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

Sprays Ineffective for Preventing Sapsucker Damage on Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum)

E. Thomas Smiley, Donald C. Booth and Liza Wilkinson
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) January 2009, 35 (1) 20-22; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2009.005
E. Thomas Smiley
E. Thomas Smiley (corresponding author), Bartlett Tree Research Lab, 13768 Hamilton Rd, Charlotte, NC 28278, U.S.,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
Donald C. Booth
Donald C. Booth, Bartlett Tree Research Lab, 13768 Hamilton Rd, Charlotte, NC 28278, U.S.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
Liza Wilkinson
Liza Wilkinson, Bartlett Tree Research Lab, 13768 Hamilton Rd, Charlotte, NC 28278, U.S.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Total counts of active sapsucker holes in 1.8 m (5.9 ft) sections of five sugar maple trunks that were treated with a repellant treatment or left untreated. Treatments were applied on 15 October 2006 and 27 November 2006. There were no statistically significant reductions in the number of holes among any treatment and the control at any evaluation date.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Results of analysis of variance, which compared the number of active holes for each treatment and the nontreated control at each inspection.z

    Date of countSum of squaresdfMean squareFSignificance
    Pretreatment count
    15 November 2006
    Between groups         4.367  3        1.4561.8730.175
    Within groups       12.43316        0.777
    Total       16.80019
    23 October 2006Between groups         9.617  3        3.2065.5850.008
    Within groups         9.18316        0.574
    Total       18.80019
    30 October 2006Between groups       19.300  3        6.4335.0210.012
    Within groups       20.50016        1.281
    Total       39.80019
    6 November 2006Between groups       10.300  3        3.4330.8390.492
    Within groups       65.50016        4.094
    Total       75.80019
    13 November 2006Between groups       76.317  3      25.4391.2780.316
    Within groups     318.48316      19.905
    Total     394.80019
    20 November 2006Between groups       25.917  3        8.6390.5420.660
    Within groups     255.03316      15.940
    Total     280.95019
    27 November 2006Between groups       69.350  3      23.1170.6340.604
    Within groups     583.45016      36.466
    Total     652.80019
    4 December 2006Between groups       73.750  3      24.5830.3430.794
    Within groups  1,145.45016      71.591
    Total  1,219.20019
    11 December 2006Between groups       65.417  3      21.8060.2580.855
    Within groups  1,353.13316      84.571
    Total  1,418.55019
    Final count 29 January 2007Between groups  1,093.267  3    364.4220.2580.855
    Within groups22,631.28316  1,414.455
    Total23,724.55019
    • ↵zSignificance was found on two dates, 23 October and 30 October, when there were more holes with the Crop Guardian treatment than all other treatments.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF): 35 (1)
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 35, Issue 1
January 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • 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.
Sprays Ineffective for Preventing Sapsucker Damage on Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum)
(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
Sprays Ineffective for Preventing Sapsucker Damage on Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum)
E. Thomas Smiley, Donald C. Booth, Liza Wilkinson
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jan 2009, 35 (1) 20-22; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2009.005

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Sprays Ineffective for Preventing Sapsucker Damage on Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum)
E. Thomas Smiley, Donald C. Booth, Liza Wilkinson
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Jan 2009, 35 (1) 20-22; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.2009.005
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
    • DISCUSSION
    • 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

  • 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
  • Thiabendazole as a Therapeutic Root Flare Injection for Beech Leaf Disease Management
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Bitrex
  • methyl anthraniltate
  • Sphyrapicus varius
  • thiram
  • trunk sprays
  • yellow-bellied sapsucker

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire