Another large oak with armillaria

[treevet]

Treevet, disagreement is fine, but be specific. What bothers you about Ekka's treatment for Armillaria?

The only thing that bothers me is the lack of scientific case studies cited woodweasel. If they do not exist then this is all conjecture and I do not have time in my life to absorb this info. If the research is there then I am all ears as this is an extremely interesting thread even though it may not relate to the subject tree. Not attempting to be antagonistic. Just look at the post prior to this.

 

[treevet]

I never met Dr. Shigo but I am very familiar with his work. It would seem to me that Ekka and he are on the same page.

Not.....Alex Shigo, Chief Scientist US Dept of Forestry and scientist for over 50 years

Ekka Although we all know and love him.....Scientist for 0 days.

Another Shigoism while we are at it....."Treatment without proper diagnosis is malpractice"

Back in 2002 Ash trees were chlorotic and generally in decline. The diagnosis was "Ash Yellows" and drought symptoms.

It took years to find the reason was EAB and precious time was lost. If the answer/treatment initially was these esoteric and generic soil treatments in any part or parcel it was a waste of time. EAB attacks even completely healthy trees.

Question for consideration: Does anyone think this Oak would have lived this long and attained this size prior to becoming a victim of circumstances (girdler/pathogen) if it was in the near perfect soil environment of the woods?

 

[Ekka]

The research is there Dave, get off you backside and start looking, or remain ignorant, I dont care either way.

But I'm over spoon feeding grown men. :monkey:

 

[treevet]

The research is there Dave, get off you backside and start looking, or remain ignorant, I dont care either way.

But I'm over spoon feeding grown men. :monkey:

:hmm3grin2orange: Ha ha ha

Did you mean you or me Eric? (CNA)

 

[Ekka]

 

[jomoco]

Very interesting read Woodweasel, thanks for the lead.

Looks like UV light exposure is an effective fungal spore killer.

http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=184249

jomoco

Seems like exposing the infected root crown and shrouding it under tarps with UV lamps inside might just give Armillaria a run for it's money?

The question of duration of exposure may be far lower than I thought after reading up on UV light usage in industrial food and water processing to control bacteria, viruses and fungus.

http://www.heraeus-noblelight.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/disinfection/UV_Anuga06_ok.pdf

Now I just need an oak in the early stages of an armillaria infection here locally to experiment on like doctor frankenstein.

jomoco

 

[046]

slightly off topic... but UV related... been using UV for quite some time treating water and in a UV flashlight.

there's several wavelengths in the UV spectrum. UVC of the shortest is used for germicidal as in my UVC water treatment. UVB is slightly longer and barely within visible wavelength. UVB florescences all sorts of body fluids.

royal blue and red is used to locate blood. forensic lights have used royal blue with special goggles to high blood etc.

 

[jomoco]

slightly off topic... but UV related... been using UV for quite some time treating water and in a UV flashlight.

there's several wavelengths in the UV spectrum. UVC of the shortest is used for germicidal as in my UVC water treatment. UVB is slightly longer and barely within visible wavelength. UVB florescences all sorts of body fluids.

royal blue and red is used to locate blood. forensic lights have used royal blue with special goggles to high blood etc.

I wonder if UV light bounces off mirrors the way sunlight does?

I would think so.

Surely one could culture a bit of armillaria in a petri dish and zap it for intervals of time with UV light to determine an optimum exposure duration and intensity as well as optimum proximity from the light source distance.

jomoco

 

[pdqdl]

Some uv light passes through glass and the rest is is absorbed by solid materials. I suppose it makes a difference whether it is a glass mirror and what the backing material is.

If a glass mirror, then the UV would pass through two layers of glass (in & back out), after losing an undetermined amount on the reflective surface.

I suspect you won't get much UV light reflected with a glass mirror.

A decent article on the topic: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question404.htm

Reflective metal mirror? That could be another story. I'll do some more research...

 

[jomoco]

Some uv light passes through glass and the rest is is absorbed by solid materials. I suppose it makes a difference whether it is a glass mirror and what the backing material is.

If a glass mirror, then the UV would pass through two layers of glass (in & back out), after losing an indetermined amount on the reflective surface.

I suspect you won't get much UV light reflected with a glass mirror.

A decent article on the topic: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question404.htm

Reflective metal mirror? That could be another story. I'll do some more research...

And the answer is.........simple, aluminum foil.

Read this article, I think I may be on to something here.

http://ucanr.org/delivers/impactview.cfm?impactnum=398

Wouldn't it be amazing if UV light exposure could control bacteria, viruses, fungus and insects.

The pertinent question is, how much UV light can a tree take before it is adversely effected by it?

They obviously can take alot of UV light, but how much?

What about the roots? The good symbiotic fungus?

After a UV light treatment on a root crown, could it be re-innoculated with good fungus once the bad fungus is dead?

jomoco

 

[046]

what you need to be aware of is wavelength of source light.

measured in nano meters the most efficient source of UV light is from special florescent bulbs. marked with a number indicating wavelength and/or with a UVC label.

for example... bottom pic's shows tubes marked: Sylvania GTE 350 blacklight 15watt
this would mean these bulbs puts out UV light at 350 nanometers wave length or within UVA range.

top pic shows UVC markings from a germicidal florescent bulb from my UVC water treatment unit.

germicidal UVC bulbs puts out shorter wavelength less than 290 nanometers. be really careful around these type bulbs. they need some type of opaque material to shield you from UVC rays.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/askExperts/ae300.cfm
http://www.negativeiongenerators.com/UV-C_spectrum.html

I wonder if UV light bounces off mirrors the way sunlight does?

I would think so.

Surely one could culture a bit of armillaria in a petri dish and zap it for intervals of time with UV light to determine an optimum exposure duration and intensity as well as optimum proximity from the light source distance.

jomoco

 

[ATS/TexasTree]

Has anyone heard of or tried this product?

http://www.growthproducts.com/docs/turf_companion_liquid_microbial_2005.pdf

While the web site is careful to say that it only cures soil pathogens, advertisements in print claim that it can "cure" Fusarium, Phytophthora, Pythium,etc.

No indication is given as to how quickly it might work.

Also, they misspell Phytophthora in their ad. That always makes me suspicious.

 

[S Mc]

And the answer is.........simple, aluminum foil.

Read this article, I think I may be on to something here.

http://ucanr.org/delivers/impactview.cfm?impactnum=398

Wouldn't it be amazing if UV light exposure could control bacteria, viruses, fungus and insects.

The pertinent question is, how much UV light can a tree take before it is adversely effected by it?

They obviously can take alot of UV light, but how much?

What about the roots? The good symbiotic fungus?

After a UV light treatment on a root crown, could it be re-innoculated with good fungus once the bad fungus is dead?

jomoco

Some SUPER interesting and intriguing thoughts and ideas are coming out of this thread. And while as some of this is still in the conjecturing stage, that is after all, where many great break throughs and inventions come from....a simple thought that was brought out in the open, discussed and embellished...a "what if?"

I, too, would wonder about the impact on the beneficial fungi; however, if you concentrated the treatment to the infected area (close to the root crown or isolated roots) the beneficials that were doing their job out at the absorbing roots would be unaffected (presumably). This type of treatment would be preferrable IMHO compared to any that had a wholesale negative affect on a larger than necessary area.

Given the lack of harmful media, the beneficials will resume after a time. A problem I see with adding special ingredients is that you can't isolate having ONLY the beneficial feed off of it to enhance them; the harmful fungi can feed off of it as well. And "feeding" either the tree with fertilizer or the fungi with a special ingredient does not promote the necessary symbiotic relationship. It just feeds them independently. Without the need for a symbiotic relationship, they won't establish one. So again, I don't see how that would be in the best interest of creating a healthy soil.

Sylvia

 

[Ed Roland]

Back in 2002 Ash trees were chlorotic and generally in decline. The diagnosis was "Ash Yellows" and drought symptoms.

It took years to find the reason was EAB and precious time was lost. If the answer/treatment initially was these esoteric and generic soil treatments in any part or parcel it was a waste of time. EAB attacks even completely healthy trees.

Lots of pest attack healthy plants but that should not stop us from efforts to increase plant vigor. Do you just show up and spray chemicals or do you try to educate and mitigate?

you do not seem like the type that deviates from his "pest rec manual".

 

[treevet]

Lots of pest attack healthy plants but that should not stop us from efforts to increase plant vigor. Do you just show up and spray chemicals or do you try to educate and mitigate?

you do not seem like the type that deviates from his "pest rec manual".

You do not know anything about me weasel. This is the second post you have tried to correct me on. I am trying to point out not to put the cart before the horse.
First identify the tree, then diagnose the problem, then go for the treatment, then add the bandaid.

Let me give you a little lesson wease. Vigor is the genetic capacity of an organism to resist strain. Vitality is the ability of an organism to grow under the conditions to which it finds itself. Vigor can be measured by applying a known stimulus and then measuring the response. You do not know how vigorous an organism is until you apply a stimulus that threatens its survival. VIGOR CANNOT BE INCREASED, IT IS PART OF THE GENETIC PROGRAM.

vITALITY means to grow, to reproduce, to adapt to surroundings. Vitality is a dynamic condition. A tree may be low in vigor but high in vitality, and the converse could also occur. Much can be done to increase the vitality of a tree........if we want more vigor, we go to genetics; if we want more vitality we go to cultural practices.

You are not a scientist weasel. But if you want to appear to have scientific knowledge let me see some scientific data or go in your backyard and spend some time developing your own scientific data.

I remember a couple of years ago when you came on AS and you wanted to buy a spray rig and spread fertilizer randomly all over the landscape as you just had just barely got into the biz. Everybody jumped your a$$ and you
now are dispensing advice to all that will listen.

 

[S Mc]

A tiny bit of picking nits here, Treevet. I understand the definitions of vigor vs vitality as the definitions you site are the ones presented in the Arborist Study Guide. And it is good to understand the concepts.

However, as I have also heard extremely learned people use the terms interchangeably...perhaps we could forgive each other and go for the general intent of the post rather than trying to pick apart every nuance.

If we are going to start correcting grammar, sentax and vocabulary...watch out. There aren't going to be any productive posts left.

This thread has turned into a VERY interesting and viable discussion on armillaria and possible treatment regimens. However, technically speaking very little of it has been pursuant to the homeowner at this moment because we still do not know if this situation is armillaria.

Homeowners many times don't need to know or want to know the indepth version of the answer but just generally "what should they do" or "what is going on".

A person does not need to be a scientist in order for me to listen to what they have to say. Keeping an open mind and weighing the facts and thoughts that you hear is important in all aspects of life.


Sylvia

 

[treevet]

A tiny bit of picking nits here, Treevet. I understand the definitions of vigor vs vitality as the definitions you site are the ones presented in the Arborist Study Guide. And it is good to understand the concepts.

However, as I have also heard extremely learned people use the terms interchangeably...perhaps we could forgive each other and go for the general intent of the post rather than trying to pick apart every nuance.

If we are going to start correcting grammar, sentax and vocabulary...watch out. There aren't going to be any productive posts left.

This thread has turned into a VERY interesting and viable discussion on armillaria and possible treatment regimens. However, technically speaking very little of it has been pursuant to the homeowner at this moment because we still do not know if this situation is armillaria.

Homeowners many times don't need to know or want to know the indepth version of the answer but just generally "what should they do" or "what is going on".

A person does not need to be a scientist in order for me to listen to what they have to say. Keeping an open mind and weighing the facts and thoughts that you hear is important in all aspects of life.


Sylvia

No Syl, the definition "sited" (while we're picking nits...cited) was from the "New Tree Biology Dictionary", Shigo not the Arb Study Guide, which I never needed to own and I certified in the beginning which was 1992.

This the second time I have heard you dictating the rules of threads and posts and do not see mod by your name. Seems to me I have a right to challenge info as when I am looking for crucial direction I'm gonna wanna see some scientific data. If I was hanging around the house all day and uploading this and that in between chores, hey I'd be right in there shootin the bull.

But I have been dealing with Armillaria and and its consequences for 40 years and excuse me if I might challenge some hypothetical theories thrown out there....and ......hey, you challenge me for not buying into everything spouted.

Patient, "Doctor Syl/Weasel, got this big lump in my side sticking out of my rib cage, I am scared, what do I do?"

Dr. Syl/wease, "Eat some chicken soup, get a lot of rest and take these organic vites".............and oh, by the way, not really a doc just stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.".

 

[D Mc]

A person does not need to be a scientist in order for me to listen to what they have to say. Keeping an open mind and weighing the facts and thoughts that you hear is important in all aspects of life.
Sylvia

Interesting response to that post, Treevet.

So you disagree with her last statement?

Dave

 

[Ed Roland]

Let me give you a little lesson wease. Vigor is the genetic capacity of an organism to resist strain. Vitality is the ability of an organism to grow under the conditions to which it finds itself. Vigor can be measured by applying a known stimulus and then measuring the response. You do not know how vigorous an organism is until you apply a stimulus that threatens its survival. VIGOR CANNOT BE INCREASED, IT IS PART OF THE GENETIC PROGRAM.

vITALITY means to grow, to reproduce, to adapt to surroundings. Vitality is a dynamic condition. A tree may be low in vigor but high in vitality, and the converse could also occur. Much can be done to increase the vitality of a tree........if we want more vigor, we go to genetics; if we want more vitality we go to cultural practices.

It will be fun to pompously correct those more learned than I going forward as they misuse these terms. Its this type of myriad detail that will make us all better arborist.

You are not a scientist weasel. But if you want to appear to have scientific knowledge let me see some scientific data or go in your backyard and spend some time developing your own scientific data.

Whoa, settle down, Francis. You come across like the sensitive overweight bully on the playground. I am not a scientist. Just trying to exchange ideas with friends.

I remember a couple of years ago when you came on AS and you wanted to buy a spray rig and spread fertilizer randomly all over the landscape as you just had just barely got into the biz. Everybody jumped your a$$ and you
now are dispensing advice to all that will listen.

I think it's more thruthful that you simply researched some of my early posts.
By the way, I am still in the market for that fert rig! While you have a very narrow realm of operation I am open to the body of work Dr. Fraedrich and Dr. Smiley, both scientists, produced concerning urea formaldahyde. To say it does not have it's place in the arborist tool box shows a certain lack of understanding. I mean that in a loving way. Compost teas flow real nice through fert rigs, as well.

So have some positive rep, on me treevet. I hope going forward we can get along on this public forum. Remember these posts are permanent record. PM me for a more thourough discussion concerning this.

 

[jomoco]

I want to update this thread after an in depth conversation I had with with a PhD plant pathologist who deals specifically with armillaria, all 6 varieties, at the university of missouri.

While UV light is extremely effective at killing armillaria, all 6 varieties, the problem lies in getting the treatment to the fungus itself. From a practical point of view, it's virtually impossible because the fungus is underground and underneath the bark and phloem layers attacking the cambium. Exposing the fungi to the light via mechanical means would do more damage to the tree and roots than is acceptable in her opinion.

She felt that it would be effective on many other above ground fungi in the canopy like anthracnose and powdery mildew etc.

We then discussed the possibility of using more penetrative gamma rays used in x-rays to kill armillaria underground and behind the bark, but she felt the damage to the tree would be almost as great as the damage to the fungus itself.

So it was no great surprise to me when she stated the same thing that I did at the beginning of this thread, that once a positive diagnosis is made, removal of the tree and replanting with armillaria resistant species was the best course of action for a responsible arborist to make currently.

I've learned alot in this thread, and have not given up on using UV light treatment on other tree ailments in which the target is more readily accessible to the light source.

I'm intrigued by the possible use of gamma rays in that they are also effective against not only fungi, bacteria, and viruses, but also all forms of insects. Bark beetles?

Pretty sci-fi stuff I know, but interesting nonetheless.

jomoco