Next Article in Journal
Novel Single-Nucleotide Variants for Morpho-Physiological Traits Involved in Enhancing Drought Stress Tolerance in Barley
Next Article in Special Issue
Methanolic Extracts of Chiococca alba in Aedes aegypti Biorational Management: Larvicidal and Repellent Potential, and Selectivity against Non-Target Organisms
Previous Article in Journal
Simultaneous Action of Silymarin and Dopamine Enhances Defense Mechanisms Related to Antioxidants, Polyamine Metabolic Enzymes, and Tolerance to Cadmium Stress in Phaseolus vulgaris
 
 
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 22
10.3390/plants11223070
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Exploring Contact Toxicity of Essential Oils against Sitophilus zeamais through a Meta-Analysis Approach

by
Fernanda Achimón
1,2,*,
Maria L. Peschiutta
1,2,*,
Vanessa D. Brito
1,2,
Magalí Beato
1,2,
Romina P. Pizzolitto
1,2,3,
Julio A. Zygadlo
1,2,4 and
María P. Zunino
1,2,4
1
Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (IMBIV), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Av. Vélez Sarsfield 1611, Córdoba X5016GCA, Argentina
2
Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología de los Alimentos (ICTA), Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales (FCEFyN), Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (UNC), Av. Vélez Sarsfield 1611, Córdoba X5016GCA, Argentina
3
Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Departamento de Recursos Naturales, Cátedra de Microbiología Agrícola, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Av. Ing. Agr. Félix Aldo Marrone 735, Córdoba X5016GCA, Argentina
4
Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, Departamento de Química, Cátedra de Química Orgánica, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Av. Vélez Sarsfield 1611, Córdoba X5016GCA, Argentina
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2022, 11(22), 3070; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11223070
Submission received: 24 October 2022 / Revised: 8 November 2022 / Accepted: 11 November 2022 / Published: 13 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Emerging Topics in Botanical Biopesticides)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Sitophilus zeamais is a primary pest of maize. Our aim was to perform a qualitative review and meta-analyses with 56 scientific articles published from 1 January 2000 to 1 October 2022 dealing with direct (topical application) and indirect (impregnation of essential oils, EOs, onto filter paper or maize grains) contact toxicity of EOs against S. zeamais. Three independent meta-analyses of single means of LD50 (direct contact) and LC50 (indirect contact) were conducted using a random effect model. Essential oils more frequently evaluated were those belonging to Asteraceae, Apiaceae, Lamiaceae, Myrtaceae, Piperaceae, and Rutaceae. The LC50 global mean values were 33.19 µg/insect (CI95 29.81–36.95) for topical application; 0.40 µL/cm2 (CI95 0.25–0.65) for filter paper indirect contact; and 0.50 µL/g maize (CI95 0.27–0.90) for maize grains indirect contact. The species Carum carvi, Salvia umbratica, Ilicium difengpi, Periploca sepium, Cephalotaxus sinensis, Murraya exotica, Rhododendron anthopogonoides, Ruta graveolens, Eucalyptus viminalis, Ocotea odorifera, Eucalyptus globulus, Eucalyptus dunnii, Anethum graveolens, Ilicium verum, Cryptocarya alba, Azadirachta indica, Chenopodium ambrosioides, Cupressus semperivens, Schinus molle, Piper hispidinervum, Mentha longifolia, and Croton pulegiodorus showed LC50 or LD50 values lower than the global means, indicating good insecticidal properties. Our results showed that EOs have great potential to be used as bioinsecticides against S. zeamais.

1. Introduction

Maize is one of the most widely grown crops globally serving both as human food and animal feed. According to FAO [1], the average 2017–2019 global production of maize was 1137 million mt [2]. However, despite this great production, maize yield is highly affected by several pests during growth and storage stages. The maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), is a primary field and store pest of maize, producing huge post-harvest losses worldwide. Adults and larvae feed on undamaged grains, causing weight losses of about 40% of the total production [3]. Different synthetic insecticides are currently used to control maize weevil populations, and despite the efficacy of these chemical substances, their repeated application is associated with hazardous effects on living organisms and the environment [4]. In this context, certain natural compounds, such as plant essential oils (EOs), have been proposed as environmentally friendly alternatives to conventional insecticides. Essential oils are complex mixtures of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that can be extracted from different parts of aromatic plants. Terpenoids and their oxygenated derivatives, alcoholic compounds, phenylpropanoids, aldehydes, esters, epoxides, and ketones are among the major groups of VOCs that are frequently found in the chemical profile of EOs [5]. The insecticidal activity of EOs against different agricultural pests have been widely documented [6,7,8,9].
The efficiency of a given EO and/or their pure VOCs might depend on the mode of penetration into the insect body [10,11,12]. For example, fumigant insecticides enter the insect body through the respiratory system by inhalation; contact insecticides are usually applied to a surface, exerting its effect when insects move through treated areas, or topically on the insect surface; while a stomach insecticide exerts its toxic effect when ingested through the mouth. Most scientific articles dealing with contact toxicity of EOs against S. zeamais employ these application methods as follows: EOs applied topically in the insect dorsal surface (direct contact), EOs applied on a filter paper (indirect contact), and EOs applied on maize grains (indirect contact). Even though EOs applied on maize grains would take effect upon ingestion, in practice it is considered a method of indirect contact since insects walk on maize during infestation. The amount of research regarding contact toxicity of EOs against S. zeamais is outstanding; however, there is no scientific article that gathers all the evidence using a quantitative method for literature reviews. In this context, meta-analysis is a statistical method used to integrate multiple results from independent primary studies to obtain an unbiased assessment of the available evidence [13].
According to the aforementioned, the aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analyses on the direct and indirect contact toxicity of EOs against the maize weevil to determine trends of insecticidal activities within plant families.

2. Results

2.1. Scientific Articles Selection

The process of selecting and reviewing articles using the PRISMA flow diagram is shown in Figure 1. A total of 2110 articles were recovered from the database searching. After removing duplicates, 1990 articles were screened based on their titles, which resulted in 1473 records being excluded. The remaining 517 articles were screened based on their abstracts, and 436 were deleted for evaluating toxicity through non-contact methodologies. Finally, an output of 81 articles were retrieved and reviewed for the descriptive revision. Finally, 56 articles (106 assays) attained the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analyses (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). Out of the 56 final articles, 30 assessed EO toxicity through topical application (direct contact), while 26 evaluated EO toxicity through indirect contact: 15 and 11 records for maize grains and filter paper, respectively.

2.2. Descriptive Analysis

Data from the qualitative analysis showed that 46% of scientific articles evaluated insecticidal effect using topical application; conversely, studies on indirect contact were less represented, with 28% and 26% of the total articles for indirect contact using maize grains and filter paper as substrates, respectively. In addition, 65% of topical application articles extracted EOs from the aerial parts, followed by fruits and roots, with 17% and 14% of the total studies, respectively. Regarding maize grain articles, 60% used aerial parts to obtain the EOs, followed by fruits with 18% and seeds with 3%. Similarly, 77% of filter paper articles evaluated EOs obtained from aerial parts, followed by seeds and fruits, with 8% and 4%, respectively. Lower values were obtained for the remaining plant parts within each methodology (data not shown).
Regarding families, 19% of the studies dealing with topical application were conducted using plant species from the family Asteraceae, followed by Apiaceae with 15%, Lamiaceae with 13%, and Rutaceae with 11% of the studies. Within Asteraceae, most studies were conducted using Artemisia spp. EOs. In fact, 14% of all the studies that used topical application were conducted with EOs from Artemisia spp., followed by Ilicium spp. and Ostericum spp., with 6% and 4% of the total studies, respectively. Concerning the indirect contact with maize grains methodology, 13% of the studies were carried out with plant species belonging to the family Myrtaceae, followed by Asteraceae, Lamiaceae, and Piperaceae, with 11% of the studies each. Assays performed with EOs from Eucalyptus spp. and Piper spp. accounted for the majority of studies reported for Myrtaceae and Piperaceae, with 11% of the studies for each genus. Finally, plant species belonging to Myrtaceae, Rutaceae, and Apiaceae were the most frequently used in indirect contact toxicity assays with filter paper, with 19%, 13%, and 10% of the studies, respectively. Furthermore, 17% of articles dealing with the toxicity of Eucalyptus spp. accounted for the majority of studies of the family Myrtaceae. Similarly, Citrus spp., which was evaluated in 4% of the studies, accounted for the high percentage of studies of Rutaceae (data not shown).

2.3. Direct Contact Meta-Analysis

A total of 53 plant EOs belonging to 14 different families were evaluated for topical application giving a LD50 global mean value of 33.19 µg/insect (CI95 29.81–36.95). As shown in the forest plot (Figure 2), half of the plant species presented mean values that were lower than the global mean. Most species from Apiaceae, Lamiaceae, and Schisandraceae were good insecticides, with mean values that ranged from 3.04 to 27.19 µg/insect for Apiaceae, 18.12 to 25.45 µg/insect for Lamiaceae, and 13.83 to 28.95 µg/insect for Schisandraceae. Within these plant families, the most effective EOs were: Carum carvi (3.04 µg/insect; Apiaceae), Salvia umbratica (18.12 µg/insect; Lamiaceae), and Ilicium difengpi (13.83 µg/insect; Schisandraceae). Additionally, certain EOs belonging to other plant families that were effective against the maize weevil were: Periploca sepium (4.80 µg/insect; Apocynaceae), Cephalotaxus sinensis (8.47 µg/insect; Taxaceae), Murraya exotica (11.41 µg/insect; Rutaceae), and Rhododendron anthopogonoides (11.67 µg/insect; Ericaceae).

2.4. Indirect Contact Meta-Analysis

Regarding filter paper meta-analysis, only seven plant species belonging to different families were statistically lower than the global mean 0.40 µL/cm2 (CI95 0.25–0.65). The most effective EOs were those extracted from Ruta graveolens (0.06 µL/cm2; Rutaceae), Eucalyptus viminalis (0.08 µL/cm2; Myrtaceae), Ocotea odorifera (0.09 µL/cm2; Lauraceae), Eucalyptus globulus (0.10 µL/cm2; Myrtaceae), Eucalyptus dunnii (0.16 µL/cm2; Myrtaceae), Anethum graveolens (0.19 µL/cm2; Apiaceae), and Ilicium verum (0.25 µL/cm2; Schisandraceae).
Concerning indirect meta-analysis with maize grains, the global mean was 0.50 µL/g maize (CI95 0.27–0.90). The EOs with the highest insecticidal potential were those obtained from Cryptocarya alba (0.01 µL/g maize; Lauraceae), Azadirachta indica (0.03 µL/g maize; Meliaceae), Chenopodium ambrosioides (0.03 µL/g maize; Amaranthaceae), Cupressus semperivens (0.03 µL/g maize; Cupressaceae), Schinus molleÿ (0.04 µL/g maize; Anacardiaceae), Piper hispidinervum (0.13 µL/g maize; Piperaceae), Mentha longifolia (0.14 µL/g maize; Lamiaceae), and Croton pulegiodorus (0.27 µL/g maize; Euphorbiaceae).

3. Discussion

This study presents a systematic review and meta-analyses on the direct and indirect contact toxicity of EOs against the maize weevil. The EO of a single species usually has a different chemical profile (components and/or relative contents), and hence different bioactivities, according to the plant organ from where it was isolated. For example, Wang et al. [14] reported quantitative and qualitative differences in the chemical composition of Zanthoxylum schinifolium leaf and fruit EOs, with the latter being more bioactive in direct contact toxicity assays. The present review showed that, in most studies, EOs were extracted from the aerial parts, i.e., leaves and flowers. This was an expected result since it has been stated that EO yield is usually higher in these organs compared to other plant parts, such as roots or seeds, probably due to the higher density of glandular hairs [15,16,17].
The insecticidal effect of EOs or their pure VOCs depends on the method of application used against the insect. As expected, topical application was the most commonly employed test method since it is one of the most accurate ways to ensure the toxic compound to take contact with the insect. In topical application assays, a known volume of an EO is applied directly to the insect’s body; conversely, in the impregnated filter paper method, the EO is applied to a disk of paper and then insects are released onto the paper from where they pick up an uncertain amount of the EO by contact through the tarsi [18]. In both cases, the penetration of the EO occurs through the cuticle to reach the haemolymph that carries the EO to its target organs. Insect cuticle comprises an external hydrophobic thinner layer (epicuticle) and the internal hydrophilic thicker layer where chitin is prevalent (procuticle). The chitin fibres of the procuticle are predominant in hard body insects (such as weevils), playing an important role in the uptake of the EO; however, certain parts of the insect body, such as intersegmental membranes, sites around the setae and sensilia, lack of a developed chitin layer, thus offering less resistance to the diffusion of EOs [19]. This heterogeneity in the structure of the cuticle could explain the differences in the penetration rates, and thus, in the toxic effect when the same EO is applied through both methodologies [20]. As such, a given EO or VOC can act more efficiently when applied topically compared to indirect contact assays, and vice versa. For example, Hai et al. [21] demonstrated that the LD50 values obtained when Lonicera japonica EO and its major compound estragole were applied topically on S. zeamais were five-fold higher compared to the control (pyrethrum), while the application of the EO and estragole through filter paper impregnation produced a LC50 value that was only three times higher than the control, evidencing a better response in indirect contact assays. However, an opposite pattern was observed with linalool (another major constituent of L. japonica) that showed a LD50 that was only three times higher than pyrethrum in topical application assays, while the LC50 obtained in assays with filter paper was nine-fold higher, evidencing that linalool acts more efficiently in direct contact assays. These results showed that within an EO, different compounds may penetrate the cuticle more efficiently according to the methodology. As it was stated before, the cuticle can be considered a two layer lipophilic–hydrophilic system with varying thickness according to the body part. In this context, the interaction between the thickness of the hydrophobic and/or hydrophilic portions of the cuticle and the polarity of the pure compounds (octanol-water partition coefficient; Log P) will ultimately determine their rate of penetration. For example, the estragole Log P value is higher than that of linalool, indicating that it is more lipophilic and has higher penetration of the cuticle when the hydrophilic chitinous layer is thin. However, the penetration capacity of the compound is not necessarily reflected in its bioactivity since many other chemical characteristics of the compounds influence their insecticidal properties [22].
Another species that showed important differences in its effectiveness according to the test method was Anethum graveolens. The results from the forest plots showed that the single mean of A. graveolens EO was half the global mean in filter paper meta-analysis, and three-fold higher than the global mean in topical application meta-analysis, evidencing better insecticidal properties when impregnated on filter paper compared to the topical application. The major constituent of A. graveolens EO is the monoterpene ketone carvone, which has been reported as good insecticide against S. zeamais in filter paper tests (Table 1; [23]). The authors evaluated ketones with different molecular structures and discovered that ketones with an extra double bond between the alpha and beta carbons (α,β-unsaturated) have an increased polarizability, which is associated with stronger intermolecular attractive forces. Consequently, α,β-unsaturated ketones are expected to bind with many protein, enzymes, or nucleic acid sites, exerting their insecticidal activity. On the other hand, Fouad and da Camara [24] found that Citrus aurantifolia, Citrus reticulata EOs, and their major constituent, limonene, were more effective in contact toxicity assays with filter paper compared to contact toxicity using maize grains. This was also the case for Eucalyptus globulus that showed an LC50 value (0.10 µL/cm2) statistically lower than the global mean (0.40 µL/cm2) in filter paper indirect contact; while the LC50 value (0.95 µL/g maize) was statistically higher than the global mean (0.48 µL/g maize) when the EO was applied in maize grains. On the contrary, as it can be seen in the forest plots, the species Cupressus semperivens, Piper hispidinervum, and Eucalypus saligna were more toxic to S. zeamais when the EOs were impregnated on maize grains compared to filter paper. Regardless of the EO absorption through tarsi that both methodologies assume, when EOs are applied on maize there might also be an effect of the toxic compounds through ingestion, therefore having a stomach action as well. For example, safrole and dillapiole, the major constituents of P. hispidinervum EO, are part of a group of natural compounds known as phenylpropanoids that are characterized by an aromatic phenyl group and a three-carbon propene tail. Previous studies that evaluated the effect of phenylpropanoids on S. zeamais, S. oryzae, and Rhyzopertha dominica suggested that their toxicity may be due to ingestion and digestion of the compounds in the stomach and not by contact and absorption through the cuticle [25,26]. Additionally, C. semperivens and E. saligna were characterized by high amounts of the monoterpene hydrocarbons α-pinene and 3-carene in their EOs, among other compounds. Langsi et al. [27] reported that the contact toxicity of these compounds applied on maize led to high levels of mortality on S. zeamais adults. Even though single compounds may exert their individual effect against the target insects, the bioactivity of a certain EO usually depends on all its components since synergistic, antagonistic, or additive interactions can occur among them. For example, Kouninki et al. [28] studied the toxicity of α-pinene, 3-carene, and terpinen-4-ol (some major constituents of C. semperivens EO) and found that each compound alone produced low mortality against S. zeamais adults in contact toxicity tests with maize grains, but when these compounds were combined, a synergic effect among them restored the mortality percentage observed for the EO.
In topical application assays, the most frequently used families were Asteraceae, Apiaceae, and Lamiaceae. Even though most studies within Asteraceae were performed using EOs from the genus Artemisia, only the species A. igniaria and A. eriopoda resulted good insecticides, i.e., LD50 values that were lower than the global mean (33.19 µg/insect). The chemical profile of these species showed 1,8-cineole, camphor, and germacrene D as major constituents. Previous studies showed strong contact toxicity when the epoxide 1,8-cineole was applied onto the pronotum of S. zeamais [58]. Even though other species of Artemisia also have these VOCs as major compounds, they showed a low insecticidal effect. The bioactivity of an EO is usually attributed to its major constituents; however, the presence of minor constituents can lead to additive, synergist, or antagonist properties, affecting the bioactivity of the whole EO [11]. On the contrary, most species from Apiaceae showed good insecticidal properties, with markedly different LD50 values that ranged from 3.04 µg/insect to 27.19 µg/insect. The EOs of Apiaceae species were characterized by high percentages of structurally different compounds such as the phenylpropenes myristicin and apiole, the oxygenated monoterpenes α-terpineol (monoterpene alcohol) and carvone (monoterpene ketone), and limonene (monoterpene hydrocarbon). These VOCs have been reported as strong insecticides in direct contact assays due to their capacity for inhibiting acetylcholinesterase (AChE), glutathione-S-transferase (GST), and Na+/K+-ATPase channels activities, thereby interfering with the transmission of impulses in the insect nervous system [103]. Regarding the family Lamiaceae, half of the species tested showed a good insecticidal effect, with similar LD50 values that ranged from 18.12 µg/insect to 25.45 µg/insect. According to the chromatographic analyses, the major constituents of Lamiaceae EOs were the oxygenated monoterpenes 1,8-cineole (cyclic ether), thymol (phenolic), 4-terpineol (monoterpene alcohol), geranial or citral (monoterpene aldehyde), and β-caryophyllene sesquiterpene hydrocarbon. The latter three compounds also produced a reduction of AChE, GST, and Na+/K+-ATPase channels activities by interacting with their catalytic subunits [103]. Thymol is an oxygenated monoterpene characterized by a free hydroxyl group in the p-cymene skeleton (phenol group). Previous studies determined the insecticidal effect of thymol against S. zeamais and reported that it would exert its toxic effect by binding to GABA receptors, or by inhibiting AChE activity with the phenol group being the part of the molecule responsible for its toxic effect [22,104]. Finally, Illicium sp. (Schisandraceae) was one the most frequently evaluated genera in the topical application assays, with three out of four species presenting good insecticidal activities and LD50 values that ranged from 13.83 µg/insect to 28.95 µg/insect. Some of the main constituents of these EOs were the oxygenated monoterpenes α-terpineol, carvone, linalool, the sesquiterpenes β-caryophyllene and α-eudesmol, and the phenylpropanoid safrole. The insecticidal activity of the aliphatic monoterpene alcohol linalool has been reported against S. zeamais and other insect species, and it would be related to the inhibition of AChE and the interaction of the ligand with the receptor [58,105]. Similarly, the topical application of carvone led to a strong contact toxicity against S. zeamais, which was associated with an inhibition of AchE activity [34]. The monoterpene alcohols α-terpineol and terpinen-4-ol were reported as strong insecticides against S. zeamais and S. oryzae, with mortality percentages that were similar to those of the control DDVP after 24 h of exposure [106,107]. Finally, it is worth mentioning the species Rhododendron anthopogonoides (Ericaceae) that displayed good insecticidal properties and 4-phenyl-2- butanone as its major compound. 4-Phenyl-2-butanone showed a strong contact toxicity when tested alone against S. zeamais, which was comparable to that of the positive control, the pyrethrum extract [61,108].
Concerning indirect contact meta-analysis using filter paper, seven species belonging to different families presented high insecticidal potential, with LC50 values that ranged from 0.06 µL/cm2 to 0.25 µL/cm2, and a global mean value of 0.40 µL/cm2. Three out of the seven species belonged to the genus Eucalyptus and presented similar amounts of 1,8-cineole and α-pinene in their EOs. Some VOCs that were detected in the EOs of the remaining species were: the ketones camphor, carvone, 2-undecanone, and 2-nonanone, the phenylpropanoids safrole, anethole, estragole, and p-anisaldehyde. Regarding ketones, Herrera et al. [23] evaluated the insecticidal activity of terpene ketones with different molecular structures, including carvone and camphor, with the former being eight times more toxic than the latter. As it was mentioned above, the α,β-unsaturation may be responsible for the higher bioactivity of ketone. The authors determined through a QSAR analysis that the insecticidal activity was primarily explained by the shape of molecules and the branching of the carbon-atom skeleton, (p-menthane structure and the relative position between the ketone and alkyl groups), with aliphatic and bicyclic structures (such as camphor) exhibiting lower bioactivities. Another study reported a strong insecticidal effect of the non-terpenoid alkyl ketone, 2-decanone, and 3-decanone [109]. On the other hand, different phenylpropanoids were detected in the most effective EOs. Zaio et al. [108] studied the contact toxicity of different phenylpropanoids and found that estragole was four times more bioactive than its positional isomer, anethole. The authors hypothesized that there is a better interaction between the phenylpropanoid and the target molecule when the carbon/carbon double bond is located at the terminal end of the propenyl chain (estragole) than in the middle part of the propenyl chain (anethole). In another study, estragole exhibited a higher toxic effect than anethol on the AChE activity in S. oryzae [110]. On the other hand, safrole was reported as a potent contact insecticide against S. zeamais and Tribolium castaneum. In addition, nutritional experiments revealed that safrole caused an antifeedant effect and a reduction of the insect growth and efficiency of conversion of ingested food through the inhibition of the activity of α-amylase [111].
Regarding the toxicity of EOs through indirect contact (and ingestion) by impregnation of EOs in maize grains, eight species belonging to different families reported the highest insecticidal activities, with LC50 values between 0.01 and 0.27 µL/g maize, and a global mean value of 0.50 µL/g maize. The main components of these EOs were: the acids hexadecanoic and oleic acid, the cyclic peroxides ascaridole and isoascaridole, and the monoterpene hydrocarbons cymene, pinene, 3-carene, limonene, sabinene, and phellandrene. Dele [112] studied the contact toxicity of hexadecanoic acid and oleic acid impregnated on maize and found that both organic acids were strong insecticides, with mortality percentages comparable to that of the control pirimiphos-methyl at 24, 48, and 72 h after exposure. On the other hand, the monoterpenoids ascaridole and isoascaridole exhibited strong insecticidal activity against S. zeamais. The former has a peroxy group across position 1 to 4, while the latter has two epoxy groups. Accordingly, it would seem that the endoperoxide is important for the toxic effect since ascaridole was reported to be three times more toxic than isoascardole [31]. Regarding monoterpene hydrocarbons, contact toxicity assayed by coating cymene, pinene, and 3-carene onto maize grains showed that these VOCs caused significant mortality on S. zeamais and other species of insects [28,113].

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Search Strategy

The systematic review and meta-analyses of all peer-reviewed, published studies of contact toxicity of EOs against S. zeamais were conducted in accordance with the systematic literature review and meta-analysis reporting guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) [114,115]. The search was carried out in four electronic scientific databases: SCOPUS, PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar, and studies published from 1 January 2000 to 1 October 2022 were included. The construct used to compile relevant literature was: “(“Sitophilus zeamais”) AND (“essential oils” OR “essential oil”) AND (“LD50” OR “LC50”) AND (“contact” OR “topical application”)”. The inclusion criteria for the studies were: (1) the studies evaluated the contact toxicity of plant EOs against S. zeamais adults; (2) the studies reported data on the concentration killing 50% of the population: lethal concentration, 50% (LC50) or lethal dose, 50% (LD50); and (3) the studies presented data in µL/cm2, µg/insect, or µL/g maize; (4) the studies provided means, sample sizes, and measures of variance (standard error, standard deviation, or confidence interval). When a single paper reported more than one LC50 or LD50 value due to the use of different populations of S. zeamais or the part of the plant from where EO was extracted, data were considered as independent studies.

4.2. Study Selection

Reviews, case reports, conference abstracts, letters, and research articles without variables of interest were excluded. Relevant scientific articles were screened by title and abstract to select those that potentially fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The first screening was based on the title, which was considered as an exclusion criterion. For example, if the article dealt with other insect species or evaluated insecticidal activities of natural compounds other than EOs, such as natural formulations, plant extracts, or plant powders, the paper was discarded. However, if any of the keywords were present in the title, the article was included, and the abstract was analyzed to search for relevant information. After selection, full-text papers were thoroughly read, and data were extracted from the selected papers by one reviewer and checked for accuracy by a second reviewer.

4.3. Statistical Analyses

The extracted data were harmonized into a Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet and included: first authors, year of publication, plant species, plant family, part of the plant from where the EO was extracted, major compounds of the EO, LC50, or LD50 value, method of application (topical, filter paper, or maize grains). Data analysis was performed in R software. The input for each study comprised the study size (N), the standardized means, and the standard deviations. Three independent meta-analyses were conducted: one for direct contact through topical application, one for indirect contact through filter paper impregnation, and one for indirect contact through maize grain impregnation. The meta-analyses were conducted through a random effect model. The “metamean” function in the meta package [116] of R software (version 3.6.1) (R Core Team 2016) was used to conduct the meta-analyses of single means and calculate the global LD50 and LC50 means with their corresponding 95% confidence interval [117]. Three forest plots displaying the single means of each study (LC50 value in indirect contact meta-analyses and LD50 value in direct contact meta-analysis) with 95% confidence interval limits (CI), the inverse variance study weights, and the global mean with their corresponding 95% confidence interval limits (CI) were generated. Comparisons among single means of EOs and between single means of EOs and global means were carried out to determine the effectiveness of EOs in controlling the maize weevil. Single means were considered as statistically different from the global mean when their confidence interval limits did not overlap. When the means of independent studies were statistically lower than the global mean, the EOs were considered as good insecticides against S. zeamais. When two or more articles evaluated the same EO, an average of the LC50 or LD50 values was calculated for that species before conducting the meta-analyses.

5. Conclusions

The penetration of insecticides through the cuticle is one of the most important mechanisms due to the large proportion of insect cuticle surface. The present study explored the insecticidal effect of EOs against the maize weevil through different types of contact methodologies. Still, it should be considered that the different routes of penetration are not always clearly demarcated. For example, since EOs are constituted of volatile compounds, the contact toxicity test results in a combination of both contact and fumigant toxicity. Similarly, toxicity through ingestion of maize grains impregnated with EOs also represents a contact method. However, regardless of the application method, the meta-analyses conducted in the present study showed that EOs have great potential to be used as bioinsecticides against S. zeamais. The species Carum carvi, Salvia umbratica, Ilicium difengpi, Periploca sepium, Cephalotaxus sinensis, Murraya exotica, Rhododendron anthopogonoides, Ruta graveolens, Eucalyptus viminalis, Ocotea odorifera, Eucalyptus globulus, Eucalyptus dunnii, Anethum graveolens, Ilicium verum, Cryptocarya alba, Azadirachta indica, Chenopodium ambrosioides, Cupressus semperivens, Schinus molle, Piper hispidinervum, Mentha longifolia, and Croton pulegiodorus showed LC50 or LD50 values lower than the global means, indicating good insecticidal properties. Certain monoterpene ketones (carvone, camphor), monoterpene alcohols (terpinen-4-ol, linalool, thymol, α-terpineol), phenylpropanoids (anethole, estragole, safrole), and monoterpene and sesquiterpene hydrocarbons (pinene, 3-carene, limonene, β-caryophyllene), epoxides and peroxides (1,8-cineole and ascaridole, respectively) were some of the major VOCs shared by these EOs. In this context, recognizing which VOCs or group of VOCs are behind their bioactivity; which VOC functional groups or molecular features enhance their toxicity; how the uptake of the VOC should occur in order to be more effective; and which are their modes of action (e.g., sodium channels, calcium channels, AChE activity, GABA channels, and octopamine receptors) are important aspects to be considered in the study of EOs. These aspects are crucial to develop insecticidal formulations of VOCs that have different target sites, thus reducing the risk of developing resistance and representing a safer alternative to currently used contact insecticides.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.A., M.L.P. and V.D.B.; methodology, F.A., M.L.P., M.B. and V.D.B.; formal analysis, F.A., M.L.P., M.B. and V.D.B.; investigation, F.A., M.L.P. and V.D.B.; writing—original draft preparation, F.A.; writing—review and editing, J.A.Z. and M.P.Z.; visualization, F.A., M.L.P., M.B. and V.D.B.; supervision, J.A.Z. and M.P.Z.; project administration, J.A.Z. and M.P.Z.; funding acquisition, J.A.Z., R.P.P. and M.P.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Research Council of Argentina (CONICET; PIP 11220200100712CO), the National Ministry of Science and Technology (FONCYT-PICT 2018-3697; FONCYT-PICT 2018-00669; FONCYT-PICT 2019-2703; PICT 2020 SERIE A-00824-), and Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (SECYT).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank to Pablo Cortina, Marcela Palacio, and Damián Barrionuevo for technical support. F.A., V.D.B. and M.B. have fellowships from CONICET; M.L.P., R.P.P., J.A.Z. and M.P.Z. are Career Members of CONICET.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. OECD/FAO 3 Cereals. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2021–2030; OECD: Paris, France; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021; pp. 124–137. [Google Scholar]
  2. Erenstein, O.; Chamberlin, J.; Sonder, K. Estimating the global number and distribution of maize and wheat farms. Glob. Food Sec. 2021, 30, 100558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ojo, J.A.; Omoloye, A.A. Rearing the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais, on an artificial maizecassava diet. J. Insect Sci. 2012, 12, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Tan, H.; Wu, Q.; Hao, R.; Wang, C.; Zhai, J.; Li, Q.; Cui, Y.; Wu, C. Occurrence, distribution, and driving factors of current-use pesticides in commonly cultivated crops and their potential risks to non-target organisms: A case study in Hainan, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 854, 158640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Singh, B.; Singh, J.P.; Kaur, A.; Yadav, M.P. Insights into the chemical composition and bioactivities of citrus peel essential oils. Food Res. Int. 2021, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Campolo, O.; Giunti, G.; Russo, A.; Palmeri, V.; Zappalà, L. Essential oils in stored product insect pest control. J. Food Qual. 2018, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Upadhyay, N.; Dwivedy, A.K.; Kumar, M.; Prakash, B.; Dubey, N.K. Essential oils as eco-friendly alternatives to synthetic pesticides for the control of Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). J. Essent. Oil-Bearing Plants 2018, 21, 282–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ikbal, C.; Pavela, R. Essential oils as active ingredients of botanical insecticides against aphids. J. Pest Sci. 2019, 92, 971–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ebadollahi, A.; Ziaee, M.; Palla, F. Essential oils extracted from different species of the Lamiaceae plant family as prospective bioagents against several detrimental pests. Molecules 2020, 25, 1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Abdelgaleil, S.A.M.; Mohamed, M.I.E.; Badawy, M.E.I.; El-Arami, S.A.A. Fumigant and contact toxicities of monoterpenes to Sitophilus oryzae (L.) and Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) and their inhibitory effects on acetylcholinesterase activity. J. Chem. Ecol. 2009, 35, 518–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Achimón, F.; Leal, L.E.; Pizzolitto, R.P.; Brito, V.D.; Alarcón, R.; Omarini, A.B.; Zygadlo, J.A. Insecticidal and antifungal effects of lemon, orange, and grapefruit peel essential oils from Argentina. AgriScientia 2022, 39, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sun, J.; Feng, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, J.; Zou, K.; Liu, H.; Hu, Y.; Xue, Y.; Yang, L.; Du, S.; et al. Investigation of pesticidal effects of Peucedanum terebinthinaceum essential oil on three stored-product insects. Rec. Nat. Prod. 2020, 14, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rosenthal, R.; DiMatteo, M.R. Meta-Analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52, 59–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Wang, C.F.; Yang, K.; Zhang, H.M.; Cao, J.; Fang, R.; Liu, Z.L.; Du, S.S.; Wang, Y.Y.; Deng, Z.W.; Zhou, L. Components and insecticidal activity against the maize weevils of Zanthoxylum schinifolium fruits and leaves. Molecules 2011, 16, 3077–3088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Blagojević, P.; Radulović, N.; Palić, R.; Stojanović, G. Chemical composition of the essential oils of Serbian wild-growing Artemisia absinthium and Artemisia vulgaris. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 4780–4789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Butkienė, R.; Būdienė, J.; Judžentienė, A. Variation of secondary metabolites (Essential Oils) in various plant organs of Juniperus communis L. Wild Growing in Lithuania. Balt. For. 2015, 21, 59–64. [Google Scholar]
  17. Yuan, Y.; Huang, M.; Pang, Y.X.; Yu, F.L.; Chen, C.; Liu, L.W.; Chen, Z.X.; Zhang, Y.B.; Chen, X.L.; Hu, X. Variations in essential oil yield, composition, and antioxidant activity of different plant organs from Blumea balsamifera (L.) DC. at different growth times. Molecules 2016, 21, 1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Lorini, I.; Galley, D.J. Relative effectiveness of topical, filter paper and grain applications of deltamethrin, and associated behaviour of Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) strains. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1998, 34, 377–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Balabanidou, V.; Grigoraki, L.; Vontas, J. Insect cuticle: A critical determinant of insecticide resistance. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2018, 27, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yu, S.J. The Classification of Insecticides; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hai, Y.Z.; Na, N.Z.; Shu, S.D.; Kai, Y.; Cheng, F.W.; Zhi, L.L.; Yan, J.Q. Insecticidal activity of the essential oil of Lonicera japonica flower buds and its main constituent compounds against two grain storage insects. J. Med. Plants Res. 2012, 6, 912–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dambolena, J.S.; Zunino, M.P.; Herrera, J.M.; Pizzolitto, R.P.; Areco, V.A.; Zygadlo, J.A. Terpenes: Natural products for controlling insects of importance to human health—A structure-activity relationship study. Psyche 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Herrera, J.M.; Zunino, M.P.; Dambolena, J.S.; Pizzolitto, R.P.; Gañan, N.A.; Lucini, E.I.; Zygadlo, J.A. Terpene ketones as natural insecticides against Sitophilus zeamais. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 70, 435–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fouad, H.A.; da Camara, C.A.G. Chemical composition and bioactivity of peel oils from Citrus aurantiifolia and Citrus reticulata and enantiomers of their major constituent against Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2017, 73, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hematpoor, A.; Liew, S.Y.; Azirun, M.S.; Awang, K. Insecticidal activity and the mechanism of action of three phenylpropanoids isolated from the roots of Piper sarmentosum Roxb. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. de Lira Pimentel, C.S.; Albuquerque, B.N.D.L.; da Rocha, S.K.L.; da Silva, A.S.; da Silva, A.B.V.; Bellon, R.; Navarro, D.M.D.A.F. Insecticidal activity of the essential oil of Piper corcovadensis leaves and its major compound (1-butyl-3,4-methylenedioxybenzene) against the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais. Pest Manag. Sci. 2022, 78, 1008–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Langsi, J.D.; Nukenine, E.N.; Oumarou, K.M.; Moktar, H.; Fokunang, C.N.; Mbata, G.N. Evaluation of the insecticidal activities of α-pinene and 3-carene on Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Insects 2020, 11, 540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kouninki, H.; Hance, T.; Noudjou, F.A.; Lognay, G.; Malaisse, F.; Ngassoum, M.B.; Mapongmetsem, P.M.; Ngamo, L.S.T.; Haubruge, E. Toxicity of some terpenoids of essential oils of Xylopia aethiopica from Cameroon against Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky. J. Appl. Entomol. 2007, 131, 269–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cheng, Y.; Yang, K.; Zhao, N.N.; Wang, X.G.; Wang, S.Y.; Long, L. Composition and insecticidal activity of the essential oil of Cananga odorata leaves against Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Med. Plants Res. 2012, 6, 3482–3486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Langsi, D.J.; Tofel, H.K.; Fokunang, C.N.; Suh, C.; Eloh, K.; Caboni, P.; Nukenine, E. Insecticidal activity of essential oils of Chenopodium ambrosioides and Cupressus sempervirens and their binary combinations on Sitophilus zeamais. GSC Biol. Pharm. Sci. 2018, 3, 024–034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Chu, S.S.; Feng Hu, J.; Liu, Z.L. Composition of essential oil of Chinese Chenopodium ambrosioides and insecticidal activity against maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais. Pest Manag. Sci. 2011, 67, 714–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Arias, J.; Gonzalo, S.A.; Figueroa, I.; Fischer, S.; Robles-Bermúdez, A.; Concepción Rodríguez-Maciel, J.; Lagunes-Tejeda, A. Insecticidal, repellent and antifeeding activity of powder and essential oil of Schinus molle L. fruits against Sitophilus zeamais (Motschulsky). Chil. J. Agric. Anim. Sci. Ex Agro-Cienc. 2016, 33, 93–104. [Google Scholar]
  33. Owolabi, M.S.; Oladimeji, M.O.; Lajide, L.; Singh, G.; Marimuthu, P.; Isidorov, V.A. Bioactivity of three plant derived essential oils agianst the maize weevils Sitophilus zeamais (Motschulsky) and cowpea weevils Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabricius). Electron. J. Environ. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 8, 828–835. [Google Scholar]
  34. Rosa, J.S.; Oliveira, L.; Sousa, R.M.O.F.; Escobar, C.B.; Fernandes-Ferreira, M. Bioactivity of some Apiaceae essential oils and their constituents against Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 2020, 110, 406–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Fang, R.; Jiang, C.H.; Wang, X.Y.; Zhang, H.M.; Liu, Z.L.; Zhou, L.; Du, S.S.; Deng, Z.W. Insecticidal activity of essential oil of Carum Carvi fruits from china and its main components against two grain storage insects. Molecules 2010, 15, 9391–9402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Araújo, A.M.N.D.; De Oliveira, J.V.; França, S.M.; Navarro, D.M.A.F.; Barbosa, D.R.S.; Dutra, K.D.A.; Bailey, M.F.M.; Mill, F.; Ocimum, L.; Ocimum, L. Toxicity and repellency of essential oils in the management of Sitophilus zeamais. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2019, 23, 372–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Chu, S.S.; Cao, J.; Liu, Q.Z.; Du, S.S.; Deng, Z.W.; Liu, Z.L. Chemical composition and insecticidal activity of Heracleum moellendorffii Hance essential oil. Chemija 2012, 23, 108–112. [Google Scholar]
  38. Chu, S.S.; Jiang, G.H.; Liu, Z.L. Insecticidal components from the essential oil of chinese medicinal herb, Ligusticum chuanxiong Hort. J. Chem. 2011, 8, 300–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chu, S.S.; Liu, S.L.; Liu, Q.Z.; Jiang, G.H.; Liu, Z.L. Chemical composition and insecticidal activities of the essential oil of the aerial parts of Ostericum grosseserratum (Maxim) Kitag (Umbelliferae). Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 2013, 12, 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Liu, Z.L.; Chu, S.S.; Jiang, G.H. Insecticidal activity and composition of essential oil of Ostericum sieboldii (Apiaceae) against Sitophilus zeamais and Tribolium castaneum. Rec. Nat. Prod. 2011, 5, 74–81. [Google Scholar]
  41. Nukenine, E.N.; Tofel, H.K.; Adler, C. Insecticidal efficacy of the essential oils of Eucalyptus saligna and Steganotaenia araliacea and their major constituent to Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Cameroon J. Biol. Biochem. Sci. 2019, 27, 48–58. [Google Scholar]
  42. Chu, S.S.; Jiang, G.H.; Liu, W.L.; Liu, Z.L. Insecticidal activity of the root bark essential oil of Periploca sepium Bunge and its main component. Nat. Prod. Res. 2012, 26, 926–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhao, M.P.; Liu, X.C.; Liu, Q.Z.; Liu, Z.L. Gas chromaotography-mass spectrometry analysis of insecticidal essential oil derived from Chinese Ainsliaea fragrans Champ ex Benth (Compositae). Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 2015, 14, 1685–1689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Liu, Z.L.; Chu, S.S.; Liu, Q.R. Chemical composition and insecticidal activity against Sitophilus zeamais of the essential oils of Artemisia capillaries and Artemisia mongolica. Molecules 2010, 15, 2600–2608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Jiang, G.H.; Liu, Q.R.; Chu, S.S.; Liu, L. Chemical composition and insecticidal activity of the essential oil of Artemisia eriopoda against maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2012, 7, 267–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Liu, X.C.; Li, Y.; Wang, T.; Wang, Q.; Liu, Z.L. Chemical composition and insecticidal activity of essential oil of Artemisia frigida Willd (Compositae) against two grain storage insects. Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 2014, 13, 587–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Chu, S.S.; Liu, Z.L.; Du, S.S.; Deng, Z.W. Chemical composition and insecticidal activity against Sitophilus zeamais of the essential oils derived from Artemisia giraldii and Artemisia subdigitata. Molecules 2012, 17, 7255–7265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Liu, Z.L.; Liu, S.L.; Yang, K.; Chu, S.S.; Du, S.S.; Liu, Q.Z.; Liu, Q.R. Composition and insecticidal activity of the essential oil of Artemisia igniaria Maxim. flowering aerial parts against Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Med. Plants Res. 2012, 6, 3188–3192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Liu, Z.L.; Liu, Q.R.; Chu, S.S.; Jiang, G.H. Insecticidal activity and chemical composition of the essential oils of Artemisia lavandulaefolia and Artemisia sieversiana from China. Chem. Biodivers. 2010, 7, 2040–2045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Chu, S.S.; Liu, Q.R.; Liu, Z.L. Insecticidal activity and chemical composition of the essential oil of Artemisia vestita from China against Sitophilus zeamais. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2010, 38, 489–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chu, S.S.; Liu, S.L.; Liu, Q.Z.; Jiang, G.H.; Liu, Z.L. Chemical composition and insecticidal activities of the essential oil of the flowering aerial parts of Aster ageratoides. J. Serbian Chem. Soc. 2013, 78, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rodrigues, A.C.; Wiater, G.; Saorin Puton, B.M.; Mielniczki-Pereira, A.A.; Paroul, N.; Cansian, R.L. Repellent and insecticide activity of essential oil of Baccharis dracunculifolia d.c. on Sitophilus zeamais Mots., 1855. Perspectiva 2019, 43, 123–130. [Google Scholar]
  53. Pedrotti, C.; Silva Ribeiro, R.T.; da Schwambach, J. Control of postharvest fungal rots in grapes through the use of Baccharis trimera and Baccharis dracunculifolia essential oils. Crop Prot. 2019, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Liu, X.C.; Hao, X.; Zhou, L.; Liu, Z.L. GC-MS analysis of insecticidal essential oil of aerial parts of Echinops latifolius Tausch. J. Chem. 2013, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Weaver, D.K.; Zettler, J.L.; Wells, C.D.; Baker, J.E.; Bertsch, W.; Throne, J.E. Toxicity of fractionated and degraded mexican marigold floral extract to adult Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 1997, 90, 1678–1683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gakuubi, M.M.; Wagacha, J.M.; Dossaji, S.F.; Wanzala, W. Chemical composition and antibacterial activity of essential oils of Tagetes minuta (Asteraceae) against selected plant pathogenic bacteria. Int. J. Microbiol. 2016, 2016, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Torres, C.; Silva, G.; Tapia, M.; Rodríguez, J.C.; Figueroa, I.; Lagunes, A.; Santillán, C.; Robles, A.; Aguilar, S.; Tucuch, I. Insecticidal activity of Laurelia sempervirens (Ruiz & pav.) tul. essential oil against Sitophilus zeamais motschulsky. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2014, 74, 421–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Long Liu, Z.; Hua Jiang, G.; Zhou, L.; Zhi Liu, Q. Analysis of the essential oil of Dipsacus japonicus flowering aerial parts and its insecticidal activity against Sitophilus zeamais and Tribolium castaneum. Z. Naturforsch C J. Biosci. 2013, 68, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Liu, X.C.; Liu, Z.L. Evaluation of insecticidal activity of Nardostachys jatamansi essential oil against some grain storage. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2014, 2, 335–340. [Google Scholar]
  60. Bett, P.K.; Deng, A.L.; Ogendo, J.O.; Kariuki, S.T.; Kamatenesi-Mugisha, M.; Mihale, J.M.; Torto, B. Chemical composition of Cupressus lusitanica and Eucalyptus saligna leaf essential oils and bioactivity against major insect pests of stored food grains. Ind. Crops Prod. 2016, 82, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yang, K.; Zhou, Y.X.; Wang, C.F.; Du, S.S.; Deng, Z.W.; Liu, Q.Z.; Liu, Z.L. Toxicity of Rhododendron anthopogonoides essential oil and its constituent compounds towards Sitophilus zeamais. Molecules 2011, 16, 7320–7330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Santos, P.É.M.D.; Silva, A.B.; Da Lira, C.R.I.D.M.; Matos, C.H.C.; De Oliveira, C.R.F. Contact toxicity of essential oil of Croton pulegiodorus baill on Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky. Rev. Caatinga 2019, 32, 329–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Castro, K.N.d.C.; Chagas, A.C.d.S.; Costa-Júnior, L.M.; Canuto, K.M.; Brito, E.S.; de Rodrigues, T.H.S.; de Andrade, I.M. Acaricidal potential of volatile oils from Croton species on Rhipicephalus microplus. Rev. Bras. Farmacogn. 2019, 29, 811–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Liu, X.C.; Chen, X.B.; Liu, Z.L. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometric analysis and insecticidal activity of essential oil of aerial parts of Mallotus apelta (Lour.) Muell.-Arg. (Euphorbiaceae). Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 2014, 13, 1515–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Liu, X.C.; Yang, K.; Wang, S.Y.; Wang, X.G.; Liu, Z.L.; Cheng, J. Composition and insecticidal activity of the essential oil of Pelargonium hortorum flowering aerial parts from China against two grain storage insects. J. Med. Plants Res. 2013, 7, 3263–3268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Chu, S.S.; Liu, Q.R.; Jiang, G.H.; Liu, Z.L. Chemical composition and insecticidal activity of the essential oil of Amethystea caerulea L. Nat. Prod. Res. 2012, 26, 1207–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Chu, S.S.; Liu, Q.Z.; Zhou, L.; Du, S.S.; Liu, Z.L. Chemical composition and toxic activity of essential oil of Caryopteris incana against Sitophilus zeamais. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 8416–8480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Chu, S.S.; Liu, S.L.; Liu, Q.Z.; Liu, Z.L.; Du, S.S. Composition and toxicity of Chinese Dracocephalum moldavica (Labiatae) essential oil against two grain storage insects. J. Med. Plant Res. 2011, 5, 4621–4626. [Google Scholar]
  69. Li, H.T.; Zhao, N.N.; Yang, K.; Liu, Z.L.; Wang, Q. Chemical composition and toxicities of the essential oil derived from Hyssopus cuspidatus flowering aerial parts against Sitophilus zeamais and Heterodera avenae. J. Med. Plants Res. 2013, 7, 343–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Odeyemi, O.O.; Masika, P.; Afolayan, A.J. Insecticidal activities of essential oil from the leaves of Mentha longifolia L. subsp. capensis against Sitophilus zeamais (Motschulsky) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Afr. Entomol. 2008, 16, 220–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chen, X.B.; Chen, R.; Luo, Z.R. Chemical composition and insecticidal properties of essential oil from aerial parts of Mosla soochowensis against two grain storage insects. Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 2017, 16, 905–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lee, S.Y.; Kim, S.H.; Hong, C.Y.; Park, M.J.; Choi, I.G. Effects of (-)-borneol on the growth and morphology of Aspergillus fumigatus and Epidermophyton floccosom. Flavour Fragr. J. 2013, 28, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Chu, S.S.; Liu, Q.Z.; Jiang, G.H.; Liu, Z.L. Chemical composition and insecticidal activity of the essential oil derived from Phlomis umbrosa against two grain storage insects. J. Essent. Oil-Bearing Plants 2013, 16, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Nukenine, E.N.; Adler, C.; Reichmuth, C. Bioactivity of fenchone and Plectranthus glandulosus oil against Prostephanus truncatus and two strains of Sitophilus zeamais. J. Appl. Entomol. 2010, 134, 132–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Liu, Z.L.; Liu, Q.Z.; Zhou, L.; Jiang, G.H. Essential oil composition and insecticidal activity of Salvia umbratica flowering aerial parts from China against Sitophilus zeamais. J. Essent. Oil-Bearing Plants 2013, 16, 672–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Liu, Z.L.; Chu, S.S.; Jiang, G.H. Toxicity of Schizonpeta multifida essential oil and its constituent compounds towards two grain storage insects. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 905–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Cansian, R.L.; Astolfi, V.; Cardoso, R.I.; Paroul, N.; Roman, S.S.; Mielniczki-Pereira, A.A.; Pauletti, G.F.; Mossi, A.J. Insecticidal and repellent activity of the essential oil of Cinnamomum camphora var. linaloolifera Y. Fujita (Ho-Sho) and Cinnamomum camphora (L.) J Presl. var. hosyo (Hon-Sho) on Sitophilus zeamais Mots. (Coleoptera, Curculionedae) TT—Atividade inseti. Rev. Bras. Plantas Med. 2015, 17, 769–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Pinto, J.J.; Silva, G.; Figueroa, I.; Tapia, M.; Urbina, A.; Rodríguez, J.C.; Lagunes, A. Insecticidal activity of powder and essential oil of Cryptocarya alba (Molina) looser against Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2016, 76, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Liu, Z.L.; Chu, S.S.; Jiang, C.H.; Hou, J.; Liu, Q.Z.; Jiang, G.H. Composition and insecticidal activity of the essential oil of lindera aggregata root tubers against Sitophilus zeamais and Tribolium castaneum. J. Essent. Oil-Bearing Plants 2016, 19, 727–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Mossi, A.J.; Zanella, C.A.; Kubiak, G.; Lerin, L.A.; Cansian, R.L.; Frandoloso, F.S.; Prá, V.D.; Mazutti, M.A.; Costa, J.A.V.; Treichel, H. Essential oil of Ocotea odorifera: An alternative against Sitophilus zeamais. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2014, 29, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Nukenine, E.N.; Tofel, H.K.; Adler, C. Comparative efficacy of NeemAzal and local botanicals derived from Azadirachta indica and Plectranthus glandulosus against Sitophilus zeamais on maize. J. Pest Sci. 2011, 84, 479–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kurose, K.; Yatagai, M. Components of the essential oils of Azadirachta indica A. Juss, Azadirachta siamensis Velton, and Azadirachta excelsa (Jack) Jacobs and their comparison. J. Wood Sci. 2005, 51, 185–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Herrera-Rodríguez, C.; Ramírez-Mendoza, C.; Becerra-Morales, I.; Silva-Aguayo, G.; Urbina-Parra, A.; Figueroa-Cares, I.; Martínez-Bolaños, L.; Concepción Rodríguez-Maciel, J.; Lagunes-Tejeda, A.; Pastene-Navarrete, E.; et al. Bioactivity of Peumus boldus molina, Laurelia sempervirens (Ruiz & Pav.) Tul. and Laureliopsis philippiana (Looser) Schodde (Monimiacea) essential oils against Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2015, 75, 334–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Ootani, M.A.; Aguiar, R.W.S.; de Mello, A.V.; Didonet, J.; Portella, A.C.F.; do Nascimento, I.R. Toxicity of essential oils of eucalyptus and citronella on Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Biosci. J. 2011, 27, 609–618. [Google Scholar]
  85. Mossi, A.J.; Astolfi, V.; Kubiak, G.; Lerin, L.; Zanella, C.; Toniazzo, G.; Oliveira, D.; de Treichel, H.; Devilla, I.A.; Cansian, R.; et al. Insecticidal and repellency activity of essential oil of Eucalyptus sp. against Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera, Curculionidae). J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 273–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Estrela, J.; Fazolin, M.; Catani, V. Toxicidade de óleos essenciais de Piper aduncum e Piper hispidinervum em Sitophilus zeamais. Pesqui. Agropecuária Bras. 2006, 41, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. François, T.; Michel, J.D.P.; Lambert, S.M.; Ndifor, F.; Vyry, W.N.A.; Henri, A.Z.P.; Chantal, M. Comparative essential oils composition and insecticidal effect of different tissues of Piper capense L., Piper guineense Schum. et thonn., Piper nigrum L. and Piper umbellatum L. grown in Cameroon. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2009, 8, 424–431. [Google Scholar]
  88. Liu, Z.L.; Liu, S.L.; Yang, K.; Chu, S.S.; Liu, Q.Z.; Du, S.S. Chemical composition and toxicity of essential oil of Boenninghausenia sessilicarpa (Rutaceae) against two grain storage insects. J. Med. Plants Res. 2012, 6, 2920–2924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kim, S.I.L.; Lee, D.W. Toxicity of basil and orange essential oils and their components against two coleopteran stored products insect pests. J. Asia. Pac. Entomol. 2014, 17, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Brito, V.D.; Achimón, F.; Pizzolitto, R.P.; Ramírez Sánchez, A.; Gómez Torres, E.A.; Zygadlo, J.A.; Zunino, M.P. An alternative to reduce the use of the synthetic insecticide against the maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais through the synergistic action of Pimenta racemosa and Citrus sinensis essential oils with chlorpyrifos. J. Pest Sci. 2020, 94, 409–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Jiang, C.H.; Liu, Q.Z.; Du, S.S.; Deng, Z.W.; Liu, Z.L. Essential oil composition and insecticidal activity of Evodia lepta (Spreng) Merr. root barks from China against two grain storage insects. J. Med. Plants Res. 2012, 6, 3464–3469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Liu, Z.L.; Yang, K.; Bai, P.G.; Zhou, L.; Liu, S.L.; Liu, Q.Z. Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometric analysis of essential oil of aerial parts of Glycosmis parviflora (Sims) Little (Rutaceae). Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 2014, 13, 1515–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Li, W.Q.; Jiang, C.H.; Chu, S.S.; Zuo, M.X.; Liu, Z.L. Chemical composition and toxicity against Sitophilus zeamais and Tribolium castaneum of the essential oil of Murraya exotica aerial parts. Molecules 2010, 15, 5831–5839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Perera, A.G.W.U.; Karunaratne, M.M.S.C.; Chinthaka, S.D.M. Qualitative determination, quantitative evaluation and comparative insecticidal potential of Ruta graveolens essential oil and its major constituents in the management of two stored pests Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and Corcyra Cephalon. Sustain. Dev. Res. 2019, 1, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Chu, S.S.; Wang, C.F.; Du, S.S.; Liu, S.L.; Liu, Z.L. Toxicity of the essential oil of Illicium difengpi stem bark and its constituent compounds towards two grain storage insects. J. Insect Sci. 2011, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Wang, C.F.; Liu, P.; Yang, K.; Zeng, Y.; Liu, Z.L.; Du, S.S.; Deng, Z.W. Chemical composition and toxicities of essential oil of Illicium fragesii fruits against Sitophilus zeamais. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 18179–18184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Liu, P.; Liu, X.C.; Dong, H.W.; Liu, Z.L.; Du, S.S.; Deng, Z.W. Chemical composition and insecticidal activity of the essential oil of Illicium pachyphyllum fruits against two grain storage insects. Molecules 2012, 17, 14870–14881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Chu, S.S.; Liu, S.L.; Jiang, G.H.; Liu, Z.L. Composition and toxicity of essential oil of Illicium simonsii Maxim (Illiciaceae) fruit against the maize weevils. Rec. Nat. Prod. 2010, 4, 205–210. [Google Scholar]
  99. Li, H.Q.; Bai, C.Q.; Chu, S.S.; Zhou, L.; Du, S.S.; Liu, Z.L.; Liu, Q.Z. Chemical composition and toxicities of the essential oil derived from Kadsura heteroclita stems against Sitophilus zeamais and Meloidogyne incognita. J. Med. Plant Res. 2011, 5, 4943–4948. [Google Scholar]
  100. Ma, S.; Jia, R.; Guo, M.; Qin, K.; Zhang, L. Insecticidal activity of essential oil from Cephalotaxus sinensis and its main components against various agricultural pests. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020, 150, 112403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Liu, Z.L.; Yang, K.; Huang, F.; Liu, Q.Z.; Zhou, L.; Du, S.S. Chemical composition and toxicity of the essential oil of Cayratia japonica against two grain storage insects. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2012, 24, 237–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Nukenine, E.N.; Adler, C.; Reichmuth, C. Toxicity and repellency of essential oils of Lippia adoensis from two agro-ecological zones in Cameroon to Prostephanus truncatus and two strains of Sitophilus zeamais. Integr. Prot. Stored Prod. 2008, 40, 221–230. [Google Scholar]
  103. Oyedeji, A.O.; Okunowo, W.O.; Osuntoki, A.A.; Olabode, T.B.; Ayo-folorunso, F. Insecticidal and biochemical activity of essential oil from Citrus sinensis peel and constituents on Callosobrunchus maculatus and Sitophilus zeamais. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2020, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Rodríguez, A.; Magalí, B.; Usseglio, V.; Camina, J.; Zygadlo, J.A.; Dambolena, J.S.; Zunino, M.P. Phenolic compounds as controllers of Sitophilus zeamais: A look at the structure-activity relationship. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2022, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Praveena, A.; Sanjayan, K.P. Inhibition of acetylcholinesterase in three insects of economic importance by linalool, a monoterpene phytochemical. Insect Pest Manag. A Curr. Scenar. 2011, 240–345. [Google Scholar]
  106. Yildirim, E.; Emsen, B.; Kordali, S. Insecticidal effects of monoterpenes on Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 2013, 86, 198–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Wang, D.C.; Qiu, D.R.; Shi, L.N.; Pan, H.Y.; Li, Y.W.; Sun, J.Z.; Xue, Y.J.; Wei, D.S.; Li, X.; Zhang, Y.M.; et al. Identification of insecticidal constituents of the essential oils of Dahlia pinnata Cav. against Sitophilus zeamais and Sitophilus oryzae. Nat. Prod. Res. 2015, 29, 1748–1751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Zaio, Y.P.; Gatti, G.; Ponce, A.A.; Saavedra Larralde, N.A.; Martinez, M.J.; Zunino, M.P.; Zygadlo, J.A. Cinnamaldehyde and related phenylpropanoids, natural repellents, and insecticides against Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.). A chemical structure-bioactivity relationship. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 5822–5831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Zunino, M.P.; Herrera, J.M.; Pizzolitto, R.P.; Rubinstein, H.R.; Zygadlo, J.A.; Dambolena, J.S. Effect of selected volatiles on two stored pests: The fungus Fusarium verticillioides and the maize weevil Sithophilus zeamais. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 7743–7749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. López, M.D.; Pascual-Villalobos, M.J. Mode of inhibition of acetylcholinesterase by monoterpenoids and implications for pest control. Ind. Crops Prod. 2010, 31, 284–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Huang, Y.; Ho, S.H.; Kini, R.M. Bioactivities of safrole and isosafrole on Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 1999, 92, 676–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Dele, A. Volatile oils from Cedrela odorata L. as protectants against Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Am. J. Essent. Oil. Nat. Prod. 2020, 8, 20–24. [Google Scholar]
  113. Tapondjou, A.L.; Adler, C.; Fontem, D.A.; Bouda, H.; Reichmuth, C. Bioactivities of cymol and essential oils of Cupressus sempervirens and Eucalyptus saligna against Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky and Tribolium confusum du Val. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2005, 41, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Page, M.J.; Moher, D. Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: A scoping review. Syst. Rev. 2017, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Stewart, L.A.; Clarke, M.; Rovers, M.; Riley, R.D.; Simmonds, M.; Stewart, G.; Tierney, J.F. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data: The PRISMA-IPD statement. JAMA J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2015, 313, 1657–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Schwarzer, G. Meta: An R Package for Meta-Analysis. R. News. 2007, 7, 40–45. [Google Scholar]
  117. Vela, A.; Coral-Almeida, M.; Sereno, D.; Costales, J.A.; Barnabé, C.; Brenière, S.F. In vitro susceptibility of Trypanosoma cruzi discrete typing units (Dtus) to benznidazole: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2021, 15, e0009269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Plants 11 03070 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of systematic review and meta-analyses of the excluded and included studies. The flow diagram shows the search results and selection procedure. * Each study used for the meta-analysis was defined for a given plant essential oil (EO)/exposure time/LC50 or LD50 combination.
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of systematic review and meta-analyses of the excluded and included studies. The flow diagram shows the search results and selection procedure. * Each study used for the meta-analysis was defined for a given plant essential oil (EO)/exposure time/LC50 or LD50 combination.
Plants 11 03070 g001
Plants 11 03070 g002 550
Figure 2. Meta-analysis on the contact toxicity of essential oils (EOs )against S. zeamais through topical application. Single LD50 means and the LD50 global mean are represented along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The abbreviations are as follows: Annonaceae (Ann), Apiaceae (Api), Apocynaceae (Apo), Asteraceae (Ast), Caprifoliaceae (Cap), Ericaceae (Eri), Euphorbiaceae (Eup), Geraniaceae (Ger), Lamiaceae (Lam), Lauraceae (Lau), Rutaceae (Rut), Schisandraceae (Sch), Taxaceae (Tax), Vitaceae (Vit).
Figure 2. Meta-analysis on the contact toxicity of essential oils (EOs )against S. zeamais through topical application. Single LD50 means and the LD50 global mean are represented along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The abbreviations are as follows: Annonaceae (Ann), Apiaceae (Api), Apocynaceae (Apo), Asteraceae (Ast), Caprifoliaceae (Cap), Ericaceae (Eri), Euphorbiaceae (Eup), Geraniaceae (Ger), Lamiaceae (Lam), Lauraceae (Lau), Rutaceae (Rut), Schisandraceae (Sch), Taxaceae (Tax), Vitaceae (Vit).
Plants 11 03070 g002
Plants 11 03070 g003 550
Figure 3. Meta-analysis on the contact toxicity of EOs against S. zeamais through filter paper impregnation. Single LC50 means and the LC50 global mean are represented along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The abbreviations are as follows: Annonaceae (Ann), Apiaceae (Api), Asteraceae (Ast), Cupressaceae (Cup), Lauraceae (Lau), Myrtaceae (Myr), Piperaceae (Pip), Poaceae (Poa), Rutaceae (Rut), Schisandraceae (Sch), Zingiberaceae (Zin).
Figure 3. Meta-analysis on the contact toxicity of EOs against S. zeamais through filter paper impregnation. Single LC50 means and the LC50 global mean are represented along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The abbreviations are as follows: Annonaceae (Ann), Apiaceae (Api), Asteraceae (Ast), Cupressaceae (Cup), Lauraceae (Lau), Myrtaceae (Myr), Piperaceae (Pip), Poaceae (Poa), Rutaceae (Rut), Schisandraceae (Sch), Zingiberaceae (Zin).
Plants 11 03070 g003
Plants 11 03070 g004 550
Figure 4. Meta-analysis on the contact toxicity of EOs against S. zeamais through maize grains impregnation. Single LC50 means and the LC50 global mean are represented along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The abbreviations are as follows: Amaranthaceae (Ama), Anacardiaceae (Ana), Apiaceae (Api), Atherospermataceae (Ath), Cupressaceae (Cup), Euphorbiaceae (Eup), Lamiaceae (Lam), Lauraceae (Lau), Meliaceae (Mel), Monimiaceae (Mon), Myrtaceae (Myr), Piperaceae (Pip), Poaceae (Poa), Rutaceae (Rut), Verbenaceae (Ver).
Figure 4. Meta-analysis on the contact toxicity of EOs against S. zeamais through maize grains impregnation. Single LC50 means and the LC50 global mean are represented along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The abbreviations are as follows: Amaranthaceae (Ama), Anacardiaceae (Ana), Apiaceae (Api), Atherospermataceae (Ath), Cupressaceae (Cup), Euphorbiaceae (Eup), Lamiaceae (Lam), Lauraceae (Lau), Meliaceae (Mel), Monimiaceae (Mon), Myrtaceae (Myr), Piperaceae (Pip), Poaceae (Poa), Rutaceae (Rut), Verbenaceae (Ver).
Plants 11 03070 g004
Table
Table 1. Main components of the plant EOs evaluated for their direct and indirect contact toxicity against S. zeamais.
Table 1. Main components of the plant EOs evaluated for their direct and indirect contact toxicity against S. zeamais.
FamilyPlant speciesEO main components (%)Ref.
AmaranthaceaeCananga odoratalinalool (21.1), linalool acetate (16.1), α-pinene (12.7)[29]
Chenopodium ambriosioides(Z)-ascaridole (29.7), isoascaridole (13.0), ρ-cymene (12.7)[30,31]
AnacardiaceaeSchinus molleβ-pinene (15.4), α-phellandrene (14.9), ϱ-cimene (10.8)[32]
AnnonaceaeMonodora myristicap-cymene (31.5), α-phellandrene (18.1), α-pinene (6.1)[33]
ApiaceaeAnethum graveolens(S)-carvone (66.4), β-phellandrene+limonene (24.7)[34]
Carum carvi(R)-carvone (37.9), limonene (26.5), α-pinene (5.2)[35]
Cuminum cyminumcuminaldehyde (39.4), γ-terpinene (15.8), β-pinene (12.4)[34]
Foeniculum vulgarelimonene (41.8), (E)-anethole (17.9), α-pinene (11.1)[36]
Heracleum moelledorffiiapiol (11.0), β-pinene (9.2), α-terpineol (7.5)[37]
Ligusticum chuanxiong3-butylidenephthalide (20.6), Z-ligustilide (19.6), 4-terpineol (8.8)[38]
Ostericum grosseserratumlimonene (16.2), 4-terpineol (13.5), myristicin (11.3)[39]
Ostericum sieboldiimyristicin (30.3), α-terpineol (9.9), α-cadinol (7.2)[40]
Petroselinum crispummyristicin (31.5), α-pinene (16.2), apiole (15.9) [34]
Steganotaenia araliaceaα-pinene, α-copaene[41]
ApocynaceaePeriploca sepium2-hydroxy-4-methoxy-benzaldehyde (78.8), linalool (2.8), α-terpineol (2.7)[42]
AsteraceaeAinsliaea fragransmyristicin (41.3), elemicine (11.9), cis-isosafrole (11.5), borneol (9.1)[43]
Artemisia capillarisβ-pinene (12.6), germacrene D (8.3), γ-terpinene (8.1)[44]
Artemisia eriopodagermacrene D (21.6),[45]
Artemisia frigidacis-p-menth-2-en-1-ol (20.8), 1,8-cineole (14.2)1,8-cineole (12.0)[46]
Artemisia giraldiiβ-pinene (13.1), isoelemicin (10.0), germacrene D (5.6)[47]
Artemisia igniaria1,8-cineole (14.3), camphor (13.3), germacrene D (8.7)[48]
Artemisia lavandulaefoliacaryophyllene (15.5), β-thujone (13.8), 1,8-cineole (13.1)[49]
Artemisia mongolica1,8-cineole (13.7), germacrene D (10.4), camphor (8.5)[44]
Artemisia sieversiana1,8-cineole (9.2), geranyl butyrate (9.2), borneol (7.9), camphor (7.9)[49]
Artemisia subdigitata1,8-cineole (12.2), α-curcumene (10.7), β-pinene (7.3)[47]
Artemisia vestitagrandisol (40.2), 1,8-cineole (14.8), camphor (11.3)[50]
Aster ageratoidesα-terpineol (10.8), β-caryophyllene (10.3), linalool (7.2)[51]
Baccharis dracunculifoliaβ-pinene (18.0), ledol (13.6), spathulenol (13.4)[52,53]
Echinops latifolius1,8-cineole (19.6), (Z)-β-ocimene (18.4), β-pinene (15.5)[54]
Tagetes minutatagetone (11.8), dihydrotagetone (10.7), ocimene (8.8)[55,56]
AtherospermataceaeLaurelia sempervirenssafrole (64.7), methyl eugenol (14.6), 1,8-cineole (1.4)[57]
CaprifoliaceaeDipsacus japonicuslinalool (11.7), (E)-geraniol (8.5), 1,8-cineole (7.9), β-caryophyllene (5.5)[58]
Lonicera japonicaestragole (80.1), linalool (6.0), germacrene D (3.1)[21]
Nardostachys jatamansicalerene (25.9), patchoulol (10.6), α-gurjunene (7.5)[59]
CupressaceaeCupressus lusitanicaumbellulone (18.4), α-pinene (10.0), sabinene (8.2)[60]
Cupressus sempervirensα-pinene (17.6), 3-carene (25.9), limonene (10.5), sabinene (9.4), terpinen-4-ol (4.7)[30]
EricaceaeRhododendron anthopogonoides4-phenyl-2-butanone (27.2), nerolidol (8.0), 1,4-cineole (7.8)[61]
EuphorbiaceaeCroton pulegiodorusp-cymene (23.1), ascaridole (22.5), α-terpinene (9.3)[62,63]
Mallotus apeltaβ-eudesmol (18.6), β-caryophyllene (9.8), β-selinene (6.5)[64]
GeraniaceaePelargonium hortorum1,8-cineole (23.0), α-terpineol (13.2), α-pinene (8.1)[65]
LamiaceaeAmethystea caeruleamorrilol (25.1), 4-vinylguaiacol (14.3), 2-acetoanisole (14.3)[66]
Caryopteris incanaestragole (24.8), linalool (14.0), 1,8-cineole (5.2)[67]
Dracocephalum moldavica1,8-cineole (31.2), 4-terpineol (22.8), cumyl alcohol (4.2)[68]
Hyssopus cuspidatusthymol (19.6), (E)-pinocamphone (15.3), γ-terpinene (14.6)[69]
Mentha longifolia1-8-cineole (25.5), menthone (17.9), pulegone (29.9)[70]
Mosla soochowensisβ-caryophyllene (12.8), spathulenol (6.3), β-eudesmol (6.2)[71]
Ocimum basilicumlinalool (62.5), methyl chavicol (30.9)[36,72]
Ocimum gratissimum(E)-anethole (35.0), limonene (15.6), eugenol (9.1)[36]
Phlomis umbrosageranial (16.5), linalool (13.3), cis-geraniol (7.4)[73]
Plectranthus glandulosuscis-piperitone oxide (18.5), fenchone (18.3), piperitone epoxide (17.7), terpinolene (8.7), piperitone oxide (8.9)[74]
Salvia umbratica1,8-cineole (16.7), β-caryophyllene (8.4), α-thujone (7.8)[75]
Schizonepeta multifidamenthone (40.3), pulegone (26.9)[76]
LauraceaeCinnamomum camphoracamphor (68.0), linalool (9.0) [77]
Cryptocarya alba(E)-β-bergamotene (15.6), viridiflorol (8.5), germacrene-D (7.7)[78]
Lindera aggregataα-longifolene (15.1), bornyl acetate (11.4), α-eudesmol (9.1)[79]
Ocotea odoriferacamphor (43.0), safrole (42.0), spathulenol (2.0)[80]
MeliaceaeAzadirachta indicahexadecanoic acid (34.0), oleic acid (15.7)[81,82]
MonimiaceaeLaureliopsis philippianasafrole (39.6), linalool (34.5), 1,8-cineole (8.3)[83]
Peumus boldusascaridole (24.4), 1,8-cineole (14.9), trans-β-ocimene (12.9)[83]
MyrtaceaeCorymbia citriodoracitronellal (61.8), isopulegol (15.5), β-citronelol (7.9)[84]
Eucalyptus benthamiiα-pinene (54.0), viridiflorol (17.0) 1,8-cineole (10.0)[85]
Eucalyptus dunni1,8-cineole (53.5), α-pinene (21.5), viridiflorol (8.3)[85]
Eucalyptus globulus1,8-cineole (77.5), α-pinene (14), α-terpineol (1.3)[85]
Eucalyptus saligna1,8-cineole (45.2), p-cymene (34.4) α-pinene (12.8)[85]
Eucalyptus staigerianalimonene (28.7), geranial (15.2), neral (12.2)[36]
Eucalyptus viminalis1,8-cineole (77.0), α-pinene (15.0), viridiflorol (2.3)[85]
PiperaceaePiper aduncumdilapiol (74.0), safrol (3.9), sarisan (2.8)[86]
Piper capenseβ-pinene (59.3), sabinene (14.7), α-pinene (10.5)[87]
Piper guineenseβ-caryophyllene (20.8), limonene (15.8), β-pinene (12.1)[87]
Piper hispidinervumdilapiol (74.0), safrol (3.9), sarisan (2.8)[86]
safrole (82.07)[36]
Piper nigrum3-carene (18.5), limonene (14.7), β-caryophyllene (12.8)[87]
PoaceaeCymbopogon citratusgeranial (40.1), neral (29.7) and myrcene (11.3)[33]
Cymbopogon narduscitronellal (36.5), geraniol (25.6), elemol (8.2)[84]
Cymbopogon winterianuscitronellal (35.5), geraniol (21.8), citronellol (10.9)[36]
RutaceaeBoenninghausenia sessilicarpaα-cadinol (12.0), carvacrol (8.8), germacrene D (6.2), o-cymene (6.1)[88]
Citrus aurantiifolialimonene (38.9), R-mentha-2,4(8)-diene (5.7), α-terpineol (5.2)[24]
Citrus reticulatalimonene (80.2), myrcene (6.7), linalool (3.7)[24]
Citrus x sinensislimonene (96.1), β-myrcene (1.9), linalool (0.9) α -pinene (0.5)[89,90]
Evodia leptaα-pinene (26.6), borneol (7.2), trans-pinocarveol (6.8)[91]
Glycosmis parviflora(Z)-caryophyllene (20.6), methyl isoeugenol (11.1), (Z)-β-ocimene (8.9)[92]
Murraya exoticaspathulenol (17.7), α-pinene (13.3), caryophyllene oxide (8.6)[93]
Ruta graveolens2-undecanone (30.7), 2-nonanone (20.8), 4-hydoroxypyridine1-oxide (6.7)[94]
Zanthoxylum schinifoliumlinalool (12.9), α-tumerone (8.9), limonene (6.5), elixene (5.4) [14]
SchisandraceaeIllicium difengpisafrole (23.6), linalool (12.9), germacrene D (5.3)[95]
Illicium fargesiiα-terpineol (11.4), carvone (10.9), limonene (9.8)[96]
Illicium pachyphyllumtrans-p-mentha-1(7),8-dien-2-ol (24.5), limonene (9.7)[97]
Illicium simonsiiβ-caryophyllene (10.3), δ-cadinene (9.5), methyl eugenol (8.9)[98]
Illicium verumanethole (77.4), estragole (5.8), p-anisaldehyde (5.6)[90]
Kadsura heteroclitaα-eudesmol (17.5), 4-terpineol (9.7), δ-cadinene (9.2)[99]
TaxaceaeCephalotaxus sinensisα-pinene (38.0) β-caryophyllene (17.0) germacrene D (11.0)[100]
VataceaeCayratia japonicalinalool (19.4), trans-α-ionene (11.4), α-terpineol (7.9)[101]
VerbenaceaeLippia adoensisgeraniol (37.2), linalool (27.7), β-farnesene (10.8)[102]
ZingiberaceaeZingiber officinaleα-zingiberene (28.9), β-sesquiphellandrene (13.1), Z-γ-bisabolene (12.5)[33]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Achimón, F.; Peschiutta, M.L.; Brito, V.D.; Beato, M.; Pizzolitto, R.P.; Zygadlo, J.A.; Zunino, M.P. Exploring Contact Toxicity of Essential Oils against Sitophilus zeamais through a Meta-Analysis Approach. Plants 2022, 11, 3070. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11223070

AMA Style

Achimón F, Peschiutta ML, Brito VD, Beato M, Pizzolitto RP, Zygadlo JA, Zunino MP. Exploring Contact Toxicity of Essential Oils against Sitophilus zeamais through a Meta-Analysis Approach. Plants. 2022; 11(22):3070. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11223070

Chicago/Turabian Style

Achimón, Fernanda, Maria L. Peschiutta, Vanessa D. Brito, Magalí Beato, Romina P. Pizzolitto, Julio A. Zygadlo, and María P. Zunino. 2022. "Exploring Contact Toxicity of Essential Oils against Sitophilus zeamais through a Meta-Analysis Approach" Plants 11, no. 22: 3070. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11223070

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