↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
In Vitro and Molecular Docking Evaluation of Larvicidal Effects of Essential Oils of Five Aromatic Plants on the Fall Armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda JE. Smith (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) from Ivory Coast
Published in
Chemistry & Biodiversity, July 2023
DOI 10.1002/cbdv.202300411
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Essential oils of the Lamiaceae Ocimum gratissimum and Ocimum canum, the Poaceae Cymbopogon citratus and nardus and a Rutaceae Citrus sp. of known chemical compositions were experimented. The evaluation of the insecticidal potential of the essential oils was done by the method of topical application of the test solutions, on the L1-L2 stage larvae from the first generation of S. frugiperda obtained after rearing in an air-conditioned room. Lethal concentrations (LC10, LC50 and LC90) were determined after 48 h. The essential oil of O. gratissimum was the most effective with the lowest lethal concentrations (LC10 = 0.91%, LC50 = 1.91% and LC90 = 3.92%). The least toxic oil to larvae was Citrus sp. (LC10 = 5.44%, LC50 = 20.50% and LC90 = 77.41%). Biological insecticides based on these essential oils, particularly O. gratissimum, could be formulated to provide sustained protection of maize crops against S. frugiperda larvae.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 21%
Lecturer 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Unknown 13 68%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 11%
Environmental Science 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Unknown 15 79%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 August 2023.
All research outputs
#19,729,987
of 24,247,965 outputs
Outputs from Chemistry & Biodiversity
#1,157
of 2,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,727
of 275,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chemistry & Biodiversity
#26
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,247,965 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,543 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,410 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.