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 ArticleArticles

Injection Site Wounding When Using Plant Growth Regulators

John A. Bleller
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) March 1991, 17 (3) 78-79; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/joa.1991.17.3.78
John A. Bleller
Union Electric Company, PO Box 149, Code 670, St. Louis, Missouri 63166
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Based on results of field examinations of over 800 trees injected with plant growth regulators, this utility has decided not to include plant growth regulators in our line clearance tool kit. Although the chemistry appears to be generally effective at growth regulation, delivery system side effects show damage to the tree which outweighs derived benefits from use of these materials.

Studies in recent years by chemical companies and utilities have shown that plant growth regulators (PGR) should be considered as a possible means to reducing the cost of right-of-way maintenance. While cost and product effectiveness have been demonstrated, little study on how the trunk injection method of chemical delivery may be of greater detriment to the health of the tree than derived cost: benefit has been offered. Field studies show that acceptance of the trunk injection method of chemical delivery may be in direct conflict with studies of recent years demonstrating wound compartmentalization of trees.

Materials and Methods

Plant growth regulators used by Union Electric in field studies were: paclobutrazol (Clipper® ), uniconazol (Prunit® ), and flurprimidol (Cutless® ). Arborchem 3-point injectors were used for all injections.

Based on the species and size of tree involved, a specified number of holes were drilled in the tree to accomodate the injector nozzles or probes. This is somewhat similar to the Mauget system except the holes are deeper and the material is forced into the tree with CO2 pressurization. These holes were drilled at a 45° angle to a depth of about 2½”. The injection probes were inserted and the product pressurized into the tree. Typically, the process takes less than 5 minutes for a tree of about 15” dbh.

All products are labeled for trunk injection with the same process used for each.

Results and Discussion

Five years of testing PGR’s have shown that although we are getting close to accurate on dosage and injection timing, the trunk injection process itself may not be the best delivery system. Problems observed externally and internally at the injection site have included wound weeping where drilled, trunk splitting above and below the injection site, wound compartmentalization extending from root flare to crown, and ring shake or internal separation of the growth rings. Problems not associated with the injection process itself have been unpredictable growth of occasional sprouts in a treated tree (also called fly-aways or escapes) and delayed bud break that could cause a problem aesthetically.

The problems of uncontrolled growth on sprouts and late bud break can possibly be resolved with additional time and study, leaving only the injection method for concern. Five trees cut down and examined at the University of Missouri School of Forestry indicate that the trees were wounded from the injection site down into the root flare and up into the crown. The compartmentalized wood was directly attributed to the drill wound and subsequent PGR injection. Trees compartmentalize in response to an injury. Inability to determine the boundaries of the wound during future re-injections will assure damage to some of the compartmentalized areas, resulting in a spread of the decayed/rotten wood.

Trunk splitting above and below some injection sites indicate that the cambium is somehow being injured during the injection process. These splits may become quite large as tree circumference expands in successive years. Close attention was paid to angle, depth of hole and lack of drill movement in considering the injection process. To assure that tolerances were maintained all work was done by Union Electric foresters or chemical company representatives.

Weeping or fluxing was observed at the site of the injection holes of several of the treated trees. Some have continued to weep for two or three seasons following treatment. One obvious drawback is aesthetic in nature, since the weeping stains the trunk a lighter color. The other problem with fluxing or weeping is that in order for a tree to do this, bacteria are usually present. Although we have not cultured for bacteria, this type infection would serve to weaken the tree, reduce its longevity, and offer the possibility of drills and probes vectoring the bacteria from tree to tree.

Ring shade (internal separation of growth rings) was noted on 2 of the 5 trees cut down. The separation of wood appears to have been caused by the injection process either due to pressure or liquid volume. It is not known how extensive this problem is, but field observations should now include ring shake as possible injection damage.

Although the visible problems were not present on a large percentage of the treated trees, they do exist with a persistent regularity. Our studies indicate that the problems exist in a large percentage, if not 100%, of the treated trees. The use of PGRs to effectively reduce the cost of line clearance operations is a goal worthy of continued study. Systematic, intentional wounding of trees to achieve this goal is not the direction Union Electric has chosen.

Future studies of PGRs should include exploration of alternate, non-invasive delivery systems that will allow chemical delivery with no adverse physiological damage to the tree. The addition of a qualified, neutral third party, to collect and evaluate field results would assure standardized, observed field data. The current process of having only the utility and chemical companies involved does not allow for direct, unbiased data collection.

Clipper® is a registered trademark of Imperial Chemical Industries PLC.

Prunit® is a registered trademark of Sumitomo Chemical Company Ltd.

Cutless® is a registered trademark of Elanco Products Company.

Footnotes

  • ↵1. Presented at the annual conference of the International Society of Arboriculture in Toronto, Ontario in August 199.

  • © 1991, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 17, Issue 3
March 1991
  • 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.
Injection Site Wounding When Using Plant Growth Regulators
(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
Injection Site Wounding When Using Plant Growth Regulators
John A. Bleller
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Mar 1991, 17 (3) 78-79; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1991.17.3.78

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Injection Site Wounding When Using Plant Growth Regulators
John A. Bleller
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Mar 1991, 17 (3) 78-79; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1991.17.3.78
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
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results and Discussion
    • Footnotes
  • 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

  • Hardscape of Soil Surface Surrounding Urban Trees Alters Stem Carbon Dioxide Efflux
  • Literature Review of Unmanned Aerial Systems and LIDAR with Application to Distribution Utility Vegetation Management
  • Borrowed Credentials and Surrogate Professional Societies: A Critical Analysis of the Urban Forestry Profession
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2023 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire