Insecticidal effect of anisaldehyde against <i>Acanthoscelides obtectus</i> and <i>Callosobruchus maculatus</i> (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, anisaldehyde, a compound found in the essential oil of Clausena anisum-olens, was tested for its insecticidal activities against Acanthoscelides obtectus and Callosobruchus maculatus. The amounts of anisaldehyde applied were 0, 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 μL diluted in 1mL of acetone and applied to 40 g of either beans or cowpeas corresponding to the doses of 0, 0.008, 0.016, 0.033 and 0.066 μL/g of seed. Additionally, adsorbent clay was used as a carrier of this product in order to increase the persistence of its insecticidal activity over time. This clay was mixed with the aforementioned volumes of anisaldehyde to form a powder formulation. Furthermore, to assess the insecticidal effect over time, the F1 progeny production was also evaluated. These two products caused significant mortality in the two tested insects. Nevertheless, C. maculatus was more susceptible than A. obtectus at tested doses. The progeny production decreased with the increasing doses of anisaldehyde and ACP with 0 % at the highest dose (0.066 μL/g). According to the LD50, LD95 and their confidence intervals, the toxicity of ACP was significantly different (P < 0.05) to anisaldehyde at the tested doses towards A. obtectus adults. However, there was no significant difference observed between the effects of these two products towards C. maculatus. These preliminary results suggest that anisaldehyde and ACP could be used in stored-product protection, but this needs further research. Research is also needed to determine its toxicity on rats in order to assess its potential hazards for workers and consumers.Keywords: Anisaldehyde, Clay, Contact toxicity, Bruchids
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".