1. بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Prof. Tawfiq Al-Antary The University of Jordan
School of Agriculture
Plant Protection Department

2. Turkey 6th Plant Protection Congress with International Participation 5 to 8 September, 2016 in Konya- Turkey
TOXICITY OF SIX ETHANOL PLANT EXTRACTS AGAINST THE GREEN PEACH APHID MYZUS PERSICAE SULZER (HOMOPTERA: APHIDIDAE)
Hanna M. Madanat , Tawfiq M. Al Antary* and Musa H. Abu Zarqa
*Prof of Pesticides and Economic Entomology

3. Introduction
Use of pesticides

4. The green peach aphid

5. Plant extracts as a safe alternative to insecticides

6. Materials and Methods Host plant rearing
The wooden cages for the green peach aphid rearing in the laboratory in
Rabba Station (Karak).

7. Antennae converging for the green peach aphid (200X).
Swallen siphunchuli at the middle (200X).

8. Collecting the plant materials
Ricinus communis L (Caster) (Euphorbiaceae)
Solanum nigrum L. (Black night shade) (Solanaceae)
Nerium oleander Mill (Oleander) (Apocynaceae)
Robinia pseudoacacia L (Black locust) ( Fabaceae)
Lantana camara L (Wild sage) (Verbenaceae)
Inula viscosa L (Stink wort) (Asteraceae)

9. Plant extract preparation
Plant leaves were dried out
The leaves were finely grounded
Stock solutions were prepared by mixing certain weight of each extract in certain volume of ethanol (see Table 1)
Five concentrations were prepared by diluting certain volume of stock solution with distilled water
Three replicates for each concentration were used

10. Ethanol extract used mg/ml
Table (1): Concentrations of the plant extracts that were used in the toxicity assessment.
Plant
Ethanol extract used mg/ml
R. communis
3.2
R. pseudoacacia
5.33
vescosa
13.0
S. nigrum
4.24
N. oleander
13.75
L. camara
20.0

11. Bioassay procedure
20 apterous aphid with sweet pepper disks in the prepared solution for 10 seconds to fluid LC50 and LC90 for each plant extract. Then placed in Petri dishes with moistened cotton (25 + 3) C and RH%
Screening tests
Eight treatments (six ethanol extract plant + 1 positive control (Cypemethrin) + 1 negative control (diluted ethanol)

12. Five replicates for each treatment
3rd + 4th nymphal apterous instars were only considered
24, 48 and 72 hours after treatment

13. Statistical analysis
SPSS software ( version 20) was used to obtain LC50, LC90, 95% confidence limits and slope. Chi Square was used to separate between means

14. Results and Discussion

15. Table (2 ) : Comparative toxicity of ethanol extracts LC50 against
Myzus persicae under laboratory conditions after 24 hours.
Plant (Treatment)
LC50* ppm
95% CL1
L.E.P.R2
Slope ± SE
df.
Chi-Square
Ricinus communis
553 a X
4.9 ± 0.46 10
7.577
Solanum nigrum
1371 c X
7.2 ± 0.76 9
3.302
Neruim oleander
5615 e X
5.4 ± 0.05
14.385
Robinia pseudoacacia
1150 b X
4.27 ± 0.37 12
11.349
Lantana camara
6660 f X
4.15 ± 0.47
7.543
Inula viscosa
3792 d X
6.44 ± 0.61
13.203
1: 95% confidence limits for the LC50 or LC90 in ppm
2: L.E.P.R. line estimated by probit regression
*: LC50 Or LC90 values having different letters are significantly different (95% CL didn't overlap)
-SPSS program for probit analysis was used and chi square for means separation

16. Table (3) : Comparative toxicity of ethanol extracts LC90 against Myzus persicae under laboratory conditions after 24 hours
Plant (Treatment)
LC90* ppm
95% CL1
L.E.P.R2
Slope ± SE
df.
Chi-Square
Ricinus communis
1010 a X
4.9 ± 0.46 10
7.577
Solanum nigrum
2067b X
7.2 ± 0.76 9
3.302
Neruim oleander
9695d X
5.4 ± 0.05
14.385
Robinia pseudoacacia
2293b X
4.27 ± 0.37 12
11.349
Lantana camara
13571e X
4.15 ± 0.47
7.543
Inula viscosa
5996 c X
6.44 ± 0.61
13.203
1: 95% confidence limits for the LC50 or LC90 in ppm
2: L.E.P.R. line estimated by probit regression
*: LC50 Or LC90 values having different letters are significantly different (95% CL didn't overlap)
-SPSS program for probit analysis was used and chi square for means separation

17. Figure 1: Log dosage-probit mortality line for ethanol extract of R
Figure 1: Log dosage-probit mortality line for ethanol extract of R. communis against the green peach aphid by using dipping method.

18. Figure 2: Log dosage-probit mortality line for ethanol extract of S
Figure 2: Log dosage-probit mortality line for ethanol extract of S. nigrum against the green peach aphid by using dipping method.

19. Figure 3: Log dosage-probit mortality line for ethanol extract of N
Figure 3: Log dosage-probit mortality line for ethanol extract of N. oleander against the green peach aphid by using dipping method.

20. Figure 4: Log dosage-probit mortality line for ethanol extract of R
Figure 4: Log dosage-probit mortality line for ethanol extract of R. pseudoacacia against the green peach aphid by using dipping method.

21. Figure 5: Log dosage-probit mortality line for ethanol extract of L
Figure 5: Log dosage-probit mortality line for ethanol extract of L. camara against the green peach aphid by using dipping method.

22. Average mortality ± S E *
Table(4): Mortality rates of the green peach aphid caused by the plant extracts using ethanol .
Average mortality ± S E *
Plant (Treatment)
After 72 hours
After 48 hours
After 24 hours
67.46±6.38 B
65.48±7.39 B
58.60± 6.5B
Ricinus communis
57.42±8.28 BC
56.8±8.29 BC
28 54±7.0 C
Solanum nigrum
49.32±2.69 C
46.96±2.38 C
25.20±5.43 C
Neruim oleander
85.86±2.00A
83.3±2.37 A
76.46±1.69 A
Robinia pseudoacacia
63.78±5.72 B
61.32±6.17 BC
55.44±8.34 B
Lantana camara
60.32±4.87 BC
52.44±4.87 BC
37.22±4.85 C
Inula viscosa
94.76±2.41 A
93.06±3.34 A
90.82±2.63 A
Cypermethrin
8.8±1.82 D
3.84±1.10 D
3.24±3.25 D
Control
*Means in each column sharing the same letters don't differ significantly using LSD test at 5% level.

23. Conclusions
The results for toxicity evaluations were significantly different compared to the control.
Ethanol leaf extracts contain active substances that have the aphicidal activity against the aphid.
The most toxic ethanol plant extract (Robinia pseudoacacia) could be used to control the aphid.
The active toxic substances could be isolated and tested for further future studies .

25. Thank you