one for the consultants

[jimmyq]

this is a link to a website I frequent, great closeup of what I think is bladder gall mite damage to a Linden.
http://www.ubcbotanicalgarden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3278

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Treatment is unnecessary?

Whenever I run into damage that is largely aesthetic I say this too, because it is unnecessary for the plant. But if the plant owner wants it to look better I'll clip off the offending portions, even individual leaves, and let new, ungalled leaves grow back.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Are leaf galls a secondary pest?

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by Mike Maas
Are leaf galls a secondary pest?

Do you mean, is there a primary agent that predisposes a plant to get leaf galls?

Not any strong one I can think of. The bigger question is, are galls a pest? Surprisingly, your treedictionary.com resource does not list "pest".

 

[Reed]

Only a structural host much like a Beaver dam is to a stream. It only offends the landowner who feels the loss for his purpose of whatever land becomes submerged.

We build tall buildings and then come the pigeons, pier supports and then the oysters and barnacle, a fence then the hackberry.

Wonderbread did so well not because of stronger bodies twelve ways but it was aesthetically perfect. More important than substance, looks. That's why the barbie doll.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Some of the leaf galls are pretty. They seem to almost increase the leaf surface area, so they may even help the tree in some cases.
Another good reason to cut off all lower branches, if the homeowner can't see the leaves because they are way up there, they won't call you in to spray or hand pick all the leaves when they get galls.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by Mike Maas
Some of the leaf galls are pretty. They seem to almost increase the leaf surface area, so they may even help the tree in some cases.

Mike you made a good point before you descended into sarcasm again.
I'll try to remember that next time I look at leaf galls with a client.

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

No sarcasm intended Guy.
They do increase leaf area. Like your crown work, some slight damage at first, then beneficial results. Perhaps not a measurable difference, but a difference.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

THe sarcasm ( I hope) was the "good reason to cut branches" line. The increase in leaf area and maybe photosynthesis, I agree. The fact that galls typically occur on lower branches, where light is at a premium, adds to the possible benefit. Is there a method to that madness, some intelligent design? Hmmm...

Last Saturday a client even agreed that leaf galls in a maple were strangely ornamental. Once they learned that the galls were caused by the egg-laying of a possibly beneficial insect, they were happy to leave the tree be. :angel:

 

[Nickrosis]

I've sinced stopped claiming to know where the MM sarcasm begins and ends, but it is a valid point about raising limbs.....part of the out of sight, out of mind principle.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

I think the gall causes cellular elongation, vs an increase in number of cells. Much like over use of "N" to stimulate growth.

No net gain in overall chloroplasts so no net gain in photosynthesis.

Then there is the usual decrase in color and often partial fall color whitch would indicate a loss of chlorphyl in those effected cells.

They do look cool though, I do think that sometimes the populations can get to a point where there in stress in a tree, or added stress, I would think that infestation levels would have to be secondary, as with any pest.

 

[Guy Meilleur]

Originally posted by John Paul Sanborn
No net gain in overall chloroplasts so no net gain in photosynthesis.

But if the chloroplasts were more spread out, they could intercept more light and photosynthesize more, right?

That's academic though; I've seen what you've seen--pale color,withered etc. which indicates the leaves are not helped by the galls. but they seem to do little harm.