(5) Considerable buildup of parasitoids of leafmineis, pos- 

 sibly sufficient to reduce or eliminate need for spray 

 against leafminers; 



(6) No buildup of apple or woolly apple aphids beyond that 

 in nearby first-level blocks but greater presence of 

 aphid predators; 



(7) Slight buildup of white apple leafhoppers; and 



(8) Considerable numbers of potato and rose leafhoppers in 

 second-level blocks after early June, causing foliar 

 damage to watersprouts and terminals (potato) and 

 excrement-spotting of fruit and nuisance to pickers 

 (rose). 



With respect to transitional second-level IPM practices 

 that involve no application of insecticide to the block 

 interior after early June but rely on perimeter-row sprays 

 mstead of traps for controlling apple maggot flies, we 

 conclude the following after four years of implementation: 



(i; 



(2) 

 (3) 



(4) 



(5) 

 (6) 



(7) 



No buildup of codling moth and only a slight buildup of 

 leafroller beyond the level existing in nearby first-level 

 blocks; 



Slight buildup of lesser appleworm from 1991 to 1994; 

 Similar level of injury by apple maggot flies in second- 

 and first-level blocks; 



No buildup of pest mites under slightly reduced miti- 

 cide use but not enough buildup of predatory mites to 

 allow much reduction in miticide use; 

 Little buildup of parasitoids of leafminers; 

 No buildup of apple aphids, woolly apple aphids or 

 white apple leafhoppers beyond acceptable levels; and 

 No unacceptable populations of rose leafhoppers dur- 

 ing mid- and late-summer. 



In sum, transitional second-level IPM offers an advan- 

 tage over first-level IPM in terms of a substantial reduction 



in pesticide use during summer months. Transitional 

 second-level IPM does not appear to afford significant 

 biological control of leafminers and may allow buildup of 

 leafrollers and lesser appleworm over time. Full second- 

 level IPM is impractical for most growers at this time as it 

 is labor intensive and is still in need of additional work on 

 control of several pests. In the long run, we believe that if 

 pesticide-treated spheres can be developed and registered as 

 an inexpensive substitute for sticky spheres to control apple 

 maggot, full second-level IPM will be as economical to 

 employ and as effective in controlling pests as first-level 

 IPM while offering additional environmental benefits. 



In 1995 we will begin work on specific areas high- 

 lighted as shortcomings over our four year second-level 

 IPM pilot project. Research will include intensive study of 

 pesticide-treated spheres, examination of rose leafhopper 

 immigration patterns from multiflora rosebushes into or- 

 chard blocks, and a study of the basic biology of the lesser 

 appleworm. Success in these areas is necessary for second- 

 level IPM to become economically feasible in a commercial 

 orchard setting. 



Acknowledgments 



This project was funded by the Massachusetts Society 

 for Promoting Agriculture, the USDA Northeast Regional 

 IPM Competitive IPM Grants Program, State/Federal IPM 

 funds, and the Northeast Region Sustainable Agriculture 

 Research and Education Program (formerly LISA). We 

 gratefully acknowledge this funding. We are also grateful 

 for the participation and support of the following growers: 

 Bill Broderick, David Chandler, Dana Clark, Dick, Greg, 

 and Kevin Gilmore, Tony Lincoln, Jesse and Wayne Rice, 

 Joe Sincuk, Dave Shearer, and Barry and Bud Wiles. 



%T# •^ •X^ vi> *x» 



•^ •^ •^ 0^ 0^ 



Fruit Notes, Winter, 1995 



