NINE YEARS OF APPLE IPM IMPLEMENTATION AT 

 THE HORTICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER 



William M. Coll, Ronald J. Prokopy, and Kathleen Leahy 

 Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts 



Daniel R. Cooley 



Department of Plant Pathology, University of Massachusetts 



Anthony Rossi 



Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts 



Commercial fruit grower adoption of IPM is 

 well established in a majority of Massachusetts 

 orchards {Fruit Notes 51(2):11-16; 51(3):19-25), and 

 such orchards represent a change from pre-IPM 

 pest management — a single-minded focus on 

 chemical pest controls -- to a more hoUstic IPM 

 approach integrating techniques, and disciplines of 

 pest management. In the 1987 March Message, we 

 described a range of characteristics which we 

 believe represent a typical "first-stage" IPM 

 orchard. In addition, we have published results 

 (Can. Ent. 117:581-585,1985) from Prokop/s 

 Conway orchard of 50 disease-resistant apple 

 trees that show reduced pesticide use even below 

 first-stage IPM levels. 



Since most commercial orchards will not 

 contain primarily resistant cultivars for the 

 foreseeable future, we believe it is important to 

 demonstrate "how low one can go" with pesticide 

 use in first-stage IPM blocks which contain the 

 usual commercial apple mix, without sacrificing 

 fruit quality or quantity. Consequently, we think 

 growers would be interested in data we have 

 collected in a test orchard that used first-stage 

 IPM practices for a number of years. 



This article presents the results of 9 years 

 of IPM implementation at the Horticultural 

 Research Center (HRC), Belchertown, MA. 

 Although the HRC is operated in most respects 

 like a typical commercial orchard, it allows us to 

 test new approaches to pest management and be 

 somewhat less risk-aversive than growers whose 

 livelihood depends on successful pest management 

 year after year. 



Since 1979, the authors have cooperated to 

 implement a minimum-spray program in Block C at 

 the HRC, a 2-acre interior block, west of Sabin 



Street and just north of the cold storage 

 building. Composed of mostly Delicious strains 

 on M.7 rootstocks, with a few Mcintosh mixed 

 in, trees are well pruned and fertilized. 



Because of the demands of other research 

 being conducted in Block C, fungicide programs 

 in the early years were moderately conservative, 

 but insect and mite sprays were applied only if 

 justified by observations or trap captures in 

 excess of economic thresholds. Over the past 3 

 seasons, the effort to reduce fungicide in the 

 block has been intensified, and has consistently 

 included pre-application consultations. Where 

 pesticide labels allowed a range of rates (e.g., 4 

 to 6 oz/100 gal), we used the low end of the 

 range, or lower. Anthony Rossi, the orchard 

 foreman, received weekly scouting reports and 

 sometimes recommendations. Final spray 



decisions were always his, although he followed 

 IPM guidelines very closely. Wherever practical, 

 sprays were avoided deliberately, and we 

 attempted to avoid the use of predator-harsh 

 pesticides (e.g. pyrethroids, carbamates, etc.) as 

 a matter of course. When sprays were applied, 

 few were at full, labeled rates. Sprays were 

 applied with well-calibrated airblast sprayers and 

 whenever possible at the same time that the rest 

 of the orchard was being covered. Each year, 

 we performed harvest surveys and examined 

 closely 800 to 1000 fruit on the trees. 



Pesticide use . On average, 2.9 dosage 

 equivalents (DE) of insecticide, 1.0 DE oil, 1.3 

 DE miticide, 6.0 DE fungicide, and 0.1 DE 

 aphicide were applied (Table 1). Insecticide, 

 miticide, and fungicide use were all below 

 statewide IPM averages {Fruit Notes 52(3):9-12). 

 For reasons that are unclear, the HRC has never 

 had a problem with apple leafminers, although 



