## 2 Results
### Nematode Response to Root Volatiles: Chemotaxis Assay  
We investigated the impact of the selected VOCs (Table 1) released by the uninfested and infested blueberry roots on the chemotaxis of the _S. australe_ JJs using authentic commercial standards in a two-choice bioassay. We expressed the attraction of the JJs to the selected VOCs as the mean difference between the percentage of JJs in the treatment and control areas. Thereby, we showed the positive values as the attraction of JJs for a dose of treatment over the control, and if its corresponding 95% confidence interval did not include the value 0%, the difference was considered significant (\(p<0.05\)). Hexane, which was used to dilute the commercial standards, was previously evaluated to confirm no substantial differences in the dispersal and survival of JJs. Both the hexane and water solution were compared to discard any bias in the chemotaxis assay (Figure 1). In the dose-response chemotaxis assays (Figure 2), we observed that the JJs of _S. australe_ were significantly attracted to 100 \(\mu\)g mL\({}^{-1}\) of 10-undecyn-1-ol, resulting in 18.2% more JJs in the treatment area than for the control (95% CI: 13.8-22.9%; \(t_{45}=7.1180\); \(p=0.0001\)). All other tested doses of 10-undecyn-1-ol were not significantly different from the control. All five tested concentrations of methyl salicylate elicited significant attraction from the JJs of _S. australe_, ranging from 9.48% more JJs collected at 0,1 \(\mu\)g mL\({}^{-1}\) (95.0% CI: 4.67-13.5%; \(t_{31}=4.1657\); \(p=0.0002\)) up to 16.8% at 1000 \(\mu\)g mL\({}^{-1}\) (95.0% CI: 10.3-24.1%; \(t_{31}=4.9710\); \(p=0.0002\)) when compared to the control. However, at 100 \(\mu\)g mL\({}^{-1}\), the attractant effect dropped to 6.28% (95.0% CI: 1.02-13.7%; \(t_{31}=2.0301\); \(p=0.0484\)), although still positive and significantly higher compared to the control. Similarly, 1-nonine elicited a positive dose-response effect on the chemotaxis of JJs, ranging from 8.07% more JJs (95.0% \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l r r} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Compound**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Relative Abundance in Roots (\%)**} \\ \cline{2-3}  & **Uninfested** & **Infested** \\ \hline _Terpenoids_ & & \\
4,8-Dimethyl-1,7-nonadien-4-ol & 0.17 \(\pm\) 0.12 & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.03 \\
2-Carene & 17.78 \(\pm\) 7.03 & 24.94 \(\pm\) 12.16 \\ Limonene & 3.60 \(\pm\) 2.63 & 4.35 \(\pm\) 1.45 \\ Eucalyptusptol & 4.02 \(\pm\) 1.25 & 3.00 \(\pm\) 1.40 \\ Linalool & 2.06 \(\pm\) 1.04 & 2.98 \(\pm\) 0.23 \\ Myrcenol & 4.91 \(\pm\) 2.06 & 4.19 \(\pm\) 1.1 \\ cis-Mytranol & 1.63 \(\pm\) 1.45 & 2.05 \(\pm\) 1.61 \\ \(\alpha\)-Terpineol & 29.21 \(\pm\) 12.38 & 30.44 \(\pm\) 8.57 \\ \hline _Esters_ & & \\ Isobutyl Isobutyrate & 0.66 \(\pm\) 0.35 & 0.63 \(\pm\) 0.12 \\ Methyl salicate & 17.89 \(\pm\) 9.37 & 11.44 \(\pm\) 5.53 \\ Vinyl sorbate & 0.86 \(\pm\) 0.54 & 0.93 \(\pm\) 0.11 \\ \hline _Aliphatic Hydrocarbons_ & & \\
1-nonyne & 4.15 \(\pm\) 2.63 & 2.53 \(\pm\) 0.66 \\
3-Ethenyl-1,4-pentadiene & 0.06 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.03 \\ \hline _Alcohols_ & & \\
3-Butynol & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.05 \\
10-undecyn-1-ol & 5.21 \(\pm\) 3.84 & 4.27 \(\pm\) 3.54 \\ \hline _Ketones_ & & \\
3-Octanone & 6.81 \(\pm\) 6.16 & 7.11 \(\pm\) 5.08 \\
3-Hexanone & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.02 \\
2-Hydroxy-2,4-dimethyl-3-pentanone & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.23 & 0.44 \(\pm\) 0.18 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Volatile compounds were analyzed in triplicate, each sample comprised a mixture of the individual collection from six plants.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Percentage of relative abundance (Mean \(\pm\) SD) of chemicals identified in the volatile profile of _V. corymbosum_ uninfested and infested roots with _A. supercollisous_ larvae. CI: 2.25-13.1%; \(t_{33}=2.8358\); \(p=0.0072\)) at 0.1 \(\upmu\)g mL\({}^{-1}\) to 16.4% (95.0% CI: 12.2-21.3%; \(t_{31}=6.9081\); \(p=0.00001\)) at 1000 \(\upmu\)g mL\({}^{-1}\). When \(S\).