Next Article in Journal
Biochar-Compost Additions Have Strong Short-Term Effects on Carbon and Nitrogen Emissions from an Agricultural Soil
Previous Article in Journal
Vermicomposting of Lavender Waste: A Biological Laboratory Investigation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Restoration of Rice Ecosystem Services: ‘Ecological Engineering for Pest Management’ Incentives and Practices in the Mekong Delta Region of Vietnam
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Prospects for Integrating Augmentative and Conservation Biological Control of Leaffolders and Stemborers in Rice

1
CABI Switzerland, Rue des Grillons 1, CH-2800 Delémont, Switzerland
2
Guangdong Key Laboratory of Animal Conservation and Resource Utilization, Guangdong Public Laboratory of Wild Animal Conservation and Utilization, Institute of Zoology, Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510260, China
3
MARA-CABI Joint Laboratory for Bio-safety, Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China
4
EcoLaverna Integral Restoration Ecology, Bridestown, Kildinan, T56 P499 Co. Cork, Ireland
5
Escuela de Agronomía, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales, Universidad Católica del Maule, Casilla 7-D, Curicó 3349001, Chile
6
Centre for Pesticide Suicide Prevention, University/BHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4TJ, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(12), 2958; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12122958
Submission received: 25 October 2022 / Revised: 13 November 2022 / Accepted: 24 November 2022 / Published: 25 November 2022

Abstract

:
Possibilities to combine augmentative biological control using Trichogramma spp. egg parasitoids and conservation biological control through habitat manipulation, for the management of rice leaffolder and rice stemborer pests have received only cursory mention in the literature. We reviewed information on the use of Trichogramma releases and on habitat manipulation to manage leaffolders and stemborers in rice. Stemborers have become a priority for biological control since the 1990s with research focusing mainly on Chilo suppressalis in China and Iran, Scirpophaga incertulas in South and Southeast Asia, and Chilo agamemnon in Egypt. In most cases, 100 K wasps (T. japonicum or T. chilonis) released over 30–100 release points ha−1 at least once during early crop stages, resulted in good control (>50% reduction in damage). Despite positive results accumulated over decades, larger scale releases in rice have only been conducted very recently. Research on conservation biological control of stemborers has focused on manipulating rice field habitat, particularly along rice bunds (levees). Several studies reported higher Trichogramma densities or greater egg parasitism in rice fields with flowering plants on bunds compared to control fields (without bund vegetation and usually with insecticides). These trends have mainly been attributed to nectar as a supplementary food for the adult wasps, although evidence for this mechanism is weak. Trap plants, such as vetiver grass (Chrysopogon zizanioides) attract ovipositing stemborers, but suppress larval development. Repellent and banker plants have not yet been identified for rice stemborers or leaffolders. We outline the opportunities and challenges for combining augmentative and conservation biological control of leaffolders and stemborers in rice.

1. Introduction

Rice (Oryza sativa L. [Poaceae]) is the staple food for about half the world’s population. Ensuring rice productivity is therefore essential for global food security. Furthermore, rice farming provides work and income for millions of smallholder farmers, particularly in Asia [1,2]. While in some countries high yields have been achieved through the use of modern and hybrid rice varieties with substantial amounts of fertilizers (e.g., China and Thailand: [3,4,5]), yields are still relatively low in other countries, such as Laos or Myanmar [4]. These low yields are largely associated with a limited adoption of intensification practices such as irrigation, nutrient management, or varietal improvement [4,6]; however, closing yield gaps in these countries will also require a reduction in damage to rice from phytophagous insects, mites and snails [7]. Despite the diversity of herbivores than can feed on rice plants, relatively few species (ca 20) are of concern to pest managers [8]. These species are important either because the damage they cause results in yield and/or profitability losses, or because farmers, concerned about potential economic losses, will apply large amounts of often broad-spectrum pesticides that are prejudicial to human and environmental health [7].
Among the most damaging rice pests are a range of stem-boring flies (Diopsidae: Diptera) and moths (Crambidae, Noctuidae: Lepidoptera) [9,10]. Cheng et al. (2010) [11] suggest that stem borers regularly cause yield losses of around 20% in Asian rice producing countries. In some regions, continuously high stemborer densities can cause losses of >70% during some seasons [10,11]. Leaffolders (Crambidae, Pyralidae: Lepidoptera) and planthoppers (Delphacidae: Hemiptera) are also important rice pests and the latter, especially, can have devastating effects on rice production in fields that overuse broad-spectrum insecticides [3,7,12] often in an attempt to control stemborers and leaffolders (i.e., secondary pest outbreaks [7,12,13]). Most of these broad-spectrum chemicals are also highly toxic to rural communities [14,15] and pesticide applicators (especially since protection gear is seldom used in tropical countries [15,16,17]).
While a large number of herbivores (including those that are of least economic concern) have been documented from the rice crop, there is also a remarkably rich natural enemy complex. For example, Lou et al. (2014) [18] have recently shown that at least 889 species of predatory natural enemies and 424 parasitoids of rice insect pests occur in Chinese paddy fields and that each of the key insect pests of rice has around 50 or 60 natural enemies. Despite the high diversity of pest natural enemies, generalist natural enemies—although they contribute to overall pest mortality—do not demonstrate marked responses to spatial and temporal variability in pest densities. In contrast, a relatively small number of key predators and parasitoids are thought to directly regulate pest populations through marked functional responses to pest densities [7]. In particular, a number of hymenopteran egg parasitoids have been shown to respond behaviorally and numerically to pest densities and thereby contribute to pest regulation [19,20,21,22]. There are numerous examples of insecticides that are more toxic to natural enemies than target pests, and a large number of well-documented cases have shown how field applications of insecticides can reduce pest regulation, thereby causing greater damage to rice [12,23,24]. This is exacerbated where target insects have developed resistance to applied insecticides, or, where certain insecticides stimulate pests to feed more, reproduce more, or migrate further [12,25,26].
An increasing awareness of the role of insecticides as an underlying cause of herbivore outbreaks has prompted greater research attention to the possibilities for enhancing the biological control of rice pests through augmentative [27,28,29] and/or conservation biological control [30,31,32,33]. For example, an increasing number of field studies from across Asia has indicated that agroecological interventions, such as planting rice bunds (levees) with flowering plants, increases the diversity and abundance of predatory mirid bugs (Miridae: Hemiptera), spiders (Araneae: Class Arachnida) and egg parasitoids (Hymenoptera; Diptera), thereby promoting regulatory ecosystem services [21,33,34,35]. Furthermore, large-scale attempts at augmentative biological control of rice leaffolders and stemborers have been implemented in Asia with apparently good success in terms of reducing pest damage and reducing pesticide use [27,28]. Despite reported successes in both augmentative and conservation biological control in Asian rice, to our knowledge, no study has combined both methods simultaneously. Indeed, research on conservation biological control in Asian rice has not generally included other IPM technologies or crop production practices as factors in field designs [7,36,37] (but see Zhu et al. (2022) [38]).
In this review, we explore some of the possibilities for combining augmentative—using Trichogramma spp. (Trichogrammatidae: Hymenoptera) egg parasitoids—and conservation biological control for Lepidoptera pests in rice. We first review available reports of attempts at augmentative biological control. A number of recent reviews have been published that explore augmentative biological control of Lepidoptera by Trichogramma spp.; however, previous reviews have focused mainly on pre-release technologies, or have restricted their focus to China [29,39,40,41,42]. Similarly, there has been a recent review on ecological engineering (a form of conservation biological control) in China [38]. Unlike these previous reviews, ours mainly focuses on post-release augmentation technologies, which probably has a greater influence on the compatibility of augmentative and conservation biological control. We also include published field studies from all rice growing regions. We then review studies that report the results of conservation biological control or similar methods (i.e., using habitat manipulation) on pest Lepidoptera in rice production systems. Finally, we examine the possibilities for combining augmentative biological control and conservation biological control, and identify a series of knowledge gaps that could be addressed in future research.

2. Literature Review

We conducted separate searches for information related to augmentative biological control and conservation biological control. The first search focused on studies dealing with field releases of Trichogramma spp. against rice pests. Because many field reports have been published in non-ISI journals, we used Google Scholar, CAB abstracts and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure to retrieve documents published until August 2022. Search terms included ‘Trichogramma’ and ‘rice’, or ‘Trichogramma’ and ‘Chilo’, ‘Scirpophaga’, ‘Tryporyza’, ‘Sesamia’, ‘Cnaphalocrocis’, ‘leaffolders’, or ‘stemborers’. For each retrieved paper, the research methods were appraised to identify studies that monitored Trichogramma spp. releases under field conditions. A number of publications included in this review, in particular older ones in Chinese, had not been screened through a rigorous peer review system: while aiming to be as comprehensive as possible, we excluded studies with apparent methodological issues (e.g., no replication or with plot sizes being only a few m2) from analyses of results; but we noted all studies to assess the prevalence of research topics. For papers that included a number of different treatments in addition to biological control, we provide information only as relates to Trichogramma releases. However, we generally excluded papers where Trichogramma spp. releases were only a small component of studies that otherwise dealt mostly with insecticides. A substantial number of field reports published in Chinese are difficult to access outside China. These reports are also included here, making their main findings available to international readers for the first time. As much as possible we attempt to be specific in indicating baselines for the respective studies (i.e., whether Trichogramma releases were compared to untreated controls or to farmers’ standard practices based on pesticides). From our search, and excluding papers for the above-mentioned reasons, we retrieved a total of 95 papers that describe field releases of Trichogramma. We list all these studies and annotate the main findings from some of the larger studies in Table S1.
The second search focused on Trichogramma spp. under natural field conditions or where agroecological interventions have been implemented and address Lepidoptera pests. The search was conducted using Google Scholar and ISI Web of Science for the period 1970-August 2022 by applying the search terms ‘Trichogramma’ and ‘rice’, together with ‘conservation’, ‘agroecol*’, ‘ecological engin*’, ‘flower’, ‘floral’, ‘nectar’, ‘honeydew’, ‘trap plant’, ‘banker plant’ or ‘egg parasitism’. We used the initial retrieved papers to snowball to other related articles. The search retrieved 49 peer-reviewed papers. The retrieved papers included both laboratory and fields studies. Studies were assessed on the basis of including information relevant to the abundance or damage caused by rice stemborers or leaffolders or where egg parasitism was monitored. Many of the papers reported the results of non-replicated, comparative field or field-plot studies; however, we included these non-replicated studies in the review as an indication of current interest in the technologies; nevertheless, where information is presented, we clearly indicate whether experiments were replicated or not. The final list of included papers is presented in Table S2.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Augmentative Biological Control

Globally, the best known and most widely used augmentatively released biological control agents are Trichogramma egg parasitoids [43]. Nearly 4 million hectares of maize (Zea mays L. [Poaceae]) are treated annually with Trichogramma spp. in China alone [29,44] and these small wasps are also used on large areas in several other crops such as sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L. [Poaceae]) [45]. In rice, many attempts have been made to use Trichogramma as biological control agents against key Lepidoptera pests over the last 50+ years with highly varying but often good results. However, in contrast to maize and sugarcane, no large-scale commercial releases of Trichogramma egg parasitoids were conducted in rice until about 5–10 years ago [46]. There are a number of reasons for this, some of which will be looked at in this review in more detail. Furthermore, the rice ecosystem has some peculiarities, in particular because rice is generally produced in semi-aquatic systems, meaning that field application techniques can be relatively awkward. It is noteworthy, however, that this picture has changed recently with substantial efforts to develop Trichogramma-based biological control methods for rice in China [29].
Among the studies of augmentative biological control that we retrieved, virtually all were conducted in irrigated or rain-fed rice and the target pests (indicated in Table S1) were mainly stemborers but, especially in China, also included leaffolders. Work on testing Trichogramma spp. in rice began more than 60 years ago. For example, in the early 1960s, Nickel (1964) [47] examined the potential for biological control of stemborers in rice. Based on rather limited experimental evidence at the time, he stated that mass-released Trichogramma spp. could potentially control stemborers, even though this would be only temporary in nature. Despite also citing critical papers, e.g., Japanese studies which considered the mass release of T. japonicum (Ashmead) as not very effective in rice [48], Nickel’s (1964) [47] conclusion was, that given the potentially huge benefits of biological control, the subject deserved further research attention. Despite this, few studies were conducted on the biological control of rice pests using Trichogramma spp. during subsequent years, with those few studies almost exclusively conducted in China (Table S1). Nevertheless, interest in the topic has increased considerably during the last 20–25 years (see Table S1), with most of the research conducted in China and India; for example, out of the 95 studies that we reviewed 43% were conducted in China and 32% in India with relatively few studies from other regions. Despite a general lack of published research from other regions, augmentative biological control is, nevertheless, promoted by national agricultural research and extension systems in many other countries; for example, Trichogramma spp. egg cards are produced and distributed to rice farmers in parts of Indonesia [49] and the Philippines [50,51].

3.1.1. Target Herbivore Species for Augmentative Biological Control

The main pests against which Trichogramma spp. have been released in rice are leaffolders and stemborers [27,29]. The parasitoids will kill the eggs of several different leaffolder species or several stemborer species that occur in the paddy fields at the same time (see below) and will also attack other pest species. For example, in Iran, the impacts of releasing T. maidis Pinureau e Voegelé on the green rice semi-looper (Naranga aenencens Moore [Noctuidae: Lepidoptera]), has been assessed during programs that mainly targeted the striped stemborer (Chilo suppressalis Walker [Crambidae: Lepidoptera]) [52]. Furthermore, a small number of studies have examined the possibilities of using Trichogramma zahiri Polaszek sp. n. against the rice hispa beetle, Dicladispa armigera (Oliver [Chrysomelidae: Coleoptera]), in Bangladesh [53,54].
Each of the Lepidoptera pest complexes of rice comprises several species. Furthermore, the composition of these complexes varies from region to region [9,31]. Despite this, few studies have examined interactions between the different species within these herbivore complexes, or examined the relative contributions by different species to overall damage [55]. Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenée) (Crambidae: Lepidoptera) and Marasmia patnalis (Bradley) (Pyralidae: Lepidoptera) are the most abundant species that make up the rice leaffolder complex [31]. In China, all studies conducted before 1986 targeted leaffolders (Table S1). After a period of no studies published at all, the striped stemborer became a more frequent target for research (see below), indicating a shift in relevance, possibly due to a change in general rice production practices and a growing awareness of the relatively minor impacts of leaffolders on rice yields [56,57]. Researchers in India and Pakistan have continued to examine the impacts of Trichogramma releases against leaffolders (Figure 1); however, in most of these cases, researchers have only included leaffolders together with stemborers during their field evaluations [58,59,60]. Currently, Trichogramma-based biological control against leaffolders in rice is not a prevalent research topic and, where considered, parasitism of leaffolders is often only incidental during releases that mainly target stemborers.
The stemborer complex (Crambidae: Lepidoptera) in rice consists of three main pest species, C. suppressalis (striped stemborer–SSB), Scirpophaga incertulas (Walker) (yellow stemborer–YSB) and Scirpophaga innonata (Walker) (white stemborer–WSB) as well as a number of other species that occasionally damage rice (e.g., Sesamia inferens (Walker) [pink stemborer–PSB], Chilo auricilius Dudgeon [gold-fringed stemborer], and Chilo polychysus Meyrick [dark-headed stemborer]) but mainly damage other crops [9,107,108]. SSB is among the most widespread species that damages rice (occurring from northern Japan to Western Europe); however, where it occurs, damage from YSB is often more severe, particularly in tropical rice-growing regions [9,55,109]. Studies of stemborers as targets of Trichogramma-based biological control have differed between regions (Figure 2). Much of the focus of biological control in China has been directed against SSB with a few, more recent studies, involving YSB, particularly in Yunnan. Studies in Japan and Iran have also targeted SSB (Figure 2). The stemborer complex in India is relatively species diverse, with five or more species attacking rice in some regions [108]. Perhaps for this reason, studies from India have tended to report results based on changes to the impacts of regional complexes of stemborers (i.e., reductions in damage, comparisons of yields). Where Indian studies have targeted a single species, this has mainly been YSB (Figure 2). Two other species that have been the targets of biological control in rice are WSB (research from Pakistan, Indonesia and the Philippines) and the corn borer C. agamemnon Błeszyński (Crambidae: Lepidoptera) (research from Egypt) (Figure 2).

3.1.2. Trichogramma spp. Used in Augmentative Biocontrol

The main Trichogramma spp. used in biological control attempts against leaffolders have been T. japonicum and T. chilonis Ishii. In many early studies, particularly in China, T. confusum Viggiani was used. The status of T. confusum and its relation with T. chilonis has been the subject of recent research and the two species have been regarded either as one species or as cryptic species in previous studies: currently T. confusum is regarded as a close sister species of T. chilonis and is no longer applied in biological control attempts in rice [152]. Because of their morphological similarities and possible confusion during identifications in previous studies, we combine T. confusum and T. chilonis as a single group (T. chilonis). Early research on the biological control of rice leaffolders in China also often included T. dendrolimi Matsumura, but this species has not been applied during studies of biocontrol in rice since the early 1990s. Trichogramma australicum Girault has been included in a small number of studies from China, with results mainly reported as parasitism or reductions in damage levels after multispecies releases (generally in combination with T. chilonis and T. japonicum) (see below). Where different species of Trichogramma have been compared for their biological control potential against leaffolders, T. dendrolimi has performed relatively poorly (usually <50% parasitism) [41,63,68], with T. japonicum (>70%) attaining higher levels of parasitism compared to T. chilonis (<60%) [68].
Releases against stemborers have included at least seven Trichogramma species. Of these, T. japonicum and T. chilonis were the most frequently studied (Figure 2). Trichogramma japonicum has been used almost exclusively for the biological control of stemborers in the Philippines and Indonesia [50,142]; whereas T. chilonis has been used in Myanmar and Laos [27]. In a comparative study by Wu et al. (2016) [119], T. japonicum (>60% parasitism) performed better than T. chilonis (about 30%) in parasitizing SSB eggs; T. japonicum also performed better than both T. dendrolimi and T. chilonis in reducing stemborer damage to rice [119]. To our knowledge, no similar comparative studies have examined the success of different Trichogramma spp. against YSB. An unidentified, native Trichogramma sp. was released in the Andaman Islands (India) for the control of YSB (Figure 2). More recent reports suggest that the species may have been T. japonicum [153]. The only other Trichogramma species used against stemborers in East Asia has been T. ostriniae Pang et Chen (Figure 2). In Iran, two species, T. maidis and T. brassicae Bezdenko, have been used for the biological control of SSB in rice. T. brassicae is usually applied as a biological control agent for pests of vegetable crops, but could be conveniently acquired and was released for the biological control of SSB in Iranian rice [148,149]. In Egypt, all published studies have reported the use of T. evanescens Westwood against rice stem borers [144,147]. This wasp species also causes relatively high levels of parasitism (>50%) under natural conditions in the country [154].

3.1.3. Release Methods during Augmentative Biocontrol

Few details are provided on the release methods used in many of the published field reports, or where biological control has been compared to other control methods. Where information is available, in most cases, 2–7 releases of ~100,000 wasps ha−1 each were made [58,59,60], although in some cases releases were as low as 50,000 wasps ha−1 [96,128,138]. Release rates of greater than 300,000 wasps ha−1 have also been reported, especially in China [114,119] (see Table S1). A small number of experimental field studies have reported on the efficacy of different release rates. For example, a number of studies have reported significantly higher parasitism rates or rice yields [94] or greater reductions in damage from stemborers [92,94,130] at higher release rates. Nevertheless, most evidence suggests that releasing more than 150,000 wasps ha−1 does not increase pest control significantly and that the cost–benefit ratios are likely to decline rapidly at higher release densities [130]. While more than one release may be necessary for season-long control of key rice pests, this cannot be easily concluded from available information on the number of necessary releases. In most studies, between three and six releases were implemented, but only a few studies tested different numbers of releases and these indicate that a larger number of releases may not always result in better pest control [103].
Usually, 100 release points were established per ha, with egg cards stapled to leaves or attached to bamboo sticks placed in the rice fields. This method is still being used regularly today [27], indicating that the Trichogramma release system in rice is less elaborate compared to, for example, the one established for maize [28,29,155] where applications via drones are becoming more common. In general, studies apply higher numbers of release points each with fewer wasps—usually 100 points with 1000 eggs per card as a standard. Where different numbers of release points have been compared, higher densities of points (over 30 ha−1) generally improved the parasitism of leaffolder eggs [82,83,84]. Similar studies have not been conducted to examine the effects of release point density on the control of stemborers, but densities of 75–120 cards ha−1 (releasing 75–150 K wasps ha−1) give good stemborer control [60,85]. In recent studies from China, the effects of placing egg cards at different canopy levels were tested; however, no clear differences were found between release heights in these studies [85,86]. While generally Trichogramma releases start about 30 days after transplanting (DAT), studies have also initiated Trichogramma releases as early as 25 DAT, 15 DAT or -more recently–even at 7 DAT [58] without compromising the success of pest control (Table S1). At least one study [123] released Trichogramma to rice seedbeds, with good results.
Taken together, these observations suggest that for optimal control, Trichogramma wasps (optimally T. japonicum where the species is endemic or established) can be released at 100 K-150 K ha−1, with ca 50–100 release points roughly 3–4 times during the early crop stages (10–40 DAT). However, where conservation biological control is also implemented (see below), fields should be monitored carefully and Trichogramma releases only conducted when populations of stemborers or leaffolders reach potentially damaging levels. Stemborers, particularly SSB, perform relatively poorly as the rice crop develops [9,55], such that releases of Trichogramma during reproductive crop stages in well-managed paddy fields will probably give diminishing returns.

3.1.4. Parasitism Rates during Augmentative Biological Control

Parasitism rates have been reported for a relatively small number of field studies, with most studies preferring to evaluate biocontrol through comparative damage estimates (see below). Furthermore, for studies of stemborers it is often unclear whether parasitism has been reported on a per egg mass or per egg basis. In any case, parasitism levels have been more frequently reported for studies of leaffolders.
Figure 3A presents the results of reported biological control attempts against leaffolders in China. The figure indicates a gradual decline in reported parasitism rates since studies began in the early 1970s. However, it is difficult to relate this decline to any single factor; for example, early studies (up to the 1980s) often released >3× the numbers of Trichogramma wasps compared to later studies [61,66,67,69,70,73]. Furthermore, many of the earlier studies released two or more species at the same time [62,66,67,70]. Earlier studies also generally included T. dendrolimi [63,66,67,68,77,80], whereas later studies (after 1985) concerned only T. chilonis and T. japonicum.
Where baseline studies have been included, augmentative biological control with Trichogramma spp. against leaffolders has generally compared well to control fields (without chemical-based management), or fields where insecticides have been used. For example, comparative baselines reported by Yichun Plant Protection Group (1973) [69], Fujian Biocontrol Group (1974) [70] and Shen et al. (1988) [80] were below 30% parasitism; baselines reported by Guiyang Agricultural Bureau (1975) [74], Yuanjiang Institute of Agricultural Sciences (1975) [79] and Zhang (2012) [72] were below 20%; and baselines reported by Jinhua Plant Protection Group (1972) [61], Wuxing Institute of Agricultural Sciences (1979) [63], Xie and Zhou (2014) [75], and Chen et al. (2016) [82] were below 10%. These compared to >60% in most cases where parasitoids were released. In a study by Hang (2017) [85], parasitism by T. chilonis was below 10% in both release and control areas. Where studies compared parasitism of leaffolder eggs in sprayed fields against non-sprayed and non-biocontrol fields, rates were generally lower in the sprayed fields that in control fields [72,82] (Table S1).
Few studies have reported parasitism rates of stemborer eggs after Trichogramma releases (Figure 3B). Furthermore, where rates have been reported, parasitism levels varied greatly between studies. For example, Astrodjojo et al. (2016) [142] have reported levels above 90% for T. japonicum on WSB eggs. Meanwhile, Hang et al. (2011) [112] and Tang et al. (2017) [124] reported parasitism levels below 20% for T. chilonis on SSB and T. japonicum on YSB, respectively. Although not conclusive, a comparison across studies suggests that Trichogramma spp. may be more successful as control agents against leaffolders (comparing Figure 3A,B; but see below). Parasitism against YSB, may be limited due to the nature of the YSB egg masses that are coated with a layer of protective hairs and because the eggs are more densely packed inside YSB egg masses compared to SSB egg masses [55].

3.1.5. Damage Reductions Associated with Augmentative Biological Control

In a majority of studies, damage by leaffolders was reduced by 50–80% in Trichogramma spp. release fields/plots, compared to untreated controls (Figure 4). Earlier studies (i.e., pre-1980), with the notable exception of Jinhua Plant Protection Group (1972) [61], tended to report consistently large reductions in leaffolder damage (i.e., always above 50%). Many of the more recent studies have reported reductions of less than 50% [41,58,85,88,89,103]. Across reports, there are no consistent trends in terms of which Trichogramma spp. performed best in reducing damage from leaffolders (see for example Wuxing Plant Protection Group (1977) [62], Mishra and Kumar (2009) [92] and Sangha et al. (2018) [60] (Figure 4).
Despite often lower levels of parasitism reported for Trichogramma on stemborer eggs (Table S1, Figure 3B), reported reductions in stemborer damage to rice were often similar to those reported for leaffolders (compare Figure 4 and Figure 5). Furthermore, reductions in the percentage of dead hearts (i.e., death of a non-reproductive rice tiller: DH) or whiteheads (i.e., death of a reproductive rice tiller that results in a sterile panicle: WH) were generally similar in those studies that reported both (Figure 5) (but see Metwally et al. (2009) [143] and Lyla et al. (2010) [131] where reductions in the percentage of WH were higher than reductions in the percentage of DH). These results suggest that higher parasitism rates are required to reduce leaffolder damage by the same amount as stemborer damage. This is possibly related to spatial restrictions on stemborers and intense antagonistic intraspecific and interspecific interactions (e.g., competition, cannibalism and repellence [55]) between stemborer larvae, compared to leaffolder larvae that can have multiple individuals on a single tiller.

3.1.6. Comparisons between Augmentative Biocontrol and Chemical Controls

When compared to standard farmers’ practices involving insecticide applications, generally only minor or no differences were found between Trichogramma releases and chemical controls (Table S1). This includes studies that compared leaffolder damage [41,85,99,100,103], and studies that compared stemborer damage [112,117,120,121,123,130,138,147] between fields using Trichogramma-based biological control and chemical controls. In general, where comparisons have been made, authors reported slightly lower damage in Trichogramma fields (i.e., Kang et al. (2015) [123], damage = 1.6% with biological control, 3.8% with chemical control and Upamaya et al. (2013) [138], damage = 2.4% with biological control, 2.9–7.6% with chemical controls); although a few studies reported chemical treatments as more effective (i.e., Hang et al. (2011) [112], Si et al. (2014) [117], Chen (2015) [120], damage = 3–3.3% with biological control, 0.3–1.7% with chemical controls). In most cases, even where pesticides reduced damage to a greater extent than biological control, damage rates were probably so small as to have negligible effects on rice yields, particularly since rice can generally compensate well for stemborer damage [9,10].
Cost–benefit analyses (often based on Indian studies), have generally revealed similar or higher returns for Trichogramma release fields compared to fields involving chemical controls [89,100,101] (but see Singh et al. (2008) [93]). In a study by Kumar et al. (2007) [95], even though yields were highest in IPM plots (that included chemical applications), the highest net returns were obtained in Trichogramma spp. release plots. Furthermore, several publications have reported more natural enemies (e.g., ladybeetles [Coccinellidae: Coleoptera] and spiders) in Trichogramma release fields compared to farmers’ practice fields that included insecticide applications [91,116,131]. Such information is more commonly provided in recent studies, reflecting an increasing awareness over time of the importance of other natural enemies in pest regulation.

3.2. Conservation Biological Control

Conservation biological control (CBC) aims at promoting the abundance, diversity and efficacy of the natural enemies of crop pests by providing optimal conditions for their survival, reproduction and pest-regulating behaviors [156,157]. Although CBC includes the conservation of natural enemies at regional and landscape scales by maintaining non-crop habitats as refuges for predators [158], in rice landscapes, CBC is often limited by the topography of rice-producing regions (which often consist of flat, irrigated, lowland areas that are intensively managed). For this reason, CBC for rice pest management has mainly consisted of within-field habitat manipulations such that natural enemies are conserved within or close-by the main crop [32,33,35]. Furthermore, some of the most effective natural enemies of rice pests are specialists in rice habitat and are rarely encountered in non-rice habitat that is distant from the rice fields [158,159]. As such, CBC for rice mainly focuses on the rice paddies themselves—on management of the main crop (e.g., avoiding pesticides, incorporating fallows) and on manipulating vegetation on associated bunds.
Increased interest in the CBC of rice pests during recent decades has partly been due to campaigns around ‘ecological engineering for rice pest management’ that began in 2008 and focused on building knowledge and capacity, initially in China, Thailand and Vietnam [33,34,38,160,161], to manipulate rice habitat such that natural enemies are protected. Because knowledge of the links between rice pests, their natural enemies and non-crop vegetation were poorly understood at the time, ecological engineering largely referred to the establishment of flowering plants on rice bunds as potential habitat for the natural enemies of rice pests [34,162]. This bund vegetation would provide nectar to support the free-living stages of hymenopteran parasitoids, as well as providing supplementary foods (alternative prey) for predators such as spiders and mirid bugs [163,164,165,166]. Laboratory and field studies began to search for the most suitable bund plants—that is, plants that promote the regulatory efficiency of natural enemies without providing any benefits for rice pests. For example, laboratory studies by Zhu et al. (2015) [163] showed that access to sesame (Sesamum indicum L. [Pedaliaceae]) flowers increased the longevity, fecundity and efficacy of T. chilonis, but had no similar effects on the longevity or fecundity of SSB or PSB. In fields with sesame planted on the bunds, egg parasitism was consequently higher than in control fields [35].
Sesame features prominently among floral strips that are deliberately planted on rice bunds to promote natural biological control [30,34,35,38,163,164,165,166,167]. However, a recent study by Horgan et al. (2022) [34] has indicated that Vietnamese rice farmers that incorporate vegetation strips into their rice paddies for pest management will plant a wide range of different species, including ornamental flowers, vegetables, and woody shrubs. Farmers that planted flower strips (including flowering vegetable plants) tended to use less insecticides than their conventional farming neighbors and reported higher rice yields. Many farmers that planted vegetable crops on their bunds also increased their farm profits by selling the vegetable produce. However, these same farmers were more likely to apply pesticides to their bund vegetables, which runs counter to the principals and objectives of establishing vegetation strips for CBC [34]. In a similar study, Sattler et al. (2021) [167] found that Cambodian farmers would prefer to grown vegetables on their rice bunds and that the cost–benefit returns from ecological engineering using flowering plants on bunds were greater than conventional farming methods where insecticides were applied. By withholding insecticides, rice fields maintained a higher abundance of natural enemies compared to insecticide-treated fields, but yields were not different [167]. Prior to calls for using flower strips as a pest management strategy in rice, farmers often utilized the space on rice bunds to produce supplementary crops, particularly beans [21,168,169], so that, for many farmers a shift to ecological engineering using flower strips can be relatively simple.
As knowledge of ecological engineering in rice has accumulated, there have been recommendations to include a range of plants with different functions [38]. For example, although not widely researched in rice ecosystems outside China, trap plants that specifically target stemborers can be incorporated into vegetation strips [170,171]. Much of the initial research into trap plants was conducted in Africa to control Chilo partellus Swinhoe (Crambidae) in maize: These plants, mainly consist of tropical grasses such as Sudan grass (Sorghum vulgare Pers. [Poaceae]), Napier grass (Cenchrus purpureus (Schumach. Morrone [Poaceae]), or vetiver grass (Chrysopogon zizanioides (L.) Roberty [Poaceae]) [172,173]. Adult stemborers are highly attracted to these grasses and lay more eggs on the grasses than on the main crop (usually maize); however, the developing larvae have low survival [170,171,174]. Other functional plants that can be included on rice bunds include species that repel herbivores or other nuisance insects. For example, several plants that produce methyl eugenol, such as basil (Ocimum basilicum L. [Lamiaceae]) and mint (Mentha spp. [Lamiaceae]), can repel rice herbivores, such as the brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens Stål [Delphacidae: Hemiptera]). As an extract, methyl eugenol has insecticidal effects on rice leaffolders [175], but the effects of growing plants that produce methyl eugenol on these moths under field conditions are still unknown. Several other flowering plants and grasses, including marigolds (Tagetes spp. [Asteraceae]) and lemongrass (Cymbopogon spp. [Poaceae]), have been noted to repel herbivores [176,177,178,179,180] or attract their natural enemies [181,182]; some of these plants have been used for decades by rice farmers to repel insects, but their effects in rice systems require further research. Marigold is frequently used by farmers in Vietnam as a functional plant in ecological engineering [34] and there is some evidence that it attracts some of the natural enemies of rice pests [182].

3.2.1. Impact of Surrounding Landscapes on Lepidoptera Pests and Trichogramma

Rice is grown in a variety of production systems that range from deep-water to upland, rain-fed systems, and from traditional montane terraces to lowland, intensified plains [183,184]. These production systems are embedded in landscapes that sometimes determine predominant practices (e.g., flooding regimes, irrigation infrastructure, cropping patterns), but are also influenced by climate, topography and anthropological impacts at regional scales [185]. For example, traditional terraced systems are usually part of heterogeneous landscapes where rice patches are often highly fragmented. Meanwhile, intensified production systems occur in relatively homogenous habitats and are less fragmented [183]. Furthermore, traditional production systems, including deep-water and traditional rice, tend to have lower inputs (fertilizers, pesticides) [185,186]. Research into the impact of surrounding landscapes on the structure of rice arthropod communities, including the structures of herbivore and parasitoid assemblages, has gained traction in recent years. This has been facilitated by the availability of satellite imagery, mapping technologies and advanced statistical methods [187]. These recent studies have generally examined whole arthropod communities and have not been specific to stemborers, leaffolders or their egg parasitoids (but see Zou et al. (2020) [188]). Furthermore, the effects of surrounding landscapes on the predation of rice herbivores by birds, bats and other vertebrate natural enemies has received only limited attention; however, for bats in particular, the availability of roosting sites in the landscape [189,190,191] probably has a marked effect on their role in suppressing herbivore populations, particularly nocturnal rice pests such as stemborers and leaffolders.
Studies of landscape effects on rice arthropods have begun to reveal associations between the abundance or diversity of arthropods and landscape features. Furthermore, different arthropod guilds appear to respond to distinct features of the surrounding landscape [187]: For example, the fragmentation of rice habitat (i.e., smaller rice fields) can have a positive effect on spiders and medium-sized predators whereas larger predators are favored by more simple, less fragmented habitat [187]. In general, spiders seem to be favored by fallow lands near rice fields, but not by natural vegetation in the proximity of the fields; however, this may differ between spider guilds—for example, Baba et al. (2018) [192] found that large ground dwelling and web-weaving spiders in Japanese paddy fields responded positively to proximate forested areas, but the abundance of smaller ground-dwelling spiders declined. Parasitoids appear to be largely favored by relatively expansive rice habitat that is not fragmented (i.e., larger rice fields), by the diversity of habitat proximate to rice [187], and where structural connectivity between rice bunds is high [193]. Indeed, Dominik et al. (2018) [193] suggested that parasitoids are affected more by such configurational landscape heterogeneity than by herbivore abundance; however, it should be noted that their study did not estimate the densities of herbivore eggs at their field sites. In a study that compared natural biological control with chemical control from sites across a gradient of landscapes in China, Zou et al. (2020) [188] suggested that pest damage and biocontrol are largely independent of landscape context; however, the authors also indicated several reasons why their results might be specific to the region they studied (i.e., landscapes were generally diverse to begin with, many of the key pests are migratory, and pesticide use tended to be low). The results of these studies therefore support a focus on manipulating bund habitat to conserve natural enemies, and parasitoids in particular.

3.2.2. Impact of Vegetation Strips on Lepidoptera Pests and Trichogramma

Already several reports on the outcomes of replicated field–or field-plot–studies that compared ecologically engineered and conventional (with or without pesticides) rice have been published. These include studies from China [33,35,38], Thailand [33], Vietnam [33,34], The Philippines [21,165,194,195,196], Cambodia [167], India [197,198,199,200], Bangladesh [30] and Papua New Guinea [182] (Table S2). A number of further reports from non-replicated experiments, including from farmer-participatory plots have also been published (i.e., Malaysia [201], Indonesia [202,203], India [204,205], and Brasil [206,207]) (Table S2). Although most studies have focused on planthoppers and their natural enemies, there are indications that bund vegetation is associated with a greater abundance of the free-living stages of Trichogramma wasps (i.e., [167]; and [206] non-replicated) and other parasitoids of Lepidoptera eggs [182]. A few studies have also shown that bund vegetation is associated with increased parasitism of stemborer or leaffolder eggs by Trichogramma spp. and other parasitoids (e.g., Telenomus spp. [Platygastridae: Hymenoptera]) [30,35,165,195]. However, bund vegetation has also been associated with higher densities of stemborers and leaffolders (but similar levels of damage to rice) in studies from the Philippines, possibly due to the height and density of the bund vegetation that provided perching sites and favorable microclimates for adult moths [165,195]. Similarly, in a study of alley cropping (a form of ecological engineering) for upland rice, MacLean et al. (2002) [208] found that alley crops (Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Steud. and Senna spectabilis (DC.) Irwin & Barneby [Fabaceae]) actually increased damage to rice from PSB. In two cases that reported Lepidoptera pests, bund vegetation had no effect on the densities of stemborers or leaffolders ([21]; and [202] non-replicated); however, Ali et al. (2019) [30] found lower densities of YSB in fields with bund vegetation (compared to non-sprayed fields) and less stemborer damage to rice in the same fields. Damage was highest where fields were treated with pesticides ([30]; see also Horgan et al. (2017) [21]). Yele et al. (2021) [199], also found lower damage to rice from stemborers and leaffolders where small field plots were surrounded by vegetation strips, and Iamba and Teksep (2021) [182] found marginally lower numbers of armyworm (Spodoptera litura (Fabricius) [Noctuidae: Lepidoptera]) in rice plots surrounded by marigold plants. In non-replicated trials by both Punzal et al. (2017) [209] and Nalini and Porpavai (2019) [205], stemborer numbers were also lower in rice fields close to vegetation strips compared to control rice plots.
Taken together, these studies indicate that the planting of vegetation on rice bunds can be associated with increased parasitism of stemborer eggs (by Trichogramma and other parasitoids) and lower levels of damage from stemborers and leaffolders [21,30,33,35,165,167,194,195]. However, there are worrisome indications that some bund vegetation could be associated with higher incidences of pest Lepidoptera in the main rice crop if bund plants are not carefully selected or managed [21,165,195,196,208]. Many of these studies also found that insecticides (applied according to standard farmer practices) were associated with higher levels of damage to rice from Lepidoptera pests compared to non-treated fields, with and without ecological engineering [30,35,165]. Therefore, whereas further research is necessary to better select plants that promote Trichogramma and other natural enemies but offer no benefits to the rice pests, evidence suggests that CBC will probably give better control of pests than insecticide-based control programs.
Research is also required to better determine the effects on rice pests and their natural enemies of the plants species that are commonly planted on rice bunds as part of ecological engineering approaches to pest management. For example, apart from sesame and a few other plants [163], the role of nectar as a supplementary food for the parasitoids of Lepidoptera pests is largely unsubstantiated. Furthermore, although repellent plants such as lemongrass are frequently grown on bunds, possibly to deter mosquitoes [179], there is no conclusive evidence to justify their use during habitat manipulation for the management of stemborers. In a study by Liang et al. (2016) [210], intercropping rice with water spinach (Ipomoea aquatic Forssk. [Convolvulaceae]) was found to reduce stemborer damage to adjacent rice and result in higher rice yields. The mechanisms by which water spinach reduces damage to rice have not yet been elucidated, but may be associated with higher silicon contents in intercropped rice compared to rice in monocultures [211,212]. A range of other possible intercrops (i.e., sesame, mung bean–Vigna radiate (L.) R. Wilczek [Fabaceae] and jute–Corchorus spp. [Malvaceae]) have also been reported to reduce YSB damage to rice while also increasing farm profits [213]. Plants may also function as bankers that support non-pest Lepidoptera, the eggs of which are consumed by Trichogramma or other parasitoids and predators. Plants (e.g., Leersia hexandra Sw. [Poaceae] and Zizania latifolia (Griseb.) Hance ex F. Muell. [Poaceae]) that maintain non-pest planthoppers have been identified as bankers for the egg parasitoids of planthoppers and leafhoppers [38,214] and Paspalum scrobiculatum L. (Poaceae) maintains parasitoids of the African gall midge, Orseolia oryzivora Harris & Gagné (Cecidomyiidae: Diptera) [215], successfully reducing damage to rice by these pests. However, to our knowledge, banker plants that support Trichogramma egg parasitoids associated with rice pests have not yet been identified.
In contrast to some other functional plant types, there is relatively good evidence that planting trap plants on bunds can reduce the numbers of stemborers associated with the main rice crop. Trap plants such as Sudan grass and vetiver grass are highly attractive to rice stemborers (SSB [174]), and are more attractive than rice to these pests. However, stemborer larvae cannot complete development on these plants (SSB and PSB [170,171,216]). Evidence suggests that vetiver grass has a lower nutritional quality than rice, and has antifeeding or anti-digestion properties that inhibit stemborer development and reduce the activity of digestive enzymes [170,217,218]. The grass also contains unidentified substances that are toxic to developing stemborer larvae [218]. In China, Lu et al. (2019) [171] have studied the impact of planting vetiver grass on rice bunds: Compared to rice fields without the trap plant, overwintering densities of SSB were lower and, consequently, damage to rice tillers was reduced. In the same study, egg parasitoids were more abundant in fields with vetiver grass on the bunds. A number of authors give specific guidelines for the use of trap plants in temperate rice systems [38,121,219]. They suggest that trap plants are best established on bunds in clusters covering 3–5 m of bund (at 50 m intervals), 4–8 weeks before rice planting.
Recently, Rajesh et al. (2021) [220] have studied water chestnut (Eleocharis dulcis (Burm.f.) Trin. Ex Hensch. [Cyperaceae]) as a possible trap plant for WSB in India. The water chestnut, which grows naturally in rice paddies, was more attractive than rice to ovipositing WSB adults; however, in laboratory trials, no larvae survived on the plants. Furthermore, no parasitoids were observed where WSB eggs occurred on water chestnut, but egg parasitism did occur (albeit at low levels) in the same fields where egg masses occurred on rice. Water chestnut produces tubers that are a delicacy in some countries [221]; the plants could potentially be grown in drainage channels or ponds close to rice fields, but are not suitable to be grown on rice bunds.

3.2.3. Effects of Rice Field Management on Lepidoptera Pests and Trichogramma

Several aspects of rice crop management affect leaffolder and stemborer abundance and consequent yield losses. Because the focus of this review is on interactions between the pests and Trichogramma spp., we will only discuss cases where management likely affects these interactions.
Among the principal determinants of Lepidoptera-related damage is nutrient management. Stemborers and leaffolders are attracted to rice grown in high nitrogen soils [9,55,222]. Although this reduces the host plant’s resistance to the pests, it may also increase tolerance to damage [9]. Field studies from the Philippines failed to indicate any response by naturally occurring Trichogramma to increased densities of leaffolders in high nitrogen plots [222]. Similarly, in a study that combined vegetation strips on bunds, with rice plots under a gradient of nitrogen treatments, Horgan et al. (2019) [165], found no effect of fertilizer levels on parasitism of YSB eggs by T. japonicum or other parasitoids. Other soil amendments, including biochar and high silicon materials have been shown to reduce the fitness of leaffolders and stemborers [223,224,225,226]; however, silicon-based rice resistance to pests can be inhibited by high soil nitrogen [227]. In a study by Liu et al. (2017) [228], soil silicon was associated with changes to the composition of volatiles emitted from rice plants that were attacked by leaffolders. When grown in silicon amended soil, the leaffolders were more vulnerable to parasitoids that were drawn-in by the volatiles [228]. Hendawy et al. (2018) [146] combined silica applications with T. evanescens to control C. agamemnon in Egypt, however the interactions between silicon and Trichogramma were not investigated.
Rice varieties vary in their resistance and tolerance to pest Lepidoptera. Horgan et al. (2021) [9] have also demonstrated that rice vulnerability (largely determined by crop duration) is a key determinant of stemborer damage. Resistance is mainly related to the number and size of the rice tillers and their relative growth rates. Varieties with fast-growing and thick tillers are more attractive to stemborers (i.e., less resistant), whereas varieties with a large number of tillers are more tolerant of damage [9,55]. Stemborer larvae that develop on susceptible varieties are larger than those from resistant varieties and resulting adults produce larger egg masses [55]. Studies have shown that egg parasitism is higher on such large egg masses [20], thereby possibly countering host susceptibility as well as nitrogen-induced enhancement of stemborer fitness. The interactions between rice resistance and egg parasitism have not been reported; however, reducing crop susceptibility and/or vulnerability, and increasing crop tolerance by carefully selecting rice varieties is compatible with both augmentative and conservation biological control. Furthermore, several studies have suggested that synchronous planting of rice by farmers over large areas can reduce stemborer damage [7], but the effects on parasitism have not been reported, except for a single study of WSB by Litsinger et al. (2006) [20], where egg parasitism was marginally lower (60% versus 70%) in synchronously planted rice crops.
The main management factor determining the abundance of Lepidoptera pests and their natural enemies is the use of insecticides [229]. Although stemborers and leaffolders are frequent targets of insecticide applications, there is growing evidence that certain chemicals, particularly pyrethroids, can lead to outbreaks of these pests [21,230,231,232]. The phenomenon has not received the same research attention as pesticide-induced outbreaks of planthoppers [12] and the mechanisms are still largely unknown. One possible mechanism is that pesticides reduce the efficacy of natural enemies. There is considerable published information to indicate that egg parasitoids, including Trichogramma species, are highly susceptible to a large range of commonly used insecticides and are more susceptible than target pests [229,233,234]. Natural enemies, including Trichogramma can also develop resistance to commonly used pesticides either naturally or through artificial selection in laboratory colonies [235,236]. The deliberate selection of pesticide-resistant Trichogramma strains for possible field applications reveals a poor understanding of the complexity of regulatory ecosystem services that must function against several herbivore species at the same time. Therefore, the use of insecticides is not generally compatible with Trichogramma-based biological control. Insecticides also reduce the effectiveness of habitat manipulations associated with ecological engineering [35].
Where Trichogramma releases are used as part of an IPM approach to Lepidoptera management, that also includes insecticides, then the insecticides should be avoided while the Trichogramma are active in the rice field [27,28]. Even when waiting for some time after parasitoid releases, this approach will, however, prevent Trichogramma from building-up numbers in the rice fields. The use of biopesticides, including microbial biological control organisms together with Trichogramma spp. could potentially improve pest management. For example, T. japonicum can be used as a vector for Beauveria bassiana (Bals.-Criv.) Vuill. [Cordycipitaceae] that kills SSB in rice [237]. Studies suggest that such synergistic systems result in greater mortality of the target pest than either biocontrol agent alone [238,239]. The system could be expanded to include other microbial agents and other parasitoids [240]; however, it relies on a careful selection of microbial strains to not reduce Trichogramma efficacy [236]. To our knowledge, the effects on other beneficial organisms (e.g., other parasitoids or predators) of vectoring microbial agents using Trichogramma spp. have not be studied.

3.3. Possibilities for Combining Augmentative and Conservation Biological Control

Based on the result presented in this review, both augmentative biological control and CBC can reduce the damage caused to rice by leaffolders and stemborers. Although the numbers of studies and progress in both augmentative biocontrol and CBC in rice are somewhat limited compared to other crop-pest systems, our review indicates the emergence of several guidelines as well as possible pitfalls for implementation. For example, research has indicated potential standards for Trichogramma releases, including the most effective species, effective release rates and optimal release times [29,42]. Similarly, research into ecological engineering has indicated that flowering plants such as sesame can enhance Trichogramma efficacy, and that trap plants such as vetiver grass will reduce the survival and densities of stemborers in rice paddies [163,216]. However, tall vegetation and inappropriate vegetation (e.g., tall-growing G. sepium and S. spectabilis hedgerows) can result in higher densities of adult stemborers or potentially greater damage to rice plants [21,208].
The ultimate objectives of augmentative biological control and CBC as related to the management of stemborers and leaffolders are similar: Augmentative biological control aims to increase egg mortality among target Lepidoptera pests using large numbers of released parasitoids [27,29]. CBC also aims to increase egg mortality by optimizing the rice environment such that parasitoid diversity, abundance and efficacy are enhanced, including for potentially released Trichogramma wasps [32,33]. However, CBC for rice pests, as it is currently emerging, also aims to directly reduce pest densities using trap or repellent plants, and takes a holistic approach to pest management such that rice vulnerability to all pests and diseases is systematically reduced [32,33,38,194].
There are five possible outcomes of combining both methods: (1) Combining released Trichogramma and naturally occurring predators and parasitoids could have an additive effect on egg mortality; (2) Combining the methods could have a synergistic effect that increases egg mortality beyond the combined levels of each method alone; (3) Combining methods could increase egg mortality above that achieved by either method alone, but without attaining levels greater than the sum of the methods (i.e., lower than cases 1 or 2); (4) Combining the methods might not increase mortality above that of either method alone (i.e., redundancy of one of the methods); and (5) Combining the methods may result in lower levels of egg mortality than either method alone. Cases 1 and 2 are desirable, whereas the remaining cases imply diminishing cost–benefit returns (case 3); profitability losses (case 4) or antagonism (case 5). Where both methods are applied together, augmentative biological control is perhaps best regarded as a curative control method, whereas CBC is preventative. Therefore, to combine the methods, inundative releases should best be made after monitoring (using pheromone traps or other methods) indicates potentially damaging Lepidoptera densities. In this way, timely and informed releases will be stabilizing because they represent direct responses to Lepidoptera densities. Meanwhile, misdirected releases during times when Lepidoptera pests are at low densities—as well as representing a loss of investment—could augment attacks on the eggs of other, possibly beneficial organisms, thereby slowing the build-up of natural enemy populations.
Where rice fields are part of a diversified landscape, stemborer and leaffolder populations may benefit from alternative plant hosts (most species are at least oligophagous) to maintain populations during periods where rice plants are absent in the landscape or during times when the fields are at relatively resistant crop stages [9,55]. Rice fields are normally invaded by leaffolders and stemborers soon after planting or transplanting, and some species are migratory arriving from 1000s of kilometers distance [241]. Maintaining parasitoids that attack other arthropod eggs during periods where leaffolders and stemborers are least abundant in rice, or where rice is absent from the landscape, could provide resilience to the system against invading migratory populations. For example, Chang (1978) [242], suggested that a declining abundance of Sepedon spp. (Sciomyzidae: Diptera) in Korea due to habitat change and pesticide use, contributed to reduced rates of stemborer egg parasitism by T. japonicum between the 1950s and 1970s. Providing good connectivity of bund vegetation in particular will increase parasitoid abundance [187,193]. However, evidence suggests that favorable landscapes alone are not sufficient to avoid yield losses from stemborers [188]. Therefore, without habitat manipulation close to the rice fields, the need for augmentative releases of Trichogramma should be assessed each cropping season.
As indicated in Figure 6, compared to landscape effects, directed ecological engineering interventions can have more predictable impacts on Lepidoptera pests and their natural enemies. Trap plants show the greatest potential to reduce stemborer populations and damage [216]. Trap plants may also overcome potential issues related to tall bund vegetation providing a suitable microclimate for the pests. If released Trichogramma wasps also parasitize the eggs of Lepidoptera on the trap plants, then inundative releases in the presence of trap plants may be redundant or at best give diminished economic returns. However, trap plants may also be synergistic with biocontrol releases by providing a banker system where Trichogramma wasps can build-up numbers that possibly result in higher parasitism rates of Lepidoptera in the main rice crop during subsequent generations. Furthermore, if Trichogramma wasp do not parasitize egg masses on trap plants, then the effects of combining trap plants with inundative releases will probably be additive (i.e., cases 1–3) (e.g., see Rajesh et al. (2021) [220]). There is little possibility of trap plants being antagonistic to inundative releases (case 5).
Repellent plants have not yet been used against leaffolders and stemborers in ecologically engineered rice fields. In any case, the possibilities for combining repellence with inundative releases are perhaps limited, unless the repellent plants are intercropped with rice. For example, planting repellent plants on rice bunds might push Lepidoptera pests away from the bunds and towards the rice, especially since parasitoids and rice herbivores are both favored by large areas of non-fragmented rice habitat [193]. In the search for possible repellent plants, which might function well against other rice pests, care should also be taken to screen the plants for their repellence of Trichogramma parasitoids. Similarly, suitable banker plants have not been identified for the parasitoids of rice leaffolders or stemborers (but see previous paragraph). It is possible that banker systems might be developed using other approaches if Trichogramma and other egg parasitoids are to be enhanced. If for example, Trichogramma wasps also parasitize fly eggs (e.g., such as Sepidon spp.), then providing fly eggs in decomposing materials might enhance Trichogramma numbers. To our knowledge, such a system has not been assessed in rice.
Combining nectar plants with inundative releases makes intuitive sense because flowering plants will prolong the longevity of ovipositing Trichogramma females and increase their fecundity [243]. Furthermore, Vu et al. (2018) [195] found higher parasitism of YSB eggs by T. japonicum in ecologically engineered fields compared to conventional fields; however, in the same study the parasitism rates were generally low (<15%). Augmenting the numbers of parasitoid wasps in the fields using release cards could potentially increase the final parasitism rates in such situations, representing a possible synergy between the two biocontrol approaches. Evidence so far suggests that vegetation strips, apart from benefitting rice ecosystems generally (e.g., promoting the natural regulation of a range of rice pests including planthoppers), will provide extra resources that enhance the efficacy of Trichogramma spp. used in augmentation biocontrol [38,160,195].
There are also some possible antagonistic effects of combining Trichogramma releases and CBC that should be addressed in future research. For example, Horgan et al. (2017) [21] found that stemborer egg mortality was density-dependent in rice fields without pesticides (with and without vegetation strips). Although the source of mortality was not identified, it is probable that crickets or other arthropod predators consumed many of the eggs (see also de Kraker et al. (1999) [244]). Such contemporaneous mortality of Lepidoptera eggs (and intraguild predation) is likely to be higher in fields where natural enemies are conserved. Whether such added mortality could result in a redundancy of inundative releases is unknown. If leaffolders and stemborers are sufficiently managed through CBC, then augmentative releases will at least result in profitability losses for farmers, and could also reduce rates of parasitism from other naturally occurring egg parasitoids such as Telenomus spp. that may be better adapted to the specific rice landscape.
Although several species of parasitoid will naturally parasitize leaffolder and stemborer eggs in rice fields [21,165], little is known about their coexistence mechanisms. A number of studies have reported several different parasitoids occurring in the same stemborer egg masses [21,165,195]. To our knowledge, possible competitive interactions or the possible exclusion of native parasitoids by released biocontrol agents have not been documented. Possible negative effects on non-target Lepidoptera or other arthropod species of conservation interest has also received little research attention. Romeis et al. (2005) [243] suggest that a range of mechanisms by which Trichogramma adults locate host eggs will limit their impacts on non-target species, particularly if these occur on plants that are taxonomically distinct from crop species, or where plants are protected by trichomes or other leaf-surface defenses. Further research on this topic is certainly warranted.

4. Conclusions

Based on our review of the literature, Trichogramma-based biological control of leaffolders and stemborers has shown considerable potential in rice systems in Asia and North Africa. Nevertheless, biological control using Trichogramma wasps has not been applied at large scales until recently in China. Furthermore, CBC, particularly where this includes manipulations of rice habitat, has been associated with reductions in damage to rice from stemborers and an increase in the profitability of rice farming. Both methods have demonstrated advantages over insecticide-based controls, including more cost-effective pest management. Our appraisal of the methods suggests that trap plants, nectar plants and intercropping (Figure 6) in particular offer the clearest possibilities for combining inundative releases and CBC and thereby enhancing pest management. However, it is difficult to predict the possible outcomes of combining the methods due to a series of knowledge gaps related to both methods. In particular, there is little knowledge of the potential ecological interactions between artificially reared Trichogramma and naturally occurring predators and parasitoids in diversified rice systems. Furthermore, as technologies develop and improve, possibilities for redundancies or diminishing returns from combining both methods will likely increase—particularly if both methods are applied as preventative controls. However, using inundative releases as a curative measure, based on clear guidelines related to risks of damage, will avoid possible redundancies where the methods are combined.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy12122958/s1, Table S1: Annotated list of reviewed articles related to augmentative biological control of rice leaffolders and stemborers; Table S2: List of reviewed articles related to rice habitat manipulation for rice stemborer management.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.B., R.T. and F.G.H.; methodology, D.B., R.T. and F.G.H.; writing—original draft preparation, F.G.H., D.B. and R.T.; writing—review and editing, F.G.H., D.B. and R.T.; visualization, F.G.H.; funding acquisition, F.G.H., D.B. and R.T.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported through the CABI Development Fund. CABI is an international intergovernmental organization with core financial support from member countries and lead agencies. F.G.H. was partially funded by the Catholic University of Maule (Chile).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Muthayya, S.; Sugimoto, J.D.; Montgomery, S.; Maberly, G.F. An overview of global rice production, supply, trade, and consumption. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2014, 1324, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Godfray, H.C.J.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S.M.; Toulmin, C. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010, 327, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Horgan, F.G.; Crisol, E. Hybrid rice and insect herbivores in Asia. Entomol. Exp. Et Appl. 2013, 148, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Laborte, A.G.; de Bie, K.; Smaling, E.M.A.; Moya, P.F.; Boling, A.A.; Van Ittersum, M.K. Rice yields and yield gaps in Southeast Asia: Past trends and future outlook. Eur. J. Agron. 2012, 36, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yu, Y.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, W. Changes in rice yields in China since 1980 associated with cultivar improvement, climate and crop management. Field Crops Res. 2012, 136, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Stuart, A.M.; Pame, A.R.P.; Silva, J.V.; Dikitanan, R.C.; Rutsaert, P.; Malabayabas, A.J.B.; Lampayan, R.M.; Radanielson, A.M.; Singleton, G.R. Yield gaps in rice-based farming systems: Insights from local studies and prospects for future analysis. Field Crops Res. 2016, 194, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Horgan, F.G. Insect herbivores of rice: Their natural regulation and ecologically based management. In Rice Production Worldwide; Chauhan, B.S., Shivay, Y.S., Kumar, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 279–302. [Google Scholar]
  8. Matteson, P.C. Insect pest management in tropical Asian irrigated rice. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2000, 45, 549–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Horgan, F.G.; Romena, A.M.; Bernal, C.C.; Almazan, M.L.P.; Ramal, A.F. Stem borers revisited: Host resistance, tolerance, and vulnerability determine levels of field damage from a complex of Asian rice stemborers. Crop Prot. 2021, 142, 105513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rubia, E.; Shepard, B.; Yambao, E.; Ingram, K.; Arida, G.; Penning, D.V. Stem borer damage and grain yield of flooded rice. J. Plant Prot. Trop. 1989, 6, 205–211. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cheng, X.; Chang, C.; Dai, S.-M. Responses of striped stem borer, Chilo suppressalis (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae), from Taiwan to a range of insecticides. Pest Manag. Sci. 2010, 66, 762–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Wu, J.; Ge, L.; Liu, F.; Song, Q.; Stanley, D. Pesticide-induced planthopper population resurgence in rice cropping systems. Annu. Rev. Entomol 2020, 65, 409–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Wang, D.; Lü, L.; He, Y.; Shi, Q.; Wang, G. Effects of insecticides on oviposition and host discrimination behavior in Trichogramma chilonis (Hymenoptera:Trichogrammatidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2016, 109, 2380–2387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Pingali, P.L.; Roger, P.A. Impact Of Pesticides On Farmer Health And The Rice Environment; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; Volume 7. [Google Scholar]
  15. Jensen, H.K.; Konradsen, F.; Jørs, E.; Petersen, J.H.; Dalsgaard, A. Pesticide use and self-reported symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning among aquatic armers in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. J. Toxicol. 2011, 2011, 639814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Snelder, D.; Masipiqueña, M.; De Snoo, G. Risk assessment of pesticide usage by smallholder farmers in the Cagayan Valley (Philippines). Crop Prot. 2008, 27, 747–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sapbamrer, R.; Nata, S. Health symptoms related to pesticide exposure and agricultural tasks among rice farmers from northern Thailand. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2014, 19, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Luo, Y.F.; Fu, H.L.; Traore, S. Biodiversity conservation in rice paddies in China: Toward ecological sustainability. Sustainability 2014, 6, 6107–6124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Chantarasa-ard, S.; Hirashima, Y.; Miura, T. Ecological studies on Anagrus incarnatus Haliday (Hymenoptera:Mymaridae), an egg parasitoid of the rice planthoppers: II. Spatial distribution of parasitism and host eggs in the paddy field. J. Fac. Agric. Kyushu Univ. 1984, 29, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Litsinger, J.A.; Alviola, A.L.; Dela Cruz, C.G.; Canapi, B.L.; Batay-An, E.H.; Barrion, A.T. Rice white stemborer Scirpophaga innotata (Walker) in southern Mindanao, Philippines. II. Synchrony of planting and natural enemies. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2006, 52, 23–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Horgan, F.G.; Ramal, A.F.; Villegas, J.M.; Jamoralin, A.; Bernal, C.C.; Perez, M.O.; Pasang, J.M.; Naredo, A.I.; Almazan, M.L.P. Effects of bund crops and insecticide treatments on arthropod diversity and herbivore regulation in tropical rice fields. J. Appl. Entomol. 2017, 141, 587–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. de Kraker, J.; van Huis, A.; Heong, K.L.; van Lenteren, J.C.; Rabbinge, R. Population dynamics of rice leaffolders (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae) and their natural enemies in irrigated rice in the Philippines. Bull. Entomol. Res. 1999, 89, 411–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Kenmore, P.E.; Perez, C.; Dyck, V.; Gutierrez, A. Population regulation of the rice brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens Stål) within rice fields in the Philippines. J. Plant Prot. Trop. 1984, 1, 19–37. [Google Scholar]
  24. Bottrell, D.G.; Schoenly, K.G. Resurrecting the ghost of green revolutions past: The brown planthopper as a recurring threat to high-yielding rice production in tropical Asia. J. Asia-Pac. Entomol. 2012, 15, 122–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Horgan, F.G.; Peñalver-Cruz, A. Compatibility of insecticides with rice resistance to planthoppers as influenced by the timing and frequency of applications. Insects 2022, 13, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Horgan, F.G.; Peñalver-Cruz, A.; Almazan, M.L.P. Rice resistance buffers against the induced enhancement of brown planthopper fitness by some insecticides. Crops 2021, 1, 166–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Babendreier, D.; Hou, M.; Tang, R.; Zhang, F.; Vongsabouth, T.; Win, K.K.; Kang, M.; Peng, H.; Song, K.; Annamalai, S.; et al. Biological control of lepidopteran pests in rice: A multi-nation case study from Asia. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 2020, 11, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Babendreier, D.; Wan, M.; Tang, R.; Gu, R.; Tambo, J.; Liu, Z.; Grossrieder, M.; Kansiime, M.; Wood, A.; Zhang, F.; et al. Impact assessment of biological control-based integrated pest management in rice and maize in the Greater Mekong Subregion. Insects 2019, 10, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Zang, L.-S.; Wang, S.; Zhang, F.; Desneux, N. Biological control with Trichogramma in China: History, present status, and perspectives. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2021, 66, 463–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Ali, M.P.; Bari, M.N.; Haque, S.S.; Kabir, M.M.M.; Afrin, S.; Nowrin, F.; Islam, M.S.; Landis, D.A. Establishing next-generation pest control services in rice fields: Eco-agriculture. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 10180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Gurr, G.M.; Read, D.M.Y.; Catindig, J.L.A.; Cheng, J.A.; Liu, J.; Lan, L.P.; Heong, K.L. Parasitoids of the rice leaffolder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis and prospects for enhancing biological control with nectar plants. Agric. For. Entomol. 2012, 14, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Horgan, F.G.; Ramal, A.F.; Bernal, C.C.; Villegas, J.M.; Stuart, A.M.; Almazan, M.L.P. Applying ecological engineering for sustainable and resilient rice production systems. Procedia Food Sci. 2016, 6, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Gurr, G.M.; Lu, Z.; Zheng, X.; Xu, H.; Zhu, P.; Chen, G.; Yao, X.; Cheng, J.; Zhu, Z.; Catindig, J.L.; et al. Multi-country evidence that crop diversification promotes ecological intensification of agriculture. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 16014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Horgan, F.G.; Vu, Q.; Mundaca, E.A.; Crisol-Martínez, E. Restoration of rice ecosystem services: ‘ecological engineering for pest management’ incentives and practices in the Mekong Delta Region of Vietnam. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhu, P.; Zheng, X.; Zhang, F.; Xu, H.; Yang, Y.; Chen, G.; Lu, Z.; Johnson, A.C.; Gurr, G.M. Quantifying the respective and additive effects of nectar plant crop borders and withholding insecticides on biological control of pests in subtropical rice. J. Pest Sci. 2018, 91, 575–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Horgan, F.G. Integrating gene deployment and crop management for improved rice resistance to Asian planthoppers. Crop Prot. 2018, 110, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Peñalver-Cruz, A.; Horgan, F.G. Interactions between rice resistance to planthoppers and honeydew-related egg parasitism under varying levels of nitrogenous fertilizer. Insects 2022, 13, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhu, P.; Zheng, X.; Johnson, A.C.; Chen, G.; Xu, H.; Zhang, F.; Yao, X.; Heong, K.; Lu, Z.; Gurr, G.M. Ecological engineering for rice pest suppression in China. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 42, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cherif, A.; Mansour, R.; Grissa-Lebdi, K. The egg parasitoids Trichogramma: From laboratory mass rearing to biological control of lepidopteran pests. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2021, 31, 661–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Greenberg, S.M.; Morrison, R.K.; Nordlund, D.A.; King, E.G. A review of the scientific literature and methods for production of factitious hosts for use in mass rearing of Trichogramma spp. (Hymenoptera:Trichogrammatidae) in the former Soviet Union, the United States, Western Europe and China. J. Entomol. Sci. 1998, 33, 15–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jin, M.; Yang, H.; Yang, S.; Lui, D. Review on control of rice leaf roller by Trichogramma and bacteria. South Agric. Bull. 1980, 28–32. [Google Scholar]
  42. Smith, S.M. Biological control with Trichogramma: Advances, successes, and potential of their use. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1996, 41, 375–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Consoli, F.L.; Parra, J.R.; Zucchi, R.A. Egg Parasitoids in Agroecosystems with Emphasis on Trichogramma; Springer Science and Business Media: Cham, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wang, Y.H.; Wu, C.X.; Cang, T.; Yang, L.Z.; Yu, W.H.; Zhao, X.P.; Wang, Q.; Cai, L.M. Toxicity risk of insecticides to the insect egg parasitoid Trichogramma evanescens Westwood (Hymenoptera:Trichogrammatidae). Pest Manag. Sci. 2014, 70, 398–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. van Lenteren, J.C.; Bolckmans, K.; Köhl, J.; Ravensberg, W.J.; Urbaneja, A. Biological control using invertebrates and microorganisms: Plenty of new opportunities. BioControl 2018, 63, 39–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Wang, Z.-Y.; He, K.-L.; Zhao, J.-Z.; Zhao, D.-R. Integrated pest management in China. In Integrated Pest Management in the Global Arena; Maredia, M., Dakouo, D., Mota-Sanchez, D., Eds.; CABI Publishing: Wallingford, UK, 2003; pp. 197–208. [Google Scholar]
  47. Nickel, J.L. Biological control of rice stem borers: A feasibility study. Int. Rice Res. Inst. Tech. Bull. 1964, 2, 112. [Google Scholar]
  48. Iyatomi, K. Parasitism of eggs of Chilo suppressalis by Trichogramma japonicum. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress Entomology, Montreal, QC, Canada, 17–25 August 1956; pp. 897–899. [Google Scholar]
  49. Afifah, L.; Bayfurqon, F.M.; Siriyah, S.L. Control of rice stem borer Scirpophaga sp. using Trichogramma sp. J. Pengabdi. Kpd. Masy. 2019, 5, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tabudlong, B.M.; Estoy, G.F., Jr. Field validation of egg parasitoid, Trichogramma japonicum Ashmead, against white rice stemborer, Scirpophaga innotata Walker, in Agusan del Norte [Philippines]. Philipp. Entomol. 2014, 28, 210. [Google Scholar]
  51. Perex, M.; Cadapan, E. The efficacy of Trichogramma species as biological control agents against some rice insect pests. Philipp. Entomol. 1986, 6, 463–470. [Google Scholar]
  52. Oskoo, H. Effects of rearing conditions on efficacy of Trichogramma maidis against rice stem borer (Chilo suppressalis) and green rice semilooper (Naranga aenescens) in Mazandaran, Iran. In Proceedings of the 11th Plant Protection Congress of Iran, Rasht, Iran, 28 August–2 September 1993. [Google Scholar]
  53. Polaszek, A.; Rabbi, M.F.; Islam, Z.; Buckley, Y.M. Trichogramma zahiri (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) an egg parasitoid of the rice hispa Dicladispa armigera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in Bangladesh. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2007, 92, 529–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bari, M.N.; Jahan, M.; Islam, K.S.; Ali, M.P. Host egg age and supplementary diet influence the parasitism activity of Trichogramma zahiri (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2016, 109, 1102–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Horgan, F.G.; Romena, A.M.; Bernal, C.C.; Almazan, M.L.P.; Ramal, A.F. Differences between the strength of preference–performance coupling in two rice stemborers (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae, Crambidae) promotes coexistence at field-plot scales. Environ. Entomol. 2021, 50, 929–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pandi, V.; Babu, P.C.S.; Kailasam, C. Prediction of damage and yield loss caused by rice leaffolder at different crop periods in a susceptible rice cultivar (IR 50). J. Appl. Entomol. 1998, 122, 595–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Litsinger, J.A.; Bandong, J.P.; Canapi, B.L.; Dela Cruz, C.G.; Pantua, P.C.; Alviola, A.L.; Batay-An, E.H. Evaluation of action thresholds for chronic rice insect pests in the Philippines. III. Leaffolders. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2006, 52, 181–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Tripathi, P.P.; Anup, C.; Asha, S. Suppression of dead-heart and folded leaf symptoms in paddy by Trichogramma japonicum Ashmead in Seppa area of Arunachal Pradesh, India. Environ. Ecol. 2017, 35, 1297–1299. [Google Scholar]
  59. Sharma, S.; Shera, P.; Sangha, K. Impact of bio-intensive integrated pest management practices on insect pests and grain yield in basmati rice. J. Biol. Control 2018, 32, 137–141. [Google Scholar]
  60. Sangha, K.S.; Shera, P.S.; Sharma, S.; Kaur, R. On-farm impact of egg parasitoid, Trichogramma spp. against lepidopteran pests in organic basmati rice. J. Biol. Control 2018, 32, 116–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Jinhua Plant Protection Group. Briefing on experiments using Trichogramma for control of rice leaf roller. Technol. Brief. 1972, 9–11. [Google Scholar]
  62. Wuxing Plant Protection Group. Several technical issues on Trichogramma release for rice leaf roller. Technol. Today 1977, 26–31. [Google Scholar]
  63. Wuxing Institute of Agricultural Sciences. Control of rice leaf roller with Trichogramma during 1977. Nat. Enemies Insects 1979, 51–55. [Google Scholar]
  64. Jinhua Institute of Agricultural Sciences. Discussion on release technology of Trichogramma confusum Viggiani for control of rice leaf roller. Entomol. Knowl. 1979, 11–13. [Google Scholar]
  65. Xu, L.; Zhao, L.; Liu, G.; Zhang, X.; Li, J.; Xu, Y.; Chen, Y. Effects of species and release density of Trichogramma on control effects to rice leaf roller. China Plant Prot. 2016, 8, 37–40. [Google Scholar]
  66. Guangdong Rice Biocontrol Team. Using of Trichogramma for control of rice leaf roller. Chin. Sci. Bull. 1973, 232. [Google Scholar]
  67. Guangdong Rice Biocontrol Team. Utilization of Trichogramma for control of rice leaf roller. Acta Entomol. Sin. 1974, 269–280. [Google Scholar]
  68. Guo, M. Discrimination of Trichogramma japonicum and other species of Trichogramma for hosts and competition among them. Nat. Enemies Insects 1985, 7, 192–200. [Google Scholar]
  69. Yichun Plant Protection Group. Field trials on control of rice leaf roller with Trichogramma. Jiangxi Agric. Technol. 1973, 9–19. [Google Scholar]
  70. Fujian Biocontrol Group. Experiments on pest control with Trichogramma. Fujian Agric. Technol. 1974, 27–33. [Google Scholar]
  71. Zhuang, J. Effects of Trichogramma on rice leaf roller. Gubei Plant Prot. 2014, 21–22. [Google Scholar]
  72. Zhang, R. Controlling rice leaf roller by artificial release Trichogramma. Fujian Sci. Technol. Rice Wheat 2012, 30, 53–54. [Google Scholar]
  73. Sichuan Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Briefing on control of rice leaf roller with Trichogramma chilonis. Sichuan Agric. Technol. 1974, 31–36. [Google Scholar]
  74. Guiyang Agricultural Bureau. Effects on control of rice stem borer with Trichogramma. Entomol. Knowl. 1975, 14–16. [Google Scholar]
  75. Xie, S.; Zhou, W. Effects of Trichogramma japonicum on rice leaf roller. Agric. Techonol. 2014, 106. [Google Scholar]
  76. Huang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Zhu, G.; Wen, J.; Li, W.; Fang, B.; Liu, Y.; Xia, C.; Liu, G. Evaluation of control effect of Trichogramma japonicum against Cnaphalocrocis medinalis and Chilo suppressalis. Acta Agric. Jiangxi 2012, 24, 37–40. [Google Scholar]
  77. Xuzhou Institute of Agricultural Sciences. Experiments on application of Trichogramma for controlling rice leaf roller. Entomol. Knowl. 1977, 5. [Google Scholar]
  78. Yang, L. Effects of sex pheromone and Trichogramma for rice borer. Shanghai Agric. Technol. 2017, 4, 130–131. [Google Scholar]
  79. Yuanjiang Institute of Agricultural Sciences. Experiments on control of rice leaf roller with Trichogramma Yunnan. Agric. Technol. 1972, 2, 18–20.
  80. Shen, X.C.; Wang, K.Z.; Meng, G. The inoculative release of Trichogramma dendrolimi for controlling corn borer and rice leafroller. Colloq. De L’inra 1988, 43, 575–580. [Google Scholar]
  81. Chen, B.; Zhang, W.; Yang, W.; Jiang, Q.; Huang, C.; Zhou, G.; Huang, X. Experiment on release of Trichogramma for control of rice leaf roller in organic rice fields. Guangxi Plant Prot. 2016, 29, 5–7. [Google Scholar]
  82. Chen, L.; Lin, C.; Xie, Y.; Qin, B.; Wang, H. Experiment on rice leaf folder control by releasing Trichogramma chilonis J. Guangxi Agric. 2016, 31, 15–17. [Google Scholar]
  83. Jiang, Q.; Zhang, W.; Peng, H.; Chen, B.; Huang, C.; Huang, X.; Zhou, G. Study on release technology for Trichogramma chilonis against rice leaf roller. Guangxi Plant Prot. 2016, 29, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  84. Zhu, X.; Ouyang, C.; He, J.; Fang, T. Briefing on demonstration of Trichogramma release for control of rice leaf roller. China Agric. Inform. 2016, 8, 110–111. [Google Scholar]
  85. Hang, D. Study on control effects of different release strategy for Trichogramma on rice stem borer and leaf roller. Anhui Agric. Sci. Bull. 2017, 23, 64–66. [Google Scholar]
  86. Wang, R.; Xiao, W.; Shao, C.; Wei, Q.; Qin, A.; Yang, R. Research on application of manually released Trichogramma for control of rice leaf roller. China Plant Prot. 2017, 37, 46–48. [Google Scholar]
  87. Chen, C.C.; Chiu, S.C. Studies on the field releases of Trichogramma chilonis and the factors affecting its activity. J. Agric. Res. China 1986, 35, 99–106. [Google Scholar]
  88. Bentur, J.S.; Kalode, M.B.; Rajendran, B.; Patel, V.S. Field evaluation of the egg parasitoid, Trichogramma japonicum Ash. (Hym., Trichogrammatidae) against the rice leaf folder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guen.) (Lep., Pyralidae) in India. J. Appl. Entomol. 1994, 117, 257–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Katti, G.; Pasalu, I.C.; Varma, N.R.G.; Krishnaiah, K. Integration of pheromone mass trapping and biological control for management of yellow stem borer and leaf folder in rice. Indian J. Entomol. 2001, 63, 325–328. [Google Scholar]
  90. Sehrawat, S.; Lal, R.; Dahiya, K. Efficacy of different insecticides and Trichogramma chilonis Ishii in managing rice leaffolder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guenee. Pestic. Res. J. 2002, 14, 153–157. [Google Scholar]
  91. Garg, D.K.; Kumar, P.; Singh, R.N.; Pathak, M. Role of parasitoid Trichogramma japonicum and other natural enemies in the management of yellow stem borer and leaf folder in basmati rice. Indian J. Entomol. 2002, 64, 117–123. [Google Scholar]
  92. Mishra, D.; Kamlesh, K. Field efficacy of bio-agent Trichogramma spp. against stem borer and leaf folder in rice crop under mid-western plain zone of UP. Environ. Ecol. 2009, 27, 1885–1887. [Google Scholar]
  93. Singh, S.; Prasad, C.S.; Nath, L.; Tiwari, G.N. Eco-friendly management of Scirpophaga incertulas (Walk.) and Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guen.) in Basmati rice. Ann. Plant Prot. Sci. 2008, 16, 11–16. [Google Scholar]
  94. Kumar, S.; Khan, M. Bio-efficacy of Trichogramma spp. against yellow stem borer and leaf folder in rice ecosystem. Ann. Plant Prot. Sci. 2005, 13, 97–99. [Google Scholar]
  95. Kumar, S.; Maurya, R.P.; Khan, M.A. Impact of biointensive pest management strategies on yellow stem borer and leaf folder in rice and their effect on the economics of production. J. Entomol. Res. 2007, 31, 11–13. [Google Scholar]
  96. Bade, B.; Pokharkar, D.; Ghorpade, S. Evaluation of trichogrammatids for the management of stem borer and leaf folder infesting paddy. J.-Maharashtra Agric. Univ. 2006, 31, 308. [Google Scholar]
  97. Usha Rani, P.; Indu Kumari, S.; Sriramakrishna, T.; Ratna Sudhakar, T. Kairomones extracted from rice yellow stem borer and their influence on egg parasitization by Trichogramma japonicum Ashmead. J. Chem. Ecol. 2007, 33, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Nalini, R.; Vasanthi, A.; Saritha, K.; Shanthi, M.; Yesuraja, I.; Baskaran, R. Evaluation of rice IPDM in farmers field at Madurai. Ann. Plant Prot. Sci. 2013, 21, 199–200. [Google Scholar]
  99. Karthikeyan, K.; Jacob, S.; Purushothaman, S. Field evaluation of egg parasitoids, Trichogramma japonicum Ashmead and Trichogramma chilonis Ishii, against rice yellow stem borer and leaf folder. J. Biol. Control 2007, 21, 261–265. [Google Scholar]
  100. Karthikeyan, K.; Sosamma, J.; Pathummal, J.; Purushothaman, S.M. Evaluation of different integrated pest management modules for the management of major pests of rice (Oryza sativa). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2010, 80, 59–62. [Google Scholar]
  101. Kaur, R.; Brar, K.S.; Jagmohan, S.; Maninder, S. Large-scale evaluation of bio-intensive management for leaf folder and stem borer on basmati rice. J. Biol. Contr. 2007, 21, 255–259. [Google Scholar]
  102. Jena, B.C.; Gupta, S.; Das, S.K. Effectiveness of integrated pest management modules in suppression of major insect pests in rice. J. Plant Prot. Environ. 2012, 9, 57–59. [Google Scholar]
  103. Sharmah, D. Eco-friendly management of rice leaf folder (Cnaphalocrocis medinalis) Guenee (Pyralidae:Lepidoptera) in South Tripura, India. Int. J. Phys. Appl. Sci. 2015, 2, 17–23. [Google Scholar]
  104. Chhavi, P.K.S.; Srivastava, A. Field efficacy of Trichogramma chilonis against rice leaf folder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis in Kangra Valley of Himachal Pradesh. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2019, 7, 600–603. [Google Scholar]
  105. Sagheer, M.; Ashfaq, M.; Rana, S. Integration of some biopesticides and Trichogramma chilonis for the sustainable management of rice leaf folder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenee) (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae). Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 2008, 45, 69–74. [Google Scholar]
  106. Pham, B.Q.; Nguyen, V.V.; Nguyen, V.S. Utilization of Trichogramma Japonicum for control of the rice leaf folder (Cnaphalocorosis medinalis) at Van Quan Cooperative, Me Linh District, Vinh Phu Province. In Proceedings of the Trichogramma and Other Egg Parasitoids 4th International Symposium, Cairo, Egypt, 4–7 October 1995; Ed. INRA: Paris, France, 1995; Volume 73, pp. 127–129. [Google Scholar]
  107. Hattori, I.; Siwi, S.S. Rice stemborers in Indonesia. Jpn. Agric. Res. Q. 1986, 20, 25–30. [Google Scholar]
  108. Ragini, J.; Thangaraju, D.; David, P. Relative abundance of rice stem borer species in Tamil Nadu. Madras Agric. J. 2000, 87, 228–234. [Google Scholar]
  109. Luo, G.-H.; Luo, Z.-X.; Zhang, Z.-L.; Sun, Y.; Lu, M.-H.; Shu, Z.-L.; Tian, Z.-H.; Hoffmann, A.A.; Fang, J.-C. The response to flooding of two overwintering rice stem borers likely accounts for their changing impacts. J. Pest Sci. 2021, 94, 451–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Iyatomi, K. Studies on the utilization of Trichogramma japonicum, an egg parasitoid of rice stem borer. Tech. Bull. Shizuoka Agric. Exp. Sta. 1943, 2, 1–107. [Google Scholar]
  111. Shibuya, M. Studies on the utilization of Trichogramma japonicum, an egg-parasite of rice stem borer. In Commemoration Issue of the 50th Anniversary of the Foundation of Shizuoka Agricultural Experiment Station; Shizouka Agricultural Experiment Station: Shizouka, Japan, 1950; pp. 12–33. [Google Scholar]
  112. Hang, D.; Jiao, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Yang, X.; Xia, B.; Sun, W. Control of first generation Chilo suppressalis by releasing Trichogramma confusum Viggiani in rice field. J. Agric. Catastrophol. 2011, 1, 28–30. [Google Scholar]
  113. Hu, C.; Wang, J.; Du, G.; Wang, B.; Lin, H.; Li, G. Demonstration on Trichogramma release against rice stem borer. Anhui Agric. Sci. Bull. 2016, 22, 70. [Google Scholar]
  114. Dong, B.; Li, X.; Gao, D.; Zhang, F. Research on Trichogramma chilonis for control of rice stem borer. Plant Prot. 2001, 27, 45–46. [Google Scholar]
  115. Chen, R.; Zheng, H.; Shi, Z.; Huang, Y.; Fan, L.; Ma, J. Trichogramma as a vector of pest control microbes against rice stem borer. J. Jilin Agric. Sci. 2007, 32, 39–40. [Google Scholar]
  116. Ko, K.; Liu, Y.; Hou, M.; Babendreier, D.; Zhang, F.; Song, K. Evaluation for potential Trichogramma (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) strains for control of the striped stem borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in the Greater Mekong Subregion. J. Econ. Entomol. 2014, 107, 955–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Si, Z.; Chen, J.; Song, X.; Gong, X.; Zhao, Y.; Zhai, H. Control effect of Trichogramma japonicum on Chilo suppressalis in rice. China Rice 2014, 20, 98–100. [Google Scholar]
  118. Xu, D. Application tests on controlling rice-stem borer by artificial releasing of Trichogramma in 2015. North Rice 2016, 46, 36–37. [Google Scholar]
  119. Wu, L.; Wang, L.; Zhao, S.; Dong, Y.; Yang, H.; Tan, K.; Hu, J. Control effect with different kinds of Trichogramma against Chilo suppressalis in Qiqihar Area. Heilongjiang Agric. Sci. 2016, 11, 67–68. [Google Scholar]
  120. Chen, Y. Effects of Trichogramma chilonis on rice stem borer. Shanghai Agric. Technol. 2015, 3, 130. [Google Scholar]
  121. Zheng, X.; Lu, Y.; Zhong, L.; Huang, X.; Chen, H.; Yao, X.; Lv, Z. Practice on green technology for striped stem borer control in Zhejiang rice fields. China Plant Prot. 2017, 37, 42–45. [Google Scholar]
  122. Wang, D.; Ma, X. Evaluation of Trichogramma on rice stem borer. Jiangsu Agric. Sci. 2015, 43, 113–115. [Google Scholar]
  123. Kang, M.; Zhao, J.; Gu, Z. Effects of Trichogramma on rice stem borers in Mangshi Dehong. Yunnan Agric. Sci. Technol. 2015, 5, 54–55. [Google Scholar]
  124. Tang, R.; Babendreier, D.; Zhang, F.; Kang, M.; Song, K.; Hou, M.-L. Assessment of Trichogramma japonicum and T. chilonis as potential biological control agents of yellow stem borer in rice. Insects 2017, 8, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  125. Kumar, A.; Lal, M.N.; Prasad, C.S. Effect of treatments on yield and economics of paddy cultivation against yellow stem borer, Scirpophaga incertulas (Walker). Ann. Plant Prot. Sci. 2011, 19, 37–40. [Google Scholar]
  126. Pandey, S.; Choubey, M. Management of yellow stem borer, Scirpophaga incertulas in rice. Agric. Sci. Dig. 2012, 32, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
  127. Visalakshmi, V.; Rao, P.M.; Satyanarayna, N. Evaluation of pest management modules in kharif rice. J. Crop Weed 2013, 9, 165–167. [Google Scholar]
  128. Shirke, M.S.; Bade, B.A. Efficacy of Trichogramma japonicum against paddy stem borer. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univers. 1997, 22, 338–339. [Google Scholar]
  129. Beevi, S.P.; Lyla, K.R.; Karthikeyan, K. Biological Control of Lepidopteran Pests. In Proceedings of the Symposium of Biological Control of Lepidopteran Pests, Bangalore, India, 17–18 July 2002; Tandon, P.L., Ballal, C.R., Jalali, S.K., Rabindra, R.J., Eds.; 2003; pp. 329–332. [Google Scholar]
  130. Kaur, R.; Brar, K. Evaluation of different doses of Trichogramma species for the management of leaf folder and stem borer on Basmati rice. J. Biol. Control 2008, 22, 131–135. [Google Scholar]
  131. Lyla, K.; Beevi, S.P.; Babu, M.P.; Jalali, S. Biological control of rice pests in ‘kole’ lands of Kerala. J. Biol. Control 2010, 24, 268–270. [Google Scholar]
  132. Singh, D.; Singh, A.K.; Kumar, A. On-farm evaluation of integrated management of rice yellow stem borer (Scirpophaga incertulas Walk.) in rice-wheat cropping system under low land condition. J. AgriSearch 2014, 1, 40–44. [Google Scholar]
  133. Mahal, M.; Kajal, V.; Kaur, R.; Singh, R. Integration of chemical and biocontrol approaches for the management of leaffolder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guenee and stem borer, Scirpophaga incertulas Walker on basmati rice. J. Biol. Control 2006, 20, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  134. Aggarwal, N.; Sharma, S.; Jalali, S. On-farm impact of biocontrol technology against rice stem borer, Scircophaga incertulas (Walker) and rice leaf folder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenee) in aromatic rice. Entomol. Gen. 2016, 36, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Shenhmar, M.; Varma, G.C. Field evaluation of Trichogramma japonicum Ashmed against rice stem borer Scirpophaga incertulas Walker. J. Biol. Control 1995, 9, 7633. [Google Scholar]
  136. Basana, G.G.; Pandi, G.G.P.; Ullah, F.; Patil, N.B.; Sahu, M.; Adak, T.; Pokhare, S.; Yadav, M.K.; Mahendiran, A.; Mittapelly, P.; et al. Performance of Trichogramma japonicum under field conditions as a function of the factitious host species used for mass rearing. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0256246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Borah, R.K. Parasitization efficacy of Trichogramma japonicum on rice stem borer in Assam. Ann. Agric. Res. 1994, 15, 124–125. [Google Scholar]
  138. Upamanya, G.; Dutta, P.; Sarma, R.; Sarmah, A.; Kalita, N.; Sarma, H. Biological management of rice stem borer in the farmer’s field of Assam. Insect Environ. 2013, 19, 73–76. [Google Scholar]
  139. Mohanraj, P.; Veenakumari, K.; Mandal, A. Biocontrol of the yellow stem borer using Trichogramma—A parasitoid native to the Andamans. Rice Biotechnol. 1995, 23, 9–10. [Google Scholar]
  140. Shikari, D. Studies on Bio-Intensive Management of Rice Yellow Stem Borer (Scirpophaga incertulas Walk.) and Rice Leaf Folder (Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guen.) in Rain Fed Rice Growing Areas of West Bengal. Ph.D. Thesis, Bidhan Chandra Agricultural University, West Bengal, India, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  141. Syarief, M.; Erdiyansyah, I. Augmentation Model of Trichogramma japonicum for Yellow Rice Stem Borer (Schirpophaga incertulas Waker) Control on Organic Rice Cultivation. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on food and agriculture, Bali, Indonesia, 20–21 October 2018. [Google Scholar]
  142. Astrodjojo, S.; Sudjud, S.; DAS, S.S. Effectiveness test of parasitization by parasitoid Tricogramma japonicum in controlling white rice stem borer (Scirphopaga innotata). Int. J. Food Agric. Nat. Resour. 2021, 2, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Metwally, M.M.; Serag El-Dien, F.S. Parasitism and biology of the egg parasitoid, Trichogramma evanescens Westw. in relation to various host insects at Kafr El-Sheike Region J. Plant Prot. Pathol. 2009, 34, 3905–3911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. El-Habashy, M.M.; El-Shafey, R.A.S.; Anis, G.B.; Hammoud, S.A.A. Yield potential of novel rice genotypes and effect of Trichogramma release and blas resistance on rice productivity. J. Plant Prot. Pathol. 2015, 6, 1381–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  145. Shawer, M.B.; El-Agamy, F.M.; Hendawy, A.S.; Refaei, E.A. Effect of Trichogramma evanescens West. Release in rice stem borer control. J. Plant Prot. Pathol. 2013, 4, 261–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Hendawy, A.S.; Sherif, M.R.; El-Sayed, A.A.; Omar, A.M.; Taha, A.S. Role of the egg parasitoid, Trichogramma evanescens West., release and silica applications in controlling of the stem borer, Chilo agamemnon Bles. (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), in rice fields in Egypt. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2018, 28, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. El-Habashy, M.M. Appropriate dates of Trichogramma evanescens (West.) release to control rice stem borer, and effect of sprayed chemicals on parasitoid survival. J. Plant Prot. Pathol. 2009, 34, 2269–2278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Majidi-Shilsar, F. Evaluation releasing of parasitoid wasp Trichogramma brassicae with other methods for the control of rice striped stem borer (Chilo suppressalis) in field conditions. Plant Pests Res. 2017, 7, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Karimian, Z.; Majidi, F.; Asadi, H. Investigation on determining the best time of releasing Trichogramma maidis to control Chilo suppressalis in rice fields in Guilan. In Proceedings of the 12th Iranian Plant Protection Congress, Karadj, Iran, 2–7 September 1995. [Google Scholar]
  150. Rahimoon, M.Y.; Lanjar, A.G.; Bukero, A.; Chang, B.H.; Hajano, J.-U.D.; McNeill, M.R.; Rajput, A.; Lanjar, Z. Trichogramma chilonis, an effective egg parasitoid for control of white stem borer Scirpophaga innotata (Walker), (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae) in rice. Abasyn J. Life Sci. 2021, 4, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Maung, K.L.; Latt, Z.K.; Htun, P.W.; Myint, M.; Khai, A.A. Rice stem borer distributions and their native parasitoids rearing on the host eggs, Corcyra cephalonica in Mandalay region, Myanmar. Asian J. Res. 2020, 4–6, 13–21. [Google Scholar]
  152. Li, Z.-X.; Zheng, L.; Shen, Z. Using internally transcribed spacer 2 sequences to re-examine the taxonomic status of several cryptic species of Trichogramma (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). Eur. J. Entomol. 2004, 101, 347–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Singh, P.; Prasad, G. Seasonal parasitism of Trichogramma japonicum in South Andamans. Insect Environ. 2002, 8, 139–140. [Google Scholar]
  154. Sherif, M.R.; Hendawy, A.S.; El-Habashy, M.M. Utilization of Trichogramma evanescens (Ashmead) for controlling rice stem borer, Chilo agamemnon Bles. in rice fields in Egypt. Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2008, 18, 11–16. [Google Scholar]
  155. Zhang, F.; Babendreier, D.; Wang, Z.Y.; Il, K.S.; Zheng, L.; Pyon, Y.C.; Bai, S.X.; Song, K.; Ri, J.O.; Grossrieder, M.; et al. Mass releases of Trichogramma ostriniae increase maize production in DPR Korea. J. Appl. Entomol. 2010, 134, 481–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Wyckhuys, K.A.G.; Lu, Y.; Morales, H.; Vazquez, L.L.; Legaspi, J.C.; Eliopoulos, P.A.; Hernandez, L.M. Current status and potential of conservation biological control for agriculture in the developing world. Biol. Control 2013, 65, 152–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Jonsson, M.; Wratten, S.D.; Landis, D.A.; Gurr, G.M. Recent advances in conservation biological control of arthropods by arthropods. Biol. Control 2008, 45, 172–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Betz, L.; Tscharntke, T. Enhancing spider families and spider webs in Indian rice fields for conservation biological control, considering local and landscape management. J. Insect Conserv. 2017, 21, 495–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Sann, C.; Theodorou, P.; Heong, K.L.; Villareal, S.; Settele, J.; Vidal, S.; Westphal, C. Hopper parasitoids do not significantly benefit from non-crop habitats in rice production landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 254, 224–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Horgan, F.G. Integrated pest management for sustainable rice cultivation: A holistic approach. In Achieving Sustainable Cultivation of Rice; Sasaki, T., Ed.; Burleigh-Dodds Science Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 309–342. [Google Scholar]
  161. Westphal, C.; Vidal, S.; Horgan, F.G.; Gurr, G.M.; Escalada, M.; Van Chien, H.; Tscharntke, T.; Heong, K.L.; Settele, J. Promoting multiple ecosystem services with flower strips and participatory approaches in rice production landscapes. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2015, 16, 681–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Horgan, F.G.; Kudavidanage, E.P. Translating research into wildlife conservation actions through multi-sector collaboration in tropical Asia. In Closing the Knowledge-Implementation Gap in Conservation Science: Interdisciplinary Evidence Transfer across Sectors and Spatiotemporal Scales; Ferreira, C.C., Klütsch, C.F.C., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 371–411. [Google Scholar]
  163. Zhu, P.Y.; Wang, G.W.; Zheng, X.S.; Tian, J.C.; Lu, Z.X.; Heong, K.L.; Xu, H.X.; Chen, G.H.; Yang, Y.J.; Gurr, G.M. Selective enhancement of parasitoids of rice Lepidoptera pests by sesame (Sesamum indicum) flowers. Biocontrol 2015, 60, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Zhu, P.Y.; Gurr, G.M.; Lu, Z.X.; Heong, K.; Chen, G.H.; Zheng, X.S.; Xu, H.X.; Yang, Y.J. Laboratory screening supports the selection of sesame (Sesamum indicum) to enhance Anagrus spp. parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) of rice planthoppers. Biol. Control 2013, 64, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Horgan, F.G.; Martinez, E.C.; Stuart, A.M.; Bernal, C.C.; Martin, E.D.; Almazan, M.L.P.; Ramal, A.F. Effects of vegetation strips, fertilizer levels and varietal resistance on the integrated management of arthropod biodiversity in a tropical rice ecosystem. Insects 2019, 10, 328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  166. Zhu, P.Y.; Lu, Z.X.; Heong, K.; Chen, G.H.; Zheng, X.S.; Xu, H.X.; Yang, Y.J.; Nicol, H.I.; Gurr, G.M. Selection of nectar plants for use in ecological engineering to promote biological control of rice pests by the predatory bug, Cyrtorhinus lividipennis, (Heteroptera: Miridae). PLoS ONE 2014, 9, 0108669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Sattler, C.; Schrader, J.; Flor, R.J.; Keo, M.; Chhun, S.; Choun, S.; Hadi, B.A.R.; Settele, J. Reducing pesticides and increasing crop diversification offer ecological and economic benefits for farmers-A case study in Cambodian rice fields. Insects 2021, 12, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Balogbog, K.J. Indigenous knowledge system of the upland rice farmers in Sarangani Province and General Santos City, Philippines. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3683315 (accessed on 15 July 2022).
  169. Chouichom, S.; Yamao, M. Organic rice farming in northeastern Thailand: An assessment of farmers’ practices. Philipp. Sci. 2012, 49, 44–67. [Google Scholar]
  170. Zheng, X.-s.; Xu, H.-x.; Chen, G.-h.; Lü, Z.-x. Potential function of Sudan grass and vetiver grass as trap crops for suppressing population of stripped stem borer, Chilo suppressalis in rice. Chin. J. Biol. Control 2009, 25, 299. [Google Scholar]
  171. Lu, Y.H.; Zheng, X.S.; Lu, Z.X. Application of vetiver grass Vetiveria zizanioides: Poaceae (L.) as a trap plant for rice stem borer Chilo suppressalis: Crambidae (Walker) in the paddy fields. J. Integr. Agric. 2019, 18, 797–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  172. Khan, Z.R.; Midega, C.A.O.; Hutter, N.J.; Wilkins, R.M.; Wadhams, L.J. Assessment of the potential of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) varieties as trap plants for management of Chilo partellus. Entomol. Exp. Et Appl. 2006, 119, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. van den Berg, J. Vetiver grass (Vetiveria zizanioides (L.) Nash) as trap plant for Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) (Lepidoptera:Pyralidae) and Busseola fusca (Fuller) (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae). Ann. De La Soc. Entomol. De Fr. 2006, 42, 449–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Lu, Y.-h.; Liu, K.; Zheng, X.-s.; Lü, Z.-x. Electrophysiological responses of the rice striped stem borer Chilo suppressalis to volatiles of the trap plant vetiver grass (Vetiveria zizanioides L.). J. Integr. Agric. 2017, 16, 2525–2533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  175. Xu, H.-X.; Zheng, X.-S.; Yang, Y.-J.; Tian, J.-C.; Lu, Y.-H.; Tan, K.-H.; Heong, K.-L.; Lu, Z.-X. Methyl eugenol bioactivities as a new potential botanical insecticide against major insect pests and their natural enemies on rice (Oryza sativa). Crop Prot. 2015, 72, 144–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Himawan, T.; Rachmawati, R.; Rifandani, E.P. The effectiveness of lemongrass oil against brown planthopper Nilaparvata lugens Stål. (Hemiptera: Delphacidae) on rice plant. J. Trop. Plant Prot. 2021, 2, 14–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Singla, N.; Kaur, R. Potential of citronella oil as rodent repellent measured as aversion to food. Appl. Biol. Res. 2014, 16, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Nicolas, A.R.; Cabarogias, A.S. Indigenous knowledge and sustainable pest management in rice farming communities of southeastern Luzon, Philippines. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2015, 5, 440–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  179. Carpenter, D. An investigation into the transition from technological to ecological rice farming among resource poor farmers from the Philippine island of Bohol. Agric. Hum. Values 2003, 20, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Polthanee, A.; Yamazaki, K. Effect of marigold (Tagetes patula L.) on parasitic nematodes of rice in northeast Thailand. Kaen Kaset 1996, 24, 105–107. [Google Scholar]
  181. Mao, G.-F.; Mo, X.-C.; Fouad, H.; Abbas, G.; Mo, J.-C. Attraction behaviour of Anagrus nilaparvatae to remote lemongrass (Cymbopogon distans) oil and its volatile compounds. Nat. Prod. Res. 2018, 32, 514–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Iamba, K.; Teksep, C.; Roméo, N.G.; Münir, A. Biological role of marigold (Tagetes erecta L.) in habitat manipulation and sustenance of natural enemy populations in upland rice. Arthropods 2021, 10, 66–81. [Google Scholar]
  183. Dominik, C.; Seppelt, R.; Horgan, F.G.; Marquez, L.; Settele, J.; Václavík, T. Regional-scale effects override the influence of fine-scale landscape heterogeneity on rice arthropod communities. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 246, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Settele, J.; Heong, K.L.; Kühn, I.; Klotz, S.; Spangenberg, J.H.; Arida, G.; Beaurepaire, A.; Beck, S.; Bergmeier, E.; Burkhard, B.; et al. Rice ecosystem services in South-east Asia. Paddy Water Environ. 2018, 16, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  185. Chandre Gowda, M.J.; Jayaramaiah, K.M. Comparative evaluation of rice production systems for their sustainability. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1998, 69, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Horgan, F.G.; Kudavidanage, E.P.; Weragodaarachchi, A.; Ramp, D. Traditional ‘maavee’ rice production in Sri Lanka: Environmental, economic and social pressures revealed through stakeholder interviews. Paddy Water Environ. 2018, 16, 225–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Dominik, C.; Seppelt, R.; Horgan, F.G.; Settele, J.; Václavík, T. Landscape heterogeneity filters functional traits of rice arthropods in tropical agroecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 2022, 32, e2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  188. Zou, Y.; de Kraker, J.; Bianchi, F.J.J.A.; Xiao, H.; Huang, J.; Deng, X.; Hou, L.; van der Werf, W. Do diverse landscapes provide for effective natural pest control in subtropical rice? J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 170–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Kemp, J.; López-Baucells, A.; Rocha, R.; Wangensteen, O.S.; Andriatafika, Z.; Nair, A.; Cabeza, M. Bats as potential suppressors of multiple agricultural pests: A case study from Madagascar. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 269, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Srilopan, S.; Bumrungsri, S.; Jantarit, S. The wrinkle-lipped free-tailed bat (Chaerephon plicatus Buchannan, 1800) feeds mainly on brown planthoppers in rice fields of central Thailand. Acta Chiropterologica 2018, 20, 207–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Flaquer, C.; Torre, I.; Ruiz-Jarillo, R. The value of bat-boxes in the conservation of Pipistrellus pygmaeus in wetland rice paddies. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 128, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Baba, Y.G.; Kusumoto, Y.; Tanaka, K. Effects of agricultural practices and fine-scale landscape factors on spiders and a pest insect in Japanese rice paddy ecosystems. BioControl 2018, 63, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Dominik, C.; Seppelt, R.; Horgan, F.G.; Settele, J.; Václavík, T. Landscape composition, configuration, and trophic interactions shape arthropod communities in rice agroecosystems. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 2461–2472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Horgan, F.G.; Ramal, A.F.; Villegas, J.M.; Almazan, M.L.P.; Bernal, C.C.; Jamoralin, A.; Pasang, J.M.; Orboc, G.; Agreda, V.; Arroyo, C. Ecological engineering with high diversity vegetation patches enhances bird activity and ecosystem services in Philippine rice fields. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2017, 17, 1355–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Vu, Q.; Ramal, A.F.; Villegas, J.M.; Jamoralin, A.; Bernal, C.C.; Pasang, J.M.; Almazan, M.L.P.; Ramp, D.; Settele, J.; Horgan, F.G. Enhancing the parasitism of insect herbivores through diversification of habitat in Philippine rice fields. Paddy Water Environ. 2018, 16, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Maclean, R.; Litsinger, J.; Moody, K.; Watson, A. The impact of alley cropping Gliricidia sepium and Cassia spectabilis on upland rice and maize production. Agrofor. Syst. 1992, 20, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Chandrasekar, K.; Muthukrishnan, N.; Soundararajan, R. Ecological engineering cropping methods for enhancing predator, Cyrtorhinus lividipennis (Reuter) and suppression of planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Stål) in rice-effect of intercropping system. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2017, 6, 2387–2391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Chandrasekar, K.; Muthukrishnan, N.; Soundararajan, R.; Robin, S.; Prabhakaran, N. Ecological engineering cropping method for enhancing predator Coccinella septempunctata and suppression of Planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Stål) in rice. Adv. Life Sci. 2016, 5, 1288–1294. [Google Scholar]
  199. Yele, Y.; Chander, S.; Suroshe, S.S.; Nebapure, S.M.; Arya, P.S.; Prabhulinga, T. Effect of ecological engineering on incidence of key rice pests. Indian J. Entomol. 2021, 84, 503–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Shanmugam, P.; Sangeetha, M.; Ayyadurai, P.; Prasad, Y. Demonstration of ecological engineering based pest management in rice Oryza sativa L. through farmers participatory approach. Agric. Sci. Dig. 2022, 42, 290–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Amzah, B.; Jajuli, R.; Jaafar, N.A.I.; Jamil, S.Z.; Hamid, S.; Zulkfili, N.I.; Ismail, N.; Kadir, A.A.; Ariff, E.E.E.; Baki, R. Application of ecological engineering to increase arthropod’s diversity in rice ecosystem. Malays. Appl. Biol 2018, 47, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  202. Ibrahim, E.; Mugiasih, A. Diversity of pests and natural enemies in rice field agroecosystem with ecological engineering and without ecological engineering. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 484, 012108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Sinulingga, N.G.H.; Trisyono, Y.A.; Martono, E.; Hadi, B. Benefits of flowering plants as refuge to improve the ecosystem services by egg parasitoids of the rice brown planthopper. J. Perlindungan Tanam. Indones. 2019, 23, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Shanker, C.; Chintagunta, L.; Muthusamy, S.; Vailla, S.; Srinivasan, A.; Katti, G. Flora surrounding rice fields as a source of alternative prey for coccinellids feeding on the pests of rice. Eur. J. Entomol. 2018, 115, 364–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  205. Nalini, R.; Porpavai, S. Enhancing floral and habitat diversity for augmenting natural enemies in rice ecosystem of Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India. Oryza 2019, 56, 285–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Simões-Pires, P.; Jahnke, S.; Redaelli, L. Influence of the vegetation management of the leeves in irrigated rice organic in diversity of Hymenoptera parasitoids. Braz. J. Biol. 2016, 76, 774–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  207. Acosta, L.G.; Jahnke, S.M.; Redaelli, L.R.; Pires, P.R.S. Insect diversity in organic rice fields under two management systems of levees vegetation. Braz. J. Biol. 2017, 77, 731–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  208. MacLean, R.; Litsinger, J.; Moody, K.; Watson, A.; Libetario, E. Impact of Gliricidia sepium and Cassia spectabilis hedgerows on weeds and insect pests of upland rice. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 94, 275–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Punzal, B.; Arida, G.S.; Marquez, L.V.; Settele, J. Management of rice pests by ecological engineering in farmers’ field in Nueva Ecija, Philippines. Philipp. Entomol. 2017, 31, 162–163. [Google Scholar]
  210. Liang, K.; Yang, T.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, J.-e.; Luo, M.; Fu, L.; Zhao, B. Effects of intercropping rice and water spinach on net yields and pest control: An experiment in southern China. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2016, 14, 448–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Ning, C.; Qu, J.; He, L.; Yang, R.; Chen, Q.; Luo, S.; Cai, K. Improvement of yield, pest control and Si nutrition of rice by rice-water spinach intercropping. Field Crops Res. 2017, 208, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Ning, C.; Wang, L.; Liu, R.; Pan, T.; Cai, Y.; Tian, J.; Luo, S.; Cai, K. Plant-mediated rhizospheric interactions in rice and water spinach intercropping enhance Si uptake by rice. Plant Soil 2021, 477, 183–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Thakur, R.B. Performance of intercrops in direct-seeded rain-fed rice (Oryza sativa) under deep-water ecosystem of north Bijar. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 1993, 63, 257–260. [Google Scholar]
  214. Zheng, X.; Lu, Y.; Zhu, P.; Zhang, F.; Tian, J.; Xu, H.; Chen, G.; Nansen, C.; Lu, Z. Use of banker plant system for sustainable management of the most important insect pest in rice fields in China. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 45581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  215. Nwilene, F.E.; Togola, A.; Agunbiade, T.A.; Ogah, E.O.; Ukwungwu, M.N.; Hamadoun, A.; Kamara, S.I.; Dakouo, D. Parasitoid biodiversity conservation for sustainable management of the African rice gall midge, Orseolia oryzivora (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) in lowland rice. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2008, 18, 1075–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Lu, Y.; Zheng, X.; Lü, Z. The potential of vetiver grass as a biological control for the rice stem borers Chilo suppressalis and Sesamia inferens. Chin. J. Appl. Entomol. 2018, 55, 1111–1117. [Google Scholar]
  217. Lu, Y.; Liang, Q.; Zheng, X. Effects of trap plant vetiver grass (Vetiveria zizanioides) on nutritional and digestive enzyme activities of pink stem borer (Sesamia inferens) larvae. Chin. J. Biol. Control 2017, 33, 719–724. [Google Scholar]
  218. Lu, Y.H.; Gao, G.C.; Zheng, X.S. The lethal mechanism of trap plant Vetiveria zizanioides against the larvae of Chilo suppressalis. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2017, 50, 486–495. [Google Scholar]
  219. Xu, H.-x.; Yang, Y.-j.; Lu, Y.-h.; Zheng, X.-s.; Tian, J.-c.; Lai, F.-x.; Fu, Q.; Lu, Z.-x. Sustainable management of rice insect pests by non-chemical-insecticide technologies in China. Rice Sci. 2017, 24, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Rajesh, K.M.; Sinu, P.A.; Nasser, M. Eleocharis dulcis (Burm.f) as a promising trap plant for the biocontrol of rice white stem borer, Scirpophaga innotata (Walker). Biol. Control 2021, 160, 104676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Zhang, Y.; Xu, H.; Hu, Z.; Yang, G.; Yu, X.; Chen, Q.; Zheng, L.; Yan, Z. Eleocharis dulcis corm: Phytochemicals, health benefits, processing and food products. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2022, 102, 19–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  222. de Kraker, J.; Rabbinge, R.; van Huis, A.; van Lenteren, J.C.; Heong, K.L. Impact of nitrogenous-fertilization on the population dynamics and natural control of rice leaffolders (Lep.: Pyralidae). Int. J. Pest Manag. 2000, 46, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Chen, Y.; Shen, Y.; Li, B.; Meng, L. The effect of biochar amendment to soils on Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guenee (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on rice. Crop Prot. 2019, 124, 104842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Han, Y.-q.; Wen, J.-h.; Peng, Z.-p.; Zhang, D.-y.; Hou, M.-l. Effects of silicon amendment on the occurrence of rice insect pests and diseases in a field test. J. Integr. Agric. 2018, 17, 2172–2181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Jeer, M.; Suman, K.; Maheswari, T.U.; Voleti, S.R.; Padmakumari, A.P. Rice husk ash and imidazole application enhances silicon availability to rice plants and reduces yellow stem borer damage. Field Crops Res. 2018, 224, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Jeer, M.; Telugu, U.M.; Voleti, S.R.; Padmakumari, A.P. Soil application of silicon reduces yellow stem borer, Scirpophaga incertulas (Walker) damage in rice. J. Appl. Entomol. 2017, 141, 189–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Wu, X.; Yu, Y.; Baerson, S.R.; Song, Y.; Liang, G.; Ding, C.; Niu, J.; Pan, Z.; Zeng, R. Interactions between nitrogen and silicon in rice and their effects on resistance toward the brown planthopper Nilaparvata lugens. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  228. Liu, J.; Zhu, J.; Zhang, P.; Han, L.; Reynolds, O.L.; Zeng, R.; Wu, J.; Shao, Y.; You, M.; Gurr, G.M. Silicon supplementation alters the composition of herbivore induced plant volatiles and enhances attraction of parasitoids to infested rice plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  229. Rahaman, M.M.; Stout, M.J. Comparative Efficacies of Next-Generation Insecticides Against Yellow Stem Borer and Their Effects on Natural Enemies in Rice Ecosystem. Rice Sci. 2019, 26, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Chintalapati, P.; Katti, G.; Puskur, R.R.; Nagella Venkata, K. Neonicotinoid-induced resurgence of rice leaffolder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guénee). Pest Manag. Sci. 2016, 72, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Singh, S.; Kushwaha, K.S.; Sharma, P.D.; Singh, S. Resurgence of rice leaf folder Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guenee due to application of phorate granules. Haryana J. Agron. 1995, 57, 366–372. [Google Scholar]
  232. Wang, A.-H.; Wu, J.-C.; Yu, Y.-S.; Liu, J.-L.; Yue, J.-F.; Wang, M.-Y. Selective insecticide-induced stimulation on fecundity and biochemical changes in Tryporyza incertulas (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2005, 98, 1144–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Ko, K.; Liu, Y.; Hou, M.; Babendreier, D.; Zhang, F.; Song, K. Toxicity of insecticides targeting rice planthoppers to adult and immature stages of Trichogramma chilonis (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2015, 108, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Rakes, M.; Pasini, R.A.; Morais, M.C.; Araújo, M.B.; de Bastos Pazini, J.; Seidel, E.J.; Bernardi, D.; Grützmacher, A.D. Pesticide selectivity to the parasitoid Trichogramma pretiosum: A pattern 10-year database and its implications for integrated pest management. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2021, 208, 111504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Ray, A.; Gadratagi, B.-G.; Rana, D.K.; Ullah, F.; Adak, T.; Govindharaj, G.-P.-P.; Patil, N.B.; Mahendiran, A.; Desneux, N.; Rath, P.C. Multigenerational insecticide hormesis enhances fitness traits in a key egg parasitoid, Trichogramma chilonis Ishii. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Xie, L.-C.; Jin, L.-H.; Lu, Y.-H.; Xu, H.-X.; Zang, L.-S.; Tian, J.-C.; Lu, Z.-X. Resistance of lepidopteran egg parasitoids, Trichogramma japonicum and Trichogramma chilonis, to insecticides used for control of rice planthoppers. J. Econ. Entomol. 2022, 115, 446–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  237. Wang, P.; Li, M.-J.; Bai, Q.-R.; Ali, A.; Desneux, N.; Dai, H.-J.; Zang, L.-S. Performance of Trichogramma japonicum as a vector of Beauveria bassiana for parasitizing eggs of rice striped stem borer, Chilo suppressalis. Entomol. Gen. 2021, 41, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  238. Lu, Y.; Sui, L.; Yang, Z.; Mao, G.; Xu, W.-J.; Zhao, Y.; Li, L.; Li, Q.-Y.; Zhang, Z.-K. Synergistic control against Asian corn borer (ACB) by Trichogramma vectored Beauveria bassiana infection on survival larvae escaped from parasitism. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 547, 012021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Wu, Y.; Fang, H.; Liu, X.; Michaud, J.P.; Xu, H.; Zhao, Z.; Zhang, S.; Li, Z. Laboratory evaluation of the compatibility of Beauveria bassiana with the egg parasitoid Trichogramma dendrolimi (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) for joint application against the oriental fruit moth Grapholita molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Pest Manag. Sci. 2022, 78, 3608–3619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  240. Morisset, O.; Cabrera, P.; Todorova, S.; Cormier, D.; Chouinard, G.; Lucas, É. Compatibility of the egg parasitoid Trichogramma minutum (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) and the granulovirus (CpGV) used in combination against the codling moth Cydia pomonella (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Phytoprotection 2021, 101, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Wang, F.-Y.; Yang, F.; Lu, M.-H.; Luo, S.-Y.; Zhai, B.-P.; Lim, K.-S.; McInerney, C.E.; Hu, G. Determining the migration duration of rice leaf folder (Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenée)) moths using a trajectory analytical approach. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 39853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Chang, Y.D. Preliminary study on the hymenopterous parasites of rice stem borers with description of two previously unrecorded species form Korea. Korean J. Appl. Entomol. 1978, 17, 65–69. [Google Scholar]
  243. Romeis, J.; Babendreier, D.; Wackers, F.L.; Shanower, T.G. Habitat and plant specificity of Trichogramma egg parasitoids—Underlying mechanisms and implications. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2005, 6, 215–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. de Kraker, J.; Van Huis, A.; Van Lenteren, J.C.; Heong, K.L.; Rabbinge, R. Egg mortality of rice leaffolders Cnaphalocrocis medinalis and Marasmia patnalis in irrigated rice fields. Biocontrol 1999, 44, 449–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Locations of published case studies that used Trichogramma spp. as biological control agents against leaffolders in rice. Symbol colors indicate the Trichogramma spp. released. CHINA–1: Zheijiang [61,62,63,64,65]; 2: Guangdong [66,67,68]; 3: Jiangxi [69]; 4: Fujian [70,71]; 5 Fujian (Jiangyang) [72]; 6: Sichuan [73]; 7: Hunan (Guiyang) [74,75]; 8 Hunan (Changsha) [76]; 9 Jiangsu [77]; 10: Jiangsu (Tongzhou) [78]; 11: Yunnan [79]; 12: Guangxi [41]; 13: Henan [80,81,82,83]; 14: Anhui [84,85]; 15: Guizhou [86]; TAIWAN–16: [87]; INDIA–17: Telangana (Hyderabad) [88]; 18: Podicherry [88]; 19: Gujarat [88]; 20: Andhra Pradesh [89]; 21: Haryana [90]; 22: Uttar Pradesh [91,92,93]; 23: Uttarakhand [94,95]; 24: Maharashtra [96]; 25: Tamil Nadu [97,98]; 26: Kerala [99,100]; 27: Punjab [59,60,101]; 28: Odisha [102]; 29: Tripura [103]; 30: Arunachal Pradesh [58]; 31: Himachal Pradesh [104]; PAKISTAN–32: Faisalabad [105]; VIETNAM–33: Me Linh [106].
Figure 1. Locations of published case studies that used Trichogramma spp. as biological control agents against leaffolders in rice. Symbol colors indicate the Trichogramma spp. released. CHINA–1: Zheijiang [61,62,63,64,65]; 2: Guangdong [66,67,68]; 3: Jiangxi [69]; 4: Fujian [70,71]; 5 Fujian (Jiangyang) [72]; 6: Sichuan [73]; 7: Hunan (Guiyang) [74,75]; 8 Hunan (Changsha) [76]; 9 Jiangsu [77]; 10: Jiangsu (Tongzhou) [78]; 11: Yunnan [79]; 12: Guangxi [41]; 13: Henan [80,81,82,83]; 14: Anhui [84,85]; 15: Guizhou [86]; TAIWAN–16: [87]; INDIA–17: Telangana (Hyderabad) [88]; 18: Podicherry [88]; 19: Gujarat [88]; 20: Andhra Pradesh [89]; 21: Haryana [90]; 22: Uttar Pradesh [91,92,93]; 23: Uttarakhand [94,95]; 24: Maharashtra [96]; 25: Tamil Nadu [97,98]; 26: Kerala [99,100]; 27: Punjab [59,60,101]; 28: Odisha [102]; 29: Tripura [103]; 30: Arunachal Pradesh [58]; 31: Himachal Pradesh [104]; PAKISTAN–32: Faisalabad [105]; VIETNAM–33: Me Linh [106].
Agronomy 12 02958 g001
Figure 2. Locations of published case studies that used Trichogramma spp. as biological control agents against stemborers in rice. Symbol colors indicate Trichogramma spp. released; symbol shapes indicate target stemborers. JAPAN–1: Honshu [110,111]; CHINA–2: Hunan [76]; 3: Jiangsu (Tongzhou) [78]; 4: Anhui [85,112,113]; 5: Jilin [114,115]; 6: Guangxi [27,116]; 7: Heilongijiang [117,118,119]; 8: Zhejiang [120,121]; 9: Liaoning [122]; 10: Yunnan [27,123,124]; INDIA–11: Andra Pradesh [89]; 12: Uttar Pradesh [91,92,93,125,126,127]; 13: Uttarakhand [94]; 14: Maharashtra [96,128]; 15: Kerala [99,129]; 16: Punjab [59,60,100,101,130,131,132,133,134,135]; 17 Odisha [102,136]; 18 Tamil Nadu [98]; 19: Anunachal Pradesh [58]; 20: Assam [137,138], 21: Andaman Islands [139]; 22: West Bengal [140]; INDONESIA–23: East Java [141]; 24: Ternate [142]; 25: West Java [49]; EGYPT–26: Nile Delta [143,144,145,146]; 27: El-Sheikh [147]; IRAN–28 [148,149]; PHILIPPINES–29: Mindanao [50]; 30: PAKISTAN Sindh [150]; MYANMAR–31: Mandalay [27,151]; LAOS–32: [27].
Figure 2. Locations of published case studies that used Trichogramma spp. as biological control agents against stemborers in rice. Symbol colors indicate Trichogramma spp. released; symbol shapes indicate target stemborers. JAPAN–1: Honshu [110,111]; CHINA–2: Hunan [76]; 3: Jiangsu (Tongzhou) [78]; 4: Anhui [85,112,113]; 5: Jilin [114,115]; 6: Guangxi [27,116]; 7: Heilongijiang [117,118,119]; 8: Zhejiang [120,121]; 9: Liaoning [122]; 10: Yunnan [27,123,124]; INDIA–11: Andra Pradesh [89]; 12: Uttar Pradesh [91,92,93,125,126,127]; 13: Uttarakhand [94]; 14: Maharashtra [96,128]; 15: Kerala [99,129]; 16: Punjab [59,60,100,101,130,131,132,133,134,135]; 17 Odisha [102,136]; 18 Tamil Nadu [98]; 19: Anunachal Pradesh [58]; 20: Assam [137,138], 21: Andaman Islands [139]; 22: West Bengal [140]; INDONESIA–23: East Java [141]; 24: Ternate [142]; 25: West Java [49]; EGYPT–26: Nile Delta [143,144,145,146]; 27: El-Sheikh [147]; IRAN–28 [148,149]; PHILIPPINES–29: Mindanao [50]; 30: PAKISTAN Sindh [150]; MYANMAR–31: Mandalay [27,151]; LAOS–32: [27].
Agronomy 12 02958 g002
Figure 3. Parasitism rates reported from field studies using Trichogramma spp. as biological control agents against rice leaffolders in China (A) and against rice stemborers in China, Indonesia and India (B). Results have been reported as ranges in some studies (tall bars) and means in other (short bars). Bar colors indicate Trichogramma species as shown in the legend. Note that some studies compared Trichogramma species (indicated by lowercase letters associated with different species in the same study) or compared different release methods (indicated by lowercase letters associated with the same species in one study, i.e., Chen et al. (2016) [82], a = 90 K, b = 144 K released; Jiang et al. (2016) [83], a = 300 K, b = 450 K, c = 600 K; Chen et al. (2016) [81], a = 150 K, b = 450 K, c = 750 K; Wang and Ma (2015) [122], a = 1×, b = 2× and c = 3× releases; Kaur and Brar (2008) [130], a = 100 K, b = 125 K, c = 150 K; Tang et al. (2017) [124], a = 50 K, b = 100 K). Stemborers included WSB (Astrodjojo et al. (2016) [142], YSB (Kaur and Brar (2008) [130], Tang et al. (2017) [124] and G. Basana et al. (2019) [136]), and SSB (all other studies in (B)) (See Table S1 for further details).
Figure 3. Parasitism rates reported from field studies using Trichogramma spp. as biological control agents against rice leaffolders in China (A) and against rice stemborers in China, Indonesia and India (B). Results have been reported as ranges in some studies (tall bars) and means in other (short bars). Bar colors indicate Trichogramma species as shown in the legend. Note that some studies compared Trichogramma species (indicated by lowercase letters associated with different species in the same study) or compared different release methods (indicated by lowercase letters associated with the same species in one study, i.e., Chen et al. (2016) [82], a = 90 K, b = 144 K released; Jiang et al. (2016) [83], a = 300 K, b = 450 K, c = 600 K; Chen et al. (2016) [81], a = 150 K, b = 450 K, c = 750 K; Wang and Ma (2015) [122], a = 1×, b = 2× and c = 3× releases; Kaur and Brar (2008) [130], a = 100 K, b = 125 K, c = 150 K; Tang et al. (2017) [124], a = 50 K, b = 100 K). Stemborers included WSB (Astrodjojo et al. (2016) [142], YSB (Kaur and Brar (2008) [130], Tang et al. (2017) [124] and G. Basana et al. (2019) [136]), and SSB (all other studies in (B)) (See Table S1 for further details).
Agronomy 12 02958 g003
Figure 4. Reductions in rice damage from leaffolders due to Trichogramma-based biological control releases as reported for a range of field studies. Bar colors indicate Trichogramma species as indicated in the legend. The triangle indicates ‘equal to or greater than’. Note that some studies compared Trichogramma species (indicated by lowercase letters associated with different species in the same study) or compared different release densities (indicated by lowercase letters associated with the same species in one study; i.e., Sagheer et al. (2008b) [105], a = 50 K, b = 75 K, c = 100 K, d = 125 K released; Chen et al. (2016) [82], a = 90 K, b = 144 K; Chhavi et al. (2019) [104], a = 50 K, b = 75 K, c = 100 K, d = 125 K, e = 150 K). Damage reductions indicated for Bentur et al. (1994) [88] correspond to 1991 results for Hyderabad (42%), Nawagam (38.5%) and Pondicherry (8%) (See Table S1 for further details).
Figure 4. Reductions in rice damage from leaffolders due to Trichogramma-based biological control releases as reported for a range of field studies. Bar colors indicate Trichogramma species as indicated in the legend. The triangle indicates ‘equal to or greater than’. Note that some studies compared Trichogramma species (indicated by lowercase letters associated with different species in the same study) or compared different release densities (indicated by lowercase letters associated with the same species in one study; i.e., Sagheer et al. (2008b) [105], a = 50 K, b = 75 K, c = 100 K, d = 125 K released; Chen et al. (2016) [82], a = 90 K, b = 144 K; Chhavi et al. (2019) [104], a = 50 K, b = 75 K, c = 100 K, d = 125 K, e = 150 K). Damage reductions indicated for Bentur et al. (1994) [88] correspond to 1991 results for Hyderabad (42%), Nawagam (38.5%) and Pondicherry (8%) (See Table S1 for further details).
Agronomy 12 02958 g004
Figure 5. Reductions in rice damage from stemborers due to Trichogramma-based biological control releases as reported for a range of field studies. Bars outlined in yellow indicate reductions in WH damage, otherwise reductions in stem damage or DH are indicated. Bar colors indicate Trichogramma species as shown in the legend. The triangle indicates ‘equal to or greater than’. Note that one study compared Trichogramma species (indicated by lowercase letters associated with different species in the same study) and studies also compared different release densities (indicated by lowercase letters associated with the same species in a single study, i.e., Kumar and Khan (2005) [94], a = 50 K, b = 100 K; Kaur and Brar (2008) [130], a = 100 K, b = 125 K, c = 150 K; Mishra and Kumar (2009) [92], a = 50 K, b = 75 K, c = 100 K) (See Table S1 for further details).
Figure 5. Reductions in rice damage from stemborers due to Trichogramma-based biological control releases as reported for a range of field studies. Bars outlined in yellow indicate reductions in WH damage, otherwise reductions in stem damage or DH are indicated. Bar colors indicate Trichogramma species as shown in the legend. The triangle indicates ‘equal to or greater than’. Note that one study compared Trichogramma species (indicated by lowercase letters associated with different species in the same study) and studies also compared different release densities (indicated by lowercase letters associated with the same species in a single study, i.e., Kumar and Khan (2005) [94], a = 50 K, b = 100 K; Kaur and Brar (2008) [130], a = 100 K, b = 125 K, c = 150 K; Mishra and Kumar (2009) [92], a = 50 K, b = 75 K, c = 100 K) (See Table S1 for further details).
Agronomy 12 02958 g005
Figure 6. Summary of available technologies to support the integration of augmentative and conservation biological control of leaffolders and stemborers in rice. Green arrows indicate positive effects on Lepidoptera pests or their natural enemies of various habitat manipulations based on published reports. Red arrows indicate potential negative effects. The thickness of arrows relates to available evidence in published studies; thick = good evidence, dotted = suggestive only. ‘S’ indicates a probable synergy between the inundative release of parasitoids and conservation biological control; ‘A’ indicates possible antagonistic effects. Results suggest that trap plants, certain nectar plants, and certain intercrops are compatible with augmentative biological control. Naturally occurring predators and parasitoids may also function synergistically with laboratory-reared Trichogramma by, for example, attacking life-stages of the pests, other than eggs. They may also compete for available eggs, or predators may kill developing Trichogramma larvae during egg predation; however, such negative interactions will probably reduce the profitability (i.e., redundancy, but not antagonism) of releasing Trichogramma, but will not reduce overall biocontrol services.
Figure 6. Summary of available technologies to support the integration of augmentative and conservation biological control of leaffolders and stemborers in rice. Green arrows indicate positive effects on Lepidoptera pests or their natural enemies of various habitat manipulations based on published reports. Red arrows indicate potential negative effects. The thickness of arrows relates to available evidence in published studies; thick = good evidence, dotted = suggestive only. ‘S’ indicates a probable synergy between the inundative release of parasitoids and conservation biological control; ‘A’ indicates possible antagonistic effects. Results suggest that trap plants, certain nectar plants, and certain intercrops are compatible with augmentative biological control. Naturally occurring predators and parasitoids may also function synergistically with laboratory-reared Trichogramma by, for example, attacking life-stages of the pests, other than eggs. They may also compete for available eggs, or predators may kill developing Trichogramma larvae during egg predation; however, such negative interactions will probably reduce the profitability (i.e., redundancy, but not antagonism) of releasing Trichogramma, but will not reduce overall biocontrol services.
Agronomy 12 02958 g006
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Babendreier, D.; Tang, R.; Horgan, F.G. Prospects for Integrating Augmentative and Conservation Biological Control of Leaffolders and Stemborers in Rice. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2958. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12122958

AMA Style

Babendreier D, Tang R, Horgan FG. Prospects for Integrating Augmentative and Conservation Biological Control of Leaffolders and Stemborers in Rice. Agronomy. 2022; 12(12):2958. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12122958

Chicago/Turabian Style

Babendreier, Dirk, Rui Tang, and Finbarr G. Horgan. 2022. "Prospects for Integrating Augmentative and Conservation Biological Control of Leaffolders and Stemborers in Rice" Agronomy 12, no. 12: 2958. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12122958

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop