Protection of Ash Trees Under Extended Emerald Ash Borer Pressure

Identifier3.101318

TypeArticle

Date created2020

AbstractTen studies were conducted in northeastern Illinois from 2007 to 2015 to evaluate treatment formulations, rates, and application timing and methods for protection of green (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), white (F. americana) and blue ash (F. quadrangulata) trees from the emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis. Annual mid-May, June, July, and September basal soil drenches, basal broadcast applications, and basal trunk spray applications of imidacloprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran used alone, imidacloprid + clothianidin, dinotefuran + clothiandin, and trunk injections of emamectin benzoate were evaluated. Imidacloprid applied alone at 0.57 g a.i./2.54 cm dbh or greater, clothianidin and dinotefuran alone at 0.93 g a.i./2.54 cm dbh or greater, imidacloprid + clothianidin at 0.57 g a.i. + 0.28 g a.i.2.54 cm dbh or greater, dinotefuran + clothiandin at 0.47 g a.i. + 0.46 g a.i./2.54 cm dbh or greater, or emamectin benzoate applied at 0.2 to 0.6 g a.i./2.54 cm dbh provided good protection of ash trees up to 61 cm mean dbh. Canopy thinning was strongly correlated with the number of larval galleries/m2 (r2=0.95; p2 of branch surface area (r2=0.94; p=0.002). Severe drought conditions may have contributed to a differential PCL response for treated large green ash trees growing in narrow residential parkways compared to trees growing in open park-like-landscape settings. Choice of active ingredient(s), product formulation(s), application methods and timing, EAB pressure, host susceptibility, and abiotic factors, and their role in implementing an EAB pest management plan are discussed.

Volume, Issue, Page Number53, 1-2, Article 4

Related EntitiesThe Great Lakes Entomologist (published by)

LanguageEnglish