10 



only a few trees showing rough bark. However, in one, an entire bIocl< of 

 Macouns showed the problem, in which outer layers of barl< flake and scale 

 from the tree, exposing the cambium. We tentatively have indentified the 

 disease as blister bark, as described by Dr. Lee Parish. if so, the disease 

 is not believed to be economically significant. 



Sclerotinia -caused blossom end rot continued to be a problem in a few 

 orchards. We have yet to assess economic impact of the problem (visual 

 estimates of up to 20^ fruit infection in June have been made). 



New or Unusual Outbreaks 



Walnut Husk Fly ( Rhagolet i s suavi s [LeowJ), a relative of the Apple 

 Maggot fly, caused substantial injury tc peaches in £ Granville block and 

 flies were also seen on peaches in Wilbraham although no injury was found. 

 In Granville, injury (deposition of numerous eggs at e;)ch oviposition site) 

 was associated wi h extensive burrowing through peach flesh. Such infesta- 

 tions are extreme y rare, although a similar situation was described in New 

 York State in 1969 by R.W. Dean. A Fruit Notes article in a subsequent 

 issue will provide more information on this occurrence and discuss the 

 possibility of this event occuring again. 



Mealybug . Sooty mold growth in the calyx of apple; was seen at several 

 sites, injury that New York Stete entomologists have [)reviously identified 

 as being caused by the Comstock Mealybug (CMB). This insect is a common 

 inhabitant of apple orchards, but is normally held below economic threshold 

 levels by predators. Recent pesticide use patterns, including the use of 

 pyrethroids, have been implicated in outbreaks. 



Tree Crickets . (Genus Oecanthus ) . Slits in one-year-old peach wood 

 which contained numerous eggs of Tree Crickets were seen while pruning a 

 block of peaches in Wilbraham tiis past spring. This injury occurred last 

 summer and was readily removed djring pruning. Injury is similar to that of 

 periodic cicada, a cyclical pest which has been increasingly evident this 

 year in orchards in Pennsylvania. 



Plans for 1986 . 



Once again, the fate of USCA IPM money is uncertain at this time, with 

 the budget-balancing Gramm-Rudman amendment likely to result in £t^ least a 

 10^ across-the-boerd cut in the USDA budget, and presumably in IPM funds as 

 well. The State Department of Food and Agriuclture IPM money will once 

 again be available. However, this will be reduced by at least 10% because 

 of deduction for overhead mandated by University policy. 



Present I986 plans call for a continued apple IPM program similar to 

 that in I985. In addition, we hope to impirove grower calibration skills and 

 the frequency of sprayer calibration. Beginning with the March Fruit grower 

 meetings, IPM staff and private sector equipment dealers will present 

 sessions on the theory and practice of calibration. At a later date, 

 regional fruit agents will hold workshops in advance of the growing season 

 at which actual dynamic calibration of different model sprayers will be 

 demonstrated. We also shall attempt to evaluate the utility of releasing 

 the predator mite Amblyseius fal laci s in orchards. This predator is being 



