Evaluation of Mosquito Larvicidal Activities of Seed Coat Extract of <i>Cassia sophera</i> L.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study an attempt was made to analyze the larvicidal activity of crude and ethyl acetate extracts of matured seed coat of Cassia sophera against Culex quinquefaciatus . Crude and ethyl acetate extracts of matured seed coat of Cassia sophera was tested against Culex quinquefaciatus . The lethal concentration was determined and the appropriate lethal concentrations at 24 h for ethyl acetate extract was also studied on non target organisms such as Daphnia sp., Diplonychus annulatum (predatory water-bug) and Chironomus circumdatus larvae (insect). Phytochemical analysis of the crude extract of matured seed coat of Cassia sophera was also done. All the graded concentration (0.6%, 0.7%, 0.8%, 0.9%, 1%) showed significant (p<0.05) larval mortality and result of regression equation revealed that mortality rates were positively correlated with concentrations of extracts. LC 50 and LC 90 values were calculated at different time intervals, and the lowest values were obtained at 72 h for first instar larvae. In ethyl acetate solvent extract the mortality rate was higher at 520 ppm against Culex quinquefaciatus than the other doses. There was no mortality of non-target organism within 72 h of post exposure to LC 50 concentration at 24 h of both crude and solvent extracts under the laboratory condition. The result of preliminary qualitative phytochemical analysis of the seed coat revealed the presence of some secondary metabolite such as saponin, alkaloid and cardiac glycosides. The results support that the tested plant extract can be used for control of larval form of Culex quinquefaciatus .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".