90 



by the orange direction by tree direction interaction (Odir * Tdir) 

 suggested that no one direction on each fruit was dominant. 



Tree direction was not significant indicating that no single tree 

 direction maintained a superior mite population. On the contrary, a 

 directional preference seemed to shift from week to week indicating a 

 possible interaction with some abiotic factor not accounted for here. 

 Totals (B) on Tables 14-19 display the shifting directional dominance 

 on the tree. Totals (A) demonstrate the averaged value of mites on 

 each direction of each orange. 



To test for the relationship of the peripheral (that portion of 

 the orange furthest from the center of the tree), internal (that por- 

 tion of the fruit closest to the center of the tree), and the marginal 

 (semi-shaded) areas, the average of the mite populations relating to 

 these areas were compared (Table 20). The peripheral surface had 

 147.125 mites or 29.8% of the overall population. The internal sur- 

 face comparatively was close having 144.71 mites or 29.3% of the over- 

 all population. 



The marginal area, which took into account that it was the product 

 of two sums, had an average population of 200.604 mites or 40.7% of 

 the total population. This is an increase of at least 11% over the 

 other two surfaces. 



These data defend the earlier theories by Watson and Berger (1937) 

 that the mite populations tend to clump about the marginal aspect of the 

 fruit. No indication of a unilateral tree direction was discernable 

 and it is believed to be dependent on abiotic factors. 



