Pest
 
Resources
 
Online

Link to Biotechnology in pest management infoLink to Crop and Livestock pest infoLink to Health, home indoor and structural pest infoLink to Invasive and Natural resource pest infoLink to Integrated Pest Management infoLink to Organic pest management infoLink to Ornamental, turf and greenhouse pest infoLink to Pesticide Info

link to PRO New England home page

    Info      People      Search     About PRO

 Home
   
Site Map
      What's New

 INFO by Topic
 

Link to Biotechnology in pest management info

  Biotech





 
Link to Crop and Livestock pest infoCrop
& Livestock



 

 

Link to Health, home indoor and structural pest infoHealth
& Indoor


 

 

Link to Invasive and Natural resource pest infoInvasive







 
 


 

Link to Invasive and Natural resource pest info Integrated
Pest Mgmt.

& Biocontrol

 

 

Link to Organic pest management info Organic





 

 




 
Link to Ornamental, turf and greenhouse pest info
  
Ornamental









 
 

Link to Pesticide Info
 
Pesticide


 


 *SEARCH Fact Sheets


 Surveys
   Profiles &
     Strategic plans


  Pest Forecasts
 


 PEOPLE
 with pest answers

""




 
Connecticut
""




 
Massachusetts
""



  
Maine

""




 New Hampshire

""




 
Rhode Island

""






 
Vermont

""

 
 New England
 Region-wide

 


  FEEDBACK



   About PRO

 

 

 

Fire blight models background information

Model logic sources

Timothy J. Smith, Report on the Development and Use of Cougar Blight 98C - A Situation Specific Fire Blight Risk Assessment Model for Apple and Pear.  Washington State University.
http://www.ncw.wsu.edu/fbsmith.htm

Timothy J. Smith, A Risk Assessment Model For Fire Blight of Apple and Pear, Version 1998 Update.  Washington State University.

Timothy J. Smith, Cougar Blight 2002 Fire Blight Risk Assessment Model. http://www.ncw.wsu.edu/treefruit/fireblight/2000f.htm.  Washington State University.

Timothy J. Smith, Fire blight Degree Hour Values http://www.ncw.wsu.edu/images/curve.gifWashington State University.

Paul W. Steiner and Gary W. Lightner, MaryBlyt 4.1,  A Predictive Program For Forecasting Fire Blight Disease in Apples and Pears, University of Maryland at College Park.  1992

Personal communication with the late Paul Steiner and Gary W. Lightner about subsequent updates in MaryBlyt model logic and epidemiology of fire blight.  Personal communication with Timothy J. Smith on fire blight epidemiology.

 

Management

Dave Rosenberger, Fire Blight Rundown, Scaffolds Fruit Journal 9:15, June 26, 2000, Cornell Cooperative Extension
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/scaffolds/2000/6.26_disease.html

Timothy J. Smith, Suggested tactics for fire blight management, Good Fruit Grower, March 15, 1999.

Timothy J. Smith, Cutting Fire Blight From Infected Apples and Pears, Washington State University Extension, 1998.  http://www.ncw.wsu.edu/treefruit/blightcut.htm

Paul W. Steiner, Managing Fire Blight in Apples, Illinois Horticultural Society Meeting, January 2000.  http://www.caf.wvu.edu/kearneysville/articles/FB-MANAGE00.html

Paul W. Steiner, The Biology and Epidemiology of Fire Blight, Illinois Horticultural Society Meeting, January 2000.   http://www.caf.wvu.edu/kearneysville/articles/FB-BIOLOGY00.html

Paul W. Steiner, A Philosophy for Effective Fire Blight Management, State Horticultural Association of Pennsylvania Annual Meeting, January 2000.   http://www.caf.wvu.edu/kearneysville/articles/PHILOSOPHY2000.html

Paul W. Steiner, Problems Managing Fire Blight in High Density Orchards on M-9 and M-26 Rootstocks, State Horticultural Societies of Virginia and West Virginia, Annual Meeting, January 1998.   http://www.caf.wvu.edu/kearneysville/articles/SteinerHort100.html

Paul W. Steiner, How Good Are Our Options With Copper, Bio-Controls, and Aliette for Fire Blight Control?, State Horticultural Societies of Virgina and West Virginia, Annual Meeting, January 1998.   http://www.caf.wvu.edu/kearneysville/articles/SteinerHort200.html

 

Comparing Cougarblight and MaryBlyt 
           
Both models track heat units (degree hours above a base of 60F) on days leading up to a wetting event, using slightly different methods to do so.  Only days with open blossoms count towards the accumulation. 

             Both models require some type of wetting to initiate infection, and allow for heavy dew in the absence of rain as sufficient to cause such wetting.  Dew that only affects the orchard grass is not enough to cause infection.  As there is no independent measure of heavy dew, an observation of 3 or more hours of leaf wetness is used as a proxy to represent the possibility of heavy dew.  This is an imperfect measure, but it is the best we have.  MaryBlyt also allows for infection on the day after a day with more than 0.1” rain even if that day has no rain or heavy dew.

             For Cougarblight, I use hourly values to accumulate heat units according to a chart published by Dr. Smith.  This is more accurate than using the daily high and low temperature chart included in the Pest Guide, and in the cases here generated a lower estimate of heat units than the daily high-low chart gives for the same days.

             In Cougarblight, the number of accumulated heat units on the 3 days before a wetting event are added to those added on the day of wetting.  This total is then compared to thresholds defined according to the orchard and regional fire blight history during the past two seasons.

             MaryBlyt also accumulates for as many days as fall within 80 degree days base 40.  This usually turns out to be 4 days just like Cougarblight, but it does allow adjustment for longer or shorter persistence of individual blossoms under unusually cool or warm conditions.  MaryBlyt also requires that the average temperature on the day of infection be at least 60F.

        Comparisons of the two models by William Turechek and Deb Breth of Cornell University have shown that they are very similar in identifying possible fire blight infection periods.  The choice or model is much less important than using at least one of the two to keep a watch for possible infection conditions.  Given that inoculum levels are low in Maine, I prefer Cougarblight because it gives more information on interpreting conditions for low inoculum situations.

 

 





Link to PRONewEngland home page
   Your feedback through a two-question mini-survey is greatly appreciated!
   Copyright 2007. University of Maine.

The PRO New England name and logo are trademarked in CT, MA, ME, NH, RI and VT.  Federal trademark pending.

Nondiscrimination statement, disability resources, nondisclosure statement.

This site is supported by funding from the Northeastern IPM Center.

Last updated:  November 04, 2008 09:59 AM

Web master:  Glen Koehler, University of Maine Cooperative Extension