Next Article in Journal
Physiological Adaptation and Plant Distribution along a Steep Hydrological Gradient
Next Article in Special Issue
Traditional Medicinal Uses, Phytochemistry, Biological Properties, and Health Applications of Vitex sp.
Previous Article in Journal
Silencing of Dihydroflavonol 4-reductase in Chrysanthemum Ray Florets Enhances Flavonoid Biosynthesis and Antioxidant Capacity
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Medicinal Halophyte Frankenia laevis L. (Sea Heath) Has In Vitro Antioxidant Activity, α-Glucosidase Inhibition, and Cytotoxicity towards Hepatocarcinoma Cells
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 11
Issue 13
10.3390/plants11131682
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Novel Pesticidal Efficacy of Araucaria heterophylla and Commiphora molmol Extracts against Camel and Cattle Blood-Sucking Ectoparasites

by
Mohamed M. Baz
1,*,
Hanem F. Khater
2,
Rowida S. Baeshen
3,
Abdelfattah Selim
4,
Emad S. Shaheen
5,
Yasser A. El-Sayed
1,
Salama A. Salama
6,7 and
Maysa M. Hegazy
1,6
1
Department of Entomology, Faculty of Science, Benha University, Benha 13518, Egypt
2
Parasitology Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Benha University, Toukh 13736, Egypt
3
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Tabuk, Tabuk 71421, Saudi Arabia
4
Department of Animal Medicine (Infectious Diseases), Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Benha University, Toukh 13736, Egypt
5
Medical Research Centre, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia
6
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia
7
Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Damanhour University, Damanhour 22511, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2022, 11(13), 1682; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11131682
Submission received: 4 June 2022 / Revised: 20 June 2022 / Accepted: 21 June 2022 / Published: 24 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bioprospecting of Natural Products from Medicinal Plants)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Botanical insecticides are promising pest control agents. This research investigated the novel pesticidal efficacy of Araucaria heterophylla and Commiphora molmol extracts against four ectoparasites through treated envelopes. Seven days post-treatment (PT) with 25 mg/mL of C. molmol and A. heterophylla, complete mortality of the camel tick, Hyalomma dromedarii and cattle tick, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) annulatus were reached. Against H. dromedarii, the median lethal concentrations (LC50s) of the methanol extracts were 1.13 and 1.04 mg/mL and those of the hexane extracts were 1.47 and 1.38 mg/mL, respectively. The LC50 values of methanol and hexane extracts against R. annulatus were 1.09 and 1.41 plus 1.55 and 1.08 mg/mL, respectively. Seven days PT with 12.5 mg/mL, extracts completely controlled Haematopinus eurysternus and Hippobosca maculata; LC50 of Ha. eurysternus were 0.56 and 0.62 mg/mL for methanol extracts and 0.55 and 1.00 mg/mL for hexane extracts, respectively, whereas those of Hi. maculata were 0.67 and 0.78 mg/mL for methanol extract and 0.68 and 0.32 mg/mL, respectively, for hexane extracts. C. molmol extracts contained sesquiterpene, fatty acid esters and phenols, whereas those of A. heterophylla possessed monoterpene, sesquiterpene, terpene alcohols, fatty acid, and phenols. Consequently, methanol extracts of C. molmol and A. heterophylla were recommended as ecofriendly pesticides.

1. Introduction

Blood-feeding arthropods are serious pests of worldwide distribution, including the camel tick, Hyalomma dromedarii (Koch, 1844); cattle tick, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) annulatus, formerly Boophilus annulatus (Say, 1821), (Acari: Ixodidae); the adult cattle louse fly, Hippobosca maculata Leach (Diptera: Hippoboscidae); and the shortnosed cattle louse, Haematopinus eurysternus (Nitzsch, 1818), (Psocodea: Haematopinidae). Haematophagous pests cause dermal damage to be grazing animals, leading to severe economic loss because of blood loss, irritation, general stress, damaged skin and hide, retarded growth, weight loss, depression of the immune system, decreased meat and milk production, and transmission of life-threatening diseases [1,2,3].
The prevention of arthropod-borne diseases relies on effective pest management strategies [4,5,6]. Even though the employment of conventional pesticides and repellents represent a worthy solution to avoid arthropod bites, they resulted in serious environmental risks and unfavorable effects on non-target creatures, animals, and humans, and contaminated dairy and meat products [6] and development of resistant strains of pests; therefore, searching for alternative ways of pests control is an urgent need [3,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15].
Some other approaches could be used for controlling pests, such as botanicals and biological control, vaccination, photopesticides, and acids [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. Searching for alternative control strategies, mainly from plant-based resources, is a promising field [5].
Botanicals have been well- known for their medicinal properties [24] since ancient times [25] and induce anthelmintic, antiprotozoal, antiviral, antifungal, and antibacterial [26,27,28,29,30,31,32] and pesticidal effects [14,15] such as ovicidal [33,34], larvicidal and insect growth regulating effects [19,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48] as well as adulticidal and repellent properties [8,33,34,39,45,46,49,50,51,52,53]. Botanicals are characterized by high efficiency against pests and prevention of their associated diseases, safety to non-target organisms [5,10,44], and biodegradation [5,11].
Myrrh oil-resin, Commiphora molmol Engler (Sapindales: Burseraceae) is an oleo-gum resin that grows in North-east Africa and was used as a house fumigant for pest control by Ancient Egyptians [25]. It has antiparasitic [54] and molluscicidal effects [25,55] and its sesquiterpene-rich fractions induce antibacterial and antifungal activities [56]. C. molmol has pesticidal effects against the green bottle fly and mosquitoes [57,58,59].
The Polynesian pine, Araucaria heterophylla Salisb (A. excelsa) (Pinales: Araucariaceae) is an ornamental evergreen coniferous tree. Araucaria plants exhibit several pharmaceutical potentials, including anti-inflammatory, antiulcerative, antiviral, antimicrobial, neuroprotective, and anti-depressant [60]. A. heterophylla has an insecticidal effect against mosquitoes [61,62]. It is worth mentioning that the safety of C. molmol [63,64] and A. heterophylla [59] had been confirmed. Because botanicals decay faster than most synthetic pesticides, they are more environmentally friendly and less likely to kill beneficial insects [14,15]. As a result, we hypothesize that A. heterophylla and C. molmol plant resins contain a variety of active biological components that could be used to control pests without contaminating the environment, making them a viable alternative to industrial pesticides. The study’s main goals were to investigate the novel pesticidal effect of methanol and hexane extracts of myrrh and Polynesian pine against four camel and cattle blood-sucking ectoparasites, calculate their lethal concentration values to kill 50, 90, and 95% of the exposed ectoparasites (LC50, 60, and 95, respectively), and investigated their phytochemical analyses.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Effect of the Plant Resin Extracts on Arthropods

Bloodsucking arthropods have an elegant method of delivery for a wide range of infectious agents [4], and their safe control is very crucial. This work evaluated two plant extracts of A. heterophylla and C. molmol against four arthropods, H. dromedarii (camel tick), R. annulatus (cattle tick), Hi. maculata (cattle louse fly), and Ha. eurysternus (cattle louse). The data expressed dose and time-dependent efficacy, a similar response was observed [52,65].
All plant extracts in this study showed moderate to high toxic effects against cattle and camel ectoparasites after 24 h of exposure, and methanol extracts were more effective than hexane extracts. The mortality percent (MO%) seven days PT of H. dromedarii with 12.5 mg/mL methanol extracts of C. molmol and A. heterophylla were 100% with LC50 (50%, median lethal concentration) = 1.13 and 1.04 mg/mL, respectively); whereas those of hexane extracts were 100% PT with 25 mg/mL (LC50 = 1.47 and 1.38 mg/mL, respectively (Table 1 and Table 2).
Similar to the response of camel ticks, the results of this work showed that plant extracts effectively controlled the cattle tick, R. annulatus because 100% mortality% was reached seven days PT with 12.5 mg/mL methanol extracts of C. molmol and A. heterophylla (LC50 = 1. 09 and 1.41 mg/mL, respectively) whereas those of hexane extracts were reached PT with 25 mg/mL (LC50 = 1.55 and 1.08%, respectively) (Table 3 and Table 4).
Analogous to our study, Commiphora spp. has an acaricidal effect, as C. molmol extract effectively controlled the fowl tick, Argas persicus, and its mortalities reached 63, 67, 76, 87, and 94% PT for 12 days PT with 0.625, 1.25, 2.5, 5, and 10%, respectively (LC50 = 1.28, 0.88, 0.84, 0.50, and 0.42% PT for 1, 2, 3, 6, and 12 days, respectively) [65].
Commiphora swynnertonii (Burtt) exudate had a parallel strong acaricidal effect against ticks such as Rhipicephalus appendiculatus and Amblyioma variegatum (LC50 = 1.72 and 1.91 mg/mL, respectively, and LC99 were 3.5 and 3.7 mg/mL, respectively) and adversely affected their reproduction capability [66]. C. swynnertonii (Burtt) stem bark exudate also induced an acaricidal effect against Rhipicephalus appendiculatus and exhibited a significant (p < 0.05) mortality and inhibition of laid eggs of ticks PT with concentrations over 25 and 90 mg/mL, respectively, and no hatching of eggs was observed in all treated groups [67]. A similar study revealed the adulticidal effect of the C. swynnertonii stem bark ethyl acetate, petroleum ether, and methanolic extracts against R. appendiculatus and A. variegatum. The petroleum ether extract exhibited higher acaricidal activity (LC50 = 72.31 and 71.67 mg/mL, respectively) and its MO%, 156 h PT, were 100 and 87% against Amblyomma variegatum and Rhipicephalus appendiculatus, respectively [67].
The gum Haggar, Commiphora holtziana, resin repelled the cattle tick, Boophilus microplus for up to 5 h with the hexane extract [68]. Additionally, myrrh not only controls ticks but also inhibited the propagation of blood parasites transmitted by ticks as bovine (Babesia bovis, B. bigemina, and B. divergens) and equine piroplasms (Theileria equi and B. caballi) [54]. C. molmol also induced molluscicidal and biological activities against Biomphalaria alexandrina and Bulinus truncatus (Mollusca: Gastropoda) [55].
Furthermore, the C. molmol resin extract displays pesticide action against many pests. It effectively controlled the blowfly, Lucilia sericata and its LC50 values were 6.03, 7.96, and 6.55 mg/mL for the first, second and third larva stages, respectively, and induced morphological abnormalities in larvae, pupae, and adults [58]. C. molmol was toxic to the fowl tick Argas persicus (LC50 = 1.28, 0.88, 0.84, 0.50 and 0.42 PT for one, two, three, six, and 12 days, respectively. Mortalities reached 63, 67, 76, 87, and 94% PT with 0.625, 1.25, 2.5, 5, and 10%, respectively [69].
Analogous studies showed the acaricidal effect of other plant extracts against ticks. Recently, the ethanol extracts of Vitex castus and Zingiber officinale had an acaricidal effect against H. dromedarii, as the mortality 15 days PT reached 80.8 and 84.7%, respectively, and LC50 values three days PT were 12.2 and 11.8%, respectively, whereas their median lethal time (LT50) values PT was 2.6 and 2.5 days, respectively [52]. Moreover, Protium spruceanum on resistant strains against R. annulatus induced mortality > 80 and 90% PT with 100 and 50 mg/mL ethanolic extract and ethyl acetate extracts, respectively [70]; ethyl alcohol and petroleum ether extracts of Melia azedarach and Artemisia herba-alba were also effective acaricides against embryonated eggs and engorged nymphs of H. dromedarii when compared to Butox®5.0 (Deltamethrin) [71].
A related study showed that the methanol extract of neem and Citrullus colocynthis produced an acaricidal effect against adult females, eggs, and larvae, and neem was more effective against H. dromedarii [72]. Some other materials are also effective in vitro acaricides such as peracetic acid against Boophilus annulatus and the fowl tick, Argas persicus [17] and A. persicus, infesting laying hens [18]. Moreover, some photosensitizers such as safranin and rose bengal had a strong acaricidal effect against H. dromedarii and suppressed the reproductive potential of its engorged females [16].
Lice infestation in cattle is mainly controlled by conventional insecticides [73], and to the best of our knowledge, there are no natural treatments for controlling such pests as. Data from this work showed that the methanol extracts of C. molmol and A. heterophylla effectively controlled the cattle lice, Ha. eurysternus, reaching 100% mortality PT with 6.35% of methanol extracts (LC50 = 0.56 and 0.62 mg/mL, respectively, and 96.67 and 83.33%, respectively, PT with 6.3% hexane extracts (LC50 = 0.55 and 1.00 mg/mL, respectively) (Table 5 and Table 6).
Studies about using botanicals against lice infesting large animals are very rare. A comparable study indicated that essential oils had in vitro and in vivo lousicidal potential against the buffalo louse, Haematopinus tuberculatus (Burmeister, 1839), in Egypt. Through filter paper contact bioassays, the LC50 values, four minutes PT, were 2.74, 12.35, 7.28, 22.79, and 18.67% for camphor (Cinnamomum camphora, Laurales: Lauraceae), peppermint (Mentha piperita L., Lamiales: Lamiaceae), onion (Allium cepa, Asparagales: Amaryllidaceae), rosemary oils (Rosmarinus officinalis Linn, Lamiales: Lamiaceae), and chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L., Asterales: Asteracea), respectively, and oils induced ovicidal effects except rosemary, which was not applied [33]. Moreover, essential oils of garlic, clove, pumpkin, onion, and marjoram effectively controlled the dog louse, Trichodectes canis in vitro [51] and camphor oil controlled the slender pigeon louse, Columbicola columbae, in vitro and in vivo [49].
This investigation indicated that complete mortalities were reached seven days PT for the cattle louse fly, Hi. maculata, with 12.5 mg/mL extracts of C. molmol and A. heterophylla (LC50 values PT with methanol extract were 0.67 and 0.78 mg/mL, respectively, whereas those of hexane extracts were 0.68 and 0.32 mg/mL, respectively. After treatment with a lower concentration, 6.3%, MO% reached 100 and 93.33% PT with methanol extracts and 90 and 100% PT with hexane extracts (Table 7 and Table 8).
Parallel studies of using botanicals against Hi. maculata were also recorded. The leaf of Ricinus communis, Malabarica malabarica, and Gloriosa superba (methanol, chloroform, and chloroform extracts, respectively) effectively controlled Hi. maculata and the tick Haemaphysalis bispinosa [74]. The aqueous crude leaf extracts of Catharanthus roseus had insecticidal efficacy against the adults of Hi. maculata and the sheep-biting louse, Bovicola ovis (LD50 = 36.17 and 30.35 mg/L, respectively) [75].
A similar study proved the adulticidal activity of Cissus quadrangularis through an aqueous extract, AgNO3 solution, and synthesized Ag NPs against the cattle tick, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus larvae (LC50 = 50.00, 21.72, and 7.61 mg/L, respectively) and the adult of Hi. maculata (LC50 = 37.08, 40.35 and 6.30 mg/L, respectively) via the contact toxicity method [76].
Moreover, essential oils had repellent, adulticidal, larvicidal, and ovicidal effects against cycloraphan flies [34,38,39,42,53,77]. Essential oils and d-phenothrin repelled biting and non-biting flies infesting water buffalo, Hippobosca equine, Haematobia irritans, Musca domestica, and Stomoxys calcitrans, for six and three days PT, respectively [33].
It is worth mentioning that the essential oil of Commiphora erythraea (Opoponax) induced a larvicidal effect against Culex restuans Theobald, Culex pipiens L., and Aedes aegypti L. (LC50 = 19.05, 22.61, and 29.83 ppm, respectively) [57].
Likewise, in our findings, some Oil-resins had larvicidal activity against Culex pipiens such as C. molmol, A. heterophylla, Boswellia sacra, Pistacia lentiscus, and Eucalyptus camaldulensis. After treatment for 24 and 48 h PT with 1500 ppm, the best effect was observed PT with acetone extracts of C. molmol, 83.3% and 100% with LC50 values were 623.52 and 300.63 ppm, as well as A. heterophylla, 75% and 95% with LC50 values, were 826.03 and 384.71 ppm, respectively. On the other hand, the aqueous extract of A. heterophylla was highly effective against Cx. pipiens (LC50 = 2819.85 and 1652.50 ppm) followed by C. molmol (LC50 = 3178.22 and 2322.53 ppm) 24 and 48 h PT, respectively [59]. As mosquito larvicides, A. heterophylla and Azadirachta indica (gum polysaccharides) were used for encapsulation of cyfluthrin-loaded superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles [61].

2.2. Biochemical Analysis

It was noticed that most of the compounds belong to sesquiterpene, fatty acid esters and phenols were the most common compounds found in the methanol and hexane extracts of the myrrh, C. molmol plant while monoterpene, sesquiterpene, terpene alcohols, fatty acid, and phenols were found in in methanol and hexane extracts of A. heterophylla plant in larger amount.
Phytochemical analysis of this work revealed that the constituents of C. molmol and A. heterophylla extracts were identified by GC–MS analysis (Table 9, Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12) indicating that C. molmol and A. heterophylla contained the main chemical compounds 1,8,11,14-Heptadecatetraene, (Z,Z,Z)-(16.27%), 2(3H)-Benzofuranone, 6-ethenylhexahydro-6-methyl-3-methylene-7-(1-methylethenyl)-, [3aS-(3aà,6à,7á,7aá)]-(22.67%), Azuleno [4,5-b]furan-2(3H)-one, decahydro-3,6,9-tris(methylene)-, [3aS-(3aà,6aà,9aà,9bá)]-(47.28) and 1,8,11,14-Heptadecatetraene, (Z,Z,Z)-(7.43), 2(3H)-Benzofuranone, 6-ethenylhexahydro-6-methyl-3-methylene-7-(1-methylethenyl)-, [3aS-(3aà,6à,7á,7aá)]-(19.90), and ETHANONE, 1-(7,8-DIHYDRO-3-HYDROXY-4-PROPYL-2-NAPHTHALENYL)-(67.27%) for methanol and hexane extracts.
C. molmol methanol extract in the present study mainly contained benzofuran, 6-ethenyl-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-3,6-dimethyl-5-isopropenyl-, trans-(15.35%), 1-NAPHTHALENOL, 4,7-DIMETHYL-2-(1-METHYLETHYL)-(13.80%), (R,5E,9E)-8-Methoxy-3,6,10-trimethyl-4,7,8,11-tetrahydrocyclodeca[b]furan (12.72%), and 6-[1-(HYDROXYMETHYL)VINYL]-4,8A-DIMETHYL-3-OXO-1,2,3,5,6,7,8,8A-OCTAHYDRO-2-NAPHTHALENYL ACETATE (10.35). On the other hand, C. molmol hexane extract mainly contained benzofuran, 6-ethenyl-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-3,6-dimethyl-5-isopropenyl-, trans-(12.09%), NAPHTHALENE, 4-METHOXY-1,2,6,8-TETRAMETHYL-931.98%), (4aS,8aS)-3,8a-Dimethyl-5-methylene-4,4a,5,6,8a,9-hexahydronaphtho [2,3-b]furan (8.15%).
The chemical analysis in this study indicated that A. heterophylla contains the main chemical compounds the à-Pinene (3.24%), CYCLOHEXENE, 1-METHYL-4-(1-METHYLETHENYL)-(12.95%), 6-Tridecene, (Z)-99.34%), Copaene (7.96%), and Caryophyllene oxide (10.39%) for methanol extract and AZETIDINE-D1 (8.28%), 9-OCTADECENOIC ACID (Z)-(14.60%), Hexadecanoic acid, ethyl ester (9.57%), and CHOLEST-5-EN-3-OL (3á)-(19.15%) for hexane extract.
Parallel studies demonstrated that the Araucariaceae family including A. heterophylla, produces several monoterpenes, such as pinene, camphene, and limonene as common compounds [78]. Araucaria spp. contains various sesquiterpenes like humulanes, cadinanes, caryophyllanes, and other compounds [79]. The resin of Araucaria columnaris is rich in aromadendrene and bicyclogermacrene and contains sesquiterpene hydrocarbons and oxygenated sesquiterpenes [80,81]. Similar studies indicated that A. heterophylla contained flavonoids, sesqui and di-terpenes, and phenylpropanoids [81]; two monoterpene resins, b-pinene and a-pinene, were commonly found in wood found in Araucaria angustifolia and such compounds were detected in Norway spruce with many monoterpenoids in wood and bark [82].
Similar to our findings, GC–MS analysis revealed the presence of 4,4’-Dimethyl-2,2’- dimethylenebicyclohexyl-3,3’-diene (14.62%) and Copaene (13.64%) as the most prevailing constituents in C. molmol and A. heterophylla, respectively [59]. Bisabolene was the most abundant component in Commiphora erythraea essential oil (33.9%), fraction 2 (62.5%), and fraction 4 (23.8%), curzerene (32.6%), and α-santalene (30.1%) were the dominant chemical constituents in fractions 1 and 3, respectively [57]. Similar studies indicated that two resins, Commiphora myrrha and Commiphora africana, are rich in sesquiterpenes and sesquiterpene lactones through GC-MS analysis with anti-inflammatory and anticancer potential [83].
Finally, our data and others confirm that the presence of many secondary metabolites such as sesquiterpenes, phenols, aromatic terpenoids, fatty alcohol, eugenol, and many other bio-effective compounds may explain the effectiveness of A. heterophylla and C. molmol resin extracts against insect pests [82,84,85].
Phenolics are linked to toxicity against because they are important in plant-herbivore and pathogen interactions. Antioxidant characteristics were found in phenolic chemicals, which are thought to be the primary cause of the pesticide effect in nature [86]. The mode of action of C. molmol extract was revealed through histopathological and transmission election microscope of treated A. persicus via penetrating the cuticle towards the body cavity of treated ticks, destroying the epithelial gut cells, and ultimately resulted in the death of ticks. Moreover, lysing of epithelial gut cells with an irregularly distributed nucleus was commonly PT with low concentrations and rarely PT with high concentrations of C. molmol, whereas lysed epithelial gut cells (without nucleus or with aggregated one beside the basal lamina) were commonly observed PT with high concentrations and rare recorded PT with low concentrations [65,69]. Using plant-based pesticides had minimum or low toxicity for non-target organisms [5]. Specifically, the safety of Commiphora spp. was confirmed after oral toxicity in mice and rats [63].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Pest Collections

The collection of the adult stage of four pests of mixed sex was done from May to July 2021. The camel tick, Hyalomma dromedarii (Koch, 1844) and cattle tick, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) annulatus, formerly Boophilus annulatus (Say, 1821), (Acari: Ixodidae), were collected from areas around infested camel and cattle, respectively, at the slaughterhouse in Jazan Province, Saudi Arabia. The adult cattle louse fly, Hippobosca maculata Leach (Diptera: Hippoboscidae) was collected from infested cattle mainly in the ears and tails. The cattle louse, Haematopinus eurysternus, was collected from the dewlap, cheeks, neck, flank, withers, and back of infested cattle. Pests were collected from and around animals that had no previous exposure to pesticides.

3.2. Collection of Plant Materials

A. heterophylla and C. molmol were collected from different areas in Saint Catherine (28°33′42″ N, 33°56′57″ E, altitude 2624), South Sinai Governorate, Egypt in May 2021. C. molmol resin was obtained as amber solid crystals, while A. heterophylla resin was a flexible white colloidal form (Figure 1). Plants were identified at the Flora and Phytotaxonomic section of the Agricultural Research Center in Giza, Egypt.

3.3. Preparation of Plant Extracts

Stock solutions of the plant oil-resins A. heterophylla and C. molmol were extracted by mechanically grinding 50 g of both plant oil-resins using a stainless-steel electric mixer and placing the powder in a Soxhlet apparatus for 6–8 h according to the type of solvent. Methanol and hexane were used as solvent, individually. The solution was filtered using Whatman No. 1 filter paper through a Buchner funnel, and the extracts were dried in an oven at 30 °C for 6 h. The extracts were stored in a dark bottle in a refrigerator at −5 °C for 24 h prior to the experiment [52].

3.4. Bioassays

The pesticide effectiveness of methanol and hexane extracts of A. heterophylla and C. molmol was evaluated against four ectoparasites, H. dromedarii, R. annulatus, Hi. maculate, and Ha. eurysternus. Preliminary experiments each containing 30 adult pests, grouped in three replicates, were made to evaluate the range of concentrations used for each pest. Treated envelopes were used [74]. The adult cattle and camel ticks were treated with the following concentrations: 1.6, 3.1, 6.3, 12.5, 25 mg/mL, while adult cattle louse fly and cattle louse were treated with the following concentrations: 0.8, 1.6, 3.1, 6.3, 12.5 mg/mL. Three replicates (each contained ten adult pests) were used for each concentration.
Each group of pests were added to a filter paper envelope, Whatman filter paper No.1, 125 mm diameter, and treated with a single concentration of the plant extracts as 3 mL test solution uniformly distributed with a pipette on internal surfaces of the envelopes. The control envelopes were impregnated with distilled water. The opening of the envelopes was folded and secured with a metallic clip with its identification marks like tested solution and concentration. Each treated replicate of pests was transported to a Petri dish lined with a filter paper. Treated pests were kept at 28 ± 2 °C and a relative humidity of 80 ± 5%. Mortalities were recorded one, three and seven days post-treatment (PT).

3.5. Biochemical Analysis

Biochemical analyses were made using GC/MS, a Thermo Scientific Trace GC Ultra/ISQ Single Quadrupole MS, TG-5MS fused silica capillary column, 0.1 mm, 0.251 mm, and 30 m thick. An electronic ionizer with 70 eV ionization energy was used. Helium gas was utilized as a carrier gas (flow rate = 1 mL/min). The injector and MS transmission line were set at 280 °C. The oven temperature was set at 50 °C, then increased to 150 °C at a rate of 7 °C per minute, then to 270 °C at a rate of 5 °C per minute (wait for 2 min), and finally to 310 °C at a rate of 3.5 °C/min (continued for 10 min). To investigate the quantification of all components found, a relative peak area was used. By comparing the retention periods and mass spectra of the chemicals with those of NIST, Willy Library data from the GC-MS instrument, and the chemicals were tentatively identified. The collective spectra of user-generated reference libraries were used for identification. Single-ion chromatographic reconstructions were used to assess peak homogeneity. Co-chromatographic analysis of reference compounds was performed whenever possible to confirm GC retention times [87,88].

3.6. Data Analyses

The data were analyzed by the software, SPSS V23 (IBM, New York, NY, USA), for doing the Probit analyses to calculate the lethal concentration (LC) values and the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (Post Hoc/Turkey’s HSD test). The significant levels were set at p < 0.05.

4. Conclusions

It is crucial to safeguard livestock and domesticate animals from blood-feeding ectoparasites and vector-borne diseases. Worldwide, pest control is dependent on conventional pesticides, but resistance has developed to almost all classes of pesticides. Botanicals as eco-friendly pesticides represent conspicuous alternatives because of the wide diversity and high effectiveness of several plant-borne compounds. This study revealed, for the first time according to our knowledge, the efficacy of methanol and hexane extracts of C. molmol and A. heterophylla against four camel and cattle blood-sucking arthropods.
Our results confirmed that cattle lice and the louse fly were more susceptible (12.5 mg/mL) than cattle and camel ticks (25.0 mg/mL) to A. heterophylla and C. molmol extracts. Both methanol extracts were recommended as an ideal eco-friendly and inexpensive pest control approach that could be incorporated into integrated pest management used for the protection of large animals from vectors and vector-borne diseases. Further studies could be directed towards the field application and safety profile of C. molmol and A. heterophylla against non-target organisms as well as studying the synergistic effects of surfactants.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.B., A.S. and H.F.K.; methodology, M.M.B., M.M.H., A.S., H.F.K., E.S.S., S.A.S., Y.A.E.-S. and R.S.B.; software, M.M.B., S.A.S. and A.S.; validation, M.M.B., A.S., H.F.K., R.S.B. and Y.A.E.-S.; formal analysis, M.M.B., A.S., E.S.S., S.A.S. and H.F.K.; investigation, M.M.B., A.S., H.F.K. and R.S.B.; data management, M.M.B., H.F.K., E.S.S., M.M.H., Y.A.E.-S. and R.S.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.B., M.M.H., A.S., E.S.S. and H.F.K.; writing—review and editing, M.M.B., A.S., H.F.K., R.S.B., S.A.S. and Y.A.E.-S.; supervision, M.M.B., A.S. and H.F.K.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Science, Technology, and Innovation Funding Authority, (STIFA) Egypt. [Grant number 41608]; Project title: “Eco-friendly Pesticides against Pests of Medical, Veterinary, and Agricultural Importance”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The co-authors would like to thank the funding agency of this work, the Science, Technology, and Innovation Funding Authority, Egypt. [Grant number 41608] for funding the project title: “Eco-friendly Pesticides against Pests of Medical, Veterinary, and Agricultural Importance”.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Perveen, N.; Muzaffar, S.B.; Vijayan, R.; Al-Deeb, M.A. Microbial communities associated with the camel tick, Hyalomma dromedarii: 16S rRNA gene-based analysis. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 17035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hussain, S.; Saqib, M.; Ashfaq, K. First Molecular Evidence of Coxiella Burnetii in Ticks Collected from Dromedary Camels in Punjab. Pakistan. Pak. Vet. J. 2022, 42, 276–280. [Google Scholar]
  3. Rahman, A.; Kashif, M.; Nasir, A.; Idrees, A.; Jamil, M.; Qadir, A.; Qasim, M.; Khan, I.; Aziz, H.; Qazi, I.; et al. A Review of Tick and Tick Control Strategies in Pakistan. Pak. J. Med. Health Sci. 2022, 16, 652–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Benelli, G.; Duggan, M.F. Management of Arthropod Vector Data–Social and Ecological Dynamics Facing the One Health Perspective. Acta. Trop. 2018, 182, 80–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Khater, H.F. Prospects of botanical biopesticides in insect pest management. J. Appl. Pharm. Sci. 2012, 3, 641–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Abbas, R.Z.; Zaman, M.A.; Colwell, D.; Gilleard, J.; Iqbal, Z. Acaricide resistance in cattle ticks and approaches to its management: The state of play. Vet. Parasitol. 2014, 203, 6–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pavoni, L.; Benelli, G.; Maggi, F.; Bonacucina, G. Green Nanoemulsion Interventions for Bi-opesticide Formulations. In Nano-Biopesticides Today and Future Perspectives; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 133–160. [Google Scholar]
  8. Khater, H.F.; Selim, A.M.; Abouelella, G.A.; Abouelella, N.A.; Murugan, K.; Vaz, N.P.; Govindarajan, M. Commercial Mosquito Repellents and Their Safety Concerns. In Malaria; Fyson, K., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019; pp. 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  9. Pinheiro, L.A.; Dáder, B.; Wanumen, A.C.; Pereira, J.A.; Santos, S.A.P.; Medina, P. Side Effects of Pesticides on the Olive Fruit Fly Parasitoid Psyttalia concolor (Szépligeti): A Review. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Khater, H.F. Ecosmart Biorational Insecticides: Alternative Insect Control Strategies. In Insecticides—Advances in Integrated Pest Management; Farzana, P., Ed.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012; pp. 17–60. [Google Scholar]
  11. Khater, H.F. Bioactivity of Essential Oils as Green Biopesticides: Recent Global Scenario. In Recent Progress in Medicinal Plants; Govil, J.N., Bhattacharya, S., Eds.; Studium Press LLC: Houston, TX, USA, 2013; pp. 151–218. [Google Scholar]
  12. El-Ashram, S.; Aboelhadid, S.M.; Kamel, A.A.; Mahrous, L.N.; Fahmy, M.M. First Report of Cattle Tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) annulatus in Egypt Resistant to Ivermectin. Insects 2019, 10, 404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Steve, P.; Jan, T. The Sophisticated Peptide Chemistry of Venomous Animals as a Source of Novel Insecticides Acting on Voltage-Gated Sodium Channels. In Insecticides—Advances in Integrated Pest Management; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2012; pp. 213–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Ahmed, N.; Alam, M.; Saeed, M.; Ullah, H.; Iqbal, T.; Al-Mutairi, K.A.; Shahjeer, K.; Ullah, R.; Ahmed, S.; Ahmed, N.A.A.H.; et al. Botanical Insecticides Are a Non-Toxic Alternative to Conventional Pesticides in the Control of Insects and Pests. In Global Decline of Insects; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Iqbal, T.; Ahmed, N.; Shahjeer, K.; Ahmed, S.; Al-Mutairi, K.A.; Khater, H.F.; Ali, R.F. Botanical Insecticides and Their Potential as Anti-Insect/Pests: Are They Successful against Insects and Pests? In Global Decline of Insects; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  16. Khater, H.; Hendawy, N.; Govindarajan, M.; Murugan, K.; Benelli, G. Photosensitizers in the fight against ticks: Safranin as a novel photodynamic fluorescent acaricide to control the camel tick Hyalomma dromedarii (Ixodidae). Parasitol. Res. 2016, 115, 3747–3758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Khater, H.F.; Ramadan, M.Y. The acaricidal effect of peracetic acid against Boophilus annulatus and Argas persicus. Acta Sci. Veter. 2018, 35, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Khater, H.F.; Seddiek, S.A.; El-Shorbagy, M.M.; Ali, A.M. Erratum To: The Acaricidal Efficacy of Peracetic Acid and Deltamethrin against the Fowl Tick, Argas persicus, infesting laying hens. Parasitol. Res. 2013, 112, 3669–3678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Seddiek, S.A.; Khater, H.F.; El-Shorbagy, M.M.; Ali, A.M. The Acaricidal Efficacy of Aqueous Neem Extract and Ivermectin against Sarcoptes Scabiei Var. Cuniculi in Experimentally Infested Rabbits. Parasitol. Res. 2013, 112, 2319–2330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Khater, H.F.; Hendawy, N.I. Photoxicity of Rose Bengal against the Camel Tick. Hyalomma dromedarii. Int. J. Vet. Sci. 2014, 3, 78–86. [Google Scholar]
  21. Pavela, R.; Benelli, G. Essential Oils as Ecofriendly Biopesticides? Challenges and Constraints. Trends Plant Sci. 2016, 21, 1000–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Benelli, G.; Pavela, R.; Canale, A.; Mehlhorn, H. Tick Repellents and Acaricides of Bo-tanical Origin: A Green Roadmap to Control Tick-Borne Diseases? Parasitol. Res. 2016, 115, 2545–2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Muhammad, G.; Naureen, A.; Firyal, S.; Saqib, M. Tick Control Strategies in Dairy Production Medicine. Pak. Vet. J. 2018, 28, 43–50. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ara, C.; Arshad, A.; Faheem, M.; Khan, M.; Shakir, H.A. Protective Potential of Aqueous Extract of Allium cepa against Tartrazine Induced Reproductive Toxicity. Pak. Vet. J. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Khater, H.F. Introductory Chapter: Back to the Future-Solutions for Parasitic Problems as Old as the Pyramids. In Natural Remedies in the Fight against Parasites; Benelli G 4–19; Govindarajan, M., Khater, H.F., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  26. Khater, H.F. Herbal and Horticultural Remedies: Gardening for the Elderly and Physically and Mentally Disabled; Authorhouse UK Ltd.: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  27. Khater, H.F.; Ziam, H.; Abbas, A.; Abbas, R.Z.; Raza, M.A.; Hussain, K.; Selim, A. Avian Coccidiosis: Recent Advances in Alternative Control Strategies and Vaccine Development. Agrobiol. Rec. 2020, 1, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Seddiek, S.A.; El-Shorbagy, M.M.; Khater, H.F.; Ali, A.M. The Antitrichomonal Efficacy of Garlic and Metronidazole against Trichomonas gallinae Infecting Domestic Pigeons. Parasitol. Res. 2014, 113, 1319–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vaz, N.P.; De Oliveira, D.R.; Abouelella, G.A.; Khater, H.F. The Black Seed, Nigella Sativa (Ranunculaceae), for Prevention and Treatment of Hypertension. In Recent Progress in Medicinal Plants; Govil, J.N., Bhardwaj, N., Eds.; Studium Press LLC: Houston, TX, USA, 2018; pp. 221–244. [Google Scholar]
  30. Seddiek, S.A.; Ali, M.M.; Khater, H.F.; El-Shorbagy, M.M. Anthelmintic Activity of the White Wormwood, Artemisia herba-Alba against Heterakis gallinarum Infecting Turkey Poults. J. Med. Plants Res. 2011, 5, 3946–3957. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mohsin, M.; Li, L.; Huang, X.; Aleem, T.M.; Habib, J.Y.; Ismael, A. Immunogenicity and Protective Efficacy of Probiotics with Etimp1c against Eimeria Tenella Challenge. Pak. Vet. J. 2021, 41, 274–278. [Google Scholar]
  32. Abbas, R.Z.; Zaman, M.A.; Sindhu, D.; Sharif, M.; Rafique, A.; Saeed, Z.; Ahmad, M. Anthelmintic Effects and Toxicity Analysis of Herbal Dewormer against the Infection of Haemonchus contortus and Fasciola hepatica in Goat. Pak. Vet. J. 2020, 40, 2074–7764. [Google Scholar]
  33. Khater, H.F.; Ramadan, M.Y.; El-Madawy, R.S. Lousicidal, Ovicidal and Repellent Efficacy of Some Essential Oils against Lice and Flies Infesting Water Buffaloes in Egypt. Vet. Parasitol. 2009, 164, 257–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Khater, H.F.; Geden, C.J. Potential of essential oils to prevent fly strike and their effects on the longevity of adult Lucilia sericata. J. Vector Ecol. 2018, 43, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Govindarajan, M.; Khater, H.; Panneerselvam, C.; Benelli, G. One-pot fabrication of silver nanocrystals using Nicandra physalodes: A novel route for mosquito vector control with moderate toxicity on non-target water bugs. Res. Vet. Sci. 2016, 107, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Govindarajan, M.; Rajeswary, M.; Muthukumaran, U.; Hoti, S.; Khater, H.; Benelli, G. Single-step biosynthesis and characterization of silver nanoparticles using Zornia diphylla leaves: A potent eco-friendly tool against malaria and arbovirus vectors. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2016, 161, 482–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Khater, H.F. Biocontrol of Some Insects; Parasitology Egypt; Benha University: Benha, Egypt, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  38. Khater, H.F.; Ali, A.M.; Bsc, G.A.A.; Marawan, M.A.; Govindarajan, M.; Murugan, K.; Abbas, R.Z.; Vaz, N.P.; Benelli, G. Toxicity and growth inhibition potential of vetiver, cinnamon, and lavender essential oils and their blends against larvae of the sheep blowfly, Lucilia sericata. Int. J. Dermatol. 2018, 57, 449–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Khater, H.F.; Geden, C.J. Efficacy and Repellency of Some Essential Oils and Their Blends against Larval and Adult House Flies, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae). J. Vector Ecol. 2019, 44, 256–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Khater, H.F.; Hanafy, A.; Abdel-Mageed, A.D.; Ramadan, M.Y.; El-Madawy, R.S. Control of the Myiasis-Producing Fly, Lucilia sericata, with Egyptian Essential Oils. Int. J. Dermatol. 2011, 50, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Khater, H.F.; Khater, D.F. The insecticidal activity of four medicinal plants against the blowfly Lucilia sericata (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Int. J. Dermatol. 2009, 48, 492–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Khater, H.F.; Ramadan, M.Y.; Mageid, A.D.A. In Vitro Control of the Camel Nasal Botfly, Cephalopina titillator, with Doramectin, Lavender, Camphor, and Onion Oils. Parasitol. Res. 2013, 112, 2503–2510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Khater, H.F.; Shalaby, A.A.S. Potential of Biologically Active Plant Oils to Control Mosquito Larvae (Culex pipiens, Diptera: Culicidae) from an Egyptian Locality. Rev. Inst. Med. Trop. Sao Paulo 2008, 50, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Murugan, K.; Priyanka, V.; Dinesh, D.; Madhiyazhagan, P.; Panneerselvam, C.; Subramaniam, J.; Suresh, U.; Chandramohan, B.; Roni, M.; Nicoletti, M.; et al. Predation by Asian bullfrog tadpoles, Hoplobatrachus tigerinus, against the dengue vector, Aedes aegypti, in an aquatic environment treated with mosquitocidal nanoparticles. Parasitol. Res. 2015, 114, 3601–3610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Radwan, I.T.; Baz, M.M.; Khater, H.; Alkhaibari, A.M.; Selim, A.M. Mg-LDH Nanoclays Intercalated Fennel and Green Tea Active Ingredient: Field and Laboratory Evaluation of Insecticidal Activities against Culex pipiens and Their Non-Target Organisms. Molecules 2022, 27, 2424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Radwan, I.T.; Baz, M.M.; Khater, H.; Selim, A.M. Nanostructured Lipid Carriers (NLC) for Biologically Active Green Tea and Fennel Natural Oils Delivery: Larvicidal and Adulticidal Activities against Culex pipiens. Molecules 2022, 27, 1939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Roni, M.; Murugan, K.; Panneerselvam, C.; Subramaniam, J.; Nicoletti, M.; Madhiyazhagan, P.; Benelli, G. Characterization and Biotoxicity of Hypnea musciformis-Synthesized Silver Nanoparticles as Potential Eco-Friendly Control Tool against Aedes aegypti and Plutella xylostella. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2015, 121, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Alkenani, N.A.; Ahmed, M.M.M.; Al-Solami, H.M.; Anwar, Y.; Alghamdi, K.M.; Ahmad, M.S. Molecular Identification and Bio-Control of Mosquitoes Using Black Seeds Extract in Jeddah. Pak. Vet. J. 2021, 41, 2074–7764. [Google Scholar]
  49. Khater, H.F.; El-Shorbagy, M.M.; Seddiek, S.A. Lousicidal Efficacy of Camphor Oil, D-Phenothrin, and Deltamethrin against the Slender Pigeon Louse, Columbicola columbae. Int. J. Vet. Sci. Med. 2014, 2, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Baz, M.M.; Selim, A.; Radwan, I.T.; Alkhaibari, A.M.; Khater, H.F. Larvicidal and adulticidal effects of some Egyptian oils against Culex pipiens. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 4406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Abdel-Meguid, A.D.; Ramadan, M.Y.; Khater, H.F.; Radwan, I.T. Louicidal Efficacy of Essential Oils against the Dog Louse, Trichodectes canis (Mallophaga: Trichodectidae). Egypt. Acad. J. Biol. Sci. E. Med. Entomol. Parasitol. 2022, 14, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Eltaly, R.; Mohamed, M.B.; Ibrahim, T.R.; Mohamed, Y.; Hosam, S.A.; Aabdelfattah, S.; Hanan, A.A.T.; Ahmed, A.G.F.; Khater, H.F. Novel Acaricidal Activity of Vitex castus and Zingiber officinale Extracts against the Camel Tick, Hyalomma dromedarii. Int. J. Vet. Sci. 2022, 11, 479–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Baz, M.M.; Eltaly, R.I.; Debboun, M.; Selim, A.; Radwan, I.T.; Ahmed, N.; Khater, H.F. The Contact/Fu-migant Adulticidal Effect of Egyptian Oils against the House Fly, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae). Int. J. Vet. Sci. 2021, 10, 355. [Google Scholar]
  54. AbouLaila, M.; El-Sayed, S.; Omar, M.; Al-Aboody, M.; Aziz, A.A.; Abdel-Daim, M.; Rizk, M.; Igarashi, I. Myrrh Oil in Vitro Inhibitory Growth on Bovine and Equine Piroplasm Parasites and Babesia microti of Mice. Pathogens 2020, 9, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Rizk, E.S.T. Toxicity of Commiphora molmol (Myrrh) Water Suspension to Some Non-Target Aquatic Organisms and Its Molluscicidal and Biological Activities on Bulinus truncatus and Biomphalaria alexandrina (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Egypt. J. Exp. Biol. Zool. 2015, 2, 207–219. [Google Scholar]
  56. Abdul-Ghani, R.A.; Loutfy, N.; Hassan, A. Myrrh and Trematodoses in Egypt: An Overview of Safety, Efficacy and Effectiveness Profiles. Parasitol. Int. 2009, 58, 210–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Muturi, E.J.; Hay, W.T.; Doll, K.M.; Ramirez, J.L.; Selling, G. Insecticidal Activity of Commiphora erythraea Essential Oil and Its Emulsions Against Larvae of Three Mosquito Species. J. Med. Èntomol. 2020, 57, 1835–1842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hoda, S.M.; Fahmy, M.M.; Attia, M.M.; Rabab, M.; Shalaby, H.A.; Massoud, A.M. The Insecticidal Activity of Two Medicinal Plants (Commiphora molmol) and (Balanites aegyptiaca) against the Blowfly Lucilia sericata (Diptera: Calliphoridae). Int. J. Adv. Res. Biol. Sci. 2016, 3, 144–158. [Google Scholar]
  59. Baz, M.M.; Hegazy, M.M.; Khater, H.F.; El-Sayed, Y.A. Comparative Evaluation of Five Oil-Resin Plant Extracts against the Mosquito Larvae, Culex pipiens Say (Diptera: Culicidae). Pak. Vet. J. 2021, 41, 2074–7764. [Google Scholar]
  60. Elshamy, A.I.; Ammar, N.M.; Hassan, H.A.; Al-Rowaily, S.L.; Ragab, T.I.; El Gendy, A.E.N.G.; Abd-ElGawad, A.M. Essential Oil and Its Nanoemulsion of Araucaria heterophylla Resin: Chemical Characterization, Anti-Inflammatory, and Antipyretic Activities. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020, 148, 112272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Samrot, A.V.; Bhavya, K.S.; Angalene, J.L.A.; Roshini, S.M.; Preethi, R.; Steffi, S.M.; Kumar, S.S. Utilization of Gum Polysaccharide of Araucaria heterophylla and Azadirachta indica for Encapsulation of Cyfluthrin Loaded Super Paramagnetic Iron Oxide Nanoparticles for Mosquito Larvicidal Activity. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 153, 1024–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Divvela, H.N.D.; Duppala, L.; Kolapalli, V.R.M. Isolation and Acute Oral Toxicity Studies of Araucaria heterophylla Novel Natural Polysaccharide Gum in Albino Mice. World J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci 2016, 5, 702–711. [Google Scholar]
  63. Jasim, G.A.; Al-Zubaidy, A.A.; Hussein, S.M.; Sahib, H.B.; Ahmed, B.S. The Acute Toxicity of Commiphora molmol Oleo-Gum-Resin Methanol Extract. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Rev. Res. 2015, 33, 109–114. [Google Scholar]
  64. Kalala, W.; Magadula, J.; Mdegela, H. Evaluating Acaricidal Activity of Commiphora swynnertonii (Burtt.) Bark Exudates against Common Ticks in Tanzania. Int. J. Herb. Med. 2014, 2, 19–25. [Google Scholar]
  65. Massoud, A.M.; Kutkat, M.A.; El-Khateeb, R.M.; Labib, I.M. Acaricidal Efficacy of Myrrh [Commiphora molmol] on the Fowl Tick Argas persicus [Acari: Argasidae]. J. Egypt. Soc. Parasitol. 2005, 35, 667–686. [Google Scholar]
  66. Temba, S.G. Acaricidal Investigation of Commiphora swynnertonii (Burtt) Stem Bark Exudate. Ph.D. Thesis, NM-AIST, Arushac, Tanzania, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  67. Mkangara, M.; Erasto, P.; Chacha, M. Acaricidal Activity of Commiphora Swynnertonii (Burtt) Stem Bark Extracts against Adult Rhipicephalus appendiculatus Newman and Amblyomma variegatum. Am. J. Res. Commun. 2014, 2, 82–92. [Google Scholar]
  68. Birkett, M.A.; Al Abassi, S.; Kröber, T.; Chamberlain, K.; Hooper, A.M.; Guerin, P.M.; Wadhams, L.J. Antiectoparasitic Activity of the Gum Resin, Gum Haggar, from the East African Plant, Commiphora holtziana. Phytochemistry 2008, 69, 1710–1715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Nisbet, A.J. Azadirachtin from the neem tree Azadirachta indica: Its action against insects. Anais Sociedade Entomológica Brasil 2000, 29, 615–632. [Google Scholar]
  70. Figueiredo, J.C.G.; Nunes, Y.R.F.; Vasconcelos, V.D.O.; Arruda, S.R.; Morais-Costa, F.; Santos, G.S.C.; Alvez, F.S.; Duarte, E.R. Effects of leaf extracts of Protium spruceanum against adult and larval Rhipicephalus microplus. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2019, 79, 447–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Abdel-Ghany, H.S.; Abdel-Shafy, S.; Abuowarda, M.; El-Khateeb, R.M.; Hoballah, E.M.; Fahmy, M.M. Acaricidal Activity of Artemisia Herba-Alba and Melia azedarach Oil Nanoemulsion against Hyalomma dromedarii and Their Toxicity on Swiss Albino Mice. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2021, 84, 241–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mahran, M.O.; Wahba, A.A.; Mansour, K.M. In Vitro Acaricidal Effect of Neem Leaves (Azadirachta Indica) and Citrullus colocynthis Extracts against the Camel Ticks, Hyalomma dromedarii (Acari: Ixodidae). J. Ecosyst. Ecography 2020, 10, 264–300. [Google Scholar]
  73. Campbell, J.; Boxler, D.; Davis, R. Comparative efficacy of several insecticides for control of cattle lice (Mallophaga: Trichodectidae and Anoplura: Haematopinidae). Veter. Parasitol. 2001, 96, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zahir, A.A.; Rahuman, A.A.; Bagavan, A.; Santhoshkumar, T.; Mohamed, R.R.; Kamaraj, C.; Rajakumar, G.; Elango, G.; Jayaseelan, C.; Marimuthu, S. Evaluation of Botanical Extracts against Haemaphysalis bispinosa Neumann and Hippobosca maculata Leach. Parasitol. Res. 2010, 107, 585–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Velayutham, K.; Rahuman, A.A.; Rajakumar, G.; Santhoshkumar, T.; Marimuthu, S.; Jayaseelan, C.; Bagavan, A.; Kirthi, A.V.; Kamaraj, C.; Zahir, A.A.; et al. Evaluation of Catharanthus roseus Leaf Extract-Mediated Biosynthesis of Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles against Hippobosca maculata and Bovicola ovis. Parasitol. Res. 2012, 11, 2329–2337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Santhoshkumar, T.; Rahuman, A.A.; Bagavan, A.; Marimuthu, S.; Jayaseelan, C.; Kirthi, A.V.; Kamaraj, C.; Rajakumar, G.; Zahir, A.A.; Elango, G.; et al. Evaluation of stem aqueous extract and synthesized silver nanoparticles using Cissus quadrangularis against Hippobosca maculata and Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Exp. Parasitol. 2012, 132, 156–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Khater, H.F. Bioactivities of Some Essential Oils against the Camel Nasal Botfly, Cephalopina titillator. Parasitol. Res. 2014, 113, 593–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Wang, X.; Liu, Y.-S.; Nair, U.B.; Armstrong, D.W.; Ellis, B.; Williams, K.M. Enantiomeric composition of monoterpenes in conifer resins. Tetrahedron Asymmetry 1997, 8, 3977–3984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Otto, A.; Wilde, V. Sesqui-, Di-, and Triterpenoids as Chemosystematic Markers in Extant Co-nifers—A Review. Bot. Rev. 2001, 67, 141–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Lebouvier, N.; Hüe, T.; Hnawia, E.; Lesaffre, L.; Menut, C.; Nour, M. Acaricidal Activity of Essential Oils from Five Endemic Conifers of New Caledonia on the Cattle Tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Parasitol. Res. 2013, 112, 1379–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Abdel-Sattar, E.; Monem, A.R.A.; Ezzat, S.M.; El-Halawany, A.; Mouneir, S.M. Chemical and Biological Investigation of Araucaria heterophylla Salisb. Z. Naturforsch. C 2009, 64, 819–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Perotti, J.C.; da Silva Rodrigues-Corrêa, K.C.; Fett-Neto, A.G. Control of Resin Production in Araucaria angustifolia, an Ancient South American Conifer. Plant Biol. 2015, 17, 852–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gadir, S.A.; Ahmed, I.M. Commiphora Myrrha and Commiphora africana Essential Oils. J. Chem. Pharm. Res. 2014, 6, 151–156. [Google Scholar]
  84. Shameem, I. Phytochemical & Therapeutic Potentials of Murr Makki (Commiphora myrrha): A review. Indian J. Appl. Res. 2018, 8, 102–104. [Google Scholar]
  85. Da Silva, J.P.; Florean, E.O.P.T.; Silva, R.B.; Santos, Y.D.; Pereira, M.M.S.; da Silva, L.R. Relationship of the Species Commiphora Leptophloeos with Aedes Aegypti: A Review. Res. Soc. Dev. 2022, 11, e48711326735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ukoroije, B.R.; Otayor, A.R. Review on the Bio-Insecticidal Properties of Some Plant Secondary Metabolites: Types, Formulations, Modes of Action, Advantages and Limitations. Asian J. Res. Zool. 2020, 3, 27–60. [Google Scholar]
  87. Ashmawy, N.A.; Salem, M.Z.M.; El-Hefny, M.; Abd El-Kareem, M.S.M.; El-Shanhorey, N.A.; Mohamed, A.A.; Salem, A.Z.M. Antibacterial activity of the bioactive compounds identified in three woody plants against some pathogenic bacteria. Microb. Pathog. 2018, 121, 331–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. El-Hefny, M.; Mohamed, A.A.; Salem, M.Z.M.; Abd El-Kareem, M.S.M.; Ali, H.M. Chemical composition, antioxidant capacity and antibacterial activity against some potato bacterial pathogens of fruit extracts from Phytolacca dioica and Ziziphus spinachristi grown in Egypt. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 233, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 11 01682 g001 550
Figure 1. The tree of Araucaria heterophylla in Saint Catherine area (A), massive resinous sap outpouring of the trunk Araucaria heterophylla (B).
Figure 1. The tree of Araucaria heterophylla in Saint Catherine area (A), massive resinous sap outpouring of the trunk Araucaria heterophylla (B).
Plants 11 01682 g001
Table
Table 1. The efficacy of the plant extracts of Commiphora molmol and Araucaria heterophylla against the Camel tick, Hyalomma dromedarii.
Table 1. The efficacy of the plant extracts of Commiphora molmol and Araucaria heterophylla against the Camel tick, Hyalomma dromedarii.
Mortality % (Mean ± SE)
Plant ExtractsConcentration (mg/mL)MethanolHexane
1 Day3 Days7 Days1 Day3 Days7 Days
Commiphora molmol00.00 ± 0.0 fC *3.33 ± 3.33 fB6.67 ± 3.33 eA0.00 ± 0.0 fC3.33 ± 3.33 fB6.67 ± 3.33 fA
1.616.67 ± 6.67 eC36.67 ± 3.33 eB63.33 ± 3.33 dA13.33 ± 3.33 eC30.00 ± 5.77 eB53.33 ± 6.67 eA
3.130.00 ± 5.77 dC63.33 ± 3.33 dB86.67 ± 3.33 cA23.33 ± 3.33 dC46.67 ± 3.33 dB66.67 ± 6.67 dA
6.353.33 ± 3.33 cC73.33 ± 3.33 cB93.33 ± 3.33 bA40.00 ± 5.77 cC66.67 ± 6.67 cB76.67 ± 6.67 cA
12.573.33 ± 8.82 bC80.00 ± 5.77 bB100.0 ± 0.00 aA60.00 ± 5.77 bC73.33 ± 8.82 bB86.67 ± 8.82 bA
2586.67 ± 6.67 aC90.00 ± 5.77 aB100.0 ± 0.00 aA76.67 ± 13.33 aC80.00 ± 5.77 aB100.0 ± 0.00 aA
Araucaria heterophylla00.00 ± 0.0 fC3.33 ± 3.33 fB6.67 ± 3.33 dA0.00 ± 0.0 fC3.33 ± 3.33 fB6.67 ± 3.33 fA
1.620.00 ± 0.00 eC46.67 ± 3.33 eB73.33 ± 3.33 cA13.33 ± 6.67 eC33.33 ± 3.33 eB56.67 ± 8.82 eA
3.143.33 ± 8.82 dC73.33 ± 3.33 dB86.67 ± 8.82 bA30.00 ± 5.77 dC56.67 ± 3.33 dB76.67 ± 8.82 dA
6.363.33 ± 8.82 cC80.00 ± 10.00 cB100.0 ± 0.00 aA43.33 ± 3.33 cC66.67 ± 6.67 cB80.00 ± 5.77 cA
12.580.00 ± 5.77 bC90.00 ± 5.77 bB100.0 ± 0.00 aA60.00 ± 5.77 bC76.67 ± 3.33 bB90.0 ± 10.00 bA
2593.33 ± 3.33 aC100.0 ± 0.00 aB100.0 ± 0.00 aA76.67 ± 3.33 aC90.00 ± 10.00 aB100.0 ± 0.00 aA
* letters refer to significant difference; a–f: There is no significant difference (p > 0.05) between any two means, those within the same column have the same superscript letter; A, B & C: There is no significant difference (p > 0.05) between any two means for the same solvent, those within the same row have the same superscript letter. Three replicates were used for each concentration and 10 adult pests per replicate were used.
Table
Table 2. Lethal concentration values of plant extracts of Commiphora molmol and Araucaria heterophylla against Hyalomma dromedarii.
Table 2. Lethal concentration values of plant extracts of Commiphora molmol and Araucaria heterophylla against Hyalomma dromedarii.
DaysPlant ExtractsSolventsLC50 (95%CL) *LC90 (95%CL)LC95 (95%CL)Equation ** X2
1Commiphora molmolMethanol5.76 (4.91–6.75)30.29 (22.91–44.26)48.48 (34.50–77.54)1.779 ± 0.157X0.975
Hexane36.08 (31.12–56.66)442.56 (315.42–498.16)1731 (1420.15–2125.02)0.613 ± 0.140X40.179
Araucaria heterophyllaMethanol4.16 (3.52–4.85)19.94 (15.69–27.49)31.10 (23.15–46.50)1.880 ± 0.165X0.705
Hexane8.07 (6.71–9.86)60.03 (40.13–107.74)106.00 (64.94–217.67)1.471 ± 0.149X0.867
3Commiphora molmolMethanol2.47 (1.78–3.15)24.22 (17.05–41.08)46.25 (29.28–93.94)1.293 ± 0.153X4.165
Hexane4.08 (3.12–5.11)48.16 (30.61–97.54)96.95 (54.49–241.38)1.195 ± 0.144X0.350
Araucaria heterophyllaMethanol1.78 (1.31–2.22)9.85 (7.84–13.47)15.99 (11.94–24.42)1.726 ± 0.188X6.546
Hexane3.17 (2.42–3.93)28.26 (19.87–47.55)52.53 (33.48–103.88)1.349 ± 0.151X2.469
7Commiphora molmolMethanol1.13 (0.79–1.45)4.55 (3.85–5.54)6.76 (5.55–8.80)2.121 ± 0.233X1.488
Hexane1.47 (0.79–2.13)24.60 (15.41–56.27)54.62 (28.92–175.54)1.049 ± 0.167X0.793
Araucaria heterophyllaMethanol1.04 (0.67–1.33)3.13 (2.65–3.92)4.27 (3.49–5.95)2.687 ± 0.433X0.199
Hexane1.38 (0.90–1.84)10.09 (7.80–14.53)17.73 (12.65–29.71)1.483 ± 0.182X7.301
* LC50, 60, and 95 values = lethal concentration that kills 50, 90, and 95% of the exposed ectoparasite; (95%CL) = lower and upper confidence limit; ** Regression line equation; X2 = chi-square; Significant at p < 0.05 level.
Table
Table 3. Efficacy of the plant extracts Commiphora molmol and Araucaria heterophylla on Cattle ticks, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) annulatus.
Table 3. Efficacy of the plant extracts Commiphora molmol and Araucaria heterophylla on Cattle ticks, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) annulatus.
Mortality % (Mean ± SE)
Plant ExtractsConcentration (mg/mL)MethanolHexane
1 Day3 Days7 Days1 Day3 Days7 Days
Commiphora molmol00.00 ± 0.0 fC *3.33 ± 3.33 fB6.67 ± 3.33 eA0.0 ± 0.0 fC3.33 ± 3.33 fB6.67 ± 3.33 fA
1.620.00 ± 5.77 eC40.00 ± 0.00 eB66.67 ± 3.33 dA16.67 ± 3.33 eC33.33 ± 6.67 eB56.67 ± 8.82 eA
3.133.33 ± 8.82 dC70.00 ± 5.77 dB90.00 ± 5.77 cA26.67 ± 3.33 dC50.00 ± 5.77 dB70.00 ± 10.00 dA
6.356.67 ± 3.33 cC76.67 ± 3.33 cB96.67 ± 3.33 bA43.33 ± 6.67 cC70.00 ± 5.77 cB80.00 ± 5.77 cA
12.570.00 ± 5.77 bC83.33 ± 3.33 bB100.0 ± 0.00 aA56.67 ± 3.33 bC76.67 ± 8.82 bB90.00 ± 5.77 bA
2583.33 ± 3.33 aC93.33 ± 6.67 aB100.0 ± 0.00 aA70.00 ± 5.77 aC83.33 ± 3.33 aB100.0 ± 0.00 aA
Araucaria heterophylla00.00 ± 0.0 f C3.33 ± 3.33 fB6.67 ± 3.33 dA0.0 ± 0.0 fC3.33 ± 3.33 fB6.67 ± 3.33 fA
1.623.33 ± 3.33 eC50.00 ± 5.77 eB76.67 ± 6.67 cA16.67 ± 8.82 eC36.67 ± 3.33 eB60 ± 10.00 eA
3.146.67 ± 12.02 dC76.67 ± 3.33 dB86.67 ± 8.82 bA40.00 ± 5.77 dC60.00 ± 5.77 dB80 ± 11.55 dA
6.366.67 ± 12.02 cC83.33 ± 12.02 cB100.0 ± 0.00 aA53.33 ± 8.82 cC70.00 ± 10.00 cB83.33 ± 8.82 cA
12.583.33 ± 8.82 bC93.33 ± 3.33 bB100.0 ± 0.00 aA63.33 ± 6.67 bC80.00 ± 0.00 bB93.33 ± 6.67 bA
2596.67 ± 3.33 aC100.0 ± 0.00 aB100.0 ± 0.00 aA80.00 ± 5.77 aC93.33 ± 6.67 aB100.0 ± 0.00 aA
* letters refer to significant difference; a–f: There is no significant difference (p > 0.05) between any two means, those within the same column have the same superscript letter; A, B & C: There is no significant difference (p > 0.05) between any two means for the same solvent, those within the same row have the same superscript letter. Three replicates were used for each concentration and ten numbers of adult pests per replicate were used.
Table
Table 4. Lethal concentration values of plant extracts of Commiphora molmol and Araucaria heterophylla against Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) annulatus.
Table 4. Lethal concentration values of plant extracts of Commiphora molmol and Araucaria heterophylla against Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) annulatus.
Days Plant ExtractsSolventsLC50 (95%CL) *LC90 (95%CL)LC95 (95%CL)Equation ** X2
1Commiphora molmolMethanol5.26 (4.62–6.65)38.19 (27.18–61.90)65.95 (43.34–120.72)1.530 ± 0.150X0.628
Hexane9.24 (7.46–11.85)96.45 (56.88–218.26)187.47 (98.46–512.05)1.258 ± 0.145X0.172
Araucaria heterophyllaMethanol3.68 (3.10–4.28)17.30 (14.05–22.58)26.81 (20.77–37.55)1.908 ± 0.153X0.568
Hexane6.09 (4.99–7.43)51.83 (34.48–94.53)95.07 (57.43–201.82)1.379 ± 0.147X3.420
3Commiphora molmolMethanol2.42 (0.75–3.58)16.91 (13.56–88.54)29.31 (26.34–256.46)1.520 ± 0.150X10.917
Hexane3.40 (2.55–4.27)37.60 (24.87–70.99)74.29 (43.71–170.66)1.228 ± 0.147X2.769
Araucaria heterophyllaMethanol1.41 (0.82–2.25)12.97 (8.12–17.10)24.33 (18.12–32.14)1.330 ± 0.200X25.761
Hexane2.71 (2.06–3.37)21.64 (15.81–34.10)38.96 (26.03–71.10)1.422 ± 0.156X2.660
7Commiphora molmolMethanol1.09 (0.70–1.40)3.58 (2.98–4.72)5.00 (3.96–7.56)2.496 ± 0.423X0.875
Hexane1.55 (1.07–2.02)10.62 (8.26–15.16)18.31 (13.17–30.02)1.537 ± 0.181X5.304
Araucaria heterophyllaMethanol1.41 (0.72–1.89)12.97 (11.52–18.78)24.33 (22.14–34.15)1.330.6 ± 0.433X25.76
Hexane1.08 (0.65– 1.86)10.11 (8.44– 16.10)19.03 (12.45– 27.10)1.323±0.193X11.720
* LC50, 60, and 95 values = lethal concentration that kills 50, 90, and 95% of the exposed ectoparasite; (95%CL) = lower and upper confidence limit; ** Regression line equation; X2 = chi-square; Significant at p < 0.05 level.
Table
Table 5. Efficacy of the plant extracts of Commiphora molmol and Araucaria heterophylla on cattle lice, Haematopinus eurysternus.
Table 5. Efficacy of the plant extracts of Commiphora molmol and Araucaria heterophylla on cattle lice, Haematopinus eurysternus.
Mortality % (Mean ± SE)
Plant ExtractsConcentration (mg/mL)MethanolHexane
1 Day3 Days7 Days1 Day3 Days7 Days
Commiphora molmol00.00 ± 0.0 fC *3.33 ± 3.33 fB6.67 ± 3.33 eA0.0 ± 0.0 eC3.33 ± 3.33 fB6.67 ± 3.33 fA
0.820.00 ± 5.77 eC40.00 ± 0.00 eB66.67 ± 3.33 dA20.00 ± 0.00 dC36.67 ± 8.82 eB63.33 ± 3.33 eA
1.633.33 ± 8.82 dC70.00 ± 5.77 dB90.00 ± 5.77 cA30.00 ± 5.77 C60.00 ± 0.00 dB83.33 ± 3.33 dA
3.156.67 ± 3.33 cC76.67 ± 3.33 cB96.67 ± 3.33 bA50.00 ± 5.77 cC76.67 ± 3.33 cB90.00 ± 5.77 cA
6.383.33 ± 3.33 bC90.00 ± 5.77 bB100.0 ± 0.00 aA73.33 ± 6.67 bC83.33 ± 3.33 bB96.67 ± 3.33 bA
12.5100.0 ± 0.00 aC100.0 ± 0.00 aB100.0 ± 0.00 aA86.67 ± 6.67 aC93.33 ± 3.33 aB100 ± 0.00 aA
Araucaria heterophylla00.00 ± 0.0 fC3.33 ± 3.33 fB6.67 ± 3.33 eA0.00 ± 0.0 fC3.33 ± 3.33 fB6.67 ± 3.33 fA
0.816.67 ± 3.33 eC33.33 ± 6.67 eB63.33 ± 6.67 dA13.33 ± 3.33 eC30.00 ± 5.77 eB53.33 ± 8.82 eA
1.626.67 ± 3.33 dC60.00 ± 5.77 dB80.00 ± 5.77 cA23.33 ± 8.82 dC40.00 ± 10.00 dB63.33 ± 3.33 dA
3.146.67 ± 3.33 cC70.00 ± 10.00 cB83.33 ± 8.82 bA36.67 ± 3.33 cC53.33 ± 3.33 cB70.00 ± 0.00 cA
6.356.67 ± 3.33 bC76.67 ± 3.33 bB100.0 ± 0.00 aA46.67 ± 6.67 bC70.00 ± 10.00 bB83.33 ± 6.67 bA
12.576.67 ± 3.33 aC90.00 ± 5.77 aB100.0 ± 0.00 aA63.33 ± 3.33 aC76.67 ± 3.33 aB100.0 ± 0.00 aA
* letters refer to significant difference; a–f: There is no significant difference (p > 0.05) between any two means, within the same column they have the same superscript letter; A, B & C: There is no significant difference (p > 0.05) between any two means for the same solvent, within the same row they have the same superscript letter. Three replicates were used for each concentration and ten numbers of adult pests per replicate were used.
Table
Table 6. Lethal concentration values of plant extracts of Commiphora molmol and Araucaria heterophylla against Haematopinus eurysternus.
Table 6. Lethal concentration values of plant extracts of Commiphora molmol and Araucaria heterophylla against Haematopinus eurysternus.
DaysPlant ExtractsSolventsLC50 (95%CL) *LC90 (95%CL)LC95 (95%CL)Equation **X2
1Commiphora molmolMethanol2.27 (1.97–2.59)8.49 (6.94–11.04)12.34 (9.66–17.05)2.240 ± 0.1805.034
Hexane2.88 (2.43–3.39)16.37 (12.16–24.66)26.79 (18.61–44.58)1.698 ± 0.5611.345
Araucaria heterophyllaMethanol4.08 (3.36–5.04)33.78 (21.83–64.49)61.48 (36.10–136.45)1.397 ± 0.1481.329
Hexane6.65 (5.20–9.21)80.76 (42.32–229.34)163.87 (75.16–581.83)1.183 ± 0.1480.397
3Commiphora molmolMethanol1.09 (086–1.32)5.23 (4.22–6.99)8.15 (6.21–11.93)1.889 ± 0.1906.631
Hexane1.28 (0.97–1.57)8.91 (6.73–13.25)15.45 (10.78–26.14)1.521 ± 0.1612.058
Araucaria heterophyllaMethanol1.47 (1.11–1.84)13.48 (9.49–22.75)25.25 (16.06–50.33)1.334 ± 0.1524.287
Hexane2.75 (2.14–3.47)36.43 (21.46–84.85)75.78 (39.01–221.81)1.142 ± 0.1430.662
7Commiphora molmolMethanol0.56 (0.38–0.71)1.77 (1.49–2.24)2.44 (1.99–3.38)2.589 ± 0.3790.876
Hexane0.55 (0.35–0.73)2.86 (2.32–3.80)4.57 (3.49–6.85)1.791 ± 0.2341.514
Araucaria heterophyllaMethanol0.62 (0.24–1.12)3.07 (2.24–4.15)4.82 (2.68–6.20)1.856 ± 0.22911.223
Hexane1.00 (0.64–1.68)8.37 (5.88–11.32)15.27 (9.85–21.15)1.392 ± 0.15911.114
* LC50, 60, and 95 values = lethal concentration that kills 50, 90, and 95% of the exposed ectoparasite; (95%CL) = lower and upper confidence limit; ** Regression line equation; X2 = chi-square; Significant at p < 0.05 level.
Table
Table 7. Efficacy of the plant extracts of Commiphora molmol and Araucaria heterophylla against the cattle louse fly, Hippobosca maculata.
Table 7. Efficacy of the plant extracts of Commiphora molmol and Araucaria heterophylla against the cattle louse fly, Hippobosca maculata.
Mortality % (Mean ± SE)
Plant ExtractsConcentration (mg/mL)MethanolHexane
1 Day3 Days7 Days1 Day3 Days7 Days
Commiphora molmol00.00 ± 0.0 fC *3.33 ± 3.33 fB6.67 ± 3.33 eA0.00 ± 0.0 fC3.33 ± 3.33 fB6.67 ± 3.33 fA
0.820.00 ± 5.77 eC33.33 ± 6.67 eB60.00 ± 5.77 dA13.33 ± 6.67 eC30.00 ± 5.77 eB56.67 ± 3.33 eA
1.640.00 ± 5.77 dC60.00 ± 5.77 dB83.33 ± 3.33 cA23.33 ± 8.82 dC53.33 ± 6.67 dB76.67 ± 3.33 dA
3.153.33 ± 3.33 cC73.33 ± 3.33 cB90.00 ± 5.77 bA43.33 ± 8.82 cC70.00 ± 10.00 cB83.33 ± 12.02 cA
6.383.33 ± 3.33 bC86.67 ± 8.82 bB100 ± 0.00 aA66.67 ± 13.33 bC76.67 ± 3.33 bB90.00 ± 5.77 bA
12.596.67 ± 3.33 aC100.0 ± 0.00 aB100 ± 0.00 aA80.00 ± 11.55 aC86.67 ± 8.82 aB100 ± 0.00 aA
Araucaria heterophylla00.00 ± 0.0 fC3.33 ± 3.33 fB6.67 ± 3.33 fA0.00 ± 0.0 fC3.33 ± 3.33 fB6.67 ± 3.33 eA
0.810.00 ± 5.77 eC26.67 ± 6.67 eB56.67 ± 6.67 eA23.33 ± 3.33 eC50.00 ± 5.77 eB76.67 ± 6.67 dA
1.620.00 ± 5.77 dC53.33 ± 3.33 dB73.33 ± 8.82 dA46.67 ± 3.33 dC76.67 ± 3.33 dB86.67 ± 3.33 cA
3.140.00 ± 5.77 cC63.33 ± 3.33 cB76.67 ± 3.33 cA66.67 ± 8.82 cC86.67 ± 6.67 cB93.33 ± 6.67 bA
6.350.00 ± 5.77 bC70.00 ± 5.77 bB93.33 ± 6.67 bA86.67 ± 3.33 bC93.33 ± 6.67 bB100.0 ± 0.00 aA
12.570.00 ± 5.77 aC83.33 ± 12.02 aB100.0 ± 0.00 aA96.67 ± 3.33 aC100.0 ± 0.00 aB100.0 ± 0.00 aA
* letters refer to significant difference; a–f: There is no significant difference (p > 0.05) between any two means, within the same column they have the same superscript letter; A, B & C: There is no significant difference (p > 0.05) between any two means for the same solvent, within the same row they have the same superscript letter. Three replicates were used for each concentration and ten numbers of adult pests per replicate were used.
Table
Table 8. Lethal concentrations of plant extracts of Commiphora molmol and Araucaria heterophylla against Hippobosca maculata.
Table 8. Lethal concentrations of plant extracts of Commiphora molmol and Araucaria heterophylla against Hippobosca maculata.
DaysPlant ExtractsSolventsLC50 (95%CL) *LC90 (95%CL)LC95 (95%CL)Equation **X2
1Commiphora molmolMethanol2.31 (1.96–2.70)11.24 (8.64–16.10)17.60 (12.76–27.57)1.866 ± 0.1712.861
Hexane3.84 (3.27–4.56)21.60 (15.68–33.70)35.23 (23.91–60.73)1.714 ± 0.1560.733
Araucaria heterophyllaMethanol5.58 (4.60–7.02)41.19 (26.40–79.38)72.59 (42.51–160.78)1.476 ± 0.1531.476
Hexane1.80 (1.53–2.09)7.47 (6.06–9.84)11.18 (8.65–15.79)2.079 ± 0.1780.395
3Commiphora molmolMethanol1.40 (1.15–1.64)6.19 (5.01–8.20)9.43 (7.25–13.53)1.988 ± 0.1835.842
Hexane1.72 (1.34–2.12)15.08 (10.57–25.46)27.86 (17.73–55.12)1.326 ± 0.1513.343
Araucaria heterophyllaMethanol2.07 (1.61–2.58)22.23 (14.49–42.83)43.53 (25.30–101.41)1.245 ± 0.1465.163
Hexane0.77 (0.56–0.97)4.01 (3.31–5.11)6.40 (5.03–8.89)1.794 ± 0.1812.148
7Commiphora molmolMethanol0.67 (0.48–0.83)2.51 (2.09–3.20)3.65 (2.90–5.11)2.2.33 ± 0.2763.968
Hexane0.68 (0.45–0.91)4.70 (36.7–6.66)8.12 (5.87–13.28)1.533 ± 0.1875.665
Araucaria heterophyllaMethanol0.78 (0.18–1.05)4.91 (3.56–18.20)8.28 (6.51–51.32)1.602 ± 0.1877.916
Hexane0.32 (0.16–0.49)2.06 (1.64–2.61)3.49 (2.74–4.87)1.586 ± 0.2141.033
* LC50, 60, and 95 values = lethal concentration that kills 50, 90, and 95% of the exposed ectoparasite; (95%CL) = lower and upper confidence limit; ** Regression line equation; X2 = chi-square; Significant at p < 0.05 level.
Table
Table 9. The major chemical constituents of Commiphora molmol methanol extracts.
Table 9. The major chemical constituents of Commiphora molmol methanol extracts.
No.M. F. *Chemical Name (99.98%)Area (%)RTNature of Compound
1C15H24Cyclohexene, 4-ethenyl-4-methyl-3-(1-methylethenyl)-1-(1-methylethyl)-, (3R-trans)-0.749.38phenol
2C15H24(-)-á-Bourbonene3.7810.33fatty acid esters
3C15H24Tricyclo [2.2.1.0(2,6)]heptane, 1,7-dimethyl-7-(4-methyl-3-pentenyl)-, (-)-1.8611.11carboxylic acid
4C15H24ç-Elemene2.1111.40fatty acid esters
5C15H241,6-CYCLODECADIENE, 1-METHYL-5-METHYLENE-8-(1-METHYLETHYL)-, [S-(E,E)]-1.7812.34fatty acid esters
6C15H24Aromandendrene0.6512.43fatty acid ester
7C15H24Azulene, 1,2,3,3a,4,5,6,7-octahydro-1,4-dimethyl-7-(1-methylethenyl)-, [1R-(1à,3aá,4à,7á)]-0.0612.61terpenoids
8C15H20OBenzofuran, 6-ethenyl-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-3,6-dimethyl-5-isopropenyl-, trans-0.8112.82heterocyclic
9C15H20OBenzofuran, 6-ethenyl-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-3,6-dimethyl-5-isopropenyl-, trans-15.3513.17heterocyclic
10C15H24ç-Muurolene0.2413.27sesquiterpene
11C15H24Naphthalene, 1,2,3,5,6,8a-hexahydro-4,7-dimethyl-1-(1-methylethyl)-, (1S-cis)-0.3213.36sesquiterpene
12C15H24á-Longipinene0.2013.51sesquiterpene
13C15H24Azulene, 1,2,3,3a,4,5,6,7-octahydro-1,4-dimethyl-7-(1-methylethenyl)-, [1R-(1à,3aá,4à,7á)]-0.0813.61sesquiterpene
14C15H241,5-Cyclodecadiene, 1,5-dimethyl-8-(1-methylethylidene)-, (E,E)-2.0413.92sesquiterpene
15C15H18O3,5,8a-Trimethyl-4,6,8a,9-tetrahydronaphtho [2,3-b]furan0.9914.36phenol
16C15H18OAzulen-2-ol, 1,4-dimethyl-7-(1-methylethyl)-0.4715.37acetic acid
17C15H18O1-NAPHTHALENOL, 4,7-DIMETHYL-2-(1-METHYLETHYL)-30.8015.87phenol
18C15H18O(4aS,8aS)-3,8a-Dimethyl-5-methylene-4,4a,5,6,8a,9-hexahydronaphtho [2,3-b]furan7.9815.95phenol
19C15H20OBenzofuran, 6-ethenyl-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-3,6-dimethyl-5-isopropenyl-, trans-0.8916.16heterocyclic
20C17H28O2Cyclohexanemethanol, 4-ethenyl-à,à,4-trimethyl-3-(1-methylethenyl)-, acetate, [1R-(1à,3à,4á)]-2.3716.35sesquiterpene
21C16H22O2(R,5E,9E)-8-Methoxy-3,6,10-trimethyl-4,7,8,11-tetrahydrocyclodeca[b]furan12.7217.25sesquiterpene lactones
22C15H24AZULENE, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-OCTAHYDRO-1,4-DIMETHYL-7-(1-METHYLETHYLIDENE)-, (1S-CIS)-0.2918.15sesquiterpene
23C17H24O4Acetic acid, 6-(1-hydroxymethyl-vinyl)-4,8a-dimethyl-3-oxo-1,2,3,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydronaphthalen-2-yl ester2.0319.08phenol
24C15H20O3Reynosin0.1119.24fatty acid esters
25C23H34O2Methyl 4,7,10,13,16,19-docosahexaenoate0.1819.32steroids
26C17H24O46-[1-(HYDROXYMETHYL)VINYL]-4,8A-DIMETHYL-3-OXO-1,2,3,5,6,7,8,8A-OCTAHYDRO-2-NAPHTHALENYL ACETATE10.3520.16fatty acid esters
27C15H20O2FUROSARDONIN A0.4220.36fatty acid esters
28C15H22O35,8-Dihydroxy-4a-methyl-4,4a,4b,5,6,7,8,8a,9,10-decahydro-2(3H)-phenanthrenone0.3621.82fatty acid esters
* Molecular formula.
Table
Table 10. The major chemical constituents of Commiphora molmol hexane extracts.
Table 10. The major chemical constituents of Commiphora molmol hexane extracts.
No.M. F.Chemical Name (100%)Area (%)RTNature of Compound
1C15H24Cyclohexene, 4-ethenyl-4-methyl-3-(1-methylethenyl)-1-(1-methylethyl)-, (3R-trans)-0.889.36phenol
2C10H12O2PHENOL, 2-METHOXY-4-(2-PROPENYL)-1.6510.30fatty acid esters
3C15H24CYCLOHEXANE, 1-ETHENYL-1-METHYL-2,4-BIS(1-METHYLETHENYL)-, [1S-(1à,2á,4á)]-4.5310.59carboxylic acid
4C15H24Tricyclo [2.2.1.0(2,6)]heptane, 1,7-dimethyl-7-(4-methyl-3-pentenyl)-, (-)-1.5111.08fatty acid esters
5C15H24ç-Elemene1.3211.42fatty acid esters
6C15H241,6-CYCLODECADIENE, 1-METHYL-5-METHYLENE-8-(1-METHYLETHYL)-, [S-(E,E)]-1.7212.32sesquiterpene
7C15H24Aromandendrene0.6512.43fatty acid ester
8C15H24Azulene, 1,2,3,3a,4,5,6,7-octahydro-1,4-dimethyl-7-(1-methylethenyl)-, [1R-(1à,3aá,4à,7á)]-0.5712.41sesquiterpene
9C15H20O5-ISOPROPENYL-3,6-DIMETHYL-6-VINYL-4,5,6,7-TETRAHYDRO-1-BENZOFURAN #1.1012.82sesquiterpene
10C15H20OBenzofuran, 6-ethenyl-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-3,6-dimethyl-5-isopropenyl-, trans-12.0913.07heterocyclic
11C15H24ç-Muurolene0.3813.17sesquiterpene
12C15H24GERMACRENE B2.3913.87sesquiterpene
13C15H18O3,5,8a-Trimethyl-4,6,8a,9-tetrahydronaphtho [2,3-b]furan1.2514.33sesquiterpene
14C15H18ONAPHTHALENE, 4-METHOXY-1,2,6,8-TETRAMETHYL-31.9815.76phenol
15C15H18O(4aS,8aS)-3,8a-Dimethyl-5-methylene-4,4a,5,6,8a,9-hexahydronaphtho [2,3-b]furan8.1515.84phenol
16C15H20OBenzofuran, 6-ethenyl-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-3,6-dimethyl-5-isopropenyl-, trans-0.8216.05heterocyclic
17C15H24(5E)-3,6,10-TRIMETHYL-4,7,8,11-TETRAHYDROCYCLODECA[B]FURAN7.9416.62sesquiterpene
18C16H12O7METHYL 3-(CIS-3’-HYDROXY-5’-OXOTETRAFURAN-2’-YL)-1,4-DIOXO-1,4-DIHYDRONAPHTHLENE-2-CARNOXYLATE8.3917.15phenol
19C15H24AZULENE, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8-OCTAHYDRO-1,4-DIMETHYL-7-(1-METHYLETHYLIDENE)-, (1S-CIS)-0.2318.10sesquiterpene
20C17H24O4Acetic acid, 6-(1-hydroxymethyl-vinyl)-4,8a-dimethyl-3-oxo-1,2,3,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydronaphthalen-2-yl ester10.8820.09phenol
21C13H14N2O2-PYRAZOLIN-5-ONE, 4-ISOPROPYLIDENE-3-METHYL-1-PHENYL-0.9820.71phenol
22C15H22O35,8-Dihydroxy-4a-methyl-4,4a,4b,5,6,7,8,8a,9,10-decahydro-2(3H)-phenanthrenone0.5921.78sesquiterpene
Table
Table 11. The major chemical constituents of Araucaria heterophylla methanol extracts.
Table 11. The major chemical constituents of Araucaria heterophylla methanol extracts.
No.M. F.Chemical Name (100%)Area (%)RTNature of Compound
1C4H9NO2SDL-Homocysteine0.864.65terpenoid
2C10H161,4-CYCLOHEXADIENE, 1-METHYL-4-(1-METHYLETHYL)-1.226.68phenol
3C10H16(1R)-2,6,6-Trimethylbicyclo [3.1.1]hept-2-ene4.388.74phenol
4C10H16à-Pinene3.249.40monoterpene
5C10H161,3,7-OCTATRIENE, 3,7-DIMETHYL-1.4410.09fatty acid
6C10H16à-Pinene0.6610.19monoterpene
7C10H16BICYCLO [3.1.0]HEXANE, 4-METHYLENE-1-(1-METHYLETHYL)-1.9911.04monoterpene
8C10H16CYCLOHEXENE, 1-METHYL-4-(1-METHYLETHENYL)-12.9513.07monoterpene
9C10H16Ocis-p-mentha-1(7),8-dien-2-ol1.8516.67monoterpene ketone
10C10H16Oà-Campholenal1.2917.70monoterpene
11C10H16OIsopinocarveol2.3818.19monoterpene
12C10H16Ocis-Verbenol3.818.49monoterpene
13C10H16OIsopinocarveol0.6819.57monoterpene
14C10H16OBicyclo [3.1.1]hept-2-ene-2-methanol, 6,6-dimethyl-0.9720.77terpene alcohols
15C13H266-Tridecene, (Z)-9.3420.90fatty acid
16C10H16O(-)-MYRTENOL1.3321.52glycosides
17C10H14OBicyclo [3.1.1]hept-3-en-2-one, 4,6,6-trimethyl-, (1S)-2.2422.49terpene alcohols
18C15H24.alfa.-Copaene1.8523.79sesquiterpene
19C15H24Ylangene1.1324.79sesquiterpene
20C15H24Copaene7.9625.41sesquiterpene
21C15H24(-)-á-Bourbonene3.4125.58sesquiterpene
22C15H24Caryophyllene2.6327.22sesquiterpene
23C15H24á-ylangene1.2228.05sesquiterpene
24C15H24á-copaene0.8428.48sesquiterpene
25C15H24ç-Muurolene3.4829.64sesquiterpene
26C15H24Germacrene D2.342984sesquiterpene
27C15H24ç-Muurolene2.0730.20sesquiterpene
28C15H24Naphthalene, 1,2,3,5,6,8a-hexahydro-4,7-dimethyl-1-(1-methylethyl)-, (1S-cis)-3.8230.85sesquiterpene
29C15H24á-copaene1.431.59sesquiterpene
30C22H44O4SiOCTADECANOIC ACID, 9,10-EPOXY-18-(TRIMETHYLSILOXY)-, METHYL ESTER, CIS-1.0833.31fatty acid
31C15H24OCaryophyllene oxide10.3934.01phenol
32C15H24O4,12,12-TRIMETHYL-9-METHYLENE-5-OXATRICYCLO [8.2.0.0~4,6~]DODECANE0.9834.40sesquiterpene
33C15H24OCaryophyllene oxide1.1835.04sesquiterpene
34C15H26O1,1,4,7-TETRAMETHYLDECAHYDRO-1H-CYCLOPROPA[E]AZULEN-4-OL #1.3135.76sesquiterpene
35C15H24OCaryophyllene oxide1.5036.42phenol
36C18H34O3Oxiraneoctanoic acid, 3-octyl-, cis-0.7937.75sesquiterpene
Table
Table 12. The major chemical constituents of Araucaria heterophylla hexane extracts.
Table 12. The major chemical constituents of Araucaria heterophylla hexane extracts.
No.M. F.Chemical Name (99.90%)Area (%)RTNature of Compound
1C10H16BICYCLO [3.1.1]HEPT-2-ENE, 2,6,6-TRIMETHYL-0.845.22terpenoid
2C10H162,6,6-TRIMETHYLBICYCLO [3.1.1]HEPT-2-ENE6.56.31phenol
3C10H16D-Limonene1.357.12monoterpene
4C15H245,5-Dimethylimidazolidine-2,4-dione3.578.34sesquiterpene
5C6H10O3-PENTEN-2-ONE, 4-METHYL-1.628.54alkene
6C3H6DNAZETIDINE-D18.289.41saturated heterocyclic
7C7H14O22-PENTANONE, 4-METHOXY-4-METHYL-1.2610.32phenol
8C10H16CYCLOHEXENE, 1-METHYL-4-(1-METHYLETHENYL)-4.1112.62monoterpene
9C10H15NO2Benzenemethanol, 4-hydroxy-à-[1-(methylamino)ethyl]-, (R*,S*)-0.3914.62saturated heterocyclic
10C10H16Oà-Campholenal0.6915.04monoterpene
11C8H16O2-OCTANONE0.4417.38organic aldehyde
12C10H16OBicyclo [3.1.1]hept-3-en-2-ol, 4,6,6-trimethyl-, [1S-(1à,2á,5à)]-2.9021.19terpenes
13C15H24ç-Elemene0.2323.62terpenes
14C18H34O29-OCTADECENOIC ACID (Z)-14.6025.95terpenes
15C15H24BICYCLO [7.2.0]UNDEC-4-ENE, 4,11,11-TRIMETHYL-8-METHYLENE-, [1R-(1R*,4E,9S*)]-0.2226.72terpenes
16C15H24à-Cubebene0.3127.23terpenes
17C15H241,4-METHANOAZULENE, DECAHYDRO-4,8,8-TRIMETHYL-9-METHYLENE-, [1S-(1à,3Aá,4à,8Aá)]-0.4928.09terpenes
18C15H24(-)-á-Bourbonene0.9830.30terpenes
19C15H24ç-Elemene0.9631.22terpenes
20C18H36O2Hexadecanoic acid, ethyl ester9.5731.70terpenes
21C18H34O29-OCTADECENOIC ACID (Z)-3.1832.98terpenes
22C15H24O2BICYCLO [4.4.0]DEC-2-EN-4-OL, 2-METHYL-9-(PROP-1-EN-3-OL-2-YL)-1.4233.79terpenes
23C16H224,4’-Dimethyl-2,2’-dimethylenebicyclohexyl-3,3’-diene4.2134.10terpenes
24C15H24Aromandendrene1.3034.76sesquiterpene
25C15H24á-Longipinene0.4535.01sesquiterpene
26C27H46OCHOLEST-5-EN-3-OL (3á)-19.1535.54fatty acid
27C26H44O5Ethyl iso-allocholate0.1136.79fatty acid
28C18H34O29-OCTADECENOIC ACID (Z)-5.1937.2fatty acid
29C16H32O2n-Hexadecanoic acid2.1337.63fatty acid
30C19H26O6ISOCHIAPIN B3.4540.03fatty acid
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Baz, M.M.; Khater, H.F.; Baeshen, R.S.; Selim, A.; Shaheen, E.S.; El-Sayed, Y.A.; Salama, S.A.; Hegazy, M.M. Novel Pesticidal Efficacy of Araucaria heterophylla and Commiphora molmol Extracts against Camel and Cattle Blood-Sucking Ectoparasites. Plants 2022, 11, 1682. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11131682

AMA Style

Baz MM, Khater HF, Baeshen RS, Selim A, Shaheen ES, El-Sayed YA, Salama SA, Hegazy MM. Novel Pesticidal Efficacy of Araucaria heterophylla and Commiphora molmol Extracts against Camel and Cattle Blood-Sucking Ectoparasites. Plants. 2022; 11(13):1682. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11131682

Chicago/Turabian Style

Baz, Mohamed M., Hanem F. Khater, Rowida S. Baeshen, Abdelfattah Selim, Emad S. Shaheen, Yasser A. El-Sayed, Salama A. Salama, and Maysa M. Hegazy. 2022. "Novel Pesticidal Efficacy of Araucaria heterophylla and Commiphora molmol Extracts against Camel and Cattle Blood-Sucking Ectoparasites" Plants 11, no. 13: 1682. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11131682

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