Bioactivity of Anacardium occidentale (L) and Allium sativum (L) Powders and Oils Extracts against Cowpea Bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) [Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The powders and oils extracts of Anacardium occidentale (L.) seeds and Allium sativum (L.) bulbs were tested as contact insecticides against the cowpea bruchid, Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab.) in cowpea seeds. The powders were incorporated at rates 1, 2.5 and 5/20g of cowpea seeds and acetone extracts of the plants were also applied at 0.5, 1 and 1.5ml per 20g of cowpea seeds to assess contact mortality of adult insect, oviposition, adult emergence and damage assessment. The results obtained showed that at 72 hours; 1, 2.5 and 5/20g of cowpea seeds evoked 63.3, 80 and 100% adult mortality of the cowpea bruchid while the corresponding results for A. sativum were 60.7, 73.3 and 100% mortality respectively. All concentration of acetone extracts that were used evoked 100% mortality of C. maculatus after 72 hours of post treatment. Complete protection of seeds and complete inhibition of adult emergence in both powders and extracts of A. occidentale and A. sativum were achieved. The results obtained from this research revealed that powders and extracts of A. occidentale seeds and A. sativum bulbs were effective in controlling cowpea bruchid, C. maculatus in stored cowpea seeds.
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".