4.1 Article

Insecticide activity of essential and fixed oils in Callosobruchus maculatus (FABR., 1775) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in cowpea grains [Vigna unguiculata (L.) WALP.]

期刊

CIENCIA E AGROTECNOLOGIA
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 717-724

出版社

UNIV FEDERAL LAVRAS-UFLA
DOI: 10.1590/S1413-70542008000300003

关键词

cowpea weevil; vegetal oils; toxicity; insecticide effect; Callosobruchus maculatus; Vigna unguiculata

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The weevil Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabr.) is considered the most important pest of cowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp., stored in tropical and subtropical regions. Focusing to minimize the undesired effects of synthetic chemical insecticides, vegetal origin oils are a promissory alternative to control it because of its low cost and safety to the applicator and consumers. Essential oils [(Cymbopogon martini (Roxb.) J.F. Watson], Piper aduncum L., Piper hispidinervum CDC., Melaleuca sp. and Lippia gracillis Shauer) and fixed oils (Helianthus annuus L., Sesamum indicum L., Gossypium hirsutum L., Glycine max (L.) Merr. and Caryocar brasiliense Camb.) were tested in cowpea grains (cv. Sempre Verde). These oils were used in concentrations of 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 mu L/20g, corresponding to 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 L/t and impregnated to the grains into the plastic recipients using an automatic pipette and handly agitated for two minutes. Plots of 20g from cowpea were infested with eight females of C maculatus from 0 to 48 hours old. Each oil was tested separately in a randomly arrangement with six replicates. The essential oils of C. martini, P. aduncum and L. gracillis provoked 100% of mortality in all concentrations, P. hispedinervum from 1.5 L/t and Melaleuca sp. in the concentrations of 2.0 and 2.5 LA. The reduction of the viable eggs and emerged insects was about 100%, except for Melaleuca sp. On the other hand, the fixed oils, in spite of its low mortality in all tested concentrations, reduced to almost 100% the number of the viable eggs and emerged insects.

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

4.1
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