## 3 Results
### Classified Management Zones  
The preliminary field partition model generated for pest 1 showed good visual agreement with its corresponding distribution map (Figure 11, left). Moreover, only one absence zone was recognized (i.e., zone 1, suitability: 0.23), as well as three zones with differentiated levels of pest presence (i.e., zone 2, suitability: 0.41; zone 3, suitability: 0.43; zone 4, suitability: 0.59). This partition model also showed statistically supported environmental agreement with presence and absence zones included in the reclassified distribution model generated for pest 1. In the case of pest 2 (Figure 11, right), visual agreement between its preliminary field partition model and its corresponding reclassified distribution model was also good but partial, since a significant area of the orchard where the target pest was known to be present (roughly one-quarter of the total field) was associated with suitability values below the established threshold for presence-absence discrimination (i.e., 0.25). Three absence zones were identified (i.e., zone 1, suitability: 0.15; zone 2, suitability: 0.15; zone 4, suitability: 0.16) as well as three more zones of differentiated pest presence (i.e., zone 3, suitability: 0.41; zone 5: suitability: 0.46; zone 6, suitability: 0.57). Both sets of zones displayed high environmental agreement with true presence and absence zones included in the reclassified distribution model generated for pest 2. The preliminary partition model generated for pest 3 (Figure 12, left) showed good visual and environmental agreement with its corresponding reclassified distribution model. Only one pest absence zone was recognized (suitability: 0.25), although a portion of it was incorrectly included in a pest presence management zone (i.e., zone 3). The highest mean suitability was observed in zone 2 (0.71), whereas those of zones 3 and 4 ranged from 0.55 to 0.64. In the case of pest 4 (Figure 12, right), the generated field partition model showed good agreement (both environmental and visual) with its corresponding reclassified pest distribution map; nevertheless, none of the delineated MZ could be classified as absence-only. Instead, four pest presence levels were recognized (zone 1, suitability: 0.32; zone 2, suitability: 0.45; zone 3, suitability: 0.45, zone 4, suitability: 0.67), two of which displayed identical mean suitability values (MZ 2 and 3) but significantly differentiated environmental conditions. Figure 10: Best partition models of absence-only clusters used to isolate nested presences and absences from inadequate parent clusters. Preliminary field partition models generated for pests 5 and 6 displayed good agreement with their corresponding reclassified pest maps. In the case of pest 5 (Figure 13, left), six MZ were delineated within the experimental orchard, with zones 1 through 4 showing mean suitability values below the presence-absence threshold previously established (suitability: 0.0). In an exceptional scenario, MZ that corresponded with known presences of pest 5 (MZ 5 and 6) also showed mean suitability values considerably below the presence-absence threshold. Figure 11: Multivariate chart used to classify MZ included in partition models that facilitate within-field management of pests 1 and 2. Environmental dendrogram based on Euclidean distances and average linkage. Figure 12: Multivariate chart used to classify MZ included in partition models that facilitate within-field management of pests 3 and 4. Environmental dendrogram based on Euclidean distances and average linkage. the presence-absence threshold (0.03 and 0.07 respectively), apparently as a result of natural distributional features of pest weeds. The field partition model developed for pest 6 (Figure 13, right) included three MZ, one pest absence zone (zone 1, suitability: 0.08) and two differentiated levels of presence (zone 2, suitability: 0.30; zone 3, suitability: 0.38).