Abstract
The present study aims at assessing the antifeeding effects of Azadirachta indica, Melia azedarach, Colocynthis citrullus, Nicotiana tabacum and Eucalyptus camaldulensis against Tribolium castaneum, Ryzopertha dominica and Trogoderma granarium under laboratory conditions. All treatments showed the prominent feeding deterrence activities. The most potent essential oil against all insect pests was found in A. indica, with maximum reduction in weight loss (0.56, 1.02, 1.69%) and feeding deterrence index (75.44, 54.57 and 39.21%) against T. castaneum, T. granarium and R. dominica, respectively followed by M. azedarach (0.63, 1.05 and 1.76%) (67.59, 50.85 and 34.92%), C. citrullus (0.65, 1.17 and 1.76%) (65.35, 43.57 and 33.94%), N. tabacum (0.7, 1.22 and 1.84) (58.43, 38.87 and 30.28%) and E. camaldulensis (0.84, 1.32 and 1.97%) (45.11, 38.98 and 23.18), respectively. It was also observed that weight loss and feeding deterrence index increases with increasing concentration of toxin. Weight loss was (0.37, 0.85 and1.50%) (0.48, 0.96 and 1.61%) (1.26, 1.09 and 1.74%) and (1.72 and 2.39%) at the dose rate of 6%, 4%, 2% and controls against T. castaneum, T. granarium and R. dominica, respectively. Feeding deterrence index was 71.74, 50.41 and 37.22%, at 6% concentration of toxicant, 62.83, 44.18 and 32.54% at 4% concentration of toxicant and 52.59, 36.65 and 27.17% at 2% concentration of toxicant.
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 18
Claim · model-written summary
The A. indica essential oil gave the maximum reduction in weight loss of the stored grain pests
- Taxon
- A. indica
.jpg?width=60)
Azadirachta indicae1 - Treatment
- essential oile1
- Interactor
- T. castaneum
Tribolium castaneume1pest - Second interactor
- R. dominicae1pest
- Outcome
- weight losse1
- Direction
- maximum reductione1
- Value
- 0.56, 1.02, 1.69%e1
- Qualifier
- T. granariume1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e1“The most potent essential oil against all insect pests was found in A. indica, with maximum reduction in weight loss (0.56, 1.02, 1.69%) and feeding deterrence index (75.44, 54.57 and 39.21%) against T. castaneum, T. granarium and R. dominica, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The A. indica essential oil gave the maximum reduction in feeding deterrence index of the stored grain pests
- Taxon
- A. indicaAzadirachta indicae1
- Treatment
- essential oile1
- Interactor
- T. castaneumTribolium castaneume1pest
- Second interactor
- R. dominicae1pest
- Outcome
- feeding deterrence indexe1
- Direction
- maximum reductione1
- Value
- 75.44, 54.57 and 39.21%e1
- Qualifier
- T. granariume1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The most potent essential oil against all insect pests was found in A. indica, with maximum reduction in weight loss (0.56, 1.02, 1.69%) and feeding deterrence index (75.44, 54.57 and 39.21%) against T. castaneum, T. granarium and R. dominica, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The M. azedarach essential oil had a lower weight loss than the other oils
- Taxon
- M. azedarach
Melia azedarache2 - Treatment
- essential oile1
- Outcome
- weight losse1
- Direction
- lowerinferrede1
- Value
- 0.63, 1.05 and 1.76%e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The most potent essential oil against all insect pests was found in A. indica, with maximum reduction in weight loss (0.56, 1.02, 1.69%) and feeding deterrence index (75.44, 54.57 and 39.21%)”
e2“followed by M. azedarach (0.63, 1.05 and 1.76%) (67.59, 50.85 and 34.92%)”
Claim · model-written summary
The M. azedarach essential oil had a higher feeding deterrence index than the other oils
- Taxon
- M. azedarachMelia azedarache2
- Treatment
- essential oile1
- Outcome
- feeding deterrence indexe1
- Direction
- higherinferrede2
- Value
- 67.59, 50.85 and 34.92%e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The most potent essential oil against all insect pests was found in A. indica, with maximum reduction in weight loss (0.56, 1.02, 1.69%) and feeding deterrence index (75.44, 54.57 and 39.21%)”
e2“followed by M. azedarach (0.63, 1.05 and 1.76%) (67.59, 50.85 and 34.92%)”
Claim · model-written summary
The C. citrullus essential oil had a lower weight loss than the other oils
- Taxon
- C. citrulluse3
- Treatment
- essential oile1
- Outcome
- weight losse1
- Direction
- lowerinferrede1
- Value
- 0.65, 1.17 and 1.76%e3
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“The most potent essential oil against all insect pests was found in A. indica, with maximum reduction in weight loss (0.56, 1.02, 1.69%) and feeding deterrence index (75.44, 54.57 and 39.21%)”
e3“C. citrullus (0.65, 1.17 and 1.76%) (65.35, 43.57 and 33.94%)”
Claim · model-written summary
The C. citrullus essential oil had a higher feeding deterrence index than the other oils
- Taxon
- C. citrulluse3
- Treatment
- essential oile1
- Outcome
- feeding deterrence indexe1
- Direction
- higherinferrede3
- Value
- 65.35, 43.57 and 33.94%e3
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“The most potent essential oil against all insect pests was found in A. indica, with maximum reduction in weight loss (0.56, 1.02, 1.69%) and feeding deterrence index (75.44, 54.57 and 39.21%)”
e3“C. citrullus (0.65, 1.17 and 1.76%) (65.35, 43.57 and 33.94%)”
Claim · model-written summary
The N. tabacum essential oil had a lower weight loss than the other oils
- Taxon
- N. tabacum
Nicotiana tabacume4 - Treatment
- essential oile1
- Outcome
- weight losse1
- Direction
- lowerinferrede1
- Value
- 0.7, 1.22 and 1.84e4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The most potent essential oil against all insect pests was found in A. indica, with maximum reduction in weight loss (0.56, 1.02, 1.69%) and feeding deterrence index (75.44, 54.57 and 39.21%)”
e4“N. tabacum (0.7, 1.22 and 1.84) (58.43, 38.87 and 30.28%)”
Claim · model-written summary
The N. tabacum essential oil had a higher feeding deterrence index than the other oils
- Taxon
- N. tabacumNicotiana tabacume4
- Treatment
- essential oile1
- Outcome
- feeding deterrence indexe1
- Direction
- higherinferrede4
- Value
- 58.43, 38.87 and 30.28%e4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The most potent essential oil against all insect pests was found in A. indica, with maximum reduction in weight loss (0.56, 1.02, 1.69%) and feeding deterrence index (75.44, 54.57 and 39.21%)”
e4“N. tabacum (0.7, 1.22 and 1.84) (58.43, 38.87 and 30.28%)”
Claim · model-written summary
The E. camaldulensis essential oil had a lower weight loss than the other oils
- Taxon
- E. camaldulensis
Eucalyptus camaldulensise5 - Treatment
- essential oile1
- Outcome
- weight losse1
- Direction
- lowerinferrede1
- Value
- 0.84, 1.32 and 1.97%e5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The most potent essential oil against all insect pests was found in A. indica, with maximum reduction in weight loss (0.56, 1.02, 1.69%) and feeding deterrence index (75.44, 54.57 and 39.21%)”
e5“E. camaldulensis (0.84, 1.32 and 1.97%) (45.11, 38.98 and 23.18)”
Claim · model-written summary
The E. camaldulensis essential oil had a higher feeding deterrence index than the other oils
- Taxon
- E. camaldulensisEucalyptus camaldulensise5
- Treatment
- essential oile1
- Outcome
- feeding deterrence indexe1
- Direction
- higherinferrede5
- Value
- 45.11, 38.98 and 23.18e5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The most potent essential oil against all insect pests was found in A. indica, with maximum reduction in weight loss (0.56, 1.02, 1.69%) and feeding deterrence index (75.44, 54.57 and 39.21%)”
e5“E. camaldulensis (0.84, 1.32 and 1.97%) (45.11, 38.98 and 23.18)”
Claim · model-written summary
Weight loss and feeding deterrence index increased with increasing concentration of the toxicant
- Treatment
- concentration of toxine6
- Outcome
- weight loss and feeding deterrence indexe6
- Direction
- increasese6
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e6“It was also observed that weight loss and feeding deterrence index increases with increasing concentration of toxin”
Claim · model-written summary
Weight loss at the 6% dose rate was 0.37, 0.85 and 1.50% for the three insect pests
- Treatment
- dose rate of 6%e7
- Interactor
- T. castaneumTribolium castaneume7pest
- Second interactor
- R. dominicae7pest
- Outcome
- Weight losse7
- Value
- 0.37, 0.85 and1.50%e7
Not reportedTaxon
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Weight loss was (0.37, 0.85 and1.50%) (0.48, 0.96 and 1.61%) (1.26, 1.09 and 1.74%) and (1.72 and 2.39%) at the dose rate of 6%, 4%, 2% and controls against T. castaneum, T. granarium and R. dominica, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Weight loss at the 4% dose rate was 0.48, 0.96 and 1.61% for the three insect pests
- Treatment
- 4%e7
- Interactor
- T. castaneumTribolium castaneume7pest
- Second interactor
- R. dominicae7pest
- Outcome
- Weight losse7
- Value
- 0.48, 0.96 and 1.61%e7
Not reportedTaxon
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Weight loss was (0.37, 0.85 and1.50%) (0.48, 0.96 and 1.61%) (1.26, 1.09 and 1.74%) and (1.72 and 2.39%) at the dose rate of 6%, 4%, 2% and controls against T. castaneum, T. granarium and R. dominica, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Weight loss at the 2% dose rate was 1.26, 1.09 and 1.74% for the three insect pests
- Treatment
- 2%e7
- Interactor
- T. castaneumTribolium castaneume7pest
- Second interactor
- R. dominicae7pest
- Outcome
- Weight losse7
- Value
- 1.26, 1.09 and 1.74%e7
Not reportedTaxon
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Weight loss was (0.37, 0.85 and1.50%) (0.48, 0.96 and 1.61%) (1.26, 1.09 and 1.74%) and (1.72 and 2.39%) at the dose rate of 6%, 4%, 2% and controls against T. castaneum, T. granarium and R. dominica, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Weight loss in the controls was 1.72 and 2.39% for the pests
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e7“Weight loss was (0.37, 0.85 and1.50%) (0.48, 0.96 and 1.61%) (1.26, 1.09 and 1.74%) and (1.72 and 2.39%) at the dose rate of 6%, 4%, 2% and controls against T. castaneum, T. granarium and R. dominica, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The feeding deterrence index at the 6% concentration of toxicant was 71.74, 50.41 and 37.22%
- Treatment
- 6% concentration of toxicante7
- Outcome
- Feeding deterrence indexe7
- Value
- 71.74, 50.41 and 37.22%e7
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e7“Feeding deterrence index was 71.74, 50.41 and 37.22%, at 6% concentration of toxicant, 62.83, 44.18 and 32.54% at 4% concentration of toxicant and 52.59, 36.65 and 27.17% at 2% concentration of toxicant”
Claim · model-written summary
The feeding deterrence index at the 4% concentration of toxicant was 62.83, 44.18 and 32.54%
- Treatment
- 4% concentration of toxicante7
- Outcome
- Feeding deterrence indexe7
- Value
- 62.83, 44.18 and 32.54%e7
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e7“Feeding deterrence index was 71.74, 50.41 and 37.22%, at 6% concentration of toxicant, 62.83, 44.18 and 32.54% at 4% concentration of toxicant and 52.59, 36.65 and 27.17% at 2% concentration of toxicant”
Claim · model-written summary
The feeding deterrence index at the 2% concentration of toxicant was 52.59, 36.65 and 27.17%
- Treatment
- 2% concentration of toxicante7
- Outcome
- Feeding deterrence indexe7
- Value
- 52.59, 36.65 and 27.17%e7
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e7“Feeding deterrence index was 71.74, 50.41 and 37.22%, at 6% concentration of toxicant, 62.83, 44.18 and 32.54% at 4% concentration of toxicant and 52.59, 36.65 and 27.17% at 2% concentration of toxicant”
The same questions in other papers
botanical · pest · Melia azedarach (chinaberry)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →botanical · pest · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →botanical · Tribolium castaneum · Azadirachta indica (neem)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
botanical · pest · Eucalyptus camaldulensis (Murray red gum)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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.