“Key Informant Survey” of Production, Value, Losses and ... - DfID

Table IV.C.7. Percentage of all on-tree fruit classed as “ripening” and “ripe”. In melons, though not the
others, the ratio was significantly greater in BAT than unprotected plots (related t=3.4587[3]*).
Fruit Melon (N=4) Guava (N=5) Jujube (N=2) Mango (N=5)
Protection BAT None BAT None BAT None MAT None
Mean (%) 72 70 69 68 62 69 76 75
S.D. ±30 ±31 ±26 ±26 ±19 ±15 ±28 ±30
Parapheromone trap catch data are given in Table IV.C.8. On some plots traps were stolen, and on
others plot sizes were too small to allow trap deployment without mutual interference. There were no statistically
significant differences due to treatments.
Table IV.C.8. Mean numbers of flies caught in traps among fruit sites. Traps were baited with cue-lure among
melons and methyl eugenol elsewhere . There were no significant differences due to treatments.
Melon (N=2) Guava (N=5) Jujube (N=1) Mango (N=1)
Protection BAT None BAT None BAT None MAT None
Mean (No.) 3 4 708 1708 8 3 15 2
S.D. ±1 ±0 ±609 ±1787 - - - -
Data from assessment by pupal rearing (method i) and by inspection of sampled fruit (ii) are presented in
Tables IV.C.9 to IV.C.12. Analysis was by ANOVA (of arcsine-transformed data) in two dimensions (for arable
melons, among treatments and sites) or three (for orchard fruits, additionally between fruit on-tree and fallen,
called “locations”). (As a check on the economically important category, these incidences were also compared
for on-tree fruit alone by related t tests; these obtained significance levels similar to the ANOVA results and are
not presented). In three of five melon plots, one of five guava plots and one of three jujube plots, an initial
assessment, when ripening fruit was less than 5%, was made to check for differences in infestation before
treatments began; Fisher exact contingency tests found no significant differences.
Table IV.C.9. Percentage fly infestation of melons shortly before harvest in five sites, with BAT protection and
none, and assessed by pupal emergence and fly mark records. The inferred reduction in infestation by BAT was
84%.
Indicator: Pupae Marks
Output Protection: BAT None BAT None
Infestation Mean 4.7 29.3 26.3 49.3
(%) S.D. ±5.6 ±26.9 ±24.9 ±28.6
ANOVA F Treatments 10.6262[1,4]* 4.7660[1,4]ns
Sites 4.5009[4,4]ns 7.4730[4,4]*
Table IV.C.10. Infestation of guava fruit from fives sites, as in Table IV.C.9 and among fruit in the “locations”
of on the tree and fallen to the ground. No interactions were significant except that between locations and sites
by marks (F=23.1455[4,4]**). The inferred reduction in infestation by BAT was 73%.
Indicator: Pupae Marks
Output Protection: BAT None BAT None
Infestation Tree Mean 11.6 43.7 26.2 53.0
(%)
S.D. ±10.2 ±35.0 ±9.6 ±28.5
Ground Mean 16.4 45.5 56.0 75.1
S.D. ±10.0 ±31.8 ±21.7 ±13.7
ANOVA F Treatments 26.3165[1,4]** 63.6634[1,4]**
Locations 0.8965[1,4]ns 79.6435[1,4]***
Sites 99.3364[4,4]* 4.2473[4,4]ns
Table IV.C.11. Infestation of jujube fruit from three sites, as in Table IV.C.10. Among pupae there were
significant interactions between treatments and sites (F=81.6134[2,2]*) and locations and sites
(F=54.1577[2,2]*). The inferred decrease in infestation by BAT was 76%.
Indicator: Pupae Marks
Output Protection: BAT None BAT None
68