For 2020 and newer grants, please go to https://grants.ipmcenters.org/
Home       Current RFAs       PD User Guide       Projects       Login

Funded Project

Funding Program: Regional IPM Competitive Grants - Northeastern

Project Title: Development of Advanced IPM for Northeastern Apples

Project Directors (PDs): Daniel R. Cooley [1] Wesley Autio [2] Tracy C. Leskey [3] Harvey Reissig [4]

Lead State: MA Lead Organization: University of Massachusetts

Cooperating State(s): New York, West Virginia

Extension Funding: $31,532

Research Funding: $133,094

Start Date: Sep-01-2009 End Date: Sep-30-2012

No-Cost Extension Date: Feb-29-2012

Pests Involved: plum curculios, apple maggots, leafrollers, Lepidoptera, apple scab, sooty blotch, flyspeck, disease

Site/Commodity: apples, tree fruit

Area of Emphasis: thinning

Summary: A partnership among land-grant and USDA researchers, Extension and growers, has brought a unique skill set into development of an advanced integrated pest management (IPM) protocol for apples. The collaborators, including several growers, have worked on development of individual components of this system over recent years. The unique aspect of this project is it brings the most promising of these tactics together in a single management system. While the vast majority of apple growers in the Northeast use IPM tactics, progress in reducing toxic chemical inputs has stalled in recent years. The proposed system will introduce advanced IPM tactics that eliminate use of organophosphate pesticides, minimize the use of pesticides in general, and moves towards practical biointensive alternatives. The most important apple pests, including plum curculio, apple maggot, leafrollers and internal Lepidoptera, apple scab and the sooty blotch/flyspeck disease complex, will be addressed. The project also stretches beyond pest management per se to test alternative fruit thinning methods that will eliminate use of a carbamate pesticide. Because researchers in the project also have Extension appointments or significant experience with Extension, and have developed on-farm research and demonstration collaborations with growers, successful tactics will rapidly move into commercial use. Web-based communication will facilitate research and will provide collaborating growers and eventually the industry in general with access to ways to implement advanced IPM. Traditional Extension methods, including widely read newsletters and journals, well-attended meetings, and on-farm demonstrations will insure broad industry awareness of the program. Objectives: Research objective Develop appropriate, advanced IPM tools for key apple pests in the Northeast that will reduce pesticide use and allow the use of less toxic materials where pesticides are necessary. a. Plum curculio - use a trap tree approach to replace general orchard sprays. b. Apple maggot - use pesticide-treated sphere traps for management rather than general orchard sprays. c. Obliquebanded leafrollers and internal Lepidoptera - use seasonal fruit monitoring programs for optimizing insecticide treatments. d. Eliminate OPs and use pesticides with fewer non-target impacts. e. Apple scab - use potential ascospore dose, inoculum destruction and degree-day model to delay initial fungicide applications in the following season and end applications when unnecessary. f. Sooty blotch and flyspeck - develop model-directed applications of reduced-risk fungicides. g. Enhance fruit thinning without the use of carbaryl - develop effective approaches that do not use carbaryl as a thinning agent. Extension objective Promote adoption of advanced apple IPM methods through grower demonstrations, educational meetings and publications, and a web site. Proposal USDA CRIS research data USDA CRIS extension data

Interim Report: Dec-14-2010

Outcomes For the participating growers there were significant changes in knowledge and actions for all pest groups in the study. For apple scab, many of the growers learned how to conduct potential ascospore dose (PAD) assessments. Seven of the growers had low enough levels of scab to qualify for delayed first sprays in the spring. Six of them decided to delay for an average of 8 days. Six of them performed sanitation before bud-break, and all used weather data, infection periods, and disease models to guide management decisions. Table 1 shows the detailed results of the delayed first spray strategy for the first year of the study. As a result there was an average 16.5 % reduction in fungicide use for scab in the advanced IPM blocks as compared to the standard standard blocks, and no difference in scab damage to fruit. The damage at harvest and the numbers of sprays associated with each key pest for the advanced IPM and standard blocks are shown in Tables 2 and 3, and are summarized below.. Summer diseases: All 11 growers used weather-driven models to time fungicide sprays. There was a 22.6 % reduction in summer disease sprays in the advanced IPM blocks. Damage to fruit at harvest was greater in the advanced IPM block at only 1 of 10 orchards. Plum curculio: All blocks received full block sprays at petal fall. After that only trap trees were sprayed in the advanced IPM blocks, resulting in a 35.7 % reduction in pesticide use in those blocks. Two of the advanced IPM blocks had high damage levels at harvest. These were also blocks with high frost damage with a consequent reduction in pesticide applications. Internal Lepidoptera (codling moth and oriental fruit moth) and leafrollers: fruit were monitored repeatedly during the season to time sprays. Damage at harvest by moth larvae and early leafrollers was low in all blocks. Damage by late leafrollers was high in some advanced IPM blocks and some standard blocks. Sprays for leafrollers were reduced in advanced IPM blocks. Apple maggot: red spheres treated with a low-risk insecticide and fruit volatiles were placed around the perimeter of advanced IPM blocks. Adult flies were trapped on sticky spheres to check for penetration into the blocks of trees. No sprays were applied for this pest in advanced IPM blocks in 6 of the 10 blocks. High numbers of flies trapped on sticky traps and higher than average levels of damaged fruit at harvest in a few orchards can be attributed in part to populations that built up from 2009 hail and frost damage and severely reduced spray programs. However, in 2010, the reduction in apple maggot sprays in advanced IPM blocks as compared to standard blocks was a formidable 71.4 %. Some orchards had resident populations of PC or AM, which compromised the effectiveness of the management tactics, as they rely on the assumption that the major threat from these species is represented by individuals immigrating into the block from external areas. Evidently, the spray programs used were not always adequate given the level of pest pressure present, even in the standard blocks. As a side observation, it was noted that much of the AM damage detected consisted of punctures only, with no tunnels or larvae apparent. Actual harvest damage numbers are shown in Table 2. The number of sprays applied against targeted key pests in the Advanced IPM blocks and the Grower Standard blocks are shown in Table 3. Website: http://newa.cornell.edu. During the first year of the study we have added many weather stations to the NEWA network. Project scientists have expanded advanced apple IPM content. Publications: Agnello, A., and H. Reissig, 2010. Development and validation of a "real-time" apple IPM website for New York. New York Fruit Quarterly 18(2): 25-28. Autio, W.R., J.M. Clements, and W.P. Cowgill, Jr., 2010. A look at fruit thinning weather in 2010. Fruit Notes 75(3): 3-6. Diaz, M., J. C. Batzer, A. A. Wong, S. C. Bost, D. R. Cooley, M. A. Ellis, J. R. Hartman, D. A. Rosenberger, G. W. Sundin, T. B. Sutton, J. W. Travis, M. J. Wheeler, K. S. Yoder, M. L. Gleason. 2009. Diversity and biogeography of sooty blotch and flyspeck fungi on apple in the eastern and midwestern United States. Phytopathology 100 (4): 345-355. Cooley, D.R. and J. Clements. 2009. Effective use of models in the management of sooty blotch and flyspeck. Fruit Notes 74(1-4): 19-31 Green, T., M. Rozyne, A. Tuttle, J. Carroll, J. Clements K. Leahy and D. R. Cooley. 2010. Eco-apple protocol and grower self-assessment. Working document for 2010 growing season -- version 5.2 (Revised annually). IPM Institute of North America, Inc., Madison, WI. 30 pp. http://www.redtomato.org/PDF/Protocol.pdf Cooley, D. R., M. Rozyne, H. Reissig and A. Agnello, 2010. AD-421. Progress report for "A pest management program using reduced-risk pesticides, Eco-apple protocols, and value added marketing for NY and New England growers." MAS0200603526. 2 pp. Piñero, J.C., A. Agnello, A. Tuttle, T. Leskey, H. Faubert, G. Koehler, G. Morin, K. Leahy, L. Loss, D. Cooley, and R. Prokopy, 2010. Effectiveness of odor-baited trap trees for plum curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) monitoring in commercial apple orchards in the Northeast. Submitted to J. Econ. Entomol. Presentations: Cooley, D. R., 2009. Using potential ascospore dose to reduce fungicide use in apples in the Northeast." 72nd Annual New England, New York, Canadian Fruit Pest Management Workshop, Burlington, VT, October 21, 2009 Cooley, D. R., 2009. Issues in managing the sooty blotch and flyspeck disease complex on apples. 86th Annual Cumberland-Shenandoah Fruit Workers Conference, Winchester, VA, Nov. 19, 2009. Cooley, D. R. 2009. Biointensive IPM and disease management in apples. New England Vegetable & Fruit Meetings, December 16, 2009, Manchester, NH, 150 in attendance. Published in the Proceedings of the New England Vegetable & Fruit Conference. 2009. Cooley, D. R., 2010. Advances in IPM for apples. Mid-America Fruit Growers Conference, January 12-14, Nebraska City, NE. Cooley, D. R. and Jon Clements, 2010. String Theories, Fuzzy Logic and Forecasting: Inconsistencies Applying Empirical Plant Disease Models. Annual Workshop of the North Central Regional IPM Working Group, Aug. 5, 2010, Charlotte, NC. Cooley, D.R., 2010. Fruit tree disease management, early season. Grower meetings at Belchertown, MA (4/20), Londonderry, NH (4/21), and E. Greenwich, RI (4/22). Cooley, D.R., 2010. Using Forecast models in summer disease management. Grower meetings at Ashfield, MA (6/15), Tewksbury, MA (6/16), Cranston, RI (6/17). Cooley, D.R., 2010. Advances in apple scab and summer disease management. Summer meeting of the Massachusetts Fruit Growers Association, Belchrtown, MA, July 15. Cooley, D.R., and J. Clements, 2010. Inconsistencies in sooty blotch and flyspeck models. 72nd Annual New England, New York, and Canadian Fruit Pest Management Workshop, Burlington, VT. Oct. 20. Jentsch, P. 2010. Internal worms, got them or not and why? And, using the NEWA website for management Summer meeting of the Massachusetts Fruit Growers Association, Belchrtown, MA, July 15. Tuttle, A.F. and D.R. Cooley, 2010. Development of advanced integrated pest management for northeastern apples. 72nd Annual New England, New York, and Canadian Fruit Pest Management Workshop, Burlington, VT. Oct. 20. Tuttle, A.F., 2010. Integrated pest management for apples. Orchard tour and lecture for Sustainable Agriculture class of Holyoke Community College, May 11.

Impacts As the project matures and these advanced IPM techniques are improved and more fully adopted, these pesticide reductions among the groups of pests will contribute to changes in conditions: a safer food supply and a cleaner environment. At this early stage of the project, a primary impact is to increase knowledge about key apple pests and advanced IPM strategies for these pests among participating growers and those growers and other stakeholders who have attended our presentations, read our publications, and used the newa.cornell.edu website. Additionally, all 11 participating growers and perhaps 20 more growers who are early adopters have performed these advanced IPM strategies and have therefore changed their behaviors. All of the advanced IPM practices in our protocols could be adopted as a direct result of this project. The commercial apple acreage in the Northeast is approximately 100,000 acres. We anticipate adoption of some of these practices on about 25% of the acreage in New England and about 10% of the acreage in other states. The project has eliminated the use of organophosphate pesticides and is preparing to eliminate carbamates in 2011. Depending on the pest, the advanced IPM practices resulted in reductions in numbers of sprays of 16 to 71 % when compared to standard IPM practices. Use of reduced-risk pesticides is an important component of the study. By reduced-risk we are referring to reduced-risk for natural enemies, farm workers, consumers. Economic benefits to farmers of these advanced IPM practices are by way of reduced numbers of sprays and by access to niche markets. These savings are offset in part by higher costs of new reduced-risk pesticides and labor-intensive aspects of some IPM strategies. This work could generate jobs for independent consultants in the Northeast. Some of the strategies, such as the pesticide-treated sphere for apple maggot could be turned into a profit-making business. Implementation of approximately 10 IPM strategies has begun on 11 commercial orchards in New York and New England. All 11 growers and some of their staff have received training and have been satisfied with the project to date. All have decided to continue next year. During winter 2011 we will continue to analyze and discuss results and in 2011 will validate improved strategies and continue our outreach efforts. At the end of the study we will attempt to evaluate further implementation and impacts.

Report Appendices Progress Report 2010 [PDF]

Final Report:

Outcomes Advanced IPM protocols were developed and tested for apple scab disease (AS), summer diseases (SBFS), plum curculio (PC), apple maggot (AMF), leafrollers (mainly OBLR) and the internal Lepidoptera [codling moth (CM), oriental fruit moth (OFM)], and chemical thinning without Carbaryl, in 12 apple orchards in New England and New York. From March through November each year, project scientists were in close contact with each other and with owners and staff of the 12 orchards. On-site pest and damage sampling and grower consultations were conducted almost weekly. Surveys were conducted of damage to fruit at harvest (500-1000 fruit per block, depending on block size). One block of trees (3-5 acres) was dedicated in each orchard to the Advanced IPM protocols (Test block). One was managed according to the grower's standard practices (Check block). Growers were trained in use of weather stations, pest models, and information available from websites: http://extension.umass.edu/fruitadvisor/, http://treefruitipm.info/), and the NEWA website (http://newa.cornell.edu). For AS, potential ascospore dose assessments (PAD) were performed each Fall to help growers spray less at the start of scab season the next Spring. Leaf sanitation was performed before bud break. Fungicide resistance management, Modified Mills infection periods, and degree-day models were were used. For SBFS, sprays were model-directed. Accumulated leaf wetness hours and rainfall depletion of spray residues were model inputs. A trap-tree approach was used with a degree-day model for PC to replace general orchard sprays. Trap trees, at 25 m spacing, were baited with PC aggregation pheromone and synthetic host plant volatiles. After a full block spray at petal fall, PC sprays in Test blocks were applied only to trap trees. Attracticidal spheres, placed along the outside of perimeter trees in the Test blocks (8 m spacing), were used for AMF to replace orchard sprays. Each sphere was baited with synthetic apple volatiles as a lure. For OBLR and CM/OFM, fruit was monitored through the season to optimize insecticide treatments. Organophosphate insecticides were eliminated for all pests in Advanced IPM blocks in favor of materials with fewer non-target impacts. Apples were thinned without Carbaryl (a carbamate thinner/insecticide) in Test blocks in 2011 according to a carbohydrate model. In summary, an advanced IPM system was developed and tested successfully with a group of 12 orchards and ten scientists over a 2.5-year period in 5 states. IPM methods, techniques, and predictive models were tested and improved. Growers, their staff, and the scientists learned much from each other. Additional outreach included publications, presentations, and workshops at grower meetings and other venues throughout the Northeast. Over 30 presentations were made to a total of about 2025 people. During 2012, pesticide records for both years and both types of blocks were recorded and analyzed.

Impacts For growers there were changes in knowledge/actions regarding weather stations, pest prediction models, IPM and weather websites, 5 pest groups and fruit thinning. For scab disease (AS), growers learned to conduct PAD assessments. Six growers in year 1 delayed the 1st spray an average of 8 days. Eight delayed in year 2 an average of 5.4 days. Sanitation was performed by 6 growers in 2010 and 8 in 2011. Fungicide for scab was reduced 21% (calculated as dosage equivalents) in Test blocks in 2010 and 2.5% in 2011. In 2010 the average % fruit with scab damage was 0.8 for Test and 1.7 for Checks. In 2011 it was 0.8 for Test and 0.9 for Checks. For summer diseases (SBFS), 12 growers used the new model to time sprays. Rainfall depletion of spray residues, and accumulation of leaf wetness hours were key. The average % fruit with SBFS was below 1.0% both years for both types of blocks. For plum curculio (PC), there was a reduction of insecticide of 15% in 2010 and 5% in 2011 in Test blocks. Average % damaged fruit in Test blocks was 4.8 in 2010 and 3.9 in 2011. For Checks it was 2.3% in 2010 and 2.9% in 2011. For apple maggot (AMF), use of traps in year 1 did not provide control compared with insecticide treatments: there was an average of 5.3% injury in Test blocks compared with 2.3% in Checks. 4 of 10 growers elected to spray in Test blocks. In Year 2, traps performed much better in Test blocks. There was an average of 1.0% injury in Test blocks vs. 0.9% in Checks. No growers sprayed in Test blocks. The % reductions in insectide were 70% in year 1 and 54% in year 2. For OBLR, CM and OFM, fruit were monitored repeatedly to optimize insecticide treatments. Pheromone trap capture patterns and incidence of damage were used to determine choice and timing of materials. In year 1, average % early fruit damage by OBLR was below 0.1% for both blocks. Late season damage was 3.9% for Test blocks and 0.6% for Checks. In year 2, early season OBLR damage was 0.6% in Test blocks and 0.8% in Checks. Late damage was 0.3% in Test blocks and 1.25% in Checks. Damage by CM/OFM was below 0.5% in all blocks for both years. Sprays were minimal. In 2010, a study on reduced-risk chemical thinning concluded that the addition of Carbaryl to thinning sprays did not result in greater thinning. In 2011, 7 growers eliminated Carbaryl from their programs in McIntosh Test blocks. Starting at green tip, daily max and min temperatures and solar radiation were recorded from on-site weather stations. At bloom, this data was run through a carbohydrate thinning model every 3 days. Growers were given recommendations for timing and rates of materials (NAA or BA). Growers who eliminated Carbaryl did not notice differences in fruit color. At 3 of 6 sites where harvest samples were taken, Test block apples weighed slightly less. 2011 was an atypically cloudy and rainy thinning season. Some growers used no thinners. The advanced IPM methods and techniques developed in this study can lead to significant reductions in pesticide inputs for all 5 pest groups and for chemical thinning. Continued outreach will contribute to changes in conditions: a safer food supply and a cleaner environment.

Close Window

Northeastern IPM Center 340 Tower Road Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 NortheastIPM.org		Developed by the Center for IPM © Copyright CIPM 2004-2026