Sugars and PHC

[John Paul Sanborn]

There has been more and more in the lit. about good results with using sucrose in the soil, at least on small trees.

Has anyone tried it on a comercial basis?

My read on it is that stressed trees, such as transplants, can translocate sucrose from the soil and utilize it in the leaves.

 

[Ax-man]

This is news, from what source did you get this information. It would be interesting to read.

Larry

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Here is the one I could find right off the bat. I could not open it since they wont let me use my regular UN/PW and cannot ever remember the numeric string they gave me

I do remember a few others in the past, and mentiones in product lit from a numnber of organic amendments.

SUGAR FEEDING ENHANCES ROOT VIGOR OF YOUNG TREES FOLLOWING CONTAINERIZATION
Authors: Glynn C. Percival

http://joa.isa-arbor.com/request.asp?JournalID=1&ArticleID=165&volume=30&issue=6&Type=1

 

[alanarbor]

I remember hearing Glynn speak on that subject a few years ago. It's interesting, and makes sense, but I have not tried it yet in a commercial setting. From what I've been reading on AACT certain sugars can stimulate some of the beneficial bacteria and fungi in compost tea. So the real question is......... Does the sugar directly impact the tree, or the soil, resulting in that root growth increase? I think if I tried it, I'd have to take some tests to see what it's effect on soil biology is. If detrimental, it could have the same sort of short-term gain, long term downside that sugar has on us when we use it as a stimulant.

Great subject to discuss though!

 

[begleytree]

interesting, but I doubt it. it'd be like pouring blood on people after an injury hoping for transdermal absorption.
-Ralph

 

[alanarbor]

I really try not to use human metaphors when talking about trees.

Besides, the sugars dissolved in water would be absorbed by the roots in the same manner as usual, just in a plant availible form, that would not have to be produced by photosythesis in the plant. Of course we can also apply N in a plant availible form, and that hasen't worked out as well as we thought it once did.

 

[begleytree]

I really try not to use human metaphors when talking about trees.

Why not, aren't we both living organisms, dependant upon certian specific conditions and nutrients to survive? How are we so far apart biologically that 'metaphors' are uncorrelatable between the two of us?
Should I have said "pour sugar water on a starving man hoping for transdermal absorption", instead of blood?
We know plants uptake water and minerals via their root system, those, via photosynthesis, produce sugars which the tree uses for food. ( I know, I kept it simple for the sake of arguement.) So how can pouring the food at the roots be of any benefit, unless as stated, by feeding beneficial organisms, whom in turn, help the tree during a stressed time?
I personally think a good dose of mycorrhzal fungi and bone meal would go farther in the long run than sugar.
Instead of any of those, the most important would be (IMO) careful selection of good planting stock, planted correctly, and in the correct habitat.
-Ralph

 

[alanarbor]

I know we're above the knowledge of the average person here so human metaphors don't really mess us up. I've just been trying avoid it myself in interactions with customers (i.e. the whole feeding of trees thing) so I try to avoid it here, too. I meant no offense.

But, sugars and starches can be stored in root tissues, right?

the reason I belive root absorbtion is possible, is because sugar will dissolve completely in water forming a solution. So effectively, the plant would absorb it along with the water, much like it absorbs nitrogen that has been dissolved, forming a solution with water.

If the sugar did not dissolve, instead forming a suspension, I'd have to agree with you.

We can agree that our skin is capable of absorbtion, as dermal toxicity exists, but our skin is not made for the purpose of absorbtion, and tree roots are.

 

[begleytree]

absolutely no offense taken.
Gotta run for now, will post back later or in the am
-Ralph

 

[jbw]

sugar watering of trees

i read the article in the joa concerning this treatment. my perception was that the sugar drench somewhat tricks the tree. the tree believes that it has enough sugar so it doesn't increase its shoot growth (more leaves, more photo, more sugar). thus it encourages more root growth which is an important factor in the establishment of the trees.

has anyone else found this info?? i will be testing it this april on live oaks, pines, red maples and river birches. container grown for 2 years and i will be planting them into field conditions and monitoring the root shoot ration this year.

--in between evolution--

 

[begleytree]

Ok, talking animals, sugar is ingested, and is a major componet of dextrose, which the body uses as food. I find it compelling that we consume sugar, but dextrose solutions are fed to us via IV injections.
I seems to me that we can/do feed the tree with nutrients which comprise known food soultions to trees, and or other useful compounds that the tree converts to energy, wether stored or used, but we don't feed trees the actual food/energy directly. I believe that it is probably minute differences in formulations created within the tree itself which preclude the actual transferrence of exact (food) chemical compounds. As you know, the difference between water and alcohol is but one tiny hydrogen atom. But that one atom makes all the difference.
I also question wether the tree would be able to uptake such solutions directly. Roots uptake nutrients via osmosis, where chemicals/molecules/nutrients can move through a barrier (root walls) from an area of greater concentration, to one of lesser concentration. If the roots are already storing sugars in some form as food to begin with, how would these nutrients cross the gradient to an area within the root itself where they could be beneficial? I am assuming that the concentration of sugars being stored within the root system are at a much greater concentration than would be placed in the soil by man.
I doubt it would be of any help to the tree in the long run, but would be interested in seeing more long term research in the area.
-Ralph

 

[Doug01]

Sorry to cut in on this post.

Ralph, is your inbox full? Send me a PM.

Thanks,
Doug

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

I remember seeing there was a bell curve in efficacy of dosage in at least one study. This made sence to me with your point on osmosis. Sugar also being hygroscopic may cause some water to be drawn out of the tree if the dosage is too high.

Sugars are found in compst naturally, why would the tree not be able to utilize them?

Since I was only mildly interested at the time I did not keep all the lit I've read, but I allso saw that some sugars acted as sigaling chemicals in trees.

I may try it on some stressed silver maples, spike my seaweed sauce on spring fert.

There are a lot of big old SMP that are showing stress and declein with the repeated droughts we've been having here. I think a lot of it is the urban heat buble, you can watch the RADAR and systems break up, or split and go around the Milwaukee metro area.

 

[alanarbor]

Sugars are found in compost, but again the question is, are they utilized by the fungi and bacteria, or by the tree directly? The anecdotal evidence is strong that it has some benefit, but the real reason still seems to be elusive. That dosen't stop me from dumping molasses (unsulphured) into the brewer though.

I may have to try some plain sucrose applications, and follow with a soil test to see where the bacterial/fungal numbers go.

 

[begleytree]

Let me know how it comes out.

Doug, PM on the way

-Ralph

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

What I do is draw sap from a healthy tree and macro-inject it into a struggling tree.

 

[alanarbor]

Uh Huh...............

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Are you doubting me?

 

[begleytree]

I want to hear more about it. Like, how, and why, and what are the results.
-Ralph

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Are you doubting me?

Yes, that maple suryp costs you too much.