Skip to main content
. 2018 Mar 27;11:209. doi: 10.1186/s13071-018-2796-6

Table 2.

Two week-survival and grouping survival values for non-target insects (Honeybees and Cockroachs) treated with Burkina Faso local Metarhizium pingshaense strains (Met_10 and Met_26) compared with wild type Metarhizium pingshaense expressing red fluorescent protein (Met_RFP) at three different concentrations and a control (0.01% Tween)

Non-target insect Concentration (conidia/ml)a Treatment Survival + SE (%) Grouping survivalb
Honeybee C1 (1 × 108) Control 93.8 ± 1 a
Met_RFP 98.2 ± 1 a
Met_S10 98.1 ± 2 a
Met_S26 94.6 ± 2 a
C2 (1 × 107) Control 94.6 ± 1 a
Met_RFP 97.3 ± 2 a
Met_S10 98.3 ± 1 a
Met_S26 97.3 ± 0 a
C3 (1 × 106) Control 95.3 ± 1 a
Met_RFP 99.1 ± 1 a
Met_S10 99.0 ± 0 a
Met_S26 95.1 ± 2 a
Cockroach C1 (1 × 108) Control 95.7 ± 2 a
Met_RFP 97.8 ± 2 a
Met_S10 98.8 ± 1 a
Met_S26 97.5 ± 1 a
C2 (1 × 107) Control 96.1 ± 2 a
Met_RFP 97.5 ± 1 a
Met_S10 98.7 ± 1 a
Met_S26 97.7 ± 1 a
C3 (1 × 106) Control 96.0 ± 1 a
Met_RFP 97.0 ± 1 a
Met_S10 97.0 ± 1 a
Met_S26 96.0 ± 1 a

Abbreviation: SE standard error of the mean

aIn 0.01% Tween80

bPairwise comparison of survival mean values per spraying conidia suspension concentrations; treatments with no letters in common differ significantly at P < 0.05