## 3 Results
In dual-choice assays between single volatile compounds, the concentration was the most important factor determining LEM attraction or repellence. The most repellent compound, aliphatic aldehyde nonanal (Figure 6), repelled over 70% of LEM at 5% (\(p=0.02\)) and 25% nonanal (\(p=0.003\)) concentrations. For the other concentrations of nonanal, 3% (\(p=0.10\)), 7% (\(p=0.65\)), 10% (\(p=0.28\)), 50% (\(p=0.13\)), 75% (\(p=0.10\)) and 100% (\(p=0.17\)), LEM choice was not significantly different between nonanal and the solvent control (Ethanol). Several concentrations of aliphatic aldehyde decanal (Figure 7), were attractive to LEM: 3% (\(p\leq 0.001\)), 5% (\(p=0.009\)), 7% (\(p\leq 0.001\)) and 100% (\(p\leq 0.04\)). However, no choice was observed between the control and decanal at 10% (\(p=0.69\)), 25% (\(p=0.14\)), 50% (\(p=0.1\)) and 75% (\(p=0.68\)). Among the terpenids tested, the sesquiterpene \(\beta\)-caryophyllene (Figure 8) was very attractive to LEM in lower concentrations, at 3% (\(p=0.008\)), 5% (\(p=0.01\)) and 7% (\(p\leq 0.001\)), but attractiveness was lost with increased concentrations, i.e., 10% (\(p=0.19\)), 25% (\(p=0.69\)), 50% (\(p=0.36\)), 75% (\(p=0.34\)) and 100% (\(p=0.09\)). For the sesquiterpene \(ar\)-curcumene (Figure 9), only two concentrations were attractive to LEM, 10% (\(p=0.001\)) and 100% (\(p=0.002\)). All other concentrations were not attractive: 3% (\(p=0.27\)), 5% (\(p=0.1\)), 7% (\(p=0.1\)), 25% (\(p=0.27\)), 50% (\(p=0.1\)) and 75% (\(p=0.31\)). The monoterpene limonene (Figure 10) at 3% concentration (\(p=0.008\)) was repellent to LEM i.e., more mites chose EtOH over the limonene. By contrast, three concentrations, 10% (\(p=0.04\)), 25% (\(p=0.05\)) and 75% (\(p=0.01\)), were attractive to LEM, while all other tested concentrations were not attractive nor repellent: 5% (\(p=0.10\)), 7% (\(p=0.10\)), 50% (\(p=0.69\)) and 100% (\(p=0.14\)). For the monoterpene sabinene (Figure 11), the concentrations of 5% (\(p=0.03\)), 7% (\(p\leq 0.001\)), 10% (\(p=0.02\)) and 50% (\(p=0.003\)) were attractive, the concentration of 75% was repellent (\(p=0.02\)), and the concentrations 3% (\(p=0.28\)), 25% (\(p=0.71\)) and 100% (\(p=0.47\)) were not attractive nor repellent. When given a choice between same odor sources in both ends of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Results by Cluster** & **Cluster 1** & **Cluster 2** \\ \hline Objects & B1, B3, B4 & B2 \\ \hline Sum of weights & 3 & 1 \\ \hline Within-class variance & 84.80 & 0.00 \\ \hline Maximum distance to centroid & 8.73 & 0.00 \\ \hline  & & \(\alpha\)-thujene (1.32), \(\alpha\)-pinene (1.45), sabinene \\  & sabinene (2.29), cycloasure (1.21), & (4.23), (\(E\))-\(\beta\)-cpinene (5.74), _trans_-linaloid oxide \\  & \(\alpha\)-copaene (2.56), 7-_epi_-sesquithujene (6.69), & (3.74), linaloid (1.72), _trans_-linaloid oxide (1.15), \\ Cluster centroids \(>1.0\) & \(\beta\)-caryophyllene (13.30), \(\alpha\)-humulene (1.77), & \(\alpha\)-copaene (2.04), 7-_epi_-sesquithujene (6.02), \\  & \(\gamma\)-mumuvence (6.44), \(ar\)-curcumene (16.69), & \(\beta\)-caryophyllene (10.57), _trans_-a-bergamotene \\  & \(\alpha\)-zingliorephere (33.67), \(\alpha\)-muvence & (1.15), \(\gamma\)-muvence (4.85), \(ar\)-curcumene \\  & (1.04),\(\beta\)-sesquiphellandrene (4.18) & (26.50), \(\alpha\)-zingliorephere (16.50), \\  & & \(\beta\)-sesquiphellandrene (2.02) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Results of cluster analysis for samples B1 to B4. the slide (clean vs. clean or ethanol vs. ethanol), there was no significant difference in the number of LEM that reached each source (\(p\) = 0.15 and \(p\) = 1, respectively) (Figure S3). Figure 5: Preference of LEM when offered different field-collected (non-infested) lychee tissues. Panel shows LEM choice when offered different combinations of plant tissues (leaf vs. fruit, leaf vs. bud, leaf vs. leaf shoot, fruit vs. bud, fruit vs. leaf shoot, leaf shoot vs. leaf shoot, \(N\) = 8). * CLMM: \(p\) < 0.05; ns, not significant.