E. Vertebrate Pests: 



In blocks where sampling indicates injury from 

 bird pecks has reached 0.5%, Scare-Eye™ balloons 

 will be attached to poles and hung 14 meters apart 

 above the tree canopy. Because bird injury is usually 

 confined to trees near the block perimeter, only 

 perimeter rows will have balloons. In blocks where 

 deer injury to apple buds is determined to be a 

 problem, a bar of Cashmere Bouquet™ soap will be 

 hung from every perimeter tree. Every tree will 

 receive a wire guard around the trunk to prevent 

 rodent injury. The last mowing of the year in 

 October will be close to the ground (mite predators 

 will have already entered the soil to diapause). If 

 these techniques, in combination with dropped fruit 

 removal, are not enough to prevent rodent establish- 

 ment, toxic zinc phosphide bait will be applied to 

 observed mouse entry holes beneath canopies in 

 November. 



Transitional Second-level 

 IPM Practices 



Transition toward full second-level IPM in- 

 volves use of practices that are more advanced and 

 integrated than first-level IPM practices but less 

 advanced and integrated than full second-level IPM 

 practices. Hence, most but not all practices used 

 under full second-level IPM will be used here. These 

 are the differences. 



(1) Treatment of perimeter apple trees with in- 

 secticide every 3 weeks from early June through 

 mid-August as a substitute for using interception 

 traps for apple maggot flies. 



(2) No root pruning to promote early fruit red- 

 dening and reduce premature fruit drop. 



(3) No seeding of broadleaf plants and resultant 

 establishment of a groundcover favorable for mite 

 predators and no release of predatory mites. 



(4) No use of a flail mower and urea treatment 

 in November to chop fallen apple leaves to reduce 

 apple scab inoculum and overwintering leafminer 

 pupae. 



(5) No use of Scare-Eye™ balloons to repel 

 birds. 



Conclusions 



Food safety will undoubtedly continue to be a 

 major issue in the minds of the public during the 

 1990's. There may well be new pressure from regu- 

 lating agencies to reduce the level of detectable 

 pesticide residue on harvested fruit (especially fruit 

 to be consumed by infants and, by implication, chil- 

 dren) to extremely low or essentially zero amounts. 

 This reduction could call for cessation of spraying 

 pesticide after a certain point in the growing season, 

 perhaps has early as June. If this turns out to be the 

 case, we must be fully prepared to employ a proven 

 set of cultural, biological, and behavioral manage- 

 ment tactics that together are a substitute for pesti- 

 cide use beyond mid-season. We anticipate that by 

 evaluating a second-level IPM approach from 1991 

 through 1993, we will produce a coherent and effec- 

 tive set of practices that will be cost effective and bio- 

 logically effective as a substitute for pesticide use 

 after early June. Moreover, these practices would be 

 environmentally safe and tend to promote long-term 

 build-up of beneficial natural enemies of pests. 



Fruit Notes, Spring, 1991 



15 



