Abstract
Maize is the second most widely grown cereal and gaining importance as a highly nutritious crop in Ethiopia. However, it is severely destroyed by storage insect pests and needs further research to minimize losses. In line with this, research was initiated to evaluate the efficacy of two botanical plant powders ( Eucalyptus globulus Labill leaf and Chenopodium ambrosioides L. whole plant) against storage insect pests of maize grains of two maize varieties (BH-661 and Limu) in polypropylene sacks storage conditions at Jimma Zone, Sokoru district. The plant powders were compared with untreated control, and completely randomized design was used in the experiment with three replications for each treatment. Germination capacity, thousand grain weights, percent of insect damage, and weight loss of the stored grains were evaluated and reported in the range of 69.67–94.33%, 318.7–339.3 g, 3.67–50%, and 0.2843–5.22%, respectively, after five months of storage for grains treated with botanicals. However, germination capacity of 10% and 65.33%, percent insect damage of 80.33% and 48%, and weight loss of 23.53% and 5.89% were observed for BH-661 and Limu varieties, respectively, after five months of storage for untreated control. The result indicated that both tested botanicals were effective in protecting the storage insect pests and maintaining the quality of the grains tested in comparison with control and Chenopodium ambrosioides L. whole plant powder is more effective. Although there was significant protective effect compared to untreated control, their effectiveness was decreased drastically after five and three months of storage for Chenopodium ambrosioides L. whole plant powder and Eucalyptus globulus Labill leaf powder, respectively. It is recommended that further research should be done to check if the increasing rate of application increases protection duration of these botanicals and the toxicity of Chenopodium ambrosioides L. should be further studied to use it as a storage insect protectant of maize grains intended for food purpose.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 14
Claim · model-written summary
After five months, botanically treated maize grain had germination capacity of 69.67–94.33%.
- Treatment
- botanicalse0
- Outcome
- Germination capacitye0
- Value
- 69.67–94.33%e0
- Qualifier
- after five months of storagee0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Germination capacity, thousand grain weights, percent of insect damage, and weight loss of the stored grains were evaluated and reported in the range of 69.67–94.33%, 318.7–339.3 g, 3.67–50%, and 0.2843–5.22%, respectively, after five months of storage for grains treated with botanicals.”
t0“Stored Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
After five months, treated maize grain had thousand-grain weights of 318.7–339.3 g.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Germination capacity, thousand grain weights, percent of insect damage, and weight loss of the stored grains were evaluated and reported in the range of 69.67–94.33%, 318.7–339.3 g, 3.67–50%, and 0.2843–5.22%, respectively, after five months of storage for grains treated with botanicals.”
t0“Stored Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
After five months, treated maize grain had 3.67–50% insect damage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Germination capacity, thousand grain weights, percent of insect damage, and weight loss of the stored grains were evaluated and reported in the range of 69.67–94.33%, 318.7–339.3 g, 3.67–50%, and 0.2843–5.22%, respectively, after five months of storage for grains treated with botanicals.”
t0“Stored Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
After five months, treated maize grain lost 0.2843–5.22% weight.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Germination capacity, thousand grain weights, percent of insect damage, and weight loss of the stored grains were evaluated and reported in the range of 69.67–94.33%, 318.7–339.3 g, 3.67–50%, and 0.2843–5.22%, respectively, after five months of storage for grains treated with botanicals.”
t0“Stored Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Untreated BH-661 maize had 10% germination after five months.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“germination capacity of 10% and 65.33%, percent insect damage of 80.33% and 48%, and weight loss of 23.53% and 5.89% were observed for BH-661 and Limu varieties, respectively, after five months of storage for untreated control.”
t0“Stored Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Untreated Limu maize had 65.33% germination after five months.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“germination capacity of 10% and 65.33%, percent insect damage of 80.33% and 48%, and weight loss of 23.53% and 5.89% were observed for BH-661 and Limu varieties, respectively, after five months of storage for untreated control.”
t0“Stored Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Untreated BH-661 maize had 80.33% insect damage after five months.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“germination capacity of 10% and 65.33%, percent insect damage of 80.33% and 48%, and weight loss of 23.53% and 5.89% were observed for BH-661 and Limu varieties, respectively, after five months of storage for untreated control.”
t0“Stored Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Untreated Limu maize had 48% insect damage after five months.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“germination capacity of 10% and 65.33%, percent insect damage of 80.33% and 48%, and weight loss of 23.53% and 5.89% were observed for BH-661 and Limu varieties, respectively, after five months of storage for untreated control.”
t0“Stored Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Untreated BH-661 maize lost 23.53% weight after five months.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“germination capacity of 10% and 65.33%, percent insect damage of 80.33% and 48%, and weight loss of 23.53% and 5.89% were observed for BH-661 and Limu varieties, respectively, after five months of storage for untreated control.”
t0“Stored Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Untreated Limu maize lost 5.89% weight after five months.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“germination capacity of 10% and 65.33%, percent insect damage of 80.33% and 48%, and weight loss of 23.53% and 5.89% were observed for BH-661 and Limu varieties, respectively, after five months of storage for untreated control.”
t0“Stored Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Both botanical powders protected stored maize grain quality relative to untreated control.
- Treatment
- both tested botanicalse0
- Outcome
- quality of the grainse0
- Direction
- maintaininge0
- Comparator
- controle0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“both tested botanicals were effective in protecting the storage insect pests and maintaining the quality of the grains tested in comparison with control”
Claim · model-written summary
Chenopodium whole-plant powder was more effective than eucalyptus leaf powder.
- Treatment
- Chenopodium ambrosioides L. whole plant powdere0
- Outcome
- more effectivee0
- Direction
- more effectivee0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Chenopodium ambrosioides L. whole plant powder is more effective.”
Claim · model-written summary
Protective effectiveness of Chenopodium powder decreased drastically after five months.
- Treatment
- Chenopodium ambrosioides L. whole plant powdere0
- Outcome
- effectivenesse0
- Direction
- decreased drasticallye0
- Qualifier
- after five and three months of storagee0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“their effectiveness was decreased drastically after five and three months of storage for Chenopodium ambrosioides L. whole plant powder and Eucalyptus globulus Labill leaf powder, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Protective effectiveness of eucalyptus powder decreased drastically after three months.
- Treatment
- Eucalyptus globulus Labill leaf powdere0
- Outcome
- effectivenesse0
- Direction
- decreased drasticallye0
- Qualifier
- after five and three months of storagee0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“their effectiveness was decreased drastically after five and three months of storage for Chenopodium ambrosioides L. whole plant powder and Eucalyptus globulus Labill leaf powder, respectively.”
The same questions in other papers
botanical · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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.