Intervention effectmodel-written summary

At 2.0 ml per 20 g cowpea seeds, Moringa root oil caused 98.1% beetle mortality versus 89.9% with Dichlorvos.

A claim from Essential oil extract from Moringa oleifera roots as cowpea seed protectant against cowpea beetle · 2017

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

At 2.0 ml per 20 g cowpea seeds, Moringa root oil caused 98.1% beetle mortality versus 89.9% with Dichlorvos.

Treatment
Moringa roots oil extract at 2.0 ml per 20 g cowpea seedse0
Interactor
Callosobruchus maculatusCallosobruchus maculatuse1peste0
Outcome
mortalitye0
Direction
highere0
Value
98.1%e0
Qualifier
89.9%e0
Comparator
Dichlorvose0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSetting

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Callosobruchus maculatus
Callosobruchus maculatus · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryOriginality1988 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Moringa roots oil extract at 2.0 ml per 20 g cowpea seeds resulted in significantly (P<0.05) higher mortality of 98.1% compared with Dichlorvos (89.9%).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1021–1173
t0

“cowpea beetle”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 84–97
e1

“cowpea weevil (Callosobruchus maculatus)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 123–163

Title

Essential oil extract from Moringa oleifera roots as cowpea seed protectant against cowpea beetle

O.Y. Alabi; M.M. Adewole African Crop Science Journal 2017. doi:10.4314/acsj.v25i1.5

Other claims from this paper (15)

Record rev-23404a6f366e31d492ac0804585940e99ecc3bf5fe47d811985d67027b9ed2cb · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

botanical · Callosobruchus maculatus · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

163 papers: 158 positive, 5 negative or no effect

157 papers in the same direction as this claim · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
  4. no effect
  5. no effect
  6. negative
  7. no effect
  8. no effect

154 papers more in this group

See all 163 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.