Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Sep 2019View details →

Fig. 2 in Influence of plant direction, layer, and spacing on the infestation levels of Anthonomus eugenii (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in open jalapeño pepper fields in North Florida

Fig. 2. Infestation and larval density of pepper weevil in 2017. Vertical bars are standard errors of the means.

opencc-by-4.0Sep 2019View details →

Fig. 5 in Influence of plant direction, layer, and spacing on the infestation levels of Anthonomus eugenii (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in open jalapeño pepper fields in North Florida

Fig. 5. Relationship between the infestation level and the fruit wall thickness (A) and single weight (B). Each data point represents the number of infested fruits per plant in each fruit wall thickness or weight (means ± SE). Line was fitted using linear regression analysis.

opencc-by-4.0Sep 2019View details →

Fig. 1 in Influence of plant direction, layer, and spacing on the infestation levels of Anthonomus eugenii (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in open jalapeño pepper fields in North Florida

Fig. 1. (a) Adult pepper weevil feeding on the stalk of a pepper fruit; (b) young and full grown larvae inside a pepper fruit; (c) pupa inside the fruit; and (d) adult weevil exit holes in pepper fruits.

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2023View details →

Fig. 1 in Comparison of Bemisia tabaci infestation, virus infection, and yield in conventional and transgenic Bean golden mosaic virus-resistant common bean elite lines

Fig. 1. Symptoms of virus infection on common bean plants under field situation: (A) Bean golden mosaic virus; (B) Cowpea mild mottle virus on old transgenic plants and (C) young transgenic plant; (D) symptoms of mixed infection caused by Bean golden mosaic virus and Cowpea mild mottle virus.

Fig. 5 in Spatio-temporal distribution of Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) captures and their relationship with fruit infestation in farms with a diversity of hosts

Fig. 5. Fruit infestation and population fluctuation of Anastrepha fraterculus in (A) pears, (B) peaches, and (C) mandarins. Cn = Canelones, Py = Paysandú; FTD = flies per trap per d; Af = Anastrepha fraterculus.

Fig. 6 in Spatio-temporal distribution of Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) captures and their relationship with fruit infestation in farms with a diversity of hosts

Fig. 6. Population fluctuation of Ceratitis capitata males (M) in Jackson traps (Cc) and females (H) in McPhail traps. A, B, C, D = cultivars where fruit infestation was recorded (A, B = Canelones; C, D = Paysandú); E, F, G, H = cultivars where no fruit infestation was recorded (E, F = Paysandú; G, H = San José).

Fig. 4 in Spatio-temporal distribution of Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) captures and their relationship with fruit infestation in farms with a diversity of hosts

Fig. 4. Population fluctuation of Ceratitis capitata registered in McPhail traps in mandarins (A) with fruit infestation and (B) without fruit infestation. Py = Paysandú, SJ = San José, W = Washington; FTD: flies per trap per d; Cc = Ceratitis capitata.

Fig. 3 in Spatio-temporal distribution of Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) captures and their relationship with fruit infestation in farms with a diversity of hosts

Fig. 3. Fruit infestation and population fluctuation of Ceratitis capitata registered in McPhail traps in (A) pears and (B) peaches. Cn = Canelones, SJ = San José; FTD = flies per trap per d; Cc = Ceratitis capitata.

Fig. 2 in Spatio-temporal distribution of Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) captures and their relationship with fruit infestation in farms with a diversity of hosts

Fig. 2. Spatial distribution of accumulated captures and fruit infestation of Ceratitis capitata and Anastrepha fraterculus during the 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 seasons. Ap = Apple: ERO = Early Red One, RCh = Red Chief, RD = Red Delicious; Pch = Peach: JG = June Gold, EL = Elegant Lady, RM = Rey del Monte, PC = Pavía Canario, F = Forastero; Nc = Nectarine: L = Lara, F = Fantasía; Pr = Pear: W = William's; Mn = Mandarin: E = Elenadalle, O = Ortanique, S = Satsuma; Or = Orange: V = Valencia, WN = Washington Navel; Gf = Grapefruit: SR = Star Rubí. Cc = C. capitata, Af = A. fraterculus. The accumulated captures per season were calculated by adding captures from the date that traps were installed (1 Sep, 30 Oct, and 1 Nov 2014 in San José, Canelones, and Paysandú, respectively) until 30 Jun 2015, and for the same period from spring 2015 until Jun 2016.

Fig. 1 in Spatio-temporal distribution of Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) captures and their relationship with fruit infestation in farms with a diversity of hosts

Fig. 1. Average number of fruit flies per McPhail trap per d (FTD) of Ceratitis capitata (Cc) and Anastrepha fraterculus (Af) in Paysandú (Py) and Canelones (Cn).

Fig. 6 in Multiple infestations induce direct defense of maize to Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae)

Fig. 6. Number (mean ± SE) of live females (A, C2 = 7.39; df = 37; P <0.001), immature individuals (B, C2 = 2.14; df = 36; P <0.001), eggs (C, C2 = 2.14; df = 36; P <0.001), and dead females (D, C2 = 7.7; df = 36; P <0.001) of the two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae on conspecific plus Spodoptera frugiperda infested conventional (white bars) and Bt (gray bars) maize plants. M = mite, C = caterpillar. *** = statistically significant (P <0.01).

Fig. 5 in Multiple infestations induce direct defense of maize to Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae)

Fig. 5. Number (mean ± SE) of live females (A, C2 = 29.5; df =37; P = 0.195), immature individuals (B, C2 = 39.1; df = 36; P = 0.670), eggs (C, C2 = 31.7; df = 36; P = 0.326), and dead females (D, C2 = 22.0; df = 37; P = 0.024) of the two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae on conspecific (white bars) and conspecific plus Spodoptera frugiperda infested (gray bars) Bt maize plants. M = mite, C = caterpillar. ns = statistically insignificant, * = statistically significant (P <0.05).

Fig. 4 in Multiple infestations induce direct defense of maize to Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae)

Fig. 4. Number (mean ± SE) of live females (A, C2 = 7.65; df = 37; P <0.001), immature individuals (B, C2 = 2.60; df = 36; P <0.001), eggs (C, C2 = 2.14; df = 36; P <0.001), and dead females (D, C2 = 5.38; df = 37; P <0.001) of the two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae on conspecific (white bars) and conspecific plus Spodoptera frugiperda infested (gray bars) conventional maize plants. M = mite, C = caterpillar. *** = statistically significant (P <0.01).

Fig. 3 in Multiple infestations induce direct defense of maize to Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae)

Fig. 3. Number (mean ± SE) of live females (A, C2 = 31.11; df = 37; P = 0.259), immature individuals (B, C2 = 27.67; df = 37; P = 0.133), eggs (C, C2 = 27.67; df = 36; P = 0.240), and dead females (D, C2 = 23.58; df = 37; P = 0.042) of the two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae on infested conventional (30F35) (white bars) and Bt (30F35Hx) (gray bars) maize plants. ns = statistically insignificant, * = statistically significant (P <0.05).

Fig. 1 in Multiple infestations induce direct defense of maize to Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae)

Fig. 1. Number (mean ± SE) of live females (A, C2 = 45.2; df = 36; P = 0.861), immature individuals (B, C2 = 38.7; df = 37; P = 0.608), eggs (C, C2 = 38.1; df = 36; P = 0.624), and dead females (D, C2 = 29.7; df = 37; P = 0.203) of the two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae on clean (white bars) and co-specific re-infested (gray bars) conventional maize plants (30F35). ns = statistically insignificant.

Fig. 7 in Multiple infestations induce direct defense of maize to Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae)

Fig. 7. Projection to principal component analysis based on the ions detected by electrospray ionization mass spectrometry of uninfested (C = o) and infested with Tetranychus urticae (C + Tu = ●) conventional maize; uninfested (Bt = Z) and infested with T. urticae (Bt + Tu = ■) Bt maize; infested with T. urticae and Spodoptera frungiperda (C + Tu + Sf = Δ) conventional maize; and infested with T. urticae and S. frungiperda (Bt + Tu + Sf = ▲) Bt maize, using the first 2 principal components (Dim) with explained variance in brackets

Fig. 2 in Multiple infestations induce direct defense of maize to Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae)

Fig. 2. Number (mean ± SE) of live females (A, C2 = 21.9; df = 37; P = 0.02), immature individuals (B, C2 = 40.9; df = 37; P = 0.698), eggs (C, C2 = 30.5; df = 37; P = 0.235), and dead females (D, C2 = 21.9; df = 37; P = 0.383) of the two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae, on clean (light gray bars) and co-specific re-infested (dark gray bars) Bt maize plants (30F35Hx). ns = statistically insignificant, * = statistically significant (P <0.05).

Fig. 1 in Molecular screening of ticks of the genus Amblyomma (Acari: Ixodidae) infesting South African reptiles with comments on their potential to act as vectors for Hepatozoon fitzsimonsi (Dias, 1953) (Adeleorina: Hepatozoidae)

Fig. 1. Maximum likelihood analysis of Amblyomma tick species based on the 16S rRNA sequences. Bootstrap values at the major nodes are of percentage agreement among 1000 replicates. The branch scale represents substitutions per site.

Fig. 2 in Molecular screening of ticks of the genus Amblyomma (Acari: Ixodidae) infesting South African reptiles with comments on their potential to act as vectors for Hepatozoon fitzsimonsi (Dias, 1953) (Adeleorina: Hepatozoidae)

Fig. 2. Maximum likelihood analysis of species of Hepatozoon based on the 18S rRNA sequences. Bootstrap values at the major nodes are of percentage agreement among 1000 replicates. The branch scale represents substitutions per site.