364 J.L. BECKERMAN AND G.W. SUNDIN
KEYWORDS:disease resistance;Erwinia amylovora; pesticide resistance;Ven-
turia inaequalis
I.INTRODUCTION
II.IPM AND APPLE SCAB
A.History of Apple Scab
B.History of Fungicide Use for Apple Scab Management
C.Evolution of Fungicide Resistance inVenturia inaequalis
D.Breeding for Apple Scab Disease Resistance
E.Cultural Control Methods for Apple Scab Management
III.IPM AND FIRE BLIGHT
A.History of Fire Blight
B.Apple Production Practices Favoring the Occurrence of Fire Blight
C.Antibiotic Use for Fire Blight Management and Antibiotic Resistance
D.Alternate Management Options
E.Genetic Resistance to Fire Blight
IV. Conclusions and Future Trends
Acknowledgments
Literature Cited
I. INTRODUCTION
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a pest management strategy that
incorporates a strategic combination of methods (scouting, sampling,
thresholds, forecasts, biological, and cultural controls, etc.) to manage
pests without solely relying on chemical pesticides. The goal of a “suc-
cessful” IPM program is to produce an economically profitable crop in
an ecologically sound manner. If, however, cultural control measures
fall short of preventing pest damage, a chemical pesticide is recom-
mended. IPM was first applied to apple production in the 1970s with
the goal of reducing pesticide use while reducing costs to growers. By
the 1970s, it was obvious to growers (in the form of fungicide resistance)
and to the public, after publication ofSilent Spring(Carson 1962) that
many of the synthetic pesticides not only had practical limitations but
significantly harmful side effects on human health, non-target species,
and the environment (Beckerman et al. 2015).
Apple scab (referred to as black spot in some parts of the world and in
some literature) is a problem that directly affects fruit as a commodity.
Evidence of insects and disease, in addition to anything that impacts
fruit finish reduces the value of fruit depending on the severity of the
defect and the intended market. Apple scab lesions on fruit (Fig. 8.1a)
reduce it from U. S. Extra Fancy to Fancy, No. 1 fresh-market or Utility
(processing) grade (USDA 2002), and therefore revenue losses can be
significant (Large 1962). Furthermore, as disease incidence increases,