July. In both typ>es of blocks, removal of 

 unmanaged apple and pear trees within 100 

 yards of each block reduces immigration of CM 

 and LAW. Removal of drops after harvest dis- 

 courages buildup of within-orchard populations 

 ofAMF, CM, andLAW. 



In early April of 1 99 1 , we selected six full and 

 six transitional second-level IPM test blocks of 

 six to nine acres each. In 1992, we replaced one 

 of the transitional blocks (which had been sold 

 and was no longer available to us) with a new 

 block on another farm. Each second-level block 

 was matched with a nearby control block which 

 weis managed by the grower, using first-level 

 IPM methods. 



Early-season Fruit-injuring Pests 



For control of arthropod pests active up to 

 early June, second-level IPM reUes on early- 

 season pesticide treatment based on monitor- 

 ing. We monitored each orchard weekly begin- 



ning in mid-April, then biweekly from mid-Jime 

 through September. Five each of four types of 

 sticky traps were hung in each block to monitor 

 for TPB, LM, and EAS. We examined 100 or 200 

 leaves or terminals per block for LM, LH, 

 aphids, mites, and mite predators. Fruit were 

 examined both by IPM scouts and growers for 

 fresh PC injury. Based on this monitoring, 

 recommendations were made to the grower for 

 treatment of the experimental block. 



In second-level IPM blocks (both fiill and 

 transitional) in 1992, combined injuries from 

 early-season fruit pests were simUsu" to those in 

 nearby first-level IPM (grower control) blocks. 

 In both first- and second-level IPM blocks, TPB 

 caused the greatest amount of injiuy, followed 

 by PC, EAS, and GFW (Table 1). Early season 

 insecticide use was similar in both types of 

 blocks, probably because both types were man- 

 aged through identical first-level IPM tech- 

 niques (Table 2). Injury by these early-season 

 pests was lower in 1992 than in 1991. 



Fruit Notes, Winter, 1993 



25 



