Recommended dosage and environmental risk assessment of insecticides registered on main pyralid borers in China
Haoyu Shi , Liangang Mao , Muhammad Umair Sial , Lan Zhang , Lizhen Zhu , Chi Wu , Shankui Yuan , Yongquan Zheng , Xingang Liu
New Plant Protection ›› 2025, Vol. 2 ›› Issue (3) : e70017
Recommended dosage and environmental risk assessment of insecticides registered on main pyralid borers in China
This study aims to provide data support for pesticide risk management and scientific use on main pyralid borers. Based on the data registered for controlling nine key borers, active ingredients with high dosages were identified and analyzed according to their formulations and target pests, and environmental risk of pesticides on the typical non-target organism honeybee was assessed. The entries of insecticides registered for controlling the rice leaf folder and rice stem borer were significantly higher than those for other borers. The top four insecticides, top four crops, and top five borers associated with the highest dosage, median dose, and dosage range of single insecticides were selected for further study. Significant issues were noted, including wide variations in recommended dosages for three combinations (carbosulfan–sugarcane–sugarcane borer, bisultap–sugarcane borer, and phoxim–sugarcane–sugarcane borer) and unusually high dosage points in the chlorpyrifos–rice–rice stem borer combination, likely because of differences in formulations and manufacturers. Environmental risk assessment indicated that risk levels varied by pesticide category and application method. Bisultap, cartap, monosultap, dimethoate, and phoxim exhibited lower risk in soil or seed treatment scenarios compared to spraying scenarios. To reduce use and curb resistance development, high-efficiency low-risk insecticides at the minimum effective dose are recommended.
beet webworm / corn borer / environmental risk assessment / high efficiency and low risk / minimum effective dose / rice stem borer / sugarcane borer
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
|
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
European Food Safety Authority. (2015). Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate. EFSA Journal, 13(11), 4302. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4302 |
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
MOA. (2016). Guidance on environmental risk assessment for pesticide registration part 4: Honeybees: NY/T 2882.4-2016. Beijing. China Agricultural Publishing House. https://std.samr.gov.cn/hb/search/stdHBDetailed?id=AEDF98931B6B390FE053297BE0A0AF0A0 |
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
FAO and WHO. (2016). International code of conduct on pesticide management-guidelines on highly hazardous pesticides. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/205561/9789241510417_eng.pdf |
| [43] |
EPPO. (2012). Minimum effective dose. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin, 42(3), 403-404. https://doi.org/10.1111/epp.2612 |
| [44] |
|
2025 The Author(s). New Plant Protection published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences.
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |