Crop Protection Research Institute
The Benefits of Insecticide Use: Peaches
Tarnished Plant Bug Damage (Catfacing)
Oriental Fruit Moth Larva Feeding Inside Fruit
Gummy Oozing at Base of Tree in
Response to Peachtree Borer Attack
Removing Peachtree Borers from Peach
Trees by Hand
March 2009
Leonard Gianessi
CropLife Foundation
1156 15th Street, NW #400 Washington, DC 20005
Phone 202-296-1585 www.croplifefoundation.org
Fax 202-463-0474
Key Points
•
•
•
•
Prior to use of insecticides, catfacing damage to peaches caused by insect-feeding
led to 20-25% culled fruit.
A peach tree will live only four years if peachtree borers are not controlled.
Prior to the use of insecticides, peach trees were “wormed” by hand twice a year
to remove peachtree borers. As many as 90 borers per tree had to be removed.
Insecticide sprays for oriental fruit moth reduce damage at harvest from 67% to
1%.
Technical Summary
Growers in 15 eastern states produce 470 million pounds of peaches with a value of $190
million from 58,000 acres annually. Survey data indicates that 93-100% of peach acres
in eastern states are treated with insecticides annually [39]. In Georgia, peach growers
are estimated to make 13 insecticide applications per year with a total cost of $151/acre
[41]. In Ohio and New Jersey, insecticide costs are approximately $100-$129/A,
representing 5% of the cost of producing the crop [50-51]. The main insect pest targets
are fruit attacking pests (plant and stink bugs, plum curculio, oriental fruit moth), 9
sprays; lesser peach tree borer, 1 spray; scale, 1 spray; peach tree borer, 1 spray.
California growers produce 1.4 billion pounds of peaches with a value of $270 million
from 63,000 acres. Insecticide costs in California peach orchards are estimated at $182/A
[61]. Essentially, 100% of the peach acreage in California is treated with insecticides to
manage insect pests.
Canners reject cling peach deliveries with worm damage in excess of 4% by weight
because of the difficulty and expense of sorting damaged fruit [73]. In the fresh market,
peach lots with average worm damage greater than 5% exceed the US No 1 grade
standard and cannot be marketed. The key insect pests in California peach orchards have
traditionally been oriental fruit moth, peach twig borer, and San Jose scale. In recent
years major shifts in insect problems in terms of species causing economic damage have
been observed in California. This is in great part explained by the shift away from
organophosphate insecticides to insecticides with a narrower spectrum of activity. Pests
which were formerly considered occasional or secondary pests, such as katydids, obliquebanded leaf roller and others are now of increasing importance [71].
The peach reached North America by a roundabout route. From its native China it
probably moved to Asia Minor, to Greece, Italy, Spain and finally with the Spanish
explorers to Mexico in the early 16th century. By the time the early English, French and
Dutch colonists arrived, the peach tree had moved with the Indians from Mexico and
Florida across the southwest and the Atlantic seaboard. The common occurrence of the
peach at that time led the early settlers to assume it was a native plant [22].
For 200 years after their introduction into the U.S. peaches were grown mostly for
brandy, for fresh fruit for the home, or for hog feed [37]. Almost every farm in the mid
Atlantic states had a peach orchard. From 1800 to 1850, commercial peach production
expanded rapidly. Peaches were transported by rail, boat and wagon to supply the
demand for fresh peaches in the cities. Throughout the 19th century, insect problems
multiplied. Insect borers became quite destructive. In 1892 the San Jose Scale appeared
in Virginia. Its rapid spread to other peach states led to the adoption of spraying as an
orchard practice. A realization of the value of spraying for other insects soon developed
[37].
Wholesale fruit shippers universally and vigorously ascribe to a zero tolerance for insect
infestation in shipped fruit [38]. No grower can afford to risk rejection of a single tractor
trailer of peaches with a value of $14,000 due to insect contamination [38]. Control of
internal fruit feeders (plum cuculio and oriental fruit moth) must be perfect.
It has recently been estimated that without the use of insecticides that there would be a
100% loss of peach production in the southeastern U.S. and a 40% reduction in California
[40].
Peachtree Borer
The peachtree borer (PTB) is a native of the eastern U.S. and has been reported in the
horticultural literature almost from the time the earliest settlers arrived. Prior to the
introduction of the peach, it lived on native wild cherries and plums. The PTB also
attacks other stone fruit, such as nectarine, apricot, prune, and plum. It is, however,
preeminently injurious to the peach which is its favorite food source.
The first published note on the PTB was provided by a Swedish explorer in 1749: “the
peach tree has often been planted here (New York) and never would do well. This was
attributed to a worm which lives in the ground and eats through the roots so that the tree
dies.” [22].
The PTB eggs hatch as minute larvae which bore their way into the bark down to the
growing layer of bark and wood. Entrance into the bark is quite rapid; in the course of a
half an hour the larvae have formed enough frass to cover them entirely. The larvae are
voracious feeders. The larvae confine their feeding almost exclusively to the trunk of the
tree just below the surface of the soil. The larvae feed on the growing bark and form
irregular burrows in which they remain dormant in the winter and again continue their
feeding in the spring and summer when they reach the adult stage [29]. The slow growth
of the larvae is accompanied by much burrowing and feeding. The formation of the
burrows causes a large flow of sap; consequently the presence of borers is almost always
manifested by the flow of gum and the presence of frass [29]. The burrowing of the
larvae disrupts nutrient and water transport.
In the case of small trees the borings of the larvae often girdle the trunk and cause the
death of the tree. In extreme cases 40, 60 and even 90 borers have been found infesting
individual peach trees [24]. The presence of the insect in a peach tree is usually indicated
by gum, particles of bark, and frass at the base of the tree.
The male of the PTB is attracted to the female when she displays herself in what is
known as the “calling” position. When ready to mate the female lifts the abdomen,
protrudes her genitalia and emits a scent. The males are attracted readily and appear in
numbers. Records show an average of 63 minutes of mating [29]. The female PTB has
fine hairs on the tip of her egglayer which are in touch with the bark. With these hairs
she is able to locate little cavities and irregularities in the bark where she placed her eggs.
The average female PTB lays about 800 eggs [31]. The moths die a few days after the
short period of egg deposition ends.
About 1800, boiling water poured around the roots had great appeal for killing PTB. It
was added parenthetically that the method was impractical for large areas and it injured
trees. A mixture of cow dung, leached ashes, and plaster of Paris was widely acclaimed
in 1824 but later proved disappointing [22]. A large number of sprays and washes were
tried to control PTB; the best of them partially failed at the least; many proved injurious
to the tree, and not in a few cases caused the death of the tree [29]. Washes that included
Paris green or other arsenicals were injurious.
Until the 1920s the chief method of control was to remove the larvae by digging or
cutting them out of the tree with a knife or as this operation was known “worming” [29].
This was a tedious and expensive job in large orchards and the digging and cutting quite
often did more damage to the trees than the borers [29]. It was recommended to cut the
worms out twice a year [29].
In 1919 a report was published on the use of paradichlorobenzene (para) in controlling
PTB. Para is a white crystalline substance having an ether-like odor and vaporizing to a
gas. Para is poisonous to insects confined in its fumes for a sufficient period of time. It
is heavier than air and readily permeates the soil. The killing agent in para is a gas which
penetrates to the burrows thru the air spaces in the soil. Early research showed that para
killed 98 to 100% of the PTB [32]. One ounce of para was applied per tree. The para
was applied in a circular band around the tree and then was covered with soil.
Following the 1919 research the use of para by peach growers increased tremendously.
By 1924, it was estimated that para had been applied to a million peach trees in Illinois
[26]. Para was routinely used by all commercial growers [30].
Para had its drawbacks. Chief among these were its excessive labor requirements,
inflexibility in timing and injury to young trees [22]. This treatment gave way about
1935 to ethylene dichloride another gas which could be applied more conveniently in
liquid form.
The advent of DDT in 1942 provided impetus for effective control of PTB by
conventional spraying techniques [22]. Early reports noted that borer populations were
reduced in orchards where DDT was being sprayed to kill oriental fruit moth.
The PTB population was reduced 95% or more in all trees receiving three applications of
DDT [25]. The borer reduction on trees receiving two DDT sprays was 92%. Para and
ethylene dichloride gave 95 and 98% borer reductions respectively [25]. Research
showed that the DDT applications reduced the incidence of PTB from 27 per tree to .13
per tree [30]. The opportunity to achieve the same ends at much less cost, by spraying
with DDT two or three times during the season was welcomed by practically all
orchardists [30].
Three spray applications to the trunks provided seasonal control. The organophosphates
were found to kill the eggs and to provide residual effectiveness as well. An effective
program was to make two sprays with parathion. In the 1950s excellent PTB control was
achieved with trunk sprays of endosulfan and dieldrin. In the 1960s chlorpyrifos was
tested as a trunk spray and reduced borer populations per tree from 19 to 0.5 [33].
Well over 90% of eastern peaches receive a single handgun directed spray with
chlorpyrifos for PTB control. If growers miss treating for one year, the infestation will
often average 10 or more borers the following year. Approximately four years is the
maximum time that a peach tree will live if PTB are not controlled.
Two parasites have been studied in terms of control of the PTB. An egg parasite
parasitized 1.3 % of the eggs in an orchard while a pupal parasite parasitized 4.5% of the
PTB pupae [23].
In the 1950s researchers in Georgia released two million infective live nematodes per tree
for the control of the PTB [42]. Such treatments had no measurable effects on the borer
populations Currently, laboratory tests with entomopathogenic nematodes for PTB
control indicates that they will infect and kill PTB in the laboratory [43].
With peachtree borers , field applications of the St. carpocapsae nematode in research
trials achieved high levels of control especially when three applications were made
during the peachtree borer’s fall egg-laying season [74].
Lesser Peachtree Borer
In 1905 the lesser peachtree borer (LPTB) was identified as another species infesting the
peach tree [17]. Almost every peach tree over three years old east of the Rocky
Mountains is infested by one or both species of borers (PTB or LPTB) [28]. The lesser
PTB is similar to the PTB but it chiefly attacks the trunk and limbs.
Larvae of the LPTB chiefly attack the trunk and branches in areas that have been injured
by implements, cankers, low temperatures, hail, or sunscald and in split crotches or under
the cracked bark of old trees. LPTB will take advantage of even the slightest injury to a
tree to lay eggs which hatch into wood boring larvae.
The PTB enters the tree near the soil level and does not require the presence of wounds or
cracks in the bark for entry, but the LPTB always enters the tree at a wound or crack.
Both species pass the winter as borers inside the tree. In the spring, they emerge as
moths that lay eggs on or in the trunk during the summer.
When the borer stages hatch, the PTB tends to crawl down the tree to soil level and
burrow in there, but the LTPB will move to the nearest injured area, which may be in the
lower trunk or just as easily up in the limbs.
Injury is caused by larval feeding on the inner bark of the trunk or branches.
Being a native insect, the LPTB has enough hosts to maintain abundant insect
populations. The female LPTB moths crawl into wounds and probe for cracks to hide the
eggs.
Once the larvae become established in an injured area, they feed freely on the tender
growing bark near the margin of the wound.
Many insecticides have been tested for control of LPTB but relatively few have been
found to be effective. A single application of endosulfan provided 82% control [27].
Parathion sprays timed for control of the PTB also provided substantial reduction in
LPTB infestations [34].
Mating disruption dispensers are available for lesser peachtree borer and peachtree borer
and have performed as well or better than insecticides in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast
[45]. However, under Georgia conditions, pheromone based mating disruption of borers
has been consistently unreliable at the rates used in northern states [46]. As such,
essentially no commercial use of mating disruption for the borer complex are now being
employed in the Southeast. Tests are needed with higher rates under the heavy
southeastern pressure.
For control of lesser peachtree borers, researchers have sprayed nematodes to tree
wounds and covered them with moisture-holding bandages [74].
Stink bug/Tarnished Plant Bug
‘Catfacing’ is a term that was apparently coined in the early 1900s by peach growers in
the central U.S. to describe fruit deformities caused by the feeding of plant bugs and stink
bugs [1]. The injury consists of rough corky areas on the surface of the fruit [5].
Damage occurs when these insects injure cells in the tissue just beneath the surface of the
fruit. Injury from the insect’s mouthpartsis is usually accompanied by damage from
digestive enzymes which are injected at the time of feeding. These enzymes remain in
the fruit and continue to destroy nearby cells even after the insect departs [1]. Cellular
death around the feeding site induces formation of scar tissue and prevents normal
growth of the fruit.
Most catfacing damage is caused by the tarnished plant bug and several species of stink
bugs including the green stink bug. These insects are highly mobile; they are capable of
rapid and sustained flight, and they remain in the orchard for a relatively short period of
time in the spring. Most catfacing insects do not reproduce on the peach tree- it
apparently serves as an alternate host plant while the insects are in transit from one
preferred feeding site to another [1]. Stink bugs and tarnished plant bugs are active flyers
and visual generalists. They follow a succession of host plants that are in bloom or
approaching the flowering stage [7]. These insects develop on plants other than peach.
These insects feed on peach when the fruit are small. These injuries are relatively deep,
corky scars. Sometimes several of them occur close together resulting in a puckering or
stunting of the entire side of a fruit [2]. The feeding period may last several weeks.
A regular schedule of insecticide applications is essential for control of catfacing insects
[1].
In the early 1900s peach growers suffered heavy and repeated losses due to scarring and
deformation of the fruit caused by catfacing [2]. In the 1920s, 25% or more of the
peaches in Indiana and Illinois usually had catfacing injury [44]. The first experiments
on the control of catfacing insects was done in the 1920s. Unsatisfactory control was
obtained at that time with the insecticides available [6]. In South Carolina in the early
1940s as many as 20% of the peaches were being culled out on account of their distorted
and scarred condition. One orchardist estimated that 40% of his peaches were graded out
as culls in 1941 for this reason [3]. In large orchard field tests a single application of
DDT at full bloom reduced plant bug injured peaches at harvest from 42% to as few as
8% [4]. In 1951 it was determined that the substitution of parathion for DDT was as
effective in reducing catfacing damage to peaches [6].
Catfacing in peaches still affects 5-10% of the harvested peaches even in well-managed
orchards [7]. Difficulty in control of this complex can be attributed to the migratory
behavior and their preference for breeding sites other than peaches [7].
The relationship between winter annual plants and catfacing injury has been documented.
The plants provide food and shelter during late winter for catfacing insects. These insects
apparently migrate from the blooming winter annual plants to peach buds and flowers
after the cover plants senesce[52].
Mowed orchards suffer considerable damage when weed control does not precede the
bloom stage of winter annuals. Once insects are attracted to weed hosts in an orchard,
mowing the vegetation is likely to increase catfacing by flushing bugs out of the ground
cover and into the trees[53]. The same problem is encountered by growers who use the
modified permanent sod system of weed management. In this case, herbicides are applied
under the trees and strips of vegetation are left in the alleys As it begins to bloom, the
alley vegetation becomes increasingly attractive to catfacing insects. The
recommendation that orchards be kept weed free to prevent catfacing damage does not
support the long-held belief that increased plant species diversity decreases the damage
potential of pests in agrosystems[53].Lowering the diversity of plant species in a peach
orchard , a perennial crop system, decreases the incidence of catfacing damage caused by
several insect species[53].
In peach orchards, particularly those with weedy orchard floors , catfacing insects can
cause a significant amount of fruit injury and deformity that may result in direct yield
losses[54].Insecticides are currently the only widely used and successful control measure
for catfacing insects[54].
Oriental Fruit Moth
As the name implies, this insect is believed to be of oriental origin. It was first
discovered near Washington, D.C. in 1915 and spread to all peach-growing areas [8].
The oriental fruit moth attacks peach, apricot, nectarine, almond, apple, pear, plum, and
cherry trees.
The larvae attack the twigs and fruit of the peach tree. Succulent peach twigs are
exceedingly attractive to the larvae. Oriental fruit moth emerge, mate, and lay eggs.
Females may lay from 30 to 60 eggs [10]. After entering the twig, the larvae consume
the central part and work their way down the shoot for two to six inches. The fruit may
be infested either by newly-hatched larvae or by larvae migrating from the twigs
The outside skin surrounding the stem is tender and the larva enters at this point and
leaves a small pile of frass. It is possible to examine a peach and find no external sign of
injury yet when the peach is cut open, it contains a larva feeding on the inside. The
oriental fruit moth larva frequently does much of its feeding around the pit and
characteristically leaves much sawdustlike frass in this area. Inability to cull out all the
damaged peaches results in serious complaints from consumers who discover the worms
[8]. In the absence of effective controls, they can destroy 50% or more of the peach crop
[35].
Research in 1916-17 with arsenical insecticides determined that oriental fruit moth
damage was reduced only slightly [9]. That was largely because of the habits of the
insect when it is first hatched. It starts to cut through the surface of the fruit; it cuts out
little pieces of the tissue and sets them aside and does not begin to eat until it gets inside
the flesh.
In 1917, several parasites were found to be attacking the oriental fruit moth on peaches
[9]. A remarkable fact connected with the oriental fruit moth is the rapidity with which
native species have transferred to attacking it. Over 75 species of insects have been
found that are parasites of the oriental fruit moth [11]. A number of parasites that attack
the oriental fruit moth have been brought in from Europe, Japan and Australia and have
colonized practically all the peach growing areas of the U.S. [8]. The most valuable
parasite is Macrocentrus ancylivorus which is native to the U.S.
Mass liberations of parasites for reducing oriental fruit moth injury to peaches indicated
that the number of injured fruit was reduced by 50% [12][8]. During a ten year period
(1930-39) the Georgia Department of Entomology conducted a mass release program of
M. ancylivorus and estimated that the parasites of the oriental fruit moth destroyed 55%
of the total population [13].
DDT spray programs replaced the use of mass liberations of parasites for oriental fruit
moth control. DDT was depended on for oriental fruit moth control until
organophosphate insecticides were developed that were highly toxic to both oriental fruit
moth and plum curculio. Research demonstrated that parathion sprays reduced oriental
fruit moth damage at harvest by 98% reducing the percent wormy fruit from 67% to 1%
[15].
Pheromone-based mating disruption systems for oriental fruit moth have been
commercially available for several years. These dispensers are usually used in the east in
combination with an early-season insecticide spray which not only controls Oriental fruit
moth but sucking bugs and plum curculio as well. Orchard border insecticide sprays are
often necessary to reduce the immigration of mated females into peach orchards treated
with pheromones [47]. Due to the appreciable costs of purchase and labor for hand
application, polyethylene tube dispensing pheromones are not widely adopted [48].
Research has shown that in peach blocks treated with 3M Sprayable Pheromone,
additional applications of insecticides were required because the pheromone treatment
would unlikely provide adequate control of the pest [49].
A two-year study was undertaken in New Jersey peach orchards to assess the use of
mating disruption with ground cover management practices to reduce oriental fruit moth
and tarnished plant bug abundance and damage[54].With the mating system, growers
made one-third fewer insecticide applications. The mating disruption gave at least four
months of noninsecticidal control. Growers who used the mating disruptants were
advised to apply insecticides early because successful mating disruption is best achieved
if initial target pest populations are low[54].The percentage of mated females was not
significantly different with the disruption program and it is likely that the high levels of
successful mating females was due to locating mates using mechanisms other than
pheromone calling[54].The costs of the mating disruption program was $75-$175/A more
expensive than the conventional insecticide spray program[55].
Oriental fruit moth is a serious pest of peaches in California. The oriental fruit moth
entered the US on flowering cherries imported from Japan in 1916. the pest spread
quickly throughout the US but did not reach California until 1942.There are usually 5
generations per year in California, although a sixth generation has been observed in years
with warm weather in early spring [62].A single female deposits 60 to 120 eggs during
her laying period of about 10 days[65].
Nearly all attempts to control the oriental fruit moth with insecticides from 1916 to 1940
were unsuccessful. The arsenicals, which controlled codling moth and plum curculio,
were ineffective because larvae of the fruit moth discard the first few mouthfuls of tissue
and ingest only the inner tissues of shoots and fruit. This peculiar habit accounts for the
failure of stomach poisons to give satisfactory control. For this reason, the USDA
developed a program for the importation of fruit moth parasites from Japan, Korea,
Europe and Australia [63].An average reduction of 50% in fruit injury was reported after
mass liberations of Macrocentrus ancylivorus. The first insecticide to show real
effectiveness against the oriental fruit moth was DDT. Two applications of DDT at 35day intervals reduced fruit moth injury by 97% with less than 1% wormy fruit [66][63].
Later experiments with organophosphate insecticides controlled both oriental fruit moth
and peach twig borer reducing the percent wormy fruit to 2% compared to 20% in the
untreated check [64].
Use of mating disruptants for oriental fruit moth is currently being practiced on 80-85%
of fresh market peaches and 50% of processing peach acres in California [67].
Pheromone mating disruption can control the oriental fruit moth well in California, but
control can break down when the pheromones dissipate late in the season. Infestations
continue to occur in varieties harvested after August. As a result, supplemental sprays are
often needed [68]. Organic growers are permitted the use of the Entrust formulation of
spinosad [56].A pheromone-only program is not recommended for orchards with high
oriental fruit moth populations [69].
If left uncontrolled, oriental fruit moth can be a trade barrier, because of quarantine
requirements of British Columbia, Mexico and other countries that will not allow entry of
produce containing this species. They have a zero tolerance for OFM.
The parasite macrocentrus ancylivorus does not overwinter on oriental fruit moth and it
traditionally had to be reared and provided to farmers annually for release in orchards.
For effective control at least 500 macrocentrus must be released per acre. The cost of
these releases would be prohibitive because the parasite is expensive to rear in insectaries
and transport to the orchards [70]. Preliminary studies indicate that growing a small plot
of sunflowers can provide macrocentrus with an overwintering host, the sunflower moth
which allows its populations to build more rapidly in the orchard the following season
[56].
Plum Curculio
The plum curculio is a native American insect. Before the introduction of cultivated
stone and pome fruit, the plum curculio undoubtedly fed and bred on wild plum,
hawthorne and crabapple [17]. It is probable that from the earliest times, it has been quite
generally distributed eastward of the Rocky Mountains. Practically all cultivated stone
and pome fruit are attacked including plums, peaches, cherries, nectarines, apricots,
apples and pears.
The curculio is a dark grayish snout beetle about 3/8 of an inch long. It spends the winter
under leaves and trash in the orchards or in woodland, fence rows, terraces, etc near the
orchard and emerges in the spring. After it enters the orchard, it feeds on the petals,
sepals and leaves until the fruit is large enough for egg laying. It then makes a crescent
shaped flap on the small fruit, lays its eggs, placing an egg beneath each flap [16].
Within a few days the egg hatches into a small larva which begins to feed within the
fruit6. After remaining there for several days, it leaves the fruit, burrows into the ground,
becomes an adult, emerges and returns to the trees. In remains in the orchard until late in
September or October and then seeks suitable hibernating quarters [16]. Each female is
capable of laying 100 to 500 eggs.
The adult females injure the fruit by puncturing it for egglaying and the result is a wormy
fruit. In addition, the adults of both sexes cause gnarly fruit by making punctures for
feeding. From the punctures, gum may excude and form globules. When control
measures are not taken, over half the peaches are wormy or gnarly [8]. The small larvae
or worms begin to feed on the flesh of the peach in most cases boring into until the pit is
reached. In Virginia and southward, two generations of the plum curculio occur annually
while further north only one generation occurs each year.
The plum curculio was discovered as a pest of peaches as early as the 18th century with
serious damage occurring around Philadelphia and New Jersey around 1750 [16].
The population is decreased by about 50% by burning the woods back for a distance of
about 300 yards [16].
Although it was known that Paris Green and lead arsenate could be used in plum curculio
treatments, some injury to peach trees and fruit resulted and entomologists were cautious
about recommending arsenical treatments [18].
One of the best preventive measures generally practiced in the early 1900s was the jarring
method. Its value depended on the fact that a sudden jar to the tree causes the beetles to
fold their legs and fall to the ground, feigning death as a means of escaping detection
[17]. The beetles were collected on sheets held under the trees. During seasons when
beetles were numerous jarring was done every day for a period of four to five weeks.
The work was done by a crew of five workers [17]. Tree jarring was practiced in
heavily-infested orchards in the South but was not generally recommended in midAtlantic states due to the high cost [16].
In 1909 it was found that by combining lead arsenate with lime sulfur that the injury to
peach trees was much less. In the 1909 experiments, 98% of the unsprayed peaches were
damaged by plum curculio while only 28% were damaged in the lead arsenate sprayed
areas [18].
From the 1920s into the 1940s one application of lead arsenate was the standard
treatment for light to moderate infestations while two applications were used in the more
heavily-infested areas. In the 1920s the standard lead arsenate treatment resulted in 7%
wormy peaches in comparison to 41% wormy where no treatment was used. However, in
the 1940s, it was determined that one lead arsenate application provided little or no
control of plum curculio while two applications resulted in severe wood damage from
arsenical injury [20][21]. In the 1940s experiments showed 30-40% wormy peaches
when the standard program was used.
A search for alternatives indicated that parathion produced nearly complete control of the
plum curculio (99.5%) while lead arsenate provided about 83% [19]. Parathion reduced
wormy peach in orchards due to plum curculio from 14.5% to zero [36].
Current research is testing soil applications of the nematode Steinernema riobrave for
suppression of plum curculio in peach orchards [74].
San Jose Scale
San Jose scale is a serious pest of peaches which causes losses every year in California
[62]. Female San Jose scale lay eggs that hatch immediately and the young emerge from
under the edge of the adult scale covering. The average number of crawlers issuing from
females is about 400. They are released at the rate of 9 to 10 every day for six weeks
[57]. The crawlers wander until they find a suitable place to settle. Immediately upon
settling, the crawlers insert their mouthparts into the host plant and begin feeding and
secreting a white, waxy material which eventually turns into a black cap [56].High
infestations number about 4500 scales for every five twigs. San Jose scales cause injury
by feeding on twigs, branches, and fruit; they may also inject salivary toxins while
feeding. Heavy populations on the bark can cause gumming and kill twigs, branches, and
entire trees if left uncontrolled. An undetected infestation is able to kill young trees
within three years. A characteristic, red halo like discoloration forms around the insect on
fruit. Fruit with haloes will be culled because of its unsightly appearance. Scale must be
controlled in order for the fruit to be sold on the fresh market and for canning. San Jose
scale has continuously infested peach orchards in California since its introduction into the
US in 1870[57].
Research with a San Jose scale parasite, Encarsia perniciosi has proven difficult because
the parasitoid colony has not been easy to maintain. Numbers of parasitoids produced
have been disappointingly low. It is suspected the proper host stages or the exposure
times to produce a strong and abundant colony has not yet been determined [72].
Severe scale infestations can easily shorten an orchard’s productive life by two years.
In the absence of chemical controls, an entire peach orchard may be killed by San Jose
Scale within a few years.
The San Jose Scale has been successfully controlled in peach orchards with a dormant
season spray of lime sulfur or oil.
Peach Twig Borer
Peach twig borer is a severe pest to peaches in California. They overwinter on the trees as
larva within a tiny cell usually in crotches or in deep cracks in the bark. Larvae emerge in
early spring and migrate up twigs and branches where they attack newly emerged leaves
and shoots. First generation larvae usually develop in twigs during May and June and
give rise to the next flight of moths. Larvae from this and subsequent generations may
attack either twigs or fruit. Shoot damage is most severe on young developing trees
because feeding kills the terminal growth [62].PTB burrows into the peach flesh but does
not reach the pit.
Since the peach twig borer was first discovered in California, it has been an annual pest
of importance. As early as 1887, a 50% loss of peaches was experienced in some
districts[58].The loss of peaches in California in 1920 and 1921 due to this caterpillar
was estimated at between 20 and 60%[59].In 1931 the statewide loss was estimated at
10%.Individual orchards around Yuba City ranged as high as 70% wormy
peaches[58].Applications of lime sulfur and lead arsenate did not free an orchard of
infestation and losses were often 20% even with treatments[59] [60].
Mating disruption with sex pheromones can be used to supplement dormant or bloom
time insecticide sprays. Mating disruption has not been reliable against peach twig borer
when used alone [56]. It is most effective in orchards with low moth populations that are
not close to other untreated peach twig borer hosts or almond orchards. Mating disruption
is used primarily in organic orchards to supplement sprays. Sprays of Bt and the Entrust
formulation of spinosad are organically approved.
Peach twig borer has about 30 species of natural enemies, The gray field ant preys on
peach twig borer during spring and summer. In some years these natural enemies destroy
a significant potion of larvae, but by themselves they generally do not reduce twig borer
populations below economically damaging levels before damage has occurred [71] [56].
References
1. Meyer, J. R., “Catfacing in Peaches: Effects of Ground Cover and Surrounding
Vegetation,” Proc. Joint Natl. Peach Counc. Southeast. Peach Conven., 5-11,
1984.
2. Woodside, A. M., Some Insects That Cause Cat-Facing and Dimpling of Peaches
in Virginia, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Virginia Agricultural Experiment
Station, Blacksburg, Virginia, Bulletin 389, February 1946.
3. Snapp, O. I., “DDT to Control Bugs That Cause Deformed Peaches,” Journal of
Economic Entomology, Vol. 39:41-43, February 1946.
4. Snapp, O. I., “Experiments in 1946 on the Control of Bugs that Cause Deformed
Peaches,” Journal of Economic Entomology, Vol. 40:135-136, February 1947.
5. Bobb, M. L., “Reduction of Cat-Facing Injury to Peaches,” Journal of Economic
Entomology, Vol. 63(3): 1026-1027, June 1970.
6. Chandler, S. C., “Control of Peach Catfacing Insects in Illinois,” Journal of
Economic Entomology, Vol. 48(6): 635-638, December 1955.
7. Killian, J. C. and J. R. Meyer, “Effect of Orchard Weed Management on
Catfacing Damage to Peaches in North Carolina,” Journal of Economic
Entomology, Vol. 77: 1596-1600, December 1984.
8. Snapp, O. I., Insect Pests of the Peach in the Eastern States, Farmers’ Bulletin No.
1861, February 1954.
9. Garman, P., The Oriental Peach Pest, Maryland State College of Agriculture,
Agriculture Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 209, December 1917.
10. Howitt, A. J., Common Tree Fruit Pests, Michigan State University Extension,
NCR 63, October 1993.
11. Driggers, B. F., “Three Years’ Survey and Liberation of Oriental Fruit Moth
Parasites in Peach Orchards in Northern New Jersey,” Journal of Economic
Entomology, Vol. 34(2): 239-244, April 1941.
12. Brunson, M. H. and H. W. Allen, “Mass Liberation of Parasites for Immediate
Reduction of Oriental Fruit Moth Injury to Ripe Peaches,” Journal of Economic
Entomology, Vol. 37(3): 411-416, June 1944.
13. Webb, Jr., J. E. and C. H. Allen, “Biological Control of the Codling Moth and the
Oriental Fruit Moth,” Journal of Economic Entomology, Vol. 33(3): 431-435,
June 1940.
14. Brunson, M. H., L. Koblitsky, and R. D. Chisholm, “Effectiveness and
Persistence of Insecticides Applied During the Summer Months to Control
Oriental Fruit Moth on Peach,” Journal of Economic Entomology, Vol. 55(5):
728-733, October 1962.
15. Bobb, M. L., “Field Experiments for Control of Oriental Fruit Moth,” Journal of
Economic Entomology, Vol. 44(3): 418-420, June 1951.
16. Graham, C., The Plum Curculio, University of Maryland, Agricultural
Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 419, June 1938.
17. Quaintance, A. I., “The Principal Insect Enemies of the Peach,” Yearbook of
Agriculture, 1905, USDA.
18. Scott, W. M. and A. I. Quaintance, Control of the Brown-Rot and Plum Curculio
on Peaches, USDA, Bureau of Entomology, Circular No. 120, March 12, 1910.
19. Driggers, B. F. and M. M. Darley, “Control of Plum Curculio on Peaches with
Benzene Hexachloride, Parathion, Chlordan, and Lead Arsenate,” Journal of
Economic Entomology, Vol. 42(2): 330-335, April 1949.
20. Neiswander, R. B., “Plum Curculio on Peaches and Plums in Ohio,” Journal of
Economic Entomology, Vol. 41(3), June 1948.
21. Dewey, J. E. and J. D. VanGeluwe, “Some Organic Insecticides for Control of
Plum Curculio on Peaches,” Journal of Economic Entomology, Vol. 41(2): 235239, April 1948.
22. Smith, E. H., “Control of Peach Tree Borers,” Farm Research, December 1961.
23. Snapp, O. I. and J. R. Thomson, Life History and Habits of the Peachtree Borer in
the Southeastern States, USDA Technical Bulletin No. 854, November 1943.
24. Snapp, O. I., The Peach Borer- How to Prevent or Lessen Its Ravages, USDA
Farmers’ Bulletin No. 1246, April 1943.
25. Martin, D. F., “Peach Tree Borer Control,” Journal of Economic Entomology,
Vol. 46(4): 704, August 1953.
26. Chandler, S.C., “Some Recent Developments in the Use of Paradichlorobenzene,”
Journal of Economic Entomology, Vol. 17: 246-253, April 1924.
27. Bobb, M. L., “Insecticides for Control of the Lesser Peach Tree Borer, with Notes
on the Peach Tree Borer,” Journal of Economic Entomology, Vol. 62(6),
December 1969.
28. Sanchez, D., “Blunting the Peachtree Borer,” Agricultural Research, March 1989.
29. Gossard, H. A. and J. L. King, The Peach Tree Borer, Ohio Agricultural
Experiment Station, Bulletin 329, September 1918.
30. MacCreary, D., “Evaluation of Trunk Sprays Against Peach Tree Borers in
Delaware,” Journal of Economic Entomology, Vol. 47(2), April 1954.
31. Becker, G. G., “Notes on the Peach Tree Borer (Sanninoidea Exitiosa),” Journal
of Economic Entomology, Vol. 10, February 1917.
32. Peterson, A., Some Soil Fumigation Experiments With Paradichlorobenzene for
the Control of the Peach-Tree Borer, Sanninoidea Exitiosa Say, New Jersey
Agricultural Experiment Station, Paper No. 10 of the Technical Series, January
10, 1921.
33. Wylie, W. D., “Chemical Control of Peach Tree Borer in Arkansas- Dursban
Looks Promising,” Down to Earth, Winter 1968.
34. Smith, E. H., “Control of Peach Tree Borer and Lesser Peach Tree Borer in New
York,” Journal of Economic Entomology, Vol. 44(5): 685-690, October 1951.
35. “Crop Profile for Peaches in Michigan,” Available at:
http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/Detail.CFM?FactSheets_RecordID=163.
36. Bobb, M. L., “Insecticides for Control of Peach Insects,” Journal of Economic
Entomology, Vol. 50(3): 268-269, June 1957.
37. Fogle, H. W., et al., Peach Production, USDA Agricultural Handbook No. 463,
September 1974.
38. Horton, D. L., “Southeastern Peach Insect Pest Management- Its Evolution and
Implementation,” University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension Service.
39. USDA, Agricultural Chemical Usage 2001 Fruit Summary, National Agricultural
Statistics Service, August 2002.
40. Knutson, R. D., et al., Economic Impacts of Reduced Pesticide Use on Fruits and
Vegetables, American Farm Bureau Research Foundation, September 1993.
41. Guillebeau, P., N. Hinkle, and P. Roberts, Summary of Losses from Insect
Damage and Cost of Control in Georgia, 2003, University of Georgia, College of
Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service,
Miscellaneous Publication Number 106, March 2006.
42. Snapp, O. I., “Peach Tree Borer Experiments in Peach Orchards,” Journal of
Economic Entomology, Vol. 55(3), June 1962.
43. Shapiro-Ilan, D. I. and T. E. Cottrell, “Susceptibility of the Lesser Peachtree
Borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) to Entomopathogenic Nematodes Under Laboratory
Conditions,” Environmental Entomology, Vol. 35(2): 358-365, April 2006.
44. Porter, B. A., “The Tarnished Plant Bug as a Peach Fruit Pest,” Journal of
Economic Entomology, February 1926.
45. Pfeiffer, D. G., et al., “Mating Disruption for Reduction of Damage by Lesser
Peachtree Borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) in Virginia and Pennsylvania Peach
Orchards,” Journal of Economic Entomology, Vol. 84(1): 218-223, February
1991.
46. “Crop Profile for Peaches in Georgia and South Carolina,” Available at:
http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/docs/GASCpeaches.html.
47. Trimble, R. M., D. J. Pree, and N. J. Carter, “Integrated Control of Oriental Fruit
Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Peach Orchards Using Insecticide and Mating
Disruption,” Journal of Economic Entomology, Vol. 94(2): 476-485, April 2001.
48. De Lame, F.M., et al., “Development and Evaluation of an Emulsified Paraffin
Wax Dispenser for Season-Long Mating Disruption of Grapholita molesta in
Commercial Peach Orchards,” Journal of Economic Entomology, 100 (4): 13161327, August 2007.
49. Trimble, R.M., et al., “Comparison of a Sprayable Pheromone Formulation and
Two Hand-Applied Pheromone Dispensers for Use in the Integrated Control of
Oriental Fruit Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae),” Journal of Economic
Entomology, 97 (2): 482-489, April 2004.
50. “Table 49: Costs and Returns for Fresh Market Peaches, Per Acre,” available at:
http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~farmmgmt/ne-budgets/icm/peach-8-20yr.html.
51. “2000 Peach Production Budget,” Ohio State University Extension, available at:
http://aede.osu.edu/Programs/FarmManagement/Budgets/Fruit/peach-5.htm
52. Meagher, R. L. and J. R. Meyer, “Effects of ground cover management on certain
abiotic and biotic interactions in peach orchard ecosystems,” Crop Protection,
February 1990.
53. Killian, Joella C. and John R. Meyer, “Effect of Orchard Weed Management on
Catfacing Damage to Peaches in North Carolina,” Journal of Economic
Entomology, December 1984.
54. Atanassov, Atanas, Peter W. Shearer, George Hamilton and Dean Polk,
“Development and Implementation of a Reduced Risk Peach Arthropod
Management Program in New Jersey,” Journal of Economic Entomology, August
2002.
55. Shearer, Peter, “Risk Avoidance Management Program (RAMP) in New Jersey
Peach Orchards: 2004 Results,” Rutgers Agricultural Research & Extension
Center, Bridgton, NJ 08302.
56. “How to Manage Pests: UC Pest Management Guidelines, Peach,” University of
California, Agriculture and Natural Resources,
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r062300711.html.
57. Gentile, Adrian G. and Francis M. Summers, “The Biology of San Jose Scale on
Peaches with Special Reference to the Behavior of Males and Juveniles,”
Hilgardia, Vol. 27, No. 10, January 1958.
58. Summers, F. M., “The Peach Twig Borer,” University of California, Division of
Agricultural Science, Circular 449.
59. Duruz, W. P., “Peach Twig-Borer Experiments in California,” Journal of
Economic Entomology, December 1922.
60. Summers, Francis M., “Resistance to Basic Lead Arsenate by the Peach Twig
Borer Within a Small Area in Central California,” Journal of Economic
Entomology, February 1949.
61. Day, Kevin, Harry L. Andris, Karen M. Klonsky, and Richard L. De Moura,
“Sample Costs to establish and Produce Peaches,” University of California
Cooperative Extension, PH-VS-04, 2004.
62. “Crop Profile for Peaches in California,” United States Department of
Agriculture, Office of Pest Management Policy & Pesticide Impact Assessment
Program.
63. Rings, Roy W., “Economic Aspects of the Biology and Control of the Oriental
Fruit Moth, Grapholitha Molesta Busck, in the United States,” The Ohio Journal
of Science, 70(1): 58, January, 1970.
64. Caltagirone, L. E. and W. W. Barnett, “Insecticides and Integrated Control in
Peaches,” California Agriculture, May 1966.
65. Smith, Leslie M. and Francis M. Summers, “Oriental Fruit Moth Problem in
Central California,” California Agriculture, February 1948.
66. Summers, F. M., L. C. Brown J. H. Foott, and J. L. Quail, “Flare-up of Oriental
Fruit Moth,” California Agriculture, January 1956.
67. Carter, Neil, “Worldwide Use of Mating Disruption Continues to Rise,” Hort
Matters, Vol. 6, Issue 02, February 2, 2006.
68. “Mating disruption programs help control Oriental fruit moth,” Ag Alert,
February 14, 2007.
69. “Mating disruption strategies help control peach pests,” Ag Alert, April 14, 2004.
70. “Parasite could help control Oriental fruit moth in peaches,” Ag Alert, April 12,
2006.
71. “A Pest Management Strategic Plan for Peach Production in California,” The
California Tree Fruit Agreement, The California Canning Peach Association, and
The California Minor Crops Council. August 2003.
72. Field, Jonathan, “Development of an Integrated System for Controlling San Jose
Scale, Peach Twig Borer and Oriental Fruit Moth in Clingstone Canning and
Fresh Shipping Peaches, Plums and Nectarines,” Pest Management Alliances
Final Report, California Tree Fruit Agreement, February 25, 2002.
73. Weakley, Craig V., Philipp Kirsch, and Frank G. Zalom, “Distribution of peach
twig borer damage in peaches,” California Agriculture, January- February 1990.
74. “Testing Biocontrols for Peach Pests,” Agricultural Research, March 2008.