Abstract
Potentials of plant derived pesticides (Monodora myristica Gaertn) Dunal and Aframomum melegueta (Rosch) each at 3 concentrations of 5, 10 and 15g were evaluated in the laboratory against the stored pest of maize Sitophilus zeamais. The Aframomum treatments, which achieved adult mortality of 64%, 63% and 45% in week 1 at the three dosage levels of 15, 10 and 5g per 150g maize in that order was not as potent as Monodora powder in the control of S. zeamais. It was however, obvious that pirimiphos methyl and the two doses of Monodora proved very efficacious in the control of the weevil with 100%, 83% and 72% mortality respectively. Pirimiphos methyl offered complete inhibition of post-embryonic development, followed by Monodora treatments, which also remarkably halted progeny emergence. Aframomum treatments were less effective though significantly better than the control. Grains treated with pirimiphos methyl and Monodora were better protected against damage than Aframomum treatments. No weight loss was recorded in Pirimiphos methyl treated grains, and only marginal losses were observed in Monodora treatments as a result of insect activities compared to the increased weight loss in Aframomum treatments, which were nevertheless significantly heavier than the control grains. The test botanicals did not exert adverse effects on seed quality, taste and viability after storage.Keywords: Toxicity, biopesticides, S. zeamais, stored maize
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 16
Claim · model-written summary
Aframomum treatment at 15g per 150g maize caused 64% adult weevil mortality in week 1.
Zea mays
AframomumNot reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The Aframomum treatments, which achieved adult mortality of 64%, 63% and 45% in week 1 at the three dosage levels of 15, 10 and 5g per 150g maize in that order”
Claim · model-written summary
Aframomum treatment at 10g per 150g maize caused 63% adult weevil mortality in week 1.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The Aframomum treatments, which achieved adult mortality of 64%, 63% and 45% in week 1 at the three dosage levels of 15, 10 and 5g per 150g maize in that order”
Claim · model-written summary
Aframomum treatment at 5g per 150g maize caused 45% adult weevil mortality in week 1.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The Aframomum treatments, which achieved adult mortality of 64%, 63% and 45% in week 1 at the three dosage levels of 15, 10 and 5g per 150g maize in that order”
Claim · model-written summary
Monodora powder was more potent than Aframomum against S. zeamais.
- Treatment
- Monodora powdere0
- Interactor
- S. zeamais
Sitophilus zeamaise0pest - Outcome
- control of S. zeamaise0
- Direction
- not as potente0
- Comparator
- Aframomume1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“was not as potent as Monodora powder in the control of S. zeamais”
t0“maize”
e1“The Aframomum treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Pirimiphos methyl caused 100% weevil mortality.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“pirimiphos methyl and the two doses of Monodora proved very efficacious in the control of the weevil with 100%, 83% and 72% mortality respectively”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
One Monodora dose caused 83% weevil mortality.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the two doses of Monodora proved very efficacious in the control of the weevil with 100%, 83% and 72% mortality respectively”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Another Monodora dose caused 72% weevil mortality.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the two doses of Monodora proved very efficacious in the control of the weevil with 100%, 83% and 72% mortality respectively”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Pirimiphos methyl completely inhibited weevil post embryonic development.
- Treatment
- Pirimiphos methyle0
- Interactor
- Sitophilus zeamaisSitophilus zeamaist0pest
- Outcome
- post-embryonic developmente0
- Direction
- complete inhibitione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pirimiphos methyl offered complete inhibition of post-embryonic development”
t0“Sitophilus zeamais motschulsky on maize in storage”
Claim · model-written summary
Monodora treatments markedly halted weevil progeny emergence.
- Treatment
- Monodora treatmentse0
- Interactor
- Sitophilus zeamaisSitophilus zeamaist0pest
- Outcome
- progeny emergencee0
- Direction
- haltede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Monodora treatments, which also remarkably halted progeny emergence”
t0“Sitophilus zeamais motschulsky on maize in storage”
Claim · model-written summary
Aframomum treatments were less effective than Monodora but significantly better than the control.
- Treatment
- Aframomum treatmentse0
- Interactor
- Sitophilus zeamaisSitophilus zeamaist0pest
- Outcome
- effectivee0
- Direction
- significantly bettere0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Aframomum treatments were less effective though significantly better than the control”
t0“Sitophilus zeamais motschulsky on maize in storage”
Claim · model-written summary
Pirimiphos methyl protected maize grain against insect damage better than Aframomum.
- Treatment
- pirimiphos methyle0
- Interactor
- Sitophilus zeamaisSitophilus zeamaist0pest
- Outcome
- damagee0
- Direction
- better protectede0
- Comparator
- Aframomum treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grains treated with pirimiphos methyl and Monodora were better protected against damage than Aframomum treatments”
t0“Sitophilus zeamais motschulsky on maize in storage”
Claim · model-written summary
Monodora protected maize grain against insect damage better than Aframomum.
- Treatment
- Monodorae0
- Interactor
- Sitophilus zeamaisSitophilus zeamaist0pest
- Outcome
- damagee0
- Direction
- better protectede0
- Comparator
- Aframomum treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grains treated with pirimiphos methyl and Monodora were better protected against damage than Aframomum treatments”
t0“Sitophilus zeamais motschulsky on maize in storage”
Claim · model-written summary
Pirimiphos methyl treated grain had no weight loss.
- Treatment
- Pirimiphos methyle0
- Interactor
- Sitophilus zeamaisSitophilus zeamaist0pest
- Outcome
- weight losse0
- Direction
- Noe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No weight loss was recorded in Pirimiphos methyl treated grains”
t0“Sitophilus zeamais motschulsky on maize in storage”
Claim · model-written summary
Monodora treated grain had only marginal weight loss from insects.
- Treatment
- Monodora treatmentse0
- Interactor
- insecte0pest
- Outcome
- lossese0
- Direction
- marginale0
- Comparator
- Aframomum treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only marginal losses were observed in Monodora treatments as a result of insect activities compared to the increased weight loss in Aframomum treatments”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Aframomum treated grain had greater weight loss than Monodora treated grain but weighed significantly more than control grain.
- Treatment
- Aframomum treatmentse0
- Interactor
- Sitophilus zeamaisSitophilus zeamaist0pest
- Outcome
- weight losse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- control grainse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased weight loss in Aframomum treatments, which were nevertheless significantly heavier than the control grains”
t0“Sitophilus zeamais motschulsky on maize in storage”
Claim · model-written summary
The test botanicals did not adversely affect maize seed quality, taste, or viability after storage.
- Treatment
- test botanicalse0
- Outcome
- seed quality, taste and viabilitye0
- Direction
- did not exert adverse effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The test botanicals did not exert adverse effects on seed quality, taste and viability after storage”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
pirimiphos-methyl · Sitophilus zeamais · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
pirimiphos-methyl · pest · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
botanical · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →botanical · Sitophilus zeamais · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
112 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
113 papers more in this group
See all 117 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.