## 3 Results
### Evaluation of Damage Caused by Two-Spotted Spider Mites on Hop Cones  
According to the analysis of pooled results, the per cent of damage caused by TSSM on hop cones was not influenced by sampling height (F = 0.09, \(p\) = 0.9465) or treatment (F = 1.00, \(p\) = 0.9996). The abundance of slightly damaged hop cones (index 1) was the highest for all treatments. When \"biological control\" treatment was applied, 23% of damaged hop cones were listed in group \"index 2\" at a sampling height of 4-6 m, while 11% of hop cones at a sampling height of 2-4 m were listed in \"index 2\".  
Where \"Acaricide 2\" was applied, 78% of hop cones were organized into \"index 1\" at a 2-4 m sampling height, while only 47% of slightly damaged hop cones were recorded at a sampling height of 4-6 m. All other values are presented in Figure 3.  
Figure 3: Average per cent of damaged hop cones according to sampling height and treatment (lowercase letters: for comparison at one sampling height, between treatments according to the same damage index (level of damage) (df = 3, 11; 2–4 m sampling height, index 1, F = 4.30, \(p\) < 0.05, index 2, F = 6.43, \(p\) < 0.05, index 3, F = 1.21, \(p\) < 0.05, index 4, no data available; 4–6 m, index 1, F = 12.29, \(p\) < 0.05, index 2, F = 6.46, \(p\) < 0.05, index 3, F = 7.41, \(p\) < 0.05, index 4, F = 12.12, \(p\) < 0.05); uppercase letters: for comparison between two sampling heights within the same damage index for a specific treatment (df = 1.5; control treatment, index 1, F = 0.09, \(p\) = 0.7812, index 2, F = 0.09, \(p\) = 0.7812, index 3 and 4, no data available; biological control, index 1, F = 2.21, \(p\) = 0.2116, index 2, F = 2.21, \(p\) = 0.2116, index 3, F = 0.53, \(p\) = 0.5072, index 4, no data available; Acaricide 1, index 1, F = 7.31, \(p\) = 0.2116, index 2, F = 7.21, \(p\) = 0.3216, index 3, F = 8.53, \(p\) = 0.3072, index 4, F = 10.70, \(p\) < 0.05 # Acaricide 2, index 1, F = 6.37, \(p\) < 0.05, index 2, F = 14.21, \(p\) < 0.05, index 3, F = 9.53, \(p\) < 0.05, index 4, F = 3.70, \(p\) < 0.05).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Sampling Height**} \\ \hline  & & **h1** & **h2** & **h3** \\ \hline
10 July & Control & 3.83 \(\pm\) 0.21 Ac & 0.93 \(\pm\) 0.37 Ba & 1.33 \(\pm\) 0.25 Ca \\  & Biological & 3.70 \(\pm\) 1.05 Cb & 1.73 \(\pm\) 0.72 Cab & 3.23 \(\pm\) 1.03 Dab \\  & Acaricide 1 & 1.93 \(\pm\) 0.76 Bd & 0.37 \(\pm\) 0.17 Ara & 0.63 \(\pm\) 0.42 Ba \\  & Acaricide 2 & 0.73 \(\pm\) 0.34 Aa & 0.53 \(\pm\) 0.16 Aa & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.12 Aa \\
17 July & Control & 3.60 \(\pm\) 1.02 Ca & 2.97 \(\pm\) 0.95 Cb & 3.70 \(\pm\) 1.07 Bb \\  & Biological & 1.86 \(\pm\) 0.52 Ba & 1.00 \(\pm\) 0.28 Aa & 2.80 \(\pm\) 0.90 Aba \\  & Acaricide 1 & 1.63 \(\pm\) 0.58 Ba & 2.13 \(\pm\) 1.26 Bb & 3.60 \(\pm\) 1.15 Bb \\  & Acaricide 2 & 0.46 \(\pm\) 0.22 Aa & 1.13 \(\pm\) 0.39 Ab & 2.10 \(\pm\) 0.52 Ab \\
29 July & Control & 4.90 \(\pm\) 2.07 Cb & 2.97 \(\pm\) 1.04 BcD & 5.07 \(\pm\) 1.21 Bc \\  & Biological & 3.23 \(\pm\) 0.71 Bab & 2.99 \(\pm\) 0.55 Bb & 4.17 \(\pm\) 0.76 Bb \\  & Acaricide 1 & 2.53 \(\pm\) 0.60 Aa & 4.06 \(\pm\) 0.71 Cc & 6.10 \(\pm\) 1.09 Cc \\  & Acaricide 2 & 2.60 \(\pm\) 0.46 Ab & 1.43 \(\pm\) 0.32 Ab & 2.43 \(\pm\) 0.67 Ab \\
9 August & Control & 9.70 \(\pm\) 1.69 Ec & 7.13 \(\pm\) 1.13 Ac & 12.00 \(\pm\) 2.37 Ac \\  & Biological & 10.76 \(\pm\) 2.47 Bc & 9.43 \(\pm\) 1.37 Ac & 15.66 \(\pm\) 2.70 Abc \\  & Acaricide 1 & 19.60 \(\pm\) 1.93 Cb & 22.93 \(\pm\) 3.02 Cd & 43.33 \(\pm\) 3.98 Cd \\  & Acaricide 2 & 8.37 \(\pm\) 1.69 Ac & 14.37 \(\pm\) 2.05 B & 17.00 \(\pm\) 3.13 Bc \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Average number of two-spotted spider mite mobile stages per leaf according to different sampling heights.