6. Coolcy, D. R., K. Hauschild, and S. G. Schlocmann. 

 1987. A new program for integrated pest management of 

 strawberries in Massachusetts. Fniit Notes 52(3):16-19. 



7. Drozdowski, J. L. and W.J. Manning. 1984. Straw- 

 berry disease survey report. Unpublished manuscript. 



8. Oatman, E. R., F. E. Gilstrap, and V. Voth. 1976. 

 Effect of different release rales of Phylosciiilus persimilis 

 on the two-spotted spider mite on strawberry in southern 

 California. Entomophaga 21:269-273. 



9. Oatman, E. R., J. A. Wyman, H. W. Browning, and 

 V.Voth. 1981. Effects ofreleascs and varying infestations 

 levels of the two-spotted spider mite on strawberry yield in 

 southern California. 7. Econ. Entomol. 74:112-115. 



10. Schacffcrs, G. A. 1980. Yield effects of tarnished 

 plant bug feeding on June-bearing strawberry varieties in 

 New York state. J. Econ. Ent. 73:721-725. 



11. Schaeffers, G. A. 1981. Pest management systems 

 for strawberry insects, pp. 377-393. In D. Pimentel (ed.) 

 Handbook of Pest Management in Agriculture. Vol.3. CRC 

 Press, Boca Raton, PL. 



12. Schloemann, S. G. and D. R. Cooley. 1987. Straw- 

 berry IPM survey: 1987 program report. Report to the 

 Massachusetts IPM Program. 



13. Sutton, J. C. and R. G. Braun. 1987. New Methods 

 for controlling gray mould fruit rot (Botrytis cinerea) on 

 strawberries. Proc. Ontario Hort. Crop Conference. 



*^M fc^^ ^^ *^* 



^K ^r ^^ ^t^ 



BENEFITS OF ALAR TO APPLE IPM PROGRAMS 



Ronald J. Prokopy 



Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts 



Based on highly equivocal, unsubstantiated evi- 

 dence, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

 in August of 1985 announced the intent to cancel the 

 registration of Alar^^ (daminozide). When the press heard 

 of the EPA's intent to cancel Alar, the issue quickly 

 received extensive national coverage, with ensuing strong 

 condemnation of the material by the press and the public. 

 Even though the EPA's ultimate decision was to reduce 

 permissible levels of Alar on fruit, rather than cancel 

 completely the use of Alar, the initial irresponsible an- 

 nouncement of intent to cancel use was sufficient to flag 

 Alar as a dangerous chemical in the mind of the public. The 

 Massachusetts Department of Public Health expanded 

 upon the original EPA announcement by phasing out 

 tolerances for Alar residues in processed products. As you 

 well know, the end result has been strong reluctance on the 

 part of brokers, processing firms, and supermarkets to 

 accept apples treated with Alar for fear that consumers 

 would refrain from buying them. In turn, many growers 

 were reluctant to use Alar in 1986 and 1987 for fear that 

 they could not sell their apples, even though it technically 

 has remained legal to use it. This nonuse resulted in 

 premature drop of nearly 30% of all Mcintosh and reduc- 

 tion in storability of those apples that were harvested. 



This situation in itself is most unfortunate. But, an 

 equally great misfortune is the highly counter-productive 

 effect discontinued use of Alar has had on present and 

 potential integrated pest management (IPM) practices on 

 apples. In regard to present practices. Alar is frequently 

 used not only to positively affect fruit quality but also, when 

 applied in mid-or late-June, to slow the growth of water- 

 sprouts and terminals. A positive benefit of this use to pest 

 management lies in depriving aphids of rapidly-growing 

 foliar tissue. Hence, aphid populations tend to be lower in 

 blocks treated with Alar in June. Another benefit of Alar 

 to current IPM practices is associated with tolerable levels 

 of leafmincrs and spider mite populations. When present 

 in substantial numbers (and even in only moderate num- 

 bers in dry years), leafmincrs and mites can cause prema- 

 ture fruit drop, reduce fruit coloration, and diminish the 

 keeping quality of fruit. Without Alar, many growers have 

 had to use a greater amount of pesticide against leafmincrs 

 and mites to maintain these pests at levels lower than can 

 be tolerated in Alar-treated blocks. With Alar, we can 

 tolerate more leafmincrs and mites to maintain these pests 

 at levels lower than can be tolerated in Alar-treated blocks. 

 With Alar, we can tolerate more leafmincrs and mites 

 without ill effect. 



