Insecticidal effects of <i>Thuja occidentalis</i> (Cupressaceae) essential oil on <i>Callosobruchus maculatus</i> [Coleoptera: Bruchidae]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of Thuja occidentalis L. essential oil used for insect fumigation by phase gas chromatography revealed the presence of 22 compounds including α-thujone (49.64%), fenchone (14.06%), and β-thujone (8.98%). Fumigation of adult bruchids with the oil alone resulted in lethal doses (LD50) of 1.1, 0.7, 0.5 and 0.2 μL/insect after 3, 6, 9 and 12 h, respectively. When insects were treated with aromatized powder, significant differences were also found between treatments and control. Application of 100 mg of powder aromatized at 3 μL essential oil g–1 on bruchid pairs lead to 95% mortality of females and 100% of males with 0% of mortality in the control after 6 h exposure. Five days after their deposit, egg hatching was 1.2% (treated with kaolin powder aromatized with T. occidentalis essential oil), 41% (with kaolin alone) and 44% of eggs (control without kaolin). In the same experiment, adult emergence of 80% (in treatments with kaolin alone), 100% in control (without kaolin) and 0% (with kaolin aromatized with T. occidentalis essential oil) were recorded 30 d after treatment. Germination of cowpea seeds was not significantly affected by the treatments. Five days after sowing, germination was 88, 97 and 97%, respectively, when cowpea grains were treated and exposed, treated and unexposed, untreated and unexposed, respectively, while those untreated and exposed had 15% germination. Key words: Thuja occidentalis, Callosobruchus maculatus, essential oil, kaolin, fumigation, ethnobotany.
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".