Abstract
Maize is one of the major cereal crops grown for food in Ethiopia and the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais is a major insect pest of stored maize. Controlling of the pest by use of synthetic insecticides is raising serious concern on the environmental safety, consumer health hazards and high costs for subsistence farmers and thus there is a need to develop alternative safe and cheap methods of insect control strategies such as the use of insecticidal botanicals against the storage pest. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of powders of seeds of Azadrichta indica, Millettia ferruginea and Jatropha curcas, leaves of Croton macrostachyus and Euphorbia schimperiana and to screen the minimum effective dose of each botanical for the management of maize weevil. The plant materials were collected air-dried under shade, ground separately into a fine powder using micro plant grinding machine. Three, four, and five grams of powder of each botanical were added to each 100 g of clean maize in each 250 cm3 glass jar and mixed uniformly by shaking. A standard insecticide, Pirimiphos-methyl 2 % dust (2 g) and untreated check were included for comparison. Twenty-six newly unsexed emerged adult weevils were placed in each jar and covered with muslin cloth. The treatments were arranged in completely randomized design (RCD) with three replications. Weevil mortality was recorded at 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 days after initial infestation. During the last counting, both dead and alive weevils were counted and removed and the grains were kept under the same conditions for the emergence of F1 generation. The numbers of F1 progeny weevils emerging were recorded every other day for 33 days. Seed germination was tested using 15 randomly picked seed from undamaged grains from each jar. A significant difference (P < 0.05) was observed between all the botanicals at all rates and the untreated control three to 28 days after treatment. The cumulative mortality 28 days after infestation was very high (97.43 –100%) and there was no significant difference between all the botanicals at all rates and the standard chemical. No significant difference was observed (P > 0.05) in the number of emerged F1 among the botanical treatments and the chemical insecticide, but significant difference was recorded between these treatments and the control at 1 and 2 days and cumulative emerged progeny after 28 days. Seed germination test generally revealed over 77 seed viability and no significant difference was found among all the treatments. The study revealed that the botanicals can be used as components of maize weevil management options as they caused high weevil mortality and very low fecundity and showed insignificant effect on seed viability. However, the impacts of consumption of the botanically treated maize on humans need further study.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. 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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Botanical treatments at all tested rates differed significantly from untreated maize for weevil mortality over days 3–28.
- Treatment
- all the botanicals at all ratese0
- Interactor
- Weevile1pest
- Outcome
- Weevil mortalitye1
- Qualifier
- three to 28 days after treatmente0
- Comparator
- untreated controle0
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A significant difference (P < 0.05) was observed between all the botanicals at all rates and the untreated control three to 28 days after treatment”
e1“Weevil mortality was recorded at 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 days after initial infestation”
t0“ON MAIZE”
Claim · model-written summary
Cumulative weevil mortality reached 97.43–100% at 28 days after infestation.
- Interactor
- MAIZE WEEVIL
Sitophilus zeamaist0pest - Outcome
- cumulative mortalitye0
- Direction
- very highe0
- Value
- 97.43 –100%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The cumulative mortality 28 days after infestation was very high (97.43 –100%)”
t0“MAIZE WEEVIL, SITOPHILUS ZEAMAIS MOTSCH. (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE), ON MAIZE”
Claim · model-written summary
Botanical treatments at all rates did not differ significantly from the standard chemical in cumulative weevil mortality.
- Treatment
- all the botanicals at all ratese0
- Interactor
- MAIZE WEEVILSitophilus zeamaist0pest
- Outcome
- cumulative mortalitye1
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Comparator
- standard chemicale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was no significant difference between all the botanicals at all rates and the standard chemical”
e1“The cumulative mortality 28 days after infestation was very high (97.43 –100%)”
t0“MAIZE WEEVIL, SITOPHILUS ZEAMAIS MOTSCH. (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE), ON MAIZE”
Claim · model-written summary
F1 weevil emergence did not differ significantly between botanical and chemical treatments.
- Treatment
- botanical treatmentse0
- Interactor
- MAIZE WEEVILSitophilus zeamaist0pest
- Outcome
- number of emerged F1e0
- Direction
- No significant differencee0
- Comparator
- chemical insecticidee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No significant difference was observed (P > 0.05) in the number of emerged F1 among the botanical treatments and the chemical insecticide”
t0“MAIZE WEEVIL, SITOPHILUS ZEAMAIS MOTSCH. (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE), ON MAIZE”
Claim · model-written summary
F1 progeny emergence differed significantly between botanical or chemical treatments and the untreated control.
- Treatment
- botanical treatmentse1
- Interactor
- MAIZE WEEVILSitophilus zeamaist0pest
- Outcome
- cumulative emerged progenye0
- Comparator
- controle0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significant difference was recorded between these treatments and the control at 1 and 2 days and cumulative emerged progeny after 28 days”
e1“among the botanical treatments and the chemical insecticide”
t0“MAIZE WEEVIL, SITOPHILUS ZEAMAIS MOTSCH. (COLEOPTERA: CURCULIONIDAE), ON MAIZE”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize seed viability exceeded 77 in the seed germination test.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Seed germination test generally revealed over 77 seed viability”
t0“ON MAIZE”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize seed viability did not differ significantly among treatments.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant difference was found among all the treatments”
e1“Seed germination test generally revealed over 77 seed viability”
t0“ON MAIZE”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that botanical powders can be used in maize weevil management.
- Outcome
- botanicals can be used as components of maize weevil management optionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the botanicals can be used as components of maize weevil management options”
t0“ON MAIZE”
The same questions in other papers
botanical · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
77 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
86 papers more in this group
See all 90 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.