Comparative Toxicity of Essential Oils of Litsea pungens and Litsea cubeba and Blends of Their Major Constituents against the Cabbage Looper, Trichoplusia ni
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contact toxicity of essential oils of Litsea pungens Hemsl. and L. cubeba (Lour.) Pers. (Lauraceae) and of blends of their major constituents was assessed against third-instar Trichoplusia ni larvae via topical application. Both oils showed moderate activity against T. ni larvae with LD(50) values of 87.1 and 112.5 microg/larva, respectively. 1,8-Cineole from the essential oil of L. pungens and gamma-terpinene from the oil of L. cubeba accounted for much of the toxicity of the oils to T. ni larvae. The toxicity of blends of selected constituents indicated a synergistic effect among putatively active and inactive constituents, with the presence of all constituents necessary for full toxicity of the natural oils. The results show that essential oils of L. pungens and L. cubeba and some of their constituents have potential for development as botanical insecticides.
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".