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

Ontario Hydro as a Potential User of Tree Growth Regulators

Geoffrey P. Arron
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) April 1991, 17 (4) 103-104; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1991.028
Geoffrey P. Arron
Associate Research Scientist, Biological Research Section, Chemical Research Department, Ontario Hydro Research Division, 800 Kipling Ave, Toronto, Ontario M8Z 5S4.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Inconsistent results have been obtained after application tree growth regulators (TGRs). The most popular method of application (trunk injection) results in bark damage, wood staining, and bleeding injection holes, and the few economic analyses that have been reported suggest that only those trees that are expensive to trim and/or are trimmed on a short cycle are worth treating. Given the predominance of long trimming cycles in Ontario, the concern of the public over the use of pesticides, and the problems that arise after their application, the trunk injection of TGRs would not be a useful addition to the operational tree trimming program of Ontario Hydro.

The trimming of problem trees under or beside distribution lines on city streets and in rural areas is a major expense for electrical utilities. Such trimming is conducted on a three to eight year cycle depending on the individual species growth rate and the amount of line clearance required. Extensive studies have shown that tree growth regulators (TRGs) are effective in inhibiting the growth of woody and non-woody plants (for a review see 4) and therefore they could be extremely useful in an operational tree trimming program.

While trimming cycles in Ontario are usually long, there are a number of trees which are trimmed every three or four years. Some work has been conducted in Ontario to determine if TGRs could have a role in operational trimming (1,2). In these and other studies (3, 5, 6, 7) the problems associated with the various methods of application of TGRs have been evident. For all application methods there have been instances of poor uniformity of response and differences in the response of the same species growing in different parts of North America. With bark banding there have been reports of bark damage (3) and with soil applications (basal drench or soil injection) there is concern over groundwater contamination and/or runoff. With trunk injection the problems of slow injection times, bark damage (lightning strikes), bleeding holes and staining of the wood have all been reported (2, 5, 6, 7). Questions concerning the re-injection of trees have not yet been answered. While trunk injection has been the most popular method of application of TGRs an alternative method which does not involve the use of alcohol carriers and pressure injection remains attractive. Such a method might be the insertion of capsules filled with a TGR. Some trees have been treated with flurprimidol and uniconazole capsules but there have been no reports of their effects on growth over the long term. Uniformity of response may be an important issue with capsules, although such an application method would appear to have advantages over trunk injection in that capsules would be quick and easy to apply, and the wound response might be less significant. Capsules would probably be a cheaper application method than trunk injection while retaining the advantage of a “closed system” in that the chemical is placed within the tree and not at the tree/soil interface (as with both basal drench and soil injection).

There have been few reports published on the cost effectiveness of TGR applications. Perhaps the most useful comes from a four-year study performed by Potomac Edison (6). With an average clearance of 2 m (6 ft) a trim only cycle of one year costing $41.80 per tree per year could be extended to a four year trim and inject cycle costing $15.54 per tree per year (annual savings of 63%). Similarly with a clearance of 4 m (12 ft) a four year trim only cycle costing $11.99 per tree per year could be extended to an eight year trim and inject cycle costing $9.23 per tree per year (annual savings of 23%). Thus with longer cycles the possibility of saving money is far less than with shorter cycles.

Two models of the cost savings associated with TGR use have been presented. Both were theoretical models which did not use cost data obtained from field studies with trees treated (or not) with TGRs (7, 8). Hydro Quebec (7) found that in the Richelieu district it would be economic to treat only a few trees (4,200 out of 254,000) in the district. Calculated savings of $15,000 per year on an operating budget of about $1 m per year would provide no justification for using TGRs. In a second model published earlier (8) Wagar reported that the sooner you can generate annual savings the higher the internal rate of return (IRR). Where other things are equal, the IRR will be highest where species respond quickly to TGRs, where trimming cycles are short, and where TGRs give the greatest extension of the trimming cycle. There would be no benefit in treating trees that are inexpensive to trim. It is unfortunate that there is an almost total lack of published data on the cost savings achieved through the use of TGRs on an operational basis.

In Ontario the use of pesticides has become an emotional issue as far as the public is concerned. In 1990 the Pesticide Act in Ontario was changed and posting/notification is now required 24 hours before application and 48 hours after. These changes could affect any future TGR applications. There are alternatives to the continued trimming of trees under distribution lines. Tree replacement provides a long term solution to the trimming problem. Trees and shrubs can be planted in the appropriate places on the owner’s property enhancing the landscape and perhaps contributing to home energy efficiency. On the basis of these considerations and the problems associated with TGR use discussed earlier, there does not appear to be a place for TGRs in the Ontario Hydro vegetation management strategy at present.

Footnotes

  • ↵1. Presented at the annual conference of the International Society of Arboriculture in Toronto in August 1990.

  • © 1991, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.↵
    1. Arron, G.P.
    1986. Effect of trunk injection of flurprimidol and paclobutrazol on sprout growth in silver maple. J. Arboric. 12:233–236.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. Arron, G.P.
    1990. Field evaluation of the growth regulator uniconazole (XE-1019)—second year data. Ontario Hydro Research Division Report No. 89-281 K.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Campidonica, M.
    1988. Basic research, tree growth regulators. Presented at the Third Annual Tree Growth Regulator Symposium, San Diego, CA, February 29-March 3, 1988.
  4. 4.
    1. J. Janik
    1. Davis, T.D.,
    2. G.L. Steffens, and
    3. N. Sankhla
    . 1989. Triazole plant growth regulators. In Horticultural Reviews 10, 63–105 [ed.] J. Janik, Timber Press, Portland, OR.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Kimball, S.L.
    1990. The physiology of tree growth regulators. J. Arboric. 16:39–41.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Potomac Edison
    1990. Tree growth regulator study: final report. Environmental Consultants inc.
  7. 7.↵
    1. Hydro Quebec
    1989. Controle de la vegetation des lignes de distribution d’energie par injection d’inhibiteurs de croissance (1985-1988). F.R.D.F. inc et Arbo Conseil inc.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Wagar, J.A.
    1988. Estimating the cost-effectiveness of tree growth regulators. Presented at the Third Annual Tree Growth Regulator Symposium, San Diego, CA, February 29-March 3, 1988.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 17, Issue 4
April 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.
Ontario Hydro as a Potential User of Tree 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
Ontario Hydro as a Potential User of Tree Growth Regulators
Geoffrey P. Arron
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Apr 1991, 17 (4) 103-104; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1991.028

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Ontario Hydro as a Potential User of Tree Growth Regulators
Geoffrey P. Arron
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Apr 1991, 17 (4) 103-104; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1991.028
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
    • Footnotes
    • Literature Cited
  • 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

  • Perceived Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Private-Sector Urban and Community Forestry in the Southern United States
  • London Plane Bark Exfoliation and Tree-Ring Growth in Urban Environments
  • Evaluating the Reproducibility of Tree Risk Assessment Ratings Across Commonly Used Methods
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2023 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire