Find research datasets worth reusing

opencc-by-4.0Oct 2017View details →

Figure 1 in Testing the Temporal Limits of Lures and Toxicants for Trapping Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae): Additional Weathering Studies of Solid Bactrocera and Zeugodacus Male Lures and Associated Insecticidal Strips

Figure 1. Captures of Zeugodacus cucurbitae males in Jackson traps containing toxicants of variable age deployed at Aloun Farm, Oahu, Hawaii. The lures were fresh in all traps and were prepared in Hawaii at the start of the test. Two fresh toxicants were included: naled in liquid CL (bar labelled L) and a DDVP strip with a CL plug (bar labelled P). The DDVP strips weathered in Arizona and Florida were tested during the same 1-day period (December 9–10, 2015). Values represent means (+ 1 SE); 12 traps were deployed per treatment. Bars marked by different letters were significantly different (Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons test).

Fig. 1 in First report of economic injury to tomato due to Zeugodacus tau (Diptera: Tephritidae): relative abundance and effects of cultivar and season on injury

Fig. 1. Seasonal pattern of Zeugodacus tau male adults (mean ± SE) captured by Cue-lure-based traps in tomato in (a) season 1, and (b) season 2.

Fig. 1 in Capture of Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae) in traps baited with torula yeast solution versus cucumber volatile plugs

Fig. 1. Captures of melon flies, Zeugodacus cucurbitae, in Multilure traps bait- ed with torula yeast borax solution or cucumber volatile plugs at low-capture sites (B, C, and E). Data were pooled among sites and over sampling weeks as described in the text. Bar heights represent means (± 1 SE) of 270 values (3 sites × 15 traps per trap type × 6 wk).

Fig. 2 in Capture of Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae) in traps baited with torula yeast solution versus cucumber volatile plugs

Fig. 2. Captures of melon flies, Zeugodacus cucurbitae, in Multilure traps bait- ed with torula yeast borax solution or cucumber volatile plugs over an 8 wk period at the intermediate-capture site (A). Points represent means (± 1 SE) of 15 traps per lure type.

Fig. 3 in Capture of Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae) in traps baited with torula yeast solution versus cucumber volatile plugs

Fig. 3. Captures of melon flies, Zeugodacus cucurbitae, in Multilure traps baited with torula yeast borax solution or cucumber volatile plugs over a 6 wk period at the high-capture site (D). Points represent means (± 1 SE) of 10 traps per lure type.

Figure 2 in Trapping Male Melon Flies, Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera: Tephritidae), Using Mixtures of Zingerone and Cue-Lure in the Field

Figure 2. Mean (±SE) melon flies (Z. cucurbitae) captured weekly in individual traps. "ZN" and "CL" denote zingerone and cue-lure, respectively. Each trap contains 5 grams of total lure with percentages of ZN and CL given.

Figure 1 in Trapping Male Melon Flies, Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera: Tephritidae), Using Mixtures of Zingerone and Cue-Lure in the Field

Figure 1. Experimental layout of Ho Farms in Kahuku, Oahu, Hawaii. Dark circles and brackets denote individual traps and blocks, respectively. Tomato and cucumber fields measured 0.8 ha in size, while the eggplant field measured 1.0 ha.

Fig. 1 in Ability of sterile males to inhibit female remating in the melon fly Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Fig. 1. Numbers of rematings observed per cage for females first mated to wild or sterile males at 3 intervals afer the initial mating. Each cage held 10 test females. Symbols represent mean values ± 1 SE; N = 8 in all cases.

Fig. 5 in Zingerone feeding affects mate choice but not fecundity or fertility in the melon fly, Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Fig. 5. Survival (mean ± SE) of zingerone-fed and unfed (control) males over 10 wk. Means represent the weekly percentage of males living in 6 cages containing 30 males each.

Fig. 4 in Zingerone feeding affects mate choice but not fecundity or fertility in the melon fly, Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Fig. 4. Survival (mean ± SE) of females mated with zingerone-fed and unfed (control) males over 6 wk. Means represent the weekly percentage of females living in 6 cages containing 15 mated females each. Females were allowed to oviposit into egging cups 3 times per wk and the numbers of eggs laid were recorded.

Fig. 3 in Zingerone feeding affects mate choice but not fecundity or fertility in the melon fly, Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Fig. 3. Percent hatch rate (mean ± SE) of eggs laid by females mated to zingerone-fed and unfed (control) males. Fify eggs were observed 3 times each wk and the hatch rate was averaged weekly. Means represent the weekly hatch rate of eggs collected from 6 cages containing 15 mated females each.

Fig. 1 in Zingerone feeding affects mate choice but not fecundity or fertility in the melon fly, Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Fig. 1. Number of copulations by zingerone-fed and unfed (control) males in cages containing 1 female, 2 zingerone-fed males, and 2 control males. Copulations were observed 0 (same d), 1, 2, and 3 d afer zingerone-fed males consumed zingerone. An asterisk (*) denotes statistical significance at P <0.05.

Figure 5. A in Geometric morphometric and molecular evidence suggest a new fruit fly species in Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) tau complex (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Figure 5. A Bayesian phylogenetic tree (COI sequence, 580 bp) generated with the generalized time reversible model. Labels at branch ends are species and group names. Numbers at nodes represent the posterior possibilities that supported by sequences.

Figure 3 in Geometric morphometric and molecular evidence suggest a new fruit fly species in Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) tau complex (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Figure 3. Discrimination of wing shape in four groups projected by CVs. Each polygon defines the outermost individuals in each group. A. Male. B. Female.

Figure 4 in Geometric morphometric and molecular evidence suggest a new fruit fly species in Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) tau complex (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Figure 4. Gr.I and Gr.II discrimination by aculeus outlines. A distribution of samples on the best CV–x axis, in which the y axis shows the number of individuals in each interval. An inset displays a superimposition of aculeus shapes.

Figure 1 in Geometric morphometric and molecular evidence suggest a new fruit fly species in Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) tau complex (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Figure 1. Criteria of sample classification. A. A medial vitta of Gr.I, characterized by a plain yellow band with posterior expansion. B. A medial vitta pattern of Gr.II, characterized by a yellow band inserted with a black strip in presutural region, and posteriorly constricted. Scale bar = 1 mm.

Figure 2 in Geometric morphometric and molecular evidence suggest a new fruit fly species in Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) tau complex (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Figure 2. Landmark design for wing and aculeus GM analyses. A. Type 1 landmarks on wing venation labeled with downward arrows and numbers indicating locations in geometric analysis. B. A trilobed aculeus. C. A yellow line representing the alignment of pseudolandmarks along an outline of aculeus tip, from one lateral apex to another lateral. Scale bars: A = 1 mm; B = 50 μm.