TABLE 1.

Feeding behavior of Rhopalosiphum padi on two tef accessions using the electrical penetration graph (EPG) technique.

Phase	Parameter full name	Parameter short name	Unit	RTC-144 (mean ± SE)	RTC-406 (mean ± SE)	p value
-	Time to 1st probe from start of EPG	t_1Pr	min	4.59 ± 2.14	13.05 ± 2.12	8.89E-03
Xylem	Duration of G	s_G	min	31.81 ± 4.89	23.35 ± 6.61	3.27E-01
	Number of G	n_G	#	2.58 ± 0.45	1.29 ± 0.16	8.50E-03
Phloem	Total duration of E1 followed by E2	s_E1– > E2	min	3.19 ± 0.78	6.13 ± 1.28	6.47E-02
	Total duration of E	s_E	min	29.63 ± 3.98	30.06 ± 6.51	9.56E-01
	Number of E1	n_E1	#	6.33 ± 1.27	6.60 ± 0.83	8.61E-01
	Number of E2	n_E2	#	2.93 ± 0.59	3.53 ± 0.39	4.03E-01
All tissue	Total duration of C	s_C	min	109.75 ± 4.83	105.22 ± 7.08	6.01E-01
	Total duration of non-probing	s_NP	min	11.82 ± 4.02	22.30 ± 3.09	4.82E-02
	Total duration of potential drops	s_PD	min	1.56 ± 0.60	0.63 ± 0.06	1.09E-01
	Number of probes	n_Pr	#	4.00 ± 0.48	4.33 ± 0.54	6.48E-01
	Number of non-probing	n_NP	#	4.00 ± 0.48	4.33 ± 0.54	6.48E-01
	Number of potential drops	n_PD	#	14.00 ± 1.95	11.13 ± 0.94	1.79E-01

Waveforms were analyzed using StyletA software, and Excel for automatic parameter workbook for calculation (Sarria et al., 2009). In bold are significantly different parameters (Student’s t-test, p < 0.05). Overall, 15 biological replicates from each tef accession were tested.