INFO R M A TIO N TO USERS This material was produced from a m icrofilm copy o f tha original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have bean used, the quality is heavily dependant upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" fo r pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing paga(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along w ith adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated w ith a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You w ill find a good image o f the pega in the adjacent frame. 3. Whan a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the m aterial. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper le ft hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from le ft to right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The m ajority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by w riting the Order Departm ent, giving the catalog number, title , author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NO TE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms International 300 North Zaab Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA St John’s Road. Tylers Green High Wycombe, Bucks. England HP10 8HR I I i I 77-18,516 McGROARTY, Dennis Lee, 1942SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION AND MOVEMENT OF AMBLYSEIUS FALLACIS (GARMAN) IN THE GROUND COVER Op MICHIGAN tOM ERC IAL APPLE ORCHARDS. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1977 Entomology Xerox U niversity M icrofilm s t Ann Arbor. Michigan 48106 SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION A N D MOVEMENT OF AMBLYSEIUS FALLACIS (GARMAN) IN THE GROUND C O VER OF M ICHIGAN COMMERCIAL APPLE ORCHARDS By Dennis Lee McGroarty A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Entomology 1977 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank m y advisor, Dr. Brian A. Croft, for his guidance and support throughout the course of this study. I also wish to express m y appreciation to the members of my graduate committee, A.J. Howitt, G. D u d d e r a r , F.W. D r s . H.D. Newson, Stehr and D.L. Haynes. A special thanks to m y wife. Dr. Estelle J. McGroarty, for her constant encouragement throughout my graduate study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ............................................... iv LIST OF F I G U R E S ...............................................xi INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1 MATERIALS AND M E T H O D S ..................................... 6 ................................... 12 RESULTS A ND DISCUSSION One-Minute C o u n t s ..................................... 22 Apple Sucker C o u n t ................................... 31 Comparison of Relative Density Sampling M e t h o d s ............................................ 33 Measurement of Amblyseius fallacis Activity. . . 39 Summary of Sampling Procedures and the Distribution of A. fallacis in the Ground Cover H a b i t a t ......................................42 Results and Discussion of Individual Orchard Sampling. ........................................ 46 Summary of the Dynamics of Tree and Ground Cover Populations of A. fallacis and Plant-Feeding Mites ............................ 91 A P P E N D I X ......................................................95 LITERATURE CITED .......................................... iii 163 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Page Analysis of variance, two-level nested, of extraction density measurements of A. fallacis in six-inch diameter sod samples from six Michigan apple orchards, November 21 and 22, 1972 .............................................. 14 Extraction density estimates of Amblyseius fallacis (Garman) from six-inch cod samples collected in M i chigan apple orchards. Summer 1973 .............................................. 16 Mean square and estimates of variance components in extraction density estimates of Amblyseius fallacis (Garman) in Michigan apple orchards, Summer 1 9 7 3 ....................................... 20 Extraction samples of Amblyseius fallacis in ground cover of M i chigan commercial apple orchards, 1973 and Chi-square Tests of numbers found in directional quadrants and either close or far from the tree trunk. . . . 21 Chi-square analysis of the number of A. fallacis collected on different ground cover plants during one-minute counts in all orchards . . . 30 Chi-square analysis of the number of Amblyseius fallacis found on bean plants in the four cardinal directional quadrants and either far or close to the tree trunks under apple trees in western Mi c h i g a n orchards, 1972-1973. . . . 41 Extraction density me a surements of A. fallacis from six-inch diameter sod samples collected in six Michigan apple o r c h a r d s , November 1972 .............................................. 96 iv Table 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Page Extraction density measurements of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Rasch Orchard, June 15, 1 9 7 2 .......................................... 97 Extraction density measurement of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Klackle Orchard, June 22, 1 9 7 3 .......................................... 98 Extraction density measurement of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Kraft Orchard, July 2, 1973 .......................................... 99 Extraction density measur e m e n t of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Dowd Or c h a r d J u l y 10, 1 9 7 3 .......................................... 100 Extraction density measurement of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Peachy I O r c h a r d , July 17, 1973 ................................... 101 Extraction density m easurement of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Babcock Orchard, July 17, 1973 ................................... 102 Extraction density measurement of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Dowd O r c h a r d ,” July 25, 1 9 7 3 .......................................... 103 Extraction density measurement of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Klackle O r c h a r d , July 27, 1973 ................................... 104 Extraction den s i t y measurement of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Peachy I O r c h a r d , August 14, 1973 ................................ 105 Extraction density m easurement of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Rasch O'rcharcTT August 24, 1973 ................................ 106 Extraction density m easurement of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Kraft OrcharcH September 11, 1 9 7 3 .............................. 107 One-minute counts of Amblyseius fallacis in the ground cover of nine commercial a p p l e o r c h a r d s in Michigan, 1972 .............................. 108 v Table 20 Page The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found in one-minute counts at Klackle Orchard, 1972, 1973, and.1974 ................ 110 21 The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found in one-minute counts at Rasch Orchard 1972, 1973, and 1 9 7 4 ...............................Ill 22 The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found in one-minute counts at Kraft O r c h a r d , 1972, 1973 and 1974 ............................ 112 The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found in one-minute counts at Gavin O r c h a r d , 1972, 1973, and 1974 ............................ 113 The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found in one-minute counts at Babcock Orchard, 1972, 1973, and 1974 ................ 114 The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found in one-minute counts at Carpenter Orchard, 1972, 1973, and 1974 ................ 115 The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found in one-minute counts at Dowd O r c h a r d , 1972, 1973, and 1 9 7 4 ............................ 116 The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found in one-minute counts at Peachy I Orchard, 1972, 1973, and 1974 ................ 117 The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found in one-minute counts at Peachy II Orchard, 1972, 1973, and 1974 ................ 118 Vegetation sampled in Klackle Orchard ground cover during one-minute counts, 1 9 7 3 ......... 119 Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Klackle Orchard during one-minute counts, 1 9 7 2 .............................................. 120 Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Rasch Orchard during one-minute counts, 1 9 7 2 .............................................. 121 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 vi Table 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Page Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Rasch Orchard during one-minute counts, 1 9 7 3 ................................................ 122 Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Kraft Orchard during one-minute counts, 197 2 .............................................. 123 Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Kraft Orchard during one-minute counts, 197 3 .............................................. 124 Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Gavin Orchard during one-minute counts, 197 2 .............................................. 125 Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Gavin Orchard during one-minute counts, 1 97 3 .............................................. 126 Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Carpenter Orchard during one-minute counts, 1 97 2 .............................................. 127 Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Carpenter Orchard during one-minute counts, 197 3 .............................................. 128 Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Babcock Orchard during one-minute counts, 197 2 .............................................. 129 Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Babcock Orchard during one-minute counts, 1 97 3 .............................................. 130 Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Dowd Orchard during one-minute counts, 1 9 7 3 .............................................. 131 Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Dowd Orchard during one-minute counts, 1 9 7 2 .............................................. 132 Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Peachy I Orchard during one-minute counts, 1 9 7 2 .............................................. 133 vii Table 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Page Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Peachy I Orchard during one-minute counts, 1 9 7 3 ................................................ 134 Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Peachy XI Orchard during one-minute counts, 197 2 .............................................. 135 Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Peachy II Orchard during one-minute counts, 1 9 7 3 .............................................. 136 Plants recorded in one-minute counts from the ground cover of Michigan apple orchards, 1972 to 1 9 7 3 ..................................... 137 The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found on 100 apple sucker leaves at Klackle Orchard in 1 9 7 3 ................................ 139 The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found on 100 apple sucker leaves at Rasch Orchard, 197 3 ................................... 14 0 The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found on 100 apple sucker leaves at Kraft Orchard 1973 and 1974 ......................... 141 The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found on 100 apple sucker leaves at Gavin Orchard 1973 and 1974 ......................... 14 2 The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found on 100 apple sucker leaves at Babcock Orchard in 1973 ......................... 143 The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found on 100 apple sucker leaves at Dowd Orchard, 1973 and 1 9 7 4 ......................... 143 The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found on 100 apple sucker leaves at Peachy I Orchard, 197 3 and 1 9 7 4 ......................... 144 The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found on 100 apple sucker leaves at Peachy II Orchard, 1973 and 1 9 7 4 ......................... 144 viii Table 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Page Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Klackle Orchard, 1972. . . 145 Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in KlackTe Orchard, 197 3. . . 146 Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Rasch Orchard, 1972. . . . 147 Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Rasch Orchard, 1973. . . . 148 Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Kraft Orchard, 197 2. . . . 149 Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Kraft Orchard, 1973. . . . 150 Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Gavin Orchard, 1972. . . . 151 Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Gavin Orchard, 1973. . . . 152 Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Carpenter Orchard, 197 2. . 153 Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Carpenter Orchard, 197 3. . 154 Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Babcock Orchard, 1972. . . 155 Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Babcock Orchard, 1973. . . 156 Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Dowd Orchard, 1972 . . . . 157 Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Dowd Orchard, 197 3 . . . . 158 Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Peachy I Orchard, 1972 . . 159 Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Peachy I Orchard, 1973 . . 160 ix Table 72 73 Page Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Peachy II Orchard, 1 9 7 2 ....................... 161 Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Peachy II Orchard, 1 9 7 3 ....................... 162 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. 2. Page The ground cover strata within the drip-line of the trees in the experimental orchards. . . The relationship between sample m e ans and variances of extraction densities of Amblyseius fallacis from Michigan orchard ground covers, S u m m e r , 1 9 7 3 .................... 8 18 3. The proportion of A. fallacis population found on different vegetation in Michigan apple o r c h a r d s .................................... 23 4. The relationship between means and variances of one-minute samples collected in 1972. . . . 5. 24 Number of one-minute samples needed for ten percent standard error using formula t2 ct2 5 * 2 ................................... 26 6. Number of one-minute samples needed for 25 percent standard error of the mean, calculated using the formula t^ ........................... 27 D £2 7. The relationship between means and variance of one-minute samples collected in 1973 .......... 28 The relationship between means and variances from apple sucker samples collected in 1972 and 1 9 7 3 ..................................... 32 8. 9. The number of sample units (apple sucker leaves) needed per orchard for dif f e r e n t mean densities as calculated using the formula n = (t-s/D * X ) 2, when D=.25 + t .05 [a] = 1 . 9 6 ......................................... 34 xi Figure 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Page Regression analysis showing -the relationship between the m e a n extraction density of A. fallacis and the mean one-minute count. . 35 Regression analysis showing the relationship between the mean and extraction density of the mean number of A. fallacis per apple sucker l e a f .............................. 37 Regression analysis showing the relationship between the mean apple sucker den s i t y and the mean one-minute density of A. fallacis . 38 The relationship between the means and variance of bean plant samples collected in 1972 and 1973 .............................. 40 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Klackle Orchard, 1 9 7 2 .......................... 48 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Klackle Orchard, 1 9 7 3 .......................... 50 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Klackle Orchard, 1 9 7 4 ................ 52 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Rasch Orchard, 197 2 ................................... 53 Popualtion dynamics of A. fallacis in Rasch Orchard, 1 9 7 3 ............ 7 . . 55 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Rasch Orchard, 1 9 7 4 ................................... 56 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Kraft Orchard, 1 9 7 2 ................................... 59 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Kraft Orchard, 197 3 ................................... 60 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Krcft Orchard, 1 9 7 4 ................................... 62 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Gavin Orchard, 197 2 ................................... 64 Figure 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. Page Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Gavin Orchard, 1 9 7 3 ................................... 65 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Gavin Orchard, 1 9 7 4 ................................... 67 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Carpenter Orchard, 1 9 7 2 ....................... 69 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Carpenter Orchard, 1 9 7 3 ....................... 70 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Carpenter Orchard, 1 9 7 4 ....................... 72 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Babcock Orchard, 1 9 7 2 ......................... 74 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Babcock Orchard, 1 9 7 3 ......................... 75 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Babcock Orchard, 1 9 7 4 ......................... 77 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Dowd Orchard, 1 9 7 2 ................................... 79 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Dowd Orchard, 197 3 ................................... 80 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Dowd Orchard, 1 9 7 4 ................................... 81 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Peachy I Orchard, 1 9 7 7 ...................... 83 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Peachy 1 Orchard, 1973 ...................... 85 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Peachy I Orchard, 1974 ...................... 86 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Peachy II Orchard, 1 9 7 2 ...................... 88 Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Peachy II Orchard, 1 9 7 3 ...................... 89 xiii Figure 40. Page Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Peachy II Orchard, 1 9 T 4 .......................... 90 xiv INTRODUCTION After World War II, phytophagous mites became important pests in a number of crop ecosystems including deciduous tree fruits. Their rise in pest status was correlated w ith the use of insecticides, parathion and DDT. particularly It was concluded that mite problems were due to the destruction of the natural enemies of mites by chemicals. Other hypotheses were that it was not the loss of the natural enemies by poisoning that resulted in mite outbreaks, but that chemicals affected the physiology of the pest mites, modified the nutritional quality of the plant, or altered the behavior of the spider mites (van de Vrie, et al., 1972). Huffaker, et al., (1970) suggested that detailed ecological studies were needed to quantify the importance of the natural enemies or other factors operating in the crop ecosystems, and he postulated that once their importance was firmly established, steps could be taken to manage spider mites m ore effectively and reduce the emphasis on chemical control measures. In apple ecosystems of the midwestern s t a t e s , large numbers of phytophagous arthropods including plantfeeding mites, are pests. Oatman, 1 et al. (1964) surveyed 2 Wisconsin apple orchards and found 4 3 species of economic importance. Croft (1975) listed as key pests in Michigan the codling moth, Lespryresia pomonella Rhagoletis pomonella (L.), apple maggot, (Walsh) , and plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst). The codling m o t h is an introduced apple pest of world importance and the other two are native to North America. Each can cause damage to apple fruit and cause economic loss if not controlled. Historically, chemical control measures have been the principal means of suppressing these pests. first in Michigan in 1942 (Janes, 1972). DDT was used A l though the important apple pests were easily controlled for a time, new problems soon arose. For example, by 1947 the red- banded leafroller, Argyrotaenia velutinana (Walker) had ascended to key pest status and large spider m ite p o p u l a ­ tions were causing damage in apple orchards where DDT was used (Janes, 1972). Spider mites, especially the European red mite, Panonychus ulmi (Koch), are still serious secondary pests in Michigan apple orchards. They feed on the leaf chlorophyll and at high densities cause "bronzing" of the foliage. Large populations, when present early in the growing season, can affect the next season's bud-set and tree vigor, and if later in the season, affect fruit color. their feeding can Problems w i t h chemical mite control have increased during the past 30 year period. Following 3 the development of resistance to DDT, there have been 22 different compounds recommended for spider m ite control in Michigan spray calendars (Croft and McGroarty, 1973). Since chemical control of spider mites was unsatisfactory, a program of integrated control was developed in Michigan during the period 1970 to 1974 (Croft, 1975a). This p r o ­ gram involved selecting selective chemicals to apply to the orchard, so that biological control agents could be utilized in regulating spider mite numbers. In establishing an integrated m i t e control program for spider mites in Michigan commercial apple orchards, Croft and McGroarty (1975) observed that the phytoseid mite, Amblyseius fallacis natural enemy. (Garman), was the m ost effective This predaceous mite has been commonly reported feeding on European red mites and was described erom apple leaves collected in C onnecticut Its biology was studied by Ballard Newsom (1970). (1954) (Garman, 1948). and Smith and It has been recognized as an efficient predator of many pest mites (Smith, Herne, and is known to feed on a l ter­ 1966; Malcolm, 1955) nate foods such as pollen scale crawlers 1965; Putman and (Ahlstrom and Rock, (Poe and Enns, 1960). 1973) and In addition to its effectiveness, A. fallacis has developed resistance to many broad-spectrum chemicals Oatman and Legner (1962) (Croft and Nelson, 197 2) . found the first indication of resistance in heavily sprayed orchards in Wisconsin. Since 4 that time/ studies have demonstrated resistance to a number of organophosphate 1970; Rock and Yeargan, and carbamates (OP) compounds (Motoyama, et a l . , 1971; Croft and Stewart, (Croft and Meyer, 1973). 1973) Croft and Brown (197 5) mapped the distribution of OP resistant populations which extended throughout the midwest and eastern regions of the United States. Amblyseius fallacis is a cosmopolitan species which occurs on a variety of plant species. (1964) Putman and Herne found it associated w ith spider m i tes on herbaceous plants under peach trees in Canada and later (1966) inferred that those found in the trees had moved up from the ground cover, apparently after a DDT residue on the tree decreased to a non-toxic level. Asq u i t h and Horsburgh (1968) noted that predator mites over-wintered in the orchard ground cover and suggested that growers manage the weed growth to supply an early season habitat for the predators. Croft and McGroarty (1973) observed definite fluctuations in the number of A. fallacis in the orchard ground cover w h i c h corresponded to increases and decreases in the densities of populations within apple trees and speculated that mites on the ground cover probably served as the source of the in-tree population. Meyer (1974) indicated that the orchard ground cover was important as an over-wintering habitat for A. fallacis in Illinois and 5 that this vegetation played a role in protecting the predator from sprays applied to the tree. Although it has been implied by several research groups studying plant-feeding mites in orchards that the dynamics of ground cover populations of A. fallacis are important in relation to effective control of spider mite pests in the trees, very little quantitative research has been reported on this subject. The object of this study was to determine the density of A. fallacis in the ground cover of nine commercial orchards in M i chigan and to observe factors w h i c h m i g h t influence it. tives were Other o b j e c ­ (1) to develop sampling techniques for A. f a l l a c i s , (2) to evaluate the spatial and temporal distribution of the A. fallacis population in the ground cover including the searching pattern of the mite in the area under the tree canopy, (3) to demonstrate the r ela­ tionship between the tree and the ground densities with respect to how changes in the number of A. fallacis in the ground cover affect m i g ration into the tree, and (4) to relate this information to ground cover management which may contribute to effective biological control of the pest mites in the tree. MATERIALS AND METHODS Population estimates of A. fallacis in the apple orchard ground cover of nine western M ichigan orchards (see description of each in a later section) from the sample universe, were obtained the orchard floor, by s u b ­ sampling the area under the canopy of individual trees. This area was selected because preliminary observations indicated that A. fallacis was active there throughout the season, whereas it was rarely found outside the shelter of the tree canopy in the early or mid portions of the season. As detailed later, experiments were conducted in the course of this study to measure the preference of A. fallacis for this habitat. A relative density estimate, approximating an absolute density m e a s u rement of A. fallacis in the ground cover, was obtained by extracting sod samples from beneath the apple trees. Initially, several sample u nit sizes of different diameter were evaluated. In preliminary tests, four replicated sample units of six and 18 inch diameters were extracted from under five randomly selected apple trees early in the growing season, April 10 and 19, 1973. Mites were extracted and data for each replicated sample 6 7 size was evaluated to determine the optiminal trade off between excessive zero counts, time involved in ext r act­ ing mites, and limitations of processing equipment. In processing each sod sample, collected material was placed in polyethylene bags and cooled during trans­ port to the laboratory. The material was suspended on a wire screen beneath a 4 0 watt light bulb in an 11 inch diameter berlese funnel. Amblyseius fallacis escaped the heat by moving down the funnel and was collected on lima bean leaves blocking the funnel opening. infested with two-spotted spider mites, Bean leaves Tetranychus urticae (Koch), a prey of A. fallacis were maintained with stems in a water-filled ointment jar. acted as a trapping medi u m for A. This system essentially fallacis. Samples were held in the funnel for three days before the bean leaves were examined under a 30X binocular microscope and fallacis counted. This technique was evaluated with respect to its efficiency in release and recapture experi­ ments at a variety of predator densities, and the data compared to similar experiments made with alcohol-filled jars as a collection medium. The total area within the drip-line of an average apple tree in the experimental orchards ranged from 292 to 38 2 square feet. This area under each tree was sub­ divided into four equal strata by cardinal direction (Figure 1). Strata were further subdivided into two 8 Tree Trunk Drip-line of Tree Figure 1.— The ground cover strata within the drip-line of the trees in the experimental orchards. areas— one within ten feet of the tree trunk and other beyond ten feet. Strata were selected to provide data on the directional distribution of A. fallacis and its d i s ­ tribution in proximity to the tree trunk. Statistical treatment of these data and those obtained in preliminary sampling studies (see earlier discussion) analysis of variance (ANOVA) isons between sampling units. were obtained by and chi-square (x ) c o m p ar­ A N OVA procedures were also used to obtain variance components for each subplot and to determine the optimal sample number for various densities of A. fallacis at acceptable precision levels. In each directional stratum, two samples were collected per sample d a t e — one composed primarily of grasses and the other of broad-leaf f o r b s . directional strata, In alternate samples of both types, either in the 9 close or outer subdivision, were taken. Litter from each vegetation sample was processed independently by Berlese extraction procedures. Samples similar to those described above were also collected between trees or beyond the tree canopy to estimate the proportion of the A. population distributed in this area. fallacis In these studies, four samples were collected per tree from each of the cardinal directions at a point randomly selected beyond the tree c a n o p y . Since the extraction meth o d required excessive time for processing, several relative density techniques also were evaluated and compared w ith the extraction method. One, two and three minute timed vegetation counts were obtained by visually examining broad-leaf forbs for A. f a l l a c i s . After randomly selecting a tree, the experimenter randomly threw a plastic disc under the canopy and selected the nearest forb to where the disc landed. This plant and other nearby plants of the same species were examined for the appropriate time interval for A. f a l l a c i s . As before, d ata collected by these methods in different sampling strata were analyized by ANOVA. (e.g., tree, orchard) A dispersion statistic associated with the distributions of A. fallacis on the broad-leaf foliage was determined using the T a y l o r 1s b analysis (Taylor, 1961) . This parameter describes the relationship between sample m e ans and variances. The sampling of the 10 broad-leaf forbs also provided information on density changes in the A. fallacis population in the nine e x p e r i ­ mental orchards during the period of this study. By recording the plants examined during the sampling, host- plant preferences of A. fallacis were compared. Another relative density estimate was obtained by taking predator counts on apple sucker growth w h ich occurred in the ground cover. Whereas in 1972 apple sucker growth was included in the timed vegetation analysis, in 197 3 and 197 4, apple suckers were sampled independently by selecting ten apple leaves from the apple sucker growth under ten randomly selected trees in each orchard. Apple leaves were examined on both sides under maximal light conditions making A. fallacis readily visible as it moved across the leaf. At low temperatures, encountered in autumn, A. fallacis was often found in the depression formed at the junction of the midveins. However, when this area of the leaf was gently touched, the mites would move rapidly across the leaf surface. Data collected using this m e t h o d were compared to density changes with the one-minute count m e t h o d . They also provided density estimates w h i c h had sample units com par­ able w i t h those samples taken from within the apple tree density measurements (i.e., A. fallacis/apple leaf). relationships between the relative density estimates listed above and the extraction d ensity m easurement The 11 technique originally described were compared by linear regression analysis. Certain temporal and spatial features of the searching activity of A. fallacis were measured by placing lima bean plants, which were at the two-leaf stage of development and infested w i t h two-spotted spider mites, on the ground beneath the apple trees. These plants essentially acted as a trapping m e d i u m since once A. faljacis found abundant prey, plant. they seldom left the Bean plants were placed under trees so they were not in contact w ith other plants. Under these conditions, A. fallacis could obtain entry to the prey infested leaves only by climbing the stem. After a seven day sample period, the plants were examined under a binocular microscope and the number of adult A. fallacis recorded. Five trees in each experimental orchard were randomly selected and plants were placed in each of the four cardinal directional quadrants. Plants in opposite quadrants were placed either close, within three feet of the tree trunk or inward, from three feet from the edge of the canopy. collected with this method w ere tested by a chi-square analysis to evaluate differences in the searching d i s ­ tribution of A. fallacis w i t h respect to direction and proximity to the tree. Data RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Less than complete extraction of all A. fallacis from sod samples was probable due to m oisture variations and differential escape rates by each life stage of the mite. However, a relatively constant recovery rate was achieved by using the lima bean extraction method, which was more efficient in detecting low densities of A. fallacis than a 7 0 percent isopropyl alcohol method. In replicated release and recovery tests w i t h densities of two, four, eight and 12 mites per sample, which includes density levels most commonly encountered in field samples, recoveries averaged 77 ± 23 percent with the lima bean method, whereas w i t h alcohol only 15 ± 13 percent of the released mites were recovered. Hoying Croft and (unpublished data) m ade release and recovery tests to measure overwintering populations of A. fallacis and obtained recovery rates which were consistently efficient for densities of two, five, ten, sample w ith the lima bean method. 25 and 60 mites per Another advantage of the bean leaf method was a reduced counting time. Mites collected on the bean leaves also could be concentrated 12 13 and maintained alive and thereafter, transferred to rearing units for laboratory culture and experimentation. Sod sample unit studies to determine the most effective sample size indicated that units smaller than six inches produced excessive zero counts at low m ite densities. Data comparison between six-inch and 1 8 -inch diameters produced 1.5 ± .43 mites and sample, respectively. .50 ± .19 mites per The larger sample unit did not reduce the number of zero counts significantly, but in fact gave lower mean values per sample than did the sixinch size. This decline in efficiency was attributed to limitations of the extraction method when working with the larger volumes of vegetation. A N O V A comparisons taken in preliminary samples of four, six-inch diameter samples o^ sod extracted from five randomly selected trees (t) in six experimental orchards are presented in Table 1 for the sample dates of November 21 and 22, 1972. The actual data used in constructing Table 1 are listed in the Appendix, Table 7. Because this data did not meet the assumptions for an ANOVA (i.e., normality, transformed by log see later discussion), they were (x + 1) . In Table 1 there was a significant difference (a - 0.01) between orchards. This would be expected since densities between orchards were highly variable throughout the period of this study (see later d i s c ussion of 14 Table 1.— Analysis of variance, two-level nested, of extraction density measurements of A. fallacis in six-inch diameter sod samples from six Michigan apple orchards, November 21 and 22, 1972. Sources df Among Orchards SS 5 1.5. MS >5 Among Trees w/i Orchards 24 1.88274 Within Trees 90 6.23743 F .30551 3.90** .07845 1.13 .06845 **Significant F-test to 1 percent level. individual orchard densities of A. f a l l a c i s ) . There was no significant variance component among trees. From the observed mean square, following formulae the variances w ere estimated by the (Snedecor and Cochran, Within trees (Error M.S.) = s 2 s 1967): = .068 ^ t_ j 2 M.S. tree ^ ^ "sample _ among tree w/i orchards = sfc = Number of samples (n>“ "°02 „ ^ „ 2 M "s "orchard “ M "s "tree among Orchards - sQ = --- 1 (No. of trees!-----"011 The optimum number of sample units per tree deter2 mined from the relationship between intra- (s 9 ) and inter2 plant (s£) variance components was determined by the formula: n = required to ^ ( s ^ / s ^ ) ( c fc / c g ) , w h ere c fc was the time m ove from one tree to another, and c gwas time needed to collect samples from one tree (LeRoux and the 15 Reimer, 1959) . The cost: of moving from one tree to another was approximately one minute and the cost of collecting the four sample units from each tree was five minutes in these studies. The number of sample units required from each tree was determined by n = or 2.4. • .20 Since four sample units were used to determine the variance components of the original samples, the actual number of samples per tree was calculated to be ten. Using the same data, the number of trees required for a precision of 25 percent standard error of the mean was derived from the coefficient of inter-tree variation, C.V. Using the formula, C.V. = 100/Mean the mean expressed as a logarithm, Thus, the C.V. with is 33 percent. the number of trees required per orchard was derived from the formula, orchard. n = (C.V./2 5) 2 , to be two trees per As will be discussed later, this value m a y have been excessively low due to the low inter-tree variance associated w i t h the preliminary sample set (Table 1). Table 2 shows the more extensive data from 11 extraction density samplings (see Appendix, Tables 9-19), made under four randomly selected trees from different orchards throughout the season. The number of trees sampled per orchard in this experiment was four instead of two, because additional samples were needed to a c c u r ­ ately estimate the number of A. fallacis collected in different strata and vegetation types. The m ean d ensity Table 2.— Extraction density estimates of Amblyseius fallacis (Garman) from six inch cod samples collected in Michigan apple orchards, Summer 1973. No. of A. fallacis Percent of total No. of A. fallacis per sample under per sample outside mites collected in the tree canopy3'*5 of the tree canopy3*c area outside the canopy Date Orchard 6/15 Rasch 2.21 ± .40 — — 6/22 Klackle 2.10 ± .42 — — 7/1 Kraft — — 7/10 Dowd 7/17 Babcock 7/17 .84 ± .22 3.66 ± .29 .75 ± .82 18.3 .28 ± .10 .06 ± .09 18.2 Peachy I 1.65 ± .30 .19 ± .22 10.2 7/25 Dowd 3.25 ± .64 . 3 1 ± .36 8.4 7/27 Klackle 6.38 ± .98 .44 ± .50 6.4 8/14 Peachy I 10.09 ±1.30 1.12 ± .40 10.0 8/24 Rasch 6.81 ±1.28 9/11 Kraft 7.31 ±1.03 a ±Standard Error ^Based on 32 sample units cBased on 16 sample units — 1.38 ± .49 — 15.8 17 of A. fallacis per six-inch sample ranged from 10.09. mean, .28 to In all cases, variances were greater than the indicating that A. fallacis has a slightly a g g r e ­ gated distribution. Standard errors ranged from 7.9 to 37 percent of the mean, but only two of the samples were above 25 percent indicating that the larger number of sample trees was probably closer to the optimal number needed for the precision level specified. On seven of the sample d a t e s , sod samples were taken in the area between trees. After correcting for the difference between the number of samples taken beneath vs beyond the canopy of the tree, the percentage of the total mites collected in each area was compared (Table 2). Values for samples taken from beyond the tree canopy ranged from only 6.4 to 18.3 percent of the total mite population in the orchard and these figures remained relatively constant throughout the growing season. Figure 2 shows the relationship between the sample means and variances in relation to the expected values of the Poisson series, s 2 counts taken on 11 sample dates. = m, for the extraction Data deviated from the random Poisson series, especially at high densities. Taylor (1961) observed that the m e a n-variance relationship between population density estimates was proportional to a fractional power of the arithmetic mean, m, and could 2 h be described by the power law, s = am , where a was a 18 •0 1 40 (A 20- .... lO MEAN (m| Figure 2.— The relationship between sample means and variances of extraction densities of Amblyseius fallacis from M ichigan orchard ground covers, Summer, 1973. 19 sampling factor depending on the size of the sample unit, and the exponent b was an index of aggregation, w h i c h varied from 0 for a regular distribution to infinity for a highly aggregated distribution. Model II ANOVA Data were analyzed by a (Table 3) and showed that a significant difference between trees was found only in one of the 11 samples, Dowd Orchard on July 10, indicating that inter­ tree differences did not contribute significantly to the overall variances as measured in this study. agreed closely w ith the preliminary samples Only in one orchard, This data (Table 1). Peachy I on July 17, was a signifi­ cant difference observed between quadrants. However, in comparison to between tree values it appeared that a greater variance was within quadrants as indicated in nine of the 11 samples (Table 3). Table 4 presents the results of a chi-square test to evaluate whether equal numbers of A. fallacis were found in the samples from the various directional and distance quadrants. The hypothesis tested was that equal numbers of mites w o uld be found in each site if A. was searching randomly throughout the entire area. fallacis Sig­ nificant differences were found in four of the individual orchard samples w ith three having more mites in the north quadrant than in the other three q u a d r a n t s , and in the other case, more were found in the w est quadrant. cases, In most the number of mites in the four quadrants was very a Table 3.— Mean square and estimates of variance components in extraction density estimates13 of Amblyseius fallacis (Garman) in Michigan apple orchards, Summer 1973. M.S. (tree) s2, tree M.S. (quadrant) 2 squadrant M.S. (within quadrant) .00852 .08805 0 .10849 Date Orchard 6/15 Rasch .15622 6/22 Klackle .08861 0 .14536 7/2 Kraft .04690 0 .04902 0 .07522 7/10 Dowd .35438° .05024 0 .10650 7/17 Peachy I .02153 0 .17419° 7/17 Babcock .00440 0 .02348 0 .02652 7/25 Dowd .17558 .01076 .08950 0 .15711 7/27 Klackle .21731 .01858 .06868 .00606 .05657 8/14 Peachy I .28851 .02046 .12485 .03224 .06038 8/24 Rasch .33736 .02695 .12178 9/11 Kraft .15986 .00740 .10066 .03802 aData transformed to log (x + 1) ^32 sample units per orchard sample S i g n i f i c a n t F-test to 1 percent level .03635 .07994 0 .00487 .07267 .01431 .96029 .09092 Table 4.— Extraction samples of Amblyseius fallacis in ground cover of Michigan commercial apple orchards, 1 9 7 3 and Chi-square Test of numbers found in directional quadrants and either close or far from the tree trunk. DIRECTIONAL COMPONENT Date Orchard 6/15 Rasch 19 6/22 Klackle 7/2 Kraft 7/10 Dowd 7/17 Babcock 7/17 2 DISTANCE 2 East West X 18 14 20 1.16 47 24 7.45** 15 21 16 18 1.20 44 26 4.63* 3 8 6 10 3.96 13 14 .04 44 24 31 18 66 51 1.92 2 4 0 3 3.89 6 3 1.00 Peachy I 21 8 12 12 6.85 34 19 4.25* 7/25 Dowd 40 10 27 27 17.46** 43 61 3.12 7/27 Klackle 81 40 39 44 23.80** 83 121 7.08** 8/14 Peachy I 75 58 82 107 15.24** 163 160 .03 8/24 Rasch 65 49 61 43 5.78 67 151 32.37** 9/11 Kraft 64 65 48 57 3.16 89 145 15.50** * 2 North South Significant x -test to 5 percent level ** Significant x 2 -test to 1 percent level 12.81** Close Far X 22 similar. Comparing the distance values, significant differences were found close to the three trunk early in the season, but by mid season the numbers were almost equal. Later, m ore mites were found out near the edge of the canopy coinciding with the predator leaving the tree after its prey had been reduced in number. Figure 3 shows the proportion of mites found on samples containing either grass, broad-leaf forbs, or in the litter beneath the vegetation samples. The p r o p o r ­ tion of A. fallacis in all three habitats remained r el a ­ tively uniform through the season. An average of 48 percent of the m i tes collected occurred on grass, percent on broad-leaf plants, 42 and only ten percent of the total was in the litter samples at all sample dates. Some variations were expected in these data since samples were collected in orchards containing different plant compositions at various densities. One-Minute Counts Figure 4 is a plot of the mean-variance r e l a tion­ ship of the one-minute examples of A. fallacis collected from broad-leaf forbs and apple sucker growth in 197 2 (see 2 Appendix, Tables 21 to 29). An expected Poisson (s = m) n u and a calculated Taylor's power law (s * am ) fit to the data are plotted. The Taylor's b of 1.4 6 indicated that A. fallacis had an aggregated distribution as mea s u r ed by m [ : CRASS | : BROAD* LEAF FOI : CROUND LITTER to 7/27 S/14 t/24 t/11 DATE Figure 3.— The proportion of A. fallacis population found on different vegetation in Michigan apple orchards. 24 . 20-1 VARIANCE ($2 ) 30 20 IS- 1.0 10 1.0 1.8 2.0 3.0 3.5 M E A N (m) Figure 4.— The relationship between means and variances of one-minute samples collected in 1972. 4.0 25 this technique. This value also was very close to that obtained by the extraction method (Figure 2). parisons of 1972 one-minute count data ANOVA com­ (see Appendix, Table 20), also gave results similar to those obtained in the extraction data analysis in that significance level) (.05 between trees in orchards throughout the season was found in only one case. Based on the A N O V A variance c o m ­ ponents and sampling time constraints, the optimal number of sample units required per tree was estimated at three. The number of trees to be sampled at various densities of 2 A. fallacis was obtained using the formula, n = (C.V./D) , with the level of precision, D, being equal to b oth 10 and 25 percent for all samples (Figures 5 and 6, respectively). As can be seen, samples of three, one-minute counts taken from ten trees (= 30 one-minute counts/orchard) were adequate for a 25 percent level of precision, but not for 10 percent at the lower predator densities. Figure 7 presents the mean-variance relationship for the one-minute sample data collected in 197 3, which excluded apple sucker foliage. was still aggregated, As indicated, A. fallacis but the calculated Taylor's b of 1.28 was considerably less than the 197 2 value w h e n apple suckers were included. Al t h o u g h optimal sample size values were not calculated for these data, it is certain that Variance components based on these data were less 26 200 175 150 NO. OF S A M P L E S 125 100 75 SO 25 •• MEAN Figure 5.— Number of one-minute samples needed for ten percent standard error using formula /t\2 a 2 . \D/ X2 27 SO 70 •O SO 40 30 20 lO MIAN Figure 6.— Number of one-minute samples needed for 25 percent standard error of the mean, calculated using the formula /*_\2 2 U z 2 ' •MA N (m) Figure 7 . — The relationship between means and variance of one-minute samples collected in 197 3. 29 than in 1972 and thus the sample size values reported in Figures 5 and 6 would be more than adequate. Table 5 presents data on the plants most frequently sampled in the nine experimental orchards and gives the cases where significantly more or less A. fallacis were found on a given plant during the growing season Appendix, Tables 3 0-4 8). for apple in 1972. (see An obvious preference was shown This was probably due to both a p r e f ­ ence for the plant and also to the fact that apple is the only host plant in the ground cover which will sustain P. ulmi, a principle prey of A. f a l l a c i s . preference for apple, Beyond the significantly greater values were obtained for Virginia creeper and grape in 197 2 and for dandelion, Virginia creeper, milkweed, grape in 1973. and Significantly fewer mites were recorded on broadleaf dock, daisy fleabane, and wild lettace in 1972, and on dandelion, daisy fleabane, in 1973. nightshade, In general, and broadleaf dock the data in Table 5 indicated that A. fallacis had little preference for any host plant and it appeared that its distribution was related to the presence of the prey mite, T. u r t i c a e , and P. ulmi on ground cover plants. An additional comparison of the timed counts was made to determine if there was a significant bias added by either of the three minutes from individual trees. (sample units) collected Using the means and variances of Table 5.— Chi-square analysis of the number of A. fallacis collected on different ground cover plants during one-minute counts in all orchards. Carpenter Dowd Babcock Peachy I Peachy II Rasch Klackle Kraft Gavin N.S. N.S. — — N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. — > ** N.S. — — N.S. — N.S. N.S. — — <** <* N.S. N.S. — N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. — — N.S. >* 1972 apple dandelion Virginia Creeper broad-leaf dock goldenrod daisy fleabane milkweed nightshade grape wild lettace >* M.S. N.S. U.S. — w* — N.S. N.S. N.S. — >** N.S. N.S. <** U.S. <** M.S. N.S. — <* N.S. U.S. >** N.S. n.s. U.S. U.S. — N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. U.S. U.S. N.S. U.S. >** N.S. >** N.S. c** N.S. N.S. N.S. — N.S. — U.S. — N.S. N.S. N.S. <* N.S. U.S. U.S. N.S. — N.S. >** N.S. >** U.S. N.S. >** <** U.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. >** N.S. N.S. N.S. ** N.S. >** -N.S. N.S. ’ >* N.S. U.S. N.S. U.S. U.S. N.S. — — N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. >#* a.'*. — N.S. U.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. — 1973 dandelion daisy fleabane broad-leaf dock goldenrod Virginia Creeper black raspberry milkweed nightshade grape wild lettace — <** — >** — N.S. — N.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. N.S. N.S. U.S. N.S. <** * N.S. >** N.S. N.S. N.S. •Significance to .05 level **Significance to .01 level N.S.* the chi-square value was not significant - * plant not found in significant numbers in orchard > * more mites than expected < « fewer mites than expected N.S. N.S. U.S. N.S. N.S. — N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. —— N.S. N.S. U.S. N.S. N.S. 31 the first, second and third minutes, a linear regression analysis was made of the variance to mean to determine whether each timed interval was giving like estimates. The regression analysis produced a slope for the first minute of 4.79 ±1. 8 3 , for the third, the second minute of 4.52 ± .97 and 5.82 ± 1.69. The overlap of the regression slope of the three minutes indicates that they were sampling like parameters. Apple Sucker Count Figure 8 shows the m e a n -variance relationship for the apple sucker data collected for both the 1973 and 1974 seasons (see Appendix Tables 48-55). The plotted lines are 2 the expected Poisson series, s = m , and the Taylor's 2 h power law, s = am , calculated for the observed data. The Taylor's b, 1.10 was less than that obtained by the other sampling techniques indicating that the distribution of A. fallacis in this habitat was m o r e random than samples taken from the more hetergeneous ground cover. This probably was related to the fact that the apple leaves were a more uniform sample unit. Another factor contributing to the less aggregated distribution may be related to the predator's searching pattern w h ich m a y differ on the apple leaf as compared to the broadleaf plants. Specific comparisons of data points to the calculated line indicated that aggregations were rare on apple leaves. Those 32 4.0' VARIANCE IS2) 3.0 2.0' M E A N (m) Figure 8 #— The relationship between means and variances from apple sucker samples collected in 197 2 and 1973. 33 observed were correlated with the tendency of A. fallacis to clump around P. ulmi populations w h ich had fallen from the tree or in late season, they were caused by small n um­ bers of predators concentrating in the junction of the mid and branch veins of the apple leaves prior to entering diapause. Figure 9 shows the number of sample units needed to provide a standard error of 25 percent of the m ean at various densities for the apple sucker count method. number, n, was calculated using the formula, The n=(t - s/D * m) where s = standard deviation, D = the required level of accuracy expressed as a decimal (i.e., .25), and t is a quantity, depending o n the number of samples, and is obtained from a table of t-values 1966). (Southwood, Figure 9 shows that a total of 100 units was sufficient for most densities. Comparison of Relative Density Sampling Method's Both the one-minute count and apple sucker data were compared by linear regression analysis with the extraction sample data taken on the same day to show their relationships. Between the one-minute and extraction data, a positive regression slope and correlation c o e f f i ­ cient of .93 were obtained (Figure 10), both methods gave comparable results. indicating that The Y-intercept of 1.4 indicated that the extraction met h o d was m ore 2 , 34 200 ISO too 140 120 w Z too •• * oo 00 40 20 1.0 1.0 2.0 To ROKAN Figure 9.— The number of sample units (apple sucker leaves) needed per orchard for different m ean densities as calculated using the formula n _ (t-s/D* X)^ when D = .25 + t .05 [a] = 1.96. 35 12 MEAN Na OF MITES/ABSOLUTE SAMPLE 10- 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 MEAN NO. OF M IT E S /1 -M IN . SAMPLE Figure^ 10.--Regression analysis showing the relationship between the m ean extraction density of A. fallacis and the mean one-minute count. 36 efficient in detecting low density population of A. fallacis. This was to be expected since in one-minute of time, only a portion of a six-inch diameter sample could be examined. Similar results were also obtained by comparing data from apple sucker counts w ith extraction density estimates (Figure 11). A significant correlation of .86 was observed and the Y-intercept was at 1.4 units. Although neither the one-minute nor the apple sucker methods provided satisfactory estimates of A. fallacis populations at extremely low densities, their comparable slopes and similar Y-intercept values indicated that they provided similar types of relative density estimates. This was confirmed by comparing population curves in actual orchard samples (see later discussions of individual orchard p o p ­ ulations) and by the correlation between the two relative density estimates whi c h is presented in Figure 12 (r=.81). A a The predictive equation of Y + .36+2.46 (x) where Y is the predicted mean of the one-minute count and x, the number of mites/apple sucker leaf, indicated that slightly more mites were found in the ground cover counts than on the apple sucker leaves on the same date. The extreme deviations from the regression line of Figure 10 were due to anomalies observed during the studies. For example, on occasion, high densities of A. fallacis would be recorded on apple sucker leaves w h i c h were infested with o .29 .90 .79 1.00 1.29 1.90 MEAN NO.OF MITES/APPLE SUCKER LEAF Figure 11.--Regression analysis showing the relationship between the mean and extraction density of the mean number of A. fallacis per apple sucker leaf. 38 S.0 7.0 MEAN NO. OF MITES/ 1-MIN SAMPLE 6.0 5.0 2.0 i.0 .5 i.0 l.S 2.0 MEAN N a OF M IT E S /A P P L E SUCKER LEAF Figure 12.— Regression analysis showing the relationship between the m ean apple sucker density and the mean one-minute density of A. f a l l a c i s . 39 P. u l m i , but A. fallacis was simultaneously rare in the ground cover since P. ulmi did not inhabit other ground cover foliage. Measurement of A m b lvseius fallacis Activity The bean plant sampling technique was used in the nine experimental orchards throughout the 197 2 growing season and early in the 1973 season. A total of 1936 sample units was collected during this time period. Numbers of A. fallacis found on individual plants ranged from 0 to 66 with higher numbers collected late in the summer (see Appendix, Tables 56-73). Figure 13 shows the mean-variance relationship 2 of the bean samples. The Poisson series, s = m, and the Taylor's power law, figure. s = am , are also plotted on this The T a y l o r ’s b, 1.34, and the divergence from the Poisson series indicated that A. fallacis had an a g gre­ gated distribution on most sample dates. Analysis of the number of mites captured with this method with respect to cardinal direction and d i s ­ tance from the tree trunk tested the hypothesis that A . fallacis was randomly searching the habitat beneath the tree canopy. Table 6 gives the m e a n number of A. fallacis collected in all nine orchards at various sampling dates. Analysis of individual orchard means were not significantly different from pooled comparisons. Only 40 IOi VARIANCE ($*) 2.S t.O too< SO ?A O SjO iO.O is.« 20.0 MEAN(ffl) Figure 13.— The relationship between the means and variance of bean plant samples collected in 1972 and 1973. Table 6.— Chi-square analysis of the number of Amblyseius fallacis found on bean , plants in the four cardinal directional quadrants and either far or close to the tree trunks under apple trees in western Michigan orchards, 1972-1973. Direction 5/24 - 6/20/73 # HUes 2 X 6/8 - 6/28/72 # M1tes corrected 2 x North 79 (183) South 73 .09 30 (62) 22 .02 121 (77) 114 71 (133) 69 .64 19 (60) 14 2.47 SO (73) 80 East 93 (185) 92 3.16 33 (63) 32 5.44 75 (74) Uest 65 (132) 65 1.59 17 (61) 17 .85 7S (77) 5.48 TOTU 7/12 - 7/26-72 # Mites Corrected 2 x 8/3 - 3/22/72 # Mites Corrected 8/29 - 10/3/72 # Hites Corrected . x< 167 1.89 479 (91) 479 1.19 206 (73) 203 1.60 479 (90) 479 1.19 74 1.55 193 (73) 190 .10 447 (91) 447 .17 74 1.55 183 (72) 183 .04 418 (91) 418 3.13 3.78* 9.50 172 (74) 2 x .4 13.00** 5.68 3.63 Distance Close 196 (369) 196 11.45 53 (123) 53 1.46 194 (149) 194 2.06 340 (138) 349 .63 1046 (175) Far 112 (369) 112 11.45 41 (123) 41 1.46 160 (152) 156 2.06 414 (154) 370 .63 TOTAL 22.90** 2 * Significant x -test to 5 percent level. Significant x -test to 1 percent level. ^ ^ number of sample units included. 2.92 4.12* 1.26 777 (188) 1046 723 29.48 29.42 58.97 42 small differences between direction were noted at two sampling periods, 6/8 to 6/28, 1972 when significantly more predators were collected in the east quadrant and 7/12 to 7/26, 1972 when the north quadrant had s ignifi­ cantly more mites. Dispersal of A. fallacis from the apple trees with the prevailing wind {from the SW to NE) was believed to be the main factor contributing to the differential distribution. Analysis of samples differing in proximity to the tree base reflected seasonal differences. In early spring, more mites were found close to the tree trunk. During midseason, mites were numerous close to the trunk, but differences were not exceptionally great and m a y have simply reflected the cline of microhabitat w h ich m ust extend from the margin of the tree canopy to the trunk region. Late in the season, more mites were more common in the inner region of the canopy suggesting that a significant number migrate from the tree via the tree trunk and that it apparently maintains its distribution close to the tree trunk throughout the winter, until early in the following spring. Summary of Sampling Procedures and the Distribution of A. fallaci? in the Ground Cover Habitat Sampling ground cover populations of A. fallacis in apple orchards having different vegetation types and compositions w ith methods whi c h are not time or cost 43 prohibitive and yet maintaining accuracy and precision is at best a compromise solution. An additional c o n ­ straint is that the techniques must be adapted to the small size of the mite experiments, (300 X 100 m i c r o n s ) . In these accuracy or the absence of bias was regulated by eliminating errors as they were recognized and by representing all sources of variation in the sampling design. Precision, the reproducability of an estimate, was ensured by taking a sufficient number of samples as needed for a specific level. Although the extraction method provided a constant recovery rate for A. fallacis population estimations from the orchard ground cover and it probably most accurately reflected the absolute density, it was a very labor intensive and cost prohibitive operation. estimation was m uch faster, differential counting time The timed but there was concern that a (i.e. handling time, Holling, 1965) would be associated with estimating different densities of A. f a l l a c i s . However, the sampler was required only to m a k e a mental note of the number of mites observed and recorded that value after the sample period, so the error present was considered to be minimal. In 1972 a significant bias arose in the timed vegetational analysis from the inclusion of apple sucker leaves, which usually contained greater numbers of A. fallacis than did other ground cover plants. In 1973, apple suckers were 44 sampled independently and the data obtained was also very closely correlated w i t h the extraction d e n s i t y estimates. Overall, m i t e s sampled by the apple sucker count showed the least degree of aggregation, so precision was obtained w i t h the smallest sample size as compared to the other sampling methods. This could be expected from a sample unit which had a relatively uniform size and retained a constant density throughout the season. A major limitation of the apple sucker met h o d was that the presence of sucker growth in an orchard often was subject to removal b y the grower, so one could not count on this habitat being consistently available for sampling. A comparison of the Taylor's b, calculated from each sample method, indicated that the measured d i s t r i ­ bution of A. fallacis was often a function of the sample method. The b value of the extraction method was 1.49. This value reflected an aggregated distribution which more likely was due to the diverse plant habitat from which the sample was taken than to the intrinsic d i s t r i ­ bution of A. f a l l a c i s , w h i c h appears to search at random throughout the ground cover. An aggregated distribution was also reflected by the Taylor's b, 1.46, obtained from the one-minute count data in 1972, which included both broad-leaf forbs and apple sucker growth in the analysis. In 1973, apple suckers were omitted from the one-minute counts and a Taylor's b of 1.28 was obtained indicating 45 that the degree of aggregation was reduced significantly. Furthermore, the Taylor's b, 1.10, obtained from the apple sucker data indicated an even greater tendency toward a random distribution when a sample unit w ith a uniform size and number was analysed. Data collected from the directional and distance (from the tree trunk) strata also tended to confirm the preliminary observations that A. fallacis randomly searched for its prey under the tree canopy and its occurrence in any stratum or on a particular plant was uniform or related to the frequency w ith w h i c h it was sampled. Data from the extraction samples gave uniform densities of A. fallacis in the strata, although there were exceptions w i t h respect to early or late season in relation to proximity to the tree trunk or directional preference. These anomalies were attributed to the dispersal of A. fallacis into and from the tree via wind and the tree trunk. to vegetation types, W ith respect the one-minute count data showed no general preference of A. f a l l a c i s , although some exceptions may have been due to leaf pubescence or relative size. Numbers of A. fallacis collected on bean plants infested with T. urticae reflected similar distribution results (Taylor's b of 1.34) as did the other sample methods. The chi-square analysis of the directional and distance c o m ­ ponents showed very little preference during the entire 46 season, but also reflected aggregations in late and early season as observed in data collected by the extraction sample m e t h o d . Results and Discussion of Individual Orchard Sampling This section contains data collected in nine western Michigan apple orchards, a description of each orchard, 1972 to 1974, including its ground cover, and the population dynamics of A. f a l l a c i s , both in the tree and in the ground cover. The principle plants found in the ground cover are listed w i t h the estimated percentage of each in parentheses, as determined by its frequency in the random vegetation samples. A figure details the mite populations for each year in each orchard, with graphs representing the in-tree and under-tree populations of A. f a l l a c i s . The in-tree data were collected by B.A. Croft by methods described by Croft and McGroarty (197 2) , and are included because of the close relationship between the numbers of A. fallacis found in the two habitats. each figure, In the upper graph shows the m ean number of A. fallacis per apple leaf on the left ordinate, and the density of the European red mite on the right ordinate. The lower graph shows the number of A. fallacis per oneminute count on the left ordinate and the number of A. fallacis per apple sucker leaf on the right ordinate except in 197 2 w h e n sucker leaf samples were not taken. 47 The abscissa common to both graphs indicates the time of year. The symbol/ & , on the graph indicates only the presence of two-spotted spider mites in the ground cover or in the three, since they were usually few in number and were not quantitatively sampled. Spray applications are also indicated by arrows and an appropriate letter as defined on the graph. Since these orchards were managed under the integrated mite control program of Croft (1975) and so the chemicals applied did not effect the mite populations, only spray applications not in harmony with the integrated program are designated. Klackle Orchard, Michigan, located five miles west of Belding, contained red delicious apple trees approximately 15 feet high. The experimental block, containing 12 trees, was surrounded by blocks of other apple varieties. The ground cover was composed almost entirely of grass with only scattered forbs, i.e., dandelion, Taraxacum officinale (59), night-flowering catchfly, field peppergrass, Polygonum sp. Silene n o c t i f l o r a , (6), Lepidium c ampestre , (4), smartweed. (4), and red clover, Trifolium pratense (3). Figure 14 shows the population dynamics of A. fallacis in Klackle Orchard, of June and July, cover, 1972. During the months few predators were found in the ground suggesting that those present w ere only able to find enough prey to allow only enough offspring to be produced to replace the parents. In the tree, A. fallacis rii TREE to No. Of P. ulmi/ A . fa 1laci ulmi No. of A. oo count apple leaf 3jO fallacis/ apple leaf 48 No. of A, fallacis/ one win. GROUND MAY JUNE JULY AUG Figure 1 4. — Population dynamics of A. Orchard, 1972. OCT fallacis in Klackle 49 was first collected during the third w eek of July. By the end of A u g u s t , A. fallacis had increased in the tree and controlled the European red mite. After reducing the number of prey in the tree, A. fallacis dispersed back to the ground cover. The uniform number of A. fallacis in the ground cover from late August through September indi­ cated that the mite did not disperse from the tree en mass, but left in small numbers perhaps as the number of prey mites decreased in a specific region of the tree. Figure 15 shows the population dynamics of A. fallacis in Klackle Orchard, 1973. In early season, a few A. fallacis were observed associated with two-spotted spider mites in the ground cover. Because two-spotted spider mites were present in the ground cover and European red mites were abundant on the apple sucker leaves, the density of A. fallacis increased rapidly and some wer e already found in the tree in June. of A. f a l l a c i s , collected in the tree, The number increased while they fed on rust mites, Aculus schlectendeli (IJalepa) . This prey species is not shown on Figure 15, but its density was approximately 250 per apple leaf. In late August, decrease in the population of A. fallacis indi­ cates they left the tree, first increasing in number on the sucker growth and then in the ground c o v e r . The low number of A. fallacis in the ground cover during September 50 r» TREE •10 fallacis ulni 0.1 ■JB GROUND fallacis 1 - m i n .) apple ) 1.0 <1 6 U> MAY JUNE JULY AUG Figure 15.— Population dynamics of A. Orchard, 1973. OCT fallacis in Klackle 51 implies that m o s t of the predators had entered diapause or dispersed to other areas by that time. Figure 16 shows the population dynamics of A. fallacis in Klackle Orchard, 1974. In June, m a n y were observed associated with two-spotted spider mites. Some dispersed into the tree by mid-July, but the number was not high enough to control the European red m i t e , and an application of PlictraiP^ was required. Following the spray, A. fallacis regulated the European red mite until the end of the season. Rasch Orchard, located five miles west of Belding, Michigan, was composed of 35 to 40 foot northern spy apple trees. This block was adjacent to a mature hardwood stand on the north, and other varieties of apple on the other sides. Under the trees, a deep layer of humus was indica­ tive of the orchard*s old age. The drooping branches of these trees blocked m ost of the sun, so shad tolerants plants thrived and grass was inhibited. plants included dandelion, Taraxacum officinale black raspberry, Rubus occidentalis Parthenocissus quinquefolia Solanum nigrum Ground cover (34), (11), Virginia creeper, (10), common nightshade, (9), sweet cicily, Osmorhiza claytoni grape, Vitus sp. (8), (8). Figure 17 shows the population dynamics of A. fallacis in the Rasch Orchard, 1972. In, early season, a small number of predators was observed associated w ith 52 ». «3 j0 * A . f a l l a c i s * P. u lm i P Plictran J IjO - cu S * Sevin 0 1 « 4.0- QROUN O M U A. f a l l a c i a ( a p p le O a* < N m ■H u 0 1 -0> ^ - Q ' IUMB JULY AUO *‘q . OCT Figure 22.— Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Kraft Orchard, 1974. 63 in the summer and held water in the spring. V ery little litter was found under the ground cover vegetation. A little grass g rew between the trees, but under the canopy, chickory, Cichorium intybus predominated. (43.2) and apple sucker growth Other ground cover plants included d a n d e ­ lion, Taraxacum o f f i c i n a l e , (11.4), red clover, Trifolium pratense (11.2), English plantain, Plantago l a n c e o l a t e , (8.5), and alfalfa, Medicago sativa (5.2). Figure 23 shows the population dynamics of A. fallacis in Gavin Orchard, ® applications of Dikar 1972. In June, a series of seemed to inhibit the development of a predator population until July. However, two-spotted spider mites flourished in the ground cover and moved into the tree in August. The predator was observed in early August, and by the end of September, it had c o n ­ trolled the spider mites both in the tree and ground cover. Amblyseius fallacis remained active until late October, when many were still observed searching the ground cover. Therefore, it was suspected that a large number of A. fallacis was present in the ground cover during the winter. Figure 24 shows the population dynamics of A. fallacis in Gavin Orchard, set well, chemicals, fungicide, Cyprex 1973. Because fruit did not except of an early season oil and , were not applied this season. few predators were found in the ground cover in May Only a a. TR I I 1.0 Di kar • 10 p. ulm 2.0- / Apple rlt leaf 64 of o o0 6 o o No. <1 5*0 o JjO c 1.0 MAY JUNK JULY AUG Figure 23.— Population dynamics of A. Orchard, 1972. OCT fallacis in Gavin 65 u lm i s P I i c t r a n SjO 4J0 ooo ooo MAY JUNE of Zolone P. u lnu A . fa 1lac / Apple is :*jo Leaf 69 JULY AUO Figure 26.— Population dynamics of A. Carpenter Orchard, 1972. oooo OCT fallacis in 70 Leaf •to 2.0 A. fallacis o 0.90 OQ O O 1.0 No. of p. ulmi ■to / Apple TREE O <1 OROUMO ■ 1-min. 2.0 sucker fallaci s fallacis 2.0 No. of A. fallacis 14 o o MA Y / Apple c 4 .0 leaf 0.0 JUNE JULV OCT Figure 27.— Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Carpenter Orchard, 1973. 71 in June. A few predators were observed associated w ith two-spotted spider mites in the ground cover, again they did not move into the trees. but once Therefore, the European red mites increased and had to be controlled with chemicals in early August. Figure 28 shows the population dynamics of A. fallacis in Carpenter Orchard, 1974. Many predators were observed on apple suckers in early June. growth was then cut, The sucker so it w a s not possible to use this sample technique until August. In June, a few predators were found in the tree, but they did not increase in number. Instead, the number of A. fallacis decreased both in the tree and in the ground cover. The European red mite increased and was chemically controlled with Plictran^. In August, Systox and subsequently, decreased. was applied for leafhopper control, the tree population of A. fallacis However, since the ground population increased following the spray application, the chemical probably did not destroy the predator, but m a y have forced them from the t r e e . The Babcock Orchard, located one mile north of Keeler, Michigan, contained 15 foot red and yellow delicious apple trees. This small block of 50 trees was divided equally between the two apple varieties, and was surrounded by extensive acreages of vineyards. The ground cover contained a thick grass sod between trees, and 72 as (as n. to $■ • -- TREE PIict ran 10 / Apple Leaf 83 No. of P I 1 ctran s.o c 40 MAY JULY AUO OCT Figure 35.— Population dynamics of A. fallacis in Peachy I Orchard, 197 2. 84 increase in number on the ground. The extremely high numbers found in the ground samples were probably caused by a bias in sampling caused b y A. fallacis aggregating on the herbs, whereas in other orchards, a large p r o p o r ­ tion of the population was usually found on grass. Figure 36 shows the population dynamics of A. fallacis in Peachy I Orchard, 1973. A few predators were observed in May, but the number did not increase until mid-June w hen the population began a steady increase. They moved into the tree in mid-July and increased in number while feeding on rust mites. Later, large numbers were found in the ground as they left the tree after reducing the pest mites. Figure 37 shows the population dynamics of A. fallacis in Peachy I Orchard, 1974. In the ground cover, only a few predators were found in early season, their number did not increase through July. fallacis was first collected in August, and In the tree, but by then the European red mite population had already been controlled (D with Plictran'"'. In September, a few predators were found in the ground cover as they sought over-wintering sites. However, they were not nearly as abundant as in the previous years. Peachy II Orchard, contained Red Delicious, trees. located east of Peachy I, Jonathan, and Northern Spy apple This block was also periodically mulched, but 85 4.: TREE fallacis 4.0 •lO < lO i fallacis A. fallacio apple ) fallacis / One min. count ulmi of A. '1.0 u No. o ooo MAY JUNE JULY AUO Figure 36.— Population dynamics of A. Orchard, 197 3. SEPT OCT fallacis in Peachy I 86 ri> m s !• * a TREE A . m f a l l a c l s u lm i hB 0 P l i c t r a n a. I IM 0 •ci o 1 GROUND A. f a l l a c l a < 1 - m in . A. f a l l a c l a ( a p p le 3 West Br - C = Lit.* Gr - C = Lit.= Tree #3 11• •M •H East Tree 12 Gr - F = 5 Lit.* 0 Br - C = 1 Lit.* 0 Gr - C = 5 Lit.* 0 Br Br - C * Lit.* Gr - C * Lit.* 1 Br - C * 3 Lit.* 0 Gr - C = 5 Lit.* 1 17 24 Broad-Leaf Sample Grass Sample Sample Taken within Ten Feet of Tree Trunk Sample Taken further than Ten Feet of Tree Trunk Litter Sample 1 0 9 - C * 1 Lit.* 0 Gr - C * 0 Lit.* 0 Table 10.— Extraction density measurement of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Kraft Orchard, July 2, 1973. Quadrant Tree #1 Tree #2 Tree #3 Tree #4 North Br - c * Lit.= Gr - C = Lit.= 0 0 0 0 Br - F = Lit.* Gr - F = Lit.= 0 0 1 0 Br - C * Lit.* Gr - C = Lit.* 2 0 0 0 Br - F = Lit.* Gr - F = Lit.* 0 0 0 0 South Br - C = Lit.* Gr - C = Lit.= 0 0 0 0 Br - F = Lit.* Gr - F = Lit.* 3 0 0 0 Br - C = Lit.* Gr - C = Lit.* 1 0 2 0 Br - F Lit.* Gr - F = Lit.* 0 0 1 1 East Br - F = Lit.* Gr - F Lit.* 0 0 0 0 Br - C = Lit .= Gr - C = Lit.* 1 0 0 0 Br - F = Lit.* Gr - F * Lit.* 0 0 2 0 Br - C = Lit.* Gr - C * Lit.* 3 0 0 0 West Br - F = Lit.= Gr - F * Lit.* 0 0 5 0 Br - C = Lit.= Gr - C = Lit.* 0 0 0 0 Br - F = Lit.* Gr - F = Lit.* 1 0 0 0 Br - C = Lit.* Gr - C = Lit.* 0 1 3 0 5 Total Br Gr C F Lit = = = = * 5 Broad-Leaf Sample Grass Sample Sample taken within ten feet of treetrunk Sample taken further than ten feet of tree trunk Litter sample 8 9 Table 11.— Extraction density measurement of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Dowd Orchard, July 10, 1973. Quadrant Tree #1 Tree #2 Tree #3 Tree #4 North Br - C = 1 Lit.= 0 Gr - C =13 Lit.= 0 Br - F = 3 Lit.= 0 Gr - F =12 Lit.= 0 Br - C = 2 Lit.= 0 Gr - c = 5 L i t .= 0 Br - F = 6 Lit.* 0 Gr - F = 2 Lit.= 0 South Br - C = 2 Lit.= 0 Gr - C = 6 Lit.= 0 Br - F = Lit.= Gr - F = Lit.= 7 Br - C = 0 L i t .= 0 Gr - C = 1 Lit.= 0 Br - F = 1 L i t .= 0 Gr - F = 3 Lit.= 0 East Br - F = Lit.= Gr - F = Lit.= Br - C = 3 Lit.= 0 Gr - C = 3 Lit.= 1 Br - F = Lit.= Gr - F = Lit.= 0 0 3 0 Br - C = 5 L i t .= 1 Gr - C =12 Lit.= 0 West Br - F = 2 Lit.= 0 Gr - F = 0 Lit.= 0 Br - C = Lit.= Gr - 0 = Lit.= 0 0 5 0 Br - F = 1 Lit.= 0 Gr - F = 4 Lit.= 0 Br - C = 2 Lit.= 0 Gr - C = 4 Lit.= 0 33 16 36 3 0 0 0 27 Total Br Gr C F Lit = = = = = 0 4 0 Broad-Leaf Sample Grass Sample Sample taken within ten feet of tree trunk Sample taken further than ten feet of tree trunk Litter sample Table 12.— Extraction density measurement of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Peachy I Orchard, July 17, 1973. Quadrant Tree #2 Tree #1 Tree #3 Tree #4 North Br - C = Lit.® Gr - C * Lit.® 0 0 5 0 Br - F = Lit.® Gr - F * Lit.* 0 1 2 0 Br - C * Lit.® Gr - C = Lit.® 6 0 4 0 Br - F * Lit.® Gr - F * Lit.® 2 0 1 0 South Br - C = Lit.® Gr - C = Lit.® 3 1 2 0 Br - F = Lit.* Gr - F = Lit.* 0 0 0 0 Br - C = Lit.® Gr - C * Lit.® 0 0 0 0 Br - F ® Lit.® Gr - F ® Lit.® 1 0 0 1 East Br - F = Lit.® Gr - F ® Lit.= 0 0 0 0 Br - C = Lit.® Gr - C = Lit.* 2 0 5 0 Br - F * Lit.* Gr - F = Lit.® 3 0 0 0 Br - C = Lit.® Gr - C ® Lit.® 2 0 0 0 West Br - F = Lit.* Gr - F = Lit.= 3 0 2 1 Br 1 Lit.= 0 Gr - C = 2 Lit.= 0 Br - F = 1 Lit.* 0 Gr - F * 1 Lit.® 0 Br - C ® Lit.® Gr - C = Lit.® 0 1 0 0 12 15 17 Total Br Gr C F Lit = = * ® -c * Broad-Leaf Sample Grass Sample Sample taken within ten feet of treetrunk Sample taken further than ten feet of tree trunk Litter sample 8 Table 13.— Extraction density measurement of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Babcock Orchard, July 17, 1973. Tree #1 Quadrant Tree #3 Tree #2 Tree #4 Br - C = Lit.® Gr - C = Lit.® 0 1 0 0 Br - F = Lit .= Gr - F = Lit.® 1 0 0 0 Br - C ® Lit.® Gr - C ® Lit.® 0 0 0 0 Br - F = Lit.® Gr - F = Lit.® 0 0 0 0 South Br - C = Lit.® Gr - 2 = Lit.® 1 0 0 0 0 0 Br - C = 1 Lit.® 0 0 Br - F = Lit.® Gr - F = Lit.® Br - F = Lit.® Gr - F ® Lit.® 0 0 0 0 East Br - F = Lit.= Gr - F = Lit.® 0 0 0 0 Br - C = Lit.® Gr - C = Lit.® 0 0 0 0 Br - F = Lit.® Gr - F ® Lit.® 0 0 3 0 Br - C = Lit.® Gr - C = Lit.® 0 0 0 0 West Br - F ® Lit.® Gr - F = Lit.® 0 0 0 0 Br - C = Lit.® Gr - C = Lit.® 0 1 0 0 Br - F ® Lit.® Gr - F = Lit.® 0 Br - C = Lit.® Gr - C = Lit.® 0 0 0 0 2 4 Total Br Gr C F Lit = = = = - n i o n North 0 Lit.® 0 2 Broad-Leaf Sample Grass Sample Sample taken within ten feet of tree trunk Sample taken further than ten feet of tree trunk Litter sample 2 0 0 3 0 Table 14.— Extraction density measurement of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Dowd Orchard, July 25, 1973. ~ =i •■■ ■ '» i Tree #1 Quadrant North South East Tree #2 Br - C = Lit.= Gr - C = Lit.* 9 Br - C = Lit.* Gr - C = Lit.* 1 Br - F = Lit.* Gr - F = Lit.= 3 0 Br - F * Lit.= Gr - F = Lit.* West Br Gr C F Lit = * = Tree #3 Br - F = Lit.* Gr - F = Lit.* 4 2 0 Br - C * Lit.* Gr - C = Lit.* Br - F = Lit.* Gr - F * Lit.* 0 0 2 0 Br - C * Lit.* Gr - C = Lit.* 1 Br 0 Br - c * Lit.* Gr - C * Lit.* 0 0 6 0 Br - C = Lit.* Gr - C = Lit.* 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 24 Total ^..u,r--a'-iTree #4 0 Br - F = Lit.* Gr - F * Lit.* 1 0 9 0 Br - F = Lit.* Gr - F = Lit.* 0 0 2 0 0 Gr - F = 0 Lit.* 10 Br - C = Lit.* Gr - C * Lit.* 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 Br - F * Lit.* Gr - F = Lit.* Br - C * Lit.* Gr - C * Lit.* 0 0 8 0 1 0 1 1 9 2 0 0 2 1 f = 3 Lit.* 1 - 13 Broad-Leaf Sample Grass Sample Sample taken within ten feet of tree trunk Sample taken further than ten feet of tree trunk Litter sample 2 0 9 0 45 22 Table 15.— Extraction density measurement of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Klackle Orchard, July 27, 1973. Quadrant Tree #1 Tree 43 Tree #2 Tree #4 North Br - F =12 Lit .= 1 Gr - F = 5 Lit.= 1 Br - F = Lit .= Gr - F = Lit.= 3 0 4 0 Br - F = Lit.= Gr - F = Lit.= South Br - F = Lit.= Gr - F = Lit.= 7 0 Br - F = Lit.= Gr - F = Lit.= 2 2 2 0 Br - F = 1 Lit.= 0 Gr - F =10 Lit.= 1 Br - F = Lit.= Gr - F = Lit.= East Br - C = Lit.= Gr - c = Lit.= 3 0 3 0 Br - c = Lit.= Gr - C = Lit .= 1 0 3 0 Br - C = Lit.= Gr - C = Lit.= 2 0 8 2 Br - C = 4 L i t .= 0 Gr - C =13 Lit.= 0 West Br - C = Lit.= Gr - C = Lit.= 2 1 6 0 Br - c = 4 Lit.= 0 Gr - C = 10 Lit.= 0 Br - C = Lit.= Gr - C = Lit.= 1 0 3 Br - C = Lit.= Gr - C = Lit.= 46 31 Br Gr C F Lit = = * = = 5 Broad-Leaf Sample Grass Sample Sample taken within ten feet of tree trunk Sample taken further than ten feet of tree trunk Litter sample 2 38 Br - F =23 L i t .= 2 Gr - F =22 Lit.= 0 5 0 2 3 6 0 9 2 89 104 Total 0 4 0 4 0 Table 16.— Extraction density measurement of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Peachy I Orchard, August 14, 1973.~ Quadrant Tree #1 North South East West Total Br - C =15 Lit.= 0 Gr C* 6 Lit.= 0 Br Br - C =14 Lit.® 0 Gr C= 8 Lit.= 4 Br 3r - F =13 Lit.= 1 Gr F= 6 Lit.= 1 Br Br - F =20 Lit.= 0 Gr F =23 Lit.® 1 117 Br Gr C F Lit = = = = = Tree #2 Tree #3 - F =20 Lit.® 0 Gr - F = 3 Lit.= 6 Gr - F = Lit.® 1 3 - F = 3 Lit.® 3 - C = 3 Lit.® 1 - C =13 Tree #4 Br - C = Lit.® Gr - C = Lit.® 3 - C = 8 Br 2 5 2 Lit.® 0 Gr - C = 4 Lit.® 1 - F ® 3 Br - F = Lit.® Gr - F = Lit.® 0 0 4 0 Br - F = 3 Lit.® 2 Gr - F = 0 Lit.® 4 Lit.® 7 Lit.® 4 Gr - F =21 Lit.® 1 C = Lit.® Gr - C = Lit.® Br - C = 7 Lit.® 0 Gr - C =16 Lit.® 3 Br - F = 1 Lit.® 0 Gr - F = 3 Lit.® 0 Br Lit.® 0 Gr - C = 5 Lit.® 1 94 63 49 Gr Br Broad-Leaf Sample Grass Sample Sample taken within ten feet of tree trunk Sample taken further than ten feet of tree trunk Litter Sample Br - 2 2 1 3 C =22 Table 17.— Extraction density measurement of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Rasch Orchard, August 24, 1973. Quadrant Tree #1 Tree #2 Tree #3 Tree #4 North Br - C = Lit.= Gr - C = Lit.= 6 0 0 0 Br - F =10 Lit.= 0 Gr - F =26 Lit.= 0 Br - C = Lit.= Gr - C = Lit.= 1 0 0 0 Br - F =15 Lit.= 3 Gr - F = 4 Lit.= 0 South Br - C = 3 Lit.= 2 Gr - C = 5 Lit.= 2 Br - F = 3 Lit.= 0 Gr - F = 2 Lit.= 1 Br - C = Lit.= Gr - C = Lit.= 1 0 2 1 Br - F = 5 Lit.= 0 Gr - F =21 Lit.= 1 uast Br - F =27 Lit.= 0 Gr - F = 2 Lit.= 0 Br - C = 3 L i t .= 0 Gr - C = 1 Lit.= 1 Br - F = L i t .= Gr - F = Lit.= 1 1 Br - C = Lit.= Gr - C = Lit.= 8 1 8 0 Br - F =15 Lit.= 0 Gr - F = 1 Lit.= 0 Br - C = Lit.= Gr - C = Lit.= Br - F = L i t .= Gr - F = Lit.= 2 Br - C = L i t .= Gr - C = Lit.= 1 0 West 63 Total Br Gr C F Lit = = = = 4 0 8 0 59 Broad-Leaf Sample Grass Sample Sample taken within ten feet of tree trunk Sample taken further than ten feet of tree trunk Litter Sample 8 0 0 3 0 20 9 0 76 Table 18.— Extraction density measurement of A. fallacis in the ground cover of Kraft Orchard, September 11, 1973.” Quadrant Tree #1 Tree #2 Tree 43 Tree #4 North Br - C = 6 Lit.= 0 Gr - C =13 Lit.= 1 Br - F = 8 Lit.= 1 Gr - F =26 Lit.= 1 Br - C = L i t .= Gr - C = Lit.= 5 0 1 0 Br - F = Lit.= Gr - F = Lit.= South Br - C = Lit.= Gr - C = L i t .= Br - F =16 Lit.= 0 Gr - F =11 Lit.= 0 Br - C = Lit.= Gr - C = Lit.= 7 0 1 0 Br - F =17 L i t .= 0 Gr - F = 6 Lit.= 0 East Br - F =11 Lit.= 0 Gr - F = 2 L i t .= 2 Br - C = Lit.= Gr - C = Lit.= Br - F = Lit.= Gr - F = L i t .= 6 1 3 2 Br - C = Lit.= Gr - C = Lit.= 5 2 5 0 Br - F = 0 Lit.= 1 Gr - F =14 Lit.= 0 Br - C =10 Lit.= 0 Gr - C = 6 L i t .= 2 Br - F =13 Lit.= 0 Gr - F = 2 Lit.= 0 Br - C = Lit.= Gr - C = Lit.= 3 57 90 41 West Total Br Gr C F Lit = = = = = 6 0 1 0 1 3 4 1 Broad-Leaf Sample Grass Sample Sample taken within ten feet of tree trunk Sample taken further than ten feet of tree trunk Litter sample 1 0 1 0 0 6 0 46 108 Table 19.--One-minute counts of Amblyseius fallacis in the ground cover of nine commercial apple orchards in Michigan, 1972. Sample Tree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 Klackle O r c h a r d , Oct . 3 , 1972 1 2 3 Total 1 1 0 7 0 0 2 7 1 2 0 7 1 0 0 r 0 0 1 T Rasch Orchard , Oct. 1 2 3 Total 4 0 0 T 1 3 1 7 0 3 0 7 i 7 0 7 3 1 1 5 Kraft Orchard, Sept. 1 2 3 Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 7 4 4 2 10 3 1 0 4 Gavin Orchard, 1 2 3 Total 3 0 3 6 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 3 0 1 1 7 0 0 0 7 2 0 0 7 0 1 0 r 0 0 0 7 3 0 4 7 0 2 0 0 3 Total 7 0 0 4 4 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 9 3 4 16 2 0 1 3 Sept. 21 , 1972 3 0 1 4 1 0 0 r 0 3 10 13 7 7 0 0 3 2 3 S’ 7 0 7 1 8 3 T7 9, 1972 0 1 8 9 4 0 0 5 0 2 7 7 2 2 0 6 3 2 T IT 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 l 0 1 1 2 0 7 0 1 0 1 0 0 T T 11 l 0 17 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 14, 1972 J Babcock Orchard, Oct. 1 7 3, 1972 Carpenter Orchard, Sept. 1 2 3 Total 1 2 0 0 0 0 7 5 . , 1972 5 0 2 7 0 0 10 To 2 5" 109 Table 19.— Continued. Sample 1 2 3 Total 1 2 3 4 Tree 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 2 0 7 3 0 0 7 0 1 0 r 3 1 1 7 2 0 0 7 1 0 5 7 3 1 0 T 1 0 1 7 3 0 2 7 0 0 1 1 3 0 2 7 1 1 0 7 3 1 1 7 4 3 5 17 7 4 3 5 3 0 7 Peachy I Orchard, Sept . 28, 1972 1 2 3 Total 5 3 8 16 8 2 1 11 9 1 1 ir 3 1 0 T 5 1 1 7 1 5 0 6 Peachy ii Orchard , Sept. 1 2 3 Total 4 1 0 5 1 0 0 1 6 0 0 7 1 1 0 7 0 6 0 7 3 1 0 4 3 1 7 11 28 , 1972 4 5 0 7 IT 110 Table 20.— The average number3 of Amblyseius fallacis found in one-minute counts at Klackle Orchard, 1972, 1973 and 1974. 1972 Samples nafo 6/8 6/21 7/5 7/20 8/1 8/15 8/22 8/29 9/5 9/12 9/21 9/26 10/3 10/10 10/17 10/24 NO. Of A. fallacis .07 .10 .07 .13 .20 .10 .47 .53 .40 .47 .53 .53 .77 .40 .17 .10 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + .05 .08 .05 .06 .07 .07 .22 .14 .16 .16 .23 .13 .14 .18 .08 .05 1973 Samples n Q 5/10 5/17 5/24 5/31 6/7 6/14 6/20 6/28 7/5 7/12 7/19 7/26 7/31 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/29 9/7 9/19 1974 Samples NO. Of A. fallacis n«*.« .03 + .03 .03 ± .03 0 0 .30 + .08 .13 + .05 .25 + .06 . 50 + .15 .50 + .15 .70 + .23 1 .00 + .27 1 .70 ± .37 1 .73 ± .32 3 .47 ± .56 2 .57 ± .34 2 .27 ± .62 2 .80 ± .71 .83 ± .22 .53 ± .17 6/11 6/27 7/11 7/25 8/6 3/15 8/22 8/29 9/5 9/12 9/19 a * Mean ± Standard Error. A. N ° . of fallacis .33 .67 .27 2 .60 2.60 1.50 4.73 3 .54 2.59 3.45 1.16 + + + + + + + + ± + + .13 .18 .13 .54 .73 .26 .65 .52 .50 .52 .32 Ill Table 21.— The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found in one-minute counts at Rasch Orchard 1972, 1973, and 1974. 1972 Samples Date M o . of A. fallacis 6/8 .07 + .05 6/21 .10 ± .06 .07 + .05 .20 + .09 7/5 7/20 8/1 8/15 8/22 8/29 9/5 9/12 9/21 9/26 .20 ± .09 .27 + .13 .30 + .12 .13 + .06 .40 + .15 1.23 + .31 1.43 + .33 1.67 + .53 1973 Samples Date No. of A. fallacis 5/10 5/17 .20 ± .06 .17 + .07 .07 + .05 No. of A. fallacis 7/11 7/25 .27 + .13 8/6 .13 ± .08 8/15 .17 ± .08 8/22 .40 ± .15 1.13 + .28 .08 + .04 .43 + .16 8/29 9/5 .70 .67 ± .22 ± .20 9/19 .50 ± .14 7/26 .30 + .11 .67 + .17 7/31 1.33 + .38 8/9 8/16 4 .13±1 .05 3.00 ± .65 3 .50 + .54 3.30 + .50 5/24 5/31 6/7 6/14 6/20 6/28 7/5 7/12 7/19 8/23 .60 + .22 8/29 10/31 Date .27 + .10 .37 ± .14 .07 + .05 1.70 + .39 10/10 1.10 + .28 10/17 .60 + .31 .43 + .20 10/24 10/3 1974 Samples 9/27 9/19 0 .42 + .12 .53 + .11 .47 + .10 2.87 + .61 1.20 + .26 a= Mean ± Standard Error 6/11 6/27 112 Table 22.— The average number3 of Amblyseius fallacis found in one-minute counts at Kraft Orchard, 1972, 1973 and 1974. 1972 Samples Date Date 6/8 A. N o ’ of fallacis 0 197 3 Samples Date Date 1974 Samples N o ‘ of A. fallacis Date Date N o * of A. fallacis 5/3 .15 ± .04 6/11 .07 ± .05 6/21 .20 ± .10 5/10 .20 ± .07 6/27 7/5 .17 ± .08 5/17 7/11 7/20 .73 ± .18 5/24 .03 ± .02 .07 ± .03 7/25 8/1 1.07 ± .33 .07 ± .03 8/6 8/15 8/22 1.60 ± .52 5/31 6/7 0 .03 + .03 .23 + .10 .17 + .11 1.73 ± .31 6/14 .37 ± .11 .14 ± .05 8/15 8/22 .27 + .13 .43 + .18 8/29 1.00 ± .32 6/20 .12 ± .05 9/5 9/5 1.30 ± .30 6/28 .12 ± .06 9/19 .40 + .46 .40 + .13 9/12 1.10 ± .34 7/5 .15 ± .05 9/21 1.93 ± .40 7/12 .17 ± .06 9/26 .77 ± .18 7/19 .28 ± .07 10/3 .87 ± .28 7/26 .60 ± .03 10/10 .43 ± .12 7/31 .37 ± .11 10/17 .10 ± .06 8/9 .53 ± .18 10/24 .53 ± .21 8/16 1.80 ± .92 10/31 .20 ± .09 8/23 1.90 + .45 8/29 2.43 ± .67 9/7 2.40 ± .80 9/19 .73 ± .29 a * Mean ± Standard Error 113 Table 23.— The average number3 of Amblyseius fallacis found in one-minute counts at Gavin Orchard, 1972, 1973, and 1974. 1972 Samples Date N o * of A. fallacis 1973 Samples Date 1974 Samples N o • of A. fallacis Date Da e N o ‘ of A. fallacis 5/3 .07 ± .05 6/11 0 6/21 0 0 5/10 .03 ± .02 6/27 0 7/5 0 5/17 0 7/11 0 7/20 0 5/24 0 7/25 0 8/1 8/15 .10 ± .06 5/31 0 8/6 0 1.27 ± .51 6/7 0 8/15 0 8/22 1.07 ± .50 6/14 0 8/22 0 8/29 9/5 .37 ± .12 .50 ± .22 6/20 6/28 0 0 8/29 9/5 0 .17 ± 9/12 1.37 ± .55 7/5 .03 ± .02 9/19 .10 ± 9/21 1.03 ± .31 7/12 0 9/26 .80 ± .21 7/19 .03 ± .02 10/3 .90 ± .20 7/31 .13 ± .42 10/10 10/17 .93 ± .40 .27 ± .13 8/9 1.23 ± .35 8/16 2.90 ± .61 10/24 .53 ± .26 8/23 2.20 ± .38 10/31 .43 ± .22 8/29 4.57 ± .71 9/7 1.97 ± .56 9/19 2.47 ± .63 6/8 a = Mean ± Standard Error 114 a Table 24.— The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found in one-minute counts at Babcock Orchard, 1972, 1973, and 1974. 1972 Samples Date Date Date A. fallacis 5/8 0 6/20 0 0 7/2 0 0 5/15 5/22 0 7/16 0 7/19 .20 ± .11 5/29 .03 ± .03 7/30 .07 ± .05 8/2 .53 ± .26 8/9 .33 ± .12 6/5 6/12 0 .03 ± .02 8/8 8/13 .20 ± .07 .33 ± .11 8/16 1.50 ± .48 6/19 0 8/20 .10 ± .06 8/23 1.03 ± .27 6/26 .03 ± .02 8/27 8/30 .67 ± .19 7/3 9/4 .13 ± .10 .07 ± .05 6/7 6/22 7/6 A. fallacis 0 .03 ± .03 Date 1974 Samples N o * of uate N °- ° f 1973 Samples ua,:e A. fallacis 9/6 1.07 ± .27 7/10 .08 ± .05 .17 ± .08 9/14 1.20 ± .33 7/17 .15 ± .07 9/20 1.03 ± .54 7/25 .37 ± .14 9/28 1.73 ± .67 8/2 .63 ± .16 10/5 1.93 ± .58 8/8 .23 ± .12 10/12 1.73 ± .86 8/14 10/19 .23 ± .15 8/21 .73 ± .20 1.10 ± .32 10/26 .30 ± .24 8/28 1.70 ± .35 11/2 .10 ± .06 9/13 3.10 ± .51 a* Mean ± Standard Error No> of 115 Table 25.— The average numbera of Amblyseius fallacis found in one-minute counts at Carpenter Orchard, 1972, 1973, and 1974. 1972 Samples naffl Date No. of A. fallacis 197 3 Samples n =f0 Date No. of A. fallacis „ Date 0 0 .05 + .03 6/20 7/2 6/7 0 5/8 6/22 0 5/15 7/6 0 5/22 7/19 .03 ± .03 5/29 8/2 .13 ± .06 8/16 .43 ± .22 6/5 6/12 8/23 .43 ± .22 6/19 8/30 .20 ± .07 6/26 9/6 .20 ± .09 7/3 9/14 9/20 .43 ± .16 .30 ± .15 7/10 9/28 .23 ± .11 7/25 10/5 .27 ± .11 8/2 10/12 .60 ± .27 8/8 10/19 0 8/14 3.13 + .62 4 .33 + .76 10/26 0 8/21 1.27 ± .30 8/28 2.90 ± .58 9/13 3 .00 ± .58 7/17 1974 Samples 0 .07 + .02 .02 ± .02 .10 + .04 .15 + .06 .47 + .27 .43 + .16 .53 + .16 .17 + .09 .47 + .19 a= Mean ± Standard Error 7/16 7/30 8/8 8/13 A. No. of fallacis .50 ± .13 .10 + .06 .13 + .08 .13 + .06 .13 + .06 .57 + .18 1.07 ± .29 9/4 .37 ± .18 9/25 .27 ± .13 8/27 116 Table 26.— The average number of Amblyseius fallacis found in one-minute counts at Dowd Orchard, 1972, 1973, and 1974. 1972 Samples Date A. No. of fallacis 1973 Samples Date No. of A. fallacis 6/7 .13 ± .06 5/15 .03 ± .03 6/22 .10 ± .06 5/22 0 7/6 .13 ± .06 5/29 7/19 .87 ± .20 8/2 1974 Samples Date 6/6 No. of A. fallacis .10 ± .07 6/20 0 .03 ± .03 7/2 0 6/5 .17 ± .08 7/16 .07 ± .05 .53 ± .18 6/12 .05 ± .03 7/30 .03 ± .03 8/9 .53 ± .17 6/19 0 8/8 8/16 .57 ± .23 6/26 .08 ± .03 8/13 .17 ± .11 .10 ± .06 8/23 1.50 ± .29 7/3 .12 ± .04 8/27 .23 ± .11 8/30 2.13 ± .45 7/10 .50 ± .19 9/4 .67 ± .17 9/6 7/17 .40 ± .18 9/25 .33 ± .11 9/14 3.63 ± .56 3.57 ± .95 7/25 .90 ± .20 9/20 1.33 ± .27 8/2 1.13 ± .24 9/28 2.10 ± .58 8/8 1.67 ± .52 10/5 1.03 ± .37 8/14 3.10 ± .63 10/12 1.93 ± .56 8/21 2.17 ± .47 10/19 .63 ± .32 8/28 3.23 ± .54 10/26 .20 ± .09 9/13 2.07 ± .48 11/2 .40 ± .23 a = Mean ± Standard Error 117 Table 27.— The average number3 of Amblyseius fallacis found in one-minute counts at Peachy^I O r c h a r d , 1972, 1973, and 1974. 1972 Samples Date 6/7 6/22 7/6 7/19 8/2 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/14 9/20 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 10/26 11/2 A. No. of fallacis .10 ± .06 .07 ± .05 .10 ± .06 .47 ± .16 .93 ± .21 2.37 ± .48 5.13 ± .96 5.77±1.15 5.87H.10 4.67 ± .98 3.17 ± .74 2.47 1 .49 3.80 ± .92 3.80±1.06 1.23 i .41 .70+1.04 .47 l .23 1973 Samples Date No. of A. fallacis 5/8 5/15 5/22 5/29 6/5 6/12 6/19 6/26 7/3 7/10 7/17 7/25 8/2 8/8 8/14 8/21 8/28 9/13 .10 + .05 0 0 .02 + .02 0 .15 + .06 .22 + .08 .25 ± .07 .50 ± .10 .77 ± .24 .73 ± .23 2.27 ± .40 1.83 ± .40 2.33 + .40 4 .83 ± .87 3.63 ± .94 5.10 ± .86 2.10 ± .42 a= Mean ± Standard Error 197 4 Samples Date 6/6 6/20 7/2 7/16 7/30 8/8 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/4 9/25 A. No. of fallacis .07 + .05 .10 + .07 .03 i .03 0 0 0 0 0 .50 + .14 .63 + .21 .40 + .14 118 Table 28.— The average number® of Amblyseius fallacis found in one-minute counts at Peachy II Orchard, 1972, 1973, and 1974. 1972 Samples 1973 Samples 1974 Samples Date N O . Of A. fallacis 6/22 .07 ± .07 5/8 0 6/6 .03 ± .03 7/6 .13 ± .06 5/15 0 6/20 7/19 .60 ± .20 5/22 0 7/2 8/2 1.60 ± .48 5/29 0 7/16 0 .03 + .03 .37 ± .16 8/9 1.17 ± .28 6/5 .02 ± .02 7/30 8/16 2.23 ± .45 6/12 .10 ± .05 8/8 8/23 2.63 ± .42 6/19 .27 ± .10 8/13 8/30 2.73 ± .43 6/26 .20 ± .05 8/20 9/6 3.63 ± .85 7/3 .23 ± .07 8/27 9/14 4.73±1.15 7/10 .80 ± .21 9/4 .20 + .09 .70 + .22 9/20 1.70 ± .54 7/17 .60 ± .19 9/25 .77 + .20 9/28 2.13 ± .40 7/25 1.27 ± .33 10/5 2.77 ± .69 8/2 1.83 ± .30 10/12 1.53 ± .41 8/8 1.87 ± .28 Date No. of A. fallacis 10/19 .67 ± .19 8/14 3.97 ± .58 10/26 .47 ± .21 8/21 4.10 ± .75 11/2 .83 ± .69 8/28 8 . 0 0 ± 1 .18 9/13 3.03 ± .94 a* Mean ± S t a n d a r d Error Date No. of A. fallacis .07 ± .04 .40 + .15 .93 ± .23 1.27 + .36 Table 29.— Vegetation sampled in Klackle Orchard ground cover during one-minute counts, 1973. Species* 5/10 5/17 Dandelion 2/23» 1/36 0/20 0/16 2/20 4/30 Mustard 0/10 0/7 0/4 0/4 Cockle 0/4 0/6 - - Peppergrass 0/2 0/3 0/1 81. Raspberry 0/2 Red Clover Smartweed Cirquefoil 0/1 5/24 5/31 6/7 6/14 6/20 6/28 7/5 7/12 7/19 7/26 7/27 7/31 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/29 9/7 9/19 2/27 6/16 5/21 3/14 11/13 4/14 39/17 40/23 8S/2069/24 51/23 73/24 22/2612/26 432/443 0/1 0/1 - - 0/4 3/10 0/2 1/1 0/3 4/5 0/1 0/1 0/1 1/6 0/2 3/3 1/1 0/1 0/1 - 1/1 0/1 - 0/1 0/1 2/5 - ........................... - 0/1 - 0/3 0/4 2/5 3/3 1/3 2/4 Q-A Lace - 6/3 7/4 1/3 - 0/40/10/1-0/1 Nightshade Chickweed 0/2 0/3 0/1 0/4 0/2 - - - 0/29 2/1 36/46 0/1 1/2 0/1 3/2 1/2 ........................ 3/1 0/1 12/24 1/2 2/3 0/1 - 27/27 - - 6/19 1/4 1/2 4/2 0/1 0/1 0/1 4/2 11/6 7/4 1/1 0/2 0/2 ................... - 3/2 3/3 2/3 - - - 2/1 * 0/1 - - - Sra. R a g w e e d .......................................2/3 ........................... 1 / 1 1 / 1 7 / 2 1/1 1/2 0/1 4/2 0/1 - 11/23 7/14 0/1 7/12 ................................................................... 0/20/20/1-0/1 Sumac 0/1 1/1 5/2 0/1 Grape Sorrel 0/1 - . 4/3 - 0/1 - 8/11 0/4 3/7 0/3 Total 4/1 - - 0/1 - - 0/10 6/11 3 / 1 1 / 1 .......................... 8/3 0/1 - 7/1 1/1 0/1 0/1 3/8 11/1 - 4/1 31/7 3. F l e a b a n e ........................ 3 / 4 ................... 1 / 1 .................................. 4/5 Goldenrod Curled Dock 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/2 - - - - - 1 / 2 .............................................. 1/5 0/1 0 / 1 ......................... 1 / 1 2 / 1 ........................ 3/7 Cress 0/1 KiUweed Dock 8. Plairtain Strawberry Bull Thistle 0/11/1 c . / - 2 . 0/1 . - 0/1 - . - 0/1 - - - - - - 0/1 Lamb's Quarter Rose 4/2 - - 0/1 4/4 0/1-1/1-3 / 1 ........................................ 4/3 - 1/1 . . . . . . . . . *See Table 47 for scientific name. bNueber of A. fallacis observed/Nuaber of observations . . . . - - - . - - - - - - . 0/1 . . . . . . 1/10/1-1/3 . . . 1/3 - - - 0 / 2 .............................. 0/2 . . - . . . . 1/1 - 0/1 6/23 Table 30.— Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Klackle Orchard during oneminute counts, 1972. Speciesa 8/1 8/15 8/22 3/29 9/5 9A2 9/a 9/26 10/3 3/5^ 2/4 Apple 0/7 1/4 Dandelion 0/6 0/7 Sm. Ragweed 2/6 0/5 Smartweed Lamb's Quarters 1/2 0/4 Mustard - 0/1 Nightshade 0/2 Sorrel Curled Dock Red Clover Dock Grape 0/1 Bl. Raspberry B. Plantain Cirquefoil Cockle - 0/1 V. Creeper Milkweed Cherry Goldenrod Rose D. Fleabane Strawberry 9/6 0/2 0/4 1/3 0/5 - 0/3 0A 4/6 4/6 0/5 1/3 1/1 1/1 3/1 1/1 - - - 4/1 - 0A - 0/1 0/1 9/4 1A 1/4 0/2 0/1 0/3 - VI 0/2 1/3 0A 0/1 - 0/1 1/1 1A 1/2 2/3 1/5 V5 2/3 0/5 0/1 - - - 4/1 1/1 - - - 0/1 - ioao 10/17 10/24 Total 15/6 10/8 9/9 0/5 2/9 4A 0A 0A 0A 1/3 OA 0/1 0A 0/2 0/1 4/2 - 1/1 0/1 0A 0/2 1/3 2/1 VI 1/2 0A 0/1 0/1 o/i 0/1 0/1 1/2 - 9/6 0A 5/9 0/9 0A - - - - - 0/1 - 1/3 0/1 0A 2/2 0/2 0A - 0/2 0/1 0/1 - See Table 47 for scientific name. ^Number of A. fallacis observed/Number of observations. 2A 0A - - 0/3 0A 0/5 0/1 - - 0/1 0/3 0/2 0A - - 0A 0/2 - - 0/1 0/1 V2 - 0A - 0/1 0A 70A3 13A5 2/35 7/29 2/20 6/21 5A1 3/16 5/9 1A0 1/5 2/6 0/4 1/4 0/3 5/3 5/3 0A 0/2 0/1 0A 0A 0/1 Table 31.— Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Rasch Orchard during one-minute counts, 1972. 8/15 8/22 8/29 9/5 9A2 9/21 9/26 10/3 10/10 10/17 10/24 10/31 Total Apple Dandelion Grape Nightshade Cherry Oak V. Creeper Bl. Raspberry Burdock Hickory Elm Sweet Cicely Wild Lettace Dock Smartweed Curled Dock Cirquefoil Milkweed Maple Cockle Red Clover 1/& 2/7 1/8 0/5 - - - o/i 2/4 1/6 0/3 0/4 2/2 0/4 1/4 0/3 0/2 0/2 0/4 0/2 - - 1/5 5/2 1/3 1/3 2/4 0/2 1/1 0/2 0/1 1/2 - 0/4 4/4 0/2 1/1 - 0/2 0/1 0/1 0/1 - * - - - - 0/1 0A 0/1 3/1 - - 1/1 • - - 0A l/i 5/6 18/8 13A 12/7 18/7 1/2 0A 0/1 3/6 4/5 7/5 6/4 2/4 14/5 3/4 5/4 2/4 4/4 4/3 3/3 14/4 3/6 2/3 0/2 1/2 0/3 0/3 4/3 9/3 3/3 9/3 2/4 0/3 0A 0A 5/1 3/1 2/1 1/1 1/1 3/2 3/1 1/1 - 0/1 - 1/1 - - - - 0/1 16/2 0/1 - - 0/1 - - - * 0/1 * 2/1 - * - 0/1 4A0 11/U 12/9 0/1 0/1 2/3 0/2 2/5 0/5 2/7 0/6 1/5 0/2 0/3 1/4 9A 0/1 0/1 1/4 9/1 0/1 1/2 3/1 - - - 0/1 0/1 1/1 • * aSee Table47 for scientific name. u Number of A. fallacis observed/Number of Observations. o/i * 97/93 1/7 29/46 35/41 28/39 5/35 35/23 2/a 23/8 7/8 5/5 16/4 0/4 0/3 0/3 2/3 4/3 2/2 0/2 1/1 0/1 121 Species3 Table 32.— Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Rasch Orchard during oneminute counts, 1973. Species4 S/10 5/17 5/24 5/31 6/7 6/14 6/20 6/28 7/5 7/12 7/19 7/26 7/31 e/9 ucr.ieusn El- Raspberry Dock V. Creeper Sweet Cicely 6/29b 4/29 C/4 0/6 1/3 1/3 0/4 0/2 1/2 2/7 - S'art.ctJ Oik Curled Cock Soldenrod - 0/2 0/2 1/2 0/2 w-la Lettace Tnistle - 0/1 0/2 0/1 Cockle Hic,hcsr.ade Cre;s Sorrel Ash Strawberry Motherwort Eldercerry Milkweed Eeastraw Pepperstraw Sa. Ragweed Maple Red Clover - 0/3 - 0/1 0/1 * 0/1 0/1 2/9 3/1 * - * - 0/5 0/7 0/1 - 0/1 0/1 - - 1/2 - * - * • * - • 0/1 0/1 0/1 - 0/1 * - 2/1 - 0/1 0/4 - 0/1 - - - - 0/1 - 7/18 3/9 1/6 0/2 0/3 4/9 5/7 5/3 9/4 6/4 0/1 0/1 2/1 1/1 0/1 - - 0/1 2/1 0/1 1/1 - 0/1 - 0/4 4/1 4/3 - 0/1 0/1 1/4 0/3 2/4 12/10 40/7 29/11 20/10 23/9 15/3 3/7 3/5 3/3 14/6 20/3 6/1 18/6 1/3 4/5 3/4 3/3 1/3 0/3 0/3 5/3 2/3 S/2 0/9 1/3 0/5 0/5 1/2 1/2 2/3 0/2 0/2 2/2 0/1 0/1 - 0/1 0/1 11/6 23/2 11/3 13/3 19/5 10/3 1/2 6/2 15/3 3/2 32/5 14/3 8/2 13/3 13/3 6/2 2/1 5/2 3/2 5/4 0/1 0/1 1/2 0/2 * 3/2 • 0/1 0/1 0/1 4/2 - 0/2 0/2 1/1 - - - 3/1 - - - - - - 4/1 - 4/1 1/1 0/1 1/1 1/1 - 1/2 1/1 1/1 * - - - 1/1 - 1/1 - - - - - - l/l * 0/1 0/1 3/2 • 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 - 0/1 1/.5 0/2 * 0/4 8/4 3/1 - - - • 1/1 - - - - 1/IS 3/7 0/9 0/6 - 6/2 9/19 - - 1/1 2/1 0/3 * 9/2 7/2 - - - 10/5 13/3 7/1 9/1 2/1 - * 35/6 3/2 9/2 0/1 - 7/1 * 3/1 0/1 0/2 l/l • - - - • - U/l - * - - - - * - - - - - - 0/1 0/1 *See Table 47for scientific n « t. *Nicbtr of A. fallacis obsemd/Nueter of observations. ToUl 179/269 71/87 3/14 127/82 119/60 51/42 9/26 8/19 2/15 7/12 7/13 11/9 7/9 4/8 4/7 17/7 4/7 96/67 20/5 0/3 1/3 7/3 2/3 11/4 - 3/2 • 0/2 0/1 0/1 0/1 2/2 0/2 122 Cirjuefdi1 . La'nb's Charters Cherry Burdock - 1/36 0/14 0/24 3/18 0/4 0/3 1/6 0/6 3/3 3/2 0/1 0/2 0/2 12/9 11/14 5/4 2/3 * 0/1 3/4 - 1/1 - 2/2 0/1 0/1 0/3 1/3 1/1 • 1/2 0/1 1/1 4/3 - 0/1 0/1 3/1 - 3/3 - 8/16 8/23 8/29 9/7 Table 33.— Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Kraft Orchard during one minute counts, 1972. 8/22 8/29 23/7^ Apple Dandelion Goldenrod 0/6 Milkweed 15/3 Nightshade 1/1 Grape 7A Red Clover Elm Honeysuckle Burdock Curled Dock 2 / 1 Rose 0/1 B. Plantain G. Cherry Bull Thistle Plantain Gt. Ragweed o / i Sm. Ragweed Maple 24/9 0/1 14/8 3/3 4/2 12/8 9/5 2/1 7/7 6/1 l / l 8/8 16/8 4/5 3/4 1/1 2/4 2/2 1/1 6/1 1/1 - - - 9/12 9/21 7/9 0/3 2V9 0/3 4/2 0/1 1/2 - 28/8 13/8 0/3 1/3 10/10 4/8 8/3 3/3 2/4 1/3 5/2 1/2 0/2 - - - - vi - - - - - 3A - - - - - - 0 / 1 2/1 2/1 1/1 - 0/1 - - 9/26 - - 6/1 - - — — 10/3 10/10 10/17 10/24 10/31 Total 7/9 1/5 3/6 3/2 2/2 0A - 8/7 1/2 2/5 0/1 1/6 1/2 0/2 0/1 0/2 0/1 - 2/10 0/2 0/6 9/10 1/3 0/6 1A 0/2 5/9 0/4 0/1 0/1 0/2 145/101 6/29 78/81 40/29 18/32 17/12 8/10 9/8 2/1 8A 0A 1/2 - — 0/1 0/1 0/3 0A o/i - - 4/2 0/2 - 0/1 0A 0/2 0A - - 0/1 0/1 0/2 0/1 vi 0/1 0/3 0/1 0/2 - - 1 / 2 0 / 1 a See Table 47 for scientific name. ^Number of A. fallacis observed/Number of Observations. 0/1 1/1 - i n 15/6 2/5 2/4 1/4 4/5 0/3 0/4 0/2 2/1 0/1 123 8/15 Speciesa Table 34.— Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Kraft Orchard during one minute co u n t s , 197 3. Species* 5/3 5/10 5/17 5/24 5/31 6/7 Dandelion 0/22^ 0/10 0/19 0/13 6/14 6/20 6/28 7/5 7/12 7/19 7/26 7/31 0/19 0/14 0/15 2/14 0/6 1/10 1/2 3/4 5/4 8/9 S/16 3/24 8/29 9/7 9/19 2/7 0/5 7/4 13/7 13/8 7/9 1/6 Totil S5/198 0. Fleabane 1/14 11/42 1/17 3/26 0/17 12/23 1/13 1/12 3/21 1/7 0/14 3/17 6/11 3/7 5/9 11/16 10/11 9/9 2/6 3/6 86/298 Colaerrod 3/16 1/2 4/16 3/5 7/25 3/15 4/17 1/23 6/31 4/14 6/11 4/8 3/8 21/3 7/5 9/4 3/7 101/224 0/1 1/5 0/2 1/19 0/9 Nightshade Kilkweed ...................... 0/7 0/4 2/8 0/5 3/10 1/2 1/3 0/2 2/4 3/5 4/7 1/2 4/5 1/1 0/1 - 0/4 1/5 Curled Dock 0/2 0/3 0/2 0/8 0/3 1/3 1/2 0/4 0/1 1/2 honeysuckle 0/5 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/1 2/5 0/1 0/3 0/3 Surdock 2/1 0/1 0/2 - 0/1 0/1 12/4 13/6 3/2 0/2 1/1 - 7/4 10/4 0/1 0/1 0/1 - - 1/1 - - 0/1 0 / 1 ...................................5/1 0/2 0/2- 0/1 - .............................................0 / 1 0 / 1 0 / 1 4/1 10/1 12/1 Grape Red Clover Cockle 0/2 - - - - 0/1 - 2/1 2/6 - - - 26/6 Poison Ivy - - 0/1-0/1- --10/1 - 0/1 10/5 0/1 - 0 / 2 ................................................................... 0/4 ...................3/1 Alfalfa 7/8 - - - 0/1 0 / 1 - - - - 0/1 2/25 0/1 0/1 - 0/1 2Q/Z38/33/161/6 0/1 - Kustard 32/40 - Bull T h i s t l e ................................................................ 3. Plantain 38/67 0/12/29 Rcse 6- Cherry 8/4 0 / 1 ...........................0/5 ................................... 2/1 - - 2/4 - 1 / 2 .......................................................4/3 0 / 1 .......................... 0 / 1 .......................................0/2 0 / 1 ...................................................................................... 0/1 Dock .............................................0 / 1 .......................................0/1 Elm 2 / 1 ........................... 2/1 Wild Lettace - - .............................. - Sm. Ragweed - . Chickory * - - Lamb's Quarters - - . . . . . . . - 0 / 1 - . . . . . - - 0/1 - - - - . . . 0/1 - - - - . . . . . . . aSee Table 47for scientific name. bNunber of A. fallacis observed/Number of observations. . . . . . . . . - - -0/1 0/1 - - - 0 / 1 . -1/1 -1/ 1 Table 35.— Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Gavin Orchard during oneminute counts, 1972. Species 3 8/1 8/15 8/22 8/29 Apple 3/7b 13/7 25/5 6/7 Dandelion 0/3 12/3 0/2 - - Chickory 0/8 10/9 Red Clover 0/2 Burdock - Cherry Bull Thistle Alfalfa Curled Dock Goldenrod Plantain 9/21 8/8 31/7 24/10 14/8 17/10 6/8 0/1 0/4 0/3 0/2 1/3 1/2 - - - 0/1 - - 7/9 3/9 1/6 1/4 3/5 0/2 1/4 0/1 1/5 1/5 6/6 2/4 0/1 0/1 - 0/1 0/1 - - - - - - 0/1 - 0/1 - - - - 0/1 - Elm - 9/26 10/3 7/9 173/102 1/5 0/3 0/1 0/6 15/38 - 0/1 2/5 1/6 3/13 1/5 1/1 0/3 0/2 0/1 27/64 3/4 5/7 3/3 0/3 0/1 0/4 22/49 0/1 0/2 0/1 - 0/1 - - 0/9 0/1 - 0/1 - - - - - 0/2 - 0/1 - 2/1 - 2/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 - - - 1/1 - 0/1 0/1 0/2 - 1/6 1/3 2/3 1/1 1/3 0/1 - - 5/13 o/i - 0/1 0/2 0/1 0/13 - 0/1 - 0/1 4/10 4/25 0/1 0/1 - - 0/2 0/2 - 0/1 0/2 - - - - - - 2/1 0/2 0/2 1/5 2/2 0/2 1/2 0/1 - - 4lP - - - - - - - - 1/1 - - - - 3/1 - - 2/1 - Milkweed 0/3 0/2 0/3 Strawberry - - - - Sm. Ragweed - - 0/1 Sow Thistle - Bindweed - - Cirquefoil - - - - Total 13/8 - 0/1 10/31 6/8 - Nightshade Boxelder 10/10 10/17 10/24 9/12 - 9/5 - - aSee Table 47 for scientific name. ^Number of A. fallacis observed/Nunber of Observations. 4/11 - 0/1 0/3 - 0/3 0/2 o/i - - 1/1 5/1 - - - - 0/1 - 2/2 - - 2/2 - 1/1 - 0/1 12/1 - 0/1 - 18/3 3/1 Table 36.— Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Gavin Orchard during one minute counts, 1973. Species® S/3 Dandelion 0/5c 0/9 0/5 Sull Thistle 0/2 0/2 Chkkory 2/14 0/20 0/8 0/12 0/11 0/12 0/18 0/5 Sed Clover 0/4 0/3 0/6 0/4 0/4 0/3 0/5 0/6 0/4 0/4 - 0/2 0/4 Alfalfa 0/1 0/8 - 0/4 0/4 0/3 0/1 0/1 0/3 0/1 - 0/2 - Burdock 5/10* 5/17 S/24 0/3 0/1 5/31 6/7 6/14 6/20 6/23 7/5 0/4 0/.1 0/1 0/2 .................. 0/1 7/12 7/19 7/26 8/9 0/4 0/3 0/1 0/1 0/3 0/4 8/4 8/4 - 0/1 0/13 1/15 8/16 8/23 8/29 - 9/7 10/5 5/1 4/1 - 9/19 6/4 22/7 1/1 - 4/1 Total 59/68 ,10/13 0/13 1/16 4/15 25/1547/13 40/14 52/18 39/15 27/12 238/259 2/3 15/5 3/2 59/9 0/1 1/1 79/67 0/1 3/2 - 3/31 - - - 0 / 1 ..................................................................................0/1 Mustard 0 / 1 - 0 / 1 0 / 4 0 / 1 ...........................................................* 0/7 Cherry 0/1 - - - -0 / 1 .................... 0 / 1 ............................. - 0/3 Curled Dock 0/1 0/2 0/1 - - - - - 0/2 0/4 - 0/1 0/1 0/2 0/3 0/2 - . . - - - 0/14 0/3 - 0/14 - 0 / 2 ............................................................................ 0/2 - Sorrel . 0. Fleaoane - 1/1 Ela - 0 / 1 .................................................................................... 0/1 Dock - - 0 / 1 ....................... 0 / 1 ............................................ 0/2 iiild Lettace - ..................0 / 1 0 / 5 .................................................... 0/6 0 / 1 - - - 0/1 - 0/1 0/1 - - 0/1 0/8 0/2 - ...................... 0/1 - - - - - - - - Q-A Lace 0/1 0/3 - 0/2 0 - 0/3 - - Elderberry Strawberry - 0/1 7/2 0/2 / 0/1 1 - - - - 0/1 - 0/1 - 0/2 - - - 0/1 1/1 0/1 - - 0/1 Sow T h i s t l e 0/2 - - - 1/1 - - 0/1 naae. ^Twenty trees saopled. cNu«ber of A. fallacis observed/Nunber of Observations. 0/1 - - 0/10/30/1 Sn. R a g w e e d .................................................... 0/1 *5ee Table 47for scientific - 6/2 3/4 17/51 ........................................ N i g h t s h a d e ...................... 0/1 Kilkweed 0/2 - - Plantain 0/5 0/5 0/1 . Cockle 0/4 - - - 0/6 - 0/1 Goldenrorf 1/8 0/1 0/1 0/2 0/1 - - 0/1 2/13 15/1 - - - - 5/1 5/10 - 0/1 10/1 10/4 - - - 0/2-1/31/24/4- 5/3 15/6 0/1 11/20 1/1 2/1 - - - 3/3 4/1 - - 2/1 6/3 - Table 37.— Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Carpenter Orchard during oneminute counts, 1972. 8/2 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9A4 9/20 9/28 10/5 10A2 10A9 10/16 Species3 Apple Dandelion Dock Grape Horse Nettle Lamb's Quarter o/3*> 1/5 0/3 6/6 2/6 6/7 1/5 0/4 1/5 0/3 0/2 Total 2/9 8/4 5/4 2/6 5/5 7/7 0/8 0/10 35/73 0/8 3/7 0/5 2/4 0/5 2/7 0/8 0/8 20/71 4/10 3/7 0/3 0/2 1/7 1/7 0/2 0/1 3/10 1/9 0/2 0/4 2/8 7/6 0/6 0/7 30/90 0A 0/1 1/3 0/1 0/1 - 2/28 0/1 - 0/1 0/2 - - - 1/9 1/17 - - 1/12 0/4 1/1 0/3 0/2 0/2 2/22 5/3 - - 0/1 0/2 0/2 - - - - - 0A 0/2 0/1 0/1 0/2 0/1 0/3 - - 0/1 - - - - 0/2 1/1 0/4 0/1 2/2 0/3 Milkweed - 0/3 Red Clover - - Sm. Ragweed - - 0/1 0/1 Sorrel - - - 0/3 - 0/2 - - - 0/1 0/2 0/1 0/9 Cockle - - - - - - - - - - - Nightshade - - - - - - - - - - - Smartweed - - - - - - - 1A o/i 0/1 0/1 - - - 1A 0/1 0/2 Mustard - - - - - - - 0/1 - 0/2 - - 0/3 V. Creeper - - - - - - - - 2/1 - - - 0/1 0/1 - - 2/1 0/4 Bl. Raspberry 0/1 - Curled Dock 0A - 0/1 Plantain aSee Table 47 for scientific name. ^Number of A. fallacis observed/Number of Observations. 0A 0/1 127 1/5 2/7 /47 Table 38.— Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Carpenter Orchard during one minute counts, 1973. 6/12 6/19 6/26 7/3 0 / l l b 0/17 0/26 0/34 1/25 0/16 2/16 2/23 3/19 9/19 13/18 5/19 12/17 91/23 121/22 22/20 72/21 54/20 407/366 3/24 0/21 1/26 1/32 1/24 5/15 7/7 4/7 0/2 0/3 0/3 3/2 3/1 - - - 5/8 Species3 Dandelion Dock 5/15 5/22 0/15 0/12 Curled Dock - - - 5/29 6/5 - - - - - - 7/10 7/17 - 7/25 8/2 8/8 8/14 3/3 3/21 5/2 3/23 9/13 10/3 53/6 Total 56/207 3/1 - - - * 1/2 - - 2/21 - - * 0/1 - Cockle 0/2 - 0/2 - 0/2 0/1 - - - - - - - * Red Clover 0/1 0/1 0/6 0/2 0/5 m 0/2 0/1 1/1 - - - • - Chickweed 0/1 - - - - - - - - - - - B. Plantain - - 0/1 0/1 - - 0/2 - - - - - - - - - - 0/4 Vetch - - 0/1 - 0/1 - 2/4 2/3 1/1 - - - - - - - - 5/10 - 0/1 - - - - * - - - 0/5 - - - 0/1 - 0/1 0/2 0/1 2/3 9/2 11/10 0/1 0/1 0/2 0/1 0/2 0/2 2/1 1/1 4/1 4/2 - - - 5/12 m 0/6 W. Geranium - - - 0/2 0/1 - 0/1 Grape - - - - - 0/9 1/6 Milkweed - - - - - 0/2 0/5 - 2/13 - * Horse Nettle - - - - - - - 0/4 - 0/1 0/2 - 1/3 • Sorrel - - - - - m - 0/1 - - - 0/2 0/1 0/1 - 0/1 0/2 0/5 0/3 1/4 0/1 0/2 0/1 4* 9/2 - Lamb's Quarters T. Creeper aSee Table 47 fo r s c ie n tific name. ^Number of A. fa lla c is observed/Humber of Observations. 0/1 0/7 7/19 14/2 - 15/20 9/3 Table 39.— Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Babcock Orchard during one minute counts, 1972. 8/2 Species3 - B/9 8/23 8/3P 9/6 9/14 9/20 9/23 10/5 10/12 10/19 10/26 11/2 Total 4/2 2/2 0/1 - 4/3 0/3 7/8 8/6 9/7 3/8 9/9 2/7 48/57 Dandelion 0/1 - 7/3 6/3 2/1 5/2 0/1 1/1 1/2 2/3 0/3 0/4 0/4 0/7 24/36 Sumac 0/2 - 1/2 5/5 1/2 0/4 2/4 0/4 0/2 0/2 0/4 0/3 0/1 0/1 9/36 Sm. Ragweed 0/1 - 2/3 2/5 2/5 - 0/2 0/3 0/1 - - - - - 9/36 - - 10/1 - 99/20 Milkweed 10/7 5/8 18/9 Poison Ivy 3/1 4/6 Apple V. Creeper 0/lb 8/16 - 4/1 11/8 7/9 - - - 7/2 8/2 18/4 32/3 13/3 7/3 0/1 - 15/8 12/8 2/5 1/4 0/1 0/1 0/2 0/1 - 78/71 - - - - 16/4 5/4 0/4 0/1 0/1 18/21 - 0/2 1/3 9/21 0/2 0/1 2/5 0/3 3/3 - 2/2 Doc* 0/1 - 0/1 - 2/2 0/2 1/1 - Wild Lettace 1/2 0/2 1/2 0/1 0/1 0/3 - 0/2 - - - 5/3 0/1 2/1 Red Clover 0/1 - - - 2/1 - Curled Dock 0/1 - - - - - Strawberry - - - - - Nettle 0/1 - - - - Goldenrod 0/2 0/1 - - Sorrel * 0/2 - 31. Raspberry - - Alfalfa - 1/1 Srartweed - Asparagus - Grape 0/4 0/3 3/21 - - - - * 2/14 4/2 - - 49/14 0/4 2/11 5/1 7/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 - 1/2 0/1 - 0/1 0/2 - 1/8 1/1 - - 2/1 3/1 1/1 - 0/2 0/2 7/8 - - 0/1 - - - - - 0/2 0/4 - - - - - - - - - - 0/3 - 0/1 - - - - - - * - - 0/3 - - - - - - - - — - 1/1 - - - - - - - - - - - - Mustard - - - - - 0/1 0/1 - - 0/2 0/1 - - - 0/2 - - Elderberry 10/2 7/1 - - - Plantain D. Fleabane 9/2 1/3 - - * • - - - - - 0/1 1/1 1/2 - - - - - - - 1/1 - * - - _ - - - 1/1 - - - - - - 0/1 - 0/1 0/5 ■» - - aSee Table 47 for scientific nane. umber of A. fallacis observed/Number of Observations. - 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/2 - - 0/1 - - - - - 0/1 - 0/1 0/2 0/1 - 0/1 - - - 0/1 129 Korse Nettle - Table 40.— Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Babcock Orchard during oneminute counts, 1973. Species* 5/8 5/15 5/22 5/29 6/5 6/12 6/19 6/26 7/3 7/10 7/17 7/25 8/2 8/3 8/14 3/21 S/28 9/13 Dandelion 0/13 0/10 0/7 - 1/9 0/8 0/14 0/1 0/2 0/6 0/4 - 0/3 0/1 0/4 0/5 - 0/4 0/3 0/7 0/3 0/1 0/1 0/2 0/1 0/7 0/8 0/6 Wild Lettace 2/13 0/3 0/1 - 0/3 0/6 0/2 0/2 Curled Dock 0/4 0/3 O/I 0/2 0/2 0/3 - - 0/4 0/2 0/1 0/2 0/2 Poison Ivy Dock V. Creeper Horse liettle Sm. Ragweed - - nilkneed - - - Cockle ",u$:ard 0/5 - 0/2 0/3 - 0/1 0/1 - - 0/3 0/2 Grape Red Clover 0/10 0/3 0/3 - liettle 0/3 0/4 D. Fleabane 0/3 B. Plantain Strawberry 0/1 0/1 Bedstraw 0/3 0/3 - - - 0/2 0/6 0/4 0/4 - 1/3 - - 0/6 0/5 0/1 - - - 0/2 0/1 - 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/8 - - - - - - 0/7 4/5 3/4 0/2 1/3 0/6 3/5 0/9 0/14 1/13 3/14 0/2 0/1 2/10 0/7 0/7 0/5 0/5 0/1 - - 2/3 3/9 2/7 4/4 0/2 0/1 0/2 3/2 0/5 1/3 0/1 - 0/3 0/7 - 0/3 0/2 - - - - 0/2 0/2 0/2 1/10 2/6 0/1 0/1 - 0/2 - 3/3 5/8 12/7 5/3 2/43 34/75 0/1 0/4 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/46 - - - 0/16 - - - 0/1 - 3/1 0/4 24/8 41/7 89/16 »/3 2/5 2/1 0/1 1/5 1/4 22/26 4/2 1/1 1/2 - - 1/1 0/2 - - 0/1 - 0/1 - 3/4 3/2 4/5 1/6 0/4 2/5 - 0/1 11/6 17/6 45/110 4/77 - 5/7 0/4 5/4 - 6/2 0/1 - 0/1 0/1 - 7/3 0/1 2/2 1/1 0/1 7/6 1/2 1/1 - - - 28/9 41/66 7/22 0/16 5/33 11/2 1/1 - - - - 0/12 - - - 0/18 - 0/1 1/6 0/1 1/2 0/2 19/13 0/18 Sorrel - 0/1 - - - - 0/1 - Sumac - - - - - 0/3 0/1 - - - - - 0/3 0/3 0/1 - - - - - 0/2 0/2 0/1 - - 0/1 0/1 0/16 - 0/2 Chickweed Vetch 0/1 - Bl. Raspberry 0/1 - - 1/3 Lamb's Quarters Elderberry Total - - - - - - Q-A Lace *See Table 47 for scientific nan. ^timber of A. fallacis observed/Stunber of Observations. 0/3 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 - 1/2 - 0/3 1/1 - - - - - - - 1/1 2/4 2/3 0/1 Table 41.— Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Dowd Orchard during oneminute counts, 1973. Species4 5/15 5/22 5/29 «/5 6/12 6/19 6/26 7/3 7/10 2/17 2/12 2/12 7/17 7/25 8/2 8/8 8/14 Dandelion 0/17b 1/13 1/12 0/18 0/16 0/6 D. Fleabane 0/29 0/13 0/12 2/16 0/20 0/5 1/19 1/17 1/3 1/6 2/9 8/9 4/7 17/10 Dock 0/3 0/4 0/4 1/11 2/10 0/2 0/4 1/7 0/1 4/3 10/7 2/1 2/2 12/3 Milkweed - - - - 0/1 0/1 0/2 1/6 0/1 - 2/1 - Goldenrod - - - - - - 1/2 0/4 - 1/3 - 1/3 wild Lettace - - - 0/3 0/2 - 1/6 1/4 0/4 3/5 2/2 Spearr.int 0/2 - - 1/3 1/6 0/6 0/3 1/3 4/3 0/2 - 3/3 2/2 Sciar tweed - - - - - - - - 0/1 0/1 0/2 6/3 - Curled Dock - - - 1/3 0/1 0/1 0/3 - 1/1 1/2 - 0/1 - 91. Raspberry - - - - - 0/3 - 0/2 1/1 - 2/1 - - Grape - - - - - 0/1 - 0/2 5/1 - 2/2 - 0/2 - 0/1 - - - - Sr. Ragweed * - - - Chick-weed 0/4 - - - Bedstraw 0/2 - 0/1 0/2 - - - - - Sow Thistle Rose 0/1 Poison Ivy 0/1 - 0/3 0/1 1/1 - - - - - - - - - - - nightshade - - - - - - B. Plantain - - - - - - - Nettle - - * - - - - - - - Strawberry - - - V. Creeper m - - Cirquefoil w - - *Sm Total 34/10 52/9 21/8 169/183 8/10 7/9 5/10 - - 57/206 12/4 16/3 22/3 84/72 21/3 10/2 4/1 5/1 8/3 51/22 0/2 0/1 5/2 1/2 1/2 10/21 - 0/2 m - 23/38 - - 6/3 0/1 18/37 0/2. 2/1 0/1 1/1 9/12 - - - - 3/12 - - m 2/1 - - 8/1 * 0/1 - 2/1 - 10/5 6/3 - 5/8 15/7 2/5 0/8 - - - - 2/1 - 3/1 - - OB - - * 24/2 * - 28/4 - 2/2 * - w - - m - 0/2 - 0/2 - - 1/4 15/9 31/9 9/13 0/1 - Lamb's Quarters 7/5 8/28 0/5 Sorrel Cockle 1/6 8/21 0/1 0/1 - - - 0/1 - - - - - - 0/2 0/1 0/1 - - - - - - - - 0/2 - - 0/1 - - V - - 2/1 2/2 - - ee - - - 0/3 - <• - m - 4/1 - - - 0/1 0/1 - - - - 4/1 * - - * - - - - 0/1 - - - - - - - - - - - 0/1 - - - - - * m - - - - - 0/1 •» - - 0/1 - - - - - - 0/1 - 0/3 - - - Table 47 for scientific name. ^Hunter of A. fallacis/Nuaber of Observations - - Table 42.— Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Dowd Orchard during oneminute counts, 1972. Species4 8/20 8/20 8/9 Apple 12/7d 10/8 6/7 14/7 27/10 42/8 0/6 0/7 5/5 Wild Lettace 1/5 1/4 Dandelion - - 0/1 Milkweed 0/1 1/1 7/5 Golcer.rod 1/2 1/6 1/2 Zzz & C/4 0/3 0/3 1/1 0/1 2/2 S pearc.int D. Fleabar.e 8/16 8/23 S/30 9/6 9/14 9/20 65/10 29/7 23/8 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 10/26 11/2 44/10 24/8 48/10 14/9 3/10 11/10 92/129 Total - - - - - 0/1 0/1 1/4 0/6 0/6 0/4 9/34 2/3 0/2 3/3 - - - 22/37 1/1 0/1 0/1 3/2 - - - 11/30 2/5 5/4 9/4 1/6 0/1 5/5 0/5 17/59 4/2 0/1 0/1 1/1 3/1 0/1 0/1 - 9/16 5/30 1/1 - - 0/1 - 8/3 3/2 11/3 1/2 2/4 3/1 3/3 23/6 29/2 5/4 0/4 2/3 0/2 9/5 l/l 1/5 3/1 4/4 4/2 0/1 - 2/2 2/1 - - 2/7 6/28 - - - - - - - 1/2 2/3 1/3 0/7 0/3 0/5 1/3 0/4 V. Creeper 0/1 - - - 2/1 - - 3/1 3/3 2/1 - - - - - Curled Doc* - 2/5 2/13 5/7 0/1 - - - 1/2 - - - - - 2/1 0/1 - - Sri rtweed - 1/3 0/1 - - 1/1 0/1 0/2 - 0/2 ■m 0/3 - - - Sn. Ragweed - - 0/1 - 1/3 - - - - - - - - - - 1/4 PoXcoerry - 2/2 - 0/1 - - - - 0/1 - • - - - - 2/4 Foison Ivy - - 0/1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0/1 Bed Clover - - - - - 3/1 - - 0/1 - 3/3 0/1 * 0/1 - 6/7 Corr. - - - - - 1/1 - - - - - - - - - 1/1 Plar.tair. - - - - - - - 1/1 - - * - - 0/1 - 1/2 ::i".tsrsde - - - - - - - 7/2 - - - - - - - 7/2 Mulberry - - - - - - - - - 2/1 - 0/1 0/1 - - 2/3 Cirquefoil - - - - - - - - - 0/1 - - - - - 0/1 Bl. Raspberry - - - - - - - 3. Plantain - - - - - - Settle - - - - - - Eici - - • - - - - - 1/1 - - - - 0/2 1/3 - - 3/1 - - 0/1 - - 3/2 - - - - - - 0/1 - - 0/1 - - - - - - 0/1 - - 0/1 Bull Thistle - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0/1 0/1 0/2 ROM - - - - - - - - - - • - - - 0/1 0/1 • - - - 0/1 0/1 - - - 0/1 0/1 Cherry - - - - - - - - - - Elderberry - - - - - - - - - - *£ce Tabic 47 for scientific m m . ^Saaple collected in aoming. cSanple collected in Afternoon. *Nuober of A. fallacie obeerved/Huaber of Observetione. Table 43.— Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Peachy I Orchard during one-minute countsr 1972. 8/2 Species* Apple 12/6*> 8/9 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/14 9/20 9/28 10/5 10/19 10/26 11/2 Total 25/5 42/5 78/7 84/7 79/9 48/5 20/5 21/6 15/7 29/6 58/9 21/8 15/9 6/8 497/84 11/8 19/8 2/8 2/8 6/7 143/75 38/5 - 19/3 18/4 11/2 0/2 - - 132/32 1/3 3/4 4/1 Dock 0/6 15/5 18/3 14/4 Grape 3/4 12/4 15/4 11/4 Saiartweed 9/7 4/4 17/3 18/4 0/1 2/2 1/1 0/1 12/2 - 2/2 18/3 1/1 - Wild Lettace 2/3 0/2 2/1 2/1 - 1/3 - - Bl. Raspberry - 0/2 1/2 0/1 6/1 0/1 - - Lanb's Quarters - 0/2 - 2/1 0/2 2/4 1/2 1/2 0/1 0/1 - o/i - - - 0/1 - - - - - - - - - - - * Nightshade 0/1 - Sn. Ragweed 1/2 - 0/1 1/1 - Sur.ac - 2/1 - - - Goldenrod Kcrse Nettle - 1/1 - - 7/2 0/1 0/2 - - - 1/1 0/4 0/2 - 58/29 0/2 41/17 - 7/10 0/4 8/18 0/1 . 6/16 - 1/4 - - 2/4 - - - 2/1 - - - 19/10 0/1 0/2 0/1 1/5 - - - 70/7 4/1 7/2 2/1 5/2 - 1/1 - - - - - - - - - 16/1 - 10/2 17/1 10/1 - - - - - - 1/1 37/5 0/1 1/1 1/1 - 2/3 1/3 30/14 - - - 22/3 Curled Dock - 1/1 V. Creeper - - 11/2 16/1 Currant - - 18/2 8/1 Dandelion - - 9/1 10/1 6/3 - Milkweed - - - 11/1 - - 8/1 - 3/1 Red Clover - - - 7/1 - - 1/1 - - - - 8/2 - - 0/1 - Bull Thistle - - - - 0/1 - - - - - Sorrel - - - - - 1/1 - - - - - - 1/1 D. Fleabane - - - - - - 1/3 0/1 0/1 0/1 m 0/1 1/7 3/1 - - - - - - - - 3/1 - - - Pokeberry - - - - - - - - 0/1 - - - 0/1 Burdock - - - - - - - - - 7/1 - 7/1 - - - - - - - - m 5/1 - - 5/1 - * - - - - - 2/2 - - 2/2 - * - - - - - 0/1 - 0/1 0/2 - - - - - - - 0/1 - 0/1 0/2 - - - m * - * 0/1 Mustard Poison Ivy G- Cherry - Elderberry - Cherry - Ela - - - - * S h Table 47 for scientific naae. further of A. fallacis observed/llunbar of Observations. - 0/1 Table 44.— Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Peachy I Orchard during oneminute co u n t s i 197 3. 5/8 5/15 5/22 5/29 6/5 6/12 6/19 6/26 7/3 7/10 7/17 7/25 3/2 3/8 3/14 8/21 8/28 9/13 Species* Dandelion l/18b 0/S 0/9 D. F’eicane 0/5 0/10 0/8 Dock 4/15 0/4 0/7 Curled Dock 0/5 0/2 0/2 Goldenrod - - - Wild Lettace - • - Red Clover 0/5 0/1 - B1. Raspberry 1/6 0/2 0/2 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 Currant Grape Mustard B. Plantain Rose Elderberry 0/17 0/16 1/16 0/14 4/18 4/11 0/5 0/3 9/2 7/3 9/2 4/1 1/12 0/3 1/8 2/7 0/14 1/11 0/12 0/5 4/15 3/12 3/8 5/11 0/1 0/1 0/2 0/1 0/1 - 0/1 0/1 - 0/4 0/3 2/3 9/6 0/1 0/1 0/1 - - 1/2 0/2 1/3 2/3 6/1 0/1 0/3 7/4 26/5 2/3 - 2/1 6/2 - 0/4 - 0/1 - 0/2 2/2 - 0/1 - - - 0/3 0/2 0/1 0/1 0/2 - 0/1 0/1 0/1 Nightshade - * 0/1 Gt. Ragweed - - Bedstraw - - Cirquefoil - - 0/2 0/1 0/1 0/1 Srartweed - - V. Creeper - - • Laab's Quarter - - 0/1 - - - - - 5/3 0/1 2/2 - 0/1 - 0/1 1/1 2/2 2/2 4/1 0/1 3/2 - 5/3 5/2 * - - 0/1 0/1 - - 1/1 0/1 - - - - - - - 0/1 0/2 0/1 - 0/15 1/3 * - 1/1 0/1 * - - - - 2/3 15/6 2/2 - 3/2 3/4 4/2 7/5 8/5 1/2 2/3 5/1 5/3 3/1 - - - - - - - - 1/1 - - 1/4 1/6 - 2/4 0/3 0/1 - 0/2 0/1 0/1 - - Cherry 0/1 0/1 0/2 Se. Ragweed 1/3 0/1 25/2 8/3 0/1 - - Pokeberry - * - Horse Nettle - - 0/1 1/2 - 0/1 *Ste Table 47for scientific nine. ^Nueber of A. fellecis observed/fcflber of Observations. - 0/1 - - 1/1 7/2 1/20 0/2 6/5 7/1 - 2/3 - 60/50 9/3 3/4 34/44 - - - - 3/12 79/21 113/26 0/3 0/10 0/1 - - - - 12/2 4/1 5/1 9/3 * - - 1/7 1/1 5/2 3/2 40/17 4/2 • 4/6 - - - - - - • - - - - 0/3 - 5/1 - 56/51 - 3/1 13/2 31/12 2/4 3/3 5/3 43/31 1/1 1/1 * - - 3/2 7/1 10/2 17/6 1/1 3/1 1/1 10/13 3/2 12/8 10/7 17/2 3/3 0/1 6/6 8/1 4/3 4/4 0/1 3/1 * 1/4 69/104 - 1/2 6/1 - 48/4 11/2 17/5 10/2 2/1 19/3 16/3 19/2 8/3 - 43/99 - Chickory Sorrel - 110/155 - 0/1 0/1 7/1 0/1 w 2/6 0/1 1/5 - 0/1 2/5 - - 31/3 37/6 3/3 Total 1/2 2/1 - * 3/1 - - - 0/1 1/1 - - 7/1 13/2 - - - 0/1 10/1 18/1 8/2 1/3 0/2 68/14 Table 45.— Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Peachy II Orchard during oneminute counts, 1972. Species* 3/2 8/9 8/16 3/23 a/30 9/6 9/14 9/20 9/28 10/5 10/12 10/19 10/26 Apple 7/5*> 3/3 16/S 10/2 22/5 12/3 31/6 16/6 22/6 23/4 17/7 15/7 Dock 3/4 14/7 7/7 10/4 1/4 2/7 10/10 2/4 2/3 Sr.artweed 0/1 - - 6/3 1/1 23/5 - 2/7 92/72 - - - - 1/2 3/1 - 0/1 4/2 1/4 1/2 0/2 0/3 0/1 17/24 - - - - 0/1 - - 17/22 - - - 0/1 0/1 - 28/20 - 108/14 0/1 6/3 0/1 - 2/5 2/3 8/6 1/1 0/1 jt. Sagveed 13/3 4/3 5/2 1/3 V. Creamer 16/3 3/1 - 2/1 - 6/3 ■1/1 2/1 - ;:ii;:weec 2/1 0/1 17/1 herb's Quarter 0/1 - - 21. ?<»3pborry 205/73 0/4 - 4/5 Grape 1/7 0/3 - 0/1 1/2 10/7 - Goldenrod D. Fleabane Total - Wild Lettace 2/2 11/2 - 5/1 0/3 0/1 0/2 - 5/1 10/2 17/2 31/2 1/1 7/1 18/1 - - - - - - 1/1 - 0/1 0/1 - - 0/1 0/1 0/2 - 2/9 11/2 6/1 17/2 30/2 12/1 4/1 7/2 7/2 0/1 - - b/1 - - - - - - 0/2 0/2 0/3 8/2 7/4 11/2 - 1/1 5/2 3/1 0/1 0/1 0/2 - 54/19 1/1 - - - - - - - - - - 1/2 102/18 3/12 - 5/4 - - 1/1 1/1 - 0/1 - 0/1 - - - 7/8 l-y Apple - 0/1 9/2 - - - - - - - - - - - 9/3 ?okeberry - - 0/2 - - 0/1 1/2 0/1 1/1 4/1 0/3 0/1 - - 6/12 :;ight shade - - 0/1 2/1 1/2 1/3 - 1/2 0/2 0/1 - - 0/1 25/15 Sr.. Seaweed - - - 3/1 - - - - - - - - - 3/1 Elderberry - - - 1/1 4/1 9/3 3/3 4/3 1/3 80/25 4/1 - - - 2/1 1/2 - 5/1 - 1/1 - 0/1 13/7 2/1 0/1 2/1 0/1 0/2 3/2 1/2 0/2 0/4 0/2 ‘lorherwort - - - Dandelion - - - 20/2 28/2 18/2 18/3 10/2 12/2 9/18 :i.Y. Weed - - - - 6/1 2/1 20/2 - - - - - - - Sumac - - - - - - 2/1 - - - - - - - 2/1 Burdock - - - - - - 0/1 0/1 0/1 2/1 0/1 - - - 2/5 Cherry - * - - - - - - - 1/1 - - - - 1/1 Curled Dock - - - - - - - - - 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/5 Cirijuefoil - - - - - - - - - 1/1 - - 0/1 - 1/2 - 9/4 Poison Ivy Currant as - - - - Elm - - - - - Bull Thistle - - - - - - - 9/3 0/1 - - - - - 5/1 - • - - - - • - - - - - - - aSee Table47 far scientific n m . ^Humber of k. fallacis observed/Humber of Observations. “ - 0/1 21/1 28/4 5/1 0/1 21/1 135 Horse Settle - Table 46*— Vegetation sampled in the ground cover of Peachy II Orchard during one minute counts, 1973. Species* 5/3 5/IS S/22 5/29 6/5 6/12 6/19 6/26 7/3 7/10 7/17 7/25 8/2 8 /3 8/14 8/21 8/28 9/13 Total Dandelion 0 /5 * 0/12 0/6 0 /6 0/8 0/2 0 /8 0/7 - 2/4 0/2 9/3 4/4 7/3 2/1 6/2 76/5 10/7 116/85 Elderberry 0/2 0 /2 - - 0/1 1/3 - 0/1 0/1 1/2 1/2 - 2/1 VI 10/1 29/3 13/1 - 60/21 Curled Dock 0/1 - 0/1 0/1 0/1 - 0/1 0/1 - - - - - - * - - - 0 /6 0/21 3/23 5/12 5/16 0/2 8/6 - 5/5 8/2 Dock 0/13 0/7 0/9 0/10 Motherwort C/1 - - - * - 0/1 - - 3/2 0/1 2. Fleaoar.e 0/6 C/4 0/4 0/3 1/9 0/12 2/11 0/7 0/2 0/1 1/3 .'^stard 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/1 Goldenrod - 0/2 0/4 0/1 0/6 0 /4 0/3 2/11 0/1 3/2 4 /4 3/3 Bordock - 0/1 - - - 0/1 - 0/2 2/1 - 0/1 - Sed Clover - - 0/1 0/1 - - 0/1 0/1 J ild Lettace - - 0/2 0/2 0/6 0/2 1/3 2 /3 2/5 U /5 0/2 Sr.. Ragweed - - 0/1 - 0/1 - 0/1 - 0/1 - 0/1 2/11 3/6 - 6/4 3/2 0/1 15/4 6 /3 48/4 10/6 111/157 1/1 * 4/6 12/2 3/5 34/79 0/7 20/5 9/4 - - 10/5 3/4 3/4 0/1 1/1 - 33/S - 23/7 5/1 1V3 * 4/2 113/67 - 7 /6 0/4 5/2 11/4 - 63/71 4/1 7/1 2/2 - 14/11 0/1 0/1 Eir. Cherry Q-A Lace - 0/1 21/1 21/1 - 0 /3 0/1 ChickwEed - - - c /l - * 0/2 - - - - - 0/1 - - - - - 0/1 Cockle Mghtsfiade - - • 0/1 - - 0/1 0/1 St. Ragweed - - - 0/1 0/4 0/5 0/2 0/2 0/3 0/2 0/2 0 /3 2/4 1/1 11/4 6 /2 2/2 8/2 1/2 31/38 8/1 16/2 Plantain Sow 0/2 Thistle 8/1 Stdstraa 0/1 0/1 V. Creeser 1/1 5/1 - 1/3 - Sr-artweed 0/1 0/2 - 0/1 0 /3 0/1 Milkweed 0/1 2/4 1/1 - - 1/2 - - 4/1 4 /2 13/1 - 2/2 23/15 Grape 2/2 0/1 - - - 3/3 7/2 - - 5/1 • - 17/1 34/10 0/1 - 3/2 0/3 6 /3 - 1/1 32/18 - - 5/1 - - - - - 5 /3 - * Settle Pokeberry Yarrow Land's Quarters Horse 1/3 0/2 0/1 - - - - - - 0/1 - - - - - - • 0/2 - 0/1 1/1 - - * - S I. Raspberry 1/1 1/1 0/1 0/2 - - 5/1 6/1 s/t 31/2 13/1 68/12 15/2 1/1 VI 1/1 44/21 14/5 4 /2 4/4 VI - - - • 6/2 * 11/2 3/13 0/1 - - - - - - - 1/1 *See Tabic <7 for scientific m . bKuster of A. fallacis observed/Susber of Observations. - 0/1 - - - - 1/2 136 Sorrel 20/8 137 Table 47.— Plants recorded in one-minute counts from the ground cover of Michigan apple orchards, 197 2 to 1973. Alfalfa Medicago sativa L. Apple Pyrus malus L. Ash Fraxinus sp. Asparagus Bedstraw Asparagus officinalis L. Bindweed, Field Convolvulus arvensis L. Black Raspberry Rubus occidentalis L. Boxelder Acer negundo L. Buckhorn Plantain Plantago lanceolata L. Bull Thistle Cirsium vulgare Tenore Burdock Arc t i u m minus Bernh. Cherry Prunus spp. Chickory Cichorium intybus L. Chickweed Stellaria sp. Cirquefoil Potentilla sp. Cockle Lychnis spp. Corn Zea m a ize L. Cress Cardamine sp. Curled Dock Rumex crispus L. Currant Ribes vulgare Lam. Daisey Fleabane Erigeron annuus L. Dandelion T a r axacum officinale Weber Dock, Broad-leaf Rumex obtusifolius L. Elderberry Sambucus canadensis L. Elm Ulmus fulva Michx. Grape Great Ragweed Vitus spp. Ambrosia trifida L. Ground Cherry Physalis heterophylla Nees Goldenrod Solidago spp. Hickory Carya spp. Galium sp. 138 Table 47.— C o n t i n u e d . Honeysuckle Horse Nettle Lonicera sp. L a m b 's-quarters Chenopodium album L. Maple Acer sp. Mayapple Podophyllum peltatum L. M i 1k w e e d , Common Asclepias syriaca L. Motherwort Mulberry Leonurus cardiaca L. Morus rubra L. Mustard Brassica sp. Nettle, Stinging Solanum carolinense L. Urtica dioica L. Nightshade, Bitter Solanum dulcamara L. Oak Quercus spp. Peppergrass Lepidium vi r g i n i c u m L. Plantain, Broadleaf Poison ivy Plantago major L. Pokeberry Phytolacca americana L. Queen A n n 's Lace Dacus carota L. Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. Red Clover T rifolium pratense L. Rose Rosa sp. Smartweed Polygonum spp. S o r r e l , Red Rumex acetosella L. Sow Thistle Sonchus arvensis L. Strawberry Fragaria virginiana Duchesne Sumac Rhus sp. Sweet Cicely Osmorhiza claytoni Vetch Vicia villosa Roth Virginia Creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia L. Wild Geranium Geranium m a c u l a t u m L. Wild Lettace Lactuca canadensis L. Yarrow Achillea m i l l e f o l i u m L. Rhus radicans L. (Michx) 139 Table 48.— The average number* of Amblyseius fallacis found on 100 apple sucker l e a v e s a t Klackle Orchard in 1973. Date 1973 Sample 6/7 .28 ± .06 6/14 .14 ± .05 6/20 .14 ± .04 6/28 .17 ± .04 7/5 .13 ± .03 7/12 .35 ± .06 7/19 .55 ± .09 7/26 .73 ± .10 7/31 1.24 ± .11 8/9 .60 ± .11 8/16 .64 ± .10 8/23 .86 ± .10 * =Mean ± S t a n d a r d Error 140 Table 49.— The average number* of Amblyseius fallacis found on 100 apple sucker l e a v e s a t Rasch Orchard, 1973. Date 1973 Sample 6/7 .08 ± .03 6/14 .06 ± .03 6/20 .12 ± .04 6/28 .21 ± .04 7/5 .06 ± .03 7/12 .11 ± .03 7/19 .10 ± .03 7/26 .24 ± .05 7/31 .34 ± .06 8/9 .45 ± .07 8/16 .51 ± .10 8/23 .99 ± .11 8/2 9 .52 ± .09 9/7 .49 ± .09 9/19 .46 ± .07 10/4 .57 ± .10 10/16 .14 ± .06 * * Mean ± Standard Error 141 Table 50.— The average number* of Amblyseius fallacis found on 100 apple sucker l e a v e s a t Kraft Orchard 1973 and 1974. Date 1973 Sample Date 1974 Sample 6/7 .04 ± .02 6/11 .02 ± .01 6/14 .01 ± .01 6/27 0 6/20 .03 ± .02 7/12 .06 ± .03 6/28 .05 ± .02 7/25 .12 ± .04 7/5 .35 ± .07 8/1 .19 ± .03 7/12 .08 ± .03 8/6 .24 ± .05 7/19 .13 ± .05 8/15 .16 ± .04 7/26 .19 ± .04 8/22 .08 ± .03 7/31 .15 ± .04 8/29 .17 ± .04 8/9 .23 ± .04 9/5 .06 ± .03 8/16 .48 ± .08 9/12 .03 ± .02 8/23 .79 ± .13 8/29 .33 ± .07 9/7 .47 ± .10 9/19 .35 ± .07 10/4 .43 ± .12 10/16 .10 ± .03 M ean ± Standard Error 142 Table 51.— The average number* of Amblyseius fallacis found on 100 apple sucker leaves at Gavin Orchard 1973 and 1974. Date 1973 Sample Date 1974 Sample 6/7 0 6/11 0 6/14 0 6/27 0 6/20 0 7/12 0 6/28 0 7/25 0 7/5 0 8/6 0 7/12 0 8/15 0 7/19 0 8/22 0 7/26 0 8/29 .08 ± .04 9/12 .22 ± .06 7/31 .03 ± .02 8/9 .14 ± .04 8/16 .42 ± .09 8/23 .94 ± .13 8/29 .69 ± .12 9/7 1.00 ± .14 9/19 1.31 ± .12 10/4 2.60 ± .22 10/16 1.08 ± .13 * *Mean ± Standard Error 143 Table 52.— The average number* of Amblyseius fallacis found on 100 apple sucker l e a v e s a t Babcock Orchard in 1973. Date 1974 Sample 6/5 6/12 6/19 6/26 7/3 7/10 7/17 7/25 8/2 8/8 8/14 8/21 8/28 9/13 0 0 .02 ± 0 .02 ± .05 ± .08 ± .22 ± .13 ± .10 ± .12 ± .16 ± .22 ± .33 ± * .01 .01 .02 .05 .06 .04 .15 .05 .05 .05 .04 =*Mean ± Standard Error Table 53.— The average number* of Amblyseius fallacis found on 100 apple sucker leaves at Dowd Orchard, 1973 and 1974. Date 1973 Sample Date 6/5 6/12 6/19 6/26 7/3 7/10 7/17 7/25 8/2 8/8 8/14 8/21 8/28 9/13 .07 .06 .01 .04 .04 .06 .16 .34 .60 .57 1.55 1.62 1.44 .51 6/6 6/20 7/2 7/16 7/30 8/8 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/10 * ± ± ± ± ± ± + ± ± ± ± ± ± ± .03 .03 .01 .02 .02 .02 .04 .07 .08 .08 .13 .15 .16 .10 = M e a n ± S t a n d a r d Error 1974 Sample .01± .01± 0 .04 ± .05 ± .07 ± .33 ± .47 ± .17 ± .21 ± .01 .01 .02 .03 .03 .06 .08 .04 .06 144 Table 54.— The average number* of Amblyseius fallacis found on 100 apple sucker l e a v e s a t Peachy I Orchard, 1973 and 1974. Date 1973 Sample Date 6/5 6/12 6/19 6/26 7/3 7/10 7/17 7/25 8/2 8/8 8/14 8/21 8/28 9/13 .02 .04 .06 .10 .16 .22 .40 .61 .74 .77 1.64 .98 1.72 196 6/6 6/20 7/2 7/16 7/30 8/8 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/10 * ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± .01 .02 .02 .03 .04 .05 .07 .08 .09 .11 .14 .12 .19 .11 1974 Sample .02 ± .01± .04 ± .01± 0 .02 ± .06 ± .07 ± .19 ± .11± .01 .01 .02 .01 .01 .02 .04 .05 .03 = M e a n ± S t a n d a r d Error Table 55.— The average number* of Amblyseius fallacis found on 100 apple sucker leaves at Peachy II Orchard, 1973 and 1974. Date 1973 Sample Date 6/5 6/12 6/19 6/26 7/3 7/10 7/17 7/25 8/2 8/8 8/14 8/21 8/28 9/13 0 .01± .03 ± .12 ± .08 ± .20 ± .30 ± .41 ± .77 ± 1.01± 2.28 ± 1.31± 2.45 ± 1.11± 6/6 6/20 7/2 7/16 7/30 8/8 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/10 * .01 .02 .04 .03 .04 .07 .07 .09 .10 .24 .17 .18 .11 *Mean ± Standard Error 1974 Sample .01 .04 .03 .08 .23 .18 .39 .59 .07 .18 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± .01 .02 .02 .03 .05 .04 .07 .09 .03 .05 Table 56.— Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Klackle Orchard, 1972. Date Tree Direction 6/8-14 6/21-28 7/20- 26 8/3-8 8/29-9/5 9/26-10/3 #1 N S E W 0 3 c-1 c-4 c-0 c-0 1 0 1 0 c-3 c-0 1 0 c-1 c-0 2 17 c-1 c-3 #2 N S E W 0 0 c-1 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 1 1 - — - 0 - c-7 2 3 N S E W c-0 c-0 1 0 0 0 c-3 c-0 1 1 - - 4 - c-3 0 - #4 N S E W c-2 c-4 2 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-1 c-3 0 0 c-3 c-0 0 14 c-2 1 1 c-6 c-1 #5 N S E W c-0 c-0 1 1 0 0 c-1 c-0 c-5 c-3 4 3 - c-9 c-2 1 c-8 c-2 4 4 - - » Plant destroyed, c = Plant located close to tree trunk c-0 2 3 - 5 3 c-5 c-10 c-14 c-0 7 0 145 #3 1 0 c-1 c-2 Table 57.— Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Klackle Orchard, 1973. Tree Date Direction May 24 May 31 June 7 June 20 N S £ W 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-1 0 0 c-2 0 - 8 3 c-1 c-1 #2 N S E W c-0 c-2 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-1 0 0 c-8 c-0 c-1 c-4 0 4 #3 N S E W - 0 - c-3 c-0 0 0 c-5 c-1 1 0 0 1 c-2 c-2 *4 N S E W c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-3 c-0 0 1 c-4 c-4 0 2 c-2 c-7 #5 N S E H 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-1 c-5 2 1 c-3 3 0 #1 - - = Plant destroyed c = Plant located close to tree trunk — Table 58.— Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Rasch Orchard, 1972. Date Tree Direction 6/8-14 6/21-28 7/5-12 7/20-26 8/3-8 8/15-22 8/29-9/5 9/12-21 9/26-10/3 tl N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 — c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-1 c-0 c-3 2 2 5 2 c-0 c-2 #2 N S E H c-0 c-1 7 0 0 c-2 c-1 c-0 c-1 1 2 2 0 c-0 c-1 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-1 c-0 c-1 c-0 0 4 0 0 c-1 c-0 c-1 c-0 0 2 #3 N S E H c-3 c-0 1 0 c-1 c-0 0 0 2 2 c-0 c-0 c-4 c-0 0 0 0 1 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 2 2 c-1 c-1 c-0 c-1 0 0 10 1 N S E H 1 0 c-5 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 5 c-3 c-2 0 1 0 0 c-2 c-0 c-0 c-1 2 1 0 1 c-1 c-0 c-1 3 2 N S E W c-1 c-2 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 1 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-1 0 1 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-1 0 0 1 c-2 c-12 #4 #5 - * Plant destroyed, c * plant located close to tree trunk. 0 7 c-0 - - c-1 c-11 21 4 _ - - 5 4 2 Table 59.— Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Rasch Orchard, 1973. Date Tree Direction May 17 May 24 May 31 June 7 June 20 #1 N S E W c-0 c-1 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-3 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 1 1 0 c-0 c-0 #2 N S E W c-0 c-0 0 1 2 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 2 0 c-4 c-9 #3 N S E W 0 0 c-1 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 1 1 c-0 c-0 3 3 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 6 0 #4 N S E W 0 0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-4 c-0 c-0 0 0 2 0 c-13 0 c-16 c-0 2 6 - = Plant destroyed c = Plant located close to tree trunk Table 60.— Nunber of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Xraft Orchard, 1972. Date Tree Direction 6/8-14 6/21-28 7/5-12 7/20-26 8/3-8 8/15-22 0 c-3 c-3 1 3 0 0 c-0 c-1 c-0 c-0 6 2 c-26 c-22 9 4 4 - c-10 c-1 1 1 c-13 c-18 18 6 1 1 c-1 c-3 c-1 c-6 2 1 8/29-9/5 9/12-21 9/26-10/3 N S E W 1 0 c-0 c-1 c-0 c-0 c-7 c-0 0 1 *2 N S E W c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-1 c-3 c-2 c-5 2 1 c-0 c-1 0 0 0 10 c-1 c-2 #3 N S E W c-1 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 1 0 1 0 c-2 c-5 0 0 c-2 c-0 c-1 c-1 2 1 9 1 c-11 c-2 c-7 c-2 0 2 3 1 c-2 c-0 14 H S E VI c-0 c-1 3 — c-0 c-1 0 0 c-2 c-2 1 0 c-2 c-1 6 2 0 0 c-0 c-0 3 2 c-1 c-1 c-17 c-13 41 3 • 4 2 c-0 c-1 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 1 0 c-0 c-0 c-7 c-2 1 0 1 1 c-1 c-5 1 1 c-0 c-1 2 2 c-6 c-3 c-16 c-8 0 12 #1 15 - • * Plant destroyed, c * Plant located close to tree trunk. - 8 1 c-1 c-2 c-2 4 2 Table 61.— Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Kraft Orchard, 1973. Date Tree #1 Direction N S E W April 27 1 Nay 24 May 31 June 7 June 20 c-1 c-0 0 0 0 c-0 0 0 0 1 c-0 c-0 1 0 c-2 c-0 N S E W c-1 c-1 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-1 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 #3 N S E W c-11 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-1 c-0 0 0 - 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-1 c-4 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 - — 14 N S E W #5 N S E W c-1 - = Plant destroyed c = Plant located close to tree trunk 1 - - 1 c-0 c-0 150 #2 Table 62.— Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Gavin Orchard, 1972. Tree Date Direction 6/21-28 #1 #2 #3 7/5-12 7/20-26 8/3-8 8/15-22 8/29-9/5 N S E W c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-1 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-4 N S E W c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 1 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 - c-0 c-0 - = Plant destroyed c = Plant located close to tree trunk 9/12-21 9/26-10/3 c-1 c-1 0 0 1 0 c-1 c-3 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 1 c-1 c-1 0 0 c-3 c-1 c-0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 - - 0 1 - 0 - - - - - Table 63.— Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Gavin Orchard, 1973. Date Tree Direction May 17 May 24 May 31 June 17 June 20 #1 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 #2 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 1 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 - c-0 c-0 #3 N S E W c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 #4 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 - 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 N S E W c-0 c-0 0 0 0 1 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 #5 - = Plant destroyed c - Plant located close to tree trunk - Table 64.— Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Carpenter Orchard, 1972. Date Tree U #2 #3 #4 #5 Direction 6/16-22 6/21-28 7/5-12 7/20-26 c-0 N S E N 0 0 c-0 - c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 N S E W c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 N S E W c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 N S E W c-0 c-0 0 0 - 8/3-8 0 0 8/15-22 8/29-9/5 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-1 0 9/26-10/3 2 0 c-1 c-0 0 0 c-0 - - c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-3 c-0 1 0 - - c-0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-2 c-7 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 - 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 < 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 ** c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-3 c-0 0 0 1 0 c-1 c-1 c-4 c-6 2 1 - - c-0 - - * Plant destroyed c - Plant located close to tree trunk - c-1 c-2 1 0 Table 65.— Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Carpenter Orchard, 1973. Date Tree Direction May 15 May 29 June 5 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 #2 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 #3 N S E W c-0 c-1 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 - 0 c-1 c-0 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 - - - - N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 #1 #4 #5 - = Plant destroyed c = Plant located close to tree trunk 0 c-0 - - Table 66.— Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Babcock Orchard, 1972. Tree Tree #1 *2 #3 *4 #5 Direction 6/21-28 7/5-12 7/20-26 8/3-8 8/15-22 8/29-9/5 9/12-21 N S E W c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-1 c-2 2 0 c-2 c-5 1 0 4 7 c-6 c-2 c-6 c-2 4 - - N S E W c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-1 c-3 c-0 0 0 0 4 c-0 c-2 1 5 c-9 c-8 3 4 N S E W c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-5 c-0 1 0 4 4 c-4 c-4 c-5 c-14 0 5 5 1 c-3 c-5 - N S E W c-2 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 — c-5 c-0 19 1 c-13 c-5 8 2 - 1 0 0 1 c-1 c-1 N S E W 0 1 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-1 c-4 1 1 2 0 c-7 c-0 2 0 c-10 c-1 c-1 c-1 10 16 - - - - = Plant destroyed, c = Plant located close to tree trunk - 15 — c-4 — - c-9 c-7 - 3 2 - 1 - - 9/26-10/3 c-0 c-0 0 0 3 1 c-3 c-2 0 5 c-8 c-5 c-3 c-0 1 0 c-0 c-2 1 1 Table 67.— Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Babcock Orchard, 1973. Date Tree #1 12 13 #4 #5 Direction May 15 May 29 June 5 N S E W c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 - - 0 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 N S E H June 19 July 3 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-2 0 0 0 c-2 c-0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 - 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-2 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 - c-1 c-0 - 0 0 c-0 c-4 0 0 c-2 c-2 N S E W c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-1 0 0 c-1 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 - - - = Plant destroyed c = Plant located close to tree trunk — Table 68.— Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Dowd Orchard, 1972. Date Tree Direction 6/16-22 N S E W c-0 c-0 1 0 N S E W 6/21-28 7/5-12 7/20-26 8/3-8 8/15-22 8/29-9/5 9/26-10/3 0 0 5 0 c-0 c-2 c-5 c-2 4 2 c-1 c-0 0 0 1 4 c-9 c-4 c-9 c-10 23 9 29 18 c-23 c-3 2 0 c-0 c-0 0 1 c—0 c-1 0 1 c-0 c-0 1 2 c-1 c-1 1 0 c-0 c-2 c-7 C-7 10 3 8 12 c-3 c-20 U 2 c-20 c-0 N S E W c-5 c-1 1 0 c-0 c-0 0 1 3 3 c-0 c-4 c-3 c-5 6 c-0 c-0 0 0 15 15 c-7 c-3 c-38 c-32 15 26 c-3 c-9 1 13 #4 N S E W 2 0 c—0 c-1 0 1 c-1 c-1 c-0 c-0 0 1 9 3 c-4 c-2 c-2 c-0 1 2 c-4 c-0 5 13 21 4 c-9 c-66 c-1 c-0 0 0 #5 N S E W 0 1 c-0 c-0 c-6 c-1 0 0 3 0 c-5 c-4 c-1 c-10 2 5 c-0 c-3 c-5 c-1 5 11 c-38 c-17 25 33 c-3 c-3 2 2 #1 n #3 — - = Plant destroyed. c = Plant located close to tree trunk. - - Table 69.— Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Dowd Orchard, 1973. Date Tree Direction # 1 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-1 c-0 0 0 0 3 c-0 c-1 c-0 c-1 4 1 #2 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-1 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 - c-0 c-0 5 0 N S E W c-0 c-1 0 - 0 0 c-0 c-1 4 0 c-0 c-0 — N S E W c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-1 c-0 0 0 0 1 c-0 c-0 N S E H 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-2 1 0 13 *4 #5 May 15 May 29 - » Plant destroyed c * Plant located close to tree trunk June 5 June 19 - - 0 0 - July 3 0 0 c-0 c-0 Table 70.— Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Peachy I Orchard, 1972. Tree Date Direction 6/21/28 7/5-12 7/20-26 8/3-8 8/15-22 8/29-9/5 N S E W c-3 c-0 0 0 0 c-4 c-0 c-3 c-2 0 6 5 2 c-3 c-9 15 31 c-32 c-25 c-15 c-23 6 16 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-1 c-0 1 0 c-6 37 5 c-6 c-4 c-17 c-45 4 0 1 3 c-2 c-2 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 1 1 c-0 c-0 0 1 c-0 c-1 c-1 c-3 2 0 10 c-6 c-5 #4 N S E W c-0 c-0 1 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 #5 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 #1 #2 #3 - - = Plant destroyed, c * Plant located close to tree trunk. — - - 12 c-35 c-22 9/12-21 14 - c-5 - 9/26-10/3 c-14 c-27 15 2 - JO 0 - c-0 c-0 - 1 5 - c-1 2 - - Table 71.— Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Peachy I Orchard, 1973. Tree Date Direction May 15 May 29 June 5 June 19 July 3 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 1 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 4 4 c-0 c—1 *2 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-5 c-7 0 - 1 1 c-1 c-0 #3 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 1 — 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-1 1 0 N S E W c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 1 0 c-0 0 0 N S E W c-0 c-0 2 0 c-0 c-0 5 1 0 0 c-6 c-0 0 1 c-1 c-0 #1 #4 #5 . - - Plant destroyed c = Plant located close to tree trunk 0 - - Table 72.— Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Peachy II Orchard, 1972. Date Tree Direction 7/5-12 7/20-26 8/3-8 8/15-22 8/29-9/5 9/12-21 9/26-10/3 #1 N S E H 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-4 c-2 3 2 2 4 c-5 C-2 3 15 c-7 c-16 c-2 8 4 0 0 c-2 c-3 c-1 2 0 #2 N S E c-0 c-1 0 8 10 - c-8 c-8 2 8 1 c-0 2 7 c-17 c-1 c-4 1 0 3 c-1 #3 N S E W 2 0 c-0 c-0 c-3 c-3 4 6 c-0 c-4 4 3 2 3 c-3 c-1 c-4 c-2 6 2 0 0 c-0 c-2 c-2 c-3 0 2 14 N S E W c-1 c-1 1 0 c-2 5 0 5 1 c-4 c-0 c-3 8 8 c-3 c-8 11 2 0 1 c-1 c-5 c-6 c-0 0 1 #5 N S E W 1 1 c-0 c-0 c-5 c-2 5 3 1 6 c-1 0 4 c-0 c-8 c-3 c-6 5 2 0 1 c-0 c-0 c-1 0 0 - = Plant destroyed c = Plant located close to tree trunk Table 73.— Number of A. fallacis collected on bean plants in Peachy II Orchard, 1973. Tree Date Direction May 15 #1 #2 0 June 5 June 19 July 3 c-0 c-1 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 c-1 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 N S E W c-0 c-0 0 0 c-1 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-1 0 0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 1 - N S E W c-0 c-0 0 - 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 — - - - - 0 0 c-0 3 0 #4 N S E W 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 1 c-0 c-0 c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 c-1 c-4 #5 N S E W c-0 c-0 0 0 c-0 c-0 0 0 0 0 • c-3 c-6 0 0 - = Plant destroyed c = Plant located close to tree trunk 162 #3 N S E W May 29 LITERATURE CITED 163 LITERATURE CITED Ahlstrom, K.R. and Rock, G.C. Comparative studies on Neoseiulus fallacis and Mataseiulus occidentalis for azinophosmethyl toxicity and effects of prey and pollen on growth. Annals of Ent. S o c . Amer. 66:1109-1113, 1973. Asquith, D. and Horsburgh, R.L. Predators of orchard mites and their role in mite control. Penn. Fruit News, 1968^ Ballard, R.C. The biology of the predacious mite. Typhlodromus fallacis (Garman) at 78 F. Ohio Journal of S c i e n c e , 54: 175-179, 1954. Croft, B .A. Integrated control of apple mites. Ext. Bull. E - 8 2 5 . Coop. Ext. Serv., Michigan State University, 1975a. _________ . Tree fruit pest management, 471-507 in "Introduction to Pest Management." Edited by R.L. Metcalf and W.H. Luckman. Wiley I n t e r s c i . , N e w York, 1975b. Croft, B.A. and Nelson, E.E. Toxicity of apple orchard pesticides to Michigan populations of Amblyseius f a l l a c i s . Environ. E n t o m o l . 1:576-57 9*]! 1972 . Croft, B.A. and McGroarty, D.L. A model study of acaricide resistance, spider mite outbreaks, and biological control patterns in Michigan apple orchards. Environ. Entomol. 2: 633-638, 1973. Croft, B.A. and Meyer, R.H. Carbamate and organophosphorus resistance patterns in populations of Amblyseius fallacis. Environ. Entomol. 2: 691-69TT] 1973. Croft, B.A. and Brown, A.W.A. Responses of arthropod natural enemies to insecticides. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 20:285-335, 1975. 164 165 Garman, P. Mite species from apple trees in Connecticut. Conn. Ag. E x p t . Station Bull. 520, 1948. Holling, C.S. The functional response of predators to prey density and its role in mimicry and p o p u l a ­ tion regulation. Memoirs of Ent. Soc. Canada 45, 1965. Huffaker, C.B., van de Vrie, M . , and McMurtry, J.A. Tetranychid populations and their possible control by predators: An evaluation. Hilgardia 40: 391-458, 1970. Janes, R. A history of insect activities and insecticide use in Michigan, 1945 to 1970. Dept, of Entomol., Michigan State University, 1972. LeRoux, E.J. and Reimer, C. Variation between samples of immature stages, and mortalities from some factors, of the Eye-spotted Bud Moth, Spilonota ocellana (D. and S.) (Lepidoptera: OletnreutidaeT^ and the Pistol Casebearer, Coleophora serratella (L.) (Lepidoptera: C o l e o p h o r i d a e ) , on apple in Quebec, 1959. Malcolm, D.R. Biology and control of the timothy mite, Paratetranychus pratensis (Banks). Tech. Bull., Wash. Agric. Exp. Stn. No. 17, 1955. Meyer R.H. Management of phytophagus and predatory mites in Illinois orchards. Environ. Entomol. 3: 333340, 1974. Motoyama, N., Rock, G.C., and Dauterman, W.C. Organophosphorus resistance in apple orchard populations of Typhlodromus fallacis. J. Econ. Ent. 63: 1439-1442, 1970. Oatman, E.R. and Legner, E.F. Integrated control of apple insects and mite pests in Wisconsin. Ent. Soc. Amer. North Cent. B r . P r o c . 17:110-115, 1962. Oatman, E.R., Legner, E.F., and Brooks, R.F. An e c o l o g i ­ cal study of arthropod populations on apple in northeastern Wisconsin: insect species present. J. Econ. Ent. 57: 978-983, 1964. Poe, S.L. and Enns, W.R. Predaceous mites (Acarinas Phytoseiidae) associated w ith Missouri orchards. Trans Missouri Acad. Sci. 3: 69-82, 1969. 166 Putman, W.L., and Herne, D.C. Relations between Typhlodromus caudiglans Schuster and phytophagous mites in Ontario peach orchards. Can. Ent. 96: 925-943, 1964. _________ . The role of predators and other biotic factors in regulating the population density of phytophagous mites in Ontario peach orchards. Can. Ent. 98:808-820, 1966. Rock. G . C . , and Yeargan, D.R. Relative toxicity of pesticides to organophosphorus resistant orchard populations of Neoseiulus fallacis and its prey. J. Econ. Ent. 64: 350-352, 1$71. Rock. G.C ., Yeargan, D.R., and Rabb, R.L. Diapause in the phytoseiid mite, Neoseiulus f a l l a c i s . J. Insect Physiol. 17: 1651-1659, 1971. Smith, J.C. A laboratory and greenhouse evaluation of Typhlodromus fallacis (Garman) as a predator of Tetranychus spp. Ph.D. thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 1965. Smith, J.C., and Newsom, L.D. The biology of Amblyseius fallacis at various temperatures and photoperiod r e g i m e s . Annals Ent. Soc. of A m e r . 63: 460-462, 1970. Snedecor, G.W., and Cochran, W.G. Statistical Methods, Sixth Edition. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1967. Southwood, T.R.E. Ecological Methods: With particular reference to the study of insect populations. Metheun and Company, London, 1966. Taylor, L.R. 189: Aggregation, variance and the mean. 732-735, 1961. Nature van de Vrie, M . , McMurtry, J.A., and Huffaker, C.B. Biology, ecology, and pest status, and hostplant relations to T e t r a n y c h i d s . Hilgardia 41: 343-432, 1972.