| Imidacloprid:
Disturbing info |
Ray
Weber |
| Mar
12, 2007 10:25 PST |
I received word that the Massachusetts DCR has
banned the use of that great chemical Will and others
are using to save hemlocks, claiming it pollutes groundwater.
I did suggest to one of them a while back to use the
method that Matt Largess has used successfully in Southern
New England, namely injecting into the tree rather than
spreading it on the ground.
The foresters made a statement a few weeks ago that they
are going to preemptively harvest some hemlocks on the Mount
Holyoke range, since "they are going to get adelgid anyway,
we are taking them while they have some value".
Lets hope they stay out of the old growth. There is language in
many of these reserve "plans" allowing harvesting to
avoid spread of
something like adelgid.
Ray W |
| RE:
Disturbing info |
Will
Blozan |
| Mar
12, 2007 15:02 PST |
Ray,
I know that a lot of the fear is based on old information and
improperly
applied chemical. They need to update their libraries!
Will
|
| RE:
Disturbing info |
rayof-@ndws.com |
| Mar
12, 2007 17:46 PST |
imidacloprid
from what I was told by two seperate sources. Bob Leverett
mentioned it first to me.
Ray
|
| Re:
Disturbing info |
symplastless |
| Mar
12, 2007 19:08 PST |
I would say, if you cannot inject it into an apple tree which
humans eat
from, then it would not be suitable for trees that wildlife eat
from. I
have been an arborist for over 20 years and still have not found
favor in
injections or systemic. I don't know. many people agree and some
disagree.
Its too easy to place a tourniquet around a neck for a nose
bleed.
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Arborist
|
| RE:
Disturbing info |
Will
Blozan |
| Mar
12, 2007 20:02 PST |
John,
I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say. Imidacloprid
does not kill
everything, destroy the entire soil biota that hemlock (or ash)
depends on,
nor any bird that lands on the tree. It is non-toxic to
predatory spiders,
mites and mammals (although some mites are a terrible pest).
There is another option to control HWA, and that is foliar spray
of soap or
dormant oil. This method "wipes the slate clean" of
all invertebrates on the
tree, is not applicable to forest stands, and has to be repeated
2-3X more
often than a soil injection of imidacloprid. It is also far more
costly in
the long run. I rarely use this option since the hemlock
typically has just
one lethal pest, the HWA. Imidacloprid destroys HWA very
effectively without
adverse effects on other species or wiping out the soil biota.
Until someone
convinces me otherwise, I feel it is the best option at the
time.
I know you are an avid follower of the late Dr. Shigo, but I
wonder where
YOU stand, as you quote Dr. Shigo repeatedly, seemingly without
much
personal input. I agree with most of Dr. Shigo's work, but
modern
arboriculture has new facets perhaps he wasn't prepared to deal
with. I
could be wrong but the loss of an ecosystem is a far greater
impact than the
death of some critters in the immediate injection site. The
retention of the
ecosystem and all viable components should be the goal, not the
impacts on a
single tree. It is time to see the forest, not the trees.
Will
|
| Re:
Disturbing info |
orw-@fas.harvard.edu |
| Mar
13, 2007 12:09 PST |
Hello
all, enclosed is a proceedings paper presented at the last HWA
meeting in Asheville, NC (2005). As suggested previously,
Imidacloprid
is mobile, and may enter water supplies, however, as Will points
out,
the concentrations found were extremely low, and this paper
points out
how low in reference to what are considered harmful levels. thanks
much,
DAVE ORWIG
|
| Back
to Dave |
Robert
Leverett |
| Mar
13, 2007 13:14 PST |
Dave,
Thanks for weighing in. I'm not sure that people on this list
realize
that you are one of the foremost researchers in the country on
the
hemlock woolly adelgid. Any posts you would care to make on the
spread
of the adelgid or approaches to slowing it down will be greatly
appreciated by all.
Back to imidacloprid. I am troubled by DCR's
banning (total, I
presume) of the use of this chemical. Based on what I'm
learning, their
decision seems to be highly pre-mature. I hope DCR's attitude
isn't tied
to the willingness of the timber community in Massachusetts to
see the
hemlock population crash. The hemlock's low value as a timber
tree is,
of course, the reason. But the hemlock has immense ecological
value as a
species and DCR should recognize that. I'm starting to worry
that the
"green certification" label is on its way to becoming
a license for
restructuring our forests around early successional species,
purportedly
for wildlife, and a few high value timber species. I hope I am
wrong.
Bob
|
| RE:
Disturbing info |
Will
Blozan |
| Mar
13, 2007 18:26 PST |
Dave,
Wasn't one of the main critiques of this article the lack of a
BEFORE (i.e.
control) water sample? I could be wrong but I think there are
golf courses
that may drain into the lake.
Will
|
| RE:
Disturbing info |
Will
Blozan |
| Mar
13, 2007 15:58 PST |
John,
Currently, almost all my work is in old-growth eastern hemlock
forest, from
top to bottom. I am working on fairly large-scale conservation
areas in the
Smokies (soil injections of Imidacloprid) and the Tsuga Search
Project to
document the superlatives. I am literally immersed in the
old-growth hemlock
forests of the Great Smokies almost daily. I am also personal
witness to
their death.
Will
|
| RE:
Disturbing info |
Brandon
Gallagher |
| Mar
13, 2007 18:01 PST |
I just got off the phone with Jim DeMaio, Chief Forester DCR
Bureau of
Forestry for MA. The news about the state's use of imidacloprid
has not
changed.
Three years ago when the state was developing an HWA response
program
they looked at using imidacloprid as part of the plan. They
decided at
the time because Nassau County in NY had chosen to not allow
soil
application due to ground water risk (Nassau Co does not allow
ANY
product to be applied to soil) that they would not use it on
their state
park, forest, and watershed management land either. He said they
are
aware of trunk injected imidacloprid but the state has not used
it. I
did not ask him what the management plan for HWA in MA did
entail, but I
am assuming it is the "preemptive harvesting"
suggested by Ray earlier.
In summary, imidacloprid is still a registered product in MA
used by
arborists and private forest managers, just not by the state who
never
used it to begin with. Nothing is scheduled to change in the
near
future.
Brandon Gallagher Watson
Plant Healthcare Specialist
ISA Certified Arborist MN-4086A
|
| RE:
Disturbing info APPLES AND ORANGES |
Will
Blozan |
| Mar
13, 2007 18:16 PST |
John,
There is a subtle but crucial difference in your argument:
1) Apples are not native, and may "need" extra help be
it chemical or
"organic". Also, apples are highly genetically
selected for resistance
traits and varieties. Apples are not on the verge of local
extinction from
late frosts, various rots or fire blight.
2) The eastern and Carolina hemlocks are native to the US, and
have evolved
with native pests for millennia. The non-native hemlock woolly
adelgid is a
fatal pest that the hemlocks have never had to deal with. They
will be
killed and in the case of Carolina hemlock, likely driven
extinct in the
wild without chemical treatment.
In both scenarios we (humans) have introduced new species to our
continent;
one invited, the other not. But to answer your question- yes,
you can inject
chemicals into an apple tree, but I wouldn't eat it. There is
not a fair
comparison between the two actions. Apples to oranges.
Will
-----Original Message-----
From: John Keslick, JR. [mailto:sympla-@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:37 PM
To: ENTST-@topica.com
Subject: Re: Disturbing info
So you are saying the chemicals can be injected in apple trees?
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Arborist
|
| Re:
Disturbing info |
Holly
Post |
| Mar
13, 2007 19:29 PST |
That is terrible news as I thought a good portion of
the state's old growth are Hemlocks. This would open
up a good excuse for the harvesting of them.
|
| RE:
Disturbing info |
Robert
Leverett |
| Mar
14, 2007 04:18 PST |
Ed,
I wholeheartedly second your comments. Will
Blozan has personally
donated literally tens of thousands of dollars of his money to
funding
efforts to save the eastern hemlock from extirpation from an
alien
insect. I know of no human being on the planet who has made a
greater
effort in terms of personal commitment to the species. He has
put his
money where his mouth is and we all are the richer for it.
Whether or not we let a species
disappear due to our own neglect is
a matter of individual conscience. But, I take inspiration from
the
efforts of people such as Will who accept the challenge of
saving a
species from extirpation while our species as a whole plows
onward
trashing the planet.
In terms of time spent in old-growth,
Will is one of the foremost
eastern old growth researchers in the country. I say that
without a
moments hesitation. That is how I first met him. He was plowing
through
mountains of rhododendron documenting the hemlock and Northern
red oak
stands of the Smokies as a NPS employee in advance of the
adelgid and
gypsy moth infestations. He had fire in his belly then and that
fire has
grown steadily as has his accomplishments.
Bob
Bob
Edward Frank wrote:
| |
John,
Will's company, Appalachain Arborists, provides a
variety of tree
related business services not just treatments for
adelgid. They do tree
trimming and removal and similar arborist services.
Actually many of
the areas that have been treated for the adelgid has
been paid for by
his company and by Will personally out of pocket. The
reason for pursuing the treatment of the hemlocks is to
save the species
and related ecosystem from extinction, rather than to
make a large
profit. I fully support and applaud his efforts as does
everyone else
with concern about the future of our eastern and
Carolina hemlock
forests.
Ed Frank
|
|
| RE:
Disturbing info |
rayof-@ndws.com |
| Mar
14, 2007 06:15 PST |
Bob
et al, we take our hats off to Will, he is dedicated, and
working
miracles to save the old growth hemlocks in the smokies.
The arborist our group works with raves about his great work
down there.
Great work Will, keep it up.
Ray Weber
FORSP
|
| Re:
Disturbing info |
dbhg-@comcast.net |
| Mar
14, 2007 10:02 PST |
Holly,
I have this growing fear that premature
harvesting has been the underlying plan all along.
Bob
|
| Imidacloprid
Wars |
Robert
Leverett |
| Mar
14, 2007 10:44 PST |
ENTS,
The rapid change of e-mails on the scientific
evaluations of
imidacloprid reflect different points of view. Below, please
find
extracted information from a DEC letter to Bayer CropScience
about tests
in Suffolk county, NY.
Comments?
Bob
==============================================================
The New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
(Department) registered the active ingredient imidacloprid in
March
1995. The professional nursery, turf, ornamental and
agricultural uses
were registered in the spring of 1995, while the consumer turf
use was
registered in January 1996. As indicated in our registration
decision
letter dated March 24, 1995, after review of the technical
studies
submitted, the Department had concerns regarding the long-term
environmental fate and environmental persistence of the active
ingredient imidacloprid and degradates when used over sole
source
aquifers. Groundwater modeling performed by the Department prior
to the
registration of imidacloprid indicated the potential for
accumulation
and persistence of imidacloprid and its degradates in
groundwater after
repeated annual applications. The Department was especially
concerned
about the use of imidacloprid on Long Island which has been
identified
as a sole-source aquifer. The letter also stated that the
continued
registration of all imidacloprid products within New York State
will be
dependent upon the annual review of groundwater monitoring data
collected within the Long Island aquifer.
In a
registration letter dated October 24, 1996, the Department
again expressed its concerns. Imidacloprid is persistent and
potentially mobile. Soil degradation is slow, with half-lives
ranging
from 120-365 days. While photolysis in water is very rapid, with
a
half-life of 4.2 hours, imidacloprid is stable to hydrolysis.
Field
dissipation studies performed by the registrant for the Merit
products
indicate that imidacloprid can dissipate fairly quickly from the
soil
application zone. Due to the leaching potential, combined with
its
persistence, the potential distribution and widespread use of
imidacloprid in New York State, both the Department's Division
of Water
and the New York State Department of Health expressed concerns
regarding
the potential for multi-year residue build-up in groundwater.
The Department
has been working closely with the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services (SCDHS) and has provided funding
to the
county for groundwater monitoring in Nassau and Suffolk
Counties. When
the Quality Assurance Project Sampling Plan (QAPP) entitled
"Imidacloprid Groundwater Monitoring Project Plan" was
signed by
representatives from Bayer CropScience and the Department in
1996, an
"action threshold" of 25 ppb (half of the New York
State drinking water
standard) was discussed and agreed upon. The intent of the
monitoring
was to detect levels of imidacloprid in the groundwater directly
beneath
the site specified and being used at maximum label rates in
conjunction
with the groundwater monitoring project. In a Bayer CropScience
letter
dated May 22, 1998, Bayer stated that if multiple groundwater
detections
occurred at or above 10 ppb, mitigation steps would be taken.
These
"action thresholds" were intended for groundwater
samples taken from the
monitoring wells established for the imidacloprid groundwater
monitoring
project. While the Department expected to find imidacloprid in
the
groundwater monitoring wells immediately under and adjacent to
test
sites, the Department was surprised to find that imidacloprid
had
rapidly migrated down gradient to private homeowner wells. The
first
detection of imidacloprid in a private homeowner well (far
removed from
the intended monitoring zone) was in April 2000. To date,
imidacloprid
has been detected at concentrations (0.2 to 7 ppb) in 12
monitoring
wells and 16 down gradient private homeowner wells. Imidacloprid
has
also been recently detected at 0.24 ppb in two Suffolk County
community
water supply wells (85 feet and 90 feet deep). Additionally,
imidacloprid has now been detected at a golf course monitoring
well
(0.43 ppb) and at monitoring wells near trees (0.2 to 5.1 ppb)
that have
been treated with imidacloprid by trunk injection for the Asian
Longhorned Beetle (ALB).
The New York
State Department of Health is concerned about the
presence of any pesticides in private or community drinking
water
supplies. Impact to community supply wells at depths of 85 and
90 feet
is of particular concern to the Department of Health.
Additionally,
imidacloprid is fairly resistant to breakdown once it moves into
groundwater. So far, monitoring has only shown the presence of
the
parent imidacloprid compound. It is unknown if any degradates
are
present in the groundwater. This concern is heightened by the
fact that
imidacloprid pesticide products have been registered for a short
period
of time (nine years).
Given the above, both the Department and
the New York State
Department of Health are concerned about the continued
unrestricted use
of all nursery, turf, ornamental, agricultural and consumer
registered
use patterns. Consistent with the United States Environmental
Protrection Agency's (USEPA) philosophy of developing Best
Management
Plans (BMPs), when impacts to groundwater/drinking water are
detected,
the Department intends to be proactive and ensure the
responsible use of
the affected products. While the detected level of imidacloprid
in
groundwater samples has not reached the action thresholds, the
Department is troubled by the increasing frequency of detections
of the
parent compound with respect to the short duration of
registration and
its use at less than maximum labeled rates in New York State.
The
Department is particularly concerned about the increasing number
of
detections in samples from public and private drinking water
wells.
In cooperation
with Bayer CropScience, Cornell Cooperative
Extension, representatives of regulated users and the
Department,
targeted BMPs for imidacloprid have been developed. The
Department must
take steps to evaluate the impact of various use patterns on
groundwater. The Department's goal is to manage the current
labeled
uses of all imidacloprid products in order to protect the
groundwater
resources of Long Island and, at the same time, preserve its use
for
crops and other use patterns where no alternatives for insect
control
exist. The Department intends to maintain the registration of
the
critical uses (in conjunction with the BMPs) of imidacloprid on
Long
Island while also gathering more information so that we may
resolve our
groundwater concerns.
The Department
first met with Bayer CropScience on July 30, 2002
to discuss our concerns, and possible use pattern modifications.
Bayer
CropScience was also informed in a letter dated July 11, 2002
that until
this issue is resolved, the Department will not register any
additional
imidacloprid products (basic or supplemental distributor).
Subsequent
meetings and conference calls have taken place on October 1,
2002;
November 4, 2002; July 28, 2003; May 18, 2004; July 15, 2004 and
July
22, 2004.
The Department received a letter
dated October 21, 2004 from Bayer
CropScience expressing dissatisfaction with the Department's
technical
position. We interpret this letter as Bayer's final positions on
the
various imidacloprid product related registration matters that
we have
been negotiating for some time. We find Bayer's positions
inconsistent
with many of our previous discussions. Our discussions on the
"trigger"
related concentration agreement thoroughly highlighted the
difference
between such concentrations being present in near surface waters
versus
deeper aquifer zones. The New York State Health Department was
present
to aid in understanding the concerns associated with the
sampling
results from the drinking water wells. Such data is not
representative
of the agreed upon "mitigation triggers" as your
letter suggests.
You also stated in your
October 21, 2004 letter that only 1% of
the samples collected by Suffolk County have detected
imidacloprid.
However, the detections that the Department is most concerned
about are
not from the monitoring wells established for the imidacloprid
groundwater monitoring project. As noted above, there has been
an
increasing number of detections in private homeowner wells which
are far
removed from the intended monitoring zone.
We further
shared the sound scientific reasoning behind our
intentions to limit the application of imidacloprid products to
professional and agricultural use by classifying the products as
"restricted use" while we further evaluated the means
by which this
compound migrates through the soil matrix. As we discussed,
limiting
the application of this product to those persons who are
certified
applicators would also ensure that we would receive annual
reporting
information on use location and amounts. To provide further
explanation,
products which are classified as "restricted use" in
New York State are
restricted in their purchase, distribution, sale, use and
possession in
New York State. Furthermore, restricted products may only be
purchased,
sold and used by a certified applicator in New York State.
According to New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation
Regulations 6 NYCRR 326.3(a): "It
shall be unlawful for any person
to distribute, sell, offer for sale, purchase for the purpose of
resale,
or possess for the purpose of resale, any restricted pesticide
unless
said person shall have applied for, and been issued a commercial
permit."
Also, the Pesticide Reporting Law (PRL)
in Article 33 Title 12 of
the Environmental Conservation Law requires all certified
commercial
pesticide applicators to report information annually to the
Department
regarding each pesticide application they make.
Commercial pesticide retailers are required to report all sales
of
restricted pesticide products. If no sales are made within New
York
State, a report must still be filed with the Department
indicating this
is the case.
There is no practical
mechanism for obtaining annual reporting
information on use location and amounts for imidacloprid
products which
are currently registered as "general use" in New York
State and used by
the general public. Therefore, in order to protect the
groundwater and
obtain accurate use data which can be tabulated and used in
statistical
analysis, the Department maintains that the consumer products
should be
prohibited from use on Long Island. In order for the affected
consumer
products to be registered, use modifications must be made. An
example
of label language that addresses these concerns is: "Not
For Sale, Use
or Distribution In or Into Nassau, Suffolk, Kings or Queens
Counties,
New York." Affected currently registered consumer products
will be
placed into discontinued status. The island of Long Island is
physically comprised of these four contiguous counties. The
Department
believes that due to the inherent difficulties of controlling
the sale,
distribution and use of "general use" consumer
products, the prohibition
should be extended to the natural physical boundaries of the
island.
In all of our communications, our
position has been shared openly
with Bayer in the realm of sound environmental management based
on the
available scientific data. We find the notion that this was an
"arbitrary decision" to be without basis.
The Department does not
consider the use of imidacloprid consumer
products to be critical on Long Island. Homeowner lawns, and
ornamental
flowers and shrubs will still be able to be treated with
imidacloprid by
licensed trained applicators. As New York State restricted use
products, all professional use and commercial sales will be
reported to
the Department in accordance with the Pesticide Reporting Law.
The
dates, amounts and specific locations of imidacloprid
applications will
be provided to the Department annually. This information, along
with
eliminating the consumer use (of which the Department would have
no
application or reporting records), will allow the Department to
evaluate
the other use patterns and attempt to determine which uses are
most
problematic. This will allow further use decisions to be made if
necessary.
Therefore, as a result of the
Department's intention to continue
registration for the critical uses to professional applicators
and still
be protective of human health and the environment, we register
the
aforementioned products as restricted use products, in
accordance with 6
NYCRR 326.23(e), in New York State. The Department intends to
protect
the groundwater/drinking water of Long Island, while still
preserving
the use of imidacloprid where no viable alternatives exist.
Although the
Department has received and reviewed your October
21, 2004 letter, our technical concerns remain and have not been
adequately mitigated by Bayer CropScience's proposed
registration
conditions.
With regard to imidacloprid products, the
Department will proceed to:
1. Classify as "restricted use" in New York State, as
of January 1,
2005, all currently registered professional use products. Our
authority
for this action lies in 6 NYCRR Part 326.23(e). This includes
all
professional turf, ornamental, nursery and agric
ultural use products, except seed treatments and fly baits.
==============================================================
Robert T. Leverett
Cofounder, Eastern Native Tree Society
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Brandon
Gallagher |
| Mar
14, 2007 13:03 PST |
As a retailer of imidacloprid (Xytect) I can tell you the
restricted use
applies to CA and NY, which means we can only sell the product
to
professionals. It is not a federally restricted product so if we
so
chose we could sell to the general public in every other state
(which we
don't because we believe ONLY professionals should be applying
these
chemicals). Even Bayer's homeowner version (Advanced Tree and
Shrub
Care) is specifically labeled for no distribution, application,
or sale
into the Long Island counties.
These are specific to Long Island because of the unique
hydrology of the
area.
The label clearly states the risk of groundwater contamination
but it is
really up to applicator to use his/her judgment for determining
if a
soil treatment is proper in a particular situation. This really
speaks
to the importance of environmental education for those
considered
"professionals" in our industry. The fate of many of
these products, all
the EPA/university science aside, is in their hands.
Brandon Gallagher Watson
Plant Healthcare Specialist
ISA Certified Arborist MN-4086A
Rainbow Treecare Scientific Advancements
|
| Re:
Imidacloprid Wars |
wad-@comcast.net |
| Mar
14, 2007 13:11 PST |
Bob
I was an applicator of pesticides commercially for 2.5 years in
the DC/metro area. I always thought it would be wise to restrict
the use of all pesticides, except maybe round up in a premixed
solution, from all residential use (homeowner use) The american
idea of more is better causes many folks to over apply
pesticides or just use them improperly altogether. A man in Md.
poisoned a boatload of Canadian Geese when he dumped the
majority of a container of insecticide in his lawn in an effort
to kill ants. I realize that many of us can do it properly, but
it sure would cut back on improper use. I realize that some
commercial applicators are bozos too. I guess you can't stop
everything.
Scott
|
| Re:
Imidacloprid Wars |
symplastless |
| Mar
14, 2007 14:08 PST |
| Do
sap suckers visit hemlock trees?
HWA are not
the only organisms to eat hemlock parts. Like I said. I
base my decision on the fact that a chemical that cannot be
injected into apple trees for human consumption is not suited
for trees which their associates eat their parts.
My search is showing that some birds do eat hemlock seeds. Deer
browse also on the foliage.
(Western Hemlock) Seeds eaten by squirrels, chipmunks and birds
in the winter. Deer and elk browse twigs.
Tsuga martensiana (Mountain Hemlock) Seeds eaten by siskins,
juncos, finches, crossbills, squirrels, chipmunks. Dense foliage
provides protection.
Hemlock seed is a preferred food for American goldfinch, boreal
chickadee, ruffed grouse, pine siskin and red-winged and
white-winged crossbills. Many other species of birds and mammals
also eat the seeds, and snowshoe hare browse young shoots.
Large, old hemlock are used by raccoon for dens and provide
cavities and nesting sites for a wide variety of birds. Hemlocks
also offer great cover and protection for both small and large
birds and at Macphail Woods the largest hemlock contains a hive
of honeybees that has overwintered for many years. As large
trees start to break up and die, red-backed salamanders are
common under the loose bark on standing trees. Amphibians can
also be found under and around hemlocks that have fallen to the
ground.
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Arborist
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Will
Blozan |
| Mar
14, 2007 16:03 PST |
John,
It is not ALL about what eats the seeds of leaves. You obviously
don't
realize that we are talking about an ecosystem collapse here.
You also must
not realize that these associated species, some perhaps Tsuga
specialists-
will have to make some quick adjustments to find alternative
food sources as
their preferred hosts die and crumble. The amphibians, trout,
and whatever
else (some species perhaps not even discovered yet) will die or
attempt to
move on with the loss of the forest. If they are niche
specialists in
hemlock forests they are toast.
Will
|
| RE:
Disturbing info-- Wait a minute! |
Will
Blozan |
| Mar
14, 2007 16:17 PST |
ENTS,
I have been involved with OG work for quite some time but
continue to learn
from folks far more knowledgeable than me. Jess Riddle and Josh
Kelly come
immediately to mind. I may have more miles in the Smokies than
Jess or Josh
but they have more miles with the fine tuning and keen eye I did
not have
early on. I still do not have the skills of these two and likely
never will.
I am fine with that as we all have our skills, interests, and
besides, there
is no competition here anyway!
I bring the funding and exposure for ENTS and the Tsuga Search
Project via
my NPS contacts and passion for the species. I am proud to be
able to do it
and don't regret a dime spent even though it has been a huge
financial hit
for me. We have but ONE chance to do what we are doing with
regards to
eastern hemlock. I saw the chance and took it with much
uncertainty about
the funds to get it done. It was a whim that has proven to be
successful.
Plus, I love to climb huge trees!
Will
|
| Re:
Imidacloprid Wars |
symplastless |
| Mar
14, 2007 17:56 PST |
Hemlocks
of sawlog size are notoriously subject to wind-shake (481), to
radial stress cracks, and, following sudden exposure, to
sunscald of the bark, and to death. These reactions may be the
result of many adverse effects associated with a changed regime
of solar heat and soil moisture and culminate in a decline often
referred to as post-logging decadence. When hemlocks are left as
residual trees following partial cutting, and when they are
exposed, through road or other construction or clearing, they
often die, even when their root area is covered with understory
brush (661). Eastern hemlock is also considered to be one of the
species most sensitive to sulfur fumes from smelters (1933). An
interesting type of hemlock ring-shake follows sapsucker injury
(1292).
Reference: Hepting, George, H. July
1971
Disease of Forest and Shade Trees of The United States
US. Dept. Agric. Forest Service Handbook Number 386 658
pages.
|
| Re:
Imidacloprid Wars |
symplastless |
| Mar
14, 2007 17:58 PST |
| Why
should we pollute their food supply with these chemicals? That's
unheard of. As I said: a tourniquet around the neck will stop a
severe nose bleed.
What are we
talking here? Injecting chemicals which find their way to seeds
and needles, which many eat, that no one would think of
injecting in their own apple tree and feeding the apples to
their children. Hemlocks do not tolerate fragmentation. Maybe
that's the problem to address.
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Arborist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree
biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep
reminding us that we are not the boss.
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Will
Blozan |
| Mar
14, 2007 18:20 PST |
Hemlocks
will not survive HWA. Fragmentation is not a relevant point. I
agree that we disagree.
One more difference I would like to point out. You feel it is
wrong to
poison an apple tree and feed the fruit to our children. I
agree, but I also
feel it is wrong and irresponsible to not leave my children a
grove of
hemlocks to visit, climb, and enjoy (not to mention the myriad
possibilities
of research and further ecological and mechanical studies- that
you quote so
often).
I have taken the opportunity to leave a legacy of hemlocks in
the southern
Appalachians for the future. Down here, the untreated groves
will be dead
(along with much of the critters that depend on them). I may
eventually find
this mission wrong, but I doubt it.
I'm out.
Will
|
| Re:
Imidacloprid Wars |
symplastless |
| Mar
14, 2007 18:33 PST |
I
would say that the chemicals injected are in the sap. What about
the sap suckers?
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Arborist
|
| Re:
Imidacloprid Wars |
MICHAEL
DAVIE |
| Mar
14, 2007 19:14 PST |
John,
Hemlocks do not tolerate death or mass extinction, either. I
think it's important to balance the potential incidental damage
to some generalist feeders on hemlocks or those up the food
chain from there, in very minor and localized amounts, to the
loss of an entire species. Any hemlock-specific species will die
along with the hemlocks.
Yes, yes. The tourniquet comment. Very clever. How can you
correlate the logic to the situation at hand? Please elaborate.
Michael
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
James
Smith |
| Mar
14, 2007 20:23 PST |
MICHAEL DAVIE wrote:
| |
Yes, yes. The tourniquet comment. Very
clever. How can you >correlate
the logic to the situation at hand?
Please elaborate. |
Nah. Not very clever, at all. Rather reactionary, in my opinion.
The simple fact is that, barring an amazing discovery and
treatment in
the next couple of years, both species of hemlocks in the east
will
become extinct. If this happens, every creature that depends
upon them
for survival will also likely go belly-up. Barring some amazing
leap in
their habits (doubtful). By treating some groves with the
insecticide,
you're at least giving them a few more years for some new and
effective
tactic to come to the fore. Putting up with short-term toxicity
for
long-term survival seems a mild risk. |
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Gary
A. Beluzo |
| Mar
15, 2007 05:17 PST |
Okay, how many species are obligate or facultatively obligate
for hemlocks
and/or the environmental conditions that they create? I remember
Dave Orwig
doing a presentation at the Forest Summit regarding the HWA and
he
identified the other TREE species that would most likely
supplant Tsuga.
Also, I know that Lee Frelich has been writing about
neighborhood effects of
species like Tsuga so in that instance I would image that other
species
would become established, exert their neighborhood effects, and
the ecology
would shift to a more deciduous-based system.
Other information?
Gary
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Gary
A. Beluzo |
| Mar
15, 2007 05:20 PST |
I
am just catching up with my email today after a short hiatus and
find this
discussion interesting. Has anyone provided a synopsis of the
ecotoxicology
of imidacloprid? Half life of biodegradation, intermediate and
final
metabolites, LD50, etc?
Gary
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Gary
A. Beluzo |
| Mar
15, 2007 05:21 PST |
Will,
Yes, you are absolutely correct, the sap that results from their
drilling
attracts insects which are then fed upon by the sapsuckers, I
have observed
yellow-bellied sapsuckers doing this.
Gary
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Gary
A. Beluzo |
| Mar
15, 2007 05:25 PST |
Will,
Any evidence out there that there are resistant individuals?
Normally the
genetic variation in any population will provide a long-term
solution to the
presence of a pollutant, that is unless the pollutant or
pathogen is just so
damaging that no individuals survive. Has anyone seen resistant
individuals
in the field? Dave Orwig?
Gary
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Gary
A. Beluzo |
| Mar
15, 2007 05:31 PST |
Here
is an analogy to help think through this imidacloprid
discussion.
Pharmaceuticals are given to people despite the fact that MANY
are
potentially toxic to the body (and the trick is to keep the drug
above the
effective dose (ED50) but below the lethal dose (LD50). The
liver and other
organs metabolize the drug. Think specifically about
chemotherapy. There
are many chemotherapies which have short-term toxicity to the
body (and that
is why they kill cancer cells) but unless they are mutagenic or
carcinogenic
the body recovers afterwards.
I think the analogy may be appropriate here. If the imidacloprid
"pharmaceutical" is biodegradable within a relatively
short period of time,
if it doesn't biomagnify/bioaccumulate up the food chain, and if
the
metabolic byproducts are innoculous then the short term toxicity
to the
adlegid may outweigh any short-term risk to the ecosystem. I'll
try to get
some ecotoxicology data on the chemical.
Gary
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Gary
A. Beluzo |
| Mar
15, 2007 05:35 PST |
Brandon,
Can you please give us a synopsis of the toxicology and
ecotoxicology of
Xytect? Are the application levels of the chemical for HWA below
the LD50
for most test organisms?
Gary
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
edward
coyle |
| Mar
15, 2007 06:23 PST |
Hi All,
Sapsuckers DO eat sap as a primary source of food. They also eat
insects
stuck in the sap, as well as capturing them apart from sap. It
is
interesting that they often dip their prey in sap before
consumption.
Their favorite tree species are Yellow and Paper birch. Second
order trees
would be linden, maple, cherry, and white pine. Hemlock is
likely used, but
not as a primary source.
Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers, the only type likely found in the
discussion
area, make two types of feeding holes in trees. One utilizes
xylem, and the
other phloem sap. The 'sap well' area can be used for up to four
days before
drying up. At any given, time several trees are being used as a
food source.
There is a sub-species endemic to the Appalachians.
To further complicate the issue, a whole host of animals and
insects utilize
these same 'sap wells', to include several types of
hummingbirds, orioles,
nuthatches, warblers, finches, squirrels, various flies and
wasps.
I have included information below concerning toxicity.
Ed Coyle
TRADE OR OTHER NAMES: Imidacloprid is found in a variety of
commercial
insecticides. The products Admire, Condifor, Gaucho, Premier,
Premise,
Provado, and Marathon all contain imidacloprid as the active
ingredient
(223).
REGULATORY STATUS: Imidacloprid is a General Use Pesticide, and
is
classified by EPA as both a toxicity class II and class III
agent, and must
be labeled with the signal word "Warning" or
"Caution" (223). There are
tolerances for residues of imidacloprid and its metabolites on
food/feed
additives ranging from 0.02 ppm in eggs, to 3.0 ppm in hops
(328).
INTRODUCTION: Imidacloprid is a systemic, chloro-nicotinyl
insecticide with
soil, seed and foliar uses for the control of sucking insects
including rice
hoppers, aphids, thrips, whiteflies, termites, turf insects,
soil insects
and some beetles. It is most commonly used on rice, cereal,
maize, potatoes,
vegetables, sugar beets, fruit, cotton, hops and turf, and is
especially
systemic when used as a seed or soil treatment. The chemical
works by
interfering with the transmission of stimuli in the insect
nervous system.
Specifically, it causes a blockage in a type of neuronal pathway
(nicotinergic) that is more abundant in insects than in
warm-blooded animals
(making the chemical selectively more toxic to insects than
warm-blooded
animals). This blockage leads to the accumulation of
acetylcholine, an
important neurotransmitter, resulting in the insect's paralysis,
and
eventually death. It is effective on contact and via stomach
action (1).
Imidacloprid based insecticide formu-lations are available as
dustable
powder, granular, seed dressing (flowable slurry concentrate),
soluble
concentrate, suspension concentrate, and wettable powder (223).
Typical
application rates range from 0.05 - 0.125 pounds/acre. These
application
rates are considerably lower than older, traditionally used
insecticides. It
can be phytotoxic if it is not used according to manufacturer's
specifications, and has been shown to be compatible with
fungicides when
used as a seed treatment to control insect pests (329).
TOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Acute Toxicity: Imidacloprid is moderately toxic. The oral dose
of technical
grade imidacloprid that resulted in mortality to half of the
test animals
(LD50) is 450 mg/kg body weight in rats (223), and 131 mg/kg in
mice (1).
The 24-hour dermal LD50 in rats is >5,000 mg/kg. It is
considered
non-irritating to eyes and skin (rabbits), and non-sensitizing
to skin
(guinea pigs) (1). Some granular formulations may contain clays
as inert
ingredients that may act as eye irritants. In acute inhalation
toxicity
tests with rats, the airborne concentration of imidacloprid that
resulted in
mortality to half of the test organisms (LC50) is > 69
mg/meters cubed air
in the form of an aerosol, and >5323 mg/meters cubed air in
the form of
dust. These values represent the maximum attainable airborne
concentrations
(1).
Signs and Symptoms of Poisoning: Although no account of human
poisoning was
found in the literature, signs and symptoms of poisoning would
be expected
to be similar to nicotinic signs and symptoms, including
fatigue, twitching,
cramps, and muscle weakness including the muscles necessary for
breathing
(330).
Chronic Toxicity: A 2-year feeding study in rats fed up to 1,800
ppm
resulted in a No Observable Effect Level (NOEL) of 100 ppm (5.7
mg/kg body
weight in males and 7.6 mg/kg in females). Adverse effects
included
decreased body weight gain in females at 300 ppm, and increased
thyroid
lesions in males at 300 ppm and females at 900 ppm. A 1-year
feeding study
in dogs fed up to 2,500 ppm resulted in a NOEL of 1,250 ppm (41
mg/kg).
Adverse effects included increased cholesterol levels in the
blood, and some
stress to the liver (measured by elevated liver cytochrome p-450
levels)
(331).
Reproductive Effects: A three generation reproduction study in
rats fed up
to 700 ppm imidacloprid resulted in a NOEL of 100 ppm
(equivalent to 8
mg/kg/day) based on decreased pup body weight observed at the
250 ppm dose
level (331).
Teratogenic Effects: A developmental toxicity study in rats
given doses up
to 100 ppm by gavage on days 6 to 16 of gestation resulted in a
NOEL of 30
mg/kg/day (based on skeletal abnormalities observed at the next
highest dose
tested of 100 ppm) (329). In a developmental toxicity study with
rabbits
given doses of imidacloprid by gavage during days 6 through 19
of gestation,
resulted in a NOEL of 24 mg/kg/day based on decreased body
weight and
skeletal abnormalities observed at 72 mg/kg/day (highest dose
tested) (331).
Mutagenic Effects: Imidacloprid may be weakly mutagenic. In a
battery of 23
laboratory mutagenicity assays, imidacloprid tested negative for
mutagenic
effects in all but two of the assays. It did test positive for
causing
changes in chromosomes in human lymphocytes, as well as testing
positive for
genotoxicity in Chinese hamster ovary cells (331).
Carcinogenic Effects: Imidacloprid is considered to be of
minimal
carcinogenic risk, and is thus categorized by EPA as a
"Group E" carcinogen
(evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans). There were no
carcinogenic
effects in a 2-year carcinogenicity study in rats fed up to
1,800 ppm
imidacloprid (328).
Organ Toxicity: In short-term feeding studies in rats, there
were thyroid
lesions associated with very high doses of imidacloprid (331).
Fate in Humans and Animals: Imidacloprid is quickly and almost
completely
absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, and eliminated via
urine and feces
(70-80% and 20-30%, respectively, of the 96% of the parent
compound
administered within 48 hours). The most important metabolic
steps include
the degradation to 6-chloronicotinic acid, a compound that acts
on the
nervous system as described above. This compound may be
conjugated with
glycine and eliminated, or reduced to guanidine (1).
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Effects on Birds: Imidacloprid is toxic to upland game birds.
The LD50 is
152 mg/kg for bobwhite quail, and 31 mg/kg in Japanese quail
(223, 1). In
studies with red-winged blackbirds and brown-headed cowbirds, it
was
observed that birds learned to avoid imidacloprid treated seeds
after
experiencing transitory gastrointestinal distress (retching) and
ataxia
(loss of coordination). It was concluded that the risk of
dietary exposure
to birds via treated seeds was minimal. Based on these studies,
imidacloprid
appears to have potential as a bird repellent seed treatment
(332, 333).
Effects on Aquatic Organisms: The toxicity of imidacloprid to
fish is
moderately low. The 96-hour LC50 of imidacloprid is 211 mg/l for
rainbow
trout, 280 mg/l for carp, and 237 mg/l for golden orfe. In tests
with the
aquatic invertebrate Daphnia, the 48-hour EC50 (effective
concentration to
cause toxicity in 50% of the test organisms) was 85 mg/l (1).
Products
containing imidacloprid may be very toxic to aquatic
invertebrates.
Effects on Other Animals (Nontarget species): Imidacloprid is
highly toxic
to bees if used as a foliar application, especially during
flowering, but is
not considered a hazard to bees when used as a seed treatment
(1).
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE
Breakdown of Chemical in Soil and Groundwater: The half-life of
imidacloprid
in soil is 48-190 days, depending on the amount of ground cover
(it breaks
down faster in soils with plant ground cover than in fallow
soils) (334).
Organic material aging may also affect the breakdown rate of
imidacloprid.
Plots treated with cow manure and allowed to age before sowing
showed longer
persistence of imidacloprid in soils than in plots where the
manure was more
recently applied, and not allowed to age (335). Imidacloprid is
degraded
stepwise to the primary metabolite 6-chloronicotinic acid, which
eventually
breaks down into carbon dioxide (336). There is generally not a
high risk of
groundwater contamination with imidacloprid if used as directed.
The
chemical is moderately soluble, and has moderate binding
affinity to organic
materials in soils. However, there is a potential for the
compound to move
through sensitive soil types including porous, gravelly, or
cobbly soils,
depending on irrigation practices (337).
Breakdown of Chemical in Surface Water: The half-life in water
is much
greater than 31 days at pH 5, 7 and 9. No other information was
found.
Breakdown of Chemical in Vegetation: Imidacloprid penetrates the
plant, and
moves from the stem to the tips of the plant. It has been tested
in a
variety of application and crop types, and is metabolized
following the same
pathways. The most important steps were loss of the nitro group,
hydroxylation at the imidazolidine ring, hydrolysis to 6-
chloronicotinic
acid and formation of conjugates (1).
Analytical Methods: Methods are available for determining
imidacloprid
residues (the 6-chloropicolyl moiety) in plant materials using
HPLC with
u.v. detection (338).
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
edward
coyle |
| Mar
15, 2007 06:39 PST |
Hi Again,
The important points below(understood by me) is that birds learn
to use a
different source for food, if they sense any adverse affects,
and that
Imidacloprid is already being used on food crops.
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Gary
A. Beluzo |
| Mar
15, 2007 06:44 PST |
Thanks Ed, I stand corrected regarding the sap-sucking behavior.
Although
the name DOES suggest that I had never actually observed in the
field.
Considering the ingredients in imidacloprid (nicotinyl) perhaps
we should
all start smoking around hemlock trees when we work.
Incidentally it is the
chlorine atom that makes pesticides very persistent, just as
CFCs persist
until they get into the stratosphere and are broken down by
ultraviolet
radiation.
I wonder if a formulation with just NICOTINE would be effective
(although it
may not hang around long enough to kill the adelgid without the
chlorine).
Before synthetic pesticides nicotine was actually one of the
more common
ingredients in natural, biodegradable pesticides.
Thank you for the toxicological data.
Gary
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Gary
A. Beluzo |
| Mar
15, 2007 06:48 PST |
THAT'S
interesting! Are they all clones? So..the one's that were
originally
released were all female? What about the BALSAM wooly adelgid?
The shallow gene pool for hemlock trees suggests that resistance
isn't very
likely in any population.
Gary
_____
From: Will Blozan
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:28 AM
Subject: RE: Imidacloprid Wars
Gary,
From what Lee has said, eastern hemlock resides in a shallow
gene pool. The
adelgid, all clones, don't even have a pool to swim in.
Will
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Gary
A. Beluzo |
| Mar
15, 2007 07:18 PST |
Ed,
Are you suggesting that birds can "sense" the presence
of Imidacloprid?
Generalists will obviously have an easier time of shifting food
sources but
what about any specialists (hemlock-obligate species) that need
hemlock to
nest in, feed in, etc.?
Gary
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars - Toxicity info |
Brandon
Gallagher |
|
Mar
15, 2007 08:06 PST |
I've
attached the MSDS for Xytect 75WSP (same as MERIT 75WSP). It
includes decomposition products, toxicology, and ecological
information.
If you are interested in learning more about LD50 ratings you
can check
out this link. http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/ld50.html
The
thing to remember is the higher the LD50 number the less toxic
the
product is.
Imidacloprid (used as directed) is less toxic than many things
you
encounter in life. Xytect has an LD50 oral of >4500 mg/Kg.
That means
you would have to ingest 4500 mg of active ingredient for every
Kg of
body weight to kill half a population of the animal you were
testing on.
By comparison, you would have to ingest 50 mg/Kg of nicotine,
3000 mg/Kg
of table salt, or 2080 mg/Kg of my beloved ethanol alcohol.
Other LD50
ratings can be found by doing some Google searches. It is quite
interesting to see where many of our common household products
fall.
The point is not that you should be eating or drinking
imidacloprid but
if used under all the guidelines required by the label the
product has
minimal toxicity for people and non-target animals. Sapsuckers
would
have to suck a lot of sap to get enough active ingredient to be
fatal.
The toxicity to aquatic organisms is clearly stated on the label
and the
MSDS. Don't get it in water! The biggest issue our sister
company,
Rainbow Treecare, ever had to deal with was a broken rig hose
that
sprayed MERIT into a client's koi pond!
As far as the conversation surrounding the treatment of apples
or other
crops foods...read the label. The EPA allows treatment of
imidacloprid
up to a week before harvest in pome fruits and up to the DAY of
harvest
in grape. We did not seek agriculture labeling for Xytect (we
focus on
arborists) so you cannot apply OUR product in commercial
orchards or
vineyards but there are many imidacloprids out there that have
ag on the
label. Ours can be used by homeowners wanting to protect their
trees or
vines and want to consume the fruit.
Hopefully this was helpful.
-bg
Brandon M. Gallagher Watson
Plant Healthcare Specialist
ISA Certified Arborist MN-4086A
|
| Re:
Imidacloprid Wars |
orw-@fas.harvard.edu |
| Mar
15, 2007 08:14 PST |
Gary et al. there is ongoing work searching for hemlock
resistance. the
citation below is a paper that was recently presented by
researchers at
the University of Rhode Island, University of Massachusetts and
myself
that is basically the initial protocol for such an effort:
Examine heavily hit stands, find remaining trees, take cuttings,
propagate seedlings, introduce HWA, evaluate for
resistance/tolerance.
It is still too early to tell for sure, but initial work
suggests that
there may indeed be resistance out there, but much more work is
needed.
2007. Poster presented: 18th U.S. Department of Agriculture
interagency
research forum on gypsy moth and other invasive species.
Annapolis, MD
“Production and Evaluation of Eastern Hemlocks (/Tsuga
canadensis/)
potentially resistant to the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid (/Adelges
tsugae/)”,
with T. Caswell, R. Casagrande, E. Preisser, B. Maynard, J.
Elkinton.
and D. Orwig.
There may be other research projects that are investigating
this, but I
am not aware of them. thanks DAVE ORWIG
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Andrew
Joslin |
| Mar
15, 2007 09:02 PST |
I think Ed is saying there is a feedback/aversion mechanism - ie:
gut
discomfort = don't eat seeds from that tree anymore. It would be
very
interesting to see if a Black-capped Chickadee (for instance)
would
stop eating ALL hemlock cone seed or would learn not to feed on
a
particular treated hemlock. The current scenario as you all know
is
that Will (and hopefully others) are treating only specific
trees as
a short-term holding action. Knowing that birds are
exceptionally
intelligent I'd expect that hemlock feeding birds would learn
quickly
to avoid a particular treated tree.
More detailed info would be helpful as to how much imidacloprid
ends
up in hemlock cone seeds and other "consumable"
hemlock parts
following soil injection treatment. As far as YB Sapsucker
feeding
habits goes, I expect they drink more sap from the tastier
hardwood
species as opposed to the conifers. The avian imidacloprid
feedback/aversion mechanism described in Eds post might be
extended
to sap drinkers as well as seed eaters.
Andrew Joslin
Jamaica Pain, MA
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Andrew
Joslin |
| Mar
15, 2007 09:50 PST |
Nesting Black-throated Green Warbler is often associated with
hemlock. In woods in eastern Massachusetts if you want to find a
singing BTG Warbler in breeding territory just find a hemlock
grove
or individual large tree. Unfortunately I'm finding many less of
these delightful birds on breeding territory the last three
years. It
was sad to find a lone male BTG Warbler singing in a decimated
hemlock grove a few seasons ago.
Andrew Joslin
Jamaica Plain, MA
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
edward
coyle |
| Mar
15, 2007 11:00 PST |
Gary,
In the body of Imidacloprid information it states that
Red-winged Blackbirds
and Brown-headed Cowbirds will change food sources that cause
them to
experience vomiting and or loss of coordination.
Ed
|
| Re:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Edward
Frank |
|
Mar
15, 2007 19:53 PST |
ENTS,
What you need to think about is what are the benefits and costs
of each of the options of a) Not Treating the hemlocks, b)
Treating them with Imidacloprid, and c) Other options.
In summary a) No Treatment.
a.. Almost all of the hemlocks will DIE and become EFFECTIVELY
EXTINCT
b.. The species that are obligate tsugaphiles will ALL DIE
c.. Creatures that get much of their food from hemlock will need
to find other sources with SOME MORTALITY. There should be no
loss of species in this group
d.. Creatures that occasionally feed on hemlock will need to
find other food. There should be no loss of species in this
group.
e.. Creatures that shelter in hemlocks will need to find other
shelter types
f.. Plant ecosystems associated with the canopies of the
hemlocks and associated insect communities will ALL DIE. There
may be some LOSS of unknown plant or LOSS of arthropod species.
g.. The microclimate generated under the hemlock canopies will
be lost.
h.. Plant communities in the understory of the hemlock groves
will be disrupted.
i.. If plant species are dependant on the floor niches
surrounding hemlocks they will have SIGNIFICANT LOSES.
j.. Older specimens representing the oldest and largest of the
species WILL DIE FIRST.
b) Treatment will imidacloprid
a.. The hemlock groves and individual specimens treated will
survive for at least 5 years
b.. Hemlocks that are not treated will die
c.. Obligate tsugaphiles in the treated hemlocks may or may not
die depending on whether they ingest large amounts of
imidacloprid or not.
d.. Creatures that get much of their food from treated hemlocks
may be poisoned by the imidacloprid or they may be forced to
move to other food sources. Those that feed on the untreated
hemlocks will be forced to find other food sources. There may be
SOME MORTALITY incurred by imidacloprid ingestion and there will
be SOME MORTALITY for others feeding on untreated hemlock as
their food source approaches extinction. There should be no loss
of species in this group.
e.. Creatures that occasionally feed on hemlock should not be
affected by ingestion of small amounts of imidacloprid. Those
feeding on untreated hemlock groves will need to find other food
sources. There should be no loss of species in this group.
f.. Creatures that shelter in hemlocks but do not ingest food
should still be able to shelter in the hemlocks.
g.. Plant ecosystems associated with the canopies of the
hemlocks will survive in the treated trees. It is likely that
insect communities associated with these plants will be ADVERSELY
AFFECTED. There may be a LOSS of yet unknown
arthropod species.
h.. The microclimate generated under the canopies of the treated
hemlocks will be retained.
i.. Plant communities in the understory of the hemlock grove
will not be affected .in treated trees
j.. If plant species are dependant on the floor niches
surrounding hemlocks, they will not be adversely affected by the
imidacloprid.
k.. The oldest and largest of the trees will be selected for
treatment and these will be retained as a seed source for future
regeneration of the species.
3) Other Options
a.. There are none at this time.
Certainly there are other considerations. One is the idea that
imidacloprid will contaminate groundwater. I believe the Long
Island example is atypical as the aquifer consists of almost
entirely a sand bed, not even sandstone. The permeability and
transmissivity of this type of aquifer is enormous and may be
tens of thousands of time greater than typical aquifers, and
therefore has a greater potential for contamination than typical
aquifers. In most cases only the most significant groves and
individuals in terms of size and age will be treated. In most
cases these are trees that have managed to survive so far
because of their isolation from people. This isolation will
limit the small potential for contamination of people's water
supplies. Since only a limited number of trees will be treated,
rather than treating a large area, such as a golf course, there
will be a smaller amount of the chemical being used. This also
limits the potential concentrations of the chemical in the
groundwater should it prove mobile enough to cause
contamination.
In my opinion the only viable option is to treat those
outstanding groves that we can with imidacloprid and hope the
outlook will look brighter in a few years. Treatment is
essentially a holding action. Only a limited number of trees can
be effectively treated. In five years there is the potential
that other treatment options may have become available or that
predatory insect releases have checked the hemlock wooly
adelgid. There will be some trees that survive this time period
without treatment. It isn't clear how many will do so, or if
they could survive much longer than this without treatment.
Certainly the oldest and largest trees seem to be most
vulnerable to the insect and are among the first to die. It will
take another 500 years to regrow examples of old hemlock if they
are allowed to die.
There are some isolated pockets of hemlock that have not been
affected. One such disjunct unaffected population is near Cary,
NC in a city park. So pockets of hemlocks may survive this first
onslaught, but unless the situation changes eventually they will
die unless they are treated. I am optimistic for both the
possibilities of the predatory insect releases and of the newly
developed fungal treatments. But I believe it is in our best
interest to treat those great trees that we can save until that
brighter future arrives.
Edward Frank |
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars, birds |
Paul
Jost |
| Mar
15, 2007 21:09 PST |
All,
Since others have mentioned birds in hemlocks, I'll add a little
to it:
I too have seen black-throated green warblers during nesting
season only
in hemlock groves. The same goes for Blackburnian warblers in
our area.
I've seen both singing at sunrise from atop hemlock trees as I
crawl
out of my tent and their songs dwindle as you escape the dense
hemlocks.
As I look at the range maps, the documented ranges extend beyond
the
range of the hemlocks, so they may be able to adapt to other
habitat.
However, outside the boreal forests, there are few suitable
substitutes
left, so they likely will disappear from the adelgid infested
portion of
their range.
Although not as hemlock specific as those mentioned above, I
tend to see
more golden-crowned kinglets in hemlocks as well as the
following others
that I see more in hemlock-hardwoods than in hardwoods without
hemlocks:
black-throated blue warblers and magnolia warblers. Old hemlocks
are
also favored roosting places for barred owls.
In my lists, I have the following regulars also in hemlock
stands:
yellow-bellied sapsucker, veery, wood thrush, solitary vireo,
winter
wrens, pine siskins, brown creepers, black-capped chickadees,
red
crossbills, and red-breasted nuthatch.
Paul Jost
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Paul
Jost |
| Mar
15, 2007 21:16 PST |
Ed,
I would imagine that most surface and groundwater contamination
by
Imidacloprid would be in the cases that it was applied
repeatedly on a
large scale for lawn care, not small localized hemlock
individuals once
every few years - unless adjacent to streams, lakes, or rivers.
Golf
courses are notorious for surface water contamination due to
repeatedly
excessive overuse of fertilizers and pesticides evenly across a
very
large surface area with runoff into the water supply.
Paul Jost
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Charles
Hinton |
| Mar
15, 2007 22:33 PST |
Insecticides have both immediate effects, i.e., they kill
insects and
long term effects. The long term effects depend on a lot of
factors
such as persistence and concentration as a chemical passes
through the
food chain. That was the big problem with DDT. Other than
causing
eggshell thinning it might have been pretty safe, My father told
me how
people used it on their bodies like insect repellant!
I think a lot of these effects of imadacloprid have already been
addressed, but here is something to consider:
Let's say we're in an area where we don't have to worry about
endangered
species and for the moment don't worry about polluting the
groundwater
etc. But, let's imagine that imidacloprid is going to kill just
about
everything that even gets near a treated tree.
Now by the very nature of how it must be applied, it's next to
impossible to use it very extensively. But lets say we use it on
a few
acres here and there and it kills off everything.
Small animals generally have very high reproductive rates and
equally
high mortality. As an example, the Bobwhite Quail has something
like an
85% mortality rate each year whether they're hunted or not. They
die
off and the next year they bouunce back. Some forest animals
probably
have similar mortality rates and for others it's a lot less.
Few whitetailed deer live to be even 8 or ten years old. The
point is
that animals die quickly anyway and their populations will
bounce back
quickly if they are wiped out, at least in localized areas.
Contrast this to the hemlock, a tree that often lives over 400
years and
maybe much longer. If these trees are wiped out and then the HWA
disappears, it will still take a human lifetime before big
mature
hemlocks reappear. The animals come and go quickly but the trees
are
very very slow.
Now for ancient trees: maybe with a few exceptions, it makes
little
difference to an ecosystem whether the trees are 75 or 475 years
old.
The forest doesn't care. The animals don't care. But like many
of you,
I care... a lot. When I see or touch these living things that
existed
even hundreds of years before the birth of our very country, it
does
something to me. It stirs something deep inside of me, something
that I
can't explain... something that I can only feel. I cannot and
will not
accept the loss of the hemlocks. No, we will not save all of
them or
even a lot of them, but we will save some of them. Two hundred
years
from now I intend for people to go into old growth forests and
see what
400 year-old hemlocks look like. And I know they'll feel
something
moving deep inside themselves just like I do.
Our forefathers gave us many gifts. I doubt they were very
motivated by
such thoughts. But what we do in the next few years will be a
gift
enjoyed by thousands of people for hundreds of years. It will be
our
legacy. What we are doing will have a great and lasting
significance.
There are lots of very scientific reasons for saving the hemlock
but the
other reason is something aesthetic, something about the human
spirit.
I hear how magnificant the chestnuts were and how they were very
common
here and I feel a kind of grief. There's a little bit of a
poverty to
the landscape even though most people have no idea that
something so
great was lost. I don't know anyone who remembers what these
trees
looked like.
Yes, we have to be careful in using these "tools" such
as imidacloprid.
Whether it is through the use of this chemical or otherwise,
there may
be some sacrifices, even if just financial and a lot of hard
work. But
to me and for the above reasons, I think it is worth it.
I guess I should introduce myself, I'm Charles Hinton and I've
lived in
Tennessee about 10 years. I started out in Wildlife Biology many
years
before that and Also Leopold was my hero (still is) but then I
moved on.
Only recently did I find out what an old growth forest was
really like
and I got hooked. My immediate interest is Savage Gulf (Jess
Riddle's
article) where there's old growth hemlock that we intend to
preserve.
I'll be flying over the area soon for some photos. Thanks
Chuck
|
| Re:
Imidacloprid Wars |
symplastless |
| Mar
16, 2007 03:48 PST |
Yes
I was concerned about injections and systemic with respect to
the
associates. Injections meaning chemicals applied into the
vessels or
tracheids thus placing the chemical throughout the tree. They
were
questions many of my clients would ask if I recommended the
treatment. I
work in the niche of organic and natural people.
Do you have to be a certified arborist to inject these chemicals
or do you
have to inject these chemicals to be a certified arborist. I
would not mind
taking the test but we would differ on areas regarding these
chemicals. If
I don't see the way they do, would I fail the test?
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Arborist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree
biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep
reminding us
that we are not the boss. |
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars-back to Charles |
Robert
Leverett |
| Mar
16, 2007 05:24 PST |
Charles,
Welcome aboard and thanks for sharing your
views. Your thoughts
resonate with many of us and I find them inspiration. It is also
good to
have another person in ENTS from my home state of Tennessee.
I've now
lived for 31 years in Massachusetts and love this state also,
but miss
not seeing Tennessee more and have been immensely pleased at the
abundance of big tree-tall tree sites in the volunteer state.
Again,
welcome aboard.
Bob
|
| Re:
Imidacloprid Wars |
edward
coyle |
| Mar
16, 2007 05:35 PST |
Ed, and All,
Both of these scenarios are taking place now. Will, and his
efforts are the
only thing standing between complete devastation, and the saving
of a
relative few pockets of hemlocks.
Vast areas are already dead. These areas will not be the same
ever. The
dependent species are already dead, or having to adapt. The
hemlock
ecosystems in place for 350 years, and generations before that,
are gone.
It is pointless to ask what can best be done here. It is being
done, and
until there is another alternative, it is pointless to debate
the issue.
The treatment being used, like it or not, is being used on the
foods we eat.
If it causes indigestion in a bird or squirrel, I can live with
that.
As I see it, this is one ray of sunshine in a storm of invasive
insects.
Ed C
|
| Re:
Imidacloprid Wars |
symplastless |
| Mar
16, 2007 06:16 PST |
Old treatments
like you said: "Until a new treatment comes along"
With the questions that arise regarding injections of toxins and
the trees
associates, some of these treatments may not always be
acceptable. Here are
some examples. Think about all the beliefs and treatments that
were false.
Before the germ theory, people believed that diseases caused
microorganisms.
Babies were thought to be fertilized by liquids from the male.
The earth
was thought to be flat. The sun was thought to travel around the
earth. It
was best to put warm materials on burns. Bleeding a sick person
gets rid of
the nasty things inside. The gods lived in Olympus and did all
things.
Wound dressings stopped rot in trees. Flush pruning is best
because the
wounds heal faster. Drilling holes to let out wetwood stopped
decay.
Planting trees good and deep is good for trees. Trees heal
wounds, roots
regenerate, and trees have root flairs. The list is long with
tree
practices and with many other practices. It is a wonder people
and trees
are still around! The frightening part of this is that the myths
come
easier than truth. Many myths are still with us. To erase a myth
is very
difficult, yet add another myth easy. He read many books and
magazines,
mostly about science. The beliefs come and go in science also.
If others
can have beliefs, why can't I? Further, he found it difficult to
understand
how people inside write about systems that are active outside. I
do not
believe trees can be understood by looking at them only from the
outside.
Until Andreas Vesalius began systematical dissecting human
bodies, the myths
about bodies were many. Until tree anatomy, not wood anatomy, is
learned,
we will be in the same position with trees.
Now we have questions about treatments that can effect the
quality of food.
Maybe we will look back on injections of toxins just the same
way as the
latter. Just my thoughts. After all we can think.
Sincerely,
John A. Keslick, Jr.
Arborist
http://home.ccil.org/~treeman
and www.treedictionary.com
Beware of so-called tree experts who do not understand tree
biology.
Storms, fires, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions keep
reminding us
that we are not the boss.
|
| Re:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Edward
Frank |
|
Mar
16, 2007 18:33 PST |
John.
People have made mistakes in the past dealing with environmental
issues. I
am sure the future will show we are making some mistakes now. I
also am
equally sure that we will continue to make mistakes in the
future. Most of
our choices and decisions have worked out for the best. That is
how
civilization evolves, through people making choices about what
we do.
There are
two types of mistakes, of action and mistakes of inaction.
Mistakes
of action are those that have a bad outcome or have unforeseen
deleterious
consequences. Equally as unfortunate are mistakes of inaction.
Those are
situations in which a decisive action should have been taken,
but was not.
In each situation we must strive to make the best decision we
can based upon
the information we have at that time. Taking no action because
mistakes
have been made in the past is a poor excuse for allowing an
unacceptable to
continue or to deteriorate.
Perhaps the
outcomes of our actions will not
always be perfect, but we need to do something when the
situation calls for
action. In this situation using insecticide against a non-native
invasive
insect in order to save the biggest and oldest of our hemlocks
and as much
of their dependant ecosystems as possible is the choice I
support.
I understand that not everyone will agree with this choice. You
have said
that your niche consists of organic and natural people. I
generally do not
support the vanity of those positions. In this case arguing that
we should
not try to save the trees using a pesticide, which to our best
information
is safe and effective, would be in my opinion would be foolish
and self
serving.
Edward Frank
|
| Re:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Lee
Frelich |
| Mar
19, 2007 12:45 PST |
ENTS:
I agree with Ed's position below and with his list of impacts
that would
occur from loss of hemlock from his previous posting.
Unfortunately, at
this point people have influenced natural systems so much that
there is no
such thing as letting nature take its course. The only choices
available
are one type of human influence versus another.
Since we are talking about water quality, I will expand a bit on
ecosystem
impacts of hemlock that Ed alluded to indirectly. Hemlock litter
is
recalcitrant to decomposition (as compared to hardwood litter,
except
possibly for beech), so it accumulates to a greater depth than
hardwood
litter, and is more nutrient poor. This has profound
implications for water
chemistry of streams where hemlock dominates the watershed. It
means that
rainwater is filtered through a thick duff layer with relatively
low
nitrate concentrations before entering the ground. Added to the
temperature
control hemlock exerts over water by shading, this has a major
impact on
water chemistry. Its why hemlock is considered to be a
foundation species
that determines ecosystem characteristics. The water is
relatively cold and
low in nutrients than it would be with a hardwood dominated
system.
Lee
At 07:33 PM 3/16/2007, you wrote:
| |
John.
People have made mistakes in the past dealing with
environmental
issues. I am sure the future will show we are making
some mistakes...
|
|
| RE:
Imidacloprid Wars ORGANIC |
Gary
A. Beluzo |
|
Mar
20, 2007 11:06 PST |
Will,
Organic compounds are carbon-based compounds that have either
C-C and/or C/H
bonds and are created biologically. Carbon dioxide is not
ORGANIC because
although carbon-based it does not have a C-C nor C-H bond nor is
it created
only through biological processes. Methane (natural gas) on the
other hand
(CH4) is considered to be organic even though there are
nonbiological
processes they produce it.
Gasoline, diesel, and napalm are organic but they are SYNTHETIC
ORGANIC
COMPOUNDS (SOC) because they are not found in nature, humans
create them.
Most folks are concerned about whether or not a pesticide is
naturally or
synthetically ORGANIC. Why?
The problem with SOC is that most microbial enzyme systems do
not recognize
SOC and therefore the substance will not be biologically
degradable
(biodegradable). It may be photodegradable, physically
degradable, or
chemically degradable but usually these processes take much more
time,
hence, the persistence of most synthetic organic pesticides.
As soon as a chemist attaches the chlorine to the nicotinyl
group the
chemical is SYNTHETICALLY organic. Would pure nicotine kill the
adlegid? If
so, then you would be applying a naturally organic pesticide
which is fairly
biodegradable (need to apply more often because of that).
Incidentally,
before SOC, nicotine was used quite effectively as a pesticide.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Will Blozan
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 12:34 PM
Subject: RE: Imidacloprid Wars ORGANIC
Does anyone know if imidacloprid, sourced from nicotine, can be
manufactured "organically"?
Incidentally, gasoline, diesel and napalm are in a sense
"organic", though
perhaps not sustainable harvested. However, this doesn't mean
they are
safe to use on the trees. Some folks I know use
"organic" soap sprays to
kill HWA. That is fine, but it still is an insecticide and
furthermore,
is non-selective.
Will |
| Re:
Imidacloprid Wars |
Andrew
Joslin |
| Mar
20, 2007 18:36 PST |
If I correctly understand what Lee was saying in regard to
hemlock
effect nutrient retention in the local ecosystem he is referring
to
the slow breakdown of the duff under hemlocks. The thicker and
more
persistent hemlock duff is slowing down the release of nutrient
(nitrates) from decaying wood and leaf (needle) material and
related
organisms into the groundwater. He was not describing (I don't
think)
nutrient uptake into the tree.
Andrew Joslin
Jamaica Plain, MA
|
|
