Bioactivity of Cinnamomum verum powder and extract against Cryptolestes ferrugineus S., Rhyzopertha dominica F. and Sitophilus granarius L. (Coleoptera)

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2633903/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Bioactivity of Cinnamomum verum powder and extract against Cryptolestes ferrugineus S., Rhyzopertha dominica F. and Sitophilus granarius L. (Coleoptera)

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2633903/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

The world is heading to increase the productivity, quantity and quality, of basic crops, but the stored grain pests destroy all these efforts and reduce its quality. This study aims to assess activity of Cinnamomum verum powder and extract against Cryptolestes ferrugineus, Rhyzopertha dominica, and Sitophilus granarius. Residual film of cinnamon was tested with and without grains (as contact toxicity). Repellent activity was estimated by using choice chamber method and waved filter paper for powder and extract, respectively. There were significant differences among all tested insects. S. granarius was more affected with cinnamon extract than C. ferrugineus followed by R. dominica. LC₅₀ values were 1.01, 1.37 and 3.13% at 24 h. While, C. ferrugineus was more affected with powder than S. granarius followed by R. dominica. For repellent activity, C. ferrugineus was the most affected with the powder and extract followed by R. dominica and S. granarius, where, the mean repellent percentages were 100, 98 and 82% for the powder and 86.94, 62.78 and 29.44% for the extract, respectively. The repellent percentage increased with increasing the concentration and the time of exposure. Cinnamon powder and extract can be used as insecticide against stored grain pests by easy way and safety to human and the environment.

Toxicity

Repellent activity

Cinnamomum verum

Cryptolestes ferrugineus

Rhyzopertha dominica

Sitophilus granarius

Rice is the second important cereal in the world. Asian countries produce the majority, followed by the Mediterranean basin and temperate Europe (Monaco et al. 2016). The farmers use all agriculture methods to increase the final crops in quantity and quality to meet the human demand (Oerke 2006), but the stored grain pests destroy all these efforts and cause loss in the crop and its quality.

Sitophilus granarius, Rhyzopertha dominica and Cryptolestes ferrugineus are worldwide insects (Tay et al. 2016). Sitophilus granarius and Rhyzopertha dominica are primary stored grains pests, while, Cryptolestes ferrugineus is secondary. These insects develop within the germ of the cereal grain under the seed coat until the insect pupates (White and Bell 1990). These insects destroy the entire grains or seeds and prevent germination of them when used in the farm (Shepard 1947). Moreover, the stored grains insects feed on the germ and endosperm decreasing the protein, carbohydrate and fat contents (Stathers et al. 2020). Farmers protect the stored crops using various methods, including pesticides.

The disadvantages of the using of synthetic pesticides such as persistence, pest resistance, high cost, harmful on humans and non-target organisms lead to use the plants which possess pesticides properties. These compounds are safe for human and the environment (Eyhorn et al. 2015; Ito et al. 2020; Singha et al. 2021).

The plant kingdom has a variety of chemicals which consider as pest control agents (Maedeh et al. 2012). Cinnamomum verum belongs to family Lauraceae. C. verum is rich in cinnamaldehyde and eugenol in bark extract, which have insecticidal and repellent activity for insects (Maruthamuthu and Ramanathan 2016; Ngoh et al. 1998; Yang et al. 2020). Moreover, it is used in food, drugs and industrial products where, it has been used in cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries (Nabavi et al. 2015; Singha et al. 2020). Cinnamon is a natural antimicrobial in milk and flavored milk beverages to increase its popularity (Cava et al. 2007). In addition to, essential oil of cinnamon has antibacterial and antifungal effect (Kwak et al. 2017; Lee et al. 2020; Sharifan et al. 2016), insecticidal activity (Ali et al. 2019; Gamarra and Matallana 2019; Rodriguez et al. 2015) and repellent effects (Boito et al. 2018; Ikawati et al. 2020). This study aims to assess the effect of C. verum powder and extract for control of the stored product insects.

2.1 Tested insects

Cryptolestes ferrugineus, flat grain beetle (Cucujidae), Rhyzopertha dominica, lesser grain borer (Bostrichidae) and Sitophilus granarius, granary weevil (Curculionidae), were collected from farmers’ infested stored rice in El-Mahala El-Kobra, Egypt. Rice grains were used to feed R. dominica and they mixed with wheat bran (9:1) to feed C. ferrugineus and S. granarius.

2.2 Preparation of cinnamon powder

Cinnamon bark was crushed by using mortar to small particles. After that, the small particles were grinded in an electric blender to fine powder. The fine powder was kept at room temperature in a plastic bag.

2.3 Preparation of Cinnamomum verum extract

The macerating method was used to extract the active components. About 100 g of bark powder was soaked in petroleum ether, 150 ml (99%) for about three weeks twice with occasionally stirring. The mixture was filtered using filter paper (Whatman No. 1), and the cakes were re-extracted with another 150 ml. Finally, the mixture was filtrated. The collected filtrates were exposed to the air to evaporate the solvent at room conditions. About 0.8% (v/w) of cinnamon extract was obtained. The stock solution 4% (v/v) was prepared in acetone (99.9%) and four concentrations of cinnamon extract were prepared (0.5, 1, 2 and 3%).

2.4 Contact toxicity

2.4.1 Contact toxicity of cinnamon powder

Bracketing test was done with one replication to select the concentrations which caused mortality ranged from 1 to 100%. Ten grams of rice grains were mixed with 1, 2, 3 and 4g of C. verum powder into Petri dishes 9 cm. The Petri dishes were shaken. Ten adults of C. ferrugineus, R. dominica and S. granarius were exposed to treatments, separately. All Petri dishes were maintained at a room conditions in the dark. Control was applied without using cinnamon powder (Manonmani et al. 2018) Insect mortality was recorded three times, after 24, 48 and 72 h of exposure. Three replicates were applied.

2.4.2 Contact toxicity of cinnamon extract

The residual film method was used in this study. One ml of each concentration was spread on the surface of the Petri dishes (9 cm in diameter). Two hours, enough to evaporate the solvent, leaving a thin film of the extract. Ten adults of C. ferrugineus, R. dominica and S. granarius were released separately into each Petri dish and covered with a lid. One ml of acetone was used as control. The experiment was repeated three times. Insect mortality was recorded after 24, 48 and 72 h after exposure of cinnamon bark petroleum ether extract (Busvine 1971). No mortality was observed in control, so we did not need to correct the percentage of mortality.

2.5 Repellent activity

2.5.1 Repellent activity of cinnamon powder

Repellent activity of cinnamon powder against C. ferrugineus, R. dominica and granarius was studied "According to Saljoqi et al. 2006" using two clear glass bottles as describe of (Ismail and Sleem 2020). The first one was considered as control (position A) and 3g of rice were put into it. The second was considered as (position B) and 10g of rice grains were weighed into it and were mixed with 1, 2, 3 and 4g of cinnamon powder, separately. All tested insects were starved for 4 h before using them. Ten adults of them were then carefully exposed to treatments, separately. The two bottles’ mouths were attached with white cello-tape horizontally and saved in the dark at room conditions. The treatments were repeated three times. After 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 h of treatment, the number of insects in control (A) and treatment (B) were recorded and the insects which found in both of bottlenecks were considered in control. The Percentage repellency (Pc) and the Excess Proportion Index (EPI) were calculated "According to Sakuma and Fukami 1986".

2.5.2 Repellent activity of cinnamon extract

The area preference method was used "According to McDonald et al. 1970" with some modifications (Sleem 2020). A filter paper disc 9 cm (Whatman No. 1) was waved and then divided to two halves. One half was treated with 0.5 ml of each concentrate as treatment, separately. The other half was treated with 0.5 ml of acetone as control. Both of them were left in air to remove the solvent completely. The treated and untreated halves were fixed in Petri dishes without using cello-tape to give the free movement of the insects from one half to another and make a whole circle. Ten adults of tested insects were released into each Petri dish and covered with a lid. The treatments were done three times. The number of tested insects on the treated and untreated halves was recorded after 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 h. Percentage repellency (PR) was calculated by using the following formula:

$$\text{P}\text{R}=\left(\text{N}\text{c}-50\right)\text{*}2$$

Where, Nc is the percentage of insects present in the control. Positive PR values indicate repellence whereas, negative values indicate attraction. PR value was calculated and assigned to repellence classes from 0 to V, class 0 (PR < 0.1%), class I (PR = 0.1–20%), class II (PR = 20.1–40%), class III (PR = 40.1–60%), class IV (PR = 60.1–80%), class V (PR = 80.1–100%) "According to Jilani and Su 1983".

2.6 Statistical analysis

LC₅₀ values were calculated by using Probit analyses by using LdP Line Ehab Bakr software, http://www.ehabsoft.com/ldpline/onlinecontrol.htm "According to Finney 1971". Arc-sine transformation was used to transform the mortality percentage values before analyses of variance (ANOVA) because the percentages were in 0 to 100% range. And, the repellent percentages were transformed to square root, where, the values ranged in 70–100%.

3.1 Contact toxicity

3.1.1 Contact toxicity of powder

The contact toxicity of cinnamon bark powder against R. dominica, C. ferrugineus and S. granarius was investigated. The results showed that there were significant differences among the three tested insects. Cinnamon powder was more active on C. ferrugineus than S. granarius followed by R. dominica (Table 1). The effect of cinnamon powder against tested insects was increased with increasing of concentration and exposure time. Where, the percentage mortalities were 73.3, 100 and 100% at 10% against C. ferrugineus after 24, 48 and 72 h, respectively. For S. granarius and R. dominica, they were 23.33, 30 and 60% and 3.33, 10 and 26.67%, respectively at the same concentration and the same time. Moreover, the mortality percentages were 100, 43.33 and 23.33% at 20% of cinnamon powder against C. ferrugineus, S. granarius and R. dominica after 24 h. In addition to, the mortality percentages were 60 and 100% against S. granarius and 40 and 56.67% against R. dominica at 48 and 72 h, respectively at the same concentration. Also the results in (Table 2) reveals that the cinnamon powder was more effective against S. granarius than R. dominica. Where, LC₅₀ values were 2.14 and 2.83% at 24 h, 1.44 and 2.11% at 48 h for S. granarius and R. dominica, respectively.

Table 1

Mortality percentage of *S. granarius, R. dominica* and *C. ferrugineus* exposed to four concentrations of *C. verum* powder
Insect	Conc. (%)	% Mortality (Mean ± SE)			Mean	Mean
Insect	Conc. (%)	24 h	48 h	72 h	Mean	Mean
S. granarius	10	23.33 ± 1.35g	30.0 ± 0.19g	60.00 ± 0.6de	37.78 h	71.39 B
	20	43.33 ± 0.19f	60.0 ± 0.58de	100.0 ± 0.00a	67.78 f
	30	56.67 ± 0.19e	100 ± 0.00a	100.0 ± 0.00a	85.56 d
	40	83.33 ± 0.19b	100 ± 0.00a	100.0 ± 0.00a	94.44 b
R. dominica	10	03.33 ± 0.19h	10.0 ± 0.58	26.67 ± 0.19g	13.33 i	54.44 C
	20	23.33 ± 0.77g	40.0 ± 0.58f	56.67 ± 0.77e	40.00 g
	30	56.67 ± 1.3e	80.0 ± 0.58bc	96.67 ± 0.19a	77.78 e
	40	73.33 ± 1.4cd	86.67 ± 0.77b	100.0 ± 0.00a	86.67 d
C. ferrugineus	10	73.3 ± 0.19cd	100.0 ± 0.00a	100.0 ± 0.00a	91.11 c	78.22 A
	20	100 ± 0.00a	100.0 ± 0.00a	100.0 ± 0.00a	100 a
	30	100 ± 0.00a	100.0 ± 0.00a	100.0 ± 0.00a	100 a
	40	100 ± 0.00a	100.0 ± 0.00a	100.0 ± 0.00a	100 a
Control		00.0 ± 0.00i	00.00 ± 0.00i	00.00 ± 0.00i	00.00 j	0.00 D
Mean		c44.22	b60.44	a 69.33

Values followed by the same letter are not significantly different “According to the Fisher’s LSD test (*p ≤ 0.05)”

LSD_0.05 among of S. granarius, R. dominica and C. ferrugineus = 5.4

LSD_0.05 among 24, 48 and 72 h = 2.22 LSD_0.05 among 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4% = 2.54

LSD_0.05 among (insect*time*concentration) = 7.6

Table 2

Probit analysis of mortality for *S. granarius* and *R. dominica* adults exposed to four concentrations of *C. verum* powder
Insect	Time (h)	LC₅₀ %95 C.L	Slope ± SE	ᵡ²
S. granaries	24	2.14 (1.66–2.68)	2.54 ± 0.56	2.18 NS
	48	1.44 (1.16–1.71)	4.09 ± 0.79	3.78 NS
	72	--	--	--
R. dominica	24	2.83 (2.45–3.34)	4.45 ± 0.78	0.23 NS
	48	2.11 (1.79–2.43)	4.23 ± 0.68	1.13 NS
	72	1.5	4.26 ± 0.81	4.3 s

3.1.2 Contact toxicity of extract

The toxicity of C. verum extract against S. granarius, C. ferrugineus and R. dominica was revealed in (Table 3). There were significant differences among all tested insects. S. granarius adults were more affected with cinnamom extract than C. ferrugineus followed by R. dominica. In generally, the mortality percentages were increased with increasing of the concentration. Where, the mean mortality percentages were 79.17, 63.89 and 43.08% for S. granarius, C. ferrugineus and R. dominica, respectively. The mortality percentages were 20, 6.67 and 0.0% after 24 h, 66.67, 13.33 and 10% after 48 h and 83.33, 46.67 and 43.33% after 72 h at 0.5% of cinnamon extract for S. granarius, C. ferrugineus and R. dominica, respectively. While, at concentration 1%, the mortality percentages were 46.67, 36.67 and 13.33% after 24 h, 73.33, 53.33 and 16.67% after 48 h, and 93.33, 76.67 and 63.33% after 72 h for S. granarius, C. ferrugineus and R. dominica, respectively. In addition to, at concentration 2%, they were 76.67, 56.67 and 23.67% after 24 h, 93.33, 80 and 40% after 48 h and 100, 100 and 83.33% after 72 h for S. granarius, C. ferrugineus and R. dominica, respectively. Noticeably that the percentage mortality in S. granarius was similar with C. ferrugineus at 3% of cinnamom extract at all times, but in R. dominica they were 53.33, 70 and 100% after 24, 48 and 72 h, respectively. LC₅₀ were 1.01, 1.37 and 3.13% at 24 h after exposure for S. granarius, C. ferrugineus and R. dominica, respectively (Table 4).

Table 3

Mortality percentage of *S. granarius*, *R. dominica* and *C. ferrugineus* treated with three concentrations of *C. verum* petroleum ether extract
Insect	Conc. (%)	% Mortality (Mean ± SE)			Mean	Mean
Insect	Conc. (%)	24 h	48 h	72 h	Mean	Mean
S. granarius	0.5	20.00 ± 5.8 h	66.67 ± 6.7 d	83.33 ± 3.3 b	56.67 e	79.17A
	1	46.67 ± 8.8 f	73.33 ± 8.8 c	93.33 ± 6.7 a	71.11 d
	2	76.67 ± 6.7 c	93.33 ± 6.7 a	100.0 ± 0.0 a	90.00 b
	3	96.67 ± 3.3 a	100.0 ± 0.0 a	100.0 ± 0.0 a	98.89 a
R. dominica	0.5	00.00 ± 0.0 j	10.00 ± 5.6 ij	43.33 ± 3.3 g	17.78 i	43.08 C
	1	13.33 ± 3.3 i	16.67 ± 6.7 hi	63.33 ± 6.7de	31.11 g
	2	23.67 ± 3.3 h	40.00 ± 5.6 g	83.33 ± 3.3 b	49.00 f
	3	53.33 ± 8.8 f	70.00 ± 5.6 d	100.0 ± 0.0 a	74.44 c
C. ferrugineus	0.5	6.67 ± 0.0 j	13.33 ± 0.0 i	46.67 ± 0.0 f	22.22 h	63.89 B
	1	36.67 ± 0.0 g	53.33 ± 0.0 f	76.67 ± 0.0 c	55.56 e
	2	56.67 ± 0.0 e	80.0 ± 0.0 bc	100.0 ± 0.0 a	78.89 c
	3	96.67 ± 0.0 a	100.0 ± 0.0 a	100.0 ± 0.0 a	98.89 a
Control		00.00 ± 0.0 j	00.00 ± 0.0 j	00.00 ± 0.0 j	00.00 j	0.00 D
Mean		31.36 c	47.78 b	66 a

Values followed by the same letter are not significantly different “According to the Fisher’s LSD test (*p ≤ 0.05)”

LSD_0.05 among of S. granarius, R. dominica and C. ferrugineus = 5.4

LSD_0.05 among 24, 48 and 72 h = 2.9 LSD_0.05 among 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4% = 3.25

LSD_0.05 among (insect*time*concentration) = 9.8 LSD_0.05 between (insect*concentration) = 5.64

Table 4

Probit analysis of mortality *S. granarius, R. dominica* and *C. ferrugineus* adults exposed to four concentrations of *Cinnamomum verum* petroleum ether extract
Insect	Time (hour)	LC₅₀ (%) CL 95%	Slope ± SE	Chi square ᵡ²
S. granaries	24	1.01 (0.80–1.24)	3.05 ± 0.49	1.47 NS
	48	0.33 (0.08–0.55)	1.79 ± 0.51	1.36 NS
	72	0.12 (-0.19–2.22)	1.49 ± 0.85	0.05 NS
R. dominica	24	3.13 (2.36–7.43)	2.49 ± 0.80	1.40 NS
	48	2.17 (1.70–3.14)	2.37 ± 0.49	2.12 NS
	72	0.64 (0.39–0.85)	2.22 ± 0.47	0.96 NS
C. ferrugineus	24	1.37 (1.13–1.65)	3.48 ± 0.53	5.73 NS
	48	1.02 (0.83–1.22)	3.31 ± 0.46	0.62 NS
	72	0.40 (0.12–0.59)	2.05 ± 0.59	0.25 NS

3.2 Repellent activity

3.2.1 Repellent activity of cinnamon powder

C. verum powder had a repellent activity against S. granarius, C. ferrugineus and R. dominica (Table 5). There were significant differences among them. Where, C. ferrugineus was the most affected with the cinnamon powder followed by R. dominica and S. granarius. For C. ferrugineus, the repellent percentage was 100% indicating EPI value − 1 at all concentrations and times of exposure. Also, there were significant differences among the concentrations of powder. Where, the repellency increased with increasing the concentration of cinnamon powder. The mean repellent percentages were 95, 99, 100 and 100% at the concentrations of 10, 20, 30 and 40% for R. dominica. And they were 77, 84 and 88% at the concentrations 20, 30 and 40% for S. granarius, while at 10%, the percentage of repellency was 79%; it was fluctuated at times of exposure. There was no significant difference among the time of exposure. The repellent percentage was fluctuated, and the repellency effect continued until 60 h after exposure.

Table 5

Percentage repellency and EPI values of *S. granarius, R. dominica* and *C. ferrugineus* treated with different concentrations of *C. verum* bark powder
Insect	Conc. (%)	Time of exposure (h)												M	M
		10		20		30		40		50		60
		EPI	PC	EPI	PC	EPI	PC	EPI	PC	EPI	PC	EPI	PC
S. granarius	10	-0.4	70	-0.4	70	-0.8	90	-0.8	90	-0.5	73	-0.6	80	79F	82^C
	20	-0.4	70	-0.4	70	-0.7	87	-0.4	70	-0.6	80	-0.67	83	77^G
	30	-0.6	80	-0.7	83	-0.7	87	-0.6	80	-0.7	83	-0.8	90	84^E
	40	-0.6	80	-0.7	87	-0.7	83	-0.8	90	-0.9	93	-0.87	93	88^D
R. dominica	10	-0.6	80	-0.9	97	-1	100	-0.9	93	-1	100	-1	100	95^C	98.5^B
	20	-0.9	97	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	99^B
	30	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	100^A
	40	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	100^A
C. ferrugineus	10	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	100^A	100^A
	20	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	100^A
	30	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	100^A
	40	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	-1	100	100^A

Values followed by the same letter are not significantly different “According to the Fisher’s LSD test (*p ≤ 0.05)”

LSD_0.05 among of S. granarius, R. dominica and C. ferrugineus = 0.11

LSD_0.05 among 1, 2, 3 and 4% = 0.13 LSD_0.05 between (insect*concentration) = 0.24

LSD_0.05 among (insect*time*concentration) = 0.97

3.2.1 Repellent activity of cinnamon extract

Repellence activity of C. verum extract against tested insects was illustrated in (Table 6). Where, C. verum extract was more repellency against C. ferrugineus than R. dominica and S. granarius, the mean repellent percentages were 86.94, 62.78 and 29.44%, respectively. On one hand, the strong repellency (class V) was obtained in concentration 1, 2 and 3% against C. ferrugineus. While at 0.5%, it was class IV. In addition to, the same level of repellency (class III) was showed at 0.5, 1 and 2% of extract against R. dominica. It was more repellency (class V) at 3%. On the other hand, C. verum bark extract showed weak repellency (class III) at 2 and 3% against S. granarius. And repellency decreased to (class I) at 1%. Not only C. verum bark extract showed repellent activity, but also possessed attractive effect at low concentration (0.5%). Noticeably, the repellency percentage was fluctuated with increasing the time at the same concentration. Where, it was − 13.3% after 1 h then decreased to -20% after 2 h, after that increased to -6.67 and 26.67 after 3 and 4 h, then stayed at 5 h after that decreased to -26.67% after 6 h of exposure at 0.5% against S. granarius. While, at 1%, the repellency percentage was − 20% after 1 h, then increased to 20 and 60% after 2 and 3 h, after that decreased to 26.67 and 0.0% after 4 and 5 h, then increased again to 26.67% after 6 h. While, at 2%, it increased statically at all time. In addition to, at 3%, the repellency percentage was − 26.7% after 1 h then increased to 20 and 80% after 2 and 3 h, after that decreased to 66.67% after 4 h, then increased to 73.33 and 86.67% after 5 and 6 h. Moreover, the repellency percentages increased statically, they were 40, 66.7 and 80% after 1, 2 and 3 h of exposure at 0.5% against R. dominica, then decreased to 73.33 and 26.67 after 4 and 5 h, then increased to 46.67% after 6 h. In addition to, it was 53.3 and 60% after 1 and 2 h, then stated at 3 h, and then increased to 66.67% after that fluctuated to 46.67%, and then increased to 73.33% after 4, 5 and 6 h of exposure. While, it increased statically with some stability at 2 and 3% of C. verum bark extract against R. dominica. On the other hand, the repellency percentage was 53% at 0.5% after 1 and 2 h against C. ferrugineus. Then it increased to 80% at 3 h, after that decreased to 73.33% after 4 h, then increased to 80% after 5 and 6 h at the same concentration. The repellency percentage was 86.7% at concentration 1% after 1 and 3 h. This percentage decreased to 80% at 2 h. While, at 5 h it was 93.33%. C. verum extract was more repellency at 1% after 4 and 6 h, 2% after 3 and 6 h and 3% after 3, 4 and 6 h, the repellency percentage was 100%.

Table 6

Repellent percentage of *C. ferrugineus, R. dominica* and *S. granarius* treated with different concentrations of *C. verum* bark extract
Insect	Conc. (%)	Time of exposure (h)						M	M	Class
Insect	Conc. (%)	1	2	3	4	5	6	M	M	Class
S. granarius	0.5	-13.3	-20.0	-6.67	26.67	26.67	-26.67	-2.22	29.44	0
	1	-20.0	20.0	60.0	26.67	00.00	26.67	18.89		I
	2	13.3	33.3	53.3	53.33	66.67	86.67	51.11		III
	3	-26.7	20.0	80.0	66.67	73.33	86.67	50.00		III
R. dominica	0.5	40.0	66.7	80.0	73.33	26.67	46.67	55.56	62.78	III
	1	53.3	60.0	60.0	66.67	46.67	73.33	60.00		III
	2	20.0	33.3	33.3	33.33	53.33	73.33	41.11		III
	3	80.0	93.3	93.3	100.0	100.0	100.0	94.44		V
C. ferrugineus	0.5	53.3	53.3	80.0	73.33	80.00	80.00	70.00	86.94	IV
	1	86.7	80.0	86.7	100.0	93.33	100.0	91.11		V
	2	86.7	86.7	100.0	93.33	93.33	100.0	93.33		V
	3	73.3	93.3	100.0	100.0	93.33	100.0	93.33		V

The result revealed that there were significant differences among the three tested insects. Both of cinnamon powder and extract have bioactivity against the tested insects. In the previous studies, Kim et al. (2015) evaluated the toxicity of the cinnamon oil contents against adults of M. pruinosa. LC₅₀ values were 1.55 and 1.59 mg/cm² for hydro-cinnamic acid and geranic acid by using a leaf-dipping bioassay. While by using a direct spray, eugenol was the most toxic compound followed by geranic acid. In addition to, Williams et al. (2015) found that proanthocyanidins and trans-cinnamaldehyde in C. verum bark extract had activity on Ascaris suum. Cassia and cinnamon oils exhibited good insecticidal activity on adult S. oryzae. LD₅₀ values were 0.0003 and 0.00025 mg/cm² of allyl cinnmate and dichlorvos, respectively (Lee et al. 2008). Also, LC₅₀ values of S. aromaticum, M. fragrans and C. verum essential soils were 1.21, 2.81 and 3.07%, respectively against house fly (Sinthusiri et al. 2013). The major components were found in C. verum cinnamaldehyde, eugenol, caryophyllene, cinnamyl acetate and cinnamic acid (Singha et al. 2020). Cinnamaldehyde 67.57%, eugenol 16.03%, α-Pinene 5.76%, linalool 3.78%, and β-Caryophyllene 3.66% are the main compounds in C. verum bark extract (Liyanage et al. 2017).

LC₅₀ and LC₉₀ values of cinnamon oil against M. demostica were 518.94 and 640.71 ppm, respectively. And, LT₅₀ and LT₉₀ values were 12 and 48 h, respectively (Gamarra and Matallana 2019). While, Yang et al. (2020) showed that cinnamon oil was the most active in both contact, residual and fumigant bioassays. Trans-cinnamaldehyde was the most active component in cinnamon oil and all weevils were killed in the empty jar while, in the filled jar, 15% were killed. Shayesteh and Ashouri (2010) found that cinnamon (C. aromaticum powder had repellent activity to adults of S. granarius, R. dominica and T. castaneum. Also, Ramlal et al. (2020) revealed that cinnamaldehyde (62%) was the most prevalent component of C. verum. Essential oil of C. verum was repellent at concentrations of 4 and 8µL/ml. and LC₅₀ value was 56.47µL/mL with the corresponding LT₅₀ 2.48 days against S. zeamais. While, the repellency of nine compounds, the benzene derivatives (Eugenol, isoeugenol, methyleugenol, safrole, isosafrole, a-Pinene), the monoterpenes (limonene, cineole and p-cymene) were investigated to P. americana nymphs. The benzene derivatives are more toxicant and repellent to the insects than the monoterpenes (Ngoh et al. 1998).

The study shows that cinnamon powder had contact toxicity effect and repellent activity against stored grains pests, belong to order coleopteran. There were significant differences among the three tested insects. The flat grain beetle was the most affected insects, either the contact toxicity or the repellent activity of cinnamon powder. Cinnamon powder can be used as an ecofriendly alternative to synthetic insecticides.

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

No applicable

Consent for publication

No applicable

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed in this study are available in this published manuscript

Competing interests

No applicable

Funding

No applicable

Author’s contributions

HM and MA helped on writing and reviewed the manuscript. FS designed and performed the experiments, prepared the plant extracts, wrote the manuscript and performed the statistical analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thankful Prof. Dr. Samir Saleh Ayad (Economic Entomology Department, faculty of Agriculture, Mansoura University) and Prof. Dr. Seham Ismail (Department of Insect Population Toxicology, Central Agricultural Pesticide Laboratory) in successfully this study. We also thank Eng. Ahmed Mohamed Saleh (Computer Training Center) for his technical support to complete this work.

Author information

¹Hend Abd El-Lah Mahmoud

Central Laboratory of Pesticides Residues Analysis and Heavy Metals in food, Agricultural Research Center, Dokki, Giza, Egypt,

[email protected]

²Mohamed Mohamed Azab

Plant protection Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Benha University, Egypt, [email protected]

³Fatma Mohamed Amin Sleem

Department of Insect Population Toxicology, Central Agricultural Pesticide Laboratory, Agricultural Research Center, Dokki, Giza, Egypt, [email protected]

Ali F, Khan J, Zada A, Faheem B, Khan I, Salman M, Khan K (2019) Bio-insecticidal efficacy of botanical extracts of citronella and cinnamon against Tribolium castaneum, Sitophilus oryzae and Drosophila melanogaster under laboratory conditions. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 28(4A), 3104–3109.
Boito JP, Da Silva AS, dos Reis JH, Santos DS, Gebert RR, Biazus AH, Santos RCV, Quatrin, PM, Ourique AF, Boligon AA, Baretta D, Baldissera MD, Stefani LM, Machado G (2018) Insecticidal and repellent effect of cinnamon oil on flies associated with livestock. Revista MVZ Cordoba. 23(2), 6628–6636. https://doi.org/10.21897/rmvz.1337
Busvine JRA (1971) Critical review of the techniques for testing insecticide. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau: London (2d ed.). Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau: London.
Cava R, Nowak E, Taboada A, Marin-Iniesta F (2007) Antimicrobial activity of clove and cinnamon essential oils against Listeria monocytogenes in Pasteurized Milk. J. Food Prot. 70 (12): 2757–63. https://doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-70.12.2757.
Eyhorn F, Roner T, Specking H (2015) Reducing pesticide use and risks - What action is needed? Helvetas, Swiss Intercooperation. September, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17146.80324
Finney DJ (1971) Probit analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 3rd ed.
Gamarra ADS, Matallana CMG (2019) Evaluación Del Efecto Insecticida Del Extracto de Cinnamomum verum, Sobre Adultos de La Especie Musca domestica En Condiciones de Laboratorio. Cl. 52 Sur. edited by B.D.C. mayo Del. Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas. http://www.ehabsoft.com/ldpline/onlinecontrol.htm
Ikawati S, Himawan T, Abadi AL, Tarno H (2020) Fumigant and feeding deterrent activity of essential oils against Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Stephens) (coleoptera: Laemophloeidae). Biodiversitas. 21(9), 4301–4308. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d210948
Ismail SM, Sleem FMA (2020) Contact toxicity, repellent activity and residual effect of Syzygium aromaticum L. (Myrtaceae) and Piper nigrum L. (Pipeaceae) powders against Sitophilus oryzae L. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J. Entom. Zool. Studies. 8(6), 2053–2058
Ito HC, Shiraishi H, Nakagawa M, Takamura, N (2020) Combined impact of pesticides and other environmental stressors on animal diversity in irrigation ponds. PLoS One. 15 (7), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229052
Jilani G, Su HCF (1983) Laboratory studies on several plant materials as insect repellants for protection of cereal grains. J. Eco. Entomol. 76(1), 154–157. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/76.1.154
Kim JR, Jeong IH, Lee YS, Lee SG (2015) Insecticidal activity of cinnamon essential oils, constituents, and (e)- cinnamaldehyde analogues against Metcalfa pruinosa Say (Hemiptera: Flatidae) nymphs and adults. Korean J. Appl. Entomol. 54(4), 375–382. https://doi.org/10.5656/ksae.2015.10.0.056
Kwak Y, Kim S, Kim H (2017) The antibacterial effect of Cinnamomum verum extract. J. Biomed. Res. 28(15), 6667–6670
Lee E, Kim J, Choi D, Ahn Y (2008) Toxicity of cassia and cinnamon oil compounds and cinnamaldehyde related compounds to Sitophilus oryzae (Coleoptera: curculionidae), J. Eco. Entomol. 101(6), 1960–1966. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1603/0022-0493-101.6.1960
Lee J, Seo S, Huh M, Lee S, Park I (2020) Reactive oxygen species mediated antifungal activity of cinnamon bark (Cinnamomum verum) and lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus) essential oils and their constituents against two phytopathogenic fungi. J. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 168. https://doi: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2020.104644
Liyanage T, Madhujith T, Wijesinghe KGG, Lanka S (2017) Comparative study on major chemical constituents in volatile oil of true cinnamon (Cinnamomum verum Presl. syn. C. zeylanicum Blum.) and five wild cinnamon species grown in Sri Lanka. Trop. Agric. Res. 28(3), 270–280
Maedeh M, Hamzeh I, Hossein D, Majid A, Reza RK (2012) Bioactivity of essential oil from Zingiber officinale (zingiberaceae) against three stored-product insect species. J. Essent. Oil Bearing Plants. 15(1), 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/0972060X.2012.10644028
Manonmani P, Rathi G, Ilang S (2018) 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), 2456 – 3080.
Maruthamuthu R, Ramanathan K (2016) Phytochemical Analysis of Bark Extract of Cinnamomum verum: A Medicinal Herb Used for the Treatment of Coronary Heart Disease in Malayali Tribes, Pachamalai Hills, Tamil Nadu, India. Int. J. Pharm. Phytochem. Res. 8 (7). 1218-1222.
McDonald LL, Guy RH, Speirs RD (1970) Preliminary evaluation of new candidate materials as toxicants, repellents and attractants against stored product insects. Marketing Research Report No. 882, Agric. Res. Ser. US Agric. Dep. Washington.
Monaco F, Sali G, Hassen MB, Facchi A, Romani M, Valè G (2016) Water management options for rice cultivation in a temperate area: A multi-objective model to explore economic and water saving results. Water (Switzerland). 8(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/W8080336
Nabavi SF, Di Lorenzo A, Izadi M, Sobarzo-Sánchez E, Daglia M, Nabavi SM (2015) Antibacterial effects of cinnamon: From farm to food, cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries. Nutrients. 7(9), 7729–7748. https://doi.org/10.3390/NU7095359
Ngoh SP, Choo LEW, Pang FY, Huang Y, Kini MR, Ho1 SH (1998) Insecticidal and repellent properties of nine volatile constituents of essential oils against the American cockroach, Periplaneta americana (L.). Pestic. Sci. 54, 261–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9063(1998110)54:3
Oerke EC (2006) Crop losses to pests. Agric. Sci., 144, 31–43. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Crop-losses-to-pests-
Ramlal S, Khan A, Ramsewak R, Mohammed F (2020) Bioactivity of essential oils from five spices against Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Trop. Agric. (Trinidad), 97(1).
Rodriguez SD, Drake LL, Price DP, Hammond JI, Hansen IA, Liu N (2015) The efficacy of some commercially available insect repellents for Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) and Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Insect Sci. 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/JISESA/IEV125
Sakuma M, Fukami H (1986) The linear track olfactometer: An assay device for taxes of the German cockroach, Blatella germanica (Linn.) towards their aggregation pheromone. J. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 74(6), 523–525.
Saljoqi A, Khan M, Khan S, Rehman S (2006) Effects of six plant extracts on rice weevils Sitophilus oryzae L. in the stored wheat grains. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 1(4), 1-5.
Sharifan A, Shafiee M, Tabatabaee A (2016) Evaluation of antimicrobial effect of Cinnamomum verum methanolic extract and essential oil: a study on bio-preservative in ketchup sauce. J. Chem. Health Risks, 6(2), 113-124.
Shayesteh N, Ashouri S (2010) Effect of four powdered spices as repellents against adults of Rhyzopertha dominica (F.), Sitophilus granarius (L.) and Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) in laboratory conditions. 10^th Int. Working Conf. Stored Prod. Protect.
Shepard HH (1947) Insects infesting stored grain and seeds. University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station Bull. 340.
Singha KD, Moboladea AJ, Bharalic R, Sahooa D, Rajashekara Y (2021) Main plant volatiles as stored grain pest management approach: A review. J. Agric. Food Res.
Singha N, Raoa AS, Nandala A, Kumarb S, Yadava SS, Ganaiea SA, Narasimhanc B (2020). Phytochemical and pharmacological review of Cinnamomum verum J. Presl-a versatile spice used in food and nutrition. J. Food Chem. 338.
Sinthusiri J, Soonwera M, Boonmeesupmak P (2013) Green insecticide from herbal essential oils against house fly, Musca domestica L. (Muscidae: Diptera). Int. J. Agric. Technol. 9(6), 1453–1460.
Sleem FMA (2020) Insecticidal effect of Piper nigrum L. (Pipeaceae) and Prunus cerasus L. (Rosaceae) seeds extract against Rhyzopertha dominica F. (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae). Int. J. Agric. Innovation & Res. 9(3), 245–252.
Stathers TE, Arnold SEJ, Rumney CJ, Hopson C (2020) Measuring the nutritional cost of insect infestation of stored maize and cowpea. Food Sec. 12(2), 285–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12571-019-00997-W
Tay WT, Beckett SJ, De Barro PJ (2016) Phosphine resistance in Australian Cryptolestes spp. (Coleoptera: Laemophloeidae): perspectives from mitochondrial DNA cytochrome oxidase I analysis. J. Pest Manag. Sci. 72, 1250–1259.
White NDG, Bell RJ (1990) Relative fitness of a malathion-resistant strain of Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Coleoptera: Cucujidae) when development and oviposition occur in malathion treated and untreated wheat kernels. J. Stor. Prod. 26, 23–37
Williams AR, Ramsay A, Hansen TVA, Ropiak HM, Mejer H, Nejsum P, Mueller-Harvey I, Thamsborg SM (2015) Anthelmintic activity of trans-cinnamaldehyde and A-and B-type proanthocyanidins derived from cinnamon (Cinnamomum verum). Scientific Reports, 5. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14791.
Yang Y, Isman MB, Tak JH (2020) Insecticidal activity of 28 essential oils and a commercial product containing Cinnamomum cassia bark essential oil against Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky. Insects. 11(8), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/INSECTS11080474.

Download PDF

Reviewers agreed at journal
21 Mar, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
01 Mar, 2023
First submitted to journal
27 Feb, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Bioactivity of Cinnamomum verum powder and extract against Cryptolestes ferrugineus S., Rhyzopertha dominica F. and Sitophilus granarius L. (Coleoptera)

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

1 Background

2 Methods

2.1 Tested insects

2.2 Preparation of cinnamon powder

2.3 Preparation of Cinnamomum verum extract

2.4 Contact toxicity

2.4.1 Contact toxicity of cinnamon powder

2.4.2 Contact toxicity of cinnamon extract

2.5 Repellent activity

2.5.1 Repellent activity of cinnamon powder

2.5.2 Repellent activity of cinnamon extract

2.6 Statistical analysis

3 Results

3.1 Contact toxicity

3.1.1 Contact toxicity of powder

3.1.2 Contact toxicity of extract

3.2 Repellent activity

3.2.1 Repellent activity of cinnamon powder

3.2.1 Repellent activity of cinnamon extract

4 Discussion

5 Conclusion

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1