Intercropping in Carrots for Rust Fly Control
Table 3
Carol Miles, Ph.D.,WSU Extension, Leslie Zenz, Research Assistant, Betsie DeWreede, Owner, Independence Valley Farm, and Julie Puhich, Owner, Common Ground CSA
Table 3. Number of marketable (undamaged), damaged but marketable, and non-marketable carrots due to carrot rust fly damage at four harvest dates (September 5, September 18, September 25, and October 11) in Rochester, Washington, in 1996.
Number of Carrots | |||
Treatment | Marketable | Damaged Marketable | Non-Marketable |
Harvest 1 Without intercrop |
66.5 | 8.5 | 3.5 |
With intercrop | 76.8 | 13.5 | 5.5 |
Significance | NS | NS | NS |
Harvest 2 Without intercrop |
61.5 | 27.8 | 8.5 |
With intercrop | 81.5 | 21.3 | 8.3 |
Significance | NS | NS | NS |
Harvest 3 Without intercrop |
97.5 | 65.5 | 43.5 |
With intercrop | 111.75 | 64.3 | 30.8 |
Significance | NS | NS | NS |
Harvest 4 Without intercrop |
19.0 | 43.3 | 118.3 |
With intercrop | 21.8 | 51.8 | 85.0 |
Significance | NS | NS | NS |
Carrot Rust-Fly: Experimental Procedure
Our pages provide links to external sites for the convenience of users. WSU Extension does not manage these external sites, nor does Extension review, control, or take responsibility for the content of these sites. These external sites do not implicitly or explicitly represent official positions and policies of WSU Extension.