Abstract
This study assessed the pesticidal activities of Phytolacca dodecandra extracts in controlling Sitophilus zeamais and Tribolium castaneum pests in stored maize grains. The study was conducted at ambient conditions (25–30°C and 65–70% relative humidity) and designed in a completely randomised design with 8 treatments in triplicate. Contact toxicity, percent mortality, feeding deterrence and grains weight loss were assessed using developed procedures for 21 days and first filial generation progeny was assessed for 42 days of post-pest introduction. Both ethanolic root and leaf extracts of P. dodecandra demonstrated significant bioactivities against both S. zeamais and T. castaneum, with the leaf extract being more active than the root extracts. P. dodecandra leaf extracts killed 98% of S. zeamais and 99% of T. castaneum at concentration of 150 mg/mL on day 3. Similarly, P. dodecandra leaf extracts reduced grain damage to 0% and had moderate repellence of 57% and 66% to S. zeamais and T. castaneum, respectively. Hence, after biosafety studies this plant-based products can be included in the Integrated Pest Management strategies and can be recommended as an alternative remedy in treating maize storage pests in subsistence agriculture. Further isolation and structure elucidation of bioactive ingredients in the plant species are recommended and are underway.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf extract was more active against storage pests than root extract.
- Treatment
- leaf extracte0
- Interactor
- S. zeamais
Sitophilus zeamaise0pest - Second interactor
- T. castaneum
Tribolium castaneume0pest - Outcome
- bioactivities against both S. zeamais and T. castaneume0
- Direction
- more activee0
- Comparator
- root extractse0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both ethanolic root and leaf extracts of P. dodecandra demonstrated significant bioactivities against both S. zeamais and T. castaneum, with the leaf extract being more active than the root extracts.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf extract killed 98% of S. zeamais at 150 mg/mL on day 3.
- Treatment
- P. dodecandra leaf extractse0
- Interactor
- S. zeamaisSitophilus zeamaise0pest
- Outcome
- killede0
- Value
- 98%e0
- Qualifier
- at concentration of 150 mg/mL on day 3e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“P. dodecandra leaf extracts killed 98% of S. zeamais and 99% of T. castaneum at concentration of 150 mg/mL on day 3.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf extract killed 99% of T. castaneum at 150 mg/mL on day 3.
- Treatment
- P. dodecandra leaf extractse0
- Interactor
- T. castaneumTribolium castaneume0pest
- Outcome
- killede0
- Value
- 99%e0
- Qualifier
- at concentration of 150 mg/mL on day 3e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“P. dodecandra leaf extracts killed 98% of S. zeamais and 99% of T. castaneum at concentration of 150 mg/mL on day 3.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf extract reduced maize grain damage to 0%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“P. dodecandra leaf extracts reduced grain damage to 0% and had moderate repellence of 57% and 66% to S. zeamais and T. castaneum, respectively.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf extract repelled 57% of S. zeamais.
- Treatment
- P. dodecandra leaf extractse0
- Interactor
- S. zeamaisSitophilus zeamaise0pest
- Outcome
- repellencee0
- Value
- 57%e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“P. dodecandra leaf extracts reduced grain damage to 0% and had moderate repellence of 57% and 66% to S. zeamais and T. castaneum, respectively.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf extract repelled 66% of T. castaneum.
- Treatment
- P. dodecandra leaf extractse0
- Interactor
- T. castaneumTribolium castaneume0pest
- Outcome
- repellencee0
- Value
- 66%e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“P. dodecandra leaf extracts reduced grain damage to 0% and had moderate repellence of 57% and 66% to S. zeamais and T. castaneum, respectively.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend considering the plant product for pest management after biosafety studies.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Hence, after biosafety studies this plant-based products can be included in the Integrated Pest Management strategies and can be recommended as an alternative remedy in treating maize storage pests in subsistence agriculture.”
The same questions in other papers
Phytolacca dodecandra · Sitophilus zeamais · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
Phytolacca dodecandra · pest · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
botanical · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
77 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
86 papers more in this group
See all 90 papers →botanical · Sitophilus zeamais · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
112 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
113 papers more in this group
See all 117 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.