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

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry
  • Log in
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 ArticleArticles

Abstracts

International Society of Arboriculture
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) February 1988, 14 (2) 51; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/joa.1988.14.2.51
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

ANONYMOUS. 1987. A case study of the gypsy moth. Arbor Age 7(3): 12-13, 16, 18-20, 42-45.

The gypsy moth is a major defoliator of oak trees, birch trees, aspens, willows and others. Primarily it preys on the northeastern United States, but seemingly no area is safe. Early this year they were doing aerial spraying against the moth as far west as the Los Angeles suburb of Encino, CA. A scourge of forests primeval and urban, this deadly little tree pest doesn't always hit town on the wing. It's not too proud to hitch-hike. Some states have set up border inspections to reduce the migration of the gypsy moth by egg masses attached to trucks and campers. Gypsy moths kill trees by defoliating them-but not always. Sometimes recurrent attacks by the gypsies over a period of years, combined with a series of unfortunate circumstances, will result in dead, leafless trees. At other times, given fewer attacks and/or more favorable conditions, the trees will make a comeback. Whether a tree ends up as a cut-off stump or remains a functional, living plant after defoliation depends on how badly it was affected by losing its leaves. This in turn depends on several factors: how much foliage was eaten, whether the tree refoliated, how many years in succession the tree was defoliated, when during the year refoliation occurred, what the weather conditions were after defoliation, if disease organisms and other insects attacked the tree, how healthy or vigorous the tree was before defoliation.

SHIGO, ALEX L. 1987. Trees and people must communicate--or else! Arbor Age 7(3): 12-14, 16, 18, 20-21.

Making better medicine and more efficient tools is not going to be the complete answer to our problems in arboriculture. We must learn more about the entire system we're working with. We must learn more about trees. For this to happen, communication is necessary-communication from the trees to us, and from us to others. I define communication as transmission of information. This means that information goes from one source to another. And it is understood and accepted, and some action that supports survival takes place. What is information? It is news, intelligence, facts and ideas that are acquired and passed on as knowledge. Information is a message. And a message is the orderly arrangement of items or things. Not only must the arborist learn more about trees, he or she must also inform the public about trees. The right messages must be sent. We have a responsibility that goes far beyond mere public relations. We cannot go out and buy an image. We must acquire it. We have to work for it and earn it.

  • © 1988, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.
Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 14, Issue 2
February 1988
  • 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) Feb 1988, 14 (2) 51; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1988.14.2.51

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) Feb 1988, 14 (2) 51; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1988.14.2.51
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook 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

  • Contribution of Urban Trees to Ecosystem Services in Lisbon: A Comparative Study Between Gardens and Street Trees
  • Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) in Tree Risk Assessment (TRA): A Systematic Review
  • Assessing Biodiversity Associated with Four Monumental Trees in Madrid Region (Spain)
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire