Abstract
The efficacy of Zanthoxylum xanthoxyloides stem bark and root bark ethanol extracts as grain protectant against Sitophilus zeamais and Callosobruchus maculatus was investigated in the laboratory under ambient conditions. The root extract was more effective in controlling both insects, and it was more toxic to C. maculatus than S. zeamais. Insect mortality was dosedependent. After 24 hours, the highest dose of 50% stem extract evoked 55% and 85% mortalities in S. zeamais and C. maculatus, respectively; while 50% root extract evoked 97.5% and 100% mortalities in S. zeamais and C. maculatus, respectively. Development of eggs and immature stages within the treated seeds as well as progeny emergence significantly decreased with increasing dosage of both extracts. Emergence of C. maculatus was completely inhibited by 30% treatment of both extracts, while for S. zeamais inhibition was achieved at 40% treatment. The effect of the secondary metabolites present in Z. xanthoxyloides responsible for its efficacy is investigated and discussed. The potential use of Z. xanthoxyloides as insecticidal, feeding and oviposition deterrent to protect the stored product is discussed. Keywords: Sitophilus zeamais, Callosobruchus maculatus, Zanthoxylum xanthoxyloides, secondary metabolites, mortality
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Root extract was more effective than stem extract against both insects.
- Taxon
- cowpea
Vigna unguiculatat0 - Treatment
- root extracte0
- Interactor
- Sitophilus zeamais
Sitophilus zeamaise1pest - Outcome
- controlling both insectse0
- Direction
- more effectivee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“stored cowpea and maize”
e0“The root extract was more effective in controlling both insects”
e1“against Sitophilus zeamais and Callosobruchus maculatus”
Claim · model-written summary
Root extract was more toxic to C. maculatus than S. zeamais.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Interactor
- C. maculatus
Callosobruchus maculatuse0pest - Second interactor
- S. zeamaisSitophilus zeamaise0pest
- Outcome
- toxic to C. maculatuse0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- S. zeamaise0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“stored cowpea and maize”
e0“it was more toxic to C. maculatus than S. zeamais”
Claim · model-written summary
Insect mortality increased with extract dose.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- dosee0
- Outcome
- Insect mortalitye0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“stored cowpea and maize”
e0“Insect mortality was dosedependent”
Claim · model-written summary
After 24 hours, 50% stem extract caused 55% S. zeamais mortality.
- Treatment
- 50% stem extracte0
- Interactor
- S. zeamaisSitophilus zeamaise0pest
- Outcome
- mortalities in S. zeamaise0
- Value
- 55%e0
- Qualifier
- After 24 hourse0
Zea maysNot reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“stored cowpea and maize”
e0“After 24 hours, the highest dose of 50% stem extract evoked 55% and 85% mortalities in S. zeamais and C. maculatus, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
After 24 hours, 50% stem extract caused 85% C. maculatus mortality.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- 50% stem extracte0
- Interactor
- C. maculatusCallosobruchus maculatuse0pest
- Outcome
- mortalities in S. zeamais and C. maculatuse0
- Value
- 85%e0
- Qualifier
- After 24 hourse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“stored cowpea and maize”
e0“After 24 hours, the highest dose of 50% stem extract evoked 55% and 85% mortalities in S. zeamais and C. maculatus, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
After 24 hours, 50% root extract caused 97.5% S. zeamais mortality.
- Treatment
- 50% root extracte0
- Interactor
- S. zeamaisSitophilus zeamaise0pest
- Outcome
- mortalities in S. zeamaise0
- Value
- 97.5%e0
- Qualifier
- After 24 hourse1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“stored cowpea and maize”
e0“50% root extract evoked 97.5% and 100% mortalities in S. zeamais and C. maculatus, respectively”
e1“After 24 hours”
Claim · model-written summary
After 24 hours, 50% root extract caused 100% C. maculatus mortality.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- 50% root extracte0
- Interactor
- C. maculatusCallosobruchus maculatuse0pest
- Outcome
- mortalities in S. zeamais and C. maculatuse0
- Value
- 100%e0
- Qualifier
- After 24 hourse1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“stored cowpea and maize”
e0“50% root extract evoked 97.5% and 100% mortalities in S. zeamais and C. maculatus, respectively”
e1“After 24 hours”
Claim · model-written summary
Egg and immature-stage development and progeny emergence decreased significantly as extract dosage increased.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- increasing dosage of both extractse0
- Outcome
- Development of eggs and immature stages within the treated seeds as well as progeny emergencee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“stored cowpea and maize”
e0“Development of eggs and immature stages within the treated seeds as well as progeny emergence significantly decreased with increasing dosage of both extracts”
Claim · model-written summary
At 30% treatment, both extracts completely inhibited C. maculatus emergence.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- 30% treatment of both extractse0
- Interactor
- C. maculatusCallosobruchus maculatuse0pest
- Outcome
- Emergence of C. maculatuse0
- Direction
- completely inhibitede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“stored cowpea and maize”
e0“Emergence of C. maculatus was completely inhibited by 30% treatment of both extracts”
Claim · model-written summary
At 40% treatment, both extracts inhibited S. zeamais emergence.
- Treatment
- 40% treatmente0
- Interactor
- S. zeamaisSitophilus zeamaise0pest
- Outcome
- inhibitione0
- Direction
- inhibition was achievede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“stored cowpea and maize”
e0“for S. zeamais inhibition was achieved at 40% treatment”
e1“Emergence of C. maculatus was completely inhibited by 30% treatment of both extracts”
The same questions in other papers
botanical · Sitophilus zeamais · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
botanical · Sitophilus zeamais · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
112 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
113 papers more in this group
See all 117 papers →botanical · pest · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
122 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
122 papers more in this group
See all 126 papers →botanical · Callosobruchus maculatus · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
157 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
159 papers more in this group
See all 163 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.