2005
DOI: 10.1556/aphyt.40.2005.3-4.17
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Antifeedant effects of several plant extracts on Colorado potato beetle larvae

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The 6‐h time point was selected as the most reliable because most insects were actively feeding at that time, and the time for induction of potentially confounding secondary responses resulting from the applied compound was kept to a minimum. The feeding preference was assessed using the antifeedant index (AI) and compared with the published data for polygodial (AI%) (Kutas and Nádasy, ; Prota et al ., ). The AI% of cinnamolide increased with increasing concentration applied, as seen in Figure , meaning that there was a clear dose‐dependent preference for the control discs over the treated ones, similar to what was observed for polygodial.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The 6‐h time point was selected as the most reliable because most insects were actively feeding at that time, and the time for induction of potentially confounding secondary responses resulting from the applied compound was kept to a minimum. The feeding preference was assessed using the antifeedant index (AI) and compared with the published data for polygodial (AI%) (Kutas and Nádasy, ; Prota et al ., ). The AI% of cinnamolide increased with increasing concentration applied, as seen in Figure , meaning that there was a clear dose‐dependent preference for the control discs over the treated ones, similar to what was observed for polygodial.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…To express the repellence potency of cinnamolide towards the two insect species tested, the AI% was calculated according to Kutas and N adasy, as follows: AI% = [(C À T)/(C + T)] 9 100, where C is the number of insects feeding on the control plant and T the number of insects feeding on the treatment plant (Kutas and N adasy, 2005). The AI% assumes positive values when the tested compound is an antifeedant and negative values when the compound is a phagostimulant.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…where C is the number of insects feeding on the control and T is the number of insects feeding on the treatment. 31 The AI% assumes positive values when the tested compound is an antifeedant, and negative values when the compound is a phagostimulant. A onesample Student's t-test was used to assess whether the attractant or repellent effects of the compounds were significant.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…where C is the number of insects feeding on the control and T is the number of insects feeding on the treatment . The AI% assumes positive values when the tested compound is an antifeedant, and negative values when the compound is a phagostimulant.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For this species, BHA and its formulation were not evaluated owing to the high doses required to achieve LD 50 (29 and 65 mM, respectively) (GARCIA et al 2017). Like antifeedant activity, much research has been carried out to evaluate repellent activity against pest insects using essential oils and plant extracts (KUTAS & NÁDASY 2005, KUMAR et al 2007, KHEMIRA et al 2013, KEDIA et al 2014. KHEMIRA et al (2013), observed that 0.08 µl/m 2 of Eucalyptus astringens (MAIDEN) essential oil exhibited a repellent action against Oryzaephilus surinamensis (55%) and Rhyzopertha dominica (FABRICIUS, 1792) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) (58.75%) after 24 h of exposure.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%