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
International Society of Arboriculture
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) September 1978, 4 (9) 207; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/joa.1978.4.9.207
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACTS

Listen

Birch, M.E. et al. 1977. Pheromone traps to suppress populations of the smaller European elm bark beetle. California Agriculture 31(11): 4-6.

The principal vector for the Dutch elm disease pathogen is the smaller European elm bark beetle. The beetles, known since 1951 to occur in California, reproduce in dead or dying elm wood. Feeding that occurs in the spring or early summer results in general infections because the spores can be quickly carried to all parts of a tree by the long xylem vessels of the spring wood. Using the aggregation pheromone (multilure) as a bait, sticky card traps can be used to kill large numbers of this beetle. We have been conducting a study to determine the efficacy of a pheromone based trap-out strategy to reduce the size of isolated populations of bark beetles in eastern California.

Edwards, Art. 1978. Vegetation management. Grounds Maintenance 13(2): 24-25, 28, 30.

Plans for vegetation management today include much more than merely knocking down excess growth, particularly weeds and brush. For a number of years utilities have been hiring qualified technical people who know every sprig of vegetation, and how it may or may not fit into an aesthetically pleasing and usable right of way. Chemical control today should consist of selectively killing only those species which unduly limit access or which may endanger the power lines. Plant communities are more or less planned and maintained to utilize as many native species as possible with only the undesirable tree species being killed off. Overall beautification is the key and brown-out, where total populations are killed off, is limited to less sensitive geographic areas. Turfgrass managers, golf superintendents and others need technical knowledge as never before. Their position is always sensitive because any use of chemicals must conform environmentally. Yet park visitors, golfers, and others who use turfgrass or merely enjoy it aesthetically seldom opt for lesser quality. The new season will be no different. Users still want the best. Following are case histories which exemplify successful applications.

Shurtleff, M.C. 1978. Why not grow disease-resistant trees? Grounds Maintenance 13(2): 38, 40, 43-44, 46.

The ideal method of controlling troublesome tree diseases is to grow resistant varieties (cultivars) and species. Selecting and growing such trees, where well adapted, will reduce your maintenance costs since these plants are less likely to require special sprays or additional care for disease control. Selecting resistant cultivars can reduce maintenance time and costs because such trees require less specialized care. This article, first in a series, recommends varieties resistant to Phomopsis blight, Verticillium wilt, crown gall, and leaf blotch.

  • © 1978, International Society of Arboriculture. All rights reserved.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 4, Issue 9
September 1978
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
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.
(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
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Sep 1978, 4 (9) 207; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1978.4.9.207

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Sep 1978, 4 (9) 207; DOI: 10.48044/joa.1978.4.9.207
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook 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

  • 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

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire