N E W Y O R K CONTENTS Testing Pre-plant Monoammonium F R...

NEW YORK FRUIT QUARTERLY • VOLUME 10 NUMBER 1 • 2002 1

N E W Y O R KF R U I T Q U A R T E R L Y

V O L U M E 10 • N U M B E R 1 • S P R I N G 2 0 0 2

This publication is a joint effort of the New YorkState Horticultural Society, Cornell University’sNew York State Agricultural Experiment Station

at Geneva, and the New York State AppleResearch and Development Program.

Editors:Terence Robinson and Steve Hoying

Dept. of Horticultural SciencesNew York State Agricultural Experiment Station

Geneva, New York 14456-0462Telephone: 315-787-2227

Fax: 315-787-2216Subscriptions: $20/year. Contact Karen Wilson,

NYSHS, PO Box 462, Geneva, NY 14456or call: 315-787-2404

Advertising: Warren Smith: 845-255-1442Production: Communications Services,

NYSAES, Geneva

N E W Y O R KF R U I T Q U A R T E R L YVOLUME 10 • NUMBER 1 • SPRING 2002

EditorialWe Can Deliver Quality Apples to the Consumer!

M y background in business has taught me that there are many similaritiesbetween agriculture and the corporate world! When the corporation I worked for

faced troubled times, our CEO developed and prioritized 5 basic goals for our organiza-tion.

#1 Good Quality#2 Good Sanitation#3 Correct Pricing#4 Good Stock Levels and Product Mix#5 Good Customer Service.He reached these goals through the strategies “let’s work together”, “everyone do

their part”, and “let’s get back to basics.” It appears that these same strategies areimportant for improving the apple industry. I believe that by striving for the five basicsand working as a committed team where everyone does their part, that we can easilykeep intact the quality chain from the apple orchard to the consumer.

Maturity — The first link of the chain is fruit inspection in the field.Fruit must not be picked without proper brix, pressure, and starch levels.

Harvest — The key elements for a good harvest include properlytrained crews with good supervision, only the best picking practices, atimely completion of harvest, and rapid transportation to storage.

Quality — Quality evaluations are very important in the field and atthe storage facility. Each lot of fruit should be catalogued for size, color,defects, and maturity.

Storage — The key factors for good storage are rapid cooling, rapidfilling of rooms knowing the characteristics of the fruit in each location,proper atmosphere, and allocation of needs.

Packing — Packers must only use fruit that best match orders. Propergrading and labeling is a must. Packed fruit needs to be re-cooled immedi-ately and rotation practiced 100 percent—FIFO (‘first-in-first-out’).

Marketing — Marketers must know consumer needs, developseasonal and promotional marketing plans, work collectively, communicatewith other marketers, and move all packs promptly.

Transport — Ship fruit at proper temperatures. Make sure to mix onlycompatible items on a load. Only use haulers with equipment suitable forthe job such as air ride suspension, with dependable drivers and highservice levels.

Retail — Our role is to help and encourage the retailer to trainemployees, turn product quickly, store and display apples properly,maintain the cold chain, and conduct customer surveys.

Consumer — This is the final link in the chain. Consumer educationneeds to include information on varieties, proper handling, and recipes.Sampling of unique varieties encourages new purchases.

Let’s not break the chain! Everyone needs to do their part! A team effort is essential!Let’s get back to the basics!

Jim KankowskiSales & MarketingH.H. DobbinsLyndonville, NY

CONTENTS

Testing Pre-plant MonoammoniumPhosphate and Apple Compost ForImproving the Growth of Newly PlantedApple TreesJim Schupp and Renae E. Moran ..................5

SurroundTM: A Realistic Choice for Control ofInsects in Organic Apple Orchards in theNortheastern United States?H. Reissig, R. Straub, and A. Agnello............11

Effect of SurroundTM Particle Film onFruit Sunburn, Maturity and Qualityof ‘Fuji’ and ‘Honeycrisp’ ApplesJim Schupp, Essie Fallahi, and Ik-Jo Chun.....17

Pheromone Disruption of Oriental Fruit Mothin New York PeachesArthur M. Agnello and Deborah I. Breth........23

Evaluation of Pheromone Disruption inCombination with Insecticide Applicationsfor Control of Peachtree Borers in PeachesArthur M. Agnello and David P. Kain............29

FRONT COVER: The kaolin clay active in-gredient in SurroundTM leaves a heavycoating on fruit and leaves. This “particlefilm technology” creates a physical bar-rier that can reduce or prevent host rec-ognition, prevent movement or feeding,or cause irritation to the insect leadingto repellency or death. CREDIT: S. Hoying

BACK COVER: This typical group of NewYork apple insect pests can be partiallycontrolled using SurroundTM. Control de-pends on timing and frequency of spraysand initial insect population. CREDIT: J.Ogrodnick/NYSAES/Cornell

2 NEW YORK STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY

Testing Pre-plantMonoammoniumPhosphate and AppleCompost For Improvingthe Growth of NewlyPlanted Apple TreesJim Schupp1 and Renae E. Moran2,

1Hudson Valley Lab, Highland, NY, 2Highmoor Farm, University of Maine,Monmouth, ME

Soil incorporation ofcompost increased tree

growth and flowering intothe third year after

planting. Greater treegrowth with compost was

most likely due toimproved N and K statusof the trees, and throughimproved soil aeration

and water holdingcapacity.

Management practices that fosterrapid early tree growth and earlyfruit production result in eco-

nomic advantages to growers by hasten-ing a return on investment. In many or-chards in the Northeast, early yield is lim-ited by tree growth, and trees are typicallynot cropped until the third or fourth sea-son because tree growth is not vigorousenough. Decreasing the time required fortrees to fill their space would allow grow-ers to increase early yields. Two methodsthat have been used to increase early treegrowth are the addition of organic matteror phosphorus fertilizer to the plantinghole.

Organic matter is often low in manyexisting orchard soils. Increasing soil or-ganic matter improves its water and nu-trient holding capacity, which enhancesroot regeneration and promotes overalltree vigor. Adding compost as a source oforganic matter to planting holes has beendemonstrated to have beneficial effects onyoung apple tree growth in experimentsin Massachusetts and Maine. The effectsof planting hole treatments are most vis-ible during the year of planting. As rootgrowth extends beyond the volume of theplanting hole, the effects of planting holetreatments diminish. If organic matteramendments were broadcast throughoutthe orchard soil, perhaps the beneficialgrowth response could be sustained for alonger period.

For pre-plant compost to be a feasiblemanagement practice, an economical, lo-cal source of compost must be available.

University of Maine Cooperative Exten-sion developed an apple pomacecomposting project in cooperation withChick Orchards, Monmouth, Maine.Apple pomace from Chick’s cider opera-tion was mixed with leaf waste from thelocal waste transfer station, and chickenmanure from a local egg farm at a 2:6:1ratio by volume. Wood ash was used toadjust the pH to 5.8 prior to composting.Composting reduced the volume of applepomace waste by 50 percent, and con-verted it into an organic soil amendmentwith highly desirable characteristics.

Well-rooted mature fruit trees are ef-ficient at absorbing phosphorus (P) fromthe soil, and seldom need P fertilizer.Newly transplanted trees have impairedroot systems and P fertilizer is often rec-ommended for new plantings (Stiles andReid, 1991). Since P is very immobile insoil, this nutrient is more beneficial whenit can be incorporated prior to planting.Research results in British Columbia haveshown that monoammonium phosphate(MAP 11-55-0) fertilizer, incorporated intothe soil used to fill the planting hole, in-creased tree growth in the first two yearsafter planting and increased flower pro-duction and fruit set in the early years ofthe planting. The addition of MAP to theplanting hole has become a common prac-tice in B.C. orchards, especially when re-plant problems are anticipated (Neilsen,1994). It has been suggested that root up-take or utilization of P may be more effi-cient in the presence of ammonium. More-over, MAP could be influencing tree

growth by providing N. This study wasperformed to determine if pre-plant incor-porated apple compost or MAP, eitheralone or in combination, would improveearly apple tree growth and precocity.

Preplant Research

This experiment was conducted atHighmoor Farm in Monmouth, Maine, onland which had been fallow for six years,but in continuous apple production for theprevious 37 years. The soil was a finesandy loam, and soil properties prior toplanting are listed in Table 1.

Macoun/Bud.9 apple trees wereplanted using a tractor-mounted treeplanter on May 1, 1998 into plots that hadreceived one of the following combina-tions of pre-plant treatments: 1) no com-post, urea fertilizer; 2) no compost, MAP;3) compost + urea; and 4) compost + MAP.Each plot consisted of three trees at a spac-ing of 6 feet between trees and 18 feet be-tween rows. Cortland/Bud. 9 trees wereplanted as buffer trees between plots.

Prior to planting, MAP was appliedto the plots at a rate of 332 lb per acre andurea at a rate of 79 lb per acre, so that eachtreatment received an equivalent amountof N (1.44 oz. per tree). Apple pomacecompost was spread over the plantingstrip and leveled to a uniform thicknessof four inches. All plots were then roto-tilled to a depth of 6 inches.

The trees were unfeathered whips,headed to a height of 28 inches at plant-ing. The trees were attached to a galva-nized conduit stake supported by a singlewire at 7 ft. The two buds directly belowthe new leader were rubbed off, as wereall buds that sprouted below 15 inches.The trees were minimally pruned, and


trained to the vertical axis system. Insecti-cides, fungicides, and herbicides were ap-plied as needed.

Results and Discussion

Tree growth was increased by com-post, but not by MAP. Compost increased

10.4548957453497.35.66.8MAP + compost11.1557959158489.25.36.9Urea + compost6.8286135322114.64.46.4MAP6.9295034223511.14.56.4Urea

7.6266438423510.94.76.8None

trunk growth in the first two seasons, butnot in the third season (Fig. 1). Annualshoot growth was increased by compostin the first season, but not significantlyin the second or third season (Fig. 2).Compost increased the number of grow-ing points (the sum of spurs and shootsper tree) and tree height at the end of thethird season (Fig. 3). MAP had no effecton trunk growth, shoot growth, numberof growing points, or tree height in anyseason of the study.

Tree growth was increased by pre-plant incorporated apple pomace com-post, similar to other studies that showedorganic matter added to the planting holeincreased shoot growth and trunk girth.In those studies, the effect of plantinghole treatments was no longer evident bythe second or third season, and this wasattributed to roots growing beyond theplanting hole. In our study, the effect ofpre-plant organic matter on trunk cir-cumference and shoot growth also dimin-ished with time. The diminished effectsobserved in our study were possibly dueto the depletion of soil K, Mg and Ca. SoilK in the compost plots was twice as greatas in non-compost plots, but this differ-ence was much smaller by the third sea-son. Although trunk and shoot growthdifferences diminished with time, the in-crease in tree height and number of grow-ing points was evident in the third sea-son indicating that the cumulative effectof compost on tree size was not short-lived.

The total number of flower clustersper tree in May 1999 was not affected byany of the treatments (Fig. 4). In May 2000and 2001, the number of flower clusterswas increased by compost, but not af-fected by MAP. We were unable to deter-mine if the increases in tree size and flow-ering were large enough to increase earlyyield because the trees did not attain suf-ficient size to permit cropping until afterthe third growing season. The trees in this

Figure. 1. Effect of pre-plant monoammonium phos-phate (MAP) and apple compost on trunk growthof Macoun /Bud.9 apple trees in the first three sea-sons after planting.

Figure. 2. Effect of pre-plant monoammonium phos-phate (MAP) and apple compost on shoot growthof Macoun /Bud.9 apple trees in the first three sea-sons after planting.

Figure. 3. Effect of pre-plant monoammonium phos-phate (MAP) and apple compost on number of grow-ing points and tree height of Macoun /Bud.9 appletrees in the third season after planting.

Figure. 4. Effect of pre-plant monoammonium phos-phate (MAP) and apple compost on number offlower clusters of Macoun /Bud.9 apple trees in thefirst three seasons after planting.

Figure. 5. Effect of pre-plant monoammonium phos-phate (MAP) and apple compost on leaf nitrogenof Macoun /Bud.9 apple trees in the first three sea-sons after planting.

Figure. 6. Effect of pre-plant monoammonium phos-phate (MAP) and apple compost on leaf potassiumof Macoun /Bud.9 apple trees in the first three sea-sons after planting.

study were on Bud.9 rootstock, which isless vigorous than M.9 EMLA, and maybe insufficiently vigorous for spur typevarieties such as Macoun in northernNew York and New England.

Soil fertility was enhanced by the ad-dition of compost, but little influenced bythe addition of MAP, as shown for theyear of planting in Table 1. The additionof compost resulted in higher soil pH andcation exchange capacity in each of thethree seasons after planting, compared tothe plots without compost. Compost in-creased both soil organic matter and P inthe first season, while MAP and urea hadno effect. Compost also increased soil Mg,Ca, and K in each season of the study.

Compost increased tree growth andflowering by improving soil fertility and

4 NEW YORK STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETYFigure 4. Figure 5.

tree nutrient status, and most likely, byincreasing soil water holding capacityand soil aeration. Foliar nutrient statuswas favorably affected by compost (Figs.5 & 6). There was no difference betweenurea and MAP in their effect on leaf N orK (Figs. 5 & 6), or leaf P, Ca, or Mg (datanot shown). Compost increased leaf Nand K compared to trees in plots withoutcompost in all three seasons after plant-ing. Leaf P and Ca were not affected bycompost.

Compost decreased leaf Mg in thefirst season after planting, but had no ef-fect in the second or third season. Thelarge increase in soil K following compostincorporation may have interfered withCa and Mg uptake, so that even thoughsoil Ca and Mg were greater, foliar levelswere not. An increase in the water hold-ing capacity of the soil would have beenadvantageous in 1998, when the newlyplanted trees were generating new rootsto replace those lost in transplanting, andin 1999, a season in which little precipita-tion occurred before September. Leaf mi-cronutrients were not affected by any ofthe pre-plant treatments (data notshown).

Pre-plant incorporation of P fertilizerhad no effect on tree growth or flower-ing in this study. P fertilization has pre-viously been shown to increase flower-ing when it results in greater leaf P(Neilsen, 1994). In our study the soil levelof P was within the optimum range be-fore treatment, and was increased toabove optimum by compost. Althoughthe level of P in the soil was increased

with compost, there was no increase infoliar P. These results are consistent withmost previous studies in showing no ben-efit from P fertilization for apple (Stiles,1994).

Summary

The results of this study indicate thatpre-plant compost incorporation wasmore effective than P fertilization for in-creasing tree growth during the establish-ment years. The practice of adding P tothe planting hole may not be appropri-ate for Northeastern US sites, particularlythose where the soil test indicates that Pis adequate before planting. Soil incorpo-ration of compost increased tree growthand flowering into the third year afterplanting. Greater tree growth with com-post was most likely due to improved Nand K status of the trees, and throughimproved soil aeration and water hold-ing capacity. Our results suggest that treesplanted in soil amended with apple pom-ace compost would potentially fill theirspace more quickly and be able to sup-port more fruit growth in the first yearsof cropping.

Acknowledgements

This project was supported in part bya grant from the New England Tree FruitGrowers Research Committee. The au-thors wish to thank Chick Orchards forsupplying the compost, and the techni-cal staff at Highmoor Farm for their as-

sistance with this research. Special thanksgo to John McCue, Sheri Koller, andMichelle Handley for maintaining thisproject during the transition betweenproject leaders.

Literature Cited

Neilson, G. H. 1994. Phosphorus on re-planted orchards. p. 71-77. In: Tree fruitnutrition: A comprehensive manual ofdeciduous tree fruit nutrient needs. A. B.Peterson and R. G. Stevens (eds). GoodFruit Grower, Yakima, Wash.Stiles, W. C. 1994. Phosphorus, potas-sium, magnesium, and sulfur soil man-agement. p.63-70. In: Tree fruit nutrition:A comprehensive manual of deciduoustree fruit nutrient needs. A. B. Petersonand R. G. Stevens (eds). Good FruitGrower, Yakima, Wash.Stiles, W. C. and W. S. Reid. 1991. Orchardnutrition management. Cornell Coop.Ext. Bul. 219.

Jim Schupp is an assistant professor of po-mology at Cornell’s Hudson Valley Lab. Hisresearch interests include the use of mineralnutrients, and other cultural practices for in-creasing tree and fruit size and quality. RenaeMoran is an assistant professor of pomologyand an extension tree fruit specialist with theUniversity of Maine. She conducts appliedresearch on apple problems and works withthe apple industry in Maine. In addition toapple nutrition, her research interests includesize controlling rootstocks, variety testing andgrowth regulators.


SurroundTM: A RealisticChoice for Control ofInsects in Organic AppleOrchards in the North-eastern United States?H. Reissig1, R. Straub2, and A. Agnello1

1Entomology Department, New York State Agricultural Experiment Sta-tion, Geneva, NY , 2Hudson Valley Laboratory, Highland, NY

SurroundTM has greatpotential to serve as amajor tool to controldirect pests of apple

fruit in the Northeast forgrowers interested in

organic production. Themajor constraints for

effective seasonal use ofthis product include

relative ineffectivenessof airblast sprays, needfor frequent reapplica-tion, high cost, and theresidual accumulationsof unsightly residues inthe stem and calyx end

of fruit at harvest.

Currently, most apples that are pro-duced for organic markets through-out the US are grown in the West.

There may be several reasons for this con-centration of organic apple production.However, the reduced incidence of insectpests and diseases in terms of numbersof pest species and their relative severityis a major factor favoring organic appleproduction throughout the Western re-gion. The most important insect pest inthe Western apple production regions isthe codling moth, although other insectspecies and mites can occasionally be se-vere problems. In contrast, in the North-eastern US, apple growers are constantlythreatened by multiple major insect peststhat directly damage apple fruit: the plumcurculio; a complex of three species oflepidopteran larvae that feed within fruit(codling moth, oriental fruit moth, andlesser appleworm); and the apple mag-got. The apple maggot and plum curculioare native insect species in the Northeast-ern US, and populations of these two in-digenous species are not regulated at lowlevels in unsprayed apple trees in feralhabitats. Various studies have shown thatin unsprayed areas throughout the North-east, nearly 100 percent of the apples onferal trees are infested by these two pestsyear after year.

Climatic and landscape differencesnear areas of major commercial apple pro-duction are also quite different in theWestern and Northeastern regions. Ma-jor areas of apple production in the Westare usually concentrated in more arid re-gions, and there are usually limited res-ervoirs of hosts for apple insect pests inclose proximity to commercial orchards.

Throughout the Northeast, many com-mercial orchards are fairly close towooded and semi-wooded areas withlarger numbers of feral apple trees, haw-thorn trees, and other Rosaceous plantsthat can serve as host reservoirs for manydifferent species of apple insect pests.Therefore, in the Northeast, apple insectmanagement programs must be designednot only to control or eliminate indig-enous infestations of insect pest species,but also to prevent the immigration ofinsect pests into orchards from heavilyinfested nearby native alternate hostplants.

Conventional apple producers in theNortheastern US have relied uponbroadspectrum organophosphate insecti-cides for the last 30 years to control theprimary complex of insect pests feedingdirectly on apples. However, growers in-terested in organic production through-out the Northeast have generally had littlesucesss with the limited available ap-proved materials such as: Sabadilla, Bacil-lus thuringiensis, petroleum oil, neembased products (Aza-Direct), pyrethrums,rotenone, and insecticidal soaps (M-Pede).

Organic apple growers on the WestCoast have been more successful in man-aging their primary fruit pest, the codlingmoth, with a combination of mass releaseof pheromone to disrupt mating andsprays of some selective insecticides suchas Bacillus thuringiensis. However, organicgrowers on the East Coast are generallynot able to use mating disruption for con-trol of codling moth and other internallepidopterous pests for several reasons.First, this program does not control theother major fruit pests in the Northeast,

the apple maggot and plum curculio,which are also active at the same time asinternal feeding lepidopterous pests.Therefore, attempting to integrate addi-tional control measures into a mating dis-ruption program for these additionalpests would be very costly and compli-cated. Secondly, mating disruption worksbest when it is applied to large plots thathave relatively low indigenous popula-tions of internal Lepidoptera, and are iso-lated from outside sources of potentiallyimmigrating mated codling moth females.Many organic apple farms throughout theNortheast are very small, sometimes al-ready heavily infested with relatively highpopulations of internal Lepidoptera, and,as previously mentioned, usually locatednext to unsprayed areas harboring largeinfestations of fruit insect pests.

Recently, a new type of cropprotectant, SurroundTM, has begun to bewidely tested in apple orchards through-out the US. This compound is a formula-tion of kaolin clay (a food grade compo-nent) and has been approved for use inorganic production systems. This materialis based on a relatively new pest controlconcept called “Particle Film Technology.”When applied, the material forms a dry,white, physical barrier that may affect in-sect pests by: 1) reducing or preventinghost recognition; 2) preventing normal


movement and feeding, and; 3) causingirritation leading to repellency or even-tually death. The label for this compoundsuggests that application should beginbefore an insect or mite outbreak occurs;leaves and fruit must be thoroughly cov-ered; and consistent coverage is essentialfor effective control. SurroundTM is recom-mended at rates of approximately 50 lbs/100-200 gallons of water, and for best re-sults, the material should be applied atweekly intervals.

Because of the label recommenda-tions for thorough coverage, high rates,and frequent applications, we decided totest the effectiveness of SurroundTM treat-ments applied with a high-pressure hand-gun sprayer and with different types ofconventional airblast sprayers against theapple insect pest complex in New York.

Handsprayer Trials

Seasonal Pest Control, 2000-2001The results of the two handgun tri-

als against the general apple insect pestcomplex in heavily infested research or-chards in the Hudson Valley and Genevaare shown in Table 1. Although treat-ments in both regions were applied witha high-pressure handgun sprayer diluteto runoff, to single tree plots of differentapple cultivars, the timing and rates ofSurroundTM used/100 gallons of waterwere different in the two trials. In theHudson Valley, SurroundTM was appliedat a lower rate (25 lbs/100 gallons of wa-ter). Sprays began at petal fall (May 8) andseven additional cover sprays were ap-plied at ca. 10-14 day intervals thereafterthroughout the season. At Geneva,SurroundTM was applied at a higher rate(50 lbs/100 gal). Sprays began at petal fall(May 22) and 13 more cover sprays wereapplied weekly, until the last spray onAugust 22.

In both locations, the SurroundTM

treatments were as effective in controllingthe plum curculio, internal Lepidoptera,and apple maggots as the organophos-phate standard programs, although applemaggot pressure was not heavy in theGeneva research orchard as indicated bythe low level of damage (1.0 percent) inthe untreated check plots. SurroundTM

was also as effective as the Guthion stan-dard program in controlling the Euro-pean apple sawfly in the Hudson Valley.

The percentages of control of San Josescale were quite variable in theSurroundTM treatments in the two loca-tions. This variability probably reflectsthe spotty distribution of scale among in-

TABLE 1

Comparison of the Effectiveness of High-Pressure, Handgun Sprays of Surround Against the Complexof Apple Insect Pests Attacking Fruit in the Hudson Valley and at Geneva, NY.

PercentageSan

Apple Leaf Jose Plum Int. Apple CleanSawfly Roller Scale Curculio Lep Maggot Fruit

Treatment & form/100 gal

Hudson Valley*

Surround WP 25.0 lbs 1.3a 9.6a 4.6a 0.5a 1.6a 0.9a 46.7a

Guthion 50W 8.0 oz 0.4a 11.5a 5.1a 1.2a 0.2a 1.3a 43.6a

Untreated Check 6.3b 51.5b 35.4b 15.5b 30.2b 43.6b 4.7b

Geneva**

Surround WP 50.0 lbs -.- 1.6a 32.3b 4.6a 6.3a 0.0a 51.7a

Imidan 70 WP 16.0 oz -.- 7.3a 0.0a 7.3a 0.0a 0.0a 90.3b

Untreated Check -.- 19.0b 0.0a 35.0b 19.0b 1.0a 30.3a

Treatment means within a column at each location followed by the same letter are not significantly differ-ent (Fishers Protected LSD (P<0.05).

* Sprays applied at early petal fall and in 7 cover sprays at 2-week intervals. A single spray of Lorsban(12.3 oz form/100 gal) instead of Guthion was applied on the third cover spray in the standard Guthionprogram.**Surround sprays applied at petal fall (22 May, and in 13 more cover sprays until 22 August). Imidan wasapplied at petal fall then 7 more sprays were applied on a 14-day schedule.

dividual trees in the different research or-chards. Because of this variability, thepresence of low levels of scale in sometreatments may be due to lack of infesta-tion of the pest in some trees rather thanthe effectiveness of the material in pre-venting damage. Therefore, the high lev-els of fruit infestation by San Jose scale inthe SurroundTM treatments in the Genevaorchard suggest that this material is noteffective in protecting fruit from infesta-tions of summer crawlers of the pest. Be-cause of the generally high levels of ef-fectiveness of SurroundTM against pestsdirectly attacking fruit, the overall per-centage of clean fruit in the SurroundTM

treatment in the Hudson Valley was simi-lar to that in the Guthion standard pro-gram.

However, because of high levels offruit infested with San Jose scale, the over-all percentage of clean fruit in theSurroundTM treatment in the Geneva or-chard was significantly lower than thatin the standard Imidan program and wasnot significantly different from than thatin the check plots.

The results obtained in these two tri-als clearly show that SurroundTM appliedwith handgun sprayers can provide ex-cellent control of all pests directly attack-ing fruit, except San Jose scale, even whenthe material is used at lower than labeledrates (25 lbs/100 gallons) and applied attwo-week intervals throughout the sea-son.

Apple Maggot and Internal Lepidoptera, 2001

Additional studies were conductedto compare the effectiveness of handgunsprays of SurroundTM against apple mag-got and the later summer generations ofinternal Lepidoptera in a Western NewYork apple orchard that has been in or-ganic production for several years. Dilutesprays were applied with a high-pressurehandgun sprayer (450 psi) to single-treeplots of ‘Cortland’ apple trees. Sprayswere applied starting on July 6, severaldays after the first apple maggot flieswere captured on monitoring traps in theorchard, and continued on either aweekly or bi-weekly schedule until Au-gust 21. Eight sprays of SurroundTM WP(50 lbs/100 gal) and Spintor 2 SC (2.5 oz/100 gal) were applied on a weeklyschedule. Four sprays of Guthion 50W(8.0 oz/100 gal) were applied on a bi-weekly program. Apples were evaluatedfor damage from apple maggots and in-ternal lepidoptera on August 29, whichwas several weeks before the normal pre-dicted harvest data for ‘Cortland’ apples.

The organic test orchard was heavilyinfested with both apple maggot and in-ternal Lepidoptera as shown by the rela-tive high levels of damage from bothpests (35.1 percent apple maggot damageand 20.1 percent int. lep.) in theunpsrayed check plots as shown in Fig.1. The weekly handgun sprays ofSurroundTM WP were as effective as the


Guthion standard treatments againstapple maggot and although damage frominternal Lepidoptera was significantlyhigher than that in the Guthion plots, theoverall damage from both pests was simi-lar to that in the Guthion program. Al-though the weekly sprays of Spintor wereas effective as SurroundTM and Guthionagainst the later summer generations ofinternal Lepidoptera, apple maggot dam-age in the plots treated with weekly ap-plications of Spintor was not significantlydifferent from that in the unsprayedcheck trees.

Airblast Sprayer Trials

Plum Curculio Control, 2000A trial was set up to compare the ef-

fectiveness of SurroundTM WP andGuthion in controlling the plum curculioin plots set up in a research orchard ofprocessing apple cultivars. Two replica-tions of each treatment were comparedin the test orchard. All sprays were ap-plied to plots of ca. 1.0 acres with aDurand Wayland Silverliner 300 airblastsprayer. Guthion 50W (24 oz /A) wasapplied at petal fall in 100 gpa sprays atpetal fall on May 22, and as cover sprayson June 6, and June 19. SurroundTM WP(25 lbs/100 gallons) was applied to treesat either 100, 150, or 200 gpa in differentsized plantings of trees within the blockto provide dilute coverage based on thecalculated tree row volume of canopy foreach set of trees. SurroundTM treatmentswere applied at petal fall (May 22), andas cover sprays on May 29, June 6, June11, and June 19. The last sprays of bothmaterials were applied to coincide withthe predicted end of the plum curculioovipositional period in the block deter-mined according to predictions from aDegree Day accumulation model devel-oped at Cornell University. At harvest,significantly less fruit was damaged bythe plum curculio in the Guthion plots(8.1 percent) than in the SurroundTM treat-ments (20.2 percent).

Control of the Apple Pest Complex inan Organic Orchard, 2001

Two programs were set up to evalu-ate SurroundTM based programs of or-ganically approved insecticides in a West-ern New York apple orchard that has beencertified for organic production. Sprayswere applied by the grower with a FMCairblast sprayer (300 psi) calibrated todeliver 100 gpa. Insecticide applicationsbegan at petal fall (May 5) and continueduntil a final cover spray was applied on

Figure 1. Control of apple maggot and later summer genera-tions of internal Lepidoptera with handgun treatments. BittnerOrchard, 2001.

Figure 2. Comparison of the effectiveness of a seasonal pro-gram of SurroundTM WP with an early season SurroundTM pro-gram followed by Aza-Direct applied with an airblast sprayer.

August 14. The orchardwas divided into twounreplicated plots of ca.5 acres: One plot wastreated exclusively withSurroundTM WP (50 lbs /100 gal) applied weeklybetween petal fall andthe last spray on 14 Au-gust (13 applications).The other plot wastreated with SurroundTM

WP (50 lbs /100 gal) ap-plied weekly starting atpetal fall, followed by 5weekly cover sprays.These early seasonsprays of SurroundTM

were designed to controlplum curculio and earlygenerations of internalLepidoptera. Then Aza-Direct EC (32 oz /100gal), an insecticide for-mulation of neem prod-ucts, was applied start-ing on June 18 after theestimated end of plumcurculio oviposition andcontinued as weeklysprays until the last ap-plication on 14 August (8applications). These laterseason Aza-Direct sprayswere targeted against

that has the potential to control the pri-mary pests damaging fruit in the North-eastern US, the complex of internal Lepi-doptera, the plum curculio, and applemaggot, as effectively as the standardbroad spectrum insecticides such as or-ganophosphates. However, in order toachieve high levels of control in trees se-verely infested with these key insectpests, it is essential to be able to com-pletely cover apple fruit and leaves witha continuous unbroken layer of this ma-terial and maintain the integrity of thislayer throughout the season. It is rela-

Figure 3. SurroundTM WP on apple fruit usinga high pressure handgun sprayer.

later generations of internal Lepidoptera,the oblique-banded leafroller, and applemaggots.

The seasonal schedule of SurroundTM

was slightly more effective in controllinginternal lepidoptera and plum curculiothan the SurroundTM/Aza-Direct, butcontrol of other pests was similar in thetwo programs (Fig. 2). Because of theheavy pest pressure in this organic or-chard, the percentages of clean fruit wererelatively low in both programs. Most ofthe observed fruit damage was caused ei-ther by internal Lepidoptera or plumcurculio. The cost/acre of insecticides inthe SurroundTM and SurroundTM/Aza-Direct programs, were $422.50 and$615.68, respectively. These two pro-grams of organically approved materialswere considerably more expensive thana standard seasonal program of seven ap-plications of Guthion 50W, which wouldcost about $85.40/acre.

Discussion and Conclusions

SurroundTM is currently the onlyavailable organically approved material


tively easy to obtain this kind of cover-age of fruit and apple leaves whenSurroundTM is applied with a high-pres-sure handgun sprayer (Fig. 3). Further-more, the data collected from the HudsonValley suggests that excellent control ofmost pests can be obtained with hand-gun applications even when the rate ofSurroundTM is reduced to ca. 25 lbs/100gallons, and spray intervals can bestretched to approximately 14 days un-der normal weather conditions in theNortheast.

However, this study has also shownthat it is virtually impossible to obtain ad-equate control of direct insect pests offruit when SurroundTM is applied with aconventional airblast sprayer (Fig. 4),even when relatively high volumes ofwater are used in an attempt to obtaindilute coverage.

Although in this study it was not pos-sible to directly compare the effectivenessof Surround applied with a handgun

sprayer to treatmentsapplied with an airblastmachine, airblastsprays were clearly lesseffective than handgunapplications against allthe insect pests attack-ing fruit. Damage fromthe individual pests,apple maggot, plumcurculio, and the com-plex of internallepidoperous pests wasusually between 10-20percent whenSurroundTM was ap-plied with an airblastsprayer. These levels of

Figure 4. Surround WP distribution on apple fruit applied using aconventional airblast sprayer at 100 gallons/acre.

control of these pests would probably notbe adequate for most conventional or-chards, but could be useful in some or-ganic production systems. For example,during the previous growing season in1999 because of the heavy indigenous in-festations of direct pests of fruit in theBittner organic apple orchard, only 1.4,0, and 35 percent, respectively, of theMcIntosh, Cortland, and Delicious appleswere free from insect pest damage. How-ever, in the seasonal program ofSurroundTM applied with an airblastsprayer during the 2000 production sea-son, more than 40 percent of the appleswere classified as non-insect damaged.

Summary

SurroundTM has great potential toserve as a major tool to control direct pestsof apple fruit in the Northeast for grow-ers interested in organic production. Thismaterial can be effective even when ap-

plied to small plots of apple trees that areeither already heavily infested with thesetypes of insect pests or located nearbyunsprayed areas heavily infested withthese fruit feeders. However, the majorconstraints associated with effective sea-sonal use of this product: relative ineffec-tiveness of airblast sprays, need for fre-quent applications, high cost, and re-sidual accumulations of unsightly resi-dues in the stem and calyx end of fruit atharvest, will probably prevent its wide-spread use throughout the region. Futureresearch is necessary to determine ifairblast sprayers can be modified to ap-ply SurroundTM more effectively or ifsome other less expensive or more con-venient type of application equipmentthan a high pressure handgun sprayercan be used to apply this material to com-mercial apple trees. If more effective ap-plication techniques for SurroundTM canbe developed, it is likely that the othermajor problems associated with this ma-terial can be overcome, and the productwill be used by apple growers withsmaller acreage who are interested in or-ganic production.

Harvey Reissig is professor of entomologyat the New York State Agricultural ExperimentStation (NYSAES) in Geneva, and conductsextensive research on insect pest management.Art Agnello is professor of entomology at theNYSAES. He is responsible for statewide fruitextension programs in entomology and con-ducts research on tree fruit pests. RichardStraub is professor of entomology at theNYSAES and conducts research on the man-agement of insect pests on tree fruit and veg-etables at the Hudson Valley Laboratory.


The kaolin clay basedmaterial SurroundTM was

effective for reducingsunburn but also reduced

fruit size and fruit colorespecially with applica-tions made later than

June. Later applicationsalso resulted in residues

that were difficult toremove with conventional

packing equipment.

Figure. 2. Chalky residues on ‘Honeycrisp’ fruitafter SurroundTM applications

Effect of SurroundTM ParticleFilm on Fruit Sunburn,Maturity and Qualityof ‘Fuji’ and ‘Honeycrisp’ApplesJim Schupp1, Essie Fallahi2 and Ik-Jo Chun2

1Cornell’s Hudson Valley Laboratory, Highland, NY, 2Parma Research andExtension Center, University of Idaho, Parma, ID

Sunscreen for Apples?

T he variety Fuji constitutes a largeportion of new apple plantings in theUS. However, producing high-col-

ored (red) Fuji without sunburn is a ma-jor challenge for apple growers, especiallyin regions or seasons noted for hot, sunnyweather. Fuji fruit is more prone to sun-burn when trees are grown on size-con-trolling rootstocks because there is less fo-liage to protect the fruit from the sun. Fruitfrom trees on more vigorous rootstocksusually have less sunburn and less redcolor due to the presence of more foliageand the shade it produces.

Red color development of‘Honeycrisp’ fruit may require tempera-tures similar to that of ‘McIntosh’ andother cool climate cultivars where thecommercial production of such cultivarsis largely confined to cool apple growing

Figure. 1. ‘Honeycrisp’ with sunburn injury.

regions. New York’s Hudson Valley isconsidered by many to be the southernlimit for good color development of‘McIntosh’. Sunburn (Fig. 1), and lack ofred fruit color reduced packout of‘Honeycrisp’ grown in the Hudson Val-ley in the unusually hot drought year of1999.

When researching the possibility ofusing sprays of kaolin clay as an insecti-cide, scientists at the USDA-ARS lab inKearneysville, WVA, found some horti-cultural side effects relating to reducedheat stress of apple trees. Surround leavesa thick chalky residue on the foliage andfruit that deters insects and reflects someof the sunlight (Fig. 2). During hotweather, trees sprayed with kaolin hadincreased photosynthesis, increased fruityield and/or size, and in some cases, in-creased red fruit color (Stanley, 1998). Asa result of these findings, the kaolin clayproduct, SurroundTM, is labeled for reduc-ing sunburn and improving red fruit colorof apple, in addition to its labeled use asa pest management tool. SurroundTM hasbeen promoted to apple growers for re-ducing sunburn and improving red fruitcolor (Heacox, 1999; Warner, 2000a;Werblow, 1999).

Even in orchards where insects werecontrolled with a conventional pesticidespray program, the additional cost of Sur-round sprays might be justified if it re-sulted in reduced sunburn or increasedred color, and thereby increased cropvalue. To test this hypothesis, two stud-ies were conducted in 2000 to determinethe effect of SurroundTM on sunburn, colorand maturity of ‘Fuji’ apple in Idaho and‘Honeycrisp’ apple in New York.

Research Description

Idaho ExperimentThis experiment was conducted on

six-year-old ‘Fuji’ apple trees on Malling26 EMLA (M.26 EMLA) and Budagovski118 (B.118) rootstocks planted at 8 x 18 ftspacing at University of Idaho Parma Re-search and Extension Center, Parma,Idaho. Blocks of trees on both rootstockswere sprayed with SurroundTM

(Engelhard Corp., Iselin, NJ) on 10, 17, and24 July 2000, and compared to blocks ofuntreated trees.

The rate of SurroundTM was 50 lbs in200 gal of water. In each application,SurroundTM was applied with an air-blastsprayer calibrated to apply 200 gal/acre.Buffer trees were used to prevent over-spray between sprayed and non-sprayedtrees.

Fruit sunburn status was visually es-timated as the percentage of sunburnedfruit on each tree relative to the total num-ber of fruits on the tree. A random sampleof fruit from each tree was weighed andfruit color was visually ranked on a scale

1 0 NEW YORK STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY

of 1 to 5, with 1 = 20 percent red progres-sively to 5 = 100 percent red. Fruit firm-ness and soluble solids concentration andfruit mineral concentration was measured.Fruit maturity was evaluated by starch in-dex, respiration activity in respirationchambers, and ethylene concentration.

New York ExperimentSix-year-old ‘Honeycrisp’/M.26

EMLA apple trees growing in a commer-cial orchard in Milton, NY at 8 x 16 ft spac-ing were used for this experiment. Ten-treeplots were treated as follows: 1) untreatedcontrol; 2) SurroundTM applied weeklyfrom 15 May to 26 June (SurroundTM -early); 3) SurroundTM applied weekly from6 July to 17 Aug. (SurroundTM-late). Eachspray of 50 lb SurroundTM in 200 gal of wa-ter was applied with an air-blast sprayercalibrated to apply 200 gal/acre.

A fruit sample was collected from thecentral trees in each plot for evaluation offruit weight, fruit color, and fruit maturity.The fruits were weighed and visually ratedfor the percentage of the surface coveredwith red blush. Color characteristics of thefruits were further measured using aChroma Meter. Color descriptors for theblushed side were used to evaluate the ef-fects of treatment on red color develop-ment, while those for the non-blushed sidewere used to evaluate chlorophyll disap-pearance, a fruit maturity indicator. Fruitmaturity was further evaluated by measur-ing the internal ethylene concentration bygas chromatography, and by rating starchdisappearance.

Research Results

Idaho ‘Fuji’ ExperimentSurroundTM reduced fruit weight,

color, and percentage of sunburn (Table 1),but had no effect on yield per tree, fruitsugar concentration, firmness or mineralnutrient concentrations of ‘Fuji’ apples (notshown). Fruit maturity, as measured bystarch disappearance, respiration and eth-ylene evolution of ‘Fuji’ apples was notinfluenced by SurroundTM (not shown).

‘Fuji’ trees on B.118 had greater yieldper tree than did those on M.26 EMLA (notshown) due to the larger tree canopy oftrees on B. 118. Fruit from trees on M.26EMLA were firmer and had higher inci-dence of sunburn than that from trees onB.118 rootstock, perhaps because fruit onM.26 EMLA were more exposed to lightthan those on B.118.

New York ‘Honeycrisp’ ExperimentAlthough ‘Honeycrisp’ is sensitive to

Figure. 3. Color development of ’Honeycrisp’apples treated with SurroundTM weekly fromJuly 6 to August 17 was poor.

sunburn, none occurred in this trial (datanot presented). Cool weather experiencedin eastern New York during much of the2000 season was not favorable to sunburnformation. The SurroundTM-late treatmentreduced fruit weight, amount of blushedfruit surface, and color saturation (chroma)on the blushed side of the fruit (Table 2 andFig. 3). Hue angle of SurroundTM-late fruitwas greater (less red) than that of the con-trols. SurroundTM‘ had no effect on fruitethylene concentration and starch rating,or on the green color of the non-blushedside of the fruit (Table 3).

Discussion

In our studies, application ofSurroundTM after June reduced fruit weightof ‘Fuji’ and ‘Honeycrisp’ by 13 percentand 12 percent, respectively. This size re-duction could very likely result in a lossof return to growers, and the loss couldbe even more severe in small-fruited va-rieties, such as Empire or Gala. USDA re-searchers previously reported that kaolinclay particle films increased fruit size infour of seven experiments, with no effecton size in three experiments. All but oneof the previous studies were carried outunder environmental conditions withtemperatures over 86 oF and with treesexhibiting heat stress. Under such condi-tions, temperature—not light—wouldlimit the ability of the trees to conductphotosynthesis. Under less stressful tem-peratures, kaolin sprays reduce photosyn-thesis, due to reduced light reaching theleaf surface.

SurroundTM applied in May and Junehad no effect on fruit color of ‘Honeycrisp’apples (Fig. 4) compared to the untreatedcontrols (Fig. 5). SurroundTM applicationsbeginning in July reduced red fruit coloron both Fuji and ‘Honeycrisp’.SurroundTM had no effect on fruit mineralnutrient concentration or maturity in ei-ther study, thus, the reduction in red colordevelopment we observed in both Fujiand ‘Honeycrisp’ was not related to min-eral nutrients or to a delay in fruit matu-rity.

Later applications of Surround‘ weretimed to reduce sunburn, in accordancewith the label recommendations. Whilevery effective for this purpose (Table 1),this timing resulted in less of the skin sur-face that was red, and also in a less in-tense red color on that portion of the sur-face that was blushed (Tables 1 and 2).Reductions in fruit color and size in ourstudy are possibly due to a decrease in theamount of available light to the leaves and

Figure. 4. ‘Honeycrisp’ apples treated withSurroundTM weekly from May 15 to June 26had little reduction in fruit color at harvest.

TABLE 1

Effects of SurroundTM on ‘Fuji’ fruit.

Avg. Fruit Sunburn Color RatingTreatment Wt. (g) %) (1-5)

Control 224 a 28 a 3.3 aSurround 195 b 6 b 2.6 b

TABLE 2

Effect of SurroundTM on ‘Honeycrisp’ fruit color.

Treatment Blush % L Value Chroma Hue

Control 59 a 44 37 34 bEarlyy 60 a 43 37 35 bLate 46 b 47 35 44 a

TABLE 3

Effect of SurroundTM on fruit maturity andsize of ‘Honeycrisp’ fruit.

IEC Starch Hue Fruit Wt.Treatment (ppm) rating angle (g)

Control 27 7 107 ab 214 aEarly 24 7 106 b 208 abLate 27 7 109 a 188 b

fruit for coloring and photosynthesis.SurroundTM reduced fruit size and colorunder environmental conditions wherelight was more likely to be limiting thanwas high temperature.

Discussions with the grower coopera-tor in New York revealed that SurroundTM‘applications resulted in undesirable resi-


dues at harvest that were not satisfacto-rily removed by brushing on a commer-cial packing line (J. Crist, personal com-munication). Following brushing, resi-dues in the depressions around the stemand the blossom end had to be removedmanually. Difficulty in removing theseresidues from these depressions on thefruit has also been seen as a problem inWashington (Warner, 2000b).

Summary

These results suggest that SurroundTM

is ineffective for increased red fruit colordevelopment of apples. While SurroundTM

was effective for reducing sunburn, studyis needed to find residue removal meth-ods that are both economical and effec-tive.

Reductions in fruit color and size inour study are possibly due to an increasein the amount of reflected light, resultingin shading of the leaves and fruit. Basedon our results, growers who choose to useSurroundTM sprays should recognize thatapplications later than June may reduce

Figure. 5. Color development of untreated‘Honeycrisp’ apples.

red fruit color of apples and result insmaller fruit.

Literature Cited

Heacox, L. 1999. Powerful particles. Amer.Fruit Grower, Feb. 1999: 16-17.

Stanley, D. 1998. Particle films: A new kindof plant protectant. Agric. Res. 46(11):16-19.

Warner, G. 2000a. Look for more Sur-round around. Good Fruit Grower51(5): 16-17.

Warner, G. 2000b. Film removal is a stickybusiness. Good Fruit Grower 51(5): 21.

Werblow, S. 1999. Favorable film. Ore.Farmer-Stockman April, 1999: 8-1.

Acknowledgements

We thank Engelhard Corp. for par-tial support of this research. Thanks toCrist Bros. for allowing us to conduct thisstudy in their orchard. We also thank RickSchoonmaker, Richard Christiana and JayOsborne for their assistance with thisproject.

Jim Schupp is an assistant professor ofpomology at Cornell’s Hudson Valley Lab, inHighland, NY. His research interests includethe use of plant growth regulators, mineralnutrients, and other cultural practices for in-creasing fruit size and quality. Essie Fallahiis a professor of horticulture at the Univer-sity of Idaho’s Parma Research and ExtensionCenter. His research interests includerootstocks, mineral nutrition, and plantgrowth regulators. Ik-Jo Chun was a post doc-toral research associate at the University ofIdaho. He now resides in Korea.


Pheromone disruptionappears to have thepotential for accept-

able control of OrientalFruit Moth within plots,but border sprays may

need to be incorpo-rated to prevent mothsimmigrating from non-

disrupted areas.

Pheromone Disruption ofOriental Fruit Moth inNew York PeachesArthur M. Agnello1 and Deborah I. Breth2

1Dept. of Entomology, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station,Geneva, NY, 2Lake Ontario Fruit Program, Cornell Cooperative Exten-sion, Albion, NY

During the past several years, peachgrowers in Western New Yorkhave experienced increased diffi-

culties in controlling oriental fruit moth(OFM) [Grapholita molesta (Busck)] in theirstone fruit plantings, particularly those inthe most western regions along LakeOntario, in Niagara and Orleans counties.After unacceptable fruit damage began toshow up during the 1997 season, in-creased efforts were made in populationmonitoring and spray application timing.However, these still did not produce ad-equate results in 1998. By this time, theproblems had begun to show up in nearbyapple plantings as well. Although this in-sect previously has been controlled eas-ily by common broad-spectrum insecti-cides such as organophosphates and car-bamates, some initial screening of adultmales from this region showed at least atolerance, if not actual resistance, to thesematerials in approximately one-third ofthe specimens tested from two locations.

This pest attacks the growing shootsin its first generation, and feeds prima-rily within the fruit thereafter (Fig. 1). Thelarva enters the fruit, usually at the stemend, and proceeds to feed in the area

Figure 1. Fruit damage to peach caused byoriental fruit moth infestation.

around the pit. External evidence of thisinfestation may go unnoticed unless thefruit is cut. This concealed aspect of itsfeeding activity naturally makes chemi-cal control of the insect very difficult un-less it can be contacted with a pesticidespray before it enters a fruit or shoot. Ifpesticide resistance is indeed starting todevelop in local populations, as it has al-ready done in nearby growing areas ofOntario’s Niagara Peninsula, alternativemethods of control will need to be con-sidered. Even if resistance is not develop-ing, the imminent regulatory changes inthe use of these compounds stemmingfrom the Food Quality Protection Act willrequire at least a shift to different chemis-tries, assuming they will be available andeconomical.

In this light, the use of pheromonemating disruption was considered to be apotentially useful tactic that needs to beevaluated under Western New York grow-ing conditions. In contrast to other tortri-cid fruit pests commonly encountered ineastern orchard crops, the OFM hasshown itself to be potentially amenableto acceptable control by using commer-cial mating pheromone dispensers thatare already registered and available. Al-though peach growers would still needto apply some chemicals to prevent fruitdamage from direct fruit pests such asplum curculio and tarnished plant bug,some of the newer pheromone dispens-ing technologies being developed couldbe affordable and effective components ofa multi-tactic management strategy forthis suite of pests in New York systems.

During the 2000 and 2001 seasons, wecollaborated with a number of peachgrowers in Niagara County, who allowedus to evaluate the efficacy of several prod-ucts that are either currently available or

under development for commercial use inthe control of OFM in orchard crops.

Methods

All work was conducted in non-rep-licated plots set up in orchards at fivefarms located between Appleton andYoungstown, in western Niagara County.Test plots ranged from 2.7–6.0 acres. Peachvarieties included Babygold 5, Babygold7, Red Haven, New Haven, Bellaire, JayDaylee, Loring, and Crest Haven. At eachof the sites, four plots of generally equalsize were set up to compare the differentproducts:1. Isomate M-100 polyethylene rope dis-

pensers, Pacific Biocontrol/CBCAmerica Corp.; applied the secondweek of June at a rate of 120 (2000) or150 (2001)/acre (Fig. 2).

2. Confuse-OFM paraffin-base liquid,Gowan Co.; applied at the beginningof the second (mid-June) and third

Figure 2. Application of twist-tie pheromonedispensers in young peach planting.


(end of July) summer flights, at a rateof 30 g a.i./acre (1-3 squirts/tree froma forestry tree-marking paint gun orplastic spray bottle), (Fig. 3).

3. 3M Sprayable Pheromone, OFM MEC(microencapsulated); applied by thegrowers beginning in mid-June at two-week intervals at a rate of 1.7 oz/acre.In 2001, NuFilm 17 was added at a rateof 1 pint/acre.

4. (2000 season only) 3M SprayablePheromone, OFM “Phase III” (mi-croencapsulated, long-life); applied bythe growers beginning in mid-June atfour-week intervals at a rate of 3.5 oz/acre.Wing-type pheromone traps baited

with commercial lures were hung in thecentral interior section of each plot to as-sess the extent to which chemical commu-nication between moths was being dis-rupted. Traps were also hung in non-dis-rupted plantings near the test sites at eachfarm, to serve as a check. All traps werechecked two times per week from the be-ginning of the trials until the end of Au-gust.

Fruit damage was evaluated each sea-son just before the respective harvestdates of the different peach varieties, bypicking 100 random fruits from each of 4-5 trees per plot and inspecting them firstfor surface damage caused by OFM or anyother insect pest, and then cutting eachfruit to check for internal infestation. Simi-lar samples were taken from trees man-aged using the growers’ standard pesti-cide program, which generally consistedof a combination of Asana andazinphosmethyl sprays. All plots receivedapplications of one of these materials dur-ing the petal fall to shuck split period formanagement of plum curculio.

Results

Pheromone trap catches of OFMadult males in the disrupted plots wereimpressively low throughout the entireseason, essentially remaining at or nearzero despite considerable populationpressure, as reflected in the Check plots(Fig. 4). Two exceptions follow:

2000 In one case, Topp, some break-through in moth catches occurred duringthe last month before harvest, when smallnumbers of OFM moths were caught inthe Confuse and Isomate plots.

2001 At the Kappus site, there wasbreakthrough in the Confuse plot traps,which occurred at two times, in each caseapproximately three weeks after thetreatment’s application date. Following

Figure 4. Oriental fruit moth pheromone trap catches in represen-tative plots treated with different pheromone disruption tech-niques, showing the two instances of moth catch breakthrough.

re-application, mothnumbers returned tozero in both in-stances. This level ofbreakthrough wasnot seen any of theother plots. It is as-sumed that the prob-lem was caused bythe fact that the Con-fuse plot at Kappuswas directly adjacentto an apple planting,which likely had itsown population ofOFM that was beingattracted into thetraps of the phero-mone plot.

In general, thegrowers did a goodjob of applying the3M sprayable formu-lations at the appro-priate schedule tim-ings, which is a par-ticularly importantaspect of using theseproducts at theirhighest level of effec-tiveness.

Results of thepre-harvest fruit in-spection in 2000showed fruit damagefrom OFM feedingand infestation to bequite low in all thetreatments, surpass-ing 1 percent in veryfew of the plots(Table 1). OFM in-jury was placed intoone of two catego-ries, with “stings”representing inci-dence of skin punc-turing or nominalpitting progressingless than a few milli-meters into the fruit,and the “internal”injury category re-served for actual tun-nelling in the fruitflesh, with either thelarva or its trail orfrass evident whenthe fruit was cut. In-spection of the datareveals that few ma-jor differencesamong treatments

Figure 3. Foliar residue of paraffin-base pheromone formulation ap-plied using paint marking guns.


TABLE 1

Oriental fruit moth mating disruption trials, fruit damage at harvest, Niagara Co.

% Fruit InjuryBlock Treatment Application OFM

Dates Sting Int. TPB PC2000

Murray Isomate M-100 6/13 0.0 0.6 13.6 -

Topp Isomate M-100 6/15 0.0 0.2 11.8 -Topp Confuse-OFM 6/19, 7/28 0.0 0.4 17.0 -Topp 3M MEC Sprayable 6/23, 7/8, 7/28, 8/14 1.0 0.6 12.2 -Topp 3M MEC Phase III 6/23, 7/28 1.0 0.8 13.2 -

Kappus Isomate M-100 6/13 0.2 1.2 10.2 0.4Kappus Confuse-OFM 6/12, 7/28 0.0 3.6 16.8 0.4Kappus 3M MEC Sprayable 6/17, 7/3, 7/18, 8/4 1.0 0.4 1.0 -Kappus 3M MEC Phase III 6/17, 7/18, 8/4 0.0 1.2 15.8 0.6Kappus Grower Std Program Asana: 6/17,7/3,7/18,7/25 1.2 0.2 11.4 2.4

Tower Isomate M-100* 6/12 2.6 0.2 20.8 -Tower Confuse-OFM* 6/12, 7/28 0.2 0.0 11.4 0.4Tower 3M MEC Sprayable* 7/14, 7/29, 8/10, 8/21 0.2 0.4 10.6 0.2Tower Grower Std Program Asana: 5/11,5/15,7/6,7/29,8/9 5.6 0.0 11.8 -

2001Murray Isomate M-100 6/8 3.8 0.5 0.3 0.0Murray Confuse-OFM 6/8, 8/2 3.5 0.0 0.8 0.0Murray 3M MEC Sprayable 6/18, 7/3, 7/18 2.3 0.3 0.3 0.0

Topp Isomate M-100 6/6 2.8 0.3 1.5 0.0Topp Confuse-OFM 6/6, 8/2 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.0Topp 3M MEC Sprayable 6/18, 7/3, 7/18 1.3 0.0 2.3 0.0

Kappus Isomate M-100 6/6 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0Kappus Confuse-OFM 6/6, 7/9, 8/13 3.0 10.3 0.8 0.0Kappus 3M MEC Sprayable 6/17, 7/2, 7/18, 8/3 1.8 1.0 0.8 0.0

Niagara Isomate M-100 6/11 2.5 0.0 2.0 0.0Niagara Confuse-OFM 6/11 2.8 0.0 2.3 2.0Niagara 3M MEC Sprayable 6/18, 6/29, 7/17, 8/2 1.5 0.0 2.3 0.0

Storage Grower Std Program Azinphosmethyl: 6/6, 7/20, 8/1 6.3 0.0 1.8 0.0Transit (both rec’d all sprays) Asana: 6/14, 6/21, 6/29, 7/12 0.8 0.0 0.5 0.0

OFM, oriental fruit moth; TPB, tarnished plant bug; PC, plum curculio; Int., internal damage*Also received Grower Std Prog sprays: Azinphosmethyl: 5/30,6/24,7/14,7/2; Provado: 6/1

were seen. The highest incidence of stingswas found in the Tower Isomate plot (2.6percent), and of internal injury in theKappus Confuse plot (3.6 percent). How-ever, the greatest threat to clean fruit inthis region during the 2000 season wastarnished plant bug, which caused feed-ing damage in as much as 20 percent ofthe fruit evaluated in our plots. It is ap-

parent that chemical spray programs cango only so far in solving this problem, andthat other factors such as orchard floorweed management may likely hold thekey to more effectively addressing thisperennial stone fruit pest.

In 2001, pre-harvest fruit damage re-sults were similar, but a further compli-cation was noted. The occurrence of

“stings” was generally in the range of 1.5-3.5 percent in all plots. Few major differ-ences among treatments were seen in in-ternal larval infestation except for theKappus site, where it surpassed 10 per-cent in the Confuse plot. This corre-sponded with the pheromone trap results,and corroborates the assumption of matedfemale immigration from the apples, asthe injury level was 3.3 percent in theIsomate plot (next in line after the Con-fuse plot) and only 1 percent in the 3MSprayable (the plot farthest from theapples). Also, the three plots at this sitehad different harvest dates because ofvariety differences, and later dates of har-vest corresponded with higher fruit dam-age levels (3M Sprayable, 6 Aug; IsomateM, 16 Aug; Confuse, 27 Aug). Fruits har-vested later in the month would have hada longer period of exposure to potentialinfestation by any immigrating moths.

Summary

All treatments appear to have the po-tential for acceptable control within plotinteriors, but border sprays may need tobe incorporated to forestall infestationsby moths immigrating from non-dis-rupted areas when these products areused in typical commercial productionareas in Western New York.

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the contri-butions of Jim Bittner, Singer Farms; TomKappus, Kappus Fruit Farms; and Rob-ert Tower and Jackie Robinson, TowerFruit Farms; and Dan Sievert, Niagara Or-chards. Technical field assistance was pro-vided by Rick Cicciarelli, Honor Costello,Christie Cottingham, Matt Giardino,Laura Gillespie, Scott Granish and DavidWalthew. We are also grateful for supportand material received from CBC AmericaCorp., 3M Canada Co., and Gowan Co.Portions of this work were supported bygrants from the Northeast SARE grantprogram and the NYS Dept. of Ag. &Markets IPM grant program.

Art Agnello is a professor of entomologyat the New York State Agricultural Experi-ment Station in Geneva. He is responsible forextension and research programs on tree fruit.Debbie Breth is an area extension educatorspecializing in pest management on the LakeOntario Fruit Team. She covers six countiesin Western New York.


Evaluation of PheromoneDisruption in Combinationwith Insecticide Applica-tions for Control ofPeachtree Borersin PeachesArthur M. Agnello and David P. KainDept. of Entomology, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station,Geneva, NY

Evidence indicates thatpheromone disruption

alone providesadequate protection

from Peach Tree Borerrand Lesser Peach TreeBorer infestations incommercial orchards.

Recent labeling ofShin-Etsu Isomate-L tiesin New York will givegrowers an effective

non-chemical alterna-tive to trunk sprays for

managing this pestcomplex in their stone

fruit plantingsIn New York, there are two species ofsesiid (clearwing) moths that attackpeaches — the peachtree borer (PTB),

Synanthedon exitiosa, and the lesserpeachtree borer (LPTB), Synanthedonpictipes. The adult borers are striking clear-winged moths with yellow and steel-bluebody markings (Fig. 1). Adults of these in-sects have from one to four yellow-orangestripes across the abdomen, dependingupon species and sex. The PTB enters thetree near soil level and does not requirethe presence of wounds or breaks in thebark for entry, but the LPTB nearly alwaysenters the tree at a pruning scar, canker,mechanical injury, or winter-injured area.Both species pass the winter as borers in-side the tree. In the spring, they emergeas moths that lay eggs on or in the trunkduring the summer. In New York, theLPTB moth emerges first, in late May, andthe PTB doesn’t show up until mid-June;both stay active (laying eggs) throughAugust. When the borer stages hatch, the

Figure 1. Adult female (left) and male lesserpeachtree borer moths.

PTB tends to crawl down the tree to soillevel and burrow in there, but the LPTBwill move to the nearest injured area,which may be on the lower trunk or justas easily up in the scaffold limbs. LPTBcompletes its development in one year,but some PTB larvae take two years to de-velop, so any control measure a growerwould elect will require repeating for atleast two to three years.

Injury is caused by larval feeding onthe cambium and inner bark of the trunkclose to the soil level (PTB) or on the up-per trunk and lower scaffold branches(LPTB). Occasionally, larger roots are alsoattacked by PTB. Areas attacked oftenhave masses of gum, mixed with frass,exuding from the bark.

All ages of trees are injured. Youngtrees are at times completely girdled andsubsequently die. Older trees are often soseverely injured that their vitality is low-ered and they are rendered especially sus-ceptible to attack by other insects or bydiseases. Although both species may befound in infested trees, younger plantingsand those not afflicted by extensive can-kers or other bark splits are attacked pri-marily by PTB. Control is difficult, owingto the concealed habit of the larvae, andmost growers must rely on one or morecoarse insecticide sprays of the trunks andlower scaffold branches to deter egg lay-ing and kill newly established larvae.Because this is a labor-intensive measurethat often fails to completely control thesepests, many growers choose not to electtreatment, or else do an incomplete job,

with the intention of getting what they canout of a planting until infestations com-bine with other peach production factorsto warrant tree removal. This approachhas been common in the recent past, dur-ing which time there has been little de-mand for New York stone fruits outsideof local farm markets. However, with arecent increase in the planting of newpeach varieties and short-range distribu-tion to processing markets, there is nowmore interest in examining currentlyavailable pheromone disruption tools forthe control of these perennial pests.

This research involved trials testingthe efficacy of pheromone disruption withand without directed trunk sprays. Herewe report our findings after the secondof a two-year trial to establish reliableguidelines for the use of mating disrup-tion against these pests in commercialNew York plantings.

Materials and Methods

This was a multi-year trial in com-mercial orchards having serious annualproblems with borers. Because we weretargeting both lesser peachtree borer(LPTB) and peachtree borer (PTB), we se-lected orchards infected with cankers(necessary for LPTB). Trials were con-ducted at two locations in Wayne Co.,Furber (Sodus, NY) and Herman(Williamson, NY). In each location, we


Figure 2. Twist-tie dispenser for LPTB pheromone. Figure 3. Fabric screen cages on trunk and branches of peach tree.

compared mating disruption versus nopheromone treatment in two separate or-chards, each approximately 2.5 acres insize. We further selected a group of 10trees in each of these orchards for treat-ment with insecticide using directedtrunk sprays, so the following treatmentswere evaluated:

1. Pheromone disrupted + trunk spray2. Pheromone disrupted, no trunkspray3. Non-disrupted + trunk spray4. Non-disrupted, no trunk spray

On 31 May (2000) and 22-23 May(2001), Shin-Etsu Isomate-L ties (Fig. 2)containing a 30:70 blend of (Z,Z):(E,Z)-3,13-octadecadienyl acetate were placedin the test blocks at a rate of approxi-mately 200/acre (1/tree). This blend isformulated to be appropriate for disrup-tion of both borers in situations whereLPTB is the predominant species, suchas we believed to be the case at these sites.On these same dates, three wing-styletraps baited with pheromone lures foreach species were hung in the interior ofeach disrupted and non-disrupted block;traps were checked twice per week fromearly June through August each year. On22–28 May, 2001, screen cages made outof greenhouse netting (SolarGard 40 per-cent shadecloth, Tewksbury, MA) wereused to enclose two canker/damage siteson the branches and one site on the trunkof each of 10 unsprayed trees in each plot(Fig. 3).

Insecticide treatments consisted ofdirected trunk sprays of Asana (4.0 oz/100 gal) applied three times during theseason. In 2000, 2 June, 6–7 July, and 20Sept (postharvest); and in 2001, 13 June,

18 July, and 19 Sept (postharvest), usinga Nifty Pul-Tank handgun sprayer oper-ating at a pump pressure of 150 psi. Ap-plications of approximately 1.25 gal pertree were made to single-tree plots, andreplicated 10 times per block.

In the fall, from 13–27 Oct (2000) and10–11 Oct (2001), trees were examined forPTB larvae and larval damage. The basesof the trunks on all the sprayed trees, plusan equal number of unsprayed trees ineach block, were excavated around theirentire circumference to a depth of 3–6inches. The surface of the trunk circum-ference was inspected for exudations ofgum containing frass, as well as for pu-pal cases of any PTB larvae evident in theexcavation. In 2001, the fabric sleevecages on each tree were also examinedfor emerged adults or pupal cases ofLPTB.

Results

The pheromone dispensers com-pletely suppressed trap catches of both

PTB and LPTB at both sites for both sea-sons, compared with relatively heavyflights noted in the non-disrupted com-parison blocks (Figs. 4 and 5). Therefore,it may be concluded that this pheromonetreatment was highly successful in dis-rupting the chemical communication ofmales and females in these two species.The PTB pheromone traps did regularlycatch small numbers of a related species,determined to be lilac/ash borer,Podosesia syringae, which is not an eco-nomic pest of stone fruits.

The tree trunk inspections in 2000turned up no evidence of any PTB lar-vae or gum exudations resulting from in-festations, in both the treated and un-treated trees. In 2001, very low levels ofdamage were detected that were consis-tent with PTB entry sites, although noempty pupal cases were found, and nosignificant differences were seen amongany of the treatments (Table 1). These re-sults were not entirely unanticipated, asthe previous year’s inspection had im-plied that the incidence of this species

TABLE 1

Infestationa of peachtree and lesser peachtree borers as determined by fall trunk inspections, 2001.

LPTB pupal exuviae PTB trunk injury sites Mean avg. Proportion on

Block/Treatment Sprayed Unsprayed no./tree trunk scaffolds

FurberPheromone 0.1 a 0.3 a 0.1 a 1.0 0.0No pheromone 0.1 a 0.1 a 0.7 a 1.0 0.0

HermanPheromone 0.0 a 0.2 a 0.2 a 0.5 0.5No pheromone 0.2 a 0.1 a 2.1 b 0.5 0.5

a Values in the same column followed by the same letter not significantly different (P = 0.05, Fisher’sProtected lsd test).


was relatively low in these blocks, andany damage noted might have beencaused by the small number of specimensthat could have been in the trunk tissuefrom infestation during the year beforethis study began.

Inspection of the sleeve cages enclos-ing canker and damage sites on the treesrevealed numerically higher numbers ofLPTB pupal cases in the non-disruptedblocks than in those treated with thepheromones, although the difference wassignificant only at the Herman site. Thisis further argument for the effectivenessof the pheromone dispensers in disrupt-ing the sexual behavior of this species toa noticeable degree.

tants, Rick Cicciarelli, Honor Costello,Christie Cottingham, Laura Gillespie,and Scott Granish. We are grateful forsupport and product received fromKinya Ogawa, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co.,Ltd., and Bob Ienaga, Pacific Biocontrol/CBC America Corp. This work was sup-ported by a grant from the NYS Dept. ofAg. & Markets’ IPM program.

Art Agnello is a professor of entomology atthe New York State Agricultural ExpeirmentStation in Genva. He is responsible for ex-tension and research programs on tree fruit.David Kain works with Art as a research sup-port specialist with special interest in the bor-ers.

After two seasons of these trials,there is sufficient evidence to determinethat pheromone disruption alone is ableto provide adequate protection fromborer infestations in commercial or-chards, and the recent labeling of thisproduct in New York will give growersan effective non-chemical alternative totrunk sprays for managing this pestcomplex in their stone fruit plantings.

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the coop-eration of Todd Furber, Cherry LawnFarms; and Don Herman Fruit Farms.We also thank our technical field assis-


NY Fruit Growers (Individual membership) $95Additional (Voluntary Contribution) $_______Industry Professionals $95Academic Professionals $45Out of State $45

Fruit Industry SupportersNYSHS Supporter <$500Bronze $500Silver $1250Gold $2500Platinum $5000+

NYSHS Membership Dues

Pesticide RegistrationsFood Quality Protection Act

Integrated Pest ManagementAgricultural Labor and Immigration

Fruit Industry Economic DevelopmentCornell Research and Extension

Educating Public OfficialsEducating Industry

Food Safety

The mission of the New York State HorticulturalSociety, founded in 1855, is to foster the growth,development and profitability of the fruit indus-try in New York State. It accomplishes this by:

1) Supporting educational opportunities for members

2) Promoting the industry3) Representing the industry in matters of

public policy

Join the New York State Horticultural Society

Become a part of our Society.Yearly membership includes

HortSense Newsletter, Hort Flash Updates,and the New York Fruit Quarterly.

Join us today and support the NYSHS missionto educate, promote and protect

the NY fruit industry!Fill out and mail the

Membership Application below.

Mission Statement

NYSHS Issues

New York State Horticultural SocietyMembership ApplicationBecome a part of our Society. Yearly memberships include HortSenseNewsletter, Hort Flash Update, and the New York Fruit Quarterly.Join us today!

Please Print

NAME

FIRM NAME

STREET ADDRESS

CITY COUNTY

STATE ZIP

PHONE FAX E-MAIL

PLEASE FIND THE ENCLOSED DUES FOR THE FOLLOWING:

$ NYS Horticultural Society Membership Dues

$ $20 per year NY Fruit Quarterly Subscription ONLY

$ TOTAL

PLEASE MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO:New York State Horticultural Society

MAIL TO: New York State Horticultural SocietyPO Box 462 • Hedrick HallGeneva, NY 14456

Questions? Call the NYSHS office at 315-787-2404

N E W Y O R KF R U I T Q U A R T E R L Y

For non-NY residents:Are you interested in the

latest research newsfrom New York?

Subscribe to the informative

for $20* per year.

Please use thesubscription form at left.

*Membership in theNYS Horticultural Society

includes a subscription to theNew York Fruit Quarterly.

N E W Y O R K CONTENTS Testing Pre-plant Monoammonium F R...

Documents

Transcript of N E W Y O R K CONTENTS Testing Pre-plant Monoammonium F R...