Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 20 (2021) 94–102

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Review article

Bio-based integrated pest management in rice: An agro-ecosystems

friendly approach for agricultural sustainability
Shah Fahad a,b,⇑, Shah Saud c, Adnan Akhter d, Ali Ahsan Bajwa e, Shah Hassan f, Martin Battaglia g,
Muhammad Adnan h, Fazli Wahid h, Rahul Datta i, Emre Babur j, Subhan Danish k,⇑, Tayebeh Zarei l,
Inam Irshad m
a
Hainan Key Laboratory for Sustaianble Utilization of Tropical Bioresource, College of Tropical Crops, Hainan University, Haikou Hainan 570228, China
b
Department of Agronomy, The University of Haripur, Haripur, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 22620, Pakistan
c
Department of Horticultural, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin 150030, China
d
Institute of Agriculture Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam Campus, P.O. Box. 54590, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
e
Weed Research Unit, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia
f
Department of Agricultural Extension Education & Communication, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar, 25130, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
g
Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, United States
h
Department of Agriculture, University of Swabi, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
i
Department of Agrochemistry, Soil Science, Microbiology and Plant Nutrition, Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, Zemedelska1, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic
j
Kahramanmarasß Sütçü Imam_ University, Faculty of Agriculture, Field Plants, Kahramanmarasß, Turkey
k
Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 60800, Punjab, Pakistan
l
Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran Laboratory of Tropical and Mediterranean Symbioses, CIRAD, 34398 Montpellier, France
m
Institute of Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, 38000 Pakistan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Climate change, environmental pollution and depletion of natural resources are among the prominent
Received 13 September 2020 potential challenges for sustainable crop production and environment management in modern agricul-
Revised 15 October 2020 ture. Rice production systems have threatened with insect pests and weeds that significantly contribute
Accepted 9 December 2020
to yield losses. Although control of insects, pests and weeds has remained the major effective plant pro-
Available online 29 December 2020
tection tool, yet hazards to environmental safety urge the scientific community to propose alternative
pest management strategies. Apprehensions about conventional agriculture sustainability have impelled
Keywords:
the extensive introduction of integrated pest management (IPM). Bio-based IPM is one of the important
Rice
Environmental hazards
component for controlling insect-pests, and weeds in rice, as it is environmentally benign, effective, and
Weeds economically viable. In the present article, we analysed several studies to highlight the: (1) description of
Allelopathy practices related to IPM in rice, (2) progress regarding the bio-based integrated insect pests and weed
Integrated pest management management with possible implications and scope, (3) allelopathy effectiveness for weed management
Pesticides in rice, and (4) present dilemmas and proposed future research directions. Briefly, this article explores
the opportunities for the scientists and rice farmers to maximize the utilization of diverse natural control
agents as a partial or total substitute for synthetic pesticides.
Ó 2020 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University. This is an
open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

⇑ Corresponding authors at: Hainan Key Laboratory for Sustaianble Utilization of Tropical Bioresource, College of Tropical Crops, Hainan University, Haikou Hainan 570228,
China (S. Fahad).
E-mail addresses: shahfahad@uoswabi.edu.pk, shah_fahad80@yahoo.com (S. Fahad), mlb487@cornell.edu (M. Battaglia), fazliwahid@uoswabi.edu.pk (F. Wahid),
emrebabur@ksu.edu.tr (E. Babur), sd96850@gmail.com (S. Danish), z.tayebe@yahoo.com (T. Zarei), Inamirshad12@gmail.com (I. Irshad).
Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.

Production and hosting by Elsevier

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2020.12.004
1658-077X/Ó 2020 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Fahad, S. Saud, A. Akhter et al. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 20 (2021) 94–102

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
2. Role of integrated pest management (IPM) to enhance production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
3. Bio-based integrated approaches against insect pests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
4. Integrated weed management in rice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.1. Biological weed management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.2. Allelopathy for weed management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5. Future needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
6. Conclusions and future recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Declaration of Competing Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

1. Introduction beneficial insects, arthropods, and microbes are being killed by

Rice is one of the most important cereal crop and staple food for
about half of the world’s population (J. Liu et al., 2014). It is grown
in about 114 countries, mostly developing nations in Asia and
Africa. Rice production plays a vital role in the economy of these
countries and any hazard that reduces the yield of the product sig-
nificantly influence their economy. To support the ever-increasing
demand for higher grain yields in rice, farmers around the world
are increasing plant densities in their management schemes, which
has resulted in an increased population of certain pests. This, in
turn, has resulted in a frequent over-optimum application of insec-
ticides and herbicides that has negative environmental and eco-
nomic implications. Among others, the indiscriminate use of
pesticides and chemical fertilizers and intensive tillage, the reduc-
tion of vegetation cover from forests and rangelands, and the
increased trends of soil erosion, compaction and organic matter
depletion have been touted as main drivers for environmental pol-
lution in soil, water and air resources (Bai et al., 2013).
Intensive agricultural practices affect many ecosystem activities
like nutrient cycling, organic matter decomposition, and decon-
tamination of environment and control of insect-pests as well as
the occurrence of disease epidemics of aquatic and terrestrial life
(Brevik and Sauer, 2015; Mekonnen et al., 2015). The continuous
use of different chemical agents such as insecticides, weedicides
and fungicides, leaching of nutrients to underground water and
emission of greenhouse gases from agricultural soils has severely
deteriorated the natural ecosystem (Parras-Alcántara et al.,
2013). Despite this, different biotic and abiotic stresses reduce
more than 200 million megagrams of rice production every year
(Khan et al., 1991). Tungro and yellow dwarf diseases are spread
through viruses. Most insects act as a carrier for these viruses that
are serious threats for rice crop (Heinrichs et al., 1985). Lepi-
dopteran stem borers (Scirpophaga incertulas and S. innotata;
Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) and the rice leaf folder
(Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guenée (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)) are
the most harmful insects for rice, causing every year around 10
million megagrams of yield losses.
Intensive use of insecticides has caused epidemics of secondary
pests, particularly brown planthopper Nilaparvata lugens (Stal)
(Hemiptera: Delphacidae), (Kenmore, 1991). Other constraints like
emerging and consistent pest resistance were observed with the
increased use of insecticide to control the eruption of augmenting
population of large secondary pests (Rombach and Gallagher,
1994). Furthermore, the toxicity of insecticides has become a seri-
ous threat to the farmer’s health in the form of polluted environ-
ment and infested food (Teng and Heong, 1988) and chemicals
application against rice pests enhanced the insecticide resistance
of insect vectors that breed in flooded fields. At the same time,
intensive and non-judicious use of chemical herbicides has deteri-
orated soil, groundwater, and atmosphere (Bajwa et al., 2015) and
residual effects of these herbicides. Poorly herbicide management
in modern agriculture is an issue that has to be addressed with
no delay. Since its indiscriminate utilization over the last few dec-
ades has resulted in severe ecological and environmental conse-
quences, including increased weed resistance, weed population
shifts, and dominance of minor weeds (Rao et al., 2007).
The increased herbicide resistance in many weed species fur-
ther aggravated the problem (Chauhan, 2012; Rao et al., 2007).
Non-conventional weed management strategies, especially based
on ecological principles are much needed in modern agriculture
(Bajwa et al., 2015; Chauhan and Johnson, 2010). However, the
concept of integrated pest management (IPM) is the one receiving
the most attention at present. The IPM comprises of multiple and
synergistic strategies that vary from carefully-targeted use of
chemical pesticides to biological techniques that utilize natural
opponents/enemies to manage pests (Sorby et al., 2003). Under
the IPM concept, however, proper insecticide use is also a valuable
resource that can be used, under certain situations, to capitalize
and further improve the control provided from natural control
agents (Mueller, 1980). Thus, it is essential to identify insects and
animals that can act as effective beneficial predatory species and
the combination of management practices that could ensure their
prolificacy and sustain their populations over the long term.
Bio-based IPM is a key component for suppressing insect pests,
and weeds by allelopathy or by utilizing microbes like viruses,
fungi, bacteria, protozoa, and nematodes as bio-control agents.
For this purpose, the microbes are first cultured in vitro and after
that utilized either for short or long term (Jayarj, 1986). Bio-
based pest management options are viable depending on the pre-
vailing environmental conditions. Natural predators can consume
a considerable amount of notorious pests and obnoxious weeds
without impacting the growth and yield of the main crop in the
short term while attaining equilibrium in pest control in the long
term (Jetter and Paine, 2004). Due to limited available knowledge
on the ecological action of predators as a tool for pest control, these
valuable organisms have not been frequently and comprehensively
utilized as biological control agents. According to Kim (1992),
predators begin to increase their populations around mid-July in
rice fields in South Korea, 40–45 days after transplanting. In Japan,
the same trend was observed because of similar agricultural man-
agement (Kobayashi and Shibata, 1973).
Spider (class Arachnida; order Araneae) is considered a key preda-
tor because it minimizes the attack of insect pests by decreasing
their population densities (Fox and Dondale, 1972). In rice fields, spi-
ders can perform a key role against insect pest population as a nat-
ural predator (Hamamura, 1969; Holt et al., 1987; Shiro, 1977).
Allelopathy is a general biological phenomenon by which an
organism releases allelochemicals that can influence the growth,
development, survival, and reproduction of other organisms. Allelo-
chemicals can potentially be harnessed as insecticides, herbicides,

95
S. Fahad, S. Saud, A. Akhter et al. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 20 (2021) 94–102

Table 1 and strategic execution. In this context, an efficient IPM strategy is

Effect of IPM in reducing certain pest losses and their impact on crop productivity. pivotal to maximize pest control advantages while minimizing the
Pest Loss/situation Intervention by whom Benefits potential detrimental impacts on the environment (Wright et al.,
at selected and how? 2005). The theory of IPM has steadily gained in recognition and is
locations now accepted as an environmentally friendly approach that can
Cassava 40% loss in 27 International Institute of 90% drop in also ensure the production and quality of agricultural products
mealybug countries of Tropical Agriculture losses, US$8– (Wu and Guo, 2005). In other words, IPM can be described as the
sub-Saharan (IITA)– biocontrol 20 million
Africa
adoption of a superior strategy for the control of pests that reduce
Andean 50% loss in Institut Pasteur Loss drop to crop yields without causing residual chemical toxicity on the bene-
potato Peru Collection (CIP) – 5%, US$12 ficial organism that has a central role in the efficacy of the actual
weevil microbials million management practice (Pretty and Bharucha, 2015).
Striga weed in US$13 million International Centre of >100% yield
Currently, programs conducted in countries in Africa and Latin
maize loss in Kenya Insect Physiology and gain, >2.5
Ecology (ICIPE) – habitat benefit–cost America apply the terms of integrated production and pest manage-
management ratio ment collectively and simultaneously. The key principles of IPM
Diamondback 20 sprays Asian Vegetable Sprays drop include (a) the promotion of healthy soil and crops, (b) protection
moth in needed per Research and to four, US$10 against natural enemies, (c) regular monitoring for pest levels and
cabbage season in the Development Center million/year
crop conditions, and (d) dissemination of useful technical knowl-
Philippines (AVRDC) – pesticide use
management plus edge and expertise to the farming community. Relying on these
biocontrol standards IPM strategies conjugates the ability to manage the activ-
Rice leaf 68% of farmers International Rice Proportion of ities of different pests which are harmful to crop production with
feeders apply Research Institute (IRRI) farmers
the increased preservation of the environment as a result of the
insecticides in – communication spraying
the Philippines dropped to reduction in the use of synthetic pesticides (Pretty et al., 2011).
11%

Source: James et al. (2007). 3. Bio-based integrated approaches against insect pests

and antimicrobial crop protection products, and have a great value Since the advent of synthetic chemical pesticides in the late
1940s, the major focus of pests controls almost entirely depended
in a sustainable agriculture system. In the past, a great deal of
on their high efficacy, economic feasibility, and ease in the applica-
research work has been done to investigate allelopathy, particularly
tion (Payne et al., 2011). As a result of these significant advantages,
for weed management in different arable crops (Farooq et al., 2013;
chemical pesticides will likely continue to be the main component
Jabran et al., 2015). Different methods of allelochemical weed man-
of pest management agendas in the foreseeable future. Unfortu-
agement include allelopathic water extract application, use of cover
nately, the use of synthetic pesticides has numerous devastating
crops having allelopathic potential in cropping rotation, incorpora-
side-effects including damages to the water and soil quality, con-
tion or surface retention of allelopathic crop residues, intercropping
tamination of natural water reservoirs, deterioration of human
with potential allelopathic crops, and improvement of the inherent
health and destruction of flora and fauna. These deleterious effects
potential of allelopathic crops (Cheema et al., 2012).
pose a huge threat to agro-biodiversity, biosafety, as well as on
In this review, we highlighted the importance of IPM in rice
human health. Non-targeted actions of such high potency chemi-
with special focus on biological and ecological tools. We discussed
cals kill beneficial organisms like pollinators and predators. Devel-
the progress regarding the bio-based integrated insect pests and
opment of resistance in pests against synthetic pesticides is also
weed management in rice with possible implications and scope.
threatening and demanding to introduce organic and biological
We also addressed the role of allelopathy for weed management
in rice and proposed the key research directions to provide a useful analogues and counterparts of chemicals. For these reasons, aware-
ness is growing among researchers globally to find out the tech-
reference for future studies. In practice, the main purpose of this
review is to discuss innovative strategies that can be used by rice niques that can lessen the utilization and reliance on pesticides
(S. S. Liu et al., 2014).
farmers to maximize the utilization of various natural controls as
a substitute for synthetic pesticides. Management strategies i.e., fertilizer management, irrigation
management, agrochemicals application managements in rice
have undoubtedly increased the production but the problem of
2. Role of integrated pest management (IPM) to enhance insect pests has also been aggravated (Litsinger, 2009a). The sub-
production stantial damage produced by different pests is the main threat
for achieving high production of rice for the increasing world
IPM has been considered as one of the vital pillars of the agricul-
tural sciences against the control of insect-pests during the second
Table 2
half of the twentieth century. IPM strategies make use of most of Biological control agents (*) and biopesticides (+) for Nilaparvata lugens.
the available cultural, genetic, mechanical, biological, chemical
Biological control Reduction/mortality (%) Reference
techniques and practices to maintain the levels of harmful
agent/Biopesticides
insect-pests under the economic injury level for a given crop
+Plant extract of 82% mortality (Senthil-
(Table 1). IPM approach mainly depends on regular visiting and
Azadirachta indica Nathan et al.,
monitoring of the crop pest and has been vastly recognized at A 2009a)
the global scale as a management tool to achieve agricultural sus- +Benzene extract of 90% mortality (Jena, 2000)
tainability (Pretty and Bharucha, 2015). Polygonum
Due to an increased number of people moving to different areas hydropiper plant
+Foliar application of Less than 70% of egg hatchability and (Senthil-
within or between countries and the globalization of the food mar- Jasmonic acid population growth index of N. lugens Nathan et al.,
ket, an increased number of pest species have been introduced into 2009b)
new areas where they did not exist before (de Clercq et al., 2011; *Anabas testudineus At 85 days after sowing, the number (Ooi and
Perrings et al., 2000). Appropriate precautionary measures are (Fish) of N. lugens was significantly lower Shepard,
by 51%. 1994a)
required against these invasive pests along with planning, progress,
96
S. Fahad, S. Saud, A. Akhter et al.
population (Waddington et al., 2010). Different crops and ulti-
mately their yield per area basis were severely affected by the
attack of various insect pests in tropical Asian countries in the
recent past (Savary et al., 1997). At present, about 128 insects’
types have been identified in extensive field rice production and
out of these only 15–20 insect species are regarded as economi-
cally damaging types (Makkar et al., 2019).
Biological control is considered one of the most promising
approaches to target only harmful types of insects and as an alter-
native to synthetic pesticides. According to Bale et al. (2008),
nearly all pests have natural opponents and these could be very
successful to control pest population under economic thresholds.
Although every pest population may not be completely managed
by biological approaches, this technique has the potential to be
considered as an important component of an IPM strategy, which
unites a large number of pest control techniques in an ecologically
sheltered system (Bale et al., 2008). Overall, the application of bio-
logical approaches can be helpful in low-cost and safe manage-
ment of different insect-pests. It is clear from previous studies
that biological control depends on the organism relation with the
targeted pests and the environment (Brodeur et al., 2018;
Heimpel and Cock, 2018; Wright and Bennett, 2018).
N. lugens is a very destructive pest that severely impacts rice
crop productivity. Formerly, due to abrupt attacks of this tiny
and notorious insect, huge amount of damages happened on
large-scale (Dyck, 1979). However, these unexpected occurrences
at that time were mainly due to the lack of effective chemical pes-
ticides (Pretty and Bharucha, 2015). Despite IPM educational pro-
grams, N. lugens became a major rival of rice crop, demanding
precautionary measurements to be adopted to prevent its eruption
during crop growth.
Data presented in Table 2 shows that populations of brown
planthopper are normally kept under effective control by its natu-
ral opponents. With the application of insecticides regularly, epi-
demics of brown planthopper were recorded in the tropics
during 1970s (Sogawa, 2015). At that time, more applications of
insecticides induced faster resurgence of N. lugens population,
resulting this in extensive dehydration of O. sativa plants, a symp-
tom characterized as ‘‘hopper-burn”. Applications of insecticides
typically kill the population of both N. lugens and their predators,
nevertheless, inside the stem of plants their eggs are comparatively
undamaged and when the eggs hatch, nymphs come out and start
their life in environments with decimated population or com-
pletely free of predators. On the other side, the N. lugens population
did not increase significantly in the unsprayed field. These results
highlight the importance of biological control strategies to control
the population of harmful insects.
Stem borers are also considered as one of the most harmful
insect pests and a limiting factor to rice production. Among stem
borer species, S. incertulas is considered the most destructive pest
that has been reported across the entire Indian sub-continent
(Catling et al., 1987), accounting for almost 90% of all borer species
in the northern parts of West Bengal (Biswas, 2006). For this cause
valuation of the most effective integrated management approaches
both at the national and ‘local level’ has been recognized as a vital
instrument in future research efforts (Satpathi et al., 2005).
Destruction of natural enemies of insect pests by certain insec-
ticides supports the contention that insecticide use, especially
early in the growing season, upsets natural enemy mediated con-
trol of insects. Such circumstances generate outbursts of secondary
pests as well and thus, weakens the control of several important
primary pests by using biological control methods such as stem
borers. A considerable increase in grain rice production was
observed by the application of IPM techniques in the southern part
of West Bengal in India (Satpathi et al., 2005). It is anticipated that
broad spectrum pesticide application alters natural enemy com-
97
Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 20 (2021) 94–102
Table 3
Predators and parasitoids of common insect pests of rice.
Parasitoids and predators of yellow stem borer (Scirpophaga incertulas)
Larvae Pupa
Temelucha philippinensis, Ashmead, Tetrastichus ayyari
Stenobracon nicevillei, (Bingham),
Bracon chinensis, Szepligeti, Lycosa
pseudoannulata, Micraspis spp.,
Ophionea spp. (Boesenberg and Strand),
Parasitoids and predators of leaf folder (Cnaphalocrocis medinalis)
Temelucha philippinensis, Cotesia Xanthopimpla, flavolineata
augustibasis (Gahan), Trichomma Cameron, Tetrastichus ayyari,
enaphalocrosis Uchida, Lycosa Rohwer
pseudoannulata, Micraspis spp.,
Ophionea spp., Ants,Water bugs
Parasitoids and predators of brown planthopper (N. lugens)
Pseudogonatopus spp., Cyrtorhinus Pseudogonatopus spp
lividipennis Synharmoni octomaculata (F.)
Lycosa. Pseudoannulata, Migrovelia Paederus fuscipes Curtis
douglasi
Atrolineata, Bergroth, Synharmoni
octomaculata (F.), Paederus fuscipes
Curtis
munities and may facilitate secondary pest outbreaks like N. lugens
and green leafhopper (Nephotettix spp.) increases their populations
in the absence of natural enemy communities and then causes sev-
ere damages (Bale et al., 2008).
N. lugens and their adaptation to tolerant cultivars has been
augmented by insecticide applications, primarily because of devel-
opment of insecticide tolerance and increase in their population
(Gallagher et al., 1994). Moreover, pesticides have the potential
to become part of the food chain by animal feeding, which ulti-
mately affects the health of human beings (Kiritani, 2000). To mit-
igate these detrimental effects of pesticide application, worldwide
rice IPM for insects were developed with the prolonged efforts of
several entomologists, but due to various circumstances, such pro-
grams have not attained the popularity up to the expected levels.
Among the most conspicuous causes for this, the pressure from
the agrochemical industry has been pointed out as an important
reason behind restricted growth and slow adoption of worldwide
IPM techniques (Brader, 1982).
The role of ecological considerations in devising IPM tools is
important (Morales, 2004). Most of the previous work focused on
the individual or multifaceted aspects of both pests and their nat-
ural opponents in rice, whereas the atomistic system approach of
rice ecosystems was either never deemed important or went
ignored. Consequently, the eruptions of insect pests occurred peri-
odically and the factors behind are required to be examined in
detail to devise future strategies and preventive measures
(Litsinger, 2009b).
Predators and parasitoids perform an impressive role in manag-
ing rice insect pests. They affect insect pests differently at different
life stages (Table 3). Different potential predators and parasitoids
such as the wolf spider (Lycosa pseudoannulata Bösenberg &
Strand) and mirid (Cyrtorhinus lividipennis (Hemiptera: Miridae:
Orthotylinae)) attack S. incertulas, N. lugens, and C. medinalis. The
predators that nourish on eggs and larvae of leaf folders is almost
identical as for stem borers. A key exemption is the cricket, M.
vittaticollis, which is a voracious feeder of leaf folders eggs. Accord-
ing to Ooi and Shepard (1994b) about 50% of leaf folder egg preda-
tion was observed in both direct-seeded and transplanted rice in
field trials. Kamal (1981) reported a 70% leaf folder mortality by
predators. The parasitoid composite for leaf folder larvae and pupa
is more affluent than that for eggs. Rao et al. (1948) found 32 kinds
of larval and eight types of pupal parasitoids from rice fields in
India. Wolf spider is considered an important predator because it
feeds on the larvae and adults of stem borer, larvae of leaf folder,
S. Fahad, S. Saud, A. Akhter et al.
Fig. 1. Biologically-based IPM in rice.
and the nymphs and adults of N. lugens and C. medinalis (Fahad
et al., 2015). Mirid eats the eggs and nymphs of N. lugens, and also
feeds on the green leafhopper and the eggs of leaf folders.
Grasshopper (C. longipennis) consumes the stem borers and leaf
folders eggs (Fahad et al., 2015).
Parasitoids have a tendency to be more selective. Settle et al.
(1996) examined 765 types of arthropods on the Java island in irri-
gated fields of rice over 4 years. Out of the 765 species, 306 species
(40%) were found to be predators, while only 187 (24%) were clas-
sified as parasitoids.
In conclusion, biological pest control through IPM based ecolog-
ical and biological tools for insect-pest management in rice has
considerable potential. It can increase future adoption as an envi-
ronmentally friendly technique compared to chemical pesticide
use and management (Fig. 1). However, it is not a simple approach
to be executed at the field level and certain aspects of the system
are yet to be researched. The future of IPM looks promising, in par-
ticular, that related to rice insect pests.
4. Integrated weed management in rice
Weeds are major competitors to cash crops, causing growth
suppression and yield reductions through competition for light,
nutrients, water, space and allelopathic interactions. Rice crop
has multiple associated weeds, depending on climatic conditions,
cropping systems, and management practices (Chauhan, 2013),
that have caused up to 32% global yield losses in rice (Rao et al.,
2007). In lowland rice, weeds remain always a major problem. It
is thought that the introduction of puddling for rice transplanting
was mainly associated with weed management. The idea behind
its adoption was to provide anaerobic conditions with intensive
soil disturbance to dismantle established weeds. Puddling offers
a great deal of weed control, proving to be a good production sys-
tem for rice (Rao et al., 2007). But due to rising concerns about
labour and water shortage, a paradigm shift has been observed in
rice cultivation over the last few years. Several modifications are
being practised in rice sowing methods, including direct dry seed-
ing, wet seeding, alternate wetting and drying, and the system of
rice intensification (Chauhan, 2012). Direct-seeded rice, in particu-
lar, has cut the water requirements and labour efforts in rice pro-
98
Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 20 (2021) 94–102
duction systems. However, more prevalent weed infestation is
oftenly regarded as the main problem following the adoption of
these water-conserving techniques in rice, since aerobic conditions
provide a more conducive environment for weeds. Under such cir-
cumstances, the need for an integrated approach is crucial. A range
of management options have been studied with varying degrees of
success, but the main idea is to integrate multiple options under
prevailing conditions. In modern rice production systems, the most
problematic weeds are volunteer rice (unwanted plants of Oryza
genus) and Echinochloa spp. in direct-seeded regimes (Chauhan,
2013).
There are several strategies to combat weeds from an IPM view-
point. While a detailed discussion of those strategies is not an
objective of this article, a glimpse to some of these techniques is
presented here. Preventive measures are necessary to obtain a
healthy rice establishment, especially for direct seeding. Modified
land preparation methods like the use of the stale seedbed tech-
nique are also very helpful. Tillage plays a vital role in weed erad-
ication and dynamics shifts in weed populations. When performed
prior to seedbed preparation, tillage usually offers an overall effec-
tive weed control. Adjustments in seed rate and planting geometry
may also offer significant weed control (Anwar, 2011). Another
potential area is the introduction of enhanced weed-competitive
cultivars of rice. Such genotypes may have morphological, physio-
logical, and biochemical superiority over weeds (Gibson and
Fischer, 2004). Water management in direct-seeded rice as well
as in flooded rice is another crucial component to the success of
any weed management program in rice (Chauhan, 2013). Seed
priming, inclusions of cover crops in rotation, fertilizer manage-
ment and consideration of the critical weed-crop competition per-
iod are also considered as effective tools for integrated weed
management in rice (Buhler, 2002; Isik et al., 2006). Nevertheless,
the important role of herbicides in weed control should not be
denied. In fact, the application of the herbicide is the most success-
ful, efficient, and economical tool for weed control at present
(Chauhan, 2013). However, their residual effects on environmental
safety are very alarming. The non-judicious use of chemical herbi-
cides has posed great destruction to macro and microfauna and
flora in agroecosystems, and an increasing number of weed species
are showing more resistance against multiple classes of herbicides
(Beckie, 2014). The use of alternative herbicides with novel chem-
S. Fahad, S. Saud, A. Akhter et al.
Table 4
Alternative herbicides for direct seeded rice.
Alternative Replaced herbicide Weeds controlled
herbicide
Quinclorac Propanil Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv, Echinochloa colona (L.)
Link
Imazethapyr Propanil Echinochloa crus-galli L Urochloa platyphylla (Nash) R.D
Bispyribac-sodium Thiobencarb, Echinochloa crus-galli L. Echinochloa phyllopogon (Stapf.)
Monilate Koss
Benzofenap Benzosufuron
Bentazon 2,4-D
Butachlor Sulfonylurea
ical structures and modes of action is a viable option to the use of a
reduced group of herbicides (Green, 2011). Utilization of alterna-
tive herbicides as a weed management approach has shown
promising results in direct-seeded rice in different countries
(Table 4).
In short, weed management in rice is multi-dimensional and
the key to optimum weed control is the integrated adoption of
the most appropriate set of management strategies suitable under
prevailing conditions.
4.1. Biological weed management
Biological weed control started to receive attention around the
mid-80s when some of the potent microbial agents were success-
fully utilized to make effective formulations for weed control. Since
then, this particular field has been struggled to introduce new
inventions or launching products but a consistent theoretical
development is evident at present (Hallett, 2005). To kill or reduce
weeds population, numerous numbers of predators, microbes, and
competitors of weeds have been utilized. Many scientists have
done remarkable work to explore this environmentally friendly,
safe, and economical approach and have declared it as the best
option in integration with other techniques in conservation agri-
culture (Charudattan, 2001; Juraimi et al., 2013; Müller-Schärer
et al., 2000). Charudattan (2001) examined the significance and
usefulness of several microbial agents as biocontrol agents of lethal
weeds. Many organisms are used to control weeds; e.g. Geese was
referred to as a good predator of different weeds in woods, viticul-
ture, and in many row crops. Chinese geese grazed on weeds of row
crops and can provide with high and effective weed control against
Sorghum halepense (L.) and Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers., but caution
is required to keep them away from grassy crops like corn and sor-
ghum (Charudattan, 2001).
Different biological agents like tadpoles, fish, ducks, geese, and
pigs have been used for weed control in rice fields. These are suc-
cessful in flooded lowland rice but not as effective in aerobic con-
ditions as they are directly linked with standing water (Ismail
et al., 2012). In Indonesia, the rice-fish farming system offered
proper management of sedges like Fimbristylis miliacea (L.) Vahl
and Cyperus iria (L.) (Juraimi et al., 2013). Fungal based (Exsero-
hilum monocerus and Cocholiobolus lunatas) bio-herbicides proved
to be highly effective against Echinochloa crus–galli (L.) P. Beauv
in rice. Similarly, Setosphaeria sp. offered good selective control
of Leptochloa chinensis (L.) Nees. Remarkably no residual effects
of bio-herbicides have been observed either on soils or plants until
nowadays. Moreover, with the use of precise bio-herbicides appli-
cation specific weeds can effortlessly be managed (Tsuzuki and
Yamamoto, 1987).
Biological weed management in rice is a pragmatic option if the
right choice of microbes/predators and appropriate timing and dose
is selected. To ensure success, complex biological interactions
among components in this system must be considered before
practice.
99
Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 20 (2021) 94–102
Origin Reference
Sri Lanka, Costa (Marambe and Amarasinghe,
Rica 2002)
USA (Scherder et al., 2001)
USA (De Witt et al., 2002)
Australia (Pratley et al., 2004)
Malaysia (Azmi, 2003)
South Korea (SoonChul and WoonGoo, 2005)
4.2. Allelopathy for weed management
Allelopathy is an eco-physiological phenomenon in which
growth and metabolism of a plant or microbe are promoted or sup-
pressed due to release of potent secondary metabolites by another
plant or microbe living in its vicinity (Farooq et al., 2013; Jabran
et al., 2015). Those secondary metabolites are known as allelo-
chemicals and have great potential to affect growth due to physio-
logical interference. Although the process of allelopathy is
stimulatory as well as inhibitory, the latter effect is more promi-
nent and has been intensively researched. Previously, it was just
considered as a natural ecological phenomenon with certain
impacts on ecosystem functioning. Conversely, its utility as a weed
management option has recently been widely publicized
(Bhadoria, 2010) and profuse research efforts were put to study
the impacts of its application in rice, Cicer arietinum and cover
crops etc (Jabran et al., 2015).
Sorghum is one of the most widely used crops water extracts as
a natural herbicide. Concentrated Sorgaab (sorghum water extract)
controlled Chenopodium album L., Phalaris minor Retz., Fumaria
indica (Hausskn.) Pugsley, and Rumex dentatus L. in wheat crop.
Use of Sorgaab resulted in 15–47% and 19–49% reductions in weed
density and dry weight in a study conducted in a semi-arid region
of Punjab, India (Cheema and Khaliq, 2000). Similarly, weeds of
rice, wheat, sunflower, cotton, and mungbean were successfully
controlled by the sole and combined application of sorghum, bras-
sica, sunflower, maize, and rice water extracts (Cheema et al.,
2012). Mixed applications of crop water extracts and reduced her-
bicide doses were also very effective as per weed control. Example
of research studies that explored the allelopathic potential of dif-
ferent higher plants and cultivated crops against weeds of rice is
shown in Table 5.
Rice itself is an allelopathic crop having a range of allelochem-
icals which may suppress weeds such as some varieties of rice crop
release biocidal allelochemicals which might influence weeds spe-
cies nearby rice plan (Amb and Ahluwalia, 2016). An important
deal of research has been conducted to screen rice genotypes with
higher allelopathic potential. Nowadays, scientists are working to
increase the allelopathic potential of rice cultivars through conven-
tional breeding as well as through biotechnological techniques.
Extensive implementation of these cultivars will likely improve
weed management of rice on a more sustainable basis character-
ized by no or reduced use of synthetic chemical herbicides.
5. Future needs
In an effort to foster the implementation of management strate-
gies aligned with the social and environmental need for more sus-
tainable agricultural systems, IPM has the potential to become a
key comprehensive long-term program that is both economically
viable and environmentally benign. IPM in rice production systems
has long been recognized as the main strategy for pest control.
S. Fahad, S. Saud, A. Akhter et al. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 20 (2021) 94–102

Table 5
Weed management through allelopathy in rice.

Allelopathic plant Plant parts Potential allelochemicals Weeds suppressed Reference

used
Scientific name Common
name
Ageratum conyzoides L. Billy goat Leaves, stem Benzoic acid, coumalic acid, gallic Monochoria vaginalis, Rotala indica, (Hong et al., 2004)
weed and root acid, protocatechuic acid, p- Marsilea quadrifolia, Leptochloa chinensis, (Xuan et al., 2004)
hydroxybenzoic acid, pcoumaric acid Cyperus difformis, Sphenochlea zeylanica,
Commelina diffusa, Dactyloctenium
aegyptium, Brachiaria mutica
Azadirachta indica A. Neem Leaves and Benzoic acid, gallic acid, ferulic acid, Echinochloa crus-galli, Monochoria vaginalis (Xuan, 2004)
Juss bark p-coumaric acid, vanillic acid, (Xuan et al., 2004)
transcinamic acid
Fagopyrum esculentum Buckwheat Leaves and Arachidic acid, behenic acid, caffeic Echinochloa crus-galli, Monochoria (Tsuzuki and
Moench. stem acid, chrologenic acid, ferulic acid, vaginalis, Eleocharis acicularis, Scirpus Yamamoto, 1987)
palmitic acid juncoides, Cyperus difformis (Tsuzuki, 2001)
Medicago sativa L. Alfalfa Leaves and Catechin, gallic acid, ferulic acid, Echinochloa crus-galli, Monochoria (Xuan and Tsuzuki,
stem protocatechuic acid, p coumaric acid, vaginalis, Rotala indica, Eleocharis 2001)
p hydroxybenzoic acid, syringic acid acicularis, Scirpus juncoides, Doparium (Xuan et al., 2003)
juncencum, Elatine triandrae, Cyperus
difformis
Piper methysticum G. Kava Root Gallic acid, ferulic acid, Echinochloa crus-galli, Monochoria (Xuan et al., 2003)
Forster protocatechuic acid, p- vaginalis, Rotala indica, Eleocharis
hydroxybenzoic acid, p-coumaric acicularis, Cyperus difformis
acid, salicylic acid
Sorghum bicolor L. Sorghum Leaves, stem Sorgoleon, dhurrin, Vanillic acid, Echinocloa colona, Cyperus rotundus, (Wazir et al., 2011)
Moench and root juglone, sorgolactone Cyperus iria
Helianthus annuus L. Sunflower Leaves, stem Chlorogenic, caffeic, syringic, vanillic Echinocloa crus-galli, Cyperus iria, (Rehman et al., 2010)
and root and \ ferulic acid, Annuionone Dactyloctenum aegyptium (Cheema et al., 2012)
Tagetes minuta L. Mexican Leaves and a pinene, Ocimenone, limonene Cyperus rotundus, Echinochloa crus-galli (Batish et al., 2007)
marigold stem (Sadia et al., 2013)

However, much room for growth is still available to further
improve current IPM techniques. Until now, thousands of resistant
strains of several insect pests have been identified, but the major
progress on host plant resistance studies is lacking. A substantial
increase in the amount of field research studies and extension
efforts are warranted to reduce the lack of farmer awareness to
grow cultivar tolerant to insect and utilization of an IPM program
that can efficiently blend the use of natural predators, biological
control and allelopathy effects with the use of chemical pesticides.
IPM approaches are being devised and successfully showcased
in many countries. In South Korea, for example, pesticide applica-
tion in watersheds in Seoul are not allowed, as it can contaminate
or toxify the water resources. Moreover, huge investments have
been made by the Korean government to promote organic farming
systems with greater crop production (Fahad et al., 2015). In other
cases, diversification of agroecosystems through the implementa-
tion of as rice–fish–vegetable cultures have shown a potential to
reduce both the use and cost of pesticides-based controls while
providing greater access to a more flexible and nutritious source
of food for local people.
Despite these efforts, development of IPM strategies is drasti-
cally required in many countries. These programs should guaran-
tee that our educational systems (both formal and informal)
react sufficiently to the future demands of lessening the negative
agriculture influence on the environment while enhancing yields.
IPM-based production regime is certainly the main feature of such
education. Research work is required in association with field pro-
grams to engage farmers in finding answers to problems faced dur-
ing the implementation of IPM. Proper consideration must be given
to economic feasibilities and socio-economic factors. In the field of
policymaking and legislation, important steps are also required to
regulate the use of synthetic pesticides. Significant attention is
required to subsidize and commercialize indigenous and interna-
tional organic products such as pheromones, attractants, natural
enemies, high-quality seeds and pest-resistant cultivars so that
farmers can get maximum access and benefits by implementing
core IPM technologies.
6. Conclusions and future recommendations
In the latest years, vast improvement has been done in IPM for
rice. Nevertheless, further research is needed to explore the poten-
tial of natural opponents, microbial insecticides, and competitive
cultivars. Although the pest’s population will present an immense
threat to the production of rice globally, wisely devised integrated
strategies may help better to combat this challenge. Less usage of
synthetic pesticides, on one hand, will raise biological control
methods because both of these methods are closely associated with
each other. As a result, an increase in the population of beneficial
insect’s populations will manage the harmful pests in an environ-
mental friendly method. We recommend that the net profits for
the rice grower increase by adopting IPM strategies, because of less
use of pesticides without any reduction in yield. It is concluded that
spraying of chemical materials for the control of insect, pests and
weeds should not be used to save the natural opponents (parasites
and predators). For environmental protection, IPM policies and
techniques should be employed. Varieties that are sensitive against
the attack of insect or pests should be replaced with tolerant culti-
vars that demonstrate resistance to insects and nematodes.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
We thank the funding provided by the Directorate of Science
and Technology (DoST), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.

100
S. Fahad, S. Saud, A. Akhter et al. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 20 (2021) 94–102

References Green, J.M., 2011. Outlook on weed management in herbicide-resistant crops: need
for diversification. Outlooks Pest Manag. https://doi.org/10.1564/22jun02.
Hallett, S.G., 2005. Where are the bioherbicides? Weed Sci. 53, 404–415. https://doi.
Amb, M.K., Ahluwalia, A.S., 2016. Allelopathy: potential role to achieve new
org/10.1614/ws-04-157r2.
milestones in rice cultivation. Rice Sci. 23, 165–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Hamamura, T., 1969. Seasonal fluctuation of spider population in paddy fields. Acta
rsci.2016.06.001.
Arachnol. 22, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.2476/asjaa.22.40.
Anwar, 2011. Seeding method and rate influence on weed suppression in aerobic
Heimpel, G.E., Cock, M.J.W., 2018. Shifting paradigms in the history of classical
rice. African J. Biotechnol. 10, 15259–15271. https://doi.org/10.5897/ajb11.060.
biological control. BioControl 63, 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-017-
Azmi, M., 2003. Control of resistant biotype of Limnocharis flava in direct seeded
9841-9.
rice. In: 6th International Conference on Plant Protection in the Tropics. Kuala
Heinrichs, E.A., Medrano, F.D., Rapusas, H.R., K, V.S., Pathak, P.K., Singh, B.N., Lal, M.
Lumpur, Malaysia, p. 52.
N., 1985. Genetic Evaluation for Insect Resistance in rice. International Rice
Bai, X.Y., Wang, S.J., Xiong, K.N., 2013. Assessing spatial-temporal evolution
Research Institute, Rice Genetics Newsletter.
processes of karst rocky desertification land: indications for restoration
Holt, J., Cook, A.G., Perfect, T.J., Norton, G.A., 1987. Simulation Analysis of Brown
strategies. L. Degrad. Dev. 24, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.1102.
Planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) Population Dynamics on Rice in the
Bajwa, A.A., Mahajan, G., Chauhan, B.S., 2015. Nonconventional weed management
Philippines. J. Appl. Ecol. 24, 87–102. https://doi.org/10.2307/2403789.
strategies for modern agriculture. Weed Sci. 63, 723–747. https://doi.org/
Hong, N.H., Xuan, T.D., Eiji, T., Khanh, T.D., 2004. Paddy weed control by higher
10.1614/ws-d-15-00064.1.
plants from Southeast Asia. Crop Prot. 23, 255–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Bale, J.S., Van Lenteren, J.C., Bigler, F., 2008. Biological control and sustainable food
cropro.2003.08.008.
production. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.
Isik, D., Mennan, H., Bukun, B., Oz, A., Ngouajio, M., 2006. The critical period for
2182.
weed control in corn in Turkey. Weed Technol. 20, 867–872. https://doi.org/
Batish, D.R., Arora, K., Singh, H.P., Kohli, R.K., 2007. Potential utilization of dried
10.1614/wt-05-102.1.
powder of Tagetes minuta as a natural herbicide for managing rice weeds. Crop
Ismail, A.M., Johnson, D.E., Ella, E.S., Vergara, G. V., Baltazar, A.M., 2012. Adaptation
Prot. 26, 566–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2006.05.008.
to flooding during emergence and seedling growth in rice and weeds, and
Beckie, H.J., 2014. Herbicide resistance in weeds and crops: Challenges and
implications for crop establishment. AoB Plants 2012, pls019. https://doi.org/
opportunities. In: Recent Advances in Weed Management. Springer, New
10.1093/aobpla/pls019.
York, pp. 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1019-9_15.
Jabran, K., Mahajan, G., Sardana, V., Chauhan, B.S., 2015. Allelopathy for weed
Bhadoria, P., 2010. Allelopathy: a natural way towards weed management. Am. J.
control in agricultural systems. Crop Prot. 72, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Exp. Agric. 1, 7–20. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajea/2011/002.
cropro.2015.03.004.
Biswas, S., 2006. Studies on the stem borer, leaf folder and gall midge under terai
James, B., Bramel, P., Lagnaoui, A., Erisgen, E., Asiabaka, C., 2007. IPM contributions
agro-ecology of West Bengal. Uttar Banga Krishi Viswavidyalaya Pundibari
to the achievement of Millennium Development Goals of halving hunger and
Cooch Behar India.
poverty. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Plant Protection Congress, pp.
Brader, L., 1982. Recent trends of insect control in the tropics. Entomol. Exp. Appl.
344–345.
31, 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1982.tb03122.x.
Jayarj, S., 1986. Role of insect pathogens in plant protection. Proc. Indian Natl Sci.
Brevik, E.C., Sauer, T.J., 2015. The past, present, and future of soils and human health
Acad. Part B Biol. Sci. 52, 91–107.
studies. Soil 1, 35–46. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-1-35-2015.
Jena, M., 2000. Efficacy of the plant, Polygonum hydropiper against rice brown
Brodeur, J., Abram, P.K., Heimpel, G.E., Messing, R.H., 2018. Trends in biological
planthopper Nilaparvata lugens Stal. Curr. Sci. 78, 953–954.
control: public interest, international networking and research direction.
Jetter, K., Paine, T.D., 2004. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for
BioControl 63, 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-017-9850-8.
biological control in the urban landscape. Biol. Control 30, 312–322. https://doi.
Buhler, D.D., 2002. Challenges and opportunities for integrated weed management.
org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2003.08.004.
Weed Sci. 50, 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1614/0043-1745(2002)050[0273:
Juraimi, A.S., Uddin, M.K., Anwar, M.P., Mohamed, M.T.M., Ismail, M.R., Man, A.,
AIAAOF]2.0.CO;2.
2013. Sustainable weed management in direct seeded rice culture: a review.
Catling, H.D., Islam, Z., Pattrasudhi, R., 1987. Assessing yield losses in deepwater rice
Aust. J. Crop Sci. 7, 989–1002.
due to yellow stem borer, Scirpophaga incertulas (Walker), in Bangladesh and
Kamal, N.Q., 1981. Suppression of whitebacked planthopper, Sogatella furcifera
Thailand. Crop Prot. 6, 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-2194(87)90023-8.
(Horvath), and rice leaffolder, Cnaphalocrocismedinalis (Guenée), populations
Charudattan, R., 2001. Biological control of weeds by means of plant pathogens:
by natural enemies. Gregorio Araneta University Foundation, Manila,
significance for integrated weed management in modern agro-ecology.
Philippines.
BioControl 46, 229–260. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011477531101.
Kenmore, P.E., 1991. Indonesia’s integrated pest management: a model for Asia.
Chauhan, B.S., 2013. Strategies to manage weedy rice in Asia. Crop Prot. 48, 51–56.
Khan, Z.R., Litsinger, J.A., Barrion, A.T., Villanueva, F.F.D., Fernandez, N.J., Taylo, L.D.,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2013.02.015.
1991. World bibliography of rice stem borers 1794–1990. International Rice
Chauhan, B.S., 2012. Weed ecology and weed management strategies for dry-seeded
Research Institute and International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology.
rice in Asia. Weed Technol. 26, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1614/wt-d-11-00105.1.
Kim, H.S., 1992. Effect of Wolf spider, Pirata, subpiraticus [Araneae;Lycosidae] on
Chauhan, B.S., Johnson, D.E., 2010. The role of seed ecology in improving weed
the population Density of brown planthopper [Nilaparvata Lugns Stal].
management strategies in the tropics. Adv. Agronomy, 221–262. https://doi.
Dongkuk Univ, Seoul, Korea.
org/10.1016/S0065-2113(10)05006-6.
Kiritani, K., 2000. Integrated biodiversity management in paddy fields: shift of
Cheema, Z.A., Farooq, M., Khaliq, A., 2012. Application of Allelopathy in Crop
paradigm from IPM toward IBM. Integr. Pest Manag. Rev. 5, 175–183. https://
Production: Success Story from Pakistan. In: Allelopathy. Springer, Berlin
doi.org/10.1023/A:1011315214598.
Heidelberg, pp. 113–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30595-5_6.
Kobayashi, S., Shibata, H., 1973. Seasonal changes in population density of spiders in
Cheema, Z.A., Khaliq, A., 2000. Use of sorghum allelopathic properties to control
paddy fields, with reference to the ecological control of the rice insect pests.
weeds in irrigated wheat in a semi arid region of Punjab. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
Japanese J. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 17, 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1303/
79, 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00140-1.
jjaez.17.193.
de Clercq, P., Mason, P.G., Babendreier, D., 2011. Benefits and risks of exotic
Litsinger, J.A., 2009. When is a rice insect a pest: Yield loss and the green revolution.
biological control agents. BioControl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-011-
In: Peshin, R., Dhawan, A.K. (Eds.), Integrated Pest Management: Innovation-
9372-8.
Development Process. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 391–498. https://doi.org/
De Witt, T.C., Vickery, C., Heier, J., 2002. Control of herbicide resistant watergrass in
10.1007/978-1-4020-8992-3_16.
northern California rice with bispyribac sodium 80 WP herbicide. In: Hill, J.E.,
Liu, J., Shen, J., Li, Y., Su, Y., Ge, T., Jones, D.L., Wu, J., 2014a. Effects of biochar
Hardy, B. (Eds.), Second Temperate Rice Conference. International Rice Research
amendment on the net greenhouse gas emission and greenhouse gas intensity
Institute, Los Banos, Philippines, pp. 638–639.
in a Chinese double rice cropping system. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 65, 30–39. https://doi.
Fox, C.J., Dondale, C.D., 1972. Annotated list of spiders (ARANEAE) from hayfields
org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2014.09.001.
and their margins in nova scotia. Can. Entomol. 104, 1911–1915. https://doi.
Liu, S.S., Rao, A., Bradleigh Vinson, S., 2014b. Biological control in China: Past,
org/10.4039/Ent1041911-12.
present and future - an introduction to this special issue. Biol. Control 68, 1–5.
Dyck, V.A., T.B., 1979. Brown planthopper: Threat to rice prouction in Asia. Brown
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2013.05.005.
Planthopper Threat to Rice Prod. Asia 3 – 21.
Makkar, G.S., Bhatia, D., Suri, K.S., Kaur, S., 2019. Insect resistance in Rice (Oryza
Fahad, S., Nie, L., Hussain, S., Khan, F., Khan, F.A., Saud, S., Muhammad, H., Li, L., Liu,
sativa L.): overview on current breeding interventions. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci.
X., Tabassum, A., Wu, C., Xiong, D., Cui, K., Huang, J., 2015. Rice Pest
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42690-019-00038-1.
Management and Biological Control, in: Sustainable Agriculture Reviews.
Marambe, B., Amarasinghe, L., 2002. Propanil-resistant barnyardgrass [Echinochloa
Springer International Publishing, pp. 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
crus-galli (L.) Beauv.] in Sri Lanka: seedling growth under different
319-16988-0_4.
temperatures and control. Weed Biol. Manag. 2, 194–199. https://doi.org/
Farooq, M., Bajwa, A.A., Cheema, S.A., Cheema, Z.A., 2013. Application of allelopathy
10.1046/j.1445-6664.2002.00068.x.
in crop production. Int. J. Agric. Biol.
Mekonnen, M., Keesstra, S.D., Stroosnijder, L., Baartman, J.E.M., Maroulis, J., 2015.
Gallagher, K.D., Kenmore, P.E., Sogawa, K., 1994. Judicial Use of Insecticides Deter
Soil conservation through sediment trapping: a review. L. Degrad. Dev. 26, 544–
Planthopper Outbreaks and Extend the Life of Resistant Varieties in Southeast
556. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2308.
Asian Rice. In: Denno, R.F., Perfect, T.J. (Eds.), Planthoppers. Springer, New York,
Morales, H., 2004. Pest management in traditional tropical agroecosystems: lessons
pp. 599–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2395-6_18.
for pest prevention research and extension. Integr. Pest Manag. Rev. 7, 145–163.
Gibson, K.D., Fischer, A.J., 2004. Competitiveness of Rice Cultivars as a Tool for Crop-
https://doi.org/10.1023/b:ipmr.0000027502.91079.01.
Based Weed Management. In: Weed Biology and Management. Springer,
Mueller, K.E., 1980. Field problems of tropical rice. Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.
Netherlands, pp. 517–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0552-3_25.

101
S. Fahad, S. Saud, A. Akhter et al.
Müller-Schärer, H., Scheepens, P.C., Greaves, M.P., 2000. Biological control of weeds
in European crops: recent achievements and future work. Weed Res. 40, 83–98.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3180.2000.00170.x.
Ooi, P.A.C., Shepard, B.M., 1994. Predators and Parasitoids of Rice Insect Pests. In:
Heinrichs, E.A. (Ed.), Biology and Management of Rice Insects. Wiley Eastern Ltd,
India and IRRI, Manila, Philippines, pp. 613–656.
Parras-Alcántara, L., Martín-Carrillo, M., Lozano-García, B., 2013. Impacts of land use
change in soil carbon and nitrogen in a Mediterranean agricultural area
(Southern Spain). Solid Earth 4, 167–177. https://doi.org/10.5194/se-4-167-
2013.
Payne, W., Tapsoba, H., Baoua, I.B., Malick, B.N., N’Diaye, M., Dabire-Binso, C., 2011.
On-farm biological control of the pearl millet head miner: realization of 35
years of unsteady progress in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger. Int. J. Agric. Sustain.
9, 186–193. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2010.0560.
Perrings, C., Dalmazzone, S., Williamson, M.H., 2000. The Economics of biological
invasions. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.
Pratley, J.E., Flower, R., Heylin, E., Sivapalan, S., 2004. Integrated weed management
strategies for the rice weeds Cyperus difformis and Alisma plantago-aquatica, A
report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.
Pretty, J., Bharucha, Z.P., 2015. Integrated pest management for sustainable
intensification of agriculture in Asia and Africa. Insects 6, 152–182. https://
doi.org/10.3390/insects6010152.
Pretty, J., Toulmin, C., Williams, S., 2011. Sustainable intensification in African
agriculture. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 9, 5–24. https://doi.org/10.3763/
ijas.2010.0583.
Rao, A.N., Johnson, D.E., Sivaprasad, B., Ladha, J.K., Mortimer, A.M., 2007. Weed
management in direct-seeded rice. Adv. Agron. 93, 153–255. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0065-2113(06)93004-1.
Rao, R.Y., Cherian, M.C., Ananthanarayanan, K.P., 1948. Investigations on Nephantis
serinopa Meyr, in South India and their control by the biological method. Indian
J. Entomol. 10, 205–247.
Rehman, A., Cheema, Z.A., Khaliq, A., Arshad, M., Mohsan, S., 2010. Application of
sorghum, sunflower and rice water extract combinations helps in reducing
herbicide dose for weed management in rice. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 12, 901–906.
Rombach, M.C., Gallagher, K.D., 1994. The brown planthopper; promises, problems
and prospects, Biology and management of rice insects. John Wiley Eastern Ltd,
New Delhi, India.
Sadia, S., Khalid, S., Qureshi, R., Bajwa, A.A., et al., 2013. Tagetes minuta L., a useful
underutilized plant of family Asteraceae: a review. Pakistan J. Weed Sci. Res. 19,
179–189.
Satpathi, C.R., Mukhopadhyay, A.K., Katti, G., Pasalu, I.C., Venkateswarlu, B., 2005.
Quantification of the role of natural biological control in farmers’ rice fields in
West Bengal. Indian J. Entomol. 67, 211–213.
Savary, S., Srivastava, R.K., Singh, H.M., Elazegui, F.A., 1997. A characterisation of rice
pests and quantification of yield losses in the rice-wheat system of India. Crop
Prot. 16, 387–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(96)00108-1.
Scherder, E.F., Talbert, R.E., Lovelace, M.L., Buehring, N.W., 2001. Weed control
programs in herbicide tolerant rice. Proceedings - Southern Weed Science
Society, 39–40.
Senthil-Nathan, S., Choi, M.Y., Paik, C.H., Seo, H.Y., Kalaivani, K., 2009a. Toxicity and
physiological effects of neem pesticides applied to rice on the Nilaparvata
lugens Stål, the brown planthopper. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 72, 1707–1713.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2009.04.024.
Senthil-Nathan, S., Kalaivani, K., Choi, M.Y., Paik, C.H., 2009b. Effects of jasmonic
acid-induced resistance in rice on the plant brownhopper, Nilaparvata lugens
102
Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 20 (2021) 94–102
Stål (Homoptera: Delphacidae). Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 95, 77–84. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2009.07.001.
Settle, W.H., Ariawan, H., Astuti, E.T., Cahyana, W., Hakim, A.L., Hindayana, D.,
Lestari, A.S., Pajarningsih, Sartanto, 1996. Managing tropical rice pests through
conservation of generalist natural enemies and alternative prey. Ecology 77,
1975–1988. https://doi.org/10.2307/2265694.
Shiro, K., 1977. Change in population density of spiders in paddy field during
winter. Acta Arachnol. 27, 247–251. https://doi.org/10.2476/asjaa.27.
Specialnumber_247.
Sogawa, K., 2015. Planthopper outbreaks in different paddy ecosystems in Asia:
Man-made hopper plagues that threatened the green revolution in rice. In:
Heong, K.L. (Ed.), Rice Planthoppers: Ecology, Management, Socio Economics
and Policy. Zhejiang University Press, Hangzhou and Springer, Dordrecht, pp.
33–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9535-7_2.
SoonChul, K., WoonGoo, H., 2005. In: Direct seeding and weed management in
Korea., in: Rice Is Life: Scientific Perspectives for the 21st Century. International
Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Manila, Philippines, pp. 181–184.
Sorby, K., Fleischer, G., Pehu, E., 2003. Integrated Pest Management in Development:
Review of Trends and Implementation Strategies., Agriculture and Rural
Development Working Paper 5. World Bank, Washington, D.C. USA.
Teng, P.S., Heong, K.L., 1988. Pesticide management and integrated pest
management in Southeast Asia. [WWW Document]. Southeast Asia Pestic.
Manag. Integr. Pest Manag. Work. (1987 Pattaya, Thailand).
Tsuzuki, E., 2001. Application of buckwheat as a weed control. Agric. Hortic. 76, 55–
62.
Tsuzuki, E., Yamamoto, Y., 1987. Isolation and identification of phenolic substances
from wild perennial buckwheat. Bull. Fac. Agric. Miyazaki Univ. 34, 289–295.
Waddington, S.R., Li, X., Dixon, J., Hyman, G., de Vicente, M.C., 2010. Getting the
focus right: production constraints for six major food crops in Asian and African
farming systems. Food Secur. 2, 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-010-
0053-8.
Wazir, I., Sadiq, M., Baloch, M.S., Awan, I.U., Khan, E.A., Shah, I.H., Nadim, M.A.,
Khakwani, A.A., Bakhsh, I., 2011. Application of bio-herbicide alternatives for
chemical weed control in rice. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res. 17, 245–252.
Wright, M.G., Bennett, G.M., 2018. Evolution of biological control agents following
introduction to new environments. BioControl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-
017-9830-z.
Wright, M.G., Hoffmann, M.P., Kuhar, T.P., Gardner, J., Pitcher, S.A., 2005. Evaluating
risks of biological control introductions: a probabilistic risk-assessment
approach. Biological Control., 338–347 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocontrol.2005.02.002.
Wu, K.M., Guo, Y.Y., 2005. The evolution of cotton pest management practices in
china. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 50, 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
ento.50.071803.130349.
Xuan, T.D., 2004. Utilization of allelopathy in higher plants for control of paddy
weeds. Kagoshima University Japan.
Xuan, T.D., Eiji, T., Hiroyuki, T., Mitsuhiro, M., Khanh, T.D., 2003. Identification of
potential allelochemicals from Kava (Piper methysticum L.) root. Allelopath. J.
12, 197–203.
Xuan, T.D., Eiji, T., Shinkichi, T., Khanh, T.D., 2004. Methods to determine
allelopathic potential of crop plants for weed control. Allelopath. J.
Xuan, T.D., Tsuzuki, E., 2001. Effects of application of alfalfa pellet on germination
and growth of weeds. J. Crop Prod. 4, 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J144v04n02_12.