| Literature DB >> 25525626 |
S Parveen1, R Godara1, R Katoch1, A Yadav1, P K Verma2, M Katoch3, N K Singh4.
Abstract
In vitro efficacy of ethanolic extracts obtained from the aerial parts of Ageratum conyzoides and Artemisia absinthium was assessed on Rhipicephalus microplus using adult immersion test (AIT). Five concentrations of the extract (1.25%, 2.5%, 5%, 10%, and 20%) with three replications for each concentration were used in the bioassay. In AIT, the maximum mortality was recorded as 40% and 66.7% at 20% concentration for A. conyzoides and A. absinthium, respectively. Acaricidal activity was found to be higher in the extract of A. absinthium with LC50 and LC95 values of 11.2% and 61.7%, respectively. Egg mass weight of the live ticks treated with different concentrations of the extracts was significantly (P<0.05) lower than that of control ticks; consequently, the reproductive index and oviposition values of the treated ticks were reduced significantly (P<0.05). The A. conyzoides inhibited 90% hatching of eggs at the 20% concentration, whereas A. absinthium showed 100% inhibition at 5%, 10%, and 20% concentrations. The results show that A. absinthium has better acaricidal properties than A. conyzoides and could be useful in controlling R. microplus.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25525626 PMCID: PMC4267217 DOI: 10.1155/2014/858973
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Plants used for extract preparation.
Tick weight, percent mortality, egg weight, reproductive index (RI), and inhibition of oviposition (IO) of R. microplus adults exposed to different concentrations of A. conyzoides.
| Conc. | Live tick wt. (mg) | Mortality (%) | Egg wt. (mg) | RI | IO (%) | Hatching rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (%) | (Mean ± SE) | (Mean ± SE) | (Mean ± SE) | (Mean ± SE) | (Mean ± SE) | |
| Control | 113.2 ± 5.75 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 64.9 ± 3.7 | 0.566 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 100 |
| 1.25 | 110.2 ± 4.45 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 48.2 ± 2.84 | 0.428 ± 0.02 | 22.6 ± 7.54 | 75 |
| 2.5 | 105.7 ± 3.91 | 15.0 ± 5.0 | 45.8 ± 4.71 | 0.437 ± 0.04 | 24.4 ± 3.58 | 25 |
| 5 | 98.5 ± 4.35 | 15.0 ± 9.57 | 33.5 ± 3.92 | 0.363 ± 0.04 | 36.3 ± 7.37 | 20 |
| 10 | 101.5 ± 4.23 | 10.0 ± 5.77 | 36.4 ± 3.96 | 0.370 ± 0.04 | 34.6 ± 6.91 | 20 |
| 20 | 103.6 ± 3.36 | 40.0 ± 11.54 | 23.4 ± 4.16 | 0.223 ± 0.05 | 60.6 ± 8.39 | 5 |
|
| 0.0844 | 0.0210 | 0.0489 | 0.0388 |
Tick weight, percent mortality, egg weight, reproductive index (RI), and inhibition of oviposition (IO) of R. microplus adults exposed to different concentrations of the ethanolic extract of A. absinthium.
| Conc. | Live tick wt. (mg) | Mortality (%) | Egg wt. (mg) | RI | IO (%) | Hatching rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (%) | (Mean ± SE) | (Mean ± SE) | (Mean ± SE) | (Mean ± SE) | (Mean ± SE) | |
| Control | 114.9 ± 5.4 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 54.1 ± 3.8 | 0.470 ± 0.0 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 100 |
| 1.25 | 101.0 ± 5.6 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 44.3 ± 2.7 | 0.439 ± 0.1 | 6.7 ± 1.7 | 45 |
| 2.5 | 96.0 ± 7.3 | 10.0 ± 5.81 | 33.8 ± 4.9 | 0.366 ± 0.04 | 13.8 ± 4.4 | 5 |
| 5 | 90.0 ± 8.9 | 30.0 ± 5.82 | 22.4 ± 6.2 | 0.239 ± 0.06 | 27.3 ± 6.37 | 0 |
| 10 | 91.0 ± 6.2 | 43.3 ± 8.8 | 15.8 ± 4.3 | 0.180 ± 0.05 | 36.2 ± 6.1 | 0 |
| 20 | 113.0 ± 13.5 | 66.7 ± 6.7 | 7.5 ± 9.01 | 0.064 ± 0.03 | 65.9 ± 3.2 | 0 |
|
| 0.0033 | 0.0005 | 0.0005 | 0.0085 |
Figure 2Regression line of probit mortality of R. microplus against the log concentrations of the ethanolic extracts of A. conyzoides (AC) and A. absinthium (AA) using AIT.
Dose-dependent response of A. conyzoides (AC) and A. absinthium (AA) against R. microplus using AIT.
| Plant | Variables | Slope ± SE |
| LC50% (95% CI) | LC95% (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AC | Mortality | 1.290 ± 0.5071 | 0.6833 | 34.36 (9.82–120.3) | 537.4 (392.00–736.7) |
| Egg mass | −19.44 ± 4.358 | 0.8690 | |||
| RI | −0.1573 ± 0.04901 | 0.7746 | |||
| % IO | 28.43 ± 8.062 | 0.8056 | |||
|
| |||||
| AA | Mortality | 2.170 ± 0.2518 | 0.9611 | 11.22 (10.39–12.1) | 61.77 (19.59–194.5) |
| Egg mass | −30.22 ± 1.810 | 0.9893 | |||
| RI | −0.3088 ± 0.01865 | 0.9892 | |||
| % IO | 46.50 ± 7.525 | 0.9272 | |||
R 2: goodness of fit; RI: reproductive index; IO: inhibition of oviposition.