Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Green ash street trees in East Lansing, Michigan in August 2009 just before trees were felled for this study: a) tree receiving TREE-äge trunk injections in fall 2005; b) control tree.
- Figure 2.
Cross-sections of tree trunks cut just below the injection sites. a) Trunk injections to this tree were made in autumn 2005 only, four injection sites with TREE-äge. b) Trunk injections to this tree were made in autumn 2006 and again in spring 2008, four injection sites per treatment. Discoloration columns due to trunk injections are still visible but there is no evidence of decay.
- Figure 3.
Relationship of the radial ring growth of 16 study trees in 2009 to canopy thinning and dieback ratings of the same trees made in July of 2009.
- Figure 4.
Section of trunk from untreated control tree with bark removed showing extensive tunneling from EAB infestation. EAB larvae feed in the vascular cambium below the bark: left unchecked, they effectively girdled the green ash tree.
- Figure 5.
Longitudinal section through injection sites of three healthy trees that were protected from EAB with IMA-jet or TREE-äge. a) Tree felled three years after the trunk injection and the injection plug was encapsulated. b) Tree felled four years after injection and the injection plug was extruded. c) Tree felled three years after trunk injection using the large diameter plug, which was also encapsulated.
Tables
- Table 1.
Tree wound responses to trunk injection for 14 green ash trees in varying stages of health, as reflected by canopy thinning and dieback ratings in the two years following trunk injections (bold text). Cambial injury, wound closure, and ring growth data are means ± sD for four or five injection sites per tree. Trees with an increased rate of ring growth following trunk injection are indicated by an asterisk (*) while trees with a decreased rate of ring growth are indicated in bold text (P = 0.05, paired t-test).
Tree Insecticide g ai/g formulation Treatment year Canopy thinning and dieback (%) Cambial injury (cm2) Wound closure year 1 (%) Wound closure year 2 (%) Ring growth (cm) 2006 2007 2008 2009 Before injection year 2 Before injection year 1 After injection year 1 After injection year 2 1 Emamectin
0.04Autumn
20053 8 5 0 3.0±1.1 44.1±9.5 79.8±10.3 0.34±0.09 0.38±0.20 0.58±0.18* 0.44±0.17 2 Emamectin
0.04Autumn
20050 23 25 13 4.2±0.5 42.4±4.3 90.0±0.0 0.75±0.24 0.75±0.31 0.93±0.17 1.28±0.21* 3 Emamectin
0.04Spring
200825 10 10 10 5.8±8.0 47.6±30.7 71.6±26.8 0.70±0.27 0.65±0.47 0.78±0.49 0.63±0.32 4 Emamectin
0.04Spring
200815 5 13 5 2.9±0.6 45.5±12.2 80.3±17.3 0.84±0.32 0.70±0.40 0.76±0.17 0.68±0.16 5 Imidacloprid
0.05Autumn
200513 3 40 60 3.8±1.1 36.3±4.8 73.7±10.6 0.80±0.07 0.82±0.15 0.74± 0.13 0.76±0.19 6 Imidacloprid
0.05Autumn
20053 3 10 55 1.2±0.2 80.3±11.2 90.0±0.0 1.00±0.28 1.05±0.30 0.93±0.19 0.65±0.10 7 Imidacloprid
0.20Autumn
20055 8 23 55 2.6±0.5 38.4±3.8 74.6±11.4 0.43±0.26 0.43±0.33 0.58±0.05 0.55±0.19 8 Imidacloprid
0.20Autumn
20055 10 38 83 2.2±0.8 71.8±17.1 90.0±0.0 0.96±0.21 1.10±0.17 1.26±0.27 1.10±0.07 9 Acephate
0.97Spring
20068 8 10 30 3.5±0.9 49.0±9.9 82.1±10.2 0.90±0.23 0.93±0.21 0.88±0.17 0.70±0.27 10 Acephate
0.97Spring
20060 20 20 80 4.1±1.1 46.3±7.0 80.0±13.0 0.86±0.13 0.74±0.17 0.94±0.05 0.56±0.05 11 Imidacloprid
0.20Spring
200810 10 25 18 5.6±3.5 27.5±6.0 40.0±19.7 0.68±0.15 0.68±0.13 0.48±0.05 0.18±0.20 12 Imidacloprid
0.20Spring
200845 40 50 48 3.6±1.9 27.7±9.3 39.1±7.2 0.44±0.15 0.50±0.27 0.36±0.09 0.14±0.13 13 Imidacloprid
0.05Spring
20085 5 25 5 7.7±6.1 33.1±14.9 64.1±29.1 0.63±0.19 0.60±0.32 0.65±0.29 0.63±0.30 14 Imidacloprid
0.05Spring
200838 28 18 30 2.8±0.7 56.7±18.9 87.7±5.2 0.80±0.16 0.88±0.13 0.94±0.13 0.76±0.19 15 None - 38 58 60 88 - - - 0.13±0.05 0.07±0.01 0.06±0.02 0.09±0.02 16 None - 15 20 88 100 - - - 0.13±0.03 0.27±0.04 0.23±0.17 0.06±0.08
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.