Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 1 in Evaluation of mass trapping and bait stations to control Anastrepha (Diptera: Tephritidae) fruit flies in mango orchards of Chiapas, Mexico

Fig. 1. Devices used as treatments during field evaluations: a) 600 mL polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle with three 1 × 1 cm holes in the upper third, baited with 50 mL of hydrolyzed protein; b) 600 mL PET bottle with two 3 × 3 cm windows in the upper middle, baited with 150 mL of GF-120 Naturalyte (80 ppm); c) MS® is a commercial bait station consisting of a 2-piece, bottle-shaped device, with a transparent upper piece with three 3 × 3 cm windows in the middle part and a yellow bottom, baited with Atrayente® (mix of 30% hydrolyzed protein, 10% propylene glycol, 5% malathion, and adjuvants; d) MS2® is the same MS® device as in 'c' but with the upper piece containing three 1-cm-diameter holes in the middle part, baited with 250 mL of Cera Trap®; e) wax matrix bait station is a waxed green box with slots baited with BioLure® synthetic attractant (ammonium acetate and putrescine); f) INIFAP trap is a 2 L, 14-cm-diameter, and 14 cm high cylindrical container, with three 1-cm-diameter holes at mid-height, baited with 250 mL of Cera Trap®.

Fig. 4 in Evaluation of mass trapping and bait stations to control Anastrepha (Diptera: Tephritidae) fruit flies in mango orchards of Chiapas, Mexico

Fig. 4. Recapture of sterile Anastrepha ludens and Anastrepha obliqua in Multilure® traps in different treatments. For each species, trap capture percentages topped by the same letter are not significantly different (α = 0.05).

Fig. 2 in Evaluation of mass trapping and bait stations to control Anastrepha (Diptera: Tephritidae) fruit flies in mango orchards of Chiapas, Mexico

Fig. 2. Recapture percentages of sterile Anastrepha ludens (top) and sterile Anastrepha obliqua (bottom) in Multilure® traps located in plots with PET bottle mass trapping devices, ground-sprayed with GF-120 Naturalyte, or untreated (control) in a mango orchard. For each season, trap capture percentages topped by the same letter are not significantly different (α = 0.05).

Fig. 5 in Evaluation of mass trapping and bait stations to control Anastrepha (Diptera: Tephritidae) fruit flies in mango orchards of Chiapas, Mexico

Fig. 5. Recapture percentages of sterile and wild Anastrepha ludens and Anastrepha obliqua in 2 types of mass trapping devices. For each species and strain, trap capture percentages topped by the same letter are not significantly different (α = 0.05).

Fig. 3 in Evaluation of mass trapping and bait stations to control Anastrepha (Diptera: Tephritidae) fruit flies in mango orchards of Chiapas, Mexico

Fig. 3. Recapture percentages of sterile Anastrepha ludens and Anastrepha obliqua flies in Multilure® traps in plots with different bait station devices. For each species, trap capture percentages topped by the same letter are not significantly different (α = 0.05).

opencc-by-4.0Sep 2017View details →

Fig. 2 in Evaluation of insecticides for curative, preventive, and rotational use on Scirtothrips dorsalis South Asia 1 (Thysanoptera: Thripidae)

Fig. 2. Mean numbers of Scirtothrips dorsalis adults per 10 leaf samples of Jalapeno pepper treated with different insecticides. Solid lines represent treatments where 1 insecticide was applied alone, and dashed lines show treatments of 2 insecticides applied in rotation. Same color solid and dashed lines represent same insecticide applied alone or in rotation with spinetoram.

opencc-by-4.0Sep 2017View details →

Fig. 1 in Evaluation of insecticides for curative, preventive, and rotational use on Scirtothrips dorsalis South Asia 1 (Thysanoptera: Thripidae)

Fig. 1. Mean numbers of Scirtothrips dorsalis larvae per 10 leaf samples of Jalapeno pepper treated with different insecticides. Solid lines represent treatments where 1 insecticide was applied alone, and dashed lines show treatments of 2 insecticides applied in rotation. Same color solid and dashed lines represent same insecticide applied alone or in rotation with spinetoram.

Fig. 3 in Evaluation of blood and muscle tissues for molecular detection and characterization of hematozoa infections in northern pintails (Anas acuta) wintering in California

Fig. 3. Phylogenetic assignment of hematozoa mitochondrial DNA cytochrome b sequences originating from northern pintails collected from the Central Valley of California (asterisks). Reference sequences for Leucocytozoon (white circles), Haemoproteus (grey circles), and Plasmodium (black circles) parasites were obtained from the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bootstrap support values for differentiation of broad taxonomic groups are indicated. Values reported for Haemoproteus and Plasmodium show support for phylogenetic differentiation from the mixed subclade formed by reference sequences a and b.

Fig. 4. Minimum spanning network for hematozoa mitochondrial DNA cytochrome b in Evaluation of blood and muscle tissues for molecular detection and characterization of hematozoa infections in northern pintails (Anas acuta) wintering in California

Fig. 4. Minimum spanning network for hematozoa mitochondrial DNA cytochrome b haplotypes detected in Central Valley northern pintails. Circles are drawn proportional to the frequency at which haplotypes were observed. Shading represents the sample collection from which haplotypes originated: white (2006– 2007 wing muscle), grey (2011–2012 wing muscle), and black (2011–2012 blood). A single mutation separates nodes unless explicitly indicated by number. Lines separating nodes are drawn to scale unless indicated by a break. Parasite taxa have been abbreviated in haplotype names (Leu = Leucocytozoon, Hae = Haemoproteus and Pla = Plasmodium).

Fig. 1 in Evaluation of blood and muscle tissues for molecular detection and characterization of hematozoa infections in northern pintails (Anas acuta) wintering in California

Fig. 1. Locations in the Central Valley of California from which northern pintail tissue samples were collected. Samples (n in 2006–2007, n in 2011–2012) were collected in the Sacramento Valley sub-region at: (A) Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge (NWR; 44,92), (B) Delevan NWR (35,7), (C) Colusa NWR (0,2), (D) Sutter NWR (0,1), (E) Little Dry Creek State Wildlife Area (SWA; 0,5), (F) Howard Slough SWA (0,1), (G) Yolo SWA (0,8) and (H) a private duck hunting club (0,1). Samples were collected in the San Joaquin Valley sub-region at: (I) San Luis NWR (7,0), (J) Kesterson NWR (4,0), (K) Los Banos SWA (14,0), (L) Volta SWA (10,0), (M) a private duck hunting club (2,0), and (N) Mendota SWA (30,40).

Fig. 2 in Evaluation of blood and muscle tissues for molecular detection and characterization of hematozoa infections in northern pintails (Anas acuta) wintering in California

Fig. 2. Estimated prevalence of Leucocytozoon (white bars), Haemoproteus (grey bars), and Plasmodium (black bars) parasites in northern pintails sampled in the Central Valley of California in 2006–2007 and 2011–2012 using occupancy modeling. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals around point estimates.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2014View details →

Fig. 2 in Restricted evaluation of Trichodectes canis (Phthiraptera: Trichodectidae) detection methods in Alaska gray wolves

Fig. 2. Divisions of wolf hide into 100 cm2 subsections for lice density analysis utilizing potassium hydroxide digestion. Each hide subsection square represents 10 cm by 10 cm, one representative section from each region was examined: 1 from the neck; 2 from the shoulder; 3 from the groin; 4 from the rump.

opencc-by-4.0Dec 2014View details →

Fig. 1 in Restricted evaluation of Trichodectes canis (Phthiraptera: Trichodectidae) detection methods in Alaska gray wolves

Fig. 1. Divisions of wolf half hides designated for lice proportion analysis utilizing potassium hydroxide digestion. Wolf hides were cut in half and the right and left subdivided into four relatively equal sections and numbered sequentially from the neck to the tail base.

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2016View details →

FIGURES 1–4 in A Re-evaluation of the Generic Limits of Pison Jurine, and a New Species of the Genus Aulacophilinus Lomholdt (Hymenoptera: Crabronidae: Trypoxylini)

FIGURES 1–4, Aulacophilinus rennellensis, male features. 1, lateral profile of abdomen. 2, front view of head. 3 and 4, mandible, clypeus, and labrum

Fig. 30 in Taxonomic re-evaluation of Andrena cyanomicans PÉREZ, 1895, A. fratella WARNCKE, 1968, A. maderensis WARNCKE, 1969, A. mirna WARNCKE, 1969, A. notata WARNCKE, 1968, and A. portosanctana WARNCKE, 1969 (Hymenoptera, Anthophila)

Fig. 30: Morphometric analyses (males) of FL1/FL3 and FL3/Fl3 index, fovea length (FVL), fovea width (FVW), FVL/FVW index, head length (HL), head width (HW), HL/HW index, interocellar distance (IOD).

Fig. 23a-f in Taxonomic re-evaluation of Andrena cyanomicans PÉREZ, 1895, A. fratella WARNCKE, 1968, A. maderensis WARNCKE, 1969, A. mirna WARNCKE, 1969, A. notata WARNCKE, 1968, and A. portosanctana WARNCKE, 1969 (Hymenoptera, Anthophila)

Fig. 23a-f: Metasoma of the males: (a) Andrena cyanomicans (Photo: ZOBODAT, 2021/25/03); (b) A. fratella (Photo: ZOBODAT, 2021/25/03); (c) A. maderensis (Photo: L. Haitzinger, OLML); (d) A. mirna (Photo: M. Schwarz, OLML); (e) A. notata (Photo: ZOBODAT, 2021/25/03); (f) A. portosanctana (Photo: V. Smith, CAS).

Fig. 19a-f in Taxonomic re-evaluation of Andrena cyanomicans PÉREZ, 1895, A. fratella WARNCKE, 1968, A. maderensis WARNCKE, 1969, A. mirna WARNCKE, 1969, A. notata WARNCKE, 1968, and A. portosanctana WARNCKE, 1969 (Hymenoptera, Anthophila)

Fig. 19a-f: Metasoma of the females: (a) Andrena cyanomicans (Photo: ZOBODAT, 2021/25/03); (b) A. fratella (Photo: ZOBODAT, 2021/25/03); (c) A. maderensis (Photo: L. Haitzinger, OLML); (d) A. mirna (Photo: ZOBODAT, 2021/25/03); (e) A. notata (Photo: ZOBODAT, 2021/25/03); (f) A. portosanctana (Photo: V. Smith, CAS).

Fig. 18a-f in Taxonomic re-evaluation of Andrena cyanomicans PÉREZ, 1895, A. fratella WARNCKE, 1968, A. maderensis WARNCKE, 1969, A. mirna WARNCKE, 1969, A. notata WARNCKE, 1968, and A. portosanctana WARNCKE, 1969 (Hymenoptera, Anthophila)

Fig. 18a-f: Scopa: (a) Andrena cyanomicans (Photo: ZOBODAT, 2021/25/03); (b) A. fratella (Photo: ZOBODAT, 2021/25/03); (c) A. maderensis (Photo: A. Kratochwil); (d) A. mirna (Photo: ZOBODAT, 2021/25/03); (e) A. notata (Photo: ZOBODAT, 2021/25/03); (f) A. portosanctana (Photo: A. Kratochwil).

Fig. 33 in Taxonomic re-evaluation of Andrena cyanomicans PÉREZ, 1895, A. fratella WARNCKE, 1968, A. maderensis WARNCKE, 1969, A. mirna WARNCKE, 1969, A. notata WARNCKE, 1968, and A. portosanctana WARNCKE, 1969 (Hymenoptera, Anthophila)

Fig. 33: PCA of 16 morphometric parameters (females) and 14 parameters (males). Cyan dot = A. portosanctana; green dot: A. maderensis, orange dot: A. notata. Abbreviations of biplot parameters see Table 1.

Fig. 29 in Taxonomic re-evaluation of Andrena cyanomicans PÉREZ, 1895, A. fratella WARNCKE, 1968, A. maderensis WARNCKE, 1969, A. mirna WARNCKE, 1969, A. notata WARNCKE, 1968, and A. portosanctana WARNCKE, 1969 (Hymenoptera, Anthophila)

Fig. 29: Morphometric analyses (males) of body length (BL), clypeus length (CL), length of flagellomeres 1–3 (FL1–Fl3), and Fl1/Fl2 index.