Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 35(1): January 2009 Table 1. Results of analysis of variance, which compared the number of active holes for each treatment and the nontreated control at each inspection. z Date of count Pretreatment count 15 November 2006 23 October 2006 30 October 2006 6 November 2006 13 November 2006 20 November 2006 27 November 2006 4 December 2006 11 December 2006 Final count 29 January 2007 Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Between groups Within groups Total Sum of squares 4.367 12.433 16.800 9.617 9.183 18.800 19.300 20.500 39.800 10.300 65.500 75.800 76.317 318.483 394.800 25.917 255.033 280.950 69.350 583.450 652.800 73.750 1,145.450 1,219.200 65.417 1,353.133 1,418.550 1,093.267 22,631.283 23,724.550 increased over time, peaking when the trial was terminated on 29 January 2007 ( Figure 1 ). At no time were there any significant reductions in the number of active holes with any treatment compared with the control trees. On two dates (23 October 2008 and 30 October 20), there were significantly higher numbers of holes on the Crop Guardian treatment than all other treatments ( Table 1 ). The total number of holes on those dates was 1.8 and 2.8, respectively, per tree for the Crop Guardian versus an average of 0.21 and 0.53 per tree for the other treatments. When feeding activity increased, all statistical differences disappeared. At the end of the trial, there was an average of 51 active holes per 1.8 m (5.9 ft) section of tree trunk. DISCUSSION In previous experiments, the traditional trunk wrapping treatment for sapsuckers was effective at stopping ongoing attacks and pre- venting new damage (Smiley et al. 2007). However, none of the three repellents used in this study during the season when sap- suckers are active showed any sign of reducing the sapsucker injury on sugar maples. This may be the result of the lack of taste or smell senses in sapsuckers during the wounding process or it may be that the sap flow from active wounds washes away the repellant. Because these birds were not feeding on the trunk while removing sections of the bark and phloem, the treatment that was applied to the bark surface may not have been ingested. df 3 16 19 3 16 19 3 16 19 3 16 19 3 16 19 3 16 19 3 16 19 3 16 19 3 16 19 3 16 19 Mean square 1.456 0.777 3.206 0.574 6.433 1.281 3.433 4.094 25.439 19.905 8.639 15.940 23.117 36.466 24.583 71.591 21.806 84.571 364.422 1,414.455 z Significance was found on two dates, 23 October and 30 October, when there were more holes with the Crop Guardian treatment than all other treatments. Further study is needed to find cost-effective treatments that can be applied to prevent sapsucker damage. This may involve either more effective trunk applied materials or xylem injection of repellents. LITERATURE CITED Eberhardt, L.S. 2000. Use and selection of sap trees by yellow-bellied sapsuckers. The Auk 117:41–51. Erdmann, G.G., and R.R. Oberg. 1974. Sapsucker feeding damages crown-released yellow birch trees. Journal of Forestry 72:760–764. Messmer, T.A., and G.W. Wiscomb. 1998. Woodpeckers. Utah State Extension publication NR/WD/006. 4 pp. Ostry, M.E., and H.T. Nicholls. 1976. How to Identify and Control Sapsucker Injury on Trees. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN. Shigo, A.L. 1963. Ring Shake Associated with Sapsucker Injury. U.S. Forest Service Research Paper NE-8. 9 pp. Smiley, E.T., D.C. Booth, and L. Wilkinson. 2007. Preventing sapsucker damage on sugar maple ( Acer saccharum ). Arboriculture and Urban Forestry 33:367–370. E. Thomas Smiley (corresponding author) Bartlett Tree Research Lab 13768 Hamilton Rd Charlotte, NC 28278, U.S.
[email protected] ©2009 International Society of Arboriculture 0.634 0.343 0.258 0.258 0.604 0.794 0.855 0.855 5.585 5.021 0.839 1.278 0.542 0.008 0.012 0.492 0.316 0.660 F 1.873 Significance 0.175 21
January 2009
| Title Name |
Pages |
Delete |
Url |
| Empty |
Search Text Block
Page #page_num
#doc_title
Hi $receivername|$receiveremail,
$sendername|$senderemail wrote these comments for you:
$message
$sendername|$senderemail would like for you to view the following digital edition.
Please click on the page below to be directed to the digital edition:
$thumbnail$pagenum
$link$pagenum
