# Well arborist game just for fun



## ropensaddle (Aug 23, 2010)

I was thinking with such a wealth of knowledge and experience we could start a game on topics related to our practice. A question and answer game if you will and after sufficiently answering one topic we could move to the next by someone posting another quiz type question. I have to admit it is a bit selfishly motivated, in the fact that I am wishing to stay abreast and learn new things. I can read them in my books but I seem to get more motivated through brain picking with many of you here

I will give the first question and if you think its lame just say so and move to another topic of discussion. There really are no winner's just participants willing and maybe wanting to tease their knowledge. If no one wants to play after a day or so I will delete this thread so here goes.



Question: Why is pest control many times better left untreated?


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 23, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> The pest is not a significant problem.
> Treatment kills beneficials.
> Treatment exposes applicator to chemicals.
> Treatment exposes homeowner to chemicals.
> ...



I will answer some of that but will let someone else finish and give next question. 

Opinion:
Improper outreach to educated customer base
Fear; some founded,some hype 
Views; either from or to property
Lack of appreciation of benefits of healthy urban forests


----------



## Adkpk (Aug 23, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> My question:
> 
> Why don't we see more trees in the landscape but instead see so much lawn worshiping.?



Read, "Second Nature" by Michael Pollan. Or watch, "Koyaanisqatsi: Life Out of Balance". It will reveal all the answers.


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 23, 2010)

ropensaddle said:


> Question: Why is pest control many times better left untreated?



Because very often, the treatment for the pest does not provide control with a benefit that outweighs the expense & risk.

That, and everything TreeCo said.


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 23, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> Why don't we see more trees in the landscape but instead see so much lawn worshiping.?



Because the average homeowner does their own yard, and takes pride in their work.

They generally don't or can't work on their trees, so the element of pride is not the same, and the "perfect lawn" culture has grown to be more significant in many areas than the concern for trees. It doesn't help that the trees are often seen as competition for the lawn and a huge mess to clean up after.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 23, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> Because the average homeowner does their own yard, and takes pride in their work.
> 
> They generally don't or can't work on their trees, so the element of pride is not the same, and the "perfect lawn" culture has grown to be more significant in many areas than the concern for trees. It doesn't help that the trees are often seen as competition for the lawn and a huge mess to clean up after.



I think it is your turn to ask, pdqdl!
Jeff


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 23, 2010)

Thanks for the invite, Jeff. 

Following along the line of rope's original question:

What is the best treatment for serious aphid infestation on fruit trees during springtime development, but after flowers are set? (and WHY?)


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 23, 2010)

I guess I would grease the trunks and do wwats need to keep the ants away as they protect their food source. 
Jeff 
But I am sure you got something better.


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 23, 2010)

Much better! Just waiting though...


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 23, 2010)

Side note to my question: 

Back in 1985 I had the grounds maintenance contract for the Truman Presidential Library, in Independence, Mo. Of course, I was rather new to this business, and I mostly relied on advice from others with more experience.

We acquired an aphid problem on the crabapples in the courtyard area, where Harry & Wife were buried. As you might suspect, there was little tolerance by the government for bugs that might be causing problems of any sort. They wanted those aphids dead _now_, dead _later_, and they didn't want to hear anything about cultural controls, either.

The results of our treatments were not exactly what was desired. But what else would you expect from a government contractor, working from the lowest bid, doing what he was told to do by the Federal Government managers?


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 23, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> Side note to my question:
> 
> Back in 1985 I had the grounds maintenance contract for the Truman Presidential Library, in Independence, Mo. Of course, I was rather new to this business, and I mostly relied on advice from others with more experience.
> 
> ...



What happened to the trees? 
I was on a property last year with massive aphids and massive ants. Once we controlled the ants the meat bees and all their friends ate them. I haven't seen aphids stick around long without the ant mafia to protect them.
Jeff


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 23, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> Thanks for the invite, Jeff.
> 
> Following along the line of rope's original question:
> 
> What is the best treatment for serious aphid infestation on fruit trees during springtime development, but after flowers are set? (and WHY?)



Just a guess but monitoring, as attraction of the parasitic wasp is accelerated by the flowers. If anything else maybe a mild soap spray which will kill both directly sprayed but not prevent new arrivals.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 23, 2010)

Rope, the wasp is one of the controls. The ant's are the reason the wasp's can't do their job. Not just the wasp's, but we got many aphid hungry pest's but when you control the ant's, you are almost there. Soapy water later, get rid of ant's now.
Dang Rope, You are starting to sound like a professor or something. I applaud you concern and ambition! (Hope that don't sound gay!) LOL.
Jeff 
Probably gonna piggy-back on your learnin!


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 23, 2010)

If anything else maybe a mild soap spray which will kill both directly sprayed but not prevent new arrivals.[/QUOTE]

Oh, this is why I responded. 'Kill them both', 'not prevent new arrivals'. That is why I said the soap is needed when you cannot control then ant's.
Jeff


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 23, 2010)

The ant-stopper technique is ok, but the aphid predators don't reproduce quickly enough to prevent the aphids from being a problem, especially when there is an established infestation.

Insecticidal soap is the right answer. Given the fruit bearing problem, we should assume that all systemic insecticides cannot be used, and contact insecticides will wipe out all the predators as well as the aphids. The aphids are faster breeders, so the aphid problem may actually get worse after an insecticide application.

This is what happened to us in 1985. It was easy to wipe out the aphids, but then they came back with a vengeance, time after time. After several spraying cycles with dursban (as I recall), the Feds gave up spraying at all, and the aphids slowly declined until they were no longer a problem. I don't think we even had an ant population that was protecting them. You can bet that my dursban wiped out the ants, too.

Treat with insecticidal soap only the areas of the tree/orchard that show the worst damage. The predators will not be wiped out, and the aphids will only be reduced to a smaller, less damaging population that will still be available to feed the predators. 

One source that I read recommended only pruning out afflicted branches, but I think that is more damaging than the aphids themselves.


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 23, 2010)

jefflovstrom said:


> Rope, the wasp is one of the controls. The ant's are the reason the wasp's can't do their job. Not just the wasp's, but we got many aphid hungry pest's but when you control the ant's, you are almost there. Soapy water later, get rid of ant's now.
> Dang Rope, You are starting to sound like a professor or something. I applaud you concern and ambition! (Hope that don't sound gay!) LOL.
> Jeff
> Probably gonna piggy-back on your learnin!



Lol it's all good my wife would kill me if we shared soap and a hot tub


----------



## TrillPhil (Aug 24, 2010)

Really like the topic. Koyaaniqatsi is an excellent movie too. +1


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 24, 2010)

Ok so since no one else brought a question to the thread here is our next victim to doodle bug!

Question: Since soil and water relations is paramount in phc why can better soils relocated to different regions create problems with local specimen's


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 24, 2010)

Rope or Jeff: you both answered soapy water, so let's have some more questions, please.

[edit: Dangit rope. You beat me!]

[second edit: read a good article on aphid control here. http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7404.html ]


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 24, 2010)

That is a bit vague, rope. That question is so general in nature, I don't know where to go with it.

Are you talking truckload replacements for an entire plot of ground, or maybe just adding soil amendments to a recently planted tree?

Truckload replacements would create highly localized niche environments that support or transplant the wrong flora/fauna; leading to ecological complications.

Soil amendments around recently planted trees are likely to create transition barriers that lead to girdling roots and poor root expansion of the transplanted tree.

Is that where you were headed?


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 24, 2010)

ropensaddle said:


> Lol it's all good my wife would kill me if we shared soap and a hot tub



Quite a witty man , you are, 
Jeff


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 24, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> That is a bit vague, rope. That question is so general in nature, I don't know where to go with it.
> 
> Are you talking truckload replacements for an entire plot of ground, or maybe just adding soil amendments to a recently planted tree?
> 
> ...



Yes recent planting.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 24, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> That is a bit vague, rope. That question is so general in nature, I don't know where to go with it.
> 
> Are you talking truckload replacements for an entire plot of ground, or maybe just adding soil amendments to a recently planted tree?
> 
> ...



Well, if he was, I am getting out of the tub! Totally agree with the soapy water, just saying, gotta get rid of the ant's. Teamwork.
Jeff


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 24, 2010)

ropensaddle said:


> Yes recent planting.



You did get it but also the native plant is adapted to poorer soils. I still try moving soil to many of my farms areas with detriment to some of its inhabitants. I have more to learn for sure.


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 24, 2010)

Someone next: I have to hit the hay but I will definitely check back I think this could be fun. We of course could use more participation lol


----------



## newsawtooth (Aug 24, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> Because the average homeowner does their own yard, and takes pride in their work.



Nice PDQDL, describing the problem in cultural terms. Which, after considering your answer leaves me to believe that many problems in the urban forest could be considered cultural such as wrong tree wrong place, watering regimes for grass and not woody plants, and movement of pests with infested wood.

To take a stab at Ropes question about moving soil...at a basic level, pardon the pun, a drastic change in PH from non-native soils may inhibit micro nutrient availability because of the varying cation exchange capacity of different soils.


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 24, 2010)

newsawtooth said:


> Nice PDQDL, describing the problem in cultural terms. Which, after considering your answer leaves me to believe that many problems in the urban forest could be considered cultural such as wrong tree wrong place, watering regimes for grass and not woody plants, and movement of pests with infested wood.
> 
> To take a stab at Ropes question about moving soil...at a basic level, pardon the pun, a drastic change in PH from non-native soils may inhibit micro nutrient availability because of the varying cation exchange capacity of different soils.



Fine but where is the next question lol.


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 24, 2010)

Ok ! Here is a really tough question from a previous thread here at AS:

Which has greater water use (needs): plants growing over mulch, or plants growing over turf or bare soil?



I tried to phrase this so that it is difficult to do a search to find the answer. Have fun with this one!


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 24, 2010)

Yeah, that could be a tough one, pdqdl, I would guess it depends on which has a higher evaporation rate.
Jeff


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 24, 2010)

Be careful with your answers. I am talking about water used by the plants above the ground level only, not the entire area including the ground.

In other words, which makes a tree or bush thirstier: turf, mulch, or bare ground?

Yes, JL, it is entirely about which ground cover affects the _trans_piration rate the most, and how.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 24, 2010)

oh.
Jeff


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 24, 2010)

I would guess that the plant that has the least competition. Am I slowly getting there?
Jeff


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 24, 2010)

Okay, I guess Mulch.
Jeff


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 24, 2010)

There is soil under the mulch, right, 
Jeff


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 24, 2010)

The study I will be citing used container grown plants planted in holes in the soil. Mulch was 6" deep.

No guesses considered, at least until a few more folks take a swing at my fastball.


----------



## treemandan (Aug 24, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> The pest is not a significant problem.
> Treatment kills beneficials.
> Treatment exposes applicator to chemicals.
> Treatment exposes homeowner to chemicals.
> ...



I think the general public has an outright fear and hatred of trees. I think alot of people go to bed wishing they could cut down thier own trees and retire off the money from selling the wood.Just don't cut one down in front of them cause they will be mad cause you are ruining the envirnment... moreso, its just they are envious that they can't do it.
I think they like the grass cause its easy. A well groomed lawn offers a sense of security and affords something to take pride in... just don't look up.


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 24, 2010)

Dam straight! I got the saws and the trees. 

Where do I sell the wood?


----------



## treemandan (Aug 24, 2010)

Did I ever tell you guys about Ed Schmonsky? No? Well, he was the guy who won the PA state lottery, it was like 96 million or something. He is just some low rent jackass outta Norristown of all places and he built somekind of bunker right outside of town in some craphole called Eagleville.
So he's got this really ugly looking mansion with this stupid water fountain out in front. I think this guy thought it was pretty but if you saw it you would think the guy's got problems... and he does.
At least that is what he says, he says the money is more of a curse than a blessing cause now everybody wants to rob him. He even told me he was going to call the cops on me cause I was parked out on the road in front of his house waiting for the crew to show up.
So Old Ed Schmonsky got some nice grass. Its imported, its matches the water fountain and the Caddilac. Oh, it was something, this guy's grass.
Anyway, he has us out there taking these trees down; its not like they were even bothering anybody or anything, he just was bored and wanted to spend more of his money before it got stolen.
Well,that is pretty much the story right there, sorry there isn't more except every time I came out of a tree the one guy on the crew would notch the trunk and it would land on a bunch of other trees which was pretty funny to watch ( Iam not sure Ed thought so but I did) plus the fact we left so many rut holes back there Ed was going have to call Italy and order some more of that grass.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 24, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> The study I will be citing used container grown plants planted in holes in the soil. Mulch was 6" deep.
> 
> No guesses considered, at least until a few more folks take a swing at my fastball.



That is what I mean. You are generalizing and then narrowing, get's a little confusing.
Jeff


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 24, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> Be careful with your answers. I am talking about water used by the plants above the ground level only, not the entire area including the ground.
> 
> In other words, which makes a tree or bush thirstier: turf, mulch, or bare ground?
> 
> Yes, JL, it is entirely about which ground cover affects the _trans_piration rate the most, and how.



Turf the lack of available water will starve the plant of water through competition with turf also gas exchange is limited.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 24, 2010)

You are totally gettin' good, Dude!
Jeff


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 25, 2010)

Sorry Rope. The correct answer is MULCH makes plants thirstier!

Plants above mulch transpire (and need) more water than either turf or bare dirt. Here is why:

Mulch insulates the ground, preserves moisture, right? Along the way, it reflects heat back up to the plants above it, making them hotter than other ground covers. The retention of moisture also means that there is no evaporative cooling beneath the plants, so...mulch makes the area above it less hospitable. Of course, this effect does not go much further than 6' up, so mature trees are not heavily influenced like smaller shrubs and transplants. Apparently, giving the plants a cooler root zone with more moisture available does NOT translate to reduced water consumption for the plant.

Lawn absorbs sunlight and does not reflect the heat back up to the plants above it. It's transpiration of water provides additional evaporative cooling beneath the taller plants. This increased evaporation also provides increased humidity beneath the plants, so their transpiration rate is reduced from either mulch or bare ground. Plants above lawn areas have the LOWEST water requirements.

Bare ground, while it does not provide the same evaporative cooling that lawn does, still absorbs more heat from the sun than does mulch, and it clearly provides more evaporative cooling than mulch, so it's reflected heat up to the plant above is actually lower than mulch. 

This seems counter-intuitive, but it is very well documented, and I found this from doing a search inspired by Treeseer.

Pretty bizarre, Eh? I expect that a lot of readers will say that I am nuts, so here is the documentation: http://auf.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=2814&Type=2



Somebody owes me a good question!!!


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 25, 2010)

That is why I was so careful in phrasing my question. And no, the plants were not placed ON the surfaces, they were planted in holes dug into the soil, and the mulch layer was 6" deep. Yes, I knew they were containerized; I suspect that this was done to facilitate water measurements.

Still, this study does demonstrate that lawn is not the villain to trees that is commonly thought, and there is a downside to mulch that is not generally considered by us "experts".

The study does not evaluate total water consumption nor availability in the three surfaces, so it cannot provide a meaningful conclusion about whether plants in mulched areas have more water available to compensate for their increased needs.

That, of course, would be a really big experiment.


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 25, 2010)

I am sorry you won't just believe me. You seem to dislike the reported results.

You should read more carefully. Here is a direct "copy & paste" quotation from the article: 

_"Throughout the growing season, all shrubs remained
in their containers. To moderate root-zone
temperature, holes were dug in each surface treatment
area such that the top of each container
would be slightly below grade."_


Next question please ! TreeCo: give us a good one. We need more participation to make this thread work.


----------



## Ed Roland (Aug 25, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> Still, this study does demonstrate that lawn is not the villain to trees that is commonly thought, and there is a downside to mulch that is not generally considered by us "experts"..



Whoa, slow down. before moving on to a new one, explain this if grass plants play so nice with trees.

http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=2816&Type=2

or this one...

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~jrudgers/Reprints/rudgersOrr_JEcol09.pdf

or this one...

http://www.botanyshop.com/Tree_Turf1.pdf
"clearing turfgrass away from the root zone of newly planted trees can
dramatically increase growth of those trees."

What about the crazy fertilization regime recommended by Scott's and Lesco Hort Supply? Lesco recommends 5 applications of fertilizer annually to centipede. This will cause harmful effects to large woody perennials. Can you apply a treatment to the lawn and not effect the tree if their roots share the same space within the soil?

I will choose the correct mulch to reside under a tree over grass plants - EVERY time. All the way to the dripline.


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 25, 2010)

I'm glad we cleared that up. 

I figure that you still owe me a question, and I'll bet you come up with a real good one, too. Something obscure or not easily found in a book would be nice.


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 25, 2010)

Ed Roland said:


> Whoa, slow down. before moving on to a new one...



I would love to open that mulch vs lawn topic again, but not at the expense of a good idea. I like Rope's idea of a question and answer thread where everybody gets to post a question as well as an answer.

Let's beat the turf vs mulch topic in another thread.


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 25, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> Sorry Rope. The correct answer is MULCH makes plants thirstier!
> 
> Plants above mulch transpire (and need) more water than either turf or bare dirt. Here is why:
> 
> ...


Tricky lol but as far as cooling which is more important roots or leaves trunk and twigs. I fell because of thirsty which means lack of available water. Still very interesting indeed.


----------



## treemandan (Aug 25, 2010)

ropensaddle said:


> You did get it but also the native plant is adapted to poorer soils. I still try moving soil to many of my farms areas with detriment to some of its inhabitants. I have more to learn for sure.



That is interesting. I don't really get into it all but I bring in soil/compost when I plant new trees and it seems to work. I recently have been getting the guy at the supply yard to mix mushroom soil,unscreened fill and topsoil for me if I run out of the stuff I have at my place which is just debris from tree jobs that have turned to dirt. Whatever I plant in either grows like crazy.


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 25, 2010)

treemandan said:


> That is interesting. I don't really get into it all but I bring in soil/compost when I plant new trees and it seems to work. I recently have been getting the guy at the supply yard to mix mushroom soil,unscreened fill and topsoil for me if I run out of the stuff I have at my place which is just debris from tree jobs that have turned to dirt. Whatever I plant in either grows like crazy.



Many plants are more adaptable so yes I believe that. My biggest problem at the farm is I have not done a good soil test. I got one of those kit thingys but they don't work so good. I have been telling my self that I will take samples to the extension service but have not yet. I have more shale,quartz and clay than anything!


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 25, 2010)

OKAY! No more trick questions, (or), oh well.
Jeff


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 25, 2010)

jefflovstrom said:


> OKAY! No more trick questions, (or), oh well.
> Jeff



Well ask one Jeff !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 25, 2010)

ropensaddle said:


> Well ask one Jeff !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



For you Rope, I will. I like the path that is obviously a path to you being a challenger that makes us think. 
Jeff 
Gonna get a bud and respond under the pressure of 'The Rope'.
Jeff


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 25, 2010)

jefflovstrom said:


> For you Rope, I will. I like the path that is obviously a path to you being a challenger that makes us think.
> Jeff
> Gonna get a bud and respond under the pressure of 'The Rope'.
> Jeff



Lol I just like the input gets my lenticels breathing lmao


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 25, 2010)

ropensaddle said:


> Lol I just like the input gets my linticels breathing lmao



I just gotta find my lighter! Then the question, oh, here it is! Yeah. In 2or 3 minutes! Get ready!
Jeff


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 25, 2010)

Lol opcorn:


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 25, 2010)

So, a property that has the Pacific winds with the salty air has about 400 Queen Palms, ( Arecastrum romanzoffianum), and beautiful views. On the walk-thru, 4 of the palms heads were almost sideways and looking weird. That was 2 years ago and I will finally be removing them because I was right. 
A little info, pruned every year, maintenance done by Landscapers.
Jeff


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 25, 2010)

ropensaddle said:


> Lol opcorn:



LOL- you know I am joking! Am I right?
Jeff


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 25, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> Are small understory trees in the woods 'assisted' by larger trees?



Probably mooching off them, but what about 'Phototropism?'
Jeff


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 25, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> Are small understory trees in the woods 'assisted' by larger trees?



Oh! That's a good one. 

Now how to answer that...?


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 25, 2010)

What about my my Queen Palms?
Jeff


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 25, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> Oh! That's a good one.
> 
> Now how to answer that...?



The answer relies on the value!
Jeff


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 25, 2010)

I feel I am being ignored and so none of you can come to my party! -LOL!
Jeff


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 25, 2010)

jefflovstrom said:


> What about my my Queen Palms?
> Jeff



Don't have much info on palms I wonder if they were cutting live healthy tissue on a regular basis and using gafs?


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 25, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> I didn't see a question in your post on the queen palms.
> 
> What was your question again?
> 
> You are probably a lighter thief.



Dang, you are funny! My post is number 61, Maybe I should of put the word 'question; in there!
Jeff


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 25, 2010)

To the extent that understory trees have a native growth habit beneath the larger tree varieties, the large trees above them assist the understory trees to grow in the branching ratios most often found in their natural setting. Understory trees have been shown to have greater distance between the nodes and higher branching ratios when they escape the forest and get into landscapes and grassy areas that have more sunlight.

_Given the recent direction of this thread, I would suspect that the best answer might be that the presence of heavy shade from the upper story trees eliminates competition from the turf grasses below the understory trees, hence, they are protected in that respect by the larger trees._

However... it should always be considered that the understory trees grow where they do because they are specially adapted to survive in the niche created by the woodland setting, not because the upper story trees are doing anything to help them out. They are still competing for sunlight, soil nutrients, and moisture. It should also be noted that most of the understory trees are quicker to establish themselves when there is an opening in the forest. Eventually, however, the upper story trees gain the upper hand by virtue of their greater height.



How'd I do, TreeCo?


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 25, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> Are small understory trees in the woods 'assisted' by larger trees?



Hmmmmmm well yes but species would determine how. Dog wood and shade enjoying species are benefited from filtered light. Others may be protected from environmental extremes and stunted until the death or other failure allows light to penetrate the canopy the stunted tree by then is well established and is ready to take over the opening. Probably not what you meant though.


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 25, 2010)

jefflovstrom said:


> What about my my Queen Palms?
> Jeff



Umm...I didn't understand the question. 

Us mid-western tree guys probably just don't see enough palm trees to formulate a good response. Being palm tree ignorant, we lack the aboricultural expertise to interpret your well formulated interrogatory statement.


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 25, 2010)

ropensaddle said:


> Don't have much info on palms I wonder if they were cutting live healthy tissue on a regular basis and using gafs?



Hmmmmmm salt burn.


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 26, 2010)

*Nest question !*

Ok. I went crazy on TV's link, and got reminded of these little critters.

So..._Why would an arborist wish to know about springtails, and why would they be important to trees?_


----------



## brnchbrkr (Aug 26, 2010)

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...a=X&ei=mMF2TN3IKZfhnQfGocz4AQ&ved=0CCQQ9QEwAw


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 26, 2010)

Those are pretty pictures. But why are they important to trees & those that care for them?


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 26, 2010)

I think they eat fungi ( the soil ones) and can carry spores of Myccorhiza bacteria of the good kind (symbiotic). I know they are everywhere though.
Jeff


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 26, 2010)

TreeCo said:


> You guys are doing good. Here is a cut and paste from Wiki hinting more at what I was digging for:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhiza
> 
> "Outside the root, the fungal mycelium forms an extensive network within the soil and leaf litter. Nutrients can be shown to move between different plants through the fungal network (sometimes called the wood wide web). Carbon has been shown to move from paper birch trees into Douglas-fir trees thereby promoting succession in ecosystems".



Ok I seem to remember something about them being symbiotic in nitrogen fixing. I will have to read up more also the large trees provide a much better litter layer in which micro-biotic activity can thrive, which would give the small plant excellent growing conditions. It's odd that it may take a couple years for the small plant to react; do to its acclimation to low light but once it does, it will swiftly produce. The small plant will also have better root shoot ratio than a volunteer grown in full sun.


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 26, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> Those are pretty pictures. But why are they important to trees & those that care for them?



Not everything, however, is lost for 'non-protein' fungi. Laccaria bicolor, a putatively 'non-protein' fungus, has figured out a way to get extra nitrogen. In a recent study, J. Klironomos and M. Hart found that L. bicolor can be a very effective predator of springtails, an abundant fungal-feeding soil insect. They noticed that when they added springtails to pots containing L. bicolor, springtail survival was very low (~5%), while in other pots without L. bicolor springtail survival was very high. Looking closer, they observed that the springtails were internally infected with L. bicolor hyphae and they wondered if L. bicolor could be preying on the springtails for their N. So they set up a second experiment examining whether N in the springtails ended up in the leaves of plants growing with L. bicolor. Plants growing with L. bicolor contained significant amounts of N derived directly from the springtails, while plants grown without L. bicolor showed no similar N enrichment, suggesting that L. bicolor was indeed preying on the springtails for their nitrogen! Interestingly, the researchers did to the same experiment with another mycorrhizal fungus, C. geophilum, and that species had no negative effect of springtail survival and no N enrichment for their plant partners.


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 26, 2010)

Good heavens, Rope! Y're hurting my head with that stuff.

While the nitrogen content of springtail corpses is certainly a benefit to the trees & Mycorhizae, I was thinking of perhaps a more general benefit that almost all the springtails perform for almost all the ecology. In fact, the demise of the springtails might prove to be a decline in their usual way of enhancing the woodland ecology.

This was intended to be an easy question for anybody with a search engine.


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 26, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> Good heavens, Rope! Y're hurting my head with that stuff.
> 
> While the nitrogen content of springtail corpses is certainly a benefit to the trees & Mycorhizae, I was thinking of perhaps a more general benefit that almost all the springtails perform for almost all the ecology. In fact, the demise of the springtails might prove to be a decline in their usual way of enhancing the woodland ecology.
> 
> This was intended to be an easy question for anybody with a search engine.



Lol in that case maybe accelerating the biological process in the litter layer .


----------



## jefflovstrom (Aug 26, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> Good heavens, Rope! Y're hurting my head with that stuff.
> 
> While the nitrogen content of springtail corpses is certainly a benefit to the trees & Mycorhizae, I was thinking of perhaps a more general benefit that almost all the springtails perform for almost all the ecology. In fact, the demise of the springtails might prove to be a decline in their usual way of enhancing the woodland ecology.
> 
> This was intended to be an easy question for anybody with a search engine.



Thanks for making me feel stupid. I just answered off my head.
Jeff


----------



## pdqdl (Aug 27, 2010)

ropensaddle said:


> Lol in that case maybe accelerating the biological process in the litter layer .



Yes. Almost all the springtails feed on forest detritus, and are one of the leading contributors to decay of the forest floor.

Thank you, next question please.



jefflovstrom said:


> I think they eat fungi ( the soil ones) and can carry spores of Myccorhiza bacteria of the good kind (symbiotic). I know they are everywhere though.
> Jeff



I guess those remarks are all true too, but you didn't quite tie it in with arboriculture. I eat fungi on a regular basis, but I am frequently detrimental to the health of trees. :greenchainsaw:


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 27, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> Yes. Almost all the springtails feed on forest detritus, and are one of the leading contributors to decay of the forest floor.
> 
> Thank you, next question please.
> 
> ...



Lol well I thought you were wanting a harder answer instead of the obvious one

Next question how can apical dominance understanding, be useful in pruning objectives?


----------



## brnchbrkr (Aug 30, 2010)

http://plantphys.info/apical/apical.html

Snipped, cut, & pasted

When the apical bud is removed, the source of IAA is removed. Since the auxin concentration is much lower, the lateral buds can now grow. In fact their growth will be stimulated by a relativley small drop in auxin concentration (see graph). Thus, decapitating (pruning) a shoot will cause it to branch! 

Such response is the basis for all pruning "to form." By pruning carefully, the branching pattern and form of the plant can be controlled. If pruning limits plant growth to two dimensions against a wall, we call it espalier. Three-dimensional pruning to form would be a kind of sculpture, called topiary. Perhaps you have observed topiary in the form of Mickey and Minnie Mouse at Disney World. If both shoot and root pruning is done frequently, the result can be a bonsai, the creation of a miniature tree. Frequently bonsai trees are not only dwarf in stature, but also respond to the severe pruning by producing dwarf leaves as well. Bonsai is an art form that involves miniature landscaping around the dwarf tree. 

It might be worthy of note that an artist working in paint, marble, or bronze gets paid only once for her/his creative work. The plant artist working in espalier, topiary, or bonsai must be paid repeatedly to keep the work true to the original form as the work is alive and responsive! If the artist is an entrepreneur, the choice of material would be obvious. 




To demonstrate how apical dominance works, we can decapitate a shoot and thus remove the natural source of IAA. But if we replace the apical bud with a dollop of lanolin (wool wax) with auxin dissolved in it, apical dominance is not diminished. The lateral buds remain dormant! 

At this point you are left with the challenge to think of other ways you might manipulate the responses of plants to applied chemicals and surgical treatments. You should also be thinking of what would constitute appropriate controls for each demonstration.


----------



## ropensaddle (Aug 30, 2010)

brnchbrkr said:


> http://plantphys.info/apical/apical.html
> 
> Snipped, cut, & pasted
> 
> ...



Very good next question is yours


----------



## brnchbrkr (Aug 30, 2010)

hmmm pass for now.


----------



## Florida23 (Jun 12, 2011)

I've been reading through the forums, just doing some research before I take my ISA certification next month, and I ran across this thread.

I really like the idea of this and would like to see it back in action.

So, here's my shot at a question for ya. It will probably be a no brainer lol :

Why are palm trees more closely related to grass, than trees?


----------



## jefflovstrom (Jun 12, 2011)

Seriously?! You want us to say 'DUH!' out loud? Are you a troll?? 
Jeff :angry2:


----------



## Florida23 (Jun 12, 2011)

Lol, no I dont mean to troll, I'm sorry.

I'll try to think of a harder one for next time.


----------



## tree md (Jun 12, 2011)

So who flamed the new guy??? Only two posts and someone flames the dude... That's not cool.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Jun 12, 2011)

I don't know. 
Jeff :msp_tongue:


----------



## TreEmergencyB (Jun 12, 2011)

Question:

Why is it so bad to tie directly into the hook of the crane?


----------



## jefflovstrom (Jun 12, 2011)

TreEmergencyB said:


> Question:
> 
> Why is it so bad to tie directly into the hook of the crane?


 
What are you talking about? 
Jeff


----------



## TreEmergencyB (Jun 13, 2011)

jefflovstrom said:


> What are you talking about?
> Jeff


 
Whats so wrong with tying into the hook of the crane.


----------



## jefflovstrom (Jun 13, 2011)

You tie in above the ball and your landyard thru the hook.
Jeff


----------



## Florida23 (Jun 13, 2011)

I always heard its illegal to hang from a crane in Florida...


----------



## TreEmergencyB (Jun 13, 2011)

jefflovstrom said:


> You tie in above the ball and your landyard thru the hook.
> Jeff


 
Yes but why?


----------



## jefflovstrom (Jun 13, 2011)

Safety. Two points of contact.
Jeff


----------

