Mite populations were high in most orchards, 

 appearing early in the season (Table 5). In several 

 orchards mite problems in second-level blocks may 

 have been inadvertently assisted by our setting 

 aside of small areas (approximately one acre ) in the 

 block to be left untreated with dormant oil. This was 

 done in the hope of providing a reasonable food 

 source for early phytoseiid mite predator popula- 

 tions. Unfortunately Amblyseius fallacis suffered 

 extremely heavy late winter mortality, and these 

 areas proved useful only for raising large numbers of 

 European red mites. Yellow mite predators were 

 eventually present in large numbers in some or- 

 chards. There tended to be little difference, how- 

 ever, in densities of mite predators between full- 

 second-level and first-level blocks (Table 5). 

 Typhlodemus pyri obtained from Geneva, New York 

 were released in two blocks in 1992 and again this 

 past summer. Repeated sampling of the release sites 

 leads us to believe that both attempts at colonization 

 were unsuccessful. 



Full second-level blocks were treated with 

 slightly higher dosage equivalents of pre-bloom and 

 mid-season oil than nearby first-level blocks (1.4 vs. 

 1.0) while receiving slightly less other miticide (1.0 

 vs. 1.2 dosage equivalents) (Table 2). The use of post- 

 bloom miticides in the full second-level blocks was 

 mainly due to a need to regain control over mite 

 populations in the areas that did not receive oil in the 

 spring. 



White apple leafhopper populations were equal 

 in both the full second-level and first-level blocks. 

 Potato leafhoppers were slightly, although not sig- 

 nificantly, higher in the full second-level blocks. The 

 major leafhopper problem this year proved to be rose 

 leafhopper (RLH) migrating into blocks from border- 

 ing wild rosebushes and brambles. In several loca- 

 tions RLH were present in high enough numbers to 

 be a major irritation at harvest, and one full second- 

 level block required late season treatment of insecti- 

 cidal soap. RLH averaged 7.5 % infestation in full 

 second-level blocks, versus 2.4% infestation in the 

 first-level blocks (Table 6). 



Average leafminer populations were lower, al- 

 though not significantly, in full second-level blocks 

 than in first-level blocks (Table 6). Dimilin™ was 

 used in three of the six full second-level blocks 

 against overwintering LM adults and eggs even 

 though only two of these blocks required a treat- 

 ment. Late stage tissue mines were collected from 

 each orchard and brought back to the lab for parasit- 

 ism readings. The average parasitism rate of second 

 generation larvae was 55% in full second-level 

 blocks but only 37% in first level blocks. Research 



into parasitism of LM continues to be an area of 

 interest in that parasitism appears a potentially 

 very effective means of controlling one of our major 

 foliar pests. 



Green apple aphids infested 29% and 27% of the 

 watersprouts in full second-level blocks and in first- 

 level blocks, respectively. Levels of two aphid preda- 

 tors were also similar in both types of blocks, and 

 achieved efficient control of GAA. Levels of woolly 

 apple aphids on watersprouts were also similar in 

 both types of blocks, but were considerably higher 

 than in 1992. 



Foliar Pests and Predators: 

 Transitional Second-level IPM 



Mite levels were moderate to high in most of the 

 transitional second-level blocks and adjacent first- 

 level blocks. Dosage equivalents of oil averaged 1.1 

 in second-level blocks and 1.5 in first-level blocks. 

 Other miticide applications averaged 0.5 dosage 

 equivalents in second-level blocks and 1.7 dosage 

 equivalents in first-level blocks. Mid-season miticide 

 application occurred in one second-level block as 

 compared to three first-level blocks (Table 2). 



White apple leafhopper and potato leafhopper 

 populations were about the same in second-level and 

 first-level blocks. RLH levels were less of a problem 

 in transitional second-level blocks than in full sec- 

 ond-level blocks, possibly becauseperimeter row in- 

 secticide applications every three weeks during the 

 summer killed immigrating RLH. 



Only one transitional second-level block was 

 treated with Dimilin™ against first generation 

 leafminers. Leafminer numbers were slightly 

 higher in second-level blocks than in first-level 

 blocks, yet the parasitism of second generation lar- 

 vae was slightly lower (38% vs. 44%). LM levels were 

 similar to those found in 1992. 



Green apple aphid infestation levels were some- 

 what higher in second-level blocks than in first-level 

 blocks, as were both types of aphid predators moni- 

 tored. In both types of blocks predators were suffi- 

 cient to provide control of GAA populations. Woolly 

 apple aphid populations were similar in both types of 

 blocks (Table 6). 



Conclusions 



With regard to full second-level IPM practices 

 that involve substitution of cultural, behavioral, and 

 biological control methods for insecticide use after 

 early June, we conclude the following after three 

 consecutive years of implementation. 



Fruit Notes, Winter, 1994 



