Insecticidal Activity of Leaf Extracts of Calotropis gigantea L, Ageratum conyzoides L, and Vitex negundo L. Against Spodoptera frugiperda J. E. Smith (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calotropis gigantea L. (Asclepiadaceae), Ageratum conyzoides L. (Asteraceae) and Vitex negundo L. (Verbenaceae) are weeds, containing secondary metabolites that have insecticidal properties. The aim of this study was to determine the antifeedant activity of C. gigantea, A. conyzoides and V. negundo extracts against Spodoptera frugiperda larvae, phytotoxicity and analysis of the phytochemical components of these plant extracts. The antifeedant activity of the extracts was tested using the no choice test and the choice test with the concentrations used for each extract, namely 25, 12.5, 6.25, 3.125, 1.56 μgL-1, and control (aquades), while the phytotoxicity used the spray method with a concentration 2.5%. Identification of compound components was carried out at the Integrated Research and Testing Laboratory (LPPT) of Gadjah Mada University. The results showed that the extracts of V. negundo, A. conizoydes and C. gigantea had antifeedant activity against S. frugiperda larvae. V. negundo extract had the highest antifeedant activity compared to other extracts with an antifeedant index value of 98.37. The three types of extracts did not show a phytotoxic effect on plants and contained the same active compounds, namely tannin alkaloids, phenols, flavonoids, saponins and terpenoids. Thus, the plants C. gigantea, V. negundo and A. conizoydes have potential as vegetable insecticides against S. frugiperda.
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".