|
More about
Micro-Injection
The following
paragraphs are collections from various articles written primarily by
some everyday people, a few arborist, a retired plant
pathologist, and write ups from Arbor
magazines, all having a positive and honest approach with regards to
micro-injection. I am personally in favor of micro- injection for
the reasons of minimal damage, protecting the environment and efficiency
of uptake results . Enjoy
the reading and you decide.
Recent advancements in technology have led to
significant improvements in this application method of microinjection
options. These new systems combines advances in chemistry development with a
highly portable, convenient, that delivers ultra low dose applications. Tree
microinjection will offer the ability to treat trees where soil treatments
are not practical. Environmental conditions, location limitations, budget
and equipment availability will determine which application method to
choose. In general, you can treat more trees per day applying microinjection
for higher productivity, it usually only takes one applicator with proper
training to treat a tree.
Micro-injection is controversial! It provides
for convenient, environmentally sound placement of small amounts of systemic
pesticides directly into a tree, yet it wounds trees. This method of
pesticide delivery is widely used by arborist world wide; but is it used
appropriately? Injection wounds serve as points of entry for pathogenic
organisms, but wouldn't a pruning cut do the same? The answers to these
questions and more depend on the tree, the pest, the economics of labor,
training, materials, and the perceptions of the clientele.
Plus, you can't leave
out evidence from the maple syrup world. These trees, are tapped
each year creating holes bigger in diameter than the typical trunk
flare injection tee and have sap [energy/carbon] extracted.
Some sugar bushes have been tapped successfully for 10-14 decades.
Thus the dosage and means of application
are critical to success. The injection of chemical into root flares
(below soil level) in large volumes of water (macroinjection) provides
thorough distribution of chemical in the crown. Trunk flare (above
soil level) microinjection is a better option in my opinion. It's
efficacy compared to macroinjection has been thoroughly researched and
it demonstrates efficient uptake and maximizes distribution upto
the canopy and most important of all the lesser damage factor due to
the reduced number and size of the drill portals. Wound closure is far
much faster due to the smaller and shallow holes.
Movement downward occurs only when the
water column in the tree is broken by air that is allowed into the
tree during drilling. This movement downward is not extensive and
should not be counted on to provide significant control below the
injection site.
Injections and implants administered by
untrained homeowners are not recommended. The procedure should be done
only by professionals who have received training in the method to
prevent serious damage to the tree. These professionals should use newer
methods that require smaller, very shallow holes that penetrate no
deeper than the current year's growth increment. Most holes should be no
larger than 1/4 inch in diameter. In most cases holes should be no
deeper than 1 inch below the bark layer, and under no circumstances
should they be deeper than 1 1/4 inch. Implants and injections should be
above the trunk flare level of the tree, not into the roots below the
soil level. Minimize the number of separate injuries inflicted, and
the depth of injuries can help a tree cope with wound closure, as the
tree’s natural sap and healing process will quickly close the wound. Trees
have a natural defense response to wounds by producing callus tissue.
The holes will close within the growing season.
With macroinjection into the root flare,
the soil is excavated to provide a greater area for more injection
tees to be well-spaced around the trunk base, resulting in greater
damage to the base of the tree. Drill wounds in this area when covered
with soil, showed evidence of internal or external damage, delayed wound
closure, and wetwood problems, and not to mention bacteria and canker
infections or other pathogens.
Injuries in the root flare below soil level tend
to be slow to recover because of all the above factors, and the greatest
drawback is the tree’s lack of ability to stimulate only limited wound
closure.
After many years
of macro injections, I have become most horrified at the savage way in
which trees are injected at the root flare, drilling an excessive
numbers of large drill holes, then covering with dirt and debris into
the wounds. This is pure stoneage technology and a serious violation to
the tree, exposing the wounds as points of entry for soil borne
pathogenic organisms, insect invasion, canker, weeping, wetwood
problems, tissue decay, bark separation and wound closure delay. Why,
the big bother and fuss about sterlizing your equipment? Trees deserve
better treatment too!
Propiconazole being systemic moves upward
through the xylem to the canopy. The product pushers claim by injecting
into root flare below soil level, you achieve better protection for the
tree and wound closure is faster? Some protection was achived,
but was the risk of excessive damage worth it.....and .....They
thought........ " YES." They obviously flunked anatomy, with total
disregard for the tree's overall health. Repeated injuries in the root
flares are slow to recover for lacking a chemical barrier to
isolate infection and disease. Microinjection above the trunk flare, and
up the trunk stem, first gets the job out of the dirt, reduces the of
drill size by half and at least 2/3 far less drill holes than applied at
the root flare. The above trunk flare injection, offers better
protection, less exposure to canker infection, insects and soil borne
microbes and still maximizes the uptake distribution to the leaves and
then to the roots.
In order to be effective, the fungicide must
be present at adequate concentration. Thus the dosage and means of
application are critical to success. Microinjection of small volumes of
concentrated chemical into the trunk, has proven it's efficacy and has
been thoroughly researched and demonstrates uptake that provides thorough
distribution of chemical in both the crown and to the roots. The chemjet
can be filled with 5,10, 15, 20 mils of the injection products forthe
exact prescription needs for the tree. The injections or implants are
required at two to six inch intervals around the circumference of the
tree, in accordance to the application rate prescribed on the label. The
amount of chemical and volume of solution to inject are usually based upon
the diameter of the tree.
Root flare injection
can severely damage the inner bark and cambium below the soil line. These
injuries often do not repair efficiently or effectively. The problem with
the root flares is that they don’t have protection zones that isolate
diseases. This damage invites insects and fungi infestation. Also this is
the most important transition zone for water and nutrients to move up to
the canopy and the solutes back down to the roots. Excessive damage in
this critical zone will ultimately determinate the trees vigor and health
and eventual death is emanate.
The many experiments conducted with drill
holes give information applicable to below soil root flare injection
wounds. In elm, the injection holes that touched the internal column of
discolored wood spread to form large columns. The injection holes that
were surrounded by clear healthy wood were walled off to small columns.
Also, the decayed wood in the columns that joined with the already present
central column. Injections properly spaced in position on the tree lower
trunk flare area, and spaced over time, will not cause serious internal
injury. When trees are injected repeatedly over time, the discolored
columns associated with the injection wounds begin to coalesce. The volume
of wood that would normally hold energy reserves is reduced.
Injections and implants are being used for a great number of
reasons, from supplying essential elements to adding many types of
chemicals to combat insects and fungi. Care must be taken in the
treatment so as not to cause more injury to the tree than it had
originally. Injections properly done may be beneficial. Proper
injections and implants should be as shallow and as small as possible,
minimize major, long-term tree injuries, and at above the base and lower
trunk of the tree, not into the roots.
Most of
the transport in a tree occurs in the current growth ring. There is
no need to inject beyond this wood. In many cases it is not the wound,
but what is put in the wound that causes injury. Several injection
methods are now using very small holes-microinjections. Injection holes,
or any type of wound, should never be directly above or below other
wounds. Proper injections require a high degree of skill.
(XMS ..
Xylem Mobile Systemic)
"Propiconazole, a
systemic fungicide, (XMS .. Xylem Mobile Systemic)
does not require
high dilution rates with water, so treatment is considerably faster, and
there is less tissue injury at the injection site as it has a near
neutral pH factor."
Why are trees injected
into the root flare. I
believe some of the reasoning was that "Propiconazole, is a systemic
fungicide, being.. (Xylem Mobile Systemic) meaning it moves upward
through xylem and vascular system. Water movement is relative to the
transpiration pull, transporting water and nutrients from the roots to the
canopy. Photosynthesis converts the nutrients to sugar and starch and
these solutes (which are food and energy) are then transported to all
parts of the tree including the roots via the phloem. Now that the tree is
being injected, the fungicide first moves upward to the leaves and then
downward with the solutes providing a preventive protection throughout the
tree from the oak wilt pathogen. The other idea is that since the root
flare is a larger area, you can apply more injection sites at 3-4 inches
apart and acquire faster distribution. Wrong !. Water movement is relative
to the rate of transpiration pull which is in turn relative to
photosynthesis. The entire process is also relative to soil moisture, air
temperature, humidity, and the amount of sun light exposure. Because you
have more injection sites does not mean you are going to get more fluid to
the top of the tree. Only so much water can move within the tree, and
again that is relative to photosynthesis and transpiration pull. All you
have really accomplished is a lot of extra wounds, when a fewer number of
injection site would accomplish the same goal as regard to uptake and
distribution. To cover up your dirty deed, you fill in all that damaging
evidence and fruitless work with DIRT, subjecting your tree to unseen
damage, insect invasion and infection.
With the Chemjets you need one injector for
each diameter inch place evenly around the trunk flare, and with a very
small drill bit of 11/64" or 4.2 mm versus 5/16' or 8 mm. Now you have
accomplished the same goal with less work, out of the dirt, and far less
damage for the tree to cope with. Understand that when a tree is wounded,
the healing process or wound closure starts immediately. You can inject
your trees above the trunk flare and achive effective results of uptake
and distribution.
In
one trial report by the Queensland Dept. of Natural Resources, a
researcher accessed the Chemjet Injector Syringe as the
safest method of application
of herbicides, insecticides and fungicides available.
With
the Chemjet Injector Syringe, you
visit the tree once.....
JOB's DONE !
It is
generally true that the older a tree lives, the stronger its defense to
disease and injury. Therefore, biological theory would suggest that
long-lived trees have a defense mechanism that would allow them to sustain
centuries of insects damage, wind storms, and repeated boring by
birds such as yellow-belly sapsuckers. The small wounds created should
heal rapidly and will likely be insignificant injuries.
Tree
Injection Process &
Advantages
1
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY:
Chemical injected into trees via properly designed systems, with effective
injection site sealing poses almost zero risk of chemical escape.
2 MORE TARGET SPECIFIC :
Beneficial insects, mammals and birds are
generally unaffected by internal tree application of pesticides, only
insects consuming plant tissue or fluids are at risk.
3
GREATER PERSISTENCE : Numerous trails with a wide range of
pesticides show much longer periods of activity of material injected as
compared to the same material sprayed on the outside of trees, amongst other
factors, due to protection from rain and surface water as well as the
degrading effects of sunlight.
4
CHEMICAL MINIMIZATION :
Numerous tests indicate that substantially less quantity of the same
chemical is required to achieve the same or better result when injected as
against air born spraying or ground application.
5 PUBLIC AND OPERATOR
SAFETY : By the elimination of drift and the surface
application of pesticides, risks of contact by the general public, operators
and other workers is greatly reduced.
6 REDUCED RISK OF LITIGATION : With
the pesticide sealed within the plant, elimination of drift and the
possibility of ground or surface water contamination,
potential for litigation is low.
Tree injection is widely used in such places as, residential urban areas,
and ranch land etc.
7 PUBLIC ACCEPTABILITY :
Increasing
public pressure is making it ever more difficult for horticulturists and
contractors generally to apply pesticides. The writers experience during
numerous exercises of injecting trees in public places has been that when
the operator explains the process to people without exception approval is
immediate.
8 WOUND REDUCTION :
Minimal sized injection points within the microinjection range
The Measure of a Tree
Since
the beginning of time, throughout the entire world forests, all trees
intentionally grow under stressful conditions. Every climatic region and
climatic eco-system will challenge and test a tree's ability to grow and
survive. In all our forests, survival and time is what Ancient Champion
Trees really are made of !
Jim Rediker
Disclaimer:
This article may contain pesticide recommendations
that are subject to change at any time. These recommendations are provided
only as a guide. It is always the pesticide applicator’s responsibility,
by law, to read and follow all current label directions for the specific
pesticide being used. If any information in these recommendations
disagrees with the label, the recommendation must be disregarded. No
endorsement is intended for products mentioned, nor is criticism meant for
products not mentioned. The Writer assumes no liability resulting from the
use of these recommendations. The information given herein is for
educational purposes only. Reference to commercial products or trade names
is made with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no
endorsement is implied.
Scenic Hills Nuirserry -
WARRANTY DISCLAIMER : http://www.scenichillsnursery
|
