Smith et al. 1988). The standardized infestation levels for leaffolders were set at 15%DL in the vegetative stage but lowered to 10% in the reproductive and ripening stages. ATs were then scored on a per eld basis. The benchmark for yield loss was set at 250 kg/ha in each growth stage. Each combination of pest damage and yield loss was scored and considered justied on the basis of the infestation exceeding both the damage and yield loss benchmarks during that growth stage. Four outcomes were possible: (1) if the AT were surpassed and was justied, it was scored correct to treat, (2) if the AT were not surpassed and was not justied it was scored correct not to treat, (3) if the AT were surpassed but was not justied (false positive) it was scored should not have treated, and (4) if the AT were not surpassed but was justied (false negative) it was scored should have treated. The frequencies of these four outcomes add to 100%. Five criteria were developed to judge each character: (1) correlation to the damage yield loss benchmark, (2) most correct decisions, (3) least errors, (4) ratio of errors per correct decision to treat 51, and (5) correlation to yield gain. The fourth criterion rewards characters that triggered at least moderate numbers of responses, and in doing so made proportionally fewer errors than correct decisions as distinguished from characters that had predominantly correct decisions based on correct not to treat errors.

Leaffolder control from insecticide treatments was measured as the percentage difference in pest damage level between the treated and the untreated plots divided by that in the untreated plot multiplied by 100. Because leaffolder was monitored weekly in the threshold plots, there was an opportunity to measure the effect of applying insecticide against non-target pests, termed collateral control. These chronic pests were whorl maggot, defoliators, and stemborers. The data were analyzed in the same way as for target pest control. 2.6. Crop age and seasonal damage patterns Leaffolder damage patterns were graphed in time series for each site to describe the rates of damage as the crop aged from expected low levels early in the crop cycle to a peak sometime later. Knowledge of such patterns could indicate the optimal AT monitoring requirements in terms of timing and frequency. The crop-age damage pattern was described for leaffolder damage level and site separately from the averages of each of the weekly sampling dates in the untreated plots. The results were then averaged over each crop. Using the same dataset a second analysis was made to characterize leaffolder damage increase from early

184

J. A. Litsinger et al. 48%DL at 8 weeks after transplanting [WT]). Damage during the vegetative stage was minimal on a per crop basis, averaging 2%DL over all sites, but increased slightly in both the reproductive and ripening (3%DL) stages, with lowest populations in Guimba and Calauan (Table I). Only in the two higher leaffolder density sites were there signicant differences between stages. Highest seasonal mean damage incidence was in Zaragoza in the wet season (WS) (6 9%DL) and Koronadal in the second season (8%DL) both in the post-vegetative stages. The only seasonal differences were higher damage levels in Zaragoza wet season in the reproductive stage and second crop in Koronadal during the ripening stage. Highest damage levels per crop in any site by growth stage were recorded in Zaragoza was 32%DL (1979 WS) and in Koronadal 25%DL (1984 2nd crop) both in the reproductive stage. Highest recorded incidences per crop in Guimba (1986 WS-ripening stage) and Calauan (1983 WS-ripening stage, 1991 dry season-vegetative stage) were both 5%DL. 3.2. Crop age and seasonal damage patterns Leaffolder incidence averaged by crops and crop age followed bell-shaped curves in all sites except Calauan (Figure 1). The curves were virtually identical in Zaragoza and Koronadal that recorded the highest mean incidences 5 6%DL, rising rapidly 5 7 WT to a broad peak 7 10 WT before falling rapidly 11 WT. In Guimba damage steadily increased to a peak of 3%DL at 9 WT before decreasing 10 12 WT, while in Calauan no distinct peak occurred, as overall infestation levels were below 1%DL. Leaffolder damage levels also showed only a minimal seasonal response. The results of regressing the number of elapsed days from the rst eld planted with the mean percentage change in

to late plantings over the season. The hypothesis supporting monitoring earlier planted elds assumes increasing damage levels on later plantings. The dataset comprised the untreated plots in the trials with elds being selected randomly from the set of elds to be planted every 1 2 weeks in a stratied manner spanning the breadth of dates each season. The number of elapsed days between the date the earliest eld was transplanted and date for each succeeding eld was calculated over all crops by site. The number of elapsed days (seasonal age) from the date the rst eld was planted to that for each successive eld was regressed against the mean damage (averaging the mean weekly counts, and then calculated as the percentage change from the earliest eld). Regression was carried out for each site separately on a per eld basis and a signicant positive correlation would indicate a rising population over the season. 2.7. Statistical analysis All statistical analyses were performed by SAS and, unless otherwise stated, used P  0.05 as the criterion for signicance. Results were subjected to one-way ANOVA and regression/correlation analysis where appropriate. Treatment means were separated using the paired t-test for two variables or least signicant difference (LSD) test for more than two variables. Means are shown with standard errors of the mean (SEM) using a pooled estimate of error variance.

3. Results 3.1. Leaffolder damage incidence Leaffolder damage generally was low with only 8% of the 109 elds in the 13-year study  20%DL including 2%  40%DL (highest per eld was

Table I. Comparison of leaffolder damage levels by season for three growth stages in four sites, Philippines.a Damaged leaves (%) Site Zaragoza Koronadal Guimba Calauan Seasonb WS DS 1st 2nd WS DS WS DS total avg Crops (no.) 12 11 7 8 7 6 9 8 68 Fields (no.) 72 69 52 57 44 44 44 37 419 Vegetative 3.3 + 0.8 B 1.7 + 0.9 B 3.8 + 0.9 2.4 + 0.9 B 0.7 + 0.9 0.6 + 1.0 0.5 + 0.9 1.1 + 0.9 1.8 + 0.3 B P F df
a

Reproductive 9.2 + 1.3 3.1 + 1.6 3.6 + 1.8 7.7 + 1.7 1.1 + 1.8 1.1 + 1.8 0.6 + 1.0 0.5 + 1.7 aA b AB ab aA b b b b

Ripening 6.2 + 1.2 4.2 + 1.2 3.5 + 1.4 7.5 + 1.3 2.3 + 1.4 1.0 + 1.5 1.0 + 1.3 0.4 + 1.3 ab AB ab A bc aA bc c c c

P 50.0001 50.0001 ns 50.0001 ns ns ns ns 0.03

F 4.68 5.13 1.79 7.35 2.03 1.78 1.1 1.73 2.67

df 71 68 51 56 43 43 43 36 134

3.2 + 0.7 A 0.0003 4.75 67

3.3 + 0.5 A 0.001 4.14 67

ns 2.06 67

In a column, means + SEM followed by lower case letters or in a row by upper case letters are not signicantly different (P  0.05) by LSD test. bWS, wet season; DS, dry season.

Evaluation of action thresholds for rice leaffolders

185

Figure 1. Colonization pattern of leaffolders over the duration of the crop from four locations, Philippines.

leaffolder damage were non-signicant for all sites except in Koronadal (Table II). Thus only in Koronadal would monitoring early planted elds be a viable strategy to use action threshold levels. 3.3. Leaffolder thresholds 3.3.1. Decision threshold characters. Results are presented for each of the three crop growth stages in separate tables (Tables III V). Results by site are in the top half of each table (with the exception of Table III) and by AT character in the bottom half. Most of the leaffolder AT characters tested were based on larvae/hill (57%) compared to damaged leaves (34%) or ushed moths (9%) over the three growth stages. Eight threshold characters were tested (listed in the bottom of column 1 in each of the tables) with varying population densities per character. Two AT treatments were tested per eld thus the number of replications is twice the number of elds. 3.3.1.1. Vegetative stage. Only slightly more than 1% of elds in all four sites exceeded ATs, mostly in Koronadal. There, of the 5% of elds that surpassed

Table II. Regression correlations between planting date and percentage change in mean weekly leaffolder damage on a pereld basis in four sites, Philippines.a Site Zaragoza Guimba Koronadal Calauan
a

Crops 22 15 16 13

Linear regression ns, df 112 ns, df 68 y 20.2 6.8 x, r 0.419, P 0.0006, df 63 ns, df 42

Percentage change in mean leaffolder damage is the dependent variable (y), planting date is the independent variable (x) based on the number of elapsed days after the rst planted eld, level of signicance (P  0.05).

thresholds, only 2% registered the benchmarks of 15% damaged leaves 250 kg/ha yield loss, thus 4% were scored in error (should not have treated) leaving only 1% correct. No eld surpassed any threshold in Zaragoza or Guimba, with only 0.5% in Calauan. Except in Koronadal, 99 100% of decisions were scored correct not to treat and in no site was the error should have treated reached based on the benchmark criteria. Koronadal registered signicant yield gains in elds where vegetative stage leaffolder ATs were reached compared to untreated checks.

186 J. A. Litsinger et al.

Table III. Leaffolder action threshold analysis of the vegetative stage by character from four Philippine rice bowls over a 13-year period.
Frequency (% elds)a Justied Correlations (AT vs damage From damage Pest  AT r (5) 0.827 0.00 0.000 0.945 0.937 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.03 2.69 128 50.0001 95.8 + 2.5 ab 50.0001 91.7 + 2.5 b ns 100 + 3.0 a 0 + 0.9 2.1 + 0.7 0 + 0.7 ns 1.50 128 50.0001 98.5 + 1.6 a 0.7 + 0.4 50.0001 98.8 + 1.4 a 0.6 + 0.4 ns 100 + 3.0 a 0 + 0.9 ns 100 + 0.9 a 0 + 0.2 50.0001 98.8 + 1.0 a 0 + 0.3 98.8 + 0.8 a 100 + 0.8 a 100 + 2.4 a 99.4 + 1.1 a 99.3 + 1.2 a 100 + 2.4 a 93.8 + 1.9 b 95.8 + 1.8 ab 0.04 2.74 128 (6) (7) (8) P to treat treat (2) 1.2 + 1.0 b 0 + 0.9 b 0 + 3.0 b 1.2 + 3.0 b 1.5 + 1.6 b 0 + 3.0 b 8.3 + 2.4 a 4.2 + 2.5 ab 0.04 2.69 128 128 128 1.07 1.33 ns ns 0 + 1.3 0 + 1.0 4.2 + 1.3 2.1 + 1.0 0 + 1.6 0 + 1.2 1.5 + 0.8 0.7 + 0.6 1.2 + 0.7 0.6 + 0.5 0 + 1.6 0 + 1.2 0 + 0.4 0 + 0.3 0 + 0.5 0 + 0.4 (3) (4) From damagea,b Total (6 7) yield lossa,c
b

Decisions (%)a Correct decision Incorrect decision Ratio (9) (10) Correct not Correct to Should have treated (9) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ns Should not have treated (10) 1.2 + 0.8 a 0 + 0.7 a 0 + 2.4 a 0.6 + 1.1 a 0.7 + 1.2 a 0 + 2.4 a 6.2 + 2.0 b 4.2 + 1.9 b 0.03 2.63 128 (7) (11) 0 0 0 1.0 1.0 0 3.0 0 kg/ha (12) 201 + 49 173 + 46 60 + 109 263 + 64 110 + 63 48 + 139 197 + 114 233 + 121 ns 0.85 122 50.0001 50.0001 ns 50.0001 ns ns 0.03 0.001 192 214 29 87 72 15 30 30 P df Yield gain (AT vs untreated)d

yield loss)

Crops

Fields

Character

Level

Sampling site

Abbreviation

(no.)

(no.)

(1)

Larvae

0.75 1

Field itself

1L

35

223

(no./hill)

1.5 2

Field itself

2L

40

247

36

Field itself

6L

28

Damaged

10 15

Field itself

15%DL

19

112

leaves (%)

25 30

Field itself

25%DL

15

90

5 25

Neighboring

NF25%DL

28

Moths (no./

Field itself

2Moths

33

20 linear m)

Field itself

6Moths

33

df

a AT, action threshold. Columns 6 7 9 10 100%. In a column, means + SEM followed by a common letter are not signicantly different (P  0.05) by LSD test. bStandard benchmark of 15% damaged leaves. cStandard benchmark of 250 kg/ha yield loss in vegetative stage. dYield comparison by paired t-test (P  0.05).

Table IV. Leaffolder action threshold analysis of the reproductive stage by site and character from four Philippine rice bowls over a 13-year period.
Frequency (% elds) Justied Correlations (AT vs damage yield loss)d Correct not r (5) 76.8 + 3.8 b 93.8 + 4.1 a 92.4 + 4.1 a 81.1 + 4.3 ab 86.0 0.008 4.15 126 126 4.49 0.005 ns 1.28 126 4.4 90.4 8.0 + 2.5 a 89.1 + 3.1 0 + 2.4 b 92.4 + 3.0 0 + 2.7 b 93.8 + 3.3 1.3 + 1.3 a 0 + 1.1 a 5.1 + 1.2 b 2.1 0.0 3.51 126 9.6 + 2.2 a 86.3 + 2.7 1.9 + 1.0 ab (6) (7) (8) (9) P to treat to treat Total (6 7) treated Correct Should have Should not have treated (10) 11.8 + 2.6 5.0 + 3.2 7.6 + 2.9 5.8 + 3.0 7.5 ns 1.18 126 (7) (11) kg/ha (12) 236 + 48 154 + 48 140 + 52 199 + 37 182 ns 0.57 121 50.0001 0.05 0.01 50.0001 235 120 153 220 P df From Pest  AT (2) 23.2 + 3.8 a 5.4 + 4.7 b 7.6 + 4.2 b 13.3 + 4.4 ab 12.4 0.01 3.72 126.0 126 126 11.04 3.95 50.0001 0.009 11.5 3.0 17.9 + 3.8 a 4.9 + 1.7 a 1.8 + 1.2 b 1.3 + 3.7 b 1.3 + 4.1 b 0.5 + 1.3 b 25.1 + 3.3 a 5.4 + 1.1 a (3) (4) damagea,b yield From damageb Ratio (9) (10) Yield gain (AT vs untreated)e Correct decision Incorrect decision Decisions (%)a

Crops

Fields

(no.)

(no.)

Site

(1)

Zaragoza

22

141

Guimba

15

88

Calauan

13

81

Koronadal

16

109

avg

df

Character 10.9 + 3.7 bc 7.3 + 3.8 0.906 0.921 0.000 0.616 0.917 0.934 0.738 0.960 0.0006 ns 0.001 50.0001 0.02 88.1 + 6.5 a 83.2 + 5.1 a 71.9 + 11.8 ab 47.9 + 9.6 b 60.4 + 9.6 b 50.0001 3.76 127 ns 91.7 + 11.8 a 50.0001 91.7 + 3.8 a 8.4 + 3.8 8.3 + 11.4 15.6 + 6.3 25.1 + 5.0 18.8 + 11.4 20.4 + 7.0 20.4 + 7.0 ns 1.58 127 127 1.85 ns 19.2 + 9.3 19.2 + 9.3 18.8 + 8.6 11.3 + 3.7 6.4 + 4.8 0 + 8.6 2.9 + 2.8 6.8 + 2.8 50.0001 87.2 + 3.9 a 4.4 + 3.7 c 0 + 11.1 c 11.9 + 6.2 bc 16.1 + 4.9 bc 28.1 + 11.1 ab 52.1 + 9.1 a 39.6 + 9.1 a 50.0001 5.18 127

Level

Sampling site

Abbreviation 3.3 + 2.3 1.9 + 2.2 0 + 7.1 3.3 + 3.9 9.5 + 3.1 12.5 + 7.1 13.8 + 5.8 13.8 + 5.8 ns 1.54 127 90.5 + 2.6 a 93.4 + 2.6 a 91.2 + 8.0 a 91.4 + 4.4 a 92.7 + 3.4 a 84.4 + 7.9 a 61.7 + 6.5 b 74.2 + 6.5 ab 0.001 3.95 127 2.0 + 1.1 3.7 + 1.0 8.3 + 3.3 0 + 1.8 0.7 + 1.4 0 + 3.3 0 + 2.7 0 + 2.7 ns 1.43 127 7.5 + 2.5 a 2.9 + 2.5 a 0 + 7.5 a 8.6 + 4.2 a 6.6 + 3.3 a 15.6 + 7.5 ab 38.3 + 6.1 c 25.8 + 6.1 bc 50.0001 5.65 127 2.9 3.5 0 2.6 0.8 1.2 2.8 1.9 201 + 49 209 + 39 60 + 109 219 + 78 175 + 62 48 + 141 197 + 116 233 + 86 ns 0.31 121 50.0001 50.0001 ns 0.01 0.0005 ns 0.03 0.001 192 214 29 101 59 15 30 30

Larvae

0.25 0.5

Field itself

0.5L

37

235

(no./hill)

0.75 1

Field itself

1L

37

227

23

Field itself

2L

28

Damaged

5%

Field itself

5%DL

13

77

leaves (%)

10 15%

Field itself

15%DL

21

128

5 15%

Neighboring

NF15%DL

28

Moths (no./

Field itself

2Moths

33

20 linear m)

Field itself

6Moths

33

df

Evaluation of action thresholds for rice leaffolders 187

a AT, action threshold. Columns 6 7 9 10 100%. In a column, means + SEM followed by a common letter are not signicantly different (P  0.05) by LSD test. bStandard benchmark of 10% damaged leaves. cStandard benchmark of 250 kg/ha yield loss in reproductive stage. dSignicant (P  0.05) ANOVA regression correlations. eYield comparison by paired t-test (P  0.05).

188

Table V. Leaffolder action threshold analysis of the ripening stage by site and character from four Philippine rice bowls over a 13-year period.
Frequency (% elds) Justied Correlations (AT vs damage yield loss)d From Pest  AT r (5) 88.8 + 2.8 91.3 + 3.4 94.7 + 3.1 85.8 + 3.2 90.2 ns 1.45 126 126 1.22 1.65 126 ns ns 1.0 91.1 0.4 + 1.7 86.2 + 2.8 0 + 1.6 94.7 + 2.7 3.1 + 2.4 12.0 + 2.5 6.5 ns 2.37 126 0 + 1.8 91.3 + 3.0 4.8 + 2.7 3.5 + 1.5 92.3 + 4.5 6.2 + 2.2 (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 1.5 + 1.3 3.8 + 1.6 2.2 + 1.5 1.8 + 1.5 2.4 ns 0.45 126 P to treat to treat treated (2) 6.4 + 2.2 3.8 + 2.7 2.2 + 2.7 2.3 + 2.5 3.7 ns 0.75 126 126 126 5.25 1.03 0.002 ns 11.4 1.5 20.6 + 3.2 a 0.8 + 1.3 4.2 + 3.5 b 3.2 + 1.3 4.8 + 3.9 b 0 + 1.5 16.2 + 3.2 a 2.0 + 1.2 (3) (4) damagea,b (6 7) have treated yield lossa,c From damageb Correct not Correct Total Should have Should not (7) (11) kg/ha (12) 221 + 45 144 + 41 127 + 51 186 + 35 170 ns 0.59 122 0.002 0.005 0.01 50.0001 234 125 156 219 P df Ratio (9) (10) Yield gain (AT vs untreated)e Correct decision Incorrect decision Decisions (%)a

J. A. Litsinger et al.

Crops

Fields

(no.)

(no.)

Site 88 81

(1)

Zaragoza

22

141

Guimba

15

Calauan

13

Koronadal

16

109

avg P F

df

Character 3.8 + 2.2 0.694 0.032 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.200 ns ns ns 50.0001 50.0001 ns 91.7 + 8.9 85.8 + 4.3 91.7 + 4.0 87.5 + 8.9 82.1 + 7.3 82.1 + 7.3 ns 0.58 128 ns 91.7 + 2.8 91.6 + 2.9 0.4 + 2.2 0 + 6.7 10.9 + 3.7 3.6 + 3.0 0 + 6.7 0 + 3.9 0 + 3.2 3.3 + 3.2 ns 0.31 128 8.3 + 5.5 11.2 + 5.5 ns 1.37 128 128 0.93 ns 21.3 + 8.5 21.3 + 8.5 27.1 + 10.4 10.3 + 4.7 2.9 + 1.7 16.4 + 5.8 0 + 2.2 8.3 + 10.4 0 + 3.9 10.8 + 3.3 1.3 + 1.2 8.3 + 3.4 2.1 + 1.3 50.0001

Level

Sampling site

Abbreviation 0.3 + 1.5 0 + 1.5 0 + 4.6 0 + 2.5 5.8 + 2.0 0 + 4.6 0 + 3.7 3.3 + 3.7 ns 0.99 128 91.9 + 2.5 91.7 + 2.4 91.7 + 7.7 85.8 + 4.3 97.5 + 3.5 87.5 + 7.7 82.1 + 6.3 85.4 + 6.3 ns 1.16 128 4.9 + 2.3 7.9 + 2.3 8.3 + 7.0 10.9 + 3.9 2.5 + 3.1 12.5 + 7.0 9.6 + 5.7 8.3 + 5.7 ns 0.68 128 3.1 + 1.3 0.4 + 1.3 0 + 3.9 3.3 + 2.2 0 + 1.8 0 + 4.0 8.3 + 3.2 6.3 + 3.2 ns 1.73 128 26.7 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 4.4 184 + 43 177 + 47 80 + 141 141 + 78 165 + 63 41 + 101 191 + 84 218 + 73 ns 0.30 122 50.0001 50.0001 ns 0.01 0.0005 ns 0.03 0.001 192 214 29 101 59 15 30 30

Larvae 28 77 28 33 33 P F

0.25 0.5

Field itself

0.5L

37

235

(no./hill)

0.75 1

Field itself

1L

39

243

23

Field itself

2L

Damaged

5%

Field itself

5%DL

13

leaves (%)

10 15%

Field itself

15%DL

20

119

5 15%

Neighboring

NF15%DL

Moths (no./

Field itself

2Moths

20 linear m)

Field itself

6Moths

df

a AT, action threshold. Columns 6 7 9 10 100%. In a column, means + SEM followed by a common letter are not signicantly different (P  0.05) by LSD test. bStandard threshold of 10% damaged leaves. cStandard threshold of 250 kg/ha yield loss in ripening stage. dSignicant (P  0.05) ANOVA regression correlations. eYield comparison by paired t-test (P  0.05).

Evaluation of action thresholds for rice leaffolders Eight threshold characters were compared with only NF25%DL monitored in earlier planted, neighboring elds. The ushed moth characters resulted in signicantly more elds exceeding ATs (4 8%) (column 2), but with more incorrect decisions (4% should not have treated) (column 10) than 1% correct decisions to treat (column 7). The six other characters resulted in 52% of elds that triggered corrective action. Characters most correlated to the damage yield benchmark (column 5) were 1L, 25%DL, 25%DL, 2Moths, and 6Moths. Collectively all of the characters produced 493% correct decisions (column 8) with 2Moths and 6Moths scoring least. The thresholds 2L, 6L, and NF25%DL resulted in 100% correct decisions not to treat. No character had a favorable ratio of errors to correct to treat decisions, but 15%DL and 25%DL came closest, both with ratios of 1.0 (low ratios are best). Yield gains in 1L, 2L, 15%DL, 2Moths, and 6Moths were highly signicant over the untreated. The characters scoring the highest overall were 15%DL and 1L scoring high in all but the ratio with no preference between them. 3.3.1.2. Reproductive stage. An average of 12% elds exceeded ATs, most of which occurred in Zaragoza and Koronadal (13 23% of elds), with least in Guimba and Calauan (5 8%) (Table IV). Greatest frequency of elds that exceeded the damage benchmark of 10% damaged leaves (13 23%) (column 2) in Zaragoza and Koronadal (18 25%) matched the sites with highest exceeded threshold frequencies (column 3). However, damage benchmark was exceeded three to ve times more frequently than the damage yield loss benchmark in Zaragoza and Koronadal, indicating that the damage benchmark was set too low. With the exception of Koronadal, there were higher rates of the should not have treated error than correct decisions to treat error indicating weaknesses in the characters. The should have treated error levels were similar between sites. There was no difference in yield gain between sites but those elds where ATs were exceeded (Zaragoza and Koronadal) were the only sites that showed signicant yield gains (column 12). The characters 2Moths, 6Moths, and NF15%DL had the highest frequencies of triggered thresholds (28 52% of elds) over the other ve characters. The larval thresholds, as a group, were the most conservative, more so with higher levels. ATs based on damaged leaves had intermediate trigger frequencies. Even though there were differences between characters in triggering a corrective response, there were no differences based on the frequency of exceeding the benchmark of 10% damaged leaves, showing evenness among characters in damage levels in the elds. All but 2L and 2Moths were correlated with the damage yield loss benchmark (column 5). All characters except those based on ushed moths had the highest frequencies of correct decisions that

189

averaged 90%. No character registered a should have treated error. Highest should not have treated errors occurred with NF15%DL, 2Moths, and 6Moths. Only with 15%DL did the ratio of errors to correct decisions to treat result in 51 and therefore was the superior character in all ve categories (seen in columns 5, 8, 9 10, 11, 12). The characters 0.5L, 1L, and 5%DL excelled in all categories but the ratio. 3.3.1.3. Ripening stage. An average of only 4% elds exceeded thresholds, intermediate between vegetative and reproductive stages in occurrence (Table V). There were no signicant differences between sites in the frequency of triggering action despite the damage benchmark being high in Zaragoza and Koronadal. Triggering frequency seemed quite conservative, especially in Koronadal and Zaragoza as damage levels were much higher. There were no differences between sites with regard to decisionmaking, all averaged 491% correct decisions. Most of the errors (7%) were should have treated based on the benchmark. As with the other crop growth stages there were no differences in yield gain between sites but each site registered signicant yield gains in the threshold treatment over the untreated. All of the eight threshold combinations tested performed equally in most categories, and all achieved scores of correct decisions in 82 98% of elds. This happened with very low levels of correct decisions to treat, however. Consequently there were larger differences between threshold characters with the should have treated error ranging from 3 to 13% compared to the should not have treated error with 0 8%. Greatest correlations to the damage yield loss benchmark occurred only with 0.5L, 5%DL, and 15%DL characters. Yield gains were highest among all characters except 2L and NF10%DL. 15%DL was the only character that had a favorable ratio (0.4) and scored the best in the ve criteria. Two characters 0.5L and 5%DL excelled in all categories but the ratio. 3.3.2. Insecticide response. The degree of leaffolder control by foliar sprays based on reduced damaged leaves was not impressive as the highest degree of control was just over 50% (Table VI). BPMC, endosulfan, and monocrotophos were superior to azinphos-ethyl and B.t. in terms of control based on damaged leaves whether averaged 1 4 WT or on 3 WT, the standard sampling time. Azinphos-ethyl gave a higher level of control than B.t. All but B.t. achieved high mortality rates of larvae in the eld, reaching 100% although not signicantly higher than the 79% registered with monocrotophos. Yield gain mirrored the degree of larval control as elds treated with B.t. had negative yield gains. When averaged over 1 4 WT, monitoring in neighboring elds achieved only 17% control compared to over 30% with the other three characters (Table VII). Data on larval mortality was not available for all characters so comparisons could not be made.

190

J. A. Litsinger et al. nomy of effort and on the other hand is performed at a frequency and timing most likely to provide sufcient warning before economic loss incurs. Developing ATs for rice whorl maggot showed that ATs were often exceeded by the rst practical time to undertake monitoring based on crop damage (Litsinger et al. 2006). But this was not the case with leaffolder as the results showed infestation was light in the early vegetative stage. Two distinct patterns emerged that in turn affected AT monitoring schedules. Conducting the AT studies in four sites, each representing distinct cropping systems, showed differences between the rate of rise in leaffolder incidence with crop growth. The results showed populations do not begin to rise until the end of the vegetative stage thus farmers should begin monitoring at 4 WT. The two sites with highest chronic insect pest damage levels, including leaffolders, were Koronadal and Zaragoza (Litsinger et al. 2005). These sites had not only higher leaffolder incidence but demonstrated a much more rapid rise in abundance (Figure 1). Less risk averse farmers in these sites can monitor at weekly intervals until 7 WT during the period of greatest rise in incidence. More risk averse farmers in these locations should monitor twice a week until the ag and penultimate leaves begin to senesce and grain lling is over. Beyond this stage, around 10 WT, leaffolder damage rapidly declines.

Looking at only the 3 WT sampling date, monitoring moths was inferior to the other characters. Signicantly lower yields occurred with monitoring damaged leaves in neighboring elds than with damaged leaves in the eld itself. Use of characters based on larval densities rather than damaged leaves or moths resulted in a trend of increasing control from 1 to 4 WT (Figure 2). Collateral control to non-target pests when targeting leaffolders ranged from 44% control of whorl maggot Hydrellia philippina Ferino (Diptera: Ephydridae), 31% control of two lepidopterous defoliators, Naranga aenescens Moore and Rivula atimeta (Swinhoe) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), and 20% control of yellow Scirpophaga incertulas (Walker) and white S. innotata (Walker) stemborers (Table VIII). As there were few instances when leaffolders reached action threshold levels for leaffolders in the vegetative stage the number of elds was below 15 for whorl maggot and defoliators that are most abundant in the vegetative stage.

4. Discussion 4.1. Crop monitoring protocol One key component of ATs is a monitoring program, that on the one hand has the greatest eco-

Table VI. Comparison of insecticides against leaffolders in response to action thresholds. Control (%)a Damaged leaves Insecticide BPMC Endosulfan Monocrotophos Azinphos-ethyl B.t. P F df
a

Larvae 3 WT 1 4 WT 86.8 + 13.1 79.5 + 22.6 59.8 + 11.7 65.0 + 15.3 4.7 + 14.5 0.005 3.25 123 a a a a b 3 WT 100 + 15.9 a 100 + 11.6 a 78.6 + 16.2 a 100 + 9.9 a 16.4 + 11.5 b 0.006 2.99 113

1 4 WT 47.7 + 9.3 a 45.1 + 2.1 a 33.0 + 3.2 a 19.2 + 13.1 b 720.3 + 7.8 c 0.005 3.89 123

Yield gaina (kg/ha) 375 + 122 a 211 + 109 a 289 + 56 a 288 + 123 a 7141 + 54 b 0.011 3.79 121

53.1 + 16.1 a 47.3 + 8.9 a 32.5 + 5.8 a 13.1 + 9.3 b 733.7 + 12.4 c 0.05 2.67 118

In a column, means + SEM followed by a common letter are not signicantly different (P  0.05) by LSD test. WT, weeks after treatment.

Table VII. Effect of leaffolder threshold characters on insecticide control and yield gain. Control (%)a (damaged leaves) Character Damaged leaves Larvae Moths Monitoring site Field itself Neighboring eld Field itself Field itself P F df
a

1 4 WT 37.2 + 5.7 a 17.4 + 11.1 b 37.2 + 4.9 a 29.5 + 5.7 a 0.03 3.39 123

3 WT 32.0 + 9.9 a 34.4 + 17.7 a 32.6 + 9.6 a 24.7 + 10.0 b 0.04 2.14 112

Yield gaina (kg/ha) 496 + 97 a 162 + 81 b 344 + 182 ab 347 + 91 ab 0.007 3.41 111

In a column, means + SEM followed by a common letter are not signicantly different (P  0.05) by LSD test. WT, weeks after treatment.

Evaluation of action thresholds for rice leaffolders

191

Figure 2. Insecticide efcacy based on threshold characters for leaffolders. Characters: DL, percentage damaged leaves; NF-DL, percentage damaged leaves in earlier planted, neighboring elds; Larvae, larval density; Moths, moth density. Table VIII. Control of nontarget pests by insecticides used in response to action thresholds against leaffolders. Control of nontarget pest (%)a Target pest Whorl maggot (%DL) Defoliators (%DL) n Stemborers (% deadhearts) n 20.2 + 4.5 168

natural enemy activity and hence the positive correlation (Litsinger et al. 2005). There are several reports of insecticide induced resurgence on rice leaffolders that is a further indication of high natural enemy activity (Nadarajan and Skaria 1988; Panda and Shi 1989). 4.2. Leaffolder threshold selection The 15%DL AT character encompassing 10 15% damaged leaves scored highest in the reproductive and ripening stages and equal with the 1L character in the vegetative stage based on the ve criteria for efcacy. 15%DL performed very well under varying levels of pest pressure achieving from 93 to 98% accuracy. Farmers readily recognize this AT character and have developed their own thresholds based on changing damage patterns from week to week (Bandong and Litsinger 2002). Farmers in the higher pest density sites should select the lower level or 10%DL, particularly when the crop is in the more yield-loss sensitive ag leaf stage. Adding the caveat that farmers should check for the presence of larvae in the folded leaves would improve the efcacy of the character as at times the population has pupated negating the benet of insecticide control. The vegetative stage presented a low risk to attack by leaffolder where the 1L character performed equally to 15%DL. Larvae, if present, are readily detected inside folded leaves that occur at the canopy level of the crop. Better insecticide control was achieved monitoring larvae, thus 1L would seem to have that advantage over 15%DL but it was not tested under high pest pressure. Farmers therefore have a choice of characters to monitor. In analyzing the performance of leaffolder ATs where benchmarks encompassing both damage levels

Leaffolders 43.6 + 5.7 13 31.3 + 6.7 14

a

Average of four sites and 66 crops, n number of elds, mean + SEM. DL, damaged leaves.

The high pest incidence in both Koronadal and Zaragoza sites can be explained by the high level of asynchronous planting due to free-owing, artesian springs in the case of the former and being located at the tail end of a large irrigation system in the latter. Asynchronous planting has been shown to favor insect pest buildup (Loevinsohn et al. 1988). By contrast in the two low pest density sites, Guimba and Calauan, that are more typical in the Philippines, farmers plant more synchronously and distinct ricefree periods exist. In these two low leaffolder density sites, farmers can delay monitoring until the reproductive stage beginning 6 WT on a weekly basis. Monitoring should focus on sampling when the ag leaves emerge. It is less necessary to monitor the vegetative stage due to the low expected pest incidence and low rate of population increase. There is also no distinct advantage of monitoring earlier planted elds as only in Koronadal was there a signicant seasonal effect of leaffolder damage. The probable reason for the lack of build up and linear correlation was the profound effect of natural enemies on leaffolders (Ooi and Shepard 1991). Perhaps the more frequent use of insecticides in Koronadal compared to the other sites is the reason for less

192

J. A. Litsinger et al. insects but also diseases, nematodes, and weeds. Low yields have been associated with not only pests but also deciencies in plant nutrients and other abiotic phenomena such as solar radiation and water level. Crop maturity is also inuential (Litsinger et al. 1987). Savary et al. (1994) found low yields were the result of combinations of all of these factors. Rice yields in an area tend to be highly variable. Pingali et al. (1990) found yields ranged from 51 to 49 t/ha in one study area which was attributed to the wide variability in management skills of rice farmers. There may be several reasons. The rst is that leaffolder does not occur as a single pest, insecticide response affects not only the target leaffolder but also other coterminous insect pests as seen in Table VIII. Levels of control however seem to be too minimal to lead to such a response. More credible is the fact that in 79% of elds where ATs were exceeded for leaffolder were also exceeded for other chronic insect pests and received additional insecticide applications. Another factor inuencing the yield loss relationship may provide the most important insight. It has been hypothesized that there is a synergistic effect of the occurrence of multiple pests/stresses on yield loss documented by IRRI (1984) and Savary et al. (1990) and elaborated by Litsinger (1991). Thus, when occurring in combination with other pests/stresses even a low population of leaffolder can become manifested synergistically as a yield decrease, more so than would be expected if leaffolder were the only stress present. Thus, when leaffolder numbers are even partially controlled, the plants physiological compensatory abilities are released to partially overcome not only leaffolder damage but that from other stresses, producing a concominant synergistic yield increase. This mechanism is offered to explain the yield paradox. 4.4. Input to IPM programs The best AT characters had high degrees of accuracy in predicting economic damage. The best performing in all three growth stages was 15%DL which in the vegetative stage registered 99.5% accuracy, 98.5% of which was correct not to treat with 0.5% correct to treat and 0.5% should have treated errors. During the reproductive stage 15%DL resulted in 93% correct decisions including 83% correct not to treat and 7% should not have treated error. For the ripening stage the same character led to 98% correct decisions with 92% correct not to treat and 6% correct to treat decisions. Yield gain in each of the three growth stages with the 15%DL character averaged 0.2 t/ha or 4% of a 4.5 t/ha average crop yield. Scouting and use of ATs resulted in fewer insecticide applications than the farmers practice. Due to high variability from different agronomic practices between elds leading to a wide range of yields within a crop, no distinctions emerged when the 15%DL threshold was compared to the farmers practice

and yield loss were established as criteria for scoring success of their usage, there is merit for raising the 15% damaged leaf level in the vegetative and reproductive stages to 20 25%. The 15% level was noted to not be associated with signicant yield loss thus resulted in high numbers of should not have treated errors. Characters relying on moth counts were the least reliable having the highest error rates and low ratios. Moths are too removed from the actual damage as egg and larval mortality from natural enemies is normally very high (Barrion et al. 1991). Swarms of moths were frequently observed in the eld during monitoring activities that did not accrue into signicant damage showing the value of natural biocontrol. Given the poor control, B.t. insecticide may have been stored under high temperatures and thus lost potency. Adulteration also is not uncommon in the Philippines and although attempts were made to purchase insecticide from reliable sources, dilution of the product cannot be ruled out. Among the three insecticides that performed best, BPMC is preferred due to its low mammalian toxicity and minimal environmental effects. Several insecticides, although providing very high mortality rates against larvae, did not necessarily minimize leaf damage. Insecticide control provided a poor response to the generally well performing AT characters and represents a signicant weakness to the successful use of thresholds in rice. 4.3. Yield gain paradox Signicant yield increases were associated with the best performing ATs against leaffolder (Tables III V, column 12) in this study despite the low level of chemical control and reports that the rice crop can tolerate high damage levels. Miyashita (1985) showed that a crop with even 67% damaged leaves did not result in signicant yield loss. This is 40% higher than the 48% damaged leaf level recorded in this study per eld on a sampling date. The insecticide check method to measure yield loss has consistently recorded seemingly incredulous yield losses in the Philippines (Litsinger et al. 1987, 2005), on crops where overall insect pest pressure was not particularly high. Many assume that the chosen insecticides were stimulating physiological processes associated with crop growth thus exacerbating differences in the absence of pest pressure. The insecticides used in the insecticide check method have been found to be plant growth neutral (Venugopal and Litsinger 1984). Furthermore, farmers low dosage rates also have been associated with signicant yield gains in the study (Litsinger et al. 2005). In addition damage functions with a view of relating yield loss to pest abundance have not produced useful results (Litsinger et al. 1987). Confounding the determination of single pest relationships with yield is that there are normally several pests attacking the crop in any growth stage, not only

Evaluation of action thresholds for rice leaffolders (Litsinger et al. 2005). The only analysis that was performed compared all AT characters to the farmers practice and the results were mixed among sites. A more controlled experimental design will be needed to test the best AT characters to the farmers practice. ATs that resulted in justied corrective action occurred in only 5% of elds in the course of the study based on the benchmarks showing the chronic presence of leaffolders. The best performing AT characters t well within the two IPM programs now active in Asia. The FAO led farmer eld school rice IPM program (Matteson 2000) recommends weekly crop monitoring of rice hills in the same manner as the current study where not only the pest but the natural enemies are quantied by farmer groups. The AT characters and monitoring protocols that have evolved from the present study can be readily adapted to local conditions by the trainers. The AT characters of damaged leaves and larvae are already included in the agroecosystem analyses performed by farmers. In the second IPM program (Heong 1999), the monitoring protocol for low pest density sites of the current study concluded that scouting should begin 6 WT which ts within the 40-day insecticidefree grace period recommended by to allow natural enemy buildup. Our study points to a need for earlier scouting in high pest density sites reducing the grace period to 28 days. This study also denes a monitoring scheme to be followed after the 40-day period. No matter what IPM program is followed we recommend that at least weekly scouting be conducted as pests can suddenly increase as shown in the results of this study. Acknowledgements We are duly appreciative of the generous cooperation provided by over 400 farmers in the study sites. Their willingness to become experimenters with the research teams and devote at times a tenth of their ricelands to trials is a testament to their desire to seek improvements in rice production technology. Many locally hired project staff were responsible for conducting the trials and their invaluable contributions are acknowledged. Those assisting in Zaragoza were Catalino Andrion and Rodolfo Gabriel, in Guimba George Romero, in Calauan Mariano Leron, Eduardo Micosa, and Carlos de Castro, and in Koronadal Hector Corpuz, Joseph Siazon, Beatriz Velasco, and Anita Labarinto. Cooperation of the staff in the Central Luzon and Mindanao regions of the Philippine Department of Agriculture is highly appreciated.

193

References
Bandong JP, Litsinger JA. 1986. Egg predators of rice leaffolder and their susceptibility to insecticide. International Rice Research Newsletter 11(3):21.

Bandong JP, Canapi BL, dela Cruz CG, Litsinger JA. 2002. Insecticide decision protocols: a case study of untrained Filipino rice farmers. Crop Protection 21:803816. Barrion AT, Litsinger JA, Medina EB, Aguda RM, Bandong JP, Pantua PC, Viajante VD, dela Cruz CG, Vega CR, Soriano JS, et al. 1991. The rice Cnaphalocrocis and Marasmia (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) leaffolder complex in the Philippines: taxonomy, bionomics and control. Philippine Entomologist 8:9871074. Bautista RL, Heinrichs EA, Rejesus RS. 1984. Economic injury levels for the rice leaffolder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae): insect infestation and articial leaf removal. Environmental Entomology 13:439443. Dyck VA, Htun Than, Dulay AC, Salinas GD, Orlido GC. 1981. Economic injury levels for rice insect pests. Agricultural Research Journal of Kerala 19:7585. Fabellar LT, Fabellar NG, Heong KL. 1994. Simulating rice leaffolder feeding effects on yield using MACROS. International Rice Research Notes 19(2):78. Graf B, Lamb R, Heong KL, Fabellar, L. 1992. A simulation model for the population dynamics of rice leaf-folders (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and their interactions with rice. Journal of Applied Ecology 29:558570. Heong KL. 1990. Feeding rates of the rice leaffolder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), at different plant stages. Journal of Agricultural Entomology. 7:8190. Heong KL. 1999. From-research-to-farmer practice: a case study in rice pest management. In: Balasubramanian V, Ladha JK, Denning GL, editors. Resource Management in rice systems: nutrients. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp 199211. Litsinger JA, Canapi BL, Bandong JP, dela Cruz CG, Apostol RF, Pantua PC, Lumaban MD, Alviola AL III, Raymundo F, Libetario EM, et al. 1987. Rice crop loss from insect pests in wetland and dryland environments of Asia with emphasis on the Philippines. Insect Science and its Application 8:677692. Litsinger JA. 1991. Crop loss assessment in rice. In: Heinrichs EA, Miller TA, editors. Rice insects: management strategies. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp 165. Litsinger JA. 1993. A farming systems approach to insect pest management for upland and lowland rice farmers in tropical Asia. In: Altieri MA, editor. Crop protection strategies for subsistence farmers. Westview Studies in Insect Biology, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. pp 45101. Litsinger JA, Bandong JP, Canapi BL, dela Cruz CG, Pantua PC, Alviola AL, Batay-An E III. 2005. Evaluation of action thresholds against chronic insect pests of rice in the Philippines: I. Less frequently occurring pests and overall assessment. International Journal of Pest Management 51:4561. Litsinger JA, Bandong JP, Canapi BL, dela Cruz CG, Pantua PC, Alviola AL, Batay-An E III. 2006. Evaluation of action thresholds against chronic insect pests of rice in the Philippines: II. Whorl maggot and defoliators International Journal of Pest Management 52:167180. Loevinsohn ME. 1994. Rice pests and agricultural environments. In: Heinrichs EA, editor. Biology and management of rice insects. New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Ltd. pp 487513. Matteson PC. 2000. Insect pest management in tropical Asian irrigated rice. Annual Review of Entomology 45:549574. Miyashita T. 1985. Estimation on the economic injury level in the rice leafroller Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guenee (Lepidoptera Pyralidae). I. Relation between yield loss and injury of rice leaves at heading or in the grain lling period. Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology 29:7376. Nadarajan L, Skaria BP. 1988. Leaffolder resurgence and species composition in Pattambi. International Rice Research Newsletter 13(3):3334. Ooi PAC, Shepard BM. 1991. Predators and parasitoids of rice insect pests. In: Heinrichs EA, editor. Biology and management of rice insects. New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Ltd. pp 585612. Panda SK, Shi N. 1989. Carbofuran-induced leaffolder resurgence. International Rice Research Newsletter 14(1):30.

194

J. A. Litsinger et al.
Venugopal MS, Litsinger JA. 1984. Effect of carbofuran on rice growth. Protection Ecology 7:313317. Waibel H. 1986. The Economics of integrated pest control in irrigated rice: a case study from the Philippines. Crop Protection Monographs. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. p 196. Way MO, Grigarick AA, Litsinger JA, Palis F, Pingali PL. 1991. Economic thresholds and injury levels for insect pests of rice. In: Heinrichs EA, Miller TA, editors. Rice insects: management strategies. New York: Springer-Verlag. pp 67105. Yoshida S. 1981. Fundamentals of rice crop science. Los Banos, Philippines: IRRI. p 269.

Pingali PL, Moya PF, Velasco LE. 1990. The post-green revolution blues in Asian rice production. IRRI Social Science Division Papers, No. 90, pp 133. Reissig WH, Heinrichs EA, Litsinger JA, Moody K, Fiedler L, Mew TW, Barrion AT. 1986. Illustrated guide to integrated pest management in rice in tropical Asia. Los Banos, Philippines: IRRI. p 411. Smith J, Litsinger JA, Bandong JP, Lumaban MD, dela Cruz CG. 1988. Economic thresholds for insecticide application to rice: protability and risk analysis to Filipino farmers. Journal of Plant Protection in the Tropics 6:6787.