JANUARY
1977
ANALYSIS OF SPECIALIZED PESTICIDE PROBLEMS
INVERTEBRATE CONTROL AGENTS • EFFICACY TEST METHODS
VOLUME I
FOLIAR TREATMENTS I
(DECIDUOUS FRUIT TREES, SMALL FRUITS, CITRUS AND
SUBTROPICAL FRUITS, TREE NUTS)
EPA-540/10-77-001
-------
REPORT To THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANALYSIS OF SPECIALIZED PESTICIDE PROBLEM
INVERTEBRATE CONTROL AGENTS - EFFICACY TEST fTTFODS
VOLUME I
FOLIAR TREATMENTS I
(DECIDUOUS FRUIT TREES, SMALL FRUITS, CITRUS AND
SUBTROPICAL FRUITS, TREE NUTS)
The work upon which this publication is based was performed in whole or in
part under Contract No. 68-01-2457 with the Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
Report To The
Environmental Protection Agency
By The
American Institute of Biological Sciences
Arlington, Virginia 22209
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This Report has been reviewed by the Office of Pesticide Programs,
Criteria and Evaluation Division, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement of recommendation for use.
-------
FOLIAR TREATMENTS I TASK GROUP
(Deciduous Fruit Trees, Small Fruits, Citrus and
Subtropical Fruits, Tree Nuts)
Chairman:
VR. VEAN ASQU1TH
The Pennsylvania State University
VR. GLENN E. CARMAN VR. AWGUS J. HOWITT
University of California, Riverside Michigan State University
VR. ROBERT L. HORSBURGH VR. STANLEY C. HOVT
Shenandoah Valley Research Station Washington State University
VR. WULIAN SIMAWT0W
Winter Haven, Florida
EPA Observer: AIBS Coordinators:
MR. ROGER P1ERPONT MR. VONALV R. BEEM
Criteria and Evaluation Division MS. PATRICIA RUSSELL
-------
FOLIAR TREATMENTS I
(Deciduous Fruit Trees, Small Fruits, Citrus and
Subtropical Fruits, Tree Nuts)
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction 1
General Methods 2
Deciduous Fruit Trees 6
Apple Maggot and Other Fruit Flies 8
Aphids and Leafhoppers 8
Major Chewing Insect Pests 9
Foliage Feeding Mites 9
Scales Insects 9
Curculios 11
Catfacing Insects 12
Twig Borers 14
Wood Borers 15
Small Fruits 18
Grape Berry Moth 19
Grape Leafhopper 19
Grape Rootworm 19
Grape Flea Beetle 19
Blueberry Maggot 20
Cranberry Fruitworm 20
Cranberry Fruitworm 21
Fireworm spp 21
Tipworm 21
Currant Borer 21
Imported Currant Worm 22
Currant Fruit Fly 22
Currant Aphid 23
Tarnished Plant Bug 23
Strawberry Leaf Roller 23
Strawberry Root Warts and Black Vine Weevil 24
Strawberry Crown Borer 24
Cyclamen Mite > 24
Raspberry Crown Borer 25
The Raspberry Cane Borer 25
Raspberry Cane Maggot 25
Raspberry Fruit Worm 26
Raspberry Sawfly 26
Citrus and Subtropical Fruits 27
Armored Scale Insects 31
Soft Scale Insects 32
Other Homopteran Insects 33
Whiteflies 33
Mealybugs 33
Aphids 34
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
Miscellaneous Groups or Species 34
Citrus Thrips 34
Orangeworms 35
Fruit Flies 35
Acarina (Mites) 36
Eriophyid Mites 36
Tetranychid Mites 37
Tree Nuts 38
Armored Scale Insects 40
Soft Scale Insects 41
Other Homopteran Insects 42
Aphids 42
Spittlebugs 42
Lepidopteran Insects 43
Chestnut Timberworm 43
Codling Moth 43
Fall Webworm , . 43
Filbertworm 43
Fruittree Leafroller 43
Hickory Shuckworm 44
Navel Orangeworm 44
Peachtree Borer 44
Peach Twig Borer 45
.Pecan Nut Casebearer and Pecan Leaf Casebearer .' . 45
Pecan Serpentine Leafminer 46
Redhumped caterpillar 46
Western Tent Caterpillar 46
Walnut Caterpillar 47
Miscellaneous Groups or Species 47
Walnut Husk Fly 47
Weevils 47
Acarina (Mites) 48
Brown Mites 48
Carmine Spider Mite 48
European Red Mite 48
Pacific Spider Mite 49
Twospotted Spider Mite 49
Exhibits:
1 Field Testing of Insecticides for Control of the Apple Maggot. . 51
2 Test Method for Control of Aphids and Leafhoppers on Apple
and Other Deciduous Fruit Trees 55
3 Test Method for Control of Major Insect Pests, on Apple
and Other Deciduous Fruit Trees 62
4 Test Method for Acaricides in Foliar Applications to Apple
Trees in the Cumberland-Shenandoah Fruit Belt of the
United States 69
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
5 Test Method for Evaluating Acaricides Under Orchard Conditions
for Deciduous Fruit Trees in the Northeastern U.S 73
6 Test Method for Testing Acaricides in Foliar Applications
to Apple and Other Deciduous Fruit Trees in the Western
United States 76
-------
INTRODUCTION
The primary purpose in testing new insecticides and acaricides in
foliar applications to various crops is to determine their effectiveness
and usefulness. This report is concerned with efficacy testing of chemi-
cal pesticides in foliar applications (for certain pests, applications to
other parts of plants and/or the soil in which they grow) to citrus and
sub-tropical fruits, deciduous tree fruits, small fruits and tree nuts
for protecting these crops from economic injury by insects, mites, and
other invertebrate pests. Evaluation of pesticides should take into con-
sideration the environmental effects including those on beneficial organisms.
Test methods should be broad enough to provide information on the use of
the dosages of pesticides required for pest population regulation in
integrated pest management systems.
Foliar applications of insecticides and acaricides should be made at
recommended periods for best general control of the pest or pest complex
present on the crop; normally during a period of pest population increase.
Initially, test materials should be applied alone rather than in combination
with other ingredients such as fungicides to permit evaluation of indepen-
dent effects. Application equipment and methods employed should be known
by researchers to give adequate and reasonably uniform coverage approxi-
mating field practice. Test materials should be in one or more of the
commercial type formulations such as wettable powder, emulsifiable con-
centrate, etc. It is preferable to apply pesticides at two or more dosages
approximating minimum and maximum rates and, if possible, in the range to
appear on the label. Initially, new pesticides should be tested in small,
replicated field plots to permit statistical evaluation of results. Large
scale field trials approximating commercial use, preferably replicated, and
compared with a standard treatment also should be conducted to determine
practicability and compatibility with the environment. Any auxiliary
spray materials used in combination with test chemicals should be named.
Results of both small and large scale field tests should be reported in
both metric and English systems.
The methods described are not to be considered exclusive of other
methods. Certain situations may require special methods, and new methods
may be developed which improve on present ones. With some pests, several
acceptable methods of evaluating pesticides are available, but only the
more common ones are presented. The guidelines are purposely kept broad
to cover the wide range of conditions which may be encountered in the diverse
climatic, pest and cultural conditions of different growing regions.
More specific information may be obtained by referring to the literature
references.
-------
-2-
GENERAL METHODS
The following general methods are appropriate for the evaluation of
the efficacy of chemical pesticides in foliar applications (for certain
pests, applications to other parts of the plant and/or soil in which they
grow) to: (1) deciduous tree fruits (pome and stone), (2) small fruits,
(3) citrus and subtropical fruits, and (4) tree nuts. Specific variations
to these methods are identified throughout the report under the individual
pest or pest group in each section.
Small Scale Field Tests
Pesticides in the early stages of development (prior to the establish-
ment of an experimental tolerance or exemption from a tolerance) are usually
tested on small, replicated plots to develop a wide range of information on
performance and phytotoxicity. Small plots are used to facilitate thorough
and uniform coverage of the plants, and to minimize the crop treated with
experimental materials. Crops treated with materials in this stage of
development must normally be destroyed following completion of the tests.
Site selection:—Plants should be of a uniform size and vigor, and plant
size and planting distance should allow separation into units which may be
treated separately. Varieties chosen should be typical of those common
to the area. Pest density and stage of development should be relatively
unform throughout, the test site. Preferably, the pest population should
be increasing at the time of treatment. In appropriate cases, pre-treatment
evaluations of populations on the test plants should be made.
Plot size and design:—These will vary somewhat with the individual
pests, but a minimum of three replicates per treatment should be used where
uniformity occurs. The number of replicates should be increased where
plant age, variety, rootstock, plant vigor or pest populations vary. The
use of randomized blocks, latin squares or split blocks is desirable for
later analysis of results. It may be necessary to use buffer trees around
the test plots to minimize drift from treatment of adjacent plants.
Application and application equipment:—Apply at recommended periods
for best control of the pest or pest complex. The experimental materials
should be applied alone initially rather than in combination with other
ingredients such as fungicides so their independent effects may be evaluated.
Apply test materials with equipment and methods generally known to give
adequate and uniform coverage approximating that in field use, and appropriate
to the pest and crop involved. Use the test materials in one or more of the
commercial type of formulations, such as wettable powder, emulsifiable con-
centrate, etc.
-------
-3-
Dosage selection, standard treatment, untreated checks:-—The selection
of a dosage will depend on available data, but it is preferable to apply
materials at two or more dosages approximating minimum and maximum rates.
Both a standard treatment (one which has a background of information
on its performance) and, where practical, an untreated check plot should
be included for comparison with experimental materials.
Number of trials;—The number of trials with each candidate pesticide
will vary considerably, but an adequate number of trials should be conducted
to permit accumulation of data on:
1. Timing and dosage for effective control,
2. Performance on various pest densities and stages.
3. Phytotoxicity to various cultivars at different growth stages.
4. Effects on non-target species.
5. Effects of weather on performance,
Statistical analysis:—If a question of relative effectiveness of
treatments occurs, an analysis of variance and multiple range test or other
appropriate statistical analysis should be conducted to determine the
statistical reliability of the differences between treatments. If treat-
ment means alone are provided, they should be accompanied by the standard
deviation.
Sampling methods, counting methods:—Methods of presenting results
will differ with specific pests or pest groups and will be discussed below.
References:—Pertinent references should be cited.
Large Scale Field Tests
By the time a pesticide receives a temporary or experimental tolerance
or an exemption from a tolerance small scale field tests usually have been
conducted and a considerable amount of data has been collected on efficacy,
phytotoxicity and effects on non-target organisms. It is then desirable
to observe its performance under typical commercial conditions.
Site selection:—Several plantings should be selected which are re-
presentative of varieties, ages of plants, cultural practices and pest
populations which are commonly encountered throughout the area,
Plot size and design:—Plots suitable in size for commercial application
should be used. These should have dimensions large enough to avoid effects
of drift in sampling area. Large plots are usually not replicated in one
planting, but additional tests may be conducted in different plantings.
Application:—Compounds reaching this stage of development should be
tested under a range of application techniques. This should include high
-------
-4-
volume and/or low volume applications and aerial or ULV applications should
be evaluated if these methods are to be used commercially. The test material
may be combined with other commonly used agricultural chemicals to provide
compatibility information,
Dosage selection, standard treatment, untreated checks;—The formu-
lation and dosage used should be reflective of probable commercial use in
the area. The experimental pesticide should be compared with a standard
treatment applied to an adjacent area of the planting. Where grower
cooperation permits, comparison with a small, untreated check plot is
desirable.
Number of trials:-—This will vary somewhat with the pest and how readily
infestations may be found; however, 3 to 5 large-scale trials are usually
adequate.
Statistical analysis:—Analysis of the results of these large-scale
trials is usually not possible because of the lack of true replication.
Sampling methods, counting methods:'—Methods of presenting results
will differ with specific pests or pest groups and will be presented
below.
References:—Pertinent references should be cited.
Pesticide Test Report
All details of the test should be reported. The following information
should be provided as completely as possible in reporting the results of
efficacy tests:
Name of Investigator:
Address of Investigator:
Crop:
Pest Species and Stage(s):
Soil Type:
Experimental Design:
No. of Replicates:
Chemical Tested:
Formulation tested:
Varieties:
Location:
Soil Moisture:
Plot Size:
Lot No,;
-------
-5-
Dosages Tested: A,l. Per 100 Gallons; A,l, Per Acre:
Method of Application; a. Type of Equipment:
b. Type of Spray:
c. Coverage:
Time of Application(s): a, Date(s):
b. Stage of Crop:
Other Pesticides Applied:
Dates of Observations:
Dates of Sampling:
Per Cent Control of Specific Pests Compared to:
a. Check:
b. Standard:
Explain Rating System (Example: Gradations of Injury):
Effect on Important Predators and Parasites of Pest(S):
Effect on Other Non-target Organisms:
Yield Data (if no effect, so state):
Phytotoxicity (If none, so indicate):
Weather Data:
Miscellaneous Comments on Test Conditions:
-------
-6-
DECIDUOUS FRUIT TREES (Pome and Stone Fruits)
The following tables list the most significant pest groups on
deciduous tree fruits and the specific species of greatest importance
in each group.
Following the tables are test methods and supporting information
for the evaluation of pesticides against insect and mite pests of decidu-
ous fruits. In some cases, complete but unpublished test methods are.
included as Exhibits (See Table of Contents); and,, in other cases, only
the exceptions to and variations from the General Methods are noted.
These methods apply to dilute (high volume) high pressure and air
carrier sprays (gallonage in the range of 101 to 1200 gallons per acre)
and concentrate (low volume) air carrier sprays (gallonage in the range of
5 pints to 100 gallons per acre).
Apples and Other Deciduous Fruits
Apple Maggot and
Other Fruit Flies
Aphids and
Leafhoppers
Major Chewing
Insect Pests
Apple maggot,
Rhagoletis pomonella
(Walsh)
Cherry fruit fly
Apple aphid,
Aphis pomi (DeGeer)
Rosy apple aphid,
Dysaphis plantaginea
(Passerini)
Wooly apple aphid,
Eriosoma lanigenm
(Hausman)
Green peach aphid,
Myzus persicae (Sulzer)
Mealy plum aphid or
leaf curl plum aphid,
Hyalopterus pruni
(Geoffroy)
Apple leafhopper,
Empoasca maligna (Walsh)
White apple leafhopper,
Typhlocyba pomaria
(Mclntire)
Rose leafhopper,
Edwardsiana -Tosae (Linnaeus)
Codling Moth,
Laspeyvesia pomonella
(Linnaeus)
Oriental fruit moth,
Grapholitha molesta
(Busck)
Fruittree leafroller,
ATohips argypospilus
(Walker)
Redbanded leaf roller,
Argyrotaenia velutinana
(Walker)
Tufted apple budmoth,
Platynota -Ldaeusalis
(Walker)
Variegated leafroller,
P. flavedana (Clemens)
Obliquebanded leafroller,
Choristoneuva rosaceana
(Harris)
-------
-7-
Apples and Other Deciduous Fruits, Continued
Foliage Feeding Mites
Scale Insects
Curculios
European red mite,
Panonychus ulmi (Koch)
McDaniel spider mite,
Tetranychus modanieli
(McGregor)
Pacific spider mite,
T. paoificus (McGregor)
Two-spotted spider
mite,
T. wcticae (koch)
Schoene spider mite,
T. schoenei (McGregor)
Four-spotted spider
mite,
T. aanadensis (McGregor)
Carman spider mite,
Eotetpanyakus uncatus
(Carman)
Brown mite,
Bryobia rubriculus
Scheuten) and Bryobia
arborea M&A
Apple rust mite,
Aculus schleohtendali
(Nelepa)
San Jose scale,
Quadraspidiotus perni-
ciosus (Comstock)
European fruit leca-
nium scale,
Leaaniwn corni (Bouche)
White peach scale,
Pseudaulaoaspis pentagona
(Targioni-Tozzett)
Scurfy scale,
Chionaspis furfura (Fitch)
Terrapin scale,
L. nigrofasaiatwn (Pengande)
Forbes scale,
Aspidiotus forbesi (Johnson)
Plum curculio,
Conotrachelus nenuphar
(Herbst)
Apple curculio,
Tachypterellus quadrigibbus
(Say)
-------
Stone Fruits
Catfacing Insects
Twig Borers
Wood Borers
Tarnished plant bug,
Lygus spp. (Polisot de
Beauvois)
Polyphagous pentatomids,
Pentatomidae spp.
Other plant feeding bugs
Cutworms, grasshoppers
and earwigs*
Peach twig borer,
Ansavia lineatella
(Zeller)
Oriental fruit moth,
GTapholi-tha molesta
(Busck)
Peach tree borer,
Sannino-Ldea exitiosa (Say)
Lesser peach tree borer,
Sananthedon p-Lctipes
(Grote and Robinson)
American plum borer,
Eusophera semifuneralis
(Walker)
*These insects cause fruit
damage similar to that caused
by catfacing insects and for
evaluation purposes, may be
included with the above groups.
Apple Maggot and Other Fruit Flies
A method for evaluating insecticides for the control of the apple maggot
is found in Forsythe (Exhibit 1). Similar methods may be used for cherry fruit
flies (Cox 1952).
References
Forsythe, H.Y., Jr. 1975. Field Testing of insecticides for control of the
apple maggot. (Exhibit 1).
Cox, J. A. 1952. The cherry fruit fly in Erie County. Penn. Agrio, Exp.
Sin. Bull. 548. 17 p.
Aphids and Leafhoppers
A method for evaluating insecticides for the control of aphids and leaf-
hoppers is found in Hall (Exhibit 2).
-------
Reference
Hall, F. R. 1975. Test method for control of aphids and leafhoppers on
apple and other deciduous fruit trees. (Exhibit 2).
Major Chewing Insect Pests
A method for evaluating insecticides against major chewing insect pests
in foliar applications to apple and other deciduous fruit trees is found
in Asquith and Krestensen (Exhibit 3).
Reference
Asquith, Dean, and Elroy R. Krestensen. 1975. Test method for control of
Major insect pests on apple and other deciduous fruit trees.
(Exhibit 3).
Foliage Feeding Mites
Methods for evaluating acaricides in foliar applications to deciduous
fruit trees in various regions of the United States are found in Asquith
(Exhibit 4), Lienk and Chapman (Exhibit 5), and Hoyt et al. (Exhibit 6).
References
Asquith, Dean. 1975. Test method for acaricides in foliar applications
to apple trees in the Cumberland-Shenandoah fruit belt of the United
States. (Exhibit 4).
Lienk, S. E., and P. J. Chapman. 1975. Test method for evaluating acaricides
under orchard conditions for deciduous fruit trees in the Northeastern
U.S. (Exhibit 5).
Hoyt, S. C., M.M. Barnes, and P. H. Westigard. 1975. Test method for test-
ing acaricides in foliar applications to apple and other deciduous
fruit trees in the Western United States. (Exhibit 6).
Scales Insects
Only modifications of the General Methods are noted below:
-------
-10-
Small Scale Field Tests
Application and Application Equipment:—Complete coverage of the limbs
and bark is essential for satisfactory scale control. Particular care
should be exercised to insure that the undersides of the limbs are thoroughly
sprayed. Dilute sprays are preferred.
Sampling and counting methods:—Count live females before application
of each treatment (usually approximately four week intervals) and following
the last treatment application. The use of a dissecting microscope is
necessary to make counts of living and dead scales.
Several sampling methods are suggested although others have been used
successfully. (Parent 1970)
1. Count live females on 3 to 5 bark sections (1 inch^) taken from an
area of definite infestation on each treatment and check tree.
2. (Coccidae). Count live females on 5 twig samples ( 5 inches long)
collected from an area of definite infestation on each replicate and the
check (Bobb et al. 1973).
3. Dormant spraying. Use either method 1 or 2 before treatment and
three weeks following spray application (Asquith 1949) .
4. On stone fruits without pubescence, San Jose scale control may be
evaluated by sampling 100 or more fruits per replicate and examining them
for the presence of scale. Results are then expressed as % infested fruit.
5. Crawlers (summer) sprays (apples and pears). Pretreatment = 10-20
fruit spurs per rep (4-5 single tree reps). Record number live and dead
scale up to 50 per spur. Posttreatment = number live and dead scale per spur
(10-20 spurs per rep) and % infested fruit. In some cases the number of scale
per infested fruit may be important to record. Where infestations are
particularly heavy, it may be desirable to use the basal 6 inches of new
growth on 10-20 terminal or lateral shoots per replicate rather than fruit
spurs.
6. Evaluation of prebloom sprays (apples and pears). Pretreatment =
sample of 10 fruit spurs taken from older wood in top area of each tree.
Count number live and dead black caps up to 50 per each spur. Posttreatment =
4-6 weeks after treatment same sample unit. Record percent live scale or
percent reduction, etc. If possible also record percent infested fruit
at end of 1st generation crawlers and at harvest.
7. Sex pheromone trapping may be useful in monitoring San Jose scale
populations (Rice 1974)
-------
-11-
Data to be presented as number of live female scales per treatment,
percent live scale, or percent infested fruit and compared to the control
Statistical analysis of data is required.
Large Scale Field Trials
Sampling and counting methods:—Orchard should be surveyed prior to
treatment. Infested trees sampled pre-and posttreatment in manner described
above. 10-20 trees sampled in each treatment by taking 5 spurs from top
of each tree.
References
Asquith, Dean. 1949. Oils in dormant sprays to control european fruit
lecanium and terrapin scale on peach. J. Econ. Entomol. 42(4):624-626.
Bobb, M. L., J. A. Weidhaas, Jr., and L. F. Fonton. 1973. White peach
scale: Life history and control studies. J. Eoon. Entomol. 66(6):
1290-1292.
Parent, Benoit. 1970. Chemical control of the oystershell scale,
Lep-idosaphes ulm-i (L) in apple orchards in Southwestern Quebec.
Ann. Soo. Entomol. Quebec 15(2):71-79.
Rice, R. E. 1974. San Jose scale: Field studies with a sex pheromone.
J. Econ. Entomol. 67 (4)-.561-562.
Curculios
Only modifications of the General Methods are noted below.
Small Scale Field Trials
Site selection:—The test site should have a history of curculio
infestation to insure sufficient pest pressure to yield meaningful data,
Plot size and design:—In developing the experimental design the
migratory habits of the pest (from woodland into the orchard) must be
considered. Variable population levels, decreasing as one moves away from
the source, i.e., the woodland, are to be expected and must be considered
in evaluating data.
Sampling and counting methods:—Collect the fruit that drops, because
of infestation by first generation larvae, twice weekly until the first
generation has passed. Collected fruit may be placed in large mesh bags
(onion bags) and suspended over plastic collection containers in an in-
sectary to collect the larvae as they emerge from the fruit.
-------
-12-
Records of the number of fruit and number of larvae from each replicate
and control should be kept and the results expressed as number of larvae
per 100 dropped fruit and also number of larvae per tree (Forsythe and
Rings 1965, Steiner and Worthley 1941, Asquith 1951). The percent of
fruit bearing oviposition scars is also a useful statistic and may be cal-
culated by examining 100 randomly selected fruits per treatment tree
(Forsythe and Hall 1972) . Insecticides applied to control adults in the
field may be evaluated by placing cloth sheets on the ground under the
treatment trees before spraying. After the spray application the adults
may be jarred or dislodged by beating the tree wth a pole or rubber hose
on a stick. Adults that fall to the ground sheet should be collected im-
mediately, placed in rearing cages, observed for twenty-four hours and the
percent mortality recorded for each treatment and control (Bobb 1947) .
References
Asquith, Dean. 1951. Concentrated sprays to control plum curculio on
peach. J. Boon. Entomol. 43(6) :843-845.
Bobb, M. L. 1947. Benzene hexachloride in plum curculio control.
Virginia Fruit 35(l):47-53.
Forsythe, H. Y. , Jr., and Roy W. Rings. 1965. Two promising experimental
insecticides for control of plum curculio. J. Boon. Entomol.
Forsythe, H. Y. , Jr., and Franklin R. Hall, 1972. Control of the plum
curculio in Ohio. J. Econ. Entomol. 65 (6) :1703-06.
Steiner, H. M. , and H. N. Worthley. 1941. The plum curculio problem
on peach in Pennsylvania. J. Econ. Entomol. 34(2) :249-55.
Catfacing Insects
The most serious activity of this pest group is their feeding on
newly-set and developing fruits. This feeding results in badly scarred,
distorted fruit ("catfacing") at harvest time. The tarnished plant
bug also feeds on the terminal buds of young peach trees and can be
a serious threat in peach nurseries. The terminal bud feeding can cause
the death of the terminal and cause "stop-back" (Slingerland and Crosby 1914) ,
an injury that might easily be confused with that which results from
Oriental fruit moth (Grapholitha molesta Busck) feeding.
Catfacing injury should be assigned to the casual pest insect whenever
possible when experiments on this problem are undertaken. Noting the precise
stage of fruit development at which the injury takes place will greatly
aid in this regard (Woodside 1946).
-------
-13-
Many species of pentatomids are beneficial members of the complex of
arthropods that may inhabit an orchard environment. Therefore, proper
identification of the species taken in a pre-treatment sample would be
highly desirable. Although the role of integrated control in peach
plantings is uncertain at present (Putman and Herne 1966, Hoyt and
Caltagirone .1974), relative to the effect of candidate pesticides on
beneficial species would be extremely valuable.
Small Scale Field Tests
Plot size and design:—Same as General Method, however, larger plots
of approximately one-quarter acre are generally the most satisfactory be-
cause of the extreme mobility of the pest.
Sampling and counting methods:—Evaluation of pesticides applied to
control catfacing should be made prior to fruit harvest. At least 25
fruits taken at random from each of 4 trees in each replication should be
examined and the data recorded as percent damaged fruits (Bobb 1970).
Large Scale Field Tests
Sampling and counting methods:—Similar to those outlined for small
treatment plots but at least 100 fruits (preferably more) should be
collected at random from each treatment and the standard treatment blocks,
After examination the data should indicate percent damaged fruit and be
compared to the standard.
Data should indicate percent damaged fruit and be compared to a
control or standard treatment. Statistical analysis of the data is
advisable especially when more than one new pesticide is included in the
same trial.
Eefer>ences
Bobb, M. L. 1970. Reduction of cat facing to peaches. J. Eoon, Entomol.
63(3)=1026-1027.
Hoyt, S. C., and L. E. Caltagirone. 1974. The developing programs of
integrated control of pests of apples in Washington and peaches in
California. Chapter 18 in Biological Control. Plenum Pub. Corp.,
New York.
Putman, W. L., and D. H. C. Herne. 1966. The role of predators and other
biotic agents in regulating the population density of phytophagous
mites in Ontario peach orchards. Can. Entomol. 98(8):808-820.
Slingerland, M. V., and C. R. Crosby. 1914. Manual of Fruit Insects.
The MacMillan Co., New York. 503 p.
-------
-14-
Woodside, A. M. 1946. Some insects that cause cat-facing and dimpling of
peaches in Virginia. The Virginia Polytechnic Institute Bull. 389.
Blacksburg, Virginia.
Twig Borers
Peach twig borers are not considered to be serious pests of peach
in the Eastern U.S., but in the Western regions of the country they cause
serious injury to other crops (Bobb 1973). The larvae of this pest burrow
into tender new shoot growth about the time the first peach leaves appear.
The injury results in the death of the terminal and is accompanied by an
exudate of gum from the site of injury. Larvae also attack the fruit,
usually at the stem end where the feeding excavations soon become filled
with gum mixed with frass.
Oriental fruit moth eggs are laid on the undersides of the leaves at
or near the time peaches are in bloom. When the larvae hatch they burrow
into the tender new shoot growth near the base of the terminal bud.
There may be several generations a year and if succulent twig growth
is not available, the larvae may attack the fruit.
Small Scale Field Tests
Plot size and design:—Two or more trees per replicate should be used
if trees are 3 years old or less. Single-tree replicates may be adequate
for trees over 3 years old.
Sampling and counting methods:—Injury by these pests should be re-
corded as the number of damaged terminals per tree (peach twig borer
dormant treatments or foliar sprays) or as percent injured fruit (foliar
sprays only). In the latter case a minimum of 100 fruits per replicate
should be selected at random for examination. Where evaluation is based
on damaged terminals, care should be taken to determine which of these
species caused the damage.
In larger scale field tests the same techniques are used, but a larger
fruit sample should be taken.
Reference
Bobb, M. L. 1973. Insect and mite pests of apple and peach in Virginia.
Ext. Div. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State U. Pub. 566.
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061.
-------
-15-
Wood Borers
The peach tree borer and the American plum borer are the most difficult
species to control and are the most injurious pests of peaches because
populations are perpetrated by moths from larvae that develop on the under-
ground portion of the trunk and the roots (Bobb 1973). The larvae feed at
or below ground level where they may "girdle" the trunk. This injury can
cause the death of young peach, nectarine or apricot trees in a single
season if several borers are feeding (Bobb 1943). The first evidence of
injury is frass on the trunk of the tree in the early fall. The following
spring an exudate of frass mixed with gum will be evident at the base of
the tree.
Lesser peach tree borers restrict their feeding more to the larger
scaffold limbs of the tree and are inclined to inhabit large pruning
wounds or other similar suitable points of entry. Several larvae may deve-
lop at a single site and limbs or whole trees may be killed by their feeding
Tumlinson et al. 1974). Secretions of gum mixed with frass at the site of
injury clearly indicate the presence of these borers.
Small Scale Field Tests
Plot size and design:—Described under General Methods but buffer
trees are not essential when the pest species involved is the peach tree
borer. A sufficient number of trees, randomly selected, should be included
in each treatment and the check to furnish at least 95% confidence in the
data (usually 6 to 10 trees per treatment).
Application and application equipment:—High pressure hydraulic
sprayers that can deliver up to thirty-five g.p.m. at from 200-600 p.s.i.
are desirable. The material should be applied uniformly over the target
area until it has been thoroughly wetted. The target area is different
for each of the two borer species. Since the peach tree borer infests the
trunk of the tree, the spray material should be directed to that area.
However, it is important that the trunk and also the larger limbs be
thoroughly sprayed if the lesser peach tree borer is the insect being
studied. Normally an adjustable hand gun and hose attached to the sprayer
is the delivery system used since the toxicant can be easily directed
to the target area.
Since the early borers hatch from their eggs and enter the tree at
a time when the fruit is ripening on the tree, it is imperative that the
fruit not be sprayed with the toxicants unless (a) the fruit is not to
be consumed, or (b) the minimum number of days between application and
fruit harvest, established for the specific test material, will be equalled
or exceeded. Candidate insecticides applied to control these peach tree
borers could conceivably be designed to act as soil fumigants or drenches
as was the case when ethelene dicloride emulsion and paradichlorobenzene
crystals were used (Bobb 1974), systematic insecticides to combat
larvae within the tree, residual materials to contact the adults at the
time of emergence or at oviposition, or space sprays with short residual
life designed to eliminate the adults from the orchard for short periods
-------
-16-
of time. Irrespective of the treatments, accurate measurement of the
dosage of toxicant applied per tree or per acre is essential so that
tests may be duplicated in the future if necessary. Data reported should be
related to the diameter of the test tree trunk at a predetermined height
whenever possible.
Timing of pesticide applications must be correlated with the sea-
sonal development of the pest, so that the target, susceptible life
stage is present when treatments are applied. Male moth emergence can
be accurately monitored with pheromones (Madsen and Bailey 1959), but other
developmental information must be obtained from close observation of caged
or "wild" populations.
Sampling and counting methods:—The appropriate pheromone may be used
to determine commencement, duration, intensity and termination of moth
activity. Moth catches should be recorded so as to clearly indicate the
number of days trapping included in each recording. Weather information
should be included whenever possible.
Evaluation of candidate pesticides as control agents for boring
insects requires that a detailed examination of the trunk and larger limbs
be made in the late fall following the application of spray treatments.
Data for the treatments and control should be record as live larvae per tree.
Preliminary population level estimates of peach tree borer and lesser
peach tree borer on each tree can be obtained by counting fresh frass
poles in the fall (peach tree borer, American plum borer) or in the
summer (lesser peach tree borer), excavating larvae from infested trees
and also counting (weekly) the number of cast pupal cases extending from
the bark once the moths begin to emerge. Each pupal case should be
destroyed once it has been recorded to avoid overestimating the population.
Data should be presented as cast pupal cases per tree.
If soil applications of pesticides as surface sprays are made, the
components of the vegetative cover should be noted and the pH of the soil
determined and recorded.
When soil fumigants are evaluated the pH of the soil and any water
used should each be determined and recorded. Soil temperatures and
moisture content at time of fumigation should also be noted.
In arboreal applications, pH of spray water may have an effect on
performance of the toxicant and should be determined and recorded (Madsen
and Bailey 1959).
Large Scale Field Tests
The possibility of tree mortality due to injury by the peach tree
borer makes it impractical to establish large scale plots for testing
candidate pesticides in orchards other than those that have been abandoned
as commercial ventures. The same consideration precludes the inclusion of
-------
-17-
large untreated check plots in the experimental design. Where such large
scale testing is possible the experimental design may include one treat-
ment as a standard against which the candidate materials may be compared.
Such large scale tests should only be conducted in orchards that have a
history of serious infestation to insure adequate pest pressure. The
standard treatment should be the pesticide and dosage currently recommended
to commercial producers for control of the test insect.
Tree mortality is not of serious concern when the pest insect is the
peach twig borer. Therefore, the section in General Methods for large
scale field tests should apply.
References
Bobb, M. L. 1943. Ethylene dichloride emulsion and paradichlorobenzene
crystals in peach tree borer control. Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Bulletin 347.
Bobb, M. L. 1949. Sprays for control of peach tree borer. J. Eoon. Entomol.
42(3)-.343-345.
Bobb, M. L. 1973. Insects and mite pests of apple and peach in Virginia.
Ext. Div-, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Pub.
566.
Bobb, M. L. 1974. Personal communication.
Madsen, H. F. and J. B. Bailey. 1959. Control of Sanninoides exitiosa
graefi (Hy-Edw) on apricots. J. Eoon. Entomol. 52:804-6.
Tumlinson, J. H., C. E. Yonce, R. E. Doolittle, R. R, Heath, C. R. Gentry,
and E. R. Mitchell. 1974. Sex Pheromones and reproduction isolation
of the lesser peach tree borer and the peach tree borer. Science
185:614-616.
-------
-18-
SMALL FRUITS
The following table lists the small fruits included in this section of the
report and the specific pests of greatest importance that attack these fruits.
Following the table are test methods and references for the evaluation of
insecticides against pests of small fruits. The methods apply to dilute high
pressure and air carrier spray (gallonage in the range of 200 gallons per acre),
knapsack sprayers, and concentrate (low volume) air carrier sprays (gallonage
in the range of 5 pints to 50 gallons per acre).
The methods describe only the specific variations from the General Methods.
Grape
Blueberry
Cranberry
Grape Berry Moth,
Pavalobesia viteana (Clem)
Grape Leafhopper,
Erythroneura spp.
Grape Rootworm,
Pidia vitioide fWalsbJ
Grape Flea Beetle,
Attica ohalybea
Currant
Currant Borer,
Ramosia triplifonrria
(Clerek)
Imported currant worm,
Pteronidea ribesii (Scop)
Currant Fruit Fly,
Epochra oanadensis (Loew)
Currant Aphid,
Capitophorus vibis (Linn)
Blueberry Maggot,
Rhagoletis mendax (Curran)
Cranberry Fruitworm,
M-ineola vaooi-nii (Riley)
Strawberry
Tarnished Plant Bug,
tLygus li-neolaT'is
(Palesot de Beauvois)
Strawberry Leaf
Roller,
Anoylis oompaota
fragariae (Walsh & Riley)
Strawberry Root Warts,
Braehyrhinus ovatus (L)
and
Black Vine Weevil,
Brachyrhinus sulcatus (F)
Strawberry Crown Borer,
Tyloderma fragariae
(Riley)
Cyclamen Mite,
Steneotarsonemus pallidus
(Banks)
Cranberry Fruitworm,
Acrobasi-s vaccin-ii (Riley)
Fireworm spp.,
Rhopobota spp. and
Vaocinwn spp.
Tipworm,
Dasyneura vaac-inii (Smith)
Raspberry
Raspberry Crown Borer,
Bembecia marginata (Harr.)
Raspberry Cane Borer,
Oberea bi-maculata (Oliv.)
Raspberry Cane Maggot,
Pegomya vubivara (Coq.)
Raspberry Fruit Worm,
Byturus uniaolor (Say)
Raspberry Sawfly^
Monophadnoides gen-Lculatus
(Htg.)
-------
-19-
Grapes
Grape Berry Moth, Paralo'bes'ia y-iteana (Clem.)
Sampling and counting methods:—Select 5-10 vines from each plot, the
center row if the plot has buffer rows, Select 5-10 clusters from each vine
to obtain a record of the infestation. These clusters should be removed
from the vine for examination. On the untreated vines record the number
of injured and uninjured berries on the clusters. Count only the injured
berries on the treated clusters. Determine the average number of berries
per cluster from counts on the untreated. Convert results to a percentage
basis and the percent control.
References
Cox, James A. 1949. Field experiments for the control of the grape berry
moth. J. Eoon. Entomol. 42(3):507-14.
Tashenberg, E. F., E. M. Pearson, and H. H, Moorefield. 1960. Performance
of Sevin against grape berry moth. J. Econ. Entomol. 53(5):856-9.
Grape Leafhopper, Erythroneura spp.
Sampling and counting methods:—Sample 10-30 leaves from each plot.
Make a field count on the number of leafhoppers per leaf. Record the number
of leafhoppers per leaf.
Reference
Cox, J. A. 1947. Control of the grape leafhopper. J. Econ. Entomol.
40(4):195-8.
Grape Rootworm, Fidla vLtic-id (Walsh)
Sampling and counting methods:—Sample 5-20 roots per plot. Excise
larvae out of the larger roots and collect larvae feeding on the small
roots and rootlets. Record the number of larvae per root.
References
Demaree, J. B. 1968. Control of grape diseases and insects in Eastern
United States. USDA3 Farmers Bull. No. 1893.
Isely, Dwight. 1942. The grape rootworm U. Ark. Bull. No. 426.
Grape Flea Beetle, Altica c'halij'bea
Sampling and counting methods:'—Count the number of grape buds in a
portion or all of treated and untreated plots before flea beetle damage
-------
-20-
occurs. After treatment and before the leaves unfold record the number of
injured buds per plot or portion of plot, Record the percentage control,
Reference
Demaree, J. 3. 1963. Control of grape diseases and insects in Eastern
United States. USDA3 Farmers Bull, No. 1893.
Blueberry
Blueberry Maggot, Ehaqoletis mendax (Curran)
Plot size and design:—Plots should be replicated if possible and
should be at least five rows wide with a minimum of 10 plants per row.
Samples should be taken from the center row. If aerial applications are
applied the minimum size plot should be one acre.
Sampling and counting methods:—Sample should consist of 4-8 pints
of berries per plot. The berries should be cooked then sieved through a
fine screen into a black-bottomed pan containing water or the berries may
be blended at slow speed in a food blender then sieved through a fine
screen into a black-bottomed pan. The larvae in the pan are counted.
The whole berries may be placed over a coarse screen that rests on a pan
containing a fine grade of vermiculite. After a few weeks the vermiculite
should be sifted and the number of pupae recorded.
References
Lathrop, F. H. 1932. The biology and control of the blueberry maggot in
Washington County, Maine. USDA Tech. Bull. No. 275.
Howitt, A. J., J. W. Nelson, and W. W. Roberts. 1964. A comparison of
low volume aerial spraying and dusting in the control of blueberry
maggot, Rhagoletis pomonella Walsh. Mich. Agric, Exp. Stn. Q. Bull.
47(2):246-258.
Cranberry Fruitworm, Mineola vaccinii (Riley)
References
Vergeer, T. 1954. The cherry fruitworm as a blueberry pest in Michigan.
Mich. Agric. Exp. Stn. Q. Bull. 36(4):370-373.
Hutson, R. 1944. Controlling the fruitworm on blueberries. Mich. Agric.
Exp. Stn. Q. Bull. 26(4).
Phipps, C. R. 1930. Blueberry and huckleberry insects. Maine Agric. Exp.
Stn. Bull. 356.
-------
-21-
Cranberry
Cranberry Fruitworm, Acrobasls vacclnl'L (Riley)
Sampling and counting methods:'—Replicated plots preferably about
a square rod or larger should be used, Sprays should be applied as high
gallonage sprays using 200-400 gallons of finished spray per acre. Berries
should be picked by hand or with a cranberry scoop from the centers of
the plots. At least 500 berries per replication should be sampled. The
percentage of infested berries in treated and untreated plots should be
recorded.
' References
Tomlinson, W. E. 1969. Control of the cranberry fruitworm, Aorobasis
vaooinii. 53(6):116-119. J. Econ. Entomol.
Franklin, H. J. 1928. Cape Cod cranberry insects. Mass. Agric. Exp. Stn.
Bull. 239:54-58.
Fireworm spp., Rhopobota spp. and Vacclnum spp.
References
Franklin, H. J. 1928. Cape Code cranberry insects. Mass, Agric. Exp.
Stn. Bull. 239.
Plank, H. K. 1922. The blackhead fireworm of cranberry on the Pacific
Coast. USDA Bull. No. 1032.
Tipworm, Dasyneura vaccinii (Smith)
Reference
Crowley, D. J. 1954. Cranberry growing in Washington. Wash. Agric,
Exp. Stn. Bull. 554.
Currant
Currant Borer, Ramosia tripliformis (Clerek)
Sampling and counting methods:.—Replicated single or multiple row
plots with a minimum of 10 plants per replication should be used. Appli-
cations should be made with a hydraulic gun or a hooded boom sprayer, To
determine effectiveness of treatments the plots should be sampled in the
fall. A minimum of 25 shoots per replication should be cut at the ground
level and examined for injury or larvae. A record of the number of in-
fested or injured shoots in the treated and untreated plots should be
recorded.
-------
-22-
References
Taschenberg, E. F. , and A. W, Avens, 1964. Field and laboratory studies
on control of currant borer, J, Econ._ Entomol. 57 (1) :123-30.
Taschenberg, E. F. 1935. Currant borer control studies. J. Econ.
Entomol. 46:394-400.
Imported currant worm, Pteronidea T'ibes'ii (Scop) .
References
Strong, W. J. 1953. Currants and gooseberries. Ont. Dep. Agric.
Bull. 440.
Hanson, A. J. and R. L. Webster. 1932. Insects of the blackberry,
raspberry, strawberry, currant, and gooseberry. Wash. Agric. Exp.
Stn. Bull. No. 155.
Currant Fruit Fly, Epochra canadensis (Loew)
Plot size and design:—Plots should be replicated if possible and
should be at least three rows wide with a minimum of 5 plants per row.
Samples should be taken from the center row.
Sampling and counting methods:—Samples should consist of 3-5 pints
of berries per plot. The berries should be cooked then sieved through a
fine screen into a black-bottomed pan containing water or the berries may
be blended at slow speed in a food blender then sieved through a fine
screen into a black bottomed pan. The berries in the pan are counted.
The whole berries may be placed over a coarse screen that rests on a pan
containing a fine grade of vermiculite. After a few weeks the vermiculite
should be sifted and the number of pupae recorded.
References
Strong, W. J. 1953. Currants and gooseberries. Ont. Dep. Agric. Bull.
440.
Breakey, E. P. and R. L. Webster. 1951. Insect pests of small fruits.
Wash. State Coll. Ext. Bull. No. 450.
Severin, H. H. 1917. The currant fruit fly. Maine Agric. Exp. Stn.
Bull. 264.
-------
-23-
Currant Aphid, Capitophorus ribis (Linn)
References
Hanson, A. J., and R. L. Webster, 1938, Insects of the blackberry,
raspberry, strawberry, currant, and gooseberry, Wash. State Coll.
Pop. Bull. No. 155,
Strong, W. J. 1953. Currants and gooseberries. Ont. Dep. Agric, Bull.
440.
Strawberry
Tarnished Plant Bug, Lygus lineolaris (Palesot de Beauvois)
Sampling and counting methods:—Replicated single or multiple row
plots at least 10 lineal feet in length should be used, If multiple row
plots are employed, records should be taken from the center row. At
harvest berries should be harvested from all or a portion of the plots.
The percentage of berries deformed by plant bugs should be recorded.
References
Schaefers, E. A. 1972. Insecticidal evaluations for reduction of
tarnished plant bug injury in strawberries. J. Econ. Entomol.
65(4):1156-1160.
Schaefers, E. A. 1966. The reduction of insect-caused apical seediness
in strawberries. J. Econ. Entomol. 59:698-706.
Strawberry Leaf Roller, Ancylls compacta fragarlae (Walsh and Riley)
Sampling and counting methods:—Replicates single or multiple row
plots at least 10 lineal feet in length should be used. If multiple row
plots are employed, records should be taken from the center row. After the
leafrolling has been completed, 50-100 leaves per replication should be
sampled at random from each replication and examined for leafroller
damage. The percentage of leaves damaged by leafrollers should be recorded,
References
Schaefers, E. A. 1964. Control of the strawberry leafroller, Ancylls
comptana Fragariae (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) J. Econ. Entomol.
57(6):985-986.
Chapman, R. K., and A. A, Whipp. 1951. Strawberry leafroller control in
Wisconsin. J. Econ. Entomol. 44(3):424-5.
-------
-24-
Strawberry Root Warts, Braoht/rhinus ovatus (L) and Black Vine Weevil,
Brachi/rhinus sulcatus (F)
Sampling and counting methods:—Replicated single or multiple row
plots at least 5 lineal feet in length should be used. If soil treatments
are being tested the pesticide should be thoroughly worked into the soil
before planting. If foliar applications are used they should be applied
at appropriate times during the season with a boom, knapsack, or hydraulic
gun sprayer. Evaluations should be made at a later date by digging up the
plants and counting the numbers of weevil larvae in the treated and untreated
plots.
References
Eide, P. M. 19*55. Soil treatments for Brachyrhinus control in straw-
berries. 5". Eaon. Entomol. 48 (2): 207-8.
Neiswander, R. B. 1953. Control of the black vine weevil. J. Econ.
Entomol. 46:234-237-
Strawberry Crown Borer, Tyloderma fragariae (Riley)
Sampling and counting methods;—Replicated single or multiple row
plots at least 10 lineal feet in length should be used. If multiple row
plots are employed, records should be taken from the center row. Foliar
applications should be applied at appropriate times during the season
with a boom, knapsack, or hydraulic gun sprayer. Evaluations should be
made by digging up crowns and recording the percentage of strawberry
crowns injured by the strawberry crown borer in the plots.
References
Richter, P. 0. 1949. New materials for control of strawberry crown borer,
J. Eaon. Entomol. 42:838-839.
Richter, P. 0. 1939. The strawberry crown borer, Tyloderma fragariae
(Riley). Ky. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 389.
Baerg, W. J., and L. 0. Warren. 1951. Insecticidal control of the straw-
berry crown borer during 1950 and 1951. U. Ark. Rep. Ser. 28.
Cyclamen Mite, Steneotarsonemus pallidus (Banks)
References
vAllen, W. W., H. Nakakihara, and G. A. Schaefers. 1957- The effectiveness
of various pesticides against the cyclamen mite on strawberries.
J. Econ. Entomol. 50(5):640-52.
-------
-25-
Smith, L. M., and E. V- Goldsmith. 1936. The cyclamen mite Tarsonemus
pallidus, and its control on field strawberries, Hilgardia 10(3):
53-94.
Schaeffers, G, A. 1963. Seasonal densities and control of the cyclamen
mite, Steneotarsonemus pallidus (Acurina:Tarsonemidae) on strawberry
in New York. J. Econ. Entomol. 56(5):565-571.
Raspberry
Raspberry Crown Borer, Bembecia ma.rging.ta (Harr.)
Sampling and counting methods:—Replicated single or multiple row
plots with a minimum of 10 plants per replication should be used.
Applications should be made in the late fall or early spring with sprays
directed at the base of the plant. Sprays should be applied with a
hydraulic gun using 200-500 gallons of water per acre. Treatments should
be evaluated 12-18 months after treatment by unearthing and examining
crowns for damage. A minimum of 10 crowns per replication should be
examined. The percentage of infested or injured crowns in the treated
and untreated plots should be recorded.
References
Raine, J. 1960. Chemical control of the raspberry root borer, Bembecia
marginata (Harr.) on loganberry in British Columbia. Can. J. Plant.
Sci. 40:160-164.
Howitt, A. J., and A. Pshea. 1965. The biology and control of the
raspberry crown borer, Bembecia marginata (Harr.) in Michigan.
Mich. Agric. Exp. Stn. Q. Bull. 48(2):167-172.
Wallace, L. E. 1956. Control of the raspberry root borer. J. Econ. Entomol.
49:287.
The Raspberry Cane Borer, Oberea bimaculata (Oliv.)
Shoemaker, J.S., C. W. Bennett, and J. S. Houser. 1930. Raspberries and
blackberries in Ohio. Ohio Agric Exp. Stn. Bull. 454.
Slate, E. L., A. J. Braun, and F. G. Mundinger. 1953. Raspberry growing,
culture, diseases and insects. Cornell Ext. Bull. 719.
Raspberry Cane Maggot, Pegomya rubivara (Coq.)
Slate, E. L., A. J. Braun, and F. G. Mundinger. 1953. Raspberry growing,
culture, diseases and insects. Cornell Ext. Bull. 719.
'Strong, W. J. 1947. Raspberry and blackberry culture. Ont. Dep. Agric.
Bull. No. 355.
-------
-26-
Raspberry Fruit Worm, Byturus uniooloT (Say.)
Slate, E. L., A, J. Braun, and F, G. Mundinger, 1953, Raspberry growing,
culture, diseases and insects, Cornell Ext. Bull, 719.
Barber, H, S. 1942. Raspberry fruitworms and related species. USDA Misc.
Pub. No. 468.
Shoemaker, J. S., C. W. Bennett, and J. S. Houser. 1930. Raspberries and
blackberries in Ohio. Ohio Agric. Exp. Stn, Bull. 454.
Baker, W. W., S. E. Crumb, B. J. Landis, and J. Wilcox. 1947. Biology
and control of the western raspberry fruitworm in Western Washington,
Wash. Agric, Exp. Stn. Bull. No. 497.
Raspberry Sawfly, Monophadnoides genioulatus (Htg.)
Hanson, A. J., and R. L. Webster, 1938. Insects of the blackberry, rasp-
berry, strawberry, currant and gooseberry. Wash. Agric. Exp, Stn.
Bull. No. 155.
Shoemaker, J. S., C. W. Bennett, and J. S, Houser. 1930. Raspberries
and blackberries in Ohio. Ohio Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 454.
-------
-27-
CITRUS AND SUBTROPICAL FRUITS
The following tables list the most significant pest groups on citrus
and subtropical fruits and the specific species of greatest importance in
each group. Following the tables are the test methods for each pest group,
which identify the specific variations from the General Methods.
Citrus
Commercial species of citrus include orange, grapefruit, lemon, lime,
mandarins and numerous hybrids such as Temple and tangelo. Because they
are evergreen trees growing in a subtropical climate they are capable of
supporting an arthropod fauna all year. The table lists the major pests
found in the three principal producing areas.
Armored Scale Insects
Soft Scale Insects
Other Homopteran
Insects
California red scale
Aonidielta aurantii
Chaff scale
Parlatoria pergandii
Florida red scale
Chrysomphalus aonidum
Glover scale
Lepidosaphes gloverii
Lesser snow scale
Pinnaspis strachani
Purple scale
Lepidosaphes beckii
Snow scale
Unaspis citvi
Yellow scale
Aonidiella citrina
Acuminate scale
Coccus acuminatus
Black scale
Saissetia spp.
Brown soft scale
Coccus hesperidum
Citricola scale
Coccus pseudomagnoliarum
Cottony-cushion scale
Icerya purchasi Mask
Florida wax scale
Ceroplastes floridensis
Green scale
Coccus viridis
Pyriform scale
Protopulvinaria pyriformis
Whiteflies:
Bay whitefly
Paraleyrodes per-seae
Citrus whitefly
Dialeurodes oitri
Cloudy-winged whitefly
Dialeurodes citrifolii
Woolly whitefly
Aleurothrixus floccosus
Mealybugs :
Citrophilus mealybug
Pseudococcus fragilis
Citrus mealybug
Planococcus
Grape mealybug
Pseudococcus maritimus
Long-tailed mealybug
Pseudococcus longispinui
Aphids :
Black citrus aphid
Toxoptera aurantii
Cotton or melon aphid
Aphis gossypii
Green peach aphid
Myzus persicae
Spirea aphid
Aphis spiraecola
-------
-28-
Miscellaneous Groups
or Species
Acarina (Mites)
Citrus thrips,
Scirtothrips oitri
Orangeworms (various
species)
Eriophyid mites;
Citrus bud mite,
Eriophyes sheldoni
Citrus rust mite,
Phylloaoptruta oleivora
Tetranychid mites:
Citrus red mite,
Panonyohus citri
Pacific spider mite,
Tetranyohus paoifiaus
Six-spotted mite,
Eotetranychus sexmaculatus
Texas citrus mite,
EutetTanyo'hus banksi
Two-spotted spider mite,
Tetranychus urti-oae
Yuma spider mite,
Eotetranyahus yumensis
Avocados
The principal pest species on this subtropical crop are:
Armored Scale Insects
California red scale,
Aonid-iella auTanti-i
Dictyospermum scale,
Chry somphalus d-ictyospermi
Latania scale,
Hemiberlesia lataniae
Soft Scale Insects
Florida wax scale,
Ceroplastes floridensis
Pyriform scale,
Protopulvinca"ia pyri—
fornris
Miscellaneous Groups
or Species
Other Homopteran Insects
Whitefly:
Avocado whitefly,
Trialeuvodes floriderisis
Mealybug :
Longtailed mealybug,
Pseudoooccus long-ispinus
Acarina (mites)
Greenhouse thrips^ Avocado caterpillar^
Heliothrips haemorrhoidalis Amorbia essigana
Redbanded thrips^ Avocado leafroller,,
Selenothrips rubrocinctus Caloptilia perseae
Avocado brown
Oligonychus punicae
Avocado red
Oligonychus yothersi
Omnivorous
Sabulodes caberata.
-------
-29-
Mangoes
The following species are those of principal concern:
Armored Scale Insects
Soft Scale Insects
Other Homopteran Insects
Dictyospermum scale,
Chrysomphalus dictyospermi
Lesser snow scale,
Pinnaspis straahani
Acuminate scale,
Coccus acwninatus
Mango shield scale,
Coccus mangiferae
Mealybugs:
Citrus mealybug,
Planococcus citri
Longtailed mealybug,
Pseudococous longisp-inus
Pyriform
Protopulvinaria pyri-
formis
Miscellaneous Groups
or Species
Acarina (mites)
Redbanded thripsj
Selenothrips rubrocinctus
Avocado red mite,
Oligonychus yothersi
Guavas
A limited number of pest species are important on guava crops:
Other Homopteran Insects
Miscellaneous Groups
or Species
Whitefly:
Guava whitefly,
MetaleuTodicus cardini
Caribbean fruit fly,
Anastrepha suspensa
Guava moth
Argyresfhia eug-en-Leila
-------
-30-
Papayas
The important pest species on this crop include the following:
Other Homopteran Insects
Miscellaneous Groups
or Species
Whitefly:
Papaya whitefly,
Trialeuraides var-idb-ilis
Papaya fruit fly,
Toxotrypana curvicauda
Papaya webworm,
Homalopalpia ddleva
Figs
The following pest species are of importance on figs insofar as foliar
treatments are concerned:
Armored Scale Insects
Miscellaneous Groups
or Species
Acarina (mites)
Mediterranean fig scale,
Lepidosaphes fiaus
Driedfruit beetle,
Carpoph-ilus hemipterus
Vinegar flies,
Drosophilidae
Eriophyid mites:
Fig mite,
Eviophyes fioi
Tetranychid mites:
Pacific spider mite,
Tetvanychus pacif-ious
Two-spotted spider mite,
Tetranyohus urticae
Dates
There are no pest species on dates of sufficient importance to require
foliar applications for their control on a regular basis.
Olives
Pest species of insects on olives which are controled with foliar
applications include the following:
-------
-31-
Armored Scale Insects
Oleander scale,
Asptdiotus ner^Li.
Olive scale,
Parlatori-a oleae
Soft Scale Insects
Black scale,
Saissetia oleae
Armored Scale Insects
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 4 single tree replicates in random
distribution should be used.
Sampling methods, counting methods:—Leaf counts - The sample unit
should consist of 40 or more mature leaves (3-5 months or older) per tree.
Half of the leaves in each tree sample should be taken from the inner canopy
and the remainder from the outer canopy and should represent all quadrants
of the tree. Counts should be made at least 90 days after treatment and
at later dates when appropriate.
With suitable magnification and technique, it should be determined
if a sample unit (leaf) is infested with at least one live adult female
scale. Results should be reported as the percent of leaves infested with
live adult female scale. Pretreatment counts should be made in the same
manner and reported (Brooks and Thompson 1963, Carman 1956, Simanton 1962).
Fruit counts - The sample unit per tree should consist of 40 or more
fruits or the total number available selected at random from a zone 3 to
6 feet (0.9 to 1.8 meters) from the ground and should represent all quad-
rants of the tree. On-the-tree inspections should be made to determine
the presence of live adult female scale on the fruit. Counts should be
made at least 90 days after treatment and preferably as much as 12 months
after treatment. Results should be reported as percent of fruit infested
with live adult female scale. Pretreatment counts should be made in the
same manner and included in the report (Carman 1956).
Twig counts - The sample unit should consist of 40 or more terminal
green-wood twigs selected at random from a zone 3 to 6 feet (0.9 to 1.8
meters) from the ground and should represent all quadrants of the tree.
The current or terminal growth should not be included in the examined
twig area which is limited to the two adjacent growth cycles, regardless
of their actual length, or to 12 inch (30.5 centimeter) lengths. On-the-
tree inspections should be made to determine the presence of live adult
female scale on the twig area examined. Counts should be made at least
90 days after application and preferably as much as 12 months after treat-
ment. Results should be reported as percent of twigs infested with live
adult female scale. Pretreatment counts should be made in the same manner
and included in the report (Carman 1956, Ebeling 1950).
-------
-32-
Bark counts - If snow scale is involved in the tests, a separate count
of live third stage or mature female scales on four (4) square-inch bark
surfaces which had been scraped free of scale on each tree prior to treat-
ment application should be made and the results reported as the total
number of live scale per examined unit area (Brooks 1964, Brooks and
Thompson 1963).
References
Brooks, R. F. 1964. Control of citrus snow scale, Unaspis cltri (Comst.),
in Florida. Pros. Fla. State Hort. Soo. 77:66-70.
Brooks, R. F. and W. L. Thompson. 1963. Investigations of new scalicides
for'Florida citrus. Fla. Entomol. 46(4):279-84.
Carman, G. E. 1956. Field evaluation of malathion for control of California
red scale on citrus. J. Econ. Entomol. 49(1):103-11.
Ebeling, Walter. 1950. Subtropical Entomology. Lithotype Process Co.
San Francisco, CA.
Simanton, W. A. 1962. Operation of an ecological survey for Florida
citrus pests. J. Econ. Entomol. 55(1):105-12.
Soft Scale Insects
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 8 single tree replicates in random
distribution should be used.
Sampling and counting methods:—Leaf counts - The sample unit should
consist of 25 leaves taken at random from an area 3 to 6 feet (0.9 to 1.8
meters) above ground and should represent all quadrants of the tree. The
number of living immature scale per leaf should be reported (Brooks and
Thompson 1962, Ebeling 1950).
Twig counts - The sample unit should consist of 25 one-foot (30.5
centimeters) terminals taken at random from an area 3 to 6 feet (0.9 to
1.8 meters) from the ground and should represent all quadrants of the tree.
The number of live adult scale per terminal should be reported (Brooks
and Thompson 1962, Ebeling 1950).
The type of count used depends on the time of year, the stages of scale
present and their principal location on the tree. Pretreatment counts are
important and a terminal count one year after treatment completed in the
same manner as the pretreatment count is desirable in addition to at
least one interim posttreatment count.
-------
-33-
References
Brooks, R. F., and W. L. Thompson. 1962, Control of black scale in
Florida. J. Econ. Entomol. 55(5):813-14.
Ebeling, Walter. 1950. Subtropical Entomology. Lithotype Process Co.
San Francisco, CA.
Other Homopteran Insects.
Whiteflies:
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 5 single tree replicates in random
distribution should be used.
Sampling and counting methods:—The sample unit should consist of 50
leaves taken at random from all sides of each count tree. The number of
leaves infested with live larval stages is determined.
Pretreatment counts are required and posttreatment counts should be
made in the same manner 2 to 4 weeks after treatment.
Reference
Simanton, W. A. 1975. Populations of insects and mites in Florida citrus
groves. Fla. Agric. Expt. Sta. Monograph. (In Press).
Mealybugs:
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 5 single tree replicates in random
distribution should be used.
Sampling and counting methods:—The sample unit should consist of a
minimum of 20 fruit selected at random from an area 3 to 6 feet (0.9 to
1.8 meters) above ground on each count tree. The percent of fruit infested
with live mealybug should be determined.
Pretreatment counts are required and posttreatment counts should be
made in the same manner 2 to 4 weeks after treatment.
Reference
Simanton, W. A. 1962. Operation of an ecological survey for Florida citrus
pests. J. Econ. Entomol. 55(1):105-12.
-------
-34-
Aphids:
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 5 tree plots replicated 5 times
in a randomized block design or 2 tree plots in a Latin square design
should be used.
Sampling and counting methods:—The sample unit should consist of 10
new growth terminals selected at random from around each tree. The number
of terminals infested with non-winged aphids is determined and the results
expressed as the percent of terminals of terminals infested. Counts
should be made minimally on the second, seventh and fourteenth days after
application.
Reference
Brooks, R. F. 1968. Control of aphids on Florida citrus. Proc. Fla..
State Hart. Soo. 81:103-8.
Miscellaneous Groups or Species
Citrus thrips:
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 16 count trees located in a fully
buffered position in the center of a treatment plot should be used. With
mechanized spray equipment, minimum plot sizes will frequently exceed one
acre (0.4 hectare) in size (90 to 120 trees).
Sampling and counting methods:—Fruit scarring - The sample unit should
consist of all peripheral fruit in a band 3 to 6 feet (0.9 to 1.8 meters)
from the ground on each count tree. The presence of scars caused by the
petal-fall feeding of thrips is determined and the results should be ex-
pressed as the percent of fruit scarred ( Ewart et al. 1952).
New growth protection - The sample unit should consist of 50 new growth
terminals selected at random from the count trees in each plot. The
"thripsometer" device and technique or modifications thereof (Ebeling 1950)
should be used to collect the thrips present on the terminals and counts
made in the laboratory with the aid of a binocular microscope. The results
should be expressed as the average number of thrips per terminal. Collections
and counts should be made at approximately 2, 4 and 8 week intervals
following application (Ewart et al. 1952).
References
Ebeling, Walter. 1950. Subtropical Entomology. Lithotype Process Co.
San Francisco, CA.
-------
-35-
Ewart, W. H., F. A. Gunther, J. H. Barkley, and H. S. Elmer. 1952.
Control of citrus thrips with dieldrin. J. Soon. Entomol. 45(4):578-93.
Orangeworms (various species):
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 4 single tree replicates in random
distribution should be used.
Sampling and counting methods:—Pretreatment and posttreatment egg mass
or larval counts should be made in each plot replicate on a per-hour-search
basis (Atkins 1958). Predetermined search periods of 10 to 15 minutes per
replicate should be used with actual searching conducted on all accessible
and/or appropriate parts of the count trees. The results should be con-
verted to and reported as the number of larvae or egg masses per-hour- search.
In tests with some cutworm species, alternative assay methods can be used.
Fifty "sucks" with the nozzle of a Model No. 1 backpack power De-Vac insect
net equipped with a 0.5 foot square nozzel (464.5 square centimeters) will
provide a sample equivalent to a one per-hour-search basis count (Atkins
1975). An equivalent value can also be obtained by using a standard insect
sweep net. While holding the net under the citrus foliage, blossoms and
fruit and shaking it vigorously against them, larvae can be dislodged and
trapped. A sample of 25 shakes on different tree areas also provides a
count equal to a one per-hour-search basis count (Atkins 1975).
References
Atkins, E. L., Jr. 1958. The western tussock moth, Hemerocampa vetusta
(Bdv.), on citrus in Sounthern California. J. Econ. Entomol.
51(6):762-65.
Atkins, E. L. 1975. Information concerning the economic importance, life
cycle, economic level and control of the larvae of "Orangeworms" on
citrus in Southern California. Univ. Calif. Citrus Research Center,
Dept. of Entomol. News Letter No. 74:1-7.
Fruit flies:
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 4 single tree replicates in random
distribution should be used but larger plot sizes with placement related
to infestation sources is considered more desirable.
Sampling and counting methods:—Fruit showing initial signs of maturity
should be collected one to three times weekly from each replicate during
a 2-week period following application and held in boxes over sand for at
least thirty days. Larvae and puparia should be screened out of the sand
once or twice weekly. The eventual determination should be the number of
larvae per pound of fruit. Pretreatment evaluations should be made if an
untreated control plot is not included in the test.
-------
-36-
Results should be expressed as the percent mean control - the average
infestation reduction throughout the sampled posttreatment period below
that in check plots or in pre- and post-spray periods.
Eefevenoe
Steiner, L.F. 1957. Field evaluation of oriental fruit fly insecticide
in Hawaii. J. Econ. Entomol. 59(l):16-24.
Acarina (Mites)
Eriophyid mites:
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 4 single tree replicates in random
placement should be used (see variation under "buds").
Sampling and counting methods:—Leaves - Using a 10X hand lens, one
lens field on the upper surface and a similar field on the lower surface
of each of 25 leaves per tree should be examined for the presence of live
mites. Results should be expressed as the percent of leaves infested.
Pretreatment counts should be made for comparison with similarly made
posttreatment counts, initially made at approximately 4 day intervals and
terminally as long as justified by the control trends of the results
(Johnson 1960, Simanton 1962).
Fruit - Using a 10X hand lens, one lens field on the fruit surface
facing the trunk and a similar field on the fruit surface that faces away
from the trunk on each of 25 fruit per tree should be examined for the
presence of live mites. Results should be expressed as the percent of
fruits infested. Pretreatment and posttreatment counts should be made as
indicated above (Johnson 1960, Simanton 1962).
Russet injury on fruits - The sample unit should consist of 25 fruit
per tree selected at random from the inner and outer canopy areas around
the tree. Evaluations should be made at the approximate harvest date with
a determination of whether the fruit is "russeted" as a result of mite
injury or whether it is free of such injuries. Results should be expressed
as the percent of fruit russeted (Johnson 1960, Simanton 1962).
Buds - Treatments should consist of four replicates of 2 trees each.
Ten new-growth terminals sufficiently mature to be favorable for the mites
should be randomly selected from around each of the eight count trees.
Five buds from each sampled terminal should be dissected in the laboratory
under magnification (20X) to determine the presence of live mites. Results
should be expressed as the percent of buds infested with live mites. Bud
sampling must be undertaken when the original migration from old buds or
fruit buttons to new buds has just been completed. With fall applications,
the sampling and evaluations should be made the following spring after the
new growth has developed. With spring or summer applications, new growth
suitable for mite evaluations may be developed in 2 to 3 months (Jeppson
1952).
-------
-37-
References
Jeppson, L. R. 1952. Field studies with new acaricides to control citrus
bud mite. J. Eoon. Entomol. 45(2):271-73.
Johnson, Roger B. 1960. The effect of copper compounds on control of
citrus rust mite with zineb. J. Eoon. Entomol. 53(3):395-97-
Simanton, W. A. 1962. Operation of an ecological survey for Florida citrus
pests. J. Eoon. Entomol* 55(1):105-12.
Tetranychid mites:
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 4 replicates of 2 tree plots
should be used.
Sampling and counting methods:—The sample unit should consist of 32
leaves on each tree, examined in situ. Four leaves on each of two terminals
randomly selected from each quadrant of the tree are examined and the
number of live adult mites recorded. Results should be expressed as the
average number of mites on a 32-leaf sample (Jeppson 1951, Jeppson et al.
1961). Alternatively, the Henderson mite brushing machine technique may
be used (Henderson and McBurnie 1943, Johnson 1966).
References
Henderson, C. E. and H. V. McBurnie. 1943. Sampling technique for deter-
mining populations of the citrus red mite and its predators. USDA
Circ. 671. 11 pp.
Jeppson, L. R. 1951. New acaricides for control of citrus red mite,
1948-1950. J. Eoon. Entomol. 44(6):823-32.
Jeppson, L. R., J. 0. Complin, and M. J. Jesser. 1961. Factors influencing
citrus red mite populations on navel oranges and scheduling of
acaricide applications in Southern California. J. Eoon. Entomol.
54(1):55-60.
Johnson, R. B. 1966. Control of citrus rust mite, citrus red mite, and
Texas citrus mite with Morestan. Fla. Entomol. 49(4):225-32.
-------
-38-
TEEE NUTS
The following tables list the most significant pest groups on tree
nuts and the specific species of greatest importance in each group.
Following the tables are test methods and supporting information for
the evaluation of insecticides and miticides against pests of tree nuts.
The methods describe only the specific variations from the General Methods.
Walnuts
The principal insect and mite pests requiring foliar applications on
Persian walnuts may be grouped in the following manner:
Armored Scale Insects
Soft Scale Insects
Other Homopteran Insects
Italian pear scale,
Epidiaspis leper-Li
Oystershell scale,
Lepidosaphes ulmi
Putnam scale,
Diaspidiotus aneylus
San Jose scale,
Quadraspi-diotus pemiciosus
Calico scale,
Lecan-Lwn cerasorum
European fruit
lecanium,
Lecanium corni
Frosted scale,
Lecanium pruinosum
Dusky-veined walnut
aphid,
Panaphis juglandis
Walnut aphid,
ChvomapTris juglandicola
Lepidopteran Insects
Miscellaneous Groups
or Species
Acarina (Mites)
Codling moth,
Laspeyvesia pomonella
Filbertworm,
Melissopus latiferreanus
Navel orangeworm,
Parcmyelo'Ls transitella
Redhumped caterpillar,
Schi-zura concinna
Walnut husk fly,
Rhago1eti,s oompleta
Tetranychid mites:
Carmine spider mite,
Te tranyc hu s cinndbar>inu s
European red mite,
Panonyohus ulmi
Pacific spider mite,
Tetranye'kus paoifious
Twospotted spider mite,
Tetranychus urt-icae
-------
-39-
Almonds
Pest species of greatest importance on almonds include the following:
Armored Scale Insects
Lepidopteran Insects
Acarina (Mites)
Olive scale,
Parlatorla oleae
San Jose scale,
Quadraspidiotus pern-io'iosus
Fruittree leafroller,
Arohips argyrospilus
Navel orangeworm,
Paramyelois transitella
Peachtree borer,
Sanninoi-dea exitiosa
Peach twig borer,
Anarsia lineatella
Western tent cater-
pillar,
Malacosoma oali-forn-icum
Tetranychid mites:
Brown mite,
Bryobia arborea
Pacific spider mite,
Tetranychus pac-lfious
Twospotted spider mite,
Tetranychus uvt'ioae
Pecans
Principal insect and mite pests of pecans include the following:
Armored Scale Insects
Other Homopteran Insects
Lepidopteran Insects
Obscure scale,
Melanaspis obscura
Miscellaneous Groups
or Species
Pecan weevil,
Curculio earyae
Aphids:
Black pecan aphid,
Tinooallis oarvaefoliae
Spittlebugs:
Pecan spittlebug,
Clastoptera aohati-na
Phylloxera:
Pecan Phylloxera,
Phylloxera devastatrix
Fall webworm,
Hyphantria cunea
Hickory shuckworm,
Laspeyresia earya.no.
Pecan leaf casebearer,
Aerobasis juglandis
Pecan nut casebearer,
Aorobasis nuxuorella
Pecan serpentine leaf-
miner ,
Nept-icula juglandifoliella
Walnut caterpillar,
Datana integerri-ma.
-------
-40-
Chestnuts
Lepidopteran Insects
Miscellaneous Groups
or Species
Chestnut timberworm,
Melittomma ser>-Lcewn
Small chestnut weevil,
CuTculio sayi
Large chestnut weevil,
CuTculio aaryatrypes
Hazelnuts
Miscellaneous Groups
or Species
Hazelnut weevil,
Curoulio neocorylus
Filberts
Other Homopteran Insects
Lepidopteran Insects
Miscellaneous Groups
or Species
Filbert aphid,
Myzocallis coryli
Filbertworm,
Melissopus latifer-
T&anus
Filbert weevil,
CuTculio occidental-is
Armored Scale Insects (not inclusive of Italian pear scale)
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 3 single tree replicates in random
distribution should be used.
Sampling and counting methods:—The sample unit should consist of 10
infested twigs 6 inches long (15 centimeters) collected at random from
around each count tree (minimum of 30 twigs per plot). A pretreatment
sample and minimally a posttreatment sample taken not less than 40 days
-------
-41-
after treatment should be included. A ainiraum of 1000 scale on the twigs
sampled from each plot should be examined appropriately with the aid of a
binocular microscope and a probing needle to determine whether the indivi-
dual scale is alive or dead. The results should be expressed as the percent
of the examined scale that were dead.
References
Anthon, E. W. 1960. Insecticidal control of San Jose scale on stone fruits.
J. Eoon. Entomol. 53(6):1085-87.
Boulanger, L.W. 1965. Integrated and chemical control of the oystershell
scale in Maine. J. Eaon. Entomol, 58(4):672-74.
Fullmer, 0. H., E. A. Kurtz, and W. H. Wade. 1959. Two new phosphate-oil
combinations for scale control on deciduous fruit trees in the dormant
period. J. Eoon. Entomol. 52 (3):373-76.
Italian pear scale: No acceptable method reported.
Soft Scale Insects
Plot size and design;—A minimum of 3 single tree replicates in random
distribution should be used.
Sampling and counting methods:—The sample unit should consist of 100
inches (254 centimeters) of new terminal growth randomly selected from all
sides of each count tree. Treatments should be applied after the egg
hatch is completed and the count should be made after the crawlers have
formed the first nymphal skin. The number of live scale on the terminal
growth should be determined and the results expressed as the number of
scale on 300 inches (762 centimeters) of terminal growth.
Alternatively, a sample of 25 leaflet* should be randomly selected
from all sides of each count tree and the number of live scale on a circular
area 15 mm. in diameter randomly selected along the midrib of each leaflet
should be determined. Results should be expressed as the number of scale
per inspection area.
References
Boulanger, L. W. 1965. Integrated and chemical control of the oyster-
shell scale in Maine. J. Econ. Entomol. 58(4):672-74.
Michelbacher, A. E., and S. Hitchcock. 1958. Induced increase of soft
scales on walnut. J. Econ. Entomol. 51(4):427-31.
-------
-42-
Other Homopteran Insects
Aphids:
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 5 single tree replicates in random
distribution should be used.
Sampling and counting methods:—The sample unit should consist of 10
leaflets (the first leaflet below the terminal) taken from all sides of
each of the 5 count trees (50 leaflets per treatment). The number of live
aphids present on each leaflet should be determined. Counts should be
made one (1) week after treatment and subsequently at 2-week intervals for
three (3) additional counts. The results should be expressed as the
number of aphids per leaflet at each count interval.
Reference
Madsen, II. F., L. A. Falcon, and T. T. Y. Wong. 1964. Control of the
walnut aphid and codling moth on walnuts in Northern California.
J. Econ. EntomoZ. 57(6):950-52.
Phylloxera: No acceptable method reported.
Spittlebugs:
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 10 single tree replicates in random
distribution should be used.
Sampling and counting methods:—The sample unit should consist of 20
terminals selected at random from all sides of each count tree. The total
of 200 terminals per treatment should be examined for the presence of spittle
masses containing live nymphs. A pretreatment count should be made in
addition to a 3-day and a 10-day posttreatment count. Results should be
expressed as the percent reduction in the number of terminals infested with
live spittlebug nymphs.
References
Chandler, S. C. 1953. Life history and control of pecan spittlebug.
J. Econ. Entomol. 46(3):450-54.
Polles, S. G. 1972. Pecan spittlebug: Chemical-control studies.
J. Econ. Entomol. 65(5):1519-20.
-------
-43-
Lepidopteran Insects
Chestnut timberworm: No acceptable method reported.
Codling moth:
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 5 single tree replicates in random
distribution should be used.
Sampling and counting methods:—The sample unit should consist of 100
nuts randomly selected from the ground during harvest under each count tree
(500 nuts per treatment). ' The nuts should be cracked to determine the
number damaged by codling moth larvae and the results reported as the per-
cent of nuts infested by codling moth.
References
Madsen., H. F., L. A. Falcon, and T. T. Y. Wong. 1964. Control of the
walnut aphid and codling moth on walnuts in Northern California.
J. Eoon. Entomol. 57(6):950-52.
Michelbacher, A. E. and W. W. Middlekauff. 1949. Codling moth investi-
gations on the Payne variety of English walnut in Northern California.
J. Econ. Entomol. 42(5):736^46.
Fall webworm: No acceptable method reported.
Filbertworm: See codling moth.
Fruittree leafroller:
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 6-tree sub-plots replicated 3
times should be used.
Sampling and counting methods:—Postbloom counts-The sample unit
should consist of 100 fruit spurs per sub-plot or 300 fruit spurs per plot.
The number of live larvae found by examining the fruit spurs should be
recorded and the results reported as the number of larvae per 300 clusters.
Harvest counts - The sample unit should consist of all the fruit
from the 2 center trees in each sub-plot. The number of fruit per tree
and the number of fruit per tree damaged by the fruittree leafroller should
be recorded. Results should be reported as the percent of injured fruits.
Reference
Madsen, H. F- 1969. Integrated control of the fruittree leafroller and the
white apple leafhopper in British Columbia. J. Econ. Entomol. 62(6):
1351-53.
-------
-44-
Hickory shuckworm:
Plot size and design;—A minimum of 8 single tree replicates in
random distribution should be used.
Sampling and counting methods:—The sample unit should consist of 50
shucks on each count tree. A determination should be made as to whether
the shuck is infested and the results expressed as the percent of shucks
infested. Ancillary data should be obtained with regard to the number of
nuts per pound, based on a random sampling from the harvest of each count
tree. The results should be expressed as the average number of nuts per
pound for the treatment.
References
Osburrr, N. R. 1954. EPN for control of the hickory shuckworm on pecan.
J.. Econ. Entomol. 47(5) :931.
Payne, J. A., W. L. Tedders, and C. R. Gentry. 1971. Biology and control
of a pecan serpentine leafminer, Nepticula juglandifol'iella. J. Econ.
Entomol. 64(1):92-3.
Navel orangeworm:
Plot size and design:—A minimum plot size of one (1) acre should be
used.
Sampling and counting methods:—Ten (10) count trees should be selected
from the center of the plot. The sample unit for the treatment should con-
sist of 100 nuts taken from each of the 10 count trees. The nuts in the
composite sample should be hulled and shelled and a determination be made
as to whether the navel orangeworm has attacked the nut meat. Results
should be expressed as the percent of kernels damaged by the larvae. If
an untreated plot is included in the test, the results should further be
expressed in terms of the percent reduction of damaged kernels.
Reference
Summers, F M., and D. W. Price. 1964. Control of navel orangeworm.
Calif. Agric. 18(12):14-16.
Peachtree borer:
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 5-tree sub-plots replicated 5 times
in random distribution should be used.
-------
-45-
Sampling and counting methods:—Each tree of the treatment group should
be examined during the spring period following applications made the previous
year to determine the number of live borers present. Results should be
expressed as the number of live borers per tree.
Reference
Snapp, Oliver I. 1962. Peach tree borer experiments in peach orchards,
J. Eoon. Entomol. 55(3):418-19.
Peach twig borer:
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 10 single tree replicates in random
distribution should be used. The trees should be 2 to 5 years of age.
Sampling and counting methods:—The number of worm-damaged terminals
("strikes") found on each count tree is recorded. If the treatments are
applied before bloom or during the petal-fall period, the counts should
not be made until the surviving overwintering generation larvae have
matured. If the treatments are directed against the next generation, counts
should be delayed until early summer. The results should be reported as
the number of 'strikes' per plot of 10 trees.
On older bearing trees the extent of damage to nuts should be deter-
mined. At harvest time a 30-pound (13.5 kilograms) sample of nuts should
be randomly selected from each treatment plot. The nuts should be hulled
and cracked and the number of wormy meats and the total number of nuts
examined recorded. Results should be reported as the percent of injury to
nuts.
References
Bailey, S. F. 1948. The peach twig borer. Calif. Agric. Expt. Sta.
Bull. 708. 56 pp.
Summers, F. M. 1951. Tests of new materials to control peach twig borer
on almonds and peaches. J. Econ. Entomol. 44(6):935-39.
Pecan nut casebearer (a and b), Pecan leaf casebearer (b):
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 10 single tree replicates in
random distribution should be used.
-------
-46-
Sampling and counting methods:—(a) The sample unit should consist
of 50 nut clusters on each count tree. The clusters should be tagged early
in the season after set and the number of nuts in the clusters should be
recorded. At harvest time the number of nuts remaining in the cluster
should be determined and the results reported as the percent of nuts re-
tained in the tagged clusters.
(b) The sample unit should consist of 50 bud shoots examined on
each of the count trees during the late fall or early winter period. The
shoots should be examined for the presence of casebearer hibernacula and
the results reported as the percent of shoots with hibernacula.
References
Nickels, C. B. 1949. DDT and other insecticides to control the pecan
nut casebearer. J. Econ. Entomol. 42(2):357-59.
Nickels, C. B., and W. C. Pierce. 1946. Effect of lead arsenate sprays
on the pecan weevil and other pecan insects. J, Econ. Entomol,
39(6):792-94.
Pecan serpentine leafminer:
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 4 single tree replicates in ran-
dom distribution should be used,
Sampling and counting methods:—The sample unit should consist of 50
leaflets randomly selected from around each of the count trees (200 leaf-
lets per plot). Minimally, a posttreatment count should be made approximately
14 days after treatment. Mortality of the miners should be determined and
the results expressed as the percent mortality.
Reference
Payne, J. A., W. L. Tedders, and C. R. Gentry. 1971. Biology and control
of a pecan serpentine leafminer, Nepticula jugland-ifoliella. J. Econ.
Entomol. 64(1):92-3.
Redhumped caterpilar: No acceptable method reported.
Western tent caterpillar:
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 3 single tree replicates in random
distribution should be used.
-------
-47-
Sampling and counting methods:—The sample unit should be 5 random
square foot (929 square centimeters) areas sampled biweekly under each
count tree until activity ceases. The number of dead larvae in each sample
area should be determined and the results reported as the average number
of dead larvae per square foot (929 square centimeters).
Reference
Oliver, A. D. 1964. Control studies of the forest tent caterpillar,
Malaoosoma disstna in Louisiana. J. Eoon. Entomol. 57(1) :157-60,
Walnut caterpillar: No acceptable method reported.
Miscellaneous Groups or Species
Walnut husk fly:
Plot size and design:—A mimimum of 5 single tree replicates in ran-
dom distribution should be used.
Sampling and counting methods:—The sample unit should consist of
100 nuts selected at random at harvest time from each of 5 count trees.
The percent of nuts with shell staining in each of the following cate-
gories should be determined:
(a) Less than \ of surface.
(b) \ to % of surface.
(c) More than % of surface.
In addition, the nuts should be cracked and the incidence of moldy
nut meats determined. The percent of nuts with each degree of shell staining
and the percent of nuts with moldy nut meats should be reported.
Reference
Nickel, J. L., and T. T. Y. Wong. 1966. Control of the walnut husk fly,
Rhagolet'is completa Cresson, with systemic insecticides. J. Econ.
Entomol. 59(5)=1079-82..
Weevils:
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 6 single tree replicates in ran-
dom distribution should be used.
Sampling and counting methods:—The sample unit should consist of 250
nuts harvested from each tree. The number of nuts weevil-punctured should
be determined and reported as the percent of infested harvested nuts.
-------
-48-
Referene&s
Nickels, C. B. 1952. Control of the pecan weevil in Texas. J, Eoon.
Entomol. 45(6):1099-2000,
Nickels, C. B., and W. C. Pierce. 1946, Effect of lead arsenate sprays
on the pecan weevil and other pecan insects. J", Eoon. Entomol.
39(6):792-94.
Acarina (Mites) - Tetranychid Mites
Brown mites:
Plot size and design:—A minimus of 5 single tree replicates in
random distribution should be used,
Sampling and counting methods:—The- sample unit for a treatment should
minimally consist of six (6) twiga from each of the five (5) count trees.
The twigs should be 12 to 16 inches (30 to 40 centimeters) and selected
at random from different positions around the circumference of the tree,
They are cut midway between nodes and attached nuts are carefully snipped
off. The mites on the sample twigs are jarred from the twigs onto a sheet
of paper 8% X 11 inches (21.6 X 28 centimeters) and crushed against an
overlay sheet. The techniques described for the method should be adhered
to closely. (Summers 1951). The number of shoots on each twig should be
recorded. The number of crushed mites present on 5 inch square (32.3
square centimeters) areas on the sheet selected with a template is determined.
Results are expressed as the number of mites per shoot per template or as
the total number of shoots and mites per template on 30 twigs per plot.
References
Summers, F. M. 1952. New materials in early sprays for control of brown
almond mites. J. Eoon. Entomol. 45(6):974-81.
Summers, F. M., and G. A. Baker. 1952. A procedure for determining
relative densities of brown almond mite populations on almond trees.
Eilgardia 21(13):369-382.
Carmine spider mite: See twospotted gpider mite.
European red mite:
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 4 single tree replicates in ran-
dom distribution should be used.
-------
-49-
Sampling and counting methods:—The sample unit should consist of
20 leaves selected at random from around each count tree (80 leaves per
plot). The leaves should be examined directly and the number of mites
present recorded. A pretreatment count and a minimum of one posttreatment
count after each application should be made. The results should be ex-
pressed as the average number of mites per leaf.
Reference
Asquith, Dean. 1973. European red mite control with some new acar-
icides. J. Eoon. Entomol. 66(1):237-40.
Pacific spider mite:
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 4 replicates of 2 tree plots should
be used.
Sampling and counting methods:—The sample unit should consist of
32 leaves on each tree, examined in situ. Four leaves on each of two
terminals randomly selected from each quadrant of the tree should be
examined and the number of live adult mites recorded. Results should be
expressed as the average number of mites on a 32-leaf sample.
Reference
Jeppson, L. R. , M. J. Jesser, and J. 0. Complin. 1968. Responses of
the Pacific spider mite and the citrus red mite to laboratory and
field applications of tricyclohexyl tin hydroxide. J. Econ. Entomol.
61(6):1502-5.
Twospotted spider mite:
Plot size and design:—A minimum of 4 single tree replicates in ran-
dom distribution should be used.
Sampling and counting methods:—The sample unit should consist of 25
leaves collected biweekly from each tree by selecting 5 mature leaves from
each of 5 major limbs around the tree. The Henderson brushing machine tech-
nique or other appropriate means may be used to determine the number of
mites on the leaf samples. Results should be expressed as the number of
mites per leaf.
-------
-50-
References
Henderson, C. E., and H. V. McBurnie. 1943. Sampling technique for deter-
mining populations of the citrus red mite and its predators. USDA
Circ. 671. 1-11.
Westigard, P. H., L. E. Medinger, and 0. E. Kellogg. 1972. Field evalua-
tion of pesticides for their suitability in an integrated program for
spider mites on pear. J. Econ. Entomol. 65(l):191-2.
-------
-51-
Exhibit 1
FIELD TESTING OF INSECTICIDES FOR CONTROL OF THE APPLE MAGGOT
H. Y. Forsythe, Jr.
University of Maine
Orono, Maine 04473
1. Scope
1.1 The apple maggot, Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh), is a major pest
of apples in northestern and northcentral United States. Chemical control
is essential if orchardists are to produce a maggot-free apple.
1.2 Of major concern in the commercial control of the apple maggot
is the extreme difficulty in grading out of an apple which is infested with
this insect. The primary external sign of infestation is a tiny puncture
which is made by the female fly when she lays an egg just beneath the skin
of the apple.
1.3 Abandoned or partially abandoned orchards are commonly the only
orchards in which adequate maggot populations are large and highly active.
While desirable to utilize a large block of apple trees for a single treat-
ment, the size of this experimental unit and time involved make it unfeasible
to evaluate more than a few experimental insecticides each year. Smaller
experimental units will permit evaluation of more insecticides, but the
degree of control may not be commercially acceptable (2, 3). These pro-
blems necessitate two types of experimental procedures: small test plots
and large test plots; the latter type also provide information on perfor-
mance under commercial conditions.
2. Equipment and Spraying
2.1 Whatever type of sprayer is used, the tank(s) should be designed
for accurate measurement of spray mixture gallonage and for easy rinsing.
If the tank is divided into compartments, pipes and valves must be arranged
to limit delivery of spray mixture to the pump from only one compartment
at a time. After each treatment the spraying system must be thoroughly
rinsed with clean water. All parts of each tree must be covered with an
insecticide deposit.
2.2 For small plot tests (1 to 4 trees each), a hydraulic high-pressure
sprayer, equipped with sprayhoses and an adjustable handgun, should be
used to assure thorough coverage (2,3). If the trees are relatively uniform
in size and have been pruned and thinned rather severely, a fixed battery
of spray nozzles on one side of the sprayer could be substituted for the
hose and gun system. Sprays should be applied at dilute concentration and to
the point of drip. In either case, the total calculated amount of finished
spray per acre should not be less than what is recommended as a standard
practice for the area.
-------
-52-
2.3 For large plot tests (1/2 acre or more), an airblast sprayer is
desirable. The sprayer should be accurately calibrated to deliver the
recommended amount of finished spray per acre. Concentrate sprays (up to
10X) can also be used to simulate grower application (2,3,7).
2.4 Insecticides are to be applied at suggested rates in a schedule of
sprays at 10 to 14-day intervals, from the time flies are ready to ovi-
posit to within 2 to 3 weeks of harvest or test evaluation (1,2,3,4). More
abbreviated schedules or extended intervals may be possible in situations
where continuous reinfestation of the test site does not occur (4,5). Other
than experimental insecticides, all trees should be treated the same with
regards to other pesticides.
3. Test Site
3.1 A similar level of fly population pressure must be present within
each replication of all treatments; the level may vary between replications.
Prior knowledge of existing infestation levels within the test site or of
the direction of immigrating flies is essential towards fulfillment of
this condition (1,3,6). The level of fly pressure is important because
insecticides may vary in relative efficacy according to fly abundance.
The same variety of apple must be available for sampling within each
replication of all treatments; the variety may differ from replication to
replication (1,2,3,8). Sample trees in a replication must also be equally
exposed to other apple varieties with greatly different maturing dates.
All trees within a replication should bear a similar number of fruit and
be of approximately equal size and vigor (1).
3.2 For small plot tests, at least 3 replications are necessary when
individual trees or groups of 2 to 4 trees are randomly selected for treat-
ment (3). In some situations these small plots should be adjacent to un-
treated or buffer trees to eliminate effects of spray drift or to allow
equal exposure of treated trees to a natural fly population pressure (2,3),
Each replication should include untreated check trees (to determine
level of existing fly pressure) and also trees treated with a standard
recommended insecticide (to validate experimental technique) (3).
3.3 Although it is preferable to replicate each large plot at least
twice, a single block treated with the test chemical and a block treated
with a standard insecticide can yield valuable data on efficacy (2,3,4).
Control information can be determined from the degree of infestation in an
untreated check area under similar fly pressure (2,3). If fly activity is
high (e.g., more than 50% of the apples infested), the number of untreated
check trees can be less than the number of treated trees.
-------
-53-
4. Sampling Methods
4.1 Although it may be easier to sample all replications at the same
time, individual replications can be sampled fully at different times,
depending upon the maturity date of the apple variety in the replication.
Apples can be sampled at normal harvest or whenever reliable determinations
can be made of maggot infestation. In any case, sprays should be continued
at scheduled intervals until the last sample is taken.
4.2 All samples must be taken randomly from the same part of each tree
(upper and/or lower areas of trees) (3,4) and/or ground (drops) (1,7). The
portion of apples in each sampled area must be relatively constant from
treatment to treatment within each replication. At least 50 apples should
be examined from each tree; more may be necessary in cases of light fly
pressure.
Counting Methods
5.1 Each apple should be examined carefully for ovipositional punctures
(1,2,3,4) and/or maggot tunneling (successful tunneling occurs when the
tunnel is about 1/2 inch) (7) and is to be recorded as infested or clean,
or as having a certain number of ovipositional punctures. Although presence
of ovipositional punctures is a valid measure of fly control, some record
of tunneling should be made to indicate ovicidal or larvicidal activity of
an insecticide (3). Both external ovipositional punctures and internal
tunneling are of concern to the fresh fruit market.
In some situations (e.g., elimination of a fly population from an
area) it may be of greater importance to determine the successful emergence
of fully grown larvae from apples (5); emergence records should be obtained
from equal numbers of randomly selected apples from each treatment.
6. Presenting Results
6.1 Note should be made of weather conditions, apple variety sampled,
replications, treatment plot size, times of application, spray method, and
sample time and procedure. Problems in physical compatibility with mixtures
in water and/or with other pesticides must be listed. Symptoms and severity
of spray injury (macroscopically, at' least) must also be recorded; compare
with check plots or trees sprayed with a standard insecticide.
6.2 The results should include total number of apples sampled and per-
centage of fruit infested or average number of punctures per apple. Supple-
mental summarization can include percent control. An appropriate trans-
formation and statistical multiple comparison test would be useful to deter-
mine • significant differences of the treatments with the check and standard
(7,9). Generally a randomized complete block experimental design and
analysis would be most appropriate. However, another design may be acceptable,
depending upon the test conditions (4). Statistical analysis of data from
large plot tests may not be possible, but all pertinent data, as mentioned in
3.3 should be listed.
-------
-54-
6.3 An acceptable insecticide should give control in small plot tests
that is within 10% of the percent infested apples recorded for a standard
insecticide treatment. The less the fly pressure, the less the allowable
difference to be acceptable (e.g. if check percentage is >30%, the difference
between experimental and standard insecticides can be as much as 10%
(2,3,7); if check is about 10%, the difference should not be more than 1-2%).
More reliance should be placed on a statistical analysis at the 5-10% level
of significance in experiments where fly pressure is low (e.g. < 10% in-
fested in check). In cases where the fly pressure is extremely severe
(check percentage greater than about 75%), it may not be possible to deter-
mine efficacy in small plot tests. The researcher's evaluation of the
insecticides is an important feature in summarizing the results of the
experiment because of his personal knowledge of the test conditions (1,3).
In large plot tests, where untreated check data are not available on
a comparable basis, the control given by an experimental insecticide should
compare favorably to that given by a standard.
References
1. Chapman, P. J., and 0. H. Hammer. 1934. A study of apple maggot
control measures. N. Y. Agr"io, Exp, Stn. Bull, 644. 40p.
2. Dean, R. W. 1961. Recent developments in the insecticidal control of
the apple maggot. J. Eoon. Entomol. 54(3);467-475.
3. Glass, E. H. 1966. Apple maggot control in western New York. N,Y.
Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ, 5. lip.
4. Nielson, W. T. A., and K. H. Sanford. 1974. Apple maggot control
with baited and unbaited sprays of azinphos-methyl. J, Eoon.
Entomol. 67(4):556-557.
5. Nielson, W. T. A., N. A. Patterson, and A. D. Pickett. 1968. Field
and laboratory studies with lead arsenate for control of the
apple maggot in Nova Scotia. J. Eoon. Entomol. 61(3):802-805.
6. Phipps, C. R., and C. 0. Dirks. 1932. Dispersal of the apple maggot,
J. Con. Entomol. 25(3):576-582.
7. Paradis, R. 0. 1968. Essais de traitements insecticides contre la
mouche de la pomme, Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh), dans le sud-
ouest du Quebec. Ann. Entomol. Soo. Quebec 13(l);54-64.
8. Porter, B. A. 1928. The apple maggot. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 66 48p,
9. Steel, R.G.D., and J. H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and Procedures
of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, N.Y. 481p.
-------
-55-
Exhibit 2
TEST METHOD FOR CONTROL OF APHIDS AND LEAFHOPPERS
ON APPLE AND OTHER DECIDUOUS FRUIT TREES
Franklin R. Hall
Department of Entomology
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
Wooster, Ohio 44691
1. Scope:
1.1 Three species of aphids, the apple aphid, Aphis pomi DeGreer,
rosy apple aphid, Dysaphis plantaginea (Passerini), and the woolly apple
aphid, Er"Losoma laniger^m (Hausman), are pests of apple and pear trees in
the major fruit growing areas of the United States. Some other aphids
that attack deciduous fruit trees are: green peach aphid, Myzus persicae
(Sulzer) on peach and mealy plum aphid or leaf curl plum aphid, Hyalopterus
ppuni (Geoffrey) on plums and prunes (1,2,3,4,6,7).
1.2 Three species of leafhoppers, the apple leafhopper, Empoasca
maligna (Walsh), the white apple leafhopper, Typhlocyba pomaria llclntire,
and the rose leafhopper, Edwardsiana rosae (Linnaeus), commonly infest
apples in the United States (3,5).
1.3 The insecticides being evaluated for aphid and leafhopper activity
may be divided into two groups with respect to the stage of insecticide
development and the method used for evaluation. Testing new, experimental
insecticides should be restricted to small plots. Small plot tests are
designed to give information on comparative effectiveness of insecticides,
compatibility and formulation determinations as well as varietal sensitivity
and phytotoxic effects. However, these tests do not give information in
performance under commercial conditions. Insecticides in more advanced
stages of development, e.g., those which have received temporary experi-
mental registrations, may be applied to larger plots which more closely
approximate grower use in both timing and application systems. Since
techniques used under these two conditions differ, they will be discussed
separately.
2. Equipment:
2.1 For orchard screening tests, a portable high-pressure sprayer
equipped with a pump capable of delivering 10 to 35 gpm (38 to 132 liters)
at between 200 to 600 psi, a single or multi-compartmented tank, high-
pressure spray hose and adjustable spray guns. If the test trees are uniform
in size, a spray-mast fitted with spray guns to thoroughly wet the trees
may be substituted for the sprayhose and individual spray guns. The tank(s)
should be designed for easy rinsing and if the tank is divided into compart-
ments, pipes and valves must be arranged to limit delivery and throw-back
of spray mixture to and from the pump from only one compartment at a time.
If sufficient trees are available, a conventional airblast sprayer fitted
-------
-56-
with a multi-compartmented tank may be employed. Adjoining trees
immediately surrounding the treated tree should be left as buffers.
2.la When changing spray output from one compartment to another, the
new spray mixture should be directed to the ground for 15 seconds to be
sure the previously used spray mixture has cleared pump, hose and gun(s).
2.2 The type of sprayer in 2.1 may be used for small scale commercial
tests of high volume spray.
2.3 For orchard testing of low volume sprays on a commercial scale,
any commercial sprayer capable oif. thorough coverage of the trees in the
test area is acceptable. Dwarfing rootstocks planted in high density
orchards can be sprayed with repeatable results with smaller commercial
sprayers of either high-pressure or low-pressure type.
2.4 For purposes of determining effective dosages and varietal
sensitivity, as well as phytotoxic effects, test materials may be applied
with small 1-3 gallon hand-held sprayers operating at 20-40 psi to either
small trees or individual branches. Such data may be useful in early product
development but these spray tests are not adequate in support of label
claims - i.e., near enough to commercial conditions.
2.5 In all spray tests, equipment must be calibrated so that total
delivery in volume of spray applied to test trees is known and repeatable.
3. Screening tests with new insecticides:
3.1 Selection of the test orchard.
Initial screening of insecticides may best be conducted in plants of
uniform size. Tree size and planting distance should allow each tree to be
treated as a unit. More than one variety may be useful for varietal compari-
sons but should be typical of those common to the area. Aphid and/or
leafhopper density should be relatively similar throughout the test orchard.
3.2 Plot size.
Initial screening can be accomplished with a minimum of 4 single-tree
replicates per treatment where uniformity occurs. The number of replicates
should be increased when tree age, variety, rootstock or insect populations
vary. Randomized blocks are desirable for statistical analysis of results.
The use of buffer trees may be desirable to prevent excessive drift onto
adjacent test trees.
3.3 A standard treatment (one which has a background of information
on its performance) and an "untreated" check plot (no insecticides), should
be included. The selection of a dosage of an experimental insecticide will
depend on available data, but frequently a range of dosages is desirable for
determining the optimum.
-------
-57-
3.4 In initial screening tests, application of full-coverage, high
volume sprays by hand guns is probably the most convenient because of
small plot size. Trees should be sprayed to the point of drip and care
should be taken to avoid drift of spray to a adjacent test trees. Both
volume of spray per test tree and total volume of spray estimated on a
per acre basis should be recorded.
3.5 Sampling methods.
In general, care should be taken to insure that samples from different
treatments, replicates and dates are as uniform as possible with respect to
tree size, terminal growth and area of selection from each tree.
Usually, one spray is sufficient for evaluation of insecticides for
activity on aphids or leafhoppers. Samples of the population should be
taken prior to these treatments and 3 days and/or 7 days following treat-
ment depending on temperatures. Knockdown and residual efficacy can be
obtained by sampling at 1-2 days and up to 14 and 21 days after treatment.
Evaluations can also be made of broad spectrum materials when applied
several times during the season in regular cover sprays. Aphid or leaf-
hopper activity is sampled in these situations during the height of seasonal
activity as indicated by check plots (1).
3.6 Specific counting methods.
Several methods are available for counting apple aphid or other aphids
which infest terminal growth (2,4). The following are some examples:
(1) Conduct a 3-4 min. search per replicate tree. Count the number
of aphid infestations (usually one per terminal) per tree. The terminal
is defined as that portion of the branch growing during the current season.
This counting method should also denote whether or not the interior of the
tree was sampled (2).
(2) Sample 10-20 terminals per replicate tree and count the number of
aphid colonies or infestations (3). An aphid infestation may be defined
as any terminal having aphids in excess of 10-20 aphids. For more specific
data, 4 or more terminals per tree may be tagged and individual aphids per
leaf counted. Leaves would be chosen from 3 areas: tip, central and basal
portions of the terminal shoot (6). This latter method has been used
effectively for evaluating green peach aphid control or leaf curl plum aphid
in early stages of infestation.
(3) Sample the third, seventh and fifteenth leaf from the tip of a
shoot, taking 5 leaves per replicate from each of the 3 positions. Count
the number of aphids for each position separately.
Rosy aphid populations may be estimated by counting the total number
of infested fruiting clusters per replicate tree (3), This sample is
usually taken on one date after petal fall following pre-bloom treatments
of insecticides.
-------
-58-
Woolly aphid populations may be estimated by counting the total number
of woolly aphid colonies of each replicate tree. An alternative method
is to tag infested twigs, recording the number of woolly aphid colonies per
twig. Data is then recorded on the total number of live aphids per twig
at a specific interval following treatment. Such data can best be obtained
between the mid-season cover sprays. Another alternative is to select an
appropriate portion of each test tree from which to collect data in the
manner just described.
Samples for the apple leafhopper, white apple leafhopper, and rose leaf-
hopper can be obtained one of two ways as previously described for the
apple aphid. The primary sample method for leafhopper nymphs is to examine
20-25 leaves per tree and record the number of nymphs per leaf. An
alternative sample for first generation leafhopper nymphs is to select
20 to 25 injured leaves per replicate at random as indicated by mottling of
the upper surface. Count the number of nymphs on the under surface of each
leaf as it is picked in the orchard (5). Counts are usually expressed as
average number of leafhopper nymphs per leaf. The same counting method
should be employed for samples from all treatments on any one date and
experiment.
3.7 Presenting results.
The results should be presented as average number of aphid colonies
per tree or branch or average number of aphids per terminal or leaf and
leafhopper nymphs per leaf on each sample date. The data presented may
include a standard analysis of variance and a multiple range test for mean
separation.
4. Large scale field tests:
By the time an insecticide receives an experimental registration,
several trials have been conducted on small plots and a considerable amount
of data has been collected on efficacy and phytotoxicity. It is then
desirable to observe its performance under typical commercial conditions.
4.1 Selection of test orchards.
Orchards should be selected which are representative of the varieties,
ages of trees, cultural practices and aphid and leafhopper populations
commonly encountered throughout the area.
4.2 Plot size and method of application.
For large plot tests (% acre or more), a commercial airblast type
sprayer is desirable. The sprayer should be accurately calibrated to deliver
the recommended amount of finished spray per acre. Low volume sprays, if
utilized as a standard practice in this area, may also be used to simulate
grower application. Large plots are usually not replicated in one orchard,
but replication may be accomplished in different orchards. Experimental
-------
-59-
insecticides may be compared with a standard insecticide applied in an
adjacent area of the orchard. Untreated check plots are not required
for a valid comparison of treatment results but a few untreated trees
may supply additional support for conclusions regarding efficacy.
4.3 Sampling methods.
Sampling methods are generally similar to those used for small plots,
but should be expanded to include two to four randomized samples per
plot at each date.
4.4 Counting methods, and methods of presenting results are the
same as for small plots. Analysis of the results with these large plots
may not be possible because of the lack of true replication. In some
cases, statistical analysis is acceptable with the student"f" test before
and after counts.
5. Evaluation reports:
A standard format for reporting information on the evaluation of
insecticides is invaluable to those interested scientists in different
areas of the country and to those firms interested in obtaining data to
support new registrations and labels. Reports may differ considerably
in the type and amount of information necessary but the following points
should be considered when preparing the reports.
5.1 Description of test plots.
Include name of crop, cultivar, age or stage of growth, rootstock,
vigor of plant material where applicable and location of test.
5.2 Cropping history.
Necessary when considering seasonal programs where yield information
is of interest to investigator.
5.3 Soil type.
Soil factors may affect the results of granular systemic insecticides.
5.4 Experimental design.
State number of replicates, size of plot, and kind of experimental
design (randomized block, etc.).
5.5 Treatments.
State dates and method of application, specific formulation and rates
in Ibs active ingredient or formulation per 100 gal. of spray or per acre.
-------
-60-
5.6 Pest control.
Since fungicide and even some herbicides can influence results of
insecticide tests, applications of any pesticide as well as the one being
tested should also be noted in a similar manner.
5.7 Environmental conditions.
When testing insecticides and particularly systemic insecticides or
those applied to the ground under the trees, soil moisture data as well as
daily weather records on maximum, minimum temperatures and daily rainfall,
if available, will aid the researcher in reaching accurate conclusions.
5.8 Pest potential.
Indicate the seasonal potential of the insect pest under test. Insect
populations in the check area and adjacent areas may be used to indicate
degree of pest pressure in each test.
5.9 Methods of evaluation.
State clearly the method of evaluation, sampling and counting systems
utilized in the test. Indications of phytotoxicity, incompatibility with
other materials, formulation problems and performance compared to other
standards should be stated. Summarize data clearly and concisely and when-
ever possible utilize statistical analysis as noted previously in Sections
3.7 and 4.4.
References
1. Cutright, C. R. 1930. Apple aphids in Ohio. Ohio Agric, Expt. Sta.
Bull. 464. 59p.
2. Forsythe, H. Y., and F. R. Hall. 1973. Summer control of the apple
aphid in Ohio. Ohio Agric. Res. Dev. Ctr. Res. Circ. 196: 19 p.
3. Hall, F. R., H. Y. Forsythe, B. M. Jones, D. L. Reichard, and R. D.
Fox. Comparisons of orchard sprayers for insect and disease control
on apples 1966-1969. Ohio Agric. Res. Dev. Ctr. Res. Bull.
1078. 24p.
4. Hoyt, S. C. 1964. Field evaluation of insecticides for woolly apple
aphid control. J. Eoon. Entomol. 57: 1009.
5. Madsen, H. F. 1969. Integrated control of the fruit-tree leaf roller
and the white apple leafhopper in British Columbia. J, Econ.
Entomol. 62:1351-53.
6. Madsen, H. F., P. H. Westigard, and L. A. Falcon. Evaluation of
insectiqides and sampling methods against the apple aphid, Aphis
pomi. J. Eoon. Entomol. 54(5):892-894.
-------
-61-
7. Rammer, I. A., E. A. Kurtz, and P. E. Primer. 1969. Control of
four species of aphids on deciduous fruit and nut trees with
carbofuran. J. Econ. Entomol. 62:498-500,
-------
-62-
Exhibit 3
TEST METHOD FOR CONTROL OF MAJOR INSECT PESTS
ON APPLE AND OTHER DECIDUOUS FRUIT TREES
Dean Asquith Elroy R. Krestensen
Pennsylvania State University and University of Maryland
Biglerville, PA. Hancock, Md.
1.
1.1 Several species of lepidoptera: the codling moth, Laspeyresia
pomonella (Linnaeus), oriental fruit moth, Graphol-itha molesta (Busck) ,
fruittree leafroller, Archips argyrospilus (Walker), redbanded leafroller,
Avgyrotaenia velutinana (Walker), tufted apple budmoth, Platynota idaeusalis
(Walker), variegated leafroller, Platynota flavedana Clemens, obliquebanded
leafroller, Choristoneura Tosaoeana (Harris) infest apple and other
deciduous fruit trees (2,3,4,5). Insecticides are frequently toxic in
various degrees to all of the foregoing insects as well as the plum curculio,
Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst).
1.2 Insecticides employed in orchards are also frequently toxic to
pest mites. It therefore adds to the information on new insecticides to
check their effect on pest mites of economic importance in a given region.
1.3 Integrated control of phytophagous mites is practiced in several
fruit growing regions. For this reason, the effect of candidate insecticides
should be tested on the most common predators of mites in each area (2,5).
1.4 Insecticides may be divided into two groups with respect to their
stages of development and the methods used for evaluation. Testing new,
experimental insecticides should be restricted to small plots. While these
small plot tests provide information on the comparative effectiveness of
insecticides, they do not give information on performance under commercial
conditions. Insecticides in more advanced stages of development which have
received temporary, experimental registrations may be apllied to large
plots which more approximate grower use. Since techniques used under these
two conditions differ somewhat, they will be discussed separately.
2. Equipment:
2.1 For small scale orchard tests, a portable, high-pressure sprayer
equipped with a pump capable of delivering 10 to 35 gpm (38 to 132 liters)
at between 300 to 600 psi, a single or multi-compartmented tank, high-pressure
sprayhose and adjustable individual spray guns should be used. If the
test trees are uniform in size, a spray-mast fitted with spray guns to
thoroughly wet the trees may be substituted for the spray-hose and individual
spray guns (1). The tank(s) should be designed for easy rinsing and if
the tank is divided into compartments, pipes and valves must be arranged to
limit delivery and throw-back of spray mixture to and from the pump from
only one compartment at a time.
-------
-63-
2.la When changing spray output from one compartment to another,
the new spray mixture should be directed to the ground for 15 seconds to
be sure the previously used spray mixture has cleared pump, hose and gun(s).
2.2 The type of sprayer in 2.1 may be used fcnr small scale commercial
tests of high volume sprays.
2.3 For orchard testing of low volume sprays on a commercial scale,
a portable airblast sprayer with a 100-gallon tank (378.5 liters) or larger,
a pump capable of operating at 200 psi or higher (lower on highly specialized
equipment at a capacity of 20 gpm or more and an air delivery equal to or
greater than 20,000 cfm at a velocity of 80 mph should be used. (Sprayers
with 2.5 times or more air delivery produce more repeatable results.)
(Smaller equipment may be used in some plantings).
2.3a When changing the delivery of spray from one compartment to
another in a multi-compartmented sprayer, the sprayer should be operated in
an area away from test plots to clear previously used pesticides from pump
and lines.
3. Small scale tests with new insecticides:
3.1 Selection of the test orchard:
Small scale testing of insecticides may best be conducted in plantings
of uniform size and variety. Tree size and planting distance should allow
each tree to be treated as a unit. Varieties chosen should be typical of
those common to the area and should include at least one variety known to
be highly susceptible to injury by insect pests. An infestation of insect
pests should be present in the orchard environment before a test is started.
3.2 Plot size:
Small scale testing of insecticides is best accomplished with a minimum
of 4, single-tree replicates per treatment. Randomized blocks are desirable
for later analysis of results. In some situations, buffer trees to prevent
drift of spray from one treatment to another are desirable (2).
3.3 A standard treatment (one which has a background of information on
its performance) and an "untreated" check plot (no insecticides, but normal
fungicides) should be included. The check plot is needed to determine the
level of the insect infestations on which the insecticides are being tested
(2,5).
The selection of dosage of an experimental insecticide will depend
on available data, but frequently a range of dosages is desirable for deter-
mining the optimum.
3.4 In small scale tests, application of full-coverage, high volume
sprays by high-pressure equipment with hand guns or a spray-mast is most
appropriate because of the small plot size. Trees should be sprayed to the
point of drip and care should be taken to avoid drift of spray to adjacent
trees.
-------
-64-
3.5 Sampling and counting methods;
3.5a For the lepidopterous pest complex, a sex pheromone
trap for each species in the experimental block will help in determining
the flight periods of the moths (5).
3.5b Primary method for determining the effectiveness of a
candidate insecticide in controlling members of the lepidopterous complex
and the plum curculio is to take records of injury to the fruit. The
status of control may be determined at any time during the season by scoring
the injury on a determined size sample of fruit from each replicate of
each treatment. Samples of less than 50 fruits per replicate are considered
inadequate. The final determination should be made by scoring a sample of
at least 100 fruits per replicate per treatment at a stated period such
as 2 or 3 weeks after the final spray of the experimental insecticides.
Taking samples too long after the final spray permits other factors besides
the effectiveness of the insecticides to cloud the picture (2). In the
western states the final sample is usually taken at or near harvest, Since
infestations in different varieties frequently differ, records should be
kept separately for each variety.
Each fruit should be examined individually for evidence of
injury by one of these pests. Where codling moth, oriental fruit moth,
or plum curculio control is being evaluated, it may be desirable to cut each
fruit at the point of entry to determine if it is a deep entry (worm or grub)
or a shallow entry (sting) in which the larva was killed shortly after
attacking the fruit (5) .
3.5c Since fruit damaged by many of these pests tends to drop
from the tree prematurely, it is usually necessary to score dropped fruit
at periodic intervals during the season. Each time the dropped fruit are
to be scored all the drops under each experimental tree should be picked
up. If the number is excessive, scoring an aliquot sample will provide
adequate information (2).
3.5d Additional useful information may be obtained in the case
of the redbanded leafroller, the obliquebanded leafroller, the tufted apple
budmoth, and the variegated leafroller by counting the egg masses on a
predetermined number of leaves per replicate per treatment. With some of
these pests, timed counts of larval feeding sites or examinations of a
predetermined number of fruit clusters for larvae may also be of value.
3.5e The effectiveness of insecticides in controlling the plum
curculio on apple and pear may be made by counting the egg laying scars on
the fruit samples under 3.5b. Counts of adult plum curculios may be made
by placing collecting sheets or trays under one limb of each singe-tree
replicate and collecting the adult curculios which drop from the limb when
it is beaten (this is usually considered unnecessary).
3.5f Both phytophagous mites and predatory mites may be counted
directly on leaf samples or brushed onto glass plantes with a mite brushing
machine and counted. In either case, use of dissecting microscope is essential.
-------
-65-
The size of the leaf sample should be 20 to 40 leaves per tree (replicate)
to give a reasonable estimate of the populations. The number of each
species should be recorded separately, and with certain insecticides and
some mite species, it may be desirable to record the number of eggs as
well as active stages (2).
The same counting method should be employed for samples
from all treatments on any one date.
3.5g Counts of Stethorus punatum adults and larvae, an important
coccinellid predator of mites, are made by walking around each tree slowly
and counting as many of each stage as is seen during three minutes (6).
The best evaluation of the effect of insecticides on this predator may be
made by making a count 1 to 3 days prior to a spray followed by another
count in the period 2 to 5 days following a spray. The number of adults
and larvae should be kept separately.
In the eastern United States, satisfactory evaluation of the
effect of new insecticides on chewing insects infesting deciduous fruit trees
can be made best by applying a full season schedule of sprays beginning with
the petal fall spray and ending with the last cover spray prior to harvest.
The essential point is that the effect of candidate insecticides is being
tested for effectiveness not on one pest, but on a complex of pests, one or
more of which is present at all times from the petal fall period until
harvest.
3.6 The number of trials with each candidate insecticide will vary
considerably, but adequate trials should be conducted to permit accumulation
of data on:
a. Dosage for best control.
b. Performance on various pest densities and stages.
c. Phytotoxicity to various cultivars at different growth
stages.
d. Effects on non-target species.
3.7 Presenting results:
The average number of eggs or egg masses, the average number of larvae,
the average number of feeding sites, the average number of injured fruits
are the best method of presenting results. This allows the opportunity
to relate pest populations in relation to the toxicity of the candidate
insecticide and its effect on phytophagous mites.
3.8 Statistical analysis:
An analysis of variance and multiple range test to determine differences
between means are desirable (2). The standard deviation between means should
be considered as minimal.
-------
-66-
4. Large scale field tests:
By the time an insecticide receives an experimental registration,
several trials have been conducted on small plots and a considerable
amount of data have been collected an efficacy and phytotoxicity. It is
then desirable to observe its performance under typical commercial condi-
tions.
4.1 Selection of test orchards:
Orchards should be selected which are representative of the varieties,
ages of trees, cultural practices, and insect populations commonly encountered
throughout the area.
4.2 Plot size:
It is usually best to select plots the size that match the size of the
tank on the sprayer. Plots of this size are usually not replicated in one
orchard but replication may be accomplished in different orchards.
4.3 Experimental insecticides may be compared with a standard insecticide
applied in an adjacent area of the orchard. Untreated check plots are not
required for a valid comparison of treatment results.
4.4 Method of application:
All compounds reaching this stage of development should be tested
under a wide range of application techniques. This should include dilute
and concentrate air-carrier applications.
4.5 Sampling and counting methods:
Sampling and counting methods are generally similar to those used for
small plots, except that since replication may not be possible, it is con-
sidered best to collect data from at least 10 trees or from several bulk
bins throughout the treated area. Analysis of results from a large plot
is usually not possible because of the lack of true replication. However,
there are statistical techniques for analyzing the results from several
large plot trials.
5. Test reports:
A standard list for reporting information on the valuation of pesticides
is invaluable to those interested scientists in different areas of the
country and to those firms interested in obtaining data to support new regis-
trations and labels. Reports may differ considerably in the type and amount
of information necessary but the following points should be considered when
preparing the reports:
-------
-67-
5.1 Description of test plots:
Include name of crop, cultivar, age or stage of growth, vigor of
plant material where applicable and location of test.
5.2 Yield and quality information:
Most pesticides do not have a measurable effect on yield and quality
(other than obvious phytotoxic effects or control effects). Observation
should be made on these factors and statements of "little or no effect
included" unless an obvious effect occurs. If an effect occurs, it should
be measured:
5.3 Soil type:
Soil factors may affect the results of granular systemic insecticides.
5.4 Experimental design:
State number of replicates, size of plot, and kind of experimental
design (randomized block, etc.).
5.5 Experimental pesticides:
State dates and method of application, specific insecticide formulation
and rates in Ibs. active ingredient or formulation per 100 gallons of
spray. Also include volume of spray applied per tree or per acre.
5.6 Other pesticides:
Since fungicide and even some herbicides can influence results of
insecticide tests, applications of any pesticide in addition to the one
being tested should also be noted in a similar manner.
5.7 Environmental conditions:
When testing insecticides, particularly systemic insecticides or those
applied to the ground under the trees, soil moisture records should be
taken. Daily weather records on maximum, minimum temperatures and daily
rainfall should be available also. Also, the effect of cultural practices
on pesticide performance should be noted.
5.8 Pest potential:
Indicate the seasonal potential of the insect pest under test. Insect
populations in the check area and adjacent areas may be used to indicate
degree of severity of the tests.
-------
-68-
5.9 Methods of evaluation:
State clearly the method of evaluation, sampling and counting systems
utilized in the test. Indications of phytotoxicity or lack of it, incom-
patibility with other materials, formulation problems and performance com-
pared to other standards should be stated. Summarize data clearly and con-
cisely and whenever possible utilize statistical analysis as noted previously.
Eeferences
1. Asquith, Dean. 1968. European red mite and two-spotted spider mite
control on apple trees. J. Econ. Entomol. 61(4):1044-1046.
2. Asquith, Dean, and Larry A. Hull. 1973. Stethorus punctum and pest-
population responses to pesticide treatments on apple trees.
J. Econ. Entomol. 66(5):1197-1203.
3. Batiste, W. C., A. Berlowitz, and W. H. Olson. 1970. Evaluation of
insecticides for control of codling moth on pears in California
and their usefulness in an integrated control program. J. Econ.
Entomol. 63:1457-62.
4. Madsen, H. F. 1970. Insecticides for codling moth control and their
effect on other insects and mites of apple in British Columbia.
J. Econ. Entomol. 63:1521-23.
5. Madsen, H. F., and W. W. Davis. 1971. Further observations on the
integrated control of the fruittree leafroller (Lepidoptera:
Tortricidae) in British Columbia. Can. Entomol. 103:1517-19.
6. Mowery, Paul., Dean Asquith and William M. Bode. 1975. Computer
simulation for predicting the number of Stetorus punctum needed
to control the European red mite in Pennsylvania apple trees.
J. Econ. Entomol. 68(2):250-254.
-------
-69-
Exhibit 4
TEST METHOD FOR ACARICIDES IN FOLIAR APPLICATIONS TO APPLE TREES IN
THE CUMBERLAND-SHENANDOAH FRUIT BELT OF THE UNITED STATES~
Dean Asquith
The Pennsylvania State University
Fruit Research Laboratory
Biglerville, PA.
1. Scope:
1.1 Three species of mites, the European red mite, the twospotted
spider mite, and the Schoene spider mite, are common pests of apple trees
in the Cumberland-Shenandoah fruit growing region (1).
1.2 Three major predators of mites, Stethorus punctum, Amblyseius
fallac-is, and letzell-ia mali- are prevalent in some orchards in this region
and make it essential to consider the effects of acaricides on the predators
or on the balance of predators and prey in some trials. Some of the standard
methods described are useful in evaluating the effects of acaricides on
A. fallaais and Z. malij but special methods may be required to evaluate
their effects on S. punotum (4).
1.3 Acaricides may be divided into two groups with respect to their
stages of development and the methods used for evaluation. Testing new,
experimental acaricides must be restricted to small plots. While these
small plot tests provide information on the comparative effectiveness of
acaricides, they do not give information on performance under commercial
conditions. Acaricides in more advanced stages of development which have
received temporary, experimental registrations may be applied to larger
plots which more closely approximate grower use. Since techniques used
under these two conditions differ somewhat, they will be discussed sepa-
rately.
2. Equipment:
2.1 For orchard screening tests, a portable, high-pressure sprayer
equipped with a pump capable of delivering 25 to 35 gpm (95 to 132 liters)
at between 400 to 600 psi, a single or multi-compartmented tank, high-
pressure sprayhose and adjustable individual spray guns. If the test trees
are uniform in size, a spray-mast fitted with spray guns to thoroughly wet
the trees may be substituted for the sprayhose and individual spray guns
(2). The tank(s) should be designed for easy rinsing and if the tank is
divided into compartments, pipes and valves must be arranged to limit
delivery of spray mixture to the pump from only one compartment at a time.
2.2 The type of sprayer in 2.1 may be used for small scale commercial
tests of high volume sprays.
2.3 For orchard testing of low volume sprays on a commercial scale,
a portable airblast sprayer with a 100 gallon tank (378.5 liters) or larger,
-------
-70-
a pump capable of operating at 200 psi or higher at a capacity of 20 gpm
or more and an air delivery equal to or greater than 20,000 cfm at a
velocity of 80 mph (Sprayers with 2,5 times or more air delivery produce
more repeatable results.)
3. Screening tests with new acaricides:
3.1 Selection of the test orchard.
Initial screening of acaricides may best be conducted in plantings
of uniform size and variety. Tree size and planting distance should allow
each tree to be treated as a unit. Varieties chosen should be typical of
those common to the area and should include at least one variety known to
be highly susceptible to injury by pest mites. An infestation of pest
mites should be present on all trees before a test is started.
3.2 Plot size.
Initial screening of acaricides is best accomplished with a minimum of
4, single-tree replicates per treatment (2). Randomized blocks are desirable
for later analysis of results. In some situations, buffer trees to pre-
vent drift of spray from one treatment to another are desirable.
3.3 A standard treatment (one which has a background of information
on its performance) and an "untreated" check plot (no acaricides, but normal
insecticides) should be included. The check plot is needed to determine
the level of the mite infestation on which the acaricides are being tested (2).
The selection of a dosage of an experimental acaricide will depend
on available data, but frequently a range of dosages is desirable for
determining the optimum.
3.4 In initial screening tests, application of full-coverage, high
volume sprays by high-pressure equipment with handguns or a spray-mast is
most appropriate because of the small plot size. Trees should be sprayed
to the point of drip and care should be taken to avoid drift of spray to
adjacent test trees.
3.5 Sampling methods.
For the European red mite,.the twospotted spider mite, and the Schoene
spider mite, samples of 20 to 40 leaves per tree (replicate) give a reason-
able estimate of the population (3). Care should be taken to insure that
samples from different treatments, replicates, and dates are as uniform
as possible with respect to leaf age, leaf size, and area of selection from
the tree. It is desirable to sample the interior area (especially early
in the season) as well as the periphery of the tree, and all 4 quadrants of
the tree should be sampled equally.
A pre-treatment sample should be taken within the week preceding the
first spray to be sure all test trees are infested with the species of mite(s)
on which the acaricides are being tried.
-------
-71-
In the Cumberland-Shenandoah region, satisfactory evaluation
of the effect of new acaricides on pest mites can be made best by applying
two sprays within a period of 7 to 14 days depending on temperatures.
Following the sprays, samples should be taken within 6 to 8 days. Later
samples to follow development of mite populations on test trees may be taken
at slightly longer intervals.
A third spray after mite populations begin to recover on the
test trees may add significantly to information on effectiveness of new
acaricides. Samples at 10 to 14 day intervals should be taken for 30 to
40 days following the spray.
3.6 Counting methods.
Mites on leaf samples may be counted directly on the leaves or brushed
onto glass -plates with a mite brushing machine and counted. In either
case, use of a dissecting microscope is essential. These are the pre-
ferred methods where both phytophagous and predacious species are of
interest. The number of each species should be recorded separately, and
with certain acaricides or mite species it may be desirable to record the
number of eggs as well as active stages.
If a series of samples are taken at regular intervals, direct counts
of adult mites on the leaves by means of a magnifying headpiece may be
satisfactory for recording the effect of acaricides on mite populations.
The same counting method should be employed for samples from all treat-
ments on any one date.
3.7 The number of trials with each candidate acaricide will vary con-
siderably, but adequate trials should be conducted to permit accumulation
of data on:
a. Timing and dosage for best control.
b. Performance on various pest densities and stages.
c. Phytotoxicity to various cultivars at different growth stages,
d. Effects on non-target species.
3.8 Presenting results.
The average number of mites per leaf is the most preferable method of
presenting results. This allows the opportunity to relate populations to
treatment thresholds or economic injury levels, or to assess predator popu-
lations in relation to phytophagous mites.
3.9 Statistical analysis.
An analysis of variance and multiple range test to determine differences
between means are desirable (3).
-------
-72-
4. Large scale field tests:
By the time an acaricide receives an experimental registration,
several trials have been conducted on small plots and a considerable amount
of data has been collected on efficacy and phytotoxicity. It is then
desirable to observe its performance under typical commercial conditions,
4.1 Selection of test orchards.
Orchards should be selected which are representative of the varieties,
ages of trees, cultural practices and mite populations commonly encountered
throughout the area.
4.2 Plot size.
It is usually best to select plots of a size that match the size of the
tank on the sprayer. Plots of this size are usually not replicated in one
orchard, but replication may be accomplished in different orchards,
4.3 Experimental acaricides may be compared with a standard acaricide
applied in an adjacent area of the orchard. Untreated check plots are not
required for a valid comparison of treatment results.
4.4 Method of application.
All compounds reaching this stage of development should be tested under
a wide range of application techniques. This should include dilute and
concentrate air-carrier applications.
4.5 Sampling methods.
Sampling methods are generally similar to those used for small plots,
but two to four samples of 25 to 50 leaves per plot should be taken at each
date.
4.6 Counting methods, and methods of presenting results are the same
as for small plots. Analysis of the results with these large plots is
usually not possible because of the lack of true replication.
References
1. Asquith, Dean. 1955. Acaricides tests on apple in 1954. J. Econ.
Entomol. 48(3):329-330.
2. Asquith, Dean. 1968. European red mite and two-spotted spider mite
control on apple trees. J. Boon, Entomol, 61(4)-.1044-1046.
3. Asquith, Dean. 1973. European red mite control with some new
acaricides. J. Econ. Entomol. 66(1):237-240.
4. Asquith, Dean and Larry A. Hull. 1973. StetoTUS punctwn and pest
population responses to pesticide treatments on apple trees.
J. Econ. Entomol. 66(5):1197-1203.
-------
-73-
Exhibit 5
TEST METHOD FOR EVALUATING ACARICIDES UNDER ORCHARD CONDITIONS FOR
~DECIDUOUS FRUIT TREES IN THE NORTHEASTERN U.S.~
S. E. Lienk and P, J. Chapman
N.Y. State Agricultural Experiment Station
Geneva, New York
1.
1,1 Products intended for the control of orchard mites may be
evaluated under orchard conditions with a relatively high degree of
accuracy. The test method described is designed to determine effective-
ness and possible phytotoxic effects of candidate acaricides to control
orchard mites. The method proposed has the advantage of combining the
precision of laboratory testing with the actual use of the product under
orchard pest control operations.
1.2 In the Northeastern United States at least seven species of
tetranychid mites have been reported to occur on fruit trees. These are
the European red mite, Panonychus ulmi (Koch), twospotted spider mite,
Tetranyahus urt'icae Koch, Schoene spider mite, T. sahoenei McGregor,
fourspotted spider mite, T. aanadensis (McGregor), McDaniel spider mite,
T. mcdan-Lell McGregor, Carman spider mite, Eotetranychus unaatus Carman,
and the brown mite_, Bryobi-a arborea M&A. Although all may at times
necessitate control, the European red mite, twospotted spider mite and
Schoene spider mite are of general economic concern. As a rule most
acaricides effective against one tetranychid species will prove equally
effective against the other six. There are, however, exceptions. Lienk
(1965 and 1966, unpublished data) found that some numbered candidate
acaricides were highly effective against the European red mite and only
slightly so against the two spotted spider mite. This was also the case
with the organophosphorous material phosalone. The testing procedure
described is based on experience obtained principally on populations of
the European red mite (1 & 2).
2. Testing Methods
2.1 Conditions. To use the method described below, the following
conditions must be met:
2.la Availability of naturally occurring populations of orchard
mites. (Experience has shown these conditions are most often found on
private (grower) property. Also required are provisions to destroy; all
fruit treated with unregistered materials.
2.Ib Availability of a commercial hydraulic orchard sprayer
and preferably one which can be accurately calibrated down to 25 gallons
of finished test spray mixture.
-------
-74-
2.1c A vital condition to be met is that the evaluations be
made while the mite population is in its ascendancy. These populations
will include a substantial number of summer eggs.
3. Testing Procedure
3.1 Experience has shown that fruit trees of the same variety, vigor
and prior pesticidal treatment before the initiation of the test will bear
essentially identical populations. This assumption can be readily con-
firmed by visual inspection.
3.2 The experimental unit need be no more than one or two trees.
3.3 The tree(s) are sprayed with a spray gun from the ground. The
object is to ensure complete coverage of the test tree. This is accom-
plished by the operator first taking a position near the trunk of the test
tree(s) and completely covering its inside surface. This is followed by
the operator circling the tree from the outside so that the outer surface
of the tree's canopy is completely covered. The applications so made
would be considered "oversprayed" by commercial standards. This procedure
is followed, however, to ensure that the material itself is being evaluated
rather than the material plus variable spray coverage.
4. Treatment Evaluation
4.1 The mite population on treated and untreated trees is deter-
mined on a minimum of two occasions, viz., two or three days after treat-
ment, and ten to twelve days after treatment. Mite population records are
taken directly in the orchard by a team, preferably, of at least four ob-
servers .
4.2 The equipment needed consists of a portable table, collecting
trays, stools, and a binocular microscope for each observer.
4.3 A sub-sample of ten leaves is taken independently by each ob-
server from the test tree(s). The sample consists of full-size spur leaves
taken approximately chest high. All quadrants of the tree are represented
in the sample.
4.4 The number of living mites present per leaf, including quiescent
forms, is determined by direct examination. In general, this initial
count provides information on the direct effect of the treatment against
the hatched forms present at the time of treatment. It also may show the
shortrange effect of residues against newly hatched forms.
4.5 The same procedure is followed in the 10-12 day count. Since
the incubation period of untreated summer eggs of the European red mite
ranges from 3 to 8 days in midsummer, this later record provides information
on the possible ovicidal or residual activity of the test material, or both.
The former effect can be determined by the presence of unhatched eggs; the
latter, by their absence.
-------
-75-
4.6 If a product is believed to have some long residual action it
may be advantageous to make a 3rd count approximately 3 weeks after appli-
cation, however, we have not found it necessary in our recent evaluations,
4.5 The data obtained in the foregoing effort are susceptible to
statistical analyses using the individual records of the four observers
as replicates.
References
1. P. J. Chapman, and S. E. Lienk. 1950. Orchard mite control experi-
ments in Western New York. J. Econ. Entomol. 43:309-14.
2. S. E. Lienk, and P. J. Chapman. 1952. Evaluations of acaricides
against three species of orchard mites. J. Econ. Entomol.
45:292-7.
-------
-76-
Exhibit 6
TEST METHOD FOR TESTING ACARICIDES IN FOLIAR APPLICATIONS TO APPLE AND
OTHER DECIDUOUS FRUIT TREES IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES~ ~
Stanley C. Hoyt M. M, Barnes P. H. Westigard
Washington State University and University of California and Or, Agr, Exp. Sta.
Wenatchee, WA. Riverside, CA. Medford, OR.
1. Scope:
1.1 Several species of mites attack apple and other deciduous fruit
trees in the western United States. Most of these species commonly in-
habit the foliage during the growing season. The most common species that
attack foliage are: brown mite, Bryobia rubrioculus (Schueten), McDaniel
spider mite, Tetranychus me danieli McGregor, European red mite, Panonychus
ulmi (Koch), Pacific spider mite, Tetranychus paoificus McGregor, two-
spotted spider mite, Tetranycus urticae Koch, and apple rust mite, Aoulus
sohlechtendali (Nalepa). Methods of evaluating control of these species
are discussed. A few species which attack the fruit require special tech-
niques . These will not be included in the present discussion (1, 2, 3).
1.2 The prevalence and importance of predacious mites in many apple
growing areas of the west make it essential to consider the effects of
acaricides on the predators or on the balance of predators and prey in some
trials. The most important species of predacious mites in western orchards
is Metaseilus accidentalis (Nesbitt). Other species of importance in some
localities are Zetzellia mali (Ewing), Neoseiulus caudiglans (Schuster),
Metaseilus mo gregori and Typhloseiopsis arboreus. Occasionally Stethovus
picipes Casey, an insect predator of mites, is important late in the
season. Some of the standard methods described are useful in evaluating
the effects of acaricides on these predators (1).
1.3 Acaricides may be divided into two groups with respect to their
stages of development and the methods used for evaluation. Testing new,
experimental acaricides must be restricted to small plots. While these
small plot tests provide information on the comparative effectiveness of
acaricides, they do not give information on performance under commercial
conditions. Acaricides in more advanced stages of development which have
received temporary, experimental registrations may be applied to larger
plots which more closely approximate grower use. Since techniques used
under these two conditions differ somewhat, they will be discussed separately.
2. Equipment:
2.1 For orchard screening tests, a portable, high-pressure sprayer
equipped with a pump capable of delivering 7 gpm (26.5 liters) or more at
between 400 to 600 psi a single or multi-compartmented tank, high-pressure
sprayhose and adjustable spray guns. The tank(s) should be designed for
easy rinsing and if compartmented the arrangement of pipes and valves must
limit delivery of spray mixture to the pump from only one compartment at
a time.
-------
-77-
2.2 For orchard testing of high volume sprays on a commercial scale
a portable airblast sprayer with a 300-500 gallon tank (1135,5 to 1892,5
liters), a pump capable of delivering 70 to 100 gallons (283.87 to 378.5
liters) per minute, and an air delivery equal to 40,000 to 100,000 cfm at
a velocity of 80 mph.
2.3 For orchard testing of low volume sprays on a commercial scale,
a portable airblast sprayer with a 100 gallon tank (378.5 liters) or
larger, a pump capable of operating at 80 psi or higher with a capacity of
20 gpm or more and an air delivery equal to or greater than 20,000 cfm
at a velocity of 110-130 mph.
3. Screening tests with new acaricides:
3.1 Selection of the test orchard.
Initial screening acaricides may best be conducted in younger (7-12
year old) planting of uniform size and variety. Younger plantings are
desirable for 2 reasons: (1) to minimize the crop contaminated with
experimental materials and (2) to insure thorough and uniform coverage
of the trees. Tree size and planting distance should allow each tree to
be treated as a unit. Varieties chosen should be typical of those common
to the area. Mite density and stage of development should be relatively
uniform throughout the test orchard.
3.2 Plot size.
Initial screening of acaricides can be accomplished with a minimum
of 3, single-tree replicates per treatment where uniformity occurs. The
number of replicates should be increased where tree age, variety, rootstock
or mite populations vary. The use of randomized blocks is desirable for
later analysis of results. In some situations it may be desirable to use
buffer trees around the test plot to prevent drift from treatment of
adjacent orchards.
3.3 Both a standard treatment (one which has a background of informa-
tion on its performance) and an "untreated" check plot (no acaricides, but
normal insecticides) should be included for comparison with experimental
materials.
The selection of a dosage of an experimental acaricide will depend
on available data, but frequently a range of dosages is desirable if space
and time permit.
3.4 In initial screening studies, application of full-coverage, dilute
sprays by high-pressure equipment and handguns is most appropriate because
of the small plot size. Trees should be sprayed to the point of drip and
care should be taken to avoid drift to adjacent trees.
-------
-78-
3,5 Sampling methods.
The sampling techniques used will be dependent on the species of
mite involved and its habits, the time of treatments, and the type of
injury to the host.
For most leaf inhabiting species, samples of 20 to 40 leaves per
tree (replicate) give a reasonable estimate of the population. Care should
be taken to insure that samples from different treatments, replicates and
dates are as uniform as possible with respect to leaf age, leaf size and
area of selection from the tree. With most species it is desirable to
sample the interior area as well as the preiphery of the tree, and all 4
quadrants of the tree should be sampled equally. For the brown mite, leaf
samples should be taken during the warmer part of the day as the mites
retreat to the wood during cooler periods.
With pre-bloom treatments for species such as European red mite,
a pretreatment estimate of populations can be obtained by counting the
number of eggs on 10 to 20 fruit spurs per tree. In this case post-
treatment samples are not usually taken for 30 to 60 days after treatment.
With foliar applications of acaricides, a pre-treatment sample should
be taken no more than 5 days prior to treatment. The first post-treatment
sample may be taken 5 to 7 days after treatment, and subsequent samples
at 7 to 14 day intervals.
3.6 Counting methods.
Mites on leaf samples may be counted directly on the leaves or brushed
onto glass plates with a mite brushing machine and counted. In either case,
use of a dissecting microscope is essential. These are the preferred
methods where both phytophagous and predacious species are of interest.
The number of each species should be recorded separately, and with certain
acaricides or mite species it may be desirable to record the number of
eggs as well as active stages.
Another procedure which may be useful where time does not permit
counting is to determine the percentage of leaves infested. This method
is less satisfactory, but results are correlated to direct counts where
populations are low to moderate.
The imprint method is not satisfactory where more than one species
is to be counted.
3.7 Each trial consists of one application of candidate acaricides
followed by evaluation counts of mites. The number of trials with each
candidate acaricide will vary considerably, but adequate trials should be
conducted to permit accumulation of data on:
a. Timing and dosage for best control.
b. Performance on various pest densities and stages,
-------
-79-
c, Phytotoxicity to various cultivars at different growth
stages.
d. Effects on non-target species.
3.8 Presenting results.
The average number of mites per leaf is the most preferable method
of presenting results. This allows the opportunity to relate populations
to treatment thresholds or economic injury levels, or to assess predator
populations in relation to phytophagous mites.
3.9 Statistical analysis.
An analysis of variance and multiple range test to determine differences
between means are desirable. If means alone are provided, they should
accompanied by the standard deviation.
4. Large scale field tests:
By the time an acaricide receives an experimental registration, several
trials have been conducted on small plots and a considerable amount of
data has been collected on efficacy and phytotoxicity. It is then desirable
to observe its performance under typical commercial conditions.
4.1 Selection of test orchards.
Several orchards should be selected which are representative of the
varieties, ages of trees, cultural practices and mite populations commonly
encountered throughout the area.
4.2 Plot size.
Generally plots one to two acres in size are adequate to approximate
commercial conditions. Plots of this size are usually not replicated in
one orchard, but replication may be accomplished in different orchards.
4.3 Experimental acaricides may be compared with a standard acaricide
applied in an adjacent area of the orchard. Where grower cooperation permits,
comparison with a small, untreated check plot is desirable.
4.4 Method of application.
All compounds reaching this stage of development should be tested
under a wide range of application techniques. This should include dilute
and concentrate air-carrier applications, and aerial applications if this
method is to be used for commercial application of acaricides.
-------
-80-
4.5 Sampling methods.
Sampling methods are generally similar to those used for small plots,
but two to four samples of 25 to 50 leaves per plot should be taken at
each date.
4.6 Counting methods, and methods of presenting results are the same
as for small plots. Analysis of the results with these large plots is
usually not possible because of the lack of true replication.
References
1. Batiste, W. C., and A. Berlowitz. 1969. European red mite and two-
spotted spider mite control on apples in California, J, Econ,
EntomoZ. 62:779-81.
2. Ellertson, F. E. 1960. Evaluation of chemicals for control of a spider
mite complex on cherry and peach, J. Econ. EntomoZ. 53:522-26,
3. Hoyt, S. C. 1969. Integrated chemical control of insects and
biological control of mites on apples in Washington. J. Eaon.
Entomol. 62:74-86.
u.b. GOVERNMENT HUNTING OFFICE
— 1977-720-117/1931/3-1
------- |