(1) No buildup of codling moth or leafroller beyond 

 a level existing in nearby first-level IPM blocks. 



(2) Slight buildup of lesser appleworm in 1993. 



(3) Slightly greater injury by apple maggot flies, 

 especially in late-ripening cultivars. 



(4) No buildup of pest mites under slightly reduced 

 miticide use but insufficient buildup of preda- 

 tory mites to permit truly substantial reduction 

 in miticide use. 



(5) Considerable buildup of parasitoids of 

 leafminers, possibly sufficient to reduce or elimi- 

 nate need for spray against leafminers. 



(6) No buildup of apple aphids, woolly apple aphids, 

 or white apple leafhoppers beyond acceptable 

 levels. 



(7) Substantial mid- and late-summer immigration 

 (into some blocks) of rose leafhoppers from 

 nearby rose bushes and brambles, causing ex- 

 crement spotting of fi"uit and nuisance to pick- 

 ers. 



With respect to transitional second-level IPM 

 practices that involve no application of insecticide to 

 the block interior aft.er early June but rely on perim- 

 eter-row sprays instead of traps for controlling apple 

 maggot flies, we conclude the following after three 

 consecutive years of implementation. 



(1) No buildup of codling moth but slightly more 

 injury by leafrollers compared with nearby first- 

 level IPM blocks. 



(2) Slight buildup of lesser appleworm in 1993. 



(3) Slightly greater injury by apple maggot fly. 



(4) No buildup of pest mites under slightly reduced 

 miticide use but not enough buildup of predatory 

 mites to allow much reduction in miticide use. 



(5) No buildup of parasitoids of leafminers. 



(6) No buildup of apple aphids, woolly apple aphids, 

 or white apple leaflioppers beyond acceptable 

 levels. 



(7) No unacceptable immigration of rose leafhop- 

 pers during mid- and late-summer. 



In sum, transitional second-level IPM offers an 

 advantage over first-level IPM in terms of substan- 

 tial reduction in pesticide use during summer 



months. Growers using transitional second-level 

 IPM should, however, keep a careful eye on buildup 

 of apple maggot, leafrollers, and leafminers. In the 

 long run, we believe that if pesticide-treated spheres 

 can be developed and registered as a substitute for 

 sticky spheres to control apple maggot (see accompa- 

 nying article), full second-level IPM will be as eco- 

 nomical to employ and as effective in controlling 

 pests as first-level IPM while offering several dis- 

 tinct advantages outlined in the introduction. 



To verify further the advantages and shortcom- 

 ings of second-level IPM, we plan to evaluate in 1994 

 the same full and transitional second-level practices 

 in the same blocks used from 1991 to 1993. This will 

 provide four consecutive years of data, which ought 

 to be sufficient for drawing firm conclusions. We also 

 plan to carry out intensive studies on refining those 

 aspects of full second-level IPM that to date have 

 proven to be shortcomings. These include: enhanc- 

 ing the residual effectiveness of pesticide-treated 

 spheres; studying within-orchard movement pat- 

 terns of apple maggot flies from early- to mid- to late- 

 ripening cultivars; evaluating elimination of rose- 

 bushes and brambles near orchards as a means of 

 controlling rose leafhopper; and evaluating the im- 

 pact of summer applications of benomyl and 

 mancozeb on mite predators, which we now believe 

 may be the principal reason for lack of sufficient mite 

 predator buildup to provide biocontrol of mites in 

 second-level blocks. 



Acknowledgements 



This project was funded by the Massachusetts 

 Society for Promoting Agriculture, the USDA North- 

 east Regional IPM Competitive IPM Grants Pro- 

 gram, State/Federal IPM funds, and the Northeast 

 Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Edu- 

 cation Program (formerly LISA). We gratefully 

 acknowledge this funding. We are also grateful for 

 the participation and support of the following grow- 

 ers: Bill Broderick, David Chandler, Dana Clark, 

 Dick, Greg, and Kevin Gilmore, Tony Lincoln, 

 Jesse and Wayne Rice, Joe Sincuk, Dave Shearer, 

 Tim Smith, and Barry and Bud Wiles. 



•!• %l0 •!» %% •^ 

 •Y» •^ •((»• •li* •(!>• 



Fruit Notes, Winter, 1994 



