Mosquitocidal activity of <i>Anacardium occidentale</i>, <i>Afromomum melegueta</i>, <i>Garcina kola</i> and <i>Citrus sinensis</i> against the developmental stages of mosquito, <i>Anopheles gambiae</i> Giles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The insecticidal potential of Anacardium occidentale, Afromomum melegueta, G arcina kola and Citrus sinensis plants were tested against malaria vector, mosquito, Anopheles gambiae in the laboratory at ambient temperature of ( 28±2 ) ℃ and relative humidity of ( 75±5 ) %. The oils of the four plants were extracted with hexane and they were prepared at concentration of 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3%, 0.4% and 0.5%. The larvae and pupae of An. gambiae Giles were exposed to these concentrations of the plant oils for 24 hours and mortality was recorded at this period s . At all levels of concentrations, mortality of both the larvae and pupae of this insect increased with increase in the concentrations regardless the type of plant extract used. However, A. occidentale oil extract showed more insecticidal effect on both the larvae and pupae of An. gambiae at all concentrations but its effect was not significantly (p>0.05) different from oil of A. melegueta and C. sinensis at 0.1% to 0.3% concentrations. The oil extract of G. kola showed the lowest mortality effect on both the larvae and pupae of the insect at all concentrations but the effect was significantly (p<0.05) different from the control. It was observed that the larvae of An. gambiae were more susceptible to the oil extracts of all the plants tested. All the plants extracts used in this work showed high potency to larval and pupal mortality and could consequently be used to reduce prevalence of malaria in the endemic areas.
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".