Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 8 in Comparison of sensory structures present on larval antennae and mouthparts of lepidopteran crop pests

Fig. 8. Labrum (L) showing distribution and number of sensilla chaetica (C1–C15) in 4 species of Lepidoptera: A) Spodoptera litura, B) Chilo partellus, C) Plutella xylostella, and D) Maruca vitrata.

Fig. 7 in Comparison of sensory structures present on larval antennae and mouthparts of lepidopteran crop pests

Fig. 7. Ventral and lateral view of larval mouthparts showing labrum (L), mandible (M), maxillae (MX), labium (LI), antennae (A), stemma (ST), and long tactile setae (LTS) in 4 species of Lepidoptera: A) Spodoptera litura, B) Chilo partellus, C) Plutella xylostella, and D) Maruca vitrata.

Fig. 4 in Comparison of sensory structures present on larval antennae and mouthparts of lepidopteran crop pests

Fig. 4. SEM images of larval antennae of Plutella xylostella at different instars: A) 1st instar, B) 2nd instar, C) 3rd instar, and D) 4th instar.

Fig. 15 in Comparison of sensory structures present on larval antennae and mouthparts of lepidopteran crop pests

Fig. 15. Multiple sequence alignment of the partialsequence of the Or83b gene in Spodoptera litura, Chilo partellus, Plutella xylostella, and Maruca vitrata with the reference sequence of Spodoptera litura Or83b (Accession No. JQ811935) using ClustalW sofware. Grey shades represent completely conserved bases. Primer sequences used for amplification of the partial Or83b gene are underlined.

Fig. 1 in Comparison of sensory structures present on larval antennae and mouthparts of lepidopteran crop pests

Fig. 1. Dorsal surface of the larval head showing short tactile setae (STS) and long tactile setae (LTS) in 4 species of Lepidoptera: A) Spodoptera litura, B) Chilo partellus, C) Plutella xylostella, and D) Maruca vitrata.

Fig. 6 in Comparison of sensory structures present on larval antennae and mouthparts of lepidopteran crop pests

Fig. 6. Antenna is segmented (I–III), showing the presence of sensilla styloconica (S1, S2), sensilla basiconica (B1, B2, B3), and sensillum chaeticum (C) in 4 species of Lepidoptera: A) Spodoptera litura, B) Chilo partellus, C) Plutella xylostella, and D) Maruca vitrata.

Fig. 3 in Comparison of sensory structures present on larval antennae and mouthparts of lepidopteran crop pests

Fig. 3. SEM images of larval antennae of Chilo partellus at different instars: A) 1st instar, B) 2nd instar, C) 3rd instar, D) 4th instar, E) 5th instar, and F) 6th instar.

Fig. 5 in Comparison of sensory structures present on larval antennae and mouthparts of lepidopteran crop pests

Fig. 5. SEM images of larval antennae of Maruca vitrata at different instars: A) 1st instar, B) 2nd instar, C) 3rd instar, D) 4th instar, and E) 5th instar.

Fig. 2 in Comparison of sensory structures present on larval antennae and mouthparts of lepidopteran crop pests

Fig. 2. SEM images of larval antennae of Spodoptera litura at different instars: A) 1st instar, B) 2nd instar, C) 3rd instar, D) 4th instar, and E) 5th instar.

Fig. 10 in Comparison of sensory structures present on larval antennae and mouthparts of lepidopteran crop pests

Fig. 10. Enlarged maxillae (MX) showing maxillary palp (MP), galea (G), stipes (ST), and cardo (CA), with galea showing the distribution of sensilla styloconica (S1–S4) and sensilla chaetica (C) in 4 species of Lepidoptera: A) Spodoptera litura, B) Chilo partellus, C) Plutella xylostella, and D) Maruca vitrata.

Fig. 16 in Comparison of sensory structures present on larval antennae and mouthparts of lepidopteran crop pests

Fig. 16. Multiple sequence alignment of the deduced amino acid sequence of the partial Or83b gene of Spodoptera litura, Chilo partellus, Plutella xylostella, and Maruca vitrata with the reference sequence of Spodoptera litura Or83b (Accession No. AFN22085) using ClustalW sofware. Grey shades represent completely conserved residues.

Fig. 14 in Comparison of sensory structures present on larval antennae and mouthparts of lepidopteran crop pests

Fig. 14. Phylogenetic tree produced for the Or83b amino acid sequences of lepidopteran species collected from the NCBI database and Or83b amino acid sequences of Spodoptera litura, Chilo partellus, Plutella xylostella, and Maruca vitrata generated in this study, analyzed using MEGA6 sofware. The rectangular boxes indicate the template sequences generated in this study.

Fig. 9 in Comparison of sensory structures present on larval antennae and mouthparts of lepidopteran crop pests

Fig. 9. Mandible (M) showing sensilla chaetica (C1, C2) in 4 species of Lepidoptera: A) Spodoptera litura, B) Chilo partellus, C) Plutella xylostella, and D) Maruca vitrata.

Fig. 13 in Comparison of sensory structures present on larval antennae and mouthparts of lepidopteran crop pests

Fig. 13. Ventral labium (LI) surface of mouthparts showing hypopharynx (H), labial palp (LP), spinneret (SP), sensilla chaetica (C), and sensilla styloconica (S) in 4 species of Lepidoptera: A) Spodoptera litura, B) Chilo partellus, C) Plutella xylostella, and D) Maruca vitrata.

Fig. 2 in Past, present and future of host‾parasite co-extinctions

Fig. 2. Comparison between helminth parasite diversity (for Acantocephala, Cestoda, Monogenea, Nematoda and Trematoda) in vertebrates (amphibians, birds, fish, mammals and reptiles) estimated using, respectively, the approach by Poulin and Morand (2004) (dark grey) and the more recent approach proposed by Strona and Fattorini (2014a) (light grey). Data were obtained from Table 1 in Strona and Fattorini (2014a).

Fig. 7 in Past, present and future of host‾parasite co-extinctions

Fig. 7. Schematic representation of the possible different parasitological consequences of a biological invasion. A: The invader loses its parasite and does not get local parasites; B: The invader loses its parasites and gets new ones from native hosts; C: The invader retains its parasites and these establish new symbioses with local species; D: The invader retains its parasites and acquire new parasites from local hosts; its parasites establish new symbioses with local host species; E: The invader does not lose its parasites, does not get new ones from native hosts, and its parasites do not expand their host range.

Fig. 6 in Past, present and future of host‾parasite co-extinctions

Fig. 6. Example of asymmetry of interactions as observed in all host parasite records available from FishPest dataset (Strona and Lafferty, 2012). The graph shows the relationship between the maximum specificity of the parasites using a certain host species, and the parasite richness on that host species. Boxplots correspond to different classes of hosts identified on the basis of the maximum specificity of their parasites. Thus, the first boxplot provides information on parasite species richness of all fish species whose most specific parasite uses just one host. It is apparent that specific parasites tend to use hosts harboring many parasites, while species-poor parasitofaunas are often composed by generalist parasites. Boxes indicate first and third quartiles, whiskers indicate range values, and horizontal lines indicate median values.

Fig. 5 in Past, present and future of host‾parasite co-extinctions

Fig. 5. Graph showing the relationship between fish parasite specificity and the corresponding average vulnerability of the hosts used by those parasites. Data were obtained using the same data and procedure as in Strona et al. (2013), computing mean host vulnerability values for different parasite host range classes. Differently from Strona et al. (2013), however, classes were defined using a logarithmic progression instead of a geometric one, resulting in an even tighter relationship between log(host range) and mean host vulnerability (rs = 0.93; p <0.05).

Fig. 3 in Past, present and future of host‾parasite co-extinctions

Fig. 3. Distribution of parasite specificity expressed as the logarithm of host range size in fish (A) and terrestrial vertebrates (B). Data for fish parasites (Acantocephala, Cestoda, Monogenea, Nematoda and Trematoda) were collected from FishPest (Strona and Lafferty, 2012). Data for parasites of terrestrial vertebrates (Acantocephala, Cestoda, Nematoda and Trematoda for amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles) were collected from the Natural Museum History database (http://www.nhm.ac.uk). Since (as to June 11th 2015) all amphibians in the database are erroneously classified as reptiles, information was corrected using Catalogue of Life (http://www.catalogueoflife.org/). Y-axes indicate parasite species numbers.