## 2 Results
### Effect of VOCs on Attractive Parasitoid
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Compound Name**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**RT 1**} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Uninfested Plant** \\ **Area \(\pm\) SD 2** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Infested Plant** \\ **Area \(\pm\) SD** \\ \end{tabular} & \multirow{2}{*}{**LSD 4**} & \multirow{2}{*}{_p-Value_} \\ \hline
16 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Eucalypt \\ Limonene \\ \end{tabular} & 19.97 & \(129.50\pm 5.22\) & \(96.14\pm 34.98\) & 98.1 & 0.036 * \\
17 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Limonene \\ \end{tabular} & 20.38 & \(14.66\pm 1.92\) & \(247.26\pm 84.09\) & 233.2 & 0.003 * \\
18 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Decane \\ \end{tabular} & 23.57 & ND & \(39.31\pm 5.50\) & 15.25 & 0.020 * \\
19 &
\begin{tabular}{c} gamma-Terpinen \\ \end{tabular} & 24.81 & \(9.03\pm 1.70\) & \(56.55\pm 3.68\) & 11.23 & 0.007 * \\
20 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Heptane, 2,4,4-trimethyl \\ \end{tabular} & 26.24 & \(3.75\pm 1.44\) & \(91.50\pm 45.46\) & 126.1 & 0.001 * \\
21 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Cyclopentasiloxane, \\ decamethyl \\ \end{tabular} & 27.84 & \(1.95\pm 0.23\) & \(314.91\pm 12.00\) & 33.29 & 0.212 \\
22 &
\begin{tabular}{c} 1-Undecyne \\ \end{tabular} & 30.22 & \(2.68\pm 0.52\) & \(110.55\pm 13.59\) & 37.72 & 0.036 * \\
23 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Heptane, 2,5,5-trimethyl \\ \end{tabular} & 30.82 & \(2.17\pm 0.43\) & \(33.82\pm 4.85\) & 13.5 & 0.630 \\
24 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Cyclohexissoloxane \\ \end{tabular} & 34.24 & \(123.62\pm 53.60\) & \(1.16\pm 0.17\) & 148.6 & 0.301 \\
25 &
\begin{tabular}{c} 3,4-Dhydroxyphenylglyglycol \\ \end{tabular} & 37.29 & \(20.15\pm 7.96\) & \(1.72\pm 0.41\) & 22.09 & 0.286 \\
26 &
\begin{tabular}{c} 1,5-Pentanedamine \\ \end{tabular} & 40.10 & \(249.45\pm 12.70\) & \(10.33\pm 0.64\) & 35.27 & 0.127 \\
27 &
\begin{tabular}{c} octamethyl \\ \end{tabular} & 42.66 & \(565.00\pm 22.07\) & \(7.89\pm 2.42\) & 61.6 & 0.129 \\
28 &
\begin{tabular}{c} decamethyl \\ \end{tabular} & 41.43 & \(113.05\pm 55.42\) & ND & 153.7 & 0.401 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* RT indicated to the retention time of compounds. 2 SD referred to the standard deviation of peak area calculated from three replicates. 3 ND referred to not detected. 4 LDS referred to Least Significant Difference at 0.05 level.* indicated to the significant different 5%.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._tracted towards uninfested cabbage plants. By percentage, 86.67% of the _A. colemani_ and 100% of the _A. abdominalis_ responded to infested cabbage compared to 9% of the _A. colemani_ and 0% of the _A. abdominalis_ being attracted to uninfested plants (\(\chi^{2}=10.28\), df = 1 and \(p=0.001\) for _A. colemani_ and \(\chi^{2}=12.25\), df = 1 and \(p=0.0005\) for _A. abdominalis_). Figure 1: Clustering result is shown as a heat map of volatile compounds released from uninfested and infested cabbage with green peach aphid _M. persicae._ Each volatile compound’s peak area detected by GC-MS is shown by colors. Figure 3: Olfactory response of green peach aphid _M. persicae_ in Y-tube olfactometer experiments to volatiles released from infested and uninfested cabbage (**a**) uninfested versus infested plants (**b**) uninfested versus clean air (**c**) infested versus clean air. All treatments presented with standard deviation (SD) bar. Asterisks (*) indicates significant difference \(p<0.05\) (Chi-square test). Figure 2: Principal component analysis (PCA) scatter plots reveals between the volatile compounds detected in uninfested and infested cabbage with _M. persicae._ PCA was applied to VOCs from three replicates uninfested and three replicates infested cabbage plants. Red and green circles show results of K-means clustering with k = 2 clusters.