Table 5.
L3 larvae motility following incubation with bark extracts at 1000 µg/mL dry weight in two GIN species.
| Solvent | Water | Ace-Wa | Met-Wa | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GIN species | Bark | Season | Alive | Dead | Bark | H0 Rejected | Alive | Dead | Bark | H0 Rejected | Alive | Dead | Bark | H0 Rejected |
| T.colubriformis | S1 | S | 0.0043 | 0.0022 | 0.0035 | Y | 0.0043 | 0.0022 | 0.0042 | N | 0.0043 | 0.0022 | 0.0038 | Y |
| W | 0.0043 | 0.0022 | 0.0037 | Y | 0.0043 | 0.0022 | 0.0040 | N | 0.0043 | 0.0022 | 0.0039 | Y | ||
| S2 | S | 0.0042 | 0.0008 | 0.0037 | N | 0.0042 | 0.0008 | 0.0038 | N | 0.0042 | 0.0008 | 0.0038 | N | |
| W | 0.0042 | 0.0008 | 0.0037 | N | 0.0042 | 0.0008 | 0.0041 | N | 0.0042 | 0.0008 | 0.0040 | N | ||
| P | S | 0.0043 | 0.0009 | 0.0033 | Y | 0.0043 | 0.0009 | 0.0044 | N | 0.0043 | 0.0009 | 0.0042 | N | |
| W | 0.0043 | 0.0009 | 0.0033 | Y | 0.0043 | 0.0009 | 0.0035 | N | 0.0043 | 0.0009 | 0.0046 | N | ||
| T.circumcincta | S1 | S | 0.0088 | 0.0038 | 0.0038 | Y | 0.0088 | 0.0038 | 0.0041 | Y | 0.0088 | 0.0038 | 0.0040 | Y |
| W | 0.0088 | 0.0038 | 0.0042 | Y | 0.0088 | 0.0038 | 0.0039 | Y | 0.0088 | 0.0038 | 0.0041 | Y | ||
| S2 | S | 0.0077 | 0.0031 | 0.0040 | Y | 0.0077 | 0.0031 | 0.0041 | N | 0.0077 | 0.0031 | 0.0041 | N | |
| W | 0.0077 | 0.0031 | 0.0045 | N | 0.0077 | 0.0031 | 0.0038 | Y | 0.0077 | 0.0031 | 0.0046 | N | ||
| P | S | 0.0077 | 0.0048 | 0.0067 | Y | 0.0077 | 0.0048 | 0.0038 | Y | 0.0077 | 0.0048 | 0.0041 | Y | |
| W | 0.0077 | 0.0048 | 0.0043 | N | 0.0077 | 0.0048 | 0.0042 | N | 0.0077 | 0.0048 | 0.0047 | N | ||
Values for the ‘alive’ L3 control, ‘dead’ L3 control and ‘bark’ treated L3 represent mean (n = 3) larval motility adjusted for the covariate (motility of larvae prior to the addition of bark extracts). Bark treatments included: S1: spruce, sawmill, ring debarking; S2: spruce, pulp mill, drum debarking; P: pine, sawmill, ring debarking and were collected during summer (S) and winter (W) seasons. Each of the bark samples was extracted using water, acetone–water (Ace-Wa), or methanol–water (Met-Wa) as the solvent. The null hypothesis (H0) tested was that the motility of the larvae in the bark extract treatment differed significantly from the dead controls; rejected null hypothesis (Y) was indicative of strong antiparasitic activity, whereas not-rejected null hypothesis (N) was indicative of no strong antiparasitic activity. Bold are the extracts that showed significant antiparasitic activity.