Toxicity and Antifeedant Activity of Calotropis gigantea L. Leaf Extract Against Plutella xylostella L. (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many parts of the Calotropis gigantea plant are known to contain bioactive compounds, but leaves contain the most. This study aimed to determine the toxicity and antifeedant activity of C. gigantea leaves against Plutella xylostella. The study was carried out from November 2019 to July 2020. Toxicity was tested using the leaf dipping and spraying methods. Antifeedant activity was tested using a no-choice test and a choice test. Identification of the compound composition of the leaf extract of C. gigantea was carried out at the Integrated Research and Testing Laboratory, Gadjah Mada University. Extract toxicity data obtained were analyzed by Probit analysis. The results showed that the antifeedant activity of C. gigantea leaf extract a no-choice and with choice at each concentration had a significant effect on the consumption of P. xylostella larvae rations. The toxicity (LC50) of the leaf extract of C. gigantea to P. xylostella by the dipping method was 2,958 µgl-1 while the spraying application was 3.944 µgl-1. The composition of chemical compounds contained in the leaf extract of C. gigantea is saponins, alkaloids, flavonoids, tannins, phenols, terpenoids. With the composition of these chemical compounds, the leaf extract of C. gigantea has the potential as a source of vegetable insecticide compounds against P. xylostella.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it