Efficacy of botanical extracts from Brazilian savannah against <i>Diabrotica speciosa</i> and associated bacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Botanical extracts are a plentiful resource of molecules with different biological activities, such as insecticides and antimicrobial pesticides. In this context, the aim of this work was to evaluate the efficacy of botanical extracts from the Brazilian savannah against Diabrotica speciosa and bacterial strains isolated from the gut of this insect under aseptic conditions. The bacterial isolates were identified by genomic and proteomic approaches, and bioassayed against eighteen botanical extracts in vitro. The best results of bacterial inhibitions were obtained for the extracts of Casearia sylvestris and Psidium laruotteanum . Fractions of C. sylvestris and P. laruotteanum, quantitatively evaluated by chromatographic analyses, showed a relationship between the bactericidal activity and phytochemical profile. In vivo assays showed that P. laruotteanum was also effective for the control of D. speciosa . Those results show that selected natural products can have both antimicrobial and insecticidal activities.
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".