I Baited sphere plots 

 n Grower-sprayed plots 



Captures 



■ Baited sphere plots 

 n Grower-sprayed plots 

 A 



Captures 



15 T 2003 



■ Baited sphere plots 

 D Grower-sprayed plots 



Captures 



3 



C 



s 

 'a 



c 



01 



■ Baited sphere plots 

 D Grower-sprayed plots 



Injury 



■ Baited sphere plots 

 D Grower-sprayed plots 



Injury 



■ Baited sphere plots 

 n Grower-sprayed plots 



Injury 



Figure 2. Mean number of AMF captured on interior unbailed monitoring spheres and mean percent injured 

 fruit in baited sphere and grower- sprayed plots in 2001, 2002, and 2003. For each comparison, means 

 superscribed by the same letter are not significantly different at odds of 19: 1 . 



and plot-wide percent fruit injury were not significantly 

 greater in baited-sphere plots (relative to sprayed plots) 

 m any of the three years (2001, 2002, or 2003). 



For 2003, percent fruit injured on perimeter trees 

 comprising the four sides of baited spheres plots was 

 significantly negatively correlated (at odds of 15 to 1) 

 with values prescribed for quality of pruning but not 



significantly correlated with values prescribed for tree 

 size, cultivar susceptibility or border habitat. For 2003, 

 captures of adults by unbailed monitoring traps on 

 interiors of baited sphere plots were significantly 

 negatively correlated (at odds of 10 to 1) with values 

 prescribed for tree size and quality of pruning but not 

 with values prescribed for cultivar susceptibility or 



Fruit Notes, Volume 69, Spring, 2004 



13 



