OS 

 < 



e 



2.5 -, 



2 

 1.5 - 



1 



SAMPLE 1 



■ North 

 DEast 

 D South 

 n West 



Medium 



Ijrgc 



SAMPLE 2 





Small 



Medium 



SAMPLE 3 



Large 



Ijirgt 



MEDIUM TREES 



71 



a 71 



61 



Sample 4 



Sample 5 



Figure 3. Distribution of PC oviposition scars according to branch 

 orientation. Numbers above bars represent the mean percentage of 

 fruit having at least one PC scar. Different letters above bars indicate 

 significant differences among treatments at odds of 19:1. For sam- 

 pling dates, see Tabic 1 . 



third sampling date (35-45%). Maximum 

 percentage of fruit having one or more ovi- 

 position scars was reached on sampling 

 date 5: 78 and 79% damaged fruit for the 

 middle and bottom canopy levels, respec- 

 tively. For large trees, oviposition scars 

 were significantly greatest in the top level 

 of tree canopies during all three sampling 

 dates. Distribution of fruit having at least 

 one PC scar also followed this pattern. 



Branch orientation. Distribution of PC 

 oviposition scars according to branch ori- 

 entation for each tree size and sampling 

 date is depicted in Figure 3. No signifi- 

 cant differences in numbers of scars were 

 found among branches oriented North, 

 East, South and West on the first three sam- 

 pling dates. Nor were there any obvious 

 numerical trends. Across sampling dates 3, 

 4, and 5 for medium trees, however, fruit 

 injury was consistently least on branches 

 oriented East and greatest on branches 

 pointing West. Percentages of fruit show- 

 ing injury followed this same pattern. 



Branch zone. For small trees, branches 

 were not subdivided into exterior or inte- 

 rior zones. For medium trees, there were 

 no significant differences in numbers of 

 scars present on fruit located at exterior vs. 

 interior zones of branches, regardless of 

 branch level or sampling date (Figure 4). 

 There was, however, a consistent numeri- 

 cal trend across all sampling dates (for both 

 numbers of scars and percent fruit injured) 

 toward greater PC damage on exterior than 

 interior fruit at tree tops. There was no such 

 consistent trend across sampling dates in 

 the case of middles or bottoms. For large 

 trees, for the first sampling date, scars were 

 distributed similarly between interior and 

 exterior zones of branches regardless of 

 branch level (Figure 5). However, for sam- 

 pling dates 2 and 3, infestation was signifi- 

 cantly greater at the exterior zone of 

 branches when branches were located in the 

 top part of the tree. No significant differ- 

 ences in infestation levels were found be- 

 tween exterior vs. interior zones of 

 branches located in the middle part of the 

 tree canopy. For branches at the bottom part 

 of the canopy, there was a notable numeri- 



38 



Fruit Notes, Volume 65, 2000 



