Paper · 2015 · Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management

Antifeedant and Toxic Effect of Crude Extract from Flourensia oolepis and their Impact on Nutritional Parameters of Helicoverpa gelotopoeon

C Seminara; L Bollati; S Avalos; et al.

4
claims
13
verbatim quotes
3
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Botanical insecticides are one of the environmentally acceptable options for pest management. Extract of Flourensia oolepis (known as chilca), a plant endemic to the province of Córdoba, Argentina, has shown insecticidal activity. The aim of this work was to study the effect of crude extract of this F. oolepis on the nutritional parameters of Helicoverpa gelotopoeon, a polyphagous species recently reported as one of the most serious pests of chickpea. Choice tests were conducted using different doses of extract (1 to 10%) and acetone (control), and no-choice tests, feeding larvae for 10 days with chickpea leaves treated with extract (1 to 5%), with controls (water and acetone). We used three third instar larvae per replica and 8 repetitions of each. The variables measured were: consumption, fresh and dry weight of larvae, of feces and of the leaves given every 48 hours. We calculated the feeding inhibition and nutrition indices, and survival. In choice bioassays using the 10% dose, larvae preferred the control leaves, with the extract acting as a feeding inhibitor (92%). In the nochoice test, leaf consumption was markedly reduced with extract, affecting larval growth in a dose-dependent manner (p < 0.05), as well as feed utilization and lepidoptera survival. © JASEMKeywords: Helicoverpa gelotopoeon; Flourensia oolepis; Botanical insecticides; Pest; Food utilization

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 10% extract, larvae preferred control leaves and feeding was inhibited by 92%.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume1
Treatment
10% dosee0
Interactor
Helicoverpa gelotopoeonHelicoverpa gelotopoeone2pest
Outcome
feeding inhibitore0
Direction
inhibitore0
Value
92%e0
Comparator
control leavese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In choice bioassays using the 10% dose, larvae preferred the control leaves, with the extract acting as a feeding inhibitor (92%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 957–1086 · show in text ↑
e1

“chickpea leaves treated with extract”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 604–640 · show in text ↑
e2

“nutritional parameters of Helicoverpa gelotopoeon”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 319–368 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Extract markedly reduced leaf consumption in the no-choice test.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume1
Treatment
extracte0
Interactor
Helicoverpa gelotopoeonHelicoverpa gelotopoeone2pest
Outcome
leaf consumptione0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In the nochoice test, leaf consumption was markedly reduced with extract”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1088–1160 · show in text ↑
e1

“chickpea leaves treated with extract”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 604–640 · show in text ↑
e2

“nutritional parameters of Helicoverpa gelotopoeon”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 319–368 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Extract affected larval growth in a dose-dependent manner.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume1
Treatment
extracte1
Interactor
Helicoverpa gelotopoeonHelicoverpa gelotopoeone2pest
Outcome
larval growthe0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“affecting larval growth in a dose-dependent manner (p < 0.05)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1162–1223 · show in text ↑
e1

“chickpea leaves treated with extract”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 604–640 · show in text ↑
e2

“nutritional parameters of Helicoverpa gelotopoeon”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 319–368 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Extract affected larval feed utilization and survival.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume2
Treatment
extracte1
Interactor
Helicoverpa gelotopoeonHelicoverpa gelotopoeone3pest
Outcome
feed utilization and lepidoptera survivale0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“as well as feed utilization and lepidoptera survival”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1225–1277 · show in text ↑
e1

“leaf consumption was markedly reduced with extract, affecting larval growth in a dose-dependent manner (p < 0.05), as well as feed utilization and lepidoptera survival”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1110–1277 · show in text ↑
e2

“chickpea leaves treated with extract”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 604–640 · show in text ↑
e3

“nutritional parameters of Helicoverpa gelotopoeon”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 319–368 · show in text ↑

botanical · Helicoverpa gelotopoeon · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.