|
Home
| |
CTPA Events:
CTPA
Summer Meeting
- July 17, 2008
Farmington Club; Farmington, CT
Other
Events:
ArborMaster Training
Level 2
Precision Felling and Tree Climbing
October 15-24
Haddam, CT
www.ArborMasterTraining.com
Connecticut Urban
Forest Council
October 23, 2008
Wallingford, CT
www.cturbanforestcouncil.org
The Bartlett
Arboretum in Stamford and
the Connecticut
Agricultural Experiment Station also
often hold meetings and educational activities that would be of interest
to members and licensed arborists in the state.
Recent News Articles
(each of the following articles are from recent issues
of the Connecticut Arborist - CTPA's member newsletter)
Point / Counterpoint with the CNLA
Safety - What are You Bringing to the
Playing Field?
How Well do You Know Your ANSI Standards?
Year 2002 update on Forest Insects and Diseases
Year
2001 update on Forest Insects and Diseases
Year 2000 update on Forest Insects and Diseases
Year 1999 update on Forest Insects and Diseases
Year 1998 update on Forest Insects and Diseases
Arbor Day 2001
CTPA Awards Arborist
Citation to the City of Bridgeport
New Haven: Still the
"Elm City"
The Text of the Revised Arborist Law
Point / Counterpoint with the CNLA
"CNLA ... believes landscapers should be able to feed,
fertilize, and prune most trees without getting the (arborist) license"
CNLA newsletter, May 2003
"CTPA is an educational association. We are founded on
the principle that the people of Connecticut are best served if the trees of
Connecticut are cared for by individuals who are highly knowledgeable about
trees, including the latest scientific findings regarding trees, and who are
practiced in the best methods of tree care. We are strong supporters of the
arborist license, because that license allows standards to be established as to
proper tree care." CTPA letter to CNLA, July 2003
For most of the past year, the Connecticut Tree Protective
Association has been engaged in a dialogue with the Connecticut Nursery and
Landscape Association (CNLA) over the rights of arborists and the limitations on
work that landscapers may legally do involving trees. This dialogue began last
spring when CNLA expressed its opposition to House Bill 6401 – the bill in the
General Assembly that would have established a business registration requirement
for tree care companies. The list of issues that have come up for discussion
from the two Associations includes ‘what is a tree?’, ‘what is a
landscaper?’ and ‘how should such issues be dealt with in the enforcement of
the law?’.
As this dialogue has proceeded there has been at least two
exchanges of correspondence and three face-to-face meetings involving
representatives of CTPA and CNLA. Representatives of the Pesticide Management
Division of DEP and of the Connecticut Ground Keepers Association have also been
involved in these meetings. Participants have, for the most part, made good
faith efforts to find solutions to the very difficult issues raised, and the
CTPA Board remains optimistic that progress can be made. However, the Board is
also very aware that we are at a difficult point in our discussions.
CNLA, through their Board, contends that its landscaper
members are in jeopardy under current statute, in that the current Arborist Law
does not make it sufficiently clear what a tree is, or what limitations the law
places on what an unlicensed individual may do with regards to tree work. The
CTPA Board contends that the important issue not whether one can define what a
tree is – most people know what a tree is – and that the law is very plain
in its language as to when one needs the arborist license. CTPA finds the more
critical issues are those having to do with professionalism and standards.
Instead, CTPA is challenging CNLA to define what a landscaper is and what
standards should apply to landscape work, as a necessary step towards resolving
any potential conflicts between the arborist license and landscape work.
Otherwise, in the view of the CTPA Board, the CNLA search is for loopholes in
the Arborist Law.
CTPA feels that it is important that a fair picture be
painted of the landscape industry. It is unquestioned that most landscapers work
hard, do quality work and bring a wealth of experience to their practice for the
benefit of their clients and the landscape. It is also recognized that, as
registered contractors, landscape businesses are subject to consumer protection
standards. However, the landscaping trade does not have direct professional
licensing, with a professional licensing board, independent state and national
standards, state regulations and continuing education requirements, as the
arborist profession has. In fact, anyone who wishes to, may call him or herself
a landscaper without any threat of penalty.
While there have been some tentative first steps in the
direction of resolving these concerns, CTPA has raised strenuous objections to
CNLA’s continued opposition to legislation that would establish an arborist
business registration. CTPA considers the effort by DEP to establish a business
registration for companies engaged in tree care to be an effort worthy of
support and an excellent example of a state agency working with arborists to
advance professionalism within the tree care industry. DEP sought to establish
this business registration in the last session of the General Assembly through
House Bill 6401. All of the particulars in that bill were aimed strictly at tree
care companies. As such, it did not warrant CNLA’s objections. Nonetheless,
CNLA worked to derail the bill last session, and continues to raise their
objections today. CTPA is concerned that CNLA is using the business registration
effort as a bargaining chip to provoke discussions and concessions regarding the
Arborist Law.
CTPA has taken a hard line on this last issue. As was stated
in the most recent correspondence from the CTPA to CNLA, "We are not about
to negotiate any of the provisions of the Arborist Law with an unregulated and
unlicensed industry that has yet to establish professional standards." The
interest of the CTPA Board is to protect the integrity of the arborist license,
the professionalism of the tree care industry and the hard-won, professional
rights of arborists. And, as has been pointed out many times, if someone wishes
to do work that requires them to hold an arborist license, they are free to go
out and earn that license, just as all of the other holders of the license in
the field have done.
The CTPA Board hopes that this is not the end of the
dialogue. The CTPA Board feels that continued discussion is well worth pursuing
with all members of the landscape community. After all, issues such as the
standards that should apply across the green industry generally and the best
methods of care for small woody ornamentals should be discussed in a way that
calls on a variety of perspectives. To this end, it is a good thing that the
third Association with a substantial interest in this issue, the Connecticut
Ground Keepers Association, has joined the dialogue. Progress can be made.
However, that will not occur in an atmosphere in which legitimate efforts on the
part of one industry to advance its profession are stymied by representatives of
a single association that has yet to define it goals or state, in positive
terms, what it intends from its efforts.
This article was discussed and approved by the CTPA Board at
the Board's March 2, 2004 Meeting.
Safety - What Are You Bringing to the Playing Field?
by Larry Dvorsky, President, CTPA
Early in my career, I used to think that safety was just a
sometime part of the job, as if getting the job done and getting the job done
safely were two different things. The job every so often included what I call
‘near-death experiences’ – times when safety was given a rest so that we
could concentrate on finishing the work – but heck, that was just part of
being a tree worker.
I no longer think that way. Now, I believe strongly in safety
– in fact, it is one of those issues about which I am passionate. It is
something that I think all tree workers also feel strongly about, because it
affects all of us so personally. You see this concern come out in the social
interactions of tree workers. Whenever there is an injury or a fatality anywhere
in the field, and any injury is too many injuries, we talk about it – what
happened, how serious, how it could have been prevented. It hits home for all of
us.
It is often said that tree care is an inherently unsafe
industry. After all, look at what we do. We climb trees, and perform our work
while held in by a rope 50, 60, 70 feet or more above the ground. We rig large
blocks of wood, sending their massive weight to the ground. We work near
energized lines. We run such potentially dangerous pieces of equipment as
chainsaws on a daily basis. We drive heavy trucks and we run big pieces of wood
through chippers. We also work with pesticides, with gasoline and with other
potentially hazardous materials. Yes, there is a lot of potential risk in tree
work.
But, I reject the notion that tree work is, or should be,
considered as inherently unsafe. There is a difference between understanding
that a particular job is dangerous and then preparing to do that work is a
manner that is as safe as possible, and thinking that accidents are always
possible, that there is always risk, and so luck or quickness or daring is
needed to see us through. That second way of thinking is itself dangerous, and
will only increase the risk of an accident.
So what do we do? We need to change our way of thinking, so
that accidents happen less and less, and maybe some day, do not happen at all.
We need to change our thinking to see that, while there still is danger in the
work, the risk of being hurt is much less, because we are prepared.
Being prepared and being safe involves a lot more than simply
wearing a hard hat and other items of personal protection. That is engineered
protection, which can help us when a limb or a tool is dropped unexpectedly or
in other odd, unpredictable occurrences. They are like the seat belts in a car.
But you are not a safe driver just because you wear a seat belt. Safety is
cultural, it involves a change in perspective, and it involves everyone.
We all have an obligation to safety, no matter what position
we hold in the tree care industry. It does not matter if you are a ground
person, a climber, a salesman, an IPM tech or a business owner – your job
involves a commitment to safety. We have the right to expect others to make good
decisions, and we need to challenge ourselves - to hold ourselves personally
accountable – for those decisions we ourselves make in the course of caring
for trees.
Not only that, the more time we spend in this industry, the
greater our individual responsibility to safety. Safety is a team concept, and
it needs team players to make it work. Just as rookies need to break into the
major leagues, new members in the industry need to learn that safe behavior is
integral to a company. They need the more senior people to help them along.
Likewise, the more senior an individual is, the more insightful he or she should
be about unsafe practices – whatever the origin of these practices – and
they need to step up and deal with them.
Ultimately, safety is about making decisions based on
knowledge. People can be taught to think safety, act safely and promote safe
practices throughout the industry. Training is an important part of the process.
It takes practice, just like playing baseball takes practice. If this sounds too
pie-in-the-sky, think of it this way. Everyone has a right, driving to work in
the morning, to feel that they will be able to drive home again in the evening,
sound and in one piece. That’s what we all want; that is what we should be
working for, together.
The science of safety has come a long way over the past few
years. CTPA has sought to bring these findings to our members, through the
inclusion of a class on safety in the Arboriculture 101 course, and through
speakers such as Dr. Dennis Ryan, Ken Palmer, and Dr. John Ball, each of whom
has spoken at one of our recent Annual Meetings.
But, relying on CTPA is not enough. Individual companies and
individual tree workers need to make a commitment to safety on their own. There
are many opportunities out there for training in safety that companies and
individuals can take advantage of. For example, right here in Connecticut, we
have one of the foremost experts on safety in tree care – Ken Palmer of
ArborMaster Training.
CTPA is currently partnering with ArborMaster Training to
promote a series of training modules, to take place in August and in October. We
are doing this, not because we feel have some obligation to help ArborMaster
Training, but because we feel that these sorts of training opportunities are
critical to the safety of tree workers in Connecticut.
If you do not feel that ArborMaster Training is appropriate for your company,
look around for what else is out there – ACRT has programs, as does the Tree
Care Industries Association (formerly NAA) and others. Take advantage! After
all, it is your team. Be sure that you bring them onto the field ready to play.
July, 2003
How
Well do You Know Your ANSI Standards?
(This article came about following a conversation with
Scott Cullen after the CTPA’s Summer Meeting.)
Most of us are at least somewhat familiar with the ANSI
Standards relating to tree care. We know, for instance, that these are important
documents, published through the NAA and ISA, and that each of the four
individual ANSI Standards covers a separate topic.
But where do these standards come from and what makes them so
important to our industry? Let’s take a few minutes to look at these
questions.
Let's start with an explanation of what is ANSI. ANSI stands
for the "American National Standards Institute". ANSI is a private,
non-profit organization, established in 1918, that is involved in the creation
of standards for literally hundreds of industries. However, ANSI does not itself
write these standards. What it contributes, instead, is a process.
ANSI was founded on the idea that private industry is in the
best position to understand itself and will do the best job, both for itself and
for the general public, in coming up with standards to guide that industry. In
other words, ANSI Standards are not governmental regulations imposed from the
outside, but rather are drawn up within the industry, by that industry, to meet
needs identified by that industry. Government may then use these documents as a
basis for licensing, regulation or enforcement, but that happens only after the
standards are drawn up.
How does the ANSI process work? As ANSI says on their
website, the Institute "facilitates development (of standards) by
establishing consensus among qualified groups". The process depends upon
three things – a fair system, the selection of the right groups to
participate, and consensus among these groups.
One can get a sense of this process by looking through the
Foreward of any of the standards published for tree care. Currently, there are
four such standards:
ANSI Z133.1, Safety Requirements,
ANSI A300, part 1, Pruning,
ANSI A300, part 2, Fertilization, and
ANSI A300, part 3, Support Systems –
Cabling, Bracing and Guying
A fifth standard, ANSI A-300, part 4, Lightning Protection
Systems, is in the process of being drafted.
For example, in the Foreward of the Z133.1 safety standard,
we learn something about its history. The original Z133 Committee was formed in
1968 in response to the death of a tree worker, and the first safety standard
was approved in 1972. There have been 5 revisions since then, with the most
recent being published in the year 2000. The International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA), as Secretariat for this Standard, is responsible for the
publication of this standard and for keeping it up to date (the National
Arborist Association performs this role for the A300 Standards).
Most importantly, the Foreward lists those individuals who
are on the Standards Committee. It is these individuals whose consensus is
needed in order for the document to be published as an ANSI Standard. The range
of organizations that these individuals represent is vast. For example, with
regards to the "Z", large and small tree care companies (Bartlett,
Davey, Nelson Tree Service, Wright Tree Service), consultants (ACRT),
manufacturers (Husqvarna, Wood/Chuck Chipper Corporation, Buckingham
Manufacturing), tree care associations (NAA, ISA, California Arborist
Association), the electrical industry (Edison Electrical Institute,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) and many more are represented.
Government is represented, through the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest
Service and the U.S. Department of Labor, but not in any way that dominates the
committee.
Because this mix of people is so closely associated with the
work of arboriculture as it is done in the field, and because consensus is
required, these standards carry a high degree of authority. Items do not make it
into the standard if the full committee does not understand or agree with the
intent of that item, or if individuals on the committee do not see its relevance
to the topic at hand. If something should slip by the committee, each of the
proposed standards still has to go through an extensive public comment period
before being published. The average tree care worker, even if he or she does not
have direct access to someone on the committee, always has the opportunity to
make their opinion known and the possibility of having their opinion reflected
in the final version of the standard.
Because these documents are created by consensus among those
actively engaged in tree work, they have proven to be very useful to people in
the field who do the tree work. Besides being a compendium of a lot of good
information, these standards define basic terms and provide short descriptions
of basic techniques. In this way, they are of great benefit in improving
communication within the industry, and also to those outside the industry, such
as customers and regulators.
As was mentioned earlier, ANSI Standards are not products of
a government agency. They can, however, be used by governmental bodies for a
variety of reasons. For instance, in Connecticut, we have a licensing law. While
neither the Statutes nor the regulations specifically mention the ANSI Standards
by name, the law does refer to "recognized arboricultural methods".
Because of how the ANSI Standards are created, these standards are considered to
be among the key sources for what is "recognized" by the industry.
Likewise, in a court of law, judges tend to view these standards as among the
most relevant in determining whether proper practices were followed, and if the
work is consistent with what is accepted in the industry.
So, in many ways, these ANSI Standards are your ANSI Standards - they
have been created by your peer group, they are representative of your work in
the field, and they have a role to play in the training, regulation and the
on-going development of tree work. For all of these reasons, these are documents
well worth reading, and relating to your daily activities.
Current Status of Forest Insect Pests and Diseases in
Connecticut - 2002
by Carol R.
Lemmon, CT Agricultural Experiment
Station
FOREST HEALTH
SURVEY
During
the summer of 2001, the Forest Health Team at the Connecticut Agricultural
Experiment Station examined 51 permanent, one-acre forest plots.
These plots, located on state, Nature Conservancy and municipal water
company properties, were established to monitor forest health over time. We chose 25 pathogens for monitoring and determined which
trees served as host plants. Within
each plot, 20 to 30 trees were tagged for long-term studies.
Signs of disease were noted, such as defoliation in the crown and dead
limbs. Efforts will be made to
assess if damage is increasing or the tree is declining.
Trees will be measured at breast height (DBH) in an effort to use growth
as an additional assessment of health. We
will continue to use these plots to monitor the forests over several years to
determine whether our state forests are remaining healthy or are declining. (These data can be copied to CD and sent on request).
GYPSY
MOTHS
Our
annual survey for gypsy moth took place in early July.
We flew over the 1.8 million acres of urban/suburban forest in
Connecticut to assess possible damage. Gypsy
moth defoliation amounted to approximately 367 acres in Windham County, despite
egg mass counts as high as 8,000 per acre.
There appeared to be adequate precipitation during the early development
of the gypsy moths to trigger the parasitic fungus, Entomophaga maimaiga.
This fungus has been suppressing the gypsy moth population in Connecticut
since 1989.
In
late November to early December, a gypsy moth egg mass survey was conducted in
sites with 80-95% favorable host trees on a 7 -mile grid (102 sites) throughout
Connecticut. Egg masses were found
at 26 sites in 7 counties. There
were no sites where egg masses were found in numbers large enough to be
considered a potential problem for the spring and summer of 2002.
BUTTERNUT
CANKER
Butternut
canker is caused by the fungus Sirococcus clavigignenti-juglandacearum.
The disease is found throughout the range of butternut (Juglans
cinerea) in North America. Since
the fungus was first discovered to be killing butternut trees in the United
States in 1967, it has spread rapidly. The
spores of this fungus are airborne and can be dispersed over long distances
during periods of cool temperatures and overcast skies.
Coalescing cankers girdle the limbs and tree trunks, killing the trees. There is no known cure.
We
are looking for trees that may show resistance to this fungus and so are
monitoring butternuts throughout Connecticut as the fungus moves through state.
We have tagged 595 trees, of which 94% have some degree of infection.
Attention is being paid as to which trees succumb to the infection and
which trees maintain moderately good growth despite being infected.
DBH is being used as the measure of growth.
This year we collected leaves from each of these trees for DNA analysis,
so that we will know for certain that these trees are native butternuts and not
hybrids with Japanese butternut.
HEMLOCK
WOOLLY ADELGID
The
hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae, remains an important pest of
hemlock in Connecticut. It has
spread northward since its coastal detection in 1985 and now occurs in all 169
towns and cities in the state.
Dr
Mark McClure, chief scientist at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment
Station’s Valley Lab, collected a natural enemy of the adelgid from Japan.
His rearing and release of the coccinellid beetle Pseudoscymnus tsugae
is an attempt to provide a biological control for this pest.
This past year, he mass released 10,000 beetles at three new sites, in
Hartford, Middlesex and Windham Counties. In
addition, 1,000 beetles were released on hemlocks on Mashantucket Pequot Nation
tribal lands to augment previous releases.
His staff reports that, since 1995, approximately 147,000 beetles have
been released in 21 sites throughout Connecticut.
Dr
McClure’s research indicates that winter temperatures of minus 5° Fahrenheit
play a critical role in reducing the over-wintering survival of the adelgid.
Unfortunately, the fluctuating low temperatures of 1999-2000 that appear
to have been a part of the reduction of the numbers of adelgids during that
winter were not repeated during the winter of 2000-2001.
The adelgid survived in greater numbers with mortality rates of only
about 50% in northern Connecticut and 36% at southern sites.
Sampling at beetle release sites verified that both adult and larval
beetles also survived. At one site,
there was dispersal to 0.04 miles from the original release location.
ASIAN
LONGHORN BEETLE
The
Asian longhorn beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis, was first discovered to
be attacking trees in New York City in August of 1996.
This insect has now spread to within 25 miles of the Connecticut/New York
border. As a result, we are in the
process of conducting an intensive survey for this beetle within a 75 square
mile area in the southwestern corner of the state.
The
possibility of the beetle entering ports in Connecticut through transport on
solid wood packing material is also of particular concern.
We concentrated additional survey efforts in the port areas of
Bridgeport, Groton, New Haven and New London.
The parks surrounding these ports also were surveyed, as they contain a
high percentage of maple, a favorite food source of the Asian longhorn beetle.
We
made numerous house calls to homeowners who complained of damaged and dying
maple trees, and identified hundreds of beetles that caused concern that they
might be Asian longhorn beetles. All
surveys and identifications thus far have been negative.
PINE
SHOOT BEETLES
The
Pine shoot beetle, was first discovered in Ohio in 1992.
This exotic pest is believed to have entered this country in solid wood
packing material. This beetle has
spread to Canada and to eleven states including New York and, more recently,
Vermont and New Hampshire.
We
surveyed for this beetle in both Christmas tree farms and on cut Christmas trees
that are shipped into Connecticut from states where this beetle is found.
ORANGESTRIPED
OAKWORM
The
Orangestriped oakworm, Anisota sentoria, is a native moth that ranges
from eastern Canada southward to Georgia. It
is a common pest of oak species in Connecticut.
Occasionally local infestations occur when oaks have been stressed by
factors such as drought or gypsy moths. When
this happens, serious defoliations can occur.
During early May 2001, we had a series of unseasonably hot days in the
high 80’s followed by a temperature plunge into the mid 30’s and, in some
areas, in the high 20’s. Oaks
were particularly affected by this sudden temperature fluctuation.
New foliage in the Windham area of the state turned brown and died. The
oaks took energy that is normally used for defense and developed new growth.
This may have been a stress factor that allowed by the orange striped
oakworm to become abundant.
On
October 2, 2001, an aerial survey was conducted over Windham, New London and
parts of Tolland counties in eastern Connecticut. Defoliation was found in Canterbury and Killingly.
Both towns are in Windham County.
A
small number of red-humped oak worms were located in a ground survey.
We are unable to determine what percent of the defoliation was caused by
this insect.
CEDAR
LONGHORNED BEETLE
Based
on trap-log surveys and on rearings from dead wood, the exotic small Japanese
cedar longhorned beetle, Callidiellum rufipenne, is established in 44
Connecticut towns distributed in Fairfield, Middlesex, New Haven, and New London
Counties. The beetle has been shown
to develop successfully on 8 species of ornamental and wild plants in the family
Cupressaceae. In the wild, the
principal host is dead eastern red cedar, but C. rufipenne also infests
dead common juniper and Atlantic white cedar.
In garden centers, the main hosts were stressed balled and burlaped
arborvitae and other cupressaceous landscape plants. In no-choice tests, the beetle developed on woody plants of
the Pinaceae (7 species), Cupressaceae (6 species), and Taxodiaceae (2 species).
HOW
TO CONTACT CAES
Individuals
who wish to learn more about the information contained in this report may reach
Ms. Lemmon at the following address:
Carol R. Lemmon
Deputy State Entomologist
CT Agricultural Experiment Station
PO Box 1106
New Haven, CT 06405-1106
web site address – www.caes.state.ct.us
Industry
Related Events
The state of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection administers the written
portions of the Connecticut Arborist License Exam.
These exams are by appointment only. For
information, contact DEP Pesticide Division at: 860 424-3369
Those who pass the written exam will be eligible for
the Tree Identification and Oral parts of this test, given by the Tree Protection
Examining Board. Successful candidates will be recommended by the TPEB to DEP for
licensing.
DEP also administers the Pesticide Operator's
Examination on a regular basis in both West Hartford and New Haven. Contact the DEP
Pesticide Division for details.
Arborists and those who practice tree care are lucky.
Perhaps alone among professionals, we have a national holiday –
Arbor Day – dedicated to what we as professionals hold most dear.
While florists might suggest that they have Valentine’s Day (or
is that cardiologists?), and dentists might say the same about Halloween,
it is not the same. In those
cases, it is the symbol of the holiday that touches on their profession,
but not the holiday itself. For
tree care professionals, Arbor Day is special because it is a celebration
of trees.
The Connecticut Tree Protective Association again was a
leader in the celebration of Arbor Day in Connecticut.
Central among the day’s events was the annual Arbor Day Tree Planting
Ceremony, held this year at Dinosaur State Park, in Rocky Hill.
During this ceremony, each of the winners of CTPA’s Arbor Day Essay
Contest were honored for the poem or essay they submitted.
These students were selected from among all of the entries from their
county. Altogether, seven of the
state’s eight counties were represented.
Also during the event, a zelkova was planted to commemorate Arbor Day
2001, and to recognize all of the fifth grade students who submitted poems or
essays to the contest.
During the tree planting ceremony, the student
winners were invited to read their entry to the assembled group. Listening to these entries, one is impressed with the
heartfelt connection these young people have with trees, and their sincerity in
expressing this connection. One is
also reassured for the future of our state, if these young folks are at all
indicative of those who be responsible for its care and management in the years
to come. (To see a list of winners, click here.)
CTPA Arbor Day Chairman Ken Placko ably directed the events
of the day as Master of Ceremonies. It
was Ken who made the contacts, found the tree, scheduled the activities and then
led the celebrants through the program. Ken
was assisted by Board Members Jeff Ward, Doug Pistawka and Larry Dvorsky.
Mark Sullivan, as previous Chairman of the Committee, also lent his
support.
A special thanks goes to Mr. Rich Krueger, Superintendent
of Dinosaur State Park. One of Mr.
Krueger’s projects at the Park is the establishment of an arboretum.
In this arboretum, he is including species of trees that are
representative of the plant families known from the fossils to date back to the
era of the dinosaurs. During the
ceremony, Mr. Krueger explained to the audience why a zelkova was chosen.
The Ulmacaeae is one of those ancient plant families, and no
representative of the elm family had been previously planted in the park.
Mr. Krueger expressed his delight with the addition.
The CTPA Ceremony was not the only Arbor Day event in which
CTPA members were actively engaged. For
example, each of the eight Tree City USA’s in Connecticut held Arbor Day
events. In Fairfield, Ken Placko,
as Tree Warden, hosted a tree planting in the Southport section of town.
In Danbury, East Hartford and Wethersfield, tree plantings were also
held. In Southbury, Pat Kearns lent
his expertise to the Southbury Historical Tree Commission for their Arbor Day
event, while in Groton, Marty Schoonman and Sam Popinchalk worked to arrange a
tree planting at the Claude Chester School.
In Middletown, as part of their Arbor Day celebration, a large copper
beech was dedicated to the memory of recently departed prominent doctor.
Bruce Spaman was instrumental in that event.
Meanwhile, in Stamford, Scott Richardson of Bartlett Tree, as Chair of
the Stamford Tree Commission, oversaw the planting of a young Kwanzan cherry in
Mill River Park. This tree fills a
gap in a spectacular series of mature cherries planted in the park as a gift
from a Japanese businessman 40 years ago. This
year’s event was held in association with the Fairfield County Japan Society.
John Kehoe, Acting City Forester in Hartford, hosted two
Arbor Day events. The first was a dedication of two newly planted
dogwoods at the Clark Street School, in a project involving the fourth
grade class in the school. In addition, John worked with the friends
of Bushnell Park in the dedication of new cherry trees, planted near to
the reflecting pool in that park.
CURRENT
STATUS OF FOREST INSECT PESTS AND DISEASES - 2001
By Carol R.
Lemmon
CT Agricultural Experiment Station
New Haven
The following article
is contributed by Carol R. Lemmon, Researcher at the Connecticut Agricultural
Experiment Station and Assistant State Entomologist. This article reviews
the insect monitoring work that Carol and her staff has been engaged in over the
past year. Similar articles for previous years have been included in past
editions of the Connecticut Arborist.
GYPSY MOTHS
Above average
precipitation starting in April and continuing throughout July most likely
contributed to the suppression of gypsy moths during the summer of 2000. Entomophaga maimaiga, the pathogenic fungus that has
been suppressing gypsy moths in our state since 1989, is moisture dependent.
Usually, a gypsy moth buildup is preceded by a drought the previous
summer, such as we experienced in 1999. Nevertheless,
our annual statewide aerial survey indicated that 177 acres of woodlands were
defoliated in Mansfield Hollow State Park in Windham County.
A 7-mile grid survey for
egg masses was conducted at 102 sites throughout Connecticut.
Survey results indicate that the defoliated site in Mansfield Hollow has
approximately 8,000 egg masses per acre. Based
on past experience, we find that light defoliation can occur when there are 112
medium to large egg masses per acre. Four hundred to 1000 egg masses per acre
cause moderate defoliation and 700 to 2000 egg masses per acre causes heavy
defoliation. Many of the egg masses on the outer fringe of the Mansfield
site are large and contain about 600 to 1200 eggs per cluster.
Most of the area has medium-sized masses, which contain 250 to 600 eggs.
Diseases, parasites and/or predators of the gypsy moth can influence the
amount of defoliation as can a cold wet spring. We plan to monitor this area next spring and investigate how
all of these factors interact with Entomophaga maimaiga.
PINE
SHOOT BEETLES
In July of 1992, pine
shoot beetles (native to Europe and Asia) were discovered on a Christmas tree
plantation in Ohio. The adult
beetles are small, ranging from 3 to 5 mm in length, have a cylindrical body
with black head and thorax and reddish-brown to black wing covers.
The beetle does not attack all conifers and is primarily limited to pine
species. Although Scotch pine is
usually preferred, other species, such as Austrian pine, jack pine, red pine and
eastern white pine, are readily infested. In
late March when temperatures reach 50-54°,
the beetles emerge from the base of pine trees where they overwinter under the
bark within 20 to 40 cm of ground level.
Recently, these beetles caused severe mortality in heavily
infested large stands of native white, Scotch and jack pines in Ontario, Canada.
Counties in Ohio, New York, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Vermont,
Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, West Virginia and the province of Ontario,
Canada have been quarantined because of pine shoot beetle activity.
Because of the
potential of this beetle to impact our native eastern white pine, urban trees,
landscape ornamentals and the Christmas tree and nursery industries, we conduct
surveys of Christmas trees shipped from quarantined states as well as
Connecticut Christmas tree farms during fall and early winter. We inspected 23,851 trees on 85 farms totaling 700 acres.
In addition, we inspected 12,215 cut Christmas trees at 180 locations
throughout our eight counties. Pine shoot beetles were not found in Connecticut.
HEMLOCK
WOOLLY ADELGID
The Hemlock woolly adelgid,
Adelges tsugae, an exotic insect that apparently originated in Japan and
became established in Virginia in 1921, was introduced into Connecticut in 1985.
In just a few years, it spread throughout Connecticut and now has moved
further into Rhode Island, New York, and Massachusetts.
Several months ago, it was discovered in New Hampshire.
A biological control organism, the ladybird beetle, Pseudoscymnus
tsugae, has been reared and released by Dr. Mark McClure and his staff in an
effort to control the adelgid. They
have released more than 131,000 adult beetles at 18 sites throughout
Connecticut. Dr. McClure
conjectures that the warmer winters, coastal sites and areas around moving water
and unfrozen lakes, due to warmer ambient air temperatures are beneficial to the
adelgid. However, several northern
sites experienced temperatures below a critical level of minus 5°
Fahrenheit during January 2000. This
drop in temperature caused greater than 93% mortality in the adelgid.
The decline in the adelgid population, above average rainfall, a cool
moist spring and summer are all beneficial to the recovery of the hemlocks
stressed by last year’s drought and enhances the beetle’s chances for
control.
ELONGATE
HEMLOCK SCALE
The elongate hemlock scale,
Fiorinia externa, primarily a pest of hemlock, was first discovered
in Queens, NY in 1908. It has
severely infested hemlocks, Tsuga canadensis, in Connecticut since the
1950’s. This armored scale insect
feeds on the nutrients in the needles by means of its piercing, sucking
mouthparts. Dispersion to other
trees is usually achieved by the crawler stage, which is often wind borne or
carried by birds or mammals. Crawlers
significantly proliferate on hemlocks stressed by drought and adelgids.
Their numbers have increased considerably and they have a profound impact
on the diminishing health of our native hemlocks.
ASIAN
LONGHORNED BEETLE
During August of 1996, a
new exotic longhorned beetle from Asia, Anoplophora glabripennis, was
discovered attacking trees in Brooklyn and Amityville, New York.
This exotic woodborer has spread to several boroughs in New York and now
occurs in two locations in Chicago. This woodborer has attacked species of
maple, horse chestnut, birch, poplar, willow, elm and hibiscus.
Various systemic insecticides are now being tested which target the
larval stage of the beetle as it feeds initially in the sapwood.
We have worked with
UDSA/APHIS Plant Protection Quarantine division personnel in our search for
Asian longhorned beetle by conducting a delimiting survey for its presence in
southwestern Connecticut. Our staff
inspected 25 grid-point sites that included a total of 3,907 trees.
In addition, our surveys included examining trees in areas around the
harbors of Bridgeport, Groton, New Haven and New London.
The trees around the harbors and in nearby parks were examined by
binoculars and telescopes from the ground before leaves appeared in the spring.
A total of 52 house calls were made to private homes and businesses at
their request to examine boreholes in trees on their property.
Below is a table indicating the counties and number of trees inspected.
All surveys were negative.
BUTTERNUT
CANKER
Butternut Canker, Sirococcus
clavigignenti-juglandacearum, a fungus new to science, was first discovered
to be killing butternut trees in 1967. Since
that time, it has rapidly spread throughout the United States often by air-borne
fungal spores that are dispersed long distances during cool temperatures and
overcast skies. The fungus infects young twigs via the leaf scar, older stems
via adventitious buds, natural bark cracks and wounds.
Cankers form from infected sites. Large
limbs and tree trunks succumb to the fungus as a result of the girdling effect
of multiple coalescing cankers.
We have tagged 755 trees as a
part of our program to follow the progress of butternut canker within
Connecticut to hopefully find trees that may be resistant to the fungus.
Each year we cut scions from butternuts that are still healthy and send
them to New Hampshire to test butternuts for resistance.
The scions are grafted to walnut stock, and when the graft heals, the
trees are challenged with the fungus to determine resistance.
No trees in Connecticut or other states have shown any signs of
resistance thus far. Ninety-two
percent of the butternuts in our program are infected with butternut canker.
If you have butternut trees
on your property that you would allow us to monitor, or if you know of a site in
Connecticut where butternut trees occur, please call us at 203-974-8474.
NECTRIA CANKER
Nectria canker, caused by the
fungus, Nectria galligena, is widespread in forests and affects more than
60 trees and shrubs in North America. The
cankers form large target-shaped sunken areas on trees, killing the bark and
callus areas. Coalescing cankers
ultimately kill large branches and trees rendering them useless for lumber.
Nectria has played an important role in attacking black birch, Betula
lenta, in Connecticut forests. Black
birch is one of the early success ional trees that rapidly envelop areas when
there is a clearcut or opening in the canopy.
Current research at the CT Agricultural Experiment has found that the
impact of Nectria on black birch in our forests correlates with the way the
forest has previously been managed. Results
indicate that unmanaged mixed stands have a low incidence of the fungus and
stands that were clear-cut 20 to 40 years ago often have heavy nectria canker
infections.
THE SMALLER
JAPANESE CEDAR LONGHORN BEETLE
The smaller Japanese cedar longhorn
beetle, Callidiellum rufipenne, was found in Milford Connecticut in 1998
in a live arborvitae branch, Thuja occidentalis ‘Emerald green’.
This beetle is native to China, Japan and Korea where it usually attacks
dead, weakened or freshly cut trees. This
beetle has been found in about a half dozen species of apparently healthy
nursery stock as well as infesting native eastern red cedar, Juniperus
virginiana.
We have established a
quarantine for Fairfield, Litchfield, New Haven, Middlesex and New London
Counties and have inspected 524 nurseries, garden centers and homeowners yards.
To slow the spread of this beetle, our only option at this time is to
burn or chip infested trees and cedar products, or to bury the chips.
We have found four parasites that attack the cedar longhorn beetle and
are investigating them for potential biological control.
CHLOROPHORUS
ANNULARUS
An exotic longhorn beetle, Chlorophorus
annularus, was found in August in cut bamboo in a California warehouse.
Dead adults and larvae and one live larva were isolated from bamboo poles
that originated in China. Live
adults and larvae were likewise found in bamboo inspected in other states.
Many of these bamboo poles were shipped to nursery/garden stores,
landscapers and tree services that use them to stake trees upright.
Adult longhorn beetles have been found emerging from bamboo stakes in
nurseries in other states, creating a very high risk of dispersing this beetle
and infesting other hosts, which include sweetgum, Liquidamber styraciflua,
as well as grape vines and pear trees. We
found dead beetles and damaged poles in New Haven and Litchfield Counties in
Connecticut.
FOREST HEALTH
MONITORING PLOTS
During the summer of 2000, we
examined 51 permanent, one-acre forest plots that were established to monitor
forest health in Connecticut. These
plots are located on state, Nature Conservancy, and municipal water company
properties. When we established the
plots, we listed 25 pathogens that we would monitor in the plots, and determined
which trees served as hosts. We
chose plots within each of our eight counties that contained the host species we
needed. Within each plot, 20-30
trees were tagged for long-term studies. We
measure and record the diameter of the trees each year as well as evaluate them
for signs of defoliation and disease designed to reflect damage or decline.
There was no noticeable change in the health of our forest plots during
the summer of 2000.
CURRENT
STATUS OF FOREST INSECT PESTS AND DISEASES - 2000
By Carol R. Lemmon
CT Agricultural Experiment Station
New Haven
During the summer of 1999, we examined 51 permanent, one-acre forest plots that
were established to monitor forest health in Connecticut. These plots are located on
state, Nature Conservancy, and municipal water company properties. We considered 25
pathogens for monitoring and determined which trees served as host plants. Within each
plot, 20 to 30 trees were tagged for long-term studies. We evaluated signs of defoliation
and disease, such as dead tree branches, limbs and crowns. Descriptions and determinations
are designed to reflect increasing damage or tree decline. There was no noticeable change
in the health of our forest plots during the summer of 1999. We will continue to use these
plots to monitor the forests to assess whether our state forests remain healthy or are
declining.
GYPSY MOTH
Our annual aerial survey for gypsy moth defoliation took place in early July 1999.
During this aerial survey of 1.8 million acres of urban/suburban forest in all eight
Connecticut counties, no gypsy moth defoliation was found.
A statewide 7-mile grid survey for egg masses was conducted at 102 sites during the
late fall and early winter of 1999. Nine of the 1/16 acre grid point sites had egg masses.
Despite the drought of 1999 the Entomophaga maimaiga fungus killed caterpillars and
kept the numbers of egg masses down. Masses per acre are small enough (average 16 egg
masses per acre at 9 sites) to not cause concern about gypsy moth defoliation for 2000.
In work on the Entomophaga maimaiga fungus that attacks gypsy moths, Connecticut
Agricultural Experiment Station Scientist, Dr. Ron Weseloh has found that the number of
fungus resting spores in the soil is greatest in areas of Connecticut that were most
recently defoliated. If the defoliation occurred more than 10 years ago, few viable
resting spores remained. This parallels other research by Dr. Weseloh in which some
resting spores collected in 1990 germinated years later. However, the amount of
germination decreased to virtually nothing after 10 years. In the early 1990s this
viable fungus suppressed the gypsy moth. It is likely that there are fewer viable resting
spores in the soil now because the suppression has reduced the number of gypsy moths
becoming infected. It is possible, as the viable resting spores decrease both in number
and viability each year, that some new localized outbreaks of gypsy moths might occur,
especially after a dry spring and summer.
PINE SHOOT BEETLE
The Pine shoot beetle, Tomicus piniperda, is an exotic pest of conifers, It was
first discovered in Ohio in 1992. The beetle was probably introduced into this country by
foreign ships carrying beetle-infested wood as dunnage. Counties in Ohio, New York,
Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Vermont, New Hampshire, West Virginia and the
province of Ontario, Canada have been quarantined because of these beetle infestations.
One hundred and thirty-one Christmas tree farms in 57 Connecticut towns were inspected
for pine shoot beetles during 1999. This inspection encompassed 971 acres of trees and the
individual examination of 39,264 Christmas trees. The trees were examined by walking along
the rows looking for damage. Pine shoot beetles were not found in Connecticut.
In late November and December, we examined 6,078 Christmas trees owned by 84 dealers in
50 towns and 8 Connecticut counties. The trees were inspected for over-wintering pine
shoot beetle adults in the base of tree trunks or beetle damage. We were especially
concerned about Christmas trees that were shipped into Connecticut from states that have Tomicus
piniperda infestations. Pine shoot beetles were not found in Connecticut.
In Ontario the Pine shoot beetle was found well outside its quarantine area causing
severe mortality, up to 100%, in some stands of native white pine. Other conifers infested
in the area were stands of Scotch and jack pines. This was the first major infestation of
white pine that has been reported, and it was never really considered to be a major host
of this pest. This find causes some trepidation as New York, Vermont and New Hampshire all
have infestations and white pine is the only major conifer in Connecticut that is not
already undergoing insect attack.
HEMLOCK WOOLLY ADELGID Adelges
Adelges
tsugae
The hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae, has slowly spread its way
northward since its first occurrence along coastal Connecticut in 1985 and now can be
found in all of the 169 towns in Connecticut. Since that time it has also moved into New
York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection has been either cutting or arranging the cutting of these dying infested
hemlocks since the late 1980s and has increased the number of cuts from about 100
acres per year to about 500.
Dr. Mark McClure, Chief Scientist at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment
Stations Valley Laboratory, has mass reared and released a biological control
coccinellid beetle, Pseudoscymnus tsugae, new to science, which he discovered in
Japan and described. However, Connecticuts approximately 23 million hemlock trees
continues to be in a state of decline despite the release of these lady bug beetles. The
addition of 54,226 beetles brings the number of these biological control agents to more
than 100,000 in Connecticut where they have been released on 16 sites. The drought in the
summer of 1999 and several recently mild winters allowed both the adelgid and the elongate
hemlock scale, Fiorinia externa, to proliferate and add to this decline.
Fortunately, the severity of the 1999-2000 winter has knocked back the adelgid in the
northern part of the state by 85-100% and by 15-30% in the southern towns. Dr. McClure
reports a pattern of die-off for adelgids during very cold winters. He reports that in
areas around moving water or unfrozen lakes there is less of a die-off of the adelgid. He
surmises that this effect may be due to warmer ambient air temperatures around these
bodies of water, raising them above the critical level of minus 5 degrees Fahrenheit. This
decline in the adelgid population may put the ladybug beetle in a more favorable position
to control the adelgid.
ASIAN LONGHORNED BEETLES
During August of 1996, a new exotic longhorned beetle from Asia, Anoplophora
glabripennis, was discovered attacking trees in Brooklyn and Amityville, New York.
Our search for this beetle in Connecticut includes examining trees in areas around the
harbors in Bridgeport, Groton, New Haven, and New London. We spent several days at each of
these areas surveying host trees near the waterfront and surrounding streets and parks.
Trees were examined with binoculars in early spring before leaves appeared on the trees.
In addition, we inspected trees containing boreholes at the homes of private citizens who
were concerned that the Asian longhorned beetle might be present. Currently we are
assisting USDA/APHIS/PPQ with a 36 point grid survey. All surveys were negative.
BUTTERNUT CANKER
Butternut Canker, (Sirococcus clavigigninti-juglandacearum), is a pathogenic
fungus, which was first documented in the United States in 1967. Sirococcus cankers
can develop in three weeks on twigs, limbs and the surface of roots and tree trunks.
Fungal spores, which are washed down the tree, spread the organism. Coalescing cankers
girdle the limbs and tree trunks, killing the trees. There is no known cure for this
disease, but resistant trees may exist in our native butternut population. During the
summer of 1999, we examined 630 tagged butternut trees for Sirococcus cankers.
Approximately 80% (508) of these trees had butternut cankers present. At this time, 93
trees remain free of cankers, 9 trees have been cut down, and 20 trees died.
Butternut Canker 1999 Summary
| County |
Infected Trees |
Healthy Trees |
Trees Cut Down |
Dead Trees |
| Fairfield |
27 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
| Hartford |
288 |
56 |
9 |
11 |
| Litchfield |
36 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
| Middlesex |
37 |
10 |
0 |
1 |
| New Haven |
39 |
13 |
0 |
4 |
| New London |
18 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
| Tolland |
39 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
| Windham |
24 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
| Totals |
508 |
93 |
9 |
20 |
SMALLER JAPANESE CEDAR LONGHORN BEETLE
The smaller Japanese cedar longhorn beetle, Callidiellum rufipenne, was found in
Milford, Connecticut 1998 in a live arborvitae branch, Thuja occidentalis
Emerald green. This beetle is native to Japan, Korea and eastern China. It
usually attacks dead, weakened, or freshly cut trees. This is the first time it has
infested live trees. This beetle has been found in several other native and ornamental
conifers in Connecticut forest and nurseries recently. It has the potential to be a
northern New England forest pest.
During 1999, we conducted 371 inspections of Connecticut nurseries and homeowners for
the smaller Japanese cedar longhorn beetle. Twenty-seven thousand and sixty-four
Thuja, Juniperus and Chamaecyparis plants were inspected for signs of longhorn
beetle damage. One hundred and sixty-five plants were found infested. These plants were
confiscated and destroyed by burning in accordance with quarantine regulations in
Connecticut. Eight thousand, six hundred and eighty-two cedar poles were also inspected.
Thirty-two were found infested and destroyed. We also inspected 843 other cedar products
(artificial Christmas trees, planters, and decorative animals) that originated in China.
Fourteen products that were infested with Callidiellum were confiscated and burned.
CURRENT STATUS OF
FOREST INSECT PEST AND DISEASES IN CONNECTICUT (1999)
By Carol R. Lemmon
The following report, on forest insect and disease conditions, is put together annually
by Carol Lemmon and her staff at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. It is
based on field observations and surveys from the previous year. Additional questions may
be addressed to Ms. Lemmon at:
Carol R. Lemmon
Deputy State Entomologist
CT Agricultural Experiment Station
P.O. Box 1106
New Haven, CT 06405-1106
203 789-7236
GYPSY MOTH
Etienne Leopold Trouvelot, began his experiments on developing a better silkworm around
1860 in Medford, Massachusetts. He was working with the genus Bombyx, and
especially the species that had been used in the silk trade for 4,000 years, Bombyx
mori. He decided to crossbreed this species with other close relatives. He imported
the gypsy moth to breed with this silkworm as it was still called Bombyx dispar by many
authorities. It has had several name changes since, Ocneria dispar, Porthetria
dispar and today it has been taken out of the family Bombycidae all together and put
in with the tussock moths in the family Lymantriidae and called Lymantria dispar.
Sometime in 1868 or 1869, the gypsy moth escaped and by 1882, when Trouvelot returned to
France to live, it was estimated that 400 square miles around Medford had become infested.
By 1905 it reached Stonington, Connecticut where it was found near a velvet mill by Mr.
Ernst Frencsh. Somewhere in the United States, ever since, scientists have been trying to
control gypsy moths and its spread.
In 1989, a fungus, Entomophaga maimaiga, was discovered by station scientists to
be controlling an outbreak of gypsy moths. In Connecticut, as well as in a few other
states, this fungus has naturally kept this destructive moth under control and resulted in
a dramatic drop in the number of wooded acres that were defoliated. However, in other
states, although it has some impact, it is not acting as the "silver bullet"
that will totally wipe out these gypsy moth populations at the present time. The impact is
significant enough, however, that in 1998 all states with gypsy moth infestations reported
the lowest number of acres defoliated in the last 30 years.
Our annual aerial survey for gypsy moth defoliation took place in early July, 1998.
During this survey of 1.8 million acres of urban/suburban forest in all eight Connecticut
counties, no gypsy moth defoliation was found. A statewide 7-mile grid survey for egg
masses was conducted at 102 sites during the winter of 1998-99. Two of the 1/16 acre grid
point sites had egg masses. The numbers of egg masses were small enough (16 egg masses per
acre) to not cause concern about gypsy moth defoliation for 1999.
Six towns requested surveys of their woodlands for gypsy moth egg masses. A total of
92,870 acres of forests were surveyed. No egg masses were found during these surveys.
HEMLOCK WOOLLY ADELGID
The hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae, remains an important pest of eastern
hemlock, Tsuga canadensis, and Carolina hemlock, Tsuga caroliniana, in the
south. The adelgid first appeared in the eastern United States in 1921 in Virginia and
probably originated in Japan. The pest has slowly spread northward since its first
occurrence along coastal areas of Connecticut in 1985. A survey of hemlock stands in
uninfested areas was conducted in the winter of 1998. The hemlock woolly adelgid occurs in
164 of 169 towns in Connecticut.
Dr. Mark McClure, Chief Scientist at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station's
Valley Laboratory, is working in conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service and the New
Jersey Beneficial Laboratory to have 10,000 predatory ladybug beetles, Pseudoscymnus
tsugae, released in 7 states to help control the adelgid. The Beneficial Laboratory
will be using Dr. McClure's rearing methodology, and will be working under his supervision
to reproduce enough ladybug beetles to release in the states of Rhode Island,
Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia and North Carolina.
ASIAN LONGHORN BEETLES
During August of 1996, a new exotic longhorn beetle from Asia, Anoplophora
glabripennis, was discovered attacking trees in Brooklyn and Amityville, New York.
Subsequent infestations have been found in Queens, New York and Chicago, Illinois.
Due to the interception of Asian Longhorn beetles at U.S. ports in cargo during 1998,
the USDA/APHIS Plant Protection Quarantine passed an Interim Rule on December 17, 1998
which requires require all solid wood packing material and dunnage to be fumigated or kiln
dried. Wood dunnage is used on ships to help stabilize cargo. Canada passed regulations in
January of 1999. A study is being conducted to determine whether or not the U.S.
regulation should be extended to all countries shipping any solid wood crating or dunnage
to the United States.
Our search for this beetle in Connecticut included examining trees in areas around the
harbors in Bridgeport, Groton, New Haven, and New London. We spent several days at each of
these areas surveying host trees near the waterfront and surrounding streets and parks.
Trees were examined with binoculars in early spring before leaves appeared on the trees.
In addition, we inspected trees containing bore holes at the homes of 10 private citizens
who were concerned that the Asian longhorn beetle might be present. We received more than
400 telephone calls and examined hundreds of insects suspected of being the Asian longhorn
beetle that were mailed or brought to us. All surveys and identifications were negative.
SMALLER JAPANESE CEDAR LONGHORN BEETLE
The smaller Japanese cedar longhorn beetle, Callidiellum rufipenne, was found in
Milford, Connecticut on September 22, 1998 in a live arborvitae branch, Thuja
occidentalis Emerald green. This beetle is native to Japan, Korea and
eastern China. It usually attacks dead, weakened, or freshly cut trees. This is the first
time it has infested live trees in the United States.
During the fall/winter of 1998, we conducted 201 inspections of Connecticut nurseries
for the smaller Japanese cedar longhorn beetle. Eighteen thousand, eight hundred and
fifty-nine Thuja, Juniperus and Chamaecyparis plants were inspected
for signs of longhorn beetle damage. Infestations were found in the Towns of Greenwich,
Milford, North Haven and Stamford.
Areas surrounding infested nurseries were inspected for the presence of the smaller
Japanese cedar longhorn beetle. Fifty inspections were carried out on 750 Thuja,
Juniperus and Chamaecyparis plants. These plants were on roadsides, in
citizens yards and in natural areas within one 1/2 mile of the nurseries. Infested
plants, sold by one of the originally infested nurseries, were found on private properties
in Greenwich, North Haven and Stamford during late 1998 and early 1999.
We are conducting research on this beetle to determine its flight period and to
discover whether it can fully develop within our native species of Japanese cedar, white
pine, northern white cedar, and several nursery cultivars. We will also conduct chemical
control experiments.
PINE SHOOT BEETLES
The pine shoot beetle, an exotic pest that entered this country on solid wood packing
material, was discovered in Ohio in 1992. This insect is reported to be a destructive
shoot-feeding species in Europe and in Asia. Since 1992, the beetle has spread to 243
counties in the northeastern states and to 22 counties in Ontario, Canada. Recent reports
from Canada indicate that pine shoot beetles have been found killing native white pines.
Both young and older trees were attacked. In addition, stands of Scotch and jack pines in
adjacent stands all showed signs of severe attack.
Pine shoot beetles initially infest the small shoots in the upper crown area and after
this area is weakened or killed, subsequently move down into the main trunk where they
bore through the bark and create breeding chambers in the cambium layer. The landowners
were unaware of the beetle and cut and stacked dead and dying trees next to the stands
which provided a major breeding source for infestation of the stand.
Seventy-seven Christmas tree farms and outlets in 28 Connecticut towns were inspected
for pine shoot beetles, Tomicus piniperda, during 1998. This inspection encompassed
250 acres of trees and the individual examination of 38,657 Christmas trees. The trees
were examined by walking along the rows looking for damage. Pine shoot beetles were not
found in Connecticut.
BUTTERNUT CANKER
Butternut Canker, (Sirococcus clavigigninti-juglandacearum), is a pathogenic
fungus, which was first documented in Wisconsin during 1967. Sirococcus cankers can
develop in three weeks on twigs, limbs and the surface of roots and tree trunks. Fungal
spores, which are washed down the tree, spread the infestation. Coalescing cankers girdle
the limbs and tree trunks, killing the trees. There is no known cure for this disease, but
resistant trees may exist in our native butternut population. During the summer of 1998,
we examined 704 tagged butternut trees for Sirococcus cankers. Approximately 80%
(563) of these trees had butternut cankers present. At this time, 141 trees remain free of
cankers. An additional 35 trees have been cut down and 22 dead trees remain standing.
Butternut Canker 1998 Summary
| County |
Infected Trees |
Healthy Trees |
Trees Cut Down |
Dead Trees |
| Fairfield |
27 |
6 |
1 |
0 |
| Hartford |
305 |
82 |
10 |
11 |
| Litchfield |
61 |
5 |
13 |
9 |
| Middlesex |
36 |
12 |
0 |
0 |
| New Haven |
52 |
18 |
6 |
1 |
| New London |
14 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
| Tolland |
41 |
8 |
3 |
0 |
| Windham |
27 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
| Totals |
563 |
141 |
35 |
22 |
Butternuts in our area may have some genetic resistance to the canker. We have seen a
couple of trees where the cankers callused over, and the top die-back reverse. We are
working through a U.S. Forestry program with the New Hampshire Department of Forestry in
an attempt to find butternut trees that are resistant to the canker. During the winter of
1998, we sent 12 scions that we thought might be exhibiting some resistance to the canker
to be grafted to walnut stock. When the grafts take, they will be challenged with the
canker to test them for resistance.
We are looking for additional butternut trees to monitor for resistance. If you know of
any locations where these trees exist, and if you or other owners will allow us to tag and
monitor the trees, please write or call Carol Lemmon at 203- 974-8474.
FOREST HEALTH MONITORING
During the summer of 1998, we examined 51 permanent, one-acre forest plots that were
established to monitor forest health in Connecticut. These plots are located on state,
Nature Conservancy, and municipal water company properties. We considered 25 pathogens for
monitoring and determined which trees served as host plants. Within each plot, 20 to 30
trees were tagged for long-term studies. We evaluated signs of defoliation and disease,
such as dead tree branches, limbs and crowns. Descriptions and determinations are designed
to reflect increasing damage or tree decline. We will continue to use these plots to
monitor the forests over several years to assess whether our state forests remain healthy
or are declining. No unusual pests or diseases were detected for 1998.
The
following is the 1998 Forest Health Report by Carol Lemmon
GYPSY MOTHS
Despite small amounts of precipitation in the spring of 1997, there were many cold and
foggy days which were favorable for the development of fungi. Entomophaga maimaiga,
a parasitic fungus that has been responsible for the reduction of gypsy moths in
Connecticut, established itself in the later stage (4th instar) of gypsy moth larvae and
was still able to kill them in record numbers. There was no defoliation seen during the
summer of 1997 in Connecticut after aerial surveys were conducted over all eight counties.
Gypsy moth egg masses were detected in our 102 grid-point survey as being widely
distributed over many counties, but they were low in numbers per acre . This survey ended
during the late fall and early winter of 1997. It appears that there will be little to no
noticeable defoliation during the spring and summer of 1998.
HEMLOCK WOOLLY ADELGID
The hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae, continues to be a major forest pest
in Connecticut. The adelgid, which apparently originated in Japan, was accidentally
introduced here. It first appeared in the eastern United States in 1921 in Virginia and
was discovered in Connecticut in 1985. The adelgid initially spread northward, along the
Connecticut River, slowly encompassing towns to the east and west. Nine towns, located in
northeastern and northwestern Connecticut remain uninfested.
Dr. Mark McClure, Chief Scientist at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station's
Valley Laboratory, traveled in 1992 to Japan in search of biocontrol organisms to attack
the adelgid. He discovered a coccinellid ladybug, new to science, which he described in
the October 1997 issue of the Annals of the Entomological Society of America as Pseudoscymnus
tsugae. Dr. McClure has mass reared and released 18,500 coccinellid beetles at six
hemlock sites in Bloomfield, Hamden, and New Hartford, Connecticut and in one site in
Montibello, Virginia. Significant reductions in populations and dispersal of adelgids at
the release sites, as well as the ability to survive both harsh and mild winters in
Connecticut, confirm the effectiveness of P. tsugae as a significant predator of
the hemlock woolly adelgid.
BUTTERNUT CANKER
Butternut Canker, (Sirococcus clavigigninti-juglandacearum), is a pathogenic
fungus that was first documented in the United States in 1967. Sirococcus cankers
can develop in three weeks on twigs, limbs and the surface of roots and tree trunks.
Fungal spores, which are washed down the tree, spread the new cankers. Coalescing cankers
girdle the limbs and tree trunks, killing the trees. There is no known cure for this
disease, but resistant trees may exist in our native butternut population. During the
summer of 1997, we examined 627 tagged butternut trees for Sirococcus cankers.
Approximately 72% (451) of these trees had butternut cankers present. At this time, 141
trees remain free of cankers , 22 trees have been cut down, and 13 trees died.
We are looking for butternut trees in the state to add to our monitoring project. If
you know of a location of a butternut tree that we could include in the study, please
contact Carol Lemmon at 203-789-7236 or at the address given above.
Butternut Canker 1997 Summary
County Infected Trees Healthy Trees
Fairfield 22 14
Hartford 261 71
Litchfield 48 4
Middlesex 27 14
New Haven 46 15
New London 7 5
Tolland 24 13
Windham 16 5
Total 451 141
Butternut Canker 1997 Summary # Trees Cut Down
Fairfield 1
Hartford 6
Litchfield 10
New Haven 4
Tolland 1 Total = 22
Butternut Canker 1997 Summary # Dead Trees
Hartford 8
Litchfield 3
New Haven 1
New London 1 Total = 13
PINE SHOOT BEETLE
The pine shoot beetle, Tomicus piniperda, an exotic pest of conifers, was first
discovered in Ohio in 1992. The beetles prefer Scots, white and Austrian pine, but will
feed on most other conifers including spruce, fir and larch trees. We have conducted
surveys for this beetle in Connecticut and are concerned that this insect may become a
pest of our Christmas trees or may infest white pines in forests and other locations. We
inspected 68 Christmas tree farms in 43 towns located in eight counties and examined trees
from 135 Christmas tree dealers in 62 towns in 7 counties for the beetle or beetle damage.
The pine shoot beetle was not found.
CHESTNUT BLIGHT
An Asian fungus, the chestnut blight, Cryphonectria parasitica, was first
discovered in the Bronx Zoo in New York in 1904 and found in Connecticut in 1909. Chestnut
blight was fully established by 1920 throughout the United States and had killed or
infected almost all mature American Chestnut trees. Consequently, these formerly important
hardwood trees of our forest are now understory shrubs that sprout from tree stumps,
become infected, die back, and sprout again.
Thirty years ago, a less virulent form of the chestnut blight was discovered in France.
This non-lethal hypovirulent strain was infected with a virus in its cytoplasm and has
been inoculated into chestnut trees in Connecticut by Dr. Sandra Anagnostakis, a plant
pathologist, at the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. Whereas this strain has
kept inoculated trees alive in forests and orchards, it was found that the hypovirulent
strains could re-infect trees by producing virulent spores. Dr. Anagnostakis has been
field testing a genetically engineered strain of the chestnut blight fungus which contains
viral genes in the nucleus. When the fungus sporulates, these viral genes are passed along
with the spores .
After receiving permission from USDA/APHIS/Plant Quarantine and state officials, a
single release of this genetically engineered strain was made onto the bark of chestnut
trees in a Connecticut forest in 1994. Preliminary results show that this transgenic
strain has survived both mild and harsh winters, has spread to surrounding trees carrying
the virus within its ascospores, and has infected lethal cankers making them non-lethal.
(Phytopathology, manuscript submitted)
ASIAN LONG-HORNED BEETLE
During August of 1996, a new exotic long-horned beetle from Asia, Anoplophora
glabripennis, was discovered attacking trees in Brooklyn and Amityville, New York.
Our search for this beetle in the state includes joint collaboration with the
USDA/APHIS/PPQ, personnel in examining 45 survey sites in southwestern Connecticut. We
spent several days at each of 3 harbors in Bridgeport, New London and New Haven surveying
host trees near the waterfront and surrounding streets and parks. Trees were examined with
binoculars in early spring before leaves appeared on the trees. In addition, we inspected
trees containing bore holes at the homes of private citizens who were concerned that the
Asian long-horned beetle might be present. All surveys were negative.
CALICICIOPIS CANKER
A survey for Calciopis canker, Caliciopsis pinea, a fungal disease that
causes canker on eastern white pine, was conducted between the 10th and 24th of November
in the four northern counties bordering Massachusetts. During 1997, this fungus was
prevalent in New England states and in the Berkshire mountains in Massachusetts. The focus
of our survey was Litchfield County as it borders the Berkshires. Numerous sites were
surveyed in the Counties of Litchfield (n=200), Hartford (n=80), Tolland (n=50), and
Windham (n=75). Caliciopsis Canker was not found.
The Arborist Law
As revised by the State Legislature May 5, 1998
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
Sec. 1. Section 23-61a of the general statutes is repealed and the following is
substituted in lieu thereof:
(a) As used in sections 23-61a to 23-61f, inclusive, as amended by this act,
"arboriculture" means any work done for hire to improve the condition of fruit,
shade or ornamental trees by feeding or fertilizing, or by pruning, trimming, bracing,
treating cavities or other methods of improving tree conditions, or by protecting trees
from damage from insects or diseases or curing these conditions by spraying or any other
method; "arborist" means one who is qualified to perform arboriculture and is
licensed by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection as provided in section 23-61b, as
amended by section 2 of this act; "board" means the State Tree Protection
Examining Board established under subsection (b); "fungicide" means any
substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or
mitigating any fungus; "fungus" means any non-chlorophyll-bearing thallophyte;
that is, any non-chlorophyll-bearing plant of a lower order than mosses and liverworts;
for example, rusts, smuts, mildews, molds and yeasts, except those on or in any living
human or other vertebrate animal; "herbicide" means any substance or mixture of
substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any weed;
"insect" means any of the numerous small invertebrate animals generally having
the body more or less obviously segmented, for the most part belonging to the class
Insecta, comprising six-legged, usually winged forms, as for example, beetles, bugs, bees,
flies and to other allied classes of arthropods, whose members are wingless and usually
have more than six legs, as for example, spiders, mites, ticks, centipedes and wood lice;
"insecticide" means any substance or mixture of substances intended for
preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating insects; "plant regulators"
means any substance or mixture of substances determined to be a plant regulator under
Chapter 441; "pesticide" means any substance or mixture of substances determined
to be a pesticide under said chapter; "weed" means any plant that grows where it
is not wanted.
(b) There shall be in the Department of Environmental Protection a State Tree
Protection Examining Board which shall consist of the plant pathologist and forester of
the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, who shall serve as ex-officio members,
and five electors of the state, three of whom shall be public members, and two of whom
shall be licensed, practicing arborists to be appointed by the Governor. Any vacancy in
the appointed membership of the board shall be filled by the Governor for the unexpired
portion of the term.
(c) The board shall have a seal and, in the proceeding in court, a certificate under
such seal shall be bona fide evidence of any proceeding or action by or before the board
stated in such certificate. A majority of members acting as a board shall constitute a
quorum for the transaction of business.
(d) Repealed
(e) The Commissioner of Environmental Protection, with the advice and assistance of the
board, may adopt such regulations as are necessary for the purpose of giving examinations,
issuing and renewing licenses, inspection of work or revocation of licenses.
Sec 2. Section 23-61b. of the general statutes is repealed and the following is
substituted in lieu thereof:
(a) No person shall advertise, solicit or contract to do arboriculture within this
state at any time without a license issued in accordance with the provisions of this
section, except that any person may improve or protect any tree on his own premises or on
the property of his employer without securing such a license provided such activity does
not violate the provisions of chapter 441, subsection (a) of section 23-61(a), this
section or section 23-61d. Application for such license shall be made to the Commissioner
of Environmental Protection and shall contain such information regarding the applicant's
qualifications and proposed operations and other relevant matters as the Commissioner may
require and shall be accompanied by a fee of twenty-five dollars which shall not be
returnable.
(b) The Commissioner shall require the applicant to show upon examination that he
possesses adequate knowledge concerning the proper methods of arboriculture and the
dangers involved and the precautions to be taken in connection with these operations,
together with knowledge concerning the proper use and application of pesticides and the
danger involved and the precautions to be taken in connection with their application. If
the applicant is other than an individual, the applicant shall designate an officer,
member or technician of the organization to take the examination, which designee shall be
subject to the approval of the Commissioner except that any person who uses pesticides in
arboriculture shall be licensed to do arboriculture or shall be a licensed commercial
applicator under chapter 441. If the extent of the applicant's operations warrant, the
Commissioner may require more than one such member or technician to be examined. If the
Commissioner finds the applicant qualified, he shall issue a license to perform
arboriculture within this state. A license shall be valid for a period of five years. If
the Commissioner finds that the applicant is not qualified, or if he refuses to issue a
license for any other reason, he shall inform the applicant in writing, giving reasons for
such refusal.
(c) The Commissioner may issue a license without examination to any nonresident who is
licensed in another state under a law that provides substantially similar qualifications
for licensure and which grants similar privileges of licensure without examination to
residents of this state licensed under the provisions of this section.
(d) Each licensee shall pay a license renewal fee of one hundred and fifty dollars for
each renewal. All examination and license renewal fees shall be deposited as provided in
section 4-32, as amended, and any expenses incurred by the Commissioner in making
examinations, issuing certificates, inspecting tree work or performing any duties of the
board shall be charged against appropriations of the General Fund.
(e) Each licensee shall maintain and, upon request, furnish such records concerning
licensed activities as the Commissioner may require.
(f) The Commissioner may suspend for not more than ten days and, after notice and
hearing as provided in any regulations established by the Commissioner, he may suspend for
additional periods, or he may revoke, any license issued under this section if he finds
that the licensee is no longer qualified or has violated any provision of sections 23-61a
to 23-61d, inclusive, as amended by this act, or any regulation adopted thereunder.
(g) The Commissioner of Environmental Protection, in consultation with the board, shall
establish standards for examining applicants and reexamining applicators with respect to
the proper use and application of pesticides and agricultural methods. Such standards
shall provide that in order to be certified, an individual shall be competent with respect
to the use and handling of pesticides or the use and handling of the pesticide or class of
pesticides covered by such individual's application or certification and in the proper and
safe application of recognized arboricultural methods.
(h) Any licensed arborist shall be considered to be a certified applicator under
section 22a-54 with respect to the use of pesticides.
Sec. 3. Section 23-61f of the general statutes is repealed and the following is
substituted in lieu thereof.
(a) Any person who violates any provision of subsection (b), (c) or (d) of section
23-61b, as amended by this act, or section 23-61d or of any regulation issued under
subsection (e) of section 23-61a, as amended by this act, shall be fined not more than two
hundred dollars.
(b)Any person who violates any provision of chapter 441 or sections 23-61a to 23-61d,
inclusive, as amended by this act, shall be considered under the jurisdiction of the
Commissioner of Environmental Protection.
(c) Any person who violates any provision of subsection (a) of section 23-61b, as
amended by this act, or section 23-61d shall be assessed a civil penalty of not less than
one thousand dollars but not more than two thousand five hundred dollars for each day such
violation continues. The Attorney General, upon complaint of the Commissioner, shall
institute a civil action in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford-New
Britain to recover such penalty. Any such action shall have precedence in the order of
trial as provided in section 52-191.
New Haven - Still
the "Elm City"
by Paul Walgren, Consulting Arborist
As an Arborist, I have a fondness for trees. With
few exceptions, I think my favorite is a mature American elm. As I have lived and worked
around New Haven for a number of years, I know of the rich legacy of elms in that city.
While researching the history of New Havens Elms, I met with
James Campbell, librarian at the New Haven Historical Society. He led me to a paper
written in 1986 by Jonathan Lowet, a Yale student, which contained many interesting facts.
The first two elms of record were planted in front of the Reverend
James Pierponts house on Elm Street in 1685. It was a good thing that these trees
were planted. In 1779, British general George Garth was ordered to burn New Haven, but he
refused to carry out the order, not because of the buildings, but because of the beautiful
trees.
James Hillhouse, a leader in the community, drew plans in 1784 to
beautify and shade the New Haven Green. He was often seen with spade in hand planting elm
seedlings brought from his farm in Meriden. His efforts were obviously a success as,
around 1800, an ordinance was passed that fined any owner of a horse that chewed on the
bark of city trees. However, it wasnt until 1909 that the city began to undertake
tree care in earnest, appropriating $7,000.00 for the care of the trees, hiring a city
forester and establishing a Bureau of Trees with a Superintendent of Trees.
Those were, without a doubt, the good days for the elms of New Haven.
The twentieth century has proven difficult for these trees. The hurricane of 1938 dealt a
devastating blow to many of New Havens mature elms and the March 1983 ice storm
played havoc with the elms on the Green. In 1940, Drs. James Horsfal and Al Dimond
identified the first case of Dutch Elm Disease in New Haven. The fungus (Ophiostoma
ulmi) is spread by a tiny European bark beetle from diseased trees to healthy trees.
Dutch Elm Disease is still the greatest nemesis to the American elm population. It
continues to claim many trees annually in the New Haven area.
Despite these adversities, the civic leaders, elected officials, and
concerned citizens of New Haven are determined to preserve the American elms on the New
Haven Green.
Today in New Haven, there are one hundred eighty five American Elms
surrounding the upper and lower Green. This is in no small part due to the foresight of
the ladies of the New Haven Garden Club who, in 1984, initiated a program called
"Project Trees". Through this project, citizens contribute funds for the
planting of replacement elms on the Green. Showing even greater insight, they determined
that half the monies should be used for planting of the trees and half used for their
maintenance.
This program is still going on today, using resistant varieties such as
"Princeton" from the nursery of the same name or the "American
Liberty" elm from the Elm Research Institute. The latter being grown in a nursery
maintained by the Garden Club at the citys East Rock facilities.
Another very encouraging note is the work of Dr. Denny Townsend of the
U.S.D.A National Arboretum Research Facility in Maryland. After more than twenty years of
developing resistant clones of the American Elm, he has just released what he calls
"New Harmony". He is confident that this clone will prove to be twelve times
more resistant than what we now have. He is also working on a clone called "Valley
Forge". Limited quantities of these seedlings should be available in the spring of
1999.
Its exciting to note that besides the development of improved
resistant clones of the elm, there are new treatments for fighting the Dutch Elm Disease
fungus within the tree. By closely monitoring our trees during the growing season and
detecting new infections of less than 5 - 10% of the crown, we can inject fungicides into
the trunk to halt the spread of the disease within the tree. 'Alamo' is most often favored
as a curative injection, while 'Arbortect' can be used to provide two years of protection
to vulnerable trees. As both treatments are expensive, they are usually reserved for large
specimen trees only.
Recently, a method from Europe has received some attention. A product
called 'Trig' is used, in which a verticilium wilt fungus is injected into elms. This
fungus, which does not harm the elms itself, causes an anti-body like reaction that
protects the elm from the Dutch Elm Disease fungus. This treatment has seen limited use in
the United States. Currently, a trial is underway in the north Chicago suburbs of Highland
Park and Lake Forest.
As we look back at the early history of our state, we note that many of
our town greens were shaded by American elms. Most of these stately trees succumbed to the
1938 hurricane or the Dutch Elm Disease. But, even today, the New Haven Green has many,
many American elms. They are truly a beautiful sight.
It is generally known that the average street tree has a life of
fifteen to twenty years. Most of the resistant elms currently do well until they get to be
about thirty years old, even without special care. With new clones and new techniques, we
should be able to do better than that, re-establishing a place for the American elm in the
urban environment.
Lets encourage all our city and town officials to include a replacement tree
every time a street tree is removed. Lets also encourage them to make some of these
trees American elms!
|