Factors

This file contains the data associated with this manuscript on a per field basis including each factor included in the analyses presented

Seasonal Changes in <i>Thrips tabaci</i> Population Structure in Two Cultivated Hosts

<div><p><i>Thrips tabaci</i> is a major pest of high-value vegetable crops and understanding its population genetics will advance our knowledge about its ecology and management. Mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit I (COI) gene sequence was used as a molecular marker to analyze <i>T. tabaci</i> populations from onion and cabbage fields in New York. Eight COI haplotypes were identified in 565 <i>T. tabaci</i> individuals collected from these fields. All <i>T. tabaci</i> were thelytokous and genetically similar to those originating from hosts representing seven plant families spanning five continents. The most dominant haplotype was NY-HT1, accounting for 92 and 88% of the total individuals collected from onion fields in mid-summer in 2005 and 2007, respectively, and 100 and 96% of the total in early fall in 2005 and 2007, respectively. In contrast, <i>T. tabaci</i> collected from cabbage fields showed a dynamic change in population structure from mid-summer to early fall. In mid-summer, haplotype NY-HT2 was highly abundant, accounting for 58 and 52% of the total in 2005 and 2007, respectively, but in early fall it decreased drastically to 15 and 7% of the total in 2005 and 2007, respectively. Haplotype NY-HT1 accounted for 12 and 46% of the total in cabbage fields in mid-summer of 2005 and 2007, respectively, but became the dominant haplotype in early fall accounting for 81 and 66% of the total in 2005 and 2007, respectively. Despite the relative proximity of onion and cabbage fields in the western New York landscape, <i>T. tabaci</i> populations differed seasonally within each cropping system. Differences may have been attributed to better establishment of certain genotypes on specific hosts or differing colonization patterns within these cropping systems. Future studies investigating temporal changes in <i>T. tabaci</i> populations on their major hosts in these ecosystems are needed to better understand host-plant utilization and implications for population management.</p></div

Model selection results for 2011.

<p>Relative variable importance weights and parameter estimates with 95% confidence intervals for all variables from models predicting pumpkin yield in 2011. Significant factors are denoted with * (<i>P</i><0.05). Variables included: bee visitation frequency to pumpkin flowers (<i>Apis mellifera</i>, <i>Peponapis pruinosa</i>, and <i>Bombus impatiens</i>), field size, and supplementation treatment (<i>B. impatiens</i> supplemented, <i>A. mellifera</i> supplemented and nonsupplemented).</p

Relationship between yield and bee visitation frequency.

<p>Relationship between fruit yield and flower visitation frequency by <i>Apis mellifera</i> in 2011 (y = 5.02+11.53×) (A), and <i>Bombus impatiens</i> in 2012 (y = 4.11+19.82×) (B). Supplementation treatment (circle = <i>A. mellifera</i> supplementation, triangle = <i>B. impatiens</i> supplementation, square = nonsupplemented) was illustrated to show the lack of pattern among treatment groups, reinforcing that the point that fruit yield was not influenced by supplementation with managed bees. Supplementation treatment was not included as a factor in these regressions.</p

AICc model selection results for 2011 for models that fell within 4 AICc of the top model.

<p>Independent variables included in the model selection to predict pumpkin yield included bee visitation frequency to pumpkin flowers (<i>Bombus impatiens</i>, <i>Apis mellifera</i> and <i>Peponapis pruinosa</i>), supplementation treatment (<i>B. impatiens</i> supplemented, <i>A. mellifera</i> supplemented and nonsupplemented) and field size.</p

Effects of bee supplementation on flower visitation frequency.

<p>Mean (±SEM) <i>Bombus impatiens</i> visitation frequency to pumpkin flowers in fields supplemented with <i>B. impatiens</i>, or <i>Apis mellifera</i> did not differ significantly from visitation frequency in control fields (A). Both years are combined here for simplicity. Mean (±SEM) <i>A. mellifera</i> visitation frequency to pumpkin flowers in fields supplemented with <i>B. impatiens</i>, or <i>A. mellifera</i> did not differ significantly from visitation frequency to flowers in control fields (B).</p

AICc model selection results for 2012 for models that fell within 4 AICc of the top model.

<p>Independent variables included in the model selection to predict pumpkin yield included bee visitation frequency to pumpkin flowers (<i>Bombus impatiens</i>, <i>Apis mellifera</i> and <i>Peponapis pruinosa</i>), supplementation treatment (<i>B. impatiens</i> supplemented, <i>A. mellifera</i> supplemented and nonsupplemented) and field size.</p

Model selection results for 2012.

<p>Relative variable importance weights and parameter estimates with 95% confidence intervals for all variables from models predicting pumpkin yield in 2012. Significant factors are denoted with an asterisk (*) (<i>P</i><0.05). Variables included: bee visitation frequency to pumpkin flowers (<i>Apis mellifera</i>, <i>Peponapis pruinosa</i>, and <i>Bombus impatiens</i>), field size, and supplementation treatment (<i>B. impatiens</i> supplemented, <i>A. mellifera</i> supplemented and nonsupplemented).</p

Relationship between fruit weight and viable seeds.

<p>Fruit weight was positively correlated with the number of viable seeds (y = 0.86+0.01×, R² = 0.75, <i>P</i><0.001). Gray bands represent 95% confidence limits.</p

Effects of bee supplementation on fruit yield.

<p>Pumpkin fruit yield (average fruit weight per plant ± SEM) was not statistically significantly different among the treatments (<i>F</i>_2,39 = 0.27, <i>P</i> = 0.77).</p