Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • All Issues
  • Contribute
    • Submit to AUF
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
  • About
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • Journal Metrics
    • International Society of Arboriculture
  • More
    • Contact
    • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Research ArticleArticle

Abstract

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) November 1975, 1 (11) 218; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/joa.1975.1.11.218
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Cuthbert, R. A., W. N. Cannon. Jr., and J. W. Peacock. 1975. Relative importance of root grafts and bark beetles to the spread of Dutch elm disease. USDA Forest Service Research Note NE-206. 4 p.

Root-graft transmission of Dutch elm disease (DED) is sometimes ignored in both research studies and city programs to control DED. We conducted studies in Detroit, Michigan to (1) distinguish between root-graft and beetle-transmitted cases of Dutch elm disease, and (2) determine the relative importance of both kinds of disease transmission. Our results indicate that elms adjacent to 1-, 2-, or 3-year-old stumps have a disease rate three to five times higher than elms not adjacent to stumps. We conclude that in Detroit, which has elm plantings typical of many United States cities, root grafts were probably responsible for more than 50 per cent of the DED transmission in 1973.

  • © 1975, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 1, Issue 11
November 1975
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Arboriculture & Urban Forestry.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Abstract
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Arboriculture & Urban Forestry web site.
Citation Tools
Abstract
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Nov 1975, 1 (11) 218; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1975.1.11.218

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Abstract
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Nov 1975, 1 (11) 218; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1975.1.11.218
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Efficacy of Bacillus Thuringiensis and Diflubenzuron on Douglas-Fir and Oak for Gypsy Moth Control in Oregon
  • Effects Of Special Right-Of-Way Maintenance On An Avian Population
  • Abstract
Show more Article

Similar Articles

© 2023 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire