Skip to main content
Future Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences
Download PDF

Assessment of Piper longum L. (Piperaceae) leaves toxicity on the adults of Tribolium castaneum (Herbst, 1797) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae)

Future Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences volume 10, Article number: 134 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Numerous insect pests attack stored grains causing both qualitative and quantitative losses. The most damaging pest that infests dry stored produce is the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum, a secondary pest of stored goods. This pest, especially in its adult stage, exhibits resistance to chemical insecticides, thereby rendering the traditional pesticides ineffective in controlling it. Phyto-derivatives, which are strong insecticides and also ecologically benign, have gained interest as non-chemical solutions for controlling this pest. Hence, the objective of this study was to investigate the potential of Piper longum leaf extract insecticidal action as an environmentally benign insecticide for the first time against the adults of T. castaneum. In this study, P. longum leaf ethanol extract was tested against the adults of T. castaneum by petri dish bioassay method. Ad hoc studies to verify significant mortality for the initial confirmation of adulticidal activity were conducted for 24 h at different dosages of 62.5, 125, 250, 500 and 1000 mg/L of P. longum leaf ethanol extract. Thereafter, dosages set at 10, 20, 30 and 40 mg/L for the fractions of P. longum leaf ethanol extract were conducted. Prior to this, the leaf extract of this plant was subjected to column chromatography for fractionation. The fractions tested for adulticidal activity were subjected to gas chromatography–mass spectroscopy.

Results

Significant adulticidal action with 100% adult mortality was observed in ethanol extract of P. longum leaves. Among the fourteen fractions (F0–F13) obtained tested, only fractions, F5, F10 and F13, demonstrated adulticidal activity, and the remaining fractions displayed poor activity. One hundred per cent morality was noted in T. castaneum adults after 96 h at 40 mg/L in F5 and F10, and in F13 at 20 mg/L, and their respective LD50 values were 17.6, 26.6 and 10.0 mg/L. The fractions F5, F10 and F13 contained fatty acids, viz., hexadecanoic acid, dotriacontane and heptacosane in F5; tetradecanoic acid and nonadecanoic acid in F10; and octadecanoic acid, aspartame and tridecanoic acid in F13, revealed through gas chromatography–mass spectroscopy.

Conclusions

The results of the study showed that P. longum ethanol leaf extract revealed significant adulticidal activity and is a promising toxic agent to the adults of T. castaneum. The fatty acids in the ethanolic leaf extract fractions of P. longum could have caused toxicity to the adults of T. castaneum. According to the current literature survey, this is the first research report on the adulticidal activity of P. longum leaf extracts against the adults of T. castaneum.

Background

The destruction of stored grains by a variety of insect pests causes both qualitative and quantitative losses [1, 2]. Internally feeding insects consume the endosperm of grains, causing the grain to lose its weight, nutrients, quality, seed vigour and viability. Through excrement contamination, empty eggs, larval moults, empty cocoons and adult carcasses, externally fed insects cause damage to grains. In addition, insects play a key role in the spread of fungal contaminants, which can worsen by causing mycotoxin contamination, and reduce the quality of stored grains [3, 4]. This makes maintenance of grain quality during storage a constant challenge [5]. Insect pests that affect stored goods are a concern everywhere because they affect the quantity and quality of a wide range of post-harvest goods and grains [6,7,8]. As a result of their morphological, physiological and behavioural evolutionary adaptations [9], stored product insect pests are responsible for the majority of damage to stored grains. They are very adaptable, can survive in environments with low nutrient levels and are frequently viewed as persistent pests [10, 11]. The genera Cryptolestes, Rhyzopertha, Sitophilus, Sitotroga, Tribolium and Trogoderma contain the most dangerous insect species that attack stored goods. The red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum, a notorious global pest of stored food goods and a member of the secondary grain insect pest, is a significant, widespread and global pest of stored goods that has been thoroughly studied to enhance pest management initiatives [7], since this pest can reduce grain weight by up to 40% [12].

Infestation by T. castaneum, a major pest of a wide range of stored foodstuffs, causes loss to stored goods in both quality and quantity [13, 14]. They primarily target milled grain products (flour and cereals) that have been stored, which results in significant loss and damage [15, 16] and causes serious damage to the processed cereals in the form of flour rather than whole grains [17,18,19]. It favours feeding and laying eggs on stored products with good nutritional quality [20,21,22]. According to Yao et al. [23], both adults and grubs cause damage, and ‘vertical infestation’, which occurs from top to bottom or vice versa, is the term used to describe T. castaneum infestation of stored grain [24]. According to Campbell and Hagstrum [25], this pest species can colonize small patches of food and sustain itself with small amounts of food, and cause damage by reducing the mass and/or volume, and also the physiological quality [26]. When this pest is prevalent, it causes the flour to become stained and greyish, and raises the temperature and moisture levels, which promote the rapid growth of moulds. A revolting taste and fragrance can occasionally be imparted to flour by the harsh, strong odour given off by the scent glands of this pest [27]. Therefore, protecting stored products from this beetle is challenging.

Chemical insecticides and pesticides are crucial for controlling this pest [28,29,30]. Despite variables influencing the effectiveness of using chemical pesticides to control insect pests in stored products, the prevalence of insecticide resistance remains high [31,32,33]. The success of pesticide-based control techniques [28, 34] is in jeopardy due to this insect pest’s ability to acquire resistance to a variety of insecticides as a result of continuous pesticide treatment [35]. High emphasis on synthetic pesticides for control of T. castaneum has eventuated due to incidences of resistance to almost all main types of conventional synthetic insecticides, and this insect pest has become resistant to a variety of insecticide classes [36], particularly as it reaches adulthood [37]. In addition to insecticide resistance, toxicity issues derived from synthetic insecticides have made it necessary to find more effective, healthier and more environmentally friendly alternatives.

Phytoextracts are effective against the adults of T. castaneum [15, 38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50]. The whole plant chloroform extract of Polygonum hydropiper exhibited 10–43%, 17–50% and 17–55% mortality after 24, 48 and 72 h of exposure, respectively [51]. Acetonic extracts of Cucurbita maxima leaves, Citrus sinensis and Citrus aurantium fruit peels caused 68.0%, 67.6% and 49.4% mortality, respectively, after 72 h [52]. The same solvent leaf extract of Ocimum sanctum caused 70.0% mortality [53], and Cleistanthus collinus caused 62.5% mortality [54]. Leaves of Jatropha curcas petroleum ether extract caused 56.6% mortality [53], and Cymbopogon citratus methanolic extract exhibited 100% mortality [55]. Hexane, chloroform and ethyl acetate extracts of Artemisia vulgaris, Prosopis juliflora, Sphaeranthus indicus and Tephrosia purpurea at concentrations of 0.5, 1.0, 2.5 and 5.0% induced mortality after 72 h, by A. vulgaris hexane extract (58.0%), S. indicus chloroform extract (34.0%), and by the ethyl acetate extracts of T. purpurea (52.0%) and P. juliflora (30.0%) [56]. Hexane, diethyl ether, dichloromethane, ethyl acetate and methanol extracts of Rivina humilis caused mortality ranging from 19.0 to 98.0% when tested at concentrations of 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500 ppm, and their respective lethal concentration50 (LC50) values were 267.7, 263.7, 260.0, 253.5 and 197.0 ppm [57]. Hexane leaf extracts of Cassia mimosoides, Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Vepris heterophylla at concentrations of 0.12, 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75 g/mL caused 18.7, 47.5, 88.7 and 96.2%; 26.2, 42.5, 80.0 and 87.5%; 10.0, 37.5, 72.5 and 82.5% mortality after 24 h; 28.7, 52.5, 96.2 and 98.7%; 33.7, 48.7, 95.0 and 98.7%; 13.7, 43.7, 76.2 and 91.2% mortality after 48 h; 33.7, 62.5, 98.7 and 100.0%; 38.7, 65.0, 100.0 and 100.0%; 27.5, 48.7, 88.7 and 97.5% mortality after 72 h, respectively [58].

Plants in the Piperaceae family are reported to possess insecticidal activity against stored products pests, Callosobruchus chinensis, Callosobruchus maculatus, Sitophilus zeamais [59], including T. castaneum [60,61,62,63,64]. Piper longum known as Indian long pepper and as ‘Tippili’ by its Tamil vernacular name is a perennial climber/herb with a delicate aroma. It is grown in the evergreen forests across the Indian subcontinent [65], in Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, and in regions with high relative humidity and strong rainfall [66]. P. longum possess insecticidal activity against agricultural pests, Myzus persicae, Nilaparvata lugens, Plutella xylostella, Spodoptera litura and Tetranychus urticae, [67, 68], and against mosquitoes too [68,69,70,71,72,73,74]. However, the toxicity of P. longum against the adults of T. castaneum has not been documented before this study. Hence, the objective of this study was to investigate the insecticidal property of P. longum leaves against the adults of T. castaneum, as an essential biological component to safeguard post-harvest production from insect pests of stored products.

Methods

Plant collection and leaf extract preparation

Mature and healthy leaves of the P. longum plant were collected in Marthandam, Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu, India (8° 18′ 14.07 ″N and 77° 13′ 23.77″E). The Department of Botany of Scott Christian College, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu, India, confirmed the plant’s taxonomic identity. Thereafter, the leaves were washed in de-chlorinated water, shade dried and grounded to powder form in an electric blender. A soxhlet extraction [75] was carried using one kilogram of the powdered leaf material and three litres of ethanol, and thereafter, the solvent was distilled in a rotary vacuum evaporator (Puchi RII, Switzerland). The crude ethanolic extract concentrate was then further evaporated to complete dryness at room temperature, transferred to dark amber-coloured bottles, tightly closed and maintained at 4 °C for bioassays [74].

Qualitative phytochemical screening

Qualitative phytochemical screening and qualitative analysis of secondary metabolites in the ethanol leaf extract of P. longum was carried out using standard procedures (Table 1) for the presence of alkaloids, fatty acids, flavonoids, glycosides, phenols, saponins, steroids, tannins, terpenes and terpenoids [76]. To confirm the presence of the tested phytochemical, screening was performed thrice.

Table 1 Standard procedures for qualitative phytochemical screening and analysis of secondary metabolites
Full size table

Fractionation of crude extract by column chromatography

The residue from the crude ethanolic leaf extract of P. longum (26.83 g) was mixed with silica gel (60–120 mesh, 120 g) as admixture, subjected to column chromatography (silica gel, 100–200 mesh 400 g) with column length 45 cm and diameter 2 cm to obtain fractions by increasing polarity of eluents, viz. hexane and ethyl acetate in the ratio of 100:0; 90:10; 80:20; 60:40; 40:60; 20:80; 0:100, and finally ethyl acetate and acetone in the ratio of 50:50 and 0:100, respectively [77].

Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) analysis

GC–MS analysis for the active fractions of ethanol leaf extract of P. longum was performed. PerkinElmer instrument Clarus 680 GC used in the analysis employed a fused silica column, packed with Elite-5MS (5% biphenyl, 95% dimethylpolysiloxane, 30 m, 0.25 mm ID, 250 m df), and the components were separated using helium as the carrier gas at a constant flow of 1 mL/min. Throughout the chromatographic run, the injector temperature was maintained at 260 °C. The extract sample (1 μL) was introduced into the device with the oven temperature as follows (60 °C for 2 min; followed by 300 °C @ 10 °C min−1 and 300 °C for 6 min). Conditions for the mass detector were transfer line and ion source temperature @ 240 °C; ionization mode electron impact at 70 eV; and scan time and scan interval of 0.2 and 0.1 s, respectively. The fragments ranged from 40 to 600 Da. Phytocompounds were interpreted by comparing spectral peaks in GC–MS chromatogram with the library database of spectra of recognized components in the GC–MS-National Institute for Standards and Technology library [78].

Tribolium castaneum

T. castaneum parent stock culture was purchased from the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in Tamil Nadu, India. Adults of T. castaneum were raised in glass jars covered with muslin cloths at 30 ± 2 °C with a relative humidity of 75 ± 5% and 16:8 L:D photoperiod. The culture medium consisted of wheat flour and baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) in a 95:5 w/w proportion (one kilogram). Mass rearing was performed following the method of Duarte et al. [79]. A glass jar containing the culture medium (250 g) and 30 adult beetles (♀:♂ = 1:1) was covered in the open end to prevent the escape of the insect. The glass jar was stored in the culture room. Beetles were sieved out from the raising medium after 3 days, and were put into separate glass jars and nurtured under ideal growth conditions to obtain uniformly proportioned offspring for conducting bioassay studies.

Adulticidal bioassay

Petri dish bioassay methodology developed by Mason et al. [80] was used in this study with minor modifications. The F1 generation of the culture adults, which were 2 weeks old, was employed for the bioassay. Stock solution (1%) was prepared by dissolving P. longum ethanolic leaf extract (0.25 g) in distilled water (25 mL). Thereafter, from the stock solution, different dosages (62.5, 125, 250, 500 and 1000 mg/L) prepared by serial dilution were tested via ad hoc studies to verify significant mortality for the initial confirmation of adulticidal activity. Each above-mentioned dose (1 mL) was dropped in the middle of a piece of Whatman filter paper Grade 1, where it was absorbed to the filter paper’s outside edge. The solvent was allowed to dry and evaporate off the filter paper leaving the extract behind. The filter paper (10 cm in diameter) was placed to fit the bottom of a lower glass petri dish (10 cm in diameter), covering the entire interior surface. With the use of a Camel’s soft, fine hair brush, ten unsexed T. castaneum adults were carefully placed on the filter paper of the lower glass petri dish and were closed with the upper glass petri dish. After the ad hoc bioassay with the crude extracts, the dosages for various fractions were set at 10, 20, 30 and 40 mg/L, and tests were conducted. Filter paper that had been exposed to distilled water only functioned as control. The experimental setup was then placed inside an incubator set at a temperature of 30 ± 2 °C and a relative humidity of 70 ± 5%. Five replicates were used for each test dosage. Adult mortality was noted after 24, 48, 72 and 96 h following the insect release, by probing it using the back of a Camel hair brush. Adult beetles were considered dead when they showed no signs of life and stopped moving fully, including their legs and antennae, in response to mild pressure. This proved their demise. Nevertheless, the treated beetles were again given light pressure after being monitored for 5 min to prevent the chance of death mimicry.

Data analyses

Percentage of mortality was determined, and any errors in the control mortality (5–20%) were corrected using Abbott’s formula [81]. Mortality data were subjected to probit analysis in IBM SPSS statistics version 28.0 to estimate the lethal dose50 (LD50) values with significance set at 95% confidence [82].

Results

Qualitative phytochemical screening of P. longum ethanolic leaf extract revealed the presence of alkaloids, fatty acids, glycosides, phenols, tannins and terpenoids. The phytochemical compounds present in fractions, F5, F10 and F13 revealed by GC–MS chromatogram are shown in Figs. 1, 2 and 3. The phytochemical compounds present in F5 were 3,3-dimethyl-1-(methylsulfonyl)-2-butanone-O-((methylamino)carbonyl)oxime; methyl-13C-benzene; 1-benzyloxy-3-bromopropane; 4-benzyloxy-1-bromopropane; pentadecanoic acid, 14-methyl-methyl ester; oxiraneoctanoic acid, 3-octyl-,trans-; hexadecanoic acid; 1,2,4-trioxolane-2-octanoic acid, 5-octyl-,methyl ester; dotriacontane; nonahexacontanoic acid; β-d-mannofuranose, 2,3:5,6-di-O-ethylboranediyl-1-O-(10-undecen-1-yl)- and heptacosane (Table 2). Benzene, 1-(2,2-dimethyl-1-methylenepropyl)-3-(trifluoromethyl); thienoindole; pyridoindazole; selegiline; methandriol dipropionate; α-normethadol; tetradecanoic acid; nonadecanoic acid; lucenin 2; and 2-acetyl-3-(2-cinnamido)ethyl-7-methoxyindole were present in F10 (Table 3). Octadecanoic acid, ethyl ester; oxiraneoctanoic acid, 3-octyl-, methyl ester, cis-; aspartame; tridecanoic acid, 13-formyl-, ethyl ester; oxiranepentanoic acid, 3-undecyl-, methyl ester, cis-; methyl 8,9,13-trihydroxydocosanoate; methyl 4-hydroxyoctadecanoate; pseudojervine; lucenin 2; 2-acetyl-3-(2-cinnamido)ethyl-7-methoxyindole; and 11α-hydroxyandrosta-1,4-diene-3,17-dione were present in F13 (Table 4).

Fig. 1
figure 1

GC–MS chromatogram of F5 of P. longum ethanolic leaf extract

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

GC–MS chromatogram of F10 of P. longum ethanolic leaf extract

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

GC–MS chromatogram of F13 of P. longum ethanolic leaf extract

Full size image
Table 2 Phytochemical compounds in the F5 fraction of ethanolic leaf extract of P. longum
Full size table
Table 3 Phytochemical compounds in the F10 fraction of ethanolic leaf extract of P. longum
Full size table
Table 4 Phytochemical compounds in the F13 fraction of ethanolic leaf extract of P. longum
Full size table

The per cent adult mortality of T. castaneum determined at different dosages of P. longum leaf ethanol extract resulted in 100% mortality after 24 h. In control, no adult mortality was observed. Among the fourteen fractions (F0–F13) tested for adulticidal activity, only fractions, F5, F10 and F13, exhibited significant activity, and the remaining fractions displayed poor activity. The per cent adult mortality of T. castaneum determined at different dosages of fractions, F5, F10 and F13, at different hours of exposure is shown in Fig. 4. In the control group for fractions, all of the introduced adult beetles were alive, except for 10% mortality in F5, F10 and F13 after 72, 96 and 96 h, respectively.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Per cent adult mortality of T. castaneum on exposure to fractions of P. longum ethanolic leaf extract

Full size image

No mortality was noted in adults treated by F5 till 30 mg/L dosage, but thereafter caused 10% mortality at 40 mg/L after 24 h of exposure. After 48 h, no adult mortality was observed till 20 mg/L, but thereafter 30 and 40 mg/L dosages caused 20% and 40% mortality, respectively. Near similar result occurred after 72 h of exposure. No adult mortality was noted till 20 mg/L, but thereafter 40% and 70% mortality were noted at dosages of 30 and 40 mg/L, respectively. After 96 h, the fraction in dosages of 20 and 30 mg/L caused 10% and 90% mortality, with 100% mortality observed at 40 mg/L. The LD50 values (in mg/L) of F5 treatments were 71.3, 45.0, 33.3 and 17.6 for 24, 48, 72 and 96 h, respectively.

In F10, no mortality was noted in adults treated till 30 mg/L dosage, but thereafter caused 10% mortality at 40 mg/L after 24 h of exposure. After 48 h, no adult mortality was observed till 20 mg/L, but thereafter 30 and 40 mg/L dosages caused 10% and 40% mortality, respectively. Near similar result occurred after 72 h of exposure. No adult mortality was noted till 20 mg/L, but thereafter 30% and 70% mortality were noted at dosages of 30 and 40 mg/L, respectively. After 96 h, the fraction in dosages of 20 and 30 mg/L caused 10% and 60% mortality, with 100% mortality observed at 40 mg/L. The LD50 values (in mg/L) of F10 treatments were 60.0, 43.3, 35.0 and 26.6 for 24, 48, 72 and 96 h, respectively.

In F13, no mortality was noted in treated adults at 10 mg/L dosage, but thereafter 10%, 10% and 30% mortality was noted at 20, 30 and 40 mg/L, respectively, after 24 h of exposure. After 48 h, no adult mortality was observed at 10 mg/L, but thereafter 20, 30 and 40 mg/L dosages caused 50%, 60% and 80% mortality, respectively. After 72 h of exposure, adult mortality was noted in all dosages ranging from 10 to 40 mg/L, with 20%, 80%, 90% and 100%, respectively. After 96 h, the fraction in dosage of 10 mg/L caused 50% mortality and thereafter 100% mortality till 40 mg/L. The LD50 values (in mg/L) of F13 treatments were 63.3, 45.0, 16.1 and 10.0 for 24, 48, 72 and 96 h, respectively.

Discussion

An essential component to safeguard post-harvest production is controlling pests that live in stored goods. Currently, the stored grain sector relies on synthetic grain protectants. Due to the negative effects of chemical insect management, it is necessary to investigate natural but equally potent substances that can be utilized to combat insect pests of stored products without significantly endangering human health or lowering grain quality. The use of botanicals to control them is stressed by increased public concern over the residual toxicity of insecticides applied to stored products, the occurrence of insecticide-resistant insect strains and the precautions needed to work with traditional chemical insecticides. Due to environmental concerns and an increase in insect populations that are resistant to traditional pesticides, interest in botanical insecticides has grown over time. Islam [83] listed the phytoderivatives deemed effective for controlling T. castaneum. The results of the present study when compared to the reports of the literature reported elsewhere show that the leaves of P. longum have strong adulticidal activity based on their per cent adult mortality and LD50 values.

A botanical insecticide’s phytotoxicity is typically influenced by the plant component and solvent extract employed [84]. Depending on the polarity of the solvent used, potential phytocompounds in the plant may seep out, and hence, the bioactivity of the extracts is influenced by the solvents used for extraction. The primary consideration for determining insecticidal activity is the phytochemical compound certainty in plant extracts. The solvent used affects the variation because it has been demonstrated that the polarity of the solvents employed affects the extraction of active phytochemical substances from plants [85]. Therefore, it is advised to employ intermediary or more polar extracts if a reasonable management of natural products is sought [86], and the same was done in the current investigation by utilizing ethanol (polarity index 5.2). The secondary metabolites, viz. alkaloids, fatty acids, flavonoids, phenols, quinines, saponins, sterols, tannins, terpenes and terpenoids that are poisonous to insects, can be extracted using ethanol [87]. As these secondary metabolites dissolve in mid, intermediary and high polar solvents rather than those with less polarity, the active phytochemicals present in the extract may have contributed to the performance of the extract with regard to toxicity on the adults of T. castaneum in the present study.

Ethanol extracts of the following medicinal and aromatic plants have caused adult mortality in T. castaneum [88]. P. hydropiper whole plant caused mortality which ranged from 7–40%, 10–47% and 17–57% after 24, 48 and 72 h of exposure, respectively, and the concentrations used were 31.5, 62.5, 125.0, 250.0 and 500.0 mg/mL [51]. Datura stramonium caused mortality with LC50 values of 3936 and 1954 mg/L after 24 and 48 h, respectively [89], and Psidium guajava leaves caused 30.0 and 50.0%; and 100.0% mortality at 5 and 10 ppm after 7 and 14 days, respectively [90]. Cardiospermum halicacabum, Coriandrum sativum, Mentha longifolia, O. sanctum and Pongamia glabra leaves at dose of 25, 50, 75 and 100 μg/mL caused 25.7, 45.3, 78.1 and 93.0%; 25.4, 42.6, 75.9 and 80.0%; 29.4, 55.6, 82.6 and 98.1%; 26.2, 53.4, 79.3 and 96.9%; 27.6, 57.4, 85.2 and 96.3% mortality, respectively, and their respective LC50 values were 64.9, 52.7, 49.8, 49.7 and 49.2 μg/mL [91]. Extracts of Curcuma longa rhizome, and seed extracts of Myristica fragrans and Piper nigrum caused 37.5, 51.0, 71.0 and 96.6%; 40.1, 47.9, 80.0, 100.0%; 30.0, 42.6, 45.2 and 60.0% at dosage of 2, 4, 6 and 8% after 24 h, respectively [63]. Limoniastrum guyonianum aerials parts (phytochemicals were alkaloids, flavonoids, saponins and tannins) caused 91.6% mortality after 72 h [92], and Melissa officinalis, Mentha piperita, Rosmarinus officinalis and Thymus vulgaris leaves caused 42.6, 40.0, 58.6 and 24.0% mortality, respectively [93]. The present findings corroborated with the reports of the above-mentioned studies.

Identification of highly active fractions and chemicals separated from the crude extract during screening, on the other hand, requires insecticidal bioassay-guided fractionation, according to Shaalan et al. [87], as a complex variety of biocidal active substances can be found in the crude extract. Further, the extract be fractionated in order to identify the specific chemical component producing the deadly effect if an unusually low lethal dose is found. Thus, the goal of fractionation is to create a combinations of substances in order to decrease the number of substances that may be discovered through further analysis. Since they include various phytochemicals, fractions recovered from the same extract always have varying insecticidal activities, and this was noted in the present study, wherein out of the fourteen fractions tested, only three fractions exhibited significant adulticidal action while the remaining displayed poor activity. Thereafter, once a fraction has demonstrated its efficacy, its active phytochemical compounds are to be isolated. However, it is to be noted that though various synergistic relationships may exist in botanical preparations that may improve killing activity, some chemicals lose efficiency when separated [77].

There is a growing interest in plants of the Piperaceae family as potential sources of promising bioactive phytochemical compounds with insecticidal activity against various insect pests, and toxicity to mosquitoes [94,95,96] and agricultural pests [97]. Piper secondary plant components have numerous mechanisms of action, including contact toxicity [98], synergism [99], repellent and antifeedant characteristics. Scott et al. [100] presented an extensive assessment of the large diversity of secondary plant chemicals in Piper species as prospective leads for insecticides, many of which are utilized in traditional pest control of stored harvests. Piper extracts have been tested for their insecticidal property against insect pests of stored products, viz. C. maculatus [59, 101,102,103], C. chinensis [59], Corcyra cephalonica [104, 105], Plodia interpunctella [106], Rhyzopertha dominica [106, 107], Sitophilus oryzae [104, 106, 108], S. zeamais [59, 101], and T. castaneum [61]. P. longum extracts are toxic to agricultural pests, viz., M. persicae, N. lugens, P. xylostella and S. litura [67], and to mosquitoes [67, 70,71,72, 94, 95, 109]. P. longum leaf (petroleum ether, chloroform, methanol and aqueous) extracts exhibited 100% ovicidal and larvicidal activity against the third instar of Aedes aegypti, Anopheles stephensi and Culex quinquefasciatus with their LC50 values ranging from 50.81 (aqueous extract) to 395.51 ppm (methanol extract), due to the active phytochemicals, viz. flavonoids, terpenoids, tannins, alkaloids and saponins [69].

Secondary metabolites have shown insecticidal activity against stored product pests including weevils and beetles [110]. Alkaloids, flavonoids, glycosides, phenols, saponins, steroids, tannins, terpenes and terpenoids are reported for toxicity against T. castaneum which had induced mortality in them [10, 11, 46, 58, 111,112,113,114,115]. Saponins possess insecticidal activity against T. castaneum [116, 117]. They inhibit acetylcholinesterase (AChE) [118], causing acetylcholine to accumulate at cholinergic synapses and hyperexcite cholinergic pathways in T. castaneum [32]. Terpenes kill insects by inhibiting the action of the AChE assay in the nervous system [119]. Terpenoids, the most abundant component in many plant species, have insecticidal properties [120], and they influence the insecticidal activities of T. castaneum through the degree of penetration into the insect cuticle, and the ability to migrate to and interact with an active site, according to Rice and Coats [121]. Piper extracts contain alkaloids, anthraquinones, carbohydrates, flavonoids, glycosides and terpenoids that are insecticidal against T. castaneum [122]. Choudhary and Singh [123] provided an exhaustive list of phytochemicals obtained from P. longum. The leaves of this plant contain alkaloids, saponins, flavonoids, phytosterols, terpenes, phenols, tannins, steroids and terpenoids [69,70,71, 124,125,126,127]. Furthermore, Sindhu et al. [128] and Kavitha et al. [129] reported alkaloids, fatty acids, glycosides, phenols, tannins and terpenoids in P. longum ethanolic leaf extract. In the current investigation, the same were found in P. longum leaves, which could have been toxic to T. castaneum adults.

Several groups of plant-derived phytochemicals are employed for their poisonous activity against numerous insect pests of stored products [130, 131]. Phytochemicals cause phytotoxicity in insects by disrupting critical metabolic pathways resulting in rapid mortality [132, 133]. The major phytocompounds in P. longum ethanolic leaf extract fractions in the present study revealed by GC–MS were fatty acids, viz. hexadeacnoic acid, octadecanoic acid, tetradecanoic acid, nonadecanoic acid, dotriacontane, aspartame and heptocosane. Fatty acids are insecticidal in nature, and their insecticidal property against various insect pests is tabulated in Table 5. Fatty acids (palmitic acid, stearic acid, myristic acid) and their respective methyl esters are insecticidal in action [157, 158] and have insecticidal effects on pests of stored products due to toxicity of contact treatments [159, 160]. Fatty acids affect the neurological system of insects by entering through the cuticle, blood barrier and perineurium. They kill the basic unit of the nervous system, disrupt the insect’s behaviour, locomotion and eventually lead to death [161]. According to de Melo et al. [162], fatty acids have insecticidal effect via generating cell instability in insect midgut cells and inhibiting voltage-gated potassium channels of nerve cells [163]. Fatty acid treatment has been shown to suppress stored product pests, particularly Tribolium species [164]. The physicochemical properties of fatty acids make them ideal for use as contact insecticides that cause total paralysis [165, 166]. Fatty acids bind to cell membrane components, causing the membrane’s integrity to deteriorate and the insect to perish, and obstruct insect breathing by blocking the spiracles. Fatty acid molecules bind to the cuticle’s waxy external layer, allowing them to infiltrate into tissues, as well as within the trachea, particularly trachioles, and then penetrate into the body to cellular action sites [167]. The closeness of mortality responses in this study shows that fatty acids act in a similar manner. Hence, the fatty acids present in the fractions of the ethanolic leaf extract of P. longum certainly would have exhibited toxicity to the adults of T. castaneum. Further, toxicity synergy may also occur when two or more fatty acids with broadly comparable mechanisms of action are mixed [167].

Table 5 Phytocompounds present in the fractions of P. longum ethanolic leaf extract reported for insecticidal property against various insect pests
Full size table

Botanical pesticides used against coleopteran stored product pests have been linked to paralysis and electron transport blockage in insect respiratory processes, immobilization and toxicity [168]. Understanding the mode of action, which includes the physical, biological and chemical interactions between the insect and the pesticide, is critical in pest control since it determines the management plan to be used [169]. According to Fang et al. [170], Tribolium species are among the least susceptible insect pests of stored products and are frequently more difficult to kill than other stored product beetles; however, the order of toxicity generally varies depending on the specific insecticide. Secondary metabolites from plants have numerous routes of action that have sub-lethal effects on the target insect. AChE has a high catalytic activity and is a crucial enzyme in the nervous system that terminates nerve impulses by catalysing the hydrolysis of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine [171]. Inhibiting AChE induces acetylcholine buildup at synapses, resulting in paralysis and death of the insect, with neurotoxicity being the method of action. This was seen in adults of T. castaneum after exposure to an ethanolic extract of L. guyonianum [92]. The same mode of action could have killed T. castaneum adults in the present study on exposure to ethanolic fractions of P. longum leaves. Furthermore, adult mortality could be ascribed to contact toxicity or the production of unknown physiological alterations [172]. One of the numerous possible causes of adult mortality is the effective adherence of phytocompounds to the insect’s spiracles, causing its death due to asphyxia. Contact poisoning was possible in this study since the insects had symptoms such as convulsions and tremors followed by paralysis (knockdown), which were similar to those seen in the study by Kanmani et al. [78]. This response could be related to octopaminergic receptor activation [173]. Above and beyond that, phytocompounds that function as insecticides affect insect behaviour via the olfactory sensilla of their antennae. This is because, throughout the experiment, live insect species strive to avoid coming into contact with the treated surface (filter paper), which works by creating a vapour barrier that prevents them from coming into contact with the stimulus or surface [174]. The same was observed during the experimentation phase in the present study. This could be possible as the presence of phytocompounds with strong odours could inhibit the insects’ tracheal respiration, resulting in their death. Liu and Ho [175] also reported a similar observation against S. zeamais and T. castaneum.

Conclusion

The present investigation revealed the adulticidal activity of P. longum ethanol leaf extract fractions on T. castaneum. This is the first-hand information on the toxicity of P. longum ethanol leaf extract fractions on T. castaneum adults. Isolation of active phytochemical compounds of P. longum ethanol leaf extract that induces insecticidal activity on T. castaneum adults, and their bioassays on T. castaneum adults merit further study.

Availability of data and materials

Data and materials have been provided with the manuscript as figures and tables.

Abbreviations

GC–MS:

Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry

LD50 :

Lethal dose50

LC50 :

Lethal concentration50

AChE:

Acetylcholinesterase

References

  1. Fields PG (2006) Effect of Pisum sativum fractions on the mortality and progeny production of nine stored-grain beetles. J Stored Prod Res 42(1):86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2004.11.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chitra S, Subramanian S (2016) Storage insect pests and their damage symptoms: an overview. Indian J Entomol 78:53–58. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-8172.2016.00025.0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Eigenbrode SD, Bosque-Pérez NA, Davis TS (2018) Insect-borne plant pathogens and their vectors: Ecology, evolution, and complex interactions. Annu Rev Entomol 63:169–191. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-020117-043119

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Yun TS, Park YS, Yu J, Hwang Y, Hong KJ (2018) Isolation and identification of fungal species from the insect pest Tribolium castaneum in rice processing complexes in Korea. Plant Pathol J 34(5):356–366. https://doi.org/10.5423/PPJ.OA.02.2018.0027

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Navarro S (2012) Advanced grain storage methods for quality preservation and insect control based on aerated or hermetic storage and IPM. J Agric Eng 49(1):13–20. https://doi.org/10.52151/jae2012491.1463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hill DS (2003) Pests of storage foodstuffs and their control. Springer, Dordrecht Publishers, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48131-6

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Rees D (2004) Insects of stored products. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Hagstrum DW, Subramanyam B (2009) Stored-product insect resource. AAAC Int, St. Paul

    Google Scholar 

  9. Pugazhvendan SR, Elumalai K, Ronald RP, Soundararajan M (2009) Repellent activity of chosen plant species against Tribolium castaneum. World J Zool 4(3):188–190

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rajendran S, Sriranjini V (2007) Use of fumigation for managing grain quality. Stewart Postharvest Rev 3(6):1–8. https://doi.org/10.2212/spr.2007.6.9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rajendran S, Sriranjini V (2008) Plant products as fumigants for stored-product insect control. J Stored Prod Res 44(2):126–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2007.08.003

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ajayi FA, Rahman SA (2006) Susceptibility of some staple processed meals to red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Pak J Biol Sci 9(9):1744–1748. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2006.1744.1748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Baldwin R, Fasulo TR (2005) Confused flour beetle, Tribolium confusum Jacquelin du Val and red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Insecta: Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). University of Florida, pp 1–5. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/IN566

  14. Pires EM, Souza EQ, Nogueira RM, Soares MA, Dias TKR, Oliveira MA (2017) Damage caused by Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) in stored Brazil nut. Sci Electron Arch 10(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.36560/1012017418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Padin SB, Fuse C, Urrutia MI, Dal Bello GM (2013) Toxicity and repellency of nine medicinal plants against Tribolium castaneum in stored wheat. Bull Insectol 66(1):45–49

    Google Scholar 

  16. Shelja S, Patgiri P, Bhattacharyya B, Sathish K (2019) Evaluation of red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera; Tenebrionidae) preference to different colour cues in storage. J Entomol Zool Stud 7(1):604–607

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hill DS (1990) Pests of stored products and their control. CRC, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  18. Campbell JF, Runnion C (2003) Patch exploitation by female red flour beetles, Tribolium castaneum. J Insect Sci 3(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/jis/3.1.20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zakka U, Lale NES, Duru NM, Ehislanya CN (2013) Response of chips and flour from four yam varieties to Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) infestation in storage. Afr J Agric Res 8(49):6629–6633. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2013.7733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Abushama FT, Jeraiwi JA (1987) Food preference and development on the red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum (Herbst), a major pest of stored grain in Kuwait. J Univ Kuwait (Sci) 14:160–172

    Google Scholar 

  21. Javed M, Majeed MZ, Khaliq A, Arshad M, Ahmad MH, Sufyan M (2016) Quantitative losses in some advanced genotypes of barley incurred by Tribolium castaneum L. (Herbst). Int J Agron Agric Res 8(2):45–50

    Google Scholar 

  22. Astuti LP, Lestari YE, Rachmawati R, Mutalaliah (2020) Preference and development of Tribolium castaneum (Herbst, 1797) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) in whole grain and flour form of five corn varieties. Biodiversitas 21(2):564–569. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d210218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yao J, Chen C, Wu H, Chang J, Silver K, Campbell JF, Arthur FH, Zhu KY (2019) Differential susceptibilities of two closely-related stored product pests, the red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum) and the confused flour beetle (Tribolium confusum), to five selected insecticides. J Stored Prod Res 84:101524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2019.101524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kachhwaha N, Meena GD, Meena S (2015) Plant extracts control Oryzaephilus surinamensis by showing repellency behaviour. Eur J Exp Biol 5(5):98–101. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14216585.v1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Campbell JF, Hagstrum DW (2002) Patch exploitation by Tribolium castaneum: movement patterns, distribution and oviposition. J Stored Prod Res 38(1):55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-474X(00)00042-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Padin S, Dal Bello G, Fabrizio M (2002) Grain loss caused by Tribolium castaneum, Sitophilus oryzae and Acanthoscelides obtectus in stored durum wheat and beans treated with Beauveria bassiana. J Stored Prod Res 38(1):69–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-474X(00)00046-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Good NE (1936) The flour beetle of the genus Tribolium castaneum. Technical Bulletin of U.S. Department of Agriculture No. 498: 57. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/164672/files/tb498.pdf

  28. Pieterse AH, Schulten GGM, Kuyken W (1972) A study on insecticide resistance in Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae) in Malawi (Central Africa). J Stored Prod Res 8(3):183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-474X(72)90038-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Vojoudi S, Saber M, Mahdavi V, Golshan H, Abedi Z (2012) Efficacy of some insecticides against red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum Herbst (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) adults exposed on glass, ceramic tile, plastic and paper disc surfaces. J Life Sci 6:405–410

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Rauf A, Wilkins RM (2022) Malathion-resistant Tribolium castaneum has enhanced response to oxidative stress, immunity, and fitness. Pestic Biochem Physiol 184:105128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2022.105128

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Andrić G, Kljajić P, Perić I, Golić MP (2010) Susceptibility of red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) populations from Serbia to contact insecticides. Julius-Kühn-Archiv 425:869–873. https://doi.org/10.5073/jka.2010.425.103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Boyer S, Zhang H, Lempérière G (2012) A review of control methods and resistance mechanisms in stored-product insects. Bull Entomol Res 102(2):213–229. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485311000654

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Opit GP, Phillips TW, Aikins MJ, Hasan MM (2012) Phosphine resistance in Tribolium castaneum and Rhyzopertha dominica from stored wheat in Oklahoma. J Econ Entomol 105(4):1107–1114. https://doi.org/10.1603/ec12064

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dyte CE, Blackman DG (1972) Laboratory evaluation of organophosphorus insecticides against susceptible and malathion-resistance strains of Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae). J Stored Prod Res 8(2):103–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-474X(72)90027-6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Shamjana U, Grace T (2022) Review of insecticide resistance and its underlying mechanisms in Tribolium castaneum. In: Ranz RER (ed) Insecticides - impact and benefits of its use for humanity. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100050

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Dyte CE, Blackman DG (1970) The spread of insecticide resistance in Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera, Tenebrionidae). J Stored Prod Res 6(3):255–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-474X(70)90015-9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Richards S, Gibbs RA, Weinstock GM, Attaway T, Bell S, Buhay CJ, Sodergren E (2008) The genome of the model beetle and pest Tribolium castaneum. Nature 452(7190):949–955. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06784

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Farhana K, Islam H, Emran EH, Islam N (2006) Toxicity and repellant activity of three spice materials on Tribolium castaneum Herbst adults. J Bio-Sci 14:127–130. https://doi.org/10.3329/jbs.v14i0.457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Khalequzzaman M, Sultana S (2006) Insecticidal activity of Annona squamosa L. seed extracts against the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). J Bio-Sci 14:107–112. https://doi.org/10.3329/jbs.v14i0.453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Alam MA, Habib MR, Nikkon F, Khalequzzaman M, Karim MR (2009) Insecticidal activity of root bark of Calotropis gigantea L. against Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). World J Zool 4(2):90–95

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mamun MSA, Shahjahan M, Ahmad M (2009) Laboratory evaluation of some indigenous plant extracts as toxicants against red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum Herbst. J Bangl Agric Univ 7(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.3329/jbau.v7i1.4789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Tripathi AK, Singh AK, Upadhvav S (2009) Contact and fumigant toxicity of some common spices against the storage insects Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Burchidae) and Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Int J Trop Insect Sci 29(3):151–157. https://doi.org/10.1017/S174275840999018X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Bhagat R, Shinde V, Kulkarni DK (2011) Insecticidal properties of three Jatropha species against stored grain pests. Indian J Entomol 73(1):30–33

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sagheer M, Hasan M, Latif MA, Iqbal J (2011) Evaluation of some indigenous medicinal plants as a source of toxicant, repellent and growth inhibitors against Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Pak Entomol 33:87–91

    Google Scholar 

  45. Amin R, Mondol R, Rahman F, Alam J, Habib R, Hossain T (2012) Evaluation of insecticidal activity of three plant extracts against adult Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). Biologija 58(2):37–41. https://doi.org/10.6001/biologija.v58i2.2484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Mostafa M, Hossain H, Hossain MA, Biswas PKM, Hague MZ (2012) Insecticidal activity of plant extracts against Tribolium castaneum Herbst. J Adv Sci Res 3(3):80–84

    Google Scholar 

  47. Khan FZA, Sagheer M, Hasan M, Saeed S, Ali K, Gul HT, Bukhari SA, Manzoor SA (2013) Toxicological and repellent potential of some plant extracts against stored product insect pest, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Int J Biosc 3(9):280–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kathirvelu C, Raja RS (2015) Efficacy of selected plant extracts as insecticidal fumigant against certain stored grain insect pests under laboratory conditions. Plant Arch 15(1):259–266

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ali H, Islam S, Sabiha S, Rekha SB, Nesa M, Islam N (2017) Lethal action of Argemone mexicana L. extracts against Culex quinquefasciatus Say larvae and Tribolium castaneum (Hbst.) adults. J Pharm Phytochem 6(1):438–441

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Hasan K, Naser AA, Sabiha S, Nesa M, Khan M, Islam N (2018) Control potentials of Hyptis suaveolens L. (Poit) extracts against Artemia salina L. Nauplii and Tribolium castaneum (HBST) adults. J Entomol Zool Stud 6(1):785–789

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kundu BR, Ara R, Begum MM, Sarker ZI (2007) Effect of bishkatali, Polygonum hydropiper L. plant extracts against the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum Herbst. Univ J Zool Rajshahi Univ 26:93–97. https://doi.org/10.3329/ujzru.v26i0.708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Rajasekharreddy P, Rani PU (2010) Toxic properties of certain botanical extracts against three major stored product pests. J Biopest 3(3):586–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sathish K, Patgiri P (2017) Laboratory evaluation of some indigenous plant extracts as grain protectant against red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum Herbst. J Entomol Zool Stud 5(4):1600–1606

    Google Scholar 

  54. Pandi GGP, Adak T, Gowda B, Patil N, Annamalai M, Jena M (2018) Toxicological effect of underutilized plant, Cleistanthus collinus leaf extracts against two major stored grain pests, the rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae and red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 154:92–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.02.024

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Manonmani P, Rathi G, Ilango S (2018) Toxicity effect of Cymbopogon citratus (Lemon grass) powder and methanol extract against rust-red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Int J Appl Adv Sci Res 3(1):70–77. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1163668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Pugazhvendan SR, Ross PR, Elumalai K (2012) Insecticidal and repellant activities of four indigenous medicinal plants against stored grain pest, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Asian Pacific J Trop Dis 2(1):S16–S20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2222-1808(12)60116-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Elumalai A, Krishnappa K, Kalaichelvi N, Elumalai K (2015) Insecticidal, ovicidal and repellent activities of different solvent extracts of Rivina humilis Linn. (Phytolaccaceae) against the selected stored grain pest, Tribolium castaneum Herbs. (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Int J Adv Res Biol Sci 2(10):161–169

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Kouninki H, Mfouapon A, Sali MB (2017) Biological activities of Cassia mimosoides, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Vepris heterophylla plant extract toward old larvae and adults of Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Int J Sci Environ Technol 6(5):3196–3213

    Google Scholar 

  59. Pumnuan J, Namee D, Sarapothong K, Doungnapa T, Phutphat S, Pattamadilok C, Thipmanee K (2022) Insecticidal activities of long pepper (Piper retrofractum Vahl) fruit extracts against seed beetles (Callosobruchus maculatus Fabricius, Callosobruchus chinensis Linnaeus, and Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky) and their effects on seed germination. Heliyon 8(12):e12589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12589

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Lale NES, Alaga KA (2001) Exploring the insecticidal, larvicidal and repellent properties of Piper guineense Schum. Et Thonn. seed oil for the control of rust-red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) in stored pearl millet Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br. J Plant Dis Prot 108(3):305–313

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Upadhyay RK, Jaiswal G (2007) Evaluation of biological activities of Piper nigrum oil against Tribolium castaneum. Bull Insectol 60(1):57–61

    Google Scholar 

  62. Chukwulobe MN, Echezona BC (2014) Efficacy of three protectants, primiphos methyl, Piper guineense and Eugenia aromatica, against Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera Tenebrionidae) on stored chips of three Musa spp. World J Agric Res 2(3):136–141. https://doi.org/10.12691/wjar-2-3-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Al-Saadi TA (2017) Effect of some plant extracts against red flour beetle Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). Int J Curr Res 9(9):57462–57468

    Google Scholar 

  64. Huma BS, Saba B (2021) Repellent activity of extracts of black pepper, black seeds, garlic and white cumin against red flour beetle. Am Acad Sci Res J Eng Technol Sci 84(1):153–161

    Google Scholar 

  65. Satyavati GV, Gupta AK, Tandon N (1987) Medicinal plants of India. Indian Council Med Res 2(25):42

    Google Scholar 

  66. Gani HMO, Hoq MO, Tamanna T (2019) Ethnomedicinal, phytochemical and pharmacological properties of Piper longum (Linn). Asian J Med Biol Res 5(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.3329/AJMBR.V5I1.41038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lee HS (2005) Pesticidal constituents derived from Piperaceae fruits. Agric Chem Biotechnol 48(2):65–74

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Park BS, Lee SE, Choi WS, Jeong CY, Song C, Cho KY (2002) Insecticidal and acaricidal activity of pipernonaline and piperotadecalidine derived from dried fruits of Piper longum L. Crop Prot 21(3):249–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(01)00079-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Dey P, Goyary D, Chattopadhyay P, Kishor S, Karmakar S, Verma A (2020) Evaluation of larvicidal activity of Piper longum leaf against the dengue vector, Aedes aegypti, malarial vector, Anopheles stephensi and filariasis vector, Culex quinquefasciatus. S Afr J Bot 132:482–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2020.06.016

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Priya NRP, Jones RDS (2021) Evaluation of chemical composition and larvicidal efficacy of Piper longum L. leaf extract against Aedes aegypti. J Adv Sci Res 12(4):256–262

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Priya NRP, Jones RDS (2021) Larvicidal activity and GC-MS analysis of Piper longum L. leaf extract fraction against human vector mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae). Int J Mosq Res 8(4):31–37. https://doi.org/10.22271/23487941.2021.v8.i4a.548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Lee SE (2000) Mosquito larvicidal activity of pipernonaline a piperidine alkaloid derived from long pepper Piper longum. J Am Mosq Control Assoc 16(3):245–247

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Yang YG, Lee SG, Lee HK, Kim MK, Lee SH, Lee HS (2002) A piperidine amide extracted from Piper longum L. fruit shows activity against Aedes aegypti mosquito larvae. J Agric Food Chem 50(13):3765–3767. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf011708f

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Madhu SK, Vijayan VA, Shaukath AK (2011) Bioactivity guided isolation of mosquito larvicide from Piper longum. Asian Pac J Trop Med 4(2):112–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1995-7645(11)60048-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Vogel AL (1978) Text book of practical organic chemistry. The English Language Book Society and Longman London, London

    Google Scholar 

  76. Shaikh JR, Patil MK (2020) Qualitative tests for preliminary phytochemical screening: an overview. Int J Chem Stud 8(2):603–608. https://doi.org/10.22271/chemi.2020.v8.i2i.8834

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Arivoli S, Samuel T, Raveen R, Jayakumar M, Senthilkumar B, Govindarajan M, Babujanarthanam R, Vijayanand S (2016) Larvicidal activity of fractions of Sphaeranthus indicus Linnaeus (Asteraceae) ethyl acetate whole plant extract against Aedes aegypti Linnaeus 1762, Anopheles stephensi Liston 1901 and Culex quinquefasciatus Say 1823 (Diptera: Culicidae). Int J Mosq Res 3(2):18–30

    Google Scholar 

  78. Kanmani S, Kumar L, Raveen R, Samuel T, Arivoli S, Jayakumar M (2021) Toxicity of tobacco Nicotiana tabacum Linnaeus (Solanaceae) leaf extracts to the rice weevil Sitophilus oryzae Linnaeus 1763 (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J Basic Appl Zool 82:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41936-021-00207-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Duarte S, Limão J, Barros G, Bandarra NM, Roseiro LC, Gonçalves H, Martins LL, Mourato MP, Carvalho MO (2021) Nutritional and chemical composition of different life stages of Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). J Stored Prod Res 93:101826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2021.101826

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Mason LJ, Seal DR, Jansson RK (1991) Response of sweet potato weevil (Coleoptera: Apionidae) to selected insecticides. Florida Entomol 74(2):350–355. https://doi.org/10.2307/3495317

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Abbott WS (1925) A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J Econ Entomol 18(2):265–267. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/18.2.265a

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. SPSS (2021) IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 28.0. IBM Corp., Armonk

  83. Islam W (2017) Eco-friendly approaches for the management of red flour beetle: Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). Sci Lett 5(2):105–114

    Google Scholar 

  84. Babarinde SA, Oyegoke OO, Adekunle AE (2011) Larvicidal and insecticidal properties of Ricinus communis seed extracts obtained by different methods against Tribolium castaneum Herbst (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Arch Phytopathol Plant Prot 44(5):451–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/03235400903093220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Ghosh A, Chowdhury N, Chandra G (2012) Plant extracts as potential larvicides. Indian J Med Res 135(5):581–598

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Castillo-Sanchez LE, Jimenez-Osornio JJ, Delgado-Herrera MA (2010) Secondary metabolites of the Annonaceae, Solanaceae and Meliaceae families used as biological control of insects. Trop Subtrop Agroecosyst 12(3):445–462

    Google Scholar 

  87. Shaalan EAS, Canyonb D, Younesc MWF, Abdel-Wahab H, Mansour AH (2005) A review of botanical phytochemicals with mosquitocidal potential. Environ Int 31(8):1149–1166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2005.03.003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. El-Kamali HH (2009) Effect of certain medicinal plants extracts against storage pest, Tribolium castaneum Herbst. American-Eurasian J Sustain Agric 3(2):139–142

    Google Scholar 

  89. Abbasipour H, Mahmoudvand M, Rastegar F, Hosseinpour MH (2011) Bioactivities of jimsonweed extract, Datura stramonium L. (Solanaceae), against Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Turk J Agric For 35(6):623–629. https://doi.org/10.3906/tar-1004-874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Iram N, Muhammad A, Naheed A (2013) Evaluation of botanical and synthetic insecticide for the control of Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). BioAssay 8:3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Srinivasan K, Pugazhendy K, Rathika R (2014) Bio-efficacy of certain indigenous plant extracts against a storage pest Tribolium castaneum Herbst (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Asian J Sci Technol 5(2):143–147

    Google Scholar 

  92. Acheuk F, Belaid M, Lakhdari W, Abdellaoui K, Dehliz A, Mokrane K (2017) Repellency and toxicity of the crude ethanolic extract of Limoniastrum guyonianum against Tribolium castaneum. Tunis J Plant Prot 12:71–81

    Google Scholar 

  93. Panezai G, Javaid M, Shahid S, Noor W, Bibi Z, Ejaz A (2019) Effect of four plant extracts against Trogoderma granarium and Tribolium castaneum. Pak J Bot 51(3):1149–1153

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Chaithong U, Choochote W, Kamsuk K, Jitpakdi A, Tippawangkosol P, Chaiyasit D, Champakaew D, Tuetun B, Pitasawat B (2006) Larvicidal effect of pepper plants on Aedes aegypti (L.) (Diptera: Culicidae). J Vect Ecol 31(1):138–144. https://doi.org/10.3376/1081-1710(2006)31[138:leoppo]2.0.co;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Choochote W, Chaithong U, Kamsuk K, Rattanachananpichai E, Jitpakdi A, Tippawangkosol P, Chaiyasit D, Champakaew D, Tuetun B, Pitasawat B (2006) Adulticidal activity against Stegomyia aegypti (Diptera: Culicisdae) of three Piper spp. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo 48(1):33–37. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0036-46652006000100007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Marques AM, Kaplan MAC (2015) Active metabolites of the genus Piper against Aedes aegypti: natural alternative sources for dengue vector control. Universitas Sci 20(1):61–82. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.SC20-1.amgp

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Ratwatthananon A, Yooboon T, Bullangpoti V, Pluempanupat W (2020) Insecticidal activity of Piper retrofractum fruit extracts and isolated compounds against Spodoptera litura. Agric Nat Resour 54(4):447–452

    Google Scholar 

  98. Scott IM, Puniani E, Durst T, Phelps D, Merali S, Assabgui RA, Sánchez-Vindas P, Poveda L, Philogène BJR, Arnason JT (2002) Insecticidal activity of Piper tuberculatum Jacq. extracts synergistic interaction of piperamides. Agric For Entomol 4(2):137–144. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-9563.2002.00137.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Scott IM, Jensen H, Scott JG, Isman MB, Arnason JT, Philogene BJR (2003) Botanical insecticides for controlling agricultural pests: piperamides and the Colorado potato beetle Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Arch Insect Biochem Physiol 54(4):212–225. https://doi.org/10.1002/arch.10118

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Scott IM, Jensen HR, Philogene BJR, Arnason JT (2008) A review of Piper spp. (Piperaceae) phytochemistry, insecticidal activity and mode of action. Phytochem Rev 7:65–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11101-006-9058-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Awoyinka O, Oyewole I, Amos B, Onasoga O (2006) Comparative pesticidal activity of dichloromethane extracts of Piper nigrum against Sitophilus zeamais and Callosobruchus maculatus. Afr J Biotechnol 5(24):2446–2449

    Google Scholar 

  102. Nzelu CO, Emeasor KC, Okonkwo NJ (2020) Insecticidal activity of Piper guineense (Schumach and Thonn) seed oil against Callosobruchus maculatus (F) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in stored cowpea seeds. Int J Res Granthaalayah 8(8):262–270. https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i8.2020.875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Akhideno LO, Yusuf AS, Bak-Polor VR, Isibor J, Akemien NN, Adaaja BO (2021) Insecticidal effect of Piper guineense seed powder in the control of beans weevil Callosobruchus maculatus (Fabr). J Appl Sci Environ Manag 25(5):871–875. https://doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v25i5.29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Khani M, Awang M, Omar D (2012) Insecticidal effects of peppermint and black pepper essential oils against rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae L. and rice moth, Corcyra cephalonica (St.). J Med Plants 11(43):97–110

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Khani M, Awang RM, Omar D, Rahmani M (2013) Toxicity, antifeedant, egg hatchability and adult emergence effect of Piper nigrum L. and Jatropha curcas L. extracts against rice moth, Corcyra cephalonica (Stainton). J Med Plants Res 7(18):1255–1262

    Google Scholar 

  106. Hematpoor A, Liew SY, Azirun MS, Awang K (2017) Insecticidal activity and the mechanism of action of three phenylpropanoids isolated from the roots of Piper sarmentosum Roxb. Sci Rep 7:12576. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12898-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. Sleem FMA (2021) Insecticidal effect of Piper nigrum L. (Piperaceae) and Prunus cerasus L. (Rosaceae) seeds extract against Rhyzopertha dominica F. (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae). Int J Agric Innov Res 9(3):245–252

    Google Scholar 

  108. Sara JJ, Surendran M, Nimmy J, Ambily AK, Gayathri P (2022) Insecticidal activity of leaf powders against rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae. J Entomol Res 46(4):716–721. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-4576.2022.00124.4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Kaou AM, Mahiou-Leddet V, Canlet C, Debrauwer L, Hutter S, Azas N, Ollivier E (2010) New amide alkaloid from the aerial part of Piper capense L.f. (Piperaceae). Fitoterapia 81(6):632–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fitote.2010.03.006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Nikolaou P, Marciniak P, Adamski Z, Ntalli N (2021) Controlling stored products’ pests with plant secondary metabolites: a review. Agriculture 11(9):879. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11090879

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Weissenberg M, Levy A, Svoboda JA, Ishaaya I (1998) The effect of some Solanum steroidal alkaloids and glycoalkaloids on larvae of the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum, and the tobacco hornworm, Manduca sexta Phytochemistry 47(2):203–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9422(97)00565-7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Wongo LE (1998) Biological activity of sorghum tannin extracts on the stored grain pests of Sitophilus oryzae (L.), Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier) and Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). Int J Trop Insect Sci 18(1):17–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742758400007414

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Jbilou R, Ennabili A, Sayah F (2006) Insecticidal activity of four medicinal plant extracts against Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Afr J Biotechnol 5(10):936–940

    Google Scholar 

  114. Chaubey MK (2012) Acute, lethal and synergistic effects of some terpenes against Tribolium castaneum Herbst (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Ecol Balkanica 4(1):53–62

    Google Scholar 

  115. Brari J, Kumar V (2020) Insecticidal potential of two monoterpenes against Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) and Sitophilus oryzae (L.) major stored product insect pests. Int J Pharm Biol Arch 11(4):175–181

    Google Scholar 

  116. Shany S, Gestetner B, Birk Y, Bondi A (1970) Lucerne saponins III. – effect of lucerne saponins on larval growth and their detoxification by various sterols. J Sci Food Agric 21(10):508–510. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740211005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Pemonge J, Pascual-Villalobos MJ, Regnault-Roger C (1997) Effects of material and extracts of Trigonella foenum-graecum L. against the stored product pests Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J Stored Prod Res 33(3):209–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-474X(97)00007-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Sami AJ, Bilal S, Khalid M, Nazir MT, Shakoori ARA (2018) Comparative study of inhibitory properties of saponins (derived from Azadirachta indica) for acetylcholinesterase of Tribolium castaneum and Apis mellifera. Pak J Zool 50(2):725–733. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/2018.50.2.725.733

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  119. Houghton PJ, Ren Y, Howes MJ (2006) Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors from plants and fungi. Nat Prod Rep 23(2):181–199. https://doi.org/10.1039/b508966m

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Lima MGA, Maia ICC, Sousa BD, Morais SM, Freitas SM (2006) Effect of stalk and leaf extracts from Euphorbiaceae species on Aedes aegypti (Diptera, Culicidae) larvae. Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo 48(4):211–214. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0036-46652006000400007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Rice P, Coats J (1994) Insecticidal properties of several monoterpenoides to the house fly (Diptera: Muscidae), red flour beetle (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), and southern corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J Econ Entomol 87(5):1172–1179. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/87.5.1172

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Mary R, Durga V (2017) Toxic effect of Piper nigrum and Zingiber officinale exyracts on the mortality of flour beetle Tribolium castaneum Herbst (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) on stored wheat. World J Pharm Pharm Sci 6(5):1439–1446. https://doi.org/10.20959/WJPPS201705-9180

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  123. Choudhary N, Singh V (2018) A census of P. longum’s phytochemicals and their network pharmacological evaluation for identifying novel drug-like molecules against various diseases, with a special focus on neurological disorders. PLoS ONE 13(1):e0191006. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Das J, Jha DK (2013) Antidermatophytic activity of some medicinal plants, phytochemical analysis and isolation of active fractions from Piper longum. J Pure Appl Microbiol 7(4):3207–3212

    Google Scholar 

  125. Varsha H, Sonali S (2014) Studies on qualitative phytochemical analysis of selected species of Piper. Int J Life Sci 2:156–158

    Google Scholar 

  126. Pal VJS, Ramya N, Senthilkumaran K, Senthilnathan B, Murugan M (2018) Phytochemical and qualitative analysis of leaves of Melia azedarach and seeds of Piper longum. J Chem Pharm Res 10(2):25–31

    Google Scholar 

  127. Sultana NA, Zilani MMNH, Taraq KTM, Al-Din MK (2019) Phytochemical, antibacterial and antioxidant activity of Piper longum leaves. Pharmacol Online 1:27–35

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. Sindhu S, Manorama S, Alfamol PM (2013) Preliminary phytochemical analysis and antimicrobial activity of Piper longum L. (Piperaceae). Mintage J Pharm Med Sci 2(1):21–23

    Google Scholar 

  129. Kavitha S, Kannan MVR, Mani P (2020) Identification of bioactive compounds in the leaves extract of Piper longum using GCMS. Res J Pharm Technol 13(7):3169–3170. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-360X.2020.00560.0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. García M, Donadel OJ, Ardanaz CE, Tonn CE, Sosa ME (2005) Toxic and repellent effects of Baccharis salicifolia essential oil on Tribolium castaneum. Pest Manag Sci 61(6):612–618. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.1028

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Spochacz M, Chowanski S, Walkowiak-Nowicka K, Szymczak M, Adamski Z (2018) Plant-derived substances used against beetles–pests of stored crops and food–and their mode of action: a review. Compre Rev Food Sci Food Saf 17(5):1339–1366. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Hale AL, Meepagala KM, Oliva A, Aliotta G, Duke SO (2004) Phytotoxins from the leaves of Ruta graveolens. J Agric Food Chem 52(11):3345–3349. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0497298

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Abrosca BD, Greca MD, Fiorentino A, Monaco P, Natale A, Oriano P, Zarrelli A (2005) Structural characterization of phytotoxic terpenoids from Cestrum parqui. Phytochemistry 66(22):2681–2688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2005.09.011

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  134. Ravi R, Zulkrnin NSH, Rozhan NN, Yusoff NRN, Rasat MSM, Ahmad MI, Hamzah Z, Ishak IH, Amin MFM (2018) Evaluation of two different solvents for Azolla pinnata extracts on chemical compositions and larvicidal activity against Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae). J Chem 1:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7453816

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  135. Vivekanandhan P, Kavitha T, Karthi S, Senthil-Nathan S, Shivakumar MS (2018) Toxicity of Beauveria bassiana-28 mycelial extracts on larvae of Culex quinquefasciatus mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae). Int J Environ Res Public Health 15(3):440. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030440

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  136. Ravikumar P (2010) Chemical examination and insecticidal properties of Tagetes erecta and Tagetes patula. Asian J Bio Sci 5(1):29–31

    Google Scholar 

  137. Abdullah RRH (2019) Insecticidal activity of secondary metabolites of locally isolated fungal strains against some cotton insect pests. J Plant Prot Pathol 10(12):647–653. https://doi.org/10.21608/JPPP.2019.79456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Satyan RS, Malarvannan S, Eganathan P, Rajalakshmi S, Parida A (2009) Growth inhibitory activity of fatty acid methyl esters in the whole seed oil of Madagascar Periwinkle (Apocyanaceae) against Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J Econ Entomol 102(3):1197–1202. https://doi.org/10.1603/029.102.0344

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Coloma AG, Reina M, Diaz CE, Fraga BM (2010) Natural product-based biopesticides for insect. In comprehensive natural products II. Chem Biol 3:237–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008045382-8.00074-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Praveena A, Sanjayan KP (2016) A bioinformatics approach reveals the insecticidal property of Morinda tinctoria Roxb. against the cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera. Res J Pharm Technol 9(11):1829–1834. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-360X.2016.00372.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Motukuri SRK, Nagini DV, Nallamothu J, Karthikeyan S (2021) In silico molecular docking studies of volatile compounds identified by GC-MS from Tagetes species against Mamestra brassicae (Linnaeus, 1758). Nature Environ Pollut Technol 20(3):1237–1242. https://doi.org/10.46488/NEPT.2021.v20i03.033

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  142. Figueroa-Brito R, Camino M, Pérez-Amador MC, Muñoz V, Bratoeff E, Labastida C (2002) Fatty acid composition and toxic activity of the acetonic extract of Carica papaya L. (Caricaceae) seeds. Phyton-Int J Exp Bot 69:97–99

    Google Scholar 

  143. Ramos-López MA, González-Chávez MM, Cárdenas-Ortega NC, Sánchez ZMA, Pérez GS (2012) Activity of the main fatty acid components of the hexane leaf extract of Ricinus communis against Spodoptera frugiperda. Afr J Biotechnol 11(18):4274–4278

    Google Scholar 

  144. Evangelista-Lozano S, Reyes-Vaquero L, de Jesús-Sánchez A, Ávila-Reyes SV, Jiménez-Aparicio AR (2018) Chemistry and insecticide activity of Bougainvillea glabra Choisy against Spodoptera frugiperda Smith. J Agric Life Sci 5(2):38–45. https://doi.org/10.30845/jals.v5n2p6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Barakat DA (2011) Insecticidal and antifeedant activities and chemical composition of Casimiroa edulis La Llave & Lex (Rutaceae) leaf extract and its fractions against Spodoptera littoralis larvae. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 5(9):693–703

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  146. Neggaz S, Chenni M, Zitouni-Haouar FE, Fernandez X (2020) Mycochemical composition and insecticidal bioactivity of Algerian desert truffles extract against two stored-product insects: Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and Rhyzopertha dominica (F.) (Coleoptera: Bostrychidae). 3 Biotech 10(11):481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-020-02472-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  147. Abay G, Altun M, Karakoc OC, Gul F, Demirtas I (2013) Insecticidal activity of fatty acid-rich Turkish bryophyte extracts against Sitophilus granarius (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Comb Chem High T Scr 16(10):806–816. https://doi.org/10.2174/13862073113169990049

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Rajkumar V, Gunasekaran C, Dharmaraj J, Chinnaraj P, Paul CA, Christy IK (2018) Insecticidal property of Solanum trilobatum L. extract against stored-grain pests. Int J Adv Res Biol Sci 5(9):145–155

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  149. Lawal OA, Opoku AR, Ogunwande IA (2015) Phytoconstituents and insecticidal activity of different solvent leaf extracts of Chromolaena odorata L., against Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Eur J Med Plants 5(3):237–247. https://doi.org/10.9734/EJMP/2015/6739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Mokhtar MM, Li J, Du Z, Cheng F (2021) Insecticidal efficacy and chemical composition of Balanites aegyptiaca (L.) Delile seed oils against Tribolium castaneum Herbst (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Chil J Agric Res 81(1):102–108. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392021000100102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Sivakumar R, Jebanesan A, Govindarajan M, Rajasekar P (2011) Larvicidal and repellent activity of tetradecanoic acid against Aedes aegypti (Linn.) and Culex quinquefasciatus (Say.) (Diptera: Culicidae). Asian Pacific J Trop Med 4(9):706–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1995-7645(11)60178-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Ayaz M, Junaid M, Ullah F, Sadiq A, Ovais M, Ahmad W, Ahmad S, Zeb A (2016) Chemical profiling, antimicrobial and insecticidal evaluations of Polygonum hydropiper L. BMC Complement Altern Med 16(1):502. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-016-1491-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  153. Zheng C, Zeng L, Xu Y (2016) Effect of sweeteners on the survival and behaviour of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae): Effect of sweeteners on Bactrocera dorsalis. Pest Manag Sci 72(5):990–996. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.4079

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Zhang X, Chen S, Li Z, Xu Y (2017) Effect of sweeteners on the survival of Solenopsis invicta (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J Econ Entomol 110(2):593–597. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tox038

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Pasdaran A, Sarker SD, Naharr L, Hamedi A (2020) Chemical composition, antibacterial, insecticidal and anti-oxidant activities of three Acantholimon species (A. atropatanum, A. gilliatii and A. tragacanthium). Nat Prod J 10(3):272–278. https://doi.org/10.2174/2210315509666190117153456

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  156. Hammami S, Khoja I, Jannet HB, Halima MB, Mighri Z (2006) Flowers essential oil composition of Tunisian Matthiola longipetala and its bioactivity against Tribolium confusum insect. J Essent Oil Bear Plants 9(2):156–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/0972060X.2006.10643488

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  157. Ramsewak RS, Nair MG, Murugesan S, Mattson WJ, Zasada J (2001) Insecticidal fatty acids and triglycerides from Dirca palustris. J Agric Food Chem 49(12):5852–5856. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf010806y

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Lee M, Lee S, Kang M, Park B, Lee S, Lee H (2018) Acaricidal and insecticidal properties of Coriandrum sativum oils and their major constituents extracted by three different methods against stored product pests. Appl Biol Chem 61(5):481–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13765-018-0379-z

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  159. Aider FA, Kellouche A, Fellag H, Debras JF (2016) Evaluation of the bio-insecticidal effects of the main fatty acids of olive oil on Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.)). J Plant Dis Prot 123(5):235–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41348-016-0034-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Zayed MZ, Samling B (2016) Phytochemical constituents of the leaves of Leucaena leucocephala from Malaysia. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 8(12):174–179

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  161. Ren Y, Shi J, Mu Y, Tao K, Jin H, Hou T (2019) AW1 neuronal cell cytotoxicity: the mode of action of insecticidal fatty acids. J Agric Food Chem 67(43):12129–12136. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.9b02197

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  162. de Melo AR, Garcia IJP, Serrao JE, Santos HL, Lima LARD, Alves SN (2018) Toxicity of different fatty acids and methyl esters on Culex quinquefasciatus larvae. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 154:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.02.009

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. Démares F, Coquerel Q, Richoux G, Linthicum K, Bloomquist J (2018) Fatty acid and related potassium Kv2 channel blockers: toxicity and physiological actions on mosquitoes. Insects 9(4):155. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects9040155

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  164. House HL, Graham AR (1967) Capric acid blended into foodstuff for control of an insect pest, Tribolium confusum. (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Can Entomol 99:994–999. https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent99994-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  165. Siegler EH, Popenoe CH (1924) Some insecticidal properties of the fatty acids series. J Agric Res 29(5):259–261

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  166. Siegler E, Popenoe C (1925) The fatty acids as contact insecticides. J Econ Entomol 18(2):292–299

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  167. Sims SR, Balusu RR, Ngumbi EN, Appel AG (2014) Topical and vapor toxicity of saturated fatty acids to the German cockroach (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae). J Econ Entomol 107(2):758–763. https://doi.org/10.1603/ec12515

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  168. Moreira MD, Picanço MC, de Almeida LBC, Guedes RNC, de Campos MR, Silva GA, Martins JC (2007) Plant compounds insecticide activity against Coleoptera pests of stored products. Pesqui Agropecu Bras 42(7):909–915. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2007000700001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  169. Wink M (2015) Modes of action of herbal medicines and plant secondary metabolites. Medicines 2(3):251–286. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicines2030251

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  170. Fang L, Subramanyam B, Arthur FH (2002) Effectiveness of spinosad on four classes of wheat against five stored-product insects. J Econ Entomol 95(3):640–650. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493-95.3.640

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  171. Wang JJ, Cheng W, Ding W, Zhao ZM (2004) The effect of the insecticide dichlorvous on esterase activity extracted from the psocids, Liposcelis bostrychophila and Liposcelis entomophila. J Insect Sci 4:23. https://doi.org/10.1093/jis/4.1.23

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  172. Mathur YK, Kirpa S, Salik R (1985) Evaluation of some grain protectants against Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) on black gram. Bull Grain Technol 23:253–259

    Google Scholar 

  173. Kostyukovsky M, Rafaeli A, Gileadi C, Demchenko N, Shaaya E (2002) Activation of octopaminergic receptors by essential oil constituents isolated from aromatic plants: possible mode of action against insect pests. Pest Manag Sci 58(11):1101–1106. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.548

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Nerio LS, Olivero-Verbel J, Stashenko E (2010) Repellent activity of essential oils: a review. Bioresour Technol 101(1):372–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.07.048

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  175. Liu ZL, Ho SH (1999) Bioactivity of the essential oil extracted from Evodia rutaecarpa Hook et Thomas against the grain storage insects, Sitophilus zeamais Motsch. and Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). J Stored Prod Res 35(4):317–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-474X(99)00015-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agencies in the public or commercial sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Zoology, Scott Christian College, Nagercoil, Tamil Nadu, 629 003, India

    Justin Kumar & Grace Marin

  2. Department of Zoology, Thiruvalluvar University, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, 632 115, India

    Subramanian Arivoli

  3. Department of Zoology, Madras Christian College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600 059, India

    Samuel Tennyson

Authors
  1. Justin Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Grace Marin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Subramanian Arivoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Samuel Tennyson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JK and ST contributed to conception and design of the experiments. JK and GM prepared the phytoextracts, fractions and performed the bioassay experiments. JK and SA carried GC–MS analysis. ST wrote the manuscript. All authors have read and given their approval to the final version of the manuscript.

Plant authentication

The taxonomic identity of the plant material was confirmed and authenticated by Dr. S. Jeeva, Assistant Professor, Department of Botany, Scott Christian College, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu, India.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samuel Tennyson.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable for this work.

Consent for publication

All authors have approved the publication of this study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kumar, J., Marin, G., Arivoli, S. et al. Assessment of Piper longum L. (Piperaceae) leaves toxicity on the adults of Tribolium castaneum (Herbst, 1797) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). Futur J Pharm Sci 10, 134 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43094-024-00710-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43094-024-00710-5

Keywords