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

Wood Pole Maintenance

Robert E. Birtz
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) March 1979, 5 (3) 65-69; DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.1979.015
Robert E. Birtz
  • 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
  • Fig. 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1.

    External and internal decay just below groundline on a southern yellow pine pole.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    A Shigometer. Pulsed current instrument used to locate decay in trees and poles.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1.

    Comparison of the Types of Inspection Programs.

    Type of InspectionCycleApprox. CostRemarks
    1. Visual & SoundingYearly$.75/poleAlmost worthless. Even misses danger poles. Does nothing to maintain your plant.
    2. Visual, Sonic Inspect, & Bore2-3 Years$2.80/poleFinds 40-50% of the bad poles. Caution must be exercised or good poles with shake are thrown out. Should find most danger poles. Does nothing to maintain plant.
    3. Visual, Sound & Bore2-3 Years$2.00/poleFinds about 50-60% of the bad poles and most danger poles. Does nothing to maintain plant.
    4. Visual, Partial Excavate, Sound & Bore3-5 Years$2-$4.00/pole80-90% of the rejects can be located. Fair inspection but does not prolong the life of pole plant.
    5. Excavate 6-8″ around entire circumference, inspect and treat to 18″ all poles with decay or defects.5-6 Years$6-$7.00/pole90-95% of rejects can be located. Good inspection and most of the poles that would fail early are treated. Usually treat approximately 20% or more of the older poles.
    6. Visual, Excavate, Sound & Bore and Groundline Treat8-10 Yrs.$9-$12/pole99% of all rejects are located. Most economical in long run as the life of pole plant is extended.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF)
Vol. 5, Issue 3
March 1979
  • 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.
Wood Pole Maintenance
(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
Wood Pole Maintenance
Robert E. Birtz
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Mar 1979, 5 (3) 65-69; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1979.015

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Wood Pole Maintenance
Robert E. Birtz
Arboriculture & Urban Forestry (AUF) Mar 1979, 5 (3) 65-69; DOI: 10.48044/jauf.1979.015
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
    • NEED
    • IN-PLACE INSPECTION
    • IN-PLACE TREATMENT
    • ABOVE-GROUND
    • REINFORCING REJECTS
    • ECONOMICS
    • QUALITY OF WORK
    • CONCLUSION
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • 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

© 2025 International Society of Arboriculture

Powered by HighWire