Showing posts with label tree health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tree health care. Show all posts

Friday, February 17, 2017

Plant growth regulator.  That may sound scary to some, and counterintuitive to others.  Why would we want to intentionally stop a tree or shrub from growing, and how does that even work?  Believe it or not, there are many reasons why it may be beneficial to slow the growth of a plant, which include economic factors, environmental factors, and overall plant health factors.

Before we delve in to the specifics of plant growth regulators, or as I like to call them ‘plant growth managers (PGMs),’ it’s important to know that many of us come in contact with this technology quite often.  PGMs first became popular in the floriculture industry to get uniform plants that would be merchantable when they made it to the garden centers.  Have you ever noticed your house plants start becoming leggy and a bit yellow after they’ve been in the house for a few weeks?  That is because the growth regulator applied before you bought them is wearing off.

Early versions of PGMs, Type I growth regulators, were closely related to herbicides, and actually blocked cell division to accomplish reduced stem elongation.  While Type I growth regulators work very well at reducing growth there can be some unintended consequences of using them.  Namely, Type I growth regulators may cause leaf yellowing and distortion.  If applied above certain temperatures Type I growth regulators may also cause slight defoliation. 

Modern PGMs, Type II growth regulators, work within the plant to regulate the hormone (gibberellin) which is responsible for cell elongation.  This means the plant is still producing the same amount of cells, leaves, buds, etc. just those stems are extending 30%-70% less than normal.  This reduction in growth can lengthen time between pruning cycles for trees and shrubs growing in close proximity to infrastructure.  For example, the oak tree planted 10-feet from the corner of your executive building, the line of trees planted underneath those utility lines, or that hedge that needs to be trimmed a few times a year so you can see out of the first floor windows.  



Less pruning means less wounding for the plant (bonus for the plant), less time your crews need to spend managing your shrub and tree resources (bonus for labor), and also means less ‘green-waste’ your crews need to dispose of (bonus for the environment). In 2016, Rainbow Scientific, in cooperation with our partners, performed a series of trials to determine labor savings when incorporating Trimtect into their pruning operations.  Trimtect is a foliar spray-applied Type II plant growth regulator.  The sites selected contained highly manicured shrub hedges ranging in length from 50-180 feet long and 4-8 feet tall.  Over a twelve week period we found pruning time was reduced by an average of 62% when compared to shrub hedges not treated with Trimtect.  In another trial we found green waste removed from the site was reduced by 50% over a 12 week period.  Managers and crew leaders involved in the trials were unanimous in their positive response to the reduced need to prune.  Landscape crews were able to focus on getting more detail work accomplished (e.g. weeding, flower bed maintenance, trash removal, etc.), in addition to getting caught up on turf mowing and edging.  They also had less ‘call backs’ and complaints in areas where Trimtect was applied.

While plant growth managers reduce the amount of above ground growth by 30%-70%, they are also promoting responses in the plant that can encourage plant health. One positive side effect of growth control is the stimulation of another plant hormone, abscisic acid (ABA). ABA helps with preventing cell dehydration, and regulating leaf water loss by allowing stomata in the leaves to respond faster to drought conditions.  When PGMs are applied as a soil drench we see energy resources being diverted to the promotion of fine root growth. This allows a tree to mine more resources from the soil, and increases drought tolerance.  PGMs can also increase the amount of chlorophyll the plants produce.  Chlorophyll is, of course, what gives a leaf its green color, and plays a major role in photosynthesis.  Disease resistance to certain fungal leaf and canker diseases has also been recorded with the application of PGMs.  So, not only can you employ PGMs as a growth management tool, but they can also be employed as a plant health care tool.



The use of plant growth managers can often be overlooked, but when used correctly, can be a substantial tool to help reduce time spent on pruning while also benefiting plant health.  Next time you’re walking through your site think of those hedges, ground covers, trees, and vines that seem to need constant attention.  Now imagine, instead of the plants dictating your pruning schedule, you dictate the plants growing schedule.

Saturday, April 4, 2015

Cankerworms among us...

In the Charlotte, NC Metro area we have a big problem with cankerworms.  These inching little menaces emerge every spring to wreak leaf consuming, poop raining havoc on the populous.  Treatment for these wringing pests comes, usually, in a few forms.  Banding in the fall and early winter to capture flightless females on their trek to mate high in the canopies of trees, and foliar spraying once the chomping little caterpillars have hatched.  Both of these methods have their pros and cons.  Bands certainly do not catch every female, and in the spring newly hatched cankerworms can easily blow from trees not banded to banded trees.  Foliar sprays to control the munching larva have their own host of issues, namely getting adequate coverage on 60 - 100 feet tall trees is tough even in the best of conditions.

It is debatable how much damage is done to trees defoliated by cankerworms.  In most instances, defoliated trees create a new full canopy by the end of May/beginning of June.  This allows trees almost a full season of photosynthesis to create the energy they need and build reserves.  And hey, a few weeks of additional sunlight helps out the grass, and all of that worm poop hailing down is like free fertilizer, so look on that bright side.

Outside of being a tree pest, cankerworms can be a real nuisance.  They are constantly falling from trees attached to silk threads, and of course all that pooping.  This can make for an uncomfortable experience if your back yard is completely covered by the canopy of large trees.  My house has 2 large (+50-inch DBH) willow oaks in the rear yard.  Two years ago the cankerworm population was high enough to defoliate both of the trees by the 1st week of May.

Last year I put bands on the trees, specifically the Bug Barrier product, only to have squirrels rob the bands of the fiber used to help catch climbing females.  Once again my trees were defoliated, minus what I could reach with a foliar spray of Conserve (active ingredient spinosad).

This year I am opting for a new strategy.  Soil injection with Lepitect (active ingredient aceaphate).  Lepitect has shown great results on a host of tree pests.  It works fast to get in the tree, and has a residual of only +/- 30 days.  I like the idea of a short residual because I don't want to kill other caterpillar species that emerge later on in the season.  But here is my question, will Lepitect work well on large trees with high populations of cankerworm pests?  Hence the penning of this article.


 Follow the saga of the cankerworms below:

  • March 24th
    • The 1st cankerworm is spotted.  Willow oak leaves just beginning to break bud and expand.
  • April 1st
    • Lepitect applied at high rate, 10oz per 25-inches of diameter applied at 250ml per inch DBH.  Willow oak leaves are expanding
  • April 4th
    • Signs of dead cankerworms falling from trees.

  • April 11th
    • Approx. 18-days after emergence, and 11-days after treatment.
    • Once again, a very high population of cankerworms are affecting the trees.


  • April 18th
    • Significant amount of dead cankerworms falling from the tree.



  • April 27th
    • Peak cankerworm feeding has concluded.


Conclusion:

Once again the cankerworm population was very high on the trees in my backyard.  Because some leaf feeding is required for the insects to be exposed to the product, we expect a certain amount of defoliation.  Inevitably, with instances of very high pest population we will have more leaf matter consumed.  All said and done, there was probably 40%-50% canopy defoliation when using the Smitley Scale for Defoliation.  This sounds high, but is much better than the fully defoliated trees I had the two previous years.  Additionally, the product is no longer present (or at least should no longer be present) with in the tree or the soil, so any benign leaf feeding arthropods or soil dwelling organisms should be allowed to go on with their natural life cycles.

Additional Notes/Thoughts:

I would have liked to make the application a week earlier, but my equipment for making the application had yet to arrive.  One wonders if the product had a week longer to move in to the tree, would the defoliation been less?

There were a significant amount of dead cankerworms falling over the course of three weeks.  Will this hammering of this years population have any effect on next years population?

It has been noted that the fiery searcher beetle was in greater numbers the past two springs.  These beetles are voracious predators of caterpillars and especially cankerworms.  Did these predators significantly reduce, or aid in the reduction, of the cankerworm population that in turn lead to the decrease in defoliation noted from last season?

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Climb on Climber

This weekend (April 13th-14th 2013) was the annual Charlotte Arborists Association Tree Climbing Competition.  It is one of the few open invitational tree climbing comps out there.  Climbers and volunteers from all over the world meet in the quaint "New South" City of Charlotte, NC for 2 days of peer learning, camaraderie, climbing, and fun.

Tree climbing competitions are a great place to learn new techniques, meet new people, and make great friends.  I've volunteered at TCCs from Pennsylvania to Louisiana, but there is one thing about comps that has always bothered me.  We can really torture some trees during these events.  Starting with set up day, the interior of the work climb tree and a portion of the aerial rescue tree is often over thinned and lions tailed.  Then on the day of the event, competitors run through the preliminaries as speedily as possible, jerking branches, smashing bark, and pulling on limbs with full force and weight.  It's like creating an artificial storm the trees must endure, with over pruning resembling the resulting loss in photosynthetic area.  We also invite spectators to mass around these trees, thus leading to potential soil compaction around, most often, mature trees.

Water oak once used as a work climb tree.  Notice numerous small pruning wounds throughout the interior of the crown.

A friend of mine once wondered if any data had been collected comparing tree health/vigor as pre and then post work climb tree.  His feeling, based upon past competition trees in Charlotte, is over all heath of the tree may decline after the event for reasons stated above.  Now this could be coincidental, or it may be that competition trees in Charlotte are used in consecutive years for different events.  If the health of these trees are being affected by repeated use, this may be a lesson to other competition organizers. It may be best practice to be one and done with trees chosen for competition.  Trees create reaction wood and adapt to their environment over time.  The sudden assault of a tree climbing competition could potentially be quite a stress for a tree.

I love tree climbing competitions, and by no means I am I suggesting they be abolished.  We are arborists, and our job is to care for trees.  This basic principle of our job shouldn't be forgotten for the sake of competition.  This year in Charlotte our head judge was Chip Hildreth, and he is a firm believer in this idea.  Chip asked the trees be thinned as little as possible for work climb and aerial rescue.  While, I don't remember his exact quote, his sentiment in the competitors meeting was similar. We are arborists, and our job is to care for trees.  Damaging the tree during the competition would result in harsh judgment and points deduction.

Our techniques and tools, along with our understanding of tree physiology are improving on a daily basis.  Our approach to tree climbing competitions, both their set up and execution, with regard to tree preservation will also improve.  One of Chip's ideas is to change the way some events (i.e. work climb) is scored.  By taking the time component out of an event like work climb, and concentrating solely on scoring by technique and finesse, we may be able to save some wear and tear on the tree. 

2013 Charlotte TCC work climb tree.  Notice preserved small diameter interior growth.  This picture was taken after the event was competed.
But enough of my ramblings, here are the final results from the 2013 Charlotte Arborists Association Annual Tree Climbing Competition (Do not hold me to the spelling competitors names):

Apprentice
3rd Jordan Lopshire
2nd Celestino Flores
1st Adam Hawthorn

Journeymen
5th Noel Boyer
4th Chris Bramlage
3rd Derek Martin
2nd Kevin Bingham
1st Cormac Nagan

Women
2nd Sage Way
1st Marilou Dussault