Supplementary Information

Transcription

1 Supplementary Information Efficient Management of Fruit Pests by Pheromone Nanogels Deepa Bhagat 1, 2, Suman K. Samanta, 1, *, 1, 3, 4 and Santanu Bhattacharya 1 Department of Organic Chemistry, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore , India. 2 Present address: National Bureau of Agriculturally Important Insects, Indian Council of Agricultural research, Bangalore , India 3 J. C. Bose Fellow, Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi. 4 Also at JNCASR, Bangalore , India. Tel.: ; fax sb@orgchem.iisc.ernet.in S1

2 (a) (b) Figure S1. (a) GC-MS traces obtained from pure ME alone and (b) the corresponding mass spectral profile. S2

3 (a) (b) Figure S2. (a) GC-MS traces obtained from the ME immobilized in nanogels of 1 and (b) the corresponding mass spectral profile after exposure of the nanogel in open orchard for several weeks. S3

4 % Weight Loss % Weight Loss (a) At 30 o C ME in nanogel ME alone Linear Fit of ME in nanogel Linear Fit of ME alone weeks 410 weeks Number of Weeks (b) 100 At 20 o C ME in nanogel ME alone Linear Fit of ME in nanogel Linear Fit of ME alone Weeks 645 Weeks Number of Weeks Figure S3. Extrapolation of the linear fit for the weight loss (%) of ME in nanogel and ME alone at (a) 30 o C and (b) 20 o C. S4

5 17.18 ft 15.0 ft ft Figure S4. The total area of the guava orchard was sq. ft. and the distance between two guava trees was ~15 ft. The plants were situated in seventeen horizontal rows and seventeen vertical columns. The traps containing either ME alone or ME in nanogel were made to hang on the plants in six replications for both the cases representing a randomized block design (RBD). The black dots indicate the ME alone (control) and the yellow dots represent the sample containing the ME in nanogels. Horizontally the distance between two traps is 60 ft. and vertically it is 75 ft. S5

6 Table S1. Fruit flies trap catches for each replication (R1-R6) of the ME containing samples in the field trials. [a] ME alone (treatment 1, t1) ME in nanogel (treatment 2, t2) Days R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 Mean R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 Mean [a] The values showing the number of fruit flies obtained from individual traps. The number of flies were collected and counted on the daily basis. S6

7 Table S2. Transformation of data (presented in Table S1) for the two-factor ANOVA calculations. [a] ME alone (treatment 1, t1) ME in nanogel (treatment 2, t2) Day R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 Mean R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 Mean [a] The data presented in Table S1 has been transformed [(x+0.5) 1/2, x = number of trap catches in each day per replication] to homogenize variances. S7

8 Table S3. The least significant differences (LSD) for the period of recorded observations (30 days) were calculated using AgRes software considering the mean of the transformed data. The differences between the periods of observations are presented in descending order where the group a represents the best treatments and the group l shows the poorest performing treatments. Difference between periods of recorded observations (Days) Group a d1, d2, d3 Group b d2, d4 Group c d5 Group d d 6 Group e d7, d11 Group f d8 d9 d10 d11 d12 d13 d14 d15 d17 d18 d19 Group g d8 d9 d12 d13 d14 d15 d17 d18 d20 Group h d12 d15 d16 d17 d18 d20 Group i d21 Group j d22,d23, d25, d26, d27 Group k d22, d23, d24, d25, d27, d28 Group l d23, d24, d25, d27, d28, d29, d30 Table S4. Comparison of the mean values for the interaction between the treatments and the period of observations using LSD. The differences are presented in descending order where group a represents the best treatments and group o shows the poorest performing treatments. Interaction between treatments (t1, t2) and the periods of observations (30 days) (t d) Group a t1d1, t1d2, t1d3, t2d1, t2d2, t2d3, t2d4, t2d6, t2d8, t2d10, t2d11, t2d14, t2d19 Group b t1d1, t1d2, t1d3, t2d2, t2d3, t2d4, t2d5, t2d6, t2d8, t2d9, t2d10, t2d11, t2d13, t2d14,t2d19 Group c t1d1, t1d2, t1d3, t2d2, t2d3, t2d5, t2d6, t2d7, t2d8, t2d9, t2d10, t2d11, t2d13, t2d14, t2d17, t2d19 Group d t1d1, t1d2, t1d3, t2d2, t2d5, t2d6, t2d7, t2d8, t2d9, t2d10, t2d11, t2d13, t2d14, t2d15, t2d17, t2d18, t2d19 Group e t1d2, t2d5, t2d6, t2d7, t2d8, t2d9, t2d12, t2d13, t2d14, t2d15, t2d17, t2d18 Group f t2d7, t2d12, t2d15, t2d17, t2d18, t2d20 Group g t1d4, t2d12, t2d20 Group h t1d4, t2d16, t2d20 Group i t1d5 Group j t1d6, t2d21 Group k t1d7, t2d22, t2d26 Group l t1d7, t2d22, t2d23, t2d24, t2d25, t2d27 Group m t2d23, t2d24, t2d25, t2d27, t2d28 Group n t2d24, t2d28, t2d30 Group o t1d8, t1d9,t1d10, t1d11, t1d12,t1d13, t1d14, t1d15 t1d16, t1d17,t1d18,t1d19, t1d20, t1d21,t1d22, t1d23, t1d24, t1d25, t1d26,t1d27, t1d28, t1d29, t1d30, t2d28, t2d29, t2d30 S8

9 Table S5. Statistical ANOVA results obtained from AgRes software on the data containing the number of trap catches in 30 days for all six replications (both ME alone and ME in nanogel) of the pheromone containing samples. ****************************************************************************** DATA FILE: data.pi AgRes: ANOVA START AT: :05:38 ******************************************************************************* 2FACTOR ANOVA FOR 2 FACTORS(S) CHARACTER: field trials GRAND MEAN= MEAN TABLES t t d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 d10 d11 d12 d13 d14 d15 d16 d17 d18 d19 d20 d21 d22 d23 d24 d25 d26 d27 d28 d29 d t t ANOVA FOR : field trials Source df SS MS F PROB TOT Rep Trt ** Err t ** d ** td ** Err CV = 19.39% S9

10 SED CD(0.05) CD(0.01) t d td Mean Comparison by LSD Descending Order The following Treatments under each Group are on par. Group a t2 Group b t1 Group a has the best treatments and Group b has the poorest performing treatments. Mean Comparison by LSD Descending Order The following Treatments under each Group are on par. Group a d1 d2 d3 Group b d2 d4 Group c d5 Group d d6 Group e d7 d11 Group f d8 d9 d10 d11 d12 d13 d14 d15 d17 d18 d19 Group g d8 d9 d12 d13 d14 d15 d17 d18 d20 Group h d12 d15 d16 d17 d18 d20 Group i d21 Group j d22 d23 d25 d26 d27 Group k d22 d23 d24 d25 d27 d28 Group l d23 d24 d25 d27 d28 d29 d30 Group a has the best treatments and Group l has the poorest performing treatments. S10

11 Mean Comparison by LSD Descending Order The following Treatments under each Group are on par. Group a t1d1 t1d2 t1d3 t2d1 t2d2 t2d3 t2d4 t2d6 t2d8 t2d10 t2d11 t2d14 t2d19 Group b t1d1 t1d2 t1d3 t2d2 t2d3 t2d4 t2d5 t2d6 t2d8 t2d9 t2d10 t2d11 t2d13 t2d14 t2d19 Group c t1d1 t1d2 t1d3 t2d2 t2d3 t2d5 t2d6 t2d7 t2d8 t2d9 t2d10 t2d11 t2d13 t2d14 t2d17 t2d19 Group d t1d1 t1d2 t1d3 t2d2 t2d5 t2d6 t2d7 t2d8 t2d9 t2d10 t2d11 t2d13 t2d14 t2d15 t2d17 t2d18 t2d19 Group e t1d2 t2d5 t2d6 t2d7 t2d8 t2d9 t2d12 t2d13 t2d14 t2d15 t2d17 t2d18 Group f t2d7 t2d12 t2d15 t2d17 t2d18 t2d20 Group g t1d4 t2d12 t2d20 Group h t1d4 t2d16 t2d20 Group i t1d5 Group j t1d6 t2d21 Group k t1d7 t2d22 t2d26 Group l t1d7 t2d22 t2d23 t2d24 t2d25 t2d27 Group m t2d23 t2d24 t2d25 t2d27 t2d28 Group n t2d24 t2d28 t2d30 Group o t1d8 t1d9 t1d10 t1d11 t1d12 t1d13 t1d14 t1d15 t1d16 t1d17 t1d18 t1d19 t1d20 t1d21 t1d22 t1d23 t1d24 t1d25 t1d26 t1d27 t1d28 t1d29 t1d30 t2d28 t2d29 t2d30 Group a has the best treatments and Group o has the poorest performing treatments. AGRES END TIME: 15:05:52 S11