4.7 Article

Tradescantia pallida (Commelinaceae) Promotes Reductions in Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) Populations

期刊

AGRONOMY-BASEL
卷 12, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy12112646

关键词

antibiosis; bioinsecticide; diamondback moth; organic production

资金

  1. Development of Education, Science and Technology (FUNDECT) of the state of Mato Grosso do Sul [71/711.130/2018]
  2. Federal University of Grande Dourados

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study tested the effects of two aqueous extracts of Tradescantia pallida on the insect Plutella xylostella. The results suggest that these extracts could serve as an alternative method for pest management in organic agriculture.
The feeding activity of Plutella xylostella in brassica crops can lead to large losses; thus, pesticides that prevent feeding during the larval stage or prevent the metamorphosis of this insect can be used for its control. In this study, the effects of two types of aqueous extracts of Tradescantia pallida on the different life stage of P. xylostella cycle were tested; neither of the two aqueous extracts, which were obtained by infusion and maceration, had been tested against P. xylostella. The biological variables evaluated were larval and pupal duration and viability, pupal weight, sex ratio, longevity of females, fecundity, fertility and oviposition period. There was no significant difference in the duration of the larval phase of P. xylostella between the bioassay treatments; however, larval viability was lower when the individuals were exposed to both types of T. pallida extracts. Reduced pupal viability was observed among the individuals treated with the application of the extracts. Treatment with the aqueous extract obtained by infusion caused the lowest pupal weight, fecundity, and fertility and longevity among females. The results obtained in this study allow us to propose the bioextract as an alternative for pest management, emphasizing the technique for small producers and/or organic.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据