For a detailed discussion of the project’s background, procedures, and results, see the 2016 report. Field work was completed in 2016. Students affiliated with Cornell’s Statistical Consulting Unit worked with us on analysis initially of the 2006 data, which was funded by a grant from the Pest Management Foundation. They plotted the catches in the center of plots that had peripheral trapping versus catches in the center of plots without peripheral trapping and did a t-test with R https://www.r-project.org/. Although the average of center catches in peripheral trapped plots is lower than in non-peripheral trapped plots, the difference was not statistically significant (P ? 0.05). This contrasts with our initial analysis using the t-test in Excel. We have yet to follow through with one suggestion the students made: “Perhaps we could plot the proportion of the catches. For instance, if we have 100 catches in the middle and 300 catches in the periphery, the proportion is 100/(100 + 300) = 0.25. This might be better than the raw count because the scale of catches for one trial could be different from another, depending on the site and day, etc. I would suggest creating another column for 'proportion', and re-plot these proportions against the environmental factors.”