3 11 9 45 45 0.22 4 1 0 0 100 0.01 5 4 25 50 25 0.04 Mean 7 7 51 42 0.13 1 75 0 0 100 3.07 2 31 3 52 45 0.96 3 54 0 0 100 2.08 4 129 0 4 96 4.90 5 2 0 0 100 0.04 Mean 58 1 11 88 2.21 Figure 2.6: Two examples of the distribution of feeding marks (as the percentage of damaged bulbs in 5 x 5 grids) from samples taken in 2008. The data from 2008 were subjected to statistical analysis as described All eastern sites and 1 south-western site had damage levels that were too low for analysis. The data from the 4 remaining locations in south-west showed the following: Along rows At all sites high numbers in one sample were correlated with high numbers in adjacent sample (1 m apart) or vice versa For >1m separations the results were more variable
3 11 9 45 45 0.22 4 1 0 0 100 0.01 5 4 25 50 25 0.04 Mean 7 7 51 42 0.13 1 75 0 0 100 3.07 2 31 3 52 45 0.96 3 54 0 0 100 2.08 4 129 0 4 96 4.90 5 2 0 0 100 0.04 Mean 58 1 11 88 2.21 Figure 2.6: Two examples of the distribution of feeding marks (as the percentage of damaged bulbs in 5 x 5 grids) from samples taken in 2008. The data from 2008 were subjected to statistical analysis as described All eastern sites and 1 south-western site had damage levels that were too low for analysis. The data from the 4 remaining locations in south-west showed the following: Along rows At all sites high numbers in one sample were correlated with high numbers in adjacent sample (1 m apart) or vice versa For >1m separations the results were more variable
BOF%2063%20Ann%20Rep%202009.docx