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
AbstractsAbstracts

Abstracts

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 1984, 10 (5) 151; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/joa.1984.10.5.151
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

NORRIS, C.A. 1983. Native plants in the landscape blend regional distinctiveness with low maintenance. Am. Nurseryman 157(6): 98-102, 106-112, 114, 116, 118-120, 122.

With the increasingly fast pace of life in America, more and more homeowners are demanding low-maintenance landscapes. Companies want less energy-intensive grounds for their office buildings. Landscaping with native plants can satisfy both of these requirements. Not only do they need less maintenance than introduced, exotic species, but they also express the distinctiveness of the local area. Once nonnatives were considered rare; now they are common in landscapes. The opposite is true of native plants in the landscape, which now seem exotic because of their lack of use in recent history. Some introduced species blend well with native species in the landscape and should be considered. But overusing certain introduced species has resulted in a sameness in traditional landscapes across broad regions of the U.S. And these landscapes are increasingly expensive to maintain.

GOUGH, PAUL. 1983. Bacillus thuringiensis applied by air works against gypsy moth. Frontiers of Plant Science 35(1): 2-3.

The gypsy moth has periodically caused widespread defoliation and many landowenrs turned to insecticides for relief. Although ground spraying provides control, aerial application costs less per acre, uses less insecticide, and is the only practical means of treating large acreages. State regulations prohibit aerial application of chemical insecticides on residential and forest land, so only biological materials, such as the bacterial insecticide, β. thuringiensis (Bt), may be used. New strains and improved formulations more toxic to gypsy moth caterpillars have recently been developed. Therefore, the Experiment Station, the U.S. Forest Service, and the State Department of Environmental Protection cooperated in two years of testing of three new strains and formulations of Bt for gypsy moth control. In these experiments, one application of an increased dose of 1.5 qts/acre was virtually as effective as two treatments at the standard rate of 1 qt/acre per treatment. Therefore, equal protection was obtained at the cost of one application.

  • © 1984, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 10, Issue 5
May 1984
  • 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.
Abstracts
(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
Abstracts
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 1984, 10 (5) 151; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1984.10.5.151

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Abstracts
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) May 1984, 10 (5) 151; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1984.10.5.151
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

  • Abstracts
  • Abstracts
  • Abstracts
Show more Abstracts

Similar Articles

© 2023 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire