RESULTS FROM FUNGICIDE TRIALS IN THE HUDSON VALLEY

Transcription

1 RESULTS FROM FUNGICIDE TRIALS IN THE HUDSON VALLEY Data from 2013 Field Trials Dave Rosenberger, Plant Pathologist Cornell University's Hudson Valley Laboratory PO Box 727, Highland, NY Tel: Fax: Cell phone: Technical Assistants Anne Rugh Peninah Feldman Jane Kostina Dina Truncali Administrative Assistant Orchard & Facility Maintenance Data Analyst Donna Clark Albert Woelfersheim Fritz Meyer Jeff DiMetro Final Report November 13, 2013

2 2013%Weather%Data (from%the%newa%station%at%the%hudson%valley%lab) Page%1 Day Date Avg Temp (F) Max Temp (F) Min Temp (F) LW hours Total Rain (in) RH Hrs>=90% Avg Wind Speed (mph) Solar Rad (langley) Mon 4/1/ Tues 4/2/ WED 4/3/ Thur 4/4/ Fri 4/5/ Sat 4/6/ Sun 4/7/ Mon 4/8/ Tues 4/9/ WED 4/10/ Thur 4/11/ Fri 4/12/ Sat 4/13/ Sun 4/14/ Mon 4/15/ Tues 4/16/ WED 4/17/ Thur 4/18/ Fri 4/19/ Sat 4/20/ Sun 4/21/ Mon 4/22/ Tues 4/23/ WED 4/24/ Thur 4/25/ Fri 4/26/ Sat 4/27/ Sun 4/28/ Mon 4/29/ Tues 4/30/ WED 5/1/ Thur 5/2/ Fri 5/3/ Sat 5/4/ Sun 5/5/ Mon 5/6/ Tues 5/7/ WED 5/8/ Thur 5/9/

3 2013%Weather%Data (from%the%newa%station%at%the%hudson%valley%lab) Page%2 Day Date Avg Temp (F) Max Temp (F) Min Temp (F) LW hours Total Rain (in) RH Hrs>=90% Avg Wind Speed (mph) Solar Rad (langley) Fri 5/10/ Sat 5/11/ Sun 5/12/ Mon 5/13/ Tues 5/14/ WED 5/15/ Thur 5/16/ Fri 5/17/ Sat 5/18/ Sun 5/19/ Mon 5/20/ Tues 5/21/ WED 5/22/ Thur 5/23/ Fri 5/24/ Sat 5/25/ Sun 5/26/ Mon 5/27/ Tues 5/28/ WED 5/29/ Thur 5/30/ Fri 5/31/ Sat 6/1/ Sun 6/2/ Mon 6/3/ Tues 6/4/ WED 6/5/ Thur 6/6/ Fri 6/7/ Sat 6/8/ Sun 6/9/ Mon 6/10/ Tues 6/11/ WED 6/12/ Thur 6/13/ Fri 6/14/ Sat 6/15/ Sun 6/16/ Mon 6/17/

4 2013%Weather%Data (from%the%newa%station%at%the%hudson%valley%lab) Page%3 Day Date Avg Temp (F) Max Temp (F) Min Temp (F) LW hours Total Rain (in) RH Hrs>=90% Avg Wind Speed (mph) Solar Rad (langley) Tues 6/18/ WED 6/19/ Thur 6/20/ Fri 6/21/ Sat 6/22/ Sun 6/23/ Mon 6/24/ Tues 6/25/ WED 6/26/ Thur 6/27/ Fri 6/28/ Sat 6/29/ Sun 6/30/ Mon 7/1/ Tues 7/2/ WED 7/3/ Thur 7/4/ Fri 7/5/ Sat 7/6/ Sun 7/7/ Mon 7/8/ Tues 7/9/ WED 7/10/ Thur 7/11/ Fri 7/12/ Sat 7/13/ Sun 7/14/ Mon 7/15/ Tues 7/16/ WED 7/17/ Thur 7/18/ Fri 7/19/ Sat 7/20/ Sun 7/21/ Mon 7/22/ Tues 7/23/ WED 7/24/ Thur 7/25/ Fri 7/26/

5 2013%Weather%Data (from%the%newa%station%at%the%hudson%valley%lab) Page%4 Day Date Avg Temp (F) Max Temp (F) Min Temp (F) LW hours Total Rain (in) RH Hrs>=90% Avg Wind Speed (mph) Solar Rad (langley) Sat 7/27/ Sun 7/28/ Mon 7/29/ Tues 7/30/ WED 7/31/ Thur 8/1/ Fri 8/2/ Sat 8/3/ Sun 8/4/ Mon 8/5/ Tues 8/6/ WED 8/7/ Thur 8/8/ Fri 8/9/ Sat 8/10/ Sun 8/11/ Mon 8/12/ Tues 8/13/ WED 8/14/ Thur 8/15/ Fri 8/16/ Sat 8/17/ Sun 8/18/ Mon 8/19/ Tues 8/20/ WED 8/21/ Thur 8/22/ Fri 8/23/ Sat 8/24/ Sun 8/25/ Mon 8/26/ Tues 8/27/ WED 8/28/ Thur 8/29/ Fri 8/30/ Sat 8/31/ Sun 9/1/ Mon 9/2/ Tues 9/3/

6 2013%Weather%Data (from%the%newa%station%at%the%hudson%valley%lab) Page%5 Day Date Avg Temp (F) Max Temp (F) Min Temp (F) LW hours Total Rain (in) RH Hrs>=90% Avg Wind Speed (mph) Solar Rad (langley) WED 9/4/ Thur 9/5/ Fri 9/6/ Sat 9/7/ Sun 9/8/ Mon 9/9/ Tues 9/10/ WED 9/11/ Thur 9/12/ Fri 9/13/ Sat 9/14/ Sun 9/15/ Mon 9/16/ Tues 9/17/ WED 9/18/ Thur 9/19/ Fri 9/20/ Sat 9/21/ Sun 9/22/ Mon 9/23/ Tues 9/24/ WED 9/25/ Thur 9/26/ Fri 9/27/ Sat 9/28/ Sun 9/29/ Mon 9/30/ Tues 10/1/ WED 10/2/ Thur 10/3/ Fri 10/4/ Sat 10/5/ Sun 10/6/ Mon 10/7/ Tues 10/8/ WED 10/9/ Thur 10/10/ Fri 10/11/ Sat 10/12/ Sun 10/13/ Mon 10/14/ Tues 10/15/

7 Page 6 Apple Scab Infection Periods at HVL in 2013 (Data from the NEWA Station at HVL) Scab infection Mac Start End Hours rain- Split period growth wetting wetting of leaf Mean fall wet- (Modified stage period period wetting temp. (in.) ting Mills table) GT 4/10/13 2:01 4/11/13 2: Yes L?? z HIG 4/19/13 14:01 4/20/13 9: Yes L?? y FB 5/8/13 8:01 5/9/13 15: Yes M FB 5/10/13 18:01 5/12/13 2: Yes H PF+7 5/19/13 5:01 5/19/13 17: L PF+10 5/22/13 13:01 5/25/13 16: Yes H PF+16 5/28/13 14:01 5/30/13 8: Yes M* x PF+22 6/3/13 2:01 6/3/13 10: L* 6/6/13 17:01 6/8/13 6: H* 6/10/13 10:01 6/11/13 18: Yes H* 6/13/13 7:01 6/14/13 6: Yes M* 6/27/13 17:01 6/29/13 7: Yes H* 6/30/13 13:01 7/2/13 8: Yes H* 7/8/13 20:01 7/9/13 9: M 7/13/13 0:01 7/13/13 9: L 7/22/13 19:01 7/24/13 9: Yes H* 7/28/13 7:01 7/29/13 8: Yes H* 8/1/13 11:01 8/2/13 9: Yes H* 8/9/13 2:01 8/9/13 19: Yes M* 8/13/13 7:01 8/14/13 2: Yes M* 8/26/13 12:01 8/27/13 8: Yes M* 8/31/13 7:01 9/3/13 9: Yes H* z Wetting started at night; infection period doubtful. y Wetting started at night except for.01 in rain at 2 pm and 3 pm: infection period doubtful. x Start of secondary scab infection periods. Total rainfall (in.) by month: Jan 2.05 (from Poughkeepsie airport) Feb 1.60 (from Poughkeepsie airport) March 1.45 (from Poughkeepsie airport) April 1.85 May 2.90 June 9.14 July 4.21 August 6.33 September 4.01

8 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 7 Comparison of Copper Products Applied at Green Tip to Control Fire Blight on Apples David A. Rosenberger, Anne L. Rugh, Peninah M. Feldman, and Dina N. Truncali The objective of this experiment was to compare biological activity of various copper products for controlling both fire blight and early-season foliar diseases when all treatments were applied at rates that provided either 2.1 or 0.23 lb/a of elemental copper. Products were grouped into these two categories based on the limitations on their product labels (Table 1). Treatments were evaluated in an orchard planted in 2001 wherein each plot contained one Cameo tree on Bud.9 rootstock and one tree each of Royal Court on EMLA.111 rootstock with M.9 interstems. Trees were spaced at 10 ft between trees within the row and 25 ft between rows. Plots within rows were separated by large cedar trees that limited spray drift between adjacent plots. Trees were sprayed to drip using a handgun 8 Apr when trees were at the green tip bud stage. Products were mixed in cold water (pond water held in an elevated tower and presumably still <40 F). All treatments were replicated four times. Other maintenance sprays that were applied to all plots using an airblast sprayer (100 gal of spray solution/a) included Biocover oil 1.25 gal/a on 25 Apr; Manzate 75DF 3 lb + Captan 80WDG 2 lb + Microthiol Disperss 80%DF 3 lb on 15 May; Manzate 75DF 3 lb + Flint 50DF 2.27 oz on 21 May; Manzate 75DF 3 lb + Flint DF oz on 27 May. The experimental design called for eliminating all sprays for apple scab and fire blight blossom infections between green tip (after copper treatments were applied) and petal fall. We planned to evaluate copper treatments in three ways: (i) By monitoring the incidence of fire blight symptoms that we assumed would occur as a result of natural spread from an adjacent planting where fire blight infections that occurred in 2012 were not removed during winter pruning. (ii) By monitoring the incidence of apple scab on cluster leaves on the assumption that copper residues on leaves would prevent early infections. (iii) By determining copper residue levels on buds and bark tissue collected at several intervals after copper treatments had been exposed to rainfall. Diseases (scab, rust, and rust-related leaf disorders) were assessed by evaluating all leaves on 20 terminal shoots per tree. Copper residues were assessed by collecting 25 arbitrarily selected buds from the inner canopy of each tree on 22 Apr (after 14 days and 1.8 in. of rain from the time of copper applications) and again on 9 May, which was 31 days and 2.47 in. of accumulated rainfall from the time that the treatments were applied. Copper residues on bark were assessed by removing 3 bark samples 12 mm wide by 24 mm high from the main trunk approximately on meter above the ground, thereby providing a total bark sample equal to 864 mm 2. Because bark samples differed in thickness, the weight of the three samples from each tree was recorded immediately after sampling. Samples were dried in a drying oven, then shipped to A&L Eastern Laboratories (2671 Whitepine Road, Richmond, VA 23237) where samples were ground and analyzed for mineral content. For heavier samples, the copper residues of interest (on sample surfaces) were more diluted due to bark thickness and sample weight than was the case for lighter samples. To adjust for differences in sample weight, the values from copper analyses were adjusted by multiplying them by the ratio between the weight of that sample compared to the weight of the lightest sample in the group after first subtracting background levels of copper as detected in the control sample for that replicate. The copper content of the controls was subtracted from all of the other samples because copper in the controls presumably represented internal copper content of the bark tissue and would not have been affected by bark thickness if one assumes that internal copper in bark tissue is uniformly distributed throughout all layers of the bark. No fire blight infections developed in either the treatment block or the adjacent inoculum block despite the fact that the MaryBlyt predictive model indicated that an infection period occurred on May 7 when trees were at full bloom. In addition, two high-risk periods occurred, on May 4 and 6, when epiphytic infection potentials were 111 and 114, respectively, but there was no recorded wetting to trigger an actual infection period. There were no scab infection periods between 8 Apr and 8 May (full bloom). Because of the dry prebloom weather, we found no effects of treatments on any of the diseases evaluated (Table 2). The amount of residual copper measured in buds on 22 Apr differed significantly among treatments (Table 3). Copper residues on 22 Apr were higher in buds from Royal Court as compared to Cameo, perhaps because the former were slightly more advanced phenologically and therefore had more exposed surface area to capture and hold copper that was redistributed during rains. Treatments separated somewhat differently based on copper residues detected in bark samples collected on 22 Apr, but the trends were similar (Table 4, Column 1). Treatments had no effects on copper residues in Cameo bud samples collected on 9 May (Table 4). Applying more elemental copper (as in trt 2) resulted in more residual copper after 1.8 inches rain, but there were also differences among copper formulations when different products were applied at rates that ensured identical rates of elemental copper. The low-rate coppers (trts 11-14) resulted in less residual activity than most of the conventional products. Kocide 3000, which is a more finely ground copper than Kocide 2000 (and which is therefore labeled at lower rates) resulted in residue levels in buds on 22 Apr that were no different from those of Kocide However, when residue levels on bark samples were compared, Kocide 3000 had better residual activity on bark than Kocide Applying Kocide 3000 with 3% spray oil resulted in improved residual activity on buds compared to treatments with Kocide 3000 alone, but that was not true for bark residues. Among all of the products, Nordox was the most difficult to get into solution, and some product was found trapped in the strainer at the end of the applications.

9 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 8 Table 1. Products tested, amounts used, and amounts of elemental copper applied per acre. trt # Products applied, formulations, and amounts per 100 gal of dilute spray z 1. Control Elemental copper content (%) Rate range on label for green tip fire blight spray Am't of product/a used in the trial Amount of elemental copper/a in rate tested 2. Champ Formula 2 Flowable y 4.5F 3.5 pt 24% 5.33 to10.5 pt/a 10.5 pt 3.85 lb 3. Champ Formula 2 Flowable y 4.5F 1.91 pt 24% 5.33 to10.5 pt/a 5.73 pt 2.10 lb 4. Nordox x 75WG 0.93 lb 75% 5 to 10 b/a 2.80 lb 2.10 lb 5. Cuprofix Disperss w 36.9%DF 1.75 lb 40% 5 to 7.5 b/a 5.25 lb 2.10 lb 6. Kocide 2000 y 53.8%DF 2 lb 35% 6 to 12 b/a 6.00 lb 2.10 lb 7. Kocide 3000 y 46.1%DF 2.33 lb t 30% 3.5 to 7 lb/a 7.00 lb 2.10 lb 8. Kocide 3000 y 2.33 lb + Biocover Oil 3 gal 30% 3.5 to 7 lb/a 7.00 lb 2.10 lb 9. Kocide 3000 y 2.33 lb + spray lime 4 lb 30% 3.5 to 7 lb/a 7.00 lb 2.10 lb 10. Kocide 3000 y 2.33 lb + Biocover Oil 3 gal + spray lime 4 lb 30% 3.5 to 7 lb/a 7.00 lb 2.10 lb 11. Phyton 27AG 1.92L v 61.3 fl oz/a in 100 gal/a 5.4% 20 to 40 fl oz/100 gal 61.3 fl oz 0.23 lb 12. Mastercop 1.92L v 61.3 fl oz/a in 100 gal/a 5.4% 3-6 pt/a 61.3 fl oz 0.23 lb 13. MagnaBon CS L v 64 fl oz s /A in 100 gal/a 5.0% 51.2 to 64 oz/a 64.0 fl oz 0.23 lb 14. Cueva Fungicide Concentrate 10%L u 193 fl oz/a in 100 gal/a 1.8% 0.5 to 1 gal/ fl oz 0.23 lb z Rate/100 gal = one-third of the rate/a except for treatments 11 to 14 where labels specified that the rate/a should be applied in only 100 gal of water. x Formulation contains copper oxide. v Formulation contains copper sulfate pentahydrate. y Formulation contains copper hydroxide. w Formulation contains basic copper sulfate. u Formulation contains copper octanoate. t The amount of elemental copper present in the highest rate allowed on the label for Kocide 3000 was the determining factor for selecting rates of other products in trts 3 to 6. s The maximum labeled rate for Magna-Bon CS 2005 was the determining factor for selecting rates for the products in treatments 11, 12, and 14. Table 2. Impacts of copper sprays on the indicated variables in early June. Royal Court Cameo P-values from Means across P-values from Means across Variables evaluated: ANOVA all treatments ANOVA all treatments Percent leaves evaluated in June with No disease z Apple scab Cedar apple rust Rust-induced yellowing y Rust-induced necrotic leaf spot x Rust-induced scorch w % damage % damage >25 % damage Percent fruit evaluated at harvest with Scab Black rot or white rot Russet z Leaves with no disease had none of the diseases or disease-related issues noted in this table. y Rust-induced yellowing refers to a general rust-induced chlorosis that is not necessarily associated with lesions of any kind. x Rust-induced necrotic leaf spot refers to leaf spotting that occurs when germinating rust spores kill leave cells, then die out. w Rust-induced scorch results when leaves compromised by rust-related phenmenon become necrotic.

10 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 9 Table 3. Copper detected in bud samples collected 14 days after the copper sprays had been applied. Residual copper (ppm) from trees sprayed 8 Apr 2013 * Material and rate of Royal Court buds Cameo buds Grand means formulated product per 100 gal 22 Apr 22 Apr for treatments 1. Control i ** 38.2 h 38.4 i 2. Champ Flowable 3.5 pt a a a 3. Champ Flowable 1.91 pt c 98.5 b bc 4. Nordox 0.93 lb f 70.2 e 87.7 ef 5. Cuprofix Disperess 1.75 lb cd 84.0 d bcd 6. Kocide lb e 85.1 cd cd 7. Kocide lb ef 81.8 de 99.5 de 8. Kocide lb + Biocover Oil 3 gal b 97.9 bc b 9. Kocide lb + Spray Lime 4 lb de 79.9 de cde 10. Kocide lb + Oil 3 gal + Lime 4 lb bc 99.6 b b 11. Phyton 27AG 61.3 fl oz g 57.1 f 71.1 fg 12. Mastercop 61.3 fl oz i 41.3 gh 45.1 hi 13. MagnaBon CS fl oz gh 52.4 fg 62.3 g 14. Cueva 193 fl oz h 55.2 f 61.9 gh Grand means for cultivar A 76.2 B * Copper analysis was performed using dried tissue from 25 buds per tree. ** Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, P 0.05) as determined from a splitplot analysis of data from two cultivars. P-values from the split-plot analysis were <0.001, <0.001 and <0.001 for effects of treatment, cultivar, and the treatment*cultivar interaction, respectively. Table 5. Copper detected in bark samples collect on 22 Apr and in Cameo bud samples collected on 9 May. Residual copper (ppm) from trees sprayed 8 Apr 2013 Material and rate of Cameo bark samples * Cameo buds ** formulated product per 100 gal 22 Apr 9 May 1. Control Champ Flowable 3.5 pt a *** Champ Flowable 1.91 pt b Nordox 0.93 lb cdef Cuprofix Disperess 1.75 lb bc Kocide lb cde Kocide lb b Kocide lb + Biocover Oil 3 gal bcd Kocide lb + Spray Lime 4 lb cde Kocide lb + Oil 3 gal + Lime 4 lb bc Phyton 27AG 61.3 fl oz def Mastercop 61.3 fl oz f MagnaBon CS fl oz def Cueva 193 fl oz ef 21.5 P value... < * Copper residues were determined from bark patches (12 mm x 24 mm, 3/tree) that were taken from the trunks of treated trees roughly a meter above the ground. Means shown were adjusted for sample weights due to differences in bark thickness, and background copper levels in the controls were subtracted from treatment means before statistical analyses were completed. ** Copper analysis was performed using dried tissue from 25 buds per tree. *** Means followed by the same small letter are not significantly different (Fishers Protected LSD, P 0.05).

11 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 10 Effects of Blossom Protect TM and New Copper Formulations on Control of Blossom Blight (Erwinia amylovora) and on the Incidence and Severity of Fruit Russet David A. Rosenberger, Anne L. Rugh, Peninah M. Feldman, Dina N. Truncali, and Jane R. Kostina Cornell s Hudson Valley Lab, Highland, NY BACKGROUND: For effective fire blight management, blossoms must be protected from infection by the fire blight bacterium Erwinia amylovora. Streptomycin is the preferred material for protecting flowers and is very effective when spray timing is informed by the use of predictive models such as MaryBlyt or Cougar Blight. Other products registered for controlling blossom blight are much less effective and/or more expensive. However, alternatives to streptomycin are needed for organic farmers and for farms that have streptomycin-resistant E. amylovora. A biocontrol product, Blossom Protect (BP), and a soluble copper product have been used with considerable success in the Pacific Northwest (Hansen, 2013). However, BP consists of two strains of Aureobasidium pullulans, a yeast-like fungal species that is known to contribute to fruit russet on some cultivars (Heidenreich et al., 1997), and copper sprays can cause fruit russet when applied after green tip under humid east-coast conditions. Furthermore, we suspect that A. pullulans may also play a role in development of necrotic leaf blotch (NLB) on Golden Delicious and some other late-season leaf spots on other cultivars, but this hypothesis has never been tested in replicated plots. NLB appears in late summer as large irregularly shaped interveinal necrotic spots that cause rapid leaf yellowing and abscission in August and September. NLB does not occur every year, but there are no models for predicting when and where NLB will appear or how severe it will be. In severe cases 50 to 70 percent of leaves on Golden Delicious may abscise prematurely. Because A. pullulans can contribute to fruit russet and may also have other adverse impacts on foliage in late summer, we were concerned that applying A. pullulans at bloom (i.e., spraying BP) might artificially boost population levels in orchards in ways that would exacerbate fruit russetting and/or NLB. We were also concerned that where mancozeb is applied prior to BP, the mancozeb residues remaining in the tree might inactivate A. pullulans on contact and thereby reduce the effectiveness of BP for controlling blossom blight. OBJECTIVE: This trial was established to evaluate BP and several low-rate copper products for their effectiveness in controlling blossom blight and for their impacts on the incidence and severity of fruit russet and necrotic leaf blotch. METHODS: Treatments were replicated four times in a randomized block design. Each plot contained three trees (one tree of each Jerseymac, Redcort, and Golden Delicious) on M.9 rootstocks. Half of the orchard was planted in 1986 and the other half was planted in Trees in this test block were spaced 32 ft between sprayed rows, 7.5 ft between trees within rows, and 15 ft between plots within rows. The space between sprayed rows contained a buffer row of either similar apple trees or of stone fruit trees. Plots within rows were separated by cedar trees that minimized spray drift between plots. Test products were applied using a high-pressure handgun. Manzate treatments were applied to drip, but BP and the copper products (Cueva, Phyton AG27, and Magnabon CS2005) were misted to simulate applications using only 100 gal of spray solution per acre. BP was mixed with Buffer Protect as specified on the product label (see Appendix I). The product label warns that Blossom-Protect may be incompatible with other pesticides, presumably because some products can inactivate the biocontrol in BP (Appendix I). A product representative informed us that BP was fully compatible with Vangard, so Vangard was used to protect trees from scab during bloom even though most growers would be using mancozeb for scab control at this time of year. Various timings for BP applications were evaluated to determine if the degree of fruit russet would be affected by the time of application. In previous trials at the Hudson Valley Lab, mancozeb suppressed fruit russet, presumably by suppressing A. pullulans, whereas Inspire Super did not (Rosenberger et. al., 2010; Appendix II). Therefore, we inserted Manzate in some treatments as a commercial control for minimizing fruit russet. We also inserted Manzate at various timings in some of the BP treatments to determine if applications of Manzate at late bloom or petal fall would suppress or eliminate the populations of A. pullulans before those populations could initiate fruit russet. Copper treatments were applied only one time, when trees were just starting bloom because repeated applications of copper would have almost certainly caused fruit russet. At petal fall, we used Vangard plus Rally to control rust diseases and mildew. Details of products tested and treatment timing are shown in Table 1. The list of other products applied before and after bloom is provided in Table 2. Given the weather conditions that prevailed during this test (Table 3), both the Cougar Blight and MaryBlyt models indicated that fire blight infection periods occurred during bloom (Appendix III). Trees were not inoculated with E. amylovora, but a research block used for a fire blight trial in 2012 was located about feet northwest of the orchard used for this trial. In 2009 when no streptomycin was applied, inoculum from that fire blight test block caused significant blossom blight in the orchard used for the 2013 BP trial. None of the more than 250 over-wintering fire blight strikes were removed from the fire blight test block after the 2012 season, so we expected natural spread of fire blight would result in at least low levels of blight infection in the test orchard used for this trial in 2013.

12 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 11 Several treatments (trts 3, 4, & 7) were applied to Golden Delicious trees on 7 Aug to determine if applying either Manzate (to suppress A. pullulans) or BP (to supplement natural populations of A. pullulans) would have any impact on development of NLB. The 7 Aug timing was chosen because the weather forecast at that time was for a prolonged period of warm humid weather with limited rainfall, conditions that presumably would favor epiphytic populations of A. pullulans. Application of mancozeb in August is not allowed on the mancozeb product labels, but it was used here to determine if application at this time would have any impact on NLB. Fruit were evaluated by surveying fruit on the trees in August for evidence of russet (Jerseymac and Redcort), and by harvesting and evaluating 75 Golden Delicious fruit per tree on 8 Aug. Effects of the treatments on leaf spotting on Golden Delicious were evaluated on 16 Sep when NLB finally appeared on trees. RESULTS: No fire blight developed in either in the test orchard or in the fire blight research orchard where overwintering cankers were left in place. Thus, we were unable to determine the effectiveness of treatments against fire blight. No fruit russet was evident on Jerseymac or Redcort fruit in any of the treatments. However, weather conditions during the late bloom and petal fall periods favored development of fruit russet on Golden Delicious. The percentage of Golden Delicious fruit with russet severe enough to exclude it from USDA Extra Fancy grade varied from a low of 10.5% for the Manzate standard (trt 3) to a high of 46% for one of the BP treatments (Table 4), but variability among replicates limited our ability to detect treatment effects. The standard commercial treatment, in which Manzate was applied to control scab and rust and streptomycin (Fire Wall) was applied to control fire blight, was repeated in two sets of plots (trts 3 & 4) and differed only in treatments applied on 7Aug. None of the BP treatments had significantly more fruit out of grade for russet than the control plots. The incidence and severity of russet was greater on the calyx-end hemisphere of the fruit than on the stem-end hemisphere (Fig. 1), presumably because during the period when russet is initiated shortly after full after full bloom, the calyx ends of the fruitlets faced upward and were therefore more receptive to deposition of A. pullulans from either the BP sprays or via redistribution of natural populations from twigs and leaves. For most of the russet evaluations, none of the treatments differed significantly from the controls. However, some of the treatments differed significantly from one another in the severity of calyx-end russet. All of the treatments where BP was applied on 8 May (trts 7, 8, 9, 10) had significantly more calyx-end russet, both in incidence and severity, than the Manzate standards (trts 3 & 4), the soluble copper treatments (trts 11 & 12), or the treatment that had Manzate applied on 8 May (trt 5). Whether Manzate or BP was applied on 15 May (trts 9 vs. 10) had no impact on russet. Treatments applied on 6 or 8 May, ahead of a 4-day rainy period that started later on 8 May, were critical for suppressing fruit russet, and it appears that the low rates of copper applied on 6 May suppressed russet just as well as the Manzate treatments. (The rainy period starting on 8 May began about 3 hr after the 8 May treatments were applied and provided 41 hr of intermittent leaf wetting and 0.98 inches of rain with a mean temperature of 62 F.) The period of susceptibility to russet induction was apparently completed within a week because applying Manzate at petal fall on 15 May (as in Trt 9) did not reduce russet compared to Trt 10 where no Manzate was applied on 15 May. Alternatively, it is possible that the application of myclobutanil (Rally) on 15 May might have suppressed russet and masked the effects of other treatments applied on 15 May, but that seems unlikely given that Inspire Super (which contains difenoconazole) does not suppress russet. Although copper treatments frequently cause increased russet, the low-rate coppers used in this trial were applied by misting trees rather than spraying them to drip and applications were made under Figure 1. Stem-end russet (left) and calyx-end russet (right) on Golden Delicious fruit when evaluated on 8 August.

13 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 12 fast-drying conditions. Results might have been different if the copper sprays had been applied to drip and/or under slowdrying conditions. When five pairs of similar treatments were compared in a separate analysis (Table 4), the negative impacts of having no mancozeb in the program (trts 1-2) or of applying BP on 8 May (trts ) became more apparent. The incidence and severity of NLB and associated leaf spotting that appeared in September was somewhat impacted by the treatments applied (Tables 6 & 7), but significant differences among treatments occurred in only one of the three parameters measured. The treatments applied on 7 Aug were compromised by unanticipated heavy rainfall on 9 Aug when a storm delivered 3.6 in. of rain that presumably removed the Manzate that was applied to suppress A. pullulans, and the rain may have also reduced the endemic populations of A. pullulans as well as the additional population introduced with the 7 Aug BP spray. Furthermore, the heavy rain may also have removed the carbohydrates on the leaf surfaces that are needed to support epiphytic populations of A. pullulans, thereby delaying the appearance of NLB. NLB (Fig. 2) became apparent on trees on 12 Sep. The high temperature for 11 Sep was 91.6 F. The week prior 11 Sep had a mean high temperature of 75 F. The period from 4 Sep through 11 Sep included 59 hr with relative humidity above 90% and two days with 4-hr wetting periods associated with rains of 0.04 in. on 8 Sep and 0.06 in. on 10 Sep. Those conditions apparently were conducive for development of necrotic leaf blotch, but it remains unclear how and why treatments applied in May could have impact the amount of leaf blotch that appeared in September. CONCLUSIONS: Figure 2. Typical symptoms of necrotic leaf blotch on Golden Delicious. 1. Blossom-Protect did not cause russet on Jerseymac or Redcort. Russet on Golden Delicious treated with BP was similar to or only slightly greater than that on Golden Delicious that received neither BP nor any of the abovementioned russet-suppressing fungicides. 2. Although BP treatments generally resulted in russetting similar to that of the no-manzate control, the level of russet in BP and control plots was not commercially acceptable. 3. Fruit from trees treated with Manzate on 6 or 8 May or with soluble copper sulfate products on 6 May (trts 11 & 12) had less russet than fruit from trees treated with BP on 8 May. More research is needed to determine efficacy of lowrate soluble coppers against fire blight. If they provide blossom blight control equivalent to BP, and if they can be applied in fast-drying conditions, then soluble copper fungicides would be preferred over BP because the copper products would suppress fruit russet and should be compatible with most other pesticides. 4. Treatments applied on 15 May had no effect on the incidence fruit russet. Therefore, application timing for russet suppression treatments has a critical impact on their effectiveness. However, the critical period presumably varies from year to year depending on the weather conditions that prevail from mid-bloom until several weeks after petal fall. 5. Because no fire blight developed in our test plots, we could not evaluate the efficacy of the treatments for preventing fire blight. Therefore, results from this trial did not allay our concerns that mancozeb applications made shortly before or after application of BP might suppress A. pullulans populations enough to compromise the protection that BP would otherwise provide against blossom blight infections. Because mancozeb applications during late bloom (or applications of other products that suppress A. pullulans) are essential for minimizing fruit russet on some apple cultivars, it seems likely that, at least after mid-bloom, achieving fire blight control with BP and russet suppression with mancozeb may be mutually exclusive objectives.

14 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page The relationship between fungicides sprays during and after bloom on the incidence and severity of necrotic leaf blotch remains unclear. LITERATURE CITED: Hansen, M Growers have several choices in fire blight control. Good Fruit Grower 64(4): on-line at Heidenreich, M.C.M, Corral-Garcia, M.R., Momol, E.A., and Burr, T. J Russet of apple fruit caused by Aureobasidium pullulans and Rhodotorula glutinis. Plant Disease 81(4): Rosenberger, D.A., Jentsch, P.J., and Rugh, A.L Slowing the spread of fire blight during summer. N.Y. Fruit Quarterly 18(2): Rosenberger, D.A., Meyer, F.W, Rugh, A.L. and Sudol, L.R Early-season apple disease control with Inspire Super and Rally, Plant Disease Management Reports 5:PF023. Online publication. DOI: /PDMR05. Table 1: Timing of BP sprays and fungicides applied during bloom in Treatments (italics indicate copper treatments) 3 May 10% bloom 6 May 40% bloom 7 May airblast 8 May 80% bloom 15 May airblast 15 May after V-R * trt 7 Aug (for impact on leaf spot) 1. Control: no blight or russet suppression... V * V-R 2. Control: no russet suppression... FW * V V-R 3. Manzate + Fire Wall standard trt + Mz on 7 Aug... Mz+FW * V V-R Mz Mz 4. Manzate + Fire Wall standard trt + BP on 7 Aug... Mz+FW V V-R Mz BP 5. BP (2-sprays) // Manzate (2 sprays)... BP * BP V Mz * V-R Mz 6. BP (2 sprays)... BP BP V V-R 7. BP (4 spring sprays) + BP on 7 Aug... BP BP V BP V-R BP BP 8. BP (3-sprays)... BP BP V BP V-R 9. BP (3-sprays) // Manzate (1 spray)... BP BP V BP V-R Mz 10. Manzate (1 spray) // BP (2 sprays)... Mz V BP V-R BP 11. Phyton 27AG 1.92L 25 fl oz/100gal... X V V-R Mz 12. MagnaBon CS L 25.6 fl oz/100 gal... X V V-R Mz 13. Cueva Fungicide Concentrate 10%L 77.2 fl oz/100 gal... X V V-R Mz * V = Vangard 50W 5 oz/a, V-R = Vangard 5 oz/a plus Rally 40WSB 6 oz/a, InsSup = Inspire Super 2.83EW 12 fl oz/a, FW = Fire Wall 17WP 8 oz/100 gal, Mz = Manzate 75DF 1 lb/100 gal, BP = Blossom Protect, X = the listed product was applied. Table 2. Other sprays applied to the entire block during the early part of 2013 Growth Products Date stage and amounts/a 25 Apr early TC BioCover Oil 1.25 gal, Manzate 75DF 3 lb, Inspire Super 2.83EW 12 fl oz 1 May pink Asana XL 0.66EC 14.5 fl oz 18 May petal fall Asana XL 0.66EC 10 fl oz, Carbaryl 4F 24 fl oz, Fruitone N 3.5%WP 1.9 oz 21 May Inspire Super 2.83EW 12 fl oz 27 May 1 st cover Inspire Super 2.83EW 12 fl oz, Asana XL 0.66EC 14 fl oz, Carbaryl 4F 25 fl oz, Fruitone N 3.5%WP 3.6 oz, LI fl oz 5 Jun 2 nd cover Inspire Super 2.83EW 12 fl oz/a, Asana XL 0.66EC 14 fl oz, LI fl oz 13 Jun Indar 2F 6 fl oz, Asana XL 0.66EC 14 fl oz, LI fl oz 22 Jun Indar 2F 6 fl oz, Asana XL 0.66EC 14 fl oz, LI fl oz 11 Jul Pristine 38WDG 14 oz, LI fl oz 23 Jul Imidan 70WSB 2.1 lb, Flint 50WDF 2 oz, LI fl oz 3 Aug Assail 30WG, 6.4 oz, Topsin M 70WSB 8.4 oz, Captan 80DF 1.6 lb, LI fl oz 17 Aug Bifenture 2EC 10 fl oz, Inspire Super 2.83EW 12 fl oz, Captan 80WDG 3 lb, LI fl oz All treatments were applied using an airblast sprayer calibrated to deliver 60 gal of solution per A. Most pre-bloom fungicides were omitted in this trial because dry weather negated the need for fungicides to control scab.

15 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 14 Table 3 Daily weather summary for the period when treatments were applied Growth Temperatures Hours of Rainfall Date stage min max avg leaf wettting (inches) Events ** 5/3/13 JM * kingbloom st B-P application 5/4/ /5/ /6/ nd B-P application 5/7/ /8/13 GD * 75% bloom rd B-P application 5/9/ /10/ /11/ /12/ /13/ /14/ /15/13 GD * petal fall th B-P application 5/16/ /17/ /18/13 100% PF * on GD * JM = Jerseymac; GD = Golden Delicious; PF = petal fall. ** Timing of the Blossom-Protect applications. Figure 3. Russet evident on harvested Golden Delicious fruit: Trt 2 controls with no russet suppression (upper left); Trt 8 BP applied on 8 May (upper right); Trt 12 Magnabon (lower left); and Trt 4-standard mancozeb program (lower right).

16 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 15 Table 4: Impact of blossom sprays on fruit russet evident on Golden Delicious fruit that were evaluated 8 Aug. Fruit (%) with rus- Golden Delicious fruit affected by russet Material and rate setting that exceeded Fruit (%) with russet y Russetted area (%) x of formulated product per standards for USDA Stem Calyx Stem Calyx 100 gal of spray Extra Fancy grade z end end end end 1. Control: no blight or russet suppression bcde w bcd abc 2. Control: no russet suppression bcde abcd abc 3. Manzate + Fire Wall standard trt + Mz on 7 Aug a a a 4. Manzate + Fire Wall standard trt + BP on 7 Aug ab ab a 5. BP (2-sprays) // Manzate (2 sprays) ab ab a 6. BP (2 sprays) abcd abcd abc 7. BP (4 spring sprays) + BP on 7 Aug cde d cd 8. BP (3-sprays) cde d cd 9. BP (3-sprays) // Manzate (1 spray) e d d 10. Manzate (1 spray) // BP (2 sprays) de cd bcd 11. Phyton 27AG 25 fl oz x ab ab a 12. MagnaBon CS fl oz ab ab a 13. Cueva Fungicide Concentrate 77.2 fl oz abc abc ab P-values z Percentage of fruit that, when rated for surface russet, did not meet the criteria for USDA Extra Fancy grade. y Percentage of fruit that, when viewed from either stem end or calyx end, had visible russet. x Estimated percentage of the fruit surfaces covered with russet when fruit were viewed from either the stem or calyx ends. Means include fruit that had no russet at all. w Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Fishers Protected LSD, P 0.05). Table 5. Impact on fruit russet on Golden Delicious when comparing five pairs of similar treatments. Fruit (%) with rus- Golden Delicious fruit affected by russet Material and rate setting that exceeded Fruit (%) with russet y Russetted area (%) x of formulated product per 100 gal of spray standards for USDA Extra Fancy grade z Stem end Calyx end Stem end Calyx end Controls: no Manzate or BP (Treatments 1 and 2 combined) bc w 14.9 abc 34.3 bc 4.4 abc 11.3 bc Manzate on 6 May, no BP (Treatments 3 and 4 combined) a 10.1 a 17.4 a 2.7 a 4.6 a BP on 3 & 6 May only (Treatments 5 and 6 combined) ab 11.9 a 26.8 ab 3.2 a 8.1 ab BP on 8 May; no Manzate) (Treatments 7 & 8 combined) cd 20.9 bc 45.1 c 6.8 bc 15.7 cd BP on 8 May + one Manzate) (Treatments 9 & 10 combined) d 24.3 c 45.7 c 7.7 c 16.6 d Copper sulfate treatments (Treatments 11 & 12 combined) a 12.4 ab 20.3 ab 3.5 ab 5.9 ab P values < < <0.001 z Percentage of fruit that, when rated for surface russet, did not meet the criteria for USDA Extra Fancy grade. y Percentage of fruit that, when viewed from either stem end or calyx end, had visible russet. x Estimated percentage of the fruit surfaces covered with russet when fruit were viewed from either the stem or calyx ends. Means include fruit that had no russet at all. w Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Fishers Protected LSD, P 0.05).

17 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 16 Table 6. Impact of spring and summer treatments on the incidence of necrotic leaf blotch, leaf yellowing, and leaf abscission as determined on 14 Sep. Material and rate of formulated product per 100 gal of spray Golden Delicious terminal leaves (%) affected z Empty nodes + yellowed leaves + leaves with blotch w Leaves abscised y (empty nodes) Empty nodes + yellowed leaves x 1. Control: no blight or russet suppression cd v Control: no russet suppression abc Manzate + Fire Wall standard trt + Mz on 7 Aug ab Manzate + Fire Wall standard trt + BP on 7 Aug a BP (2-sprays) // Manzate (2 sprays) abcd BP (2 sprays) cd BP (4-sprays) + BP on 7 Aug bcd BP (3-sprays) bcd Blossom Prot. (3-sprays) // Manzate (1 spray) cd Manzate (1 spray) // BP (2 sprays) abc Phyton 27AG 25 fl oz/a/100gal abc MagnaBon CS fl oz/a/100 gal d Cueva Fungicide Concentrate 77.2 fl oz/a/100 gal bcd P-values z Data from observing all full-sized leaves on 15 terminal shoots per tree. y Empty nodes occurred because leaves had already abscised due to necrotic leaf blotch. x Yellowed leaves are those severely affected and expected to drop in the near future. w Leaves with blotch t had irregular necrotic blotches typical of necrotic leaf blotch, but no yellowing of the leaves. v Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Fishers Protected LSD, P 0.05). Table 7. Impact of treatments on NLB on Golden Delicious as determined by comparing five pairs of similar treatments. Golden Delicious terminal leaves (%) affected z Material and rate of formulated product per 100 gal of spray Leaves abscised y (empty nodes) Empty nodes + yellowed leaves x Empty nodes + yellowed leaves + leaves with blotch w Controls: no Manzate or BP (Treatments 1 and 2 combined) ab v 60.3 Manzate on 6 May, no BP (Treatments 3 and 4 combined) a 50.5 BP on 3 & 6 May only (Treatments 5 and 6 combined) b 67.6 BP on 8 May; no Manzate) (Treatments 7 & 8 combined) b 64.6 BP on 8 May + one Manzate) (Treatments 9 & 10 combined) b 63.5 Copper treatments (Treatments 11 & 13 combined) b 57.1 P values z Data from observing all full-sized leaves on 15 terminal shoots per tree. y Empty nodes occurred because leaves had already abscised due to necrotic leaf blotch. x Yellowed leaves are those severely affected and expected to drop in the near future. w Leaves with blotch had irregular necrotic blotches typical of necrotic leaf blotch, but no yellowing of the leaves. v Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Fishers Protected LSD, P 0.05).

18 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 17 APPENDIX I Information from the BPTM label BPTM A BIOLOGICAL AGENT FOR PREVENTING FIRE BLIGHT IN POME FRUITS Active Ingredients: Aureobasidium pullulans strain DSM 14940* % Aureobasidium pullulans strain DSM 14941* % Other Ingredients: % Total % *Contains a minimum of 8.8 x 10 8 cfu/gram of active ingredient. General Information: BP is a microbial plant protection product consisting of two strains of Aureobasidium pullulans. Aureobasidium pullulans is a ubiquitous microorganism in the environment. BP must be used as a preventative measure before the occurrence of infection with the causal agent of fire blight, Erwinia amylovora. Apply BP when environmental conditions for the growth of Erwinia amylovora are present. Mode of Action: The microorganisms in BP settle at the bottom of the blossoms of the trees and compete with the pathogen, Erwinia amylovora, for space and nutrients. Using competitive inhibition, BP prevents the development of fire blight disease by colonizing the blossom and reducing the ability of the Erwinia amylovora bacteria to thrive. Application Instructions:. Four applications provide optimum protection against Fire Blight. Spray BP at 10%, 40%, 70%, and 90% open flower, according to the BBCH-scale: BBCH Apply BP to thoroughly wet the blossoms and foliage. For susceptible varieties, the product may, in some seasons, enhance russet when applied during late blossom. [Italics and underline added.] To accelerate the growth of Aureobasidium pullulans in the flower, the addition of Buffer Protect to the mixture is beneficial. In gallons water, add 2.5 lbs of BP lbs of Buffer Protect. APPLICATION TABLE Crop Pest Controlled Rate Application Method POME FRUITS: Apple, Crabapple, Loquat, Mayhaw, Pear, Oriental pear, Quince Fire Blight (Erwinia amylovora) Adjust spray volume to achieve application rate of 2.5 lbs of BP per 2 acres of 6-foot crown height trees Apply as a spray to tree foliage. Compatibility: Not all chemicals or fertilizers can be mixed with BP during application. Check with your state agricultural extension specialist before mixing with pesticides. (Note from company rep: Vangard is cyprodinil alone and is compatible with BP. At least it doesn't kill the yeast, we are not sure of any impact on efficacy. The difenoconazole is not tank mix compatible, but could probably be rotated.)

19 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 18 APPENDIX II Impacts of Contact Fungicides on Fruit Russet, D. A. Rosenberger, F. W. Meyer, A. L. Rugh, and L.R. Sudol Cornell's Hudson Valley Lab, PO Box 727, Highland, NY Abstracted from: Rosenberger, D.A., Meyer, F.W, Rugh, A.L. and Sudol, L.R Early-season apple disease control with Inspire Super and Rally, Plant Disease Management Reports 5:PF023. Online publication. DOI: /PDMR05. Treatments were replicated four times in a randomized block design in an 11-yr-old orchard containing trees on MM.111 rootstocks with M.9 interstems. Trees in this test block were spaced 25 ft between rows, 10 ft between trees within rows, and 20 ft between plots within rows. Each plot included one Golden Delicious tree and one tree in which the lower scaffolds were McIntosh and the upper part of the tree was Ginger Gold. Plots within rows were separated by 10-ft-tall cedar trees that limited drift from one plot to another. All treatments were applied with a tractor-powered high-pressure handgun at 250 psi and trees were sprayed to drip. Treatment dates are shown in Table 1. Trts were designed to evaluate Inspire Super at various timings just before or after bloom. All treatments except the control received the same program of summer fungicides after the last test treatment was applied on 30 May. The prebloom period was relatively dry with only one significant scab infection period near tight cluster (20-22 Apr, 52 hr wetting, 47 F, 0.85 in. rain). A major infection period occurred during bloom and petal fall (3-9 May, 105 hr, 55 F, 1.76 in. rain). Weather conditions were conducive to severe fruit russet. Most fungicide treatments suppressed fruit russet on Golden Delicious compared to the controls, but Inspire Super applied alone at critical periods in trt 4 provided no suppression and had russet similar to the control fruit. Severe fruit russet was also evident on Ginger Gold fruit in trt 4 where Inspire Super was applied alone on 8 and 20 May. All of the other treatments except the controls received a contact fungicide (either Dithane or Captan) in sprays applied on 8 and 20 May, and those contact fungicides significantly reduced the severity of fruit russet. Table 1. Spray timing and effects of treatments on fruit out-of-grade due to russet in a 2009 trial at Highland, NY Spray timing dates y Fruit (%) out-of-grade: russet x 4/30 5/8 5/20 5/30 Ginger Golden Fungicide and rate/100 gal z bloom PF 1C 2C Gold Delicious 1. Control n.d. w 77.0 b 2. Dithane 75 DF 1 lb... Dth Dth Dth Dth 16.2 ab v 34.0 a 3. Rally 40WSB 1.33 oz (2 times Dth X X Captan 80WDG 10 oz... Capt Capt Capt 14.6 a 47.5 a 4. Inspire Super 338 SE 3.97 fl oz (2 times)... Dth X X Capt 70.3 c 79.2 b 5. Inspire Super 338SE 3.97 fl oz (3 times)... X X X Dithane 75 DF 1 lb... Dth Dth Capt 28.4 b 46.7 a 6. Inspire Super 338SE 3.97 fl oz (1 time)... Dth Dth Capt X 22.5 ab 43.7 a z All plots including controls received applications of Penncozeb 75DF 3 lb/a on 9 Apr and Dithane Rainshield 75DF 3 lb/a on 18 Apr. All plots except controls were sprayed with Captan 80WDG 10 oz/100 gal on 8 and 16 Jun and with Captan 80WDG 10 oz + Topsin M 70WDG 4 oz/100 gal on 25 Jun, 9 & 23 Jul, 15 Aug, and (for Golden Delicious only) 17 Sep. y Dth = Dithane 75DF 1 lb/100 gal; Capt = Captan 80WDG 10 oz/100 gal. x Fruit that failed to meet the standards for USDA Extra Fancy grade because of russet. w No data: fruit were too severely diseased to allow rating for russet. v Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Fishers Protected LSD, P 0.05).

20 Hudson Valley Lab, 5 Sep 2013 Page 19 APPENDIX III Fire blight risk for the test orchard based on the Cougar Blight model (left) and the MaryBlyt model (right). CougarBlight Risk and Weather Summary for Highland HVL First blossom open date (5/1) is indicated by a dashed green line. 4-Day Degree Hour Sum Extreme High Caution Low Day Degree Hour Sum Apr 8 Apr 22 May 6 May 20 Jun 3 Jun 17 Temperature (F) Precipitation (inches) Daily lowest and highest hourly temperatures Forecast lowest and highest hourly temperatures Daily precipitation Forecast precipitation First three days after blossom open date are partial accumulations. Orchard history = 2 (Fire blight occurred in your neighborhood last year).

21 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 20 Comparison of Flint, Inspire Super, ProPhyt, and Agri-Fos for Controlling Early-Season Apple Diseases Dave Rosenberger, Anne Rugh, Peninah Feldman, and Dina Truncali INTRODUCTION: Phosphite fungicides used alone have been reported to provide excellent scab control in some trials but not in others. Reasons for the differences in results have not been determined, but possible explanations involve the formulation of phosphite fungicide that has been used and the rates that were applied. In previous tests with phosphite fungicides in New York, treatments were applied dilute with a handgun and the dilute rate/100 gallons of spray solution was assumed to be one-third of the full rate/a specified on the product label. In Ohio, Dr. Mike Ellis repeatedly achieved good scab control when he used a handgun to spray the full rate /A mixed in 100 gal of water, an approach that would be in compliance with label restrictions in situations so long as spraying trees to drip (i.e., a dilute application) would not require more than 100 gal of solution/a. Others have suggested that even on larger trees, phosphites will provide excellent scab control if the full labeled rate/a is applied in no more than 100 gal of solution/a via an airblast sprayer. OBJECTIVES: This trial was designed to evaluate the activity of phosphite fungicides against scab and rust diseases on apple, and more specifically, to resolve the following questions: a. Do phosphite fungicides used in tank mixes boost the activity of either Flint (QoI fungicide) or Inspire Super (DMI + AP fungicide) compared to using either Flint or Inspire Super alone? b. Does Agri-Fos (used in OH trials) have more activity against scab and rust than ProPhyt (used in NY trials)? c. Will increasing the amount applied via handgun from one-third of the label rate/100 gal to the full label rate/100 gal result in better disease control? d. Are airblast applications using the full rate/a applied in 100 gal/a more effective than handgun applications of the same solutions? METHODS: Treatments were replicated four times in a randomized block design in a 15-yr-old orchard containing trees on MM.111 rootstocks with M.9 interstems. Trees were planted with 25 ft between rows, 10 ft between trees within rows, and 20 feet between plots within rows. Each plot consisted of one Golden Delicious tree and a second tree on which the lower scaffolds were McIntosh and the upper part of the tree was Ginger Gold. Plots within rows were separated by 10-ft-tall cedar trees that limited drift from one plot to another, and cedar hedges of a similar height were located on two sides of this triangular orchard. As a result, apple trees in this block were exposed to extremely high concentrations of inoculum for cedar apple rust. Handgun applications were made with a tractor-powered high-pressure sprayer at 250 psi, and trees were sprayed to drip. Two treatments were applied using a Unigreen Turboteuton Mistblower sprayer (Unigreen Crop Protection, S.p.A., Reggio Emilia, Italy; see Fig. 1). This 3-point-hitch tower sprayer has five double-nozzled air plenums on each side and was calibrated to deliver 88 gal/a using the assumption that trees were spaced with only 18 ft between rows (as would occur in commercial orchards with trees of this size). The sprayer was then driven at 2.5 miles per hour adjacent to the tree canopy when airblast treatments were applied. Each plot was sprayed from both sides, and the airspeed from the sprayer fan was adjusted (by using a lower PTO speed) so that most of the spray plume stayed within the tree canopy. All of the airblast applications were done under conditions with wind speeds less than 2 mph. The experimental plan was to ignore early infection periods and delay the first application until tight cluster, after which the test products were to be applied four times at 7-day intervals before switching to cover sprays of contact fungicides. Unfortunately, no scab infection periods occurred prior to full bloom (Table 1). Because of the dry weather, test products were applied only twice, on 7 May (McIntosh full bloom) and again on 15 May (McIntosh petal fall), after which the entire orchard was sprayed with Manzate 75DF 3 lb/a plus Microthiol Disperss 80DG (sulfur) 3 lb/a on 21 May and with Manzate 75DF 3 lb/a plus Flint 50WDG 2.5 oz/a on 27 May (Table 2). No fungicide cover sprays were applied to this this block between 27 May and 23 Jul so as to allow secondary scab infections to develop in trees where primary scab was not effectively controlled.effects of treatments on foliar disease incidence was assessed by observing leaves on 20 arbitrarily selected terminal shoots per tree at various points during the summer. Details of data collection methods are described in footnotes below the data tables. RESULTS: The incidence of foliar scab in control trees was only 5.8% when Mac leaves were evaluated on 16 Jun (42 days after the last application of the test products), and all of the other treatments had less scab than the control plots except for Inspire Super used alone (Trt 3) and the airblast applications of ProPhyt and Agri-Fos (Trts 11 & 12, Table 3). Inspire Super combined with ProPhyt provided better scab control than Inspire Super used alone, but there were no other signficant effects of handgun treatments (Trts 2-10). Although when applied with a handgun, ProPhyt at both the lower and higher rates (trts 6 & 7) had more scab than the comparable rates of Agri-Fos (Trts 8 & 9), a two-way analysis of those four treatments (2 products each at 2 rates) indicated that there were no signficant (P 0.05) difference between ProPhyt and Agri-Fos in the 16 Jun evaluation. P-values for effects of treatments, application rate, and the interaction from that two-way analysis were 0.320, and 0.993, respectively (data table not shown).

22 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 21 When Mac terminal leaves were evaluated again on 22 Jul, trees treated with Flint alone (Trt 2) or with Agri-Fos via airblast (Trt 12) had as much scab as the controls whereas most of the other treatments had less than half as much scab as the control plots (Table 3). Scab incidence on fruit in control plots was 2.9% for McIntosh and 10.0% for Ginger Gold, but fruit scab incidence was similar for all treatments and for the control for both McIntosh or Ginger Gold (Table 3). The failure of Flint to control scab when it was used alone (as shown in Tble 3, 22 Jul rating) is explained by high levels of resistance to trifloxystrobon detected in this orchard in leaf samples collected in mid-june of 2012 from plots that had received a Flint spray on 1 Jun. The scab isolates collected in 2012 were evaulated for fungicide resistance by Villani and Cox at the Geneva Experiment Station, and they reported that the mean relative growth (RG) on agar ammended with trifloxystrobin at a concentration of 0.01 µg/mlwas 50.3 in a system where control failures are expected to occur if the RG >22.5 (Table 4). Furthermore, 26% of the 17 isolates assayed for resistance in 2012 showed quantitative resistance to trifloxystrobin. The block used for our 2013 trial had received a two Flint sprays (1 Jun, 14 Jul) and two Pristine sprays (17 and 29 Aug) in In addition, half of the plots in the block had received four additional applications of QoI-containing fungicides in April and May of 2012 to control scab. Thus, the selection pressure applied by repeated use of QoI fungicides in 2012 presumably contributed to the control failure with Flint in Figure1.Airblastsprayerusedforthistrial,photographedin adifferentorchardofsmallertrees. Treatments had significant impacts on the severity of fruit russet, with most of the treatments reducing the incidence of russetting across all three of the cultivars evaluated (Table 5). Treatments involving Inspire Super (Trts 3 & 5), Agri-Fos + Pentrabark (Trt 10) and the airblast applications (Trts 11 & 12) generally had more russetting than other treatments and in some cases were similar to the control. Treatments with Flint (Trts 2 & 4) had less russetting than treatments with Inspire Super for both Ginger Gold and the combined means across cultivars, and Flint + ProPhyt was always superior to either of the Inspire Super treatments. Effects of treatments on russet were presumably related to their ability to suppress Aureobasidium pullulans, the epiphytic black yeast that contributes to fruit russetting. Flint apparently suppressed A. pullulans more effectively than Inspire Super, and most of the handgun-applied phosphite treatments provided an intermediate level of suppression. The use of Pentrabark in our foliar spray may have contributed to the increased russet incidence on McIntosh and Golden Delicious where Agri-Fos plus Pentrabark was applied compared to where Agri-Fos was applied alone (Trt 10 vs Trt 9). The treatment that included Pentrabark caused severe phytotoxicity to flower petals (Figure 2). The limited effectiveness of airblast treatments for reducing russet may be attributable to reduced coverage of the fruit surface with airblast sprays compared to handgun treatments. Most of the damage to leaves in this test resulted from cedar apple rust. Foliar damage from rust included yellow lesions visible on the upper leaf surface, rust-induced necrotic leaf spots that developed from aborted rust infections, generalized leaf yellowing, and leaf scorch. When apple trees are exposed to high concentrations of rust spores, some leaves develop a generalized leaf yellowing that is independent of the appearance of rust lesions (Fig. 3). Scorch refers to development of necrotic leaf tissue either along leaf edges or between veins, and it appears on leaves that were severely compromised by rust (Figs. 3 and 4). Leaf scorch may have resulted from invasion of leaves by secondary pathogens or from phytotoxicity caused by other pesticides (e.g., Asana, Fruitone N, Carbaryl; Table 2) that are absorbed into rust-damaged leaf tissue.

23 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 22 Figure 2. Petal burn (right) observed on 9 May on McIntosh trees that had been sprayed with Agri-Fos plus Pentrabark compared to flowers on other trees (left). All of the treatments provided some suppression of infection and development of yellow lesions (Fig. 3) on leaves of both Ginger Gold and McIntosh except that the two handgunned ProPhyt treatments and the two airblast applied treatments were no better than the control (Table 6). Although McIntosh is resistant to rust, yellow rust lesions can still appear on leaves before the host-pathogen incompatibility reaction arrests fungal growth in the leaves. Flint treatments provided excellent suppression of the leaf yellowing phenomenon, whereas none of the other treatments, including Inspire Super, were very effective (Tables 6 and 7). Many of the treatments provided adequate suppression of rust diseases on fruit, but the two handgunned ProPhyt treatments, Agri-Fos alone at the higher rate, and the two airblast treatments were no different than the untreated control for incidence of cedar apple rust on fruit (Table 8). Most of those same treatments were weak against quince rust. When Ginger Gold trees in this trial were rated for leaf scorch, the least damage occurred on trees that received Flint treatments, a finding that is consistent with the activity of Flint against leaf yellowing. The airblast treatments were no different than the controls in the overall rating (Table 9, Column 1), and they provided little protection. Evaluations for scorch shown in Table 9 were for only the seven oldest full-sized leaves on each of 20 terminals/tree whereas the evaluations for scorch shown in Table 10, column 2 included all leaves present on those same terminals. Necrotic leaf spot in this orchard was largely a result of incomplete rust control, although a small portion of the necrotic leaf spots might also have resulted from infections by Botryosphaeria obtusa, the cause of frog-eye leaf spot. Flint was significantly better than any other treatments for controlling necrotic leaf spot (Table 10, column 1), whereas neither of the handgunned ProPhyt treatments nor the two airblast treatments were any better than control plots. In late May, phytotoxicity on new terminal leaves became apparent on all three cultivars (Fig. 5). Affected leaves were smaller, narrower, and some of them were crinkled on one side and/or were accompanied by vein yellowing. Some yellowing along leaf edges indicated that the three applications of Fire Wall (streptomycin) we made to control fire blight during bloom had caused some of the injury. Fire Wall at 1 lb/a plus Regulaid at 16 fl oz/a was applied on 7 and again on 10 May, and Fire Wall at l lb/a was applied again on 18 May without Regulaid (Table 2). However, later assessments of the incidence of abnormally shaped or undersized leaves (Fig. 6) showed that all of the phosphite treaments applied via handgun at 64 fl oz/a (trts 7, 9, &10) resulted in more abnormally shaped leaves compared to the controls. The high rate of ProPhyt (trt 7) also had a higher proportion of small leaves (Table 10). CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION: The handgun-applied phosphite treatments all provided scab control on McIntosh leaves that was equivalent to or better than the control achieved with Flint or Inspire Super used alone (Table 4). However, the phosphites may have performed better in this trial because of the low scab disease pressure than they would if tested under higher disease pressure. Adding ProPhyt to Flint and Inspire Super boosted the scab control from Inspire Super on Mac leaves rated on 26 Jun, but not for ratings done on 22 Jul, whereas ProPhyt boosted the scab control from Flint on 22 July but not on 26 Jun. The emergence of scab by 22 Jul in the treatment where Flint was applied alone may be attributable to the presence of trifloxystrobin-resistant scab in this block. The combinations of Flint plus ProPhyt and Inspire Super plus ProPhyt were no better than the comparable treatments of Flint or Inspire Super used alone for any of the parameters related to rust infections or for suppressing fruit russet. Phosphites applied via airblast generally provided less disease control than similar treatments applied via handgun. Flint was surprisingly effective for protecting against rust-related foliar damage, fruit russetting, and the phytotoxicity noted on terminal leaves.

24 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 23 Most of the phosphite treatments suppressed fruit russet, rust diseases, and rust-related disorders but still failed to provide satisfactory levels of control for those diseases and disorders. The fact that phosphite treatments contributed to phytotoxicity in this trial whereas similar phytoxocity was not observed in other trials might be attributable to the timing of the applications. In most previous trials, phosphites were applied before bloom whereas in this trial applications were made at full bloom and at petal fall when both the open flowers and new leaves on terminals shoots may have contributed to increase uptake. Table 1. Apple scab infection periods and spray timing for the Pond Block at HVL in Scab infection Pond Mac Start End Hours rain- Split period block growth wetting wetting of leaf Mean fall wet- (Modified fungicide stage period period wetting temp. (in.) ting Mills table) sprays GT 4/10/13 2:01 4/11/13 2: Yes L?? z HIG 4/19/13 14:01 4/20/13 9: Yes L?? y May st treatment spray FB 5/8/13 8:01 5/9/13 15: Yes M FB 5/10/13 18:01 5/12/13 2: Yes H May nd treatment spray PF+7 5/19/13 5:01 5/19/13 17: L May Manzate + sulfur y PF+10 5/22/13 13:01 5/25/13 16: Yes H May Manzate + Flint y PF+16 5/28/13 14:01 5/30/13 8: Yes M* x PF+22 6/3/13 2:01 6/3/13 10: L* 6/6/13 17:01 6/8/13 6: H* 6/10/13 10:01 6/11/13 18: Yes H* 6/13/13 7:01 6/14/13 6: Yes M* 6/27/13 17:01 6/29/13 7: Yes H* 6/30/13 13:01 7/2/13 8: Yes H* 7/8/13 20:01 7/9/13 9: M 7/13/13 0:01 7/13/13 9: L 7/22/13 19:01 7/24/13 9: Yes H* July Flint y 7/28/13 7:01 7/29/13 8: Yes H* 8/1/13 11:01 8/2/13 9: Yes H* Aug 2... Topsin M + Capt. y 8/9/13 2:01 8/9/13 19: Yes M* 8/13/13 7:01 8/14/13 2: Yes M* Aug Inspire S + Capt. y 8/26/13 12:01 8/27/13 8: Yes M* 8/31/13 7:01 9/3/13 9: Yes H* z Wetting started at night; infection period doubtful. y Wetting started at night except for.01 in rain at 2 pm and 3 pm; infection period doubtful. x Start of secondary scab infection periods. * s indicate secondary infection periods. y Applied to the entire block (including controls) using an airblast sprayer

25 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 24 Table 2: Other sprays applied with rates/a (except that oil, Regulaid, and LI-700 were used at the specified rate/100 gal). 8 Apr: Spray oil 3% (3 gal/100 gal) 1 May: Asana 14.5 fl oz/a 7 May: FireWall 1 lb/a + Regulaid 16 fl oz 10 May: FireWall 1 lb/a + Regulaid 16 fl oz 18 May: Asana 10 fl oz, Carbaryl 4L 24 fl oz, Fruitone-N 3 oz, FireWall 1 lb 21 May: Manzate 3 lb, Microthiol Sulfur 3 lb, LI fl oz Thinning Ginger Gold only: Fruitone-N 2 oz & Carbaryl 4L 16 fl oz (handgun) 27 May: Manzate 3 lb, Flint 2.5 oz, Asana 14 fl oz, Carbaryl 4L 24 fl oz, 27 May: Fruitone N 6 oz/a on Golden Delicious using airblast 6 Jun: Asana 14 fl oz + LI fl oz 13 Jun: Asana 14 fl oz Calypso 6 fl oz 22 Jun: Asana 14 fl oz + LI fl oz 6 Jul: Asana 14 fl oz + Delegate 7 fl oz + LI fl oz 23 Jul: Imidan 2.1 lb + Flint 2 oz + LI fl oz 3 Aug: Assail 6.4 oz + Topsin M 8.4 oz + Captan lb + LI fl oz 17 Aug: Bifenture 10 fl oz + Inspire Super 12 fl oz + Captan-80 3 lb + LI fl oz Table 3. Effects of treatments on apple scab. Fruit with scab (%) y Mac terminal leaves Mc- Ginger Grand Material and rate of with apple scab (%) z Intosh Gold means both formulated product 26 Jun 22 Jul 22 Aug 14 Aug cultivars w 1. Control d x 19.9 d HANDGUN SPRAYS (RATES PER 100 GAL) 2. Flint 0.67 oz + LI fl oz abc 17.4 d Inspire Super 4 fl oz + LI fl oz bcd 8.7 bc Flint 0.67 oz + ProPhyt 21.3 fl oz abc 3.9 ab Inspire Super 4 fl oz +ProPhyt 21.3 fl oz a 4.7 abc ProPhyt 21.3 fl oz abcd 6.8 abc ProPhyt 64.0 fl oz abc 6.2 abc AgriFos 21.3 fl oz abc 6.5 abc AgriFos 64 fl oz ab 6.0 abc AgriFos 64 fl oz +Pentrabark 1 qt abc 2.3 a AIRBLAST TREATMENTS AND RATE/A 11. ProPhyt 64 fl oz cd 7.9 abc AgriFos 64 fl oz cd 10.3 cd P values Means: z From either the 10 oldest leaves on 20 terminals/tree (26 Jun) or all leaves on 20 terminals/tree (22 Jul). y From observations of 60 fruit/tree for McIntosh and 75 fruit/tree for Ginger Gold. x Means within columns followed by the letter are not significantly different (Fishers Protected LSD, P 0.05). w P-values from the split-plot analysis were 0.179, 0.094, and for effects of treatment, cultivar, and the treatmentcultivar interaction, respectively. Thus, there were no significant differences among treatments. Table 4: Analysis of fungicide resistance in the test block used for this trial (Courtesy of Dr. Kerik Cox and Sara Villani). Resistance evaluation results for leaves collected: Average RG thresh- June 2011 June 2012 RG for old for crop Aver- % isolates with Aver- % isolates with Fungicide Common Trade baseline loss due to age RG>90 or with age RG>90 or with class name name orchards resistance RG qualitative resist. RG qualitative resist. Guanidines dodine Syllit ?? DMI myclobutanil Rally ?? DMI difenoconazole Inspire ?? QoI (stroby) trifloxystrobin Flint RG = relative growth on agar amended with fungicide compared to growth on control plates.

26 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 25 Table 5 Effects of treatments on fruit russet. Fruit out-of-grade due to russetting (%) z Material and rate of Ginger Gold McIntosh Golden Del. Grand means for formulated product 14 Aug 22 Aug 26 Aug all three cultivars 1. Control d y 53.3 e 86.8 de 79.1 e HANDGUN SPRAYS (RATES PER 100 GAL) 2. Flint 0.67 oz +LI fl oz a 13.7 ab 46.2 abc 23.5 ab 3. Inspire Super 4 fl oz + LI fl oz b 27.2 bcd 66.3 cd 44.9 c 4. Flint 0.67 oz + ProPhyt 21.3 fl oz a 4.6 a 27.5 a 12.6 a 5. Inspire Super 4 fl oz +ProPhyt 21.3 fl oz b 26.6 cd 59.6 bc 44.6 c 6. ProPhyt 21.3 fl oz b 20.4 abc 59.5 bc 44.8 c 7. ProPhyt 64.0 fl oz b 15.0 ab 37.2 ab 30.3 bc 8. AgriFos 21.3 fl oz b 9.5 ab 31.3 a 25.3 b 9. AgriFos 64 fl oz b 17.1 ab 45.8 abc 36.6 bc 10. AgriFos 64 fl oz +Pentrabark 1 qt b 50.4 de 96.7 e 66.9 de AIRBLAST TREATMENTS AND RATE/A 11) ProPhyt 64 fl oz cd 41.0 cde 68.2 cd 66.4 de 12. AgriFos 64 fl oz c 46.9 de 69.5 cd 63.6 d Cultivar means B 27.1 A 57.9 C z From observations of 60 fruit/tree for McIntosh and Golden Delicious and 75 fruit/tree for Ginger Gold. Fruit out-of-grade due to russet failed to meet the criteria for the USDA Extra Fancy grade fruit. y Mean separations were determined using LSD (P 0.05) applied to the results from a split-plot analysis of data from three cultivars. P-values from the split-plot analysis were <0.001, <0.001, and for effects of treatment, cultivar, and the treatment-cultivar interaction, respectively. Table 6. Effects of treatments on leaf area covered by yellow rust lesions and on the percentages of leaves that exhibitied rust-induced leaf yellowing. Estimated terminal leaf area Terminal leaves showing rust- (%) covered with rust lesions z induced leaf yellowing (%) z Material and rate of Ginger Gold McIntosh Ginger Gold McIntosh formulated product 6 Jun 26 Jun 6 Jun 26 Jun 1. Control f y 31.5 e 52.0 e 45.8 d HANDGUN SPRAYS (RATES PER 100 GAL) 2. Flint 0.67 oz +LI fl oz a 4.0 a 0.3 a 6.0 a 3. Inspire Super 4 fl oz + LI fl oz abc 13.9 abc 23.3 bc 26.9 bc 4. Flint 0.67 oz + ProPhyt 21.3 fl oz ab 11.8 ab 0.9 a 8.9 a 5. Inspire Super 4 fl oz +Pro 21.3 fl oz abc 13.0 abcd 19.9 b 29.2 bc 6. ProPhyt 21.3 fl oz cdef 15.6 bcde 32.4 bcd 35.4 bcd 7. ProPhyt 64.0 fl oz cdef 16.1 bcde 33.9 cde 37.8 cd 8. AgriFos 21.3 fl oz bcd 10.5 abc 20.8 bc 23.5 b 9. AgriFos 64 fl oz cde 18.8 bcde 31.8 bcd 33.5 bcd 10. AgriFos 64 fl oz +Pentrabark 1 qt bcd 6.8 ab 19.1 bc 26.6 bc AIRBLAST TREATMENTS AND RATE/A 11) ProPhyt 64 fl oz ef 27.3 de 41.9 de 39.1 cd 12. AgriFos 64 fl oz def 23.5 cde 42.9 de 39.0 cd P values... < <0.001 <0.001 z From observations of the all leaves on 20 terminals per tree for Ginger Gold and from the 10 oldest full-sized leaves on each of 20 terminals for McIntosh. y Means in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Fishers Protected LSD, P 0.05).

27 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 26 Table 7. Effects of treatments on control of rust-related diseases as evaluated using a 2x2 factorial analysis. Leaves (% with no disease) Leaves (%) with rust-induced yellowing Material and rate of Tank mix partner Combined Tank mix partner Combined formulated product LI 700 ProPhyt means for LI 700 ProPhyt means for per 100 gal 8 fl oz 21.3 fl oz fungicides 8 fl oz 21.3 fl oz fungicides Flint 0.67 oz (trts 2 & 4) a 79.6 a 83.5 a 6.0 a 8.9 a 7.5 a Inspire Super 4 fl oz (trts 3 & 5) b 62.3 b 62.7 b 26.9 b 29.2 b 28.1 b Combined means for additional materials P-values for analysis of leaves with no disease were <0.001, ns and for effects of fungicides, tank-mix partners, and their interaction, respectively. P-values for analysis of leaf yellowing were for <0.001, and for effects of fungicides, tank-mix partners, and their interaction, respectively. Figure 3. Yellow rust lesions on Ginger Gold control trees (left, photographed 30 May 2013) and leaf yellowing and scorch as evidenced on Royal Court leaves in 2010 (right, photographed 1 June 2010). Table 8. Effects of treatments on rust disease incidence on fruit. Fruit (%) with cedar apple rust z Golden Del. Material and rate of Ginger Gold Golden Del. Grand means for fruit (%) with formulated product 14 Aug 26 Aug both cultivars quince rust z 1. Control c y 5.3 a 15.6 e 3.0 c x HANDGUN SPRAYS (RATES PER 100 GAL) 2. Flint 0.67 oz + LI fl oz a 0.9 a 0.9 abc 0.0 a 3. Inspire Super 4 fl oz + LI fl oz a 0.0 a 0.3 a 0.0 a 4. Flint 0.67 oz +ProPhyt 21.3 fl oz ab 1.7 a 3.2 abcd 0.4 ab 5. Inspire S. 4 fl oz + ProPhyt 21.3 fl oz a 0.4 a 1.4 abc 0.0 a 6. ProPhyt 21.3 fl oz bc 2.8 a 10.4 de 2.4 abc 7. ProPhyt 64.0 fl oz abc 2.1 a 4.6 abcde 1.4 abc 8. AgriFos 21.3 fl oz a 1.3 a 2.6 abcd 0.4 ab 9. AgriFos 64 fl oz abc 2.5 a 5.0 bcde 0.4 ab 10. AgriFos 64 fl oz + Pentrabark 1 qt a 0.0 a 0.7 ab 0.0 a AIRBLAST TREATMENTS AND RATE/A 11) ProPhyt 64 fl oz bc 0.0 a 14.2 cde 2.9 bc 12. AgriFos 64 fl oz bc 2.4 a 12.1 de 3.9 c Means for cultivar B 1.6 A P-value z From observations of 60 fruit/tree for Golden Delicious and 75 fruit/tree for Ginger Gold. y Mean separations were determined using LSD (P 0.05) applied to the results from a split-plot analysis of data from two cultivars: P-values were 0.008, <0.001, and for treatment, cultivar, and their interaction. x Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Fishers Protected LSD, P 0.05).

28 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 27 Table 9. Effects of treatments on rust-related leaf scorch on Ginger Gold evaluated 6 Jun. Material and rate of Incidence (%) Incidence (%) of leaves with leaf area damage of z formulated product undamaged leaves z 1-10 % % >25 % 1. Control f y 9.7 cd 7.9 ef 43.3 e HANDGUN SPRAYS (RATES PER 100 GAL) 2. Flint 0.67 oz + LI fl oz a 0.2 a 0.0 a 0.2 ab 3. Inspire Super 4 fl oz + LI fl oz bc 11.2 cd 7.4 def 7.5 abc 4. Flint 0.67 oz +ProPhyt 21.3 fl oz a 1.1 ab 0.0 a 0.0 a 5. Inspire S. 4 fl oz + ProPhyt 21.3 fl oz b 7.4 bc 3.9 bcd 8.9 abc 6. ProPhyt 21.3 fl oz bc 10.8 cd 2.8 b 20.5 cd 7. ProPhyt 64.0 fl oz cde 19.0 d 5.9 bcdef 10.5 bc 8. AgriFos 21.3 fl oz bc 12.6 cd 4.0 bcde 6.7 abc 9. AgriFos 64 fl oz bcd 13.9 cd 5.0 bcde 15.6 cd 10. AgriFos 64 fl oz + Pentrabark 1 qt bc 12.1 cd 4.3 bc 5.0 abc AIRBLAST TREATMENTS AND RATE/A 11) ProPhyt 64 fl oz ef 15.3 cd 6.2 cdef 32.0 de 12. AgriFos 64 fl oz def 13.8 cd 8.9 f 29.3 de P values... < <0.001 <0.001 z From observations of the seven oldest full-sized leaves on 20 terminals per tree. Undamaged leaves were completely free of scab, rust, necrotic leaf spot, and rust-induced leaf yellowing. y Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Fishers Protected LSD, P 0.05). Figure 4. Rust-induced leaf scorch on Ginger Gold control tree photographed 30 May.

29 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 28 Table 10. Effects of treatments on rust-related leaf scorch and necrotic leaf spot on Ginger Gold and on phytotoxic leaf responses on Golden Delicious. Ginger Gold terminal lvs. Golden Delicious lvs. on 6 Jun: percent with on 31 Jul: Percent with z Material and rate of Necrotic leaf abnormal leaf area reformulated product leaf spot z scorch y shape duced >50% 1. Control e w 32.0 d 16.5 bc 34.5 bc HANDGUN SPRAYS (RATES PER 100 GAL) 2. Flint 0.67 oz +LI fl oz a 0.0 a 7.9 a 21.1 a 3. Inspire Super 4 fl oz + LI fl oz bc 3.2 ab 15.3 abc 32.5 bc 4. Flint 0.67 oz + ProPhyt 21.3 fl oz a 0.0 a 9.4 ab 21.2 a 5. Inspire Super 4 fl oz +Pro 21.3 fl oz b 1.0 ab 15.9 bc 30.1 b 6. ProPhyt 21.3 fl oz de 7.8 bc 13.6 abc 35.8 bc 7. ProPhyt 64.0 fl oz de 7.1 ab 45.6 f 46.7 d 8. AgriFos 21.3 fl oz bc 4.4 ab 18.3 cd 31.2 b 9. AgriFos 64 fl oz cd 4.0 ab 31.4 e 40.3 cd 10. AgriFos 64 fl oz +Pentrabark 1 qt b 1.3 ab 26.9 de 34.3 bc AIRBLAST TREATMENTS AND RATE/A 11) ProPhyt 64 fl oz de 22.9 d 14.9 bc 29.9 b 12. AgriFos 64 fl oz de 22.1 cd 18.2 cd 32.2 bc P values... <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 z From observations of all leaves on 20 terminals per tree. y From observation of the 7 oldest full-sized leaves on each of 20 terminals per tree. w Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Fishers Protected LSD, P 0.05). Figure 5. Leaf phytotoxicity evident on 30 May, Treatment #10 (left and center) and on Treatment #11 (right).

30 Hudson Valley Lab, 11 Nov Final Report Page 29 Fig. 6. Stunting and narrowing of mid-terminal leaves that was especially evident on trees treated with high rates of ProPhyt or Agri-Fos applied with a handgun (i.e., treatments 7, 9 & 10). Damage was evaluated and reported on Table 9, columns 3, 4, and 5. Photos are of Golden Delicoius on 2 Aug Table 11. Effects of treatments on the incidence of flyspeck, sooty blotch, and black/white rots. Flyspeck z Sooty blotch z Ginger Gold Ginger Golden Ginger Golden fruit (%) Material and rate of Gold Delicious Gold Delicious with black/ formulated product 14 Aug 22 Jul 14 Aug 22 Jul white rot z 1. Control bc y HANDGUN SPRAYS (RATES PER 100 GAL) 2. Flint 0.67 oz + LI fl oz d Inspire Super 4 fl oz + LI fl oz a Flint 0.67 oz +ProPhyt 21.3 fl oz bc Inspire S. 4 fl oz + ProPhyt 21.3 fl oz a ProPhyt 21.3 fl oz bc ProPhyt 64.0 fl oz cd AgriFos 21.3 fl oz bcd AgriFos 64 fl oz bc AgriFos 64 fl oz + Pentrabark 1 qt bcd AIRBLAST TREATMENTS AND RATE/A 11) ProPhyt 64 fl oz ab AgriFos 64 fl oz a P values < z From observations of 60 fruit/tree for Golden Delicious and 75 fruit/tree for Ginger Gold. y Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (Fishers Protected LSD, P 0.05).