Your experience on tree injecting vs macro infusion

[tstex]

Guys,

If this topic is not in the right section of the forum, pls direct me to the right one - thx

Wanted to get your experience on what methodology you have seen works best for administering fungicides into trees?  There is the macro-infusion method where you uncover the flare roots, drill the appropriate # of holes, insert the appropriate # of "T's", then pump in the fungicide mixed with water via a hand-pump pressure like sprayer and keep it at 15-20psi.  Or, there are injection guns where you use the appropriate size needle, inject a much smaller amt [1 ml] w/ a much higher concentrate into the tree via a small pre-made hole that is sealed with a very small plug.

The goal is to pro-actively treat asymtomatic live oaks that do not exhibit any signs of oak wilt via necrotic leaves or treat an oak that has minimal to no leaf loss.

If you have any questions, pls let me know?  Myself and many other land-owners are formulating a plan and need the most cost-effective solution possible.  Your input would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,
tstex

[Jeff]

My understanding is that if the tree is infected, it is dead. So inoculating oaks that exhibit any signs of being infected is a waste of time money and effort. Last I knew there was no known chemical treatment for curing the trees and prevention involves removing dead or diseased trees, severing root grafts and avoiding injury to healthy trees.

Is the treatment you are proposing tried, true, tested and proven, or an experimental theory application that may potentially cost someone more then their trees?

[Reddog]

Jeff the reading I have been doing on it shows that the treatment does help. But as stated needs to be done to healthy trees. Once they show signs of being infected it is to late.
I too am interested in hearing from users that have tried the injections.

 http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/howtos/ht_oakwilt/toc.htm#integrated

[tstex]

Jeff,

Great question, and your statements regarding Oak Wilt seems to be the generally accepted norm.

First to answer your question.  The actual practice of injecting trees with a needle [through the bark and into the Xylum, but not into the sapwood] has been practiced successfully for a variety of applications.  My specific request was fighting the Oak Wilt pathogen, [using the active ingredient of 14/3% Propiconazole], using this method and your results...I know this is going to be tough.

Just this morning I spoke to a gentlemen that is retired and lives on the other end of the County that my place resides, which is in SE/SC Texas.  He purchased one of these tree injectors after it was confirmed in late Aug 2009 that one of this huge live oaks was confirmed to have Oak Wilt, via the observation of many nectrotic leaves under this tree.  The tree is joined at the bottom but basically has 2 main trunks with each trunk having 4 ft diameters...big tree.

He told me that he first obeserved the leaves turning lighter green, then falling out up to 15-20% of the over all tree [very top and one larger side branch] before he treated it.  He did his research and injected the tree around mid Sept 2009.  Based on his statement, the tree stopped losing its leaves and the leaf loss was confined to the original areas.  None of the leaves that were lost have been replaced and he was told there is a chance of the leaves coming back, but probably not.  Need to wait untill spring.

He is a land owner/resident of this county and has no axe to grind either way.  I have an invite to go see the tree and want to confirm his statements.  I want to ensure it was Oak Wilt and that there are still an anbundance of necrotic leaves under/around this tree.  I also want to see if I can scratch some of the tips on up of the lower branches to see if there is any green left below the bark...if not or it is dryer than normal, they are toast.   I also want to see where the remnants of the injections were, which i will be able to observe based on the methodology of leaving these very small plastic plugs in the fissures of the bark.  The needle is injected into the center of them and prevents air from getting into the trees vascular system and helps the 1ml of the injection to stay in.

I have some neighbors that have yield mixed results via the macro-infusion method, mainly that if the tree has had oak wilt, it is either dead or is dying or in a holding pattern in one scenario, and another place right nearby is surrounded by O-Wilt and he has proactively treated all his trees for the last 2 yrs and none of his trees have shown any signs or succumb to O-wilt.  His neighbors, "just on the other side of b-wire fence" have it and are showing massive leaf losses and death.  Both places are considered one contiguous infection center.

During my research I have heard anywhere from, if you catch the tree with 20% or less loss of leaves, it may be salvaged, to if it has O-Wilt, it is gone or will be gone eventually.  Another consistent statement is the higher percentages of successful treatments [80%] are based on proactively treating asymptomatic trees that are more than likely infected in the roots but have not demonstrated veinal necrosis.  Or, treating trees that may or may not been infected via root-grafting and has yet to demonstrate any signs of the pathogens presense, is the best likelihood of success.  There are also some rare oaks ["escape or pass-through oaks"] that sit right in the middle of an infection center and are completely resistant to the pathogen while every oak around them [in their former drip lines] never die, or have not to the date of observations [5-10%].  As a side note, a leading agricultural research university here in TX, has taken the acorns from these "escape oaks" and propagated the acorns, then planted the subsequent trees in the path of an infection center or exposed the pathogen to them, and none of them survived...go figure.

To conclude, my reason for posting was to discern if anyone of you guys have had success with a needle-based injection methodology, if it was for treating O-Wilt and what were your results.  I am not someone to toss good money on bad or unproven ideas, but I am willing to take a calculated risk for some 150 -300 yr like oaks and many of your normal 50-80 yr old trees...I just feel I have to try to make an attempt and do not want to second guess all the "what ifs".

Sorry for such a long post gentlemen, but I am passionate about saving my/our trees for generations to come...your sincere feedback is appreciated.

Regards,
tstex

[tstex]

Jeff the reading I have been doing on it shows that the treatment does help. But as stated needs to be done to healthy trees. Once they show signs of being infected it is to late.
I too am interested in hearing from users that have tried the injections.

 http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/howtos/ht_oakwilt/toc.htm#integrated

Reddog, I was just replying when yours too hit the forum.

I have the link you referred to above stored in my favorites file on this topic.  Very good read.

In fact, below are some of the credits to the link/article you posted.  The Appel is as in Dr. David N. Appel of Texas A&M University.  He is a reknown scientist in tree pathologies and the studies of Oak Wilt, below are his credits to your link in bold:

Appel, D.N. 1994. The potential for a California oak wilt epidemic. Journal of Arboriculture 20: (2) 79-86.

Appel, D.N.; Cameron, R.S.; Wilson, A.D; Johnson, J.D. 1995. How to identify and manage oak wilt in Texas. How-to SR-1 USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station; New Orleans, LA: 7p.

Finally, if you are interested, below is a link to the "Texas version", which has links to other areas of research as well.  Appreciate your input - tstex

http://www.texasoakwilt.org/

[beenthere]

tstex
I agree with Jeff, and I'd suggest being real careful going out on a limb here, as there may be some overstated propaganda behind some claims. Especially if you may be collecting funds from others to buy equipment and/or chemicals to treat. And not speaking from any legal standpoint, but just remaining friends with your neighbors if a problem develops.

I think there is a chance that proving a treatment did or didn't work would be rather difficult. If it appears to work, then claims may be made that you were successful. If it doesn't protect your trees, then it may not be the fault of the treatments not working, but that the trees were already past saving them.

Just caution is needed here. There are numerous ideas and claims.

[Jeff]

One of the leading things here that gives me cause for concern is the claim of a tree that was diagnosed as having oak wilt being cured, when the diagnosis was not science based but only an observation on the leaf drop. There is a multitude of things that can cause a tree to drop its leaves and then recover. Oak wilt is not one of those.

[tstex]

Beenthere,

Great points you made.  Seeking field experience from you guys that do not have a vested interest is where the rubber meats the road, that is why I posted here.  I am being very cautious of vendors and anyone that has monetary gain.

As for my neighbors, we are all going to review the data and information and make a call for what tools/applicaiton best fits our scenario...i am also employing trenching where my neighbors cannot due to their smaller acreage and little to no open land/pastures.  You are correct, I do not want to set myself up for failure with my neighbors...we all have to agree we will do our best and whatever the results are, we will have to live with them, peacefully.

Thank you for your feedback,
tstex

[tstex]

One of the leading things here that gives me cause for concern is the claim of a tree that was diagnosed as having oak wilt being cured, when the diagnosis was not science based but only an observation on the leaf drop. There is a multitude of things that can cause a tree to drop its leaves and then recover. Oak wilt is not one of those.

Jeff, if you read the second paragraph of my longer reply, that is clarified, and I quote:

 "He purchased one of these tree injectors after it was confirmed in late Aug 2009 that one of this huge live oaks was confirmed to have Oak Wilt, via the observation of many nectrotic leaves under this tree."

One unique sign of Oak Wilt, which is only unique to oak wilt and nothing else is necrotic leaves, meaning the center vein and some of the veins coming out from the center to the ends are burned brown to light brown, while the rest of the leaf is green to light green.  If a tree has these types of leaves, it has O-Wilt, period.  However, you are correct that if a tree looses its leaves for whatever reason(s), drought, other fungus, etc, it can loose lots of them and then make a come-back...this guy had oak wilt.

Our regional Tx Forestry Agent, has said that in most instances, [key word most], if a tree has more than 20% leaf/canopy loss from oak wilt, treating it will usually not help.  The key is getting the fungicide into the trees system before the vascular system starts its blocking process, which the first symtom is necrosis of the leaves and initial leaf loss.  Its much like treating cancer, early detection increases the survival rate, otherwise it is prolonging the inevitable. tstex

[Jeff]

Oak Anthracnose could be confused.  Was it an arborist that made the diagnosis or someone self educated via the internet.

[LeeB]

The big tree will not make it. It may hang on for a couple of more years at best. I have seen this fungicide treatment done before on the age group trees you are talking about and it stood off the wilt for a little while and then they caught and died any way. Once again I have to say to you good luck cause you're gonna need lots of it. If you don't already have the wilt on your's or adjoining property all the steps you are taking may just work. If it's anywhere within 1/2 mile from you I wouldn't hold much hope fort you in the long run. I watched this stuff march across central Texas for years and haven't seen ayone beat it yet. I sw a few hold it off for a while at great monetary expence and much labor but all sucumbed in the end. It will take the Live oaks first and then the reds.

[tstex]

Oak Anthracnose could be confused.  Was it an arborist that made the diagnosis or someone self educated via the internet.

The problem was diagnosed by a TX Forestry Agent.  Oak Anthracnose is not as prevalent in our counties as Oak Wilt, although nothing can be rulled out.  We have oak decline here, but that usually takes the tree to die over a 4-10 period, branch by branch, which has typcially been the norm here.

Here are some differences between O-Anthracnose & O-Wilt:

Oak anthracnose may be confused with oak wilt, a deadly systemic disease of oak trees. The following features help distinguish the two diseases.

Oak anthracnose is most severe on white oak, whereas oak wilt is most severe on oaks in the red oak family.
 
Oak anthracnose produces irregular spots/blotches randomly over the leaf. Spots may coalesce forming large brown areas. In addition, leaves may be curled or deformed along the outer margins of new growth.

When leaves are dying as a result of oak wilt, browning generally begins at the margins of leaves, resembling symptoms of drought. This is due to blockage of water and nutrients in the vascular tissue preventing these nutrients and water from reaching the leaves.
 
Symptoms of oak anthracnose are most severe on the lower, inside branches where humidity levels are higher.

Symptoms of oak wilt begin on branch extremities, usually in upper portions of the tree.



Thanks,
tstex

[Jeff]

And the biggest difference, Once infected with oak wilt, the tree does not recover.

[tstex]

And the biggest difference, Once infected with oak wilt, the tree does not recover.

I personally cannot refute this because I have only been involved in the last 6-8 weeks.  I can only go on what I have been told by credible and trustworthy resources [University Researchers, Forestry Agents and land owners that have direct and empirical experience] and take vendors with a grain of salt.

My regional Forestry Agent is coming out this Friday to stake-out a trenching plan to isolate the infection center, if anyone has any specific questions, let me know and I will ask and post?

I know this is an uphill battle, I just need to determine the slope and height of the hill for me and my neighbors.

Thanks for your feedback,
tstex

[tstex]

Have an update from Texas A&M Univ.

Their research indicates that the pathogen in the roots lasts from 3 - 7 yrs.  This means that if someone does not agressively treat their oaks every 12-18 months, the pathogen will eventually cause the tree to cut-off its water supply and die...many of these fungicides state treatment every 2 yrs, but by that time the tree has almost no barrier left.

Next, the treatments/fungicides have been known to travel into the root systems, but the data is limited.  Therefore, it seems that the only way you can keep an oak alive is total preventation from trenching and no pruning during susceptible times, then once infected if caught early enough, treat consistently every 12-18 months for X number of yrs.  Obviously, the latter can only be performed on select oaks.

I am also going to start tree diverification planting...maybe my g-kids will not have to deal with the potential of losing the majority of one species of trees.  This has been exhausting, and the real work has not even started.

Regards,
tstex