Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:19:20.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evaluation of Some Myrataceae Plant Leaves as Protectants Against the Infestation by Sitophilus oryzae L. and Sitophilus granarius L.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

Aziza Sharaby
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Plant Protection, National Research Centre, Dokki, Cairo, Egypt
Get access

Abstract

Sun-dried guava (Psidium guajava L.) and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus L.) leaves were evaluated as repellent and toxic materials against the rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae L., and the granary weevil, Sitophilus granarius L. under laboratory conditions. LC50 values of sun-dried guava and eucalyptus leaves admixed with rice grains against S. oryzae were 2.251 and 4.140g leaves/100g rice grains, respectively, while they were 2.278 and 4.857 g leaves/100 g rice grains in the case of S. granarius, respectively. Guava leaves were more toxic for both species than eucalyptus leaves. Eucalyptus leaves were more repellent than guava leaves.

Both test materials at 15 g/100 g depressed the progeny development of the test insects.

Résumé

Les fauiles morqueés de goyave (Psiduim guajava L.) et de (Eucalyptus globulus) séché an soleil étaient évalués comme des matiéres répulsives et toxiques contre le charancon du riz Sitophilus oryzae et le charancon du grenier Sitophilus granarius sous les conditions du laboratoire.

Le LC50 des feuilles de goyave et de eucalyptes séché an soleil melangevient avec les groeins du riz contre S. oryzae etaiant 2.251 et 4.140 g feuilles/100 g grains due riz, respectivement. Il paraît que les feiulles de goyave etaient plus toxiques pour les deux espèces que les feuilles de Eucalyptus. Les resultats montrent encore que l'acturté répulsif des feuilles de eucalyptus étaient plus que celles des feuilles de goyave.

L'augmentation due doses de deux materiaux (15 g/100 g) surbaissent la postérité des insectes examińes.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abbott, W. S. (1925) A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J. econ. Ent. 18, 265267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdel-Gawaad, A. A. and Khatab, H. A. (1985) Soil and plant protection methods in ancient Egypt. Second Inter. Congr. Soil Poll., Part II. pp. 1922.Google Scholar
Don-Pedro, K. N. (1985) Toxicity of some citrus peels to Dermestes maculatus and Callosobruchus maculatus. J. Stored Prod. Res. 21, 3134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, D. B. (1956) Multiple range and multiple F-test. Biometrics 11, 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1971) Probil analysis. 3rd ed.Cambridge University Press, London.Google ScholarPubMed
Golob, P. and Webley, D. J. (1980) The use of plants and minerals as traditional protectants of stored products. Rep. Trop. Prod. Inst. 138, 32.Google Scholar
Golob, P., Mwambula, J., Maango, V. and Nuguluhe, F. (1982) The use of locally available materials as protectants of maize grain against insect infestation during storage in Malawi. J. Stored Prod. Res. 18, 6774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, T. A. (1975) Effects of orange and grapefruit peels on Callosobruchus maculatus infestation of cowpea. Ghana J. Agric. Sci. 8, 169172.Google Scholar
Teotia, T. P. S. and Pandey, G. P. (1977) Dharek fruit powder as a protectant of rice against the infestation of rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae. Indian J. Ent. 39, 223225.Google Scholar