## 2 Results and Discussion
### Statistical Evaluation of Results  
The present study does not provide a concentration-based chemical profile, but rather, the relative peak areas were utilized. Nonetheless, determination of the significant differences in the detected VOCs is important to obtain an understanding of the sources that influence the chemical environment of the vector, which could affect the behavioral choices, as mentioned previously. Thus, one-way ANOVA was applied to identify differences in the composition and their significance. When applying one-way ANOVA, homoscedasticity,which is equal variance, and normality in the dataset are assumed for the robustness of the analysis. In order to obtain this, there has to be a repetitive detection of the compounds that can be analyzed with ANOVA. Evaluation of the differences in the abundance of the detected compounds, and the significance of these differences, between plants is important to understand the role of a VOC as a potential attractant. Out of the compounds mentioned previously, the analysis could not be applied to the compounds \(\alpha\)-pinene, limonene, decane, \(\beta\)-Ionone, 2-pentylfuran, nonanal, and 2,2,6-trimethyl-cyclohexanone as these compounds were not detected in a repetitive fashion, to assume homoscedasticity and normality of the data. Therefore, one-way ANOVA was applied to all three plant species for the compounds \(\beta\)-pinene and 3-octanone, for \(\alpha\)-pinene and citronellol when comparing _C. dactylon_ with _P. repens_, and \(\beta\)-myrcene when comparing _C. exaltatus_ with _P. repens_. After the one-way ANOVA analysis was performed, the post-hoc Tukey test was also performed in order to identify if any significant difference in the mean relative peak area could be found between any of the plants (Table 2). Similarly, the evaluation of differences was done for the previously mentioned compounds comparing the roots and shoots of the plants (Table 3). Here, it can be seen that there were no significant differences in the detected relative peak areas except for the peak areas of \(\beta\)-pinene in the _P. repens_ sample when compared to the other two plants. Furthermore, in Table 1, it can be seen that the relative peak area for \(\beta\)-pinene is very large when compared to the other compounds detected in the headspace of the torpedo grass. A tendency towards this could also be discerned when comparing the percentages in the other plants. The results shown in this study suggest that there are very small differences in the normalized amount detected in the analysis of the overlapping compounds, which were compared based on the criteria described earlier. With the exception of \(\beta\)-pinene, the relative peak areas were not significantly different in the 95% confidence interval for any of the compounds. Furthermore, it can be seen in Table 3 that when comparing the compounds found in both the shoots and the roots of the different plants, no significant difference could be seen for the normalized peak area for any of the compounds listed for _C. dactylon_. Similarly, no significant difference could be shown for the normalized peak area of \(\beta\)-selinene in _C. exaltatus_ or for 3-octanone in _P. repens_. A significant difference could be observed for \(\beta\)-pinene in both _C. exaltatus_ and _P. repens_, where the normalized peak area of \(\beta\)-pinene was significantly larger in the root tissue samples than in the shoot samples. The same result was obtained for cyprene in the comparison of the roots and shoots for _C. exaltatus_.