2. The data is presented using three tables and four figures. The first table examined the LC50 values for species S. endius and U. rufipes under forced exposure. The LC50 values were taken of the three active ingredients, imidacloprid, dinotefuran and methomyl, found in fly granular bait. The second table further examines both fly species and displays the mean, standard error, t-test, and difference for the times spent in the area with and without the active ingredients. The third table lists data for both species of flies, but this time documenting the mean and standard error difference in time spent at arenas with a medium or large amount of fly pheromone.
The first figure displayed data obtained for the species Spalangia endius. The data was represented in a bar graph. The first bar graph was comparing the proportion of replicates contacted for the three bait types and control. The …show more content…
The data in table one was reported using a Chi Square value. When observing the P-values for both species, one can see that the P-value is greater than 0.001 which indicates no statistical difference. “Within each species, LC50 values followed by the same lower-case letter do not differ significantly based on overlap of their 95% CI. Between species within each AI, upper case letters do not differ significantly based on overlap of their 95% CI.” For table two and three the researchers used a paired t-test to compare the species with the amount of time spent with and without the bait types, and the time spent in the arena for medium and large concentrations of pheromone. Table two indicated that Spalangia endius avoided dinotefuran and methomyl but was attracted to imidacloprid P-value = 0.04, df = 14. The data also revealed that Urolepis rufipes was neither attracted or avoided the active ingredients. Table three displayed that Spanlangia endius avoided both quantities of pheromone (p<0.001) while U. rufipes neither avoided or was attracted to the varying pheromone