Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:26:21.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Combined spraying Trials against the San José Scale and Peach Leaf-curl in Kashmir

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

A. P. Kapur
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Kashmir valley is the largest deciduous fruit-growing tract in India, and, owing to the increased demand for fruit, many orchards, both large and small, have recently been laid out with technical assistance from the Department of Agriculture. Apple is the first choice of the fruit-growers, but as the trees begin bearing later than many stone-fruits, it is a common practice to plant peaches and nectarines between the rows of the young apple trees; this produces early returns without disturbing and exhausting the soil by ploughing and growing annual crops. With the rapid development of road transport, it is hoped that peaches will find a market outside the valley. The peaches of Kashmir are not so well known as are its apples and pears but with better attention to the trees an increase in production and an improvement in quality should be possible.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , June 1946 , pp. 29 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1946

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, W. S. (1925). J. econ. Ent., 18, pp. 265–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, A. J. (1923). Circ. U.S. Dep. Agric., no. 263, 18 pp.Google Scholar
Burroughs, A. M. & Grube, W. M. (1923). J. econ. Ent., 16, pp. 534–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, S. C., Flint, W. P. & Huber, L. L. (1926). Bull. Ill. nat. Hist. Surv., no. 16, pp. 103–126.Google Scholar
de Ong, E. R., Knight, H. & Chamberlin, J. C. (1927). Hilgardia, 2, pp. 351–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
English, L. L. (1928). Bull. Ill. nat. Hist. Surv., no. 17, pp. 235–259.Google Scholar
Farrar, M. M. (1936). Bull. Ill. nat. Hist. Surv., pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Flint, W. P. & Bigger, J. H. (1926). Circ. Ill. nat. Hist. Surv., no. 16, 12 pp.Google Scholar
Macrum, C. A. (1919). 15th bienn. Rep. Ore. Bd. Hort., p. 82.Google Scholar
Marlatt, C. L. (1928). Rep. U.S. Bur. Ent., 1927–28, 34 pp.Google Scholar
Parrot, P. J., Hartzell, F. Z., Glasgow, H. & Harman, S. W. (1931). J. econ. Ent., 24, p. 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, S. U. (1907). J. chem. Soc., 91, pp. 2001–2021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, B. A. & Sazama, R. F. (1930). J. agric. Res., 11, pp. 755–766.Google Scholar
Report on Oil Emulsions, 12 27, 1926. J. econ. Ent., 20, pp. 229–235.Google Scholar
Slingerland, M. V. (1893). Science, 25 08, 1893, p. 105.Google Scholar
Winston, J. R. (1923). Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric., no. 1118, 38 pp.Google Scholar
Winston, J. R. & Fulton, H. R. (1919). Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric., no. 785, 9 pp.Google Scholar
Winston, J. R. & Yothers, W. W. (1920). Florida Gr., 21, no. 3, p. 9.Google Scholar