LARVICIDAL POTENTIAL OF MELIA AZEDARACH L. AND ILEX PARAGUARIENSIS A. ST.-HIL. IN THE CONTROL OF AEDES AEGYPTI (LINNAEUS, 1762) (DIPTERA: CULICIDAE).
Keywords:Vector. Natural products. Extracts. Mate herb.
The mosquito Aedes aegypti is the main vector of dengue. The conventional synthetic products used in the population control of this vector have presented resistance of the populations, in addition to risks to the health of the population and of the applicators themselves. This study was aimed at assessing the larvicidal potential of ethanolic extracts of Ilex paraguariensis and Melia azedarach in the control of A. aegypti in laboratory conditions. The assays were performed in plastic containers with a capacity of 150 ml, where were put 60 ml of the solutions containing different concentrations of the extracts. To this solution, 10 active larvae of the instars L2 and L3 were added. The experiment was accomplished in triplicate by using a control containing only water and food. The susceptibility assessments were accomplished at 24h and 48h after application. The treatments were compared with basis on the amount of live larvae. The efficiency of the tested treatments was recorded by means of the percentage of mortality calculated by the Abbott’s formula (1925). The larvicidal potential of the treatments was 100% for the concentration of 500 µg/mL for the extract of the fruits of M. azedarach (48 h) and 2000 µg/mL for the extracts of the leaves of I. paraguariensis (24 h) and M. azedarach (48 h). The efficiency of the extracts of I. paraguariensis and M. azedarach are promising results. The possibility of use of the extracts of these plants as larvicidal agents for A. aegypti is an accessible alternative before the synthetic product recommended by the Ministry of Health to control dengue.
How to Cite
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.