Next Article in Journal
Population Genetics, Genetic Structure, and Inbreeding of Commiphora gileadensis (L.) C. Chr Inferred from SSR Markers in Some Mountainous Sites of Makkah Province
Next Article in Special Issue
Chemical Composition of Essential Oils from Eight Tunisian Eucalyptus Species and Their Antifungal and Herbicidal Activities
Previous Article in Journal
Characterization of Antagonistic Bacteria Paenibacillus polymyxa ZYPP18 and the Effects on Plant Growth
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Allelopathic Effects of Trewia nudiflora Leaf Extracts and Its Identified Substances
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 13
10.3390/plants12132505
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Medicinal Plants as a Natural Greener Biocontrol Approach to “The Grain Destructor” Maize Weevil (Sitophilus zeamais) Motschulsky

by
Ompelege Jacqueline Phokwe
and
Madira Coutlyne Manganyi
*
Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Walter Sisulu University, Mthatha 5117, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(13), 2505; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12132505
Submission received: 15 May 2023 / Revised: 27 June 2023 / Accepted: 27 June 2023 / Published: 30 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Plant Metabolites and Extracts as Biopesticides in Controlling Pests and Weeds)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
According to the United Nations (UN), the global population may skyrocket to 9.8 billion people in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100, placing an overwhelming burden on food security as the world will have to meet this growing demand. Maize is the largest staple grain crop produced in developing countries. The maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais, is one of the most destructive post-harvest pests of stored cereals and grains. The maize weevil contributes up to 40% of total food-grain losses during storage, mainly in developing countries. Current synthetic pesticides are ineffective, and, moreover, they raise serious environmental safety concerns as well as consumer health hazards. Drawing from past oversights and current environmental realities and projections, the global population has been switching to green living by developing sustainable strategies. In our context, these new greener strategies include the utilization of medicinal plants to control maize weevil infestation, which unlocks unlimited innovative possibilities, and, thus, improves the yield, quality, and safety of maize. Medicinal plants are less toxic, easily biodegradable, and capable of protecting grain from pests. This paper systematically outlines the literature on host plants as well as the feeding and associated diseases of the maize weevil. In light of this, we cement medicinal plants as excellent candidates in the pursuit of greener, sustainable, more potent, and cost-effective pesticides.

1. Introduction

The current food security crisis has led to vigorous debate on how best to feed the growing global population. It has been reported that the maize weevil contributes up to 40% of total production in food–grain losses during storage, mainly in developing countries. The Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) maize weevil is one of the most significant pests of stored grains and is mostly accountable for maize damage [1]. In 48 days, 18.3% of losses are predicted to result from an average of two insects per grain [2]. In addition, the significant grain damage may lead to the reduction in nutritional quality, weight, and germination rates of seeds, and it may also affect human health. Insects can also transmit pathogenic fungi, including Aspergillus flavus, which has a link to several types of bacteria. Larvae and adults are responsible for most of the damage to the grains, and 50% of the eggs can be laid within the first 5 weeks of an adult’s life [3]. The female drills the grain in order to create tiny, chewed chambers for oviposition, which are then sealed by a secretion, protecting the creature so that it can continue its life cycle there. Consequently, the majority of solutions emphasize adult control [2]. Ecological and occurrence data have shown that maize weevil thrives in regions of the world that are warm and tropical, particularly in those where maize is grown [4]. Moreover, the maize weevil is shipped in grain shipments to every country in the world, and it can infect food where grain moisture and temperature are favourable. There is also a growing concern regarding the development of resistance in numerous stored product insects, including the maize weevil, in grain stores and flour mills as well as in the food industry [5,6]. In South Africa, maize is used in livestock feed, and a significant portion of the country’s households depend on it. The United States is the biggest producer of maize in the world with 2000 million tons per annum, followed by China with 717 million tons per annum [7]. In Africa, South Africa is the biggest producer of maize with an annual production of approximately 10 million tons, although it can vary depending on the rainfall. Furthermore, maize is used industrially to manufacture an array of products, and it is traded both locally and internationally for financial gain and economic growth [8].
Severe food insecurity at the global level has been rising in recent years, mainly in Africa and Latin America [9]. However, as these grains are collected, stored, processed, and marketed to customers, 10–30% of these significant cereal crops, such as maize, are lost to insect pests after harvest. Although this process can be effectively controlled by synthetic chemical pesticides [10], the majority of farmers in Africa are resource poor and have neither the means nor the skills to obtain and handle pesticides appropriately [5]. The prohibitive costs of commercial synthetics, the increasing development of insect resistance to pesticides, toxicity concerns, and an often erratic supply of pesticides have given impetus to the search for alternative insect control measures [11]. About 80% of pesticides that are used lead to water contamination, thus affecting animals, farmers, and consumers of agricultural products, and putting them at risk of serious health problems. A body of evidence has shown that farmers exposed to inorganic pesticides by spraying crops on a regular basis have developed many health problems, some of which are fatal [12,13].
In view of the above, it is essential to develop more eco-friendly, greener, and sustainable alternative pest management strategies. Medicinal plants have been the focal point of eco-friendly and sustainable research investigations. Despite this, research on medicinal plants as a pest control substitute is in short supply, and so is knowledge about this possibility. Therefore, we examine the utilization of medicinal plants as a natural and greener control approach compared to harmful synthetic pesticide. In order to bridge the research gaps, the current review investigates the various host plants, feeding, and disease transmission of the maize weevil. After laying this groundwork, the current status of pest management and resistance is discussed as a matter of concern. Ultimately, we provide sound evidence to support the use of medicinal plants as biocontrol agents against the maize weevil in order to contribute to sustainable greener living.

2. Methodology

During this study, we conducted an in-depth review of important published papers about maize weevil and the utilization of medicinal plant as biopesticides as promising control strategy. We screened abstracts and chose articles before reading full publications in order to streamline the search. Reputable search engines such as Scopus, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, PubMed, and Web of Science were utilized to search, examine, and select relevant research papers.

3. Host Plants and Feeding

Based on the knowledge [14,15,16], the maize weevil is well known to consume and infect a wide range of hosts including maize, wheat, rice, sorghum [17,18], oats, rye, cottonseed, buckwheat, peas, and barley [19]. Although it has been observed that maize weevils prefer whole grains, they also feed on pet food, pasta, other processed grains, and even fruits [20,21]. In view of this [22], we concluded that maize weevil pests infect biscuit crops and non-cereals crops, such as yam and cassava chips as well as other host plants. Both adults and larvae are capable of surviving on a variety of grain-based foods. Furthermore, it was reported in North America that maize weevils feed on stored grain and on fruits such as peach or apple, and that they inhabit forests or grasslands in southern Japan, where they feed on flowers in the spring [23]. In general, the maize weevil’s success depends on its capacity to find and recognize an appropriate host species, access s plant’s fitness, and efficiently use the resources of the plant [23]. Food materials that contain more than 10% water are more likely to favour Sitophilus species population dynamics [24].
By reducing their components, the maize weevil has an impact on processed food materials and the nutritional content of the food materials [25]. This makes sense, since the maize weevil is found in warm, humid regions all over the world, particularly where maize is grown [26]. Grain quantity has an impact on the biology of Sitophilus zeamais, including oviposition, distribution of eggs, adult emergence, body weight, and sex ratio. In general, the maize weevil can infest grains prior to harvest [27,28]. Crop damage occurs in various stages in the life cycle of the maize weevil. When the female weevil penetrates, a single egg is laid inside the grain’s kernel, resulting in damage to the grain [29]. The egg is then shielded by a waxy secretion that seals the hole and hardens. When the larva hatches, it eats the grain’s pulp. The embryonic stages grow inside the grain, protecting them from pesticide contact, hence the fact that chemical treatment of this pest is only effective against the adult weevil [30].
Meanwhile, the maize weevil is causing serious economic losses as well as crop weight loss, quality loss, and disease transmission through fungal growth. It can even destroy grains that have been stored in all types of storage facilities by increasing the amount of free fatty acids [31]. The establishment of secondary and mite pests and pathogens may be aided by the invasion of this primary colonizer. As an invader, the maize weevil enters packages through openings that have already been made due to subpar seals, openings made by other insects, or mechanical damage [32]. Maize is a global industrial raw material and is also utilized in various manufacturing products such as producing alcohol (breweries) [33,34,35]. The main tool in the battle against weevil infestation in maize is currently conventional synthetic pesticide [1]. In most cases, pesticides are applied to the grain when it is placed into silos or as a surface treatment after storage in order to control the problem [36]. However, a body of evidence has shown that the current pesticides are ineffective against resistant pests. In addition, there is a great concern regarding the negative impact to the environment with respect to hazards, and the science community is similarly unsettled about the severe side effects on non-target organisms as well as the extravagant price tag [37]. Several reports have shown that the maize weevil affected maize in Southern and Eastern Africa, Central America, and Mexico [17,38]. In addition, the maize weevil has been found in a variety of crops, such as wheat in India, Australia, most of Europe, Northern Asia, and Northern Africa [39], as well as rice in China [40]. The loss of sorghum and oats were reported, too, in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa [41] and in Central Europe, respectively [42]. Europe described having barley losses, as well, due to the maize weevil [43]. The maize weevil thus affects a broad spectrum of host crops across the world.

4. Disease Transmitted

After the maize weevil infects the crops, it raises the grain’s temperature and moisture content, which provides suitable conditions for fungal contamination, thus creating an issue of fungal toxins. They are transmitted to humans mainly by consumption of maize. Simultaneously, dry maize is not suitable for human consumption, but it is exported for animal feed [44]. Based on research, maize weevils are reservoirs for a great microbial diversity mass of pathogenic fungi, such as a A. niger, A. candidus, Penicillium islandicum, Paecilomyces, P. citrinum, Acremonium, F. semitectum, Epicoccum, yeasts, and many bacteria [45]. This species thrives on leftover foods (such as rice) as well as on a variety of agricultural products (such as peanuts, dried corn, millet, tree nuts, and cotton seeds). A. flavus dispersal and subsequent aflatoxin contamination have been linked to a variety of insect species. The spread of the green fungus in stored maize seed is a significant issue, and research into the metabolic processes of weevils linked to the spread of the fungus’ spores is crucial [46,47], especially as it has been found that the maize weevil can contribute significantly to increased Aspergillus flavus infection on corn ears by transporting spores and damaging corn kernels. Another study has reported that grains heavily infected with storage fungi had higher than average insect populations [48], and then insects may make corn more likely to become infected by storage fungi by causing damage to the grain or else by making it more susceptible to fungal attack [49]. Storage conditions are typically warm and humid, which provides an ideal environment for fungal growth, ensuing that mycotoxins are produced. Barney et al. [50] reported that the colonization of Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus usually starts in the maize ears before spreading. Mycotoxin contamination, then, is considered a massive threat to both human and animal health as well as food security.

5. Current Pest Management and Its Challenges

In the past two decades, a few strategies have been implemented, including implemented integrated pest management (IPM), in order to control the maize weevil as well as other pests, and have caused the least amount of environmental harm. Furthermore, the scientific community incorporates compatible preventive and curative pest control as part of the IPM as an affordable approach [51]. On the other hand, environmental factors including temperature, relative humidity, photoperiod, food quality, and quantity all play a significant role in insect development. The physiological functions of the insects are also impacted by these variables [52]. In particular, the maize weevil insect’s reproductive and feeding activities have reduced maize production by causing grain loss in storage, which can reach 90% in unprotected grains [1].
In developing nations, transportation, poor storage structures, and prolonged storage promotes favourable conditions for the maize weevil to strive [10]. In this part of the world, many smallholder maize farmers reside in inaccessible, remote areas with inadequate road systems, making it challenging for them to get their produce to market. Because of this, farmers must store their grain for a considerable amount of time, often 6 to 8 months after harvest, and the maize weevil poses a threat during this time [6]. To lessen weevil infestation in storage, it is essential to maintain excellent hygienic practices. Before storing new products, fully cleaning the warehouse and the containers is often forgotten, and, as a result, it has been claimed that the leftovers from infected products can cause fresh infestations [53]. As a result, according to [14], adopting good hygiene procedures in homes and by farmers and traders is advised, as this will significantly lessen the likelihood of new maize weevil infection caused by leftovers. It has been emphasized, too, that grain conditioning prior to storage is very important [14]. Kernel hardness, a foundation of resistance even among resistant maize genotypes or variations, is constrained by moisture content. Moisture levels exceeding 16% make some varieties of corn vulnerable to attack by storage insects such as the maize weevil [54], and this creates the need for grain conditioning before storage [55].
According to Nwosu [14], it is preferable to measure the grain batch’s moisture content before the experiment and the grain batch’s moisture content after the experiment, and to then account for moisture gain or loss. Crop handling after harvest is typically inexpensive and practicable using traditional methods. To lessen insect activity during storage, various conventional materials are frequently added to the grain [56]. Furthermore, there are traditional ways of protecting stored grains, such as silos. A metal silo is a cylindrical structure constructed from a galvanized iron sheet and hermetically sealed. Metal silo technology has proven to be effective for protecting the harvested grains from attack, not only from the storage insects but also from rodent pests [57]. A metal silo is airtight, and it therefore eliminates oxygen inside, killing any insect pest that may be inside [3]. Overall, then, many methods, which include chemical, physical, and biological ones, have been used to drastically reduce the infestation of this pest [58], but the modern agricultural system has still used pesticides as the most reliable control method for pests.
Starting in the 1960s, the use of pesticides in farming operations came under heavy scrutiny when their unintended effects on the ecosystem became widely recognized [59,60,61,62,63,64]. The favoured tool in the battle against weevil infestation in stored maize is a conventional synthetic pesticide [1] as a chemical control strategy. Even though pesticides have been effective at reducing pest populations, they have detrimental effects on the environment, human health, animals, and plants. Since the 1950s, ancient storage techniques and a wide variety of insecticides (often in the form of fumigants) have been used to protect maize grain from pests [65,66], but a body of evidence has shown that the usage of pesticides is accompanied by a number of issues, including, among others, the emergence of pests that are resistant, the eradication of natural enemies, the extinction of non-target species, and the contamination of both the environment and the food [67,68,69]. Some pesticides have negative effects on the nervous, renal, respiratory, and reproductive systems of men and women according to [70], which is a product of the fact that there are basic similarities between the nervous systems of the mammalian and the insect. Indeed, pesticides (organochlorides, Ops, and carbamates) that are designed to attack an insect’s nervous system are capable of producing acute, chronic neurotoxic effects in mammals [71,72]. In addition to having a direct negative effect of active substances on both human and animal health, the excessive or improper use of synthetic pesticides is also associated with the following effects:
❖
Pesticide resistance in some pests.
❖
Water, soil, and air contamination that transfers chemical residues along the food chain.
❖
Reduction of biodiversity and nitrogen fixation.
❖
Destruction of marine and bird life and/or a contributing factor in the genetic defects in subsequent generations.
❖
Non-target organisms are affected even though they might be beneficial to the crops.
In one study [73], Zeolite Slovenia (which contains 63.37% SiO2) and Zeolite Serbia (which contains 60.16% SiO2), two natural zeolites that were utilized to suppress maize weevil, outperformed a synthetic zeolite, Asorbio. The treatment using the synthetic zeolite Asorbio®, which was supplemented with SiO2 and Al2O3, was shown to have the lowest insecticidal activity. In another study [74], which was carried out in order to evaluate the impact of zeolites on the mortality of the maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky) adults. The efficacy of natural zeolites (Slovenian and Serbian) and synthetic zeolites (‘Asorbio’) as well as Diatomaceous Earth (product SilicoSec®) were tested. The use of natural zeolites proved to be efficient as stored product protectant, the comparison of natural zeolites, treatments with “Asorbio” resulted in the lowest mortality of maize weevils. Synthetic insecticides could significantly reduce the amount of storage losses brought on by insect pests [74], then, although we should note the drawbacks of using synthetic pesticides, including toxic residues, worker safety, and the increased costs of application [75]. Drawing from several studies, pesticide residues have been detected in groundwater, downstream from livestock and crops [76,77,78]. In addition, non-selective pesticides kill beneficial insects and non-targeting organisms, thereby causing an imbalance in the ecosystem [79]. This has prompted more research on eco-friendly, cheaper, and safer plant products that include extracts, oils, and powders [61,80].
The use of biological control provides a suitable and greener approach to control pests. Biological control is a long-term pest control method that involves introducing an exogenous biological agent into an environment with the intention of permanently establishing it there. Additionally, biological control is a highly effective pest management strategy, especially when compared to chemical pesticides. For example, this strategy includes several management techniques that safeguard human health and the environment. It has been suggested that biological control improves crop fitness, and ultimately has a negative impact on pests [81]. In a previous study, some insect eggs, such as the eggs of the maize weevil, could survive for a week or more in a −20 freezer inside de-infested containers. Furthermore, these eggs were invisible to the naked eyes [82]. However, biological control techniques are currently used much less frequently than pesticides, despite being a less expensive and environmentally harmful technology. This is mostly because biological management is more detailed and requires more time to produce the desired results and finances [83]. According to Mascarin et al. [84], several investments have been made by some agricultural companies to produce fungicides that are currently being used in both organic and conventional plants. Subsequently, the call for a more sustainable integrated pest management program has been answered. To contribute to this development, several advantages of using biological control are listed below [85,86]:
The findings of Del Arco et al. [87] showed that the parasitoid Anisopteromalus calandrae (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) preferred S. zeamais than Rhyzopertha dominica to feed on. This resulted in confirming that A. calandrae is good for implementing the use of this natural enemy as a control tool. It was also found that the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana can be used as a biocontrol agent against the maize weevil [88]. Despite the benefits of biological control, though, the methods have taken some time to catch on globally.

6. Pesticide Resistance

The most effective method of controlling an attack by the maize weevil and the ensuing damage in developing countries is currently the use of conventional synthetic pesticides [89,90]. Synthetic pesticides may also play a significant role in reducing storage losses due to insect pests [91,92]. In this 21st century, global food security threatens human survival, and the development of pesticide resistance is contributing to this issue. Indeed, pesticide resistance development is becoming a bigger issue for the protection of stored goods [63], and global reports of stored goods and insect pesticide and resistance are actually becoming prevalent [93,94]. Pest management costs rise as a result of increased pesticide use, which also increases risks to human health and environmental damage. Finding safer substitute control methods, such as the use of biological agents against stored grain pests, is thus important [63]. By 1996, there were more than 600 kinds of plant-eating insect pests that were resistant to insecticides [95]. A growing body of evidence has reported resistant strain of pests in staple foods, such as cowpea and maize [96,97], resulting in secondary pest outbreaks [98]. Another study has reported that most storage buildings are vulnerable to pest re-infection and require shorter intervals between pesticide applications due to pest re-infection, and poor storage facilities in underdeveloped nations make the use of synthetic chemicals ineffective and contribute to insect resistance to chemicals [99]. To better comprehend this, consider that insect populations become resistant to pesticides when the same chemical is applied repeatedly over the course of the pest’s life cycle [100]. Additionally, when a pesticide develops resistance, it is typically followed by the use of new products, larger dosages of the original pesticide, or an increase in pesticide treatments.
Studies on pesticide resistance are crucial for developing practical pest management strategies as well as serving as models for the evolution of newly adaptive phenotypes and the physiological (and genetic) alterations that they cause [101,102,103]. When pesticide use is reduced, eliminated, or changed, the pleiotropic consequences that typically follow selection for pesticide resistance may disadvantage the resistant insects [101,104,105,106,107]. In the absence, diminution, or modification of pesticide selection, this may cause a gradual decrease in the frequency of resistant individuals over time. Only in the last scenario is there no common expectation of a physiological cost of resistance among the four fundamental molecular mechanisms of pesticide resistance (constitutive overproduction, constitutive underproduction, target alteration, and inducible change in gene regulation) [98,99,101,106]. Pesticide resistance-causing changes typically cause negative effects by obstructing the routes of their targets (or receptors) [99].

7. Medicinal Plants as a Natural Approach to Technical Control of Maize Weevil

Currently, sustainability and feeding a growing global population has spiked an overwhelming concern worldwide. Research on alternative eco-friendly and sustainable methods to control pests has become necessary due to public concerns about the toxicity of pesticides and their effects on both the environment and on public health [62,108]. Many studies agree that there is a need to develop alternative strategies with low adverse effects on consumers and less persistent effects on the environment [109,110,111]. The search for secure, efficient, and practical substitutes has been more intense due to worries about the effects of synthetic pesticides on human health and on the environment. In this respect, plant-based pesticides may be less harmful, quickly biodegradable, appropriate for use by small-scale farmers, and capable of preventing pests from damaging grain [112]. More than 2500 plant species from 235 families have been documented in prior research, and they have proven to have biological activity against various pests [113]. Despite this, few have been marketed for commercial usage or referred to as farming products [114]. Numerous herbal remedies, including plants, essential oils, and their chemical components have been documented for their inhibitory effects on insect pests [115,116]. Non-target organisms are at a lower risk because of plant-derived pesticides due to the fact that they are short-lived in the environment [117,118]. Due to the fact that they occur naturally, certain consumer groups and organic certification programs have easily warmed up to them.
Different plant-based treatments are used by smallholder farmers to manage pests in storage grains. The specific approach taken by these farmers varies from location to location and appears to be influenced by the kind and potency of useful resources that are available in various places [119]. For instance, Lippia javanica, Eucalyptus spp. and Tagetes minuta is utilized by farmers as a botanical pest control [120,121], and it can be emphasized that many African plants are an excellent source of pesticide. They have been shown to contain either antifeedant, repellents, or insecticidal compounds produced by plants in order to protect stored products. Another study showed that African plants with a repelling effect have not yet gained much publicity [122]. Many efforts have been made to screen plants with better botanical pesticides, which can be used as an alternative to synthetic pesticides [123]. Indeed, African small-scale farmers have been controlling insect infestation for a long-time using plants [124,125,126]. Due the overpriced tag associated with synthetic pesticides, struggling counties such as Zimbabwe cannot easily access or afford them, and even though relatively little is known about their effectiveness, such farmers have employed local herbs and other therapies in order to combat storage pests [127]. The majority of flora are accessible to farmers nearby, and they are environmentally beneficial because they have no aftereffects. Plants are quick to interrupt the eating of an insect pest, frequently resulting in an immediate paralysis or cessation of feeding, even if the insect may not die for several hours or days [55].
According to Tapondjou et al. [75], mixing stored grains with leaf, bark, seed powder, or essential oil extracts of plants reduces oviposition rate, suppresses progeny production, and is toxic to adults, which ultimately results in low infestation and yield losses. At economically sound doses, grain protectants should be investigated. Moreover, the propensity to test the substance at high-application concentrations is another common flaw in screening plant materials for insecticidal efficacy [36]. It was noted that a plant powder concentration used to protect grain against the pests found in stored products should not surpass 2.0% weight/weight in order to be economically justifiable. Making sure that only the bare minimal amount of plant material is used in order to produce the desired result is essential to preventing harmful impacts of plant materials on farmers, consumers, and the environment [128]. Most farmers are ignorant of the right way of using synthetic chemical pesticides, the toxicity effects as well as the best concentration. Therefore, plant-derived pesticides are a great alternative. [60]. This has prompted pest control research on how to properly use plant-based insecticides as well as concentration control.
For example, Ivbijaro et al. [125] reported that the toxicity of Piper guineense, a black pepper variety, is very high on the cowpea beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus. Furthermore, Ivbijaro et al. [126] revealed the use of neem seed powder, Azadirachta indica, on weevil-infested maize grains eliminated oviposition at the high dose, significantly reduced oviposition at the medium dose, and totally stopped post-embryonic growth at all doses. Because of this, all doses of groundnut oil greatly increased the mortality of the rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae while decreasing its natality and oviposition [127]. Citrullus vulgaris testa powder has been shown to drastically decrease S. zeamais natality and oviposition in maize [15]. Callosobruchus maculatus, C. chinensis, and C. rhodesianus oviposited much less frequently, and the lifespan of adults of both C. maculatus and C. chinensis was greatly reduced by corn oil, groundnut oil, sunflower oil, and sesame oil [128]. High adult weevil mortality for S. zeamais has been reported with leaves from Eucalyptus globules, Schinese molle, Datura stramo-nium, Phytolacca dodecandra, and Lycopersicum esculentum as an effective treatment [129]. Drawing from the above, it can be suggested that pest infestation of grains in storage can be reduced by using natural plant products plants, providing golden opportunities to explore and develop natural plant-based pesticides utilized to prevent pest infestation of storage goods [63]. Plant powders, according to Ukeh et al. [130], are inexpensive, readily available, and easily biodegradable. They also will not contaminate food goods by serving as protectants in small-scale storage systems. In addition, medicinal plants are attacked by insects and mites. Table 1 demonstrates various medicinal plants, their preparation, and their biocompounds.
The toxic, lethal, repellent, antifeedant, fumigant, growth-regulating, and deterrent effects of medicinal plants and their derivatives or extracts have been assessed for various pest control strategies. Furthermore, botanical insecticides can influence both behavioural and physiological processes in contrast to conventional insecticides, which are based on a single active ingredient [144]. Acanthus montanus, Acanthospermum hispidum, Argyreia nervosa, and Alchornea laxiflora powders successfully prevented the ability of the maize weevil, S. zeamais, to lay eggs in a study by Ileke [132] in 2020. S. zeamais lay considerably fewer eggs on treated maize grains than on untreated seeds. According to studies, complex combinations found in plant powders, extracts, or oils suppress the activity of the acetyl cholinesterase enzyme (AChE) [145]. Acetyl cholinesterase enzyme (AChE) activity is inhibited, which can interfere with the neuromodulator octopamine and kill pest insects by blocking their GABA-gated chloride channels [146]. Contact toxicity may also have contributed to the high percentage of S. zeamai deaths after exposure to the studied plants’ leaf powders and extracts. Most insects breathe using a trachea, which typically opens through spiracles at the body’s surface. According to Adedire et al. [81], these apertures or air chambers may have been prevented from allowing adequate oxygen into the bodies of the insects, which ultimately caused their asphyxiation and death.
To increase the toxicity of insecticides against insect pests, biochemical and physiological characteristics could be evaluated in addition to the lethal effect. The activity of acetycholinesterase (AChE) and the vetillogenin body protein are just two examples of these metrics [147]. When the synthesis of oocytes during vetillogenesis fails due to a lack of protein, it has been discovered that the ability of many insects to reproduce is affected [17,148]. Acetylcholine is broken down by AChE at the synaptic cleft in order for the subsequent nerve impulse to travel across the synaptic gap, acting as a neurotransmitter [149]. When this action is disrupted, a loss of coordination is likely to happen, which could cause the insect to be knocked down and subsequently die. According to Abdullahi et al. [150], the phytochemical components of plant powder may kill insects through a variety of mechanisms, including contact poisoning, interference with acetylcholine receptors [151], and ingestion of the powder’s constituents, which may then disrupt the insects’ metabolic processes and result in a quick demise [152].

8. Conclusions

To feed a growing global population, crop protection is one of the keys to ensuring food security. Specifically, in the agricultural sector, the maize weevil causes qualitative and quantitative damage to stored grains, cereals, and other processed and unprocessed stored products. Global concern exists over the use of pesticides to control stored goods, though, due to concerns over environmental contamination, human health, insect resistance, and chemical residues, as well as the high costs. There is now a consensus that new, affordable, easily biodegradable, eco-friendly, and sustainable pesticides are needed in order to control the maize weevil. Plant-based pesticides are an excellent candidate since they possess an extensive range of biological activities against insect pests. In this context, medicinal plants fulfil the requirements toward a sustainable greener agriculture, thereby ensuring that we alleviate the food crisis and solidify global food security.

Author Contributions

The original draft was written, conceptualized, reviewed, and edited by O.J.P. and M.C.M. after they had gathered research papers. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no funding.

Acknowledgments

All authors (O.J. and M.C.M.) would like to extend their appreciation and acknowledgment to Walter Sisulu University, Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Mthatha Campus.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Nwosu, L.C. Chemical bases for maize grain resistance to infestation and damage by the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2016, 69, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Patino-Bayona, W.R.; Galeano, L.J.N.; Cortes, J.J.B.; Avila, W.A.D.; Daza, E.H.; Suarez, L.E.C.; Prieto-Rodriguez, J.A.; Patino-Ladino, O.J. Effects of essential oils from 24 plant species on Sitophilus zeamais Motsch (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Insect Pest Vector Manag. 2021, 12, 532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Tefera, T.; Kanampiu, F.; De Groote, H.; Hellin, J.; Mugo, S.; Kimenju, S.; Beyene, Y.; Boddupalli, P.; Shiferaw, B.; Banziger, M. The metal silo: An effective grain storage technology for reducing post-harvest insect and pathogen losses in maize while improving smallholder farmers’ food security in developing countries. Crop Prot. 2011, 30, 240–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Paneru, R.B.; Thapa, R.B.; Sharma, P.N.; Sherchan, D.P.; Yubak, D.G.C. Bionomics and management of maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2018, 5, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yang, Y.; Isman, M.B.; Tak, J. Insecticidal activity of 28 essential oils and a commercial product containing Cinnamomum cassia bark essential oil against Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky. Natural products to control insect pests. Insects 2020, 11, 474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Oadejo, J.A.; Adetunji, M.O. Economic analysis of maize (Zea mays) production in Oyo state of Nigeria. Res. J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 2, 77–83. [Google Scholar]
  7. FAO. What Are the World’s Most Important Staple Foods? In FAO Production Yearbook for 2019; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  8. Mangani, R.; Tesfamariam, E.H.; Engelbrecht, C.J.; Bellocchi, G.; Hassen, A.; Mangani, T. Potential impacts of extreme weather events in main maize (Zea mays L.) producing areas of South Africa under rainfed conditions. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2019, 19, 1441–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. FAO. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. In Integrated Management of the Fall Armyworm on Maize; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bekele, A.J.; Obeng-Ofori, D.; Hassanali, A. Evaluation of Ocimum kenyense (Ayobangira) as source of repellants, toxicants, and protectants in storage against three major stored product insect pests. J. Appl. Entomol. 1997, 121, 169–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tembo, E.; Murfitt, R.F.A. Effects of combining vegetable oil with pirimiphos-methyl for protection of stored wheat against Sitophilus granaries L. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1995, 31, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hassaan, M.A.; Nemr, A.E. Pesticides pollution: Classifications, human health impact, extraction, and treatment techniques. Egyptian J. Aquat. Sci. 2020, 46, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Marcelino, A.F.; Wachtel, C.C.; Ghisi, N.C. Are our farm workers in danger? Genetic damage in farmers exposed to pesticides. Int. Environ. Res. Health 2019, 16, 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Nwosu, L.C. Impact of age on the biological activities of Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionida) Adults on stored maize: Implications for food security and pest management. J. Entomol. 2018, 111, 2454–2460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Edelduok, E.; Akpabio, E.; Eyo, J.; Ekpe, E. Bio-insecticidal potentials of testa powder of melon, Citrullus vulgaris Schrad for reducing infestation of maize grains by the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. Glob. J. Biol. Agric. Health Sci. 2012, 2, 13–17. [Google Scholar]
  16. Taye, W.; Asefa, W.; Woldu, M. Insecticidal activity of Lantana camara on maize weevils (Sitophilus zeamais Motsch.). International Res. J. Agric. Sci. 2014, 1, 2358–3997. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ranum, P.; Peña-Rosas, J.P.; Garcia-Casal, M.N. Global maize production, utilization, and consumption. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2014, 1312, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Farook, U.B.; Khan, Z.H.; Ahad, I.; Maqbool, S.; Yanqoob, M.; Rafieq, I.; Rehman, S.A.; Sultan, N. A review on insect pest complex of wheat (Triticum aestivumI L.). J. Entomol. Zool Stud. 2019, 7, 1292–1298. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hagstrum, D.W.; Phillips, T.W.; Cuperus, G. Stored Product Protection; Kansas State University: Manhattan, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  20. Atanasova, D. First record of new food specialization of the maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Bulgaria. JBB 2020, 9, 77–80. [Google Scholar]
  21. Olotuah, O.F. Effect of Age of Eugenia aromatic Powder on the Control of Callosobruchus maculatus and Sitophilus zeamais. International Int. J. Plant Sci. 2015, 5, 227–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Babarinde, G.O.; Babarinde, S.A.; Ogunsola, S.O. Effect of maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky 1855) infestation on the quality of three commercial pastas. Food Sci. Qual. Manag. 2013, 21, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  23. Obata, H.; Manabe, A.; Nakamura, N.; Onishi, T.; Senba, Y. A new light on the evolution and propagation of prehistoric grain pests: The World’s oldest maize weevils found in Jomon potteries, Japan. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e14785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Haines, C.P. Insects, and Arachnids of Tropical Stored Products: Their Biology and Identification: A Training Manual; Natural Resource Institute UK: Chatham Maritime, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  25. Bamaiyi, L.J.; Ndams, I.S.; Toro, W.A.; Odekina, S. Laboratory evaluation of mahogany (Khaya segalensis (Desv) seed oil and seed powder for the control of Callosobruchus maculatus (Fab) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) on stored cowpea. J. Entomol. 2007, 4, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Danho, M.; Gaspar, C.; Haubruge, E. The impact of grain quantity on the biology of Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): Oviposition, distribution of eggs, adult emergence, body weight and sex ratio. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2002, 38, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Ni, X.; Wilson, J.P.; Butin, G.D.; Guo., B.; Krakowsky, M.D.; Lee, R.D.; Cottrell, T.E.; Skully, B.T.; Huffaker, A.; Schmelz, E.A. Spatial patterns of aflatoxin levels in relation to ear-feeding insect damage in pre-harvest corn. Toxins 2011, 2, 920–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Vyavhare, S.; Pendleton, B.B. Maturity stages and moisture content of sorghum grain damaged by maize weevil. Southwest. Entomol. 2011, 36, 331–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Stuhl, C.J. Does prior feeding behavior by previous generations of the maize weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) determine future descendants feeding preference and ovipositional suitability? Fla. Entomol. 2019, 102, 366–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Walgenbach, C.A.; Philips, D.L.; Faustini, D.L.; Burkholder, W.E. Male-produced aggregation pheromone of maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais, and inter-specific attraction between three Sitophilus species. J. Chem. Ecol. 1983, 9, 831–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Muzemu, S. Evaluation of Eucalyptus tereticornis. Tagetes minuta, and Caprica papaya as stored maize grain protectants against Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Agric. For. Fish. 2013, 2, 196–201. [Google Scholar]
  32. Nwosu, L.C.; Adedire, C.O.; Ogunwolu, E.O.; Ashamo, M.O. Relative susceptibility of 20 elite maize varieties to infestation and damage by the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculinidae). Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2015, 35, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tongjura, J.D.C.; Amuga, G.A.; Mafuyai, H.B. Laboratory assessment of the susceptibility of some varieties of Zea mays infested with Sitophilus zeamais, Motsch. (Coleoptera, Curculinidae) in Jos, Plateau State. Sci. World J. 2010, 5, 55–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Makate, N. The susceptibility of different maize varieties to post-harvest infestation by Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch) Coleoptera: Cuculionidae. SRE 2010, 5, 30–34. [Google Scholar]
  35. Nwosu, L.C. Maize and the maize weevil: Advances and innovations in postharvest control of the pest. Food Qual. Saf. 2018, 2, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Gitonga, Z.M.; De Groote, H.; Kassie, M.; Tefera, T. Impact of metal silos on households’ maize storage, storage losses and food security: An application of a propensity score matching. Food Policy 2013, 43, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pu, Y.; Wang, S.; Yang, F.; Ehsani, R.; Zhao, L.; Li, C.; Xie, S.; Yang, M. Recent progress and future prospects for mechanized harvesting of fruit crops with shaking systems. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2023, 16, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Awika, J.M. Major cereal grains production and use around the world. In Advances in Cereal Science: Implications to Food Processing and Health; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  39. Enghiad, A.; Ufer, D.; Countryman, A.; Thilmany, D. An overview of global wheat market fundamentals in an era of climate concerns. Int. J. Agron. 2017, 2017, 3931897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mohidem, N.A.; Hashim, N.; Shamsudin, R.; Man, H.C. Rice for food security: Revisiting its production, diversity, rice milling process and nutrient content. Agriculture 2022, 12, 741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. ICRISAT & Partners. CGIAR Research Program: Grain Legume and Dryland Cereals Agri-Food Systems. Full Proposal. Patancheru, ICRISAT. Mimeo, Telengana, India. 2017. Available online: https://www.cgiar.org/research/program-platform/grain-legumes-and-dryland-cereals/ (accessed on 20 April 2023).
  42. Menon, R.; Gonzalez, T.; Ferruzzi, M.; Jackson, E.; Winder, D.; Watson, J. Chapter one-Oats-from farm to fork. Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 2016, 77, 1–55. [Google Scholar]
  43. Giraldo, P.; Benavente, E.; Manzano-Agugliaro, F.; Gimenez, E. Worldwide research trends on wheat and barley: A bibliometric comparative analysis. Agronomy 2019, 9, 352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Fuller, M.F. The Encyclopedia of Farm Animal Nutrition; CABI Publishing Series: Wallingford, UK, 2004; p. 606. [Google Scholar]
  45. Gwirtz, J.A.; Garcia-Casal, M.N. Processing maize flour and corn meal food products. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2013, 1312, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Ayana, W. Review on Major Pests of Maize, Their Biology, Ecology, Damage and Control Methods. Master’s Thesis, Jimma University, Jimma, Oromia Region, Ethiopia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  47. Bhusal, K.; Khanal, D. Role of maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. on spread of Aspergillus section flavi in different Nepalese maize varieties. Adv. Agric. 2019, 2019, 7584056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Agoligan, J.A.; Lamboni, Y.; Anihouvi, V.B. Exploring the potential of using the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana as a biocontrol agent for maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais. Int. J. Postharvest Technol. Innov. 2022, 8, 345–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dunkel, F.V. The relationship of insects to the deterioration of stored grain by fungi. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1988, 7, 227–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sinha, K.K.; Sinha, A.K. Effect of Sitophilus oryzae infestation on Aspergillus flavus infection and aflatoxin contamination in stored wheat. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1991, 27, 410–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Barney, R.J.; Sedlacek, J.D.; Siddiqui, M.; Price, B.D. Quality of stored corn (maize) as influenced by Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. And several management practices. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1991, 27, 225–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Desneux, N.; Han, P.; Mansour, R.; Arno, J.; Brevault, T.; Campos, M.R.; Chailleux, A.; Guedes, R.N.C.; Karimi, J.; Konan, K.A.J.; et al. Integrated pest management of Tuta absoluta: Practical implementations across different world regions. J. Pest Sci. 2022, 95, 17–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ojo, J.A.; Omoloye, A.A. Development and life history of Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on cereal crops. Adv. Agric. 2016, 2016, 7836379. [Google Scholar]
  54. Cosmas, P.; John, C.T.; Agathar, K.; Ronald, M.; Kufa, M.; Betty, C. Use of Botanical Pesticides in Controlling Sitophilus Zeamais (Maize weevil) on Stored Zea Mays (Maize) Grain; Crimson Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lale, N.E.S.; Ofuya, T.I. Overview of pest problems and control in the tropical storage environment. In Pest of Stored Cereals and Pulses in Nigeria—Biology, Ecology and Control; Ofuya, T.I., Lale, N.E.S., Eds.; Dave Collins Publications: Akure, Nigeria, 2001; pp. 1–23. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lale, N.E.S. Stored-Product Entomology and Acarology in Tropical Africa; Mole Publications: Maiduguri, Nigeria, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  57. Abebe, F.; Tefera, T.; Mugo, S.; Beyene, Y.; Vidal, S. Resistance of maize varieties to the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2009, 8, 5937–5943. [Google Scholar]
  58. Saeed, M.B.E.E.E.M. Biological Control of Three Grain Storage Pests: Maize Weevil, Sitophilus zeamais (Motschulsky), Almond moth, Ephestia cautella (Walker) and Cigarette beetle, Lasioderma serricorne (Fabricius), Using Novel Strains of Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin in Powder Formulation. Ph.D. Thesis, University of KwaZulu-Natal, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  59. FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) Agricultural and Food Engineering Technologies Service. Household Metal Metal Silo: Key Allies in FAO’s Fight against Hunger; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  60. Edelduok, E.G.; Akpabio, E.E.; Eyo, J.E.; Ekpe, E.N. Evaluation of the insecticidal activities of cotyledon powder of melon, Citrullus vulgaris Schrad against the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motsculsky. J. Biopestic. Environ. 2015, 1, 50–57. [Google Scholar]
  61. Cooper, J.; Dobson, H. The benefits of pesticides to mankind and the environment. Crop Prot. 2007, 26, 1337–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Aktar, M.W.; Sengupta, D.; Chowdhury, A. Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: Their benefits and hazards. Interdiscip. Toxicol. 2009, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Köhler, H.; Triebskorn, R. Wildlife ecotoxicology of pesticides: Can we track effects to the population level and beyond. Science 2013, 341, 759–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Guedes, R.N.C.; Smagghe, G.; Stark, J.D.; Desneux, N. Pesticide-induced stress in arthropod pests for optimized integrated pest management programs. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2016, 61, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Subramanyam, B.H.; Hagstrum, D.W. Resistance measurement and management. In Integrated Management of Insects in Stored Products; Subramanyam, B.H., Hagstrum, D.W., Eds.; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 331–397. [Google Scholar]
  66. Olakojo, S.A.; Akinlosotu, T.A. Comparative study of storage methods of maize grains in Southwestern Nigeria. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2004, 3, 362–365. [Google Scholar]
  67. Marini-Bettolo, G.B. Natural Products and the Protection of Plants; Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company: New York, NY, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  68. Parmar, B.S.; Devkumar, C. Botanical and Biopesticides; West Vill Publishing House: New Delhi, India, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  69. Obeng-ofori, D.; Reichmuth, C.H.; Benele, J.; Hassanali, A. Biological activity of 1, 8 cineole, a major component of essential oil of Ocimum kenyense (Ayobangira) against stored product beetles. J. Appl. Entomol. 1997, 121, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Stoytcheva, M. Pesticides in the modern world-Risks and Benefits; BoD–Books on Demand: Rabat, Morocco, 2011; ISBN 978-953-458-0. [Google Scholar]
  71. Tanner, R.W.; Langston, J.W. Do environmental toxins cause Parkinson’s disease? A Critical Review. Neurology 1990, 40, 17–30. [Google Scholar]
  72. Naqqash, M.N.; Gökçe, A.; Bakhsh, A.; Salim, M. Insecticide resistance and its molecular basis in urban insect pests. Parasitol. Res. 2016, 115, 1363–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Bohinc, T.; Horvat, A.; Andric, G.; Golic, M.P.; Kljajic’, P.; Trdan, S. Natural versus synthetic zeolites for controlling the maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais)—Like Messi versus Ronaldo? J. Appl. Entomol. 2020, 88, 101639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Bohinc, T.; Dervić, A.; Horvat, A.; Kljajic, P.; Andric, G.; Golic, M.P.; Trdan, S. Effects of natural and synthetic zeolites against maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky, Coleoptera, Curculionidae) adults under laboratory conditions. Integr. Prot. Stored Prod. 2018, 130, 241–250. [Google Scholar]
  75. Tapondjou, L.A.; Adlerb, C.; Boudaa, H.; Fontemc, D.A. Efficacy of powder and essential oil from Chenopodium ambrosioides leaves as post-harvest grain protectants against sixstored product beetles. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2002, 38, 395–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mulungu, L.S.; Lupenza, G.; Reuben, S.O.W.M.; Misangu, R.N. Evaluation of Botanical products as stored Grain Protectant against Maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais (L.) on maize. J. Entomol. 2007, 4, 202–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Sousa, J.; Nascimento, H.; Gomes, H.; Ferreira, R.; Nascimento, R. Pesticide rsidues in groundwater and surface water: Recent advances in soild-phase extraction and solid-phase microextraction sample preparation methods for multiclass analysis by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Microchem. J. 2021, 68, 106359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Mojiri, A.; Zhou, J.L.; Robinson, B.; Ohashi, A.; Ozaki, N.; Kindaichi, T.; Farraji, H.; Vakili, M. Pesticides in aquatic environments and their removal by adsorption methods. Chemosphere 2020, 253, 126646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pietrzak, D.; Wątor, K.; Pękała, D.; Wójcik, J.; Chochorek, A.; Kmiecik, E.; Kania, J. LC-MS/MS method validation for determination of selected neonicotinoids in groundwater for the purpose of a column experiment. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B Pestic. Food Contam. Agric. Wastes 2019, 54, 424–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Gupta, A.; Upadhyay, R.K.; Saxena, P.N. Toxicity evaluation of certain blood biochemical parameters in Passer domesticus (Linn.). J. Sci. Ind. Res. 2001, 60, 668–674. [Google Scholar]
  81. Adedire, C.O.; Ajayi, T.S. Assessment of the insecticidal properties of some plant extracts as grain protectants against the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky. Niger. J. Entomol. 1996, 13, 93–101. [Google Scholar]
  82. Shields, M.W.; Johnson, A.C.; Pandey, S.; Cullen, R.; González-Chang, M.; Wratten, S.D.; Gurr, G.M. History, current situation and challenges for conservation biological control. Biol. Control. 2019, 131, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Baron, N.C.; Rigobelo, E.C.; Zied, D.C. Filamentous fungi in biological control: Current status and future perspectives. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2019, 79, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Mascarin, G.M.; Lopes, R.B.; Delalibera, Í., Jr.; Fernandes, É.K.K.; Luz, C.; Faria, M. Current status and perspectives of fungal entomopathogens used for microbial control of arthropod pests in Brazil. J. Invertebrate Pathol. 2018, 165, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Cox, P.; Wilkin, D. The Potential use of Biological Control of Pests in Stored Grain; HGCA Research Review: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  86. Usta, C. Microorganisms in Biological Pest Control—A Review (Bacterial Toxin Application and Effect of Environmental Factors); TECH Open Publisher: Rijeka, Croatis, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  87. Del Arco, L.; Riudavets, J.; Campos-Rivela, J.M.; Martinez-Ferrer, M.T.; Agusti, N.; Castane, C. Effectiveness of the parasitoid Anisopteromalus calandrae (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) in the control of Sitophilus zeamais and Rhyzopertha dominica in paddy rice. Biol. Control. 2022, 181, 105216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mbah, O.I.; Okoronkwo. An assessment of two plant product efficacy for the control of the maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky) in stored maize. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2008, 3, 494–498. [Google Scholar]
  89. Gahukar, G.T. Evaluation of plant-derived products against pests and diseases of medicinal plants: A review. Crop Prot. 2012, 42, 202–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Saeed, Q.; Saleem, M.A.; Ahmad, M. Toxcommonly used commonly used synthetic insecticides against Spodoptera exigua (Fab) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Pakistan J. Zool. 2012, 44, 1120–1197. [Google Scholar]
  91. Attia, M.A.; Wahba, T.F.; Shaarawy, N.; Moustafa, F.I.; Narciso, R.; Gueded, C.; Dewer, Y. Stored grain pest prevalence and insecticide resistance in Egyptian populations of the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) and the rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae (L.). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 87, 101611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Demeter, S.; Lebbe, O.; Hecq, F.; Nicolis, S.C.; Kemene, T.K.; Martin, H.; Fauconnier, M.; Hance, T. Isecticidal activity of 25 essential oils on the stored product pest, Sitophilus granaris. Foods 2021, 10, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Sharma, A.; Kumar, V.; Shahzad, B.; Tanveer, M.; Sidhu, G.P.S.; Handa, N.; Kohli, S.K.; Yadav, P.; Bali, A.S.; Parihar, R.D.; et al. Worldwide pesticide usage and its impacts on ecosystem. SN Appl. Sci. 2019, 1, 1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Boeke, S.J.; Baumgart, I.R.; Vanloon, J.J.A.; Van Huis, A.; Dicke, M.; Kossou, D.K. Toxicity and repellence of African plants traditionally used for the protection of stored cowpea against Callosobruchus maculatus. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2004, 40, 423–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Alemu, M. Applications of biotechnology for characterization of plants and pests as the key components of plant protection and production technologies: A review. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Biotechnol. 2020, 8, 247–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Mak, M. Elucidating Novel Biopesticide Modes of Action in Insects: Physiological, Cellular and Molecular Approaches. Ph.D. Thesis, Western Sydney University Thesis Collection, Sydney, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  97. Owusu, E.O. Effects of some Ghanaian plant components on control of two stored product insect pests of cereal. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2001, 37, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Riley, D.G.; Sparks, A. Insecticide resistance management for diamondback moth in Georgia. Cooperative extension, college of agriculture and environmental science & family and consumer sciences, University of Georgia. Circular 2006, 899. Available online: https://secure.caes.uga.edu/extension/publications/files/pdf/C%20899_5.PDF (accessed on 30 April 2023).
  99. Coustau, C.; Chevillon, C.; Ffrench-Constant, R. Resistance to xenobiotics and parasites: Can we count the cost? Trends Ecol. Evol. 2000, 15, 378–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Raymond, M.; Berticat, C.; Weill, M. Insecticide resistance in mosquito Culex pipiens: What have we learned about adaptation? Genetica 2001, 112–113, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Saeed, Q.; Ahmad, F.; Iqbal, N.; Muhammad, S. Chemical control of polyphagous pests on their auxiliary hosts can minimize insecticide resistance: A case study of Spodoptera exigua Hübner (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in cotton agroecosystem. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 171, 721–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Arnaud, L.; Haubruge, E. Insecticide resistance enhances male reproductive success in a beetle. Evolution 2007, 56, 2435–2444. [Google Scholar]
  103. Foster, S.P.; Young, S.; Williamson, M.S.; Duce, I.; Denholm, I.; Devine, G.J. Analogous pleitropic effects of insecticide resistance genotypes in peach-potato aphids and houseflies. Heredity 2003, 91, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Bird, L.J.; Drynan, L.J.; Walker, P.W. Relative fitness and stability of resistance in a near-isogenic strain of indoxacarb resistant Helicoverpa armigera. Pest Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 4077–4085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Brito, V.D.; Achimon, F.; Pizzolitto, R.P.; Sanchez, A.R.; Torres, E.A.G.; Zygadlo, J.A.; Zunino, M.P. An alternative to reduce the use of the synthetic insecticide against the maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais through the synergistic action of Pimenta racemosa and Citrus sinensis essential oils with chlorpyrifos. J. Pest Sci. 2020, 94, 409–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Mamoon-ur-Rashid, M.; Din, R.; Naeem, M.; Ahsad-Khan, M.; Ashfaq, M. Relative resistance of maize varieties against maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais (Motschulsky, Coleoptera: Curcolionidae). J. Agric. Sci. 2021, 58, 1169–1176. [Google Scholar]
  107. Oboho, D.; Eyo, J.; Ekeh, F.; Okweche, S. Efficacy of Cymbopogon citratus Stapf leaf extract as seeds protectant against Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on stored maize (Zea mays L.). Biol. Control 2016, 30, 220–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Ogban, E.I.; Ukpong, I.G.; Oku, E.E.; Usua, E.J.; Udo, S.E.; Ogbeche, J.O.; Ajang, R.O. Potentials of two indigenous plants powder for the control of stored maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais (Motschulsky). Am. J. Exp. Agric. 2015, 5, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Okonkwo, E.U.; Okoye, W.J. The eficacy of four seed powders and the essential oils as protectants of cowpea and maize grains against infestation by Callosobruchus maculatus and Sitophilus zeamais in Nigeria. Int. J. Pest Manag. 1996, 42, 143–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Walia, S.; Saha, S.; Rana, V.S. Phytochemical pesticides. In Advances in Plant Biopesticides; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 295–322. [Google Scholar]
  111. Souto, A.L.; Sylvestre, M.; Tölke, E.D.; Tavares, J.F.; Barbosa-Filho, J.M.; Cebrián-Torrejón, G. Plant-derived pesticides as an alternative to pest management and sustainable agricultural production: Prospects, applications and challenges. Molecules 2021, 26, 4835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Upadhyay, R.K.; Jaiswal, G. Evaluation of biological activities of Piper nigrum oil against Tribolium castaneum. Bull. Insectol. 2007, 60, 57–61. [Google Scholar]
  113. Weinzierl, R.A. Botanical insecticides, soaps, and oils. In Biological and Biotechnological Control of Insect Pests; Rechcigl, J.E., Rechcigl, N.A., Eds.; Lewis Publisher: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  114. Isman, M.B. Plant essential oils for pest and disease management. Crop Prot. 2000, 19, 603–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Greenberg, S.M.; Showler, A.; Liu, T.X. Effects of neem-based insecticides on beet armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Insect Sci. 2005, 12, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Iloba, B.N.; Ekrakene, T. Comparative assessment of insecticidal effects of Azadirachta indica, Hyptis suaveolens and Ocimum gratissimum on Sitophilus zeamais and Callosabruchus maculantus. J. Boll. Sch. 2006, 6, 626–630. [Google Scholar]
  117. Kubo, I.; Nakanish, K. Insect Antifeedants and Repellents from African Plants in: Symposition Series No 62: Host Plant Resistance to Pests; The American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; pp. 165–175. [Google Scholar]
  118. Stoll, G. Natural Crop Protection in the tropics, Verlog Joset margrat; Science Book: Berlin, Germany, 2000; pp. 221–224. [Google Scholar]
  119. Emana, G.; Ahmed, I.; Fridissa, I. Review of lowland pulse insect pest research in Ethiopia. In Proceedings of the Grain Legume Workshop, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 22–27 September 2003. [Google Scholar]
  120. Jacobson, M. Control of stored product insect with phytochemicals. In Proceedings of the Third International Working Conference on Stored Product Entomology, Manhattan, KS, USA, 23–28 October 1983. [Google Scholar]
  121. Hassanali, A.; Lwande, W.; Ole-Sitayo, N.; Moreka, L.; Nokoe, S.; Chapya, A. Weevil repellent constituents of Ocimum suave leaves and Eugenia caryophylla cloves used as grain protectant in parts of East Africa. Discov. Innov. 1990, 2, 91–95. [Google Scholar]
  122. Poswal, M.A.T.; Akpan, A.D. Current trends in the use of traditional and organic methods for the control of crop pests and diseases in Nigeria. Trop. Pest Manag. 1991, 37, 329–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Mbaiguinam, M.; Naura, N.; Bianpambe, A.; Bono, G.; Alladcumbaye, E. Effects of commom plant seed oils on survival, eggs lying and development of the cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculantus (F.) Coleoptera: Brychidae. J. Boll. Sch. 2006, 6, 420–425. [Google Scholar]
  124. FAO. Guidelines on Efficacy Evaluation for the Registration of Plant Protection Products; FAO Publications: Rome, Italy, 2006; Volume 61. [Google Scholar]
  125. Ivbijaro, M.F.; Agbaje, M. Insecticidal activities of Piper guineense schum and thonn, and Capsicuum species on the cowpea bruchid, Callosobruchus maculates. J. Environ. Prot. Ecol. 1986, 12, 521–523. [Google Scholar]
  126. Ivbijaro, M.F. Prevention of cowpea, Vigna unquiculata Walp with the neem Journal of Biopesticides and Environment/vol. 1, May 2015. Page 50-57 seed, Azadiracta indica. Juss. Prot. Ecol. 1983, 5, 177–182. [Google Scholar]
  127. Ivbijaro, M.F. Toxic effects of groundnut oil on the rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae. Insect Sci. Its Appl. 1983, 5, 251–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Rajapakse, R.; Van Emden, H.F. Potential of four vegetable oils and ten botanical powders for reducing infestation of cowpeas by Callosobruchus maculatus, C. chinesis and C. rhodesianus. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1997, 33, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Firdissa, D.E.; Abraham, T. Effects of some botanicals and other materials against the maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais Motsch.) on stored maize. Maize Production Technology for the Future: Challenges and opportunities. (eds. CIMMYT and EARO). In Proceedings of the 6th Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Maize Conference, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 21–25 September 1998. [Google Scholar]
  130. Ukeh, D.A.; Arong, G.A.; Ogban, E.I. Toxicity and oviposition deterrence of Piper guineense (Piperaceae) and Monodora myristica (Annonaceae) against Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.) on stored maize. J. Biopestic. 2008, 5, 295–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Mohammad, M.Y.; Haniffa, H.M.; Sujarajiini, V. Insecticidal effect of selected medicinal plants on Sitophilus zeamais Mostschulsky in stored maize. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2023, 48, 102635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Ileke, K.D.; Idoko, J.E.; Ojo, D.O.; Adesina, B.C. Evaluation of botanical powders and extracts from Nigerian plants as protectants of maize grains against maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais (Motschulsky) [Coleoptera: Curculionidae]. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2020, 27, 101702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Olanrewaju, O.D.; Opara, J.C.; Nwite, O.P.; Umoru, U.; Aliyu, M.S. Comparative Effects of Botanical Powders in Controlling Sitophilus zeamais (Maize Weevils) in Stored Maize (Zea mays L.). Biol. Life Sci. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. de Lira Pimentel, C.S.; Albuquerque, B.N.D.L.; da Rocha, S.K.L.; da Silva, A.S.; da Silva, A.B.V.; Bellon, R.; Agra-Neto, A.C.; de Aguiar, J.C.R.D.O.F.; Paiva, P.M.G.; Princival, J.L.; et al. Insecticidal activity of the essential oil of Piper corcovadensis leaves and its major compound (1-butyl-3, 4-methylenedioxybenzene) against the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais. Pest Manag. Sci. 2022, 78, 1008–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Koomson, C.K. Entomopoison efficacy of Christmas bush, Alchornea cordifolia (Schum. & Thonn.) root powder against the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Int. J. Fauna Biol. 2020, 7, 86–91. [Google Scholar]
  136. Ayalew, A.A. Insecticidal activity of Lantana camara extract oil on controlling maize grain weevils. Toxicol. Res. Appl. 2020, 4, 2397847320906491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  137. Abdullahi, A.M.; Sarki, A.; Hafizu, M.S.; Kunihya, I.Z.; Kolawole, A.A.; Nassai, I.; Haruna, M.Y. Phyto-chemicals of some plant leaf powder as anti-insect agents against maize weevils Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). FUDMA J. Sci. 2019, 3, 291–295. [Google Scholar]
  138. Achiri, T.D.; Agbor, E.C.; Anye, A.M.; Abdulai, A.N.; Nsobinenyui, D.; Jallow, M. Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) leaf powder modulates metabolism of maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Eur. J. Food Saf. 2020, 12, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Gariba, S.Y.; Dzidzienyo, D.K.; Eziah, V.Y. Assessment of four plant extracts as maize seed protectants against Sitophilus zeamais and Prostephanus truncatus in Ghana. Cogent Food Agric. 2021, 7, 1918426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Emeka, C.P.O.; Ewete, F.K.; Ebeniro, S.T. Efficacy of Eucalyptus leaf (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), Moringa seed (Moringa oleifera) and Pirimiphos-methyl powders against maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais) in Stored Maize. J. Exp. Agric. Int. 2020, 42, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Ajao, A.M.; Ojo, J.A.; Adeoye, A.A.; Ibraheem, M.O.; Babarinde, T.M. Efficacy of extracts of Tithonia diversifolia (Hemsl.) A. Gray as protectant against maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais [Motsch.]) and cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus F. on stored grains. Niger. J. Entomol. 2021, 37, 115–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Obembe, O.M. Phytochemical screening of Eucalyptus citriodora L. leaf and insecticidal activity of the leaf oil extracts against Sitophilus zeamais (Motschulsky, 1855) infesting three varieties a maize in storage. World Sci. News 2023, 179, 54–68. [Google Scholar]
  143. Wanna, R.; Khaengkhan, P. Insecticidal Activity of Essential Oil from Seeds of Foeniculum vulgare (Apiales: Apiaceae) against Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and Its Effects on Crop Seed Germination. Entomol. Sci. 2023, 58, 104–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Niroumand, M.C.; Farzaei, M.H.; Razkenari, E.K.; Amin, G.; Khanavi, M.; Akbarzadeh, T.; Shams-Ardekani, M.R. An evidence-based review on medicinal plants used as insecticide and insect repellent in traditional Iranian medicine. Iran. Red Crescent Med. J. 2016, 18, e22361. [Google Scholar]
  145. Houghton, P.J.; Rena, Y.; Howes, M. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors from plants and fungi. Nat. Prod. Rep. 2006, 23, 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Trivedi, A.; Nayak, N.; Kumar, J. Recent advances and review on use of botanicals from medicinal and aromatic plants in stored grain pest management. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2018, 6, 295–300. [Google Scholar]
  147. Askar, S.I.; Al-Assaal, M.S.; Nassar, A.M.K. Efficiency of some essential oils and insecticides in the control of some Sitophilus insects (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Egypt J. Plant Prot. Res. 2016, 4, 39–55. [Google Scholar]
  148. Rugumamu, C.P. A technique for assessment of intrinsic resistance of maize varieties for the control of Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Tanz. J. Nat. Appl. Sci. 2012, 3, 481–488. [Google Scholar]
  149. Suleiman, M.; Rugumamu, C.P.; Ibrahim, N.D. Insecticidal toxicity of some botanicals against Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in stored sorghum grains in Nigeria. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2018, 6, 1280–1287. [Google Scholar]
  150. Rajashekar, Y.; Raghavendra, A.; Bakthavatsalam, N. Acetylcholinesterase inhibition by biofumigant (Coumaran) from leaves of Lantana camara in stored grain and household insect pests. Biomed. Res. Inter. 2014, 2014, 187019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  151. Rattan, R.S. Mechanism of action of insecticidal secondary metabolites of plants origin. Crop Prot. 2010, 29, 913–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Bell, A.E.; Fellows, L.E.; Patil, B.D. Evaluation of some plants extracts as protectants against the pulse beetle (Callosobruchus maculatus) (F) infesting cowpea seeds. J. Entomol. Res. 1990, 2, 183–187. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Medicinal plant used as pest control of Sitophilus zeamais.
Table 1. Medicinal plant used as pest control of Sitophilus zeamais.
Medicinal PlantBiocompoundsPreparation PlantRef.
Annona muricataAlkaloids, flavonoids, tannins, and saponinsMethanol extract[131]
Acanthus montanusAlkaloids, saponin, tannin and flavonoidPlant powder[132]
Zingiber officinaleN/APlant powder[133]
Piper corcovadensisPhenylpropanoid, monoterpenes α-pinene, and terpinoleneLeaf essential oil[134]
Alchornea cordifoliaN/APlant powder[135]
Lantana camaraPhytol, Pyrroline, Paromomycin, Pyrrolizin, and 1-EicosanoPlant powder and essential oil[136]
Lamium purpureumAlkaloids, terpenoids, flavonoids, tannins, saponnins, phytosteroids, and phenolic compoundsPlant powder[137]
Cupressus macrocarpaN/APlant powder[138]
Moringa oleiferaAlkaloids, saponins, tannins and phenolic, steroids, flavonoids, anthraquinones, phlobatannins, cardiac glycosides, and terpenoidsPlant powder[139]
Eucalyptus camaldulensisN/APlant powder[140]
Tithonia diversifoliaTannin, flavonoid, saponin, phenol,
terpenoid, glucosides, and alkaloid		N-hexane extracts[141]
Eucalyptus citriodoraSaponins, tannins, flavonoids, phenols, quinones, and alkaloidsEssential oil[142]
Foeniculum vulgareAnethole, fenchone, d-limonene, alpha-pinene, and p-cymeneEssential oil[143]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Phokwe, O.J.; Manganyi, M.C. Medicinal Plants as a Natural Greener Biocontrol Approach to “The Grain Destructor” Maize Weevil (Sitophilus zeamais) Motschulsky. Plants 2023, 12, 2505. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12132505

AMA Style

Phokwe OJ, Manganyi MC. Medicinal Plants as a Natural Greener Biocontrol Approach to “The Grain Destructor” Maize Weevil (Sitophilus zeamais) Motschulsky. Plants. 2023; 12(13):2505. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12132505

Chicago/Turabian Style

Phokwe, Ompelege Jacqueline, and Madira Coutlyne Manganyi. 2023. "Medicinal Plants as a Natural Greener Biocontrol Approach to “The Grain Destructor” Maize Weevil (Sitophilus zeamais) Motschulsky" Plants 12, no. 13: 2505. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12132505

APA Style

Phokwe, O. J., & Manganyi, M. C. (2023). Medicinal Plants as a Natural Greener Biocontrol Approach to “The Grain Destructor” Maize Weevil (Sitophilus zeamais) Motschulsky. Plants, 12(13), 2505. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12132505

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop