Spring wheat productivity in Northern Kazakhstan is closely linked to the ecological stability of agroecosystems, where pest outbreaks significantly limit yield formation under favorable climatic conditions. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of insecticidal protection in reducing pest abundance and increasing spring wheat yield within regional agroecosystems. Field microplot experiments were conducted in 2024 on the Aina cultivar under the conditions of the Akmola region. The treatments included lambda-cyhalothrin-based insecticide applied at rates of 0.075 and 0.1 L/ha, compared with an untreated control and a reference product. Pest populations were assessed before and after treatment, and grain yield was measured under standard agronomic conditions. The results demonstrated high biological efficiency of insecticidal application within the agroecosystem. At the 0.1 L/ha rate, pest suppression reached up to 98.7% for wheat thrips, 97.7% for flea beetles and leafhoppers, 96.2% for cutworms, and up to 100.0% for stem pests. Insecticidal protection led to yield increases of 3.4–3.7 c/ha (28.5–31.0%) compared with the control. No negative effects on non-target organisms or operator health were observed, indicating ecological safety under the studied conditions. The findings confirm the importance of targeted insecticidal protection for maintaining agroecosystem balance and enhancing the productivity of spring wheat in Northern Kazakhstan.
INTRODUCTION
One of the main cereal crops in the Republic of Kazakhstan that ensures food security is spring wheat (Zotova et al., 2024). Hazardous insects are one of the biotic and abiotic elements that significantly reduce productivity in Northern and Central Kazakhstan (Kantarbayeva et al., 2017; Ospanova et al., 2018; Aidarbekova et al., 2022). A promising path for crop production in northeastern Kazakhstan is the cultivation of spring wheat in the Pavlodar region, which is marked by a sharply continental climate and soil moisture deficit (Pukhovskiy & Shilova, 2016). Wheat exhibits high resistance to environmental stress factors and maintains productivity under the arid conditions typical of the studied region. Spring wheat productivity is influenced by factors other than ecological and geographic zone features (Yang et al., 2014; Hýsek et al., 2019; Gultyaeva et al., 2021). The phytosanitary state of crops and seedlings is also a significant factor affecting yield levels (Mustarin et al., 2021; Logachev & Goncharov, 2024; Yskak et al., 2026).
One of the most effective components of integrated plant protection remains the use of insecticides. Modern insecticidal products are characterized by high biological activity, selectivity of action, and the possibility of application at low consumption rates (Pretty & Bharucha, 2015; Toleuova et al., 2025). The structure of pesticide use and their effectiveness in protecting agricultural crops depend on climatic factors, soil conditions, and pest phenology, which directly affects the optimal choice of preparation, timing, and frequency of treatments to achieve economic thresholds of harmfulness (Tudi et al., 2021).
In this regard, studying the effect of insecticidal protection on pest populations and the yield of spring wheat is a relevant area of scientific research and has important practical significance for improving grain production efficiency and the sustainability of agroecosystems (Knutson et al., 2018; Cherkasova et al., 2024).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research work on evaluating pesticide effectiveness was conducted on production fields of LLP “Manshuk-AE,” located in the Tselinograd district of the Akmola region.
The Aina variety of spring wheat was the subject of the investigation. The row method was used for sowing. The medium-depth, medium-loamy, dark chestnut soil in the experimental plot had a pH of 6.8 and a humus level of up to 3.0%. Spring wheat, the second crop following fallow, was the previous crop. Chemical weeding was done prior to seeding (Carter et al., 2024; Eriksson et al., 2024; Sahu & Tiwari, 2024). May 25 was the date of sowing. With a 15-cm row spacing, 3.0 million viable seeds were sown per hectare.
During the study, the effectiveness of the preparation against a complex of harmful organisms was evaluated. The main wheat pests targeted in the trials were wheat thrips (Haplothrips tritici Uzel), striped flea beetle (Phyllotreta vittula L.), striped leafhopper (Psammotettix striatus L.), gray grain cutworm (Apamea anceps Schiff.), sunn pest (Eurygaster integriceps Put.), Hessian fly (Mayetiola destructor Say), and cereal stem flea beetle (Chaetocnema hortensis Geoff.). For wheat thrips, striped flea beetles, and striped leafhoppers, RAPTOR 10% EC was tested at an application rate of 0.1 L/ha and compared with the standard product BREAK, IU, at the same rate and with an untreated control. For gray grain cutworm and sunn pest, RAPTOR 10% EC was applied at 0.075 L/ha and compared with BREAK, IU, at 0.075 L/ha and with an untreated control. For Hessian fly and cereal stem flea beetle, RAPTOR 10% EC was tested at two application rates, 0.075 and 0.1 L/ha, in comparison with BREAK IU at the corresponding rates and with an untreated control.
Type of experiment (field – registration (small-plot), area of experimental plots, number of replications)
Field-registration (small-plot), plot area 48 m², fourfold replication.
Type of sprayer, working solution application rate
Crop treatment was carried out using a manual backpack sprayer PATRIOT PR 420WF-12. The working solution rate was 200 L/ha.
Methodology for accounting harmful organisms
Counts were conducted according to the “Guidelines for conducting production trials of pesticides in the Republic of Kazakhstan,” Astana, 2006, and in accordance with the “Rules for conducting registration (small-plot and production) trials and state registration of pesticides in the Republic of Kazakhstan,” Astana, 2015 (Guidelines for conducting production trials of pesticides in the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2006).
Methodology for yield accounting
During small-plot trials, the effectiveness of the insecticide RAPTOR 10% EC (lambda-cyhalothrin, 100 g/L) against thrips and a complex of pests on spring wheat was evaluated. The experiments were carried out with fourfold replication; the number of thrips was recorded using the sweep net method before treatment and on the 3rd, 7th, and 14th days after application of the preparations. Yield was determined by sampling sheaves and threshing from 1 m² plots in fourfold replication (Iftode et al., 2024; Mayer et al., 2024; Adams & Hayes, 2025; Cai et al., 2025; King et al., 2025; Okello et al., 2025; Romero et al., 2025; Sousa et al., 2025).
Yield data were adjusted to 100% purity and 14% standard grain moisture according to GOST and recalculated in centners per hectare (Amantayev et al., 2025).
In 2024, weather conditions in terms of temperature developed in such a way that for all months except May there was an excess of long-term average data. The hottest month was August; the average monthly temperature was 22.2°C, with a norm of 20°C (an excess of 2.2°C). In terms of precipitation, an excess was observed in May (by 42 mm), June (4 mm), and August (43 mm). The total amount of precipitation from April to May amounted to 249.5 mm, with a norm of 183 mm (an excess of 66.5 mm). The weather conditions of the 2024 growing season were extremely favorable for the development of harmful organisms (Table 1).
Table 1. Meteorological indicators of the growing season of agricultural crops in the Tselinograd district of the Akmola region
|
Month |
Temperature during the growing season |
Long-term average |
Deviation from long-term average |
Precipitation during the growing season |
Long-term average |
Deviation from long-term average |
|
April |
9.1 |
6.3 |
+2.6 |
21.5 |
22.0 |
−0.5 |
|
May |
12.3 |
14.6 |
−2.2 |
76.0 |
34.0 |
+42.0 |
|
June |
21.8 |
19.7 |
+2.1 |
46.0 |
42.0 |
+4.0 |
|
July |
21.8 |
20.8 |
+1.0 |
29.0 |
54.0 |
−25.0 |
|
August |
22.2 |
20.0 |
+2.2 |
74.0 |
31.0 |
+43.0 |
Table 2 summarizes the biological effectiveness of RAPTOR 10% EC against three major spring wheat pests, namely wheat thrips, striped flea beetle, and striped leafhopper, under the same experimental design. RAPTOR 10% EC and the standard product BREAK, IU, were both applied at a rate of 0.1 L/ha and compared with an untreated control under fourfold replication. Before treatment, pest abundance in all variants was comparable, indicating uniform infestation of the experimental plots. After application, both insecticides provided a rapid and pronounced reduction in pest numbers. Against wheat thrips, the biological effectiveness of RAPTOR 10% EC reached 77.4% on the 3rd day, 88.6% on the 7th day, and 98.7% on the 14th day after treatment, while the standard product showed similarly high values of 78.2%, 89.4%, and 99.3%, respectively. Against the striped flea beetle, RAPTOR 10% EC achieved 79.5%, 86.4%, and 97.7% effectiveness, which was practically identical to BREAK, IU (79.7%, 86.7%, and 97.7%). In the case of the striped leafhopper, RAPTOR 10% EC provided 78.1%, 87.5%, and 97.7% control, whereas the standard treatment resulted in 78.6%, 88.1%, and 97.6% effectiveness. In the untreated control, pest abundance remained stable or increased during the observation period. Overall, RAPTOR 10% EC demonstrated consistently high biological activity and was not inferior to the standard product in the control of all three pests (Darwish & Nasser, 2024; Essah et al., 2024; Ghati et al., 2024; Hsiao et al., 2024; Jabin & Guthrie, 2025; Jagsi et al., 2025; Moyo & Dlamini, 2025; Ramirez et al., 2025).
Table 2. Biological effectiveness of RAPTOR 10% EC against pests of spring wheat
|
Pest |
Treatment |
Before treatment |
Day 1 |
Day 3 |
Day 7 |
Day 14 |
Reduction at final assessment, % |
|
Wheat thrips, pcs./10 sweeps |
RAPTOR 10% EC – 0.1 L/ha |
74.3 |
- |
16.8 |
8.5 |
1.0 |
98.7 |
|
BREAK, IU – 0.1 L/ha (standard) |
73.3 |
- |
16.0 |
7.8 |
0.5 |
99.3 |
|
|
Control (untreated) |
74.5 |
- |
75.3 |
79.5 |
91.0 |
- |
|
|
Striped flea beetle, pcs./m² |
RAPTOR 10% EC – 0.1 L/ha |
75.5 |
15.5 |
10.3 |
1.8 |
- |
97.7 |
|
BREAK, IU – 0.1 L/ha (standard) |
75.3 |
15.3 |
10.0 |
1.8 |
- |
97.7 |
|
|
Control (untreated) |
75.0 |
75.8 |
84.0 |
95.8 |
- |
- |
|
|
Striped leafhopper, pcs./stem |
RAPTOR 10% EC – 0.1 L/ha |
3.2 |
0.7 |
0.4 |
0.1 |
- |
97.7 |
|
BREAK, IU – 0.1 L/ha (standard) |
3.2 |
0.7 |
0.4 |
0.1 |
- |
97.6 |
|
|
Control (untreated) |
3.2 |
3.3 |
3.4 |
3.6 |
- |
- |
Table 3 presents the biological effectiveness of RAPTOR 10% EC against the gray grain cutworm in spring wheat crops. The insecticide was compared with the standard product and the untreated control under fourfold replication.
Table 3. Biological effectiveness of the insecticide RAPTOR 10% EC against the gray grain cutworm in spring wheat crops
|
Experimental variant (name, application rate) |
Replication |
Number of larvae per 10 ears, pcs. |
Reduction of caterpillars the day of accounting, % |
|||
|
before treatment |
on day of accounting |
on day of accounting |
||||
|
3 |
7 |
3 |
7 |
|||
|
RAPTOR 10% EC – 0.075 L/ha |
1 |
14 |
3 |
1 |
- |
- |
|
2 |
13 |
4 |
1 |
- |
- |
|
|
3 |
15 |
5 |
0 |
- |
- |
|
|
4 |
11 |
2 |
0 |
- |
- |
|
|
Avg. |
13,3 |
3,5 |
0,5 |
73,6 |
96,2 |
|
|
BREAK, IU – 0.075 L/ha (standard) |
1 |
12 |
5 |
1 |
- |
- |
|
2 |
16 |
2 |
0 |
- |
- |
|
|
3 |
10 |
2 |
0 |
- |
- |
|
|
4 |
13 |
4 |
1 |
- |
- |
|
|
Avg. |
12,8 |
3,3 |
0,5 |
74,5 |
96,1 |
|
|
Control (untreated) |
1 |
14 |
12 |
15 |
- |
- |
|
2 |
11 |
15 |
13 |
- |
- |
|
|
3 |
16 |
13 |
14 |
- |
- |
|
|
4 |
13 |
16 |
17 |
- |
- |
|
|
Avg. |
13,5 |
14,0 |
14,8 |
- |
- |
|
Table 4 presents the results of the field experiment evaluating the biological effectiveness of RAPTOR 10% EC against the sunn pest in spring wheat crops. The tested insecticide was compared with the standard treatment and the untreated control (Essah et al., 2024; Formiga et al., 2024; Hsiao et al., 2024; Iftode et al., 2024; Adams & Hayes, 2025; Jagsi et al., 2025; King et al., 2025; Mishra et al., 2025; Romero et al., 2025; Yu et al., 2025).
Table 4. Biological effectiveness of the insecticide RAPTOR 10% EC against sunn pest in spring wheat crops
|
Experimental variant (name, application rate) |
Replication |
Number of larvae per 1 m² |
Reduction of caterpillars the day of accounting, % |
|||
|
before treatment |
on day of accounting |
on day of accounting |
||||
|
3 |
7 |
3 |
7 |
|||
|
RAPTOR 10% EC – 0.075 L/ha |
1 |
2,9 |
0,7 |
0,1 |
- |
- |
|
2 |
3,1 |
0,8 |
0,0 |
- |
- |
|
|
3 |
2,8 |
0,5 |
0,0 |
- |
- |
|
|
4 |
2,7 |
0,4 |
0,1 |
- |
- |
|
|
Avg. |
2,9 |
0,6 |
0,1 |
79,1 |
98,3 |
|
|
BREAK, IU – 0.075 L/ha (standard) |
1 |
2,5 |
0,7 |
0,0 |
- |
- |
|
2 |
2,9 |
0,5 |
0,0 |
- |
- |
|
|
3 |
2,6 |
0,4 |
0,0 |
- |
- |
|
|
4 |
3,0 |
0,7 |
0,1 |
- |
- |
|
|
Avg. |
2,8 |
0,6 |
0,0 |
79,1 |
99,1 |
|
|
Control (untreated) |
1 |
2,8 |
2,7 |
3,1 |
- |
- |
|
2 |
2,7 |
3,0 |
2,8 |
- |
- |
|
|
3 |
3,1 |
2,9 |
3,2 |
- |
- |
|
|
4 |
2,6 |
3,3 |
3,4 |
- |
- |
|
|
Avg. |
2,8 |
3,0 |
3,1 |
- |
- |
|
Table 5 shows the biological effectiveness of RAPTOR 10% EC against Hessian fly in spring wheat crops at two application rates. The results are compared with those of the standard product and the untreated control.
Table 5. Biological effectiveness of the insecticide RAPTOR 10% EC against Hessian fly in spring wheat crops
|
Replication |
Average number of larvae per linear meter of row, pcs. |
Reduction, % |
||||||
|
before treatment |
Per day after treatment |
|||||||
|
3 |
7 |
14 |
3 |
7 |
14 |
|||
|
RAPTOR 10% EC – 0.075 L/ha |
1 |
3,3 |
1,0 |
0,5 |
0,1 |
- |
- |
- |
|
2 |
3,1 |
1,2 |
0,8 |
0,2 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
3 |
3,5 |
1,1 |
0,6 |
0,1 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
4 |
3,2 |
0,7 |
0,5 |
0,4 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
Avg. |
3,3 |
1,0 |
0,6 |
0,2 |
69,5 |
81,7 |
93,9 |
|
|
RAPTOR 10% EC – 0.1 L/ha |
1 |
3,6 |
0,9 |
0,6 |
0,2 |
- |
- |
- |
|
2 |
3,1 |
1,1 |
0,4 |
0,0 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
3 |
3,2 |
0,8 |
0,7 |
0,1 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
4 |
3,3 |
1,0 |
0,3 |
0,0 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
Avg. |
3,3 |
1,0 |
0,5 |
0,1 |
71,2 |
84,8 |
97,7 |
|
|
BREAK, IU – 0.075 L/ha |
1 |
3,0 |
0,9 |
0,5 |
0,2 |
- |
- |
- |
|
2 |
3,4 |
0,9 |
0,7 |
0,1 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
3 |
3,1 |
1,1 |
0,7 |
0,3 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
4 |
3,2 |
0,9 |
0,4 |
0,1 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
Avg. |
3,2 |
1,0 |
0,6 |
0,2 |
70,1 |
81,9 |
94,5 |
|
|
BREAK, IU – 0.1 L/ha |
1 |
3,4 |
1,1 |
0,3 |
0,0 |
- |
- |
- |
|
2 |
3,5 |
0,8 |
0,7 |
0,1 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
3 |
3,1 |
1,0 |
0,5 |
0,1 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
4 |
3,3 |
0,9 |
0,5 |
0,0 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
Avg. |
3,3 |
1,0 |
0,5 |
0,1 |
71,4 |
85,0 |
98,5 |
|
|
Control (untreated) |
1 |
3,1 |
3,1 |
3,5 |
3,4 |
- |
- |
- |
|
2 |
3,5 |
3,4 |
3,3 |
3,6 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
3 |
3,1 |
3,6 |
3,6 |
3,9 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
4 |
3,3 |
3,4 |
3,7 |
3,7 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
Avg. |
3,3 |
3,4 |
3,5 |
3,7 |
- |
- |
- |
|
Table 6 presents the biological effectiveness of RAPTOR 10% EC against the cereal stem flea beetle in spring wheat crops. The insecticide was evaluated at two application rates in comparison with the standard treatment and the untreated control.
Table 6. Biological effectiveness of the insecticide RAPTOR 10% EC against cereal stem flea beetle in spring wheat crops
|
Experimental variant (name, application rate) |
Replication |
Average number per 10 sweeps, pcs. |
Reduction, % |
|||||
|
before treatment |
Per day after treatment |
|||||||
|
1 |
3 |
7 |
1 |
3 |
7 |
|||
|
RAPTOR 10% EC – 0.075 L/ha
|
1 |
3,8 |
1,0 |
0,7 |
0,2 |
- |
- |
- |
|
2 |
4,0 |
1,3 |
0,4 |
0,1 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
3 |
3,9 |
1,2 |
0,5 |
0,3 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
4 |
4,2 |
0,9 |
0,5 |
0,2 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
Avg. |
4,0 |
1,1 |
0,5 |
0,2 |
72,3 |
86,8 |
95,0 |
|
|
RAPTOR 10% EC – 0.1 L/ha
|
1 |
3,6 |
0,7 |
0,5 |
0,0 |
- |
- |
- |
|
2 |
4,1 |
1,1 |
0,6 |
0,0 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
3 |
4,0 |
0,8 |
0,4 |
0,0 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
4 |
3,7 |
1,2 |
0,3 |
0,0 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
Avg. |
3,9 |
1,0 |
0,5 |
0,0 |
75,3 |
88,3 |
100,0 |
|
|
BREAK, IU – 0.075 L/ha
|
1 |
4,1 |
1,3 |
0,4 |
0,4 |
- |
- |
- |
|
2 |
3,8 |
1,0 |
0,6 |
0,1 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
3 |
4,3 |
0,9 |
0,5 |
0,0 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
4 |
4,0 |
1,2 |
0,7 |
0,2 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
Avg. |
4,1 |
1,1 |
0,6 |
0,2 |
72,8 |
86,4 |
95,7 |
|
|
BREAK, IU – 0.1 L/ha
|
1 |
4,0 |
0,9 |
0,3 |
0,0 |
- |
- |
- |
|
2 |
3,7 |
1,1 |
0,4 |
0,0 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
3 |
3,9 |
1,0 |
0,6 |
0,0 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
4 |
3,7 |
0,7 |
0,4 |
0,0 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
Avg. |
3,8 |
0,9 |
0,4 |
0,0 |
75,8 |
88,9 |
100,0 |
|
|
Control (untreated)
|
1 |
3,6 |
3,7 |
4,1 |
4,9 |
- |
- |
- |
|
2 |
3,7 |
3,9 |
4,5 |
5,2 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
3 |
4,0 |
4,1 |
4,2 |
4,8 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
4 |
3,9 |
3,8 |
4,4 |
4,6 |
- |
- |
- |
|
|
Avg. |
3,8 |
3,9 |
4,3 |
4,9 |
- |
- |
- |
|
Table 7 shows the effect of RAPTOR 10% EC treatment on spring wheat grain yield. Yield performance is presented for both application rates in comparison with the standard product and the untreated control.
Table 7. Effect of treatment of spring wheat crops with RAPTOR 10% EC insecticide on grain yield
|
Variant |
Yield, c/ha |
Deviation from control |
|||||
|
I |
II |
III |
IV |
Ср. |
c/ha |
% |
|
|
Control (untreated) |
12,1 |
11,7 |
12,3 |
11,6 |
11,9 |
- |
- |
|
RAPTOR 10% EC – 0.075 L/ha |
15,4 |
15,1 |
15,5 |
15,3 |
15,3 |
3,4 |
28,5 |
|
RAPTOR 10% EC – 0.1 L/ha |
15,6 |
15,4 |
15,8 |
15,7 |
15,6 |
3,7 |
31,0 |
|
BREAK, IU – 0.075 L/ha (standard) |
15,3 |
15,4 |
15,4 |
15,5 |
15,4 |
3,5 |
29,1 |
|
BREAK, IU – 0.1 L/ha (standard) |
15,5 |
15,8 |
15,7 |
15,9 |
15,7 |
3,8 |
31,9 |
Observed side effects of the pesticide, including on non-target objects (specify species): note the effect on the skin and respiratory organs of workers handling the preparation. Other negative effects: not noted.
According to the results of the small-plot trials, the insecticide RAPTOR 10% EC (lambda-cyhalothrin, 100 g/L) showed biological efficiency at the level of the standard preparation BREAK ME. Against wheat thrips, the efficiency was 94.3%; striped flea beetle, 97.7%; striped leafhopper, 97.7%; gray grain cutworm, 96.2%; sunn pest, 98.3%; Hessian fly, 93.9–97.7%; and cereal stem flea beetle, 95.0–100.0% (for the standard preparation BREAK ME, the efficiency against these pests was 95.5, 97.7, 97.6, 96.1, 99.1, 94.5–98.5, and 95.7–100.0%, respectively).
The yield increase when using RAPTOR 10% EC (lambda-cyhalothrin, 100 g/L), compared with the control, amounted to 3.4 c/ha (application rate 0.075 L/ha) and 3.7 c/ha (application rate 0.1 L/ha).
Proposals to incorporate the tested pesticide into the production trial plan or to continue small-plot trials of the pesticide for one growing season in order to provide clarification and/or account for the lack of harmful organisms or their quantity and level of development below the economic threshold of harmfulness (Ahmed et al., 2024; Ashyrov & Lukason, 2024; Cai et al., 2025; Guillen & Pereira, 2024; Hodoșan et al., 2024; Komov et al., 2024; Mayer et al., 2024; Okello et al., 2025; Romero et al., 2025).
The insecticide RAPTOR 10% EC (lambda-cyhalothrin, 100 g/L) was found to be effective based on the small-plot experiment findings. Registrant: It is suggested that LLP "Harvest LTD," China, be added to the plan for carrying out production trials on spring wheat, with application rates of 0.1 L/ha against thrips, flea beetles, and leafhoppers; 0.075 L/ha against gray grain cutworm and sunn pest; and 0.075–0.1 L/ha against cereal flies and stem flea beetles, using a working solution consumption of 200 L/ha during the growing season.
Proposals regarding the practicality of state registration of the pesticide at the tested application rates of the preparation and working solution rates, ongoing registration or production trials for the purpose of clarification, and the rules governing the use of the preparation that is suggested for registration (Dashkevich et al., 2022; Yskak et al., 2025).
If the results of the small-plot trials are confirmed in production trials, the insecticide RAPTOR 10% EC (lambda-cyhalothrin, 100 g/L). Registrant: LLP “Harvest LTD,” China, is recommended to be registered on spring wheat against wheat thrips (Haplothrips tritici), striped flea beetle (Phyllotreta vittula), and striped leafhopper (Psammotettix striatus) at an application rate of 0.1 L/ha; against gray grain cutworm (Apamea anceps) and sunn pest (Eurygaster integriceps) at an application rate of 0.075 L/ha; and against Hessian fly (Mayetiola destructor) and stem flea beetle (Chaetocnema hortensis) at application rates of 0.075–0.1 L/ha, by the method of full-cover spraying during the growing season, with a working solution consumption of 200 L/ha, and to be included in the “List of pesticides permitted for production (formulation), import, storage, transportation, sale, and application in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan.” Number of treatments – 1 (Jeung, 2024; Zielinska & Kowal, 2024; Castellano-Rioja, 2025).
CONCLUSION
The insecticide RAPTOR 10% EC (lambda-cyhalothrin, 100 g/L) showed high and prolonged effectiveness against thrips on spring wheat. Already on the 3rd day after treatment, the number of pests decreased by 77.4%; on the 7th day, by 88.6%; and by, the 14th day, it reached 98.7%, which is comparable to the standard preparation BREAK ME. The preparation also demonstrated high biological efficiency against a complex of pests (flea beetles, leafhoppers, cutworms, sunn pest, and Hessian fly) and provided a yield increase of up to 3.7 c/ha. No side effects on non-target objects or the health of workers were identified. The obtained data confirm the expediency of further production trials and possible registration of the preparation in the Republic of Kazakhstan.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: None
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None
FINANCIAL SUPPORT: None
ETHICS STATEMENT: None
Adams, G., & Hayes, W. (2025). Clinical significance of sustained nintedanib treatment in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: A 12-month real-world evaluation. Pharmaceutical Sciences and Drug Design, 5, 217–224. doi:10.51847/iE5dkK27c3
Ahmed, Z., Khan, M., & Baig, S. (2024). CA 19-9 stratification in pancreaticobiliary malignancies: Low levels predict superior survival independent of metastases and curative therapy. Asian Journal of Current Research in Clinical Cancer, 4(2), 136–144. doi:10.51847/RRUOrX8lgF
Aidarbekova, T. Zh., Syzdykova, G. T., Malitskaya, N. V., Nurgaziev, R. E., Khusainov, A. T., Zhabaeva, M. U., Makhanova, S. K., & Shoykin, O. D. (2022). Comparative evaluation of spring soft wheat lines (Triticum aestivum L.) in the Steppe zone. Agricultural Biology, 57(1), 66–80.
Alves, R., Mendes, T., Pinto, J., & Correia, N. (2025). Warfarin pharmacogenomics in the era of precision medicine: Persistent underrepresentation of non-European ancestries and implications for global health equity. Special Journal of Pharmacognosy, Phytochemistry and Biotechnology, 5, 1–26. doi:10.51847/3jxE52PnLi
Amantayev, B., Kipshakbayeva, G., Turbekova, A., Kulzhabayev, Y., & Lutschak, P. (2025). Enhancing drought resistance in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) through chelated zinc seed treatment: An experimental study. OnLine Journal of Biological Sciences, 25(1), 53–64.
Ashyrov, G., & Lukason, O. (2024). How political connections influence the success of small and medium enterprises. Annals of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict Leadership and External Engagement Journal, 5, 62–71. doi:10.51847/VCHg3eHuEr
Cai, Z., Chen, Q., & Linghu, E. (2025). Long-term survival outcomes of colorectal cancer survivors: An in-depth exploration. Asian Journal of Current Research in Clinical Cancer, 5(1), 12–19. doi:10.51847/rcTEil0ZCv
Carter, W. J., Farouk, A. S., & Chen, L. (2024). Genetic and immunohistochemical evaluation of H3-3A mutations for diagnosing giant cell bone tumors. Bulletin of Pioneer Research in Medical and Clinical Sciences, 4(2), 138–145. doi:10.51847/k52xuevexp
Castellano-Rioja, C. (2025). Investigating the effect of providing required training to mothers of children with surgery and its effect on mothers' anxiety. Journal of Integrative Nursing and Palliative Care, 6, 7–11. doi:10.51847/m0J08PS92O
Cherkasova, E., Abdriisov, D., Rzaeva, V., Borodulin, D. M., Shoykin, O., Gafiyatullina, E. A., & Shichiyakh, R. A. (2024). Spring wheat and spring rapeseed productivity potential. SABRAO Journal of Breeding and Genetics, 56(5), 1938–1945.
Darwish, K. M., & Nasser, O. F. (2024). Factors influencing adherence to infection prevention and control measures among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Medical Sciences Interdisciplinary Research, 4(1), 57–65. doi:10.51847/G1CuUuwHlY
Dashkevich, S. M., Utebayev, M. U., Kradetskaya, O. O., Chilimova, I. V., Zhylkybaev, R. S., & Babkenov, A. T. (2022). The genetic potential of spring durum wheat grain quality in the North of Kazakhstan. OnLine Journal of Biological Sciences, 22(3), 347–355.
Eriksson, S. L., Ismail, N. S., & Bianchi, M. R. (2024). Network pharmacology and molecular docking-based investigation of the bioactive constituents and therapeutic mechanisms of Shufeng Jiedu capsule in COVID-19. Bulletin of Pioneer Research in Medical and Clinical Sciences, 4(2), 115–123. doi:10.51847/THcO13oXgM
Essah, A., Igboemeka, C., & Hailemeskel, B. (2024). Exploring gabapentin as a treatment for pruritus: A survey of student perspectives. Annals of Pharmaceutical Education, Safety and Public Health Advocacy, 4, 1–6. doi:10.51847/h8xgEJE3NE
Fonseca, M. T., Matos, J. C., & Alves, R. M. (2025). Alternative 5′UTR isoforms drive enhanced translational efficiency via TOP/PRTE motif switches in squamous cell carcinoma. Archives of International Journal of Cancer Allied Sciences, 5(1), 161–178. doi:10.51847/mnH8oA90dc
Formiga, M. D. C., Fuller, R., Ardelean, L. C., & Shibli, J. A. (2024). Case report on a 3D-printed CAD-CAM implant abutment for angulated implant correction in the esthetic zone. Journal of Current Research in Oral Surgery, 4, 14–19. doi:10.51847/cBiqiY5b32
Ghati, N., Bhatnagar, S., Mahendran, M., Thakur, A., Prasad, K., Kumar, D., Dwivedi, T., Mani, K., Tiwari, P., Gupta, R., et al. (2024). Exploring the impact of palliative care education on enhancing quality of life for women with breast cancer. Archives of International Journal of Cancer Allied Sciences, 4(2), 11–17. doi:10.51847/IMAAaCN4Rh
Guillen, J., & Pereira, R. (2024). Institutional influence on gender entrepreneurship in Latin America. Annals of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict Leadership and External Engagement Journal, 5, 28–38. doi:10.51847/RaQltcyzXu
Gultyaeva, E. I., Tyunin, V. A., Shreider, E. R., Kushnirenko, I. Yu., Shaydayuk, E. L., Kovalenko, N. M., Bondarenko, N. P., & Kolesova, M. A. (2021). Selection of spring soft wheat for resistance to leaf-stem diseases in the Southern Urals. Russian Agricultural Science, 1, 8–12. doi:10.31857/S2500262721010026 [in Russian].
Hernandez, V., Romero, L., Sanchez, P., & Morales, D. (2024). Real-world implementation of pharmacogenetics in a public tertiary hospital: A decade of progress and 35% annual growth. Special Journal of Pharmacognosy, Phytochemistry and Biotechnology, 4, 118–128. doi:10.51847/N7jyuZHwDc
Hodoșan, V., Zaha, D. C., Daina, L. G., Tîrb, A. M., Mărcuț, L. F., Mohan, A. G., Cotrău, P., & Daina, C. M. (2024). Evaluation of antibiotic use and financial costs in university hospital intensive care units. Annals of Pharmaceutical Practice and Pharmacotherapy, 4, 57–64. doi:10.51847/YPGFjKNDi2
Hsiao, F. H., Chen, P. L., Ho, C. C., Ho, R. T. H., Lai, Y. M., & Wu, J. L. (2024). Exploring the impact of cognitive-behavioral therapy on anxiety disorders in children and adolescents. International Journal of Social Psychology Aspects in Healthcare, 4, 26–31. doi:10.51847/jcgvRFfQPM
Hýsek, J., Vavera, R., & Růžek, P. (2019). Cultivation intensity in combination with other ecological factors as limiting ones for the abundance of phytopathogenic fungi on wheat. Microbial Ecology, 7, 565–574. doi:10.1007/s00248-019-01337-3
Iftode, C., Iurciuc, S., Marcovici, I., Macasoi, I., Coricovac, D., Dehelean, C., Ursoniu, S., Rusu, A., & Ardelean, S. (2024). Therapeutic potential of aspirin repurposing in colon cancer. Pharmaceutical Sciences and Drug Design, 4, 43–50. doi:10.51847/nyDxRaP7Au
Iriti, A., Lupo, M., & Khazaal, E. (2024). Perspectives and apprehensions of healthy individuals toward post-mortem brain donation: A qualitative study across Italy. Asian Journal of Ethics in Health and Medicine, 4, 68–80. doi:10.51847/p7nqk1jS4l
Jabin, A., & Guthrie, A. (2025). Understanding treatment gaps in Type 2 diabetes: A qualitative study on why patients stop and restart care. International Journal of Social Psychology Aspects in Healthcare, 5, 24–34. doi:10.51847/K4r85uzgEQ
Jagsi, R., Lee, J., Roselin, D., Ira, K., & Williams, J. (2025). Do U.S. medical schools follow medical associations’ recommendations on paid parental leave for faculty? Annals of Pharmaceutical Education, Safety and Public Health Advocacy, 5, 1–11. doi:10.51847/r117In8wdi
Jeung, Y. Y. (2024). Studying the effect of positive thinking training on fear of childbirth and health anxiety in pregnant women. Journal of Integrative Nursing and Palliative Care, 5, 55–61. doi:10.51847/XEoAEL5hmj
Kantarbayeva, E. E., Shayakhmetova, A. S., Koshen, B. M., & Zholamanov, K. K. (2017). The density of planting and the productivity of corn in the context of forest-steppe zone of Northern Kazakhstan. Asian Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Environmental Sciences, 19(1), 110–114.
King, S., Hall, O., & White, D. (2025). A cross-sectional survey on the challenges and opportunities of Italian-qualified pharmacists transferred to work in Great Britain. Annals of Pharmaceutical Practice and Pharmacotherapy, 5, 23–42. doi:10.51847/8aAEcR1YFw
Knutson, A., Giles, K., Porter, P., & Biles, S. (2018). Impact of insecticide seed treatments and foliar insecticides on aphid infestations, barley yellow dwarf incidence, and wheat yield. Crop Protection, 112, 47–54. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2018.05.012
Komov, M., Panko, J., Spector, A., Stepanyan, T., & Tumanov, E. (2024). The EAEU potential and the interests of member-states in cooperation to ensure sustainable foreign economic strategies. Annals of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict Leadership and External Engagement Journal, 5, 39–43. doi:10.51847/9yM4CBPS32
Kulkarni, R., Patil, S., & Joshi, M. (2024). Putting real-time ethical practices into action to enhance ethical attentiveness in Malawi’s agriculture–nutrition–health studies. Asian Journal of Ethics in Health and Medicine, 4, 228–243. doi:10.51847/aWzZ5QLcXs
Lima, J. E., Pacheco, M., & Teixeira, B. (2024). Transition from traditional text to e-text: Medical, dental, and allied health students’ perceptions of e-learning. Interdisciplinary Research in Medical Sciences Special Journal, 4(2), 112–121. doi:10.51847/iMZc7n4TPc
Logachev, M., & Goncharov, D. (2024). Simulation model of crop yields. BIO Web of Conferences, 93, 02015. doi:10.1051/bioconf/20249302015
Lopez, S. M., & Cruz, V. R. (2024). Associations between health-related functioning and return-to-work status in cancer survivors following treatment. International Journal of Social Psychology Aspects in Healthcare, 4, 127–137. doi:10.51847/b1UwSDxwZu
Mayer, J., Berger, L., & Gruber, S. (2024). Evaluation of clinical pharmacist contributions within infectious disease services: Classification, acceptance rate, and economic impact assessment using a tailored electronic intervention platform. Annals of Pharmaceutical Practice and Pharmacotherapy, 4, 111–119. doi:10.51847/hLDNm3Z1bA
Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2006). Guidelines for conducting production trials of pesticides in the Republic of Kazakhstan (p. 55). Astana.
Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2015). Rules for conducting registration (small-plot and production) trials and state registration of pesticides in the Republic of Kazakhstan (p. 85). Astana.
Mishra, N., Dadhich, A., Vande, A. V., Saluja, H., Shah, S., & Mishra, M. (2025). A comparative assessment of topical 5-fluorouracil and modified Carnoy's solution for the treatment of odontogenic keratocyst. Journal of Current Research in Oral Surgery, 5, 11–16. doi:10.51847/OrVjjlmrxW
Moyo, T. B., & Dlamini, N. S. (2025). Waterborne acute gastroenteritis in rural Kazakhstan: Insights from a matched case-control study. Journal of Medical Sciences Interdisciplinary Research, 5(1), 121–127. doi:10.51847/Vjp2Kj16ET
Mustarin, K. E., Roy, K. K., & Rahman, M. E. (2021). Surveillance and monitoring of some major diseases of wheat in Bangladesh with special emphasis on wheat blast — a new disease in Bangladesh. Journal of Plant Pathology, 103, 473–481. doi:10.1007/s42161-021-00745-0
Novak, F. A., Hruby, J. M., & Kolar, P. E. (2025). Mitochondrial glutamine metabolism modulates chemotherapy sensitivity in cancer cells through amphiregulin signaling. Archives of International Journal of Cancer Allied Sciences, 5(2), 159–172. doi:10.51847/2BrxGEYG9g
Okello, J., Ochieng, M., & Abdi, S. (2025). Gnetin C suppresses MTA1/AKT/mTOR signaling and tumor progression in a transgenic mouse model of advanced prostate cancer. Asian Journal of Current Research in Clinical Cancer, 5(1), 124–135. doi:10.51847/cXnB3dG3wH
Ospanova, A. K., Kaliyeva, A. B., Anuarova, L. E., Bazargaliyeva, A. A., Yernazarova, G. I., Ramazanova, A. A., & Sekenov, I. E. (2018). Mildew of oleaster (Elaeagnus oxycarpa Schlecht.) registered in large industrial cities (Pavlodar, Aksu, Ekibastuz) of the Pavlodar region. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 25(3), 446–451. doi:10.1016/j.sjbs.2016.09.017
Pretty, J., & Bharucha, Z. P. (2015). Integrated pest management for sustainable intensification of agriculture in Asia and Africa. Insects, 6(1), 152–182. doi:10.3390/insects6010152
Pukhovskiy, A. N., & Shilova, N. I. (2016). Phytosanitary condition of spring wheat crops in Northern Kazakhstan. In Topical Issues of Innovative Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex (pp. 295–299). Kursk State Agricultural Academy. [in Russian].
Ramirez, J. C., Hernandez, L. A., Torres, D. M., Salazar, A. F., Gutierrez, O. D., & Cardenas, F. A. (2025). Persistent gaps in the hypertension care cascade: Prevalence and inequality among older adults in Mexico. Journal of Medical Sciences Interdisciplinary Research, 5(2), 50–64. doi:10.51847/59aGMRkA4K
Romero, I., & Campos, M. (2025). Initial investigation into the therapeutic effects and pharmacological mechanisms of modified Danggui-Shaoyao San for managing depression in chronic kidney disease patients. Pharmaceutical Sciences and Drug Design, 5, 20–32. doi:10.51847/24JvICiLe0
Sahu, M. K., & Tiwari, S. P. (2024). Phytochemical and ethnopharmacological review of Aegle marmelos Linn. (Bael). Bulletin of Pioneer Research in Medical and Clinical Sciences, 4(2), 29–47. doi:10.51847/K3rPdVPzLe
Siddiqui, F., Qureshi, A., & Riaz, S. (2025). Prevalence and determinants of self-medication with conventional and herbal medicines among pregnant women attending antenatal care at Mizan-Tepi University Teaching Hospital, Southwest Ethiopia. Interdisciplinary Research in Medical Sciences Special Journal, 5(1), 121–133. doi:10.51847/g6L57uJesp
Sousa, D., Teixeira, B., & Ribeiro, A. (2025). Assessing awareness and adoption of pharmacogenomics among healthcare professionals and researchers in China. Special Journal of Pharmacognosy, Phytochemistry and Biotechnology, 5, 150–160. doi:10.51847/yQQx6dEyqC
Souza, J. S., Reis, E. A., Godman, B., Campbell, S. M., Meyer, J. C., Sena, L. W. P., & Godói, I. P. D. (2024). Designing a healthcare utilization index to enable worldwide patient comparisons: A cross-sectional study. Annals of Pharmaceutical Education, Safety and Public Health Advocacy, 4, 7–15. doi:10.51847/EeWKtBkVgK
Toleuova, R. N., Kassymbekova, L. N., Karagoishin, Z., Shaldybayeva, A., Assylbekova, G., Salkhozhayeva, G. M., Bitkeyeva, A., Zhumabekova, B., Akhmetov, K., & Yessimov, B. K. (2025). Control of ixodid ticks by means of pheromones and acaricidal preparation. Caspian Journal of Environmental Sciences, 23, 561–565.
Traoré, A., Coulibaly, O., & Koné, I. (2025). Impact of occupational environment on uptake of routine health checkups among Ghanaian artisanal miners. Interdisciplinary Research in Medical Sciences Special Journal, 5(2), 43–54. doi:10.51847/SVVaz05gDu
Tudi, M., Daniel Ruan, H., Wang, L., Lyu, J., Sadler, R., Connell, D., Chu, C., & Phung, D. T. (2021). Agricultural development, pesticide application and its impact on crop protection. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(3), 1112. doi:10.3390/ijerph18031112
Yang, Y., Liu, D. L., & Anwar, M. R. (2014). Impact of future climate change on wheat production in relation to plant-available water capacity in a semiarid environment. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 115, 391–410. doi:10.1007/s00704-013-0895-z
Yskak, A., Nugmanov, A., Tulayev, Y., Kuanyshbaev, S., Somova, S., Chashkov, V., Paramonova, T., Yermoldina, G., & Daribayeva, S. (2026). Effect of precision farming and differential nitrogen and phosphorus doses on spring wheat yield in the Northern Kazakhstan climatic zone. International Journal of Agriculture and Biosciences, 15(2), 840–849. doi:10.47278/journal.ijab/2025.121
Yskak, A., Nugmanov, A., Tulayev, Y., Tulkubayeva, S., Paramonova, T., Yermoldina, G., Chashkov, V., & Kazbekova, K. (2025). Ensuring sustainable crop production in the steppe zone of Kazakhstan through the application of precision agriculture methods: A case study of spring wheat cultivation. International Journal of Agriculture and Biosciences, 14(5), 976–984.
Yu, M., Ma, Y., Han, F., & Gao, X. (2025). Effectiveness of mandibular advancement splint in treating obstructive sleep apnea: A systematic review. Journal of Current Research in Oral Surgery, 5, 25–32. doi:10.51847/AInSXrD9rc
Zielinska, A., & Kowal, M. (2024). Survival outcomes after cardiac arrest in community-dwelling adults receiving home care versus nursing home residents compared with unsupported individuals. Journal of Integrative Nursing and Palliative Care, 5, 207–218. doi:10.51847/sd6YFareZk
Zotova, L., Zhumalin, A., Gajimuradova, A., Zhirnova, I., Nuralov, A., Zargar, M., Serikbay, D., Chen, L., Savin, T., Rysbekova, A., et al. (2024). Studying the influence of TaGW8 and TaGS5-3A genes on the yield of soft spring wheat in arid climate conditions of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Brazilian Journal of Biology, 84. doi:10.1590/1519-6984.286189
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
