Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Experimental area showing sanitation control strategies in Detroit, Michigan.
- Figure 2.
Immediate girdling of a diseased American elm.
- Figure 3.
Prompt removal of an American elm with Dutch elm disease.
- Figure 4.
Hydraulic sprayer application of methoxychlor emulsion to the trunk and major branches of a diseased American elm.
- Figure 5.
Dormant season removal of an American elm with Dutch elm disease.
- Figure 6.
Completed girdle of an American elm showing bole staining caused by the Dutch elm disease fungus.
- Figure 7.
Survival of American elms under Dutch elm disease sanitation treatments in Detroit, Michigan, 1974 to 1978. Percentage based on initial population.
Tables
- Table 1.
Cumulative number of diseased elms, alive elms, and percentage Dutch elm disease incidence since initiation of study in Detroit, Michigan, 1974-1978.
Treatment 1974 1974-75 1974-76 1974-77 1974-78 DED Alive DED Alive DED Alive DED Alive DED Alive Girdlingplus
prompt removal113
5.6%1923 184
9.1%1845 279
13.8%1743 358
17.7%1664 497
24.6%1525 Promptremoval
only85
4.7%1735 155
8.6%1656 272
15.1%1532 377
20.9%1427 489
27.1%1315 Methoxychlorspray
plus conventional116
6.4%1700 232
12.8%1579 430
23.8%1380 566
31.3%1244 714
39.4%1096 Conventional
removal110
6.2%1659 208
11.8%1554 410
23.3%1352 556
31.5%1206 748
42.5%1014 - Table 2.
Results of chi-square tests of independence computed for Dutch elm disease sanitation treatments as elm losses progressed during the 5 year study.
Comparison of sanitation treatments 1974 1974 through — 1975 1976 1977 1978 Girdling plus prompt versus prompt removal 1.53 2.03 1.58 6.26* 3.19a Girdling plus prompt versus conventional 0.77 7.62** 56.71** 98.58** 136.22** Prompt removal versus conventional 2.22 10.31** 38.67** 52.40** 92.65** Methoxychlor spray versus conventional 0.04 0.81 0.12 0.03 3.33a
In this issue
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.