Dieback and Declines of Urban Trees

Bibliography

General

1. 1. Houston, D.R.

   1967.The dieback and decine of northeastern hardwoods. Trees 28: 12–14.

   OpenUrl
2. 1. Houston, D.R.

   1973.Diebacks and declines: Diseases initiated by stress, including defoliation. Proc. Int. Shade Tree Conf. 49: 73–76.
3. 1. Houston, D.R.

   1974. Diagnosing and preventing diebacks and declines.Morton Arbor. Q. 10(4): 55–59.

   OpenUrl
4. 1. Houston, D.R.,
   2. J. Parker, and
   3. P.M. Wargo

   . 1981. Effects of defoliation on trees and stands. Chapter 5. In: The gypsy moth: Research toward integrated pest management.U.S. Dept. Agric. Tech. Bull. 1584.
5. 1. Houston, D.R.

   1981. Stress triggered tree diseases: The diebacks and declines. U.S. Dept. Agric. For. Serv. NE- INF-41–81.36 p.
6. 1. Houston, D.R.

   1981. Some dieback and decline diseases of northeastern forest trees:Forest management considerations. In: Proc., Annu. Silvic. Workshop p. 248–265.
7. 1. Houston, D.R.

   1982. Basic concepts of diebacks-declines. In: Proc., Urban and Suburban Trees: Pest Problems, Needs, Prospects, and Solutions Conf. p. 57–60.
8. 1. Houston, D.R.

   1984.Diebacks and declines of urban trees. In: Proc., Int. Symp. Urban Hortic . p. 235–249.
9. 1. Messenger, A.S.

   1976.Root competition: Grass effects on trees. J. Arboric. 2:228–230.

   OpenUrl
10. 1. Roberts, B.R.

    1977.The response of urban trees to abiotic stress. J. Arboric. 3: 75–78.

    OpenUrl
11. 1. Schoeneweiss, D.F.

    1975. Predisposition, stress, and plant disease. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 13: 193–211.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
12. 1. Schoeneweiss, D.F.

    1978. The influence of stress on diseases of nursery and landscape plants. J. Arboric. 4: 217–225.

    OpenUrl
13. 1. Schoeneweiss, D.F.

    1981. Infectious diseases of trees associated with water and freezing stress. J. Arboric. 7: 13–18.

    OpenUrl
14. 1. Sinclair, W.A.

    1964. Comparisons of recent declines of white ash, oaks, and sugar maple in northeastern woodlands. Cornell Plant. 20: 62–67.

    OpenUrl

Ash Dieback and Decline

1. 1. Hibben, C.R., and
   2. S.B. Silverborg.

   1978. Severity and causes of ash dieback. J. Arboric. 4: 274–279.

   OpenUrl
2. 1. Hibben, C.R., and
   2. J.A. Reese.

   1983. Identification of tomato ringspot virus and mycoplasma-like organisms in stump sprouts of ash. Phytopathology 73: 367.Abstr.

   OpenUrl
3. 1. Lana, A.O., and
   2. G.N. Agrios.

   1974. Properties of a strain of tobacco mosaic virus isolated from white ash trees. Phytopathology64: 1490–1495.

   OpenUrl
4. 1. Marshall, R.P.

   1930. A canker of ash. Proc., Sixth Natl. Shade Tree Conf. p. 128–130.
5. 1. Matteoni, J.A.

   1983. Yellows diseases of elm and ash: water relations, vectors, and role of yellows in ash decline. Dissertation Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. 152 pp.
6. 1. Ross, E.W.

   1964. Cankers associated with ash dieback. Phytopathology 54: 272–275.

   OpenUrl
7. 1. Ross, E.W.

   1966. Ash dieback: etiological and developmental studies. N.Y. State Coll. For., Tech. Pub. 88. 80 pp.
8. 1. Silverborg, S.B., and
   2. R.W. Brandt.

   1957. Association ofCytophoma pruinosa with dying ash. For. Sci. 3: 75–78.

   OpenUrl
9. 1. Silverborg, S.B., and
   2. E.W. Ross.

   1968. Ash dieback disease development in New York State. Plant Dis. Rep. 52: 105–107.

   OpenUrl

Beech Bark Disease

1. 1. Ehrlich, J.

   1934. The beech bark disease, a Nectria disease of Fagus following Cryptococcus fagi (Baer.). Can. J. Res. 10: 593–692.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
2. 1. Houston, D.R.

   1983. Developments in biological control of beech bark disease. In: Proc., 10th Inti. Congress of Plant Protection, p. 1035–1041.
3. 1. Houston, D.R

   . 1984. What is happening to the American beech? The Conservationist, May-June p. 22–25.
4. 1. Houston, D.R.,
   2. E.J. Parker,
   3. R. Perrin, and
   4. K.J. Lang

   . 1979. Beech bark disease: A comparison of the disease in North America, Great Britain, France and Germany. Eur. J. For. Path. 9: 199–211.

   OpenUrl
5. 1. Shigo, A.L.

   1964. Organism interactions in the beech bark disease. Phytopathology54: 263–269.

   OpenUrl

Dogwood

1. 1. Daughtrey, M.L.

   1983. Lower branch dieback, a new disease of northeastern dogwoods. Phytopathology 73: 365 Abstr.

   OpenUrl

Maple Declines

1. 1. Drilias, M.J.,
   2. J.E. Kuntz, and
   3. G.L. Worf

   . 1982. The role of Phytophthora and Fusarium in Wisconsin maple decline. In: Urban and Suburban Trees: Pest Problems, Needs, Prospects and Solutions Conf. p. 65–67.
2. 1. Giese, R.L.,
   2. D.R. Houston,
   3. D.M. Benjamin,
   4. J.E. Kuntz,
   5. J.E. Kapler and
   6. D.D. Skilling.

   1964. Studies of maple blight. Univ. Wis. Res. Bull. 250. 128 p.

   OpenUrl
3. 1. Hibben, C.R.

   1962. Investigations of sugar maple decline in the Northeast. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. 301 p.
4. 1. Lacasse, N.L., and
   2. A.E. Rich.

   1964. Maple decline in New Hampshire. Phytopathology 54: 1071–1075.

   OpenUrl
5. 1. Parker, J, and
   2. D.R. Houston.

   1971. Effects of repeated defoliation on root and root collar extractives of sugar maple trees. For. Sci. 17: 91–95.

   OpenUrl
6. 1. Wargo, P.M.

   1972. Defoliation-induced chemical changes in sugar maple roots stimulate growth of Armillaria mellea. Phytopathology 62: 1278–1283.

   OpenUrl
7. 1. Wargo, P.M. and
   2. D.R. Houston

   1974. Infection of defoliated sugar maple trees by Armillaria mellea. Phytopathology 64: 817–822.

   OpenUrl
8. 1. Wargo, P.M.,
   2. J. Parker, and
   3. D.R. Houston.

   1972. Starch contents of roots of defoliated sugar maple. For. Sci. 18: 203–204.

   OpenUrl

Oak Declines

1. 1. Dunbar, D.M., and
   2. G.R. Stephens.

   1974. Association of twolined chestnut borer and shoestring fungus with mortality of defoliated oak in Connecticut. For. Sci. 21: 169–174.

   OpenUrl
2. 1. Houston, D.R., and
   2. H.T. Valentine.

   1977. Comparing and predicting forest stand susceptibility to gypsy moth. Can. J. For. Res. 7: 447–461.

   OpenUrl
3. 1. Kegg, J.D.

   1973. Oak mortality caused by repeated gypsy moth defoliation of oak in New Jersey. J. Econ. Entomol. 66: 639–641.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
4. 1. McManus, M.L.,
   2. D.R. Houston, and
   3. W.E. Wallner.

   1979. The homeowner and the gypsy moth: Guidelines for control 227. U.S. Dept. Agric. Home and Gard. Bull. 34 p.
5. 1. Nichols, J.O.

   1968. Oak mortality in Pennsylvania. A 10-year study. J. For. 66: 681–694.

   OpenUrl
6. 1. Roane, M.K.,
   2. R.J. Stipes,
   3. P.M. Phipps, and
   4. O.K. Miller, Jr.

   1974. Endothia gyrosa, causal pathogen of pin oak blight. Mycologia 66: 1042–1047.
7. 1. Staley, J.M.

   1965. Decline and mortality of red and scarlet oaks. For. Sci. 11: 2–17.

   OpenUrl
8. 1. Stipes, R.J., and
   2. P.M. Phipps.

   1971. A species of Endothia associated with a canker disease of pin oak (Quercus palustris) in Virginia. Plant Dis. Rep. 55: 467–469.

   OpenUrlWeb of Science
9. 1. Ware, G.H.

   1970. The destructible oak. Morton Arbor. Q. 6: 42–47.

   OpenUrl
10. 1. Ware, G.H.

    1982. Decline in oaks associated with urbanization. In: Proc., Urban and Suburban Trees: Pest Problems, Needs, Prospects and Solutions Conf.. 61–64.
11. 1. Wargo, P.M.

    1977. Armillariella mellea and Agrilus bilineatus and mortality of defoliated oak trees. For. Sci. 23: 485–492.

    OpenUrlWeb of Science
12. 1. Wargo, P.M.

    1978. Defoliation by the gypsy moth: How it hurts your tree. U.S. Dept. Agric. Home and Gard. Bull 223. 15 p.
13. 1. Wargo, P.M.

    1978. Insects have defoliated my tree — now what‘s going to happen? J. Arboric. 4: 169–175.

    OpenUrl