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

Effects of Trunk-Injected Abamectin on the Elm Leaf Beetle

Mark O. Harrell and Philip A. Pierce
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) January 1994, 20 (1) 1-3; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1994.001
Mark O. Harrell
Department of Forestry, Fisheries & Wildlife University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Philip A. Pierce
2City Forester, Parks Department, City of Omaha, 1523 S. 24th St., Omaha, NE 68108
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Elm leaf beetle defoliation ratings for trees treated in May with trunk-injected abamectin and for untreated controls.

    Defoliation rating
    JuneAugust
    TreatmentMedianRangeMedianRange
    Abamectin0 a0 - 10 a0 - 1
    Control2 b1 - 42 b1 - 4
    • Defoliation rating scale: 0 (no detectable defoliation) to 9 (defoliation near 100%). Medians in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different (p < 0.01, determined nonparametrically using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test).

    • View popup
    Table 2.

    Number of elm leaf beetle larvae surviving six days after feeding on leaves from abamectin-injected and untreated trees collected 83 days after treatment.

    Number of larvae surviving (mean ± SE)
    TreatmentOld foliage (5 larvae)New foliage (3 larvae)
    Abamectin2.0 + 0.6 a1.4 + 0.3 a
    Control4.8 ± 0.1 b2.8 ± 0.1 b
    • New foliage: leaves that were not present at the time of treatment (except within buds). Old foliage: leaves that were expanded at the time of treatment. Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly different (p < 0.001, t-test for means with unequal variances).

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 20, Issue 1
January 1994
  • 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.
Effects of Trunk-Injected Abamectin on the Elm Leaf Beetle
(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
Effects of Trunk-Injected Abamectin on the Elm Leaf Beetle
Mark O. Harrell, Philip A. Pierce
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jan 1994, 20 (1) 1-3; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1994.001

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Effects of Trunk-Injected Abamectin on the Elm Leaf Beetle
Mark O. Harrell, Philip A. Pierce
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jan 1994, 20 (1) 1-3; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1994.001
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results and Discussion
    • Summary
    • Acknowledgment
    • Footnotes
    • Literature Cited
  • Figures & Data
  • 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

  • Using the CSR Theory when Selecting Woody Plants for Urban Forests: Evaluation of 342 Trees and Shrubs
  • Right Appraisal for the Right Purpose: Comparing Techniques for Appraising Heritage Trees in Australia and Canada
  • Urban Tree Mortality: The Purposes and Methods for (Secretly) Killing Trees Suggested in Online How-To Videos and Their Diagnoses
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire