Table 1.
Developmental time and fecundity for Sitobion avenae clones on wheat, barley and oat.
Table 2.
Frequency and duration# (mean ± SE) of probing behaviors for Sitobion avenae clones on wheat, barley and oat.
Fig 1.
Comparisons of probing behavioral patterns for Sitobion avenae clones on wheat (i), barley (ii), and oat (iii).
(Values next to the arrows represent the probability of individuals entering a certain feeding step; probabilities followed by different lower case letters indicate significant differences between plants identified with Chi-square tests at P < 0.05; Np, non-probing; C, pathway phase; E1, phloem salivation; E2, phloem ingestion; G, xylem ingestion; F, stylet derailment).
Fig 2.
Comparisons of probing behavioral plasticities (mean ± SE) for Sitobion avenae clones on barley and oat.
(F, frequency; D, duration; Np, non-probing; C, pathway phase; E1, phloem salivation; E2, phloem sap ingestion; G, xylem sap ingestion; F, stylet derailment; * and NS, significant and non-significant differences between plants identified with two-way ANOVA at P < 0.05).
Table 3.
Estimates of variance components for probing behavioral plasticities of Sitobion avenae clones showing main effects of plant, clone and interactions.
Table 4.
Selection differentials and gradients for probing behavioral plasticities of Sitobion avenae clones on two alternative plants (i.e., barley and oat).
Fig 3.
Spearman (a) and Hoeffding (b) association coefficients between probing behaviors and their plasticities for Sitobion avenae clones (Np, non-probing; C, pathway phase; E1, phloem salivation; E2, phloem ingestion; G, xylem ingestion; F, stylet derailment. *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001).
Fig 4.
Pearson correlations between relative fitness and probing behavioral plasticities for Sitobion avenae clones.
(Np, non—probing; C, pathway phase; E1, phloem salivation; E2, phloem ingestion; G, xylem ingestion; F, stylet derailment. *, P < 0.05).