Contact Toxicity, Feeding Reduction, and Repellency of Essential Oils From Three Plants From the Ginger Family (Zingiberaceae) and Their Major Components Against Sitophilus zeamais and Tribolium castaneum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The essential oils from rhizomes of Alpinia conchigera Griff, Zingiber zerumbet Smitt, Curcuma zedoaria (Berg.) Roscoe; their major compounds (camphene, camphor, 1,8-cineole, alpha-humulene, isoborneol, alpha-pinene, beta-pinene and terpinen-4-ol); and synthetic essential oils comprised of mixtures of major pure compounds in the same ratios as the extracted essential oils were tested for contact, feeding reduction, and repellency against Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky and Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) adults. Via topical applications, the three extracted oils had similar toxicity against S. zeamais (LD50 fiducial limits: 18-24 microg oil/mg insect). T. castaneum had similar sensitivity to all three oils (35-58 microg/mg), and it was less sensitive than S. zeamais. The LD50 values of synthetic A. conchigera and synthetic Z. zerumbet oils were similar to those of their corresponding extracted essential oils. The synthetic C. zedoaria oils showed lower contact toxicity than the extracted C. zedoaria oils to both insects. Sitophilus zeamais and T. castaneum were sensitive to terpinen-4-ol and isoborneol in contact toxicity tests. In antifeedant tests, the three extracted oils were able to decrease the consumption of flour disks, especially Z. zerumbet oils, whereas both insect species could feed on the flour disks treated with three synthetic essential oils. Only terpinen-4-ol deterred feeding in both insects. In repellency tests, A. conchigera oils at highest concentration repelled S. zeamais and T. castaneum. None of the synthetic essential oils repelled S. zeamais (315 microl/cm2) and T. castaneum (31 microl/cm2) Only terpinen-4-ol showed repellent activity against both insects.
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".