Acaricidal properties of the essential oil from <i>Aristolochia trilobata</i> and its major constituents against the two-spotted spider mite (<i>Tetranychus urticae</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tetranychus urticae Koch is a polyphagous pest that is widely distributed throughout the world and causes considerable damage to crops in northeastern Brazil. The effects of the essential oil from Aristolochia trilobata L., selected constituents, and an artificial mixture (sulcatyl acetate, limonene, linalool, and p-cymene) on T. urticae in terms of fumigant action, residual contact, and fecundity were investigated under laboratory conditions. The results were compared with eugenol, Azamax®, and Ortus® as positive controls. Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry analysis of the oil revealed a predominance of monoterpenes, with sulcatyl acetate (24.57% ± 0.40%) as the major component, followed by linalool (10.80% ± 0.27%). Toxicity varied with the method employed. Through fumigation, the A. trilobata oil was about 2.18-fold more toxic than the artificial mixture, whereas no significant difference between the two products was found with regard to residual contact. Regarding the selected compounds, the mite was most susceptible to linalool and p-cymene by fumigation and residual contact, respectively. The plant-based (Azamax®) and synthetic (Ortus®) acaricidal agents were more toxic than the products tested. Moreover, low concentrations of the products investigated herein had no effect on mite survival, but a significant effect was found on the quantity of eggs laid by females. The A. trilobata oil and artificial mixture are promising natural acaricidal agents that have more than one mode of action (fumigation and residual contact) and exert an effect on fecundity. However, further studies are needed to evaluate the cost–benefit ratio for use on organic crops and protected environments in northeastern Brazil.
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".