Visitors   Views   Downloads

Pheromones of three ambrosia beetles in the Euwallacea fornicatus species complex: ratios and preferences

View preprint
94 days ago
Pheromones of three ambrosia beetles in the Euwallacea fornicatus species complex: ratios and preferences https://t.co/TFiKrTXJmR
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Supplemental Information

Collecting PSHB volatiles using different approaches in search of possible pheromones

The frequency that compounds were detected in collections (% of samples that were positive) are shown. Media are listed as either SPME fibers exposed to still air head space of the odor source, volatile collection of head space air flowing through a trap that was subsequently eluted into a solvent, or a direct solvent rinse or extract of the odor source. Odors were contained in and collected from various receptacles, consisting of either the rearing tube or a jar, a Pasteur pipette, within the beetle gallery in the colonized diet, or by touching the SPME fiber to the odor source.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.3175v1/supp-1

List of volatile collections conducted in search of possible pheromones

In exploratory volatile collections, for each sample the contents of the sample, approach used, and GCMS peak areas for the three compounds of interest are listed.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.3175v1/supp-2

Ketone ratio comparisons between species

For each extraction of beetles in the quantitative analysis using an internal standard, the amount of each ketone (ng) per beetle was used to compare ratios between species.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.3175v1/supp-3

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Miriam F Cooperband conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper, secured funding.

Allard A Cossé performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Tappey H Jones contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Daniel Carrillo contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Kaitlin Cleary performed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Isaiah Canlas performed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Richard Stouthamer contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

Raw data for the behavioral bioassays is displayed in the figures within the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded through Farm Bill Section 10201 in 2013 (award 3.0117.01), and Farm Bill Section 10007 in 2014 and 2016 (awards 3.0162.01, and 3.0184.01, respectively). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies