Table 1. Effects from using AMF interception traps on perimeter trees. 



Avg. no. AMF/block Avg. % fruit injury 



by insect pests active 



Inter- Interior after mid-June^* 



ception monitoring 



traps traps AMF CM RBLR Other 



Year Block No. 



1987 Trapped 6 2054 123 



Grower- 

 sprayed 6 — 84 



1.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 

 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 



1988 Trapped 6 3201 117 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 



Grower- 

 sprayed 6 — 105 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 



Avg. % leaves (or terminals) infested/block"'* 



Ratio of 

 pest to 

 ERM predatory 



TSM AF YM mites WAA WAL PL LM GAAGAAP 



1987 Trapped 6 20 4.0 3.2 2.8:1 2 9 17 10 - 

 Grower- 

 sprayed 6 13 1.5 2.3 3.4:1 2 5 10 14 - 



1988 Trapped 6 12 1.3 1.2 4.7:1 3 27 3 11 14 6.7 

 Grower- 

 sprayed 6 11 1.1 0.1 9.3:1 4 18 2 11 16 3.7 



"^500 on-tree fruit/block sampled during July, August, and September. 



''AMF = apple maggot fly, CM = codling moth, RBLR = redbanded leaf roller, ERM 



= European red mites, TSM = two spotted mites, AF = Amblyseius fallacis, YM = 



predatory yellow mites, WAA = woolly apple aphid, WAL= white apple ieafhopper, 



PL= potato Ieafhopper, LM= leafminer, GAA= green apple aphid, GAAP= green 



apple aphid predators: cecidomyiids and syrphids. 



"400 leaves (or terminals) sampled/block during July, August, and September. 



last curculio spray in early June. 



Woolly aphid and leafminer populations were similar 

 in abundance (both low) in test and grower-sprayed blocks 

 in both 1987 and 1988. However, both white apple Ieafhop- 

 per and potato Ieafhopper populations were greater in the 

 test blocks than the grower-sprayed blocks each year. This 

 result causes us concern. It indicates we must consider ap- 

 plying pesticides specifically against Ieafhopper nymphs in 

 test blocks in early- or mid-June. 



We are most encouraged by the results of using apple 

 maggot Oy traps on perimeter apple trees. No grower will 

 want to hang hundreds of sticky spheres around his or- 



chard each year and clean the spheres of maggot flies ev- 

 ery month or so. We have in mind a substitute plan 

 whereby a grower might purchase several hundred larger 

 spheres (5 to 6 inches or so in diameter) which could be 

 more attractive than the current 3-inch spheres. These 

 larger spheres could be hung in a permanent position on 

 perimeter trees for perhaps 10 years. Only tree pruning 

 would necessitate repositioning. In July, each sphere 

 would be sprayed with or dipped in a solution containing a 

 long-residual pesticide, a feeding stimulant for arriving 

 maggot flies, and an agent that would greatly lengthen 

 pesticide residual activity. Odor attractants would be 



