13. 



Sampling stations were usually near the block periphery, 

 2 or 3 rows in from the border while one station for pheromone 

 (sex odor) traps was positioned in the block center. Visual 

 traps were used to monitor tarnished plant bug (TPB) , European 

 apple saAvfly (EAS) , and apple maggot fly (AMF) adults. Pheromone 

 traps were used to monitor Codling moth (CM), Oblique banded 

 leafroller (OBLR) , redbanded leafroller (RBLR), San Jose' scale 

 (SJS) , tufted apple budmoth (TARM) , and spotted tentiform leaf- 

 miner (STLM) males. Mites and mite predators were monitored using 

 leaf brushing techniques ( Fruit Notes 43(4)) from mid June to 

 harvest. Plum curculio (PC), green fruitworm (CFW), green apple 

 aphids (GAA) , and their predators, woolly apple aphids (WAA) and 

 STLM were monitored by examining ID fruiting spurs or foliar ter- 

 minals in each of 3 tree areas (top, low inside and low outside) 

 at each trapping station. 



Immediately prior to appropriate harvest dates for early, mid, 

 and late season apple cultivars, insect injury levels were deter- 

 mined in each IPM and Check block using on-tree surveys of 400- 

 1600 fruit per block (100 fruit per tree from each of 2 trees 

 adjacent to trapping stations). In addition, we sampled at har- 

 vest fruit injury from anotlier block in each IPM orchard of 

 similar tree size and varietal composition. Injury in tliese 

 blocks was determined by on-tree surveys of 1000 fruit per block 

 (100 fruit per tree from trees randomly located within the block). 



Results 



Fruit injury 



At harvest, fruit injury was divided into categories: 1) in- 

 jury to the skin or flesh (= permanent injury); and 2) injury 

 confined to the skin surface (= temporary injury usually removable 

 by washing, i.e., WAA in the stem cavity, sooty mold (SM) on aphid 

 honeydew, or white apple leafroller (WAL) excrement). 



Drawing on the experience of IPM researchers in other states, 

 we analyzed harvest injury levels (Table 1) and spray application 

 totals (Table 2) taking into account the degree of adoption of 

 IPM recommendations by participating growers. Specifically those 

 growers who followed more than 60"o of spray recommendations were 

 considered "good" cooperators , while those following less than 60-6 

 of these recommendations were considered "partial" cooperators. 



Overall, permanent fruit injury was only 2S% as great in good 

 cooperator IPM blocks as in partial cooperator blocks, 501 as great 

 as in same orchard non IPM blocks and 92% as great as Check blocks. 

 These data indicate that partial cooperation with IPM recommendations 

 can result in poorer quality fruit than if growers follow their own 

 spray approach without IPM advisement. 



