Abstract
Six plant powders including Cinnamomum zeylanicum (Lauraceae), Cuminum cyminum (Apiaceae), Curcuma longa (Zingiberaceae), Hyphaene thebaica (Arecaceae), Lawsonia inermis (Lythraceae) and Zingiber officinale (Zingiberaceae) were tested against Callosobruchus maculatus adults at four treatment levels of 20, 40, 60 and 80 gm of plant powders per Kg of cowpea seeds. Lethal concentration was determined at 24, 48 and 72 h after treatment, and lethal time was determined at 80 gm/Kg-1 concentration. The results showed that, all botanical powders had effect on C. maculates and L. inermis was the most toxic, and the least toxic powder was C. zeylanicum. Furthermore, plant powder L. inermis at 80 gm/Kg-1 achieved a lowest LT50 value. The tested botanical powders represent valuable tools with potential of integration into the management of C. maculates adults.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
All six botanical powders affected C. maculates adults on cowpea seeds.
- Taxon
- cowpea
Vigna unguiculatae1 - Treatment
- botanical powderse0
- Interactor
- Callosobruchus maculatus
Callosobruchus maculatuse2pest - Outcome
- effect on C. maculatese0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“all botanical powders had effect on C. maculates”
e1“cowpea seeds”
e2“Callosobruchus maculatus adults”
Claim · model-written summary
L. inermis was the most toxic botanical powder against the beetle.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae1
- Treatment
- L. inermise0
- Interactor
- Callosobruchus maculatusCallosobruchus maculatuse2pest
- Outcome
- toxice0
- Direction
- moste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“L. inermis was the most toxic”
e1“cowpea seeds”
e2“Callosobruchus maculatus adults”
Claim · model-written summary
C. zeylanicum was the least toxic botanical powder against the beetle.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae1
- Treatment
- C. zeylanicume0
- Interactor
- Callosobruchus maculatusCallosobruchus maculatuse2pest
- Outcome
- toxice0
- Direction
- leaste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the least toxic powder was C. zeylanicum”
e1“cowpea seeds”
e2“Callosobruchus maculatus adults”
Claim · model-written summary
L. inermis powder at 80 gm/Kg-1 achieved the lowest LT50 value.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae1
- Treatment
- L. inermis at 80 gm/Kg-1e0
- Interactor
- Callosobruchus maculatusCallosobruchus maculatuse2pest
- Outcome
- LT50 valuee0
- Direction
- loweste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“plant powder L. inermis at 80 gm/Kg-1 achieved a lowest LT50 value”
e1“cowpea seeds”
e2“Callosobruchus maculatus adults”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors consider the botanical powders potentially useful in management of C. maculates adults.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae1
- Treatment
- botanical powderse0
- Interactor
- Callosobruchus maculatusCallosobruchus maculatuse2pest
- Outcome
- integration into the management of C. maculates adultse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The tested botanical powders represent valuable tools with potential of integration into the management of C. maculates adults.”
e1“cowpea seeds”
e2“Callosobruchus maculatus adults”
The same questions in other papers
Cinnamomum verum · Callosobruchus maculatus · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
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
- positive
- positive
- no effect
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.