Chilo suppressalis (striped rice stem borer)
Index
- Pictures
- Identity
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Description
- Distribution
- Distribution Table
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- Symptoms
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Climate
- Latitude/Altitude Ranges
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Plant Trade
- Impact Summary
- Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs
- References
- Links to Websites
- Organizations
- Contributors
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.
Generate reportIdentity
Top of pagePreferred Scientific Name
- Chilo suppressalis (Walker, 1863)
Preferred Common Name
- striped rice stem borer
Other Scientific Names
- Chilo oryzae Fletcher, 1926-27
- Chilo simplex Butler, 1877
- Chilo simplex Hudson, 1895
- Crambus suppressalis Walker, 1863
- Jartheza simplex Butler, 1880
International Common Names
- English: Asiatic rice borer; pale-headed striped borer; purple-lined borer; rice borer (Asia); rice chilo; rice stalk borer; rice stem borer; SSB; striped rice stalk borer; striped rice stalkborer; striped rice stem borer; sugarcane moth borer
- Spanish: barrenador del arroz; barrenador oriental del arroz; barrenador rayado del arroz; barreno; taladrador asiático del arroz
- French: perceur asiatique du riz; pyrale du riz; pyrale rayée du riz; pyrale rouillee
Local Common Names
- Germany: Bohrer, Gestreifter Reis-; Gestreifter Reisstengelbohrer; Stengelbohrer, Gestreifter Reis-
- Israel: norer haorez
- Japan: nika-meityu
- Netherlands: gestreepte rijstboorer
EPPO code
- CHILSU (Chilo suppressalis)
Summary of Invasiveness
Top of pageThis is one of the most important pests of rice in East Asia, India and Indonesia. In East Asia, C. suppressalis occurs together with Chilo hyrax and Chilo christophi. This pest was probably introduced in Spain and Hawaii by humans (Bleszynski, 1970). It is now also present in the Northern Territory of Australia. The species tolerates low to very low temperatures and is therefore present in temperate and subtropical Asia. This low temperature tolerance enables it to adapt to other regions. The fact that C. suppressalis has become established in France, Spain and Portugal indicates the potential for long-distance movements and there would seem to be a real danger that it could be introduced into Africa, or other ecologically favourable areas.
Taxonomic Tree
Top of page- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Metazoa
- Phylum: Arthropoda
- Subphylum: Uniramia
- Class: Insecta
- Order: Lepidoptera
- Family: Crambidae
- Genus: Chilo
- Species: Chilo suppressalis
Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Top of pageC. suppressalis was first described and named by Walker in 1863 and has a long and confused taxonomic history. Bleszynski (1970) gave a full list of its many synonyms. References to Chilo simplex (Butler) in the earlier literature from Asia relate to Chilo suppressalis.
Description
Top of pageHattori and Siwi (1986) published an account of the morphology, incidence and distribution of C. suppressalis in Indonesia, together with field keys for the identification of adults, larvae and pupae. Various stages are also illustrated and described in a number of publications, including Grist and Lever (1969), Litsinger (1977), Kalshoven and Laan (1981), and Vreden and Ahmadzabidi (1986). Reissig et al. (1986) included this species in an illustrated guide for IPM in rice in tropical Asia.
Eggs
Eggs are scale-like, about 0.9 x 0.5 mm, and translucent-white to dark-yellow. They are laid in flat, naked clusters of overlapping rows containing up to 60 eggs.
Larvae
First-instar larvae are greyish-white with a black head and prothoracic shield and are about 1.5 mm long when first hatched. The head capsule of later instars is brown and full-grown larvae are about 20-26 mm long. They are dirty-white, with five longitudinal purplish-brown stripes running down the dorsal surface of the body.
Pupae
Pupae are reddish-brown, about 9-14 mm long, and have two ribbed crests on the pronotal margins and two short horns on the head. The cremaster on the last abdominal segment bears several spines.
Adults
Bleszynski (1970) published an illustrated technical description of this species, including diagnostic characters separating it from related species. Forewings are 11-14 mm long with ground-colour varying from dirty-white to yellow-brown, variably sprinkled with grey-brown scales. There are no metallic scales and the median oblique brown line is often reduced, especially in light-coloured specimens. The hindwings are white to yellowish-brown. The male genitalia have a juxta plate with symmetrical arms, distinctly swollen near the apices and without subapical teeth, and the aedeagus has a long, thin ventral arm and no bulbous basal projection. The female genitalia have a heavily sclerotized ostial pouch and a distinct elongate signum with median ridge.
Distribution
Top of pageDistribution Table
Top of pageThe distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.
Last updated: 12 May 2022Continent/Country/Region | Distribution | Last Reported | Origin | First Reported | Invasive | Reference | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Africa |
|||||||
Egypt | Absent, Invalid presence record(s) | ||||||
Malawi | Absent, Invalid presence record(s) | ||||||
Tanzania | Absent, Unconfirmed presence record(s) | ||||||
Asia |
|||||||
Bangladesh | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
Brunei | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
Cambodia | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
China | Present, Widespread | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Anhui | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Beijing | Present | ||||||
-Fujian | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Guangdong | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Guangxi | Present | ||||||
-Hebei | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Heilongjiang | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Henan | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Hubei | Present | ||||||
-Hunan | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Inner Mongolia | Present | ||||||
-Jiangsu | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Jiangxi | Present | ||||||
-Jilin | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Liaoning | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Shandong | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Shanghai | Present | ||||||
-Sichuan | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Zhejiang | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
Hong Kong | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
India | Present, Widespread | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Andhra Pradesh | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Assam | Present | ||||||
-Bihar | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Gujarat | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Karnataka | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Kerala | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Maharashtra | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Odisha | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Punjab | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Rajasthan | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Tamil Nadu | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Uttar Pradesh | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
Indonesia | Present, Widespread | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Irian Jaya | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Java | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Sulawesi | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Sumatra | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
Iran | Present | ||||||
Iraq | Present | ||||||
Japan | Present, Widespread | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Hokkaido | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Honshu | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Kyushu | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Ryukyu Islands | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Shikoku | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
Laos | Present, Widespread | Native | Invasive | ||||
Malaysia | Present, Widespread | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Peninsular Malaysia | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Sabah | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
-Sarawak | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
Myanmar | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
Nepal | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
North Korea | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
Pakistan | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
Philippines | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
South Korea | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
Sri Lanka | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
Taiwan | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
Thailand | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
Vietnam | Present | Native | Invasive | ||||
Europe |
|||||||
France | Present, Localized | Introduced | |||||
Hungary | Present | Original citation: Szeo?ke (2006) | |||||
Portugal | Present, Widespread | Introduced | Invasive | ||||
Russia | Present, Localized | Introduced | |||||
-Eastern Siberia | Absent, Invalid presence record(s) | ||||||
-Russian Far East | Present | Native | |||||
-Western Siberia | Absent, Invalid presence record(s) | ||||||
Spain | Present, Localized | Introduced | |||||
North America |
|||||||
Mexico | Absent, Unconfirmed presence record(s) | ||||||
United States | Present, Localized | Introduced | |||||
-Hawaii | Present | Introduced | |||||
Oceania |
|||||||
Australia | Present | Introduced | |||||
-Northern Territory | Present | Introduced | |||||
Fiji | Absent, Unconfirmed presence record(s) | ||||||
Papua New Guinea | Present, Localized | Introduced | |||||
South America |
|||||||
Guyana | Absent, Unconfirmed presence record(s) |
Habitat List
Top of pageCategory | Sub-Category | Habitat | Presence | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|
Terrestrial | Managed | Cultivated / agricultural land | Principal habitat | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Managed | Cultivated / agricultural land | Principal habitat | Natural |
Terrestrial | Natural / Semi-natural | Riverbanks | Present, no further details | |
Terrestrial | Natural / Semi-natural | Wetlands | Present, no further details |
Hosts/Species Affected
Top of pageThe main host plant of C. suppressalis is rice, but it has also been recorded from maize and from many wild hosts, including Panicum miliaceum, Echinochloa spp., Phragmites australis [P. communis], Saccharum fuscum [Sclerostachya fusca], Typha latifolia and Zizania aquatica.
Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
Top of pagePlant name | Family | Context | References |
---|---|---|---|
Amaranthus (amaranth) | Amaranthaceae | Wild host | |
Echinochloa (barnyardgrass) | Poaceae | Wild host | |
Echinochloa colona (junglerice) | Poaceae | Wild host | |
Echinochloa crus-galli (barnyard grass) | Poaceae | Unknown | |
Echinochloa spp. | Poaceae | Wild host | |
Eleusine indica (goose grass) | Poaceae | Wild host | |
Ischaemum rugosum (saramollagrass) | Poaceae | Unknown | |
Oryza (rice (generic level)) | Poaceae | Wild host | |
Oryza sativa (rice) | Poaceae | Main | |
Panicum miliaceum (millet) | Poaceae | Wild host | |
Panicum repens (torpedo grass) | Poaceae | Unknown | |
Phragmites australis (common reed) | Poaceae | Wild host | |
Poaceae (grasses) | Poaceae | Main | |
Raphanus raphanistrum (wild radish) | Brassicaceae | Other | |
Sclerostachya fusca | Poaceae | Wild host | |
Sorghum bicolor (sorghum) | Poaceae | Main | |
Sorghum halepense (Johnson grass) | Poaceae | Other | |
Typha latifolia (broadleaf cattail) | Typhaceae | Wild host | |
Xanthium strumarium (common cocklebur) | Asteraceae | Wild host | |
Zea mays (maize) | Poaceae | Main | |
Zizania aquatica (annual wildrice) | Poaceae | Wild host | |
Zizania latifolia (manchurian wildrice) | Poaceae | Unknown |
Symptoms
Top of pageList of Symptoms/Signs
Top of pageSign | Life Stages | Type |
---|---|---|
Growing point / dead heart | ||
Growing point / dwarfing; stunting | ||
Growing point / external feeding | ||
Growing point / internal feeding; boring | ||
Growing point / rot | ||
Leaves / abnormal forms | ||
Leaves / external feeding | ||
Leaves / internal feeding | ||
Leaves / necrotic areas | ||
Stems / dead heart | ||
Stems / external feeding | ||
Stems / internal feeding | ||
Stems / rot | ||
Stems / stunting or rosetting | ||
Whole plant / dead heart |
Biology and Ecology
Top of pageJepson (1954) reviewed the earlier literature on C. suppressalis; more recent summaries of information include Pathak (1968), Grist and Lever (1969), Litsinger (1977), Kalshoven and Laan (1981), Vreden and Ahmadzabidi (1986), Hill (1987), and Harris (1990). Reissig et al. (1986) include this species in an illustrated guide for rice IPM in tropical Asia. Additional information and references to recent work on C. suppressalis are available in Rice Abstracts and in the International Rice Research Newsletter, reflecting its major importance as a pest of rice.
C. suppressalis is adapted to temperate climatic conditions and larvae survive low winter temperatures in Japan, China and other northern areas. This is in marked contrast to most other species of Chilo, which are restricted to tropical or sub-tropical regions. Adults are nocturnal and become active early in the evening; adults survive for up to a week in field conditions, with females generally living longer than males. Males emerge before females and are attracted to them by pheromones (Nesbitt et al., 1975). Each female lays 100-550 eggs, usually in batches of 60-70 eggs over a period of 3-5 nights. These are laid mainly on the basal halves of leaves and occasionally on leaf sheaths.
After hatching, larvae cluster beneath the leaf sheaths and later enter the stems to feed. Some early larval instars may disperse to other plants by ballooning on extruded silk threads or by floating on leaf fragments. Several larvae may feed together within a single internode of a plant and they live in a moist pulp of chewed plant debris and frass. They pupate within stems, having first prepared an exit hole from which the adult will emerge.
In the tropics, normal development times are: egg (5 to 6 days); larva (30 days); pupa (6 days). The life cycle is completed in 35-60 days; in favourable conditions up to six generations develop in a year, often overlapping where rice cropping is continuous. In colder climates, final instars remain dormant during the winter. The wide range of C. suppressalis, which extends from the tropics to about 40° N, creates substantial variations in the length of development; in northern Asia, development may take more than a year. The availability of hosts and the occurrence of favourable temperatures determine the number of generations in a year and the extent of population build-up. Mortality may be high in years with mild winters and early springs, which result in eggs being laid on small plants that are unable to support larval development. More eggs are laid on lush rice plants, especially those receiving high rates of nitrogenous fertilizer. Chen et al. (1984a, b; 1987), working in China, studied the spatial distribution of larvae in rice fields and developed life tables for field and laboratory populations. Shen (1983), also working in China, has analysed data collected over 15 years in Henan to determine the key factors affecting overwintering populations and has developed equations to predict outbreaks. In Japan, Kanno (1984) studied mating behaviour and Nozato (1987) studied effects of temperature and day length on seasonal development. In Korea, Kim et al. (1988) analysed light-trap catches monitoring population trends from 1966-1987. Ryoo and Lee (1985) studied larval aggregation patterns and Uhm et al. (1986) reported local differences in post-diapause development after overwintering. In the Philippines, where much work has been done at the International Rice Research Institute, Heinrichs et al. (1986) studied population development on traditional and modern rice cultivars.
Climate
Top of pageClimate | Status | Description | Remark |
---|---|---|---|
As - Tropical savanna climate with dry summer | Tolerated | < 60mm precipitation driest month (in summer) and < (100 - [total annual precipitation{mm}/25]) | |
Aw - Tropical wet and dry savanna climate | Tolerated | < 60mm precipitation driest month (in winter) and < (100 - [total annual precipitation{mm}/25]) | |
C - Temperate/Mesothermal climate | Preferred | Average temp. of coldest month > 0°C and < 18°C, mean warmest month > 10°C |
Latitude/Altitude Ranges
Top of pageLatitude North (°N) | Latitude South (°S) | Altitude Lower (m) | Altitude Upper (m) |
---|---|---|---|
40 |
Natural enemies
Top of pageNatural enemy | Type | Life stages | Specificity | References | Biological control in | Biological control on |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anagrus optabilis | Parasite | Eggs | ||||
Apanteles chelonis | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Argiope catenulata | Predator | Adults | ||||
Auberteterus alternecoloratus | Parasite | Hawaii | rice | |||
Aulacocentrum philippinense | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Bacillus thuringiensis | ||||||
Bacillus thuringiensis darmstadiensis | Pathogen | France | ||||
Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki | Pathogen | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Bacillus thuringiensis thuringiensis | Pathogen | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Beauveria bassiana | Pathogen | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Bracon onukii | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Cantheconidia furcellata | Predator | |||||
Cardiastethus | Predator | |||||
Chelonus munakatae | Parasite | Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | Indonesia | rice | ||
Cotesia chilonis | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | Hawaii; Indonesia | rice | ||
Cotesia flavipes | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | Malaysia; Sarawak | rice | ||
Cotesia ruficrus | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Cotesia schoenobii | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Cremastus chinensis | Parasite | Hawaii | rice | |||
Diadegma terebrans | Parasite | |||||
Eriborus sinicus | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | Hawaii | rice | ||
Erynia delphacis | Pathogen | |||||
Erynia radicans | Pathogen | |||||
Granulosis virus | Pathogen | |||||
Iridovirus | Pathogen | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Itoplectis naranyae | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Lyctocoris beneficus | Predator | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Lydella scirpophagae | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Megaselia scalaris | Parasite | |||||
Metagonistylum minense | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | Philippines | rice | ||
Metarhizium anisopliae | Pathogen | |||||
Metioche vittaticollis | Predator | Eggs; Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Microgaster russata | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Myosoma chinensis | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae; Arthropods|Pupae | Hawaii; Malaysia; Sarawak | rice | ||
Myosoma onukii | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Nucleopolyhedrosis virus | Pathogen | |||||
Paecilomyces farinosus | Pathogen | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Pristomerus chilonis | Parasite | |||||
Spathius helle | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | Japan | rice | ||
Stenobracon deesae | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Sturmiopsis inferens | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | Philippines | rice | ||
Telenomus chilocolus | Parasite | Eggs | ||||
Telenomus dignus | Parasite | Eggs | Hawaii; Malaysia; Sarawak | rice | ||
Telenomus rowani | Parasite | Eggs | Malaysia; Sarawak | rice | ||
Temelucha biguttula | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae | ||||
Tetrastichus howardi | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae; Arthropods|Pupae | ||||
Tetrastichus israeli | Parasite | Malaysia; Sarawak | rice | |||
Tetrastichus schoenobii | Parasite | Eggs | ||||
Trathala biguttulatus | Parasite | Arthropods|Pupae | ||||
Trathala flavoorbitalis | Parasite | Arthropods|Pupae | ||||
Trichogramma chilonis | Parasite | Eggs | ||||
Trichogramma chilotraeae | Parasite | Eggs | ||||
Trichogramma dendrolimi | Parasite | |||||
Trichogramma evanescens | Parasite | Eggs | ||||
Trichogramma fasciatum | Parasite | Eggs | Philippines | rice | ||
Trichogramma japonicum | Parasite | Eggs | Hawaii; Malaysia; Sarawak; Philippines | rice | ||
Trichogramma maidis | Parasite | Eggs | ||||
Trichogramma minutum | Parasite | Eggs | Philippines | rice | ||
Trichogramma pintoi | Parasite | Eggs | ||||
Trichogramma rhenanum | Parasite | Eggs | ||||
Trichogrammatoidea australicum | Parasite | Eggs | Hawaii; Philippines | rice | ||
Tropobracon schoenobii | Parasite | Arthropods|Larvae; Arthropods|Pupae | ||||
Xanthopimpla punctata | Parasite | Arthropods|Pupae | ||||
Xanthopimpla stemmator | Parasite | Arthropods|Pupae | ||||
Xylocoris galactinus | Predator | Arthropods|Larvae |
Notes on Natural Enemies
Top of pageMeans of Movement and Dispersal
Top of pageNatural Dispersal
This species can be dispersed within rice areas, via the wind and/or active flight.
Vector Transmission
Waterbirds can occasionally carry the eggs.
Accidental Introduction
The eggs can be carried on plant material.
Pathway Causes
Top of pageCause | Notes | Long Distance | Local | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Breeding and propagation | Yes | Yes | ||
Crop production | Yes | Yes | ||
Flooding and other natural disasters | Yes | |||
Nursery trade | Yes | Yes | ||
People sharing resources | Yes |
Pathway Vectors
Top of pageVector | Notes | Long Distance | Local | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Plants or parts of plants | Eggs, larvae | Yes | Yes |
Plant Trade
Top of pagePlant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport | Pest stages | Borne internally | Borne externally | Visibility of pest or symptoms |
---|---|---|---|---|
Flowers/Inflorescences/Cones/Calyx | arthropods/eggs; arthropods/larvae | Yes | Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye | |
Leaves | arthropods/adults; arthropods/eggs; arthropods/larvae; arthropods/nymphs; arthropods/pupae | Yes | Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye | |
Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches | arthropods/adults; arthropods/eggs; arthropods/larvae; arthropods/nymphs; arthropods/pupae | Yes | Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye |
Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport |
---|
Bark |
Bulbs/Tubers/Corms/Rhizomes |
Fruits (inc. pods) |
Growing medium accompanying plants |
Roots |
Seedlings/Micropropagated plants |
True seeds (inc. grain) |
Wood |
Impact Summary
Top of pageCategory | Impact |
---|---|
Economic/livelihood | Negative |
Environment (generally) | Negative |
Impact
Top of pageRisk and Impact Factors
Top of page- Invasive in its native range
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Has a broad native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Capable of securing and ingesting a wide range of food
- Highly mobile locally
- Fast growing
- Has high reproductive potential
- Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
- Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
- Difficult to identify/detect in the field
- Difficult/costly to control
Detection and Inspection
Top of pageSimilarities to Other Species/Conditions
Top of pagePrevention and Control
Top of pageDue to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.
Introduction
The literature on control of C. suppressalis is extensive. Grist and Lever (1969) and Litsinger (1977) provided brief summaries of the main methods, but the primary literature should be consulted for details. In many rice-growing areas, C. suppressalis is only one of a number of species of lepidopterous stem borer attacking the crop; the relative importance of these species will influence decisions on control, which must be based on local conditions.
Cultural Control
Carryover of populations of larvae and pupae from one cropping period to the next can be minimized by flooding and harrowing or ploughing to turn in stubble and straw and by destruction of any volunteer rice plants that will provide breeding sites between crops. During the cropping period various measures may be used, depending on local conditions. These include regulation of time of planting to avoid periods of peak adult activity (Rustamani et al., 1995), the use of early-maturing varieties to limit the development period of the pest on the crop, and synchronization of plantings and removal of stems close to the ground at harvest so that the borer larvae and pupae are removed with the straw. Studies on the relationship between transplanting times and N-P-K fertilizers were conducted in Korea for different rice pests. Results showed different levels of infestation, but C. suppressalis was strongly influenced by earlier transplanting times (Ma KyoungChul and Lee SeungChan, 1996). Studies on differences between machine transplanted and direct seeded rice showed no difference in the incidence of the pest, only the moment of transplanting was important (Lee SeungChan and Ma KyoungChul, 1997).
Biological Control
Classical biological control has been attempted by introducing the tachinid Paratheresia claripalpis (from South America) into Malaysia and the ichneumonid Eriborus sinicus from Asia to Hawaii (Grist and Lever, 1969), but the main emphasis in biological control at present is through conservation and enhancement of indigenous natural enemies. The most important of these are parasitic Hymenoptera, some parasitic tachinids, and general predators, such as spiders. Some of these are illustrated in Shepard et al. (1987) and Reissig et al. (1986). A survey was conducted in China to compare parasitism in single rice, double rice and wild rice fields. Not only were there differences between the localities, but also in the species composition. The highest parasitism rate was observed in wild rice fields (Jiang MingXing et al., 1999).
Host-Plant Resistance
Much work has been done over many years, especially in Japan and the Philippines, and is continuing in these and other Asian countries. Some highly resistant varieties are known: for example, TKM 6, Taitung 16, Chianan 2, Su-Yai 20, Szu-Mizo, Yabami Montakhab 55, CV 136 and PTB 10. Semi-dwarf varieties, such as IR 20 and IR 26, are moderately resistant. The latest aspects of biotechnology in the development of insect resistance rice are discussed by Katiyar et al. (1999). Physical factors affecting larval survival include the tightness with which the leaf sheath adheres to the stem, the diameter of the stem and its lumen and the amount of sclerenchymatous tissue present. Plants with a high proportion of sclerenchyma, often associated with ridged stems, are less susceptible to boring by larvae. The presence of high percentages of silica in the stems is also linked to varietal resistance.
Transgenic Plants
Several studies have been conducted on the identification of binding sites in Bacillus thuringiensis (Attathom et al., 1995; Fiuza et al., 1996; Lee MiKyong et al., 1997). Transgenic rice plants showed increased resistance in small-scale field tests (Xu DePing et al., 1996) and similar results were obtained on the laboratory (Mochizuki et al., 1999). A larger scale trial using 2600 trangenic rice plants showed promising results in obtaining insect resistant rice plants (Cheng XiongYing et al., 1998).
Chemical Control
Many chemicals have been used against C. suppressalis and other rice stem borers, but the overuse of chemical insecticides has caused severe pest outbreaks, such as that of the brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens, and is now generally considered to be an unsuitable control method. Grist and Lever (1969) reviewed information available up to that date. The use of insect growth regulators is an important development (Nakagawa et al., 1995; Nakagawa, 1996; Shimizu et al., 1997). Tebufenozide (moulting accelerating insecticide) proved to be as efficient as organophosphorous insecticides in Spain and pyrethroids in France. It has the advantage of being low in fish and avian toxicity as well as safe to beneficials. Compatibility with other commonly used herbicides is an added advantage (Mattioda and Jousseaume, 1999). The use of pesticides poses problems in Asia where mulberry trees, which are used for the cultivation of Bombyx mori, are usually planted around rice fields. Insecticides were screened for control of C. suppressalis in rice, but low toxicity to B. mori (Liu GuangJie et al., 1999).
Pheromonal Control
Campion and Nesbitt (1983) reviewed the results of field tests in the Philippines, Korea, Japan, Iran and France and discussed the possibilities of using pheromones against this and other stem borers. They concluded that mass trapping is unlikely to provide satisfactory control, but that the development of mating disruption techniques against C. suppressalis merited further study. Since then, Guo et al. (1992) have reported the use of synthetic pheromone to disrupt mating of this species in a field trial in China. Differences in the monitoring range of sex pheromones were observed by Tsuchida and Ichihashi (1995) in Japan. The range seemed to be narrower in the second flight season than in the first one, probably because of competition between virgin females. Kondo and Tanaka (1995) observed a linear relationship between the total number of catches using pheromone traps and the proportion of injured rice plant stems. Thus, it appeared that rice plant damage could be estimated using pheromone trap catches. A more detailed threshold was worked out by Kojima et al. (1996).
Integrated Pest Management
This is now the preferred method of control for pests of rice. Teng (1994) recorded that large-scale implementation of rice IPM was stimulated in the 1970s in several Asian countries by pest resurgences resulting from the indiscriminate use of insecticides. Five countries have now enacted legislation to support IPM. The inter-country programme of FAO, the UN, IRRI and national services is developing implementation, which is based on host-plant resistance, location-specific cultural practices and conservation of natural enemies.
Phytosanitary Measures
Formal phytosanitary measures against this species have not been formulated, but general phytosanitary measures should be implemented to limit the possible spread of eggs, larvae or pupae on infested plant material. The fact that C. suppressalis has become established in France, Spain and Portugal indicates the potential for long-distance movements and there would seem to be a real danger that it could be introduced into Africa, or other ecologically favourable areas.
Gaps in Knowledge/Research Needs
Top of pageThis is a typical pest species with the ability to invade other rice growing areas with the same or similar temperature and humidity characteristics. Unfortunately there is very little information on these aspects in the current literature. Literature is mostly based on pest control and resistance, but not on distribution, or identification of specimens collected in areas outside the current distribution. The lack of taxonomists for identification will prove a serious obstacle for having more information on distribution.
References
Top of pageAPPPC, 1987. Insect pests of economic significance affecting major crops of the countries in Asia and the Pacific region. Technical Document No. 135. Bangkok, Thailand: Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific region (RAPA)
CIE, 1977. Distribution Maps of Plant Pests, No. 254. Wallingford, UK: CAB International
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
Grist DH, Lever RJAW, 1969. Pests of Rice. London, UK: Longman
Guo YJ, Zhao JH, Cheng ZH, Zhang KH, Lin SF, 1992. A field trial of controlling the striped stem borer, Chilo suppressalis, with synthetic sex pheromone mating disruption technique. Chinese Journal of Biological Control, 8(3):143
Harris KM, 1990. Bioecology of Chilo species. Insect Science and its Application, 11(4-5):467-477
Jepson WF, 1954. A Critical Review of the World Literature on the Lepidopterous Stalk Borers of Tropical Gramineous Crops. London, UK: Commonwealth Institute of Entomology
Lee SC, Ma KC, 1997. Occurrence of major insect pests in machine transplanted and direct seeded rice paddy field. Korean Journal of Applied Entomology, 36:141-144
Litsinger JA, 1977. Chilo suppressalis (Wlk.). In: Krantz J, Schmutterer H, Koch W, eds. Diseases, Pests and Weeds in Tropical Crops. Berlin, Germany: Paul Parey, 452-455
Mattioda H, Jousseaume C, 1999. Tebufenozide: control of the rice borer in Spain and Camargue. (Le tebufenozide: lutte contre la pyrale du riz en Espagne et en Camargue.) In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Pests in Agriculture, Part 3, Montpellier, France, 7-9 December, 1999. Paris, France: Association Nationale pour la Protection des Plantes (ANPP), 827-834
Nakagawa Y, 1996. Quantitative structure-activity relationships of molting inhibitors. Journal of Pesticide Science, 21(3):363-377
Pathak MD, 1968. Ecology of common insect pests of rice. Annual Review of Entomology, 13:257-294
Teng PS, 1994. Integrated pest management in rice. Experimental Agriculture, 30(2):115-137
Uhm KB, Lee JO, Cho EJ, 1986. Local differences in post-diapause development of striped rice borer, Chilo suppressalis (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). Korean Journal of Plant Protection, 25: 11-16
Distribution References
CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Links to Websites
Top of pageWebsite | URL | Comment |
---|---|---|
Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health | http://www.invasive.org | |
CSIRO Entomology | http://www.csiro.au/org/Entomology.html | |
University of Technology Sydney | http://www.uts.edu.au/ |
Organizations
Top of pageBangladesh: International Rice Research Institution (IRRI), House-30H, Road-10B, Banani, Dhaka-1213, Dhaka, Bangladesh, http://www.irri.org
Distribution Maps
Top of pageSelect a dataset
Map Legends
-
CABI Summary Records
Map Filters
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/