DATA: Bait response and fruit-associated abundance patterns of two introduced Zaprionus species in tropical orchards

Résumé fourni par la source

Table S1. Complete McPhail-trap dataset used to analyse bait-specific capture responses of Zaprionus indianus and Z. tuberculatus in five municipalities of the Agreste region of Paraíba, Northeastern Brazil, from May 2024 to April 2025. Each physical trap exposure is represented by the four possible species-by-sex outcomes, including zero captures. The dataset therefore contains 480 count observations nested within 120 physical trap exposures. Temperature and relative humidity are monthly means, precipitation is monthly accumulated rainfall, and Exposure_ID identifies the physical municipality × month × bait sampling unit. Trap_position is reported only where centre/edge rotation information was available. Table S2. Fruit-category dataset used to compare the numbers of Zaprionus indianus and Z. tuberculatus adults recovered from fruits collected directly from plants and from fallen fruits collected on the ground. Counts are aggregated by municipality, species, fruit category and sex. Because stratum-specific fruit number, fruit mass, ripeness and damage were not available in the analytical dataset, these values are unstandardised recovery counts and should not be interpreted as preference or standardised infestation intensity. Table S3. Sampling-protocol dataset used to compare numbers of adults obtained by McPhail trapping and fruit rearing. McPhail counts were aggregated from the complete zero-inclusive trap dataset (Table S1), and fruit-reared counts were aggregated from the fruit-category dataset (Table S2), by municipality, species and sex. The table contains 1,170 trap-captured adults and 480 fruit-reared adults. Because trapping had a fixed 15-day exposure whereas fruit collection depended on fruit availability, these counts should not be interpreted as a standardised comparison of intrinsic detectability or sampling efficiency. Table S4. Summary of the statistical analyses used in the manuscript. Bait response and environmental associations were analysed with negative-binomial generalised estimating equations (GEE), whereas fruit-category and sampling-protocol comparisons used negative-binomial count models. Planned pairwise contrasts are reported as rate ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals and Holm-adjusted P values where applicable. Fruit-category and protocol results represent comparisons of observed counts because a common effort denominator was unavailable.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.