12.07.2015 Views

Postharvest Control of the Date Moth Ectomyelois ceratoniae ... - Iresa

Postharvest Control of the Date Moth Ectomyelois ceratoniae ... - Iresa

Postharvest Control of the Date Moth Ectomyelois ceratoniae ... - Iresa

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Table 2. Chemical fractions, o<strong>the</strong>rs constituents and total identifiedcompounds <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> essential oil obtained from leaves <strong>of</strong> E. rudiscollected at flowering stage (%)N° Compound Percent. (%) RT KIMonoterpene hydrocarbons 24.441 α-pinene 14.49 9.32 9512 β-pinene 3.91 10.45 9903 γ-terpinene 6.04 13.75 1068Oxygenated monoterpenes 28.854 1,8-cineole 19.87 12.79 10465 Terpinene-4-ol 4.46 17.1 12076 α-terpineol 4.32 17.43 1219Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons 9.229 Aromadendrene 6.37 23.64 144810 Bicyclogermacrene 2.85 25.19 1517Oxygenated sesquiterpenes 5.4712 Isospathulenol 3.09 29.29 169513 t-muurolol 2.34 29.71 1715O<strong>the</strong>rs compounds 10.13Total 78.11RI, KI were respectively Retention Index and Kováts Index calculatedon a HP-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm).For E. rudis leaf essential oil, a total<strong>of</strong> 78.11% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> constituents wasidentified (Table 2). The oxygenatedmonoterpenes represented 28.85%followed by <strong>the</strong> monoterpenehydrocarbons 24.44%, <strong>the</strong> sesquiterpenehydrocarbons 9.22% and <strong>the</strong> oxygenatedsesquiterpenes 5.47%. The mainconstituents were α-pinene (14.49%), β-pinene (3.91%), 1,8-cineole (19.87%), γ-terpinene (6.04%), terpinene-4-ol(4.46%), α-terpineol (4.32%) andaromadendrene (6.37%).<strong>ceratoniae</strong> adults exposed for variousperiods <strong>of</strong> time to essential oils from E.rudis and E. camaldulensis.Results showed that E.camaldulensis and E. rudis essential oilswere toxic to E. <strong>ceratoniae</strong> adults (Fig.1). E. camaldulensis was more toxic thanE. rudis for <strong>the</strong> concentrations exceeding52.63 µl/l air.At <strong>the</strong> lowest concentration (13.16µl/l air), E. rudis achieved 25% <strong>of</strong>mortality after 24 h <strong>of</strong> exposure comparedwith 10% <strong>of</strong> mortality for E.camaldulensis. However, at <strong>the</strong> highestconcentration (131.58 µl/l air), 100%mortality was recorded for E.camaldulensis and E. rudis essential oilsFumigant toxicity. Mortality wascorrected for control mortality by usingAbbott’s formula (1). Results werepresented as percentage <strong>of</strong> mortality <strong>of</strong> E. after only 12 h <strong>of</strong> exposure (Fig. 1).Tunisian Journal <strong>of</strong> Plant Protection 205 Vol. 5, No. 2, 2010

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!