Evaluation of Insecticidal Potentials of Five Plant Extracts against the Stored Grain Pest, Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant based insecticides are considered among the most economic and ecofriendly chemicals for the protection of plants and stored grains. The cowpea weevil (Callosbruchus maculatus) causes more than 90% damage to sored grains in three to six months. The current study investigates insecticidal potentials of five selected botanicals: Melia azedarach, Nicotiana rustica, Azadirachta indica, Nicotiana tabacum and Thuja orientalis. They are explored at six different concentrations (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0%) against C. maculatus and compared to effects of distilled water which is used as a control. Toxicities of 3%(V/V) extracts of N. tabacum, N. rustica, A. indica and T. orientalis against C. maculatus were 100%, 86.11%, 80.56% and 72.22%, respectively. Maximum mortality was caused by N. tabacum and N. rustica (100%), followed by A. indica (82%), whereas minimum mortality was observed in T. orientalis (64%) at 2.5%. Several phytochemicals, alkaloids, saponins, diterphenes, phytosterol, flavonoids and phenols were identified in N. tabacum and N. rustica, while few were present in A. indica. Phytosterol was present in greatest abundance. Saponins were only detected in aqueous extracts of N. rustica and N. tabacum. Taken together, these results indicate the utility of N. tabacum, N. rustica and A. indica as potential botanicals to control pest beetle and cowpea weevil.
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".