Next Article in Journal
Multidimensional Analysis of Silkworm Cocoons Produced with Different Feeding Diets
Next Article in Special Issue
The Potential of Landscape Plants Photinia × fraseri and Pittosporum tobira as Refuge for Natural Enemies of Pest Insects in Rice–Wheat Rotation Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Monitoring and Volatile Profiling of Fruit Crops as Host Plants of the Polyphagous Brown Marmorated Stink Bug Halyomorpha halys (Stål, 1855)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fitness Trade-Offs and Potential Metabolic Resistance Mechanisms in Geographically Distinct Strains of Trichogramma dendrolimi: Implications for Imidacloprid Resistance Management
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 17
Issue 2
10.3390/insects17020187
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluating the Direct and Indirect Toxicity of Nine Insecticides on an Important Predatory Natural Enemy in Rice Fields

by
Mubashar Hussain
,
Jiachun He
*,
Qi Wei
,
Fengxiang Lai
,
Pinjun Wan
and
Qiang Fu
*
State Key Laboratory of Rice Biology and Breeding, China National Rice Research Institute, Hangzhou 311401, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2026, 17(2), 187; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects17020187
Submission received: 9 January 2026 / Revised: 29 January 2026 / Accepted: 6 February 2026 / Published: 10 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Role of Beneficial Insects in Pest Control)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

Natural enemies play a crucial role in suppressing insect pests in rice ecosystems, but their safety is often neglected during insecticide selection. This study compared the effects of nine commonly used insecticides on six important predatory natural enemies of rice pests. The results showed clear differences in insecticide safety. Tetraniliprole, triflumezopyrim, and chlorantraniliprole had minimal direct or indirect toxicity to predators, indicating good compatibility with biological control. In contrast, spinetoram, pymetrozine, nitenpyram, imidacloprid, emamectin benzoate, and avermectin caused high direct or indirect toxicity to all six predators, including green mirid bugs, rove beetles, and spiders. These findings highlight the importance of selecting insecticides that effectively control rice pests while conserving beneficial natural enemies.

Abstract

Natural enemies play an important role in the integrated pest management (IPM) of rice crops. Chemical control is commonly used for pest management in rice; however, the compatibility between biological and chemical control within this system has not been thoroughly investigated. This study aimed to evaluate both the direct and indirect toxicity of nine insecticides—tetraniliprole, triflumezopyrim, chlorantraniliprole, pymetrozine, spinetoram, nitenpyram, imidacloprid, emamectin benzoate, and avermectin—against six important predators of rice pests: Cyrtorhinus lividipennis, Paederus fuscipes, Ummeliata insecticeps, Tetragnatha maxillosa, Mendoza cancestrinnii, and Pardosa pseudoannulata under laboratory conditions. The results indicated that tetraniliprole, triflumezopyrim, and chlorantraniliprole exhibited negligible direct toxicity (mortality < 30%) to all six predators and did not significantly affect their predatory activity. In contrast, spinetoram, avermectin, emamectin benzoate, nitenpyram, and imidacloprid showed high direct toxicity (mortality > 99%), significantly reduced predatory activity, and were classified as high to extremely high risk for C. lividipennis. Nitenpyram showed strong direct toxicity (mortality > 99%) to P. fuscipes and was categorized as high risk. Avermectin and emamectin benzoate exhibited high direct and indirect toxicity to all four spider species, significantly reducing predatory activity, and were graded from medium to extremely high risk. Spinetoram reduced predatory activity across all four spider species and exhibited direct toxic effects, posing a high risk to U. insecticeps. In conclusion, pymetrozine, spinetoram, nitenpyram, imidacloprid, emamectin benzoate, and avermectin exerted lethal or sublethal effects on all six predators. Conversely, tetraniliprole, triflumezopyrim, and chlorantraniliprole were regarded as safer insecticides for all six predators.

1. Introduction

Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is a crucial cereal crop and serves as a staple food for nearly 3 billion individuals worldwide. In China, rice is a predominant cereal crop and constitutes a staple food source for approximately 65% of the population [1,2]. However, rice cultivation in China is adversely affected by a range of insect pests, including major species such as rice planthoppers, rice stem borers, and the rice leaf folder [3]. Furthermore, planthoppers destroy rice crops by damaging plant nutrients and spreading different viral pathogens [4]. Rice stem borer larvae live and feed inside the rice stem and can cause 3–95% damage to the rice crop [5,6]. Rice leaf folder larvae fold the leaves longitudinally and feed by scraping the green mesophyll tissue from within the folded leaves. As a result of leaf damage, the general vigor and photosynthetic capacity of rice plants are reduced, making affected plants more susceptible to bacterial and fungal infection [7,8].
Various integrated pest management (IPM) strategies are employed to mitigate insect pests. Major IPM strategies include cultural control, biological control, and chemical control [9]. Among these, chemical control remains a pivotal component of IPM due to its rapid action, high efficiency, ease of application, cost-effectiveness, and reliable efficacy against pests [10]. Nevertheless, the improper application of chemical pesticides often results in adverse consequences, such as the development of insecticide resistance [11]. Moreover, the application of chemical insecticides poses a significant risk to populations of beneficial arthropods [12]. However, the detrimental effects of these insecticides on natural enemy populations often remain overlooked [13].
Within the rice ecosystem, a diverse array of beneficial arthropods, referred to as natural enemies, plays a very important role in reducing damage caused by insect pests. These natural enemies are categorized into two distinct groups: predators and parasitoids. Predators in the rice ecosystem include spiders, beetles, and mirid bugs, whereas parasitoids are primarily represented by wasps belonging to the order Hymenoptera. Together, these natural enemies regulate insect pest populations and constitute essential components of (IPM) programs [3,14,15,16].
Currently, more than 1375 species of natural enemies of rice insect pests have been recorded in China, including 889 species of predatory natural enemies. Predators account for approximately 64.74% of all recorded natural enemies [17,18]. Among predators, Cyrtorhinus lividipennis is an important predator of rice planthoppers, including Nilaparvata lugens and Sogatella furcifera. In rice fields of Xiaoshan County, Zhejiang Province, approximately 39.1% of N. lugens eggs were predated by C. lividipennis in 1982, while in Shaxian County, Fujian Province, 40–50% of S. furcifera eggs were predated by this species. Paederus fuscipes is another significant predator of rice pests such as N. lugens, S. furcifera, Nephotettix cincticeps, Chilo suppressalis, and Tryporyza incertulas. Adult P. fuscipes can predate 3.7–10.1 third- to fifth-instar nymphs of S. furcifera and 2.0–3.6 third- to fifth-instar nymphs of N. cincticeps per day. Among spiders, Ummeliata insecticeps is an important natural enemy of rice aphids and the young larvae of Cnaphalocrocis medinalis, C. suppressalis, and T. incertulas [3,16]. Pardosa pseudoannulata is recognized as a key biological control agent in rice fields, regulating populations of major rice pests such as planthoppers and leafhoppers [15]. Tetragnatha maxillosa and Mendoza cancestrinnii spiders also play a significant role in controlling rice pests, including rice planthoppers, rice leaf roller, and stem borers [14].
In earlier years, insecticides such as carbofuran, deltamethrin, thiamethoxam, and triazophos were widely used to control major rice pests. However, these insecticides had highly negative impacts on populations of natural enemies, including both parasitoids and predators [19,20]. Thiamethoxam, while effective against rice pests such as rice planthoppers, is highly harmful to natural enemies, including spiders, Paederus alfierii Koch, and C. lividipennis [21,22,23]. Similarly, deltamethrin and triazophos are highly toxic to spiders and C. lividipennis [24]. Carbofuran significantly reduces predator populations in rice crops, including ladybird beetles, wolf spiders, carabid beetles, earwigs, green mirid bugs, and damselflies [20].
On average, approximately four insecticide applications are carried out to control pests during each rice cultivation period [25]. In China, farmers commonly rely on chemical control to suppress major rice pests, particularly sucking insects such as rice planthoppers. Among the most frequently used insecticides are imidacloprid, avermectin, and nitenpyram, which are known for their rapid action and high efficacy against these pests [26,27] while, for controlling leaf-feeding pests, such as the rice leaf folder, spinetoram is widely applied due to its strong activity against lepidopteran larvae [28].
Currently, novel long-acting insecticides are being employed for the management of rice pests. Tetraniliprole is a new phthalic acid diamide group having a unique chemical structure and showing excellent activity against a broad spectrum of lepidopteran pests [14]. Triflumezopyrim is used to control rice planthoppers, including brown planthoppers and white-backed planthoppers [29]. Chlorantraniliprole is a new systemic insecticide of the anthranilic diamide group with a unique and new mode of action. It is used to control rice stem borers [30]. These insecticides are reported to have high efficiency in controlling rice insect pests; however, their impact on predators of rice pests is poorly documented.
This research investigates the effects of nine widely utilized insecticides: chlorantraniliprole, triflumezopyrim, pymetrozine, imidacloprid, avermectin, emamectin benzoate, tetraniliprole, spinetoram, and nitenpyram against six important predators of rice pests in China: C. lividipennis, P. fuscipes, U. insecticeps, T. maxillosa, M. cancestrinnii, and P. pseudoannulata. The assessment employs indoor toxicity bioassays and predation behavior tests, aiming to provide informed recommendations for the judicious application of chemical insecticides in rice cultivation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Predators and Prey

Predators: Cyrtorhinus lividipennis (Hemiptera: Miridae), Paederus fuscipes (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae), Ummeliata insecticeps (Araneae: Linyphiidae), Tetragnatha maxillosa (Araneae: Tetragnathidae), Mendoza canestrinii (Araneae: Salticidae), Pardosa pseudoannulata (Araneae: Lycosidae), and prey Nilaparvata lugens (Hemiptera: Delphacidae) were collected from China National Rice Research Institute (CNRRI) fields in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, China. Predators and N. lugens were kept in a greenhouse that maintained a temperature of 27 ± 1 °C and a humidity of 70 ± 5% relative humidity under natural light. Predatory spiders were fed in small plastic cups individually. Each spider was provided 5–10 brown planthopper 2nd to 3rd instar nymphs every day and a water sponge. C. lividipennis and P. fuscipes were reared and fed on rice plants with brown planthopper 2nd to 3rd instar nymphs in a cage. All natural enemies were reared for 1–2 generations, and newly emerged adult females were selected for the experiment.

2.2. Insecticides

Nine insecticides were selected for this study, named as follows: Chlorantraniliprole, triflumezopyrim, pymetrozine, imidacloprid, avermectin, emamectin benzoate, tetraniliprole, spinetoram, and nitenpyram (Table 1). Insecticides were dissolved in water and used directly for contact bioassays.

2.3. Methodology for Bioassay

2.3.1. Toxicity Bioassay of Insecticides to Predators

The toxicities of insecticides to C. lividipennis and P. fuscipes were determined in the laboratory using the stem dipping method as described by Zhu et al. [29] with slight changes. Adult C. lividipennis and P. fuscipes were used in the experiment. Insecticides were tested at the maximum recommended field doses to assess direct toxicity and compatibility with predatory natural enemies. For LC50 determination, a series of five to six insecticide doses was prepared, such that the lowest concentration caused mortality comparable to the control treatment, while the highest concentration resulted in 100% mortality. For C. lividipennis, ten female Nilaparvata lugens were placed on rice plant stems 48 h prior to the experiment to allow oviposition, and the resulting eggs served as a food source during the bioassay. The females were removed after 12 h of oviposition. Mortality observations were performed after 48 h for C. lividipennis based on the methodology by Sun et al. [21], while brown planthoppers (2nd to 3rd instar) were served as food for P. fuscipes. Rice seedlings (late tillering to booting stages) were excised into 10 cm segments with intact roots, and stems were immersed in each insecticide solution for 30 s. After immersion, seedlings were maintained at room temperature for 10–30 min to allow insecticide solutions (including water control) to dry and then transferred to plastic cages (6.5 cm diameter × 10.5 cm length). Seedling roots were covered with cotton moistened with water. Ten adults of predators (C. lividipennis, P. fuscipes) were then introduced into each plastic cage. After 48 h exposure, the numbers of dead and live predators were counted, and the mortality (%) was calculated for each insecticide. A set of 10 adults in a plastic cage was considered to be one replicate, and each treatment had three replicates. Observations were performed after 48 h for P. fuscipes based on the methodology by Zhu et al. [29].
An immersion test method was used to evaluate the effects of insecticides on spiders as described by Zhu et al., with slight modification [29]. Four spider species: Ummeliata insecticeps, Tetragnatha maxillosa, Mendoza cancestrinnii, and Pardosa pseudoannulata adults were selected for this study. For direct toxicity determination, insecticides were tested at the maximum recommended field doses. However, to calculate the LC50, a series of 5–6 different doses of the insecticide were utilized. Adult spiders were dipped in the insecticide solutions for 20 s and then placed on absorbent paper to remove the remaining solution. Individual spiders were then transferred into plastic cups containing a water sponge and food BPH nymphs. The numbers of dead and alive predatory spiders were counted after 96 h, and the mortality (%) was calculated for each insecticide by following statistical methods. A set of 10 adult spiders was considered as one replicate, and each treatment had three replicates. Spiders’ mortality data were recorded after 96 h as described by Zhu et al. [29].

2.3.2. Indirect Effects of Insecticides on the Predatory Activity of Predators

Adults C. lividipennis and P. fuscipes were individually starved for 24 h in plastic cups containing a water-soaked sponge and covered with nylon mesh prior to the experiment. Insecticide solutions were prepared at the maximum recommended field doses. Three control treatments using tap water were included for each insecticide. Insecticides were applied to rice plants using the stem-dipping method and allowed to dry for 30 min. Each predator was then released onto the insecticide-treated plant for 48 h, after which it was transferred to a new, insecticide-free plant containing 30 brown planthoppers (2nd to 3rd instar). Prey consumption was recorded after 48 h. Each insecticide treatment was replicated three times.
During the investigation of spider predation rates, insecticides were applied to adult spiders using the “immersion test” described above. Three control treatments using tap water were prepared for each insecticide. After insecticide application, one predatory spider was introduced into a cylindrical plastic cup (10 cm in diameter and 28 cm in height) containing TN1 rice seedlings. To assess predatory activity, 30 brown planthoppers were provided as prey on the rice plants: fifth-instar nymphs to adults for T. maxillosa, M. cancestrinnii, and P. pseudoannulata, and first- to second-instar nymphs for U. insecticeps. Prey consumption was recorded after 48 h. Each insecticide treatment was replicated three times. Predation rate was calculated by the following formula:
Predation rate % = (Number of prey consumed/Total number of prey) × 100%

2.4. Statistical Analysis

All experimental data were processed using Data Processing System (DPS) version 17.1 software to calculate the median lethal concentration (LC50) and 95% confidence limits for each insecticide.
The toxicities of insecticides were classified as recommended by the International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC) [31]. Insecticides were divided into four categories. Category 1-Harmless: <30 mortality (%), category 2-Slightly harmful: 30–70 mortality (%), category 3-Moderately harmful: 80–99 mortality (%), and category 4-Harmful: >99 mortality (%).
The safety factor evaluation was based on the evaluation of toxicity testing against the natural enemy Trichogrammatids in pesticide registration environmental testing [32]. The safety factor Risk Quotient (RQ) is the ratio of the pesticide’s LC50 value to the maximum recommended field doses. A safety factor of 0.05 or less indicates an insecticide with an “Extremely high-risk level”, a safety factor greater than 0.05 but less than or equal to 0.5 indicates a “High-risk level”, a safety factor greater than 0.5 but less than or equal to 5 indicates a “Medium-risk level” and a safety factor greater than 5 indicates a “Low-risk level” insecticide.
Data on predatory activity were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Duncan’s new multiple range test [33].

3. Results

3.1. Direct Toxicity of Insecticides to Predators

Direct toxicity of insecticides to predators (Table 2) reveals that spinetoram, avermectin, emamectin benzoate, nitenpyram, and imidacloprid, at the recommended field dose, showed 100% mortality to C. lividipennis, while others were harmless (mortality < 30%). For Paederus fuscipes: chlorantraniliprole, triflumezopyrim, pymetrozine, imidacloprid, avermectin, emamectin benzoate, tetraniliprole, and spinetoram showed <30% mortality, while nitenpyram showed 100% mortality after 48 h exposure, which indicates that only nitenpyram was harmful to P. fuscipes.
The results of insecticides’ direct toxicity to spiders (Table 3) reveal that chlorantraniliprole, triflumezopyrim, pymetrozine, imidacloprid, and tetraniliprole showed <30% mortality to all four species of spiders. Avermectin and emamectin benzoate showed high toxic effects to all spiders and caused 100% mortality, while spinetoram showed 100% mortality results to U. insecticeps but safety to the other three species of spiders after 96 h exposure time. Results indicate that avermectin and emamectin benzoate were harmful to all four species of spiders.

3.2. Effects of Insecticides on Predatory Activity

Exposure to different insecticides significantly affected the predatory activity of C. lividipennis. Nitenpyram, imidacloprid, pymetrozine, avermectin, emamectin benzoate, and spinetoram significantly decreased the predatory rate of C. lividipennis, while for the other three insecticides: tetraniliprole, triflumezopyrim, and chlorantraniliprole, there was no significant difference with the control treatment (df = 9/20, F = 21.70 and p < 0.0001) (Figure 1A). Among them, the predation rate is the lowest after treatment with emamectin benzoate. For P. fuscipes, the predatory rate has significantly decreased after treatment with nitenpyram, avermectin, imidacloprid, spinetoram, and emamectin benzoate. While tetraniliprole, triflumezopyrim, and chlorantraniliprole had no significant difference with control for P. fuscipes (df = 9/20, F = 8.69 and p < 0.0001) (Figure 1B).
P. pseudoannulata predatory activity results showed that by treatment of avermectin, emamectin benzoate, and spinetoram, the predatory rate was significantly decreased (df = 9/20, F = 64.60, p < 0.0001) (Figure 1C). The predation rate of M. cancestrinnii significantly decreased after treatment with avermectin, emamectin benzoate, and spinetoram, exhibiting the most pronounced effects (df = 9/20, F = 92.11, p < 0.0001) (Figure 1D). In the case of T. maxillosa, predatory activity results indicate that the predatory rate has significantly decreased after treatment with avermectin, emamectin benzoate, and spinetoram (df = 9/20, F = 27.03, p < 0.0001) (Figure 1E). For U. insecticeps, treatment with avermectin, emamectin benzoate, and spinetoram, the predatory rate was significantly decreased (df = 9/20, F = 37.23, p < 0.0001) (Figure 1F). While tetraniliprole, triflumezopyram, and chlorantraniliprole had no significant difference from the control treatment for all four species of spiders.

3.3. LC50 and Risk Assessment of Harmful Insecticides to Predators

During the bioassay experiment, after a 48 h insecticide exposure period, spinetoram remained an extremely high-risk insecticide against C. lividipennis, with an LC50 value of 3.59 mg/L and a safety factor of 0.02–0.03. While imidacloprid, avermectin, emamectin benzoate, and nitenpyram remained high-risk insecticides with LC50 values of 14.75 mg/L, 3.76 mg/L, 2.5 mg/L, and 30.79 mg/L, respectively, and safety factors of 0.22–0.44, 0.11–0.18, 0.07–0.15, and 0.12–0.15, respectively, against C. lividipennis. The toxicity assessment classified nitenpyram as a high-risk insecticide for P. fuscipes, with an LC50 value of 52.71 mg/L, and a safety factor of 0.21–0.26.
For P. pseudoannulata, avermectin and emamectin benzoate remained high-risk insecticides with LC50 values of 5.87 mg/L and 4.86 mg/L, respectively, and the safety factor of 0.17–0.29 and 0.14–0.29, respectively. During risk assessment of insecticides against M. cancestrinnii, avermectin, and emamectin benzoate showed high risk response with LC50 values of 12.87 mg/L and 9.42 mg/L, respectively, and the safety factors 0.38–0.64 and 0.28–0.56, respectively. Similarly, T. maxillosa was highly susceptible to avermectin and emamectin benzoate. Avermectin and emamectin benzoate remained high-risk insecticides with LC50 values of 5.98 mg/L and 4.37 mg/L, respectively, and the safety factors of 0.17–0.29 and 0.13–0.26, respectively, to T. maxillosa. Both avermectin and emamectin benzoate were classified as extremely high risk for U. insecticeps, with LC50 values of 0.281 mg/L and 0.16 mg/L, respectively, and the safety factors of 0.008–0.014 and 0.004–0.009, respectively. While spinetoram remained a high-risk insecticide to U. insecticeps, with an LC50 value of 0.18 mg/L and a safety factor of 0.081–0.101 (Table 4).

4. Discussion

In the present study, three novel insecticides—tetraniliprole, triflumezopyram, and chlorantraniliprole—were found to be safe for all six predators (C. lividipennis, P. fuscipes, T. maxillosa, M. cancestrinnii, P. pseudoannulata, and U. insecticeps) during the bioassay experiment and were categorized as harmless. These three insecticides showed no significant negative effects on predation rates. Similar results were reported before. In previous research, tetraniliprole showed safety to C. lividipennis, P. fuscipes, Pardosa birmanica, and Tetragnatha javana populations [14,32]. Triflumezopyrim (25 g a.i ha−1) exhibited safety to C. lividipennis, P. fuscipes, U. insecticeps, P. pseudoannulata, and Tetragnatha sp., which is consistent with our findings [29,34]. Chlorantraniliprole exhibited safety to C. lividipennis, P. fuscipes, and Tetragnatha maxillosa [35,36,37].
In our experimental results, pymetrozine did not cause high mortality in any of six predators; however, it lowered the predatory rate of C. lividipennis, P. fuscipes, P. pseudoannulata, and T. maxillosa. Imidacloprid remained harmful against C. lividipennis and was graded high risky insecticide. Imidacloprid also lowered the predation rate of C. lividipennis, P. fuscipes, M. cancestrinnii, T. maxillosa, and U. insecticeps. Nitenpyram showed harmful effects to C. lividipennis and P. fuscipes and was classified as high risky insecticide, while it lowered the predatory rate of C. lividipennis, P. fuscipes, T. maxillosa, and U. insecticeps. Similar results were reported before. In previous studies, nitenpyram had no harmful effects on rice crop spiders [38], but had a negative impact on predatory natural enemies such as Cyrtorhinus lividipennis [39]. Imidacloprid showed harmful effects to C. lividipennis and P. fuscipes [40,41] while being safe to Hylyphantes graminicola and T. maxillosa [42,43]. Pymetrozine remained safe to rice crop predators, including C. lividipennis, P. fuscipes, Pirate subpiraticus, and T. maxillosa [35,37,44].
Emamactin benzoate and avermectin were classified as high risky to C. lividipennis, whereas spinetoram was classified as extremely high risky to C. lividipennis. For P. pseudoannulata and T. maxillosa, avermectin and emamactin benzoate remained high risky insecticides. For M. cancestrinnii avermectin and emamactin benzoate were classified as medium to high risky insecticides. For U. insecticeps, avermectin and emamctin benzoate remained extremely high risky, while spinetoram was classified as extremely high risky to C. lividipennis and high risky to U. insecticeps. Avermectin, emamactin benzoate, and spinetoram significantly lowered the predation rate of all six predators: C. lividipennis, P. fuscipes, T. maxillosa, M. cancestrinnii, P. pseudoannulata, and U. insecticeps. Similar results were reported before. Studies previously demonstrated that spinetoram was highly toxic to beneficial arthropods, including spiders, C. lividipennis, and P. fuscipes [45,46] while it showed sublethal effects to P. pseudoannulata [47]. Our result shows that emamectin benzoate significantly lowered the predation rate for P. fuscipes, which is consistent with previous results. Emamectin benzoate significantly affected C. lividipennis and P. fuscipes, Tetragnatha japonica, and U. insecticeps populations in field trials [48,49,50]. Emamectin benzoate, 1/20th of the field concentration, also showed toxic effects to Pardosa birmanica by spraying insecticides on Petri dishes under laboratory experiment [51]. A similar result was also observed in avermectin. Avermectin showed high toxicity to C. lividipennis, P. fuscipes, and P. pseudoannulata [29,52] under laboratory experiments, while it lowered the number of Phidippus audax and T. maxillosa under field trials [53,54]. As avermectin, emamactin benzoate, and spinetoram work on the nervous system, causing permanent paralysis and insect mortality, these insecticides showed high toxicity and lowered the predation rate of predatory natural enemies [55].
Our research indicates that three long-acting insecticides: tetraniliprole, triflumezopyrim, and chlorentraniliprole had a harmless impact on all six predators (C. lividipennis, P. fuscipes, T. maxillosa, M. cancestrinnii, P. pseudoannulata, and U. insecticeps). These three insecticides also showed no indirect toxicity to all six predators, making them suitable for use in rice fields for pest control and compatible with natural enemies. In contrast, nitenpyram, pymetrozine, and imidacloprid showed harmful effects on some predators, while avermectin, emamectin benzoate, and spinetoram exhibited high direct toxicity to all predatory natural enemies and significantly lowered the predation rate of all six predators. It is recommended to reduce and limit the use of these harmful insecticides in rice fields to protect the predatory natural enemies and improve rice production.

5. Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate that tetraniliprole, triflumezopyrim, and chlorentraniliprole are non-toxic for all six predators: Cyrtorhinus lividipennis, Paederus fuscipes, Tetragnatha maxillosa, Mendoza cancestrinnii, Pardosa pseudoannulata, and Ummeliata insecticeps at maximum recommended field doses. While Spinetoram, avermectin, emamectin benzoate, pymetrozine, nitenpyram, and imidacloprid showed direct and indirect toxicity effects to predators at maximum recommended field doses. Consequently, our results proved that tetraniliprole, triflumezopyrim, and chlorentraniliprole are compatible with natural enemies and can be used to control rice insect pests. Field trials are needed to further confirm the lethal and sublethal effects of tetraniliprole, triflumezopyrim, and chlorentraniliprole on rice insect pests and their predatory natural enemies.

Author Contributions

The work presented here was carried out in collaboration among all the authors. Conceptualization, resources, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition, Q.F.; methodology, investigation, M.H. and J.H.; formal analysis, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, visualization, M.H.; writing—review and editing, Q.F. and J.H.; validation, M.H., J.H., Q.W., F.L., P.W. and Q.F.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2021YFD1401100), the China Agriculture Research System (CARS-01), the Rice Pest Management Research Group of the Agricultural Science and Technology Innovation Program of China Academy of Agricultural Science (CAAS-ASTIP-2021-CNRRI), and the Fundamental Research Funds for Central Public Welfare Research Institute (CPSIBRF-CNRRI-202406). We also acknowledge the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences for providing a fully covered PhD scholarship to Mubashar Hussain for conducting research at the China National Rice Research Institute.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Chauhan, B.; Jabran, K.; Mahajan, G. Rice Production Worldwide; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  2. Vaesen, K.; Gilliams, S.; Nackaerts, K.; Coppin, P. Ground-measured spectral signatures as indicators of ground cover and leaf area index: The case of paddy rice. Field Crops Res. 2001, 69, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lou, Y.-G.; Zhang, G.-R.; Zhang, W.-Q.; Hu, Y.; Zhang, J. Biological control of rice insect pests in China. Biol. Control 2013, 67, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Khush, G.S.; Brar, D. Genetics of resistance to insects in crop plants. Adv. Agron. 1991, 45, 223–274. [Google Scholar]
  5. Israel, P.; Abraham, T. Techniques for assessing crop losses caused by rice stem borers in tropical areas. In The Major Insect Pests of the Rice Plant; The Johns Hopkins Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1967; pp. 265–275. [Google Scholar]
  6. Pathak, M. Ecology of common insect pests of rice. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1968, 13, 257–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bashir, K.; Husnain, T.; Fatima, T.; Latif, Z.; Aks Mehdi, S.; Riazuddin, S. Field evaluation and risk assessment of transgenic indica basmati rice. Mol. Breed. 2004, 13, 301–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Padmavathi Ch, P.C.; Gururaj Katti, G.K.; Padmakumari, A.; Pasalu, I. Comparative bionomics of leaf folders, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis Guenee and Marasmia patnalis Bradley in rice. Entomon 2006, 31, 251–258. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hajjar, M.J.; Ahmed, N.; Alhudaib, K.A.; Ullah, H. Integrated insect pest management techniques for rice. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Endo, S.; Tsurumachi, M. Insecticide Susceptibility of the Brown Planthopper and the White-backed Planthopper Collected from Southeast Asia. J. Pestic. Sci. 2001, 26, 82–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Matsumura, M.; Takeuchi, H.; Satoh, M.; Sanada-Morimura, S.; Otuka, A.; Watanabe, T.; Van Thanh, D. Species-specific insecticide resistance to imidacloprid and fipronil in the rice planthoppers Nilaparvata lugens and Sogatella furcifera in East and South-east Asia. Pest Manag. Sci. 2008, 64, 1115–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ruberson, J.; Nemoto, H.; Hirose, Y. Chapter 11-Pesticides and conservation of natural enemies in pest management. In Conservation Biological Control; Barbosa, P., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1998; pp. 207–220. [Google Scholar]
  13. Way, M.J.; Heong, K.L. The role of biodiversity in the dynamics and management of insect pests of tropical irrigated rice—A review. Bull. Entomol. Res. 1994, 84, 567–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kousika, J.; Kuttalam, S.; Kumar, M.G. Evaluation on the effect of tetraniliprole 20 SC, a new chemistry of pyridine derivative to the rice arthropod biodiversity. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2017, 5, 133–143. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ooi, P.; Shepard, B. Predators and parasitoids of rice insect pests. In Biology and Management of Rice Insects; Wiley Eastern Ltd.: New Delhi, India, 1994; pp. 585–612. [Google Scholar]
  16. Fu, Q.; He, J.; Lu, Z.; Barrion, A. Identification and Utilization of Natural Enemies of Rice Pests in China; Zhejiang Science Technology Publishing Press: HangZhou, China, 2021; pp. 500–503. [Google Scholar]
  17. Huang, D.; Li, Z.; Hou, Y. Natural enemies of rice insect pests and their protection and utilization. In Proceedings of the Theory and Practition of Food Safety, the 4th Annual Conference of the Association for Science and Technology of Fujian Province, Fuzhou, China, 4 July 2004; pp. 245–251. [Google Scholar]
  18. Wang, H.; Yan, H.; Yang, H. Preliminary studies on the community structure of paddy field spiders in China. Acta Arachol. Sin. 1999, 8, 95–105. [Google Scholar]
  19. Arpitha, K. Safeguarding beneficial fauna while managing pests using insecticides in rice ecosystems. Int. J. Adv. Biochem. Res. 2024, 8, 08–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rahaman, M.M.; Stout, M.J. Comparative Efficacies of Next-Generation Insecticides Against Yellow Stem Borer and Their Effects on Natural Enemies in Rice Ecosystem. Rice Sci. 2019, 26, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sun, D.; Su, J.; Shen, J.; Xu, J. Safety evaluation of insecticides to Cyrtohinus lividipennis (Reuter) (Hemiptera: Miridae), a predator of Nilaparvata lugens (Stål) (Homoptera: Delphacidae). Sci. Agric. Sin. 2008, 41, 1995–2002. [Google Scholar]
  22. Al-Kherb, W. Field efficacy of some neonicotinoid insecticides on whitefly Bemicia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) and its natural enemies in cucumber and tomato plants in Al-Qassim region, KSA. J. Entomol. 2011, 8, 429–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chen, Y.; Zheng, X.; Liu, J.; Wei, H.; Chen, Y.; Su, X.; Zhang, J. Appraisal of the impact of three insecticides on the principal rice pests and their predators in China. Fla. Entomol. 2016, 99, 210–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tanaka, K.; Endo, S.; Kazano, H. Toxicity of insecticides to predators of rice planthoppers: Spiders, the mirid bug and the dryinid wasp. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2000, 35, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sun, S.; Hu, R.; Zhang, C. Pest control practices, information sources, and correct pesticide use: Evidence from rice production in China. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 129, 107895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bass, C.; Denholm, I.; Williamson, M.S.; Nauen, R. The global status of insect resistance to neonicotinoid insecticides. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2015, 121, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. He, Y.P.; Gao, C.F.; Chen, W.M.; Huang, L.Q.; Zhou, W.J.; Liu, X.G.; Shen, J.L.; Zhu, Y.C. Comparison of dose responses and resistance ratios in four populations of the rice stem borer, Chilo suppressalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), to 20 insecticides. Pest Manag. Sci. 2008, 64, 308–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Iqbal, S. Insect, Pest and Disease Management in Rice; Austin Publication: Irving, TX, USA, 2020; Volume 85. [Google Scholar]
  29. Zhu, J.; Li, Y.; Jiang, H.; Liu, C.; Lu, W.; Dai, W.; Xu, J.; Liu, F. Selective toxicity of the mesoionic insecticide, triflumezopyrim, to rice planthoppers and beneficial arthropods. Ecotoxicology 2018, 27, 411–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ashtari, S. Toxicity of tetraniliprole, chlorantraniliprole, lufenuron and thiocyclam insecticides on Trichogramma brassicae Bezdenko and T. evanescens Westwood (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) under laboratory and semi-field conditions. Plant Prot. 2022, 45, 91–103. [Google Scholar]
  31. Zhang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Li, B.; Lin, J.; Zhang, X.; Liu, F.; Mu, W. Nitenpyram seed treatment effectively controls against the mirid bug Apolygus lucorum in cotton seedlings. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 8573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kousika, J.; Kuttalam, S. Evaluation of tetraniliprole 200 sc against american serpentine leaf miner Liriomyza trifolii (Burgess) and its impact on natural enemies in Tomato. Pestic. Res. J. 2020, 32, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fernandes, M.E.; Alves, F.M.; Pereira, R.C.; Aquino, L.A.; Fernandes, F.L.; Zanuncio, J.C. Lethal and sublethal effects of seven insecticides on three beneficial insects in laboratory assays and field trials. Chemosphere 2016, 156, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pustika, A.B.; Kobarsih, M.; Indrasari, S.D.; Widyayanti, S.; Anshori, A.; Purwaningsih, H.; Yolanda, K. Population Dynamic of Brown Plant Hopper, Predators and Neutral Insects in Irrigated Rice of Yogyakarta after Insecticides Application. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2023, 1177, 012020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhang, X.; Xu, Q.; Lu, W.; Liu, F. Sublethal effects of four synthetic insecticides on the generalist predator Cyrtorhinus lividipennis. J. Pest Sci. 2015, 88, 383–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Khan, M.M.; Hafeez, M.; Elgizawy, K.; Wang, H.; Zhao, J.; Cai, W.; Ma, W.; Hua, H. Sublethal effects of chlorantraniliprole on Paederus fuscipes (Staphylinidae: Coleoptera), a general predator in paddle field. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 291, 118171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, D. Sublethal Effects of Several Commonly Used Insecticides on Water Tarantulas in Paddy Fields; Master Yangzhou University: Yangzhou, China, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  38. Pramesty, A.; Wisanggeni, C.; Ramdhani, M.Z. The effect of insecticide concentration on the active ingredient mixture Nitenpyram+ Pimetrozin on the intensity of attack by brown stem planthoppers (Nilaparvata lugens) on rice plants (Oriza sativa L.) INPARI 32 cultivar. Devot. J. Res. Community Serv. 2023, 4, 2049–2057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhang, J.; Hu, L.; Ling, S.; Liu, J.; Chen, H.; Zhang, R. Toxic Effects of Nitenpyram on the Brown Planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Stål) (Homoptera: Delphacidae). J. Entomol. Sci. 2010, 45, 220–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lu, W.; Xu, Q.; Zhu, J.; Liu, C.; Ge, L.; Yang, G.; Liu, F. Inductions of reproduction and population growth in the generalist predator Cyrtorhinus lividipennis (Hemiptera: Miridae) exposed to sublethal concentrations of insecticides. Pest Manag. Sci. 2017, 73, 1709–1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Bong, L.-J.; Neoh, K.-B.; Jaal, Z.; Lee, C.-Y. Contact toxicity and residual effects of selected insecticides against the adult Paederus fuscipes (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2013, 106, 2530–2540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  42. Yang, Y.; Wang, D.; Zhu, M. Study on the effects of eight pesticides on small black spiders in Cordyceps in cotton fields. Jiangsu Pestic. 1997, 47, 17–19. [Google Scholar]
  43. Joseph, R.A.; Premila, K.; Nisha, V.; Rajendran, S.; Mohan, S.S. Safety of neem products to tetragnathid spiders in rice ecosystem. J. Biopestic. 2010, 3, 88. [Google Scholar]
  44. Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, X.; Lu, X.; Lu, S.; Yan, C. The effects of several pesticides on the control of gray planthoppers and rice longitudinal leaf borers and the lethality of spiders. Acta Agric. Shanghai 2009, 25, 147–150. [Google Scholar]
  45. Cloyd, R.A.; Herrick, N.J. Effects of pesticides on the survival of rove beetle (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) and insidious flower bug (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) adults. J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Biondi, A.; Veerle, M.; Smagghe, G.; Viñuela, E.; Zappalà, L.; Desneux, N. Non-target impact of spinosyns on beneficial arthropods, a review. Pest Manag. Sci. 2012, 68, 1523–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Niedobová, J.; Ouředníčková, J.; Hamřík, T.; Mészáros, M.; Skalsky, M. Sublethal and lethal effects of different residues of spinosad on Pardosa spiders. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2022, 181, 225–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Baehaki, S.; Surahmat, E.; Susetyo, A.; Senn, R. Safety selected insecticides to predators and egg parasitoids of planthoppers in rice ecosystem. Am. J. Eng. Res. 2017, 6, 174–182. [Google Scholar]
  49. Khan, M.M.; Nawaz, M.; Hua, H.; Cai, W.; Zhao, J. Lethal and sublethal effects of emamectin benzoate on the rove beetle, Paederus fuscipes, a non-target predator of rice brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 165, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhang, H.; He, K.; Shi, Q.; Zhou, S. Study on the effects of methylaminoavermectin benzoate on spider populations in rice fields. Hubei Plant Prot. 2009, 44, 28–30. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hafiz, T.M.; Yaqoob, R.; Naseem, S.; Sherawat, S.; Zahra, K. Effects of Insecticides on Predatory performance of Spiders. Biologia 2015, 61, 127–131. [Google Scholar]
  52. Chen, B.; Wen, L.; Zhao, J.; Liang, H.; Jiao, X. Indoor risk assessment of seven commonly used pesticides in paddy fields against the P. eudoidor. J. Plant Prot. 2017, 44, 1059–1060. [Google Scholar]
  53. Roach, S.; Moore, R. Effects of abamectin on Phidippus audax (Hentz) (Araneae: Salticidae) When ingested from prey1. J. Entomol. Sci. 1988, 23, 112–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lin, Y.; Zhou, X.; Bi, S.; Zou, Y.; Ma, F.; Cheng, X.; Ke, L.; Yang, L.; Guo, H. The predatory natural enemies of three species of planthoppers in the middle paddy field and the effects of pesticides on natural enemies. Chin. J. Ecol. 2013, 33, 2189–2199. [Google Scholar]
  55. Pfeifer, K. Abamectin Avert Prescription Treatment 310; US Environmental Protection Agency: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1993.
Insects 17 00187 g001
Figure 1. Impact of nine insecticides on predatory activity of predators: Cyrtorhinus lividipennis (A) Paederus fuscipes; (B) Pardosa pseudoannulata; (C) Mendoza cancestrinnii; (D) Tetragnatha maxillosa; (E) Ummeliata insecticeps; (F) Graphs represent (Mean ± SD) value for each insecticide. Different letters above bars indicate a significant difference at the 0.05 level by Duncan’s new multiple range test.
Figure 1. Impact of nine insecticides on predatory activity of predators: Cyrtorhinus lividipennis (A) Paederus fuscipes; (B) Pardosa pseudoannulata; (C) Mendoza cancestrinnii; (D) Tetragnatha maxillosa; (E) Ummeliata insecticeps; (F) Graphs represent (Mean ± SD) value for each insecticide. Different letters above bars indicate a significant difference at the 0.05 level by Duncan’s new multiple range test.
Insects 17 00187 g001
Table 1. Detailed information on insecticides used in this study.
Table 1. Detailed information on insecticides used in this study.
InsecticidesTarget PestsManufacturersConcentration
(a.i.%)		Field-Recommended Dosage
(g a.i ha−1)
Triflumezopyrim SCRice plant hoppersCorteva (China) Investment Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China1015–24
Pymetrozine WPRice plant hoppersHebei Veyong Biochemical Co., Ltd., Shijiazhuang, China5090–150
Nitenpyram WDGRice plant hoppersShaanxi Huarong Kaiwei Biological Co., Ltd., Xi’an, China3090–112.5
Imidacloprid WPRice plant hoppersBayer Crop Science (China) Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China1015–30
Spinetoram WDGStem borer, Leaf folderSino-Agri Leading (Tianjin) Agrochemical Co., Ltd., Tianjin, China2515–56.25
Avermectin ECStem borer, Leaf folderHebei Zhongbao Green Crop Technology Co., Ltd., Langfang, China59–15
Emamectin benzoate WDGStem borersHebei Zhongbao Green Crop Technology Co., Ltd., Langfang, China57.5–15
Tetraniliprole SCStem borersBayer Crop Science (China) Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, China2021–30
Chlorentraniliprole SCStem borersFMC (China) Investment Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China2015–30
Table 2. Direct toxicity of nine insecticides to Cyrtorhinus lividipennis and Paederus fuscipes.
Table 2. Direct toxicity of nine insecticides to Cyrtorhinus lividipennis and Paederus fuscipes.
InsecticideField Rec. Dose (g a.i ha−1)Cyrtorhinus lividipennisPaederus fuscipes
Mortality (%)
(Mean ± SD)		Toxic Impact (IOBC Category)Mortality (%)
(Mean ± SD)		Toxic Impact (IOBC Category)
Triflumezopyrim24.006.0 ± 5.5Category 14.0 ± 5.5Category 1
Pymetrozine150.0016.0 ± 8.9Category 112.0 ± 8.4Category 1
Nitenpyram112.50100.0 ± 0.0Category 4100.0 ± 0.0Category 4
Imidacloprid30.00100.0 ± 0.0Category 412.0 ± 16.4Category 1
Spinetoram56.25100.0 ± 0.0Category 422.0 ± 13.0Category 1
Avermectin15.00100.0 ± 0.0Category 420.0 ± 7.1Category 1
Emamectin benzoate15.00100.0 ± 0.0Category 424.0 ± 11.4Category 1
Tetraniliprole30.008.0 ± 4.5Category 16.0 ± 8.9Category 1
Chlorentraniliprole30.0010.0 ± 7.1Category 18.0 ± 4.5Category 1
Control00.002.0 ± 4.47Category 10.0 ± 0.0Category 1
Note: Insecticides causing mortality < 30% are ranked as harmless, and insecticides caused 100% mortality are ranked as harmful.The same in the Table 3.
Table 3. Direct toxicity of nine insecticides to four species of spiders.
Table 3. Direct toxicity of nine insecticides to four species of spiders.
TreatmentField Rec. Dose (g a.i ha−1)Tetragnatha maxillosaMendoza cancestrinniiPardosa pseudoannulataUmmeliata insecticeps
Mortality (%)
(Mean ± SD)		Toxic Impact (IOBC Category)Mortality (%)
(Mean ± SD)		Toxic Impact (IOBC Category)Mortality (%)
(Mean ± SD)		Toxic Impact (IOBC Category)Mortality (%)
(Mean ± SD)		Toxic Impact (IOBC Category)
Triflumezopyrim24.004.0 ± 5.5Category 16.0 ± 13.4Category 12.0 ± 4.5Category 18.0 ± 8.4Category 1
Pymetrozine150.0012.0 ± 4.5Category 110.0 ± 7.1Category 112.0 ± 10.9Category 116.0 ± 5.5Category 1
Nitenpyram112.508.0 ± 8.4Category 18.0 ± 4.5Category 114.0 ± 11.4Category 112.0 ± 4.5Category 1
Imidacloprid30.0010.0 ± 12.2Category 112.0 ± 13.0Category 110.0 ± 7.1Category 114.0 ± 11.4Category 1
Spinetoram56.2530.0 ± 7.1Category 124.0 ± 15.2Category 126.0 ± 8.9Category 1100.0 ± 0.0Category 4
Avermectin15.00100.0 ± 0.0Category 4100.0 ± 0.0Category 4100.0 ± 0.0Category 4100.0 ± 0.0Category 4
Emamectin benzoate15.00100.0 ± 0.0Category 4100.0 ± 0.0Category 4100.0 ± 0.0Category 4100.0 ± 0.0Category 4
Tetraniliprole30.006.0 ± 8.9Category 14.0 ± 8.9Category 18.0 ± 4.5Category 18.0 ± 10.9Category 1
Chlorentraniliprole30.008.0 ± 13.0Category 18.0 ± 10.9Category 16.0 ± 8.9Category 110.0 ± 7.1Category 1
Control00.000.0 ± 0.0Category 10.0 ± 0.0Category 10.0 ± 0.0Category 12.0 ± 4.5Category 1
Table 4. LC50 values and risk assessment of harmful insecticides on six predators.
Table 4. LC50 values and risk assessment of harmful insecticides on six predators.
Predator’s NameInsecticideSlope ± SDLC50 (mg/L)95% Confidence IntervalX2 (df)p Value (Sig.)Safety FactorRisk Level
Cyrtorhinus lividipennisSpinetoram3.28 ± 0.433.592.95–4.366.98 (13)0.9720.02–0.03Extremely high risk
Imidacloprid2.99 ± 0.3914.7512.02–18.117.00 (13)0.9020.22–0.44High risky
Avermectin1.94 ± 0.313.762.66–4.9411.72 (13)0.5500.11–0.18High risky
Emamectin benzoate1.56 ± 0.232.501.74–3.3910.98 (16)0.8100.07–0.15High risky
Nitenpyram2.20 ± 0.3530.7922.21–39.713.76 (13)0.9930.12–0.15High risky
Paederus fuscipesNitenpyram3.02 ± 0.4052.7142.91–64.5013.01 (13)0.4470.21–0.26High risky
Pardosa pseudoannulataAvermectin2.09 ± 0.315.874.50–7.6310.99 (13)0.6120.17–0.29High risky
E. Benzoate1.57 ± 0.234.863.56–6.6619.66 (16)0.240.14–0.29High risky
Mendoza cancestrinniiAvermectin1.96 ± 0.3112.878.73–19.0919.46 (13)0.110.38–0.64Medium to High risk
E. Benzoate1.87 ± 0.249.427.20–12.4014.35 (16)0.5720.28–0.56Medium to High risk
Tetragnatha maxillosaAvermectin3.14 ± 0.415.984.90–7.306.43 (13)0.9280.17–0.29High risky
E. Benzoate1.73 ± 0.294.373.09–5.889.81 (13)0.7090.13–0.26High risky
Ummeliata insecticepsAvermectin1.98 ± 0.250.280.21–0.3619.06 (16)0.2650.008–0.014Extremely high risk
E. Benzoate1.28 ± 0.190.160.10–0.239.37 (16)0.8970.004–0.009Extremely high risk
Spinetoram2.28 ± 0.2810.188.02–12.864.93 (16)0.9960.081–0.101High risky
Note: p-value > 0.05 = the insecticides toxicity data fit the probit model; p-value ≤ 0.05 = the insecticides toxicity data do not fit the probit model.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hussain, M.; He, J.; Wei, Q.; Lai, F.; Wan, P.; Fu, Q. Evaluating the Direct and Indirect Toxicity of Nine Insecticides on an Important Predatory Natural Enemy in Rice Fields. Insects 2026, 17, 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects17020187

AMA Style

Hussain M, He J, Wei Q, Lai F, Wan P, Fu Q. Evaluating the Direct and Indirect Toxicity of Nine Insecticides on an Important Predatory Natural Enemy in Rice Fields. Insects. 2026; 17(2):187. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects17020187

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hussain, Mubashar, Jiachun He, Qi Wei, Fengxiang Lai, Pinjun Wan, and Qiang Fu. 2026. "Evaluating the Direct and Indirect Toxicity of Nine Insecticides on an Important Predatory Natural Enemy in Rice Fields" Insects 17, no. 2: 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects17020187

APA Style

Hussain, M., He, J., Wei, Q., Lai, F., Wan, P., & Fu, Q. (2026). Evaluating the Direct and Indirect Toxicity of Nine Insecticides on an Important Predatory Natural Enemy in Rice Fields. Insects, 17(2), 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects17020187

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop