# Repellent Effect and Insecticidal Activities of Bridelia ferruginea, Blighia sapida, and Khaya senegalensis Leaves Powders and Extracts against Dinoderus porcellus in Infested Dried Yam Chips.

1. IntroductionYam (Dioscorea spp.) is an important crop contributing to food security and poverty alleviation in sub-Sahara region, especially in West Africa [1]. In Benin, dehydrated yam chips are the only form in which fresh yam tubers are preserved throughout the year [2]. "Telibo" or "Amala," the traditional thick paste obtained from yam chips flour, is the staple food of many people in Benin [3]. Unfortunately, dried yam chips in traditional storage systems are severely attacked by the beetle Dinoderus porcellus Lesne (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) which rapidly reduces yam chips into powder within few days of storage [3, 4]. This pest causes heavy qualitative and quantitative losses during storage [2, 4, 5]. Synthetic insecticides are currently used by farmers to control this pest [2], leading to many cases of food poisoning [6, 7]. The use of these insecticides also leads to a number of problems, such as danger of pesticide misuse, killing of nontarget species, toxicity residues in food, insect resistance, and the destruction of the balance of the ecosystem [8]. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop an alternative control method that preserves human health and the environment.

Alternatives to these synthetic chemicals are extracts or powders from of some plants [9]. In fact, plants contain bioactive metabolites, which act as antifeedants, repellents, and toxicants against a wide range of insects that attack stored products [10]. In addition, these indigenous plants, which are used as crude materials to control insect pest infestations, are harvested locally, are cheap, and require only limited processing [11]. In Benin, several medicinal plants such as Brideliaferruginea, Blighia sapida, and Khaya senegalensis are used by women to control the dried yam beetle D. porcellus [2]. In fact, the antifungal [12], antibacterial [13], and insect antifeedant [14] properties of leaf extract of K. senegalensis have been demonstrated. The fruit of ackee (B. sapida) has insecticide properties [15], whereas the antimicrobial properties of leaves and bark extract of B. ferruginea have been proved by Sahu et al. [16]. In order to develop an integrated approach to control and lay the groundwork for the development of a botanical insecticide, experiments should be carried out to assess the insecticidal and repellent effects of these three plants species on D. porcellus. In the present study, crude powders and five extracts (acetone, ethanol, methanol, propanol, and distilled water) of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis leaves were evaluated for their repellent and insecticidal effects on D. porcellus.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Rearing of Dinoderus porcellus. The beetle D. porcellus was reared using healthy yam chips as described by Onzo et al. [17]. Yam chips were sterilized in an oven at 105[degrees]C for 2 hours to kill hidden insects and their eggs. The rearing material used is made of plastic containers (19.5 cm height, 6.5 cm diameter). The plastic containers were kept in the laboratory under temperature conditions of 25 [+ or -] 2[degrees]C, relative humidity of 70 [+ or -] 5%, and photoperiodicity of 12L/12D [5]. The containers were placed on shelves in the laboratory. Every two weeks, adult insects were removed in order to synchronize the F1 progeny used for experiments [18].

2.2. Plant Materials. The fresh leaves of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis were collected in the town of Parakou (latitude: 9[degrees]20'13"N and longitude: 2[degrees]37'49"E). Their identity was confirmed by the National Herbarium of the University of Abomey-Calavi. The leaves were washed with tap water to remove debris. The clean leaves were dried during seven days at the room temperature in the shade to prevent the degradation of bioactive compounds by sunlight. The dried leaves were ground into fine powder with an electrical blender and sieved to obtain the finest particles using a 300 [micro]m sieve. The fine powder obtained from each plant species was packed in an airtight container and stored in a cool dry place until use.

2.3. Repellent Activity of Leaf Powder. A bioassay consisting of a circular flat-bottomed plastic basin (26 cm in diameter by 3 cm in height), whose base was divided into five equal portions as described by Ogendo et al. [19], was used to evaluate the repellency of crude B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis powders against adult D. porcellus. Each plant powder was evaluated at four rates (2, 5, 7, and 10%w/w) and commercial synthetic insecticide Antouka (Permethrin 3 g/kg + pirimiphos 16 g/kg; DP) included as a positive control. Treated and untreated yam chips (10 g) were alternately placed equidistantly from the center of the circular base [20]. The treatments were arranged in a completely randomized block design with four replicates per concentration. For each treatment, 20 starved (1 hour of starvation) adults of D. porcellus (3-7 days) were released at the center of the basin, which was immediately covered with a transparent muslin, in order to prevent the insects from escaping to the external environment [18]. The total number of insects that settled on the control (P) and the treated yam chips (G) was recorded after 1, 12, and 24 h of exposure. According to Dutra et al. [21], the repellency activity of plant was estimated by calculating the percent repellency (PR) and repellency index (RI). Percent repellency (PR) was calculated using the formula of McDonald et al. [22]:

PR = [([N.sub.c] - [N.sub.t])/([N.sub.c] + [N.sub.t])] x 100, (1)

where [N.sub.c] is the number of insects on untreated yam chips; [N.sub.t] is the number of insects on treated yam chips. The mean repellency value of each extract was calculated and assigned to repellency classes from 0 to V: class 0 (PR [less than or equal to] 0.1%), class I (PR = 0.1-20%), class II (PR = 20.1-40%), class III (40.1-60%), class IV (60.1-80%), and class V (80.1-100%).

The repellency index (RI) was calculated with the formula:

RI = 2G/G + P, (2)

where G is the percentage of insects attracted to the treatment and P is the percentage attracted to the control. The RI values range between zero and two [23], and RI = 1 indicates similar repellency between the treatment and the control (neutral treatment), RI > 1 indicates lower repellency of the treatment compared to the control (attractive treatment), and RI < 1 corresponds to a greater repellency of the treatment compared to the control (repellent treatment) [24].

2.4. Contact Toxicity of Plant Powders. The experiment was carried out following the methodology used by Chebet et al. [20]. Leaf powders of the different plants were admixed with 100 g of disinfected yam chips in plastic jars (13 cm in diameter by 10 cm in height) at, respectively, rates (%w/w) of 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10. Yam chips treated with synthetic insecticide Antouka (0.05% w/w) were used as positive control. Ten pairs of adult unsexed insects (3 to 7 days old) were introduced into treated and untreated yam chips. Each jar was covered with a muslin cloth to prevent insects from escaping to the external environment. A completely randomized design with 4 replicates per treatment was used. Data on insect mortality was taken at 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, and 21 days after exposure [25]. The percentage adult mortality was computed according to Asawalam et al. [26] and corrected with Abbott's formula [27] to eliminate natural mortality of control.

Percent mortality

= Number of dead D. porcellus/Number of introduced D. porcellus. (3)

Corrected mortality (% of death in treated - % death in control)/ (100 - % death in control) x 100. (4)

Any living adult insect was removed on day 21 and the percentage weight loss was calculated using the formula

Percentage weight loss

= Initial weight - Final weight / Initial weight x 100 (5)

For determination of F1 progeny emergence, yam chips were checked for adult emergence 35 days after exposure [5] and every 2 days thereafter. In order to avoid a second generation, the sample inspections continued until no more adults emerged during three consecutive inspections [28]. The percent reduction in adult emergence or reproduction inhibition rate (IR%) was computed according to Tapondjou et al. [29] using the formula

Reproduction inhibition rate (%) =[N.sub.C] - [N.sub.T][N.sub.C] x 100, (6)

where [N.sub.C] is the number of newly emerging adult insects in the untreated control and [N.sub.T] is the number of newly emerging adult insects in the treated yam chips.

2.5. Preparation of Plant Extracts. The extracts were prepared according to Mansoor-ul-Hasan et al. [30]. Fifty grams of each plant was taken in a beaker separately and mixed with 100 ml of different solvents (acetone, ethanol, methanol, propanol, and distilled water). Then the mixture was stirred for 30 min by a magnetic stirrer (at 6000 rpm) and left to stand for the next 24 hours [31]. The extract was sieved through Whatman filter paper to remove particles. After filtration, the acetone, ethanol, methanol, and propanol extracts were left to evaporate at room temperature during 48 h and the aqueous extract was evaporated under vacuum at 100[degrees]C [32]. The extracts were stored at 4[degrees]C until further analysis.

2.6. Preparation of Different Concentrations. By diluting the condensed extracts with acetone, ethanol, methanol, propanol, and distilled water, the stock solutions of plant extracts were prepared. Three different concentrations, namely, 2.5, 5.0, and 7.5% of each category of plant extracts were prepared by dissolving the stock solution in the respective solvent [31].

2.7. Repellent Activity Bioassay. The repellency was tested according to Hamouda et al. [32]. Half filter paper discs (Whatman number 40, 9 cm diam.) were prepared and a volume of 200 [micro]l of each plant extract concentration was applied separately to one-half of the filter paper as uniformly as possible with a micropipette. The other half (control) was treated with 200 [micro]l of different solvent (acetone, propanol, ethanol, methanol, and distilled water). Both the treated and the control halves were allowed to dry out as exposed in the air for 10 min. Each treated half disc was then attached lengthwise, edge to edge, to a control half disc with adhesive tape and placed in a Petri dish (9 cm diameter) [32]. Twenty adult insects were released in the middle of each filter paper circle. Each concentration was replicated four times. Insects that settled on each half of the filter paper disc were counted after 15 min, 30 min, and 2 h. The average of the counts was converted to percentage repellency (PR) using the formula of McDonald et al. [22] as in (1).

2.8. Contact Toxicity by Topical Application. Bioassays were conducted according to the method described by Aryani and Auamcharoen [33]. With the help of a pipette, 1 [micro]L solution of each plant extract concentration was applied on the thorax of 10 adults. The control received 1 [micro]L of each solvent (five replications). Each group of ten treated insect individuals was then transferred into a small plastic cup of 8 cm diameter and 5 cm height containing 10 g of yam chips. This experiment was replicated four times and arranged in completely randomized design (CRD). The mortality was recorded after 2, 7, 14, and 21 days [32, 33]. The percentage adult mortality was computed according to Asawalam et al. [26] and corrected for natural mortality using Abbott's formula [27] as in (3) and (4), respectively. Any living adult insect was removed on day 21 and the percentage weight loss was calculated as in (5).

2.9. Fumigation Toxicity Bioassay. Fumigant toxicity of the five solvent extracts of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis leaves at the three different concentrations (2.5, 5.0, and 7.5%) was assessed following Nattudurai et al. [34]. An aliquot of 0, 5, 10, 20, and 40 [micro]L of each solvent extract was evenly applied to Whatman number 1 filter paper strips (2 cm diameter) corresponding to the dosages of 0 (as a control), 20, 40, 80, and 160[micro]L/L air [34]. Each treated paper strip was attached inside the cap of 50 ml glass bottle (4.5 cm in diameter by 13 cm in height) that contained 10 g of yam chips. After release of 10 adult insects the glass bottles were closed airtight by the caps connected to treated paper. After 24 h of treatment, the insects were observed and when there was no leg or antennal movements, insects were considered dead. The experiment was conducted in completely randomized design, with nine treatments and four replicates. Percent insect mortality was calculated and corrected by Abbott's formula [27]. Toxicity ratios (TR) were calculated using the formula used by Gusmao et al. [23]:

Toxicity ratios (TR)

= [LC.sub.50] of the extract with less toxicity/ [LC.sub.50] of the other extracts individually. (7)

2.10. Statistical Analysis. Mortality values were corrected with Abbott's formula to eliminate natural mortality of control. Data on percentage mortality and repellency were arcsine transformed, in order to homogenize their variance before being subjected to one-way ANOVA using IBM SPSS Statistic Software Version 23.0. Significant differences between means were separated using Least Significant Difference (LSD) at 5% probability. Back-transformed (original) data are given in tables and figures. Data obtained from various concentration-response bioassays (contact toxicity and repellence) were further arcsine transformed before being subject to probit regression analysis using IBM SPSS Statistic Software Version 23.0. Probit analysis was used to calculate the median repellent dose [RD.sub.50] (dose that repelled 50% of the exposed insects). The relationship between the extract concentration applied and percentage mortality was determined using probit regression analysis of transformed data to estimate lethal concentration that kills 50% ([LC.sub.50]) of test insects. Any two [LC.sub.50] values in a column whose 95% confidence limits did not overlap were regarded as significantly different.

3. Results

3.1. Repellent Effect of Plant Powders. Percent repellency of D. porcellus adults to yam chips treated with the various crude powder concentrations of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis is given in Table 1. The magnitude of D. porcellus adult repellency was not significantly influenced by plant species (F = 0.341, dl = 2, p [greater than or equal to] 0.05), concentration of powder applied (F = 1.477, dl = 3, p [greater than or equal to] 0.05), and exposure time (F = 1.461, dl = 2, p [greater than or equal to] 0.05). The synthetic insecticide Antouka and all the plant powder possess repellent activity against D. porcellus (Table 1). However, repellency of the plant powders was not dose-dependent. The mean percentage repellency value reached 51.3% at the dose of 7% of K. senegalensis powder within 24 h of exposure (Table 1). Based on mean repellency rate, powders of all three plants showed repellency classes II and III. The [RD.sub.50] values indicate that synthetic insecticide Antouka repelled D. porcellus better than any other plant powders 1 and 12 hours after treatment with a [RD.sub.50] value of 5.4% and 5.9% (w/w), respectively (Table 1), while, 24 hours after treatment, K. senegalensis powder was more repellent than the other treatments with a [RD.sub.50] value of 4.1% (w/w).

3.2. Insecticidal Efficiencies of Plant Powders. Contact action of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis leaves powders against adult D. porcellus is presented in Table 2. The findings of this experiment revealed that insect mortality on yam chips admixed with powders varied with the dosage, the plant tested, and the exposure time (Table 2). The mortality effects of the plant powders on D. porcellus were significantly different from the effect of the synthetic insecticide Antouka after 1 day (F = 2.084, dl = 15, p [less than or equal to] 0.001), 3 days (F = 3.831, dl = 15, p [less than or equal to] 0.001), 5 days (F = 4.768, dl = 15, p [less than or equal to] 0.001), and 7 days (F = 2.260, dl = 15, p [less than or equal to] 0.001) of exposure. Commercial product Antouka was most effective at all exposure periods and caused 100% mortality of D. porcellus 7 days after treatment. However, any significant difference was not observed between synthetic insecticide and plant powders 14 days (F = 0.797, dl = 15, p [greater than or equal to] 0.05) and 21 days (F = 0.545, dl = 15, p [greater than or equal to] 0.05) after treatment (Table 2). After 1 day of exposure, a dosage of 2, 4, and 6% (w/w) of B. sapida and 8% of K. senegalensis powders was not significantly different from that of synthetic insecticide Antouka in terms of D. porcellus mortality (Table 2). The same trend was observed with B. sapida at 4 and 6%, respectively, 7 and 3 days after treatment (Table 2). Although none of the tested plant powder was able to exert 100% adult mortality, B. sapida 4% (w/w) caused 43.7% adult mortality at 21 days after infestation (Table 2). In general, mortality of D. porcellus caused by the various concentrations of the three leaf powders tested was higher than those of the control after 14 days of treatment.

The weight loss of yam chips caused by the feeding activity of D. porcellus varied in function of plant species and dosage (Table 2). The data recorded at 21 days after treatment registered no weight loss in yam chips treated by the synthetic insecticide Antouka. The highest mean weight loss was 6.7 [+ or -] 1.1 g on the untreated control (Table 2). The K. senegalensis leaves powder at 8% recorded a significantly (F = 2.394, dl = 16, p [less than or equal to] 0.001) higher weight loss when compared to the other treatment (Table 2). Among the plant powder treatments, minimal weight loss was observed in the treatment with B. sapida powder at 2% (Table 2).

The adult D. porcellus F1 progeny counts in yam chips treated with crude botanical powders were not significantly affected by the plant species (F = 0.848, dl = 2, p [greater than or equal to] 0.05) and concentration applied (F = 0.135, dl = 4, p [greater than or equal to] 0.05). Synthetic insecticide Antouka, at 0.05% (w/w), caused the total inhibition (100%) of adult D. porcellus F1 progeny emergence. The median developmental time of D. porcellus varied significantly (F = 2.845, df =16, p [less than or equal to] 0.001) from 0 days for yam chips treated with synthetic insecticide Antouka to 37.6 days for a dosage of B. ferruginea at 10% (Table 3). The reproduction inhibition rate was maximum (100%) in synthetic insecticide Antouka during storage at 21 days after treatment. It was followed by B. ferruginea at 4 (50%), 6, and 10% with, respectively, 45% of inhibition rate. In contrast, the B. sapida powder at 4 and 10% registered low inhibition rate, that is, 5%, respectively (Table 3).

3.3. Repellency of Plant Extracts. Results given in Table 4 describe the repellent activity of different solvents and concentrations of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis leaves crude extracts. The repellency rate of acetone, propanol, ethanol, methanol, and distilled water solvents extract of three plants showed insignificance at different time after treatment (Table 4). The results revealed that repellent activity did not happen significantly at 15 min (F = 0.822, df = 44, p [greater than or equal to] 0.05), 30 min (F = 0.926, df =44, p [greater than or equal to] 0.05), and 2h (F = 0.854, df =44, p [greater than or equal to] 0.05) after treatment. However, even though almost all the plant crude extracts did not show the repellent potential almost at the first 30 min, but as time progressed, the level of repellent activity was increased (Table 4). Among all three plant species and five solvents tested, propanol extract of K. senegalensis at 5% was found to elicit significantly (F = 1.871, df = 44, p [less than or equal to] 0.001) the highest repellent effect on D. porcellus with a percentage repellency of 30% (class II). It was followed by the aqueous extract at 7.5% and propanol extract at 2.5% of B. sapida with, respectively, 26.9% (class II) and 22.7% (class II) repellency of D. porcellus. Repellency index ranged from 0.7 to 1.2 (Table 4). The acetone extract of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis at 7.5%, the methanol extract of B. ferruginea at 2.5%, and the ethanol extract of B. sapida at 7.5% and K. senegalensis at 2.5 and 5% were attractant for D. porcellus (Table 4). Considering solvents used in this study, repellency of the aqueous extract of B. sapida was dose-dependent, comparable to other extracts (Table 4). The comparison among solvents indicates that distilled water and propanol as a solvent were more efficient in extracting bioactive compounds even though the other three solvents also produced some effects (Table 4).

3.4. Contact Toxicity by Topical Application of Plant Extracts. Table 5 summarizes results on the toxicity of the various plant extracts applied topically to D. porcellus. The extracts of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis caused significant mortality of adult D. porcellus. Mortality varied between treatments, concentration, and exposure-period (Table 5). There was a significant (F = 2.531, df =44, p [less than or equal to] 0.001) difference among the extracts 2 days after treatments with acetone extract of K. senegalensis at 2.5% inducing the highest mortality of D. porcellus and aqueous extract of B. sapida at 2.5% the lowest mortality (Table 5). Acetone extract of B. ferruginea at 7.5% was significantly most effective at 7 days (F = 2.984, df =44, p [less than or equal to] 0.001) and 14 days (F = 3.210, df = 44, p [less than or equal to] 0.001) after treatment while aqueous extract of B. sapida at 2.5% was the least. Within 21 days after treatment, aqueous extract of B. sapida at 2.5% was significantly (F = 3.602, df = 44, p [less than or equal to] 0.001) less toxic to D. porcellus compared with the other extracts (Table 5). The [LC.sub.50] ranged from 0.29 [micro]L/insect for acetone extract of K. senegalensis to 34.73 [micro]L/insect for methanol extract of B. ferruginea (Table 6). According to Table 6, based on the [LC.sub.50], acetone solvent was more efficient in extracting bioactive compounds of B. ferruginea and K. senegalensis while for B. sapida it was propanol. Table 5 shows that the weight loss caused by the feeding activity of adult D. porcellus was significantly (F = 3.217, dl = 45, p [less than or equal to] 0.001) lower in the yam chips treated with methanol extract of B. ferruginea leaves at 7.5% compared with the other treatments.

3.5. Fumigant Toxicity. Fumigant efficacy tests of the plant extracts showed variable toxicity to adults of D. porcellus, depending on plant species and solvents (Figure 1). In all cases, considerable differences in mortality of insects to vapors of extracts were observed with different concentrations (Figure 1). From the graph in Figure 1, it can be seen that propanol extracts of plants were relatively more toxic to D. porcellus than the others. The highest concentration (160 [micro]L/L air) of the propanol extract of the three tested plants proved able to induce more than 50% mortality 24 h after treatment (Figure 1). Propanol extract of B. ferruginea at 5% exhibits a fumigant toxicity of 88.89% of mortality for a concentration of 160 [micro]L/L air (Figure 1), followed by propanol extract of B. ferruginea at 7.5% and propanol extract of K. senegalensis at 2.5% causing up to, respectively, 75.56 and 74.48% of pest mortality at the highest concentration. In fumigation tests, [LC.sub.50] ranged from 5.40 to 194.01 [micro]L/L air, while the toxicity ratios ranged from 1.07 to 35.92 (Table 7). Probit analysis showed that D. porcellus was more susceptible to propanol extracts of K. senegalensis ([LC.sub.50] = 5.40 [micro]L/L air) and B. sapida ([LC.sub.50] = 18.68 [micro]L/L air) which have a toxicity ratio of 35.92 and 10.38, respectively (Table 7).

4. Discussion

Results reported in the current study show that leaves powders of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis have repellent effects on D. porcellus. The observed repellent activity could partly be attributed to the presence of volatile constituents such as terpenoids in leaves of B. ferruginea [35], B. sapida [36], and K. senegalensis [37], which are well-known repellents of phytophagous insects by acting in the vapor form on the olfactory receptors [38, 39]. The presence of some repellent components such as limonoids, which are highly oxygenated triterpenes, classed as tetranorterpenoides in leaves of K. senegalensis [40] could explain their higher repellent activities 24 h after treatment than synthetic insecticide Antouka and other plant powders. The protection of yam chips against insect damage provided by leaf powders of the three plants suggests that there may be an objective basis for their continuous use in traditional yam chips storage systems in Benin [2]. The results indicate that powders of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis leaves could be a source of novel repellent against D. porcellus. However, there is a need to increase the efficacy of such natural products by developing methods such as mixing with some fixative materials for long lasting efficacy [40].

The result of the study further showed that mortality of D. porcellus caused by the various concentrations of the three leaf powders used was higher in comparison with those observed in the negative control. This indicated that the leaf powders were poisonous to adult D. porcellus and could serve as a bioinsecticide. The insect mortality may be due to blocking of spiracles of the insect by dust particles and death caused by asphyxia [41]. Plant product may also penetrate the insect body via the respiratory system [42]. Further, Sousa et al. [43] reported that the plant powders caused dehydration to insects by erosion of cuticle layer and their death occurred subsequently. Insecticidal effect of the three botanicals may also be due to its active components. Insecticide activity of B. sapida is primarily due to saponins and tannins [36, 44] and might be the cause of the insecticidal activity in this study. K. senegalensis leaf powder possesses limonoids which have a wide range of biological activities, including insecticidal, insect antifeedant, and growth regulating activity on insect [14]. Researchers found that B. ferruginea has insecticidal properties [45]. However, further investigations are required to determine the efficacy and the active ingredients present in the three plants as well as synthesize them and make scientific formulations for effective use in controlling D. porcellus.

Adding powders of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis leaves to the yam chips not only increases the mortality of D. porcellus but affects the weight loss and the median development time of D. porcellus F1 progeny. Similar findings were reported by Mukanga et al. [46] who show that leaf powders of five botanicals (eucalyptus, guava, neem, Tephrosia, and water hyacinth) reduce weight loss and clearly suppressed the emergence of Prostephanus truncatus populations in dried cassava chips. Based on previous studies, much of the antifeeding of test botanicals could be attributed to their bioactive principles [14, 36, 44, 45]. The inhibition of reproduction rate of D. porcellus could be due to the changes in physiology and behaviour in the insect adults due to contact with botanicals that may deter their egg laying capacity [42]. However, the efficacy of the plant products in significantly suppressing emergence has largely been attributed to ovicidal properties, which prevent eggs from hatching into larvae [47] and/or larvicidal activity which caused the larvae from maturing to adult. The good inhibitory effects of powder B. ferruginea leaves on the reproductive cycle in which the [F.sub.1] progeny was reduced by 50% give a glimmer of hope for use as yam chips protectants against D. porcellus.

The results regarding the evaluation of repellent potential of different extracts revealed that the plant crude extracts tested showed a lower repellency than botanical powders. There was considerable variation in the repellent action of the various botanicals extracts. This variation could be explained by the fact that the type of solvent selected affects extract efficacy due to different phytochemicals of varying volatility being present in the final extraction [48]. Among all the plant species, concentrations, and solvents tested, propanol extract of K. senegalensis at 5% was found to be the one with the highest repellent effect on D. porcellus with percentage repellency of 30%. Strangely, in our laboratory experiments, we found an attractive effect of acetone extract of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis at 7.5%, the methanol extract of B. ferruginea at 2.5%, and the ethanol extract of B. sapida at 7.5% and K. senegalensis at 2.5 and 5% on the beetle D. porcellus while the other plant extracts were repellent or neutral. The reason for this kind of both repellent and attractant at different concentration is unknown. Similarly, Pugazhvendan et al. [49] found that hexane, chloroform, and ethyl acetate extracts of Artemisia vulgaris, Sphaeranthus indicus, Tephrosia purpurea, and Prosopis juliflora can be repellent or attractant on Tribolium castaneum at different concentrations. Our findings suggest that there may be different compounds in different solvent extracts possessing different bioactivities. The biological activities of the three tested plants merit further investigation to determine the active ingredients responsible for their repellent or attractant properties.

The results of topical application of crude extracts of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis suggest that the leaves of these plants have the greatest potential for insecticidal activity against D. porcellus. Earlier studies confirmed the insecticidal effects of these plants species: B. ferruginea [45]; B. sapida [15, 36, 50-53]; and K. senegalensis [54-59]. Acetone extract of K. senegalensis showed the lowest [LC.sub.50] and the biggest toxicity ratio, consequently the most toxic on D. porcellus. Some studies proved efficacy of K. senegalensis for controlling stored products insects such as Trogoderma granarium [59], Callosobruchus maculatus [54, 55], and Tribolium confusum [58]. The phytoconstituents found in the leaf extract of K. senegalensis include tannins, saponins, flavonoids, steroids, and alkaloids [37]. The presence of these organic compounds in the plant extract may have been responsible for the mortality of D. porcellus. Based on the 24 h [LC.sub.50] values obtained, the acetone extract was more potent than the other extracts used in this study, suggesting that the organic solvent enhanced the extraction/release of the active principle(s). Results indicate that the extracts of the different plants can be incorporated as biopesticides in pest management programs against D. porcellus.

Fumigation studies of different plants extracts at different concentrations showed variable toxicity to adults of D. porcellus, depending on plant species and solvents. Propanol extract of B. ferruginea at 5% exhibited significant fumigant toxicity to D. porcellus. This indicated that propanol extract of B. ferruginea at 5% might be useful for managing D. porcellus in enclosed spaces such as storage bins, glasshouses, or buildings because of their fumigant action. The fumigant toxicity of propanol extract of B. ferruginea at 5% as well as the other plant extracts could be attributed to major constituents such as monoterpenoids [35]; due to their high volatility, they have fumigant and gaseous action which might be of importance for stored-product insects [60]. Monoterpenoids are typically volatile and rather lipophilic compounds, which can rapidly penetrate into insects and interfere with their physiological functions [61]. The results of these fumigation studies indicate that effective extracts of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis fumigation treatments against D. porcellus can also be potentially applicable in the integrated pest management of this pest.

5. Conclusion

Results from the current study confirmed the importance of the use of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis by farmers in Benin to protect stored yam chips of D. porcellus. It is evident from the above results that the tested botanical powders are potential protectants (repellents and antifeedants) of stored durable yam chips against D. porcellus. The findings of this research have also shown insecticidal effects (contact and fumigation) of extracts of the three medicinal plants. These results indicate that both plant powders and extracts have potential for yam chips protection. They can be used as an alternative to synthetic insecticides. However, the identification and isolation of bioactive compounds from the powders and extracts of these three medicinal plants must be done as key issue for further study.

https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5468202

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have not declared any conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by L'Oreal-UNESCO for Women in Science in Sub-Saharan Africa through the 2014 postdoctoral fellowship won by the first author. The authors are grateful to Dr. Djouaka Rousseau of International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and his staff for their technical assistance.

References

[1] A. Sartie, J. Franco, and R. Asiedu, "Phenotypic analysis of tuber yield- and maturity-related traits in white yam (Dioscorea rotundata)," African Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 11, no. 17, pp. 3964-3975, 2012.

[2] Y. L. Loko, A. Dansi, M. Tamo et al., "Storage insects on yam chips and their traditional management in Northern Benin," The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2013, Article ID 484536, 11 pages, 2013.

[3] E. Ategbo, N. Bricas, J. Hounhouigan et al., "Le devloppmnt d la filier cosstts dignam pour lapprovisionnmnt ds vills au Nigria, au Benin t au Togo," in Actes du seminaire international Cirad-Inra-Orstom-Coraf, J. Berthaud, N. Bricas, and J. L. Marchand, Eds., L'igname, plante seculaire et culture d'avenir, Montpellier, France, 1998.

[4] P. Vernier, G. Goergen, R. Dossou, P. Letourmy, and J. Chaume, "Utilization of biological insecticides for the protection of stored yam chips," Outlook on Agriculture, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 173-179, 2005.

[5] M. Oni and A. Omoniyi, "Studies on temperature influence on oviposition and development of immature stages of the yam beetle Dinoderus Porcellus lesne. Coleoptera: bostrichidae on dried Yam Species," Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 4, no. 2, 2012.

[6] O. T. Adedoyin, A. Ojuawo, O. O. Adesiyun, F. Mark, and E. A. Anigilaje, "Poisoning due to yam flour consumption in five families in Ilorin, Central Nigeria," West African Journal of Medicine, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 41-43, 2008.

[7] S.I. Adeleke, "Food poisoning due to yam flour consumption in Kano (Northwest), Nigeria," Online Journal of Health and Allied Sciences, vol. 8, no. 2, 2009.

[8] B. A. Boateng and F. Kusi, "Toxicity of Jatropha seed oil to Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) and its Parasitoid, Dinarmus basalis (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae)," Journal of Applied Sciences Research, vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 945-951, 2008.

[9] F. M. Onu, E. Ogu, and M. E. Ikehi, "Use of neem and garlic dried plant powders for controlling some stored grains pests," Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 507-512, 2015.

[10] S. Rajendran and V. Sriranjini, "Plant products as fumigants for stored-product insect control," Journal of Stored Products Research, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 126-135, 2008.

[11] D. Grzywacz, P. C. Stevenson, W. L. Mushobozi, S. R. Belmain, and K. Wilson, "The use of indigenous ecological resources for pest control in Africa," Food Security, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 71-86, 2014.

[12] S. A. M. Abdelgaleil, F. Hashinaga, and M. Nakatani, "Antifungal activity of limonoids from Khaya ivorensis," Pest Management Science, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 186-190, 2005.

[13] D. Kubmarawa, M. E. Khan, A. M. Punah, and M. Hassan, "Phytochemical screening and antimicrobial efficacy of extracts from Khaya senegalensis against human pathogenic bacteria," African Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 7, no. 24, pp. 4563-4566, 2008.

[14] S. A. M. Abdelgaleil and M. Nakatani, "Antifeeding activity of limonoids from Khaya senegalensis (Meliaceae)," Journal of Applied Entomology, vol. 127, no. 4, pp. 236-239, 2003.

[15] S. A. Mitchell and M. H. Ahmad, "A review of medicinal plant research at the University of the West Indies, Jamaica, 1948-2001," West Indian Medical Journal, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 243-269, 2006.

[16] M. Sahu, V Singh, S. Yadav, and K. K. Harris, "Plant extracts with antisickling propensities: a feasible succor towards sickle cell disease management--a mini review," Journal of Phytology, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 24-29, 2012.

[17] A. Onzo, J. Biaou, L. Loko, M. Tamo, and A. Dansi, "Vulnerabilite des cossettes issues de quelques cultivars d'igname a l'attaque de Dinoderus porcellus Lesne (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) en conditions de laboratoire," International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 2494-2507, 2015.

[18] M. D. Isah, J. N. Ayertey, and B. A. Boateng, "Suitability of dried chips of plantain, cocoyam, yam and cassava for the development of the larger grain borer Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae)," International Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 12-20, 2009.

[19] J. O. Ogendo, A. L. Deng, S. R. Belmain, D. J. Walker, and A. A. O. Musandu, "Effect of insecticidal plant materials, Lantana camaraL. and Tephrosia vogelii Hook, on the quality parameters of stored maize grains," Journal of Food Technology in Africa, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 29-36, 2004.

[20] F. Chebet, A. L. Deng, J. O. Ogendo, A. W. Kamau, and P. K. Bett, "Bioactivity of selected plant powders against prostephanus truncatus (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) in stored maize grains," Plant Protection Science, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 34-43, 2013.

[21] K. D. A. Dutra, J. V. de Oliveira, D. M. D. A. F. Navarro, D. R. E. S. Barbosa, and J. P. O. Santos, "Control of Callosobruchus maculatus (FABR.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae) in Vigna unguiculata (L.) WALP. with essential oils from four Citrus spp. plants," Journal of Stored Products Research, vol. 68, pp. 25-32, 2016.

[22] L. L. McDonald, R. H. Guy, and R. D. Speirs, "Preliminary evaluation of new candidate materials as toxicants, repellents and attractants against stored product insects," Marketing Research Report/Agricultural Research Service U.S.D.A, vol. 1, no. 882, 35 pages, 1970.

[23] N. M. S. Gusmao, J. V. de Oliveira, D. M. D. A. F. Navarro, K. A. Dutra, W. A. da Silva, and M. J. A. Wanderley, "Contact and fumigant toxicity and repellency of Eucalyptus citriodora Hook., Eucalyptus staigeriana F., Cymbopogon winterianus Jowitt and Foeniculum vulgare Mill. essential oils in the management of Callosobruchus maculatus (FABR.) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae, Bruchinae)," Journal of Stored Products Research, vol. 54, pp. 41-47, 2013.

[24] S. B. Padin, C. Fuse, M. I. Urrutia, and G. M. Dal Bello, "Toxicity and repellency of nine medicinal plants against Tribolium castaneum in stored wheat," Bulletin of Insectology, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 45-49, 2013.

[25] J. O. Othira, L. A. Onek, L. A. Deng, and E. O. Omolo, "Insecticidal potency of Hyptis spicigera preparations against Sitophilus zeamais (L.) and Tribolium castaneum (herbst) on stored maize grains," African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 187-192, 2009.

[26] E. F. Asawalam, S. O. Emosairue, and A. Hassanali, "Bioactivity of Xylopia aetiopica (Dunal) a rich essential oil constituent on maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais Motch. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)," Electronic of Agricultural and Chemistry, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1195-1204, 2006.

[27] W. S. Abbott, "A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide," Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 302-303, 1987.

[28] J. B. Torres, J. L. D. Saavedra, J. C. Zanuncio, and J. M. Waquil, "Resistance of sorghum to Sitophilus oryzae (L.) and its association with varietal parameters," International Journal of Pest Management, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 277-280, 1996.

[29] L. A. Tapondjou, C. Adler, H. Bouda, and D. A. Fontem, "Efficacy of powder and essential oil from Chenopodium ambrosioides leaves as post-harvest grain protectants against sixstored product beetles," Journal of Stored Products Research, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 395-402, 2002.

[30] S. M. Mansoor-ul-Hasan, M. Farhan, M. Najam-ul-Hassan et al., "Repellent potential of Azadirachta indica A. Juss. and Glycyrrhiza glabra L. against cowpea bruchid, Callosobruchus chinensis L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)," Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 405-409, 2014.

[31] M. M. R. Shah, M. D. H. Prodhan, M. N. A. Siddquie, M. A. A. Mamun, and M. Shahjahan, "Repellent Effect of Some Indigenous Plant Extracts against Saw-Toothed Grain Beetle, Oryzaephilus surinamensis (L.)," International Journal of Sustainable Crop Production, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 51-54, 2008.

[32] A. B. Hamouda, A. Mechi, K. Zarred, I. Chaieb, and A. Laarif, "Insecticidal Activities of Fruit Peel Extracts of Pomegranate (Punica granatum) against the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum. Tunis," Tunisian Journal of Plant Protection, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 91-100, 2014.

[33] D. S. Aryani and W. Auamcharoen, "Repellency and contact toxicity of crude extracts from three Thai plants (Zingiberaceae) against maize grain weevil, Sitophilus zeamais (Motschlusky) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)," Journal of Biopesticides, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 52-62, 2016.

[34] G. Nattudurai, S. S. Irudayaraj, M. G. Paulraj, K. Baskar, and S. Ignacimuthu, "Insecticidal and repellent activities of Toddalia asiatica (L.) Lam. extracts against three major stored product pests," Entomology, Ornithology & Herpetology: Current Research, vol. 4, no. 2, p. 148, 2015.

[35] I. Addae-Mensah and H. Achenbach, "Terpenoids and flavonoids of Bridelia ferruginea," Phytochemistry, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 1817-1819, 1985.

[36] P. M. E. Ubulom, G. N. Imandeh, E. O. Ettebong, and C. E. Udobi, "Potential Larvicidal Properties of Blighia sapida Leaf Extracts against Larvae of An. gambiae, Cu. quinquefasciatus and Ae. aegypti" British Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 259-268, 2012.

[37] M. D. Makut, S. D. Gyar, G. R. I. Pennap, and P. Anthony, "Phytochemical screening and antimicrobial activity of the ethanolic and methanolic extracts of the leaf and bark of Khaya senegalensis" African Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 1216-1219, 2008.

[38] S. J. Moore and A. D. Lenglet, "An overview of plants used as insect repellents," in Traditional Medicinal Plants and Malaria. Traditional Herbal Medicine for Modern Times Series, M. Willcox, G. Bodeker, and P. Rasoanaivo, Eds., vol. 4, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 2004.

[39] Z. Wang, J. Song, J. Chen et al., "QSAR study of mosquito repellents from terpenoid with a six-member-ring," Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 2854-2859, 2008.

[40] A. Roy and S. Saraf, "Limonoids: overview of significant bioactive triterpenes distributed in plants kingdom," Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 191-201, 2006.

[41] H. S. Fernando and M. M. Karunaratne, "Ethnobotanicals for storage insect pest management: Effect of powdered leaves of Olax zeylanica in suppressing infestations of rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)," Journal of Tropical Forestry and Environment, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 20-25, 2012.

[42] A. Kedia, B. Prakash, P. K. Mishra, P. Singh, and N. K. Dubey, "Botanicals as eco friendly biorational alternatives of synthetic pesticides against Callosobruchus spp. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)--a review," Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 1239-1257, 2015.

[43] A. H. Sousa, P. B. Maracaja, R. M. Silva, M. N. Moura, and W. G. Andrade, "Bioactivity of vegetal powders against Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in Caupi bean and seed physiological analysis," Revista De Biologia E Ciencias Da Terra, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 19-23, 2005.

[44] E. De Geyter, E. Lambert, D. Geelen, and G. Smagghe, "Novel advances with plant saponins as natural insecticides to control pest insects," Pest Technology, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 96-105, 2007.

[45] A. Azokou, M. W. Kone, B. G. Koudou, and H. F. Tra Bi, "Larvicidal potential of some plants from West Africa against Culex quinquefasciatus (Say) and Anopheles gambiae Giles (Diptera: Culicidae)," Journal of Vector Borne Diseases, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 103-110, 2013.

[46] M. Mukanga, Y. Deedat, and F. S. Mwangala, "Toxic effects of five plant extracts against the larger grain borer, prostephanus truncatus," African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 5, no. 24, pp. 3369-3378, 2010.

[47] K. D. Jadhav and L. D. Jadhav, "Use of vegetable oils, plant extracts and synthetic Products as protectants from pulse beetle Callosobruchus maculatus in stored grain," Journal of Food Science and Technology, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 100-113, 1984.

[48] E. A.-S. Shaalan, D. Canyon, M. W. F. Younes, H. Abdel-Wahab, and A.-H. Mansour, "A review of botanical phytochemicals with mosquitocidal potential," Environment International, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 1149-1166, 2005.

[49] S. R. Pugazhvendan, P. R. Ross, and K. Elumalai, "Insecticidal and Repellant Activities of Four indigenous medicinal Plants Against Stored Grain Pest, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae)," Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Disease, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 16-20, 2012.

[50] A. Khan, F. A. Gumbs, and A. Persad, "Pesticidal bioactivity of ackee (Blighia sapida Koenig) against three stored-product insect pests," Tropical Agriculture, vol. 79, no. 4, pp. 217-223, 2002.

[51] A. Khan and F. A. Gumbs, "Repellent effect of ackee (Blighia sapida Koenig) component fruit parts against stored-product insect pests," Tropical Agriculture, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 19-27, 2003.

[52] A. M. S. Rodrigues, J. E. de Paula, N. Degallier, J. F. Molez, and L. S. Espindola, "Larvicidal activity of some Cerrado plant extracts against Aedes aegypti," Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 314-317, 2006.

[53] L. Castillo, A. Gonzalez-Coloma, A. Gonzalez et al., "Screening of Uruguayan plants for deterrent activity against insects," Industrial Crops and Products, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 235-240, 2009.

[54] L. J. Bamaiyi, I. S. Ndams, W. A. Toro, and S. Odekina, "Effect of Mahogany Khaya senegalensis seed oil in the control of Callosobruchus maculatus on stored cowpea," Plant Protection Science, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 130-134, 2006.

[55] D. K. Kossou, P. Atachi, T. E. Zannou, and S. Bougourou, "Evaluation de l'activitee insecticide de deux plantes Hyptis suaveolens (Linn) et Khaya senegalensis (A. Juss) sur les insectes ravageurs du niebe (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.)," Sciences Nature, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 17-26, 2007.

[56] J. A. Adakole and J. B. Balogun, "Acute ecotoxicity of aqueous and ethanolic extract of leaves of Khaya senegalensis on chironomid larvae," Brazilian Journal of Aquatic Science and Technology, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 43-47, 2011.

[57] N. Abdullahi, S. Yahya, M. Yushau, and Z. Tukur, "Laboratory evaluation of the effect of Khaya senegalensis and Cassia occidentalis ethanolic leaves extracts against worker termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidoe) on treated wood sample," Journal of Stored Products and Postharvest Research, vol. 3, no. 11, pp. 152-155, 2012.

[58] B. L. Yakubu and A. J. Nda, "Evaluation of (Khaya senegalensis) for the control of Tribolium confusum (Duval) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) on Stored Pearl Millet," Advances in Life Science and Technology, vol. 4, pp. 58-63, 2012.

[59] A. A. Satti and M. M. Elamin, "Insecticidal activities of two meliaceous plants against Trogoderma granarium Everts (Coleoptera: Dermestidae)," International Journal of Science and Nature, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 696-701, 2012.

[60] A. F. Hamza, M. N. El-Orabi, O. H. Gharieb, A. A. El-Saeady, and A. E. Hussein, "Response of Sitophilus granarius L. to fumigant toxicity of some plant volatile oils," Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 8-14, 2016.

[61] S. Lee, C. J. Peterson, and J. R. Coats, "Fumigation toxicity of monoterpenoids to several stored product insects," Journal of Stored Products Research, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 77-85, 2003.

Laura Yeyinou Loko, (1) Obedatou Alagbe, (2) Elie A. Dannon, (3) Benjamin Datinon, (3) Azize Orobiyi, (1) Agnes Thomas-Odjo, (2) Alexandre Dansi, (1) and Manuele Tamo (3)

(1) Faculty of Sciences and Technology of Dassa, Universite Nationale des Sciences, Technologies, Ingenierie et Mathematiques d'Abomey, BP 14, Dassa, Benin

(2) Faculty of Agronomy, University of Parakou, BP 123, Parakou, Benin

(3) International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, 08 BP 0932, Cotonou, Benin

Correspondence should be addressed to Laura Yeyinou Loko; lokoestelle@yahoo.fr

Received 25 March 2017; Accepted 16 May 2017; Published 21 June 2017

Academic Editor: Opender Koul

Caption: FIGURE 1: Percentage adultmortality of D. porcellus 24 hours after treatment with acetone, propanol, ethanol, methanol, and aqueous extracts of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis. Mortality rate was corrected using Abbott's formula (4).

TABLE 1: Percent repellence (mean [+ or -] SE) of adult D. porcellus and repellent class of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis crude powders to varying exposure time and concentrations in a choice bioassay. Treatments Concentration Percent repellency at different time intervals (%w/w) lh 2.0 35.4 [+ or -] 15.8 (a) Antouka 5.0 69.0 [+ or -] 18.0 (a) 7.0 28.8 [+ or -] 41.8 (a) 10.0 75.0 [+ or -] 25.0 (a) [RD.sub.50] 5.4 2.0 18.9 [+ or -] 13.l (a) B. ferruginea 5.0 53.5 [+ or -] 18.5 (a) 7.0 51.8 [+ or -] 18.3 (a) 10.0 40.0 [+ or -] 31.9 (a) [RD.sub.50] 9.6 2.0 27.5 [+ or -] 7.5 (a) B. sapida 5.0 29.9 [+ or -] 27.l (a) 7.0 39.6 [+ or -] 15.7 (a) 10.0 53.6 [+ or -] 27.0 (a) [RD.sub.50] 9.6 2.0 25.0 [+ or -] 14.4 (a) K. senegalensis 5.0 29.5 [+ or -] 30.9 (a) 7.0 25.0 [+ or -] 15.0 (a) 10.0 16.9 [+ or -] 6.9 (a) [RD.sub.50] 17.9 F 1.507 p value 0.159 Treatments Concentration Percent repellency at different time intervals (%w/w) 12 h 2.0 46.6 [+ or -] 9.7 (a) Antouka 5.0 37.6 [+ or -] 8.8 (a) 7.0 27.8 [+ or -] 18.4 (a) 10.0 16.8 [+ or -] 18.5 (a) [RD.sub.50] 5.9 2.0 42.9 [+ or -] 27.4 (a) B. ferruginea 5.0 42.1 [+ or -] 7.8 (a) 7.0 27.3 [+ or -] 9.4 (a) 10.0 15.0 [+ or -] 14.0 (a) [RD.sub.50] 8.3 2.0 31.2 [+ or -] 18.0 (a) B. sapida 5.0 47.9 [+ or -] 16.8 (a) 7.0 39.1 [+ or -] 8.4 (a) 10.0 35.4 [+ or -] 20.5 (a) [RD.sub.50] 11.6 2.0 25.5 [+ or -] 12.3 (a) K. senegalensis 5.0 34.5 [+ or -] 16.1 (a) 7.0 55.3 [+ or -] 18.3 (a) 10.0 47.0 [+ or -] 11.3 (a) [RD.sub.50] 8.7 F 0.567 p value 0.880 Treatments Concentration Percent repellency at different time intervals (%w/w) 24 h 2.0 37.7 [+ or -] 17.2 (a) Antouka 5.0 35.0 [+ or -] 13.7 (a) 7.0 52.1 [+ or -] 14.9 (a) 10.0 28.8 [+ or -] 10.9 (a) [RD.sub.50] 7.0 2.0 35.8 [+ or -]18.9 (a) B. ferruginea 5.0 43.4 [+ or -] 8.4 (a) 7.0 42.0 [+ or -] 14.1 (a) 10.0 45.4 [+ or -] 8.7 (a) [RD.sub.50] 7.8 2.0 19.8 [+ or -] 14.2 (a) B. sapida 5.0 45.8 [+ or -] 11.0 (a) 7.0 41.1 [+ or -] 19.3 (a) 10.0 51.3 [+ or -] 20.0 (a) [RD.sub.50] 7.6 2.0 37.9 [+ or -] 11.6 (a) K. senegalensis 5.0 42.8 [+ or -] 11.7 (a) 7.0 73.7 [+ or -] 9.0 (a) 10.0 53.1 [+ or -] 6.7 (a) [RD.sub.50] 4.1 F 0.543 p value 0.900 Treatments Concentration Mean repellency (%w/w) 2.0 39.9 [+ or -] 7.7 (a) Antouka 5.0 47.2 [+ or -] 8.6 (a) 7.0 36.2 [+ or -] 14.9 (a) 10.0 40.2 [+ or -] 12.5 (a) [RD.sub.50] 2.0 32.5 [+ or -] 11.2 (a) B. ferruginea 5.0 46.3 [+ or -] 6.7 (a) 7.0 40.4 [+ or -] 8.1 (a) 10.0 33.5 [+ or -] 11.5 (a) [RD.sub.50] 2.0 26.1 [+ or -] 7.4 (a) B. sapida 5.0 41.2 [+ or -] 10.5 (a) 7.0 39.9 [+ or -] 7.9 (a) 10.0 46.8 [+ or -] 12.1 (a) [RD.sub.50] 2.0 29.4 [+ or -] 6.9 (a) K. senegalensis 5.0 35.6 [+ or -] 11.2 (a) 7.0 51.3 [+ or -] 9.7 (a) 10.0 39.0 [+ or -] 6.5 (a) [RD.sub.50] F 0.896 p value 0.547 Treatments Concentration Repellency class (%w/w) 2.0 II Antouka 5.0 III 7.0 II 10.0 III [RD.sub.50] 2.0 II B. ferruginea 5.0 III 7.0 III 10.0 II [RD.sub.50] 2.0 II B. sapida 5.0 III 7.0 II 10.0 III [RD.sub.50] 2.0 II K. senegalensis 5.0 II 7.0 III 10.0 II [RD.sub.50] F p value Treatments Concentration Repellency index (%w/w) 2.0 0.60 [+ or -] 0.07 Antouka 5.0 0.56 [+ or -] 0.05 7.0 0.62 [+ or -] 0.06 10.0 0.61 [+ or -] 0.05 [RD.sub.50] 2.0 0.63 [+ or -] 0.04 B. ferruginea 5.0 0.60 [+ or -] 0.04 7.0 0.61 [+ or -] 0.03 10.0 0.62 [+ or -] 0.03 [RD.sub.50] 2.0 0.63 [+ or -] 0.03 B. sapida 5.0 0.63 [+ or -] 0.03 7.0 0.62 [+ or -] 0.02 10.0 0.61 [+ or -] 0.02 [RD.sub.50] 2.0 0.62 [+ or -] 0.02 K. senegalensis 5.0 0.62 [+ or -] 0.02 7.0 0.60 [+ or -] 0.02 10.0 0.60 [+ or -] 0.02 [RD.sub.50] F p value Treatments Concentration Classification (%w/w) 2.0 Repellent Antouka 5.0 Repellent 7.0 Repellent 10.0 Repellent [RD.sub.50] 2.0 Repellent B. ferruginea 5.0 Repellent 7.0 Repellent 10.0 Repellent [RD.sub.50] 2.0 Repellent B. sapida 5.0 Repellent 7.0 Repellent 10.0 Repellent [RD.sub.50] 2.0 Repellent K. senegalensis 5.0 Repellent 7.0 Repellent 10.0 Repellent [RD.sub.50] F p value Means within the same rows followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05). [RD.sub.50] refers to the concentration (% w/w) that repels 50% of the test insects using probit regression analysis. TABLE 2: Mortality of adult D. porcellus and weight loss (mean [+ or -] SE) of yam chips treated with varying concentration of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis crude powders in 21 days after infestation. Mortality rate was corrected using Abbott's formula (4). Treatments Concentration Percentage of mortality rate (%w/w) after different periods of exposures (days) 1 Antouka 0.05 29.4 [+ or -] 9.9 (a) 2.0 1.2 [+ or -] 2.4 (d) 4.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (d) B. ferruginea 6.0 1.2 [+ or -] 2.4 (d) 8.0 2.5 [+ or -] 2.0 (bcd) 10.0 1.8 [+ or -] 3.8 (d) 2.0 6.4 [+ or -] 2.4 (abcd) 4.0 11.5 [+ or -] 3.8 (abc) B. sapida 6.0 11.5 [+ or -] 2.4 (ab) 8.0 2.5 [+ or -] 2.0 (bcd) 10.0 1.2 [+ or -] 1.2 (cd) 2.0 2.5 [+ or -] 2.9 (bcd) 4.0 1.2 [+ or -] 1.2 (cd) K. senegalensis 6.0 2.5 [+ or -] 5.1 (d) 8.0 10.2 [+ or -] 7.4 (abcd) 10.0 0.0 [+ or -] 1.3 (d) Control 0 2.5 [+ or -] 1.4 Treatments Concentration Percentage of mortality rate (%w/w) after different periods of exposures (days) 3 Antouka 0.05 79.1 [+ or -] 1.3 (a) 2.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (c) 4.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (c) B. ferruginea 6.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (c) 8.0 2.7 [+ or -] 4.8 (c) 10.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (c) 2.0 8.3 [+ or -] 6.6 (b) 4.0 11.1 [+ or -] 3.9 (bc) B. sapida 6.0 19.4 [+ or -] 5.3 (ab) 8.0 2.7 [+ or -] 1.6 (c) 10.0 0.0 [+ or -] 2.2 (c) 2.0 1.3 [+ or -] 7.3 (b) 4.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (c) K. senegalensis 6.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (c) 8.0 11.1 [+ or -] 9.8 (b) 10.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (c) Control 0 10.0 [+ or -] 2.8 Treatments Concentration Percentage of mortality rate (%w/w) after different periods of exposures (days) 5 Antouka 0.05 96.8 [+ or -] 3.1 (a) 2.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (d) 4.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (d) B. ferruginea 6.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (d) 8.0 0.0 [+ or -] 5.3 (cd) 10.0 0.0 [+ or -] 4.4 (d) 2.0 10.9 [+ or -] 10.3 (bc) 4.0 20.3 [+ or -] 8.2 (b) B. sapida 6.0 15.6 [+ or -] 5.9 (bc) 8.0 1.5 [+ or -] 1.5 (d) 10.0 4.6 [+ or -] 4.6 (bcd) 2.0 0.0 [+ or -] 10.2 (bcd) 4.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (d) K. senegalensis 6.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (d) 8.0 3.1 [+ or -] 11.0 (bcd) 10.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (d) Control 0 20.0 [+ or -] 6.1 Treatments Concentration Percentage of mortality rate (%w/w) after different periods of exposures (days) 7 Antouka 0.05 100.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (c) 4.0 1.7 [+ or -] 15.8 (c) B. ferruginea 6.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (c) 8.0 3.4 [+ or -] 2.8 (b) 10.0 1.7 [+ or -] 1.7 (b) 2.0 15.5 [+ or -] 17.0 (b) 4.0 25.9 [+ or -] 10.3 (ab) B. sapida 6.0 15.5 [+ or -] 7.1 (b) 8.0 1.7 [+ or -] 8.6 (b) 10.0 13.7 [+ or -] 4.4 (b) 2.0 0.0 [+ or -] 8.8 (b) 4.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (c) K. senegalensis 6.0 0.0 [+ or -] 11.5 (bc) 8.0 0.0 [+ or -] 13.2 (bc) 10.0 6.9 [+ or -] 1.9 (bc) Control 0 27.5 [+ or -] 2.5 Treatments Concentration Percentage of mortality rate (%w/w) after different periods of exposures (days) 14 Antouka 0.05 100.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.0 5.3 [+ or -] 20.1 (a) 4.0 12.5 [+ or -] 21.5 (a) B. ferruginea 6.0 10.7 [+ or -] 10.3 (a) 8.0 32.1 [+ or -] 12.2 (a) 10.0 17.8 [+ or -] 8.5 (a) 2.0 33.9 [+ or -] 19.9 (a) 4.0 37.5 [+ or -] 17.1 (a) B. sapida 6.0 26.8 [+ or -] 6.3 (a) 8.0 21.4 [+ or -] 17.7 (a) 10.0 28.5 [+ or -] 5.0 (a) 2.0 10.7 [+ or -] 21.1 (a) 4.0 5.3 [+ or -] 15.3 (a) K. senegalensis 6.0 10.7 [+ or -] 19.0 (a) 8.0 8.9 [+ or -] 25.3 (a) 10.0 16.0 [+ or -] 3.4 (a) Control 0 30.0 [+ or -] 2.0 Treatments Concentration Percentage of mortality rate (%w/w) after different periods of exposures (days) 21 Antouka 0.05 100.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.0 8.3 [+ or -] 26.4 (a) 4.0 8.3 [+ or -] 29.5 (a) B. ferruginea 6.0 18.7 [+ or -] 18.1 (a) 8.0 41.7 [+ or -] 14.8 (a) 10.0 29.2 [+ or -] 15.4 (a) 2.0 27.1 [+ or -] 24.6 (a) 4.0 43.7 [+ or -] 21.3 (a) B. sapida 6.0 22.9 [+ or -] 10.4 (a) 8.0 25.0 [+ or -] 22.0 (a) 10.0 27.0 [+ or -] 7.8 (a) 2.0 0.0 [+ or -] 26.6 (a) 4.0 4.1 [+ or -] 21.7 (a) K. senegalensis 6.0 10.4 [+ or -] 24.2 (a) 8.0 4.1 [+ or -] 33.1 (a) 10.0 22.9 [+ or -] 10.4 (a) Control 0 40.0 [+ or -] 3.5 Treatments Concentration Weight loss (g) (%w/w) Antouka 0.05 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (c) 2.0 3.0 [+ or -] 0.4 (abc) 4.0 2.0 [+ or -] 0.7 (abc) B. ferruginea 6.0 2.9 [+ or -] 0.7 (abc) 8.0 2.3 [+ or -] 0.6 (abc) 10.0 2.7 [+ or -] 0.6 (abc) 2.0 0.4 [+ or -] 0.1 (bc) 4.0 1.9 [+ or -] 0.9 (abc) B. sapida 6.0 4.1 [+ or -] 1.6 (ab) 8.0 4.1 [+ or -] 1.9 (abc) 10.0 4.1 [+ or -] 2.0 (abc) 2.0 3.6 [+ or -] 2.0 (abc) 4.0 1.5 [+ or -] 0.5 (abc) K. senegalensis 6.0 2.6 [+ or -] 1.2 (abc) 8.0 6.4 [+ or -] 2.2 (a) 10.0 3.9 [+ or -] 1.7 (abc) Control 0 6.7 [+ or -] 1.1 (a) Means in a column followed by different letters are significantly different at [alpha] = 0.05. TABLE 3: Effect of treating yam chips with crude powders of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis on F1 progeny emergence and median development time (mean [+ or -] SE) of D. porcellus. Treatments Concentration Mean number of (%w/w) F1 progenies Control 0.0 5.0 [+ or -] 1.9 (a) Antouka 0.05 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.0 3.2 [+ or -] 1.6 (a) 4.0 2.5 [+ or -] 1.3 (a) B. ferruginea 6.0 2.7 [+ or -] 1.1 (a) 8.0 3.7 [+ or -] 1.2 (a) 10.0 2.7 [+ or -] 0.7 (a) 2.0 3.0 [+ or -] 1.2 (a) 4.0 4.7 [+ or -] 2.2 (a) B. sapida 6.0 3.7 [+ or -] 0.8 (a) 8.0 3.5 [+ or -] 0.8 (a) 10.0 4.7 [+ or -] 1.5 (a) 2.0 4.0 [+ or -] 1.2 (a) 4.0 4.2 [+ or -] 1.1 (a) K. senegalensis 6.0 4.2 [+ or -] 2.1 (a) 8.0 4.5 [+ or -] 1.7 (a) 10.0 3.7 [+ or -] 1.4 (a) Treatments Concentration Median development time (%w/w) Control 0.0 27.7 [+ or -] 9.2 (b) Antouka 0.05 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.0 27.6 [+ or -] 9.2 (b) 4.0 27.7 [+ or -] 9.7 (b) B. ferruginea 6.0 36.4 [+ or -] 0.5 (b) 8.0 36.4 [+ or -] 0.4 (b) 10.0 37.6 [+ or -] 0.4 (b) 2.0 27.7 [+ or -] 9.2 (b) 4.0 36.5 [+ or -] 0.5 (b) B. sapida 6.0 35.9 [+ or -] 0.1 (b) 8.0 36.2 [+ or -] 0.4 (b) 10.0 36.7 [+ or -] 0.6 (b) 2.0 36.4 [+ or -] 0.5 (b) 4.0 37.2 [+ or -] 0.3 (b) K. senegalensis 6.0 27.1 [+ or -] 9.0 (b) 8.0 37.1 [+ or -] 0.6 (b) 10.0 27.5 [+ or -] 9.1 (b) Treatments Concentration Reproduction (%w/w) inhibition rate (%) Control 0.0 0.0 Antouka 0.05 100.0 2.0 35.0 4.0 50.0 B. ferruginea 6.0 45.0 8.0 25.0 10.0 45.0 2.0 40.0 4.0 5.0 B. sapida 6.0 25.0 8.0 30.0 10.0 5.0 2.0 20.0 4.0 15.0 K. senegalensis 6.0 15.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 25.0 Means in a column followed by different letters are significantly different at [alpha] = 0.05. TABLE 4: Repellency rate of different solvent extracts of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis on D. porcellus leaves at different hours after treatment. Plants Solvent Concentration Percent repellency used of after treatment extract (%) 15 min 30 min 2h 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Acetone 5.0 7.1 [+ or -] 15.8 (a) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Propanol 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 7.5 2.1 [+ or -] 12.2 (a) B. ferruginea 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Ethanol 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Methanol 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Distilled 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) water 7.5 19.2 [+ or -] 19.5 (a) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Acetone 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.5 4.6 [+ or -] 13.0 (a) Propanol 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 7.5 6.3 [+ or -] 19.7 (a) B. sapida 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Ethanol 5.0 13.9 [+ or -] 18.3 (a) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Methanol 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 7.5 0.5 [+ or -] 10.4 (a) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Distilled 5.0 15.6 [+ or -] 15.7 (a) water 7.5 16.8 [+ or -] 27.8 (a) 2.5 7.5 [+ or -] 9.4 (a) Acetone 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Propanol 5.0 19.2 [+ or -] 10.0 (a) 7.5 2.5 [+ or -] 22.9 (a) K. senegalensis 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Ethanol 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.5 3.9 [+ or -] 9.3 (a) Methanol 5.0 22.5 [+ or -] 7.5 (a) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Distilled 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) water 7.5 18.6 [+ or -] 9.2 (a) Plants Solvent Concentration Percent repellency used of after treatment extract (%) 15 min 30 min 2h 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Acetone 5.0 10.0 [+ or -] 7.0 (a) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.5 6.6 [+ or -] 20.1 (a) Propanol 5.0 25.0 [+ or -] 18.5 (a) 7.5 1.0 [+ or -] 18.9 (a) B. ferruginea 2.5 0.5 [+ or -] 11.2 (a) Ethanol 5.0 12.5 [+ or -] 8.5 (a) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Methanol 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.5 18.1 [+ or -] 11.0 (a) Distilled 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) water 7.5 25.0 [+ or -] 18.9 (a) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 23.5 (a) Acetone 5.0 10.0 [+ or -] 9.1 (a) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.5 31.1 [+ or -] 18.9 (a) Propanol 5.0 10.3 [+ or -] 16.0 (a) 7.5 5.7 [+ or -] 10.0 (a) B. sapida 2.5 3.1 [+ or -] 20.0 (a) Ethanol 5.0 22.6 [+ or -] 18.7 (a) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Methanol 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Distilled 5.0 9.7 [+ or -] 25.5 (a) water 7.5 16.9 [+ or -] 12.8 (a) 2.5 14.4 [+ or -] 4.8 (a) Acetone 5.0 2.5 [+ or -] 21.4 (a) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Propanol 5.0 22.3 [+ or -] 16.3 (a) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) K. senegalensis 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Ethanol 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 7.5 15.0 [+ or -] 9.5 (a) 2.5 8.3 [+ or -] 6.8 (a) Methanol 5.0 13.1 [+ or -] 12.0 (a) 7.5 1.3 [+ or -] 12.3 (a) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Distilled 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) water 7.5 17.5 [+ or -] 25.3 (a) Plants Solvent Concentration Percent repellency used of after treatment extract (%) 15 min 30 min 2h 2.5 1.8 [+ or -] 21.7 (a) Acetone 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 7.5 0.2 [+ or -] 13.8 (a) 2.5 10.6 [+ or -] 12.5 (a) Propanol 5.0 1.2 [+ or -] 15.1 (a) 7.5 17.5 [+ or -] 8.5 (a) B. ferruginea 2.5 12.5 [+ or -] 14.9 (a) Ethanol 5.0 2.5 [+ or -] 14.4 (a) 7.5 19.7 [+ or -] 23.0 (a) 2.5 2.5 [+ or -] 11.8 (a) Methanol 5.0 15.0 [+ or -] 8.6 (a) 7.5 13.4 [+ or -] 14.6 (a) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Distilled 5.0 9.3 [+ or -] 10.8 (a) water 7.5 13.0 [+ or -] 19.3 (a) 2.5 13.6 [+ or -] 22.6 (a) Acetone 5.0 49.7 [+ or -] 17.6 (a) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.5 32.5 [+ or -] 4.7 (a) Propanol 5.0 4.3 [+ or -] 16.1 (a) 7.5 15.8 [+ or -] 12.3 (a) B. sapida 2.5 14.1 [+ or -] 6.7 (a) Ethanol 5.0 17.5 [+ or -] 19.7 (a) 7.5 2.5 [+ or -] 18.9 (a) 2.5 11.7 [+ or -] 10.4 (a) Methanol 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 7.5 9.0 [+ or -] 7.4 (a) 2.5 18.5 [+ or -] 4.3 (a) Distilled 5.0 13.1 [+ or -] 12.5 (a) water 7.5 46.9 [+ or -] 13.6 (a) 2.5 7.5 [+ or -] 12.5 (a) Acetone 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 7.5 1.0 [+ or -] 9.7 (a) 2.5 5.0 [+ or -] 11.9 (a) Propanol 5.0 48.7 [+ or -] 10.8 (a) 7.5 17.9 [+ or -] 33.7 (a) K. senegalensis 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Ethanol 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 7.5 5.9 [+ or -] 12.4 (a) 2.5 6.7 [+ or -] 20.5 (a) Methanol 5.0 20.0 [+ or -] 14.1 (a) 7.5 4.4 [+ or -] 14.8 (a) 2.5 20.0 [+ or -] 16.8 (a) Distilled 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) water 7.5 13.4 [+ or -] 20.4 (a) Plants Solvent Concentration Mean repellency used of extract (%) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.1 (abc) Acetone 5.0 1.5 [+ or -] 6.9 (bcd) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (ab) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 7.2 (bc) Propanol 5.0 3.4 [+ or -] 9.8 (bcd) 7.5 6.9 [+ or -] 7.8 (bcd) B. ferruginea 2.5 2.8 [+ or -] 6.6 (abcd) Ethanol 5.0 3.2 [+ or -] 8.1 (cd) 7.5 3.7 [+ or -] 9.9 (cd) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (ab) Methanol 5.0 0.6 [+ or -] 7.9 (abc) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 3.4 (ab) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 11.3 (cd) Distilled 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 4.0 (abc) water 7.5 19.0 [+ or -] 10.1 (cd) 2.5 0.3 [+ or -] 12.2 (bcd) Acetone 5.0 13.8 [+ or -] 12.4 (cd) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.5 22.7 [+ or -] 8.0 (d) Propanol 5.0 3.5 [+ or -] 9.1 (cd) 7.5 9.3 [+ or -] 7.7 (c) B. sapida 2.5 2.8 [+ or -] 7.7 (abcd) Ethanol 5.0 18.0 [+ or -] 9.9 (cd) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 1.3 (abc) Methanol 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 7.5 1.4 [+ or -] 4.3 (abc) 2.5 2.0 [+ or -] 5.1 (abcd) Distilled 5.0 12.8 [+ or -] 9.8 (cd) water 7.5 26.9 [+ or -] 11.0 (d) 2.5 9.8 [+ or -] 5.4 (cd) Acetone 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 3.1 (abc) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 1.8 (abc) Propanol 5.0 30.0 [+ or -] 7.7 (d) 7.5 5.4 [+ or -] 14.3 (cd) K. senegalensis 2.5 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Ethanol 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) 7.5 0.4 [+ or -] 8.3 (abcd) 2.5 6.3 [+ or -] 7.1 (cd) Methanol 5.0 18.5 [+ or -] 6.1 (cd) 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 7.0 (c) 2.5 1.4 [+ or -] 10.1 (abc) Distilled 5.0 0.0 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) water 7.5 16.5 [+ or -] 10.2 (cd) Plants Solvent Concentration Repellency class used of extract (%) 2.5 Class 0 Acetone 5.0 Class I 7.5 Class 0 2.5 Class 0 Propanol 5.0 Class I 7.5 Class I B. ferruginea 2.5 Class I Ethanol 5.0 Class I 7.5 Class I 2.5 Class 0 Methanol 5.0 Class I 7.5 Class 0 2.5 Class 0 Distilled 5.0 Class 0 water 7.5 Class I 2.5 Class I Acetone 5.0 Class I 7.5 Class 0 2.5 Class II Propanol 5.0 Class I 7.5 Class I B. sapida 2.5 Class I Ethanol 5.0 Class I 7.5 Class 0 2.5 Class 0 Methanol 5.0 Class 0 7.5 Class I 2.5 Class I Distilled 5.0 Class I water 7.5 Class II 2.5 Class I Acetone 5.0 Class 0 7.5 Class 0 2.5 Class 0 Propanol 5.0 Class II 7.5 Class I K. senegalensis 2.5 Class 0 Ethanol 5.0 Class 0 7.5 Class I 2.5 Class I Methanol 5.0 Class I 7.5 Class 0 2.5 Class I Distilled 5.0 Class 0 water 7.5 Class I Plants Solvent Concentration Repellency index used of extract (%) 2.5 1.0 [+ or -] 0.0 Acetone 5.0 0.9 [+ or -] 0.0 7.5 1.1 [+ or -] 0.0 2.5 1.0 [+ or -] 0.1 Propanol 5.0 0.9 [+ or -] 0.0 7.5 0.9 [+ or -] 0.0 B. ferruginea 2.5 0.9 [+ or -] 0.0 Ethanol 5.0 0.9 [+ or -] 0.0 7.5 0.9 [+ or -] 0.0 2.5 1.1 [+ or -] 0.0 Methanol 5.0 0.9 [+ or -] 0.0 7.5 1.0 [+ or -] 0.0 2.5 1.0 [+ or -] 0.1 Distilled 5.0 1.0 [+ or -] 0.0 water 7.5 0.8 [+ or -] 0.1 2.5 0.9 [+ or -] 0.1 Acetone 5.0 0.8 [+ or -] 0.1 7.5 1.1 [+ or -] 0.0 2.5 0.7 [+ or -] 0.0 Propanol 5.0 0.9 [+ or -] 0.0 7.5 0.9 [+ or -] 0.0 B. sapida 2.5 0.9 [+ or -] 0.0 Ethanol 5.0 0.8 [+ or -] 0.0 7.5 1.1 [+ or -] 0.1 2.5 1.0 [+ or -] 0.0 Methanol 5.0 1.0 [+ or -] 0.0 7.5 0.9 [+ or -] 0.0 2.5 0.9 [+ or -] 0.0 Distilled 5.0 0.8 [+ or -] 0.0 water 7.5 0.7 [+ or -] 0.1 2.5 0.9 [+ or -] 0.0 Acetone 5.0 1.0 [+ or -] 0.0 7.5 1.1 [+ or -] 0.0 2.5 1.0 [+ or -] 0.0 Propanol 5.0 0.6 [+ or -] 0.0 7.5 0.9 [+ or -] 0.1 K. senegalensis 2.5 1.2 [+ or -] 0.1 Ethanol 5.0 1.2 [+ or -] 0.1 7.5 0.9 [+ or -] 0.0 2.5 0.9 [+ or -] 0.0 Methanol 5.0 0.8 [+ or -] 0.0 7.5 1.0 [+ or -] 0.0 2.5 0.9 [+ or -] 0.1 Distilled 5.0 1.0 [+ or -] 0.0 water 7.5 0.8 [+ or -] 0.1 Plants Solvent Concentration Classification used of extract (%) 2.5 Neutral Acetone 5.0 Repellent 7.5 Attractant 2.5 Neutral Propanol 5.0 Repellent 7.5 Repellent B. ferruginea 2.5 Repellent Ethanol 5.0 Repellent 7.5 Repellent 2.5 Attractant Methanol 5.0 Repellent 7.5 Neutral 2.5 Neutral Distilled 5.0 Neutral water 7.5 Repellent 2.5 Neutral Acetone 5.0 Repellent 7.5 Attractant 2.5 Repellent Propanol 5.0 Repellent 7.5 Repellent B. sapida 2.5 Repellent Ethanol 5.0 Repellent 7.5 Attractant 2.5 Neutral Methanol 5.0 Neutral 7.5 Repellent 2.5 Repellent Distilled 5.0 Repellent water 7.5 Repellent 2.5 Repellent Acetone 5.0 Neutral 7.5 Attractant 2.5 Neutral Propanol 5.0 Repellent 7.5 Neutral K. senegalensis 2.5 Attractant Ethanol 5.0 Attractant 7.5 Repellent 2.5 Repellent Methanol 5.0 Repellent 7.5 Neutral 2.5 Neutral Distilled 5.0 Neutral water 7.5 Repellent Means within the same rows followed by the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05). TABLE 5: Mortality rate of D. porcellus treated by topical application with acetone, propanol, ethanol, methanol, and aqueous extracts of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis and weight loss after 21 days (mean [+ or -] SE). Mortality rate was corrected using Abbott's formula (4). Name of the Solvent Concentration Mortality rate (%) after plant used of different periods extract (%) of exposures (days) 2 2.5 18.9 [+ or -] 3.1 (abcd) Acetone 5.0 16.2 [+ or -] 8.1 (abcd) 7.5 29.7 [+ or -] 3.1 (bcd) 2.5 -5.4 [+ or -] 2.7 (ab) Propanol 5.0 16.2 [+ or -] 9.2 (abcd) 7.5 27.0 [+ or -] ll.l (abcd) B. ferruginea 2.5 18.9 [+ or -] 11.2 (abcd) Ethanol 5.0 2.7 [+ or -] 4.4 (abcd) 7.5 13.5 [+ or -] 11.6 (abcd) 2.5 10.8 [+ or -] 8.1 (abcd) Methanol 5.0 10.8 [+ or -] 5.1 (abcd) 7.5 13.5 [+ or -] 7.6 (abcd) 2.5 2.7 [+ or -] 4.4 (abcd) Distilled 5.0 2.7 [+ or -] 4.4 (abcd) water 7.5 0.0 [+ or -] 2.7 (abcd) 2.5 13.5 [+ or -] 7.6 (abcd) Acetone 5.0 13.5 [+ or -] 9.8 (abcd) 7.5 21.6 [+ or -] 2.7 (abcd) 2.5 10.8 [+ or -] 6.8 (abcd) Propanol 5.0 18.9 [+ or -] 9.3 (abcd) 7.5 32.4 [+ or -] 5.1 (bcd) B. sapida 2.5 5.4 [+ or -] 2.7 (abcd) Ethanol 5.0 8.1 [+ or -] 3.1 (abcd) 7.5 13.5 [+ or -] 4.4 (abcd) 2.5 10.8 [+ or -] 9.2 (abcd) Methanol 5.0 13.5 [+ or -] 7.8 (abcd) 7.5 10.8 [+ or -] ll.l (abcd) 2.5 -8.1 [+ or -] 0.0 (a) Distilled 5.0 5.4 [+ or -] 8.1 (abcd) water 7.5 16.2 [+ or -] 14.2 (abcd) 2.5 67.5 [+ or -] 10.8 (d) Acetone 5.0 37.8 [+ or -] 9.2 (bcd) 7.5 18.9 [+ or -] 5.4 (abcd) 2.5 54.0 [+ or -] 13.5 (cd) Propanol 5.0 16.2 [+ or -] 6.8 (abcd) 7.5 21.6 [+ or -] 8.1 (abcd) K. 2.5 10.8 [+ or -] 2.7 (abcd) senegalensis Ethanol 5.0 18.9 [+ or -] 6.9 (abcd) 7.5 -2.7 [+ or -] 7.4 (abc) 2.5 10.8 [+ or -] 6.8 (abcd) Methanol 5.0 16.2 [+ or -] 9.2 (abcd) 7.5 21.6 [+ or -] 9.2 (abcd) 2.5 -5.4 [+ or -] 2.7 (ab) Distilled 5.0 -2.7 [+ or -] 3.1 (abc) water 7.5 10.8 [+ or -] 5.1 (abcd) Control 0 7.5 [+ or -] 2.5 Name of the Solvent Concentration Mortality rate (%) after plant used of different periods extract (%) of exposures (days) 7 2.5 51.3 [+ or -] 12.8 (de) Acetone 5.0 40.5 [+ or -] 6.9 (cde) 7.5 70.2 [+ or -] 6.8 (d) 2.5 16.2 [+ or -] 5.1 (abcde) Propanol 5.0 32.4 [+ or -] 14.2 (bcde) 7.5 51.3 [+ or -] 6.9 (de) B. ferruginea 2.5 40.5 [+ or -] 12.8 (cde) Ethanol 5.0 16.2 [+ or -] 2.7 (bcde) 7.5 27.0 [+ or -] 6.8 (bcde) 2.5 27.0 [+ or -] 14.2 (bcde) Methanol 5.0 37.8 [+ or -] 9.2 (cde) 7.5 37.8 [+ or -] 11.9 (cde) 2.5 2.7 [+ or -] 4.4 (abcd) Distilled 5.0 13.5 [+ or -] 4.4 (abcde) water 7.5 16.2 [+ or -] 5.1 (abcde) 2.5 43.2 [+ or -] 19.4 (bcde) Acetone 5.0 18.9 [+ or -] 11.2 (abcde) 7.5 56.7 [+ or -] 8.8 (de) 2.5 32.4 [+ or -] 11.9 (bcde) Propanol 5.0 27.0 [+ or -] 10.2 (bcde) 7.5 56.7 [+ or -] 15.9 (de) B. sapida 2.5 21.6 [+ or -] 5.1 (bcde) Ethanol 5.0 27.0 [+ or -] 10.2 (bcde) 7.5 32.4 [+ or -] 5.1 (cde) 2.5 27.0 [+ or -] 5.1 (bcde) Methanol 5.0 35.1 [+ or -] 11.6 (cde) 7.5 51.3 [+ or -] 5.4 (de) 2.5 -5.4 [+ or -] 2.7 (a) Distilled 5.0 18.9 [+ or -] 11.2 (abcde) water 7.5 29.7 [+ or -] 16.2 (abcde) 2.5 45.9 [+ or -] 7.6 (de) Acetone 5.0 43.2 [+ or -] 8.1 (cde) 7.5 54.0 [+ or -] 8.1 (de) 2.5 24.3 [+ or -] 13.2 (abcde) Propanol 5.0 37.8 [+ or -] 14.2 (cde) 7.5 59.4 [+ or -] 11.9 (de) K. 2.5 32.4 [+ or -] 8.1 (cde) senegalensis Ethanol 5.0 35.1 [+ or -] 7.6 (cde) 7.5 21.6 [+ or -] 2.7 (bcde) 2.5 24.3 [+ or -] 15.9 (abcde) Methanol 5.0 24.3 [+ or -] 11.6 (abcde) 7.5 32.4 [+ or -] 5.1 (cde) 2.5 5.4 [+ or -] 13.5 (abc) Distilled 5.0 -2.7 [+ or -] 3.1 (ab) water 7.5 21.6 [+ or -] 9.2 (bcde) Control 0 7.5 [+ or -] 2.5 Name of the Solvent Concentration Mortality rate (%) after plant used of different periods extract (%) of exposures (days) 14 2.5 56.7 [+ or -] 13.2 (cd) Acetone 5.0 48.6 [+ or -] 6.8 (bcd) 7.5 75.6 [+ or -] 9.2 (d) 2.5 29.7 [+ or -] 6.9 (bcd) Propanol 5.0 40.5 [+ or -] 10.3 (bcd) 7.5 62.1 [+ or -] 3.1 (cd) B. ferruginea 2.5 64.8 [+ or -] 9.2 (cd) Ethanol 5.0 29.7 [+ or -] 10.3 (bcd) 7.5 32.4 [+ or -] 5.1 (bcd) 2.5 35.1 [+ or -] 10.8 (bcd) Methanol 5.0 45.3 [+ or -] 10.3 (bcd) 7.5 43.2 [+ or -] 9.2 (bcd) 2.5 5.4 [+ or -] 5.1 (ab) Distilled 5.0 18.9 [+ or -] 9.3 (bcd) water 7.5 18.9 [+ or -] 3.1 (bcd) 2.5 51.3 [+ or -] 20.9 (bcd) Acetone 5.0 32.4 [+ or -] 11.9 (bcd) 7.5 70.2 [+ or -] 9.2 (cd) 2.5 40.5 [+ or -] 13.6 (bcd) Propanol 5.0 37.8 [+ or -] 6.8 (bcd) 7.5 72.9 [+ or -] 12.8 (cd) B. sapida 2.5 35.1 [+ or -] 6.2 (bcd) Ethanol 5.0 35.1 [+ or -] 12.4 (bcd) 7.5 48.6 [+ or -] 5.1 (bcd) 2.5 43.2 [+ or -] 10.2 (bcd) Methanol 5.0 43.2 [+ or -] 13.5 (bcd) 7.5 70.2 [+ or -] 9.2 (cd) 2.5 -2.7 [+ or -] 3.1 (a) Distilled 5.0 27.0 [+ or -] 9.2 (bcd) water 7.5 40.5 [+ or -] 18.9 (bcd) 2.5 18.9 [+ or -] 5.4 (bcd) Acetone 5.0 51.3 [+ or -] 6.9 (cd) 7.5 64.8 [+ or -] 6.8 (cd) 2.5 29.7 [+ or -] 6.9 (bcd) Propanol 5.0 43.2 [+ or -] 11.9 (bcd) 7.5 70.2 [+ or -] 13.5 (cd) K. 2.5 40.5 [+ or -] 6.9 (bcd) senegalensis Ethanol 5.0 40.5 [+ or -] 5.4 (bcd) 7.5 32.4 [+ or -] 2.7 (bcd) 2.5 32.4 [+ or -] 15.5 (bcd) Methanol 5.0 29.7 [+ or -] 11.2 (bcd) 7.5 51.3 [+ or -] 12.8 (bcd) 2.5 13.5 [+ or -] 11.6 (abc) Distilled 5.0 8.1 [+ or -] 5.4 (abcd) water 7.5 40.5 [+ or -] 18.4 (bcd) Control 0 7.5 [+ or -] 2.5 Name of the Solvent Concentration Mortality rate (%) after plant used of different periods extract (%) of exposures (days) 21 2.5 61.9 [+ or -] 12.7 (c) Acetone 5.0 50.0 [+ or -] 5.6 (bc) 7.5 76.4 [+ or -] 10.7 (c) 2.5 38.2 [+ or -] 7.4 (bc) Propanol 5.0 38.2 [+ or -] 13.0 (bc) 7.5 61.7 [+ or -] 2.9 (c) B. ferruginea 2.5 64.7 [+ or -] 8.3 (c) Ethanol 5.0 32.3 [+ or -] 15.4 (bc) 7.5 41.1 [+ or -] 0.0 (bc) 2.5 29.4 [+ or -] 11.7 (bc) Methanol 5.0 35.2 [+ or -] 11.2 (bc) 7.5 41.1 [+ or -] 10.7 (bc) 2.5 8.8 [+ or -] 2.9 (bc) Distilled 5.0 14.7 [+ or -] 8.8 (bc) water 7.5 11.7 [+ or -] 3.3 (bc) 2.5 55.8 [+ or -] 18.2 (bc) Acetone 5.0 29.4 [+ or -] 10.7 (bc) 7.5 70.5 [+ or -] 7.5 (c) 2.5 32.2 [+ or -] 14.8 (bc) Propanol 5.0 35.2 [+ or -] 5.8 (bc) 7.5 79.4 [+ or -] 10.0 (c) B. sapida 2.5 48.6 [+ or -] 5.1 (bc) Ethanol 5.0 38.2 [+ or -] 13.0 (bc) 7.5 52.9 [+ or -] 10.7 (bc) 2.5 44.1 [+ or -] 14.7 (bc) Methanol 5.0 41.1 [+ or -] 12.7 (bc) 7.5 70.5 [+ or -] 7.5 (c) 2.5 -11.7 [+ or -] 3.3 (a) Distilled 5.0 32.3 [+ or -] 10.0 (bc) water 7.5 47.0 [+ or -] 20.6 (bc) 2.5 58.8 [+ or -] 14.0 (bc) Acetone 5.0 55.8 [+ or -] 15.4 (bc) 7.5 70.5 [+ or -] 3.3 (c) 2.5 27.0 [+ or -] 9.2 (bc) Propanol 5.0 38.2 [+ or -] 13.0 (bc) 7.5 67.6 [+ or -] 14.7 (c) K. 2.5 35.2 [+ or -] 7.5 (bc) senegalensis Ethanol 5.0 41.1 [+ or -] 4.8 (bc) 7.5 32.3 [+ or -] 5.6 (bc) 2.5 32.4 [+ or -] 18.8 (bc) Methanol 5.0 26.4 [+ or -] 13.0 (bc) 7.5 50.0 [+ or -] 16.8 (bc) 2.5 23.5 [+ or -] 5.8 (bc) Distilled 5.0 5.8 [+ or -] 4.8 (b) water 7.5 41.1 [+ or -] 22.0 (bc) Control 0 15.0 [+ or -] 6.4 Name of the Solvent Concentration Weight loss (%) plant used of extract (%) 2.5 1.2 [+ or -] 0.4 (ab) Acetone 5.0 3.2 [+ or -] 0.6 (abcd) 7.5 1.2 [+ or -] 0.0 (ab) 2.5 1.3 [+ or -] 0.4 (abc) Propanol 5.0 3.4 [+ or -] 0.4 (abcd) 7.5 1.8 [+ or -] 0.5 (abcd) B. ferruginea 2.5 1.2 [+ or -] 0.5 (ab) Ethanol 5.0 3.2 [+ or -] 0.6 (abcd) 7.5 1.6 [+ or -] 0.4 (abcd) 2.5 2.4 [+ or -] 0.9 (abcd) Methanol 5.0 3.0 [+ or -] 0.3 (abcd) 7.5 1.0 [+ or -] 0.3 (a) 2.5 3.1 [+ or -] 0.4 (abcd) Distilled 5.0 4.2 [+ or -] 0.7 (d) water 7.5 3.9 [+ or -] 0.1 (bcd) 2.5 1.0 [+ or -] 0.3 (ab) Acetone 5.0 3.6 [+ or -] 0.5 (abcd) 7.5 1.6 [+ or -] 0.1 (abcd) 2.5 1.3 [+ or -] 0.3 (abc) Propanol 5.0 3.8 [+ or -] 0.4 (abcd) 7.5 2.7 [+ or -] 0.6 (abcd) B. sapida 2.5 1.1 [+ or -] 0.3 (ab) Ethanol 5.0 3.2 [+ or -] 0.3 (cd) 7.5 1.6 [+ or -] 0.3 (abcd) 2.5 2.3 [+ or -] 0.7 (abcd) Methanol 5.0 2.6 [+ or -] 0.6 (abcd) 7.5 2.0 [+ or -] 0.2 (abcd) 2.5 2.2 [+ or -] 0.1 (abcd) Distilled 5.0 2.7 [+ or -] 0.4 (abcd) water 7.5 1.7 [+ or -] 0.2 (abcd) 2.5 1.7 [+ or -] 0.7 (abcd) Acetone 5.0 3.8 [+ or -] 0.2 (abcd) 7.5 2.1 [+ or -] 0.7 (abcd) 2.5 1.9 [+ or -] 0.3 (abcd) Propanol 5.0 3.9 [+ or -] 0.4 (abcd) 7.5 1.3 [+ or -] 0.2 (abc) K. 2.5 1.9 [+ or -] 0.3 (abcd) senegalensis Ethanol 5.0 4.1 [+ or -] 0.4 (abcd) 7.5 2.4 [+ or -] 0.5 (abcd) 2.5 1.2 [+ or -] 0.4 (ab) Methanol 5.0 4.4 [+ or -] 0.4 (d) 7.5 1.1 [+ or -] 0.4 (ab) 2.5 3.0 [+ or -] 1.0 (abcd) Distilled 5.0 4.2 [+ or -] 0.3 (d) water 7.5 2.4 [+ or -] 0.8 (abcd) Control 0 4.7 [+ or -] 0.3 (d) Means in a column followed by different letters are significantly different at [alpha] = 0.05. TABLE 6: Contact activity of acetone, propanol, ethanol, methanol, and aqueous extracts of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis determined by topical application to D. porcellus. Plants Solvent used [LC.sub.50] (a) 95% confidence ([micro]L/insect) interval Lower Upper Acetone 3.68 1.66 7.57 Propanol 6.77 5.62 9.43 B. ferruginea Ethanol 1.53 1.16 4.48 Methanol 34.73 9.03 51.14 Distilled 24.08 13.06 40.74 water Acetone 6.92 5.02 12.05 Propanol 5.84 4.59 9.64 B. sapida Ethanol 11.97 7.96 38.25 Methanol 6.72 5.43 10.16 Distilled 8.14 6.47 20.16 water Acetone 0.29 0.15 1.14 Propanol 6.04 4.93 8.03 K. senegalensis Ethanol 3.84 1.38 6.56 Methanol 10.47 7.67 29.46 Distilled 11.86 5.26 31.02 Plants Solvent used Slope [+ or -] SE Acetone 0.07 [+ or -] 0.02 Propanol 0.14 [+ or -] 0.02 B. ferruginea Ethanol -0.08 [+ or -] 0.02 Methanol 0.01 [+ or -] 0.02 Distilled 0.04 [+ or -] 0.03 water Acetone 0.06 [+ or -] 0.02 Propanol 0.14 [+ or -] 0.02 B. sapida Ethanol 0.05 [+ or -] 0.02 Methanol 0.08 [+ or -] 0.02 Distilled 0.26 [+ or -] 0.03 water Acetone 0.01 [+ or -] 0.02 Propanol 0.10 [+ or -] 0.02 K. senegalensis Ethanol 0.04 [+ or -] 0.02 Methanol 0.06 [+ or -] 0.02 Distilled 0.12 [+ or -] 0.03 Plants Solvent used Intercept [+ or -] SE Acetone -0.28 [+ or -] 0.15 Propanol -1.01 [+ or -] 0.16 B. ferruginea Ethanol 0.13 [+ or -] 0.15 Methanol -0.34 [+ or -] 0.15 Distilled -1.15 [+ or -] 0.18 water Acetone -0.43 [+ or -] 0.15 Propanol -0.82 [+ or -] 0.15 B. sapida Ethanol -0.59 [+ or -] 0.15 Methanol -0.60 [+ or -] 0.15 Distilled -2.18 [+ or -] 0.21 water Acetone -0.00 [+ or -] 0.15 Propanol -0.61 [+ or -] 0.15 K. senegalensis Ethanol -0.17 [+ or -] 0.15 Methanol -0.70 [+ or -] 0.15 Distilled -1.41 [+ or -] 0.18 Plants Solvent used Chi square (df (b)) p value Acetone 36.32 (10) 0.000 Propanol 29.35 (10) 0.001 B. ferruginea Ethanol 41.71 (10) 0.000 Methanol 37.97 (10) 0.000 Distilled 16.30 (10) 0.091 water Acetone 89.18 (10) 0.000 Propanol 60.42 (10) 0.000 B. sapida Ethanol 19.08 (10) 0.039 Methanol 42.48 (10) 0.000 Distilled 75.11 (10) 0.000 water Acetone 37.37 (10) 0.000 Propanol 53.54 (10) 0.000 K. senegalensis Ethanol 16.42 (10) 0.088 Methanol 75.42 (10) 0.000 Distilled 69.57 (10) 0.000 water (a) [LC.sub.50]: lethal concentration 50. (b) df: degrees of freedom. TABLE 7: Fumigant toxicity of acetone, propanol, ethanol, methanol, and aqueous extracts of B. ferruginea, B. sapida, and K. senegalensis on adult of D. porcellus after 24 h exposure. Plants Solvent used [LC.sub.50] (a) 95% confidence ([micro]L/L air) interval Lower Upper Acetone 194.01 179.04 205.06 Propanol 18.68 10.84 42.65 B. ferruginea Ethanol 28.45 13.36 91.98 Methanol 82.28 72.94 108.59 Distilled 40.52 33.34 71.68 water Acetone 61.75 42.03 80.02 Propanol 55.90 49.26 68.80 B. sapida Ethanol 180.11 165.74 200.55 Methanol 34.28 21.90 51.62 Distilled 96.05 80.28 115.33 water Acetone 100.38 85.56 119.39 Propanol 5.40 5.29 6.28 K. senegalensis Ethanol 39.24 22.53 70.12 Methanol 73.61 64.19 101.25 Distilled 150.85 135.78 171.63 water Plants Solvent used Slope [+ or -] SE Acetone 0.00 [+ or -] 0.03 Propanol 0.04 [+ or -] 0.03 B. ferruginea Ethanol 0.06 [+ or -] 0.04 Methanol 0.01 [+ or -] 0.03 Distilled 0.02 [+ or -] 0.03 water Acetone 0.02 [+ or -] 0.04 Propanol 0.01 [+ or -] 0.03 B. sapida Ethanol 0.00 [+ or -] 0.03 Methanol 0.00 [+ or -] 0.04 Distilled 0.01 [+ or -] 0.03 water Acetone 0.01 [+ or -] 0.03 Propanol 0.06 [+ or -] 0.03 K. senegalensis Ethanol 0.04 [+ or -] 0.04 Methanol 0.01 [+ or -] 0.04 Distilled 0.01 [+ or -] 0.04 water Plants Solvent used Intercept [+ or -] SE Acetone -1.02 [+ or -] 0.18 Propanol -0.86 [+ or -] 0.16 B. ferruginea Ethanol -1.77 [+ or -] 0.23 Methanol -1.24 [+ or -] 0.20 Distilled -1.08 [+ or -] 0.19 water Acetone -1.46 [+ or -] 0.21 Propanol -0.61 [+ or -] 0.16 B. sapida Ethanol -1.36 [+ or -] 0.21 Methanol -1.37 [+ or -] 0.21 Distilled -1.34 [+ or -] 0.20 water Acetone -1.24 [+ or -] 0.19 Propanol -0.32 [+ or -] 0.16 K. senegalensis Ethanol -1.87 [+ or -] 0.26 Methanol -1.39 [+ or -] 0.22 Distilled -1.60 [+ or -] 0.24 water Plants Solvent used Chi square (df (b)) p value Acetone 100.19 (46) 0.000 Propanol 241 (46) 0.000 B. ferruginea Ethanol 74.46 (46) 0.005 Methanol 43.83 (46) 0.563 Distilled 62.51 (46) 0.053 water Acetone 50.88 (46) 0.287 Propanol 168.77 (46) 0.000 B. sapida Ethanol 64.26 (46) 0.039 Methanol 66.53 (46) 0.025 Distilled 82.63 (46) 0.001 water Acetone 70.63 (46) 0.011 Propanol 190.69 (46) 0.000 K. senegalensis Ethanol 43.36 (46) 0.583 Methanol 40.41 (46) 0.705 Distilled 27.26 (46) 0.987 water Plants Solvent used [TR.sub.50] (c) Acetone -- Propanol 10.38 B. ferruginea Ethanol 6.81 Methanol 2.35 Distilled 4.78 water Acetone 3.14 Propanol 3.47 B. sapida Ethanol 1.07 Methanol 5.65 Distilled 2.01 water Acetone 1.93 Propanol 35.92 K. senegalensis Ethanol 4.93 Methanol 2.63 Distilled 1.28 water (a) [LC.sub.50]: lethal concentration 50. (b) df: degrees of freedom. (c) [TR.sub.50]: toxicity ratio 50.

Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback | |

Title Annotation: | Research Article |
---|---|

Author: | Loko, Laura Yeyinou; Alagbe, Obedatou; Dannon, Elie A.; Datinon, Benjamin; Orobiyi, Azize; Thomas-Od |

Publication: | Psyche (Cambridge, 1874) |

Date: | Jan 1, 2017 |

Words: | 16165 |

Previous Article: | Reproductive Interference and Niche Partitioning in Aphidophagous Insects. |

Next Article: | Species Composition and Visiting Frequencies of Flower Visitors of Chromolaena odorata in a Dry Zone Forest Patch of Sri Lanka. |

Topics: |