Repellent and toxic effects of <i>Salvia rosmarinus</i> oil against <i>Liriomyza sativae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The vegetable leafminer (VLM) Liriomyza sativae Blanchard is a troublesome pest of vegetable and ornamental plants worldwide. Resistance development and environmental pollution from the overuse of chemical insecticides have driven interest in alternative control strategies for this pest. Secondary metabolites derived from aromatic nonhost plants are recognised components of the plant defence system against herbivores. The essential oils derived from aromatic plants not only repel insects but also have toxic effects against various insect pests, yet little is known about their effects against leafminers. The major constituents of the essential oil extracted from rosemary leaves by hydrodistillation were identified by GC–MS. The behavioural responses of VLM adults to the rosemary essential oil (REO) were explored with Y‐tube olfactometer experiments, and the oviposition and feeding deterrent effects of REO against adults were studied using no‐choice cage tests. Dipping methods were used to determine the toxicity of REO and Matrine (a commercial botanical pesticide) against VLM eggs, larvae and pupae, while glass‐vial bioassays were used for adults. The identified major constituents of the cineoliferum chemotype of REO were 1,8‐cineole (23.53%), pinene (23.45%), (S)‐(−)‐verbenone (12.84%) and borneol (7.47%). REO repelled leafminer adults. Sublethal concentrations of REO deterred oviposition and feeding by adults. Adults were more susceptible than other developmental stages to toxicity of REO and Matrine. Female adults were more sensitive than males, based on EC 50 values at 24 and 48 hr after treatment. Rosemary essential oil is a behaviour‐modifying stimulus potentially useful in a “push‐pull” strategy for L . sativae control, and as an alternative to synthetic chemical insecticides due to its low toxicity and high efficacy in the control of VLM.
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".