Full text of "Fruit notes"

l^j^H University of
^^gk Massachusetts
UMASS Amherst

Library

BIOLOGICAL

OCT 2 5 1999

SQtgNCES LIBRARY

UM/Morr.

Per

354

F68

^"ruit Notes

Prepared by the Department of Plant & Soil Sciences.

UMass Extension, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and Massachusetts Counties Cooperating.

Editors: Wesley R. Autio and William J. Bramlage

Volume 62,'Q|^mber 1
WINTER ISSUE, 1997

Table of Contents

Positioning Unbaited Pyramid
Traps to Capture Plum Curculios

How Do Plum Curculios Approach
Host Trees and Pjrramid Traps?

Do Natural Sources of Odor Enhance
Plum Curculio Attraction to Traps?

Petal Fall is the Most Attractive Developmental Stage
of Mcintosh Apple Trees to Plum Curculio Adults

Jim Anderson Dies

Peach Cultivar Trials: Observations and Comments

Agri-Mek: A 1996 Field Trial in a Commercial Apple Orchard

Fruit Notes

Publication Information:

Fruit Notes (ISSN 0427-6906) is published the each January, April,
July, and October by the Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University
of Massachusetts.

The costs of subscriptions to Fruit Notes are $ 1 0.00 for United States
addresses and $12.00 for foreign addresses. Each one-year subscription
begins January 1 and ends December 3 1 . Some back issues are available
for $3.00 (United States addresses) and $3.50 (foreign addresses). Pay-
ments must be in United States currency and should be made to the
University of Massachusetts.

Correspondence should be sent to:

Fruit Notes

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences
205 Bowditch Hall
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01 003

UMASS EXTENSION POLICY:

All chemical uses suggested in this publication are contingent upon continued registration.
These chemicals should be used in accordance with federal and state laws and regulations.
Growers are urged to be familiar with all current state regulations. Where trade names are used
for identification, no company endorsement or product discrimination is intended. The
University of Massachusetts makes no warranty or guarantee of any kind, expressed or implied,
concerning the use of these products. USER ASSUMES ALL RISKS FOR PERSONAL
INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE.

Issued hy UMass Exlensuiii, Riihcil C, Hel^eseit. Director, in fiirlheraiice of the iicls of May 8 iindJune 30,
1914. UMaas Extension offers equal opportunity in programs and employment.

Positioning Unbailed Pyramid Traps
to Capture Plum Curculios

Ronald Prokopy and Starker Wright

Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts

In the 1996 Winter issue of Fruit Notes, we
reported results of our 1995 research on plum
curculio responses to unbaited "Tedders" traps.
These traps are pjrramidal in shape, dark in
color, and are placed on the ground. They
capture curculios that arrive on the trap
surface and subsequently crawl upward to the
tip, where they enter an inverted screen funnel
(a cotton boll weevil trap top) placed over the
tip, from which they cannot escape.

All reported tests to date using Tedders
traps (hereafter referred to as pyramid traps)
for capturing plum curculios have involved
deploying unbaited traps between canopies of
apple trees within rows. In 1996, we evaluated
unbaited pyramid traps at four different
positions on the ground in a small commercial
apple orchard (Prokopy orchard) in Conway,
MA. In addition, we compared curculio
captures by pyramid traps with captures by
unbaited cotton boll weevil trap tops placed in
tree canopies. For each position or type of trap,
we compared daily trap captures with daily
incidence of orchard fruit scarring by plum
curculios.

Materials & Methods

Each pyramid trap was black and measured
40 inches in vertical height, 22 inches in base
width, and 2 inches in top width. Each was
staked to the ground to prevent toppling by
wind. All traps were constructed from plywood
in our laboratory, but beginning in 1997, traps
of essentially identical type can be purchased
from Gemplers Inc., Mt. Horeb, WI (only known
supplier).

The orchard consisted of ten rows of five
trees per row. Tree trunks were 20 feet apart
between rows and 13 feet apart within rows.

Trees were about 12 feet tall and about 10 feet
in canopy diameter. Soil beneath tree canopies
was treated with glyphosate in April and was
devoid of vegetation throughout our study. The
remainder of the orchard floor was covered with
grass, which was maintained at a height of 2 to
4 inches. Dense woods, which we considered to
be prime overwintering habitat for plum
curculios, lay about 25 feet north of the end tree
of each row, and a large open field of grass lay
immediately south.

At the pink stage of bud development,
pyramid traps were placed in association with
each of the trees in the second through ninth
rows (Figure 1). One trap was placed 10 feet
north of the trunk of the northernmost tree (15
feet from the woods), one trap 10 feet south of
the trunk of the southernmost tree of a row (at
the edge of the open field), one trap mid-way
between the canopies of the northernmost and
next northernmost tree of a row, and one trap 1
foot from the trunk of the center tree of a row.
At the same time, a boll weevil trap top was
placed on the cut end of a 4-inch upright twig in
the upper part of northernmost trees in the
second through ninth rows.

Traps were examined daily at 7 AM from
time of installation (May 14) until four weeks
after petal fall (June 27). In addition to
recording numbers of curculios captured each
day, we also recorded daily (from full bloom on
May 23 until June 15) the number of fruit
receiving a curculio feeding or oviposition scar
in samples of five fruit per tree per day (200
fruit per day among 40 trees).

Orchard trees received no insecticide before
bloom but were treated with phosmet on May
28 (80% petal fall) and on June 15. All traps
were removed during treatment, which was
applied by a motorized back pack sprayer to the

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 1), Fall, 1997

1 Woods J

c ,f

15ft

-N

0000©

* 0*0000

* 00000

* 00000
' 00000

* 00000

* 00000
00000

Field

Figure 1. Pyramid-trap deplo5rment in this experiment in
relation to tree location.

Table 1. Numbers of plum curculios captured by pyramids capped by boll
weevil trap tops or by boll weevil trap tops alone at different locations in
a small commercial apple orchard, May 14-June 27, 1996, Conway, MA.

Trap type

Trap location

Average number
per trap*

PjTamid
Pyramid
Pyramid
P5Tamid
Trap top alone

Apple tree trunk 6.0a

Between apple tree canopies 0.8b

Between apple trees and woods 1.1b

Between apple trees and open field 1.1b

Apple tree canopy 0.4b

'Numbers followed by a different letter are significantly different at odds
of 19:1.

Fruit Notes, Vol

ume 62 (Number 1), Winter, 1997

12 -

10 ■

■ Scars

D Captured Adults

♦ Insecticide Application

r M I

6-Jun 8-Jun

10-Ju

12-Jun 14-Jun

23-May 25-May 27-May 29-May 31 -May 2-Jun 4-Jun

Figure 2. Egg-laying scars and trap captures from May 23 through June 15, 1996.

tree canopy and trunks.
Results

Unbaited pyramid traps placed adjacent to
tree trunks captured at least five times more
curculios than unbaited pyramid traps at any
other position and 15 times more curculios than
unbaited boll weevil trap tops placed in tree
canopies (Table 1).

Capture of substantial numbers of curculios
by unbaited pjn-amid traps next to tree trunks
could entice one to believe that such captures
might be used as a basis for determining need
for and timing of insecticide sprays against
curculio. Unfortunately, this did not prove to be
the case in the Conway orchard in 1996. In fact,
there was no trap position for which there was
even a faint positive correlation between daily

trap captures and daily numbers of sampled
fruit injured by plum curculios. Indeed, the
correlation between daily captures by pyramid
traps at tree trunks and daily fruit injuries was
a negative rather than a positive one (Figure 2).
In other words, during periods when captures
were greatest, injury was least.

Conclusions

Our findings show that placing black
pyramid traps next to apple tree trunks is the
most effective position in terms of capturing the
greatest numbers of plum curculios in an apple
orchard. Results of additional studies (see
following article) indicate that the principal
reason why this position is better than any
other position stems from the strong tendency
of curculios, when crawling, to move toward

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 1), Fall, 1997

areas of greatest darkness within an orchard
(that is, toward tree trunks). Placement of
black pyramid traps next to tree trunks
capitalizes on this behavioral tendency, which
is expressed just as strongly in an understory of
vegetation as on bare ground.

Even at this most favored tree-trunk
position, however, unbaited black p5Tamid
traps fall well short of being an effective means
of monitoring the occurrence of curculio injury
to apples. Additional studies (see following
article) indicate that a principal cause for the
failure of captures by unbaited pyramid traps
on ground to be good predictors of fruit injury in
tree canopies lies in the means by which
curculios approach pjrramid traps and ap-
proach tree canopies: by crawling or by flight.
Evidence suggests that during warm weather,
curculios may enter tree canopies directly by
flight, bypassing tree trunks and pjrramid
traps. Injury to fruit is greatest during periods
of warm weather, such as occurred from June 5
through June 9 in the Conway orchard in 1996

(Figure 2). It appears that during this time
period, most curculios arrived in tree canopies
by flight and not by crawling up tree trunks (or
up pyramid traps).

What might be a solution to this
shortcoming of pyramid traps during warm
weather? One solution might be to use a
powerful attractive odor in conjunction with a
pyramid trap positioned next to a tree trunk
(see following articles). Another solution might
be to develop an effective odor-baited trap for
use in the tree canopy. We are working toward
both solutions.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from the
USDA Northeast Regional IPM Competitive
Grants Program, the USDA SARE Program,
State/Federal IPM funds, and the New
England Tree Fruit Growers Research Com-
mittee.

•Xa •Xa *1> vl* vL*

r^ 0^ rp» 0^ #^

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 1), Winter, 1997

How Do Plum Curculios Approach
Host Trees and Pyramid Traps?

Ronald Prokopy and Starker Wright

Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts

The means by which plum curcuhos
approach host trees, whether by flight or by
crawhng, can provide important background
information leading toward optimization of
design and location of traps for monitoring and
possibly even controlling curculios. We report
here on several studies conducted during 1996
aimed at learning more about movement
patterns of curculios toward host trees and
pyramid traps under varying sorts of weather
conditions.

Experiments & Results

Movement Toward Host Trees. In our

first experiment in a small unmanaged orchard
of 36 semi-dwarf trees owned by Hardigg
Industries of South Deerfield, MA, we wanted
to determine whether curculios entered the tree
by flying, by crawling, or by both means, and
whether mode of entry depended on weather
conditions. We coated the trunks of 12 trees
(every third tree) with a thick 1-inch-wide band
of Tangletrap about 2 feet above ground to
prevent curculios fi-om crawling up the trunk
and into the canopy. Direct observation of
curculios attempting to cross this sticky band
indicated that they were unsuccessful in doing
so. None of the tips of branches of these or any
other trees in the orchard reached closer than 2
feet above ground, thereby precluding curculios
from crawling onto branch trips to reach the
canopy. Height of grass was maintained below
4 inches. Another set of 12 trees (every third
tree) was not treated with Tangletrap to permit
curculio arrival both by crawling and by flight.
Every evening at 8 PM from May 19 (full bloom)
to June 7, we tapped the branches of each of
these 24 trees over white cloth sheets placed on
the ground beneath the canopy and collected all

fallen curculios. We also obtained an hourly
record of temperature at a nearby location for
each day from May 19 to June 7.

Results (Table 1, experiment 1) show that
that total number of curculios collected fi^om
trees having a band of Tangletrap was nearly
equal to that of trees without a band of
Tangletrap. Results (Table 1, experiment 1)
also show there was a significant positive
correlation between daily numbers tapped from
trees having a Tangletrap band, as well as from
trees without Tangletrap, and daily high
temperature.

These results provide two valuable pieces of
information. First, a band of Tangletrap
around the tree trunk is of no apparent value in
preventing curculios from accessing host trees
and causing injury to fruit. One reason for this
lack of deterring effect may be that those
curculios which crawl up tree trunks and are
unable to pass beyond a sticky barrier
subsequently fly into the tree canopy, provided
the temperature is warm enough to permit
flight. We did, in fact, observe directly some
curculios behaving in this manner on warm
days. Second, our prediction at the outset that
numbers of curculios in tree canopies would be
equal on trees with and without a Tangletrap
band on warm days (signifying movement into
canopies largely or solely by flight) but would be
greater on trees without than with a
Tangletrap band on cool days (signifying
movement into canopies largely solely by
crawling) was not supported by the data. On
warm days, numbers were large on both types
of trees, indicating that curculios were prone to
fly into tree canopies on warm days. On cool
days, numbers were few on both types of trees,
indicating little tendency of curculios either to
fly or to crawl into trees on cool days.

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 1), Fall, 1997

Table 1. Numbers of plum curculios found in daily collections at 8PM in each of three
experiments in Hardigg's unmanaged orchard, May 19 - June 7, 1996, South Deerfield, MA.

Number of
Exp. Treatment replicates

Average
number of
curculios*

Value of
correlation

with
temperature

1 Trees with a Tangletrap band 12
Trees without a Tangletrap band 12

2 Clear Plexiglas, low position 12
Clear Plexiglas, high position 12

3 Pyramid traps with a Tangletrap band 6
P3rramid traps without a Tangletrap band 6

100a
107a

16a
14a

7b
20a

0.56
0.46

0.43
0.48

0.73
0.39

*Numbers in each experiment followed by a different letter are significantly different at
odds of 19:1.

**A perfect positive correlation between daily numbers of curculios found in each treatment
and daily high temperature would be 1.00. Each correlation value shown here (except
P5Tamid traps without Tangletrap) indicates a significant positive relation at odds of 19:1.

In our second experiment, conducted in the
same orchard, we wanted to gain more direct
information on the extent of curculio flight into
tree canopies on warm versus cool days.
Therefore, on the remaining 12 trees in the
orchard (every third tree not involved in the
first experiment), we positioned two squares of
clear Plexiglass (2 feet by 2 feet) vertically on a
pole about 2 feet to the outside of the perimeter
foliage of each tree: one square at base height of
foliage and one square at top height of foliage.
The entire surface of each square facing away
from the canopy (but not the surface facing
toward the canopy) was coated with Tangletrap
to capture curculios flying toward the canopy.
Traps were emplaced on the same dates and
examined for captured curculios at the same
time (daily at 8 PM) as in the first experiment.

Results (Table 1, experiment 2) show that
there was no significant difi'erence in numbers
of captured curculios between the low-
positioned and the high-positioned traps.
Results (Table 1, experiment 2) also show there
was a significant positive correlation between

daily numbers captured at each position and
daily high temperature. Furthermore, there
were significant positive correlations between
daily captures on high or low traps and daily
numbers of curculios tapped from canopies of
trees with or without a Tangletrap band (data
not shown).

Together, these findings constitute strong
evidence that on warm days, curculios fly
directly into tree canopies, whereas on cool days
there is much less tendency to do so.

Movement Toward Pyramid Traps. In
our first experiment, we placed an unbaited
pyramid trap midway between the trunk and
canopy edge of each of the 12 trees that received
sticky-coated squares of Plexiglas at the
Hardigg orchard. Every other pyramid trap
received a band of Tangletrap 4 inches above
the base to prevent curculios from crawling to
the top. The remaining six traps did not receive
Tangletrap. All traps were in place fi"om May
25 to June 7 and were examined daily at 8 PM
for captured curculios.

Results (Table 1, experiment 3) show that

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 1), Winter, 1997

traps with Tangletrap captured about one-
third as many curculios as traps without
Tangletrap, signifying that about two-thirds of
the curcuHos captured by traps without
Tangletrap arrived on the traps by crawling
onto them rather than by flying onto them.

As with crawling curculios that encoun-
tered a Tangletrap band at the base of a tree
trunk, crawling curculios that encountered a
Tangletrap band at the base of a pyramid trap
likewise subsequently may have taken flight,
temperature permitting. Such flight appar-
ently did not result in landing on the middle or
upper part of a pyramid trap, however. Results
(Table 1, experiment 3) also show there was a
significant positive correlation between daily
numbers captured by pyramid traps with
Tangletrap (but not traps without Tangletrap)
and daily high temperature.

In our second experiment, conducted in
association with three large unmanaged trees
near Prokopy's home in Conway, we studied in
greater depth curculio captures by unbaited
pyramid traps that received a band of
Tangletrap at the base and traps that did not.
In all, there were two traps of each type
beneath each tree, midway between the trunk
and edge of canopy. Grass beneath each tree
was maintained below 4 inches in height.
Captured curculios were counted daily at 5AM
and 10PM from June 29 to July 14.

Results (Table 2) show that across the
entire 24-hour period of a day, traps with

Tangletrap captured about one-third as many
curculios as traps without Tangletrap, corrobo-
rating results of the preceding experiment at
Hardigg. Interestingly, traps without

Tangletrap captured about twice as many
curculios from SAM to 10PM as fi-om 10PM to
SAM, whereas traps with Tangletrap captured
more than 20 times as many curculios fi*om
SAM to 10PM as from 10PM to SAM. These
results signify that about twice as many
curculios arrive on pjrramid traps during
daylight as during darkness, that about half of
those arriving on pyramid traps during
daylight do so by flying and half by crawling,
and that almost all of those arriving on pyramid
traps during darkness do so by crawling. There
may be two reasons why very few curculios fly
onto pyramid traps during darkness: first, on
most nights, temperature during darkness may
be too cool to permit flight; and second,
curculios in flight during darkness may be
unable to see pyramid traps.

In our third experiment, beneath a plum
tree at Prokopy's in Conway, we released a
group of 40 field-collected plum curculios on the
ground mid-way between the tree trunk and
edge of the canopy. We did this on 12 evenings
at 7:30 PM between June 22 and July 14 when
the temperature was about 70°F and there was
no rain falling. Four of the releases were made
north of the tree on ground covered by 4 inches
of grass, four north of the tree on bare ground
(the grass was covered with soil), and four south

Table 2. Numbers of plum curculios captured by pyramid traps beneath
unmanaged apple trees at different times of day, June 29 - July 14, 1996,
Conway, MA.

Traps

Number of
replicates

Average number captured*

SAM - 10PM 10PM - S AM

With a band of Tangletrap 6

Without a band of Tangletrap 6

4.3b
7.8a

0.2c
3.Sb

^Numbers followed by a different letter are significantly different at odds of
19:1.

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 1), Fall, 1997

of the tree on bare ground. We placed one
unbaited pyramid trap next to the tree trunk
and one at the north edge of the canopy (when
releases were north) or south edge of the canopy
(when releases were south).

Results revealed that about 20% of released
curculios were captured by the trap at the
trunk and about 4% by the trap at the edge of
the canopy, irrespective of where released.
Further results revealed that of all released
curculios, about 15% eventually flew into the
tree canopy, about 15% flew toward open space,
about 1% flew onto the tree trunk, about 2%
flew onto the trunk trap, and about 1% flew
onto the edge trap. Interestingly, about 40% of
released curculios crawled toward the tree
trunk, with no more than 4% crawling in any
other direction. This was true irrespective of
whether curculios were released north or south
of the tree trunk.

These results support results reported in a
preceding article in this issue showing that
several times more curculios were captured by
pyramid traps next to tree trunks than by
pjrramid traps more distant from tree trunks.
Results here also indicate that when evening
temperatures are moderate (somewhat condu-
cive to flight but not highly so), only a very
small proportion of curculios that does fly
alights on pyramid traps. The great majority in
flight bypasses the traps. On the other hand, a
very high proportion of crawling curculios
moves toward the tree trunk, where they
encounter and ascend either the tree trunk or
an adjacent pyramid trap.

Conclusions

Perhaps the most important general

conclusion from this array of studies is that
when temperature is high enough to permit
plum curculio flight, curculios may fly directly
into tree canopies (either from overwintering
sites or from ground beneath trees). In so
doing, it appears that most are likely to bypass
unbaited pyramid traps, irrespective of trap
location. Unbaited pyramid traps, especially
when located next to tree trunks, appear to be
very good at capturing curculios that are
crawling toward the greatest area of darkness
in the habitat (that is, toward the center of the
tree). Substantial numbers of curculios appear
to crawl toward tree trunks and adjacent
pjrramid traps when temperatures are too low
and/or the amount of light is too little to permit
flight. Hence, unbaited pyramid traps at tree
trunks may afford an accurate representation
of curculio populations in orchard trees during
periods that favor curculio arrival in trees by
crawling but not during periods that favor
curculio arrival in trees by flight. Overall, as
shown here, a band of Tangletrap around the
tree trunk is of little value in preventing
curculios from achieving substantial numbers
in tree canopies.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from the
USDA Northeast Regional IPM Competitive
Grants Program, the USDA SARE Program,
the New England Tree Fruit Growers Research
Committee, and State/Federal IPM funds. We
thank Jim Hardigg of South Deerfield, MA for
permission to work in his orchard.

*X* *X» *X* *X* *X*

•^ #^ #^ #y* #^

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 1), Winter, 1997

Do Natural Sources of Odor Enhance
Plum Curcullo Attraction to Traps?

Ronald Prokopy and Tracy Leskey

Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts

In a preceding article in this issue of Fruit
Notes, we suggested that addition of a powerful
attractive odor might enhance the capturing
power of a pyramid or cone trap to an extent
that such a trap could become reliable for
monitoring the abundance of plum curculios in
commercial orchards. Here, we report on 1996
tests in which we evaluated plum curculio
males, plum curculio females, whole stored
mature apples, pieces of stored mature apples,
and fresh immature apples as potential natural
sources of attractive odor for plum curculios.
We also evaluated ammonium carbonate (an
attractant for apple maggot flies) as a potential
attractant for plum curculios.

Experiments & Results

Curculios as Odor Sources. Curculios

used as odor sources were separated by sex
shortly after emergence in summer and then
were held over winter in containers outdoors
until ready for use here. For each experiment,
they were confined in a plastic container in
groups of 20 same-sex individuals per
container. Each container was cylindrical,
about 2 inches in diameter and 3 inches tall,
covered at the top with a clear-plastic lid to
prevent entry of rainfall, and covered at the
bottom with window screen to allow odor to
emanate from the cylinder. Each cylinder,
including "check" cylinders containing no
curculios, received eight fresh-picked imma-
ture apples (about 1/2 inch diameter), removed
every other day. Traps with which these
containers were associated were examined
daily at 5 AM, at which time captured curculios
were removed. On average, 15 of the 20

Table 1.

Mean numbers of plum curculios

captured per day in traps baited

with either male, female, or no

plum curculios.

Average number

Location of

Bait

Number of

captured

Exp.

bait containers

source

replicates

per day

Base of pjTamid trap

Males

4.9a

Females

4.5a

None

6.2a

Top of pyramid trap

Males

3.8a

Females

1.9a

None

5.1a

On boll weevil

Males

0.2a

trap tops on twigs

Females

0.6a

in tree canopy

None

0.4a

*In each

I experiment, numbers followed by s

I different letter are significantly

different at odds of 19:1.

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 1), FalJ, 1997

curculios per container remained alive during
the course of an experiment.

In the first experiment, three containers of
same-sex curcuhos were attached 8 inches
above ground to the wings of pyramid traps,
one container per wing. Traps were placed mid-
way between trunks and perimeters of
unmanaged apple trees from May 23 (full
bloom) until June 12. Results (Table 1) show
that traps baited with "check" containers
devoid of curculios captured similar numbers of
curculios than traps baited with live males or
live females.

In the second experiment, one container of
curculios was affixed to an open-trap boll weevil
trap top capping a p5rramid trap in such a way
that odor could move fi"om the container of
curculios through the boll weevil trap top and
down onto the pyramid. Traps were placed
mid-way between trunks and perimeters of
unmanaged apple trees from June 13 until
June 21. Results (Table 1) show that traps
baited with "check" containers devoid of
curculios captured similar number of curculios
than traps baited with live males or females.

In the third experiment, one container of

curculios was affixed to a boll weevil trap top in
the same manner as in the second experiment.
Then, each was placed on the end of an upright
twig at mid-height in the canopy of an
unmanaged apple tree from May 23 until June
21. Results (Table 1) show that few plum
curculios were captured by any of the traps,
with no significant differences in captures
among traps baited with males, females, or
empty traps.

Apples as Odor Sources. Apples used as
odor sources were either mature Fuji apples
stored over winter under refrigeration and
washed thoroughly before use or immature
Mcintosh apples (about 2/3 inch diameter)
attached to freshly cut unsprayed branchlets.

In the first experiment, 16 whole mature
Fuji apples were distributed evenly on the
ground at the base of each pyramid trap. Traps
were placed mid-way between trunks and
perimeters of unsprayed apple trees from May
21 (early bloom) until June 1. Results (Table 2)
show no enhancement of trap captures by
additions of whole mature apples at bases of
pyramid traps.

In the second experiment, a 2-inch wedge

Table 2. Mean numbers of plum curculios captured per day
immature apples or unbaited traps.

in traps baited with mature or

Exp.

Location of bait

Bait source

Number of
replicates

Average number

captured

per day

1
2
3

Base of pyramid trap

Boll weevil trap top
capping pyramid trap

Base of pjTamid trap

Whole mature

Fuji apples

Unbaited

Wedge of mature
Fuji apple
Unbaited

Branchlets bearing

immature Mcintosh apples

Unbaited

12
12
24
24
16
16

2.0a
2.5a
1.5a
2.2a
4.3a
6.0a

*In each experiment, numbers followed by a different letter are signifi
odds of 19:1.

cantly different at

Fruit Notes, volume 62 (Number 1), Winter, 1997

cut from a mature Fuji apple was placed inside
a boll weevil trap top capping a pyramid trap in
a way that odor could move down onto the
pyramid. Wedges were renewed daily. Traps
were placed mid-way between trunks and
perimeters of unmanaged apple trees from
June 3 until June 9. Results (Table 2) show no
enhancement of trap captures by additions of
apple wedges to boll weevil trap tops capping
pyramid traps.

In the third experiment, 4 branchlets (each
with 12 Mcintosh apples) were distributed
evenly on the ground at the base of each
pyramid trap. Traps were placed mid-way
between trunks and perimeters of unmanaged
apple trees from June 15-22. Results (Table 3)
show no enhancement of trap captures by
additions of fresh-cut branchlets bearing
immature apples at bases of pyramid traps.

Ammonium Carbonate as Odor Source.
Ammonium carbonate crystals were distrib-
uted so as to cover screen bases of cylindrical
containers of the type previously described for
housing live plum curculios.

In the first experiment, three containers of
ammonium carbonate were attached 8 inches
above ground to the wings of each pyramid
trap, one container per wing. Traps were
placed adjacent to trunks of unmanaged trees
from June 22 until June 24. Results (Table 3)
show that ammonium carbonate did not
enhance trap captures.

In the second experiment, a container of
ammonium carbonate was affixed to an open-
top boll weevil trap top capping a pjTamid trap
in such a way that odor could move from the
container through the boll weevil trap top and
down onto the p3nramid. Traps were placed
adjacent trunks of unmanaged trees from June
24 until June 26. Results (Table 3) show that
ammonium carbonate had a significantly
negative effect on trap captures.

Conclusions

Disappointingly, none of the sources of odor
we evaluated led to an increase in numbers of
plum curculios captured, either by pyramid
traps placed on the ground beneath tree
canopies or boll weevil trap tops placed within
tree canopies. What might have been some
causes of this lack of positive response of
curculios to odor baits evaluated in conjunction
with traps?

In the case of male or female curculios as
bait, we were quite puzzled by results until we
carried out some additional laboratory tests.
The way in which we conducted our field tests
was consistent with the way tests of potential
odor attractancy of one sex of insect to another
is normally evaluated in the field. We fully
expected to find that odor of male or female
curculios was attractive to individuals of the
same or opposite sex. This expectation was

Table 3. Mean numbers of plum curculios captured per day in traps baited
with ammonium carbonate (AC).

Average number

Location of

Bait

Number of

captured

Exp.

bait containers

source

replicates

per day

Base of pyramid trap

1.6a

None

2.3a

Top of pjTamid trap

1.4b

None

5.0a

*In each experiment, numbers followed by a different letter are
significantly different at odds of 19:1.

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 1), FaU, 1997

heightened part-way through our field tests
when a pubhcation appeared by chemists in
Ilhnois detaihng the chemical structure of a
pheromone (grandisoic acid) produced by male
plum curculios that is equally attractive to both
females and males, even when used in small
amounts. This was indeed exciting news. Our
follow-up laboratory tests showed, however,
that when curculios are confined to small areas
(such as the containers we used for curculios as
odor sources), they emit stress sounds and/or
odors alerting other curculios. These sounds or
odors apparently mask or outweigh the luring
power of attractive pheromone. This suggests
that the most rewarding way to evaluate
pheromonal odor in conjunction with traps in
the field would be to use synthetic pheromone
rather than a natural source of pheromonal
odor.

In the case of apple odor as bait, it appears

that if natural sources of odor are used in the
amounts evaluated here, either such an
amount is insufficient to compete with fruit
odor sources on adjacent trees, or natural
sources of apple odor lose attractiveness (odor
composition changes) rapidly after employ-
ment. As with synthetic sex pheromones,
sjrnthetic apple odor hopefully will become an
effective alternative to natural sources of apple
odor for attracting plum curculios to traps (see
following article).

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from the
USDA Northeast Regional IPM Competitive
Grants Program, State/Federal IPM funds, the
USDA SAKE Program, and the New England
Tree Fruit Growers Research Committee.

•Xa •^Ia *X* *X* *1^
*^ •^ w^ rp» #^

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 1), Winter, 1997

Petal Fall is the Most Attractive
Development Stage of Mcintosh
Apple Trees to Plum Curculio Adults

Tracy LeskeyS Michele Bakis^ Holly Gagne^ Larry Phelan^,

and Ronald Prokopy^

^Department of Entomology^ University of Massachusetts

^Ohio Agricultural Research & Development Center, Ohio State

University

In the 1996 winter issue oi Fruit Notes, we
reported the results of laboratory assays
conducted in 1995 aimed in part at examining
plum curculio responses to odors emitted from
Mcintosh apple trees. We obtained some
evidence indicating that attractive volatiles
were emitted from all parts of Mcintosh trees
(not just fruit) and were emitted in the most
attractive form at petal fall. Here, we report on
1996 laboratory bioassays of curculio responses
to extracts of Mcintosh twigs, leaves, and fruit
at eight different tree- developmental stages,
using different solvents.

Materials & Methods

Hexane and water extracts were made from
twigs, leaves, or fruit of Mcintosh at each of the
following stages of development: pink, bloom,
petal fall, and 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 weeks after
bloom.

Curculios used in bioassays were collected
from unsprayed wild plum and apple trees and
sexed in the laboratory. For all tests, curculios
were starved for 24 hours prior to testing. Tests
were conducted at the beginning of darkness.
One curculio was placed into each petri dish
bioassay chamber and allowed to move toward
odors emitted from a hexane or water extract of
Mcintosh tissue (the treatment) or toward
hexane or water alone (used as a control).
Hexane was allowed to evaporate before testing
and curculios were given 2 hours to respond.

To measure the power of a Mcintosh odor
extract to stimulate curculio response, we used
a response index. The response index was
calculated by subtracting the number of
curculios responding to the control from the
number responding to the treatment, dividing
this amount by the total number of curculios
tested, and multiplying by 100. The greater the
value of the index, the more attractive was the
Mcintosh odor extract. We consider an index of
25 to be the minimum for suggesting
attractiveness.

Results

Hexane extracts of Mcintosh twigs, leaves,
or fruit at petal fall were more attractive than
hexane extracts made at any other develop-
mental stage (Figure 1). Hexane extracts of
fruit at petal fall (index = 43) were similarly
attractive to extracts of twigs or leaves at petal
fall (index = 40 for each). These response indices
are nearly identical to those recorded in 1995
for curculio responses to hexane extracts of
Mcintosh fruit, twigs, and leaves at petal fall.
Finally, both males and females responded
equally well to extracts made with hexane.

Water extracts of Mcintosh twigs, leaves, or
fruit at pink, petal fall, and two weeks after
bloom were the most attractive developmental
stages (Figure 2). At petal fall, extracts of
Mcintosh fruit (index = 71) were slightly more
attractive than extracts of Mcintosh twigs

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 1), Fall, 1997

Bloom

5 Wks

6 Wks

Figure 1. Response Indices for plum curculio adults during 2 hours of exposure to
hexane extracts of twigs (diamonds), leaves (squares), or fruit (triangles) from
Mcintosh trees at pink, bloom, petal fall, or 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 weeks after bloom. If the
difference between two means of any stage exceeds 16 (based on a sample size of
12), then the means are significantly different at odds of 19 to 1.

(index = 58), whereas extracts of Mcintosh
leaves were marginally attractive (index = 25),
most likely because the waxy layer on leaf
surfaces prevented water from extracting
volatile components. Again, both males and
females responded equally well to extracts
made with water.

Conclusions

From these results and from what we
observed in 1995, we conclude that petal fall is
the most attractive developmental stage of
Mcintosh trees to plum curculio adults.
Further, we believe that all Mcintosh plant
tissues (twigs, leaves, and fruit) contain the
attractive odor components at this time. These
results further strengthen our hope that
synthetic equivalents of these attractive
Mcintosh plant odors can be identified and

synthesized, providing tools to enhance trap
effectiveness for monitoring and possibly even
controlling plum curculios. Further, were
believe that if synthetic host odors can be used
in conjunction with synthetic male-produced
pheromone identified in 1996 by Eller and
Bartlett of Illinois, the curculio-capturing
power of traps will be enhanced further. Our
next step will be to examine curculio responses
to host-plant odors used in combination with
male-produced pheromone.

Acknowledgments

Fruit Notes, volume 62 (Number 1), Winter, 1997

Wks

Figure 2. Response Indices for plum curculio adults during 2 hours of exposure
to water extracts of twigs (diamonds), leaves (squares), or fruit (triangles) from
Mcintosh trees at pink, bloom, petal fall, or 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 weeks after bloom. If
the difference between two means of any stage exceeds 20 (based on a sample
size of 12), then the means are significantly different at odds of 19 to 1.

*sL^ *^ *^ *^ *^

#^ #Y* *T* *T» *T*

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 1), FaU, 1997

Jim Anderson Dies

James F. Anderson, Emeritus Associate
Professor of Pomology, passed away on
February 8, 1997. Professor Anderson was
born in Morgantown, West Virginia, and
received his B.S. and M.S. degrees from the
University of West Virginia. He served in the
miUtary during World War II and participated
in the Battle of the Bulge.

Jim joined the faculty of the Pomology
Department of Massachusetts Agricultural
College in 1948 and retired from the
Department of Plant & Soil Sciences of the
University of Massachusetts in 1988. For
many years Jim was involved in evaluation of
new fruit cultivars, and he was expert at
identifying fruit cultivars by their vegetative
characteristics. However, his primary respon-
sibility during these years was teaching, and he
was honored by selection for a number of
Outstanding Teacher Awards by the Stockbridge
School students.

In an^ interview at the time of his
retirement, Jim said, 'Tou can't really learn

about trees from books. You have to get out
there with the trees." Many alums will
remember their orchard pruning experiences
with Jim in the dead of winter, because that is
when the pruning is done. "But the students
were all good about it; they never ambushed
me," Jim said. "They'd know that I'd be out
there in the cold with them."

Jim leaves his wife, Edna (18 Wildwood
Lane, Amherst, MA 01002). He also leaves his
former colleagues, who are saddened by the loss
of a true gentleman and friend, and by
generations of alums who learned much more
from him than was written in books.

In memory of Professor Anderson's love of
teaching, a memorial scholarship fund for
students in Plant & Soil Sciences is being
established. Anyone wishing to assist in this
memorial to Jim may send a contribution to the
Plant & Soil Sciences Scholarship Fund, c/o
William J. Bramlage, French Hall, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003.

*sL» *X# *X* •A* *X»

#^ •^ *y% #y» #^

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 1), Winter, 1997

Peach Cultivar Trials:
Observations and Comments

Karen I. Hauschild

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts

In the Fall 1995 issue of Fruit Notes, I
described and commented on the first plantings
of peaches and nectarines in my cultivar trial at
the University of Massachusetts Horticultural
Research Center in Belchertown. Since
another full growing season has passed, it
seems appropriate to add to the information
presented previously.

Additionally, in the spring of 1996, 1 added
three yellow-fleshed peaches, replaced three
yellow-fleshed peaches ft-om the 1993 trial,
added one white peach and replaced another,
and added three white-fleshed nectarines. The
peach cultivar trial now includes 20 yellow-
fleshed peaches, 7 white-fleshed peaches, 6
yellow-fleshed nectarines, and 3 white-fleshed
nectarines.

All cultivars planted prior to 1996 fruited in
1996. Following is updated information on the
cultivars that were planted in 1990, as well as
initial observations of fruit from the 1993 and
1994 plantings. I also will describe the
cultivars that were planted in 1996.

1990 Planting

Yellow- fleshed Peaches

Jerseydawn was very popular at the
Horticultural Research Center in 1996. For an
early fruit, the flavor in 1996 was excellent, size
was good, and split pits occurred in only about
20% of the crop.

Redhaven. Size was not impressive this year,
nor was flavor. There are several other
cultivars in this harvest window that have
better size and fruit quality than Redhaven.

Salem fruit were very good to excellent in 1996.
The flavor was excellent, size was good, and the
fruit was very attractive.

Flavorcrest fruit were very flavorful and had
high quality in 1996.

New Haven. Although fruit size in 1996 was
some-what smaller than ideal, fruit quality was
excellent. New Haven is a much better peach
than Redhaven.

Madison was an excellent peach. It had great
peach flavor, was good size, and was attractive.

Harrow Beauty was one of my favorites in
1996. The fruit had good size and great peach
flavor.

Jim Dandee fruit size was not as impressive in
1996 as it was in 1995, but the flavor of this
peach was very good.

Harcrest fruit were flavorful, had good size,
and had very impressive quality in 1996.

Fayette flavor was disappointing in 1996;
however, it was a good late season cultivar.

Encore may be too late for most growers,
especially those who harvest large acreages of
Mcintosh apples. It was a good peach for the
late season.

White-fleshed Peaches

Summer Pearl fruit were not as flavorful in
1996 as in previous years. Quality was good,
and size was good. Fruit do not hold up well
after harvest.

Nectarines

Earliscarlet fruit sized well and had excellent
flavor.

Fantasia sized well and had excellent flavor
and color but ripened in mid-September, a
problem for some growers.
Summer Beaut was an excellent nectarine.
Size was good, fruits were flavorful, and color

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 1), FaU, 1997

was good where trees were open.

1993 Planting

Yellow-fleshed Peaches

John Boy was a very large, flavorful peach. It
was attractive, but did not have the best
quality. Fruit were harvested a little late,
which may have influenced quality.

Sentry appeared to be a good peach, but
further evaluations are required.

White-fleshed Peaches

Lady Nancy fruit were of good size and quality
and very attractive.

Red Rose fruit were medium in size and had
good quality.

1994 Planting

White-fleshed Peaches

White Lady trees bore a few fruit in 1996, but
will reserve comment until next year.

Sugar Lady trees also bore fruit for the first
time in 1996. Fruit were good size and had
reason-able quality.

Nectarines

Easternglo produced a few fruit in 1996. Color
was excellent, but flavor was not great.

Sunglo produced few fruit in 1996. Fruit had
good size, good color, and good flavor.

1996 Planting

Descriptions below are based on catolog or
on evaluations from other areas of the country.

Yellow-fleshed Peaches

PF-1 fruit ripen 20 days before Redhaven, are

partial clingstone, and have very few split pits.
Trees are hardy. Color is 90% red over yellow.

PF-15A fruit ripen 13 days after Redhaven, are
large, red over yellow, and freestone. Trees
produce heavily and are hardy.

PF-17A fruit ripen 17 days after Redhaven, are
large, firm, and 70% red. Fruit are reported to
be excellent for shipping. Trees are hardy.

White-fleshed Peaches

Raritan Rose fruit ripen 4 days after
Redhaven, are firm, attractive, and freestone,
with good quality. Trees are vigorous, hardy,
and productive.

White-fleshed Nectarines

Arctic Glo fi"uit ripen 10 days before
Redhaven, are medium-large, very firm, highly
colored, and reported to ship well. Trees are
vigorous and productive.

Arctic Rose fi"uit ripen 7 days after Redhaven,
are medium size, firm, very sweet, and highly
colored.

Arctic Queen fi'uit ripen 29 days after
Redhaven, are large, firm, sweet, and highly
colored.

In 1997, I will conduct a more extensive
evaluation of all the cultivars in this trial. I will
evaluate fi"uit for size, color, taste, abnormali-
ties (such as split pits), and texture. Tree vigor
and productivity and disease resistance also
will be evaluated. Also less favorable cultivars
will be removed and possibly replaced with
additional early cultivars.

At this time, I recommend that Massachu-
setts growers plant on a trial basis the following
yellow-fleshed peach cultivars: Jerseydawn,
Salem, Flavorcrest, New Haven, Madison,
Harrow Beauty, Jim Dandee, and Harcrest.
For a white-fleshed peach, Summer Pearl
should be tried. Earliscarlet, Summer Beaut,
and Fantasia are nectarines worthy of trial.

•Xa •X* •X* *X» *JL*
#Y% #T^ #Y* *i^ *V*

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 1), Winter, 1997

Agri-Mek: A 1996 Field Trial in
a Commercial Apple Orchard

Glenn Morin and Roberta Spitko

New England Fruit Consultants, Montague, Massachusetts

The 1996 growing season witnessed the
introduction of a new pest-management tool
with the federal registration of Agri-Mek
(Merck and Co.) for managing both leafminer
and mite in apples and pear psylla in pears.
Following the withdrawal of Omite from the
marketplace in April, most apple producers
were pleased to have another option for
European red mite (ERM) control. However,
Agri-Mek's late-spring registration combined
with the absence of experimental work
conducted in New England left most field
consultants and growers with limited informa-
tion on how this product would be utilized best
in the rapidly approaching season.

The active ingredient in Agri-Mek,
abamectin, is a naturally derived substance
produced by a soil microorganism and is
effective at extremely low rates. Agri-Mek is
not related to other currently registered
materials and therefore should prove useful in
managing tolerant pest populations and
prolonging the effective life of presently
available compounds when used
in a rotational program.
Abamectin is absorbed into the
leaf tissue where it forms a
reservoir of active ingredient
against foliar feeding pests. As
a result, Agri-Mek is currently
recommended within six weeks
after petal fall and in combina-
tion with horticultural oil in
order to maximize absorption.
Affected individuals essentially
are paralyzed, stop feeding, and
die within a few days.

Optimal timing is critical to
the cost-effective use of this
material. Ideally, one would

expect a single application to provide season-
long suppression of ERM and leafminer
populations. The focus of our trial was
European red mite, as this pest would likely be
the primary target for most Northeast growers
considering the use of this material. The two
most vulnerable periods for ERM within the
recommended application time frame are 1)
petal fall, when the majority of overwintering
egg hatch has been completed and 2) first-
generation egg hatch approximately 3-4 weeks
later. ERM populations are fairly synchronous
at these two times and are more easily
disrupted than when multiple life stages are
present. The following study was conducted to
determine which of these two application
timings would prove more effective in
managing ERM populations.

Procedure

Treatments were applied to adjacent, non-
replicated plots in a commercial apple orchard

Table 1. Materials, rates and application dates for
Agri-Mek trial, 1996. Materials were delivered in 150
gal /acre of water. All plots received 3 gal/acre oil on
April 24. Check plot was treated July 7 with 18 oz/acre
Carzol SP, July 25 with 5 lbs/acre Omite 30W, and
August 9 with 3 pts /acre Vydate.

Trt. Material + rate (product/acre)

Timing

1
2
3

Savey @ 3 oz

Agri-mek @ lOoz + oil @ 1 gal

Agri-mek @ 10 oz + oil @ 1 gal

Check

May 9
May 23
June 17

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 1), FaU, 1997

owned and operated by Marshall Farms Inc.,
Fitchburg, MA. Each 1.5-acre plot consisted of
three rows of primarily Mcintosh trees
approximately 12 feet high, planted on 16 x 24
foot spacing with a dilute tree row volume of
280 gallons per acre. Treatments were made
with a Hardie airblast sprayer calibrated to
deliver 150 gal per acre while operating at 2.5
miles per hour according to the treatment
schedule outlined in Table 1.

European red mite populations were
evaluated by selecting randomly 15 leaves per
tree from each of 4 trees per treatment.
Composite samples then were brushed unto
glass plates and populations estimated using
standard leaf-brushing protocol.

Results & Discussion

There were no substantial differences
between treatments with respect to European
red mite control in this study. Both Agri-Mek
timings as well as the prebloom Savey
application, included for comparison, were
successful in suppressing ERM populations
below injurious levels through the last week of
August. Estimated mite populations in these

plots ranged from 2.0 - 7.2 per/leaf on August
28 (Figure 1) with little or no foliar damage
evident. ERM populations in the check plot,
which received only a prebloom oil treatment,
built rapidly after first-generation egg hatch
and exceeded 15.0 mites per/leaf by early July.
Moderate foliar damage was noted at this time
and rescue treatments of miticide were applied
July 7 and July 25 to prevent excessive
damage. A third treatment was made on
August 9 to suppress late-season build up.

It is interesting to note that, although both
treatments were successful in suppressing
ERM populations below injurious levels, trees
receiving the later Agri-Mek treatment applied
on June 17 had more motile forms consistently
throughout the growing season. Pre-treatment
counts on June 14 revealed approximately 4.0
mites per/leaf, and although our application
was successful in reducing that population,
there were still significant numbers of motile
forms on July 3 when one would expect to see
full expression of the treatment. In contrast,
the petal-fall treatment applied May 23
suppressed ERM numbers to barely detectable
levels until early August and final counts on
August 28 were less than 50% of the later

16-,
14 ■

-•— Agri-Mek + oil 5/23

1 12.

«, 10-

I 8-

f «

3
C

2 -

1
i

—*— Agri-Mek + oil 6/17

5-Jun 14-Jun 19-Jun 3-Jul

7-Aug 28-Aug

Figure 1. Effect of various miticide treatments

on European red mite

populations.

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 1), Winter, 1997

treatment.

It is unclear why this later treatment did
not perform as well as the petal-fall treatment.
The increased amount of foliage present in mid
June may have adversely affected spray
penetration and allowed for greater survival of
mites in the inner tree canopy. Perhaps
hardening off of the leaf tissue was a factor.
This event may have decreased absorption of
active ingredient to the extent that nymphs
hatching several days post-application were
not well controlled.

Conclusion

It appears from the data presented here
that either a petal-fall application of Agri-Mek
or an application timed to coincide with first-
generation egg hatch can, under favorable

conditions, provide satisfactory season long
suppression of European red mite similar to
that provided by a prebloom application of
Savey.

The treatment directed at first-generation
egg hatch was less effective possibly due to
decreased spray coverage or decreased absorp-
tion of Agri-Mek into the leaf tissue. This
difference was of little consequence in this trial,
as summer weather conditions were relatively
cool with ample rainfall and season-long
suppression was ultimately achieved. How-
ever, had weather conditions been more
conducive to rapid mite build up, additional
summer miticides may have been necessary to
manage the residual population left by the later
treatment.

Based on these data, we suggest the petal-
fall application as the more desirable of the two
options presented here.

•X* *1/* *X* *X* *X*

#^ #Y* *v* *T* *T*

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 1), FaU, 1997

Fruit Notes

University of Massachusetts

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences

205 Bowditch Hall

Amherst, MA 01003

Nonprofit Organization
U.S. Postage Paid

Permit No. 2
Amherst, MA 01 002

SERIAL SECTION

UNIV. OF MASSACHUSETTS LIBRARY

AMHERST MA 01003

Account No. 3-20685

UM/Morr

Per

354

F68

'ruit Notes

I by the Department of Plant & Soil Sciences,
wividss, t^xtension, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and Massachusetts Counties Cooperating.

Eklitors: Wesley R. Autio and William J. Bramlage

CD
O

o
o

Voaime 62, N&nber 2
SPR^G ISSUE, 1997

Table of Contents

Improved Pesticide-treated Wooden Spheres
for Controlling Apple Maggot Flies

Comparative Level of Establishment of Released

Typhlodromus pyri Predatory Mites in First-level

and Second-level IPM Apple Orchard Blocks

New England-wide Demonstration of an Integrated

Pest Management (IPM) System for Apples and Consumer

Education in IPM as a Pollution-prevention Strategy

An Update on the 1994 NC-140 Apple Rootstock Trial

An Update on the 1994 NC-140 Peach Rootstock Trial

The Hay, Grain, and Feed Man:
G. O. Bunnell, Northfield, Massachusetts

Fruit Notes

Publication Information:

Fruit Notes (ISSN 0427-6906) is published the each January, April,
July, and October by the Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University
of Massachusetts.

The costs of subscriptions to Fruit Notes are $ 10.00 for United States
addresses and $12.00 for foreign addresses. Each one-year subscription
begins January 1 and ends December 3 1 . Some back issues are available
for $3.00 (United States addresses) and $3.50 (foreign addresses). Pay-
ments must be in United States currency and should be made to the
University of Massachusetts.

Correspondence should be sent to:

Fruit Notes

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences
205 Bowditch Hall
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003

UMASS EXTENSION POLICY:

hsuedby U Mass Extension, RobertG. Helgesen, Director, in furtherance of the acts of May 8 and June 30,
1914. UMass Extension offers equal opportunity in programs and employment.

Subscription Renewal

If 1996 appears after your name on the mailing label, it is time for you to
renew your subscription to Fruit Notes. Please tear out this sheet and retiu-n
it with your payment. Foreign subscribers, please see the note at the bottom
of this page. Thank you.

Return this form by September 30
to insure no interuption in your subscription

Name:

Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Country:

CHECK ONE:

One year I I $10.00*

Two years I I $19.00*

Three years I I $27.00*

Make check payable to: UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Send this form along with payment to:

Wesley R. Autio
Department of Plant & Soil Sciences

205 Bowditch Hall

University of Massachusetts

Amherst, MA 01003

* Foreign subscriptions are $12, $22, and $32 for 1,2, and 3 years, respectively.

All pajonent must be made in United States currency.

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1 997 1

Send this form and your check by September 30, 1997.
Make check payable to: UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Send this form along with pajrment to:

Wesley R. Autio

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences

205 Bowditch Hall

University of Massachusetts

Amherst, MA 01003

Fruit Notes, volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

Improved Pesticide-treated Wooden
Splieres for Controlling Apple
Maggot Files

Xing Ping Hu, Andrew Kaknes, and Ronald Prokopy
Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts

In recent years, we have been working
toward development of pesticide-treated spheres
as a substitute for sticky spheres in controUing
apple maggot flies. In the Spring 1996 issue of
Fruit Notes, we reported on progress made
through 1995 on development of pesticide-
treated wooden spheres. Here, we assessed
residual effectiveness against apple maggot
flies of the best-performing version of pesticide-
treated wooden spheres developed through
1995 versus a new tjrpe developed in 1996. We
also evaluated the performance of each of these
sphere types in controlling apple maggot flies in
a small commercial orchard.

Materials and Methods

The 1995-version spheres consisted of three
layers of materials: first layer = 76% sugar, 4%
wheat flour, and 20% Glidden gloss red paint;
second layer = 1% Digon 4E (=0.5% dimethoate),
and 99% Glidden gloss red paint, third layer =
shellac. The layer of shellac was intended to
reduce the loss of fly feeding stimulant (sucrose)
from the sphere surface during rainfall. To a
significant degree, this loss was prevented.
However, following rainfall or a series of heavy
dews, spheres coated with shellac sometimes
turned whitish in color, rendering them less
visually attractive to apple maggot flies than
completely red spheres.

The 1996-version spheres featured a new
approach to extending the residual activity of
sucrose. Rather than rely on application of
shellac (or several other applied substances
that we evaluated prior to 1995) to extend the
residual activity of sucrose, we instead drilled

14 evenly spaced holes (1/4 inch diameter x V2
inch deep) into each sphere and filled each hole
with a mixture of 94% sucrose, 6% flour. This
was followed by application of 2 layers of paint
(same composition as first 2 layers of paint
applied to 1995 - version spheres).

To assess toxicity of spheres to apple
maggot flies, in early July of 1995, twelve 1995-
version spheres were hung fi-om branches of
apple trees near Prokopy's small commercial
orchard in Conway. Every other week
thereafter until apple harvest, two spheres
were brought to the laboratory for assays. In
early July of 1996, the same procedure was
followed for 1996-version spheres. For assays,
thirty flies were allowed to stay and feed on
each sphere for up to five minutes, follovdng
which, flies were placed in cages and examined
for mortality 24 hours later. Rainfall was
measured by a rain gauge placed near trees.

Comparison of pesticide-treated spheres
with sticky spheres for providing direct control
of apple maggot flies was made in the Prokopy
orchard, which consisted of 50 trees (10 rows x
5 trees per row, primarily Liberty/M.26). In
1995, each tree in the five eastern rows received
two 1995-version pesticide-treated spheres,
whereas each tree in the five western rows
received two sticky (Tangletrap-coated) spheres.
In 1996, the arrangement was reversed, with
each tree in the five eastern rows receiving two
sticky spheres and each tree in the five western
rows receiving two 1996-version pesticide-
treated spheres. Spheres were deployed in July
each year, were unbaited, and were positioned
optimally for attracting apple maggot flies. At
harvest, every tenth picked apple was

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

Table 1. Residual effectiveness of dimethoate-treated red spheres (before treatment) against
laboratory-tested apple maggot flies.

Spheres*

Weeks of sphere

exposure

Retreated
in orchard with

10 12 sucrose

1995 Version Fly mortality (%)

Cumulative rainfall (in.)

1996 Version Fly mortahty (%)

Cumulative rainfall (in.)

90
0.4

95
1.6

80
2.0

90
2.0

60
4.3

85
2.4

40
5.1

80
3.2

30 -- 70
5.7

70 55 75
7.2 10.2

*Spheres in 1995 received two coatings of paint and a third coating of shellac. Spheres in 1996
were drilled with 14 holes subsequently filled with a sucrose/flour mixture and received two
coatings of paint.

examined carefully for
maggot egglaying stings.

Results

presence of apple

Results of laboratory assays of residual
efifectiveness of pesticide-treated spheres against
flies (Table 1) show that after four weeks of
exposure and two inches of rainfall, 80% of flies
placed on 1995-version spheres died compared
with 90% that died when placed on 1996-
version spheres. In 1995, after ten weeks of
exposure (5.7 inches of rain), 1995-version
spheres killed only 30% of tested flies. In 1996,

after ten weeks of exposure (7.2 inches of rain),
1996-version spheres killed 70% of tested flies.
In fact, for every period when assayed, 1996-
version spheres outperformed 1995-version
spheres (Table 1). Retreating spheres with 16%
sucrose solution (in water) after twelve weeks
of exposure restored effectiveness of 1995
spheres to a level of 70% fly kill, demonstrating
that loss of sucrose as feeding stimulant and
not loss of dimethoate as toxicant was the
principal factor responsible for decreasing
performance.

Results of tests assessing the capability of
pesticide-treated spheres for providing direct

Table 2. Effectiveness of dimethoate-treated red spheres versus sticky-coated
red spheres in providing control of apple maggot flies in a small commercial
orchard.

Year

Treatment

Number of
fruit examined

Fruit with fly
egglaying stings (%)

1995
1996

Spheres - 1995 version
Sticky spheres

Spheres - 1996 version
Sticky spheres

1263
1294

896
913

1.0
0.9

0.6
0.7

Fruit Notes, volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

within-orchard control of flies (Table 2) show
that 1995-version spheres as well as 1996-
version spheres provided a level of control
essentially identical to that provided by sticky
spheres (1.0% fruit injury or less). In contrast,
96 and 97% of fruit on unmanaged apple trees
and about 250 yards away was injured by apple
maggot flies in 1995 and 1996, respectively. In
1995, pesticide-treated spheres were dipped in
a 16% sucrose solution weekly after the fifth
week of exposure to renew feeding stimulant.
In 1996, no such dipping was performed.

Conclusions

Our findings show that 1996-version
pesticide-treated spheres (each with 14 sugar-
filled holes) maintained high season-long
residual activity against apple maggot flies and

provided excellent control of this pest under
commercial orchard conditions. They have a
distinct advantage over earlier versions of
pesticide-treated spheres in requiring no re-
treatment with sucrose solution during the
growing season. Their major shortcoming is
the need to drill holes in each sphere and then to
fill each hole with sucrose/flour mixture
annually before painting. In the coming year,
we plan to determine the optimum number and
size of holes needed to attain season-long
sphere effectiveness and to determine if one
rather than two coats of paint will suffice.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a grant from
the USDA Northeast Regional IPM Competi-
tive grant and Hatch funds.

ml0 mlm «£• mS^ %9^
•^ r|% 0^ 0^ «^

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

Comparative Level of Establishment
of Released Typhlodromus pyri
Predatory Mites in First-level and
Second-level IPM Apple Orchard Blocks

Ronald Prokopy, Starker Wright, and Jennifer Mason
Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts

Jan Nyrop, Karen Wentworth, and Carol Herring

Cornell University, NY Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva

As described in the Spring 1994 issue of
Fruit Notes, Amblyseius fallacis is the most
commonly occurring predatory mite in Massa-
chusetts apple orchards. Unlike orchards in
many other states, few Massachusetts apple
orchards harbor detectable levels of
Typhlodromus pyri predatory mites. Previous
studies in Massachusetts have shown that A.
fallacis rarely builds to levels capable of
providing effective control of European red
mites until mid-July at the eairliest, and often
not until August. In contrast, studies in New
York have shown that T. pyri, where
established, can provide effective biocontrol of
European red mites beginning as early as May.

In 1995, we released T. pyri into two first-
level IPM and two second-level IPM block of
apple trees in each of six commercial apple
orchards in Massachusetts. Here, we report on
the abundance of T. pyri in samples taken in
September of 1995 and 1996 in each of these
blocks as well as in adjacent first- and second-
level IPM blocks where no T. pyri were
released.

Materials & Methods

All six orchards were located in west-central
or east-central Massachusetts. Each block was
comprised of about 60 trees of the cultivars

Mcintosh, Empire, or Cortland (on M.7 or M.26
rootstock). First-level IPM blocks received
pesticide sprays applied by growers timed
according to pest and weather-monitoring
activities that the growers themselves carried
out. Second-level IPM blocks were treated
identically to first-level blocks through early
June. Thereaft;er, no pesticide of any type was
applied to second-level blocks. Instead, a
combination of behavioral, cultural, and
biological control techniques was used.

In 1995, blossom clusters harboring T. pyri
were picked fi-om an orchard at the New York
State Agricultural Experiment Station at
Geneva, transported in a cooler by automobile
to Massachusetts on the same day when picked,
and placed the following day in targeted blocks.
This involved using twist-ties to attach 50
blossom clusters to the central tree of each
target block.

In September of 1995 and 1996, 25 leaves
were picked at random from the central tree
(that is, the release tree) in each block receiving
T. pyri and 25 leaves fi-om each of four trees
nearest the central tree. A similar protocol was
followed for sampling central and adjacent
trees in first- and second-level blocks not
receiving released T. pyri. Sample leaves were
cooled and shipped to Geneva, New York for
identification and counting of predatory mites.

Fruit Notes, volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

Table 1. Abundance of mite predators on leaves sampled in September from first-level and
second-level IPM blocks in which T. pyri were or were not released in May of 1995.

Species

Year

Average number of predators per leaf*

First-level IPM

Second-level IPM

Non-release
block

Release
block

Non-release
block

Release
block

T.pyri

A. fallacis

1995
1996

0.00 b

0.02 b

0.15 a
0.28 a

0.04 ab
0.19 ab

0.14 a
0.11a

0.00 b
0.01b

0.11a
0.13 a

0.07 a
0.42 a

0.19 a
0.18 a

*Values in

each row

followe

d by the same letter are

not significantly different at odds of 19 to 1.

Results

For T. pyri, the results (Table 1) show that
for the 1995 samples, small but detectable
numbers of this species were found in the
release blocks, but none were found in the non-
release blocks. For the 1996 samples, numbers
cf T. pyri in the release blocks averaged
considerably greater than they did in these
same blocks in 1995, suggesting that a buildup
of T. pyri had occurred. Almost no T. pyri were
detected in 1996 samples taken in the non-
release blocks. Interestingly, when data for
1995 and 1996 release blocks were pooled,
analysis indicated a significantly greater
average number of T. pyri in second-level than
in first-level IPM blocks.

For A. fallacis, the results (Table 1) show
quite similar numbers of predators of this
species present in each t3rpe of block each year.
When data for 1995 and 1996 were pooled,
analysis indicated no significant difference in
average number of A. fallacis between second-
level and first-level IPM blocks.

Examination of grower spray schedules
revealed that no insecticides other than
Guthion, Imidan, Lorsban, or Sevin (as a
thinner) and no acaricides other than oil.

Omite, Apollo or Savey were applied to any
blocks during either year. None of these
materials is known to be harmful to T. pyri. We
believe that the significant negative effect of
first-level compared with second-level IPM
practices on the buildup of T. pyri was due to
fungicide use from early June onward in the
first-level blocks. Fungicides used after early
June included Penncozeb, Dithane, Ziram,
Polyram, Benlate, Topsin, and Captan. The
first four of these materials are known to have
detrimental effects on T. pyri.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that by the end of the
growing season of the year following their
release, T. pyri mite predators appeared in
readily detectable numbers in nearly all blocks
in which they were released. The only
exception occurred in one of the six orchards,
where they were detected in neither of the
release blocks. This orchard received 2
applications of Dithane annually in May, which
might have impacted establishment of T. pyri
negatively. It appears from our results that
pesticides, particularly certain fungicides, have

Frait Notes, Volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

a greater negative impact on buildup of T. pyri Acknowledgments

than on buildup of A. fallacis. We suggest,

therefore, that growers who are considering

releasing T. pyri to attain establishment do so

only in blocks that will not be treated with

pesticides that may be harsh on T. pyri,

including pyrethroid insecticides, acaricides

such as Carzol, and fungicides such as Ziram or

EBDC-based materials.

This work was supported by a USDA
Northeast Regional IPM Competitive Grant
and by State/Federal IPM funds.

mS^ «1« m^M %S^ mS^

r|^ 0^ W^ r|% W^

Fruit Notes, volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

New England-wide Demonstration of
an Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
System for Apples and Consumer
Education in IPM as a
Pollution-prevention Strategy

WilUam M. Coli and Craig S. HoUingworth
University of Massachusetts

James F. Dill
University of Maine

Alan T. Eaton

University of New Hampshire

Heather Faubert
University of Rhode Island

Lorraine M. Los
University of Connecticut

The strategies known collectively as IPM
have been recognized as one way to reduce the
amount of agricultural chemicals released into
the environment. IPM has been shown to
address the needs of New England agriculture,
and pollution prevention, by reducing and
optimizing pesticide use.

Many New England growers have been in
the forefront of widespread early adoption of
these new technologies, partly as a conse-
quence of aggressive, regional Cooperative
Extension outreach programs. In Massachu-
setts, for example, approximately 40% of the
state's cranberry and apple acreage, and about
20% and 9% of strawberry and sweet com
acreage, respectively, receive some form of IPM
monitoring and advice from private-sector

scouts or consultants, and still larger acreages
are managed under IPM by the growers
themselves. Such widespread grower adoption
of IPM has set the standard for environmen-
tally responsible agriculture.

However, although consumers typically
express concern about perceived public-health
and food-safety risks associated with
agrichemical use, a very small percentage of
the general public has even heard of IPM, and
still fewer recognize its potential benefits and
the extent of its use. More widespread
demonstration and consumer education of the
environmental benefits of IPM are likely to
enhance positive consumer attitudes towards
local agriculture.

In spite of the potential benefits to

Fnilt Notes, Volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

agriculture of increased adoption and consumer
awareness, successful IPM strategies demon-
strated in one state have not always been
adopted regionally. This is partly due to a
tendency of growers to emphasize uncertainty
associated with farm-to-farm or state-to-state
differences in pest complexes, weather, normal
cultural practices, intended markets, etc. Since
IPM adoption has not been universal, there
remains a need for regionally-consistent
systems to evaluate progress toward the
Federal-policy goal of IPM implementation on
75% of managed acres by the year 2000.

One possible way to measure extent of
grower IPM adoption is by use of commodity-
specific IPM definitions, known as IPM
Guidelines, originally developed in Massachu-
setts. These guidelines, in the form of
checklists and a related point system, have
been used since 1990 as the basis for successful
implementation of the state Farm Services
Agency (formerly ASCS) cost-sharing program
in Integrated Crop Management (ICM) and a
related state-endorsed consumer education and
marketing effort known as Partners With
Nature.

With this background in mind, in 1994, a
small group of New England Extension and
research specialists successfully acquired a
Region I USEPA Pollution Prevention Incen-
tives to the States (PPIS) grant which sought to
address some of the issues identified above.

The principal goals of the project, for which
the University of Massachusetts served as lead
unit, were: to develop consistent, well-defined,
and quantifiable apple IPM guidelines for each
New England state; to test state IPM
guidelines as a pollution prevention methodol-
ogy at the state and regional level; and to
educate the media and the general public about
IPM and its benefits.

Our specific objectives were: to involve
University research and extension staff,
growers, and private-sector IPM professionals
in the design of apple IPM Guidelines for each
of the New England states; to demonstrate the
resultant state guidelines on one 5-to-lO-acre
block in each state, and compare results to a
similar sized check block managed with a

calendar-based spray program without pest
monitoring; to calculate and compare the
Environmental Impact Quotient (Kovach et al.,
1992) for each block, as a measure of pollution
prevention; and, to hold a field day in each state
on the farm of the demonstrating grower to
which the press and general public are invited.

To the best of our knowledge, until this
project, no successful attempt had been made
within Region I to develop consistent IPM
guidelines for several states in a region, to carry
out an extensive and regionally-coordinated
IPM demonstration for any crop, nor to use the
results to educate the general public about
environmentally-sound agricultural practices.

An initial project planning meeting of
several state collaborators was held in
conjunction with the New England Fruit
Meetings in January, 1995. Due to delays in
getting the project organized, no growers
participated in this meeting. Subsequently
(Spring 1995), however, ME, CT, RI, and NH
formed a Guideline Design Committee (GDC)
consisting of 6-14 members, and each
committee met at least once. The University of
Massachusetts investigators participated in
the ME and RI meetings. Each committee
reviewed the University of Massachusetts
guidelines template, and elected to modify it to
fit the pest-management situation in that
state. Modifications included: elimination and
addition of some practices in the MA guidelines
and changes to the point system used.

In Massachusetts, an IPM Certification
Study Committee was formed by the Massa-
chusetts Fruit Growers' Association late in
1994, and this group solicited input on
guideline modifications from growers, private
IPM consultants, and University staff indepen-
dently of the EPA-funded project. Modified
guidelines were compiled by the University of
Massachusetts investigators. Development of
all state-specific apple IPM guidelines was
completed by June, 1995.

Each state identified one or more demon-
strating growers (DG) who implemented the
farm-specific IPM system, and conducted other
planned activities. Cooperating growers who
agreed to demonstrate the IPM system were:

Frait Notes, volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

Massachusetts, Joe Sincuk (Uni-
versity of Massachusetts Horti-
cultural Research Center,
Belchertown); Connecticut, Ken
Shores (Johnny Appleseed's
Apple Orchard, Ellington); Rhode
Island, Randy McKenzie (Phan-
tom Farms, Cumberland); New
Hampshire, Ben Ladd and
Melanie Stephens (Great Brook
Farm, Canterbury), Steve
Gatcomb (Manager of Upland
Farm, Peterborough); and Maine,
Reed Markley (Lakeside Or-
chards, Manchester).

Original plans called for each
cooperator to demonstrate the state IPM
system, and compare results to a "convention-
ally managed" block. However, given that all
cooperators had been identified because of their
knowledge and use of IPM, none were willing to
"go backward" (i.e., apply pesticides on a
preventative basis), even when funds to
purchase extra chemical were offered. Al-
though this development compromised the
original project design somewhat, it provided
testimony to the level of commitment to IPM
common in the region.

Hence, only the demonstration at the
University of Massachusetts Horticultural
Reserch Center (HRC) included both an IPM
block, and a conventional (i.e., modified
preventative spray program) block. The HRC,
while a University research facility, is also a
commercial orchard, with support for the farm
dependent almost completely on fruit sales, just
as with a private-sector orchard. The site has a
long history of IPM adoption.

Pesticide application results in HKC
IPM and "conventional" blocks. IPM
blocks received regular monitoring and spray
recommendations by University-affiliated staff.
The sole comparison block was designed to
reflect the number of sprays that could be
applied if a grower were inclined to use a
preventative spray program. In actual fact, the
"conventional" program was very conservative,
using as it did only one spray for apple maggot

Table 1. Number of spray events in traditional and IPM
blocks, University of Massachusetts Horticultural
Research Center, 1995.

Conventional

IPM

Acaricides
Fungicides

Insecticides (incl. 2 oil)
Herbicides

TOTAL

10
7
1

4
6
5
1

fly, not the 2 to 3 that might normally be
applied.

As shown in Table 1, weekly monitoring of
the IPM block and use of appropriate action
thresholds resulted in 24% fewer spray
application events compared to the modified
preventative spray program. While this
represents a savings in labor and other costs
associated with spray application (e.g., fuel, oil,
wear and tear) and one can hypothesize a
reduced potential impact on the environment,
the number of spray events alone gives no
information on potential environmental im-
pacts of IPM use.

One measure of potential environmental
benefit from IPM, calculation of the Environ-
mental Impact Quotient (Kovach, et al., 1992),
which takes into account toxicity of individual
pesticides, is reported on elsewhere for all
participating demonstration sites. A second
measure, the dosage equivalent (DE), which
reflects the rate of pesticide used as a
percentage of the recommended rate, was
completed for the HRC (Table 2). From Table 2,
it can be seen that the IPM block received
nearly 32% fewer pesticide DE's than the
traditionally managed block. We believe this
difference represents a typical situation in a
grower orchard, where full recommended rates,
which are known to have a wide margin for
error, are rarely used. The implication of using
dosage equivalents rather than spray events is

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

Table 2. Dosage equivalents of pesticide used in conventionally

managed and IPM blocks, University of Massachusetts Horticultural

Research Center

1995.

Conventional

IPM

Difference

% Difference

Acaricide

3.2

3.0

0.2 DE

Fungicide

13.6

7.9

5.7 DE

42%

Herbicide

1.4

0.7

0.7 DE

52%

Insecticide

6.1

3.6

2.5 DE

40%

Oil

1.3

1.1

0.2 DE

15%

Total

Non-oU

21.3

14.5

6.8 DE

32%

most noticeable in the case of herbicide, where
both blocks received a single application, but
52% less actual pesticide was applied in the
IPM block.

In spite of the lower dosage equivalents of
pesticide use, pest damage appeared to be no
different among the two blocks. No harvest
survey data are presented because the entire
crop was heavily damaged (over 80% injury)
from a hail storm in late May. As a consequence
of this extensive damage, normal harvest
surveys could not be conducted easily.

Pesticide residue analysis, HRC. Al-
though not originally proposed as a project
activity, location of the Massachusetts Pesti-
cide Analj^ical Lab (MPAL) at Amherst,
presented an opportunity to conduct a
comparison of pesticide residues in the IPM and
traditional blocks at the HRC. Such
comparative residue data largely are lacking,
and should provide useful baseline information
for gauging the true environmental and public-
health impacts of IPM use. Fruit samples were
collected from each block type and frozen for
later analysis during fall and winter. The
authors would like to offer special acknowledg-
ment for the cooperation and assistance offered
to us by John Clark, Lab Director, and his staff,
Dan Tessier and Andy Curtis.

Table 3 shows results of residue analysis

performed for 9 of 11 pesticides applied. No
data are presented for azinphosmethyl
(Guthion"") due to applicator error, and no
analysis was attempted for the acaracide
fenbutatin oxide (Vendex'*"). It is important to
note that no residues were detected at a limit of
detection of 0.2 ppm for seven of the materials
applied in either the IPM or Conventional
block. This finding is consistent with residue
test results in the literature, which t5Tjically
show that a minimum of 50% of all produce
samples tested contain no detectable residues.
Unfortunately, it is often assumed that the
percent of produce containing pesticide resi-
dues is much higher than it actually is. This
discrepancy offers further compelling evidence
of the need to educate the media and the
general public about the realities of agricul-
ture.

For the benzimidazole fungicide benomyl,
residues were no different in IPM and
conventional blocks, but both showed residues
in the parts per billion (ppb) range, orders of
magnitude below the allowable tolerance.
Residues of propargite, registration of which
was recently canceled voluntarily by the
registrant, also were well below tolerances, and
represented the sole example of significantly
lower residues in response to an IPM strategy.
In this case, although more propargite

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

Table 3. Pesticide residues on apples at harvest in IPM and Traditional blocks,
University of Massachusetts Horticultural Research Center, 1995.

Total pesticide residues

Chemical

Brand name

IPM

Conventional

Benomyl^

(Benlate"°)

0.02 ppb

Captan

(Captan*")

ND"

Carbaryl

(Sevin'")

Endosulfan

(Thiodan'")

Fenarimol

(Rubigan™)

Mancozeb

(Penncozeb"")

Permethrin

(Ambush"")

Phosmet

amidan"")

Propargite'"

(Omite"")

0.49 ppm

* 0.75 ppm

tolerance of benomyl = 7 ppm.

''ND = nondetectable, limit of detection = 0.2 ppm.

"Tolerance of propargite = 3 ppm.

*StatisticaUy significant difference existed between IPM conventional at odds of 19 to

applications were used in the IPM block based
on monitoring results, a lower rate was applied,
and resultant residues were lower statistically.
Such a low-dose strategy may represent a way
for the material to be used again in the future.

Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ).
Although each of the measures described above
(i.e. numbers of sprays applied, dosage
equivalents applied, and harvest residues)
gives some information on potential reduction
in environmental and other pollution, the
actual measurement of such reductions is
another matter. In addition to the fact that
there is no agreement on the best techniques for
measuring environmental impacts of pesti-
cides, environmental testing of any sort is very
expensive and demands the utmost care in
sample collection and analysis.

Partly in response to the need for some
measure of environmental impacts of agricul-
tural chemicals, Kovach and his colleagues at
Cornell University devised the Environmental
Impact Quotient (EIQ). The EIQ assigns
values to chemicals based on such parameters

as mode of action (i.e., non-systemic, systemic);
toxicity to humans, bees, rabbits, birds,
beneficial arthropods, and fish; soil residue half
life; plant surface residue half life; and leaching
and runoff potential. Although the resultant
EIQ nvmabers have no meaning per se, they are
intended to provide growers and others with a
means to determine relative differences among
pesticides or pest-management strategies.

It should be noted that a number of flaws in
the EIQ have been pointed out by Dushoff et al.
(1994) in the journal American Entomologist.
In addition to problems with scaling, weighting
of effects, and inert ingredients, those authors
point out that "...even benign substances are
given ... an EIQ of at least 6.7." By way of
illustrating an extreme example, "...if water
were considered a pesticide, it would have an
EIQ of 9.3. This means that 20 lbs per acre of
water would be considered worse than a 1 lb
application of parathion..." Of course, water is
not a pesticide. However, another example
using actual orchard pesticides can be seen in a
comparison of the EIQ Field Use Rating for

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

dormant oil (EIQ value of 37.7) and a 25 WP
formulation of permethrin (EIQ value of 56.4).
The EIQ Field Use Rating is determined by
multiplying the EIQ Value (from a table) times
the percent active ingredient (% A.I.) Of the
material times the rate of pesticide application
per acre, or:

EIQ Field Use Rating =

EIQ Value * % A.I. * Rate per Acre

For Permethrin, used at 5 oz. per 100 gal.
and applying 300 gal. per acre (or 0.9 lbs. per
acre), this results in an EIQ Field Use Rating of
13 (56.4 X .25 X 0.9 lbs). This is obviously much
lower than the field use rating of 226 for oil used
at a rate of 2 gal. per 100 gal. and applying 300
gal. per acre (37.7 x 1 x 6 gal), because oil is
100% active ingredient, and is used at a much
higher per-acre rate. In spite of the flavors in the
EIQ, no other more appropriate model is in
widespread use, to the best of our knowledge,
although several were reviewed in 1994 by Lois
Levitan and colleagues at Cornell in a report to
the Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Re-
search and Extension (SARE) program. Hence,
with all the provisions noted above, the EIQ for
each of the blocks in our demonstration is
presented in Table 4.

If nothing else, the EIQ numbers point out
that IPM is not a "one size fits all" strategy, and

that differences in pest pressure, environmen-
tal conditions, and grower management style
often govern both the choice of pesticides and
their application frequency. For example,
while fungicides contributed the largest portion
of the EIQ number in five out of six IPM blocks,
one site in New Hampshire, which used a new
insecticide (imadacloprid) which is very safe to
predator mites but highly toxic to bees, had a
much higher insecticide/acaricide EIQ than
any of the other blocks. This probably does not
actually represent greater environmental
damage, however, because imidacloprid is
applied after petals have fallen, and bees are no
longer foraging in fruit trees. Nonetheless, use
of the material results in a substantially higher
EIQ rating.

Total EIQ numbers ranged from as low at
50% of the comparison traditional block to as
high as 87% of that block, once again pointing
out the normal differences among blocks for
reasons described above. Ideally, had it been
possible to set up a comparison block in each
state which would have been subjected to the
same weather and pest pressure, such
comparisons would have had a much stronger
biological basis, and their validity would have
been strengthened.

Field days. Field days were held
successfully in four participating states in
1995. Maine held their event on May 24, 1996

Table 4. EIQ calculations for IPM demonstration blocks in five New England states, compared to
a traditionally-managed block at the University of Massachusetts Horticultural Research Center,
1995.

Pesticide type

Conventional

IPM block by state

block
MA MA RI

NHl

NH2

Insecticides/
acaricides
Fungicides
Herbicides
EIQ Totals

586 438 765

1341 617 865

52 57 **

1979 1112 1630

222

777
**

999

1007

334

1341

439

1288

1727

306

1047

1353

**Not calculated

Fruit Notes, volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

to coincide with bloom, a time when orchards
are very attractive. In facihtating planning for
these events University of Massachusetts
distributed information to collaborators on how
to stage and run a field day, and how to write a
press release. In addition, we provided
examples of press releases and other related
materials. Press releases sent, informational
handouts about each farm, and educational
materials handed out at the events included: a
3-page fact sheet on disease-resistant apples, a
fact sheet on IPM in Connecticut Apple
Orchards, an "IPM Impacts" fact sheet, a 8-
page handout on the Maine IPM Program, fact
sheets defining relevant terms, a seven-page
handout on insect and mite pests of apples, an
apple pest chronology calendar and a descrip-
tion of selected biological control agents (both
taken fi-om the New England Apple Pest
Management Guide), and a summary of
comparative results (at the Massachusetts site
only).

Each field day consisted of a "walking tour"
of the demonstration block with stops at
various points of interest. For example,
Connecticut collaborators (L. Los, G. Nixon, J.
Clark and S. Olsen) staged a self-led walking
tour which directed attendees through the
orchard to view 12 different IPM "stations".
Each station had a poster (approximately 2x2
feet) which explained an important apple pest
and included pictures of life stages, damage,
etc. Next to each poster, insect traps with
appropriate insects affixed, or weather moni-
toring equipment for monitoring apple scab
infection periods were displayed. In addition to
displays within the orchard, the Connecticut
IPM group provided two large display boards in
a movable stand used for the orchard's pick
your own operation. One board displayed the
impacts of all IPM projects in the state, and the
other dealt with beneficial insects. A total of
about 700 people either came by the booth or
took the walking tour. The large turnout was
partly due to having a "built-in" audience
available at a large pick-your-own orchard on a
good fall day. Results were such that
Connecticut plans to hold a similar event (self-
funded) next fall as well.

The Rhode Island field day also consisted of
stops at sites in the IPM blocks, as well as
samples and displays (i.e., display board of
"Pest Control Then and Now", photos of insect
and disease pests, fi-uit and leaf damage,
beneficial insects, samples of scab-resistant
cultivars, and several insect monitoring traps).
An estimated 1,000 people participated in the
field day, and the event received publicity on
local TV channels. In addition, a front-page
article about the project also ran in the
Woonsocket Call.

Although attendance at the Massachusetts
field day was less spectacular, the University of
Massachusetts Daily Collegian (circulation of
17,000 throughout the 5-college area) sent a
reporter who later wrote an article. New
Hampshire had the greatest success in
publicizing IPM by virtue of one front page
article in the, July 16 Concord Monitor
(circulation 23,500), a second fi-ont page article
in the September 24 Sunday Union Leader, one
Associated Press article sent out on the wire
and at minimum picked up by the July 17, 1995
Union Leader (cir. 89,000), and reported on by
WTSN, Dover, NH (listenership 63,000), a live
interview on WNHQ, Milford, NH on July 17
(listenership 45,000), and a second AP article
picked up by the September 25 Union Leader.
In addition to the two IPM demonstration sites
identified earlier, two other sites (the Hardy
famiiys Brookdale Fruit Farm in Hollis, and
Chuck and Diane Souther's Apple Hill Farm in
Concord) also participated in the media tours.

Cooperators in Maine arranged for the
Governor to proclaim May 24 as "Maine IPM
Technology Day", and the Commissioner of
Agriculture delivered the Governor's proclama-
tion at the event. The field day was announced
to the apple grower community at the Trade
Show in January, at the preseason IPM
meeting in March, in the Pesticide Control
Board Communicator newsletter, in the Apple
Pest Report newsletter, at meetings of the
Maine State Pomological Society Executive
Council, and was advertised in several
newspapers. The event was attended by about
75 persons and featured displays from the
Maine State Pomological Society; the USDA/

Fruit Notes, volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

Downeast Resource Conservation & Develop-
ment Cranberry IPM Program; the University
of Maine Strawberry, Potato, Sweet Corn,
Greenhouse, Blueberry, and Apple IPM
Programs; the Maine Department of Agricul-
ture; and the Maine Pesticide Control Board.
In addition to the hosts, five other apple
farmers agreed to serve as spokespersons and
to answer questions. Arrangements were made
to have a live InternetAVorld Wide Web
connection, projector, and screen at the event,
to demonstrate a developing technology with
potential applicability for IPM users.

Conclusions

By virtue of the successful development of
state-specific IPM guidelines in 5 of 6 New
England states, by demonstrating (once again)

that IPM can result in lower pesticide
applications, lower dosage equivalents, and a
lower EIQ rating, and by generating substan-
tial media and consumer exposure for IPM
throughout the region, the investigators
believe that all project goals were achieved.

Acknowledgments

We sincerely wish to thank all the growers,
consultants, university staff, and other apple
industry members who participated in the
guidelines design activity and the field
demonstrations. Special thanks to those
growers who allowed us to demonstrate the
IPM systems and hold field days on their farm.
Extra special thanks to Ken Shores who
donated enough cider for 700 attenders of the
Connecticut field day.

«1« «1« «£« «% %1U

0^ r{% r|% rj% vj%

Fruit Notes, volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

An Update on the 1994 NC-140
Apple Rootstock Trial

Wesley R. Autio

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts

The NC-140 Technical Committee is
comprised of about 75 university and govern-
ment pomologists from the United States,
Canada, and Mexico. During the more than 20
years of this group's existence, several trials

have been established, managed, and reported
in a cooperative manner. In 1994, a trial was
established at 25 locations throughout the
United States and Canada, and it is managed
by Rich Marini from Virginia Tech. Each

Table 1. Trunk cross-sectional area, yield, yield efficiency, and fruit weight

in 1996

of Gala on several rootstocks in the

1994 NC-140 Apple Rootstock Trial in |

Massachusetts.'

Trunk cross-

Yield

Fruit

weight

sectional area

per

tree

efficiency

(average

Rootstock

(in^)

(lbs)

(lbs/in' TCA)

box count)

M.9 EMLA

2.1 def

4.8

cdef

2.6 bedef

bed

M.26 EMLA

2.8 be

2.2

efg

0.9 fg

114

M.27EMTA

0.7 i

1.3

1.7 defg

107

bcde

M.9 RN29

2.5 cd

5.7

bcde

2.1 cdefg

bed

M.9 Pajam 1

2.4 de

6.4

bed

2.8 bcdef

114

M.9 Pajam 2

3.0 ab

9.0

3.1 bcde

B.9

1.9 ef

4.2

defg

2.6 bcdef

105

bed

B.491

0.9 hi

2.6

defg

2.7 bcdef

129

0.3

2.0 def

5.7

bcde

2.8 bcdef

112

V.l

3.3 a

8.1

2.6 bedef

100

bed

P. 2

2.1 def

0.4

0.1 g

—

P. 16

1.2 gh

2.0

efg

1.7 defg

112

ede

Mark

2.3 de

9.2

4.3 be

105

bcde

P.22

0.8 hi

3.5

defg

4.5 b

109

ede

B.469

1.2 gh

4.8

cdef

3.8 bed

110

cde

M.9 Fleuren 56

1.6 fg

2.9

defg

2.0 defg

104

bed

M.9 NAKBT337

1.9 ef

3.7

defg

2.1 cdefg

bed

DeliciousM.26 EMLA"

1.8 ef

1.3

0.9 efg

Liberty/M.9 NAKBT337

1.9 ef

13.0

7.2 a

bed

Fuji/Mark"

2.2 de

8.6

3.7 bed

' Means within columns

not followed by the same letter are significantly different

at odds of 19 to 1.

' Delicious, Liberty, and Fuji are pollenizers

within each replication

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

M.9 Fleuren 56

M.9 NAKBT337

M.9 EMLA

M.9 Pajam 1

M.9 RN29 1 .::m

M.9 Pajam 2

Trunk cross-sectional area (in^)

Figure 1. Trunk cross-sectional area in 1996 of Gala on six clones of M.9 in the 1994 NC-140
Apple Rootstock Trial in Massachusetts.

M.9 Fleuren 56

M.9 NAKBT337

M.9 EMLA

M.9 RN29

M.9 Pajam 1

M.9 Pajam 2

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

Yield per tree (lbs)

10.0

Figure 2. Yield per tree in 1996 of Gala on six clones of M.9 in the 1994 NC-140 Apple
Rootstock Trial in Massachusetts.

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

■ : :-

,4^

i^ ■:" '^

illi^i:r

'" ^;: ;;

^'^■'

taiiftaMi;:.jan>.watu-.->H^,.. >^j.t. ,*■,.... - ^1 a.^>v^^.>.

ISli^^^^****'^

M.9 Pajam 1

M.9 Fleuren 56

M.9 EMLA

M.9 NAKBT337

M.9 RN29

M.9 Pajam 2 ^^^

60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Fruit size (average box count)

Figure 3. Fruit size in 1996 of Gala on six clones of M.9 in the 1994 NC-140 Apple Rootstock
Trial in Massachusetts.

plating includes Gala on 17 dwarf rootstocks,
replicated 10 times. The Massachusetts
planting is located in Belchertown at the
University of Massachusetts Horticultural
Research Center. This article will give a brief
update on tree performance through the third
growing season.

After three growing seasons, the largest
Gala trees were on V.l, M.9 Pajam 2, and M.26
EMLA (Table 1). The smallest trees were on
P.22, B.491, and M.27 EMLA. The range in
trunk cross-sectional area from smallest to
largest was more than four fold. Yield per tree
in 1996 (Table 1) was greatest for trees on V.l,
M.9 Pajam 2, and Mark (ignoring the
pollenizers) and least for trees on M.26 EMLA,
P. 16, M.27 EMLA, and P.2. Relating yield to
tree size, jdeld efficiency (Table 1) was greatest
for trees on Mark and P.22 (ignoring the
pollenizers) and smallest for trees on M.26
EMLA and P.2. Fruit size (Table 1) was
greatest for trees on M.9 Pajam 2 and least for
trees on M.26 EMLA, M.9 Pajam 1, 0.3, and

B.491.

Among these 17 rootstocks, it is
particularly interesting to look at the differ-
ences among the six M.9 clones in the study.
The range was more than expected. Trees on
M.9 Pajam 2 were the largest of the M.9-rooted
trees, nearly double the trunk cross-sectional
area of trees on M.9 Fleuren 56 (Figure 1). M.9
EMLA resulted in a tree intermediate in the
range. Yield followed a similar pattern, with
trees on M.9 Pajam 2 producing nearly three
times the fi-uit of trees on M.9 Fleuren 56
(Figure 2). Trees on M.9 Pajam 2 produced the
largest fruit, averaging between 80 count and
96 count (Figure 3). Fruit from trees on M.9
Pajam 1, on the other hand averaged only a bit
larger that 120 count.

Clearly these data are only preliminary.
A few more years will be required to begin solid
evaluation of these rootstocks, but it is
interesting to observe significant differences in
these young trees.

%1a %i« •Im «1« «£•

rj% ry» 0^ 0^ rj%

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

An Update on the 1994 NC-140
Peach Rootstock Trial

Wesley R. Autio

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts

According the 1991A^eu; England Fruit Tree
Inventory, conducted by the New England
Agricultural Statistics Service, peaches com-
prise only 7% (380 acres) of the tree-fruit
acreage in Massachusetts; however, most of
these fruit are sold directly to the consumer and
are profitable. Further, acreage is expected to
increase at a rate of 2-3% per year for the near
future. Therefore, peaches are an important
part of the Massachusetts tree-fruit industry.

Peaches have a number of horticultural
problems: they are subject to early decline;
they can bloom too early and therefore be
frosted, they often express too much vegetative

vigor, and the flower buds or whole tree can be
killed by winter cold. Rootstock can impact any
or all of these problems.

To begin to study the potential for using
rootstock to overcome some limitations of peach
growing, Massachusetts participated in an NC-
140 trial studying the effects of 12 rootstocks
and one interstem combination on the
performance of Redhaven peach. The
Massachusetts planting was established in
1994 at the University of Massachusetts
Horticultural Research Center in Belchertown
and included eight replications. Rootstocks
included were as follows with descriptions

Table 1. Tnink cross-sectional area

yield per tree,

yield efficiency, and fi-uit size in

1996 of Redhaven peach trees planted

in 1994 as

part of the 1994 NC-140 Peach

Rootstock Trial in

Massachusetts.^

Trunk cross-

Yield

Fruit

sectional area

per tree

efficiency

weight

Rootstock

(in^)

(lbs)

(lbs/in' TCA)

(oz)

Lovell

6.4 a

19.4 be

3.1 a

6.9 a

Bailey

4.7 be

27.9 ab

6.2 a

7.6 a

TN 281-1

4.4 be

17.6 be

4.0 a

7.2 a

Stark's Redleaf

4.5 be

27.9 ab

6.0 a

7.8 a

GF305

4.7 be

27.5 ab

6.0 a

7.1 a

Higama

5.6 ab

33.0 a

6.0 a

6.8 a

Montclar

5.3 ab

20.2 be

4.0 a

6.4 a

Rubira

3.4 cd

18.7 be

5.7 a

6.8 a

Ishtara

2.4 d

11.9 c

4.8 a

6.7 a

H7338019

3.2 cd

16.3 be

5.1 a

6.4 a

BY520-8

3.9 c

18.3 be

4.8 a

6.9 a

Guardian

6.3 a

25.1 ab

4.0 a

5.9 a

Ta Tao 5/Lovell

4.2 be

18.3 be

4.4 a

6.8 a

' Means within col

umns not followed by the same

letter are significantly

different

at odds of 19 to 1

Fruit Notes, volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

Ishtara

H7338019 ETT

Rubira

BY520-8 ^^^^^

Ta Tao 5/Lovell

TN 281-1

Stark's Redleaf

GF305

Bailey

Montclar gSgBW

Higama

Guardian

Lovell

t:X?!^i^iS^:Sg^^^»ss^Stismf'i^y

mm^^m^'im^fi^i^A'^i^im^^^^^^'^^t^

^^^^^3

0.0

2.0 4.0 6.0

Trunk cross-sectional area (in^)

8.0

Figure 1. Trunk cross-sectional area of Redhaven peach trees planted in 1994 as part of the 1994
NC-140 Peach Rootstock Trial in Massachusetts.

Ishtara

H7338019

TN 281-1

BY520-8

Ta Tao 5/Lovell

Rubira

Lovell

Montclar

Guardian

GF305

Stark's Readleaf

Bailey

Higama

Yield per tree (lbs)

Figure 2. Yield of Redhaven peach trees planted in 1994 as part of the 1994 NC-140 Peach
Rootstock Trial in Massachusetts.

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

provided by Greg Reighard (Clemson Univer-
sity), the coordinator of the NC-140 trial:

Lovell

Bailey

TN 281-1
Stark Redleaf

GF 305

Higama

Montclar

Rubira

Ishtara

H7338019
BY520-8

Chance seedling of peach from
California named in 1882,
propagated by seed;
Selection of peach from Iowa
named in 1890, propagated by
seed;

Selection in Tennessee of "wild"
peach, propagated by seed;
Selection by Stark Bro's from a
Tennessee Natural-tj^je root-
stock, propagated by seed;
Selection in 1940 in France
from Montreuil peach, propa-
gated by seed;

Selection in France of peach
from Japan, propagated by
seed;

Selection in France of peach,
propagated by seed;
Selection in France of peach,
propagated by seed;
Selection in France of a plum-
peach hybrid, propagated by
cutting;

Selection in Ontario of peach,
propagated by seed;
Selection in Georgia of peach,
propagated by seed;

Guardian Selection in Georgia of peach,

propagated by seed;

Ta Tao 5 Selection in China of peach,

propagated by grafting, used in
the study as an interstem with
Lovell as the rootstock.

After three growing seasons, significant
differences existed in trunk cross-sectional area
(Table 1, Figure 1). Of the trees with pure
peach rootstocks, H7338019 resulted in a tree
only half the size of those on Lovell, the largest.
Rubira also produced a small tree, and
Montclar, Higama, and Guardian also pro-
duced large trees. Ishtara, the plum-peach
hybrid, resulted in the smallest trees, ones that
on average were only 38% of the size of trees on
Lovell. Yield varied similarly (Table 1, Figure
2), with trees on Higama, Bailey, Stark's
Redleaf, GF 305, and Guardian producing the
most, and trees on Ishtara producing the least.
Because, in general, the largest trees produced
the most fi-uit, yield efficiency (the expression of
5deld per unit tree size) did not vary
significantly among rootstocks (Table 1).
Likewise finiit size did not vary significantly
among rootstocks (Table 1).

Although several more years will be
required to evaluate these rootstock ad-
equately, it is interesting to observe the
significant differences that have developed in
this first fruiting season.

♦ mi^ ml^ •i^ •Ia
#{« «^ 0^ 0^

Fruit Notes, volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

EDITORS' NOTE: The following piece was sent to us by W. Lockeretz (Tufts
University). It is from the Life Histories Collection from the Federal Writers'
Project of the Works Progress Administration. It is a transcript of an interview of
Mr. G. O. Bunnell during 1938 and 1939. At the time of the interview, Mr. Bunnell
was 75-80 years old.

The Hay, Grain, and Feed Man:

G. O. Dunnell, Northfield, Massachusetts

I'm getting this axe ready to fix the fences
on Christian Hill that the hurricane busted.
Not that the hurricane blew 'em down but it did
blow down some trees. And the trees is what
busted the fences. I dim' over one. Had to, to
get to camp, and I see they was more down.
Couldn't do anything that night because it was
getting da'k, and I had to come home, but I'm
going back just as soon as the roads get settled
enough so's I can.

It's a funny thing, but I don't think that, as
a rule, there was as much wind over that way as
we got here. What did most of the damage was
the water. And, another funny thing I noticed
was that of the trees that come down in the
apple orchards, it was the ones that had never
been grafted. Those that had been grafted
stood up.

How'd I know? I know most every apple tree
they is on Colrain and Shelbume mountains,
and in the north part of the town of Greenfield.
'Cause I was the feller that grafted 'em, that's
why! I used to go all over grafting trees. And I
had ten or twelve hundred trees of my own, too,
that I'd no business leaving. But people would
come tease me and tell me how much extry they
were willing to pay for my trouble, that I was
generally on the move. Once I went to
Greenfield. And I didn't get home for a week.
Spent the nights there with the different ones.

'Course, theys a trick to it. But 'most
anybody can put on a scion so's it'll grow. But
that ain't all they is to it. You got to figure what
the tree's going to be shaped like. You shouldn't
get the scions growing into each other the way
most people do. And you ought to fix; the tree

so's somebody can pick the apples without tying
a couple of ladders together or hiring a balloon.

Apple trees like to grow among the rocks -
that is, most kinds do. The hills each side of our
valley here are just right. All we can grow here
that's any good is the Blue Pearmain. And they
got such a tough skin that people don't like 'em.
They are an awful good flavor, though, until
they got mealy - oh, they^s others; russets and
early transparent and so on. But what I was
getting at is the way I found the best of raising
good flavored apples. Apples grow wild over in
Colrain. It is just as natural to find a wild apple
tree in Colrain as it is to find a birch in
Warwick. I had a lot of 'em in my woods.
'Course, the fruit of a wild apple tree is no good
except for cider. But the trees themselves is
generally healthy. I'd find a good one, then I'd
saw off such limbs as I thought should be off,
and put a scion in it. If it was a fairly big limb
that I figured would pinch the scion off if I didn't
do something about it, I'd whittle a little thin
wedge and put that in just beyond the scion, for
the limb to pinch on to. What do I mean by
scion? What that's a little shoot fi-om the brand
of tree I wanted. I had Baldwin scions and
Mcintosh scions and Porter scions, and all
kinds of scions. I cut 'em in March - that's the
best time to graft around here. Maybe, I'd
make a Baldwin tree out of a wild apple tree, or
a Greening, or a Northern Spy. Sometimes I
fixed 'em so's they had different kind of apples
on every limb. But that's nothing but a kind of
joke. Nobody that runs an orchard wants trees
with fruit all mixed up on 'em.

I said I only put one scion to a limb. I always

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

put two, 'cause somethin' might happen to one.
They break off in ice storms sometimes. And I
always put 'em one above the other 'cause I
figured it's better and stronger that way. You
whittle off one side the scion and stick it in the
crack you've made with your knife in such a
way that the live bark on the scion presses up
against the live bark on the tree. And then you
hold the scion in place with wax. Then you cut
off all the limbs below the one that you've
grafted. The sap has to go somewheres. And
when it finds that the limbs have been cut off,
and they ain't no place to go, except into the
bark of the scions, that's where it goes. You've
got to figger not to cut too many limbs off,
though. For if thej^s more sap than can get into
the scion and make it grow, it'll leak out under
the w£ix and rot the scion off. I generally left the
top of the tree pretty much alone until I found
out how the scions were doing. If they were
growing all right, I'd cut the top off then.

Lot of people put on two scions the way I
done. But when them both growed they let 'em
grow together. That makes a crotch. And a
crotch ain't strong. I always cut off one scion
just before they growed together. And the bark
would grow over the place and make a smooth
branch.

Once, I grafted a whole tree. And that tree
stood up through the hurricane, too. Yer see,
when a crust comes on the snow, or anjrthing
happens so the mice can't hunt, you're supposed
to go around the orchard tromping down the
snow around the trees. You tromp it down hard
right around the trunk, and the mice won't get
to the bark. But I missed this tree someways.
Or the mouse, maybe, was a wood rat. Anyway,
it ett the bark all the way 'round. It was a good
tree. Had good roots, and as it would die if I
didn't do something about it, I thought I better
try. I cut the trunk of the tree off and put scions
all the way 'round in the bark. Enough of 'em
grew so I managed to raise a tree. I told the
feller who owns the place about it, and he found
it hard to believe for it don't look no different
than any other tree to him.

Lots of people insist on growing an orchard
from nursery stock, that's all right if you want
to wait ten or fifteen years for a crop. But if you

want your trees to begin bearing in three-four
years you want to graft a few scions on to a full
grown tree. If you take your scions from a tree
that has apples you like, you can be sure that
you'll get the same flavor apple when the scions
begin to bear. But when you buy from a nursery
you got to wait ten or twelve years to find out if
you got what you paid for. 'Course, the/s some
crook nursery men, I s'pose, but they ain't
many. It's the agent who's the crook. And it's a
pretty good game when a feller don't know he's
been gypped until ten-twelve years. By that
time the agent ain't no longer in the employ of
the company, probably. And if he was, nobody
would know who made the mistake and the
whole thing be outlawed so's you couldn't get it
into court. I don't say that a good nursery
wouldn't be awful sorry it happened and make
good, too. But the way they'd make good would
be to give you some guaranteed new trees that
you could wait for to bear for another ten-
twelve years.

When Doc Brown and his brother first come
they lived in houses side by side. And they
planted the two back lots for an orchard. I told
the Doc that this wasn't a good place to raise
apples, but the Doc said, "No, no," I was wrong.
That he'd had the soil analyzed down at the
State College. And that they said it was good
soil and all right. "All right, Mister" I says.
"Now you take out your little book and you
write down what I'm going to tell yer. So's you
won't forget it, I says. But you see more money
when you took out your pocketbook to pay for
them trees than you'll ever see coming back into
it from your orchard." But, oh no, I was wrong.

"What kind of trees be they," I wanted to
know. "Baldwins," he says. And it seemed he
had paid an extry price to get some real good
trees.

I see they wan't no use talking to him and
trjdng to help him so I forgot about it 'til several
years had gone by when I saw him and his
brother working in the orchard. You know,
they's a pest of borers that bores holes in the
trunks of apple trees right above the ground,
and if you're quick enough you can ram a wire
in and either kill the borer, or fish him out, but
if he's bored 'round a bend or two, you are out of

Fruit Notes, volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

luck - your tree is gone. So it pays to watch your
orchard. Was a time when yer didn't need to
spray your trees. But you do now - two-three
times.

Well, I goes down into the orchard and asks
what they was doing. They told me. And I
asked what kind of trees these was. 'Baldwins,"
they told me. A few of 'em are, I admitted. But
most of 'em is Gravensteins. "Oh, no!" Says the
Doc, "that can't be! It was a reliable firm we
bought them of and they was guaranteed
Baldwins - a 'specially good brand.' "Well," I
says, "You still get your little book? Now, put it
down, so you won't forget it, or tie a string
around the trees, or somethin', and you just
wait 'til theys apples on 'em and see.'

But they didn't wait. The brother sold out to
a poor, little runt of a mean, miserable, cuss
that I don't want nothin' to do with. But I didn't
know what a kind of low-lived skunk he was
then, so I tried to be neighborly. I asked him
what kind of trees he had in his orchard. He
says that they was Baldwins. That that was
what the ministers said that sold him the place.
"Well, they ain't," I says. "They is Gravensteins
- most of 'em." But they ain't no good!" he says.

I told him I didn't think they was any good
myself- not even for cider. He wanted to know
how how I was so siire. And I showed him the
difference in the leaves. He thought he had
better wait and make sure before he did
anything about it. That it didn't seem to him
that ministers would lie. I told him he needn't
wait to find that out. That everybody in
Northfield knowed that ministers are the
biggest liars they is, 'cause they honestly
believe their lies themselves. That if he aimed
to become a bonnie fidie resident of Northfield,
he'd better find that out, and learn to set one
against the other. That some places you needed
lawyers to do business for you, but here in
Northfield you needed ministers, and if you
didn't have one you were all out of luck.

He was going to cut down the Gravensteins
but I told him no, and showed him how to graft
'em with scions fi-om the Baldwins. The little
cuss never did it, though, he turned out to be too
dimab lazy. That old fool was over eighty when
he broke his hip. It mended good as new. The
fall would a killed any decent person. And you
know the saying, "The Good Die Young." Guess
that's a fact.

mi^ mi^ %i« «f^ m^

0^ 0^ 0^ ^« 0^

Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997

Fruit Notes

University of Massachusetts

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences

205 Bowditch Hall

Amherst, MA 01003

Nonprofit Organization
U.S. Postage Paid

Permit No. 2
Amherst, l\/IA01002

SERIAL SECTION

UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS LIBRARY

AMHERST MA 01003

PLEASE READ SUBSCRIPTION NOTICE
ON PAGE 1 IMMEDIATELY!

Account No. 2-22914

UM/Morr.

Per

354

F6B

Yuit Notes

Prepared by the Department of Plant & Soil Sciences.

UMass Extension, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and Massachusetts Counties Cooperating.

Editors: Wesley R. Autio and IX^lliam J.


Search: Advanced Search	UploadAnonymous User (login or join us)