For control of internal Lepidoptera (combined codling 

 moth and oriental fruit moth), samples at each interval re- 

 vealed a consistent pattern. Both Surround and Imidan ( 1 .5% 

 and 0.5% damage at harvest, respectively) provided signifi- 

 cantly reduced levels of damage in comparison with untreated 

 controls (5.2% damage at harvest. Table 6). For this pair of 

 pests, Imidan sprays yielded slightly better control, particu- 

 larly in early August (the period of greatest rainfall. Figure 

 2), when a significant amount of Surround coverage may 

 have washed off Even so, levels of control of CM and OFM 

 through harvest were comparable between Imidan and Sur- 

 round. 



San Jose scale (SJS) has been identified (by other re- 



Table 5. Mean % fnnt damaged by leafroller and 

 lesser applewonn (combined damage). Means 

 witlun a row followed by the same letter are not 

 significantly different at odds of 1 9 1 . 



Date 



1 4 



hnidan Surround 



Untreated 



July 21* 

 August ll'' 

 Harvest** 



O.Ob 

 08b 



20.5b 



1 3ab 



2 lb 

 16.7b 



4.2a 

 5.8a 

 40.5a 



20 fruit sampled per replicate (total ^ 

 per treatment). 



50 fruit sampled per replicate (total ^ 

 per treatment) 



240 fruit 



600 fnnt 



Table 6 Mean % fmit damaged by codlmg moth 

 and onental fruit moth (combined damage) Means 

 witliin a row followed by the same letter are not 

 significantly different at odds of 19: 1 



Date 



1 4 



Imidan Surround 



Untreated 



July 21* 

 August 1 f 

 Harvest** 



O.Ob 

 O.Ob 

 0.5b 



04b 

 1.3ab 

 1 5b 



3.3a 

 2.5a 

 5.2a 



* 20 fruit sampled per replicate (total = 240 fruit 



per treatment) 

 ** 50 fruit sampled per replicate (total = 600 fhiit 



per treatment). 



searchers) as a pest for which Surround may not offer opti- 

 mal control, likely as a result of the seamless coverage needed 

 (with any chemical) for consistent control that is difficult to 

 achieve with this material. In this trial (Table 7), control 

 provided by treatment with Surround (0.5% SJS damage at 

 harvest) was nearly equal to that offered by Imidan (0.2% 

 SJS damage at harvest), and both far outperformed the un- 

 treated control (4.0% SJS damage at harvest). However, it 

 IS likely that the overall population of SJS was hmited within 

 the block (given only 4.0% SJS damage to untreated fruit at 

 harvest), and we can only conclude that Surround offered 

 acceptable control of SJS under limited pressure. 



Although our sampling protocol focused on pests that 

 are consistently targets of insecticide sprays in the North- 

 east, we also sampled for damage inflicted by pests that are 



26 



Fruit Notes, Volume 65, 2000 



