Next Article in Journal
Dual Mechanisms of Nitrate in Alleviating Ammonium Toxicity: Enhanced Photosynthesis and Optimized Ammonium Utilization in Orychophragmus violaceus
Previous Article in Journal
Soil Water-Soluble Ion Inversion via Hyperspectral Data Reconstruction and Multi-Scale Attention Mechanism: A Remote Sensing Case Study of Farmland Saline–Alkali Lands
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/agronomy15081787
agronomy-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Potential Benefits and Side Effects of Sophora flavescens to Control Rachiplusia nu

by
Geraldo Matheus de Lara Alves
1,
Adeney de Freitas Bueno
2,*,
Gabriel Siqueira Carneiro
3,
Guilherme Julião Zocolo
2,
Taynara Cruz dos Santos
3,
Rafael Stempniak Iasczczaki
4,
Letícia Carolina Chiampi Munhoz
1,
Nicole de Oliveira Vilas Boas
5 and
Isabel Roggia
2
1
Departamento de Agronomia, Universidade Estadual de Londrina, Londrina 86057-970, Paraná, Brazil
2
Embrapa Soja, Londrina 86085-981, Paraná, Brazil
3
Setor de Ciências Biológicas, Departamento de Biologia, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba 81531-980, Paraná, Brazil
4
Departamento de Entomologia, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, Minas Gerais, Brazil
5
Departamento de Agronomia, Universidade Estadual do Norte do Paraná, Bandeirantes 86360-000, Paraná, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(8), 1787; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081787
Submission received: 23 June 2025 / Revised: 21 July 2025 / Accepted: 23 July 2025 / Published: 24 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Pest and Disease Management)
Versions Notes

Abstract

There is a global demand for reducing the adoption of traditional chemical insecticides in agriculture. Among the most promising alternatives, botanical insecticides have been increasingly gaining attention due to their efficacy combined with a more environmentally safe impact. Among the different botanical insecticides commercially available, oxymatrine is an alkaloid found in the roots of Sophora flavescens which exhibits wide insecticide activity. However, their side-effects on non-target organisms have not been extensively evaluated. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate in laboratory conditions the insecticidal potential of a commercial botanical insecticide (Matrine®) based on ethanolic extract of S. flavescens roots at 0.2; 0.6; 1.0; 1.4; 1.8; and 2.2 L of commercial product per hectare to control third-instar larvae of Rachiplusia nu and its selectivity in the egg parasitoid Trichogramma pretiosum. Overall, our results showed that the ethanolic extract of S. flavescens is an efficient tool to control R. nu from 0.6 to 2.2 L/ha, with similar R. nu mortality at 48 and 72 h after spraying (close to 100% mortality) associated with no impact to pupae and minimum impact to adults (slightly harmful) of the egg parasitoid. The botanical insecticide was classified as harmless to the pupae and slightly harmful to the adults of T. pretiosum according to the International Organization for Biological Control (IOBC) protocols. Thus, the use of the ethanolic extract of S. flavescens emerges as a relevant alternative to control R. nu, which needs to be confirmed in future field trials.

1. Introduction

The sunflower looper, Rachiplusia nu (Guenée, 1852) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), is a polyphagous pest species endemic to southern South America [1], reported on 56 different plant species including several important crops such as soybean and cotton, among other cultivated and non-cultivated plants [2]. Despite being considered a major pest of soybean in Argentina [3], R. nu used to be of secondary importance in Brazil, occurring in low levels in soybean fields, restricted to the mid-south of the country until the crop season 2019/20 [4]. However, due to the abusive adoption of Bt soybean (expressing Cry1Ac toxin) in Brazil and, consequently, the lower compliance of the refuge area (20% of the area cropped with non-Bt cultivars) as insect resistance management (IRM), unexpected defoliation caused by R. nu in Bt soybean (expressing only Cry1Ac) has been recorded from 2021 onwards [5]. Later, it was confirmed as the first case of resistance of a Lepidoptera species to Cry1Ac action [6], bringing back sprays of traditional insecticides to control R. nu outbreaks [7].
Insecticide against R. nu has been sprayed even before reaching economic thresholds (30% defoliation in the soybean vegetative stage or 15% defoliation in the soybean reproductive stage) [8]. This has endangered the most important benefits of the adoption of soybean-Bt technology, the reduction in the use of chemical insecticides [7]. Therefore, the development of eco-friendly pest control strategies to reduce the increasing use of chemicals is of great theoretical and practical interest that will benefit hundreds of farmers who need to control this pest not only on Bt but also on non-Bt crops.
Regarded as a sustainable pest management strategy, botanical insecticides have been increasingly gaining attention [9] due to their overall lower persistence in the environment [10], faster degradation [11] and lower impact on non-target organisms [12] compared to the use of traditional chemical insecticides [13]. Among different botanical insecticides, chemicals from Sophora flavescens (Fabaceae, Sophora) include a number of water-soluble alkaloids [14], including oxymatrine (C15H24N2O2) found in the roots of the plant. Oxymatrine belongs to quinolizidine alkaloids, a class of secondary plant metabolites whose main role is chemical defense against herbivores as feeding deterrents [15] at a low concentration or triggering insect mortality when tested at a higher concentration [16], acting at acetylcholine receptors, disrupting nerve impulse transmission, leading to paralysis, and subsequent death [17]. In addition, oxymatrine negatively impacts insect molting, inducing insect growth disruption by blocking the activity of chitinase enzymes that degrade the chitin present in the cuticle and peritrophic membrane of insects during molting [18]. This botanical insecticide is currently available as a commercial product named Matrine®.
Matrine® has been used not only against Lepidoptera pests such as Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), Heliothis virescens (F.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), Leucoptera coffeella (Guér.-Mènev.) (Lepidoptera: Lyonetiidae), Glena bipennaria bipennaria (Guenée) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae), and Grapholita molesta (Busck) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) but also to control several species of mites from 0.1 to 1.4 L/ha [19]. However, despite this widely recognized insecticide activity [20], the only commercial Sophora-flavescens-based insecticide available to be used in soybean in Brazil, Matrine®, contains 19.05% of ethanol extract of S. flavescens (equivalent to 0.2% of oxymatrine) and 80.95% of other ingredients, and is restricted in soybean to control Anticarsia gemmatalis Hübner (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and Bemisia tabaci Gennadius (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) at rates from 0.6 to 1.4 L of commercial product/ha [19], with its non-target effect still poorly understood. Therefore, the present study aimed to expand the knowledge about the potential of this commercial bioinsecticide based on Sophora flavescens against R. nu in addition to evaluating its selectivity in the egg parasitoid Trichogramma pretiosum Riley, 1879 (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae), the biocontrol agent responsible for more than 90% of natural parasitism of lepidopteran eggs recorded in soybean fields [21].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Insect Rearing

A field-derived colony of R. nu was established from larvae collected at the Embrapa Soja field station in Londrina municipality, Paraná state, Brazil (23°11′45.2″ S 51°10′54.4″ W) from December 2018 to January 2019 on Cry1Ac soybean. Populations were maintained in the laboratory (around 80 generations) since then with new field insects introduced into the colonies each year to maintain colony quality over time. Larvae were maintained under controlled conditions [25 ± 2 °C, 70 ± 10% RH, and a 14 h light/10 h dark photoperiod] in the Entomology Laboratory and fed an artificial diet [22,23] per methodology previously described in the literature [24]. After hatching, adults were kept inside 32 cm width × 45 cm length × 30 cm heigh ttransparent acrylic cages (Criartshop, Londrina, Brazil), fed with a 40% brewer’s yeast/water solution and covered with sulfite paper (Chamex®, Mogi-Guaçu, São Paulo, Brazil) placed on the inner walls of the cage. Eggs deposited on the sulfite paper were collected daily to start a new cycle of the species. Also, R. nu larvae and eggs from the colony were used for experiments and for colony maintenance.
Trichogramma pretiosum rearing and multiplication was performed on eggs of the factitious host, Ephestia kuehniella Zeller, 1979 (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), according to methodology described in the literature [25]. Eggs of E. kuehniella were glued onto 8.0 cm length × 2.5 cm width cards and subsequently exposed to ultraviolet light for 45 min for sterilization. Next, the cards were transferred into 8.5 cm heigh × 2.5 cm diameter glass tubes containing honey droplets, into which parasitoid females were introduced in sequence. The rearing procedure was performed inside climatic chambers set at 25 ± 1 °C, 70 ± 10% RH, and 14/10 h photophase (L/D). Parasitoids from this colony were then used for the experiments.

2.2. Mortality of R. nu Caused by Matrine® (Bioassay 1)

The experiment was carried out independently in climate chambers (ELETROLab®, model EL 212, São Paulo, SP, Brazil) at 25 °C ± 2 °C, 70% ± 10% RH and a photoperiod of 14:10 h (L:D) with seven treatments (Table 1) in a completely randomized design with three replicates containing 24 third-instar larvae of R. nu per replicate.
The treatments (Table 1) were studied using the range recommended for A. gemmatalis in soybean (0.6 to 1.4 L/ha) [19] in fixed intervals of 0.4 L/ha among treatments. One lower treatment (0.2 L/ha) was added as well as two higher treatments (1.8 and 2.2 L/ha), taking into consideration that A. gemmatalis is a caterpillar more easily killed by pesticides compared to R. nu. Treatments were applied by spraying (volume of 1.25 ± 0.25 mg/cm−2, which is commonly recommended by International Organization for Biological Control, IOBC, for laboratory trials) on each replicate (glass plates measuring 13 cm × 13 cm containing 24 third-instar larvae of R. nu) using a Potter Spray Tower (Burkard Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Hertfordshire County, UK) set to a pressure of 1.8 kgf/cm2. Control treatment went through the same procedure, but distilled water was sprayed. After these sprays, the larvae were left to dry for approximately 10 min and subsequently maintained in an ELISA plate, individualized with one caterpillar per cell, containing an artificial diet [23] and kept in the same climate chambers previously described. Mortality was monitored at 24, 48, and 72 h post-application. Assessments were performed using a fine brush and larvae that did not respond to mechanical stimulation were considered dead.

2.3. Impact of Matrine® over the Pupae of Trichogramma pretiosum (Bioassay 2)

The selectivity of Matrine® (Table 1) in T. pretiosum pupae was tested according to the standard protocols established by the IOBC [26,27,28]. Cards measuring 3 cm2 (1 card per replicate) containing approximately 100 24 h-old R. nu eggs were exposed to newly emerged parasitoid females (≤24 h). Parasitism was allowed for 24 h. Subsequently, the cards were transferred to plastic cages (8.5 cm in height and 7 cm in diameter) (Plasvale Ltd.a., Gaspar, SC, Brazil) until pupation (168 to 192 h after parasitism) [29]. Then, the parasitoid pupae were sprayed with the treatments (Table 1) with the aid of a Potter Tower as already explained in the previous experiment (bioassay 1) and were left to dry for approximately 2 h. Then, each card contained the sprayed parasitoid pupae were placed in cages [26] until adult emergence, which were fed with honey during the experiment.
After adult emergence from the sprayed pupae, new cards containing approximately 100 eggs of R. nu (≤24 h), on the first day (24 h) and second day (48 h), and a card containing approximately 50 eggs on the third day (72 h) after parasitoid emergence were introduced into the cages. Honey droplets were provided daily as a food source for the adults of the parasitoid. The cards remained in the cages until the fourth day after parasitoid emergence, when they were removed and stored in cylindrical tubes inside a climate chamber (ELETROLab®, model EL 212, São Paulo, SP, Brazil) at 25 °C ± 2 °C, 70% ± 10% RH, and a photoperiod of 14:10 h (L:D) until adult emergence of the second generation (F2). The evaluated parameters were parasitoid emergence from sprayed pupae (F1) and parasitism (%), and emergence (%) of the second generation (F2) with the aid of a stereoscopic microscope (Leica-Wild M10, Wetzlar, Germany). The emergence of sprayed pupae (F1) was calculated as follows: Emergence (%) = number of parasitized eggs with emergence hole/total number of parasitized eggs × 100. Parasitism (%) of F2 was calculated as follows: Parasitism (%) = number of parasitized eggs/total number of eggs offered to the parasitoid × 100. Similarly, emergence of F2 was calculated as previously described for sprayed pupae [28].

2.4. Impact of Dry Residue of Matrine® on Adults of Trichogramma pretiosum (Bioassay 3)

Approximately 100 R. nu eggs were glued onto cards. These cards were then offered to newly emerged T. pretiosum (≤24 h) for oviposition for 24 h. After that, the parasitized T. pretiosum eggs were placed into Duran® tubes (emergence vials, 0.6 cm in diameter × 6 cm in height) containing a drop of honey. The Duran® tubes were then sealed with plastic film and stored in a climate chamber (ELETROLab®, model EL 212, São Paulo, SP, Brazil) at 25 °C ± 2 °C, 70% ± 10% RH, and a 14:10 h (L:D) photoperiod until parasitoid emergence. Glass plates (13 cm × 13 cm) received the treatments by spraying the products (Table 1), according to methodology proposed by IOBC previously described [26,27,28]. The control was sprayed with distilled water.
After spraying, the plates were kept at room conditions for 2 h to dry, after which they were fixed to aluminum frames to form the exposure cage, where a circulating air flow allowed the elimination of possible toxic gases [26,27,28]. Then, the tubes containing adult parasitoids were covered with aluminum foil and connected to holes in the cages to introduce the insects, according to methodology described in the literature [30]. One (24 h), two (48 h), and three days (72 h) after exposing the parasitoids to the dry residues of the products on the glass plates, cards (1 cm × 2 cm) containing approximately 200 eggs of R. nu (≤24 h), on the first (24 h) and second day (48 h), and cards containing approximately 50 eggs on the third day (72 h), and honey droplets were introduced on a daily basis into the cages. The cards containing eggs of the parasitized host were removed on the fourth day of exposure, placed in Duran tubes and stored in a climate chamber at 25 °C ± 2 °C, 70% ± 10% RH, and a photoperiod of 14:10 h (L:D). The number of parasitized eggs and the number of insects that emerged in each treatment were evaluated using a stereoscopic microscope (Leica-Wild M10, Wetzlar, Germany).

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The effects of botanical insecticide on the survival of R. nu in each time interval (24, 48, and 72 h) were analyzed with ANOVA followed by Tukey post hoc analysis when p < 0.005. To analyze the effects of Matrine® on T. pretiosum during each time interval (24, 48, and 72 h) either in the experiment involving the exposition of pupae or adults, we used two statistical procedures. If the data assumed the normal distribution of residues and homoscedasticity, we used (1) two-way variance analysis (ANOVA) followed by Tukey post hoc analysis, with a Boneferroni correction, to pairwise comparisons when p < 0.05; otherwise, (2) non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis analysis was performed and when p < 0.05, Dunn tests to generate pairwise comparisons were carried out. Normal distribution was checked with Shapiro–Wilk tests and homoscedasticity with Levene tests from the ‘car’ package. Statistical analysis was performed using R and Agro R fisher 4.0.0 software (R Project for Statistical Computing. https://fisher.uel.br/AgroR_shiny.pt/ accessed on 29 April 2025).

3. Results

3.1. Mortality of R. nu Caused by Matrine® (Bioassay 1)

The number of dead R. nu larvae were higher than the control (water) at all treatments and evaluation timing (24, 48, and 72 h after spraying) except at the lower treatment of Matrine® (0.2 L of cp/150 L of H2O) at the first evaluation (24 h after spraying) which did not differ from the control. Overall, the botanical insecticide had high lethal effects against R. nu, being a promising control tool against R. nu at studied rates from 0.6 L to 2.2 L of cp/150 L of H2O, with good knockdown effects (control 48 h after treatment). At 48 h after spraying, Matrine® at 0.6, 1.0, 1.4, 1.8, and 2.2 L of cp/150 L of H2O triggered mortality of R. nu higher than 88%, which increased to higher than 98% at 72 h after spraying. Only the lower Matrine® rate of 0.2 L of cp/150 L of H2O presented low initial mortality, being less than 36% and 64% at 24 and 48 h after treatment, respectively. Nevertheless, even Matrine® 0.2 L of cp/150 L of H2O triggered 88.8% mortality at 72 h after spraying; however, this was statistically inferior than the other studied Matrine® treatments (Table 2).

3.2. Impact of Matrine® over the Pupae of Trichogramma pretiosum (Bioassay 2)

No negative side effects on the emergence of adults of Trichogramma pretiosum from treated pupae (F1), or on the parasitism capacity of emerged adults, the progeny (F2), were recorded at any of the tested rates of Matrine® (0.2, 0.6, 1.0, 1.4, 1.8, and 2.2 L of cp/150 L of H2O), never differing from the treatment control (water) (Table 3 and Table 4). The emergence from treated pupae with Matrine® was higher than 72%. Parasitism capacity (%) and emergence (viability%) of the progeny at 24 and 48 h were always higher than 61% and 78%. Therefore, Matrine® at all studied rates was classified as harmless (class 1) to pupae of T. pretiosum at 24 h and 48 h after treatments (Table 3). Only 72 h after treatment, which presented overall lower parasitism, Matrine® treatment presented lower numerical parasitism (Table 4) which led to the classification of the bioinsecticide as slightly harmful (class 2), especially at the higher studied rates of 1.8 and 2 L of cp/150 L of H2O (Table 3).

3.3. Impact of Dry Residue of Matrine® on Adults of Trichogramma pretiosum (Bioassay 3)

When T. pretiosum adults were exposed to the tested treatments, it was recorded that only water (control) and Matrine® 0.2 L of cp/150 L of H2O obtained the highest parasitism rate after 24 h after treatment. Higher tested rates of Matrine® caused lower parasitism rates (Table 5); however, the botanical insecticide impact on the parasitoid adult stage was still classified as harmless (class 1) or only slightly harmful (class 2) at 24 h after treatment (Table 3). At 48 h and 72 h after treatment, the parasitism recorded at the different botanical insecticide treatments was even lower than parasitism recorded at 24 h after treatment (Table 5), being, then, classified as slightly harmful (class 2) or moderately harmful (class 3) at rates of Matrine® 0.2, 0.6, 1.0, 1.4, 1.8, and 2.2 L of cp/150 L of H2O and even as harmful (class 4) for Matrine® 2.2 L of cp/150 L of H2O 72 h after treatment (Table 3).

4. Discussion

The tested bioinsecticide (Matrine®), based on the ethanolic extract of Sophora flavescens, was effective in controlling Rachiplusia nu at rates of 0.6, 1.0, 1.4, 1.8, and 2.2 L of p.c./150 L of H2O in laboratory conditions with remarkable knockdown effect, achieving more than 84% and 91% control of R. nu just 24 h and 48 h after treatment, respectively. The high mortality caused by oxymatrine shown in our current investigation is supported by previous reports from the scientific literature indicating this botanical insecticide as an effective toxicant against different insect species [31]. For instance, Thrips hawaiiensis (Morgan) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), Diaphorina citri (Kuwayama) (Hemiptera: Psyllidae), Sitophilus zeamais Mots. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), Spodoptera frugiperda (Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) [32], Spodoptera littoralis (Boisd.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) [33], Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae) [31], Drosophila melanogaster (Meigen) (Diptera: Drosophilidae) [34], Sesamia critica Led (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) [35], Culex pipiens L. (Diptera: Culicidae), and Callosobruchus spp. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) [36,37] among other species are commonly controlled with oxymatrine. Those positive results can be attributed to commercial products used in those studies, containing high levels of oxymatrine per liter of insecticide [19]. Oxymatrine acting on the nervous system of insects, interfering with acetylcholine receptors, and interrupting the transmission of nerve impulses leads to fast paralysis and, subsequently, death [38,39]. When insects are treated topically with this botanical insecticide, they usually exhibit a quick onset of sluggish behavior without evidence of hyperexcitation [34].
Not only the effectiveness of insecticides in controlling the target pest but also their selectivity in non-target organisms should be taken into consideration when choosing an insecticide to be adopted in Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which brings remarkable benefits to the pest management success [40]. In general, botanical insecticides have less impact on beneficial organisms [41,42], reinforcing their potential as a sustainable tool in IPM. However, the action of the given insecticides may vary between different species of biocontrol agents [16]. In addition, as far as we know, this is the first report of the selectivity of the ethanolic extract of S. flavescens in T. pretiosum, one of the most important natural biocontrol agents of Lepidoptera in soybean fields in the Neotropics [21].
Overall, the ethanolic extract of S. flavescens (Matrine®) was selective in T. pretiosum, especially in the pupae of the parasitoid. The higher tolerance of pupae of T. pretiosum to the ethanolic extract of S. flavescens in comparison with adults might be linked to the location of the parasitoid inside the host egg, which is protected against botanical insecticide contact by the chorion of the eggs [43]. The ability of a product to penetrate the chorion of an insect egg can depend on their physicochemical properties and vary from insecticide to insecticide as well as species to species [16], illustrating the importance of the findings herein reported to the management of R. nu.
Taking into consideration the negative side effects recorded for adult parasitoids at the higher rates of 1.8 and 2.2 L of Matrine®/150 L of H2O, the most promising results should be between Matrine® 0.6, 1.0, or 1.4 L of p.c./150 L of H2O. These findings are important, especially considering that R. nu has stood out as a key pest in soybean crops, severely impacting yield when not properly managed [44], consequently, bringing back the overspray of traditional chemical insecticides to control Lepidoptera in Bt soybean cultivars due to its outbreaks [11].
Thus, in conclusion, the use of the ethanolic extract of S. flavescens emerges as a relevant alternative to reduce traditional chemical insecticides to control R. nu, contributing to the reduction in the negative impacts that these synthetic products can cause on biocontrol agents [45] in addition to other negative effects [46,47]. Botanical insecticides, in general, present greater environmental compatibility [48,49] and lower persistence in the environment [50], reducing risks such as food contamination, secondary pest outbreaks, and the selection of resistant pest populations [51,52]. Overall, commercial products based on Matrine® are already available for managing agricultural pests around the world. In China, for instance, Baicao® n1 (Beijing Multigrass Formulation Co., Ltd.) is sold. In Iraq and some countries of Africa, the commercial product Levo 2.4 SL (Prosuler oxymatrine 2.4%) (UPL Ltd.) is commercially accessible for agricultural pest control. Similarly, in Brazil, the commercial product tested in this study, known as Matrine® (manufactured by Inner Mongolis Kingbo Biotech Co., Ltd. and imported by Dinagro Agropecuária Ltd.a., Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil) is legally allowed to be used to manage pests [53]. These products benefit millions of growers in those countries.
In addition, it is important to emphasize that most of those experiments were carried out under laboratory-controlled environmental conditions, where the insects were subjected to the highest possible pressure from the tested botanical insecticide. In field conditions, however, the negative impact recorded on parasitoids in a laboratory may be reduced because T. pretiosum can benefit from refuge areas or may avoid the treated areas [27]. Therefore, the lower rates of 0.6 to 1.4 (a range also registered and recommended for another caterpillar in soybean—A. gemmatalis) should be tested in field conditions to confirm or disprove a possible extension of the botanical insecticide registration and recommendations to also be used to control R. nu in the field with minimum impact on T. pretiosum.

Author Contributions

G.M.d.L.A., A.d.F.B., G.S.C., G.J.Z., T.C.d.S., R.S.I., L.C.C.M., N.d.O.V.B. and I.R. contributed to the study design and wrote the paper. G.M.d.L.A., G.S.C., T.C.d.S., L.C.C.M., I.R. and N.d.O.V.B. conducted the sampling; G.M.d.L.A., T.C.d.S., I.R., A.d.F.B. and G.J.Z. contributed the material; R.S.I. and G.S.C. analyzed the data. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) from project number 402797/2016-7, and fellowship from project number 302645/2018-7.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Embrapa Soja, for the support and infrastructure.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Barbut, J. Révision du genre Rachiplusia Hampson, 1913 (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, Plusiinae). Bull. Soc. Entomol. Fr. 2008, 113, 445–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alves, J.S.; Pasqualotto, L.; Soares, V.N.; Souza, M.T.; Souza, M.T.; Rakes, M.; Horikoshi, R.J.; Miraldo, L.L.; Ovejero, R.L.F.; Berger, G.U.; et al. Life table study of Rachiplusia nu (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on different food sources and artificial diet. J. Econ. Entomol. 2024, 117, 2135–2142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Specht, A.; Sosa-Gómez, D.R.; Roque-Specht, V.F.; Valduga, E.; Gonzatti, F.; Schuh, S.M.; Carneiro, E. Biotic potential and life tables of Chrysodeixis includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), Rachiplusia nu, and Trichoplusia ni on soybean and forage turnip. J. Insect Sci. 2019, 19, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Horikoshi, R.J.; Dourado, P.M.; Berger, G.U.; Fernandes, D.S.; Omoto, C.; Willse, A.; Martinelli, S.; Head, G.P.; Corrêa, A.S. Large-scale assessment of lepidopteran soybean pests and efficacy of Cry1Ac soybean in Brazil. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 15956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Horikoshi, R.J.; Bernardi, O.; Godoy, D.N.; Semeão, A.A.; Willse, A.; Corazza, G.O.; Ruthes, E.; Fernandes, D.S.; Sosa-Gómez, D.R.; Bueno, A.F.; et al. Resistance status of lepidopteran soybean pests following large-scale use of MON87701 × MON89788 soybean in Brazil. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 21323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Reis, A.C.; Steinhaus, E.A.; Godoy, D.N.; Warpechowski, L.F.; Diniz, L.H.M.; Dallanora, A.; Horikoshi, R.J.; Ovejero, R.F.L.; Martinelli, S.; Berger, G.U.; et al. Genetic basis of resistance to Cry1Ac in Rachiplusia nu (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae): Inheritance mode, cross-resistance patterns and fitness cost. Pest Manag. Sci. 2025, 81, 727–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bueno, A.F.; Braz-Zini, E.C.; Horikoshi, R.J.; Bernardi, O.; Andrade, G.; Sutil, W.P. Over 10 years of Bt soybean in Brazil: Lessons, benefits, and challenges for its use in Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Neotrop. Èntomol. 2025, 54, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Hayashida, R.; Godoy, C.V.; Hoback, W.W.; Bueno, A.F. Are economic thresholds for IPM decisions the same for low LAI soybean cultivars in Brazil? Pest Manag. Sci. 2020, 77, 1256–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Damalas, C.A.; Koutroubas, S.D. Botanical Pesticides for Eco-Friendly Pest Management. In Pesticides in Crop Production; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ntalli, N.G.; Spochacz, M.; Adamski, Z. The role of botanical treatments used in apiculture to control arthropod pests. Apidologie 2022, 53, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Batish, D.R.; Singh, H.P.; Kohli, R.K.; Kaur, S. Eucalyptus essential oil as a natural pesticide. For. Ecol. Manag. 2008, 256, 2166–2174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Benelli, G.; Pavela, R.; Cianfaglione, K.; Sender, J.; Danuta, U.; Ma´slanko, W.; Canale, A.; Barboni, L.; Petrelli, R.; Zeppa, L.; et al. Ascaridole-rich essential oil from marsh rosemary (Ledum palustre) growing in Poland exerts insecticidal activity on mosquitoes, moths and flies without serious effects on non-target organisms and human cells. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020, 138, 111184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ebadollahi, A.; Ziaee, M.; Palla, F. Essential oils extracted from different species of the Lamiaceae plant family as prospective bioagents against several detrimental pests. Molecules 2020, 25, 1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tian, Y.; Zhang, Z. Insecticidal activities of Sophora flavescens alt. Towards Red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta Buren). Toxins 2023, 15, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zanardi, O.Z.; Belegante, F.; Moresco, C.; Zimermann, H.G.; Falchetti, A.; Zanardi, A.M. Toxicity and efficacy of azadirachtin, and oxymatrine-based biopesticides against cabbage aphid and their impacts on predator insects. Crop Prot. 2024, 186, 106931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wu, J.; Li, J.; Zhang, C.; Yu, X.; Cuthbertson, A.G.; Ali, S. Biological impact and enzyme activities of Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in response to synergistic action of matrine and Beauveria brongniartii. Front. Physiol. 2020, 11, 584405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wink, M.; Schmeller, T.; Latz-Brūning, B. Modes of action of alleochemical alkaloids: Interaction with neuroreceptors, DNA, and other molecular targets. J. Chem. Ecol. 1998, 24, 1881–1937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ali, S.; Zhang, C.; Wang, Z.; Wang, X.M.; Wu, J.H.; Cuthbertson, A.G.; Shao, Z.; Qiu, B.L. Toxicological and biochemical basis of synergism between the entomopathogenic fungus Lecanicillium muscarium and the insecticide matrine against Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius). Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 46558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Isman, M.B. Commercialization and regulation of botanical biopesticides: A global perspective. In Development and Commercialization of Biopesticides; Koul, O., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023; pp. 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Agrofit. Sistema de Agrotóxicos Fitossanitários. Ministério da Agricultura do Governo Federal. Available online: https://agrofit.agricultura.gov.br/agrofit_cons/principal_agrofit_cons (accessed on 9 September 2024).
  21. Foerster, L.A.; Avanci, M.R.F. Egg parasitoids of Anticarsia gemmatalis Hubner (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in soybeans. An. Da Soc. Entomológica Do Bras. 1999, 28, 545–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Greene, G.L.; Leppla, N.C.; Dickerson, W.A. Velvetbean caterpillar: A rearing procedure and artificial medium. J. Econ. Entomol. 1976, 69, 487–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hoffmann-Campo, C.B.; Oliveira, E.B.; Moscardi, F. Criação Massal Da Lagarta Da Soja. Londrina Embrapa 23, 1985. Available online: https://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/bitstream/doc/445420/1/Doc1.pdf (accessed on 10 December 2024).
  24. Andrade, K.; Bueno, A.F.; Silva, D.M.; Stecca, C.S.; Pasini, A.; Oliveira, M.C.N. Bioecological characteristics of Chrysodeixis includens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) fed on different hosts. Austral Entomol. 2016, 55, 449–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Parra, J.R.P.; Botelho, P.S.M.; Ferreira, C.; Bento, J.M.S. Controle biológico: Uma visão inter e multidisciplinar. In Controle Biológico no Brasil: Parasitóides E Predadores; Parra, J.R.P., Botelho, P.S.M., Ferreira, C., Bento, J.M.S., Eds.; Manole: São Paulo, Brazil, 2002; Volume 8, pp. 125–137. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hassan, S.A.; Bigler, F.; Blaisinger, P.; Bogenschütz, H.; Brun, J.; Chiverton, P.; Dickler, E.; Easterbrook, M.A.; Edwards, P.J.; Englert, W.D.; et al. Standard methods to test the side-effects of pesticides on natural enemies of insects and mites developed by the IOBC/WPRS working group ‘Pesticides and Beneficial Organisms’. EPPO Bull. 1985, 15, 214–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hassan, S.A. Guideline for the evaluation of side-effects of plant protection product on Trichogramma cacoeciae. In Guidelines for Testing the Effects of Pesticides on Beneficial Organisms: Description of Test Methods; Hassan, S.A., Ed.; IOBC/WPRS Bulletin: Pisa, Italy, 1992; Volume 15, pp. 18–39. [Google Scholar]
  28. Manzoni, C.; Grützmacher, A.; Giolo, F.; Härter, W.; Castilhos, R.; Paschoal, M. Seletividade de agroquímicos utilizados na produção integrada de maçã aos parasitóides Trichogramma pretiosum Riley e Trichogramma atopovirilia Oatman & Platner (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). BioAssay 2009, 2, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cônsoli, F.L.; Rossi, M.M.; Parra, J.R.P. Developmental time and characteristics of the immature stages of Trichogramma galloi and T. pretiosum (Hymenoptera, Trichogrammatidae). Rev. Bras. Entomol. 1999, 43, 271–275. [Google Scholar]
  30. Carmo, E.L.; Bueno, A.F.; Bueno, R.C.O.F. Pesticide selectivity for the insect egg parasitoid Telenomus remus. BioControl 2010, 55, 455–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gharib, A.M.; Gad, H.A.; Mohamed, H.A. Insecticidal activity of botanical insecticide, oxymatrine against Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae). Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2025, 45, 649–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zanardi, O.Z.; do Ribeiro, L.P.; Ansante, T.F.; Santos, M.S.; Bordini, G.P.; Yamamoto, P.T.; Vendramim, J.D. Bioactivity of a matrine-based biopesticide against four pest species of agricultural importance. Crop Prot. 2015, 67, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. AL-Khazraji, H.I.; Gaym, N.N.; Resan, A.M. Effect of oxymatrine 2.4% in some biological aspects of Spodoptera littoralis (Boisd.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Arid. Int. J. Sci. Technol. 2019, 2, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bloomquist, J.R.; Jiang, S.; Taylor-Wells, J.; Yang, L.; Li, Y.-X. Insecticidal activity and physiological actions of matrine, a plant natural product. ACS Symp. Ser. 2018, 1289, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gadallah, A.; Mohammed, H.; El-Metwally, M.; Abdel-Rahman, A. The effect of teflubenzuron and oxymatrine on some biological aspects of Sesamia critica Led. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Plant Prot. Pathol. 2014, 5, 837–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mohamed, H.A.; Gad, H.A.; Oraby, H.K. Field larvicidal and pupicidal efficacy of the natural insecticide, oxymatrine against Culex species in Beni Suef Governorate, Egypt. J. Nat. Pestic. Res. 2023, 4, 100030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gad, H.A.; Al-Ayat, A.A.; Mohamed, H.A.; Abdelgaleil, S.A. Long term efficacy of three chitin synthesis inhibitors and oxymatrine as cowpea seed protectants against Callosobruchus maculatus and Callosobruchus chinensis. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2023, 105, 102243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chen, M.H.; Gu, Y.Y.; Zhang, A.L.; Sze, D.M.Y.; Mo, S.L.; May, B.H. Biological effects and mechanisms of matrine and other constituents of Sophora flavescens in colorectal cancer. Pharmacol. Res. 2021, 171, 105778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bueno, A.F.; Colmenarez, Y.C.; Carnevalli, R.A.; Sutil, W.P. Benefits and perspectives of adopting soybean-IPM: The success of a Brazilian programme. Plant Health Cases 2023, phcs20230006, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Umpiérrez, M.L.; Paullier, J.; Porrini, M.; Garrido, M.; Santos, E.; Rossini, C. Potential botanical pesticides from Asteraceae essential oils for tomato production: Activity against whiteflies, plants and bees. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 109, 686–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Samy, M.S.; Alotaibi, S.S.; Gaber, N.; Elarrnaouty, S.A. Evaluation of five medicinal plant extracts on Aphis craccivora (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and its predator, Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) under laboratory conditions. Insects 2020, 11, 398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bueno, A.F.; Carvalho, G.A.; Santos, A.C.; Sosa-Gomez, D.R.; Silva, D.M. Pesticide selectivity to natural enemies: Challenges and constraints for research and field recommendation. Cienc. Rural 2017, 47, e20160829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Stecca, C.S.; Bueno, A.F.; Pasini, A.; Silva, D.M.; Andrade, K.; Filho, D.M.Z. Side-effects of glyphosate to the parasitoid Telenomus remus Nixon (Hymenoptera: Platygastridae). Neotrop. Èntomol. 2016, 45, 192–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bortolotto, O.C.; Pomari-Fernandes, A.; Bueno, R.G.O.F.; Bueno, A.F.; Kruz, Y.K.S.; Queiroz, A.P.; Sanzovo, A.; Ferreira, R.B. The use of soybean integrated pest management in Brazil: A review. Agron. Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 1, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Torres, J.B.; Bueno, A.F. Conservation biological control using selective insecticides: A valuable tool for IPM. Biol. Control. 2018, 126, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bueno, A.F.; Panizzi, A.R.; Hunt, T.E.; Dourado, P.M.; Pitta, R.M.; Gonçalves, J. Challenges for Adoption of Integrated Pest Management (Ipm): The Soybean Example. Neotrop. Entomol. 2021, 50, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lengai, G.M.; Muthomi, J.W. Biopesticides and their role in sustainable agricultural production. J. Biosci. Med. 2018, 6, 7–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Campos, E.V.; Proença, P.L.; Oliveira, J.L.; Bakshi, M.; Abhilash, P.C.; Fraceto, L.F. Use of botanical insecticides for sustainable agriculture: Future perspectives. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 105, 483–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Raheem, S.S.; Al-Dossary, M.A.; Al-Saad, H.T. Laboratory study for biodegradation of oxymatrine insecticide by single and mixed cultures of fungi isolated from agriculture soils in Basrah Governorate. Iraq. Baghdad Sci. 2019, 16, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Isman, M.B. Botanical insecticides in the twenty-first century fulfilling their promise? Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2020, 65, 233–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Ayilara, M.S.; Adeleke, B.S.; Akinola, S.A.; Fayose, C.A.; Adeyemi, U.T.; Gbadegesin, L.A.; Omole, R.K.; Johnson, R.M.; Uthman, Q.O.; Babalola, O.O. Biopesticides as a promising alternative to synthetic pesticides: A case for microbial pesticides, phytopesticides, and nanobiopesticides. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1040901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Carvalho, G.A.; Reis, P.R.; Grützmacher, A.D.; Degrande, P.E.; Yamamoto, P.T.; Bueno, A.F. Seletividade de produtos fitossanitários: Uma estratégia viável para a agricultura sustentável. In Controle Biológico Com Parasitoides E Predadores Na Agricultura Brasileiraparra; Para, J.R.P., Pinto, A.S., Nava, D.E., Oliveira, R.C., Diniz, A.J.F., Eds.; FEALQ: Piracicaba, Brazil, 2021; pp. 481–510. [Google Scholar]
  53. Brilinger, D.; Fiedler, M.; Arioli, C.J.; Werner, S.S.; Wertheim, B.; Boff, M.I.C. Exploring Matrine and Oxymatrine as Potential Bioinsecticide to Control Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Neotrop. Èntomol. 2025, 54, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Description of the treatments of Matrine® (soluble concentrate of ethanolic extract of Sophora flavescens with 190.5 g of active ingredient/liter of commercial product) evaluated in control bioassays under laboratory conditions (25 °C ± 2 °C, 70% ± 10% RH, and photoperiod of 14:10 h Light:Dark) with Rachiplusa nu (considering a spray volume in the field of 150 L/hectare).
Table 1. Description of the treatments of Matrine® (soluble concentrate of ethanolic extract of Sophora flavescens with 190.5 g of active ingredient/liter of commercial product) evaluated in control bioassays under laboratory conditions (25 °C ± 2 °C, 70% ± 10% RH, and photoperiod of 14:10 h Light:Dark) with Rachiplusa nu (considering a spray volume in the field of 150 L/hectare).
Treatment(g) a.i./haCommercial Product (cp) (L of cp/ha)
Water (control)-Distilled water
Matrine®419.12.2
Matrine®342.91.8
Matrine®266.71.4
Matrine®190.51.0
Matrine®114.30.6
Matrine®38.10.2
Table 2. Number of dead Rachiplusia nu larvae at different periods after topical application of the studied treatments (bioassay 1). Each treatment had an initial 72 third instar larvae. Shown is the number of dead larvae at each time interval after treatment application.
Table 2. Number of dead Rachiplusia nu larvae at different periods after topical application of the studied treatments (bioassay 1). Each treatment had an initial 72 third instar larvae. Shown is the number of dead larvae at each time interval after treatment application.
Treatment
(L of cp/150 L H2O)		Number of de R. nu Larvae (Mortality%)
24 h48 h72 h
Water (control)0.7 ± 0.8 c (2.9%)2.3 ± 0.8 c (9.6%)2.3 ± 0.0 c (9.6%)
Matrine® 2.223.0 ± 4.2 a (95.8%)23.3 ± 1.6 a (97.1%)24.0 ± 0.0 a (100%)
Matrine® 1.824.0 ± 0.0 a (100%)24.0 ± 0.0 a (100%)24.0 ± 0.0 a (100%)
Matrine® 1.415.6 ± 2.1 b (65.0%)21.3 ± 0.8 a (88.8%)24.0 ± 0.0 a (100%)
Matrine® 1.022.3 ± 2.1 a (92.9%)22.6 ± 1.6 a (92.9%)23.6 ± 0.8 a (98.3%)
Matrine® 0.619.3 ± 3.4 ab (84.4%)22.0 ± 2.4 a (91.7%)23.6 ± 0.8 a (98.3%)
Matrine® 0.28.6 ± 5.7 c (35.8%)15.3 ± 2.1 b (63.8)21.3 ± 2.8 b (88.8%)
StatisticsF95.52110.9331.7
p-value<2 × 10−16 <2 × 10−16<2 × 10−16
DFresidue777
Means ± Standard Errors (SEs) in each column followed by the same letter did not differ significantly from each other according to the post hoc Tukey test (<0.05).
Table 3. Classification of the selectivity of insecticides in Trichogramma pretiosum according to the “International Organization for Biological Control” (IOBC) for pupae and adults, at different periods after the spraying of the studied treatments.
Table 3. Classification of the selectivity of insecticides in Trichogramma pretiosum according to the “International Organization for Biological Control” (IOBC) for pupae and adults, at different periods after the spraying of the studied treatments.
Treatment
(L of cp/150 L H2O)		Bioassays with Pupae (Bioassay 2)Bioassays with Adults (Bioassay 3)
Sprayed Pupae24 h48 h72 h24 h48 h72 h
EP aC bE bC cE bC cE bC cE bC cE bC cE bC c
Matrine® 2.20.3618.7122.1155.2227.3132.32100.04
Matrine® 1.82.4512.5111.0163.5270.6292.3397.03
Matrine® 1.401018.310130.1248.3293.43
Matrine® 1.09.831013.710126.2141.4273.32
Matrine® 0.60.8410111.9136.8231.5231.3286.53
Matrine® 0.24.23101010117.4127.6191.23
a EP (Effects on pupae%) = (1 − adult emergence observed for the tested treatment/adult emergence observed for the control treatment) × 100; b Classes: 1 = harmless (EP or E < 30%), 2 = slightly harmful (30 ≤ EP or E ≤ 79%), 3 = moderately harmful (80 ≤ EP or E ≤ 99%), 4 = harmful (EP or E > 99%); c E(Effects on adults%) = (1 − parasitism observed for the tested treatment/parasitism observed for the control treatment) × 100.
Table 4. Effects of exposing parasitized host eggs to Matrine® during the pupal stage of Trichogramma pretiosum on adult emergence, parasitism rate, and progeny survival. Measurements were taken at emergence (F1 generation) and 24, 48, and 72 hours after emerged adult parasitism.
Table 4. Effects of exposing parasitized host eggs to Matrine® during the pupal stage of Trichogramma pretiosum on adult emergence, parasitism rate, and progeny survival. Measurements were taken at emergence (F1 generation) and 24, 48, and 72 hours after emerged adult parasitism.
TreatmentSprayed Pupae24 h48 h72 h
(mL/150 L H2O)Adult Emergence (%) (Kruskal–Wallis)Parasitism (%) (ANOVA)Progeny Viability (%) (Kruskal–Wallis)Parasitism (%) (ANOVA)Progeny Viability (%) (Kruskal–Wallis)Parasitism
(%) (Kruskal–Wallis)		Progeny Viability (%) (Kruskal–Wallis)
Water (control)89.2 ± 1.5 a79.3 ± 5.6 a70.2 ± 8.3 a78.7 ± 2.9 a75.3 ± 5.6 a59.6 ± 12.3 a98.0 ± 0.9 a
Matrine® 2.290.7 ± 2.0 a72.4 ± 4.9 a94.5 ± 0.6 a61.3 ± 6.6 a78.6 ± 6.3 a25.7 ± 13.1 a87.2 ± 1.79 a
Matrine® 1.887.0 ± 5.8 a77.3 ± 4.0 a92.0 ± 0.9 a70.0 ± 11.9 a91.6 ± 1.1 a21.7 ± 4.0 a85.0 ± 6.7 a
Matrine® 1.472.4 ± 18.3 a82.6 ± 5.9 a87.2 ± 1.4 a72.2 ± 5.9 a91.7 ± 1.6 a69.1 ± 12.0 a88.3 ± 2.2 a
Matrine® 1.080.5 ± 3.0 a85.9 ± 4.3 a89.1 ± 1.7 a75.8 ± 3.2 a92.3 ± 1.6 a58.9 ± 11.4 a90.1 ± 2.5 a
Matrine® 0.688.5 ± 2.1 a82.4 ± 5.2 a88.9 ± 0.7 a69.3 ± 11.1 a89.3 ± 1.2 a37.6 ± 17.4 a91.0 ± 2.1 a
Matrine® 0.285.5 ± 3.3 a85.9 ± 6.2 a86.5 ± 1.6 a83.4 ± 5.0 a83.8 ± 1.6 a67.1 ± 12.2 a81.3 ± 3.4 a
* F/χ26.67 (K)0.89 (A)16.29 (K)2.03 (A)6.74 (K)2.34 (K)5.77 (K)
p-value0.460.510.00010.080.40.050.56
DFresidue7129.87619.171842.47
Means (±SE) followed by different letters indicate significant differences according to Tukey’s test after ANOVA (F) or Dunn’s test following Kruskal–Wallis analysis (χ2), both at p < 0.05. * A = ANOVA, K = Kruskal–Wallis; post hoc = Tukey or Dunn as appropriate.
Table 5. Effects of Matrine® on adult parasitism and progeny survival of Trichogramma pretiosum at different periods after the spraying of the studied treatments (bioassay 3).
Table 5. Effects of Matrine® on adult parasitism and progeny survival of Trichogramma pretiosum at different periods after the spraying of the studied treatments (bioassay 3).
Treatment
(L of cp/150 L H2O)		24 h48 h72 h
Parasitism (%)
(Kruskal–Wallis)		Progeny Viability (%)
(Kruskal–Wallis)		Parasitism (%)
(Kruskal–Wallis)		Progeny Viability (%)
(ANOVA)		Parasitism
(%)
(Kruskal–Wallis)		Progeny Viability (%)
(Kruskal–Wallis)
Water (control)74.8 ± 2.5 a93.7 ± 0.9 a66.1 ± 1.2 a87.4 ± 2.1 a26.4 ± 11.0 a75.2 ± 6.12 a
Matrine® 2.254.3 ± 0.8 b83.0 ± 2.3 a44.7 ± 1.7 b79.09 ± 1.2 a0.0 ± 0.0 cNo existent
Matrine® 1.821.9 ± 14.8 b50.4 ± 9.6 b5.0 ± 3.1 d32.5 ± 9.3 b0.7 ± 0.7 b20.0 ± 8.9 a
Matrine® 1.452.2 ± 5.5 b63.4 ± 3.0 b34.1 ± 8.9 c56.2 ± 8.3 a1.7 ± 1.7 b56.0 ± 10.4 a
Matrine® 1.055.1 ± 4.6 b84.96 ± 1.5 a35.1 ± 9.4 c56.06 ± 10.4 a7.0 ± 7.0 b10.0 ± 4.5 b
Matrine® 0.651.1 ± 5.1 b87.4 ± 0.7 a45.4 ± 8.1 b28.57 ± 8.8 b3.5 ± 2.8 b28.6 ± 8.8 a
Matrine® 0.261.7 ± 2.1 a83.8 ± 1.3 a47.8 ± 5.1 b20 ± 8.9 b2.3 ± 1.7 b40.0 ± 11.0 a
Statistics* F/χ219.56 (K)18.26 (K)24.9 (K)3.02 (A)16.5 (K)29.7 (K)
p-value0.0060.010.00070.040.020.002
DFresidue 7 7 7
Means (±SE) followed by different letters showed significant differences according to the Tukey test after the ANOVA (F) or Dunn test after Kruskall–Wallis analysis (X). * A = ANOVA, K = Kruskal–Wallis; post hoc = Tukey or Dunn as appropriate.
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

Alves, G.M.d.L.; Bueno, A.d.F.; Carneiro, G.S.; Zocolo, G.J.; Santos, T.C.d.; Iasczczaki, R.S.; Munhoz, L.C.C.; Vilas Boas, N.d.O.; Roggia, I. Potential Benefits and Side Effects of Sophora flavescens to Control Rachiplusia nu. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1787. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081787

AMA Style

Alves GMdL, Bueno AdF, Carneiro GS, Zocolo GJ, Santos TCd, Iasczczaki RS, Munhoz LCC, Vilas Boas NdO, Roggia I. Potential Benefits and Side Effects of Sophora flavescens to Control Rachiplusia nu. Agronomy. 2025; 15(8):1787. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081787

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alves, Geraldo Matheus de Lara, Adeney de Freitas Bueno, Gabriel Siqueira Carneiro, Guilherme Julião Zocolo, Taynara Cruz dos Santos, Rafael Stempniak Iasczczaki, Letícia Carolina Chiampi Munhoz, Nicole de Oliveira Vilas Boas, and Isabel Roggia. 2025. "Potential Benefits and Side Effects of Sophora flavescens to Control Rachiplusia nu" Agronomy 15, no. 8: 1787. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081787

APA Style

Alves, G. M. d. L., Bueno, A. d. F., Carneiro, G. S., Zocolo, G. J., Santos, T. C. d., Iasczczaki, R. S., Munhoz, L. C. C., Vilas Boas, N. d. O., & Roggia, I. (2025). Potential Benefits and Side Effects of Sophora flavescens to Control Rachiplusia nu. Agronomy, 15(8), 1787. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081787

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