I've been told that as long as it isn't near other elms you should be able to plant a native. Here in RI we still have a bunch of big old elms, but the only ones that survived are single plantings(not close enough for root grafts). Does this sound reasonable to anyone else?
Yes,...and no.
The big story behind the american elms many years ago was that there were "mono-cultures" of elms: nothing lining a street but the same tree, often for miles. Once the pathogen was introduced to an area, it continued to spread from root grafts, and it wiped out all the shade trees for entire neighborhoods.
Nowadays, there are so few of the trees left, that the insects that might transmit the pathogen from tree to tree don't often come across another susceptible tree. In this case, isolation is a form of deterent, but it is not protection. If your tree is unlucky enough to catch a boring beetle that came from a diseased elm, it's all over with (after a few years)
Planting a young elm in a diverse planting area is not a bad idea either, as the younger trees are much less susceptible to the beetles that spread the disease. They aren't likely to get it until they are a bit more mature.
I am working on a trimming an apartment project right now that has ONE american elm on 33 acres of miserable looking siberian elms, about 8 monster pinoaks, and several decent linden trees. My lead climber and I were walking down the street and looked at the only great looking shade tree, and discovered that there was one survivor of the dutch elm disease.
I sort of wish there were more of them there: we didn't hardly have to touch that tree, the siberians are all pitiful excuses for shade trees.
