Find research datasets worth reusing

Fig. 1 in Inexpensive artisanal traps for mass trapping fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Haiti

Fig. 1. Trap models developed and used for evaluation of mass trapping efficacy for fruit flies in a mango orchard in Haiti. AT1, yellow-bottomed artisanal trap; AT2, clear artisanal trap; and MP, commercial McPhail trap.

Fig. 3 in Inexpensive artisanal traps for mass trapping fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Haiti

Fig. 3. Average proportion of female and male fruit flies caught per trap model in a mango orchard in Haiti. Bars labeled with identical letters were not significantly different afer comparisons among trap models (ANOVA, Fisher LSD α = 0.05).

Fig. 4 in Inexpensive artisanal traps for mass trapping fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Haiti

Fig. 4. Total number of fruit flies caught at 24 McPhail per ha (MP/ha) and 36 clear artisanal trap per ha (AT2/ha) in a mango orchard in Haiti. Bars labeled with the same letters were not significantly different (Binomial test for equal proportion, α = 0.05).

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-4.0Jul 2022View details →

Figure 1 in Tritrophic relations and spatial distribution of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in the Cerrado and Caatinga regions in Piauí, Brazil

Figure 1 Inventory area on fruit flies, showing the distribution of sampling points and the main characteristic environments of the region in the municipality of Bom Jesus-PI, July 2018 to May 2019.

opencc-by-4.0Jul 2022View details →

Figure 2 in Tritrophic relations and spatial distribution of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in the Cerrado and Caatinga regions in Piauí, Brazil

Figure 2 (A) Spatial distribution of fruit plants, (B) fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae), (C) parasitoids Hymenoptera and (D) tritrophic relationship in sampling of native and exotic fruits (municipality of Bom Jesus -PI, July 2018 to May 2019).

opencc-by-4.0Jul 2014View details →

Figure 1 in Embryonic development of the olive fruit fly, Bactrocera oleae Rossi (Diptera: Tephritidae), in vivo

Figure 1. In vivo photographic illustration of Bactrocera oleae eggs. A) Anterior and posterior ends of the egg (1 h old); B) the chorion; C), D), and E) sequence of pole cell formation in a living embryo. The arrow indicates the posterior tip of the egg.

Figure 25 in The determination of fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) fauna in Adıyaman, Kilis, and Şanlıurfa provinces with a new record for Turkish fauna*

Figure 25. Wing pattern of Trupanea stellata. Figure 26. Wing pattern of Urophora affinis. Figure 27. Wing pattern of U. aprica. Figure 28. Wing pattern of U. congrua. Figure 29. Wing pattern of U. cuspidata. Figure 30. Wing pattern of U. doganlari. Figure 31. Wing pattern of U. jaceana. Figure 32. Wing pattern of U. mauritanica. Figure 33. Wing pattern of U. notata. Figure 34. Wing pattern of U. phaeocera. Figure 35. Wing pattern of U. phalolepidis. Figure 36. Wing pattern of U. quadrifasciata.

Figure 37 in The determination of fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) fauna in Adıyaman, Kilis, and Şanlıurfa provinces with a new record for Turkish fauna*

Figure 37. Wing pattern of Urophora solstitialis. Figure 38. Wing pattern of U. stylata. Figure 39. Wing pattern of U. tenuior. Figure 40. Wing pattern of U. tenuis.

Figure 13 in The determination of fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) fauna in Adıyaman, Kilis, and Şanlıurfa provinces with a new record for Turkish fauna*

Figure 13. Wing pattern of Tephritis nigricauda. Figure 14. Wing pattern of T. postica. Figure 15. Wing pattern of T. praecox. Figure 16. Wing pattern of T. simplex. Figure 17. Wing pattern of Tephritomyia lauta. Figure 18. Wing pattern of Terellia colon. Figure 19. Wing pattern of T. gynaecochroma. Figure 20. Wing pattern of T. longicauda. Figure 21. Wing pattern of T. nigripalpis. Figure 22. Wing pattern of T. serratulae. Figure 23. Wing pattern of T. virens. Figure 24. Wing pattern of Trupanea amoena.

Figure 1 in The determination of fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) fauna in Adıyaman, Kilis, and Şanlıurfa provinces with a new record for Turkish fauna*

Figure 1. Wing pattern of Acanthiophilus helianthi. Figure 2. Wing pattern of Campiglossa producta. Figure 3. Wing pattern of Capitetes ramulosa. Figure 4. Wing pattern of Chaetorellia jaceae. Figure 5. Wing pattern of C. succinea. Figure 6. Wing pattern of Chaetostomella cylindrica. Figure 7. Wing pattern of Goniurellia longicauda. Figure 8. Wing pattern of Sphenella marginata. Figure 9. Wing pattern of Tephritis acanthiophilopsis. Figure 10. Wing pattern of T. divisa. Figure 11. Wing pattern of T. hurvitzi. Figure 12. Wing pattern of T. merzi.

Figure 4 in Wafers in Saddle Bags: A Novel Dispensing System for Male Lures Used to Detect Invasive Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Figure 4. Captures of Ceratitis capitata males in Jackson traps baited with either a polymeric plug containing 2 g TML or a saddle-bag containing 6 g TML at an Oahu (A) coffee field (wild males) or (B) citrus orchard (released males). Symbols represent means + 1 SE, where n = 15 traps per treatment per weathering interval at the coffee field and n = 12 at the citrus orchard. For a given weathering interval, means marked by different letters were significantly different (P <0.05, Holm-Šídák test).

Figure 3 in Wafers in Saddle Bags: A Novel Dispensing System for Male Lures Used to Detect Invasive Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Figure 3. Captures of Bactrocera dorsalis males in Jackson traps baited with either a cotton wick containing 6 mL ME or a saddle-bag containing 6 g ME at study sites on Hawaii island or Oahu. Both fresh and aged wicks were deployed on Hawaii, but only fresh wicks were deployed on Oahu. Symbols represent means + 1 SE, where n = 15 traps per treatment per weathering interval for both study sites. For a given weathering interval, means marked by different letters were significantly different (P <0.05, Holm-Šídák test).

Figure 2 in Wafers in Saddle Bags: A Novel Dispensing System for Male Lures Used to Detect Invasive Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Figure 2. Saddle bag dispensers. Top row (l to r): ME saddle bag in hand, with DDVP saddle bag on hanger; placement of ME saddle bag over DDVP saddle bag; hanger positioned inside Jackson trap. Bottom row (l to r): TML saddle bag in hand; TML saddle bag placed on hanger; hanger positioned inside Jackson trap.

Figure 1 in Wafers in Saddle Bags: A Novel Dispensing System for Male Lures Used to Detect Invasive Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Figure 1. Standard method of baiting Jackson traps. Top row: Cotton wick containing ME in perforated basket and basket positioned inside Jackson trap. Bottom row: Polymeric plug containing TML in perforated basket and basket positioned inside Jackson trap.