INSECTICIDAL ACTIVITY OF PIPER ADUNCUM FRUIT AND TEPHROSIA VOGELII LEAF MIXED FORMULATIONS AGAINST PLUTELLA XYLOSTELLA (L.) (LEPIDOPTERA: PLUTELLIDAE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emulsifiable concentrate (EC) and wettable powder (WP) of Piper aduncum and Tephrosia vogelii mixed formulations were tested for their activities in the laboratory and their effectiveness in the field against cabbage pest Plutella xyostella. Cabbage leaves soaked in six different mixed formulation concentrations were tested against second instar larvae of P. xylostella and observed until the larvae reached fourth instar stage. From the survived larvae, growth and development, antifeedant effects were recorded. Field efficacy test was based on LC95 value of formulations from laboratory test result. The experiment used a randomized block design with 5 treatments and 3 replications to determine the insecticide effectivity against populations of P. xylostella larvae. The results showed that the EC and WP mixed formulations have insecticidal activity against P. xylostella larvae, with LC95 value of 0.35% and 0.37%, respectively. The highest antifeedant effect on EC mixed formulation was 85.01% and WP mixed formulation was 86.23%. Both mixed formulations also slowed the development of larvae when compared with control. Field effication result showed that applications of EC mixed formulation were able to restrain the population of P. xylostella, with effectivity value of 71.06%. Insecticide effectivity value of EC mixed formulation was higher than WP mixed formulation and Bacillus thuringiensis formulation.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".