Second-level IPM for Pests in Apple 

 Orchards: Performance According 

 to Type of Cultivar 



Ronald J. Prokopy, Jennifer Mason, and Starker Wright 

 Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts 



Daniel R. Cooley 



Department of Plant Pathology, University of Massachusetts 



Wesley R. Autio 



Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts 



Under second-level IPM, orchard manage- 

 ment is integrated across all classes of pests: 

 insects, mites, diseases, and weeds. Under the 

 concept of second-level IPM that we have envi- 

 sioned for Massachusetts apple orchards, trees 

 would receive pesticide sprays against insect, 

 mite, and disease pests only through early or 

 mid-June. Thereafter, non-pesticidal ap- 

 proaches such as cultural, behavioral, and bio- 

 logical controls would be employed as substi- 

 tutes for pesticides. 



Recently [Fruit Notes 60(1): 1-7], we reported 

 our conclusions on four years of second-level 

 pilot project research in 12 commercial orchards. 

 In that report, we did not present information 

 on possible differences among apple cultivars 

 in effectiveness of second-level practices. Here, 

 we present a summary of three years of data 

 (1992-1994) from six orchard blocks on effects 

 of full second-level IPM practices for each of 

 three prominent cultivars: Mcintosh, Cortland, 

 and Delicious. 



Methods & Materials 



A full description of the pest management 

 methods used in second-level IPM blocks and 

 of the number of pesticide sprays applied in sec- 

 ond-level blocks compared with nearby grower- 

 managed first-level IPM blocks is given in Fruit 



Notes [60(1): 1-7]. Briefly, up to early June, three 

 to four insecticide sprays, two oil sprays against 

 mites, and four to five fungicide sprays were 

 applied in second-level and first-level blocks 

 alike. Thereafter, in second-level blocks, baited 

 sticky red spheres were used to control apple 

 maggot flies, removal of wild apple trees within 

 100 yards of the orchard perimeter was used to 

 control codling moth and lesser appleworm, 

 naturally existing beneficial predators and 

 parasites were used to control mites, aphids, 

 leafminers, leaflioppers, and leafrollers, and 

 summer pruning in combination with reduced 

 fungicide use was used to control sooty blotch 

 and flyspeck. 



It is the normal practice in biological sciences 

 to state that differences are truly significant if 

 the odds of those differences occiuring by chance 

 are less than one in twenty. This procedure 

 serves us well when studying practices which 

 have the potential to improve crop yield or crop 

 quality. However, in the case of second-level 

 IPM, we are not attempting to improve crop 

 jdeld and quality but are attempting to main- 

 tain them. Because second-level IPM utilizes 

 alternative practices with which we have had 

 minimum experience (not decades of experi- 

 ence), we should be conservative when judging 

 its outcome in comparison with first-level IPM 

 practices. Hence, for the purposes of this ar- 



Fru/t Notes, Summer, 1995 



11 



