PMSP for Eastern Peaches

Source

TypePMSPs
Date09/13/2005
PDFhttps://ipmdata.ipmcenters.org/documents/pmsps/EastPeach.pdf
SettingPeach
StateFlorida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Carolina
Contact
Contributors

Settings/Crops



Executive Summary




Background





Priorities

Category Rank Pest Type Pest Crop Stage Date Priority
Extension/Outreach 1 Pathogens 2003 Growers must be informed of emerging pest management options to replace lost chemical usage and to address emerging pest issues.
Regulatory 1 2003 Shorter pre-harvest intervals for peach herbicides would facilitate multiple, lower rate applications as a means of maintaining weed control while potentially reducing seasonal herbicide rates. Research is needed to demonstrate how well this approach would work under varying orchard conditions.
Regulatory 1 All Pest Types 2003 Pesticide policy deliberation for edible crops should be re-structured so meaningful, commodity-based dialogues among key IPM professionals become central to the process of risk mitigation. U.S. EPA and USDA-OPMP should be charged with developing and implementing changes that assure IPM professionals are fully utilized to address crop-specific risk mitigation without the current, too often, spastic reductions in overall IPM performance. Policy should not be limited by compound-specific regulatory processes for new compounds or materials under consideration for re-registration.
Regulatory 1 Insects 2003 Registration of additional low-risk post-harvest fungicides is a priority need that should be expedited.
Regulatory 1 Pathogens 2003 Eastern peach producers must have efficacious pesticides that control fruit and tree pests, with labels permitting application numbers sufficient to fully address pest pressures.
Regulatory 2 2003 Expand labels of non-bearing only herbicides to include uses in bearing orchards.
Regulatory 2 All Pest Types 2003 In the short-term, insecticide registration and re-registration goals for eastern peaches should focus on mitigating the chronic exposure risks of phosmet and retaining use of chlorpyrifos as a tool for managing borers and scale.
Regulatory 3 2003 Register the following unregistered herbicides for OFMG in bearing peach orchards: flumioxazin (Chateau) [Dicarboximide]; fluoroxypyr (Starane, Vista) [Pyridine]; halosulfuron (Permit, Sandea) [Sulfonylurea]; mesotrione (Callisto) [Benzoylcyclohexanedione]; rimsulfuron (Matrix) [Sulfonylurea]; sulfentrazone (Spartan) [Aryl Triazinone]; thiazopyr (Mandate) [Pyridine]
Regulatory 3 All Pest Types 2003 Lesser peachtree borer infestations are presently at crisis levels in southeastern orchards. Short-term regulatory relief on use of OPs to facilitate suppression of lesser peachtree borer is needed.
Regulatory 4 All Pest Types 2003 Peach labels should be expedited for efficacious, low-risk insecticide materials that would diminish reliance on OP chemistries while improving control of sporadic, but sometimes damaging, pests such as plant bugs, stink bugs (fenpropathrin), grasshoppers (diflubenzuron) and scarab beetles (acetamiprid or thiacloprid with 3- to 7-day PHIs).
Regulatory 5 All Pest Types 2003 Phosmet uses should be retained to complement broader labeling of efficacious, low-risk insecticides, sufficient to manage the full complement of fruit and tree pests.
Regulatory 6 All Pest Types 2003 Chronic worker exposure concerns of phosmet and other foliar applied pesticides could be substantially mitigated if peach growers had an effective post-bloom fruit thinner to diminish their need for ca. 4-weeks of hand thinning to achieve competitive fruit size.
Regulatory 7 All Pest Types 2003 U.S. EPA’s regulatory role should give due consideration of the farmer’s need for effective pesticides that have re-entry intervals (REIs) and pre-harvest intervals (PHI) which permit adequate crop protection while allowing workers to conduct field essential activities. Peach growers need insecticides with pre-harvest intervals (PHI) shorter than 14-days to prevent occasional late surges in pest abundance from ruining crops.
Regulatory 8 All Pest Types 2003 Regulatory decisions should thoroughly consider resistance management concerns. It is imperative to maintain multiple modes of action for use against key pests.
Regulatory 9 All Pest Types 2003 Region-wide virus and phytoplasma tree-health programs are necessary to mitigate potential spread of plum pox virus and reduce the incidence of less catastrophic, endemic viruses. Nursery certification and elimination of non-certified stocks is an industry priority.
Research 1 2003 Determine if sequential herbicide applications could be used to reduce total herbicide rates.
Research 1 2003 Controlling winter annual weeds with pre-emergence herbicides reduces cat-facing insects, allows for utilization of radiant heat benefit, and delays the need for pre-emergence herbicides in the spring.
Research 1 All Pest Types 2003 In-orchard research to assess and quantify acute and chronic worker safety risks needs to be conducted for key pesticides used in temporal proximity to hand-labor intensive activities such as thinning and picking.
Research 1 Insects 2003 A fuller understanding of the brown rot pathogen’s biology and epidemiology is needed to improve timing of sprays and to develop more insightful resistance management strategies.
Research 1 Pathogens 2003 A more comprehensive biological and ecological understanding of all peach arthropod pests and beneficials is needed to form the foundation of more biologically refined peach pest management options. Detailed biological studies need to include: host plant selection, host preference and fidelity, characterization of attractive host plant volatiles, pest mobility to and within orchards, and rate of pest movement under various temperature regimes.
Research 2 2003 Determine if irrigation, micro-jet or drip, could be used to reduce the necessary width of tree-row herbicide strips, thereby reducing herbicide use.
Research 2 All Pest Types 2003 Basic biology of all of the major pests of peach should be further elucidated, along with potential bio-control options.
Research 2 Insects 2003 There is an on-going need for additional research to optimize the use of fungicides in the pre- and post-harvest environment.
Research 2 Pathogens 2003 Sound sampling tools, predictive models and action thresholds, the decision-making tools for cost effective pest management, are lacking. These tools must be developed, evaluated and incorporated into commercial peach production in the eastern U.S.
Research 3 2003 Screen new, lower-risk herbicide chemistries with favorable environmental and toxicological profiles which might reduce reliance on simazine and diuron.
Research 3 All Pest Types 2003 Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Analysis (HACCP) for microbial contaminants, with companion development of management protocols to mitigate pesticide residue risks, should be a research priority.
Research 3 Insects 2003 Low-risk, cost-effective, fungicide, bactericide and nematicide chemistries are needed for managing virtually all peach diseases and to provide more stable, robust resistance management programs for key diseases such as brown rot and bacterial spot.
Research 3 Pathogens 2003 Biological control agents should be studied and examined as potential components of comprehensive management strategies for plum curculio, Oriental fruit moth, scale and borer species.
Research 4 2003 Screen herbicides for woody perennial weed control in orchards.
Research 4 Insects 2003 A more detailed understanding of the biology and epidemiology of peach diseases is a compelling need that negatively impacts key and minor pathogens alike.
Research 4 Pathogens 2003 Better sampling options for scale and an improved understanding of scale predators and parasites are needed.
Research 5 2003 Conduct detailed determinations of specific key weed/peach tree interactions. Species should include common weeds like Palmer amaranth, morning glory species, large crabgrass, bermuda grass, yellow and purple nutsedge, and perennial woody species.
Research 5 Insects 2003 Development of more biologically refined, reliable, cost effective controls that emphasize use of low-risk management options to mitigate dietary, worker or environmental concerns is dependent on development of a more comprehensive knowledge base.
Research 5 Pathogens 2003 Research is needed on host plant succession, chemical ecology and basic biology of thrips, plant bugs and stink bugs, grasshoppers, Japanese beetles, green June beetles, rose chafers and white fringed beetles.
Research 6 2003 Determine the significance of weed competition post-harvest on bud development and carbohydrate storage impacting winter hardiness.
Research 6 Insects 2003 Improved resistance management in high-value, chemical-dependent systems such as peach will continue to be an on-going need.
Research 6 Pathogens 2003 Development, evaluation and incorporation of low-risk pesticides into commercial management schemes is important; Impacts on key, secondary and induced pests, beneficials, and emerging pest problems must be carefully studied; Sub-lethal insecticidal effects, though difficult to investigate, should be examined because they may prove important in providing stable, cost-effective pest management options.
Research 7 2003 Assess the impact weed control practices have on minimizing tree loss associated with rodent pests such as voles.
Research 7 Insects 2003 Bacterial spot programs need a much improved understanding of pathogen biology, continued availability of coppers and oxytetracycline, labels for any effective, lower risk controls, full development and regional validation of a pest model, and germplasm evaluation for host plant resistance with subsequent incorporation of resistance into the most commercially competitive selections season-long.
Research 8 2003 Research is needed to determine optimal weed-free intervals for early-, mid- and late- season peaches.
Research 8 Insects 2003 Research on nematode control must focus on pest biology, resistant rootstocks, cultural controls and examination of low-risk materials with nematicidal activity.
Research 9 2003 In-row cover crops must be evaluated as a potential means of reducing herbicide use and controlling weeds during the annual peach production cycle.
Research 9 Insects 2003 Captan, botran and syllit are older non-DMI chemistries. They are critically important for control of Rhizopus and Gilbertella rots, and they are key resistance management tools for brown rot.
Research 10 2003 New herbicides must be evaluated as potential replacements for simazine and 2,4-D.
Research 10 Insects 2003 Research to develop pre-plant sampling technologies to specifically locate Armillaria-infested sites within fields, biological and/or chemical controls and resistant rootstocks are needed.
Research 11 2003 Screen potential new herbicides to determine peach’s tolerance.
Research 11 Insects 2003 Research is badly needed to provide a more in-depth understanding of Armillaria root rot and constriction canker, for evaluation of germplasm for potential host plant resistance, assessment of biocontrol options, pre-plant sampling technology for Armillaria, and identification of effective, preferably low-risk fungicide chemistries.
Research 12 2003 Once crop tolerance has been determined, weed efficacy screening in orchards needs to be conducted.
Research 12 Insects 2003 No meaningful chemical controls are available for Armillaria root rot or constriction canker. Efficacy screening of new compounds should be a priority.
Research 13 2003 Determine the potential weed control benefit of producing dry matter (from a cover crop) in the row middles and moving it under trees for utilization as mulch.
Research 14 2003 Determine the impact of post-harvest weed competition on flower bud development and carbohydrate storage, which impacts winter hardiness.
Research 15 2003 Consider using reduced pre-emergence herbicide rates applied sequentially as a means of reducing overall herbicide rate without compromising efficacy.

Production Facts

Production Year
US Rank
% US Acres
Acres Planted
Acres Harvested
Growers
Production
Production Costs/Acre
Natl Avg/Acre
State Avg/Acre
Per Acre Value
Production Value
Price
References

Worker Activities

Production Counties

Production Practices

IPM Practices

Pollinator Protection

Pests


No Data

No Data

No Data

No Data

No Data

Beneficials

Biological Controls

Cultural Controls

Physical Controls

Chemical Controls

Active Ingredient CAS PC Pests REI (hrs) PHI (days) Description IPM Resistance

Efficacy

Pest Active Ingredient PC Code CAS Efficacy Code Comments
Efficacy Codes
UUnknown
EExcellent, 90-100%
GGood, 80-90%
FFair, 60-80%
PPoor, 25-60%
NCNo Control, <25%
G-EGood to Excellent, 80-100%
F-EFair to Excellent, 50-100%
P-EPoor to Excellent, 25-100%
F-GFair to Good, 50-90%
P-GPoor to Good, 25-90%
P-FPoor to Fair, 25-80%
NUNot Used
RRarely Used

Resistance Management

Toxicity


Timelines


Production Practices JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec Entered Comments


Pests JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec Entered Comments


Stages JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec Entered Comments


Chemicals JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec Entered Comments


Worker Activities JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec Entered Comments

References

Acknowledgments