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 ArticleAbstracts

Abstracts

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) June 1976, 2 (6) 105; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/joa.1976.2.6.105
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Cannon, W.N. Jr., and D.P. Worley. 1976. Dutch elm disease control: performance and costs. USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE 345, NE Forest Expt. Station, Upper Darby, Pa.

Saving the elms has been a community goal in many of our cities and towns. Some communities are meeting that goal; some are holding their own; some have failed. In many areas highly-valued American elm trees have been virtually eliminated by Dutch elm disease. The methods of disease control have been aimed at blocking the transmission of the fungus to healthy elms by elm bark beetles and through root grafts between diseased and healthy elms. Municipal programs to suppress Dutch elm disease have had highly variable results. Performance as measured by tree mortality was unrelated to control strategies. Costs for control programs were 37 to 76 percent less than costs without control programs in the 15-year time-span of the study. Only those municipalities that conducted a high-performance program could be expected to retain 75 percent of their elms for more than 20 to 25 years. Communities that experienced the fewest elm losses had a well founded program, applied it conscientiously, and sustained their efforts over the years.

Gibbs, J.N. and J. Dickinson. 1975. Fungicide injection for the control of Dutch elm disease. Forestry 48(2):165-176.

In the last few years much research has been conducted in Britain and North America on the injection of soluble formulations based on benomyl and its breakdown product carbendazim (MBC) for the control of Dutch elm disease caused by Ceratocystis ulmi. The superiority of the benzimidazole fungicides, and in particular of carbendazim (MBC), over other fungicides was shown by injection experiments on both artificially inoculated and naturally infected young elm. With carbendazim the degree of control depended in great measure on the formulation, and some evidence was obtained that the commercial formulation of carbendazim hydrochloride (Lignasan) produced in 1974 was less effective than an experimental formulation of the same chemical. Benefits from injection with Lignasan were most marked on trees below 25 m in height. The effect of various factors such as time of day, season, weather conditions and tree size on the rate of fungicide uptake are considered.

  • © 1976, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 2, Issue 6
June 1976
  • 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) Jun 1976, 2 (6) 105; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1976.2.6.105

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) Jun 1976, 2 (6) 105; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1976.2.6.105
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