Q 

 liJ 



3 



3 



a 

 m 



3 





o 



UJ 



3 



3 



2.00 

 1.60 

 1.20 

 0.80 

 0.40 

 0.00 



CENTRAL TREE PLUS OTHER TREES 



2.00 

 1.60 

 1.20 

 0.80 

 0.40 

 0.00 



Trap tree 



CENTRAL TREE 



OTHER TREES 



Panel 



Pyramid 



Figure 4. Percentages of freshly-injured fhiit (averaged across all six sampling weeks) on central and 

 four other sampled perimeter-row trees of treatment plots. Means superscribed by the same letter are 

 not significantly different at odds of 19:1. 



(or no) trap captures occurred was a week in which 

 comparatively little (or no) fruit injury was initiated. 

 Correlation values were only 0.17, 0.09, and 0.18 for 

 panel, pyramid and Circle traps, respectively, indicating 

 weak correspondence in time between rises in levels 

 of fruit injury and rises in levels of trap captures. 



Mean percentages of perimeter-row fruit with fresh 

 injury were not significantly different among trap tree 

 plots and plots having panel, pyramid or Circle traps 

 when fruit from all sampled trees (the central tree plus 

 the four other sampled trees per plot) were combined 



(Figure 4). This finding indicates that presence of a 

 trap tree in a plot did not lead to any greater amount of 

 plot-wide injury to fruit than would have occurred in 

 the absence of a trap tree in a plot. 



Importantly, for central trees in a plot, percentages 

 of fruit with fresh injury were significantly greater in 

 trap tree plots than in any other plots (Figure 4). 

 Furthermore, for all other (non-central) sampled trees 

 in a plot, percentages of fruit with fresh injury were 

 less in trap tree plots than in any other plots (Figure 4). 

 These results indicate that freshly injured fruit were 



Fruit Notes, Volume 68, Winter, 2003 



