Reducing Codominant Pine

[JeffE]

Treeseer, there's nothing you can spray on an infested tree that will kill the boring insects that are already inside. Onyx (bifenthrin) sometimes works to prevent an at-risk tree from being successfullly colonized in the first place, and it's one of the best currently labeled for that purpose, but it's not a "treatment" for an infested tree (which is what homeowners often expect).

Arbormega, under normal circumstances, southern pine beetle is a stress-responder just like the other southern pine bark beetles, and it won't successfully attack a vigorous tree. The exception is when an outbreak occurs, in which local population levels build up the the point where the beetles can mass-attack and kill relatively healthy trees. This usually happens when environmental conditions (such as drought or flood) cause widespread tree stress, exacerbated by dense, overstocked conditions in large plantations of SPB's favorite hosts, loblolly and shortleaf pines. In such conditions, the outbreaks can be really spectacular (as you described). Even then, an isolated, vigorous tree is not really at risk. One of the ways that they control an SPB outbreak in a forest is to cut a buffer strip around the infested area; when there isn't another suitable host very close by when the beetles emerge, they scatter and are unable to effectively mass-attack a healthy tree.

This is a below-average year for southern pine beetle activity in most states. So far we've had only one reported/confirmed SPB "spot" (patch of mortality) in Florida, and it was less than an acre.

Sorry for the lecture, but I'd like to see arborists more informed about this stuff. In my experience, many southern pine problems are misdiagnosed as SPB, because SPB gets all the press (over on another forum, I recently conversed with someone whose "tree doc" had told her that her tree had SPB and sold her a "treatment," and upon further questioning it turned out that she actually had pine sawfly defoliation!). Even when the tree is showing solid signs of bark beetles, it's more often the black turpentine beetle or <i>Ips</i> engraver beetles, and knowing the difference can affect the appropriate management recommendations. And of course, all of these are stress-responders that should cause you to look for other factors involved.

 

[treeseer]

there's nothing you can spray on an infested tree that will kill the boring insects that are already inside. Onyx it's not a "treatment" for an infested tree

Then the guys in yellow trucks with green letters are selling snake oil. Buts sprays can kill borers if applied INTO the tree, after excavating dead tissue and frass, so I did that on the oak.

southern pine beetle is a stress-responder just like the other southern pine bark beetles, and it won't successfully attack a vigorous tree.

In the picture above, it is attacking stressed tissue in a healthy tree. If pitching was not heavy, I'd consider removing bark around the hole and attacking the pest. I've seen this work before; what would you do on a high-value individual tree?

This is a below-average year for southern pine beetle activity in most states. .

I've seen a handful of urban trees killed by SPB so far this year. The way I learned it from Fred Hain at ncsu, their populations fluctuate on an 8-10 year cycle, so we are due for a buildup.

Thanks for posting; forestry experience doesn't always apply, but it can inform arboriculture.

 

[JeffE]

Then the guys in yellow trucks with green letters are selling snake oil. Buts sprays can kill borers if applied INTO the tree, after excavating dead tissue and frass, so I did that on the oak.In the picture above, it is attacking stressed tissue in a healthy tree.

I'm still not buying that as an SPB attack. Looks like a pitch moth mass, and that would fit better behavior-wise.

In that oak, if you managed to excavate the entire area with borers and spray, you may have killed those particular insects, but you've also caused a lot of damage to a tree that was already stressed. Were these ambrosia beetles, clearwing borers, two-lined chestnut borers, or what?

If pitching was not heavy, I'd consider removing bark around the hole and attacking the pest. I've seen this work before; what would you do on a high-value individual tree?

I have serious doubts about such an approach working. First of all, generally by the time an infestation has been detected, 1) a number of other adults have been attracted by the aggregation pheremones, and 2), the eggs have been laid - and it's the larvae that do the real damage. Second of all, you're doing a good deal more damage to the tree, which will cause it to be even more susceptible to attack in the future.

Third of all, the girdling damage done by the beetle feeding itself is only part of the problem. Bark beetles also vector vascular wilt fungi which clog up the xylem, hastening the tree's decline (and increasing susceptibility to further infestation). These are similar to Dutch elm disease (and in fact the one that <i>Ips</i> beetles vector, <i>Ophiostoma ips</i>, is in the same genus). Some forest pathologists argue that if any single thing could be said to be the cause of tree death in a beetle attack, it's really these symbiotic fungi, which are introduced by the beetle with the initial attack.

Black turpentine beetle vectors a bluestain fungus (<i>Leptographium terebrantis</i>) which is thought to be less virulent than some others, which may be why trees can often sustain some BTB attacks and recover.

If I may be so bold, some of the tree "doctoring" I see described here I find highly specious, based on what I know of tree physiology, entomology, and pathology. In some cases, the homeowner's money would be better spent on removal and replacement - and in some others, no treatment is necessary. No, I'm not flaming or trolling, and if it becomes that kind of thread I'll let it be :alien: I'm normally a lurker who keeps his mouth shut, and I won't be hurt if I'm told to return to that status.

I've seen a handful of urban trees killed by SPB so far this year. The way I learned it from Fred Hain at ncsu, their populations fluctuate on an 8-10 year cycle, so we are due for a buildup.

How did you confirm that it was SPB at work?

Thanks for posting; forestry experience doesn't always apply, but it can inform arboriculture.

Eh, it's all trees. I work with the Forest Health section under the state forest entomologist, and we do quite a few homeowner calls.

 

[treeseer]

I'm still not buying that as an SPB attack. Looks like a pitch moth mass, and that would fit better behavior-wise.

Jeff, I hope you are right. I've seen a lot of spb pitch tubes, and do not know how a pitch moth mass is different. Is there a site where I can study pictures showing the difference?

In that oak, if you managed to excavate the entire area ...you've also caused a lot of damage to a tree that was already stressed.

Jeff, as I said clearly above, I only removed dead tissue and frass. How can this hurt a tree, pray tell?

Were these ambrosia beetles, clearwing borers, two-lined chestnut borers, or what?

I don't know; I tried to find one in the holes but did not. Again, if you could show me how I could positively ID the critter by the hole I'd be most grateful

If I may be so bold, some of the tree "doctoring" I see described here I find highly specious, based on what I know of tree physiology, entomology, and pathology. In some cases, the homeowner's money would be better spent on removal and replacement - and in some others, no treatment is necessary.

I had to look up "specious" in the dictionary; at first I thought it meant "special", but now I see it means "deceptive...fallacious". Ouchie. In the case of the pitch i saw on this tree, I thought no treatnment was necessary. I'll post better pics soon, and hope you can larn me sumthin bout these critters. I took forest entomology--even got an A!--but I'm no enotmologist.

As far as removal/replacement goes, that is not a recommendation my clients want to hear casually given. Many treatments are based on accepted science and experience says they work and are worth trying, even if they seem more specious than special at first glance. Forestry is about trees, arboriculture is about tree. That difference in focus often yields a difference in management. :alien:

Please keep posting; your experience is useful here. O and newsflash--I looked in the Johnson/Lyons book and saw that pitch moth larvae do feed on wounded areas, which fits these signs' location, even tho they are very similar to spb pitch tubes. I'll dig thru the goo and try to nail the wormy bustard, and prove you right!.

It's a rare treat for a forester's opinion to yield more than speciosity for an arborist...naah, just kidding bro.

 

[JeffE]

Jeff, I hope you are right. I've seen a lot of spb pitch tubes, and do not know how a pitch moth mass is different. Is there a site where I can study pictures showing the difference?

I'm sure you could find some images with google, but here's some general info. SPB pitch tubes are much smaller, generally dime- to nickel-sized, and have a very small (SPB adults are much smaller than a grain of rice) but distinct circular entrance hole beneath them, often visible in the center of the mass. Pitch moth masses are often quite large (larger even than a BTB pitch tube) and irregularly-shaped, can continue flowing for months. The mass will usually lack the hole in the center that's characteristic of beetle pitch "tubes."

Jeff, as I said clearly above, I only removed dead tissue and frass. How can this hurt a tree, pray tell?

If you've got an insect that's only infesting dead tissue, then there's no problem to treat. If not, then there's no benefit to this treatment. Actually, there's no benefit either way that I can see.

I don't know; I tried to find one in the holes but did not. Again, if you could show me how I could positively ID the critter by the hole I'd be most grateful

If you can describe the damage, I could maybe narrow it down. There are an awful lot of insects that feed within dying oaks. Edit: but even knowing the general <i>type</i> or family of insect you're dealing with will inform you about the status of the tree and what management is appropriate. This can often be determined by seeing the damage.

I had to look up "specious" in the dictionary; at first I thought it meant "special", but now I see it means "deceptive...fallacious". Ouchie. In the case of the pitch i saw on this tree, I thought no treatnment was necessary.

I agree. I'm not trying to single you out in this regard, but I'm talking generally since I'm coming out of lurkhood for the time being. I meant it to mean, "attractive, but deceptive." I'd say that you're one of the best FWIW, but I still question some things I see you post.

As far as removal/replacement goes, that is not a recommendation my clients want to hear casually given.

I understand that... it's partly why I don't see myself going into commercial arboriculture as some of my former classmates did. I would have a hard time selling work that I didn't think was a smart option.

Many treatments are based on accepted science and experience says they work and are worth trying, even if they seem more specious than special at first glance.

I agree, and I'd be interested if you have any science that points to excavation as a good practice for treating boring insects.

Forestry is about trees, arboriculture is about tree. That difference in focus often yields a difference in management. :alien:

True, and ideally both scenarios are informed by the same understanding of the tree and how it interacts with its environment and other organisms.

It's a rare treat for a forester's opinion to yield more than speciosity for an arborist...naah, just kidding bro.

Well, I appreciate your open-mindedness. I respect your experience, and I am aware that my responses may come off as confrontational. But, I'm gaining confidence with my own experience, too.

I do have a forestry BS, and my title is indeed "forester," but this is the first job I've had that dealt at all with production forestry, helping with research and advisory work concerning pests, pathogens and weeds... my grad school work and most of my professional experience has been in plant ecology.

 

[treeseer]

SPB pitch tubes are much smaller, generally dime- to nickel-sized,

Looks like I'll need a pocket full of change with me when I snap the next pics. I don't think I've ever seen an spb tube as big as a nickel, but my eyes are not perfect.

If you've got an insect that's only infesting dead tissue, then there's no problem to treat. If not, then there's no benefit to (excavation) Actually, there's no benefit either way that I can see.

This opinion is common but specious. Benefits of excavating dead material include, 1. reducing decay pathogen amount and aggressiveness, 2. reducing resistance to growth of callus tissue, 3. exposing pest to more effective treatment, as with the Onyx contacting the oak borers, 4. exposing pest to air and light, and 5. cosmetics. I could go on, but you get the idea I hope.

I would have a hard time selling work that I didn't think was a smart option. .. I'd be interested if you have any science that points to excavation as a good practice for treating boring insects.

Empirical science by definition is based on observation and experience. Formal research has value, but it is often applied so far beyond the parameters of the original study that it leads to wrong ideas. I would submit that direct, "anecdotal" observation of practices that are based on sound scientific principles can be of equal or greater scientific value.

I am aware that my responses may come off as confrontational.
I do have a forestry BS, and my title is indeed "forester," but this is the first job I've had that dealt at all with production forestry, helping with research and advisory work concerning pests, pathogens

Confrontation is ; it drives inquiry and learning. In time you may understand that tree doctoring is less specious quackery than you thought, and I may learn that forestry is less book-bound foolishness from folks who only believe what came down from the ivory tower.

 

[JeffE]

Looks like I'll need a pocket full of change with me when I snap the next pics. I don't think I've ever seen an spb tube as big as a nickel, but my eyes are not perfect.

Nickel would be on the large side, but that mass you were calling SPB is a lot bigger than that!

This opinion is common but specious. Benefits of excavating dead material include, 1. reducing decay pathogen amount and aggressiveness, 2. reducing resistance to growth of callus tissue, 3. exposing pest to more effective treatment, as with the Onyx contacting the oak borers, 4. exposing pest to air and light, and 5. cosmetics. I could go on, but you get the idea I hope.

I'm aware of this idea among some arborists that decay spread can be limited by excavation. I'm also aware that there's very little evidence to support this, and there's a school of thought that it usually does more harm than good. If you're exposing more sound wood, you're providing a much greater amount of brood material for insects that infest that tissue and spread real pathogens, even assuming that you manage to completely avoid penetrating CODIT walls and impacting wood with active vascular tissue.

Empirical science by definition is based on observation and experience. Formal research has value, but it is often applied so far beyond the parameters of the original study that it leads to wrong ideas. I would submit that direct, "anecdotal" observation of practices that are based on sound scientific principles can be of equal or greater scientific value.

I think that anecdotal evidence is a great place to start, but it's not sufficient, and here's why: it's impossible to establish cause-and-effect. That is to say, you cut into a tree, "cleaned" the dead tissue out and observe that this tree does fine. But did it do fine <i>because</i> you did that treatment, or is it lucky coincidence? Now, if you take 60 such cases, and randomly treat half of them in this way, and you see a result on the treated trees that's better than seen on untreated - statistically more than would be expected by chance alone - then you can start drawing conclusions. People do these studies! As an undergraduate I worked at a university tree research center where the arboriculture prof would sometimes test different treatments and products.

Confrontation is ; it drives inquiry and learning. In time you may understand that tree doctoring is less specious quackery than you thought, and I may learn that forestry is less book-bound foolishness from folks who only believe what came down from the ivory tower.

We don't wait for it to come down from the tower - we go and do the research! In my mind, arboriculture and forestry are essentially two applications of the same study, and at least where I went to school, people who wanted to go into one or the other got the same degree and took most of the same classes.

 

[treeseer]

there's a school of thought that it usually does more harm than good. If you're exposing more sound wood, you're providing a much greater amount of brood material for insects that infest that tissue and spread real pathogens, even assuming that you manage to completely avoid penetrating CODIT walls and impacting wood with active vascular tissue.

That school is for kindergarten-level arborists, and homeowners. The brood material is already there and accessible to the pest, so removing decayed material does not expose any more; no additional impact. Plus, how can you assess strength loss if you don't know how big a cavity is?

Now, if you take 60 such cases, and randomly treat half of them in this way, and you see a result on the treated trees that's better than seen on untreated - statistically more than would be expected by chance alone - then you can start drawing conclusions. People do these studies!

Please point me to one. Research on mature trees is so fraught with variables, it is rare and narrow.

arboriculture and forestry are essentially two applications of the same study, and at least where I went to school, people who wanted to go into one or the other got the same degree and took most of the same classes.

If you went to UF you are ahead of most but maybe not all u's. at VTU and Clemson for instance they have undergrad programs focused on urban forestry/arboriculture. ncsu lags way behind, no uf/arb.

 

[JeffE]

That school is for kindergarten-level arborists, and homeowners.

Care to back that up at all, or am I supposed to accept your word for it?

The brood material is already there and accessible to the pest, so removing decayed material does not expose any more; no additional impact.

...and in that case no benefit, from a pest-control standpoint. But seriously, there are different guilds of insects that infest dead and rotting wood versus the sound phloem and/or xylem of living trees, and not many that do both. The ones that infest dead/rotten wood have essentially no impact on tree health. And none of that has anything to do with the reason that boring insects were there in the first place - most of the native ones that impact tree health will only attack and finish off a tree that's having significant difficulties for some other reason. They're <i>indicators</i> of a problem.

Plus, how can you assess strength loss if you don't know how big a cavity is?

That's a very good point.

Please point me to one. Research on mature trees is so fraught with variables, it is rare and narrow. If you went to UF you are ahead of most but maybe not all u's. at VTU and Clemson for instance they have undergrad programs focused on urban forestry/arboriculture. ncsu lags way behind, no uf/arb.

I went to Michigan State, which has both uf and arbo coursework.

I'll see what I can dig up for research papers on rot excavation, but I might have to wait until I can get to the UF library next week.

 

[treeseer]

there are different guilds of insects that infest dead and rotting wood versus the sound phloem and/or xylem of living trees, and not many that do both.

ok then, some do both, as some fungi change from saprophytes to pathogens. So excavation IS sometimes useful from a control standpoint. If care is taken to avoid boundaries, do you see another downside to excavation? As far as backing that up, below is an excerpt from a peer-reviewed article published in TCI mag last september.

I may have a bias in thinking it is sufficiently scientific, but some of those at tci are on the ansi committees for instance so I hope you will find it somewhat credible. The entire article is attached.

"The first cues are visual; lesions bleeding with blackened sap at the margins of the diseased area. These lesions appear very similar to Phytophthora sp. Tapping inside the lesions will produce a hollow sound, indicating dead bark. By gently prying these areas with a trowel or screwdriver, you can remove all discolored bark down to the wood. (If the infection encompasses more than half of the trunk,and decay is advancing inward, it is doubtful the tree will remain safe for very long.)

TAKE CARE not to cut into healthy bark or wood. Excavation of wounds is still viewed with skepticism because careless digging will break boundaries. The goal is to come as close as possible to healthy tissue without cutting into it. A blunt-tipped knife, such as a linoleum knife, can trim the last scraps of diseased bark without scratching the wood. Rinsing off the last of the debris finishes the excavation.

If holes from woodboring insects are found, they should be excavated of loose material and probed with a flexible wire. The goal is to impale the pest, or at least clear a channel for a secondary attack with air or water or pesticide. No sealant or pruning paint is ever recommended for this condition, even after the surface has dried. As it’s been said for twenty years, any compound that can seal out problems can seal in problems. Light and air will dry out the area over time; invigoration of the root system can speed compartmentalization.

Excavating infections at ground level requires the removal of earth. Small roots may be removed, but TAKE CARE not to nick any woody roots. Air and light are the enemies of most fungal and bacterial organisms, so use coarse stone under a layer of landscape fabric to replace the excavated soil. Soil and mulch won’t contact the wound, and monitoring will be easier."

ps at msu did you meet jim scarlata?

 

[JeffE]

ok then, some do both, as some fungi change from saprophytes to pathogens. So excavation IS sometimes useful from a control standpoint.

I actually can't think of an insect that does both, but I'm wary of absolute statements.

If care is taken to avoid boundaries, do you see another downside to excavation?

If the boundaries are not broken and only rotten wood is removed, then perhaps not.

As far as backing that up, below is an excerpt from a peer-reviewed article published in TCI mag last september.

I may have a bias in thinking it is sufficiently scientific, but some of those at tci are on the ansi committees for instance so I hope you will find it somewhat credible. The entire article is attached.

That's very interesting, but it's not intended to be a scientific presentation, and it's not evidence of anything save that bacterial wetwood is a common disease of oaks in that region (this is the only thing they backed up with their "survey"). Otherwise, it's just a description of how they treat this problem (much of which conflicts with the advice of pathologists and extension agents everywhere). In this case, too, I have doubts about the benefits of removing symptomatic areas of wood on the stem.

BTW, note that they recommend clearing and probing the boring holes, not excavating the areas where insects are boring. This is known to sometimes be a way of killing clearwing moth larvae, if you're lucky enough to hit one with the wire.

I think that most people overestimate what's necessary to do a study on the effectiveness of treatments. Arborists are in a great position to do the field data collection. I remember a little while back, there was talk here of doing a collective study on wound treatment, and I think it could be done, with some guidance on the protocols and statistical analysis. Could make a great J of A article.

I didn't recognize the name Jim Sclarata, but I just googled him and saw who he is. I don't remember meeting him.

 

[darkstar]

[[[wow learning alot ]]]...sheww #1 id say water it ,,,#2 cable it,,,,#3 do very minamal crown reduction .... really that tree would have to guywired to the ground like a cell phone tower for real wind protection imo.... but hey im kindergarden arborist .

 

[Ekka]

JeffE

You ought to get out more often!

I find your posts extremely informative ... and that's from a guy in a country where the only beetles I've dealt with were a band from England!

In our urban trees we get the occasional borer etc and identifying is they key, which I've learned is really difficult. How can you treat a pest if you don't know what it is? People do tree injections, soil injections etc and lay some unreal claims on their snake oil.

At the college course I'm currently doing both excavation and cavity filling are frowned upon ... yet I here it mentioned often and in one instance even heard that wounds should be excavated and be treated with phosphite.

I always wonder if comprehensive tests were done, like with new drugs, to see if in fact the treatments actually worked and to what degree. I suppose in forestry you have an advantage of volume and similarity in trees and conditions to test treatments, where as in urban environments there are many differing factors.

Once again, great posts JeffE, and feel free to jump in more often.

 

[treeseer]

If the boundaries are not broken and only rotten wood is removed, then perhaps not.

nOw we're making some real progress here.

That's very interesting, but it's not intended to be a scientific presentation, and it's not evidence of anything save that bacterial wetwood is a common disease of oaks in that region (this is the only thing they backed up with their "survey").

Is too. What's unscientific about it, and why do you put "survey" in quotes? It was a valid sample.

Otherwise, it's just a description of how they treat this problem (much of which conflicts with the advice of pathologists and extension agents everywhere). In this case, too, I have doubts about the benefits of removing symptomatic areas of wood on the stem.

An extensive search of the literature was made; several ext pubs supported the protocol. Re benefits, I have many pics of trees that sealed over after treatment, but only two of an untreated tree that succumbed to infection. I have a real hard time getting clients to sacrifice their big trees for the cause of Science.

BTW, note that they recommend clearing and probing the boring holes, not excavating the areas where insects are boring. This is known to sometimes be a way of killing clearwing moth larvae, if you're lucky enough to hit one with the wire.

Clearing is excavating, so yes they-he-I-did advocate that, and the reviewing peers did not question it.

I think that most people overestimate what's necessary to do a study on the effectiveness of treatments. Arborists are in a great position to do the field data collection. I remember a little while back, there was talk here of doing a collective study on wound treatment, and I think it could be done, with some guidance on the protocols and statistical analysis. Could make a great J of A article.

Bingo! Search the archives for threads on NEWTS--the Network of Experimental Wound Treaters and Sealers. They were getting organized here (one quiet moderator is a member) before this forum melted down. At the ISA and TCI conferences this year there will be meetings of the NEWTS, and we are seeking guidance form someone with a .edu address for protocols and analyses. Got any prospects, anyone, anywhere?

 

[JeffE]

Is too. What's unscientific about it, and why do you put "survey" in quotes? It was a valid sample.

I'm not saying it's unscientific, but that it wasn't presented as a scientific study. No sources were cited, no claims were supported other than the bit I mentioned. The survey is fine, the quotes were unnecessary and just meant to refer to the term that was used for that specific bit. Plus, no fair not mentioning that you're the author

An extensive search of the literature was made; several ext pubs supported the protocol.

Care to share? Sources are good.

Re benefits, I have many pics of trees that sealed over after treatment, but only two of an untreated tree that succumbed to infection. I have a real hard time getting clients to sacrifice their big trees for the cause of Science.

Again, causality issues here. There's an old phrase, <i>Post hoc ergo propter hoc</i> that applies to this. Without looking at it in a systematic way, it's - :angel: forgive me- specious to draw conclusions. I understand that selling a landowner a "control group" placement would be shady if you believe that the treatment works, but if someone refuses the treatment you could request to come back and observe the tree periodically, or if you really wanted to get serious you could go out and find infected non-customer trees and ask for landowner permission to observe them, without selling any work.

Clearing is excavating, so yes they-he-I-did advocate that, and the reviewing peers did not question it.

Well, maybe I misunderstood what you said here in the first place - in the article it said that the boring holes themselves should be "excavated of loose material and probed with a flexible wire," not that the area of wood containing the holes should be excavated, which is what I thought you did on that oak. BTW, the wire trick often works with clearwing borers, but not for most boring insects. If you've got cerambycid beetles (roundheaded borers), for example, the only holes you see will be the exit holes, where the adults left the tree. Same is true of buprestids like the two-lined chestnut borer (<i>Agrilus bilineatus</i>), which is a common pest on stressed oaks. Others that do have entrance holes often have life cycles and/or feeding patterns which don't lend themselves to that sort of control.

Bingo! Search the archives for threads on NEWTS--the Network of Experimental Wound Treaters and Sealers. They were getting organized here (one quiet moderator is a member) before this forum melted down. At the ISA and TCI conferences this year there will be meetings of the NEWTS, and we are seeking guidance form someone with a .edu address for protocols and analyses. Got any prospects, anyone, anywhere?

Cool, I'll think about that. I can think of a PhD off the bat who might have the interest, but I'm not sure he would be the best choice for guidance.

Thanks for the words of support, ekka - I was starting to feel pretty lonely out here! :alien:

 

[treeseer]

I'm not saying it's unscientific, but that it wasn't presented as a scientific study. No sources were cited, no claims were supported other than the bit I mentioned.

Geez, I cited 5 references in the article (full original linked below--earlier link was a version shortened for the isasc newsletter) Colorado State's ext pub on slime flux was most validating.

<i>Post hoc ergo propter hoc</i>

Yeah yeah, "After that, therefore because of that", I remember Latin a bit. I am looking in a systematic way, as much as I can w zero budget and little support, aside form tci's willingness to publish it.i I do pic untreated trees; see previous threads here on ooze.

the boring holes themselves should be "excavated of loose material and probed with a flexible wire," not that the area of wood containing the holes should be excavated, which is what I thought you did on that oak.

Jeff, we still are not clear that excavating does NOT mean removing living tissue, and seldom even decaying but still-supportive tissue. Ekka, what exactly does "excavating
' mean to your frowning instructors?? Let's put a on their faces when they talk about this!

I can think of a PhD off the bat who might have the interest, but I'm not sure he would be the best choice for guidance.

Few are willing to get into controversial topics; in academia a sullied resume can be the kiss of death. Like any bureaucracy, anyone who rodks the boat may be tossed overboard, and the sharks are many.
"Fins to the left, fins to the right, and you're the only bait in town"--Jimmy Buffett.

Ekka, strangely enough the phosphite that is licensed to control Sudden Oak Death and other Phytophthora infections (and signs of these are often seen on margins of bacterial infections) is shipped from Australia, which seems really weird to me. Trade name Agri-Fos, ever hear of it?

 

[JeffE]

Geez, I cited 5 references in the article (full original linked below--earlier link was a version shortened for the isasc newsletter)

Geez, sorry, how should I know if I can't see them? Do you have a direct link? Only "link below" I saw there was to the ISA treesaregood home page.

Colorado State's ext pub on slime flux was most validating.

Treeseer, I must apologize. Upon first quick reading (and maybe due to the context of our conversation) I thought that you had recommended excavating symptomatic wood (xylem), but upon re-reading it now I see that you've recommended scribing of symptomatic cambium only. Mea culpa. Some people do recommend against even that these days due to the risk of hitting healthy tissue, but it's still a common recommendation.

Sloppy of me, and a similar situation may have caused a misunderstanding with your boring insect excavation. In my defense, I've been hurriedly reading and typing responses as I get the chance, when taking breaks from playing with my 4-year old son and other activities <--that smiley is actually a pretty good representation of a 4-yr old.

Jeff, we still are not clear that excavating does NOT mean removing living tissue, and seldom even decaying but still-supportive tissue.

That's good. I'm not satisfied that it would help, but it's unlikely to harm, assuming the arborist never makes a mistake.

Few are willing to get into controversial topics; in academia a sullied resume can be the kiss of death. Like any bureaucracy, anyone who rodks the boat may be tossed overboard, and the sharks are many.

Nah, you just need to get someone who's tenured. You'd be surprised at the crap they'll publish, and for an old forester/arbo it's very attractive to have a study that has implications for real-world application.

 

[treeseer]

No sources were cited, no claims were supported other than the bit I mentioned. Care to share? Sources are good.

Gee zowie I quoted 5 different references in the article. 9I attacj=hed the full article below--the other one was a version shortened for a newsletter) I could have cited ext pubs too I guess but that is not hard science is it? Colorado State's pub on slime flux was the most useful.

Again, causality issues here. There's an old phrase, <i>Post hoc ergo propter hoc</i> that applies to this.

Yeah yeah "after that, therefore because of that", I remember a little Latin still I was looking at it in a systematic way, as much as possible with zero budget. I do come back and observe the untreated trees periodically, a database is slowly building. see posts here on slime flux in oaks.

I can think of a PhD off the bat who might have the interest, but I'm not sure he would be the best choice for guidance.

Good, the NEWTS may be ready to organize and slither into partnership with a u lab guy somewhere.


"At the college course I'm currently doing both excavation and cavity filling are frowned upon "

Ekka, let's turn those frowns upside down into ... yet I here it mentioned often and in one instance even heard that wounds should be excavated and be treated with phosphite."

 

[JeffE]

Ok, now you're confusing me on purpose, with that reworded repeat of your previous post!

 

[treeseer]

o crap I thought I had deleted it, so I rewrote it, now deleted it. Ack. :blush: Here is the full article; 5 citations but not as many as there would have been for Arborist News. For JoA I would have put in about a page's worth. Oops server won't attach it, saying it's already attached in the thread "Ooze in the News" so if you reeeally want to see it you gotta go there.

Thanks for the good discussion; i'm fine with the "specious" claims, not as bad as what some Floridians are throwing out these days. :Monkey: