Utilization of Natural Plant Volatiles for Pest Control in Maize
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
Maize is a critical staple crop globally, but pest infestations present a significant challenge to its cultivation, often leading to reduced yields. Conventional pest control methods, particularly synthetic pesticides, have raised environmental and health concerns, prompting interest in alternative approaches. This study explores the utilization of natural plant volatiles for pest control in maize, focusing on essential oils, terpenoids, alkaloids, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that have pest-repelling properties. The mechanisms through which plant volatiles affect insect pests-such as disrupting olfaction and behavior, inducing repellency, and interacting synergistically with other pest control agents-are examined. Field trials were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of plant volatiles against key maize pests, with a comparative analysis against synthetic pesticides. This study also explores the benefits and challenges of using natural volatiles in integrated pest management (IPM), particularly for smallholder farmers. Results demonstrate that plant volatiles are environmentally sustainable, reduce chemical inputs, and offer a promising tool for future pest control strategies. However, large-scale implementation remains a challenge, requiring further research on formulation, delivery methods, and potential genetic modifications to enhance volatile production in maize varieties.
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