picked slightly earlier than 

 in 1992. In other blocks, 

 problems with AMF arose 

 in cases where perimeter 

 rows were comprised of 

 early ripening cultivars, 

 necessitating immediate 

 movement of interception 

 traps to interior trees upon 

 harvest. Due to time con- 

 straints we wereunable to 

 move the spheres soon 

 enough after harvest, al- 

 lowing injury to occur in 

 later-ripening cultivars. 



We continue to look for 

 an appropriate method of 

 hanging ammonium ac- 

 etate membranes that will 

 keep their fluttering mo- 

 tion to a minimum so as not 

 to scare AMF away. This 

 year we attempted to stitch 

 a wire through the top of the 

 membrane packet only to 

 find that the contents 

 drained out within a few 

 weeks. 



Fruit injury by CM, LR, 

 and LAW were similar in second-level and first-level 

 blocks (Table 4). CM averaged 0.2% in the second- 

 level blocks while it was 0% in the adjacent first-level 

 blocks. Leafroller injury was up from 1992, averag- 

 ing 0.8% in second-level and 1.0% in first level 

 blocks. LAW injury also increased, averaging 0.4% 

 in second-level blocks and less than 0.1% in first- 

 level blocks. 



No insecticide was applied against any fruit- 

 injuring pest after mid-June. In adjacent first-level 

 blocks growers applied an average of 1.0 dosage 

 equivalents of insecticide against fruit pests after 

 mid-June and sprayed the block an average of 2.2 

 times (Table 2). 



Summer Fruit-injuring Pests: 

 Transitional Second-level IPM 



Every three weeks after early June, perimeter 

 row apple trees in transitional second-level blocks 

 were treated with insecticide to control AMF. The 

 block interior remained free of insecticide after early 

 June. AMF injury at harvest averaged 0.8% in 

 transitional second-level blocks and 0.4% in nearby 

 first-level blocks, somewhat higher for both types of 



Table 4. Fruit injury by codling moth (CM), leafrollers (LR), and 

 lesser appleworm (LAW) in second-level and first-level IPM 

 blocks in 1993.* 



Means in each couplet in each column followed by a diff'erent 

 letter are significantly different at odds of 19:1. Two hundred 

 fruit of each cultivar present in both second-level and 

 corresponding first level blocks were sampled at harvest. All 

 blocks contained at least 1 of the following cultivars, and some 

 contained 3 of these: Mcintosh, Cortland, Delicious, Empire, 

 Golden Delicious. Average number of fruit sampled per block 

 = 500 When sampling a cultivar, we examined 10 fruit on 

 each of 20 interior trees and 10 on each of 10 perimeter-row 

 trees (when cultivar present on a perimeter row). 



blocks than in 1992 (Table 3). Captures of AMF on 

 interior unbaited monitoring traps were similar in 

 transitional second-level blocks and in first-level 

 blocks. Total insecticide used afi^r early June aver- 

 aged 0.7 dosage equivalents in second-level blocks 

 compared with 1.2 dosage equivalents in first-level 

 blocks (Table 2). The relative similarities between 

 the two sets of blocks may be explained by some 

 growers using exclusively border row sprays for 

 AMF in first-level blocks, mainly due to financial 

 constraints. 



CM damage was very low in both types of blocks 

 (0.1% or less). Both LR and LAW injury were 

 somewhat (but not significantly) greater in the tran- 

 sitional blocks (0.7 and 0.4%) than in the first-level 

 blocks (0.2 and 0%) (Table 4). 



Foliar Pests and Predators: 

 Full Second-level IPM 



In 1992, we reported peak populations of foliar 

 pests; this year we return to season-long averages 

 from time of first to last appearance of the pest on 

 foliage. Hot, dry weather played a major role in 

 inciting higher foliar pest populations in 1993. 



Fruit Notes, Winter, 1994 



