Dutch Elm Disease vs Oak Wilt

[tstex]

Gentlemen,

Are any of you arborists experienced in the pathologies of both the Dutch Elm and Live Oak?  My question is targeted to answer, "If the two diseases/pathogens are similar in nature, can the [effective yielding] treatment(s) be similar as well?  I am getting quite familiar with the oak wilt disease, but have done little to no research on the Dutch Elm Disease.  Your candid/knowledgeable feedback is most welcomed and appreciated.

Thank you very much,
tstex

If anyone wants to talk about this, pls send me a personal message and I will send you my cell #.

[Jeff]

There is no treatment.  Every Elm Tree that contracts the disease will die. What was the World Champion Elm, the Buckley Elm, was located only a couple three towns away from me. They tried all sorts of means, including injections, to protect it. Its isolation on the center of a very large open field is the only thing that protected it for many years. Once the pathogen reached it, everything that was done to protect it failed and the tree died. Being the world Champion Elm, they went all out to try and save it and were unable to

 The same thing will happen with the trees that have oak wilt. I truly believe that if you are trying to lead people into thinking they can protect the trees with anything other then isolation from the pathogen, you are a false prophet.

[tstex]

There is no treatment.  Every Elm Tree that contracts the disease will die. What was the World Champion Elm, the Buckley Elm, was located only a couple three towns away from me. They tried all sorts of means, including injections, to protect it. Its isolation on the center of a very large open field is the only thing that protected it for many years. Once the pathogen reached it, everything that was done to protect it failed and the tree died. Being the world Champion Elm, they went all out to try and save it and were unable to

 The same thing will happen with the trees that have oak wilt. I truly believe that if you are trying to lead people into thinking they can protect the trees with anything other then isolation from the pathogen, you are a false prophet.

First, thank you for even using me in the same sentence with the word prophet, I consider that a complement.  However, false or righteous, I am unfortunately neither, more so the latter.  Moreover, contrary to an interpreted belief of either trying to formulate "false" data or to create "statistically-favorable data" to a predicted or non veracious outcome, I continue to seek information without having made or supported any concrete recommedations.  This however, might be in contrast to an outcome I would like to see prevail, but until empirically proven data suggests otherwise, I cannot and will not make any commitments of any kind for either myself or others. 

Finally, any data I do receive, I certainly take it cautiously and must extricate "the grains of salt" until it can be proven.  One thing I do like about this Forum is constructive feedback....BTW, services start this Sunday morning @ 9:00am.   

Thank you for your feedback Jeff,
tstex

[Jeff]

Whether intentionally or not, your posts are definitely themed towards looking for people to reinforce you. I'm more of a realist. I look at everything I have at hand to form decisions and opinions. Like anyone else, many times I fall far short of the perfect answer, but then again, some times I feel I am right on.  You might remember sending me a few private messages.  Since I think they are totally relevant to the discussion, and contain no personal contact information, plus, the fact that they were sent to me, the owner of the forestry forum, I feel I can share at least one that causes me concern.

I/we am forming an Oak Wilt COOP in our area and have alot of older/elderly people counting on me/us to help them save their 200 yr live oaks...they are on fixed oncomes and have some hard decisions to make.  they buy the supplies [for their trrees] and we do the labor for them at no cost.  Then we get to also do the same for our places.  We just need to make a business call here real soon and get moving before the O-Wilt starts to engulf the area..it kills the trees in 2-4 months and moves quickly to the next trees.

By reading this, you state you already have people counting on you to save their trees. How is it they came to count on you for this?  What is it that makes them think that you can do what as of yet, science and the the people at the top of the field have not been able to do?  This is what is so troubling for me on these posts.

[tstex]

"We just need to make a business call here real soon and get moving before the O-Wilt starts to engulf the area".  This is the key statement, along with the word "We".

To date, we have not made any decisions, other than if we do, establishing some potential work processes.

When my own place became infected with OW, I took more notice of what was happening. This is where I learned that 2 retired teachers had spent 8-10K on upper trunk canister injections with Tebujet in early 2007 when they first were diagnosed with OW [all documented via the TX Dept of Foresty via their aerial system & GPS].  Soon after they injected all these trees, TX sustained one of its worst droughts in recorded history from mid 2007 to the fall of 2009.  Their oaks showed no more signs of OW after the injections.  However, [per Dr. David Appel, TAMU] he has data that states heat and drought not only debilitates the OW pathogen, but the trees go semi-dormant to preserve water as well, thus limiting the translocation of the pathogen from the roots upward.  When TX started to receive record rainfall last fall, the OW seemed to take off everywhere, including these ladies oaks that were in temp remission.  This leads me to beleive that the drought keep them alive, rather than the Tebujet. although the person injecting them now states they should have been injecting them every 12 months...nice!

At the same time these ladies had their problems again, there was another neighbor that is adjacent to these ladies, that also spent 4K on Macro-infusion with Propaconazole on 9-10 trees in the mid 2007 timeframe as well.  He outsourced this.  Non of his trees exhibited symptoms of necrosis, but were well within the colonization of the infected trees right across his fence line and the infection center.  In fact, across the fence line, trees are now both symtomatic and dying.  He also left 2 smaller oaks untreated for controls.  While none of his treated trees have shown any signs of OW, 1 of the 2 non-treated trees now has it.  This tree was not cut-on or did not have any above grd signs of infection by any vectors.  He is now re-injectiing his same trees by himself for the second time [paid the arborist to train him], which are all still symptomless.  In both of these scenarios, trenching is not an option due to smaller tracts of land and proximity of both trees and the primary infection center(s).

Based on the discussions of 4-5 Arborists, 2-3 TX Forestry Agents and collaboration with Dr. David Appel of TAMU Microbiology and Pathology Tree Sciences Dept, here is something I will take to the bank:

1)  If an asymptomatic like oak near an infection center is injected prior to any signs of necrosis with 20ml of Propiconazole to diameter inch @ DBH with the macro-infusion technique by someone qualified and to administer, the tree has a 70-80% of survival...this is also documented amongst many articles as to fungicide treatments and their successes for OW.  Although nothing is guaranteed, this methodology has yielded more consistent results for treating OW than any other methodology, and sometimes yielding positive results for treatments for oaks showing symptoms of OW, but with less than 20-30% of canopy loss.  However, another "take to the bank statement" is that preventative treatment is much more successful than theraputic.  This is also highly documented.

To conclude, the Macro-Infusion with an Alamo type Propaconazole Fungicide has yielded the best overall success for the treatment, or prevention of OW.  But, it is either extremely timing consuming and labor intensive for land-owners to self-inject and very expensive if you outsource to an Arborists.  Therefore, I am investigsting tree injection [not infusions[ methodology with Propiconazole and trying to get any, if any, efficacy percentages.  I was informed that DED was similiar in some respects to vascular pathology and vascular plugging as OW and therefore wanted seek any pertinent information.  That was my original reason for the post.

One side note, the two retired teachers last week with the aid of the man that does the macroinfusions, were able to infuse a 69" diameter trees with 1400ml of propiconazole...the tree took-up over 50 liters of water and over 200ml of active ingredient.  The tree already shown some sign of necrosis before their infusion, but we will see, more so since it is almost spring for us with out live oaks in late Feb/early March.  Their cost for this, a little over $100, only for the active ingredient...a lot less than the 1K they were quoted by someone else.

Regards,
tstex

[Reddog]

This is one of the better articles I have seen on Dutch elm disease and injections.

http://na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/misc/ded/ded.htm

[Jeff]

That article was written almost 11 years ago, and since then, as I posted before, with all that is known, what all may have been learned, and with all the resources available to is because of the status of the tree as a national champion, we have since then still lost the Buckley elm to dutch elm disease.

[Reddog]

Sounds like it was dead before they started treating it.
http://www.anr.msu.edu/robertsd/dutchelm/buckley.html

I can not find any good records of what they did and when.

[Jeff]

Have you seen anything written recently about survival success of anything injected?  They have been injecting for at least ten years, there should be some survival stats by now.

[Tom]

The answer isn't to be found in Forestry or being an Arborist, It's in the study of Botany and pathology.  The existing knowledge of these diseases has come from years of study by these disciplines.  

While I can appreciate ones want to discover a remedy that has slipped by the Worlds specialists,  The chances are pretty slim.  

I think you would have a better chance of uncovering unfound knowledge by inquiring at the National Wood Laboratory in Madison Wisconsin or even perhaps visiting your local University.  The reason that I say that is that Foresters and Arborists depend upon Botanists and Pathologist for information and direct their actions accordingly.  So, information gotten from Foresters and Arborists is coming from these other disciplines anyway.

[Reddog]

Looking at MSU's sites, it all seems to depend on how early they start injections.
Also a lot of the info out there is from the chemical companies, hard too believe them with out seeing the data too back up their claims.
Most people/owners don't inject until the tree is already failing. Then the odds are much worse.
What people need to understand also is once the injections start the tree is not curred. It will need injections for the rest of its life at the prescribed intervals. Which for most people is just to much money and hassle.

[Reddog]

Tom,
While I agree with you, most of us didn't get the secret decoder ring to understand them.
So if you can find an Arborist that has a treatment plan that works, it makes it easier.

[Jeff]

Also a lot of the info out there is from the chemical companies, hard too believe them with out seeing the data too back up their claims.

That's what I am saying, no hard statistics that I have ever found from places that I would put my faith in. And what I mean by that is places that do not have a financial interest of some sort.  It there was hard data, that injections were actually saving trees over a period of time, it sure seems to me it would exist somewhere. Especially for American Elm.

[tstex]

Jeff, Tom & R-Dog,

You all make good points, again.

Jeff, there is consistent data from Texas A&M University, The TX Forestry in both Austin & LaGrange that substantiates the success rates OW injections on mainly asymtomatic trees, but also limited success on symtomatic trees as well.  It has been demonstrated that the usual timeframe that the OW pathogen resides in the root systems is from 3-7 yrs, but it also depends many environmental variables such as soil type, oak types, moisture contents over any given time period.  However, the key as noted redundantly and as was even demonstrated in your Buckley Elm, is early treatment, not post infection as was this tree.  A very common theme now is treating before the vascular system gets plugged of any kind. As R-dog stated, most people are reactive unless they are educated on the matter.  Once they are, it is a financial call and sometimes they cannot or will not want to shell out the cash.  If anyone does in my neck of the woods, I just want them to know both the good & bad, risks and to have properly set expectations.  Once an option IS ELECTED, then I would like to help them seek the most cost-effective route, with the least risk and the highest perentage payoff...in some instances, the recommendation will be to do nothing.

As Tom noted, I have been collaborating with one of the best reknown Tree Pathologists in the US, Dr. David Appel, which is where you are going to get to the nuts-&-bolts of this disease and what has really worked in the field.  I have met and talked with TX Forestery personnel that have spent a good deal of their time in TX counties marking infection centers and keeping accurate records on what has really happened out there and what has not.  I have had one of them at my place 4 times now and will meet 2 more times before we formulate both a trenching and fungicide treatment plan.  The reason I wanted to seek info from Arborists, is because they are the ones now dealing with the latest technologies and have either been injecting and getting results [good, bad or both] or they have seen the results of others and  can testify as to what is working or what is not.

Finally, Dr. Appel equated an oak infected with OW needs to be evaluated the same as a person would be with leukemia; left untreated they are mostly likely to die, but treated doesn't necessarily mean they will live either.  All of the environmental variables need to be considered for the tree, just as with a cancer patient.  I do remember in the 1970's, kids that got leukemia were sure to die.  Now with MD Anderson Cancer Research Institute here in the Houston Medical Center, Leukemia is treated very succsessfully now.  ----And i quote, "In children in particular over the last 30 years, the rates have increased from about 20% to about 80% over this time frame—encouraging news indeed for patients with ALL diagnosed at 15 years of age or younger."   This was unheard of when I was growing up, now it is much better, but I would like to see it at 100% instead of 80%, but it is far better than 20%.

To conclude, I hope we can find the "magic-bullet" to cure both OW & DED, but I doubt we will.  However, proven data suggests that there are viables options if treated in time.  My goal is to explore all the options and go with the best available, while also taking one-step further to investigate new technologies that may be viable also, or are refined to become viable.  In either instance, it is going to be a tough road to conquer.

Regards,
tstex

[tstex]

Pls note, I am in no way equating that tree diseases compare in anyway to the significance of kids with leukemia, or anyone else...we all know what is way more important.   I was only passing-on an analogy from a Dr./Research Scientists of Tree Diseases & Pathologies that there are still many variables to consider, not just if the tree is asymtomatic...if anyone took this the wrong way, pls accept my apologies.

[Reddog]

Jeff,
I know a couple Arborist that have used injections for DED, the problem was after the second year the home owners where not interested in the tree. So the trees where removed. How can you build a personal data base when 99.9% of all home owners have a low threshold for what they will spend to keep a tree?

So I see tstex's point of trying to find a system that has been field proven. And so far I have not found much to help in that search.

[Tom]

tstex, I see the biggest problem, other than not being able to control the disease, as being able to diagnose the illness.  Most laymen, I include Foresters and Arborists, make the assumption that the ill tree has one of these two diseases. They neither have the education or the laboratory facilities to prove that they are right.  That's nothing against them, but it makes it difficult to use their information on assumed cures when you can't prove that they know what they are curing.

An honest, scientific study of a cure is going to have to be done by someone who knows that they are treating a known disease.  They must have the facilities to make tests and comparisons in a controlled environment using proven scientific principles/methods.  That is why I think your study should be made with people who have these facilities at their disposal.

I understand your analogy of Leukemia, but to verify that the cure works, it has to be certified that the illness was Leukemia.  The best chance one has of that is to have the diagnosis made by someone with the facilities to prove it.  Then the cure needs to be administered by someone, in a controlled environment, who understands what is supposed to happen.  Perhaps an Arborist, or a Forester, would have the education to administer the cure, but would they have the environment to prove that their cure worked?   So the tree lived.  Is it still harboring the infection?  Are they treating symptoms, or the disease.

I have a lot of faith in the ability of Foresters and Botanists.  I admire Arborists for their interest and Gardeners for their tenacity, but "shotgunning" the problem in the wild is only going to raise more questions.  Even if you did happen upon a cure, it would take Laboratories and trained personnel to prove it.

I don't think you are doing this for your own gain.  I hope not, because it would be paramount to touting a home-remedy cancer cure in Belize just because there was no FDA or DEA.  As an interested layman, I don't know your education, it is an admirable project to arrive at a cure for a disease, regardless of the organism that is being attacked.  I sincerely wish you success.  At the same time, I hope that the concerned public isn't lead down the wrong road with partial or invalid information.  Even though we are talking of trees rather than human life, there is a lot at stake here.  Missing the mark could set back valid research by years if an invalid cure was successfully sold to the public.

On the other hand, if there is no valid research, perhaps your efforts may generate some.  Just be sure that is the goal rather than being a commercial venture.

[tstex]

A quote from Tom,

"I don't think you are doing this for your own gain.  I hope not, because it would be paramount to touting a home-remedy cancer cure in Belize just because there was no FDA or DEA."

Thanks for your reply Tom. Let me make one thing perfectly clear, my interests in this is solely for the benefit of the live oaks not only on my land, but all of my neighbors as well.  This went from a mere concern to a full-fledged passion after I learned of the true insidiousness of this disease.  I love trees and what majestic beauty they give to my place, my neighbors and Texas, which is predominately native live oaks, or is at the minute.

This Monday I acquired the material from County Extension Agent to take the test for my Private Applicators License from the State of Texas Agricultural Dept which I took yesterday and passed with a pretty decent score.  The reason is because I wanted to legally be able to buy, get trained and administer fungicides to aid in my efforts.  Eight weeks ago I would have if you told me I would be taking this test, I would have told you that you were insane.  My degree's have nothing to do with agriculture, but my land and its trees has a lot to do with me and my family.  I happen to like my neighbors a lot and have disdain for people that take advantage of them because they know they are desperate.  So, this whole thing has snow-balled to what it is.

Tom, you are right and one thing that I learned in my recent course material is, that before you try to apply a solution to something, you surely have to properly identify the pests and its signs.  Then you look at all the options:  mechanical, cultural, biological and then chemical and the economic risks and rewards, then you are poised to narrow it down.   I am not making or I hope I did not imply on a cure, which is more than a quantum leap of faith, but ways to proactively get head of the game.

As far as OW disease, it is a very easy disease to diagnose based solely on necrotic leaves and the veinal banding that is burnt.  Many trees can exhibit signs of canopy loss, dead branches and have oak decline or something else, but if they exhibit only one leaf of necrotic leaves, and in most instances it will be more, case closed.  The TX State Forestry Agent has visited every persons place I have mentioned and verified OW in all of them...

Thanks again for your follow-up,
tstex

[fkarcha]

[
That's what I am saying, no hard statistics that I have ever found from places that I would put my faith in. And what I mean by that is places that do not have a financial interest of some sort.  It there was hard data, that injections were actually saving trees over a period of time, it sure seems to me it would exist somewhere. Especially for American Elm.

While I do not have access to the hard data, the City of Winnipeg uses Eertavas injections for trees in high value areas and has been doing so for some time.  The key is the use of injections as a preventative measure for maintaining high value trees.

Saving a tree that has been affected is possible, but requires some conditions: (1) the tree is otherwise healthy or unstressed prior to infections, (2) and the percentage of the affected canopy is < 10% of the total, or preferentially, <5%.  Immediate action must be taken to prune the initial infection and make an immediate attempt at injection.  Delay is costly, and any canopy symptoms displayed >10% is a guaranteed casualty (in my opinion.)

As for Oak Wilt, I am unfamiliar with the disease.  If it has the same parameters of Dutch Elm Disease, then I would say you are barking up the wrong tree (pardon the pun) if you are looking at chemical/biological curatives and preventatives.  The City of Winnipeg has maintained it's population of American Elms through a program of vigilance.  This includes identification, removal, and disposal of all Elm firewood, a ban on pruning of all Elms between Apr. 1 and Aug. 31, the identification of declining and dead Elms of all species and subsequent removal, and the identification of infected Elms and subsequent removal.

You knowledge of Oak Wilt will affect your management plan, but you should be looking a proactive prevention and removal of inoculates from your neighbourhood, rather than curing infected trees.

[tstex]

I am also employing Mechanical means for OW as well.   This includes 7 ft trenching x 6", w/ 2 trenches 6' ft apart for a total root separation of 7ft x 7 ft.  DED, per 4 research articles has a much more proactive and devastating vector spread due to borers, which in not as prolific in our live oaks here.  However, that does not mean our live oaks do not experience borers, they do, just not as consistent as the NA Elms.  Our oaks have to be physically opened for the fungi and spores to infect the tree, via the vector, which as you stated above is limited during certain times of yrs.  Our main issue once infected, is the colonization via the root systems.

Cutting down and removing live oaks, [which do not promote vector spreading via the proliferation of the fungal mats. which is strickly characterics of the red-oaks] that is, the ones that are infected, iit s better to let them die out.  This allows for the roots to die-out faster too, thus taking any residual life out of the fungus in the root systems.

As far as "a cure", I am not aware of one, for O-wilt.  The only evidence to date suggests that once a tree is infected, these are the only options:  1) it dies if left untreated, 2) it dies if treated, 3) it continues to live if the treatments are effective 4) after X yrs of consistent treatment, the tree out lasts the pathogen and the pathogen dies-out.  The final state of the tree in this case has many ranges...Again, all of the above scenarios are based on how soon the infected tree is treated once the tree is diagnosed.  Obviously, the sooner the better.  However, even though the canopy loss might not be visually significant, the trees vascular system might be too far gone anyway.  This is the exception, just as it is to treat a tree that is too far gone and it makes a come back.

If anyone has any doubts on the efficacy of treating OW in SE/SC Texas, I would be happy to connect you with people that have treated their trees and let them give you their results, as well as Forestry Agents/Aborists that have worked in the field for 25 yrs here in TX and let you speak with them, or the head of TX A&M University's Tree Sciences Dept for the study of Tree Diseases and Pathologies, which he has been studying OW since 1988.  Nothing is for sure in this fight, other than this is very timing consuming and expensive and you must be selective, proactive and willing to be in for the long haul.  My goal is to determine any other viable options that make the fight more cost-effective, which doesn't have an impact on changing the odds or the disease itself. but might increase your treatment range by reducing costs and reducing the time it takes to treat.  In any given treatment plan, a complete analysis must be done to determine if chemical treatment is viable and how long you are willing to engage.

tstex