damage in border-row-sprayed test blocks as in control 

 blocks (0.6 vs. 0.8%). Damage by other mid- and late- 

 season pests (scale, codling moth, leafrollers, and others) 

 was about twice as great in woods-trapped test blocks as in 

 control blocks (2.4 vs. 1.1%), but was no different in apple- 

 tree-trapped and border-row-sprayed test blocks com- 

 pared with control blocks. Although none of the test blocks 

 yielded all perfect fruit, we feel these results are encourag- 

 ing in terms of the potential effectiveness of either traps 

 placed in perimeter apple trees, or border row sprays (in 

 combination with removal of nearby host trees) as an 

 alternative approach to managing maggot fly, codling 

 molh, and leafrollers. 



Table 3 shows populations of foliar-feeding pests 

 found during sampling in each block. Although popula- 

 tions of European red mites and two-spotted miles aver- 

 aged 37% higher in the test than in the control blocks, 

 populations of mile predators averaged 137% higher in the 

 test blocks. This result is precisely the sort of outcome we 

 were hoping to sec. If (he test blocks were to remain free 

 of inscclicidc and milicidc after May for the next 2 years, 

 wc would expect mite predators to increase even further to 

 a point where I hey alone (in conjunction wit hpre-bloom oil 

 sprays) might be able to control pest mites. Woolly apple 

 aphids were low in numbers in all blocks. White apple 

 leafhoppcrs averaged 57% more abundant in the test 

 blocks, but here again we expect leafhopper parasites to 



10 



