Next Article in Journal
How Crucial is the Functional Pit Organ for the Varroa Mite?
Next Article in Special Issue
Essential Oils as Post-Harvest Crop Protectants against the Fruit Fly Drosophila suzukii: Bioactivity and Organoleptic Profile
Previous Article in Journal
Novel Mitochondrial DNA Lineage Found among Ochlerotatus communis (De Geer, 1776) of the Nordic-Baltic Region
Previous Article in Special Issue
Larvicidal, Ovicidal, Synergistic, and Repellent Activities of Sophora alopecuroides and Its Dominant Constituents Against Aedes albopictus
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Evaluation of Five Medicinal Plant Extracts on Aphis craccivora (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and Its Predator, Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) under Laboratory Conditions

Department of Economic Entomology and Pesticides, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Giza 12613, Egypt
Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Science, Taif University, Taif 888, Saudi Arabia
Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, Dokki, Giza 12619, Egypt
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh 11671, Saudi Arabia
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2020, 11(6), 398;
Received: 28 May 2020 / Revised: 19 June 2020 / Accepted: 23 June 2020 / Published: 26 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Natural Substances against Insect Pests: Assets and Liabilities)


Botanical insecticides that degrade rapidly are safer than persistent synthetic chemical insecticides, less harmful to the environment, decrease production costs and are not likely to cause insecticide resistance among pests. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of five different botanical extracts on the bean aphid, Aphis craccivora and the 2nd larval instar of the green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea under laboratory conditions. Also, the flavonoids in the methanolic extracts of these tested plants were detected using HPLC analysis. The data from the HPLC analysis indicated that the tested plants differed in their flavonoid components. The total flavonoids were 869.4, 1125.6, 721.4, 1667.8 and 2025.9 mg/kg in Psiadia penninervia, Salvia officinalis, Ochradenus baccatus, Pulicaria crispa and Euryops arabicus, respectively. Moreover, there were many variations among these plants in the amount of each compound. The lethal concentration (LC50) value of P. penninervia extract on aphids was the lowest among all of the plants (128.546 µg/mL) followed by O. baccatus (626.461 µg/mL). Also, the LC50 value of P. penninervia extract on the 2nd larval instar of C. carnea (232.095 µg/mL) was significantly lower than those of all other four plant species extracts, while the other four plants did not show significant differences among them according to relative median potency analyses. Accordingly, O. baccatus extract had a strong effect on aphids and was safest for the predator. This finding suggests that O. baccatus could be exploited and further developed as an effective plant extract-based insecticide to be utilized in integrated pest management (IPM) programs against A. craccivora.

1. Introduction

Plants produce secondary metabolites and chemical substances to protect themselves from the attack of pests and pathogens [1]. There is a growing need for new active substances and products for pest control that decrease the unfavorable impacts of chemical insecticides on the environment and especially on human health [2]. Thus, thousands of plant extracts have been evaluated as alternatives to chemical insecticides. The use of botanical insecticides can cause mortality, infertile adults, slow growth, and a decrease in the egg viability of insects. However, these botanical extracts are generally less harmful to the environment, low cost, and their use as food ingredients indicate their low toxicity to humans [3,4]. Botanical aphicidal agents biodegrade naturally and are less persistent than synthetic chemical insecticides. Many studies have attempted to improve plant-derived aphicidal agents, and various biologically active compounds that are toxic to insect pests have been isolated and identified [5]. The Asteraceae (Compositae) family is considered as one of the most widespread families of flowering plants and it includes 1620 genera [6]. Numerous species of Pulicaria genus are rich in several botanical compounds such as flavonoids, isocomene, acetylenes, monoterpenes and sesquiterpene lactones. Moreover, several Pulicaria spp. have conventionally been used to repulse insects [7]. Also, the Euryops genus belongs to the Asteraceae family and includes 97 species. Euryops arabicus is widely distributed in Saudi Arabia and Yemen [8]. The genus Psiadia belongs in the aster tribe of Asteraceae family and consists of about 60 species growing in subtropical and tropical regions of Asia and Africa. Many investigations on the pharmacology and phytochemistry of this genus have been conducted and have resulted in the isolation and identification of 73 compounds including flavonoids, terpenoids, coumarins and phenylpropanoids [9]. The genus Salvia (sage) is the most widespread of the genera of the Lamiaceae family, containing more than 900 species throughout the world [10]. Salvia officinalis L. is the most well-known species of this genus and is commonly known as red or garden sage. It is native to Mediterranean regions and is one of the most popular medicinal plants in Arabian countries [11]. Ochradenus baccatus (Family: Resedaceae) is a medicinal shrub that is widely distributed in desert regions of the North Africa and Middle East. Moreover, it is very rich in glucosinolates, the level of which depends on the plant part [12].
The use of chemical pesticides can harm biocontrol agents and result in pest resurgence and/or outbreaks. Therefore, integrated pest management (IPM), which combines biopesticides and biocontrol agents is receiving more attention as an ecologically safe management strategy under which predators and parasitoids are combined with botanical extracts [13].
However, for pest control, it is important to determine the effects of the plant substances on the natural enemies. Different investigations have been carried out to estimate the effect of botanical extracts on insect pests and biocontrol agents. For example, the combination of the entomopathogenic fungi and botanical extracts (eucalyptus or neem) caused a large reduction in the fecundity and survival of the wheat aphid, Sitobion avenae [14]. Some leaf extracts of Chromolaena odorata (Family: Asteraceae) have been ranked as harmless while others were moderately harmful to the egg parasitoid, Trichogramma japonicum [13].
The bean aphid, Aphis craccivora Koch (Hemiptera: Aphididae) infests the leaves, twigs, pods and flowers of the bean plant. Also, this aphid species causes losses of up to 100% in the yield of various legumes species [15]. Moreover, A. craccivora transmits approximately 20 nonpersistent plant viruses in different regions of the world. The use of synthetic chemical pesticides to control this aphid on a large-scale has resulted in environmental hazards and toxic effects on the beneficial organisms, especially natural enemies [16]. These side effects have stimulated research on alternative strategies of aphid management. The alternative methods to synthetic pesticides for aphid control include using biodegradable and natural compounds, such as plant extracts, flavonoids, saponins, lectins and essential oils [17]. The number of studies investigating the potential role of plant-derived essential oils (EOs) in aphid control has showed a notable increase over the last 20 years. EOs can be extremely effective in pest control and thus, should be seriously considered as environmentally friendly aphicides [18].
The green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) is considered as a generalist predator. Its larvae actively predate on different species of soft bodied insect pests such as aphids, thrips, whiteflies, mealy bugs and coccids [19].
This study was carried out to evaluate five different botanical extracts against the bean aphid, A. craccivora and its biological control agent, the 2nd larval instar of the green lacewing, C. carnea under laboratory conditions. Due to the importance of flavonoids in plant protection from insect and microbial attack [20], HPLC analysis was conducted to determine the flavonoid components of five medicinal plants.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Samples and Extracts

Fresh leaves of five medicinal plant species were collected in May 2019 from their natural habitat in the Al-Shafa region, Taif Provenance, as indicated in Table 1. The collected fresh leaves (1 kg from each plant species) were ground to fine powder in liquid nitrogen by a mortar and pestle. Extraction and dissolution were carried out [21] with some modifications. Five grams (fine powder) of each sample was extracted with 100 mL 95% methanol at 35 °C for two days in a thermostat water bath shaker. After cooling, each extract was centrifuged at 7000 rpm for 15 min and filtered with Whatman filter paper No.1 and this was repeated three times to get a pure supernatant. Then, the supernatant was passed through a Buchner funnel in a rotary vacuum evaporator under a temperature of 30 °C. During evaporation, the total extract of each plant was adjusted to one liter. Then, 5 mL of each extract was taken and stored for HPLC analysis and the evaporation was completed. Each extract (pellet) was dissolved in aqueous solution of dimethylsulfoxide 1% (DMSO) with a final concentration of 50 mg/mL). The plant extracts were stored at 4 °C until they were used for the bioassays.

2.2. HPLC Analysis and Quantification of Phenolic Compounds

The analysis and detection of phenolic compounds for the five tested plants were carried out according to [22] with some modifications using Agilent 1260 infinity HPLC Series (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA), equipped with a quaternary pump. The column used was a Kinetex® 5 µm EVO C18 100 mm × 4.6 mm, (Phenomenex, Torrance, CA, USA) and operated at 30 °C. The separation was conducted using a ternary linear elution gradient with (A) HPLC grade water 0.2% and H3PO4 (v/v), (B) methanol and (C) acetonitrile. Then, a volume of 20 µL was injected. AVWD detector set at 284 nm was used for detection of phenols and flavonoids. The analysis was done at the Food Safety and Quality Control Laboratory, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University (FSQC 0911-0915/2019).

2.3. Insects

The tested insects were obtained by rearing at the laboratory for mass production of predators at the Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University. The 2nd larval instar of the green lacewing, C. carnea and one-day adults of the cowpea aphid, A. craccivora were used in this study.


Each extract was diluted to obtain four concentrations of 1000, 500, 250 and 125 µg/mL. The solvent (1% aqueous DMSO) was used as the control. An amount of 3 mL from each extract/concentration was sprayed with equal homogeneity by a fine sprayer machine (Thomas Scientific, USA) on 300 cm2 (10 µL/cm2). This area contained 32 leaves of broad bean plant that were divided into 2 groups (16 for each group). Each leaf from the first group had 5 aphid individuals while each leaf from the second group had 5 predator individuals (2nd larval instar) with about 30 individual aphids as prey. The spray was applied directly onto the plant leaves containing the tested insects. After the spray application, each leaf was placed in a Petri dish (100 × 15 mm) with moistened cotton tissues to maintain humidity. Then, the dishes were kept in a plant growth chamber at 25 ± 1 °C, 65 ± 3 RH and 14:10 L:D. Four leaves from each group were considered as one replicate. Accordingly, each replicate contained 20 individual aphids or predators, with a total of 4 replicates per concentration. After 24 h, aphid and predator mortality were assessed by gentle probing with a fine brush and observing the lack of predator movement and the change in the aphid’s body to a post-mortem color [23].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The mortality rates in the treatments were corrected with that in the control according to Abbott’s formula [24]. The lethal concentrations (LC50) were estimated using Log-probit analysis of mortality versus concentration. Then, significant differences between the LC50 values were determined by estimating the confidence intervals of the relative median potency. Differences among LC50 values were judged as statistically significant when 1.0 was not found in the 95% confidence interval of relative median potency. All statistical analysis were conducted by SPSS software program, version 23 [25].

3. Results

The data obtained from the HPLC analysis for the five medicinal plants indicated that these plants differed in their component of flavonoids. The total flavonoids were 869.4, 1125.6, 721.4, 1667.8 and 2025.9 mg/kg in P. penninervia, S. officinalis, O. baccatus, P. crispa and E. arabicus, respectively (Table 2). Also, some compounds were detected in high amounts in one or more of the tested plants but the same compounds were not detected in other tested plants, for examples, gallic acid and benzoic acid. Moreover, although the three plants P. penninervia, P. crispa and E. arabicus belong to the Asteraceae family, they contained different flavonoids and different concentrations of total flavonoids.
Table 3 presents the LC50 values of the five tested extracts on the aphid, A. craccivora. The LC50 value for the P. penninervia extract was the lowest of all tested plants with a LC50 of 128.546 µg/mL. For the other four plants, LC50 values ranged from lowest to highest as follows: 626.461, 1168.794, 1210.957 and 1368.340 µg/mL for O. baccatus, E. arabicus, S. officinalis and P. crispa, respectively.
Table 4 presents the LC50 values of the five tested extracts on the 2nd larval instar of C. carnea. The LC50 value of P. penninervia extract (232.095 µg/mL) was significantly lower than that of all other four plant species extracts according to relative median potency analyses (Table 5). For the other four plants, the LC50 values were 1137.564, 1299.649, 1448.547 and 1593.631 µg/mL for P. crispa, O. baccatus, S. officinalis and E. arabicus, respectively, and there was no significant difference among them according to relative median potency analyses. Meanwhile on aphid, the relative median potency analyses showed that all comparisons among five medicinal plants were significant except for S. officinalis versus P. crispa (RMP = 1.073, 95% CI: 0.834, 1.384) (Table 5). The comparison between the LC50 values of each plant extract for aphids and the green-lacewing larvae by relative median potency analyses indicated that P. penninervia (RMP = 0.516, 95% CI: 0.382, 0.665), O. baccatus (RMP = 0.404, 95% CI: 0.287, 0.529) and E. arabicus (RMP = 0.692, 95% CI: 0.498, 0.924) were significantly more effective on A. craccivora than C. carnea. Meanwhile, the effects of S. officinalis and P. crispa were not significantly different to each other in LC50 values for both tested insects (RMP = 0.941, 95% CI: 0.736, 1.197 for S. officinalis and RMP = 0.692, 95% CI: 0.498, 0.924 for P. crispa (A. craccivora vs. C. carnea).

4. Discussion

The results indicate that even though the tested medicinal plant species belong to the same taxonomic family, their extracts contain different phenols and flavonoids and they have a different total content of these compounds. Similar results were reported for five endemic Psiadia species growing in Mauritius [26]. In another study, within three species of Psiadia genus, some components present in one were absent in the others [27]. The detection of different phytochemical constituents of the methanolic extract of P. crispa collected from Alkharj, Saudi Arabia indicated high amounts of phenols and flavonoids [28]. In Egypt, leaves of the same plant species (Pulicaria undulata (L.) C.A. Mey. sub sp. undulata = P. crispa) contained high levels of kaempferol, quercetin and caffeic acid [29] similar to the levels recorded in the present work. The flower of Euryops pectinatus was extracted with methanol and the total phenolic and flavonoid contents represented 49.41 and 23.37 µg/mg of the dried flower extract, respectively. The main flavonoids and phenolic acids detected were caffeic acid, quinic acid, protocatechuic acid, sinapic acid, chlorgenic acid, quercetin, kaempferol [30]. In our study, kaempferol and vanillic acid were found to be the major components in E. arabicus leaves but quercetin, caffeic acid and chlorgenic acid were not detected. Ethanol extraction of O. baccatus aerial parts from the Suez desert (Egypt) showed the presence of five quercetin and two kaempferol compounds with ethanol solvent [31] while in the present study, one compound from each of these was observed at an intermediate level.
In general, there are many factors that affect the total content and types of phenols and flavonoids extracted from plants, such as the extraction method, solvent type, plant origin, and the harvesting season. For example, leaf extracts of four species from the Asteraceae family, i.e., Psiadia arguta, Psiadia viscosa, Psiadia lithospermifolia and Distephanus populifolius with hexane, ethyl acetate, and methanol were studied for phenols and flavonoids contents. The content of phenolics varied from 24.05 to 231.6 mg gallic acid equivalent/g with the maximum level found in methanol extracts of P. arguta and D. populifolius whereas the highest flavonoids content was found in P. arguta methanolic extract with 65.7 mg quercetin/g [32]. Previous investigations of E. arabicus collected from the same region (Taif) and extracted with a mixture of CHCl3: MeOH (1:1, 4 L) using successive fractionation of the total extract on NP-Silica column, preparative thin layer chromatography (PTLC), followed by Sephadex LH-20, yielded only seven flavones [33], which were not detected in our study. The total flavonoid and phenolic content in aerial parts of S. officinalis collected from Eastern Serbia and Montenegro with chloroform, dichloromethane, ethanol and ethyl acetate extracts were significantly different and mostly depended on harvesting season and extraction solvent, although the plant origin had no effect on these compounds [34]. The butanol fraction of S. officinalis extract from Kalamazoo (USA) by ethanol solvent led to the isolation of 10 phenolic compounds including rosmarinic acid [35], which was detected in the same species in our study. Also, leaves of S. officinalis in New Zealand were extracted with 70% aq. acetone, then, the extract was fractionated on an HP20 column into water and methanol fractions, and led to the isolation of nine flavonoid and phenolic compounds including p-coumaric acid [36], which was detected in the same species in the present work. Ochradenus arabicus leaves and fruits from Oman were extracted with methanol followed by fractionation into ethyl acetate, chloroform, n-hexane, n-butanol and aqueous. The total flavonoid and phenolic contents were significantly higher in the sub-fraction of ethyl acetate [37]. Reports have stated that methanol as a solvent is more efficient in extracting flavonoids and phenols than other extraction solvents, i.e., distilled water, ethyl acetate, acetone, chloroform and hexane from the Datura metel plant leaves [38]. These compounds are more soluble in organic solvents like methanol and therefore, these solvents extract the largest amount of these compounds, which leads to greater insect mortality rates. The protectant and toxicity properties of botanical extracts may be due to the presence of secondary metabolites such as flavonoids, alkaloids, quinines and terpenoids. Over 9000 flavonoid compounds are known to exist in plants. They have a number of important functions in plants and can decrease digestibility, reduce their nutritive value, act as direct feeding deterrents or as toxins for insect pests [39]. Flavonoids are cytotoxic, interact with various enzymes through complexation and protect plants from insect pests by affecting their behavior, growth and development [40]. Aphid mortality may be due to contact toxicity or the initiation of some unknown physiological changes in the insect body [41].
In this study, the LC50 value of P. penninervia extract on aphids was the lowest among all plants (128.546 µg/mL), followed by O. baccatus (626.461 µg/mL) while S. officinalis and P. crispa had the highest LC50 values without any significant difference between them. Flavonoids inhibit the development of A. craccivora [42]. Although A. craccivora is one of nine aphid species associated with S. officinalis [43], the essential oil of S. officinalis at concentrations of 0.5, 0.3 and 0.1% caused mortality rates of 99.99, 96.65, 63.33% after 7 days on A. craccivora adults [44]. In the present study, the extract of S. officinalis had high LC50 value on A. craccivora compared to the other tested plant extracts, except for P. crispa. Water soluble compounds using ethanol extracts from 83 plant species from the Asteraceae family were highly variable in their toxicity against the larval mosquito, Aedes fluviatilis [45]. Also, the effect of three medicinal plant extracts belonging to Asteraceae family varied with the stage of insect, plant-derived material extract and exposure time while the methanol extracts had higher effects on larval growth inhibition, antifeedant properties and the mortality of Tribolium confusum [46].
Moreover, in this study, P. penninervia and O. baccatus extracts had the greatest amount of gallic acid compared to the other three plant extracts. The gallic acid extracted from the plant, Terminalia nigrovenulosa had significant nematicidal activity against Meloidogyne incognita in vitro [47]. Therefore, gallic acid in P. penninervia and O. baccatus extracts may be the cause of the high mortality for aphids.
Previous investigations have indicated that the extract of medicinal plant species has various effects on different insect species. For example, assessment of seven plant extracts for the toxic effects against four important pest insects from four different insect orders including the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum revealed that aphids were the most susceptible insect for the seven plant extracts tested with 100% mortality after 24 h. Moreover, although all the solvent fractions achieved high mortality in aphids, the butanol fraction was the most active against aphids. [21]. Meanwhile, the weakest insecticidal activity was shown by the fenugreek-based product [48]. However, the insecticidal activities of different six plant EOs against the cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii were strong but only two of them deserves attention due to the LD50 values were very close to the used standard Karate Zeon® [49]. Also, insecticides based on different plant extracts showed not very good efficacy against the hop aphid, Phorodon humuli although the Pyrethrum insecticide, based on natural pyrethrins showed better action than azadirachtin based product NeemAzal T/S [50].
In this study, all five of the plant extracts were more toxic against the aphid, A. craccivora, than C. carnea lacewing, but only three species produced significant differences. Also, the LC50 value of P. penninervia extract on the 2nd larval instar of C. carnea (232.095 µg/mL) was significantly lower than those of all other four plant species extracts, meanwhile the other four plants did not show significant difference among them according to relative median potency analyses. On the other hand, the most significant aphid mortalities were observed (lower LC50 values) for O. baccatus, E. arabicus and P. penninervia extracts. Moreover, extracts from these three plants were significantly more effective on A. craccivora with less impact on the predator C. carnea, causing significantly less mortality (RMP = 0.404, A. craccivora vs. C. carnea) for O. baccatus compared to E. arabicus and P. penninervia extracts. The plant extracts from the Asteraceae family were nontoxic to C. carnea and Coccinella undecimpunctata when they are used to control the cabbage aphid, Brevicoryne brassicae [51]. Extracts of nine Ghanaian plants controlled the cabbage aphid, Brevicoryne brassicae as effectively as the synthetic insecticide, emamectin benzoate but were significantly less harmful to ladybirds [52]. In general, the plant-based products demonstrate effective pesticide activity but also pose threats to beneficials and other non-target insects such as natural enemies and pollinators [18,53,54,55,56]. According to our findings, O. baccatus extract had a high impact on aphids and was safer for the predator. This suggests that O. baccatus extract could be used for aphid control in combination with C. carnea. Therefore, the integration of some plant extracts with C. carnea in IPM strategies could be efficient. For example, the efficacy of six plant extracts belonging to three families and including Pulicaria incisa against A. fabae and the 2nd larval instar of two predators, C. carnea and C. undecimpunctata, indicated that all the mortality rates for aphids were significantly different than the control. However, for the two tested predators, there were insignificant differences between the tested extracts and the control. Moreover, in the field, all the tested plant extracts were shown to be efficient in controlling the aphid without harmful effects on the predators [57]. Therefore, experiments in the field should be conducted for O. baccatus extract to estimate its effect on aphids and associated predators.

5. Conclusions

O. baccatus extract phytochemicals may provide a new set of treatments for further development as biorational-based insecticides against plant-feeding hemipterans, like aphids. Other investigations could be carried out to further examine the effects of these plant extracts, especially O. baccatus extract, on other instars or stages of C. carnea, other beneficial insects and other piercing sucking insects in order to estimate the effects on these insect pests and their predators.

Author Contributions

Data curation, S.M.S.; Formal analysis, S.-A.E.; Investigation, S.S.A. and N.G.; Methodology, S.S.A., N.G. and S.-A.E.; Resources, S.S.A. and S.-A.E.; Supervision, Writing – review & editing, S.M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest


  1. Silva, G. Insecticidas vegetales. In Radcliffe’s IPM World Textbook; University of Minnesota: St. Paul, MN, USA; National IPM Network, CICP: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; Available online: (accessed on 21 July 2008).
  2. Rodríguez-González, Á.; Álvarez-García, S.; González-López, Ó.; Da Silva, S.; Casquero, P.A. Insecticidal Properties of Ocimum basilicum and Cymbopogon winterianus against Acanthoscelides obtectus, Insect Pest of the Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, L.). Insects 2019, 10, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  3. Da Silva, E.M.; Railda, R.; Antonia, P.; Karla, R.A.; Escobar Falco, M.; Matias, R. Insecticidal effect of the ethanol extract of Baccharis dracunculifolia (Asterales: Asteraceae). Rev. Biol. Trop. 2017, 65, 517–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bedini, S.; Guarino, S.; Echeverria, M.C.; Flamini, G.; Ascrizzi, R.; Loni, A.; Conti, B. Allium sativum, Rosmarinus officinalis, and Salvia officinalis Essential Oils: A Spiced Shield against Blowflies. Insects 2020, 11, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  5. Nong, X.; Feng-Zheng, C.; Yao-Jun, Y.; Zi, L.; Bao-Lian, H.; Yi, L.; Tian-Fei, L.; Hua, Y. Aphicidal Activity of an Ageraphorone Extract From Eupatorium adenophorum Against Pseudoregma bambucicola (Homoptera: Aphididae, Takahashi). J. Insect. Sci. 2015, 15, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Dempewolf, H.; Rieseberg, L.H.; Cronk, Q.C. Crop domestication in the Compositae: A family-wide trait assessment. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2008, 55, 1141–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Triana, J.; López, M.; Pérez, F.J.; González-Platas, J.; Quintana, J.; Estévez, F. Sesquiterpenoids from Pulicaria canariensis and Their Cytotoxic Activities. J. Nat. Prod. 2005, 68, 523–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Mothana, R.A.; Alsaid, M.S.; Al-Musayeib, N.M. Phytochemical Analysis and In Vitro Antimicrobial and Free-Radical-Scavenging Activities of the Essential Oils from Euryops arabicus and Laggera decurrens. Molecules 2011, 16, 5149–5158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Mahadeoa, K.; Grondina, I.; Kodjab, H.; Govindenc, J.S.; Laullood, S.J.; Frederiche, M.; Gauvin-Bialeckia, A. The genus Psiadia: Review of traditional uses, phytochemistry and pharmacology. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2018, 210, 48–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hamidpour, S.; Hamidpour, M.; Shahlari, M. The functional novel natural medicine for preventing and curing chronic illnesses. Int. J. Case Rep. Images 2013, 4, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Qnais, E.Y.; Abu-Dieyeh, M.; Abdulla, F.A.; Abdalla, S.S. The antinociceptive and antiinflammatory effects of Salvia officinalis leaf aqueous and butanol extracts. Pharm. Biol. 2010, 10, 1149–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Oka, Y.; Shuker, S.; Tkachi, N.; Trabelcy, B.; Gerchman, Y. Nematicidal activity of Ochradenus baccatus against the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne javanica. Plant. Pathol. 2014, 63, 221–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kalita, S.; Hazarika, L.K. Safety of Chromolaena odorata (Asteraceae) leaf extracts against Trichogramma japonicum Ashmead. Ann. Plant Prot. Sci. 2018, 26, 276–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ali, S.; Farooqi, M.A.; Sajjad, A.; Ullah, M.I.; Qureshi, A.K.; Siddique, B.; Waheed, W.; Sarfraz, M.; Asghar, A. Compatibility of entomopathogenic fungi and botanical extracts against the wheat aphid, Sitobion avenae (Fab.) (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control 2018, 28, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Das, B.C. Ecology and diversity of agricultural crop infesting aphids (Homoptera: Aphididae) in Bangladesh. J. Aphidol. 2002, 16, 51–57. [Google Scholar]
  16. Thottappilly, G.; Rossel, H.W. Worldwide occurrence and distribution of virus diseases. In Cowpea Research Production and Utilization; Sing, S.R., Rachie, K.O., Eds.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1985; pp. 155–171. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ghodke, A.B.; Chavaan, S.G.; Sonawane, B.V.; Bharose, A.A. Isolation and in vitro identification of proteinase inhibitors from soybean seeds inhibiting Helicoverpa gut proteases. J. Plant Interact. 2013, 8, 170–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Atanasova, D.; Leather, S.R. Plant essential oils: The way forward for aphid control? Ann. Appl. Biol. 2018, 143, 175–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. McEwen, P.K.; New, T.R.R.; Whittington, A. Lacewings in the Crop Environment; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gopinesh, V.K.; Kannabiran, K. Larvicidal effect of Calotropis procera against Culex quinquefasciatus mosquito larvae. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2007, 6, 307–311. [Google Scholar]
  21. Khan, S.; Taning, C.N.T.; Bonneure, E.; Mangelinckx, S.; Smagghe, G.; Shah, M.M. Insecticidal activity of plant-derived extracts against different economically important pest insects. Phytoparasitica 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lu, M.; Yuan, B.; Zeng, M.; Chen, J. Antioxidant capacity and major phenolic compounds of spices commonly consumed in China. Food Res. Int. 2011, 44, 530–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sadeghi, A.; Van Damme, E.J.; Smagghe, G. Evaluation of the susceptibility of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum, to a selection of novel biorational insecticides using an artificial diet. J. Insect Sci. 2009, 9, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  24. Abbott, W.S. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 1925, 18, 265–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. SPSS. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 23.0); IBM Corp.: Armonk, NY, USA; Chicago, IL, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  26. Govinden-Soulange, J.; Magan, N.; Gurib-Fakim, A.; Gauvin, A.; Smadja, J.; Kodja, H. Chemical composition and in vitro antimicrobial activities of the essential oils from endemic Psiadia species growing in mauritius. Biol. Pharm. Bull. 2004, 27, 1814–1818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  27. Aumeeruddy-Elalfi, Z.; Gurib-Fakim, A.; Mahomoodally, F. Antimicrobial, antibiotic potentiating activity and phytochemical profile of essential oils from exotic and endemic medicinal plants of Mauritius. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 71, 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ahmed, I.F.; Aftab, A.; Gamal, A.S.; Mohammed, A.S.; Elmutasim, O.I.A.; Hasan, S.Y. Pharmacognostical, antioxidant and antimicrobial studies of aerial part of Pulicaria crispa (Family: Asteraceae). Bull. Environ. Pharmacol. Life Sci. 2015, 4, 19–27. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hussein, S.R.; Marzouk, M.M.; Soltan, M.M.; Ahmed, E.K.; Said, M.M.; Hamed, A.R. Phenolic constituents of Pulicaria undulata (L.) C.A. Mey. sub sp. undulata (Asteraceae): Antioxidant protective effects and chemosystematic significances. J. Food Drug Anal. 2017, 25, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  30. Elkady, W.M.; Ayoub, I.M.; Abdel-Mottaleb, Y.; ElShafie, M.F.; Wink, M. Euryops pectinatus L. Flower Extract Inhibits P-glycoprotein and Reverses Multi-Drug Resistance in Cancer Cells: A Mechanistic Study. Molecules 2020, 25, 647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  31. Barakat, H.H.; El-Mousallamy, A.M.D.; Souleman, A.M.A.; Awadalla, S. Flavonoids of Ochradenus baccatus. Phytochemistry 1991, 30, 3777–3779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kauroo, S.; Govinden-Soulange, J.; Marie, D.E.P. Endemic Asteraceae from Mauritius Islands as potential phytomedicines. IJCEBS 2016, 4, 23–27. [Google Scholar]
  33. Alarif, W.M.; Abdel-Lateff, A.; Al-Abd, A.M.; Basaif, S.A.; Badria, F.A.; Shams, M.; Ayyad, S.N. Selective cytotoxic effects on human breast carcinoma of new methoxylated flavonoids from Euryops arabicus grown in Saudi Arabia. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2013, 66, 204–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Duletic, S.; Alimpic, A.; Pavlovic, D.; Marin, P.D.; Lakusic, D. Salvia officinalis of different origins antioxidant activity, phenolic and flavonoid content of extracts. Agro Food Ind. Hi-Tech 2016, 27, 52–55. [Google Scholar]
  35. Wang, M.; Li, J.; Rangarajan, M.; Shao, Y.; La Voie, E.J.; Huang, T.C.; Ho, C.T. Antioxidative phenolic compounds from sage (Salvia officinalis). J. Agric. Food Chem. 1998, 46, 4869–4873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lu, Y.; Foo, L.Y. Flavonoid and phenolic glycosides from Salvia offcinalis. Phytochemoistry 2000, 55, 263–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hussain, J.; Rehman, N.U.; Khan, A.; Ali, L.; Kim, J.-S.; Zakarova, A.; Al-Harrasi, A.; Shinwari, Z.K. Phytochemical and biological assessment of medicinally important plant Ochradenus arabicus. Pak. J. Bot. 2014, 46, 2027–2034. [Google Scholar]
  38. Dhawan, D.; Gupta, J. Comparison of different solvents for phytochemical extraction potential from Datura metel plant leaves. Int. J. Biol. Chem. 2017, 11, 17–22. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mierziak, J.; Kostyn, K.; Kulma, A. Flavonoids as Important Molecules of Plant Interactions with the Environment. Molecules 2014, 19, 16240–16265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Simmonds, M.S. Flavonoid-insect interactions: Recent advances in our knowledge. Phytochemistry 2003, 64, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mathur, Y.K.; Kirpa, S.; Salik, R. Evaluation of some grain protectants against Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) on black gram. Bull. Grain Technol. 1985, 23, 253–259. [Google Scholar]
  42. Harborne, J.B.; Williams, C.A. Advances in flavonoid research since 1992. Phytochemistry 2000, 55, 481–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Holman, J. Host Plant Catalog of Aphids: Palaearctic Region; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  44. Abdel-Aziz, N.F.; Abdou, W.L.; Abdel-Hakim, E.A.; El-Hawarya, F.M.; El-Bakry, A.M.; Sammour, E.A. The effect of some green insecticides from essential oils on Aphis craccivora, and their side effects. J. Entomol. Res. 2015, 39, 275–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Macêdo, M.E.; Consoli, R.A.; Grandi, T.S.; dos Anjos, A.M.; de Oliveira, A.B.; Mendes, N.M.; Queiróz, R.O.; Zani, C.L. Screening of Asteraceae (Compositae) plant extracts for larvicidal activity against Aedes fluviatilis (Diptera:Culicidae). Meml. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz 1997, 92, 565–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  46. Boussaada, O.; Kamel, M.B.; Ammar, S.; Haouas, D.; Mighri, Z.; Helal, N. Insecticidal activity of some Asteraceae plant extracts against Tribolium confusum. Bull. Insectol. 2008, 61, 283–289. [Google Scholar]
  47. Dang-Minh-Chanh, N.; Dong-Jun, S.; Van-Nam, N.; Kil-Yong, K.; Ro-Dong, P.; Woo-Jin, J. Nematicidal activity of gallic acid purified from Terminalia nigrovenulosa bark against the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita. Nematology 2013, 15, 507–518. [Google Scholar]
  48. Atanasova, D.; Nevov, N. Еffectiveness of plant derived essentials oils products towards some aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) species. MAYFEB J. Agric. Sci. 2017, 1, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  49. Atanasova, D.; Ganchev, D.; Nevov, N. Efficacy of some plant essential oils against cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover (Hemiptera: Aphididae) under laboratory conditions. MAYFEB J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 1, 10–16. [Google Scholar]
  50. Vasilev, P.; Atanasova, D.; Andreev, R. Efficacy of bioinsecticides against the hop aphid Phorodon Humuli (Schrank) (Hemiptera: Aphididae) under laboratory conditions. Can. J. Agric. Crops 2019, 4, 130–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Farag, N.A.; Ismail, I.A. The comparative effect of certain insecticides and plant extracts on cabbage aphid, Brevicoryne brassicae L. and its natural enemies. J. Egypt. Ger. Soc. Zool. 1999, 30, 281–289. [Google Scholar]
  52. Amoabeng, B.W.; Gurr, G.M.; Gitau, C.W.; Nicol, H.I.; Munyakazi, L.; Stevenson, P.C. Tri-trophic insecticidal effects of African plants against cabbage pests. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e78651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Senthil-Nathan, S. Natural pesticide research. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2018, 101, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Czaja, K.; Góralczyk, K.; Struciński, P.; Agnieszka Hernik, A.; Korcz, W.; Minorczyk, M.; Łyczewska, M.; Ludwicki, J.K. Biopesticides—Towards increased consumer safety in the European Union. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2015, 71, 3–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kumar, S. Biopesticides: A Need for Food and Environmental Safety. J. Biofertil. Biopestic. 2012, 3, e107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Samada, L.H.; Tambunan, U.S.F. Biopesticides as Promising Alternatives to Chemical Pesticides: A Review of Their Current and Future Status. OnLine J. Biol. Sci. 2020, 20, 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Abdel-Rahman, R.S.; Ismail, I.A.; Mohamed, T.A.; Hegazy, M.E.F.; Abdelshafeek, K.A. Laboratory and field evaluation of certain wild plant extracts against Aphis fabae Scop.(Homoptera: Aphididae) and its predators. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2019, 43, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. The five medicinal plants used in the present study.
Table 1. The five medicinal plants used in the present study.
No.Scientific NameCommon NameFamily Name
1Psiadia penninerviaLakuna, Pisidic tribesAsteraceae (Compositae)
2Salvia officinalisGarden sage, Common sage, or Culinary sageLamiaceae
3Ochradenus baccatusTaily weedResedaceae
4Pulicaria crispaDhola lizruAsteraceae (Compositae)
5Euryops arabicusDjiboutiAsteraceae (Compositae)
Table 2. Components of phenols and flavonoids in the five medicinal plant extracts (mg/kg).
Table 2. Components of phenols and flavonoids in the five medicinal plant extracts (mg/kg).
CompoundsPsiadia penninerviaSalvia officinalisOchradenus baccatusPulicaria crispaEuryops arabicus
Gallic acid3.149811.954166.734923.71654ND
p-Hydroxy benzoic acid23.41773ND23.375537.9734839.50618
Chlorgenic acid4.532167.56331ND10.66796ND
Vanillic acid408.638054.8232191.62633337.59454653.50251
Caffeic acidND3.72419ND6.63623ND
Syringic acid2.831488.651671.6956711.5424621.80036
p-Coumaric acid11.656561.134341.2820836.7366537.64450
Benzoic acid104.93644ND41.55768155.18990118.06012
Ferulic acid11.75697174.804311.6541417.196789.99849
o-Coumaric acid9.548695.1354210.343607.0915412.84780
Cinnamic acidND15.466626.5071755.394347.19120
Rosmarinic acid19.253979.8338835.70374ND294.95133
ND: Not detected.
Table 3. Values of LC50 (µg/mL) for extracts from five medicinal plant species against adults of Aphis craccivora.
Table 3. Values of LC50 (µg/mL) for extracts from five medicinal plant species against adults of Aphis craccivora.
Plant ExtractLC50 (CI limits)Intercept ± SESlope ± SE2
Psiadia penninervia128.546 (97.120–156.662)−4532 ± 0.6382.149 ± 0.2640.374
Salvia officinalis1210.957 (982.616–1668.270)−7.628 ± 0.9372.474 ± 0.3371.108
Ochradenus baccatus626.461 (542.038–745.145)−6.587 ± 0.6462.35 ± 0.2420.465
Pulicaria crispa1368.340 (1043.539–2127.691)−6.179 ± 0.2871.970 ± 0.7854.482
Euryops arabicus1168.794 (893.076–1785.935)−5.232 ± 0.6481.706 ± 0.2420.162
CI: Confidence Interval limits.
Table 4. Values of LC50 (µg/mL) for extracts from five medicinal plant species against 2nd larval instar of Chrysoperla carnea.
Table 4. Values of LC50 (µg/mL) for extracts from five medicinal plant species against 2nd larval instar of Chrysoperla carnea.
Plant ExtractLC50 (CI limits)Intercept ± SESlope ± SE2
Psiadia penninervia232.095 (190.242–274.221)−4.452 ± 0.5421.882 ± 0.2150.822
Salvia officinalis1448.547 (1131.509–1714.452)−6.788 ± 0.8732.148 ± 0.3166.405
Ochradenus baccatus1299.649 (1073.062–1789.167)−9.761 ± 1.4043.135 ± 0.4923.130
Pulicaria crispa1137.564 (979.468–1432.116)−11.026 ± 1.5163.608 ± 0.5291.789
Euryops arabicus1593.631 (1154.401–2791.251)−5.770 ± 0.7741.802 ± 0.2844.789
CI: Confidence Interval limits
Table 5. Relative susceptibilities of 2nd larval instar of Chrysoperla carnea and adults of Aphis craccivora to methanol extracts from five medicinal plants species.
Table 5. Relative susceptibilities of 2nd larval instar of Chrysoperla carnea and adults of Aphis craccivora to methanol extracts from five medicinal plants species.
Plant ExtractPsiadia penninerviaSalvia officinalisOchradenus baccatusPulicaria crispaEuryops arabicus
Psiadia penninervia 5.7937.0706.5185.345
Salvia officinalis0.092 1.2201.1250.923
Ochradenus baccatus0.1952.112 0.9220.756
Pulicaria crispa0.0991.0730.508 0.820
Euryops arabicus0.1291.4020.6641.307
Relative median potency analyses (RMP) values of the comparisons: A. craccivora (Lower left of table), C. carnea (Upper right of table). Each value indicates the comparison of plant in the column versus the plant in the row. Values < 1 indicate more susceptibility; Values > 1 indicate less susceptibility. Bold values indicate significant values (95% CI ≠1).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sayed, S.M.; 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.

AMA Style

Sayed SM, Alotaibi SS, 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(6):398.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sayed, Samy M., Saqer S. Alotaibi, Nevien Gaber, and Sayed-Ashraf Elarrnaouty. 2020. "Evaluation of Five Medicinal Plant Extracts on Aphis craccivora (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and Its Predator, Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) under Laboratory Conditions" Insects 11, no. 6: 398.

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