Synergistic Activity of a Mixture of <i>Lantana camara</i> and <i>Ocimum gratissimum</i> Leaves Extracts against <i>Aedes aegypti</i> Larvae (Diptera: Culicidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the continuous and misuse of synthetic insecticides which led to development of insecticide resistance, the present study was to determine the mosquito larvicidal activity of Lantana camara and Ocimum gratissimum leaf extracts in individual and combined forms to explore eco-friendly plant extracts that have potentials to suppress mosquito larval population. Recommended WHO mosquito larval bioassay method for insecticide was used. Four concentrations ranging from 0.25 to 2 g/L were performed for all extracts and fractions in single and combined forms. In single form of L. camara , the LC 50 values of solvent extracts and fractions were ordered as follows: 0.62>0.72>0.96>2.20>3.36 g/L for ethyl acetate, hexane, methanol crude, chloroform and methanol, respectively. For O. gratissimum the following order of LC 50 values was observed: 0.37>0.60>0.97>1.60>3.23 g/L for hexane, methanol crude, ethyl acetate, chloroform and methanol, respectively. Methanol crude extract, hexane and ethyl acetate fractions were selected to form five combinations in 1:1 ratios. The combination of the two plants’ hexane fraction and hexane ( L. camara ) + ethyl acetate ( O. gratissimum ) showed assumed synergistic actions. However, the two plants’ ethyl acetate and ethyl acetate ( L. camara ) + hexane ( O. gratissimum ) exhibited assumed antagonistic effects. In Conclusion, identifying these possible synergistic compounds within mixtures may lead to the development of more effective biopesticides in reducing the Ae. aegypti population, especially in the areas where surveillance and supervisory mechanism are poor as Nigeria.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".