REPORT OF THE STATE ENTOMOLOGIST IQI17 29 
Kendall orchard, checks (unsprayed) 1917 




CODLING MOTH, WORMY 



L TREE TOTAL PER- SCAB LEAF 
FRUIT FECT ROLLER 
Total End Side Shallow 
—————q—| (um jum —_ | ——_ — _——— ee ee) 
D eee en it 537 II5 152 20 304 I1I9 195 86 
(WELTY Ee a. Goo) | RRR 21.41 28.30 Beal 56.61 2210 36.31 16.01 
Wee GOB SRO TOE 399 48 124 52 264 I4I 181 50 
(Gremnrags) serine srsls|l (ettieeks = 12.03 31.07 13.05 66.16 35-33 45 36 L255 
Motels cas 936 163 276 72 568 260 376 136 
PemCenbia seme || oc.s.2.5 2 17.41 29.48 7.60 | 60.68 QT 7 40.17 14.53 

The two check trees produced on an average nearly as many 
apples as those in plot 2 and yet there were only 17.41 per cent of 
perfect fruit, 29.48 per cent being affected by scab and 7.69 per 
cent damaged by leaf roller. A very marked difference in wormy 
apples is noticeable, the percentage for the two trees being 56.61 
and 66.16 with an average of 60.68. The end wormy constituted 
22.16 and 35.33 per cent, respectively, with an average of 27.77, 
while the side wormy ran up to 36.31 and 45.36 per cent, the average 
being 40.17 percent. There were, however, relatively few “‘ shallow ”’ 
affected apples, these amounting on the two trees to 16.01 and 12.55 
per cent, respectively, giving an average for the two of 14.53. The 
marked contrasts are too evident to require further emphasis. 
Kendall orchard, summary of plots, 1917 












| 
CODLING MOTH, WORMY 
PLOTS TOTAL PER- SCAB LEAF | ‘| 
FRUIT FECT ROLLER 
Total End Side Shallow 
Te Ota g cue cnesehoe tie 4 837 I 680 838 I 319 I 631 78 767 888 
IREtCEnb eis: S108ei|| fe eie et 34.71 0732 27.26 33-71 1.61 15.85 Lo. 5 
oe ote lee erty ncye vies 2 O15 825 308 484 547 57 188 333 
Permcentucancasie|| (scams 40.94 I5.28 24.02 27.14 2.83 9.36 16.55 
Checks 
MhOtal’ scars s uata'« 936 163 276 72 568 260 376 136 
IPErnCenitiaare saieallh vata co 17.41 290.48 7.69 60.68 ahelsig) 40.17 14.53 



The summary tabulation given above brings out in a general 
way the results obtained in this orchard, and it is a source of regret 
that the crop was not larger and more uniform so that comparisons 
would have been of greater value. It will be seen that in plot 2 
