## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Dose** & & **0 ppm (Control)** & **200 ppm** & **500 ppm** & **1000 ppm** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{_Oryzaophilus surinamensis_} & DE1 & \(102.0\pm 12.9\) a & \(76.3\pm 7.9\) b & \(55.1\pm 3.0\) b & \(25.5\pm 4.0\) c \\  & DE2 & \(102.0\pm 12.9\) a & \(110.2\pm 9.0\) a & \(82.2\pm 6.9\) a & \(91.0\pm 11.0\) a \\  & DE3 & \(102.0\pm 12.9\) ab & \(110.6\pm 12.7\) a & \(83.7\pm 15.3\) ab & \(66.0\pm 8.8\) b \\  & DE5 & \(102.0\pm 12.9\) a & \(3.8\pm 1.7\) b & \(1.5\pm 0.6\) b & \(0.0\pm 0.0\) b \\  & DE6 & \(102.0\pm 12.9\) a & \(0.5\pm 0.2\) b & \(0.0\pm 0.0\) b & \(0.0\pm 0.0\) b \\  & DE1 & \(92.3\pm 7.4\) a & \(43.2\pm 8.2\) b & \(0.0\pm 0.0\) c & \(0.0\pm 0.0\) c \\  & DE2 & \(92.3\pm 7.4\) a & \(0.2\pm 0.2\) b & \(0.0\pm 0.0\) b & \(0.0\pm 0.0\) b \\  & DE3 & \(92.3\pm 7.4\) a & \(84.4\pm 13.1\) a & \(90.0\pm 10.5\) a & \(0.0\pm 0.0\) b \\  & DE5 & \(92.3\pm 7.4\) a & \(14.4\pm 6.3\) b & \(2.2\pm 0.8\) b & \(0.0\pm 0.0\) c \\  & DE6 & \(92.3\pm 7.4\) a & \(3.2\pm 1.4\) b & \(0.3\pm 0.2\) b & \(0.4\pm 0.4\) b \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* For ANOVA parameters among doses in the same DE formulation all cases of \(i=3,32\). For DE1: \(T\): _cfrnius_: F = \(10.1\), \(p<0.01\); _S. orgrae_: F = \(9.3\), \(p<0.01\); _R. dominant_: F = \(6.0\), \(p=0.61\); _O. surinamensis_: F = \(16.3\), \(p<0.01\); _C. ferrigninus_: F = \(62.8\), \(p<0.01\); _R. dominating_: F = \(8.3\), \(p<0.01\); _S. orgrae_: F = \(35.8\), \(p<0.01\); _R. dominating_: F = \(1.1\), \(p=0.35\); _O. surinamensis_: F = \(14.\), \(p=0.2\); _C. ferrigninus_: F = \(154.2\), \(p<0.01\); for DE3: T. _confisum_: F = \(6.1\), \(p<0.01\); _S. orgrae_: F = \(7.6\), \(p<0.01\); _R. dominate_: F = \(2.7\), \(p=0.05\); _O. surinamensis_: F = \(2.4\), \(p=0.08\); _C. ferrigninus_: F = \(23.4\), \(p<0.01\); for DES: T. _confisum_: F = \(130.0\), \(p<0.01\); _S. orgrae_: F = \(0.8\), \(p=0.4\); _R. domitonic_: F = \(2.2\), \(p=0.09\); _O. surinamensis_: F = \(58.6\), \(p<0.01\); _C. ferrigninus_: F = \(80.4\), \(p<0.01\); for DE6: T. _confisum_: F = \(170.6\), \(p<0.01\); _S. orgrae_: F = \(2.0\), \(p=0.1\); _R. dominating_: F = \(14.3\), \(p<0.01\); _O. surinamensis_: F = \(61.6\), \(p<0.01\); _C. ferrigninus_: F = \(144.4\), \(p<0.01\). We used one set of controls for all DE doses.  
\end{table} 
Table 9: _Cont._A few studies have addressed why there are differences in efficacy among insect species. [PERSON] [4] stated that this diversity is due to morphological (body size, quantitative and qualitative differences in epidermal lipids, presence of hair in the body) and physiological (different tolerance or resistance to dehydration, mobility, eating habits) characteristics of each species. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [36], in an experiment carried out to demonstrate the susceptibility of eight stored product insect species to a commercially available DE formulation, concluded that the lined flat bark beetle, _Cryptolestes pusillus_ ([PERSON]) (Coleoptera: Laemophiloedae) was by far the most susceptible, in comparison with _S. oryzae_, _S. orgzae_, _Sitophilus granarius_ ([PERSON]) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), _R. dominica_, _O. surinamensis_, the red flour beetle, _Tribolium castaneum_ [PERSON] (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) and _T. confusum_, which are given here from the most to the least susceptible. In contrast, [PERSON] [28], indicated that _O. surinamensis_ was more susceptible than _S. orgzae_, _S. granarius_ and _R. dominica_. In the present study, when DE1, DE2 or DE3 were applied in soft wheat, _T. confusum_ was found to be the most tolerant, followed by _S. orgzae_ and _R. dominica_. However, when DE5 or DE6 were used in the same intervals, _R. dominica_ was the most tolerant, followed by _T. confusum_ and _S. orgzae_. For all the tested DE, _C. ferrugineus_ appeared to be the most susceptible of all species. In our experiments, _S. orgzae_ and _R. dominica_ offspring were found in all intervals, regardless of the DE and dose. [PERSON] et al.