You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Chemical composition and insecticidal activity of the essential oils of Piper marginatum , Piper callosum and Vitex agnus-castus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, January 2021
|
| DOI | 10.1590/0001-3765202120200616 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vanessa F S Ayres, Midiã R Oliveira, Edson L L Baldin, Geone M Corrêa, Anderson C Guimarães, Renata Takeara |
| Abstract |
During grain storage, a considerable amount of product is lost because of insects, such as Zabrotes subfasciatus. Currently, to mitigate these risks, studies are searching for plants with potential for the control of agricultural pests, also known as botanical insecticides. In this study, the fumigant toxicity of the essential oils of Piper callosum (PC-EO), Piper marginatum (PM-EO) and Vitex agnus-castus (VA-EO) against Zabrotes subfasciatus was investigated. The essential oils of PC-EO, PM-EO and VA-EO were analysed by gas chromatography (GC-MS), and the major components were 3,4-methylenedioxypropiophenone (10.4%), bicyclogermacrene (10.1%) and germacrene D (9.9%) for PM-EO; safrol (29.3%) for PC-EO; and 1,8-cineol (23.8%) for VA-EO. In fumigation tests, VA-EO killed 100% Zabrotes subfasciatus at a concentration of 0.004 µL/L air after 24 h of treatment, whereas PC-EO and PM-EO at 0.01 µL/L air caused 100% Z. subfasciatus mortality after 48 h. The VA-EO sample provided the lowest LD50 after 24 h (0.17 µL/L air), followed by PC-EO (0.78 µL/L air) and PM-EO (1.17 µL/L air). These results demonstrate that the essential oils of these species can be an alternative to control pests in stored products. This is the first report of the fumigant potential of these species against Z. subfasciatus. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 12% |
| Researcher | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 4 | 24% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 18% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 41% |